DRAFT FINAL SITE INSPECTION REPORT

DRAFT FINAL SITE INSPECTION REPORTKingsley Firing Range AnnexKlamath County, ORFUDS Property No. F10OR0569

Site Inspections at Multiple Sites, NWO RegionFormerly Used Defense SitesMilitary Munitions Response Program

Contract No. W912DY-04-D-0010Delivery Order No. 003

May 2008

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as official department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other documentation.

Shaw Environmental, Inc.7604 Technology Way, Suite 300Denver, CO 80237

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersOmaha District

DRAFT FINAL

SITE INSPECTION REPORT KINGSLEY FIRING RANGE ANNEX

FUDS Property No. F10OR0569

Formerly Used Defense Sites Military Munitions Response Program

May 2008

Submitted to:

U.S. Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District

Prepared by:

Shaw Environmental, Inc. 7604 Technology Way, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80237

Contract No. W912DY-04-D-0010 Delivery Order No. 003

Prepared/Reviewed by: Shaw Technical Lead: Anthony Searls Shaw Project Chemist: Tim Roth Shaw Quality Control: Paul Sadowski Shaw Project Manager: Peter Kelsall The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other documentation.

Kingsley Draft Final SI.doc Contract No. W912DY-04-D-0010, Delivery Order No. 003 May 2008

i

Table of Contents________________________________________________

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. i List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... i List of Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................ i Glossary of Terms .......................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Authorization ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Site Name and Location ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Purpose, Scope, and Objectives of the Site Inspection ........................................................ 1-1 1.4 Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection............................................................................... 1-1 1.5 Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol ................................................................... 1-1

2.0 Property Description and History .................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Historical Military Use ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Munitions Information ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Ownership History ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.4 Physical Setting.................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.4.1 Topography and Vegetation .................................................................................... 2-1 2.4.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.4.3 Nearby Population................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4.4 Climate .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4.5 Surface Water ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4.6 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting ....................................................................... 2-1

2.4.6.1 Bedrock Geology....................................................................................... 2-1 2.4.6.2 Overburden Soils ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.4.6.3 Hydrogeology............................................................................................ 2-1

2.4.7 Area Water Supply .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.5 Sensitive Environments ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.6 Previous Investigations for MC and MEC ............................................................................. 2-1

2.6.1 Inventory Project Report.......................................................................................... 2-1 2.6.2 Archives Search Report........................................................................................... 2-1 2.6.3 ASR Supplement..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.6.4 Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection.................................................................. 2-1

2.7 Other Land Uses that May Have Contributed to Contamination ........................................... 2-1 2.8 Past Regulatory Activities..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.9 Previous MEC Finds............................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 SI Tasks and Findings .................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Technical Project Planning ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Additional Records Research ............................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Coordination with State Historic Preservation Office ............................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Coordination with Natural Resources Offices .......................................................... 3-1 3.2.3 Historical Aerial Photographs .................................................................................. 3-1


ii

Table of Contents (Cont.) _________________________________________

3.2.4 Environmental Database Search............................................................................. 3-1 3.2.5 Rights of Entry......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Field Work ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.4 Sampling and Analysis ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.5 Laboratory Analysis and Data Quality Review...................................................................... 3-1 3.6 Screening Values ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.6.1 Background Data..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.6.2 Human Health Screening ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.6.3 Ecological Screening............................................................................................... 3-1

3.7 Variances from the SSWP.................................................................................................... 3-1 3.8 Second TPP Meeting............................................................................................................ 3-1

4.0 Rifle Range ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 History and Land Use ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Previous Investigations......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 MEC Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3.1 Field Observations and Historical Evidence of MEC ............................................... 4-1 4.3.2 MEC Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.4 Munitions Constituents Evaluation........................................................................................ 4-1 4.4.1 Terrestrial Pathway.................................................................................................. 4-1

4.4.1.1 Comparison to Background Data .............................................................. 4-1 4.4.1.2 Comparison to Human Health Screening Values ...................................... 4-1

4.4.2 Surface Water Pathway........................................................................................... 4-1 4.4.3 Groundwater Pathway............................................................................................. 4-1

4.4.3.1 Comparison to Background....................................................................... 4-1 4.4.3.2 Comparison to Human Health Screening Values ...................................... 4-1

4.4.4 Air Pathway ............................................................................................................. 4-1 5.0 Rocket Range ................................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 History and Land Use ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Previous Investigations......................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 MEC Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 5-1




5.4.2 Surface Water Pathway........................................................................................... 5-1 5.4.3 Groundwater Pathway............................................................................................. 5-1 5.4.4 Air Pathway ............................................................................................................. 5-1

6.0 Disposal Range............................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 History and Land Use ........................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Previous Investigations......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 MEC Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 6-1


iii

Table of Contents (Cont.) _________________________________________




6.4.2 Surface Water Pathway........................................................................................... 6-1 6.4.3 Groundwater Pathway............................................................................................. 6-1 6.4.4 Air Pathway ............................................................................................................. 6-1

7.0 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 MEC Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 MC Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 7-1

8.0 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Munitions Response Site...................................................................................................... 8-1

9.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 9-1


iv

List of Figures __________________________________________________

Figure 1-1 Site Location Figure 1-2 Parcel Ownership Figure 2-1 Original Site Layout Figure 2-2 Current Aerial Photograph Figure 2-3 Current Topographic Map Figure 2-4 Census Data within 4-Mile Radius Figure 2-5 Regional Surface Water Drainage Figure 2-6 Groundwater Well Locations Figure 2-7 Sensitive Receptor Locations Figure 2-8 PA/SI Sample Locations Figure 3-1 Areas of Concern Figure 3-2 Background Sample Locations Figure 4-1a SI Visual Reconnaissance Survey Figure 4-1b SI Visual Reconnaissance Survey (Sub-Range Areas) Figure 4-2 SI Sample Locations Figure 4-3 Sample Locations and Metals Results Figure 4-4 Sample Locations and Explosives Results Figure 4-5 Sample Locations and Perchlorate Results Figure 8-1 Munitions Response Sites


v

List of Tables ___________________________________________________

Table 2-1 Munitions Information Table 2-2 Rights of Entry Table 2-3 Army Checklist for Important Ecological Places Table 2-4 Summary of Samples Collected for PA/SI by Weston Table 3-1 Summary of Samples Collected for Site Inspection Table 3-2 Background Screening Values for Surface Soil Table 3-3 Human Health Screening Criteria for Soil Table 3-4 Human Health Screening Criteria for Groundwater Table 4-1 Comparison of Rifle Range Soil Analytical Detections to Background and Human Health

Screening Values Table 4-2 Comparison of Domestic Well Groundwater Analytical Detections to Human Health

Screening Values Table 5-1 Comparison of Rocket Range Soil Analytical Detections to Background and Human Health

Screening Values Table 6-1 Comparison of Disposal Range Soil Analytical Detections to Background and Human

Health Screening Values


vi

List of Appendices_______________________________________________

Appendix A Performance Work Statement (Electronic Only) Appendix B Technical Project Planning Session Documentation/Meeting Minutes (Electronic Only) Appendix C Interview Documentation Appendix D Field Notes and Field Forms Appendix E Photodocumentation Log Appendix F Analytical Data (Electronic Only) Appendix G Analytical Data QA/QC Report Appendix H Geographic Information Systems Data Appendix I Geophysical Data (Not Used) Appendix J Conceptual Site Model Appendix K Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol Evaluations Appendix L Reference Copies


vii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ________________________________

µ g/L microgram(s) per liter AOC area(s) of concern ASTM ASTM International ASR Archives Search Report bgs below ground surface CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSM conceptual site model DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program DMM discarded military munitions DoD Department of Defense DQO data quality objective EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites GPS Global Positioning System IEP Important Ecological Place(s) INPR Inventory Project Record LC/MS liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy MC munitions constituents MCL maximum contaminant level MD munitions debris MEC munitions and explosives of concern mg/kg milligram(s) per kilogram MMRP Military Munitions Response Program MRA Munitions Response Area MRS Munitions Response Site MRSPP Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol MSSL medium-specific screening level NAD North American Datum NBEC nitrogen-based explosive compound NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NDAI No Department of Defense Action Indicated NWO Northwestern Division Omaha District OB/OD open burn/open detonation ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection PETN pentaerythritol tetanitrate PRG Preliminary Remediation Goals RAC Risk Assessment Code


viii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Cont.)__________________________

RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study ROE right-of-entry Shaw Shaw Environmental, Inc. SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SI Site Inspection SOP standard operating procedure SSWP Site-Specific Work Plan TAL Target Analyte List TPP Technical Project Planning USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code UTM universal transverse mercator UXO unexploded ordnance XRF x-ray fluorescence


ix

Glossary of Terms _______________________________________________

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) – Also known as “Superfund,” this congressionally enacted legislation provides the methodology for the removal of hazardous substances resultant from past/former operations. Response actions must be performed in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (USACE, 2003). CERCLA was codified as 42 United States Code (USC) 9601 et seq., on December 11, 1980, and amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.

Defense Sites – Locations that are or were owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed or used by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The term does not include any operational range, operating storage, or manufacturing facility, or facility that is used for or was permitted for the treatment or disposal of military munitions (10 USC 2710(e)(1)).

Discarded Military Munitions (DMM) – Military munitions that have been abandoned without proper disposal or removed from storage in a military magazine or other storage area for the purpose of disposal. The term does not include unexploded ordnance, military munitions that are being held for future use or planned disposal, or military munitions that have been properly disposed consistent with applicable environmental laws and regulations (10 USC 2710(e)(2)).

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) – The detection, identification, on-site evaluation, rendering safe, recovery, and final disposal of unexploded ordnance and of other munitions that have become an imposing danger, for example, by damage or deterioration (10 USC 2710(e)(2)).

Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) – Real property that was formerly owned by, leased by, possessed by, or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense or the components, including organizations that predate DoD. Some FUDS properties include areas formerly used as military ranges (10 USC 2710(e)(2)).

Military Munitions – Ammunition products and components produced for or used by the armed forces for national defense and security, including ammunition products or components under the control of the DoD, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Guard. The term includes confined gaseous, liquid, and solid propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics, chemical and riot control agents, smokes, and incendiaries, including bulk explosives, and chemical warfare agents, chemical munitions, rockets, guided and ballistic missiles, bombs, warheads, mortar rounds, artillery ammunitions, small arms ammunition, grenades, mines, torpedoes, depth charges, cluster munitions and dispensers, demolition charges, and devices and components of the above.

The term does not include wholly inert items, improvised explosive devices, and nuclear weapons, nuclear devices, and nuclear components, other than non-nuclear components of


x

nuclear devices that are managed under the nuclear weapons program of the Department of Energy after all required sanitization operations under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2011 et seq.) have been completed (10 USC 101(e)(4)(A) through (C)).

Munitions Constituents (MC) – Any materials originating from unexploded ordnance (UXO), DMM, or other military munitions, including explosive and non-explosive materials, and emission, degradation, or breakdown elements of such ordnance or munitions (10 USC 2710(e)(3)).

Munitions Debris (MD) – Remnants of munitions (e.g., fragments, penetrators, projectiles, shell casings, links, fins) remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal (10 USC 2710(e)(2)).

Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) – This term, which distinguishes specific categories of military munitions that may pose unique explosives safety risks means: (A) UXO, as defined in 10 USC 101(e)(5); (B) DMM, as defined in 10 USC 2710(e)(2); or (C) Munitions constituents (e.g., 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, cyclotrimethylenetrinitrmine), as defined in 10 USC 2710(e)(3), present in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive hazard (10 USC 2710(e)(2)).

Munitions Response Area (MRA) – Any area on a defense site that is known or suspected to contain UXO, DMM, or MC. Examples are former ranges and munitions burial areas. An MRA comprises one or more munitions response sites (32 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §179.3).

Munitions Response Site (MRS) – A discrete location within an MRA that is known to require a munitions response (32 CFR§179.3).

Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP) – The MRSPP was published as a rule on October 5, 2005. This rule implements the requirement established in section 311(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 for the DoD to assign a relative priority for munitions responses to each location in the DoD’s inventory of defense sites known or suspected of containing UXO, DMM, or munitions constituents (MC). The DoD adopted the MRSPP under the authority of 10 USC 2710(b). Provisions of 10 USC 2710(b) require that the Department assign to each defense site in the inventory required by 10 USC 2710(a) a relative priority for response activities based on the overall conditions at each location and taking into consideration various factors related to safety and environmental hazards (70 Federal Register [FR] 58016).

Range – A designated land or water area that is set aside, managed, and used for range activities of the Department of Defense. The term includes firing lines and positions, maneuver areas, firing lanes, test pads, detonation pads, impact areas, electronic scoring sites, buffer zones with restricted access, and exclusionary areas. The term also includes airspace areas designated for


xi

military use in accordance with regulations and procedures prescribed by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (10 USC 101(e)(1)(A) and (B)).

Range Activities – Research, development, testing, and evaluation of military munitions, other ordnance, and weapons systems; and the training of members of the armed forces in the use and handling of military munitions, other ordnance, and weapons systems (10 USC 101(e)(2)(A) and (B)).

Risk Assessment Code (RAC) – An interim risk assessment procedure developed by the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville (USAESCH), Ordnance and Explosives Directorate to address explosives safety hazards related to munitions. The RAC score was formerly used by the USACE to prioritize response actions at FUDS. The RAC procedure, which does not address environmental hazards associated with munitions constituents, has been superseded by the MRSPP.

Unexploded Ordnance – Military munitions that (A) have been primed, fuzed, armed, or otherwise prepared for action; (B) have been fired, dropped, launched, projected, or placed in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to operations, installations, personnel, or material; and (C) remain unexploded either by malfunction, design, or any other cause (10 USC 101(e)(5)(A) through (C)).


ES-1

Executive Summary 1

The Department of Defense (DoD) has established the Military Munitions Response Program 2 (MMRP) under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program to address DoD sites suspected 3 of containing munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) or munitions constituents (MC). 4 Under the MMRP, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is conducting environmental 5 response activities at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) for the Army, DoD’s Executive 6 Agent for the FUDS program. Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw) is responsible for conducting 7 Site Inspections (SIs) at FUDS in the northwest region managed by the Omaha District Military 8 Munitions Design Center. 9

SI Objectives and Scope 10

The primary objective of the MMRP SI is to determine whether a FUDS project warrants further 11 response action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 12 Act of 1980. The SI collects the minimum amount of information necessary to make this 13 determination, as well as it (i) determines the potential need for a removal action; (ii) collects or 14 develops additional data, as appropriate, for Hazard Ranking System scoring by the 15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and (iii) collects data, as appropriate, to 16 characterize the release for effective and rapid initiation of the Remedial Investigation and 17 Feasibility Study. An additional objective of the MMRP SI is to collect the additional data 18 necessary to complete the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol. 19

The scope of the SI reported herein is restricted to evaluation of the presence of MEC or MC 20 related to historical use of the FUDS prior to transfer. Potential releases of hazardous, toxic, or 21 radioactive wastes are not addressed within the current scope. The intent of the SI is to confirm 22 the presence or absence of MEC and/or associated MC contamination. 23

Kingsley Firing Range Annex 24

This report presents the results of an SI conducted at the Kingsley Firing Range Annex, FUDS 25 property number F10OR0569, located in Klamath County, Oregon, 4 miles north of Klamath 26 Falls, Oregon. The former Kingsley Firing Range Annex was part of a larger 734 acre site 27 known as the U.S. Marine Corps Barracks (which functioned as a Marines barrack and medical 28 facility) that was activated in 1944. The FUDS is comprised of 206.34 acres of land developed 29 and used for small arms training. The land was under DoD control from 1944 to 1947 when the 30 treatment center was closed. The land was transferred on October 28, 1947, to the Oregon 31 Technical Institute for use as a training institution for returning veterans. Due to the high cost of 32 maintaining the facility, the Oregon Technical Institute built a new school and then turned the 33 entire site over to the city of Klamath Falls for use as a park. The city could not maintain the 34 area as a park; therefore, the land reverted back to the U.S. Government in 1964. 35


ES-2

With the exception of the rifle range, which the U.S. Air Force requested use of, the General 36 Services Administration put the remaining property up for sale. The U.S. Air Force maintained 37 control of the Kingsley Firing Range Annex from February 1965 until the active Air Force 38 mission was assumed by the Oregon Air National Guard. The land was turned over to the 39 U.S. Department of Interior who declared the land excess and sold it to private individuals in 40 1976. 41

The former range (referred to as Range Complex No. 1 or Range Complex), consists of three 42 overlapping sub-ranges (Rifle Range, Rocket Range, and Disposal Range). There is a 43 discrepancy between the acreage of the range (Range Complex No.1) presented in the table 44 (87 acres) and the acreage presented in Plate No. R01 (1,352 acres) of the MMRP Inventory in 45 the Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2007 46 (DoD, 2007). It appears that the 87 acres referenced in the MMRP Inventory as Range Complex 47 No. 1 is actually one of the sub-ranges, the Rocket Range (without the fan and safety area 48 acreage). 49

A Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) was conducted by Weston Solutions, Inc. for 50 the EPA in 2004. Field sampling was conducted in July 2004, and the results were published in 51 the Kingsley Firing Range Annex, Formerly Used Defense Site, Preliminary Assessment/Site 52 Inspection Report (EPA, 2004b). A large portion of the PA/SI scope (relating to the surface soils 53 and groundwater) paralleled the scope of this SI. To the extent possible, this MMRP SI used 54 data previously collected for the PA/SI. 55

Technical Project Planning 56

The approach for the SI was developed by Shaw in consultation with site stakeholders. A 57 combined Technical Project Planning and public information meeting was conducted on 58 April 16, 2007. The meeting was attended by representatives from the USACE Omaha Design 59 Center, the USACE Seattle District, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, a 60 television news reporter from station KOTI-TV, and Shaw. The stakeholders agreed to the 61 approach and identified three areas of concern associated with the Range Complex. The areas of 62 concern are the three sub-ranges (Rocket Range, Rifle Range, and Disposal Range). 63

SI Field Activities 64

SI field activities, conducted in November 2007, included a site reconnaissance to look for 65 evidence of MEC and to avoid MEC during sampling. Samples were collected from surface soil 66 and groundwater. Samples collected from both the SI and the PA/SI were evaluated. 67

Several soil samples exceeded background concentrations for metals. One sample from the Rifle 68 Range impact berm exceeded the human health screening value for lead. One sample from the 69 Rocket Range equaled the human health screening value for manganese. One sample from the 70 Disposal Range exceeded the human health criteria for lead. 71


ES-3

There were no detections of explosives from the Rifle Range or Rocket Range samples. 72 Explosives (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, 2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene, 4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene, and 73 nitroglycerin) were detected in the Disposal Range SI sample at concentrations below human 74 health screening values. Perchlorate was not detected in the Rocket Range or Disposal Range SI 75 samples. No explosives were detected in any of the Rocket Range or Disposal Range PA/SI 76 samples. 77

No groundwater drinking wells are located within the FUDS property boundary. It was agreed at 78 the TPP meeting to collect one groundwater sample from a domestic well at a residence located 79 approximately 1,200 feet southwest of the FUDS property. This well is assumed to be 80 downgradient of the FUDS ranges. This same well was sampled during the PA/SI. The SI 81 sample was collected from a spigot prior to filtering or treatment. A background groundwater 82 sample was planned but the well could not be located. 83

One SI groundwater sample plus a field duplicate, and one PA/SI groundwater sample were 84 analyzed for metals, explosives, and perchlorate. None of the SI or PA/SI groundwater samples 85 exceeded Federal Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels or EPA Region 6 medium-86 specific screening levels for tap water, except for the SI sample which detected arsenic (3.4 87

micrograms per liter [�g/L]) in excess of the EPA Region 6 screening level for tap water of 88

0.045 �g/L. There is no arsenic in the munitions used at the FUDS and relatively high arsenic 89

levels have been documented in wells throughout the Klamath area. It is concluded that the 90

detected arsenic is not FUDS related. The estimated perchlorate concentration of 0.0861 �g/L 91

detected in the SI sample is below the DoD action level of 24 �g/L. 92

SI Recommendations 93

Results of the SI provide the basis for conclusions and/or recommendations for further actions at 94 Range Complex No. 1. 95

The risk for potential MEC at the Rifle Range and Rocket Range is considered to be low based 96 on no reports being found or visual observations of MEC during the SI and historical use for 97 small arms and practice rockets. The MEC risk for the Disposal Range is considered to be low 98 for the surface exposure because no MEC has been reported or observed during the SI visual 99 reconnaissance. The MEC risk for the Disposal Range is considered moderate for the subsurface 100 because there is a possibility that discarded military munitions were intentionally or 101 unintentionally buried beneath the surface; however, a subsurface investigation has not been 102 conducted. Therefore, based on historical evidence and results from the SI field activities, there 103 is a potential for MEC at Range Complex No. 1. A recommendation for RI/FS for evaluation of 104 MEC hazard is made for Range Complex No. 1. 105

Concentrations of MC exceeding human health screening values were found in samples from the 106 Rifle Range impact berm and the Disposal Area. Based on these results, and the decision criteria 107


ES-4

established by TPP, a recommendation for RI/FS for evaluation of MC is made for Range 108 Complex No. 1. 109

Based on the use and physical distribution of the AOCs at the Kingsley Firing Range Annex, one 110 MRS, the Range Complex, has been identified. In the MMRP Inventory (DoD, 2007) there is a 111 discrepancy between the acreage of the Range Complex No.1 presented in the table (87 acres) 112 and that presented in Plate No. R01 (1,352 acres). The area of Range Complex No. 1 should be 113 increased from 87 acres to approximately 1,352 acres to include the three sub-ranges and their 114 associated range fans. 115


1-1

1.0 Introduction 116

This Site Inspection (SI) Report presents the results of an SI conducted at the Kingsley Firing 117 Range Annex Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) located near Klamath Falls, Oregon 118 (Figure 1-1). Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw) has prepared this report for the U.S. Army Corps 119 of Engineers (USACE) in accordance with Task Order 003, issued under USACE Contract 120 No. W912DY-04-D-0010. Shaw is responsible for conducting SIs at FUDS in the northwest 121 region managed by the USACE Northwestern Division Omaha District (NWO) Military 122 Munitions Design Center as directed by the Performance Work Statement (Appendix A). 123

The technical approach is based on the Type 1 Work Plan, Site Inspections at Multiple Sites, 124 NWO Region (Shaw, 2006) and the Formerly Used Defense Sites, Military Munitions Response 125 Program, Site Inspections, Program Management Plan (USACE, 2005). 126

1.1 Project Authorization 127

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has established the Military Munitions Response 128 Program (MMRP) to address DoD sites suspected of containing munitions and explosives of 129 concern (MEC) or munitions constituents (MC). Under the MMRP, the USACE is conducting 130 environmental response activities at FUDS for the Army, DoD’s Executive Agent for the FUDS 131 program. 132

Pursuant to USACE’s Engineering Regulation 200-3-1 (USACE, 2004a) and the Management 133 Guidance for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) (DoD, 2001), USACE is 134 conducting FUDS response activities in accordance with the DERP statute (10 United States 135 Code [USC] 2701 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 136 Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 USC 9601), Executive Orders 12580 and 13016, and the 137 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal 138 Regulation [CFR] Part 300). As such, the USACE is conducting remedial SIs, as set forth in the 139 NCP, to evaluate hazardous substance releases or threatened releases from eligible FUDS. 140

While not all MEC/MC constitute CERCLA hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, 141 the DERP statute provides DoD the authority to respond to releases of MEC/MC, and DoD 142 policy states that such responses shall be conducted in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP. 143

1.2 Site Name and Location 144

The former Kingsley Firing Range Annex, FUDS property number F10OR0569, is located 145 approximately 4 miles north of Klamath Falls, Oregon, in Klamath County (Figure 1-1). The 146 Kingsley Firing Range Annex is included in the MMRP Inventory in the Defense Environmental 147 Programs Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2007, MMRP Inventory (DoD, 2007) and in 148 the ASR Supplement (USACE, 2004b), with identified range information as follows: 149


1-2

Range Name Range ID Approximate Area (acres)

UTM Coordinates (meters)

Range Complex No. 1 or Range Complex

F10OR056901R01 87 X: 604412

Y: 4679217

Coordinates for the ranges are in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 10, North 150 American Datum (NAD) 83. 151

There is a discrepancy between the acreage of the range (Range Complex) boundary presented in 152 the table (87 acres) and that presented in Plate No. R01 (1,352 acres) of both the MMRP 153 Inventory (DoD, 2007) and the ASR Supplement (USACE, 2004b). It appears that the 87-acre 154 area referenced as the Range Complex actually refers to the Rocket Range, which is one of the 155 three sub-ranges. 156

The Archives Search Report (ASR) (USACE, 1995) and ASR Supplement (USACE, 2004b) 157 indicate that the total property acreage for the Kingsley Firing Range Annex FUDS consists of 158 206.34 acres of land. This consists of the acreage for private parcels No. 2 and No. 11 159 (Figure 1-2). This acreage is only a portion of the original 734.26 acres known as the 160 U.S. Marine Corps Recuperational Hospital (or the Marine Barracks). The origins of the areas 161 defined in the MMRP Inventory and ASR Supplement are not documented. The 1993 Findings 162 and Determination of Eligibility reported a FUDS acreage of 206.34 acres; however, there is no 163 documentation for the sub-ranges (USACE, 1993). 164

Additionally the ASR (USACE, 1995) and ASR Supplement (USACE, 2004b) identify three 165 sub-ranges that are part of the Range Complex, as follows: 166

Sub-Range Name Sub-Range ID Approximate Area (acres)


Rifle Range F10OR0569-SR01 1259 X: 604306

Y: 4679492

Rocket Range F10OR0569-SR02 410 X: 604442

Y: 4679191

Disposal Range F10OR0569-SR03 13 X: 604412

Y: 4679097

Coordinates for the sub-ranges are in UTM, Zone 10, NAD83. 167

1.3 Purpose, Scope, and Objectives of the Site Inspection 168

The primary objective of the MMRP SI is to determine whether a FUDS project warrants further 169 response action under CERCLA or not. The SI collects the minimum amount of information 170 necessary to make this determination, as well as it (i) determines the potential need for a removal 171 action; (ii) collects or develops additional data, as appropriate, for Hazard Ranking System 172


1-3

scoring by the EPA; and (iii) collects data, as appropriate, to characterize the release for effective 173 and rapid initiation of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). An additional 174 objective of the MMRP SI is to collect the additional data necessary to complete the Munitions 175 Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP). 176

The scope of the SI reported herein is restricted to evaluation of the presence of MEC or MC 177 related to historical use of the FUDS prior to transfer. Potential releases of hazardous, toxic, or 178 radioactive wastes are not addressed within the current scope. The intent of the SI is to confirm 179 the presence or absence of contamination from MEC and/or MC. The general approach for each 180 SI is to conduct records review and site reconnaissance to evaluate the presence or absence of 181 MEC, and to collect samples at locations where MC might be expected based on the conceptual 182 site model (CSM). The following decision rules are used to evaluate the results of the SI: 183

Is No DoD Action Indicated (NDAI)? An NDAI recommendation may be made if: 184 � There is no indication of MEC; and 185 � MC contamination does not exceed screening levels determined from Technical 186 Project Planning (TPP). 187

Is an RI/FS warranted? An RI/FS may be recommended if: 188 � There is evidence of an MEC hazard. An MEC hazard may be indicated by direct 189 observation of MEC during the SI, by indirect evidence (e.g., a false crater 190 potentially caused by impact of unexploded ordnance [UXO]), or by a report of 191 MEC being found in the past without record that the area was subsequently 192 cleared; or 193 � MC contamination exceeds screening levels determined from TPP. 194

Is a removal action warranted? A removal action may be needed if: 195 � High MEC hazard is identified. Shaw will immediately report any MEC findings 196 so that the USACE can determine the hazard in accordance with the MRSPP. An 197 example of a high hazard would be finding sensitive MEC at the surface in a 198 populated area with no barriers to restricted access; or 199 � Elevated MC risk is identified. Identification of a complete exposure pathway 200 (e.g., confirming MC concentrations above health-based risk standards in a water 201 supply well) would trigger notification of affected stakeholders. Data would be 202 presented at a second TPP meeting regarding the possible need for a removal 203 action. 204

For purposes of applying these decision rules, the USACE has provided guidance that evidence 205 of MEC will generally be a basis of recommending an RI/FS. Evidence of MEC may include 206 confirmed presence of MEC from historical sources or SI field work, or presence of munitions 207 debris (MD). 208


1-4

1.4 Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection 209

A Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) was conducted by Weston Solutions, Inc. for 210 the EPA in 2004. Field sampling was conducted in July 2004 and the results were published in 211 Kingsley Firing Range Annex, Formerly Used Defense Site, Preliminary Assessment/Site 212 Inspection Report (EPA, 2004b). A large portion of the PA/SI scope (relating to the surface soils 213 and groundwater) paralleled the scope of this SI. To the extent possible, this MMRP SI used 214 data previously collected for the PA/SI. 215

1.5 Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol 216

The MRSPP was published as a rule on October 5, 2005 (70 Federal Regulation [FR] 58028). 217 This rule implements the requirement established in section 311(b) of the National Defense 218 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 for the DoD to assign a relative priority for munitions 219 responses to each location in the DoD’s inventory of defense sites known or suspected of 220 containing UXO, discarded military munitions, or MC (70 FR 58016). 221

Draft MRSPP scoring sheets for the munitions response site (MRS) identified in this SI Report 222 are included in Appendix K. The MRSPP scoring will be updated on an annual basis to 223 incorporate new information.224


2-1

2.0 Property Description and History 225

The setting, history, and use of the Kingsley Firing Range Annex are described in the following 226 sections. Unless otherwise referenced, this information is taken from the ASR (USACE, 1995), 227 ASR Supplement (USACE, 2004b), or the Kingsley Firing Range Annex, Formerly Used Defense 228 Site, Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Report (EPA, 2004). 229

2.1 Historical Military Use 230

The former Kingsley Firing Range Annex was activated in 1944, and was a small portion of a 231 734-acre site known as the U.S. Marine Corps Barracks (which functioned as a Marines barrack 232 and medical facility). The FUDS is comprised of 206.34 acres of land developed and used for 233 training with small arms and practice rockets. The land was under DoD control from 1944 to 234 1947 when the medical facility was closed. The firing range was utilized for three years and on 235 October 28, 1947, the entire 734-acre site was transferred to the Oregon Technical Institute for 236 use as a training institution for returning veterans. Due to the high cost of maintaining the 237 facility, the Oregon Technical Institute built a new school and then turned the entire site over to 238 the city of Klamath Falls for use as a park. The city could not maintain the area as a park; 239 therefore, the land reverted back to the U.S. Government in 1964. The General Services 240 Administration put the property up for sale; however, the U.S. Air Force requested that the firing 241 range be retained. 242

The U.S. Marines, and later the Oregon Air National Guard, controlled the land prior to the 243 U.S. Air Force taking control in 1965. The U.S. Air Force assumed control of the land in 244 February 1965 and used the 46.34-acre site for a small arms firing range. An additional 245 160 acres was acquired from a private party for use as the impact area for the firing range, 246 bringing the total to 206.34 acres. The U.S. Air Force was in control of the site from 1965 247 through 1975. The land was turned over to the U.S. Department of Interior who excessed the 248 land and sold it to private individuals in 1976. 249

The Range Complex consists of three sub-ranges, the Rifle Range, the Rocket Range, and the 250 Disposal Range, as shown on Figure 2-1. In the MMRP Inventory and the ASR Supplement, 251 there is a discrepancy between the acreage of the range (Range Complex) presented in a table (87 252 acres) and the acreage presented in Plate No. R01 (1,352 acres) (DoD, 2007; USACE, 2004b). It 253 appears that the 87-acre area referenced in the MMRP Inventory as the Range Complex actually 254 refers to one of the sub-ranges, the Rocket Range (without the fan and safety area acreage). 255

The Rifle Range was used for small arms practice. The Rifle Range consists of three elevated 256 firing positions at varying distances, two lateral berms along either side of the impact area, and 257 an impact berm. The Rocket Range was used for training with 3.5-inch rockets with practice 258 warheads. The Disposal Range consists of one open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) pit situated 259


2-2

on flat ground with no pit or berm and a second OB/OD pit with a 6-foot high, horseshoe-shaped 260 berm around the area. There were reports that the horseshoe-shaped pit could have been used for 261 disposal of small quantities of explosives during Kingsley Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 262 Team training. 263

2.2 Munitions Information 264

Because of the diverse uses of the former Kingsley Firing Range Annex by the military, the 265 Range Complex was subdivided into the following overlapping sub-ranges: 266 � Rifle Range – A small arms firing range that was used by the Marines for three years 267

(1944 to 1947). When the U.S. Air Force took control in 1965, they purchased additional 268 acreage, which was used for the impact area of the firing range. The U.S. Air Force 269 historically used the Rifle Range for small arms practice from 1965 to 1975. Since 270 information was not available which specified the type of ordnance used on the range, the 271 ASR team assumed that standard .30-caliber and .45-caliber weapons were fired on the 272 range because this was the standard equipage of the time period (USACE, 1995). 273 � Rocket Range – Range was used by the Army National Guard for 3.5-inch rocket practice 274 from 1965 to 1975. Historical records suggest only practice warheads were used during 275 the training periods. An expended rocket discovered by the ASR team had an identifiable 276 lot number and fuze nomenclature M-405, which is the practice version of the 3.5 inch 277 rocket (USACE, 1995). An interview with a member of the Oregon Army National 278 Guard indicated that only inert warhead type rockets were fired at an old vehicle. 279 � Disposal Range – Range is assumed to have been used from 1965 through 1975 280 (coincident with the usage timeframe of the Rifle Range and Rocket Range). The 281 Disposal Range has two OB/OD pits located approximately 200 feet apart. One of the 282 pits is situated on flat ground with no pit or berm. The other area has a 6-foot high, 283 horseshoe-shaped berm around the area. No documentation has been found that states 284 what was disposed of in the area. There were reports that the bermed OB/OD pit could 285 have been used for disposal of small quantities of explosives during EOD team training 286 with items such as shape charges. The ASR indicates that burned small arm casings, 287 ejection cartridges for aircraft pylons, ammunition clips, and an empty rear casing of a 288 practice bomb were found in the burn pits (USACE, 1995). The empty base from an old 289 style bomb was found in the horseshoe-shaped OB/OD pit. There was not enough of the 290 base remaining to make a positive identification; however, the ASR team theorized that at 291 one time the Kingsley Air Force Base EOD Team may have used the bomb for shape 292 charge training. No live ordnance was observed in either pit. 293

The Inventory Project Report (INPR) includes a Project Summary Sheet dated October 9, 1992, 294 which presents a project description. It indicates that “During two telephone interviews, neither 295 of the local contacts mentioned finding any munitions or debris, however, during the site visit, a 296 rifle shell (7.62mm? brass) and a 40mm? shell casing were found. Records indicate the leased 297 property was inspected and cleared of any ordnance prior to termination of the lease” (USACE, 298 1993). No other information was provided. Table 2-1 contains a list of the munitions reportedly 299


2-3

used at the areas of concern (AOCs) and associated MC. Table 2-1 does not include information 300 on the suspected “7.62 millimeter” brass or “40mm” shell casing. 301

2.3 Ownership History 302

The Kingsley Firing Range Annex land was under DoD control from 1944 until 1947. The land 303 was transferred in 1947 to the Oregon Technical Institute for use as a training institution for 304 returning veterans, and then in turn it was transferred to the city of Klamath Falls for use as a 305 park. The City could not maintain the area as a park; therefore, the land reverted back to the 306 U.S. Government in 1964. The U.S. Marines, and later the Oregon Army National Guard, 307 controlled the land prior to the U.S. Air Force taking control in 1965. 308

The U.S. Air Force assumed control of the land in February 1965 for the purpose of constructing 309 a rifle range. The U.S. Air Force was in control of the site from 1965 until 1975. The land was 310 turned over to the U.S. Department of Interior who excessed the land and sold it to private 311 individuals in 1976. Current parcel ownership is by individuals or limited partnerships. 312

Figure 2-2 shows the current land use from an aerial photograph perspective. Parcel ownership 313 within the identified range areas is shown on Table 2-2 and Figure 1-2. 314

2.4 Physical Setting 315

2.4.1 Topography and Vegetation 316

The city of Klamath Falls is located at an elevation of 4,100 feet and is surrounded by the 317 Coastal and Cascade mountain ranges. The Kingsley Firing Range Annex is located in the 318 foothills of the Cascade Mountains at an elevation of approximately 5,100 feet. Topography at 319 the site is relatively flat and has a rocky terrain with low ground cover, including brush and 320 native grasses, and rock outcroppings in the immediate area (Figure 2-3). At the Rifle Range a 321 steep hillside is located immediately behind the impact berm. The impact area consisted of an 322 impact berm, as well as two lateral berms along either side of the impact area. Additionally, the 323 area surrounding the FUDS consists of relatively steep terrain. 324

2.4.2 Land Use 325

Currently the site is uninhabited. However, several residences are located in the vicinity of the 326 site. In the past the site was used for limited cattle grazing. The PA/SI indicated that the 327 residential property closest to the FUDS is approximately 500 feet southwest of the site (EPA, 328 2004b). A barbed-wire fence covers a portion of the southern side of the FUDS. A locked gate 329 (private owner) prevents vehicular access to a private road that leads to the FUDS. However, all 330 areas of the FUDS can be accessed by the general public using an alternate county road that 331 intersects Old Fort Road. During SI activities conducted in November 2007, it was observed that 332 portions of the FUDS were used by the general public for skeet and target practice. Additionally, 333 it was observed that residents near the FUDS use the property for hiking and walking their pets. 334


2-4

2.4.3 Nearby Population 335

The community nearest the former Kingsley Firing Range Annex is Klamath Falls, Oregon with 336 an estimated population of 19,882 in 2005 (U.S. Census, 2000). Klamath County has an 337 estimated population of 63,775 or 10.8 people per square mile (U.S. Census, 2000). There are no 338 schools or sensitive receptors located within 2 miles of the site. Several residences are located in 339 the vicinity of the site. The PA/SI indicated that the residential property closest to the FUDS is 340 approximately 500 feet southwest of the site (EPA, 2004b). Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, the 341 estimated population within a 4-mile radius of the Kingsley Firing Range Annex FUDS property 342 boundary is 29,005 persons (Figure 2-4) (U.S. Census, 2000). The estimated population within a 343 2-mile radius of the FUDS is 691 persons. The estimated numbers of housing units and 344 households within a 4-mile radius are 12,911 and 11,807, respectively. 345

2.4.4 Climate 346

The Kingsley Firing Range Annex FUDS is located near the city of Klamath Falls, which is 347 surrounded by the Cascade and Coastal mountain ranges, which tend to collect the precipitation 348 before it reaches the valley. The area is within a semi-arid region with warm summers and cool 349 winters. The average annual maximum and minimum temperatures are 61.1 and 35.4 degrees 350 Fahrenheit, respectively. The average total annual precipitation is 13.72 inches. 351

2.4.5 Surface Water 352

Surface water runoff at the site flows to a drainage ditch that drains to an unnamed intermittent 353 stream that flows north-northwest to an unnamed canal that flows westerly to Upper Klamath 354 Lake (EPA, 2004b). Figure 2-5 shows the regional surface water drainage for the area. 355

2.4.6 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting 356

The Kingsley Firing Range Annex FUDS is located in the basalt Basin and Range province of 357 south-central Oregon. The range is in the foothills, is relatively flat, and has rocky terrain with 358 low ground cover, including brush and native grasses. 359

2.4.6.1 Bedrock Geology 360

Subsurface geology in the vicinity of the site generally consists of crudely layered sandstone and 361 claystone with occasional clay layers. Tuffaceous bedrock typically is present at depths of 362 approximately 25 to 40 inches below ground surface. Three types of soil are prevalent on the 363 site that have a surface layer consisting of loam to a very stony loam and a subsoil consisting of 364 clay loam to a very cobbly clay. 365

The upper Klamath Basin lies within two major geologic provinces, the Cascade Range Province 366 to the west and the Basin and Range Province to the east. The processes that have operated in 367 these provinces have overlapped and interacted in much of the upper Klamath Basin. The 368 geology of the upper Klamath Basin consists primarily of volcanic deposits with lowland 369 fluviolacustrine deposits. Materials are described as consolidated volcanic rocks consisting 370


2-5

largely of lava; unconsolidated to semi-consolidated volcanic ejecta deposited around eruptive 371 centers; and lowland fluviolacustrine deposits consisting of diatomite, water-lain volcanic 372 sediments, tephra, and lava. 373

The oldest rocks are part of the Western Cascades subprovince and consist primarily of lava 374 flows, andesitic mudflows, tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, and vent deposits. The rocks range in 375 age from 20 to 33 million years and are as much as 20,000 feet thick. The oldest rocks from the 376 Basin and Range Province range in age from middle Miocene (13 million years) to Recent. 377

The youngest stratigraphic unit in the upper Klamath Basin consists of late Pliocene to Recent 378 sedimentary deposits, which include alluvium, basin-fill deposits, landslide deposits, and glacial 379 drift and outwash (USGS, 2007). 380

2.4.6.2 Overburden Soils 381

Three types of soils are prevalent on the range. The “Lorella” soils are shallows soils that 382 formed in residual material originating from tuff and basalt. Lorella soils are underlain by 383 bedrock at a depth of 10 to 20 inches. These soils have a surface layer of very stony loam and a 384 subsoil of very cobbly clay loam and very cobbly clay. “Rock Outcrop Nuss” is the second type 385 with rock outcrops and shallow soils that are formed from tuff. Rock Outcrop Nuss soils are 386 underlain by bedrock at a depth of 12 to 20 inches. These soils have a surface layer of loam and 387 a subsoil of clay loam. The third type is “Woodcock-Nuss-Royst,” which is shallow to deep 388 soils formed from weathered tuff, basalt, andesite, and volcanic ash. These soils are underlain by 389 bedrock at depths ranging from 12 to 60 inches. They have a surface layer of stony loam, a 390 subsoil of extremely gravelly clay loam, and a substratum of extremely cobbly loam 391 (Cahoon, 1985). 392

Observations made in the field indicated that the soils in the Range Complex area consist of 393 sandy silts with cobbles and boulders. The soils in the area where the background surface soil 394 samples were collected consisted of sandy silts. 395

2.4.6.3 Hydrogeology 396

Groundwater exists at approximately 45 feet below ground surface (bgs) and 375 feet bgs 397 (Oregon Water Resources Department, 2003). Groundwater flow direction information has not 398 been found for this area; however, the configuration of the shallow water table is assumed to 399 generally conform to the surface topography. The surface topography indicates that the 400 groundwater flow direction could be in two different directions, south-southwest and north, 401 based on the surface water divide within the Range Complex. Drainages south of the Range 402 Complex appear to be flowing to the south or southwest toward the Klamath Valley. The 403 drainages in the center and north of the Range Complex appear to be flowing to the northwest. 404


2-6

2.4.7 Area Water Supply 405

Figure 2-6 shows groundwater wells in the vicinity of the Kingsley Firing Range Annex FUDS. 406 Based on Oregon Water Resources Department records, there are numerous groundwater wells 407 within a 4-mile radius of the FUDS property boundary used for irrigation, livestock watering, 408 and industrial uses, as well as for drinking water supply. 409

There are no water wells within the Kingsley Firing Range Annex FUDS property boundary but 410 there is one known private domestic well located approximately at the edge of the range safety 411 fans. This well was sampled in support of the current SI and the previous PA/SI. 412

The city of Klamath Falls obtains water from municipal water wells located in downtown 413 Klamath Falls, with the closest well located approximately 4 miles southwest of the FUDS. The 414 depths of these wells vary from approximately 350 feet to 1,000 feet bgs. The City of Klamath 415 Falls Water Division pumps water from a pumping station through a 12-inch diameter pipeline 416 located along Old Fort Road up the hill to a water storage tank located southwest of the old 417 administration building at the FUDS. This domestic water supply is used by residences in the 418 North Ridge area (City of Klamath Falls, 2008; Appendix C). 419

2.5 Sensitive Environments 420

The ranges and other areas of interest at the Kingsley Firing Range Annex FUDS are currently 421 uninhabited and are not managed for ecological purposes. The ASR (USACE, 1995) stated that 422 no threatened or endangered species are known to be present at the Kingsley Firing Range 423 Annex FUDS. The PA/SI indicated that no federal or state endangered or threatened species are 424 present within a 15-mile target distance limit of the FUDS. However, the PA/SI indicated that 425 the bald eagle, which at that time was a federal and state listed species, may be present within a 426 4-mile radius of the site and may utilize the surface water within this area (EPA, 2004b). 427 Currently, the bald eagle is a federal delisted species (recovered) and surface water is not present 428 within the FUDS property boundary. Therefore, as indicated during the TPP, the Kingsley 429 Firing Range Annex FUDS does not qualify as an Important Ecological Place (IEP) or Sensitive 430 Environment as defined by the USACE (2006) or EPA (1997) and shown in Table 2-3 and on 431 Figure 2-7. 432

2.6 Previous Investigations for MC and MEC 433

The following sections present a summary of the previous investigations. 434

2.6.1 Inventory Project Report 435

The USACE conducted a site survey on June 18, 1992, under the DERP for FUDS. Records 436 indicated the leased property was inspected and cleared of any ordnance prior to termination of 437 the lease; however, one 7.62mm and one 40mm shell casing were observed reportedly in a 438 disposal pit. 439


2-7

A Preliminary Assessment of the former Kingsley Firing Range Annex was authorized under the 440 DERP. A “Findings and Determination of Eligibility” letter, dated October 23, 1993, and issued 441 as part of the INPR (USACE, 1993), concluded that the subject site was found to be used by the 442 DoD, and was eligible for the DERP. 443

The INPR (USACE, 1993) recommended conducting an ordnance and explosives investigation, 444 which is the subject of the ASR for the Former Kingsley Firing Range Annex (USACE, 1995). 445 A Project Summary Sheet dated October 9, 1992, presents a project description. It indicates that 446 “During two telephone interviews, neither of the local contacts mentioned finding any munitions 447 or debris, however, during the site visit, a rifle shell (7.62mm? brass) and a 40mm? shell casing 448 were found. Records indicate the leased property was inspected and cleared of any ordnance 449 prior to termination of the lease.” No other information was provided. Local contacts reported 450 no presence of munitions or debris on site. A Fact Sheet (undated) indicates that the used brass 451 (7.62mm) and used shells (approximately 40mm) were observed in the disposal pit. However, 452 an exact location of the findings was not reported. A Risk Assessment Code (RAC) scoring was 453 conducted by the USACE in 1993 for the Range Complex. Possible scores range from 5 (low 454 risk) to 1 (high risk). The RAC score for the Kingsley Firing Range Annex was 2. 455

2.6.2 Archives Search Report 456

The USACE completed an ASR in 1995, which compiled information for the former Kingsley 457 Firing Range Annex with emphasis on types and areas of ordnance use and disposal 458 (USACE, 1995). 459

During the ASR site visit in August 1995, the SI team focused on the Small Arms Impact Berm 460 (Rifle Range), Ordnance Burn/Disposal Pits (Disposal Range), 3.5 Inch Rocket Impact Area 461 (Rocket Range), Rocket Ricochet Area (Rocket Range), Disposal/Kickout Area (Disposal 462 Range), and the remaining grounds (Range Complex) (USACE, 1995). No MEC was evident at 463 the Rifle Range impact berm, but some small arms MD was observed. Scattered debris from the 464 3.5-inch practice rockets was found at the Rocket Range. At the Disposal Range there was 465 evidence of small arms munitions, ejection cartridges, and an empty rear casing of a practice 466 bomb. No live ordnance was observed. The ASR identified munitions potentially present at the 467 FUDS based on historical documentation, personal interviews, and personal observations. 468 Several forms of conventional munitions were identified. No evidence of items currently defined 469 as chemical warfare material was identified. 470

2.6.3 ASR Supplement 471

The USACE completed an ASR Supplement in 2004, which indicated one range, Range Complex 472 No. 1, and three sub-ranges (Rifle Range, Rocket Range, and Disposal Range) (USACE, 2004b). 473

2.6.4 Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection 474

A PA/SI was conducted by Weston Solutions, Inc. for the EPA in 2004. Field sampling was 475 conducted in July 2004 and the results were published in Kingsley Firing Range Annex, 476


2-8

Formerly Used Defense Site, Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Report (EPA, 2004b). A 477 large portion of the PA/SI scope (relating to the surface soils and groundwater) paralleled the 478 scope of this SI. To the extent possible, this MMRP SI used data previously collected for the 479 PA/SI. Additional reconnaissance and sampling were planned only to address the specific data 480 needs identified during the TPP. 481

The PA/SI collected samples from soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater (EPA, 2004b). 482 Table 2-4 lists the samples collected and the analyses completed for the PA/SI samples. 483 Potential sampling areas were determined based on historic data and visual observations. During 484 the field sampling for the PA/SI, randomly selected sample locations within these areas were 485 screened using portable x-ray fluorescence (XRF) in order to determine the “worst case” 486 locations for sampling based on metal concentrations. The PA/SI sample locations are shown on 487 Figure 2-8. The following summarizes the PA/SI samples collected: 488 � Two surface soil samples (SS-BA001 and SS-BA002) were collected; one from each of 489

the OB/OD pits (Disposal Range). 490 � Two surface soil samples (SS-SA001 and SS-SA002) were collected at the rifle range 491 impact berm (Rifle Range). 492 � Three surface soil samples (SS-RA001 through SS-RA003) were collected at the rocket 493 impact area (Rifle Range/Rocket Range). 494 � One groundwater sample (GW-DW001) was collected at a private domestic well (not 495 located on the FUDS). 496 � One sediment sample (SD-ST001) was collected in an unnamed intermittent stream. 497 � One surface soil (SS-BK001) and one sediment (SD-BK001) background sample were 498 collected. 499

All surface soil, sediment, and groundwater samples were analyzed for target analyte list (TAL) 500 metals (plus mercury) using Contract Laboratory Program Analytical Service ILM05.3 and 501 nitrogen-based explosive compounds (NBECs) using EPA SW-846 Method 8330. The 502 groundwater sample was also analyzed for perchlorate using EPA Method 314.0. 503

The PA/SI reported that soil samples collected from site sources show metals (mainly arsenic, 504 lead, mercury, and zinc) were detected at the site (EPA, 2004b). The groundwater sample 505 collected from a domestic well showed no detected concentrations of NBECs or perchlorate. 506 The sediment sample was collected in an unnamed tributary that runs parallel with the site to 507 determine whether contamination is migrating off site. No elevated metals or NBECs were 508 detected. 509

2.7 Other Land Uses that May Have Contributed to Contamination 510

During the site investigation activities conducted by Shaw in November 2007, it was observed 511 that the area consisting of the Rifle Range and Rocket Range have recently been used for skeet 512


2-9

shooting and small arms target practice. MC associated with these activities may contribute to 513 media contamination not related to historic DoD use. It appeared that this use was by individuals 514 rather than any organized group. 515

A previously unknown asbestos dump area was brought to the attention of Weston by residents 516 during the PA/SI field investigation (EPA, 2004b). The dump area is located approximately 550 517 feet south-southeast of a private residence (approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the FUDS 518 property boundary). The asbestos dump is not located on the FUDS property and it is not known 519 if any of the material is associated with the activities conducted at the Kingsley Firing Range 520 Annex. Soil samples were collected and analyzed for asbestos using polarized light microscopy. 521 Some samples confirmed the presence of amosite and chrysotile asbestos fibers. 522

Additionally, it was observed during the SI field activities that asbestos cement board of various 523 sizes was scattered through the area of the Rifle Range and Rocket Range. The asbestos-524 containing material is likely from damaged and demolished buildings that once were located on 525 the FUDS. The administration building (with damaged asbestos composite siding) and two 526 adjacent magazine storage buildings are currently present on the northwest end of the site. 527

Asbestos sampling is not within the scope of this SI. 528

2.8 Past Regulatory Activities 529

As discussed above, the EPA conducted a PA/SI for the Kingsley Firing Range Annex 530 (EPA, 2004b). There have been no other regulatory actions, with respect to MEC or MC, 531 reported for the FUDS. 532

2.9 Previous MEC Finds 533

There are no known MEC or suspected MEC finds for the former Kingsley Firing Range Annex. 534 Evidence of MEC in the form of small arms debris and rocket debris, and ejection cartridges and 535 ammunition clips have been observed. 536


3-1

3.0 SI Tasks and Findings 537

SI tasks conducted for this FUDS property involved compiling and reviewing historical reports 538 and information, using this information in the subsequent TPP and overall SI process. Following 539 the TPP meeting, the Site-Specific Work Plan (SSWP) (Shaw, 2007b) was prepared to define the 540 SI field activities necessary to collect the information needed to address the data gaps and data 541 quality objectives (DQOs). Field work was conducted at the site in November 2007. 542

3.1 Technical Project Planning 543

TPP involved compiling and reviewing historical reports and information to identify data gaps 544 and develop a path forward. A combined TPP and public information meeting with 545 representatives of the USACE from the Seattle District and Omaha Design Center, the Oregon 546 Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), a television news reporter from station KOTI-547 TV, and Shaw representatives was held April 16, 2007 at the Klamath County Fairgrounds, 548 Klamath Falls, Oregon. EPA Region 10 was invited, but did not attend. 549

Shaw reviewed the available Kingsley Firing Range Annex information and presented a 550 summary of the FUDS and the proposed approach for the SI, addressing MEC and MC sampling. 551 All parties were in general agreement with the approach, but reserved final approval until the 552 draft TPP Memorandum was issued (Shaw, 2007a). 553

Based on the TPP meeting and subsequent evaluation of the information obtained after the 554 meeting, the AOCs identified and addressed in the TPP Memorandum (Shaw, 2007a) and this 555 report were the three sub-ranges of the Range Complex (Rifle Range, Rocket Range, and 556 Disposal Range) (Figure 3-1). 557

TPP meeting results were documented in the TPP Memorandum (Shaw, 2007a), which was 558 issued final on July 26, 2007. The proposed technical approach was defined in the SSWP 559 (Shaw, 2007b), which was issued final on October 23, 2007. A more complete discussion of the 560 TPP meeting is contained in the TPP Memorandum provided as Appendix B. 561

Specific discussions during the TPP meeting included: 562

Areas of Concern: The AOCs (Rocket Range, Rifle Range, and Disposal Range) as presented 563 in the ASR (USACE, 1995) were agreed upon. 564

Reconnaissance Objectives: The TPP team agreed that the SI would include reconnaissance 565 activities to: 566 � Confirm site conditions and land usage, 567 � Confirm the CSMs, 568


3-2

� Select optimal sample locations (biased toward evidence of small arms munitions 569 activity, practice rockets, and the burn pit, if observed), and 570 � Observe evidence of MEC and munitions history. 571

Sampling: The TPP team agreed in principle that sampling for MC was appropriate at the Rifle 572 Range, Rocket Range, and Disposal Range. The ODEQ agreed that analysis of the samples for 573 explosives and select metals was appropriate. The ODEQ was also concerned that there was no 574 historic evidence of what materials were burned in the horseshoe-shaped OB/OD pit at the 575 Disposal Range. Therefore, ODEQ requested that TAL metals and perchlorate be analyzed in 576 the proposed surface soil sample collected from the OB/OD pit (Disposal Range) and for the 577 proposed groundwater sample. The following is a summary of the MC sampling: 578 � One surface soil sample to be collected at the location of each of the three firing positions 579

and from the front of the impact target berm at the Rifle Range. 580 � One surface soil sample to be collected from the Rocket Range in an area with a high 581 concentration of practice rocket fragments. 582 � One surface soil sample to be collected at the Disposal Range from the horseshoe-shaped 583 OB/OD pit. (During the PA/SI both the horseshoe-shaped OB/OD pit and flat OB/OD pit 584 were sampled. Based on those results, the TPP team agreed to only sample the 585 horseshoe-shoe OB/OD pit during the SI.) 586 � One discrete groundwater sample to be collected from a domestic well located near the 587 site. 588 � During the PA/SI a sediment sample was collected in an unnamed tributary that runs 589 parallel with the site to determine whether contamination is migrating off site. No 590 elevated metals or NBECs were detected; therefore, the TPP team agreed that additional 591 sediment sampling was not required 592 � Surface water is not present at the site; therefore, surface water sampling was not 593 proposed. 594

After reviewing the results of the PA/SI (which was not available prior to the TPP meeting) and 595 evaluating metals based on potential MC at the site, it was recommended in the SSWP 596 (Shaw, 2007b) and agreed to by the regulators and USACE, that the surface soil samples be 597 analyzed for select metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, 598 manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc). Additionally, the groundwater sample 599 would be analyzed for select metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 600 copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, vanadium, and zinc). 601

Background Sampling: The TPP team agreed in principle that background sampling for the 602 site is appropriate. The PA/SI based their findings on one background soil sample, which is not 603 sufficient for statistical analysis (EPA, 2004b). Therefore, ten background surface soil samples 604 and one background groundwater sample would be analyzed for metals (aluminum, antimony, 605 arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, 606


3-3

manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, vanadium, and zinc). Additionally, 607 one background surface soil sample (collected near the Disposal Range) and the background 608 groundwater sample would be analyzed for perchlorate. A change was presented in the SSWP 609 (Shaw, 2007b) and approved to analyze two background samples located near the Disposal 610 Range and one other background sample for perchlorate instead of just analyzing the one 611 background sample discussed during the TPP meeting. The background groundwater sample 612 was not collected. Details are provided in Section 3.7. 613

Screening Values: The ODEQ indicated that the EPA Region 9 residential soil and tap water 614 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for human health screening values have not been 615 updated for a number of years. Therefore, the ODEQ requested that EPA Region 6 PRGs be 616 used for evaluation at the Kingsley Firing Range Annex. The stakeholders also agreed that the 617 DoD action level for perchlorate in groundwater of 24 micrograms per liter (µg/L) was 618 appropriate. It was also agreed to use the Region 6 human health medium specific screening 619 level for perchlorate in soils of 55 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). 620

Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment: Team members agreed that no ecological 621 screening was necessary based on a preliminary assessment that no IEPs or 622 ecologically-managed lands were present at the site. However, the ODEQ indicated that a search 623 be conducted by the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center and the results should be used 624 to reevaluate if any areas qualify as IEPs or ecologically-managed lands. 625

As discussed during the TPP meeting and documented in the TPP Memorandum (Shaw, 2007a), 626 the following project objectives and DQOs were developed: 627

Objective 1: Determine if the site requires additional investigation or can be recommended 628 for NDAI based on the presence or absence of munitions and explosives of concern. 629

DQO #1 – Utilizing trained UXO personnel and handheld magnetometers, a visual 630 reconnaissance survey of the Range Complex will be conducted searching for physical evidence 631 to indicate the presence of MEC (e.g., MEC on the surface, MD, craters, and soil discoloration 632 indicative of explosives). The visual search will consist of a meandering path within the Range 633 Complex covering the three sub-ranges. The following decision rules will apply: 634 � The following reconnaissance results would support a recommendation for further action 635

with respect to MEC: 636 � Direct evidence is found of the presence of MEC (from historical records or SI 637 activities), evidence of potential MEC that is inconsistent with the Rifle Range, 638 Rocket Range, and Disposal Range CSMs (e.g., use of munitions containing high 639 explosives). 640 � Direct evidence of MEC is not found, but abundant MD is identified suggesting a 641 potential for the presence of MEC. 642


3-4

� The following reconnaissance results would support a recommendation for NDAI with 643 respect to MEC: 644 � Direct evidence of MEC is not found; MD is isolated and consistent with the Rifle 645

Range, Rocket Range, and Disposal Range CSMs. 646 � No evidence of MEC, MD, or magnetic anomalies is identified. 647 � If there is indication that site users are exposed to MEC hazards, the site will be 648 recommended for a removal action. 649

Objective 2: Determine if the site requires additional investigation or can be recommended 650 for NDAI based on the presence or absence of MC above screening values. 651

DQO #2 – Soil and groundwater samples will be collected and analytical results will be 652 compared to background. Background soil and groundwater samples will be collected to use for 653 comparison purposes. Results from previous investigations (e.g., PA/SI) will also be included in 654 the evaluation provided the analytical data meet data quality requirements developed for the SI. 655 The following decision rules will apply: 656 � If sample results do not exceed background, the site will be recommended for NDAI 657

relative to MC. 658 � If sample results that exceed background are less than human health screening values, the 659 site will be recommended for NDAI relative to MC. 660 � If sample results exceed both background and human health screening values, the site 661 will be recommended for additional investigation. 662

3.2 Additional Records Research 663

3.2.1 Coordination with State Historic Preservation Office 664

Preparation of the SSWP included coordination with the Oregon State Historic Preservation 665 Office (SHPO) to determine if there are any areas of cultural or archeological significance on the 666 FUDS property that could be impacted by field activities or future activities. The Oregon State 667 Historic Preservation Office indicated that there are no reported archeological sites at the former 668 Kingsley Firing Range Annex. However, there has been no previous cultural resource surveys 669 conducted at the site (Oregon SHPO, 2007; Appendix C). 670

3.2.2 Coordination with Natural Resources Offices 671

The Kingsley Firing Range Annex FUDS is currently uninhabited and is not managed for 672 ecological purposes. 673

Prior to the SI field sampling, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and 674 Wildlife Service, and the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center were contacted via mail to 675 verify this information. The Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center indicated that they do 676 not provide specific site information. However, they did provide, via their website, a detailed 677 report on threatened and endangered species throughout Oregon (Oregon Heritage Information 678


3-5

Center, 2007; Appendix C). The other two entities did not provide any additional information. 679 However, via their websites, lists of state and federal threatened and endangered species in 680 Klamath County, Oregon are available (ODFW, 2007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007; 681 Appendix C). 682

The PA/SI indicated that no federal or state endangered or threatened species are present within a 683 15-mile target distance limit of the FUDS (EPA, 2004b). The PA/SI also noted that the bald 684 eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a federal and state listed species, may be present within a 685 4-mile radius of the site and may utilize the surface water within this area. The bald eagle is 686 currently a federal delisted species (recovered); however, it is a state listed species. The 687 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that one federally listed threatened species, the Northern 688 Spotted Owl, is found in Klamath County, Oregon. This species is not known to be present in 689 the vicinity of the FUDS. 690

3.2.3 Historical Aerial Photographs 691

The ASR (USACE, 1995) includes a 1970 aerial photograph that clearly shows the Kingsley 692 Firing Range Annex. The rifle range is shown as the light-colored area in the upper left of the 693 photograph. 694

Figure 2-1 presents a 1955 aerial photograph of the Kingsley Firing Range Annex. The three 695 firing lines and impact area for the rifle range are evident in the photograph. The disposal area 696 and lateral berms are not shown in the photograph. 697

3.2.4 Environmental Database Search 698

A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, 699 Inc. (EDR, 2007). The government records search met the requirements of ASTM International 700 (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (2007). Search results indicated 701 the Kingsley Firing Range Annex was included in several databases, including: 702 � CERCLA – No Further Remedial Action Planned, 703 � Facility Index System/Facility Registry System, 704 � State Hazardous Waste-Environmental Cleanup Site Information System, and 705 � FUDS. 706

The AOCs did not appear on mapped sites in known federal, state, or local ASTM or ASTM 707 Supplemental databases (Appendix L). There are no Resource Conservation and Recovery 708 Act-Small Quantity Generators in the vicinity of the AOCs (not within the AOC acreages). 709 Additional information on the databases searched and the results for surrounding properties is 710 included in the EDR report found in Appendix L. 711


3-6

3.2.5 Rights of Entry 712

Prior to mobilizing to the site, the Project Manager for the USACE Seattle District office 713 obtained the Rights-of-Entry (ROEs) for the properties where the SI field activities were 714 performed. Table 2-2 presents the ROE parcel information. 715

3.3 Field Work 716

SI field activities, conducted the week of November 12, 2007, included site reconnaissance and 717 collection of surface soil and groundwater samples. The following conditions were recorded in 718 the field logbook (Appendix D) and/or by digital photographs (Appendix E): 719 � Presence or absence of evidence of MEC, 720 � Changes, if any, in sample location because of field constraints, 721 � Vegetative cover, and 722 � Conditions encountered that impacted sample collection. 723

3.4 Sampling and Analysis 724

Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the SSWP (Shaw, 2007b) using the 725 standard operating procedures (SOPs) from the Type 1 Work Plan, Site Inspections at Multiple 726 Sites, NWO Region (Shaw, 2006). Table 3-1 summarizes the soil and groundwater sampling 727 completed at the Kingsley Firing Range Annex. Laboratory analysis was performed by GPL 728 Laboratories of Frederick, Maryland using methods defined in the SSWP. Samples were 729 analyzed for metals using EPA SW-846 Method 6020A/7471A, explosives using EPA SW-846 730 Method 8330A, including nitroglycerin and pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) using EPA 731 SW-846 Method 8330 (Modified), and perchlorate using EPA SW-846 Method 6850 (liquid 732 chromatography/mass spectroscopy [LC/MS]). The surface soil samples were analyzed for 733 select metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, 734 mercury, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc). The groundwater sample was analyzed for select 735 metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, 736 mercury, nickel, silver, vanadium, and zinc). Analytical results are provided in Appendix F. 737

3.5 Laboratory Analysis and Data Quality Review 738

Laboratory analysis was performed by GPL Laboratories of Frederick, Maryland, using methods 739 defined in the SSWP (Shaw, 2007b). Analytical results are provided in Appendix F. 740

One hundred percent of the analytical data have been reviewed and validation qualifiers assigned 741 based on EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data 742 Review (EPA, 1999) and EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for 743 Inorganic Data Review (EPA, 2004a). ADR software (version 8.1) was used to assist in the data 744 validation process for all areas with the exception of initial calibration blanks, continuing 745 calibration blanks, interference check standards, serial dilutions, internal standards, instrument 746 tuning standards, and second-column confirmation. Data were evaluated against specific criteria 747


3-7

to verify the achievement of all precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, 748 comparability, and sensitivity goals established to meet the project DQOs. 749

The overall quality of the data collected is discussed in the Analytical Data QA/QC Report 750 (Appendix G). Results of the analyses suggest that representative samples were collected and 751 analyzed, and the results are indicative of the media analyzed with the exception of a few metals, 752 explosives, and perchlorate samples. Some results were qualified as described in the report. No 753 data were qualified “R” as unusable. Overall, the data reflect expected site conditions and they 754 are fully usable for their intended purpose. 755

3.6 Screening Values 756

The following subsections describe the development of screening values for this SI. 757

3.6.1 Background Data 758

Ten background surface soil samples were collected at locations assumed not to be impacted by 759 previous activities and analyzed for select metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, 760 chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc). Background 761 sample locations are shown on Figure 3-2. Some of the depicted locations are within the 762 extended safety fans of the sub-ranges but at locations unlikely to have been affected by MC. 763 Sample locations NWO-069-5007 and NWO-069-5008 are approximately 3,000 feet downrange 764 from the firing points. Sample locations NWO-069-5001 and NWO-069-5002 are background 765 samples for the disposal pit and are located outside the disposal pit sub-range boundary. Sample 766 locations NWO-069-5003, NWO-069-5005, and NWO-069-5006 are located approximately 767 1,000 to 2,000 feet vertically above the range and on the opposite side of the mountain. 768

The background soil sample analytical results were used to calculate background metal soil 769 concentrations using published EPA Guidance (1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, and 2006a). The 770 background concentrations are either a 95th upper tolerance limit for normally or lognormally 771 distributed analytes or the 95th percentile for nonparametrically distributed analytes. The 772 background soil sample analytical results are provided in Appendix G. Shaw compared site 773 surface soil metals data, where available, to the background concentrations to distinguish 774 munitions-related release from ambient conditions. A concentration exceeding this value is 775 considered to be above the range of naturally occurring background. These project-specific 776 background screening values are presented in Table 3-2. A summary of the soil background 777 metals calculations is presented in Appendix L. 778

Additionally, three of the background surface soil samples, two samples located near the 779 Disposal Range (NWO-069-5001 and NWO-069-5002) and one other random sample 780 (NWO-069-5005) were also analyzed for perchlorate. None of the samples detected perchlorate. 781

The SSWP (Shaw, 2007b) identified collection of one background groundwater sample 782 (NWO-069-6001). This sample was not collected. Details are provided in Section 3.7. 783


3-8

3.6.2 Human Health Screening 784

Human health screening values for soil analytical results were established using the EPA Region 785 6 human health medium-specific screening levels (MSSLs) (EPA, 2006a). Table 3-3 presents 786 the residential and industrial MSSLs agreed to during the TPP process, with the most 787 conservative value used for SI surface soil screening. The human health screening criteria for 788 groundwater were established using the EPA Region 6 tap water MSSLs and Federal Drinking 789 Water Criteria (EPA, 2006b), with the most conservative value used for groundwater screening. 790 Table 3-4 lists the human health screening values for groundwater that were agreed to during the 791 TPP process. Selection of the screening criteria is shown in the TPP Memorandum 792 (Shaw, 2007a) included as Appendix B to this SI Report. It was also agreed that the DoD action 793

level of 24 �g/L of perchlorate in groundwater will be used for screening. 794

3.6.3 Ecological Screening 795

According to the Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for FUDS MMRP Site 796 Inspections (USACE, 2006), only sites that are considered to be IEPs or are managed for 797 ecological purposes, require a Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment. As shown in 798 Table 2-3, and discussed in Section 3.1, the site does not meet the criteria for designation as an 799 IEP; therefore, comparison to ecological screening values was not conducted. 800

3.7 Variances from the SSWP 801

The following summarizes variances to the SSWP (Shaw, 2007b). 802

Background groundwater sample: The SSWP identified collection of one background 803 groundwater sample (NWO-069-6001) (Shaw, 2007b). This location was essentially 804 crossgradient and approximately 1 mile southeast of the site, and was chosen because the well 805 would likely not be impacted by range activities. Also, no upgradient wells were indicated in the 806 database. The well record (well construction form) was obtained from the state of Oregon 807 database. The well, which was installed in 1993, was described as being located approximately 808 1/8 mile from the north end of Homedale Road and had a static water level of 156 feet. The well 809 was reportedly located on a parcel owned by Duke Mountain LLC. Prior to conducting the field 810 investigation, telephone calls were made by Shaw to the property owner requesting information 811 on this well. No return calls were received prior to the start of the field investigation. On 812 November 12, 2007, the field team attempted to locate the well. The well could not be found 813 and it is assumed that the well was removed/demolished during construction of a new housing 814 development in the area. Construction of the housing area extended Homedale Road further to 815 the north than its 1993 terminus. The property owner returned a call to Shaw on November 13, 816 2007, and indicated he did not have knowledge of the well north of Homedale Road but did 817 indicate there may be one well at the gravel pit located along Old Fort Road (he also owns this 818 property). The field team went to this location but could not find any wells. Two spigots were 819 found; however, they were inoperable since the site is abandoned and the power is not 820


3-9

operational. Therefore, a background well could not be located to obtain the planned 821 background groundwater sample. 822

3.8 Second TPP Meeting 823

A second TPP Meeting is planned after the Draft Final SI Report is issued to present the SI 824 findings to stakeholders and reach consensus regarding conclusions. 825


4-1

4.0 Rifle Range 826

4.1 History and Land Use 827

A small arms firing range was used by the Marines for three years (1944 to 1947). When the Air 828 Force took control in 1965, they purchased additional acreage which was used for the impact 829 area of the firing range. The Rifle Range AOC was constructed by the U.S. Air Force in 1965 830 and historically used for small arms practice from 1965 to 1975. The AOC name is consistent 831 with the sub-range identified in the ASR Supplement (USACE, 2004b). The location of the AOC 832 is shown on Figure 3-1. The Rifle Range is located on uninhabited property owned by private 833 individuals. 834

The firing line was approximately 60 yards wide with an impact berm 200 feet wide and 20 feet 835 high. The Rifle Range was approximately 500 yards in length, ending abruptly at a steep hillside 836 immediately behind the impact berm. Three firing positions were elevated and were located 837 approximately 200 yards, 300 yards, and 500 yards from the impact berm. Additionally, two 838 lateral berms, with the same approximate dimensions as the firing positions, are located along 839 either side of the impact area. The length of the range actually funneled into the hillside with 840 each side of the range elevated. This dramatically decreased the rifle range acreage from that of 841 a normal 500 yard range. Portions of the Rifle Range and safety fan overlap with the Rocket 842 Range AOC and safety fan. 843

4.2 Previous Investigations 844

The ASR reported that during the ASR field visit no MEC was observed (USACE, 1995). Some 845 small arms MD was identified at the impact berm. Some scattered debris from the 3.5-inch 846 practice rockets was also found within the Rifle Range in areas where the footprint overlaps with 847 the Rocket Range. During the SI field activities, some scattered rocket debris and MD was 848 observed at the Rifle Range AOC. The area near the impact berm appeared to have been scraped 849 and reworked. Additionally, there was obvious evidence that this area was being used recently 850 for target practice and skeet shooting. 851

During the PA/SI, Weston collected two surface soil samples (0 to 3 inches bgs) at the impact 852 berm (Figure 2-8). All samples were analyzed for TAL metals including mercury (EPA, 2004b). 853 The analytical results for the samples are discussed in Section 4.4.1. 854

4.3 MEC Evaluation 855

The ASR (USACE, 1995) indicated information which specified the type of ordnance used on 856 the firing range was not available. The ASR team assumed that standard .30-caliber and 857 .45-caliber weapons were fired on the range because this was the standard equipage of the time 858


4-2

period. The type of rocket used on the Rocket Range, which overlaps the Rifle Range, was a 859 model M29A2 practice rocket (see Section 5.0). 860

4.3.1 Field Observations and Historical Evidence of MEC 861

A visual reconnaissance of the Rifle Range was conducted prior to collection of samples to 862 identify evidence of former range activities (e.g., surface debris or stressed vegetation). The 863 visual reconnaissance was supplemented with a Schonstedt magnetometer in order to identify 864 any metallic items that may be present. The path walked during the visual reconnaissance was 865 recorded using a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (Figures 4-1a and 4-1b). 866 MEC has not been reported historically at the Rifle Range and none was observed during the SI 867 reconnaissance. Some scattered practice rocket debris and small arms MD and ammunition clips 868 were observed. The area near the impact berm appeared to have been scraped and reworked. 869 Additionally, there was obvious evidence that this area has recently been used for target and 870 skeet shooting. Numerous clay pigeon fragments, spent shotgun shells, and .22-caliber 871 ammunition casings were scattered about the area. 872

4.3.2 MEC Risk Assessment 873

This section presents a qualitative assessment of the risk associated with potential MEC at the 874 Rifle Range. This assessment is based on historical documentation, prior investigation, and 875 visual inspection conducted during this SI. An MEC assessment is provided to convey relative 876 risk on a scale from low to high and is not intended to be a thorough risk assessment as would be 877 conducted for an RI/FS. 878

Access to the Rifle Range is unrestricted. A barbed-wire fence covers a portion of the southern 879 side of the FUDS property. A locked gate (private owner) prevents vehicular access to a private 880 road that leads to the site. However, the property can be easily accessed by the general public in 881 areas where there is no fence by use of an alternate road. 882

Shaw completed a magnetometer-assisted visual reconnaissance of the Rifle Range the week of 883 November 12, 2007. No MEC was observed or identified. Only small arms MD, and rocket MD 884 from the overlapping Rocket Range, was observed. The MEC risk for this area is considered to 885 be low, based on the following: 886 � The suspected area is uninhabited; 887 � The range was used historically for small arms practice; 888 � Small arms pose low MEC risk; 889 � No MEC has been reported; 890 � No MEC was observed during SI visual reconnaissance; and 891 � The Rocket Range overlaps the Rifle Range; however, only practice warheads were used 892

during training periods on the Rocket Range. 893


4-3

4.4 Munitions Constituents Evaluation 894

Potential MC from the small arms MD includes metals (aluminum, antimony, barium, copper, 895 lead, zinc), nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, and PETN. Potential MC from the practice rocket 896 debris found on the Rifle Range includes metals associated with steel (chromium, iron, 897 molybdenum, and nickel) and cast iron, black powder (potassium nitrate, sulfur, and charcoal), 898 M7 propellant (potassium perchlorate, ethyl centralite, carbon black), smokeless powder, and 899 lead azide. 900

4.4.1 Terrestrial Pathway 901

Terrestrial receptors may be exposed to MC because soil may have been directly affected by 902 corrosion of the metals or firing of the small arms ammunition. Four SI surface soil samples 903 (NWO-069-0001 through NWO-069-0004) and one field duplicate (NWO-069-0007) were 904 proposed and collected at the Rifle Range. One sample was collected from each of the three 905 raised firing positions and one from the front of the impact berm. The sample locations are 906 shown on Figure 4-2. The samples were analyzed for select metals (aluminum, antimony, 907 arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, and 908 zinc) by EPA SW-846 Method 6020A/7471A, and explosives by EPA SW-846 Method 8330A, 909 including nitroglycerine and PETN by EPA SW-846 Method 8330 (Modified). 910

Detected soil analytical results and comparison to soil background and human health screening 911 are shown in Table 4-1. The results of the comparison are shown pictorially on Figure 4-3 912 (metals) and Figure 4-4 (explosives). 913

During the PA/SI, potential sample locations were initially screened using a portable XRF 914 instrument and source samples were collected at those areas showing relatively higher 915 concentrations of metals compared to the other screening locations. Two surface soil samples 916 (SS-SA001 and SS-SA002) were collected from the impact berm at the Rifle Range (Figure 2-8). 917 All samples were analyzed for TAL metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, 918 cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, 919 nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc) by Contract 920 Laboratory Program Analytical Service ILM05.3 (EPA, 2004b). 921

4.4.1.1 Comparison to Background Data 922

The detected metals concentrations in soil for both the SI and PA/SI samples are listed in 923 Table 4-1. 924

Two of the SI samples (NWO-069-0003 and NWO-069-0004) exceeded the SI background 925 concentration for lead of 24 mg/kg (29.7 mg/kg and 75.5 mg/kg, respectively). Sample 926 NWO-069-0003 is located at the firing line closest to the impact berm and sample NWO-069-927 0004 was located at the impact berm. 928


4-4

PA/SI sample SS-SA001 detected copper (90.4 mg/kg), lead (1,220 mg/kg), and nickel 929 (80.9 mg/kg) above their associated SI background concentrations. PA/SI sample SS-SA002 930 detected lead (73.6 mg/kg) above the SI background level. Both samples were collected at the 931 small arms impact berm. 932

4.4.1.2 Comparison to Human Health Screening Values 933

Soil analytical results were only compared to human health screening values if background 934 concentrations were exceeded (Table 4-1). None of the SI samples exceeded the EPA Region 6 935 human health screening criteria. One PA/SI sample, SS-SA001, exceeded the human health 936 screening value for lead of 400 mg/kg. 937

4.4.2 Surface Water Pathway 938

As agreed to during the TPP process, surface water is not present within the FUDS property 939 boundary. Therefore, no surface water samples were collected during the SI at the Rifle Range. 940 Similarly, no surface water samples were collected during the PA/SI. 941

4.4.3 Groundwater Pathway 942

The TPP Memorandum indicated that groundwater was a potentially affected medium, with 943 potential receptors located downgradient of the FUDS boundary (Shaw, 2007a). No 944 groundwater wells used for drinking water are located within the FUDS property boundary. It 945 was agreed at the TPP meeting to collect one groundwater sample from a domestic well at a 946 residence located approximately 1,200 feet southwest of the FUDS property boundary. This well 947 is assumed to be downgradient of the FUDS property boundary. This sample location is not 948 specifically related to any of the AOCs; therefore, this discussion will apply to the Range 949 Complex as a whole and will not be repeated in the other AOC discussions. This same well was 950 sampled during the PA/SI. The sample was collected from a spigot prior to filtering or 951 treatment. 952

One SI groundwater sample (NWO-069-3001) and a field duplicate (NWO-069-3002) was 953 analyzed by EPA SW-846 Method 6020A/7470A for select metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, 954 cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, vanadium, 955 and zinc); explosives by EPA SW-846 Method 8330A, including nitroglycerine and PETN by 956 EPA SW-846 Method 8330 (Modified); and perchlorate by EPA SW-846 Method 6850 957 (LC/MS). 958

A PA/SI groundwater sample (GW-DW001) was analyzed for TAL metals (aluminum, arsenic, 959 barium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, 960 mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc) by Contract 961 Laboratory Program Analytical Service ILM05.3, NBECs by EPA SW-846 Method 8330, and 962 perchlorate by EPA Method 314.0 (EPA, 2004b). 963


4-5

The SI groundwater samples (regular and field duplicate) detected aluminum, arsenic, barium, 964 chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, vanadium, zinc, and perchlorate. 965 The iron, vanadium, and zinc results were reported above the practical quantitation limit; the 966 other metals and perchlorate were reported between the practical quantitation limit; and method 967 detection limit and therefore were “J” qualified. Iron was qualified as nondetect in the field 968 duplicate sample because of blank contamination. Perchlorate was detected. No explosives 969 were detected. Detected groundwater analytical results are shown in Table 4-2 and pictorially on 970 Figure 4-3 (metals), Figure 4-4 (explosives), and Figure 4-5 (perchlorate). 971

The PA/SI groundwater sample showed no detected concentrations of NBECs or perchlorate. 972

4.4.3.1 Comparison to Background 973

During the SI, one background groundwater sample (NWO-069-6001) was to be collected from a 974 well located approximately 1 mile southeast of the site. This well was located outside the FUDS 975 property boundary and is downgradient from the FUDS. However, this well could not be located 976 and an alternate background well from a parcel with an approved ROE could not be located to 977 obtain the planned background groundwater sample. Therefore, background groundwater metals 978 data is not available. 979


None of the SI or PA/SI groundwater sample results exceeded the Federal Drinking Water 981 Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or EPA Region 6 medium-specific screening levels 982

MSSL) for tap water, except for arsenic (3.4 �g/L) which exceeded the tap water screening level 983

of 0.045 �g/L. The PA/SI groundwater sample collected from this well indicated the arsenic 984

concentration as nondetect at the sample quantitation limit of 3.2 �g/L (EPA, 2004b). 985

The arsenic detected above the tap water screening level is not attributed to DoD activities at the 986 Kingsley Firing Range Annex groundwater for the following reasons: 987 � Both the PA/SI and SI sample results were below the Federal Drinking Water MCL of 10 988 �g/L. 989 � None of the munitions known to be used at the Kingsley Firing Range Annex contained 990

arsenic. 991 � ODEQ studies of private, domestic water wells in the Klamath Basin indicated some 992 constituents, including arsenic, have exceeded federal MCLs (ODEQ, 2006). 993 � One source of arsenic in groundwater is due to naturally occurring arsenic-containing 994 minerals, especially in volcanic rocks which are prevalent in this area. 995

The estimated perchlorate concentration of 0.0861 �g/L detected in the SI sample is below the 996

DoD action level of 24 �g/L. 997


4-6

4.4.4 Air Pathway 998

Air is considered a potential pathway due to inhalation of blowing dust. The potential inhalation 999 of soil particles is included in the development of health-based screening values for soil. 1000


5-1

5.0 Rocket Range 1001


The Rocket Range AOC was used by the Army National Guard for 3.5-inch rocket practice from 1003 1965 to 1975. Historical records suggest only practice warheads were used during the training 1004 periods. A discovered rocket had an identifiable lot number and fuze nomenclature M-405, 1005 which is the practice version of the 3.5-inch rocket. The ASR indicated that an interview with a 1006 member of the Oregon Army National Guard indicated that only inert warhead type rockets were 1007 fired at an old vehicle (USACE, 1995). The AOC name is consistent with the sub-range 1008 identified in the ASR Supplement (USACE, 2004b). The location of the AOC is shown on 1009 Figure 3-1. The Rocket Range is located on uninhabited property owned by private individuals. 1010 Portions of the Rocket Range AOC and safety fan overlap with the Rifle Range AOC and safety 1011 fan. 1012


The USACE conducted a site survey on June 18, 1992, under the DERP for FUDS. Local 1014 contacts reported no presence of munitions or debris on site. 1015

The ASR reported that during the ASR field visit no MEC was found, but some scattered debris 1016 from the 3.5-inch practice rockets was found (USACE, 1995). During the SI field investigation, 1017 some scattered rocket debris and small arms MD was observed. 1018

The PA/SI collected three surface soil samples (0 to 3 inches bgs) within the footprint of where 1019 the Rifle Range and Rocket Range and their safety fans overlap. All samples were analyzed for 1020 TAL metals, including mercury, and NBECs (EPA, 2004b). The analytical results for the 1021 samples are discussed in Section 5.4.1. 1022


The ASR indicated that the rocket used on the Rocket Range was a model M29A2 practice 1024 rocket consisting of an inert cast iron head and a (M-405) dummy fuze (USACE, 1995). 1025


A visual reconnaissance of the Rocket Range was conducted prior to collection of samples to 1027 identify evidence of former range activities (e.g., surface debris, or stressed vegetation). The 1028 visual reconnaissance was supplemented with a Schonstedt magnetometer in order to identify 1029 any metallic items that may be present. The path walked during the visual reconnaissance was 1030 recorded using a hand-held GPS unit (Figures 4-1a and 4-1b). MEC has not been reported 1031 historically at the Rocket Range and none was observed during the SI reconnaissance. Some 1032 scattered practice rocket debris and small arms MD (a few casings and speed loading clips) were 1033


5-2

observed. Note as discussed previously, the Rocket Range and Rifle Range and their safety fans 1034 overlap. 1035


This section presents a qualitative assessment of the risk associated with potential MEC at the 1037 Rocket Range. This assessment is based on historical documentation, prior investigation, and 1038 visual inspection conducted during this SI. MEC assessment is provided to convey relative risk 1039 on a scale from low to high and is not intended to be a thorough risk assessment as would be 1040 conducted for an RI/FS. 1041

Access to the Rocket Range is unrestricted. A barbed-wire fence covers a portion of the 1042 southern side of the FUDS property. A locked gate (private owner) prevents vehicular access to 1043 a private road that leads to the site. However, the property can be easily accessed by the general 1044 public in areas where there is no fence by use of an alternate road. 1045

Shaw completed a magnetometer-assisted visual reconnaissance of the Rocket Range the week 1046 of November 12, 2007. No evidence of MEC was observed or identified. However, evidence of 1047 rocket MD was observed. The MEC risk for this area is considered to be low, based on the 1048 following: 1049 � The suspected area is uninhabited. 1050 � Historical records only indicate the use of practice 3.5-inch rockets. 1051 � Rockets would have been fired at a low trajectory. Rockets that tend to ricochet are 1052

likely to be at or near ground surface. 1053 � There are no explosive components in the warhead or fuze, which are inert. 1054 � The practice rocket has no energetic materials other than possibly a propellant charge, 1055 which would require an intact initiation system to be electrically ignited or exposed to a 1056 flame source in the rocket motor to ignite the propellant. 1057 � The Rifle Range overlaps the Rocket Range; however, only small arms were used on the 1058 firing range. 1059 � Small arms pose low MEC risk. 1060 � No MEC has been reported. 1061 � No MEC was observed during SI visual reconnaissance. 1062


Potential MC from the practice rocket debris includes metals associated with steel (chromium, 1064 iron, molybdenum, and nickel) and cast iron, black powder (potassium nitrate, sulfur, and 1065 charcoal), M7 propellant (potassium perchlorate, ethyl centralite, carbon black), smokeless 1066 powder, and lead azide. Potential MC from the small arms MD found on the Rocket Range/Rifle 1067


5-3

Range overlap includes metals (aluminum, antimony, barium, copper, lead, zinc), nitrocellulose, 1068 nitroglycerin, and PETN. 1069


Terrestrial receptors may be exposed to MC because soil may have been directly affected by 1071 corrosion of the rocket debris. One SI surface soil sample (NWO-069-0005) and one field 1072 duplicate (NWO-069-0008) was proposed and collected at the Rocket Range. The sample was to 1073 be collected in an area with a high concentration of practice rocket fragments. A high 1074 accumulation of rocket debris was not observed in the field; therefore, the sample was collected 1075 at the location referenced in the ASR, which reported that scattered debris from rockets was first 1076 observed approximately 400 yards downrange of the firing position (USACE, 1995). The 1077 sample location is shown on Figure 4-2. As indicated on Table 3-1, the sample was analyzed for 1078 select metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, 1079 mercury, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc) by EPA SW-846 Method 6020A/7471A and explosives 1080 by EPA SW-846 Method 8330A, including nitroglycerine and PETN by EPA SW-846 Method 1081 8330 (Modified). 1082

Detected soil analytical results and comparison to soil background and human health screening 1083 are shown in Table 5-1. The results of the comparison are shown pictorially on Figure 4-3 1084 (metals) and Figure 4-4 (explosives). 1085

During the PA/SI, potential sample locations were initially screened using a portable XRF 1086 instrument and source samples were collected at those areas showing relatively higher 1087 concentrations of metals compared to the other screening locations. Three surface soil samples 1088 (SS-RA001 through SS-RA003) were collected at the Rifle Range/Rocket Range impact area 1089 (Figure 2-8). All samples were analyzed for TAL metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, 1090 beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, 1091 mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc) by Contract 1092 Laboratory Program Analytical Service ILM05.3, and NBECs by EPA SW-846 Method 8330 1093 (EPA, 2004b). 1094



The SI regular sample (NWO-069-0005) and field duplicate sample (NWO-069-0008) exceeded 1098 the SI background concentration for lead (24 mg/kg) and nickel (68.7 mg/kg). The SI sample 1099 results for lead were 60.5 mg/kg and 82.8 mg/kg and for nickel were 70.7 mg/kg and 77.6 mg/kg, 1100 respectively. Explosives were not detected in the SI soil samples. 1101

All three PA/SI samples (SS-RA001 through SS-RA003) detected lead above the SI background 1102 level of 24.4 mg/kg. Lead concentrations ranged from 37.7 mg/kg in sample SS-RA003 to 1103


5-4

150 mg/kg in sample SS-RA002. Manganese was detected in one sample (SS-RA002) above the 1104 SI background concentration of 2,000 mg/kg at a concentration of 3,200 mg/kg. Mercury was 1105 detected in two samples (SS-RA002 and SS-RA003) above the SI background concentration of 1106 0.062 mg/kg at a concentration of 0.11 mg/kg and 0.18 mg/kg, respectively. 1107


Soil analytical results were only compared to human health screening values if background 1109 concentrations were exceeded. The SI samples did not exceed human health screening criteria. 1110 Manganese detected in PA/SI sample SS-RA002 had a concentration that equaled the EPA 1111 Region 6 human health screening criteria (Table 5-1). The remaining PA/SI samples did not 1112 exceed human health screening criteria. 1113


As agreed to during the TPP process, surface water is not present within the FUDS property 1115 boundary. Therefore, no surface water samples were collected during the SI at the Rocket 1116 Range. Similarly, no surface water samples were collected during the PA/SI. 1117


The groundwater pathway is discussed in Section 4.4.3. 1119




6-1

6.0 Disposal Range 1123


The Disposal Range AOC is assumed to have been used from 1965 through 1975, based on the 1125 usage of the Rifle and Rocket Ranges. The Disposal Range has two OB/OD pits located 1126 approximately 200 feet apart. One of the pits is situated on flat ground with no pit or berm. The 1127 other area had a 6-foot high, horseshoe-shaped berm around the area. The ASR (USACE, 1995) 1128 reported that the horseshoe-shaped pit could have been used for disposal of small quantities of 1129 explosives during EOD team training with items such as shape charges. The INPR 1130 (USACE, 1993) indicates that during the 1992 site visit a “7.62mm” brass rifle shell and a 1131 “40mm” shell casing were found. No other information was provided. A Fact Sheet (undated) 1132 indicates that the used brass (7.62mm) and used shell (approximately 40mm) were observed in 1133 the disposal pit. However, an exact location of the findings was not reported. This information 1134 was not discussed in the body of the ASR or in the munitions inventory. No additional 1135 information was available. The location of the AOC is shown on Figure 3-1. The Disposal 1136 Range AOC is located on uninhabited property owned by private individuals. 1137


The USACE conducted a site survey on June 18, 1992, under the DERP for FUDS. Local 1139 contacts reported no presence of munitions or debris on site. 1140

The ASR reported that during the ASR field visit no MEC was found, but burned small arms 1141 casings, ejection cartridges for aircraft pylons, ammunition clips, and an empty rear casing of a 1142 practice bomb were found in the burn pits (USACE, 1995). The SI field investigation confirmed 1143 these findings at the horseshoe-shaped OB/OD pit. 1144

The PA/SI collected two surface soil samples (0 to 3 inches bgs), one at each pit. Sample 1145 SS-BA001 was from the horseshoe-shaped burn pit and sample SS-BA002 was from the flat pit. 1146 The samples were analyzed for TAL metals, including mercury, and NBECs. The analytical 1147 results for the samples are discussed in Section 6.4.1 (EPA, 2004b). 1148


The ASR reported that the pit with the horseshoe-shaped berm could have been used for small 1150 quantities of explosives during EOD team training with items such as shape charges (USACE, 1151 1995). Historical records indicate that burned small arm casings, ejection cartridges for aircraft 1152 pylons, ammunition clips, and an empty rear casing of a practice bomb were found in the burn 1153 pits. The empty base from an unknown bomb was found in the horseshoe bermed OB/OD pit. 1154 The bomb base was not observed during the SI visual reconnaissance. There was not enough 1155 remaining to make a positive identification; however, the ASR team theorized that at one time 1156


6-2

the Kingsley Air Force Base EOD Team may have used the bomb for shape charge training. No 1157 live ordnance was observed in either pit. 1158


A visual reconnaissance of the Disposal Range was conducted prior to collection of samples to 1160 identify evidence of former range activities (e.g., surface debris, or stressed vegetation). The 1161 visual reconnaissance was supplemented with a Schonstedt magnetometer in order to identify 1162 any metallic items that may be present. The path walked during the visual reconnaissance was 1163 recorded using a hand-held GPS unit (Figures 4-1a and 4-1b). No metallic anomalies were 1164 detected. MEC has not been reported historically at the Disposal Range and none was observed 1165 during the SI reconnaissance. During the SI reconnaissance the field team observed burned 1166 small arms casings, ejection cartridges, ammunition clips, and an empty rear casing of a practice 1167 bomb in the horseshoe-shaped pit. The location of the flat pit was not discernable during the SI 1168 field activities. 1169


This section presents a qualitative assessment of the risk associated with potential MEC at the 1171 Disposal Range. This assessment is based on historical documentation, prior investigation, and 1172 visual inspection conducted during this SI. An MEC assessment is provided to convey relative 1173 risk on a scale from low to high and is not intended to be a thorough risk assessment as would be 1174 conducted for an RI/FS. 1175

Access to the Disposal Range is unrestricted. A barbed-wire fence covers a portion of the 1176 southern side of the FUDS property. A locked gate (private owner) prevents vehicular access to 1177 a private road that leads to the site. However, the property can be easily accessed by the general 1178 public in areas where there is no fence by use of an alternate road. 1179

Shaw completed a magnetometer-assisted visual reconnaissance of the Disposal Range the week 1180 of November 12, 2007. MEC was not observed but MD in the form of charred small arms, 1181 ejection cartridges, ammunition clips, and an empty rear casing of a practice bomb was observed. 1182 The MEC risk for this area is considered to be low for surface exposure and moderate for 1183 subsurface exposure based on the following: 1184 � The suspected area is uninhabited; 1185 � The horseshoe-shaped pit could have been used for disposal by the Kingsley EOD team; 1186 � Historical records do not indicate what items were disposed or burned in the OB/OD pits; 1187 � Small arms pose low MEC risk; 1188 � No MEC has been reported; 1189 � No MEC was observed during SI visual reconnaissance; and 1190


6-3

� There is a possibility that discarded military munitions were intentionally or 1191 unintentionally buried beneath the surface; however, a subsurface investigation has not 1192 been conducted. 1193


Potential MC from the practice bomb, small arms ammunition, ejection cartridges, and 1195 explosives may include metals (aluminum, antimony, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, 1196 molybdenum, and zinc), black powder (potassium nitrate, sulfur, and charcoal), nitrocellulose, 1197 nitroglycerin, PETN, and RDX. 1198


Terrestrial receptors may be exposed to MC because soil may have been directly affected by 1200 corrosion of the metals, explosive detonation, and incineration. One SI surface soil sample 1201 (NWO-069-0006) was proposed and collected at the horseshoe-shaped pit. The sample location 1202 is shown on Figure 4-2. The sample was analyzed for select metals (aluminum, antimony, 1203 arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, and 1204 zinc) by EPA SW-846 Method 6020A/7471A; explosives by EPA SW-846 Method 8330A, 1205 including nitroglycerine and PETN by EPA SW-846 Method 8330 (Modified); and perchlorate 1206 by EPA SW-846 Method 6850 (LC/MS). 1207

Detected soil analytical results and comparison to soil background and human health screening 1208 are shown in Table 6-1. The results of the comparison are shown pictorially on Figure 4-3 1209 (metals), Figure 4-4 (explosives), and Figure 4-5 (perchlorate). 1210

During the PA/SI, potential sample locations were initially screened using a portable XRF 1211 instrument and source samples were collected at those areas showing relatively higher 1212 concentrations of metals compared to the other screening locations. Two surface soil samples 1213 (SS-BA001 and SS-BA002) were collected at the horseshoe-shaped pit and the flat pit, 1214 respectively (Figure 2-8). All PA/SI samples were analyzed for TAL metals (aluminum, 1215 antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, 1216 magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, 1217 vanadium, and zinc) by Contract Laboratory Program Analytical Service ILM05.3 and NBECs 1218 by EPA SW-846 Method 8330 (EPA, 2004b). 1219



The SI sample (NWO-069-0006) exceeded the SI background concentration for metals 1223 explosives. The detected concentration and the background metal concentration (in parenthesis) 1224 are as follows: 1225 � Antimony - 7.9 mg/kg (0.82 mg/kg), 1226


6-4

� Barium - 1,020 mg/kg (756 mg/kg), 1227 � Copper - 153 mg/kg (67.2 mg/kg), 1228 � Lead - 828 mg/kg (24 mg/kg), 1229 � Mercury - 0.17 mg/kg (0.062 mg/kg), and 1230 � Zinc - 2,680 mg/kg (165 mg/kg). 1231

Zinc was detected above the SI background concentration of 165 mg/kg in PA/SI sample SS-1232 BA001 at a concentration of 311 mg/kg. The sample was collected from the horseshoe-shaped 1233 pit (EPA, 2004b). PA/SI sample BA-SS002 (from the flat pit) did not detect any metals above SI 1234 background levels. 1235

Explosives were detected as follows in the SI sample: 1236 � 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene - 0.014 mg/kg, 1237 � 2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene - 0.023 mg/kg, 1238 � 4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene - 0.032 mg/kg, and 1239 � Nitroglycerin - 1.4 mg/kg. 1240

No explosives were detected in the two PA/SI samples. 1241

Perchlorate was not detected in the SI sample and was not analyzed in the PA/SI samples. 1242


Soil analytical results were only compared to human health screening values if background metal 1244 concentrations were exceeded or if metals or perchlorate were detected. None of the SI sample 1245 metal constituents exceeded the human health screening criteria (Table 6-1), except lead (828 1246 mg/kg), which exceeded the EPA Region 6 human health screening value of 400 mg/kg. None 1247 of the detected explosives, except 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene and nitroglycerin, have human health 1248 screening values. However, neither of these two explosives exceeded their associated human 1249 health screening value. None of the PA/SI samples exceeded the human health screening 1250 criteria. 1251


As agreed to during the TPP process, surface water is not present within the FUDS property 1253 boundary. Therefore, no surface water samples were collected during the SI at the Disposal 1254 Range. Similarly, no surface water samples were collected during the PA/SI. 1255


The groundwater pathway is discussed in Section 4.4.3. 1257


6-5




7-1

7.0 Summary and Conclusions 1261

The summary and conclusions of the SI are presented in this section. Recommendations for 1262 further action are presented in Section 8.0. An updated CSM is presented in Appendix J. 1263

Range Complex No. 1 consists of three overlapping sub-ranges: the Rifle Range, the Rocket 1264 Range, and the Disposal Range. The Rifle Range consisted of a small arms firing range used 1265 from 1944 to1947. In 1965 the Air Force took control and added an impact area. The Air Force 1266 used the range until 1975. The Rocket Range was used from 1965 to 1975 for 3.5-inch rocket 1267 practice using practice warheads (M29A2) consisting of an inert cast iron head and M-405 1268 dummy fuze. The Disposal Range was assumed to be used from 1965 to1975. The Disposal 1269 Range consisted of a horseshoe-shaped berm pit and a flat pit. The location of the flat pit was 1270 not discernable during the SI reconnaissance. The former Kingsley Firing Range Annex is 1271 included on the MMRP Inventory in the Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to 1272 Congress Fiscal Year 2007 (DoD, 2007) and in the ASR Supplement (USACE, 2004b). 1273

In the MMRP Inventory and ASR Supplement there is a discrepancy between the acreage of the 1274 range (Range Complex) presented in a table (87 acres) and the acreage presented in Plate 1275 No. R01 (1,352 acres) (DoD, 2007; USACE, 2004b). It appears the 87-acre area referenced in 1276 the MMRP Inventory as the Range Complex actually refers to one of the sub-ranges, the Rocket 1277 Range (without the fan and safety area acreage). 1278

The Kingsley Firing Range Annex FUDS is currently uninhabited and is not managed for 1279 ecological purposes and is not an IEP. Receptors in the area of the Range Complex consist of 1280 nearby residents outside of the range boundary. 1281


Historically, no MEC has been reported on any of the sub-ranges. During the ASR site 1283 inspection, some small arms MD were identified at the impact berm located at the Rifle Range. 1284 Some scattered debris from the 3.5-inch practice rockets was also found within the Rifle Range 1285 in areas where the footprint overlaps with the Rocket Range. The ASR reported that the pit with 1286 the horseshoe-shaped berm could have been used for small quantities of explosives during EOD 1287 team training with items such as shape charges (USACE, 1995). Historical records indicate that 1288 burned small arm casings, ejection cartridges for aircraft pylons, ammunition clips, and an empty 1289 rear casing of a practice bomb were found in the burn pits. The empty base from an old style 1290 bomb was found in the horseshoe bermed OB/OD pit. During the SI field investigation, some 1291 scattered rocket debris and MD were observed at the Rifle Range. The area near the impact 1292 berm appeared to have been scraped and reworked. Additionally, there was obvious evidence 1293 that this area was being used recently for target practice and skeet shooting. MEC has not been 1294 reported historically at the Disposal Range and none was observed during the SI reconnaissance. 1295


7-2

During the SI reconnaissance burned small arms casings, ejection cartridges, ammunition clips, 1296 and an empty rear casing of a practice bomb were observed in the horseshoe-shaped pit. 1297

The risk for potential MEC at the Rifle Range and Rocket Range is considered to be low based 1298 on no reports being found or visual observations of MEC during the SI and historical use for 1299 small arms and practice rockets. The MEC risk for the Disposal Range is considered to be low 1300 for the surface exposure because no MEC has been reported or MEC was observed during the SI 1301 visual reconnaissance. The MEC risk for the Disposal Range is considered moderate for the 1302 subsurface because there is a possibility that discarded military munitions were intentionally or 1303 unintentionally buried beneath the surface; however, a subsurface investigation has not been 1304 conducted. 1305

7.2 MC Evaluation 1306

The pathways evaluated were surface soil and groundwater. Exposure to soil would be through 1307 dermal contact, incidental ingestion, or inhalation. Exposure to groundwater would be from 1308 dermal contact and ingestion. The SI collected surface soil and groundwater samples to 1309 supplement samples collected during the previous PA/SI. By agreement at the TPP surface water 1310 and sediment samples were not collected because there is no observed surface water in locations 1311 where MC might be expected. All SI samples were analyzed for select metals (aluminum, 1312 antimony, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, 1313 nickel, and zinc) and explosives, including nitroglycerine and PETN. The Rocket Range and 1314 Disposal Range soil samples, plus the groundwater sample, were also analyzed for perchlorate. 1315

Several samples exceeded background concentrations for metals: 1316 � Two Rifle Range SI samples exceeded background for lead. 1317 � One Rifle Range PA/SI sample exceeded background for copper, lead, and nickel. 1318 � One Rifle Range PA/SI sample exceeded background for lead. 1319 � One Rocket Range SI sample exceeded background for lead and nickel. 1320 � Three Rocket Range PA/SI samples exceeded background for lead. 1321 � One Rocket Range PA/SI sample exceeded background for manganese and mercury. 1322 � One Rocket Range PA/SI sample exceeded background for mercury. 1323 � One Disposal Range SI sample exceeded background for antimony, barium, copper, lead, 1324 mercury, and zinc. 1325 � One Disposal Range PA/SI sample exceeded background for zinc. 1326

There were no detections of explosives from the Rifle Range or Rocket Range samples. 1327 Explosives (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, 2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene, 4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene, and 1328 nitroglycerin) were detected in the Disposal Range SI sample. Perchlorate was not detected in 1329


7-3

the Rocket Range or Disposal Range SI samples. No explosives were detected in any of the 1330 Rocket Range or Disposal Range PA/SI samples. 1331

None of the SI samples from the Rifle Range or Rocket Range exceeded the EPA Region 6 1332 human health screening criteria. One PA/SI sample from the Rifle Range impact berm exceeded 1333 the EPA human health screening value for lead. One PA/SI sample from the Rocket Range 1334 equaled the EPA human health screening criteria value for manganese. One SI sample from the 1335 Disposal Range exceeded the EPA human health criteria for lead. 1336

No groundwater drinking wells are located within the FUDS property boundary. It was agreed at 1337 the TPP meeting to collect one groundwater sample from a domestic well at a residence located 1338 approximately 1,200 feet southwest of the FUDS property. This well is located near the edge of 1339 one of the range safety fans and is believed to be downgradient of the FUDS ranges. This same 1340 well was sampled during the PA/SI. The SI sample was collected from a spigot prior to filtering 1341 or treatment. A background groundwater sample was planned but the well could not be located. 1342

One SI groundwater sample and a field duplicate were analyzed by EPA SW-846 Method 1343 6020A/7470A for select metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 1344 copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, silver, vanadium, and zinc); 1345 explosives by EPA SW-846 Method 8330A, including nitroglycerine and PETN by EPA SW-1346 846 Method 8330 (Modified); and perchlorate by EPA SW-846 Method 6850 (LC/MS). 1347

The PA/SI groundwater sample was analyzed for TAL metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, 1348 cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, 1349 nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc) by Contract Laboratory 1350 Program Analytical Service ILM05.3, NBECs by EPA SW-846 Method 8330, and perchlorate 1351 by EPA Method 314.0 (EPA, 2004b). 1352

None of the SI or PA/SI groundwater samples exceeded Federal Drinking Water Maximum 1353 Contaminant Levels or EPA Region 6 medium-specific screening levels for tap water, except for 1354

the SI sample which detected arsenic (3.4 �g/L) in excess of the EPA Region 6 screening level 1355

for tap water of 0.045 �g/L. There is no arsenic in the munitions used at the FUDS and relatively 1356 high arsenic levels have been documented in wells throughout the Klamath Falls area. It is 1357 concluded that the detected arsenic is not FUDS related. The estimated perchlorate concentration 1358

of 0.0861 �g/L detected in the SI sample is below the DoD action level of 24 �g/L. 1359


8-1

8.0 Recommendations 1360

Results of the SI provide the basis for conclusions and/or recommendations for further actions at 1361 the Range Complex. 1362

In accordance with FUDS Program guidance, recommendations are provided for the range(s) 1363 identified in the MMRP Range Inventory. As summarized in Section 7.0, the inventory 1364 identifies a single range at the Kingsley Firing Range, Range Complex No. 1, with an area of 87 1365 acres. This SI provides recommendations for Range Complex No. 1 considering the findings 1366 from all three AOCs that were evaluated (Rifle Range, Rocket Range and Disposal Area) and 1367 recommends that the area of the range included in the MMRP Inventory should be increased to 1368 include the complete area of the range fans shown in the ASR Supplement (USACE, 2004b). 1369

The risk for potential MEC at the Rifle Range and Rocket Range is considered to be low based 1370 on no reports being found or visual observations of MEC during the SI and historical use for 1371 small arms and practice rockets. The MEC risk for the Disposal Range is considered to be low 1372 for the surface exposure because no MEC has been reported or MEC was observed during the SI 1373 visual reconnaissance. The MEC risk for the Disposal Range is considered moderate for the 1374 subsurface because there is a possibility that discarded military munitions were intentionally or 1375 unintentionally buried beneath the surface; however, a subsurface investigation has not been 1376 conducted. Therefore, based on historical evidence and results from the SI field activities, there 1377 is a potential for MEC at Range Complex No. 1. A recommendation for RI/FS for evaluation of 1378 MEC hazard is made for Range Complex No. 1. 1379

Concentrations of MC exceeding human health screening values were found in samples from the 1380 Rifle Range impact berm and the Disposal Range. Based on these results and the decision 1381 criteria established by TPP, a recommendation for RI/FS for evaluation of MC is made for Range 1382 Complex No. 1. 1383

8.1 Munitions Response Site 1384

Results of the SI field activities provide the basis for identifying MRSs and, as appropriate, 1385 munitions response areas (MRAs) and for scoring each MRS using the MRSPP. An MRA is any 1386 area on a defense site that is known or suspected to contain MEC or MC, and may contain one or 1387 more MRS. 1388

Based on the use and physical distribution of the AOCs at the Kingsley Firing Range Annex, one 1389 MRS, the Range Complex, has been identified (Figure 8-1). In the MMRP Inventory 1390 (DoD, 2007), there is a discrepancy between the acreage of the range (Range Complex) 1391 boundary presented in a table (87 acres) and the acreage presented in Plate No. R01 1392 (1,352 acres). The acreage of the Range Complex should be increased from 87 acres to 1393


8-2

approximately 1,352 acres to include the three sub-ranges and their associated range fans, which 1394 overlap. 1395

Sub-Range Name Sub-Range ID Approximate Area (acres)


Rifle Range F10OR0569-SR01 1259 X: 604306

Y: 4679492

Rocket Range F10OR0569-SR02 410 X: 604442

Y: 4679191

Disposal Range F10OR0569-SR03 13 X: 604412

Y: 4679097

Coordinates for the sub-ranges are in UTM, Zone 10, NAD83. 1396


9-1

9.0 References 1397

32 CFR 179.3 (Code of Federal Regulation Title 32, Part 179). 2007. Munitions Response Site 1398 Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP). Website: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html. 1399 Washington, D.C. August 22. 1400

40 CFR 300 (Code of Federal Regulation Title 40, Part 300). 2006. National Oil and 1401 Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. Website: 1402 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html. Washington, D.C. October 4. 1403

70 FR 58016 (Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 192, page 58016). Rules and Regulations – 1404 Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol, Preamble. Codified 32 CFR Part 179. 1405 October 5, 2005. 1406

70 FR 58028 (Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 192, page 58028). Munitions Response Site 1407 Prioritization Protocol, Final Rule. Codified 32 CFR Part 179. October 5, 2005. 1408

10 USC 101 (U.S. Code Title 10, Part 101). 2004. Chapter 1 – Definitions, Sec. 101 1409 Definitions. U.S. Government Printing Office. Website: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-1410 bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC101. January 20. 1411

10 USC 2701 et seq. (U.S. Code Title 10, Part 2701). 2004. Chapter 160 – Environmental 1412 Restoration, Sec. 2701 Environmental restoration program. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1413 Website: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-1414 bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC2701. January 20. 1415

10 USC 2710 et seq. (U.S. Code Title 10, Part 2710). 2005. Chapter 160 – Environmental 1416 Restoration, Sec. 2710 Inventory of unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and 1417 munitions constituents at defense sites (other than operational ranges). U.S. Government 1418 Printing Office. Website: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-1419 bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=33328023600+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve. January 3. 1420

42 USC 9601 (U.S. Code Title 42, Part 9601). 2003. Hazardous Substances Releases, Liability, 1421 and Compensation. U.S. Government Printing Office. Website: 1422 http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-1423 bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=209840153119+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve. January 7. 1424

ASTM International (ASTM). 2007. ASTM E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Environmental 1425 Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 1426

City of Klamath Falls, 2008. Personal Communication between Shaw and City of Klamath 1427 Falls, Oregon, Water Division regarding domestic water supply, March 18. 1428


9-2

Department of Defense (DoD). 2001. Management Guidance for the Defense Environmental 1429 Restoration Program. September. 1430

Department of Defense (DoD). 2007. Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to 1431 Congress Fiscal Year 2007, MMRP Inventory. Website: http://deparc.xservices.com/do/home. 1432

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2007. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck®, 1433 Kingsley Firing Range AAF, Klamath Falls, OR. March 20. 1434

ESRI. 2006. StreetMap 2006 database distributed with ArcGIS software. ESRI, 380 New York 1435 Street, Redlands, California. Website: http://www.esri.com/. 1436

Executive Order 12580. 1987. Superfund Implementation. 52 FR 2923. January 23. Website: 1437 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12580.html. 1438

Executive Order 13016. 1996. Amendment to Executive Order No. 12580. 61 FR 45871. 1439 August, 28, 1996. Website: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-1440 orders/1996.html. 1441

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2006. Groundwater Quality Report for 1442 the Klamath Basin, Oregon. July. 1443

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), 2007. Oregon Threatened and Endangered 1444 Species List. Website: 1445 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/threatened_endangered_species.asp. 1446 Queried October 2007. 1447

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC). 2007. Rare, Threatened and 1448 Endangered Species of Oregon. Oregon State University, Portland Oregon. March 2007. 1449 Website: http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/. 1450

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 2007. Letter from D. Griffin (OR SHPO) to 1451 L. Stahl (Shaw). Subject: SHPO Case No. 07-2297 Cold Springs Bombing Range/Kingsley 1452 Firing Range Annex; Searching for Presence of Military Munitions. September, 19. 1453

Oregon Water Resources Department. 2003. Well Log Reports, T38S, R9E, Sections 9-16 and 1454 21-24. 1455

Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw). 2006. Final Type I Work Plan, Site Inspections at Multiple 1456 Sites, NWO Region, Formerly Used Defense Sites, Military Munitions Response Program. 1457 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. February. 1458

Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw). 2007a. Final Technical Project Planning Memorandum, 1459 Kingsley Firing Range Annex, FUDS Property No. F10OR0569. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps 1460 of Engineers. July. 1461


9-3

Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw). 2007b. Final Site-Specific Work Plan, Kingsley Firing Range 1462 Annex, FUDS Property No. F10OR0569. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October. 1463

Sherrod. 1991. Geologic Map of a part of the Cascade Range between latitudes 43º - 44º, 1464 Central Oregon: USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1891, scale 1:125,000. 1465

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1993. DERP-FUDS Inventory Project Report, 1466 Kingsley Firing Range Annex, Klamath Falls, OR. October. 1467

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1995. Archives Search Report, Findings, Kingsley 1468 Firing Range Annex, Klamath Falls, Oregon, Project No. F10OR056901. September. 1469

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004a. Defense Environmental Restoration Program 1470 (DERP) Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program Policy. Engineering Regulation 1471 200-3-1. May 10. 1472

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004b. Archives Search Report Supplement, Kingsley 1473 Firing Range Annex, Klamath Falls, Oregon. November 26. 1474

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Military 1475 Munitions Response Program (MMRP) Site Inspections, Program Management Plan. February. 1476

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessments 1477 for FUDS MMRP Site Inspections. Prepared by USACE Hazardous, Toxic, or Radioactive 1478 Wastes CX. August 11. 1479

U.S. Census. 2000. Website: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 1480

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water 1481 Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Interim Final Guidance. Office of Solid Waste, Waste 1482 Management Division, EPA/530/SW-89/026. July. 1483

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water 1484 Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Addendum to Interim Final Guidance. Environmental 1485 Statistics and Information Division, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, EPA/530/R-1486 93/003. July. 1487

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Statistical Methods for Evaluating the 1488 Attainment of Cleanup Standards. Environmental Statistics and Information Division, Office of 1489 Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, EPA/230/R-94/004. June. 1490

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Determination of Background 1491 Concentrations of Inorganics in Soils and Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of 1492 Research and Development, EPA/540/S-96/500. December. 1493


9-4

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for 1494 Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecologic I Risk Assessments. EPA 540-R-97-1495 006, OSWER Directive # 9285.7-25. June. 1496

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program 1497 National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. OSWER 9240.1-05A-P. 1498 EPA540/R-99/008. Washington, D.C. October. 1499

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004a. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program 1500 National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review. Final. OSWER 9240.1-45. 1501 EPA540-R-04-004. Washington, D.C. October. 1502

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004b. Kingsley Firing Range Annex, Formerly 1503 Used Defense Site, Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Report. TDD: 01-08-0006. 1504 December. 1505

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006a. Data Quality Assessment: Statistical 1506 Methods for Practitioners. Office of Environmental Information, EPA/240/B-06/003. February. 1507

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006b. 2006 Edition of the Drinking Water 1508 Standards and Health Advisories. Office of Water, EPA 822-R-06-013. Washington, D.C. 1509 August. 1510

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Federally Listed, 1511 Proposed, Candidate, Delisted Species and Species of Concern. Website: 1512 http://www.fws.gov/oregonfws/species/lists/defaul.asp. Queried October 2007. 1513

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Scientific Investigation Report 1007-5050. Website: 1514 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5050/figure34.html. Queried May 2008. 1515

Documents

DRAFT FINAL SITE INSPECTION REPORT