FIO - SPP1_WS9_meetingminutes MRS01.MRS05.pdf

Systematic Project Planning (SPP) Meeting 1 Planning Sessions #1 and #2

Borrego Springs MRS 01 – Area E-1 Naval Impact Area (J09CA701103) and MRS 05 – Borrego Target #64 (J09CA701105)

February 11, 2021 @ 1300 PST

Attendees:

USACE

Roland (Randy) Tabije – FUDS Program Manager, LA District Suneeta Sahgal – Program Manager, LA District Forough Firouzi – Project Manager, LA District Janice Opperman – Civil Engineer, LA District Emily Lester – Biologist, LA District Mark Jones – Toxicologist, Sacramento District Jim Lukasko – Environmental Engineer, Sacramento District Cheryl Webster – Geologist/Geophysicist, Albuquerque District Terra Salamida – Environmental Engineer, Sacramento District Hannah Rickertsen – Geophysicist, Sacramento District

DTSC

Eileen Mananian – Unit Chief, Site Mitigation and Restoration Program Sara Michael – Environmental Scientist

Meeting Notes:

Cheryl Webster began the meeting by introducing that Borrego is the first Task Order (TO) that will be awarded on the newly solicited Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) out of LA District. It was decided to combine MRS 01 and MRS 05 because they are both in the Remedial Investigation (RI) phase of the CERCLA process, they are geographically close together and both within the Borrego Maneuver Area.

Cheryl introduced the project team and reviewed the agenda, highlighting the objectives of Planning Sessions #1 and #2, which are to review relevant site information and history and go through the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Steps 1-4. She explained that the MR-QAPP Module 1 Toolkit will be utilized (updated April 2020), which was developed by the Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF) to assist in effective project planning and outlines the SPP process. Cheryl pointed out that there is a MR- QAPP Toolkit Webinar that was developed by USACE to provide an overview of the process and it is archived for review.

Cheryl explained that the meeting today will be going through DQO Steps 1-4 (Planning Session 1 goes through Steps 1 and 2, and Planning Session 2 goes through Steps 3 and 4), and once there is a contractor then there will be an additional planning sessions to go through DQO Steps 5 and 6. It was noted that the SPP process is meant to be flexible and involve all parties throughout the project.

MRS 01 – Area E-1 Naval Impact Area

MRS 01 is in the northwest corner of the Borrego Maneuver Area, which is the FUDS Eligible Boundary and encompasses and area of about 400 square miles in San Diego County. MRS 01 is 5,580 aces that is part of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

There is a long list of potential munitions, ranging from small arms up to 250-lb bombs and 5-in rockets.

Previous Investigations include the INPR (1994), ASR (1997), Aerial Photo Analysis for RI/FS (2006 – prior to the pending RI/FS), Draft Final Work Plan for the whole Borrego Maneuver Area (2006 – didn’t happen due to funding limitations), ASR Supplement (2008), and an SI (2011) that consisted of almost 30 miles of qualitative reconnaissance (QR) and collection of 14 soil samples. There was no MEC found during SI field activities, but lots of MD observed that could be an indicator for MEC. An RI was recommended for MRS 01.

The SI resulted in an updated CSM that identified potentially complete pathways for site workers, visitors/recreational users, and ecological receptors.

MRS 05 – Borrego Target #64

MRS 05 is southeast of MRS 01, in the south-central portion of the Borrego Maneuver Area. MRS 05 is 1,460 acres, with the majority of the MRS located in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park and the remainder controlled by the Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area.

The list of potential munitions ranges from small arms up to 250-lb bombs and 5-in rocket.

Previous investigations include Historical Dedudding Operations (1956 – which was basically surface sweeping identifying flares and related decontamination operations), INPR (1994), ASR (1997), PA (2004), ASR Supplement (2004), Aerial Photo Analysis for RI/FS (2006 – prior to the pending RI/FS), Draft Final Work Plan for the whole Borrego Maneuver Area (2006 – didn’t happen due to funding limitations), and an SI (2011) that consisted of around 10 miles of QR and collection of 14 soil samples.

There was no MEC found during SI field activities, but lots of MD observed that could be an indicator for MEC. An RI was recommended for MRS 05.

The SI resulted in an updated CSM that identified potentially complete pathways for site workers, visitors/recreational users, and ecological receptors.

Cheryl summarized that due to both MRS 01 and MRS 05 having the same munitions types and the same history/era they were combined into one project. She then provided an overview of DQO Steps 1-4:

Step 1: state problem - lots of MD identified, indicating potential presence of MEC and MC and residual explosive hazards.

Cheryl highlighted that the problem to be addressed during the RI is to investigate the nature and extend of MEC and MC and see if a Feasibility Study (FS) is required.

Step 2: identify the goals - principal study questions for MEC and MC will be further defined in the QAPP.

Cheryl provided an overview of the main goals: what are the nature and extent of explosive hazards, is MC present above background and does it pose unacceptable risk, and to collect sufficient data to support accurate cost estimating.

Step 3: identify information inputs – what are the data needs?

Cheryl explained the need to establish background density, target density (HUA), information needed to establish exposure potential for both MEC and MC, and information needed to support FS.

Step 4: define the boundaries – what is the geographical boundary of the project?

Cheryl described looking at target populations of MEC and MD (which serves as an indicator of potential MEC hazards and MC contamination). The boundaries are drawn from historical information and previous investigations. The vertical boundary is dependent on site specific conditions and will be determined during the RI.

SPP Meeting 2 (Planning Sessions #3 and #4, which can be combined or can be separate, depends on the contractor) will take place after award.

Planning Session #3 – DQO step 5 and 6

Planning Session #4 – DQO step 7

Cheryl explained that once the contract is awarded and there is a contractor identified, will then get the public and other stakeholders involved. She then reviewed the schedule, pointing out that at this time there is not a concrete schedule, but the goal is to have a contractor before end of the FY. The first work would be related to biological and cultural resources management, followed by SPP Meeting 2 and submission of the Draft QAPP.

Cheryl provided a safety reminder to follow the 3 Rs of Explosive Safety: Recognize, Retreat, Report.

There were no questions.

Cheryl mentioned that the Project Manager for this project is Kay Chang, who is new to the LA FUDS Program and was not able to join the meeting. Cheryl asked Randy for an update on the schedule of award, which he stated would be advertised tomorrow, February 12, 2021. Because of the MATOC there will probably be a longer period before award, and Cheryl provided an estimate that the earliest award date would most likely be in July, emphasizing that DTSC most likely will not see any related communication until August or September of 2021.

The meeting Ended at 1335 PST.

Remedial Investigation

Borrego Springs MRS 01 – Area E-1 Naval Impact Area (J09CA701103) and MRS 05 – Borrego Target

#64 (J09CA701105)

Borrego Springs, CA

Systematic Project Planning (SPP) Meeting 1

Kay Chang FUDS Project Manager

February 2021

MRS 05MRS 01

AGC Advanced Geophysical Classification ABDSP Anza-Borrego Desert State Park BLM Bureau of Land Management CSM Conceptual Site Model DGM Digital Geophysical Mapping DQO Data Quality Objective DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DUA Data Usability Assessment FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites HD High Density HUA High-use Area IDQTF Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force lb pound MC Munitions Constituent MD Munitions Debris MEC Munitions and Explosives of Concern mm millimeter MPC Measurement Performance Criteria MRA Munitions Response Area MR-QAPP Munitions Response Quality Assurance Project Plan MRS Munitions Response Site

ACRONYMS

OWSVRA Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROE Right-of-Entry SI Site Inspection SLERA Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment SLHHRA Screening-Level Human Health Risk Assessment SPP Systematic Project Planning TOI Target of Interest UFP-QAPP Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers UXO Unexploded Ordnance VSP Visual Sample Plan

PROJECT TEAM

USACE

• FUDS Project Manager: Kay Chang

• Technical Lead: Hannah Rickertsen and Terra Salamida

• Ordnance and Explosives Safety Specialist: Jim Hug

• Environmental Engineer: James Lukasko

• Geology/Geophysics: Cheryl Webster

• Risk Assessor: Mark Jones

• Biologist: Emily Lester

• Archeologist: Meg McDonald

• Quality Assurance/Quality Control Chemist: Jonathan Whipple

Subcontractor - TBD

Regulators

• DTSC

PROJECT TEAM

Subcontractor

• Project Manager: TBD

Stakeholders

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM): TBD

• California State Parks: TBD

• California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC): Sara Michael

AGENDA

Introduction of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Project Team and

Stakeholders Process Overview for FUDS Requirements and Guidance Summary Planning Sessions #1 and #2 Objectives MRS Location, Site Layout, and Site Access MRS Site Details Summary of Potential Munitions and Previous Investigations Conceptual Site Model (CSM) Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Steps 1 - 4

SPP Meeting 2 – Planning Sessions #3 and #4 Objectives Public Meeting Information Project Schedule Safety Reminder, Closing Remarks, and Questions

PROCESS OVERVIEW FOR FUDS

Project is currently at this stage

Revised guidance for planning meetings and preparation of Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Munitions Response (MR)-QAPP Module 1 Toolkit (April 2020) Developed by the Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF) to assist project teams in planning for the characterization and remediation of Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) at Department of Defense installations and FUDS

Based on requirements and guidance as follows

UFP-QAPP (IDQTF, 2005)

Makes use of the Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets (IDQTF, 2012) Employs the SPP process to illustrate scientifically sound approaches to site characterization and/or site remediation MR-QAPP Toolkit Webinar (February 2019) Developed by USACE to provide an overview of process Outlined project planning process

REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE SUMMARY

Revised guidance for planning meetings and preparation of QAPP The SPP process incorporates a series of meetings (Planning Sessions) to develop the seven-step

DQO process

Step 1 – State the Problem

Step 2 – Identify the Goals of the Study

Step 3 – Identify Information Inputs

Step 4 – Define the Boundaries of the Study

Step 5 – Develop the Decision Rules

Step 6 – Specify Project-specific Measurement Performance Criteria and Performance/Acceptance Criteria

Step 7 – Develop the Plan for Obtaining Data

*Note: Multiple planning sessions may be combined into a single meeting

Revised guidance for planning meetings and preparation of QAPP SPP Meetings #5 and #6 focus on revisions to sample design

SPP Meeting #5 – Revise sample design (High Density Area Characterization)

SPP Meeting #6 (if needed) – Revise sample design (Low Density Area Characterization)

Per the MR-QAPP Toolkit, the SPP process is flexible and should be modified as necessary based on contracting practices and project-specific requirements; for example, planning sessions may be consolidated

The Borrego Springs MRS 01 and MRS 05 will follow the SPP process, and a UFP-QAPP will be prepared based on both the Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets and the MR-QAPP Module 1 Toolkit

PLANNING SESSION OBJECTIVES

Planning Session #1 Summary of Previous Investigations, including Site Inspection (SI)

Results/Conclusions Review SI CSM Output: MR-QAPP Worksheet #10 - CSM Define Objectives Output: MR-QAPP Worksheet #11 – DQO Steps 1 and 2

Planning Session #2 Determine Data Needs and Intended Use of Data Outputs: MR-QAPP Worksheet #11 – DQO Steps 3 and 4

MRS 01 – AREA E-1 NAVAL IMPACT AREA

• Located in northeastern San Diego County, California, in the Anza- Borrego Desert, approximately 0.5 miles north of County Highway S22 and 6 miles northeast of Borrego Springs, California

• MRS 01 is 5,580 acres, situated on undeveloped desert land and occupies nearly all of the area of Clark Dry Lake

• Site was used from 1943 to 1955 by the Navy as an outlying field or emergency landing field, although its primary function was as a target for practice bombing

• Site was transferred to the state of California and incorporated into the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park in the late 1980s

MRS 01 – AREA E-1 NAVAL IMPACT AREA

Munitions known or suspected to have been used at MRS01 include:

Cartridge, .30 Caliber;

Cartridge, .50 Caliber;

Cartridge, 20mm, Ball, MkI;

Cartridge, 20mm, Armor Piercing-Tracer (AP-T), M95;

Cartridge, 20mm, Target Practice (TP), M21A1, M99;

Cartridge, 37mm;

Cartridge, 90mm, High Explosive-Tracer (HE-T), M71A1;

Bomb, 3 lb., Miniature Practice, AN-Mk5, ANMk23;

Bomb, 4.5 lb., Miniature Practice, AN-Mk43;

Bomb, 100 lb., Practice, Mk15 Series and M38A2;

Bomb, 100 lb., Photoflash, M46;

Bomb, 250 lb., Practice, Mk86, AN-M57;

Rocket, Aircraft, 2.25-inch Sub-caliber Aircraft Rocket (SCAR), Mk1, Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Mk6;

Rocket, High-Velocity Aircraft Rocket (HVAR), High Explosive, Anti- Tank (HEAT), 5-inch;

Dynamite, Military, M1.

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL MUNITIONS – MRS 01

No MEC were observed within MRS 01 during SI field effort

MD observed at MRS 01 include:

.30 caliber projectiles .50 caliber links, cartridge cases, and projectiles 20mm link and projectiles 37mm fragment 90mm fragment 3-lb practice bomb debris 4.5-lb practice bomb debris 100-lb practice bomb debris 250-lb practice bomb debris M1A1 spotting charge debris

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL MUNITIONS – MRS 01

1994 Inventory Project Report (INPR) The INPR established the Borrego Springs sites as a FUDS, established the preliminary site boundary, and determined that the site was eligible for the FUDS Program. MD observed included the corroded remains of 6-inch and 100-lb practice bombs and 20mm shells.

1997 Archive Search Report (ASR) MD from practice bombs, spotting charges, and .50 caliber bullets were observed.

An interviewee stated that the area was used by the Navy as a bombing and strafing target.

2006 Aerial Photo Analysis for RI/FS MRS 01 was also known as 11th Naval District Target 65, which was described as having the following facilities: Bombing (High Altitude Horizontal and Dive) Target (with strafing); three concentric circles with 50, 100, and 200-foot radii; Rake Station; Air to Ground Rocket Target; and Emergency Landing Field.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

2006 Draft Final Work Plan Borrego Maneuver Area Due to funding limitations, USACE removed the site from the RI/FS to assess the site under the MMRP SI project.

The Work Plan recorded several historical MEC observations that included small arms ammunition, bombs, and practice bombs. The single MEC observation recorded in the ASR is considered the only MEC observation to date at Borrego Springs - Clark’s Dry Lake. Documentation of additional MEC items in the RI/FS Work Plan is considered inaccurate.

2008 Archives Search Report Supplement The ASR Supplement established MRS01 – Area E-1 Naval Impact Area at the

Borrego Springs – Clark’s Dry Lake site, calculated the MRS acreage, identified munitions thought to have been used at the MRS, and reported a RAC score.

The 2011 SI evaluation included conducting approximately 29.8 miles of QR and collection of 14 surface soil samples. No MEC were observed within MRS01 during the SI field effort; however, a large quantity of MD were observed. MD were observed during site visits in support of the INPR and ASR.

The SLHHRA determined that a potential human health risk may exist due to exposure to lead in surface soil at MRS01.

The SLERA determined that a potential ecological risk may exist at the site due to exposure to barium, copper, lead and zinc in surface soil.

Based on this information, an RI is recommended for MRS01 – Area E-1 Naval Impact Area.

SI SUMMARY AND RESULTS – MRS 01

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL – MRS 01

CSM for potential MEC and MC exposure pathways are based on historical findings and the findings of the SI and will be refined throughout the RI process, as required

Current/Future Receptors Commercial or industrial workers (park personnel), and site visitors or recreational users may be exposed to MC/MEC through direct contact with soil/munitions Current/Future Land Use Current land use includes local residents and the general public use for recreational activities The reasonably anticipated future land use is expected to remain the same as the current land use According to the SI Report, a potential human health risk may exist due to exposure to lead in the surface soil; and a potential ecological health risk may exist due to exposure to barium, copper, lead, and zinc in surface soil.

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL – MRS 01

MRS 05 – BORREGO TARGET #64

• MRS 05 Borrego Target #64 is located approximately 12 miles East- Southeast of Borrego Springs, California, in San Diego County.

• MRS 05 is 1,460 acres, also known as Borrego Springs - Military Wash

• The Navy used the target for practice bombing, strafing, and rocketry between 1943 and 1945 and between 1949 and 1953.

• MRS 05 is located on undeveloped desert land owned by the State of California, with the majority under the control of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park (ABDSP) and the remainder controlled by Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area (OWSVRA).

MRS 05 – BORREGO TARGET #64

Munitions known or suspected to have been used at MRS05 include:

Cartridge, .50 Caliber Cartridge, 20mm, Ball, MkI Cartridge, 20mm, Armor Piercing-Tracer (AP-T), M95 Cartridge, 20mm, Target Practice (TP), M99 Cartridge, 40mm, high explosive incendiary-tracer, self destruct (HEI-T, SD), MkII Cartridge, 90mm, high explosive-tracer (HE-T), M71A1 Bomb, 3 pound (lb), Miniature Practice, ANMk5 and AN-Mk23 Bomb, 4.5-lb, Miniature Practice, AN-Mk43 Bomb, 100-lb, Practice, Mk15 Series and M38A2 Bomb, 100-lb, Photoflash, M46 Bomb, 250-lb, Practice, Mk86 Flare, Aircraft, Parachute, M8 and M9 Rocket, Aircraft, 2.25-inch, Sub-caliber Aircraft Rocket (SCAR);

High-Velocity Aircraft Rocket (HVAR), High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT), 5-inch Grenade, Hand, Smoke, White Phosphorous (WP), M15

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL MUNITIONS – MRS 05

No MEC were observed within MRS 05 during SI field effort

MD observed at MRS 05 include:

.50 caliber links, cartridge cases, and projectiles 20mm links, a cartridge case, and thousands of projectiles 100-lb practice bomb debris, M38 and Mk15 miniature practice bomb debris, Mk5 and Mk23 2.25-inch SCAR rocket debris and rocket igniters flare, M8 smoke grenade, M15 unidentifiable metal fragments (presumably from

90mm projectiles)

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL MUNITIONS – MRS 05

Historical Dedudding Operations The Navy began decontamination in September 1953, and on January 22, 1954, certificates of decontamination were issued to private landowners within a 4,500-foot radius of the target. A Naval Speed Letter, dated 1953, suggests that the site had been decontaminated sometime prior to April 30,1945. Reportedly, the clearance team observed large numbers of .50 caliber and 20mm inert projectiles.

1994 Inventory Project Report (INPR) The INPR established the Borrego Springs sites as a FUDS, established the preliminary site boundary, and determined that the site was eligible for the FUDS Program. 100-lb and 250-lb practice bomb debris and .50 caliber and 20mm tank penetrating rounds observed during the site visit.

1997 Archive Search Report (ASR) MD observations included rocket and practice rocket fragments and debris;

practice bomb debris and spotting charge debris; a significant amount of 20mm and .50 caliber bullets; and the remains of two expended 40mm MkII HE-T projectile tracer and igniter elements. No MEC was observed.

Commonly found items include 3-lb Mk23 practice bombs (no spotting charges), 20mm projectiles, and .50 caliber bullets according to one interviewee. Three 100-lb photoflash bombs were found in the area and destroyed.

Infrastructure observed included a fallen metallic platform located in Fault Wash, (suggested that this may have been a floating dock); a mile long wooden track/bed; a hill/berm north of the target area measuring approximately 30 to 40 feet high and extending the length of the track/bed (presumed to stop projectiles that missed the targets); one concentric circle bombing target; and three vehicular strafing/rocket targets.

2004 Preliminary Assessment Observed MD included .50 caliber links and projectiles; practice bombs and spotting charge debris; 20mm practice projectiles and links; and the motor tube from a 2.25-inch practice rocket.

The site visit team also observed the remains of empty artillery ammunition boxes placed every two feet, stretched for approximately one mile and were considered a simulated railroad used for strafing. Two collapsed rake stations were observed.

The PA reported confirmed MEC presence based on two 5-inch rocket warheads found in 1996.

2004 Archives Search Report Supplement The ASR Supplement evaluated the 1,460-acre site regarding munitions use.

MRS 05 was established, a RAC was assigned, and the munitions likely to have been used at MRS 05 were reported. Due to the history of the site, it is likely that there are additional munitions.

2006 Aerial Photo Analysis for RI/FS Description of facilities for MRS 05 includes Borrego Wash Target, Bombing (High

Altitude Horizontal & Dive) Target (with strafing) and airplane silhouette (not observed in the Aerial Photo Analysis); Rake Station; and Air to Ground Rocket Target; two concentric rings of 150 and 300 feet in diameter; and three objects that may be floating docks in Fault Wash.

2006 Draft Final Work Plan Borrego Maneuver Area Due to funding limitations, USACE removed the site from the RI/FS to assess the site under the MMRP SI project.

The Work Plan recorded several historical MEC observations that included small arms ammunition, rockets, bombs, and practice bombs; however, it was later determined that these items were incorrectly identified as MEC.

The 2011 SI evaluation included conduct of approximately 9.4 miles of QR and collection of 14 surface soil samples. No MEC were observed within MRS 05 during the SI field effort; however, a large quantity of MD were observed. MD were observed during site visits in support of the INPR and ASR.

Based on the analytical results presented in the SI, an unacceptable risk to human health cannot be ruled out as a result of exposure to lead in surface soil at MRS 05 but is unlikely.

There is also a possible unacceptable risk to ecological receptors due to exposure to copper, lead, and zinc in surface soil at MRS 05.

Based on this information, an RI is recommended for MRS 05 – Borrego Target #64.

SI SUMMARY AND RESULTS – MRS 05

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL – MRS 05

CSM for potential MEC and MC exposure pathways are based on historical findings and the findings of the SI and will be refined throughout the RI process, as required Current/Future Receptors Commercial or industrial workers (ABDSP and OWSVRA personnel), site visitors, or recreational users may be exposed to MC/MEC through direct contact with soil/munitions

Current/Future Land Use Current land use includes local residents and the general public use for recreational activities The reasonably anticipated future land use is expected to remain the same as the current land use According to the SI Report, an unacceptable risk to human health may exist due to exposure to lead in the surface soil (but is unlikely); and an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors may exist due to exposure to copper, lead, and zinc in surface soil.

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL – MRS 05

Define Objectives DQO Step 1: State the Problem Previous investigations have indicated that MEC (including artillery, rockets

[practice and live], and bombs [practice and live]) are present at MRS 01 and MRS 05, resulting from their use between 1943 and 1955 as a training facility

These materials may present an unacceptable risk from explosive hazards to current and anticipated future land users

The problem to be addressed during the RI is investigate the nature and extent of explosive hazards (i.e., MEC) and MC at MRS 01 and MRS 05, in order to determine how best to address the elimination or minimization of the potential for encountering residual explosive hazards and/or MC by the public in a feasibility study (if necessary).

DQO STEPS 1 - 4

DQO Step 2: Identify the Goals of Data Collection Principal Study Questions for MEC What are the nature and extent of explosive hazards at the MRS (i.e., presence of

MEC and density of MD)?

What are the horizontal boundaries of HUAs, LUAs, and NEUs?

Within each HUA (if found) what is the vertical distribution of sources?

What current and potential future threats may be posed to human receptors by

MEC remaining at the sites?

What are the alternative actions for mitigating current and potential threats (if identified) posed by MEC remaining at the sites?

DQO Step 2: Identify the Goals of Data Collection Principal Study Questions for MC What are the potential sources of MC at the sites and, if present, are they related to historical site activities?

What current and potential future threats may be posed to human and ecological receptors by MC remaining at the sites?

What are the alternative actions for mitigating current and potential threats (if identified) posed by MC remaining at the site?

DQO Step 2: Identify the Goals of Data Collection Goals for MRS 01 and MRS 05 Determine if MEC presents a potential hazard to human receptors Determine if MC is present above background levels (metals) and at concentrations that pose a potentially unacceptable risk/hazard to human and/or ecological receptors (metals and explosives)

Collect sufficient data to support accurate cost estimating for remedial activities presented in the FS

Determine Data Needs and Intended Use DQO Step 3: Identify Information Inputs Information needed to establish presence/absence of MEC and MC and characterize potential hazard

• Background density of MEC, target area density (HD areas), type/distribution of MEC

• Source locations for MC and background levels for metals

Information needed to establish exposure potential for both MEC and MC

• Current/future land use, receptors, and exposure scenarios

Information needed to support the FS, if necessary

• Anomaly density in HD areas to estimate cost effectiveness and practicality of alternatives

• Distribution of MC to estimate cost for soil removal, if needed

Determine Data Needs and Intended Use DQO Step 4: Define the Boundaries of the Project The target population includes military ordnance used or discarded at the MRSs, including UXO and discarded military munitions. The target population also includes MD, which serves as an indicator of potential MEC hazards and MC contamination

The study area encompasses the entire geographical boundary of each MRS, which was developed based on a review of the historical data and the previous investigations, all of which indicated past military training activity occurred within the areas

The horizontal boundaries of the project are defined by the boundary of each MRS The vertical boundary for the RI will be based on site specific conditions and will be determined during RI field activities

SPP Meeting 2 Planning Session will be as follows (location and date TBD):

Planning Session #3 Develop technical approach Output: MR-QAPP Worksheet #11 – DQO Steps 5 and 6 Develop Measurement Performance Criteria (MPC) Output: MR-QAPP Worksheet #12 – MPCs

Planning Session #4 RI Approach Output: MR-QAPP Worksheet #11 – DQO Step 7 Output: MR-QAPP Worksheet #17 – Survey Design and Project Work Flow Output: MR-QAPP Worksheet #22 – Equipment Testing, Testing Inspection and Quality

Control

SPP MEETING 2 – PLANNING SESSIONS #3 AND #4

Public Information and Stakeholder Meeting(s) Hosted by USACE with Consultant support Provide information to general public History of site Military Munitions Response Program and FUDS information Munitions awareness and educational materials (Fact sheets, Posters, 3Rs [Recognize, Retreat, and Report]) Tentative fieldwork schedule How the RI results/data will be used Reporting

Meeting location(s) and date(s) to be determined Stakeholder Meeting will include property owners and will be scheduled concurrent with the review of the UFP-QAPP by DTSC Public Information Meeting may be scheduled for the evening prior to initiating fieldwork

PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER MEETING INFORMATION

Feb 2021– SPP Meeting 1 TBD– Biological and Cultural Resources Work Plans review TBD – SPP Meeting 2 TBD – Draft UFP-QAPP, USACE review TBD – Biological and Cultural Resources Initial Surveys TBD – Draft Final UFP-QAPP Review, Stakeholder review TBD – Stakeholder Meeting and Public Availability Meeting TBD – Final UFP-QAPP TBD – RI fieldwork mobilization (dependent on biological concerns and rainy season) TBD – MRS RI Report TBD – MRS FS Report TBD – MRS Proposed Plan TBD – MRS Decision Document

SCHEDULE

Sgt. Woof

SAFETY REMINDER

Follow the 3Rs of Explosives Safety:

Recognize:

when you may have encountered a munition and that munitions are dangerous.

Retreat:

do not approach, touch, move or disturb it, but carefully leave the area.

Report:

call 911 and advise the police of what you saw and where you saw it.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

If you think of anything else that may be appropriate for this project, please contact the following people:

Kay Chang FUDS Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Phone: 315-263-8746 Kay.W.Chang-Minami@usace.army.mil