Amendment No. 0001_W912PP21R0008.pdf

0001 04/22/2021

US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALBUQUERQUE CORPS

OF ENGINEERS

6200 JEFFERSON PLAZA STREET NE

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87109-3435

W912PP21R0008

03/26/2021

X X

PROJECT: Multiple Environmental Government Acquisition (MEGA) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) For Environmental Remediation Services (ERS) in Support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) South Pacific Division

1. This is Amendment No 0001 Solicitation No. W912PP21R0008; 22 April 2021. The following revisions shall be incorporated into the solicitation. All other provisions shall remain unchanged.

1 65

W912PP21R0008

Amendment No. 0001

2. Delete the following listed pages and substitute the pages attached hereto. On the revised pages, for convenience, changes are emphasized by STRIKETHROUGH for deletions and UNDERLINE for additions from the previous issue. All portions of the revised (or new) pages shall apply whether or not changes have been indicated.

Delete Page Insert Page

Discipline Schedule Hourly Labor Rates – Excel Attachment

Pages 19 and 34 of 246 Pages 19 and 34 of 246

Page 128 of 246 Page 128 of 246

B – Draft UFP QAPP B – Draft UFP QAPP

Section M – Proposal Submission Requirements, Section M – Proposal Submission Evaluation Criteria, and Basis for Award Requirements, Evaluation Criteria, and

Basis for Award sold by the Contractor, subcontractor, or associates without written permission from the KO. All materials supplied to the Government shall be the sole property of the Government and may not be used for any other purpose. This right does not abrogate any other Government rights.

1.19 Ordering To clarify the contract clause "Ordering" the following shall apply.

1.19.1 Services for each Task Order may be requested in writing, including requests made via email.

Inquiries for expressions of interest regarding Task Order Requests for Proposals (RFP) will be issued by the KO or authorized representative(s). Any type of inquiry or discussion shall not be interpreted as a Notice to Proceed (NTP) with the work.

1.19.2 The Government’s RFP for individual Task Orders will delineate (1) general scope work; (2) location of work; (3) character and extent of services; (4) technical requirements which supplement or complement those contained in this section of this basic contract; (5) Key Personnel specific to the Task Order, (6) time period(s) within which the work must be performed, and (7) specific deliverable items.

1.19.3 Contractors will be given a fair opportunity to be considered for each Task Order in excess of $3,500.00 (per FAR 16.505). Additionally, each Task Order exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold shall be placed on a competitive basis in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(1)(iii)(B), unless supported by a written determination that one of the circumstances described at FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i) applies to the order and the requirement is waived on the basis of a justification that is prepared in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B).

The Contractor will be requested to simply respond “yes” or “no” regarding potential interest in proposing on the Task Order RFP. If more than one Contractor responds “yes” to performing the requirement, a determination of whether and how to compete the Task Order between the responding Contactors will be made by the KO, as further detailed in the following subparagraphs. If all Contractors respond “no,” the KO may select a Contractor based on price and non-price related factors.

1.19.4 In making selection of the awardee to receive a specific Task Order, the KO will consider both: 1) price; and 2) at least one non-price related factor (depending on the complexity of the work required) which will be specified in the Task Order RFP. More than one non-priced related factor may be used to evaluate task order proposals depending on complexity of the required work. The provisions in paragraph 1.19.5 below also apply in the selection of an awardee for a specific Task Order. It is expected on some Task Orders the ability to meet tight scheduling windows will be emphasized above all other factors. The KO may request additional information, including technical and price proposals, to assist in making the determination of the awardee. The KO may consider other items such as complexity, Contractors’ skills base, past performance, and necessity and flexibility for fulfillment of guaranteed minimum amounts and ability to meet complex requirements and scheduled fieldwork timeframe.

1.19.5 Per FAR 16.505(b)(2), all awardees need not be given an opportunity to be considered for a particular Task Order if the KO determines that: (1) the agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays; (2) only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized; (3) the order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order; (4) it is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee; (5) for orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source; (6) in accordance with section 1331 of Public Law 111-240 (15 U.S.C. 644(r)), contracting officers may, at their discretion, set aside orders for any of the small business concerns identified in FAR 19.000(a)(3). When setting aside orders for small business concerns, the specific small business program eligibility requirements identified in FAR part 19 apply; (7) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, the order satisfies one of the exceptions permitting the use of other than full and open competition listed in FAR 6.302 (10 U.S.C. 2304 c(b)(5)).

Task Orders expected to be at or below $500,000.00 will be competed among IDIQs awarded to Small Businesses. Task Orders expected to be above $500,000.00 will be competed amongst the entire vendor pool.

The Senior Chemist shall be responsible for the development of the Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) MC Worksheets, development of an electronic QAPP (eQAPP) in FUDSChem, along with the PDT, help establish the project Data Quality Objectives (DQO) following the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) seven step DQO process.

The Senior Chemist must meet provisions of section 7.2 of the DoD Policy and Guidelines for Acquisitions Involving Environmental Sampling or Testing, November 2007 by performing the following minimum functions:

Provides coordination and quality assurance surveillance of laboratory services.

Approves project-specific Method Quality Objectives (MQOs) and Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) that will meet the project-specific performance standards.

Verifies appropriateness of sampling and analytical methods and laboratory quality systems.

Verifies laboratory qualifications and makes recommendations for laboratory selection.

Coordinates with the laboratory during contract execution.

Notifies the Government QAM of any problems or nonconformance issues.

Directs the performance of data review and validation, per contract specifications.

Monitors corrective action, as needed.

Ensures the project chemistry QC meets the requirements for FUDS Chemistry as listed in Attachment C of the PWS.

Minimum qualifications for the Senior Chemist are:

The individual proposed at the Senior Chemist shall have a college degree in chemistry from a 4-year program.

The individual proposed as the Senior Chemist shall have a minimum of ten (10) years of demonstrable experience related in environmental remediation in areas of environmental sampling, analytical testing, and chemical data quality control. An advanced degree in a related discipline may be substituted for equivalent experience.

The individual proposed as the Senior Chemist can be an employee of the prime or a key teaming partner.

5.7 Senior Civil / Project Engineer

The Civil / Project Engineer is responsible for assuring that all civil and geotechnical engineering support goals specified in the Task Order are attained.

Minimum qualifications for the Senior Civil / Project Engineer are:

The individual proposed as the Senior Civil / Project Engineer shall have a college degree in civil engineering (soil mechanics, materials or related specialty), geological engineering, or related field from an ABET accredited college or university.

The individual proposed as the Senior Civil / Project Engineer shall have ten (10) years’ experience related to investigation and design with a minimum of five (5) years’ experience being related to remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and design and construction of geotechnical features in HTRW or MMRP sites.

The individual proposed as Senior Civil / Project Engineer shall have a professional registration in their respective field, where applicable or available.

The individual proposed as the Senior Civil Engineer can be an employee of the prime or a key teaming partner.

Other engineering disciplines such as mechanical, chemical, and electrical may be necessary as Key Personnel for specific actions and will be identified in individual Task Orders.

5.8 Senior Project Geophysicist

At a minimum, the Senior Project Geophysicist shall be responsible for geophysical survey design, dynamic data collection, cued data collection, development of a validation plan, and all other plans and reports supporting the AGC process.

4.5.2 Performance Standards:

Demonstrate that the work is performed IAW the accepted UFP-QAPP and approved Field Change

Requests.

4.5.3 Specific Task Requirements:

4.5.3.1 General. The Contractor shall:

Provide all assumed quantities in the proposal, based on the draft WS#10 and WS#11 provided by the Government.

Provide a data delivery system (SharePoint® or similar) to deliver all interim and final electronic data as determined by the PDT.

Update the CSM to describe the predicted horizontal and vertical distributions of MEC necessary to assess MEC risk and estimate alternative costs in the FS.

Demonstrate that data inputs from the RI will be sufficient to develop detailed cost estimates for remedial alternatives. The work and reporting shall estimate the anomaly densities across identified MEC contaminated areas as well as other remediation cost drivers such as vegetation type and density, terrain conditions, soil type, exclusion zone evacuation costs, etc.

Backfill all access/excavation/detonation holes.

4.5.3.2 MEC Characterization

Distinguish between Low Use Areas (LUAs) and Non-Impacted Areas (NIA) in accordance with the criteria outlined in the UFP-QAPP.

Demonstrate that the boundaries of all identified HUAs have been defined to within +/- 250 feet, or as otherwise specified in the UFP-QAPP.

To the maximum extent practicable, conduct the field investigation by gathering AGC data in addition to data that is digitally recorded and geo-referenced. If analog is proposed for any areas within the MRS, the Contractor’s proposal must include rationale as to why digital technologies were not selected and how they will achieve all project DQOs.

Collect data to support development of the horizontal and vertical CSM.

Ensure the Contractor, or subcontractor, in charge of performing the AGC work is accredited in accordance with the DoD Advanced Geophysical Classification Accreditation Program (DAGCAP). DAGCAP accreditation and AGC requirements shall be in compliance with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Policy Memo dated 11 April 2016 and the FUDS AGC Policy Memo dated 6 January 2017. The DAGCAP accreditation must be current at the time of signing the final QAPP and throughout all fieldwork, analysis, data usability assessment, and reporting. The DAGCAP quality control (QC) geophysicist will review and accept all data collected to support AGC, including detection surveys and intrusive investigation.

4.5.3.3 Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard (MPPEH) Handling/Waste Disposal Manage all recovered MPPEH IAW the approved plan(s).

Maintain a detailed accounting of all MEC and MD and range-related debris (RRD) encountered. This accounting shall include amounts of MEC and MD; nomenclature; location and depth of MEC; location of MD and RRD; and final disposition. The accounting system shall also account for all demolition materials utilized on-site. Digital photographs of MEC and examples of MD found during the investigation are to be taken.

The Contractor shall perform disposal actions in a timely manner.

4.5.3.4 MC Characterization

All detection data collection shall be at risk to the Contractor without concurrence on the Instrument Verification Strip (IVS) Memorandum results by USACE.

Collect geophysical data along transects spaced no more than __328 130 feet apart in order to demonstrate that all areas with elevated anomaly density that have the potential to be High Use Area (HUA) are traversed and there is a 100% chance of detecting these areas according to the Visual Sample Plan (VSP) analysis.

B - DRAFT UFP QAPP

QAPP WORKSHEET #10 – CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

The Conceptual Site Model (CSM) identifies the potential sources, types of sources, affected media, transport mechanisms, exposure routes, and potential receptors at Training Area A, the Munitions Response Site (MRS) R01, within the Camp Antler Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), Yuma County, Arizona. The CSM was prepared in accordance with USACE EM 200- 1-12 (USACE, 2012), and the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP-QAPP) Munitions Response QAPP (MR-QAPP) Toolkit Module 1 (IDQTF, 2020) and is based on the information presented in the following sections including historical use, munitions used, physical site characteristics, potential for encountering munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and the Site Inspection (SI) results for the project area. During the SI qualitative reconnaissance survey of the Training Area A MRS, MEC was found (three 2.36-in rockets).

The SI determined that MEC and munitions constituents (MC) may pose a potential hazard to human health and environment. The CSM, depicted at the end of this worksheet, presents the potential completed pathways between sources (MEC and MC) and human and/or ecological receptors, as summarized in this worksheet. The CSM is a ‘living document’ that is based on existing knowledge and, therefore, should be updated throughout the course of the project as more data become available.

• Background Camp Antler, a 10,000-acre site in Yuma County, Arizona, consists of eleven MRSs. This report focuses on Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A. Camp Antler is located approximately 75 miles northeast of Yuma, Arizona. The MRS R01 – Training Area A consists of 81 acres located northwest of the cantonment area and it extends off the FUDS property.

Camp Antler was established in 1942 when the War Department secured the use of the land for small arms training and the temporary accommodations of personnel. The site was one of eleven divisional field training camps for the Desert Training Center (DTC) or California-Arizona Maneuver Area (CAMA). The DTC was approved in February 1942 with the intent of providing the Army a large, multiple use area in which to train soldiers to prepare for war in the deserts of North Africa. Camp Antler was closed by the end of February 1944, and by July 1945, all Department of Defense (DoD) leases and permits on the land were cancelled.

The training program at the CAMA camps was a 13-week training cycle plus additional training if needed. The training included intensive marksmanship and familiarization with firing various weapon systems including small arms, mortars, grenades, artillery, rockets, booby traps, and land mines. The training occurred on several small arms ranges and training areas surrounding, and potentially within, the cantonment area. The training also included combat firing exercises that progressed into larger field exercises and maneuvers that utilized areas beyond the encampment.

Chemical warfare training also occurred, but a specific training site has not been located. There were no permanent structures for ammunition storage. There was an explosives dump (open storage area) and another smaller dump located at Camp Antler, but documentation on these locations has not been found.

Camp Antler MRS R01 -Training Area A was in use by two Infantry Divisions between July 1943 and February 1944, although specific details of the training conducted are unknown.

Training Area A may have been used for hand grenade training and/or mine training.

• Description The Camp Antler site was used as a division field-training camp from 1943 through mid-1944.

Present landowners for the all of Camp Antler site include the Arizona State Land Department, the BLM, and several private property owners. The Camp Antler site contains land used for agriculture purposes without housing, and underdeveloped land with unrestricted public access and no known land use restrictions. The MRS R01 site is currently undeveloped and is expected to remain the same and the acreage is privately owned.

Munitions known or suspected to have been used at Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A for weapons training include: small arms, mortars (61mm and 81mm); grenades (hand and rifle);

artillery (37mm, 57mm, 105mm Howitzers and 155 mm Howitzers); rockets, AT; booby traps and land mines (USACE, 2006). Practice Mines (Anti-Tank; Anti-Personnel); Rocket, 2.36-inch (Practice, HEAT); Smoke Pots (HC, Tear Gas (CN); Rifle Grenades, (Practice, HE, HEAT);

Hand Grenade (Training).

2.4 PHYSICAL PROFILE OF CAMP ANTLER

• Topography The elevation of the Camp Antler site varies from 440 feet to 530 feet above sea level. The surface of the site slopes toward the south and east. The topography of Camp Antler can generally be described as flat.

• Vegetation The site lies within the Lower Sonoran Desert Shrub, which is characterized by a dominance of native desert shrub and cacti. The major components of this plant community in undisturbed areas are creosote bush and white bursage. Big galleta and longleaf Mormon tea are common in sandy areas, as are trees such as mesquite, blue palo alto, catclaw acacia, smoke tree dahlia, and bitter condalia.

The majority, if not all, of the native vegetation on the Camp Antler site has been cleared and either developed for agriculture or left as vacant land. The vacant land areas on the project site are generally flat and highly disturbed with predominantly nonnative grasses and herbs and open, unvegetated areas. Grasses present include fountain grass, schismus, southern sand bur, and buffle grass. Herbaceous plants present include black mustard and London rocket, which are both common to cleared lands in the area.

• Soils The primary soil type at the former Camp Antler site is a mixture of sand-silt/sand-clay. The soils are deep, well-drained to excessively drained, sandy, silty soils, which are developed on alluvial and terrace deposits. Vertical permeability is high, available water capacity is low.

Runoff is slow but the hazard of soil erosion due to blowing is high. The soils are typically alkaline, and some salts may have accumulated. There may be a calcic horizon below the surface. There is little or no potential for frost development in the soil of the Camp Antler site.

• Geology Camp Antler is located within the southern Basin and Range physiographic province. This province is characterized by steep, rugged mountain ranges bounded by broad, gently sloping alluvium-filled valleys. The mountain ranges have a generally trend northwest to southeast, parallel to an extensive system of subparallel faults. The mountain ranges were extensively dissected, down-dropped and uplifted by this system of northwest-southeast and east-west trending sub-parallel normal faults during mid-to-late Cenozoic era. The basins are extremely thick alluvial and colluvial filled valleys, deposited in the late Cenozoic era; they cover the disconnected, down-dropped grabens. The Camp Antler site is located in the Gila River basin.

Basins within the area are made up of Quaternary and upper Tertiary aged sediments that are almost 5,000-feet thick. Basin sediment consists mostly of poorly to well consolidated and unconsolidated inter-layered gravels, sands, clays and caliche, representing a long history of erosion and several environments of deposition. The surface of the site slopes toward the south and east.

• Surface Water/Groundwater Drainage from this site flows generally southwest toward the Gila River, which flows from northeast to southwest. A USGS gage is located on the Gila River, near the town of Dateland, AZ. Estimated peak flow at this gage was recorded on September 26th, 1997 at 2,660 cubic feet per second (CFS).

There is no perennial surface water or sediment in the MRS. The absence of perennial surface water precludes exposure to surface water or sediment via ingestion as drinking water, incidental ingestion, or dermal contact.

The largest and most extensive source of groundwater is from within the pore spaces in the alluvial deposits that fill the basins. In general, all the alluvial deposits within a basin are hydraulically connected and form a single aquifer system. Groundwater occurs under either confined or unconfined conditions. The upper part of the alluvial deposits is a productive aquifer where saturated, and the groundwater generally occurs under unconfined conditions.

Groundwater in the deeper deposits occurs in the permeable lenses of sand and gravel; the occurrence is greatly influenced by the heterogeneity of the material. A wide range exists in the vertical interconnection between lenses or groundwater may occur under either unconfined or locally confined conditions. Depth to water ranges from at land surfaces near perennial streams to more than 500 feet below land surface near the mountain fronts in some basins. Depth to groundwater in the site vicinity is near 150 feet.

Recharge is limited. Groundwater recharge to the aquifers occurs primarily through infiltration of runoff along the major streams, infiltration along the mountain fronts, and underflow from adjacent basins.

The rate and direction of groundwater movement in the alluvial deposits depend on the physical and hydraulic characteristics of the material; locally, faults also may affect groundwater movement. The rate of groundwater movement in the alluvial deposits generally is a few feet to a few hundred feet per year.

• Climate Climatological data for the former Camp Antler came from a weather service station located at Gila Bend, Army Air Field, AZ. This area has a desert climate. Winter is a period of mostly clear skies and abundant sunshine. Yuma, AZ, southwest of the site, records a higher percentage of sunshine than any other place in the United States. Even in December and January, Yuma averages more than eight hours of sunshine a day. Summers in the lower Gila River Valley are long and hot. Afternoon temperatures reach at least 100 degrees on the average, from June 4 to September 24, and at least 105 degrees from June 22 to August 26. Extremes over 120 degrees have occurred. From mid-July to mid-September, moisture-laden air from the Gulf of California frequently invades the area. The water content of the air is higher than might be expected over a desert area. Precipitation is sparse. The wettest years have produced less than 11 inches of precipitation and the driest years less than 2 inches. Snow is rare in the area but amounts under 2 inches in a winter season have been recorded.

RELEASE PROFILE

In 1986, Congress established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) for cleanup of active and former military sites. Based on its past use as a divisional field training camp, the MRS was designated a FUDS property and is eligible for cleanup funding under the DERP program.

This section details the overall data quality objectives (DQOs), MEC history, MC investigation and inspection activities at the project sites. Previous investigations at the MRS are summarized below.

• Previous Investigations A historical document review for the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A revealed the following investigations have been conducted to date:

1991 Inventory Project Report (INPR) – The Inventory Project Report (INPR) was completed by CESPL and signed in 1991 (USACE, 1991). This document established the Camp Antler site as a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), established a site boundary and an assigned Project Number – J09AZ000101. The INPR states that 10,000 acres were acquired by the DoD through leases and use permit from the State of Arizona and various private individuals. The INPR states that no permanent structures or facilities were constructed on the site.

Final Site Inspection (SI) –The SI included approximately 150 miles of qualitative reconnaissance (QR) and the collection of 18 surface soil samples (plus two associated field duplicates) and two groundwater samples (plus one associated field duplicate) and covered several MRSs. In MRS R01 – Training Area A, MEC (three 2.36” rockets) were observed during the QR, and MD (practice rifle grenade and artillery fuze) were identified. Two soil samples were collected and analyzed for explosive compounds and metals. No explosives were detected in the samples, but several metals (barium, potassium, selenium, silver and strontium) were detected above background levels indicating a complete surface soil exposure pathway in this MRS. All metals concentrations, however, were below the screening criteria for human and ecological receptors.

• Expected Depth of MEC The expected depth of MEC is unknown and will be based on site specific conditions and will be determined during RI field activities at both sites.

LAND USE AND EXPOSURE PROFILE

• Classes of Contaminants and the Affected Matrices The class of contaminants present at the MRS R01 – Training Area A included surface MEC, potentially subsurface MEC, and potential surface MC contamination.

Three MEC (2.36” rockets) were observed during the SI QR and detonated in-place. MD that included expended small arms cartridge cases, a practice rifle grenade, and an artillery fuze were identified. Munitions known or suspected to have been used at MRS R01 – Training Area A include: MkII, Hand Grenade; M16, Smoke Grenade; M21, Practice Hand Grenade; M3 & M2, Anti-Personnel Mine; M1A1, Anti-Tank Mine; M1, Practice Anti-Tank Mine; M1B1, Practice Anti-Tank Mine; M8, Practice Anti-Personnel Mine; Bangalore Torpedo; Rocket, 2.36-inch, Practice, M7A1; Rocket, 2.36-inch, Anti-Tank, M6A1; Rifle, Grenade, Practice, M11A2; Rifle Grenade, Anti-Tank, M9A1; and Grenade, Hand Training, MKIA1. Practice Mines (Anti-Tank;

Anti-Personnel); Rocket, 2.36-inch (Practice, HEAT); Smoke Pots (HC, Tear Gas (CN); Rifle Grenades, (Practice, HE, HEAT); Hand Grenade (Training).

An unknown fraction of the 150-mile Camp Antler QR path was completed in MRS R01 - Training Area A during which two soil samples were collected from two different locations within the boundary. In addition to these samples, two samples from the cantonment area were collected to represent ambient conditions and estimate background concentrations at the site. The sampling depth for all soil samples was 6 inches because of the sandy nature of the soils in this area and the high risk of soil erosion in the sloping areas of the site. Based on the analysis of the soil samples collected, the maximum detected concentrations of barium, potassium, selenium, silver, and strontium were above the background concentrations but are not expected to pose an unacceptable risk of adverse health effects to humans.

Surface water and sediment were not sampled because those media are not present on the Camp Antler site. Groundwater was sampled at Camp Antler; however, no explosives were detected, and the detected metals and perchlorate were below screening levels. No air monitoring was conducted at Training Area A, but no volatile MC were detected in surface soil from the MRS.

10.5.2 Primary Release Mechanisms

The primary release mechanisms presenting safety hazards associated with the potential for MEC include blast pressure, fragmentation hazards, and thermal hazards as follows:

Blast pressure is the instantaneous pressure increase resulting from a violent release of energy from a detonation in a gaseous medium (e.g., air);

Fragmentation hazards result from the shattering of an explosives container or from the secondary fragmentation of items in proximity to an explosion; and Thermal hazards are those resulting from heat and flame caused deflagration (a process of subsonic combustion that usually propagates through thermal conductivity) or detonation.

The primary potential release mechanism for MEC hazards associated with Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A is the disturbance of munitions by commercial or industrial workers, visitors, hikers, or residents. Given the nature of the military munitions used during activities at the MRS, fragmentation and thermal hazards present the most likely impacts and have the potential to cause serious injury or death.

Direct release of MC from munitions activities at the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A would be primarily to surface soil. MC in the surface soil can also become airborne in resuspended soil particulates. Leaching of MC from the soil to groundwater presents a complete pathway though is not likely given the limited rainfall and dry desert environment, as well as the depth to groundwater of approximately 150 feet.

There are no known direct releases of MC to air at the MRS and none of the potential MC are volatile. During dry and windy conditions, soil particulates can become airborne. If there were releases of MC to soil as a result of DoD munitions activities, it is possible that the constituents would migrate to air via resuspension of soil particulates.

10.5.3 Potential Receptors and Exposure Pathways

An exposure pathway is considered incomplete unless all four of the following elements are present:

a source of contamination;

an environmental transport and/or exposure medium;

a point of exposure at which the contaminant can interact with a receptor; and a receptor and a likely route of exposure at the exposure point If any single factor is not present, the pathway would be incomplete. An incomplete exposure pathway indicates there are no current means by which a receptor (human or ecological) can be exposed to either MEC or MC. In this case no hazards or risks from exposure to MEC or MC would be expected.

Results of previous investigations indicate that the potential MEC exposure pathway for human receptors to encounter MEC is through direct contact with items and soil located on the surface.

Exposure of ecological receptors to MEC is considered potentially complete; however, any potential MEC hazard is not assessed for ecological receptors. MEC risk assessments focus on the explosive hazards posed by MEC to human receptors. Unlike MC, which can migrate, MEC are generally stationary and requires an action by the receptor to complete the explosive hazard pathway (USEPA, 2010).

Human Receptors: Based on the current and future land use of the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A, potential receptors in these areas include site visitors or recreational users, industrial and commercial workers.

Ecological Receptors: As stated below in Section 10.6, federal and state listed species may be present within the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A. Non-threatened and endangered ecological receptors include biota associated with the local brush and desert habitat. Ecological receptors representative of all trophic levels that may be affected by site conditions will be identified in conjunction with state and federal ecological screening thresholds.

10.5.4 Land Use Considerations

The Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A is situated on undeveloped desert land, within the Sonoran Desert. The land is currently owned by a private landowner. Land is undeveloped and expected to remain that way.

10.5.5 Significant and Inhabited Structures

Inhabited structures are permanent or temporary structures, other than military munitions-related structures, that are routinely occupied by one or more persons for any portion of a day. Based on field observations by the SI team and a review of recent satellite imagery (Google Maps, 2020), there are no inhabited structures within Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A.

10.5.6 Demographics

The Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A is located in Yuma County, Arizona. The estimated populations of Yuma County for 2019 were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, based on the 2010 census. The 2019 estimated population for Yuma County was 213,787(U.S.

Census Bureau, 2019). The 2006 estimated population density for Yuma County is 34 people per square mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).

10.5.7 Access Restrictions or Other Obstacles to Investigation Public access to the MRS is unrestricted. Based on this information, the Site Accessibility at Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A is considered to be “Accessible.”

10.6 ECOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROFILE

10.6.1 Federal and State Protected Species and Species of Special Concern Federal and state listed species that are known to be present in Yuma County, Arizona were identified from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD, 2020). The state of Arizona supports 70 federally listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species, including 22 plants and 48 animals (USFWS, 2020). According to the AZGFD, seven of those species are known to be present in Yuma County. Table 10-1 lists federal and state protected species that were identified as potential resources within or near Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A that are managed or regulated by USFWS and/or AZGFD.

Table 10-1. Potential Sensitive Species Summary

Group

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status

Mammal Sonoran PronghornAntler

Antilocapra Americana sonoriensis Endangered, XN --

Bird Bald Eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Species of Concern Sensitive

Bird Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered --

Bird Yuma Ridgways (clapper) rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis

Endangered Sensitive

Bird Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

Threatened --

Fish Razorback sucker

Xyrauchen texanus Endangered --

Fish Bonytail

Gila elegans Endangered --

Fish Desert Pupfish

Cyprinodon macularius Endangered --

Reptile Flat-tailed Antlerhorned lizard

Phrynosoma mcallii

Candidate Conservation Agreement

Sensitive

Reptile Sonoran desert tortoise

Gopherus morafkai Candidate Sensitive

Two species of particular concern are the Desert Tortoise and the BigAntler Sheep Sonoran Pronghorn. To avoid disturbing Desert Tortoise during the SI, the site visit team would not approach any tortoise and would check for tortoises under the vehicle before leaving a location.

The BigAntler Sheep Sonoran Pronghorn is a species of concern due to its decreasing population and loss of habitat, but it is legally hunted in Arizona and is not a T&E species. However, the species has been reported to forage on the Camp Antler property, especially during its lambing season. Lambing is reported to occur from January through June, but especially from February through April. Therefore, while Camp Antler is reported to have no sensitive environments, the foraging and lambing that occur on the property indicate that the conservative, protective course of action is to conduct a SLERA for that species.

As sensitive species and potentially suitable habitat has been identified at the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A, biological monitoring may need to be implemented during the RI. Prior to fieldwork, a qualified project biologist will conduct reconnaissance surveys within the investigation areas and record any federal or state protected species and/or potentially suitable species habitat. If the results of reconnaissance surveys indicate the presence of federal or state threatened or endangered species other than those identified during the biological desktop review, the approach to conducting the field operations will be evaluated and any necessary changes will be documented in a Field Change Request. The project biologist will be on-site during field operations to provide identification and avoidance training to the project team. The project biologist will continue to monitor field activities, and if any threatened or endangered species or their habitat are identified/present and cannot be avoided, the field team will stop work and will coordinate with the USACE Biologist for instruction on how to proceed.

10.6.2 Sensitive Habitats

Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A is reported to have no sensitive environments.

10.6.3 Historical/Cultural Resources

No historically or culturally significant areas are known to be present on site and none were identified during the SI.

QAPP WORKSHEET #11 – PROJECT/DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

This worksheet describes the MEC and MC Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) developed for the project, including the environmental problem, the related decisions that need to be made, the type and quantity of data, and the level of data quality needed to ensure that those decisions are based on sound scientific data. The overall goal of this project is to obtain acceptance of an RI/FS, Proposed Plan, and Decision Document for the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A in accordance with the CERCLA, as amended, and DoD, Army and USACE regulations and guidance. The information collected to meet the DQOs presented in this worksheet will be sufficient to characterize the nature and extent of any MEC and/or MC and assess human health and ecological risks present at the MRS. The DQO process is outlined in the USEPA 2006 guidance document entitled Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (USEPA/240/B-06/001, February 2006) (USEPA, 2006).

The DQO process consists of a series of seven planning steps that are designated to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of the environmental data used in the decision making are appropriate for their intended application. In addition to these DQOs, all data collected during this project are required to attain the Measurement Performance Criteria (MPCs) described on Worksheet #12 to be considered adequate to support environmental decisions, unless sufficient alternative justification is provided to and accepted by the project team. Before final environmental decisions are made, data will be verified and validated as described in Worksheet #34, Worksheet #35, Worksheet #36, and Worksheet #37.

11.1 STEP 1: STATE THE PROBLEM

Evidence from previous investigations indicate the presence of MEC and MD, which serves as an indicator that MEC may be present at the MRS. Therefore, further investigation is needed to characterize the nature and extent of potential MEC and MC on the surface and in the subsurface at the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A.

Previous investigations have indicated that MEC (three 2.36” rockets) and MD were observed at the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A.

Further investigation at the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A is needed to:

Characterize the types and locations of potential MEC and MC risks and hazards at the MRS;

Delineate high density, low density, and areas of no evidence of use in the MRS;

Evaluate baseline risks to human health and the environment for the MRS;

Support determinations of no evidence of use areas for the MRS, and Gather data to assist in evaluating alternatives for mitigating unacceptable risks at the MRS.

If no potential sources of MC (high density of MEC and/or MD) are observed during the RI, soil samples will not be collected. If a potential source of MC is observed at an MRS, soil samples will be collected and analyzed for potential MC. A potential source of MC for this project is defined as:

An area where MEC and/or MD is present that may represent a density similar to a target or impact area.

Post disposal of MEC item by detonation that is a blow-in-place (BIP) or consolidated shot.

The USACE project delivery team that will provide input on the process for addressing the problem described above includes: the USACE PM and technical personnel, primary landowners within the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A (private landowner), the regulator (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality [ADEQ]), and the USACE contractor team. The primary decision maker for the team will be the USACE PM.

Depending on the types and distribution of MEC potentially remaining in the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A, remedial action(s) may be required to mitigate risks to current or reasonably anticipated future receptors. Results of the investigation will be used to evaluate site risks, estimate remedial costs, and support a remedial action decision for the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A.

11.2 STEP 2: IDENTIFY THE GOALS OF THE DATA COLLECTION

The project goals are to determine if unacceptable risks due to the presence of MEC and/or MC exist within the MRS that may present a potential risk to human receptors, to determine if MC is present above background levels (metals) and at concentrations that pose a potential unacceptable risk to human health or the environment (metals and explosives), and to collect sufficient data to support accurate cost estimating for remedial activities presented in the feasibility study for the MRS. These goals shall be achieved by answering the following Principal Study Questions.

11.2.1 Principal Study Questions

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 High Density (HD) areas, Low Density (LD) areas, and No Evidence of Use (NEU) areas?

Within each High Use Area (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 site?

What are the alternative actions for mitigating current and potential threats, if identified, posed by MEC remaining at the site?

The Principal Study Questions for MC:

What are the potential sources of MC at the site, 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 site?

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

11.2.2 Data Use in the Remedial Investigations

The project team will update the CSM using RI results and conduct a baseline risk assessment to answer the following questions:

1. What are the potential interactions between MEC and receptors based on the amount and distribution of MEC and the current and reasonably anticipated future land use?

2. For each interaction type, what is the frequency of access? (e.g., workers, visitors, etc.)

a. How frequently do people access the site?

b. Are there any physical or legal restrictions that affect site access?

c. Are there land/deed restrictions enforced on the site?

3. Using the “Amount of MEC” determined from the RI geophysical and intrusive investigation, and the “Accessibility” for the MRS, what is the likelihood of encounter?

4. If there is an encounter with MEC, what is the likelihood that there will be energy imparted on an item based on land use?

5. Based on the types of MEC present, and the specific munitions sensitivities, what is the probability that human interaction will cause an item to function?

6. Based on the type of MEC present, what is the severity of an unintentional detonation?

7. What are relevant exposure point concentrations of MC?

8. Based on the above, is there an unacceptable risk from MEC or MC hazards?

a. If no, there are no unacceptable risks from explosive or chemical risks and hazards.

b. If yes, there are unacceptable risks from explosive or chemical risks and hazards;

therefore, remedial alternatives will be evaluated in a feasibility study.

11.2.3 Feasibility Study

If the results of the baseline risk assessment(s) indicate an unacceptable risk may exist, the project team will conduct a Feasibility Study (FS) to identify and evaluate remedial alternatives for mitigating exposure to MEC and/or MC. The primary objective of the FS is to ensure that appropriate remedial alternatives are developed and evaluated such that relevant information concerning the remedial action options can be presented to a decision-maker and an appropriate remedy selected to meet a remedial action objective (RAO). For each remedy/action evaluated following the USEPA 9-Step process, the FS will identify whether:

1. The alternative achieves an acceptable end state.

2. The alternative does not achieve an acceptable end state (i.e. unacceptable risks and hazards remain at the MRS).

11.3 STEP 3: IDENTIFY INFORMATION INPUTS

The primary data inputs for the RIs are to establish the nature and extent of MEC and MC and to characterize potential hazard. Information needed for this include:

The expected background anomaly density The average target area density above background The horizontal and vertical boundaries of high-use areas and low-use areas The anticipated depth of reliable detection for munitions known to be present Mapped anomaly locations and anomaly sources (objective and quantifiable data):

o To establish whether high density areas are high-use areas o To refine boundaries of high-use areas and low-use areas o To build weight of evidence supporting no evidence of use (NEU) determinations o To estimate anomaly density and distribution

Types of munitions on the site:

o Category and/or nomenclature (mortars, bombs, projectiles, etc.)

o Nature of explosive hazard (i.e., sensitivity of fuzing and ordnance) o Associated hazardous components

Nature and extent of MC contamination o MC background concentrations o Sufficient data to calculate exposure point concentrations for relevant receptors based on current and reasonably anticipated future use o Potential exposure scenarios based on current and reasonably anticipated future use.

For the Feasibility Study, supporting information (objective and quantifiable data) to evaluate remedial alternatives at an MRS will include:

Data to establish the effectiveness of various alternatives, including anticipated detection technology performance o Target of Interest (TOI) Library o Cued survey results o Intrusive investigation results o Quality Control (QC) results o Quality Assurance (QA) results o Usability Assessments

Data to support costing of various alternatives Information that will impact the practicality of various alternatives, including:

o Descriptions and locations of natural and cultural resources o Terrain, vegetation, geology o Institutional analysis o Nature and extent of contamination

11.4 STEP 4: DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT

11.4.1 Target Population

The target population for this study includes any metallic anomalies detected during the DGM/AGC survey determined to be targets of interest (TOI), i.e., with characteristics of being UXO or DMM. Detected geophysical anomalies will be studied to differentiate which anomalies are consistent with ordnance used, stored, or discarded at this site, versus those anomalies that result from non-MEC metallic objects. The target population for the remedial response process is MEC. The remedial investigation will also account for MD as an indicator of the types of munitions used, associated distribution (horizontal and vertical), and as an indicator of potential MEC hazards and potential MC contamination.

At this time, the CSM indicates that the following munitions may be present at the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A: MkII, Hand Grenade; M16, Smoke Grenade; M21, Practice Hand Grenade; M3 & M2, Anti-Personnel Mine; M1A1, Anti-Tank Mine; M1, Practice Anti-Tank Mine; M1B1, Practice Anti-Tank Mine; M8, Practice Anti-Personnel Mine; Bangalore Torpedo;

Rocket, 2.36-inch, Practice, M7A1; Rocket, 2.36-inch, Anti-Tank, M6A1; Rifle, Grenade, Practice, M11A2; Rifle Grenade, Anti-Tank, M9A1; and Grenade, Hand Training, MKIA1 Practice Mines (Anti-Tank; Anti-Personnel); Rocket, 2.36-inch (Practice, HEAT); Smoke Pots (HC, Tear Gas (CN); Rifle Grenades, (Practice, HE, HEAT); Hand Grenade (Training).

The following MC may be present at the site: metals and explosives.

11.4.2 Horizontal Boundaries

The study areas include the entire geographical boundary of the 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 area.

The geographical boundary of the Camp Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A:

The horizontal boundaries of the project are defined by the boundary of the 81-acre Camp

Antler MRS R01 – Training Area A project area.

11.4.3 Vertical Boundaries

The vertical boundary for the RI will be based on site specific conditions and will be determined during RI field activities.

11.4.4 Temporal Boundaries

The temporal boundary for the project is the time it takes to conduct detection and subsurface investigation and clearance. Activities will be considered complete upon quality assurance (QA) acceptance, which verifies the specified transect(s) and grids have been investigated.

Seasonal Restrictions Time may be limited due to stakeholder or environmental constraints (i.e., community events, hunting seasons, nesting seasons). While weather and hunting are not hard temporal limits on the project, the project team will adjust the project schedule to accommodate these conditions and conduct field work accordingly.

Table 11-1 VSP Inputs/Outputs VSP Input Camp Antler

Design Objective High probability of traversal and detection

Smallest TOI Hand…