final feasibility study report - camp hale home page report_ final_east fork … · ·...

Contract No. W9128F-10-D-0060, Delivery Order No. 0004Project No. 147510

July 2015

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha DistrictOmaha, Nebraska

FinalFeasibility Study Report

East Fork Valley MRSProject 05

Former Camp HaleFUDS Property No. B08CO0014

Formerly Used Defense SitesMilitary Munitions Response Program

FINAL

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

MILITARY MUNITIONS RESPONSE ACTIONS

EAST FORK VALLEY MRS PROJECT 05

CAMP HALE, COLORADO

CONTRACT NO. W9128F-10-D-0060

DELIVERY ORDER 0004 PROJECT NUMBER 147510

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OMAHA DISTRICT

July 2015

(This page intentionally left blank.)

Table of Contents _________________________________________________________

1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1

Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Property Description and Problem Identification ................................................................... 2-3 2.2 Remedial Investigation Summary ......................................................................................... 2-4 2.3

2.3.1 East Fork Valley Range Complex ............................................................................ 2-4 2.3.2 Eagle Valley South Range Complex........................................................................ 2-6

Conceptual Site Models ........................................................................................................ 2-6 2.42.4.1 MEC Conceptual Site Model – East Fork Valley Area A .......................................... 2-7 2.4.2 MEC Conceptual Site Model – East Fork Valley Area B ........................................ 2-10 2.4.3 MEC Conceptual Site Model – East Fork Valley Area C ....................................... 2-13

3.0 Identification and Screening of Remedial Action Technologies ....................................................... 3-1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ........................................................ 3-1 3.1 Development of Remedial Action Objectives ........................................................................ 3-3 3.2 General Response Actions ................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Identification and Screening of Remedial Technologies ....................................................... 3-4 3.4

3.4.1 Identification of Remedial Technologies .................................................................. 3-4 3.4.2 Screening of Remedial Technologies ...................................................................... 3-5

Detection ................................................................................................ 3-6 3.4.2.1 Removal ............................................................................................... 3-11 3.4.2.2 Disposal ................................................................................................ 3-12 3.4.2.3 Land Use Controls ................................................................................ 3-13 3.4.2.4

Summary of Institutional Analysis ....................................................................................... 3-17 3.54.0 Development and Screening of Alternatives ................................................................................... 4-1

Alternative 1: No Action ........................................................................................................ 4-2 4.1 Alternative 2: Land-Use Controls .......................................................................................... 4-3 4.2

4.2.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 4-3 4.2.2 Screening of Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-7

Alternative 3: Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs .............................................................. 4-8 4.34.3.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 4-8

Work Planning ...................................................................................... 4-10 4.3.1.1 Alternative Components ....................................................................... 4-10 4.3.1.2

4.3.2 Screening of Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-12 Alternative 4: Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs ....................................................... 4-13 4.4

4.4.1 Description ............................................................................................................ 4-13 4.4.2 Screening of Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-15

Alternative 5: Partial Surface Clearance of MEC, Partial Subsurface Clearance of MEC 4.5and LUCs ........................................................................................................................... 4-16 4.5.1 Description ............................................................................................................ 4-16

Work Planning ...................................................................................... 4-17 4.5.1.1 Alternative Components ....................................................................... 4-18 4.5.1.2

4.5.2 Screening of Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-20 Alternative 6: Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs ..... 4-22 4.6

4.6.1 Description ............................................................................................................ 4-22

Former Camp Hale i FS Report, EFV W9128F-10-D-0060, DO 0004 Final, July 2015

Table of Contents (Continued)

4.6.2 Screening of Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-23 Alternative 7: Complete Surface Clearance and Complete Subsurface Clearance ............ 4-24 4.7

4.7.1 Description ............................................................................................................ 4-24 4.7.2 Screening of Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-25

5.0 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 5-1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Individual Alternative Analysis – Criteria ............................................................................... 5-1 5.2

5.2.1 Threshold Criteria .................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Balancing Criteria .................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.3 Modifying Criteria .................................................................................................... 5-3

Individual Alternative Analysis .............................................................................................. 5-3 5.35.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action ........................................................................................... 5-3

Description ............................................................................................. 5-3 5.3.1.1 Assessment ............................................................................................ 5-4 5.3.1.2

5.3.2 Alternative 2: Land Use Controls ............................................................................. 5-5 Description ............................................................................................. 5-5 5.3.2.1 Assessment ............................................................................................ 5-5 5.3.2.2

5.3.3 Alternative 3: Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs ................................................. 5-7 Description ............................................................................................. 5-7 5.3.3.1 Assessment ............................................................................................ 5-8 5.3.3.2

5.3.4 Alternative 4: Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs .......................................... 5-10 Description ........................................................................................... 5-10 5.3.4.1 Assessment .......................................................................................... 5-11 5.3.4.2

5.3.5 Alternative 5: Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance and LUCs ..................................................................................................................... 5-13

Description ........................................................................................... 5-13 5.3.5.1 Assessment .......................................................................................... 5-14 5.3.5.2

5.3.6 Alternative 6: Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance and LUCs ..................................................................................................................... 5-16


5.3.7 Alternative 7: Complete Surface Clearance and Complete Subsurface Clearance .............................................................................................................. 5-20


6.0 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 6-1 Threshold Criteria ................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 Balancing Criteria ................................................................................................................. 6-2 6.2 Summary of Comparative Analysis and Recommended Alternative ..................................... 6-4 6.3

7.0 Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocols Update ............................................................... 7-1 8.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 8-1

Former Camp Hale ii FS Report, EFV W9128F-10-D-0060, DO 0004 Final, July 2015


List of Figures ____________________________________________________________

Figure 2-1 Location of Munitions Response Sites Figure 2-2 MRS Areas, East Fork Valley MRS Figure 2-3 2003 TCRA Clearance Figure 2-4 Site Features/Land Use Figure 4-1 Partial Surface Clearance Figure 4-2 Complete Surface Clearance Figure 4-3 Partial Subsurface Clearance Figure 4-4 Complete Subsurface Clearance List of Tables _____________________________________________________________

Table 1-1 Summary of EFV MRS FS Alternatives Table 2-1 Baseline Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Summary Table 3-1 Preliminary Federal and State Applicable, Relevant, and Appropriate, and To Be

Considered Requirements, East Fork Valley Range Complex Table 3-2 General Response Actions and Remedial Technologies for MEC Table 3-3 MEC Detection Process Options Table 3-4 MEC Removal Technology Process Options Table 3-5 MEC Disposal Technology Process Options Table 3-6 Land Use Controls Technology Process Options for MEC and MC Table 5-1 Details of FS Alternatives Table 5-2 Summary of Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives List of Appendices ________________________________________________________

Appendix A Definitions Appendix B Abbreviations and Acronyms Appendix C Safety Brochure – The 3 Rs Approach Appendix D Remedial Alternative Costs Appendix E Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Tool Worksheets-Remedial

Alternatives Appendix F EFV MRS Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol Tables

Former Camp Hale iii FS Report, EFV W9128F-10-D-0060, DO 0004 Final, July 2015



Former Camp Hale iv FS Report, EFV W9128F-10-D-0060, DO 0004 Final, July 2015

1.0 Executive Summary

This report presents the results of the Feasibility Study (FS) performed for the East Fork Valley (EFV) Munitions Response Site (MRS) at Former Camp Hale, Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) Property No. B08CO0014, in Eagle County, Colorado. The Remedial Investigation (RI) performed for this MRS was presented in the Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex and East Fork Valley Range Complex, Former Camp Hale, Colorado (CB&I, 2015).

This FS has been developed to address risks/hazards identified during previous investigations reported in the RI including 1946 and 1965 range clearances; a Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA) performed in 2001; a second TCRA performed in 2003; a Site Inspection (SI) with field work performed in 2007, focused visual surveys performed in 2009, and RI field work completed in 2013. The objective of this FS is to develop, evaluate, and compare remedial action alternatives that will meet the remedial action objective (RAO) so that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Omaha District can select and propose an appropriate remedy for the site. This FS used the information obtained during the RI to perform a systematic analysis to determine appropriate remedial actions based on current and anticipated future land use. This FS was completed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulatory methodologies outlined in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This FS was developed consistent with the Military Munitions Response Process, Engineer Pamphlet (EP) 1110-18 (USACE, 2006) and Munitions Response Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Guidance (U.S. Army, 2009), and in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance documents developed for activities performed under CERCLA.

The EFV MRS is located along State Highway 24 between Leadville and Redcliff in Eagle County, Colorado, approximately 70 miles west of Denver. Camp Hale was constructed in 1942 in the interest of providing a winter mountain warfare training area for soldiers. During World War II, the site was used for training in mountain climbing, skiing, and weapons qualification. Ranges constructed at Camp Hale during this time period included grenade courts; bayonet courses; gas chambers; infiltration courses; rifle, pistol, and machine gun ranges; anti-aircraft ranges; and a landscape target range. The camp also served as a German prisoner of war camp in 1945, and was later used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to train Tibetan soldiers from 1959 through 1964. During CIA use, training included weapons use, demolitions, communications, and guerilla tactics.

The EFV MRS is a 611-acre area that was the primary training area used by the Army and CIA, used for training with a variety of munitions. Numerous MEC and MD items have been observed

Former Camp Hale 1-1 FS Report, EFV W9128F-10-D-0060, DO 0004 Final, July 2015

Section 1.0 Executive Summary

throughout the MRS. Munitions items with the potential to be present within this MRS include small arms, bulk explosives, hand grenades (practice, smoke, and fragmentation), rifle grenades (practice, smoke, and HEAT), anti-tank (AT) landmines (practice), rockets (2.36-inch and 3.5-inch – practice, smoke, and HEAT), mortars (60mm and 81mm – practice, illumination, and HE), and projectiles (37mm, 40mm, 57mm, 75mm, 76mm, 90mm, and 106mm – HE and HEAT)

With the exception of one private parcel, the EFV MRS is under the control of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and it is used for recreation including camping, hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, four wheeling, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing. The Colorado Trail cuts through the MRS. There are two campgrounds within the East Fork Valley, the Camp Hale Memorial Campground (located approximately 0.5 mile to the west of the EFV MRS, and the Camp Hale East Fork Group Campground (partially located within the EFV MRS. An underground natural gas pipeline and an overhead power line owned by Xcel Energy run through the MRS. The USFS is currently in the planning stages of a streambed restoration project within the East Fork Valley. The project would restore the East Fork of the Eagle River to a more natural state by re-routing its flow into a meandering path through the valley. The project would involve intrusive work within the EFV MRS.

The EFV MRS includes portions of the East Fork Valley Range Complex and Eagle Valley South Range Complex that were delineated in the SI. The MRS has been redefined to include all areas within the East Fork Valley including the areas to be affected by the proposed streambed restoration. The MRS boundary has also been redefined from the boundary proposed in the RI, specifically to include an area that was defined as Eagle Valley South D in the RI.

For convenience of developing and presenting remedial alternatives in this FS the EFV MRS is divided into three sub areas:

• Area A – this includes the bulk of East Fork Valley. Most of Area A (excluding wetlands and some areas of dense vegetation) was included in the 2003 TCRA consisting of 100 percent surface clearance.

• Area B – this includes a target area at the eastern end of East Fork Valley. This area generally has a higher density of MEC and MD than Area A based on previous investigations. Part of Area B was included in the 2003 TCRA.

• Area C – this includes the western end of East Fork Valley. This area generally has a lower density of MEC and MD than Area A based on previous investigations. Area C was not included in the 2003 TCRA. This area was designated EVS D in the RI.

The RI for EFV MRS has established the potential for munitions associated with range activities (rockets, mortars, and/or projectiles) to be present on the surface and in the subsurface. The



Remedial Action Objective (RAO) for the EFV MRS is to reduce the hazard to recreational users, USFS personnel, utility workers and construction personnel, such that the probability of encountering hazardous munitions is negligible and response complete (RC) can be supported. This will be achieved by:

1) Eliminating to the extent practicable the potential hazard of encountering munitions on the surface in areas that are reasonably accessible.

2) Reducing to the extent practicable the potential hazard of encountering munitions in the subsurface to depth of detection in areas where intrusive activities are reasonably expected.

The RAO is used as the basis for the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives that may be selected to address any possible remaining explosive hazards. Alternatives addressing munitions constituents (MC) were not evaluated because there were no MC risks identified. General response actions include a No Action Alternative (NAA) as required under CERCLA, Land Use Controls (LUCs), surface clearance, and subsurface clearance remedial actions using geophysical technologies. As required, at least one alternative that would achieve Unlimited Use/Unrestricted Exposure (UU/UE) was evaluated for each MRS.

The alternatives developed for the MRS are summarized in Table 1-1 and include:

• Alternative 1: No Action

• Alternative 2: LUCs

• Alternative 3: Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs

• Alternative 4: Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

• Alternative 5: Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

• Alternative 6: Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

• Alternative 7: Complete Surface Clearance and Complete Subsurface Clearance.

Alternative 7 includes subsurface clearance for areas that are reasonably accessible to perform subsurface removals. Parts of EFV Area B are excluded due to the presence of cliffs, rock outcrops, and boulders. Performance of a complete subsurface clearance is not considered feasible and subsurface MEC is not likely to be encountered in this area because intrusive activities are unlikely.

These alternatives were analyzed in accordance with the nine NCP criteria: 1) protection of human health and the environment, 2) compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), 3) Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence, 4) Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume (TMV) through Treatment, 5) Short-Term Effectiveness, 6)



Implementability, 7) Cost, 8) State Acceptance, and 9) Community Acceptance. Based on these analyses, the most favorable alternative for the MRS is: Alternative 5, Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs. This alternative will involve:

• Surface removal will be performed along and near the Colorado Trail, roadways, campground, proposed stream realignment, and utility corridor, as well as areas that were not cleared during the TCRA in EFV Area C. The estimated area for surface clearance is 360 acres.

• Subsurface removal will be performed along and near the Colorado Trail, roadways, campground, proposed stream realignment, and utility corridor. The estimated area for clearance is 123 acres.

• LUCS that would be implemented include warning signs, MEC awareness training for forest and construction workers, public communications including flyers and a website and advisories for any intrusive activities. Many of these LUCs are already in place.

This alternative is selected based on tradeoffs between the various modifying criteria including implementation challenges, short-term effects on workers, and cost relative to other alternatives.

The preferred alternative meets the RAO for exposure to surface MEC by performing 100 percent clearance in areas that were not included in the previous TCRA (except wetlands), plus repeating surface clearance in high use areas that were included in the TCRA. The alternative meets the RAO for exposure to subsurface MEC by performing subsurface clearance in high use areas such as the campground and in areas where intrusive activity is expected such as the proposed streambed alignment. Alternatives that would involve complete surface and/or subsurface clearance are not selected because they would involve a small additional benefit relative to the selected alternative with much higher cost.


2.0 Introduction

CB&I Federal Services LLC (CB&I, formerly Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure [Shaw]) is tasked to prepare the RI and FS to address hazards from military munitions at various MRSs at Camp Hale, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, located in Eagle County, Colorado. The work is being conducted for the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) under the USACE, Omaha MMRP Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) W9128F-10-D-0060, Delivery Order 004.

This FS addresses the EFV MRS, Project 05, at Camp Hale. Potential risks/hazards in this MRS were identified during previous investigations reported in the Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex and East Fork Valley Range Complex, Former Camp Hale, Colorado (RI; CB&I, 2015).

Purpose 2.1

Pursuant to the DoD Manual 4715.20, Defense Environmental Response Program (DERP) Management (DoD, 2012), the USACE is conducting MEC response activities in accordance with the DERP statute (10 U.S. Code [USC] 2701 et seq.), CERCLA (42 USC §9620), Executive Orders 12580 and 13016, and the NCP (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 300). While MEC does not constitute a CERCLA hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant, the DERP statute provides DoD with the authority to respond to releases of MEC and MC. In addition, DoD policy states that such responses shall be conducted in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP.

The RI was performed to determine the nature and extent of contamination associated with historical military munitions at the East Fork Valley Range Complex and the Eagle Valley South Range Complex through site characterization and baseline risk/hazard assessment activities. Human and ecological risks were identified and evaluated during the RI. The objective of this FS is to develop, evaluate, and compare remedial action alternatives that address site risks and meet the site RAO, so that the USACE can select an appropriate remedy for the site. The information obtained during the RI was used in this FS to perform a systematic analysis and determine appropriate remedial actions based on current and anticipated future land use. This FS was developed consistent with the Military Munitions Response Process (USACE, 2006) and in accordance with USEPA guidance documents developed for activities performed under CERCLA, as outlined in the NCP.

The EFV MRS includes portions of the East Fork Valley Range Complex and Eagle Valley South Range Complex that were delineated in the SI. The MRS has been redefined to include all


Section 2.0 Introduction

of the East Fork Valley including the areas to be affected by a proposed restoration of the streambed of the East Fork of the Eagle River. The MRS boundary has also been redefined from the boundary proposed in the RI, specifically to include an area that was defined as Eagle Valley South D in the RI. The RI proposed dividing the EFV MRS into smaller MRSs. In this FS, the smaller MRSs from the RI are carried forward as separate areas within the EFV MRS as shown in the following table:

RI FS Area (acres) EFV A MRS EFV MRS Area A 457 EFV B MRS EFV MRS Area B 52 EVS D MRS EFV MRS Area C 102 Total 611

The three subareas within the EFV MRS are retained for convenience of developing and presenting remedial alternatives:

• Area A – this includes the bulk of East Fork Valley. Most of Area A (excluding wetlands and some areas of dense vegetation) was included in the 2003 TCRA consisting of 100 percent surface clearance.

• Area B – this includes a target area at the eastern end of East Fork Valley. This area generally has a higher density of MEC and MD than Areas A and C based on previous investigations. Part of Area B was included in the 2003 TCRA.

• Area C – this includes the western end of East Fork Valley. This area generally has a lower density of MEC and MD than Areas A and B based on previous investigations. Area C was not included in the 2003 TCRA. This area was designated EVS D in the RI.

The RI also identified two additional MRSs within the East Fork Valley Range Complex (EFV C MRS and EFV D MRS). These are now considered part of the Eagle Valley South MRS and will be evaluated in a separate FS.

This FS report is organized consistent with the sequence of steps that was utilized in the development, screening, and analysis of alternatives for this FS report is organized as follows:

• Section 2 – Introduction: This section describes the regulatory framework, purpose, and property identification; presents background information; and summarizes the results of the RI and risk assessment (RA).

• Section 3 – Identification and Screening of Remedial Action Technologies: This section defines RAOs and potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate



Requirements (ARARs), identifies the range of applicable general response actions and technologies for MEC risk management, and provides an initial screening of such general response actions and technologies to assess whether they should be included as part of a remedial alternative.

• Section 4 – Development and Screening of Alternatives: combines the technology/process options remaining from the screening performed in Section 3.0 to provide alternatives for remediation to address the RAOs.

• Section 5 – Detailed Analysis of Alternatives: evaluates remedial action alternatives developed in Section 4.0 according to seven of the nine remedy selection criteria specified in the NCP.

• Section 6 – Comparison of Alternatives: compares the alternatives against each other with respect to the threshold criteria and primary balancing.

• Section 7 – Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocols (MRSPP) Update: provides an update of the MRSPP based on the combination of three of the proposed MRSs in the RI (EFV A MRS, EFV B MRS, and EVS D MRS) into a single MRS.

• Section 8 – References: This section presents the references used for preparation of this FS.

Property Description and Problem Identification 2.2

Camp Hale is located approximately 70 miles west of Denver, Colorado, in Eagle, Summit, Pitkin, and Lake Counties. The entirety of Camp Hale occupied 180,072 acres and included 15 MRSs delineated in previous investigations. The EFV MRS occupies approximately 611 acres along U.S. Highway 24 between Leadville and Red Cliff in Eagle County, Colorado (Figure 2-1). The EFV MRS is located within the White River National Forest and is under the control of the USFS except for one private parcel. The population of Leadville (12 miles from the MRS) is approximately 2,600 and the population of Red Cliff (7 miles from the MRS) is approximately 270 persons (US Census, 2010). Eagle County has a population of 52,197 and an overall population density of 31 persons per square mile (US Census, 2010); however, there are no residences within the EFV MRS. There are two campgrounds – one within the MRS, and one nearby, but no other sensitive receptors such as schools or churches within a 4-mile radius. An underground natural gas pipeline and an overhead power line owned by Xcel Energy run through the MRS. The USFS is currently in the planning stages of a streambed restoration project within the East Fork Valley. The project would restore the East Fork of the Eagle River to a more natural state by re-routing its flow into a meandering path through the valley. The project would involve intrusive work within the EFV MRS.

The EFV MRS was the primary training area used by the Army and CIA at Camp Hale. The MRS occupies the valley created by the East Fork of the Eagle River and was used for training with a variety of munitions types. Previous investigations at the EFV MRS include two TCRAs performed in 2001 (Moore, 2004) and 2003 (Shaw 2005) involving surface MEC clearance, an



Archives Search Report (ASR; USACE, 2003), a Preliminary Assessment (PA) performed in 2007 (Shaw, 2008a), an SI performed in 2008 (Shaw 2008), Focused Visual Surveys (FVSs) performed in 2009 (SKY, 2010), and RI field work performed in 2013 (CB&I, 2015). These investigations have confirmed the potential for MEC to be present throughout the MRS. The SI and RI presented sampling results for MC concluding that there is no significant risk for human health associated with MC and ecological risk associated with MC is considered to be negligible. Based on the conclusions of the RI, this FS does not address any actions with respect to MC.

Remedial Investigation Summary 2.3

The RI was conducted to characterize the nature and extent of MEC and of MC that may have been released to the environment, in accordance with the CERCLA process outlined in the NCP. The RI included analysis of existing data from previous investigations, plus field work conducted in summer 2013 including surface and intrusive investigation for MEC, and analysis of soil samples for MC.

2.3.1 East Fork Valley Range Complex

The RI field investigation for MEC at the East Fork Valley Range Complex included collection of digital geophysical mapping (DGM) data over 36 miles of transects and thirty-one 50-feet (ft) by 50-ft mini grids. Intrusive investigation was conducted in 25 of the mini grids involving excavation of 855 geophysical targets. Two MEC items, consisting of two 60mm mortars, were found in the subsurface in the area of Nazi Village at depths of 18 and 24 inches, and destroyed by detonation. A total of 227 munitions debris (MD) items were excavated consisting of fragments of unknown munitions type as well as debris from small arms, fuzes, rockets, and mortars. The majority of MD items were located in the eastern part of the EFV MRS in the area of Nazi Village.

During the fall of 2014, following the RI field work, the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) conducted a demonstration of advanced classification geophysical equipment in the East Fork Valley. The work included a geophysical investigation using advanced classification methods and intrusive anomaly investigation. Results available to date (March 2015) were presented in the RI.

Four MEC items were discovered during 2014 field activities. The first MEC item was a 57mm High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) projectile, which was found by CB&I on the ground surface on the hillside south of Nazi Village, during a site walk for the purpose of determining an appropriate MRS boundary. The other three MEC items were two 81mm mortars and one 60mm illumination round, found in the subsurface during the ESTCP investigation in the East Fork Valley.



The RI found that a MEC risk remains throughout the EFV MRS, with a higher probability of encountering hazardous items such as rockets and mortars in the eastern part of the East Fork Valley.

A screening-level risk assessment (SLRA) was performed as part of the SI. MC samples were collected during the SI from surface soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater and analyzed for select metals and explosives. Site concentrations were compared with site-specific background screening levels (SLs), residential risk-based human health SLs, and ecological SLs. The SI determined that MC did not pose a risk to human health or the environment at the East Fork Valley Range Complex. During planning for the RI it was decided that additional surface and subsurface soil samples would be collected from selected small arms backstops and open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) areas. The MC detected above background, human health, and ecological SLs were antimony, copper, and lead associated with small arms impact areas. The MC exceeding SLs were determined to be contained within the surface and shallow subsurface soils in three limited areas identified as the KD Rifle Range, KD Rifle Range Backstop Hillside, and Infiltration Course Backstop Hillside. Explosives were not detected in any site soil samples. These areas with elevated MC are now considered part of the Eagle Valley South MRS and are not considered further in this FS.

Based on the results of the RI, the EFV MRS was recommended for additional evaluation in the FS to address surface and subsurface MEC risk. No additional evaluation of MC was recommended.

The RI recommended that the East Fork Valley Range Complex should be divided into four MRSs. The MRS boundaries were drawn so that each MRS has a relatively uniform MEC and/or MC hazard. Two of the MRSs proposed in the RI are addressed in this FS:

• EFV Area A (formerly EFV A MRS) – This area, shown on Figure 2-2, occupies the majority of the current East Fork Valley Range Complex. The proposed boundary matches the outer boundary of the area cleared during the 2003 TCRA (shown on Figure 2-3), except for the southeastern portion near Nazi Village, which is included in a separate area to represent a higher MEC hazard.

• EFV Area B (formerly EFV B MRS) – This area encompasses an area of higher MEC hazard associated with the Nazi Village target area, shown on Figure 2-2. It includes part of the East Fork Valley Range Complex and extends south into relatively accessible terrain previously contained in the Eagle Valley South Range Complex. The revised boundary is drawn to include previous MEC finds and it approximately corresponds to a gradation from moderately steep slopes that are accessible from the East Fork Valley to steeper slopes that are less accessible.



Two of the areas proposed as separate MRSs in the RI will be included in the Eagle Valley South MRS and addressed in a separate FS.

2.3.2 Eagle Valley South Range Complex

The RI field investigation at the Eagle Valley South Range Complex consisted of approximately 290 miles of visual survey transects. Spacing between transects was approximately 60 ft in high use areas near roads, trails, and campgrounds; 1,000 ft in the eastern part of the Eagle Valley South Range Complex where military use was limited; and 300 ft in the remainder of the Eagle Valley South Range Complex. During the visual surveys, no MEC items were observed. MD items found included debris from practice mines, 60mm mortars, large caliber projectiles, and 3.5-inch rockets. The MD items were primarily located in the northern portion, particularly on the hillside south of Nazi Village and in the valley west of the KD Rifle Range. Other evidence of military activity such as fighting positions and c-rations were also primarily found in the northern portion of the Eagle Valley South Range Complex.

The RI found that a MEC risk remains in parts of the Eagle Valley South Range Complex, but the probability of encountering hazardous items in the southern and eastern parts is low.

Based on the results of the RI, parts of the Eagle Valley South Range Complex were recommended for additional evaluation in the FS to address surface and subsurface MEC risk. No additional evaluation of MC was recommended.

One of the areas in the Eagle Valley South Range Complex recommended for additional evaluation in the FS consisted of part of the Complex located in the East Fork Valley adjacent to the EFV MRS. This was designated in the RI as EVS D MRS. This area is included in this FS as a part of EFV MRS designated as EFV Area C, shown on Figure 2-2. Other parts of the Eagle Valley South Range Complex will be evaluated in a future FS.

Conceptual Site Models 2.4

The following sections provide a summary of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) developed for each of three areas within the MRS. These areas are distinguished because EFV Area A, including the bulk of East Fork Valley, was included in the 2003 TCRA consisting of 100 percent surface clearance of accessible areas. Considering the remainder of the MRS, EFV Area B at the eastern end of the valley was a target area and has a significantly higher MEC risk that EFV Area C at the eastern end of the valley.



2.4.1 MEC Conceptual Site Model – East Fork Valley Area A

EFV Area A consists of the area encompassed by the 2003 TCRA, but excludes the higher density MEC/MD area of the original East Fork Valley Range Complex, that is now included in EFV Area B. EFV Area A consists of approximately 457 acres (Figure 2-4). A graphical CSM is provided in Figure 4-19 in the Final RI Report (CB&I, 2015).

MEC Source

Several previous investigations have been conducted in addition to the RI, including two TCRAs: one in 2001 along the Colorado Trail and one in 2003 that included most of the valley floor. MEC and MD items found to date are provided in Table 4-5 of the Final RI Report (CB&I, 2015) and the location of MEC and MD items are shown on Figure 4-18 of the Final RI Report (CB&I, 2015), except that locations were not mapped for items found in the 2001 TCRA.

MEC may be present both on the surface and in the subsurface within EFV Area A. The potential for surface MEC has been reduced by surface clearances during the 2001 and 2003 TCRAs and by removal of MEC and MD items located during other previous investigations. However, there are areas that were inaccessible during the TCRA due to marshy conditions as shown on Figure 4-18 of the Final RI Report (CB&I, 2015). Surface MEC may still be present in these areas. Also, MEC and MD were found in the 2009 focused visual surveys in areas covered by the 2003 TCRA.

Subsurface MEC was not addressed during the TCRAs, thus subsurface MEC may be present throughout EFVArea A. Three subsurface MEC items were found during the ESTCP demonstration project in 2014 in EFV Area A: two 81mm mortars (M56), and one 60mm illumination round. In addition, two MEC items, both fuzed 60mm high explosive (HE) mortars, were excavated from a mini grid in 2013 within the adjacent EFVArea B.

Results of the RI and ESTCP project indicate the presence of subsurface MEC up to 24 inches below ground surface (bgs), with greater depths possible given that many of the munitions types present have penetration depths of several feet. Several areas with high subsurface target densities were identified during the RI geophysical survey and ESTCP investigation.

The potential exists for subsurface MEC resulting from use of rockets, mortars, and/or projectiles throughout EFV Area A. MEC and/or MD associated with 60mm and 81mm HE mortars, 2.36-inch and 3.5-inch HEAT rockets, and HE projectiles have been found throughout EFV Area A during various investigations. These items are of particular concern because the mortars and HEAT rockets are considered to be sensitive unexploded ordnance (UXO), and all have large (greater than 1,000 ft) explosive safety quantity-distances (ESQDs), which could result in a large area of impact should an explosive item accidently detonate.



In addition, MEC and/or MD associated with training and maneuver items (hand grenades, flares, landmines, etc.) has been found in several parts of EFV Area A. The highest density of hand grenades parts/frag was found in the KD Rifle Range and at the Combat Course. Most of these items would have been removed during the 2003 TCRA surface clearance or earlier Army clearances.

Activity

Most of EFV Area A consists of the east-west trending East Fork Valley bounded by an abrupt topographical change to steep slopes to both the north and south. In the western part of Area A the valley is relatively open and flat, but towards the east the ground becomes hummocky and rocky with more trees.

Activity describes ways that receptors come into contact with a source. The primary activities in EFV Area A consist of recreational snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, hiking, camping, fishing, biking, horseback riding, and four wheeling. Landowners perform sheep grazing also occurs within EFV Area A. The Colorado Trail passes through the MRS and there is a parking area where the trail crosses National Forest Service (NFS) Road 714 within EFV Area A. Concessionaires are allowed to conduct recreational tour groups through the area, although they are restricted to trails and roadways. The Camp Hale East Fork Group Campground is also located within EFV Area A (Figure 2-4). This campground may be reserved for group use from Memorial Day to Labor Day and is heavily used. The Camp Hale Memorial Campground, which is used by individual campers, is located to the west of the EFV MRS. With the exception of camping, the recreational uses are considered non-intrusive. Camping activities are considered intrusive and have the potential to impact the surface and shallow subsurface (approximately 0.5 ft bgs).

In addition to recreational activities USFS workers perform trail maintenance activities, natural resource activities, and Xcel utility workers perform maintenance on the high pressure gas line periodically on the public land within EFV Area A. Logging activities may also occur. These activities are considered intrusive and have the potential to impact the surface and subsurface. The USFS has begun planning for restoration of the East Fork of the Eagle River that would involve restoring original meanders. This future work would be intrusive and would impact the surface and subsurface.

A portion of EFV Area A (approximately 41 acres or 8 percent of the total area) is privately owned by the East Lake Creek Ranch, LLP (Figure 2-4). There are no buildings or other structures associated with the property, and little information is available regarding this private land. It is assumed that intrusive activities may occur at the East Lake Creek Ranch property and have the potential to impact the surface and subsurface.



Access

There are currently no physical access restrictions (i.e., fences or man-made physical barriers) at EFV Area A. All parts of the area are easily accessible from Highway 24 and from the main cantonment area of former Camp Hale via NFS Road 714 (Figure 2-4). Vehicle access by the public within EFV Area A is restricted to designated USFS roads.

There are currently access restrictions in place in the East Fork Valley relating to an ongoing investigation of asbestos remnant from buildings in the cantonment area. USFS Special Order 2012-15 prohibits access except on designated roads and trails or if there is at least 1 ft of snow cover (USFS, 2012a). This restriction applies to the western portion of Area A, generally bounded by Colorado State Highway 24 to the west, NFS Road 726 to the south, and NFS Road 714 to the north. In addition, Order UFC-01-12 National Forest Occupancy and Use Regulations (USDA, 2012) prohibit camping in any areas of the East Fork Valley other than the two designated campgrounds.

Receptors

Receptors identified for EFV Area A include both current and anticipated future land users.

The current use of EFV Area A is for a combination of recreational, commercial, industrial, and ecological purposes. In addition, construction activities are anticipated in the future. Therefore, receptors with the potential to be exposed to surface and subsurface MEC at EFV Area A include: recreational users (campers only), landowners, USFS workers (e.g., biologists and other natural resource workers), wildland firefighters, loggers, Xcel utility workers, and construction workers (e.g., road and trail maintenance workers, future stream restoration workers). Other recreational users (hikers, skiers, etc.) would have the potential to be exposed to surface MEC only.

MEC Exposure Conclusions

Numerous MEC and MD items have been observed throughout EFV Area A. Munitions items with the potential to be present within this Area include small arms, bulk explosives, hand grenades (practice, smoke, and fragmentation), rifle grenades (practice, smoke, and HEAT), anti-tank (AT) landmines (practice), rockets (2.36-inch and 3.5-inch – practice, smoke, and HEAT), mortars (60mm and 81mm – practice, illumination, and HE), and projectiles (37mm, 40mm, 57mm, 75mm, 76mm, 90mm, and 106mm – HE and HEAT). MEC and MD items found to date are provided in Table 4-5 of the RI. The locations of items removed during the 1965 clearance and 2001 TCRA are unknown. Items in Table 4-5 listed as having been found during these clearances may have been located in EFV Area A or in adjacent areas.



In 2001 and 2003, TCRAs were performed to remove MEC hazards on the ground surface. However, some areas were excluded due to inaccessibility. The potential for MEC to remain on the ground surface in the areas where the TCRAs were conducted is low, but is higher in those areas where the TCRA was not conducted. The subsurface investigation during the RI indicates the presence of MD at depths up to 24 inches bgs. Subsurface MEC has been found at three locations in the ESTCP project conducted in 2014. Because no complete subsurface clearance has been performed, it is assumed that subsurface MEC may be found throughout the entire area.

There are no physical access barriers in place at EFV Area A. Numerous land use activities occur within the area, which allow receptors to access the ground surface and subsurface. Campgrounds, trails, and roads are present within the area. In addition, a small portion of EFV Area A is privately owned. As such, there is the potential for receptors to access MEC in the surface and subsurface throughout EFV Area A.

For the RI, an evaluation of the MEC hazard was prepared using the MEC HA methodology. The MEC HA methodology was developed to evaluate the potential explosive hazard associated with conventional MEC present at a site under a variety of site conditions, including various cleanup scenarios and land-use assumptions (USEPA, 2008). Table 2-1 summarizes the inputs for each Area, the calculated MEC HA score, and the associated MEC HA Hazard Level. Based on the current conditions at the site and the current use scenario, the MEC HA methodology resulted in a score of 670 for EFV Area A, which results in a Hazard Level of 3 (moderate potential explosive hazard). This MEC HA score is based on completion of a surface clearance and is applied to the whole of EFV Area A including areas where the 2003 TCRA was not conducted due to marshy areas or thick vegetation, on the basis that there is limited surface MEC hazard in these inaccessible areas. Future use conditions were assumed to be the same as current use conditions, and therefore result in the same MEC HA scores as noted above.

2.4.2 MEC Conceptual Site Model – East Fork Valley Area B

EFV Area B consists of the southeastern portion of the East Fork Valley Range Complex that exhibited a relatively high density of MEC/MD. EFV Area B consists of 52 acres (Figure 2-4). A graphical CSM is provided on Figure 2-21 in the Final RI Report (CB&I, 2015).

Source

Several previous investigations have been conducted in EFV Area B; MEC and MD items found to date are provided in Table 4-7 of the Final RI Report (CB&I, 2015) and the location of MEC and MD items are shown on Figure 4-20 of the Final RI Report (CB&I, 2015).

MEC may be present both on the surface and in the subsurface within EFV Area B. Based on the results of the RI and previous investigations, the probability of MEC being present is judged to



be higher in EFV Area B than in the adjacent EFV Area A. The potential for surface MEC has been reduced by the 2003 TCRA surface clearance and by removal of MEC and MD items located during other previous investigations. However, there are areas within EFV Area B that were not included in the TCRA. Surface MEC may still be present in these areas.

Subsurface MEC was not addressed during the 2003 TCRA. Two MEC items, both fuzed 60mm HE mortars (M49A2 mortars with T336E7 fuzes) were excavated from grid GG in the Nazi village within EFV Area B in 2013. Results of the RI indicates the presence of subsurface MEC/MD up to 24 inches bgs, with greater depths possible give that many of the munitions have penetration depths of several feet.

The potential for MEC associated with range activities (rockets, mortars, and/or projectiles) exists throughout EFV Area B. MEC and/or MD associated with 60mm and 81mm HE mortars, 2.36-inch and 3.5-inch HEAT rockets, and HE projectiles have been found throughout Area B during various investigations. These items are of particular concern because the mortars and HEAT rockets are considered to be sensitive UXO, and all have large (greater than 1,000 ft) ESQDs, which could result in a large area of impact should an explosive item accidently detonate.

Activity

The primary activities at EFV Area B consist of recreational activities such as snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and hiking. The recreational activities are considered non-intrusive. In addition to recreational activities, natural resource activities periodically occur within the area. These activities are considered intrusive and have the potential to impact the surface and subsurface.

A portion of EFV Area B (approximately 10 acres or 20 percent of the total area) is privately owned by the East Lake Creek Ranch, LLP (Figure 2-4). There are no buildings or other structures associated with the property, and little information is available regarding this private land. It is assumed that intrusive activities may occur at the East Lake Creek Ranch property and have the potential to impact the surface and subsurface.

Access

There are currently no physical access restrictions (i.e., fences or man-made physical barriers) in place at EFV Area B. The area is easily accessible from the main cantonment area of the former Camp Hale via NFS Road 714 (Figure 2-4). A winter trail is visible on maps passing through the northwest portion of the area, but this trail is not heavily used. Order UFC-01-12 National Forest Occupancy and Use Regulations (USDA, 2012) prohibits camping in any areas within East Fork Valley other than the two designated campgrounds (Camp Hale Memorial Campground and



Camp Hale East Fork Group Campground), which are located approximately 2.3 miles and 0.9 mile, respectively, from EFV Area B.

Receptors

Receptors identified for EFV Area B include both current and anticipated future land users.

The current use of EFV Area B is for a combination of recreational, commercial, and ecological purposes. Therefore, receptors with the potential to be exposed to surface and subsurface MEC include landowners, USFS workers (e.g., biologists and other natural resource workers), wildland firefighters, and loggers. Recreational users (hikers, skiers, etc.) would have the potential to be exposed to surface MEC only.


Numerous MEC and MD items have been observed throughout EFV Area B. Munitions items with the potential to be present within the area include: small arms, bulk explosives, hand grenades (fragmentation), rifle grenades (practice, smoke, and HEAT), rockets (2.36-inch and 3.5-inch – practice, smoke, and HEAT), mortars (60mm and 81mm – practice, illumination, and HE), and projectiles (40mm, 57mm, 75mm, 76mm, 90mm, and 106mm – HE and HEAT). MEC and MD items found to date are provided in Table 4-7 of the RI. The locations of items removed during the 1965 clearance are unknown. Items in Table 4-7 listed as having been found during this clearance may have been located in EFV Area B or in adjacent areas.

In 2003, a TCRA was performed within the East Fork Valley Range Complex to remove MEC hazards on the ground surface. The TCRA did not cover the entire land area encompassed by EFV Area B. The potential for MEC to remain on the ground surface in the areas where the TCRA was conducted is low, but is higher in those areas where the TCRA was not conducted. The subsurface investigation during the RI indicates the potential for MD throughout EFV Area B up to depths of 24 inches bgs, and MEC in the southeast corner of the EFV Area B at depths up to 24 inches bgs. However, it is assumed that subsurface MEC may be found throughout the entire area.

There are no physical access barriers in place at EFV Area B, and numerous land use activities occur within the area that allow receptors to access the ground surface and subsurface. Trails and roads are present within EFV Area B. In addition, a small portion of the area is privately owned. As such, there is the potential for receptors to access MEC in the surface and subsurface throughout the area.

As discussed in Section 2.4.1, for the RI, an evaluation of the MEC hazard was prepared using the MEC HA methodology. Table 2-1 summarizes the inputs for each area, the calculated MEC HA score, and the associated MEC HA Hazard Level. Based on the current conditions at the site



and the current use scenario, the MEC HA methodology resulted in a score of 865 for EFV Area B, which correlates to a Hazard Level of 1 (highest potential explosive hazard). This score does not account for a potentially reduced hazard in the areas where the 2003 TCRA occurred. Future use conditions were assumed to be the same as current use conditions, and therefore result in the same MEC HA scores as noted above.

2.4.3 MEC Conceptual Site Model – East Fork Valley Area C

Area C consists of the northwest corner of the Eagle Valley South Range Complex (Figure 2-4), and is topographically within the East Fork Valley. No MEC has been documented in this area and there is a low density of MD. A graphical CSM is provided on Figure 4-33 of the Final RI Report (CB&I, 2015).

Source

A MEC source area is the location where MEC, including UXO, discarded military munitions (DMM), or explosive soils, is expected to be found. EFV Area C consists of 102 acres that were used for weapons training by the Army and CIA.

Prior to the RI, EFV Area C was included in the 1946 clearance and USACE site walks conducted between 2001 and 2005. MD from M1A1 practice mines and flares was found on the ground surface during the RI. Also, a mortar tail boom and unidentified munitions frag were identified in the subsurface during the RI mini-grid investigation. No MEC has been documented in Area C and none was found during the RI; however, the location of MEC found during the 1946 clearance is unknown. MD items found to date are provided in Table 4-19 of the Final RI Report, and the locations of MD items are shown in Figure 4-32 of the Final RI Report (CB&I, 2015).

It is noted that Area C includes areas that were part of the Camp Hale cantonment area. The ground surface has likely been disturbed during camp operation or during removal of the buildings. As the soil was disturbed, surface debris may have been buried, including MD.

Based on the munitions history and types of munitions observed at Area C, MEC (flares and practice mines) may be present both on the surface and in the subsurface. Practice mines and flares are pyrotechnic and non-fragmenting and typically have small ESQDs. Munitions that were used for training and maneuver activities (e.g., flares, practice landmines) are anticipated to be found from the surface to approximately 1 ft in depth.



Activity

Activity describes ways that receptors come into contact with a source. Area C is located in the East Fork Valley. The terrain is open and relatively flat. There is evidence of considerable ground disturbance and construction/demolition activities within the area.

The primary land use at EFV Area C is recreational, including activities such as snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, hiking, camping, fishing, biking, horseback riding, and four wheeling. Sheep grazing also occurs in this area. There are no trails within EFV Area C, but NFS Road 714 runs across the northern portion. Concessionaires that conduct recreational tour groups through EFV Area are restricted to this roadway. Two campgrounds are located within the East Fork Valley but outside EFV Area C. The Camp Hale Memorial Campground is in proximity to EFV Area C and used by individual campers, and the Camp Hale East Fork Group Campground is located in the valley to the east. Order UFC-01-12 National Forest Occupancy and Use Regulations (USDA, 2012) prohibits camping in any areas of East Fork Valley other than the two designated campgrounds.

The Xcel natural gas pipeline cuts through the northern portion of EFV Area C along NFS Road 714 (Figure 2-4). In addition, natural resource activities periodically occur within the area. These activities are considered intrusive and have the potential to impact the surface and subsurface. The USFS has begun planning for restoration of the East Fork of the Eagle River, which would involve restoring original meanders. This future work would be intrusive and impact the surface and subsurface.

Access

Access describes the degree to which a MEC source is available to potential receptors. There are currently no physical access restrictions (i.e., fences or man-made physical barriers) in place at EFV Area C. The area is easily accessible from the main cantonment area of the former Camp Hale via NFS Road 714. There are currently access restrictions in place in the former Camp Hale relating to an ongoing investigation of asbestos remnant from buildings in the cantonment area. USFS Special Orders 2012-15 (USFS, 2012a) prohibits access except on designated roads and trails or if there is at least 1 ft of snow cover.

Receptors

Receptors identified for EFV Area C include both current and anticipated future land users.

The current use of EFV Area C is for a combination of recreational, commercial, industrial, and ecological purposes. In addition, construction activities are anticipated in the future. Receptors with the potential to be exposed to both surface and subsurface MEC include USFS workers (e.g., biologists and other natural resource workers), wildland firefighters, Xcel utility workers,



and construction workers (e.g., road maintenance and future stream restoration workers). Recreational users (hikers, skiers, etc.) would have the potential to be exposed to surface MEC only.


MD items have been observed within EFV Area C. Munitions items with the potential to be present within the area are primarily flares and practice mines, which may be present both on the surface and in the subsurface. Practice mines and flares are pyrotechnic and non-fragmenting and typically have small ESQDs. Munitions that were used for training and maneuver activities (e.g., flares, practice landmines) are anticipated to be found from the surface to approximately 1 ft in depth. A mortar tail boom and unidentified munitions frag were also identified in the subsurface during the RI mini-grid investigation. EFV Area C was included in the 1946 clearance, but locations of munitions found during that clearance were not recorded.

There are currently no physical access restrictions in place at EFV Area C. The EFV Area C is easily accessible from the main cantonment area of the former Camp Hale via NFS Road 714. Numerous land use activities occur within EFV Area C that allow receptors to access the ground surface and subsurface. As such, there is potential for receptors to access MEC in the surface and subsurface throughout the area.

As discussed in Section 2.4.1, for the RI, an evaluation of the MEC hazard was prepared using the MEC HA methodology. Table 2-1 summarizes the inputs for each Area, the calculated MEC HA score, and the associated MEC HA Hazard Level. Based on the current conditions at the site and the current use scenario, the MEC HA methodology resulted in a score of 625 for EFV Area C and a Hazard Level of 3. Future use conditions were assumed to be the same as current use conditions, and therefore result in the same MEC HA score.


3.0 Identification and Screening of Remedial Action Technologies

Development of remedial alternatives begins with identification of regulatory requirements, or ARARs, development of the RAO for the site, and then identification of applicable remedial technologies. This section provides the ARARs and RAOs as required by the NCP and identifies and screens remedial technologies that are applicable to address MEC at the MRS in accordance with USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1988) and the NCP (USEPA, 1990). As discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, the RI concluded that there is no significant risk associated with MC in EFV MRS and so remedial technologies applicable to MC are not considered.

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 3.1

Substantive regulatory requirements, standards, and guidance are referred to as ARARs. ARARs depend on the detected contaminants, specific site characteristics, and particular remedial actions proposed for the site. This section discusses the identification of ARARs for the EFV MRS.

Under Section 121(d)(1) of CERCLA, remedial actions must be protective of human health and the environment. Additionally, CERCLA remedial actions must meet a level and standard of control that attains standards, requirements, limitations, or criteria that are “applicable or relevant and appropriate” under the circumstances of the release. These requirements are derived from federal and state laws and are known as ARARs. Federal, state, or local permits are not necessary for removal or remedial actions implemented under a CERCLA remedial action, but applicable substantive requirements or ARARs must be met.

The NCP (40 CFR 300.5) defines “applicable requirements” as

…those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site.

The NCP (40 CFR 300.5) defines “relevant and appropriate requirements” as

…those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state environmental or facility siting laws that, while not applicable to a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well suited to the particular site.


Section 3.0 Identification and Screening of Remedial Action Technologies

Another category of requirements considered by the USEPA includes non-promulgated criteria, advisories, guidance, and proposed federal and tribal standards and is designated as “To Be Considered.” TBC criteria are not potential ARARs because they are neither promulgated nor enforceable. However, it may be necessary to implement TBCs when no ARARs exist for contaminants.

State requirements identified in a timely manner and that are more stringent than corresponding federal requirements may be applicable or relevant and appropriate. Three types of ARARs have been identified: chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs. By definition, ARARs:

• Are limited to promulgated requirements;

• Must relate to environmental or facility siting laws;

• Are substantive requirements; and,

• Pertain to the circumstances at the site

Chemical Specific ARARs are health- and risk-based numerical values and methodologies that, when applied to site-specific conditions, result in the establishment of numerical values. These values and methodologies (such as promulgated standards and risk assessments, respectively) establish acceptable concentrations of a chemical contaminant that may remain in the environment. In the RI the data results were reviewed against regulatory standards and a risk assessment was performed. MC were not identified as a concern at the site. Therefore, chemical-specific ARARs do not apply.

Action Specific ARARs are technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations on actions to be taken with respect to hazardous wastes. These requirements are triggered by the particular remedial activities selected to accomplish a remedy.

Location Specific ARARs govern activities in certain environmentally sensitive areas. These requirements are triggered by the particular location and the proposed activity at the site. Location-specific ARARs also focus on wetland or floodplain protection areas.

Proposed ARARs have been developed based on the current understanding of the site and remedial action alternatives developed in this FS. The ARARs are summarized in Table 3-1. The ARARs will be finalized in the Decision Document (DD).



Development of Remedial Action Objectives 3.2

Preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) are concentrations of contaminants for each exposure pathway that are believed to be protective based upon preliminary site information. PRGs are developed as target goals for remediation and are used during analysis and selection of remedial alternatives. For MC, PRGs are usually risk-based, chemical-specific concentrations for the media in which they are found. PRGs for MEC are defined differently from chemical compounds because there are no established risk-based “values” to use for MEC. The USEPA provides the following definition for MEC PRGs (USEPA, 2005):

PRGs for a munitions response are the preliminary goals pertaining to the depth of that response action and are used for planning purposes. PRGs are directly related to the specific media that are identified in your CSM [conceptual site model] as potential pathways for MEC exposure (e.g., vadose zone, river bottom, wetland area). The PRGs for response depths for munitions are a function of the goal of the investigation and the reasonably anticipated land use on the range.

The USACE defines PRGs as follows (USACE, 2006):

A PRG for MEC would be a description of a method likely to be protective of the particular exposure pathway(s) identified at the site; e.g., levels of cleanup such as surface removal, removal to depth or the implementation of LUCs.

PRGs are a function of the goal of the investigation and reasonably anticipated future land use. PRGs may change as more information becomes available, such as actual depth of MEC as well as the anticipated depth at which receptors may contact subsurface soils, environmental conditions, and the complexity and cost of the response required to meet a PRG. Based upon USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1988, 1989) and knowledge of affected media, contaminants of concern, and potential exposure pathways, the following remedial action goals were developed:

The PRGs are provided in the RI and used as a basis for the development of the RAO. The RAO is further developed in the FS based on criteria outlined in Section 300.68(e)(2) of the NCP and Section 121 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. RAOs should specify the item/contaminants of concern, media of concern, exposure routes and receptors. As discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, the RI concluded that there is no significant risk associated with MC in the EFV MRS and so remedial technologies applicable to MC are not considered.

The RI for EFV MRS has established the potential for munitions associated with range activities (rockets, mortars, and/or projectiles in EFV Areas A and B; practice mines and pyrotechnics in EFV Area C) to be present on the surface and in the subsurface. The RAO for the MRS is to reduce the hazard to recreational users, USFS personnel, utility workers, and construction



personnel, such that the probability of encountering hazardous munitions is negligible and RC can be supported. This will be achieved by:

1) Eliminating, to the extent practicable, the potential hazard of encountering munitions associated with range activities on the surface in areas that are reasonably accessible.

2) Reducing, to the extent practicable, the potential hazard of encountering munitions associated with range activities in the subsurface to depth of detection in areas where intrusive activities are reasonably expected.

The RAO is the same for each of the three areas within EFV MRS considered in this FS. The means to achieve the RAO may differ among the areas considering physical conditions and the clearance activities that have been completed previously.

General Response Actions 3.3

The RI found that a MEC risk remains throughout the MRS addressed in this FS. Remedial technologies fall into one of several categories termed general response actions in the CERCLA FS. General response actions (GRAs) consist of one or more technologies, which, either alone or in conjunction with other general response actions, could potentially achieve RAOs. The following general response actions are considered for the three areas within the MRS

• No Action

• Land Use Controls

• Detection

• Recovery

• Disposal

The GRAs are summarized in Table 3-2.

Identification and Screening of Remedial Technologies 3.4

Development of remedial alternatives begins with identifying applicable remedial technologies. This section identifies and screens remedial technologies that are applicable to address MEC in soil at the MRS in accordance with USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1988) and the NCP (USEPA, 1990).

3.4.1 Identification of Remedial Technologies

Remedial technologies fall into one of several categories termed GRA in the CERCLA FS. Several broad, remedial technology types may be identified for each GRA. The general response actions and corresponding remedial technologies and process options are provided in Table 3-2.



3.4.2 Screening of Remedial Technologies

Screening of technologies and process options consists of presenting and evaluating all possible options that could be used on a site, even those that are not realistically applicable to a specific site. As provided for in the RI/FS guidance, site-specific conditions determine the range of process options available at a given intrusive investigation area. These are “cases where there may be so few realistic options that a screening process is not needed and only a detailed analysis is conducted” (U.S. Army, 2009). The possible remedial technologies are presented in the following sections and in Tables 3-3 thorough 3-6.

This section contains an evaluation and description of process options for each technology. For technologies with more than one process option, each option is evaluated according to the following criteria as presented in Tables 3-3 through 3-6 and summarized in the following sections.

• Effectiveness – which includes evaluation of the following:

- Potential effectiveness in handling the estimated areas or volumes of media and in meeting the RAOs.

- Potential impacts to human health and the environment during the construction and implementation phase.

- Demonstrated reliability of the process with respect to contaminants and conditions at the site (USEPA, 1988).

• Implementability – which includes both the technical and institutional feasibility of implementing a process option:

- Technologies passing the initial screen of applicability are screened on the basis of technical feasibility. This criterion means feasibility under site-specific conditions. This evaluation may indicate that although a technology may be generally applicable for MEC, the specific technology may be unworkable or limited due to site-specific conditions.

- Institutional feasibility emphasizes the institutional aspects of implementability, such as the ability to obtain permits for off-site actions; the availability of treatment, storage, and disposal services (including capacity); and the availability of equipment and skilled workers to implement the technology (USEPA, 1988).



• Cost – which plays a limited role in the screening of process options. Cost is considered a deciding factor only when two alternatives are found to be equally protective. Ranges or approximations of relative capital, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, are used rather than detailed estimates. At this stage in the FS process, the cost analysis is made on the basis of prior experience with technologies, readily available information, and engineering judgment. Each process is evaluated relative to other process options of the same technology type, based on a cost range.

Following selection of the most appropriate process options for each technology type, the process options are combined to form remedial alternatives. The remedial alternatives are discussed in Sections 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0. Each process option for a given technology provides a basis for developing remedial alternatives and evaluating their costs and attributes.

Detection 3.4.2.1

MEC detection involves the locating of hazardous items (i.e., MEC) in the environment. This can include a broad scale investigation to locate areas where items are densely clustered, or a focused scale investigation to locate individual items. Detection is normally used in conjunction with removal and disposal to meet RAOs, but can also be used to identify areas for containment and/or institutional controls. Detection process options are summarized in Table 3-3.

Surface Detection Technology

Visual Search for surface MEC consists simply of a line of UXO Technicians walking across the property in a systematic manner to identify items by sight. UXO Technicians would be appropriately spaced to ensure 100 percent visual inspection of the ground. This option is not effective alone, due to the heavy vegetation at Camp Hale, but can be combined with other methods. It is applicable for areas without vegetation or other ground cover. It would be effective at removing visible surface hazards, but subsurface items will remain and items may be obscured by vegetation. This technology would be easily implemented and relatively low cost in valley areas but more difficult and costly on forested hillsides.

Instrument-Aided Surface Sweep would consist of a systematic search for surface MEC with a magnetometer or other instrument that identifies metallic items. UXO Technicians would work in well-defined search lanes that cover the entire area. It would be effective at removing surface hazards. This technology would be easily implemented and relatively low cost in valley areas but more difficult and costly on forested hillsides.

The advantages of surface detection technologies are:



• MEC items found during the clearance activities are removed, thus the MEC hazard is reduced.

• Methods are relatively low-tech and can be implemented using existing technologies and experience.

Limitations are:

• Costs associated with 100 percent or very high coverage rates over a large area may be high, so implementing this alternative at very large sites can become cost prohibitive.

• Site accessibility/steep terrain may limit the ability to implement full coverage surface clearance.

• Depending on the vegetation cover and procedures for implementing the surface clearance, some vegetation removal could be required.

• Only MEC at the surface is removed, so subsurface MEC would remain and could be exposed if there is a potential for frost heave, erosion, or avalanches to expose buried MEC.

Subsurface Detection

Subsurface clearance may be achieved through use of one or a combination of geophysical technologies, including subsurface analog techniques using sensors such as magnetometers, DGM, and advanced Electromagnetic Induction (EMI) sensors and classification technology. These techniques vary in level of sophistication, cost, ease of use, and availability. Each technology is effective and capable of achieving the RAO as summarized below.

Analog magnetometers (example Schoenstedt). Hand-held analog geophysical instruments are used in sweep mode as the instrument is passed back and forth in well-defined search lanes of 5 ft wide or less. Analog instruments emit an audible signal as the instrument is moved past a metallic item. The UXO Technician progresses along the search lane and stops when an anomaly is encountered. Anomalies identified are either flagged or immediately excavated. Analog magnetometers detect irregularities (anomalies) in the earth’s magnetic field due to the presence of surface and/or subsurface ferrous metallic items. A gradiometer consists of two or more magnetometers configured to measure the spatial rate of change in the magnetic field. An analog version of a magnetometer/gradiometer emits an audible signal that changes in pitch as the instrument is moved past a metallic item. Due to its effectiveness, simple operation, and availability of hand-held units, magnetometry is a commonly used technology for locating buried UXO. This technology is light and compact, can be used in any traversable terrain, and is widely



available from a variety of sources. Detection depth is generally limited to 2 to 4 ft. The cost for this option is relatively low in accessible terrain.

Analog electromagnetic instruments (examples Scheibbel ANPSS-12, White’s All Metals Detector) involve the use of an electromagnetic induction system to transmit electrical current. The system measures either the secondary magnetic field induced in metal objects or the difference between the electrical conductivity of the soil and the object. Because electromagnetic instruments detect non-ferrous as well as ferrous metallic items, they can detect a broader range of munitions items, but will also detect a greater number of other debris items such as aluminum cans and cultural resources. Investigation of all ferrous and non-ferrous items can be time consuming.

Subsurface Digital Detection

As opposed to analog instruments, DGM instruments collect geo-referenced sensor data that can be analyzed, processed, and used to identify targets with known location coordinates or to create maps of metallic clutter. With advanced methods, anomalies identified in the data can be analyzed to determine the approximate mass and depth of the item. If done properly with the appropriate quality control (QC), the number of anomalies to investigate may be reduced to create a target anomaly list. Because coordinates are known, the target anomalies can be reacquired and excavated at a later date.

Digital Magnetometers (example Geometrics G-858) work on the same principle as analog magnetometers, detecting irregularities (anomalies) in the earth’s magnetic field or the spatial rate of change in the magnetic field. Digital magnetometers are applicable at this MRS because all items of interest are ferrous. The instruments are effective at detecting MEC items of concern within 4 ft or more into the subsurface depending on the item’s size, shape, attitude and ferrous content. It is more difficult to use magnetometers for anomaly reacquisition and hole checks than electromagnetic instruments. These instruments are readily available for rental and can be easily implemented with medium relative cost.

Digital electromagnetic instruments (example Geonics EM61) work on the same principle as analog electromagnetic instruments, transmitting electrical current and measuring either the secondary magnetic field induced in metal objects or the difference between the electrical conductivity of the soil and the object. Because electromagnetic instruments detect non-ferrous as well as ferrous metallic items, they can detect a broader range of munitions items, but may also detect a greater number of other debris items such as aluminum cans and cultural debris resources. Typically the magnetic and electromagnetic instrument costs are comparable, although



the data are easier to interpret in the field and there may in practice be areas where a Geonics Limited., EM61-MK2A is the preferred instrument for the site. These instruments are readily available and can be easily implemented with medium relative cost.

Innovative Technologies

Advanced classification instruments are Time Domain Electromagnetic (TDEM) sensors designed specifically for classification of UXO items. These systems include innovative design in that the antenna platform includes mutually orthogonal transmitter loops with arrays of 3-axis receiver antennas and are able to control the source and receiver combinations. The design allows these sensors to interrogate the subsurface object from a variety of angles and distances and subsequently perform advanced analysis of the received signals to provide quantitative information on the shape and electrical properties of the object. The instruments may be used in dynamic and cued data collection modes. If the instrument is used in dynamic mode standard DGM is not required and if the data are of sufficient quality a prioritized dig list may be generated from anomalies selected from the data. Cued data collection can be performed during the reacquisition of anomalies selected from standard DGM or dynamic advanced classification data. The advantage of advanced classification systems is that only high confidence MEC and anomalies that can’t be analyzed are excavated and may reduce the number of digs by 85 percent or more typically), thus reducing the cost of excavations. With the reduced numbers of excavation and better knowledge of the anomaly source item the work environment is considerably safer. Additionally, the need for hole checks is eliminated and is realized as a cost savings. These instruments are in the development stage and are not proven for high-volume, long-term workloads, although newer and more robust versions are currently being developed.

Subsurface Detection Summary

Typical DGM surveys involve only collecting a single reading or up to four readings at very close times for each location coordinate collected. Although these technologies are fairly robust and proven, they provide only minimal information about the magnetic or electromagnetic field at each point. From this data, only anomalous values above the background or a specific threshold value typically are used in order to pick anomalies that are ferrous and/or metallic, while being able to glean more information out of each anomaly.

Advanced classification methods collect multiple readings for up to 21 different transmitter/receiver coil combinations that are in different locations and orthogonal planes for each location coordinate collected. Using advanced classification processing methods, data is inverted and represented by three different orthogonal planes. These three axes provide data that indicate if the subsurface item creating the anomaly has different lengths and widths. Those that have a long axis in one direction with two semi-equal axes in the other two planes may likely



represent a cylindrical shaped object that could likely be an ordnance item. These are compared to known ordnance items and dig list is created with all anomalies ranked from most likely to least likely items of concern.

Summary of Detection Technologies

The advantages of DGM are:

• The technologies can detect MEC items suspected to be present to depths where it is likely to be encountered within the impact areas.

• The technologies and data processing and analysis tools are available and generally accepted by stakeholders (additional activities may be required to confirm the performance of the advanced classification technologies).

• These technologies may be deployed on a variety of platforms, making it feasible to implement this technology at sites with steep terrain or where access is limited.

• Sites that undergo full subsurface clearance would be demonstrated to be free of surface and subsurface MEC and could be released for UU/UE.

Additional advantages of advanced classification are:

• Highly reduced number of digs can save costs with excavations and sensitive habitats.

Disadvantages of DGM are:

• Costs are high, primarily labor costs, associated with 100 percent clearance operations over large areas or areas with high anomaly densities, so implementing these technologies at sites with these conditions can become costly.

• Vegetation removal may be required and could be extensive if there are many excavations required.

• Alternative positioning systems or procedures would be required in forested areas where global positioning system (GPS) coverage is denied.

• Site accessibility/steep terrain may limit the ability to implement full coverage subsurface clearance.

Additional disadvantages of Advanced Classification are:

• Current iterations of instruments are not proven for long term field activities or weather conditions.

• Data processing and QC can be very time and labor intensive.

Subsurface detection is retained for further evaluation.



Removal 3.4.2.2

Removal process options are summarized in Table 3-4. Removal technologies involve the movement of hazardous items (i.e., MEC) from the source area to another location either on-site or off-site. Removal is used in conjunction with detection and disposal. If it can be performed safely, removal is generally considered to be the most effective form of remediation for MEC. Obviously, if the MEC no longer exists, it can never present a hazard to the general public. This makes MEC removal the best traditional method of protecting the community in the long term.

MEC removal can be performed in a targeted fashion, where individual items are detected, identified, and removed one at a time. Alternatively, bulk removal can be performed in known cluttered areas. Due to the potential for accidental detonation and the sensitive nature of UXO with armed fuzing, bulk removal technologies may not be appropriate unless adequate precautions such as engineering controls can be employed. Bulk removal is generally combined with sorting to separate MEC and MD from soil, rocks and other debris. Various MEC removal remedial technologies and process options are discussed below.

Due to the sensitive nature of the environment at Camp Hale, any removal activities would need to be overseen by an archaeologist.

3.4.2.2.1 Excavation Excavation during MEC removal refers to the focused, intrusive investigation of a single anomaly that could represent MEC. The metallic item causing the anomaly is left in place with as little disturbance as possible until it is positively identified and its condition in regards to safety is assessed by qualified UXO Technicians. Only then is a decision made to either remove it or, if MEC, detonate it in place. This technology is appropriate when the items of interest may be fused and armed.

Manual Excavation consists of hand digging methods performed by UXO Technicians. Manual excavations are generally limited to 2 to 3 ft or less. It can be very thorough and provides an excellent means of data collection. This technology is effective at removing MEC and implementable, although large or entrenched items may be difficult to remove manually. Hand excavation can be accomplished in almost any terrain and climate.

Mechanical Equipment, such as excavators or other earth moving machinery, can be used to excavate to an anomaly. When heavy equipment is used, digging progresses to within 1 ft of the anomaly after which hand digging commences. Heavy equipment would be very disruptive to the natural environment and wildlife. However, mechanically assisted hand digging may be implemented in open areas and may be administratively feasible and, in cases where MEC is deep, may save time and money.



3.4.2.2.2 Sorting Mechanical Soil Sorting consists of excavation of contaminated soil to the desired depth for processing through a sifter to screen out MEC and other debris. This approach is efficient at removing MEC, but is also damaging to the environment. As soil is processed through a screen, UXO Technicians monitor the operation and check the screen for MEC and MD. If MEC/MD is recovered, the UXO Technicians take appropriate steps to segregate and dispose of the items. The sifted soil/sediment is then returned to the environment. This process inherently removes and jostles all items before a determination is made that the item is safe to move, so it generally cannot be used when fuzed items are expected unless either done remotely or with engineering controls to protect personnel. Remote operation will raise costs considerably, especially if unintentional detonations occur and damage the equipment. Due to the low density of MEC/MD anticipated in the MRS, this process option is screened from further consideration.

3.4.2.2.3 Removal Options Summary Advantages are:

• Hand excavation can be accomplished in almost any terrain and climate.

• Mechanical equipment can be rented almost anywhere and are easy to operate.

• MEC is removed from the site providing a permanent solution.

Disadvantages are:

• Hand excavation has depth limitations

• Removal can be difficult to implement in steep and rocky terrain

Disposal 3.4.2.3

Disposal process options are summarized in Table 3-5. Disposal can be performed on site or off site. These process options are discussed below.

3.4.2.3.1 On-Site Disposal On-site disposal of MEC at Camp Hale may involve blow-in place (BIP) operations or consolidated demolition shots.

BIP is the most common method of MEC disposal for items found on land. It is the safest approach, especially for fuzed items, because it does not require moving or transporting the item. A donor explosive is attached to the item and used to trigger a high order detonation to result in complete destruction. Specific safety controls would be in place to protect the public, the project team, and the environment. This technology is effective, implementable, and relatively low cost.



Consolidated Detonations are controlled detonations of a number of MEC items that are safe to move to a single disposal site where they are destroyed. This approach reduces the number of detonations and therefore limits impacts to the environment. It also allows for detonations to occur in areas where conditions are favorable for site control, evacuation, access, and fire control. Environmental testing and restoration may be necessary.

3.4.2.3.2 Off-Site Disposal Recycling is considered for MD encountered during clearance. MD may be disposed or recycled as metal scrap. Off-site disposal is not considered as a potential MEC disposal approach because it poses a significant problem with transportation, which is not an option on public roads.

3.4.2.3.3 Summary of Disposal Options Advantages are:

• Field-proven techniques, transportable tools and equipment, suited to most MEC environments.

• Engineering controls can further improve implementation

• MEC is removed from the site providing a permanent solution

Disadvantages are:

• An exclusion area will need to be established and portions of the MRS shut down to the public and forest workers during disposal (BIP)

• Public exposure can limit viability of this option.

Land Use Controls 3.4.2.4

LUCs are physical, legal, or administrative measures developed to protect human health and safety from the presence of hazards, including explosive hazards. Educational programs and access restrictions are measures which are applicable to reducing hazards from MEC. These technologies have been retained for alternative development. LUCs, as discussed in Munitions Response Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Guidance (U.S. Army, 2009), include measures such as placing warning signs; fencing the area; adding deed restrictions such as land use, construction support, providing informational programs for the public; and educational programs. LUCs can be combined with other technologies to mitigate any hazard that remains on site. As the land manager, USFS is responsible for maintaining any LUCs. These measures are summarized in Table 3-6 and discussed below.



3.4.2.4.1 Access Restrictions Access restrictions are remedial technologies that limit access to a site or restrict land usage. Access restrictions can consist of institutional controls such as limited land use or as engineering controls such as fencing. Land use restrictions can be used to reduce the chance of a MEC incident by restricting certain activities from occurring that are likely to pose a hazard. Specifically, the restrictions should prohibit disturbance into any soil or sediment where MEC is known or suspected to exist.

Area-Use Restrictions are enforced use restrictions for a given area. The USFS does not have the authority to enforce restrictions, but can issue advisories. Advisories may be used as a mechanism to limit the time and location of potential exposure to MEC.

The USFS Permit System currently includes Special Use Permits issued by the USFS to permit specific activities within a specified area. Typically permits are issued to outfitter and educational groups whose activities may include backpacking, hiking, or horseback riding. Areas covered by commercial recreational permits are identified by compartments, as defined by USFS District offices. In general, compartments reflect drainage areas and permits are issued based on the amount of activity a given area can support based on environmental conditions.

The permit system will be integrated into the USFS Forest Plan and include restrictions on subsurface activities in the surface only clearance areas of EFV. The permit system would be developed and implemented with the USFS along with the planned wetlands delineation and management.

Fences are used to physically restrict or discourage access to a site. The effectiveness of the fence depends on the size, type, and maintenance of the fence. Increased height and barbed wire increase the effectiveness, although a determined individual can cross virtually any fence. The main advantage to fencing is that it prevents inadvertent access. Although fences are technically feasible the use of fences would restrict access for recreation use by the public. Engineering controls such as fences are not considered because the property is within the White River National Forest and USFS policy does not allow restricting access to public lands. Fences may also be cost prohibitive due to the size of the area. This technology is not retained for further consideration.

Warning Signs posted along the perimeter and within the interior of the property provide permitted users, USFS staff, and potential trespassers with immediate awareness of the hazards and land use restrictions. Sign posting is typically completed to inform people that entry is prohibited or that activities within the property are restricted in some manner. Warning signs are a proven technology that is effective, easily implementable, and low cost.



Intrusive Activity Advisories can be used as a mechanism to protect workers at the site and the public from exposure to subsurface MEC. Advisories may be provided for subsurface activities conducted outside of areas that have been cleared, or intrusive activities may be limited to workers who have participated in a MEC training program. The controls that can be included under this option include development and distribution of site worker educational and training.

Deed/Zoning Restrictions are methods of administratively restricting land use. Specific legal approaches to limit or restrict access to property are established generally as proprietary controls and governmental controls. A notice on the deed restriction can be included when transferring property (or in the case of federal to federal reassignments, an “Assignment”) and will identify current and project land use (i.e., recreational) pertinent site conditions related to military munitions use, munitions responses implemented, potentially remaining MEC hazards, if any, and any potential mitigation requirements. Currently the property is managed under the USFS General Plan, but if property transfer occurs in the further, deed restrictions may be necessary. Because the government currently has ownership, deed restrictions would be easy to implement if needed.

3.4.2.4.2 Education Education is a remedial technology that provides information to potential receptors in an effort to alter behavior. The use of education can be an effective strategy to manage and reduce residual hazard from community exposure to MEC. Education can take many forms and can be easily tailored to meet the specific needs of a particular audience, either for users of the site or the surrounding community. Specific information that may be provided includes:

• The history of the site specifying that the property was used for military training exercises and may contain MEC;

• The locations of potential hazardous areas;

• The potential hazards associated with MEC;

• Types of activities that may be especially hazardous in these areas;

• How to recognize potential MEC;

• Ways to avoid encountering MEC;

• What to do (and what not to do) if potential MEC are discovered; and

• Who to call to notify of potential MEC.

The following options focus on the particular approaches that may prove effective in altering behavior and mitigating hazards at Camp Hale.



MEC Awareness Training is a focused training program targeted at individuals that are the public and individuals authorized to access Camp Hale. MEC recognition and safety training may be provided to anyone conducting ground disturbance activities (e.g., digging holes, excavating trenches, repairing underground utilities, etc.) at the site and should include material on what type of MEC might be located and the procedures to follow if something is located.

MEC recognition safety training may be conducted in local facilities with the USFS providing professionals and experts to conduct MEC identification and safety lectures. Presentation materials could consist of brochures/fact sheets, videos, and various inert MEC items representative of those potentially located at Camp Hale. This technology would be effective in training the public or authorized personnel entering the site to recognize and avoid MEC hazards. This measure would only be effective for people authorized to access the site (i.e., trespassers would not receive training). This technology is easily implemented and low in cost.

Public Meetings, community meetings, or town hall meetings can be held to target either the local population in general, or target individuals or small groups that frequent the area. Meetings can be held to educate the community about the dangers of the MEC that is potentially present at Camp Hale. Participants could consist of includes public and elected officials, recreational groups, local media representatives, local businesses, residents, landowners, area stakeholder groups, USFS personnel, and area emergency responders, and a representative from the USFS, who would serve as a moderator for facilitating meetings. Public meetings can be highly effective, easy to implement, and low in cost.

Flyers or other printed media can be used to facilitate awareness and understanding. The printed media may be distributed to the community, recreational groups, or to individuals granted access to the MRS. The opportunity to disseminate information through the printed media is readily available and can be easily facilitated.

Websites can be used in a manner similar to flyers or other printed material. The Camp Hale web site (www.camphale.org) provides project-related information including historical use, project status, safety information, maps, project documents, and an email contact form for the public to submit questions or concerns. The web site is updated as needed to reflect current project status and activities.

3.4.2.4.3 Summary of Land-Use Control Options The advantages of LUCs are:

• Direct exposure through inadvertent site access or handling of possible MEC items is reduced.

• The costs are generally low.



• Time to implement the action (i.e., response time) is short.

• If LUCs are implemented for multiple MRSs there would be some cost savings achieved because a single Institutional Control Analysis and Implementation Plan (ICAIP) could be prepared, the educational materials and training would apply similarly to all locations, and field activities to install, monitor, and maintain signs could be combined.

The limitations of this alternative are:

• There is no MEC removal except in the event of any incidental discoveries.

• Stakeholders must coordinate implementing the selected LUCs for the anticipated life cycle of the site. LUCs may not be considered effective if there is no mechanism for enforcing restrictions.

• Stakeholders must identify decision criteria and funding mechanisms for the LUCs. Any institutional controls (ICs) selected would need to be implemented and monitored according to an ICAIP as described in the IC guidance provided in EPA-540-R-09-002 (USEPA, 2012), and ongoing evaluation of their effectiveness may be addressed through five-year reviews.

• On-going costs would be incurred for implementing all LUCs.

Summary of Institutional Analysis 3.5

An institutional analysis identifies and analyzes the institutional framework necessary to support the development of institutional controls, if required, for the identification and evaluation of response alternatives. The purpose of the analysis is to gather background information and document which stakeholders have jurisdiction over the East Fork Valley Range Complex and the Eagle Valley South Range Complex, and to assess the ability and willingness of these stakeholders to implement institutional controls that would protect the public from hazards within the MRS. An institutional analysis also provides an assessment of the types of land users present and types of institutional controls that may be appropriate within the EFV MRS.

The institutional analysis framework was developed in part based on the 2000 and 2012 USEPA Guidance for Institutional Analyses (USEPA, 2000a and 2012). An Interim Risk Management Plan (IRMP) was developed in 2010 with the objective of enhancing public safety by effectively managing potential munitions risk at Camp Hale until remedial actions are completed. The IRMP provides an interim framework for implementing current institutional controls, and identifies stakeholders, potential land users, and types of institutional controls that may be considered during development of the institutional analysis.



Stakeholders that could be involved in the evaluation and possible implementation of institutional controls within the EFV MRS include:

• USFS – The USFS is the land management agency for the majority of land within the Camp Hale FUDS boundary, including the EFV MRS.

• USACE, Omaha District – The USACE conducts environmental remediation of former military property under the FUDS program. The Omaha District has overall management, contractual, and funding responsibility.

Other stakeholders to be contacted when applicable include:

• Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) provides regulatory oversight for the State of Colorado

• USEPA is the federal regulatory agency

• Fort Carson Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) performs MEC responses required outside of RI or clearance activities, including for items found by the public.

• Area stakeholders include non-agency entities that have an interest in activities occurring in the area of the EFV MRS. Examples of non-agency entities are: public and elected officials of the state as well as surrounding towns and counties; private landowners and nearby residents; land users, such as recreational users and special-use permit holders; utilities; and emergency responders.

Potential land users within the EFV MRS include:

• Residents/Landowners: This group includes owners of land including a residence, as well as people who own a residence within the Camp Hale area but lease land from the USFS.

• USFS personnel and other authorized workers: This group includes regular USFS personnel, seasonal personnel, authorized contract workers, and other personnel.

• Utility companies: This group includes utility company employees who go into the area for utility conduit and/or easement maintenance.

• Recreational users: This group includes casual and commercial land users who participate in recreational activities including hiking, fishing, hunting, backpacking, camping, cross-country skiing, snow shoeing, and mountaineering.

• Special Use Permits: The USFS issues special use permits for a definite period of time for USFS-managed land within the Camp Hale area. These permits allow for the permittee to access areas and/or conduct activities that would not normally be allowed on



USFS managed land, such as mineral exploration, livestock grazing, outdoor educational activities, and commercial recreational use (e.g., outfitters or timber harvesting).


4.0 Development and Screening of Alternatives

This section discusses how the GRAs and specific process options are combined to develop remedial alternatives for the EFV MRS. The alternatives were developed to provide management of the hazards identified in Section 2.4, using active remediation or institutional controls while considering a current and future land use. This section presents the remedial alternatives developed for the investigation area, and also how these alternatives relate to GRAs as defined in the Military Munitions Response Process (USACE, 2006) and Military Munitions Response Program, Munitions Response Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Guidance (U.S. Army, 2009). In accordance with this guidance, the following alternatives should be considered:

• No Action;

• An alternative that reduces or eliminates TMV of waste;

• An alternative that considers LUCs;

• An alternative that does not consider LUCs;

• Unrestricted use;

• An alternative that considers an innovative technology;

• An alternative that considers monitored natural attenuation;

• Alternatives that provide varying levels of protection; and/or

• An alternative that considers presumptive remedies.

The use of monitored natural attenuation applies to sites with MC and is not applicable to the EFV MRS discussed in this FS. The requirements for the alternatives listed above can be met either singularly in a specific alternative (i.e., No Action or Unrestricted Use) or in conjunction with other alternatives (i.e., an alternative that provides varying levels of protection may be inherent to alternatives that do and do not consider LUCs).

A total of seven alternatives were developed that represent a reasonable range of technologies and meet the requirements of the Military Munitions Response Process (USACE, 2006) and Military Munitions Response Program, Munitions Response Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Guidance (U.S. Army, 2009). The seven alternatives developed are summarized below:

1. No action

2. LUCs

3. Partial surface clearance and LUCs

4. Complete surface clearance and LUCs


Section 4.0 Development and Screening of Alternatives

5. Partial surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance and LUCs

6. Complete surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance and LUCs

7. Complete surface clearance, complete subsurface clearance (unrestricted use)

The following sections provide a description of each alternative and the rationale for creating each alternative. These alternatives are screened for effectiveness, implementability, and cost described as follows:

• Effectiveness: The demonstrated ability of component technologies to achieve design goals.

• Implementability: factors such as safety, constructability, regulatory and public support, compatibility with land use plans and availability of material, equipment, technical expertise, and availability of off-site disposal facilities are considered.

• Cost: Remedial action implementation and operation, and long term management (LTM) costs are evaluated based on order-of-magnitude estimates.

Alternative 1: No Action 4.1

The NCP requires that a No Action alternative be evaluated to provide a baseline for comparison to other alternatives. This alternative provides no actions to protect human health or the environment at the site. Alternative 1 would result in no removal of MEC and would provide no monitoring or LUCs.

Effectiveness: The No Action Alternative does not reduce or prevent exposure to MEC, and does not provide short or long-term reduction in explosive hazard. Exposure pathways would remain for current and future receptors. This alternative would not address the RAOs.

Implementability: This alternative is technically and administratively feasible and no services or materials are needed for implementation.

Cost: The total estimated cost for this alternative is $0. There are no remediation or post-remediation costs, contingencies, or professional or technical services associated with this alternative.

Overall Evaluation: As this is required per the NCP, no preliminary screening is necessary and this alternative will be retained for detailed analysis in Section 5.3.1.



Alternative 2: Land-Use Controls 4.2

4.2.1 Description

Under this alternative, no additional active remediation would be performed for EFVMRS. Under this alternative, the MRS would remain at the current status, which consists of a partial surface clearance in the area covered by the TCRA (Figure 2-3).

As presented in the CSM (Section 2.4.1), the potential for MEC (rockets, mortars, and/or projectiles) exists throughout the MRS. Historical range clearances were conducted within this area in 1946 and 1965. Although the type of MEC and MD was generally identified, the location of MEC and MD items found were not documented. Numerous MEC and MD items have been observed throughout EFV MRS. In 2001 and 2003, TCRAs were performed to remove MEC hazards on the ground surface. However, some areas were excluded due to inaccessibility. The potential for MEC to remain on the ground surface in the areas where the TCRAs were conducted is low, but is higher in those areas where the TCRA was not conducted. The subsurface investigation during the RI indicates the presence of MD throughout the MRS up to depths of 24 inches bgs. Subsurface investigations for the ESTCP demonstration recovered three MEC items. It is assumed that subsurface MEC may be found throughout the entire MRS.

Remaining hazards at the site would be managed through LUCs including warning signs, MEC awareness training, public communications, and advisories on intrusive activities. These LUCs are described in detail below. The USFS, Holy Cross Ranger District, manages all of EFV MRS except for one privately owned property in the eastern portion of the area (Figure 2-4). A variety of year-round recreational uses have been identified for EFV MRS – hiking, backcountry travel in both winter and non-winter months, Colorado Trail/Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, hunting, mountain biking, 4-wheel driving, fishing, and similar outdoor activities. Typical users of the area include residents, land owners, special use permittees, USFS personnel, USFS contract workers, utility company employees, wild fire fighters, and recreational users. The LUCs specific to EFV MRS detailed below were developed based on known use of the area. The LUCs will be reviewed and updated periodically as site conditions change.

Signs Signs will be placed alerting area users to the potential presence of MEC. Sign content would include identification of the area as being used by the military in the past, notification of the potential presence of MEC due to past military munitions training activities, direction to not touch anything that is unknown or unfamiliar, and information on who and how to contact for reporting the item. Personnel from the appropriate USFS office and the USACE will develop and finalize a sign plan for the EFV MRS. Signs will be placed at key area user entry points



especially at the developed campground kiosks and also at areas such as trailheads and road entry points at the Colorado Trail and FS 174 roadway. Language used on signs will alert area users regarding MEC and state the need to remain on established trails and roads in order to lessen the possibility of encountering a MEC item. Periodic monitoring will be performed to ensure signs have not been damaged or removed, and provide resources to replace or install new signs.

USFS Permit System The current special use permit system will be integrated into the USFS Forest Plan and include restrictions on subsurface activities in the surface only clearance areas of EFV. The permit system would be developed and implemented with the USFS along with the planned wetlands delineation and management.

MEC Awareness Training MEC awareness training will be provided to personnel conducting work activities in the MRS. Munitions recognition training and hazard classification of areas within Camp Hale began in 2002. Training and educational materials will be prepared for wildland firefighters and other forest workers, such as USFS employees performing field surveys, road and trail construction and maintenance crews, and loggers conducting timber harvest and hazard tree removal. Recognition training will continue to be conducted at the beginning of each summer field season for USFS seasonal employees, through review of materials at USFS Ranger offices.

Topics covered in the training include historical military munitions activities at Camp Hale, types of munitions found in the area, specific areas where munitions have been found, procedures to be followed when responding to emergency calls, how to recognize a potential munitions item, and steps needed to work safely in potential MEC areas.

This training will address potential hazards to wildland firefighters, and site workers performing forest management activities and construction and maintenance of roads and trails. The ICs that would be implemented under this alternative include development and distribution of site worker educational and training materials that provide detailed information about munitions that may be encountered and procedures to follow in the event of any munitions discoveries. Development and access to the educational materials would be coordinated through the USFS.

Public Communication The 2003 Community Involvement Plan will be used as a starting point for public communications, which will be amended as appropriate based on updated site information. Communications strategies may include:

• Updating and maintaining the web site, to provide current project information;



• Providing project-related information to recreational groups, who in turn can update their members; this may include development of an email distribution list;

• Meeting with individuals and small groups as requested; • Conducting public meetings as needed; and • Ensuring safety information is made available to the public and included in any

information shared for this area.

Target Audiences: The current list of target audiences includes public and elected officials, recreational groups, local media representatives, local businesses, residents, landowners, area stakeholder groups, USFS personnel, and area emergency responders. This list of target audiences will be periodically reviewed and updated to include previously unidentified groups or organizations.

Information Locations: An information outreach program is in place at Camp Hale that provides project information via a web site, through the Administrative Record File currently at the Lake County Public Library, other local libraries, at area trailheads, to private landowners within the project area, and in meetings with area homeowner groups. In addition, public meetings are held to provide project updates. Information provided through these outlets is updated as appropriate, based on project status and activities.

Website: The Camp Hale web site (www.camphale.org) provides project-related information including historical use, project status, safety information, maps, project documents, and an email contact form for the public to submit questions or concerns. The web site is updated as needed to reflect current project status and activities. Additional internet-based methods for information sharing, such as Facebook and Twitter, may be developed if deemed useful and needed.

Hardcopy Information: Information sheets and newsletters provide updated project information to keep the public aware of project activities, progress, and safety. The sheets and newsletters are available to the public at the Administrative Record/Information Repository location (Lake County Public Library in Leadville), and electronically on the project web site. Information sheets and safety brochures are provided with permits issued by the Holy Cross and Leadville Ranger Districts to ensure that permittees have up-to-date project information, particularly regarding MEC safety. Informational materials will also be provided to agencies issuing hunting and fishing licenses to distribute to hunters and anglers.

A safety brochure is currently available for area users in the Camp Hale area. The brochure explains the “3 Rs” approach followed by the DoD for sites with historical military munitions and is provided in Appendix C. The 3 Rs approach encourages users to “Recognize” a potential



munitions item, “Retreat” from the item, and “Report” details of the item, such as what it looks like and its location to proper authorities. The brochure is available to the public through the Administrative Record/Information Repository location and the Ranger District offices, and is mailed with permits issued by the USFS District offices. This informational device or similar materials will be maintained as a part of LUCs in the future.

Recreational Organizations: Representatives of various recreational organizations that use the Camp Hale area post project information on their web sites, and some also print the information in their newsletters. Organizations known to post information include the 10th Mountain Division Hut Association website (www.huts.org) and the Colorado Trail websites (www.coloradotrail.org and www.thecoloradotrail.com). Communications and coordination with these groups will continue, with other groups added that have a significant community presence.

Property owners: Homeowner associations and individual private property owners were identified during past investigation activities in the project area. Current homeowner associations include those from Homestake Valley, Missouri Hill, and Sylvan Lakes. Project-related and MEC safety information is made available to these groups via electronic and hard copy materials. Additional homeowner associations will be added to the distribution list as they form in the Camp Hale area.

Intrusive Activities Advisories Advisories will be provided in written literature, the website, and other communication devices. Ground disturbing or intrusive activity advisories can be used as a mechanism to protect workers at the site and the public from exposure to subsurface MEC. Training and educational materials will be prepared for wildland firefighters and other forest workers such as USFS employees performing field surveys, road and trail construction and maintenance crews, and loggers conducting timber harvest and hazard tree removal who have the potential to encounter MEC.

ICs that would be implemented under this alternative include development and distribution of site worker educational and training materials that provide detailed information about munitions that may be encountered, and procedures to follow in the event of any munitions discoveries. Development and access to the educational materials would be coordinated through the USFS.

Planning and Documentation The existing IRMP (Shaw, 2010) outlines the current LUCs in place for all of Camp Hale, and may serve as the primary guide until a final ICAIP is developed after approval of the DD. The objectives of this document would be to systematically establish and document the activities associated with implementing and ensuring the long-term stewardship of the ICs, and specify the


http://www.huts.org/

http://www.coloradotrail.org/

http://www.thecoloradotrail.com/


persons and/or organizations responsible for conducting these activities (USEPA, 2012). Because the public lands within the MRS have no access controls (other than requiring motorized users stay on existing roads) and no permanent access limitations are anticipated, engineering controls involving general access limitations were not considered.

Coordination among stakeholders to prepare and update the ICAIP would be required. The USFS is the land manager for the public lands, and must be responsible for implementing the LUCs. As the agency responsible for environmental cleanup on former military land under the FUDS program, the USACE would be responsible to fund the activities required as part of the LUCs, including preparation of Five-Year Reviews. LUC activities would include developing and maintaining the website, preparing and printing informational materials, initial installation of warning and informational signs, and monitoring and replacing signs as long as the LUCs are in place. The USACE would also be responsible to develop or fund development of the training materials and provide training for wildland firefighters and other site workers.

Under CERCLA §121(c), the lead agency is required to review the remedies at sites where hazardous substances remain at levels that potentially pose an unacceptable risk. In addition to the remedy selected, five-year reviews will be conducted from the time the DD is approved since this action does not achieve conditions for UU/UE.

4.2.2 Screening of Alternative

Effectiveness: The LUC alternative would not reduce TMV of MEC and the hazards would remain at the site, although previous surface clearance under the TCRA has reduced the likelihood of encountering surface MEC in EFV MRS. LUCs would help to encourage behavior that would reduce the potential for human exposure to MEC. However, LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories provided. In areas frequented by the public, these LUCs are difficult to enforce especially over extended periods of time. This may reduce the effectiveness of LUCs alone over the long term.

Access management measures, such as warning signs, advisories on intrusive activities, public communications, and training of USFS personnel and other workers may be reasonably effective in the short- and long-term at limiting activities at the site. Documented activity advisories are effective at helping to ensure that the current and future land use is compatible with the agreed-upon land use that was the basis for the remedy. MEC awareness training and informational flyers would be effective at educating people who may have access to the site.

Implementability: In general, LUCs are considered technically and administratively feasible for EFV MRS. However, as discussed under effectiveness, they can be difficult to implement in a manner that the advisories will be routinely followed in areas frequented by the public. Because



most LUCs are already in place, an estimated time of approximately one year is required for formalizing plans and procedures, and approval by the state.

An ICAIP would be prepared upon completion of the DD. As the land manager, the USFS would be responsible to implement the LUCs. The technical and administrative requirements to implement this alternative would be included in the ICAIP. This alternative is considered administratively feasible, and the IRMP currently in place addresses some aspects of LUCs.

Coordination among stakeholders to prepare and update the ICAIP would be required. The USFS is the land manager for the public lands, and would be responsible for implementing the LUCs. LUC activities would include developing and maintaining the website, preparing and printing informational materials, initial installation of warning and informational signs, and monitoring and replacing signs as long as the LUCs are in place. The USACE would also be responsible to develop or fund development of the training materials and provide training for wildland firefighters and other site workers.

This alternative is administratively feasible because the technologies and capabilities needed to implement LUCs are available, and the IRMP currently in place addresses at least some aspects of the possible LUCs. There are no known permits, waivers, easements, or right-of-way agreements necessary to install signs as the property is under management of the USFS and all installations would be within the White River National Forest. This alternative will require approximately one year to implement.

Cost: The cost of LUCs is low in comparison with other remedial options and is estimated at approximately $1.0 million over a 30-year period. Costs will include preparation of the ICAIP, installation and long-term maintenance of signs, preparation of educational materials and maintaining and distributing materials to the site workers and public. Costs also include performance of five-year reviews. A breakdown of costs is provided in Appendix D and discussed in the detailed analysis of alternatives in Section 5.3.2.

Overall Evaluation: The LUC alternative is retained for detailed analysis for EFV MRS in Section 5.3.2 because it is effective, implementable, and low cost.

Alternative 3: Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs 4.3

4.3.1 Description

The alternative consists of a partial surface clearance in those areas of EFV MRS where recreational or construction activities are most likely to encounter MEC. These areas shown on Figure 4-1 include:



• Footprint of the proposed realignment of the East Fork of the Eagle River (43 acres). This area is selected for surface removal because MEC has been found on the surface during the TCRA and in the subsurface during the ESTCP demonstration project, and the stream alignment project will involve earth moving activities. The area proposed is 43 acres based on a buffer zone approximately 145 ft to 350 ft wide identified in April 2015 by the project planners (personal communication, Matt Grove, Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District, March 2015). It is expected that the detailed alignment may be revised during future project planning.

• Colorado Trail and a 50-foot buffer on either side (25 acres): This area is selected for surface removal because MEC has been found during the TCRA on the surface in the area and the trail is heavily used.

• 30-foot wide utility corridor (9 acres): This area is selected for surface removal because MEC has been found on the surface during the TCRA in the area and the utility corridor may require maintenance in the future. The utility corridor may be relocated, in which case the clearance will be performed along the new alignment.

• Campground and buffer area (18 acres): This area is selected for surface removal because MEC has been found on the surface in the area and the campground is heavily used. The area proposed is 18 acres including the campground itself and a buffer that extends to the river on the north, to the road on the south and includes the area east of the gate where MEC has been found in the past (Figure 4-1).

• FS 174 roadway and a 300 ft buffer on either side (total of approximately 182). The 300-ft buffer is included to reflect the higher level of public access near roads.

• 100 ft buffer at base of slope behind AOI 5 (4 acres). This area is included because MEC or MD items have been observed washing out of the hillside due to erosion.

• Areas not included in the 2003 TCRA including all of Area C and part of Areas A and B (145 acres).

• Areas not specified above that would be small outliers between clearance areas).

• Total of approximately 360 acres excluding areas that overlap (48 acres), road surfaces (4 acres), wetlands (10 acres), and 4 acres cleared during the ESTCP demonstration.

A surface clearance was performed in most of these areas during the TCRA. It is noted that MEC and MD were found in the focused visual surveys conducted in 2009 in an area previously included in the TCRA. These items could have been missed in the TCRA, possibly because they were obscured by vegetation, or they may have exposed by frost heave or erosion. These finds raise the question of whether surface clearance should be repeated in all or part of the TCRA



areas. This alternative provides for a re-survey of the part of the TCRA area that is most heavily used by both the public and forest workers.

This alternative was developed to reflect the higher level of public access and use near roads, campgrounds, and trails as well as future construction activity along the stream realignment and utility corridor. These areas would be expected to have a greater risk of exposure to any MEC present and implementing clearances would therefore result in an effective risk reduction. The 300-ft buffer width was selected because dispersed camping rules for the White River National Forest state that unless otherwise designated, visitors are permitted to drive vehicles up to 300 ft from designated routes for purposes of dispersed camping as long as no resource damage is incurred in the process. It is also known that most site visitors typically do not travel far from established routes.

Two significant considerations will be necessary for this effort: accommodation of recreational users may require the closure of selected MRS areas (or escorting them through active work zones if feasible); and historical resources will need to be identified, documented, and protected throughout the MRS.

The surface MEC and MD removal action will consist of a visual surface sweep and investigation, including the identification, management and removal of all MEC and MD scrap. Any MEC found would be disposed using BIP if it was unsafe to move, or moved to a central location for consolidated disposal. A general description of the technologies is proved in Section 3.4.2. These tasks are detailed below.

Work Planning 4.3.1.1

Several documents will be prepared as part of the work planning process, including an Explosive Safety Submission (ESS), a MEC clearance work plan, a project management plan, and a quality assurance plan. All plans will be developed in compliance with state and federal regulations, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), USEPA, and CDPHE, as well as USACE requirements. The work schedule and activities will be coordinated with USFS, to comply with local rules and minimize disruption to campers, hikers, and recreational users.

Alternative Components 4.3.1.2

Sweep Teams. A grid system will be established using a 200 ft by 200 ft or similar grid system for all areas of the MRS requiring surface clearance. Sweep teams will start at a corner of each grid, form a line along one edge of the grid, and walk to the far end of the grid to clear a lane. The sweep team would then pivot 180 degrees (typically) and clear the adjoining lane, repeating the process until the entire grid has been cleared. Sweep personnel will use portable magnetometers to locate ferrous objects that may be masked by dense vegetation.



MEC Identification. When an anomaly is discovered by the sweep team, it will be investigated by the team leader, identified, and managed accordingly as potential MEC, MD, or non-MD scrap. Potential MEC will be investigated and managed appropriately until it is destroyed following procedures established in the work plan. Demolition typically will be performed on the same day the item is discovered.

Scrap Inspection and Storage. MD will be collected and placed in lockable containers. A multi-step inspection will be performed by UXO personnel to confirm that all scrap is inert and free of any contamination or explosive residue. Additionally, all items with the potential to rupture mechanically through heating will be explosively vented. The scrap will be sent off site to an approved recycler.

Items identified as non-MD scrap will be inspected to ensure that there are no hazards. Most non-MD items of potential historical value will not be removed from the site, to preserve the historic nature of the area. The location of the items will be recorded by GPS and marked for evaluation by a qualified archaeologist.

Historical Resources Documentation. Items of historical interest will be located with handheld GPS units, photographed, and recorded on the daily activity logs for historical and project documentation. Most historical, non-MD items will be left in place after documentation.

Follow-up Actions. At the completion of field work a Completion Report will be prepared. The report will detail the surface grid locations, sweep activities, inventory of MEC items found and disposition, inventory of MD and non-MD items found and disposition, and a summary of the archaeologist findings.

LUCs. This alternative does not provide complete surface removal and does not address removal of subsurface MEC. Remaining hazards at the site would be managed through LUCs including warning signs, MEC awareness training, public communications, and advisories on intrusive activities as described for Alternative 2 in Section 4.2.1. Because the public lands within the MRS have no access controls (other than requiring motorized users stay on existing roads) and no permanent access limitations are anticipated, engineering controls involving general access limitations were not considered. An ICAIP will be prepared following finalization of the DD. The objectives of this document would be to systematically establish and document the activities associated with implementing the long-term stewardship of the ICs, and specify the persons and/or organizations responsible for conducting these activities (USEPA, 2012). Under CERCLA §121(c), the lead agency is required to review the remedies at sites where hazardous substances remain at levels that potentially pose an unacceptable risk. In addition to the remedy selected, five-year reviews will be conducted from the time the DD is approved since this action does not achieve conditions for UU/UE.




Effectiveness: The partial surface clearance and LUC alternative would reduce the volume of MEC and MD at the surface in high use areas, but would not reduce the TMV of subsurface MEC. This alternative will be effective for removing surface MEC as follows:

• In EFV Area A surface clearance will be repeated in high use areas.

• In EFV Area B, surface clearance will be conducted in the largely rugged area that was not included in the TCRA. There are no developed trails in this rugged area but one MEC item was found in this area in 2014 (Section 2.4.2) indicating that additional surface MEC may remain

• In EFV Area C, surface clearance will be conducted for the whole area. Visual transects have been conducted in this area but not 100 percent clearance. The probability of encountering MEC in this area is low but the area is heavily used.

Subsurface MEC hazards would remain at the site, with potential exposure due to frost heave or soil erosion.

LUCs would help to change behavior and reduce the potential for human exposure to MEC. Access management measures, such as warning signs, the USFS permit system, advisories on intrusive activities, informational devices for recreational activities, and training of USFS personnel would be reasonably effective in the short- and long-term at informing potential receptors of hazards that could be present. MEC awareness training and informational flyers would be effective at educating people who may have access to the site. Documented use restrictions are effective at helping to ensure that the current and future land use are compatible with the agreed-upon recreational land use under this remedy. A process for identification and clearance of any future surface targets is maintained via DoD’s “3 Rs” approach.

This alternative would meet the RAO for surface MEC and comply with ARARs but would not meet the RAO for subsurface MEC except through LUCs. LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories provided. Areas frequented by the public under this alternative will be surface cleared but advisories on intrusive activities are the only protection for exposure to subsurface MEC in high use areas such as the campground. These LUCs are difficult to enforce especially over extended periods of time. This may reduce the effectiveness of LUCs over the long term.

Implementability: Surface clearance and LUCs are considered technically and administratively feasible for EFV MRS. Most of the area slated for surface clearance is reasonably accessible and most LUCs are already in place. The portion of EFV Area B where surface clearance was not



previously performed is rugged, characterized by boulder fields, rock outcrops, and vegetation including trees, which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface clearance. It is likely that some areas will be found to be impossible to clear safely. As discussed under effectiveness, LUCs can be difficult to implement in a manner that the advisories will be routinely followed in areas frequented by the public. An estimated time of approximately three years is required for formalizing plans, implementing the surface clearance, and LUCs. An additional six months to a year will be needed to document the clearance and removal actions in a completion report.

Coordination with the USFS would be required to schedule clearance activities, and contractors performing the work would be required to prepare the planning documents, and comply with all licensing and documentation requirements for handling and transporting explosives as required for MEC destruction. Facilities are available to perform the required demilitarization and recycling of MD recovered from the sites. LUCs would be implemented as described in Alternative 2.

Cost: The cost of partial surface clearance with LUCs is approximately $5.1 million (assuming four UXO teams working simultaneously) and is considered moderate in comparison with complete surface clearance and alternatives that include subsurface clearance. Surface clearance and the initial implementation of LUCs are capital costs and represent the majority of the costs. There are O&M costs for ongoing maintenance of the LUCs and performance of five-year reviews, but they are minor compared with surface clearance. A breakdown of costs is provided in Appendix D, and discussed in the detailed analysis of alternatives in Section 5.3.3.

Overall Evaluation: The partial surface clearance with LUC alternative is retained for detailed analysis in Section 5.3.3 because it is effective, implementable, and of moderate cost.

Alternative 4: Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs 4.4

4.4.1 Description

The alternative consists of a complete surface clearance of the EFV MRS except in wetlands and road surfaces. Wetlands are excluded because the likelihood of human occupation of these areas is low and performance of a clearance could damage or destroy these sensitive environments. If any of the wetlands are accessible due to dry conditions at the time of the surface clearance, the wetlands may be added to the survey. LUCs, as described in Alternative 2, would also be implemented because this alternative does not address removal of subsurface MEC.



The surface MEC and MD removal action will consist of a visual surface sweep and investigation, including the identification, management and removal of all MEC and MD scrap. The area shown on Figure 4-2 includes:

• Area of EFV MRS excluding wetlands: 589 acres

• Total area of wetlands: 22 acres

• Total area for survey if all wetlands were dry and included: 611 acres

It is noted that MEC and MD were found in the focused visual surveys conducted in 2009 in an area previously included in the TCRA. These items could have been missed in the TCRA, possibly because they were obscured by vegetation, or they may have exposed by frost heave or erosion. These finds raise the question of whether surface clearance should be repeated in all or part of the TCRA areas. This alternative provides for a re-survey of the TCRA area.

The surface MEC and MD removal action will consist of work plan development, a visual surface sweep and investigation, including the identification and management of MEC/MD, removal of all MEC and MD scrap by manual excavation, disposed of MEC using BIP if it was unsafe to move, or moved to a central location for consolidated disposal and off-site disposal using recycling of any scrap MD. These tasks are described under Alternative 3 in Section 4.3.1.


At the completion of field work a Completion Report will be prepared. The report will detail the surface grid locations, sweep activities, inventory of MEC items found and disposition, inventory of MD and non-MD items found and disposition, and a summary of the archaeologist findings.

This alternative does not address removal of subsurface MEC. Remaining hazards at the site would be managed through LUCs including warning signs, MEC awareness training, public communications, and advisories on intrusive activities as described for Alternative 2 in Section 4.2.1. Because the public lands within the MRS have no access controls (other than requiring motorized users stay on existing roads) and no permanent access limitations are anticipated, engineering controls involving general access limitations were not considered. An ICAIP will be prepared following finalization of the DD. The objectives of this document would be to systematically establish and document the activities associated with implementing and ensuring the long-term stewardship of the ICs, and specify the persons and/or organizations responsible for conducting these activities (USEPA, 2012). Under CERCLA §121(c), the lead agency is



required to review the remedies at sites where hazardous substances remain at levels that potentially pose an unacceptable risk. In addition to the remedy selected, five-year reviews will be conducted from the time the DD is approved since this action does not achieve conditions for UU/UE.


Effectiveness: This alternative would identify and remove all surface MEC within the clearance areas, eliminating the short-term, and most long-term explosive hazards. The surface clearance and LUC alternative would reduce the volume of MEC and MD at the surface, but would not reduce the TMV of subsurface MEC. Subsurface MEC hazards would remain at the site, with potential exposure due to frost heave or soil erosion.

Access management measures, such as warning signs, the USFS permit system for land use and recreational activities, and training of USFS personnel would be reasonably effective in the short- and long-term at informing potential receptors of hazards that could be present. Documented use restrictions are effective at helping to ensure that the current and future land use are compatible with the agreed-upon land use under this remedy. MEC awareness training and informational flyers would be effective at educating people who may have access to the site. A process for identification and clearance of any future surface targets is maintained via DoD’s “3 Rs” approach. LUCs would help to change behavior and reduce the potential for human exposure to MEC. However, LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories. In areas frequented by the public, these LUCs are difficult to enforce especially over extended periods of time. This may reduce the effectiveness of LUCs alone over the long term. This alternative would meet the RAO for surface MEC and comply with ARARs but would not meet the RAO for subsurface MEC except through LUCs.

Implementability: Surface clearance and LUCs are considered technically and administratively feasible for the MRS. The area slated for surface clearance is large covering 589 acres excluding the wetlands, which increases the time frame required for clearance. Most of the area is relatively flat and open so performance of the clearance is feasible. As in Alternative 3, the part of EFV Area B where surface clearance was not previously performed is rugged, and characterized by boulder fields, rock outcrops, and vegetation including trees, which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface clearance. Most LUCs are already in place. However, as discussed under effectiveness, LUCs can be difficult to implement in a manner that the advisories will be routinely followed in areas frequented by the public. An estimated time of approximately three years is required for formalizing plans, implementing the surface clearance and LUCs. An additional six months to a year will be needed to document the clearance and removal actions in a completion report.



Coordination with the USFS would be required to schedule clearance activities, and contractors performing the work would be required to prepare the planning documents, and comply with all licensing and documentation requirements for handling and transporting explosives as required for MEC destruction. Facilities are available to perform the required demilitarization and recycling of MD recovered from the sites. LUCs would be implemented as described in Alternative 2.

Cost: The cost of complete surface clearance with LUCs is approximately $7.5 million present worth value (assuming six UXO teams working simultaneously), which is approximately two-thirds more than the estimated cost for partial surface removal. However, it is less than half the cost of any alternatives that include subsurface removal and is considered moderate in comparison with other six remedial options. Surface clearance and the initial implementation of LUCs are capital costs and represent the majority of the costs. There are O&M costs for ongoing maintenance of the LUCs, but they are minor compared with surface clearance and initial implementation of LUCs. A breakdown of costs is provided in Appendix C, and discussed in the detailed analysis of alternatives in Section 5.3.4.

Overall Evaluation: The complete surface clearance with LUC alternative is retained for detailed analysis in Section 5.3.4 because it is effective, implementable, and of moderate cost.

Alternative 5: Partial Surface Clearance of MEC, Partial Subsurface Clearance 4.5of MEC and LUCs

4.5.1 Description

This alternative was developed to address both surface hazards from MEC and subsurface hazards in areas of most likely exposure to buried MEC. The alternative consists of a partial surface and partial subsurface clearance in those areas of the MRS considered high use, where recreational or construction activities are most likely to encounter MEC. The area for partial surface clearance is the same as included under Alternative 3. The partial subsurface clearance is shown on Figure 4-3 and includes:

• Footprint of the proposed realignment of the East Fork of the Eagle River (43 acres). This area is selected for subsurface removal because MEC has been found on the surface during the TCRA and in the subsurface during the ESTCP demonstration project, and the stream alignment project will involve earth moving activities. The area proposed is 43 acres based on a buffer zone approximately 145 ft to 350 ft wide identified in April 2015 by the project planners (personal communication, Matt Grove, Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District, March 2015). Approximately 4 acres have been investigated and cleared by the



ESTCP demonstration project. It is expected that the detailed alignment may be revised during future project planning.

• Colorado Trail and a 10-foot buffer on either side (5 acres): This area is selected for subsurface removal because MEC has been found during the TCRA on the surface in the area and the trail is heavily used. Trail maintenance may involve intrusive activities.

• 30-foot wide utility corridor (10 acres): This area is selected for partial surface and subsurface removal because MEC has been found on the surface during the TCRA in the area and the utility corridor may require intrusive maintenance in the future. The utility corridor may be relocated, in which case the clearance will be performed along the new alignment.

• Campground and buffer area (18 acres): This area is selected for subsurface removal because MEC has been found on the surface in the area during the TCRA, the campground is heavily used and it is likely there will be intrusive activity in the future for campground maintenance and development. The area proposed is the same as for surface removal in Alternative 3 (Figure 4-3).

• FS 714 roadway and a 50 ft buffer on either side (total of approximately 42 acres). The buffer is included to allow for future intrusive maintenance of the road.

• The portion of EFV Area B included in the 2003 TCRA (15 acres).

• Isolated areas not specified above that are small outliers between clearance areas (2 acres).

• Total approximately 123 acres excluding 9 acres of overlap, 1 acre for the ESTCP Test Area and 2 acres of wetlands at some areas above).

The approach for surface clearance will follow the approach provided under Alternative 3. The general approach for subsurface removal will be as follows.

Work Planning 4.5.1.1

Several documents will be prepared as part of the work planning process, including an ESS, a MEC clearance work plan, a project management plan, and a quality assurance plan. All plans will be developed in compliance with state and federal regulations, including OSHA, USEPA, and CDPHE, as well as USACE requirements. The work schedule and activities will be coordinated with USFS, to comply with local rules and minimize disruption to campers, hikers, and recreational users.



Alternative Components 4.5.1.2

Anomaly Investigation. Depending on the terrain, accessibility, and vegetation, analog geophysics (mag and dig), DGM, or advanced classification will be used. The method(s) will be determined at the design stage of the subsurface program and will be adapted to field conditions during the investigation. For the purpose of developing alternatives, it is assumed that DGM will be used over most of the MRS because most of the area is open and accessible. Analog geophysics may be used in areas with difficult terrain, or areas with closely spaced trees that will not be cut. The tasks are described below and are used for evaluating and costing the alternative. These tasks will be modified as appropriate if advanced classification is selected during the design.

DGM Data Processing and Anomaly Selection. The DGM field data will be processed to generate color-coded images used for analysis and interpretation. The color-coded images will be transcribed onto the plan map of the site. An anomaly threshold will be determined by applying knowledge of site-specific noise levels obtained from a site specific Geophysical System Verification to calculated responses from the EM61-MK2 response curves for both industry standard objects and munitions items. A sequential selection process that includes automated anomaly selection followed by manual anomaly selection will be used to generate a dig sheet for each area, specifying the grid identification (ID), a unique identifier for each individual anomaly location, easting and northing coordinates, and sensor data for the EM61 MK2.

DGM Anomaly Reacquisition. Reacquisition consists of relocating the interpreted coordinates for each individual anomaly on the dig sheet. Reacquisition of each individual anomaly location will be performed to ± 0.5 ft of the coordinates specified on the dig. At each location, a non-metallic flag or other suitable mark (e.g., spray paint on road surfaces) will be placed with the unique target ID.

Mag and Dig. Analog geophysical (mag and dig) methods may be used where DGM access is not feasible. The survey may be performed along transects located using a GPS unit. UXO-qualified personnel will use magnetometers to locate ferrous anomalies. Each ferrous anomaly detected by the UXO Technicians conducting the sweep will be investigated by hand digging. Information will be recorded including depth of the item(s), weight of the items(s), longest dimension of the item(s),whether the item(s) were MEC, MD, small arms, or trash, number of items, position of item(s), direction item(s) were laying, and any further information required to describe the item(s),

Anomaly Excavation. Following anomaly reacquisition, UXO Technicians will perform the intrusive investigation. A mini-excavator may be used to excavate overburden within 12 inches



of the anomaly. Each anomaly will be investigated by hand. The following basic techniques will be used for excavation:

• Excavation will be initiated adjacent to the anomaly. The excavation will continue until the excavated area has reached a depth below the top of the anomaly as determined by frequent inspection with a magnetometer or similar device.

• Using progressively smaller tools to carefully remove the soil, the excavation team will expand the sidewall to expose the metallic item in the wall of the excavation for inspection and identification (without moving or disturbing the item).

• Once the item is exposed for inspection, the excavation team will determine whether it is MEC, MD, or other debris. If the item is determined to be MD or other debris, it will be removed and the area will be rechecked with the EM61-MK2 to ensure that a hazardous item is not hidden beneath it. The excavation team will then annotate the results of the excavation on the geophysical anomaly tracking sheet and move on to the next marked subsurface anomaly.

• If the target is determined to be MEC, the item will be left in place unless it is deemed safe to move. All MEC will be subjected to demolition procedures. Demolition procedures will be carried out within the MRS and will be conducted through BIP operations or consolidated shots.

• Excavations are made to the project maximum depth. If no metal is found, the area is checked for features that may have affected the data (e.g., bumpy terrain, proximity to a building, walkway, roads) and paths where a surface item may have been washed away or rolled downslope. DGM data are also reviewed for spikes, normal decay, leveling, and gridding artifacts. No finds will be recorded in the field and will be reviewed by the QC geophysicist to determine if further action is required.

• In areas with significant metallic clutter, it will be difficult and time consuming to select and reacquire individual anomalies. In these areas, UXO Technicians with analog magnetometers will perform a mag and dig operation by systematically sweeping the instrument back and forth in search lanes within each grid. When an audible response is encountered, the UXO Technician will immediately excavate and identify the metallic item. Any MEC found would be disposed using BIP if it was unsafe to move, or moved to a central location for consolidated disposal.

Follow-up Actions: At the completion of field work a Completion Report will be prepared. The report will detail results from the surface grid locations and clearance, geophysical survey, anomaly selection process, anomaly reacquisition, anomaly excavation, inventory of MEC items



found and disposition, inventory of MD and non-MD items found and disposition, and a summary of historical archaeologist findings.

LUCs. This alternative does not provide complete surface removal and does not provide complete removal of subsurface MEC. Remaining hazards at the site would be managed through LUCs including warning signs, MEC awareness training, public communications, and advisories on intrusive activities as described for Alternative 2 in Section 4.2. An ICAIP will be prepared following finalization of the DD. The objectives of this document would be to systematically establish and document the activities associated with implementing and ensuring the long-term stewardship of the ICs, and specify the persons and/or organizations responsible for conducting these activities (USEPA, 2012). Because the public lands within the MRS have no access controls (other than requiring motorized users stay on existing roads) and no permanent access limitations are anticipated, engineering controls involving general access limitations were not considered. Under CERCLA §121(c), the lead agency is required to review the remedies at sites where hazardous substances remain at levels that potentially pose an unacceptable risk. In addition to the remedy selected, five-year reviews will be conducted from the time the DD is approved because this action does not achieve conditions for UU/UE.


Effectiveness: The partial surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance, and LUC alternative would reduce the volume of MEC and MD at the surface and subsurface, but would not eliminate the toxicity or mobility of MEC. Surface and subsurface MEC hazards would remain at the site, but only in low use areas, with potential exposure due to frost heave or soil erosion. The portion of EFV Area B not included in the subsurface removal is rugged, has numerous trees, and bedrock at or near the surface. Because bedrock is at the surface, the potential for exposure to subsurface MEC is unlikely.

Access management measures in low-use areas, such as warning signs, the USFS permit system for land use and recreational activities, and training of USFS personnel would be reasonably effective in the short- and long-term informing potential receptors of hazards that could be present. Documented use restrictions are effective at helping to ensure that the current and future land use are compatible with the agreed-upon land use under this remedy. A process for identification and clearance of any future surface targets is maintained via DoD’s “3 Rs” approach. MEC awareness training and informational flyers would be effective at educating people who may have access to the site. LUCs would help to change behavior and reduce the potential for human exposure to MEC. However, LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories placed. Surface and subsurface removal are performed in high use areas, so MEC would only remain in low use areas not frequented by the public. This



alternative would meet the RAOs for surface and subsurface MEC in high use parts of the area, and comply with ARARs, but would not meet the RAOs for the whole of the MRS except through LUCs.

Implementability: The partial surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance and LUC alternative is considered technically and administratively feasible for the MRS. The areas slated for partial surface clearance (360 acres) and partial subsurface clearance (123 acres) are achievable and most LUCs needed are already in place. Based on the RI, the maximum depth for clearance of MEC is about 4 ft, which is reasonable to achieve. As for Alternative 3, the portion of EFV Area B where surface clearance was not previously performed is rugged, characterized by boulder fields, rock outcrops, and vegetation including trees, which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface clearance. It is likely that some areas will be found to be impossible to clear safely.

The services to perform the clearance activities are readily available. Coordination with the USFS would be required to schedule field activities, and contractors performing the work would be required to prepare the planning documents, and comply with all licensing and documentation requirements for handling and transporting explosives as required for MEC destruction. Facilities are available to perform the required demilitarization of MD recovered from the sites.

The implementability of the partial clearance alternative is higher than for the full clearance alternative because there would be considerably less acreage to clear, and all areas would be readily accessible for equipment and field teams from existing roads and trails. An estimated time of approximately six years is required for formalizing plans, implementing the surface and subsurface clearances, and LUCs. An additional six months to a year are needed to document the clearance and removal actions in a completion report.

Cost: The cost of partial surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance, and LUCs is approximately $19.1 million (assuming four UXO teams working simultaneously during surface clearance and six UXO teams working simultaneously during subsurface clearance), moderate-to-high in comparison with other remedial options. Surface clearance, initiation of partial subsurface clearance, and the implementation of LUCs are primarily capital costs and represent the majority of the costs. There are O&M costs for completion of the partial subsurface clearance as well as ongoing maintenance of the LUCs. A breakdown of costs is provided in Appendix D, and discussed in the detailed analysis of alternatives in Section 5.3.5.

Overall Evaluation: The partial surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance with LUC alternative is retained for detailed analysis of the MRS in Section 5.3.5 because it is effective, implementable, and of moderate to high cost.



Alternative 6: Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and 4.6LUCs

4.6.1 Description

The alternative consists of surface clearance in the whole MRS except in wetlands as in Alternative 4 with an area of 589 acres excluding 22 acres of wetlands. Wetlands are excluded because the likelihood of occupation of these areas is low and performance of a clearance could damage or destroy these sensitive environments. If any of the wetlands are accessible due to dry conditions at the time of the surface clearance, the wetlands may be added to the survey. In addition, a partial subsurface clearance as described in Alternative 5 is included under this alternative (Figure 4-3).

As described under Alternative 3 in Section 4.3, the surface MEC and MD removal action will consist of a visual surface sweep and investigation, including the identification, management and removal of all MEC and MD scrap. The general approach for subsurface clearance will follow those provided for Alternative 5 in Section 4.5. The area is generally flat and open for performance of DGM, or advanced classification. If any areas are inaccessible, analog geophysics (mag and dig) will be used. The method(s) will be determined at the design stage of the subsurface program. Any MEC found would be disposed using BIP if it was unsafe to move, or moved to a central location for consolidated disposal.



This alternative does not provide removal of subsurface MEC throughout the MRS. Remaining hazards in low-use areas at the site would be managed through LUCs including warning signs, MEC awareness training, public communications, and advisories on intrusive activities as described for Alternative 2 in Section 4.2. An ICAIP will be prepared following finalization of the DD. The objectives of this document would be to systematically establish and document the activities associated with implementing and ensuring the long-term stewardship of the ICs, and specify the persons and/or organizations responsible for conducting these activities (USEPA, 2012).



Under CERCLA §121(c), the lead agency is required to review the remedies at sites where hazardous substances remain at levels that potentially pose an unacceptable risk. In addition to the remedy selected, five-year reviews will be conducted from the time the DD is approved since this action does not achieve conditions for UU/UE.


Effectiveness: The complete surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance, and LUC alternative would reduce the volume of MEC and MD at the surface and would reduce the volume of MEC and MD in the subsurface. The toxicity or mobility of MEC would also be reduced. Subsurface MEC hazards would only remain at the site in areas where the use of the MRS is considered low. There are no significant recreational or forest worker activities anticipated in these areas. There is a low potential exposure due to frost heave or soil erosion in areas where subsurface MEC is not removed. For areas where subsurface MEC is not performed,

Access management measures, such as warning signs, advisories on intrusive activities, informational devices for recreational activities, and training of USFS personnel and other workers may be reasonably effective in the short- and long-term at informing potential receptors of hazards that could be present. MEC awareness training and informational flyers would be effective at educating people who may have access to the site. A process for identification and clearance of any future surface targets is maintained via DoD’s “3 Rs” approach. LUCs would be in place to help to change behavior and reduce the potential for human exposure to MEC. LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories provided. Surface removal would be performed across the MRS (expect the wetlands) and subsurface removal is performed in high use areas, so subsurface MEC would only remain in low use areas not frequented by the public. This alternative would comply with ARARs, meet the RAO for surface MEC for the whole area and meet the RAO for subsurface MEC in high use areas.

Implementability: The complete surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance and LUC alternative is considered technically and administratively feasible for EFV MRS. The areas slated for surface clearance (589 acres excluding wetlands) and partial subsurface clearance are achievable (123 acres) because most of the area is open and accessible except for the wetlands. Most LUCs needed are already in place. As for Alternative 3, the portion of EFV Area B where surface clearance was not previously performed is rugged, characterized by boulder fields, rock outcrops, and vegetation including trees, which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface clearance. It is likely that some areas will be found to be impossible to clear safely.

The services to perform the clearance activities are readily available. Coordination with the USFS would be required to schedule field activities, and contractors performing the work would



be required to prepare the planning documents, and comply with all licensing and documentation requirements for handling and transporting explosives as required for MEC destruction. Facilities are available to perform the required demilitarization of MD recovered from the sites. An estimated time of approximately six years is required for formalizing plans, and implementing the surface clearance, subsurface clearance, and LUCs. An additional six months to a year is needed to document the clearance and removal actions in a completion report.

Cost: The cost of complete surface clearance, partial surface clearance, and LUCs is estimated at $21.3 million (assuming six UXO teams working simultaneously during surface clearance and six UXO teams working simultaneously during subsurface clearance), and is considered high in comparison with other remedial alternatives. Surface clearance, initiation of subsurface clearance, and the implementation of LUCs are primarily capital costs and represent the majority of the costs. There are O&M costs for ongoing maintenance of the LUCs and performance of five-year reviews. A breakdown of costs is provided in Appendix D and discussed in the detailed analysis of alternatives in Section 5.3.6.

Overall Evaluation: The complete surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance and LUC alternative is retained for detailed analysis in Section 5.3.6 because it is effective and implementable; however, it has a high cost.

Alternative 7: Complete Surface Clearance and Complete Subsurface 4.7Clearance

4.7.1 Description

The alternative consists of surface clearance in the whole MRS except in wetlands with an area of 589 acres excluding wetlands. Wetlands are excluded because the likelihood of human occupation of these areas is low and performance of a clearance could damage or destroy these sensitive environments. If any of the wetlands are accessible due to dry conditions at the time of the surface clearance, the wetlands may be added to the survey. Subsurface clearance is performed across the MRS except for wetlands and the eastern portion of Area B, a total of 552 acres (Figure 4-4). The eastern portion of EFV Area B consists of rock cliffs, large boulders, and trees, which would preclude performance of a subsurface clearance. Performance of a complete subsurface clearance is not considered feasible and subsurface MEC is not likely to be encountered in this part of Area B because intrusive activities are unlikely due to the rugged terrain and bedrock at or near the ground surface.

As described under Alternative 3 in Section 4.3, the surface MEC and MD removal action will consist of a visual surface sweep and investigation, including the identification, management and removal of all MEC and MD scrap. The general approach for subsurface clearance will follow



those provided for Alternative 5 in Section 4.5. The area is generally flat and open for performance of DGM, or advanced classification. If any areas are inaccessible, analog geophysics (mag and dig) will be used. The method(s) will be determined at the design stage of the subsurface program. Any MEC found would be disposed using BIP if it was unsafe to move, or moved to a central location for consolidated disposal.



Because complete surface and subsurface clearance will be performed, LUCs are not included under this alternative. Five year reviews are not required because this alternative should achieve conditions for UU/UE.


Effectiveness: The complete surface and complete subsurface clearance would reduce the volume of MEC and MD at the surface and also reduce the volume of MEC and MD in the subsurface. As a result, the toxicity or mobility of surface and subsurface MEC is also reduced. This alternative is effective in the short term because recreational users are prevented from surface and subsurface clearance work areas while clearance is conducted. It is effective in the long-term because surface MEC and MD and subsurface MEC will have been cleared across the MRS. This alternative would comply with ARARs and meet the RAO for both surface and subsurface MEC. It offers a permanent solution and would achieve UU/UE except for the eastern most portion of EFV Area B where exposure is unlikely due to the rugged terrain.

Implementability: Surface clearance and subsurface clearance are considered technically and administratively feasible for the MRS. Since the entire MRS is included, some areas will have more difficult access requiring brush clearing and use of mag and dig, which increases the time necessary to complete this alternative. Some areas may be inaccessible for clearance due to the wetlands. As for Alternative 3, the portion of Area B where surface clearance was not previously performed is rugged, characterized by boulder fields, rock outcrops, and vegetation including trees, which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface clearance. It is likely that some areas will be found to be impossible to clear safely. However, the goal of this alternative is to achieve as close to 100 percent clearance as feasible. Therefore, an estimated time of approximately 10 years is required for formalizing plans and implementing the surface



clearance subsurface clearance. An additional six months to one year is needed to document the clearance and removal actions in a completion report.

Cost: The cost of complete surface clearance and subsurface clearance is highest of the seven remedial alternatives and is estimated at approximately $54.3 million (assuming six UXO teams working simultaneously during surface clearance and eight UXO teams working simultaneously during subsurface clearance). Surface clearance and initiation of subsurface clearance are primarily capital costs and represent the majority of the costs. O&M costs for this alternative would be minimal, consisting of one five-year review since the remedial action will take longer than five years to implement. A breakdown of costs is provided in Appendix D, and discussed in the detailed analysis of alternatives in Section 5.3.7.

Overall Evaluation: The complete surface clearance, complete subsurface clearance alternative is retained for detailed analysis in Section 5.3.7 because it is effective and implementable; however, it has a high cost.


5.0 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Introduction 5.1

The NCP (40 CFR 300) states that the primary objective of the FS is to “ensure that appropriate remedial alternatives are developed and evaluated,” and that “the number and type of alternatives to be analyzed shall be determined at each site, taking into account the scope, characteristics, and complexity of the site problem that is being addressed.” This section presents the detailed analysis of Remedial Alternatives for MEC at EFV MRS. A summary of the FS Alternatives details is provided in Table 5-1.

Individual Alternative Analysis – Criteria 5.2

For the detail analysis, each alternative is compared to the following nine NCP criteria:

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 2. Compliance with ARARs

3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

4. Reduction in TMV through Short-Term Treatment

5. Short-Term Effectiveness

6. Implementability

7. Cost

8. State Acceptance

9. Community Acceptance

The overall protectiveness criteria are associated with particular land use scenarios, and the protectiveness discussion will focus on the reasonable anticipated future land use. The primary future land use for the areas at Camp Hale addressed by this FS is recreational.

This section presents the detailed analysis of alternatives based on criteria 1 through 7 from the NCP (40 CFR 300.430), as listed above. Criteria 8 and 9 will be addressed after receipt of comments on the Proposed Plan (PP).

CERCLA requires that alternatives be developed for treating principal threats at a site through reductions in TMV. In addition, remedies are required to be permanent, for example, removal of MEC to the maximum extent practicable and cost-effective. The five balancing factors are weighed against each other to determine which remedies are cost-effective and “permanent” to the maximum extent practicable. The NCP explains that in general, preferential weight is given to alternatives that offer advantages in terms of the reduction of TMV through treatment and


Section 5.0 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

achieve long-term effectiveness and permanence. However, the NCP also recognizes that some contamination problems will not be suitable for treatment and permanent remedies. For MEC at this MRS, there is no permanent treatment other than physical removal and destruction of the MEC and MD.

The balancing process weighs the proportionality of costs to effectiveness to select one or more remedies that are cost-effective. The final management decision is one that determines which cost-effective remedy offers the best balance of all factors. The modifying criteria for governmental and community acceptance cannot be fully evaluated and are not assessed until comments on the Proposed Plan are received.

Table 5-2 presents the results of these analyses for EFV MRS based on the criteria discussed in the following sections.

5.2.1 Threshold Criteria

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment – An alternative must eliminate, reduce, or control potential threats to public health and the environment through treatment or institutional controls.

Compliance with ARARs – The alternative must meet federal and state environmental statues, regulations, and other requirements that pertain to the site or area unless a waiver is justified. ARARS are discussed in Section 3.1 and provided in Table 3-1.

5.2.2 Balancing Criteria

Short-Term Effectiveness – Considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative and the risks and hazards the alternative poses to workers, residents, and the environment during implementation.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence – Considers the ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human health and the environment over time.

Reduction of TMV Through Treatment – Evaluates the alternative’s use of treatment (for which there is a statutory preference) to reduce the harmful effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the environment, and the amount of contamination present.

Implementability – Considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing the alternative, including factors such as the relative availability of goods and services. Technical feasibility considerations include the availability of services, necessary equipment, and skilled workers to implement a particular alternative. Administrative feasibility includes obtaining necessary permits and regulatory approvals for implementation of the alternative.



Cost – For cost evaluation, the total estimated cost includes both capital cost and the annual operating cost for each alternative (USEPA, 2000b). General indirect management and administrative costs are not included for the purpose of alternative comparison. Total estimated present worth is calculated using a discount rate of 1.4 percent (Office of Management and Budget, 2015) to allow for comparison on an equal time basis. Further discussions of this and other evaluation criteria for each alternative are provided in the following sections.

5.2.3 Modifying Criteria

State Acceptance – Evaluates technical and administrative issues and concerns that the state may have regarding each alternative once comments on the RI Report, FS Report, and PP have been received.

Community Acceptance – Evaluates issues and concerns that the public may have regarding each alternative.

The modifying criteria of state acceptance and community acceptance are not applicable until after the PP has been reviewed by the state and local community (USEPA, 1989). These criteria will be evaluated in the DD and are not discussed further in this section

The following sections summarize the results for each alternative, as well as presenting the comparative analysis.

Individual Alternative Analysis 5.3

5.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Description 5.3.1.1

Alternative 1 is the no action remedial alternative. The no action alternative discussion is limited because it is probable that some kind of cleanup action will be selected. This alternative is addressed because the NCP requires that a No Action Alternative be evaluated to provide a baseline for comparison to other alternatives. This alternative provides no actions to protect human health or the environment at the site. No uncertainties are associated with this alternative, as there are no assumptions that could affect the results of the analysis.

A summary of the Alternative 1 evaluation by criteria is presented in Section 5.3.1.2. Table 5-2 provides a complete evaluation with respect to the nine criteria.



Assessment 5.3.1.2

Threshold Criteria The threshold criteria are overall protection of human health and the environment, and compliance with ARARs.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment – The no action alternative is not protective of human health and the environment because it does not mitigate the potential hazard associated with the potential presence of subsurface MEC. Although surface MEC/MD have been removed during the TCRA except in inaccessible areas, primarily wetlands, this alternative does not provide any mechanism for managing the hazard from potential subsurface MEC.

Compliance with ARARs – There are no chemical-specific, location-specific, or action-specific ARARs identified for this alternative.

Balancing Criteria Although the No Action Alternative does not meet the threshold criteria, it is carried through for evaluation against the balancing criteria as required by CERCLA because No Action is considered the baseline for comparison. The five balancing criteria are short-term effectiveness, long-term effectiveness, reduction of TMV through treatment, implementability, and cost.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence – This alternative does not provide any mechanisms to reduce or mitigate the MEC hazards; therefore, this alternative does not meet the criteria for long-term effectiveness. This alternative does not provide a permanent solution since MEC/MD are not removed.

Reduction of TMV through Treatment – There is no change in TMV since no actions are implemented. The volume of subsurface MEC is not reduced and poses a potential health hazard because it remains in the subsurface for potential encounter during intrusive activities or if exposed in the future during natural processes.

Short-Term Effectiveness – Short-term effectiveness does not apply to the “No Action” alternative because no remedial activities would be implemented.

Implementability – This alternative would be technically feasible to implement. However, it is anticipated that this alternative would not be administratively feasible to implement because the necessary approvals from the regulatory agencies to take No Action are not expected to be obtainable.

Cost – The No Action alternative does not have any capital or O&M costs associated with remediation because no remediation will occur.



5.3.2 Alternative 2: Land Use Controls

Description 5.3.2.1

Under this alternative, no additional active remediation would be performed at EFV MRS. This MRS would remain at the current status, which consists of a partial surface clearance and limited subsurface clearance. Remaining hazards at the site would be managed through LUCs including educational and community outreach programs for the public, road and trail warning and informational signs, educational programs for forest and construction workers, and advisories on intrusive activities. Protection of workers and specifically intrusive activities would include developing and distributing training and educational materials and programs for wildland firefighters, forest workers performing road and trail maintenance or construction, and workers on forest management projects that could require more extensive intrusive activities. Preparation of an ICAIP will be required, along with provision for preparing periodic updates and five-year reviews. In addition, a five-year review will be performed in accordance with the requirements of CERCLA. For the purpose of costing this FS, it is assumed that the program would continue for a period of 30 years.

A summary of Alternative 2 evaluation by criteria is presented in Section 5.3.2.2. Table 5-2 provides a complete evaluation with respect to the nine criteria.

Assessment 5.3.2.2

Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment – Based on the results of the RI, there is a probability of encountering MEC/MD in EFV MRS. The probability of encountering MEC ranges from low to high depending on location in the MRS and the type of activity. Surface MEC has been removed over most of the MRS during the TCRA; however, as shown on Figure 2-4, isolated portions of EFV Area A, the eastern portion of EFV Area B, and all of EFV Area C were not cleared. Subsurface MEC still has the potential to remain on site because the subsurface was not addressed during the TCRA. Activities that have the potential to encounter subsurface MEC are primarily in the campground, along roadways, and area of the stream re-alignment. To be considered protective, an alternative must reduce or eliminate the potential to encounter MEC. Alternative 2 would be protective of human health and the environment because surface MEC have been previously removed but it relies on administrative measures to control behavior that will reduce or limit exposure to remaining subsurface MEC. Because MEC remains in the surface and subsurface, this alternative is not as protective as scenarios that include subsurface removal of MEC because LUCs cannot be enforced.

Compliance with ARARs – This alternative can be completed in compliance with ARARs.



Balancing Criteria The five balancing criteria are short-term effectiveness, long-term effectiveness, reduction of TMV through treatment, implementability, and cost. This alternative does not remove MEC; rather, it relies on LUCs which require continual implementation to be effective. ICs such as restrictions for recreational land use would need to be effective at reducing the long-term hazard to subsurface MEC indefinitely.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence – This alternative does not remove MEC; rather, it relies on LUCs that require continual implementation to be effective. This alternative:

• Will achieve permanence and long-term effectiveness by increasing awareness and providing ongoing training for wildland firefighters and forest workers to reduce the possibility of exposure to MEC hazards. Although the potential for exposure is reduced, it is not eliminated.

• Does not provide a permanent solution because surface and subsurface MEC is not completely removed. LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories provided. In areas frequented by the public, these LUCs are difficult to enforce, especially over extended periods of time. This will reduce the effectiveness of LUCs alone over the long term. LUCs are not a permanent solution, so the alternative is considered to be less permanent than MEC removal.

• Does not immediately address planned intrusive work along the realignment of the stream utility corridors, the campground, or other high use areas. This alternative relies on implementation of clearance activities as part of the advisories on intrusive activities included under LUCs for protection at the time any intrusive activities are performed. The presence of subsurface MEC has been confirmed during the advanced classification test program.

The MEC HA methodology was used to assess MEC hazards for each alternative. Appendix E provides the MEC HA worksheets. The Hazard Level calculated in the RI for current conditions is a Hazard Level of 3 for EFV Areas A and C and a Hazard Level of 1 for EFV Area B. The Hazard Levels do not change under Alternative 2.

Reduction of TMV through Treatment – This alternative would not reduce the TMV of MEC remaining in the surface/subsurface.

Short-Term Effectiveness – This alternative would be effective in the short term because no active work would be performed to implement this alternative beyond the installation of signs, which does not damage the environment or impact site use, and can be performed safely with construction support. Estimated time for completion would approximately one year.



Implementability – This alternative is technically feasible. However, as discussed under effectiveness, LUCs can be difficult to implement in a manner that the advisories will be routinely followed in high-use areas frequented by the public. The LUCs included in this alternative are maintained by the government, so the likelihood for them to remain effective in the long term is good. The USFS is expected to own the property indefinitely and will maintain the signs, websites, and provide education material as needed. This alternative may not be administratively feasible because the use of LUCs alone in areas frequented by the public may not be acceptable to the USFS or the regulatory agencies.

Cost – The estimated present worth capital cost to implement Alternative 2 is $103,500 with O&M present worth value over 30 years estimated to be $939,800. Total estimated present worth is calculated using a discount rate of 1.4 percent (Office of Management and Budget, 2015) to allow for comparison on an equal time basis. The total present worth value cost for this alternative is $1,043,300. Data supporting this cost estimate are presented in Appendix D. The cost of this alternative is relatively low, because the only field activities include sign installation The costs for this alternative include the preparation of an ICAIP plan, implementation of these activities, and performance of five-year reviews.

5.3.3 Alternative 3: Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs

Description 5.3.3.1

This alternative includes a surface clearance of high use areas in EFV MRS including the Colorado Trail, roadways, and campgrounds. In addition, areas for future planned construction are included in the surface clearance such as the realignment of the stream and utility corridors. This includes approximately 360 acres. Remaining hazards, primarily subsurface MEC, would be managed through LUCs including warning signs, the USFS permit system, advisories on intrusive activities, informational devices for recreational activities, and training of USFS personnel. Protection of workers and specifically intrusive activities would include developing and distributing training and educational materials and programs for wildland firefighters, forest workers performing road and trail maintenance or construction, and workers on forest management projects that could require more extensive intrusive activities. In addition, a five-year review will be performed in accordance with the requirements of CERCLA. For the purpose of costing this FS, it is assumed that the program would continue for a period of 30 years.

A summary of Alternative 3 evaluation by criteria is presented in Section 5.3.3.2. Table 5-2 provides a complete evaluation with respect to the nine criteria.



Assessment 5.3.3.2

Threshold Criteria Alternative 3 would be protective of human health and the environment because surface MEC will be removed in areas that were not included in the TCRA and surface clearance will be repeated in high use areas that were in the TCRA. High use areas include the campground, area of the stream re-alignment, the Colorado Trail, roadways, and utility corridor. Surface MEC may remain in low use areas. Also, based on the results of the RI, there is a probability of subsurface MEC being present in EFV MRS. The probability ranges from low to high depending on location in the MRS. Therefore, although the potential hazard to encountering MEC is reduced, it is not eliminated. Activities that have the potential to encounter subsurface MEC are primarily in the campground and area of the stream re-alignment. Other high-use areas include the Colorado Trail, roadways, and utility corridor. Because MEC remains in the subsurface, this alternative is not as protective as scenarios that include subsurface removal of MEC.

Compliance with ARARs – This alternative can be completed in compliance with ARARs.

Balancing Criteria Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence – This alternative does not remove all MEC hazards, but does remove those remaining at the surface in high-use areas where the most likely exposure could occur. It relies on LUCs to mitigate exposure to subsurface MEC that may remain, which requires continual implementation to be effective. This alternative:

• Will achieve permanence and long-term effectiveness by eliminating the pathway to surface MEC in high use areas and increasing awareness and providing ongoing training for wildland firefighters and forest workers to reduce the possibility of exposure to MEC hazards in low-use areas and the subsurface. Although the potential for exposure is reduced, it is not eliminated.

• Does not provide a permanent solution because surface removal is only in high use areas and no subsurface MEC is addressed by clearance. Any remaining MEC will be addressed by LUCs but LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories provided. In areas frequented by the public, these LUCs are difficult to enforce especially over extended periods of time. This will reduce the effectiveness of LUCs alone over the long term. LUCs are not a permanent solution, so the alternative is considered to be less permanent than complete MEC removal.

• Does not immediately address planned intrusive work along the realignment of the stream utility corridors, the campground, or other high use areas. This alternative relies on implementation of clearance activities as part of the advisories on intrusive activities



included under LUCs for protection at the time any intrusive activities are performed. The presence of subsurface MEC has been confirmed during the advanced classification test program.

The MEC HA methodology was used to assess MEC hazards for each alternative. Appendix E provides the MEC HA worksheets. The Hazard Level calculated in the RI for current conditions is a Hazard Level of 3 for EFV Areas A and C and a Hazard Level of 1 for EFV Area B. The Hazard Level does not change under Alternative 3 in EFV Area A. The level in EFV Area B is reduced to Hazard Level 3. The level in EFV Area C is reduced to Hazard Level 4 in the portions of the Areas which are partially cleared.

Reduction of TMV through Treatment – This alternative would result in a small reduction in volume since any remaining surface MEC would be removed.

Short-Term Effectiveness – This alternative is effective in protecting human health during the remedial action by implementing approved procedures, although some risk is always present when dealing with MEC. There is some risk to site workers performing surface clearance activities due to possible challenging site conditions related to working at altitude in varied and steep terrain, although EFV MRS is relatively flat and open expected in EFV Area B, the eastern most portion of the MRS. This alternative will have some temporary impact to USFS personnel and recreational users associated with closed areas during execution of the removal.

Implementability – This alternative uses proven technologies and is technically feasible to implement. This alternative is also administratively feasible to implement. Other considerations include:

• There are some areas with thick grass or low-growing shrubs where the ground surface is obscured, and some vegetation clearance may be required if the geophysical sensors (magnetometers) cannot be deployed effectively. Because surface clearance is limited to high-use areas, the portion that will require clearing of brush and/or use of mag and dig will be minimal. The portion of EFV Area B where surface clearance was not previously performed is rugged, and characterized by boulder fields, rock outcrops, and vegetation including trees, which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface clearance.

• Removal and disposal of surface MEC uses proven technologies that have been used at Camp Hale in the past. Because there is no subsurface removal, impacts to the natural environment which include both endangered species and archaeological resources, are minimized.



• As discussed under effectiveness, LUCs can be difficult to implement in a manner that the advisories will be routinely followed in areas frequented by the public.

• Estimated time for completion is three years (assuming four UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance) with an additional six months to a year to prepare the completion report.

Cost – The estimated present worth capital cost to implement Alternative 3 is $4,159,200 with O&M present worth value over 30 years are estimated to be $939,800. Total estimated present worth is calculated using a discount rate of 1.4 percent (Office of Management and Budget, 2015) to allow for comparison on an equal time basis. The total present worth value cost for this alternative is $5,099,000. Capital costs include plan preparation, partial surface clearance, implementation of LUCs, and preparation of a completion report. O&M costs include maintenance of LUCs and performance of five-year reviews. It was assumed that four UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance. Data supporting this cost estimate are presented in Appendix D.

5.3.4 Alternative 4: Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

Description 5.3.4.1

The alternative consists of a complete surface clearance of the MRS except in wetlands. Under this alternative the surface clearance includes both the area previously done under the TCRA and the portion of the MRS not included in previous clearance actions. Wetlands are excluded because the likelihood of human occupation of these areas is low and performance of a clearance could damage or destroy these sensitive environments. If any of the wetlands are accessible due to dry conditions at the time of the surface clearance, the wetlands may be added to the survey. The surface MEC and MD removal action will consist of a visual surface sweep and investigation, including the identification, management and removal of all MEC and MD scrap. The area shown on Figure 4-2 includes 589 acres (excluding wetlands).

Remaining hazards at the site would be managed through LUCs including warning signs, the USFS permit system, advisories on intrusive activities, informational devices for recreational activities, and training of USFS personnel. Protection of workers and specifically intrusive activities would include developing and distributing training and educational materials and programs for wildland firefighters, forest workers performing road and trail maintenance or construction, and workers on forest management projects that could require more extensive intrusive activities. Preparation of an ICAIP will be required, along with provision for preparing periodic updates and five-year reviews. In addition, a five-year review will be performed in



accordance with the requirements of CERCLA. For the purpose of costing this FS, it is assumed that the program would continue for a period of 30 years.

A summary of the Alternative 4 evaluation criteria is presented in Section 5.3.4.2. Table 5-2 provides a complete evaluation with respect to the nine criteria.

Assessment 5.3.4.2

Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment – This alternative would be protective of human health by removing any surface MEC across the MRS. Based on the results of the RI, there is a probability of subsurface MEC being present in EFV MRS. The probability ranges from low to high depending on location in the MRS. For subsurface MEC, this alternative would rely on LUCs to be protective of human health through behavior controls to prevent contact with MEC that may remain. This alternative is not as protective as a full MEC removal because potential exposure to MEC is reduced, but not eliminated. However, the surface MEC removal will address the most likely pathway for exposure.

Compliance with ARARs – This alternative can be performed in a manner that complies with all ARARs.

Balancing Criteria The five balancing criteria are short-term effectiveness, long-term effectiveness, reduction of TMV through treatment, implementability, and cost.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence – This alternative does not remove all MEC hazards, but does remove those remaining at the surface where exposure is most likely to occur. It relies on LUCs to mitigate exposure to subsurface MEC that may remain, which requires continual implementation to be effective. Other considerations include:

• Will achieve permanence and long-term effectiveness by eliminating the pathway of exposure to surface MEC by clearance across the MRS and increasing awareness and providing ongoing training for wildland firefighters and forest workers to reduce the possibility of exposure to subsurface MEC hazards. Although the potential for exposure is reduced, it is not eliminated.

• Does not provide a permanent solution because only surface removal is performed and no subsurface MEC is addressed by clearance. Any remaining MEC will be addressed by LUCs but LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories provided. In areas frequented by the public, these LUCs are difficult to enforce especially over extended periods of time. This will reduce the effectiveness of



LUCs alone over the long term. LUCs are not a permanent solution, so the alternative is considered to be less permanent than complete MEC removal.

• Does not immediately address planned intrusive work along the realignment of the stream utility corridors, the campground, or other high use areas. The alternative relies on implementation of clearance activities as part of the advisories on intrusive activities included under LUCs for protection at the time any intrusive activities are performed. The presence of subsurface MEC has been confirmed during the advanced classification test program.

The MEC HA methodology was used to assess MEC hazards for each alternative. Appendix E provides the MEC HA worksheets. The Hazard Level calculated in the RI for current conditions is a Hazard Level of 3 for EFV Areas A and C and a Hazard Level of 1 for EFV Area B. The Hazard Level does not change under Alternative 4 in EFV Area A. The level in EFV Area B is reduced to Hazard Level 3. The level in EFV Area C is reduced to Hazard Level 4.

Reduction of TMV through Treatment – This alternative should result in the reduction of the volume of MEC at the surface. During the removal, any MEC that is identified would be treated on-site using conventional MEC destruction techniques (e.g., BIP, consolidated shot). Therefore, a reduction in TMV would be achieved.

Short-Term Effectiveness – This alternative is effective in protecting human health during the remedial action by implementing approved procedures, although some risk is always present when dealing with MEC. There is some risk to site workers performing surface clearance activities due to possible challenging site conditions related to working at altitude in varied and steep terrain, although EFV MRS is relatively flat and open except in EFV Area B, the eastern most portion of the MRS. This alternative will have some temporary impact to USFS personnel and recreational users associated with closed areas during execution of the removal.


• There are some areas with thick grass or low-growing shrubs where the ground surface is obscured, and some vegetation clearance may be required if the geophysical sensors (magnetometers) cannot be deployed effectively. Because surface clearance includes the entire MRS, some portions will require clearing of brush. The portion of EFV Area B where surface clearance was not previously performed is rugged, and characterized by boulder fields, rock outcrops, and vegetation including trees, which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface and subsurface clearance. The portion of EFV Area B that will require clearing of brush and/or use of mag and dig may be extensive.



• Removal and disposal of surface MEC uses proven technologies that have been used at Camp Hale in the past. Because there is no subsurface removal, impacts to the natural environment that include both endangered species and archaeological resources, are minimized.

• As discussed under effectiveness, LUCs can be difficult to implement in a manner that the advisories will be routinely followed in areas frequented by the public.

• The estimated time for completion is three years (assuming six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance) with an additional six months to a year to prepare the completion report.

Cost –The estimated present worth capital cost to implement Alternative 4 is $6,594,400 with O&M present worth value over 30 years estimated to be $939,800. Total estimated present worth is calculated using a discount rate of 1.4 percent (Office of Management and Budget, 2015) to allow for comparison on an equal time basis. The total present worth value cost for this alternative is $7,534,000. Capital costs include plan preparation, complete surface clearance, implementation of LUCs, and preparation of a completion report. O&M costs include maintenance of LUCs and performance of five-year reviews. It was assumed that six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance. Data supporting this cost estimate are presented in Appendix D.

5.3.5 Alternative 5: Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance and LUCs

Description 5.3.5.1

This alternative consists of the removal of surface and subsurface MEC in the high use areas where surface and subsurface activities are most likely. These include the East Fork Valley Campground, the proposed stream realignment, the Colorado Trail, NFS Road 714, and the utility corridor, adding to approximately 360 acres for surface clearance and 123 acres for subsurface clearance. In EFV Area B, a subsurface clearance is included in the area of the 2003 TCRA. The remaining portion of the MRS is less accessible for subsurface clearance due to the rugged terrain consisting of numerous cliffs, large boulders, and trees. Subsurface removal will be performed to a depth of detection in targeted areas. It is assumed at present that conventional DGM will be used to complete the subsurface clearance, but advanced classification methods will be evaluated in remedial design. In any areas inaccessible to DGM, mag and dig will be used to complete the program. LUCs are included under this alternative to address any remaining MEC.

Remaining hazards would be managed through LUCs including warning signs, the USFS permit system, advisories on intrusive activities, informational devices for recreational activities, and



training of USFS personnel. In addition, a five-year review will be performed in accordance with the requirements of CERCLA. For the purpose of costing this FS, it is assumed that the program would continue for a period of 30 years.


Assessment 5.3.5.2

Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment – This alternative would be protective of human health by removing as much MEC as is reasonably possible from the surface and subsurface in the high use areas where contact is most likely to occur, and through LUCs to mitigate hazards from MEC that may remain outside of these areas. This alternative would be protective of human health through behavior controls to prevent contact with MEC that may remain at the locations were exposure is most like. MEC only remains in low use areas where potential exposure to hazards is low based on land use. This alternative is not as protective as a full MEC removal; however, the focused MEC removal will address locations of potential activities that may encounter subsurface MEC.



Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence – This alternative removes most MEC hazards in areas where the recreational user or worker are likely to have contact and therefore provides good long-term effectiveness and permanence. This alternative relies on LUCs to mitigate exposure outside of the high-use areas for any surface or subsurface MEC that may remain. These LUCs require continual implementation to be effective. Other considerations include:

• Will achieve permanence and long-term effectiveness by removing MEC in the high use areas where contact is most likely. Reduces hazards by increasing awareness and providing ongoing training for wildland firefighters and forest workers in low use areas. Although the potential for exposure is reduced, it is not eliminated.

• Provides a permanent solution in the high use areas. Does not provide a permanent solution in low use areas where LUCs address any remaining MEC, although the



likelihood of the public, forest workers, or construction worker encountering MEC in low use areas is low.

• Is effective by providing surface and subsurface clearance in areas where construction work is planned or likely to occur including along the realignment of the stream utility corridors, the campground, or other high use areas. The presence of subsurface MEC has been confirmed during the advanced classification test program.

The MEC HA methodology was used to assess MEC hazards for each alternative. Appendix E provides the MEC HA worksheets. The Hazard Level calculated in the RI for current conditions is a Hazard Level of 3 for EFV Areas A and C and a Hazard Level of 1 for EFV Area B. The Hazard Level does not change under Alternative 5 in EFV Area A. The level in EFV Areas B and C are reduced to Hazard Level 4 in the portions of the Areas which are partially cleared.

Reduction of TMV through Treatment – This alternative should result in the reduction of the volume of MEC at the surface and subsurface. During the removal, any MEC that is identified would be treated on-site using conventional MEC destruction techniques (e.g., BIP, consolidated shot). Therefore, a reduction in TMV would be achieved.

Short-Term Effectiveness – There is an increased short-term hazard to workers and the public, because MEC/MD will be intrusively removed under this alternative. Potential hazards are reduced by using hand excavation techniques to the extent feasible. This alternative is effective in protecting human health during the remedial action by implementing approved procedures, although some risk is always present when dealing with MEC. There is some risk to site workers performing surface and subsurface clearance activities due to possible challenging site conditions related to working at altitude in varied and steep terrain, although EFV MRS is relatively flat and open except in EFV Area B, the eastern most portion of the MRS. This alternative will have some temporary impact to USFS personnel and recreational users associated with closed areas during execution of the removal.


• There are some areas with thick grass or low-growing shrubs where the ground surface is obscured, and some vegetation clearance may be required if the geophysical sensors (magnetometers) cannot be deployed effectively. Some areas may require clearing of brush and/or use of mag and dig. The portion of EFV Area B where surface clearance was not previously performed is rugged, and characterized by boulder fields, rock



outcrops, and vegetation including trees which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface clearance.

• Removal and disposal of surface and subsurface MEC uses proven technologies that have been used at Camp Hale in the past. DGM and mag and dig are proven technologies for MEC and MD identification.

• Because of the presence of potential cultural resources, and to maintain the integrity of the natural and historically significant area, clearing and subsurface actions should be minimized, as feasible, while reducing hazard from MEC. Advanced classification geophysical methods may have a significant environmental benefit in reducing the number of excavations.

• In EFV Area B, the presence of large trees and rocks will make some locations inaccessible and it is anticipated that subsurface clearance will be difficult.

• LUCs can be difficult to implement in a manner that the advisories will be routinely followed in areas frequented by the public.

• Subsurface clearance activities will increase the timeframe to complete this alternative over alternatives that include only surface clearance. Estimated time for completion is six years (assuming that four UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance and six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during subsurface clearance) with an additional six months to a year to prepare the completion report.

Cost – The estimated present worth capital cost to implement Alternative 5 is $18,139,200 with O&M present worth value over 30 years estimated to be $939,800. Total estimated present worth is calculated using a discount rate of 1.4 percent (Office of Management and Budget, 2015) to allow for comparison on an equal time basis. The total present worth value cost for this alternative is $19,079,000. Capital costs include plan preparation, partial surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance, implementation of LUCs, and preparation of a completion report. O&M costs include maintenance of LUCs and performance of five-year reviews. It was assumed that four UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance and six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during subsurface clearance. Data supporting this cost estimate are presented in Appendix D.

5.3.6 Alternative 6: Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance and LUCs

Description 5.3.6.1

The alternative consists of surface clearance across the entire MRS except in wetlands. Wetlands are excluded because the likelihood of occupation of these areas is low and



performance of a clearance could damage or destroy these sensitive environments. If any of the wetlands are accessible due to dry conditions at the time of the surface clearance, the wetlands may be added to the survey. The goal for this alternative would be 100 percent surface coverage of the MRS (589 acres excluding 22 acres of wetlands).

In addition, a partial subsurface clearance in high-use areas is included under this alternative where subsurface activities are most likely to occur. These areas include the East Fork Valley Campground, the proposed stream realignment, the Colorado Trail, NFS Road 714, the utility corridor, and the portion of Area B included in the TCRA which is an area of approximately 123 acres. Subsurface removal will be performed to a depth of detection in targeted areas. It is assumed at present that conventional DGM will be used to complete the subsurface clearance, but advanced classification methods will be evaluated in remedial design. In any areas inaccessible to DGM, mag and dig will be used to complete the program.

Remaining hazards would be managed through LUCs including educational and community outreach programs for the public, advisories on intrusive activities, as well as land use restrictions for recreational use. In addition, a five-year review will be performed in accordance with the requirements of CERCLA. For the purpose of costing this FS, it is assumed that the program would continue for a period of 30 years.


Assessment 5.3.6.2

Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment – This alternative would be protective of human health by removing as much MEC that is reasonably possible from the surface. MEC is removed from the subsurface in the high use areas where contact is most likely to occur. LUCs are relied on to mitigate hazards from subsurface MEC that may remain in low-use areas. This alternative would be protective of human health through behavior controls to prevent contact with MEC that may remain.





Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence – This alternative removes most MEC hazards in areas where the recreational user or worker are likely to have contact and therefore provides good long-term effectiveness and permanence by addressing the high-use areas. Added protection is provided by removal of surface MEC across the MRS, which is open and accessible to the public. This alternative also relies on LUCs to mitigate exposure outside of the high-use areas for any subsurface MEC that may remain. These LUCs require continual implementation to be effective. Other considerations include:

• Will achieve permanence and long-term effectiveness by removing surface MEC across the MRS and subsurface MEC in the high use areas where contact is most likely. Reduces hazards by increasing awareness and providing ongoing training for wildland firefighters and forest workers in low use areas. Although the potential for exposure is reduced, it is not eliminated.

• Provides a permanent solution in the high use areas. Does not provide a permanent solution in low use areas where LUCs address any remaining subsurface MEC, although the likelihood of the public, forest worker, or construction worker encountering subsurface MEC in low use areas is low.

• Is effective by providing surface and subsurface clearance in areas where construction work is planned or likely to occur including along the realignment of the stream utility corridors, the campground, or other high use areas. The presence of subsurface MEC has been confirmed during the advanced classification test program.

The MEC HA methodology was used to assess MEC hazards for each alternative. Appendix E provides the MEC HA worksheets. The Hazard Level calculated in the RI for current conditions is a Hazard Level of 3 for EFV Areas A and C and a Hazard Level of 1 for EFV Area B. The Hazard Level does not change under Alternative 6 in EFV Area A. The level in Areas B and C are reduced to Hazard Level 4.

Reduction of TMV through Treatment – This alternative will result in the reduction of the volume of MEC across the MRS. During the removal, any MEC that is identified would be treated on-site using conventional MEC destruction techniques (e.g., BIP, consolidated shot). Therefore, a reduction in TMV would be achieved.

Short-Term Effectiveness – There is an increased short-term hazard to workers and the public, because MEC/MD will be intrusively removed under this alternative. Potential hazards are reduced by using hand excavation techniques to the extent feasible. This alternative is effective in protecting human health during the remedial action by implementing approved procedures, although some risk is always present when dealing with MEC. There is some risk to site workers



performing surface and subsurface clearance activities due to possible challenging site conditions related to working at altitude in varied and steep terrain, although EFV MRS is relatively flat and open except in EFV Area B, the eastern most portion of the MRS. This alternative will have some temporary impact to USFS personnel and recreational users associated with closed areas during execution of the removal action.


• There are some areas with thick grass or low-growing shrubs where the ground surface is obscured, and some vegetation clearance may be required if the geophysical sensors (magnetometers) cannot be deployed effectively. Because surface clearance includes the entire MRS, some portions require clearing of brush and/or use of mag and dig.

• Removal and disposal of MEC uses proven technologies that have been used at Camp Hale in the past. DGM and mag and dig are proven technologies for MEC and MD identification.



• LUCs can be difficult to implement in a manner that the advisories will be routinely followed in areas frequented by the public.

• Complete surface and partial subsurface clearance activities will increase the timeframe to complete this alternative over alternatives that include only surface clearance unless additional field crews are used. Estimated time for completion is six years (assuming six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance and six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during subsurface clearance) with an additional six months to a year to prepare the completion report. The portion of EFV Area B where surface clearance was not previously performed is rugged, and characterized by boulder fields, rock outcrops, and vegetation including trees, which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface clearance.



Cost – The estimated present worth capital cost to implement Alternative 6 is $20,374,600 with O&M present worth value over 30 years estimated to be $939,800. Total estimated present worth is calculated using a discount rate of 1.4 percent (Office of Management and Budget, 2015) to allow for comparison on an equal time basis. The total present worth value cost for this alternative is $21,314,000. Capital costs include plan preparation, complete surface clearance, partial subsurface clearance, implementation of LUCs, and preparation of a completion report. O&M costs include maintenance of LUCs and performance of five-year reviews. It was assumed that six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance and six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during subsurface clearance. Data supporting this cost estimate are presented in Appendix C.

5.3.7 Alternative 7: Complete Surface Clearance and Complete Subsurface Clearance

Description 5.3.7.1

The alternative consists of complete surface and complete subsurface clearance in those areas of the MRS except wetlands. The goal for this alternative would be 100 percent surface coverage of the MRS (611 acres) but it is likely that some areas will be inaccessible due to wetlands (22 acres) resulting in a total of 589 acres. Wetlands are excluded because the likelihood of human occupation of these areas is low and performance of a clearance could damage or destroy these sensitive environments. If any of the wetlands are accessible due to dry conditions at the time of the surface clearance, the wetlands may be added to the survey.

Subsurface clearance is performed across the MRS except for wetlands the eastern portion of EFV Area B, a total of 552 acres. The eastern portion of this Area consists of rock cliffs, large boulders, and trees, which would preclude performance of a subsurface clearance. A summary of the Alternative 7 evaluation criteria is presented in Section 5.3.7.2. Table 5-2 provides a complete evaluation with respect to the nine criteria.

Assessment 5.3.7.2

Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment – This alternative would be protective of human health by removing as much MEC that is reasonably possible from the surface and subsurface and eliminating the pathway for exposure. The rugged eastern portion of EFV Area B is not addressed by subsurface removal (approximately 37 acres). In this portion of EFV Area B, bedrock is at or near the surface so subsurface MEC is not expected and intrusive activities are not likely.




Balancing Criteria Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence – This alternative removes MEC hazards in both surface and subsurface across the MRS and therefore provides good long-term effectiveness and permanence since MEC will not remain on site. It is possible some subsurface MEC may remain in the eastern 37 acres of EFV Area B, but do to the rugged terrain, intrusive activities are not likely.

The MEC HA methodology was used to assess MEC hazards for each alternative. Appendix E provides the MEC HA worksheets. The Hazard Level calculated in the RI for current conditions is a Hazard Level of 3 for EFV Areas A and C and a Hazard Level of 1 for EFV Area B. The Hazard Level does not change under Alternative 7 in EFV Area A. The level in EFV Areas B and C are reduced to Hazard Level 4.

Reduction of TMV through Treatment – This alternative will result in the reduction of the volume of MEC across the MRS. During the removal, any MEC that is identified would be treated on-site using conventional MEC destruction techniques (e.g., BIP, consolidated shot). Therefore, a reduction in TMV would be achieved.

Short-Term Effectiveness – There is an increased short-term hazard to workers and the public, because MEC/MD will be intrusively removed under this alternative. Potential hazards are reduced by using hand excavation techniques to the extent feasible. This alternative is effective in protecting human health during the remedial action by implementing approved procedures, although some risk is always present when dealing with MEC. There is some risk to site workers performing surface and subsurface clearance activities due to possible challenging site conditions related to working at altitude in varied and steep terrain, although EFV MRS is relatively flat and open except in EFV Area B, the eastern most portion of the MRS. This alternative will have some temporary impact to USFS personnel and recreational users associated with closed areas during execution of the removal.


• This alternative will be difficult to implement since it includes subsurface removal over 552 acres. Several years will be needed to complete the alternative, even with multiple field crews.



• There are some areas with thick grass or low-growing shrubs where the ground surface is obscured, and some vegetation clearance may be required if the geophysical sensors (magnetometers) cannot be deployed effectively. Because surface and subsurface clearance includes the entire MRS, some portions require clearing of brush and/or use of mag and dig. The portion of EFV Area B where surface clearance was not previously performed is rugged, and characterized by boulder fields, rock outcrops, and vegetation including trees, which will increase the time required to access and perform the surface and subsurface clearance. The portion of EFV Area B that will require clearing of brush and/or use of mag and dig may be extensive.


• Removal and disposal of MEC uses proven technologies that have been used at Camp Hale in the past. DGM and mag and dig are proven technologies for MEC and MD identification. Since the entire MRS is addressed, including areas outside of the high use areas, additional clearing will be needed beyond what is performed for partial clearance which may cause additional impacts to the natural environment which include both endangered species and archaeological resources. Advanced classification geophysical methods may have a significant environmental benefit in reducing the number of excavations.


• Complete surface and subsurface clearance activities will increase the timeframe to complete this alternative over alternatives that include only partial clearances. Estimated time for completion is 10 years (assuming six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance and eight UXO teams will be working simultaneously during subsurface clearance) with an additional six months to a year to prepare the completion report.

Cost – The estimated present worth capital cost to implement Alternative 7 is $54,168,600. There are no O&M costs under this alternative except for performance of one five-year review before the action is completed (assuming completed in 10 years). Estimated O&M costs are $102,900. Total estimated present worth is calculated using a discount rate of 1.4 percent (Office of Management and Budget, 2015) to allow for comparison on an equal time basis. The total present worth value cost for this alternative is $54,272,000. Capital costs include plan



preparation, complete surface clearance, complete subsurface clearance, and preparation of a completion report. It was assumed that six UXO teams will be working simultaneously during surface clearance and eight UXO teams will be working simultaneously during subsurface clearance. Data supporting this cost estimate are presented in Appendix D.


6.0 Comparison of Alternatives

In this section, alternatives are compared to each other with respect to the nine NCP criteria (listed in Section 4.0 and described in Section 5.3), and to the overall cost-effectiveness of the risk/hazard reduction offered by the alternative. A comparison of the alternatives using the nine NCP criteria for EFV MRS is provided in Table 6-1.

Threshold Criteria 6.1

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment – With regard to protection of human health, Alternative 7, consisting of complete surface and subsurface removal of MEC/MD, offers the highest degree of protection. Alternatives 5 and 6 provide similar degrees of protection because both surface and subsurface clearances are provided in the high use areas where there is a pathway to contact with MEC for both the recreational user and worker. Subsurface exposure is addressed by training of workers for intrusive activities outside the high use area where contact is less likely to occur. Alternative 6 has the added protection of complete surface removal. Alternatives 3 and 4 both address MEC hazards through either partial (Alternative 3) or complete (Alternative 4) surface MEC removal. Any remaining MEC is addressed through LUCs. These alternatives are less protective than Alternatives 5 and 6, which include subsurface MEC removal in high-use areas. Future intrusive activities are likely in some of the high-use areas, specifically the stream realignment, utility corridor, and campground. Intrusive activities are not anticipated in the rugged areas in EFV Area B. Alternative 2 provides protection through LUCs for both surface and subsurface MEC. Although the TCRA addressed surface MEC in the past, some MEC may be present based on MEC found in the 2009 visual survey in EFV Area A. EFV Area C and the eastern portion of EFV Area B were not included in the TCRA. Alternative 2 relies solely on implementing and maintaining informational devises, educational programs, and advisories on intrusive activities into the future. Alternative 1, No Action, is the least protective of human health because there are no mechanisms included in this alternative to mitigate potential exposure of MEC.

Compliance with ARARs – There are no ARARs applicable to Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, because no action is taken. The remaining alternatives can be implemented to comply with ARARs, although some alternatives invoke certain action-specific ARARs. All activities for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 would comply with ARARs. In particular, field activities would be coordinated with the USFS to ensure compliance with ARARs regarding archaeological resources and habitat disturbance. Alternatives 4, 6, and 7 include complete surface (and subsurface removal for alternative 7). If selected, the status of the wetlands will need to be reviewed. If any of the wetlands are dry, a decision will be made if the wetland can be cleared without significantly disturbing the habitat in compliance with wetlands regulations.


Section 6.0 Comparison of Alternatives

Balancing Criteria 6.2

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence – Alternative 7, Complete Surface and Complete Subsurface Removal, provides the highest degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence since the goal is 100 percent removal of MEC across the MRS except for about 37 acres in the eastern most portion of EFV Area B where bedrock is near or outcrops at the ground surface. Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 also provide varying degrees of long-term effectiveness and permanence because these alternatives include some MEC clearance activities. Alternatives 5 and 6 are similar because each includes surface and subsurface removal in the high-use areas where contact to any MEC is most likely to occur. Alternative 6 has the added long-term effectiveness and permanence of a complete surface clearance across the MRS. Alternatives 3 (surface clearance in high use areas) and Alternative 4 (complete surface clearance) although effective, are less permanent because subsurface MEC is not removed. These alternatives only include surface removal and do not address subsurface MEC in likely construction areas or the campground where visitors may perform intrusive activities. Any remaining MEC is addressed through LUCs under Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6. Alternative 2 is less effective because none of the MEC items are removed. A complete surface clearance was performed in the TCRA at EFV Area A; however, some vegetation was not cleared and it is possible that MEC may be present. EFV Area C and portions of EFV Area B were not included in the TCRA surface clearance. Under Alternative 2, potential surface and subsurface MEC exposures are mitigated using LUC such as informational devises, training, and advisories on intrusive activities. LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories provided. In areas frequented by the public, these LUCs are difficult to enforce especially over extended periods of time. This will reduce the effectiveness of LUCs alone over the long term. Alternative 1, No Action, does not provide any mechanisms to reduce or mitigate the MEC hazards; therefore, this alternative does not meet the criteria for long-term effectiveness. This alternative does not provide a permanent solution since MEC are not removed.

Reduction of TMV through Treatment – Alternative 7 results in the reduction of TMV through the complete surface and complete subsurface removal and destruction of MEC. Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 provide some degree in reduction of TMV through partial removal in the surface and/or subsurface. For alternatives 1 and 2, there is no change in TMV since no active remediation is implemented. The volume of surface and subsurface MEC is not reduced and poses a potential health hazard because it remains for potential encounter at the surface or during intrusive activities or if exposed in the future during natural processes.

Short-Term Effectiveness – Alternative 1 involves the lowest short-term hazards to site workers and the local public as no activities are performed at the MRS in order to implement this alternative. Alternative 2 only entails short-term hazards during the installation of signs or other



informational devices on the site. For Alternatives 3 4, 5, 6, and 7, where a MEC clearance is performed (either partial or complete), exclusion zones and health and safety requirements would be detailed in an ESS and work planning documents. Implementing the requirements of the ESS will ensure the local public and site workers are protected during remedy completion. Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 involve subsurface clearance, which increases both the time in the field and the potential for exposure.

Implementability – The five action alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) are all feasible with regard to their technology; surface clearance, subsurface clearance, and LUCs are standard technologies that have been applied with success at Camp Hale and at other sites. However, as discussed under effectiveness, LUCs can be difficult to implement in a manner that the advisories will be routinely followed in areas frequented by the public. DGM and mag and dig are proven technologies for MEC and MD identification at Camp Hale. The removal areas in EFV MRS are mostly located on open or sparsely vegetated valley terrain, and should be accessible for deploying towed or man-portable sensor systems. However, parts of the removal areas in EFV Area B are located in steep and rugged terrain and will not be accessible for deploying litter-based or man-portable sensor systems throughout the area. Because Alternative 7 involves a complete subsurface clearance across the entire MRS, including areas outside of the high use areas, additional clearing will be needed beyond what is performed for partial clearance.

The five action alternatives also use proven technologies for removal; hand excavation is time consuming for the number of acres identified, but is the safest means of execution. Hand excavation is also the least disruptive to the natural environment. Because of the presence of cultural resources, and to maintain the integrity of the natural and historically significant area, clearing and subsurface actions should be minimized, as feasible, while reducing hazard from MEC. Advanced classification geophysical methods may have a significant environmental benefit in reducing the number of excavations if selected during the design.

Alternative 2, LUCs, is technically feasible. The USFS is expected to own the property indefinitely, and in accordance with their directives to protect the environment, would likely cooperate with any necessary land use restrictions for recreational use. This alternative has minimal active remediation limited to periodic resurveys LUCs is a proven technology at Camp Hale and other government owned facilities. This alternative may not be administratively feasible because the use of LUCs alone in areas frequented by the public may not be acceptable to the USFS or the regulatory agencies. Alternative 1 is technically feasible to implement. However, it is anticipated that this alternative would not be administratively feasible to implement because the necessary approvals from the regulatory agencies to take No Action are not expected to be obtainable.



Cost – Alternative 1, No Action, does not have any capital or O&M costs associated with remediation because no remediation will occur. For the remaining alternatives, Alternative 2, LUCs, has the lowest life-cycle cost, which is assumed to be 30 years. This alternative combines the lowest capital cost with the highest long-term maintenance costs.

For the other alternatives, the capital costs are proportional to the area covered and quantity of MEC removal. Alternative 3 has the lowest cost, consisting of partial surface removal and Alternative 7 has the highest cost due to complete surface and subsurface removal. Except for Alternative 7 where it is assumed UU/UE will be achieved, each of these alternatives includes life-cycle costs for LUCs assuming a period of 30 yrs. The estimated costs are listed in Table 4-2 and summarized below.

Alternative Number Title

Capital Costs 30-Year O&M (NPV)

Total Cost (NPV)

1 No Action $0 $0 $0

2 LUCs $103,500 $939,800 $1,043,300

3 Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs

$4,159,200 $939,800 $5,099,000

4 Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

$6,594,400 $939,800 $7,534,000

5 Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

$18,139,200 $939,800 $19,079,000

6 Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

$20,374,600 $939,800 $21,314,000

7 Complete Surface Clearance and Complete Subsurface Clearance

$54,168,600 $102,900 $54,272.000

Notes: LUC land use control NPV net present value O&M Operation and Maintenance Summary of Comparative Analysis and Recommended Alternative 6.3

This MRS has the potential for MEC to be present based on the documented history of the MRS and MEC/MD identified during the TCRA, the RI, and other clearance activities. Areas near roads or trails, the campground, the planned realignment route of the stream, and the utility corridor, defined as the high-use areas, are presumed to have the greatest potential for receptors to be exposed to MEC because those areas are most likely to be visited or are areas where intrusive activities are planned in the future.



It is noted that MEC and MD were found in the focused visual surveys conducted in 2009 in an area previously included in the TCRA. These items could have been missed in the TCRA possibly obscured by vegetation, or they may have exposed by frost heave or erosion. As a result, previous clearances of surface MEC have not provided 100 percent coverage and MEC may be present in areas frequented by the recreational user. A subsurface clearance has not been performed at EFV MRS except in the area of the advanced classification demonstration project. Both the demonstration project and the RI have confirmed that subsurface MEC is present.

The RAO for the EFV MRS is to reduce the hazard to recreational users, USFS personnel, utility workers and construction personnel, such that the probability of encountering hazardous munitions is negligible and RC can be supported. This will be achieved by:

1) Eliminating, to the extent practicable, the potential hazard of encountering munitions associated with range activities (rockets, mortars, and/or projectiles) on the surface in areas that are reasonably accessible.

2) Reducing, to the extent practicable, the potential hazard of encountering munitions associated with range activities (rockets, mortars, and/or projectiles) in the subsurface to depth of detection in areas where intrusive activities are reasonably expected.

Key factors that need to be considered while comparing the alternatives include:

• MEC and MD were found in visual surveys conducted in 2009 in an area previously included in the TCRA. These items could have been obscured by vegetation in the TCRA, or they may have exposed by frost heave or erosion. As a result, previous clearances of surface MEC have not provided 100 percent coverage and MEC may be present in accessible areas.

• A subsurface clearance has not been performed in the MRS except in the area of an advanced classification demonstration project conducted in 2014. Both the demonstration project and the RI have confirmed that subsurface MEC is present.

• Alternative 1, No Action, is not protective of human health and the environment and is not considered further for implementation at EFV MRS.

• Alternative 2 relies entirely on LUCs, to be protective while alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 partially rely on LUCs. LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follow the advisories issued. In areas frequented by the public, it is difficult to ensure any advisories will be consistently followed especially over extended periods of time. This may reduce the effectiveness of LUCs alone over the long term.

• LUCs are not effective in preventing access to potential surface MEC in high use areas because they are difficult to enforce. Therefore, a surface clearance is justified in areas



typically used by the public or workers, which includes the planned stream realignment, the campground, utilities corridor, and within 300 ft of roads and trails. Surface clearance is more effective to meet RAOs in these areas compared to LUCs.

• Surface clearance in high use areas previously included in the TCRA clearance activities is justified because items may have been missed in the previous surveys or may have been exposed by natural processes. LUCs are adequate to reduce risk of exposure to surface MEC in low use areas previously covered by the TCRA.

• LUCs are not effective in preventing intrusive activities in high use areas because they are difficult to enforce. Therefore, a subsurface clearance is justified in areas where intrusive activities could be expected, which includes the planned stream realignment, the campground, utilities corridor, and along roadways. Subsurface clearance is more effective to meet RAOs in these areas compared to LUCs.

• LUCs are adequate to reduce risk of exposure to subsurface MEC in areas with low use where no intrusive activities are planned, and/or where there is low probability of MEC being present .

• LUCs will require long-term funding by USACE and maintenance by the USFS.

• Alternative 7 is the only alternative that would result in site closure and release for UU/UE if 100 percent of the MRS can be cleared.

Based on these factors, implementing one of the partial clearance alternatives would have an appropriate cost/benefit tradeoff. Considering the tradeoffs between the various modifying criteria, the implementation challenges and short-term effects on workers, as well as lower costs and higher cost/benefit tradeoffs, Alternative 5, Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs, would meet the RAO and achieve the greatest risk reduction for the lowest cost. This alternative will involve:

Surface removal will be performed along and near the Colorado Trail, roadways, campground, proposed stream realignment, and utility corridor, as well as the areas that were not cleared during the TCRA in EFV Areas B and C. The estimated area for surface clearance is 360 acres

Subsurface removal will be performed along and near the Colorado Trail, roadways, campground, proposed stream realignment, and utility corridor. The estimated area for clearance is 123 acres.



LUCs that would be implemented include warning signs, MEC awareness training for forest and construction workers as needed, public communications including flyers and a website and advisories for any intrusive activities. Many of these LUCs are already in place.

This alternative is selected based on the tradeoffs between the various modifying criteria including the implementation challenges, short-term effects on workers, and cost benefit.

The preferred alternative meets the RAO for exposure to surface MEC by performing 100 percent clearance in areas that were not included in the previous TCRA (except wetlands), plus repeating surface clearance in high use areas that were included in the TCRA. The alternative meets the RAO for exposure to subsurface MEC by performing subsurface clearance in high use areas such as the campground and in areas where intrusive activity is expected such as the proposed streambed alignment. Alternatives that would involve complete surface and/or subsurface clearance are not selected because they would involve a small additional benefit relative to the selected alternative with much higher cost.


7.0 Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocols Update

DoD proposed the MRSPP (32 CFR Part 179) to assign a relative risk priority to each defense site in the MMRP Inventory for response activities. These response activities are to be based on the overall conditions at each location and taking into consideration various factors related to explosive safety and environmental hazards (68 FR 50900). The application of the MRSPP applies to all locations:

• That are or were owned, leased to, or otherwise possessed or used by the DoD;

• That are known to or are suspected of containing MEC or MC; and

• That are included in the MMRP Inventory.

In assigning a relative priority for response activities, DoD generally considers MRSs posing the greatest hazard as being the highest priority. In the FUDS program, the MRS priority will be one factor in determining the sequence in which munitions response actions are funded.

MRSPP scores are generally updated when significant, new information becomes available. Thus, the MRSPP scores provided at the end of the SI (Shaw, 2008b) were updated based on new information obtained during the RI (CB&I, 2015). For the FS, three of the MRSs proposed in the RI (EFV A MRS, EFV B MRS, EVS DMRS) were combined into a single MRS, EFV MRS and the MRS boundaries modified. A MRSPP score was developed based on the revised boundaries for EFV MRS. The results of the MRSPP are presented in Appendix F.

In the MRSPP, each MRS is assigned a MRS Priority ranging from 1 to 8. Priority 1 indicates the highest potential hazard and Priority 8 indicates the lowest potential hazard. Only a site with a chemical warfare hazard can receive a MRS Priority of 1. The MRS Priority is determined by selecting the highest rating from amongst the three modules that constitute the MRSPP (Explosive Hazard, Chemical Warfare Materiel Hazard, and Human Health Hazard evaluation modules). A summary of MRSPP scoring is as follows:

MRS Revised MRSPP Score

EHE Module CHE Module HHE Module Current Priority Eagle Fork Valley MRS

A (2) No Known or Suspected CWM Hazard

No Known or Suspected MC Hazard

2

EFV MRS received a priority of 2. The MRS Priority will be used to determine the future funding sequence of MRSs for further munitions response actions.


Section 7.0 Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocols Update



8.0 References

32 CFR 179 (Code of Federal Regulations Title 32, Part 179). Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP). Website: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html. Washington, D.C.

40 CFR 300 (Code of Federal Regulation Title 40, Part 300). National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Website: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html. Washington, D.C.

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

42 USC 9601 et seq. (U.S. Code Title 42, Part 9601 et seq.). Chapter 103, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability, Sub Chapter 1: “Hazardous Substances Releases, Liability, and Compensation.” U.S. Government Printing Office. Website: http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2003-title42/pdf/USCODE-2003-title42-chap103.pdf.

CB&I, 2015. Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex and East Fork Valley Range Complex, Former Camp Hale, Colorado. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

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

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

Moore, James P. 2004. Email communication from James P. Moore, USACE NWO, to Lisa Stahl, Shaw Environmental. Subject: RE: Camp Hale Reminders. Wednesday, May 12, 2004.

Office of Management and Budget, 2015. Circular A-94, Appendix C, revised December 2014, Discount Rates for Cost-Effectiveness, Lease Purchase, and Related Analyses.

Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw), 2005. Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report, Time-Critical Removal Action, East Fork of the Eagle River, Camp Hale, Colorado. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. August, 4.


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC2701

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC2701

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2003-title42/pdf/USCODE-2003-title42-chap103.pdf

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2003-title42/pdf/USCODE-2003-title42-chap103.pdf

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12580.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1996.html

Section 8.0 References

Shaw, 2008a. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Camp Hale, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, January.

Shaw, 2008b. Final Site Inspection Report, Camp Hale, Eagle, Lake, Pitkin, Summit Counties, CO, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, September.

Shaw, 2010. Draft Final Interim Risk Management Plan - Camp Hale Military Munitions Site, Formerly Used Defense Sites, Military Munitions Response Program. October.

Sky Research, Inc. (SKY), 2010. Focused Visual Surveys, Final After Action Report, Camp Hale, Colorado.

U.S. Army. 2009. Final Munitions Response Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Guidance. U.S. Army Military Munitions Response Program. November. Website: http://aec.army.mil/Portals/3/restore/Guidance_%20MMRP_RIFS_2009.pdf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Archives Search Report, Camp Hale, Eagle County, Colorado, Final. December.

USACE. 2006. Military Munitions Response Process. Engineer Pamphlet (EP) 1110-1-18. March.

USACE. 2007. Military Munitions Response Actions, Engineer Manual (EM) 1110-1-4009. June.

USACE. 2008. Explosives Safety and Health Requirements, Engineer Manual (EM) 385-1-97. September.

U.S. Census. 2010. Website. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2012. Order No. UFC-01-12, National Forest Occupancy and Use Regulations, Pike/San Isabel National Forests, Arapahoe/Roosevelt National Forests, Pawnee National Grasslands, and the White River National Forest. June. Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5162323.pdf.

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2008. DoD Material Potentially Presenting an Explosive Hazard: DoD Number 4140.62. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics.

DoD. 2010. DoD Manual 6055-09-M, Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards. August. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/605509m.html


http://aec.army.mil/Portals/3/restore/Guidance_%20MMRP_RIFS_2009.pdf

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5162323.pdf


DoD. 2012. DoDM 4715.20, Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) Management Guidance. March 9, 2012.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. August EPA/540/G-89/004. OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. October.

USEPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., EPA/540/1-89/002.

USEPA. 1990. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. Fed. Reg. 55:8666-8865 (8 March 1990).

USEPA, 2000a. Institutional Controls: A Site Manager’s Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 9355.0-74FS-P, EPA 540-F-00-005. September.

USEPA. 2000b. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study, OSWER 9355.0-75, EPA-540-R-00-002. July.

USEPA, 2005, Handbook on the Management of Munitions Response Actions, EPA 505-B-01-001, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

USEPA, 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. Office of Environmental Information. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/240/B-06/001. February.

USEPA, 2008. Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Methodology, Interim, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., October.

USEPA, 2012. Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 9355.0-89, EPA 540-R-09-001. December.

USFS, 2012. Special Order Use Restriction, White River National Forest, Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District. Order number: 2012-15. Glenwood Springs, CO. October 12. Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/whiteriver/alerts-notices/?aid=14956.

Personal communication, Matt Grove, Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District, March 2015


Figures

§̈¦70

£¤9

§̈¦70

£¤24

£¤91

£¤91

£¤91

Eagle ValleyNorth MRS

East Fork ValleyMRS

Eagle ValleySouth MRS

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

¯

FORMER CAMP HALE

LOCATION OF MUNITIONSRESPONSE SITES2-1

FIGURENUMBER

OMAHA DISTRICT

U.S. ARMYCORPS OF ENGINEERS

0 2 4Miles

East Fork Valley MRSEagle Valley North MRSEagle Valley South MRSHighwayCamp Hale Original Boundary

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\C

amp_

Hale\

GIS_

Docu

ments

\Proj

ect_M

aps\F

S_Re

port_

2013

\Cam

p_Ha

le_00

6_FIG

_02-0

1_Lo

catio

n_Ma

p.mxd

WGS 1984 UTM Zone 13N

Denver

Colorado

Area A

Area C

Area B

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

¯

MRS AREASEAST FORK VALLEY MRS2-2

FIGURENUMBER

OMAHA DISTRICT


0 1,000 2,000Feet

MRS Area DivisionEast Fork Valley MRS

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\C

amp_

Hale\

GIS_

Docu

ments

\Proj

ect_M

aps\F

S_Re

port_

2013

\Cam

p_Ha

le_00

6_FIG

_02-0

2_MR

S_Di

vision

s.mxd

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N

FORMER CAMP HALE

Area A

Area C

Area B

¯

2003 TCRA CLEARANCE2-3FIGURE

NUMBER

OMAHA DISTRICT


0 1,100 2,200Feet

Cleared in 2003 TCRANot Cleared due to VegetationNot cleared due to Water/WetlandsArea not part of 2003 TCRAMRS Area DivisionEast Fork Valley MRS

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\C

amp_

Hale\

GIS_

Docu

ments

\Proj

ect_M

aps\F

S_Re

port_

2013

\Cam

p_Ha

le_00

6_FIG

_02-0

3_TC

RA.m

xd


FORMER CAMP HALE

!F

Area A

Area C

Area B

Camp HaleMemorial

Campground East ForkValley

Campground

Colorado Trail

Colorado Trail

N7210

726

N7212

726.1A

N741

N7214716

714

998W

755

237530200001EAST LAKE CREEK

RANCH LLP

¯

SITE FEATURES/LAND USE2-4FIGURE

NUMBER

OMAHA DISTRICT


0 1,000 2,000Feet

!F Trailhead Parking Lot

Underground Gas LineOverhead Electric Line

Colorado TrailColorado TrailRoadTrailWinter TrailCampground (boundary approximate)Private Parcel*MRS Area DivisionEast Fork Valley MRS

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\C

amp_

Hale\

GIS_

Docu

ments

\Proj

ect_M

aps\F

S_Re

port_

2013

\Cam

p_Ha

le_00

6_FIG

_02-0

4_EF

V_A.

mxd


FORMER CAMP HALE

* Private Parcels are Labeled with Parcel ID Number

Utility Corridor15 ft Buffer on either side

9 acres

Stream Alignment Buffer36 acres

Campground andBuffer

18 acresColorado Trail50 ft Buffer on Either Side

25 acres

Forest Service Road 714 & 726300 ft Buffer on Either Side

177 acres

Isolated areas betweenstream and road buffers

5 acres

Base of slope behind AOI 5100 ft buffer area

4 acres

ESTCP Area (previously Cleared)-4 acres

1Estimated Wetlands10 acres

Area CArea not included

in 2003 TCRA102 acres

Area BArea not included

in 2003 TCRA36 acres

Area BArea not includedin 2003 TCRA due

to vegetation2 acres

Area B300-ft buffer of FS714 (623-ft Total)

5 acres

East ForkValleyArea B

East ForkValleyArea A

East Fork ValleyArea C

¯

PARTIAL SURFACE CLEARANCE4-1FIGURE

NUMBER

OMAHA DISTRICT


0 1,100 2,200Feet

Colorado TrailNew Stream AllignmentForest Service Road 714 & 726Utility Corridor, 15 ft Buffer on either side (30ft Total)Area not included in 2003 TCRACampgroundCampground and Buffer AreaArea not Cleared in 2003 TCRA due toVegetationColorado Trail, 50 ft Buffer on Either Side(100 ft Total)Stream Alignment BufferBase of slope behind AOI 5, 100 ft bufferarea (100 ft Total)Forest Service Road 714 & FS 726, 300 ftBuffer on Either Side (623 ft Total)Isolated areas between stream and roadbuffersESTCP Area (previous surface clearance in2014)Estimated Wetlands in Surface ClearanceAreaArea covered by previous surface clearanceand not included for proposed surfaceclearanceArea not proposed for surface clearanceArea outside of East Fork Valley MRSEast Fork Valley MRS

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\C

amp_

Hale\

GIS_

Docu

ments

\Proj

ect_M

aps\F

S_Re

port_

2013

\Cam

p_Ha

le_00

6_Fig

_04-0

1_EF

V_Pa

rtial_S

urfac

e.mxd


FORMER CAMP HALE

Area A435 acres

Area C102 acres

Area B52 Acres




¯

COMPLETE SURFACE CLEARANCE4-2FIGURE

NUMBER

OMAHA DISTRICT


0 1,100 2,200Feet

Surface ClearanceWetlandsForest Service Road 714 & 726CampgroundArea outside of East Fork Valley MRSEast Fork Valley MRS

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\C

amp_

Hale\

GIS_

Docu

ments

\Proj

ect_M

aps\F

S_Re

port_

2013

\Cam

p_Ha

le_00

6_Fig

_04-0

2_EF

V_Co

mplet

e_Su

rface

.mxd


FORMER CAMP HALE

Area AWetlands22 acres


9 acres

Stream Alignment Buffer 36 acres

Campground andBuffer

18 acres

Colorado Trail10 ft Buffer on Either Side

5 acres

Forest Service Road 714 & 73650 ft Buffer on Either Side

39 acres

1Estimated Wetlands2 acres

Area BArea Cleared in 2003 TCRA

15 acres

Area CStream Alignment Buffer

7 acresArea C


1 acre

Area CForest Service Road 71450 ft Buffer on Either Side

3 acres

ESTCP Area1 acre

Isolated areas2 acres

¯

PARTIAL SUBSURFACE CLEARANCE4-3FIGURE

NUMBER

OMAHA DISTRICT


0 1,100 2,200Feet

Forest Service Road 714 & 726Colorado Trail, 10 ft Buffer on Either SideNew Stream AllignmentArea Cleared in 2003 TCRAUtility Corridor, 15 ft Buffer on either sideIsolated Areas (2 acres)ESTCP AreaEstimated Wetlands in SubsurfaceClearance Area (10 Acres)CampgroundCampground and Buffer AreaStream Alignment BufferForest Service Road 714, 50 ft Buffer onEither SideArea outside of East Fork Valley MRSArea not proposed for subsurface clearanceEast Fork Valley Area DivisionsMRS Boundaries

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\C

amp_

Hale\

GIS_

Docu

ments

\Proj

ect_M

aps\F

S_Re

port_

2013

\Cam

p_Ha

le_00

6_Fig

_04-0

3_EF

V_Pa

rtial_S

ubSu

rface

.mxd


FORMER CAMP HALE

Area A435 acres

Area C102 acres

Area BAlternative notcarried forward

37 acres




Area B15 acres

¯

COMPLETE SUBSURFACE CLEARANCE4-4FIGURE

NUMBER

OMAHA DISTRICT


0 1,100 2,200Feet

Surface ClearanceWetlandsForest Service Road 714 & 726CampgroundArea outside of East Fork Valley MRSEast Fork Valley MRS

Docu

ment

Path:

H:\C

amp_

Hale\

GIS_

Docu

ments

\Proj

ect_M

aps\F

S_Re

port_

2013

\Cam

p_Ha

le_00

6_Fig

_04-0

4_EF

V_Co

mplet

e_Su

bSurf

ace.m

xd


FORMER CAMP HALE

Area AWetlands22 acres

Tables

Former Camp HaleContract No. W9128F-10-D-0060, Delivery Order 0004

Page 1 of 1 FS Report, EFV

Table 1-1Summary of EFV MRS FS Alternatives

Description1 No Action

2 LUCs Signs, MEC awareness training, public communications, restricted intrusive activitiesSame LUCs as Alternative 2

Surface Clearance - 360 acres

Same LUCs as Alternative 2

Surface Clearance - 589 acres (excluding 22 acres of wetlands)


Surface Clearance - 360 acres

Subsurface Clearance - 123 acres



Subsurface Clearance - 123 acres



Subsurface Clearance - 552 acres (excluding wetlands)

Notes:

EFV - East Fork ValleyFS - Feasibility StudyLUCs - land use controlsMEC - munitions and explosives of concernMRS - munitions response site

7 Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance

4 Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

Alternative

3 Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs


6 Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Table 2-1 Baseline Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Summary

MEC HA Category INPUT EFV Area A EFV Area B EFV Area C

Energetic Material Type

HE HE Pyrotechnic

Location of Additional Human Receptors

Inside the MRS/ESQD

Outside the MRS/ESQD

Outside the MRS/ESQD

Site Accessibility Full Full Full

Potential Contact Hours

100,000 to 999,999 receptor

hours per year

<10,000 receptor hours per year

<10,000 receptor hours per year

Amount of MEC Safety Buffer Target Area Maneuver Area

Minimum MEC Depth Relative to Maximum Receptor Intrusive Depth

Baseline condition: MEC

located on surface and in

subsurface. After cleanup:

Intrusive depth overlaps with

subsurface MEC.





subsurface MEC.





subsurface MEC.

Migration Potential Possible Possible Possible

MEC Classification UXO Special Case

UXO Special Case

Unfuzed DMM

MEC Size Small Small Small

Surface Clearance Yes No No

MEC HA Score 670 865 625

MEC HA Hazard Level

3 1 3

EFV Area A • If scored as target area, score = 780, hazard level 2 • If scored as target area with no surface clearance, score = 950, hazard level 1

Former Camp Hale Contract No. W9128F-10-D-0060, Delivery Order 0004 Page 1 of 1 FS Report, EFV

Table 3-1 Preliminary Federal and State Applicable, Relevant, and Appropriate, and To Be Considered Requirements East Fork Valley Range Complex Standard, Requirement, Criteria or Limitation

Citations Description ARAR Type Applicability to Site

General

U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels

EPA, May 2013

EPA Human Health risk-based screening levels for soil, air and tap water based on ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure for residential and industrial exposure. If concentrations in media are below screening values, human health concerns are not expected.

Chemical

To Be Considered (TBC) human health risk-based levels used to evaluate for potential risk. The values are not cleanup standards but may be considered when developing risk criteria.

Fish and Wildlife

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)

Requires Federal agencies to conserve federally-protected (threatened or endangered) species and their habitat.

Action

ARAR/Applicable to any action that could impact listed or proposed threatened or endangered species at the site.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703(a)

The act contains a requirement for agencies to examine proposed actions by the government relative to habitat impacts and impacts to individual organisms.

Action ARAR/Applicable to any action that could impact migratory birds present at the site.

Colorado Nongame, Endangered or Threatened Species Conservation Act

2 C.C.R. § 406 Chapter 10, pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 33-2-101 et seq.

Requires coordination with the Division of Wildlife if remedial activities impact State-listed endangered or threatened species or their habitats.

Action

ARAR/Applicable to any action that could impact State-listed endangered or threatened species or their habitats at the site.

Historic Properties, Landmarks, and Natural Areas Archaeological Resources Protection Act

16 U.S.C. §§ 470ee sections (a) and (b)

Provides requirements for authorized removal of archaeological resources from public and tribal lands.

Location ARAR/Applicable for substantive portions of the regulation if cultural resources are identified at the site.




Conservation Services

Colorado Noxious Weeds

8 C.C.R 1206-2, Parts 3 and 4 pursuant to the statute at § 35-5.5-101 to 119

Colorado regulations addressing management of noxious weeds. Action ARAR/applicable if alternatives result in

disturbing soils on-site.

Solid and Hazardous Waste Management

Miscellaneous Units

40 CFR Part 264.601Subpart X

Miscellaneous units will be required to be located, designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and closed in a manner that will prevent any release that may have adverse effects on human health and the environment.

Action

TBC/Section 40 CFR Part 264.601 is an ARAR if actions require treatment of explosives by open burning or open detonation of consolidated demolition shots.

Colorado Hazardous Waste Act

6 C.C.R § 1007-3, Part 268 pursuant to C.R.S §§ 25-15-101 - 515 (Colorado Hazardous Waste Management Act)

Establishes requirements regulating the handling, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.

Action

ARAR/Applicable to soils containing elevated levels of lead at concentrations where the restrictions on land disposal are exceeded.




Colorado Solid Waste Regulations

6 CCR 1007-2 Part 1, Section 5, pursuant to § 30-20-101 et seq, the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, specifically: 5.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.6, 5.3.7, 5.3.8., 5.3.9, 5.4, 5.5.1, 5.5.3, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, 5.5.6(A), (C), 5.5.7, 5.5.8, Appendix 5A

Provides procedures for management of any debris where regulated asbestos-contaminated soil disturbing activities occur or are planned.

Action ARAR/Applicable to any actions where soil is disturbed in portions of the site within asbestos impacted area.

Notes:

ARAR – Applicable, Relevant, and Appropriate Requirements C.C.R. – Code of Colorado Regulations CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

C.R.S. – Colorado Revised Statutes DDESB – Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency TBC – To Be Considered

U.S.C. – U.S. Code


Table 3-2 General Response Actions and Remedial Technologies for MEC

General Response Action Remedial Technology Process Options No Action None NA

Detection Surface Detection Visual

Instrument-Aided Surface Sweep

Subsurface Detection Subsurface Analog Detection

Subsurface Digital Detection

Advanced Classification

Recovery Excavation Hand Excavation

Mechanical Equipment

Sorting Mechanized Soil Processing

Disposal On-Site Disposal Blow-in-place

Consolidated Shot

Off-Site Disposal Recycling

Land Use Controls Access Restrictions Area Use Restrictions

Permit

Fences

Warning Signs

Restrictions on Intrusive Activities

Deed/Zoning Restrictions

Educational Programs Training

Public Meetings

Flyers/On-line Publications Notes: MEC – munitions and explosives of concern NA – not applicable

Former Camp Hale Page 1 of 1 FS Report, EFV Contract No. W9128F-10-D-0060, Delivery Order 0004

Table 3 3 MEC Detection Process Options

Identified Process Option

Effectiveness L/M/H

Implementability L/M/H

Cost L/M/H

Comments Retained Yes/No 1

Surface Detection Technology Visual Observation M H L Visual observation is effective for the detection of MEC/MD on the ground

surface. Visual observation may miss a proportion of the surface objects hidden by vegetation. Detection through visual observation is implementable using trained MEC/UXO personnel. The cost of visual observation of surface MEC is low compared to more technologically advanced detection techniques such as digital geographical mapping.

Yes

Instrument-Aided Surface Sweep

H H L MEC/UXO personnel equipped with metal detectors decrease the probability of missing surface objects hidden by vegetation.

Yes

Subsurface Detection Analog Magnetometer H M L Maps only ferrous items. Light and compact. Can be used in most terrains.

Detection depth limited to 2 to 4 feet. Yes

Analog Electromagnetic Instruments

M M L Maps both ferrous and nonferrous so will detect non-munitions in the subsurface, increasing the number of targets. Light and compact. Can be used in most terrains.

Yes

Digital Magnetometer H M M Detects only ferrous items. Effective greater than 4 feet. Locations are recorded and anomalies can be relocated. Data are more complex for processing and interpretation. It is more difficult to use for anomaly reacquisition and hole checks than electromagnetic instruments.

Yes

Digital Electromagnetic Instruments

M M M Maps both ferrous and nonferrous so will detect non-munitions in the subsurface, increasing the number of targets. Data are easily processed and interpreted. Ease of interpretation in the field so hole checks are more reliable. The digital electromagnetic instrument employed during the RI was the EM61-MK2A.

Yes

Advanced Classification

H M H Maps both ferrous and non-ferrous. Data processing and interpretation require geophysicists specifically trained for advanced classification. Prioritized dig list reduces number of excavations. Hole checks are eliminated. Instrument selection will depend on site conditions.

Yes

Notes: 1 If a technology is retained, it will be considered in the development of remedial alternatives. H – high MD – munitions debris UXO – unexploded ordnance L – low MEC – munitions and explosives of concern M – medium RI – Remedial Investigation


Table 3-4 MEC Removal Technology Process Options


Effectiveness L/M/H


Cost L/M/H Comments Retained

Yes/No 1 Excavation

Manual Excavation H H L-H Proven effective during the TCRAs. Easy to implement. Cost effective for areas with lower MEC/MD density. May not be cost-effective for excavation of MEC/MD at depth. May not be cost-effective for separation of waste stream (MEC/MD) from excavated items. Cost dependent on volume and depth of MEC/MD requiring excavation.

Yes

Excavation by Mechanical Equipment

L-M M M-H Process work very well in heavily contaminated areas. Can separate several different sizes of material allowing for large quantities of soil to be returned with minimal screening for MEC/MD. May be difficult to implement without damage to the vegetation and disrupting wildlife. Likely more cost-effective for excavation at depth in areas with high density of MEC/MD.

Yes

Sorting

Mechanized Soil Sorting

L-M M H Would be highly effective at separating MEC/MD from large volumes of excavated soil if mechanical excavation is used. Would be more difficult than hand excavation to implement and would require more planning/staging. More damaging to the environment than hand excavation. Due to the density of MEC/MD anticipated, this process option is screened from consideration.

No

Notes: 1 If a technology is retained, it will be considered in the development of remedial alternatives. H – high L – low M – medium MD – munitions debris MEC – munitions and explosives of concern TCRA – Time-Critical Removal Action


Table 3-5 MEC Disposal Technology Process Options


Effectiveness L/M/H



Yes/ No 1 On-Site Disposal

Blow-in-place (BIP) H H M This method has been used effectively on similar sites. This is a field-proven technique using transportable materials and equipment. Need to consider any nearby utilities, structures, wild life, and cultural resources.

Yes

Consolidated Demolition Shot

H H M This method may be more cost-effective than blow-in-place if large amounts of MEC are recovered. May be used in areas where disruption of wildlife by BIP is a concern.

Yes

Off-Site Disposal

Recycling H H L The majority of ordnance-related items at Camp Hale are MD that may be disposed of as scrap metal after certification by UXO personnel. This method has been used effectively on similar sites.

Yes

Notes: 1 If a technology is retained, it will be considered in the development of remedial alternatives. H – high L – low M – medium MD – munitions debris MEC – munitions and explosives of concern UXO – unexploded ordnance


Table 3-6 Land Use Controls Technology Process Options for MEC and MC


Effectiveness L/M/H



Yes/No 1

Access Restrictions

Area-Use Restrictions and closure

M L L Restrictions placed on use for any area. Restrictions may include camping or hiking in identified areas only as advised and issued by the USFS. Areas may also be closed, or access limited to authorized personal only. Generally considered as advisories because they are not enforceable.

Yes

Permits H L L Special use permits for the MRS are currently issued by the USFS Holy Cross Ranger District. Permits for travel typically issued to outfitter and educational groups whose activities may include backpacking, hiking, or horseback riding. To protect against potential injuries, permittees are made aware of known MEC/MD in areas covered by their permit. Special use permits have been proven effective.

Yes

Fencing H L H Fencing is an engineering control and is not considered because the property is within the WRNF and USFS policy does not allow restricting access to public lands.

No

Signage M M M Signage would be effective for alerting users of potential dangers. Assumes that signs are placed in appropriate places for optimal viewing such as along roadways, trails, and in campgrounds. Moderate effort would be necessary to implement (signs must be installed in a remote area). Cost would be moderate (signs must be monitored and maintained).

Yes

Advisories on Intrusive Activities

M L L Effective in warning the worker and recreational user of potential dangers. Assumes that information is provided to all accessing area. Needs to be combined with educational programs for any potential receptors that need to perform intrusive activities such as the construction worker.

Yes

Deed Restrictions/ Environmental Easements

H L L Deed restrictions would be put in place to prohibit land use inconsistent with remedial alternative. Effectiveness and ease of implementability dependent on governmental agencies. May be necessary for private property contained within the MRS. Cost would be low.

Yes


Table 3-6 Land Use Controls Technology Process Options for MEC and MC


Effectiveness L/M/H



Yes/No 1

Education

Training H H L Programs and materials targeted for individuals with access to the MRS. This technology would be effective in training forestry personnel and recreational users entering the site to recognize and avoid MEC hazards.

Yes

Public Meetings

H H L Public meetings can be a highly effective means of communication depending on how well they are advertised and attended. They are generally easy to implement and do not have a significant cost.

Yes

Flyers H H L Flyers via mass mailing or for individuals that may be entering the MRS can be highly effective in reaching potential individuals that my encounter MD or MEC. Educational handouts may also be strategically provided to other members of the community (hunters, hikers, etc.). Preparing and distributing flyers would be easily implemented, and costs associated with preparation and distribution would be low.

Yes

On-line Publications

M H L Including information on use of the area and the potential hazards associated with MEC on facility website. Has proven effective to share information with recreation users and groups.

Yes

Notes: 1 If a technology is retained, it will be considered in the development of remedial alternatives. H – high L – low M – medium MC – munitions constituents MEC – munitions and explosives of concern MRS – Munitions Response Site USFS – U.S. Forest Service WRNF – White River National Forest




Table 5-1Details of FS Alternatives

LUCs Surface Removal Acres Subsurface Removal Acres1 No Action2 LUCs Signs, MEC awareness training, public

communications, restricted intrusive activities

Buffer on either side of new stream alignment

43

50-ft buffer on either side of Colorado Trail (100-ft Total)

25

100-ft buffer at base of slope behind AOI 5 (100-ft Total)

4

15-ft buffer on either side utility corridor (30-ft Total)

9

Campground and buffer 18300-ft buffer either side of FS 714 & FS 726

182

Areas not included in TCRA surface clearance

145

Subtotal 426ESTCP Area (previously Cleared) -4Estimated Wetlands -10Road Surface -4Overlap -48

Subtotal -66TOTAL 360

Total MRS including wetlands 611Wetlands 22

TOTAL (excluding wetlands) 58910-ft buffer on either side of Colorado Trail (20-ft Total)

5

50-ft buffer either side of FS 714 & FS 726

42

Buffer on either side of new stream alignment

43

15-ft buffer on either side utility corridor

10

Campground and buffer 18Isolated Areas 2Area included in 2003 TCRA 15

Subtotal 135ESTCP Area -1Estimated Wetlands -2Overlap -9

Subtotal -12TOTAL 123

Alternative


4 Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs Signs, MEC awareness training, public communications, restricted intrusive activities

Signs, MEC awareness training, public communications, restricted intrusive activities

Same as Alternative 3 360

3 Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs Signs, MEC awareness training, public communications, restricted intrusive activities



Table 5-1Details of FS Alternatives

LUCs Surface Removal Acres Subsurface Removal AcresAlternative6 Complete Surface Clearance, Partial

Subsurface Clearance, and LUCsSigns, MEC awareness training, public communications, restricted intrusive activities

Same as Alternative 4 589 Same as Alternative 5 123

7 Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance

Same as Alternative 4 589 Total MRS Area (excluding wetlands and the eastern portion of Area B)

552

Notes:

AOI - Area of Concern FS 714 - Forest Service Trail 714EFV - East Fork Valley LUCs - land use controlsESTCP - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program MEC - munitions and explosives of concernFS - Feasibility Study MRS - munitions response site

Table 5-2 Summary of Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives

Threshold Criteria Primary Balancing Criteria Modifying Criteria

Alternative Overall Protection of

Human Health and the Environment

Compliance with ARARs Short-Term Effectiveness Long-Term Effectiveness

Reduction of Toxicity,

Mobility, and Volume

Implementability Cost State Acceptance

Community Acceptance

1. No Action

Does not mitigate surface or subsurface hazards associated with MEC hazards.

Not Applicable if no action is taken.

No short-term increased risks to workers or public, since no activities are conducted for this alternative.

Although most surface MEC/MD were previously removed in Area A, some surface MEC may be present in areas inaccessible during previous actions, Area B where only a partial clearance was performed, and Area C which was not cleared during the TCRA and subsurface MEC/MD have not been addressed outside of the Advance Classification Demonstration area. This alternative does not provide any mechanisms to reduce or mitigate the remaining surface or subsurface MEC hazards; therefore, this alternative does not meet the criteria for long-term effectiveness. This alternative does not provide a permanent solution since subsurface MEC/MD is not completely removed.

There is no change in TMV since no actions are implemented.

Does not require any implementation.

No costs associated with this alternative.

State acceptance would be addressed in the DD once all comments have been received.

Community acceptance would be addressed in the DD once all comments have been received.

2. Land-Use Controls (LUCs)

Provides educational programs, signage, and advisories on subsurface activities that have the potential to encounter MEC/MD. This alternative is not as protective as other alternatives where surface and subsurface MEC are removed.

Can be implemented in compliance with ARARs.

The only short-term increased risk to workers or public is during sign installation, which can be performed safely following proven procedures.

Relies on LUCs that require continual implementation to be effective and cooperation of the site visitors including recreational and construction workers. LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories provided. Although surface MEC/MD were previously removed in Area A, except in inaccessible areas, Area B where only a partial clearance was performed, and Area C which was not cleared during the TCRA, and subsurface MEC/MD would remain at the site. However, this alternative does not provide a permanent solution since subsurface MEC/MD is not completely removed. It does not address surface and subsurface MEC in areas where construction is planned.

There is no change in TMV since there is no active remediation.

Straightforward to implement. These LUCs are proven technologies at Camp Hale and at other sites.

Capital Costs: $ 103,500 O&M: $ 939,800 Total: $ 1,043,000 (Present Worth)



3. Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs

Since LUCs would provide advisories on intrusive activities and surface MEC/MD would be removed in high-use areas, this alternative would be protective of human health and the environment. Provides educational programs, signage, and restrictions on intrusive activities that have the potential to encounter MEC/MD. This alternative is not as protective as other alternatives where subsurface MEC are removed; however, the LUCs including advisories on excavation will mitigate the risk.


There is an increased short-term risk to workers or public, since surface MEC/MD will be removed. Risks are reduced by following approved procedures. For MEC disposal activities, notifications and exclusion zones would be established as specified in the ESS developed for the site, but these exclusions would be limited to the short timeframe required to set up and complete the disposal activities. If MEC will be consolidated to a central location prior to disposal, appropriate exclusion, and limits to access would be employed to ensure protection of all site workers and visitors, but would be limited in extent and duration.

This alternative does not remove all MEC hazards, but does remove those remaining at the surface in high use areas that are the most likely point of exposure. This alternative relies on LUCs that require continual implementation to be effective and cooperation of the site visitors including recreational and construction workers outside the high use areas. . It does not address subsurface MEC in areas where construction is planned. This alternative does not provide a permanent solution because subsurface MEC are not removed. It does not address subsurface MEC in areas where construction is planned.

This alternative would result in a small reduction in volume since any remaining surface MEC would be removed in high use areas.

This alternative uses proven technologies and is technically feasible to implement. This alternative is also administratively feasible to implement. Most of the MRS is relatively flat and open, which should facilitate performance of a surface sweep in high use areas. Area B is rugged, with bedrock at or near the ground surface which will increase the time required for clearance. Because of the presence of potential cultural resources, and to maintain the integrity of the natural and historically significant area, clearing should be minimized, as feasible, while reducing hazard from MEC.

Capital Costs: $ 4,159,200 O&M: $ 939,800 Total: $ 5,099,000 (Present Worth)













4. Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

This alternative would be protective of human health by removing surface MEC that remains across the MRS except in the wetlands. For subsurface MEC, this alternative would be protective of human health through the use of advisories to reduce the potential for contact with MEC that may remain. This alternative is not as protective as a full MEC removal; however, the surface MEC removal will address the most likely pathway for exposure.


There is an increased short-term risk to workers or public, since surface MEC/MD will be removed. Risks are reduced by following approved procedures. For MEC disposal activities, notifications and exclusion zones would be established as specified in the ESS developed for the site, but these exclusions would be limited to the short timeframe required to set up and complete the disposal activities. If MEC will be consolidated to a central location prior to disposal, appropriate exclusion, and limits to access would be employed to ensure protection of all site workers and visitors, but would be limited in extent and duration.

This alternative does not remove all MEC hazards, but does remove those remaining at the surface where exposure is most likely to occur. It relies on LUCs to mitigate exposure to subsurface MEC that may remain, which requires continual implementation to be effective. LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories. This alternative does not provide a permanent solution because subsurface MEC is not completely removed. It does not address subsurface MEC in areas where construction is planned.

This alternative should result in the reduction of the volume of MEC at the surface across the MRS. During the removal; any MEC that is identified would be treated on-site using conventional MEC destruction techniques (e.g., BIP, consolidated shot). Therefore, a reduction in TMV would be achieved.

This alternative uses proven technologies and is technically feasible to implement. This alternative is also administratively feasible to implement. Most of the MRS is relatively flat and open, which should facilitate performance of a surface sweep in high use areas. Area B is rugged, with bedrock at or near the ground surface which will increase the time required for clearance. Because of the presence of potential cultural resources, and to maintain the integrity of the natural and historically significant area, clearing should be minimized, as feasible, while reducing hazard from MEC.




5. Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

This alternative would be protective of human health by removing surface and subsurface MEC at the high-use areas where surface contact and subsurface activities such as excavation are most likely to occur. In the rest of the MRS, this alternative would be protective of human health through behavior controls (LUCs) to reduce the potential for contact with MEC that may remain.


This alternative is effective in the short term in protecting human health during the remedial action by implementing approved procedures, although some risk is always present when dealing with MEC. There is an increased short-term risk to workers or public, since MEC/MD will be excavated and removed. Risks are reduced by using hand excavation and following approved procedures There is some risk to site workers performing surface clearance activities due to possible challenging site conditions related to working at altitude in varied and steep terrain. Most the MRS is flat, except for the eastern portion of Area B.

This alternative does not remove all MEC hazards, but does remove those remaining at the surface and in the subsurface in areas where exposure is most likely to occur. It relies on LUCs to mitigate exposure to subsurface MEC that may remain, which requires continual implementation to be effective. LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories. This alternative does not provide a permanent solution because subsurface MEC is not completely removed. It provides clearance in areas where construction is planned and in the campground where visitors may perform intrusive activities.

This alternative should result in the reduction of the volume of MEC in high use areas. During the removal, any MEC that is identified would be treated on-site using conventional MEC destruction techniques (e.g., BIP, consolidated shot). Therefore, a reduction in TMV would be achieved.

This alternative uses proven technologies and is feasible to implement. Hand excavation is time consuming, but the volume of MEC/MD is expected to be low. It is the safest means of execution and is also the least disruptive to the natural environment. Some clearing of brush will be required to perform a complete surface and subsurface removal. Area B is rugged, with bedrock at or near the ground surface which will increase the time required for clearance. Because of the presence of potential cultural resources, and to maintain the integrity of the natural and historically significant area, clearing and subsurface actions should be minimized, as feasible, while reducing hazard from MEC.




6. Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Would be protective of human health and the environment since surface MEC/MD will be removed across the MRS and subsurface MEC/MD will be removed in high use areas where intrusive activities are most likely to occur.


This alternative is effective in the short term in protecting human health during the remedial action by implementing approved procedures, although some risk is always present when dealing with MEC. There is an increased short-term risk to workers or public, since MEC/MD will be excavated and removed. Risks are reduced by using hand excavation and following approved procedures There is some risk to site workers performing surface clearance activities due to possible

This alternative does not remove all MEC hazards, but does remove those remaining at the surface over the entire MRS and in the subsurface in areas where exposure is most likely to occur. It relies on LUCs to mitigate exposure to subsurface MEC that may remain, which requires continual implementation to be effective. LUCs are only effective if the general public using the MRS follows the advisories. This alternative does not provide a permanent solution because subsurface MEC is not completely removed. It provides clearance in areas where construction is planned and in the

This alternative should result in the reduction of the volume of MEC across the MRS. During the removal; any MEC that is identified would be treated on-site using conventional MEC destruction techniques (e.g., BIP, consolidated

This alternative uses proven technologies and is feasible to implement. Hand excavation is time consuming, but the volume of MEC/MD is expected to be low. It is the safest means of execution and is also the least disruptive to the natural environment. Some clearing of brush will be required to perform a complete surface and subsurface removal. Area B is rugged, with bedrock at or near the ground surface which will














challenging site conditions related to working at altitude in varied and steep terrain. Most the MRS is flat, except for the eastern portion of Area B and open.

campground where visitors may perform intrusive activities.

shot). Therefore, a reduction in TMV would be achieved.

increase the time required for clearance. Because of the presence of potential cultural resources, and to maintain the integrity of the natural and historically significant area, clearing and subsurface actions should be minimized, as feasible, while reducing hazard from MEC.

7. Complete Surface Clearance and Complete Subsurface Clearance

Would be protective of human health and the environment since surface and subsurface MEC/MD will be removed across the entire site except in the eastern portion of Area B which is extremely rugged and bedrock is at or near the ground surface. Would achieve UU/UE.


This alternative is effective in the short term in protecting human health during the remedial action by implementing approved procedures, although some risk is always present when dealing with MEC. There is an increased short-term risk to workers or public, since MEC/MD will be excavated and removed. Risks are reduced by using hand excavation and following approved procedures There is some risk to site workers performing surface clearance activities due to possible challenging site conditions related to working at altitude in varied and steep terrain. Most the MRS is flat, except for the eastern portion of Area B

This alternative would be effective over the long-term since the entire surface and subsurface is cleared. This alternative is also permanent since all MEC is removed. It provides clearance in areas where construction is planned and in the campground where visitors may perform intrusive activities.

During the removal, any MEC that is identified would be treated on-site using conventional MEC destruction techniques (e.g., BIP, consolidated shot). Therefore, a reduction in TMV would be achieved.

This alternative uses proven technologies and is feasible to implement. Hand excavation is time consuming but the volume of MEC/MD is expected to be low. It is the safest means of execution. Hand excavation is also the least disruptive to the natural environment. Some clearing of brush will be required to perform a complete surface and subsurface removal. Because of the presence of potential cultural resources, and to maintain the integrity of the natural and historically significant area, clearing and subsurface actions should be minimized, as feasible, while reducing hazard from MEC.




Notes: ARAR – Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement BIP – blow(n) in place DD – Decision Document EFV – East Fork Valley ESS – Explosives Safety Submission LUCs – land use controls MD – munitions debris MEC – munitions and explosives of concern MRS – Munitions Response Site O&M – operation and maintenance TMV – toxicity, mobility, and volume UU/UE - Unrestricted Use/Unlimited Exposure


Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives

CERCLA EVALUATION CRITERIA

Alt 1 No

Action

Alt 2 LUCs

Alt 3 Partial Surface

Clear, LUCs

Alt 4 Complete

Surface Clear, LUCs

Alt 5 Partial Surface, Partial

Subsurface Clear, LUCs

Alt 6 Complete Surface, Partial

Subsurface Clear, LUCs

Alt 7 Complete Surface &

Subsurface Clear

Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the Environment

○ ◐ ◐ ◐ ● ● ●

Compliance with ARARs ○ ● ● ● ● ● ●

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ○ ◐ ◐ ◐ ● ● ●

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment

○ ○ ◐ ◐ ● ● ●

Short-Term Effectiveness ● ● ◐ ◐ ○ ○ ○ Implementability ● ● ● ◐ ◐ ◐ ○ Cost ● ◐ ◐ ◐ ○ ○ ○ State Acceptance To be determined

Community Acceptance To be determined

Notes:

● Most Acceptable ◐ Moderately Acceptable ○ Least Acceptable

ARAR – Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act EFV – East Fork Valley LUCs – Land Use Controls MRS – Munitions Response Site


Appendix A Definitions


Anomaly – Any identified subsurface mass that may be geologic in origin, unexploded ordnance (UXO), or some other man-made material. Such identification is made through geophysical investigation and reflects the response of the sensor used to conduct the investigation. (Handbook on the Management of Munitions Response Actions, Interim Final, EPA, May 2005)

Anomaly Avoidance –Techniques employed on property known or suspected to contain unexploded ordnance, other munitions that may have experienced abnormal environments (e.g., discarded military munitions), munitions constituents in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive hazard, or chemical agents, regardless of configuration, to avoid contact with potential surface or subsurface explosive or CA hazards, to allow entry to the area for the performance of required operations. (AF Manual 91-201 and DOD 6055.09-M)

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements – Applicable requirements are cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements promulgated under Federal or state environmental law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are cleanup standards that, while not “applicable,” address situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a CERCLA site where their use is well suited to the particular site. (NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, July 2005)

Chemical Agent (CA) – An agent that, through its chemical properties, produces lethal or other damaging effects on human beings, except that such term does not include riot control agents, chemical herbicides, smoke, and other obscuration materials. This definition is based on the definition of “chemical agent and munition” in 50 U.S.C. 1521(j)(1).

Chemical Warfare Materiel (CWM) – Items generally configured as a munition containing a chemical compound that is intended to kill, seriously injure, or incapacitate a person through its physiological effects. CWM includes V- and G-series nerve agents or H-series (mustard) and L-series (lewisite) blister agents in other-than-munition configurations; and certain industrial chemicals (e.g., hydrogen cyanide [AC], cyanogen chloride [CK], or carbonyl dichloride [called phosgene or CG]) configured as a military munition. CWM does not include riot control devices, chemical defoliants and herbicides, industrial chemicals (e.g., AC, CK, or CG) not configured as a munition, smoke and other obscuration producing items, flame and incendiary producing items, or soil, water, debris or other media contaminated with low concentrations of chemical agents where no CA hazards exist. (MRSPP, 32 CFR Part 179, October 2005)

CWM contains the following four subcategories:

1) CWM, explosively configured – All UXO or DMM that contain a CA fill and any explosive component. Examples are M55 rockets with CA, the M23 VX mine, and the M360 105-mm GB artillery cartridge.

2) CWM, non-explosively configured – All UXO or DMM that contain a CA fill but that do not contain any explosive components. Examples are any chemical munitions that do not contain explosive components and VX or mustard agent spray canisters.

Former Camp Hale A-1 FS Report, EFV W9128F-10-D-0060, DO 0004 Final, July 2015


3) CWM, bulk container – All discarded (e.g., buried) non-munitions-configured containers of CA (e.g., a ton container) and CAIS K941, toxic gas set M-1 and K942, toxic gas set M-2/E11.

4) Chemical Agent Identification Sets (CAIS) – Military training aids containing small quantities of various CA and other chemicals. All forms of CAIS are scored the same in this rule, except CAIS K941, toxic gas set M-1; and CAIS K942, toxic gas set M-2/E11, which are considered forms of CWM, bulk container, due to the relatively large quantities of agent contained in those types of sets.

Closed Range – A military range that has been taken out of service as a range and that either has been put to new uses that are incompatible with range activities or is not considered by the military to be a potential range area. A closed range is still under the control of a Component. (MGDERP, March 2012)

Defense Sites – Locations that are or were owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed or used by the Department of Defense. 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 U.S.C. 2710(e)(1))

Department of Defense Components – The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, the Defense Agencies, the Department Field Activities, and any other Department organizational entity or instrumentality established to perform a government function. (MRSPP, 32 CFR Part 179, October 2005)

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 of consistent with applicable environmental laws and regulations. (10 U.S.C. 2710(e)(2))

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Personnel – Active duty military personnel of any military service branch that are trained in the detection, identification, field evaluation, safe rendering, recovery, and final disposal of explosive ordnance and of other munitions that have become an imposing danger, for example, by damage or deterioration. (Handbook on the Management of Munitions Response Actions, Interim Final, EPA, May 2005)

Facility – A building, structure, or other improvement to real property, in relation to work classification. (10 U.S.C. 2801)

Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) – Facility or site (property) that was under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense and owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by the United States at the time of actions leading to the contamination by hazardous substances. By the DoD Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) policy, the FUDS program is limited to those real properties that were transferred from DoD control prior to 17 October 1986. FUDS properties can be located within the 50 States, District of Columbia, Territories,



Commonwealths, and possessions of the United States. (FUDS Program Policy, ER 200 3-1, May 2004)

Hazardous Substance – (A) Any substance designated pursuant to Section 1321(b)(2)(A) of title 33, (B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to Section 9602 of this title, (C) any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to Section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act [42 U.S.C. 6921] (but not including any waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act [42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.] has been suspended by Act of Congress), (D) any toxic pollutant listed under section 1317(a) of title 33, (E) any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7412], and (F) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the Administrator has taken action pursuant to Section 2606 of Title 15. The term does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof, which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of this paragraph, and the term does not include natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas). (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.)

Installation (as defined by the RMIS Data Element Dictionary for a Federal Facility Identification [FFID]) – The FFID number is a unique identifier, assigned to an installation/property in RMIS. The 14-character aggregate string is used in RMIS as the key column for each data table and is used to track all associated records for each installation. An installation may have a single range or multiple ranges (and each range may have more than one site contained within its boundaries) and a single or multiple sites, not associated with a range. (Management Guidance for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, September 2001)

Land Use Controls (LUCs) – Physical, legal, or administrative mechanisms that restrict the use of, or limit access to, contaminated property in order to reduce risk to human health and the environment. Physical mechanisms encompass a variety of engineered remedies to contain or reduce contamination and/or physical barriers to limit access to property, such as fences or signs. The legal mechanisms are generally the same as those used for institution controls (ICs) as discussed in the NCP. ICs are a subset of LUCs and are primarily legal mechanisms imposed to ensure the continued effectiveness of land use restrictions imposed as part of a remedial decision. Legal mechanisms include restrictive covenants, negative easements, equitable servitudes, and deed notices. Administrative mechanisms include notices, adopted local land use plans and ordinances, construction permitting, or other existing land use management systems that may be used to ensure compliance with use restrictions. (MGDERP, March 2012)

Material That Potentially Presents an Explosive Hazard (MPPEH) – Material potentially containing explosives or munitions (e.g., munitions containers and packaging material; munitions debris remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal; and range-related debris), or material potentially containing a high enough concentration of explosives such that the material presents an explosive hazard (e.g., equipment, drainage systems, holding tanks, piping, or ventilation ducts that were associated with munitions production, demilitarization or disposal operations). Excluded from MPPEH are munitions within DoD’s established munitions management system and other hazardous items that may present explosion hazards (e.g.,



gasoline cans, compressed gas cylinders) that are not munitions and are not intended for use as munitions. (DoD Instruction 4140.62, Management and Disposition of MPPEH, 2008)

Military Installation – A base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a Military Department, or, in the case of an activity in a foreign country, under the operational control of the Secretary of a military department or the Secretary of Defense, without regard to the duration of operational control. (10 U.S.C. 2801)

Military Munitions – All 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 Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, the 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 ammunition, small arms ammunition, grenades, mines, torpedoes, depth charges, cluster munitions and dispensers, and demolition charges; and devices and components of any item thereof. The term does not include wholly inert items, improvised explosive devices, and nuclear weapons, nuclear devices, nuclear components, other than non-nuclear components of 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 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) have been completed. (10 U.S.C. 101(e)(4))

Military Range – Designated land and water areas set aside, managed, and used to research, develop, test, and evaluate military munitions, other ordnance, or weapon systems, or to train military personnel in their use and handling. Ranges include firing lines and positions, maneuver areas, firing lanes, test pads, detonation pads, impact areas, and buffer zones with restricted access and exclusionary areas. (40 CFR 266.201)

Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) – Military munitions that are 1) unexploded ordnance, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(e)(5); 2) abandoned or discarded, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2710(e)(2); 3) MC (e.g., TNT, RDX) present in soil, facilities, equipment, or other materials in high enough concentrations so as to pose an explosive hazard. (MRSPP, 32 CFR Part 179, October 2005)

Munitions Constituent (MC) – Any material that originates from UXO, DMM, or other military munitions, including explosive and non-explosive materials, and emission, degradation, or breakdown elements of such ordnance or munitions. (10 U.S.C. 2710(e)(4))

Munitions Debris – Remnants of munitions (e.g., fragments, penetrators, projectiles, shell casings, links, fins) remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal. (DoD 6055.09-M)

Munitions Response – Response actions, including investigation, removal actions, and remedial actions, to address the explosives safety, human health, or environmental risks presented by UXO, DMM, or MC or to support a determination that no removal or remedial action is required. (MRSPP, 32 CFR Part 179, October 2005)



Munitions Response Area (MRA) – Any area on a defense site that is known or suspected to contain UXO, DMM, or MC. Examples include former ranges and munitions burial areas. A munitions response area is comprised of one or more munitions response sites. (MRSPP, 32 CFR Part 179, October 2005)

Munitions Response Site (MRS) – A discrete location within an MRA that is known to require a munitions response. (MRSPP, 32 CFR Part 179, October 2005)

Operational Range – A range that is under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the Secretary of Defense and that is used for range activities, or although not currently being used for range activities, that is still considered by the Secretary to be a range and has not been put to a new use that is incompatible with range activities. (10 U.S.C. 101(e)(3))

Outlier – An outlier is an observation that lies an abnormal distance from other values in a random sample from a population. In a sense, this definition leaves it up to the analyst (or a consensus process) to decide what will be considered abnormal. Before abnormal observations can be singled out, it is necessary to characterize normal observations.

Pollutant and Contaminant – These terms include, but are not be limited to, any element, substance, compound, or mixture, including disease-causing agents, which after release into the environment and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring; except that the term pollutant or contaminant shall not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (14) and shall not include natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas of pipeline quality (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas). (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.)

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 U.S.C. 101(3)(2))

Range-Related Debris – Debris, other than munitions debris, collected from operational ranges or from former ranges (e.g., targets, military munitions packaging and crating material). (DoD 6055.09-M)

Range Residue – Material, including but not limited to, parts and sections of practice bombs, artillery, small arms, mortars, projectiles, bombs, missiles, rockets, rocket mortars, targets, grenades, incendiary devices, experimental items, demolition devices, and any other material fired on or discovered on a range. (AFI 13-212, Range Planning and Operations, August 2001)

Real Property – Real estate owned by the United States and under the control of the DoD. Includes lands, buildings, structures, utilities systems, improvements and appurtenances thereto. Includes equipment attached to and made part of buildings and structures (such as heating systems) but not moveable equipment (such as plant equipment). (MGDERP, March 2012)



Relative Risk – The evaluation of individual sites to determine high, medium, or low relative risk to human health and the environment, based on contaminant hazards, migration pathways and receptors, in accordance with the DoD's Risk-Based Site Evaluation Primer. (MGDERP, March 2012)

Removal – The cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment. Such actions may be taken in the event of the threat of release of hazardous substances into the environment, such actions as may be necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances, the disposal of removed material, or the taking of such other actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment, which may otherwise result from a release or threat of release. The term includes, in addition, without being limited to, security fencing or other measures to limit access, provision of alternative water supplies, temporary evacuation and housing of threatened individuals not otherwise provided for, action taken under Section 9604(b) of this title, and any emergency assistance which may be provided under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act [42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.] The requirements for removal actions are addressed in 40 CFR §§300.410 and 300.415. The three types of removals are emergency, time-critical, and non-time critical removals. (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.)

There are three types of removals:

1) Emergency – Emergency removal or response is performed when an immediate or imminent danger to public health or the environment is present and action is required within hours. Trained responders identify the explosive threat and make the decision as to whether the munitions and explosive of concern should be moved or blown in place and ensure the threat is removed safely and expeditiously.

2) Time-critical – A response to a release or threat of release that poses such a risk to public health (serious injury or death), or the environment, that cleanup or stabilization actions must be initiated within six months.

3) Non-time critical – An action initiated in response to a release or threat of a release that poses a risk to human health and welfare, or the environment. Initiation of removal cleanup actions may be delayed for six months or more.

Risk Reduction – The movement of any site from a higher to lower relative risk category as a result of natural attenuation, interim remedial, remedial, or removal actions taken. (DoD Instruction 4715.7, Environmental Restoration Program, April 1996)

Site (as defined in the Restoration Management Information System Data Element Dictionary for a SITE_ID) – A unique name given to a distinct area of an installation containing one or more releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances treated as a discreet entity or consolidated grouping for response purposes. Includes any building, structure, impoundment, landfill, storage container, or other site or area where a hazardous substance was or has come to be located, including formerly used sites eligible for building demolition/debris removal. Installations and ranges may have more than one site. (MGDERP, March 2012)



Stakeholder – Groups or individuals who were interested in, concerned about, affected by, who had a vested interest in, or would be involved in the munitions response at an MRA/MRS.

Transferred Range – A property formerly used as a military range that is no longer under military control and had been leased by the DoD, transferred, or returned from the DoD to another entity, including federal entities. This includes a military range that is no longer under military control but was used under the terms of a withdrawal, executive order, special-use permit or authorization, right-of-way, public land order, or other instrument issued by the federal land manager. (MGDERP, March 2012)

Transferring Range – A military range that is proposed to be transferred or returned from the DoD to another entity, including federal entities. This includes a military range that is used under the terms of a withdrawal, executive order, act of Congress, public land order, special-use permit or authorization, right-of-way, or other instrument issued by the federal land manager or property owner. An operational or closed range will not be considered a “transferring range” until the transfer is imminent. (MGDERP, March 2012)

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

UXO Technicians – Personnel who are qualified for and filling Department of Labor, Service Contract Act, Directory of Occupations, contractor positions of UXO Technician I, UXO Technician II, and UXO Technician III. (Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board TP18, December 2004)


Appendix B Abbreviations and Acronyms


AOI area of interest AT anti-tank ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ASR Archives Search Report bgs below ground surface BIP blow(n)-in place CB&I CB&I Federal Services LLC CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIA Central Intelligence Agency CSM conceptual site model DD Decision Document DERP Defense Environmental Response Program DGM digital geophysical mapping DMM discarded military munitions DoD Department of Defense EFV East Fork Valley EMI Electromagnetic Induction EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal EP Engineer Pamphlet ESQD explosive safety quantity distance ESS Explosives Safety Submission ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program EVS Eagle Valley South FS Feasibility Study ft foot or feet FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites GPS Global Positioning System GRA General Response Action HE high-explosive HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment IC Institutional Control ICAIP Institutional Control Analysis and Implementation Plan ID identification IRMP Interim Risk Management Plan KD Known Distance LTM long term management LUC land use controls MATOC Multiple Award Task Order Contract MC munitions constituents MD munitions debris MEC munitions and explosives of concern mm millimeters MMRP Military Munitions Response Program MRS munitions response site

Former Camp Hale B-1 FS Report, EFV W9128F-10-D-0060, DO 0004 Final, July 2015


MRSPP Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NFS National Forest Service O&M operation and maintenance OB/OD open burn(ing)/open detonation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PA Preliminary Assessment PP Proposed Plan PRG preliminary remediation goals QC Quality Control RA Risk Assessment RAO remedial action objectives RC response complete RI Remedial Investigation Shaw Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. SI Site Inspection SL screening level SLERA Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment SLRA Screening Level Risk Assessment TCRA Time-Critical Removal Action TDEM time domain electromagnetic TMV toxicity, mobility, and volume USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USCB U.S. Census Bureau USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UU/UE unlimited use/unrestricted exposure UXO Unexploded ordnance

Former Camp Hale B-2 FS Report, EFV W9128F-10-D-0060, DO 0004 Final, July 2015

Appendix C Safety Brochure – The 3 Rs Approach

11M032011D_203.14.11

Camp Hale3Rs Explosive Safety Guide

Remember the 3RsRecognize: Recognize when you may have encountered a munition.

RetReat: Do not touch, move or disturb it, but carefully leave the area.

RepoRt: Immediately notify the Sheriff’s Department. Emergency contacts:

• Call 911 • Eagle County Sheriff Department:

970-328-8500 • Lake County Sheriff Department:

719-486-1249

Visit the US Army’s UXO Safety Education website: https://www.denix.osd.mil/uxosafety

Camp Hale InformationProject related documents are available in the

Lake County Public Library Phone: 719-486-0569 1115 Harrison Avenue

Leadville, CO

For additional information, contact the US Army Corps of Engineers

Omaha District, Public Affairs Office Phone: 888-835-5971

http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/ http://www.facebook.com/OmahaUSACE

Visit the project web site www.camphale.org

BackgroundDuring World War II (WWII), in the interest of providing a winter mountain warfare training area for soldiers, the War Department authorized the construction of Camp Hale in April 1942. The Camp Hale Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) is located in west-central Colorado, within or bordered by Eagle, Lake, Pitkin, and Summit Counties. Most of this site is located on land in the White River and San Isabel National Forests, and is managed by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Some in-holdings of privately owned land are also included in this site area.

Between 1942 and the 1960s, Camp Hale was used to train military troops in winter mountain warfare techniques. Much of the training focused on skiing, mountain climbing, and weapons qualification. Munitions training included firing mortars, rockets, and projectiles into various areas within the FUDS boundary. Munitions have been encountered in different areas of Camp Hale. Although these munitions have been in the environment for more than 50 years, they remain dangerous.

Users of the area surrounding Camp Hale should be aware that munitions may be present. Area users of the Camp Hale FUDS area should be aware of the potential hazard munitions pose. To protect themselves, their families and their neighbors, they should learn and follow the 3Rs of Explosives Safety.

ECOGNIZERETREATREPORTR

Recognizing when you may have encountered a munition is the most important step in reducing the potential risk of injury or death. Munitions may be found on land or in the water. They may be easy or hard to identify. If you come across or even suspect that you have encountered a munition, you must consider it dangerous.

Munitions, even suspect munitions, should never be touched, moved, or disturbed. You risk injury or death when disturbing munitions.

Be aware that munitions make deadly souvenirs and they do not become safer with age; they often become more dangerous.

Munitions come in many sizes, shapes and colors. Some may look like bullets or bombs while others look like pipes, small cans or even a car muffler. Whether whole or in parts, new or old, shiny or rusty, munitions can still explode. The easiest way to avoid injury or death is to stay out of areas marked with warning signs or charted as restricted. The best way to stay safe is to learn and follow the 3Rs.

Avoid death or injury by recognizing that you may have encountered a munition. If you believe you may have encountered a munition, do not touch it, but retreat from the area by carefully moving away, walking out the same way you entered.

If you encounter what you believe is a munition, do not touch, move or disturb it. Instead, immediately and carefully leave the area, retracing your steps out of the area by the same path which you entered. Once safely away, mark the path with clothing or something else so it can be easily found once reported.


Protect yourself, your family, your friends and your community by immediately reporting munitions or suspected munitions to the police.

Provide as much information as possible about what you saw and where you saw it. This will help the police and military or civilian explosive ordnance disposal personnel find, evaluate and address the situation.

If you believe you may have encountered a munition, call 911 and report the following:

• The area where you encountered it. If you have a GPS unit, note the approximate coordinates of the item’s location.

• Its general description. Remember, do not approach touch, move or move it. When possible, provide:

– Its estimated size

– Its shape

– Any visible markings, including coloring




Appendix D Remedial Alternative Costs

NOTES:

1. The 30 year Present Value costs are based on a 1.4% annual discount rate.

Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance $54,168,600 $102,900 $54,272,000

Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs $18,139,200 $939,800 $19,079,000

Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs $20,374,600 $939,800 $21,314,000

Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs $4,159,200 $939,800 $5,099,000

Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs $6,594,400 $939,800 $7,534,000

Alternative 1 - No Action $0 $0 $0

Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) $103,500 $939,800 $1,043,000

Area A Summary of Costs

East Fork Valley Munitions Response Site Feasability Study

Camp Hale, Colorado

Alternative Total Capital Costs Total O&M CostsTotal Present

Value Cost

Area A Costs Area B Costs Area C Costs

NOTES:

Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance,

and LUCs

Alt 3 - Partial Surface Alt 4 - Complete Surface

Alt 4 - Complete Surface

EFV MRS Alternative

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs

Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

Partial surface clearance for the EFV MRS Alternatives includes clearance in all areas of the MRS that were not previously cleared. Portions of Areas A and B were

surface cleared during the 2003 TCRA. However, no surface clearance was previously performed in Area C, so both partial surface clearance alternatives include

complete surface clearance (Alternative 6) for Area C.

Alt 7 - Complete Surface,

Complete Subsurface


Complete Subsurface


Complete Subsurface


Partial Subsurface


Partial Subsurface


Partial Subsurface

Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface

Clearance, and LUCs

Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface

Clearance

Costs from Each Area that are Included in the Total Cost for EFV MRS

East Fork Valley MRS

Camp Hale, Colorado

Alt 5 - Partial Surface, Partial

Subsurface

Alt 5 - Partial Surface, Partial

Subsurface


Partial Subsurface

Alt 2 - LUCs Alt 2 - LUCs

Alt 3 - Partial Surface

Alt 4 - Complete Surface Alt 4 - Complete Surface

Costs Included in the Alternative

Alt 1 - No Action Alt 1 - No Action Alt 1 - No Action

Alt 2 - LUCs

East Fork Valley MRS Area A Remedial Alternatives Costs

NOTES:


Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance $42,290,100 $102,900 $42,393,000

Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs $11,293,500 $939,800 $12,233,300

Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs $13,221,100 $939,800 $14,160,900

Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs $2,113,800 $939,800 $3,053,600

Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs $4,140,700 $939,800 $5,080,500


Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) $103,500 $939,800 $1,043,300

Table D-1



Camp Hale, Colorado


Value Cost

Page 1 of 42

Table D-2

Area A Alternative 1 - No Action - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado

Item DescriptionQuantity

Per YearUnit Unit Cost Annual Cost

Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value

Cost

No Action

No Actions Taken $0 $0

Total Present Value Cost $0

Page 2 of 42

Table D-3

Area A Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost

Project Plans, Year 1

Draft Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 1 $34,500

Draft Final Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 1 $34,500

Final Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 1 $34,500

Total Capital Costs $103,500

Land Use Controls, Years 1 through 30

Educational Materials 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 30 $84,000

Sign maintenance 2 sign $200 $400 30 $13,400

Website ongoing development and maintenance 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 30 $201,700

Public meetings 1 meeting $2,500 $2,500 30 $84,000

MMRP Prioritization Protocol Annual Update 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 30 $33,600

Five-Year Review, Years 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30

Draft Five-Year Review 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 6 $261,500

Draft Final Five-Year Review 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 6 $130,800

Final Five-Year Review 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 6 $130,800

Total O&M Costs $939,800

Total Present Value Cost $1,043,300

Notes:


Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c/

2. All costs include 15% for oversight/QA and 20% for contingency.

LS = Lump Sum

Page 3 of 42

Table D-4

Area A Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost





Surface Clearance - 218 Acres - Year 2

Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 102,200 $102,200 1 $137,200

Brush Clearing 1 LS 105,900 $105,900 1 $142,100

Surface MEC Clearance 1 LS 776,900 $776,900 1 $1,042,700

Demil and Loadout 1 LS 75,100 $75,100 1 $100,800

Field & Office Project Management 1 LS 286,600 $286,600 1 $384,700

Field Work Closeout, Year 3

Draft After-Action Report 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 1 $33,100

Draft Final After-Action Report 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 1 $33,100

Final After-Action Report 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 1 $33,100

Total Capital Costs $2,113,800













Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 4 of 42

Table D-5

Area A Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost





Surface Clearance - 435 Acres per Construction Season - Year 2

Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $149,800 $149,800 1 $201,100

Brush Clearing 1 LS $211,800 $211,800 1 $284,300

Surface MEC Clearance 1 LS $1,812,200 $1,812,200 1 $2,432,300

Demil and Loadout 1 LS $146,300 $146,300 1 $196,400

Field & Office Project Management 1 LS $462,700 $462,700 1 $621,000


















Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 5 of 42

Table D-6

Area A Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost








Surface MEC Clearance 1 LS 776,900 $776,900 1 $1,042,700



Subsurface Clearance - 50 Acres per Construction Season - Years 3,4



Subsurface MEC survey 1 LS $53,900 $53,900 2 $141,700

Data Processing and Analysis 1 LS $23,900 $23,900 2 $62,800

Reacquisition 1 LS $370,600 $370,600 2 $974,300

Anomaly Excavation 1 LS $1,600,800 $1,600,800 2 $4,208,500

Post-Removal Verification 1 LS $603,600 $603,600 2 $1,586,900


Field & Office Project Management 1 LS $602,300 $602,300 2 $1,583,400


















Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 6 of 42

Table D-7

Area A Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost











Subsurface Clearance - 50 Acres per Construction Season - Years 3,4



























Notes:




LS = Lump Sum Page 7 of 42

Table D-8

Area A Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost











Subsurface Clearance - 75 Acres per Construction Season - Years 3 thrpugh 8

Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $205,000 $205,000 5 $1,572,900




Reacquisition 1 LS $563,000 $563,000 5 $4,319,700










Five-Year Review, Years 5






Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 8 of 42

Cost per Acre

Description Area Cleared per Cost Unit Cost

EFV Area A Construction Season ($) ($/acre)

(Acres)

Partial surface clearance 218 $1,346,700 $6,178

Complete surface clearance 435 $2,782,800 $6,397

Partial subsurface clearance 50 $3,456,000 $69,120

Complete subsurface clearance 75 $4,974,200 $66,323

EFV Area A EFV Area B EVS Area C

acres 218 40 21

acres/day/team 2.84 2.5 4.0

cost 1,346,700$ 354,100$ 154,000$

cost/acre 6,178$ 8,853$ 7,333$

acres 435 52 102


cost 2,782,800$ 577,100$ 628,300$

cost/acre 6,397$ 11,098$ 6,160$

acres 54.5 9.0 78.6


cost 80,900$ 21,800$ 80,900$

cost/acre 1,485$ 2,422$ 1,029$

acres 75 15 102


targets/acre 560 1,200 300

targets 42,000 18,000 30,600

digs/day/team 70 60 70

cost 4,974,200$ 2,787,800$ 4,297,600$

cost/acre 66,323$ 185,853$ 42,133$

cost/dig 118$ 155$ 140$

cost 2,335,700$ 1,336,700$ 2,008,900$

cost/dig 56$ 74$ 66$

Partial surface clearance

Complete surface clearance

DGM survey

Subsurface clearance

Anomaly excavation

Page 9 of 42

Summary of Cost Assumptions

East Fork Valley MRS Area A, Feasability Study

Camp Hale, Colorado

Alternative 1 - No Action $0 $0 $0 0

Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) $1,043,300 $103,500 $939,800 1

Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs $3,053,600 $2,113,800 $939,800 2

Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs $5,080,500 $4,140,700 $939,800 2

Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface

Clearance, and LUCs$13,761,500 $12,821,700 $939,800 4

Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial

Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs$15,689,100 $14,749,300 $939,800 4

Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete

Subsurface Clearance$42,393,000 $42,290,100 $102,900 8

Assumptions:

The 30 year Present Value costs are based on a 1.4% annual discount rate.

Discount rate from OMB Circular A94

50 hour work week

20 week construction season

Field labor rates from SCA Wage Deteremination 2005-2083, rev 17

Surface clearance using a 7-person UXO team + equipment operator

Subsurface clearance using a 4-person UXO team + equipment operator

Partial surface

Complete

surface Partial subsurface

Complete

subsurface

Total Area (acres) 218 435 98 435

Area cleared per construction season (acres) 218 435 50 75

# UXO teams 4 6 6 8

Area needing brush clearance, 25% (acres) 55 109 25 109

Brush clear rate (acres/day/team) 1 1 1 1

Surface clear rate (acres/day/team) 2.84 2.5 NA NA

Subsurface surveyed via DGM, 73% (acres) NA NA 72 318

Subsurface DGM survey rate (acres/day/team) NA NA 2.3 2.3

Subsurface targets (per acre) NA NA 560 560

Subsurface clear rate (acres/day/team) NA NA 0.15 0.15

Present Worth Capital Cost O&M CostTime 'til removal

completed (yrs)

Page 10 of 42 EFV Area A

Camp Hale, East Fork Valley MRS (MU002), Area A

INPUT DATA SHEET AND ASSUMPTIONS

TITLES:East Fork Valley Munitions Response Site Feasability Study

Camp Hale, Colorado

Table Numbers

Table D-1

Table D-2

Table D-3

Table D-4

Table D-5

Table D-6

Table D-7

Table D-8

Table Titles


Area A Alternative 1 - No Action - Cost Details Alternative 1 - No Action

Area A Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) - Cost Details Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Area A Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs

Area A Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

Area A Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Area A Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Area A Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance - Cost Details Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance

Total Capital Costs

Total O&M Costs

Total Present Value Cost

Item Description

Quantity Per Year

Unit

Unit Cost

Annual Cost

Number of Yearly Events

Present Value Cost

Notes:

summary 1. The 30 year Present Value costs are based on a 1.4% annual discount rate.



LS = Lump Sum

STANDARD DATA FOR ALL SPREADSHEETS:

0.15 Oversight and QA Costs (as a fraction)

0.20 O&M Contingency Costs (as a fraction)

COMMON INTEREST RATE

0.014 Discount Rate 1.4% (for text in notes) Discount rate from 2015 OMB Circular A-94

11 of 42 EFV Area A



DATA IN TABLES (O&M):No Action

No Actions Taken

2 Year of Activity

3 Year of Activity

4 Year of Activity

5 Year of Activity

8 Year of Activity

9 Year of Activity

10 Year of Activity

15 Year of Activity

20 Year of Activity

25 Year of Activity

30 Year of Activity

Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost LS = Lump Sum

Project Plans

2 Draft Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

2 Draft Final Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

2 Final Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

Project Management Plan

Explosive Safety Submittal

3,4,5,6,7 Draft Project Plans 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

3,4,5,6,7 Draft Final Project Plans 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

3,4,5,6,7 Final Project Plans 1 LS $50,000 $50,000


MEC Clearance Work Plan


Quality Assurance Plan

3,5 Surface Clearance - 218 Acres

(partial) Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $102,200 $102,200

Brush Clearing 1 LS $105,900 $105,900

Surface MEC Clearance 1 LS $776,900 $776,900

Demil and Loadout 1 LS $75,100 $75,100

Field & Office Project Management 1 LS $286,600 $286,600

Total $1,346,700 $1,346,700 QC Check

4,6,7 Surface Clearance - 435 Acres

(complete) Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $149,800 $149,800


Surface MEC Clearance 1 LS $1,812,200 $1,812,200



$2,782,800 $2,782,800 QC Check

12 of 42 EFV Area A



5,6 Subsurface Clearance - 50 Acres per Construction Season

(partial) Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $155,600 $155,600


Subsurface MEC survey 1 LS $53,900 $53,900

Data Processing and Analysis 1 LS $23,900 $23,900

Reacquisition 1 LS $370,600 $370,600

Anomaly Excavation 1 LS $1,600,800 $1,600,800

Post-Removal Verification 1 LS $603,600 $603,600



Total $3,456,000 $3,456,000 QC Check

7 Subsurface Clearance - 75 Acres per Construction Season

(complete) Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $205,000 $205,000









Total $4,974,200 $4,974,200 QC Check

3 Field Work Closeout

Draft After-Action Report 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

Draft Final After-Action Report 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

Final After-Action Report 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

4,5,6,7 Field Work Closeout




2,3,4,5,6 Land Use Controls

Educational Materials 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 in permits, homwowner groups, ranger stations

Sign maintenance 2 sign $200 $400 trailheads, 4-wheel drive roads

Website ongoing development and maintenance 1 LS $6,000 $6,000

Public meetings 1 meeting $2,500 $2,500

MMRP Prioritization Protocol Annual Update 1 LS $1,000 $1,000

2,3,4,5,6 Five-Year Review

Draft Five-Year Review 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 Performed in years 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, & 30.

Draft Final Five-Year Review 1 LS $20,000 $20,000

Final Five-Year Review 1 LS $20,000 $20,000

13 of 42 EFV Area A

Cost Detail, Partial Surface Clearance, EFV Area A

Assumptions:

Area (acres) 218 enter acerage here only

Depth of material (feet) 0

Work day = 10 hours 8 ST 2 OT

High haz (8%) work week = 32 8 8 2

ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT

7-man teams 4 enter teams here + C57

Mobilization/Demobilization

Assume 16 hours per round trip per person, and 50 POV miles per person for airport transportation.

Subtotal

16 Labor Category Quantity ST Total Cost

Senior UXO Supervisor 1 $1,014 $1,014

UXO Safety Officer 1 $1,014 $1,014

UXO QC Officer 1 $1,014 $1,014

1 UXO team Lead 4 $4,055 $4,055

1 UXO Tech III 4 $4,055 $4,055

3 UXO Tech II 12 $10,279 $10,279

2 UXO Tech I 8 $5,754 $5,754

1 Equipment Operator 4 $2,446 $2,446

0.5 Historical archaeologist 2 $2,028 $2,028

Procurement specialist 1 $912 $912 $32,571

Travel Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost

Airfare to Colorado 38 roundtrip $750 $28,500

50 Personal Vehicle Mileage 1,900 mi $0.575 $1,093

Equipment Mob/Demob 4 LS $10,000 $40,000 $69,593

Task Subtotal $102,200



Brush Clearing

Area 218 acres

Percent of Area needing to be cleared 25%

Production Rate 1 acres/day/team

UXO Teams 4 2-man team entered separately

Duration 14 days

Subtotal

Labor Category Quantity ST + 4% OT + 4% Total cost

UXO Tech II 4 $24,872 $9,102 $33,974

Equipment Operator 4 $17,735 $6,426 $24,161 $58,135

Equipment Quantity Duration Units Unit Cost Total Cost

14 " chipper 4 3 weeks $529 $6,353

Bobcat with rotary cutter 4 3 weeks $194 $2,329

Chain saw 4 3 weeks $35 $424

Truck Included under project management $9,106

Materials Quantity Units Unit cost Total cost

H&S supplies 112 man-days $5 $560

Fuel/Oil/Grease 560 hours $21 $11,566 $12,126

Travel Quantity Units Rate Total

Airfare 8 flights $750 $6,000

50 Personal Vehicle Mileage 400 mi $0.575 $230

Lodging 157 days $83 $13,031

Per diem 157 days $46 $7,222 $26,483




Surface MEC Clearance

Surface area 218 acres

Production Rate 2.84 acres/day/team

UXO Teams 4 7-man team + equipment operator

Clearance Duration 19.0 days

Demo shots per acre 0.1

Time per demo shot 1 day

Duration for demo shots 6.0 days

Total duration 5 weeks

Subtotal

Labor Category Quantity ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT Total cost

1 UXO Tech III Team Lead 4 $43,593 $10,139 $16,026 $3,722 $73,479

1 UXO Tech III 4 $43,593 $10,139 $16,026 $3,722 $73,479

3 UXO Tech II 12 $110,399 $25,698 $40,435 $9,396 $185,928

2 UXO Tech I 8 $61,730 $14,385 $22,506 $5,233 $103,854

1 Equipment Operator 4 $26,212 $6,115 $9,508 $2,213 $44,048

0.5 Historical archaeologist 2 $21,796 $5,069 $8,013 $1,861 $36,739 $517,525


1 CAT skid loader 4 5 weeks $194 $3,882

1 Mini excavator 4 5 weeks $335 $6,706

6 Schonstedt metal detector 24 5 weeks $70 $8,400

Radios 37 5 weeks $9 $1,632

2 Trimble GPS unit 8 5 weeks $44 $1,765



5 H&S supplies 850 man-days $5 $4,250

40 Fuel/Oil/Grease 800 hours $14 $11,287

Buckets, flagging 120 man-weeks $25 $3,000

Hand tools 20 team-weeks $50 $1,000

0.1 Explosives for demo shots 21.8 demo shots $500 $10,900 $30,437




Lodging 1,190 days $83 $98,770

Per diem 1,190 days $46 $54,740 $206,465




Demil and Loadout

Area 218 acre

MD per acre 0.2 rolloff

Need 43.6 rolloffs

Can load 2 rolloffs/day

Duration 22 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $11,988 $4,407 $16,395

UXO Tech I 1 $8,488 $3,095 $11,582

Equip op 1 $7,208 $2,615 $9,823 $37,800


CAT Skid loader 1 4.4 weeks $194 $854

Partner saw 1 4.4 weeks $79 $349




Fuel/Oil/Grease 220 hours $8 $1,675

Saw blades 21.8 blades $100 $2,180 $4,185

MD & Scrap Disposal Quantity Units Unit Cost Total cost

tons per 10 acres 2

10 total tonnage 43.6 tons $450 $19,620

transportation 1 per shipment $2,000 $2,000

project mgmt & paperwork 1 per shipment $1,750 $1,750 $23,370


Airfare 0 included in mobilization

Lodging 66 days $83 $5,478

Per diem 66 days $46 $3,036 $8,514




Field & Office Project Management

Duration 8 weeks

Subtotal


office Office Project Manager 0.5 $24,384 $24,384

office GIS Specialist 1 $33,665 $8,416 $42,081

field Sr UXO Supervisor 1 $17,437 $4,055 $6,410 $1,489 $29,391

field UXO Safety officer 1 $17,437 $4,055 $6,410 $1,489 $29,391

field UXO QC officer 1 $17,437 $4,055 $6,410 $1,489 $29,391

field Procurement specialist 1 $18,232 $6,676 $24,909 $179,548


Truck 16 2 months 977$ 31,260$

Office trailer- mob, demob, rent 4 2 months 1,280$ 10,236$

Conex storage trailer 8 2 months 139$ 2,218$

Internet connection 1 1 2 yr contract 2,800$ 2,800$

Satellite phones 2 2 months 180$ 720$ $47,235



Fuel/Oil/Grease 960 truck-days $25 $24,000 $24,600




Lodging 224 days $83 $18,592

Per diem 224 days $46 $10,304 $35,126


TOTAL $1,346,700


Cost Detail, Complete Surface Clearance, EFV Area A

Assumptions:





ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT




Subtotal





1 UXO team Lead 6 $6,083 $6,083

1 UXO Tech III 6 $6,083 $6,083

3 UXO Tech II 18 $15,419 $15,419

2 UXO Tech I 12 $8,631 $8,631











Brush Clearing

Area 435 acres




Duration 19 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 6 $50,633 $18,529 $69,162



14 " chipper 6 4 weeks $529 $12,706

Bobcat with rotary cutter 6 4 weeks $194 $4,659




H&S supplies 228 man-days $5 $1,140





Lodging 319 days $83 $26,477

Per diem 319 days $46 $14,674 $50,496








Clearance Duration 30 days



Duration for demo shots 8 days


Subtotal



1 UXO Tech III 6 $104,623 $24,333 $38,462 $8,932 $176,349

3 UXO Tech II 18 $264,957 $61,676 $97,044 $22,550 $446,226

2 UXO Tech I 12 $148,152 $34,523 $54,013 $12,560 $249,249

1 Equipment Operator 6 $62,908 $14,676 $22,819 $5,311 $105,714

0.5 Historical archaeologist 3 $52,311 $12,166 $19,231 $4,466 $88,174 $1,242,061






2 Trimble GPS unit 12 8 weeks $44 $4,235



5 H&S supplies 2,040 man-days $5 $10,200

40 Fuel/Oil/Grease 1,920 hours $14 $27,088







Lodging 2,856 days $83 $237,048

Per diem 2,856 days $46 $131,376 $447,857

Task Subtotal $1,812,200



Demil and Loadout

Area 435 acre


Need 87 rolloffs


Duration 44 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $23,976 $8,814 $32,790

UXO Tech I 1 $16,976 $6,189 $23,165

Equip op 1 $14,417 $5,229 $19,646 $75,601


CAT Skid loader 1 8.8 weeks $194 $1,708





Fuel/Oil/Grease 440 hours $8 $3,349



tons per 10 acres 2

10 total tonnage 87 tons $450 $39,150





Lodging 132 days $83 $10,956

Per diem 132 days $46 $6,072 $17,028





Duration 12 weeks

Subtotal









Truck 22 3 months 977$ 64,474$

Office trailer- mob, demob, rent 6 3 months 941$ 16,932$



Satellite phones 2 3 months 180$ 1,080$ $90,278



Fuel/Oil/Grease 1,980 truck-days $25 $49,500 $50,400




Lodging 336 days $83 $27,888

Per diem 336 days $46 $15,456 $52,689


TOTAL $2,782,800


Cost Detail, Partial Subsurface Clearance, EFV Area A

Assumptions:

Area (acres) 50 enter acerage per year here only




ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT

7-man teams 6 enter teams here + in yellow highlighed area below



Subtotal





1 UXO Tech III 6 $6,083 $6,083

3 UXO Tech II 18 $15,419 $15,419

2 UXO Tech I 12 $8,631 $8,631


Procurement Specialist 1 $912 $912

2 Geophysicist 12 $12,581 $12,581 $50,336








Brush Clearing

Total Area 50 acres




Duration 4 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 4 $7,106 $2,601 $9,707



14 " chipper 4 1 weeks $529 $2,118

Bobcat with rotary cutter 4 1 weeks $194 $776







Airfare included in mob/demob $750 $0


Per diem 45 days $0 $0 $2,070




Subsurface MEC survey

Area 36.3 acre

Depth 2 foot

Rate 2.3 acres/day/team

UXO Teams 4 3-man teams enter separately

Duration 4 days

Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 4 $7,106 $2,601 $9,707

2 geophysicist 8 $17,404 $6,398 $23,803 $33,509


1 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 4 1 weeks $875 $3,500

1 GPS for DGM 4 1 weeks $1,800 $7,200

Radios 15 1 weeks $9 $132




Buckets, flagging 9.6 man-weeks $25 $240

Hand tools 4 team-weeks $100 $400 $880



Lodging 67.2 days $83 $5,578

Per diem 67.2 days $46 $3,091 $8,669


Data Processing and Analysis

Area 36.3 acres

Time to analyze data, produce 4 days concurrent with MEC survey

dig list.

Labor Category Quantity ST + 4% OT + 4% ST Total Cost

field Geophysicist 8 $17,404 $6,398 $23,803




Reacquisition

Area 36.3 acres

Anomalies 560 targets per acre

Targets flagged 100 targets per day

Teams 6 2-man team

Duration 34 days concurrent with Anomaly Excavation


Geophysicist 6 $110,954 $40,787 $151,741

UXO Tech II 6 $90,607 $33,157 $123,764 $275,505



Trimble GPS unit 6 7 weeks $44 $1,853




Buckets, flagging 40.8 man-weeks $25 $1,020


Airfare to Colorado 24 flights $750 $18,000

50 Personal vehicle mileage 1,200 miles $0.575 $690

7 Lodging 572 days $83 $47,476

Per diem 572 days $46 $26,312 $92,478




Anomaly Excavation

Area 50 acre

Clearance rate 0.15 acres/day


Duration 57 days




Total Duration 12 weeks

Subtotal



2 UXO Tech II 12 $264,957 $61,676 $97,044 $22,550 $446,226

1 UXO Tech I 6 $111,114 $25,892 $40,510 $9,420 $186,937

1 Equipment Operator 6 $94,363 $22,015 $34,228 $7,966 $158,572 $1,056,257


0.5 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 3 12 weeks $875 $31,500



3 Schonstedt met det 18 12 weeks $70 $15,120

Radios 33 12 weeks $9 $3,494







0.1 Explosives for demo shots 5 demo shots $500 $2,500 $61,131



50 Personal vehicle mileage 4,500 miles $0.575 $2,588

7 Lodging 2,520 days $83 $209,160

Per diem 2,520 days $46 $115,920 $395,168




Post-Removal Verification

Area 36.3 acre

2-man crews 6 same as excavation

Total Duration 8 weeks same duration as excavation

Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 6 $91,839 $21,378 $33,637 $7,816 $154,670

1 Geophysicist 6 $112,518 $26,165 $41,392 $9,611 $189,686 $344,356


EM61-MK2 (DGM) 6 8.318831335 weeks $875 $43,674

GPS for DGM 6 8.318831335 weeks $1,800 $89,843





Hand tools 50 team-week $50 $2,496 $7,491




7 Lodging 699 days $83 $57,999

Per diem 699 days $46 $32,144 $118,178




Demil and Loadout

Area 50 acre


Need 10 rolloffs


Duration 5 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $2,725 $1,002 $3,726

UXO Tech I 1 $1,929 $703 $2,632

Equip op 1 $1,638 $594 $2,232 $8,591


CAT Skid loader 1 1 weeks $194 $194

Partner saw 1 1 weeks $79 $79

Truck Included under project management $274



Fuel/Oil/Grease 50 hours $8 $381

Saw blades 5 blades $100 $500 $956


tons per 10 acres 2







Per diem 15 days $46 $690 $1,935





Duration 16 weeks

Subtotal







field Procurement Specialist 1 $36,465 $13,353 $49,817 $359,096


Truck 21 4 months 977$ 82,058$



Internet connection Included under surface clearance, 2 year contract








Lodging 448 days $83 $37,184

Per diem 448 days $46 $20,608 $70,252


TOTAL $3,456,000


Cost Detail, Complete Subsurface Clearance, EFV Area A

Assumptions:





ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT

7-man teams 8 enter teams here + in yellow highlighed area below



Subtotal





1 UXO Tech III 8 $8,111 $8,111

3 UXO Tech II 24 $20,559 $20,559

2 UXO Tech I 16 $11,508 $11,508



2 Geophysicist 16 $16,775 $16,775 $65,797








Brush Clearing

Total Area 75 acres




Duration 5 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 4 $8,883 $3,251 $12,134



14 " chipper 4 1 weeks $529 $2,118










Per diem 56 days $0 $0 $2,576





Area 54.5 acre

Depth 2 foot



Duration 4 days

Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 6 $10,660 $3,901 $14,560

2 geophysicist 12 $26,107 $9,597 $35,704 $50,264


1 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 6 1 weeks $875 $5,250

1 GPS for DGM 6 1 weeks $1,800 $10,800






Hand tools 6 team-weeks $100 $600 $1,320




Per diem 101 days $46 $4,646 $13,029



Area 54.5 acres


dig list.






Reacquisition

Area 54.5 acres



Teams 8 2-man team



Geophysicist 8 $169,694 $62,381 $232,075

UXO Tech II 8 $138,575 $50,711 $189,286 $421,361











7 Lodging 874 days $83 $72,542

Per diem 874 days $46 $40,204 $137,666




Anomaly Excavation

Area 75 acre

Clearance rate 0.15 acres/day


Duration 64 days





Subtotal



2 UXO Tech II 16 $382,716 $89,087 $140,174 $32,572 $644,549

1 UXO Tech I 8 $160,498 $37,400 $58,514 $13,607 $270,019



0.5 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 4 13 weeks $875 $45,500




Radios 43 13 weeks $9 $4,932











7 Lodging 3,640 days $83 $302,120

Per diem 3,640 days $46 $167,440 $594,160





Area 54.5 acre



Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 8 $147,199 $34,264 $53,913 $12,528 $247,903

1 Geophysicist 8 $180,343 $41,937 $66,342 $15,405 $304,026 $551,930


EM61-MK2 (DGM) 8 10 weeks $875 $70,000

GPS for DGM 8 10 weeks $1,800 $144,000









7 Lodging 1,120 days $83 $92,960

Per diem 1,120 days $46 $51,520 $181,860




Demil and Loadout

Area 75 acre


Need 15 rolloffs


Duration 8 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $4,359 $1,603 $5,962

UXO Tech I 1 $3,086 $1,125 $4,212

Equip op 1 $2,621 $951 $3,572 $13,746








Saw blades 7.5 blades $100 $750 $1,479


tons per 10 acres 2







Per diem 34 days $46 $1,564 $4,386





Duration 17 weeks

Subtotal









Truck 27 5 months 977$ 131,880$










50 Personal Vehicle Mileage 1,000 mi $0.575 $575

Lodging 476 days $83 $39,508

Per diem 476 days $46 $21,896 $76,979


TOTAL $4,974,200


Equipment Rates, EFV Area A

Includes Sales Tax

Desccription Model / Class Daily Weekly Monthly

Ditchwitch (walk behind) DITCH WITCH RT40, VERMEER RT450 56.72$ 397.06$ 1,701.67$

Mini excavator BOBCAT 331 AND 334, TAKEUCHI TB135, JDEERE 35D 47.90$ 335.29$ 1,428.14$

D4 Dozer JDEERE 450J 92.02$ 644.11$ 2,773.10$

CAT 320 excavator /w bucket JDEERE 240DLC 229.41$ 1,605.87$ 6,869.71$

CAT 320 excavator /w hydraulic thumb 240.76$ 1,685.29$ 7,203.74$

CAT 320 excavator /w electromagnet 2,311.00$ 6,933.00$ 20,798.00$

hydraulic thumb attachment, CAT 320 excavator PEMBER HH200M 11.34$ 79.41$ 334.03$

CAT 320 excavator /w bucket JDEERE 450J 235.71$ 1,649.99$ 7,071.39$

BUCKET/ATTACHMENT/EXCAVATOR CP36200E2 6.30$ 44.12$ 201.68$

CAT 950 loader JDEERE 744J 274.79$ 1,923.52$ 8,243.66$

CAT skid loader BOBCAT S130, S150 AND S175 27.73$ 194.12$ 819.32$

Brush hog 176.47$ 428.57$ 1,159.66$

Pickup Truck: 4X2 FORD F150 4X2 30.25$ 211.76$ 913.86$


Work Van FORD E350, CLUBWAGON 37.81$ 264.70$ 1,147.05$

ConEx boxes 8' X 40' 5.04$ 35.29$ 138.65$

14 " chipper VERMEER BC1000XL 75.63$ 529.41$ 2,268.90$

Chain saw: 14" ECHO 7CS3450, SACHS PS341 5.04$ 35.29$ 144.96$

Partner saw: 12", gas STOW RX814 , PARTNER K650 & 700 11.34$ 79.41$ 346.64$

Schonstedt metal detector 10.00$ 70.00$ 300.00$

EM 31 w/ GPS EM31 with Bluetooth and DAS70 Datalogger 68.07$ 476.47$ 1,905.87$

Trimble GPS unit HAND HELD GPS GIS ACCURACY: Nomad 8.82$ 44.12$ 247.06$

2-Way radios 1.26$ 8.82$ 35.29$

Office Trailer Williams Scotsman, 10 x 50 263.00$

Delivery & setup 1,300.00$

Knockdown 733.00$

GPS Base for Advanced Classification 150.00$ 1,050.00$ 4,500.00$

Metal Mapper (for Advanced Classification) 500.00$ 3,500.00$ 15,000.00$

EM61-MK2 (DGM) 125.00$ 875.00$ 3,750.00$

GPS for DGM 257.14$ 1,800.00$ 7,714.29$

Robotic Total Station for EM61-MK2 114.29$ 800.00$ 3,428.57$

Desccription

Fuel, Trencher, 5', 30 hp 6.37$

Fuel, Excavator, CAT 307 7.61$

Fuel, Dozer, CAT D4 12.77$


Fuel, Loader CAT 950 22.39$

Fuel, Skidsteer Loader, 50 hp 6.50$

Fuel, Chipper, Up to 6" gas 4.49$

Fuel, Pickup Truck 8.97$

Fuel, Pickup Truck, 3/4 Ton 8.97$

Fuel, Work Van 8.97$


Fuel, Chain Saw, 25" Bar 1.74$

Fuel, Cutoff Saw 1.11$ Brush Hog 8.00$

Rental Rates

Equipment Fuel Chart

Page 40 of 42

Production Rate Calculations, EFV Area A

Brush cutting (partial surface clearance) acres % acres

buffer on either side of new stream alignment 36 30% 11

50 ft buffer on either side of Colorado Trail 25 0% 0

100 ft buffer at base of slope behind AOI 5 4 0% 0

30 ft wide utility corridor 9 0% 0

Campground and buffer 18 30% 5

300 ft buffer either side of FS 714 (29 acres overlap with other clearance areas) 123 30% 37

215 25% 53

Brush cutting (complete surface clearance)

Partial clearance area 215 25% 53

Remainder less wetlands 220 25% 55

435 25% 108

Partial surface clearance acres acres/day/team days

buffer on either side of new stream alignment 36 3 12

50 ft buffer on either side of Colorado Trail 25 5 5

100 ft buffer at base of slope behind AOI 5 4 4 1

30 ft wide utility corridor 9 4 2

Campground and buffer 18 2 9

300 ft buffer either side of FS 714 (29 acres overlap with other clearance areas) 123 2 62

215 2.4 91


Partial clearance area 215 2.3 93

Remainder less wetlands 220 2 110

435 2.1 203

Complete surface clearance including wetlands



Wetlands (afetr draining) 22 0.5 44

457 1.8 247

435 2.1 203

Page 41 of 42

Production Rate Calculations, EFV Area A

DGM acres mag & dig % mag & dig acres DGM acres acres/day days

10 ft buffer on either side of Colorado Trail 5 75% 3.75 1.25 3 0.4

50 ft buffer on either side of FS 714 (less overlap with other clearance areas) 48 25% 12 36 3 12.0

buffer on either side of new stream alignment less area cleared by ESTCP 33 0% 0 33 2 16.5

(some areas will require single unit)

30 ft wide utility corridor 9 100% 9 0

Campground and buffer 22 33% 7.3 14.7 2 7.4

(many obstructions need to be cleared for use of towed array)

Net Total allowing for overlaps 117 27% 32 85 2.3 36

note: in this table mag and dig refers to areas that will investigated by mag and dig rather than DGM due to proximity to road or pipe;ime, or narrow trail conditions

other mag and dig areas may be found from DGM surveys


acres targets/acre targets digs/day/team days acres/day

10 ft buffer on either side of Colorado Trail 5 500 2500 200 12.5 0.40

50 ft buffer on either side of FS 714 (15 acres overlap with other clearance areas) 48 500 24000 100 240 0.20

buffer on either side of new stream alignment less area cleared by ESTCP 33 500 16500 70 236 0.14

30 ft wide utility corridor 9 500 4500 70 64 0.14

Campground and buffer 22 800 17600 70 251 0.09

117 65100 804 0.15

Page 42 of 42

East Fork Valley MRS Area B Remedial Alternatives Costs

NOTES:


2. O&M Costs (LUCs and Five-Year Reviews) were developed for the entire MRS, and are included under Area A.

$4,636,000

$4,943,800 $0

Total Present

Value Cost

Table D-9

Area B Summary of Costs

East Fork Valley Munitions Reponse Site Feasiblity Study

Camp Hale, Colorado

Alternative Total Capital Costs Total O&M Costs

Alternative 1 - No Action

$4,943,800

Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs

Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

$0$0 $0

Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) $0

$796,500

$1,204,800

$4,636,000

$0 $0

$1,204,800 $0

$0

$0$796,500

Page 1 of 32

Table D-10

Area B Alternative 1 - No Action - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value

Cost

No Action



Page 2 of 32

Table D-11

Area B Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) - Cost Details

Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost


Project Plan costs are for LUCs only, and are included under Area A.

Total Capital Costs $0


LUCs apply to the entire MRS, costs are included under Area A.


Five Year-Reviews will be performed for the entire MRS, costs are included under Area A.

Total O&M Costs $0


Notes:



2. Lifetime O&M costs include annual oversight/QA and contingency costs.

LS = Lump Sum


Page 3 of 32

Table D-12

Area B Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost


Draft Project Plans 1 LS 50,000 $50,000 1 $69,000

Draft Final Project Plans 1 LS 50,000 $50,000 1 $69,000

Final Project Plans 1 LS 50,000 $50,000 1 $69,000




Surface MEC Clearance 1 LS 157,900 $157,900 1 $217,900












Total O&M Costs $0

Total Present Value Cost $796,500

Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 4 of 32

Table D-13

Area B Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost








Surface MEC Clearance 1 LS $301,100 $301,100 1 $415,500












Total O&M Costs $0


Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 5 of 32

Table D-14

Area B Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost











Subsurface Clearance - 15 Acres - Year 2







Post-Removal Verification 1 LS $433,800 $433,800 1 $582,200












Total O&M Costs $0


Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 6 of 32

Table D-15

Area B Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost






























Total O&M Costs $0


Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 7 of 32

Costs per Acre


EFV Area B Construction Season ($) ($/acre)

(Acres)

Partial surface clearance 40 $354,100 $8,853

Complete surface clearance 52 $577,100 $11,098

Subsurface clearance 15 $2,787,800 $185,853

EFV A MRS EFV B MRS EVS D MRS

acres 218 40 21


cost 1,346,700$ 354,100$ 154,000$

cost/acre 6,178$ 8,853$ 7,333$

acres 435 52 102


cost 2,782,800$ 577,100$ 628,300$

cost/acre 6,397$ 11,098$ 6,160$

acres 54.5 9.0 78.6


cost 80,900$ 21,800$ 80,900$

cost/acre 1,485$ 2,422$ 1,029$

acres 75 15 102



targets 42,000 18,000 30,600


cost 4,974,200$ 2,787,800$ 4,297,600$

cost/acre 66,323$ 185,853$ 42,133$

cost/dig 118$ 155$ 140$

cost 2,335,700$ 1,336,700$ 2,008,900$

cost/dig 56$ 74$ 66$



DGM survey


Anomaly excavation

Page 8 of 32


East Fork Valley MRS Area B, Feasiblity Study

Camp Hale, Colorado


Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) $103,500 $103,500 $0 0

Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs $796,500 $796,500 $0 1

Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs $1,204,800 $1,204,800 $0 1


Clearance, and LUCs$4,636,000 $4,636,000 $0 2


Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details$4,943,800 $4,943,800 $0 2

Assumptions:



50 hour work week





Partial surface

Complete

surface Partial subsurface

Total Area (acres) 40 52 15

Area cleared per construction season (acres) 40 52 15

# UXO teams 2 2 4

Area needing brush clearance (acres) 8 8 2.2

Brush clear rate (acres/day/team) 1 1 1

Surface clear rate (acres/day/team) 2.5 1.9 NA

Subsurface surveyed via DGM, 60% (acres) NA NA 9

Subsurface DGM survey rate (acres/day/team) NA NA 1.5

Subsurface targets (per acre) NA NA 1200

Subsurface clear rate (acres/day/team) NA NA 0.05


completed (yrs)

Page 9 of 32 EFV Area B

Camp Hale, East Fork Valley MRS (MU002), Area B


TITLES:East Fork Valley Munitions Reponse Site Feasiblity Study

Camp Hale, Colorado

Table Numbers

Table D-9

Table D-10

Table D-11

Table D-12

Table D-13

Table D-14

Table D-15

Table Titles

Area B Summary of Costs

Area B Alternative 1 - No Action - Cost Details Alternative 1 - No Action

Area B Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) - Cost Details Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Area B Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs

Area B Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

Area B Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Area B Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Total Capital Costs

Total O&M Costs


Item Description

Quantity Per Year

Unit

Unit Cost

Annual Cost


Present Value Cost

Notes:

O&M Notes

summary 1. The 30 year Present Value costs are based on a 1.4% annual discount rate.




LS = Lump Sum

STANDARD DATA FOR ALL SPREADSHEETS:

0.15 Overhead and QA Costs (as a fraction)




10 of 32 EFV Area B



DATA IN TABLES (O&M):No Action

No Actions Taken

2 Year of Activity

3 Year of Activity

5 Year of Activity

10 Year of Activity

15 Year of Activity

20 Year of Activity

25 Year of Activity

30 Year of Activity





Project Plans

2 Draft Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

2 Draft Final Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

2 Final Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000



3,4,5,6 Draft Project Plans 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

3,4,5,6 Draft Final Project Plans 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

3,4,5,6 Final Project Plans 1 LS $50,000 $50,000






Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $54,700 $54,700





Total $354,100 $354,100 QC Check







Total $577,100 $577,100 QC Check

11 of 32 EFV Area B



5,6 Subsurface Clearance - 15 Acres










Total $2,787,800 $2,787,800 QC Check

2,3,4,5 Land Use Controls






Field Work Closeout

3 Draft After-Action Report 1 LS $25,000 $25,000



4,5,6 Draft After-Action Report 1 LS $50,000 $50,000



2,3,4,5,6 Five-Year Review

Draft Five-Year Review 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 Performed in years 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, & 30.



12 of 32 EFV Area B

Cost Detail, Partial Surface Clearance, EFV Area B

Assumptions:





ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT




Subtotal





1 UXO team Lead 2 $2,028 $2,028

1 UXO Tech III 2 $2,028 $2,028

3 UXO Tech II 6 $5,140 $5,140

2 UXO Tech I 4 $2,877 $2,877











Brush Clearing

Area 40 acres




Duration 4 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 2 $3,553 $1,300 $4,853

Equipment Operator 2 $2,534 $918 $3,452 $8,305


14 " chipper 2 1 weeks $529 $1,059











Per diem 22 days $46 $1,012 $5,953













Subtotal


1 UXO Tech III Team Lead 2 $8,719 $2,028 $3,205 $744 $14,696

1 UXO Tech III 2 $8,719 $2,028 $3,205 $744 $14,696

3 UXO Tech II 6 $22,080 $5,140 $8,087 $1,879 $37,186

2 UXO Tech I 4 $12,346 $2,877 $4,501 $1,047 $20,771

1 Equipment Operator 2 $5,242 $1,223 $1,902 $443 $8,810

0.5 Historical archaeologist 1 $4,359 $1,014 $1,603 $372 $7,348 $103,505


1 CAT skid loader 2 2 weeks $194 $776




2 Trimble GPS unit 4 2 weeks $44 $353



5 H&S supplies 170 man-days $5 $850


Buckets, flagging 24 man-weeks $25 $600

Hand tools 4 team-weeks $50 $200

0.1 Explosives for demo shots 4 demo shots $500 $2,000 $5,907




Lodging 238 days $83 $19,754

Per diem 238 days $46 $10,948 $43,941




Demil and Loadout

Area 40 acre


Need 8 rolloffs


Duration 4 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $2,180 $801 $2,981

UXO Tech I 1 $1,543 $563 $2,106

Equip op 1 $1,311 $475 $1,786 $6,873










tons per 10 acres 2






Lodging 12 days $83 $996

Per diem 12 days $46 $552 $1,548





Duration 3 weeks

Subtotal




field Sr UXO Supervisor 1 $6,539 $1,521 $2,404 $558 $11,022

field UXO Safety officer 1 $6,539 $1,521 $2,404 $558 $11,022

field UXO QC officer 1 $6,539 $1,521 $2,404 $558 $11,022



Truck 10 1 months 977$ 9,769$


Conex storage trailer 4 1 months 139$ 555$










Per diem 84 days $46 $3,864 $13,951


TOTAL $354,100


Cost Detail, Complete Surface Clearance, EFV Area B

Assumptions:





ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT




Subtotal





1 UXO team Lead 2 $2,028 $2,028

1 UXO Tech III 2 $2,028 $2,028

3 UXO Tech II 6 $5,140 $5,140

2 UXO Tech I 4 $2,877 $2,877











Brush Clearing

Area 52 acres




Duration 4 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 2 $3,553 $1,300 $4,853

Equipment Operator 2 $2,534 $918 $3,452 $8,305


14 " chipper 2 1 weeks $529 $1,059











Per diem 22 days $46 $1,012 $5,953













Subtotal



1 UXO Tech III 2 $17,437 $4,055 $6,410 $1,489 $29,391

3 UXO Tech II 6 $44,160 $10,279 $16,174 $3,758 $74,371

2 UXO Tech I 4 $24,692 $5,754 $9,002 $2,093 $41,541



















Lodging 476 days $83 $39,508

Per diem 476 days $46 $21,896 $74,643




Demil and Loadout

Area 52 acre


Need 10.4 rolloffs


Duration 6 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $3,269 $1,202 $4,471

UXO Tech I 1 $2,315 $844 $3,159

Equip op 1 $1,966 $713 $2,679 $10,309








Saw blades 5.2 blades $100 $520 $1,067


tons per 10 acres 2







Per diem 18 days $46 $828 $2,322





Duration 5 weeks

Subtotal




field Sr UXO Supervisor 1 $10,898 $2,535 $4,006 $930 $18,370

field UXO Safety officer 1 $10,898 $2,535 $4,006 $930 $18,370

field UXO QC officer 1 $10,898 $2,535 $4,006 $930 $18,370



Truck 10 2 months 977$ 19,538$











Lodging 140 days $83 $11,620

Per diem 140 days $46 $6,440 $24,290


TOTAL $577,100


Cost Detail, Subsurface Clearance, EFV Area B

Assumptions:





ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT

7-man teams 4 enter teams here +C59+C87



Subtotal





1 UXO team Lead 4 $4,055 $4,055

1 UXO Tech III 4 $4,055 $4,055

3 UXO Tech II 12 $10,279 $10,279

2 UXO Tech I 8 $5,754 $5,754



2 Geophysicist 8 $8,387 $8,387 $38,931








Brush Clearing

Area 15 acres




Duration 3 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 1 $1,332 $488 $1,820

Equipment Operator 1 $950 $344 $1,294 $3,114


14 " chipper 1 1 weeks $529 $529






Fuel/Oil/Grease 30 hours $21 $620 $650




Per diem 8 days $46 $368 $1,032





Area 9.0 acre

Depth 2 foot



Duration 6 days

Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 1 $2,665 $975 $3,640

2 geophysicist 2 $6,527 $2,399 $8,926 $12,566


1 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 1 2 weeks $875 $1,750

1 GPS for DGM 1 2 weeks $1,800 $3,600










Per diem 26 days $46 $1,196 $3,354



Area 9 acres


dig list.






Reacquisition

Area 9.0 acres



Teams 4 2-man teams



Geophysicist 4 $58,740 $21,593 $80,333

UXO Tech II 4 $47,968 $17,554 $65,522 $145,856



Trimble GPS unit 4 5.4 weeks $44 $953







50 Personal vehicle mileage 400 miles $0.575 $230

7 Lodging 303 days $83 $25,149

Per diem 303 days $46 $13,938 $45,317




Anomaly Excavation

Area 15 acre

Clearance rate 0.05 acres per day


Duration 75 days





Subtotal



2 UXO Tech II 8 $220,798 $51,396 $80,870 $18,791 $371,855

1 UXO Tech I 4 $92,595 $21,577 $33,758 $7,850 $155,780

1 Equipment Operator 4 $78,636 $18,346 $28,524 $6,638 $132,143 $880,214


0.5 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 2 15 weeks $875 $26,250




Radios 23 15 weeks $9 $3,044







0.1 Explosives for demo shots 1.5 demo shots $500 $750 $49,610




7 Lodging 2,100 days $83 $174,300

Per diem 2,100 days $46 $96,600 $333,200





Area 9 acre



Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 4 $66,239 $15,419 $24,261 $5,637 $111,557

1 Geophysicist 4 $81,154 $18,871 $29,854 $6,932 $136,812 $248,368


EM61-MK2 (DGM) 4 9 weeks $875 $31,500

GPS for DGM 4 9 weeks $1,800 $64,800









7 Lodging 504 days $83 $41,832

Per diem 504 days $46 $23,184 $83,706




Demil and Loadout

Area 15 acre


Need 3 rolloffs


Duration 2 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $1,090 $401 $1,490

UXO Tech I 1 $772 $281 $1,053

Equip op 1 $655 $238 $893 $3,436








Saw blades 1.5 blades $100 $150 $332


tons per 10 acres 2







Per diem 6 days $46 $276 $774





Duration 19 weeks

Subtotal









Truck 15 5 months 977$ 73,266$











Lodging 532 days $83 $44,156

Per diem 532 days $46 $24,472 $84,203


TOTAL $2,787,800


Equipment Rates, EFV Area B

Includes Sales Tax




D4 Dozer JDEERE 450J 92.02$ 644.11$ 2,773.10$









Brush hog 176.47$ 428.57$ 1,159.66$




ConEx boxes 8' X 40' 5.04$ 35.29$ 138.65$







2-Way radios 1.26$ 8.82$ 35.29$



Knockdown 733.00$



EM61-MK2 (DGM) 125.00$ 875.00$ 3,750.00$

GPS for DGM 257.14$ 1,800.00$ 7,714.29$


Desccription













Fuel, Cutoff Saw 1.11$ Brush Hog 8.00$

Rental Rates



Production Rate Calculations, EFV Area B


Area not included in 2003 TCRA 34 20% 7

300 ft buffer on side of FS 714 (1.4 acres overlap with other clearance areas) 5 20% 1

39 20% 8



Remainder of MRS 13 0% -

52 15% 8


Area not included in 2003 TCRA 34 2 17

300 ft buffer on side of FS 714 (1.4 acres overlap with other clearance areas) 5 2 3

39 2.0 20




52 1.6 33


Area included in 2003 TCRA 15 40% 6.0 9 1.5 6.0

note: in this table mag and dig refers to areas that will investigated by mag and dig rather than DGM due to proximity to road or pipeline, or narrow trail conditions




Area included in 2003 TCRA 15 1200 18000 60 300 0.05

Page 32 of 32

East Fork Valley MRS Area C Remedial Alternatives Costs

NOTES:



Table D-16

Area C Summary of Costs

East Fork Valley Munitions Reponse Site Feasibility Study

Camp Hale, Colorado


Value Cost


Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) $0 $0 $0

Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs $417,000 $0 $417,000

Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs $1,248,900 $0 $1,248,900

Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance $6,934,700 $0 $6,934,700

Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs $1,595,200 $0 $1,595,200

Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs $2,209,700 $0 $2,209,700

Page 1 of 41

Table D-17

Area C Alternative 1 - No Action - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value

Cost

No Action



Page 2 of 41

Table D-18

Area C Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) - Cost Details

Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost



Total Capital Costs $0



Five-Year Review, Years 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30


Total O&M Costs $0


Notes:




LS = Lump Sum


Page 3 of 41

Table D-19

Area C Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost




















Total O&M Costs $0

Total Present Value Cost $417,000

Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 4 of 41

Table D-20

Area C Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost




















Total O&M Costs $0


Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 5 of 41

Table D-21

Area C Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost

















Anomaly Excavation 1 LS $228,500 $228,500 1 $306,700













Total O&M Costs $0


Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 6 of 41

Table D-22

Area C Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost

















Anomaly Excavation 1 LS $228,500 $228,500 1 $302,400













Total O&M Costs $0


Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 7 of 41

Table D-23

Area C Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance - Cost Details


Camp Hale, Colorado



Number of

Yearly

Events

Present Value Cost



























Notes:




LS = Lump Sum

Page 8 of 41

Camp Hale, East Fork Valley MRS (MU002), Area C


TITLES:East Fork Valley Munitions Reponse Site Feasibility Study

Camp Hale, Colorado

Table Numbers

Table D-16

Table D-17

Table D-18

Table D-19

Table D-20

Table D-21

Table D-22

Table D-23

Table Titles

Area C Summary of Costs

Area C Alternative 1 - No Action - Cost Details Alternative 1 - No Action

Area C Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) - Cost Details Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs)

Area C Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs

Area C Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs

Area C Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 5 - Partial Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Area C Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs - Cost Details Alternative 6 - Complete Surface Clearance, Partial Subsurface Clearance, and LUCs

Area C Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance - Cost Details Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface Clearance

Total Capital Costs

Total O&M Costs


Item Description

Quantity Per Year

Unit

Unit Cost

Annual Cost


Present Value Cost

Notes:





LS = Lump Sum

STANDARD DATA FOR ALL SPREADSHEETS:0.15 Overhead and QA Costs (as a fraction)




Page 9 of 41 EFV Area C


INPUT DATA SHEET AND ASSUMPTIONSNo Action

No Actions Taken

2 Year of Activity

3 Year of Activity

4 Year of Activity

10 Year of Activity





Project Plans

2,3 Draft Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

2,3 Draft Final Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000

2,3 Final Project Plans 1 LS $25,000 $25,000



4,5,6,7 Draft Project Plans 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

4,5,6,7 Draft Final Project Plans 1 LS $50,000 $50,000

4,5,6,7 Final Project Plans 1 LS $50,000 $50,000











$154,000 $154,000 QC Check

4,6,7 Surface Clearance - 102 Acres






$628,300 $628,300 QC Check




5,6 Subsurface Clearance - 10 Acres






Anomaly Excavation 1 LS $228,500 $228,500




Total $727,900 $727,900 QC Check

7 Subsurface Clearance - 102 Acres










$4,297,600 $4,297,600 QC Check

2,3 Field Work Closeout




4,5,6,7 Field Work Closeout




2,3,4,5,6 Land Use Controls






2,3,4,5,6,7 Five-Year Review

Draft Five-Year Review 1 LS $40,000 $40,000




Costs per Acre


Construction Season ($) ($/acre)

(Acres)

Partial surface clearance 21 $154,000 $7,333

Complete surface clearance 102 $628,300 $6,160

Partial subsurface clearance 10 $727,900 $72,790

Complete subsurface clearance 102 $4,297,600 $42,133

EFV Area A EFV Area B EVS Area C

acres 218 40 21


cost 1,346,700$ 354,100$ 154,000$

cost/acre 6,178$ 8,853$ 7,333$

acres 435 52 102


cost 2,782,800$ 577,100$ 628,300$

cost/acre 6,397$ 11,098$ 6,160$

acres 54.5 9.0 78.6


cost 80,900$ 21,800$ 80,900$

cost/acre 1,485$ 2,422$ 1,029$

acres 75 15 102



targets 42,000 18,000 30,600


cost 4,974,200$ 2,787,800$ 4,297,600$

cost/acre 66,323$ 185,853$ 42,133$

cost/dig 118$ 155$ 140$

cost 2,335,700$ 1,336,700$ 2,008,900$

cost/dig 56$ 74$ 66$



DGM survey


Anomaly excavation

Page 12 of 41


East Fork Valley MRS Area C, Feasibility Study

Camp Hale, Colorado


Alternative 2 - Land Use Controls (LUCs) $103,500 $103,500 $0 0

Alternative 3 - Partial Surface Clearance and LUCs $417,000 $417,000 $0 1

Alternative 4 - Complete Surface Clearance and LUCs $1,248,900 $1,248,900 $0 2





Alternative 7 - Complete Surface Clearance, Complete Subsurface

Clearance$6,934,700 $6,934,700 $0 3

Assumptions:



50 hour work week





Partial surface Complete surface Partial subsurface

Complete

subsurface

Total Area (acres) 21 102 10 102

Area cleared per construction season (acres) 21 102 10 102

# UXO teams 2 2 2 6

Area needing brush clearance, 10% (acres) 2.1 10.2 1.0 10.2

Brush clear rate (acres/day/team) 1 1 1 1

Surface clear rate (acres/day/team) 4.0 3.8 NA NA

Subsurface surveyed via DGM, 77% (acres) NA NA 9.25 78.6

Subsurface DGM survey rate (acres/day/team) NA NA 3.5 3.5

Subsurface targets (per acre) NA NA 300 300

Subsurface clear rate (acres/day/team) NA NA 0.23 0.23


completed (yrs)


Cost Detail, Partial Surface Clearance, EFV Area C

Assumptions:





ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT




Subtotal





1 UXO team Lead 2 $2,028 $2,028

1 UXO Tech III 2 $2,028 $2,028

3 UXO Tech II 6 $5,140 $5,140

2 UXO Tech I 4 $2,877 $2,877


0.5 Historical archaeologist 0 $0 $0 $16,337








Brush Clearing

Area 21 acres




Duration 1 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 2 $888 $325 $1,213

Equipment Operator 2 $633 $229 $863 $2,076


14 " chipper 2 1 weeks $529 $1,059








Airfare 0 flights $750 $0



Per diem 6 days $46 $276 $774












Total duration 0.8 weeks

Subtotal


1 UXO Tech III Team Lead 2 $3,531 $821 $1,298 $301 $5,952

1 UXO Tech III 2 $3,531 $821 $1,298 $301 $5,952

3 UXO Tech II 6 $8,942 $2,082 $3,275 $761 $15,060

2 UXO Tech I 4 $5,000 $1,165 $1,823 $424 $8,412

1 Equipment Operator 2 $2,123 $495 $770 $179 $3,568

0.5 Historical archaeologist 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,944


1 CAT skid loader 2 0.81 weeks $194 $314

1 Mini excavator 2 0.81 weeks $335 $543

6 Schonstedt metal detector 12 0.81 weeks $70 $680

Radios 19 0.81 weeks $9 $136

2 Trimble GPS unit 4 0.81 weeks $44 $143




40 Fuel/Oil/Grease 65 hours $14 $914


Hand tools 1.62 team-weeks $50 $81






Per diem 91 days $46 $4,186 $11,739




Demil and Loadout

Area 21 acre


Need 4.2 rolloffs


Duration 2 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $1,090 $401 $1,490

UXO Tech I 1 $772 $281 $1,053

Equip op 1 $655 $238 $893 $3,436








Saw blades 2.1 blades $100 $210 $392


tons per 10 acres 2







Per diem 6 days $46 $276 $774





Duration 1.0 weeks

Subtotal



office GIS Specialist 0.5 $2,125 $531 $2,656

field Sr UXO Supervisor 1 $2,201 $512 $809 $188 $3,711

field UXO Safety officer 1 $2,201 $512 $809 $188 $3,711

field UXO QC officer 1 $2,201 $512 $809 $188 $3,711

field Procurement specialist 1 $2,302 $843 $3,145 $20,012


Truck 9 1 weeks 229$ 2,085$

Office trailer- mob, demob, rent 2 1 weeks 2,276$ 4,597$

Conex storage trailer 4 1 weeks 35$ 143$

Internet connection 0 1 2 yr contract 2,800$ -$

Satellite phones 2 1 weeks 45$ 92$ $6,917


H&S supplies 15.15 man-days $5 $76






Per diem 28 days $46 $1,288 $3,612


TOTAL $154,000


Cost Detail, Complete Surface Clearance, EFV Area C

Assumptions:





ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT




Subtotal





1 UXO team Lead 2 $2,028 $2,028

1 UXO Tech III 2 $2,028 $2,028

3 UXO Tech II 6 $5,140 $5,140

2 UXO Tech I 4 $2,877 $2,877


0.5 Historical archaeologist 1 $1,014 $1,014 $17,350








Brush Clearing

Area 102 acres




Duration 6 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 2 $5,330 $1,950 $7,280



14 " chipper 2 2 weeks $529 $2,118











Per diem 34 days $46 $1,564 $7,501













Subtotal



1 UXO Tech III 2 $17,437 $4,055 $6,410 $1,489 $29,391

3 UXO Tech II 6 $44,160 $10,279 $16,174 $3,758 $74,371

2 UXO Tech I 4 $24,692 $5,754 $9,002 $2,093 $41,541



















Lodging 476 days $83 $39,508

Per diem 476 days $46 $21,896 $74,643




Demil and Loadout

Area 102 acre


Need 20.4 rolloffs


Duration 11 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $5,994 $2,204 $8,198

UXO Tech I 1 $4,244 $1,547 $5,791

Equip op 1 $3,604 $1,307 $4,911 $18,900










tons per 10 acres 2







Per diem 33 days $46 $1,518 $4,257





Duration 6 weeks

Subtotal









Truck 10 2 months 977$ 19,538$











Lodging 168 days $83 $13,944

Per diem 168 days $46 $7,728 $27,902


TOTAL $628,300


Cost Detail, Partial Subsurface Clearance, EFV Area C

Assumptions:





ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT

7-man teams 2 enter teams here +C57 +C128



Subtotal





1 UXO team Lead 2 $2,028 $2,028

1 UXO Tech III 2 $2,028 $2,028

3 UXO Tech II 6 $5,140 $5,140

2 UXO Tech I 4 $2,877 $2,877



1 Geophysicist 2 $2,097 $2,097 $19,345








Brush Clearing

Area 10 acres




Duration 1 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 1 $444 $163 $607

Equipment Operator 1 $317 $115 $431 $1,038


14 " chipper 1 1 weeks $529 $529










Per diem 3 days $46 $138 $387





Area 9.25 acre

Depth 2 foot


UXO Teams 1 3-man teams entered separately

Duration 3 days

Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 1 $1,332 $488 $1,820

2 geophysicist 2 $3,263 $1,200 $4,463 $6,283


1 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 1 1 weeks $875 $875

1 GPS for DGM 1 1 weeks $1,800 $1,800










Per diem 21 days $46 $966 $2,709



Area 9 acres


dig list.






Reacquisition

Area 9 acres



Teams 2 2-man team



Geophysicist 2 $15,093 $5,548 $20,641

UXO Tech II 2 $12,325 $4,510 $16,836 $37,477



Trimble GPS unit 2 3 weeks $44 $265







50 Personal vehicle mileage 200 miles $0.575 $115

7 Lodging 84 days $83 $6,972

Per diem 84 days $46 $3,864 $13,951




Anomaly Excavation

Area 10 acre

Clearance rate 0.23 Acres per day


Duration 21 days





Subtotal



2 UXO Tech II 4 $36,800 $8,566 $13,478 $3,132 $61,976

1 UXO Tech I 2 $15,432 $3,596 $5,626 $1,308 $25,963

1 Equipment Operator 2 $13,106 $3,058 $4,754 $1,106 $22,024 $146,702


0.5 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 1 5 weeks $875 $4,375











0.1 Explosives for demo shots 1 demo shots $500 $500 $8,643




7 Lodging 350 days $83 $29,050

Per diem 350 days $46 $16,100 $60,725





Area 9 acre



Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 2 $18,400 $4,283 $6,739 $1,566 $30,988

1 Geophysicist 2 $22,543 $5,242 $8,293 $1,926 $38,003 $68,991


EM61-MK2 (DGM) 2 5 weeks $875 $8,750

GPS for DGM 2 5 weeks $1,800 $18,000





Hand tools 10 team-week $50 $500 $1,500




7 Lodging 140 days $83 $11,620

Per diem 140 days $46 $6,440 $24,290




Demil and Loadout

Area 10 acre


Need 2 rolloffs


Duration 1 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $545 $200 $745

UXO Tech I 1 $386 $141 $526

Equip op 1 $328 $119 $446 $1,718










tons per 10 acres 2

10 total tonnage 2 tons $450 $900






Per diem 3 days $46 $138 $387





Duration 8 weeks

Subtotal









Truck 9 2 months 977$ 17,584$











Lodging 224 days $83 $18,592

Per diem 224 days $46 $10,304 $35,126


TOTAL $727,900


Cost Detail, Complete Subsurface Clearance, EFV Area C

Assumptions:





ST + 8% ST OT + 8% OT

7-man teams 6 enter teams here +C57 +C128



Subtotal





1 UXO team Lead 6 $6,083 $6,083

1 UXO Tech III 6 $6,083 $6,083

3 UXO Tech II 18 $15,419 $15,419

2 UXO Tech I 12 $8,631 $8,631



2 Geophysicist 12 $12,581 $12,581 $56,419








Brush Clearing

Area 102 acres




Duration 4 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech II 3 $5,330 $1,950 $7,280



14 " chipper 3 1 weeks $529 $1,588










Per diem 34 days $46 $1,564 $4,386





Area 78.6 acre

Depth 2 foot


UXO Teams 6 3-man teams

Duration 4 days

Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 6 $10,660 $3,901 $14,560

2 geophysicist 12 $26,107 $9,597 $35,704 $50,264


1 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 6 1 weeks $875 $5,250

1 GPS for DGM 6 1 weeks $1,800 $10,800






Hand tools 6 team-weeks $100 $600 $1,320




Per diem 101 days $46 $4,646 $13,029



Area 78.6 acres


dig list.






Reacquisition

Area 78.6 acres



Teams 6 2-man team enter separately

Duration 40 team-days concurrent with Anomaly Excavation


Geophysicist 6 $130,534 $47,985 $178,519

UXO Tech II 6 $106,596 $39,009 $145,605 $324,123











7 Lodging 672 days $83 $55,776

Per diem 672 days $46 $30,912 $105,378




Anomaly Excavation

Area 102 acre

Clearance rate 0.23 Acres per day


Duration 73 days





Subtotal



2 UXO Tech II 12 $331,197 $77,095 $121,304 $28,187 $557,783

1 UXO Tech I 6 $138,892 $32,365 $50,637 $11,775 $233,671



0.5 EM61-MK2 (DGM) 3 15 weeks $875 $39,375




Radios 33 15 weeks $9 $4,368











7 Lodging 3,150 days $83 $261,450

Per diem 3,150 days $46 $144,900 $499,800





Area 78.6 acre



Subtotal


1 UXO Tech II 6 $124,002 $28,865 $45,417 $10,553 $208,837

1 Geophysicist 6 $151,923 $35,328 $55,887 $12,977 $256,115 $464,952


EM61-MK2 (DGM) 6 11.23214286 weeks $875 $58,969

GPS for DGM 6 11.23214286 weeks $1,800 $121,307









7 Lodging 944 days $83 $78,311

Per diem 944 days $46 $43,401 $149,747




Demil and Loadout

Area 102 acre


Need 20.4 rolloffs


Duration 11 days

Subtotal


UXO Tech III 1 $5,994 $2,204 $8,198

UXO Tech I 1 $4,244 $1,547 $5,791

Equip op 1 $3,604 $1,307 $4,911 $18,900










tons per 10 acres 2







Per diem 47 days $46 $2,162 $6,063





Duration 19 weeks

Subtotal









Truck 21 5 months 977$ 102,573$











Lodging 532 days $83 $44,156

Per diem 532 days $46 $24,472 $84,203


TOTAL $4,297,600


Equipment Rates, EFV Area C

Includes Sales Tax




D4 Dozer JDEERE 450J 92.02$ 644.11$ 2,773.10$









Brush hog 176.47$ 428.57$ 1,159.66$




ConEx boxes 8' X 40' 5.04$ 35.29$ 138.65$







2-Way radios 1.26$ 8.82$ 35.29$



Knockdown 733.00$



EM61-MK2 (DGM) 125.00$ 875.00$ 3,750.00$

GPS for DGM 257.14$ 1,800.00$ 7,714.29$


Desccription













Fuel, Cutoff Saw 1.11$

Brush Hog 8.00$

Rental Rates



Production Rate Calculations, EFV Area C


buffer on either side of new stream alignment 7 30% 2

30 ft wide utility corridor 1 0% 0

300 ft buffer either side of FS 714 (29 acres overlap with other clearance areas) 13 0% 0

21 10% 2



Remainder of MRS 81 10% 8

102 10% 10


buffer on either side of new stream alignment 7 4 2

30 ft wide utility corridor 1 4 0

300 ft buffer either side of FS 714 (29 acres overlap with other clearance areas) 13 4 3

21 4 5


Partial clearance area 21 4 5

Remainder of MRS 81 3 27

102 3.2 32


50 ft buffer on either side of FS 714 (less overlap with other clearance areas) 7 25% 1.75 5 4 1.3

buffer on either side of new stream alignment 4 0% 0 4 3 1.3

30 ft wide utility corridor 1 100% 1 0

Net Total allowing for overlaps 12.00 23% 2.75 9.25 3.5 3

note: in this table mag and dig refers to areas that will investigated by mag and dig rather than DGM due to proximity to road or pipe;ime, or narrow trail conditions




50 ft buffer on either side of FS 714 (less overlap with other clearance areas) 7 300 2100 100 21 0.33

buffer on either side of new stream alignment 4 300 1200 70 17 0.23

30 ft wide utility corridor 1 300 300 70 4 0.23

Net Total allowing for overlaps 12 300 3600 70 51 0.23


Appendix E Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Tool

Worksheets-Remedial Alternatives

Appendix EMEC HA Scores Summary Table

AlternativeArea A Area B Area C

1 - No Action 670Hazard Level 3

865Hazard Level 1

625Hazard Level 3

2 - LUCs 670Hazard Level 3

865Hazard Level 1

625Hazard Level 3

3 - Partial surface 670Hazard Level 3

710Hazard Level 3 (3)

430Hazard Level 4 (3)

4 - Complete surface 670Hazard Level 3

710Hazard Level 3

430Hazard Level 4

5 - Partial surface & partial sub560

Hazard Level 3 (1)470


Hazard Level 4 (1)

6 - Complete surface, partial sub560



Hazard Level 4 (2)

7 - Complete surface & sub 560Hazard Level 3 NA 340

Hazard Level 4

(1): Score applicable to areas where both surface and subsurface clearance are performed(2): Score applicable to areas where subsurface clearance is performed(3): Score applicable to areas where surface clearance is performedNA = not applicable

MEC HA Score

MEC HA Workbook v1.0November 2006

Instructions Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

2. This MS Excel workbook contains 9 worksheets, designed to be used in order. After the 'Instructions ' sheet, the first 5 sheets ask for information about the following topics:

Summary Info - General information regarding the site.Munitions/ Explosive Info - MECs and bulk explosives present at the site.Current and Future Activit ies - Current land use activites as well as planned future activities, if any.Remedial-Removal Action - General information regarding remediation/removal alternatives being considered for the site.Post-Response Land Use - Land use activities associated with the alternatives listed in the 'Remedial-Removal Action' sheet.

The remaining 3 sheets calculate and summarize the scores. The Input Factors sheet performs the Input Factor Score calculations, which are summarized in the Scoring Summaries sheet. The Hazard Level sheet presents the Hazard Level Category for current use activities, future use activities, and each response alternative based on the respective scores.

December-07

Instructions

MEC HA Workbook v1.02

OverviewThis workbook is a tool for project teams to assess explosive hazards to human receptors at munitions response sites (MRSs) following the Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment (MEC HA) methodology. The MEC HA allows a project team to evaluate potential explosive hazard associated with a site, given current site conditions, under various cleanup, land use activities, and land use control alternatives. A complete description of the methodology can be found in the MEC HA Guidance (Public Review Draft, November 2006). Please reference this guidance when completing the worksheets.

1. Open this file. Enable macros if prompted to do so. This spreadsheet will not work if your security setting is set to 'high' or 'very high'. To change your security level, go to the menu bar and select Tools/Macro/Security. Then close and reopen this spreadsheet.



3. Starting with the Summary Info sheet, fill in any yellow cells. Some cells have drop-down lists from which you can select an answer. Select the cell. A down arrow to the right indicates that a drop-down list is available. Yellow buttons can be used to enter reference information. Blue cells can be used for any general comments you wish to make. Any faded cells can be ignored--these are questions that the spreadsheet has determined are not relevant for your situation.

The computer will calculate information based on your inputs. Calculated information will appear as red text.

4. The MEC HA menu bar can be used to navigate to different worksheets.

Blue Comment

Cells

Yellow Cell (User Input)

Faded Cells (Ignore)

Red Text (Calculated Information)



5. Small red triangles in the upper-right corners indicate that help text is available by putting the mouse cursor on that cell.

East Fork Valley MRS Area A

Summary Info Worksheet

MEC HA Summary InformationComments

Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area ADate: 5/26/2015

A. Enter a unique identifier for the site:

Ref. No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

789

101112

Please identify the single specific area to be assessed in this hazard assessment. From this point forward, all references to "site" or "MRS" refer to the specific area that you have defined.

EFV MRS Area A

Title (include version, publication date)

Final Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, December 2014, CB&I

Data Requests EFV and EVS, Paula Peterson, US Forest Service, email dated January 7, 2014

Report of Inspection of Camp Hale Impact Ranges, Luter and Sainato, 1946. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archive Search Report, 2003.

Camp Hale Final SI Report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.

Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East Fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 2005, Shaw Environmental Inc.

Provide a list of information sources used for this hazard assessment. As you are completing the worksheets, use the "Select Ref(s)" buttons at the ends of each subsection to select the applicable information sources from the list below.

Final Remedial Investigation Work Plan Addendum Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, May 2013, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., a CB&I Company

Clearance of Camp Hale Impact Area, Wilson, 1965. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archive Search Report, 2003.



B. Briefly describe the site:

1. Area (include units):

Acreage based on revised, proposed boundaries.

2. Past munitions-related use:

3. Current land-use activities (list all that occur):

No5. What is the basis for the site boundaries?

6. How certain are the site boundaries?

Reference(s) for Part B:Camp Hale Final SI Report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East Fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 2005, Shaw Environmental Inc.Final Remedial Investigation Work Plan Addendum Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, May 2013, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., a CB&I CompanyFinal Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, December 2014, CB&I

435 acres

Safety Buffer Areas

Recreational, camping, industrial maintenance of gas pipeline, roadway and trail maintenance, natural resources activities, private property holdings

Fairly certain. Boundaries were revised based on results of previous investigations and current RI investigation.

4. Are changes to the future land-use planned?

MRS boundaries based on the historical documents showing ranges and range fans. Boundaries also based on topography. Original MRS boundary provided in RI Work Plan was revised to include area previously covered under a surface removal action (TCRA) conducted in 2003. The MRS boundaries provided in RI Work Plan were also revised to exclude the target area in the southeast portion of the original MU002 MRS.

Select Ref(s)



C. Historical Clearances

2. If a clearance occurred:a. What year was the clearance performed? 2001 and 2003

Reference(s) for Part C:

Camp Hale Final SI Report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East Fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 2005, Shaw Environmental Inc.Report of Inspection of Camp Hale Impact Ranges, Luter and Sainato, 1946. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archive Search Report, 2003.Clearance of Camp Hale Impact Area, Wilson, 1965. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archive Search Report, 2003.

In 2001, a surface sweep of the Colorado Trail that traverses the MRS and the East Fork Group Campground was conducted. There is no information available to indicate whether magnetometers were used during the 2001 surface sweep. A rocket motor for a 3.5 inch recoilless rifle round and a 2.36 inch recoilless rifle round were found and were destroyed by EOD. Evidence of the following munitions were found during the 2001 TCRA: 106 mm HEAT, 57 mm HEAT, fragmentation hand grenade, WP smoke hand grenade, 3.5 inch HEAT rocket, 2.36 inch HEAT rocket, 60mm mortar, 81mm mortar, 37 mm projectile, 75 mm projectile. The 2003 TCRA covered approximately 462 acres and magnetometers were used. Live munitions found during the 2003 TCRA include: M1A1 practice mines with live fuzes, 3.5 inch rockets and rocket motor, 2.36 inch rockets and rocket motor, 57 mm HEAT projectile, M9A1 HEAT rifle grenade, 60 mm mortar round, raw high explosive (1 oz), and 1 oz white phosphorous contained within a fragment. Additional clearances have been conducted historically (1946 and 1965) but there is little specific information regarding the location and munitions found.

b. Provide a description of the clearance activity (e.g., extent, depth, amount of munitions-related items removed, types and sizes of removed items, and whether metal detectors were used):

1. Have there been any historical clearances at the site? Yes, surface clearance

Select Ref(s)


Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info Worksheet


Cased Munitions Information

Item No.Munition Type (e.g., mortar, projectile, etc.)

Munition Size

Munition Size Units Mark/ Model


Is Munition Fuzed? Fuzing Type

Fuze Condition

Minimum Depth for Munition (ft)

Location of Munitions

Comments (include rationale for munitions that are "subsurface only")

1 Artillery 57 mm HEATHigh Explosive Yes 0

Surface and Subsurface

2 Mortars 60 mm M49A2High Explosive Yes Impact Armed 0


3 Artillery 75 mmHigh Explosive UNK 0


4 Grenades M9A1High Explosive UNK 0


5 Grenades MK IIHigh Explosive UNK 0


6 Rockets 3.5 inches M28High Explosive UNK 0


7 Rockets 2.36 inchesHigh Explosive UNK 0


8 Mortars 81 mmHigh Explosive UNK 0


9 Mines: Sea and LandSpotting Charge UNK 0


10 Pyrotechnic M17 Pyrotechnic UNK 0Surface and Subsurface

11 Pyrotechnic M125 Pyrotechnic UNK 0Surface and Subsurface







15 GrenadesWhite Phosphorus UNK 0


16 Artillery 57 mmWhite Phosphorus UNK 0


17181920



Reference(s) for table above:

Bulk Explosive InformationItem No. Explosive Type Comments

123456789

10


Camp Hale Final SI Report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East Fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 2005, Shaw Environmental Inc.Final Remedial Investigation Work Plan Addendum Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, May 2013, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., a CB&I CompanyFinal Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, December 2014, CB&I

Select Ref(s)


Current and Future Activities Worksheet


Activities Currently Occurring at the Site

Activity No. Activity

Number of people per year who participate in the activity

Number of hours per year a single person spends on the activity

Potential Contact Time (receptor hours/year)

Maximum intrusive depth (ft) Comments

1Pipeline Maintenance (monthly) 12 8 96 0

2Pipeline Maintenance (yearly) 4 40 160 8

3USFS Trail Maintenace Activities 4 8 32 0.5

4

USFS Natural Resources Activities - weed inventories and range allotment 2 416 832 0

5 USFS Roadway Maintenance 4 16 64 2

6Nova Guides (tours) - roads/trails only 5,000 3 15,000 0

7Special Events (races) - roads/trails only 1,000 1 1,000 0

8Day Use (people off Trail or outside Campground) 1,000 1 1,000 0

9 EFV Group Campground 2,300 48 110,400 0101112

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr): 128,584Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft): 8


Data Requests EFV and EVS, Paula Peterson, US Forest Service, email dated January 7, 2014Select Ref(s)


Remedial-Removal Action Worksheet


Planned Remedial or Removal Actions

Response Action No. Response Action Description

Expected Resulting Minimum MEC Depth (ft)

Expected Resulting Site Accessibility

Will land use activities change if this response action is implemented? What is the expected scope of cleanup? Comments

1 Surface Clearance 0.5Full Accessibility No

cleanup of MECs located on the surface only

2 Subsurface Clearance 2Full Accessibility No

cleanup of MECs located both on the surface and subsurface

3456

Current

Reference(s) for table above:Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East Fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 005, Shaw Environmental Inc.

According to the 'Summary Info' worksheet, no future land uses are planned. For those alternatives where you answered 'No' in Column E, the land use activities will be assessed against current land uses.

Select Ref(s)


Post-Response Land Use Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote




Number of hours a single person spends on the activity



123456789

101112

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr):Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft):


This worksheet needs to be completed for each remedial/ removal action alternative listed in the 'Remedial-Removal Action' worksheet that w ill cause a change in land use.

Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #1: Surface Clearance

Select Ref(s)








123456789

101112



Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #2: Subsurface Clearance

Select Ref(s)








123456789

101112



Land Use Activities Planned After Response Alternative #3:

Select Ref(s)








123456789

101112




Select Ref(s)


Input Factors Worksheet

Site ID:


Date: 5/26/2015

Energetic Material Type Input Factor Categories Comments

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

100 100 10070 70 7060 60 6050 50 5040 40 4030 30 30

Score

Baseline Conditions: 100Surface Cleanup: 100Subsurface Cleanup: 100

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the energetic materials. Materials are listed in order from most hazardous to least hazardous.

The most hazardous type of energetic material listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet falls under the category 'High Explosive and Low Explosive Filler in Fragmenting Rounds'.

High Explosive and Low Explosive Filler in Fragmenting RoundsWhite PhosphorusPyrotechnicPropellantSpotting ChargeIncendiary



1873 feet 75 mm MK1 HE projectile

Yes

MEC Item(s) used to calculate the ESQD for current use activities

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 300 0 0

Score303030

MEC Item(s) used to calculate the ESQD for future use activities

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 300 0 0

Score

3. Please describe the facility or feature.

Baseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup:

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the location of additional human receptors (current use activities):

Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arcOutside of the ESQD arc

4. Current use activities are 'Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arc', based on Question 2.'

5. Are there future plans to locate or construct features or facilities where people may congregate within the MRS, or within the ESQD arc?

Subsurface Cleanup:


Outside of the ESQD arc

Baseline Conditions:7. Please answer Question 5 above to determine the scores.

Item #3. Artillery (75mm, High Explosive)

Surface Cleanup:

1. What is the Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) from the Explosive Siting Plan or the Explosive Safety Submission for the MRS?2. Are there currently any features or facilities where people may congregate within the MRS, or within the ESQD arc?

Subsurface Cleanup:

Location of Additional Human Receptors Input Factor Categories

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the location of additional human receptors (future use activities):

Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arc

Group Campground, Parking Area

Select MEC(s)

Select MEC(s)



Site Accessibility Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Full Accessibility 80 80 80

Moderate Accessibility 55 55 55

Limited Accessibility 15 15 15

Very Limited Accessibility 5 5 5

Score


Baseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup:Subsurface Cleanup:

Reference(s) for above information:


Select the category that best describes the site accessibility under the future use scenario:

Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, October 2014, CB&I

Some barriers to entry, such as barbed wire fencing or rough terrain

No barriers to entry, including signage but no fencing

Description

Full Accessibility

Current Use Activities

Future Use Activities

Response Alternative No. 1: Surface ClearanceBased on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, this alternative will lead to 'Full Accessibility'.

The following table is used to determine scores associated with site accessibility:

Significant barriers to entry, such as unguarded chain link fence or

requirements for special transportation to reach the site

Select the category that best describes the site accessibility under the current use scenario:

A site with guarded chain link fence or terrain that requires special equipment and skills (e.g., rock

climbing) to access

Select Ref(s)








Response Alternative No. 6: Please enter site accessibility information in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet to continue.

Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, this alternative will lead to 'Full Accessibility'.

Please enter site accessibility information in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet to continue.

Response Alternative No. 2: Subsurface Clearance



Response Alternative No. 5:



Potential Contact Hours Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Many Hours 120 90 30

Some Hours 70 50 20

Few Hours 40 20 10Very Few Hours 15 10 5

128,584receptor hrs/yr

70 Score

receptor hrs/yrScore

128,584Score


128,584Score


≥1,000,000 receptor-hrs/yr

100,000 to 999,999 receptor hrs/yr

10,000 to 99,999 receptor-hrs/yr

Description

Total Potential Contact Time, based on the contact time listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the total potential contact time:


Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.Total Potential Contact Time, based on the contact time listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)

Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.

<10,000 receptor-hrs/yr

Response Alternative No. 1: Surface Clearance

Future Use Activit ies :

Current Use Activit ies :

Based on the table above, this corresponds to a input factor score for baseline conditions of:

Input factors are only determined for baseline conditions for future use activities. Based on the 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet, the Total Potential Contact Time is:

Based on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:

Based on the table above, this corresponds to a input factor score of:

Input factors are only determined for baseline conditions for current use activities. Based on the 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet, the Total Potential Contact Time is:




ScoreBaseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup:Subsurface Cleanup:




Not enough information has been entered in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet. Please complete the table before returning to this section.

Total Potential Contact Time











Total Potential Contact TimeBased on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:




Amount of MEC Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Target Area 180 120 30

OB/OD Area 180 110 30

Function Test Range 165 90 25

Burial Pit 140 140 10

Maneuver Areas 115 15 5

Firing Points 75 10 5

Safety Buffer Areas 30 10 5

Storage 25 10 5

Explosive-Related Industrial Facility

20 10 5

Description

Areas where the serviceability of stored munitions or weapons

systems are tested. Testing may include components, partial

functioning or complete functioning of stockpile or developmental items.

Areas at which munitions fire was directed

Sites where munitions were disposed of by open burn or open detonation methods. This category refers to the core activity area of an OB/OD area. See the "Safety Buffer Areas" category for safety fans and kick-

outs.

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the Amount of MEC:

Any facility used for the storage of military munitions, such as earth-covered magazines, above-ground magazines, and open-air storage

areas.Former munitions manufacturing or

demilitarization sites and TNT production plants

Areas used for conducting military exercises in a simulated conflict area

or war zone

The location from which a projectile, grenade, ground signal, rocket,

guided missile, or other device is to be ignited, propelled, or released.

Areas outside of target areas, test ranges, or OB/OD areas that were designed to act as a safety zone to contain munitions that do not hit

targets or to contain kick-outs from OB/OD areas.

The location of a burial of large quantities of MEC items.



Score


0 ft8 ft

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

240 150 95

240 50 25

150 N/A 95

50 N/A 25

240 Score

Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is less than or equal to the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth will overlap after cleanup. MECs are located at both the surface and subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet. Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC.' For 'Current Use Activities', only Baseline Conditions are considered.

Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth does not overlap with minimum MEC depth.

Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC.Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface, After Cleanup: Intrusive depth does not overlap with subsurface MEC.Baseline Condition: MEC located only subsurface. Baseline Condition or After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with minimum MEC depth.

Current Use Activit ies

The shallowest minimum MEC depth, based on the 'Cased Munitions Information' Worksheet:The deepest intrusive depth:The table below is used to determine scores associated with the minimum MEC depth relative to the maximum intrusive depth:

Select the category that best describes the most hazardous amount of MEC:

Minimum MEC Depth Relative to the Maximum Intrusive Depth Input Factor Categories

Safety Buffer Areas



Deepest intrusive depth: ft

Score

0.5 ft

8 ft

ScoreBaseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup: 150Subsurface Cleanup:

2 ft

8 ft

ScoreBaseline Conditions:Surface Cleanup:Subsurface Cleanup: 95

ft

ft

Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.Maximum Intrusive Depth, based on the maximum intrusive depth listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is less than or equal to the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth overlaps. MECs are located at both the surface and subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet. Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC.'

Response Alternative No. 3: Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Not enough information has been entered in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet. Please complete the table before returning to this section.

Not enough information has been entered to determine the input factor category.Response Alternative No. 1: Surface Clearance

Future Use Activit ies

Maximum Intrusive Depth, based on the maximum intrusive depth listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is less than or equal to the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth overlaps. MECs are located at both the surface and subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet. Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC.'

Response Alternative No. 2: Subsurface ClearanceExpected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.

Maximum Intrusive Depth




ft

ft


ft

ft



Not enough information has been entered to calculate this input factor.



Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):



Response Alternative No. 5: Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Not enough information has been entered in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet. Please complete the table before returning to this section.




ft

ft


Migration Potential Input Factor Categories

Yes

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 1010 10 10

ScoreBaseline Conditions: 30Surface Cleanup: 30Subsurface Cleanup: 10

Reference(s) for above information:Camp Hale Final SI Report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.


Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Not enough information has been entered in the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet. Please complete the table before returning to this section.

PossibleUnlikely

Based on the question above, migration potential is 'Possible.'

The following table is used to determine scores associated with the migration potential:

Possible

If "yes", describe the nature of natural forces. Indicate key areas of potential migration (e.g., overland water flow) on a map as appropriate (attach a map to the bottom of this sheet, or as a separate worksheet).Frost Heave, potential flooding from East Fork of Eagle River that flows through the MRS

Is there any physical or historical evidence that indicates it is possible for natural physical forces in the area (e.g., frost heave, erosion) to expose subsurface MEC items, or move surface or subsurface MEC items?



Select Ref(s)



MEC Classification Input Factor Categories

Yes

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

180 180 180110 110 110105 105 10555 55 5545 45 4545 45 45


Has a technical assessment shown that MEC in the OB/OD Area is DMM?

Based on your answers above, the MEC classification is 'UXO Special Case'.

Cased munitions information has been inputed into the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet; therefore, bulk explosives do not comprise all MECs for this MRS.

UXOFuzed DMM Special CaseFuzed DMM

∙ Submunitions∙ Rifle-propelled 40mm projectiles (often called 40mm grenades)∙ Munitions with white phosphorus filler∙ High explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds

Unfuzed DMMBulk Explosives

∙ Hand grenades

∙ Mortars

At least one item listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet was identified as 'fuzed'.The following table is used to determine scores associated with MEC classification categories:

UXO Special CaseUXO Special Case

∙ Fuzes

Are any of the munitions listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet:

The 'Amount of MEC' category is 'Safety Buffer Areas'. It cannot be automatically assumed that the MEC items from this category are DMM. Therefore, the conservative assumption is that the MEC items in this MRS are UXO.



MEC Size Input Factor Categories

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Small 40 40 40

Large 0 0 0

SmallScore


Based on the definitions above and the types of munitions at the site (see 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet), the MEC Size Input Factor is:

The following table is used to determine scores associated with MEC Size:

Description

Any munitions (from the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet)

weigh less than 90 lbs; small enough for a receptor to be able to move

and initiate a detonationAll munitions weigh more than 90

lbs; too large to move without equipment


Scoring Summaries Worksheet

Scoring Summary

Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area A a. Scoring Summary for Current Use ActivitiesDate: 5/26/2015 Response Action Cleanup: No Response Action

Input Factor Category ScoreHigh Explosive and Low Explosive Filler in Fragmenting Rounds 100

Inside the MRS or inside the ESQD arc 30Full Accessibility 80100,000 to 999,999 receptor hrs/yr 70Safety Buffer Areas 30Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC. 240Possible 30UXO Special Case 180Small 40

Total Score 800Hazard Level Category 2

Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area A b. Scoring Summary for Future Use ActivitiesDate: 5/26/2015 Response Action Cleanup: No Response Action


Safety Buffer Areas 30

Possible 30UXO Special Case 180Small 40


Input FactorI. Energetic Material Type

II. Location of Additional Human ReceptorsIII. Site Accessibility

VIII. MEC ClassificationIX. MEC Size


IV. Potential Contact HoursV. Amount of MEC

VI. Minimum MEC Depth Relative to Maximum Intrusive Depth

VII. Migration Potential


VII. Migration PotentialVIII. MEC Classification

IX. MEC Size





Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area A

Date: 5/26/2015 Response Action Cleanup:cleanup of MECs located on the surface only




Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area A d. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 2: Subsurface Clearance

Date: 5/26/2015 Response Action Cleanup:cleanup of MECs located both on the surface and subsurface




c. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 1: Surface Clearance












IX. MEC Size


Hazard Level Worksheet


2 8004 3803 6703 560

g. Response Alternative 5:

No

Yes

Yes

h. Response Alternative 6: Characteristics of the MRS

Are significant ecological resources located within the MRS or within the ESQD arc?

Are cultural resources located within the MRS or within the ESQD arc?

Is critical infrastructure located within the MRS or within the ESQD arc?

MEC HA Hazard Level Determination

c. Response Alternative 1: Surface Clearanced. Response Alternative 2: Subsurface Clearance

Hazard Level Category

f. Response Alternative 4: e. Response Alternative 3:

a. Current Use Activitiesb. Future Use Activities

Score






December-07

Instructions









Blue Comment

Cells




East Fork Valley Range MRS B



Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area BDate: 5/26/2015


Ref. No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

789

101112


EFV MRS B



Data Requests EFV and EVS, Paula Peterson, US Forest Service, email dated January 7, 2014


Camp Hale Final SI report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.

Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East Fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 2005, Shaw Environmental, Inc.






B. Briefly describe the site:1. Area (include units):2. Past munitions-related use:




Reference(s) for Part B:Camp Hale Final SI report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East Fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 2005, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Final Remedial Investigation Work Plan Addendum Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, May 2013, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., a CB&I CompanyFinal Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, December 2014, CB&I

52 acres

Target Area

Recreational, natural resources activities, private property holdings

MRS boundaries are fairly certain. Boundaries were revised based on results of previous investigations and current RI investigation.


MRS boundaries based on location of MEC found historically and during the RI. Boundaries also based on topography.

Select Ref(s)




2. If a clearance occurred:a. What year was the clearance performed? 2003

Reference(s) for Part C:Camp Hale Final SI report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East Fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 2005, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Report of Inspection of Camp Hale Impact Ranges, Luter and Sainato, 1946. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archive Search Report, 2003.Clearance of Camp Hale Impact Area, Wilson, 1965. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archive Search Report, 2003.

In 2003, a surface clearance was conducted that covered a portion of the MRS. Magnetometers were used. Live munitions found during the 2003 TCRA were 57 mm HEAT projectiles and 60 mm HE mortar rounds. Additional clearances have been conducted historically (1946 and 1965) but there is little specific information regarding location and munitions found.



Select Ref(s)

East Fork Valley MRS Area B





Munition Size




Fuze Condition




1 Artillery 57 mm HEATHigh Explosive Yes 0


2 Mortars 60 mm M49A2High Explosive Yes Impact Armed 0




4 Grenades M9A1High Explosive UNK 0


5 Grenades MK IIHigh Explosive UNK 0


6 Rockets 3.5 inches M28High Explosive UNK 0


7 Rockets 2.36 inchesHigh Explosive UNK 0


8 Mortars 81 mmHigh Explosive UNK 0


91011121314151617181920





123456789

10


Camp Hale Final SI report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East Fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 2005, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Final Remedial Investigation Work Plan Addendum Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, May 2013, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., a CB&I CompanyFinal Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, December 2014, CB&I

Select Ref(s)










1

2

USFS Natural Resources Activities - Weed inventories 52 4 208 0.5

3

USFS Maintenance and Natural Resource Activities - Range allotment work 52 4 208 0.5

456 Day Use/Treaspassers 1,000 0.5 500 0789

101112

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr): 916Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft): 0.5


Data Requests EFV and EVS, Paula Peterson, US Forest Service, email data January 7, 2014Select Ref(s)


Remedial-Removal Action Worksheet






Will land use activities change if this response action is implemented? What is the expected scope of cleanup? Comments


cleanup of MECs located on the surface only



Partial subsurface clearance, complete not possible

3456


Surface Munitions and Explosives of Concern Removal Report Time-Critical Removal Action East fork of the Eagle River Camp Hale, Colorado, August 4, 2005, Shaw Environmental, Inc.


Select Ref(s)









123456789

101112





Select Ref(s)








123456789

101112




Select Ref(s)



Site ID:


Date: 5/26/2015


Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

100 100 10070 70 7060 60 6050 50 5040 40 4030 30 30

Score



The most hazardous type of energetic material listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet falls under the category 'High Explosive and Low Explosive Filler in Fragmenting Rounds'.




1873 feet 75 mm MK1 HE projectile

No


Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 300 0 0

Score000


Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 300 0 0

Score

Item #3. Artillery (75mm, High Explosive)


Subsurface Cleanup:




Surface Cleanup:







4. Current use activities are 'Outside of the ESQD arc', based on Question 2.'

Subsurface Cleanup:



Select MEC(s)

Select MEC(s)




Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup





Score





Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, October 2014, CB&I

Description

Full Accessibility


Future Use ActivitiesSelect the category that best describes the site accessibility under the future use scenario:





A site with guarded chain link fence or terrain that requires special equipment

and skills (e.g., rock climbing) to access




Select Ref(s)




Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup


Some Hours 70 50 20


916receptor hrs/yr

15 Score


916Score


916Score






Description



Future Use Activities :

Current Use Activities :


Input factors are only determined for baseline conditions for future use activities. Based on the 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet, the Total Potential Contact Time is:Based on the table above, this corresponds to a input factor score of:






Total Potential Contact Time, based on the contact time listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)Based on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:





Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup


OB/OD Area 180 110 30






Storage 25 10 5


20 10 5

Areas where the serviceability of stored munitions or weapons systems are

tested. Testing may include components, partial functioning or complete functioning of stockpile or

developmental items.


Sites where munitions were disposed of by open burn or open detonation

methods. This category refers to the core activity area of an OB/OD area.

See the "Safety Buffer Areas" category for safety fans and kick-outs.


Description

Any facility used for the storage of military munitions, such as earth-covered magazines, above-ground

magazines, and open-air storage areas.

Former munitions manufacturing or demilitarization sites and TNT

production plants


Areas used for conducting military exercises in a simulated conflict area or

war zone

The location from which a projectile, grenade, ground signal, rocket, guided missile, or other device is to be ignited,

propelled, or released.





Score


0 ft0.5 ft

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

240 150 95

240 50 25

150 N/A 95

50 N/A 25

240 Score



Target Area









Score

0.5 ft

0.5 ft


2 ft

0.5 ft


ft

ft





Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):Based on the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet, land use activities will not change if this alternative is implemented.

Response Alternative No. 3: Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):


Maximum Intrusive Depth, based on the maximum intrusive depth listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)Because the shallowest minimum MEC depth is greater than the deepest intrusive depth, the intrusive depth does not overlap. MECs are located at both the surface and subsurface, based on the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet. Therefore, the category for this input factor is 'Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface, After Cleanup: Intrusive depth does not overlap with subsurface MEC.'





ft

ft


ft

ft


ft

ft




















Yes

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 1010 10 10


Reference(s) for above information:Final Remedial Investigation Work Plan Addendum Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, May 2013, Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., a CB&I Company


PossiblePossibleUnlikely


Frost Heave likely due to frost depth

If "yes", describe the nature of natural forces. Indicate key areas of potential migration (e.g., overland water flow) on a map as appropriate (attach a map to the bottom of this sheet, or as a separate worksheet).


Select Ref(s)




Yes

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

180 180 180110 110 110105 105 10555 55 5545 45 4545 45 45



Based on your answers above, the MEC classification is 'UXO Special Case'.





∙ Hand grenades

∙ Mortars

At least one item listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet was identified as 'fuzed'.The following table is used to determine scores associated with MEC classification categories:

UXO Special CaseUXO Special Case

∙ Fuzes


The 'Amount of MEC' category is 'Target Area'. It cannot be automatically assumed that the MEC items from this category are DMM. Therefore, the conservative assumption is that the MEC items in this MRS are UXO.




Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Small 40 40 40

Large 0 0 0

SmallScore




Description

Any munitions (from the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet) weigh less than 90 lbs; small enough for a

receptor to be able to move and initiate a detonation

All munitions weigh more than 90 lbs; too large to move without equipment



Scoring Summary

Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area B a. Scoring Summary for Current Use ActivitiesDate: 5/26/2015 Response Action Cleanup: No Response Action


Outside of the ESQD arc 0Full Accessibility 80<10,000 receptor-hrs/yr 15Target Area 180Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC. 240Possible 30UXO Special Case 180Small 40


Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area B b. Scoring Summary for Future Use ActivitiesDate: 5/26/2015 Response Action Cleanup: No Response Action


Target Area 180

Possible 30UXO Special Case 180Small 40











IX. MEC Size





Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area B



Outside of the ESQD arc 0Full Accessibility 80<10,000 receptor-hrs/yr 10Target Area 120Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC. 150Possible 30UXO Special Case 180Small 40


Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area B d. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 2: Subsurface Clearance



Outside of the ESQD arc 0Full Accessibility 80<10,000 receptor-hrs/yr 5Target Area 30Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface, After Cleanup: Intrusive depth does not overlap with subsurface MEC. 25Possible 10UXO Special Case 180Small 40














IX. MEC Size




1 8653 5303 7104 470

g. Response Alternative 5:

No

Yes

Yes





e. Response Alternative 3:


f. Response Alternative 4:

Score









December-07

Instructions









Blue Comment

Cells




East Fork Valley MRS Area C



Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area CDate: 5/26/2015


Ref. No.

1

2

3

4

5

6789

101112




Data Requests EFV and EVS, Paula Peterson, US Forest Service, email data January 7, 2014









B. Briefly describe the site:

1. Area (include units):

New MRS formed from previous Eagle Valley South Range Complex MRS

2. Past munitions-related use:




Reference(s) for Part B:


2. If a clearance occurred:a. What year was the clearance performed? 1946, 1965

Reference(s) for Part C:

Camp Hale Final SI Report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Final Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, December 2014, CB&I

Camp Hale Final SI Report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Report of Inspection of Camp Hale Impact Ranges, Luter and Sainato, 1946. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archive Search Report, 2003.Clearance of Camp Hale Impact Area, Wilson, 1965. In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Archive Search Report, 2003.

102 acres

Maneuver Areas

Clearances may have been conducted historically (1946 and 1965), however, it is not know if the clearances were conducted in this area of Camp Hale.

Recreational, trail maintenance, natural resources activities.


Fairly certain, although the boundaries could be adjusted somewhat without changing assumptions of MEC HA.



Site boundaries revised from original MRS boundaries based on results of previous investigations and current RI investigation indicating a dramatic difference in the amount and type of MD found in this area. Revised boundaries based on topography

Select Ref(s)

Select Ref(s)





Munition Size




Fuze Condition




1 Pyrotechnic Pyrotechnic No 0Surface and Subsurface

MD from flares found on surface within MRS

2 Mines: Sea and LandM1A1 Practice 0


3456789

1011121314151617181920

Reference(s) for table above:Camp Hale Final SI Report, FUDS Property No. B08CO0014, September 2008, Shaw Environmental, Inc.Final Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, December 2014, CB&I

Select Ref(s)




123456789

10











1USFS Natural Resource Activities 4 40 160 0.5

2 Day Use 1,000 1 1,000 0

3Pipeline Maintenance (monthly) 12 8 96 0

4Pipeline Maintenance (yearly) 4 40 160 8

56789

101112

Total Potential Contact Time (receptor hrs/yr): 1,416Maximum intrusive depth at site (ft): 8


Data Requests EFV and EVS, Paula Peterson, US Forest Service, email data January 7, 2014Select Ref(s)


Remedial-Removal Action Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote






Will land use activities change if this response action is implemented?



3456




Remedial-Removal Action Worksheet Public Review Draft - Do Not Cite or Quote

What is the expected scope of cleanup? Commentscleanup of MECs located on the surface only


Select Ref(s)









123456789

101112





Select Ref(s)








123456789

101112




Select Ref(s)



Site ID:


Date: 5/26/2015


Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

100 100 10070 70 7060 60 6050 50 5040 40 4030 30 30

Score


10 feet Impact from flare would be localized

No


Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 300 0 0

Score000





4. Current use activities are 'Outside of the ESQD arc', based on Question 2.'



The most hazardous type of energetic material listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet falls under the category 'Pyrotechnic'.



Item #1. Pyrotechnic (Pyrotechnic)

Subsurface Cleanup:

Select MEC(s)




Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 300 0 0

Score

Subsurface Cleanup:







Surface Cleanup:

Select MEC(s)




Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup





Score






Future Use Activit iesSelect the category that best describes the site accessibility under the future use scenario:





A site with guarded chain link fence or terrain that requires special equipment and skills (e.g., rock

climbing) to access



Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Eagle Valley South Range Complex, East Fork Valley Range Complex, March 2014, CB&I

Description

Full Accessibility

Current Use Activit ies

Select Ref(s)




Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup


Some Hours 70 50 20


1,416receptor hrs/yr

15 Score


1,416Score


1,416Score




Total Potential Contact Time, based on the contact time listed for current use activities (see 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet)Based on the table above, this corresponds to input factor scores of:

Description



Future Use Activities :

Current Use Activities :


Input factors are only determined for baseline conditions for future use activities. Based on the 'Current and Future Activities' Worksheet, the Total Potential Contact Time is:Based on the table above, this corresponds to a input factor score of:












Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup


OB/OD Area 180 110 30






Storage 25 10 5


20 10 5

Any facility used for the storage of military munitions, such as earth-covered magazines, above-ground magazines, and open-air storage

areas.Former munitions manufacturing or

demilitarization sites and TNT production plants


Areas used for conducting military exercises in a simulated conflict area

or war zone

The location from which a projectile, grenade, ground signal, rocket,

guided missile, or other device is to be ignited, propelled, or released.



Areas where the serviceability of stored munitions or weapons systems

are tested. Testing may include components, partial functioning or complete functioning of stockpile or

developmental items.


Sites where munitions were disposed of by open burn or open detonation

methods. This category refers to the core activity area of an OB/OD area.

See the "Safety Buffer Areas" category for safety fans and kick-

outs.


Description



Score


0 ft8 ft

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

240 150 95

240 50 25

150 N/A 95

50 N/A 25

240 Score








Maneuver Areas




Score

0.5 ft

8 ft


2 ft

8 ft









ft

ft


ft

ft


ft

ft






Response Alternative No. 3: Expected minimum MEC depth (from the 'Planned Remedial or Removal Actions' Worksheet):












ft

ft



Yes

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

30 30 1010 10 10




PossibleUnlikely


Frost Heave

If "yes", describe the nature of natural forces. Indicate key areas of potential migration (e.g., overland water flow) on a map as appropriate (attach a map to the bottom of this sheet, or as a separate worksheet).


Possible






Select Ref(s)




No

Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

180 180 180110 110 110105 105 10555 55 5545 45 4545 45 45





∙ Hand grenades

∙ Mortars

None of the items listed in the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet were identified as 'fuzed'.The following table is used to determine scores associated with MEC classification categories:

Unfuzed DMMUXO Special Case

∙ Fuzes


The 'Amount of MEC' category is 'Maneuver Areas'. It is assumed that the MEC items in this MRS are DMM.

Based on your answers above, the MEC classification is 'Unfuzed DMM'.






Baseline Conditions

Surface Cleanup

Subsurface Cleanup

Small 40 40 40

Large 0 0 0

SmallScore


Description

Any munitions (from the 'Munitions, Bulk Explosive Info' Worksheet)

weigh less than 90 lbs; small enough for a receptor to be able to move and

initiate a detonationAll munitions weigh more than 90

lbs; too large to move without equipment





Scoring Summary

Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area C a. Scoring Summary for Current Use ActivitiesDate: 5/26/2015 Response Action Cleanup: No Response Action

Input Factor Category ScorePyrotechnic 60

Outside of the ESQD arc 0Full Accessibility 80<10,000 receptor-hrs/yr 15Maneuver Areas 115Baseline Condition: MEC located surface and subsurface. After Cleanup: Intrusive depth overlaps with subsurface MEC. 240Possible 30Unfuzed DMM 45Small 40


Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area C b. Scoring Summary for Future Use ActivitiesDate: 5/26/2015 Response Action Cleanup: No Response Action


Maneuver Areas 115

Possible 30Unfuzed DMM 45Small 40


IX. MEC Size














Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area C





Site ID: East Fork Valley MRS Area C d. Scoring Summary for Response Alternative 2: Subsurface Clearance







IX. MEC Size





V. Amount of MECVI. Minimum MEC Depth Relative to Maximum Intrusive

DepthVII. Migration Potential




IV. Potential Contact Hours




3 6254 2904 4304 340

f. Response Alternative 4: g. Response Alternative 5:

Score




e. Response Alternative 3:


No

Yes

Yes





Appendix F EFV MRS Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol Tables

final feasibility study report - camp hale home page report_ final_east fork … · ·...

Documents