Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-08 Work Session Minutes/IP 411- 0eisIselk' Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHU°T'ES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Judith Ure, Management Analyst; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Director; Scott Johnson, Director Mental Health; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property and Facilities; media representative Hillary Borrud with The Bulletin; and several other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion on Bethlehem Inn Update. Tom O'Brien, President of the Board gave an update. He said a community grant was awarded to them from the County for 30,000 dollars. The County gave already them 15,000 and the other 15,000 to be disbursed upon conditions they need to meet. Mr. Kropp said that this summer they had to make some drastic cuts. They have had some rough times. He said they would be discussing the MOU, a former president drafted, and the items of concern. (See attached list.) Dave Nagler, Inn Board member, said the partnership with the County and the City has been great. The issue of homelessness is a civic issue. He said the challenge has been changes in Housing Works collaborating with them. He said it is a big move from shelters to housing. In order to fund they would like to look into transitional housing. They believe there is a place and need for emergency shelter. With the economic downturn they were to a point where they count not operate as in the past. They cut their operating expenses by 30%. They have more people coming in for emergency services. They have no kitchen or dining hall. They have been using barbeques. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 8, 2009 Page 1 of 6 Mr. O'Brien said a team of three has done a remarkable job with out an executive director. They have engaged in professional fundraisers but today's environment does not help. He said that last years reserves were drained by 93,000 dollars. He said an important area is they are working on getting a feasibility study done. Their reserves should get up to a four or five month level. He said their building is at a good location with a bus stop there and services close by. Commission Unger asked he talk about the kitchen and meeting facilities. Mr. O'Brien said they do not have a formal plan for that and he would like to get in the feasibility study first. Mr. Nagler said they would like to have something ready to go so if the funding were available, they would be ready. He said for health code issues, it would be good to have a larger area and kitchen. Commissioner Baney said she spoke with Oregon Housing and Community Services. It is difficult to have federal, state or county dollars serving a population with no strings attached. She said it has more to do with population than the shelter itself. Mr. Nagler said another factor is in the valley other structures exist. He said even with reduced funding there are other places to go. Here Bethlehem Inn is it. If the Inn cannot provide services, who will? He said they are getting big city problems with the economy. People are coming in with mental health issues. There are not a lot of options. Mr. O'Brien said it is a nightmare for someone to get involved and take over. He said it takes 21 people to deliver a dinner so it is a challenge to deliver a meal for 80 people. Mr. O'Brien said the wording in the MOU puts responsibility to raise the last 800,000 they need on the County. He does not feel that is right. He thinks they should share that responsibility. Commissioner Luke asked if they have done the three other items. Mr. O'Brien said the capitol fundraising plan is on hold but they will do a pre evaluation. Mr. Nagler said in talking about a five year plan overall, when to launch it is delicate right now but they want to be ready when the time is right. Mr. O'Brien said they raised the funding. Commissioner Baney said her concern is they are not just servicing Deschutes County. Maybe they did a disservice by purchasing the building. She said before singing the MOU's they may need to change the language of the agreement. She did not realize that 800,000 is the last 800,000. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 8, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Commissioner Unger said the Inn does a great service to the community. He said the 2.5 million is money borrowed from one fund to put into this effort. He does not see the money as lost money. They have an investment. If they do a five-year plan and concentrate on a kitchen and meeting room, he thinks that would be successful to them. Scott Johnson said some of his clients have used the Inn as housing. He said it is a wonderful community resource. Commissioner Luke said to release the funds for what it they were applied for. Commissioner Baney agreed. 2. Update on GEO Technical Report on East Redmond Property. Susan Ross introduced Chris Breemer and asked him to provide a brief overview of the report (see attached.) Mr. Breemer said he works with GEO Engineers hired by DEQ to evaluate the parcel for the magnitude of contamination. He said they came up with a preliminary assessment for cleanup for the site. He said with the old landfill and firing ranges at the site, each of areas have distinct contamination issues, which they looked at during this investigation. He said it is hard to date the debris, as it is mostly burned and melted cans and bottles. He said the Redmond airfield could be one contributing source. He showed them maps in the report and said one has dried sludge that was possible oil. He said they have acquired soil samples to do lab tests and provide data. They are looking for chemicals and if the exceed levels for humane health and then for animals. The conclusion is there is wide spread contamination at the firing ranges and some in the landfill. He said the second part is finding out how deep the contamination goes. They wanted to see if it leached into deeper soil. He said the shooting ranges are generally limited to shallow amounts where burns go deeper. He said in general, the landfill is moderate. Commissioner Luke asked if it is hazardous to people who live there. Mr. Breemer said it is not an immanent risk to health. He said screening levels are based on long-term exposure or repeated exposure to chemicals. He said no one is using the landfill area right now. He said under current land use, the exposures are limited. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 8, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Luke asked if the Redmond Gun Club was recycling lead. He asked if they saw any of that. Mr. Breemer said it has occurred but not enough to cause concern at this point. Mr. Breemer said he wanted to start out by saying the County is not under any forced timetable to deal with it. They should continue to coordinate and deal with DEQ. He said the report talks about clean up. He said that is a broad term. He said they provided a few alternatives in the report. They range from the extreme end of digging up all the contaminated soil to treating soil to a non -hazardous level. He said their costs do not include any money made from recycling because it is hard to determine how much recyclables will come out. He suggested they start with the treatability study and figure out if it is treatable before they go full bore. Commissioner Luke asked if there is a different standard depending on what type of construction is used. Mr. Breemer said all evaluation is on a risk base for the site being used for industrial/commercial use in the future. He said it seems possible a remedy could be integrated with development. Ms. Ross asked if a parking lot is an option over hazardous waste. Mr. Schimke said the liability of the waste would remain with the County forever. The idea of a concrete pad is would it be durable enough. Commissioner Luke asked if groundwater is a concern. Mr. Breemer said the groundwater is deep, around 250 feet. He said some chemicals are prone to migrate into ground water and some do not. Lead and others are less likely to go into the ground water. Mr. Schimke said in landfills the typical concern is with moisture. At this site, that is not the case. They are looking at a physical barrier of some sort. Ms. Ross said part of the remedy depends on funding. Commissioner Baney asked if it is shovel ready provided, they have the funds. Ms. Ross said yes. Mr. Schimke said they have the option of doing what level of cleanup the County wants to do. Often the landowner (County) and the purchaser agree on what to do. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 8, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Luke asked if other than the landfill are there any contaminates in the west parcel. Mr. Breemer said he did not think the area outside the landfill was a serious risk. He said other consultants did work before them. Ms. Ross said this is just information they need to know in continuing to develop the property if they get funds. Otherwise, they will deal with it at the time of a sale if that is the most economical. Mr. Breemer said the County needs to keep in touch with DEQ. 3. Discussion on Mental Health Reform Option and 30% Cuts. Mr. Johnson said they are applying for a federal grant for early childhood. He said if selected, they would work with the state to submit it. It is a five year, three million dollar grant. He did not know how many counties were applying. He said he has a conference call on mental health care reform. He said things are moving quickly and he wanted the Board to be aware of it. (See attached handout.) They are asking regions to step up and be a pilot project for their region. He said for them it would be in terms of Central Oregon. He said if interested, he would go to Salem on Friday. They have not worked with Central Oregon independent health systems very much. The advantage of moving forward is they get a chance to designing the system, as they want. Commissioner Luke asked if Crook, Jefferson, and Deschutes County's decide to work together how would that impact Deschutes County. Mr. Johnson said his view is a local health authority will be the oversight on planning, how to spend the money, etc Commissioner Baney asked if the County puts in their money are they subsidizing Crook County. She said clearly, there are concerns. It is an opportunity so she is going in open minded. Mr. Johnson said he does not see any problems as long as everyone is ok with talking more about it. He sees nothing lost by saying we are interested but have questions. Commissioner Unger said his response is the county with the most resources will subsidize the other counties. He thinks they should be fine with that. He said they could put contracts and agreement into place. Commissioner Baney said if the County is the mental health authority they need to have a very clear direction from the state on how that will look. If it does not Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 8, 2009 Page 5 of 6 work, they need to have an exit plan. Mr. Johnson said they would want to have the ability to make changes. Mr. Johnson said the main benefit is services do more in early intervention in health care. He said there is money to be saved in the long term. Commissioner Baney said some laws might need to be changed. Mr. Kanner said he is concerned that the payment system is based on outcomes. Should the pay be based on outcome rather than the personal contact? Commissioner Unger said he is supportive. Commissioner Luke said Commissioner Baney has expressed the same concerns the Board has. 4. Other Items. None discussed Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. DATED this 8th Day of April 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 6 of 6 1D41V Tammy B ney, Chair De`r nis R. Luke, Vice Chair Ufrt Alan Unger, Commissioner Wednesday, April 8, 2009 Date: April 6, 2009 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator Re: BETHLEHEM INN UPDATE The Bethlehem Inn is scheduled for the April 8`h work session to update the Board. The Inn will update the Board on their capital campaign plan and discuss the County's community grant award. In addition, we still need to finalize the MOU with the Inn. Below is discussion of the Community Grant and MOU outstanding items. Also attached is a general timeline related to the Bethlehem Inn and a discussion paper related to the need of a homeless shelter in Central Oregon (this was drafted in preparation for asking for a federal earmark, but not distributed). These are included mainly as background information for Commissioner Unger. Community Grant — Remaining $15,000 Awarded to the Bethlehem Inn The Bethlehem Inn received a $30,000 community grant from the County for case management services. The Board awarded the Inn half of the $30,000 and asked that the remaining half be awarded after the following three conditions were met: 1. MOU signed 2. The Inn raised an additional $15,000 by using the first $15,000 as "matching funds" 3. The Inn developed a capital fundraising plan MOU Outstanding Items Interest payment on the purchase price • Reasons the County should pay interest: o In the original funding scenario developed by the County, interest never discussed because the plan had the funds being repaid within the same fiscal year; o Including interest payment could jeopardize CDBG funding opportunities by structuring the funding as retiring debt versus property acquisition by the County on behalf of the Inn; o Paying interest could be the County's contribution for future grant applications. • Reasons Inn should pay interest: o Under the original funding plan there was going to be no real cost to the County; o The lost interest needs to be repaid from somewhere. Recommendation: include language in MOU that interest will be decided at a future time as to not jeopardize CDBG grant applications. What if CDBG grant application isn't successful — should MOU read County will apply for $800,000 in CDBG fund or be responsible for raising $800,000? Recommendation: County shall apply for CDBG funds. If the County is unsuccessful, County will take the lead and work with Inn on securing the funds through other grants or fundraising. Sewer hook up cost — included in outstanding balance for Inn to raise or County cover? Recommendation: further discussion. c: Dave Kanner, County Administrator Bethlehem Inn General Timeline • 1990s — a group of churches formed a loose organization to serve individuals who were homeless. • 1999 — the group formed a collaboration called the Bethlehem Inn. • October 2004 — through an agreement with the County, the Inn moved into the Sheriff's Office Work Center on a temporary basis. • July 2, 2007 — former Econo Lodge purchased by the County/City. Fundraising plan is for the County to secure $800,000 in CDBG funds and Inn to fundraise the balance. • July 15, 2007 — Bethlehem Inn moves into the Econo Lodge. • Month??? — February 2008 — failed septic system limits the number of residents until the property is hooked up to sewer. Sewer hook-up was $251,000. • December 2007 - County and Bethlehem Inn staff came before the Board and laid out a plan to raise the money to pay back the county for the purchase of the Bethlehem Inn o Housing Works was going to raise $2.5 million o County was going to raise $800,000 through CDBG, but it's learned that all the other funds have to be raised first. • April 2008 — update to BOCC with Sandra Meres, Bethlehem Inn, and Cyndy Cook, Housing Work. Cyndy reports on federal and state governments' focus on the housing first model. • July 2008 — Bethlehem Inn restructures; cuts operational costs, including not re-newing the Executive Director's contract. The Need for a Regional Shelter in Central Oregon for Housing Reintegration A white paper written by Deschutes County January 28, 2009 Request Provide $2.53 million to fund a permanent regional shelter in Central Oregon to address the growing problem of homelessness and begin taking action in support of the Housing First model. Background and Problem Statement In Central Oregon, 1,736 people were recently documented as homeless, including 752 (or 43%) children. These figures are based on the Homeless Leadership Coalition's annual point -in -time homeless count which was conducted on January 31, 2008. The number is expected to be significantly higher in 2009 as a result of the recent downturn in the economy. Central Oregon lacks a permanent emergency shelter for people who are temporarily homeless, but have the potential to be reintegrated into permanent housing. Although federal and state housing funds focus on permanent housing and services, Central Oregon is in most critical need of a permanent emergency shelter that can serve as the entry point to achieving sustainable housing. Bethlehem Inn History Recognizing the need for a regional shelter, a group of churches formed a loose organization in the 1990s to serve individuals who were homeless. Services offered by the group included preparing meals and sheltering people in various church buildings on a rotating basis throughout the winter months. In 1999, this group formed a collaboration called the Bethlehem Inn. Since that time, the Bethlehem Inn has evolved into a registered non-profit agency dedicated to serving homeless families, single adults, the elderly, veterans, and pregnant women. After several years of operating in a transitory environment, the Bethlehem Inn was offered space at the Deschutes County Sheriff's public safety campus to operate a shelter. This arrangement was considered a temporary measure which would last only until the County secured funding to operate a work center on the site. Once that funding was secured, the Bethlehem Inn, City of Bend, and Deschutes County agreed to work together to secure another facility rather than return to the practice of sheltering people in churches. On July 2, 2007, the City of Bend and Deschutes County purchased a former Econolodge located at the north of the city of Bend for $2.5 million and spent an additional $251,000 to connect the property to sewer. The purchase was made with the intention of transforming the building into a regional homeless reintegration center that would be operated by the Bethlehem Inn. The location is particularly suitable for a homeless shelter as the zoning designation allows the use outright and the site is within close proximity to public transportation, potential job opportunities, shopping, and other services. The purchase required a down payment of $250,000, which was made with $220,000 in City of Bend Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and $30,000 in Deschutes County economic development grant funds. These funds were considered a public contribution to the project and are not to be paid back unless the property is used for a purpose other than a shelter. The remaining funds to purchase the property and pay for the sewer connection were provided by the County in the form of a $2.5 million loan (the request of $2.53 million includes interest payments). The plan to pay back the loan relies on securing funding from the following sources: a CDBG public facilities grant (up to $800,000), state and federal housing funds, foundations, private donors, and fundraising. The Housing First Model To address the issue of homelessness, the federal government and the State of Oregon have adopted a strategy of "Housing First." This model is a key component of the "10 Year Plan to End Homelessness" and represents a change from the "continuum of care" practice that moves individuals through different levels of housing types, such as from the streets to a public shelter, then to a transitional housing program, and ultimately into their own apartment. While Deschutes County endorses both the 10 -Year Plan and the Housing First concept, its leaders and homeless advocates also recognize that there is an immediate need for a permanent emergency shelter to serve as a critical first step in reintegrating people into more stable, long-term housing. State and Federal Housing Funds State and federal funds currently available to address the problem of homelessness include the following: • Emergency Shelter Grant Program - federal funds that pass through Oregon Housing and Community Services to increase bed capacity of emergency shelters and to support homeless prevention activities. • HUD Continuum of Care - funds used mostly for permanent housing and support services, not emergency shelter activities. • Emergency Housing Account - state funds passed through the local community action agency to assist persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. • Housing PLUS program - Oregon Housing and Community Services program for permanent housing. This program received $16 million in new funding in 2008. Although each of these programs provides important infrastructure and/or services to the homeless population, they do not include funds for basic and necessary shelter needed within Central Oregon. Recommendation Emergency shelters offer a critical first step necessary before a person can successfully move into permanent housing. Central Oregon must have access to a permanent regional shelter to address the growing problem of homelessness and begin taking action in support of the Housing First model. The current Bethlehem Inn operation could fulfill this need, but funds must be obtained to repay the outstanding loan and ensure operational stability and long-term sustainability. Property & Facilities Department Susan C. Ross, Director 14 NW Kearney Street, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6594 • Fax: (541) 317-3168 www.co.deschutes.or.us April 7, 2009 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Susan Ross, Property & Facilities Director RE: Staff Report for April 8, 2009, Property Management Update Staff will update the Board on the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment - Cleanup Alternatives - Deschutes County Shooting Range, Redmond. Three studies have been commissioned within the last year which assess the environmental condition of approximately 215 acres of county -owned property on the north side of Highway 126 north of Roberts Field. Two Phase I reports (one dealing with the landfill and a separate one for the shooting ranges) were produced last year and document the historical use and possible environmental contamination of the former landfill and the shooting ranges. Through a program funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality contracted for a Phase II Environmental Assessment of the property. The purpose of the Phase II report is to assess the extent of contamination by testing the soil. The report, which we recently received, identifies cleanup alternatives. A representative of GeoEngineers will be at the work session to answer questions about the report. I have attached a portion of the Phase II report for your review prior to the meeting. I have not included all the exhibits, but please let me know if there are any in particular you would like to receive. Quality Services Performed with Pride Targeted Brownfield Assessment Report and Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives Deschutes County Shooting Range Redmond, Oregon File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Prepared for: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Eastern Regional Office 300 SE Reed Market Road Bend, Oregon 97702 Attention: Mr. David Anderson Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 15055 SW Sequoia Parkway, Suite 140 Portland, Oregon 97224 (503) 624-9274 Chris W. Breemer, R.G. Task Order Manager ohn Biggane, Program Manager CWB:JHB:gaw P:\2\2787045100\Finals\TBA1278704500R TBA.doc c. Steve Campbell, DEQ Headquarters Disclaimer: Any electmnie form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. File No. 2787-045-00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GeoEngineers conducted a Targeted Brownfield Assessment (TBA) and Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) at the Deschutes County Shooting Range, located in Redmond, Oregon. The TBA was conducted to: 1) assess the horizontal and vertical extent of landfill debris at the site; 2) evaluate soil conditions in the landfill and shooting range areas; and 3) evaluate potential risks to human and ecological health. The ABCA was conducted to evaluate remedial alternatives for contamination at the site that will be protective of human and ecological health under current and future land use scenarios. The ABCA was conducted to evaluate remedial alternatives for contamination at the site that will be protective of human and ecological health under current and future land use scenarios. GeoEngineers conducted field investigation activities between January 21 and 23, 2009. The field investigation was undertaken following a fundamental assumption; that is, soil with visible accumulations of particulate lead (bullets and shot) or clay pigeon fragments (CPF) contains concentrations of lead in bullets and shot and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in CPF that pose unacceptable risks to human health, and possibly ecological health. Based on this assumption, the field investigation was focused on evaluating soil quality directly beneath obviously impacted areas, with the goal of evaluating the magnitude and extent of contaminant impacts to underlying soil. GeoEngineers collected 47 composite soil samples from surface (0-0.5 feet below ground surface [bgs]) and subsurface (1-1.5 feet bgs) intervals at the shooting ranges (shotgun ranges and handgun and rifle ranges) and nine discrete soil samples from the landfill area. Lead and PAHs that pose a potentially unacceptable risk to human and ecological health are widespread in surface soil and berms at the shooting ranges. It appears that contamination in soil decreases rapidly with depth, with most significant contamination absent below 0.5 feet below the floors of the shooting ranges. Significant lead and PAH contamination appears to extend though most of the thickness of impact berms at the shooting ranges. Elevated concentrations of lead, arsenic and other metals are present in buried debris at the landfill; however, it appears that landfill contaminants have not significantly affected underlying soil. Most of the landfill is buried; therefore, current risks to human and ecological health appear limited. Sludge on the ground surface near trenches at the landfill area contains concentrations of petroleum compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), and some metals that may pose an unacceptable risk to human or ecological health. The concentrations of one or more chemicals at the shooting ranges, landfill, and trench area exceed human health and/or ecological health screening criteria. Remedial actions are necessary to mitigate the risks posed by contaminants at the site. The shooting ranges are generally utilized for limited durations and most visitors are not regularly exposed to the most hazardous portions of the site; therefore, the contaminants at the site do not appear to pose an imminent risk to human health and emergency responses are not necessary. GeoEngineers identified a number of remedial alternatives that may be suitable for mitigating the risks posed by contaminants at the site. Evaluated alternatives include capping and institutional controls, treatment using pneumatic and dry separation processes, excavation and off-site disposal, and excavation, stabilization, and off-site disposal. The appropriate remedial alternative should be selected based on future development plans for the site because some of the proposed alternatives would result in significant land use constraints that may be incompatible with development plans, whereas, other alternatives would result in no land use constraints, but may be financially unfeasible. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page ES -1 GEOENGINEERSZ DESCHUTES COUNTY SHOOTING RANGE TARGETED BROWNFIELD ASSESSMENT REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES REDMOND, OREGON TASK ORDER 58-08-14 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the Targeted Brownfield Assessment (TBA) and Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) conducted by GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) at the Deschutes County Shooting Range in Redmond, Oregon (site). The site is owned by Deschutes County. The TBA was conducted to: 1) assess the horizontal and vertical extent of landfill debris at the site; 2) evaluate soil conditions in the landfill and shooting range areas; and 3) evaluate potential risks to human and ecological health. The ABCA was conducted to evaluate remedial alternatives for contamination at the site that will be protective of human and ecological health under current and future land use scenarios. GeoEngineers prepared this report on behalf of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under Task Order 58-08-14 and in general accordance with GeoEngineers' Deschutes County Shooting Range Targeted Brownfield Assessment Work Plan, dated November 26, 2008. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND SUMMARY 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site consists of a portion of Deschutes County Tax Lot 103, which is located in Section 14, Township 15 South, Range 13 East, Willamette Meridian. The site is located adjacent to and north of Oregon Highway 126. Land adjacent to the west, north, and east sides of the site is vacant. Land south of the site (across Highway 126) is occupied by Roberts Field, the City of Redmond airport. The site vicinity and site layout are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The site consists of three parts, referred to hereafter as the West Parcel, Central Parcel, and East Parcel. The parcels are separated from one another by chain link fences. The parcels are described below. 2.1.1 West Parcel The West Parcel consists of approximately 80 acres and is vacant. A landfill is present at the West Parcel, and extends onto the Central Parcel. Metal and glass are visible at the ground surface at the landfill. Scattered small dump sites and informal off-road vehicle recreation areas are also present at the West Parcel. 2.1.2 Central Parcel The Central Parcel consists of approximately 80 acres, and is occupied by a Deschutes County Sheriffs Department shooting range and a portion of the landfill described above. The shooting range consists of an approximate 12 -foot high earthen berm surrounding four shooting lanes. The shooting lanes are separated from one another by lateral berms. During training exercises, weapons are fired toward the south, where ammunition is trapped in an earthen berm. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 1 GEOENGINEERS� Two small buildings, used for storage of target supplies, are present at the south side of the shooting range. Lead shot and CPF have accumulated on the east side of the Central Parcel as a result of shooting at the adjacent (East Parcel) Redmond Rod and Gun Club (RRGC) sporting clay range (see Section 2.1.3). 2.1.3 East Parcel The East Parcel consists of approximately 60 acres. RRGC operates several shooting areas at the East Parcel, including: 1) a skeet and trap range at the south side of the parcel; 2) a sporting clay range at the west side of the parcel (including a portion of the east side of the Central Parcel); and 3) a rifle/handgun range at the northeast corner of the parcel. Several small structures that RRGC uses for material storage and temporary shelters are present at the site. A production well used to supply potable water is present at the south side of the East Parcel. The production well is approximately 370 feet deep and uncased in the interval between 20 and 370 feet bgs, based on the well log (no. DESC 3878). The depth -to -water in the well is approximately 340 feet bgs. The skeet and trap range includes approximately six shooter lanes along the southern portion of the range and corresponding clay pigeon skeet throwers, located approximately 50 feet north of each station. Shooters fire north across the clay pigeon throw range and target drop zone. The clay pigeon throw zone extends outward about 150 feet north of the throwers. The main lead drop zone extends approximately 500 feet north of the shooting lanes and is approximately 750 feet wide (in an east -west direction). The sporting clay range is as much as 900 feet wide in a north -south direction and 850 feet wide in a west -east direction. A network of clay pigeon throwers are scattered throughout the sporting clay range. Shooters fire in multiple directions in the sporting clay range, with shooting direction governed by the variable arc of the thrown clay pigeons. Heavy accumulation of lead shot and CPF is present throughout the sporting clay range. Some lead shot and CPF, associated with the sporting clay range, has accumulated on the west side of the fence that separates the Central and East Parcels. The active rifle/handgun range at the East Parcel includes two shooting areas, oriented in a north -south direction, with lateral berms on the sides of the shooting areas and dividing the shooting areas. Shooters fire rifles and handguns in a northerly direction. A primary impact berm at the north end of the rifle/handgun range captures bullets. RRGC operated a second handgun and rifle range near the southeast corner of the parcel until approximately 2007; however, RRGC was forced to shut down the southeast handgun and rifle range because the U.S. Transportation Security Administration determined that the shooting range was too close to the aircraft approach area for Roberts Field. Much of the abandoned rifle/handgun range is outside of the current site boundaries and is not included in the scope of this TBA. A soil stockpile area is located near the southeast corner of the East Parcel. The soil contains lead shot, bullets and CPF. The source of the stockpiled soil is unclear; but it appears that the stockpile may consist, in part, of soil removed from berms that surrounded the abandoned rifle/handgun range at the southeast corner of the East Parcel. 2.2 SITE OPERATIONS HISTORY The following paragraphs describe historic land uses at the site that are pertinent for understanding potential sources of environmental contamination. The following discussion is based on information obtained by GeoEngineers during the October 21, 2008 site visit and information presented in the following reports: File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 2 GEOENGINEERS_G • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Deschutes County Leased Property, Approximately 140 Acres, East Highway 126, Redmond, Oregon, prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc., July 3, 2008. • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, For A Portion of Tax Lot 103, Located in Section 14 of T. 15S., R.13E., W.M, Redmond, Oregon, 97756, prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc., July 16, 2008. 2.2.1 West Parcel The West Parcel is unfenced and was never developed as part of the shooting range. A landfill occupies portions of the east side of the West Parcel. The landfill extends onto the Central Parcel. The maximum measured thickness of the landfill is approximately 14 feet. The approximate lateral boundaries are shown in Figure 2. The history and source of debris in the landfill are unclear. The landfill material primarily consists of metal and glass debris; however, some small empty containers used for storing products such as gasoline, oil, and petroleum-based lubricants are also scattered in the landfill debris. It appears that the debris has been extensively burned. It is possible that the other debris was deposited in the landfill in the past but was subsequently burned. 2.2.2 Central Parcel The Central Parcel has been used as a weapons (handgun, rifle, and shotgun) training range by the Redmond Police Department and the Deschutes County Sheriff's Department since the 1970s. Shooting occurs in a bermed area at the south-central portion of the parcel, as shown in Figure 2. Training ammunition was primarily lead-based until approximately 2007. The Sheriff's Department currently trains with copper matrix (lead free) ammunition. Spent ammunition at the shooting range has never been reclaimed according to the Sheriff's Department. The Landfill described in Section 2.2.1 occupies a portion of the Central Parcel. The landfill debris appears consistent between the parcels. Several shallow trenches have been excavated in soil northeast of the landfill on the Central Parcel. The historical purpose(s) of the trenches are unclear. A thin layer (2 to 3 -inches thick) of dark material that appears to be dried sludge is visible at the ground surface in the vicinity of the shallow trenches but is not visible within the trenches. 2.2.3 East Parcel The East Parcel has been used as a shooting range by RRGC since approximately 1956; although very little excavation or construction occurred at the East Parcel until approximately 1968. RRGC uses the site for trap and skeet shooting and handgun and rifle practice. Shooting occurs at: 1) a trap/skeet range; 2) a sporting clay range, and 3) rifle/handgun range. The RRGC mines lead shot from accumulation areas at the trap/skeet range approximately every 5 years. Lead shot and bullets elsewhere at the site have not been reclaimed. Facilities at the East Parcel are shown in Figure 2. Abundant lead shot and CPF are visible on the ground surface at the trap/skeet range and the sporting clay range. CPF and lead shot from the sporting clay range has also accumulated on the west side of the fence that separates the central and East Parcels. Abundant bullets and bullet fragments, and lesser quantities of CPF and lead shot, are visible on the primary impact berms, lateral berms, and floors of the rifle/handgun ranges. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 3 GEOENGINEERS RRGC operated a second rifle/handgun range at the southeast corner of the East Parcel until approximately 2007, when they were forced to abandon the range due to potential conflicts with an aircraft approach path for the adjacent Roberts Field airport. RRGC removed the primary impact and lateral berms and moved the berm soil to a replacement rifle/handgun range that they constructed at the northeast portion of the East Parcel. A soil stockpile remains in the vicinity of the former rifle/handgun range. The source of the soil in the stockpile is unclear; however, it is possible that the soil is residuum from the excavated berms or other areas of the abandoned rifle/handgun range. Lead shot, bullets, and some CPF are visible in the stockpiled soil. 3.0 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The objectives of the TBA and ABCA were to: 1) assess the horizontal and vertical extent of landfill debris at the site; 2) evaluate soil conditions in the landfill and shooting range areas; 3) evaluate potential risks to human health and the environment; and 4) identify remedial alternatives that will be protective of human and ecological health under current and future land use scenarios. 3.1 SCOPE OF SERVICES Our services were completed in general accordance with the November 26, 2008 Targeted Brownfield Assessment Work Plan (Work Plan) and the Budget and Assumptions Proposal, dated January 9, 2009. The completed scope of services for the TBA included: • Evaluating potential impacts of TBA field activities on threatened and endangered species based on a review of information obtained from the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC). • Completing site preparatory activities including a standard one -call underground utility locate prior to beginning field activities. • Collecting surface and near -surface soil samples from shooting ranges. • Evaluating the horizontal and vertical extent of landfill debris at the site, based on surface observations, test pit explorations, and soil samples. • Field screening of select soil samples for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and associated constituents. • Surveying the horizontal locations of all sampling locations using a sub -meter grade global positioning system (GPS) instrument. • Submitting soil and water samples to an accredited laboratory for chemical analysis of contaminants of interest (COI). • Completing Beneficial Land and Water Use (BLWU) Determinations. • Preparing a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) that takes into account likely development plans for the site. • Preparing this report, which includes a summary of the results of field activities, an interpretation of the magnitude and extent of contamination, a comparison of detected chemical concentrations to applicable human and ecological risk -screening criteria, and an analysis of Brownfield cleanup alternatives (ABCA). The ABCA was developed in consultation with DEQ and representatives of Deschutes County. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 4 GEOENGINEERS 4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION PROGRAM GeoEngineers conducted field investigation activities between January 21 and 23, 2009 at the following areas: • Shotgun Ranges. • Rifle/Handgun Ranges. • Landfill Area. The field investigation was undertaken following a fundamental assumption; that is, soil with visible accumulations of particulate lead (bullets and shot) or CPF contains concentrations of lead in bullets and shot and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in CPF that pose unacceptable risks to human health, and possibly ecological health. Based on this assumption, the field investigation was focused on evaluating soil quality directly beneath obviously impacted areas, with the goal of evaluating the magnitude and extent of contaminant impacts to underlying soil. GeoEngineers collected 47 composite soil samples from surface (0-0.5 feet bgs) and subsurface (1-1.5 feet bgs) intervals at the shooting ranges (shotgun ranges and handgun and rifle ranges) and nine discrete soil samples from the landfill area. Figure 2 shows the locations of the soil sampling. Details of the field exploration program, including soil sampling procedures and logs for the test pits are presented in Appendix A. Field screening was performed on soil samples obtained from the test pits. Field screening results are presented in the exploration logs. A description of the field screening methods is included in Appendix A. Laboratory reports are presented in Appendix B. 4.1 SHOOTING RANGES GeoEngineers assessed soil quality at the shotgun ranges and the rifle/handgun ranges at the Central Parcel and the East Parcel. GeoEngineers specific sampling approach for each type of shooting range is described below. 4.1.1 Shotgun Ranges Two shotgun ranges (sporting clay and skeet/trap) are present at the East Parcel. Lead shot and CPF are widespread at or near the ground surface at the shotgun ranges. GeoEngineers evaluated soil quality in the shotgun ranges by collecting 15 3 -point composite soil samples, including one field duplicate sample (total of 45 discrete samples) and submitting the samples for chemical analysis. At each shotgun range, soil samples were collected from firing areas, the CPF accumulation zones, and the overshot zone using the following approach: • GeoEngineers identified three discrete points at each location. The surface soil in each area was described in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, including a general description of the types and amount of visible shot or other ammunition and CPF. The samples were collected within an approximate 5 -foot radius. • GeoEngineers scraped away the upper 1 to 3 inches of soil and collected a sample from the underlying soil. If lead shot or CPF was visible in the proposed sample interval, GeoEngineers increased the sample depth by 3 inches to a maximum depth of approximately 1 foot bgs. • Approximately equal weights of soil from the three distinct locations were mixed in a plastic mixing container. The mixed soil was shaken through a number 10 (0.0787 inch) sieve to remove File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 5 GEOENGINEERS_G lead shot, bullets, and large bullet fragments. The material that passed the sieve was weighed and placed in a laboratory -supplied sample container. 4.1.2 Handgun and Rifle Ranges A rifle/handgun range is present at the Central Parcel and two rifle/handgun ranges (one active and one inactive) are present at the East Parce 1. GeoEngineers evaluated soil quality at the rifle/handgun ranges by collecting 32 3 -point composite soil samples (including three field duplicates) from 18 locations and submitting the samples for chemical analysis. Samples were collected from the primary impact berms (six 3 -point composite surface samples and five 3 -point composite subsurface samples), lateral berms (five 3 -point composite surface samples and five 3 -point composite subsurface samples), floors of the shooting ranges (nine 3 -point composite samples), and stockpiled soil at the former rifle/handgun range (two 3 -point composite samples). GeoEngineers collected samples at the rifle/handgun ranges using the following approach: • GeoEngineers identified three distinct points at each sample location to collect samples. The samples were collected within an approximate 5 -foot radius. • The soil type in each area was described in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, including a general description of the types and amount of visible shot; bullets, bullet fragments, and CPF in soil. • At berms and stockpiles, GeoEngineers collected samples from the surface (0 — 0.5 feet) and subsurface (1-1.5 feet) intervals. • At shooting range floors, GeoEngineers scraped away the upper 1 to 3 inches of soil and collected a sample from the underlying soil. If lead shot, bullets, or CPF was visible in the proposed sample interval, GeoEngineers increased the sample depth by 3 inches, to a maximum depth of approximately 0.5 foot bgs. • For each composite soil sample, approximately equal weights of soil from the three sample portions (segregated by surface/subsurface interval) were mixed in a plastic mixing container. The mixed soil was weighed and then sieved through a number 10 (0.0787 inch) sieve to remove lead shot, bullets, and large bullet fragments. The material that passed through the sieve was weighed and placed in a laboratory -supplied sample container. 4.2 LANDFILL AREA GeoEngineers completed eight test pit explorations in the landfill area. Six of the test pits (A-1 through A-6) were completed in areas with visible debris and two of the test pits (B-1 and B-2) were completed near the shallow trenches at the landfill area. GeoEngineers collected samples at the landfill area using the following approach: • A subcontractor advanced test pits using a track -hoe excavator to depths ranging between 1.5 and 14 feet bgs in the landfill area and 2 and 7 feet bgs in the trench area. The depths of the test pits were constrained by basalt bedrock. • Observed and documented the buried debris in each test pit. Prepared field logs for each test pit in accordance with ASTM D 2488-90, documented sample collection depths, and recorded subsurface conditions with digital photographs. • Collected one to two soil samples from each test pit at depths ranging between 0 and 14 feet bgs. • Monitored for suspect asbestos containing materials (ACM) in landfill debris. Fife No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 6 GEOENGINEER51;. • Backfilled each test pit in the order it was excavated (last out- first in), and compacted the material to the extent practicable with the track -hoe bucket. 5.0 LANDFILL, SOIL, AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS The following sections summarize conditions encountered during the TBA field investigation. 5.1 LANDFILL CONDITIONS Landfill debris, between 2 and 14 feet thick, is present at portions of the West and Central Parcels. Observed landfill debris included of glass, tires, scrap metal, and cans. No significant quantities of organic debris were observed in the landfill. The landfill appears to occupy an area of approximately 321,200 square feet, as shown in Figure 2. Several shallow trenches (approximately 2 to 7.5 feet deep), oriented in a north -south direction are present north of the landfill. Soil in the trenches consists of light brown loose sandy silt and gravel. A 2 - to 3 -inch layer of dark brown dry sludge, is present on the ground surface adjacent to some of the trenches; however, it appears that the sludge is not present within the trenches. The sludge is discontinuous in an area of approximately 10,000 square feet. 5.2 SOIL CONDITIONS Soil at the site consists of loose light brown silty sand. Berms at the shooting ranges appear to consist of native soil scraped from nearby areas of the site. Outcrops of basalt bedrock are visible in portions of the site. In the landfill area, bedrock was encountered between approximately 2 and 14 feet bgs, with depth to bedrock greatest at the south side of the Landfill. 5.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater was not encountered during field investigative activities. 6.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND CHEMICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS The following section summarizes the chemical analytical data for samples collected during the TBA. Soil chemical analytical data are summarized in Tables 1 through 6. Sample locations are shown in Figure 2. Laboratory analytical reports and GeoEngineers' review of the data quality are included in Appendix B. 6.1 SOIL CHEMICAL DATA Fifty-six soil samples (including three field duplicates) were submitted to TestAmerica, Inc. (TA) for one or more of the following analyses: gasoline -range petroleum hydrocarbons by Method NWTPH-Gx; diesel- and oil -range petroleum hydrocarbons by Method NWTPH-Dx (with silica gel cleanup); VOCs by EPA Method 8260B, PCBs by EPA 8082, PAHs by EPA 8270 -SIM, semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270C, and Target Analyte List (TAL) metals' and tin by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 6000/7000 series. A summary of field observations at each soil sample location is presented in Table 1. Chemical analytical data for soil are presented in Tables 2 through 6. A summary of chemical analytical data for soil is presented below. ' TAL metals include: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 7 GEOENGINEERS 6.1.1 Rifle and Handgun Ranges 6.1.1.1 Sheriff's Shooting Range Shotgun casings, bullet fragments, and bullets are widespread on the ground surface and in impact berms at the Sheriff's Shooting Range. Small quantities of CPF and lead shot are also present at the Sheriff's Shooting Range. The approximate lateral extent of spent ammunition and CPF at the Sheriff's Shooting Range and other shooting ranges are shown in Figure 2. GeoEngineers collected soil samples at the Sheriff's Shooting Range in accordance with the protocol described in Section 4.1.2, with one exception. Two soil samples were collected at location C-8. Sample, C-8(Surface) consisted of sieved soil that was collected from the floor of the Sheriff's shooting range without scraping away the surface soil that contained visible spent ammunition. Sample C-8 (0-0.5) was collected from the same location, after 3 inches of surface soil were scraped away. The stacked samples provide data useful for understanding the vertical distribution of contaminants in soil at the site. Numerous metals were detected in all of the samples submitted for analysis and one or more PAHs were detected in 13 (including three duplicates) of the 16 soil samples submitted for chemical analysis. The highest concentrations of metals and PAHs at the Sheriff s Shooting Range were generally detected in soil samples collected from the impact berms. Lead, a primary contaminant of interest, was detected at concentrations as high as 21,600 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and PAHs were detected at concentrations as high as 0.308 mg/kg (benzo(a)pyrene-equivalent)2. Soil samples collected from the floor of the Sheriff's Shooting Range (below soil containing visible ammunition or CPF) contained concentrations of lead and total PAHs as high as 595 mg/kg and 0.045 mg/kg, respectively. The highest concentrations of lead in soil at the floor of the Sheriff's Shooting Range were approximately 36 times lower than the concentrations detected in the impact berms. The highest concentrations of total PAHs in soil at the floor of the Sheriff's Shooting Range were approximately 6 times lower than the concentrations detected in the impact berms. The sample collected at the ground surface at location C-8 contained lead and total PAHs at concentrations of 83.8 mg/kg and 37.6 mg/kg, respectively. The underlying sample, collected approximately 3 inches bgs, contained lead and total PAHs at concentrations of 194 mg/kg and 0.045 mg/kg, respectively. The concentration of lead increased between the surface and the subsurface, indicating that in some areas, the highest lead concentrations may be present bgs. The concentration of PAHs in surface soil at location C-8 is approximately 60 times higher than the concentration detected in the sample collected 3 inches bgs. 6.1.1.2 RRGC Rifle and Handgun Ranges Shotgun casings, bullet fragments, and bullets are widespread on the ground surface and in berms at the RRGC rifle/handgun Range. CPF are occasionally visible on the ground surface or in berms. The approximate lateral extent of spent ammunition and CPF at the RRGC rifle/handgun Range and other shooting ranges are shown in Figure 2. Numerous metals were detected in all of the samples submitted for analysis and one or more PAHs were detected in 11 (including two duplicates) of the 16 soil samples submitted for chemical analysis. The highest concentrations of metals and PAHs were generally detected in soil samples collected from the 2 Total PAH concentrations were calculated as a benzo(a)pyrene-equivalent concentration in accordance with guidance provided by World Health Organization (2005) in Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin -like Compounds. File No. 2787-095-00 March 5, 2009 Page 8 GEOENGINEERSQ impact berms. Lead was detected at concentrations as high as 5,620 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and PAHs were detected at concentrations as high as 4.9 mg/kg (benzo(a)pyrene-equivalent). The highest concentration of lead (22.6 mg/kg in sample E-12[0-0.5]) in soil at the floor of the active RRGC rifle/handgun Range was approximately 250 times lower than the maximum concentration detected in the impact berms (5,620- mg/kg in sample E-9 [0-0.5]). The highest concentration of total PAHs (0.045 mg/kg in sample C-8[0-0.5]) in soil at the floor of the RRGC rifle/handgun Range (excluding un -scraped sample C-8 [0-0.5]) were approximately 117 times lower than the maximum concentration detected in the impact berms (4.91 mg/kg in sample E -6[0-0.5D. Relatively low to moderate concentrations of lead (maximum 410 mg/kg) and PAHs (maximum 0.072 mg/kg) were detected in samples collected from the former RRGC rifle/handgun Range and associated stockpiles (sample locations E-1, E-2, and E-3). 6.1.2 Shotgun Ranges Lead shot and CPF are widespread on the ground surface at most of the RRGC shotgun ranges. Sample results for the RRGC Sporting Clay Range and Skeet Range are presented below. 6.1.2.1 RRGC Sporting Clay Range Numerous metals were detected in all of the samples submitted for analysis and one or more PAHs were detected in six of the seven soil samples submitted for chemical analysis. The highest concentrations of lead and PAHs detected at the RRGC sporting clay range were in soil at the far western portion of the range, at the Central Parcel (sample D-2 [0-0.5]), and at the northeast portion of the range (sample D-9 [0- 0.5]), at the East Parcel. Lead was detected at concentrations as high as 69.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and PAHs were detected at concentrations as high as 2.975 mg/kg. 6.1.2.2 RRGC Skeet Range Lead shot is abundant at sample locations in the shot drop recovery area (samples D-13[0-0.5] and D- 14[0-0.5]). CPF is abundant at the central and southern portions of the RRGC skeet range (samples D-10 [0-0.5] through D-17 [0-0.5]). PAHs were detected at concentrations as high as 43.99 mg/kg (sample D- 12 [0-0.5]) and lead was detected at concentrations as high as 131 mg/kg in samples collected at the skeet range. 6.1.3 Landfill Area A wide range of scrap metal, plastics, rubber, glass, and other miscellaneous debris were encountered in test pits in the landfill area. Numerous metals were detected in the landfill samples. All of the landfill samples, with the exception of sample A-3(5.5-6) were collected from soil beneath the landfill. Sample A-3(5.5-6) was collected from burned debris in the landfill. The concentrations of arsenic (13.9 mg/kg), calcium (33,700 mg/kg), copper (334 mg/kg), iron (78,400), lead (1,600 mg/kg), manganese (702 mg/kg), mercury (0.249 mg/kg), nickel (65.1 mg/kg), potassium (3,010 mg/kg), sodium (1,310 mg/kg) and zinc.(3,260 mg/kg) in the burned debris sample A-3(5.5-6) were relatively high, relative to concentrations detected elsewhere in soil beneath the landfill and at the site as a whole. Another sample (A-3[13.5-14]) collected below sample A-3 (5.5-6), in the interval between 13.5 and 14 feet bgs, exhibited significantly lower concentrations of all the analytes detected in the shallower sample, indicating that leachate from the landfill debris is not significantly affecting deeper soil. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 9 GEOENGINEERS Low concentrations of diesel- and oil -range hydrocarbons (14.8 and 52.5 mg/kg, respectively) and PCBs (0.123 mg/kg) were detected in one landfill sample (A-2 [0-0.5]) and a low concentration of toluene (0.00229 mg/kg) was detected in one landfill sample A-3 (13.5-14). Low concentrations of tetrachloroethene (PCE — 0.0194 and 0.0124 mg/kg) were detected in landfill samples A-3 (5.5-6) and A- 3 (13.5-14), respectively. Low concentrations of PAHs (0.025 to 0.036 mg/kg) were detected in two of the seven landfill samples submitted for chemical analysis. Sample A-2 (0.5-1) exhibited the highest concentration of PAHs detected in landfill samples and was submitted for follow-up analysis of SVOCs. No SVOCs were detected in the sample. Samples collected from the sludge at the trench area exhibited elevated concentrations of diesel- and oil - range hydrocarbons (10,300 and 12,100 mg/kg, respectively), PAHs (5.44 mg/kg), PCBs (1.98 mg/kg), and some metals (including barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead). The sample analytical data suggest that the sludge is contaminated by a mixture of used oil and diesel. 6.2 EVALUATION OF NATURALLY -OCCURRING CONCENTRATIONS OF METALS AT THE SITE Many metals naturally occur in soil. GeoEngineers reviewed the metals data obtained during the TBA to evaluate naturally -occurring metals concentrations at the site. It is important to determine what metals concentrations are naturally occurring because it is not necessary to assess risks or remediate soil with metal concentrations less than or equal to naturally -occurring levels. 6.2.1 Oregon Default Background Concentrations DEQ (2002) has established default background concentrations for some metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc) in Oregon. A summary of default background concentrations is presented in Table 5. Metal concentrations less than or equal to the default background levels are considered naturally -occurring. 6.2.2 Site -Specific Background Concentrations DEQ has not established default background concentrations for the following metals that were detected in one or more samples during the TBA: aluminum, antimony, barium, beryllium, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, thallium, tin, and vanadium. GeoEngineers reviewed the range of metals concentrations detected at the site during the TBA to assess whether the metals detected in soil samples are naturally -occurring. Table 7 presents a summary of metals data for soil. The concentrations of aluminum, beryllium, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium, and zinc in site soil appear generally consistent across the site, excluding samples that consist of landfill debris (sample A-3[5.5-6]) or sludge (samples B-1 [0]) and B-2 [0]). The relatively consistent concentrations of these metals in soil site -wide, at areas used for different historical purposes, suggests that these metal concentrations are naturally occurring. The following metals were detected in soil, sludge, or landfill debris at concentrations above either an Oregon default background concentration or above apparent natural background concentrations and are included in the risk screening evaluation (Section 9.0): antimony, arsenic, barium, calcium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, tin, vanadium, and zinc. 7.0 BENEFICIAL LAND AND WATER USE DETERMINATION GeoEngineers completed beneficial land and water use determinations to evaluate current and reasonably likely future land and water uses at the site. Beneficial land and water use determinations are necessary to File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 10 GEOENGINEERSI3 identify human and ecological receptors that could be exposed to contaminants at a site. GeoEngineers completed the beneficial use determinations through a combination of telephone surveys and internet database searches. Documentation supporting the beneficial land and water use determinations is included in Appendix C. 7.1 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION AND LOCALITY OF FACILITY DETERMINATION The locality of facility (LOF) is defined by DEQ as, "Any point where a human or ecological receptor contacts or is reasonably likely to come into contact with facility -related hazardous substances". An LOF is defined based on factors such as existing site conditions, regional and local hydrogeology, and the likelihood of contaminants migrating over time. The LOF consists of impact berms and shallow soil (approximately 0 to 0.5 feet bgs) at the shooting ranges that contain CPF, bullets, shotgun pellets, and associated contaminants. The shooting ranges were reportedly constructed in accordance with industry guidance; therefore, it is unlikely that significant accumulations of bullets, lead shot, and CPF are present outside of the boundaries of the shooting ranges. The LOF at the landfill area consists of soil within the horizontal limits of the landfill and between the surface and the base of the landfill (approximately 2 to 14 feet bgs). Groundwater is not included in the LOF because the risk to groundwater from contaminants at the site appears minimal. The groundwater risks are minimal because: 1) groundwater is present at depths greater than 300 feet bgs, based on the well log for the on-site production well; 2) the detected concentrations of relatively mobile organic contaminants in the landfill (i.e. PCE and toluene) are less than DEQ the default risk-based concentrations (RBCs) for leaching to groundwater; 3) metals and PAHs, the primary contaminants of interest at the site, are relatively immobile in the subsurface; and 4) soil samples collected from the floor of shooting ranges and beneath the landfill at the site typically contain concentrations of contaminants that are significantly lower than samples collected at the ground surface (e.g. stacked samples at location C-8) and in berms, indicating that significant leaching of lead and PAHs is not occurring. 7.2 BENEFICIAL LAND USE DETERMINATION The determination of current and reasonably likely future land use was completed in general accordance with Consideration of Land Use in Environmental Remedial Actions (DEQ, 1998). This determination was completed by reviewing City zoning information. Supporting information for the beneficial land use survey is presented in Appendix C. 7.2.1 Historical Land Use Portions of the site have never been developed. Portions of the West and Central Parcels have been historically used as a landfill. Portions of the Central and East Parcels have historically been utilized as shooting ranges. A more detailed description of the site history was presented in Section 2.2. 7.2.2 Current Land Use The West Parcel is vacant, with the exception of the landfill which occupies a small portion of the parcel. The Central Parcel is partially occupied by the landfill. The shooting range operated by the Deschutes County Sheriff's Department occupies the southern half of the Central Parcel. Several shooting ranges, operated by RRGC are present at the East Parcel. Figure 2 shows property uses near the subject site. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 11 GEOENGINEERS_O. 7.2.3 Future Land Use The 2007 City of Redmond Eastside Framework Plan indicates that the site is zoned Light Industrial (M- 1). Properties zoned M-1 are intended for, but not limited to, restaurants and bars, kennels, industrial, and commercial uses. Conditionally allowed uses in M-1 areas include child care centers, homeless shelters, schools, churches, and motels. Ms. Theresa Rozic, Deschutes County Property Specialist, stated that Deschutes County intends that the site be developed for light industrial and/or commercial uses. 7.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Review GeoEngineers assessed whether threatened and endangered or sensitive (T&E) species are present at the site during preparation of the Work Plan by reviewing an ORNHIC T&E species database report. ORNHIC did not indicate that any threatened and endangered species are likely to be present at the site. 7.2.5 Beneficial Land Use Determination The current and expected future land uses within the LOF are light industrial and/or commercial. T&E species are not likely present at the site. 7.3 BENEFICIAL WATER USE DETERMINATION Data collected during the TBA indicate that the LOF does not include groundwater. Nonetheless, to further assess potential risks at the site, GeoEngineers completed a beneficial water use determination. GeoEngineers completed the beneficial water use determination in general accordance with Guidance for Conducting Beneficial Water Use Determinations at Environmental Cleanup Sites (DEQ, 1998). The determination was based on review of water well logs and water rights information on file with the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD); information provided by the City of Redmond's Public Works Department -Water Division; and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife wetland map. Supporting information for the beneficial water use survey is presented in Appendix C. 7.3.1 Groundwater 7.3.1.1 WRD Well Log Review GeoEngineers reviewed well logs filed with the OWRD for the area within approximately %2 -mile of the site. The review included portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23 of Township 15 South, Range 13 East, Willamette Meridian. Three well logs (no. DESC 3878, DESC 3953 and DESC 3954) were identified in the search area. Well log DESC 3878 apparently described the on-site production well. The other wells logs (DESC 3953 and DESC 3954) are for wells located outside of the LOF. 7.3.1.2 Groundwater Rights The OWRD database reports that no groundwater points of diversion are present within 1 mile of the site. A figure showing the nearest groundwater points of diversion to the site is included in Appendix C. 7.3.2 Surface Water The nearest surface water to the site is an irrigation canal, the North Unit Main Canal, which is located approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the site. A wetland area is associated with this canal. A figure showing the nearest surface water features to the site is included in Appendix C. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 12 GEOENGINEER 7.3.3 Site Water Source An on-site production well provides water to the site; however, we understand that the City of Redmond intends to provide municipal water to the site in the future. The City of Redmond's primary source of water is a network of wells that are screened in a deep (-750 feet bgs) aquifer. The municipal wells are located outside of the estimated LOF. 7.3.4 Wetland Search The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Online Mapper indicates that the closest wetland to the site is a riverine wetland, associated with the North Unit Main Canal, that is located approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the site. A figure showing the location of the wetland area is included in Appendix C. 7.4 BENEFICIAL WATER USE DETERMINATION The findings of the beneficial water use survey are presented below: • An on-site production well provides drinking water for the site. • Municipal water will likely be available at the site in the future. • There is no surface water at the site. • No groundwater or surface water points of diversion were identified within approximately 3,000 feet of the site. • Wetlands are not present at the site. The threat to groundwater at the site is minimal. In the unlikely event that groundwater is impacted by site -derived contaminants in the future, human exposure is unlikely because municipal water will likely be supplied to the site. 8.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL The following CSM was developed based on the beneficial land and water use determination presented in Section 7.0. 8.1 PHYSICAL SETTING The site is located at an elevation of approximately 3,060 feet and is characterized by undulating topography. The site is in the semi -arid High Lava Plains Physiographic Province of Central Oregon. Vegetation at the site consists of bitter brush, rabbit brush, sage brush, and western juniper. Soil at the site generally consists of silty sand. Basalt bedrock is shallow and outcrops of bedrock are visible at a number of locations. Groundwater and/or wet soil were not encountered during field activities between January 21 and 23, 2009. Groundwater is present more than 300 feet bgs, according to well logs maintained by the OWRD. The U.S. Geological Survey (2002) reports that groundwater beneath the site flows toward the northwest. 8.2 PRIMARY SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION Sources of contamination at the site include: 1) chemicals released to the environment due to unregulated dumping of waste in the landfill area; and 2) bullets, lead shot, and CPF at shooting range operations. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 13 GEOENGINEERS13 8.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION AND LOCALITY OF FACILITY Contamination at the shooting ranges is widespread and encompasses shot drop areas and recovery areas, shotgun shooting areas, and rifle/handgun ranges. Significant contamination at the shooting ranges appears to be limited to impact berms (lateral and terminal) and the upper 3 to 6 inches of soil on the floors of the shooting ranges. It appears that significant concentrations of metals and PAHs have not migrated more than 3 to 6 inches bgs. Landfill debris is contaminated with metals and low concentrations of organic chemicals. It appears that significant concentrations of chemicals are not widespread in the landfill debris and have not migrated to underlying soil. Dark brown sludge on the ground surface near shallow trenches at the landfill area contains high concentrations of diesel- and oil -range hydrocarbons, PCBs, metals, and PAHs. The dark brown material is 2 to 3 inches thick. Due to the depth to groundwater (more than 300 feet) and the generally low concentrations of highly mobile contaminants in soil (excluding near surface areas), there is not a significant risk to groundwater at the site. Therefore, groundwater is not included in the LOF. 8.4 CONTAMINANTS OF INTEREST Contaminants of interest include those chemicals that were detected at concentrations exceeding naturally -occurring background conditions in soil during the TBA. The following COI have been detected at the site: 8.4.1 Shooting Range Contaminants of Interest Shooting range COI include: • Antimony • Copper • Lead • PAHs (acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluorene, fluoranthene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. 8.4.2 Landfill Contaminants of Interest Landfill COI include: • Diesel-, and heavy oil -range petroleum hydrocarbons. • Metals (arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, mercury, selenium, sodium, tin, and zinc). • VOCs (tetrachloroethene and toluene). • PAHs [benzo(a)pyrene and pyrene]. • PCBs (Aroclor 1254). File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 14 GEOENGINEERS___67 8.4.3 Trench Area Contaminants of Interest COI in sludge at the trench area include: • Diesel-, and heavy oil -range petroleum hydrocarbons. • Metals (barium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, vanadium, and zinc). • PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene and pyrene). • PCBs (Aroclor 1254). 8.5 EXPOSURE PATHWAY ANALYSIS The following sections present an evaluation of potential contaminant receptors and exposure pathways. The following elements comprise a potentially complete exposure pathway: 1) a chemical source; 2) a mechanism of chemical release to the environment; 3) an environmental transport medium; 4) an exposure point where contact between the contaminated medium and the receptor occurs; and 5) an exposure route at the exposure point. 8.5.1 Potential Human Receptors Potential receptors are those individuals that may be exposed to COI under the current and reasonably -likely future land -use scenarios. Land -use considerations are key in determining the types of human receptors likely to be exposed to site contaminants. Currently, land within the LOF is used for shooting ranges or is vacant. Future land use will likely consist of commercial/light industrial activities. Because land within the LOF is currently used for shooting ranges and future land use will likely include light industrial and commercial activities, potential risks to human health were evaluated for the following receptors: • Adults in an occupational scenario. • Adults in a construction scenario. • Adults in an excavation worker scenario. 8.5.2 Human Exposure Pathways for Contaminants in Soil Potentially complete human exposure pathways for contaminants in soil under current and reasonable likely future land use scenarios include: • Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation — This pathway is potentially complete for occupational, construction and excavation worker exposure scenarios. • Volatilization to Outdoor Air — This pathway is potentially complete for the occupational exposure scenario. • Vapor Intrusion into Buildings — This pathway is currently incomplete; however, this pathway could become complete for the occupational worker exposure scenario if a structure is constructed over the landfill. Leaching to Groundwater is considered an incomplete pathway for the reasons cited in Section 7.0. 8.6 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS Terrestrial receptors (non -threatened and endangered) could be exposed to contaminants in shallow soil. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 15 GEOENGINEERS 9.0 RISK SCREENING Bullets, lead shot, and CPF are widespread on the ground surface and in berms at the shooting ranges. Soil that contains visible concentrations of bullets, lead shot, and CPF contains contaminants (particularly lead and PAHs) at concentrations exceeding human and ecological health screening criteria. Therefore, all areas that contain visible bullets, lead shot, and CPF require remedies. GeoEngineers compared the concentrations of COI in soil to the following screening criteria to evaluate potential risks to human and ecological health: • DEQ generic risk-based concentrations (RBCs) for occupational, construction worker, and excavation worker exposure scenarios (DEQ, 2008). • EPA (2008) Region 9 screening levels (for COI that do not have established RBCs). • DEQ Level II Screening Level Values (SLVs) for terrestrial ecological receptors. The screening is intended to evaluate the risks posed by chemicals in soil at the landfill areas and in soil underlying the landfill and shooting ranges. The following screening process does not evaluate surface soil at the shooting ranges that contain visible accumulations of lead shot, bullets, and CPF. Visible accumulations of these materials presumably contain unacceptable concentrations of contaminants. The following sections list the chemicals that were detected at concentrations exceeding human and ecological screening criteria and are greater than apparent background concentrations. The screening process is also summarized in Tables 2 through 6. 9.1 HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH RISK SCREENING 9.1.1 Landfill Area The following compounds were detected in one sample in the landfill area at concentrations exceeding applicable human health screening criteria for direct contact, inhalation, and incidental ingestion: • Arsenic • Lead. The sample (A-3 [5.5-6]) that contained arsenic and lead at concentrations exceeding direct contact screening criteria consisted of burned landfill debris that was collected in the interval between 5.5 and 6 feet bgs. No chemicals were detected in the landfill area at concentrations that exceed human health screening criteria for vapor intrusion or volatilization to outdoor air exposure scenarios. The following compounds were detected in one to two samples collected in the landfill within 1 foot of the ground surface at concentrations exceeding ecological screening criteria: • Lead. • Zinc. 9.1.2 Trench Area The following compounds were detected in one or more samples in the sludge at the trench area at concentrations exceeding human applicable human health screening criteria for direct contact, inhalation, and incidental ingestion: • PAHs File No, 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 16 GEOENGINEERSI • PCBs No chemicals were detected in the sludge at concentrations that exceed human health screening criteria for vapor intrusion or volatilization to outdoor air exposure scenarios. The following compounds were detected in sludge samples at concentrations exceeding ecological screening criteria: • Barium • Chromium • Copper • Lead • Mercury • Silver • Tin • Vanadium • Zinc 9.1.3 Rifle/Handgun Ranges The following compounds were detected in one or more samples at the Sheriff's Shooting Range and the RRGC rifle/handgun Range at concentrations exceeding applicable human health screening criteria for direct contact, inhalation, and incidental ingestion: • Arsenic • Lead • PAHs The following compounds were detected in one or more samples collected at the rifle/handgun ranges at concentrations exceeding ecological screening criteria: • Antimony • Copper • Lead 9.1.4 Shotgun Ranges PAHs were the only compounds detected in one or more samples at both the RRGC skeet range and the RRGC sporting clay range at concentrations exceeding human applicable human health screening criteria for direct contact, inhalation, and incidental ingestion. Lead was not detected in any samples at the shotgun ranges at concentrations that exceed human health screening criteria. The following compound was detected in one sample collected at the shotgun ranges at a concentration exceeding ecological screening criteria: • Lead File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 17 GEOENGINEERSQ 9.2 RISK SCREENING CONCLUSIONS The following areas of the site are impacted by one or more contaminants at concentrations that exceed human health or ecological screening criteria: • Area 1 — Landfill • Area 2 — Trench Sludge • Area 3 — Rifle/Handgun Ranges • Area 4 — Shotgun Ranges The potential risks at each of these remedial action areas (RAAs) are further discussed in Section 10.0. 9.2.1 Area 1 — Landfill Landfill debris contains concentrations of arsenic, lead, and zinc that exceed human and ecological screening criteria. Low concentrations of some volatile organic compounds (VOC) (PCE and toluene) and PAHs are also present in landfill debris. The landfill debris is generally buried; therefore, under current conditions, risks to human health are limited. If landfill debris was exposed and subject to direct contact by people and ecological receptors, the debris may pose unacceptable health risks. 9.2.2 Area 2 - Trench Sludge Sludge at the trench area contains a number of chemicals that pose a potentially unacceptable risk to human and ecological health. 9.2.3 Area 3 — Rifle/Handgun Ranges Surface soil on the floors of rifle/handgun ranges and shotgun ranges that contains visible lead shot, bullets, and CPF may pose an unacceptable risk to human and ecological health. Lead shot, bullets, and CPF are widespread at the shooting ranges, and are commonly intermixed. Sieved soil collected from the floors of the rifle/handgun ranges at the Central Parcel and the East Parcel does not contain concentrations of either lead or PAHs at concentrations exceeding human health screening criteria; however, surface soil at the rifle/handgun ranges presumably exceeds human health screening criteria, based on the presence of abundant Lead shot and bullets. Sieved soil in berms at rifle/handgun ranges contains concentrations of lead and PAHs that exceed human health screening criteria. The concentrations of antimony, copper, and lead in soil samples from the berms also exceed ecological screening criteria. These data indicate that the berms are impacted by greater concentrations of contaminants than are the floors of the rifle/handgun. 9.2.4 Area 4— Shotgun Ranges Sieved surface soil (0-0.5 feet) from the shotgun ranges contains concentrations of PAHs that exceed human health screening criteria. The concentrations of lead in surface soil at shotgun ranges do not exceed human health screening criteria; however, one sample contained lead at a concentration that exceeded ecological screening criteria. 10.0 ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES The purpose of an ABCA is to define and evaluate cleanup alternatives that are appropriate for reducing contaminant concentrations to levels that are protective of human health and the environment (the remedial action objectives [RAOs]). The RAOs are summarized in Table 8. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 18 GEOENGINEERSI This ABCA was completed in general accordance with EPA guidelines for conducting ABCA [NCP 300.415(4)(i)] and Oregon Administrative Rules for the conduct of feasibility studies (OAR 340-122-085 through -090). This ABCA contains five key elements. They are: 1. Scoping activities/problem formulation. 2. Preliminary screening of remedial alternatives. 3. Detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives. 4. Presentation of the recommended alternative. 5. Discussion of anticipated residual risks. Additionally, EPA Brownfield guidance for the conduct of ABCAs has special provisions for the protection of ecological receptors, protection of cultural resources, and public involvement. Each of these elements is discussed below. 10.1 SCOPING ACTIVITIES/PROBLEM FORMULATION The purpose of this section is to present data to support the development of applicable cleanup alternatives for the site. This section describes the remedial action area, site contaminant sources, potential human and ecological exposures, and proposed cleanup levels. 10.1.1 Remedial Action Areas RAAs are those portions of the site where contaminants are present at concentrations exceeding natural background concentrations and one or more human or ecological risk screening criteria. The RAAs were described in Section 9.2 and are listed below: • Area 1 — Landfill • Area 2 — Trench Sludge • Area 3 — Rifle/Handgun Ranges • Area 4 — Shotgun Ranges RAAs are shown in Figure 3. 10.1.1.1 Area 1 - Landfill Area Arsenic and lead have been detected in landfill debris at concentrations that exceed occupational RBCs and SLVs for terrestrial receptors. Significant concentrations of contaminants have not been detected in soil beneath the landfill. The landfill contains approximately 85,000 cubic yards of debris. In addition to the risks posed by arsenic and lead in landfill debris, the landfill debris may pose a future development constraint (geotechnical) at the site due to generally poor bearing strengths of buried debris. 10.1.1.2 Area 2 - Trench Sludge Dry sludge near shallow trenches at the landfill area contains PAHs and PCBs at concentrations exceeding human health screening criteria and lead exceeding ecological screening criteria. The sludge is 2- to 3 -inches thick and appears to cover an area of approximately 20,000 square feet (approximately 125 cubic yards). 10.1.1.3 Area 3- Rifle/Handgun Ranges Soil on the floors and in berms at the rifle/handgun ranges on both the Central and East Parcels contains lead shot, bullets, and limited amounts of CPF. Soil containing visible lead shot, bullets, and CPF exceeds human and ecological health screening criteria. The contamination appears to be pervasive in File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 19 GEOENGINEERQ surface soil and berms at the rifle/handgun ranges; however, it appears that soil below approximately 0.5 foot bgs in rifle/handgun floor areas does generally contain concentrations of lead or PAHs that exceed human and ecological health screening requirements. The berms at the rifle/handgun ranges contain approximately 16,000 cubic yards of soil. The upper 0.5 feet of soil in the floors of the rifle/handgun ranges consists of approximately 4,000 cubic yards of soil. 10.1.1.4 Area 4- Shotgun Ranges Soil throughout the floors of the shotgun ranges contains visible lead shot and CPF. Soil containing visible lead shot and CPF exceeds human and ecological health screening criteria. Sieved soil collected in the interval between 0 and 0.5 feet bgs in the shotgun ranges does not contain concentrations of lead that exceed human health screening criteria; one sieved sample contained a concentration of lead exceeding ecological screening criteria. PAHs are present in sieved soil between 0 and 0.5 feet bgs at concentrations exceeding human health screening criteria, but not ecological screening criteria. In summary, lead and PAHs contamination is pervasive in surface soil at the shotgun ranges; however, it appears that soil below approximately 0.5 foot bgs is unlikely to contain widespread concentrations of lead or PAHs that exceed human health or ecological screening requirements. The upper 0.5 feet of soil at the shotgun ranges consists of approximately 16,000 cubic yards of soil. 10.1.2 Potential Exposures Potentially complete human and ecological exposure pathways for contaminated media at the site are listed in Section 8.0 (CSM) and described below. Current and reasonably likely future human receptors at the site are limited to visitors and occupational, construction and excavation workers. Current risks of exposure at the landfill and trench area are low because most of the landfill debris is buried and there are no significant active human uses of the landfill and trench portion of the site. There is potential for human and ecological exposure to contaminants at the shooting ranges because most of the contaminants are at or near the ground surface. The shooting ranges are generally utilized for limited durations and most visitors are not regularly exposed to the most hazardous portions of the site; therefore, the contaminants at the site do not appear to pose an imminent risk to human health and emergency responses are not necessary. The County intends that the site be redeveloped for light industrial purposes. Under this development scenario, ecological risks would likely be eliminated (due to extensive pavement and structures). Contaminants could still pose a potential risk to human health if potential exposure pathways (dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and particulate inhalation) remain complete. 10.1.3 Cleanup Levels Generic RBCs for occupational, construction, and excavation worker exposure scenarios are considered protective of human health for direct contact, ingestion, and inhalation; and vapor/volatilization exposure pathways. The site will likely be developed for commercial/industrial uses in the future; therefore, the goal of the remedial activities is to reduce contaminant concentrations to levels less than or equal to the most conservative screening levels for each potential exposure pathway. The proposed cleanup levels for COI in soil are presented in Table 8. If the site is redeveloped for commercial/industrial purposes, ecological screening criteria may be inappropriate for the site. File No. 2787-045-00 Page 20 GEOENGINEERS March 5, 2009 10.2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES GeoEngineers conducted a preliminary screening of remedial alternatives that could be effective for treating contamination at the site. The objective of the preliminary screening is to reduce the number of remedial alternatives that are subject to detailed evaluation by eliminating alternatives that are not protective of human health and the environment, have implementation costs that are significantly disproportionate to level of cleanup realized, or are inconsistent with contemplated redevelopment scenarios. The preliminary screening was conducted in general accordance with Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.3-01 (EPA, 1998). The preliminary screening of remedial alternatives included the following response actions: 10.2.1 Shooting Ranges • No action. • Engineering and institutional controls. • Stabilization and onsite disposal. • Excavation and offsite disposal. • Treatment using soil washing. • Treatment using pneumatic and dry separation processes. 10.2.2 Landfill • No action. • Engineering and institutional controls. • Excavation and offsite disposal. 10.3 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK GeoEngineers evaluated remedial alternatives based on the following criteria: • Effectiveness. • Long Term Reliability. • Implementability. • Implementation Risk. • Reasonableness of Cost. The evaluation of remedial alternatives was also based on the following considerations: • Current land use zoning. • Other land use designations. • Land use plans as established in local comprehensive plans and land use implementing regulations of any governmental body having land use jurisdiction. • Concerns of the facility owner, neighboring owners, and the community. File Na 2787-095-00 March 5, 2009 Page 21 GEOENGINEERS13 10.3.1 Hot Spot Evaluation An evaluation of remedial alternatives must include an evaluation of contaminant "hot spots" (340-122- 085[7]). Hot spots are areas of contamination that exceed DEQ hot spot criteria and pose a relatively high level of risk to human or ecological health (OAR 340-122-0115). Two soil samples (C-8 [0-0.5]) and D-16 [0-0.5]) contained concentrations of PAHs that exceed human health hot spot criteria. Sample C-8 (0-0.5) was collected from un -scraped soil at the floor of the Sheriff's Shooting Range and sample D-16 (0-0.5) was collected from the floor of the RRGC skeet range. The chemical data obtained for samples C-8 (0-0.5) and D-16 (0-0.5) indicate that soil that contains visible CPF may pose a significant risk to human health. Un -sieved soil at the surface of shooting ranges may also exceed DEQ hot spot criteria for lead and PAHs. DEQ has a preference for the removal of soil that contains hot spot concentrations from an impacted site. 10.4 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 10.4.1 Alternatives Removed from Further Consideration The following remedial alternatives were not selected for further evaluation for the reasons listed below: 10.4.1.1 Shooting Ranges • No Action- This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because this alternative will not be protective of human or ecological health. • Stabilization and On -Site Disposal — Stabilization can reduce the risks posed by contaminants by reducing the potential that those contaminants will leach and migrate to groundwater. The leaching -to -groundwater pathway appears incomplete at the site; therefore, stabilization of soil will not significantly reduce risk. 10.4.1.2 Landfill Area • No action- This alternative was eliminated from further consideration because this alternative will not be protective of human or ecological health. 10.4.2 Alternatives Retained for Further Consideration The following remedial alternatives were retained for further consideration. 10.4.2.1 Shooting Ranges • Capping and institutional controls • Treatment using pneumatic and dry separation processes • Excavation and off-site disposal • Excavation, stabilization, and off-site disposal 10.4.2.2 Landfill • Engineering and institutional controls • Excavation and off-site disposal A comparison of these response actions is presented in Table 9 and described below. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 22 GEOENGINEERS_g 10.5 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SHOOTING RANGES The following sections describe remedial alternatives that may be appropriate for addressing contamination at the shooting ranges. The estimated costs for the remedial alternatives given below should be used only for relative comparison of the remedial alternatives and not for budgetary purposes related to remediation or future site development. 10.5.1 Alternative 1 - Capping and Institutional Controls Under this scenario, contaminated soil would be capped with a semi -impermeable surface such as asphalt or concrete. Contaminated soil in lateral berms and primary impact berms could be graded, allowing the bermed soil to also be covered with a cap. The cap would prevent human and ecological exposure to contaminated soil. This alternative would require implementation of a restrictive covenant mandating indefinite maintenance and monitoring of the cap. The approach outlined above would have relatively low pre -implementation costs. It may be possible to integrate capping efforts with overall site development plans (i.e. construct parking areas, roadways, and/or building footprints over the contaminated material), reducing the incremental costs of remediation. Implementation would result in some long term land use restrictions; specifically, requirements for long term cap maintenance and monitoring; and 2) the implementation of a contaminated media management plan to govern future activities that involve disturbance of contaminated soil. The estimated costs for capping the shooting range RAAs are approximately $4,000,000. Capping is likely to cost marginally more than Alternative 2; however, the cap could add significant value to a future development if the cap serves a useful function (i.e. parking area or building slab). 10.5.2 Alternative 2 — Treatment Using Pneumatic and Dry Separation Processes Under this scenario, contaminated soil would be treated using a number of mechanical sieving and washing processes designed to separate particulate lead (shot and bullets) and CPF from soil. Particulate lead comprises the bulk of lead at the site. By removing particulate lead and CPF from soil, most of the contaminants would be removed from soil. Recovered lead could be transported off-site for recycling, without Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) transport and disposal requirements. Proceeds obtained from recycling of lead could be used to offset some cleanup costs. Implementation of Alternative 2 would require completion of a treatability study. The purpose of the treatability study would be to measure soil characteristics (i.e. grain size, percentage organic material, grain size distributions of particulate lead and CPF), estimate probable concentrations of lead and PAHs in treated soil, and design an appropriate cleanup process. The estimated costs for implementing Alternative 2 are approximately $3,300,000. This alternative may be the lowest cost alternative for addressing contamination at the shooting ranges; however, there are some uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of this alternative. This alternative also offers the benefit of recycling the bulk of lead in soil, rather than placing the lead in a landfill (Alternatives 3 and 4). There is some uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of this alternative. It is possible that the treatability study could indicate that pneumatic and dry separation processes are not sufficient to reduce contaminant concentrations to the cleanup goals, in which case, other treatments would be necessary. It is also possible that the treatability study could indicate that this alternative will be successful, but upon full- scale implementation, cleanup goals are not achieved, due to soil and contaminant heterogeneity. Under this scenario, it would be necessary to implement other remedies (i.e. capping, soil washing, or off-site disposal) to further treat the contaminated soil. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 23 GEOENGINEERS 10.5.3 Alternative 3 — Excavation and Off-site Disposal Under this scenario, contaminated soil would excavated, loaded into trucks, and transported to an appropriate landfill. Soil that contains particulate lead (shot and/or bullets) will likely exceed RCRA characteristic waste criteria due to the concentrations of leachable lead; therefore, the soil would be classified as a hazardous waste. Soil classified as a hazardous waste would presumably be disposed of at Chemical Waste Management's RCRA Subtitle C landfill in Arlington, Oregon. Alternative 3 will cost approximately $13,000,000. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the most certain and rapid cleanup of the site and no future land use or development restrictions; however, the costs for implementing this approach are higher than the costs for the other alternatives. The high costs of this alternative result from tipping fees and taxes charged by the Chemical Waste Management landfill. It may be possible to marginally reduce the costs of Alternative 3 by segregating soil that is only impacted by CPF (a non -hazardous waste) from lead -contaminated soil. The non -hazardous soil could be disposed of at a RCRA Subtitle D landfill, such as the Crook County Landfill. The feasibility of separating CPFD and lead -impacted soil is limited; however, because, lead is widespread at the rifle/handgun ranges and the shotgun ranges. 10.5.4 Alternative 4 — Excavation, Stabilization and Off-site Disposal This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 (Excavation and off-site disposal); however, this alternative includes a soil stabilization step intended to reduce the leachable concentrations of lead in contaminated soil, allowing disposal of all of the contaminated site soil as a non -hazardous waste at a less costly RCRA Subtitle D landfill. Under this scenario, contaminated soil would excavated and stockpiled in a designated mixing area. Stabilizing compounds, often phosphate -based, that are designed to reduce the mobility of lead in the soil, would be added to the soil and mixed using rippers, discs, and other construction equipment. Following mixing, the soil would be tested to measure leachable concentrations of lead. If, following stabilization, the leachable lead concentrations are less than disposal criteria for non -hazardous waste [5 milligrams per liter (mg/1)], the soil would be designated a non -hazardous waste and could be transported to a RCRA Subtitle D landfill, such as the Crook County Landfill. Implementation of Alternative 4 would require completion of a treatability study. The purpose of the treatability study would be to evaluate whether stabilized soil would meet leachability criteria for disposal as a non -hazardous waste. Alternative 4 will cost approximately$4,800,000. This alternative is lower cost than Alternative 3 (Excavation and Off -Site Disposal), but higher than Alternatives 1 and 2. If successful, this alternative would result in no future land use or development restrictions. There is some uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of this alternative. It is possible that the stabilization process would not reduce the leachable lead concentrations in soil to the level necessary for a non -hazardous designation. If the stabilization process was insufficient for achieving cleanup goals, it could be necessary to dispose of the soil as a hazardous waste. Alternatively, a pre -stabilization cleanup step, such as pneumatic and dry separation processing, could be implemented to further reduce soil lead concentrations to a level that is conducive to stabilization. 10.6 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE LANDFILL AREA The following sections describe remedial alternatives that may be appropriate for addressing contamination at the landfill area. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 24 GEOENGINEERS. 10.6.1 Alternative 1 - Capping and Institutional Controls Under this scenario, the landfill and sludge at the trench area would be capped with a semi -impermeable surface such as asphalt or concrete. The cap would prevent human and ecological exposure to contaminated soil. This alternative would require implementation of a restrictive covenant mandating indefinite maintenance and monitoring of the cap. The approach outlined above would have relatively low up -front costs. It may be possible to integrate capping efforts with overall site development plans (i.e. construct parking areas, roadways, and/or building footprints over the contaminated material), reducing the incremental costs of remediation. Implementation would result in some long term land use restrictions; specifically, requirements for long term cap maintenance and monitoring; and 2) the implementation of a contaminated media management plan to govern future activities that involve disturbance of contaminated soil. The estimated costs for capping the landfill RAAs are approximately $1,400,000. 10.6.2 Alternative 2 — Excavation and Off-site Disposal Under this scenario, landfill debris would excavated, loaded into trucks, and transported to an appropriate landfill. Data collected during the TBA indicate that the landfill debris and the sludge at the trench area would be designated a non -hazardous waste. Therefore, the debris and sludge could likely be disposed of at a RCRA Subtitle D facility, such as the Crook County Landfill. Pre -disposal waste characterization would be necessary to confirm that the soil meets leachability requirements for a RCRA Subtitle D disposal facility. If data indicate the debris and sludge are a hazardous waste, it would be necessary to dispose of this type of soil at a RCRA Subtitle C landfill, such as Chemical Waste Management's landfill in Arlington, Oregon. Alternative 2 would cost approximately $9,800,000 and would result in the most certain and rapid cleanup of the site and no future land use or development restrictions; however, the costs for implementing this approach are significantly higher than the costs for other landfill alternatives. 10.6.3 Alternative 3 — Capping and Institutional Controls with Sludge Excavation Alternative 3 is a combination of Alternatives 1 and 2. Under this scenario, landfill debris would be capped, as described in Section 10.6.1. Sludge at the trench area would be excavated and transported off- site for disposal at a RCRA Subtitle D landfill. This approach offers the benefit of minimizing costs for addressing the landfill debris and removing the relatively highly contaminated sludge near the landfill. Alternative 3 would cost approximately $1,400,000, approximately equivalent to the costs for Alternative 1; however, following implementation of Alternative 3, there would be no long-term restrictions on the use of areas currently impacted by sludge. 10.7 SELECTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES Remedial alternatives should be selected based on development plans for the site. Some of the proposed alternatives would result in significant land use constraints that may be incompatible with development plans, whereas, other alternatives would result in no land use constraints, but may be financially unfeasible. File No. 2787-045-00 Page 25 GEOENGINEERSId March 5, 2009 11.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS GeoEngineers conducted a TBA and ABCA at the Deschutes County Shooting Range, located in Redmond, Oregon. Lead and PAHs that pose a potentially unacceptable risk to human and ecological health are widespread in surface soil and berms at the shooting ranges. It appears that contamination in soil decreases rapidly with depth, with most significant contamination absent below 0.5 feet below the floors of the shooting ranges. Significant lead and PAH contamination appears to extend though most of the thickness of impact berms at the shooting ranges. Elevated concentrations of lead, arsenic, and other metals are present in buried debris at the landfill; however, it appears that landfill contaminants have not significantly affected underlying soil. Most of the landfill is buried; therefore, current risks to human and ecological health appear limited. Sludge on the ground surface near trenches at the landfill area contains concentrations of petroleum compounds, PCBs, and some metals that may pose an unacceptable risk to human or ecological health. The concentrations of one or more chemicals at the shooting ranges, landfill, and trench area exceed human health and/or ecological health screening criteria. Remedial actions are necessary to mitigate the risks posed by contaminants at the site. GeoEngineers identified a number of remedial alternatives that may be suitable for mitigating the risks posed by contaminants at the site. Evaluated alternatives include capping and institutional controls, treatment using pneumatic and dry separation processes, excavation and off-site disposal, and excavation, stabilization, and off-site disposal. The appropriate remedial alternative should be selected based on future development plans for the site because some of the proposed alternatives would result in significant land use constraints that may be incompatible with development plans, whereas, other alternatives would result in no land use constraints, but may be financially unfeasible. 12.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to the appendix titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. 13.0 REFERENCES David Evans and Associates, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, For A Portion of Tax Lot 103, Located in Section 14 of T. 15S., R.13E., W.M., Redmond, Oregon, 97756, 2008. Environmental Protection Agency. Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites, 2008. GeoEngineers, Inc. Site Investigation Work Plan, Redmond Shooting Range, Redmond, Oregon, 2008. File Na. 2787-045-00 Page 26 GEOENGINEERS� March 5, 2009 Interstate Technology Regulatory Council. Characterization and Remediation of Soils at Closed Small Arms Firing Ranges, 2003. Kleinfelder, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Deschutes County Leased Property, Approximately 140 Acres, East Highway 126, Redmond, Oregon, 2008. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Guidance for Conducting Beneficial Water Use Determinations at Cleanup Sites, 1998a. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Guidance for Consideration of Land Use, 1998b. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment, Level I Scoping, Level II Screening (Updated December 2001), Level II Screening Benchmark Values, Level III Baseline (Updated March 2000), Level IV Field Baseline, 1998c. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Memo to Cleanup Program Managers — Default Background Concentrations in Oregon, 2002. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Quality Assurance guidance for the Brownfield Program, 2004. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Risk -Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Sites, 2008. United States Geological Survey. Geologic Framework of the Regional Ground -Water Flow System in the Upper Deschutes Basin, 2002. World Health Organization. Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin -like Compounds, 2005. File No. 2787-045-00 March 5, 2009 Page 27 GEOENGINEERS w F= z w • w JZ Q g Q 0 0 ZZ W F O • O U' m J LL r • O Q ( Z Z ~ W O M U) O❑ W J uJ CC z • = w > w F- O Q Q LL 2 0 U Implementabilltyr lmptementation Risk :Approximate Cost 7hls odamailve ontruld bas Middy mere are minor imptementa s Implemented and could be integrated associated with worker exposure to With future development. contaminated media and heavy equipment during implementation and 54,000,000 future maintenance. This alternative couuld be readily There are minor implementation risks Implemented, associated with worker exposure to contaminated media and heavy equipment during implementation. $3,300,000 0 Landfill Area Alla+*toiive 1 Achieves RAO through elimination of Would effectively manage long term Long-term reliabiily is dependent on Tnis alternative couuld be readily There are minor implementation risks Capping and exposure pathways. risks to human health. May result in proper management and maintenance implemented and could be integrated essocialed with worker exposure to Institutional Controls development constraints due to lack of of caps. with future development. contaminated media and heavy bearing strength. equipment during implementation and 51,400,000 future maintenance. 51,380,000 There are minor implementation risks associated with worker exposure to contaminated media and heavy 'equipment during implementation. There are minor implemenlalion risks associated with worker exposure to contaminated media and heavy equipment during implementation. There are minor implementation risks associated with worker exposure to contaminated media and heavy equipment during implementation. There are minor implementation risks associated with worker exposure to contaminated media and heavy equipment. during implementation and future maintenance. This alternative couuld be readily implemented. This alternative couuld be readlly implemented. Tnis alternative couuld be readily implemented. This alternative couuld be readily implemented and could be integrated with future development. Effectiveness Long -Term Reliability 'Would errectiveiy manage long term Long-term reliablty is dependent an risks to human health. proper management and maintenance of caps. May be effective for achieving RACs. Tiffs alternative offers permanent However, there is some potential that treatment for soil. residual cantaminHH5 in edged. sell Would not meet RAOs. Tnis alternative otters permanent treatment for soil. Tests indicate That this alternative offers long termtreatment of soil; however, there is a small risk of stabilizer failure in the future This alternative offers permanent treatment for soil. Long -tern reliablity is dependent on proper management and maintenance of caps. Tnis alternative offers the most certainty regarding effectiveness. This alternative has been used effectively at other small anus ranges; however, there is potential that stabilized soil will fail leachability tests, requiring additional treatment of disposal at a Subtitle C landfill. This alternative offers the most certainty regarding effectiveness. Would effectively manage long term risks to human health. Able to Attain Remedial Alternative Action Objective Shooting Ranges Alternative 1 Achieves RAO through eerninm ton of Capping and exposure pathways. Institutional Controls Alrernotiva 2 Achieves RAO through removal or Treatment by contaminants. Pneumatic and Dry Separation Processes _ _ 1. Acnleves RAO through removal of contaminated soil Achieves RAO through removal of contaminated soil Achieves RAO through removal of contaminated soil rtm Achlpve3 RAO tuptt erimination of evesure pathways at the landfill and removal of sludge at the trench area c g. t.8 m'in 0 cw'o •tm in6 Aaematrvc 2 Debris Excavation and Off -Sae Disposal Ar3maliwi 3 Capping and Institutional Controls with Excavation and 0!! - Site Disposal 0 :\212707045\00\Finalsl27a7o4500Tables TBA.xls GEOENGI N EERS 2 • ^.� 2\- _i • annot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic hies. The master hie $ |!27 !!QI k((2\ cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files, The master file Page 1 of 1 Dave Kanner From: Scott Johnson Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 10:07 AM To: Dave Kanner Cc: Tammy Baney Subject: Wed 4/8 BOC ws agenda: Mental Health Reform; 30% cuts Dave, as discussed on the phone, I am requesting time to brief the BOC on a mental health "reform" option and also the 30% cuts. I will arrive by 2:30 4/8 unless I hear otherwise. I am in Salem Monday (public health ways & means) and pdx Tues pm so cell phone or email are best. Background: The 30% proposed cuts are out. Commissioner Baney, me and others from Central Oregon are closely monitoring a likely opportunity forwarded by Sen Bates and Rep. Kotek (CoChairs of the W&M Human Servivces Sub) and DHS to participate as one of a small number of regions to pilot an integration of mental health, addictions and primary care in some form. It may prove to be a desirable option but there are many questions to be explored. It would likely mean a Central Oregon region and shared oversight with Crook and Jefferson counties, a retooling or focusing of ABHA work and that of our Deschutes Chemical Dependency Organization and stronger alliances with C.O. Independent Health Systems and Cascade Healthcare. Positives include a chance to get out in front of Oregon Health Care reform discussions, the consistency with our priority to pursue health care integration and the consistency with other regional endeavors. Issues include resource limitations, risk management, ambiguity and the inherent challenges of the work. Why this discussion with BOC is needed now: Interested regions are asked to participate in a meeting this coming Friday, April 10. With your OK and that of the Board, I plan to attend.l recommend preliminary interest so we can be a player and help shape this development. It will NOT require a firm commitment. The Commissioners will be able to wait on a decision in the weeks to come. I am copying Tammy (as the designated BOC rep) in advance and hope to speak with her before the work session. Dave: See you 9am Tuesday re budget. Scott Johnson, Director Deschutes County Health Services 2577 NE Courtney, Bend OR 97701 541-322-7502 email: scottjohnsontc,_"i co.deschutes.or us Confidentiality notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you. 4/6/2009 Deschutes y h t Count Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2009 1. Bethlehem Inn Update — Tom O'Brien, President; Dave Nagler, Board Member 2. GEO Technical Report on East Redmond Property — Susan Ross 3. Mental Health Reform Option and 30% Cuts — Scott Johnson 4. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened Litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.