1

PUBLIC MEETING
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
RECREATION AREA/INDUSTRIAL AREA
237
237
217
217
200
200
80
119
252
174

FORMER FORT CUSTER

237 217 200 27 .59

255 0 163 131 239 110 112 62 102 130

CALHOUN AND KALAMAZOO
255
255
0
0
163
163
132
122
65
53
135
120
92
56
102
130
56
48
120
111

COUNTIES, MICHIGAN

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Louisville District

Prepared by HydroGeoLogic, Inc
March 20, 2018

“The views, opinions and findings contained in this report are

those of the authors(s) and should not be construed as an
official Department of the Army position, policy or decision,
unless so designated by other official documentation.”
 2

WELCOME
Project Team Introductions
 3

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

 We are here to discuss an upcoming investigation at the

Former Fort Custer Formerly Used Defense Site.
 Thank you for attending and for your interest in the
project.
 Please feel free to ask questions as we go. We are here
to address your questions and concerns.
 The Project Team will be happy to speak directly with
anyone after the meeting one-on-one as well. Just ask
us!
 4

MEETING AGENDA

 Site Background
 Project Overview
 Remedial Investigation Approach
 Stakeholder Coordination/ Right-of-Entry
 Schedule
 Questions and Open Discussion
 5

FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES (FUDS)

• The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for the
environmental restoration (cleanup) of properties that
were formerly owned by, leased to or otherwise
possessed by the United States and under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense prior to October
1986.
• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers executes the FUDS
Program on behalf of the U.S. Army and DOD for the
protection of human health and the environment. This
includes investigating and, if required, cleaning up
potential contamination or munitions that may remain on
these properties from past DOD activities.
• These actions are funded under the Military Munitions
Response Program.
File Name
 6
FORT CUSTER RECREATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL
AREA FUDS PROPERTY
 7

SITE BACKGROUND
Brief History of Former Fort Custer Recreation
Area/Industrial Area
 8

MUNITIONS USE HISTORY

• Fort Custer, originally Camp Custer, was established in
1917, and comprised approximately 14,412 acres
• Served as induction and training center for draftees from
Michigan and Wisconsin during:
• World War I
• World War II
• Korean War
• Between wartimes, the
Camp Custer training facility was
used by:
• Reserve Officer’s Training Corps
• Civilian Conservation Corps
• Citizen’s Military Training Corps
 9

MUNITIONS USE HISTORY

• 1940-1941: Camp Custer was re-designated as active.
During this time the Army completed expansion and
improvement of the facility.
• 1941-1953:Fort Custer returned to it’s original mission of
induction and training of soldiers
• In 1953: Ft Custer was declared inactive acreage reduced
and portions leased as livestock grazing areas
• In 1968: Use of Fort Custer by the Army officially ended;
lands were transferred to Michigan Conservation
Department, the State of Michigan, and the City of Battle
Creek in the early 1970s.
 10

MUNITIONS RESPONSE SITE LOCATIONS

 11
BURIAL AREA MRS
Consists of 25 underwater acres in Eagle Lake:
1) 1977: two children encountered a softball-sized orange/yellow
substance while searching for fresh water clams at Eagle Lake. Park
employees and Michigan Stake Police found additional pieces of
white phosphorus (WP).
2) U.S. Army EOD conducted a search of the shore. Two inert Stokes
mortar rounds were found. The park manager reported 30-40 Stokes
mortar rounds had been found in the area over the past five years.
3) U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Demolition (EOD) personnel
completed an underwater survey in Eagle Lake in August 1977
(before Eagle Lake was expanded).

The U.S. Navy underwater survey was performed from the shoreline to a
depth of 4 feet. Eastern shore: 13 inert Stokes mortar rounds on
shoreline, adjacent to the 23 rounds underwater that were not recovered.

WP was presumably from a WP 5-inch High Velocity Aircraft Rocket

stolen from a National Guard Unit (unverified).
 12
BURIAL AREA MRS
 13
HAND GRENADE COURT
• Consists of 25 acres, adjacent to the active National Guard area
• Estimated years of use as 1940 to 1971. It appeared on aerial
photographs from 1946, 1954, and 1955 (Shaw 2007).
• Affected by a WWI era artillery firing point was identified on the
north shore of Eagle Lake
• The specific range configuration for this MRS is not known. A
typical 6-bay grenade range would be approximately 40 yards
(yds) wide by 50 yds long. Targets/impact areas would have been
located approximately 25 yds in front of a throwing line. Throwing
bays may have been constructed from sand bags or concrete.
Targets consisted of a circular outline, a crater, and/or a foxhole.
A danger area of approximately 600 ft would have been
established around the entire range (USACE, 2004).
• The area was burned in April 2003, in April 2006, sometime in
2008, and in May 2017. The records indicate numerous
explosions were heard during the 2003 burn (Shaw, 2007).
 14
HAND GRENADE COURT MRS
 15
ARTILLERY FIRING POINT
 16
RANGE COMPLEX NO.1 (EASTERN PART) MRS
• Contains five sub-ranges covering 652 FUDS-eligible acres
• The five overlapping ranges were: a shotgun range; submachine
gun range, .50 caliber; antiaircraft range; infiltration course; and
rocket launcher range.
• The ranges are estimated to have been used 1954 and 1971.
• Training typical of firing ranges was most likely conducted at the
rocket launcher, submachine gun, shotgun, and
• .50 caliber antiaircraft ranges.
• Activities conducted at the infiltration course were likely
simulations of anticipated combat situations. Only small arms are
expected to have been used within the infiltration course;
however, static demolitions charges may have been used for
simulation purposes.

File Name
 17
RANGE COMPLEX NO. 1 (EASTERN PART) MRS

Items found in past investigations: munitions

debris, expended slap flare
 18
BOMBING TARGETS MRS
• Comprised of a former tank jettison and ordnance area, ordnance
impact zone, and a grenade burn pit over approximately 544 acres.
• Additionally, three targets, a circular target, a ship target, and an “X”
shaped target were identified on aerial photographs
• The likely bomb impact area was also used as a drop zone for aircraft
fuel tanks.
• The grenade burn pit located along the bomb target boundaries
accepted unused grenades for open burn disposal.
• Items found within the area include fuel tanks, projectiles, and small
arms ammunitions.
• A portion of MRS overlaps with the WWI-era artillery range fan or
impact area.
 19
BOMBING TARGETS MRS
 20

ADDITIONAL MUNITIONS USE HISTORY

The 2016 PA stated that it is uncertain

whether some of the ranges (e.g., the
Rocket Launcher Range and Submachine
Gun Range) truly existed based on
analysis of aerial photographs and the
date on the map depicting the ranges
(1958, after the base was no longer an
active training facility for the U.S. Army).
 21

MUNITIONS WE COULD EXPECT TO FIND INCLUDE…

Hand Grenade Court/WWI Artillery Range

• MkII live hand grenades
• M29 practice hand grenades
• M69 practice hand grenades
• 76mm projectiles, HE M352
• 3-inch, Stokes Mortar, Practice, MK III
Range Complex No. 1 (Eastern Part)
• Small Arms
• M28, Rocket, HEAT, 3.5-inch
• M72, Rocket, HEAT, 66mm
• M73, Rocket, Sub caliber, 35mm
• M9A1, Rifle Grenade, Anti-Tank
• M29, Practice Rocket, 3.5-inch
 22

MUNITIONS WE COULD EXPECT TO FIND INCLUDE…

Burial Area
• Small arms
• 3- inch mortar, HE, MK1
• 3-inch, Stokes Mortar, Practice, MK III
• 5-inch Rocket, HVAR

Bombing Targets
• HE Bombs: General Purpose, Old Style
• Practice Bombs: AN-MK 5, AN-MK 23, AN-MK 43, M38A2,
100- pound Practice Bomb, Mk 4 Signal Practice Bomb
 23

PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Current Land Use
• Mountain biking, hiking, horse riding, bird watching, trail
maintenance (intrusive activity), cross country skiing, snow
shoeing within park.
• Industrial/commercial use
(Range Complex No.1)
Future Land Use
• No expected change
Site Description
The site is characterized by gently rolling hills (100 ft relief)
covered by timber, grasses, and thick shrub growth. Eagle
Lake has an approximate depth of 30 ft. Harts Lake is
expected to be deeper; currently not open to the public for
recreational use.
 24

PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Recreational Trails

Main Road
Red Loop (8.6mi.)
Green Loop ( 7.0 mi.)
Blue Loop (4.0 mi.)
Equestrian (15.9 mi.)
 25

PROJECT OVERVIEW
Previous Studies, Planned Studies, and the Future
COMPREHENSIVE, ENVIRONMENTAL, RESPONSE, 26

COMPENSATION LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA) PROCESS

The CERCLA Process

Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA)

INPR PA SI RI/FS PP RD RA Post RA

No DoD Action Indicated (NDAI)

Public Involvement

INPR = Inventory Project Report, completed in 1993.

PA = Preliminary Assessment, completed in 2016 to summarize all current site
information
SI = Site Inspection, completed in 1997
RI/FS = Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, current project.
PP = Proposed Plan
RD = Remedial Design
RA = Remedial Action
 27

DOCUMENTS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW

Once finalized, key documents will be available to the public. These will include
the work plan and remedial investigation report.
A document repository for the Fort Custer Recreation Area/Industrial Area FUDS
will be located at the:

McKay Library
105 S Webster St.
Augusta, MI 49012
Phone: (269) 731-4000
Telephone: 270-389-1696

Hours of operation:
Mon. and Tues.– 9 am to 5 pm
Wed. – 10 am to 7 pm
Thurs. and Fri.– 10 am to 5 pm
Sat – 9 am to 2 pm
Sun – Closed
 28

WHAT IS A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION?

A remedial investigation (RI) is an investigation designed to:

 Gather data necessary to determine the nature and extent of the
threat posed by munitions, if any.
 Gather data necessary to determine the nature and extent of
munitions related chemicals that may pose a hazard to human
health and the environment.
 Evaluate the potential risk associated with munitions and potential
hazards posed by munitions related chemicals.

The RI collects data used to make decisions about potential

remedial actions in the future.
 29

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION APPROACH

What, Why, How
 30

WHAT TYPE OF DATA WILL BE COLLECTED ON LAND?

Digital Geophysical Mapping and Advanced Classification

 Mapping of subsurface metal
 Additional cuing to identify munitions
Intrusive Operations
 Digging up subsurface metal to see what it is.
Demolition Operations
 Detonation of items with explosive risks discovered during the
investigation.
Munitions Constituent Sampling
 Collection of soil and/or sediment and water
 water samples
 31

DIGITAL GEOPHYSICAL MAPPING ON LAND

 Data will be collected along 3-ft wide paths (transects) at various spacings.
 Example: 1 Acre = 1 pass, 40 Acre = 3 to 4 passes
 160 Acres = 6 to 7 passes, 240 Acres = 13 to 14 passes
 Some areas will be mapped completely. These areas are 50 ft by 50 ft to
150 ft by 150 ft “grids”.
1 Mile (5280 ft)
40
acres
160 acres

1 acre

240 acres

Representative Coverage based on acreage

File Name
 32
DIGITAL GEOPHYSICAL MAPPING AND ADVANCED
GEOPHYSICAL CLASSIFICATION ON LAND
 The MPV sensor will be used for
advanced geophysics on transects
and grids.
 The advantage of this equipment is
that different munitions create different
signatures and the equipment can
predict what munitions are present.
This can result in less digging.

Example DGM Anomaly map

 Anomalies indicative of munitions in  Background Conditions = Green
the grids will be intrusively  Anomaly (metal) = Pink/Red
investigated (dug up).
 33

INTRUSIVE OPERATIONS- ON LAND

 Intrusive operations involve using hand tools to excavate the potential

munitions item from the ground. After digging the area will be restored by
refilling holes.
 When intrusive operations are in progress an Exclusion Zone (EZ) will be
established for safety purposes
 Intrusive operations will be coordinated with the land owner to discuss the
implementation of the EZ.

File Name
 34

WHAT TYPE OF DATA WILL BE COLLECTED IN WATER?

Side Scan Sonar, remotely operated vehicle (ROV), and Digital

Geophysical Mapping
 Identify underwater obstructions, inspect items with ROV, and map
metal on the lake bottom.
Diving Intrusive Operations
 Digging up subsurface metal using divers with hand tools to see
what it is.
Demolition Operations
 Detonation of items with explosive risks (on land) items are safe to
move.
 35

DEMOLITION OPERATIONS

An RI is an investigation not a clean-

up effort. It is not a goal of the RI to try
and find all the hazardous items at the
site. However, it is a goal to find a
sampling of what is present, and MEC
is expected to be found.

When MEC is discovered, the items

will be secured or rendered safe as
soon as possible. Demolition
operations using donor explosives will
be conducted to neutralize a
dangerous item.
 36

DEMOLITION OPERATIONS

• Land owners will be notified when an

item requiring detonation is found.
• Items will be destroyed same day where
possible.
• If the item must be left in place a guard
will be left with the item overnight.
• When safe to do so, an item may be
moved away from structures for
detonation.
• If unsafe to move, appropriate
containment measures will be
implemented to protect property and
structures.
 37

MUNITIONS CONSTITUENT SAMPLING

• Soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater samples may be

collected to sample for munitions constituents.
 38

WHAT THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION WILL TELL US

• What types of munitions are present.

• Where are MEC expected.
• What density of MEC is expected.
• What depth are MEC expected.
• What risk is posed by MEC on site.
• Are munitions constituents (MC) present on site.
• If MC is present, at what concentrations.
• What hazards are posed by MC on site.
 39

NEXT STEP –FEASIBILTY STUDY

• The FS involves the

development,
screening, and detailed
evaluation of alternative
or munitions response or
cleanup.
• Alternatives are
developed that are
designed to protect
human health, safety,
and the environment.

File Name
 40

STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION/
RIGHT-OF ENTRY
 41

PROJECT PLANNING REQUIRES COORDINATION

 Planned completion of Eagle Lake investigation by

Memorial Day.
 Landowner participation needed in Range Complex No.
1 (Eastern Part). We need signed right of entry (ROE)
agreement for permission to enter onto every property to
collect data.
 If you own land within Range Complex No. 1 (Eastern
Part) and have questions or concerns regarding ROE,
please speak with us after the meeting.
 42

SCHEDULE
 43

KEY ACTIVITIES

 Fieldwork- March- October 2018

 Remedial Investigation Report – December 2018
 Feasibility Study – August 2019
 Proposed Plan – January 2020
 Decision Document – May 2020
 44

QUESTIONS AND OPEN DISCUSSION

 45

POINTS OF CONTACT

USACE Louisville District Public Affairs Officer

Katelyn Newton
(502) 315-6773 or katelyn.c.newton@usace.army.mil

USACE Louisville District Project Manager

Kari Meier
(502) 315-6316 or kari.l.meier@usace.army.mil
 46

SAFETY – THE LAST WORD