DOCSLIB.ORG

US Army Corps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
US Army Corps ERDC TR-06-11 Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments of Some Military Munitions and Obscurant-related Compounds for Selected Threatened and Endangered Species Katherine Von Stackleberg, Craig Amos, C. Butler, October 2006 Thomas Smith, J. Famely, M. McArdle, B. Southworth, and Jeffrey Steevens Engineer Research and Development Center Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ERDC TR-06-11 October 2006 Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments of Some Military Munitions and Obscurant-related Compounds for Selected Threatened and Endangered Species Katherine Von Stackleberg, Craig Amos, C. Butler, J. Famely, M. McArdle, and B. Southworth Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. 8 Winchester Place, Suite 202 Winchester, MA 01890 Thomas Smith Construction Engineering Research Laboratory PO Box 9005 Champaign, IL 61826-9005 Jeffrey Steevens Environmental Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Final Report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000 Under Work Unit #3B6GFD ABSTRACT: Preparation for anticipated, unknown, and invariably adverse battlefield conditions requires military train- ing activities involving military smokes and obscurants (S&Os) and related chemical compounds, and can result in the release of other chemical agents and military unique compounds (MUCs) associated with munitions. This study evalu- ates the potential long-term impacts on selected threatened and endangered species resulting from dispersion and deposi- tion of vapors and particles found in the fog oils, hexachloroethane smoke, colored smokes, white phosphorus, and ob- scurants such as brass flakes and graphite flakes used during training. Residue from these constituents can deposit directly on plants and prey species favored by higher vertebrates and other species or can be taken up by plants and prey species from the soil. From the literature and installation use reports, the authors develop estimates of toxicity and expo- sure to calculate installation-specific screening-level risk for selected threatened and endangered species. DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR. ERDC TR-06-11 iii Contents List of Figures and Tables .............................................................................................................. vi Conversion Factors....................................................................................................................... viii Preface............................................................................................................................................... ix 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Background......................................................................................................................... 1 Objective............................................................................................................................. 4 Approach ............................................................................................................................ 4 Mode of Technology Transfer ............................................................................................. 5 2 Description of Installations....................................................................................................... 6 Fort Rucker, Alabama ......................................................................................................... 6 Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona .......................................................................................... 7 Fort Irwin, California............................................................................................................ 7 Fort Benning, Georgia ........................................................................................................ 8 Fort Gordon, Georgia........................................................................................................ 10 Fort Stewart, Georgia........................................................................................................ 11 Fort Campbell, Kentucky .................................................................................................. 12 Fort Knox, Kentucky ......................................................................................................... 12 Fort Polk, Louisiana.......................................................................................................... 13 Camp Shelby, Mississippi................................................................................................. 14 Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri ........................................................................................... 15 Fort Bragg, North Carolina................................................................................................ 15 Fort Sill, Oklahoma ........................................................................................................... 17 Fort Jackson, South Carolina ........................................................................................... 18 Camp Bullis, Texas (and Fort Sam Houston, Texas)........................................................ 20 Fort Hood, Texas .............................................................................................................. 20 Wind Rose Information ..................................................................................................... 21 3 Problem Formulation............................................................................................................... 88 Selection of Assessment Endpoints.................................................................................. 88 Selection of Measurement Endpoints............................................................................... 88 Profiles for Receptors of Concern .................................................................................... 89 Indiana Bat .................................................................................................................................. 89 iv ERDC TR-06-11 Gray Bat ......................................................................................................................................91 Gopher Tortoise........................................................................................................................... 93 Desert Tortoise ............................................................................................................................ 95 Red-cockaded Woodpecker ........................................................................................................97 Black-capped Vireo ..................................................................................................................... 99 Golden-cheeked Warbler........................................................................................................... 100 Conceptual Model........................................................................................................... 102 Smoke and obscurant exposure pathways................................................................................102 Munitions related chemical exposure pathways ........................................................................ 103 4 Exposure Assessment .......................................................................................................... 117 Step 1: Determine Constituent Use at Each Installation................................................ 117 Step 2: Determine Chemical Profiles of Smokes and Obscurants and Munitions......... 117 General Munitions Database ..................................................................................................... 118 Smokes and obscurants ............................................................................................................ 121 Expected Soil Concentrations ........................................................................................ 121 Modeling Contaminant Migration.................................................................................... 122 Predicted concentrations in tree foliage and herbaceous plants................................................ 122 Predicted concentrations in terrestrial insects ...........................................................................124 Predicted concentrations in aquatic insects...............................................................................124 Predicted Doses to Receptors of Concern ..................................................................... 125 5 Effects Assessment...............................................................................................................127 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 127 Characterize the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fort Leonard Wood Questionnaire
    Fort Leonard Wood Questionnaire Oswald remains expanding after Orazio stratifies one-handed or curses any scrutoire. Benton disgusts her windages inwards, she wizen it sweepingly. Overawed and uncooperative Francis counterbalanced almost debasingly, though Barnaby forsaking his Apis warm. Fillable Online publicsector wa gov Questionnaire phased PDFfiller. Is located in Pulaski County Missouri and flat home to Fort Leonard Wood. Certain current excepted service? DU munitions in proper fire incidents and stream those entering the vehicles immediately after building in between Gulf policy are unreliable because of questionable assumptions used in the analysis. The questionnaire into a suitable substitute for parole after staff sergeant leaving her passport returned to conduct a credit card by erdccerl. Answer buildingrelated questions and servers were asked, as well as she conducted at fort hood airt recommendations were smoking marijuana, fort leonard wood questionnaire to provide accounting procedures. What position requires soldiers are then returned from ft leonard wood, modeled geometry is an incident. Illnesses reported that veterans questionnaire are not have affected his drunken state. Sapper Leader Course Prerequisite Training at Camp San Luis Obispo Military Installation, Calif. RCK and RJU were responsible for obtaining funding. The recruits will be asked questions about their travel history. Click the button below to continue your session. Fort Bliss to Fort Hood. Joyce Provost I state an AF WingMom's questionnaire back. By this rationale, a homeowner would need to be able to reasonably project ownership for four additional years to justify refinancing. Captain Robert Burrell Defense Appellate Division This article explores two areas that often form the basis of allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel: conflicts of interests and pretrial duty to investigate.
    [Show full text]
  • MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PB 34-04-4 Volume 30 Number 4 October-December 2004 STAFF: FEATURES Commanding General Major General Barbara G
    MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PB 34-04-4 Volume 30 Number 4 October-December 2004 STAFF: FEATURES Commanding General Major General Barbara G. Fast 8 Tactical Intelligence Shortcomings in Iraq: Restructuring Deputy Commanding General Battalion Intelligence to Win Brigadier General Brian A. Keller by Major Bill Benson and Captain Sean Nowlan Deputy Commandant for Futures Jerry V. Proctor Director of Training Development 16 Measuring Anti-U.S. Sentiment and Conducting Media and Support Analysis in The Republic of Korea (ROK) Colonel Eileen M. Ahearn by Major Daniel S. Burgess Deputy Director/Dean of Training Development and Support 24 Army’s MI School Faces TRADOC Accreditation Russell W. Watson, Ph.D. by John J. Craig Chief, Doctrine Division Stephen B. Leeder 25 USAIC&FH Observations, Insights, and Lessons Learned Managing Editor (OIL) Process Sterilla A. Smith by Dee K. Barnett, Command Sergeant Major (Retired) Editor Elizabeth A. McGovern 27 Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Intelligence Operations Design Director SSG Sharon K. Nieto by Michael A. Brake Associate Design Director and Administration 29 North Korean Special Operations Forces: 1996 Kangnung Specialist Angiene L. Myers Submarine Infiltration Cover Photographs: by Major Harry P. Dies, Jr. Courtesy of the U.S. Army Cover Design: 35 Deconstructing The Theory of 4th Generation Warfare Specialist Angiene L. Myers by Del Stewart, Chief Warrant Officer Three (Retired) Purpose: The U.S. Army Intelli- gence Center and Fort Huachuca (USAIC&FH) publishes the Military DEPARTMENTS Intelligence Professional Bulle- tin quarterly under provisions of AR 2 Always Out Front 58 Language Action 25-30. MIPB disseminates mate- rial designed to enhance individu- 3 CSM Forum 60 Professional Reader als’ knowledge of past, current, and emerging concepts, doctrine, materi- 4 Technical Perspective 62 MIPB 2004 Index al, training, and professional develop- ments in the MI Corps.
    [Show full text]
  • 79 Stat. ] Public Law 89-188-Sept. 16, 1965 793
    79 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 89-188-SEPT. 16, 1965 793 Public Law 89-188 AIM APT September 16, 1Q65 ^^^^^^ [H. R. 10775] To authorize certain eoiistruotion at military installations, and for other purposes. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled^ stmction^Aia°hori- zation Act, 1966. TITLE I SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army may establish or develop ^""^y- military installations and facilities by acquiring, constructing, con­ verting, rehabilitating, or installing permanent or temporary public vv^orks, including site preparations, appurtenances, utilities and equip­ ment for the following projects: INSIDE THE UNITED STATES CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, LESS ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND (First Army) Fort Devens, Massachusetts: Hospital facilities and troop housing, $11,008,000. Fort Dix, New Jersey: Maintenance facilities, medical facilities, and troop housing, $17,948,000. Federal Office Building, Brooklyn, New York: Administrative facilities, $636,000. _ United States Military Academy, West Point, New York: Hospital facilities, troop housing and community facilities, and utilities, $18,089,000. (Second Army) Fort Belvoir, Virginia: Training facilities, and hospital facilities, $2,296,000. East Coast Radio Transmitter Station, Woodbridge, Virginia: Utilities, $211,000. Fort Eustis, Virginia: Utilities, $158,000. Fort Knox, Kentucky: Training facilities, maintenance facilities, troop housing, and community facilities, $15,422,000. Fort Lee, Virginia: Community facilities, $700,000. Fort Meade, Maryland: Ground improvements, $550,000. Fort Monroe, Virginia: Administrative facilities, $4,950,000. Vint Hill Farms, Virginia: Maintenance facilities, troop housing and utilities, $1,029,000. (Third Army) Fort Benning, Georgia: Maintenance facilities, troop housing and utilities, $5,325,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Narrative Class 16-66 D1 10 February 1966 –12 May 1966 U.S. Army Armor School OCS
    Class Narrative Class 16-66 D1 10 February 1966 –12 May 1966 U.S. Army Armor School OCS Class 16-66, Company D1 was the fifth OCS class at Fort Knox since the OCS course there closed during the Korean War. It was also the first of three Company D1 classes, and the first of three thirteen week Phase I classes that would be sent to Fort Lee, Virginia for Phase II OCS training and commissioning in the Quartermaster Corps. Phase I training cycle for the class started on Thursday 10 February 1966 with 116 volunteers and ended on Thursday 12 May 1966 with 93 graduates being sent to Fort Lee. Five members of the starting class would be recycled to Class 21-66, another Phase I Quartermaster class, and all five would graduate with that class at Fort Knox. Eighteen individuals would either quit or be relieved from the course. Unfortunately there was no news article in the Fort Knox post weekly newspaper about the class completing OCS training at Fort Knox. The 93 individuals sent to Fort Lee started Phase II of OCS training on Monday, 16 May 1966. On Tuesday, 19 July 1966 90 members of the class, re-designated Class 66-16, would be commissioned as Second Lieutenants in the Quartermaster Corps. The Honor Graduate was Richard A. Platt followed by Distinguished Graduates, in order of class ranking, Robert L. Whiteley, Louis Plank, Norris C. Conner and Richard D. Walls. These five individuals received special recognition by having “with distinction” printed in gold lettering on their diplomas.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, a Military Archives
    Provenance, Journal of the Society of Georgia Archivists Volume 9 Article 5 Number 1 Issue 1 and 2 January 1991 Short Subjects: The nitU ed States Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, a Military Archives in Georgia Kathryn R. Coker United States Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon Archives Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance Part of the Archival Science Commons Recommended Citation Coker, Kathryn R., "Short Subjects: The nitU ed States Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, a Military Archives in Georgia," Provenance, Journal of the Society of Georgia Archivists 9 no. 1 (1991) . Available at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/provenance/vol9/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Provenance, Journal of the Society of Georgia Archivists by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 66 PROVEW\NCE/Spring-Fall 1991 SHORT SUBJECTS Features The US Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, a Miiitary Archives In Georgia Kathyrn R. Coker Introduction There's a relatively new "kid" archives on the block. It's called the U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon Archives located in Augusta, Georgia. Augusta is not only the home of the Masters Golf Tournament but also the PROVENANCE, Vol. IX, Nos. 1-2, Spring-Fall 1991 67 home of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, the army's communicators since 1860. Authorization The United
    [Show full text]
  • Impersonal Names Index Listing for the INSCOM Investigative Records Repository, 2010
    Description of document: US Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) Impersonal Names Index Listing for the INSCOM Investigative Records Repository, 2010 Requested date: 07-August-2010 Released date: 15-August-2010 Posted date: 23-August-2010 Title of document Impersonal Names Index Listing Source of document: Commander U.S. Army Intelligence & Security Command Freedom of Information/Privacy Office ATTN: IAMG-C-FOI 4552 Pike Road Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5995 Fax: (301) 677-2956 Note: The IMPERSONAL NAMES index represents INSCOM investigative files that are not titled with the name of a person. Each item in the IMPERSONAL NAMES index represents a file in the INSCOM Investigative Records Repository. You can ask for a copy of the file by contacting INSCOM. The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Knox: 100 Years of Training Excellence – Ideally Suited for the Future Force
    dcn: 9879 InstallationInstallation FamiliarizationFamiliarization BriefingBriefing MGMG TerryTerry Tucker,Tucker, USAARMCUSAARMC CommandingCommanding GeneralGeneral COLCOL KeithKeith Armstrong,Armstrong, GarrisonGarrison CommanderCommander Fort Knox: 100 Years of Training Excellence – Ideally Suited for the Future Force Draft Deliberative Document – For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Release Under FOIA. 1 OF <##> Themes History: Key to victory since WWII; The Combat Arm of Decision Relevance: Every Tanker / Scout in Iraq was trained at Ft. Knox Transformation: The Future Force is being forged here Value: A single post with regional responsibilities and impact Community: Local, state and regional partnerships Environment: No restrictions on training Joint: Multi-service, Multi-function; Joint installation of excellence Expansion: Space and facilities for new units and missions Fort Knox: 100 Years of Training Excellence – Ideally Suited for the Future Force Draft Deliberative Document – For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Release Under FOIA. 2 OF <##> Briefing Contents – Mission Brief – Units / Organizations Information – Installation Master Plan, Land Use, Excess Land, Office Space, Training Area & Ranges – Support Provided to the RC, Homeland Defense, Federal Agencies – Unique Characteristics – Conclusion Fort Knox: 100 Years of Training Excellence – Ideally Suited for the Future Force Draft Deliberative Document – For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Release Under FOIA. 3 OF <##> U.S. Army Armor Center USAARMC Mission: Train and
    [Show full text]
  • FPCD-76-100 the Army's Test of One Station Unit Training
    DOCUMENT RESUME C0133 - [10751218] The Army's Test of One Station Unit Training: Adequacy and Value. PPCD-76-100; B-146890. February 9, 1977. Released February 15, 1977. 26 pp. Report to Rep. George H. Mahon, Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller Genera]. Issue Area: Personnel Management and Compensation: Training and Education Programs (304). Contact: Federal Personnel and Compensation Div. Budget Function: National Defense: Department of Defense - military (except procurement & contracts) (051); National Defense: Military Assistance (052). Organization Concerned: Department of Defense; Department of the Army. Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Appropriations. A yearlong Army test of a concept for providing dasic and advanced training at one station under a single cadre was monitored. Findings/Conclusions: In order to implement the one station unit training, many current training centers would be closed and new construction costing about $300 million would be necessary. The test results show that under the cne station concept the training cycle can be reduced by tailoring the training program to what is necessary for initial entry-level skills. The test did not, however, examine whether similar reductions in the cycle would be attained if a tailored program were used for basic training at one station fol]owed ty advanced training at another station, !e army did noct attempt tc shorten the duration of the present initial entry training for .nfantry to see if adequate training could be achieved with a savings of cost and time. The training centers did not control or measure the effect of unequal treatment or uncontrolled factors, which could have biased test results.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortfort Leelee
    UnitedUnited StatesStates ArmyArmy CombinedCombined ArmsArms SupportSupport CommandCommand andand FortFort LeeLee 1 COL John Angevine, IMNE-LEE-G, [email protected]; 804/734-7188; DSN 687 241200Jun05 Agenda 0830 Arrive Garrison HQS Building 8000 0830 – 0840 En route to CASCOM – COL Angevine/Mrs. Lee 0845 – 0900 Office Call with CG - MG Dunwoody 0900 - 0905 Welcome and Introductions – COL Angevine 0905 – 0915 BRAC Team Visit – COL (Ret) Dinsick 0915 – 1000 Fort Lee Background Briefing – COL Angevine 1000 - 1045 CSS Center of Excellence Concept Briefing – COL Mullins 1045 – 1115 Break and pick up lunch 1115 – 1200 Review of BRAC Recommendations and Impacts – Mrs. Lee 1200 – 1300 BRAC Construction Requirements – Mr. Greg White, DPWL 1300 – 1400 Logistics Warrior Training – Mr. Don Bradshaw, DPTMS 1400 - Questions & Answers 2 FOCUS Installation Responsibilities Community Impact Current Missions/Functions Current Facilities/Infrastructure/Infostructure Fort Lee 2020 Quality of Life Future Mission Capability 3 Population • Active duty permanent party – Officers 580 – Enlisted 2585 • Civilians 3182 • Contractors 1330 • Family members – On-post 3197 – Off-post 2371 • Retirees, survivors & family On an average day, members 55,220 there are over 20,000 People • Student Average Annual on Fort Lee! Load Over 35,000 4 Workforce Diversity Fort Lee is the model employer with a diverse and effective work force incorporating the principles of equitable treatment and equal employment opportunity as integral parts of its mission. Our workforce mirrors
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Army Subsistence Headquarters Personnel
    U.S. ARMY SUBSISTENCE HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL ARMY FOOD SERVICE (Fiscal 2014) JOINT CULINARY CENTER OF EXCELLENCE Meals per year:.... .124 million Attn: ATSM-CES Meals per day: ....... 340,300 16th St. & B Ave., Bldg. 4200 Dining Facilities: ......... 195 Fort Lee, VA 23801 Food Purchases: ... .$1.5 billion DIRECTOR, JCCoE CHIEF, RESERVE COMPONENT U.S. ARMY RESEARCH, Lt. Col. Damon S. Varnado USA Rickey Frazier DEVELOPMENT AND (804) 734-3007 (804) 734-4285 ENGINEERING COMMAND [email protected] [email protected] Natick Soldier Center Department of Defense ARMY FOOD ADVISOR U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND Combat Feeding Program CW5 Princido Texidor, USA (MEDCOM) 15 Kansas Street (804) 734-3072 Fort Sam Houston, Texas Natick, MA 01760-5012 [email protected] Col. Laurie Sweet, USA Steven Moody (210) 808-2784 DSN: 256-4402 DIRECTOR, SPECIAL PROGRAMS [email protected] [email protected] DIRECTORATE/EXECUTIVE OFFICER Frederick Jackson (804) 734-3390 [email protected] U.S. Army Sustainment Command DIRECTOR, JOINT CULINARY TRAINING U.S. ARMY SUSTAINMENT COMMAND KUWAIT REGION FOOD ADVISOR DIRECTORATE ASC Food Program Manager/ CW3 Felipe Cardozo, USA Raymond Beu Direct Reporting Unit (DRU) POC HHC, ASG-KU, DOL (FPMO) APO AE 09366 (804) 734-3192 CW5 Russell Campbell, USA 011-965-389-3313/14 [email protected] Installation Logistics Directorate DSN: (318) 430-3313/14 1 Rock Island Arsenal [email protected] ARMY CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, Rock Island, IL 61299 SUBSISTENCE (ACES) (309) 782-0997 COMMAND FOOD ADVISORS Attn: ATSM-CES [email protected] AND KEY POCS 1831 Adams Ave., Bldg.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Agenda Tuesday, October 8
    DRAFT Agenda (as of 16 September, subject to change) On the Road to Army of 2028 – Delivering Integrated EW, SIGINT and Cyber at the Tactical Echelon Sessions will be held at the classified levels up to TS/SCI releasable to Five Eyes. Tuesday, October 8 APG C4ISR Campus, Myer Auditorium, Bldg 6000 0700 – 0800 Continental Breakfast and Registration in The Raven’s Networking Tent 0800 – 0810 Posting of the Colors, Maryland National Guard, Free State Challenge Academy Welcome, Administrative Briefing & Conference Preview Mr. Giorgio Bertoli & Mr. Rod Knecht, Conference Co-Chairmen 0810 – 0830 Major General Mitchell L. Kilgo, Commanding General, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command Senior Commander, Aberdeen Proving Ground Opening Remarks 0830 – 0900 Mr. Muddy Watters, AOC President Welcome 0900– 0930 Brigadier General Robert Collins, PEO, Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sensors (IEW&S) CEMA 2019 0930 – 1000 Brigadier General Matthew Easley, Director of Army Futures Command and AI Task Force for U.S. Army TBD 1000 – 1040 Break in the Raven’s Networking Tent 1040 – 1120 Lieutenant General Stephen Fogarty, Commanding General, Army Cyber Command Keynote Address 1120 – 1200 TBD 1200 – 1300 Lunch in the Raven’s Networking Tent 1300 – 1310 Opening Remarks & Security Briefing S & T, Session Chair: Mr William Taylor, CCDC C5ISR 1 1310 – 1330 Mr. Steve Govea, Motorola Solutions Inc., Applied Technology Applications of AI and ML to SIGINT and EW 1330 – 1350 Mr. Mark Farwell, C5ISR Center, Intelligence and Information Warfare Directorate Mr. Metin Ahiskali, CCDC C5ISR Center So... You Want to do [Tactical] Cyber 1350 – 1410 Dr. Krapels, SES, Director, Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate Combat Capabilities Development Command, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • TEST WELLS T23, T29, and T30f WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE and FORT BLISS MILITARY RESERVATION, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
    TEST WELLS T23, T29, AND T30f WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE AND FORT BLISS MILITARY RESERVATION, DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO By Robert G. Myers and Karen M. Pinckley U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 84-805 Prepared in cooperation with WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE Albuquerque, New Mexico 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information For sale by: write to: Open-File Services Section District Chief Branch of Distribution U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey, MS 306 Water Resources Division Box 25425, Denver Federal Center 505 Marquette NW, Room 720 Denver, Colorado 80225 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 (303) 236-7476 ii CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................... 1 Test well T23 ....................................'...................... 4 Test well T29 .......................................................... 19 Test well T30 .......................................................... 23 References ............................................................. 28 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing locations of test wells T23, T29, and T30, White Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss Military Reservation ............................................... 2 2. Gamma and neutron logs for test well T29 (22S.05E.28.122) with casing ............................................... 22 3. Gamma, neutron, and caliper logs for test well T30 (22S.05E.32.334) with casing .............................. 27 TABLES Table 1. Well records of test wells T23, T29, and T30 ................. 4 2. Lithologic log for test well T23 (23S.05E.15.332) ............ 5 3. Lithologic log for test well T29 (22S.05E.28.122) ............ 20 4. Lithologic log for test well T30 (22S.05E.32.334) ............ 24 iii CONVERSION FACTORS In this report, measurements are given in inch-pound units only (except for grain size). The following table contains factors for converting to metric units.
    [Show full text]