off site. In order to provide a reliable estimate of the mass of these residues at various
locations on ranges, it is necessary to provide samples that represent these areas
within an acceptable level of uncertainty. The level of uncertainty that would be
acceptable is site specific. Our objective is to provide some guidelines to enable a
selection of the sampling and subsampling protocols that can provide that level of
To achieve that goal, a 10-m x 10-m area was selected that was about 15 m from a
bombing target in B-1. Four 30-increment composite surface soil samples (0 to 2.5
cm) were collected by two different individuals using the random walk method.
Increments were collected using stainless steel scoops because the soils at these
installations were coarse grained and not sufficiently cohesive to allow the use of a
core sampler. Composite samples were placed in 32-oz glass jars kept in a cooler.
The 10-m x 10-m area was subdivided into one hundred 1-m x 1-m minigrids using
wooden sticks (Fig. 7). Within each minigrid, a discrete surface soil sample (10 g, 0
to 2.5 cm) was collected by several individuals at random positions within the
minigrid using metal scoops. These discrete samples were placed in 4-oz amber glass
containers. Both the grid composite samples and discrete minigrid samples were
shipped to CRREL and analyzed with the protocol previously described.
Wherever vegetation samples were collected, the method consisted of building
composite samples of indigenous living plants by randomly cutting various types of
plants. A minimum of 20-30 sub samples of mixed vegetation material was collected
to build the different vegetation samples around targets and in transects. Only the
upper part of the plants (without roots) was collected, since grazing animals rarely eat
the roots of the plants as verified by consulting an expert from Environment Canada
(Lucie Olivier, Environment Canada-Montral). Metals could bio-accumulate either
in the upper plant system or in the roots, depending on their solubility.
For surface water samples, the strategy consisted in collecting at 10 and 13 different
locations in Jimmy Lake and in Primerose Lake and to note the GPS locations. Jimmy
Lake is much smaller than Primerose Lake. Surface water was also collected in two
craters formed by a detonation, one in Alpha Range and the second in Shaver River
Range as illustrated in Figure 8. Sediment samples were also collected in Jimmy
Lakeand in Primerose Lake using a manual grabber (Fig. 9). Excess water was
removed by decantation and the sediment was transferred into polyethylene bags.
Finally, six sites were sampled in the remote areas: C-295, C-284, C-314, A-387, F-
332 and E-301. Many of these sites were highly vegetated and very wet and
sometimes, collection of water samples only was possible such as in C-295. In these
instances, water samples were collected by standing on the Heli-skids. No energetic
materials are used in the remote areas; so, most of the analyses were to determine
metal concentrations. Usually, wooden targets or existing infrastructures such as old
gas wells are used in the remote areas for aiming practice, laser pointing etc. (Figs.
10, 11). Pratice bombs and rockets were found in two different sites (Figs. 12-14). In
all of these sites, since our flying time was limited, only targets or infrastructures
were sampled using the compositing approach. Efforts were made to collect soil,
vegetation and water when possible at each site. Site E-301 which was new and had
never been used before was considered as background for our study.
10
DRDC Valcartier TR 2004-204
Previous Page
