FINAL

Site Inspection Report 

Camp Adair

Corvallis, Oregon 

Site Inspection for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS), 

Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid (PFHxS), Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA), Hexafluoropropylene 

Oxide Dimer Acid (HFPO-DA), and Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid (PFBS) 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

May 2023 

Prepared for: 

Army National Guard Headquarters 

111 S. George Mason Drive 

Arlington, VA 22204 

UNCLASSIFIED
This page intentionally left blank 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ iv

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION ........................................................................... 1-1

1.2 SITE INSPECTION PURPOSE .......................................................................... 1-1

2. FACILITY BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 FACILITY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ................................................. 2-1

2.2 FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Geology .................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 Hydrogeology .......................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................ 2-4

2.2.4 Climate ..................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use ................................................................... 2-5

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species ........................... 2-6

2.3 HISTORY OF PFAS USE ................................................................................... 2-6

3. SUMMARY OF AREAS OF INTEREST ....................................................................... 3-1

3.1 AOI 1 – CONTROLLED BURN TREE .............................................................. 3-1

3.2 ADJACENT SOURCES ...................................................................................... 3-1

4. PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 4-1

4.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 INFORMATION INPUTS .................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 STUDY BOUNDARIES ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 ANALYTICAL APPROACH ............................................................................. 4-1

4.5 DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................. 4-2

5. SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 PRE-INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 5-2
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC iii

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning ...................................................................... 5-2

5.1.2 Utility Clearance ...................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability ................. 5-3

5.2 SOIL BORINGS AND SOIL SAMPLING ......................................................... 5-3

5.3 TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER GRAB 

SAMPLING ......................................................................................................... 5-4

5.4 SYNOPTIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ........................................... 5-5

5.5 SURVEYING ...................................................................................................... 5-5

5.6 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE ............................................................. 5-5

5.7 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS ................................................... 5-6

5.8 DEVIATIONS FROM SI UFP-QAPP ADDENDUM ........................................ 5-6

6. SITE INSPECTION RESULTS ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 SCREENING LEVELS ....................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL ANALYSES ........................................................ 6-2

6.3 AOI 1 ................................................................................................................... 6-2

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results.................................................................. 6-2

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results ................................................... 6-2

6.3.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 6-3

7. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS .............................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY .......................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 AOI 1 ....................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY.................................................... 7-2

7.2.1 AOI 1 ....................................................................................................... 7-2

8. SUMMARY AND OUTCOME ...................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 SI ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 OUTCOME .......................................................................................................... 8-1

9. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 9-1
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Data Usability Assessment and Validation Reports 

Appendix B. Field Documentation 

 B1. Log of Daily Notice of Field Activities

 B2. Sampling Forms 

 B3. Survey Data 

B4. Field Change Request Form 

Appendix C. Photographic Log 

Appendix D. Technical Project Planning Meeting Minutes 

Appendix E. Boring Logs and Well Construction Diagrams 

Appendix F. Analytical Results

Appendix G. Laboratory Reports 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Facility Location

Figure 2-2 Facility Topography 

Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features 

Figure 2-4 Surface Water Features

Figure 2-5 Groundwater Elevations – September 2021 

Figure 3-1 Areas of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations 

Figure 6-1 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil 

Figure 6-6 PFOS, PFOA, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater 

Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater 

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, Camp Adair
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC v 

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater) 

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations 

Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium, Camp Adair, Corvallis, Oregon, Site 

Inspection Report 

Table 5-2 Soil Boring Depths and Temporary Well Screen Intervals, Camp Adair, Corvallis, 

Oregon, Site Inspection Report 

Table 5-3 Groundwater Elevations, Camp Adair, Corvallis, Oregon, Site Inspection Report 

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater) 

Table 6-2 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Surface Soil, Site Inspection 

Report, Camp Adair, Oregon 

Table 6-3 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Shallow Subsurface Soil, Site 

Inspection Report, Camp Adair, Oregon 

Table 6-4 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater, Site Inspection 

Report, Camp Adair, Oregon 

Table 8-1 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations, Site Inspection 

Report, Camp Adair, Corvallis, Oregon 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

°C Degrees Celsius

% Percent

μg/kg Microgram(s) per kilogram 

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 

AFFF Aqueous Film Forming Foam 

amsl Above mean sea level

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard 

ASTM ASTM International 

bgs Below ground surface 

btoc Below top of casing 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

COC Chain-of-custody 

CSM Conceptual site model 

DA Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DPT Direct-push technology 

DQI Data quality indicator 

DQO Data quality objective 

DUA Data Usability Assessment

EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

EFU Exclusive Farm Use (zoning) 

EIS Extraction internal standards 

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 

EM Engineer Manual

EB Equipment Blank 

FB Field blank 

FedEx Federal Express

ft Foot (feet)

HDPE High-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IDW Investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC vii

LC/MS/MS Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

LCS Laboratory control sample 

LCSD Laboratory control sample duplicate 

LOQ Limit of quantification

MIL-SPEC military specification

MS Matrix spike 

MSD Matrix spike duplicate 

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 

ng/L Nanogram(s) per liter

No. Number 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

ODPSST Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training 

OMD Oregon Military Department

ORARNG Oregon Army National Guard 

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OWRD Oregon Water Resources Department

PA preliminary assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid 

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PID photoionization detector 

PVC polyvinyl chloride 

QA Quality assurance 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC Quality control 

QSM Quality Systems Manual 

RI Remedial investigation 

RPD Relative percent difference

SI Site Inspection

SL Screening level

TOC Total organic carbon 

TPP Technical Project Planning

UFP Uniform Federal Policy 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC viii

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Wood Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 

WSP WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC ix

This page intentionally left blank 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Army National Guard (ARNG) G-9 is performing Preliminary Assessments (PAs) and Site 

Inspections (SIs) at ARNG facilities nationwide based on the current or potential historical use of 

per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), with a focus on the six compounds presented in the 

memorandum regarding Investigating Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within the 

Department of Defense Cleanup Program (Assistant Secretary of Defense 2022) from the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 6 July 2022. The six compounds listed in the OSD 

memorandum include perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic 

acid (PFHxS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)1. These compounds are 

collectively referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout this document, and the applicable 

Screening Levels (SLs) are provided below in Table ES-1. 

The PA identified one Area of Interest (AOI) where PFAS-containing materials may have been 

used, stored, disposed, or released historically (see Table ES-2 for AOI location). The objective 

of the SI is to identify whether there has been a release to the environment from the AOI 

identified in the PA and determine whether further investigation is warranted, a removal action is 

required to address immediate threats, or no further action is required based on screening levels 

(SLs) for the relevant compounds. This SI was completed at the Najaf Training Center, a portion 

of Camp Adair, a former US Army installation established in 1942 in Corvallis, Oregon and

determined that no further evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is warranted for AOI 1: Controlled Burn Tree at 

this time. Camp Adair will also be referred to as the “Facility” throughout this document. 

The Facility, operated by Oregon ARNG (ORARNG) as a military training center, encompasses 

approximately 527 acres in Corvallis, Oregon. Camp Adair is in Benton County, approximately 

9 miles northwest of the City of Corvallis. The Facility is located approximately 2 miles west of 

Highway 99 West (South Pacific Highway West). The mission of Camp Adair is to provide 

training facilities and terrain for military soldiers and other military organizations. Annual 

wildland firefighting training occurs at the Facility for both military and nonmilitary personnel, 

including local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW). The Facility consists of the cantonment and live-fire rifle-range training 

areas (primarily in the eastern portion) and undeveloped vegetated land (primarily in the western 

portion). The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (ODPSST) operates at 

the Facility with live-fire small arms at the firing range for law enforcement training. The 

southwestern and southeastern portions of the Facility are used for rotary-winged aircraft 

operations training (AECOM, 2020). 

1 Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as 

GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the conceptual site model (CSM) developed 

during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because 

HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military specification (MIL-SPEC) aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) 

and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component 

of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern 

in the absence of other PFAS.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC ES-2 

The PA identified one AOI for investigation during the SI phase. SI sampling results from the 

AOI were compared to OSD SLs. Table ES-2 summarizes the SI results for the AOI. Based on 

the results of this SI, no further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted for the AOI identified in 

the PA. 

Table ES-1. Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyte2

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)1

(0-2 feet bgs)

Industrial / Commercial

Composite Worker (Soil)

(μg/kg)1 

(2-15 feet bgs)

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)1 

PFOA 19 250 6 

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels in Groundwater 

and Soil using United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional 

Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ) = 0.1. May 2022. 

2. Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA 

(commonly referred to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. 

Based on the conceptual site model (CSM) developed during the PA and revised based on 

SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA 

is generally not a component of military specification (MIL-SPEC) aqueous film forming 

foam (AFFF) and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use 

of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it 

is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of other 

PFAS.

Abbreviations:

μg/kg = microgram(s) per kilogram

bgs = below ground surface

ng/L = nanogram(s) per liter

Table ES-2. Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

AOI Potential Release Area

Soil – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area Future Action

1 Controlled Burn Tree No further action

Legend:

 = Detected; exceedance of screening levels

 = Detected; no exceedance of screening levels

 = Not detected
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 1-1 

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

The Army National Guard (ARNG) G-9 is the lead agency in performing preliminary 

assessments (PAs) and site inspections (SIs) at ARNG facilities nationwide based on the current 

or potential historical use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), with a focus on the six 

compounds presented in the memorandum regarding Investigating Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 

Substances within the Department of Defense Cleanup Program (Assistant Secretary of Defense 

2022) from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 6 July 2022. The six compounds 

listed in the OSD memorandum are referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout this 

document and include perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic 

acid (PFHxS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA).

2 The ARNG performed 

this SI at the Najaf Training Center, a portion of Camp Adair in Corvallis, Oregon. Camp Adair 

is also referred to as the “Facility” throughout this report. 

The SI project elements were performed in accordance with the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (United States

Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 1980), as amended, the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 300; 

USEPA 1994), and in compliance with United States Department of Army (DA) requirements 

and guidance for field investigations. 

1.2 SITE INSPECTION PURPOSE

A PA was performed at Camp Adair (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. [AECOM] 2020) that 

identified one Area of Interest (AOI) where PFAS-containing materials may have been used, 

stored, disposed, or released historically. The objective of the SI is to identify whether there has 

been a release to the environment from the AOI identified in the PA and determine whether 

further investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or 

no further action is required based on screening levels (SLs) for the relevant compounds. 

2 Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as 

GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the conceptual site model (CSM) developed 

during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because 

HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military specification (MIL-SPEC) aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) 

and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component 

of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern 

in the absence of other PFAS.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 1-2 

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-1 

2. FACILITY BACKGROUND

2.1 FACILITY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The subject of this SI is the Najaf Training Center, a portion of Camp Adair, a former US Army 

installation established in 1942. Camp Adair is located in Benton County, approximately 9 miles 

northwest of the City of Corvallis and approximately 2 miles west of Highway 99 West (South 

Pacific Highway West) (Figure 2-1). The Facility is occupied and operated by the Oregon Army 

National Guard (ORARNG) as a military training center, encompassing 527 acres. The mission 

of Camp Adair is to provide training facilities and terrain for military soldiers and other military 

organizations. Annual wildland firefighting training occurs at the Facility for both military and 

nonmilitary personnel, including local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Facility consists of the cantonment and 

live-fire rifle-range training areas (primarily in the eastern portion) and undeveloped vegetated 

land (primarily in the western portion). The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and 

Training (ODPSST) operates at the Facility with live-fire small arms at the firing range for law 

enforcement training. The southwestern and southeastern portions of the Facility are used for 

rotary-winged aircraft operations training (AECOM, 2020). 

The former 57,000-acre Camp Adair/Adair Air Force Station was used by the United States

Army for troops training during World War II from 1942 to 1946, the United States Navy in 

1945, and the United States Air Force in the 1960s. This former property encompassed 60 square 

miles (6 miles wide and 10 miles long) and was developed with over 1,700 buildings, extending 

to the City of Adair Village located approximately 3 miles southeast of the present-day Camp 

Adair Facility. The majority of the Camp Adair/Adair Air Force Station was declared surplus 

after the war and sold or transferred to various government and nongovernment entities between 

1944 and 1946. Military use of the Camp Adair/Adair Air Force Station ended in 1970, and 

additional land was sold to various government and nongovernment entities (AECOM, 2020). 

The present-day Camp Adair (527 acres) property is owned by the federal government and 

administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), licensing use to the 

Oregon Military Department (OMD) since the 1950s. The ODPSST operates at the Facility 

under a separate USACE license. The ORARNG took over the property Facility operations in the 

late 1960s. On-post operations conducted by the ORARNG at Camp Adair have involved both 

military and nonmilitary training operations. Operations include military personnel training of 

weaponry (small arms firing range), infantry field exercises (land navigation), equipment staging 

and storage, and rotary-winged aircraft landings. Training can involve blank ammunition, 

pyrotechnics, and smoke. Nonmilitary operations include use of the firing ranges by ODPSST 

civilian law enforcement (not controlled by OMD). Additionally, civilian high school groups and 

local college Reserve Officers Training Corps groups train on the ropes courses. Annual 

prescribed burns are conducted on-post by OMD Fire Rangers, the local fire department, and 

ODFW. Extinguishing materials are primarily water-based, with the exception of a single use of 

aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) during an OMD-facilitated controlled burn in 2011 

(AECOM, 2020). 

Prior to the military’s use of Camp Adair in the early 1940s, the property was primarily 

undeveloped and agricultural land. Native Americans historically inhabited the land and by 1846, 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-2 

the land was acquired by a homesteader for agricultural use. Based on review of historical aerial 

photographs, development of Camp Adair appears to date back to at least 1944 with limited 

changes relative to the facility configuration observed during the site visit, with the exception of 

road development in the eastern and western portions (by at least 2005 and 2010, respectively) 

(AECOM, 2020). 

2.2 FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Topography at Camp Adair varies from flat in the eastern portion to rolling hills in the western 

portion (Figure 2-2). Elevation ranges from approximately 230 feet (ft) to 740 ft above mean sea 

level (amsl). From the west/central to the east/central boundaries, elevation ranges from 

approximately 660 to 230 ft amsl. From the south/central to north/central boundaries, elevation 

ranges from approximately 430 to 270 ft amsl. Three hills are present at Camp Adair, 

contributing to the higher elevations: Oak Hill in the north/central portion, Smith Hill along the 

western boundary, and Hill 655T along the southwestern boundary. Slopes generally range from 

0 to 12 percent (%), with Smith Hill and Hill 655T exhibiting over 20% slopes (AECOM, 2020). 

Camp Adair is in the Pacific Border Province, Pacific Mountain System. The Facility is bordered 

by agricultural land on all four borders, in addition to forest to the west. Wetlands, streams, and 

rivers are interspersed in the area surrounding the Facility (Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4). The 

Willamette River is located approximately 5 miles to the east, flowing from south to north. Camp 

Adair is located in a rural area of the Willamette Valley, with some residential properties located 

south of the Facility (AECOM, 2020). 

2.2.1 Geology 

Camp Adair is in a geologic area characterized as two distinct features. The western portion of 

the Facility is underlain by Siletz River Volcanics and related rocks. The eastern portion of the 

Facility is underlain by lacustrine and fluvial sedimentary rocks. The Siletz is characterized by 

aphanitic to porphyritic massive lava flows and sills of alkali basalt. The upper part of the 

sequence contains interbeds of basaltic siltstone and sandstone with rocks of marine origin. The 

lacustrine zone is characterized by unconsolidated to semi-consolidated lacustrine clay, silt, sand, 

and gravel, including mudflow and fluvial deposits and layers of peat. Unconsolidated deposits 

have a maximum thickness of approximately 125 ft locally (AECOM, 2020). At the AOI, located 

on a hill underlain by the Siletz Formation, overburden exceeds 20 feet in thickness based on SI 

results.

During the SI, low to medium plasticity fines (primarily silty clay) were observed as the 

dominant lithology below the Facility. The borings were completed at depths ranging from 14.5 

to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). Minor amounts of sand and gravel were noted. Samples 

for grain size analyses were collected at one location, AOI01-04, and analyzed via ASTM 

International (ASTM) Method D-422. The results indicate that the soil samples are comprised 

primarily of silt (35.2%). These results and Facility observations are consistent with the reported 

depositional environment of the region. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-3 

2.2.2 Hydrogeology 

Soils beneath Camp Adair are characterized as 12 different mapping units that are collectively 

highly variable with complex patterns. The soils range from silt loams to silty clay loams, which 

all have low permeability. The Waldo, Amity, Concord, Dayton, and Witham soil series are 

poorly drained, while the remaining soil series are well drained. The soil series include the 

following (AECOM, 2020): 

• Silt loams – Amity, Concord, Dayton, and Woodburn soil series 

• Silty clay loams – Dixonville, Jory, McAlpin, Waldo, and Witham soil series 

• Complex – Jory-Nekia, Price-MacDunn-Ritner, and Witzel-Ritner soil series.

The Jory-Nekia complex comprises 28% of the total acreage of soils beneath Camp Adair, 

followed by Witzel-Ritner complex (21%), and Dayton silt loam (12%). The remaining soil 

series comprise less than 10% of the total acreage of soils beneath Camp Adair (AECOM, 2020). 

Camp Adair is in the west/central portion of the Willamette Valley. A limited water-supplying 

aquifer is located beneath the Facility (and the surrounding region). Drinking water in this region 

is primarily obtained from groundwater; however, water-bearing units in the immediate vicinity 

of Camp Adair do not meet Facility needs and are not utilized. Drinking water is supplied to 

Camp Adair by the Luckiamute River Water System. Four wells supply drinking water to the 

Luckiamute River Water System, located between the cities of Buena Vista and Independence. 

Both cities are northeast of Camp Adair (by approximately 5 and 10 miles, respectively). 

Groundwater is typically supplied from sand and gravel aquifers beneath the Willamette River 

floodplain (to the east of Camp Adair). Saturated sands and gravel in unconsolidated deposits are 

the most productive water-bearing geologic units in the region (AECOM, 2020). 

Camp Adair is situated above the Willamette lowland basin-fill aquifers, characterized as 

unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers at or near the land surface. The principal aquifer system 

of this region is identified as the Puget-Willamette Trough Regional Aquifer System, which is 

composed of unconsolidated-deposit and Miocene basaltic-rock aquifers. Deposits are thicker in 

the northern portion of the Willamette Valley, gradually thinning from 800 ft in the Portland area 

(60 miles northeast of Camp Adair) to 200 ft in the Salem area (18 miles northeast of Camp 

Adair). In the western portion of the aquifer system, Miocene basaltic-rock aquifers are the most 

productive. In Benton County, depth to water is reported in the range of 10 to 35 ft bgs, with 

yields ranging from less than 500 to 1,000 gallons per minute (AECOM, 2020). 

Regionally, recharge occurs from precipitation and varies greatly. Variation is a result of the 

permeability of surface deposits and percolation rates of underlying soils. Groundwater recharge 

also occurs along streams and is also possible in areas located within several hundred feet of the 

Willamette River. Annual recharge is estimated at 2 to 5 inches in the volcanic formations (and 

older alluviums) and 8 to 15 inches for younger alluviums. No younger alluviums are present 

beneath Camp Adair; therefore, recharge of groundwater is within 2 to 5 inches (AECOM, 

2020). 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-4 

According to online information available from the Oregon Water Resources Department 

(OWRD), approximately 11 water supply wells are plotted within 3⁄4 mile downgradient 

(northeast) of the Camp Adair Facility. However, several of those wells do not have detailed 

location information and it is unclear where they are relative to the Camp Adair boundary. Two 

wells on the OWRD website plot within the Facility boundary of Camp Adair. One of these 

wells, BENT 51305, is located on a street just south of Camp Adair and upgradient of the AOI. 

According to location information on the downloaded well log, the other well, BENT 029, is 

actually located more than 6 miles south of the Facility, upgradient of the AOI (OWRD, 2021). 

The PA identified two private drinking water wells located off-post approximately 0.25 mile 

(#50381) and 0.5 mile (#50378) south (upgradient) of Camp Adair. The wells were drilled in 

1997 with reported depths to groundwater of 45 and 126 feet bgs, respectively. According to a 

1983 study of the Dallas-Monmouth area (between 8 and 13 miles to the north of Camp Adair in 

Polk County but also including the northern portion of Benton County), a total of 12 observation 

wells were measured by the OWRD in the 1960s and 1970s. Groundwater occurs in rocks under 

unconfined, confined, and perched conditions. The study indicated that groundwater recharge 

balances with groundwater discharge, and changes in groundwater storage occur according to the 

season. Groundwater is supplied from sand and gravel in older alluvium. Depth to groundwater 

in the observation wells was reported to range from 5 to 15 ft bgs. Groundwater in the region is 

used for irrigation, public drinking water, domestic/stock, and industrial purposes. Most of these 

uses are supplied from groundwater in unconsolidated deposits. Based on the anticipated shallow 

depth to groundwater and the topographic relief at and in the area surrounding Camp Adair, 

groundwater is estimated to flow generally to the north/northeast (Figure 2-3) (AECOM, 2020). 

A United States Geological Survey monitoring well is located approximately 7 miles to the 

northeast of the Facility (Site No. POLK0053369; Figure 2-3). Depth to groundwater has been 

measured at a maximum of 13.9 ft bgs, with shallowest groundwater readings at the surface, and 

an average of 7.4 ft bgs. This well was drilled to 58 ft bgs (AECOM, 2020). 

During the SI in September 2021, depth to water was measured at 17.2 and 18.3 ft below ground 

surface in temporary wells. Groundwater elevations from the SI are presented on Figure 2-5.

The groundwater data collected during the SI did not provide enough information to calculate a 

gradient or flow direction; however, groundwater elevation measurements are consistent with 

anticipated shallow groundwater flow to the north-northeast.

2.2.3 Hydrology 

Camp Adair is within the Berry Creek and Upper Soak Creek subwatersheds (Hydrologic Unit 

Code [HUC] 12), which are within the Luckiamute watershed (HUC 10) of the Upper 

Willamette subbasin (HUC 8) of the Willamette River basin (HUC 6). The northern portion of 

the Facility is located within the Berry Creek subwatershed (HUC 12), and the southern portion 

of the Facility is located within the Upper Soap Creek subwatershed (HUC 12) (Figure 2-4) 

(AECOM, 2020). 

Surface water bodies at the Facility consist of a single seasonal unnamed creek flowing from 

Smith Hill in the western portion of the property in a southwest to northeast direction, exiting 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-5 

along the eastern property boundary. The creek continues to flow northeasterly towards Berry 

Creek, ultimately discharging into the Willamette River located approximately 5 miles to the 

east. Flood plains or 100-year floodplains are not located within the property boundary of Camp 

Adair. Wetlands are located in the southeastern corner of the property boundary. A narrow 

riverine wetland is in the north/central portion of the property, extending off-post to the north 

(AECOM, 2020). 

Surface stormwater runoff from paved areas of the Facility (only in the central/eastern portion) 

enter stormwater junction points, discharging off-facility. Stormwater runoff in the remaining 

unpaved areas infiltrates the ground or enters ephemeral drainage streams and wetlands. Surface 

water runoff at Camp Adair would occur during heavy precipitation events where precipitation 

exceeds the infiltration rate of the soil (AECOM, 2020). 

2.2.4 Climate

Camp Adair is in the west/central portion of the Willamette Valley, where the climate is 

considered to be relatively mild throughout most of the year. Winters are cool and wet, and 

summers are warm and dry. Approximately 50% of the annual precipitation in the Willamette 

Valley occurs during the fall and winter months from October through March, coinciding with 

cooler temperatures. Elevation and temperature are the driving factors determining precipitation 

in the Willamette Valley. An average of 47 inches of precipitation occurs annually in the 

Willamette Valley, as recorded at Eugene, Oregon, located within the Willamette Valley 

approximately 45 miles south-southeast of Camp Adair (NOAA, 2020a). Annual precipitation in 

the form of snow recorded during the 1981 to 2010 period totaled 3.1 inches (AECOM, 2020). 

The nearest weather station with recorded historical data is located approximately 6 miles 

southeast of Camp Adair at the Corvallis Oregon State University Station (Station ID 

USC00351862). Annual precipitation recorded during the 1981 to 2010 period at this weather 

station averages approximately 43 inches. Annual temperature recorded during the 1981 to 2010 

period averaged 52.6 degrees Fahrenheit (NOAA, 2020b).

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

Camp Adair comprises a cantonment area, live-fire small-arms ranges, a ropes course, and open 

area. Several buildings are located in the cantonment area for office, workshop, and warehousing 

purposes. Paved roads are located in the eastern portion. These developed areas are limited to 

55 acres in the eastern portion of the Facility. The remaining 472 acres of Camp Adair is 

undeveloped vegetated land, including wetlands and unpaved roads for land navigation training. 

Access to the Facility is controlled, and the Facility is at least partially fenced. Land use to the 

north, east, and south is a mixture of residential and agriculture with interspersed wetlands 

(AECOM, 2020). 

Camp Adair is zoned by Benton County as Open Space. The Facility is along the northern 

boundary of Benton County, adjacent to Polk County. Land to the east and southeast is zoned 

Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). Land to the south, southwest, and west is zoned Forest 

Conservation. Land to the north of the Facility is zoned by Polk County as EFU. Camp Adair is 

federally owned land leased by USACE, and its use is unlikely to change in the future. The 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-6 

Luckiamute watershed consists primarily of agricultural and forested land. Based on review of 

historical Google Earth aerial imagery and the Benton and Polk County zoning maps, it is likely 

that surrounding land uses in the future will remain the same (AECOM, 2020). 

The nearest urban areas are Adair Village and Corvallis, approximately 3 and 9 miles to the 

southeast and south of Camp Adair, respectively. According to the 2017 United States Census, 

the estimated populations of Adair Village and Corvallis were 859 and 57,961, respectively. 

Based on the population estimates, the populations of Adair Village and Corvallis have only 

increased by 15 and 1,000 since 2010, respectively (AECOM, 2020). 

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species

A wildlife survey has not occurred at the facility. The following species have not been identified 

at the Facility according to documents reviewed but may be present in the surrounding area and 

are listed as federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and/or candidate species at or in the 

vicinity of Camp Adair (USFWS, 2022):

• Birds: marbled murrelet, Brachyramphus marmoratus (threatened); northern spotted owl, 

Strix occidentalis caurina (threatened); streaked horned lark, Eremophila alpestris strigata

(threatened)

• Flowering Plants: Kincaid’s lupine, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (threatened); Nelson’s 

checker-mallow, Sidalcea nelsoniana (threatened); Willamette daisy, Erigeron decumbens

(endangered) 

• Insects: monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (candidate); Fender’s blue butterfly, Icaricia 

icarioides fender (endangered); Taylor’s checkerspot, Euphydryas editha taylori

(endangered) 

• Mammals: Pacific marten, Martes caurina (threatened); red tree vole, Arborimus 

longicaudus (candidate)

2.3 HISTORY OF PFAS USE 

One potential PFAS release area was identified at the Facility during the PA (AECOM, 2020). 

Interviews and records obtained during the PA indicate that PFAS were potentially released to 

soil, groundwater, and surface water within the boundary of Camp Adair during one event in 

2011 in an area where a prescribed burn of vegetation took place (AOI 1). A description of the 

AOI is presented in Section 3. 
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

Figure 2-1

Facility Location

Camp Adair

3

0 2

Miles

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-1 Facility Location.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:49:50 PM

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-8 

This page intentionally left blank
Figure 2-2

Facility Topography

AOI 1: Controlled Burn Tree

710

650

600

550

500

480

450

400

350

300

250

240

420

390

350

320

300

280

260

250

240

600

550

500

450

360

230

680

650

280

230

500

450

560

520

480

440

650

600

390

360

530

510

490

470

250

240

590

520

460

440

390

380

380

310

310

290

290

270

260

270

330

240

610

570

300

270

730

350

270

700

670

670

620

640

640

620

580

580

560

540

540

530

530

490

490

470

430

430

420

430

400

410

380

400

370

370

360 340

340

330

310

300

250

240

220

220

220

3

0 1,000

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Topography

Elevation Contour

(10 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum)

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-2 Facility Topography.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:51:12 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

NOAA 2021

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-10

This page intentionally left blank
Figure 2-3

Groundwater Features

!<

!<

!<

Willamette River Willamette River

Duck

Slo ugh

Berry Creek

Soap Cr eek

USGS Site No.

POLK0053369

Groundwater Well 3

0 1

Miles

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:52:54 PM

Hydrogeology

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Well Type

!< Domestic

!<

Monitoring

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-12

This page intentionally left blank
Figure 2-4

Surface Water Features

AOI 1: Controlled Burn Tree

Soap Creek

Berry Creek

Upper

Soap Creek

Watershed

Berry Creek

Watershed

3

0 1,500

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

Watershed Boundary

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-4 Surface Water Features.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:53:39 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-14

This page intentionally left blank
Figure 2-5

Groundwater Elevations - September 2021

")

")

AOI 1: Controlled Burn Tree

CAOR-AOI01-06

(282.55')

CAOR-AOI01-08

(278.92')

360

340

320

300

300

280

340

320

400

380

360

360

340

380

260

320

380

280

300

280

3

0 250

Feet

Facility Data

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-5 Groundwater Elevations - September 2021.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:53:32 PM

Sample Location

")

Temporary Groundwater Well Location

(groundwater elevation in feet as

measured on 21 September 2021,

NAVD88 datum)

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

Topography

Elevation Contour

(20 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum)

NOTE: Facility boundary extends beyond the limits of this figure.

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-16

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 3-1 

3. SUMMARY OF AREAS OF INTEREST

The PA evaluated areas where PFAS-containing materials may have been used, stored, disposed, 

or released historically. Based on the PA findings, one potential release area was identified at 

Camp Adair: AOI 1, Controlled Burn Tree. The AOI is shown on Figure 3-1. 

3.1 AOI 1 – CONTROLLED BURN TREE

AOI 1 is the Controlled Burn Tree and its immediately surrounding area (Figure 3-1). A onetime release of AFFF by the OMD occurred at AOI 1 in 2011. The OMD conducted a controlled 

burn in the north/central portion of the Facility. One larger tree remained burning at the end of 

the day’s exercise, and OMD fire rangers doused the burning tree and the immediately 

surrounding vegetation with less than 1 gallon of AFFF to extinguish the fire. The known use of 

AFFF occurred only once in 2011; the exact date is unknown. The type and concentration of 

AFFF used was not reported (AECOM, 2020). 

3.2 ADJACENT SOURCES

The final PA does not indicate any potential sources of PFAS upgradient from or adjacent to 

Camp Adair (AECOM, 2020). Because no potential upgradient sources of PFAS were identified 

in the PA, samples were not collected at the upgradient Facility boundary at Camp Adair. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 3-2 

This page intentionally left blank
Figure 3-1

Area of Interest

AOI 1: Controlled Burn Tree

3

0 1,000

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 3-1 Area of Interest.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:52:36 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 3-4 

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 4-1 

4. PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

As identified during the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process and outlined in the SI Uniform 

Federal Policy (UFP) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (EA/Wood 3

 2021a), 

the objective of the SI is to identify whether there has been a release to the environment at the 

AOI identified in the PA. For the AOI, ARNG determines if further investigation is warranted, a 

removal action is required to address immediate threats, or whether no further action is 

warranted. This SI evaluated groundwater and soil for the presence or absence of relevant 

compounds at the AOI.

4.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

ARNG will recommend an AOI for remedial investigation (RI) if related soil and groundwater 

samples have concentrations of the relevant compounds above the OSD risk-based SLs. The SLs 

are presented in Section 6.1 of this report. 

4.2 INFORMATION INPUTS

Primary information inputs for the SI include the following: 

• The PA Report for Camp Adair (AECOM 2020); 

• Analytical data from groundwater and soil samples collected as part of this SI in accordance 

with the site-specific UFP – QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 2021a); and

• Field data collected during the SI, including groundwater elevation and water quality 

parameters measured at the time of sampling. 

4.3 STUDY BOUNDARIES

The scope of the SI was bounded horizontally by the property limits of the Facility (Figure 2-1 

and Figure 2-2). The scope of the SI was bounded vertically by the depth of temporary 

monitoring wells installed within groundwater, where encountered (maximum depth of 20 feet 

bgs). Off-facility sampling was not included in the scope of this SI. If future off-facility sampling 

is required, the proper stakeholders will be notified, and necessary rights of entry will be 

obtained by ARNG with property owner(s). Temporal boundaries were limited to the earliest 

available time field resources were available to complete the study.

4.4 ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Samples were analyzed by Eurofins, accredited under the DoD Environmental Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (DoD ELAP; Accreditation Number 1.01) and the National 

3 Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc (“Wood”), EA’s primary subcontractor on the PFAS SI’s was 

acquired by WSP on September 21, 2022. Due to the acquisition, we have changed our name to WSP USA 

Environment & Infrastructure Inc. (“WSP”). No other aspects of our legal entity or capabilities have changed for 

this project. The Term Wood has been replaced with WSP where applicable. Documents prepared by Wood are still 

refenced as Wood. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 4-2 

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP; Certificate Number 021). Data were 

compared to applicable SLs within this document and decision rules as defined in the UFPQAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 2021a). 

4.5 DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT

The Data Usability Assessment (DUA), which is provided in Appendix A, is an evaluation at the 

conclusion of data collection activities that uses the results of both data verification and 

validation in the context of the overall project decisions or objectives. Using both quantitative 

and qualitative methods, the assessment determines whether project execution and the resulting 

data have met installation specific DQOs. Both sampling and analytical activities are considered 

to assess whether the collected data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support the 

decision-making (DoD 2019a, DoD 2019b, USEPA 2017). 

Based on the DUA, the environmental data collected during the SI were found to be acceptable 

and usable for this SI evaluation with the qualifications documented in the DUA and its 

associated data validation reports. These data are of sufficient quality to meet the objectives and 

requirements of the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 2021a).
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-1 

5. SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES 

This section describes the environmental investigation and sampling activities that occurred as 

part of the SI. The SI sampling approach was based on the findings of the PA and was 

implemented in accordance with the following approved documents. 

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Camp Adair, Oregon, dated February 2020 

(AECOM 2020)

• Final Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, 

Site Inspections for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, ARNG 

Installations, Nationwide, dated December 2020 (EA 2020a)

• Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Addendum, Camp Adair, Oregon dated August 2021 (EA/Wood 2021a)

• Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Revision 1, dated November 2020 

(EA 2020b)

• Final Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan Addendum for Camp 

Adair, Oregon, dated April 2021 (EA/Wood 2021b). 

The proposed sample locations were marked on 7 September 2021 prior to the public 

utility locate. The SI field activities were conducted on 21 September 2021 and consisted 

of direct-push technology (DPT) borings, temporary monitoring well installation, 

sampling, surveying, and site restoration activities. Field activities were conducted in 

accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 2021a), except as noted in 

Section 5.8. 

The following samples were collected during the SI and analyzed for 24 compounds via 

liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) compliant with Quality 

Systems Manual (QSM) Version 5.3 Table B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs: 

• 15 primary soil samples from five boring locations; 

• Two primary grab groundwater samples from two temporary well locations; and

• Five samples for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC). 

Figure 5-1 provides the sample locations for all media across the Facility. Table 5-1

presents the list of samples collected for each medium. Field documentation is provided 

in Appendix B. A log of Daily Notice of Field Activity was completed throughout the SI 

field activities, which is provided in Appendix B1. Sampling forms are provided in 

Appendix B2, land survey data are provided in Appendix B3, and a Field Change 

Request form is provided in Appendix B4. Additionally, a photographic log of field 

activities is provided in Appendix C. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-2 

5.1 PRE-INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES

In preparation for the SI field activities, project team members participated in Technical Project 

Planning (TPP) meetings, performed utility clearance, and sampled decontamination source 

water. Details of these activities are presented below. 

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

The USACE TPP Process, Engineer Manual (EM) 200-1-2 (Department of the Army 2016a) 

defines four phases to project planning: (1) defining the project phase; (2) determining data 

needs; (3) developing data collection strategies; and (4) finalizing the data collection plan. The 

process encourages stakeholder involvement in the SI, beginning with defining overall project 

objectives, including DQOs, and formulating a sampling approach to address the AOI identified 

in the PA. 

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 14 July 2021, prior to SI field activities. The 

combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was conducted in general accordance with EM 200-1-2. The 

stakeholders for this SI consist of the ARNG, ORARNG, Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality, and USACE representatives familiar with the Facility, the regulators, and the 

community. Stakeholders were provided the opportunity to make comments on the technical 

sampling approach and methods at the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2. The outcome of the 

combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was memorialized in the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 

2021a). 

A TPP Meeting 3 was held after the field event to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting minutes 

for TPP 3 are included in Appendix D of this report. TPP meetings provided an opportunity to 

discuss results, findings, and future actions, where warranted. 

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

Wood4

 contacted the Oregon Utility Notification Center to notify them of intrusive work at the 

Facility. The proposed sample locations were marked on 7 September 2021, two weeks prior to 

the scheduled drilling activities and within the requirement for public utility location services. 

Public utility clearance was performed along the boundary of the Camp Adair Facility for the 

Benton County Public Works, Consumers Power, Luckiamute Domestic Water Cooperative, and 

Century Link utilities. Public utility clearance was not conducted within the sampling area. 

General locating services and ground-penetrating radar were not used due to the rural nature of 

the sampling area. In place of private utility location, each boring was precleared to the extent 

reasonably feasible by Wood’s drilling subcontractor, Steadfast Services LLC, using a hand 

auger to verify utility clearance in the shallow subsurface. where utilities would typically be 

encountered. 

4 Work was conducted by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. prior to the acquisition by WSP on 

21 September 2022.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-3 

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability

PFAS-free water used for decontamination of drilling equipment and equipment blanks was 

provided by Eurofins. Prior to mobilization, the water from Eurofins was certified by the 

laboratory to be PFAS-free by analysis for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 

5.3, Table B-15 (DoD/DOE, 2019). The analyzed water was then bottled and shipped to WSP for 

use as decontamination and equipment blank water during the SI field work. 

Materials used within the sampling zone were confirmed as acceptable for use in the PFAS 

sampling environment. The checklist of acceptable materials for use in the PFAS sampling 

environment was provided in the Standard Operating Procedures appendix to the Programmatic 

UFP-QAPP (EA 2020a). 

5.2 SOIL BORINGS AND SOIL SAMPLING

Soil samples were collected via DPT drilling methods in accordance with Standard Operating 

Procedure 047 Direct-Push Technology Sampling (EA 2021). A Geoprobe® 7822DT dual-tube 

sampling system was used to collect continuous soil cores to the target depth. A hand auger was 

used to collect surface soil samples and to clear utilities in compliance with utility clearance 

procedures as discussed in Section 5.1.2. The soil boring locations are shown on Figure 5-1, and 

boring sample depths are provided in Table 5-1. Sampling locations were agreed upon by 

stakeholders during the TPP Meeting and adjusted as noted in the field change requests (FCRs)

(Appendix B4). 

Three discrete soil samples were collected for chemical analysis from each soil boring: one 

sample at the surface (0 to 2 ft bgs) and two subsurface soil samples. One subsurface soil sample 

was collected approximately 1 ft above the groundwater table (or at total depth of boring if 

groundwater was not encountered) and one collected at the mid-point between the surface and 

the groundwater table (not to exceed 15 ft bgs). Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging 

from 17 to 19 ft bgs during drilling at two boring locations. Total boring completion depths 

ranged from 14.5 to 20 ft bgs. 

During the drilling, the soil cores were continuously logged for lithological descriptions by a 

field geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System. A photoionization detector (PID) 

was used to screen the breathing zone during boring activities as a part of personal safety 

requirements. Observations and measurements were recorded on sampling forms (Appendix B2) 

and in a non-treated field logbook. Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID concentrations, 

moisture, relative density, Munsell color, and Unified Soil Classification System texture were 

recorded. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E. 

Soil borings completed during the SI found fines with minor amounts of sand and gravel as the 

dominant lithology of the unconsolidated material below the Facility. Most of the soil observed 

during the SI consisted of silty clay. These observations are consistent with the understood 

depositional environment of the region. The borings were completed at depths ranging from 14.5 

to 20 feet bgs. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-4 

Each sample was collected into a laboratory-supplied PFAS-free high-density polyethylene 

(HDPE) bottle and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and 

transported via Federal Express (FedEx) under standard chain-of-custody (COC) procedures to 

the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS (LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B15), total organic carbon (TOC) (USEPA Method 9060A), pH (USEPA Method 9045D), and 

grain size (ASTM Method D-422) in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 

2021a). 

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters as 

the accompanying samples. Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were 

collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. In 

instances when non-dedicated sampling equipment was used, such as a hand auger for the 

shallow soil samples, one equipment blank (EB) was collected per day and analyzed for the same 

parameters as the soil samples. A temperature blank was placed in each cooler for use in 

confirming that samples were preserved at or below 6 degrees Celsius (°C) during shipment. 

Borings not converted to temporary wells were subsequently abandoned after sampling and 

surveying in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 2021a). Boreholes were 

filled with bentonite chips, hydrated, and covered with surrounding soil. Borings were installed 

in unpaved areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces. 

5.3 TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER GRAB 

SAMPLING

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® 7822DT dual-tube sampling system. Once 

the borehole was advanced to the desired depth, a temporary well was constructed of a 10-ft 

section of 1-inch Schedule 40 poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) screen with sufficient casing to reach 

the ground surface. New PVC pipe and screen were used at each location to avoid cross 

contamination between locations. The screen intervals for the temporary wells are provided in 

Table 5-2. 

Groundwater samples were collected after a period of time following well installation to allow 

groundwater to infiltrate and recharge the temporary well screen intervals. Three of the 

temporary wells did not produce measurable water and could not be sampled. After the recharge 

period, groundwater samples were collected using a peristaltic pump with PFAS-free HDPE 

tubing from the other two temporary wells. The temporary wells were purged at a rate 

determined in the field to reduce turbidity and drawdown prior to sampling; both temporary 

wells were purged dry and allowed to recharge prior to sampling. Water quality parameters (e.g., 

temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation-reduction potential) 

were measured using a water quality meter and recorded on the field sampling form (Appendix 

B2) before each grab sample was collected in a separate container. Shaker testing was not 

completed during this SI, because water volume was limited. 

Each sample was collected in laboratory-supplied PFAS-free HDPE bottles and labeled using a 

PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under 

standard COC procedures to the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-5 

with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 

2021a). 

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters as 

the accompanying samples. MS/MSDs were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same 

parameters as the accompanying samples. One field blank (FB) was collected in accordance with 

the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 2021a). Because disposable sampling equipment was 

used for groundwater sampling, an equipment blank was not collected. A temperature blank was 

placed in each cooler for use in confirming that samples were preserved at or below 6°C during 

shipment. 

Following well surveying (described below in Section 5.5), temporary wells were abandoned in 

accordance with the SI UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 2021a) by removing the PVC, and 

then the hole was backfilled with bentonite chips, hydrated, and covered with surrounding soil. 

5.4 SYNOPTIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

Groundwater levels were used to monitor facility-wide groundwater elevations and assess 

groundwater flow. Synoptic water level elevation measurements were not possible given the 

limited amount of water in each well, slow recovery, and time limitations on field work. 

However, depths to water were measured from the newly installed temporary monitoring wells 

prior to sampling, taken from the survey mark on the northern side of the well casing. 

Groundwater was encountered in only two boring locations during the sampling event, so 

groundwater elevation data are not sufficient to estimate groundwater flow rate or direction; 

however, the groundwater elevation at CAOR-AOI01-08 was lower than at CAOR-AOI01-06, 

which is consistent with the anticipated northeast groundwater flow direction and surface 

topography. Groundwater elevation data are provided in Table 5-3. 

5.5 SURVEYING

The northern side of each new temporary well casing was surveyed using a Trimble R12i realtime kinematic Global Navigation Satellite System Receiver on the Oregon Real-Time Network.

Positions were collected in the applicable Universal Transverse Mercator zone projection with 

World Geodetic System 1984 datum (horizontal) and North American Vertical Datum 1988 

(vertical). Surveying data were collected on 21 September 2021 and are provided in 

Appendix B3. 

5.6 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE

As of the date of this report, the disposal of PFAS investigation-derived waste (IDW) is not 

regulated federally. IDW generated during the SI is considered non-hazardous waste and was 

managed in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 2021a). 

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) and liquid IDW (i.e., purge water, development water, and 

decontamination fluids) generated during the SI activities were drummed separately in 55-gallon 

steel drums approved by the United States Department of Transportation. The IDW drums were 

subsequently stored within secondary containment in a dedicated indoor area within the Camp 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-6 

Adair Facility. The IDW was not sampled and assumes the characteristics of the associated soil 

samples collected from that source location. The IDW disposal is being managed under a 

separate contract by EA. Specifics on the disposal of solid and liquid IDW will be addressed in 

an IDW Technical Memorandum. 

The soil IDW was not sampled and assumes the characteristics of the associated soil samples 

collected from that source location. The liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the 

characteristics of the associated groundwater samples collected from that source location.

Other solids, such as spent personal protective equipment, plastic sheeting, tubing, rope, unused 

monitoring well construction materials, and other environmental media generated during the 

field activities, were disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill. 

5.7 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS

Samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS, compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15, at 

Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, Pennsylvania, a DoD ELAP and NELAPcertified laboratory. 

One soil sample was also analyzed for TOC using USEPA Method 9060A, pH by USEPA

Method 9045D, and grain size using ASTM Method D-422. 

5.8 DEVIATIONS FROM SI UFP-QAPP ADDENDUM

Deviations from the UFP-QAPP Addendum occurred based on conditions encountered during 

field activities. These deviations were discussed among WSP, EA, ARNG, USACE, and 

ORARNG. Six deviations from the UFP-QAPP Addendum are noted below 

• After evaluation of drainage patterns in AOI 1 and in the vicinity of the proposed boring 

and/or temporary well locations during the utility locate site visit, the field team determined 

the proposed boring locations as shown in the UFP-QAPP Addendum did not adequately 

represent the area most likely to be affected by drainage from the potential source area. As a 

result, the following relocations of boring and/or temporary well locations were made:

- Temporary well locations CAOR-AOI01-06, CAOR-AOI01-07, and CAOR-AOI01-08 

were adjusted to the north-northwest. 

- Soil boring/temporary well location CAOR-AOI01-05 was adjusted slightly to the west. 

- The location of soil boring CAOR-AOI01-02 was swapped with the location of soil 

boring/temporary well location CAOR-AOI01-03. 

In order to communicate these changes, and receive concurrence among WSP, EA, ARNG, 

USACE, and ORARNG, a Field Change Request was discussed with and submitted to 

ARNG, and ARNG notified ODEQ of the scope revisions, on 16 September 2021. The 

adjusted sampling locations are reflected on Figure 5-1. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-7 

• Although the UFP-QAPP Addendum indicated that two soil samples would be collected 

using a hand auger, from 0 to 1 ft bgs and 4 to 5 ft bgs, only one soil sample, from 

approximately 0 to 1 ft bgs, was collected using a hand auger at the following soil boring 

locations: CAOR-AOI01-01, CAOR-AOI01-02, CAOR-AOI01-03, CAOR-AOI01-04, and 

CAOR-AOI01-05. Midpoint subsurface samples (approximately 4 to 5 ft bgs) were not 

collected from a hand auger due to tight soil preventing the hand auger bit from penetrating 

greater than 1 ft bgs, but rather were collected from the dual-tube DPT sampler. This 

deviation does not affect data quality objectives for the SI, because soil samples were 

collected from planned depths. 

• Temporary wells were installed at boring locations CAOR-AOI01-03, CAOR-AOI01-05, 

CAOR-AOI01-06, CAOR-AOI01-07, and CAOR-AOI01-08 as prescribed in the UFP-QAPP 

Addendum. However, no definitive groundwater table was encountered during drilling, and 

only wells CAOR-AOI01-06 and CAOR-AOI01-08 produced enough water to collect 

groundwater grab samples. These two wells were purged dry and allowed to recharge prior to 

sampling. The limited time for field work at the site due to Facility scheduling conflicts did 

not allow sufficient time to install a temporary well at an alternative location, nor to allow the 

other three temporary wells to sit longer and potentially produce enough volume to sample. 

Based on the nature of the release and the location of the two wells with sufficient water to 

sample, the two groundwater samples collected are considered be representative of the 

groundwater conditions downgradient of the AOI. Due to the limited amount of water 

encountered in temporary wells, shaker testing was not completed and a round of synoptic 

water levels was not collected.

• Due to time constraints caused by Facility scheduling, the field work needed to be completed 

in one day. Difficult drilling at CAOR-AOI01-05 resulted in more time than anticipated 

being spent at this location. All borings were completed within the time constraints, however 

there was insufficient time to extend borings deeper in an attempt to encounter and sample 

groundwater that may have been present at a depth below the proposed extent of the borings 

as documented in the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 2021a). As stated above, the 

groundwater samples collected are considered to be representative of the groundwater 

conditions downgradient of the AOI. 

• As discussed in Appendix A, analysis of groundwater samples exceeded holding times for 

extraction provided in the UFP-QAPP Addendum. The detected concentrations were 

qualified as estimated and flagged with “J.” Because those concentrations were two orders of 

magnitude below the screening level and because J-qualified results are valid for use, these 

results are considered usable in meeting the objectives of the SI. 

• The UFP-QAPP Addendum specified 5-foot screens be used when installing monitoring 

wells for groundwater sampling. At locations where temporary monitoring wells were 

installed, one section of 10-foot screen was used to ensure the highest likelihood of sample 

recovery since depth to groundwater was unknown. 

In addition, the UFP-QAPP Addendum contained an error with regard to the soil extraction 

holding time. The PFAS extraction holding time for soil should have been identified as 28 days, 

consistent with the Programmatic UFP-QAPP. Holding times for soil (as corrected) were met.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-8 

Table 5-1. Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Camp Adair, Corvallis, Oregon

Site Inspection Report

Sample 

Identification

Sample 

Collection 

Date

Sample Depth

(ft bgs)

PFAS(LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15) TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPAMethod 9045D)Grain Size (ASTM D422)

Comments

Soil Samples

CAOR-AOI01-1-1 09/21/2021 1.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-1-5 09/21/2021 5.0 X Parent Sample of CAORAOI01-FD01

CAOR-AOI01-FD01 09/21/2021 5.0 X FD

CAOR-AOI01-1-14 09/21/2021 14.0 X MS/MSD Collected

CAOR-AOI01-2-1 09/21/2021 1.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-2-5 09/21/2021 5.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-2-14 09/21/2021 14.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-3-1 09/21/2021 1.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-3-5 09/21/2021 5.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-3-14 09/21/2021 14.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-4-1 09/21/2021 1.0 X X X X

CAOR-AOI01-4-5 09/21/2021 5.0 X Parent Sample of CAORAOI01-FD02

CAOR-AOI01-FD02 09/21/2021 5.0 X FD

CAOR-AOI01-4-14 09/21/2021 14.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-5-1 09/21/2021 1.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-5-5 09/21/2021 5.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-5-14 09/21/2021 14.0 X

Groundwater Samples

CAOR-AOI01-6-GW-20 09/21/2021 20.0 X

CAOR-AOI01-8-GW-20 09/21/2021 20.0

X 

MS/MSD Collected

Parent Sample of CAORAOI01-FD03

CAOR-AOI01-FD03 09/21/2021 20.0 X FD

Blank Samples

CAOR-FB-01 09/21/2021 - X Field Blank

CAOR-EB-01 09/21/2021 -

X 

Equipment Blank

Collected from DPT 

Probe Shoe

Notes:

- = Not applicable

ASTM = ASTM International LC/MS/MS = liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

bgs = below ground surface MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

EB = equipment blank PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

ft = feet TOC = total organic carbon

FD = field duplicate USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

FB = field blank
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-9 

Table 5-2. Soil Boring Depths and Temporary Well Screen Intervals

Camp Adair, Corvallis, Oregon

Site Inspection Report

Area of Interest Boring Location

Soil Boring Depth

(ft bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval

(ft bgs)

1 

CAOR-AOI01-1 15.0 -

CAOR-AOI01-2 14.5 -

CAOR-AOI01-3 20.0 10.0 – 20.0

CAOR-AOI01-4 15.0 -

CAOR-AOI01-5 18.0 8.0 – 18.0

CAOR-AOI01-6 20.0 10.0 – 20.0

CAOR-AOI01-7 20.0 10.0 – 20.0

CAOR-AOI01-8 20.0 10.0 – 20.0

Notes:

- = Not applicable

bgs = below ground surface

ft = feet
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-10

Table 5-3. Groundwater Elevations 

Camp Adair, Corvallis, Oregon

Site Inspection Report

Monitoring Well 

ID

Top of Casing Elevation

(ft NAVD88)

Depth to Water

(ft btoc)

Groundwater Elevation

(ft NAVD 88)

CAOR-AOI01-03 329.065 - -

CAOR-AOI01-05 268.038 - -

CAOR-AOI01-06 300.860 18.31 282.55

CAOR-AOI01-07 320.407 - -

CAOR-AOI01-08 296.522 17.60 278.92

Notes: 

- = Not Applicable

btoc = below top of casing

ft = feet

NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988 
Figure 5-1

Site Inspection Sample Locations

*#!(

!(

!(

*#

")

")D

")

AOI 1: Controlled Burn Tree

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04 CAOR-AOI01-01

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-06

CAOR-AOI01-08

CAOR-AOI01-07

360

340

320

300

300

280

340

320

400

380

360

360

340

380

260

320

380

280

300

280

3

0 250

Feet

Facility Data

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:54:05 PM

Sample Location

!( Soil Boring Location

*#

Soil Boring & Temporary 

Groundwater Well Location

(groundwater not encountered)

") Temporary Groundwater Well Location

")D Temporary Groundwater Well Location (groundwater not encountered)

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

Topography

Elevation Contour

(20 ft. interval,

NAVD88 datum)

NOTE: Facility boundary extends

beyond the limits of this figure.

*# !(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-01

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-03

0 60

Feet

AOI 1 Inset

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-12

This page intentionally left blank 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-1 

6. SITE INSPECTION RESULTS

This section presents the analytical results of the SI. The SLs used in this evaluation are 

presented in Section 6.1. A discussion of the results for the AOI is provided in Section 6.3. SLs 

for relevant compounds, for both soil and groundwater, are presented in Table 6-1. Table 6-2

through Table 6-4 present results in soil or groundwater for the relevant compounds. Tables that 

contain all results are provided in Appendix F, and the laboratory reports are provided in 

Appendix G. 

6.1 SCREENING LEVELS

The DoD has adopted a policy to retain facilities in the CERCLA process based on risk-based 

SLs for soil and groundwater, as described in a memorandum from the OSD (Assistant Secretary 

of Defense 2022). The ARNG program under which this SI was performed follows this DoD 

policy. Should the maximum concentration for sampled media exceed the SLs established in the 

OSD memorandum, the AOI will proceed to the next phase under CERCLA. The SLs 

established in the OSD memorandum apply to the five compounds presented in Table 6-1. 

Table 6-1. Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyte2 

Residential 

(Soil)

(μg/kg)1 

0-2 ft bgs

Industrial / Commercial

Composite Worker 

(Soil)

(μg /kg) 1 

2-15 ft bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L) 1 

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using 

United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Level Calculator. 

Hazard Quotient (HQ) = 0.1. May 2022. 

2. Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly 

referred to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the conceptual site 

model (CSM) developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is 

not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military specification 

(MIL-SPEC) aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and based on its history including distribution 

limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military 

used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of 

other PFAS.

Abbreviations:

μg/kg = microgram(s) per kilogram

bgs = below ground surface

ft = feet

ng/L = nanogram(s) per liter

The data in the subsequent sections are compared against the SLs presented in Table 6-1. The 

SLs for groundwater are based on direct ingestion. The SLs for soil are based on incidental 

ingestion and are applied to the depth intervals reasonably anticipated to be encountered by the 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-2 

receptors identified at the Facility: the residential scenario is applied to surface soil results (0 to 

2 ft bgs) and the industrial/commercial worker scenario is applied to shallow subsurface soil 

results (2 to 15 ft bgs). The SLs are not applied to deep subsurface soil results (>15 ft bgs) 

because 15 ft is the anticipated limit of construction activities. 

6.2 SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL ANALYSES

To provide basic soil parameter information, soil samples were analyzed for TOC, pH, and grain 

size, which are important for evaluating transport through the soil medium. Appendix F contains 

the results of the TOC, pH, and grain size sampling. 

The data collected in this investigation will be used in subsequent investigations, where 

appropriate, to assess fate and transport. According to the Interstate Technology Regulatory 

Council (ITRC), several important PFAS partitioning mechanisms include hydrophobic and 

lipophobic effects, electrostatic interactions, and interfacial behaviors. At relevant environmental 

pH values, certain PFAS are present as organic anions, and are therefore relatively mobile in 

groundwater (Xiao et al., 2015), but tend to associate with the organic carbon fraction that may 

be present in soil or sediment (Higgins and Luthy 2006; Guelfo and Higgins 2013). When 

sufficient organic carbon is present, organic carbon normalized distribution coefficients (Koc 

values) can help in evaluating transport potential, though other geochemical factors (for example, 

pH and presence of polyvalent cations) may also affect PFAS sorption to solid phases (ITRC, 

2018). 

6.3 AOI 1 

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater in comparison to SLs for 

AOI 1: Controlled Burn Tree. The soil and groundwater results are summarized in Table 6-2

through Table 6-4. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through 

Figure 6-7. 

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results

Soil samples were collected from five boring locations associated with AOI 1 during the SI. 

Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Table 6-2 and Table 6-3

summarize the soil results.

Surface soil (0 to 2 ft bgs) was sampled from boring locations AOI01-01 through AOI01-05. Soil 

was also sampled from shallow subsurface soil (2 to 6 ft bgs) and deep subsurface soil (6 to 15 ft 

bgs) from boring locations AOI01-01 through AOI01-05. PFOA was detected in surface soil at 

one location, CAOR-AOI01-05, at 0.23 J μg/kg, which is below its SL. The other relevant 

compounds were not detected in surface soil. No relevant compounds were detected in the 

shallow or deep subsurface soil collected during the SI. 

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results 

Groundwater samples were collected from two temporary wells associated with AOI 1 during the 

SI. Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-4 

summarizes the groundwater results. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-3 

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring well locations AOI01-06 and AOI01-08. 

PFOS and PFOA were detected at concentrations below their respective SLs in one of the two 

wells (AOI01-06). PFOS was detected at a concentration of 0.63 J ng/L, and PFOA was detected 

at a concentration of 0.53 J ng/L. Groundwater from AOI01-08 (and its duplicate) did not have 

any detections of the relevant compounds. 

6.3.3 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA was detected in soil below its SL. PFOA and PFOS were 

detected in groundwater at concentrations below their respective SLs. Based on these results,

further evaluation at AOI 1 is not warranted. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-4

This page intentionally left blank 
Table 6-2

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Detections in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Camp Adair, Oregon

Analyte Screening Level a Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ 

 Soil, PFAS (LC/MS/MS) (μg/kg) compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1,900 < 1.9 2.3 U < 2.0 2.4 U < 1.8 2.3 

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 130 < 0.46 0.70 U < 0.49 0.73 U < 0.46 0.69 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 19 < 0.46 0.70 U < 0.49 0.73 U < 0.46 0.69 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 13 < 0.46 0.70 U < 0.49 0.73 U < 0.46 0.69 

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 19 < 0.46 0.70 U < 0.49 0.73 U < 0.46 0.69 

Grey Fill Chemical Abbreviations 

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

References PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers

J = Estimated concentrationU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. Acronyms and Abbreviations

< analyte not detected above the LODAOI Area of InterestDL detection limitft feetHQ hazard quotientLC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQual interpreted qualifierUSEPA United States Environmental Protectμg/kg micrograms per kilogram

Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS,

PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA's Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. May 2022.

Soil Screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI 1

Sample Date 9/21/2021

1 ft

9/21/2021

9/21/2021 

Depth 1 ft 1 ft 

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name CAOR-AOI01-1-1 CAOR-AOI01-2-1 CAOR-AOI01-3-1 

Area of Interest 

Location ID CAOR-AOI01-01 CAOR-AOI01-02 CAOR-AOI01-03 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC Site Inspection Report Camp Adair, Oregon 
Table 6-3

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Detections in Shallow Subsurface 

Site Inspection Report, Camp Adair, Oregon

Analyte Screening Level a Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result L

 Soil, PFAS (LC/MS/MS) (μg/kg) compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 25,000 < 1.9 2.4 U < 2.1 2.6 U < 2

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 1,600 < 0.48 0.71 U < 0.52 0.78 U < 0

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 250 < 0.48 0.71 U < 0.52 0.78 U < 0Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 160 < 0.48 0.71 U < 0.52 0.78 U < 0

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 250 < 0.48 0.71 U < 0.52 0.78 U < 0

 = Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

References

Interpreted QualifiersChemical Abbreviations PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substancesPFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acidAcronyms and Abbreviations< analyte not detected above the LODAOI Area of InterestDL detection limitft feetHQ hazard quotientLC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometryLOD limit of detectionOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQual interpreted qualifierUSEPA United States Environmental Protection Agencyμg/kg micrograms per kilogramU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL.

CAOR-AOI01-1-5

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels Calculatedfor PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA'sRegional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. May 2022. Soil Screening levels basedon industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion ofcontaminated soil.

Area of Interest 

Location ID CAOR-AOI01-01 CAOR-AOI01-01

AOI 1

5 ft 

Sample Date 9/21/2021 9/21/2021

Depth 5 ft

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name CAOR-AOI01-1-5

CA

CAOR-AOI01-FD01 CAO

Grey Fill

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC Site Inspection Report Camp Adair, Oregon 
Table 6-3

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Detections in Shallow Subsurface 

Site Inspection Report, Camp Adair, Oregon

Analyte Screening Level a

 Soil, PFAS (LC/MS/MS) (μg/kg) compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 25,000

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 1,600Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 250Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 160Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 250

 = Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

References

Interpreted QualifiersChemical Abbreviations PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substancesPFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acidAcronyms and Abbreviations< analyte not detected above the LODAOI Area of InterestDL detection limitft feetHQ hazard quotientLC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometryLOD limit of detectionOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQual interpreted qualifierUSEPA United States Environmental Protection Agencyμg/kg micrograms per kilogramU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL.a. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels Calculatedfor PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA'sRegional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. May 2022. Soil Screening levels basedon industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion ofcontaminated soil.

Area of Interest 

Location ID

Sample Date

Depth

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

Grey Fill

Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result L

< 2.0 2.5 U < 2.3 2.8 U < < 0.50 0.74 U < 0.57 0.85 U < 0< 0.50 0.74 U < 0.57 0.85 U < 0< 0.50 0.74 U < 0.57 0.85 U < 0< 0.50 0.74 U < 0.57 0.85 U < 0

14 ft 5 ft

9/21/2021 9/21/2021 

CAOR-AOI01-2-14 CAOR-AOI01-3-5 CA

AOI 1

CAOR-AOI01-02 CAOR-AOI01-03 CA

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC Site Inspection Report Camp Adair, Oregon 
Table 6-3

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Detections in Shallow Subsurface 

Site Inspection Report, Camp Adair, Oregon

Analyte Screening Level a

 Soil, PFAS (LC/MS/MS) (μg/kg) compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 25,000

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 1,600Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 250Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 160Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 250

 = Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

References

Interpreted QualifiersChemical Abbreviations PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substancesPFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acidAcronyms and Abbreviations< analyte not detected above the LODAOI Area of InterestDL detection limitft feetHQ hazard quotientLC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometryLOD limit of detectionOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQual interpreted qualifierUSEPA United States Environmental Protection Agencyμg/kg micrograms per kilogramU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL.a. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels Calculatedfor PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA'sRegional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. May 2022. Soil Screening levels basedon industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion ofcontaminated soil.

Area of Interest 

Location ID

Sample Date

Depth

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

Grey Fill

Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result L

< 2.1 2.7 U < 1.9 2.4 U < < 0.53 0.80 U < 0.49 0.73 U < 0< 0.53 0.80 U < 0.49 0.73 U < 0< 0.53 0.80 U < 0.49 0.73 U < 0< 0.53 0.80 U < 0.49 0.73 U < 0

9/21/2021 9/21/2021 

5 ft 14 ft 

CAOR-AOI01-4-5

CAOR-AOI01-FD02 CAOR-AOI01-4-14 CA

AOI 1

CAOR-AOI01-04 CAOR-AOI01-04 CA

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC Site Inspection Report Camp Adair, Oregon 
Table 6-4

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Camp Adair, Oregon

Analyte Screening Level 1 Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ 

 Water, PFAS (LC/MS/MS) (ng/L) compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 600 < 0.81 1.6 UJ < 0.84 1.7 UJ < 0.99 2.0 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 39 < 0.81 1.6 UJ < 0.84 1.7 UJ < 0.99 2.0 

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 6 < 0.81 1.6 UJ < 0.84 1.7 UJ < 0.99 2.0 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 4 0.63 0.81 1.6 J < 0.84 1.7 UJ < 0.99 2.0 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 6 0.53 0.81 1.6 J < 0.84 1.7 UJ < 0.99 2.0 

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

References

Interpreted QualifiersJ = Estimated concentrationChemical AbbreviationsPFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances < analyte not detected above the LODPFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid DL detection limitPFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid HQ hazard quotientPFNA perfluorononanoic acid LOD limit of detection

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid Qual interpreted qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agencyng/L nanograms per literAcronyms and Abbreviations

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.

Parent Sample ID CAOR-AOI01-8-GW-2

Sample Date 9/21/2021 9/21/2021 9/21/2021

(1) Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater orSoil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ = 0.1. May 2022. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for directingestion of groundwater.

Location ID CAOR-AOI01-06 CAOR-AOI01-08 CAOR-AOI01-08

Sample Name CAOR-AOI01-6-GW-20 CAOR-AOI01-8-GW-20 CAOR-AOI01-FD03

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC Site Inspection Report Camp Adair, Oregon 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-10

This page intentionally left blank

Version: FINAL
Figure 6-1

PFOS Detections in Soil

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

Facility Data

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-1 PFOS Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:55:25 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N

PFOS Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 13

!!( >13 - 160

!!( >160 - 1,600

!!( >1,600

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFOS Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 13

!( >13 - 160

!!( >160 - 1,600

!!( >1,600

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFOS Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 13

!( >13 - 160

!!( >160 - 1,600

!!( >1,600

Topography

Elevation Contour

(20 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum)

Note:

ND = Not Detected

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Shallow (0' - 2') Intermediate (2' - 10') Deep (10' - 15')
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-12

This page intentionally left blank

Version: FINAL
Figure 6-2

PFOA Detections in Soil

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

Facility Data

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-2 PFOA Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:53:58 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

PFOA Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 19

!!( >19 - 250

!!( >250 - 2,500

!!( >2,500

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFOA Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 19

!( >19 - 250

!!( >250 - 2,500

!!( >2,500

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFOA Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 19

!( >19 - 250

!!( >250 - 2,500

!!( >2,500

Topography

Elevation Contour

(20 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum)

Note:

ND = Not Detected

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Shallow (0' - 2') Intermediate (2' - 10') Deep (10' - 15')

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-14

This page intentionally left blank

Version: FINAL
Figure 6-3

PFBS Detections in Soil

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

Facility Data

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:54:28 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

PFBS Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 10

!( >10 - 1,900

!!( >1,900 - 25,000

!!( >25,000

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFBS Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 10

!( >10 - 1,900

!( >1,900 - 25,000

!!( >25,000

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFBS Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 10

!( >10 - 1,900

!( >1,900 - 25,000

!!( >25,000

Topography

Elevation Contour

(20 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum)

Note:

ND = Not Detected

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Shallow (0' - 2') Intermediate (2' - 10') Deep (10' - 15')

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-16

This page intentionally left blank

Version: FINAL
Figure 6-4

PFHxS Detections in Soil

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

Facility Data

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:54:13 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

PFHxS Results (ng/g)

!( >ND

!( >ND - 10

!( >10 - 130

!!( >130 - 1,600

!!( >1,600

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFHxS Results (ng/g)

!( >ND

!( >ND - 10

!( >10 - 130

!( >130 - 1,600

!!( >1,600

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFHxS Results (ng/g)

!( >ND

!( >ND - 10

!( >10 - 130

!( >130 - 1,600

!!( >1,600

Topography

Elevation Contour

(20 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum)

Note:

ND = Not Detected

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Shallow (0' - 2') Intermediate (2' - 10') Deep (10' - 15')

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-18

This page intentionally left blank

Version: FINAL
Figure 6-5

PFNA Detections in Soil

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

Facility Data

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:54:49 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

PFNA Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 19

!!( >19 - 250

!!( >250 - 2,500

!!( >2,500

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFNA Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 19

!( >19 - 250

!!( >250 - 2,500

!!( >2,500

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-03

CAOR-AOI01-02

CAOR-AOI01-04

CAOR-AOI01-05

CAOR-AOI01-01

360

340

320

300

280

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFNA Results (ng/g)

!( ND

!( >ND - 19

!( >19 - 250

!!( >250 - 2,500

!!( >2,500

Topography

Elevation Contour

(20 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum)

Note:

ND = Not Detected

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Shallow (0' - 2') Intermediate (2' - 10') Deep (10' - 15')

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-20

This page intentionally left blank

Version: FINAL
Figure 6-6

PFOS, PFOA, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-06

CAOR-AOI01-08

360

340

320

280

300

360

3

0 150

Feet

Facility Data

Potential PFAS Release

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-6 PFOS-PFOA-PFBS Detections in Groundwater.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:55:05 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

PFBS

PFBS Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 100

!( >100 - 601

!!( >601 - 2,000

!!( >2,000

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-06

CAOR-AOI01-08

360

340

320

280

300

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFOS

PFOS Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 4

!!( >4 - 40

!!( >40 - 70

!!( >70

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-06

CAOR-AOI01-08

360

340

320

280

300

360

3

0 150

Feet

PFOA

PFOA Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 6

!!( >6 - 40

!!( >40 - 70

!!( >70

Topography

Elevation Contour

(20 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum)

Note:

ND = Not Detected

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-22

This page intentionally left blank

Version: FINAL
!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-06

CAOR-AOI01-08

380

360

340

320

300

320

300

280

360

!(

!(

CAOR-AOI01-06

CAOR-AOI01-08

380

360

340

320

300

320

300

280

360

Figure 6-7

PFHxS & PFNA Detections in Groundwater

OR

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Camp Adair\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-7 PFHxS & PFNA Detections in Groundwater.mxd - stephane.descombes - 5/1/2023 - 12:56:36 PM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

PFHxS 3

0 150

Feet

PFNA

Note:

ND = Not Detected

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

3

0 150

Feet

Facility Data

Potential PFAS Release

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

PFNA Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 6

!!( >6 - 100

!!( >100 - 1,000

!!( >1,000

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 39

!!( >39 - 100

!!( >100 - 1,000

!!( >1,000

Topography

Elevation Contour

(20 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum) Date:.................................May 2023

Prepared By:............................WSP

Prepared For:......................USACE

Projection:...........NAD 83 UTM 10N
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-24

This page intentionally left blank

Version: FINAL
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-1 

7. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the AOI, revised based on the SI findings, is presented on 

Figure 7-1. Please note that while the CSM discussion assists in determining if a receptor may 

be impacted, the decision to move from SI to remedial investigation (RI) or interim action is 

determined based upon exceedances of the SLs for the relevant compounds and whether the 

release is more than likely attributable to the DoD. A CSM presents the current understanding of 

the Facility conditions with respect to known and suspected sources, potential transport 

mechanisms and migration pathways, and potentially exposed human receptors. A human 

exposure pathway is considered potentially complete when the following conditions are present: 

1. Contaminant source;

2. Environmental fate and transport;

3. Exposure point;

4. Exposure route; and

5. Potentially exposed populations. 

If any of these elements are missing, the pathway is incomplete. The CSM figures use an empty 

circle symbol to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with no identified complete 

pathway generally warrant no further action. However, the pathway is considered potentially 

complete if the relevant compounds are detected, in which case the CSM figure uses a half-filled 

circle symbol to represent a potentially complete exposure pathway. Additionally, a completely 

filled circle symbol is used to indicate when a potentially complete exposure pathway has 

detections of the relevant compounds above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially 

complete pathway and a complete pathway may warrant further investigation. Although the 

CSMs indicate whether potentially complete exposure pathways may exist, the recommendation 

for future study in a RI or no action at this time is based on the comparison of the SI analytical 

results for the relevant compounds to the SLs. 

In general, the potential routes of exposure to the relevant compounds are ingestion and 

inhalation. Human exposure via the dermal contact pathway may occur, and current risk practice 

suggests it is an insignificant pathway compared to ingestion; however, exposure data for dermal 

pathways are sparse and continue to be the subject of toxicological study. The receptors 

evaluated are consistent with those listed in USEPA guidance for risk screening (USEPA 2001). 

Receptors at the Facility include site workers (e.g., facility staff and visiting soldiers), 

construction workers, off-site residents, and potential trespassers. 

7.1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY 

The SI results in soil were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists 

between the source and potential receptors at each AOI based on the aforementioned criteria. 

7.1.1 AOI 1 

AOI 1 is the Controlled Burn Tree and its immediate surrounding area (Figure 3-1). A one-time 

release of AFFF to vegetation and the ground surface by the OMD occurred at AOI 1 in 2011. 

PFOA was detected in soil at a concentration below the SL at one boring location completed 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-2 

downgradient of AOI 1. Relevant compounds were not detected in subsurface soil; therefore, the 

pathway for incidental ingestion of subsurface soil by construction workers during grounddisturbing activities is incomplete. Based on the results of the SI at AOI 1, direct contact with 

surface soil could result in facility worker, construction worker, and/or trespasser exposure to 

PFOA via inhalation of dust or incidental ingestion of soil particles. Therefore, the exposure 

pathways for inhalation and ingestion are potentially complete for these receptors. The CSM is 

presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.2 GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY

The SI results in groundwater were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway 

exists between the source and potential receptors at each AOI based on the aforementioned 

criteria. 

7.2.1 AOI 1 

AOI 1 is the Controlled Burn Tree and its immediate surrounding area (Figure 3-1). A one-time 

release of AFFF to vegetation and the ground surface by the OMD occurred at AOI 1 in 2011. 

PFOA and PFOS were detected in one groundwater sample collected from a temporary well 

downhill, and presumed downgradient, from the release area at concentrations below the SLs. 

Based on the results of the SI at AOI 1, ground-disturbing activities that extend to the water table 

could result in construction worker exposure to PFOA and PFOS via incidental ingestion. The 

Luckiamute River Water System supplies potable water to the Facility; therefore, the pathway 

for ingestion of shallow groundwater by facility workers and trespassers is incomplete. Resident 

receptors downgradient of the AOI could be exposed by ingestion of shallow groundwater; 

therefore, the exposure pathway for ingestion is potentially complete for these receptors. The 

CSM is presented on Figure 7-1. 
RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/Future Site Worker Construction Worker Resident1 Trespasser

Construction Worker Resident1 Trespasser

Leaching/

Infiltration

SOURCE

Source Release 

Mechanism Media

PATHWAY

Transport

and Migration Media Exposure 

Routes

NOTES

1. The resident users refer to off-site

receptors.

2. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model

Camp Adair

Human 

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Controlled Burn 

Tree AOI 1

Airborne 

Soil 

Particulate

Surface 

Soil

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

LEGEND

Flow-Chart Continues 

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL Site Worker Surface Soil 

Downgradient 

of AOI

PFAS in 

Surface 

Soil Shallow 

Groundwater Ingestion

Subsurface

Soil Ingestion

Site Inspection Report 

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-3
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-4

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-1 

8. SUMMARY AND OUTCOME

This section summarizes SI activities and findings. The most significant findings are summarized 

in this section and are reproduced directly or abstracted from information contained in this 

report. The outcome provides general and comparative interpretations of the findings relative to 

the SLs. 

8.1 SI ACTIVITIES 

The SI field activities at the Facility were conducted on 21 September 2021. The SI field 

activities included soil and groundwater sampling. Field activities were conducted in accordance 

with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (Wood/EA 2021a), except as previously noted in Section 5.8. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood 

2021), samples were collected and analyzed for a subset of PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with 

QSM 5.3 Table B-15 as follows. 

• 15 soil grab samples from five boring locations 

• 2 grab groundwater samples from two temporary well locations

• 5 QA/QC samples.

An SI is conducted when the PA determines an AOI exists based on probable use, storage, and/or 

disposal of PFAS-containing materials. The SI includes multi-media sampling at the AOI to 

determine whether or not a release has occurred. The SI may conclude further investigation is 

warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or no further action is 

required. Additionally, the CSMs were refined to assess whether a potentially complete pathway 

exists between the source and potential receptors for potential exposure at the AOI, which are 

described in Section 7. 

8.2 OUTCOME

Based on the results of this SI, no further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted for AOI 1 at 

this time (see Table 8-1). Based on the CSM developed and revised based on the SI findings, 

there is potential for exposure to receptors from AOI 1 from sources on the Facility resulting 

from historical DoD activities. As described in Section 2.2.2, groundwater wells may be present 

downgradient of the source area but exact location and use information is not publicly available. 

The SI groundwater samples were collected from locations a minimum of approximately 1,000 

feet from the downgradient (northern and eastern) boundaries of the Najaf Training Center 

Facility. Groundwater is not used for drinking water on the Najaf Training Center Facility. 

Sample chemical analytical concentrations collected during the SI were compared against the 

project SLs in soil and groundwater, as described in Table 6-1. The following bullets summarize 

the SI results relative to the SLs: 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-2 

• At AOI 1:

- PFOS and PFOA, were detected in groundwater at AOI 1. Neither PFOS nor PFOA 

exceeded the SLs. 

- PFOA was detected in shallow surface soil at AOI 1 at a concentration several orders of 

magnitude below the SL. 

Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA 

(commonly referred to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on 

the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA 

is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military 

specification (MIL-SPEC) AFFF and based on its history including distribution limitations that 

restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In 

addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of 

other PFAS. 

Table 8-1 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater used to determine if an AOI should 

be considered for further investigation under CERCLA and undergo an RI. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-3 

Table 8-1. Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations, 

Camp Adair, Corvallis, Oregon

Site Inspection Report

AOI Potential Release Area

Soil – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area Future Action

1 Controlled Burn Tree No further action

Legend:

 = Detected; exceedance of screening levels

 = Detected; no exceedance of screening levels

 = Not detected
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-4 

This page intentionally left blank 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-1 

9. REFERENCES

AECOM. 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Camp Adair, Corvallis, Oregon. 

February.

Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Investigating Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within 

The Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 

July. 

Department of the Army (DA). 2016a. EM-200-1-2, Environmental Quality, Technical Project 

Planning Process. 29 February. 

. 2016b. Army Guidance to Address Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Contamination. August. 

. 2018. Army Guidance for Addressing Releases of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. 

September.

DoD. 2019a. Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated Quality

Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.3. May. 

. 2019b. General Data Validation Guidelines. November. 

. 2020. Data Validation Guidelines Module 3: Data Validation Procedure for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Analysis by QSM Table B-15. May. 

EA, Engineering, Science, and Technology, PBC (EA). 2020a. Final Programmatic Uniform 

Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan, Site Inspections for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, ARNG Installations, Nationwide. December.

. 2020b. Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Revision 1, ARNG Installations, 

Nationwide. November. 

. 2021. Standard Operating Procedure 047, Direct-Push Technology Sampling. 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, PBC and Wood Environment & Infrastructure 

Solutions, Inc. (EA/Wood). 2021a. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) Addendum, Camp Adair, Oregon, Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, ARNG Installations, Nationwide. August 19. 

. 2021b. Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan Addendum, Site 

Inspections for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, ARNG Installations, 

Nationwide, Camp Adair, Oregon. April 23. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-2 

Guelfo, J.L. and C.P. Higgins. 2013. Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids and 

aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites. Environmental Science and 

Technology 47(9):4164-71. 

Higgins, C.P., and R.G. Luthy. 2006. Sorption of perfluorinated surfactants on sediments. 

Environmental Science and Technology 40 (23): 7251-7256. 

Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2018. Environmental Fate and Transport 

for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA. 2020a). Climate at a Glance: 

City Time Series, National Centers for Environmental Information. 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/. December 2020. Accessed December 16, 2020. 

_____. 2020b. Climate Data Online, Custom Annual/Seasonal Normals, Station USC00351862, 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdoweb/datasets/NORMAL_ANN/stations/GHCND:USC00351862/detail. Accessed

December 16, 2020. 

Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). 2021. Well Report Query. Search for a Well 

Report. Retrieved on February 22, 2021, from 

https://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/well_log/Default.aspx. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 11 December.

. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule).

40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September. 

. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation

Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk 

Assessments). December.

. 2005. Federal Facilities Remedial Site Inspection Summary Guide. 21 July.

. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process

USEPA/240/B-06/001. February. 

. 2017. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Data Review. OLEM 

9355.0-136, EPA-540-R-2017-002. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation. January. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Endangered Species. 

https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/. Accessed 25 September. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-3 

Xiao, F., M. F. Simcik, T.R. Halbach, and J.S Gulliver. 2015, Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in soils and groundwater of a U.S. metropolitan area: 

Migration and implications for human exposure. Water Research 72:64-74. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Adair, Oregon Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-4 

This page intentionally left blank