FINAL

Site Inspection Report 

Army Aviation Support Facility #1

Jackson, Mississippi

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) at ARNG Installations, Nationwide

September 2023 

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................ES-1

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Authorization .............................................................................................1-1

1.2 SI Purpose ............................................................................................................1-1

2. Facility Background ......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Facility Location and Description...........................................................................2-1

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting ...............................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Geology ......................................................................................................2-1

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

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

2.2.4 Climate........................................................................................................2-3

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use......................................................................2-3

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species.............................2-3

2.3 History of PFAS Use..............................................................................................2-3

3. Summary of Area of Interest.........................................................................................3-1

3.1 AOI 1.....................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Adjacent Sources ..................................................................................................3-1

3.2.1 Hawkins Field Airport ..................................................................................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....................................................................................4-1

5. Site Inspection Activities ...............................................................................................5-1

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities.....................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning ..........................................................................5-1

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

5.1.3 Source Water and Sampling Equipment Acceptability .................................5-2

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling .............................................................................5-2

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling...............................5-3

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements ....................................................................5-4

5.5 Surveying..............................................................................................................5-4

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste..................................................................................5-4

5.7 Laboratory Analytical Methods ..............................................................................5-5

5.8 Deviations from the SI QAPP Addendum ..............................................................5-5

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 AOI 1 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-2

7. Exposure Pathways......................................................................................................7-1
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM ii

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

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway ..................................................7-2

7.3.1 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

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM iii

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. Field Change Request Forms

B4. Survey Data

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs 

Appendix F Analytical Results

Appendix G Laboratory Reports

Figures

Figure 2-1 Facility Location

Figure 2-2 Facility Topography

Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features

Figure 2-4 Groundwater Elevations, April 2022

Figure 2-5 Surface Water Features

Figure 3-1 Area of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOS 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 PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

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

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

Elevations

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

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

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

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

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

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM v

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film-forming foam

ANGB Air National Guard Base

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

bgs below ground surface 

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

DOT Department of Transportation

DPT direct push technology

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

GPRS Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, LLC

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

MARIS Mississippi Automated Resource Information System 

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

MIL-SPEC military specification

MSARNG Mississippi Army National Guard

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

ng/L nanograms per liter

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OWS oil/water separator

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM vi

PID photoionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA quality assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SOP standard operating procedure

TOC total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

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

Inspections (SIs) on the current or potential historical use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

(PFAS) with a focus on the six compounds presented in the memorandum from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 6 July 2022 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022). The six 

compounds listed in the OSD memorandum include perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 

(PFHxS), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)1

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

(PFBS). These compounds are collectively referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout the 

document, and the applicable screening levels (SLs) are provided 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 locations). 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 SLs for relevant 

compounds. This SI was completed at the Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) #1 in Jackson, 

Mississippi and determined further evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is not warranted for AOI 1. AASF #1 will 

also be referred to as the “facility” throughout this document.

AASF #1 is a 30.40-acre tract of land within Hawkins Field Airport. The facility is located at 365 

Shop Street, in the City of Jackson, Hinds County, and it is situated in the west central area of 

Mississippi. In March 1972, the Military Department, State of Mississippi began leasing AASF #1 

from the City of Jackson, Mississippi. The facility provides aviation and maintenance support for 

aircraft and aviation personnel stationed in the City of Jackson. Prior to leasing, the field was used 

by the Air Force for training during World War II (AECOM Technical Services, Inc., 2020).

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

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 AOI 1 at this time.

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

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM ES-2

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

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4 

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

bgs = below ground surface; μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram; ng/L = nanograms per liter

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 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. 6 July 2022. 

b.) 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 HFPODA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of 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 ES-2: Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source Areaa

Groundwater –

Source Areaa Future Action

1 Release Area A

0.832 J μg/kg (PFOS) 4.62 ng/L (PFBS) 

No further action

Notes:

AOI = area of interest; ng/L = nanograms per liter; μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram

a.) The maximum relevant compound concentration is reported at the AOI. 

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 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) on the current or potential historical use of per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with a focus on the six compounds presented in the 

memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 6 July 2022 (Assistant 

Secretary of Defense, 2022). The six compounds listed in the OSD memorandum will be referred 

to as “relevant compounds” throughout this document and include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic 

acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)1

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic 

acid (PFBS) at ARNG facilities nationwide. The ARNG performed this SI at Army Aviation Support 

Facility (AASF) #1 in Jackson, Mississippi. AASF #1 is also referred to as the “facility” throughout 

this document. 

The SI project elements were performed in compliance with Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; United States [US] Environmental 

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

Pollution Contingency Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300; USEPA, 1994), and in 

compliance with US Department of the Army (DA) requirements and guidance for field 

investigations.

1.2 SI Purpose

A PA was performed at AASF #1 (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.

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

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 2-1

2. Facility Background

2.1 Facility Location and Description

AASF #1 is a 30.40-acre tract of land within Hawkins Field Airport. The facility is located at 365 

Shop Street in the City of Jackson in Hinds County, situated in the west central area of Mississippi 

(Figure 2-1). AASF #1 is bordered by two Hawkins Field Airport runways, one to the immediate 

north and one to the east, industrial properties to the immediate west and northwest, and 

Interstate 220, approximately 1.1 miles west. Residential properties are present along the outer 

lying areas of the facility, approximately 0.3 miles to the west and south. 

AASF #1 was leased by the Military Department, State of Mississippi from the City of Jackson, 

Mississippi on 8 March 1972. The facility provides aviation and maintenance support for aircraft 

and aviation personnel stationed in the City of Jackson. Prior to leasing, the field was used by the 

Air Force for training during World War II. 

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

Hinds County is within the Mississippi Embayment subsection of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Two 

physiographic areas comprise the Mississippi Embayment: the lowlands of the Mississippi Alluvial 

Plain to the east, and the Coastal Plain Uplands in which AASF #1 is situated. The region is 

characterized as low-lying, with extensive tracts of marshy lands and rivers. The rich and deep 

soils, beset by high rugged hills, flat alluvial plains, narrow valleys, prairies, river lowlands, and 

pine woods, are all naturally well-suited for agriculture (Wallenfeldt, 2019). AASF #1 is relatively 

flat and predominately covered by grassed areas as well as impermeable surfaces that consist of 

asphalt, concrete, and tarmac. The topography at the facility is displayed on Figure 2-2. The 

ecology of the Coastal Plain Uplands in this section of Mississippi is characterized by the Jackson 

Prairie and South Pine Hills ecoregions.

2.2.1 Geology

Soils near AASF #1 are associated with the Loring-Siwell-Byram system, deposited in the 

Quaternary Period, and described as riverine terrace deposits composed of sand, gravel, and 

clay. The sand and gravel deposits of the Mississippi River alluvial plain form the most significant 

Quaternary groundwater reservoir (Cushing et al., 1964). Underlying the fill and alluvial soils are 

the impermeable clays of the Jackson Group, which outcrops as far as Louisiana, Arkansas, and 

Tennessee and produces a gently rolling topography (Figure 2-3). The Jackson Group, which 

was deposited in the late Eocene, consists of the Moodys Branch Formation and the overlying 

Yazoo Clay. In certain areas near Jackson, Mississippi, the Yazoo Clay can be found exposed at 

the surface as a highly weathered zone containing desiccation cracks, grass, roots, and other 

organic matter. Unweathered Yazoo clay is up to 480 feet thick, very stiff, blue-green to blue-gray, 

massive, calcareous, and contains fossils (Stover et al., 1988). The Yazoo Clay is divided, in 

ascending order, into the North Creek, Cocoa Sand, Pachuta Marl, and Shubota Members. The 

underlying Moodys Branch Formation is a highly fossiliferous, glauconitic, sandy marl that is 

approximately 20 to 30 feet thick. The Moodys Branch Formation unconformably overlies the 

Claiborne Group, which contains the region’s main aquifer, the Sparta aquifer. 

Direct push borings installed during the SI were completed at depths between 10 to 20 feet below 

ground surface (bgs). Silt and lean clay with varying quantities of sand were observed as the 

dominant lithology of the unconsolidated sediments below AASF #1. Sandy silts were generally 

observed in the top 5 to 10 feet bgs. Silt and clay were generally observed below 10 feet bgs. A 

layer of gravelly lean clay was observed in AOI01-01 from 16 to 17.5 feet bgs. A sample for grain 

size analysis was collected at one location, AOI01-02 (5 to 7 feet bgs). The sample was analyzed 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 2-2

via American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D-422. The results indicate that 

the soil sample is primarily comprised of silt (61.98 percent [%]) and clay (19.96%) with minor 

amounts of sand (12.17%) and gravel (5.89%). These results and facility observations are 

consistent with the riverine terrace deposits of the Loring-Siwell-Byram system. Boring logs are 

presented in Appendix E, and grain size results are presented in Appendix F.

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The Jackson Group is the upper confining unit of the Claiborne group, which consists of the 

Cockfield Formation (250 to 480 feet bgs) and the Sparta Sand Formation (630 to 920 feet bgs), 

which are the main aquifers for the region. The Sparta aquifer is large and supplies sections of 

Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and small portions of Kentucky and 

Missouri (McKee & Hays, 2002). To the east of AASF #1, the Mississippi Alluvial Plain is sourced 

for groundwater; however, near the facility, the Quaternary terrace deposits are not used for water 

resources. Although groundwater sourced by public supply wells near AASF #1 is approximately 

250 to 480 feet bgs, there is surficial groundwater located in the fill and alluvial deposits above 

the Yazoo Clay. Based on boring logs and field observations from the PFAS SI conducted at 

nearby Jackson Air National Guard Base (ANGB) (approximately 10 miles east of Jackson AASF 

#1), shallow, perched lenses of groundwater are present intermittently in silty sandy layers 

interbedded with silty clay to tight dry clays. Groundwater at Jackson ANGB was measured in the 

existing monitoring wells at depths between 12.72 to 32.06 feet bgs (Leidos, 2018). Shallow 

groundwater may discharge to nearby drainages or surface water bodies.

The Jackson AASF #1 drinking water supply is provided by the City of Jackson. The City of 

Jackson obtains its water supply from six public wells that draw from the Sparta aquifer

(Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality [MDEQ], 2011). The J.H. Fewell Water 

Treatment Plant and O.B. Curtis Water Treatment Plant obtain their water from surface water 

intakes in the Pearl River and the Ross Barnett Reservoir, respectively (MDEQ, 2021). Both 

surface water sources are located upgradient of AASF #1. Domestic wastewater from the facility 

is discharged to the municipal sanitary sewer. Based on information obtained from the Mississippi 

Automated Resource Information System (MARIS) Mississippi Land and Water Database, the 

nearest potable water wells are located less than 1 mile downgradient of the facility and include 

a commercial well owned by the City of Jackson, and an unknown use well, owned by the Jackson 

Zoo. The total depths of these wells are greater than 600 feet bgs. Downgradient public supply 

well total depths are greater than 500 feet bgs (MARIS, 2009). 

Depths to water measured in April 2022 during the SI ranged from 2.04 to 5.23 feet bgs. 

Groundwater elevation contours from the SI are presented on Figure 2-4 and indicate the 

groundwater flow direction at AASF #1 is primarily to the southwest.

2.2.3 Hydrology

Hinds County is located within two major drainage basins: Pearl River and the Big Black River. 

The divide that separates these basins runs north-south through the eastern one-third of the 

county. AASF #1 is located entirely within the Town Creek-Pearl River Watershed, and lies on the 

western fork of Town Creek, which is a southward flowing tributary of the Pearl River. Additionally, 

Hanging Moss Creek, Lynch Creek, Carey Creek, and several smaller creeks drain the area in 

and around the City of Jackson and are tributaries of the Pearl River. South of Jackson, the 

Trahon, Big Rhodes, and Beaverdam creeks, and their tributaries flow eastward into Pearl River. 

Pearl River is used for both boating and fishing, and numerous boat ramps are located along the 

river (Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries, & Parks, 2018).

The floor trench drains located within the Hangar lead to an oil/water separator (OWS), which 

eventually discharges to the City of Jackson Sanitary Sewer System. Floor trench drains present 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 2-3

along the western perimeter of the UH-60 Staging Area (AOI 1, ramp area) also discharge to the 

City of Jackson Sanitary Sewer System; however, storm water runoff can bypass these floor 

drains and discharge into the surrounding grassy areas via Outfall 001. The ramp areas are 

engineered to allow storm water to flow off the concrete and into the surrounding grass areas that 

ultimately drain to Town Creek (Mississippi ARNG [MSARNG], 2017). General surface flow within 

the Town Creek catchment is southeast. Surface water features are presented on Figure 2-5. 

2.2.4 Climate 

Mississippi is located in the humid subtropical climate region and is characterized by temperate 

winters and long, hot summers (Mississippi State University, 2022). Summer temperatures in 

Jackson reach an average maximum of 92 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with July being the hottest 

month. The coldest month in Jackson is January, with average maximum temperature of 56 °F 

and an average minimum temperature of 35 °F. Jackson averages an annual 54.16 inches of 

precipitation. Higher precipitation is generally reported between the months of March and 

December. Snowfall in Mississippi is rare (World Climate, 2022). 

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

According to the Jackson Township Zoning Map dated August 2016, the facility is located within 

a special use district, with a light industrial zone adjoining the facility to the west (City of Jackson, 

Mississippi, 2022). AASF #1 is in its original location, and it has never been relocated or retrofitted. 

The original water sprinkler system for fire suppression is still in place, and the buildings include 

offices and large storage areas. The flight facility is used for MSARNG training support and 

maintenance. National Guard Bureau classroom training takes place at a location across the 

street from AASF #1. Reasonably anticipated future land use is not expected to change from the 

current land use described above. 

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

The following clams, fishes, insects, mammals, and reptiles are federally endangered, threatened, 

proposed, and/ or are listed as candidate species in Hinds County, Mississippi (US Fish and 

Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2022). 

• Clams: Rabbitsfoot, Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica (threatened)

• Fishes: Gulf sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi (threatened); Bayou darter,

Etheostoma rubrum (threatened)

• Insects: Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (candidate)

• Mammals: Northern Long-Eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis (threatened); Tricolored bat,

Perimyotis subflavus (proposed endangered)

• Reptiles: Ringed map turtle, Graptemys oculifera (threatened)

2.3 History of PFAS Use

One potential release was identified in the PA where AFFF may have been used, stored, disposed,

or released historically at AASF #1 (AECOM, 2020). Tri-MaxTM units that potentially contained

AFFF were stored at the facility as early as 2008 to as late as 2017. These units were stored at 

the Flight Line and wash rack area. The potential release area was grouped into one AOI based 

on preliminary data and presumed groundwater flow directions. A description of the AOI is 

presented in Section 3. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 2-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

1:63,360

9/22/2022 ­ Figure 2-1

PM CM 9/22/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,

Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,

^_

Jackson AASF #1

PROJECT

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

AECOM 2-5
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

1:24,000

9/22/2022 ­ Figure 2-2 PM CM 9/22/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Topography

Base Map: USGS The National Map: National

Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,

PROJECT

0 1,000 2,000 4,000

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

AECOM 2-6
!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C( !C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C( !C(!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C( !C(

!C(

!C(

!C(!C(!C(

!C(!C(

!C(

!C(

!5

A!

!5

5

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A! !C(

!C(

A!

!5

!C(

!5

!5

!5

!5

!5

!5

!5

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

!5!5 A!

!5

!5 !5

A!

!C(

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!5

!P !P

!P

!5

!P !P

!P !P

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

!5

!5

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! 

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A! AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

!A!A

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA

!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!

A

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AAA

!!!

A!

AA!!

A!

AAA!!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AAA!!!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

Ca ny C reek

HangingM ossCreek

Ba kersC reek

Euban ks C re ek

Big

Creek

Smit h Creek

Bog ueChit toCr ee k

Neely

Cer

ek

Town Creek

Hardy Creek

P earl River

Lynch Creek

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

1:95,040

9/22/2022 ­ Figure 2-3 PM CM 9/22/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Features

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,

Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,

PROJECT

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

Geology

Jackson Group

Vicksburg group and Chickasawhay

limestone

Forest Hill formation and Red Bluff clay

Wells

!P Domestic Well

!P Commercial Well

!5 Industrial Well

!5 Irrigation Well

!C( Public/Municipal Supply Well

A! Other/Unknown Well

0 0.75 1.5 3

Miles

AECOM 2-7
?!

?!

?!

?!

AOI01-01

306.48

AOI01-02

304.75

AOI01-03

303.96

AOI01-04

303.37

Town Creek

305

306

306

305

304

303

303

304

0 125 250 500

Feet

Legend

?! Soil Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Groundwater Elevation Contour

Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour

Groundwater Flow Direction

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

10/25/2022

10/25/2022

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

10/25/2022

1:3,000 ­ Figure 2-4 PM CM 10/25/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Elevations, 

April 2022

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,

Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,

PROJECT

Groundwater elevations in ft NAVD88.

AECOM 2-8
Upper Bogue

Chitto Creek

Watershed

Town Creek-Pearl

River Watershed

Lynch Creek-Pearl

River Watershed

Lynch Creek

Town Creek

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

11/29/2022

11/29/2022

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

11/29/2022

1:24,000 ­ Figure 2-5 PM CM 11/29/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Surface Water Features

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,

Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,

PROJECT

0 1,000 2,000 4,000

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

!@ Approximate Outfall Location

!@

!@

!@

AECOM 2-9
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 3-1

3. Summary of Area 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 AOI was identified and is shown 

on Figure 3-1 (AECOM, 2020).

3.1 AOI 1

Starting around 2008 or 2009, an unknown number of Tri-MaxTM units were present at the facility’s 

Flight Line (Release Area A) for approximately 6 to 8 years. Although the number of units were 

not known, AASF #1 is required to have at least one portable extinguisher for every two aircraft. 

No information was provided on the volume or type of foam used in the extinguishers. There are 

no reports of discharge, testing, or refilling of the units at AASF #1. 

During the November 2020 SI Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) scoping call, the wash 

rack, which flows to an OWS that discharges to the City of Jackson Sanitary Sewer, was identified

and incorporated into AOI 1. Approximately 10 Tri-MaxTM units were reportedly staged on the 

wash rack area between 2007 to 2012. The wash rack and OWS are located northwest of the 

hangar.

The units were serviced off-site by a private company. At the time of the PA, no information was 

available regarding the final disposition of the Tri-MaxTM units. Common practice would be to send 

the units to Camp Shelby for disposal; however, it is unknown if such a transfer occurred, or if unit 

contents were drained/removed prior to shipment or disposal. 

3.2 Adjacent Sources

One off-facility potential source was identified adjacent to AASF #1 during the PA and is not 

associated with ARNG activities. The adjacent potential source is shown on Figure 3-1 and 

described in the following section for informational purposes only, and it will not be investigated 

as part of this SI.

3.2.1 Hawkins Field Airport

AASF #1 is located on the grounds of the Hawkins Field Airport. Personnel at the airport and 

nearby municipal fire departments were not interviewed during this PA. It is not known if AFFF is 

currently or historically used or stored at the airport. Because the presence of AFFF at the airport 

has not been confirmed, Hawkins Field Airport has been identified as a potential off-site source 

area.
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 3-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
!5

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AOI 1 

Town Creek-Pearl

River Watershed

Lynch Creek-Pearl

River Watershed

Hawkins Field Airport

Town Creek

Lynch Creek

0 750 1,500 3,000

Feet

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

Groundwater Flow Direction

Wells

!P Commercial Well

A! Other/Unknown Well

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

2/9/2023

2/9/2023

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

1:18,000

2/9/2023 ­ Figure 3-1 PM CM 2/9/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Area of Interest

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,

Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,

PROJECT

AECOM 3-3
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 4-1

4. Project Data Quality Objectives

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

Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), 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 each 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 presence or 

absence of relevant compounds at each of the sampled 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 included:

• The PA for AASF #1 (AECOM, 2020);

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

with the site-specific Uniform Federal Policy (UFP)-QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a); 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 by the property limits of the facility (Figure 2-2). 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). The SI scope was bounded vertically by the observed depths of the surficial groundwater 

table. Temporal boundaries were limited to the non-summer months to avoid high temperatures and 

hurricane season.

4.4 Analytical Approach

Samples were analyzed by Pace Analytical Gulf Coast, accredited under the Department of 

Defense (DoD) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP; Accreditation Number 

74960) and the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP; Certificate

Number 01955). Data were compared to applicable SLs within this document and decision rules 

as defined in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). 

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 decisionmaking (DoD, 2019a; DoD, 2019b; USEPA, 2017).
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 4-2

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 SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 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 implemented 

in accordance with the following approved documents:

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

(PQAPP) dated March 2018 (AECOM, 2018a);

• Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan dated July 2018 (AECOM, 2018b); 

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Jackson Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, 

Mississippi dated August 2020 (AECOM, 2020);

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

Jackson Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi dated March 2022

(AECOM, 2022a); and

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Jackson Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, 

Mississippi dated April 2022 (AECOM, 2022b).

The SI field activities were conducted from 22 to 27 April 2022 and consisted of utility clearance,

direct push boring, soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation, grab groundwater 

sample collection, and land surveying. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the SI 

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), except as previously noted in Section 5.8.

The following samples were collected during the SI and analyzed by liquid chromatography with 

tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) compliant with Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.3 Table 

B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs:

• Sixteen (16) soil samples from nine borings;

• Four grab groundwater samples from four temporary wells; and

• Thirteen (13) quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) samples.

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

list of samples collected for each media. 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, a Field Change Request form is 

provided in Appendix B3, and land survey data are provided in Appendix B4. Additionally, a 

photographic log of field activities is provided in Appendix C. 

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 for each of these activities are presented below.

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) TPP Process, Engineer Manual (EM) 200-1-2 

(USACE, 2016) 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 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 5-2

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 10 March 2022, 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 include the ARNG, MDEQ, MSARNG, and USACE. 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 SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). 

A TPP Meeting 3 will be held after the field event (date to be determined) to discuss the results of 

the SI. Meeting minutes for TPP 3 will be included in Appendix D of this report. Future TPP 

meetings will provide an opportunity to discuss the results and findings, and future actions, where 

warranted.

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

AECOM submitted a locate ticket with the Mississippi 811 utility clearance provider to notify them 

of intrusive work prior to field activities. Additionally, AECOM contracted Ground Penetrating 

Radar Systems, LLC (GPRS), a private utility location service, to perform utility clearance. GPRS 

performed utility clearance of the proposed boring locations on 22 April 2022 with input from the 

AECOM field team and AASF #1 facility staff. General locating services and ground-penetrating 

radar were used to complete the clearance. Additionally, the first 5 feet of each boring were precleared using a hand auger to verify utility clearance in shallow subsurface where utilities would 

typically be encountered.

5.1.3 Source Water and Sampling Equipment Acceptability

Two potable water sources at AASF #1 were sampled on 22 February 2022 to assess usability 

for decontamination of drilling equipment. JAC-DECON-01 was collected from the wash rack 

spigot and JAC-DECON-02 was collected from the western side of the hangar. Results of the 

sample collected at the wash rack spigot confirmed this source to be acceptable for use in this

investigation; therefore, it was used throughout the field activities. Specifically, the samples were 

analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15. The results of the decontamination 

water sample associated with the wash rack spigot source used during the SI are provided in 

Appendix F. A discussion of the results is presented in the DUA (Appendix A).

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

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

was provided in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) appendix to the SI QAPP Addendum 

(AECOM, 2022a). Prior to the start of field work each day, a Sampling Checklist was completed 

as an additional layer of control. The checklist served as a daily reminder to each field team 

member regarding the allowable materials within the sampling environment. 

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

Borings were installed in grass areas where applicable, to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt 

surfaces. Soil samples were collected via direct push technology (DPT), in accordance with the 

SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). A GeoProbe® 7730DT macrocore sampling system was 

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

from the top five feet of the boring, in accordance with AECOM utility clearance procedures. The 

soil boring locations are shown on Figure 5-1, and depths are provided Table 5-1.
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 5-3

In general, soil borings advanced using DPT were sampled in three discrete intervals within the 

vadose zone for chemical analysis: one surface soil sample (0 to 2 feet bgs), one subsurface soil 

sample approximately 2 feet above the groundwater table, and one subsurface soil sample at the 

mid-point between the surface and the groundwater table. At AOI01-03, shallow groundwater was 

encountered and only two discrete soil samples were collected: one surface soil sample (0 to 2 

feet bgs) and one subsurface soil sample approximately 2 feet above the groundwater table. This 

field change is further discussed in Section 5.8. Additionally, five surface soil samples (0 to 2 feet 

bgs) were collected using a hand auger.

The soil cores were continuously logged for lithological descriptions by an AECOM field geologist 

using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A photoionization detector (PID) was used 

to screen the breathing zone during boring activities as part of personal safety requirements. 

Observations and measurements were recorded on sampling forms (Appendix B2) and in a nontreated field logbook (i.e., composition notebook). Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID 

concentrations, moisture, relative density, color (using a Munsell soil color chart), and texture 

(using the USCS) were recorded. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E.

Direct push borings installed during the SI were completed at depths between 10 to 20 feet bgs. 

Silt and lean clay with varying quantities of sand were observed as the dominant lithology of the 

unconsolidated sediments below AASF #1. Sandy silts were generally observed at the top 5 to 10 

feet bgs. Silt and clay were generally observed below 10 feet bgs. A layer of gravelly lean clay 

was observed in AOI01-01 from 16 to 17.5 feet bgs.

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

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

and transported via FedEx under standard chain of custody (CoC) procedures to the laboratory 

and analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15, total organic carbon (TOC)

(USEPA Method 9060A), pH (USEPA Method 9045D), and grain size (ASTM Method D-422) in 

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a).

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

as the accompanying samples. Matrix spike (MS)/MS duplicates (MSDs) 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, 

equipment rinsate blanks were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters 

as the soil samples. A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were 

preserved at or below 6 degrees Celsius (°C) during shipment.

DPT borings were converted to temporary wells, which were subsequently abandoned in 

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a) using bentonite chips at completion 

of sampling activities.

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® 7730DT macrocore sampling system. Once 

the borehole was advanced to the desired depth, a temporary well was constructed of a 5-foot

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

ground surface. New PVC pipe and screen were used 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. After the recharge 

period, groundwater samples were collected using a bladder pump with PFAS-free HDPE tubing. 

The temporary wells were purged at a rate determined in the field to reduce turbidity and draw 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 5-4

down 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. 

Additionally, a subsample of each groundwater sample was collected in a separate container, and 

a shaker test was completed to identify if there were any foaming. No foaming was noted in any 

of the groundwater samples. 

Each sample was collected into 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 by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3

Table B-15 in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a).

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 reagent blank was collected in 

accordance with the PQAPP (AECOM, 2018a). A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to 

ensure 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 QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a) by removing the PVC and backfilling 

the hole with bentonite chips.

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 26 April 2022. Groundwater elevation 

measurements were collected from the four new temporary monitoring wells. Water level 

measurements were taken from the northern side of the well casing. A groundwater flow contour 

map is provided in Figure 2-4. Groundwater elevation data are provided in Table 5-2.

5.5 Surveying

The northern side of each well casing was surveyed by Mississippi-licensed land surveyors 

following guidelines provided in the SOPs provided in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). 

Survey data from the newly installed wells on the facility were collected on 27 April 2022 in the 

applicable Universal Transverse Mercator zone projection with Mississippi State Plane-West 

North American Datum 1983 (NAD83, horizontal) and North American Vertical Datum 1988 

(NAVD88, vertical). The surveyed well data are provided in Appendix B4.

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste

As of the date of this report, the disposal of 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 SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a) and with the Army Guidance for 

Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 (DA, 2018).

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) generated during the SI activities were containerized in labeled, 55-

gallon Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved steel drums and left onsite, northwest of the 

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

samples collected from that source location. Containerized soil IDW will be managed and 

disposed of by ARNG (either by offsite disposal or onsite disposal with treatment, as appropriate) 

under a separate contract. ARNG will further manage soil IDW in accordance with the Army 

Guidance for Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 (DA, 2018). ARNG will coordinate transportation 

and disposal of the soil IDW. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 5-5

Liquid IDW generated during SI activities (i.e., purge water, development water, and 

decontamination fluids) were containerized in labeled, 55-gallon DOT-approved steel drums, and 

left onsite, next to the soil IDW drums. The liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the 

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

Containerized liquid IDW will be managed and disposed of by ARNG (either by offsite disposal or 

onsite disposal with treatment, as appropriate) under a separate contract. ARNG will further 

manage liquid IDW in accordance with the Army Guidance for Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 

(DA, 2018). ARNG will coordinate transportation and disposal of the liquid IDW.

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 5.3 Table B-15 at Pace Analytical Gulf 

Coast in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a DoD ELAP and NELAP certified laboratory. Soil samples 

were also analyzed for TOC using USEPA Method 9060A and pH by USEPA Method 9045D. 

5.8 Deviations from the SI QAPP Addendum

One deviation from the SI QAPP Addendum was identified during review of the field documentation. 

The deviation is noted below and is documented in Field Change Request Forms (Appendix B3).

• According to the SI QAPP Addendum, three soil samples were planned to be collected from

each direct push soil boring. All three samples were supposed to target the soil above the

water table in the vadose zone. However, due to shallow groundwater encountered at

AOI01-03, only two samples could be collected in the vadose zone.
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 5-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Jackson AASF #1, Jackson, Mississippi

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)Grain Size (ASTM D-422)

Comments

AOI01-01-SB-00-02 4/26/2022 9:05 0 - 2 x

AOI01-01-SB-04-06 4/26/2022 9:15 4 - 6 x

AOI01-01-SB-04-06-D 4/26/2022 9:15 4 - 6 x Duplicate

AOI01-01-SB-08-10 4/26/2022 9:30 8 - 10 x

AOI01-02-SB-00-02 4/26/2022 12:30 0 - 2 x x x

AOI01-02-SB-00-02-D 4/26/2022 12:30 0 - 2 x x Duplicate

AOI01-02-SB-00-02-MS 4/26/2022 12:30 0 - 2 x x MS

AOI01-02-SB-00-02-MSD 4/26/2022 12:30 0 - 2 x x MSD

AOI01-02-SB-05-07 4/26/2022 12:45 5 - 7 x

AOI01-02-SB-08-10 4/26/2022 12:40 8 - 10 x

AOI01-02-SB-10-12 4/26/2022 12:45 10 - 12 x

AOI01-03-SB-00-02 4/26/2022 10:30 0 - 2 x

AOI01-03-SB-03-05 4/26/2022 10:45 3 - 5 x

AOI01-03-SB-03-05-MS 4/26/2022 10:45 3 - 5 x MS

AOI01-03-SB-03-05-MSD 4/26/2022 10:45 3 - 5 x MSD

AOI01-04-SB-00-02 4/26/2022 8:00 0 - 2 x

AOI01-04-SB-04-06 4/26/2022 8:30 4 - 6 x

AOI01-04-SB-04-06-D 4/26/2022 8:30 4 - 6 x Duplicate

AOI01-04-SB-08-10 4/26/2022 8:45 8 - 10 x

AOI01-05-SB-00-02 4/26/2022 9:55 0 - 2 x

AOI01-06-SB-00-02 4/26/2022 10:15 0 - 2 x

AOI01-07-SB-00-02 4/26/2022 10:35 0 - 2 x

AOI01-08-SB-00-02 4/26/2022 9:15 0 - 2 x

AOI01-09-SB-00-02 4/26/2022 8:35 0 - 2 x

Soil Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Jackson AASF #1, Jackson, Mississippi

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)Grain Size (ASTM D-422)

Comments

AOI01-01-GW 4/26/2022 14:50 NA x

AOI01-01-GW-D 4/26/2022 14:50 NA x Duplicate

AOI01-01-GW-MS 4/26/2022 14:50 NA x MS

AOI01-01-GW-MSD 4/26/2022 14:50 NA x MSD

AOI01-02-GW 4/26/2022 16:05 NA x

AOI01-03-GW 4/26/2022 15:33 NA x

AOI01-04-GW 4/26/2022 13:40 NA x

JAC-FRB-01 4/27/2022 9:00 NA x FRB

JAC-ERB-01 4/26/2022 8:30 NA x Off drill rig shoe

JAC-ERB-02 4/26/2022 8:55 NA x Off AECOM hand auger

JAC-ERB-03 4/27/2022 9:30 NA x Off driller's hand auger

JAC-DECON-01 2/22/2022 8:00 NA x From wash rack spigot

JAC-DECON-02 2/22/2022 8:05 NA x From hangar spigot

Notes:

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs = below ground surface

ERB = equipment rinsate blank

FRB = field reagent blank

LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Quality Control Samples

Groundwater Samples

AECOM 5-8
Table 5-2

Soil Boring Depths, Temporary Well Screen Intervals, and Groundwater Elevations

Site Inspection Report, Jackson AASF #1, Jackson, Mississippi

Area of 

Interest

Boring 

Location

Soil Boring 

Depth 

(feet bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval 

(feet bgs)

Top of Casing 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Ground Surface 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Depth to 

Water

(feet btoc)

Depth to 

Water

(feet bgs)

Groundwater 

Elevation

(feet NAVD88)

AOI01-01 20 15 - 20 310.06 309.40 3.58 2.92 306.48

AOI01-02 20 15 - 20 307.70 307.30 2.95 2.55 304.75

AOI01-03 10 5 - 10 306.46 306.00 2.50 2.04 303.96

AOI01-04 15 10 - 15 309.05 308.60 5.68 5.23 303.37

Notes:

bgs = below ground surface

btoc = below top of casing

NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988

1

AECOM 5-9
AECOM 5-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

M 5-10
?!

?!

?!

?!

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

AOI 1

AOI 1

0 125 250 500

Feet

Legend

?! Soil Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

"S Surface Soil Sample

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

1:3,000

9/22/2022 ­ Figure 5-1 PM CM 9/22/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Site Inspection Sample Locations

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,

Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,

PROJECT

AECOM 5-11
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 5-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 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 AOI 1 is provided in Section 6.3. 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 dated 6 July 2022 

(Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022). The ARNG program under which this SI was performed 

follows this DoD policy. Should the maximum site 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 on Table 

6-1 below.

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

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Composite 

Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6 

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6 

Notes:

bgs = below ground surface; μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram; ng/L = nanograms per liter

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 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. 6 July 2022. 

b.) 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 HFPODA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of 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. 

The data in the subsequent sections are compared to 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 receptors 

identified at the facility: the residential scenario is applied to surface soil results (0 to 2 feet bgs) 

and the industrial/commercial worker scenario is applied to shallow subsurface soil results (2 to 

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

feet is the anticipated limit of construction activities. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 6-2

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 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. The soil and groundwater results are summarized on 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

Surface soil was sampled from 0 to 2 feet bgs from boring locations AOI01-01 through AOI01-09. 

Soil was also sampled from shallow subsurface soil (between 3 to 12 feet bgs) from boring 

locationsAOI01-01 through AOI01-04. Deep subsurface soil was not sampled. Figure 6-1 through 

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

soil results. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at concentrations more 

than one order of magnitude below the SLs. The maximum detected concentration was PFOS at 

0.832 J micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) at AOI01-09. The relevant compounds were not detected 

in surface soil at AOI01-01, AOI01-02, AOI01-03, AOI01-05, and AOI01-08. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, 

PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in any of the subsurface soil samples.

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI01-01 through AOI01-04. Figure 

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

groundwater results.

PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below the SLs. PFBS 

was detected in all four temporary wells, with a maximum detected concentration of 4.62 

nanograms per liter (ng/L) at AOI01-03. PFOS and PFHxS were only detected in one monitoring 

well each, with concentrations of 0.873 J ng/L and 2.43 J ng/L, respectively. PFOA and PFNA 

were not detected in groundwater.

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil 

below their SLs. PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below

their respective SLs. Therefore, further evaluation at AOI 1 is not warranted.
Table 6-2

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

Site Inspection Report, AASF Jackson

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 1900 ND U ND U ND U 0.035 J ND U 0.049 J ND U ND U ND U

PFHxS 130 ND U ND U ND U 0.051 J ND U 0.108 J ND U ND U 0.288 J

PFNA 19 ND U ND U ND U 0.050 J ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.058 J

PFOA 19 ND U ND U ND U 0.325 J ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.334 J

PFOS 13 ND U ND U ND U 0.398 J ND U 0.101 J 0.137 J ND U 0.832 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AOI Area of Interest

DL detection limit

Notes ft feet

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

Limit of Detection (LOD) ranges for relevant compounds: LOD limit of detection

PFBS: 0.054-0.064 μg/kg ND analyte not detected above the LOD

PFHxS: 0.108-0.128 μg/kg OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PFNA: 0.054-0.064 μg/kg QSM Quality Systems Manual

PFOA: 0.215-0.256 μg/kg Qual interpreted qualifier

PFOS: 0.215-0.256 μg/kg SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-00-02

04/26/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-00-02

04/26/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-03-SB-00-02

04/26/2022

0-2 ft

04/26/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-05-SB-00-02

04/26/2022

0-2 ft

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

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 incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI01

AOI01-08-SB-00-02

04/26/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-09-SB-00-02

04/26/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-06-SB-00-02

04/26/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-07-SB-00-02

04/26/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-04-SB-00-02

AECOM 6-3
Table 6-3

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, AASF Jackson

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 25000 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFHxS 1600 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS 160 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AOI Area of Interest

Notes DL detection limit

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. ft feet

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

Limit of Detection (LOD) ranges for relevant compounds: LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

PFBS: 0.055-0.059 μg/kg LOD limit of detection

PFHxS: 0.111-0.118 μg/kg ND analyte not detected above the LOD

PFNA: 0.055-0.059 μg/kg OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PFOA: 0.221-0.235 μg/kg QSM Quality Systems Manual

PFOS: 0.221-0.235 μg/kg Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

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 industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of

contaminated soil.

AOI01

AOI01-04-SB-04-06-D

04/26/2022

4-6 ft

AOI01-04-SB-08-10

04/26/2022

8-10 ft

AOI01-03-SB-03-05

04/26/2022

3-5 ft

AOI01-04-SB-04-06

04/26/2022

4-6 ft

AOI01-02-SB-08-10

04/26/2022

8-10 ft

AOI01-02-SB-10-12

04/26/2022

10-12 ft

AOI01-01-SB-04-06-D

04/26/2022

4-6 ft

AOI01-01-SB-08-10

04/26/2022

8-10 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-04-06

04/26/2022

4-6 ft

AECOM 6-4
Table 6-4

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, AASF Jackson

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 601 4.04 3.04 J 4.62 3.93 J 3.91 J

PFHxS 39 2.43 J ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFNA 6 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOA 6 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS 4 ND U 0.873 J ND U ND U ND U

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AOI Area of Interest

D duplicate

Notes DL detection limit

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. GW groundwater

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

Limit of Detection (LOD) ranges for relevant compounds: LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

PFBS: 1.98-2.03 ng/L LOD limit of detection

PFHxS: 2.98-3.05 ng/L ND analyte not detected above the LOD

PFNA: 1.98-2.03 ng/L OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PFOA: 1.98-2.03 ng/L QSM Quality Systems Manual

PFOS: 1.98-2.03 ng/L Qual interpreted qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/l nanogram per liter

Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l)

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 Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater.

AOI01

AOI01-04-GW

04/26/2022

AOI01-04-GW-D

04/26/2022

AOI01-02-GW

04/26/2022

AOI01-03-GW

04/26/2022

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI01-01-GW

04/26/2022

AECOM 6-5
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

0 170 340 680

Feet

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-04

­ Figure 6-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,

Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)

9/22/2022

1:4,080

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

PFOA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

AECOM 6-7
Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

0 170 340 680

Feet

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-04

­ Figure 6-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,

Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)

9/22/2022

1:4,080

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

PFOS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Shallow Intermediate Deep

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 13

>13 - 160

>160 - 1,600

>1,600

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

AECOM 6-8
Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

0 170 340 680

Feet

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-04

­ Figure 6-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,

Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)

9/22/2022

1:4,080

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

PFBS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Shallow Intermediate Deep

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 1,900

>1,900 - 25,000

>25,000

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

AECOM 6-9
Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

0 170 340 680

Feet

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-04

­ Figure 6-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,

Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)

9/22/2022

1:4,080

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

PFHxS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Shallow Intermediate Deep

PFHxS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

AECOM 6-10
Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

0 170 340 680

Feet

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-04

­ Figure 6-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,

Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)

9/22/2022

1:4,080

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

PFNA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Shallow Intermediate Deep

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

AECOM 6-11
Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

0 170 340 680

Feet

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

­ Figure 6-6

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

10/6/2022

10/6/2022

10/6/2022

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,

Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)

10/6/2022

1:4,080

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFOA PFOS PFBS

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 4

>4 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 100

>100 - 601

>601 - 2,000

>2,000

AECOM 6-12
Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

0 135 270 540

Feet

Town Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

­ Figure 6-7

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Jackson AASF #1, MS

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

9/22/2022

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,

Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)

9/22/2022

1:3,240

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFHxS PFNA

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

AECOM 6-13
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

6-14
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

The CSM for AOI 1, 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 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 site 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 an incomplete 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 relevant 

compounds above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially complete pathway that have 

detections of the relevant compounds above the SLs may warrant further investigation. Although 

the CSMs indicate whether potentially complete exposure pathways may exist, the 

recommendation for future study in an 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, trespassers (though unlikely due to restricted access), residents outside the facility 

boundary, and recreational users outside of the facility boundary. No construction was observed 

during SI field activities.

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 AOI 1 based on the aforementioned criteria. 

7.1.1 AOI 1 

An unknown number of Tri-MaxTM units were staged at the flight line for 6 to 8 years, starting 

around 2008 or 2009. Additionally, approximately 10 Tri-MaxTM units were reportedly staged on 

the wash rack area between 2007 to 2012. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 7-2

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at AOI 1. Site workers, 

future construction workers, and trespassers could contact constituents in surface soil via 

incidental ingestion and inhalation of dust. Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathways for 

these receptors are potentially complete. The exposure pathways for offsite residents via 

incidental ingestion of surface soil are considered incomplete. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and 

PFNA were not detected in subsurface soil at AOI 1; therefore, all exposure pathways are 

considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 1 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 based on the aforementioned criteria.

7.2.1 AOI 1 

PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected below their SLs in groundwater samples collected at 

AOI 1. Downgradient domestic and public supply wells have depths greater than 500 feet bgs and 

are screened below the Yazoo Clay aquitard. Therefore, the pathway for exposure to off-facility 

residents via ingestion of groundwater is considered incomplete. Depths to water measured at 

AOI 1 in July 2021 during the SI ranged from 2.04 to 5.23 feet bgs. Therefore, the incidental 

ingestion exposure pathway for future construction workers is considered potentially complete. 

Additionally, during wet periods, the water level may rise to depths shallower than 2 feet bgs. 

Therefore, the incidental ingestion pathway for future site worker receptors is considered 

potentially complete. The ingestion pathways for trespassers and recreational users are

considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway

The SI results in soil and groundwater, in combination with knowledge of the fate and transport 

properties of PFAS, were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists 

between the source and potential receptors.

7.3.1 AOI 1 

PFAS are water soluble and can migrate readily from soil to surface water via leaching and runoff. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil and PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS 

were detected in groundwater. Consequently, it is possible that those compounds may have 

migrated from soil and groundwater to Town Creek, located along the facility’s western boundary, 

or other drainage ditches at the facility. Compounds in surface water bodies at or near the facility 

could be transported to Pearl River. 

Surface water bodies used for public drinking water are located upgradient of the facility; therefore

the ingestion pathway for residents is considered incomplete. Because Town Creek is located 

within the boundary of the facility, there is potential for site workers and future construction 

workers to come into contact with the identified compounds. Therefore, the incidental ingestion 

pathway for these receptors to surface water and sediment is considered potentially complete. 

Due to the recreational use of Pearl River, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure 

pathway for off-facility recreational users is also considered potentially complete. The exposure 

pathway for residents to surface water via ingestion is considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 

1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

AASF #1, Jackson, Mississippi

NOTES

1. No construction activities were observed

during SI field activities.

2. The resident and recreational users refer

to off-site receptors.

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Recreational

User/Trespasser2

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker1 Resident2

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker1

Resident2 Recreational

User/Trespasser2

AOI 1

Portable

Tri-MaxTM Unit

Storage

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Surface Soil

Surface

Water/

Sediment

Subsurface

Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

Under

Control of

ARNG

Surface Soil

Airborne Soil

Particulate / / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

AECOM 7-3
AECOM 5-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

M 7-4
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 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 were conducted from 22 to 27 April 2022 and consisted of utility clearance, 

direct push boring, soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation, grab groundwater 

sample collection, and land surveying. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the SI 

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), except as previously noted in Section 5.8.

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), samples 

were collected and analyzed for a subset of 18 compounds by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 

Table B-15 as follows. 

• Sixteen (16) soil samples from 9 borings; 

• Four grab groundwater samples from four temporary wells; and

• Thirteen (13) 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 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 CSM was 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, further evaluation under CERCLA is not warranted for AOI 1 at 

AASF #1 at this time (see Table 8-1). Based on the CSMs developed and revised in light of the 

SI findings, there is no potential for exposure to drinking water receptors from AOI 1 from sources 

on the facility resulting from historical DoD activities. Sample analytical concentrations collected 

during the SI were compared to the project SLs in soil and groundwater, as described in Table 6-

1. A summary of the results of the SI data relative to the SLs is as follows:

• At AOI 1:

• PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at 

concentrations at least one order of magnitude below the SLs. These compounds 

were not detected in subsurface soil.

• PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below the 

SLs. The maximum detected concentration was PFBS at 4.62 ng/L at AOI01-03. 

PFOA and PFNA were not detected in groundwater.

• Based on the results of the SI, no further evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted.

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 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 8-2

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

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source Areaa

Groundwater –

Source Areaa Future Action

1 Release Area A

0.832 J μg/kg (PFOS) 4.62 ng/L (PFBS)

No further action

Notes:

AOI = area of interest; ng/L = nanograms per liter; μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram

a.) The maximum relevant compound concentration is reported at the AOI.

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 9-1

9. References 

AECOM. 2018a. Final Site Inspection Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance 

Project Plan, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 

Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/

W912DR17F0192. 9 March.

AECOM. 2018b. Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid 

(PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide 

Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. July.

AECOM. 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Jackson Army Aviation Support Facility #1, 

Jackson, MS. August.

AECOM. 2022a. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Addendum, Jackson Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi, Perfluorooctane 

Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, 

Nationwide. March. 

AECOM. 2022b. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Jackson Army Aviation Support Facility #1, 

Jackson, Mississippi, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid 

(PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. April. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Investigation Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within 

the Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 

6 July. 

City of Jackson, Mississippi. 2022. Zoning Map. Accessed 31 October 2022 at 

https://cmpdd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1c2ee1fa1b064ac1b6a1

8c6b08a040b6. 

Cushing, E.M., Boswell, E.H., Hosman, R.L. 1964. General Geology of the Mississippi 

Embayment, Water Resources of the Mississippi Embayment. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 448-B, United States Geological Survey (USGS), Department of Interior 

(DOI).

DA. 2018. Army Guidance for Addressing Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. 

4 September.

DoD. 2019a. Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated Quality 

Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.3. 

DoD. 2019b. General Data Validation Guidelines. Environmental Data Quality Workgroup. 

4 November.

Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P. 2013. Subsurface Transport Potential of Perfluoroalkyl Acids at 

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF)-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology 

47(9): 4164-71. 

Higgins, C.P., and Luthy, R.G. 2006. Sorption of Perfluorinated Surfactants on 

Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology 40 (23): 7251-7256.

ITRC. 2018. Environmental Fate and Transport for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 

Leidos. 2018. Final Site Inspection Report for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate and Perfluorooctanoic 

Acid at Jackson International Airport and the C-17 Assault Strip, Mississippi. November.
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Jackson, Mississippi

AECOM 9-2

McKee, P.W., and Hays, P.D. 2002. The Sparta Aquifer: A Sustainable Water Resource? Fact 

Sheet FS-111-02, USGS, DOI.

MDEQ. 2011. 2010 Annual Drinking Water Report. City of Jackson Maddox Road Well System. 

Public Water Supply Identification Number MS0250012. June 17.

MDEQ. 2021. 2021 Annual Drinking Water Report. City of Jackson. Public Water Supply 

Identification Number MS0250008 & 0250012. May.

Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS). 2009. MS USGS Wells 2009.

Accessed 28 October 2022 at 

https://www.maris.state.ms.us/HTML/DATA/data_Hydrology/USGSWells.html#gsc.tab=0. 

Mississippi State University. 2022. Office of the Mississippi State Climatologist. Mississippi 

Climate. Accessed 25 October 2022 at https://www.geosciences.msstate.edu/stateclimatologist/climate/. 

Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries, & Parks. 2018. Pearl River 2018, Middle Reach, REEL FACTS.

https://www.mdwfp.com/media/254843/pearl-river-middle-reach-reel-facts-2018-final.pdf. 

MSARNG. 2017. Jackson AASF Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Volumes I & 

II. 

Stover, Curtis W., Williams, Ross D., and Peel, Charles O. M. 1988. Yazoo Clay: Engineering 

Aspects and Environmental Geology of an Expansive Clay. Circular 1, Mississippi Department 

of Natural Resources Bureau of Geology. 1988.

USACE. 2016. Technical Project Planning Process, EM-200-1-2. 26 February.

USEPA. 1980. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA). 

USEPA. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule). 

40 CFR Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September.

USEPA. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation 

Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk 

Assessments). December.

USEPA. 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.

USFWS. 2022. Species by County Report, County: Hinds County, Mississippi. Environmental 

Conservation Online System. Accessed 28 October 2022 at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=28049. 

Wallenfeldt, J., Burrus, J.N., and Sansing, D.G. Magnolia State. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 5 

February 2019, www.britannica.com/place/Mississippi-state. 

World Climate. 2022. Average Weather Data for Meridian, Mississippi. Accessed 28 October 2022 

at http://worldclimate.com/climate/us/mississippi/jackson. 

Xiao, F., Simcik, M. F., Halbach, T. R., and Gulliver, J. S. 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.