FINAL

Site Inspection Report 

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center,

Florida

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

May 2023 

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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....................................................................................................2-3

2.2.4 Climate........................................................................................................2-4

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use......................................................................2-4

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species.............................2-5

2.3 History of PFAS Use..............................................................................................2-5

2.4 Other PFAS Investigations ....................................................................................2-6

3. Summary of Areas of Interest .......................................................................................3-1

3.1 AOI 1 Skid Strip.....................................................................................................3-1

3.2 AOI 2 Anderson Bartlett Airfield .............................................................................3-1

3.3 AOI 3 Building 3010 ..............................................................................................3-1

3.4 AOI 4 WWTP.........................................................................................................3-2

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

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

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

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

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

5.8 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum ....................................................................5-6

6. Site Inspection Results .................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Screening Levels...................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses .............................................................................6-2

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

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

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-2
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM ii

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-3

6.4 AOI 2.....................................................................................................................6-3

6.4.1 AOI 2 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-3

6.4.2 AOI 2 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-3

6.4.3 AOI 2 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-3

6.5 AOI 3.....................................................................................................................6-3

6.5.1 AOI 3 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-3

6.5.2 AOI 3 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-4

6.5.3 AOI 3 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-4

6.6 AOI 4.....................................................................................................................6-4

6.6.1 AOI 4 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-4

6.6.2 AOI 4 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-4

6.6.3 AOI 4 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-5

7. Exposure Pathways......................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway .........................................................................................7-1

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

7.1.2 AOI 2...........................................................................................................7-2

7.1.3 AOI 3...........................................................................................................7-2

7.1.4 AOI 4...........................................................................................................7-3

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway...........................................................................7-3

7.2.1 AOI 1...........................................................................................................7-3

7.2.2 AOI 2...........................................................................................................7-3

7.2.3 AOI 3...........................................................................................................7-3

7.2.4 AOI 4...........................................................................................................7-4

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway ..................................................7-4

7.3.1 AOI 1...........................................................................................................7-4

7.3.2 AOI 2...........................................................................................................7-4

7.3.3 AOI 3...........................................................................................................7-4

7.3.4 AOI 4...........................................................................................................7-5

8. Summary and Outcome................................................................................................8-1

8.1 SI Activities............................................................................................................8-1

8.2 Outcome ...............................................................................................................8-1

9. References...................................................................................................................9-1
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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

B5. Investigation-Derived Waste Polygons

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, January 2022

Figure 3-1 Areas 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

Figure 7-2 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2

Figure 7-3 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3

Figure 7-4 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 4

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

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film-forming foam

amsl above mean sea level

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

bgs below ground surface 

CBJTC Camp Blanding Joint Training Center 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CoC chain of custody

CSM conceptual site model 

DA Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DPT direct push technology

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment 

EDRTM Environmental Data Resources, Inc.TM

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

FLARNG Florida Army National Guard

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FedEx Federal Express

GPS Global positioning system 

GRPS Ground Penetrating Radar Systems

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

MIL-SPEC military specification

MS matrix spike

MSD matrix spike duplicate

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

NAS JAX Naval Air Station Jacksonville

ng/L nanograms per liter

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM v

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid 

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

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

SES SpecPro Environmental Services, LLC

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

USACHPPM United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIOANLLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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 four Areas of Interest (AOIs) 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 AOIs 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 Camp Blanding Joint Training Center (CBJTC) in 

Starke, Florida and determined further evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is warranted for AOI 3: Building 3010 and 

AOI 4: Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP); no further evaluation is warranted for AOI 1 and

AOI 2 at this time. The CBJTC will also be referred to as the “facility” throughout this document. 

CBJTC occupies 73,824 acres of land in Starke, Florida, in Clay and Bradford Counties, 

approximately 40 miles southwest of Jacksonville and 2 miles north of Keystone Heights. Florida 

State Road 16 bisects the north and south areas of CBJTC. The central portion of CBJTC includes 

the recreationally used Kingsley Lake. Private properties (off-facility) surround the northern and 

western sides of Kingsley Lake (Clay County Property Appraiser’s Office, 2018). CBJTC is owned 

and operated on behalf of the Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) by the State of Florida 

Armory Board and serves as a major FLARNG training site.

The PA identified four AOIs for investigation during the SI phase. SI sampling results from the four

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

the results of this SI, further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted in a Remedial Investigation

(RI) for AOI 3 and AOI 4; no further evaluation is warranted for AOI 1 and AOI 2 at this time. Given 

the level of uncertainty at AOI 1, additional sampling may be considered at this AOI during future 

sampling RI sampling. 

1 Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX) was not 

included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the conceptual site model (CSM) developed during the PA and revised based 

on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military 

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

use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an 

individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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 Area

Groundwater –

Source Area Future Action

1 Skid Strip No further action at this time

2 Anderson Bartlett Airfield No further action

3 Building 3010 Proceed to RI

4 WWTP Proceed to RI

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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 the Camp Blanding 

Joint Training Center (CBJTC) in Starke, Florida. The CBJTC 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 CBJTC (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. [AECOM], 2018c) that identified 

four Areas of Interest (AOIs) 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 AOIs 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

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 2-1

2. Facility Background 

2.1 Facility Location and Description

CBJTC occupies 73,824 acres of land near Starke, Florida, in Clay and Bradford Counties, 

approximately 40 miles southwest of Jacksonville and 2 miles north of Keystone Heights (Figure 

2-1). Florida State Road 16 bisects the north and south areas of CBJTC. The central portion of 

CBJTC includes the recreationally used Kingsley Lake. Private properties (off-facility) surround 

the northern and western sides of Kingsley Lake (Clay County Property Appraiser’s Office, 2018). 

The facility’s operational range area of 69,082 acres consists of 172 training ranges. The 

remaining 4,742 acres comprise a cantonment area (i.e., non-operational use area) located in the 

central portion of CBJTC (CBJTC, 2018).

The facility was established in 1939 as a camp and training site for the Florida ARNG (FLARNG). 

During World War II, the facility was leased by the US Army and used as an infantry replacementtraining center and included a cantonment-type camp, a large hospital, and a prisoner-of-war 

camp. After the war, the land was placed under the ownership of the Florida Armory Board. Today 

CBJTC is owned and operated on behalf of the FLARNG by the State of Florida Armory Board 

and serves as a major FLARNG training site. 

Additionally, out-of-state ARNG units and Navy units have historically conducted training events 

at CBJTC. These non-FLARNG units were not tenants during their usage of the CBJTC airfields, 

and documentation of their training events was not recorded at CBJTC. The Skid Strip and 

Anderson Bartlett Airfield, specifically, have been used by Jacksonville Naval Air Station (NAS 

JAX) for training exercises. NAS JAX and out-of-state ARNG units provided their own fire and 

rescue response.

Approximately 10,000 acres along the western boundary are leased for mining heavy minerals 

(ilmenite) from sand deposits. The land use adjacent to the facility includes woodlands, residential 

areas, and Mike Roess Gold Head Branch State Park (US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 

2014). 

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

CBJTC lies within the Trail Ridge physiographic region of the state. The Trail Ridge is an ancient 

coastal terrace that is part of the oldest terrestrial formation in Florida. The topography at CBJTC 

is flat to gently rolling, with several creeks and karst lakes; the steepest slopes are in the southern 

portion of CBJTC. The elevations at the facility range from approximately 40 feet above mean sea 

level (amsl) to 250 feet amsl (Figure 2-2). The lowest elevations generally occur along creek 

channels, and elevations of 200 feet amsl or greater are found southeast of Kingsley Lake 

(FLARNG, 2014). 

2.2.1 Geology

CBJTC is underlain mostly by the Trail Ridge sands, which are Pleistocene in age. These sands 

outcrop along the western edge of the facility and are mined for their heavy mineral content. The 

Trail Ridge sands were part of an ancient shoreline, initially forming a barrier island, beach ridge, 

and inland dunes; since a lowering of sea level, the sands have been reworked by wind (Elsner, 

1997). The Trail Ridge sands are siliciclastics composed of light gray, tan, brown to black, 

unconsolidated to poorly consolidated, clean to clayey, silty, unfossiliferous, variably organicbearing sands, to blue-green to olive-green, poorly to moderately consolidated, sandy, silty clays, 

and can be up to 65 feet thick (Scott et al., 2001). The Cypresshead Formation, Pliocene in age, 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 2-2

underlies the Trail Ridge sands, although it is near the surface in some areas and may outcrop 

along CBJTC’s southern and eastern boundaries. The Cypresshead Formation is a shallow 

marine, near-shore deposit composed of unconsolidated to poorly consolidated reddish brown to 

reddish orange, fine to very coarse grained, clean to clayey sands, which can be up to 200 feet 

in thickness (Scott, 2001; Scott et al., 2001). The Hawthorn Group, which lies 100 to 300 feet

below ground surface (bgs), underlies the Cypresshead sands and consists of discontinuous, 

Miocene age lenses of clay, quartz sand, carbonates, and phosphates. The Oligocene Suwannee 

Limestone and Eocene Ocala Limestone Formations are below the Hawthorn Formation in 

western Clay County, and the Ocala Formation is part of the Floridan Aquifer (FLARNG, 2014). 

The carbonate minerals and limestone formations make up a carbonate reef platform whose 

interaction with groundwater has contributed to the karst landscape, which is marked by sinkholes 

and caves, at the facility.

SI soil borings were drilled to depths between 10 and 15 feet bgs. The geological data collected 

from the boreholes indicate that the dominant lithology of the unconsolidated material underlying 

the facility is composed of fine- to medium-grained silty sand. Boring logs showed varying 

percentages of fines (silt and clay) within the sand matrix, but no defined silt or clay beds were 

observed in the boreholes that would indicate the presence of widespread impermeable units. 

The soils observed at the facility have a high hydraulic conductivity. Boring logs are presented in 

Appendix E. 

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The principal aquifers underlying CBJTC consist of surficial, intermediate, and Floridan. Recharge 

to the surficial aquifer is through direct rainfall. The surficial aquifer is easily infiltrated by 

precipitation because of the unconsolidated sandy units that underlie the facility (Schreuder, 

2002). The Surficial Aquifer System typically consists of an unconfined water table roughly 30 ft 

thick composed of sand, shell, and clay (Clark et al. 1964). The surficial sands and Floridan 

aquifer are separated by the intermediate aquifer, comprised of a sequence of sands, carbonates, 

and clays. The Intermediate Aquifer System consists of the confining unit of the Floridan aquifer 

and is mainly composed of clays as well as thin, water-bearing zones of sand, shell, and limestone 

(Clark et al. 1964). The individual water-bearing zones in the intermediate aquifer are typically 

only several feet thick and are separated by the interspersed, semi-permeable confining clay beds 

(US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine [USACHPPM], 2007). The 

Floridan aquifer system is approximately 1,900 feet thick, with two permeable zones (Upper and 

Lower Floridan aquifers) separated by a middle confining unit (Connect Connecting, Inc., 2009; 

Merritt, 2001). The top of the Upper Floridan aquifer is typically about 200 feet bgs (Merritt, 2001). 

Recharge of the Floridan aquifer occurs at rates of 0 to 12 inches per year through vertical leakage 

from the surficial aquifer and breaches in the surface above (e.g., sinkholes) (Schreuder, 2002). 

The Floridian aquifer system is the primary source of drinking water in north Florida, which 

includes CBJTC (SES, 2014).

A groundwater investigation at the former Combined Support Maintenance Shop at the facility 

identified three distinct but interconnected groundwater flow zones separated by densely 

compacted sand layers. The groundwater flow zones are part of the surficial aquifer: shallow 

(ground surface to 20 feet bgs), intermediate (20 to 60 feet bgs), and deep (60 to 100 feet bgs). 

Groundwater flow through the denser, partially cemented zones is restricted compared to the 

loose, more permeable zones (SpecPro Environmental Services, LLC [SES], 2012). The recharge 

rate has been estimated based on isotropic studies of groundwater and is between 4 and 12 

inches per year (SES, 2012). 

The majority of the water underlying CBJTC moves laterally within the system before discharging 

into a surface waterbody; however, some water does percolate downward into the Floridan aquifer 

in some areas. At CBJTC, groundwater discharges into Kingsley Lake, which produces some 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 2-3

outward surficial flow northeast as the headwaters for the North Fork Black Creek (SES, 2014). 

The Kingsley Lake Watershed, as well as other local watersheds are shown on Figure 2-3. Within 

Clay County, groundwater generally flows to the east toward the St. Johns River and ultimately 

the Atlantic Ocean. 

Synoptic groundwater measurements were recorded from temporary monitoring wells installed at 

the SI boring locations. The depth to groundwater across the facility ranged between 

approximately 2.32 to 9.71 feet bgs. Measured depths to groundwater were generally most 

shallow at AOI 3 (2.48 to 3.88 feet bgs) in the cantonment area near Kingsley Lake. 

In the North Post portion of the facility (north of Florida State Road 16), groundwater depth was 

measured at AOI 1 and AOI 2. At AOI 1, groundwater was observed in temporary wells between 

2.32 to 9.23 feet bgs. Groundwater elevation contours based on the depths to water at AOI 1 

indicate groundwater flows northeast. At AOI 2, groundwater was observed in temporary wells 

between 2.51 and 5.52 feet bgs, and groundwater elevation contours indicate groundwater flows 

east by northeast. However, due to the distances between temporary wells at both AOIs 1 and 2, 

there is uncertainty regarding local flow directions at the two AOIs. At AOI 1, the temporary wells 

are located on each end of the runway approximately 0.5 miles apart. At AOI 2, the temporary 

wells are located at opposite ends of the runway approximately 0.8 miles apart. As a result, the 

groundwater flow direction at these AOIs is considered inferred. In the cantonment area, 

groundwater depth was measured at AOI 3 and AOI 4. At AOI 3, depth to groundwater was 

observed in temporary wells between 2.49 and 3.88 feet bgs. Although groundwater elevation 

contours indicate groundwater flows northeast at AOI 3, the temporary wells’ linear positioning 

results in some uncertainty regarding groundwater flow. At AOI 4, groundwater was only 

measured at one temporary well location, and it was measured at 9.71 feet bgs. Based on 

groundwater elevation at AOI 4 in relation to groundwater elevations at AOI 3 (the nearest AOI), 

the inferred groundwater flow direction is southeast; however, the approximately 2.5-mile distance

between AOI 3 and AOI 4 results in uncertainty regarding the groundwater flow direction at AOI 

4. The observed groundwater elevations and inferred flow directions at each AOI are shown on 

Figure 2-4. 

There are five active wells serving up to 2,500 people in the cantonment area of CBJTC: CBJTC 

#2 (Pump House 03290), CBJTC #4 (Pump House 05560), CBJTC #5 (Pump House 05615), 

CBJTC #6 (Pump House 03890), and CBJTC #11/#12 (Pump House 04795). These wells range 

in depth from 580 to 719 feet bgs and tap into the Floridan aquifer system. There are also 12 wells 

identified from the Florida Department of Health well registry north of Kingsley Lake in the CBJTC 

cantonment area. Seven of these wells are listed as potable, and four are active. Only one of the 

active potable wells has an associated depth (Well AAE0152; 615 feet bgs). Two private potable 

water wells were also identified from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

Generalized Well Information System on the southwestern side of Kingsley Lake (FDEP, 2021). 

The wells are identified as well 3960 and 3961 and have total depths of 150 and 126 feet bgs, 

respectively. These wells are listed as private drinking water wells (FDEP, 2016). Wells CBJTC 

#2 (Pump House 03290), CBJTC #5 (Pump House 05615), CBJTC #6 (Pump House 03890), and 

CBJTC #11/#12 (Pump House 04795) were sampled for PFAS during the ARNG sampling event 

in 2017, as described in Section 2.4. It is unknown whether any of the other wells described 

above have been sampled for PFAS. Additionally, a potable well is present at the Skid Strip in the 

North Post area. The well has a total depth of 176 feet, with a static water level of approximately 

50 feet bgs. FLARNG believes the well has not been sampled for PFAS.

2.2.3 Hydrology 

Surface water at the CBJTC investigation area (cantonment area and North Post) drains via three 

watersheds: Kingsley Lake Watershed, Lower South Fork of Black Creek Watershed, and Upper 

South Fork of Black Creek Watershed (Figure 2-3). Kingsley Lake Watershed drains the majority 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 2-4

of the North Post area at CBJTC. The North Fork Black Creek dissects the northern portion of the 

facility, with its headwaters fed by springs and seeps at the Kingsley Lake shoreline, a 

groundwater-fed water body. Kingsley Lake is located in the west-central part of CBJTC, and it is 

the largest lake on the facility, encompassing approximately 1,620 acres. Kingsley Lake produces 

some outward flow in surface water to the northeast. As a karstic lake, Kingsley Lake may also 

receive water by inflow from nearby streams and lose water to groundwater seepage. The lake 

readily conveys excess flood waters from the lake to the North Fork Black Creek, which prevents 

extremely high lake stages. The lakes on and near the facility were formed by sinkholes due to 

karst terrain and may interact with the Floridan aquifer system. North Fork Black Creek drains into 

the St. Johns River approximately 25 miles downstream from the CBJTC property. 

The Upper and Lower South Fork of Black Creek Watersheds drains the central and northern 

portions of CBJTC into South Fork Black Creek, which flows eastward within the boundaries of 

the facility (USACE, 2014). South Fork Black Creek has been observed to have steady perennial 

flow at its exit from CBJTC at Blanding Boulevard (State Road 21). Also, in the Upper South Fork 

of Black Creek Watershed, a tributary of Ates Creek flows eastward from CBJTC, and upon 

reaching its confluence with Ates Creek, continues northward until joining South Fork Black Creek. 

South Fork Black Creek flows north until it reaches its confluence with North Fork Black Creek, 

west of the city of Middleburg, approximately 12 miles downstream (FDEP, 2021). 

The southern portion of CBJTC is drained by the Lake Geneva Watershed, which includes a 

number of surface water bodies that connect to Alligator Creek. Alligator Creek’s headwaters are 

north of Blue Pond, in a ravine fed by groundwater seepage (Merritt, 2001; Schreuder, 2002). The 

creek flows from Blue Pond into Lowry Lake then into Magnolia Lake. Lowry Lake receives water 

from Alligator Creek and another stream with three tributaries that extend as far as 1.3 miles north 

to ravines 30 to 40 feet deep. These tributaries receive water from the surficial aquifer via three 

springs (Merritt, 2001). Lowry Lake also receives water from the surficial aquifer directly via 

seepage (Schreuder, 2002). Alligator Creek flows off CBJTC into Lake Brooklyn, Keystone Lake, 

and Lake Geneva. 

2.2.4 Climate 

Data from Starke, Florida, indicate that the mean annual temperature between 1970 and 2010 

was 67.5 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 

2022). The warmest months are July and August, with average daily temperatures of 83.3oF and 

82.9oF, respectively. January is the coldest month, with an average daily temperature of 56.8oF. 

Average annual precipitation measured from 1991 to 2020 in Starke, Florida was 53.35 inches. 

Rainfall is heaviest during the months of June through September, averaging between 5 and 8 

inches per month. Winter is the driest season. Average monthly precipitation ranges from 2.27 

inches in November to 8.17 inches in June (NOAA, 2022). Afternoon and evening thunderstorms 

in the summer account for about 40 percent (%) of annual rainfall. Summer thunderstorms can 

produce heavy rainfall of 2 to 3 inches in a few hours (FLARNG, 2014). Tropical storms are 

possible between June and November but typically do not generate hurricane-force winds at 

CBJTC due to its inland location (Weatherspoon et al., 1989). 

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

CBJTC is the major training area for the Florida National Guard and is home to ARNG and Air 

National Guard units as well as the Florida Youth Challenge Academy, the 211th Regiment Florida 

Regional Training Institute, and other military and civilian operations. The facility has been used 

for more than 50 years for a variety of military training activities. CBJTC provides personnel, 

training, logistical and administrative support, and it serves as a training base for improving 

individual solider skills, collective training, overall unit readiness, and other essential needs to 

valued customers. Future use of CBJTC is anticipated to remain the same.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 2-5

Training lands on CBJTC are defined using the following land use categories: improved, semiimproved, and unimproved grounds. Improved grounds are developed areas that have either an 

impervious surface (e.g., sidewalks, buildings) or landscape plantings that require intensive 

maintenance and upkeep. Improved grounds include the developed portions of CBJTC, which are 

primarily located within the central cantonment area. However, a few scattered areas of 

development, which are associated with transportation and utility corridors and the range 

complex, are found outside this area. Improved grounds make up less than 5% of the facility. 

Semi-improved grounds are where periodic grading or maintenance is performed for operational 

reasons (e.g., landing zones, wildlife food plots). Semi-improved lands on CBJTC (or 29% of the 

land) include areas that require periodic management or maintenance; they include tree 

plantations, agricultural lands, previously mined lands, and trails. Unimproved grounds receive 

little to no grounds maintenance (e.g., streams, wetlands, forests) and make up the remainder of 

CBJTC (or 66% of the land); they are used for military training, forestry, wildlife management, and 

recreation. Unimproved grounds include forests, shrubland, streams, lakes, and wetlands 

(FLARNG, 2014).

Private properties (off-facility) surround the northern and western sides of Kingsley Lake. 

Additionally, imported mining materials from multiple locations are processed at a DuPont-owned 

facility along the western boundary of the facility. Land use adjacent to CBJTC includes 

woodlands, residential areas, and Mike Roess Gold Head Branch State Park (USACE, 2014). 

Keystone Heights Airport is a public use airport located adjacent to CBJTC on the southwestern 

border. 

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

The following birds, plants, mammals, clams, insects, and reptiles are federally endangered, 

threatened, proposed, and/ or are listed as candidate species in Clay County, Florida (US Fish 

and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2022). 

• Birds: Red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis (endangered); Red knot, Calidris 

canutus rufa (threatened); Florida scrub-jay, Aphelocoma coerulescens (threatened); Wood 

stork, Mycteria americana (threatened), Eastern Black rail, Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. 

Jamaicensis (threatened); 

• Mammals: West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus (threatened); Tricolored bat, 

Perimyotis subflavus (under review);

• Clams: Oval pigtoe, Pleurobema pyriforme (endangered); Suwannee moccasinshell, 

Medionidus walkeri (threatened); 

• Flowering plants: Chapman rhododendron, Rhododendron chapmanii (endangered); 

Blackbract pipewort, Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum (under review)

• Reptiles: Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, Macrochelys suwanniensis (proposed 

threatened); Gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus (candidate); Eastern indigo snake, 

Drymarchon couperi (threatened); Eastern diamondback rattlesnake, Crotalus adamanteus

(under review);

• Insects: Westfall's clubtail, Gomphus westfalli (under review).

2.3 History of PFAS Use

Four potential release areas were identified at Camp Blanding during the PA where AFFF may 

have been used or released historically (AECOM, 2018c). AOI 1, the Skid Strip, and AOI 2, 

Anderson Bartlett Airfield, have no confirmed releases, but potential AFFF releases to soil by NAS 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 2-6

JAX or other state ARNG units may have occurred during historical training activities at these 

AOIs. AOI 3, Building 3010, has no confirmed releases, but potential AFFF releases may have 

occurred at this AOI as a result of storage and maintenance of a crash/fire rescue truck that 

contained AFFF at the AOI. AOI 4 is the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which accepts 

and treats wastewater from various facilities at CBJTC prior to discharge to the South Fork of 

Black Creek. The WWTP is a potential secondary source if an AFFF release historically occurred 

at Building 3010 and were transported to the WWTP. 

2.4 Other PFAS Investigations

Sampling of domestic water sources at CBJTC for a subset of PFAS compounds was conducted 

by the ARNG in April 2017. Estimated detections of Perfluorododecanoic acid (0.505 nanograms 

per liter [ng/L]), Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (1.00 ng/L), and Perfluorotridecanoic acid (0.633 

ng/L) were reported for a composite sample collected from eyewash stations at pump houses for 

CBJTC Wells Two, Five, Six, and Eleven/Twelve. An estimated detection of 

Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (0.392 ng/L) was reported in a domestic water sample collected from 

domestic CBJTC Well Two. No other PFAS detections were reported in the sample results. April 

2017 ARNG PFAS sampling locations are shown on Figure 2-3. 
Camp Blanding

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JW

8/9/2022

8/9/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL

1:316,800

8/9/2022 ­ Figure 2-1 PM CM 8/9/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Camp Blanding 

Facility Location

^_

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

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

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

AECOM 2-7
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JW

11/2/2022

11/2/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL ­ 11/2/2022

1:63,360 Figure 2-2 PM CM 11/2/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Topography

Base Map: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic

Society, i-cubed

012 0.5

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Topographic Contours are in Feet.

On

Facility

Off 

Facility

Off 

Facility

AECOM 2-8
!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P !P !P !P !P

!P !P !P

!P !P !P !P !P!P !P !P

!P !P

!P

!P !P!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!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(

!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(!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P !P!P !P!P!P!P

!P!P!P

CR

Mill Branch

So ut h Fork Black Cre ek

BullCre ek

Polande r Branch

St r eam

Prevatt Cree k

Gold Head Branch

T igerBranch

Santa F e Canal

Fallin g Bran c h

Dev ils Den Creek

Dillaberry Bra n ch

Boggy Branch

Mill Creek

GrogBranch

Ates Creek

Double Run Creek

WaterOak

Creek

Big B ranch

Alligator Creek

Santa Fe River

Greens Creek

North Fork Bal c k Creek

Magnolia Lake

Lowry Lake

Blue Pond

Stevens Lake Varnes Lake

Whitmore Lake

Kingsley

Lake

UPPER SOUTH

FORK OF BLACK

CREEK WATERSHED

LOWER

ETONIA CREEK

WATERSHED

GREENS CREEK

WATERSHED

WATER

OAK CREEK

WATERSHED

ALLIGATOR

CREEK-NEW

RIVER WATERSHED

UPPER NORTH FORK

OF BLACK CREEK

WATERSHED

LAKE GENEVA

WATERSHED

SMITH LAKE

WATERSHED

UPPER ETONIA

CREEK WATERSHED

LOWER NORTH

FORK OF BLACK

CREEK WATERSHED

SANTE FE

LAKE

WATERSHED

NEW RIVER

SWAMP

WATERSHED

ALLIGATOR

CREEK-SANTE FE

RIVER WATERSHED

KINGSLEY LAKE

WATERSHED

ATES CREEK

WATERSHED

031102060203

WATERSHED

LOWER SOUTH

FORK OF BLACK

CREEK WATERSHED

CBJTC #2 Pump

House 03290

CBJTC #4

Pump

House 05560

CBJTC

#5 Pump House

05615

CBJTC #6 Pump House

03890

CBJTC #15

CBJTC #23

CBJTC

Shoot

House

AAE0152

AAK5889

AAE4941

AAC2057

3960 3961

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JW

2/9/2023

2/9/2023

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL ­ 2/9/2023

1:190,080 Figure 2-3 PM CM 2/9/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Camp Blanding Surface Water 

and Groundwater Features

036 1.5

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Surface Water Flow

Direction

Inferred Groundwater

Flow Direction

!P Potable Well & Pump

House Number

!P Non-Potable Well

!C( Public Water Supply

!C(!C(

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P AAL1829

AAL1830 AAE0152

AAD4131 AAK5889

AAE4941

AAC2057 AAE4943

AAE4942 AAP4861

AAP4860

AAC2056

AAD4132

AAC2055

Kingsley Lake

KINGSLEY LAKE

WATERSHED

AECOM 2-9
?!

?!

?! AOI02-01

212.57

AOI02-02

217.68

AOI02-03

197.89

202

204

208

206

198

200

198

212

216

210

200

214

212 210204202

214

208 206

216

?!

?!

?!

AOI01-01

219.67

AOI01-03

213.98

AOI01-02

201.68

202

202

204

204

212

206

214

218

208

216

206

210

216

212

208

214

210

?!

AOI04-01

104.69

105

?!

AOI03-01

186.81

AOI03

02

187.0

187.5

0 750 1,500 3,000

Feet

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

1

2

3

4

1 23 4
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 3-1

3. Summary of Areas of Interest 

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

disposed, or released historically. Based on the PA findings, four potential release areas were 

identified at CBJTC and grouped into four AOIs (AECOM, 2018c). The potential release areas are 

shown on Figure 3-1. 

3.1 AOI 1 Skid Strip

AOI 1 is the Skid Strip, which has historically been used as an airfield by FLARNG and NAS JAX. 

NAS JAX brought their own crash/fire rescue truck and provided their own rescue response during 

NAS JAX operations at the Skid Strip. Although no releases have been confirmed, potential AFFF 

releases to soil by NAS JAX or other state ARNG units may have occurred during historical 

training activities at AOI 1. 

Freshwater forested/shrub wetlands lie less than 0.1 miles north and south of the Skid Strip. At 

CBJTC, infiltrating precipitation typically enters the shallow groundwater system and discharges 

to adjacent surface water bodies. As such, potential AFFF releases may migrate from shallow 

groundwater into tributaries of the North Fork of Black Creek, located within 0.5 miles of the Skid 

Strip. AOI 1 is isolated on the North Post portion of the facility. 

CBJTC staff stated during SI planning that FLARNG is in the process of opening a new potable 

well on the east side of the Skid Strip. Additional drinking water supply wells are present on-facility 

at CBJTC, but they are located cross-gradient of the Skid Strip. A non-potable well exists 

downgradient of AOI 1. 

3.2 AOI 2 Anderson Bartlett Airfield 

AOI 2 is Anderson Bartlett Airfield, which has historically been used by FLARNG and NAS JAX 

for training events. In addition to FLARNG and NAS JAX usage, Anderson Bartlett Airfield has 

also been used as an airfield by out-of-state ARNG units for C-130 dirt strip landing training. 

Although no releases have been confirmed, potential AFFF releases to soil by NAS JAX or other 

state ARNG units may have occurred during historical training activities at AOI 2.

A riparian wetland flows adjacent to the western border of Anderson Bartlett Airfield; however, an 

earthen berm separates the wetland from the airfield and prevents overland flow in that direction. 

A freshwater forested/shrub wetland lies less than 0.1 mile west of the southern end of the airstrip, 

and similar water bodies exist elsewhere near the airstrip. Kingsley Lake is located approximately 

3.5 miles southeast of AOI 2. AOI 2, like AOI 1, is isolated on the North Post portion of the facility.

No drinking water supply wells are present on North Post near the Anderson Bartlett Airfield. 

3.3 AOI 3 Building 3010

AOI 3 is Building 3010, the former Fire Station at CBJTC. Building 3010 is a World War II-era 

structure located in the cantonment area that was used as the volunteer fire department at Camp 

Blanding until 1996. Clay County Fire Department began operating as the CBJTC fire department 

in 1996, and the crash and rescue truck containing AFFF was soon after transported off-facility. 

Building 2239 was constructed for use as the facility Fire Station in 2002; however, Clay County 

Fire Department has never used or stored AFFF at Building 2239. The exact date that the crash 

and rescue fire truck was removed is unknown but it is believed to have occurred between 1996 

and 2002. Building 3010 no longer operates as the facility Fire Station nor does it store crash and 

rescue trucks. Although no known releases have been confirmed, potential AFFF releases to soil 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 3-2

may have occurred as a result of storage and maintenance of a crash/fire rescue truck that 

contained AFFF at AOI 3. 

Building 3010 run-off previously combined with stormwater flow to the WWTP until the WWTP 

was redesigned in 2004. Runoff at Building 3010 no longer flows to the WWTP; it is directed via 

runoff channelizing structures to the southeast and east towards the North Fork Black Creek. At 

CBJTC, Kingsley Lake influences a radial outward flow on groundwater to the east and northeast. 

Infiltrating precipitation at Building 3010 may flow outward away from Kingsley Lake, northeast

towards North Fork Black Creek. 

Drinking water supply wells are also present on-facility at CBJTC within 0.2 miles northwest, 0.8 

miles west, and 1.3 miles southeast of AOI 3. AOI 3 is located near Kingsley Lake, which is used 

for recreational purposes; however, based on surface water and groundwater flow direction, 

releases at AOI 3 are not anticipated to migrate towards Kingsley Lake. 

3.4 AOI 4 WWTP

AOI 4 is the WWTP, which accepts and treats wastewater from various facilities at CBJTC prior 

to discharge to the South Fork of Black Creek. The WWTP is a potential secondary source if an 

AFFF release historically occurred at Building 3010 and were transported to the WWTP. 

Subsequent discharge of WWTP effluent to surface water may also have occurred. The WWTP 

effluent is conveyed via sub-terrain clay pipe to a discharge point on the South Fork of Black 

Creek, approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the WWTP. A freshwater forested/shrub wetland and 

riparian wetland is also present adjacent to the WWTP and flows south to the South Fork of Black 

Creek. Historical aerial imagery shows sludge containment structures present at the WWTP until 

approximately 1999. FLARNG staff stated that the sludge containment structures were removed 

in 2000 during a WWTP renovation. All sludge was reported to have been historically disposed of 

appropriately at an offsite facility prior to and during the renovation. 

If AFFF releases occurred at Building 3010, which formerly drained to the WWTP, it is possible 

that AFFF conveyed from the WWTP to nearby surface water. If residual AFFF were ever present 

within sludge in the sludge containment structures, it is also possible that it infiltrated soil and 

groundwater beneath the sludge containment structures. 
!P !P

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P !P !P !P

!P !P !P !P

!P!P

!P

Anderson Bartlett Airfield

Skid Strip

Building 3010

WWTP

AOI 2

AOI 4

AOI 3

AOI 1

Tiger Branch

BullCreek

South Fo rkBla ck Cr eek

North

Fork

Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

UPPER SOUTH

FORK OF BLACK

CREEK WATERSHED

WATER OAK

CREEK

WATERSHED

ALLIGATOR

CREEK-NEW RIVER

WATERSHED

ALLIGATOR

CREEK-SANTE FE

RIVER WATERSHED

KINGSLEY LAKE

WATERSHED

LOWER SOUTH

FORK OF BLACK

CREEK WATERSHED

CAMP BLANDING

JOINT TRAINING

CENTER

CBJTC #2 Pump

House 03290

CBJTC #4 Pump

House 05560

CBJTC #5

Pump House

05615

CBJTC #6 Pump

House 03890

CBJTC #11

(aka 12) Pump

House 04795

CBJTC #23 AAD4131 AAK5889

AAE4941

AAC2057

AAP4861

3960

3961

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JW

2/9/2023

2/9/2023

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL ­ 2/9/2023

1:63,360 Figure 3-1 PM CM 2/9/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Areas of Interest

012 0.5

Miles

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Inferred Groundwater Flow

Direction

!P Potable Well & Pump

House Number

!P Non-Potable Well

!C( Public Water Supply

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics,

and the GIS User Community

!C(

!C(

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P!P

AAE0152

AAK5889 AAD4131

AAE4941

AAC2057

AAE4943

AAE4942 AAP4861

AAP4860

AAC2056

AAD4132

AAC2055 AAL1830

AAL1829

Kingsley Lake

AECOM 3-3
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 4-1

4. Project Data Quality Objectives

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

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), the objective of the SI is to identify 

whether there has been a release to the environment at the AOIs 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 

AOIs.

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 CBJTC (AECOM, 2018c); 

• Analytical data collected as part of April 2017 ARNG potable well sampling efforts around 

the facility (AECOM, 2018c);

• 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, 2021); 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). There is not much seasonable variability at the facility, thus temporal boundaries did not 

limit the scope of the SI. The SI was conducted in January and the results reflect conditions at the 

facility at that time. There was no severe weather event just before or during field activities.

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, 2021a). 

4.5 Data Usability Assessment

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

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

in the context of the overall project decisions or objectives. Using both quantitative and qualitative 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 4-2

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). 

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, 2021). 

 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida dated 

October 2018 (AECOM, 2018c); 

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

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida dated September 2021 (AECOM, 2021); and

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida dated

January 2022 (AECOM, 2022). 

The SI field activities were conducted from 18 to 20 January 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, 2021), except as noted in Section 5.8. 

The following samples were collected during the SI and analyzed for a subset of 18 compounds

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:

• Twenty-two (22) soil samples from nine borings; 

• Ten (10) grab groundwater samples from 10 temporary wells; 

• Eighteen (18) 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, Field Change Requests are

provided in Appendix B3, land survey data are provided in Appendix B4, and investigationderived waste (IDW) polygons are provided in Appendix B5. 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 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 defining overall project objectives, including 

DQOs, and formulating a sampling approach to address the AOIs identified in the PA. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 5-2

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 9 September 2021, prior to SI field activities. The 

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

stakeholders for this SI include the ARNG G-9, FLARNG, USACE, and FDEP. 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, 2021). 

A TPP Meeting 3 was held [date TBD] after the field event to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting 

minutes for TPP 3 are 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 placed a ticket with the Sunshine 811, Florida’s utility clearance provider, to notify them 

of intrusive work on 14 January 2022. Additionally, AECOM contracted Ground Penetrating Radar

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

utility clearance of the proposed boring locations on 13 January 2022 with input from the AECOM 

field team and CBJTC facility staff. Industry standard methods and ground-penetrating radar were 

used to complete the clearance. Additionally, the first 5 feet of each boring were pre-cleared 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 CBJTC were sampled on 18 November 2021 to assess usability for 

decontamination of drilling equipment. Results of the samples collected at the wash rack spigot 

(CBJTC-DECON-01) and a spigot in the cantonment area (CBJTC-DECON-02) confirmed the 

sources to be acceptable for use in this investigation. The samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS 

compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15. The results of the decontamination water samples 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, 2021). 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 to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces. Soil 

samples were collected via direct push technology (DPT), in accordance with the SI QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2021). A GeoProbe® 7822DT dual-tube sampling system was used to collect 

continuous soil cores to the target depth. A hand auger was used to collect soil from the top 5 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. Several boring locations were 

adjusted to allow for drill rig access and utility avoidance. These changes are described in Section 

5.8. 

At AOI 1, three DPT borings were installed: one boring at the southwestern end of the Skid Strip

(AOI01-01), one boring at the northeastern end of the Skid Strip (AOI01-02), and one boring in 

the anticipated downgradient direction of the runway’s midpoint to the east (AOI01-03).These 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 5-3

borings were intended to assess the areas where emergency response equipment may have 

been staged during airfield use, as well as the downgradient direction. 

At AOI 2, three DPT borings were installed: one boring at the northern end of the airfield (AOI02-

01), one boring at the southern end of the airfield (AOI02-02), and one boring downgradient of 

the runway to the northeast (AOI02-03). These borings were intended to assess the areas where 

emergency response equipment may have been staged during airfield use, as well as the 

downgradient direction.

At AOI 3, three DPT borings were installed: one boring downgradient of the potential crash/fire 

rescue truck maintenance area (AOI03-01), one boring in the grassy area adjacent to the former 

bay doors facing southeast (AOI03-02), and one boring in the grassy swale adjacent to the road 

in front of the building (AOI03-03). These borings were intended to assess potential release areas 

associated with former crash/fire rescue truck maintenance and storage. 

At AOI 4, One DPT boring was installed at the downgradient corner of the former sludge 

containment structure area (AOI04-01). This boring was intended to assess potential releases via 

the former sludge beds and downgradient migration from the general WWTP area. 

In general, three discrete soil samples were collected from the vadose zone for chemical analysis 

from each soil boring: one surface soil sample (0 to 2 feet bgs), one subsurface soil sample 

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

the mid-point between the surface and the groundwater table. Shallow groundwater prevented 

the collection of some subsurface soil samples at soil boring locations AOI01-03, AOI02-01, 

AOI03-01, and AOI03-02, as described in Section 5.8. Additionally, no soil samples were 

collected at soil boring location AOI02-03, in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum, because 

the location is not considered a potential source area (AECOM, 2021).

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 boring logs (Appendix E) 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. 

Soil borings were drilled to depths between 10 and 15 feet bgs. The geological data collected 

from the boreholes indicate that the dominant lithology of the unconsolidated material underlying 

the facility is comprised of fine- to medium-grained, silty sand. Boring logs showed varying 

percentages of fines (silt and clay) within the sand matrix. No defined silt or clay beds were 

observed in the boreholes that would indicate the presence of impermeable zones within the 

shallow subsurface. The soils observed at the facility have a high hydraulic conductivity. These 

observations are consistent with the understood beach depositional environment of the Trail 

Ridge Sands prevalent in the region.

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 Federal Express (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), and pH (USEPA Method 9045D), in accordance with the

SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021). Grain size analysis was not performed, in accordance with 

the SI QAPP Addendum, because extensive horizontal and vertical clay units were not

encountered in the field (AECOM, 2021). 

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 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 5-4

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, 2021) using bentonite chips at completion of 

sampling activities. Borings were installed in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt 

surfaces. 

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

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

the borehole was advanced to the desired depth, a temporary well was constructed of a 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 peristaltic pump with PFAS-free HDPE 

tubing. The temporary wells were purged at a rate determined in the field to reduce turbidity and 

draw 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, 2021).

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, 2021) 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 20 January 2022. Groundwater level

measurements were collected from the 10 new temporary monitoring wells. Water level 

measurements were taken from the northern side of the well casing. The depth to groundwater 

across the facility ranged between approximately 2.32 to 9.71 feet bgs. A groundwater flow 

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

A description of groundwater elevation observations is included in Section 2.2.2. Groundwater 

elevation contours based on the depths to water at AOI 1 indicate groundwater flows northeast. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 5-5

At AOI 2, groundwater elevation contours indicate groundwater flows east by northeast. However, 

due to the distances between temporary wells at AOI 1 and 2, there is uncertainty regarding local 

flow direction within the respective AOIs. As a result, the groundwater flow direction at these AOIs 

is considered inferred. At AOI 3, groundwater elevation contours indicate groundwater flows 

northeast; however, the temporary wells’ linear positioning results in some uncertainty regarding 

groundwater flow. At AOI 4, groundwater was only measured at one temporary well. Based on 

groundwater elevation at AOI 4 in relation to groundwater elevations at AOI 3 (the nearest AOI), 

the inferred groundwater flow direction is southeast; however, the approximately 2.5-mile distance 

between AOI 3 and AOI 4 results in uncertainty regarding the groundwater flow direction at AOI 

4. 

5.5 Surveying

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

guidelines provided in the SOPs included with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021). Survey 

data from the newly installed wells were collected on 20 January 2022 in the applicable Universal 

Transverse Mercator zone projection with World Geodetic System 84 datum (horizontal) and 

North American Vertical Datum 1988 (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 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, 2021) and with the DA Guidance for Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 (DA, 

2018). 

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) generated during the SI activities were left in place at the point of the 

source. The soil cuttings were distributed on the ground surface on the downgradient side of the 

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

samples collected from that source location. 

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

decontamination fluids) were discharged directly to the ground surface slightly downgradient of 

the source. The liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the characteristics of the associated 

groundwater samples collected from that source location.

Geographic coordinates were collected using a global positioning system (GPS) around each 

location where IDW was placed (i.e., an IDW polygon). The IDW polygons are displayed on the 

figure in Appendix B5. 

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. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 5-6

5.8 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum

Two deviations from the SI QAPP Addendum were identified during review of the field 

documentation. The deviations are noted below and documented in Field Change Request Forms 

(Appendix B3): 

• During pre-drilling activities, the locations of several temporary monitoring wells (AOI02-03,

AOI03-03, and AOI04-01) were adjusted due to accessibility issues. At AOI02-03, the

ground at the original location was saturated to the point of being unsafe for vehicle access.

The proposed locations for AOI03-03 and AOI04-01 were near subsurface utilities identified

during the pre-drilling mark-out. Each location was adjusted in the field to allow for safe

drilling on dry surface and away from subsurface utilities. These actions were documented

in a Field Change Request provided in Appendix B3.

• During DPT drilling activities, shallow groundwater prevented the collection of soil samples

from three separate intervals at the following soil boring locations: AOI01-03, AOI02-01,

AOI03-01, and AOI03-02. Soil samples were collected at each of the above locations to the

extent practicable, depending on the length of the unsaturated soil interval. At AOI01-03,

AOI02-01, and AOI03-02, two soil samples were collected, one from 0-2 feet bgs and one

from 1 foot above the observed groundwater table. At AOI03-01, groundwater was present

at approximately 3 feet bgs, and only one sample was able to be collected from 0-2 feet

bgs. These actions were documented in a Field Change Request provided in Appendix B3.
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15TOC + pH (EPA 9060A/9045D)

Comments

AOI01-01-[0-2] 1/18/2022 9:20 0 - 2 X

AOI01-01-[0-2]-D 1/18/2022 9:20 0 - 2 X FD

AOI01-01-[5-6] 1/18/2022 9:30 5 - 6 X

AOI01-01-[8-9] 1/18/2022 9:40 8 - 9 X

AOI01-02-[0-2] 1/18/2022 9:20 0 - 2 X X

AOI01-02-[0-2]-D 1/18/2022 9:20 0 - 2 X FD

AOI01-02-[0-2]-MS 1/18/2022 9:20 0 - 2 X MS

AOI01-02-[0-2]-MSD 1/18/2022 9:20 0 - 2 X MSD

AOI01-02-[2-3] 1/18/2022 10:14 2 - 3 X

AOI01-02-[3-4] 1/18/2022 10:15 3 - 4 X

AOI01-02-[3-4]-MS 1/18/2022 10:15 3 - 4 X MS

AOI01-02-[3-4]-MSD 1/18/2022 10:15 3 - 4 X MSD

AOI01-03-[0-2] 1/18/2022 11:08 0 - 2 X

AOI01-03-[2-3] 1/18/2022 11:10 2 - 3 X

AOI02-01-[0-2] 1/18/2022 12:35 0 - 2 X X

AOI02-01-[0-2]-D 1/18/2022 12:35 0 - 2 X FD

AOI02-01-[2-3] 1/18/2022 12:38 2 - 3 X

AOI02-02-[0-2] 1/18/2022 12:32 0 - 2 X

AOI02-02-[2-3] 1/18/2022 14:06 2 - 3 X

AOI02-02-[2-3]-D 1/18/2022 14:06 2 - 3 X FD

AOI02-02-[3-4] 1/18/2022 14:10 3 - 4 X

AOI03-01-[0-2] 1/19/2022 12:20 0 - 2 X

AOI03-02-[0-2] 1/19/2022 9:17 0 - 2 X

AOI03-02-[0-2]-MS 1/19/2022 9:17 0 - 2 X MS

AOI03-02-[0-2]-MSD 1/19/2022 9:17 0 - 2 X MSD

AOI03-02-[2-3] 1/19/2022 9:25 2 - 3 X X

AOI03-02-[2-3]-D 1/19/2022 9:25 2 - 3 X X FD

AOI03-03-[0-2] 1/19/2022 9:17 0 - 2 X X

AOI03-03-[2-3] 1/19/2022 9:10 2 - 3 X

AOI03-03-[3-4] 1/19/2022 9:25 3 - 4 X

AOI04-01-[0-2] 1/19/2022 15:48 0 - 2 X

AOI04-01-[2-3] 1/19/2022 15:52 2 - 3 X

AOI04-01-[3-4] 1/19/2022 15:55 3 - 4 X X

AOI04-01-[3-4]-D 1/19/2022 15:55 3 - 4 X FD

Soil Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15TOC + pH (EPA 9060A/9045D)

Comments

AOI01-01-GW 1/18/2022 11:38 NA X

AOI01-01-GW-D 1/18/2022 11:38 NA X FD

AOI01-02-GW 1/18/2022 13:01 NA X

AOI01-03-GW 1/18/2022 14:22 NA X

AOI02-01-GW 1/19/2022 10:45 NA X

AOI02-02-GW 1/19/2022 12:10 NA X

AOI02-03-GW 1/18/2022 15:53 NA X

AOI03-01-GW 1/19/2022 15:20 NA X

AOI03-02-GW 1/19/2022 13:55 NA X

AOI03-03-GW 1/20/2022 12:20 NA X

AOI03-03-GW-MS 1/20/2022 12:20 NA X MS

AOI03-03-GW-MSD 1/20/2022 12:20 NA X MSD

AOI04-01-GW 1/20/2022 15:28 NA X

CBJTC-ERB-01 1/18/2022 11:50 NA X Collected from hand auger

CBJTC-ERB-02 1/18/2022 16:45 NA X Collected from drill tooling

CBJTC-ERB-03 1/19/2022 12:15 NA X Collected from water level meter

CBJTC-ERB-04 1/19/2022 13:15 NA X Collected from drill tooling

CBJTC-Decon-01 11/18/2021 11:05 NA X Collected from Wash Rack spigot

CBJTC-Decon-02 11/18/2021 11:35 NA X Collected from Cantonment spigot

CBJTC-Decon-03 1/18/2022 16:50 NA X Collected from water tank

CBJTC-FRB-01 1/19/2022 15:10 NA X

Groundwater Samples

Quality Control Samples

Notes:

AOI = area of interest

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs = below ground surface

CBJTC = Camp Blanding Joint Training Center

Decon = decontamination

ERB = equipment rinsate blank

FD = field duplicate

FRB = field reagent blank

GW = groundwater

LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

NA = not applicable

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

pH = potential of hydrogen; quantitative measure of the acidity or basicity of aqueous or other liquid solutions

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

SB = soil boring

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

AECOM 5-8
Table 5-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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)

Dept

Wa

(feet 

AOI01-01 15 10 - 15 230.03 228.90 10.36 9.2AOI01-02 10 5 - 10 207.71 206.50 6.03 4.8AOI01-03 10 5 - 10 219.43 216.30 5.45 2.3AOI02-01 10 5 - 10 218.40 215.40 5.83 2.8AOI02-02 10 5 - 10 224.16 223.20 6.48 5.5AOI02-03 10 5 - 10 203.31 200.40 5.42 2.5AOI03-01 10 5 - 10 193.07 189.30 6.26 2.4AOI03-02 10 5 - 10 194.07 191.10 6.5 3.

AOI03-03 10 5 - 10 193.47 191.50 5.85 3.8

4 AOI04-01 15 5 - 15 114.63 114.40 9.94 9.

Notes:

AOI = area of interest

bgs = below ground surfacebtoc = below top of casingCBJTC = Camp Blanding Joint Training Center

NA = not applicableNAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988

123

AECOM 
AECOM 5-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida
!P !P

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P !P !P !P

!P !P !P !P

!P!P

!P

?! ?!

?!

?!

?!

?!

?!?!?!

?!

Anderson 

Bartlett Airfield

Skid Strip

Building 3010

WWTP

BullCreek

Tiger B ranch

North Fork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI 2

AOI 4

AOI 3

AOI 1

CAMP

BLANDING

JOINT TRAINING CENTER

CBJTC #2 Pump

House 03290

CBJTC #4 Pump

House 05560

CBJTC #5 Pump

House 05615

CBJTC

#6 Pump

House 03890

CBJTC #11

(aka 12) Pump

House 04795

CBJTC #23 AAD4131 AAK5889

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

3960

3961

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JW

2/10/2023

2/10/2023

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL ­ 2/10/2023

1:63,360 Figure 5-1 PM CM 2/10/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Site Inspection Sample Locations

012 0.5

Miles

Legend

?! DPT Boring

!P Potable Well & Pump

House Number

!P Non-Potable Well

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Inferred Groundwater Flow

Direction

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics,

and the GIS User Community

!C(!C(

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P!P ?!

?! ?! AAL1829

AAL1830

AAE0152

AAK5889 AAD4131

AAE4941

AAC2057

AAE4943

AAE4942 AAP4861

AAP4860

AAC2056

AAD4132

AAC2055

Kingsley Lake

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AECOM 5-11
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 5-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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 each AOI is provided in Section 6.3

through Section 6.6. 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

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 6-2

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses

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

are important for evaluating transport through the soil medium. Appendix F contains the results 

of the TOC and pH 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: Skid Strip. 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

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. 

Surface soil was sampled from 0 to 2 feet bgs at all boring locations (AOI01-01 through AOI01-

03). Soil was also sampled in several 1-foot shallow subsurface intervals (2 to 9 feet bgs) from all 

boring locations. In surface soil, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected at 

concentrations below their respective SLs; PFBS was not detected. PFOA was detected at one 

of the three locations at a concentration of 0.098 J micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg). PFOS was 

detected at all three locations, with a maximum concentration of 0.132 J (estimated) μg/kg. PFHxS 

was detected at one location at a concentration of 0.049 J μg/kg. PFNA was detected at two 

locations, with a maximum concentration of 0.032 J μg/kg. 

In shallow subsurface soil, PFOS was detected below the SL at one location, with a concentration

of 0.060 J μg/kg. PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in shallow subsurface soil.

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results 

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

summarizes the groundwater results. 

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI01-01 through AOI01-03. PFOA, 

PFOS, and PFHxS were detected below their SLs; PFBS and PFNA were not detected in 

groundwater. PFOA was detected in wells AOI01-02 and AOI01-03, with a maximum 

concentration of 5.75 ng/L at AOI01-03. PFOS was detected in wells AOI01-02 and AOI01-03, 

with a maximum concentration of 2.64 J ng/L at AOI01-03. PFHxS was detected only in well 

AOI01-03, at a concentration of 5.18 ng/L.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 6-3

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

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

respective SLs, and PFBS was not detected in soil. PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS were detected in 

groundwater at concentrations below their respective SLs; PFBS and PFNA were not detected in 

groundwater. Therefore, further evaluation at AOI 1 is not warranted. 

6.4 AOI 2 

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

AOI 2: Anderson Bartlett Airfield. The results in soil and groundwater are summarized on Table 

6-2 through Table 6-4. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 

6-7. 

6.4.1 AOI 2 Soil Analytical Results

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. 

Surface soil was sampled from 0 to 2 feet bgs at boring locations AOI02-01 and AOI02-02. Soil 

was also sampled in 1-foot shallow subsurface intervals (2 to 4 feet bgs) from the same boring 

locations. PFBS was detected below the SL in surface soil at one location, AOI02-02, with a 

concentration of 0.039 J μg/kg. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in surface 

soil. 

In shallow subsurface soil, PFOA and PFBS were detected at location AOI02-02 at concentrations 

below their SLs: 0.121 J μg/kg and 0.037 J μg/kg, respectively. PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were 

not detected. 

6.4.2 AOI 2 Groundwater Analytical Results 

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

summarizes the groundwater results. 

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI02-01 through AOI02-03. PFOA, 

PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in any groundwater samples at AOI 2. 

6.4.3 AOI 2 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA and PFBS were detected in soil at concentrations below 

their respective SLs; PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in soil. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, 

PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in groundwater. Therefore, further evaluation at AOI 2 is not 

warranted.

6.5 AOI 3 

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

AOI 3: Building 3010. The results in soil and groundwater are presented in Table 6-2 through 

Table 6-4. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7. 

6.5.1 AOI 3 Soil Analytical Results

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. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 6-4

Surface soil was sampled from 0 to 2 feet bgs at boring locations AOI03-01 through AOI03-03. 

Soil was also sampled in several 1-foot shallow subsurface intervals (2 to 4 feet bgs) at boring 

locations AOI03-02 and AOI03-03. Shallow subsurface soil was not sampled from boring location 

AOI03-01 due to shallow groundwater, as described in Section 5.8. In surface soil, PFOS and 

PFNA were detected at concentrations below their SLs; PFOA, PFBS, and PFHxS were not 

detected. PFOS was detected at one location, AOI03-03, with a concentration of 0.996 J μg/kg. 

PFNA was detected at two locations, AOI03-02 and AOI03-03, with a maximum concentration of

0.063 μg/kg. 

In shallow subsurface soil, PFOS and PFNA were detected at AOI03-03 with maximum 

concentrations below their SLs: 2.26 μg/kg and 0.052 μg/kg, respectively. PFOA, PFBS, and 

PFHxS were not detected. 

6.5.2 AOI 3 Groundwater Analytical Results 

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

summarizes the groundwater results. 

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI03-01 through AOI03-03. PFOS 

was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L at all three locations, with concentrations ranging from 7.36 

to 67.0 ng/L. PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected at AOI 3 below their SLs. PFOA 

was detected at all three well locations, with a maximum concentration of 5.94 ng/L. PFBS was 

detected at two of the three locations, AOI03-01 and AOI03-02, with a maximum concentration of

2.30 ng/L. PFHxS was detected at all three locations, with a maximum concentration of 8.80 ng/L.

PFNA was detected at two of the three locations, AOI03-02 and AOI03-03, with a maximum 

concentration of 2.81 J ng/L. 

6.5.3 AOI 3 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOS and PFNA were detected in soil below their SLs. PFOS was 

detected in groundwater, at concentrations that exceeded the SL, and PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, and 

PFNA were detected in groundwater, at concentrations below their SLs. Based on the 

exceedances of the PFOS SL in groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 3 is warranted.

6.6 AOI 4 

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

AOI 4: WWTP. The results in soil and groundwater are presented in Table 6-2 through Table 6-4. 

Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7. 

6.6.1 AOI 4 Soil Analytical Results

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. 

A single borehole was drilled at AOI 4. Surface soil was sampled from 0 to 2 feet bgs and shallow 

subsurface soil was collected in two 1-foot intervals between 2 to 4 feet bgs. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, 

PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in either sample. 

6.6.2 AOI 4 Groundwater Analytical Results 

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

summarizes the groundwater results. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 6-5

Groundwater was sampled from one temporary monitoring well, AOI04-01. PFOA and PFOS were

detected above their respective SLs of 6 ng/L and 4 ng/L, at concentrations of 22.1 ng/L for PFOA 

and 9.92 ng/L for PFOS. PFBS and PFHxS were detected in groundwater below their SLs, at

concentrations of 0.683 J ng/L and 3.90 J ng/L, respectively. PFNA was not detected in 

groundwater at AOI 4. 

6.6.3 AOI 4 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in soil 

at AOI 4. PFOA and PFOS were detected in groundwater at concentrations above their SLs. PFBS 

and PFHxS were also detected in groundwater, but at concentrations below their SLs. Based on 

the exceedances of the SLs in groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 4 is warranted. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 6-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 6-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual 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 ND U ND U 0.039 J ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFHxS 130 ND U ND U ND U 0.049 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFNA 19 ND UJ 0.023 J ND U 0.032 J ND U ND U ND U 0.055 J 0.063 J ND U

PFOA 19 ND U ND U ND U 0.098 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS 13 0.054 J ND UJ 0.068 J 0.132 J ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.996 J 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 AOI Area of Interest

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL D duplicate

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. DL detection limit

ft feet

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

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 AOI02 AOI03 AOI04

AOI04-01-[0-2]

01/18/2022

0-2 ft

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

AOI03-02-[0-2]

01/19/2022

0-2 ft

AOI03-03-[0-2]

01/19/2022

0-2 ft

AOI02-02-[0-2]

01/18/2022

0-2 ft

AOI03-01-[0-2]

01/19/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-03-[0-2]

01/18/2022

0-2 ft

AOI02-01-[0-2]

01/18/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-01-[0-2]-D

01/18/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-[0-2]

01/18/2022

0-2 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-[0-2]

01/18/2022

0-2 ft

AECOM 6-7
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Resu

PFBS 25000 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.037 J 0.037 J ND PFHxS 1600 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND PFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND PFOA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UJ 0.121 J ND PFOS 160 ND U ND U 0.060 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND 

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of InterestU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL D duplicate

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. DL detection limit

ft feetHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSB soil boringUSEPA United States Environmental Protectioμg/kg micrograms per kilogram

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-[5-6]

01/18/2022

5-6 ft

AOI01-01-[8-9]

01/18/2022

8-9 ft

AOI01-02-[2-3]

01/18/2022

2-3 ft 2-3 ft

AOI02-02-[2-3]

01/18/2022

2-3 ft

AOI01-02-[3-4]

01/18/2022

3-4 ft

AOI01-03-[2-3]

01/18/2022

2-3 ft

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 AOI02 

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

AOI02-02-[2-3]-D

01/18/2022

2-3 ft

AO

0

AOI02-01-[2-3]

01/18/2022

AECOM 
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 25000 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UPFHxS 1600 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UPFNA 250 ND U 0.045 J 0.052 J ND U ND UPFOA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UPFOS 160 ND U 0.841 J 2.26 ND U ND U

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of InterestU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL D duplicate

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. DL detection limit

ft feetHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSB soil boringUSEPA United States Environmental Protectioμg/kg micrograms per kilogram

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI03-02-[2-3]-D

01/19/2022

2-3 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 industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI03 AOI04

AOI04-01-[2-3]

01/18/2022

2-3 ft

AOI04-01-[3-4]

01/18/2022

3-4 ft

AOI03-03-[2-3]

01/19/2022

2-3 ft

AOI03-03-[3-4]

01/19/2022

3-4 ft

AECOM 
Table 6-4

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Resu

PFBS 601 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.962 J 2.30 PFHxS 39 ND U ND U ND U 5.18 ND U ND U ND U 2.16 J 8.80

PFNA 6 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 2.81 PFOA 6 ND U ND U 1.53 J 5.75 ND U ND U ND U 2.03 J 5.94PFOS 4 ND U ND U 2.10 J 2.64 J ND U ND U ND U 7.36 30.4

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of InterestU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL D duplicate

DL detection limitGW groundwaterHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierUSEPA United States Environmental Protectiong/l nanogram per liter

x

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI01-01-GW

01/18/2022 01/19/2022

AOI01-01-GW-D

01/18/2022

AOI01-02-GW

01/18/2022

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 AOI02 AOI03

AOI03-01-GW

01/19/2022

AO

0

AOI02-02-GW

01/19/2022

AOI02-03-GW

01/18/2022

AOI01-03-GW

01/18/2022

AOI02-01-GW

AECOM 
Table 6-4

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 601 ND U 0.683 JPFHxS 39 1.27 J 3.90 JPFNA 6 1.62 J ND UPFOA 6 1.56 J 22.1PFOS 4 67.0 9.92

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of InterestU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL D duplicate

DL detection limitGW groundwaterHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierUSEPA United States Environmental Protectiong/l nanogram per liter

AOI04

AOI04-01-GW

01/20/2022

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.

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI03

AOI03-03-GW

01/20/2022

AECOM 
AECOM 6-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida
Hospita

Landfi

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-02 AOI03-01

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

0 2,350 4,700 9,400

Feet

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-03 AOI03-02

AOI04-01

­ Figure 6-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

2/8/2023

1:56,509

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

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AECOM 6-13
Hospita

Landfi

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-02 AOI03-01

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

0 2,350 4,700 9,400

Feet

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

­ Figure 6-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

2/8/2023

1:56,509

PFOS 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.

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 13

>13 - 160

>160 - 1,600

>1,600

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AECOM 6-14
Hospita

Landfi

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-02 AOI03-01

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

0 2,350 4,700 9,400

Feet

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-03 AOI03-02

AOI04-01

­ Figure 6-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

2/8/2023

1:56,509

PFBS 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.

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 1,900

>1,900 - 25,000

>25,000

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AECOM 6-15
Hospita

Landfi

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-02 AOI03-01

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

0 2,350 4,700 9,400

Feet

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-03 AOI03-02

AOI04-01

­ Figure 6-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

2/8/2023

1:56,509

PFHxS 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.

PFHxS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AECOM 6-16
Hospita

Landfi

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01 AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

0 2,350 4,700 9,400

Feet

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Hospital

Landfill

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

­ Figure 6-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

2/8/2023

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

2/8/2023

1:56,509

PFNA 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.

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AECOM 6-17
Tiger Branch

NorthFork Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

Tiger B ranch

NorthFork

Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

0 2,500 5,000 10,000

Feet

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Tiger B ranch

NorthFork

Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

­ Figure 6-6

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL

2/9/2023

2/9/2023

2/9/2023

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

2/9/2023

1:60,116

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFOA PFOS PFBS

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

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

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

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01 AOI04-01 AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI 3

AOI 4

AECOM 6-18
Tiger B ranch

Bu ll Creek

NorthFork

Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

Tiger B ranch

Bu ll Creek

NorthFork

Black Creek

Kingsley Lake

AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01

0 2,500 5,000 10,000

Feet

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Perennial River/Stream

Intermittent Stream

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction ­ Figure 6-7

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Blanding, FL

2/9/2023

2/9/2023

2/9/2023

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

2/9/2023

1:60,000

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

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

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

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI04-01 AOI04-01

AOI 3

AOI 4

AOI 3

AOI 4

AECOM 6-19
AECOM 6-20

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

The conceptual site models (CSMs) for each AOI, revised based on the SI findings, are presented 

on Figure 7-1 through Figure 7-4. Please note that while the CSM discussion assists in 

determining if a receptor may be impacted, the decision to move from SI to Remedial Investigation

(RI) or interim action is determined based upon exceedances of the SLs for the relevant 

compounds and whether the release is more than likely attributable to the DoD. A CSM presents 

the current understanding of the 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, residents outside the facility boundary, and recreational users outside of 

the facility boundary. 

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, AOI 2, AOI 3, and AOI 4 based on the 

aforementioned criteria. 

7.1.1 AOI 1 

AOI 1 is the Skid Strip, which has historically been used as an airfield by FLARNG and NAS JAX. 

NAS JAX brought their own crash/fire rescue truck and provided their own rescue response during 

their operations at the Skid Strip. Although no releases have been confirmed, potential AFFF 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 7-2

releases to soil by NAS JAX or other state ARNG units may have occurred during historical 

training activities at AOI 1. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at AOI 1, at concentrations below 

the SLs. Site workers and construction workers could contact constituents in surface soil via 

incidental ingestion and inhalation of dust. No construction was observed at AOI 1 during the SI; 

however, FLARNG plans to open a potable well at the Skid Strip, which may require construction 

activities in the near future. Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathway for future site workers 

and construction workers are potentially complete. PFOS was also detected in subsurface soil at 

AOI 1. Construction workers could contact constituents in subsurface soil via incidental ingestion; 

therefore, the subsurface soil exposure pathway for future construction workers is potentially 

complete. No residents, recreators, or trespassers are anticipated to be present at AOI 1 and so 

the surface soil exposure pathway to these receptors is considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 

1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.1.2 AOI 2 

AOI 2 is Anderson Bartlett Airfield, which has historically been used by FLARNG and NAS JAX 

for training events. In addition to FLARNG and NAS JAX usage, Anderson Bartlett Airfield has 

also been used as an airfield by out-of-state ARNG units for C-130 dirt strip landing training. 

Although no releases have been confirmed, potential AFFF releases to soil by NAS JAX or other 

state ARNG units may have occurred during historical training activities at AOI 2. 

PFBS was detected in surface soil at AOI 2, at a concentration below the SL. Site workers and 

construction workers could contact constituents in surface soil via incidental ingestion and 

inhalation of dust. No construction was observed at AOI 2 during the SI, and no known 

construction is planned. Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathway for current and future site 

workers and potential future construction workers are potentially complete. PFOA and PFBS were 

also detected below their SLs in subsurface soil at AOI 2. Construction workers could contact 

constituents in subsurface soil via incidental ingestion; therefore, the subsurface soil exposure 

pathway for potential future construction workers is potentially complete. No residents, recreators, 

or trespassers are anticipated to be present at AOI 2; therefore, the surface and subsurface soil 

exposure pathway to these receptors is considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented 

on Figure 7-2. 

7.1.3 AOI 3 

AOI 3 is Building 3010, the former Fire Station at CBJTC. Building 3010 was used as the volunteer 

fire department at Camp Blanding until 1996. Although no known releases have been confirmed, 

potential AFFF releases to soil may have occurred as a result of storage and maintenance of a 

crash/fire rescue truck that contained AFFF. 

PFOS and PFNA were detected in surface soil at AOI 3 at concentrations below their SLs. Site 

workers and future construction workers could contact constituents in surface soil via incidental 

ingestion and inhalation of dust. Nearby residents, recreational users of Kingsley Lake, and

trespassers may also be exposed to constituents in airborne soil particles. Therefore, the surface 

soil exposure pathway for nearby residents and recreational users/trespassers via inhalation of 

dust are potentially complete. PFOS and PFNA were also detected in subsurface soil at AOI 3. 

Construction workers could contact constituents in subsurface soil via incidental ingestion; 

therefore, the subsurface soil exposure pathway for potential future construction workers is 

potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-3. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 7-3

7.1.4 AOI 4 

AOI 4 is the facility WWTP, which accepts and treats wastewater from various facilities at CBJTC 

prior to discharge to the South Fork of Black Creek. The WWTP is a potential secondary source 

area if AFFF released historically at Building 3010 were transported to the WWTP. Sludge 

containment structures were present at the WWTP until renovation in 2004. If releases at Building 

3010 conveyed AFFF to the WWTP and subsequently into sludge treated at the WWTP, 

secondary releases to the subsurface at the former containment structures is possible. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in surface or subsurface soil at AOI 

4. Therefore, the surface soil and subsurface soil exposure pathways for all receptors are 

considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-4. 

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 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater samples collected at AOI 1, at 

concentrations below their SLs. FLARNG installed a potable well on the east side of the Skid Strip

in recent years, which could potentially be downgradient of location AOI01-03, where PFOA, 

PFOS, and PFHxS were detected. Additional drinking water supply wells are present on facility at 

CBJTC, but they are located cross-gradient of the Skid Strip and are unlikely to be affected by 

potential releases at AOI 1. A non-potable well exists downgradient of AOI 1. Due to potential site 

and construction worker use of the potable well at the Skid Strip, the pathway for exposure to 

current and future site workers and construction workers is potentially complete. No residents, 

recreators, or trespassers are anticipated to use the wells near AOI 1; therefore, the pathway to 

these receptors is considered incomplete. There are no downgradient potable wells within 4 miles 

of the AOI. Depths to water measured at AOI 1 in January 2022 during the SI ranged from 2.32 

to 9.23 feet bgs. Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for potential future construction 

workers is considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.2.2 AOI 2 

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in groundwater samples collected at 

AOI 2. Additionally, no drinking water supply wells are present on North Post, near the Anderson 

Bartlett Airfield. Therefore, the pathway for exposure to all receptors via ingestion of groundwater 

is considered incomplete. Depths to water measured in January 2022 during the SI ranged from 

2.51 to 5.52 feet bgs. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2. 

7.2.3 AOI 3 

PFOS was detected above its SL in groundwater samples collected at AOI 3. Additionally, PFOA, 

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

AOI 3. Drinking water supply wells are present on-facility, near AOI 3, at CBJTC. Additional 

potable public wells are present to the northeast, off-facility, in the downgradient direction; 

however, the wells are more than 6 miles away. Due to the presence of drinking water supply 

wells at CBJTC near AOI 3, the pathway for exposure via ingestion of groundwater is considered 

potentially complete for site workers, potential future construction workers, and on-facility 

residents. Depths to water measured in January 2022 during the SI ranged from 2.49 and 3.88

feet bgs. Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for potential future construction workers is 

considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-3. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 7-4

7.2.4 AOI 4 

PFOA and PFOS were detected in groundwater samples collected at AOI 4, at concentrations 

above their SLs. Additionally, PFBS and PFHxS were detected below their SLs in groundwater 

samples collected at AOI 4. Drinking water supply wells are present on-facility at CBJTC, near

AOI 4, in the side-gradient direction; however, a public supply well is also present in the 

downgradient direction, approximately 4 miles southeast, near the CBJTC facility boundary. Due 

to the presence of drinking water supply wells at CBJTC near AOI 4 and in the downgradient 

direction off-facility, the pathway for exposure via ingestion of groundwater is considered 

potentially complete for site workers, potential future construction workers, and off-facility 

residents. Depth to water measured in January 2022 during the SI was 9.71 feet bgs. Therefore, 

the ingestion exposure pathway for potential future construction workers is also considered 

potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 4 is presented on Figure 7-4. 

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, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 1; therefore, 

it is possible that those compounds may have migrated from soil and shallow groundwater

discharge to the forested/shrub wetlands that exist less than 0.1 miles to the north and south of 

the Skid Strip via groundwater discharge or surface runoff. The wetlands are considered

tributaries of the North Fork of Black Creek. Therefore, the surface water and sediment ingestion 

exposure pathway for site workers and potential future construction workers is considered 

potentially complete. The exposure pathway for residential receptors is considered incomplete 

because releases at AOI 1 are not anticipated to migrate in the direction of residential areas to 

the northeast or south. Because AOI 1 is isolated on the North Post portion of the facility, the 

exposure route for recreational users and trespassers via surface water and sediment ingestion 

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

7.3.2 AOI 2 

PFOA and PFBS were detected in soil at AOI 2; therefore, it is possible that those compounds 

may have migrated from soil to the forested/shrub wetlands surrounding the airstrip. Therefore, 

the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for site workers and potential future 

construction workers is considered potentially complete. Because AOI 2 is isolated on the North 

Post portion of the facility, the exposure route for recreational users and trespassers is also 

considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2. 

7.3.3 AOI 3 

Because PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 

3, it is possible that those compounds may have migrated from soil to stormwater channelizing 

structures, or via shallow groundwater discharge, to the North Fork Black Creek. Surface run-off 

at Building 3010 previously combined with stormwater flow to the WWTP until the WWTP was 

redesigned in 2004. As a result, it is possible that potential releases at AOI 3 may have migrated 

via surface water and runoff to the WWTP. Therefore, the surface water and sediment ingestion 

exposure pathway for site workers and potential future construction workers is considered 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 7-5

potentially complete. It is also conservatively assumed, based on proximity, that migration into 

Kingsley Lake via shallow groundwater discharge is possible. As such, the surface water and 

sediment ingestion exposure pathway for residents, trespassers, and recreational users of 

Kingsley Lake is also considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 

7-3. 

7.3.4 AOI 4 

Because PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater at AOI 4, it is possible 

that those compounds may have migrated via shallow groundwater discharge to the wetland 

adjacent to the eastern edge of the WWTP area, which discharges to the South Fork of Black 

Creek. Additionally, the WWTP effluent is conveyed via sub-terrain clay pipe to a discharge point 

on the South Fork of Black Creek, approximately 1.2 miles to the southeast. Therefore, the surface 

water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for site workers and potential future construction 

workers is considered potentially complete. Surface water and sediment flow southeast from AOI 

4, towards isolated range areas, where residents, trespassers, and recreators are not anticipated. 

As a result, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for those receptors is 

considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 4 is presented on Figure 7-4. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 7-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 1

Emergency 

Response and 

Crash/Fire 

Rescue Truck 

Tank Leaks

Surface soil

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of 

dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors: 

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial/ Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Trespasser/ Recreational User1

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors because no residents or on-facility

recreators are anticipated to be on North Post.

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.

3. No current active construction at the AOI.

Notes:

7-7
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 2

Emergency 

Response and 

Crash/Fire 

Rescue Truck 

Tank Leaks

Surface soil

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of 

dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors: 

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial/ Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-2

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Trespasser/ Recreational User1

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors because no residents or on-facility

recreators are anticipated to be on North Post.

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.

3. No current active construction at the AOI.

Notes:

7-8
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 3

Potential Crash/

Fire Rescue 

Truck Tank 

Leaks, Nozzle 

Check 

Maintenance

Surface soil

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of 

dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors: 

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial/ Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

Site Worker Construction Worker2 Resident1 Trespasser/ Recreational User1

Site Worker Construction Worker2 Resident1

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-3

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Trespasser/ Recreational User1

1. The resident and recreational users refer to

both on-facility and off-facility receptors due to

residential use of facility lodging and recreational

use of Kingsley Lake.

2. No current active construction at the AOI.

Notes:

7-9
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 4

WWTP Effluent 

and Secondary 

Release via 

Sludge

Subsurface 

Soil and 

Surface 

Water

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of 

dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors: 

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial/ Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-4

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 4

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Trespasser/ Recreational User1

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors.

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.

3. No current active construction at the AOI.

Notes:

7-10
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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 18 to 20 January 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, 2021), except as previously noted in Section 5.8. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021), 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. 

• Twenty-two (22) soil samples from nine borings; 

• Ten (10) grab groundwater samples from 10 temporary wells; 

• Eighteen (18) 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 AOIs to 

determine whether or not a release has occurred. The SI may conclude further investigation is 

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

required. Additionally, the CSMs were refined to assess whether a potentially complete pathway 

exists between the source and potential receptors for potential exposure at the AOIs, which are 

described in Section 7. 

8.2 Outcome 

Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation is warranted under CERCLA in an RI for AOI 3 

and AOI 4; no further evaluation is warranted for AOI 1 and AOI 2 at this time. Based on the CSMs 

developed and revised in light of the SI findings, the pathway for exposure to drinking water 

receptors from historical DoD activities at AOI 3 and AOI 4 is potentially complete. 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: 

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA in soil at AOI 1 

were below their SLs. 

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS in groundwater at AOI 1 

were below their SLs; PFBS and PFNA were not detected. Based on the results of 

the SI, no further evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted in an RI.

• At AOI 2: 

• The detected concentrations of PFOA and PFBS in soil at AOI 2 were below their 

SLs; PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 8-2

• PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in groundwater at AOI 

2. Based on the results of the SI, no further evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted.

• At AOI 3: 

• The detected concentrations of PFOS and PFNA in soil at AOI 3 were below their 

SLs; PFOA, PFBS, and PFHxS were not detected. 

• PFOS in groundwater exceeded its SL at AOI 2. PFOS exceeded the SL of 4 ng/L at 

three locations, with a maximum concentration of 67.0 ng/L at AOI03-03. PFOA, 

PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected below their SLs in groundwater at AOI 3. 

Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 3 is warranted in an RI. 

• At AOI 4: 

• PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in soil at AOI 4. 

• PFOA and PFOS in groundwater exceeded their SLs at AOI 4. PFOA exceeded the 

SL of 6 ng/L, with a maximum concentration of 22.1 ng/L at AOI04-01. PFOS 

exceeded the SL of 4 ng/L, with a maximum concentration of 9.92 ng/L at AOI04-01. 

PFBS and PFHxS were detected below their SLs in groundwater at AOI 4; PFNA 

was not detected. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 4 is 

warranted in an RI. 

Due to the inferred groundwater flow, and concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS at the 

side-gradient AOI01-03 location compared to the samples at AOI01-01 and AOI01-02, there is 

uncertainty regarding the potential source area at AOI 1. The FLARNG also installed a potable 

well with a total depth of 176 feet bgs on the east side of the Skid Strip in recent years, which 

creates a potentially complete pathway for current and future site workers to be exposed to 

groundwater at AOI 1. All sample concentration data at AOI 1 are below the respective SLs; 

however, due to the uncertainty regarding the potential source area and presence of a potable 

well, additional sampling may be considered during future RI sampling efforts. For that reason, 

this AOI is recommended for no further action at this time, with consideration for additional 

sampling during future CERCLA phase. 

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

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

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

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

AFFF and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is 

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

would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS.

Table 8-1 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater used to determine if an AOI should 

be considered for further investigation under CERCLA and undergo an RI. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 8-3

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source Area

Groundwater –

Source Area Future Action

1 Skid Strip No further action at this time

2 Anderson Bartlett Airfield No further action

3 Building 3010 Proceed to RI

4 WWTP Proceed to RI

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 8-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

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. 2018c. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, 

Florida. October. 

AECOM. 2021. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Addendum, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid 

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

September. 

AECOM. 2022. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida, 

Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide. January. 

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

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

6 July. 

CBJTC, 2018. Military Range Area Geographical Information Systems Data. 

Clark, William E., Rufus H. Musgrove, Clarence G. Menke, and Joseph W. Cagle, Jr. 1964. WaterResources Data for Alachua, Bradford, Clay, and Union Counties, Florida. Information Circular 

No. 43. Florida Geological Survey. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Clay County Property Appraiser’s Office, 2018. Clay County, FL Mapping Interface. 

http://qpublic6.qpublic.net/qpmap4/map.php?county=fl_clay&layers=parcels+roads+parcel_

sales+roads+lakes.

Connect Connecting, Inc., 2009. Final Aquifer Performance Test: Lower Floridan Aquifer, Clay 

County Utility Authority. August.

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.

Elsner, H. 1997, Economic Geology of the Heavy Mineral Placer Deposits in Northeastern

Florida, Florida Geologic Survey, Tallahassee.

FDEP, 2016. Geospatial Open Data. Private Wells from Generalized Well Information System. 

https://geodata.dep.state.fl.us/datasets/d7073d7088424625be4b4d4d39cb1b03_1/explore?locat

ion=27.987700%2C-83.466600%2C6.03. Updated January 7, 2016.

FDEP. 2021. Map Direct (v7.210607). http://ca.dep.state.fl.us/mapdirect
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 9-2

FLARNG. 2014. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Camp Blanding Joint Training 

Center, Clay County, Florida. December 2014.

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. 

Merritt, Michael. 2001. Simulation of the Interaction of Karstic Lakes Magnolia and Brooklyn with 

the Upper Floridan Aquifer, Southwestern Clay County, Florida. USGS Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00-4204.

NOAA. 2022. 1991-2020 Climate Normals for Starke, FL US. 

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/#dataset=normalsmonthly&timeframe=30&location=FL&station=USC00088529. Accessed 27 September 2022. 

Schreuder. 2002. Investigation and Conceptual Design of Options for the Lake Brooklyn 

Watershed, Clay County, Florida. February.

Scott, T. M. 2001. Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida, Florida Geological Survey & 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Open-File Report 80.

Scott, T. M., Campbell, K. M., Rupert, F. R., Arthur, J. D., Missimer, T. M., Lloyd, J. M., Yon, J. 

W., and Duncan, J. G. 2001. Geologic Map of the State of Florida, Florida Geological Survey 

& Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Map Series 146.

SES. 2012. Draft Final – Feasibility Study Report for the Former Combined Support Maintenance 

Shop, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Starke, Florida. December.

SES. 2014. Final Remedial Investigation Report for the Former Combined Support Maintenance 

Shop, Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Starke, Florida. September.

USACE. 2014. Final Operational Range Assessment Periodic Review Revised Phase I 

Qualitative Assessment Report Camp Blanding Joint Training Center Stark, Florida. 

September 2014.

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

US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine (USACHPPM), 2007. 

Qualitative Range Assessment, Project No. 38-EH-041D-05, Camp Blanding Joint Training 

Center, Florida, Draft Final. 2007.

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.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 9-3

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: Clay County, Florida. Environmental 

Conservation Online System. Accessed 12 September 2022 at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=12019. 

Weatherspoon, R.L., E. Cummings, and W.H. Wittstruck. 1989. Soil Survey for Clay County, 

Florida. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 

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.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Blanding Joint Training Center, Florida

AECOM 9-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK