# YEAR TWO FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION REPORT SOIL AND WATER QUALITY EVALUATION ST. MARY’S SHOALS PARK ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

BAKER COUNTY, FLORIDA

Prepared for: JEA 21 W. Church Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202

For Submittal to: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite B200 Jacksonville, Florida 32256
Prepared by: Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc.

1714 Belmonte Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32207

November 17, 2011

## St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Year Two Follow-up Investigation Report

Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. November 17, 2011 i 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 1 3.0 EVALUATION HISTORY ................................................................................................ 1 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................ 2 5.0 SOIL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 2 5.1 Soil Sample Collection ..................................................................................................... 2 5.2 Soil Analysis Results ........................................................................................................ 3 5.2.1 Total Recoverable Analysis Method ............................................................................. 3 5.2.2 SPLP Analysis Method ................................................................................................. 3 6.0 WATER ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 3 6.1 Groundwater Assessment ................................................................................................. 4 6.2 Surface Water Assessment ................................................................................................ 4 6.3 Stormwater Assessment .................................................................................................... 5 7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS............................................................................................... 5 8.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 7 9.0 SIGNATURES OF PROFESSIONALS ............................................................................. 8 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity / Topographic Map Figure 2 Sample Locations TABLES Table 1 (Totals Method) Soil Analytical Summary Table 2 (SPLP Method) Soil Analytical Summary Table 3 Groundwater Analytical Summary Table 4 Surface Water Analytical Summary Table 5 Stormwater Analytical Summary APPENDICES Appendix A Soil Sampling Logs and Field Notes Appendix B Groundwater, Surface Water, and Stormwater (Ditches) Sampling Logs Appendix C Analytical Laboratory Reports

## St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Year Two Follow-up Investigation Report

Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. November 17, 2011 1 

## 1.0 INTRODUCTION As a component of the ongoing evaluation of an uncovered EZBase® application, Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. conducted a follow-up soil and water quality investigation for the St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements Project. The purpose of this investigation was to compare current soil and water quality conditions to the conditions found during the baseline investigation conducted prior to the 2009 application of EZBase. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION St. Mary’s Shoals Park is located in northeastern Baker County, Florida. In general, the park is bound on the south by Odis Yarborough Road; on the west by CR 125; on the north by sparsely developed land; on the northeast by the St. Mary’s River; and on the east by CR 23. There are a number of dirt roads throughout the property. Cedar Creek flows through the property from west to east and into the St. Mary’s River along the northeastern park boundary. Some nature trails and horse trails have been in place since the time of the baseline investigation. One parking and restroom area was completed between the time of the baseline and three-month follow-up investigation. A separate park entrance near the intersection of CR 125 and Yarborough Road was completed between the six-month and twelve-month investigations. EZBase was applied to an area of existing dirt roadway approximately 1.7 miles in length, beginning at Odis Yarborough Road and proceeding north and west to a crossing at Cedar Creek. The existing roadway appeared to have been constructed of native soil excavated from the ditches/swales on either side of the road. The area selected for the investigation included the northern one-half mile of the roadway paved with EZBase. Please see

Figure 1,Site Vicinity / Topographic Map,which includes a portion of the Macclenney West, FL (1993) USGS Topographic Map. The figure shows a number of landmarks, the Area of EZBase Placement, and the Area of Investigation. 3.0 EVALUATION HISTORY During March and April of 2009, prior to EZBase placement on existing roadways at the park, a soil and water baseline investigation was conducted. The results of the investigation were reported in Mechling Engineering’s July 10, 2009Baseline Soil and Water Quality Evaluation Report. Between April 15 and May 15, 2009, approximately 1.7 miles of dirt roads in the park were improved by EZBase application.

## St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Year Two Follow-up Investigation Report

Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. November 17, 2011 2 

## Follow-up investigations were performed at approximately three months, six months, and twelve months after completion of the EZBase application. Results of these investigations were reported in separate reports at the time of the investigations. 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK The current investigation included the following scope of work:
1. Soil sampling on both sides of the St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway test area at three approximately equally spaced locations for a total of six soil sampling locations. Soil samples were analyzed for aluminum, arsenic, iron, lead, vanadium, and nickel by both the total recoverable and SPLP methods.
2. Water sampling from six groundwater monitoring wells, eight surface water locations, and stormwater runoff from ditches in four locations. Unfiltered and field-filtered water samples were analyzed for aluminum, arsenic, iron, lead, vanadium, and nickel.
3. Reporting of the findings and conclusions. 5.0 SOIL ASSESSMENT On May 25, 2011, Mechling Engineering personnel mobilized to the park property to conduct the soil investigation. A total of six shallow soil borings were placed at the approximate locations of those placed during the baseline investigation. The locations of the soil borings placed in the roadway proper during the baseline investigation were not replicated. Therefore, soil samples were collected from boring locations B-1, B-3, B-4, B-6, B-7, and B-9 (seeFigure 2). 5.1 Soil Sample Collection Grab soil samples were collected from one discrete depth (0 to 0.5 feet bls) at each soil boring location. Soil encountered in the six borings generally consisted of gray, brown, and tan fine sands. Soil samples for laboratory analysis were obtained utilizing a field decontaminated hand auger. Samplingmethodology was in accordance with FDEP Standard Operating Procedures for Field Activities, DEPSOP-001/01. Soil samples were transferred from the decontaminated hand auger directly into laboratorysupplied containers and stored on wet ice. Samples were delivered to FedEx for overnight shipment to Environmental Science Corp. (ESC), Mt. Juliet, Tennessee. ESC is a NELAC-certified laboratory. Soil samples were analyzed for aluminum, arsenic, iron, lead, vanadium, and nickel by both the total recoverable and SPLP methods. Soil and water sampling locations are shown onFigure 2. Soil sampling logs and field notes are included

asAppendix A

.

## St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Year Two Follow-up Investigation Report

Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. November 17, 2011 3 

## 5.2 Soil Analysis Results 5.2.1 Total Recoverable Analysis Method The results of soil analysis for total recoverable metals were compared to the Chapter 62-777, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Table II, Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs). Laboratory analysis results revealed no target analytes at concentrations in excess of their respective SCTLs for the Year Two sampling event. These results fall within the range of results of the baseline and prior follow-up investigations. Table 1includes a summary of soil analytical results for total recoverable metals for all sampling events. The laboratory analytical reports for all soil and water samples are provided asAppendix C

. 5.2.2 SPLP Analysis Method The results of SPLP soil analysis were compared to the Chapter 62-777, FAC, Table I, Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs) and Freshwater Surface Water Cleanup Target Levels (SWCTLs). Aluminum concentrations for the Year Two investigation ranged from 540 to 11,000 micrograms per liter (ug/l). In all cases these are greater than the aluminum GCTL of 200 ug/l and SWCTL of 13 ug/l. These results are consistent with both the baseline and prior follow-up sampling events. Iron was detected at concentrations ranging from 170 to 1,000 ug/l. Four of six sample results were greater than the iron GCTL of 300 ug/l. None exceeded the SWCTL of 1,000 ug/l. These results are generally consistent with the baseline and prior follow-up events. Lead was detected above laboratory detection limits in two of six samples at concentrations of 6.5 and 36 ug/l. The GCTL for lead is 15 ug/l; the SWCTL for lead varies based on water hardness. Lead was detected in the baseline sampling event and the prior follow-up investigations, but at concentrations less than its GCTL. Arsenic, nickel, and vanadium results were consistent with both the baseline and prior follow-up sampling events. None of these analytes exceeded their respective GCTLs or SWCTLs in the Year Two samples. Table 2includes a summary of all SPLP soil analytical results to date. 6.0 WATER ASSESSMENT Groundwater, surface water, and stormwater samples were collected for laboratory analysis using a peristaltic pump and dedicated polyethylene tubing. All procedures for sample collection were performed in accordance with FDEP Standard Operating Procedures DEP-SOP-001/01. The water samples were collected in laboratory-supplied sample containers and placed on wet ice. Both unfiltered and filtered samples were collected for analysis.

## St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Year Two Follow-up Investigation Report

Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. November 17, 2011 4 

## Prior to the collection of the groundwater samples, each monitoring well was purged using a low flow peristaltic pump and dedicated polyethylene tubing. Groundwater field parameters including pH, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity were recorded during purging activities. Samples were delivered to FedEx for overnight shipment to ESC. The water samples were analyzed for aluminum, arsenic, iron, lead, vanadium, and nickel. Water sampling logs, calibration logs, and field notes are provided inAppendix B

. 6.1 Groundwater Assessment On May 25, 2011, Mechling Engineering personnel sampled monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-6. The results of groundwater analysis were compared to Chapter 62-777, FAC, Table I, GCTLs. Iron was detected at concentrations ranging from 400 to 2,100 ug/l. In all cases, this is greater than its GCTL of 300 ug/l. This is generally consistent with baseline and prior follow-up sampling events, indicating the presence of iron as a background constituent of groundwater. Aluminum was detected at a concentration greater than its GCTL of 200 ug/l in five of six unfiltered samples (range – 440 to 11,000 ug/l) and one of six filtered (dissolved) samples (650 ug/l). This is also generally consistent with baseline and prior follow-up sampling events, indicating the presence of aluminum as a groundwater background constituent. . Arsenic, lead, nickel, and vanadium were not detected at concentrations in excess of their respective GCTLs in the baseline sampling event, the prior follow-up sampling events, or the Year Two sampling event. Year Two sampling event analytical results for these analytes were generally consistent with the baseline and prior follow-up sampling events. Table 3includes a summary of groundwater analytical results for all sampling events. 6.2 Surface Water Assessment Sampling of surface water took place on May 26, 2011. Four sets of samples were collected downstream (SW-1 through SW-4) of the EZBase placement area, and four sets of samples were collected upstream (SW-5 through SW-8). At the time of this sampling event, the elevation of Cedar Creek was approximately 7 feet below the deck of the bridge that crosses the creek at the north end of the investigation area. This is the lowest creek level noted since the placement of EZBase in April and May of 2009. Laboratory results showed aluminum detected at concentrations ranging from 59 to 350 ug/l. In all cases these results are in excess of the aluminum Chapter 62-777, FAC, Table I, SWCTL. This is consistent with the baseline investigation and all prior follow-up investigations.

## St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Year Two Follow-up Investigation Report

Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. November 17, 2011 5 

## Iron was detected at a concentration less than its Chapter 62-777, FAC, Table I, SWCTL in all cases. These results are generally consistent with the low end of the range of concentrations noted in prior investigations. Arsenic, lead, nickel, and vanadium were not detected at their respective laboratory reporting limits in any sample. None of these target analytes have been detected at concentrations in excess of their respective SWCTLs in any sampling event.
SeeTable 4for a summary of surface water analytical results. 6.3 Stormwater Assessment Sampling of standing water from roadside swales took place on October 10, 2011. Sampling followed a 1.95-inch rainfall event during the overnight hours of October 10. (Source: Weather Underground, Macclenny, Florida weather station MMACF1). Four sets of samples were collected at sampling locations utilized in prior investigations (D-1 through D-4). At two other prior sampling locations (D-5 and D-6), insufficient water was available for sampling. The results of stormwater analysis were compared to Chapter 62-777, FAC, Table I, SWCTLs. Laboratory results showed aluminum detected at concentrations ranging from 73 to 460 ug/l. In all cases these results are in excess of the aluminum SWCTL of 13 ug/l. This is consistent with the baseline investigation and all prior follow-up investigations. Arsenic, iron, lead, and nickel, were not detected at concentrations in excess of their respective SWCTLs. Vanadium does not have a listed SWCTL. These results are generally consistent with the range of concentrations noted in prior investigations, with the exception of vanadium. Vanadium was detected at concentrations generally greater than in prior sampling events. 7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Laboratory analysis was conducted on soil samples collected from six boring locations, groundwater collected from six locations, surface water from eight locations, and stormwater from four locations. Samples were analyzed for aluminum, arsenic, iron, lead, vanadium, and nickel by a number of methods. A comparison of the findings during the two years of sampling and analysis follows:

x Total recoverable method soil analysis revealed that all of the target analytes were detected at concentrations above laboratory reporting limits in at least one sampling event; however, none were detected at concentrations in excess of their respective SCTLs. The totals method soil analysis results for the Year Two follow-up investigation were generally consistent with those seen in the baseline and prior follow-up investigations;

## St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Year Two Follow-up Investigation Report

Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. November 17, 2011 6 

## x SPLP method soil analysis showed that all the target analytes were detected at concentrations greater than laboratory minimum detection limits in some sampling events during the two-year investigation. Aluminum was detected at concentrations greater than its GCTL in nearly all samples; iron was detected at concentrations greater than its GCTL in approximately half the samples. Lead was detected at a concentration greater than its GCTL in one sample location for one sampling event. Arsenic, nickel, and vanadium results did not exceed their respective GCTLs or SWCTLs in any of the Year Two SPLP samples. These results are generally consistent with prior results;

x Groundwater analysis showed iron detected at a concentration greater than its GCTL in nearly all baseline and follow-up samples. Aluminum was detected in groundwater samples at a concentration greater than its GCTL in most baseline and follow-up samples. None of the other target analytes were detected at concentrations in excess of their respective GCTLs in any sampling event. Follow-up analysis results were generally consistent with those of the baseline investigation. Based on soil SPLP and groundwater analysis, iron and aluminum appear to be background constituents;

x Surface water (Cedar Creek) analysis documented all target analytes at concentrations greater than laboratory minimum detection limits at some point during the two years of investigation. Aluminum was consistently detected at concentrations greater than its SWCTL in the baseline and follow-up samples. Iron was detected at concentrations greater than its SWCTL in some baseline and follow-up samples. Iron and aluminum appear to be present in surface water as background constituents. None of the other target analytes were detected at concentrations in excess of their respective SWCTLs. Follow-up analysis results were generally consistent with those seen in the baseline investigation; and

x Stormwater analysis documented that all target analytes were at concentrations greater than laboratory minimum detection limits at some point during the two years of investigation. Aluminum was detected at concentrations greater than its SWCTL in all baseline and follow-up samples. Iron was detected at concentrations greater than its SWCTL in some baseline and follow-up samples. None of the other target analytes were detected at concentrations in excess of their respective SWCTLs. Vanadium was detected at generally greater concentrations than in prior sampling events.

## St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Year Two Follow-up Investigation Report

Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. November 17, 2011 7 

## 8.0 CONCLUSIONS Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. has completed a soil and water quality investigation for the St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvement Project. The investigation reported here follows by two years the completion of EZBase application on selected roadways at the park. In general, the results of the Year Two investigation did not reveal evidence of impacts to soil, groundwater, or surface water attributable to EZBase application based on comparison of the baseline investigation results to the results of the Year Two investigation. Laboratory analyses indicate that aluminum and iron are naturally-occurring in the area of investigation at concentrations in excess of FDEP corrective action criteria in soil (SPLP), groundwater, and surface water. Our experience indicates that this condition is common throughout northeast Florida for aluminum and iron. Stormwater analysis for the Two Year investigation indicated an increase in vanadium concentrations in standing water from roadside swales; however, no evidence of vanadium concentration increases in either groundwater or in the surface waters of Cedar Creek was noted. Based on this evidence, it appears that the roadside swales are effectively treating stormwater runoff as intended.

## St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Year Two Follow-up Investigation Report

Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. November 17, 2011 8 

## 9.0 SIGNATURES OF PROFESSIONALS
In accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes, Chapter 471, our work for this report was prepared under the direct supervision of a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Florida. This report has been determined to be in accordance with good engineering practices pursuant to Chapter 471 of the Florida Statutes as it applies to the work described herein. The data, findings, conclusions, recommendations, specifications, and professional opinions were prepared solely for the use of JEA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc. makes no other warranty, either expressed or implied, and is not responsible for the interpretation of these data by others.

_________________________________ Mark Mechling, P.E., LEED AP Principal Licensed, Florida PE Number 41998 Engineering Business CA 27999

# FIGURESDate of Figure: June 12, 2009**St. Mary's Shoals Park Project** **Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc.**904.346.54681714 Belmonte Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32207Engineering Business Certificate of Authorization No. 27999Baker County, Florida**Site Vicinity/Topograhic Map Figure 1** Graphical Scale3300'0'6600'**Macclenney West, FL, 1993**AREA of EZBASE PLACEMENTAREA OF INVESTIGATIONSR 125CR 23CODIS YARBOROUGH RD.SR 121AREA OF INVESTIGATIONAREA of EZBASE PLACEMENTDate of Figure: June 12, 2009**St. Mary's Shoals Park Project** **Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc.**904.346.54681714 Belmonte Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32207Engineering Business Certificate of Authorization No. 27999Baker County, Florida**Sample Locations Figure 2** Approximate Sample LocationsGraphical Scale1240'0'2480'MW-2B-9B-7MW-1D-4MW-4B-6MW-3B-4B-5D-3D-2SW-8D-6D-5SW-7SW-5SW-6MW-5B-3MW-6SW-3SW-2SW-4SW-1B-2B-1B-8D-1

# TABLES

## Table 1: (Totals Method) Soil Analytical Summary

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida
Sample Boring Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium Number Interval

(fbls) Collected (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Comments SCTL - Direct Exposure Residential 80,000 2.1 53,000 400 340** 67** SCTL - Direct Exposure Comm/Ind * 12 * 1,400 35,000 10,000 SCTL - Leachability *** *** *** *** 130 980 3/30/2009 560 0.27 U 140 1.8 0.49 U 1.1 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 2600 0.27 U 420 4.4 0.49 U 2.2 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 870 B 0.32 U 250 2.2 0.26 U 1.5 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 3900 0.32 U 920 7.5 2.2 7.8 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 2400 0.32 U 360 13.0 0.74 I 4.2 2 Year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 390 0.27 U 120 2.3 0.49 U 1.1 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 2400 0.35 I 750 2.6 0.49 U 3.4 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 220 0.27 U 90 0.90 0.49 U 0.54 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 1200 0.27 U 500 11 0.49 U 2.0 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 2600 0.27 U 780 3.7 0.49 U 3.0 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 2100 B 0.32 U 610 3.3 0.26 U 2.3 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 1800 0.32 U 600 5.3 0.53 I 2.4 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 2400 0.32 U 880 6.8 0.44 I 2.9 2 Year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 1000 0.27 U 580 1.6 0.49 U 1.1 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 630 0.27 U 270 2.1 0.49 U 0.76 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 490 0.27 U 170 1.6 0.49 U 0.65 I 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 210 B 0.32 U 61 0.52 0.26 U 0.42 I 6 month Follow up Event 6/7/2010 1600 0.32 U 520 1.90 0.68 I 2.0 12 month Follow up Event 5/25/2011 470 0.32 U 170 2.0 0.26 U 0.62 2 Year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 66 0.27 U 52 0.60 0.49 U 0.51 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 840 0.27 U 520 1.2 0.49 U 1.8 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 160 0.27 U 58 0.5 0.49 U 0.38 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011 Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Sampling not required by sampling plan

Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required 0.5 - 2.0 Sampling not required by sampling plan

B-5 0.5 - 2.0 Laboratory Analyses

Sampling not required by sampling plan B-1 B-1 0 - 0.5

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required B-5 0 - 0.5

0.5 - 2.0 Sampling not required by sampling plan

B-2 0 - 0.5 Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

B-2 0.5 - 2.0 Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

0 - 0.5

B-3 0.5 - 2.0 Sampling not required by sampling plan

B-4 0 - 0.5 B-3

Sampling not required by sampling plan

B-4 Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Sampling not required by sampling plan

Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Page 1 ReviewedMM

## Table 1: (Totals Method) Soil Analytical Summary

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida
Sample Boring Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium Number Interval

(fbls) Collected (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Comments SCTL - Direct Exposure Residential 80,000 2.1 53,000 400 340** 67** SCTL - Direct Exposure Comm/Ind * 12 * 1,400 35,000 10,000 SCTL - Leachability *** *** *** *** 130 980 Laboratory Analyses

3/30/2009 310 0.27 U 240 1.4 0.49 U 0.60 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 230 0.27 U 230 0.90 0.49 U 0.26 I 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 90 B 0.32 U 60 0.24 I 0.26 U 0.22 I 6 month Follow up Event 6/7/2010 41 0.32 U 30 0.090 U 0.26 U 0.15 I 12 month Follow up Event 5/25/2011 430 V 0.32 U 180 2.0 0.26 U 0.52 P1 2 Year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 1000 0.27 U 390 1.1 0.49 U 1.0 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 1800 0.27 U 2000 2.2 0.49 U 3.4 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 1200 0.27 U 410 2.5 0.49 U 1.8 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 120 B 0.32 U 28 0.38 0.26 U 0.28 I 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 2500 0.32 U 400 2.5 1.2 I 3.6 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 1300 0.32 U 450 2.0 0.26 U 1.6 2 Year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 2200 0.27 U 990 1.3 0.49 U 3.7 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 1200 0.27 U 320 1.6 0.49 U 1.4 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 580 0.27 U 220 1.4 0.49 U 0.75 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 790 0.27 U 250 1.0 0.49 U 0.93 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 340 0.27 U 130 1.8 0.49 U 0.44 I 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 970 B 0.32 U 350 1.3 0.26 U 1.2 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 1000 0.32 U 550 1.4 0.91 I 1.3 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 1200 0.32 U 1200 2.0 0.26 U 1.4 2 Year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 1000 0.27 U 180 0.91 0.49 U 0.93 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011

Notes: SCTL - Soil Cleanup Target Levels (from Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-777) fbls - feet below land surface mg/kg - milligram per kilogram Flags: U - Undetected at noted concentration, I - Estimated value between the MDL and PQL B - Compound detected in method blank P1 - RPD value not applicable V - Sample concentration too high to evaluate spike recoveries * - Analyte is not a health concern for this exposure scenario ** - Based on acute toxicity considerations *** - May be derived using SPLP Test to calculate site-specific SCTL Sampling not required by sampling plan B-8 0 - 0.5 Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required B-7

B-9 0 - 0.5

B-9 0.5 - 2.0 B-8 B-7 0.5 - 2.0 Sampling not required by sampling plan Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required 0 - 0.5 Sampling not required by sampling plan

Sampling not required by sampling plan B-6 0 - 0.5

0.5 - 2.0 Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required B-6 0.5 - 2.0 Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Sampling not required by sampling plan Sampling not required by sampling plan Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Sampling not required by sampling plan Sampling not required by sampling plan

Sampling not required by sampling plan

Page 2 ReviewedMM

## TABLE 2: (SPLP Method) Soil Analytical Summary

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida

Sample Boring Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium No. Interval

(fbls) Collected (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) Comments
GCTL - Groundwater Criteria 200 10 300 15 100 49 SWCTL - Freshwater Criteria 13 50 1,000 0.5-18.6* 16.1-168.5** NL 3/30/2009 1000 0.47 I 180 6.1 B2 21 B2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 900 1.5 210 3.2 2.6 B2 2.6 I 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 2900 6.5 U 740 B2I 1.8 UIB2 12 I 6.0 I 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 5000 6.5 U 1100 7.1 5.3 U 55 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 6900 8.5 I 1000 36 6.4 I 15 2 Year Follow-up Event 3/30/2009 3300 0.22 U 490 2.2 IBB2 1.0 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 13000 0.61 I 3100 4.3 B2 1.9 B2 10 Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011 3/30/2009 2700 0.22 U 510 1.3 IBB2 1.1 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 1500 0.25 I 260 1.7 IBB2 0.57 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 2100 0.39 IP1 460 2.3 1.6 B2I 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 1800 J5 6.5 U 390 B2I 1.8 UIB2 8.5 I 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 2200 6.5 U 520 6.7 5.3 U 7.0 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 2500 6.5 U 650 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event 3/30/2009 890 0.22 U 240 1.5 IBB2 0.81 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 290 0.24 I 91 I 0.87 IBB2 0.33 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 300 0.28 I 68 I 1.0 0.70 IB2 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 600 6.5 U 350 B2I 1.8 UIB2 12 I 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 420 6.5 U 170 2.1 I 5.3 U 6.0 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 650 6.5 U 170 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event 3/30/2009 150 0.88 I 61 I 0.61 IBB2 0.64 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 610 0.36 I 310 0.83 IBB2 0.34 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011 3/30/2009 410 0.22 U 140 1.5 IBB2 0.31 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011 Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Sampling not required by sampling plan Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required 0 - 0.5 Sampling not required by sampling plan

B-5 0.5 - 2.0 Sampling not required by sampling plan

Sampling not required by sampling plan Sampling not required by sampling plan 0 - 0.5

B-2 0 - 0.5 Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required B-4 Laboratory Analyses

Sampling not required by sampling plan

B-2 0.5 - 2.0 Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required B-1

B-1

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required 0.5 - 2.0 Sampling not required by sampling plan

0 - 0.5 Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required 0 - 0.5 Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

B-4 0.5 - 2.0

B-5 B-3

B-3 0.5 - 2.0 Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Sampling not required by sampling plan Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Page 1 of 2 ReviewedMM

## TABLE 2: (SPLP Method) Soil Analytical Summary

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida

Sample Boring Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium No. Interval

(fbls) Collected (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) Comments
GCTL - Groundwater Criteria 200 10 300 15 100 49 SWCTL - Freshwater Criteria 13 50 1,000 0.5-18.6* 16.1-168.5** NL Laboratory Analyses

3/30/2009 200 0.22 U 84 I 0.68 IBB2 0.29 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 280 0.47 I 130 0.89 I 0.72 IB2 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 210 6.5 U 110 B2I 1.8 UB2 9.1 I 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 110 6.5 U 45 I 2.0 I 5.3 U 2.7 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 540 6.5 U 200 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event 3/30/2009 500 0.29 I 94 I 1.2 IBB2 0.47 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 670 0.22 U 290 0.86 IBB2 1.1 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 540 0.42 I 150 1.1 1.0 B2I 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 190 6.5 U 100 IB2 1.8 UIB2 13 I 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 4600 6.5 U 580 5.2 5.3 U 17 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 11000 6.5 U 900 6.5 6.1 I 8.2 I 2 Year Follow-up Event 3/30/2009 940 0.22 U 220 1.4 IBB2 0.86 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 1000 0.22 U 180 1.0 IBB2 0.59 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011 3/30/2009 550 0.26 I 150 1.8 IBB2 0.80 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011
3/30/2009 680 0.23 I 160 2.8 IBB2 0.58 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 660 0.69 I 160 1.7 0.86 IB2 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/9/2009 1300 10 I 540 B2I 1.8 UB2 16 I 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 1800 J5 6.5 U 690 5.8 5.3 U 6.4 IP1 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 940 6.9 I 570 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event 3/30/2009 970 0.89 IPI 170 2.2 IBB2 0.54 IBB2 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 11/9/2009 6/7/2010 5/25/2011

Notes: ug/L - micrograms per liter fbls - feet below land surface GCTL - Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (from Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-777) SWCTL - Surface Water Cleanup Target Levels (from Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-777) NL - Not Listed in FAC 62-777 * - Based on hardness equation - Pb < e(1.273 [lnH] - 4.705)with H=25 and H=400 per FAC 62-302.530 Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria ** - Based on hardness equation - Ni < e(0.846[lnH]+0.0584)with H=25 and H=400 per FAC 62-302.530 Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria Flags: U - Undetected at noted concentration I - Estimated value between the MDL and PQL B - The indicated compound was found in the associated method blank as well as the laboratory sample. B2 - The detection limit has been elevated due to blank contamination. J5 - Sample matrix interference PI - RPD Value not applicable for sample concentrations less than 5 times the reporting limit. Bold font -indicates exceedance of regulatory standard Sampling not required by sampling plan Sampling not required by sampling plan

Sampling not required by sampling plan Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Sampling not required by sampling plan Sampling not required by sampling plan Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Sampling not required by sampling plan

Sampling not required by sampling plan B-9 0.5 - 2.0 B-8 0 - 0.5

B-8 0.5 - 2.0

B-9 0 - 0.5 B-7 0 - 0.5

B-7 B-6 0 - 0.5

0.5 - 2.0 B-6 Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required Sampling not required by sampling plan Sampling not required by sampling plan

0.5 - 2.0 Sampling not required by sampling plan Sampling not required by sampling plan

Location under EZBase pavement - no sampling required

Page 2 of 2 ReviewedMM

## TABLE 3: Groundwater Analytical Summary

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida
Sample Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium Location Description Collected (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) 

### Comments GCTL - Groundwater Criteria (ug/l) 200 10 300 15 100 49 4/13/2009 9800 0.68 I 2700 6.3 11 I 11 Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 6100 0.37 I 3600 1.9 U 9.8 U 3.4 I 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 4600 0.25 U 3700 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.8 I 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 4800 0.25 U 1500 3.9 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 11000 0.25 U 1600 4.9 I 5.3 U 7.3 I 2 Year Follow-up Event
4/13/2009 500 0.54 I 1800 1.9 U 9.8 U 2.9 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 170 0.57 I 2500 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 250 0.97 I 3200 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 940 0.72 I 1400 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 650 0.25 U 780 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event
4/13/2009 2200 0.22 U 880 1.9 U 12 I 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 520 0.22 U 650 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 34 U 7.8 590 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 100 0.25 U 200 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 200 0.25 U 930 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event
4/13/2009 37 I 0.22 U 790 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 32 U 0.22 U 670 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 34 U 0.39 I 600 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 130 0.36 I 210 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 49 I 0.25 U 910 3.2 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event
4/14/2009 2000 0.22 U 1400 3.1 I 11 I 2.0 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 260 0.24 I 950 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 99 I 3.5 780 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 3800 0.25 U 560 3.8 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 770 0.25 U 510 5.0 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up
4/14/2009 100 0.31 I 1200 1.9 U 9.8 U 2.4 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 200 0.28 I 1000 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 180 0.68 I 840 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 200 0.50 I 460 1.8 U 5.3 U 3.0 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 120 0.25 U 400 1.9 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event
4/14/2009 3000 0.28 I 2700 2.4 I 10 I 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 460 0.49 IP1 2500 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 34 U 2.4 2600 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 1200 0.25 U 2700 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 2400 0.25 U 2100 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event
4/14/2009 89 I 0.50 I 2400 3.4 I 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 280 0.55 I 2600 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 72 0.72 I 2600 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 130 0.62 I 2600 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 110 0.25 U 1900 2.1 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event Laboratory Analyses

MW-2 unfiltered

unfiltered

filtered MW-1 MW-1

filtered

MW-3 unfiltered

MW-3 filtered

MW-4 filtered MW-4 unfiltered MW-2

Page 1 of 2 

### ReviewedMM

## TABLE 3: Groundwater Analytical Summary

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida
Sample Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium Location Description Collected (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) 

### Comments GCTL - Groundwater Criteria (ug/l) 200 10 300 15 100 49 Laboratory Analyses

4/14/2009 530 0.22 U 400 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 220 0.22 U 940 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 34 U 1.4 850 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 75 I 0.25 U 680 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 440 0.25 U 1000 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event
4/14/2009 470 0.27 I 340 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 110 0.22 U 940 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 61 I 0.37 I 850 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 76 I 0.25 I 660 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 140 0.25 U 930 3.6 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event
4/14/2009 1900 0.22 U 460 2.4 I 12 I 2.0 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 1100 1.1 I 250 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 61 I 0.25 U 1400 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 600 0.25 U 1400 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 830 0.25 U 1500 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event
4/14/2009 290 0.22 U 240 2.7 I 9.8 U 2.6 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/21/2009 250 0.22 U 66 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/12/2009 86 IP1 0.53 I 1500 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 190 P1 0.42 I 1100 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/25/2011 140 0.25 U 1400 3.2 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up Event

Notes: ug/L - micrograms per liter GCTL - Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (from Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-777) Flags: U - Undetected at noted concentration I - Estimated value between the MDL and PQL P1 - Relative Percent Difference not applicable for sample concentrations less than five times the reporting limit Bold font -indicates exceedance of regulatory standard MW-5 unfiltered

MW-5 filtered

MW-6

MW-6 unfiltered

filtered

Page 2 of 2 

### ReviewedMM

## TABLE 4: Surface Water (Cedar Creek) Analytical Summary

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida
Sample Boring Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium No. Description Collected (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) Comments SWCTL - Freshwater Criteria 13 50 1,000 0.5-18.6* 16.1-168.5** NL 3/31/2009 160 0.27 I 440 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 1800 1.4 I 1200 3.9 I 9.8 U 1.9 I 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 34 U 0.25 U 150 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 400 0.34 I 510 1.8 U 8.8 I 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 350 0.58 I 500 3.0 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 49 I 0.23 I 300 1.9 U 9.8 U 2.0 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 610 0.45 I 880 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 120 0.25 U 180 3.9 I 5.3 U 4.3 I 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 72 I 0.25 U 260 1.8 U 5.3 U 3.5 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 82 I 0.32 I 220 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 170 0.47 I 440 1.9 U 9.8 U 3.9 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 1900 1.1 I 1200 3.4 I 9.8 U 2.1 I 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 34 U 0.25 U 270 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 440 0.34 I 530 4.4 I 9.0 I 3.6 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 320 0.46 I 470 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 62 I 0.22 U 350 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 580 0.42 I 780 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 140 0.25 U 180 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 75 I 0.25 U 280 1.8 U 5.4 I 2.5 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 80 I 0.25 U 200 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 280 0.32 I 460 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 1800 1.9 I 1200 2.7 I 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 34 U 0.25 U 270 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 560 0.26 I 540 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 290 0.43 I 450 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 51 I 0.22 U 290 1.9 U 12 I 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 390 0.39 I 510 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 160 0.25 U 170 2.0 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 96 I 0.25 U 290 1.8 U 6.8 I 2.6 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 59 I 0.25 U 210 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 310 0.35 I 420 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 1800 1.0 1200 2.6 I 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 34 U 0.25 U 280 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 280 0.25 U 450 2.6 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 260 0.49 I 440 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 51 I 0.25 I 280 1.9 U 9.8 U 2.0 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 670 0.41 I 800 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 150 0.25 U 180 1.8 U 5.3 U 3.5 I 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 82 I 0.25 U 270 1.8 U 6.4 I 2.5 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 73 I 0.25 U 210 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 1000 0.22 U 1600 1.9 U 9.8 U 2.9 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 1600 1.4 I 1100 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 34 U 0.25 U 280 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 650 0.31 I 530 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 290 0.45 I 470 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 910 0.38 I 1400 3.6 I 9.8 U 2.2 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 700 0.41 I 810 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 170 0.25 U 190 3.4 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 110 0.25 U 300 1.8 U 5.7 I 2.3 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 73 0.25 U 190 3.0 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event unfiltered unfiltered

SW-5 filtered Laboratory Analyses

SW-1 unfiltered

SW-1

SW-4 filtered

SW-2 unfiltered

SW-2 filtered

SW-3 unfiltered

SW-3 filtered

SW-4

filtered

SW-5

Page 1 of 2 ReviewedMM

## TABLE 4: Surface Water (Cedar Creek) Analytical Summary

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida
Sample Boring Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium No. Description Collected (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) Comments SWCTL - Freshwater Criteria 13 50 1,000 0.5-18.6* 16.1-168.5** NL Laboratory Analyses

3/31/2009 1000 0.32 I 1600 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 1800 1.0 1200 3.5 I 9.8 U 1.9 I 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 34 U 0.25 U 280 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 730 0.25 U 550 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 240 0.51 I 440 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 950 0.46 I 1500 2.6 I 9.8 U 2.2 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 590 0.46 I 760 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 160 0.25 U 200 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.6 I 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 120 0.25 U 300 1.8 U 5.6 I 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 65 I 0.25 U 200 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 1000 0.49 I 1600 2.9 I 9.8 U 2.1 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 1700 1.1 UO 1200 3.7 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 34 U 0.25 U 280 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 280 0.29 I 440 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 310 0.48 I 690 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 940 0.39 I 1500 3.2 I 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 610 0.42 I 780 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 120 0.25 U 170 3.7 I 5.3 U 3.5 I 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 81 I 0.25 U 270 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.6 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 85 I 0.25 U 250 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 1000 0.37 I 1600 2.3 I 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 1500 1.3 I 1100 3.4 I 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 34 U 0.25 U 230 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 600 0.31 I 530 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 240 0.44 I 460 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event
3/31/2009 960 0.38 I 1500 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/24/2009 570 0.35 I 770 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 11/27/2009 140 0.25 U 150 2.8 I 5.3 U 2.2 U 6 month Follow-up Event 6/3/2010 140 0.25 U 330 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.3 I 12 month Follow-up Event 5/26/2011 68 I 0.25 U 180 1.8 U 5.3 U 2.2 U 2 Year Follow-up event

Notes: ug/L - micrograms per liter SWCTL - Surface Water Cleanup Target Levels (from Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-777) NL - Not Listed in FAC 62-777 * - Based on hardness equation - Pb < e(1.273 [lnH] - 4.705)with H=25 and H=400 per FAC 62-302.530 Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria ** - Based on hardness equation - Ni < e(0.846[lnH]+0.0584)with H=25 and H=400 per FAC 62-302.530 Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria Flags: U - Undetected at noted concentration I - Estimated value between the MDL and PQL O - Sample diluted due to matrix interference Bold font -indicates exceedance of regulatory standard SW-6 unfiltered

SW-8 unfiltered

filtered

SW-7 unfiltered

SW-7 filtered

SW-8 filtered SW-6

Page 2 of 2 ReviewedMM

## TABLE 5: Stormwater Analytical Summary (Ditches)

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida
Sample Boring Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium No. Description Collected (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) Comments SWCTL - Freshwater Criteria 13 50 1,000 0.5-18.6* 16.1-168.5** NL 3/30/2009 480 0.45 I 580 1.9 U 9.8 U 2.7 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 2800 0.63 I 1400 1.9 U 9.8 U 7.9 I 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 380 0.25 U 65 I 1.7 U 13 I 570 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 300 0.35 I 230 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 79 I 0.90 I 100 1.9 U 9.8 U 18 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 73 I 4.9 26 U 15 5.2 U 520 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 580 0.79 I 380 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 190 0.68 I 620 1.9 U 9.8 U 23 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 380 6.5 U 240 1.8 U 5.3 U 62 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 540 0.25 U 420 4.9 I 7.9 I 230 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 460 0.25 U 78 I 1.7 U 17 I 540 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 120 0.50 I 87 1.9 U 9.8 U 3.3 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 200 0.98 I 190 3.6 I 9.8 U 14 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 34 U 6.5 U 31 I 4.7 I 5.3 U 54 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 55 I 0. 25 U 56 I 1.8 U 5.3 U 190 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 86 I 0.25 U 26 U 12 5.2 U 510 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 1500 0.97 I 830 1.9 U 9.8 U 2.4 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 500 0.72 I 1500 1.9 U 9.8 U 25 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 280 0.25 U 290 2.6 I 6.8 I 240 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 150 0.25 U 26 U 1.7 U 5.2 U 1200 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 1100 0.62 I 720 1.9 U 9.8 U 3.6 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 330 0.90 I 360 1.9 U 9.8 U 4.0 I 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 75 I 0.54 IP1 38 I 1.8 U 5.3 U 240 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 110 8.0 26 U 74 5.2 U 1100 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 890 1.1 610 1.9 U 9.8 U 3.5 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 2600 0.41 I 1000 1.9 U 9.8 U 6.6 I 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 130 6.5 U 56 I 1.8 U 5.3 U 17 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 130 0.25 U 26 U 1.7 U 5.2 U 600 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 530 0.61 I 300 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 34 I 0.54 I 1500 2.3 I 9.8 U 1.9 U 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 120 6.5 U 74 I 4.1 I 5.3 U 19 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 100 1.3 26 U 26 5.5 I 580 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 1300 1.4 2600 3.8 I 9.8 U 3.7 I Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 760 1.4 1400 3.0 I 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 2 year Follow-up Event Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location D-4 filtered

Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location D-5 filtered Insufficient water to sample this location Laboratory Analyses

D-1 unfiltered Insufficient water to sample this location

D-5 unfiltered Insufficient water to sample this location D-3 unfiltered Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location

D-4 unfiltered D-1 filtered

D-2 unfiltered

D-2 filtered Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location D-3 filtered

Page 1 of 2 ReviewedMM

## TABLE 5: Stormwater Analytical Summary (Ditches)

Facility Name: St. Mary's Shoals Park Location: Baker County, Florida
Sample Boring Sample Date Aluminum Arsenic Iron Lead Nickel Vanadium No. Description Collected (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l) Comments SWCTL - Freshwater Criteria 13 50 1,000 0.5-18.6* 16.1-168.5** NL Laboratory Analyses

3/30/2009 110 0.80 I 240 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 2 year Follow-up Event
3/30/2009 82 0.95 I 140 1.9 U 9.8 U 1.9 U Baseline Sampling Event 8/20/2009 3 month Follow-up Event 12/3/2009 6 month Follow-up Event 6/7/2010 12 month Follow-up Event 10/10/2011 2 year Follow-up Event
Notes: ug/L - micrograms per liter SWCTL - Surface Water Cleanup Target Levels (from Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-777) NL - Not Listed in FAC 62-777 * - Based on hardness equation - Pb < e(1.273 [lnH] - 4.705)with H=25 and H=400 per FAC 62-302.530 Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria ** - Based on hardness equation - Ni < e(0.846[lnH]+0.0584)with H=25 and H=400 per FAC 62-302.530 Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria Flags: U - Undetected at noted concentration

Bold font -indicates exceedance of regulatory standard Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location Insufficient water to sample this location D-6 unfiltered Insufficient water to sample this location

Insufficient water to sample this location Insufficient water to sample this location

D-6 filtered Insufficient water to sample this location

I - Estimated value between the MDL and PQL; IP1 - RPD value not applicable for sample concentrations less than 5 times the reporting limit. Insufficient water to sample this location

Page 2 of 2 ReviewedMM