38864_RFP_Phosphorus_Addendum 1.pdf

DATE: August 9, 2023

TO: Prospective Respondents

FROM: LaDonna Johnson, Associate Procurement Specialist

SUBJECT: Addendum #1 to Request for Proposal #38864, Phosphorus Remediation in the Ocklawaha Prairie Restoration Area

As a result of an inquiry, the following clarifications/changes are provided for your information.

Please make all appropriate changes to your proposal.

Question 1: Is there any raw data (water quality or sediment) for the project?

Answer 1:

1) Water quality data is available on our website at http://webapub.sjrwmd.com/agws10/edqt/. The pertinent station names are OFORN and

OFEFF.

2) Soil data is provided in the following reports:

a. Alternative Nutrient Control Treatments within the Upper Ocklawaha River Basin

– Prepared by MACTEC September 2005

b. Upper Ocklawaha Restoration Sites Nutrient Control Feasibility and Design – Final

Report Revised February 2003

NOTE: The Request for Proposals Due Date remains 10:00 am, Tuesday, August 22, 2023.

Please acknowledge receipt of this Addendum on the Proposal Form provided in the proposal package.

If you have any questions, please e-mail me at ljohnson@sjrwmd.com.

http://webapub.sjrwmd.com/agws10/edqt/ mailto:ljohnson@sjrwmd.com

MACTEC

Alternative Nutrient Control Treatments within the Upper Ocklawaha River Basin

Prepared for:

St. Johns River Water Management District

4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 Contract No. SE111F0

Work Order No. 56

Prepared by:

404 SW 140th Terrace Newberry, FL 32669

Joy Ryan Environmental Scientist

Ann B. Shortelle, PhD Chief Scientist

MACTEC Project No.: 6063-04-0022

September 2005

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Alternative Nutrient Control Treatments MACTEC Project No. 6063040022 within the Upper Ocklawaha River Basin

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc i MACTEC

Table of Contents

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

2.0 Objective ................................................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 Methods..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Bench Test.................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Mesocosm Study .......................................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 Results ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Range-finding Bench Test............................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Mesocosm Study .......................................................................................................... 4-1

5.0 Conclusions............................................................................................................... 5-1

List of Appendices

Appendix A Lab Data from the Range-Finding Test Appendix B Raw Data Appendix C Copy of field notebook Appendix D Statistical Results from Systat

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc ii MACTEC

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Tables

Table 3-1 Application Rates of Products Used in the Range-Finding Test Table 4.2-1. Comparison of Control Group to Each Treatment Types at a 95% Confidence

Level Table 4.2-2. Comparison of Treatment Types at a 95% Confidence Interval Table 4.2-3. Data Range Used in Statistical Analysis for Various Analytes Table A-1. Lab Data from the Mesocosm Study

List of Figures

Figure 1. Site Location Map Figure 2. Alkalinity Concentrations in the Range-Finding Bench-Scale Test Figure 3. pH Levels in the Range-Finding Bench-Scale Test Figure 4. Dissolved Ortho-Phosphate Concentrations at the End of the Range-Finding

Bench-Scale Test Figure 5. Dissolved Total Phosphorus Concentrations at the End of the Range-Finding

Bench-Scale Test Figure 6. Rainfall and Its Effect on Plot Water Depth Figure 7. Field pH Data Figure 8. Alkalinity Levels Figure 9. Total Phosphorus Concentrations Figure 10. Dissolved Total Phosphorus Concentrations Figure 11. Dissolved Ortho-Phosphate Concentrations Figure 12. Total Suspended Solids Figure 13. Dissolved Aluminum Concentrations Figure 14. Dissolved Aluminum Concentrations, Excluding Spikes Figure 15. Water Color Units Figure 16. Dissolved Ferric Concentrations

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANOVA Analysis of Variance DO Dissolved Oxygen FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection MACTEC MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.

NSD No significant difference from control ppm parts per million TP Total Phosphorus USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 1-1 MACTEC

1.0 Introduction

Water quality and riparian wetland habitat in many areas of north central Florida have declined dramatically over the last century. Thousands of acres of former agricultural areas have been acquired by the St. Johns River Water Management District and are being reflooded to provide for restoration of aquatic and wetland habitat and to reduce nutrient loading to adjacent water bodies. Former farms that have already been reflooded have been successfully treated with liquid alum to reduce nutrients. However, in more densely vegetated systems, applications from barges and similar vessels cause significant and unacceptable disturbance to wetland habitats.

Prior to reflooding, nutrient control will be required to restore the 2,550-acre Ocklawaha Prairie property (Figure 1), a former muck farm in the upper Ocklawaha River basin, since elevated concentrations of phosphorus will be discharged if the site is left untreated. The prairie has dense stands of emergent vegetation (Photograph 1), which would preclude chemical application via barge, airboat, Marshmaster™, etc. In addition, liquid alum would not be appropriate for Ocklawaha Prairie due to the tendency of liquid alum to remain on the vegetation, as experienced in the alum application in the Lake Griffin Marsh Flow-Way.

Aerial application appears economically feasible in large vegetated sites, but new application materials need investigation, as discussed in this report. The most promising candidates for aerial application are Baraclear™ pellets (Photograph 2), granular alum (Photograph 3), DinoSoil™, alum residual, and ferric residual (Photograph 4). These five materials are available and may be spread aerially.

Baraclear™ pellets are bentonite-based aluminum sulfate products, which can be combined with various buffering substances. If aerially applied, the pellets would sink in surface water and adsorb phosphorus as they solubilize, according to adsorption work conducted by DB Environmental Laboratories (Year ??). Granular alum is relatively inexpensive and readily available. DinoSoil™, a highly oxidized organic material with high concentrations of humic acids, is being used in south Florida as a pollution abatement tool, though its use to reduce surface water phosphorus concentrations is unproven. Ferric residual is currently being produced by the Lake Washington Water Treatment Plant in Melbourne, Florida. According to recent incubation studies also conducted by DB Environmental Laboratories, ferric residual may sustain its phosphorus binding capacity even under anaerobic conditions. Alum residual is another water treatment plant by-product similar in texture and appearance to the ferric residual. Both residuals are partially-dried sludges.

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 2-1 MACTEC

2.0 Objective

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. was contracted by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) to conduct a field study to compare the phosphorus binding effectiveness of Baraclear™ pellets, granular alum, DinoSoil™, alum residual, and ferric residual treatments in field plots. The compounds were applied to mesocosm plots (Photograph 5), and monitored for 300 days following application to observe nutrient content over time.

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 3-1 MACTEC

3.0 Methods

3.1 Bench Test

In order to prepare for the field trial to compare the nutrient binding properties of these materials, a laboratory range-finding study using Ocklawaha Prairie site water and various concentrations of the five candidate materials was conducted (Table 3-1). The objective of the bench scale study was to develop the application rates for the field trials. Treatment compounds were placed into appropriate beakers and overlying sitewater was added to each vessel (Photograph 6). Unlike other bench scale testing to evaluate the efficacy of these materials for nutrient removal, this test was primarily conducted without sample stirring to more readily simulate field conditions. Total phosphorus, alkalinity and pH were evaluated on Days 0, 1, 2, 5 and 12, following application.

At the conclusion of the test, samples from each beaker were filtered and analyzed for dissolved ortho-phosphate.

Table 3-1. Application Rates of Product Used in the Range-Finding Test (g/L)

Compound High Dose Medium Dose Low Dose Alum Residual 24 12 2 Ferric Residual 24 12 2

BaraclearTM 0.5 0.2 0.1 DinoSoilTM 24 15 6

Granular alum NA 0.2 0.1 Source: MACTEC, 2005. Created by: JLD Reviewed by: JMR

3.2 Mesocosm Study

The Ocklawaha Prairie study site was selected based upon the following criteria: accessibility, distance from other disturbances, representativeness of the site, homogeneous vegetation, and relatively small elevation changes in topography.

The range-finding study (bench test) results described in the results section were used to eliminate DinoSoilTM from consideration in the field trials. The following chemical amendments were evaluated in the mesocosm study: Granular alum, BaraclearTM, alum residual, and ferric residual.

The dosages were based upon results from the bench scale tests, application rates used at other District properties, and best professional judgment of District and MACTEC staff. Dosages used in the mesocosm trials were:

Granular alum – 0.1 g Al/L + sediment dose* BaraclearTM - 0.2 g Al/L + sediment dose* Alum residual – 6.5 wet tons/acre Ferric residual – 6.5 wet tons/acre

*molar ratio Al:P of 5:1

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 3-2 MACTEC

Additionally, the BaraclearrTTMM and granular alum plots were treated with pelletized dolomitic limestone on February 10, 2005, 190 days after the initial dosing. The ferric residual plots received second and third doses of the ferric compound on February 10, 2005 and February 21, 2005, 190 and 201 days after the initial treatment.

Mesocosm enclosures were constructed in the field using a plastic reinforced fiberglass (Kemlite, Joliet, IL) which was riveted at the seam with sufficient overlap to prevent any substantial horizontal water exchange (Photograph 7). The mesocosm cylinders were fully open at the top and bottom. Enclosure dimensions were approximately 10 feet in diameter. Water depth was used as a blocking variable. Thus, three rows, at varying water depths, contained four treatment plots and a control plot, with applications randomized within rows. The treatment compounds were hand-broadcast into the mesocosms on August 4, 2004 (Photographs 8 and 9). The wetland vegetation at the site and within all of the treatment cylinders was dominated by maidencane (Panicum hemitomon).

Granular alum was by far the easiest compound to apply. The granules were relatively smooth and did not stick to each other or to the leaves of the plants (Photograph 10). The BaraclearTM pellets were difficult to apply due to the absorption of ambient moisture, which caused the pellets to disintegrate. The sticky BaraclearTM pieces then stuck to the application, and the leaves of the vegetation, after being broadcast into the plots (Photograph 11). The alum and ferric residuals were fairly difficult to handle because they were initially moist which caused them to “brick-up”.

They required a pre-processing step, which in this experiment involved pressing the residual through a 2 mm-mesh screen. The residual compounds stuck to the leaves of the plants in the plots (Photograph 12).

Samples were collected by MACTEC personnel in accordance with the “Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection of Surface Water Quality Samples and Field Data”, published by the District on February 13, 2004.

Water depth was measured in each mesocosm plot to the nearest tenth of a foot using a plastic survey rod. Water depth was measured at three points in each plot on August 4, 6, 9, and 12, 2004. Water depth was measured at one point in each plot on August 19, September 2 and 30, 2004, January 14, February 10 and 21, April 27, and May 31, 2005. Water depth was measured at one point in three randomly selected plots on December 9, 2004. A staff gauge was installed and readings initiated on August 12, 2004. The staff gauge was also read and recorded every site visit thereafter.

Water temperature was measured to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius (°C). The pH was measured to the nearest hundredth or nearest tenth of a unit. Both temperature and pH were measured using a Thermo Orion 290 A+ meter with a low maintenance pH triode. Dissolved

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 3-3 MACTEC oxygen was measured to the nearest 0.1 ppm using an YSI 55 DO meter. Conductivity was measured to the nearest integer using a YSI model 33 conductivity meter.

Per MACTEC field protocols, field instruments were calibrated and verified at the beginning of each day, prior to use, and verified at the end of each day. Standards used to calibrate the instruments in the laboratory were transported to the field location and used for instrument verification or re-calibration (if necessary).

Water samples were collected using a 1L glass jar attached to a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pole.

Sample bottles, without preservative, were provided by the District. Sample filtration in the field was completed using an ISCO pump which pushed sample through a Pall® Supor-450 filter membrane (0.45 µm)(142mm) held in a Geotech® filter holder. Water samples were stored on ice immediately after sample collection and were transported in less than 24 hours to either the District laboratory or to PPB Laboratories to meet holding time requirements. Samples were analyzed in accordance with USEPA and FDEP standard methods for the analyses of water samples.

All statistical analyses were carried out with Systat for Windows version 11. For each parameter, each treatment type was analyzed for difference from control, as well as differences from each other. Data for each parameter was used only after a trend appeared in the data. If no trend appeared, only the last data point was used. For each parameter, data was broken down by treatment type and tested for normality using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov one sample test. All data sets were then analyzed for significance from control using a one sample t-test. An analysis of variance was run for normally distributed data using an ANOVA test. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used for the analysis of variance of the non-parametric data.

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 4-1 MACTEC

4.0 Results

4.1 Range-finding Bench Test

Ocklawaha Prairie water had sufficient alkalinity to maintain pH above 4.5 at the application levels used in the bench scale study (Granular alum low, BaraclearTM medium, Ferric residual, and Alum residual (Figures 2 and 3; Appendix A).

Granular alum was the most effective at reducing/removing P, followed by the high dose BaraclearTM treatment, followed by the residual treatments (Figures 4 and 5). DinoSoilTM was not only unpredictable, it was also the least effective at reducing P concentrations (Figures 4 and 5).

Based upon the results of the bench-scale test, a decision was made to eliminate DinoSoilTM as an experimental treatment for the field trial.

4.2 Mesocosm Study

The mesocosm study was initiated in early August, 2004. Within the month, the first of three large hurricanes blew through the prairie (Figure 6). The subsequent above-average water levels added a complication to the experiment. However, because there was a depth gradient at the site and the treatments were blocked by depth, it was assumed water level fluctuations, as well as chemical dilutions that may have resulted from the hurricanes, would be similar across the blocked plots.

Laboratory results, analyzed over time, indicate Control A (the control plot in the shallowest row) was an outlier for many of the analytes. A decision was ultimately made to exclude Control A data from the analyses.

The plots treated with BaraclearTM and granular alum were overdosed, as indicated by a substantial depression in pH at the outset of the mesocosm study (Figure 7). The pH in the BaraclearTM treatment replicates was still low at the sampling event 4 months after treatments, although the average pH was closer to controls than on previous dates.

A similar trend was observed for alkalinity; alkalinity was significatnely depressed at the outset of the mesacosm study (Figure 8). The field pH and laboratory alkalinity data indicate the supposed buffering capacity of BaraclearTM was not apparent in these field trials. The Ocklawaha Prairie system appears poorly buffered. Although nature’s recovery potential is significant, potential toxicity issues (e.g., low pH or high aluminum concentrations in the alum treatments) dictate caution.

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 4-2 MACTEC

On August 19, 2004 (Day 15 of the study) the field notes indicate the vegetation in the granular alum treatment plots was dead (Photograph 13). Algae was present in the BaraclearTM treatments on September 2, 2004, but the macrophytes were dead (Photograph 14). Field notes from May 31, 2005 (day 300) indicate the maidencane was still dead in all of the BaraclearTM and granular alum treatments, but some duckweeds, water hyacinth, and filamentous green algae were present in the plots (Appendix C). The maidencane was unaffected by the application of the residuals and was present in tall, dense (~ 1.5 m) concentrations similar to that found in the control mesocosum plots (Photographs 15 and 16).

Long term steady-state TP levels were significantly reduced by alum residual and BaraclearTM

(Figure 9, Table 4.2-1). The granular alum showed a reduction in TP levels that was not significant (Table 4.2-1). The ferric residual treatment showed some effect to day 127, following which more residual was applied, and then there was no effect on TP levels at the end of the study (day 300). Alum residual, BaraclearTM, and granular alum were significantly better at removing total phosphorus from the water than ferric residual (Table 4.2-2).

Treatment effects on dissolved total phosphorus (Figure 10) and dissolved ortho-phosphate (Figure 11) were significantly different from controls for all compounds across all dates (Table 4.2-1). Reductions in dissolved total phosphorus and ortho-phosphate concentrations occurred immediately and were significantly reduced by all treatments. The dissolved total phosphorus and dissolved ortho phosphate concentrations in the four treatment types did not differ significantly from each other (Table 4.2-2).

Total Suspended Solids increased significantly in all treatments in the short-term following start-up (Figure 12). It is assumed this spike was an artifact of the hurricanes since a similar increase was not observed when the plots were re-treated in February, 2005. However, by the end of the study only ferric residual showed a significant increase in suspended solids (Table 4.2-1, Table 4.2-2), although it is worth noting that ferric residual was re-applied two times to the mesocosms—at days 190 and 201.

Due to pH depression, dissolved aluminum significantly increased with BaraclearTM and granular alum through day 29. However, by the end of the second month, aluminum levels had started to decline towards pretest conditions (Figure 13). At the end of the study (day 300), dissolved aluminum was significantly higher than the control in the granular alum, BaraclearTM, and alum residual mesocosms (Figure 14). Alum residual produced the highest dissolved aluminum concentration, which was significantly higher than the BaraclearTM dissolved aluminum concentrations. Granular alum fell somewhere in between and was not significantly different from either treatment type (Table 4.2-2). The ferric residual did not show a significant difference from the control at the end of the study (Table 4.2-1), and was significantly lower in dissolved aluminum than the other three treatment types (Table 4.2-2).

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 4-3 MACTEC

The granular alum and BaraclearTM reduced overall color more than other treatments (Figure 15, Table 4.2-2). The ferric residual treatments had significantly more color than the control and all other treatment types. In general, ferric-phosphate bonds are not particularly stable in the reduced conditions found at this site. However, laboratory studies completed by DB Laboratories indicate ferric residual may sustain its phosphorus binding capacity even under anaerobic conditions. As reported above, ferric residual did bind phosphorus, but not as effectively as some of the other treatment compounds. The ferric residual treatments, despite their darker color, did have unusual algae blooms compared to other plots, indicating the ferric may have had some fertilizing effect on algal producers. Dissolved ferric concentrations were higher than controls in the ferric residual treatments (Figure 16). The DO content was low (generally below 1 ppm) in all treatment plots on all dates.

No significant difference was found between controls and any of the treatment types (or between treatment types) for both chlorophyll a content and ammonium concentrations.

Data for each treatment type was used only after a trend appeared in the data. This was usually around day 100, after the initial spike and any artifacts related to the hurricanes, but ranged from day 29 to day 300 (Table 4.2-3). This affects the robustness of certain statistical conclusions. All data was broken down by treatment type and tested for normality using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov one sample test. Only the ferric residual data for dissolved ferric, the ferric residual and BaraclearTM data for color, and the BaraclearTM, granular alum, and alum residual data for ammonium were not normally distributed. However, since 85% of the data was found to be normally distributed, and each parameter had at least one normally distributed data set, all data sets were analyzed for significance from control using a one sample t-test (Table 4.2-1). An analysis of variance was run for the normally distributed data using an ANOVA test. A Kruskal- Wallis test was run for the analysis of variance for the non-parametric data (dissolved ferric, color, and ammonium data) (Table 4.2-2).

Output for all Systat statistical results can be found in Appendix D.

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 4-4 MACTEC

Table 4.2-1. Comparison of Control Group to Each Treatment Type at a 95% Confidence Interval Treatment Type TP TP-D Ortho-PO4 Fe-D Al-D Color Alkalinity NH4

+ TSS Chlorophyll a Alum Residual < < < NSD > < NSD NSD NSD NSD

BaraclearTM < < < < > < > NSD NSD NSD Ferric Residual NSD < < > NSD > NSD NSD > NSD Granular Alum NSD < < NSD > < NSD NSD NSD NSD

Note: NSD = No significant difference from control < Parameter significantly lower in treated cells compared with control > Parameter significantly higher in treated cells compared with control

Table 4.2-2. Comparison of Treatment Types at a 95% Confidence Interval

Treatment Type TP TP-D Ortho-PO4 Fe-D Al-D Color Alkalinity NH4 + TSS Chlorophyll a

Alum Residual B A A B A B B A B A BaraclearTM B A A B BC C A A B A

Ferric Residual A A A A C A B A A A Granular Alum B A A B AB C AB A AB A

Parameters with the same letter are not significantly different. Parameters that do not share the same letter are significantly different. Parameters ranked with an ‘A’ show significantly higher values than those ranked with ‘B’, and so on. All analysis were run using an ANOVA test with a Bonferroni post-hoc test except those for dissolved ferric, color, and ammonium. The latter were not normally distributed and the analysis of variance was done using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 4-5 MACTEC

Table 4.2-3. Data Range Used in Statistical Analysis for Various Parameters

Parameter Date Data Used From TP Day 200 TP-D Day 100 Ortho-PO4 Day 100 Fe-D Day 50 Al-D Day 200 Color Day 50 Alkalinity Last data point only

NH4

+ Day 50 TSS Day 29 Chlorophyll a Last data point only

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 5-1 MACTEC

5.0 Conclusions

All of the test compounds reduced phosphorus content in the field trials to some extent.

BaraclearTM and alum residual produced a significant reduction in total phosphorus, while all four reduced dissolved total phosphorus and dissolved ortho-phosphate significantly (Table 4.2-1).

While it appears the ferric residual reduced total phosphorus significantly less than the other three test compounds, there was no significant difference between treatment types in reduction of dissolved total phosphorus or dissolved ortho-phosphate (Table 4.2-2). The initial treatment dosages for granular alum (0.1 g Al/L) and BaraclearTM (0.2 g Al/L) were too high and the emergent vegetation in those plots was scorched and/or killed with virtually no recovery after one year.

Of the four compounds tested in the field trials, granular alum appears to be the best candidate for aerial application. The granular alum pellets stayed together throughout the application process and penetrated the vegetation. Although BaraclearTM performed almost identically to granular alum, BaraclearTM is a poor candidate for aerial application because the pellets disintegrated as soon as they came in contact with humid air, followed by the dust and particles became sticky, and Baraclear TM pellets did not penetrate the vegetation. The alum and ferric residuals are poor candidates for aerial application without significant pre-treatment since they are more difficult to handle, requiring a pre-processing step (i.e. crushing or pulverizing), and they are not as effective at phosphorus reduction, which means more compound is required to achieve the desired result.

In addition, ferric and alum residuals showed slightly less desirable results in some aspects of phosphorus reduction, color, and dissolved aluminum concentrations.

MACTEC recommends the District eliminate BaraclearTM from consideration and then conduct a cost-benefit analysis with the two residuals versus granular alum. The success criteria for the analysis should be defined in the context of the restoration goals.

Figures

MACTEC

Source: SJRWMD.

p\eat\2005\projects\sjrwmd\final report ocklawaha\site location map.ppt

Site Location Map

6063040022

Figure 1

Ocklawaha River and Prairie

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 1 MACTEC

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Days

A lk al in ity (m g/ L)

Alum Residual High Baraclear High Dinosoil High Ferric Residual High Alum Residual Med Baraclear Med Dinosoil Med Granular Alum Med Ferric Residual Med Alum Residual Med, Stir Baraclear Med, Stir Dinosoil Med, Stir Ferric Residual Med, Stir Alum Residual Low Baraclear Low Dinosoil Low Granular Alum Low Ferric Residual Low

Figure 2. Alkalinity Concentrations in the Range-Finding Bench-Scale Test

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Days pH

Alum Residual High Baraclear High Dinosoil High Ferric Residual High Alum Residual Med Baraclear Med Dinosoil Med Granular Alum Med Ferric Residual Med Alum Residual Med, Stir Baraclear Med, Stir Dinosoil Med, Stir Ferric Residual Med, Stir Alum Residual Low Baraclear Low Dinosoil Low Granular Alum Low Ferric Residual Low

Figure 3. pH Levels in the Range-Finding Bench-Scale Test

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 2 MACTEC

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Alum Residual Baraclear Dinosoil Granular Alum Ferric Residual

PO

4 ( m g/

L)

High Medium Med, Stir Low

Figure 4. Dissolved Ortho-Phosphate Concentrations at the End of the Range-Finding Bench-Scale Test

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Alum Residual Baraclear Dinosoil Granular Alum Ferric Residual

D is so lv ed P

(m g/

High Med Med, Stir Low

Figure 5. Dissolved Total Phosphorus Concentrations at the End of the Range-Finding Bench-Scale Test

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 3 MACTEC

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Da te

8/

/2

9/

9/

9/

/2

/1

9/

/8 /2

/2

8/

/1 8/

1/ 7/

1/

/2

2/

/2

3/ 8/

3/

/2

4/

/2

5/ 7/

5/

/2

Date

R ai nf al l ( in ch es

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Pl ot

W at er D ep th

(f ee t)

Rainfall Water Depth

Figure 6. Rainfall and Its Effect on Plot Water Depth in the Ocklawaha Prairie Mesocosm Study.

Note: Hurricanes occurred on August 13 (Charley); September 5 (Frances); September 15 (Ivan); and September 26 (Jeanne).

Figure 7. Field pH Data from the Ocklawaha Prairie Mesocosm Study (Average of the Replicates)

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

Fi el d pH

Control Ferric Residual Baraclear Granular Alum Alum Residual

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 4 MACTEC

-60

-40

-20

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

D iff er en ce fr om C on tr ol (m g/

Ferric Residual Baraclear Granular Alum Alum Residual

Figure 8. Alkalinity Levels Expressed as Difference from Controls in the Ocklawaha Prairie Mesocosm Study.

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

D iff er en ce F ro m

C on tr ol

(m g/

Figure 9. Total Phosphorus Concentrations Expressed as Difference from Controls in the

Ocklawaha Prairie Mesocosm Study.

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 5 MACTEC

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

D iff er en ce fr om C on tr ol (m g/

Figure 10. Dissolved Total Phosphorus Concentrations Expressed as Difference from Controls in the

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

D iff er en ce fr om C on tr ol (m g/

Figure 11. Dissolved Ortho-Phosphate Concentrations Expressed as Difference from Controls in the

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 6 MACTEC

-100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

D iff er en ce fr om C on tr ol (m g/

Figure 12. Total Suspended Solids Expressed as Difference from Controls in the Ocklawaha Prairie

-10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

D iff er en ce fr om C on tr ol (m g/

Figure 13. Dissolved Aluminum Concentrations Expressed as Difference from Controls in the

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 7 MACTEC

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

D iff er en ce fr om C on tr ol (m g/

Figure 14. Dissolved Aluminum Concentrations, Excluding Spikes, Expressed as Difference from

Controls in the Ocklawaha Prairie Mesocosm Study.

-600

-400

-200

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

D iff er en ce fr om C on tr ol (p cu

Figure 15. Water Color Units Expressed as Difference from Controls in the Ocklawaha Prairie

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 8 MACTEC

Figure 16. Dissolved Ferric Concentrations Expressed as Difference from Controls in the Ocklawaha

Prairie Mesocosm Study.

-5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Days

D iff er en ce fr om C on tr ol (m g/ L)

Ferric Residual Added.

Photographs

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 1 MACTEC

Photograph 1. High Grass during mesocosm construction period

Photograph 2. BaraclearTM pellets

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 2 MACTEC

Photograph 3. Granular Alum Residual

Photograph 4. FerricResidual and Alum Residual

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 3 MACTEC

Photograph 5. Mesocosm plots at Ocklawaha Prarie

Photograph 6. Bench Scale Study Prior to Field Application

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 4 MACTEC

Photograph 7. Structure of mesocosm

Photograph 8. Hand broadcasting amendment into mesocosm

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 5 MACTEC

Photograph 9. Hand Broadcasting amendment into Mesocosm

Photograph 10. Mesocosm Vegetation after Granular Alum Application

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 6 MACTEC

Photograph 11. Mesocosm Vegetation after BaraclearTM pellets Application, Photograph 12. Mesocosm Vegetation after Residual Application

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 7 MACTEC

Photograph 13. 57 Days After Being Overdosed with Granular Alum, Ocklawaha Prairie Mesocosm Study

Photograph 14. 57 Days After Being Overdosed with BaraclearTM, Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 8 MACTEC

Photograph 15. 57 Days After Being Dosed with Alum Residual, Photograph 16. Vegetation in a Control Plot on Day 57, Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 9 MACTEC

Photograph 17. Algal Sheen in Ferric Residual Treatment on Day 12

Photograph 18. Geotech pump and P Meter.

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 10 MACTEC

Photograph 19. Geotech pump and P Meter.

APPENDIX A

Lab Data from the Range-Finding Test

Table A-1. Ocklawaha River Data from Laboratory Range-Finding Test, July 2004.

Compound Treatment Dose Description Dose g/L

19-Jul Diss PO4 mg/L

19-Jul Diss Total P mg/L

19-Jul Total P mg/L

19-Jul P (a) mg/L

7-Jul Total P mg/L

7-Jul pH

8-Jul pH

9-Jul pH

12-Jul pH

19-Jul pH

8-Jul Alkalinity mg/L

9-Jul Alkalinity mg/L

12-Jul Alkalinity mg/L

19-Jul Alkalinity mg/L Alum Residual A low 6 0.163 0.301 0.334 0.02 0.78 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.1 7.1 44.9 40.8 28.6 34.7

B1 med 12 0.142 0.249 0.301 0.15 0.235 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 6.8 53 38.8 26.5 16.3 B2 med, stir 12 0.046 0.088 0.276 0.222 0.354 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.8 20.4 24.5 18.4 16.3 C high 18 0.13 0.228 0.271 0.264 0 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.9 40.8 38.8 24.5 16.3 AA low 4 0.174 0.32 0.363 0.134 0.97 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.1 7.2 40.8 44.9 32.6 28.6 AAA low 2 0.278 0.42 0.462 0 0.31 6.8 6.8 6.9 7.3 7.3 42.8 49.0 40.8 34.7 CC high 20 0.134 0.247 0.275 0.111 0 6.8 6.8 7.0 7.4 7.0 38.8 32.6 16.3 10.2 CCC high 24 0.147 0.252 0.293 0.003 0.316 6.6 6.6 6.8 7.0 6.9 36.7 38.8 20.4 12.2

Ferric Residual A low 6 0.153 0.337 0.381 0.17 0.45 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.1 5.4 32.6 30.6 12.2 8.2 B1 med 12 0.104 0.2 0.245 0.085 0.212 6.2 6.2 6.0 5.1 4.7 26.5 16.3 4.1 2.0 B2 med, stir 12 0.045 0.173 0.735 0.218 0.189 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.7 8.2 4.1 2.0 2.0 C high 18 0.067 0.131 0.173 0.336 0.046 6.2 6.2 5.9 4.7 4.4 30.6 18.4 2.0 0 AA low 4 0.189 0.308 0.367 0.042 0.367 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.2 5.7 32.6 26.5 12.2 10.2 AAA low 2 0.256 0.469 0.505 0.241 0.368 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.4 40.8 36.7 26.5 18.4 CC high 20 0.063 0.169 0.219 0.101 0.28 6.2 6.2 5.9 4.7 4.3 24.5 14.3 2.0 0 CCC high 24 0.051 0.116 0.169 0.02 0.271 6.2 6.2 5.9 4.5 4.2 24.5 14.3 0 0

Baraclear™ A low 0.1 0.256 0.424 0.578 0 0.215 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.1 34.7 36.7 32.6 30.6 B1 med 0.2 0.128 0.254 0.425 0.046 0.019 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.3 6.5 26.5 20.4 14.3 14.3 B2 med, stir 0.2 0.112 0.268 0.671 0.049 0.091 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.3 20.4 18.4 16.3 16.3 C high 0.5 0.017 0.047 0.052 0.013 0.274 5.4 5.4 4.9 4.5 4.2 12.2 4.1 0 0

Granular alum A low 0.1 0.111 0.26 0.457 0.016 0.016 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.4 20.4 18.4 14.3 16.3 B1 med 0.2 0.014 0.037 0.052 0.023 0.049 5.6 5.6 4.7 4.4 4.4 12.2 2.0 0 0

Dinosoil™ A low 6 0.224 0.419 0.5 0.196 0.408 6.7 6.7 6.7 7.0 6.6 46.9 44.9 38.8 20.4 B1 med 15 0.22 0.409 0.553 0.381 0.08 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.9 44.9 40.8 36.7 26.5 B2 med, stir 15 0.045 0.119 0.286 0.042 0.28 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 10.2 8.2 8.2 6.1 C high 24 0.25 0.449 0.551 0.297 0.417 6.4 6.4 6.8 6.9 6.4 87.7 38.8 34.7 20.4

Note: (a) = P measured with handheld P Spectrometer.

Source: MACTEC, 2005.

Created by: JLD Reviewed by: SEB, JMR

APPENDIX B

Raw Data

August 4, 2004 – Ocklawaha Prairie Laboratory Data

Turbidity ntu Color cpu

TSS

mg/L

Alkalinity mg/L

NOx-T mg/L

NH4-T

mg/L

Al-T ug/L

Ca-T mg/L

Fe-T ug/L

Chl-a mg/m3

Chl-a_Corr mg/m3

Chl-b mg/m3

Chl-c mg/m3

Phaeo-Corr mg/m3

Chl a:Phaeo ratio

TP-T

mg/L

Field Water Temp deg C

Field pH

Field DO mg/L

Field Conductivity umhos/cm

Field Phosphorus

Control-A 27 960 86 66.6 0.012 0.071 585 25.8 10800 38.9 29.7 -0.2 -2.3 16.8 1.4 6.28 26.4 6.05 0.3 271 Control-B 29 400 48 53.6 0.012 0.043 266 20.2 7790 32.8 30.1 3.7 1.5 1.4 1.7 2.58 25.9 5.9 0.5 207 Control-C 30 480 42 52.2 0.006 0.015 200 20.4 9120 49.2 47.8 10.8 2.6 1.1 1.7 2.4 26.8 6.32 0.5 212 FeR-A 60 800 222 57 0.014 0.051 1610 23.8 10800 37.2 30.3 1.6 -4 13.5 1.4 4.81 26.3 6.04 0.4 256 FeR-B 31 640 66 52 0.007 0.067 346 20 9280 25.4 21.3 0.4 -0.6 4.6 1.6 4.64 26.6 5.95 0.5 230 FeR-C 28 400 101 56.8 0.005 0.043 179 23.1 7240 50.8 46.7 6.6 -1.7 4.6 1.6 2.17 26.7 5.91 0.5 236 BARA-A 75 560 287 53.6 0.012 0.21 1450 23.4 13200 98.6 94.5 17.4 0.9 11.7 1.6 4.86 26.3 5.94 0.5 248 BARA-B 65 480 136 45.7 0.01 0.06 567 18.4 10400 61.4 58.7 8.5 0 6.4 1.6 4.64 26.4 6.08 0.4 260 BARA-C 27 400 61 62.5 0.008 0.023 316 24.3 7830 17.7 15 3.3 0.3 6.8 1.4 2.34 26.1 6.1 0.4 215 GA-A 39 960 95 72.8 0.017 0.287 467 27.4 18500 89.1 78.2 12.4 -1.4 14.6 1.6 8.54 26.9 6.4 0.5 269 GA-B 33 640 91 47.8 0.015 0.049 338 18.6 9760 19.5 15.4 -2 -1 6.8 1.4 4.74 26.2 6.22 0.4 191 GA-C 11 400 46 51.9 0.016 0.019 164 20.6 6490 27 25.6 3.5 -0.1 0 1.7 2.34 25.5 5.94 0.6 230 AlR-A 65 560 222 41.8 0.014 0.056 1720 19.1 8290 28.3 25.6 3.5 -0.1 6.1 1.5 3.08 25.3 5.87 0.4 207 AlR-B 50 640 185 52.1 0.011 0.042 378 21 11700 38.5 34.4 7.2 -1.2 2.8 1.6 4.25 26.6 5.81 0.4 260 AlR-C 32 320 68 58.3 0.008 0.034 170 23.1 8900 64.1 61.4 12.3 0.8 5.3 1.6 2.74 26.4 6.27 0.6 236 Source: PPB Laboratories, Gainesville, FL.

August 6, 2004 – Ocklawaha Prairie Laboratory Data

Color cpu

TSS

mg/L

Alkalinity mg/L

NOx-T mg/L

NH4-T

mg/L

Al-T ug/L

Al-D ug/L

Ca-T mg/L

Fe-T ug/L

Fe-D ug/L

Chl-a mg/m3

Chl-a_Corr mg/m3

Chl-b mg/m3

Chl-c mg/m3

Phaeo-Corr mg/m3

Chl a:Phaeo ratio

TP-T

mg/L

PO4-D

mg/L

TP-D

mg/L

Field Water Temp deg C

Field pH

Field DO mg/L

Field Conductivity umhos/cm Field

Phosphorus Control-A 95 800 408 66.9 0 0.077 2360 120 33.3 16300 6350 285.4 175 -65.6 -86.6 131.4 1.3 7.42 0.925 3.78 26.9 5.72 0.3 393 Control-B 65 400 206 49.3 0.018 0.067 748 19.6 24.5 10700 1950 121.9 73.8 -35.8 -44.1 48.7 1.3 3.26 0.665 0.734 26.3 5.85 0.4 300 Control-C 45 560 223 50.7 0 0.074 293 49 21.8 12900 3670 98.9 76.4 -10.6 -20.1 41.7 1.4 3.55 3.87 3.82 26.8 5.46 0.5 300 FeR-A 65 640 542 38.4 0 0.154 1580 67.7 25.5 66400 5690 152.2 90.8 -44.4 -58.7 87.6 1.2 4.81 0.633 0.67 26.1 5.15 0.3 386 FeR-B 50 640 207 38.7 0 0.105 1100 83 23.8 34600 5910 80.1 56.7 -13.6 -19.5 25.9 1.4 4.47 0.994 1.44 25.6 5.55 0.4 358 FeR-C 120 400 533 50.3 0.008 0.139 580 14 28.3 30800 2620 87 48.7 -33.5 -37.8 40.7 1.2 3.52 0.384 0.442 27.6 5.65 0.3 343 BARA-A 240 30 785 0 0.017 0.956 191000 84500 69.6 26100 9920 32.6 21.7 -3.8 -11.7 22.8 1.2 4.49 0.031 0.112 27.4 3.99 0.4 2830 BARA-B 100 30 408 0 0 0.489 126000 46000 52.6 16000 6360 42.8 30.5 -9.4 -10.8 30.4 1.2 3.23 0.05 0.122 26.2 3.99 0.7 1400 BARA-C 120 20 326 -2.29 0.014 0.134 50300 9340 37.9 15600 8050 44.7 27.1 -10.9 -17.8 16.8 1.3 2.58 0.004 0.032 25.9 4.13 0.5 1144 GA-A 55 80 485 0 0.022 0.603 132000 96700 80.7 37900 23900 62.2 37 -20.7 -25.4 43.5 1.1 6.12 0.16 0.447 26.8 3.7 0.8 1859 GA-B 80 60 201 0 0.017 0.17 76900 57800 49.6 18600 10800 35.7 21.4 -8.2 -17.7 15.5 1.3 3.61 0.08 0.342 27.8 3.78 0.4 1187 GA-C 39 70 261 0 0 0.28 99800 92800 45.6 12900 8460 78.5 64.2 -2 -10.2 41.1 1.3 2.21 0.135 0.309 27.9 3.81 0.4 1788 AlR-A 180 560 657 47.7 0 0.192 9720 139 26.4 11100 1790 107.4 58.3 -37.6 -51 53.4 1.2 3.62 0.532 0.594 26.2 5.7 0.4 343 AlR-B 50 640 149 59.6 0 0.057 4590 173 23 10900 2750 64.9 48.5 -6.5 -8.2 15 1.5 3.44 1.1 1.2 25.3 5.92 0.5 365 AlR-C 130 400 360 66.1 0.025 0.079 10200 136 31.6 13800 3010 107.4 44.6 -55.2 -68 28.5 1.3 3.61 0.765 0.82 25.8 5.68 0.4 358 Dupe-1 95 720 513 45.2 0 0.151 6640 126 24.7 10200 1610 72 39.3 -29.9 -38.5 41.7 1.1 3.44 0.412 0.517 Wetland 65 400 190 54.5 0.024 0.04 233 18.2 31.3 8170 1580 79.6 53.3 -12 -19 20.6 1.5 0.248 0.314

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 2 MACTEC

August 9, 2004 – Ocklawaha Prairie Laboratory Data

Color cpu

TSS

mg/L

Alkalinity mg/L

NOx-T mg/L

NH4-T

mg/L

Al-T ug/L

Al-D ug/L

Ca-T mg/L

Fe-T ug/L

Fe-D ug/L

Chl-a mg/m3

Chl-a_Corr mg/m3

Chl-b mg/m3

Chl-c mg/m3

Phaeo-Corr mg/m3

Chl a:Phaeo ratio

TP-T

mg/L

PO4-D

mg/L

TP-D

mg/L

Field Water Temp deg C

Field pH

Field DO mg/L

Field Conductivity umhos/cm

Field Phosphorus

Control-A 55 70 510 62.9 0 0.071 2750 111 30.3 14000 5140 244 168.3 -41.4 -65.6 133 1.3 5.82 2.6 2.63 25.3 5.56 0.1 290 Control-B 75 600 263 48.7 0.021 0.147 850 21.5 22.9 8100 1720 121.6 76.6 -38.9 -46.9 56.1 1.3 2.38 0.572 0.614 25.1 5.6 0.1 252 0.17 Control-C 65 400 166 50.7 0.018 0.068 325 27 23.1 9870 3560 66.3 54.2 -5.5 -10.5 16.8 1.5 2.76 0.854 0.92 26.4 5.35 0.1 300 0.15 FeR-A 180 600 472 48.2 0.028 0.115 1910 79.6 26.2 34700 17600 71.7 47.2 -15.4 -27.8 38.4 1.2 3.9 0.861 1.18 25.4 5.6 0.1 334 FeR-B 70 700 323 42 0.026 0.102 1000 76.1 22.8 30900 12900 110.1 89.6 -5.6 -16.9 36.8 1.4 3.42 0.933 1.18 25.1 5.52 0.3 298 0.89 FeR-C 65 500 239 47.1 0.016 0.242 435 16.6 23.2 32300 9040 114.8 98.4 -3.1 -6.6 51.8 1.4 2.69 0.566 0.635 25.8 5.58 0.1 288 0.12 BARA-A 270 60 713 0 0 2.46 162000 106000 93 28300 18400 36 23.7 -9.8 -13.1 19.2 1.2 2.53 0.037 0.127 26.3 3.74 0.1 1620 BARA-B 180 40 337 0 0 0.965 78700 54400 65.7 14800 1310 47.2 30.9 -12.5 -19.1 21.4 1.3 1.36 0.002 0.047 26 3.73 0.4 1656 0.02 BARA-C 190 40 393 0 0.004 0.503 88800 43100 70.1 24200 11000 72 45.4 -22.7 -24.4 34.7 1.3 3.98 -0.003 0.052 26.1 3.9 0.3 1560 0.01 GA-A 190 100 651 0 0 2.39 94200 82000 122 54400 47500 56.1 33.6 -17.3 -22.8 43.3 1.1 3.24 0.238 0.474 26.8 3.74 0.5 1860 0.12 GA-B 75 100 317 0 0.011 0.108 56000 49500 66.1 27700 21300 29.2 16.9 -10.2 -15.5 17.1 1.2 1.86 0.047 0.277 26.8 3.81 0.1 1260 0.06 GA-C 23 90 119 0 0.006 0.64 94500 91500 67.4 23300 18300 54.3 44.1 -8.3 -8.5 39.2 1.2 1.68 0.136 0.329 25.7 3.54 0 1440 0.05 AlR-A 220 500 554 51 0 0.548 9640 132 30.7 11900 2930 112.1 64.4 -37.7 -52.9 54.3 1.2 3.04 0.562 0.649 25.3 5.47 0.1 300 AlR-B 370 400 909 59.2 0.013 0.15 19200 158 42.2 24400 3980 135.8 90.8 -45.4 -48.9 69.4 1.3 4.57 0.91 1.06 25.9 5.41 0 222 AlR-C 95 450 269 65.3 0.016 0.081 4210 145 28.2 10200 4000 96.5 47.4 -43.7 -54.6 16.6 1.5 2.27 0.645 0.697 25.1 5.51 0.1 270 0.021

August 12, 2004 – Ocklawaha Prairie Laboratory Data

Color cpu

TSS

mg/L

Alkalinity mg/L

NOx-T mg/L

NH4-T

mg/L

Al-T ug/L

Al-D ug/L

Ca-T mg/L

Fe-T ug/L

Fe-D ug/L

Chl-a mg/m3

Chl-a_Corr mg/m3

Chl-b mg/m3

Chl-c mg/m3

Phaeo-Corr mg/m3

Chl a:Phaeo ratio

TP-T

mg/L

PO4-D

mg/L

TP-D

mg/L

Field Water Temp deg C

Field pH

Field DO mg/L

Field Conductivity umhos/cm

Field Phosphorus

Control-A 110 1000 392 64.5 0 0.051 4770 150 37.2 15300 4740 152.5 109.6 -24.7 -34.6 66.8 1.3 4.96 2.25 2.36 24.8 5.69 0.2 259 Control-B 45 500 107 48.1 0 0.034 242 42.2 22.2 5900 1740 36 31.9 0.6 -0.9 -2.1 1.8 1.76 0.657 0.715 24.8 5.84 0.2 210 Control-C 190 500 345 56.2 0 0.062 1020 60.3 25.6 9540 2020 157 116.1 1.9 14.1 63.5 1.4 2.17 0.583 0.65 24.7 5.63 0.2 220 FeR-A 190 900 777 56.4 0.008 0.098 3150 139 31.2 43600 18600 108 75.3 -23.7 -38.2 47 1.3 2.94 0.733 0.88 24.7 5.68 0.2 300 FeR-B 170 700 329 46.6 0.003 0.08 1100 103 24.8 30200 13100 128.4 103.8 -12.1 -18.9 59.3 1.4 2.44 0.898 0.995 24.7 5.64 0.3 250 FeR-C 80 500 199 49.4 0 0.078 209 13 24.8 28300 11100 142.8 122.3 12.3 -1.3 47.5 1.5 2.08 0.574 0.635 25.1 5.73 0.2 230 BARA-A 600 30 1132 0 0.009 0.264 178000 95000 137 43500 14300 51.6 33.2 -13.6 -19.4 34.2 1.2 3.68 -0.005 0.068 25.2 3.9 0.3 2200 BARA-B 140 50 325 0 0.007 1.59 73000 58700 82.5 12600 5120 31.3 19 -7.6 -12.5 11.7 1.3 1.16 -0.003 0.076 24.8 3.77 0.3 1500 BARA-C 200 30 411 0 0.018 0.074 87500 68500 78.7 10200 903 6.5 4.4 2 -2.2 7.5 1 1.5 0.008 0.066 24.8 3.72 0.4 1490 GA-A 120 80 1375 0 0 2.99 114000 70800 148 65700 48900 113.2 60 -31.8 -39.6 57.1 1.2 5.5 0.09 0.281 24.6 3.49 0.5 1510 GA-B 180 80 346 0 0.02 0.144 59300 48100 78.8 28900 19300 44.9 26.4 -14 -21.8 23 1.2 1.8 0.068 0.218 24.4 3.56 0.4 1000 GA-C 65 70 119 0 0.003 0.533 87100 78300 85.4 25000 20500 47.5 37.3 -9 -8.4 41.7 1.1 0.97 0.174 0.276 24.8 3.59 0.2 1190 AlR-A 280 450 567 48.8 0 0.074 23100 288 31.5 13900 2350 150.2 117.5 -9.1 -33.8 63.5 1.4 2.58 0.387 0.496 24.7 5.92 0.2 240 AlR-B 1300 400 1776 56.2 0.004 0.076 18000 97.3 46.1 23300 4370 92.4 63.7 -23 -30.2 55.5 1.2 2.62 0.534 0.675 24.8 5.71 0.3 240 AlR-C 85 400 328 68.3 0.003 0.104 2520 135 27.8 8940 2360 98.2 49.1 -37.4 -48.1 29.4 1.3 1.6 0.377 0.453 24.8 5.54 0.3 260 Marsh 45 350 113 59.8 0 0.277 124 -12 31.3 7420 2070 128.4 99.7 -17.8 -20.1 42.7 1.4 1.02 0.245 0.301 25.5 5.82 0.4 220

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 3 MACTEC

August 19, 2004 – Ocklawaha Prairie Laboratory Data

Color cpu

TSS

mg/L

Alkalinity mg/L

NOx-T mg/L

NH4-T

mg/L

Al-T ug/L

Al-D ug/L

Ca-T mg/L

Fe-T ug/L

Fe-D ug/L

Chl-a mg/m3

Chl-a_Corr mg/m3

Chl-b mg/m3

Chl-c mg/m3

Phaeo-Corr mg/m3

Chl a:Phaeo ratio

TP-T

mg/L

PO4-D

mg/L

TP-D

mg/L

Field Water Temp deg C

Field pH

Field DO mg/L

Field Conductivity umhos/cm

Field Phosphorus

Control-A 60 960 155 56.8 0.001 0.048 434 75.6 22.4 10200 3380 19 12.2 -0.5 -0.5 1.8 1.6 4.96 3.06 1.7 26.1 6.29 0.3 285 0.63 Control-B 26 480 69 46.5 0 0.057 154 1800 20.3 6910 3430 17.8 14.8 0.8 -0.3 1.6 1.6 2.72 0.976 1.15 25.5 6.27 0.3 252 0.72 Control-C 18 480 38 41.3 0 0.021 72.2 24 16.8 7100 2330 12.2 11.2 2.5 0.2 0.5 1.7 2.24 0.799 0.902 24.9 6.11 0.3 238 0.101 FeR-A 130 1280 202 43 0 0.196 348 37.4 23 57100 18600 28.9 24.8 3.8 0.1 4.8 1.6 3.75 0.721 0.8 24.7 6.31 0.3 366 0.059 FeR-B 85 960 136 44.2 0 0.078 382 61.8 21.4 38200 16200 26.8 22.7 0.7 1.9 1.1 1.7 4.33 1.42 1.08 25.1 6.2 0.5 324 0.4 FeR-C 80 640 173 54 0 0.061 269 32.6 26.4 34600 14200 26.7 22.6 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.7 2.12 0.431 0.575 25.5 6.32 0.3 348 0.41 BARA-A 200 40 376 0 0 4.74 93200 64800 98.8 21200 14000 15.3 11.2 2.5 0.2 18.7 1 0.885 0.146 0.099 26 4.02 0.3 2496 0.05 BARA-B 100 60 121 0 0 1.23 67200 55700 87.8 22600 15000 3.6 1.6 -0.5 -1.9 2.5 1 0.72 0.16 0.149 25.5 3.96 0.4 1980 0.0033 BARA-C 95 40 165 0 0 0.72 77800 62900 79 13300 6800 4.5 3.2 -1.4 -0.4 5 1 0.681 0.002 0.119 25.4 4 0.5 1860 0.026 GA-A 140 80 275 0 0 4.13 54500 41800 115 46100 41400 7.3 3.2 -1.1 -3.7 5 1 1.15 0.284 0.339 26.3 3.8 0.5 1200 0.11 GA-B 85 60 127 0 0 0.851 42500 38300 71.1 29500 22700 12.1 7 -1.2 -1.8 6.7 1.2 1.46 0.103 0.37 25.6 3.91 0.5 1740 0.23 GA-C 28 60 16 46.4 0.01 1.67 49900 43200 78.5 24600 20800 9 7 -1.2 -1.8 8.9 1.1 0.696 0.156 0.301 28.3 3.86 0.2 1320 0.153 AlR-A 60 480 178 46.1 0 0.09 924 141 17 5590 1680 18.7 14.6 2.9 -1.1 6.1 1.4 1.38 0.498 0.565 25.5 6.24 0.3 276 0.29 AlR-B 55 480 104 56.4 0 0.193 1450 184 21.4 11600 2000 22.1 20.1 6 0.7 6.4 1.5 1.7 0.584 0.628 25.6 6.25 0.3 306 0.091 AlR-C 45 400 178 65.6 0 0.044 1900 148 25.1 8510 1960 26.9 18.8 -5.9 -3.7 11.7 1.3 1.45 0.405 0.458 25.4 6.11 0.2 312 0.37 Wetland 27 6.12 0.3 238

September 2, 2004 – Ocklawaha Prairie Laboratory Data

Color cpu

TSS

mg/L

Alkalinity mg/L

NOx-T mg/L

NH4-T

mg/L

Al-T ug/L

Al-D ug/L

Ca-T mg/L

Fe-T ug/L

Fe-D ug/L

Chl-a mg/m3

Chl-a_Corr mg/m3

Chl-b mg/m3

Chl-c mg/m3

Phaeo-Corr mg/m3

Chl a:Phaeo ratio

TP-T

mg/L

PO4-D

mg/L

TP-D

mg/L

Field Water Temp deg C

Field pH

Field DO mg/L

Field Conductivity umhos/cm

Field Phosphorus

Control-A 34 720 119 56.9 0 0.01 417 89.8 22.4 8820 3130 82 64.3 -4.1 -3.1 38.1 1.4 5.52 1.17 2.45 26.3 6.2 0.3 227 0.049 Control-B 34 480 224 47.1 0 0.018 142 35.3 18.2 6720 2040 74.6 61.5 -3.9 -3 31.2 1.4 3.22 1.88 1.23 27.8 6.2 0.2 206 0.1565 Control-C 38 480 138 50.1 0 0.007 133 38.5 19.3 7110 2680 123.2 106.2 -9.6 -4.1 66.3 1.3 2.2 0.873 1.01 26.2 6.1 0.1 258 FeR-A 330 1280 333 45.6 0 0.084 609 445 26.6 76900 26500 287.8 246.9 -34.3 -8.8 182.1 1.3 5.6 0.652 0.795 26.7 6.3 0.1 412 0 FeR-B 160 1120 145 39.9 0.014 0.047 247 62.1 21 45400 15200 134 113.6 -22.2 -4 74.2 1.3 3.56 0.556 0.591 26.5 6.3 0.2 299 0.277 FeR-C 130 1120 143 52.4 0.011 0.07 221 38.3 28.7 49300 19200 169.1 132.3 -25.6 -18 104.1 1.3 2.02 0.338 0.324 27.5 6.2 0.1 227 0.238 BARA-A 170 30 315 0 0 2.68 58600 44300 101 17400 13300 25.4 20.2 4.7 -5.9 15.5 1.3 0.788 0.035 0.082 27.6 4 0.3 1751 0.0098 BARA-B 27 30 77 0 0 11.1 34600 29200 83.5 15200 12900 12.1 4.9 -3.7 -4.8 5.2 1.1 0.58 0.098 0.146 26.6 4 0.2 1483 0.082 BARA-C 45 30 150 0 0 0.886 45000 28300 80.7 16200 13200 31.4 16.1 -13.6 -16.3 15.2 1.2 0.93 0.002 0.079 26.4 4.1 0.2 1390 0.0293 GA-A 150 40 262 0 0 70 17600 9890 104 39700 34300 21.1 8.8 -8.8 -11.1 13.1 1 1.55 0.006 0.309 27.2 3.9 0.2 1442 0.121 GA-B 100 40 159 0 0 0.328 16700 11300 67.5 22600 20200 22.1 4.7 -14 -17.2 10.1 0.8 1.29 0.276 0.302 26.5 4 0.2 1339 0.036 GA-C 55 60 49 0 0.004 2.55 34300 26900 74.5 19700 13600 12.8 7.7 -3.3 -3.5 7.6 1.2 0.616 0.25 0.309 27.9 3.6 0.3 1133 0.196 AIR-A 110 360 268 51.5 0 0.024 8270 174 24 8970 2550 103.3 91.4 -0.5 -5.3 51.2 1.4 2.02 0.371 0.387 27 6.2 0.3 256 0.401 AIR-B 45 480 96 52.4 0.002 -0.007 1490 204 22.2 9460 2960 183.6 171.7 -7 3 91.2 1.4 0.606 0.503 1.7 27.8 5.8 0.4 227 0 AIR-C 50 320 96 59.5 0.006 0 1000 117 23.3 7700 2330 233.3 200.9 -39.9 -1.4 81.9 1.4 1.18 0.281 0.309 26.3 6.2 0.2 309 0.0261 Wetland 29.3 6.1 0 216

Ocklawaha 2005 (DRAFT).doc 4 MACTEC

September 30, 2004 – Ocklawaha Prairie Laboratory Data

Color cpu

TSS

mg/L

Alkalinity mg/L

NOx-T mg/L

NH4-T

mg/L

Al-T ug/L

Al-D ug/L

Ca-T mg/L

Fe-T ug/L

Fe-D ug/L

Chl-a mg/m3

Chl-a_Corr mg/m3

Chl-b mg/m3

Chl-c mg/m3

Phaeo-Corr mg/m3

Chl a:Phaeo ratio

TP-T

mg/L

PO4-D

mg/L

TP-D

mg/L

Field Water Temp deg C

Field pH

Field DO mg/L

Field Conductivity umhos/cm

Field Phosphorus

Control-A 16 320 25 26.9 0.005 -0.009 119 17.6 8.58 3020 957 87.5 82.4 16.2 -1.1 8.5 1.6 2.13 0.919 1.26 27 5.8 1 103 0.45 Control-B 13 320 19 25.7 0.005 0.064 8.9 10.9 8.08 3680 1030 33.5 32.4 4.3 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.98 0.922 1.01 29.3 5.8 1 92.7 0.2 Control-C 14 320 21 29.7 0.004 -0.009 14.1 19.1 10 3520 1250 23.4 21.7 2.2 -0.2 6.8 1.5 1.06 0.901 1.85 28.2 5.9 1.2 92.7 0.68 FeR-A 55 640 61 36.6 0 0.046 24.9 18.8 14 24500 11000 51.6 44.7 10.2 9.3 6.7 1.6 2.21 0.488 0.422 28.7 6.2 0.2 144.2 0.44 FeR-B 38 400 54 32 0.006 0.004 9.6 8.7 10.7 11200 2900 53.1 50.6 9.7 3.7 16 1.5 1.18 0.162 0.208 25 6 0.4 82.4 0.18 FeR-C 32 720 38 32.1 0 0.004 31 471 13.2 20800 5910 35.4 33.7 6 6.6 10.7 1.5 1.13 0.212 0.245 26.7 6.2 1 103 0 BARA-A 8.5 20 5 0 0 -0.009 7970 8270 28.3 2370 1620 0.8 0.8 1.2 -0.7 1.5 1 0.048 0 0.033 30.2 3.8 2.8 566.5 0.1 BARA-B 6.9 25 8 0 0.003 -0.005 2440 2390 21.3 2230 1320 7.2 7.2 1.1 1 4.7 1.3 0.132 0.007 0.063 27.5 3.7 3 309 0.11 BARA-C 9 25 19 0 0 -0.009 2470 2080 21.2 2960 2110 5.3 5.3 2 1.3 1.7 1.5 0.159 0.009 0.03 29.5 3.6 1 206 0.01 GA-A 11 50 22 -0.82 0.022 0.008 179 134 19.9 1990 2120 159.1 155 37.3 -1.5 29.9 1.6 0.515 0.141 0.206 27.3 4.7 9.1 231.75 0.17 GA-B 16 120 7 0 0 -0.003 266 108 15.3 3530 2720 12.5 11.7 2.3 -0.9 1.3 1.6 0.858 0.514 0.566 26.1 4.9 0.8 123.6 0.41 GA-C 3.1 15 10 0 0 -0.009 4800 4310 31 1670 1060 17.6 15.9 6.5 0 1.5 1.6 0.156 0 0.028 29.5 3.6 6.9 339.9 0.01 AIR-A 9.4 320 18 28.8 0.004 0.012 108 141 8.1 2930 1480 48.4 45.9 7.7 1.3 7.3 1.6 0.888 0.322 0.376 28.4 5.7 0.6 72.1 0.1 AIR-B 9.5 280 17 31.4 0.005 0.01 112 63.2 9.84 4370 1830 43.8 40.8 5.3 1.1 9.9 1.5 1.08 0.422 0.512 27.2 5.8 1.5 82.4 0.33 AIR-C 7.6 240 13 35.5 0.001…