Attachment_5_NPS_Cruz_Bay_Mold_Assessment.pdf

S&ME, Inc. | 3201 Spring Forest Road | Raleigh, NC 27616 | p 919.872.2660 | www.smeinc.com

September 8, 2020

Croft and Associates

3400 Blue Springs Road

Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

Attention: Mr. Jeffrey Morgan, PE jmorgan@croftae.com

Reference: Report of Limited Mold Assessment

NPS VIIS Visitor Center

Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands

S&ME Project No. 4305-20-134

Dear Mr. Morgan:

S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) performed a limited mold assessment of the Cruz Bay Visitor’s Center, located at 1300 Cruz

Bay Creek, St. John, VI. The assessment was performed on August 18-19, 2020. This service was performed in general accordance with task order VIIS244623-CD-SME-02 – Mold/IAQ Services issued by Croft and Associates on August 11, 2020 and includes the project background, assessment procedures, our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

This report is provided for the sole use of Croft and Associates (Croft). Use of this report by any other parties will be at such party's sole risk, and S&ME, Inc. disclaims liability for any such use or reliance by third parties. The results presented in this report are indicative of conditions only during the time of the sampling period and of the specific areas referenced. This assessment was limited to a visual assessment and mold sampling in the referenced building, and is not considered a structural, mechanical, engineering or roofing assessment.

Background

Based on an email from Jeffrey Morgan and your subsequent telephone call to Chris Murray of S&ME on August

6, 2020, you requested S&ME perform a limited mold assessment at the Cruz Bay Visitor’s Center located at 1300

Cruz Bay Creek, St. John, VI. The purpose of the limited assessment was to determine if conditions are present that would adversely affect air quality. Based on the information provided by phone call and emails, we understand the following:

• Virgin Islands National Park was impacted by Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Severe damage was caused by the hurricane force winds, storm surge, tornadoes and the displacement of inanimate objects. The purpose of this project was to assess the repairs of damaged exterior & interior finishes, infrastructure exposed to salt spray, repairs of the existing docks and surrounding grounds.

• NPS requested a microbial investigation of interior spaces that show signs of potential mold growth;

however, mold remediation design is not included in this report and shall be as be provided as a Change

Order if requested.

Report of Limited Mold Assessment

NPS VIIS Visitor Center

Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands

S&ME Project No. 4305-20-134

September 8, 2020 2

Based on the information provided and our experience in conducting mold assessments, S&ME performed an assessment procedure, as described in the Scope of Service, to assess conditions inside the referenced area(s) with respect to indoor air quality associated with mold.

Methods

Visual Assessment

• S&ME performed a visual assessment of the referenced areas for the presence and location of visible mold and/or water-damaged materials. Evidence of potential microbial growth or moisture intrusion may include:

Musty odors

Discoloration

Visible mold growth

Standing water or condensation

Wet or damp building materials

Water stains or leaks

Rust on metal

Mineral deposits on concrete, plaster, or masonry surfaces

Photographs of representative conditions observed are provided as Attachment I.

Environmental Parameters

Temperature and relative humidity (RH) were measured using an electronic hygrometer. The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has established guidelines for selected indoor air quality parameters such as RH. The EPA recommends maintaining RH below 60 percent and ideally between 30-50 percent. Relative humidity levels above

60 percent may contribute to the growth of microorganisms, such as mold. A summary of the environmental parameter monitoring is provided in Table II-1 of Attachment II.

Airborne Mold Sampling

Airborne mold sampling was performed in twelve indoor locations of the referenced Visitor’s Center. Two additional samples were collected outdoors for comparison to indoor samples and a quality media blank sample was collected. Total airborne mold sampling provides a quick overview of airborne mold types (living, non-living and fragments). The spore trap method only identifies mold to the Genus level. Additionally, the spore trap method cannot distinguish from non-living mold and active mold growth or between Aspergillus and Penicillium type mold. The airborne mold sampling was performed by passing air through spore trap sample media (Air-O-

Cell™ cassettes and analyzed by light microscopy for total mold spores. The air samples were shipped to and analyzed by EMSL Analytical Laboratory, which is accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. The air sample results are reported in spores per cubic meter of air (s/m3). The laboratory results of the airborne mold sampling are summarized in Table II-1 in Attachment II and laboratory result reports are provided in

Attachment III.

September 8, 2020 3

Airborne microorganisms are ubiquitous; the presence of microorganisms is generally not of concern unless they are of a significant concentration or the predominant types found indoors differ from those found outdoors.

When indoor mold levels are significantly elevated or the predominant mold types vary significantly in relation to outdoor concentrations, they are considered to be amplified; therefore, indoor environmental conditions are such that their growth is facilitated. Mold amplification does not imply an unsafe condition but may indicate an indoor source of mold is present. Laboratory results should be reviewed in full.

Surface Mold Sampling

Surface samples were collected from representative areas (approximately one square inch) of visible mold growth to confirm the presence of mold. The samples were collected using the tape lift method and analyzed by direct microscopic examination. The samples were submitted to EMSL Analytical Laboratory, a laboratory accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. The results of the direct microscopic examination are reported in relative quantities as Rare, Low, Medium, or High for each mold type identified. The presence of some mold spores may be detected on many indoor surfaces when visible mold is not observed, as mold spores are ubiquitous. The laboratory results of the surface mold sampling are summarized in Attachment II and laboratory results are provided in Attachment III. Laboratory results should be reviewed in full.

Moisture

A Flir IX Series Infrared Camera was used to scan the areas of concern to detect the presence of potential moisture intrusion. Areas with suspected moisture impact were tested with a moisture meter to confirm any suspected moisture present. The moisture content (MC) of selected building materials was measured using a portable moisture meter (GE Protimeter MMS). According to the manufacturer’s manual, acceptable measurements for wood are less than 15 % MC, and measurements greater than 17 % MC are too wet for most applications.

Therefore, a reading above 15 % MC for wood and drywall indicates an elevated level of moisture and increased potential for mold growth.

Representative photographs of observed conditions are provided in Attachment I. The results of the mold sampling and environmental parameter monitoring are summarized in Table II-1 and Table II-2 of Attachment

II. Actual laboratory results are provided in Attachment III. Sample locations are shown in the Figures provide in

Attachment IV.

Results

Observations

Chris Murray of S&ME performed the assessment of the Cruz Bay Visitor’s Center. The visual assessment was performed of readily accessible interior areas as well as the exterior perimeter of the building to look for the presence and location of visible mold and/or water damaged materials. The weather conditions were sunny and mild on the day of the assessment. NPS personnel were intermittently present at the time of the assessment and sampling. The following observations and representative photographic references are provided as follows:

September 8, 2020 4

• The building is a two-story building block and stucco veneer building constructed on a slab with a pitched roof. Interior finishes include gypsum board, vinyl floor tiles, ceramic floor tiles, and suspended ceiling tiles. The building contains offices, conference rooms, restrooms, showers, gift shop and law enforcement. The air-handling units (AHUs) for the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system are located in the attic and in corridor closets with compressors located outdoors. The HVAC system on the second floor has ducted returns and a plenum return on the first floor.

• A visual assessment of assessible spaces on first and second floors of the Visitor Center identified areas of prior and ongoing moisture intrusion on ceiling tiles, walls, and in light fixtures.

• The sources of intrusion are varied; voids above ceilings are hot and humid forming condensation on piping and HVAC ductwork. A ridge vent was also damaged during storm allowing rainwater into the attic and onto areas on the second floor.

• Suspect, visible mold growth were noted in four locations on drywall: 1) First floor mechanical room in corridor, 2) mechanical room in Law Enforcement, 3) rear wall of supply closet (stock for Gift Shop), and 4) office that shares wall with supply closet (see photos 1, 2 and 3). Surface Samples No. NPS USVI - 01 and

02 were collected at the first-floor mechanical room in the corridor and along the rear wall of the supply closet, location. Approximately 250 – 300 square feet of drywall was impacted requiring remediation.

• Suspect visible mold was also present on the ceramic tile in the shower of the Men’s Restroom on the first floor (near Law Enforcement). The source of moisture appears to originate from the AHU in the Law

Enforcement mechanical room. The AHU reportedly had a condensate drain issue which has since been repaired (see photos 8 – 13). Surface Sample No. NPS USVI – 04 was collected at this location.

Approximately 100 – 150 square of the ceramic in the shower was impacted requiring remediation.

• Visible suspect mold growth was observed on supply diffusers throughout the building and rust, due to high levels of humidity for extended periods of time, was observed on ceiling tile grids, above ceiling on fluorescent light fixtures, on metal cabinets, on air returns windows (see photo 4). Surface Sample No. NPS

USVI – 03 was collected from diffuser in the copier room on the 2nd floor as representative of this condition throughout. Approximately 250 – 300 square feet of ceiling tiles, 80-100 air supply diffusers and returns were impacted requiring remediation.

• Areas of suspect visible mold and water damage, and locations of surface and airborne mold sample locations are shown on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix IV.

• Limited damaged drywall under windows due to water intrusion in guest area/gift shop.

• Some duct returns on the second floor were found to be disconnected above the ceiling, allowing hot and moist air into the AHU system.

• A visual assessment of exterior surfaces identified deteriorated gutters and downspouts which allow rainwater to overflow and potentially infiltrate the building envelope (see photo 5).

Environmental Parameters

The RH in the building ranged from 66.6 - 76.4 percent and was slightly below the outdoors (79.2 percent) on the days of the assessment.

The indoor RH consistently exceeded 60 percent on the days of the assessment and could contribute to existing mold growth.

September 8, 2020 5

Carbon Dioxide measurements provide an indication of the effectiveness of the HVAC system in controlling typical bioeffluents, odors and contaminants but were not collected due to the low occupancy of the building.

Airborne Mold Sampling

Airborne mold concentrations in the breakroom, storage room conference room, stairwell, supply specialist office, gift shop, supply room, men’s restroom/shower, and special assistant office did appear amplified when compared to the outdoor sample average. The Aspergillus/Penicillium, Cladosporium, Ascospores and Stachybotrys type mold concentrations were generally higher in the reference areas samples although the overall mold spore concentrations were lower than outdoors in all samples. These type of molds are common mold types typically associated with water damaged building materials when found as a predominant mold type in the indoor environment.

Hyphal fragments were identified in the Stairwell, Interpretation Office, and Law Enforcement air samples which could indicate active fungal growth.

Surface Mold Sampling

The result of the surface mold sample collected in the mechanical room on the sheetrock (Sample No. NPS USVI-

01) was reported by the analytical laboratory as High relative amounts of Stachybotrys and Penicillium type mold.

Indicators of active mold growth, such as hyphae or fruiting bodies, were reported by the laboratory.

The result of the surface mold sample collected in the supply closet on the sheetrock (Sample No. NPS USVI-02) was reported by the analytical laboratory as High relative amounts of Cladosporium type mold. Indicators of active mold growth, such as hyphae or fruiting bodies, were reported by the laboratory.

The result of the surface mold sample collected on the supply diffuser located on the second floor in the copier room (Sample No. NPS USVI-03) was reported by the analytical laboratory as High relative amounts of

Cladosporium type mold. Indicators of active mold growth, such as hyphae or fruiting bodies, were reported by the laboratory.

The result of the surface mold sample collected in the 1st floor men’s restroom/shower (Sample No. NPS USVI-01) was reported by the analytical laboratory as High relative amounts of Cladosporium type mold. Indicators of active mold growth, such as hyphae or fruiting bodies, were reported by the laboratory.

Moisture Testing

Areas of suspect mold growth and water damage were scanned with a FLIR Infrared Camera to determine if any areas were still “wet.” IR works best on water damaged areas that are actively wet or are being wetted. Only two areas were showing active water intrusion – the men’s shower and the break room.

The same areas were sampled with a pin type moisture meter and wood moisture equivalent readings that were within the acceptable range were detected which indicates that moisture occurred previously, and the areas are dry or drying.

September 8, 2020 6

During visual assessment, temperature and humidity readings were collected in each space. Temperatures ranged from middle 70s degrees Fahrenheit. RH% ranged from the middle to upper 60s degrees Fahrenheit. The humidity readings exceed the recommended American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) standard (ASHRAE 62) for office environments and create conditions that are conducive to fungal growth.

Conclusions

The results of the assessment indicate various areas of visible mold are present. Surface sampling confirmed the presence of mold growth on interior walls and indoor airborne mold concentrations were amplified when compared to respective outdoor concentrations. The mold appears to be caused by a variety of reasons: 1) By water intrusion from the exterior of the building. Water accumulation adjacent to the building foundation from missing guttering downspouts appear to be a potential source for water intrusion. 2) Elevated relative humidity due to inadequate control by the HVAC system. 3) Wind driven rain from storms/hurricanes over the years have damaged the building façade and roof creating opportunities for water intrusion.

Recommendations

The following specific recommendations are provided:

• Develop mold remediation design to address areas of mold and water damage/intrusion; areas items to include in mold remediation are detailed below:

1. Remediate areas of visible mold growth in mechanical rooms, supply room and office adjacent to supply room where visible mold was identified.

2. Unless replaced, and if desired, air ducts and air handlers should be remediated according the

National Air Duct Cleaners Association (NADCA) 2016 Assessment, Cleaning and Restoration (ACR) of

HVAC Systems standard; using a contractor trained and qualified in the application of that standard.

A. Include the cleaning or replacing of supply diffusers throughout the building and replace flexible duct connectors.

B. Perform cleaning of air handlers as recommended by the manufacturer of the units.

3. Water damaged ceiling tiles and light fixtures should be replaced. Portions of the suspended ceiling grid were rusted and should be replaced as well.

• Mold remediation should be performed by a qualified mold remediation contractor in accordance with the guidelines provided by the EPA document, Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings

(EPA402-K-01-001, dated September 2001), available at www.epa.gov.

• Materials that may be disturbed during mold remediation were not tested for the presence of asbestos as part of this assessment. Materials that may contain asbestos should be tested for the presence of asbestos prior to disturbance of any kind.

http://www.epa.gov/

September 8, 2020 7

• Evaluate humidity controls for building and ensure HVAC system maintains the RH below 60 percent and ideally below 50 percent throughout the year.

• Repair/replace rusted and deteriorated gutters and downspouts. To ensure water is directed away from the foundation of the building.

The following general recommendations are provided to assist in the prevention of indoor mold growth:

• Repair plumbing leaks, mechanical system leaks and roof leaks in the building envelope as soon as possible,

• Perform periodic inspection for leaks, condensation, wet spots, or other indications of water intrusion, and fix the source as soon as possible,

• Water stained ceiling tiles should be investigated and the source of the water repaired immediately.

Water stained ceiling tiles should be replaced to prevent possible mold growth,

• Prevent condensation by proper insulation, increasing air circulation in problem areas, and dehumidification if necessary,

• Visible dust accumulation located on ceiling mounted HVAC supply diffusers should be periodically removed and cleaned (e.g. vacuumed) to prevent the growth of mold. Condensation and dust accumulation provide an excellent growth medium for molds,

• Routinely inspect and maintain ventilation components. Place special emphasis on drip pans, coils, condensate lines, filters and other moisture contact areas, as well as the accessible areas of ductwork interiors. Supply air diffusers with visible dust or mold should be periodically cleaned.

• Maintain indoor RH levels between 30 and 60% (ideally less than 50%), and

• Clean and thoroughly dry building materials within 24-48 hours of moisture contact to prevent mold growth. This includes replacement of water impacted ceiling tiles.

Remediation Probable Cost Estimate

Any opinions of probable project cost or probable construction cost provided by consultant are made on the basis of information available to consultant and on the basis of consultant 's experience and qualifications and represents its judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer. However, since consultant has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the contractor(s') methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, consultant does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual project or construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable cost consultant prepares.

Item 1: Probable Cost estimate for Remediation Design developed by an experienced Certified Industrial

Hygienist - $7,500 - $9,500.

Item 2: Remediation Project Management by an experienced Certified Industrial Hygienist - $5,000 - $7,000.

https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/opinions-of-probable-cost-cost-estimates

September 8, 2020 8

Item 3: Our cost estimate for mold remediation is based upon mold remediation being performed by a qualified mold remediation contractor in accordance with the guidelines provided by the EPA document, Mold

Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings (EPA402-K-01-001, dated September 2001). A remediation plan has not yet been developed which could alter the scope of work but based upon the current findings described previously in this report we anticipate the following elements are part of the remediation design:

• Remediate areas of visible mold growth in mechanical rooms, supply room and office adjacent to supply room where visible mold was identified. Approximately 250 – 300 square feet of drywall was impacted requiring remediation.

• Demolish portion of the shower in the men’s rest room on the 1st floor and remediation any mold or water impacted materials within the cavity. Approximately 100 – 150 square of the ceramic tile in the shower was impacted requiring remediation.

• Air ducts and air handlers should be remediated according the National Air Duct Cleaners Association

(NADCA) 2016 Assessment, Cleaning and Restoration (ACR) of HVAC Systems standard; using a contractor trained and qualified in the application of that standard.

-Include the cleaning or replacing of supply diffusers throughout the building and replace flexible duct connectors.

-Perform cleaning of air handlers as recommended by the manufacturer of the units.

• Water damaged ceiling tiles and light fixtures should be replaced. Portions of the suspended ceiling grid were rusted and should be replaced as well. Approximately 250 – 300 square feet of ceiling tiles, 80-100 air supply diffusers and returns were impacted requiring remediation.

• Clean all surfaces within the approximately 10,000 square foot building with an EPA approved microbial disinfectant.

Based on this anticipated scope of work we estimate the probable remediation cost to range from $54,000 to

$96,000.

Item 4: Post Remediation Assessment – performed by an experienced Certified Industrial Hygienist - $9,500 - $11, 500.

The total estimate cost for remediation of the NPS Cruz Bay Visitor’s Center is $76,000 - $124,000. This estimate does not include any cost for any reconstruction that is required following remediation.

September 8, 2020 9

Limitations

S&ME is not aware of reputable information that would allow us to determine whether or not the results of our testing indicate the presence or absence of a health risk from mold. In fact, reputable sources indicate that it is not possible to determine "safe" or "unsafe" levels of exposure for people in general. Therefore, consultation with an appropriately qualified medical professional may be necessary.

We are unaware of regulatory requirements at this time pertaining to mold and mold associated with indoor air quality, only guidelines. There are recognized guidelines for mold remediation from the EPA, the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

(ACGIH).

Microbial testing as a part of this report included testing and analysis for some biological agents commonly present in indoor air. It did not include testing and analysis for all known biological agents. Testing for biological contaminants does not include viruses or bacteria, unless specifically noted otherwise, and then only those viruses and bacteria specified.

S&ME performed the services in accordance with generally accepted practices of reputable environmental consultants undertaking similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area. S&ME has endeavored to meet this standard of care. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made with respect to this report or S&ME’s services. Users of this report should consider the scope and limitations related to these services when developing opinions as to risks associated with the site.

Closing

S&ME appreciates this opportunity to provide our industrial hygiene services. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us to discuss.

Sincerely, S&ME, Inc.

Christopher B. Murray, CIH, CSP Kenneth Warren, CIH

Principal Industrial Hygienist Vice President/Principal Industrial Hygienist

Attachments

Attachments

Attachment I – Representative Photographs

Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands

September 8, 2020 i

D a te

/1

/2

P h o to g ra p h e r:

C B

M

Location / Orientation Visible mold growth – 1st Floor Mechanical Room

Remarks NPS Cruz Bay Visitors Center te

/1

/2 o to g ra p h e r:

C

Location / Orientation Visible mold growth – 1st Floor Supply Closet

Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands

September 8, 2020 ii te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Location / Orientation Visible mold growth- Special Asst. To Super.

te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Location / Orientation Typical water damage/staining throughout

Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands

September 8, 2020 iii te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Location /

Orientation Deteriorated downspout - Typical te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Location / Orientation IR Image of Water Intrusion – Break room 2nd Floor

Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands

September 8, 2020 iv te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Location / Orientation Image of Water Intrusion – Break room 2nd Floor te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Location / Orientation IR Image of Water Intrusion – Shower 1st Floor

Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands

September 8, 2020 v te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands

September 8, 2020 vi te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Location / Orientation Water Intrusion – Shower 1st Floor te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Cruz Bay, St. John, US Virgin Islands

September 8, 2020 vii te

/1 /2 o to g ra p h

Location / Orientation Water Intrusion – Shower 1st Floor

Attachment II– Summary of Results

Table 1 Summary of Airborne Mold Sampling Results

Sample No. Location Temp

(Fo)

RH

Total Count

(counts/m3)

Predominant Mold Type

(counts/m3)

3076 9599 Media Blank --- --- No Trace

3076 9554 Breakroom – 2nd Floor 77.1 66.6 700

Basidiospores (400)

Aspergillus/Penicillium (200)

Cladosporium (100)

3076 9597 Storage Room (Balcony)

2nd Floor

76.9 70.8 480

Basidiospores (300)

3076 9781 Conference Room – 2nd

Floor

77.6 67.6 520

Aspergillus/Penicillium (100)

3076 9589 Stairwell – 2nd Floor landing

76.4 67.8 540

Basidiospores (300)

Ascospores (100)

3076 9661 Supply Specialist – 2nd

Floor

75.8 64.9 300

Basidiospores (100)

Cladosporium (200)

3076 9535 Office – 2nd Floor 76.3 71.9 140

3076 9600 Gift Shop – 1st Floor 79.9 76.4 440

Aspergillus/Penicillium (100)

Cladosporium (200)

3076 9556 Supply Room – 1st Floor 78.9 69.8 320

Aspergillus/Penicillium (200)

Basidiospores (80)

3076 9591 Men’s RR and Shower –

1st Floor

76.9 70.4 170

Aspergillus/Penicillium (80)

Basidiospores (40)

Stachybotrys (40)

3076 9662

Special Assist to

Superintendent – 1st

Floor

78.9 68.5 510 Aspergillus/Penicillium (420)

3076 9542 Interpretation Office 79.1 67.4 10 Hyphal Fragment (40)

3076 9584 Law Enforcement 76.9 70.4 470

Hyphal Fragment (40)

3076 9539 Outside 1 82 79.2 870

Basidiospores (630)

Ascospores (100)

3076 9555 Outside 2 --- --- 620

Basidiospores (420)

Aspergillus/Penicillium (80)

Cladosporium (80)

*Note: The predominant types listed above are not the entire list of identified mold types. For a complete list of identified mold types, please refer to Attachment II of this report for the complete laboratory results.

Fo = degrees Fahrenheit RH = Relative Humidity Temp = Temperature counts/m3 = mold spore counts per cubic meter of air

Table 2 Summary of Surface Mold Sampling Results

Sample No. Location Category* Mold Type

NPS USVI-01

Mechanical Room – 1st Floor

Sheetrock

High

High

High

Stachybotrys/Memnoniella

Penicillium/Talaromyces

Hyphal Fragment

NPS USVI-02 Supply Closet High

High

Cladosporium

Hyphal Fragment

NPS USVI-03

Diffuser Near Copier – 2nd

Floor

High

Medium

High

Cladosporium

Acremonium-like

Hyphal Fragment

NPS USVI-04

Men’s RR and Shower – 1st

Floor

High

High

Cladosporium

Hyphal Fragment

*Note: Mold spore count per square inch:

Rare = 1-10 Low = 11-100 Medium = 101-1000 High = >1000

Attachment III – Laboratory Results http://www.EMSL.com / raleighlab@emsl.com

Tel/Fax: (919) 465-3900 / (919) 465-3950

2500 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 600 Morrisville, NC 27560

EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 292008684

Customer ID: SMEI60

Customer PO: 43052013

Project ID:

Chris MurrayAttention: Phone: (919) 872-2660

S&ME, Inc. Fax: (919) 790-9827

3201 Spring Forest Road Collected Date: 08/18/2020

Raleigh, NC 27616 Received Date: 08/21/2020 11:21 AM

Analyzed Date: 08/24/2020

Project: NPS VIIS 244623 - Cruz Bay Vis

Test Report:Air-O-Cell(™) Analysis of Fungal Spores & Particulates by Optical Microscopy (Methods MICRO-SOP-201, ASTM D7391)

Lab Sample Number:

Client Sample ID:

Volume (L):

Sample Location:

292008684-0001

30769599

292008684-0002

30769554

292008684-0003

30769597

Blank Breakroom Storage Room

Spore Types Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total

Alternaria (Ulocladium) - - - - - - - - -

Ascospores - - - - - - 1 40 8.3

Aspergillus/Penicillium - - - 4 200 28.6 1 40 8.3

Basidiospores - - - 9 400 57.1 6 300 62.5

Bipolaris++ - - - - - - - - -

Chaetomium - - - - - - - - -

Cladosporium - - - 3 100 14.3 3 100 20.8

Curvularia - - - - - - - - -

Epicoccum - - - - - - - - -

Fusarium - - - - - - - - -

Ganoderma - - - - - - - - -

Myxomycetes++ - - - - - - - - -

Pithomyces++ - - - - - - - - -

Rust - - - - - - - - -

Scopulariopsis/Microascus - - - - - - - - -

Stachybotrys/Memnoniella - - - - - - - - -

Unidentifiable Spores - - - - - - - - -

Zygomycetes - - - - - - - - -

Nigrospora - - - - - - - - -

Total Fungi - No Trace - 16 700 100 11 480 100

Hyphal Fragment - - - - - - - - -

Insect Fragment - - - - - - 1 40 -

Pollen - - - - - - - - -

Analyt. Sensitivity 600x - 0 - - 42 - - 42 -

Analyt. Sensitivity 300x - 0* - - 13* - - 13* -

Skin Fragments (1-4) - - - - 2 - - 2 -

Fibrous Particulate (1-4) - - - - - - - 1 -

Background (1-5) - - - - 1 - - 1 -

++ Includes other spores with similar morphology; see EMSL's fungal glossary for each specific category.

Alan Goldstein, Ph.D., Laboratory Manager or other Approved Signatory

EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report relates only to the samples reported above, and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. The report reflects the samples as received. Results are generated from the field sampling data (sampling volumes and areas, locations, etc.) provided by the client on the Chain of Custody. Samples are within quality control criteria and met method specifications unless otherwise noted. High levels of background particulate can obscure spores and other particulates, leading to underestimation. Background levels of 5 indicate an overloading of background particulates, prohibiting accurate detection and quantification. Present = Spores detected on overloaded samples. Results are not blank corrected unless otherwise noted. The detection limit is equal to one fungal spore, structure, pollen, fiber particle or insect fragment. "*" Denotes particles found at 300X. "-" Denotes not detected. Due to method stopping rules, raw counts in excess of 100 are extrapolated based on the percentage analyzed.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Morrisville, NC AIHA-LAP, LLC--EMLAP Lab 173741

Initial report from: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM

For information on the fungi listed in this report, please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com

MIC_M001_0002_0002 Printed: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM Page 1 of 5

2500 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 600 Morrisville, NC 27560

EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 292008684

Customer ID: SMEI60

Customer PO: 43052013

Project ID:

Chris MurrayAttention: Phone: (919) 872-2660

S&ME, Inc. Fax: (919) 790-9827

3201 Spring Forest Road Collected Date: 08/18/2020

Raleigh, NC 27616 Received Date: 08/21/2020 11:21 AM

Analyzed Date: 08/24/2020

Project: NPS VIIS 244623 - Cruz Bay Vis

Test Report:Air-O-Cell(™) Analysis of Fungal Spores & Particulates by Optical Microscopy (Methods MICRO-SOP-201, ASTM D7391)

Lab Sample Number:

Client Sample ID:

Volume (L):

Sample Location:

292008684-0004

30769781

292008684-0005

30769589

292008684-0006

30769661

Conference Room Stairwell - 2nd Supply Specialist

Spore Types Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total

Alternaria (Ulocladium) - - - - - - - - -

Ascospores - - - 3 100 18.5 - - -

Aspergillus/Penicillium 3 100 19.2 1 40 7.4 - - -

Basidiospores 6 300 57.7 6 300 55.6 3 100 33.3

Bipolaris++ - - - - - - - - -

Chaetomium - - - - - - - - -

Cladosporium 2 80 15.4 3 100 18.5 5 200 66.7

Curvularia - - - - - - - - -

Epicoccum - - - - - - - - -

Fusarium - - - - - - - - -

Ganoderma - - - - - - - - -

Myxomycetes++ - - - - - - - - -

Pithomyces++ 1 40 7.7 - - - - - -

Rust - - - - - - - - -

Scopulariopsis/Microascus - - - - - - - - -

Stachybotrys/Memnoniella - - - - - - - - -

Unidentifiable Spores - - - - - - - - -

Zygomycetes - - - - - - - - -

Nigrospora - - - - - - - - -

Total Fungi 12 520 100 13 540 100 8 300 100

Hyphal Fragment - - - 1* 10* - - - -

Insect Fragment 1 40 - - - - - - -

Pollen - - - - - - - - -

Analyt. Sensitivity 600x - 42 - - 42 - - 42 -

Analyt. Sensitivity 300x - 13* - - 13* - - 13* -

Skin Fragments (1-4) - 2 - - 2 - - 2 -

Fibrous Particulate (1-4) - 1 - - 1 - - - -

Background (1-5) - 1 - - 1 - - 1 -

++ Includes other spores with similar morphology; see EMSL's fungal glossary for each specific category.

Alan Goldstein, Ph.D., Laboratory Manager or other Approved Signatory

EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report relates only to the samples reported above, and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. The report reflects the samples as received. Results are generated from the field sampling data (sampling volumes and areas, locations, etc.) provided by the client on the Chain of Custody. Samples are within quality control criteria and met method specifications unless otherwise noted. High levels of background particulate can obscure spores and other particulates, leading to underestimation. Background levels of 5 indicate an overloading of background particulates, prohibiting accurate detection and quantification. Present = Spores detected on overloaded samples. Results are not blank corrected unless otherwise noted. The detection limit is equal to one fungal spore, structure, pollen, fiber particle or insect fragment. "*" Denotes particles found at 300X. "-" Denotes not detected. Due to method stopping rules, raw counts in excess of 100 are extrapolated based on the percentage analyzed.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Morrisville, NC AIHA-LAP, LLC--EMLAP Lab 173741

Initial report from: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM

For information on the fungi listed in this report, please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com

MIC_M001_0002_0002 Printed: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM Page 2 of 5

2500 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 600 Morrisville, NC 27560

EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 292008684

Customer ID: SMEI60

Customer PO: 43052013

Project ID:

Chris MurrayAttention: Phone: (919) 872-2660

S&ME, Inc. Fax: (919) 790-9827

3201 Spring Forest Road Collected Date: 08/18/2020

Raleigh, NC 27616 Received Date: 08/21/2020 11:21 AM

Analyzed Date: 08/24/2020

Project: NPS VIIS 244623 - Cruz Bay Vis

Test Report:Air-O-Cell(™) Analysis of Fungal Spores & Particulates by Optical Microscopy (Methods MICRO-SOP-201, ASTM D7391)

Lab Sample Number:

Client Sample ID:

Volume (L):

Sample Location:

292008684-0007

30769535

292008684-0008

30769600

292008684-0009

30769556

Office Gift Shop Supply Room

Spore Types Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total

Alternaria (Ulocladium) - - - - - - - - -

Ascospores 1 40 28.6 3 100 22.7 - - -

Aspergillus/Penicillium - - - 1 40 9.1 5 200 62.5

Basidiospores 3 100 71.4 3 100 22.7 2 80 25

Bipolaris++ - - - - - - - - -

Chaetomium - - - - - - - - -

Cladosporium - - - 4 200 45.5 1 40 12.5

Curvularia - - - - - - - - -

Epicoccum - - - - - - - - -

Fusarium - - - - - - - - -

Ganoderma - - - - - - - - -

Myxomycetes++ - - - - - - - - -

Pithomyces++ - - - - - - - - -

Rust - - - - - - - - -

Scopulariopsis/Microascus - - - - - - - - -

Stachybotrys/Memnoniella - - - - - - - - -

Unidentifiable Spores - - - - - - - - -

Zygomycetes - - - - - - - - -

Nigrospora - - - - - - - - -

Total Fungi 4 140 100 11 440 100 8 320 100

Hyphal Fragment - - - - - - - - -

Insect Fragment 1 40 - - - - - - -

Pollen - - - - - - - - -

Analyt. Sensitivity 600x - 42 - - 42 - - 42 -

Analyt. Sensitivity 300x - 13* - - 13* - - 13* -

Skin Fragments (1-4) - 2 - - 2 - - 2 -

Fibrous Particulate (1-4) - 1 - - 1 - - 1 -

Background (1-5) - 1 - - 2 - - 1 -

++ Includes other spores with similar morphology; see EMSL's fungal glossary for each specific category.

Alan Goldstein, Ph.D., Laboratory Manager or other Approved Signatory

EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report relates only to the samples reported above, and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. The report reflects the samples as received. Results are generated from the field sampling data (sampling volumes and areas, locations, etc.) provided by the client on the Chain of Custody. Samples are within quality control criteria and met method specifications unless otherwise noted. High levels of background particulate can obscure spores and other particulates, leading to underestimation. Background levels of 5 indicate an overloading of background particulates, prohibiting accurate detection and quantification. Present = Spores detected on overloaded samples. Results are not blank corrected unless otherwise noted. The detection limit is equal to one fungal spore, structure, pollen, fiber particle or insect fragment. "*" Denotes particles found at 300X. "-" Denotes not detected. Due to method stopping rules, raw counts in excess of 100 are extrapolated based on the percentage analyzed.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Morrisville, NC AIHA-LAP, LLC--EMLAP Lab 173741

Initial report from: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM

For information on the fungi listed in this report, please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com

MIC_M001_0002_0002 Printed: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM Page 3 of 5

2500 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 600 Morrisville, NC 27560

EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 292008684

Customer ID: SMEI60

Customer PO: 43052013

Project ID:

Chris MurrayAttention: Phone: (919) 872-2660

S&ME, Inc. Fax: (919) 790-9827

3201 Spring Forest Road Collected Date: 08/18/2020

Raleigh, NC 27616 Received Date: 08/21/2020 11:21 AM

Analyzed Date: 08/24/2020

Project: NPS VIIS 244623 - Cruz Bay Vis

Test Report:Air-O-Cell(™) Analysis of Fungal Spores & Particulates by Optical Microscopy (Methods MICRO-SOP-201, ASTM D7391)

Lab Sample Number:

Client Sample ID:

Volume (L):

Sample Location:

292008684-0010

30769591

292008684-0011

30769662

292008684-0012

30769542

Mens RR and Shower Special Asst. Interpretation Office

Spore Types Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total

Alternaria (Ulocladium) - - - - - - - - -

Ascospores - - - 1* 10* 2 - - -

Aspergillus/Penicillium 2 80 47.1 10 420 82.4 - - -

Basidiospores 1 40 23.5 1 40 7.8 - - -

Bipolaris++ - - - - - - - - -

Chaetomium - - - - - - - - -

Cladosporium 1* 10* 5.9 - - - - - -

Curvularia - - - - - - - - -

Epicoccum - - - - - - - - -

Fusarium - - - - - - - - -

Ganoderma - - - - - - - - -

Myxomycetes++ - - - 1 40 7.8 - - -

Pithomyces++ - - - - - - - - -

Rust - - - - - - - - -

Scopulariopsis/Microascus - - - - - - - - -

Stachybotrys/Memnoniella 1 40 23.5 - - - - - -

Unidentifiable Spores - - - - - - - - -

Zygomycetes - - - - - - - - -

Nigrospora - - - - - - 1* 10* 100

Total Fungi 5 170 100 13 510 100 1 10 100

Hyphal Fragment - - - - - - 1 40 -

Insect Fragment - - - - - - 1* 10* -

Pollen - - - - - - - - -

Analyt. Sensitivity 600x - 42 - - 42 - - 42 -

Analyt. Sensitivity 300x - 13* - - 13* - - 13* -

Skin Fragments (1-4) - 3 - - 2 - - 2 -

Fibrous Particulate (1-4) - - - - - - - - -

Background (1-5) - 1 - - 1 - - 1 -

++ Includes other spores with similar morphology; see EMSL's fungal glossary for each specific category.

Alan Goldstein, Ph.D., Laboratory Manager or other Approved Signatory

EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report relates only to the samples reported above, and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. The report reflects the samples as received. Results are generated from the field sampling data (sampling volumes and areas, locations, etc.) provided by the client on the Chain of Custody. Samples are within quality control criteria and met method specifications unless otherwise noted. High levels of background particulate can obscure spores and other particulates, leading to underestimation. Background levels of 5 indicate an overloading of background particulates, prohibiting accurate detection and quantification. Present = Spores detected on overloaded samples. Results are not blank corrected unless otherwise noted. The detection limit is equal to one fungal spore, structure, pollen, fiber particle or insect fragment. "*" Denotes particles found at 300X. "-" Denotes not detected. Due to method stopping rules, raw counts in excess of 100 are extrapolated based on the percentage analyzed.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Morrisville, NC AIHA-LAP, LLC--EMLAP Lab 173741

Initial report from: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM

For information on the fungi listed in this report, please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com

MIC_M001_0002_0002 Printed: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM Page 4 of 5

2500 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 600 Morrisville, NC 27560

EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 292008684

Customer ID: SMEI60

Customer PO: 43052013

Project ID:

Chris MurrayAttention: Phone: (919) 872-2660

S&ME, Inc. Fax: (919) 790-9827

3201 Spring Forest Road Collected Date: 08/18/2020

Raleigh, NC 27616 Received Date: 08/21/2020 11:21 AM

Analyzed Date: 08/24/2020

Project: NPS VIIS 244623 - Cruz Bay Vis

Test Report:Air-O-Cell(™) Analysis of Fungal Spores & Particulates by Optical Microscopy (Methods MICRO-SOP-201, ASTM D7391)

Lab Sample Number:

Client Sample ID:

Volume (L):

Sample Location:

292008684-0013

30769584

292008684-0014

30769539

292008684-0015

30769555

Law Enforcement Outside 1 Outside 2

Spore Types Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total Raw Count Count/M³ % of Total

Alternaria (Ulocladium) - - - - - - - - -

Ascospores - - - 3 100 11.5 1 40 6.5

Aspergillus/Penicillium - - - 1 40 4.6 2 80 12.9

Basidiospores 7 300 63.8 15 630 72.4 10 420 67.7

Bipolaris++ - - - - - - - - -

Chaetomium - - - - - - - - -

Cladosporium 2 80 17 3 100 11.5 2 80 12.9

Curvularia 1 40 8.5 - - - - - -

Epicoccum - - - - - - - - -

Fusarium - - - - - - - - -

Ganoderma - - - - - - - - -

Myxomycetes++ 1 40 8.5 - - - - - -

Pithomyces++ 1* 10* 2.1 - - - - - -

Rust - - - - - - - - -

Scopulariopsis/Microascus - - - - - - - - -

Stachybotrys/Memnoniella - - - - - - - - -

Unidentifiable Spores - - - - - - - - -

Zygomycetes - - - - - - - - -

Nigrospora - - - - - - - - -

Total Fungi 12 470 100 22 870 100 15 620 100

Hyphal Fragment 1 40 - - - - 1* 10* -

Insect Fragment - - - - - - - - -

Pollen - - - - - - - - -

Analyt. Sensitivity 600x - 42 - - 42 - - 42 -

Analyt. Sensitivity 300x - 13* - - 13* - - 13* -

Skin Fragments (1-4) - 2 - - 1 - - - -

Fibrous Particulate (1-4) - 1 - - - - - - -

Background (1-5) - 3 - - 2 - - 2 -

++ Includes other spores with similar morphology; see EMSL's fungal glossary for each specific category.

Alan Goldstein, Ph.D., Laboratory Manager or other Approved Signatory

EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report relates only to the samples reported above, and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. The report reflects the samples as received. Results are generated from the field sampling data (sampling volumes and areas, locations, etc.) provided by the client on the Chain of Custody. Samples are within quality control criteria and met method specifications unless otherwise noted. High levels of background particulate can obscure spores and other particulates, leading to underestimation. Background levels of 5 indicate an overloading of background particulates, prohibiting accurate detection and quantification. Present = Spores detected on overloaded samples. Results are not blank corrected unless otherwise noted. The detection limit is equal to one fungal spore, structure, pollen, fiber particle or insect fragment. "*" Denotes particles found at 300X. "-" Denotes not detected. Due to method stopping rules, raw counts in excess of 100 are extrapolated based on the percentage analyzed.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Morrisville, NC AIHA-LAP, LLC--EMLAP Lab 173741

Initial report from: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM

For information on the fungi listed in this report, please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com

MIC_M001_0002_0002 Printed: 08/24/2020 12:19 PM Page 5 of 5

OrderID: 292008684

OrderID: 292008684

2500 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 600 Morrisville, NC 27560

EMSL Analytical, Inc. EMSL Order: 292008699

Customer ID: SMEI60

Customer PO: 43052013

Project ID:

Attention: (919) 872-2660Phone: Chris Murray

S&ME, Inc. (919) 790-9827Fax:

3201 Spring Forest Road Collected Date: 08/18/2020

Raleigh, NC 27616 Received Date: 08/21/2020

Analyzed Date: 08/24/2020

Project: NPS VIIS 244623 - Cruz Bay Vis

Test Report: Microscopic Examination of Fungal Spores, Fungal Structures, Hyphae, and Other Particulates from Tape Samples (EMSL Method MICRO-SOP-200)

Lab Sample Number:

Client Sample ID:

Sample Location:

292008699-0001

NPS USVI-01

292008699-0002

NPS USVI-02

292008699-0003

NPS USVI-03

292008699-0004

NPS USVI-04

292008699-9901

Dummy

Mechanical Room - 1st Fl Supply Closet Diffuser - 2nd Fl Copier Mens RR and Shower Dummy

Spore Types Category Category Category Category -

Alternaria (Ulocladium) - - - - -

Ascospores - - - - -

Aspergillus/Penicillium - - - - -

Basidiospores - - - - -

Bipolaris++ - - - - -

Chaetomium - - - - -

Cladosporium - *High* *High* *High* -

Curvularia - - - - -

Epicoccum - - - - -

Fusarium - - - - -

Ganoderma - - - - -

Myxomycetes++ - - - - -

Pithomyces++ - - - - -

Rust - - - - -

Scopulariopsis/Microascus - - - - -

Stachybotrys/Memnoniella *High* - - - -

Unidentifiable Spores - - - - -

Zygomycetes - - - - -

Acremonium-like - - *Medium* - -

Penicillium/Talaromyces *High* - - - -

Hyphal Fragment High High High High -

Insect Fragment Rare - - - -

Pollen - - - - -

Fibrous Particulate Rare - Low - -

Category: Count/per area analyzed - Rare: 1 to 10 Low: 11 to 100 Medium: 101 to 1000 High: >1000

- Denotes Not Detected.

++ Includes other spores with similar morphology; see EMSL's fungal glossary for each specific category.

* = Sample contains fruiting structures and/or hyphae associated with the spores.

Alan Goldstein, Ph.D., Laboratory Manager or other Approved Signatory

No discernable field blank was submitted with this group of samples.

EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report relates only to the samples reported above and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. The report reflects the samples as received. Results are generated from the field sampling data (sampling volumes and areas, locations, etc.) provided by the client on the Chain of Custody. Samples are within quality control criteria and met method specifications unless otherwise noted.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. Morrisville, NC AIHA-LAP, LLC--EMLAP Accredited #173741

Initial report from: 08/24/2020 12:16 PM

For information on the fungi listed in this report, please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com

Page 1 of 1Test Report DEVER1-2.9.0 Printed 08/24/2020 12:16 PM

OrderID: 292008699

Attachment IV – Sample Locations (Figure)

Tape Lift Mold

Water Damage

Air Sample

Air Sample

Air Sample Outside

Air Sample Outside

Water Damage

Water Damage

Air Sample

Mold Water Damage

Tape Lift

Water Damage Water Damage

Air Sample

Water Damage

Tape Lift

Mold Water Damage

Air Sample

Mold Water Damage

Air Sample

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

9-10-20

4305-20-134

CR

UZ

BA

Y L

IM

ITE

D

MO

LD

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

NP

S V

IIS

VI

SIT

OR

CE

NT

ER

CR

UZ

BA

Y, ST

. JO

HN

, U S V

IRG

IN

IS

LA

ND

S

Dr aw ing Pa th:

C:

\U ser s\m ve rba nic

\D esk top \Re mo te

GIS

\43

-20

-13 4 N

PS

VI

IS

VS

Fi gu res \Sh ee t A

1.m xd pl ott ed by m ve rba nic

-10 -20

FIR

ST

FL

OO

R A

SS

ES

SM

EN

T

REFERENCE:

GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE COFT ASSOCIATES SHEET 2 OF 4 SUB SHEET

NO. A1010 PKG NO. VIIS 244623, CRUZ BAY VISITOR CENTER, VIRGIN ISLAND NATIONAL

PARK. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS

DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION,

UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.

NOT TO SCALE

Tape Lift

Air Sample

Mold Water Damage

Mold Water Damage

Mold

Air Sample

Water Damage Mold

Water Damage

Air Sample

Mold Water Damage Air Sample

Mold Water Damage

Mold Mold

Water Damage

Air Sample

Mold Water Damage

Air Sample

SCALE:

DATE:

PROJECT NUMBER

FIGURE NO.

9-10-20

4305-20-134

CR

UZ

BA

Y L

IM

ITE

D

MO

LD

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

NP

S V

IIS

VI

SIT

OR

CE

NT

ER

CR

UZ

BA

Y, ST

. JO

HN

, U S V

IRG

IN

IS

LA

ND

S

Dr aw ing Pa th:

C:

\U ser s\m ve rba nic

\D esk top \Re mo te

GIS

\43

-20

-13 4 N

PS

VI

IS

VS

Fi gu res \Sh ee t A

2.m xd pl ott ed by m ve rba nic

-10 -20

SE

CO

ND

FL

OO

R A

SS

ES

SM

EN

T

REFERENCE:

GIS BASE LAYERS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE COFT ASSOCIATES SHEET 3 OF 4 SUB SHEET

NO.…