|
WELCOME
Dr. Walt Schmidt
Welcome on behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection / Florida Geological
Survey, the Hydrogeology Consortium, and the Florida State University, and all those interested
in the conservation of Florida's Spring Resources. It's appropriate this workshop is being held in
Ocala, a city named for its springs.
When you read the diaries and accounts of explorers to Florida centuries ago, you find they
always talked about crossing wetlands and swamps. Think of how vast our wetlands once were. It
ain't so anymore. I'm reminded of a couple of quotes. Milton Berle said, "I just got wonderful
news from my real estate agent in Florida: they found land on my property." Or, you have all
heard, "I moved to Florida so I don't have to shovel water." Water was the enemy, but things are
changing.
It is a rare sequence of events that occur that can uplift what is normally plain, good natural
resource / scientific issues (that may excite us as the "choir") in need of funding support (without
political champions to carry the legislative load and message), to a level such as we have seen
these last two years. Indeed, the combined effect of a three-four year drought throughout the
state, along with the continued and relentless development of our lands by never-ending infra-
structure building and demands on our natural resources, has resulted in some of the most highly
placed elected officials in the state (our Governor and legislators), supporting many issues and
concerns regarding our freshwater spring resources. During the last several decades many of our
springs have suffered significant reductions in flow, and others have ceased to flow at all. In
recent years in direct response to lack of rainfall, numerous other spring flows have been greatly
reduced, and still others have again ceased to flow altogether. We are seeing water quality im-
pacts as well as quantity impacts. The environmental awareness of our public, and as a result our
elected officials, has resulted in many state and local programs being established to deal with
water quantity and quality of our aquifers. As you know, Florida is dominantly dependant on
groundwater: for our agricultural, industrial, mining, municipal, and private freshwater supplies
and even commercial bottled water suppliers. This makes our freshwater springs, even more
important, as kind of a "Miner's Canary" as we "mine" our groundwater, or as a "barometer" of
the dynamics of flow within our unseen, subsurface aquifers, of the impending changes in water
quality brought on by our land-use development, and changes of surface use / run-off, recharge,
etc. All of these things are impacting our groundwater resources.
As least as early as the 1880s, the FGS had been documenting hydrogeologic aspects of
Florida's springs. In the "First Report on the Geological Survey of Florida" State Geologist John
Kost reported our spring waters to contain "solutions of lime, alumina, and iron common to most
springs, with magnesia, soda, sulphur and potash occurring in a considerable number of them.
Iodine and bromine are contained more rarely." One hundred and thirty years ago, the geologic
community was reporting on the quality of spring water. The significant economic value of
Florida's springs was mentioned and their so-called "mineral waters" aspect for health purposes
was noted. The FGS and the USGS for over a century have collected various kinds of data and
published numerous reports over the years on springs.
In 1999, DEP Secretary David Struhs directed the formation of a multi-agency Florida Springs
Task Force to review our knowledge of our springs and to provide recommended strategies for
their protection. The Task Force consisted of representatives from one federal agency, three state
agencies, four water management districts, a state university, a regional planning council, the
business community, and private citizens. They met monthly for a year and listened to guest
speakers, and discussed conflicting environmental, social, and economic interests that exist in all
of our spring basins. One of the culminations of their efforts was the "Florida Springs Confer-
ence -Natural Gems-Troubled Waters" held in Gainesville, in February of 2000. Their final
report completed in November of 2000 was titled: "Florida's Springs, Strategies for Protection &
Restoration." They had numerous recommendations, outreach strategies, and funding strategies
suggested for the preservation and restoration of Florida's springs. Among those recommenda-
tions was the compilation of an update of the 1947 & 1977 Florida Geological Survey's Geologi-
cal Bulletin No. 31, titled: Springs ofFlorida. The Task Force also suggested many "research &
monitoring projects." Of which the first listed for the 2001-2002 FY goals was "delineating
recharge basins for Florida's first magnitude springs." This, it was considered, is essential for
effective springs' protection. Other topical issues identified were: assessment of major land uses
within each delineated spring recharge basin, collection of continuous discharge measurements,
collection of physical / chemical / biological monitoring programs to update the Bulletin 31
Report, determination of the types of sources of pollutants threatening the springs, assessment of
the biological health of the springs, and provision of supporting data for the annual "Florida
Springs Report Card."
Well, low and behold with the credibility of the esteemed Task Force, and the support of
Secretary Struhs, and Governor Bush supporting the Springs Initiative funding for FY 2001-02, it
passed the Legislature, with anticipated continuation next FY. The first years funding was forjust
under $2.5 million (a similar amount this coming FY is proposed). It included about 18 research
and monitoring projects, 5 education outreach projects, and 7 landowner assistance issues. Gary
Maddox, in DEP has been the facilitator of these projects. In addition, there is another Confer-
ence planned for February 2003 to again provide a forum to discuss the origins, conditions, and
protection of Florida's springs. Jim Stevenson can be contacted for info on this, and a "call for
abstracts" is on the DEP web site.
Other groups recently have also taken up the cause and furthered the need to better understand
our aquifer dynamics in the form of springs understanding. In 2001, the Florida Academy of
Sciences held a Springs Symposium during their annual meeting. Rick Copeland chaired and
MC'ed that meeting. And the Karst Waters Institute held a conference in Florida this past March
titled "Karst Frontiers: Florida and Related Environments." And of course we have the continu-
ing story of Everglades Restoration and the 300 proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells.
The largest ASR project ever undertaken in the world. -Florida Hydrogeology and our geo-
science contributions to the conservation of our natural resources, specifically groundwater, has
never been more visible!-
Three of our most significant needs to be addressed during this workshop are: (1) to compile
or develop appropriate procedures to better delineate the boundaries of spring basins or
"springsheds;" (2) to discuss and compile data and information on springs from all sources to
establish or propose a central database and inventory of these valuable resources; and (3) to
discuss how we currently go about protecting these features, what works, what doesn't, what can
we learn from our collective experiences, and can we make new recommendations that will result
in meaningful increases in protection? Are there ways to measure this?
Will Durant has said, "Civilization exists by geologic consent subject to change without no-
tice." He was referring to earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes-events over which we have no
control. For Florida we should modify his words: Florida exists by hydrogeologic consent subject
to our ability to understand our aquifers and to conserve them, because if we can't do that our
future development is going to be drastically hindered or curtailed completely.
We thank you for coming and participating. We need your wisdom and help as we go forward
and try to provide useful and accurate information to the decision makers, who will ultimately
implement management strategies to conserve these resources.
Time to roll up your sleeves and get to work.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
JimAnderson
FREAC/UCC 2200
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641
(850) 644-2883
janderson(admin.fsu.edu
Jon Arthur
Florida Geological Survey
903 W. Tennessee Street
Gunter Building
Tallahassee, FL 32304-7700
(850) 488-9380
Jonathan.Arthur@dep.state.fl.us
Fay Baird
Pandion Systems, Inc.
5200 NW 43rd St.
Suite 102-314
Gainesville, FL 32606
(352) 372-4747
fbaird@pandionsystems.com
Alan Baker
Florida Geological Survey
903 W. Tennessee Street
MS 720
Gunter Building
Tallahassee, FL 32304-7700
(850) 488-9380
Alan.Baker@,dep.state.fl.us
Robert Beck
Florida DEP
Bureau of Surveying and Mapping
3800 Commonwealth Blvd.
Mail Station 105
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 488-2427
Bob.Beck(,dep.state.fl.us
Paul Booher, P.E.
Florida Department of Health
Division of Environmental Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way
Bin #A08
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1713
(850) 245-4070
paul booker@doh.state.fl.us
Mickey D. Bryant
Florida DEP
Division of Recreation and Parks
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32309
(850) 488-8666
Mickey.Bryant@dep.state.fl.us
John Bums
Director/Research Scientist
Cyanolab
205 Zeagler Dr.
Suite 302
Palatka, FL 32177
(386) 328-0882
James Cichon
Florida Geological Survey
903 W. Tennessee Street
Gunter Building
Tallahassee, FL 32304-7700
(850) 488-4191
James.Cichon@dep.state.fl.us.
David Clowes, P.G.
Florida DEP
Phosphate Management
8407 Laurel Fair Circle
Tampa, FL 33610
(813) 744-6100 x139
David.Clowes(@dep.state.fl.us
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
Alexandra Collazos
7721 Arbordale Drive
Port Richey, FL 34668
(727) 457-7925
collazos@pbworld.com
Rick Copeland
Florida Geological Survey
903 W. Tennessee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32304-7700
(850) 488-9380
Rick.Copeland@dep.state.fl.us
Lou Cross
FREAC/UCC 2200
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641
(850) 644-7362
lcross@admin.fsu.edu
Hal Davis
U.S. Geological Survey
Suite 3015
227 N. Bronough Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 942-9500 x3038
hdavis@usgs.gov
Bruce Day
Richard Deadman
Department of Community Affairs
Tallahassee, FL
(850) 922-1770
richard.deadman@dca.state.fl.us
Eric DeHaven
SWFWMD
Water Quality Monitoring Program Manager
7601 Hwy 301 N
Tampa, FL 33637
(813) 985-7481 x2118
eric.dehaven@swfwmd.state.fl.us
Anil Desai
Florida DEP
3319 Maguire Blvd., #232
Orlando, FL 32803
(407) 893-3305
Anil.Desai@dep.state.fl.us
John Ferlong
8659 NW 181st Place
Reddick, FL 32686
furlong@yahoo.com
Linda Garvin
Florida Dept. of Agriculture
Office ofAgricultural Water Policy
c/o SWFWMD
7601 Highway 301 N
Tampa, FL 33637-6759
(813) 985-7481 x2125
lynda.powell@swfwmd.state.fl
Charles Gauthier, AICP
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
Charles.Gauthier@dca.state.fl.us
Andrew Giddens
FDEP/Division of Law Enforcement
10247 N. Suncoast Blvd.
Crystal River, FL 34428
(352) 447-1633 x103
Andrew.giddens@dep.state.fl.us
Steve Gordon
Nick Miller, Inc.
2560 RCA Blvd., Suite 105
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
(561) 627-5200
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
Tom Greenhalgh
Florida Geological Survey
903 W. Tennessee Street
MS 720
Gunter Bldg.
Tallahassee, FL 32304-7700
Tom.ereenhalehc(,dep.state.fl
Patricia Harden
174 Wekiva Park Drive
Sanford, FL 32771
(407) 323-5678
Pat4fla@aol.com
Debra Harrington
Florida DEP Ground Water Protection
2600 Blairstone Rd.
Mail Stop 3575
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 921-9399
Debra.Harrington@dep.state.fl.us
Greg Henderson
Florida DEP
Bureau of Mine Reclamation
2051 E. Paul Dirac Drive
Collins Bldg. IP
Tallahassee, FL 32310
(850) 413-8192 x15
greg.l.henderson(a)den.state.fl.us
David Homsby
SRWMD
9225 CR 49
Live Oak, FL 32060
Homsby d@srwmd.state.fl.us
Marie Ingram
Healthy Vision Enterprises, Inc.
2173 51st Street
Naples, FL 34116
(239) 455-3180
ravensoortal(&,earthlink.net
Tom Jackson
Southwest FL Water Management District
602 Buena Vista Street
Lakeland, FL 33805
tom.iackson(&swfwmd.state.fl.us
Joyner, Jennifer
Institute of Marine Science
3431 Arendell St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
(252) 726-6841
jendro(@email.unc.edu
Parker Keen
Cargill Fertilizer
8813 Hwy 41 South
Riverview, FL 33569
(813) 671-6349
Parker Keen@cargill.com
Todd Kincaid
Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc.
204 S. 7t Street
Akron, PA 17501
(717) 859-1413
kincaid@,hazlett-kincaid.com
Amy Knight
Florida Natural Areas Inventory
1018 Thomasville Road
Suite 200-C
Tallahassee, FL 32303-6374
(850) 224-8207 x214
aknight@fnai.org
Gregory R. Lee
Florida DEP
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
MS 659
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
(850) 488-2974
greg.lee@dep.state.fl.us
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
Paul Lee
FL DEP
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 921-9484
paul.lee@dep.state.fl.us
Rod Maddox
Florida DEP
Bureau of Surveying and Mapping
3900 Commonwealth Blvd
MS 105
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 488-2427
Rod.Maddox@,dep.state.fl.us
Gary W. Maidhof
Citrus Co. Dept. of Development Services
3600 W. Sovereign Path
Suite 109
Lecanto, FL 34461
(352) 527-5220
gary.maidhofbocc.citrus.fl.us
Guy Marwick
Silver River Museum & Env. Ed. Center
1445 NE 58th Ave.
Ocala, FL 34470
(352) 236-5401
marwickeg@)marion.kl 2.fl.us
James McClean
Florida Geological Survey
GunterBldg. MS 720
903 W. Tennessee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32304-7700
(850) 488-9380
James.McClean@dep. state.fl.us
Rich McClean
rmclean(&co.pinellas.fl.us
Brian McCord
CCDA Waters, LLC
7100 NE CR 340
High Springs, FL 32643
Brian.McCord@danone.com
Brian McGurk
Groundwater Programs Division
SJRWMD
P.O. Box 1429
Palatka, FL 32178-1429
(386)329-4245
bmcgurk@sjrwmd.com
John C. McKenzie
Chief, Logistics Section
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
Ocala Water Quality & Research Laboratory
4500 SW 40h Avenue
Ocala, FL 34474
(352) 237-5514 x207
jmckenz@usgs.gov
Harley Means
Florida Geological Survey
903 W. Tennessee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32308
(850) 488-9380
euv.means(&deD.state.fl.us
Marvin Miller
Florida DEP
9225 CR 49
Live Oak, FL 32060
(386) 362-1001
w.marvin.miller@i)den.fl.state.us
Tom Mirti
Suwannee River Water Management District
9225 CR 49
Live Oak, FL 32060
(800) 226-1066
mirtit(,srwmd.state.fl.us
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
Laura Morse
Florida DEP
Watershed Monitoring and Data Management
Section
2600 Blairstone Road
MS 3525
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 921-9476
laura.morse@dep.state.fl.us
Doug Munch
SJRWMD
P.O. Box 1429
Palatka, FL 32177
dmunch@sjrwmd.com
Providence Nagy
University of Florida
Melissa O' Callaghan
Healthy Vision Ent.
375 Weber Blvd.
Naples, FL 34120
(239) 353-3900
on-line-success(,.swfla.rr.com
William L. Osbum
Ground Water Programs
SJRWMD
P.O. Box 1429
Palatka, FL 32178-1429
(386) 329-4150
bosburn@sjrwmd.com
Dan Pennington
1000 Friends of Florida
926 East Park Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32301
dpennington@1 000fof.org
Lynda Powell
SWFWMD
Dennis J. Price
Southeast Environmental Geology
4974 62nd Street
Live Oak, FL 32060
(386) 362-5979
denl@alltel.net
Nancy Prine
655 Terrace Boulevard
Orlando, FL 32803
NPLA@aol.com
Elizabeth Purdum
ISPA/UCC 2200
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641
(850) 644-1834
epurdum@mailer.fsu.edu
Joe Quinn
quinnswfwmd.state.fl.us
Christopher Rison
Walt Schmidt
Florida Geological Survey
903 W. Tennessee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32304-7700
(850) 488-4191
Walt.Schmidtadep.state.fl.us
Keith Schue
Group Chair/Wekiva Issue Chair
Central Florida Sierra Club
30641 Edgewood Street
Mount Plymouth, FL 3277?
(352) 383-3085
ecokeith(@yahoo.com
Tom Scott
Florida Geological Survey
903 W. Tennessee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32304-7700
(850) 488-9380
thomas. scott(&dep. state.fl.us
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
Deborah Shelley
Florida DEP
8300 West SR 46
Sanford, FL 32771
dshelley@vol.com
William Shirling
Citizens Preservation Council
625 Farrah Circle
Dothan, AL 36301
(334) 671-1978
RioLobo827@AOL.com
Wes Skiles
Karst Environmental Services, Inc.
5779 NE County Road 340
High Springs, FL 32643
(386) 454-3556
wskiles@aol.com
Dan Stanley
U.S. Geological Survey
4500 SW 40th Avenue
Ocala, FL 34474
(352) 237-5514 x211
dstanley@usgs.gov
Jim Stevenson
Florida DEP
Division of State Lands
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
MS 140
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
James.Stevenson@dep.state.fl.us
Jim Stoutamire
Florida DEP
BBWR MS 2500
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850) 921-9885
iim.stoutamireaden.state.fl.us
Walter M. Thomson
The Nature Conservancy
222 South Westmonte Drive
Suite 300
Altamonte Springs, FL 32714-4269
wthomsonAtnc.org
David Toth
St. Johns River Water Management District
P.O. Box 1429
Palatka, FL 32178-1429
(386) 329-4242
dtoth@SJRWMD.com
Sam Upchurch
SDII Global Corp.
4509 George Rd.
Tampa, FL 33634
(813) 496-9634
supchurch@sdii-global.com
Wood, Walter
Lake County Growth Management
315 West Main St.
Room 511
Tavares, FL 32778
(352) 343-9738 x 5669
wwood@co.lake.fl.us
Quincy D. Wylupek
Environmental Scientist
Resource Management Department
SWFWMD
Brooksville, FL 34604
(352) 796-7211 x4275
auincv.wvlunek@)swfwmd.state.fl.us
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Someone once called Florida springs the crown jewels of the state's natural resources. Aside
from their obvious aesthetic, recreational, and economical value, these systems are critical indica-
tors of the health and integrity of the watersheds in which they exist.
The State Legislature has affirmed the significance of springs by creating the Springs Initiative
Program, which gave the Department of Environmental Protection the responsibility of increasing
public awareness of these systems and of the need to better manage and protect these priceless
wonders. The Florida Geological Survey has rallied to the call to preserve these systems by using
the resources of its Hydrogeology Program to conduct springs-related research, educational, and
outreach activities. Among these activities was the two-day workshop held in Ocala in May of
2002 entitled "Blueprints for the Management and Protection of Florida's Springs."
The workshop was designed to provide a forum for scientists, resource managers, planners,
elected officials, and the general public to discuss the current status of springs protection and
preservation efforts at all levels of government and to suggest measures to improve such efforts.
Invited scientific and policy experts were organized in three panels tasked with discussing the
relevant issues from their particular perspectives. Maximum interaction with the audience was
encouraged in reaching findings and in making recommendations. This summary is a brief descrip-
tion of each of the panels and of the recommendations made at the conclusion of the workshop.
1. Inventory of springs in Florida:
This panel discussed the level and availability of knowledge and data on springs including the
number, location, water quality, and rate of discharge. The panel delved into existing or antici-
pated threats to springs' integrity and health. The group discussed ways of documenting the
location of upland and submarine springs using new technologies such as remote-sensing.
The panel concluded that although methods are currently available for locating springs, tradi-
tional methods are labor intensive thus costly and new technologies require more study and are
often expensive in terms of equipment and expertise. Currently there is no systematic and well-
planed effort to collect spring data in a way that would insure the availability and quality of such
data in electronic databases. The panel concluded that key issues to constructing databases are
how to classify springs, name them, and give each a unique identification number. Toward that
end the panel recommended the establishment of a nomenclature committee (under the FGS's
lead), which will also serve as the core of the database development committee, responsible for
drafting a report on the issue by December of 2002.
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
2. Delineation of Springsheds:
The panel recognized that although as many as 10,000 springs may exist in Florida, only some
700, mostly large springs, have been mapped. This panel agreed that the ability to delineate
springshed boundaries is essential to the management and protection of these systems. The panel-
ists emphasized that both groundwater and surface-water basins are interactive components of
springsheds and that understanding and quantifying such interaction (especially in karstic settings)
is critical to the implementation of plans to protect springs against contamination. On the basis of
these discussions, the panel adopted a definition of springshed as "those areas within groundwater
and surface-water basins that contribute to the discharge of springs."
The panel went on to identify data and modeling needs for comprehensive springshed delinea-
tion and discussed the temporal changes that are likely to exist in springshed boundaries due to
changes in the hydrologic system (from pumping, drought, etc.) The group recommended that a
preliminary set of springshed maps should be developed using existing cave, sinkhole, aquifer
vulnerability, potentiometric surface, and flow-path data. They also recommended that springs of
concern should be identified along with areas of concern within known springsheds using consis-
tent criteria. There was consensus that such maps should be presented to decision makers and
stakeholders alike as an outreach and education resource. The panel also suggested that existing
programs such as Blue Belt and Well Head or Source Water Protection should be utilized as
possible models for development of springshed management and protection tools.
3. Currently Used or Recommended Measures for Managing and Protecting Springs:
This panel discussed the regulatory measures and land-use practices that have been successful
or have shown promise in protecting springs in Florida and elsewhere. It went on to discuss
specific ordinances, regulations, statutes, and policies that have been attempted by various levels
of government along with the cost and effectiveness of such measures.
The panel concluded that although some good regulations and policies are already "on the
books," most are not being adequately implemented toward the management and protection of
springsheds. The panel was in agreement with the participating audience that additional measures
are needed. The panelists recommended that specific actions be taken in modifying existing
regulations for more effective application to protecting springsheds. Finally the participants
adopted a resolution that recommends the formation of a consortium of concerned citizens groups
that would draft a legislative bill for springshed protection, possibly modeled after the existing
Wekiva River Protection Act. This consortium would also seek sponsorship of such a bill in the
legislature by representatives of districts in Florida where springs are issues of interest or concern.
INTRODUCTION
As freshwater from rainfall and snow melt flows downhill, some of it will accumulate in fea-
tures on the land surface forming lakes, streams, and wetlands and contributing freshwater to
estuaries. These systems are collectively referred to as surface water. Other portions of this water
will percolate through the soil or seeps through cracks and fissures and sinkholes on the land
surface to recharge and be stored in underground formations (aquifers) as groundwater. Still other
portions of this water will be taken up by plants, used to support their survival and growth, and
eventually released back into the atmosphere as evapotranspirationn." Throughout this hydrologi-
cal cycle, water, which has been called the "universal solvent," will dissolve a variety of minerals,
metals, and trace elements that are natural constituents of soil and geologic formations with which
water comes in contact. As water flows on the land surface, its quality will be influenced by the
amounts of solids that it dissolved or caused to be suspended and by the quality of runoff received
from adjacent lands. In a similar process, the quality of groundwater will be determined by the
length of its residence time in aquifers and the geochemical make up of the aquifer material,
especially its solubility in water.
Compared to the natural processes described above, man-made (anthropogenic) activities will
generate a variety of pollutants that once they find their way to surface water or groundwater will
exact a more serious toll on the quality of these resources. Carcinogenic, toxic, mutagenic or
teratogenic chemicals, along with pathogenic and infectious microorganisms, are discharged from
a variety of human activities ranging from agriculture to septic systems to pharmaceutical, indus-
trial, and mining operations.
Although the two water resources (groundwater and surface water) have been referred to in
the scientific and regulatory literature as two separate media, they are in reality components of the
same watershed along with others such as soil, sediments, and the vadose zone. Atmospheric
deposition is a factor in determining both the quality and the quality of water in a watershed. The
degree of interaction between these components varies with the hydrogeological setting associ-
ated with the watershed or the ecosystem in question. In Florida, where the predominant geology
is highly permeable, and is frequently channelized limestone karstt) covered with a thin veneer of
sandy soil, the interaction between watershed components is at a maximum. Visible manifestations
of such interaction include sinkhole formation, subsidence, high recharge rates, disappearing
streams, and the prevalence of caves and springs.
In addition to these natural phenomena, interaction can facilitate--indeed exacerbate-- the
impacts of man-made activities on the quality and integrity of the state's ecosystems. To illustrate
this point, one may consider past events caused by over withdrawal of water from aquifers
through agricultural irrigation or public water supply wells: wetlands have dried up, springs have
ceased flowing, sinkholes have opened, saltwater has intruded into coastal aquifers, and pollutants
A6
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
have moved into well fields. The economical, environmental, and public health costs of such
occurrences to society are staggering.
The extreme vulnerability of groundwater to contamination in Florida has been coupled in
recent decades with a phenomenal population growth in the state. This has increased the demand
for water; on the one hand, and generated huge volumes of waste that must be treated and dis-
posed of, on the other. Unless measures are taken to reverse the trend, both of these needs will
continue to put additional stresses on the state's environment and its finite water resources. For
such measures to be effective, we must have a thorough understanding of not only the threats
facing our aquatic resources but also the dynamics of interaction between components of the
watershed or ecosystem that support the health and integrity of these resources.
This workshop was an effort to bring scientists, resource managers, and politicians and other
decision makers together with concerned and affected citizens in order to develop strategies for
addressing one critical component of the ecosystem described in the above--namely springs.
Springs are viewed by many as the "crown jewels" of Florida's ecology providing popular recre-
ation destinations for tourists and native Floridians alike, refuge for wildlife, and sources of pure
drinking water. For hydrogeologists, however, springs are also the portals that allow a direct
encounter with that mysterious subterranean world of groundwater and how that world interacts
with the surface of the land and waters residing thereon.
Workshop Description and Format
Below is the announcement for the workshop along with the registration form and agenda:
A Workshop to Develop Blue Prints for the Management and
Protection of Florida's Springs
Purpose:
The purpose of this two day workshop is to provide a forum to facilitate discussion between
scientists, resource managers and the public regarding the significance of springs as valuable
natural systems that must be preserved and protected for the benefit of the State's ecology, envi-
ronment, economic well being and quality of life.
Intended Audience:
Planners, resource managers and scientists from local, regional and State governments, as well as
the private sector, involved in making land use, zoning and water management decisions.
Workshop Format:
Invited experts will be grouped into three panels (several speakers each) that will discuss each of
the topics listed below in breakout sessions and develop session findings into specific conclusions
and recommendations to be reported back to the plenary session for discussion.
Topics of Discussion for Panels:
1. Inventory of springs in Florida:
This panel will discuss the level and availability of knowledge and data on springs number, loca-
tion and status regarding water quality, discharge volume, public or private ownership, types of
land use in the vicinity of springs and existing or anticipated threats to the integrity of these
systems. The panel will also address the issue ofun-documented or un-discovered springs, tradi-
tional and any new or innovative technologies such, as remote sensing, applicable to locating new
upland and submarine springs.
2. Delineation of the boundaries of spring basins or "spring sheds":
This panel will focus on the methods traditionally used to delineate zones of capture or zones of
contribution to springs. How does one evaluate ground water vulnerability to contamination
within a spring basin? What are the scientific and research needs necessary to develop and validate
models that may be applicable in karst settings?
3. Currently used or recommended measures for managing and protecting springs:
This panel will discuss regulatory measures or land use and management practices that have been
successful or have shown promise in protecting springs in Florida and elsewhere. It will delve into
specific ordinances, regulation, statutes and policies as well as best management practices that
have been attempted by the various levels of government in different localities. The panel will also
address the economic benefits and/or impacts on the communities where these practices have been
attempted. How have these measures been received by the development community, by the
environmental advocacy groups, by the scientific community and by the general public?
Registration and Accommodations:
This two day workshop, co-sponsored by the Florida Geological Survey, the Hydrogeology
Consortium and the Florida State University, will be held in Ocala, Florida on May 8th and 9th
2002, at the Hilton Ocala; 3600 SW 36th Avenue, Ocala Fl. 34474. Special rates of $ 94.00 (single
and double) per night will be available if reservations are made by April 25 2002. Hotel number
for reservations: (352) 854 1400 or www.Hiltonocala.com
Interested individuals may register by e mailing or faxing the following information to Dr. Rodney
S. DeHan at the Florida Geological Survey:
Rodney.dehan@dep.state.fl.us
Fax: (850) 412 0495
Registration Information:
Name:
Affiliation:
Phone:
Fax:
E mail:
Panelist or attendee:
Registration fee of $ 75.00 (invited panelists will not be charged a registration fee) is payable to
the Hydrogeology Consortium by a check; mailed to:
The Hydrogeology Consortium
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute
18 Keen Building
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Fl. 32306-4360
Cash will also be accepted at the registration desk on the morning of the workshop; the Consor-
tium is not able to accept credit cards. The registration fee will cover two banquette lunches,
continental breakfasts, coffee breaks and copies of the Proceedings in CD ROM format.
Agenda:
Wednesday May 8th:
7:30 8:30 AM Continental breakfast and registration
8:30 8:45 AM Welcome and opening remarks
Dr Walt Schmidt, FGS
8:45 to 9:00 AM Description of workshop format and goals and instructions to
panels
Dr Rodney DeHan, FGS
9:00 10:30 AM Concurrent breakout sessions of the three panels
Panel I. Inventory of springs
Moderator: Dr. Rick Copeland, FGS
Panelists:
Dr. Tom Scott, FGS
Mr. David Hornsby, SRWMD
Mr. Eric De Haven, SWFWMD
Mr. James McClean, FGS
Ms. Laura Morse, Fl. DEP
Panel II. Delineation of spring shed boundaries
Moderator.
Panelists:
Dr. Jon Arthur, FGS
Dr. Sam Upchurch, SDII Global Corp
Mr. Brian McGurk, SJRWMD
Mr. Wes Skiles, karst Environmental Services
Mr. Hal Davis, USGS
Dr. Todd Kincaid, Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc
Panel III. Currently used or recommended measures for the management and protection of
springs
Moderator: Dr. Rodney DeHan, FGS
Panelists: Mr. Gary Maidhof, Citrus County
Mr. Chris Rison, Marion County
Mr. Bruce Day, Withlacooche RPC
Mr. Charles Gauthier, Fl. DCA
Ms. Lucinda Roberts, Fl. DEP
Mr. Dan Pennington, 1000 Friends of Florida
10:30 11:00 AM Coffee break
11:00 AM 12:30 PM Continuation of panel discussions
12:30 1:30 PM Banquette lunch
Luncheon speaker
Mr Jim Stevenson, Fl. DEP
1:30 -3:30 PM
3:30 3:45 PM
3:45 5:00 PM
Thursday May 9th
8:00 8:30 AM
Continuation of panel discussions
Coffee break.
Panel discussion and adjourn first day.
Continental breakfast.
A6
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
8:30 9:00 AM
9:00 10:45 AM
10:45 11:00 AM
11:00 AM 12:30 PM
12:30- 1:30 PM
1:30 3:00 PM
Initial feedback from panels and format for report back to the
plenary session; facilitated by Dr. Rodney DeHan.
Resumption of concurrent panel discussions
Coffee break
Panels to develop findings and recommendations for reporting back
to the plenary session.
Banquette lunch
Luncheon speaker and slide presentation
Dr Todd Kincaid
Panels report back to the plenary session, open discussion by
all the participants and the development of overall workshop
recommendations; facilitated by Dr. Walt Schmidt.
ADJOURN WORKSHOP
A6
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
PANEL 1
INVENTORY OF SPRINGS IN FLORIDA
Moderator: Dr. Rick Copeland, Florida Geological Survey
Panelists: Dr. Tom Scott, Florida Geological Survey
Mr. David Hornsby, Suwannee River Water Management District
Mr. Eric DeHaven, Southwest Florida Water Management District
Mr. James McClean, Florida Geological Survey
Ms. Laura Morse, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
This panel was assigned the task of discussing current knowledge of and availability of data on
Florida springs, including number, location, water quality, discharge volume, public or private
ownership, types of adjacent land use, and existing or anticipated threats. The panel was also to
discuss the issue of undocumented or undiscovered springs, and the role of traditional or new
technologies, such as remote sensing, to locate unknown onshore and offshore springs.
Southwest Florida Springs
Eric DeHaven, Southwest Florida Water Management District
Since 1991, 114 springs have been characterized and sampled for water quality in the South-
west Florida Water Management District. Of these, 5 were first magnitude, 18 were second
magnitude, 22 were third magnitude, 4 were fourth magnitude, 1 was fifth magnitude, and 64
were unknown or unverified as to their magnitude.
As part of the inventory, water quality samples were taken. Water quality was generally good
with the exception of elevated nitrate concentrations. It is estimated that 1600-1700 tons of
nitrate per year are discharged from springs in the district. The source of the nitrate is inorganic
fertilizers. There was also slight evidence of an increase in conductivity, which may be indicative
of an increase in mineralized water.
The majority of springs in the Southwest District are on private property. The first -magnitude
springs are generally public with some vents on private property. The five identified first-magni-
tude springs on public property are King's Bay, Rainbow, Homosassa, Weeki Wachee, and
Chassahowitzka.
The Southwest District has begun an effort to locate, sample, and calculate discharge from
offshore, submarine springs. These springs are located by review of digital orthoquads and aerial
photos, surveys of knowledgeable sources, including fish/dive operations and research institu-
tions, and through the use of scanning instruments and geophysical methods.
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
Remote Sensing Detection of Submarine Springs
Mr James McClean, Florida Geological Survey
The Florida Geological Survey is beginning a research project to detect offshore springs. The
detection methodology is based on the thermal differences between seawater and groundwater
discharge. Since groundwater maintains a constant temperature year round, seasonal differences
in temperature between seawater and groundwater discharges are used to determine spring
locations.
Landsat data are being used for the initial analysis. ERDAS Imagine and ArcView 3.2 with
Spatial Analyst are the software packages being used to perform the analyses. This has proven to
be a cost-effective tool for planning in-depth surveys that can narrow choices for target study
areas.
An initial pilot study is to be conducted in the summer of 2002 in Apalachee Bay. The research
design will include remote sensing methods as well as ground truthing techniques. Remote sensing
methods will include high resolution aerial thermography, resistivity surveys, side scan sonar,
temperature/depth contour plots, and underwater video. Ground truthing will include water
quality sampling, discharge measurement, diver reconnaissance, and feature mapping.
Springs Initiative Program
Ms. Laura Morse, Department of Environmental Protection
The Springs Initiative Program for fiscal year 2001-2002 has a budget of $2.5 million dollars.
The current year's goals for the program include research and monitoring, land owner assistance,
and education. Projects dealing with the delineation of springsheds, water quality, and biological
inventory were funded.
For this year, no projects were funded dealing with the location of springs. However, an
inventory of Springs is being considered for 2003-2004.
Suwannee River Water Management District Inventory Efforts
Mr David Hornsby, Suwannee River Water Management District
The district has a program to inventory springs in the Suwannee and Santa Fe river systems.
The surveys were conducted by boat, and 197 springs were identified. An additional 9 first-
magnitude springs were discovered. Offshore and coastal springs were located using topographic
maps, aerial photos, surveys of tidal creeks, reports by fishermen, and appearances of boils or
clear spots in tannin-colored water.
Most of the springs located in the Suwannee were coming out of the limerock as opposed to
sand boils. New springs were named with the first three letters of the county, date found, and lat/
long. Local names were referred to "as also known as."
General Discussion
The magnitude of effort needed to identify all springs is beyond current resources. The number
of undiscovered springs could be 10,000. Most of these would be magnitude 5 or lower and
would be on private property. Many of these springs would not have perennial flow. The sugges-
tion was made to focus on unique ecosystems or critical areas. Perhaps newly discovered springs
that could not be investigated could be put into a database for future study.
Would a web-based system for reporting spring location be useful? It has not been done but
most people thought it was a good idea.
Management plans required for all state lands do not require any explicit reference to springs
or to their value as critical ecosystems. A panelist asked what makes a spring significant as a
critical ecosystem? One comment was that it depended on your perspective (potable water,
etc.).The information currently available in these plans could be used to predict the location of
springs.
The question was raised as to whether there are any undocumented first-magnitude springs in
Florida. All first-magnitude springs have probably been documented in some parts of Florida-the
Southwest Florida Water Management District was given as an example-but there probably are
undocumented first-magnitude springs elsewhere in Florida. These are most likely to be found in
the bottom of rivers.
Inconsistencies in taking flow measurements were discussed. The location where discharge is
measured can affect magnitude classification. Some springs may have been designated first-
magnitude in error and should be re-evaluated. A standardized methodology needs to be used to
take flow measurements from springs. The consensus was that an average of discharge over time
should be used for classification.
A common system needs to be agreed upon for naming springs and the classification system
needs to be upgraded.
As a result of drought many first-magnitude springs have dropped below the threshold of 100
feet per second.
At least 700 springs are known to exist in Florida. Each year more springs are discovered.
Most springs are categorized as being in the magnitude 1 8 range. The discharge of magnitude
1 springs is greater than 64.6 million gallons per day. The discharge of magnitude 8 springs is
less than one pint per day. However, it is believed that the vast majority these springs are very
small.
Because of the high demand for water in Florida, pumping groundwater has the potential of
lowering the water levels of the state's aquifers. This can potentially affect the flow rate of
springs and, in turn, adversely affect the aquatic life in surface-water systems. For these reasons,
knowledge of the location and dynamics of springs is important in protecting Florida's ecosys-
tems.
Locating Springs
The Springs Inventory Panel believes that an inventory of springs is critical. To locate springs
systematically, priorities need to be established. At present, first- and second-magnitude springs
should take precedence. If locating springs is a priority to the state of Florida, then additional
funds will be needed.
Efforts needed to find unknown springs fall into three major categories: (1) local sources, (2)
in-the-field surveys, and (3) "high-tech" methods.
Local Sources
Word-of-mouth. This is accomplished by placing public service announcements with local radio
stations, and possibly using "wanted" posters. The purpose is to ask for input from the public
regarding the presence of "new" springs. Also, geologists working in the field can ask the locals
about the location of springs.
Diving and fishing operations. This will require government agency staff to contact local
diving and fishing operations and to request spring location information. While these sources are
considered to be excellent, many operators might not be willing to disclose the information.
Research Operations. This method will require government agency staff to contact research
institutions and to solicit data and information regarding springs.
In-the-field Surveys
Field methods are labor intensive. Because the electrical conductivity of surface water and
groundwater generally differ, we can often find springs in the bottom of streams simply by using
an electrical conductivity meter. Individuals can travel in boats and take conductivity measure-
ments at the bottom of rivers and streams. Significant differences in conductivity measurements
often indicate the presence of springs. Other types of surveys can be used. For example, differ-
ences in vegetative cover can occasionally indicate springs, as can the presence of oyster beds.
Other techniques can also be used. Springs often occur in distinct patterns such as lineaments.
Thus, detailed inspections of local maps can potentially assist in locating springs. Another sug-
gestion is to measure the depth of any deep holes found in the bottom of streams. If a relatively
deep hole exists in the bottom of a stream, it might be a spring vent.
High-Tech Methods
These methods are reliable and are cost effective at a regional scale. However, visits to spe-
cific sites are still needed to verify the presence of springs.
Airborne photography. Air photographs can potentially be used to locate springs. You can also
visually look for springs from the air.
Airborne thermography. The temperature of spring water remains relatively constant through-
out the year. Airborne thermography takes advantage of this fact. During times of the year when
surface-water temperatures differ significantly from spring water, springs show up on aerial
images.
Acoustical soundings. GPS integrated depth profiling records point depth and surface tempera-
ture readings for import to a Geographic Information System for analysis. New sinkholes and
spring vents can be identified by search pattern grids over areas of interest. This technology is
relatively inexpensive (<$800) and can be deployed from small vessels.
Side-scan sonar. Side-scan sonar creates images of the seafloor that can be used to identify new
springs and sinkholes in much the same way that aerial photos are used. Somewhat expensive to
perform, systems cost upwards of $10,000 to $50,000.
Airborne radar. Radar remote sensing can be used to identify exposed limestone outcrops that
may be associated with springs and related karst features. Space-based imagery is available or
aerial sensors may be used for greater spatial resolution.
Whenever the presence of a spring has been confirmed, other springs are often located nearby.
For example, if a spring location has been confirmed after using a "high-tech" method, further
analysis of images in the general local of the spring can potentially be used to locate other springs.
Nomenclature and Database Issues
Two other issues were discussed. First, in order to efficiently keep track of spring data, a
centralized spring/karst database is essential. The consensus was that the Florida Geologic Survey
(FGS) should take the lead. Second, if a database is to be developed, then a standardized set of
nomenclature is critical.
To address both issues, two committees should be formed: one for nomenclature and one for
database development. The FGS should take the lead regarding both committees.
The nomenclature committee should be made up of representatives from the Florida Geologi-
cal Survey, water management districts, U.S. Geological Survey, private consultants, universities,
professional societies, and interested private citizens. A timeframe was established that called for
three one-day meetings with a draft report available by December 2002.
The database committee should include members from the same groups as the nomenclature
committee with additional members who have expertise in database design, web design, and data
collection. The exact makeup of this committee will be discussed at the first nomenclature meet-
ing. It may be necessary for the nomenclature committee to at least partially complete their draft
before the database committee can begin work.
Nomenclature
The major issues that the nomenclature subcommittee will need to address are listed below.
Recommendations agreed on by the panel are expressed as statements.
Classification by magnitude (Should spring nomenclature categories be based on magnitude?)
1. Use a magnitude scale of 1-8, and less than 8.
2. Vent or Group? Should springs be considered a vent or a group of vents?
How should groups be defined?
3. Average discharge. Spring magnitude is based on discharge. Therefore, the basis for spring
magnitude classification should be based on the average flow for the period of record.
4. Spring classification may change over time. Because spring discharge varies over time, the
magnitude classification has the potential to vary over time. How should this situation be
handled with regard to spring magnitude classification?
Classifying by physical characteristics. Should the spring nomenclature categories be based on
criteria besides magnitude? Several suggestions are listed below.
1. Are springs onshore, offshore, nearshore?
2. Geomorphology
a. "Typical" spring
b. Karst window
c. River rise
d. Seeps
e. Siphons
f "Sand boil"
3. Variable spring classifications? Can any type of spring classification change over time? Can the
spring be in multiple classes?
Spring Names
1. Traditional names
a. Often leads to duplicate spring names in different counties.
b. Include aliases? Springs often have several names. We should identify one unique name
and allow other names to be considered aliases. The aliases will be included in the data
base.
2. Unique ID number? The unique name could be an ID number.
a. Should be a "dumb" number. A dumb number is analogous to a license plate. It should
contain symbols that have no meaning in the mind of humans other than the symbols simply
refer to one spring or vent.
b. FLUWID. It was suggested that springs should be considered wells. If so, a Florida
Unique Well ID (FLUWID) number be assigned to each vent. These numbers have been
assigned by DEP to wells for several years. A special database keeps track of the unique
numbers.
3. 15-Digit "USGS" number based on lat/long should not be used as a unique number. The
USGS has a history of assigning a 15-digit number to wells. The number is based on latitude
and longitude. Since it is occasionally found that latitudes and longitudes are incorrect,
corrections are then made to the 15-digit number. When this occurs, the potential exists to
have a well (or spring) with more than one 15-digit number. These 15-digit numbers should
become aliases.
Other issues raised concerning nomenclature:
1. Spring versus springs in nomenclature? Should a spring with only one vent be labeled in the
plural (i.e. springs)?
2. Vent versus group (>1 vent?)
3. Groups of vents should be labeled as a spring group.
4. Vent or spring magnitude? Should a spring group, in which individual vents are not first
magnitude, be considered a first-magnitude spring?
5. Chemistry should not be used to name springs. The chemistry of springs should only be used
to characterize springs.
6. Use metric or English (metric) units? When using units, should we use metric units or should
we use English units with metric units in parenthesis?
Overall comments regarding nomenclature:
If traditional name changes, then an alias could be assigned
"FLUWID" does not change
"15 digit" may change
Lat/Long can change
Each vent should have its own "FLUWID"
Ifa name is submitted to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names to be considered official,
there are rules that must be followed.
Database
Several issues related to the creation and maintenance of a springs database were discussed.
Structure, as well as what fields would be contained, were listed. The following categories were
proposed:
1. Names
a. Traditional
b. Unique
c. "15 digit"
d. Aliases
2. Latitude/Longitude
a. Reported value can potentially change
b. Exactly where should water level measurements be taken? Different agencies probably
take measurements at different locations in the spring. Attempt should be made to stan-
dardize the method of obtaining water level measurements.
c. A standardized method of reporting the date and time of water level measurements needs
to be developed.
3. Reference information should be included as metadata.
a. Where should one look for more detailed information regarding springs?
4. Platform to use for the database
a. WEB
b. GIS (Arcview)
5. Needed fields
a. What should the required fields be?
b. What optional fields should be made available?
c. Database fields for physical parameters
d. Database fields for chemical parameters
e. Database fields for biological parameters
6. Should hyperlinks be included in the database in order to refer to other sources of informa-
tion?
Comments and questions
What upland datum should be used in reference to water level measuring points?
Who would populate the database?
Who would be responsible for editing the database?
How would updates be made to the database?
Suggestions:
Make use of current databases
Use the University of South Florida Watershed Atlas
Surf Your Watershed
Use STORET
Obtain discharge measurements at all springs
Use ORACLE GWIS
Even if we use existing sources of computerized data, hand entry of additional data is
inevitable.
Conclusion
Springs are a valuable resource to the citizens of the state. As many as 10,000 springs may
exist in Florida, but only about 700 (mostly the larger springs) have actually been mapped. Tools
are available to locate and to map springs. Some of the tools are expensive in terms of technology
(e.g., airborne radar) and others are expensive in terms of labor (e.g., in-the-field surveys). Other
tools, such as placing public service announcements with local radio stations, are relatively inex-
pensive. The Inventory of Springs panel discussed the various methods needed to locate springs
and the relative expense associated with each of these methods. The panel discussed the need to
develop proper spring nomenclature and the need to develop a statewide database. The Florida
Geological Survey agreed to take the lead and form a nomenclature committee. The goal is to
complete their efforts by the end of 2002. Consistency in nomenclature is essential to the develop-
ment of a springs database. The Florida Geological Survey has agreed to take the lead and to
form a separate committee to address database issues.
PANEL II
DELINEATION OF SPRINGSHED BOUNDARIES
Moderator. Dr. Jonathan D. Arthur, Florida Geological Survey
Panelists: Dr. Sam Upchurch, SD II Global
Mr. Wes Skiles, Karst Environmental Services
Dr. Todd Kincaid, Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc.
Mr. Hal Davis, U.S. Geological Survey
Mr. Brian McGurk, St. Johns River Water Management District
This panel was assigned the task of addressing a critical component in the protection and
restoration of Florida's springs: the delineation of their boundaries. To protect our natural re-
source we must first understand the system. In the case of springs, the natural resource is a
complex hydrogeologic system that includes significant variations in space and time, such as dual
porosity of the aquifer matrix, temporal variations in flow, water chemistry, and changes in
springshed boundaries. Today we will discuss what is needed to account for these variations,
including groundwater flow models, well-defined potentiometric surface maps, and adequate
monitoring at appropriate times and places.
Consider Einstein's words: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything
that can be counted counts." We will discuss what kind of data we need and how much is
enough. We will also identify challenges, hear about case studies, learn from each other's per-
spectives and collectively carve out a template for spring basin delineation.
We will identify what is being done, assess if we have the right tools, and recommend action.
During our discussion, we need to consider human resources, statutes, education, politics, and
funding as well as science.
Panel presentations
Dr Sam Upchurch, SDII Global
A basin (springshed) boundary is the position of the divide of orthogonals to isopotential lines.
From a resource protection viewpoint, a basin needs to include the surface-water basin, the
groundwater basin, and the relative recharge to the groundwater within the basin.
We analyzed 14 spring basins to determine an approach to springshed delineation and to
establish a water quality monitoring plan for first-magnitude springs in the Suwannee River Water
Management District. We've developed a five-year program in two phases. The district will use
the results of this work in land-owner assistance, land acquisition, regulatory, and education
programs.
WE.
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
--District Springs Initiative--
1. Five spring basins
a. Fannin and Manatee
b. Troy
c. .Ichetucknee
d. Madison Blue
2. Five year program in two phases
3. Phase I (two years)
a. Delineate draft ground-water drainage basins
i. Wells of opportunity plus WARN wells
ii. Geostatistical analysis
iii. Preliminary delineation based on potentials
b. Develop and implement monitoring plan for hydraulic and
water-quality behavior at spring and in basin
c. Develop Interim Basin Management Plan
4. Phase II (three years)
a. Final Basin Management Plan
b. Optimize long-term monitoring
c. Characterize hydraulic and water-quality behavior of system
5. Basin Management Plan and knowledge gained will be used for guide
District in
a. Land owner assistance projects
b. Land acquisition
c. Regulatory programs
d. Education programs
Because springs have complex plumbing, we need to develop a geostatistically optimized
monitoring program. How do we go about developing such a monitoring program? First we need
to look at what we know and what we don't know about Florida spring basins. What are the
consequences of what we know and what we don't know. We know many things in general about
Florida spring basins: the structure of aquifers, the behavior of groundwater, the interplay of
groundwater and surface water, and the sources of contamination, but we don't know the details
of these for most spring basins in the state. Poor management, speculation, and inability to target
"on-point" solutions are consequences of our lack of knowledge.
WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT FLORIDA SPRING BASINS
WHAT WE KNOW CONSEQUENCES
a. Subject to development of karst
1. Limestone aquifer b. Fractured rock prevalent
c. Calcium-bicarbonate water type
a. Aquifer is anisotropic and
heterogeneous
b. Flow pathways poorly understood
2. Fractures and caverns dominate flow b o a as y under
c. Basin boundaries may be variable
d. Basin boundaries may not follow
orthogonals to isopotential lines
a. Ground-water velocities highly
variable
b. Dilution and dispersion varies locally
within aquifer
3. Aquifer has dual porosity (conduits, Containants stored inlo
c. Contaminants stored in low
intergranular porosity) conductivity rock bodies
d. Computer models unable to replicate
details of basin "plumbing"
e. Model codes being developed
WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT FLORIDA SPRING BASINS
a. Recharge and transport rates in
conduits unpredictable without
4. Conduits vary in permeability (size, testing
contents) b. Attenuation of contaminants ranges
from minimal to something less
than minimal
a. Sizes of basins are not known
b. Basins appear to have proximall" and
"distal" recharge areas
S s he d e b c. Drainage basin margins are ill defined
5. Springs have drainage basins
d. Interior of basin predictable, edges
difficult to identify
e. Positions of divides may change with
season, climate, land use
WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT FLORIDA SPRING BASINS
a. Recharge likely to be localized to
sinkhole
b. Recharge rate a function of sinkhole
6. Sinkholes are common area and stratigraphy
c. Contamination may be localized
d. Sinkhole lakes may drain periodically
e. Many sinkholes are "plugged"
a. Recharge more-or-less limited in
confined areas
b. Areas of confinement that are
7. Parts of basins are confined to semi- "perforated" are leaky
confined c. Streams carry water and contaminants
to karst portions of the basin
d. Surface-water and ground-water
basins of a spring system differ
WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT FLORIDA SPRING BASINS
a. Large sinkholes (uvalas, poljes) more
likely to be developed than small
8. Sinkhole drainage basins vary b. Recharge amounts vary with sinkhole
significantly in size basin size
c. Sediment flux to limestone aquifer
varies
a. High sinkhole density results in many
local recharge points
9. Sinkholes vary in density local recharge points
b. Low density leads to reduced aquifer
vulnerability
a. Surface- and ground-water basins of a
10. Sinking streams drain to unconfined spring vary in size and locations
basin b. Aquifer vulnerability increased by the
presence of sinking streams
a. Traces likely to flood during extreme
11. Many basins have stream traces precipitation events
(flood-water chutes) b. Traces may represent locations of
___enhanced aquifer vulnerability
WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT FLORIDA SPRING BASINS
a. Management of land use for water
supply and water-quality
12. Land use highly variable and protection complex
protection complex
dynamic b. Identification of non-point pollutant
sources difficult
a. No one land use has resulted in
ground-water contamination
b. Identification of contamination
sources is difficult
13. Many land uses prone to sources is difficult
co1. Many land us round wter c. "Finger pointing" common response
contamination of ground water
d. Targeting of specific land uses as
contaminant sources for
management may not result in
achieving objectives
WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT FLORIDA SPRING BASINS
14. "Bulk" age of water at spring is young
(15 25 years)
a. Contaminant sources near spring
proximalal" recharge areas) appear
to prime sources of contamination
b. Swinnerton-type flow model appears
operative
c. It may be possible to clean-up springs
on time scale of decades
d. There may be contaminated water
"queued" up to exit spring in
future (clean-up times on scales of
centuries)
a. Many (most) springs affected by
nitrate
15. Nitrate contamination is common b. There are different sources of nitrate
c. Nitrate appears to result from fertilizer
use and waste disposal
WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT FLORIDA SPRING BASINS
a. Nitrate increases correlate with
increases in population and
16. Nitrate concentrations typically began fertilizer use
to increase in the 1970s
b. Population appears to be the root
cause of nitrate problem
a. It may be too late to manage nitrate
17. Present-day water quality in springs loading
may reflect past land uses b. We may target wrong land uses for
management
WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
ABOUT FLORIDA SPRING BASINS
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW CONSEQUENCES
a. Poor management
1. Details of the above for most spring Speculation
basins c____b. SpecuInability to target "on-point" solutions
c. Inability to target "on-point" solutions
Mr. Wes Skiles, Karst Environmental Services
Twenty years ago we started mapping caves. This changed not only the way the water manage-
ment districts perceived caves but also the way they managed the aquifer. The water management
districts, however, thought the maps were too specific for their needs. They needed to deal with
generalities.
Society needs to change the way it deals with groundwater protection. We have enough data.
What we need is education and outreach. The solution is for all stakeholders to get involved.
We've identified three cave systems or conduit types: spongework (caves in High Springs Gap
and Santa Fe area, for example), braided maze (Ichetucknee area, for example), and single con-
duit (Falmouth and Little River, for example). Typically spongework springs flow blue water,
braids flow green water, and single conduits flow black/brown water during floods and rainfall
events. The green water is the result of blue and brown. Many systems reflect characteristics of all
three types.
Spongework
Spring
Recognized Conduit Systems in the
Floridan Aquifer System
~ Braids
Sinkhole
-(' 'f
Spring
Single
Many systems reflect
characteristics of all types.
Spring
Moderator announcement
See article "Florida's Springs in Jeopardy" by Tom Scott in Geotimes, May 2002 Issue.
Todd Kincaid, Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc.
[Powerpoint presentation]
We are taking our resources for granted. We have degrading groundwater quality and increas-
ing groundwater demand. We need to heighten public awareness of the problem, and we need to
develop new concepts for modeling and managing Florida's groundwater. In the past, funded
research has focused on rivers where groundwater mixes with surface water, The emphasis has
been on surface water. We are developing predictive models and management strategies for
groundwater incorporating what we know about caves.
One-third (27) of the 78 largest springs in North America discharge from the Floridan aquifer.
The average total discharge from these springs is greater than 6.5 billion gallons per day. Wakulla
Springs alone produces enough water to supply the entire population of the state of Wyoming
with drinking water.
One model cannot be used to answer all questions. Models are tools and you have to use the
right tool to get the correct answer. Permeability issues, for example, are different where flow is
through a single type of medium and where flow is through two or three media. Standard ap-
proaches that work for a single medium do not apply to fractured rock and karst where flow is
through two or three media.
WE.
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
In the Floridan aquifer, you find high matrix permeability and large and extensive conduits.
Fractures are of less importance than they are in aquifers of other regions. Within the Floridan
aquifer caves vary in terms of their hydraulic systems, some are flow dominated and some are
storage dominated. In flow-dominated systems, such as Wakulla, through-flow is fast and dis-
charge is to springs. In storage-dominated systems, found in the Highlands region, through-flow is
slow and surface discharge absent. In these systems, you find huge underground "rooms." Some
cave systems were formed under prior hydrogeologic conditions and thus reflect ancient flow
paths. More recent hydrogeoloic conditions can overprint these ancient cave flow paths.
On the Woodville Karst Plain, you have the dual porosity system (both matrix and conduit)
characteristic of the Floridan aquifer and rapid recharge through sinkholes and discharge at
springs.
St. Marks Fm., I I I
I I I I I I
I TI T I I I I ITI TI
Suwannee iestone i I
SI L I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I
Caves can be included in groundwater flow models provided the model can handle variations in
permeability. Incorporation of knowledge of caves in models can result in improved predictions
regarding groundwater flow patterns and velocities, spring catchment areas, and contaminant
transport times. We don't need to collect more data. So much is already there. We need to con-
solidate what we have in a centralized database. From there relationships can be explored and
models developed.
We are currently working in collaboration with Florida State University on a groundwater
model of the Wakulla Springs sub-basin that can be adapted to other spring basins. We are also
making efforts to make better use of dye test results in these models.
Hydraulic Cave Development Mode
WE.
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
MEL
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida s spring Ij
Preliminary Modeling
TT"ak-ulla Spring Sub-basin
A advance TechnoloD!
WE.
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
In conclusion, aquifer protection (both from contamination and overuse) is a critical issue. For
example, in the Suwannee River basin, water quality is degrading. We need to improve our
predictive capabilities regarding groundwater, and one of the ways to do so is to develop models
that include conduit flow.
Mr. Hal Davis, US. Geological Survey
(Powerpoint presentation)
In the central panhandle of Florida stretching into southern Georgia is a regional groundwater
divide. The regional groundwater basin (colored blue) supplies groundwater to the large springs
south of Tallahassee and is delineated by the outermost flow paths.
3 lL]
/ ,7
__ .. i'i -
K!ORDAI /
*'I eqso Spria _
Growp (319
B 30^... k -- "--oA-l / St. Marts $SrW (602 cfs)
Map 2 shows groundwater subbasins tied to individual springs or spring groups. Observations
on springs in the area: Spring Creek is pulling the deeper water from the Floridan aquifer. Wakulla
Springs is pulling the shallower water. Wacissa Springs is consistently clean, even after large
amounts of rain indicating the surface runoff is not affecting spring flow. The St. Marks River
consistently has lower visibility than the other springs in the area indicating that surface runoff
may be affecting the springs along the river.
60
h6_
31/
--- fD R DA 'L G
30' I St MAs l (602 cfs)
On the third map delineated by red lines are the surface-water watersheds. To protect springs,
you must be aware of sinkholes within the surface-water watersheds. On this map, sinkholes are
indicated by black dots.
The capture zones of springs are dynamic and may overlap across several springshed bound-
aries. What we do to one spring may affect a couple of springs, several springs, or many springs.
On a statewide basis, we need a starting point for springshed delineation; a map that shows
springshed boundaries as we currently understand them a map that provides an opportunity to
review, critique, and improve our understanding of springshed boundaries.
ID"DA' "
310 t
FI DA Spi
'/
300 A -S A-As Spf is (602 cfs)
30 o~llJt G,., J
Mr. Brian McGurk, St. Johns River Water Management District
[Powerpoint presentation]
This presentation summarized a study by the St. Johns River Water Management District in the
Wekiva River basin. MODFLOW, MODPATH, and reverse particle tracking were used to define
the springshed boundaries in the Wekiva River basin. Distal and proximal recharge areas were
defined within the basin.
Moderator: Post-Presentations Discussion
We need to concur on one model of a springshed that can be legally defended. We need to
acknowledge that different sets of laws govern groundwater and surface water. We need to
consider the two major characteristics of groundwater and surface water: quality and quantity.
These two cannot be separated. If the quality is poor, it doesn't matter how much water you have,
and if you don't have enough water for your needs, quality is not an issue. Conservation and
protection should go hand in hand. Both will affect the quality of life for all Floridians.
In our discussion we began to try to define a springshed, recognizing that such a definition
clearly needs to include both groundwater and surface water and that boundaries of springsheds
are dynamic. We also discussed the need for data to support springshed delineation and the
appropriate frequency for collection of data. This frequency may vary from basin to basin depend-
ing on the demand for water resources. The definition needs to be functional; that is, easily under-
stood and easily applied.
In our efforts to delineate springsheds, we need to begin with the end in mind and to think
outside the box. What is the boundary of a springshed? I am reminded of a story where a
geochemist, a paleontologist, and a geophysicist are asked: "What's 2+2?" The paleontologist
says, 4, you dummy. The geochemist says: "Are you kidding? It's 2.00, depending on how many
significant figures you have." The geophysicist gets a strange expression, closes the door and the
window blinds, sits down and mysteriously says, "What do you want it to be?" The point being:
what are our criteria for defining a springshed? How do we want the information used? How do
we present it to the public in a way that can be easily understood? How do we represent relative
recharge within a springshed? The definition of a springshed needs to take into account the
influence of both the surface-water and groundwater basins and needs to meet the needs of
springshed stakeholders.
The group agreed that the most effective/influential stakeholders are county commissioners as
well as other decision makers in local and state government. Other stakeholders include environ-
mental organizations, developers and the business community, and property owners and residents.
The problem was raised that once county commissioners make decisions, actions of the state and
federal governments are limited. We need more feedback between state government, county
governments, and the water management districts.
The question was raised as to why it is important to delineate springsheds. Delineation is
critical for planning and zoning decisions. How often a springshed boundary needs to be redefined
depends on what is happening to land in and around the basin. Population growth, projected
permitted groundwater withdrawals, and wellfields all impact springsheds. A major permanent
change in the potentiometric surface would indicate a need to redefine springshed boundaries. An
analogy was made to the state's minimum flows and levels program, which in theory is designed
to prevent the quantity of the state's surface-water and groundwater resources from falling below
a set quantity (minimum flows and levels).
The need for two versions of a preliminary springshed map was discussed: one a baseline map
based on the natural system and another as a particular year (1998, 2003, etc). In selecting a scale
for the map, a number of factors need to be considered:
Availability of cave maps
Individual spring or spring group?
Is the scale justified by the data, especially the data on which the potentiometric surface
map is based.
Consensus was reached on the definition of springshed: Those areas within groundwater
and surface-water basins that contribute to the discharge of the spring.
The group discussed data needs with respect to springshed delineation:
caves/karst features
geomorphological features/provinces
springs locations
lineaments, faults, fractures
potentiometric surfaces- redevelopment, all aquifer systems
hydrographs, stage, discharge
dye traces
groundwater rage
geochemical and physical data-wells, springs
land use changes
surface-water basin boundaries
evapotranspiration, rainfall
recharge rates
geophysical (specific)
aquifer performance test data
soils
consumptive use data
The group discussed data products that need to be generated:
1. Potentiometric surface maps
Factors to be considered in constructing these maps
-well heads
-spring/river locations
-three-dimensional locational accuracy
-adequate control for scale required
-well construction data
-well use
2. Lithostratigraphic maps
Should include:
-Formation boundaries
-lithologic descriptions of cores and cuttings from wells
-accurate well locations
3. Hydrostratigraphic Maps
Should include:
-correlation to lithostratigraphic units where possible
-water level data during drilling
-laboratory or geophysical data that characterize permeability
4. Cavernous Zone Maps
Data to generate may include:
-logs of "lost circulation" zones from well logs, geophysical log data
-karst features
-freshwater/saltwater boundary maps
5. Vulnerability (to contamination) maps
6. Geomorphology maps
7. Sub-basin delineation maps
8. Models transient
Data and map resources needed for models:
-aquifer performance test data
-hydrostratigraphy
-potentiomentric surface
-hydrographs, stage, discharge, precipitation, recharge, ET
-leakage
9. Water quality of specific spring vents over time
The question was posed of all the data needs, what is minimally needed to generate a prelimi-
nary springshed map. Two things are critical: potentiometric surface of the aquifer system and
surface-water basin boundaries.
The issue of relative recharge within the springshed was raised and its importance for provid-
ing different levels of protection and for helping local governments prioritize actions regarding
land acquisition and land use practices.
Discussion of Preliminary Basin Delineation
What are the steps in preliminary basin delineation:
1. Design data gathering infrastructure
-Establish frequency and distribution of hydrologic data for both surface water and
groundwater
2. Infrastructure construction
-install monitor wells, lake gages, etc.
3. Collect field data
4. Collect "non-infrastructure" data and analyze
-Karst features/domains,
-Photolineamets
-Land use, loads
-Soils
-Hydraulic parameters
5. Develop flow models
-Establish travel times
-Inverse and forward particle tracking
-Calibrate with groundwater ages, tracers
-Validation
6. Water quality analysis (i.e. interpretation)
7. Develop potentiometric surface maps
8. Develop and implement long-term monitoring plan
In this panel, our goals are now to define "relative vulnerability" within a springshed, prioritize
data gathering and analysis via a timeline, to develop approaches for delivery of preliminary maps,
and to make recommendations. An ongoing project at the Florida Geological Survey may serve
as a good model for estimating the relative vulnerability to contamination within a springshed:
Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (FAVA) presentation
[see FGS website for more detail]
FAVA is a GIS-based system that looks at natural systems without the human component. Data
sets include depth to water, soil conductivity, thickness of confinement, and karst feature density.
The different layers of data have different resolutions. The data will depict relative recharge rates
from land surface to aquifer system. The result is a raster (GRID) mapping product.
A presentation was also made on the FGS Hydrogeology Program, including a recent DEP-
wide hydrogeology needs assessment and research funded during the most recent fiscal year [FGS
website].
Participants discussed basin attributes that are important in determining the vulnerability of a
springshed.
These include:
land use/ pollutant loads
consumptive use
proximity to karst/lineaments/drainage wells
thickness of confinement
hydraulic conductivity (K) of soils, K of vadose zone materials and, K of
the confining unit
proximity to the springs
depth to water
relief/slope, topography, potentiometric surface
head difference
depth to "rock"
A two-tiered approach was discussed in which "critical areas of concern" are delineated within
a springshed based on factors such as nutrient levels, flow declines, and algal and nuisance plant
blooms. The second approach would entail determination of "springs of most concern." We need
to move forward.
"Information today is better than a lot of information too late"
-Anonymous
How do we now move forward without the material being used improperly? It was suggested that
preliminary springshed delineation maps be constructed with these characteristics:
regional in scope
defined by fuzzy boundaries (color shading)
consider composite springsheds because neighboring springsheds do not always have
discrete and clearly defined boundaries.
shade places on the map where there is a known problem
employ simple threee-dimensional graphics and two-dimensional cross sections to make the
maps more visually attractive and informative
perhaps include cartoons or other features that will enhance appeal and understanding.
include importance of maps and how to use maps
How to Deliver Maps:
through presentations to county commissioners, county planners, and regional planning
councils
through a web site
through presentations at meetings
through pamphlets
The maps would be of use to the Florida Department of Agriculture (Best Management Prac-
tices), the Florida Department of Community Affairs (zoning/planning), and the Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection (permitting) as well as the water management districts.
Timeline for Data Acquisition and Analysis toward Springshed Delineation
EARLY
LATER
*Prelim. SS Delineation
*Design Data "Infrastructure"
Estab. Monitoring Plan
Well Locs/Types
SPL Sched
Ident Gage Locs.
"Infrastructure" Construction
Install MW's, Gages
Collect Field Data
Heads, WQ, Discharge
*Collect Other Data & Analyze
Karst Features/Domains
Photolineaments
Land Use/Loads
SW Basins
Soils
Hydraulic Parameters
Tracers
*Data/Lit. Review
UI
EARLY
Develop Flow Models
Est. Travel Times
Inv. Particle Tracking
(& Forward)
Calibration
Tracers
GWAge
Validation
WQ Analyses
(Hydrochem. Facies)
Pot. Surface Maps
I.D. Data Gaps
Long Term Monitoring
Late = 5 Years?
10 Years?
Data Sources: Mines, Wellfields, Landfills ....
LATER
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
Discussion of transport times in relation to establishing zones of protection
The faster the transport time of a contaminant from the land surface to the spring, the greater
the vulnerability. This is not always clear based on proximity alone. For example, a sinkhole some
distance away may be a direct conduit to the spring, but the connection will not be obvious until
the conduits to a particular spring are mapped or until a dye trace test is conducted. Although
preliminary springshed maps based on intuition and incomplete data may be somewhat inaccurate,
they would be of value as a framework for environmental protection/management decisions and
further, more refined research.
Springshed Boundary
Depicting Role of Surface Water
and Groundwater Basins
//
/ \
Groundwaler
SinKnole Basin
Surface water
Basin
S\ o (Internally drained)
Surface water
Basin c
\ (Internally drained) "
Revised Springshed Boundary
Based on Results of Cave Diving Exploration
and/or Tracer Tests that Confirm Presence of Conduit
Connecting a Nearby Surface Water Basin
to the Springhead
Groundwater
Basin
4
\C
Q$
Surface water
Basin
(Internally drained)
(p
-o
.9
U.
U.
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
PANEL III
MEASURES FOR PROTECTING AND MANAGING
FLORIDA SPRINGS
Moderator. Dr. Rodney DeHan
Panelists. Mr. Gary Maidhof, Citrus County
Mr. Chris Rison, Marion County
Mr. Bruce Day, Withlachoochee Regional Planning Council
Mr. Charles Gauthier, Florida Department of Community Affairs
Mr. Dan Pennington, 1000 Friends of Florida
This panel was assigned the task of discussing regulatory measures or land use and manage-
ment practices that may be used to protect Florida's springs. This panel recognizes the social,
economic, and political dimensions of environmental problems. Often these are more challenging
than technology or science. As Reed Noss, editor of the journal Conservation Biology, has writ-
ten, "Scientists cannot simply hand over data to bureaucrats or politicians and expect them to
make rational and prudent decisions about complex problems they know and care little about."
Specifically the panel was to answer these questions:
What is currently being done to manage and protect Florida springs? Do we have the
tools-statutory, regulatory, scientific, practical, educational-to protect and manage
springs?
Where are the gaps in protection and management? Are we getting the maximum out of
existing tools? Are they being enforced and implemented? Do we need a new strategy for
protecting and managing springs? What should the elements of this strategy be?
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS FROM PANELISTS
Local Perspective
Mr Gary Maidhof, Citrus County
In Citrus County there are three first magnitude springs-Chassahowitzka, Homosassa, and
Kings Bay-all publicly owned but surrounded by private property. In Citrus County the popula-
tion has doubled in the last 20 years, from 60,000 to 120,000.
A6
Workshop to develop blue prints for the management and protection of Florida's springs
Three main points regarding growth management regulations should be kept in mind:
1. The Comprehensive Plan is a blueprint for growth. It is a public process that you have to sell
within the community. You cannot just put into the plan what you think you need. Amendment
to the comprehensive plan is also a public process.
2. Land development regulations are a more flushed out version of the comprehensive plan
policies; again, this is a public process. The issue becomes to educate the community of the
need for these and their value.
3. Local communities have to be able to legally defend their regulations. They have to justify that
regulations are for the public good. Since 1996 with the passage the Bert Harris Jr. Private
Property Rights Act, the burden is on local governments to justify and to defend their regula-
tions. Under the Bert Harris Act, any action of government that "inordinately burdens" the fair
market value of real property may be legally challenged. If local governments cannotjustify
and defend their regulations, they need to be prepared to compensate landowners for eco-
nomic loses as the result of the regulations, something no local government wants to do with
tax dollars.
Mr Chris Rison, Marion County
Within developed Marion County are first-magnitude Rainbow Springs and Silver Springs.
First-magnitude Silver Glen Springs is within Ocala National Forest. Land in Marion County falls
into three categories: national forest, floodplain, and karst areas. Marion County has undertaken a
number of measures to protect its springs. An environmentally sensitive overlay zone has been
delineated around all of the county's springs. By delineating such a zone, you can modify develop-
ment density established in the comprehensive plan. Marion County has prohibited class 1,2, and 3
landfills in karst areas and has developed incentives for clustering development in both rural and
urban areas. In cooperation with the state, Marion County has purchased land adjacent to Rain-
bow Springs.
Regional Perspective
Mr Bruce Day, Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council
Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council encompasses five counties (Marion, Sumter, Levy,
Citrus, and Hemando), each of which has very significant water features. Regional planning
councils are responsible for review of Developments of Regional Impact (DRI). A DRI is a very
large development that affects more than one county. Regional planning councils are also required
to adopt Strategic Regional Policy Plans.
State Perspective
Mr Charles G, itili 'r, Florida Department of Community Affairs
There will be legal challenges to land use regulations. These regulations need to be scientifi-
cally based. We are early in the development of land use planning. The scientific foundation is not
yet firmly in place.
DCA reviews 400 comprehensive plan amendment packages each year. Our activities are often
more like "zoning" than "planning." We get caught in a zoning review mode and become too
busy to sit back and focus on bigger issues such as springs and their protection. Local govern-
ments do not have to consider springs per se in their local comprehensive plans, although a
Ground Water Element is required.
We do not currently have standards in place designed to protect springs, but there are some
success stories that we can perhaps draw upon:
1. The Villages is a huge and growing development in Marion, Sumter, and Lake counties,
which will ultimately cover 30,000 acres and consist of 51,000 dwelling units. The population
will be greater than the population of half of the counties in Florida. This development was
ranked first or second in the nation in terms of rate of growth: 2000 units were built in one
year alone. The development is aggressively marketed to retirees and has health care and
entertainment as well as residential components. All that separates the land surface from the
aquifer is a 50-foot veneer of sand, making the potential for pollution of the groundwater is
very high.
What was done? The first and key step was the establishment of an ad hoc task force consist-
ing of the water management district, the regional planning council, the Department of Com-
munity Affairs, local governments, and the developer. A cooperative face-to-face relationship
between the developer and government is critical.
Areas of special vulnerability were delineated and standards developed to protect these areas.
Standards were developed for stormwater management and golf course design and mainte-
nance; restrictions were placed on turf for lawns; education programs were developed for
homeowners regarding the importance of protecting resources; and groundwater monitoring
requirements were put in place.
The Villages is very successful, and other developers are looking at this same model. The
coasts of southeast and southwest Florida are already developed. A wave of development is
spreading along the central spine of Florida and will spread north and west to the Suwannee
region and to the panhandle, places rich with springs. The planning capacity of many of these
once-rural counties is limited. Technical assistance to these counties must go hand in hand
with regulation.
2. Rainbow Springs. This development wraps around parts of the state park. The developer
wanted to amend the DRI to relocate a golf course upgradient from the spring.
What was done? An interagency task force was again used to delineate areas of special
vulnerability. Standards for groundwater management and turf were developed, and a preser-
vation area established. The developer dropped 1100 dwelling units and some commercial
development from his plan. The developer did not have to make these changes but did so as a
result of the interagency task force, an extensive face-to-face cooperative process.
In response to one of the recommendations of the Springs Task Force, the Department of
Environmental Protection has developed a best management practices manual for land around
springs. This is more of an orientation than an exact description of what to do. In the manual a
distinction is made between primary and secondary zones, where lands uses and standards are
going to be different. From the developer's point of view, you have to be able to answer the
question Why is my land inside the primary zone and my neighbor's is not?
What is the next step? Do we need to develop a technical manual for local governments based
on case studies and available science. Also, what should the relationship be between land use
planning and environmental permitting? Does this relationship need to be strengthened?
In sum we need:
Legally defensible growth management standards to protect springs.
An orderly gradation of protection zones
A more technical extension of Best Management Practices Manual
A closer relationship between planning and permitting
Enhancement of the planning capacity of local governments in the Suwannee region and in
the panhandle.
Mr Dan Pennington, 1000 Friends of Florida
We are working with the state to develop a planning and best management practices manual
for springsheds. Everyone sees the need to protect the "big pretty water," but they do not see the
impact of land uses upgradient: as people come, nutrients follow.
What can we do?
Use Florida's comprehensive plan process more effectively
Establish working groups (for example, Wakulla Springs Working Group)
Adopt a resolution of support for springshed protection
Collect data and map the resource; establish zones of protection
What can you do as a local government with limited funds?
A good example of what can be accomplished with limited funds is Wakulla Springs. The
Wakulla Springs springshed is quite large, encompassing all of Leon County. Data collection and
mapping were narrowed down to caves and sinkholes identified by divers. The group then drafted
a working map and developed land use regulations and protection zones as well as a strategy for
land acquisition. The group also worked closely with landowners to help them protect the re-
source.
Discussion of Wekiva River Protection Act
The Wekiva River Protection Act was discussed as another possible model for springshed
protection. The law was an outgrowth of concerns of local citizen groups in the late 1980s who
realized that local governments were not addressing increasing threats to the river and the river
corridor from development. In addition to protecting the river, citizens wanted to establish wild-
life corridors to the Ocala National Forest, particularly for the Florida black bear.
The act did encourage land acquisition and probably stopped a lot of development. The highest
recharge areas for the river, however, are outside the zone of protection and many had been
developed prior to the act. The act perhaps relied too much on the local government comprehen-
sive planning process to protect the Wekiva River System. The act did not address groundwater
or require water budgets, a critical need in an area running out of groundwater and aggressively
seeking surface water. Citizen groups were critical to the success of the Wekiva legislation.
Passage of the act was the culmination of a sustained five-year effort. With a grant from the
Elizabeth Ordway Dunn Foundation, Friends of the Wekiva produced a professional report, The
Wekiva River-A Resource in Danger. They meet with county commissioners and legislators and
gave presentations to newspaper editorial boards. One newspaper produced a series of Pulitzer-
prize winning articles on the river. The staff of Seminole County checked their figures and re-
ported them to be 95% accurate. Today, politics have changed, and for the most part legislators
are not as supportive of environmental legislation as elected officials were in the late 1980s.
Available Tools
The panel proceeded to discuss vehicles or tools already in existence at the state or local level
that may be used or improved upon. Those were the following:
The Intergovernmental coordination element of the local comprehensive plan is an
underrecognized/underutilized tool. The local comprehensive planning process itself has a number
of limitations. The cumulative effects of comprehensive plan amendments undermine the planning
process, although citizen groups can oppose and recommend denial of amendments. The goals,
objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan need to be clear to be effective. The planning
capacity in many counties is severely limited. Many comprehensive plan policies are not currently
enforced.
Infrastructure Element of local comprehensive plan-Stormwater is required to be addressed
in this element. New developments must provide for retention and detention of stormwater. Local
governments are not required to consider quality of the stormwater, which is the responsibility of
the water management districts. Therefore the current stormwater requirements within the local
comprehensive plans have limited applicability to springshed protection.
Future land use map-You can overlay zones to protect springs, spring runs, sinkholes, high
recharge areas, and you can establish primary and secondary zones.
Management plans required for all publicly owned lands-These are potential tools, but
currently they include very little about springs and their protection.
Voluntary stewardship programs-Through these programs, citizens can participate in a wide
range of activities to benefit the environment. On-going programs that may be used as models for
voluntary stewardship programs in springsheds include EPA's Adopt a Watershed and stewardship
programs of Environment Canada.
Consumptive use permits. The usefulness of these permits for water withdrawals issued by the
water management districts to protect springs is limited because they are not tied to minimum
levels and flows.
Minimum levels and flows. Springs need to be a top priority for establishment of minimum flows
and levels. Legislation this year (2002) requires establishment of minimum levels and flows for all
first-magnitude springs. This requirement should be extended to second- and third-magnitude
springs. The water management districts were first required to establish MFLs by the Water
Resources Act of 1972. Although some progress has been made in recent years, much remains to
be done. If the water management districts do not establish MFLs, no one will. This is the respon-
sibility of the water management districts, and the Florida Legislature should require MLFs to be
established within a set timeframe. Today's reality is that spring protection cannot wait on the
water management districts to establish MLFs. The usefulness of MFLs is also limited if they are
not tied to consumptive use permits.
Concurrency. The Growth Management Act (Chapter 163. Florida Statutes), administered by
the Department of Community Affairs, requires infrastructure to be in place when a development
comes on line (that is, when the first resident moves in). Since this law applies to potable water
supply and does not address effects of development on the water for the natural environment, it
has limited applicability to springshed protection. In addition, the water management districts, not
the Department of Community Affairs, issue the consumptive use permits for new developments.
Buffering around sinkholes-Areas should be established around sinkholes where polluting
activities are prohibited.
Local ordinances. For example, Lake County passed a golf course ordinance that requires golf
courses to have a water use plan, to minimize irrigation, to use native grasses, and to be prepare
to use reused water when it becomes available.
Ecotourism. Through ecotourism, people can learn about and actively participate in the conser-
vation of an area. Before you can protect something, people have to know it exists. Tourists
might pay fees or make contributions that support local conservation areas. This is a tool local
government can use to preserve land and to increase public awareness. For example, the Leon
Sinks Trail contributes to understanding and appreciation of the Wakulla Springs watershed.
Ecotourism also brings additional dollars to the local community.
Emergency Management Response Team in DEP, network in place to respond to spills in
springsheds.
Emergency Crimes hotline in DEP to report people dumping in springs and sinkholes
The press. Include, involve, inform
Land Acquisition Programs. Target the most vulnerable portions of the springshed for purchase.
Education of farmers, homeowners, and other landowners. One specific tool to increase
citizen awareness and community support is through Old Timers Day, when seniors get together
and share their stories. Currently held at Ichetucknee Springs, Silver Springs, and Wakulla
Springs.
Consensus: Many good things are on the books. What is lacking is implementation and enforce-
ment as well as explicit attention to springs and springsheds. If current regulations and their
intent-MFLs, comprehensive plans, concurrency, groundwater rules, etc-were implemented
and enforced, the limpkin would not be gone from Wakulla Springs and Florida springs would not
be threatened by blooms ofcyanobacteria. Whether different models should be developed for
pristine and developed springsheds was discussed. Separation was rejected since in Florida most
springsheds are a dynamic combination of rural, developed, and mixed land uses.
Discussion of Value of Legislation
Legislation gives an issue legitimacy and statewide concern. While education and public aware-
ness are helpful and necessary, experience has shown that regulation with adequate enforcement
backed by legislative authority is the only measure that works. Although grassroots organizations
were the driving force behind the Wekiva legislation, they cannot be expected to do everything.
These organizations are by their nature small and volunteer based. They need funding as well as
the help and support from agencies and scientists. You also need the political will of elected
officials. Under the current political climate, it is not popular to rock the growth boat. To get the
support of county commissioners and state legislators, we need to show them the economic value
of springs to the community and the larger value of conserving water in relation to the cost of
developing alternative supplies. This is where we should spend our research dollars.
Legislation can require local comprehensive plans and state lands management plans to explic-
itly address springsheds.
Discussion of Potential of Local Government Land Use Planning
There is adequate regulation and legislative authority on the books that if implemented would
result in protection of springs. Such implementation, however, is not currently practical because
of the lack of site-specific data, lack of public awareness, and lack of political will.
The process is in place, but data and analysis on springs and springsheds has to be included in
the comp plan in sufficient detail to drive goals and land development regulations. The data in the
report First Magnitude Springs ofFlorida (Florida Geological Survey Open File Report No. 85)
should go into the appropriate comprehensive plans. In the absence of legislation, there are four
ways to initiate an amendment to the local comp plan: by the Board of County Commissioners,
the Planning Board, by staff based on the best available data, or by citizens. When budgets are
being set, ask county commissioners when specific goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan
relating to springs are going to be met.
To be successful local government land use planning must also include improved private
property owner participation in the process.
Conclusion Day 1
The panel resolved that:
The Springs Initiative Task Force in cooperation with the Hydrogeology Consortium,
grassroots organizations, and other concerned parties will draft legislation to protect Florida's
springsheds.
The legislation would contain the following elements that were discussed in more detail during the
workshop's second day.
Local Comprehensive Plan
1. Modification of the Conservation Element to require the identification of springs and
springsheds. Focus on the ecological significance of water in addition to its public drinking
water supply value for humans.
2. Include springs within the Infrastruture Element under potable water, solid waste, drainage,
waste water, and stormwater runoff; focus on the relationship between wastewater manage-
ment and springshed health.
3. Tie springs to future land use map; future land use map should reflect springshed recharge
areas or zones of contribution.
4. Include policies of springshed protection in the Intergovernmental Coordination Unit
5. Include springs and their value in the Economic Development Element (although this is an
optional element, it's very important to many communities)
6. Require state agencies to comply with local comprehensive plans
Implementation of comprehensive plans should not be tied to detailed springshed delineation,
which might take several years to complete; use best available data now, do not wait.
The Strategic Regional Policy Plans (prepared by the regional planning councils) should
address springs as well.
Funding
1. Possible sources of funding to protect springs: Put a dollar value on water consumed by
Floridians and direct funding generated to springshed protection; $ /per year/per person user
fee, perhaps as part of utility bill; surveys show support of vast majority of Floridians for
protection of the environment; tax/fee on bottled water withdrawn from springs; tax on quick-
release fertilizers; use portion of WMD consumptive use permit fee; issue a springs vehicle
license tag; put a fee on facilities polluting groundwater.
2. "Fund the machinery that keeps the springs healthy." The tools needed to keep springs
healthy-local comprehensive plans, land acquisition and conservation programs, technical
assistance, research, and monitoring-must be adequately funded.
3. Fund technical assistance to local governments, especially in low-millage and/or low tax base
counties in the Suwannee and Northwest Florida water management districts.
Land Conservation/Land Acquisition
1. Raise the priority of springshed acquisition and conservation under CARL and other land
acquisition programs.
2. Use hydrogeological boundaries for springshed acquisition and conservation. Identify springs
showing high nutrient concentration trends
3. Consider and encourage use of less-than-fee simple acquisition including conservation ease-
ments, transfers of development rights, Bluebelts, water farms, rural stewardship programs
(DCA), and conservation leases. The current Florida Bluebelt law gives a tax break to land-
owners who preserve land in high groundwater recharge areas, but has proved to be of limited
impact because the state does not compensate counties for tax shortfalls.
4. Encourage appropriate cluster development
5. Provide incentives for low-impact development
6. Direct DOT to consider springshed boundaries in stormwater retrofitting activities
7. Allow homeowners to use approved xeriscape landscaping without restrictions or limitations
from local powers.
8. Cooperate with and direct DACS in implementation of more stringent standards for fertilizer
use in springsheds.
Education
1. Fund grassroots education on springshed protection and management.
2. Require counties to have Florida Yards and Neighbors program
3. Install interpretive kiosks in springsheds
4, Share springshed awareness information with DACS staff
5. Utilize xeriscape and water conservation BMPs in all publicly owned facilities, e.g. schools,
DOT, IFAS
6. Work with homeowners associations in educating their members about fertilizer applications
in springsheds
7. Give incentives for BMP use in springsheds
Interagency/Intergovernmental Coordination
1. Direct DEP, DOH, DOT and other state agencies to adopt environmental (ecological) stan-
dards for springshed water quality
2. Fund studies evaluating the dynamics and impacts of groundwater/surface-water interaction in
springsheds
3. Develop and use BMPs in springsheds
Media Involvement
1. Use press releases
2. Invite media to participate in grassroots efforts
3. Share spring information with newspaper editorial boards
Conclusion
Florida springs are North and Central Florida's environmental equivalent of South Florida's
Everglades. They need special and explicit attention today. Science is not enough. We must
compel elected officials to take action before yet another piece of natural Florida is gone forever.
PLENARY SESSION
Panel moderators reported their panel findings and recommendations to the plenary session as
follows:
Panel I
Inventory of Springs in Florida
Dr. Rick Copeland, FGS
In the past the most effective measures for locating springs entailed field studies. The most
common method is to go out in a boat with an electrical conductivity meter. Because the electrical
conductivity of surface water and groundwater generally differs, significant differences in conduc-
tivity measurements often indicate the presence of springs or another form of groundwater dis-
charge into surface water. Presence of oyster beds, differences in vegetation cover as well as
certain geologic features may also indicate a spring. These traditional methods are labor intensive
and time consuming. Time and labor may be saved by enlisting the public-perhaps through
announcements on public radio-to report unknown springs. Divers and fishermen are particu-
larly good sources of information about the location of springs: leaflets could be distributed
through bait and tackle and dive shops.
Currently we are testing a number of high-tech methods in Florida including airborne thermog-
raphy and boat-towed electric resistivity. Statistical techniques are also a useful tool for locating
springs as springs tend to occur in clusters.
The establishment, population with quality-assured data, and maintenance of an interactive and
uniform database are essential for sharing and disseminating information and ultimately to foster-
ing the effort to manage and protect springs. Key issues for database construction are how to
classify springs, how to name springs, and how to ensure that each spring is given a unique
identification number. Ifa database is to be established, then consistent nomenclature is a must.
The panel decided that a nomenclature committee should be established prior to the development
of a database. This committee should consist of representatives from FGS, other groups within
DEP, the WMDs, USGS, the universities, professional societies, and citizens. The task of estab-
lishing consistent, statewide nomenclature could be accomplished in three one-day meetings with
a draft available in December.
After nomenclature has been established, the database development committee can begin its
work. It is envisioned this committee will have the same composition as the nomenclature com-
mittee with the addition of database and web site designers. The database will include physical,
chemical, and biological parameters. Existing databases will be incorporated as much as possible
into the new database.
Panel II
Delineation of Springsheds
Dr. Jon Arthur, FGS
Panelists presented their experiences and their perspectives on delineating springshed bound-
aries. Sam Upchurch pointed out that from a resource protection viewpoint, a spring basin needs
to include the surface-water basin, the groundwater basin, and the relative recharge to the
groundwater within the basin. Upchurch worked with the Suwannee River Water Management
District to determine an approach to springshed delineation and to establish a water quality
monitoring plan for first-magnitude springs. The district will use the results in land-owner assis-
tance, land acquisition, regulatory, and education programs.
Wes Skiles asserted that we need to change the way we deal with groundwater protection. He
suggests that we have enough data, but what we need is more education and outreach. He also
discussed three different conduit types (spongework, braided maze, and single conduit) he has
observed in his over 20 years of mapping caves.
Todd Kincaid reviewed cave system types (flow dominated and storage dominated) and
pointed out that we need to recognize that some cave systems reflect past, not present hydrologic
conditions. Hal Davis, using the Big Bend region, identified surface-water and groundwater basins
and stated that we need to move forward with a preliminary set of springshed maps, Brian
McGurk shared the results of flow-path studies and springshed delineation in the Wekiva River
basin. He also discussed distal and proximal recharge areas.
A consensus was reached on a definition of a springshed: Those areas with groundwater and
surface-water basins that contribute to the discharge of the springs. (see illustrations on page 3
and page 4)
The drawings illustrate a conceptual springshed, showing the relation between the surface-
water and groundwater basin, catchments for sinkholes, and connections via conduit systems.
Cave mapping and dye-tracing studies are important, especially in these latter connections.
Current needs for delineation of springsheds:
Baseline data and boundary information
Timelines for data acquisition and analysis toward springshed delineation
Methods to identify areas of relative vulnerability within springsheds
The FGS is currently developing the Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (FAVA). FAVA
enables one to identify relative vulnerability of aquifer systems to contamination. This methodol-
Springshed Boundary
Depicting Role of Surface Water
and Groundwater Basins
Sinkhol
Groundwater
Basin
Surface water
Basin
(Internally drained)
(p\
0J~'
Revised Springshed Boundary
Based on Results of Cave Diving Exploration
and/or Tracer Tests that Confirm Presence of Conduit
Connecting a Nearby Surface Water Basin
to the Springhead
Groundwater
Basin
2
aC
Surface water
Basin
(Internally drained)
00
ogy can likely be applied to identify relative vulnerability within springsheds, which in turn will
enable resource managers to protect water quality in Florida's springs.
We do have a good start on delineating springsheds. Some springsheds have been well defined;
some have not.
Proposed Actions
1. Identify critical areas of concern within a springshed (based on consistent criteria)
2. Identify springs of concern
3. Develop preliminary springshed maps with these characteristics:
regional in scope
color-coded (fuzzy) boundaries
consider composite springsheds
include simple 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional graphics to illustrate the aquifer and sur-
face-water and groundwater interaction
Briefly explain on the map why the map was made and how it should be used.
Delivery of map through presentations, brochures, web site; target audience includes deci-
sion makers (county commissioners, legislators) and local and state agency personnel as
well as citizens. In developing maps cooperation from Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Department of Community Affairs, other divisions within DEP, and the
water management districts should be sought.
Wes Skiles asked me to share this with you: "The goal of delineating springsheds is to help
residents and local government to better understand and protect their spring resources. Only when
the public comes to understand and embrace that they live in a springshed will they utilize their
power to influence their elected officials. Springshed maps must offer positive incentives and
solutions at the local level to be effective."
Other strategies proposed by the group:
Use Blue Belt and Well-Head Protection programs as means of protecting springs
Recognize that public education/outreach is critical. We must empower people and instill them
with a sense of ownership. We hope to encourage people to have this attitude: "I live in a
springshed, and what I put on my lawn (or crops) goes into the springshed, and eventually flows
out of the spring I care about the environment, I understand the issues, and I vote." When this
happens, spring protection will become a reality from the grass-roots level up through govern-
ment regulation.
Panel III
Management and Protection of Springs
Dr. Rodney DeHan, FGS
Protection of springs requires more than good science. It involves political issues, social issues,
economic issues, and funding issues. There is a huge gulf between what is on the books (in terms
of regulatory authority) and what is being implemented in the real world. The panel asked ques-
tions such as: What are the loopholes? What are the deficiencies at the state, regional, and local
levels?
The panel concluded that simply urging citizens, businesses, and local and state government
officials to protect springs is not enough. We need to tell them what to do via the proper author-
ity, which is legislation. The following motion was made and passed unanimously:
"The Springs Initiative Task Force in cooperation with Hydrogeology Consortium, grassroots
organizations and other concerned parties will draft legislation to protect Florida's springsheds."
This is of course easier said than done. The Wekiva River Protection Act was discussed as a
model. Can that model be used to foster better protection and management of springs elsewhere
in Florida?
Elements of Possible Legislation
Some of the elements discussed were new; some are revisions and expansions of existing tools.
1. Local Comprehensive Plans
This is a good tool if implemented, which requires political and financial support, but in reality a
good comp plan can be--and some have been--amended in one afternoon by local governments.
The local government people on the panel suggested:
Focus on springs and springsheds in the conservation element; refer to and look at the
ecological significance of water; not just the significance of water as a commodity for
human consumption and use; water should also be managed and protected for its ecological
value; not just as public supply for drinking water.
Waste management needs to be compatible with spring protection; for example, in permits
issued for waste treatment, management and disposal criteria ought to look not only at
effects on groundwater but on what groundwater will carry to the surface water via interac-
tion between the two media.
Future land use maps should indicate springshed recharge areas (zones of contribution)
Include springs in the intergovernmental coordination element: springsheds know no politi-
cal boundaries
The Economic Development Element is very important: we need to understand the relation
between environmental protection and the health of the economy. We should not tie recom-
mended actions to exhaustive and definitive delineation of springshed; the latter can go on for a
long time allowing governments to use it as an excuse for not doing anything. Use the best avail-
able data and begin protection now.
2. Funding
We need a grassroots group to push the issue of springshed protection as legislation; the group
will need some funding to get people together, to put together packets for the press and legisla-
tors.
The greatest amount of funding will be needed for implementation of the act; no use in having
unfunded mandates.
Where do funds come from?
Water has always been free. We only pay for the infrastructure to bring water to us. The water
itself is given no economic value. We need to put a value on water, and we need to direct a
portion of the money generated to springshed protection and management. As one participant put
it, "Fund the machinery that keeps springs healthy."
The state needs to provide technical assistance to local governments in the development of effec-
tive comp plans, in the design of monitoring activities, and in needed research.
Potential sources of funding-The following ideas were discussed: springs license tag, $ /year/
person user fee, portion of permit fee for facilities discharging to the waters of the state, tax on
quick-release fertilizers, fee on facilities that pollute ground water, tax on bottled water.
3. Land Conservation and Acquisition
Land acquisition is a component of land conservation. Propose to raise the priority of springshed
acquisition on the CARL list and use hydrogeologic boundaries of springsheds in land purchases.
We should evaluate the zones of contribution to springs not just look at the spring itself. Springs
are only the "end" of long and complicated journeys taken by the groundwater through the hydro-
logic cycle.
Direct DOT to consider springshed boundaries in their stormwater retrofitting.
Need to use:
Less-than-fee simple acquisition
Incentives for low-impact development
Rural stewardship programs
Identify springs with increasing nutrient concentrations by monitoring. The existing standard is
essentially meaningless because it is a health standard. We need to start doing something way
before there is a health standard violation.
Cooperate with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to develop more stringent
standards for fertilizer use in springsheds
4. Education
Find, cultivate, encourage grassroots movements
Require counties to participate in Florida Yards and Neighbors program
Install interpretive kiosks at springs
Use water conservation Best Management Practices and xeriscaping on all public lands
Offer incentives/rewards for people who use Best Management Practices
5. Closing Loopholes
Make state agencies comply with local comprehensive plans
Interagency/intergovernmental coordination
Need to have legislature adopt ecological standards for pollutants, especially nutrients, in
springsheds
The panel agreed that although some good regulations are already "on the books," they are not
currently being adequately implemented toward the management and protection of springs. The
panelists were in agreement with the audience that additional measures are needed. They identi-
fied regulations already in existence and recommended specific measures to be taken in modifying
these to better manage and protect springs. The panelists and participants from the audience went
on to recommend that, in addition to "fine tuning" existing regulation, specific legislation be
drafted to protect and manage springs.
|
