Utilization of Cave Data in Hydrogeological Investigations Panelists

Utilization of Cave Data in Hydrogeological Investigations Panelists Dr. Todd Kincaid, Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc. ; Data collection considerations at Wakulla Springs Dr. Steve Worthington, Worthington Groundwater; Modeling issues related to the Mammoth Cave System Mr. Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA); resource management issues and importance of cavers, cave data and communication Mr. Hal Davis, US Geological Survey; Use of cave data in Wakulla Springshed Mr. Joe Meiman, Mammoth Cave National Park;

Discussion topics Cave study template Need for MODFLOW modifications Incorporating cave data in hydrogeological studies Karst Data Management “VISKA” Very Intensely Studied Karst Area

Karst data management: need for centralization and standardization Data types: Springs WQ l Sinkholes l Lineaments l Dye traces l Reports and presentations repository Proposal for FGS to maintain data repository

l Tracer methods/types • • l l Contamination/spills Temperature Color Fluorescent, biological (phage), radioactive, microspheres Input and sample points: Conduits, wells, tubing, homeowner tap Permitting? • DEP/DOH roles; WQ sampling protocols; coordination to avoid interference • Need for centralized data • Karst Environmental Services protocols – a model • Reporting requirements – Confidentiality issues (3 -5 years? ) – Security issues l Proposal: DEP/FGS to maintain statewide map of tracing results • Utilize MOA with organizations?

“VISKA” Very Intensely Studied Karst Area (GW Demonstration Basin/Project) Desired characteristics l Scale/size: 2 nd mag springshed or part of 1 st mag? , Fan/Man? Subset of Wakulla? , SRWMD areas Suwannee Farms, Ocala Natl. Forest (i. e. Silver Glenn); SWFWMD: Weeki Wachee? • • l l l Cost factors Political issues and ”connections” Conservation easements CREP program (Mammoth Cave) as cost-share model; NRCS examples Available historical data Depth <400’ Land-use – ability to modify or implement BMPs and monitor results

“VISKA” l Models to consider • Univ. Arkansas • USF Conduit characteristics: sat/unsat l Good lithostratigraphic and hydrostratigraphic control l Need more than one site? Yes! l • Applications l Protection of VISKA – public education, signage, conservation easements

“VISKA” Potential studies within a “VISKA” : l l l l SW/GW interaction GW flow model calibration GW dating FAVA validation Contaminant transport Tracer studies BMP issues related to stormwater ponds Speleogenensis Springshed delineation Surface geophysical investigations—WQ, cave detection, lithology BMP demonstration – did the BMPs work? How well? Total Maximum Daily Loads Minimum Flows and Levels

“VISKA” Outreach/education Funding approach Sell idea in the framework of solving a WMD/DEP problem (i. e. TMDL) ID a focus/pilot study Proposal l l Initial “Strawman” document – non-site specific, “float” it out for review/reply A steering committee comprised of 5 WMD, USGS, FPS DEP, State Univ. , DCA, Dept. Ag. , NSS-CDS, HC, NACD, GUE, Dept. of State: • Hire consultant to initiate and “shepherd” the issue forward • Who’s on first… obtain funding first or select site and/or perform research first, then propose idea? VISKA Access • Proposals? • Committee approval?

“VISKA” l How to fund? • Partnerships – Nature Conservancy, Universities, USGS, NSF, NSS, 1000 Friends, DEP/EPA SWAP, USACOE • Demonstrate successes of applied hydrogeological studies that solve a high-priority environmental problem – “dark water” origins in Wakulla – SKAs in SWFWMD – retention ponds • Sell, sell… “Marketing” of idea