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; Resource Management issues and application of data in the Mammoth Cave System.

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 Sinkholes Lineaments Dye traces Reports and presentations repository Proposal for FGS to maintain data repository

Input and sample points: Conduits, wells, tubing, homeowner tap Tracer methods/types 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 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 Scale/size: 2nd mag springshed or part of 1st mag?, Fan/Man? Subset of Wakulla?, SRWMD areas Suwannee Farms, Ocala Natl. Forest (i.e. Silver Glenn); SWFWMD: Weeki Wachee? 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” Models to consider Conduit characteristics: sat/unsat Univ. Arkansas USF Conduit characteristics: sat/unsat Good lithostratigraphic and hydrostratigraphic control Need more than one site? Yes! Applications Protection of VISKA – public education, signage, conservation easements

“VISKA” Potential studies within a “VISKA” : 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 Initial “Strawman” document – non-site specific, “float” it out for review/reply A steering committee comprised of 5WMD, USGS, FGS, 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” 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, sell… “Marketing” of idea