1. 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.

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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. “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

6. “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

7. “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

8. “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?

9. “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