Utilization of Cave Data in Hydrogeological Investigations

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. 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 • 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