Ichetucknee Springs Preservation Research Workshop February 10, 2011 Summary Report Kathleen McKee, Research Coordinator UF Water Institute Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Pre‐Workshop Survey ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Webpage ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Workshop ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Agenda ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Posters: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Morning Presentations ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Brian Katz summary .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Matt Cohen summary ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Steve Walsh summary ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Ginger Morgan and Craig Parenteau summary ...................................................................................................... 13 Bob Knight summary ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Small Group Discussions ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Research Priorities: ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Monitoring / Survey Priorities ............................................................................................................................ 18 Restoration ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Collaboration ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Workshop close .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Post‐Workshop Survey ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix ‐ Workshop invitees .................................................................................................................................... 24 1 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Executive Summary Three Rivers Trust convened the Ichetucknee Springs Preservation Research Workshop at the state park, on February 10, 2011 to discuss research priorities for preserving and restoring the Ichetucknee Springs system. They asked the UF Water Institute to coordinate and facilitate the meeting. This document is the synopsis of the meeting process and results. A preworkshop survey was conducted to determine what participants felt was causing impacts to the Ichetucknee system. Overall, these were the highest priorities for river impairment to the 17 survey respondents: 1. Improve GW quality 2. Increase springflow (MFL?) 3. Reduce algae 4. Reduce nitrate 5. Allow fewer tubers on north end of the river 6. Increase diversity and cover of SAV The workshop consisted of presentations by experts in different topic areas, followed by small group discussions about monitoring, restoration, research and collaboration. The presentations were: Brian Katz, USGS ‐ Hydrology and nutrients in the springshed (link to pdf presentation) Matt Cohen, UF Faculty ‐ Hydrology and water quality in the river (link to pdf presentation) Ginger Morgan, Craig Parenteau, FDEP Parks ‐ Flora monitoring (link to pdf presentation) Steve Walsh, USGS ‐ Fauna monitoring (link to pdf presentation) Bob Knight, Wetland Solutions, Inc. ‐ Recreation, Turbidity, Ichetucknee Report Card (link to pdf presentation) A postworkshop survey of invitees was conducted asking them to rate activities that were discussed during workshop small groups. 18 people responded. Top priorities rated on scale of 1 to 4 for monitoring were 1. Flow monitoring of springs (avg rating 3.28) 2. Water quality/chemistry in the springs (avg rating 3.22) 3. Macroinvertebrate monitoring (avg rating 3.0) Top research priorities rated on scale of 1 to 4 were 1. Effects of declining springflow on the ecosystem (avg rating 3.28) 2. Estimate effects of springshed water pumping on springflow (avg rating 3.17) 3. Grazer/SAV interactions (avg rating 3.06) This webpage was developed to serve Ichetucknee related resources and a webpage summarizing this workshop: http://waterinstitute.ufl.edu/research/projects/Ichetucknee.html 2 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Introduction The meeting was coordinated and organized by Kathleen McKee with invaluable assistance from Ondine Wells (Normandeau Associates Inc.) and Dina Liebowitz (UF School of Natural Resources and the Environment). The goal of the meeting was to define research and restoration priorities for the preservation of Ichetucknee Springs; to explore approaches and information gaps around what is causing Ichetucknee springs system ecosystem degradation, and optimal restoration approaches. In order to support the process of the meeting, a pre‐workshop survey was created and sent to workshop invitees (see Appendix). Also, a web page of Ichetucknee resources was created for people to reference to learn about the system and to suggest more helpful resources for researchers and managers. Those invited to the meeting are known to have done research, monitoring and management in the Ichetucknee Spring system. Pre­Workshop Survey Prior to the meeting, we decided to conduct a survey of invitees to understand priorities for research and restoration in the river, in the watershed and actions that should be taken. Questions asked: 1. What is your name and organization? OR just list general organization category (govt agency, nonprofit, education etc). 2. What is your sense of the CURRENT HEALTH of the Ichetucknee springs system? 3. What would you like to see CHANGE at Ichetucknee Springs or surrounding area? (What would you like to see more of? less of?) 4. What would you like to have STAY THE SAME at Ichetucknee Springs or in the surrounding area? 5. What do you feel are the most important ACTIONS that should be taken to improve the health of the Ichetucknee? 6. What do you feel are the greatest CHALLENGES to implementing these proposed actions? 7. What are the top 3 to 5 research questions, in your opinion, important in the Ichetucknee Springs system? (includes springs, river and springshed ‐ including nutrients, hydrology, flora, fauna, recreation etc) 8. What current research are you involved with in the Ichetucknee Springs system? Please email related webpages, pdfs, citations, reports to [email protected]. 9. List suggestions of how Ichetucknee research and monitoring could be better coordinated, and how researchers can share information: 10. Do you have other comments and ideas? Please list here: Survey Results: http://waterinstitute.ufl.edu/research/projects/downloads/Ichetucknee/IchetSurvResults.pdf Survey Poster: http://waterinstitute.ufl.edu/research/projects/downloads/Ichetucknee/IchetWorskhopSurvey‐Kat.ppt 3 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Summary of opinion of Ichetucknee springs and river system ecosystem health: Overall, these were the highest priorities for river impairment to the 17 survey respondents: 7. Improve GW quality 8. Increase springflow (MFL?) 9. Reduce algae 10. Reduce nitrate 11. Allow fewer tubers on north end of the river 12. Increase diversity and cover of SAV The discussions during the workshop generally reflected the priorities revealed by the survey listed above, but grazers (snails) in the river to control algae were given a lot of attention during the workshop. 4 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary For these 2 graphs, if a person mentions a topic (e.g. ‘reduce nitrate’) in more than one answer, the person is only counted one time in a graph. 5 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Webpage A new Ichetucknee Springs Resources web page was created within the UF Water Institute website (under Workshops and Panels from the main page) as a place to share research, reports, weblinks etc. related to the Ichetucknee Springs system. This web page will be temporarily maintained but it is recommended that a more sustainable solution for a central collaborative web site be developed and maintained for long‐term coordination of restoration and research efforts. This summary document and the February 10 workshop details can also be found at this site. http://waterinstitute.ufl.edu/research/projects/Ichetucknee.html Workshop A one‐day workshop took place in the Ichetucknee Springs State Park on Thursday February 10, 2011. There were brief presentations on the Hydrology, Recreation, Nutrients, Fauna, and Flora of 6 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary the Ichetucknee followed by small group discussions on the most important work to be done related to research, monitoring, restoration, and collaboration. Agenda 9:15 Richard Hamann, Board President, Three Rivers Trust ‐ Welcome
9:20 Wendy Graham, Director, UF Water Institute ‐ Role of Water Institute, Meeting Outcomes.
9:30 Kathleen McKee, Research Coordinator, UF Water Institute ‐ Review Agenda 9:35 Ondine Wells, Pandion Systems, Ichetucknee Springs Working Group Coordinator ‐ Restoration Planning Process (link to pdf presentation) 9:45 Kathleen McKee ‐ Survey Results (see Poster)
10:00 Brief presentations to synthesize impairment concerns highlighting related known research and data and potential research questions/hypotheses Brian Katz, USGS ‐ Hydrology and nutrients in the springshed (link to pdf presentation)
10:30 Matt Cohen, UF Faculty ‐ Hydrology and water quality in the river (link to pdf presentation)
11:00 Ginger Morgan, Craig Parenteau, FDEP Parks ‐ Flora monitoring (link to pdf presentation)
11:30 Steve Walsh, USGS ‐ Fauna monitoring (link to pdf presentation)
12:00 Lunch 1:15 Bob Knight, Wetland Solutions, Inc. ‐ Recreation, Turbidity, Ichetucknee Report Card (link to pdf presentation) 1:45 Break out groups ‐ Meet 30 minutes three times, people could move or stay at a table. •
•
•
•
Monitoring (link to pdf of notes)
Collaboration (link to pdf of notes) Research (link to pdf of notes Restoration (link of pdf of notes) 3:30 Group Reports and Discussion 4:15 Next Steps 4:30 End 7 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Posters: •
•
•
•
•
•
Changing Ecosystems of the Ichetucknee: The Headspring through Time (J. Stevenson, D. Liebowitz, J. Heinerth) (link to ppt) Ichetucknee River Flow at US27 from 1929 – 2010: Statistical Trend (B. Gao, K. McKee, W. Graham) (link to ppt) Statistical Trends of Groundwater Around the Suwannee Basin (B. Gao, K. McKee, W. Graham, O. Gargulio) (link to ppt) Ichetucknee Springs Workshop Participant Survey (K. McKee) (link to ppt) Water Use in Columbia County since 1980 (K. McKee) (link to ppt) Pore‐Water Chemistry and Hydrology in a Spring‐Fed River: Implications for Hyporheic Control of Nutrient Cycling and Speleogenesis (M.J. Kurz, J.B. Martin, M.J. Cohen) (link to pdf) Morning Presentations Presentations in the morning contained valuable information about the state of knowledge of the Ichetucknee system and current or needed monitoring and research. This helped inform afternoon small break out groups to discuss priorities. Following are some highlights from those presentations. Brian Katz summary Link to talk. Brian highlighted the vulnerability of areas in the springshed to fertilizer contamination based on topographic depressions and land use data. Areas most vulnerable to nitrate contamination of ground water are located in closed depressions containing sinkholes in the lower part of basin. 82 30 00
82 45 00
30 15 00
30 00 00
EXPLANATION
1.6 Kilometer radius
Spring Basin Boundary
Vulnerability
to Contamination
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
8 Fertilizer nitrogen input to surface,
kilograms per hectare
N load = 0
N load > 0 and <= 34, no closed depressions
N load > 34, no closed depressions
N load > 0 and <= 34, closed depressions
N load > 34, closed depressions
Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Possible decreases in nitrate concentrations in spring waters may not track anticipated future reductions in N loading due to long ground‐water residence times (20‐30 years) and continual release of N from storage in the unsaturated zone. He showed estimated N‐loading to groundwater in the springshed based on 1995 land use, IFAS‐
recommended fertilizer application rates, direct measurements of atmospheric deposition, and assessments of waste disposal practices. It was commented that work should be done with both nitrogen and oxygen isotopes of nitrate to better estimate N sources. “A number of researchers have used this dual‐isotope technique to identify dominant sources of NO3 − to determine whether or not denitrification has occurred.” “During denitrification process, nitrogen forms result that look like they came from manure or septics.” Recent USGS studies are using this multi‐isotope approach. The relative contribution to total N inputs to the springshed for the 8 land‐use nitrogen sources based on 1995 land use are included below: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Fertilized cropland (27%) Animal wastes (27%) Fertilized yards (14%) Septics (12%) Fertilized pine (10%) Atmospheric (8%) Sprayfield (1%) Biosolids (1%) More work needs to be done to better quantify these sources, but it is agreed that over 50% of N sources (probably much more) is from fertilizers. There is a lag in N showing up in springs because of long groundwater residence times (20‐30 yrs). More details about how the relative contributions of nitrogen from these sources are described in a recent journal article by Katz, B.G., Sepulveda, A.A., and Verdi, R.J., 2009, Estimating nitrogen loading to ground water and assessing vulnerability to nitrate contamination in a large karstic springs basin, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, v. 45, no. 3, pp. 607‐627. 9 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Research Recommendations: • Refine loading estimates to ground water using most recent land use information and more precise information on fertilizer application rates (and perhaps other chemical indicators and methods of determining N source in addition to nitrogen and oxygen isotopes of nitrate. • Determine the amount of nitrate (N) stored in the unsaturated zone beneath fertilized cropland and pine stands, animal grazing fields, and waste disposal sites (septic tanks and STP effluent). • Determine the extent of denitrification occurring in the subsurface in various parts of the springshed. • Assess how future changes in land use in the basin may impact springs Matt Cohen summary Link to talk. Very large amounts of N are removed from the river longitudinally (0.6 – 1.1 g N/m2/d) and nitrate declines 30‐40% over 3 miles. This was typically thought to be due to plant uptake but most now thought to be removed by microbes in this river (80%) which live around the vegetation. Particularly throughout the grassy flats (rice marsh area). There is a strong diel signal in nitrate and dissolved oxygen as seen here. When DO is high, nitrate is low. 10 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Removal of N is dependent on stage and discharge. NO3 concentrations in the river are maximally correlated with river discharge at a lag of 6 ‐18 months. But algae and NO3 not so correlated in Florida springs. Using the same data source, (Stevenson et al 2004) better predictors of algae cover are grazers and dissolved oxygen (r2 = 0.35, p<0.001 in spring time and r2 = 0.17, p = 0.02 in the fall). Joe Hand at FDEP (January 2009) did a photo survey of the river and connected spring runs and found less algae in the longer run areas of the main river where nitrate concentrations were higher (0.75 and 0.65 mg/L ‐ above Blue Hole, and below Blue Hole resp.) and more algae near some of the spring boils where nitrate levels were lower (0.45 and 0.55 mg/L ‐ Mission and Devils Eye resp.). Controls on algae accumulation could be related to flow and grazing pressure. There have been observations of local algae control with flow velocity and gastropod biomass. 11 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Dina Liebowitz is doing studies in the Ichetucknee showing strong top‐down control of algae accumulation. She has experiments with enclosures and exclosures of snails and observed algae cover after periods of time (see photo). Research questions: • What controls floral/faunal composition and productivity? • How are regional consumptive uses affecting flow and in turn the ecosystem? • Fate and effects of N load? Where does it go and what does it do? • What are faunal controls on algal accumulation? • What are chemical controls on fauna (e.g. gastropods)? • What are discharge / chemistry relations? • Where does N go in the river? • Ecosystem metabolism as a baseline for change detection (seasonality, tubing, flow). • Understand sediment/water interactions • Understand detailed river hydrology • River ecosystem process (metabolism, soichiometry, phenology) Steve Walsh summary Link to talk. Monitoring Needs for fauna: • Benthic macrointertebrates: semi quantitative or quantitative quarterly monitoring – indicators of ecosystem health. Merritt and Cummins approach (surrogate ratios for ecosystem functional attributes); taxonomic compositions, absolute abundances, and
relative abundances
• Fish communities: annual/biannual surveys (summer/winter) down the run • Turtle surveys (done with fishwork); population monitoring as done in Rainbow and Wekiva rivers (mark/recapture). • Amphibian surveys; night visits to ID via call identification • Bird surveys – Christmas bird couns? Annua/biannual surveys down the river (summer/winter) • Mammals – maybe manatee counts. Otters, beavers? Research Questions: • Interactions between inverts and algae (effects of algal growth on macroinvert habitat and grazer control of algae) • Effects of exotics (plants and animals) on spring run ecology • Food web studies – how algal proliferation may alter trophic dynamics • Follow‐up nutrient dynamics work (Cohen, Heffernan et al.) • Microbial metabolism/dynamics (Inglett/Reddy et al.) 12 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Biology Studies • Establish baseline condition (e.g. Odum in Silver Springs) • trend monitoring • Indicator species study • Occupancy/detectability models Other priorities • Water quality management (TMDLs) • MFLs • Are management efforts working? Ginger Morgan and Craig Parenteau summary Some historical information is available from the 2000 Unit Management Plan available here: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/IchetuckneeSpringsStatePark.pdf This map is the current map of transects from Ginger Morgan. As part of an ongoing monitoring program, Park Service biologists measure aquatic vegetative cover in the Ichetucknee River 2‐3 weeks before tubing season (spring) and 2‐3 weeks after tubing season (fall) to look at recreation effects on vegetation. River carrying capacities are judged adequate if vegetation coverage at the various transects remains at approximately the same level each year. Vegetation spp and depths are put into the computer. % cover, % exposed, and these are compared among years. Devil’s Eye used to be lush SAV. Now vegetation is sparse and covered with algae. Now we see periphyton and Lyngbya plus a decline in Chara in the upper half of the river. Also a decline in foxtail from the Grassy Flats area to US 27. There is more SAV than in 1978, but 98% of it is Sagittaria. What proportions of vegetation types should we be looking for? Charles DuToit, who studied aquatic plant distribution in the Ichetucknee in the late 1970s (see his 1979 thesis), snorkeled the river again in 2006. He observed that in the Grassy Flats marsh area, Sagittaria had increased and Chara had decreased significantly since 1978. A lot of degraded beds were covered by sediment and comparatively very few snails were seen. Is periphyton affecting this? Chara is ubiquitous past the bridge. Almost no SAV occurs now in the lower River. In 1973, 13 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary there was much more diverse SAV (B. Knight comment) in the lower river. Should we be extending research and monitoring south of the park, below the bridge? The lower part of the river is much more susceptible to brown outs (Santa Fe River water coming up into the clear spring water). From the Unit Management Plan: Extreme climatic conditions should warrant temporary adjustment to the carrying capacities. Tuber damage to submersed plants is acute during years with extreme low water levels. To avoid accelerated damage during such years, it may be necessary to reduce carrying capacities in the shallow portion of the river from the Headspring to midpoint. The following year after extreme flood events, coverage of emergent aquatic vegetation is reduced in the grassy flats area. When this happens, the deep channel is difficult to locate, and tubers are often unable to remain within the deeper portions of the river. Extensive amounts of sediment may be released into the water column as tubers walk through shallow areas to return to the channel. Bob Knight summary Link to talk. The park gets about 200,000 people for outdoor recreation and though there are limits on tubers using the river, reduced water clarity is a concern. Six month study just concluded seeing effects of human uses on turbidity and indirect effect of human‐derived turbidity on light attenuation, water clarity, primary productivity etc. Dampiers Landing June 27, 20 ‐ Human uses were dominated by in‐water activities, and primarily tubing (80%). The number of users increased through the morning with the highest count at about 12:00 noon. This increase in use is likely correlated to higher temperatures and the amount of time it takes for users from the North Entrance to reach Dampier’s Landing. In addition to the detailed 15‐minute counts, total users entering, exiting, and passing by were recorded. During the count between 8:37‐12:37, observations included 848 tubers, 35 swimmers, 3 kayaks, and 2 motorboats. 14 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Turbidity at Dampier's Landing from June 16, 2010 to July 6, 2010 by Weekday and Weekend Day. From Bob’s report: “Data show that turbidity generally increases downstream even during periods when users are not present. This is likely related to export from the surrounding forest, primary productivity, and suspension of fine grained sediments. Daily variation occurs at all of the stations due to human use and primary productivity/export from the system. This contributes approximately 0.2‐2 NTU on average of additional turbidity at the measured stations ” “The effect of exported material on turbidity at the North Launch and downstream of North Launch stations appears to be minimal. At both Dampier’s Landing and US 27 there is a diurnal trend that adds approximately 0.2 to 0.3 NTU. This increase in turbidity during the daylight hours is likely related to primary productivity and export of algal cells, as recreational pressures were significantly lower during these sonde deployments.” Recommendations • Do an evaluation of the success of human use restrictions used by the park to control changes in aquatic plant communities • Further measurements should be made of the direct effects of users. This should include an evaluation of the physical damage to vegetation, localized turbidity created, and the export of vegetation by types of use. • Additional horizontal Secchi data should be routinely collected to evaluate the impact of human uses on visibility. • Additional measurements of turbidity and light attenuation 15 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary A report card (above) by the Florida Springs Institute using park vegetation transect data shows declining SAV diversity over the years. More recommendations •
Monitor flow and water quality at all major spring boils and at Dampier’s Landing, US 27, and above SFR confluence •
Extend plant community monitoring to SFR •
Routine fish and turtle counts •
Whole ecosystem monitoring 16 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Small Group Discussions Research Priorities: •
•
•
•
17 FLOW – Quantify discharge vs. chemistry relations – How does consumptive use affect flow? How can we better estimate pumping? – How does declining springflow affect the ecosystem – What is the age‐composition of groundwater from springs? Use DO and other proxies? Nitrogen – How is Nitrate denitrified in vadose zone river itself and aquifer? – Look at Oxygen isotopic signatures in NO3 to better determine sources in the springshed – Accurate accounting of fertilizer use – Nitrate contributions in the springshed, and the trace. – Determine amount of Nitrate stored in usaturated zone below agric, & waste disposal lands – Refine loading information from septics – Assess BMP effectiveness Ecology – Plant management effects on denitrification processes – Faunal controls (snails?) on algal accumulation – Chemical controls on fauna (e.g. DO effects snails?) – Indirect effects of low DO on flora and fauna – Grazer/algae/SAV interactions – Why is diversity of SAV decreasing – How are rising temps and extreme precip events effecting river ecology – Sediment effects on veg, algae, chemistry – Can snail introduction control algae Human impact – How is human use of the site affecting SAV, turbidity, fauna? – How is tubing impacting the Nitrate budget Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Monitoring / Survey Priorities •
•
•
•
18 Hydrology – Discharge • Reinstate quarterly discharge monitoring of springs and higher freq of other springs Funding changed so now only tracking 3 of those 8 daily: Blue Hole, Dampiers, US27(circles). SRWMD calculates qtrly for Head spring, Mission, Millpond and Devils eye – Groundwater levels • Add more frequency to groundwater well levels in the springshed Water Quality – Reinstate quarterly water quality/chemistry monitoring of springs Biology – Fauna • establish base‐line for diversity and abundance • Track species diversity, • Track macroinvertebrates – Flora • Continue Park veg surveys and expand into floodplain and add transects on river • Update 2003‐2004 survey of SAV in the whole length of river • Surveys of algae cover, continue baseline established by Jan Stevenson Coordination – Establish clearing house for data/ongoing studies • First priority: who’s doing what/where/when • Second priority: data sharing – especially unpublished/unused data – Move from qualitative monitoring approach to quantitative • Easier for comparison with other studies – Employ citizen scientists • Possibly in form of an Ichetucknee Watch Group ‐ See pilot group at Silver Springs with Bob Knight • Coordinate with Lake Watch ‐ they already monitor some springs – Look into additional funding sources • Ex. NSF science communication/broader impacts extension grants Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Restoration •
•
•
What are we trying to “fix”? What actions can be taken to “fix” this? What research is needed to monitor/evaluate results? – Nutrients – Agriculture – Cattle: rotation grazing vs. confined space (BMPs) – Rotational crop farming (right crop, right time) – How many farms? – Research – Economics for farmer to implement – Amount of N stored in, under the land use – Groundwater monitoring as part of permit – Isotope studies (N and O isotopes) – Nutrients – Septic – Education/Outreach – Research: Measure behavior change of participants – Septic Upgrades – Research – Analysis: income levels to determine financial needs – Evaluate innovative and low‐cost systems – Action – Implement inspection “trust fund” – Measure – # of septic units, % replacement, % pump out, target areas of high vulnerability, id mechanism of GW monitoring in depression areas – Nutrients – Sprayfield – Research: Monitoring wells along Clay Hole Creek to measure the impacts from the sprayfield (and any potential changes over time as pines grow in at sprayfield) – Funding is the limiting factor in future upgrades to the sprayfield; funding is needed for Advanced Waste Treatment and re‐use; – Progress has been made at the sprayfield – stopped fertilizing and planted pines 19 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Collaboration • Annual Meeting – Organized by the Park? • Guidance – Funding opportunities, calls for research – How to apply for a permit – Develop a 5‐yr restoration/research/monitoring plan • Base it on existing 10 year Ichetucknee Park plan? • Up for review this year, June workshop • Data Catalogue/Portal – Metadata of monitoring data • Where, when, who, frequency, quality, description – Research project descriptions (especially current) • Where, when, who, description, data collected – Bibliography: Articles, Reports, Conference papers, posters – Links to most important reports etc. – Unpublished data analysis – Maps and Figures • Synthesize – Current research, findings, areas of monitoring, trends? Fact sheets – Annual meetings – Qtrly updates to the Park from researchers • Google calendars – Upcoming events, talks – Upcoming sampling events • Website – Data Catalogue/Portal – Google Calendar – Links to organizations – Syntheses, Meeting results – Listserv, mailing list – Wiki? • Share resources – People sample for each other – Creatively split tasks for lower cost (e.g. SRWMD + USGS to accomplish more flow monitoring) – Personnel share data analyses with online wiki or ftp. Workshop close A summary of the workshop has been put on the Water Institute website and a survey for prioritizing actions has been conducted. Communication among Three Rivers Trust, the UF Water Institute and the Ichetucknee Springs Working Group will continue. Kathleen McKee presented to the Ichetucknee Springs Working Group on February 15, sharing the results of the presentations and small groups which was a productive collaborative effort. 20 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Post­Workshop Survey A post workshop survey with three questions was sent to all people invited (see Appendix) with 18 people responding. Question 1. Rate Importance of Monitoring Priorities. Answers sorted by average importance level. 1=least important, 2=less important, 3=more important, 4=most important least
important
less
important
more
important
most
important
Average
more flow monitoring in springs
0.0% (0)
16.7% (3)
38.9% (7)
44.4% (8)
3.28
more water quality/chemistry in the
springs
0.0% (0)
16.7% (3)
44.4% (8)
38.9% (7)
3.22
monitor algae cover in tandem with
macroinvert monitoring
5.6% (1)
27.8% (5)
27.8% (5)
38.9% (7)
3
more groundwater quality in the
springshed
0.0% (0)
33.3% (6)
38.9% (7)
27.8% (5)
2.94
more groundwater levels in the
springshed
0.0% (0)
27.8% (5)
55.6% (10)
16.7% (3)
2.89
biannual monitoring of N and O
isotopes to track sources of N
11.1% (2)
22.2% (4)
38.9% (7)
27.8% (5)
2.83
establish baselin for fauna
diversity/abundance
16.7% (3)
33.3% (6)
22.2% (4)
27.8% (5)
2.61
5.6% (1)
50.0% (9)
33.3% (6)
11.1% (2)
2.5
track fauna spp diversity
22.2% (4)
22.2% (4)
55.6% (10)
0.0% (0)
2.33
more turbidity/tuber usage surveys
16.7% (3)
50.0% (9)
22.2% (4)
11.1% (2)
2.28
turtle population monitoring
(mark/recapture)
22.2% (4)
44.4% (8)
27.8% (5)
5.6% (1)
2.17
add transects to river vegetation
monitoring
16.7% (3)
61.1% (11)
22.2% (4)
0.0% (0)
2.06
biannual/annual fish surveys
27.8% (5)
44.4% (8)
22.2% (4)
5.6% (1)
2.06
monitor vegetation in the
floodplain
33.3% (6)
55.6% (10)
11.1% (2)
0.0% (0)
1.78
a new SAV survey of the whole
river
Other answers: 1. Community metabolism monitoring. 2. Grazer diversity abundance and population trends. 3. Monitor nitrogen additions/fertilizer use in springshed. 4. Monitor quality and quantity of water going into swallets in the springshed. 5. Conduct more dye trace studies to establish connectivity of swallets to Ichetucknee. 21 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary 6. This list mixes various types of scientific contributions to improving management. I see the confusion as a challenge to setting priorities because apples aren’t compared to other apples. Question 2. Rate Importance of Research Priorities. Answers sorted by average importance level. 1=least important, 2=less important, 3=more important, 4=most important least
important
less
important
Declining springflow effects on the
ecosystem
0.0% (0)
22.2% (4)
Better estimate pumping in springshed and
effects on springflow
0.0% (0)
Grazer/algae/SAV interactions
more
important
most
important
Average
33.3% (6)
44.4% (8)
3.22
5.6% (1)
72.2% (13)
22.2% (4)
3.17
0.0% (0)
27.8% (5)
38.9% (7)
33.3% (6)
3.06
Accurate accounting of fertilizer use
5.6% (1)
22.2% (4)
38.9% (7)
33.3% (6)
3
Quantify discharge / chemistry relations
0.0% (0)
38.9% (7)
27.8% (5)
33.3% (6)
2.94
Methods to better determine N sources in
springshed
0.0% (0)
38.9% (7)
27.8% (5)
33.3% (6)
2.94
Groundwater age composition and flowpaths
5.6% (1)
27.8% (5)
44.4% (8)
22.2% (4)
2.83
How nitrate is denitrified in vadose zone,
river, aquifer
5.6% (1)
22.2% (4)
55.6% (10)
16.7% (3)
2.83
Chemical controls on fauna (e.g. DO effects
on snails)
0.0% (0)
50.0% (9)
16.7% (3)
33.3% (6)
2.83
Assess BMP effectiveness
11.1% (2)
33.3% (6)
33.3% (6)
22.2% (4)
2.67
Refine loading of N/P from septics
11.1% (2)
38.9% (7)
44.4% (8)
5.6% (1)
2.44
BMP barriers and attitudes
11.1% (2)
50.0% (9)
33.3% (6)
5.6% (1)
2.33
Sediment effects on veg, algae, river
chemistry
33.3% (6)
33.3% (6)
11.1% (2)
22.2% (4)
2.22
Effect of tubing recreation (SAV disturbance)
on nitrate budget and ecosystem
27.8% (5)
33.3% (6)
33.3% (6)
5.6% (1)
2.17
Raising temperatures and extreme precip
event effects on river ecology
38.9% (7)
50.0% (9)
5.6% (1)
5.6% (1)
1.78
Other answers: 1. Determine groundwater ages along flow paths to a spring and spring water ages during varied flow conditions. 22 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary 2. Assess the rate of nitrate movement throughout the unsaturated zone. 3. Influence of rainfall amount, age of groundwater, and natural low DO on grazers/algal coverage. 4. Define cause/effect relationship of algal growth in spring systems ‐ is it nutrient related or other chemical/physical cause? 5. These topics vary in scope and clarity, which makes them hard to prioritize. They mainly do fit into one class in a typological framework of how science can contribute to improved management. Question 3. List the top 3 most important next steps to undertake related to the Ichetucknee (restoration, monitoring, collaboration or research). Top choice #1 o Collaboration mechanisms (2 people) o Research N sources in springshed (2 people) o Work to reduce water consumption in springshed o Get funding, and show legistlature importance o Educate people about issues o Establish baseline studies (flora, fauna, chemistry, N sources Top choice #2 o Research N sources in springshed o Reduce N loading in springshed o More funding from policymakers o Restoration o Less recreational impact o Less consumptive use o More monitoring (spring discharge, veg surveys, N dynamics/use in watershed) o framework to assemble and evaluate available information, prioritizing gaps in management, monitoring and research Top choice #3 o Study effects of lower flows on ecosystem o No tubing on upper reach o More funding sources o Ecosystem response to contaminants and reduced flow o Better statesmen o Educate public with research results o Coordinate existing (and future) studies/data to remove redundancies and take advantage of breadth of produced o Restoration 23 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary Appendix ­ Workshop invitees Invited Andrea Albertin, UF Bob Knight , Wetland Solutions, Inc Brian Katz, USGS Chuck Jacoby, SJRWMD Clif Maxwell, FDEP Parks Craig Parenteau, FDEP Parks Dana Bryan, FDEP Dina Liebowitz, UF Erica Rau, USGS Ginger Morgan, Ichetucknee Springs State Park Jack Ewel, Farmer Jim Stevenson, 3 Rivers Trust Kathleen McKee, UF Kathryn Holland, FDEP Louis Mantini, SRWMD Marie Kurz, UF Matt Cohen, UF Megan Wetherington, SRWMD Ondine Wells, Pandion, Ichetucknee Working Group Pam McVety, 3 Rivers Trust Patty Hudson, FDEP Richard Hamann, UF Richard Verdi, USGS Rick Owen, FDEP Sherry, Ichetucknee Springs State Park Steve Walsh, USGS Stewart Thomas, Florida's Eden Terry Hansen, FDEP Tom Greenhalgh, FDEP (FGS) Wendy Graham, UF Annie Pais, Florida's Eden Carol Lippincott, Springs Working groups Fanning/Manatee Connie Bersok, FDEP Gary Maddox, FDEP Harley Means, USGS Jim Heffernan, FIU Jon Martin, UF Lisette Staal, UF Mark Brown, UF Peter Meylan, Eckerd college Rob Mattson, SJRWMD Russ Frydenborg Sam Cole, FDEP Tom Frazer, UF Email [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
Attended y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
n n n n n n n n n n n n n 24 Ichetucknee Preservation Research Workshop Feb 10, 2011 Summary