Ichetucknee Springs and River Restoration Plan

Ichetucknee Springs and River Restoration Plan

Prepared For

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Ground Water and Springs Protection Section

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee FL 32399-2400

Prepared By

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 102 NE 10th Avenue

Gainesville, FL 32601 352-372-4747

www.normandeau.com

June 15, 2011

DRAFT Restoration Plan for Ichetucknee Springs and River

Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 ii

Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v

Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 12

2 Background .......................................................................................................................... 12

3 Planning Process.................................................................................................................. 13

3.1 Description of Working Groups ............................................................................................. 13

3.2 Meeting Summaries ................................................................................................................. 16

3.3 Future Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group Efforts ................................................ 18

4 Physical Description ............................................................................................................ 18

4.1 General Description of the Basin ........................................................................................... 18 4.1.1 Area and Aquifer Vulnerability ........................................................................................................... 18 4.1.2 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 22

4.2 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 23 4.2.1 Nitrate concentrations .......................................................................................................................... 23 4.2.2 Nitrogen sources to the Ichetucknee River Basin ................................................................................ 26 4.2.3 Phosphorus Concentrations .................................................................................................................. 27 4.2.4 Wastewater contaminants .................................................................................................................... 27 4.2.5 Dissolved oxygen ................................................................................................................................. 28

4.3 Springs Discharge .................................................................................................................... 28

4.4 Biota .......................................................................................................................................... 28 4.4.1 River geomorphology .......................................................................................................................... 28 4.4.2 Submerged vegetation aquatic vegetation ............................................................................................ 29 4.4.3 Macroalgae .......................................................................................................................................... 29 4.4.4 Macroinvertebrates .............................................................................................................................. 30 4.4.5 Mussels and fish in the Ichetucknee River ........................................................................................... 31

4.5 Trends ....................................................................................................................................... 31

5 Economic Value ................................................................................................................... 31

5.1 Value of Natural Resources .................................................................................................... 32

5.2 Value of Ichetucknee Springs ................................................................................................. 33

5.3 Recommendation ..................................................................................................................... 34

6 Existing Legal Protections ................................................................................................... 34

7 Causes of Impairment .......................................................................................................... 45

7.1 Elevated nitrates ...................................................................................................................... 45

7.2 Reduced flow ............................................................................................................................ 46

7.3 Increased algae ......................................................................................................................... 46

7.4 Reduced diversity of submerged aquatic vegetation ............................................................ 46


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 iii

8 Vision for Restored Spring .................................................................................................. 47

8.1 Significance of the Ichetucknee .............................................................................................. 47

8.2 Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 47

9 Goals and Actions ................................................................................................................ 48

9.1 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 48 9.1.1 Accomplishments ................................................................................................................................ 48 9.1.2 Other Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 56 9.1.3 Goals and Actions ................................................................................................................................ 57

9.2 Water Quantity ........................................................................................................................ 60 9.2.1 Accomplishments ................................................................................................................................ 63 9.2.2 Goals and Actions ................................................................................................................................ 66

9.3 Research and Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 68 9.3.1 Accomplishments ................................................................................................................................ 68 9.3.2 Goals and Actions ................................................................................................................................ 70

9.4 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 71 9.4.1 Accomplishments ................................................................................................................................ 72 9.4.2 Goals and Actions ................................................................................................................................ 75

9.5 Biodiversity .............................................................................................................................. 75 9.5.1 Accomplishments ................................................................................................................................ 77 9.5.2 Goals and Actions ................................................................................................................................ 79

9.6 Land Use and Development .................................................................................................... 80 9.6.1 Accomplishments ................................................................................................................................ 81 9.6.2 Goals and Actions ................................................................................................................................ 85

9.7 Public Outreach and Education ............................................................................................. 86 9.7.1 Accomplishments ................................................................................................................................ 87 9.7.2 Goals and Actions ................................................................................................................................ 98

10 Plan Implementation and Evaluation ................................................................................. 99

11 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 101

12 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 103

Appendix A. Research and Monitoring Activities (see separate electronic spreadsheet) ............ 103


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 iv

List of Tables Table 3-1. Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group Meetings ................................................ 16

Table 6-1. Federal Laws and Policies that Apply to the Ichetucknee River Basin ....................... 35

Table 6-2. State of Florida and Regional Agencies Laws and Policies that Apply to the Ichetucknee River Basin .......................................................................................... 36

Table 6-3. Counties and Local Municipalities with Policies and Comprehensive Plan Amendments applying to the Ichetucknee River Basin .......................................... 38

Table 9-1. Largest permitted water users in Columbia County for three different years showing millions of gallons per year, data from SRWMD (Kathleen McKee, UF Water Institute) .................................................................................... 62

Table 9-2. Land Acquisitions within the Ichetucknee Springs Basin ........................................... 83

Table 9-3. Summary of Public Outreach and Education Efforts in the Ichetucknee Springs basin Needs editing ................................................................................................. 92

Table 10-1. Implementation Table for Goals and Actions [To be added in future] ................... 100


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 v

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. (A) Location of the Ichetucknee springshed in northern Florida; (B) Degree of confinement of the Upper Floridan Aquifer within the Ichetucknee springshed (the unconfined portion marks the Ichetucknee Trace); and (C) Major named springs along the IchetuckneeRiver. ................................................. 13

Figure 3-1. Ichetucknee Springs stakeholder survey responses to questions 3 ............................ 15

Figure 4-1. Potentiometric surface map of the upper Floridan Aquifer and the Ichetucknee River basin .......................................................................................... 19

Figure 4-2. Physiographic regions and major karst features of the Ichetucknee River basin ....... 20

Figure 4-3. Columbia County Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (CoCAVA) and the Ichetucknee Springs Basin ...................................................................................... 22

Figure 4-4. Land use in the Ichetucknee River basin .................................................................... 23

Figure 4-5. Nitrate concentrations of monitoring wells within the Ichetucknee River basin and surrounding area ............................................................................................... 25

Figure 4-6. (A) Ichetucknee River discharge at the US 27 bridge and total springs discharge from 1995 to 2009; (B) River stage and nitrate concentrations (mg/L) of both the river and the flow-weighted average of springs along the Ichetucknee River. ................................................................................................... 26

Figure 4-7. (A)Change in algal mat area, volume and thickness at Ichetucknee Blue Hole from May 2005 to April 2006; (B) map of the algal mat at Blue Hole in July 2005. ........................................................................................................................ 30

Figure 9-1. Location of septic tanks within the Ichetucknee springshed ...................................... 50

Figure 9-2. Map of farms who had signed an NOI by 12/31/2010 [needs to be updated with most recent NOIs] ........................................................................................... 53

Figure 9-3. Proposed stormwater pond to be installed where current wetlands are located as shown by the boundary line ................................................................................ 57

Figure 9-4. Caption to be added .................................................................................................... 61

Figure 9-5. Columbia County population figures from 1980 to 2007; the population of Lake City in 2009 was 12,614 ................................................................................. 62

Figure 9-6. Total water use by category in Columbia County, from 1980 to 2007, in millions of gallons per year. Population served by public supply was always less than population served by on-site wells ........................................................... 63

Figure 9-7. Vistor signage. Photo Credit: Ginger Morgan ........................................................... 74

Figure 9-8. Vistor signage. Photo credit: Ginger Morgan ............................................................ 74

Figure 9-9. Visitor signage. Photo credit: Cindy Johnson ............................................................ 75

Figure 9-10. Caption to be added .................................................................................................. 76


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 vi

Figure 9-11. Ichetucknee/Santa Fe/O’Leno Christmas Bird Count (CBC) Circle ....................... 78

Figure 9-12. Key Land Acquisitions in the Ichetucknee Trace, Provided by Florida Natural Areas Inventory [Update with original source] .......................................... 82


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym Definition ARTT Florida's Eden Artists Reaching Through Teaching BMAP Basin Management Action Plan BMPs Best Management Practices BOD biochemical oxygen demand BOT Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund CARES County Alliance for Responsible Environmental Stewardship CBC Christmas Bird Count CEQ CFR

Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations

CH Chapter Water CHAMP Water Conservation Hotel and Motel Program CoCAVA Columbia County Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment CSV Conservation DCA Department of Community Affairs DEP Department of Environmental Protection DO Dissolved oxygen DOH Department of Health DRI Developments of Regional Impact DRP Division of Recreation and Parks DSL Division of State Lands EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPA STORET Environmental Protection Agency STOrage and RETrieval Data

Warehouse ERC Environmental Regulation Commission ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area ESE Exceptional Student Education ET Evapotranspiration FAS Floridan Aquifer System FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFL Florida-Friendly Landscaping FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory FONSI Findings of No Significant Impact FPS Florida Park Service FS Florida Statute FSI Florida Springs Initiative FWHS Fort White High School FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 viii

GPS Global Positioning System ISSP Ichetucknee Springs State Park LDRs Land Development Regulations LID Low Impact Development LIFE Learning in Florida's Environment MFLs Minimum Flows and Levels NEPA National Environmental Protection Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NP-K nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRLI Florida Natural Resources Leadership Institute NTUs Nethlometric Turbidity Units NWF National Wildlife Federation OFW Outstanding Florida Water OGT Office of Green? PAR Public Access Reuse PBS&J Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. PL Public Law PREC Program for Resource Efficient Communities PSA Public Service Announcement RACEC Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern RP Ichetucknee Spring and River Restoration Plan RPC Regional Planning Council SAC Suwannee American Cement SAV Submerged aquatic vegetation SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District SOS Save Our Suwannee SRP Suwannee River Partnership SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District St. Margaret Road WWTP St. Margaret Road wastewater treatment plant TIP The Ichetucknee Partnership TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TP Total phosphorus TPL Trust for Public Lands TS Total solids UF University of Florida UF–IFAS University of Florida–Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences UMP Unit Management Plan USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 ix

WG Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group WMD Water Management Districts


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 x

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for supporting the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group and the effort to develop a draft Restoration Plan. In particular, we’d like to thank the FDEP Project Manager, Kathryn Holland, for her dedication to this project. Thank you to Dr. Matt Cohen and Dr. Andrea Albertin at the University of Florida for their invaluable support, input and guidance throughout the development of the draft plan and for their commitment to understanding our spring systems through scientific research. The Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group has been fortunate to have many passionate and hard-working people dedicated to protecting and restoring the Ichetucknee Springs over many decades. I am honored to have worked with you over the last year. It is through your support that many successes have been made. And it is through your vision that we can restore and protect the Ichetucknee Springs and River in the future. Ondine Wells Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group Coordinator Normandeau Associates, Inc.


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 xi

Preface Between July 2010 and June 2011, Normandeau Associates, Inc., was contracted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to coordinate the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group. The initial contract was for three years with the goal of developing and initiating a Ichetucknee Springs and River Restoration Plan. This document is the draft Restoration Plan that is the deliverable for the first year of the contract. Portions of the plan are still incomplete as the intention was to continue revising the document over the second and third years of the contract. All goals and actions are in draft form and are subject to change or removal based on continued stakeholder input. The next phase of the restoration planning process is to finalize goals and actions and to establish priorities for implementation. In June 2011, FDEP determined that, due to funding limitations, the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group (Working Group; WG) would not continue. The draft Restoration Plan will be submitted as a final deliverable to FDEP and will be made available to stakeholders. Although this contract was ended prematurely, it is hoped that the content of it will help guide and inspire future efforts within the springs basin.


Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Normandeau Associates, Inc. June 15, 2011 12

1 Executive Summary [This section will be developed in future drafts.]

2 Background The Ichetucknee River flows along the border of Columbia and Suwannee counties in north central Florida. The river begins at the Ichetucknee Head Spring and flows 5 miles (8km) to the Santa Fe River, which eventually connects to the Suwannee River. There are nine large, named springs along the river, varying in size from first to third magnitude (from >2.8 m3/sec to <0.28 m3/sec), which collectively contribute approximately 840 million liters (222 million gallons) per day to the river (Figure 2-1) (Heffernan et al. 2010). The springs, from upstream to downstream are: Head, Cedar Head, Blue Hole, Devil’s Eye, Grassy Hole, Mill Pond, and Coffee springs, and Mission Springs Complex (made up of two springs, Roaring and Singing). The Ichetucknee Springs State Park (ISSP) was established in 1970 when 2,241 acres [have seen different # acres referenced in other areas] of land surrounding the upper 3 miles [have also seen references that say 3.5 miles] of the Ichetucknee River and contributing springs were purchased by the State of Florida from the Loncala Phosphate Corporation (LPC) (Evans 2007). In an effort to encourage the preservation of the Ichetucknee River, the National Park Service (NPS) designated it a National Natural Landmark in 1972 and the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) designated it an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), which affords the river special protection. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) cannot issue permits for either direct or indirect pollutant discharges that would degrade the existing water quality of the river. There are approximately 200,000 visitors per year to the ISSP and most of them tube or canoe the river. Nearly 7 million have visited the park since 1970, and only about 5% of visitors are local. It was estimated in 2003 that visitation generated about $23 million per year for the local economy (Bonn and Bell 2003).



Figure 2-1. (A) Location of the Ichetucknee springshed in northern Florida; (B) Degree of

confinement of the Upper Floridan Aquifer within the Ichetucknee springshed (the unconfined portion marks the Ichetucknee Trace); and (C) Major named springs along the IchetuckneeRiver.

Source: Heffernan et al. 2010.

3 Planning Process

3.1 Description of Working Groups Between July 2010 and June 2011, the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group (WG) focused on developing a draft spring Restoration Plan for the Ichetucknee Springs recharge basin and supporting restoration actions within the spring, spring run, and recharge basin. The draft Restoration Plan has been developed through discussion, cooperation, and consensus among a broad range of stakeholders. A stakeholder is self-described as an individual who cares about the future of the Ichetucknee Springs and River. The Ichetucknee Springs stakeholder list is comprised of 196 individuals, including a broad range of agencies, organizations, and citizenry. Individuals are added to this list on a regular basis. Stakeholders have participated in the process through two on-line surveys, four quarterly meetings, planning meetings, individual meetings and phone calls, and email communications. All stakeholders receive, on average, one to two email updates per month about meetings, events, issues, news articles, and funding



opportunities relating to the Ichetucknee Springs basin. Often these email updates are distributed further through other channels, such as the Our Santa Fe River email list. Key stakeholders that have participated in the process include:

Florida Park Service Suwannee River Water Management District City of Lake City Columbia County The Ichetucknee Partnership North Central Florida Regional Planning Council Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Suwannee River Partnership Florida Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Florida Department of Health Columbia County School Board Florida Farm Bureau Fort White Middle and High School PARKnership Program Four Rivers Audubon UF Water Institute UF–IFAS Extension–Columbia and Suwannee Counties Florida Department of Environmental Protection Save Our Suwannee Ichetucknee Springs Ambassador Florida Defenders of the Environment Rotary Club Scientists Environmental Consultants Local Businesses Citizens Artists

In the beginning of the restoration planning process, the collaboration was strengthened with the cooperation of The Ichetucknee Partnership (TIP). The WG and TIP both have similar goals—of protecting and improving the health of the Ichetucknee Springs and River. While some stakeholders are regularly engaged with both the WG and TIP, there are other stakeholders who historically have attended the meetings of only one group or the other. In an effort to support the efforts of both groups, improve overall collaboration and communication, and reduce duplication, the two groups held a joint meeting on September 15, 2010. The WG coordinator also attended all TIP quarterly meetings and provided regular updates to the TIP coordinator on the restoration planning process. A Stakeholder Survey for Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group was sent out to the stakeholder email list in October 2010. Fifty-two stakeholders participated in the survey (more than a 25% response rate). When asked how they were involved with the springs and river, more



than half (56%) said they used the springs and river for recreation, and 48% of respondents list the Ichetucknee as either a small or major component of their job.

Figure 3-1. Ichetucknee Springs stakeholder survey responses to questions 3 Stakeholders were asked what they wanted to see change at the springs, what they wanted to see stay the same, what the most important actions were that should be taken to improve the Ichetucknee, and what were the greatest challenges to implementing these actions. Most questions were open-ended, giving respondents the freedom to identify their own priorities. Based on these responses, eight broad priority areas were identified for the Restoration Plan:

Water quality Water quantity Land use and development Public education and outreach Research and monitoring Regulation Recreation Biodiversity

These priority areas were the basis for developing eight subgroups for goals and actions in the Restoration Plan.



3.2 Meeting Summaries Over the course of the year, four quarterly working group meetings were held, as well as numerous planning and stakeholder meetings conducted in-person and over the phone. Table 3-1. Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group Meetings

Date Type of Meeting Description August 18, 2010 Stakeholder Met with John Wheeler, member of Rotary

International and TIP executive committee August 27, 2010 Stakeholder Multiple meetings with Jim Stevenson,

former coordinator of the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group (WG), including a springs basin tour with Springs Ambassador Cathy Nagler

September 1, 2010 Planning Meeting with TIP, St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and FDEP

September 15, 2010 Quarterly Joint meeting held with TIP—introduction of restoration planning process.

September 17, 2010 Planning Met with Carol Lippincott, coordinator of the Fanning/Manatee Springs Working Group, and Stacie Greco, coordinator of the Santa Fe Springs Working Group to discuss possible coordination of efforts.

September 24, 2010 Stakeholder Met with Loye Barnard, Save Our Suwannee (SOS), to discuss basin history and future efforts

September 29, 2010 Planning Met with Cindy Johnson, TIP, and John Wheeler, Rotary International, to discuss the TIP Education and Outreach Committee

September 30, 2010 Stakeholder Attended SOS event with Dr. Bob Knight in Fort White and met with stakeholders

October 12, 2010 Stakeholder Attended SRWMD Water Supply Assessment Meeting and met with/listened to stakeholder input

October 27, 2010 Planning Met with ISSP staff to discuss issues within the park and basin; Also met with SRWMD MFLs staff during the tour

November 3, 2010 Quarterly Visioning and Goal Setting December 9, 2010 Planning Public Education and Outreach subgroup January 5, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with PARKnership program January 11, 2011 Planning Met with Columbia County Manager Dale

Williams January 13, 2011 Planning Meet with Lake City Manager Wendell

Johnson. January 13, 2011 Stakeholder Provide an update to TIP January 19, 2011 Stakeholder Presentation to extension staff at UF–IFAS



Date Type of Meeting Description Horticultural Green Team meeting held at ISSP

Multiple dates Planning Assisted in planning meetings for the Ichetucknee Springs Preservation Research Workshop sponsored by Three Rivers Trust and convened by the UF Water Institute on February 10, 2011

January 26, 2011 Planning Public Education and Outreach Subgroup February 10, 2011 Planning Ichetucknee Springs Preservation Research

Workshop sponsored by Three Rivers Trust and convened by the UF Water Institute on February 10, 2011

February 15, 2011

Quarterly Updates, report from Public Education and Outreach meeting, report from Research and Monitoring meeting, continued goal setting

March 4, 2011 Stakeholder Organized and facilitated meeting on with Valerie Thomas and Trini Johanneson of PARKnership and UF Professor Paul Monaghan regarding opportunities to study behavior change among participants in the PARKnership program

March 14, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with Jacqui Sulek, Audubon of Florida

March 16, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with Hugh Thomas of the Suwannee River Partnership (SRP)

March 17, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with Cindy Johnson, TIP March 31, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with Kathleen McKee, UF Water

Institute April 6, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with John Good, SRWMD, regarding

MFLs status April 7, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with Annie Pais, Florida’s Eden. April 7, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with Dave Clanton, Lake City

Utilities April 14, 2011 Stakeholder Provide update at TIP quarterly meeting April 27, 2011

Quarterly Updates—hydrology, MFLs, recharge, and continued goal setting

May 10, 2011 Planning Meeting with Matt Cohen and Andrea Albertin, UF, regarding monitoring and evaluation

May 13, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with Jack Smith, citizen. May 18, 2011 Stakeholder Attend annual Fort White Middle and High

School awards event May 20, 2011 Stakeholder Meeting with Brian Kepner, planner for

Columbia County



3.3 Future Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group Efforts The Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group has been bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders for more than 15 years [confirm actual number]. Quarterly meetings have provided up-to-date scientific research and important opportunities for networking and collaboration. Much has been accomplished as a result of individual and group efforts within the basin. In an effort to identify how the WG can be more effective, Dr. Martha Monroe of the University of Florida implemented a stakeholder survey. The survey was been distributed via email, and results will eventually be shared with the coordinator to help inform how the WG can be more successful and effective. During 2010 through 2011, the WG focused on the development of a draft Restoration Plan. Over the next two years, the WG was to lead the stakeholders through the process of revising the plan and implementing priority goals and actions. Due to funding, FDEP has decided not to continue the WG. Had funding continued, the WG would have worked toward the following goal: Goal 1. Coordinate restoration efforts with all stakeholders to avoid duplication and consolidate and share resources effectively. Actions

1. Maintain a stakeholder email list with representatives from all key agencies and organizations

2. Provide mechanisms for information sharing and collaboration among stakeholders 3. Help identify unifying messages and approaches when possible 4. Make decisions on restoration actions based on priorities, capacities, and costs; and plan

ways to implement and monitor them 5. List restoration actions and strategies for tracking potential changes in the system

4 Physical Description

4.1 General Description of the Basin

4.1.1 Area and Aquifer Vulnerability

The Ichetucknee River basin, the groundwater recharge area or springshed that feeds Ichetucknee Springs, is approximately 371 sq. mi. (960 km2) in size, although the boundaries of the springshed vary depending on groundwater levels (Champion and Upchurch 2003, Katz et al. 2009). The majority of the basin is located in Columbia County, with small portions in Suwannee and Baker counties. Springsheds are delineated using water-level contours that represent average potentiometric surface conditions in the upper Floridan Aquifer (Figure 4-1). In the Ichetucknee River basin, water flow is largely from north to south (Katz and Griffin 2008).



Figure 4-1. Potentiometric surface map of the upper Floridan Aquifer and the Ichetucknee River

basin Source: Katz and Griffin 2008

Two distinct physiographic regions are found in the Ichetucknee River basin, the northern highlands, with elevations greater than 150 ft above sea level (fasl), and the Gulf coastal lowlands, with elevations less than 100 fasl (Figure 2-3) (White 1970, Champion and Upchurch 2003). The transitional area between these two regions is known as the Cody Scarp, and elevations in this region range from 100 to 150 fasl (Champion and Upchurch 2003). In the Northern Highlands, the Floridan Aquifer System (FAS) is largely confined, and this area is typified by relatively impermeable clay-rich sediments from the Hawthorn Group, many lakes and wetlands, and soils that developed from phosphatic material (Champion and Upchurch 2003, Katz et al. 2009). The Cody Scarp is characterized by sinkholes, sinkhole lakes, and sinking streams. Much of the surface runoff from the Northern Highlands flows to the Cody Scarp and into the FAS through these karst features (Champion and Upchurch 2003).The Gulf coastal lowlands area is a mature karst plain, and the FAS is largely unconfined, with clean silica sand overlying much of the limestone, rendering this area most vulnerable to contamination. There are numerous, typically small, sinkholes and few lakes or wetlands (Champion and Upchurch 2003).



Figure 4-2. Physiographic regions and major karst features of the Ichetucknee River basin Source: Katz and Griffin 2008 Katz et al. (2009) indicate that in the Ichetucknee River basin, the FAS is most vulnerable to contamination where there are closed topographic depressions, such as sinkholes, making the



area south of the Cody Scarp particularly vulnerable. Although closed depressions make up only 11% of the area of the basin, 34% of fertilized land is in closed depressions (Katz et al. 2009). The Ichetucknee Trace is a dry river valley that marks where the Ichetucknee River once flowed from Lake City to the Santa Fe River (Figure 2-3), and the FAS along the trace is unconfined. Cannon, Clay Hole, and Rose creeks were once tributaries, and discharge from these creeks is now captured by sinkholes (Katz et al. 2009). Several sinkholes in this area have rapid, direct links to Ichetucknee Springs: Black and Dyal sinks in Clayhole Creek and Rose Creek Swallet and Sink (Butt and Murphy 2003). In a 1997 dye trace study from Rose Creek Swallet to the Ichetucknee Springs group (a distance of 7 miles), dye was first detected in Mission Springs in six days and in five other springs (Blue Hole, Cedar Head, Grassy Hole, Mill Pond, and Devil’s Eye) in 12 days. Dye never appeared at the Head Springs, suggesting that there is a hydrologic separation between the Head Springs and the other springs (Butt and Murphy 2003). A subsequent study in 2003 in which dye was released in Black and Dyal sinks showed that these sinks were connected to Rose Creek Sink and Swallet and to the Ichetucknee Springs group, with dye first appearing in the Rose Creek Swallet in 22 days and then at Blue Hole, Cedar Head, Mission, and Devil’s Eye springs in 65 days (Butt and Murphy 2003). In 2009, a Columbia County Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (CoCAVA) map was developed for Columbia County as a science-based tool, which can be used for water resource management. The map provides detailed information on which portions of Columbia County are more vulnerable to surface water pollution. The most vulnerable areas of the Ichetucknee Springs basin are in the southern portion of the basin.



Figure 4-3. Columbia County Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (CoCAVA) and the Ichetucknee

Springs Basin

4.1.2 Land Use

The two biggest land use categories within the basin are pine plantations (31%), the majority of which were formerly row crop or pasture lands, and forest or scrub (24%) (Figure 2-4).



Improved pasture and grasslands make up 19% of the basin area, and 8% is row crops or in other agricultural use. Urban areas account for 9% of the basin; and the largest urban area is Lake City, with a population of approximately 10,700 (Katz et al. 2009). Wetlands make up 8%, and open water 1% of the basin. [Data and map need to be replaced with most recent data.]

Figure 4-4. Land use in the Ichetucknee River basin Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2003

4.2 Water Quality

4.2.1 Nitrate concentrations

Heffernan et al. (2010) compiled long-term nitrate data for the Ichetucknee Springs and River from two water quality databases, Environmental Protection Agency STOrage and RETrieval Data Warehouse (EPA STORET) and the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) National Water



Information System. Nitrate concentrations for the river taken at the US 27 bridge were measured sporadically from 1968 to 1989, and since then samples have been taken almost monthly. Between 1966 and 1977, nitrate concentrations ranged from 0.02 to 0.4 mg/L, with an increasing trend with time. Between 1989 and 2008, nitrate concentrations ranged from 0.23 to 0.9 mg/L in the river, and exhibited no significant trend with time (Heffernan et al. 2010). Nitrate concentrations of six Ichetucknee springs have been measured on an almost quarterly basis since 2002, with some additional samples recorded from 1998 to 2002. Nitrate concentrations ranged from 0.7 to 0.9 mg/L at Head Springs, 0.5 to 0.9 mg/L at Blue Hole, 0.7 to 0.9 mg/L at Cedar Head, 0.4 to 0.7 at Mission Springs, 0.35 to 0.65 at Devil’s Eye, and 0.2 to 0.6 at Mill Pond (Heffernan et al. 2010). Separate measurements taken by FDEP show that the mean nitrate concentration from 2001 to 2006 was 0.77 mg/L at Head Springs , 0.70 mg/L at Blue Hole, and 0.58 mg/L at Mission Springs (Harrington et al. 2010). Nitrate concentrations (presented in concentration range categories) from numerous wells in the Ichetucknee River basin and surrounding areas are shown in Figure 4-1 (Harrington et al. 2010). Concentrations varied widely throughout the springshed; from the lowest category, 0.001 to 0.1 mg NO3/L, to 10 to 50 mg/L. Nitrate concentrations for both the Ichetucknee River at US 27 and the flow-weighted nitrate concentration of the six combined springs are shown in Figure 4-2. Heffernan et al. (2010) indicate that two principal nitrogen (N) removal processes account for the lower nitrate concentrations downriver than the flow-weighted concentrations in springs: (1) N assimilation along the river run by macrophytes and algae, and (2) denitrification, whereby bacteria in spring sediments convert NO3 to N2 gas. It was found that denitrification was by far the primary mechanism for nitrate removal in the Ichetucknee River, accounting for more than 80% of removal. Nitrate concentrations dropped dramatically during peak river stage (Figure 4-2), providing additional support for denitrification as the dominant removal pathway. During these episodes, the floodplain along the river was inundated, increasing both the residence time of water and the reactive river channel area, providing more opportunity for denitrification to occur (Heffernan et al. 2010).



Figure 4-5. Nitrate concentrations of monitoring wells within the Ichetucknee River basin and

surrounding area Source: Harrington et al. 2010



Figure 4-6. (A) Ichetucknee River discharge at the US 27 bridge and total springs discharge from

1995 to 2009; (B) River stage and nitrate concentrations (mg/L) of both the river and the flow-weighted average of springs along the Ichetucknee River. Source: Heffernan et al. 2010

4.2.2 Nitrogen sources to the Ichetucknee River Basin

Katz et al. (2009) conducted a detailed study of nitrogen loading and sources in the Ichetucknee River basin. Based on 1995 land-use data, recommended fertilizer application rates, and minimum and maximum leaching rates of various sources, they estimated nitrogen inputs to the groundwater in the basin to be between 262,000 kg/yr and 1.3 million kg/yr; the wide range is due to the high uncertainty in calculating nitrogen loss (e.g., uptake by vegetation and soils, harvesting of crops and trees, denitrification). Approximately 266,000 kg N/yr are exported out of the basin by the Ichetucknee River (Katz et al. 2009).



The principal sources of N load to the groundwater (with percent contribution in parentheses) listed by Katz et al. (2009) were: (1) inorganic fertilizers applied to croplands, lawns, and pine plantations (51%); (2) animal waste (27%); (3) septic tanks (12%); (4) atmospheric deposition (12%); and (5%) land application of treated wastewater and biosolids (2%). They found that nitrate and potassium concentrations in water from 70 wells within the basin were significantly correlated (p<0.05), indicating inorganic fertilizer as the likely N source. Stable isotope values of nitrate (δ15N) collected at Ichetucknee Head, Cedar Head, Blue Hole, and Devil’s Eye springs also supported this finding; values ranged from 3.4‰ to 5.8 ‰, which is within the range for inorganic fertilizer. Mission Springs and Mill Pond had higher δ15N values (6.1‰ and 6.3 ‰, respectively), lower dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations, and lower nitrate concentrations than the other springs, which indicates that denitrification may have acted upon the original N source (Katz et al. 2009). However, they found no excess N2 gas in the water from these springs, and denitrification produces excess N2.

4.2.3 Phosphorus Concentrations

Mean orthophosphate concentration measured between 2001 and 2006 at Ichetucknee Head Springs was 0.022 mg/L, 0.047 mg/L at Blue Hole, 0.066 mg/L at Mill Pond, and 0.068 mg/L at Mission Springs (Harrington et al. 2010). Long-term total phosphorus (TP) data compiled by Strong (2004) from agency reports show that between 1985 and 2003, TP at Ichetucknee Head Springs ranged from 0.02 to 0.05 mg/L with no significant trend with time.

4.2.4 Wastewater contaminants

Katz and Griffin (2008) tested the water in several wells throughout the Ichetucknee River basin, and Devil’s Eye and Blue Hole springs for a broad suite of organic wastewater compounds, pharmaceutical compounds, and microbiological indicators. This was largely in an effort to evaluate water quality impacts of the Lake City municipal sprayfield, in which approximately 9.5 million liters of treated sewage effluent were land applied per day. They found low concentrations of DEET and other organic compounds in Devil’s Eye Spring that indicated leakage from a nearby septic tank drain field located within the park. A dye trace study conducted by Butt (2005) confirmed the connection between this drainfield and the spring. One pharmaceutical compound (carbamazepine), an anticonvulsant, was also found in Devils Spring, but below detection limit levels. During times of high flow, elevated levels of fecal coliforms and enterococci were detected at Blue Hole, and they attributed this to local contamination from wildlife, domestic animals, and septic tanks, rather than from the sprayfield (Katz and Griffin (2008). FDEP (2006) also tested multiple sites within the Ichetucknee River basin, including five springs (Ichetucknee Head, Blue Hole, Devil’s Eye, Mill Pond and Coffee), for several pesticides and herbicides, microbiological indicators, and trace metals. One herbicide used in silviculture, hexazinone, was detected at Head Springs at 0.012 µg/L, a lower concentration than the groundwater cleanup target level of 231 ug/l (Rule 62-777FAC). Pesticides and herbicides were undetected at all other sites. Metals were either undetected or complied with Class III surface water quality criteria at all sites except for Clay Hole Creek at Highway 47. This site exceeded the 12 ng/L Class III surface water quality criterion for mercury with a concentration of 26 ng/L, and the 1.69 µg/L criterion for lead, at 10.1 ug/l. Clay Hole Creek was the only site that



exceeded the Class III waters criterion for fecal coliforms both in 2005 and during a previous sampling event in 1996.

4.2.5 Dissolved oxygen

Dissolved oxygen DO concentrations were measured at four springs along the Ichetucknee River by FDEP from 2001 to 2006. Concentrations were highest in the Head Springs, ranging from 3.25 to 4.81 mg/L. DO concentrations measured at Blue Hole ranged from 1.26 to 2.76 mg/L. Mission Springs DO ranged from 0.35 to 1.48 mg/L, and Mill Pond DO ranged from 0.21 to 2.61 mg/L. Heffernan and Cohen (2010) showed that in the Ichetucknee River (at the US 27 bridge), DO concentrations show marked diel patterns, where DO peaks during the day and drops at night. Daytime increases are due primarily to oxygen produced during photosynthesis by aquatic vegetation and algae; while at night oxygen is consumed during respiration and denitrification (denitrification occurs during the day as well). Heffernan and Cohen (2010) found that in spring 2008, mean minimum DO concentration was 4.8 mg/L, while mean maximum concentration was 10.9 mg/L. In fall 2008, mean minimum DO concentration was again 4.8 mg/L, while the mean maximum concentration was 7.8 mg/L.

4.3 Springs Discharge Discharge measurements for the Ichetucknee River taken at the US 27 bridge as well as the combined discharge for six gauged springs along the Ichetucknee River (Head Springs, Blue Hole, Cedar, Mission, Devil’s Eye and Mill Pond) are shown in Figure 5A (Heffernan et al. 2010). Data are from the USGS. By comparing spring discharge and river discharge, Heffernan et al. (2010) show that the river loses approximately 11% of its discharge before reaching the US 27 bridge. They found that most of the loss occurs in the cypress floodplain, due to infiltration of water back into the FAS.

4.4 Biota

4.4.1 River geomorphology

The Ichetucknee River varies widely in terms of geomorphology along its entire length (Heffernan et al. 2010). The first 1,000 m portion near the Head Springs is narrow (15 m wide) and shallow (0.5 to 1 m), and river flow is slow (0.15 m/s). The dominant vegetation is the submerged aquatic plant, Sagittaria kurziana, and wild rice (Zizania aquatic), an emergent plant, that grows along the edges of the channel. The next 1200 m section is known as the Rice Marsh. The river widens to between 20 and 25 m, the center of the channel is 1 to 2 m deep, and the edges are 20 to 50 cm deep. S. kurziana and another submerged plant, Vallisneria americana (eel grass) dominate the deeper central channel, while wild rice is abundant in the shallower portions along the edges. The lower reach of the river is 5,800 m in length. The channel narrows to approximately 30 m, and is 2 to 3 m deep. Channel margins are steep; and current velocity is approximately 0.25 m/s. S. kurziana and V. americana are common. The river in this section is surrounded by a 75 to 150 m wide cypress floodplain dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum).



4.4.2 Submerged vegetation aquatic vegetation

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the Ichetucknee River was mapped in 2003 and monitored to assess changes in 2004 (PBS&J 2003, PBS&J 2004). In 2003, approximately 78% of the river bottom was covered by SAV, and the most common species found (submerged and emergent) were Sagittaria kurziana, Zizania aquatica, Vallisneria americana, Chara sp. Myrophyllum heterophyllum, Ludwigia repens, and Hydrocotyl sp. When compared to a study conducted by DuToit (1979), PBS&J (2003) found that the area covered by SAV had increased by 353%, or 23 acres. In 2004, the area covered by SAV had declined by 2% (0.1 acre) from the previous year. This occurred primarily at the South Takeout near US 27, and was due to the reconstruction of a floating dock and the installation of a floating barrier across the river that changed current velocity (PBS&J 2004). SAV biomass in the Ichetucknee River is high compared to other spring-fed rivers in north-central and west Florida, and this is attributed to optimal sediment conditions and current velocity for SAV growth (PBS&J 2003). Highest percent cover and biomass were found in the lower reach of the river (the cypress floodplain), and this was attributed to plants having longer leaf blades due to light limitation; the lower reach had higher percent tree cover over the river, reducing light penetration, than the upper reaches of the river (PBS&J 2003).

4.4.3 Macroalgae

Between May 2005 and May 2006, algal mats covered less than 50% of the spring bottom at Ichetucknee Blue Hole Spring (Sickman et al. 2009). Both Lyngbya wollei and Vaucheria sp. were found at the site, but L. wollei was dominant. Throughout the year, percent algal cover at Blue Hole varied from 465 to 754 m2, mean algal mat thickness ranged from 0.08 to 0.26 m, and algal mat volume ranged from 48 to 166 m3 (Figure 4-3).



Figure 4-7. (A)Change in algal mat area, volume and thickness at Ichetucknee Blue Hole from May

2005 to April 2006; (B) map of the algal mat at Blue Hole in July 2005.

4.4.4 Macroinvertebrates

Macroinvertebrate communities associated with submerged wood (snags) in the Ichetucknee River are diverse (Steigerwalt 2005). Macroinvertebrates are important in the breakdown of organic matter and an important food source for fish and other vertebrates. Steigerwalt (2005) found that snags in the river had an average of 40,500 invertebrates/m2. The density of



invertebrates as well as taxa richness increased from the upstream headsprings reach to the lower floodplain reach of the river. DO concentrations and current velocity also increased with distance downstream. In both the headsprings reach as well as the floodplain reach, caddisflies (Trichoptera) and non-biting midges (Chironomidae) were the dominant taxa found on snags, while Amphipoda (shrimp-like crustaceans) dominated snags in the middle, Ricemarsh Reach (Steigerwalt 2005). Additionally, most snails and amphipods were found in the Ricemarsh Reach as they are often associated with emergent and floating vegetation, both of which are common in this section of the river (Steigerwalt 2005). Steigerwalt (2005) emphasizes that reductions in flow could particularly affect macroinvertebrates that rely on drift for food, such as filter-feeding caddisflies. Therefore, in establishing minimum flows and levels (MFLs) for the Ichetucknee River, current velocity preferences of macroinvertebrates need to be considered.

4.4.5 Mussels and fish in the Ichetucknee River

Walsh and Williams (2003) surveyed mussel and fish species at various sites along the Ichetucknee River. They collected six species of native mussels; the most common species was the variable spike (Elliptio icterina), which comprised 77% of the 118 specimens collected. Dead valves of one non-native species, the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), were also found. Most of the mussels were collected in the middle and upper reaches of the river. Walsh and Williams (2003) state that the overall abundance of mussels was very low, and offer unsuitable substrate as a possible reason. Suitable habitat for mussels includes tree roots, submerged logs, and a mixed substrate of sand and detritus, while upper reaches of the river substrate was made up largely of rock or rubble covered by a fine layer of sand or silt, and in the bottom reaches, the substrate consisted largely of flocculent detritus. At least 38 species of fish are known to occur in the Ichetucknee River. Walsh and Williams (2003) combined data from surveys they conducted with the fish collection in the Florida Museum of Natural History. The most common species reported (in terms of relative abundance) by both sources was the redeye chub (Notropis harperi), which Walsh and Williams (2003) attribute not only to high abundance of the fish, but also to its schooling behavior. Other species collected in relatively large numbers included the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), the blue kilfish (Lucania goodie), the least killfish (Heterandria Formosa), and several species of sunfish (Lepomis spp.).

4.5 Trends [This section will be developed in the future.]

5 Economic Value Springs are often an important part of the economy in the county where they are located. Springs attract numerous visitors to the area who contribute to the local economy through the food and fuel they purchase, equipment they rent, and places they stay. Several studies in past years have examined the economic impact of the springs. Updated versions of these studies would be useful in determining the current impact of the springs on local economies, as would studies that measure the value of ecosystem services and real estate values related to the springs.



5.1 Value of Natural Resources There have been some studies to determine the economic value of certain natural resources in the State of Florida. A study of the economic impact of Florida state parks on local economies for 2009/2010 revealed a $950 million impact on local economies—$66 million was generated in taxes and 18,900 jobs were supported. Florida State University studied the economic impacts of Ichetucknee, Volusia Blue, Wakulla, and Homosassa springs in 2003. This study (Bonn and Bell 2003) measured spending on lodging, restaurants, groceries, transportation, shopping, entertainment, and admissions fees to parks. It used a formula that assumed additional expenditures by visitors beyond the studies done by Florida State Parks. Non-resident visitors contributed $22.7 million to the Ichetucknee Springs area. The study noted that Volusia Blue was the only park to have a decrease in attendance over a ten-year period (1992 to 2002) despite being close to Orlando and Daytona Beach. This appeared to be related to environmental degradation, suggesting that the quality of the springs affected the attendance and thus the economic impact. A second study by Bonn in 2004 for the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) included profiles of eight springs: Silver Glen, Silver, Alexander, Apopka, Bugg, Ponce de Leon, Gemini, and Green Springs. The annual economic impact as well as employment and wages created for each of these springs was estimated. Silver Springs led the other springs with one million visitors annually, who expended $248 per party, creating an annual economic impact of $61.45 million—with $12.61 million in wages and 1,060.5 full- and part-time jobs directly related to the spring. More than 70% of the visitors came from outside of Marion County. In 2008, Hazen & Sawyer estimated the total value provided to Volusia, Brevard, Stuart, St. Lucie, and Indian River counties by the Indian River Lagoon. The total impact calculated was $3.725 billion. The estimate included annual recreational expenditures of $1.302 billion, real estate values directly related to the proximity of the lagoon of $934 million annually, $629.7 million worth of income for jobs directly related to the lagoon restoration, $91 million worth of expenditures for research, restoration, and education, and $3.8 million in the dockside value of commercial fishing products. In addition to these “revealed preferences,” there were additional “stated preferences” for a recreational use value of $762 million and a nonrecreational use value of the lagoon of $3.4 million. The real estate value represents almost 22% of the total value of property in the area. The study predicted that the stated preferences would increase with an increase in the amount and diversity of wildlife in the lagoon, which demonstrates a direct correlation between willingness to pay and the quality of the local environment as a contributor to quality of life. A study conducted at Jackson Blue Spring in Jackson County estimated the economic benefits of cave diving. It found that at this spring, $575,000 was spent annually by cave divers at a rate of $1,075 per person per year. Divers were also asked how their spending would change if access was improved, and if a privately owned spring was opened for diving. Divers stated they would spend an additional $150 per person per year or about $82,000 total in new expenditures per year.



A survey conducted in the Ocala National Forest asked visitors questions regarding the current state of facilities, recreation opportunities, food and supplies, rentals, interpretive activities, and overnight accommodations, and their willingness to pay additional expenses for improvements to park facilities. The survey estimated that visitors were willing to pay $1 million for basic facilities, $1.9 million for moderate improvements, and $2.5 million for high quality improvements.

5.2 Value of Ichetucknee Springs Ichetucknee Springs is less than 5 miles from Fort White, Florida in the rural counties of Columbia and Suwannee. In 2007, Columbia County had a population of 68,682, Lake City had a population of 12,828, Greater Lake City had a population of 45,000, and Fort White had a population of 577 (www.lcfla.com/about.htm). In 2009, Suwannee County had a population of 40,149 according to the U.S. Census. [Update with 2010 census data] In 2003, Professors Bonn and Bell of Florida State University conducted a survey on the economic impacts of springs including Ichetucknee Springs. These two counties’ main industries are agriculture and forestry (Bonn and Bell 2003). In 2000, the per capita income of these counties was below the state average: $19,128 for Columbia County, $18,432 for Suwannee County, and $27,765 for Florida (Bonn and Bell 2003). The area also has a higher poverty rate and unemployment rate compared to the state average (Bonn and Bell 2003). In 1970, the state purchased 2,700 acres to create the Ichetucknee Springs State Park. ISSP is most known for its tubing, snorkeling/scuba diving, and canoeing/kayaking activities. The park has bathrooms, food and supply concession stands, picnic areas, and trams to transport visitors within the park. There is no camping within the park. While the park does not provide tube or canoe rentals, there are a number of local businesses that contract with the park to provide drop-off and pick-up services for canoes and tubes:

Ichetucknee Family Grocery, Fort White—Flotation device collecting (tubes) Buffalo Joe's, Inc., Fort White—Flotation device collecting (tubes) Ichetucknee Tube Center, Inc., Fort White—Flotation device collecting (tubes) Lowes Tubeland, Inc., Fort White—Flotation device collection (tubes)

According to the Bonn and Bell study, in 2002, the Ichetucknee Springs had almost 190,000 visitors, of which 90% came from outside Suwannee and Columbia counties. In 2008, a New York Times article appeared in the travel section highlighting Florida’s springs as a vacation destination. Ichetucknee Springs was one of the featured springs. Wayne Kinard, owner of Amigos Dive Shop near Fort White, has received nearly 3000 visitors in the four years it has been open. Kinard said that he has received visitors from all 50 states and 47 different countries, with Russia being the most represented (Wayne Kinard, Amigos Dive Center, personal communication). The average party size of non-local visitors was 6.4 people, and the average stay was 2.7 days. Nearly half of these visitors stayed for only one day, which is related to the lack of accommodations in the area. The average daily expenditures per party were $215 (Bonn and Bell 2003).



The research did not include data about Alachua and Gilchrist counties, which are in close proximity to the park. These counties contribute many visitors to the park and also receive economic benefits from the park, most notably High Springs in Alachua County. Even though the town of High Springs is not within the Ichetucknee Springs basin, it is only 15 miles from the springs and is a common stopover for those visiting the springs. The High Springs Main Street program, a local 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, features proximity to the springs as a key ecotourism feature of the town and has as its motto “Enjoy our Good Nature.” On October 1 to 3, 2010, the Main Street program hosted the first High Springs River Festival in order to highlight the natural assets of the area as well as the unique downtown of High Springs. The event featured a bicycle “Peddle/Paddle” fundraising event hosted by the local “Yellow Bellied Sliders” bicycle group along the Santa Fe River; an “Old Time Dance” event at O’Leno State Park; and nature and water excursions at natural spring locations. In historic downtown High Springs, there were live music concerts, food vendors, and environmental organizations with educational displays throughout the event. Florida’s Eden is an organization that has taken a regional approach to support sustainable economic development in the 30-county region that comprises north Florida. Many of their publications focus on the ecotourism in the region with significant sections dedicated to the springs. They have recently created two guide books: Heart of Florida Scenic Guide and Pure Water Wilderness Scenic Guide. Florida’s Eden considers the area the “gateway to the springs.” The organization won Alachua County’s Tourism Development Council award for “Discover Florida’s Blue Path,” which focused on the numerous water-related activities available in north-central Florida. In addition to the direct economic impact of visitors to the Ichetucknee State Park, the springs also provide indirect economic benefits to the region. Many of these benefits are attributed to Ichetucknee’s ecosystem services, which are services provided by ecological systems that usually are not valued because they are not traded in markets. Services provided by the Ichetucknee include recreational, cultural, and educational uses; water purification; and habitat for native species.

5.3 Recommendation A comprehensive study of the contribution of Ichetucknee Springs and River should be conducted to compare the costs and benefits of spring restoration versus not restoring the spring.

6 Existing Legal Protections Ichetucknee Springs and River are protected by a variety of federal, state, and local statutes and ordinances. These are summarized in Tables 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3.



Table 6-1. Federal Laws and Policies that Apply to the Ichetucknee River Basin Federal

Policy/Regulations Entity Resource

Protected Type of Protection Permit or

Approval Rivers and Harbors Act, 1899 Sections 9 and 10

USACE Water and Wetlands

Prohibits unauthorized construction in or over navigable waters of the U.S. Yes

Clean Water Act, 1972 Amended 1977 Section 404 (33 CFR Parts 320-330) NPDES Permit Wastewater Stormwater (40CFR Parts 122,123,124)


Controls discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. Permit requirements for wastewater treatment plants Directs States to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads(TMDLs)

Yes USACE EPA

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956


Requires USACE to coordinate permit applications with state and federal fish and wildlife agencies

No

Archaeological and Historical Preservation and Protections Acts, 1974 PL 74-292; 16 U. S. C. 461et seq PL 93-291; 16 U. S. C. 469 PL 89-665; 16 U. S. C. 470 PL 96-95 ; 16 U. S. C. 470aa-11

Dept. of Interior

Archeological and Historic

Establishes policy, programs, rules, and regulations regarding the preservation and protection of archeological and historic resources. Establishes civil and criminal penalties for unlawful excavation and removal.

Yes for excavation and removal

Endangered Species Act of 1973 PL93-205; 16 U. S. C. 1531 et seq

FWS/ NMFS

Species & Habitat

Protects all marine and non-marine endangered and threatened species and the critical habitat on which they depend.

Yes

Executive Order of 1979, Creation of Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEMA Flood Plain Provides flood insurance and provides guidance on building codes and floodplain management

No

National Environmental Protection/Policy Act (NEPA), 1970 PL 91-190; 42 U. S. C. 4321-4370d

CEQ Land and Water

Requires federal agencies to prepare reports including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for all 'major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. An Environmental Assessment (EA) may be performed first with recommendations for either Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or that an EIS is necessary.

Yes

Soil Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 590a)

NRCS Land and Water

Directs NRCS to prevent soil erosion through local regulations and watershed improvement projects



Table 6-2. State of Florida and Regional Agencies Laws and Policies that Apply to the Ichetucknee River Basin State of Florida

Policy/Regulations Entity Resource

Protected Type of Protection Permit

Approval Agency Florida Aquatic Preserves Act, 1975 F.S. Part II Chapter 258, F.A.C. 18-20

FDEP Water Sets the intent of the establishment of the state’s aquatic preserve system and sets guidelines for administration and management of the preserves. Addresses the need to manage cumulative impacts within and surrounding the preserve, protection of indigenous life forms from sale or commercial use and the need for resource inventories and management plans for each preserve.

FDEP

Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) F.S. , 1979 Ichetucknee designation 1979 (62-302.700 F.A.C.). (Rule 62-302.700(9-c), F.A.C.)

ERC & FDEP

Water Prohibits direct and indirect pollutant discharges that would lower the existing water quality. Permits for dredging and filling have to be in the public’s interest. Establishes a process for designating Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) worthy of special protection with more protective standards.

FDEP or SJRWMD

Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act, 1984 (403. 92-. 938,FS)

FDEP & WMD

Water and Wetlands

Regulates activities in wetlands considered to be waters of the state. Note – Florida and USACE have permitting jurisdiction; Florida’s rules require a hydraulic connection to surface water, USACE does not.

FDEP or WMD

Management and Storage of Surface Waters, (Ch. 40C-4, Ch. 40C-40, and Ch. 40C-41, F. A. C. , Sec 403, FS)

WMD Water and Wetlands

Establishes standards and permit requirements for the management, consumptive use, and storage of surface waters including storm waters and impoundments.

WMD

Surface Water Quality Standards (Rule 17-302. 400, F. A. C.)

FDEP Water Establishes surface water classifications for specific uses and corresponding water quality standards.

FDEP

Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, 1985 (Ch. 163.3161-163.3243, F. S. ; Ch. 9J-6, 9J-24, F. A. C.

FDCA All Directs local governments to adopt comprehensive plans and land development regulations; outlines rules and minimum criteria; and outlines elements to be included in plans. Ch. 380, F. S. establishes criteria for Developments of Regional Impact (DRI).

FDCA, RPCs, Local Government

Environmental Resource Permits Chapter 40C-41, F.A.C

WMD All Lays down guidelines for permit requirements in surface water management.

SJRWMD, Local Government

RPC Policy Goal 4.10 & 4.11 July 1998

EC Florida RPC

Water Resources

Best management practices (BMPs) will be practiced for control of erosion and sedimentation. The hydrological and ecological functioning of the region’s river systems is protected.

DCA, RPCs, Local Government



State of Florida Policy/Regulations

Entity Resource Protected

Type of Protection Permit Approval Agency

RPC Policy Goal 4.24 July 1998

EC Florida RPC

Wetlands Ensuring protection of rare or endangered ecosystems (identified in state, regional or local lists & inventories).


RPC Policy Goal 4.29 &.30 July 1998

EC Florida RPC

Habitat Establishment of buffer zones encouraged to protect water quality and quantity and to provide habitat for semi-aquatic or water dependent terrestrial wildlife. Recommendation of locating these buffer zones landward of regionally existing wetlands. It states that natural vegetative communities (native plants and animals) shall be conserved and protected to ensure their existence in the future (encouraged through comp. plans for local areas to establish adequate conservation areas, open spaces, river buffers, etc.).


Impaired Waters Rule (Ch. 62-303)

FDEP Water Established a methodology for identifying Impaired Florida Waters and the calculation of TMDLs for those bodies of water.

Springs Protection Act, July 2006 Florida Senate

Provides for the creation of the Florida Springs Commission, whose duty is to identify strategies that will protect, restore, and preserve Florida’s springs. Lays out minimum requirements for assessment information and model plans for the springs.



Table 6-3. Counties and Local Municipalities with Policies and Comprehensive Plan Amendments applying to the Ichetucknee River Basin

County/Local Municipality Policy/Regulations


Type of Protection Permit Approval

Code of Ordinances, Chapter 42 – Environment, Article II: Scenic Preservation Article III: Hazardous Materials Chapter 70- Natural Resources, Article II: Mining; Land Rehabilitation

Columbia Co. Water Sec. 42-52 sets requirements designed to protect and scenic corridor along the Suwannee River and its tributaries. Requirements include details on natural growth preservation, new construction, industrial development, dredging/filling and straightening/riprapping, and pollution violation, among others. Sec. 42-133 States that if a hazardous materials incident is caused by a negligent party, said party will be responsible for reimbursing and restituting all expenses incurred due to the incident. Sec. 70-39 requires environmental monitoring that is appropriate given the scale and type of mining, and as determined by specific regulations for the mineral class. Sec. 70-40 limits groundwater extractions and direct hydraulic connections in mining areas. It also requires land rehabilitation to commence after a specific mining unit is finished being mined.

Land Development Regulations Code, Part 1, Land Development Regulations, Article 4: Zoning Regulations Article 6: High Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge and Potable Water Well Field Regulations

Columbia Co. Sec. 4.3 establishes allowable/prohibits practices within “CSV” conservation lands, including that every structure (except permitted docks, walkways and piers) must be at least 75 feet back from the Suwannee, Santa Fe and Ichetucknee rivers. It also limits structure height and lot coverage within CSV zones. Sec. 4.4 establishes Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) criteria, which includes the 100-year floodplains of both the ISSP and Ichetucknee Trace. Industrial and commercial use, intensive agricultural use, and private recreational uses among others are prohibited in ESAs. Also sets limitations on structure height, lot coverage, and so forth. Sec. 4.5 limits uses in “A” Agricultural areas, including the prohibition of any structure that requires an industrial waste permit within an area designated as a high groundwater recharge area. Sec. 6.1puts forth the designation of high groundwater regulations in the county’s comprehensive plan, and lays out regulations for those areas. Stipulations within these areas include: 6.1.2.1 avoiding drainage wells and sinkholes in stormwater management, and abandoning/sealing/plugging existing wells in areas of proposed development; 6.1.2.2-3 criteria for the construction and closing of






Article 7: Stormwater Management Regulations

wells; 6.1.2.4 no discharging of regulated material to the soils, groundwater, or surface waters; 6.1.2.5 no tampering or bypassing of a regulated material storage system; 6.1.2.6 requiring special permitting for landfill/ storage facilities; 6.1.2.7 no discharge or spray irrigation of primary treated effluent; 6.1.2.8 impervious surface limitations. 6.1.3 requires notification of the provisions of a high natural groundwater recharge area upon sale or transfer. Sec. 6.2 establishes a 600-ft well field protection area around community water facility wellheads, with the first 200-ft radius being a zone of exclusion with no exclusion. The remaining 400-ft radius is subject to the following standards: 6.2.1.1 no land uses allowed that involve use, storage or manufacture of regulated materials; 6.2.1.2 without approval for exemption by the board of county commissioners, no new wells may be constructed in a surficial intermediate or Floridan Aquifer System; 6.2.1.3 no discharge of regulated materials; 6.2.1.4 landfills prohibited; 6.2.1.5 new septic tanks prohibited unless it is 250% more expensive to connect to an existing public sewer or where no such public utility exists; 6.2.1.6 wastewater treatment facilities prohibited; 6.2.1.7 aside from local traffic serving facilities, transportation of regulated materials is prohibited; 6.2.1.9 temporary storage permitting is required for the temporary storage of regulated materials exceeding 50 gallons in volume. Also, 6.2.2 requires notification of well field management zone location upon transfer or sale. Sec. 7.3 puts forth stormwater management requirements, including: 7.3.1 conforming to the natural contours of the land during development; 7.3.2 lot boundaries will conform to natural and existing man-made drainage ways within subdivisions; 7.3.3 Developments must have a drainage system that prevents the undue retention of stormwater on the site; 7.3.4 requires post-development runoff rates to equal those of pre-development, disallows the inhibition of natural flow of water from higher adjacent properties, and disallows the collection and channeling of water onto lower adjacent properties; 7.3.5 disallows development that would cause any land disturbing activity without special approval from the water management district; 7.3.6 stormwater facilities shall not lower receiving water quality of outstanding Florida waters below minimum conditions necessary to maintain suitability of the water; 7.3.7 provides regulations for stormwater management systems design, protecting water quality and surrounding habitat






Sec. 7.4 deals with the maintenance of stormwater management systems

Land Development Regulations Code, Part 2, Comprehensive Plan 2023 Evaluation and Appraisal Report Based Amendments, I: Future Land Use Element

Columbia Co. Columbia Co.

Water, habitat

Policy I.1.4 land development regulations will have standards for proposed development near agricultural, forested, or ESA lands to protect from damaging existing land uses. Policy I.1.5 urban development will conform to soil conditions and land topography Policy I.1.6 provides standards for intensity and density of development for different land use classifications. Limitations include: Conservation use lands- conserve the unique functions of these lands; silviculture, public access, and residential uses necessary for management are all allowed. ESAs (within 100-yr floodplain of the Suwannee River Corridor and the Ichetucknee Trace) – a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres; if residential development that meets this criteria is met, 50% of the land must stay undeveloped, buildings will be compact and on highest elevation, buffers are required, development must take place in the least sensitive areas, and internal roads will be organized to minimize access points to external roadways; no intensive agriculture; campgrounds (of less than 100 campsites) are allowed, but not within a 5-mile radius of one another and at least 80% of the natural vegetation on each campsite is maintained. Policy I.3.4 regulates mining activities, including the prohibition of mining when it will adversely affect ESLs or rare/unique vegetative communities that cannot be restored. Policy I.7.1 Restricts uses within the 300-ft well field protection area in accordance with the F.A.C. Policy 1.7.2 Prohibits the location of any structure in a wetland with the exemption of permitted docks, piers or walkways. Policy I.7.4 Protects ESLs, which “shall include, but not be limited to, wetlands, floodprone areas, areas designated as high groundwater recharge areas and critical habitat areas for designated rare, threatened, endangered, or species of special concern.” Policy I.7.5 protects high groundwater aquifer recharge areas by






IV: Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element

Columbia Co.

Water quantity

preventing stormwater discharge into wells and sinkholes, regulating well construction, and disallowing intensive agriculture and the discharge (including protection against accidents) of hazardous material to soils or groundwater. Policy I.7.6 requires minimization of direct surface run-off into Ichetucknee Springs. Policy I.15.1 requires the maintenance of both the quantity and quality of surface water runoff within the Ichetucknee Trace Policy I.15.2 All new non-residential development within the Ichetucknee Trace must provide an evaluation of potentially damaging impacts to water quantity/quality in the Trace. Policy I.15.3 Requires the same process as policy I.15.2 for residential subdivisions 20 acres or more in size. Objective IV.2 lays down guidelines for sewer and septic tank systems, including sanitary service standards. Objective IV.3 lays down service standards for solid waste disposal facilities and claims that the county will act in ways to minimize the effects of solid waste disposal facilities on water and air resources. Policy IV.4.1 requires the installation of detention systems that adhere to standards set forth in this section for all projects that are completely within a stream or open lake watershed Policy IV.4.2 prohibits construction that will interrupt natural drainage flows, including flow to wetland systems Policy IV.4.3 requires that erosion and sediment controls must be taken into account for all construction activity. Objective IV.6 continues the prohibition of primary treated effluent being used in spray irrigation or as discharge Policy IV.7.1 limits development adjacent to natural drainage features. Policy IV.7.2 limits development and impervious surfaces in high groundwater recharge areas, dealing with stormwater management,






V: Conservation Element

Columbia Co.

Water quantity All

well regulation, regulated material storage systems, and so forth. Policy IV.8.1 says the county will aid in enforcing WMD water use restrictions during a water shortage Policy IV.8.2 the county will assist the WMD with public information programs on water use restrictions Policy IV.8.3 50 percent of the following must be vegetation native or indigenous to North Florida: 10% off-street parking areas, 10-ft buffer between residential and commercial uses, 15-ft buffer between single- and multi-family uses or mobile home parks, and 25-ft buffer between residential and industrial uses Policy IV.8.4 provides limitations on water flow rates for faucets and water closets Policy V.2.1 requires development plans to coordinate with DEP and the WMD to monitor uses that may impact water sources Policy V.2.2 prohibits industrial, commercial or intensive agricultural uses within 300 feet of surface waters Policy V.2.3 the county will identify and recommend purchases of ESLs for the restoration of water quality, natural hydrology, and aquatic vegetation and will apply for state and federal funds to be used in these restoration efforts. Policy V.2.4 requires a 35-ft buffer zone around all wetlands and disallows agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial land uses within the buffer area. Policy V.2.5 post-development runoff rates and pollutant loads must not exceed pre-development levels Policy V.2.6 maintain natural functions of ESAs during/after new development Policy V.2.7 development within the 100-year floodplains of the Suwannee River and Ichetucknee Trace will be regulated and designated as ESAs. Policy V.2.8 defines wetlands, states that development mitigation






Columbia Co.

will result in no net loss of wetlands, and states that if development must take place in a wetland area, there can be no more than one dwelling per five acres. Paths and driveways in these areas must use permeable fill and allow natural water flow, and no more than ½ acre of native vegetation can be cleared per five acres. Policy V.2.9-10 the county will support the WMD in water conservation programs and emergency conservation. Policy V.2.11 development must be low density and non-intensive in high groundwater recharge areas Policy V.2.12 prohibits development that may degrade water quality/quantity of runoff within freshwater stream to sink watersheds. Policy V.2.13 hazardous or bio-medical waste treatment facilities may not be located within ESAs. Policy V.2.14 with the exception of reasonable access and recreational activities, no development is allowed within a 75-ft buffer zone extending from the river bank of the Ichetucknee and Suwannee Rivers. Policy V.2.16 silviculture activities must follow the BMPs laid out in the FDACS publication Silviculture Best Management Practices Manual. Policy V.3.3 multiple use of forest resources must provide for the maintenance of water quality. Objective V.5 lays out maps that will be used in the definition of high groundwater recharge protection, surface water protection, riverbank protection, surface water runoff policy, conservation land use policy, and critical wildlife policy. Policy V.6.1 use acquisition programs to gain ownership or less than fee ownership through conservation easements on land within the springshed that is considered critical or sensitive resources. Policy V.6.2 Use transfer of development rights, performance zoning, open space zoning, on site density transfer, and so forth to maximize open space area.






Objective V.7 “delineate environmental overlay protection zones to protect the springshed and spring system resources and designate appropriate land uses in these zones” Policy V.7.1 designate low density and intensity uses in and around critical springshed resources.

Land Development Regulations, Article 4: Zoning Restrictions Article 6: Prime Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge and Potable Water Well Field Regulations Article 7: Stormwater Management Regulations

Suwannee Co. Suwannee Co.

Sec. 4.2 provides restrictions within CSV-designated lands, including a provision that any structure (aside from permitted docks, walkways and piers) must be setback at least 75 feet from the Ichetucknee river. Similarly, structures must be setback at least 50 feet from perennial rivers, streams and creeks and 35 feet from wetlands. Sec 4.3 sets restrictions for ESA-designated lands, which the Ichetucknee River and stream to sink recharge areas are a part of. Minimum lot and yard requirements are stated, and the maximum lot coverage by all buildings is 20%. Sec. 6.1.2 in designated areas, abandoned wells should be closed, stormwater discharge into connections to potable water aquifers is prohibited, well construction is regulated, regulated material discharge is prohibited, tampering with containment systems is prohibited, and hazardous waste storage facilities require special permitting. Sec. 7.2.1 states that stormwater discharge facilities must not lower the receiving water quality below the suitability of the water for its designated use as established is CH. 17-302 F.A.C., and sedimentation and erosion control must be performed. Sec. 7.3 lays out requirements for stormwater management practices.



7 Causes of Impairment Three of the Ichetucknee Springs have been declared as impaired by FDEP based on elevated nitrates. Stakeholders have identified three additional priority impairments within the springs:

Reduced flow Increased algae Reduced diversity of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)

Extensive research has provided valuable insights into the cause of elevated nitrates and reduced flow to the Ichetucknee. Both the algae and the SAV impairments are undergoing continued research to identify the level of impairment as well as the cause.

7.1 Elevated nitrates Three of the nine contributing springs to the Ichetuckee River have been declared impaired by FDEP on the basis of the nitrate levels* exceeding the 0.35 mg/L Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL):

Head Springs 0.77 mg/L Blue Hole 0.695 mg/L Mission 0.58 mg/L (FDEP 2010) *Background level of nitrates is 0.05 mg/L.

When nitrate readings are taken throughout the day, data show diurnal changes in concentration. When DO is high, nitrate is low, indicating that when there is more SAV coverage more nitrogen is removed from the river. Nitrates are a byproduct of many human activities including fertilization (e.g., agriculture, golf courses, lawns, etc.), and human and animal waste disposal practices. Nitrate emerging from Ichetucknee Springs is primarily inorganic, pointing to fertilizers as the origin. Research has identified the following anthropogenic sources of nitrates within the basin:

51% Inorganic fertilizers applied to croplands, lawns and pine plantations 27% Animal waste 12% Septic tanks 2% Land application of treated wastewater and biosolids (Katz et al. 2009)

The problems caused by increased nitrate are not completely understood although it may support increased algal growth and increased growth of the exotic plant Hydrilla. Nitrate readings above 0.4 mg/L have been observed to cause toxic effects on macroinvertebrates.



It is important to note that the Ichetucknee River flows into the Santa Fe River, which is also considered impaired for nitrates. There is currently a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) in progress to address the TMDL of 0.35 mg/L set for the Santa Fe River. In this sense, the Ichetucknee River may be perceived as a “point source” for nitrates to the Santa Fe River. Research has shown that nitrogen removal rates are very high in the Ichetucknee River. It is estimated that nitrate declines 30% to 40% over three miles, likely due to microbial activity. A priority for the Santa Fe River BMAP would be to better understand how nitrogen is removed in the river and find ways to potentially increase this removal rate.

7.2 Reduced flow This section needs to be written to include the following:

Flow to Ichetucknee Springs has decreased and factors related to this drop Increased consumption in the area Migration of groundwater divide

The Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) will establish a MFLs for Ichetucknee by the end of 2011.

7.3 Increased algae The most common algal species in the Ichetucknee Springs and River are Lyngbya wollei and Vaucheria sp.(Stevenson et al. 2007), which are most abundant in the feeder spring pools and run areas. While the proliferation of periphyton (algae) is typically considered a product of increased nitrates, other factors may also be involved such as DO concentrations, stream velocity, and grazer populations (Politano 2008). One study found that grazing by gastropods can reduce periphyton, but that low oxygen conditions limit the viability of these populations, particularly in feeder springs (Dormsjo 2008). In order to effectively address algae, the causes and controls need to be better understood. In 2009, Joe Hand (FDEP) qualitatively measured algal cover along the river and algae appeared to be higher in areas with lower nitrate, indicating that other factors likely influence algal abundance. Preliminary results from mesocosm experiments in the Ichetucknee River and springs by D. Liebowitz and M. Cohen (UF) show that at high abundances, snails can greatly reduce algal biomass.

7.4 Reduced diversity of submerged aquatic vegetation ISSP biologists have been collecting percent vegetation cover data along 17 transects in the Ichetucknee River since 1989. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the carrying capacity and identify the level of impact of recreation on vegetation. The data has shown a steady decline of diversity in vegetation along these transects. How serious this decline is to the functioning of the ecosystem is unknown. Although the decline may be a direct result of human trampling and uprooting, it is unclear if there are other factors influencing the vegetation such as availability of light or abundance of periphyton. In order to address this impairment effectively, additional research should be completed.



8 Vision for Restored Spring

8.1 Significance of the Ichetucknee Stakeholders at the November 3, 2010 WG meeting participated in a visioning exercise. During the first part of the exercise, participants divided into five groups and discussed the significance of Ichetucknee Springs and, particularly, what makes the Ichetucknee unique among springs in Florida. The feedback from each group was consolidated into a combined list. This list provides insight into what makes Ichetucknee Springs unique among springs in Florida and why it is important to protect and restore.

Beauty—most beautiful spring run in the state; minimal impact; lazy river; “wild, untouched”

Recreation—unique, intimate experience, lack of motorboats

Conservation / Park—significant portions of the uplands are protected

Ecosystem / Biodiversity—siltsnail; almost exotic free ; totally spring fed; birding; Audubon, spring run crayfish, loggerhead musk turtle

Economics—income for Fort White and surrounding area; ecotourism destination for locals and people all over the world

Cultural—archaeology, cultural history, prehistoric, indigenous; artistic inspiration; “Sacred River,” natural educational classroom

Hydrology—diverse geomorphology, different sections of river; mapped springshed

Management / Community Engagement—broad interest group with long history; management “success story”; work-in-progress; inspires use as example

8.2 Vision During the second portion of the exercise, participants were provided with an overview of what a vision statement is and some examples. Each participant was provided with a worksheet to develop his or her own individual vision of what the Ichetucknee and surrounding community will look like when restoration is achieved (based on each person’s own sense of restoration). Individuals then worked in pairs to combine their vision into one. These pairs then combined with another one or two pairs to create a combined vision. The result was five draft vision statements, which were later combined into a single draft vision. This vision was presented at subsequent meeting for feedback and adoption:

The Ichetucknee Springs and Ichetucknee River comprise an abundantly flowing, high quality water system that supports a healthy biodiversity with thriving



populations of native species. It is a unique, peaceful, and pristine oasis renowned for its beauty and wild, untouched nature. The community engages in behaviors that support the stewardship of the Ichetucknee. A strong network of partnerships exists between businesses, schools, government, farmers, scientists, citizens, and non-profits to ensure that the Ichetucknee system is sustained as an important ecological, economic, cultural, recreational, and artistic resource.

9 Goals and Actions The goals and actions described below are a result of numerous stakeholder meetings (quarterly and planning) snd feedback provided by numerous individual stakeholders. These are only draft goals and are subject to revision or elimination based on stakeholder input. Some goals are currently in progress, whereas others would require additional funding or commitments to implement. After these goals and actions are finalized, the stakeholders will prioritize which ones should be focused on for implementation.

9.1 Water Quality Introduction to be written in future draft will include:

Historical and current nitrate levels (graph) Sources of nitrate (Katz and Foster) – pie chart, land use map Nitrogen loading data Aquifer vulnerability—map, trace, other Relationship with flow

9.1.1 Accomplishments

Wastewater

During the past 90 years, significant advancements have been made in the treatment and disposal of wastewater from Lake City. In 1928, the St. Margaret Road Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was operating as a trickling filter plant with 70% to 80% removal efficiency for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total solids (TS). Since 1973, St. Margaret Road WWTP has been an activated sludge plant with 97% to 98% removal efficiency. From 1928 through the 1970s, wastewater was discharged into Alligator Lake to augment lake levels. However, after passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the wastewater was diverted to a 360-acre sprayfield. Initially an additional 160 lbs per acre of fertilizer was added to these 360 acres in order to meet the nutritional needs of the Bermuda grass and hay coverage. In 2007 this area was converted to pine, and fertilizer is no longer added. In 2010, Lake City issued an $18 million bond for wastewater treatment improvements. Of this, $3million will be used to upgrade St. Margaret Road WWTP to an advanced wastewater treatment facility that will remove nitrogen to 3 mg/L. The overall load to this plant will be reduced, and the sprayfield will only be used when needed. The remaining $15 million will be



used to build the Kicklighter Plant, a new highly efficient wastewater treatment plant that will use a biological nutrient removal process that reduces nitrogen to 3 mg/L and below. The new plant will be able to handle 1.5 mg/day. The amount of wastewater going to the St. Margaret Road WWTP will be reduced by 0.75to 1.0 mg/day. Biosolids In the fall of 2010, the City of Lake City began working with Audubon [confirm if Four Rivers Audubon], IFAS, Florida Native Plant Society, and Henry Sheldon, P.E. on a two-year study that looks at enhanced disposal of biosolids at the Branford Road site using native plants. The study is part of FDEP’s Permit FLA113956-009-DW1P for renewal (2010 to 2015) of the city's Saint Margaret Road WWTP. The Saint Margaret Road WWTP receives about 300,000 lbs of total nitrogen (TN) per year in raw sewage originating from the 20,000 people and 1,000 commercial sites. Sixty percent of the nitrogen is consumed and vaporized in the activated sludge process, 25% is applied by spray irrigation at the Sisters Welcome Road site (eventually this will be rerouted as reclaimed water for public and private use), and 15% (45,600 lbs per year) is applied at the Branford Road site as a biosolid. Biosolids are applied to the land with a manure spreader after 24 hours of storage. The study will include measurements of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (NP-K) in area groundwater (shallow and deep), soils, and plant tissues. This project also provides unique research opportunities to learn more about the nutrient uptake capabilities of native plants (Branford Road Biosolids site: Nutrient Management Plan, Native Vegetation Cover Crop Study, Progress Report #1, 1st Quarter 2011, City of Lake City, Florida). Stormwater

Using sales tax revenue, Lake City conducted an inventory of all streets. Thomas Henry, director of Public Works, provided a presentation in March 2011 on this inventory. The inventory provided information on stormwater issues, particularly in older parts of the city where there is not a treatment system in place. The city has plans to provide infrastructure upgrades in priority areas. Two million dollars will be invested in improvements including overlay, repair, and upgrade of stormwater systems. Some improvements will be completed as streets are upgraded. For example, Franklin Street will be upgraded to provide enhanced access to Shands Hospital, and a stormwater treatment pond will be added. Lake City Utilities has a team of six who regularly search for leaks in gravity sewer pipes which allow stormwater to inflow and infiltrate. As stormwater enters the sewer pipes, the volume of water that the city needs to treat rises. In the past, a 3-inch rain event resulted in between 2 and 8 mgd requiring treatment. As a result of repairing leaks, the city now treats between 2 and 3.5 mgd during a 3-inch rain event (Dave Clanton, Lake City Utilities Director, personal communication). Septic

There are thousands of septic tanks in Columbia County and historically the records for these systems were handwritten and hand-filed. The Columbia County Department of Health (DOH) does not currently have an accurate number of septic tanks in the county or within the



Ichetucknee Springs basin. However, according to Katz, Sepulveda, and Verdi (2009), 67% (14,090) of Columbia County septic tanks are within the Ichetucknee springshed and are responsible for 30,408 to106,428 kg/yr of the nitrogen load to groundwater. [Confirm]

Figure 9-1. Location of septic tanks within the Ichetucknee springshed Source: Katz, Sepulveda, and Verdi 2009 Within the last few years, the Columbia County DOH has developed an online Septic System Survey to digitize records from 1973 to the present. The new electronic system includes an interactive database allowing users to search by various parameters. The system currently has 1,702 total records (many records are still being scanned and added), 950 of which are less than 10 years old. Of the 705 records added within the last year, the following is known:

200 repairs to existing systems 37 records to add drainfield onto an existing system to accommodate an addition onto an

existing residence, or replacement with a larger residence



105 records are for inspections of existing septic systems to ensure they remain in original permit condition

One permit record was added for was an abandonment permit, where a septic system was crushed and filled because it taken out of service

Nine records are for upgraded aerobic treatment and performance based treatment units require additional operating permits and are monitored more closely by the DOH staff to ensure they are functioning properly. These systems are required to be service twice annually by a qualified septic company, and the report submitted to the DOH office

Currently, Columbia County DOH is unable to determine how many systems have not been repaired or are coming due for a repair. At this time, there is no report for this, and the life expectancy of septic systems depends upon on several variables. The database is being used mostly by the DOH office, septic contractors, and real estate professionals. The DOH office uses the system to find out is the age of a system when clients are ready to repair their septic systems. Septic contractors rely on the records because the rules for repairing a system depend on the system’s installation date. Real estate professionals use the system so they can inform their clients how big a septic system is and what it is permitted for. (Sallie Ford, Columbia County Department of Health, personal communication) A dye trace at the ISSP revealed that the assistant park manager’s house was linked to XX Spring. As a result, four septic tanks were updated with advanced treatment systems between 2007 and 2009 (north ranger station, ranger’s house, assistant park manager’s house, and the north entrance bathrooms). [Confirm date of dye trace and which spring it connected to.] Agricultural Best Management Practices

There have been a number of efforts to reduce nutrient impacts from agriculture to the Ichetucknee Springs. The Suwannee River Partnership (SRP), formed in 1999, is a coalition of 60 state, federal, and regional agencies, local governments, and private industry representatives working together to protect surface and groundwater within the Suwannee River Water Management District area. The mission of the SRP is “to provide research-based solutions that protect and conserve the water resources within the Suwannee River Water Management District by emphasizing the implementation of volunteer- or incentive-based programs.” A key effort of the SRP is to enroll commercial agricultural producers in Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce water use and reduce fertilizer inputs. As of May 24, 2011, 65 producers (XXX parcels) within the Ichetucknee Springs basin had signed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to participate in BMPs. The total acreage of these parcels is approximately XXX acres. Producers review the list of BMPs and select those they believe they can implement quickly as well as those which they may be able to implement in the future (Figure 9-2). BMPs are designed for the specific type of agriculture (e.g., citrus, container nursery, vegetable and argonomic crops, sod, cow/calf operations, and fruit and nut crops). BMPs cover a wide range of practices including fertilizer, water, and chemical applications, conservation tillage practices, and buffers. SRP also provides educational workshops and supports research efforts focused on the



effectiveness of agricultural BMPs (Hugh Thomas, Suwannee River Partnership, personal communication). Farmer Mike Tice has been working with SRP since 2004 on his 500-acre farm located within the Ichetucknee Trace. A producer of beef cattle, hay and other forages, grain, corn, and peanuts, Tice tracks his fertilizer and irrigation water applications and has equipped his chemical sprayer and fertilizer applicator with a GPS system to increase efficiency. Tice’s farm is also slated to be one of the recipients of reclaimed water from the City of Lake City. By using treated wastewater, he can pump less groundwater. In an effort to raise awareness about agricultural BMPs, Tice hosted a field trip in May 2010 for the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group to tour his farm (SRP News 2010). Farmers produce peanuts on approximately 4,100 acres in Columbia County. Most producers (more than 85%) in the county have typically planted only one variety of peanut, which made crops more susceptible to disease and large-scale losses. In order to address this concern, UF–IFAS and local growers initiated a program in 2005 to increase the number of peanut varieties planted, including genetically pest-resistant varieties. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of pest-resistant varieties planted increased from 650 to 3960 acres (15% to 99%). Producers are now planting a greater diversity of peanut varieties, which has resulted in the elimination of more than 55,000 pounds of chemical fumigants and contact nematicide previously applied to crops. It is also estimated that peanut crops require approximately one-tenth the nitrogen that row crops require (William Thomas, Columbia County Extension, personal communication). The Ichetucknee Partnership (TIP) has supported agricultural BMPs efforts as well, often in coordination with the SRP. Fourteen farming operations in the Ichetucknee basin are participating in a cost-share program to implement karst-specific BMPs designed to reduce nutrient loading from animal waste and fertilizers, and to reduce water consumption through the use of more efficient irrigation systems. The program is coordinated by the SRP, with funding provided by TIP. TIP has also created a map of SRP participants in the springshed and supported a Crop Management Workshop and the County Alliance for Responsible Environmental Stewardship (CARES) recognition program created by the Florida Farm Bureau and the SRP (Cindy Johnson, The Ichetucknee Partnership, personal communication).



Figure 9-2. Map of farms who had signed an NOI by 12/31/2010 [needs to be updated with most

recent NOIs] Homeowner Best Management Practices

Both the Suwannee and Columbia County UF–IFAS extension offices provide educational workshops and information to the public on recommended landscape and small-scale agricultural practices. TIP has worked collaboratively with extension offices to develop Florida-Friendly



Landscaping™–Florida Yards and Neighborhoods programs, publications, and displays for distribution. Recent workshops and activities in Columbia County include:

Building Rain Gardens and Rain Barrels on March 16th , 2011 Hosting the Northeast Horticultural Green Team Meeting at ISSP on January 10, 2011.

This quarterly meeting is attended by horticulture and other related extension agents within the north-east district. Participants viewed the Water’s Journey video, visited the park educational exhibit, and learned about the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group.

“Living on a Few Acres” is a monthly program that provides an introduction to small-scale agricultural operation and often includes information on Best Management Practices (BMPs). Topics covered in 2011 include: Small Farm Management: Getting Started and Finding your Market–January 18 *Alternative Enterprises (information on other enterprises: beekeeping, shiitake

mushrooms, hydroponics and other topics)–February 15 *Producing Vegetable Crops (introduction to growing vegetables, irrigation,

integrated pest management, weed and insect control)–March 15 Backyard Flock: Growing Poultry (information on breeds, nutrition, health, and

housing)–April 19 *Optimize Pasture and Grazing Management (Are you a grass farmer? Learn how

to manage your pasture or establish a new pasture)–May 17 Beef and Small Ruminant Production (information on different enterprises for

beef cattle and what it takes to raise goats and sheep)–June 21 *Pond Management (Learn stocking rate, water quality, identification of common

aquatic weeds and various treatment options)–July 19 *Equine Management (Learn the basics of nutrition and health including

vaccination, de-worming, and dental care)–August 16 *Organic Production (The organic system plan: Learn the standards for organic

production)–September 20 *Fruits and Nuts (information on production of high value alternative fruit and nut

crops for local and niche markets)–October 18 *Wildlife Habitat (Interested in viewing the beauty of nature? Learn how to

provide food, water, cover, and a place to raise their young. Become a NWF Certified Wildlife Habitat)–November 15

Marketing and Value Added Products (Learn how to use Florida Market Maker to market your product and ways to take advantage of value-adding opportunities)–December 20

* Included content on Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Upcoming events in 2011 include

Safe Gardening without chemicals–June 18, 2011 Limited Commercial Landscape Maintenance Workshop–June 23 and Nov 8, 2011 Irrigation Tips and Tricks–Aug 18 and Aug 20, 2011 Constructing Rain Gardens and Rain Barrels, Nov 17 and Nov 18, 2011



Vegetable Gardening (series of 8 classes covering a variety of topics including fertilizing, irrigation and systems for home gardens, composting, cisterns and rain barrels) –July 2011

Water Summit (Planned in conjunction with the northeast district's horticulture agents, SRP, and SRWMD, the purpose of the summit will be to share water-related educational activities and learn about the needs of the SRP)

At the Suwannee County UF–IFAS Extension office, the Springs-Friendly Landscaping & Gardening Series was developed to teach homeowners how to garden and protect the springs. Organized by the Suwannee County Master Gardener volunteers, the workshops include information on how to save water and reduce fertilization. The following workshops were held during the first half of 2011:

Herbs Workshops Jan. 19, 2011, Live Oak Library—attended by 36 participants Feb. 16, 2011, Branford Library—attended by 23 participants March 16, 2011, Wellborn Community Center—attended by 29 participants

Reducing Weeds in the Landscape Workshops April 20 2011, Live Oak Library—attended by 31 participants May 18, 2011, Branford Library—attended by 14 participants

Low-impact Development

TIP and UF–IFAS hosted a low-impact development workshop in the spring of 2009 for builders, developers, realtors, local governments, and others in Columbia and Suwannee counties. UF’s Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) conducted the workshop. PREC developed and presented a karst-specific module promoting the best design, construction, and management practices to measurably reduce energy and water consumption and environmental degradation in new master-planned residential communities within a springshed. The Columbia County Extension Horticulture Agent applied for a grant to create a bio-filtering retention pond at the Fort White Library. The grant was approved and the project will begin in July. Although the Fort White Library is just south of the Ichetucknee Springs basin boundary, this pond will serve as an important demonstration project for stormwater management. Willingness to Pay

In 2008, Chad Foster of the University of Florida submitted a thesis examining Columbia County’s willingness to pay for improved water quality at the Ichetucknee Springs and River. Research for the thesis was conducted through a survey sent to Columbia County citizens. This survey found that on average, Columbia County households were willing to pay $16.2 per month for the next 10 years for improved water quality. This amounted to $40.7 million while the estimated cost of implementing a water quality improvement program is $25 to 30 million. The survey asked citizens how much they would pay in the form of an increase in their utility bills for a program that “would update septic tanks in the springshed in order to improve wastewater treatment.” The survey included educational information about the relationship between septic tanks in the springshed and nitrate levels in the springs. The survey asked



questions regarding participant’s interaction with the springs, their prior knowledge of environmental issues affecting the springs, and socioeconomic status. Of the respondents, 84% had visited the springs, 90% thought springs protection was important or very important, and 70% would be willing to participate in the septic tank program. According to the 2003 Bonn and Bell study, less than 10% of Ichetucknee Springs visitors are Columbia County residents. Because this study only included Columbia County residents, it excluded a large number of people who may be willing to pay. A study involving the actual users of the state park could ask visitors about their willingness to pay for improved water quality through an increased park entrance fee or increased tax.

9.1.2 Other Issues

Wetland Mitigation Columbia County has submitted an application for the construction of a stormwater basin that would require the removal of an existing wetland located within the Cannon Creek basin that is part of the Ichetucknee Springs basin. The wetland that is proposed for conversion is currently owned and controlled by The Home Depot, located at the intersection of US 90 and SR 247. The 13.7-acre wetland is a combination of constructed and enhanced wetlands as mitigation for 3.91 acres of wetland impacts associated with permit number ERP00-0608, permitted by SRWMD in April 2001. There are currently two concerns that have been raised by stakeholders with regard to this project. First, the currently proposed mitigation for the wetlands is “Bayfield Mitigation Bank credits” which are not within the Cannon Creek basin. Second, the wetland is in-line with the direct drain to Cannon Sink, and it is not in the interest of groundwater quality protection to convert such in-line wetlands into stormwater ponds without reasonable assurance that the stormwater pond provides a comparable level of water quality treatment to the wetland. The permit application for this project is still pending with SRWMD (Louis Mantini, SRWMD, and Leroy Marshall, SRWMD, personal communication).



Figure 9-3. Proposed stormwater pond to be installed where current wetlands are located as shown

by the boundary line

9.1.3 Goals and Actions

Goal 2: Support the implementation of a Total Maximum Daily Load and Basin Management Action Plan for Santa Fe River basin (including the Ichetucknee). Actions

1. Quantify the nitrogen load reduction necessary to achieve, at a minimum, the target 0.35 mg/L nitrate concentration in Ichetucknee Springs

2. Provide updates on Ichetucknee Springs basin activities to the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) coordinator

3. Identify activities and priorities to support the TMDL 4. Encourage the active participation of stakeholders in a forum that provides opportunities

for input and discussion Goal 3: Develop and implement ordinances for water quality improvement. Actions

1. Consider the implementation of the model ordinance for Florida-Friendly Landscaping.



2. Consider the implementation of a Septic Tank Ordinance 3. Consider the implementation of the model Central Sewer Mandatory Hook-ups 4. Consider the implementation of the model Springs Protection and Aquifer Protection (in

karst-sensitive areas)

Goal 4: By 2025, establish a stormwater management pre-treatment facility or facilities to Alligator Lake. Actions

1. Prioritize the existing discharge to Alligator Lake; each pipe individually 2. Build treatment facility (treatment wetland) one pipe at time 3. Develop voter education plan, e.g., newspaper articles, programs, to gain voter support to

fund the stormwater facility (The city can only pay if it has a continuous source of funding.)

4. Identify opportunities for Section 319 grants or other funding sources for construction Evaluation

1. Monitor water quantity and quality (e.g., nutrients, including metals, microbiology, pharmaceuticals, etc.) of discharge into Alligator Lake to identify priority pipes

2. Once treatment facility(ies) have been built, monitor water quality of discharge into and out of each wetland to determine effectiveness of treatment.

Goal 5: By 2025, have a stormwater management/treatment facility(ies) in place at major sinks in the basin (Rose, Cannon, Clay Hole, Black, Dyal) * * These sinks take water from Highway 75 and 90. Actions

1. Identify sinkholes or other features that directly convey stormwater to the Floridan Aquifer System

2. Prioritize drain pipes based on water quality and quantity 3. Construct treatment wetlands at high-priority discharges/recharge sites 4. Divert drain pipes from interstate/highway runoff into treatment wetland 5. Identify opportunities for Section 319 grants or other funding for construction

Evaluation 1. Monitor water quality of discharge into and out of treatment wetland to determine

effectiveness in reducing nutrient loads 2. Monitor water quality in major sinks to determine whether or not treatment facility(ies)

may be impacting water quality Goal 6: Implement agriculture BMPs in high vulnerability areas. Actions

1. Work with SRP to identify specific actions. 2. Ensure agricultural users that obtain reclaimed water factor in the nitrogen in the water in

order to avoid over fertilizing 3. Encourage crops that have low fertilizer requirements

Evaluation 1. Monitor change in acreage under BMPs in high vulnerability areas 2. Evaluate effectiveness of BMPs. BMPs, e.g., to evaluate nitrate-to-groundwater reduction

practices, monitor nitrate concentrations in nearby wells.



Goal 7: Implement residential fertilizer BMPs around Alligator Lake and high vulnerability areas. Actions

1. Work with UF / IFAS extension offices 2. Refer to actions outlined in Education and Outreach section

Evaluation 1. Survey homeowners to measure change and assess whether or not they are implementing

BMPs 2. Monitor water quality in Alligator Lake, particularly for N,P,K

Goal 8: Identify technologies designed to improve nonpoint source water quality and seek locations where they can be implemented. Actions

1. Develop a database of technologies (e.g., wetlands, nitrogen removal walls, etc.) designed to improve water quality including information on effectiveness, cost, etc.

2. Identify high priority locations where technologies may be implemented 3. Identify funding resources and research needs for implementing projects

Goal 9: Develop a nitrogen mass balance for Ichetucknee Springs and determine N sources in the springshed. Action

1. Work with USGS to develop an approach to a. Identify and quantify individual sources of nitrogen (O and N isotope analysis) b. Historical N balance c. Existing N balance

Goal 10: Convert homes with septic in high vulnerability, higher density areas to central sewer. Actions

1. Establish an agreement between Lake City and Columbia County to provide incentives to residents in higher density areas to hook up to central sewer

2. Identify high vulnerability areas where hook-up to central sewage is feasible 3. Develop a list of all septic tanks within this area 4. Establish a strategy for encouraging homeowners to switch to central sewer 5. Identify funding to support homeowners switch to central sewer

Evaluation 1. Track number of homeowners switching to central sewer

Goal 11: Develop a wastewater facilities plan for the spring basin. Actions

1. Reduce nitrate concentration in municipal wastewater effluent to 3 mg/L (or less) within five years. Do this by upgrading existing wastewater facilities in the spring basin to advanced wastewater treatment to reduce nitrates to at least 3 mg/L within five years.

2. Extend central sewer in high vulnerability areas with a focus on higher density areas. Evaluation



1. Once wastewater facility is upgraded, continue monitoring of effluent nutrient levels to see if 3 mg/L goal is being met.

2. Document number of households that switched from septic to central sewer .

Goal 12: Develop a master stormwater management plan for the spring basin. Actions

1. Engage Dr. John Sansalone, Professor of Environmental Engineering Sciences at UF Goal 13: Support maintenance and protections of wetlands in springshed. Action

1. Encourage all wetland mitigation to be within the same basin where wetlands are destroyed.

2. Map existing wetlands in basin 3. Identify those in protected areas and which may be more vulnerable (to land-use change,

to nutrient loading, etc.) Evaluation

1. Monitor changes in land use or other activities around existing wetlands that may make them more vulnerable

2. Keep record of wetland mitigation activities/projects in the springshed Goal 14: Monitor restoration actions to see whether or not they have an effect on water quality. Actions

1. Identify existing water quality monitoring efforts in the springshed 2. Identify existing restoration efforts in the springshed 3. Identify additional parameters required to evaluate changes after restoration actions

(ensure these parameters coincide with impairment parameters) 4. Synthesize data for changes in trends 5. Synthesize data to determine how to make improvements in restoration efforts and in

monitoring

9.2 Water Quantity [Additional data will be added to this section on the reduced flows in Ichetucknee.] Groundwater models show that levels in the upper Floridan Aquifer have been declining for the past 75 years in the northeastern part of the district. During this period, the groundwater basin divide has migrated 35 miles to the southwest resulting in a reduction in the groundwater contributing area by more than 20%. It is thought that this shift is due to groundwater withdrawals in SRWMD, SJRWMD and the State of Georgia (SRWMD Water Supply Assessment, 2010).



Figure 9-4. Caption to be added The UF Water Institute has evaluated annual water use data in Columbia County using records from USGS and SRWMD from 1980 to 2007 for agriculture (estimates by USGS every five years), commercial/industrial/power users (from permit reports), public supply (from permit reports), and domestic self-supply (estimates by USGS). The Ichetucknee Springs basin includes approximately 44% of the land area in Columbia County. Population in Columbia County has continued to rise over the past 40 years. The numbers of those served by public supply and domestic self-supply have increased. From 1980 to 2010, the estimated per capita rate for domestic self-supply was between 95 and 108 gallons per day per person. Agriculture, public supply, and domestic self-supply are the largest water consumers in the county. The SRWMD 2010 Water Supply Assessment estimates that water use demand will increase by 11.82 to 64.19 million gallons per day by 2030.



Figure 9-5. Columbia County population figures from 1980 to 2007; the population of Lake City in

2009 was 12,614

1995 2000 2007LAKE CITY, CITY OF 897 1071 1287COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL 70 98 85MELTON BISHOP S/D 58 83 80CLAYTON SMITH S/D 34 54 67FORT WHITE, TOWN OF - 22 28

Table 9-1. Largest permitted water users in Columbia County for three different years showing millions of gallons per year, data from SRWMD (Kathleen McKee, UF Water Institute)



Figure 9-6. Total water use by category in Columbia County, from 1980 to 2007, in millions of

gallons per year. Population served by public supply was always less than population served by on-site wells Agric from USGS = Agricultural calculated by USGS every 5 years using estimated irrigated crop acreage

multiplied by a use coefficient from selected crop irrigation models DomSelfSup = Domestic Self-Supply (USGS calculated using statewide per capita water use rate and

population not using public supply) PubSupp = Public Supply (from monthly permittee reporting) Comm Ind Pow = Industrial/commercial/mining/power (from monthly permittee reporting)


Water Supply Assessment Report

SRWMD developed a Water Supply Assessment Report in 2010 to evaluate the availability of water supplies during the next 20 years. The report estimates that water use demand will increase by 11.82 to 64.19 million gallons per day by 2030. The report outlines a continued decline of water levels and designates four water supply planning regions. Each of these regions will have water supply plans developed and will be designated as water resource caution areas (i.e., an area where existing sources of water will not be adequate to satisfy future water demands and sustain water resources). The Water Supply Assessment Report provides a set of recommendations identifying alternative water sources to groundwater, such as surface water from rivers, reclaimed water, brackish groundwater, and sea water. The plans also provide recommendations on water conservation measurements. Examples of the recommendations in the plan include



Limit the duration of water use permits in the proposed Water Supply Planning

Regions to no more than five years until recovery and prevention strategies are developed and implemented unless the applicant implements measures to provide reasonable assurance that their proposed use will result in a net benefit to the resource

Develop a plan to require new applicants for water use permits and those renewing permits in excess of 100,000 gallons per day in the proposed Water Supply Planning Regions to monitor and report their water use

Encourage all new applicants for water use permits in excess of 500,000 gallons per day in the proposed Water Supply Planning Regions to use alternative sources of water if the sources are technically, economically, and environmentally feasible

Develop recovery and prevention strategies for impacted water resources in conjunction with the St. John’s River Water Management District

Establish MFLs for all priority water resources as expeditiously as possible Coordinate with the St. John’s River Water Management District, the State of

Georgia, the USGS and other agencies to develop a groundwater flow model that would encompass the entire north Florida–south Georgia region that may contribute to water resource impacts in the district

Work with State of Georgia, the St. John’s River Water Management District, USGS, and other agencies to develop a strategy for data collection, data analysis, and groundwater modeling to better define current and future regional water resource impacts

Coordinate with the State of Georgia and the St. John’s River Water Management District to produce regional potentiometric maps to develop a more complete understanding of long-term aquifer trends

Work through the Suwannee River and Ichetucknee Partnerships to enhance agricultural water conservation incentive and outreach efforts, e.g., the mobile irrigation lab program, to help farmers increase the efficiency of their water use

Require the major industrial, mining, and agricultural users in the proposed Water Supply Planning Regions to develop and implement comprehensive water conservation plans to maximize reductions in water use

(SRWMD, Water Supply Assessment, 2010) Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs)

The SRWMD plans to develop MFLs for the Ichetucknee by the end of 2011. MFLs are the minimum water levels and/or flows necessary to prevent significant harm to the water resources or ecology of an area. MFLs are required as a part of water supply planning by the state legislature under Subsection 373.042(2), Florida Statutes (F.S.), the state Comprehensive Plan and the water resources implementation rule (Chapter 62-40.473, Florida Administrative Code, F.A.C.). They are looking at a number of variables for setting the MFLs, including recreation. Flow Monitoring

In 2010, FDEP announced that it would discontinue monitoring at a number of springs statewide, including Ichetucknee. In an effort to maintain monitoring, The Ichetucknee Partnership



executive committee wrote a letter to FDEP requesting that monitoring be continued. FDEP worked with SRWMD to continue funding for the monitoring of the Dampier’s Landing and Blue Hole Spring stations (Burkhardt 2010). Reuse Water

In 2006, Lake City received a $3 million Public Access Reuse (PAR) grant from Suwannee River Water Management District to develop a reuse facility (reclaimed water). A 1.5 million gallon tank was constructed in 2010 to receive discharge. Rainwater runoff from the roof is also collected and stored in the tank. Initially 8% of treated effluent will go to reuse applications with a goal of reusing up to 100%. Priority applications include agriculture, golf courses, and residential subdivisions (Dave Clanton, Lake City Utilities, personal communication). Water Conservation

In June 2010, Lake City passed a new rate structure for potable water use that charges more as customers use more water. Rates increase substantially once users consume more than 6,000 gallons per month. As a result of the new rates, water consumption has dropped by 15%. The city has received some complaints about the rate increases and will re-evaluate the rates in May and June 2011 to potentially soften the impact to low-end users (Dave Clanton, Lake City Utilities, personal communication). In December 2010, the UF–IFAS Small Farms Academy at the North Florida Research and Education Center–Suwannee Valley in cooperation with local county extension agents sponsored a two-day workshop called Drip Irrigation School. The hands-on workshop, attended by 26 participants, was designed to help small farms learn how to use drip irrigation in their vegetable production. Using drip irrigation can result in reduced labor and production costs for the farmer, as well as reduced water and fertilizer usage (Robert Hochmuth, North Florida Research and Education Center, personal communication). A Conserve Water, Protect the Springs: Florida Friendly Landscaping brochure was produced by Suwannee River Water Management District and UF–IFAS Extension Suwannee County. Featuring Florida-friendly LandscapingTM techniques that can also help protect the springs, the brochure is distributed to residents in the Suwannee River basin at presentations, festivals, and libraries. Suwannee County Extension has also demonstrated micro-irrigation installation and has purchased more than 50 kits to retrofit traditional systems. In addition, approximately 60 rain barrels have been installed since the workshops (Carolyn Saft, Suwannee County UF/IFAS Extension, personal communication). The City of Lake City, the Town of Fort White, and the Columbia County Commission issued proclamations designating April 2011 as “Water Conservation Month,” in response to a formal request submitted by TIP. TIP sponsored a series of 60-second “Gardening in a Minute” programs to air each spring (2009 to 2011) on Columbia County radio stations 96.5 WJTK, Mix 94.3, and Power Country 102.1. The programs, produced by UF–IFAS, educate listeners on such topics as stormwater runoff, waste and fertilizer management, and water conservation.



TIP sponsored a Water Conservation Poster contest for students in Columbia County. More than 250 students (K-12) participated in the first annual “Drop Savers” water conservation poster contest cosponsored by Lake City Regional Utilities, Fort White Water Utility, and TIP. Six winners were selected and all poster entries were on display at the Lake City Mall throughout the months of April and May 2011. The posters from Fort White students then went on display at the Fort White Library (Cindy Johnson, The Ichetucknee Partnership, personal communication). Columbia County Extension has sponsored Make-and-Take Rainbarrel classes that teach about the environmental benefits of harvesting rainwater and controlling runoff on homeowner's properties with cisterns, rain gardens, and rain barrels. Master Gardeners help participants assemble and complete a rain barrel to take home.


Goal 15: Establish and maintain minimum flows and levels (MFLs) for the Ichetucknee River Basin by 2012. Actions

1. Manage Consumptive Use Permits to, at a minimum, prevent net reduction with an ideal of increasing flows

2. Support regional approach including collaboration between SRWMD, St. Johns River Water Management District and the State of Georgia

3. Encourage identification and development of alternative water supplies within the basin 4. Encourage identification and development of water conservation and reuse practices

within the basin 5. Study the impacts of draining and ditching on groundwater recharge within the basin 6. Require analysis of impacts on MFLs by comprehensive plan amendments

Goal 16: Establish water budget for Ichetucknee springshed (historic, current, implications for future water supply). Actions

1. Monitor discharge in the major springs and at the US 27 Bridge 2. Take complementary measurements of flow in the river using conservative tracers 3. Quantify diffuse discharge into the Ichetucknee River (ongoing research by Kurz/Martin,

UF Geology Dept.) Goal 17: Improve groundwater recharge to the basin. Actions

1. Identify priority areas for improving groundwater recharge 2. Map and quantify artificial and enhanced drainage in the flatwoods of Hamilton,

Columbia, Baker, Union, and Alachua counties 3. Encourage restoration of wetlands to improve recharge 4. Identify strategies for incentivizing land practices that preserve and improve groundwater

recharge to the basin (easements, trusts, etc.) 5. Strategize ways to get more accurate accounting of agricultural water use and domestic

self-supply Evaluation



1. Document acreage of land placed in easements and trusts (as compared to what already existed)

2. Document quantity of acres placed under BMPs that allowed for improved recharge 3. Monitor groundwater levels/change in levels in areas where improvements have been

made. This could be at each specific site using wells or by using models to compare, for example, recharge from LID project that was built versus recharge if it had been high impact development. Or models could be used to compare recharge under land placed in easement versus recharge if the area had been developed.

Goal 18: Restore historic ground water divide and flow. Actions

1. Identify large withdrawals affecting Ichetucknee basin discharge 2. Identify strategies to reduce withdrawals in northeastern Florida and southeastern

Georgia 3. Develop regional conservation education programs focused on behavior change. 4. Identify and develop alternative supplies including conservation (e.g. conserve, reuse,

cisterns, recycle, implement agricultural BMPs) 5. Use reclaimed water to re-establish historic aquifer levels 6. Increase well level monitoring by increasing the number of wells monitored and the

frequency at which they are monitored. Evaluation

1. Conduct regular groundwater well-level monitoring.

Goal 19: Reduce water use by homeowners. Actions

1. Support rate structure implemented in the City of Lake City in 2010 2. Identify effective strategies for achieving conservation among residences with domestic

self-supply 3. See goals and actions in Education and Outreach section

Evaluation 1. Monitor water use of households in to determine whether or not water use reduction goal

has been met 2. Identify method for assessing water-use in domestic self-supply residences

Goal 20: Reduce water use by agriculture users. Actions

1. Encourage metering of agricultural users wells upon permit renewal 2. Encourage metering of all agricultural wells 3. Require metering of agricultural users wells as a condition of permit renewal 4. Encourage modern irrigation technology 5. Require modern irrigation technology as a condition of permit renewal 6. Couple agricultural tax bracket to water use efficiency

Evaluation 1. Monitor water use in farms where meters have been placed



Goal 21: Evaluate current water level mark prohibiting tubing in upper reach during drought. Actions

1. Assess what water level is needed to prevent significant damage in the reach (some locations)

2. Present proposed revised level (if needed) to management for approval and implementation

Evaluation (much of this addressed in goal in Research and Monitoring section) 1. Use transects to monitor damage to vegetation due to recreation and link to water levels.

(Will likely require increasing the number of transects monitored in the upper reach) Goal 22: Monitor changes in water levels (elevation/depth) at Blue Hole and identify the related impacts on recreation, algae, and vegetation.

1. Monitor and assess relationship between water levels, number of visitors and vegetation at Blue Hole; transects used for Stevenson et al. report (2004 and 2007) could be used to establish a baseline.

2. Present proposed revised level (if needed) or limited access to management for approval and implementation

Goal 23: By the end of 2012, reduce water use by 20% to 25% by hotels in Columbia County near the US 90–I75 interchange and otherwise within the Ichetucknee Trace through participation in a Water CHAMP towels and linens reuse program. Actions

1. Identify and contact the owners/managers of six or more chain hotels; invite their participation

2. Sign them up to participate 3. Provide a training video for their staff 4. Provide printed materials to promote guest participation 5. Use social and traditional media to promote/reward their participation 6. Document water use from water bills 7. Measure changes in water use over time

9.3 Research and Monitoring The Ichetucknee Springs and River have benefited from research and monitoring with data being collected as early as 1942. Research has included water chemistry, biology, cave and sink connectivity, visitor use patterns, and management. While much is known about the spring, river and basin, additional research is needed.


Columbia County Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment

The Ichetucknee Partnership (TIP) contracted with Advanced Geospacial, Inc., to develop the Columbia County Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (CoCAVA), an interpretive mapping tool that identifies the most sensitive and vulnerable areas within the Ichetucknee springshed. The map is being used by the county and city as a planning tool for water-resource protection.



SRWMD Water Data Portal

In 2011, the SRWMD established an online Data Portal (http://www.srwmd.state.fl.us) that includes seven million points of data. This portal makes it easier for users to sort through vast amounts of data. The portal provides comprehensive data for academics and consultants and summarized data and maps for the general public. For instance, one part of the portal is called “Nitrates at a Glance” where users can view graphs of nitrates at active groundwater and surface water stations and then click on a specific location to obtain a map showing the full record of nitrate measurements at that site. Ichetucknee Springs Preservation Research Workshop

Three Rivers Trust convened the Ichetucknee Springs Preservation Research Workshop on February 10, 2011. Coordinated and facilitated by the UF Water Institute, the meeting identified research and monitoring priorities for the Ichetucknee Springs system. A pre-workshop survey identified priority impairments and key areas of focus for research and monitoring. The UF Water Institute developed a web page of resources for participants to review prior to the meeting. Thirty people attended the all-day meeting, which included morning presentations on hydrology, recreation, nutrients, fauna, and flora and afternoon small break-out groups on research, monitoring, restoration and collaboration. A post-meeting survey identified top research and monitoring priorities:

Research Priorities Better estimate of pumping in springshed and effects on springflow (94.4% ranked as

more important or most important) Declining springflow effects on the ecosystem (77.7% ranked as more important or most

important) Accurate accounting of fertilizer use (72.2% ranked as more important or most

important) How nitrate is denitrified in vadose zone, river, aquifer (72.3% ranked as more important

or most important) Grazer/algae/SAV interactions (72.2% ranked as more important or most important) Monitoring Priorities More flow monitoring in springs (83.3% ranked as more important or most important) More water quality/chemistry in the springs (83.3% ranked as more important or most

important) Monitor algae cover in tandem with macroinvertebrate monitoring (66.7% ranked as

more important or most important) More groundwater levels in the springshed (66.7% ranked as more important or most

important) Biannual monitoring of nitrogen and oxygen isotopes to track sources of nitrogen (66.7%

ranked as more important or most important) The results from this meeting were presented at the February 15, 2011 quarterly WG meeting and helped define research and monitoring goals and actions for the RP. Additional research and monitoring activities are outlined in Appendix.




Goal 24: Better identify nitrogen sources in the springshed by 2013. Actions

1. Employ refined technique to identify nitrogen sources (e.g., oxygen and nitrogen isotope ratios, marking fertilizers to find them in water bodies, and surveying wells for N&O isotope ratios and nitrate)

2. Refine loading estimates to groundwater using most recent land use information, more precise information on fertilizer application rates, and updated information on current animal population data

3. Estimate the amount of nitrate (N) stored in the unsaturated zone beneath fertilized cropland and pine stands, animal grazing fields, and waste disposal sites (e.g., septic tanks and sewage treatment plant effluent)

4. Estimate the extent of denitrification occurring in the subsurface in various parts of the springshed

5. Conduct ecosystem monitoring by maintaining continuous measurement of metabolism and ecosystem N use in the Ichetucknee River

6. Assess how future changes in land use in the basin may impact springs Goal 25: Quantify effects of interactions between grazers, algae, SAV (submerged aquatic vegetation), on water chemistry (e.g., N and O). Actions

1. Define relationships among algal biomass, SAV, and invertebrate grazer biomass by quantifying biological communities and associated abiotic factors in the major springs and the Ichetucknee River

2. Determine causal direction and shape of associations between grazer and algal biomass, to define thresholds for algal proliferation

3. Examine the role of environmental variables (water chemistry, DO, flow) in impacts on grazer populations and consumption efficiency.

Goal 26: Understand how nitrate is denitrified in vadose zone, river, and aquifer. Actions

1. Conduct an aquifer dissolved gas study (e.g., N2:Ar, Ne). 2. Isotope tracing of N 3. Diel monitoring of NO3 in the Ichetucknee River

Goal 27: Improve estimates of groundwater pumping by 2013. Actions

1. Monitor and extrapolate actual agricultural well use 2. Monitor and extrapolate actual residential water use

Goal 28: Quantify the water budget of the Ichetucknee Springs Basin by 2013. Actions

1. Confirm losses (Grubbs et al. 2010) reported as groundwater flows to northeast 2. Increase accuracy of estimates of agriculture usage



3. Assemble above plus existing data on (climate, hydrology, consumptive use, etc) into basin water budget

Goal 29: Conduct flow monitoring (at least quarterly and preferably monthly intervals) to track trends. (Could also fit in Water Quantity.) Goal 30: By 2012, coordinate water quality monitoring sampling for Ichetucknee. (Could also fit in Water Quality.) Actions

1. Continue existing program (Florida Springs Initiative - FSI) 2. Identify what is being monitored and what needs to be (siltsnail, macroinvertebrates,

vegetation, chemistry: salts, nutrients, metals, DO, Sp C., N isotopes, O isotopes, turbidity, five indicator species (to be identified)

3. If FSI loses funding, find alternative funding 4. Determine minimum sampling schedule required to efficiently monitor (possibly a

modeling exercise) 5. Identify ways to reduce costs of water sampling including bulk purchasing

Goal 31: Monitor visitor impacts to the park by measuring trampling troughs on existing transects by 2012. Actions

1. Establish quarterly monitoring protocol by 2011 2. Add measurement to selected vegetation transects of river by 2012 3. Evaluate effectiveness of carrying capacity 4. Establish volunteer “River Stewards” program to help educate visitors on docks 5. Identify realistic methods for educating visitors and changing their behaviors

Goal 32: During 2011, promote information sharing and collaboration among researchers. Actions

1. Develop an on-line data catalogue (on-going research related to the Ichetucknee Springs and River, data portal for metadata for monitoring and research projects)

2. Forum and Annual Meeting of researchers working on the Ichetucknee

9.4 Recreation Ichetuckee Springs State Park has approximately 200,000 visitors annually who visit the spring and spring run. [Include up-t-date data and graph of visitor use]. While Ichetucknee receives visitors from around the state, nation, and world, there remains a substantial visitorship from local residents. It was estimated in 2002, that nearly 20,000 local residents visited the park (Bonn and Bell, 2003) which is substantial given that Columbia County’s population at the time was just under 60,000. A survey of 169 random Columbia County residents in 2007 or 2008 [Confirm date survey was implemented] showed that 84% had visited Ichetucknee Springs at least once, with 60% visiting the park one to two times a year. The most popular activity among these visitors was tubing (61% of respondents) (Foster, 2008).



While visitors can participate in a variety of activities at the park, including tubing, snorkeling, kayaking/canoeing, swimming, scuba diving, hiking, and wildlife viewing, Ichetucknee is best known for tubing. Three and a half miles of the river, beginning at Head Spring, are within the ISSP boundaries ensuring that the river remains undeveloped and, in the words of many, “wild and pristine.” Powerboats are not allowed within the park, and canoeists and kayaks must yield right-of-way to tubers. Visitors can choose among 45-minute, 1.5-hour or 3-hour floats along portions of the river. While tubing is allowed at any time from the south entrance (mid-point or Dampier’s Landing), it is only allowed from the North Entrance during the summer months (Memorial Day to Labor Day). Tubing from the North Entrance is limited to 750 tubers per day and mid-point launch is limited to 2,250 tubers per day (Dampier’s Landing is unrestricted). This limit, called a “carrying capacity”, is intended to limit the ecological impact of tubers on the upper reach of the river. Additional restrictions on use may occur in very low water conditions. For example, Blue Hole has been closed for swimming during very low water conditions in order to protect the vegetation from damage (FSP 2011).


Carrying Capacity

The carrying capacity is outlined in the Florida Park Service’s (FPS) Unit Management Plan (UMP). It represents “the number of users a recreation resource or facility can accommodate and still provide a high quality recreational experience and preserve the natural values of the site” (UMP, 2000). The carrying capacity is limited by the “fragility of the aquatic resources.” The initial carrying capacity set in 1978 capped the use of the river at 3,000 people. Research completed by DuToit in 1979 found that the greatest impact from tubers was on the aquatic vegetation in the upper portion of the river. Tubers entering the water can trample and uproot vegetation that supports a variety of aquatic life including shrimp and crayfish populations (DuToit 1979). By 1982, two tube launches in the northern portion of the river were removed and additional launches were added further south to provide more substantial protections at the northern reach. Additionally, the carrying capacity was split to allow 1,500 tubers per day beginning at the northern launch and an additional 1,500 using the southern launches. By 1989, the carrying capacity was limited further due to continued damage to vegetation in the upper reaches of the river. Vegetation Monitoring The UMP includes as a key objective to “continue monitoring aquatic vegetation in the river to document impacts from recreational uses and to measure success of carrying capacity restrictions.” In fulfillment of this objective, ISSP biologists measure the percent vegetation cover along 17 transects in the Ichetucknee River twice a year—in the spring prior to tubing season and in the fall after tubing season has concluded (UMP 2000). Transect data since 1989 assists the FPS in determining management strategies for the park as outlined in the UMP every 10 years. An updated UMP will be available for public comment in 2011. [Include data on water levels as they apply to use.]



Turbidity Study

In 2011, a six-month study was completed examining the effects of human use on turbidity in the Ichetucknee River. Turbidity, measured by NTUs (Nethlometric Turbidity Units), describes the cloudiness of water, often caused by suspended sediments. Increased turbidity can influence how much light reaches submerged aquatic vegetation. This study found that background turbidity values were below 2 NTUs, and that turbidity tends to increase downstream as a result of natural conditions (forest, primary productivity and suspension of fine grained sediments). The vast majority of turbidity measurements were below 4.5 NTUs [confirm this]. During the heaviest use periods (weekends), the North Launch experienced an increase of 2 NTUs. While turbidity increased with human uses such as tubing, the turbidity typically rapidly dropped as sediments settled (Knight, 2011). EPA standards for drinking water dictate that after disinfection or filtration, turbidity should be less than between 0.3 NTU and 1 NTU (depending upon the disinfection process), and that turbidity must at no time exceed 5 NTUs. A more extensive study on turbidity may provide more information (EPA 2011). Tubing

On January 6, 2011, Jim Stevenson, Florida Springs Stewardship, proposed a resolution to the Columbia County Commission to “discontinue tubing on the upper Ichetucknee River before Memorial Day 2011.” While the commission did not approve the resolution, they submitted a letter to FDEP that stated the following:

According to testimony presented to the Board of County Commissioners, a significant amount of science exists to support closure of the upper Ichetucknee to tubing. This science includes water turbidity studies, loss of and damage to eel grass and animal species reduction. In addition to the science, a number of other factors were presented in support of closure. These items include, but are not limited to traffic reduction, litter control, operating cost reductions, enhanced passive uses, etc. As the regulatory agency for the park, Columbia County is concerned that the Department of Environmental Protection has not taken an action regarding the restriction of tubing if such science exists. The number of tubers will not be affected, only the distance they are allowed to tube. The request will not impact canoers and kayakers. The value of the Ichetucknee to all can not [sic] be overstated. The Columbia County Board of County Commissioners encourages you to review the existing science and act accordingly. Thank you in advance for your review and consideration of this request. (Letter from Jody L. DuPree, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners to Donald Forgione, Director, Division of Recreation and Parks, FDEP, 1/10/2011)

Container Policy

Since the acquisition of the property by the FPS in 1970, no food or drink has been allowed for visitors recreating on the river. In the fall of 2010, the FPS updated the food and drink policy for state park visitors canoeing and kayaking in Ichetucknee Springs State Park. Since canoers and kayakers often spend long periods of time on the river, the policy was revised to permit the use of food and drink on the river in non-disposable containers, such as thermoses and small food



storage containers. Containers are still prohibited for any other users, including tubers (Jessica Kemper Sims, Florida Park Service, personal email communication). Visitor Signage

The Park staff installed a set of visitor use signs before the launch of the summer 2010 season. These signs encourage users to use the lavatory before entering the river and to not trample or remove plants. Staff has found that many visitors they talk to were unaware of the human impact on the vegetation previously.

Figure 9-7. Vistor signage. Photo Credit: Ginger Morgan

Figure 9-8. Vistor signage. Photo credit: Ginger Morgan



Figure 9-9. Visitor signage. Photo credit: Cindy Johnson


Goal 33: Identify approaches to reducing vegetation impact of visitors entering the river at various entry points. Actions

1. Evaluate water level mark that prohibits tubing in the upper reach during drought 2. Identify additional strategies for reducing impact such as removing tubing at the north

entrance 3. Evaluate options for moving north entrance further south or to an area of deeper water 4. Establish a ranger on dock “River Stewards” program during peak usage periods to

monitor visitor activities Evaluation

1. Monitor changes in vegetation in existing transects (used in vegetation surveys) and add additional transects at other entry points as needed

Goal 34: Determine causes of health incidents related to swimming and tubing. Actions

1. Continue recording reports of health incidents 2. Refer reports to Department of Health (DOH) 3. DOH contacts visitor for follow-up to investigate cause

9.5 Biodiversity The 2,335-acre ISSP has 11 distinct natural communities, including sandhill (830 acres), sinkhole (.28 acres), upland pine (899 acres), upland mixed forest (333 acres), floodplain forest (54 acres), floodplain marsh (11 acres), floodplain swamp (62 acres), and spring and spring run



stream (26 acres) (UMP 2000). These natural communities are home to a wide diversity of wildlife including species designated as endangered, threatened, or of special concern (by Florida Natural Areas Inventory [FNAI], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [FFWCC], and/or the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services [FDACS]). Examples of designated species that use the spring and spring run include the Suwannee bass (Micropterus notius), the gopher frog (Rana capito), the Suwannee cooter (Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis), the Limpkin (Aramus guarauna), the Snowy egret (Egretta thula), Tricolor heron (Egretta tricolor), the Wood stork (Mycteria americana), the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), and the Ichetucknee siltsnail (Cincinnatia mica) (UMP 2000). Park vegetation studies have shown that the diversity of vegetation has declined over time. Two species of submerged aquatic vegetation dominate: strap-leaf sagittaria (Sagittaria kurziana) and tape grass (Valisineria Americana).

Figure 9-10. Caption to be added Source (Knight, 2008, Report Card) When compared to a study conducted by DuToit (1979), PBS&J (2003) found that the area covered by SAV had increased by 353%, or 23 acres from 1979 to 2003. In surveys conducted in 2003 and 2004, SAV was estimated to cover 76% to 78% of the river bottom. In general, SAV biomass increases with distance downstream (Kurz et al. 2004). Park data indicate a range of percent cover from approximately 45% to 70% between 1989 and 2008 (ISSP). Fluctuations in percent cover can be related to a number of factors, including human impact. It is well understood that damage to vegetation increases as water levels drop, and visitors are better able to walk on the river bottom (Kurz et al. 2004). The abundance of SAV also depends on the extent of canopy coverage, which determines the amount of available light (Canfield and Hoyer 1988). Nine species of turtles are found along four distinct reaches of the Ichetucknee River: Florida softshell (Apalone ferox), loggerhead musk turtle (Sternotherus minor), common musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), yellowbelly turtle (Trachemys scripta), Suwannee cooter (Pseudemys concinna), Florida red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys nelson), peninsula cooter (Pseudemys floridana peninsularis), Florida snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and Alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys Temminckii). The invasive red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta



elegans) do not appear to be in the Ichetucknee River (Chapin and Meylan 2010 and UMP 2000). The four reaches include Headspring Reach, Narrow Rice Marsh Reach, Wide Rice Marsh Reach, and Floodplain Reach. The loggerhead musk turtle is the most abundant species of turtle, and is found throughout all four reaches. The retention of many snags and basking logs is a park management technique, which supports turtle populations. The greatest threat to turtle populations is poaching (Chapin and Meylan 2010). [Additional data on macroinvertebrates, fish, snail, and bird populations will be added in future drafts.] The FPS will release a new Unit Mangement Plan in 2011 for public comment. This plan will determine park priorities in terms of species protection efforts and habitat management.


Siltsnail Protection

The Ichetucknee siltsnail (Cincinnatia mica), found only in a 10-square-yard area at Coffee Spring in the park, is currently protected with a fence at the mouth of the spring to prevent visitors from disturbing the habitat (UMP 2000). Vegetation Monitoring

Park staff has been conducting percent vegetative cover surveys on 17 transects along the river since 1989. Removal of Invasive Species

The park staff is actively engaged in removing invasive plant and animal species. Seventy-two tons of water lettuce has been hand removed from the river over a period of 11 years (Cathy Nagler, ISSP OPS Biologist, personal communication). Hand removal is preferred over herbicide, because it eliminates the need for chemical treatments. An additional benefit is that dead water lettuce does not decompose in the river, adding nutrients back into the system. The park currently has a contract with USDA to remove hogs. Since December 2010, the contractor has removed 53 hogs. Park staff members have removed an additional 44 hogs. Hogs are a relatively recent invader of the park and are of concern because they can damage the floodplain along the river (Ginger Morgan, ISSP Biologist, personal communication). Christmas Bird Count

A Christmas Bird Count has been conducted for the past two years. The survey area is a 15-mile diameter area that includes all of Fort White, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, and O’Leno State Park.



Figure 9-11. Ichetucknee/Santa Fe/O’Leno Christmas Bird Count (CBC) Circle




Goal 35: To collaborate with the Florida Park Service and use the goals of the Ichetucknee Springs State Park Unit Management Plan. Actions

1. Review 2010 UMP goals to develop Restoration Plan draft 2. Attend public workshops to increase collaboration 3. Hold learning session meetings with stakeholders

Goal 36: Create a baseline of the populations of five indicator species that demonstrate spring quality. Actions

1. Prioritize species to determine the five species (perhaps one from each taxonomic group) 2. Organize a workshop to identify the five indicator species to be monitored; would include

park, agencies, university scientists, concerned citizens, etc. 3. Compile previous data on species populations 4. Build on existing transects 5. Perform research on existing populations 6. Set up collaboration between citizen scientists and monitoring agents

Evaluation 1. Monitor populations (e.g. age, structure, etc.), of indicator species, parameters to be

outlined at workshop mentioned above. Goal 37: Identify, monitor and manage exotic species. Actions

1. Monitor for presence of exotics 2. Develop/maintain taxonomic database 3. Continue hog removal program 4. Maintain water lettuce removal 5. Promote need for project help 6. Educate public/users regarding exotics (recognition, threat, responsible removal) 7. Expand to other exotics if applicable 8. Fund new part-time exotics treatment coordinator

Goal 38: Promote the park as a resource of biodiversity. Actions

1. Kiosk—what else to see and do besides tubing, planned walking trips to educate, promote, advertise

2. Fact sheets about species 3. Include species information at education center and increase visitor usage 2. Advertise park in environmental and regional publications 3. Incorporate biodiversity lessons into the Fort White Middle and High School

PARKnership program.



Goal 39: Better understand the food web within the Ichetucknee Springs and how it relates to water quality (e.g., nitrogen cycling). Actions

1. Conduct food web analyses in major springs and in the Ichetucknee River to better understand relationships among organisms and links to water quality and quantity.

2. Determine whether or not relationships vary seasonally. 3. Analyses could be done using stable isotopes (δ13C and δ15N) of vegetation (e.g., algae,

SAV, other macrophytes) and gut-content analysis of organisms. Goal 40: Evaluate impact of fence barriers (that prevent visitors from entering side streams). Actions

1. Evaluate amount and impact of silt, vegetation, other debris that collects behind these fences.

2. Assess effectiveness of removing the fences prior to peak season to allow debris to flush out of the streams.

Goal 41: Restore Devil’s Eye Spring Actions

1. Temporarily close off access to public (ca. two years) 2. Conduct surveys of existing vegetation and fauna (macroinvertebrates, fish, reptiles, and

amphibians) Evaluation

1. Monitor changes in vegetation and fauna.

9.6 Land Use and Development The Ichetucknee Springs basin is estimated to be approximately 1,036 km2 (400 mi2) to 1,606 km2 (620 mi2) (Sepulveda et al. 2006 and Hunn and Slack 1983). The majority of the basin is in Columbia County. Small portions of the basin are in Suwannee, Baker, and Union counties. Although the basin includes the City of Lake City, much of the basin is rural. The primary land uses within the basin include 31% pine plantations (the majority of which were formerly row crop or pasture lands), 24% forest or scrub, 19% improved pasture and grasslands, 8% is either row crops or in other agricultural use, and 9% is urban (predominately Lake City). [Include 2010 population data here.] Efforts have been initiated to establish an inland port within Columbia County that could receive and distribute freight from the Port of Jacksonville. The prospective 500-acre location, owned by Plum Creek, would have convenient access to the I10/I75 corridor as well as rail lines for freight transportation. The land has been designated by the state as a Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern (RACEC) catalyst site in anticipation that the port, if developed, would generate job creation in a 14-county region (www.plumcreek.com).



The CoCAVA map provides detailed information on the areas most vulnerable to pollution from surface runoff within the Ichetucknee springshed. The most vulnerable areas are those in the southern portion of the basin. This map, in conjunction with the land use map, is vital to developing effective land management strategies for reducing pollution to the springs. Columbia County has established Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) criteria in the 100-year flood plain of the Ichetucknee River and Trace and enacted policies to protect water quality within the ESA. There are currently no city [Confirm with Lake City] or county ordinances in place for fertilizer use or springs protection.

9.6.1 Accomplishments Establishment of Ichetucknee Springs State Park

The establishment of the ISSP in 1970 ensures that the land immediately surrounding the springs remains undeveloped and managed in a manner that protects the springs. Use of CoCAVA Map

The CoCAVA map is being used by Columbia County as a planning tool for water-resource protection. The County is incorporating the generalized CoCAVA map into the comprehensive plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). This map will replace the current high aquifer recharge map, and current prohibitions and limitations will be applied to vulnerable areas. It is not yet determined if these will apply only to the “most vulnerable” areas or if it will also include “vulnerable” areas. [Add information on how Lake City is using the CoCAVA map.] Columbia County passed an ordinance (LDR 14/.15) in 2006 prohibiting new sites and expansion of existing sites that spread sludge. The CoCAVA map will be used in determining which areas this will apply to (Brian Kepner, Columbia County planning, personal communication). Land Acquisitions

Since the establishment of the Ichetucknee Springs State Park, a number of sensitive lands have been purchased. These include sinks, swallets, limerock mine lands, Alligator Lake (often called the “headwaters of the Ichetucknee,” and recharge areas.



Figure 9-12. Key Land Acquisitions in the Ichetucknee Trace, Provided by Florida Natural Areas

Inventory [Update with original source]



Table 9-2. Land Acquisitions within the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Name Acres Purchased from Purchaser Date of

Purchase Cost Description Current

Management Ichetucknee Springs State Park

2335 British mining firm, the Loncala Phosphate Company (Dutoit, 1979)

State 1970 $1.85 million

Original purchase includes the Ichetucknee Springs, River, and surrounding area.

FDEP, Division of Recreation and Parks

ISSP – McCormick Sink

156 [ISSP Interp Plan says 153 acres]

McCormick Trust for Public Land (donated to Division of State Lands)

2004

$670,400 Sinkhole pond drains through the Ichetucknee Trace and connects to the Rose Sink conduit system

FDEP, DRP

ISSP – Ichetucknee Sink (Saylor Sink)

80 Saylor TPL (donated to DSL)

2002 $181,000 Has unique karst feature in the southern Trace

FDEP, DRP

ISSP – Rose Sink

~4 Reagan (2), Williams (1.4), and Radford (0.5)

TPL (donated to DSL)

Reagan in 2002, Williams in 2003

$286,000 A sinkhole pond and swallent with a direct connection to Ichetucknee Springs

FDEP, DRP

ISSP – Rose Creek Swallet

13 Johnson TPL (donated to DSL)

2010 $200,000 Part of Rose Creek that flows into Rose Sink

FDEP, DRP

ISSP – Levings Tract

20 Levings DSL/DRP 2004 $57,200 Area adjacent to the NE side of ISSP

FDEP, DRP

Alligator Lake 900 Columbia County

1994 $1.5 million

A vulnerable area within the basin located near Lake City.

Columbia County, Parks and Recreation

Ichetucknee Trace Recreation Area

657 Anderson Columbia Limerock Mine (357 acres); Kirby Limerock Mine (300 acres)

BOT Anderson in 2000; Kirby in 2001

Anderson - $23 million; Kirby - $10.2 million

Adjacent limerock mine sites in Ichetucknee basin; mines possibly open into a conduit that flows into Ichetucknee Springs. Plans for biking and fishing use.

FDEP, Office of Greenways and Trails

Chinquapin Farm Conservation Easement

6350 Chinquapin Farm, Inc.

SRWMD 2010 $635,000 at less-than-fee

Land within the basin that will protect a large recharge area for the Springs.

SRWMD

Notes: -Need to verify with TPL on details of their purchases.



-Need to verify acquisition costs of limerock sites -Need to verify acquisition cost of Alligator Lake -Need to determine original owners of Ichetucknee State Park area and Alligator Lake

Acronyms:

ISSP – Ichetucknee Spring State Park FDEP – Florida Department of Environmental Protection DRP – Division of Recreation and Parks DSL – Division of State Lands OGT – Office of Green BOT – Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund SRWMD – Suwannee River Water Management District TPL – Trust for Public Lands




Goal 42: Protect high vulnerability areas from pollution (such as the Ichetucknee Trace and other areas identified on the CoCAVA map). Actions

1. Identify areas of highest vulnerability that are at risk of being polluted 2. Identify inappropriate land uses for highly vulnerable areas. (New municipal and

industrial wastewater disposal systems; land application of wastewater treatment plant and septic tank residuals; new conventional septic tanks; new rapid infiltration basins; new facilities for the transfer, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste; new landfills; new limerock mines; and dairy waste disposal.

3. Incorporate CoCAVA map into comprehensive plans and land development regulations. 4. Identify strategies for protection (acquisitions, springs protection zone, amendments to

comprehensive and regional planning council plans, land trusts, etc.) 5. Implement most appropriate strategy for each area.

Evaluation 1. Document changes in land use in high vulnerability areas to determine whether or not

projects considered inappropriate (due to negative impacts on water quality) have been established.

Goal 43: Ensure consistency among comprehensive plans. Actions

1. Review all comprehensive plans and identify discrepancies (if any exist). 2. Request comprehensive plan amendment to fix discrepancies.

Goal 44: Preserve the aesthetic beauty of the Ichetucknee River through comprehensive plan and land development regulations along the shores of the river. Actions

1. Identify level of aesthetic impact of current developments along the Ichetucknee River. 2. Identify best practices for developments along shorelines (vegetative screening for

buildings, no fertilizer/pesticide buffer zone, etc.) 3. Adopt appropriate comprehensive plan and LDR amendments as deemed necessary.

Evaluation 1. Document the number of developments or residences currently using good practices

along the shoreline. 2. Monitor change in best practices, e.g., new developments using good practices, existing

developments adopting good practices. Goal 45: Link water use with land use and development to achieve a no-net increase in withdrawals when approaching an MFL. Evaluation

1. Assess CUPs and actual water withdrawals to determine whether no-net increase in withdrawals has been achieved.



Goal 46: Encourage all jurisdictions within the springs basin to support improved wastewater treatment options among new developments. Actions

1. Require nitrogen reducing septic systems for new houses and commercial buildings in the protection zone on parcels less than five acres. Systems shall reduce nitrogen to at least 10 mg/L.

2. Offer density bonuses for cluster development, where reclaimed water and sewer hook-ups are supported.

3. Local governments shall institute a management program to maintain these systems. Evaluation

1. Assess whether or not N-reducing septic systems were installed in new developments. 2. Measure septic tank effluent in subsample of homes and developments to determine if 10

mg/L benchmark is met. 3. Evaluate whether or not management programs were instituted by local governments.

9.7 Public Outreach and Education There are extensive public outreach and education efforts going on in the Ichetucknee Springs basin. Thirty-seven stakeholders are currently on the Public Education and Outreach Subgroup email list including citizen advocacy groups, UF–IFAS extension, TIP, SRP, local businesses, Rotary Club, FDEP, the PARKnership program at Fort White Middle and High School, the Ichetucknee Springs Ambassador, the Ichetucknee Springs State Park, and others. During the last year, the WG conducted a survey and convened two meetings focused on Public Outreach and Education. The survey collected information on what activities and priorities stakeholders were working on and what educational materials they were using. During the first Education and Outreach subgroup meeting in December, stakeholders identified ways to improve collaboration, brainstormed what successful outcomes of education/outreach programs would look like, and began to identify specific goals for the Restoration Plan. At the second meeting, an overview of social marketing was provided and stakeholders further defined goals within a social marketing framework. Social marketing is a relatively new approach to education that focuses on changing people’s behaviors. Research has found that while traditional education programs do not often result in individuals changing their behavior. For programs focused on changing the behaviors of a target audience, a different approach may be desirable. Social marketing is based on the successes of marketing firms to get people to change their purchasing behavior. The method was adapted to health education programs, and was widely credited with being a major factor in a drop in the rate of numbers of American who smoke cigarettes. Social marketing programs may include traditional educational techniques, but are designed to target and change behavior, not just provide information. As a result, the evaluation of social marketing education efforts relies on the ability to quantify audience-wide behavioral changes, as opposed to the number of individuals “reached” through a brochure or workshop. This level of evaluation is more intensive and complex and, in some cases, difficult to verify.




Some of the public outreach and education efforts within the basin are featured below. Additional accomplishments and organizations/agency efforts will be added as they become available. Ichetucknee Springs Ambassador

With the support of Three Rivers Trust, Cathy Nagler has served as the Ichetucknee Springs Ambassador for more than two years. During that time, she has spent almost 300 hours visiting more than 1000 different properties. She has made personal contact with 460 households, and has distributed an additional 733 brochures without contact. Households receive a “Let’s Protect Ichetucknee Springs: brochure as well as additional brochures on sinkholes, Rose Creek, and the park as needed. At each stop Ms. Nagler discusses the location of the Ichetucknee Trace as an area vulnerable to pollution, the impact of septic tanks on spring water quality, and the importance of sinkhole protection if they have one on their property. Fort White Middle and High School PARKnership Program

In 2003, the Fort White Middle and High School PARKnership program was initiated. The school is located four miles from Ichetucknee Springs State Park. The PARKnership Program combines science and other subject areas with hands-on, real world, environmental service instruction and activities, related to water, air, and land quality. The purpose of the program is to enhance the knowledge, skills, awareness, and appreciation levels of students, their families, park visitors, and community residents—alerting them to real threats to the spring and river ecosystems.

During the 2010 to 2011 school year, 709 students between sixth and twelfth grades participated in the program, traveling to the park between three and eight times throughout the year, depending on their course of study and service being provided to the park. Overall, the PARKnership made 84 visits to the park with either two or three blocks of students per day. All science students in middle school sixth through eighth (approximately 600 students) are regularly involved, as well as the high school Environmental Science students (30), math students (30), chemistry students (30), and ESE students (20). The students completed 33 labs or projects.

After eight years in operation, the Fort White Middle and High School PARKnership program has developed an education model where education is exciting. Students want to engage in their learning experiences, and want a voice in advocating for their communities and environment. Below is a sampling of activities conducted by Fort White Middle and High School during the 2010 through 2011 school year: Sixth Grade

• Introduction to the Ichetucknee basin, including lessons on the Floridan Aquifer System, ecosystems, and algae studies.

• Longleaf pine identification, importance of sandhills as recharge areas and home for endangered species e.g., gopher tortoise. Planted 1400 longleaf pine seedlings at the school, with each student taking one seedling home.

• Water survey project—Week 1, measure water usage, and implement water conservation. Week 2 measure and publish gallons saved.



Seventh Grade • Water quality sampling. • LIFE (Learning in Florida’s Environment) labs at the park, including dendrochronology,

orienteering, weathering walk, soil profile. • Trip to the Blue Path, Florida Eden’s exhibition at the Florida Museum of Natural

History in Gainesville. Eighth Grade

• Biodegradable boats • Water monitoring at the park • All middle school students and high school environmental science students attended a

carrying capacity program given by Park Services Specialist Sam Cole from Ichetucknee Springs State Park.

High School • Participated in the filming of the Virtual Tour of the Ichetucknee River. • Completed the gopher tortoise enclosure at the park • Continued the construction of stepping stone paths encircling the butterfly gardens at the

park • Painted 12 rain barrels to be donated to TIP, the park, and to be used at school.

The PARKnership program receives support from a variety of sponsors including Save Our Suwannee (SOS), Three Rivers Trust, Florida’s Eden–ARTT, TIP, Suwannee American Cement (SAC) and Ichetucknee ISSP. Behavior Change Research

Dr. Paul Monaghan at the University of Florida, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, focuses on behavior change research. Through the WG, Dr. Monaghan has been put in contact with the Ichetucknee PARKnership program in an effort to identify better evaluation tools for the program. Dr. Monaghan agreed to help the PARKnership program develop some evaluative questions for their student water conservation project. He has also distributed information on the PARKnership program to his department in hopes of identifying an individual who will research the behaviors of participants in the PARKnership program. Future efforts may include collaborative grant proposals to secure funding for a graduate student to evaluate the impact of the PARKnership program on the students’ behaviors as well as the behaviors of their families. The research team of Dr. Martha Monroe at the University of Florida, School of Forestry, is developing a public opinion survey for the basin in the coming year. This survey would identify and measure specific perceptions of, and attitudes toward, the natural, economic, and social aspects of the spring ecosystems. In addition, it is hoped the survey would identify whether these perceptions may correlate with actual behavior regarding the springs or, at least, with willingness to perform pro-environmental behavior. Based on the results of the survey, a list of recommendations will be developed to better target local communities with conservation communication interventions to engage them into the springs’ protection process. The Ichetucknee Partnership

The Ichetucknee Partnership (TIP) was created in 2008 by Lake City–Columbia County Chamber of Commerce, Columbia County Board of Commissioners, City of Lake City, Lake



City Rotary Club, Suwannee River Water Management District, and Suwannee River Partnership. TIP is a coalition of people, agencies, and organizations with a common mission “to promote the environmental and economic well-being of the Ichetucknee springshed through locally led, voluntary, incentive-based programs.” TIP has focused on BMPs, monitoring and research, and education and outreach, and has made strides in each of these areas including the following accomplishments::

Schools

• Learning in Florida’s Environment (LIFE) Program—TIP has provided an estimated $30,000 funding to bring the FDEP-administered program to Richardson Middle School’s (Lake City) advanced placement classes, grades six through eight. This is the program’s third year.

• Provided an estimated $5,000 funding for Fort White Middle and High School’s LIFE and PARKnership programs. Projects included purchase of monitoring kits, dibbles for tree planting, rain barrels for water conservation projects, and funding for a video project.

• Springs and Farms Activity Book, produced by TIP, SRWMD, and Santa Fe Soil and Water Conservation District, is distributed to kindergarten students throughout Columbia County’s public schools. 2011 to 12 will be the third year of distribution. The book introduces students to the importance of farms, forests, rivers and springs in their community while introducing concepts of water conservation and protection of the Ichetucknee from pollution. The popular activity book was adapted to feature Fanning and Manatee springs, and reprinted by Levy, Dixie, and Gilchrist counties’ soil and water conservation districts. The book is the basis for “Buddy-Up Day” in Fort White schools. Middle- and high school students in the PARKnership program meet with kindergarten students and guide them through the lessons in the book.

• Science Fair Awards—TIP presented $50 and $25 cash awards to four students with the best projects focused on water issues and solutions in the 2011 Columbia County Science and Engineering Fair. Awards were presented at the fifth through eighth grade levels.

• Water Conservation Posters—More than 250 students (K-12) participated in the first annual “Drop Savers” water conservation poster contest co-sponsored by Lake City Regional Utilities, Fort White Water Utility, and TIP. Six winners were selected and all poster entries were on display at the Lake City Mall throughout the months of April and May (2011). The posters from Fort White students then went on display at the Fort White Library.

Public Awareness • Educational Displays and Special Events—TIP created tabletop displays on various

topics, including springs protection, water conservation, Florida-friendly landscaping, and TIP, for use at events including: the Columbia County Fair, Super 8, Alligator Lake Festival, and Fort White and Lake City (west branch) libraries.

• TIP sent formal requests to the City of Lake City, the Town of Fort White, and the Columbia County Commission asking that they issue proclamations designating April 2011 as “Water Conservation Month,” which they did.

• Radio – TIP purchased air time for a series of 60-second “Gardening in a Minute”

programs to air each spring (2009 to 2011) on Columbia County radio stations 96.5 WJTK, Mix 94.3, and Power Country 102.1. The programs, produced by



UF–IFAS, educate listeners on such topics as stormwater runoff, waste and fertilizer management, and water conservation.

TIP developed a 60-second public service announcement (PSA) for Columbia County’s annual Toxic Roundup day in April, and paid for the spots to run on 96.5 WJTK, Mix 94.3, and Power Country 102.1 radio stations three times per day for seven days prior to the event. The event is an opportunity for the public to properly dispose of hazardous household waste. In the two years the PSA was aired, public participation increased over previous years.

TIP representatives were featured guests for a 30-minute interview-style program on WJTK morning show.

• Video—TIP reproduced and distributed hundreds of copies of the four-minute DVD, The Springs Heartland. The DVD was presented to every member of the Florida Legislature in 2010. It was broadcast in a continuous loop on the public announcement monitors at Lake City’s City Hall and the Columbia County Courthouse. It’s also being aired on TV12, the government television channel for Alachua County and the City of Gainesville. It was shown to a group of national travel writers participating in a springs and river tour hosted by the Columbia County TDC.

• Audio—Ichetucknee Springs basin tour map and companion audio podcast. • Social media

Facebook—www.facebook.com/ichetuckneepartnership . Now with 382 fans. Website—under construction (performing major redesign of old site)

• Publications Fertilizer Facts card/door hanger Conserve Water, Protect Springs (FFL tips)

• Presentations to clubs, civic organizations • TIP has received grant funding and matching funds from partners for the following two

projects which it will complete this year: Educational kiosk at Alligator Lake public park Mascot costume representing Bellamy Beaver—for appearances at schools,

special events, parades, ribbon cuttings, etc.—received Springs License Plate money to help support this purchase

Alligator Lake Springs Festival

The 2011 Second Annual Alligator Lakes Spring Festival, held on April 8, 2011, was sponsored jointly by Four Rivers Audubon and Gateway Wildlife Habitat Organization. Its goal was to highlight Alligator Lake as a valuable natural resource in Lake City, both as the headwaters of the Ichetucknee River and springs, and as an important birding area. The main message conveyed to the public was water conservation, healthy yards using native plants, minimizing fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides, and planting for wildlife. Accomplishments of the festival included:

• Introduction to both the park and to birding for citizens, including children. • Information dissemination for organizations including TIP, UF–IFAS, Save our

Suwannee, Our Santa Fe, The Lake City Garden Club, Florida’s Eden, and many others. • Opportunities for the public to see wildlife e.g., indigo snakes, birds of prey. • Promotion of Audubon’s Healthy Yard Pledge.



• Vendor choices for public to purchase native plants, bird houses and baths, natural fertilizers, and other nature-based products.

• Speakers interacting with participants, discussing landscaping for birds and wildlife, bird watching, and conservation.

Florida’s Eden

Florida’s Eden is a nonprofit citizen initiative to unite 30 counties of North Florida to protect our natural resources and using our environmental and creative assets to build a sustainable, prosperous economy. Florida’s Eden developed an exhibition called “The Blue Path: Protecting Florida’s Springs” that was displayed at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville, Florida. Due to the popularity of the exhibit, it was extended from 6 to 26 weeks (August 12, 2010 to February 13, 2011). Visitors to the exhibit received a copy of The Blue Path Festival Program Guide, which is a compilation of springs- and water conservation-related organizations, programs, and events throughout the region. A networking event called “Innovation on The Blue Path" was held on January 12, 2011, to bring people together from academic science, economic development, local sustainable businesses, the arts and, environmental organizations. Florida’s Eden has been working with the Fort White Middle and High School PARKnership program to help merge science and the humanities through place-based education. Florida's Eden’s ARTT (Artists Reaching Through Teaching) program completed a three-year commitment as a prime funding partner for creative residencies in core curriculum classrooms at Fort White Middle and High School and Ichetucknee Springs State Park. Florida’s Eden has specifically focused on how to prepare the successful “Ichetucknee Classroom Model” for replication in other schools. Florida’s Eden also provides the organizational framework for the Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute founded in May 2010. The institute’s mission is to provide a focal point for improving the understanding of spring ecology and to foster the development of science-based education and management actions needed to restore and protect springs throughout Florida In the future, Florida’s Eden plans to continue providing “The Blue Path: Protecting Florida’s Springs” as a traveling exhibition and help find resources and funding to replicate the Ichetucknee Classroom Model.



Table 9-3. Summary of Public Outreach and Education Efforts in the Ichetucknee Springs basin Needs editing

Organization/Agency Educational Goals Target

Audience Types of Activities Ichetucknee Springs State Park (Florida Park Service)

Interactive and/or nonpersonal interpretation of the natural and cultural resources of the Ichetucknee Springs, River, and basin, and the larger setting of northern Florida. Activities are accomplished in-park through ranger-guided interpretive programs and through a self-guided (and/or ranger-guided) Education Center dedicated specifically to the interpretation of Florida's springs. Off-site programs include local schools, libraries, the Ichetucknee Springs Water Quality Working Group, and various booths at events and festivals. The park also has a unique relationship with local area elementary, middle, and high schools, in which classes use the park as an outdoor classroom, sometimes utilizing spring- and karst-specific curricula.

All age groups for general audience park programs. Specific programs target school children at various grade levels, K-12.

A very wide variety, including environmental education with schools. Interpretative activities include self-guided nature trails, kiosks, and education center exhibits, as well as guided walks, van tours, and canoe/kayak trips. Off-site outreach includes PowerPoint programs on various topics and live animal exhibits, currently an indigo snake and two gopher tortoises. The Education Center also hosts small meetings for various conservation organizations. Hosted a variety of meetings including the Ichetucknee Springs Preservation Research Workshop on February 10, 2011.

The Ichetucknee Partnership/ Suwannee River Water Management District

Determine effective methods and strategies for increasing public awareness of TIP and to educate citizens, local governments, developers, farmers, the business community, and others about personal responsibility for the protection and management of the Ichetucknee springshed.

Citizens, local governments, students, businesses, visitors, others.

Environmental education programs in schools; social media (Facebook and website); special events; educational workshops; radio; brochures; presentations to civic groups; other.

Suwannee River Partnership

To educate landowners about more efficient use of irrigation water and fertilizer

Ag producers, homeowners, landscapers and other land owners.

Combine with UF–IFAS and the USDA to hold workshops.

Save Our Suwannee Save Our Suwannee is people dedicated to keeping the Suwannee River and its tributaries in

Public, politicians,

Public programs, walks, tours, petitions, letter writing to legislators




Audience Types of Activities their natural pristine state. Dedicated to preserve and protect the soil, flora, birds, animals, and water, including the underground aquifers, in the Suwannee River basin. Save Our Suwannee can heighten your appreciation of the Suwannee through learning, activism and fellowship. Some efforts have focused on water supply/water quality threats and education about them.

Regional and agencies, media

Four Rivers Audubon Society and

Four Rivers Audubon is a 501(c)3 that provides educational opportunities to the general public and to smaller focus groups. Focus is mostly on promoting wildlife viewing and wildlife conservation including, but not limited to habitat education.

Public, politicians, state-wide and national

Public programs including walks, tours, and the Alligator Lake Springs Festival; contacting elected and appointed officials. Contacting and engaging the media.

Columbia County Health Department

The goal of the Columbia County Health Department is to educate the community on how they can do their part from a public health standpoint to protect all people who reside or visit Columbia County.

Local government and general public

Health fairs and other community events including booths and providing educational handouts.

Three Rivers Trust Awareness of the spring basin area and the effects of residents within that area upon the springs...drinking water and swimming. Gathering information from old timers in the area (those who visited the springs before Ichetucknee became a state park - prior to 1970).

Ichetucknee Springs basin residents

Scientific research pertaining to protecting the environment.

UF IFAS Suwannee County Extension- Florida friendly Landscaping

Conserving water reducing stormwater runoff Providing/protecting wildlife habitat

homeowners, professional landscapers

Presentations, demonstrations, workshops, newspaper articles, displays at events, festivals, fairs

Fort White High/Middle School

Community classroom. To use ISSP as a resource to teach hands-on science, to make learning come

School age children, 11 -

LIFE labs (Learning in Florida's Environment) ex. Orienteering,




Audience Types of Activities PARKnership alive. To educate the children who live in the

Ichetucknee basin the importance of the River as a water source and how the things they and their families do affect it.

18. Water Testing, Weathering Walk, Dendrochronology. Other science labs ex. Invasive Species, Biotic/Abiotic Factors, Fallen Log, Biodegadable Boats. Sixth Grade Day (all 6th graders) - Educational stations regarding: Head Springs Restoration, Indigo Snake, Prescribed Burning, Gopher Tortoises, Enviroscape, Fishes of the Ichetucknee. Environmental Club at school picks up recyclables (soda cans) from the Park to process for cash. Arts: Virtual Tour of the River, publish books on the Environment of the Park, Fishes of the Park, Photo journaling - Seasons of the Ichetucknee, build canoes. Build butterfly gardens, gopher tortoise pen, Discovery Trail. Teach what is learned to younger students in "Buddy-Up" scenarios.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Provide science-based resource management recommendations and financial assistance to conserve and enhance Florida's habitat resources (My regional group has focused our efforts on targeting audiences in declining habitats, some that are important areas for recharge, such as sandhill)

Private landowners & more

one on one interactions, workshops, field days, school activities, websites, mailings, meetings, etc. (everything!)

Lake City Chamber of Commerce

Educate the business community on the importance of the Ichetucknee.

Business Community

Founding Partner and on Executive Committee of The Ichetucknee




Audience Types of Activities Partnership.

Florida's Eden Florida’s Eden is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to uniting 30 counties in north Florida for the purpose of protecting natural resources and using environmental and creative assets to build a sustainable and prosperous economy.

State and national educators, parents, communities and advocates, media.

Partnered with FWHS and the ISSP to form the Ichetucknee Classroom Model, now completing its 6th year. Having completed an initial 3 year commitment; intent is to ready the model for replication. Provided Artists Reaching Through Teaching (ARTT) to PARKnership program Developed Scenic Guides. www.FloridasEden.org TheBluePath.org FloridaSpringsInstitute.org

Suwannee/St. Johns Sierra Group

To try and limit impacts of industry, and development on the springshed.

politicians Letter writing. Working on an anti-bottled water program.

Wild Florida Adventures

Wild Florida Adventures is an eco/nature based tourism business that advocates for the protection of the springshed and shares knowledge of the region and the importance of the spring, river, and karst topography. Activities allow participants to explore and experience the springs and rivers.

Tourists, locals, members of conservation, and environmental groups. School children, and if possible, politicians.

Outdoor tours, paddle trips.

Florida Banner Center for Water Resources

Located at the Florida Gateway College in Lake City, the newly developed center focuses on providing training for workers in the water resources industry. In the first year, the center has focused on licensure training for water and wastewater operators. In coming years, the center will expand the focus to include the workforce

Individuals interested in water resource professions

Training and certification programs




Audience Types of Activities training needs of the broader water resources arena including environmental stewardship, conservation, water quality and supply, and reuse.

Rotary Club of Lake City

Achieve sustainable clean water use world-wide by promoting appropriate sanitation and conservation.

homeowners in Ichetucknee basin. developing countries.

Ichetucknee Promise, participate in TIP

Dr. Monroe, UF School of Forestry – public opinion survey

Identify and measure specific perceptions of, and attitudes toward the natural, economic and social aspects of the spring ecosystems.

Resident of the Ichetucknee Springs basin

Survey

Springs Basin Tour (led by Jim Stevenson)

Inform participants about the impact of land use and individual behavior on water quality in the Ichetucknee Springs.

Public, public officials

Springs Basin Tour begins in Lake City and follows the path of groundwater flow down the Ichetucknee Trace to the park including stops at key sinkholes.

Adventure Outpost

Lead kayak and canoe tours on over 40 waterways throughout North Florida. Most let by Lars Andersen, author of the numerous books and guides including The Paddlers Guide to the Suwannee River Wilderness Trail, published in March 2009 by the Suwannee River Water Management District.

Public Guided canoe tours, interpretation

Florida Natural Resources Leadership Institute (NRLI) Alumni Association

Educators, environmental outreach coordinators, conservation managers

Workshop on Using Social Marketing Tools to Promote Environmental Behavior Change held on April 15th. Working group members were specifically invited and encouraged to attend.

High Springs Main Street

To provide education, support, guidance and vision for the preservation, improvement and

Businesses, public

High Springs River Fest 2010




Audience Types of Activities economic restructuring of the historical High Springs downtown district. Focus is in four areas: organization, promotion, design, and economic restructuring.

Karst Productions Produce video and still photography. Have focused on underwater caves and showing the connectivity to surface waters.

Public Water’s Journey Series and others

Super 8 Promote the Ichetucknee to visitors. Tourists/visitors Displays educational materials on Ichetucknee in main lobby.

Note: Additional efforts will be added as they become available.




Goal 47: By 2012, reach 99% of Alligator Lake homeowners to educate on fertilizer use, implement 60% of suggested behavioral changes from Fertilizer Fact Cards. Actions

1. Identify number of homes along Alligator Lake. 2. Identify all ongoing efforts around Alligator Lake and establish collaboration and

common messages among groups when possible. 3. Survey them to assess current fertilizer habits (use vetted fertilizer survey tools). 4. Implement one-on-one training/education of homeowners. 5. Encourage homeowners to take a "pledge." 6. Resurvey homeowners to measure behavior change. 7. Include ongoing water quality sampling if possible.

Goal 48: By end of 2011, reduce indoor and outdoor water use by 25% to 30% for XX% of homes in a specific subdivision with a separate water system or a homeowner’s association (e.g., Eastside Village) through a targeted behavior change effort. Actions

1. Identify a subdivision that has a homeowners association and trackable water bills. 2. Document water use from water bills. 3. Develop or use existing water reduction education program. (May include an initial

survey of water use behaviors and a program targeted to reduce highest uses. Look at the Gainesville Green website and education effort and efforts in Manatee County.)

4. Educate homeowners (use a behavior change approach) 5. Do a pledge with native plant education 6. Measure changes in household water use over time.

Goal 49: Assess the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of students (and their families) participating in the PARKnership program. Actions

1. Identify a UF researcher to evaluate the PARKnership program. 2. Find a funding source for a graduate student. 3. Develop a survey and evaluation tools.

Goal 50: Formalize PARKnership curriculum for replication Actions

1. Identify resources needed to formalize PARKnership program. 2. Teachers compile PARKnership curriculum. 3. Post the curriculum on a website, where it is accessible to anyone. 4. Generate publicity for PARKnership program

Goal 51: Increase the percentage of septic inspections in high vulnerability areas. Actions



1. Identify contact at Columbia County DOH 2. Develop a list of all septic tanks within priority areas of high vulnerability. 3. Collect data on septic tank inspections. 4. Survey septic system companies to assess barriers to change and solutions. 5. Gather educational materials on proper care of septic systems. 6. Identify social marketing, behavior change strategies to encourage voluntary increase in

inspections. (e.g., research Puget Sound efforts) 7. Educate homeowners to have tanks inspected every five years and when the property is

sold. Encourage homeowners/landlords to upgrade failing systems. Evaluation

1. Compare number of septic inspections currently conducted with the number of inspections conducted in the future to determine whether or not goal has been met.

Goal 52: Increase the agricultural acreage using BMPs in areas identified with high vulnerability. Actions

1. Identify agricultural areas in high vulnerability areas. 2. Implement outreach program and improved conservation education to garner

commitments for BMPs enrollment. Evaluation

1. Quantify acreage currently under BMPs in high vulnerability areas. 2. Monitor change in acreage under BMPs over time.

Goal 53: Assess the attitudes, knowledge and behaviors of residents living in the Ichetucknee Springs basin. Actions

1. Develop and implement a public opinion survey.

Goal 54: Enhance existing education programs by incorporating behavior change tools and evaluation methods. Actions

1. Provide training opportunities for educators. 2. Develop an educator network to identify common behavior change goals and synchronize

program strategies and messages.

10 Plan Implementation and Evaluation An evaluation and monitoring plan for the Ichetucknee Springs and River Restoration Plan should be based upon the following principles

Easy to measure benchmarks Consensus on all major benchmarks by all stakeholders responsible to monitor

implementation Indicators and standards are identified that are simple and practical to monitor Regular information exchange is provided via email and on the project website so

that all stakeholders are aware of progress



For implementation to be successful, stakeholders would continue to meet to monitor the implementation of the plan and to modify the needs of restoration based upon the results of monitoring. At this time it is uncertain what the future holds for the Ichetucknee Springs Basin Working Group. Funding for coordination of the group has been cancelled with no future funding in sight. Three significant processes are occurring in the coming year where the Working Group would play a pivotal role: a TMDL (and BMAP), an MFL, and a Unit Management Plan. All of these processes require public input. It is important for all stakeholders involved with the Restoration Plan to unite continue to support the plan and to encourage the implementation of the proposed actions through these public processes and others. There are numerous groups within the basin who remain dedicated to the restoration of the Ichetucknee and may take a leadership role. Should funding become available, the existing Springs Working Group infrastructure (coordinator, stakeholder contact list, local knowledge of the players, meeting structure, etc.) could continue to play an important supporting role and could help reduce costs through consolidation of efforts. For example, a shared funding mechanism between FDEP, the appropriate Water Management Districts plus county and city governments could maintain the basic elements of the working group and allow the agencies to move smoothly into the public input process for their regulatory processes. It is possible that some of these public input processes could also be combined or integrated to avoid duplication of effort. With this in mind, the following goal is offered. Goal 55. Coordinate restoration efforts (centered on the TMDL, MFL, and Unit Management Plan processes) with all stakeholders to avoid duplication and consolidate and share resources effectively. Actions

1. Maintain a stakeholder email list with representatives from all key agencies and organizations.

2. Provide mechanisms for sharing information and collaborating among stakeholders. 3. Help identify unifying messages and approaches when possible. 4. Make decisions on restoration actions to implement goals within the Restoration Plan

based on priorities, capacities and costs. 5. Plan ways to implement actions and monitor success. 6. List restoration actions and strategies for tracking potential changes in the system.

Table 10-1. Implementation Table for Goals and Actions [To be added in future] Action Number Action Description

Evaluation Status Participants

CATEGORY GOAL #: ….. Data Data Data



11 Literature Cited “2008 Community Profile,” accessed June 15, 2011, http://www.lcfla.com/about.htm Bonn, M. A., and F. W. Bell. 2003. Economic impact of selected Florida springs on surrounding

local areas. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Burkhardt. 2010. “The Ichetucknee Partnership providing equipment, teacher training for schools

for LIFE and PARKnership programs.” Lake City Journal, September 19. http://www.lakecityjournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=73&ArticleID=6582

Butt, P. L. 2005. Dye trace: Potential infrastructure impact to Ichetucknee Springs State Park.

Karst Environmental Services. Butt, P. L., and G. J. Murphy. 2003. Dyal and Black Sinks Dye Trace, Columbia County,

Florida, May-September 2003. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Champion, K. M., and S. B. Upchurch. 2003. Delineation of spring-water source areas in the

Ichetucknee springshed. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. DuToit, C. H. 1979. The carrying capacity of the Ichetucknee Springs and River. M.Sc. Thesis,

University of Florida [Gainesville, Fla.]. “Economic Development Partners. Case Study: Columbia County, Florida,” accessed June 15,

2011, http://www.plumcreek.com/Portals/0/downloads/factsheets/Feb%2011%20PC-factsheet-ColumbiaCo_v5c.pdf./

Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. “Basic Information about Pathogens and Indicators in

Drinking Water, last updated June 5, 2011, accessed June 15, 2011, http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/pathogens.cfm.

Evans, J. M. 2007. Algae, exotics, and management response in two Florida springs

competing conceptions of ecological change in a time of nutrient enrichment. PhD Dissertation. University of Florida [Gainesville, Fla.].

“Farmer Spotlight: Mike Tice of Columbia County,” Suwannee River Partnership News, Vol. 6,

No. 3, Fall 2010, http://www.suwannee.org/docs/SRPN%20Fall%202010%20rev2.pdf . Florida State Parks, 2011. Ichetucknee Springs State Park, accessed May 23, 2011,

http://floridastateparks.org/resources/doc/individualparks/brochures/ich-brochure.pdf. Harrington, D., G. Maddox, and R. Hicks. 2010. Florida Springs Initiative Monitoring Network

Report and Recognized Sources of Nitrate. Florida Department of Environmental



Protection. Heffernan, J. B., and M. J. Cohen. 2010. Direct and indirect coupling of primary production and

diel nitrate dynamics in a subtropical spring-fed river. Limnology and Oceanography 55:677-688.

Heffernan, J. B., M. J. Cohen, T. K. Frazer, R. G. Thomas, T. J. Rayfield, J. Gulley, J. B. Martin,

J. J. Delfino, and W. D. Graham. 2010. Hydrologic and biotic influences on nitrate removal in a subtropical spring-fed river. Limnology and Oceanography 55:249-263.

“Ichetucknee Springs State Park: Approved Unit Management Plan,” October 17, 2000. FDEP,

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/IchetuckneeSpringsStatePark.pdf Katz, B. G., and D. W. Griffin. 2008. Using chemical and microbiological indicators to track the

impacts from the land application of treated municipal wastewater and other sources on groundwater quality in a karstic springs basin. Environmental Geology 55:801-821.

Katz, B. G., A. A. Sepulveda, and R. J. Verdi. 2009. Estimating nitrogen loading to ground water

and assessing vulnerability to nitrate contamination in a large karstic springs basin, Florida. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45:607-627.

PBS&J. 2003. Mapping and monitoring submerged vegetation in Ichetucknee and Manatee

Springs. Suwanee River Water Management District. _____. 2004. Mapping and monitoring submerged vegetation in Ichetucknee Springs - 2004

Mapping and monitoring submerged vegetation in Ichetucknee and Manatee Springs. Suwannee River Water Management District.

Politano, V. A. 2008. Factors affecting periphyton abundance on macrophytes in a spring-fed

river in Florida. Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.

Sickman, J. O., A. Albertin, M. W. Anderson, A. Pinowska, and R. J. Stevenson. 2009. A

Comparison of Internal and External Supply of Nutrients to Algal Mats in Two First Magnitude Springs in Florida. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 47:135-144.

Steigerwalt, N. M. 2005. Environmental factors affecting aquatic invertebrate community

structure on snags in the Ichetucknee River, Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida [Gainesville, Fla.].

Strong, W. A. 2004. Temporal water chemistry trends within individual springs and within a

population of Florida springs. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Florida, [Gainesville, Fla.].



“SRWMD Water Supply Assessment 2010,” accessed June 15, 2011, http://www.srwmd.org/documents/Water%20Resources/Water%20Supply%20Planning/SRWMD_WSAR_120610.PDF

Walsh, S. J., and J. D. Williams. 2003. Inventory of fishes and mussels in springs and spring

effluents of North-Central Florida state parks. U.S. Geological Survey. White, W. A. 1970. The geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Florida Department of Natural

Resources, Bureau of Geology.

12 Appendices

Appendix A. Research and Monitoring Activities (see separate electronic spreadsheet)

Appendix B. Proposed Resolution to Columbia County Board of Commissioners Appendix C. Letter to FDEP from the Columbia County Board of Commissioners

Date post:	03-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Ichetucknee Springs and River Restoration Plan

Documents