Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis

Phase 2 – Quarterly Report #2: Environmental Data

Prepared for

Santa Fe River and Springs Scientific Working Group

Date

December 2018

Prepared by The Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute

Table of Contents Figures ...... iv Tables ...... vi

Section 1.0 Introduction ...... 1

Section 2.0 Methods ...... 3 2.1 Introduction ...... 3 2.2 Physical Environment ...... 8 2.2.1 Underwater Light Transmission ...... 8 2.2.2 Water Quality ...... 9 2.2.3 Secchi Disk Visibility ...... 9 2.2.4 Stream Discharge ...... 9 2.3 Biology ...... 10 2.3.1 Fish ...... 10 2.3.2 Plant Community Characterization ...... 10 2.4 Ecosystem Level Monitoring ...... 11 2.4.1 Ecosystem Metabolism ...... 11 2.4.2 Community Export ...... 13

Section 3.0 Results ...... 14

3.1 Physical Environment ...... 14 3.1.1 Underwater Light Transmission ...... 14 3.1.2 Water Quality ...... 17 3.1.3 Dissolved Oxygen ...... 17 3.1.4 pH ...... 21 3.1.5 Specific Conductance ...... 24 3.1.6 Water Temperature...... 27 3.1.7 Discharge ...... 30 3.1.8 Nitrate and Nitrite ...... 31 3.1.9 Flow and Nitrate Period of Record ...... 34 3.1.9 Detailed Water Chemistry ...... 40 3.1.10 Water Clarity ...... 42

3.2 Biology ...... 45 3.2.1 Fish ...... 45 3.2.2 Vegetation ...... 46

3.3 Ecosystem Level Monitoring ...... 52 3.3.1 Metabolism ...... 52 3.3.2 Particulate Export ...... 52

References ...... 53

Appendix A ...... 54 Detailed Water Chemistry ...... 54

Appendix B ...... 64 Ecosystem Metabolism Summary ...... 64

Appendix C ...... 89 Quarter 2 and 3 Fish Data ...... 89

Appendix D ...... 95 Quarter 3 Data ...... 95

iii

Table of Exhibits Figures Figure 1. Phase 2 Sampling Stations for the Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis2 Figure 2. Segments 1 and 2 Santa Fe River monitoring station locations ...... 4 Figure 3. Segment 3 Santa Fe River monitoring station locations ...... 5 Figure 4. Lower Santa Fe River Segment 4 and the Ichetucknee monitoring station locations ...... 6 Figure 5. Underwater LI COR sensor used to measure PAR ...... 8 Figure 6. Example estimation of ecosystem metabolism based on upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen data (from WSI 2007)...... 12 Figure 7. Community export estimation using a plankton net to capture suspended material and a flow meter to record volume sampled ...... 13 Figure 8. PAR Diffuse Attenuation and Percent Transmittance measurements along the Santa Fe River (01 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 15 Figure 9. PAR Diffuse Attenuation and Percent Transmittance measurements along the Ichetucknee River (01 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 16 Figure 10. Average dissolved oxygen measurements along segments one and two of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 18 Figure 11. Average dissolved oxygen measurements along segment three of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 19 Figure 12. Average dissolved oxygen measurements along segment four of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 20 Figure 13. Average pH measurements along segments one and two of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 21 Figure 14. Average pH measurements along segment 3 of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 22 Figure 15. Average pH measurements along segment 4 of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 23 Figure 16. Average specific conductance measurements along segments one and two of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018)...... 24 Figure 17. Average specific conductance measurements along segment three of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 25 Figure 18. Average specific conductance measurements along segment four of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 26 Figure 19. Average water temperature measurements along segments one and two (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 27

Figure 20. Average water temperature measurements along segment 3 (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 28 Figure 21. Average water temperature measurements along segment four and the Ichetucknee River (1 April to 30 September 2018) ...... 29 Figure 22. Average water flow measurements along portions of the Santa Fe River and Ichetucknee River collected between 1 April and 30 September 2018...... 30 Figure 23. Nitrate-nitrite levels measured on segments 1 and 3 on the Santa Fe River between 01 April and 30 September 2018...... 31 Figure 24. Nitrate-nitrite levels measured along segment 3 on the Santa Fe River between 01 April and 30 September 2018...... 32 Figure 25. Nitrate-nitrite levels measured on segment 4 of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River between 01 April and 30 September 2018 ...... 33 Figure 26. Mass Balance Schematic for 2018 (January–September) ...... 35 Figure 27. Flow rate trends in the Santa Fe River from upstream to downstream stations from January to September 2018 ...... 37 Figure 28. Flow rate trends for Santa Fe River inputs from January to September 2018...... 37 Figure 29. Nitrogen loads in tons per year for Santa Fe River stations from upstream to downstream (January-September 2018) ...... 38 Figure 30. Nitrogen loads in tons per year for Santa Fe River inputs (January-September 2018) 38 Figure 31. Average nitrogen concentrations (mg/L) for Santa Fe River stations by quarter (January-September 2018) ...... 39 Figure 32. Average nitrogen concentrations (mg/L) for Santa Fe River inputs by quarter (January- September) ...... 39 Figure 33. Average horizontal Secchi disc readings in Segments 2 and 3 of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River between 1 April and 30 September 2018 ...... 42 Figure 34. Average vertical Secchi disc readings in Segments 1 and 2 between 1 April and 30 September 2018 ...... 43 Figure 35. Average vertical Secchi disc readings in Segments 3 and 4 of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River between 1 April and 30 September 2018 ...... 44

Tables Table 1. Santa Fe River, springs, and tributary stations and detailed monthly sampling frequencies ...... 7 Table 2. Mean of water sample parameters collected from river vs. spring stations on the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers between 01 April and 30 September 2018...... 17 Table 3. Water quality parameters tested by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ...... 40 Table 4. Herbicides and pesticides tested for by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ...... 41 Table 5. Seasonal fish counts, densities and biomass for various springs along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers...... 45 Table 6. Gilchrist Blue Spring Vegetation Summary – June 2018 (Quarter 3) ...... 46 Table 7. Naked Spring Vegetation Summary – April 2018 (Quarter 2) ...... 47 Table 8. Naked Spring Vegetation Summary – June 2018 (Quarter 2) ...... 48 Table 9. Hornsby Spring Vegetation Summary – May 2018 (Quarter 2)...... 49 Table 10. Ichetucknee River Vegetation Summary – May 2018 (Quarter 2) ...... 50 Table 11. Ichetucknee River Vegetation Summary – July 2018 (Quarter 3) ...... 51 Table 12. Santa Fe River Select Springs Ecosystem Metabolism Estimates ...... 52 Table 13. Particulate Export Results ...... 52

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Section 1.0 Introduction The Santa Fe River is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water and is home to over 60 recorded springs. The river and springs provide essential habitat for a diversity of flora and fauna and are a major contributor to the economic vitality of surrounding areas (FSI 2012, SRWMD 2014)). However, the Santa Fe River and springs are experiencing negative impacts from a variety of stressors including reduced discharge, increased nitrate-nitrogen levels, excessive recreation, aquatic plant management activities, and structural alterations. These changes are resulting in a shifting ecological baseline for the Santa Fe river.

The Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute (FSI) in partnership with Our Santa Fe River, Inc. (OSFR) and a host of other collaborators is conducting a Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis. The project consists of 3 phases; Phase 1 - a summary of existing data (completed in May 2017 [FSI 2017]), Phase 2 - a detailed river health evaluation, and Phase 3 - the development of a holistic management plan and recovery strategy.

FSI began data collection at springs, spring runs, and river stations (Figure 1) for Phase 2 of the project in April 2018. The aim of this phase is to fill in data gaps by conducting a comprehensive, multi-year monitoring program to improve understanding of the ecology, biology, and chemistry of the springs and river. These data will be used in conjunction with other existing and ongoing research to develop baseline ecological conditions for the Santa Fe River and springs that can be used to assess future improvements or declines in river health. Results from the first quarter of sampling (April through June 2018) were summarized previously (FSI 2018). This report summarizes progress through the second quarter of intensive sampling (July through September 2018). Detailed data for the second quarter (July-September 2018) can be found in Appendix B.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Figure 1. Phase 2 Sampling Stations for the Santa Fe River and Springs Environmental Analysis

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Section 2.0 Methods 2.1 Introduction Data were collected over a 6-month period along the Santa Fe River as well as from several of its springs, and 3 of its major tributaries: the Ichetucknee River, Olustee Creek, and Cow Creek. For this assessment, monitoring was divided into five study segments, with one segment within the Upper Santa Fe River upstream of O’Leno State Park, three segments within the Lower Santa Fe River, and two tributary segments (Olustee Creek and Ichetucknee River): • Upper Santa Fe River o Segment 1 (Worthington Spring at SR 121 to the Santa Fe River Sink in O’Leno State Park) • Lower Santa Fe River o Segment 2 (Santa Fe River Rise to U.S. Hwy 27) o Segment 3 (U.S. Hwy 27 to US Hwy 47) o Segment 4 (U.S. Hwy 47 to Suwannee River confluence) • Olustee Creek (CR 18 bridge to Santa Fe River confluence) • Ichetucknee River (Head Spring to Santa Fe River confluence) Routine monitoring of water quality field parameters, nitrate nitrogen and color, and physical conditions was conducted in each segment during 2018 Quarters 2 and 3 (April through September). Table 1 provides sampling frequencies for spring, spring run, and river stations. Detailed maps identifying monitoring station locations for each segment are provided in Figure 2 through Figure 4. A total of 62 monitoring stations were selected to characterize water quality and related ecological conditions. Additional ecological and biological data were collected at six spring and river sites during the quarter. The ecological and biological surveys include sonde and HOBO deployments, fish counts, vegetation surveys and flow measurements. These representative sites included: • Hornsby Springs • Poe Springs • Gilchrist Blue Springs • Ginnie and Devil’s Springs • Ichetucknee River • O’Leno and River Rise

Water quality samples were collected for analysis by the Florida Department of Environmental protection (FDEP) analytical laboratory for color, chloride, sulfate, arsenic, copper, iron, chlorophyll a, nitrate+nitrite nitrogen, total ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, and fecal coliforms at 10 river and 20 spring sites on a quarterly basis, with 10 sites sampled each month. Priority herbicides and insecticides (Table 4) were tested at 10 spring or river stations quarterly. During routine monitoring, water samples were also collected for analysis by McGlynn Laboratories Inc. for nitrate nitrogen and color.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Figure 2. Segments 1 and 2 Santa Fe River monitoring station locations

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Figure 3. Segment 3 Santa Fe River monitoring station locations

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Figure 4. Lower Santa Fe River Segment 4 and the Ichetucknee monitoring station locations

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Table 1. Santa Fe River, springs, and tributary stations and detailed monthly sampling frequencies

Ecological DEP Monitoring Location Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Ichetucknee Monitoring Sites Sites River Sites 6 3 4 6 7 1 10 Parameter Springs Sites 1 1 10 5 3 6 20 Water Quality Temperature M M M M M Q Q Disolved Oxygen M M M M M Q Q pH M M M M M Q Q Specific Conductivity M M M M M Q Q Nox-N M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 Q Q PAR M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 Q Q Discharge M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 Q Q Secchi Measurements M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 Q Q Alkalinity ------Q Chlorine ------Q Fluorine ------Q Harndess ------Q

SO4 ------Q Total Organic Carbon ------Q Calcium ------Q Potassium ------Q Magnesium ------Q Sodium ------Q

NH4-N ------Q TKN ------Q OrthoP ------Q Total Phosphorus ------Q Color M1 M1 M1 M1 M1 Q Q Turbidity ------Q Total Dissolved Solids ------Q Total Suspended Solids ------Q Herbicides ------Q2 Pesticides ------Q2 Biological & Ecological Fish Survey - - - - - Q - Vegetation Survey - - - - - Q - Ecosystem Metabolism - - - - - Q - Human Use - - - - - Q1 - Particulate Export - - - - - SA1 -

1 - Not all sites sampled M = monthly Additional sites not sampled routinely 2 - 10 sites sampled per Quarter Q = quarterly SA = semi-annually

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 2.2 Physical Environment 2.2.1 Underwater Light Transmission Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) underwater light transmission and attenuation coefficients were measured monthly at 59 of the 62 monitoring sites during comprehensive ecological assessments and while collecting monthly samples for laboratory analysis. Data were collected using a LI-COR brand LI-192 underwater quantum sensor to measure PAR energy reaching the water surface and at 1-foot intervals from the surface to the bottom of the water column. Figure 5 provides a typical light senor installation. Light extinction (attenuation) coefficients were calculated from these data using the Lambert-Beer equation (Wetzel 2001):

Iz = Io(e-kz) Where:

Iz = PAR at depth z

Io = PAR at the water surface k = diffuse attenuation coefficient, m-1 z = water depth, m

Figure 5. Underwater LI COR sensor used to measure PAR

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 2.2.2 Water Quality Field parameters (water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, oxygen percent saturation, pH, and specific conductance) were measured monthly using a YSI proDSS meter at each of the 62 (30 river and 32 springs) monitoring sites, during comprehensive ecological assessments, and while collecting monthly samples for laboratory analysis. During routine monitoring, water samples were collected at 60 of the 62 sample sites and sent to McGlynn Laboratories Inc. for nitrate nitrogen and color analysis. Samples were collected by placing a capped sample bottle below the surface water, uncapping to collect water, and recapping underwater to avoid surface water contamination. Samples have a 28-day holding time and are sent to the lab monthly. Water samples for laboratory analysis were also collected according to Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) standard operating procedures. Thirty sites (10 river and 20 springs) were sampled during the second and third quarters. Samples were shipped overnight to the FDEP Central Laboratory in Tallahassee where they were analyzed for color, chloride, sulfate, arsenic, copper, iron, chlorophyll a, nitrate+nitrite nitrogen, total ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, and fecal coliforms. Ten Spring sites were also sampled and tested once during this quarter for additional priority herbicides, insecticides, and trace organic compounds. During monthly monitoring and ecological assessments, additional water samples were collected and analyzed for nitrate+nitrite by Advanced Environmental Laboratories in Gainesville FL (FDOH certified laboratory # E82620).

2.2.3 Secchi Disk Visibility Visual water clarity was assessed using Secchi disk visibility, the distance where a standard white and black Secchi disk disappears. At tannic river and creek stations, the Secchi depth was estimated by vertically lowering the Secchi disk below the water surface. In spring systems, underwater visibility is commonly greater than the depth of the water column, in those cases Secchi disk visibility was measured horizontally. Vertical and horizontal Secchi distance was measured with a 20-centimeter diameter black and white disk attached to the end of a tape measure below the surface of the water. For horizontal readings a skin diver then extended the tape while moving away from the disk and recorded the distance at which it was no longer visible. Secchi disk measurements were taken at 39 stations during monthly monitoring sessions and during comprehensive ecological sampling.

2.2.4 Stream Discharge Stream discharge was measured at 18 springs, at the US-27 bridge, at LIR-4 and at the mouth of the Ichetucknee River (LIR-15) during the second and third quarters using a Hach FH950 portable velocity meter. At each location, a fiberglass tape was stretched across the stream channel perpendicular to the flow direction, allowing depth and velocity to be measured in up to 25 evenly-spaced segments. Narrower streams were measured at 10- 22 segments. At water depths less than 2.5 ft, velocity was measured at 0.6 of the water column depth. For water depths greater than 2.5 ft, velocity was measured at 0.2, 0.6, and 0.8 fractional depths of the water column.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 2.3 Biology 2.3.1 Fish Visual surveys of the fish communities were conducted during ecological assessments at the Ichetucknee Headspring, Blue Hole Spring, and the Cedar Head Spring run, as well as the Hornsby, Poe, Gilchrist Blue, Devil’s, and Ginnie springs systems. Visual surveys of fish communities were made by 1 to 3 people using mask and snorkel gear. Observers swam together, noting the fish species or groups of similar species (lowest practical taxonomic level) of all observed fish, and these observations were reported to a data record keeper, who was at a fixed location on shore or who followed the observers in a boat. Following each survey, observers estimated the total length (average and range) by fish species. Fish density was calculated for each sub-section by dividing the average number of individuals counted by the area sampled. Wet-weight biomass of fish species was estimated using published length-weight relationships (Schneider et al. 2000) and average species total lengths and total numbers. Fish assemblage diversity was calculated using the Shannon-Wiener diversity index based on the calculated densities of individual species (Zar 1984).

2.3.2 Plant Community Characterization The distribution and percent cover of aquatic plant communities (macroalgae and submerged aquatic vegetation), as well as substrates in the study segment were visually estimated this quarter in 3 spring systems: Gilchrist Blue Springs system, Hornsby Spring, and the Lower Ichetucknee River. Aquatic vegetative cover was documented along several transects in each spring run using the line-intercept method. A tape measure was stretched along each transect, and all aquatic plant communities intercepting the vertical plane of line were recorded. Line-intercept data were used to estimate percent cover, frequency, relative cover, and relative frequency. Frequency was based on dividing each transect into 8 equal sized sub-transects. Values by species were summed and averaged to yield an importance value as follows:

Linear Cover Distance for Species A = ∑line intercept distances for Species A (m)

Percent Cover = Linear cover distance of Species A (m) x 100 Total transect distance (m)

Relative Percent Cover = Linear cover distance of Species A (m) x 100 Total linear cover distance of all species (m) Number of subtransects in which Species A occurred Absolute Frequency = Total number of subtransects Absolute frequency of Species A Relative Frequency = x 100 ∑absolute frequencies of all species (Relative Vegetative Cover + Relative Frequency) Importance Value = 2 Approximate vegetation communities and substrates were mapped in the Gilchrist Blue, and Naked headspring areas, as well as at the Poe Springs and Devil’s Springs Systems. All observed plants were identified to species or lowest possible taxonomic classification.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 2.4 Ecosystem Level Monitoring 2.4.1 Ecosystem Metabolism Ecosystem metabolism was calculated in each spring segment using an Excel spreadsheet adaptation of the upstream/downstream dissolved oxygen (DO) change methods of H.T. Odum (1957a, 1957b). This method estimates and subtracts upstream from downstream DO mass fluxes corrected for atmospheric diffusion to determine the metabolic oxygen rate-of-change of the aquatic ecosystem. Dissolved oxygen mass inputs typically include spring discharges, atmospheric diffusion into or out of the water column (input when DO is less than 100% saturation and diffusion out when DO is above 100% saturation), accretion from tributary streams or spring seep inflows, and the release of DO as a by-product of aquatic plant photosynthesis. Oxygen losses include diffusion from the water column to the atmosphere (under super-saturated conditions), the metabolic respiration of the aquatic microbial, plant, and animal communities, and sediment biological oxygen demand. The upstream to downstream change in DO mass flux measured at any time is the net effect of these gains and losses as shown in the following conceptual equation: Δ DO = GPP – CR + Din + A Where:

Δ DO = DO rate-of-change, g O2/m2/d 2 GPP = gross primary productivity, g O2/m /d CR = community respiration, g O2/m2/d 2 Din = diffusion into the water under unsaturated conditions, g O2/m /d A = accrual of DO from other spring boils, g O2/m2/d

The DO measurements used to estimate segment ecosystem metabolism were collected at the upstream and downstream end of the spring run study segments at 30-minute intervals using recording YSI 6920 data sondes with optical DO sensors. Upstream and downstream dissolved oxygen data were each shifted by one-half of the estimated travel time between the upstream and downstream stream segment stations and an oxygen rate-of-change curve was prepared. Areas, volumes, current velocities and diffusion measurements were used to estimate ecosystem metabolism. Water surface area was estimated for the study segment using best available data and corrected hourly using an estimated stage: area relationship. Average velocities were estimated from the stage:volume relationship and spring discharge measurements. Nominal travel times for the water mass were estimated based on the length of the spring run and the estimated hourly current velocities. The resulting DO rate-of-change curve was corrected for atmospheric diffusion based on measured percent oxygen saturation in the water, and oxygen diffusion rates corrected for water velocity. The corrected oxygen rate-of-change curve for each 24-hour period was used to estimate gross primary productivity (GPP), community respiration (CR), net primary productivity (NPP), production/respiration (P/R) ratio, and ecological efficiency. Figure 6 illustrates these metabolism measurements based on a typical oxygen rate-of- change curve. Descriptions of the ecosystem metabolism parameters follow below: • Gross primary productivity (GPP) is estimated as the entire area under the oxygen rate-of-change curve, calculated by extending the nighttime corrected oxygen rate-of-change through the daylight hours and estimating the entire area under the daytime curve in g O2/m2/d. GPP is a measure of all aquatic plant productivity occurring below the water surface within the stream segment. GPP includes primary productivity of both algae (including photosynthetic bacteria) and submerged vascular plants.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) • Community respiration (CR) is the average of the corrected nighttime oxygen rate-of-change values in g O2/m2/d. CR is a measure of the total dark metabolism of the entire submerged ecosystem within each stream segment. CR includes the respiration of all microbes in the sediments and water column, respiration of bacteria, algae, and plants in the water column, and respiration of all aquatic animals, including protozoans, macroinvertebrates, crustaceans, and fish. Respiration of turtles, alligators, frogs, snakes, manatees, and other air-breathing aquatic fauna is not included in this estimate. • Net primary productivity (NPP) is equal to the difference between these two estimates (GPP-CR). NPP provides an estimate of the net fixed carbon that remains each day after the respiratory needs of the aquatic ecosystem are met. CR may be higher than GPP in some streams and during some periods of time, indicating that there are unmeasured inputs of fixed carbon or losses of fixed carbon that were previously stored in the ecosystem. • The P/R ratio or ecological quotient is equal to GPP/CR. A P/R ratio of one indicates that production and consumption are equally balanced. A ratio greater than one indicates an autotrophic aquatic ecosystem while a value less than one indicates a heterotrophic ecosystem. • Photosynthetic efficiency (PE) is equal to the rate of gross primary productivity divided by the incident PAR during a specified time interval. It estimates the overall efficiency of an aquatic ecosystem to utilize the visible fraction of incident solar radiation, the principal forcing function for autotrophic stream ecosystems. PAR reaching the plant level is estimated using recording PAR sensors just above the water surface to estimate canopy shading, and based on river stage, the plant community characterization data for segment depth, and the light attenuation coefficient estimated for each sampling event. PE is reported as PAR Efficiency by dividing GPP in O2/m2/d by 2 mole/m /d, resulting in units of g O2/mole. PAR Efficiency is also reported as a percentage using the conversion factors employed by Knight (1980; 1983): 4.22 Kcal/g O2 and 52.27 Kcal/mole of photons (McCree 1972).

10 2500 Upstream Air 9 Downstream Plant Level 8 2000

7 Air = 39.30 mol/m2/d /s) 6 2 1500 Plant Level = 28.52 mol/m2/d 5

4 1000 PAR (umol/m PAR 3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Oxygen Dissolved 2 500

0 0 5/15/05 0:00 5/15/05 6:00 5/15/05 12:00 5/15/05 18:00 5/16/05 0:00 5/15/05 0:00 5/15/05 6:00 5/15/05 12:00 5/15/05 18:00 5/16/05 0:00

1.5 Corrected Uncorrected 1.2 1.0 1 /hr) 2 2 GPP = 8.45 g/m /d

/hr) 0.8 2 0.6 2 0.5 CR = 8.40 g/m /d 0.4 0.2

0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 DO Rate-of-Change (g/m Rate-of-Change DO -0.5 -0.6 2 -0.8 NPP = GPP- CR = +0.05 g/m /d Corrected Rate-of-Change DO (g/m PAR Eff. = GPP / PAR = 0.30 g O2/mol -1 -1.0 5/15/05 0:00 5/15/05 6:00 5/15/05 12:00 5/15/05 18:00 5/16/05 0:00 5/15/05 0:00 5/15/05 6:00 5/15/05 12:00 5/15/05 18:00 5/16/05 0:00

Figure 6. Example estimation of ecosystem metabolism based on upstream-downstream dissolved oxygen data (from WSI 2007).

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

2.4.2 Community Export Community export of particulate suspended matter was measured at Poe Spring, Gilchrist Blue Spring, and two Lower Ichetucknee River stations using a plankton net suspended in the current at mid-depth (Figure 7). The mesh size of the plankton net was 153 µm. Three replicate plankton net samples were collected at the mouth of each spring run. Sample material collected in the plankton net was rinsed into a sample bottle and returned to the laboratory for wet, dry, and ash-free (combusted at an oven temperature of 450 °C) dry weight analyses. As samples were collected, the velocity of the water at the mouth of the net was measured as was the time of net deployment. These data allow calculation of the volume of water passing through the net. The amount of particulate material collected in the net was expressed on an area (based on upstream wetted surface area) basis. Particulate export results are reported as dry weight (DW) and ash-free dry weight (AFDW) per upstream area per time (g DW/m2/d and g AFDW/m2/d, respectively).

Figure 7. Community export estimation using a plankton net to capture suspended material and a flow meter to record volume sampled

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Section 3.0 Results This section summarizes data collected as part of the ecosystem monitoring conducted along the Santa Fe River and springs from Quarters 2 and 3 (April through September 2018). These data provide a quantitative record of existing conditions in the river and will be useful for comparison to future evaluations of the Santa Fe River and springs.

3.1 Physical Environment 3.1.1 Underwater Light Transmission The summaries of photosynthetically active radiation percent transmittance and diffuse attenuation data collected on the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee river are presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. PAR diffuse attenuation is consistently highest in the tannic waters of the Upper Santa Fe. Light transmittance is consistently higher in the spring and spring run stations and increases in the Santa Fe River with travel distance downstream. PAR attenuation in the Ichetucknee River is typically less than 1 and transmittance is typically greater than 50%, similar to the Santa Fe River springs.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 9

2 P-95

0 P-75 k (diffuse attenuation coefficient) attenuation k (diffuse AVG P-50

P-25

100 90 80 P-5 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Percent Transmittance (@ 1m) Transmittance Percent 0

Figure 8. PAR Diffuse Attenuation and Percent Transmittance measurements along the Santa Fe River (01 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

P-95 0.2 k (diffuse attenuation coefficient) attenuation k (diffuse 0

P-75 AVG P-50 100

90 P-25

70 P-5

30 Percent Transmittance (@ 1m) Transmittance Percent

Figure 9. PAR Diffuse Attenuation and Percent Transmittance measurements along the Ichetucknee River (01 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

3.1.2 Water Quality Table 2 summarizes the water quality results for samples collected by FSI staff on four segments of the Santa Fe River and associated springs, and the Ichetucknee River and associated springs. Compared to the adjacent river stations, spring stations typically have lower dissolved oxygen concentrations, and higher specific conductance, and nitrate+nitrite nitrogen. Measured pH and water temperature were similar at river and spring stations during this six-month monitoring period.

Table 2. Mean of water sample parameters collected from river vs. spring stations on the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers between 01 April and 30 September 2018.

3.1.3 Dissolved Oxygen Figure 10 through Figure 12 present average dissolved oxygen concentrations measured along four segments of the Santa Fe River and along the Ichetucknee River between April and September 2018. During this sampling period, the Santa Fe River dissolved oxygen concentrations were typically 4 mg/L or higher while spring stations had variable DO values ranging from very low (0.23 mg/L at Hornsby Spring) to over 5 mg/L at the Gilchrist Blue Springs Group. The headspring ad well as Cedar Headspring Run and Blue Hole Spring feeding the Ichetucknee River have lower DO concentrations (<4.5 mg/L) while the river from ICH Midpoint to LIR-15 are between 5 and 7 mg/L. The DO concentrations in the main channel of the Ichetucknee River rise from about 4 mg/L at the upstream canoe launch to over 7 mg/L near the tube takeout location.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Spring 6 River

0 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) SFR SFR I-75at SFR SFR USat 27 Olustee Creek Hornsby Spring Hornsby Santa Fe Spring Santa O'Leno State Park SFR SFR above Olustee Santa Fe River Rise Hornsby Spring Run Spring Hornsby SFR SFR US-441at Bridge SFR below Olustee Creek Olustee below SFR SFR Worthington Spring SFR at Hornsby Spring Canoe Spring Hornsby Launch

Segment 1 Segment 2

Figure 10. Average dissolved oxygen measurements along segments one and two of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Spring 5 River

0 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) July Spring Poe Spring Allen Spring SFR SFR USat 47 Naked Spring Ginnie Spring Ginnie Pickard Spring Lily Spring Run Johnson Spring Poe Run Spring COL930971 Run COL930971 Run COL101971 Mermaid Spring Little Blue Spring Little Devil Spring Devil's Eye Spring Ginnie Spring Run Spring Ginnie Rum Island Spring Rum Island SFR SFR above Johnson Johnson Run Spring Gilchrist Blue Spring SFR SFR below Spring Poe SFR SFR Rumabove Island SFR Spring SFR Allen above SFR SFR below Gilchrist Blue Gilchrist Blue Spring Run Gilchrist Spring Blue SFR Rum andSFR Blue between

Segment 3

Figure 11. Average dissolved oxygen measurements along segment three of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

7 Spring River 6

0 LIR-1 LIR-4 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring Troop Spring Troop ICH Midpoint SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR SFR below ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cow Creek at 138 CR Cedar Head Spring Run Spring Cedar Head Ichetucknee Head Spring Head Ichetucknee Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

Figure 12. Average dissolved oxygen measurements along segment four of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 3.1.4 pH Figure 13 through Figure 15 present average pH levels measured along four segments of the Santa Fe River and along the Ichetucknee River between 1 April and 30 September 2018. pH values in segments one and two had values below 7 s.u. except for Hornsby Spring at 7.21 s.u. All river and spring stations downstream from US-27 had values between 7 and 8 s.u with little variation between spring and river stations.

7.5 Spring River

7.0

pH (SU) 6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0 SFR at SFR above Olustee SFR below Santa Fe SFR at I-75 O'Leno State Santa Fe Hornsby SFR at US 27 Worthington Olustee Creek Olustee Spring Park River Rise Spring Spring Creek Segment 1 Segment 2

Figure 13. Average pH measurements along segments one and two of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 8.0 Spring River

7.5

7.0

6.5 pH (SU)

6.0

5.5

5.0 July Spring Poe Spring Allen Spring SFR SFR USat 47 Naked Spring Pickard Spring Lily Spring Run Johnson Spring Poe Run Spring COL930971 Run COL930971 Run COL101971 Mermaid Spring Little Blue Spring Little Devil Spring Devil's Eye Spring Ginnie Spring Run Spring Ginnie Rum Island Spring Rum Island SFR SFR above Johnson Johnson Run Spring Gilchrist Blue Spring SFR SFR below Spring Poe SFR SFR Rumabove Island SFR Spring SFR Allen above SFR SFR below Gilchrist Blue Gilchrist Blue Spring Run Gilchrist Spring Blue SFR Rum andSFR Blue between

Segment 3

Figure 14. Average pH measurements along segment 3 of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Spring 8.00 River

7.50

7.00

6.50 pH (SU)

6.00

5.50

5.00 LIR-1 LIR-4 LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring Troop Spring Troop ICH Midpoint SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR SFR below ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cow Creek at 138 CR Cedar Head Spring Run Spring Cedar Head Ichetucknee Head Spring Head Ichetucknee Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

Figure 15. Average pH measurements along segment 4 of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

3.1.5 Specific Conductance Figure 16 through Figure 18 present average specific conductance levels measured along four segments of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River between 1 April and 30 September 2018. Springs stations typically had a higher specific conductance value compared to the river stations. Specific conductance is a useful parameter when determining how much groundwater is entering river and its origin. Changes in conductivity measurements may be related to the mixing of groundwater with surface water, rain or other inputs. Santa Fe Spring in segment 1 had an average lower than 200 umhos/cm, while most other springs had values between 300 and 425 umhos/cm suggesting the influence of surface water in this area. Troop spring had an unusually high average of 821 umhos/com as well as neighboring springs such as Betty Spring, Campground Spring, and Trail Spring (400-430 umhos/com). These four springs are located 1-2 miles North of Alliance Branford Dairy (American Dairy) which may indicate the influence of wastewater input into the groundwater coming out of these springs.

Spring 400 River

300

200

100 SpCond (umhos/cm) SpCond

0 SFR SFR I-75at SFR SFR USat 27 Olustee Creek Hornsby Spring Hornsby Santa Fe Spring Santa O'Leno State Park SFR SFR above Olustee Santa Fe River Rise Hornsby Spring Run Spring Hornsby SFR SFR US-441at Bridge SFR below Olustee Creek Olustee below SFR SFR Worthington Spring SFR at Hornsby Spring Canoe Spring Hornsby Launch

Segment 1 Segment 2

Figure 16. Average specific conductance measurements along segments one and two of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 450 Spring River

400

350

300

250 SpCond (umhos/cm) SpCond

200

150 July Spring Poe Spring Allen Spring SFR SFR USat 47 Naked Spring Ginnie Spring Ginnie Pickard Spring Lily Spring Run Johnson Spring Poe Run Spring COL930971 Run COL930971 Run COL101971 Mermaid Spring Little Blue Spring Little Devil Spring Devil's Eye Spring Ginnie Spring Run Spring Ginnie Rum Island Spring Rum Island SFR SFR above Johnson Johnson Run Spring Gilchrist Blue Spring SFR SFR below Spring Poe SFR SFR Rumabove Island SFR Spring SFR Allen above SFR SFR below Gilchrist Blue Gilchrist Blue Spring Run Gilchrist Spring Blue SFR Rum andSFR Blue between

Segment 3

Figure 17. Average specific conductance measurements along segment three of the Santa Fe River (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 500 Spring 821.38 River 400

300

200

100 SpCond (umhos/cm) SpCond

0 LIR-1 LIR-4 LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring Troop Spring Troop ICH Midpoint SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR SFR below ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cow Creek at 138 CR Cedar Head Spring Run Spring Cedar Head Ichetucknee Head Spring Head Ichetucknee Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

Figure 18. Average specific conductance measurements along segment four of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 3.1.6 Water Temperature Figure 19 through Figure 21 present average water temperature (°C) measurements along four segments of the Santa Fe River and along the Ichetucknee River collected between 1 April and 30 September 2018.

25 Spring River 24

Watr Temp Watr Temp (C) 20

17 SFR SFR I-75at SFR SFR USat 27 Olustee Creek Hornsby Spring Hornsby Santa Fe Spring Santa O'Leno State Park SFR SFR above Olustee Santa Fe River Rise Hornsby Spring Run Spring Hornsby SFR SFR US-441at Bridge SFR below Olustee Creek Olustee below SFR SFR Worthington Spring SFR at Hornsby Spring Canoe Spring Hornsby Launch

Segment 1 Segment 2 Figure 19. Average water temperature measurements along segments one and two (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

25 Spring River 24

22 Wtr Temp Wtr Temp (C)

20 July Spring Poe Spring Allen Spring SFR SFR USat 47 Naked Spring Ginnie Spring Ginnie Pickard Spring Lily Spring Run Johnson Spring Poe Run Spring COL930971 Run COL930971 Run COL101971 Mermaid Spring Little Blue Spring Little Devil Spring Devil's Eye Spring Ginnie Spring Run Spring Ginnie Rum Island Spring Rum Island SFR SFR above Johnson Johnson Run Spring Gilchrist Blue Spring SFR SFR below Spring Poe SFR SFR Rumabove Island SFR Spring SFR Allen above SFR SFR below Gilchrist Blue Gilchrist Blue Spring Run Gilchrist Spring Blue SFR Rum andSFR Blue between

Segment 3

Figure 20. Average water temperature measurements along segment 3 (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Spring 25 River

Wtr Temp Wtr Temp (C) 21

18 LIR-1 LIR-4 LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring Troop Spring Troop ICH Midpoint SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR SFR below ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cow Creek at 138 CR Cedar Head Spring Run Spring Cedar Head Ichetucknee Head Spring Head Ichetucknee Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

Figure 21. Average water temperature measurements along segment four and the Ichetucknee River (1 April to 30 September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

3.1.7 Discharge Figure 22 presents 13 average discharge measurements along portions of the Santa Fe River and Ichetucknee River collected between 01 April and 30 September 2018.

400 Spring 350 River

300

250

Discharge (cfs) Discharge 200

150

100

50 27.37 10.41 1116.05 46.05 0.72 324.20 314.85 0 Santa Fe Hornsby SFR at US Poe Spring Gilchrist Gilchrist Devil's Eye Ginnie Wilson Troop Cedar LIR-4 LIR-15 Spring Spring 27 Run Blue SpringBlue Spring Spring Spring Run Spring Spring Head Canoe Run Spring Run Launch Seg 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Seg 4 Ichetucknee

Figure 22. Average water flow measurements along portions of the Santa Fe River and Ichetucknee River collected between 1 April and 30 September 2018.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 3.1.8 Nitrate and Nitrite Figure 23 and Figure 25 present the average nitrate-and-nitrite (NOx-N) levels measured at 50 locations along the Santa Fe River and 10 locations along the Ichetucknee. NOx-N concentrations were generally highest in the spring boils, with the Gilchrist blue Spring Group having values typically above 2 mg/L and Betty/Troop/Trail springs with very high concentrations ranging from 5 mg/L to more than 50 mg/L. Elevated NOx-N concentrations at Betty, Troop, and Trail springs may be attributed to their proximity to Alliance Dairy located only 1-2 miles to the south. The numeric nutrient limit for nitrate of 0.35 mg/L set by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is represented by a dotted line on the following graphs.

0.70 Spring 0.60 River Spring Standard 0.50

0.40 N (mg/L) - 0.30 NOX 0.20

0.10

0.00 SFR SFR I-75at SFR SFR USat 27 Olustee Creek Hornsby Spring Hornsby Santa Fe Spring Santa O'Leno State Park SFR SFR above Olustee Santa Fe River Rise Hornsby Spring Run Spring Hornsby SFR SFR US-441at Bridge SFR below Olustee Creek Olustee below SFR SFR Worthington Spring SFR at Hornsby Spring Canoe Spring Hornsby Launch

Segment 1 Segment 2

Figure 23. Nitrate-nitrite levels measured on segments 1 and 3 on the Santa Fe River between 01 April and 30 September 2018.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Spring 2.40 River Spring Standard 2.00

1.60 N (mg/L)N - 1.20 NOX 0.80

0.40

0.00 July Spring Poe Spring Allen Spring SFR SFR USat 47 Naked Spring Ginnie Spring Ginnie Pickard Spring Lily Spring Run Johnson Spring Poe Run Spring COL101971 Run COL101971 COL930971 Run COL930971 Mermaid Spring Little Blue Spring Little Devil Spring Devil's Eye Spring Ginnie Spring Run Spring Ginnie Rum Island Spring Rum Island SFR SFR above Johnson Johnson Run Spring Gilchrist Blue Spring SFR SFR below Spring Poe SFR Spring SFR Allen above SFR SFR below Gilchrist Blue Gilchrist Blue Spring Run Gilchrist Spring Blue

Segment 3

Figure 24. Nitrate-nitrite levels measured along segment 3 on the Santa Fe River between 01 April and 30 September 2018.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Spring 1.40 River 1.20 Spring Standard

1.00

0.80 N (mg/l)N - 0.60 NOX

0.40

0.20 4.13 53.0 6.44 0.00 LIR-1 LIR-4 LIR-5 LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring ICH Midpont Troop Spring Troop SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR SFR below ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cow Creek at 138 CR Cedar Headspring RunCedar Headspring Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

Figure 25. Nitrate-nitrite levels measured on segment 4 of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River between 01 April and 30 September 2018

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 3.1.9 Flow and Nitrate Period of Record Figure 26 through Figure 32 summarize spring and river flows and nitrate concentrations, with estimates of the tons of NOx-N at key measurement stations along the Santa Fe River. These numbers were based on the discharge measurements and reported NOx-N concentrations observed January through September 2018. During 2018 (January-September) the estimated nitrate nitrogen load increased dramatically with distance down river, from an average of 206 tons/year in the Santa Fe River at the Worthington Springs station, to an average of 1,950 tons/year in the Santa Fe River at U.S. 129, upstream of the confluence with the Suwannee River (Figure 26). This is an observed net increase of more than 1,744 tons of nitrogen per year entering the Suwannee River. Figure 26. Mass Balance Schematic for 2018 (January–September) presents the average 2018 (January through September) period-of-record data for the tons of nitrate-nitrogen per year for the Santa Fe River and springs study area. Flows and concentrations at key stations were combined to estimate loads per time at spring and river stations. Flow data for the period of record are recorded by FSI staff, Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Nitrate nitrogen data is collected by FSI staff and analyzed by FDEP and McGlynn Laboratories Inc. Measured nitrogen inputs are represented by blue circles and boxes. Measured flows are multiplied by nitrate- N concentrations to estimate average mass of nitrogen (tons per year) entering the Santa Fe River. Estimated inputs are in red and are calculated by difference between upstream and downstream measured nitrogen loads. Estimated nitrogen loads at some stations such as SFR at US-27 and SFR at US-441 are based on FSI’s measured or estimated flows. SFR at US-27 flow was measured monthly by FSI staff, and SFR at US-441 flow was estimated by creating a stage-discharge curve that was produced by using manually-read stage and flow measurements reported by SRWMD. As additional data are collected, averages will be more reliable. Throughout 2018, flows at river stations increased from upstream to downstream. This is to be expected as more water enters the Santa Fe River via rainfall and/or runoff and from groundwater inputs. For the 2018 water and nitrogen mass balance summarized in Figure 26, surface runoff averaged 684 cfs and spring flows averaged 1,869 cfs. As a percentage of the combined discharge to the Suwannee River surface flows were about 25% in 2018 and spring flows were 75%. In terms of total nitrogen inputs to the river of 1,950 tons, about 7% entered as surface water inflows, 93% was derived from spring and diffuse groundwater inflows. The difference between the 2018 nitrogen mass inputs and mass outflow to the Suwannee River indicated that in- stream nitrate nitrogen assimilation/dissimilation by chemical and biological processes was negligible.

Other river inputs such as springs and diffused groundwater also have an impact on the flow of the river, with significantly more water entering the system downstream between US-27 and US-47. Flow also varied at each station throughout the year with flows at their highest during the summer months due to increased rainfall. As flow increased from upstream to downstream stations, NOx-N in tons per year also increased to an estimated 1,950 tons/year entering the Suwannee River from Santa Fe River inputs (Figure 26). NOx-N concentrations (mg/L) along the Santa Fe River from upstream to downstream stations generally increase, with some variation between seasons.

Estimated average quarterly flow rates and NOx-N mass loads in tons per year and mg/L for river and spring stations are presented below in Figure 27 through Figure 32.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Santa Fe Swamp

SFR at Worthington Spring Santa Fe Spring Flow – 684.67 cfs Flow – 82.09 cfs NOx-N – 149 tons/yr NOx-N – 51.05 tons/yr (0.22 mg/L) (0.63 mg/L) Santa Fe

Spring O’Leno State Park at I-75 Flow – 810.51 cfs NOx-N – 162.36 tons/yr (0.20 mg/L)

River Sink To River Rise Flow – 114.65 cfs NOx-N – 86.32 tons/yr Diffuse GW inflows River Rise River Rise Flow – 925.16 cfs NOx-N – 245.89 tons/yr (0.27 mg/L) Hornsby Spring Hornsby Flow – 218.48 cfs NOx-N – 137.64 tons/yr Spring (0.64 mg/L) SFR @ US 441 Bridge Flow – 1060.85 cfs NOx-N – 455.3 tons/yr (0.44 mg/L)

Poe Spring SFR at US-27 Flow – 42.8 cfs Flow – 1026.03 cfs NOx-N – 13.9 tons/yr NOx-N – 406.52 tons/yr Blue + Ginnie + Poe Springs (0.33 mg/L) (0.40 mg/L) Flow – 163.55 cfs NOx-N – 222.82 tons/yr (3.74 mg/L) Poe, Blue, Blue Springs Flow – 78.8 cfs and Ginnie NOx-N – 145.74 tons/yr (1.88 mg/L) SFR @ US 47 Springs Flow – 1708.69 cfs NOx-N – 1344 tons/yr Ginnie Springs (0.80 mg/L) Flow – 41.95 cfs NOx-N – 63.18 tons/yr (1.53 mg/L) Ichetucknee US 47 to US 129 Flow – 139 cfs Springs NOx-N – 140 tons/yr Ichetucknee River (1.00 mg/L) Flow – 325.34 cfs More NOx-N – 155 tons/yr (0.49 mg/L) Springs

Troop SFR @ US 129 Flow – 2480.18 cfs Spring Troop Spring Flow – 0.39 cfs NOx-N – 1950 tons/yr NOx-N – 19 tons/yr (0.80 mg/L) (49.50 mg/L)

Suwannee River

Figure 26. Mass Balance Schematic for 2018 (January–September) 35

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

The following graphs present seasonal fluxes in flow (cfs) and NOx-N (tons/year and mg/L). Figure 27 and Figure 28 illustrate the changes in flow from upstream to downstream stations in the Santa Fe River and the additional inputs from groundwater and springs. The river flow (Figure 27) increases from upstream to downstream as more water enters the Santa Fe River via rainfall and/or runoff and from groundwater inputs. The highest flow is recorded during the summer months due to increased rainfall. SFR at Worthington Spring to SFR at US-27 have flows between 500 and 900 cfs from January to June and jump to 1000 with the downstream station SFR at US-129 reading over 3000 cfs. Additional flows (Figure 28) increase significantly from SFR at US-27 to SFR at US-129. These flows are estimated by subtracting upstream flow values from the next known downstream value. Additional water may be from springs or diffuse groundwater. Figure 29 and Figure 30 illustrate the estimated loads of nitrogen in tons per year at river stations and for river inputs such as springs and diffuse groundwater. These values were calculated by using the flow measurements in cubic feet per second and measured nitrate nitrogen concentrations in mg/L to approximate the nitrogen concentrations in tons per year. River stations slowly increase from SFR at Worthington Spring to SFR at US-27 from <100 to 400 tons/year apart from SFR at US-441 at 900 tons/year during the summer months. Downstream stations are significantly higher with estimated nitrogen loads of 1000-2300 tons per year entering the Suwannee River from the Santa Fe River. Like the flow graphs, nitrogen loads for river inputs are greater downstream between SFR at US-27 and SFR at US-129. The following two graphs (Figure 31 and Figure 32) present measured and estimated nitrate nitrogen concentrations in mg/L. All river and spring stations are tested for nitrate levels during routine sampling and analyzed by the FDEP and McGlynn Laboratories Inc. Only the additional inputs from undocumented springs and other surface inflows are calculated by using the estimated flow and nitrogen loads in tons/year. The dotted line in Figure 32 represents the spring standard of 0.35 mg/L set by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Of the springs tested, only Poe Spring remains below the standard, while all other input stations are either near the 0.35 mg/L standard or above. Troop Spring has an extremely low flow and nitrate concentrations of 46-53 mg/L which may be attributed to its proximity to a dairy farm 1-2 miles south of the spring. Other inputs such as Gilchrist Blue Spring, Ginnie Spring, and the additional springs and surface inflows have values that exceed the standard throughout the year but decrease steadily each quarter except for springs between US-27 and US-47 during the summer months. For river stations, nitrate concentrations are the highest between April and June while flow for those months is lower than what is recorded during the summer. The relationship between lower flows and higher nitrate concentrations during the spring months may be correlated with the timing of crop fertilization. Runoff from nearby agriculture may result in an increase in nitrates in the river and springs. Figure 27. Flow rate trends in the Santa Fe River from upstream to downstream stations from January to September 2018

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

3200

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000

1800

1600 Discharge (cfs) Discharge 1400

1200

1000

800

600

400 SFR at Worthington O'Leno State Park Santa Fe River Rise SFR US-441 Bridge SFR at US 27 SFR near Fort SFR at US 129 Spring White

Jan-Mar 2018 Apr-June 2018 July-Sept 2018 Jan-Sept 2018

Figure 27. Flow rate trends in the Santa Fe River from upstream to downstream stations from January to September 2018

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200 0.39 100 0.06 0.72 0 Santa Fe Diffuse GW Hornsby Poe Spring Gilchr ist Ginnie Additional ICH at US Additional Troop Spring Inflows Spring Blue Spring Spring Springs 27 Springs Spring Between Between US-27 and US-47 and US-47 US-129

Jan-Mar 2018 Apr-June 2018 July-Sept 2018 Jan-Sept 2018

Figure 28. Flow rate trends for Santa Fe River inputs from January to September 2018

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

2400

2200

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

N (tons/yr)N 1000 -

NOx 800

600

400

200

0 SFR at O'Leno State Park Santa Fe River Rise SFR US-441 Bridge SFR at US 27 SFR near Fort SFR at US 129 Worthington White Spring

Jan-Mar 2018 Apr-June 2018 July-Sept 2018 Jan-Sept 2018

Figure 29. Nitrogen loads in tons per year for Santa Fe River stations from upstream to downstream (January-September 2018)

Figure 30. Nitrogen loads in tons per year for Santa Fe River inputs (January-September 2018)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

N (mg/L)N 0.6 -

NOx 0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 SFR at Worthington O'Leno State Park Santa Fe River Rise SFR US-441 Bridge SFR at US 29 SFR near Fort White SFR at US 129 Spring

Jan-Mar 2018 Apr-June 2018 July-Sept 2018 Jan-Sept 2018

Figure 31. Average nitrogen concentrations (mg/L) for Santa Fe River stations by quarter (January- September 2018)

3.6

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.0 N (mg/L)N - 1.6 NOx

1.2

0.8 46.00 0.4 53.00

0.0 Santa Fe Spring Diffuse GW Hornsby Spring Poe Spring Gilchr ist Blue Ginnie Spring Additional ICH at US 27 Additional Troop Spring Inflows Spring Springs Between Springs Between US-27 and US- US-47 and US- 47 129 Jan-Mar 2018 Apr-June 2018 July-Sept 2018 Jan-Sept 2018 Spring Standard

Figure 32. Average nitrogen concentrations (mg/L) for Santa Fe River inputs by quarter (January- September)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 3.1.9 Detailed Water Chemistry Appendix A presents the results of water chemistry analysis of samples collected at 10 sites along the Santa Fe River and at 20 of its springs and tributaries. Samples collected on June 13th, 14th and August 9th were also analyzed for 71 priority herbicides, pesticides, and trace organic compounds. Table 3 and Table 4 present the parameters and compounds of interest for FDEP monthly and quarterly sampling.

Table 3. Water quality parameters tested by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % DO mg/L GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 Cl-T mg/L F-T mg/L Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 SO4 mg/L TOC mg/L METAL As-T ug/L B-T ug/L Ca-T mg/L Cu-T ug/L Fe-T ug/L K-T mg/L Na-T mg/L Mg-T mg/L Zn-T ug/L NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L NOx-N mg/L TKN mg/L PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L TP mg/L PHYSICAL pH SU Color CPU SpCond umhos/cm Turb NTU SOLID TDS mg/L TSS mg/L TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Table 4. Herbicides and pesticides tested for by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

HERBICIDES/ PESTICIDES 4,4'-DDD Demeton Hexazinone 4,4'-DDE Diazinon Malathion 4,4'-DDT Dicofol Metalaxyl a-BHC Dieldrin Methoxychlor Acetochlor Disulfoton Metolachlor a-Chlordane Endosulfan I Metribuzin Alachlor Endosulfan II Mevinphos Aldrin Endosulfan sulfate Mirex Ametryn Endrin Molinate AMPA Endrin aldehyde Norflurazon Atrazine Endrin Ketone Parathion Ethyl Atrazine Desethyl EPTC Parathion Methyl Azinphos Methyl Ethion Pendimethalin b-BHC Ethoprop Permethrin Bromacil Fenamiphos Phorate Butylate Fipronil Prometon Carbophenothion Fipronil Sulfide Prometryn Chlordane Fipronil Sulfone Simazine Chlorothalonil Fonofos Sucralose Chlorpyrifos Ethyl g-BHC Terbufos Chlorpyrifos Methyl g-Chlordane Terbuthylazine Cyanazine Glyphosate Toxaphene Cypermethrin Heptachlor Trifluralin d-BHC Heptachlor epoxide

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 3.1.10 Water Clarity Figure 33, Figure 34, and Figure 35 present the average horizontal and vertical secchi disc readings at sites on the Santa Fe and the Ichetucknee Rivers. Spring stations typically had readings greater than 7 m except for some vertical secchi readings in Segment 2 and four springs. Santa Fe River stations had Secchi readings that were typically below 3 m. Horizontal Secchi readings were between 8 and 12 m. Of the springs studied, Ginnie Spring had the highest measured water clarity with an average visibility of 45.6 m. Gilchrist Blue and Devil’s Eye Springs also had good clarity averaging 32.7 m and 39.8 m, respectively.

45 Spring River 40

25 45.60 20 Secchi Measurements (m) Measurements Secchi 15

0 Hornsby Poe Spring Rum Island Gilchrist Blue Devil's Eye Ginnie Spring Blue Hole Ichetucknee LIR-4 LIR-15 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Tube Takeout Segment 2 Segment 3 Ichetucknee

Figure 33. Average horizontal Secchi disc readings in Segments 2 and 3 of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River between 1 April and 30 September 2018

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Spring

River 2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2 Secchi Measurements (m) Measurements Secchi 0.8

0.4

0.0 SFR at I-75 SFR US-47 at SFR Darby Spring Alligator Rise Olustee Creek Santa Fe Spring Treehouse Spring Treehouse O'Leno State Park Rum Island Spring Island Rum SFR above Olustee SFR above Johnson SFR SFR Worthington at SFR at US-441 Bridge SFR below Poe Spring SFR Below Gilchrist Blue SFR below OlusteeCreek SFR UpstreamRum Island SFR Between Rum and Blue and Rum Between SFR Segment 1 Segment 2

Figure 34. Average vertical Secchi disc readings in Segments 1 and 2 between 1 April and 30 September 2018

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

2.8 River Spring

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2 Secchi Measurements (m) Measurements Secchi

0.8

0.4

0.0 LIR-15 COL917971 Betty Spring SFR at US 27 SFR at US 47 SFR at US 129 SFR above ICH SFR below ICH SFR at 39thAve Rum Island Spring SFR above Johnson Campground Spring SFR below Poe Spring SFR aboveRum Island SFR aboveAllen Spring SFR below Gilchrist Blue Suwannee River Suwannee River above SFR Suwannee River below SFR below River Suwannee SFR betweenRum and Blue Segment 3 Segment 4 ICH

Figure 35. Average vertical Secchi disc readings in Segments 3 and 4 of the Santa Fe River and the Ichetucknee River between 1 April and 30 September 2018

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

3.2 Biology 3.2.1 Fish Table 5 presents the results from seasonal data from fish counts during ecological and biological monitoring in nine Santa Fe River and Ichetucknee River springs. The decrease in the number of observed fishes during the summer may be attributed to warmer weather, resulting in migration to the river during the day as opposed to staying in the warmer spring waters during cooler months.

Detailed fish data for quarters 2 and 3 can be found in Appendix C.

Table 5. Seasonal fish counts, densities and biomass for various springs along the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. Number Total Density Total Biomass Location Date of Fish (#/ha) (kg/ha) Spring 207 1,529 85.6 Ginnie Spring Summer 192 1,418 130.7 Spring 209 1,317 56.5 Devil's Spring System Summer 184 1,159 40.1 Spring 794 1,872 85.7 Gilchrist Blue Spring Summer 686 2,335 83.3 Spring 406 3,368 224.9 Naked Spring Summer 119 1,120 38.9 Poe Spring Summer 337 2,372 11.3 Spring 782 3,697 26.8 Hornsby Spring Summer 459 2,113 1.1 Ichetucknee Head Spring Spring 207 2,879 109.4 Blue Hole Spring Spring 396 504 45.7 Lower Ichetucknee River Summer 5483 1,956 199.4

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

3.2.2 Vegetation Table 6 through Table 11 present the results of vegetation surveys conducted along transects at Gilchrist Blue Spring, Naked Spring and the Ichetucknee River. Some stations have two tables, one containing data from quarter 2 (April-June) and the following table containing data from quarter 3 (July-September.)

Table 6. Gilchrist Blue Spring Vegetation Summary – June 2018 (Quarter 3) Cover Frequency Common Name Species Name Total Linear Importance Distance (m) Percent Relative Absolute Relative Value Muskgrass Chara sp. 0.83 1.10 1.07 0.02 0.96 1.01 Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.96 0.54 Penny-wort Hydrocotyle sp. 3.85 5.10 4.96 0.17 7.69 6.32 East Indian Hygrophila Hygrophila polysperma 0.75 1.00 0.97 0.10 4.81 2.89 Spider lily Hymenocallis rotata 0.55 0.73 0.71 0.08 3.85 2.28 Cardinal plant Lobelia sp. 6.70 8.87 8.62 0.15 6.73 7.67 Red ludwigia Ludwigia repens 0.63 0.84 0.82 0.17 7.69 4.25 Water lettuce Pistia stratiotes 6.70 8.88 8.62 0.08 3.85 6.23 Strap-leaf sagittaria Sagittaria kurziana 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.96 0.54 Algae 14.89 19.74 19.16 0.35 16.35 17.75 Detritus 24.46 32.41 31.46 0.50 23.08 27.27 Rock 0.91 1.21 1.18 0.02 0.96 1.07 Sand 17.27 22.88 22.21 0.46 21.15 21.68 Sedge 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.96 0.48 Total Emergent 17.79 23.58 22.89 0.48 22.12 22.50 Total Submerged 59.93 79.43 77.11 1.69 77.88 77.50 Total 77.73 103.01 100.00 2.17 100.00 100.00

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Table 7. Naked Spring Vegetation Summary – April 2018 (Quarter 2)

Total Linear Cover Frequency Importance Common Name Species Name Distance (m) Percent Relative Absolute Relative Value Alligator weed Alternanthera philoxeroides 1.04 2.24 2.48 0.17 4.00 3.24 Muskgrass Chara sp. 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.08 2.00 1.04 Common Water Moss Fontinalis sp. 1.43 3.08 3.41 0.50 12.00 7.71 Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.13 3.00 1.53 Penny-wort Hydrocotyle sp. 3.83 8.23 9.11 0.71 17.00 13.05 East Indian Hygrophila Hygrophila polysperma 5.97 12.84 14.22 0.38 9.00 11.61 Spider lily Hymenocallis rotata 0.88 1.90 2.10 0.08 2.00 2.05 Red ludwigia Ludwigia repens 3.41 7.34 8.12 0.13 3.00 5.56 Southern naiad Najas guadalupensis 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.04 1.00 0.54 Watercress Nasturtium officinale 1.73 3.73 4.12 0.25 6.00 5.06 Strap-leaf sagittaria Sagittaria kurziana 0.74 1.59 1.76 0.17 4.00 2.88 Algae 2.56 5.50 6.09 0.67 16.00 11.04 Bare Ground 16.14 34.70 38.42 0.71 17.00 27.71 Detritus 3.66 7.86 8.70 0.13 3.00 5.85 Unknown Lily 0.52 1.12 1.24 0.04 1.00 1.12 Total Emergent 5.23 11.25 12.45 0.83 20.00 16.23 Total Submerged 36.79 79.08 87.55 3.33 80.00 83.77 Total 42.02 90.32 100.00 4.17 100.00 100.00

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Table 8. Naked Spring Vegetation Summary – June 2018 (Quarter 2) Total Linear Cover Frequency Importance Common Name Species Name Distance (m) Percent Relative Absolute Relative Value Common Water Moss Fontinalis sp. 0.24 1.04 1.04 0.06 1.72 1.38 Penny-wort Hydrocotyle sp. 0.55 2.34 2.34 0.50 13.79 8.07 East Indian Hygrophila Hygrophila polysperma 0.17 0.71 0.71 0.19 5.17 2.94 Spider lily Hymenocallis rotata 0.33 1.42 1.42 0.31 8.62 5.02 Red ludwigia Ludwigia repens 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.06 1.72 0.96 Watercress Nasturtium officinale 0.30 1.30 1.30 0.13 3.45 2.37 Algae 2.02 8.59 8.60 0.25 6.90 7.75 Detritus 11.89 50.65 50.66 0.94 25.86 38.26 Sand 7.18 30.58 30.59 0.63 17.24 23.92 Sedge 0.25 1.05 1.05 0.13 3.45 2.25 Tree Roots 0.17 0.71 0.71 0.13 3.45 2.08 Unknown Sedge 0.17 0.71 0.71 0.19 5.17 2.94 Unknown veg* 0.16 0.67 0.67 0.13 3.45 2.06 Total Emergent 1.30 5.53 5.53 1.13 31.03 18.28 Total Submerged 22.01 93.79 93.80 2.38 65.52 79.66 Total 23.47 99.98 100.00 3.63 100.00 100.00 *Unknown veg not included in subtotals

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Table 9. Hornsby Spring Vegetation Summary – May 2018 (Quarter 2) Total Linear Cover Frequency Importance Common Name Species Name Distance (m) Percent Relative Absolute Relative Value Alligator weed Alternanthera philoxeroides 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.04 2.00 1.08 Penny-wort Hydrocotyle sp. 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.04 2.00 1.06 Pickerel weed Pontederia cordata 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.04 2.00 1.14 Algae 37.47 69.43 69.43 1.00 48.00 58.72 Bare Ground 3.42 6.34 6.34 0.29 14.00 10.17 Cypress knee 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.04 2.00 1.08 Detritus 2.96 5.48 5.48 0.08 4.00 4.74 Sand 8.20 15.19 15.19 0.50 24.00 19.60 Tree Roots 1.52 2.82 2.82 0.04 2.00 2.41 Total Emergent 0.21 0.40 0.40 0.08 4.00 2.20 Total Submerged 53.76 99.60 99.60 2.00 96.00 97.80 Total 53.97 100.00 100.00 2.08 100.00 100.00

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Table 10. Ichetucknee River Vegetation Summary – May 2018 (Quarter 2) Total Linear Cover Frequency Importance Common Name Species Name Distance (m) Percent Relative Absolute Relative Value Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum 2.90 3.77 3.72 0.19 4.11 3.92 Muskgrass Chara sp. 8.49 11.04 10.92 0.56 12.33 11.62 Common Water Moss Fontinalis sp. 1.11 1.45 1.43 0.13 2.74 2.09 Penny-wort Hydrocotyle sp. 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.13 2.74 1.43 East Indian Hygrophila Hygrophila polysperma 0.43 0.55 0.55 0.19 4.11 2.33 Spider lily Hymenocallis rotata 1.66 2.15 2.13 0.06 1.37 1.75 Duckweed Lemna minor 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06 1.37 0.70 Red ludwigia Ludwigia repens 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.13 2.74 1.43 Water lettuce Pistia stratiotes 0.54 0.70 0.69 0.13 2.74 1.71 Tape grass Vallisneria americana 2.31 3.00 2.97 0.13 2.74 2.86 Algae 3.87 5.03 4.98 0.94 20.55 12.76 Bare Ground 0.64 0.83 0.82 0.13 2.74 1.78 Cypress knee 1.29 1.68 1.66 0.06 1.37 1.52 Detritus 19.46 25.30 25.02 0.56 12.33 18.68 Rock 20.26 26.35 26.06 0.56 12.33 19.19 Sand 7.59 9.86 9.76 0.31 6.85 8.30 Silt 5.93 7.72 7.63 0.19 4.11 5.87 Tree Roots 1.07 1.40 1.38 0.13 2.74 2.06 Total Emergent 2.31 3.00 2.97 0.38 8.22 5.59 Total Submerged 75.45 98.11 97.03 4.19 91.78 94.41 Total 77.76 101.11 100.00 4.56 100.00 100.00

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Table 11. Ichetucknee River Vegetation Summary – July 2018 (Quarter 3) Total Linear Cover Frequency Importance Common Name Species Name Distance (m) Percent Relative Absolute Relative Value Bacopa Bacopa caroliniana 0.19 0.25 0.34 0.06 1.96 1.15 Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum 0.46 0.59 0.81 0.06 1.96 1.39 Muskgrass Chara sp. 11.61 15.09 20.63 0.31 9.80 15.22 Common Water Moss Fontinalis sp. 2.69 3.50 4.78 0.31 9.80 7.29 Penny-wort Hydrocotyle sp. 0.12 0.16 0.22 0.13 3.92 2.07 East Indian Hygrophila Hygrophila polysperma 0.19 0.24 0.33 0.06 1.96 1.15 Parrot feather Myriophyllum sp. 8.85 11.51 15.73 0.38 11.76 13.75 Southern naiad Najas guadalupensis 4.47 5.81 7.94 0.38 11.76 9.85 Strap-leaf sagittaria Sagittaria kurziana 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.13 3.92 2.01 Tape grass Vallisneria americana 1.95 2.54 3.47 0.13 3.92 3.69 Algae 0.14 0.19 0.26 0.06 1.96 1.11 Detritus 7.80 10.14 13.85 0.38 11.76 12.81 Log 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rock 9.40 12.23 16.71 0.38 11.76 14.24 Sand 8.11 10.55 14.42 0.38 11.76 13.09 Unknown veg 0.22 0.29 0.40 0.06 1.96 1.18 Total Emergent 0.12 0.16 0.22 0.13 3.92 2.07 Total Submerged 56.14 73.00 99.78 3.06 96.08 97.93 Total 56.27 73.16 100.00 3.19 100.00 100.00

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

3.3 Ecosystem Level Monitoring 3.3.1 Metabolism Table 12 provides a summary of ecosystem metabolism parameters collected at five springs systems during the quarter. Table 12. Santa Fe River Select Springs Ecosystem Metabolism Estimates

GPP NPP CR PAR (24hr) PAR Efficiency PAR Efficiency 2 2 2 2 Stats (g O2/m /d) (g O2/m /d) (g O2/m /d) P/R Ratio (mol/m /d) (%) (g O2/mol) Gilchrist Blue Springs: June 28 - July 3, 2018 Avg 6.18 -0.44 6.62 0.94 14.19 3.69 0.46 Max 6.90 0.53 7.04 1.09 16.09 5.76 0.71 Min 4.68 -2.16 6.10 0.68 9.68 2.43 0.30 Hornsby Springs: September 20 - September 27, 2018 Avg 10.96 2.10 8.86 1.26 5.04 17.84 2.21 Max 12.34 3.89 11.04 1.53 6.11 22.52 2.79 Min 9.35 1.04 6.49 1.10 4.01 14.74 1.83 Lower Ichetucknee River: July 12 - July 18, 2018 Avg 5.58 -10.00 15.58 0.36 13.50 3.47 0.43 Max 6.52 -8.68 17.83 0.43 16.01 4.62 0.57 Min 4.36 -12.16 13.59 0.32 11.39 2.25 0.28 Ginnie Springs: August 30 - September 4, 2018 Avg 2.18 -5.89 8.07 0.27 12.86 1.28 0.16 Max 3.44 -4.88 8.39 0.41 16.84 2.01 0.25 Min 0.22 -7.68 7.57 0.03 8.83 0.20 0.03 Devil's Spring System: August 30 - September 4, 2018 Avg 2.49 -0.59 3.08 0.82 4.60 4.90 0.61 Max 3.70 0.71 3.58 1.24 5.92 7.78 0.96 Min 1.23 -2.34 2.46 0.35 2.39 2.03 0.25 Poe Spring: September 6 - September 11, 2018 Avg 3.42 -1.35 4.78 0.72 17.61 1.60 0.20 Max 4.07 -0.85 5.21 0.83 23.72 1.90 0.24 Min 3.01 -1.80 4.14 0.65 15.25 1.16 0.14

3.3.2 Particulate Export Particulate Export Results for Poe Springs, Gilchrist Blue, LIR-4 and LIR-15 are presented in Table 13. Table 13. Particulate Export Results Dry Matter Organic Dry Matter Organic Matter Date Station (g/d) Matter (g/d) (g/m2/d) (g/m2/d)

6/25/2018 Poe Spring 345 260 0.25 0.19

6/27/2018 Gilchrist Blue Downstream 7728 5557 0.88 0.63

7/11/2018 LIR-4 37197 22868 0.20 0.12

7/11/2018 LIR-15 23693 12795 0.10 0.05

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

References

Odum, H.T. 1957a. Trophic Structure and Productivity of Silver Springs, Florida. Ecological Monographs. Volume 27 (1): 55-112.

Odum, H.T. 1957b. Primary Production Measurements in Eleven Florida Springs and a Marine Turtle-Grass Community. Limnology and Oceanography 2:85-97.

Schneider, J.C., P.W. Larrman, and H. Gowing. 2000. Length-weight relationships, Chapter 17, In Schneider, J.C. [Ed.] Manual of Fisheries Survey Methods II: With Periodic Updates. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Special Report 25, Ann Arbor, MI.

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. 3rd Ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 130 p.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Appendix A Detailed Water Chemistry Santa Fe River Sites Detailed Chemical Analysis - April 16, 2018 O'Leno Santa SFR SFR at SFR at SFR at SFR at SFR at SFR at SFR at GROUP PARAMETER UNITS State Fe River above 39th US-441 Worthington I-75 US 129 US 27 US 47 Park Rise ICH Ave Bridge Spring DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 70.5 64.6 64.8 64.6 69.5 65.8 65.7 60.0 62.6 67.8 DO mg/L 6.51 5.89 5.96 5.93 6.42 6.05 6.06 5.50 5.73 6.36 GENERAL mg/L as INORGANIC Alk CaCO3 8.50 12.0 84.0 100 8.60 96.0 36.0 83.0 44.0 9.10 Cl-T mg/L 9.90 9.40 8.90 8.20 9.70 8.60 9.60 9.30 10.0 10.0 A F-T mg/L 0.077 I 0.084 I 0.110 0.110 0.077 I 0.110 0.100 0.110 0.110 0.076 I mg/L as Hardness CaCO3 28.8 33.6 115 131 28.3 124 60.2 112 73.3 28.9 SO4 mg/L 6.10 3.80 12.0 13.0 4.70 13.0 9.50 12.0 12.0 2.3 A GENERAL ORGANIC TOC mg/L 36.0 34.0 18.0 14.0 36.0 15.0 29.0 19.0 27.0 36.0 METAL Ca-T mg/L 7.47 9.20 38.1 44.3 7.34 41.1 18.4 36.9 22.7 7.48 K-T mg/L 1.2 I 1.20 1 I 1.1 I 1.1 I 0.95 I 1.2 I 1.1 I 1.2 I 1.2 I Mg-T mg/L 2.46 2.59 4.74 5.03 2.43 5.07 3.46 4.71 4.04 2.49 Na-T mg/L 5.40 5.10 5.00 4.60 5.30 4.90 5.20 5.10 5.60 5.60 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.012 0.012 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.010 0.010 0.008 0.010 0.014 NOx-N mg/L 0.024 0.020 0.430 0.570 0.026 0.480 0.085 0.460 0.110 0.052 TKN mg/L 1.20 1.10 0.680 0.570 1.10 0.610 0.980 0.700 0.880 1.20 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.160 0.160 0.120 0.110 0.160 0.110 0.160 0.130 0.150 0.150 TP mg/L 0.210 0.230 0.160 0.140 0.200 0.140 0.210 0.160 0.190 0.210 PHYSICAL Color CPU 420 420 230 170 460 190 360 240 350 430 pH SU 6.63 J 6.97 J 7.38 J 7.39 J 6.71 J 7.47 J 7.15 J 7.29 J 7.52 J 6.68 J SpCond umhos/cm 71.1 78.5 224 251 72.0 249 130 221 156 74.7 Turb NTU 2.70 2.60 2.00 1.80 2.60 1.90 2.60 1.90 2.30 3.2 A SOLID TDS mg/L 106 115 160 174 114 174 134 170 142 A 114 TSS mg/L 2 U 3 I 4 I 4 I 3 I 4 I 4 I 3 I 4 IA 2 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 19.2 19.8 19.4 19.5 19.2 19.4 19.3 19.6 19.7 18.4

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis - May 15, 2018 Cow Gilchrist Little Rum Santa Creek Ginnie Hornsby Johnson Olustee Poe GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Blue Devil Island Fe at CR Spring Spring Spring Creek Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring 138 DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 71.6 58.2 43.3 4.80 52.0 50.2 57.9 9.70 36.9 5.40 DO mg/L 6.25 5.01 3.76 0.410 4.49 4.34 4.91 0.840 3.20 0.470 mg/L as GENERAL INORGANIC Alk CaCO3 192 170 A 149 A 160 179 156 29.0 188 187 144 Cl-T mg/L 5.40 6.60 6.00 12.0 7.20 6.10 14.0 12.0 8.70 9.60 F-T mg/L 0.056 I 0.096 I 0.087 I 0.170 0.110 0.087 I 0.110 0.120 0.120 0.250 mg/L as Hardness CaCO3 212 198 176 213 214 182 48.5 213 221 184 SO4 mg/L 0.21 I 11.0 10.0 36.0 14.0 9.30 4.70 15.0 16.0 31.0 TOC mg/L 11.0 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.80 0.5 U 0.5 U 27.0 1.80 0.71 I 3.60 METAL Ca-T mg/L 81.3 68.1 61.2 71.7 73.0 63.0 12.5 75.2 76.0 55.0 K-T mg/L 0.32 I 0.54 I 0.45 I 1.1 I 0.6 I 0.5 I 1.50 0.84 I 0.7 I 0.82 I Mg-T mg/L 2.30 6.90 5.58 8.21 7.60 5.90 4.19 6.20 7.46 11.3 Na-T mg/L 2.90 3.20 2.90 8.00 3.60 3.00 7.60 7.10 4.60 6.00 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.084 0.002 I 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.005 I 0.052 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.008 NOx-N mg/L 0.072 2.40 1.70 0.540 2.40 2.00 0.300 0.230 1.70 0.590 TKN mg/L 0.460 0.09 I 0.08 U 0.12 I 0.098 I 0.13 I 0.940 0.13 I 0.12 I 0.17 I PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.055 0.034 0.034 0.093 0.041 0.038 0.160 0.082 0.055 0.120 TP mg/L 0.067 0.034 0.034 0.088 0.038 0.039 0.210 0.078 0.053 0.120 PHYSICAL Color CPU 67 A 2.5 U 2.5 U 18.0 2.5 U 2.5 U 250 6.90 3.2 I 30.0 pH SU 7.76 7.61 7.61 7.17 7.60 7.68 6.94 7.27 7.46 7.34 SpCond umhos/cm 326 384 339 425 410 349 124 429 424 374 Stage ft 25.3 Turb NTU 0.083 0.150 0.250 0.150 0.200 0.450 2.10 0.200 0.150 0.300 SOLID TDS mg/L 229 196 184 238 A 223 178 115 229 234 A 217 TSS mg/L 2 I 2 I 2 U 2 U 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 UA 2 I TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 22.0 22.7 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.5 23.6 22.4 22.6 21.7

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis - June 13 and 14, 2018

Gilchrist ICH ICH Johnson Poe Wilson Blue Hole Cedar Head ICH Head GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Blue Spring Midpoint Tube LIR-15 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Run Spring Run Launch Takeout DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 57.2 50.8 9.10 3.10 28.7 48.5 73.8 96.3 47.3 67.6 DO mg/L 4.92 4.39 0.790 0.280 2.52 4.25 6.38 8.22 4.15 5.85 mg/L GENERAL INORGANIC Alk CaCO3 171 176 187 141 145 153 149 145 154 152 Cl-T mg/L 6.60 7.10 12.0 12.0 5.30 4.90 6.20 6.10 4.40 6.10 F-T mg/L 0.100 0.110 0.130 0.190 0.120 0.110 0.140 0.140 0.100 0.140 mg/L Hardness CaCO3 214 224 223 221 169 181 176 176 186 177 SO4 mg/L 12.0 14.0 14.0 55.0 4.80 5.80 9.50 10.0 8.60 11.0 TOC mg/L 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.80 3.00 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.52 I 0.55 I 0.5 U 0.7 I METAL As-T ug/L 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.1 B-T ug/L 12.500 13.000 20.10 15.50 10.800 10.400 12.00 11.70 9.900 11.80 Ca-T mg/L 0,073 0,077 0,079 0,070 0,058 0,062 0,059 0,059 0,063 0,059 Cu-T ug/L 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U Fe-T ug/L 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 30 U 40 I 43 I 30 U 30 U K-T mg/L 0.6 I 0.63 I 0.89 I 0.71 I 0.43 I 0.3 U 0.47 I 0.45 I 0.3 U 0.46 I Na-T mg/L 3.50 3.90 7.40 7.60 3.30 2.90 4.10 4.10 2.60 4.10 Mg-T mg/L 0,008 0,008 0,007 0,011 0,006 0,006 0,007 0,007 0,007 0,007 Zn-T ug/L 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.003 I 0.006 0.003 I 0.008 0.007 0.002 U 0.007 NOx-N mg/L 2.40 2.30 0.220 0.570 0.790 0.870 0.580 0.530 0.810 0.540 TKN mg/L 0.08 U 0.08 UJ 0.200 0.230 0.08 I 0.096 I 0.11 I 0.12 IJ 0.094 I 0.12 I PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.040 0.038 0.083 0.090 0.044 0.032 0.045 0.043 0.022 0.041 TP mg/L 0.039 0.036 0.085 0.099 0.045 0.034 0.057 0.056 0.026 0.048 PHYSICAL pH SU 7.41 7.38 7.27 7.26 7.57 7.53 7.82 8.02 7.51 7.71 Color CPU 2.5 U 2.5 U 10.0 26.0 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U SpCond umhos/cm 402 421 439 439 325 341 338 337 350 345 Turb NTU 1.20 0.1 U 0.300 0.250 0.600 0.400 0.700 0.350 0.350 0.250 TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 22.9 22.7 22.6 21.7 21.7 21.8 22.6 23.2 21.9 22.5 56

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) DEP Herbicide and Insecticide Analysis for Segment 3 of the Santa Fe River for June 2018 Gilchrist ICH ICH ICH Blue Johnson Poe Wilson Blue Hole Cedar PARAMETER UNITS Midpoint Tube Head LIR-15 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring HS Run Launch Takeout Spring Run 4,4'-DDD ng/L 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 4,4'-DDE ng/L 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 4,4'-DDT ng/L 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.1 U a-BHC ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Acetochlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U a-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U Alachlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Aldrin ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Ametryn ng/L 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.31 U AMPA ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Atrazine ng/L 0.25 I 0.27 I 2.30 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Atrazine Desethyl ng/L 1.5 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.4 U Azinphos Methyl ng/L 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.2 U b-BHC ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Bromacil ng/L 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Butylate ng/L 0.39 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.38 UJ 0.39 UJ 0.38 UJ Carbophenothion ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.1 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.2 UJ Chlordane ng/L 2.6 U 3.9 I 2.7 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.6 UQ 2.9 I 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.6 U Chlorothalonil ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Chlorpyrifos Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Chlorpyrifos 0.097 0.096 0.096 Methyl ng/L 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.099 U 0.095 U U 0.099 U 0.096 U U U Cyanazine ng/L 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Cypermethrin ng/L 21 U 21 U 21 U 21 U 22 U 21 U 21 U 21 U 22 U 21 U d-BHC ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Demeton ng/L 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 2 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 2 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U Diazinon ng/L 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U 0.12 U Dicofol ng/L 31 U 31 U 32 U 31 U 32 U 31 U 31 U 31 U 32 U 31 U Dieldrin ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Disulfoton ng/L 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Endosulfan I ng/L 4.1 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.3 UJ 4.2 UJ 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Endosulfan II ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Endosulfan sulfate ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Endrin ng/L 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.1 UJ 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Endrin aldehyde ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Endrin Ketone ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U EPTC ng/L 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ 1.2 UJ Ethion ng/L 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.14 U

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Gilchrist ICH ICH ICH Blue Johnson Poe Wilson Blue Hole Cedar PARAMETER UNITS Midpoint Tube Head LIR-15 Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring HS Run Launch Takeout Spring Run Fenamiphos ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Fipronil ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Fipronil Sulfide ng/L 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.14 U Fipronil Sulfone ng/L 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.25 I 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.14 U Fonofos ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U g-BHC ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.3 U 4.2 U g-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U Glyphosate ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Heptachlor ng/L 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U Heptachlor epoxide ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Hexazinone ng/L 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.89 I 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Malathion ng/L 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.35 U 0.33 U 0.34 U 0.35 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.34 U Metalaxyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Methoxychlor ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.3 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.3 U 4.2 U Metolachlor ng/L 0.25 I 0.24 U 0.35 I 0.3 I 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Metribuzin ng/L 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ Mevinphos ng/L 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Mirex ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.1 U Molinate ng/L 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U Norflurazon ng/L 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Parathion Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Parathion Methyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Pendimethalin ng/L 0.97 U 0.96 U 0.96 U 0.99 U 0.95 U 0.97 U 0.99 U 0.96 U 0.96 U 0.96 U Permethrin ng/L 10 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 11 U 10 U Phorate ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U Prometon ng/L 0.88 U 0.86 U 0.86 U 0.89 U 0.86 U 0.87 U 0.89 U 0.86 U 0.87 U 0.86 U Prometryn ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U Simazine ng/L 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.73 I 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U Sucralose ug/L 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.210 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.097 0.096 0.096 Terbufos ng/L 0.097 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.099 U 0.095 U U 0.099 U 0.096 U U U Terbuthylazine ng/L 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.42 U 0.4 U 0.41 U 0.42 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U Toxaphene ng/L 31 U 31 U 32 U 31 U 32 U 31 UQ 31 U 31 U 32 U 31 U Trifluralin ng/L 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Santa Fe River Sites Detailed Chemical Analysis – July 9, 2018

SFR at O'Leno Santa SFR at SFR SFR at Worthington State Fe River SFR at US-441 SFR at SFR at above SFR at 39th GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Spring Park Rise I-75 Bridge US 27 US 47 ICH US 129 Ave DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 64.1 65.4 53.9 64 54.3 55.6 55.1 61 59.6 56.2 DO mg/L 5.27 5.36 4.44 5.25 4.48 4.58 4.59 5.05 4.98 4.72 GENERAL mg/L as INORGANIC Alk CaCO3 9.8 7.6 12 7.6 51 38 85 88 97 99 Cl-T mg/L 8.5 7.9 8.4 8.1 9.4 9 9 8.9 8.9 8.5 F-T mg/L 0.079 I 0.081 I 0.088 I 0.082 I 0.11 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 mg/L as Hardness CaCO3 29.4 28.1 36.3 28.1 84.5 66.5 115 122 132 133 SO4 mg/L 1.1 0.96 4.2 1 14 10 12 13 13 13 TOC mg/L 40 41 40 42 31 35 24 24 19 18 METAL Ca-T mg/L 7.91 7.6 10.4 7.58 26.8 20.8 38.5 40.7 44.2 44.7 K-T mg/L 0.84 I 0.77 I 0.81 I 0.81 I 0.91 I 0.9 I 0.82 I 0.85 I 0.84 I 0.91 I Mg-T mg/L 2.34 2.21 2.53 2.22 4.26 3.53 4.69 4.9 5.15 5.18 Na-T mg/L 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.5 5.5 5.2 5 5.1 4.8 4.7 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.017 0.017 0.019 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.009 NOx-N mg/L 0.067 0.056 0.056 0.054 0.15 0.12 0.52 0.51 0.59 0.61 TKN mg/L 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.96 1 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.75 J PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 TP mg/L 0.2 0.2 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.2 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 PHYSICAL Color CPU 520 540 530 540 410 460 320 310 270 250 pH SU 6.09 5.84 6.15 6.02 6.89 6.86 7.16 7.28 7.32 7.53 SpCond umhos/cm 70.6 65.2 80.1 65.5 177.9 137.2 228.1 235.2 251.2 256.1 Turb NTU 3.4 A 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.2 A 1.6 1.7 SOLID TDS mg/L 116 117 130 112 143 142 134 176 162 A 166 A TSS mg/L 4 I 4 I 3 I 3 I 3 I 3 I 3 I 3 I 4 IA 3 IA TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 25.2 25.6 25.2 25.4 25.1 25.1 24.5 24.7 24.3 24.5

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – August 9, 2018 Poe Gilchrist Blue Ginnie SFR at SFR at US SFR at US SFR at US SFR at US- GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Spring Spring Run Spring Run LIR-15 39th Ave 129 27 47 441 Bridge DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 5.70 40.70 49.30 52.50 50.20 52.10 41.80 46.10 37.20 DO mg/L 0.48 3.36 4.25 4.48 4.08 4.24 3.35 3.75 3.02 mg/L as GENERAL INORGANIC Alk CaCO3 186 A 46 163 121 52 55 26 50 43 Cl-T mg/L 12 6.4 6.2 6 5.5 5.8 6.3 6.4 7.0 F-T mg/L 0.13 0.088 I 0.093 I 0.12 0.085 I 0.087 I 0.085 I 0.088 I 0.1 mg/L as Hardness CaCO3 206 71.9 185 144 71.1 73.4 45.5 72.6 72.3 SO4 mg/L 17 7 10 8.9 4.2 5.5 6.8 7 14 A TOC mg/L 3 35 0.52 I 12 30 31 39 33 34 METAL As-T ug/L 1.67 0.96 0.77 1.05 0.92 0.87 0.89 0.93 0.98 B-T ug/L 20.100 17.000 11.10 13.60 16.400 15.900 17.30 17.60 18.400 Ca-T mg/L 72.3 23.5 64 48.1 23.6 24.3 14 23.8 22.7 Cu-T ug/L 0.2 U 0.56 I 0.26 I 0.2 I 0.54 I 0.49 I 0.53 I 0.58 I 0.49 I Fe-T ug/L 30 U 810 30 U 260 720 720 1020 850 870 K-T mg/L 0.96 I 0.86 I 0.49 I 0.6 I 0.89 I 0.85 I 0.91 I 0.9 I 0.94 I Na-T mg/L 7.4 4 3.1 3.9 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.5 Mg-T mg/L 6.14 3.18 6.14 5.9 2.93 3.08 2.56 3.22 3.75 Zn-T ug/L 5 U 6.4 I 5 U 5 U 6.8 I 6 I 7.3 I 7.4 I 6.6 I NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.002 I 0.017 0.003 I 0.011 0.015 0.014 0.022 0.016 0.021 NOx-N mg/L 0.14 0.13 2 0.4 0.19 0.21 0.055 0.22 0.091 TKN mg/L 0.35 1.1 0.11 I 0.55 0.97 0.98 1.2 1.1 1 PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.084 0.17 0.036 0.091 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.17 TP mg/L 0.085 0.21 0.036 0.11 0.2 0.2 0.22 0.19 0.22 PHYSICAL pH SU 7.22 7.00 7.45 7.48 7.24 7.15 6.53 6.86 6.72 Color CPU 16.00 470.00 2.5 U 150.00 430.00 430.00 530.00 450.00 460.00 SpCond umhos/cm 424.20 222.30 360.80 313.85 137.00 145.80 97.00 142.10 151.10 Turb NTU 0.3 1.8 0.15 0.9 1.8 1.6 2.5 A 2 2.3 TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 22.70 24.95 22.60 23.30 25.90 25.80 26.60 25.80 25.90

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) DEP Herbicide and Insecticide Analysis for Segment 3 of the Santa Fe River for August 2018 Gilchrist Blue Ginnie SFR at SFR at Poe Spring Spring 39th SFR at US SFR at US SFR at US-441 PARAMETER UNITS Spring Run Run LIR-15 Ave 129 27 US 47 Bridge 4,4'-DDD ng/L 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.4 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 4,4'-DDE ng/L 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.4 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 4,4'-DDT ng/L 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.4 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.1 U 3.2 U 3.2 U 3.2 U a-BHC ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Acetochlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U a-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Alachlor ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U Aldrin ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U Ametryn ng/L 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.31 U 0.32 U 0.33 U 0.32 U 0.32 UJ 0.33 U 0.31 U AMPA ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Atrazine ng/L 3.3 1.5 0.24 U 0.48 I 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.7 Atrazine Desethyl ng/L 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.4 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.4 U Azinphos Methyl ng/L 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.1 U 2.2 U 2.3 U 2.2 U 2.2 U 2.3 U 2.2 U b-BHC ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U Bromacil ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.48 U Butylate ng/L 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.38 U 0.39 U 0.4 U 0.39 U 0.39 U 0.4 U 0.38 U Carbophenothion ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U Chlordane ng/L 2.6 U 6.8 U 2.9 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 2.6 U 5.2 U 4 U 3.4 U Chlorothalonil ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2 U 2.1U 2.1U 2.1U 2.1U Chlorpyrifos Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25U 0.25U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U Chlorpyrifos Methyl ng/L 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.1 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.1 U 0.096 U Cyanazine ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 UJ 0.5 U 0.48 U Cypermethrin ng/L 21 U 21 U 23 U 21 U 20 U 21 U 22 U 23 U 24 U d-BHC ng/L 4.1 U 4.2U 4.6 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U Demeton ng/L 1.9 U 1.9 U 1.9 U 2 U 3 U 4 U 1.9 U 2 U 1.9 U Diazinon ng/L 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.13 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.12 UJ 0.13 UJ 0.12 UJ Dicofol ng/L 31 U 31 U 34 U 31 U 31 U 31 U 32 U 32 U 32 U Dieldrin ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U Disulfoton ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.48 U Endosulfan I ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U Endosulfan II ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U Endosulfan sulfate ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin aldehyde ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Endrin Ketone ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U EPTC ng/L 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.3 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.3 U 1.2 U Ethion ng/L 0.14 UJ 0.14 UJ 0.14 UJ 0.15 UJ 0.15 UJ 0.15 UJ 0.15 UJ 0.15 UJ 0.14 UJ Ethoprop ng/L 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.1 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.1 U 0.096 U

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Gilchrist Blue Ginnie SFR at SFR at Poe Spring Spring 39th SFR at US SFR at US SFR at US-441 PARAMETER UNITS Spring Run Run LIR-15 Ave 129 27 US 47 Bridge Fenamiphos ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U Fipronil ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U Fipronil Sulfide ng/L 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U Fipronil Sulfone ng/L 0.22 I 0.14 U 0.14 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.15 U 0.14 U Fonofos ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U g-BHC ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U g-Chlordane ng/L 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U Glyphosate ug/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Heptachlor ng/L 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.7 U 1.6 U 1.5 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U 1.6 U Heptachlor epoxide ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Hexazinone ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.85 I 0.48 U Malathion ng/L 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.33 U 0.34 U 0.35 U 0.34 U 0.34 U 0.35 U 0.34 U Metalaxyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U Methoxychlor ng/L 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.6 U 4.1 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U 4.2 U Metolachlor ng/L 0.28 I 1.5 0.24 U 0.5 I 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 Metribuzin ng/L 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.19 UJ 0.2 UJ 0.19 UJ Mevinphos ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.48 U Mirex ng/L 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.3 U 2.1 U 2 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U 2.1 U Molinate ng/L 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.29 U 0.3 U 0.29 U 0.29 UJ 0.3 U 0.29 U Norflurazon ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.48 U Parathion Ethyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U Parathion Methyl ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U Pendimethalin ng/L 0.96 U 0.96 U 0.96 U 0.98 U 1 U 0.98 U 0.97 U 1 U 0.96 U Permethrin ng/L 10 U 10 U 11 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 11 U 11 U 11 U Phorate ng/L 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.24 U Prometon ng/L 0.86 U 0.87 U 0.86 U 0.88 U 0.91 U 0.88 U 0.88 U 0.91 U 0.86 U Prometryn ng/L 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.19 U 0.2 U 0.19 U Simazine ng/L 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.48 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.49 U 0.49 U 0.5 U 0.48 U Sucralose ug/L 0.28 0.066 0.01 U 0.01 U 0.082 0.039 I 0.07 0.072 0.057 Terbufos ng/L 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.096 U 0.098 U 0.1 U 0.098 U 0.097 U 0.1 U 0.096 U Terbuthylazine ng/L 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.41 U 0.43 U 0.42 U 0.41 U 0.43 U 0.41 U Toxaphene ng/L 31 U 31 U 34 U 31 U 31 U 31 U 32 U 32 U 32 U Trifluralin ng/L 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.1 U

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Santa Fe River Springs and Tributaries Detailed Chemical Analysis – September 12, 2018

Gilchrist Blue Cedar Johnson Blue Spring Wilson Hole Head ICH ICH Tube Naked Ichetucknee GROUP PARAMETER UNITS Spring Run Spring Spring Spring Run Midpoint Takeout LIR-15 Spring Head Spring DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO % 47.00 57.10 6.10 27.20 50.40 72.60 64.10 63.00 54.80 45.20 DO mg/L 4.09 4.93 0.53 2.39 4.40 6.22 5.56 5.48 4.74 3.96 GENERAL INORGANIC Alk mg/L as CaCO3 183 A 176 139 152 160 153 154 159 179 164 Cl-T mg/L 7.4 7 11 5.7 5.1 6.5 6.5 6.6 7.2 4.8 F-T mg/L 0.11 0.1 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.1 0.1 Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 225 212 189 172 180 172 163 189 221 188 SO4 mg/L 14 12 38 4.8 5.7 11 11 13 13 8.8 TOC mg/L 0.5 U 0.5 U 5.9 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.51 I 0.5 U 0.6 I 0.5 U 0.5 U METAL Ca-T mg/L 77.3 72.8 62.9 59.8 62.1 57.7 54.6 63 75.9 64.5 K-T mg/L 0.65 I 0.64 I 0.68 I 0.41 I 0.33 I 0.47 I 0.46 I 0.49 I 0.66 I 0.3 U Mg-T mg/L 7.82 7.36 7.81 5.54 5.97 6.74 6.55 7.58 7.57 6.52 Na-T mg/L 3.6 3.3 5.9 3.3 2.8 3.8 3.8 4.2 3.4 2.6 NITROGEN NH4-N mg/L 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.005 0.002 U 0.002 U 0.006 0.006 0.004 I 0.002 U 0.002 U NOx-N mg/L 2.5 2.5 0.27 0.78 0.86 0.6 0.59 0.57 2.6 0.8 TKN mg/L 0.14 I 0.14 I 0.35 1.2 0.16 I 0.17 I 0.17 I 0.14 I 0.13 I 0.08 U PHOSPHORUS OrthoP mg/L 0.035 0.032 0.074 0.044 0.031 0.044 0.043 0.043 0.033 0.022 TP mg/L 0.035 0.032 0.077 0.044 0.033 0.061 0.059 0.046 0.032 0.023 PHYSICAL Color CPU 2.5 U 2.5 U 61 A 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U pH SU 7.46 7.37 7.33 7.52 7.48 7.77 7.81 7.7 7.48 7.52 SpCond umhos/cm 414.3 398.2 376.1 321.3 335.7 336.1 337.9 348.6 403.8 344.1 Turb NTU 0.15 0.2 0.35 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.35 0.1 U 0.2 TEMPERATURE Wtr Temp C 22.6 22.6 22.5 21.7 22.1 23 22.4 22.4 22.5 21.8

A - Value Reported is the mean of two or more determinations I – The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical quantitation limit J – Estimated value and/or the analysis did not meet established quality control criteria Q - Sample held beyond normal holding time U – Material was analyzed for but not detected. The reported value is the method detection limit for the sample analyzed.

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Appendix B Ecosystem Metabolism Summary Gilchrist Blue Springs Ecosystem Metabolism Summary

20 DO Flux (kg/hr) Flux DO 10

0 6/27/18 6/28/18 6/29/18 6/30/18 7/1/18 7/2/18 7/3/18 7/4/18

Upstream Downstream

7.00 1200

6.00 1000 5.00 800 4.00 600 3.00 400 2.00 PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 1.00 200 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 0.00 0 6/27/18 6/28/18 6/29/18 6/30/18 7/1/18 7/2/18 7/3/18 7/4/18

Upstream DO Downstream DO

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00 Change (g/m2/hr) Change - 0.00 of - -1.00 6/27/18 6/28/18 6/29/18 6/30/18 7/1/18 7/2/18 7/3/18 7/4/18 DO Rate DO Corrected Uncorrected

0.1

y = -0.1947x2 + 0.7402x R² = 0.6192 0.01 Daytime GPP (g O2/m2/hr)

0.001 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 PAR (mol/m2/hr)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

10 GPP (g O2/m2/d) NPP (g O2/m2/d) CR (g O2/m2/d) 1.2

8 1

6 0.8

4 0.6 2 P/R Ratio P/R

0.4 0

0.2 -2 Metabolism (g O2/m2/d) / PAR Efficiency (%) Efficiency PAR / O2/m2/d) (g Metabolism -4 0 6/27/18 6/28/18 6/29/18 6/30/18 7/1/18 7/2/18 7/3/18 7/4/18 Date

1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 600 400 200 0 6/27/18 6/28/18 6/29/18 6/30/18 7/1/18 7/2/18 7/3/18 7/4/18

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600 PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR

400

200

0 0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream 23.5 7.60 23.4 7.55 23.3

23.2 7.50 23.1 23.0 7.45 22.9

pH (SU) 7.40 22.8

Water Temperature (C) 22.7 7.35 22.6 7.30 22.5 22.4 7.25 6/27/18 6/28/18 6/29/18 6/30/18 7/1/18 7/2/18 7/3/18 7/4/18 6/27/18 6/28/18 6/29/18 6/30/18 7/1/18 7/2/18 7/3/18 7/4/18

Upstream Downstream Attenuation Plant Level Air 390 0.4 1,200

0.35

388 1) - 1,000 0.3 386 800 0.25 384 0.2 600 382 0.15

PAR (umol/m2/s) 400

Sp. ConductanceSp. (uS/cm) 380 0.1

Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient (m 200 378 0.05

376 0 0 6/27/18 6/29/18 7/1/18 7/3/18 7/5/18 6/27/18 6/28/18 6/29/18 6/30/18 7/1/18 7/2/18 7/3/18 7/4/18

Flow Depth Rainfall 250,000 1 Parameter Units Avg Min Max N 0.9 DO - up mg/L 4.81 4.69 5.11 283 down 5.26 4.98 6.06 281 200,000 0.8 Wtr Temp - up C 22.6 22.5 22.9 283 0.7 down 22.8 22.5 23.4 281 pH - up SU 7.33 7.29 7.35 283 150,000 0.6 down 7.49 7.47 7.55 281 SpCond - up uS/cm 383 379 384 283 0.5 down 386 378 389 281 100,000 0.4 3 Flow (m3/d) Flow - up m /d 198,735 198,735 198,735 1 0.3 Depth m 0.86 0.86 0.86 1 Rainfall Total in 2.2 50,000 0.2 PAR - air umol/m2/s 401 0.0 1,573 145 Depth (m) / Rainfall (in) 0.1 plant 163 0.0 924 121 DO rate chng g/m2/hr 0 0 corr -0.023 -0.369 0.800 121 6/25/18 6/27/18 6/29/18 7/1/18 7/3/18 7/5/18 uncorr 2.966 2.621 3.787 121

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Hornsby Spring Ecosystem Metabolism Summary

0.80 1600 0.70 1400 0.60 1200 0.50 1000 0.40 800 0.30 600 0.20 400 PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 0.10 200 0.00 0 9/19/18 9/20/18 9/21/18 9/22/18 9/23/18 9/24/18 9/25/18 9/26/18 9/27/18 9/28/18

Upstream DO Downstream DO

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 DO Flux (kg/hr) Flux DO 4 2 0 9/19/18 9/20/18 9/21/18 9/22/18 9/23/18 9/24/18 9/25/18 9/26/18 9/27/18 9/28/18

Upstream Downstream

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50 Change (g/m2/hr) Change -

of 0.00

-0.50 - Rate DO -1.00 9/19/18 9/20/18 9/21/18 9/22/18 9/23/18 9/24/18 9/25/18 9/26/18 9/27/18 9/28/18

Corrected Uncorrected

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

0.1 y = -1.6943x2 + 3.4341x R² = 0.6604

0.01 Daytime GPP (g O2/m2/hr)

0.001 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 PAR (mol/m2/hr)

25 GPP (g O2/m2/d) NPP (g O2/m2/d) CR (g O2/m2/d) 1.8

1.6

20 1.4

1.2 15 1

0.8 10 Ratio P/R 0.6

0.4 5

0.2 Metabolism (g O2/m2/d) / PAR Efficiency (%) Efficiency PAR / O2/m2/d) (g Metabolism 0 0 9/19/18 9/20/18 9/21/18 9/22/18 9/23/18 9/24/18 9/25/18 9/26/18 9/27/18 9/28/18 Date

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 600

400

200

0 9/19/18 9/20/18 9/21/18 9/22/18 9/23/18 9/24/18 9/25/18 9/26/18 9/27/18 9/28/18

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600 PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR

400

200

0 0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream 22.7 7.22 7.20 22.7 7.18 7.16 22.6 7.14

22.6 7.12

pH (SU) 7.10 22.6

Water Temperature (C) 7.08 7.06 22.6 7.04

22.6 7.02 9/19/18 9/21/18 9/23/18 9/25/18 9/27/18 9/29/18 9/19/18 9/21/18 9/23/18 9/25/18 9/27/18 9/29/18

Upstream Downstream Attenuation Plant Level Air 430 1.44 1,600

429 1.42 1,400 1) -

428 1.4 1,200

427 1.38 1,000

426 1.36 800

425 1.34 600 PAR (umol/m2/s) Sp. ConductanceSp. (uS/cm) 424 1.32 400 Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient (m 423 1.3 200

422 1.28 0 9/19/18 9/21/18 9/23/18 9/25/18 9/27/18 9/29/18 9/19/18 9/21/18 9/23/18 9/25/18 9/27/18 9/29/18

Flow Depth Rainfall 655,000 1.6 Parameter Units Avg Min Max N 650,000 DO - up mg/L 0.39 0.39 0.39 379 1.4 down 0.51 0.46 0.68 379 645,000 Wtr Temp - up C 22.6 22.6 22.6 379 1.2 640,000 down 22.6 22.6 22.7 379 pH - up SU 7.08 7.04 7.20 379 635,000 1 down 7.15 7.13 7.17 379 630,000 SpCond - up uS/cm 427 427 429 379 0.8 625,000 down 424 423 426 379 3

Flow (m3/d) Flow - up m /d 629,626 606,996 652,257 2 620,000 0.6 Depth m 1.34 1.29 1.38 2 615,000 0.4 Rainfall Total in 1.0 2 610,000 PAR - air umol/m /s 374 0.0 1,413 197 0.2 Depth (m) / Rainfall (in) plant 58 0.0 431 169 605,000 DO rate chng g/m2/hr 600,000 0 corr 0.080 -0.589 2.070 169 9/15/18 9/17/18 9/19/18 9/21/18 9/23/18 9/25/18 9/27/18 9/29/18 uncorr 0.150 -0.518 2.140 169

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Ginnie Springs Ecosystem Metabolism Summary

4.50 1400 4.00 1200 3.50 1000 3.00 2.50 800 2.00 600 1.50 400 1.00

0.50 200 (umol/s/m2) PAR

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 0.00 0 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18 Upstream DO

16 14 12 10 8 6

DO Flux (kg/hr) Flux DO 4 2 0 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18 Upstream Downstream

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00 Change (g/m2/hr) Change -

of -0.20

-0.40 - Rate DO -0.60 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18

Corrected Uncorrected

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

0.1

y = -0.0416x2 + 0.251x R² = 0.4949

0.01 Daytime GPP (g O2/m2/hr)

0.001 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

PAR (mol/m2/hr)

10 GPP (g O2/m2/d) NPP (g O2/m2/d) CR (g O2/m2/d) 0.45

8 0.4

6 0.35

4 0.3 2 0.25 0

0.2 Ratio P/R -2 0.15 -4

0.1 -6 Metabolism (g O2/m2/d) / PAR Efficiency (%) Efficiency PAR / O2/m2/d) (g Metabolism -8 0.05

-10 0 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18 Date

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 600

400

200

0 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

1,000 900 800 700 600 500

PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 400 300 200 100 0 0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream 22.8 7.60

22.8 7.50 22.7 7.40 22.7

22.6 7.30 pH (SU) 22.6 7.20 Water Temperature (C) 22.5 7.10 22.5

22.4 7.00 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18

Upstream Downstream Attenuation Plant Level Air 360 0.26 1,400

0.255

350 1) 1,200 0.25 -

340 0.245 1,000

0.24 330 800 0.235 320 600 0.23 PAR (umol/m2/s)

Sp. ConductanceSp. (uS/cm) 310 0.225 400 0.22 300 Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient (m 200 0.215

290 0.21 0 8/28/18 8/30/18 9/1/18 9/3/18 9/5/18 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18

Flow Depth Rainfall 100,000 1.8 Parameter Units Avg Min Max N DO - up mg/L 3.37 3.31 3.57 145 90,000 1.6 down 3.71 3.60 3.96 144 80,000 1.4 Wtr Temp - up C 22.6 22.5 22.8 145 70,000 down 22.5 22.4 22.6 144 1.2 pH - up SU 7.23 7.10 7.28 145 60,000 down 7.54 7.53 7.56 144 1 SpCond - up uS/cm 293 293 294 145 50,000 0.8 down 345 342 351 144 40,000 3 Flow (m3/d) Flow - up m /d 83,991 75,917 92,065 2 0.6 30,000 Depth m 1.53 1.48 1.58 2 Rainfall Total in 1.9 0.4 20,000 PAR - air umol/m2/s 244 0.0 1,358 145 Depth (m) / Rainfall (in) 10,000 0.2 plant 148 0.0 1027 121 DO rate chng g/m2/hr 0 0 corr -0.227 -0.413 0.150 121 8/28/18 8/30/18 9/1/18 9/3/18 9/5/18 uncorr 0.279 0.094 0.656 121

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Devil’s Spring System Ecosystem Metabolism Summary

5.00 600 4.50 4.00 500 3.50 400 3.00 2.50 300 2.00 1.50 200

1.00 100 (umol/s/m2) PAR

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 0.50 0.00 0 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18

Upstream DO Downstream DO

4 DO Flux (kg/hr) Flux DO 2

0 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18

Upstream Downstream

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 Change (g/m2/hr) Change

- 0.00

of -0.10 -0.20 -0.30 - Rate DO 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18 Corrected Uncorrected

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

0.1

0.01 y = -0.8283x2 + 0.9657x R² = 0.0633 Daytime GPP (g O2/m2/hr)

0.001 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 PAR (mol/m2/hr)

10 GPP (g O2/m2/d) NPP (g O2/m2/d) CR (g O2/m2/d) 1.4

8 1.2

6 1

4 0.8

2 0.6 Ratio P/R

0 0.4

-2 0.2 Metabolism (g O2/m2/d) / PAR Efficiency (%) Efficiency PAR / O2/m2/d) (g Metabolism

-4 0 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18 Date

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 600

400

200

0 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

1,000 900 800 700 600 500

PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 400 300 200 100 0 0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream 22.7 7.55

22.7 7.50

22.6 7.45

22.6

pH (SU) 7.40 22.5 Water Temperature (C)

7.35 22.5

22.4 7.30 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18

Upstream Downstream Attenuation Plant Level Air 395 0.8 600 390 0.7 1) 385 - 500 380 0.6 400 375 0.5 370 0.4 300 365 360 0.3 PAR (umol/m2/s) 200 Sp. ConductanceSp. (uS/cm) 355 0.2 350 Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient (m 100 0.1 345 340 0 0 8/28/18 8/30/18 9/1/18 9/3/18 9/5/18 8/29/18 8/30/18 8/31/18 9/1/18 9/2/18 9/3/18 9/4/18 9/5/18

Flow Depth Rainfall 66,500 1.4 Parameter Units Avg Min Max N DO - up mg/L 4.21 4.21 4.21 288 66,000 1.2 down 3.93 3.78 4.33 287 65,500 Wtr Temp - up C 22.5 22.5 22.6 288 1 down 22.5 22.5 22.7 287 65,000 pH - up SU 7.49 7.47 7.52 288 0.8 down 7.35 7.32 7.39 287 64,500 SpCond - up uS/cm 349 345 351 288 64,000 down 378 362 389 287 0.6 3

Flow (m3/d) Flow - up m /d 64,242 62,525 65,877 7 63,500 Depth m 1.32 1.31 1.33 7 0.4 Rainfall Total in 1.9 63,000 PAR - air umol/m2/s 249 0.0 1,358 145 0.2 Depth (m) / Rainfall (in) 62,500 plant 53 0.0 301 121 DO rate chng g/m2/hr 62,000 0 corr -0.028 -0.247 0.497 121 8/28/18 8/30/18 9/1/18 9/3/18 9/5/18 uncorr -0.001 -0.218 0.524 121

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Poe Spring Ecosystem Metabolism Summary

0.60 1600 1400 0.50 1200 0.40 1000 0.30 800 600 0.20 400 0.10 (umol/s/m2) PAR 200 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 0.00 0 9/5/18 9/6/18 9/7/18 9/8/18 9/9/18 9/10/18 9/11/18 9/12/18

Upstream DO Downstream DO

DO Flux (kg/hr) Flux DO 1

0 9/5/18 9/6/18 9/7/18 9/8/18 9/9/18 9/10/18 9/11/18 9/12/18 Upstream Downstream

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

Change (g/m2/hr) Change 0.00 -

of -0.10 -0.20 -0.30 - Rate DO -0.40 9/5/18 9/6/18 9/7/18 9/8/18 9/9/18 9/10/18 9/11/18 9/12/18

Corrected Uncorrected

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

0.1

y = -0.0352x2 + 0.2663x R² = 0.6539

0.01

0.001 Daytime GPP (g O2/m2/hr)

0.0001 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 PAR (mol/m2/hr)

6 GPP (g O2/m2/d) NPP (g O2/m2/d) CR (g O2/m2/d) 0.9

5 0.8

4 0.7

3 0.6

2 0.5

1 0.4 P/R Ratio P/R

0 0.3

-1 0.2

-2 0.1 Metabolism (g O2/m2/d) / PAR Efficiency (%) Efficiency PAR / O2/m2/d) (g Metabolism -3 0 9/5/18 9/6/18 9/7/18 9/8/18 9/9/18 9/10/18 9/11/18 9/12/18 Date

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 600

400

200

0 9/5/18 9/6/18 9/7/18 9/8/18 9/9/18 9/10/18 9/11/18 9/12/18

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600 PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR

400

200

0 0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream 22.5 7.32

22.5 7.30

22.5 7.28 22.5 7.26 22.4

pH (SU) 7.24 22.4

Water Temperature (C) 7.22 22.4

22.4 7.20

22.4 7.18 9/5/18 9/6/18 9/7/18 9/8/18 9/9/18 9/10/18 9/11/18 9/12/18 9/5/18 9/6/18 9/7/18 9/8/18 9/9/18 9/10/18 9/11/18 9/12/18

Upstream Downstream Attenuation Plant Level Air 439 1.2 1,600

438 1,400 1)

1 - 437 1,200 436 0.8 1,000 435 0.6 800 434 600

433 0.4 PAR (umol/m2/s) Sp. ConductanceSp. (uS/cm) 400 432

0.2 Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient (m 431 200

430 0 0 9/5/18 9/7/18 9/9/18 9/11/18 9/13/18 9/5/18 9/6/18 9/7/18 9/8/18 9/9/18 9/10/18 9/11/18 9/12/18

Flow Depth Rainfall 98,000 0.9 Parameter Units Avg Min Max N DO - up mg/L 0.42 0.42 0.42 290 0.8 96,000 down 0.35 0.24 0.63 290 0.7 Wtr Temp - up C 22.4 22.4 22.4 290 94,000 down 22.4 22.4 22.5 290 0.6 pH - up SU 7.21 7.22 7.22 290 92,000 down 7.26 7.20 7.31 290 0.5 SpCond - up uS/cm 431 431 431 290 0.4 down 435 434 438 290 90,000 3

Flow (m3/d) Flow - up m /d 90,474 84,700 96,248 2 0.3 Depth m 0.63 0.58 0.68 2 88,000 Rainfall Total in 1.9 0.2 PAR - air umol/m2/s 315 0.0 1,439 144 86,000 Depth (m) / Rainfall (in) 0.1 plant 202 0.0 1085 121 DO rate chng g/m2/hr 84,000 0 corr -0.052 -0.278 0.426 121 9/5/18 9/7/18 9/9/18 9/11/18 9/13/18 uncorr 0.001 -0.225 0.479 121

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Lower Ichetucknee River Ecosystem Metabolism

9.00 1400 8.00 1200 7.00 1000 6.00 5.00 800 4.00 600 3.00 400 2.00 PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 1.00 200 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 0.00 0 7/11/18 7/12/18 7/13/18 7/14/18 7/15/18 7/16/18 7/17/18 7/18/18 7/19/18

Upstream DO Downstream DO

300

250

200

150

100 DO Flux (kg/hr) Flux DO 50

0 7/11/18 7/12/18 7/13/18 7/14/18 7/15/18 7/16/18 7/17/18 7/18/18 7/19/18

Upstream Downstream

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 Change (g/m2/hr) Change

-0.50- of -1.00

-1.50- Rate DO 7/11/18 7/12/18 7/13/18 7/14/18 7/15/18 7/16/18 7/17/18 7/18/18 7/19/18 Corrected Uncorrected

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

0.1

y = -0.1173x2 + 0.5848x R² = 0.4019 0.01

0.001Daytime GPP (g O2/m2/hr)

0.0001 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 PAR (mol/m2/hr)

25 GPP (g O2/m2/d) NPP (g O2/m2/d) CR (g O2/m2/d) 0.5

20 0.4 15

10 0.3

5 0.2 0 P/R Ratio P/R

-5 0.1

-10 0 -15 Metabolism (g O2/m2/d) / PAR Efficiency (%) Efficiency PAR / O2/m2/d) (g Metabolism

-20 -0.1 7/11/18 7/12/18 7/13/18 7/14/18 7/15/18 7/16/18 7/17/18 7/18/18 7/19/18 Date

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 600

400

200

0 7/11/18 7/12/18 7/13/18 7/14/18 7/15/18 7/16/18 7/17/18 7/18/18 7/19/18

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

1,200

1,000

800

600 PAR (umol/s/m2) PAR 400

200

0 0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00

PAR raw PAR (w/ shading)

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream 30.0 9.00

8.00 25.0 7.00

20.0 6.00

5.00 15.0 4.00 pH (SU)

10.0 3.00 Water Temperature (C) 2.00 5.0 1.00

0.0 0.00 7/11/18 7/13/18 7/15/18 7/17/18 7/19/18 7/11/18 7/13/18 7/15/18 7/17/18 7/19/18

Upstream Downstream Attenuation Plant Level Air 400 0.4 1,400

350 0.35

1) 1,200 -

300 0.3 1,000 250 0.25 800 200 0.2 600 150 0.15 PAR (umol/m2/s)

Sp. ConductanceSp. (uS/cm) 400 100 0.1 Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient (m 50 0.05 200

0 0 0 7/11/18 7/13/18 7/15/18 7/17/18 7/19/18 7/11/18 7/12/18 7/13/18 7/14/18 7/15/18 7/16/18 7/17/18 7/18/18 7/19/18

Flow Depth Rainfall 746,000 1.2 Parameter Units Avg Min Max N 744,000 DO - up mg/L 5.45 3.73 8.57 337 down 6.14 4.17 8.63 326 742,000 1 Wtr Temp - up C 22.5 21.8 24.2 337 740,000 down 22.9 21.9 24.2 326 0.8 738,000 pH - up SU 7.69 7.52 8.04 337 down 7.67 7.46 7.98 326 736,000 SpCond - up uS/cm 342 336 345 337 0.6 734,000 down 339 330 346 326 3

Flow (m3/d) Flow - up m /d 734,890 726,633 743,759 8 732,000 0.4 Depth m 1.07 1.06 1.07 8 730,000 Rainfall Total in 0.7 2 728,000 PAR - air umol/m /s 395 0.0 1,480 145

0.2 Depth (m) / Rainfall (in) plant 134 0.0 989 145 726,000 DO rate chng g/m2/hr 724,000 0 corr -0.456 -1.072 0.353 145 7/9/18 7/11/18 7/13/18 7/15/18 7/17/18 7/19/18 uncorr 0.300 -0.189 0.872 145

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Appendix C Quarter 2 and 3 Fish Data

The following tables present the results of fish surveys at Ginnie Spring, Devil’s Spring, Gilchrist Blue Spring, Naked Spring, Poe Spring and Hornsby Spring Systems and at the Ichetucknee Headspring, Blue Hole Spring, and the Lower Ichetucknee River during the 2nd and 3rd quarter of Phase 2 of the Lower Santa Fe River Springs Project.

Ginnie Spring Fish Summary – June and September 2018

6/18/2018 9/4/2018 Scientific Name Common Name Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 24 177.3 3.7 0 0.0 0.0 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 0 0.0 0.0 11 81.2 9.5 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 8 59.1 6.9 0 0.0 0.0 Pickerel Esox sp. 0 0.0 0.0 1 7.4 1.1 Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus 1 7.4 0.3 0 0.0 0.0 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 24 177.3 45.5 0 0.0 0.0 Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 149 1100.4 29.0 50 369.3 94.8 Sunfish sp. Lepomis sp. 0 0.0 0.0 130 960.1 25.3 Total 207 1,529 86 192 1418 130.7 Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (H') 0.914 1.156 Survey area: 0.305 ac

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Devil’s Spring System Fish Summary – June and September 2018

6/21/2018 9/4/2018 Common Name Scientific Name Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 23 144.9 0.7 4 25.2 0.1 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 15 94.5 2.8 13 81.9 2.4 Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 121 762.4 4.0 3 18.9 3.4 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 50 315.1 49.0 23 144.9 22.5 Sunfish sp. Lepomis sp. 0 0.0 0.0 141 888.5 11.6 Total 209 1,317 56 184 1,159 40 Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (H') 1.091 0.801 Survey area: 0.42 ac

Gilchrist Blue Spring Fish Summary – April and June 2018

4/11/2018 6/27/2018 Average Common Name Scientific Name Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Bluefin Killifish Lucania goodei 0 0.0 0.0 4 48.1 0.1 2 24.1 0.1 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 153 301.3 6.3 19 113.3 2.4 86 207.3 4.4 Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 93 338.7 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 47 169.3 0.0 Hogchocker Trinectes maculatus 2 10.3 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 1 5.1 0.1 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 36 67.0 15.2 42 121.9 27.7 39 94.5 21.5 Minnows Notropis sp. 25 135.3 0.0 20 213.7 0.1 23 174.5 0.0 Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus 291 567.5 42.1 69 208.0 8.9 180 387.8 25.5 Russetfin topminnow Fundulus escambiae 4 23.4 0.1 2 19.8 0.0 3 21.6 0.1 Seminole Killifish Fundulus seminolis 1 12.2 0.0 1 12.0 0.0 1 12.1 0.0 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 3 36.6 11.5 0 0.0 0.0 2 18.3 5.8 Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 186 379.2 10.0 15 56.8 1.5 101 218.0 5.7 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 0 0.0 0.0 29 159.7 6.1 15 79.8 3.0 Sunfish sp. Lepomis sp. 0 0.0 0.0 485 1382.1 36.4 243 691.0 18.2 Total 794 1,872 85.68 686 2,335 83.31 740 Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (H') 3.30 0.87 1.99 Survey area: 1.48 ac

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Naked Spring Fish Summary – April and June 2018

4/11/2018 6/27/2018 Average Common Name Scientific Name Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 95 810.6 69.2 0 0.0 0.0 63 545.9 28.9 Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 7 61.9 3.1 0 0.0 0.0 3 31.2 1.0 Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta 1 15.8 0.6 0 0.0 0.0 2 36.0 9.8 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 18 77.1 2.7 8 67.2 15.3 10 63.0 9.4 Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus 145 1196.5 117.9 0 0.0 0.0 55 455.9 43.5 Russetfin topminnow Fundulus escambiae 2 17.1 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 1 11.0 0.0 Minnows Notropis sp. 0 0.0 0.0 10 158.5 0.0 3 52.8 0.0 Sunfish sp. Lepomis sp. 0 0.0 0.0 101 894.1 23.6 34 298.0 7.9 Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 140 1189.0 31.3 0 0.0 0.0 80 686.1 18.1 Total 406 3,368 224.87 119 1,120 38.90 251 Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (H') 1.32 0.529 1.61 Survey area: 0.26 ac

Poe Spring Fish Summary – June and September 2018 6/19/2018 9/5/2018 Common Name Scientific Name Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 0 0.0 0.0 15 105.6 0.5 Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 141 992.3 0.2 25 175.9 0.3 Minnows Notropis sp. 0 0.0 0.0 325 2287.1 1.7 Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus 16 112.6 3.5 0 0.0 0.0 Redeye Chub Notropis harperi 0 0.0 0.0 20 140.7 0.1 Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 59 415.2 7.8 0 0.0 0.0 Sunfish sp. Lepomis sp. 59 415.2 7.8 14 98.5 0.5 Total 275 1,935 19 399 2808 3.19 Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (H') 1.168 0.73 Survey area: 0.28 ac

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Hornsby Spring Fish Summary – May and September 2018 5/14/2018 9/19/2018 Common Name Scientific Name Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Bluefin Killifish Lucania goodei 239 1130.0 3.4 20 94.6 0.3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 79 373.5 7.9 0 0.0 0.0 Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 403 1905.4 3.6 24 56.7 0.1 Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 20 94.6 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 6 28.4 6.5 0 0.0 0.0 Minnows Notropis sp. 0 0.0 0.0 400 1891.3 0.5 Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus 12 56.7 2.4 0 0.0 0.0 Sailfin Molly Poecilia latipinna 5 23.6 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 16 75.7 2.0 0 0.0 0.0 Sunfish sp. Lepomis sp. 0 0.0 0.0 15 70.9 0.2 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 2 9.5 0.9 0 0.0 0.0 Total 782 3697 26.8 459 2113 1.1 Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (H') 1.26 0.52 Survey area: 0.523 ac

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Ichetucknee Head Spring Fish Summary – April and May 2018

4/13/2018 5/18/2018 Average Common Name Scientific Name Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 103 1432.5 30.1 62 862.3 18.1 83 1147.4 24.1 Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 26 361.6 0.0 60 834.5 0.1 43 598.1 0.0 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 17 236.4 53.8 16 222.5 50.6 17 229.5 52.2 Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus 29 403.3 17.3 26 361.6 15.5 28 382.5 16.4 Seminole Killifish Fundulus seminolis 6 83.4 0.3 0 0.0 0.0 3 41.7 0.1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 1 13.9 4.4 0 0.0 0.0 1 7.0 2.2 Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 15 208.6 5.5 0 0.0 0.0 8 104.3 2.7 Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 0 0.0 0.0 1 13.9 4.2 1 7.0 2.1 Sailfin Molly Poecilia latipinna 0 0.0 0.0 1 13.9 0.2 1 7.0 0.1 Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 0 0.0 0.0 51 709.3 18.7 26 354.7 9.3 Total 197.0 2739.9 111.4 217.0 3018.1 107.4 207.0 Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (H') 1.43 1.55 Survey area: 2.19 ac

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Blue Hole Spring Fish Summary – April and May 2018

4/13/2018 5/18/2018 Average Common Name Scientific Name Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Atlantic Needlefish Strongylura marina 0 0 0 1 1.27 0.06 1 0.6 0.029 Bluefin Killifish Lucania goodei 5 6.37 0.00 1 1.27 0.00 3 3.8 0.001 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 42 53.48 1.13 210 267.38 5.63 126 160.4 3.376 Bowfin Amia calva 0 0 0 1 1.27 0.56 1 0.6 0.278 Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 60 76.39 0.01 125 159.15 0.01 93 117.8 0.008 Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta 14 17.83 5.60 14 17.83 5.60 14 17.8 5.600 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 79 100.59 22.88 50 63.66 14.48 65 82.1 18.682 Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus 3 3.82 0.16 37 47.11 2.02 20 25.5 1.091 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 30 38.20 12.02 47 59.84 18.83 39 49.0 15.427 Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus 22 28.01 0.74 50 63.66 1.68 36 45.8 1.208 Total 255 324.68 43 536 682.45 48.86 396 Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (H') 1.75 1.46 Survey area: 0.13 ac

Lower Ichetucknee Fish Summary – July 2018 7/11/2018 Common Name Scientific Name Count Density (#/ha) Biomass (kg/ha) Atlantic Needlefish Strongylura marina 4 2.34 0.31 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 37 9.84 0.35 Chain Pickerel Esox niger 1 2.29 0.01 Darter sp. Etheostoma sp. 59 13.85 0.02 Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 540 709.29 0.50 Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 21 10.62 0.21 Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus 2 2.73 0.02 Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta 18 7.94 1.25 Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 212 35.53 13.87 Minnows Notropis sp. 2086 372.87 0.28 Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus 4 10.49 0.78 Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 15 18.81 3.17 Redeye Chub Notropis harperi 150 393.49 28.55 Sailfin Molly Poecilia latipinna 10 13.58 0.10 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 398 56.04 34.37 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 934 135.70 106.23 Sunfish sp. Lepomis sp. 991 158.37 7.42 Suwannee Bass Micropterus notius 1 2.57 1.99 Total 5,483 1,956 199.43 Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (H') 1.788 Survey area: 5.287 ac

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Appendix D Quarter 3 Data Dissolved Oxygen

8 Spring 7 River

3 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 2

0 SFR at SFR above Olustee SFR below Santa Fe SFR at I-75 O'Leno State Santa Fe Hornsby Hornsby Hornsby SFR at US- Worthington Olustee Creek Olustee Spring Park River Rise Spring Spring Spring Run 441 Bridge Spring Creek Canoe Launch Segment 1 Segment 2

8 Spring 7 River

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 2

0 July Spring Poe Spring Allen Spring SFR SFR USat 27 SFR USat 47 Naked Spring Ginnie Spring Ginnie Pickard Spring Lily Spring Run Johnson Spring Poe Run Spring COL930971 Run COL930971 Run COL101971 Mermaid Spring Little Devil Spring Devil's Eye Spring Ginnie Spring Run Spring Ginnie Rum Island Spring Rum Island SFR SFR above Johnson Johnson Run Spring Gilchrist Blue Spring SFR SFR below Spring Poe SFR SFR Rumabove Island SFR Spring SFR Allen above SFR SFR below Gilchrist Blue Gilchrist Blue Spring Run Gilchrist Spring Blue SFR Rum andSFR Blue between

Segment 3

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

8 7 Spring River 6 5 4 3 2 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 1 0 LIR-1 LIR-4 LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring Troop Spring Troop ICH Midpoint SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR SFR below ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cedar Head Spring Run Spring Cedar Head Ichetucknee Head Spring Head Ichetucknee Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) pH

7.5 Spring River 7

6.5

pH (SU) 6

5.5

5 SFR SFR I-75at Olustee Creek Hornsby Spring Hornsby Santa Fe Spring Santa O'Leno State Park SFR SFR above Olustee Santa Fe River Rise SFR SFR US-441at Bridge SFR below Olustee Creek Olustee below SFR SFR Worthington Spring SFR at

Segment 1 Segment 2

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 8 Spring River 7.5

6.5 pH (SU)

5.5

5 July Spring Poe Spring Allen Spring SFR SFR USat 27 SFR USat 47 Naked Spring Pickard Spring Lily Spring Run Johnson Spring Poe Run Spring COL930971 Run COL930971 Run COL101971 Mermaid Spring Little Devil Spring Devil's Eye Spring Ginnie Spring Run Spring Ginnie Rum Island Spring Rum Island SFR SFR above Johnson Johnson Run Spring Gilchrist Blue Spring SFR SFR below Spring Poe SFR SFR Rumabove Island SFR Spring SFR Allen above SFR SFR below Gilchrist Blue Gilchrist Blue Spring Run Gilchrist Spring Blue SFR Rum andSFR Blue between

Segment 3

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) 8 Spring River 7.5

6.5 pH (SU)

5.5

5 LIR-1 LIR-4 LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring Troop Spring Troop ICH Midpoint SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR SFR below ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cedar Head Spring Run Spring Cedar Head Ichetucknee Head Spring Head Ichetucknee Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Specific Conductance

500 Spring River 400

300

200

100 SpCond (umhos/cm)SpCond

0 SFR SFR I-75at Olustee Creek Hornsby Spring Hornsby Santa Fe Spring Santa O'Leno State Park SFR SFR above Olustee Santa Fe River Rise Hornsby Spring Run Spring Hornsby SFR SFR US-441at Bridge SFR below Olustee Creek Olustee below SFR SFR Worthington Spring SFR at Hornsby Spring Canoe Spring Hornsby Launch

Segment 1 Segment 2

100

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

500 Spring River

400

300

200 SpCond (umhos/cm)SpCond 100

Segment 3

101

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

500 Spring River 400

300

200

100 SpCond (umhos/cm)SpCond 1024 0 LIR-1 LIR-4 LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring Troop Spring Troop ICH Midpoint SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR SFR below ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cedar Head Spring Run Spring Cedar Head Ichetucknee Head Spring Head Ichetucknee Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

102

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Water Temperature

30 Spring River 25

15 Wtr Temp (C) 10

Segment 1 Segment 2

103

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Spring 30 River

15 Wtr Temp (C)

Segment 3

104

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

30 Spring River

15 Wtr Temp (C) 10

0 LIR-1 LIR-4 LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring Troop Spring Troop ICH Midpoint SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR SFR below ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cedar Head Spring Run Spring Cedar Head Ichetucknee Head Spring Head Ichetucknee Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

105

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Water Flow

Spring

1750 River

1550

1350

1150

950

750 Discharge (cfs) 550

350

150 -0.05 -50 LIR-4 LIR-15 SFR SFR USat 27 Poe Run Spring Santa Fe Spring Santa Little Devil Spring Ginnie Spring Run Spring Ginnie Gilchrist Blue Spring Hornsby Canoe Launch Canoe Hornsby

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Ichetucknee

106

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018) Nitrate-Nitrite

0.8 Spring River 0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4 N (mg/l) - NOX 0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 SFR at SFR above Olustee Creek SFR below Santa Fe SFR at I-75 O'Leno State Santa Fe River Hornsby Hornsby Hornsby SFR at US-441 Worthington Olustee Olustee Creek Spring Park Rise Spring Spring Canoe Spring Run Bridge Spring Launch Segment 1 Segment 2

3.0 Spring River 2.5

2.0

1.5 N (mg/l) -

NOX 1.0

0.5

0.0 July Spring Poe Spring Allen Spring SFR SFR USat 27 SFR USat 47 Naked Spring Ginnie Spring Ginnie Pickard Spring Lily Spring Run Johnson Spring Poe Run Spring COL930971 Run COL930971 Run COL101971 Mermaid Spring Little Devil Spring Devil's Eye Spring Ginnie Spring Run Spring Ginnie Rum Island Spring Rum Island SFR SFR above Johnson Johnson Run Spring SFR SFR below Spring Poe SFR Spring SFR Allen above SFR SFR below Gilchrist Blue Gilchrist Blue Spring Run Gilchrist Spring Blue

Segment 3

107

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Spring 1.2 River

1.0

0.8 N (mg/l) - 0.6 NOX 0.4

0.2

0.0 LIR-1 LIR-4 LIR-5 LIR-15 Trail Spring COL917971 Betty Spring ICH Midpoint SFR SFR USat 129 Wilson Spring SFR SFR above ICH SFR at 39th Ave Blue Hole Spring ICH Takeout Tube ICH Launch Canoe Dampier's Landing Cedar Head Spring Run Spring Cedar Head Ichetucknee Head Spring Head Ichetucknee Suwannee River SFR above Suwannee Suwannee River below SFR River below Suwannee

Segment 4 Ichetucknee

Water Clarity

Horizontal Secchi Spring 50 River

Secchi Secchi Depths (m) 20

0 Hornsby Spring Poe Spring Gilchrist Blue Spring Devil's Eye Spring Ginnie Spring ICH Tube Takeout LIR-15 Segment 2 Segment 3 Ichetucknee

108

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

Vertical Secchi Spring River 3

2.5

1.5

Secchi Depths (m) Depths Secchi 1

0.5

0 LIR-15 SFR at I-75 COL917971 Betty Spring SFRUS at 27 SFRUS at 47 SFRUS at 129 Olustee Creek Olustee SFR above ICH above SFR SFR below ICH Hornsby Spring Hornsby Santa Fe Spring SFR at 39th Ave O'Leno Park State SFR above Olustee SFRUS-441 at Bridge SFR belowPoe Spring SFR above Allen Spring SFR belowGilchrist Blue GilchristBlue Spring Run SFR belowOlustee Creek SFR at Worthington Spring Worthington at SFR Suwannee River above SFR Suwannee River below SFR SFR between Rum and Blue and Rum between SFR

109

Santa Fe River and Springs Quarterly Report (July – September 2018)

110