<%BANNER%>

Land Use Change, Planning Policy and Public Participation

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025091/00001

Material Information

Title: Land Use Change, Planning Policy and Public Participation the Impact on Florida Springs Water Quality
Physical Description: 1 online resource (134 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Colverson, Sherith
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Development in Florida over the last forty years has rapidly accelerated. With this growth and the associated changing landscapes, the state?s ability to ensure clean water for its residents has declined. Most of Florida?s drinking water comes from the state?s many aquifers. The source for these aquifers is derived from both ground and surface water. The health of Florida?s aquifers can be measured in Florida?s springs. State water quality standards do not sufficiently regulate the interaction between ground and surface waters where springs are present. A main concern for springs water quality is the rising level of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and nitrates. The current conditions and ongoing monitoring indicate that nitrogen input is increasing in springs all over the state. This thesis looks at two particular springs, Wakulla Springs in Wakulla County, and Wekiwa Springs in Orange County, through the use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) interface, the Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) and land use data to determine and compare how the changing landscape for particular land uses is influencing the rising level of nitrogen present. Landscape ecological and complexity theory are used in analyzing this linkage. Lastly, interactional theory is discussed and used as a model to determine if stakeholder participation efforts have aided in the protection of springs through policy and education.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sherith Colverson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Zwick, Paul D.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025091:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025091/00001

Material Information

Title: Land Use Change, Planning Policy and Public Participation the Impact on Florida Springs Water Quality
Physical Description: 1 online resource (134 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Colverson, Sherith
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Development in Florida over the last forty years has rapidly accelerated. With this growth and the associated changing landscapes, the state?s ability to ensure clean water for its residents has declined. Most of Florida?s drinking water comes from the state?s many aquifers. The source for these aquifers is derived from both ground and surface water. The health of Florida?s aquifers can be measured in Florida?s springs. State water quality standards do not sufficiently regulate the interaction between ground and surface waters where springs are present. A main concern for springs water quality is the rising level of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and nitrates. The current conditions and ongoing monitoring indicate that nitrogen input is increasing in springs all over the state. This thesis looks at two particular springs, Wakulla Springs in Wakulla County, and Wekiwa Springs in Orange County, through the use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) interface, the Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) and land use data to determine and compare how the changing landscape for particular land uses is influencing the rising level of nitrogen present. Landscape ecological and complexity theory are used in analyzing this linkage. Lastly, interactional theory is discussed and used as a model to determine if stakeholder participation efforts have aided in the protection of springs through policy and education.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sherith Colverson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Zwick, Paul D.
Local: Co-adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025091:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 LAND USE CHANGE, PLANNI NG POLICY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: THE IMPACT ON FLORIDA SPRINGS WATER QUALITY By SHERITH E. COLVERSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Sherith E. Colverson

PAGE 3

3 This thesis research and document is dedicated to my husband, Colin, who continues to both love and challenge me despite lifes obstacles. Thank you for providing me support and encouragement in our efforts towards helping the planet not only survive, but hopefully thrive for many more generations.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would lik e to acknowledge my committee chair, Dr. Paul D. Zwick, for his guidance and assistance in shaping the directi on and completion of my research. I would also like to thank Dr. Ruth Steiner and Dr. Mark Brennan for serving on my committee and pa ssing along their expert knowledge. In addition, I would al so like to thank Ms. Iris Pa tten for helping me narrow my thesis topic search and assuring me that I will get th rough the process. Many other individuals have provided assistance in the prep aration, data collection and editing of this document. First, I would like to thank all the st aff at Pandion Systems, Inc. for allowing me the opportunity to work in the enviro nmental field while stil l a student at UF and opening my eyes to the necessity for springs protection in Florida. I also am grateful for the Family, Youth and Community Sciences Department in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Florida who f unded my graduate studies during my 2006 academic year. Many thanks are also due to the develope rs and engineers of the Watershed Assessment Model. The team at Soil and Water Engineering T echnologies, Inc. helped to support me in using and fully understanding their GIS models capabilities. Many individuals are to thank for helping to provide various support in obtaining data for the GIS models used in this research: Greg Ma uldin with the Leon Count y GIS Department, Kate Norris and Sam Palmer at the University of Fl oridas GeoPlan Center, Mr. Kristopher Barrios with the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Debra Harri ngton and Tom Greenhalgh with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Carla Barnes with the Florida Public Service Commission, Brent Pell with Wakulla County, and Shannon Ashworth with Seminole County Environmental Services. I would also like to thank each and ever y individual who made them self available for an interview during my qualitative portion of this research.

PAGE 5

5 Lastly, but most certainly not l east, a big thank you to all my family and friends that have followed along with me on this a cademic journey. I praise God th at I am so blessed to have many wonderful people in my life and the freedom to pursue any dream that I can imagine; including graduate school.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............11 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 132 SPRINGSHED CHARACTERISTICS OF WAKULLA & WEKI WA SPRINGS, FLORIDA ....................................................................................................................... ........23The Importance of Springs ..................................................................................................... 23Wakulla Springs Environm ental Characteristics ........................................................... 29Wekiwa Springs Environmental Characteristics ............................................................ 31Economic Characteristics of Springs in Florida ..............................................................32Economic Characteristics of Wakulla Springs ................................................................ 33Economic Characteristics of Wekiwa Springs ................................................................ 33Political Characteristic s and Jurisdictions of Springs in Florida .....................................34Political Characterist ics and Jurisdictions of Wakulla Springs ....................................... 34Political Characterist ics and Jurisdictions of Wekiwa Springs ....................................... 35Social and Cultural Characteristics of Springs ................................................................ 35Social and Cultural Characteristics of Wakulla Springs .......................................... 36Social and Cultural Character istics of Wekiwa Springs .......................................... 37Land Use And Florida Springsheds ................................................................................. 37Land Use Around Wakulla Springs ......................................................................... 38Land Use Around Wekiwa Springs ..........................................................................393 LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, LAND USE C HANGE AND COMPLEXITY THEORY ........ 42Landscape Ecology and Land Use Planning .......................................................................... 42Emergence of Complexity in Land Use Planning .................................................................. 46Application of Landscape Ecology ......................................................................................... 49Land Use Policy and Change ..................................................................................................50The Linkage: Landscape Ecology/GIS, Comp lexity Theory and Land Use Policy ...............554 SPRINGS & PUBLIC PA RTICIPATION: MANDA TED OR VOLUNTARY .................... 58Public Participation in Environmental Planning ..................................................................... 58Interactional Theory ................................................................................................................60Interactional Theory & Springs Protection Policy .................................................................. 62

PAGE 7

7 5 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 646 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........72Land Use Change in Springsheds ...........................................................................................72Wakulla Springs Land Use Change ................................................................................. 72Wekiwa Springs Land Use Change ................................................................................. 75Analyzing Nitrogen Presence .......................................................................................... 80Public Participation for Springs Protection ..................................................................... 96Discussion .................................................................................................................... .........100Recommendations ............................................................................................................... ..103Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................105APPENDIX A WAKULLA CO. WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REGULATION/WATER QUALIT Y ORDINANCE (NO. 94-28) ............................................................................... 111B FLORIDA SENATE 2009, SPRINGS BILL 274 FLORIDA SPRINGS PROTECTI ON ACT ............................................................................................................113C GEODATA LISTING .......................................................................................................... 117D TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................... 118LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................121BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................134

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Floridas Population: Census Counts and Urban-Rural Breakdown, 1830-2000. (Catlin, 1997; EDR, 2008) .................................................................................................142-1 Spring Flow Classifi cations (Meinzer, 1927). ................................................................... 242-2 Floridas Spring Classification System (Copeland, 2003). ................................................255-1 Breakdown of Parcel Description and Land Use Categories .............................................686-1 Wakulla County Land Use Change (1925-2006). ..............................................................746-2 Orange County Land Use Change (1901-2006) ................................................................766-4 Comparison of Simulated Nitrogen Load for Existing Land Uses in the Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs Boundary Area ......................................................................................81

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Map of Floridas Springs (DEP, 2009c). ........................................................................... 242-2 Diagram and Picture of Hydrilla (UF IFAS, 2008). .......................................................... 302-3 Wakulla Springs Special Planning Ar ea (Wakulla County Planning Department, 2008). ........................................................................................................................ .........393-1 Examples of Planning Approaches in a Spectrum (Zuidema & De Roo, 2004) ................ 483-2 A conceptual framework for applying GIS-based methods to land-use policy and land-use change (Adapted from Aspinall, 1993). .............................................................. 566-1 Wakulla Springs Five Mile Study Boundary .....................................................................736-2 Wakulla County Land Use Change In Acres (1925-2006) ................................................746-3 Wekiwa Springs Five Mile Study Boundary .....................................................................756-4 Orange County Land Use Ch ange In Acres (1901-2006) .................................................. 766-5 Orange County Land Use (1901-2006).............................................................................. 776-6 Seminole County Land Use Change in Acres (1900-2006) ............................................... 786-7 Seminole County Land Use (1900-2006) .......................................................................... 796-8 Existing Land Uses for Wakulla Springs 5-Mile Boundary Area ..................................... 826-9 Wakulla Spring Study Area Existing Land Us es in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading ....................................................................................................................... .......836-10 Wakulla Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1970s ...................846-11 Wakulla Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1990s ...................856-12 Wakulla Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen............................866-13 Wakulla Land Uses in Comparis on to Groundwater Nitrogen in 1970s ...........................876-14 Wakulla Land Uses in Comparis on to Groundwater Nitrogen in 1990s ...........................886-15 Existing Land Uses for Wekiwa Springs 5-Mile Boundary Area ...................................... 896-16 Wekiwa Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading ................... 90

PAGE 10

10 6-17 Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Sedim ent Nitrogen Loading in 1970s ...................916-18 Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1990s ...................926-19 Wekiwa Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads ................. 936-20 Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads 1970s ..................... 946-21 Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads 1990s ..................... 95

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning LAND USE CHANGE, PLANNI NG POLICY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: THE IMPACT ON FLORIDA SPRINGS WATER QUALITY By Sherith E. Colverson August 2009 Chair: Paul D. Zwick Cochair: Ruth L. Steiner Major: Urban and Regional Planning Development in Florida over the last forty year s has rapidly accelerate d. With this growth and the associated changing landscapes, the states ability to ensure clean water for its residents has declined. Most of Florid as drinking water comes from th e states many aquifers. The source for these aquifers is derived from both ground and surface water. The health of Floridas aquifers can be measured in Floridas springs. State water quality standards do not sufficiently regulate the interaction between ground and surface waters where sp rings are present. A main concern for springs water quality is the rising level of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and nitrates. The current conditions and ongoing monitoring indi cate that nitrogen input is increasing in springs all over the state. This thesis looks at two pa rticular springs, Wakulla Springs in Wakulla County, and Wekiwa Springs in Orange County, through the us e of a Geographic Information System (GIS) interface, the Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) and land use data to determine and compare how the changing landscape for particular land uses is influencing the ri sing level of nitrogen present. Landscape ecological and complexity theory are used in analyzing this linkage. Lastly,

PAGE 12

12 interactional theory is discussed and used as a model to determine if stakeholder participation efforts have aided in the protection of springs through policy and education.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Floridas po pulation has increa sed from approximately two million in 1940 to more than 17 million in 2004 and is projected to exceed 26 million by 2030 (EDR, 2008). The majority of the migration has moved people into what the Un ited States census calls urban areas, instead of rural locations th roughout the state (see Table 1.1). This shift began through the establishment of the Florida s railroad system in the mid 1920s, which brought agricultural products to processing centers lo cated in urban areas. This sh ift along with the economic boom caused by transportation options, brought with it visitors from the north during winter months, sometimes referred to as snowbi rds, to the state for tourism as well as relocation. This combination of available transportation and rising populations also brought more entrepreneurs into the state to capitalize on opportunities for urban development (Catlin, 1997). As Floridas population continues to grow in the twenty-first century, increa sed amounts of pressure are on the states ability to ensure land and water reso urces for its people. The stewardship of these resources is very important. Stewardship is im plemented and carried out as a function of the states ability to effec tively create systems that balance the needs of its population with the preservation of both land and water. Thomas Sanchez and Robert Mandle (2007) disc overed that the rates and types of growth for nineteen of Floridas metropolitan areas be tween the years of 1970 and 2000 were increasing so incredibly fast, they were only comparable to the growth e xperienced by a total of forty-six large metropolitan areas across the country throughout the same period of time. The Naples metropolitan area in southwest Florida ranked se cond behind only Las Vegas in terms of urban development and land consumption in recent deca des (2007, p. 93). Theoretically, much of this growth has been tempered by the states adop tion of the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive

PAGE 14

14 Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Chapter 163, Part II F.S.), also known as Floridas Growth Management Act. Table 1-1. Floridas Popul ation: Census Counts and Urban-Rural Breakdown, 1830-2000. (Catlin, 1997; EDR, 2008) Year Total No. Population Change from No. Preceding Census Percent Change Urban No. Urban % Rural No. Rural % 1830 34,730 na na 0 0.0 34,730 100.0 1840 54,477 19,747 56.9 0 0.0 54,477 100.0 1850 87,445 32,968 60.5 0 0.0 87,445 100.0 1860 140,424 52,979 60.6 5,708 4.1 134,716 95.9 1870 187,748 47,324 33.7 15,275 8.1 172,473 91.9 1880 269,493 81,745 43.5 26,947 10.1 242,546 90.0 1890 391,422 121,929 45.2 77,358 19.8 314,064 80.2 1900 528,542 137,120 35.0 107,031 20.3 421,511 79.7 1910 752,619 224,077 42.4 219,080 29.1 533,539 70.9 1920 968,470 215,851 28.7 353,515 36.5 614,955 63.5 1930 1,468,211 499,741 51.6 759,778 51.7 708,433 48.3 1940 1,897,414 429,203 29.2 1,045,791 55.1 851,623 44.9 1950 2,771,305 873,891 46.1 1,566,788 56.5 1,204,51743.5 1960 4,951,560 2,180,255 78.1 3,077,989 62.2 1,873,57137.8 1970 6,791,418 1,839,858 37.2 5,544,551 81.7 1,244,89218.3 1980 9,746,324 2,954,906 43.5 8,212,385 84.3 1,533,39315.7 1990 12,937,926 3,191,602 32.7 11,828,47691.4 1,109,4508.6 2000 15,982,378 3,044,452 23.5 14,272,26389.3 1,710,11510.7 2010 projected 19,308,066 3,325,688 20.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2020 projected 22,477,886 3,169,820 16.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

PAGE 15

15 The act that requires all of Flor idas sixty-seven counties and f our hundred and ten municipalities to draft and adopt their own Local Government al Comprehensive Plan, serves to guide the direction of future growth and development for each county (DCA, 2008). However, the key elements of concern for the state and local m unicipalities included within the local comprehensive plans are mostly outdated. The state agency in charge of monitoring these updates and changes in loca l government, The Florida Department of Community Affairs, has been criticized by its own secretary, Thomas Pelham (2007), as failing to comply with the state growth management legislation. Pelham comments that the current state and regional planning process is substantially different than th e process envisioned by the 1985 legislationone where over 90% of all plan amendments submitted for review are approved, suggesting that the state might not be effectively monito ring for growth, (2007, p. 14). In a 2001 report by Floridas Growth Mana gement Study Commission, suggestions were made to the Department of Community Affair s (DCA) regarding the restructuring of the comprehensive planning process. One recommenda tion stated that the states review of local comprehensive plan amendments should be limited to the following three concepts: concerns of a natural resource of statewide significance; concerns of transportation facilities of statewide significance; or involving something with natural disaster preparedness in reducing risks to life, property or additional post disa ster expenditures (p. 33). Sin ce this 2001 report, the amendment process has been used for a wide variety of changes throughout al l municipalities in the state. With development throughout Florida increasi ng to accommodate the influx of population, the increase of impervious surfaces, from streets an d parking lots to rooftops of residential, commercial, institutional and industrial buildi ngs, has led to a considerable reduction of rainwater infiltration, and an in crease in the rate of accumulati on of stormwater runoff in many

PAGE 16

16 urban areas (Randolph, 2004). This decreased in filtration and increased accumulation make drainage and flooding problems worse, and lead to channeling erosion downstream. The runoff usually carries non-point source (NPS) water polluta nts that exceed the impact of industrial and municipal point discharges, a nd contribute to the pollution of waters throughout the United States (Randolph, 2004). All thes e pressures have led to documented degradation of the quality of one of Floridas most valued environmental resources; springs. Approximately 700 springs are located along the northern and central por tions of the state as of 2004 (Scott et al., 2004). Most of these springs are heavily dependent on the ground water supplied by the Floridan aquifer (Sco tt et. al., 2004). On a daily basi s, its been approximated that the springs discharge more than 8 billion gall ons of ground water from the Upper Floridan aquifer, where nearly 93% of the states popul ation obtains its drinki ng water (SWFWMD, 2001; Marella et al., 1998). These springs also provide unique habitat vital for the survival of many plants and animal species including th e Florida Manatee (L angtimm et al., 1998). However, the water quality of springs in recent years has been declining (Brown et. al., 2008). The karst openings around springs and their nearby waters are showi ng signs of being out of ecological balance due to the widespread grow th of algae and other invasive aquatic plants (Brown et. al., 2008). Continued monitoring of Florida springs by state agencies demonstrates that this imbalance is primarily caused by increasing levels of nitrogen; with the main contributors known to be from inorganic nitrogen sources like fertilizers, while organic sources like human or animal waste also contribute (FDEP, 2007). There have been several effort s to protect and restore these natural and aquatic treasures at all levels of government. In 1999, former Gove rnor Jeb Bush assigned the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) the responsibility of forming a coalition Task Force, to

PAGE 17

17 develop a statewide plan for sp rings protection and restoration (Florida Springs Task Force, 2000, p. 4). The Task Force presented th eir recommendations in the 2000 report, Strategies for Protection and Restoration The report identified several strate gies to ensure the restoration and protection of spring systems incl uding; the gathering of more sp ecific scientific information about springs, providing outreach to local gove rnments and non-profits, regulation, management, and also funding sources as tools to help implement protection measures. The Task Forces report also paved the wa y for the creation of the multi-million dollar funded Florida Springs Initiative (FSI) in 2001 (FDEP, 2007). One program within the FSI worked with DCA to establish the first st atewide voluntary Model Land Development Code Program. The programs main goal was to protect important natural ecosystems, especially those associated with springs, through the comprehe nsive planning process (FDEP, 2007). DCA has updated this model code and has incorporated it into a second edition publication, Protecting Floridas Springs: An Implementation Guidebook This guidebook provides many recommendations that include the limitation of in tense land uses in areas that could potentially harm Floridas aquifers. It provides a set of standards for the developmental design and locations of storm and wastewat er facilities, along with mana gement proposals to guide these services after thei r installation (2008). Four countiesCitrus, Levy, Marion and Wakulla were chosen to participate in a Model Land Development Code Program because of their verified negative impact on springs in their jurisdiction. To date, the Wakulla County Board of Commissioners has been the sole jurisdiction to vote unanimously on adopting the strategies and development standards recommended in the Model Land Development Code, protecting Wakulla spring and its associated resources (2007). Recently adopted amendments for Wakulla County s Comprehensive Plan also include changes

PAGE 18

18 that reflect additional targeted protection for Wakulla spring and its associated springshed. These measures are incorporated into several of their required elements including per F.S. Chapter 163; future land use, conservation and in tergovernmental coordina tion. Examples of the amendments involve design standards that provi de a significant buffer from spring and karst features; the establishment of goals for creati ng a County Water Manageme nt Conservation Plan; implementing inter-local agreements with neighb oring municipalities and state agencies to specify responsibilities for land development re gulations; stormwater management; and other potential springshed impacts. A recent University of Florida report summarizing knowledge about springs throughout the state has provided an enormous amount of info rmation for decision-makers to consider when writing and approving policy in springshe d locations. The report, entitled Summary and Synthesis of the Available Literature on th e Effects of Nutrients on Spring Organisms and Systems, details the multiple factors that stress spring ecosystems including an increase in the presence of nutrients, specifically nitrates, in the groundwater being discharged by springs (Brown et al., 2008). All of these factors significa ntly disturb springs ecosystems. This thesis focuses on the rise of nitrogen, occurr ing as either nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), organic or inorganic nitrogen (N), found in two partic ular springs: Wakulla Springs lo cated in the northern portion of the state in Wakulla County, and We kiwa Springs found in the central part of the state in Orange County. Nitrates are well investigated and docume nted in springs throughout Florida and are recognized as a problem of global scale. Nutrien t enrichment, principally resulting from the use of modern inorganic fertilizers, fossil fuel comb ustion as well as land us e change, has drastically altered biogeochemical cycles, (Vitousek et al., 1997; Brown et al., 200 8). Human behaviors

PAGE 19

19 like the application of commercial fertilizers and increased density of septic systems in karst locations without any intervening management activ ities, inevitably leads to increased levels of nitrate present in aquatic ecosystems. This is extremely important for decision-makers to understand when approving new development in environmentally sensitive regions. With the speed at which development in Florida has ta ken place throughout the past century, its been challenging to demonstrate the correlation be tween land use changes within environmental boundaries like that of springshe ds, and the lasting environmenta l consequences of degraded water quality. Some of th e leading contributory land use changes to the nutrient problem are: stormwater from impervious surfaces; the additi on of high density septic systems; and the various wastewater treatment processes that place high amounts of nut rients into the ground, eventually making its way to the groundwater and appearing in springs throughout the state (Randolph, 2004). Additionally, intensive agriculture increases the percentage of erosion and ultimate sediment load that leaches nutrients and chemicals into the groundwater in karst locations where springs are lo cated (Foley et al., 2005). A 2002 study in the Wakulla springshed pr epared by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD), entitled Nitrate loading as an indi cator of nonpoint source pollution in the lower St. Marks-Wakulla Rivers watershed presented the municipalities of Leon and Wakulla Counties as well as the City of Talla hassee with an assessment of the risk posed to drinking water wells (those existing and proposed) and surf ace water bodies by nitrate infiltration. This study was a glim pse of how the changing land use ha s contributed to the rise of the nitrogen present in the aquifer, in portions of both Leon and Wakulla Counties. The study also displayed that the re lative contribution from 1990-1999, of inventory sources from anthropogenic uses consisted primarily of commerci al fertilizer, onsite an d municipal wastewater

PAGE 20

20 treatment facilities, agricultural lands that contai n livestock, and residual disposal sources from wastewater treatment facilities (NWFWMD, 2002). The fertilizers used for crop production contain nitrogen and some agricultural areas also contain livestock that produce nitrogen as a bypr oduct of animal waste. These sources are "believed to be the major agricultura l sources contributi ng to nitrate (NO3 ) in shallow aquifer locations, (Knox & Moody, 1991). Many studies have looked at the relationship between applied nitrogen (N) fertilizers, the concentration of nitrates (NO3-) in the soil and its affects on levels of nitrates present in groundwater (Alva et al., 2006). A joint study conducted in 2006 by the Florida Department of Citrus the University of Florida, the USDA in Washington State, Savannah State University and the University of Saskatchewan, looked at the impact of nitrogen (N) fertilization for citrus production in central Florida and the associated rise in nitrate (NO3-) levels in the groundwater of near by residential areas. Conclusions of the study linked identified sources of nitrate (NO3), which impacted groundwater immedi ately under the citrus groves, to high concentrations of nitrate (NO3-N) found in the sampled we lls (groundwater) of the residential homes adjacent to the citrus groves. The nitrate contamination of municipal well water, coming from shallowly tapped groundwater sources, is widespread across the Unite d States, (Nolan et al., 1998). Researchers see it as only the result of a pus h for short-term economic gain of maximizing crop yields (Criss & Davisson, 2004). The consequences of this cost analysis have serious long-term repercussions that are not confined to the properties wher e the problems originate, (Criss & Davisson 2004). Onsite Treatment and Disposal Systems (OST DS), commonly called septic systems, are also another source of nutrient input into surface and groundwater. OSTDS installation is

PAGE 21

21 currently regulated by the Florida Department of Health (DOH) and local governmental entities. The initial permitting and installation of septic systems is beginning to recognize the need for nitrogen output control, and regulators are begi nning to require performance-based systems to mitigate the additional pollutants in particularly vulnerable areas of the state (Roeder, 2006). A white paper released in 2 008 by the DOH concentrated on the Wekiva River Study Area in central Florida; the paper presented findings th at plumes of effluent coming from the areas 55,000 onsite systems were entering the ground water, and that approximately one-half to onethird of the nitrogen released from the septic tank reaches groundwater, depending upon the soil type, (DOH, 2008; Ursin & Roeder, 2008). A pproximately one third of the population of Florida is served by personal OSTDS systems ( DOH, 2008; Ursin & Roeder, 2008). In order for the states groundwater to be considered sustainable there is a critical need to update the OSTDS installation and maintenance regulations. One avenue taken by local governments, has been the mandating of all new development to in stall individual propert y advanced wastewater treatment systems (Wakulla County Infrastructure Policy, 1.3.1). These systems are designed to produce an effluent of higher quality than norma lly achieved by secondary treatment processes. With increased attention focused on the rise in nitrogen in the form of nitrates in springsheds and groundwater throug hout the state, it is imperative to understand the genesis of the guiding regulatory structure of land use decisions at both the lo cal and state level. Land use decisions are influenced by a process that enable s concerned citizens and citizen groups to voice concerns, produce information and relate opinions regarding the future of springs and their associated springsheds to the pertinent decision ma kers. Planners tasked with land use decisions affecting springs and springsheds benefit from this process of public partic ipation. It provides a way to fully understand and critic ally judge eventual developmen t outcomes of both day-to-day

PAGE 22

22 and long-range planning goals and ach ievements. In order to intertwine these important avenues for springs protection, my hypot hesis is the following: The increase of changing land uses for urba n development to accommodate the growth in population within the Wakulla and Wekiwa springshed areas has contributed to the rise of nitrates, causing the decline of water quality in springs. This research seeks to respond to the following questions: 1. How (in what ways) has development contributed to this rise in nutrients associated with nitrogen (nitrates)? 2. How are stakeholders and the publ ic involved in protecting springs? The objectives from my stat ed hypothesis and research que stions are the following: To investigate the spatial relationship betw een the Wakulla and Wekiwa springs water quality data and land use changes within set study boundaries in their associated springsheds using a GIS interface tool, th e watershed assessment model (WAM). To describe how major stakehol ders and the public have been involved in both the research and policy processes for springs protection through interviews with stakeholders knowledgeable about both Wakulla and Wekiwa springs and discuss the available relevant information about the current public participation proce ss for springs protection. The population of the state is projected to cont inue to increase, placing more need for land development. Involvement from concerned citizens, through part icipatory protection efforts for significant resources such as ground water, may be the ultimate deciding factor of the future of water quality in Florida. GIS models help engin eers and planners to visually assess and analyze historic and projected land use changes in relation to monitored environmental parameters like water quality in order give the most well-info rmed recommendations to both the concerned citizens in the public as well as local and state decision-makers.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 2 SPRINGSHED CHARACTERISTICS OF WA KULLA & WEKI WA SPRINGS, FLORIDA The Importance of Springs This research looks at two springs within Florida from a case study approach, the Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs, to examine the interconnecte dness of the declining h ealth of their water quality due to nutrient increase of nitrogen. Although research on springs throughout the state is well documented and recorde d, according to Knight and Notestein, there still remains a significant gap between the real and perceived th reats that nitrate pollu tion plays on the ecology of spring ecosystems, (Brown et al., 2008). Desp ite the need for additional studies that track the sources of nutrients over various temporal periods, springs pr ovide a window to understand the health and quantity of groundwat er, a resource that the future of Florida vitally depends upon. Springs are a marvelous natural wonder for peop le to experience. Behind these beautiful natural wonders lie many complicated biological hydrologic, and geological processes that spectators may take for granted. Florida is home to more than 700 identified springs, which are typically found in karst locations (Scott et al., 2004). These springs are scientifically classified based on their average discharge of water (2004). The amount of water discharged fluctuates depending upon the amount of ra infall that occurs around the recharge area within the springshed along with the amount of groundwater withdrawal within the known recharge areas (2004). Ultimately, it has been noted that pr ecipitation (climate) patterns determine the distribution of water on and under the ground (Ra ndolph, 2004). The discharge measurement of water is compared and classified by the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) or the United States Geological Survey (USGS) based upon an adapted system classification. Springs are placed into categories, called magnitudes, using the m easured amount of discharge present within a chosen spring location.

PAGE 24

24 Table 2-1. Spring Flow Cla ssifications (Meinzer, 1927). Magnitude Average Flow 1 100 cfs or more (64.6 mgd or more) 2 10 to 100 cfs (6.46 to 64.6 mgd) 3 1 to 10 cfs (0.646 to 6.46 mgd) 4 100 gpm to 1 cfs (448 gpm) 5 10 to 100 gpm 6 1 to 10 gpm 7 1 pint to 1 gpm 8 Less than 1 pint/min cfs = cubic feet per second gpm = gallons per minute mgd = million gallons per day pint/min = pints per minute A springs actual discharge is a varying flow rate based on various environmental conditions. According to the FGS, a springs magn itude is to be based on the median value of all the discharge measurements for the period of record, (Scott et al., 2004). Although a spring might be placed into the firs t of eight magnitudes, the dynamic flow of the spring might place it as a second or third magnitude several years la ter (Scott et al., 2004). Currently, there are 33 documented first magnitude springs and a total of 761 springs throughout the state. Figure 2-1. Map of Florid as Springs (DEP, 2009c).

PAGE 25

25 The discharge rates taken at each spring is driv en by the rate at which the recharge areas are receiving water. The recharge surface area, the springshed, is where water travels underground to an aquifer. The largest aquifer in the state is the Floridan Aquifer System (FAS), covering approximately 55% of th e state (Scott & Berndt et al., 1998). The rate at which the water recharges varies annually from one inch per year to more than ten (Scott et al., 2004). The historical category of a spring is based upon a state classification syst em developed in 2003 by Copeland (Scott et al., 2004). The state classi fication system is based on the geomorphology of an area, and describes springs by asking four questions. The ques tions include: is the point of discharge a vent or a seep? And is the point of discharge located onshore or offshore? Copelands classification system is displayed in Table 2.2 below. Comb ining Meinzers spring discharge classification and Cope lands systems of classifying springs, individual spring types and their magnitudes can be more accurately clas sified, investigated, a nd the surrounding lands can be better managed. Table 2-2. Floridas Spring Clas sification System (Copeland, 2003). SPRING Onshore Offshore Vent Onshore Vent Examples: Karst Spring Resurgence (River Rise) Estavelle (intermittent resurgence or exsurgence) Subaqueous riverine vent Sand boil Offshore Vent Examples: Offshore karst Unnamed offshore vent Offshore estavelle vent Seep Onshore Seep Examples: Subaerial riverine seep Subaqueous lacustrine seep Offshore Seep Examples: Unnamed offshore seep Offshore estavelle seep The geomorphology and geology of the state of Fl orida controls the distribution of where springs occur (Scott et al., 2004). Onshore spri ngs are mostly found where karst features are closer to the surface. This is in combination w ith where the potentiometric surface of the aquifer

PAGE 26

26 is high and where the actual surface elevation is lo w enough to allow groundwater to exist at that elevation (Randolph, 2004). Springs are generally found in lowlands near the states rivers and streams; most of the spring locations occur in th e northern and north central portions of the state. Discharge rates along with water quality a nd temperature are documented for several springs throughout Florida as bei ng stable over long periods of tim e, yet there are other several factors known to affect both the quality of water in springs. Some of the environmental factors contributing to noticeable changes include the distribution of the karst features within a springshed, the thickness of the confining units below the surface, the soil properties of the particular area, the topography of the area and the potentiometri c surface (Scott et al., 2004). Changes to the dynamic functioning of thes e biogeochemical processes through land development contribute to spring water qua lity degradation (Brown et. al., 2008). A springs recharge basin, or springshed, cons ists of the areas w ithin ground and surface water basins that contribute to the discharge of the spring, (DeHan, 2002). The karst features usually include sinking streams that bring surface water directly in contact with the aquifer. In fact, the actual recharge basin ma y include surface water drainage ba sins that bring water into the spring from outside the groundwater basin (Scott et al., 2004). Any decline of spring water flow also changes the composition of the propertie s that are present in the water (Cohen, 2008). The causes for the decline of fl ow in springs still remain unc ertain due to the lack of a clear understanding of the link between climate variability an d spring discharges (Cohen, 2008). Scientists who have gathered and analyzed long-term spring discharge data show a lower and weaker trend observed at many hi storically high discharge springs (2008, p. 78). Some reports on this subject identify the cause of the decline as extraction of groundwater for municipal and agricultural use (Web er and Perry, 2004).

PAGE 27

27 The texture of the soil in a springshed is one component that determines waters permeability and infiltration rate (USDA, 1998). For many soils in Florida, once they become saturated during a given precipitation event, a greater percentage of the precipitation will end up as surface runoff (Randolph, 2004). This means that contaminated surface water can be introduced to the springshed from various sources, well outside of the groundwater basin (Florida Springs Task Force, 2006). The chemi cal makeup of a springs discharge is a function of biology, hydrogeology, and land use within the ground and surface water drainage basins (Scott et al., 2004). The topography determines how surface water drains, and it also delineates drainage basin boundaries (watersheds or catchment s). However, the drainage over time affects topography through geomorphic pr ocesses, especially in karst areas (Randolph, 2004). Development also causes hydrologic changes. One effect is the increase of water flow in certain new areas, due to development changing th e historical flow of water, causing flooding downstream during periods of heavy rainfall. Ot her effects, such as urban runoff, introduce contaminants that negatively affect the wa ter quality (Randolph, 2004). Runoff from urban areas, is a substantial source of surface-water pollution in the Unite d States, (Driver & Troutman, 1989). The runoff from the impervious surfaces (rooftops, roads, and parking lots) or other surfaces that are consider ed impaired due to their compact ed or altered condition does not allow water to penetrate the gr ound as it normally would in the hydr ologic cycle (Lehner, 1999). Arnold and Gibbon (1996) stat e that when an areas impervio us cover reaches beyond 20% of a watersheds total area, ecological stress within streams is evident. Due to the impervious cover blocking any infiltration in urban locations within watersheds or springsheds, it also reduces the amount of groundwater available to recharge water feat ures like springs, es pecially during dry weather periods (Lehner, 1999). A prolonged amount of time where the groundwater flow is low

PAGE 28

28 can quickly lead to higher c oncentrations of contaminants and shortages of drinking water supplies (1999). For springs in Florida, pollutio n is degrading its quali ty of water through the increased input of chemicals and nutrients. Th e focus of study for many of the agencies that research and monitor the health of springs including FDEP, DOH and the state water management agencies, has been nutrient inpu ts, particularly nitr ates and phosphorus. There is a mature understanding of the sour ces of nitrogen enteri ng groundwater due to the recognition that it makes its way into spring s from its deposition on top of any land surface including atmospheric deposition and the fixation of nitrogen by plants (Brown et al., 2008). Research taking place in Silver Springs located in Marion Count y, Florida, provides evidence that a principal reason for the rise in nitrates at is the conversion of vegetated and forested land within the springshed to high intensity urban area s (Munch et. al., 2006). As stated in Chapter One, nitrogen in the form of nitr ate found present in the waters of springs are due to both organic and inorganic sources. When assimilating wher e sources of nitrogen are derived from, many researchers use various methodologies that calculate land use loading. More recent studies on inorganic nitrate loading (mostly fertilizers) in springs, use app lication rates and land use maps to estimate the amount of fertilizer applied to the particular area (Brown et al., 2008; MACTEC, 2007). The methods for calculating loadi ng rates for these inorganic nitrate sources are seen as an inexact science, however the estimation of loads from organic sources is relatively well-developed, (Brown et al., 2008). Most research assumes that the nutrient load from septic tanks and wastewater sprayfields is recharged into the Fl oridan Aquifer, with attenuation rates reaching 30% (Brown et al., 2008; MACTEC, 2007; Chelette et. al., 2002). Researchers have not witnessed a systematic flux in phosphorus le vels like those of nitrogen/nitrates in springsheds, despite know n high phosphorus concentrations like those in

PAGE 29

29 Indian River Lagoon. To date, no clear effort in understanding the l inks between geologic setting and levels of phosphorus concentrations or the dominance of certain algae and invasive plants in spring systems (Brown et al., 2008; Si gua and Tweedale, 2003; Stevenson et. al., 2007). When levels of both nitrogen and phosphorus be come too high in water bodies, the waters dissolved oxygen content rapidly declines leaving the particular ecosystem to be overtaken by harmful algal blooms and other rapidly produc ing aquatic vegetation (EPA, 2008b). This occurrence is known as eutrophication (Nixon, 1995). In these conditions, aquatic life in springs and their associated tributaries cannot survive. The primary nutrient of concern currently in springs is the rising levels of nitrate; mostly a ssociated with domestic on-site sewage disposal and the application of fertilizer s for various land uses usuall y associated with agriculture (Puckett, 1994). Aside from the marvelous wonder of clear, cl ean water that springs provide, they also help to supply unique habitat to different animals and plants (FSI, 2007). From turtles to alligators, several birds and many fish species as well as the pl ants that provide food and oxygen to the ecosystem. They all serve as indicators of the health for each of the springs and their associated spring runs. The locations of both Wakulla and Wekiwa Spring serve as important case study choices for this research. Surrounding each of these spri ngs lies thousands of acres that have been preserved as conservation lands by either the state or federal government. Yet, development pressure has changed the land uses around these natural areas throughout the past three decades. Wakulla Springs Environmental Characteristics W akulla Spring is located just south of the state capital of Tallahassee within the Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park. It is a first magnitude spring apart of what is known as the Woodville Karst Plain, one of the largest underwater cave systems in the United States (Hartnett,

PAGE 30

30 2000). The spring, averaging 250 mgd (million gallons per day) of water, provides the source for the Wakulla River, eventually making its wa y to the St. Marks River 10 miles downstream (Loper et. al., 2005). Figure 2-2. Diagram and Picture of Hydrilla (UF IFAS, 2008). Since the late 1990s, the invasive exotic plant, hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata ), has began to overtake the spring area and continues to be a nuisance for Wakulla Springs Park Management. Hydrilla is a submerged aquatic plant native to Southeast Asia and Afri ca, and brought into the state by the aquarium trade in the mid 1950s, maki ng its way into the stat es water bodies by the 1960s (Brown et al., 2008, p. 240). Once hydrilla is established into an aquatic location, its

PAGE 31

31 structure allows for it to grow from the bottom of the sediment to the surface of the water, forming a canopy that shades out other native pl ant species and restricts navigation (Jones and Beardall, 2005). The root system has many tubers that allow for it to re-sprout after its growth is stopped by the use of herbicides or physical removal (Brown et al., 2008, p. 240). Water quality measurements have been ta ken at Wakulla spring since 1907. Much attention in recent decades has been focused on th e rising nitrate levels traced to domestic and industrial wastewater treatment facilities in Wakulla County a nd nearby Leon County. Residual nutrients there are leaching as much as 55% of the nitrogen present; with 40% coming from effluent and 15% from residuals/biosolids (Cha llete et al., 2002; Richardson, 2005). A workshop in 2005 entitled Solving Water Pollution Problems in the Wakulla Springshed of North Florida summarized its information through a peer review committee report stating that nitrogen (in the form of nitrate) is the key nutrient fueling the gr owth attributed to the fact that nitrogen in the upper Wakulla River decreases more rapidl y than phosphorus with distance and the concentration of nitrate in Wakulla has increased in the past 30 years, whereas the concentration of phosphorus has not, (Lope r et al., 2005, p. viii). Wekiwa Springs Environmental Characteristics W ekiwa spring is located in Fl oridas Wekiwa Spri ng State Park on the border of Orange and Seminole counties. The area surrounding the spring is considered semitropical with the spring itself classified as a second magnitude spring forming the headwaters for the Wekiva River and eventually making its way to the St Johns River (SJRWMD, 2009). Measurements of the springs discharge have been taken by th e United States Geologica l Survey (USGS) since 1932, with the help of the St. Johns River Wate r Management District (SJRWMD) beginning in the early 1980s (SJRWMD, 2009). The maximum discharge measured, 92 cfs (cubic feet per second) occurred in October of 1960, with the mi nimum measurement to date of 29.4 cfs, from

PAGE 32

32 November of 1985 when the state was experienci ng below normal levels of rainfall (SJRWMD, 2009). The SJRWMD was able to determine the age of the water discharged from Wekiwa spring in April and July of 1995. Looking at the tritium, tritiu m/helium, and the delta carbon-13 and carbon-14 concentrations, the water being discharged was considered to be young (SJRWMD, 2009). Water quality measurements ha ve also been taken by the USGS since 1956 and the SJRWMD since 1984. Many properties of th e water are analyzed in laboratories after samples have been taken in the field. The understanding of the environmental char acteristics of both Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs help to create an appreciation from a scientific perspective why Floridians should devote more attention to their health. However, other characteristics exist and also contribute to their overall value. These aspects include their surrounding land us es, as well as their social, economic, political and cultural ch aracteristics that encompass w hy both residents and visitors treasures these dynamic hydrologic features. Economic Characteristics of Springs in Florida Typically people enjoy and love al l the recreational opportu nities that springs have to offer. From diving to swimming to ju st relaxing by the clean waters of the spring, Florida has many locations for both residents and tourists to enj oy. In 2001, four of the states 33 first magnitude springs accounted for nearly one million visitors well over 50% of the total visitors to all of Floridas twelve State Parks that feature springs (Bonn et al., 2003). The economic benefit to the surrounding areas of visited springs drives the local economies. Bonn and Bells study states that spring visitors to four of the twelve state parks (Ichetucknee, Wakulla, Homosassa and Volusia Blue Springs) average about $46 a day per person. This figure includes spending on lodging and dining, with most visitors in a party of between 4-5 individuals, visiting for about two to three days (Bonn et al., 2003).

PAGE 33

33 Economic Characteristic s of Wakulla Springs Edward Ball W akulla Springs State Park en compasses 4,741 acres of protected forest and has been managed by the state as a park for twenty-three years. An onsite lodge has 27 rooms for visitors and is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places (Bonn et al., 2003). This amenity along with the many outdoor recreational experiences that Wakulla Springs State Park provides, the park is considered a major economic contribution to the regiona l area and the state. Bonn and Bells economic evaluation of four Flor ida springs; Ichetuckn ee, Homosassa, Volusia Blue Springs and Wakulla springs, found that on average, $17 million in sales went to the springs counties due to the amount of visitors that chose to visit th e springs on an annual basis. However, the report also states that due to recen t declines in the envir onmental quality of the area because of rising nutrients and an increase in the amount of invasive plants, it has contributed to a negati ve effect on the market economy; with the sales, wages and employment being directly dependent on the high environmental quality of na tural attractions like Wakulla Springs (Bonn et al., 2003, p. 30). Despite th e environmental nuisances, annual educational events including the Wakulla Wildlife Festival take place every spring, he lping to bring direct and indirect economic benefits to both the St ate Park itself and the surrounding communities (Lynch et al., 2003). Economic Characteristic s of Wekiw a Springs To date, no specific economic research ha s taken place accounting for the input that Wekiwa springs brings to the overall regional and statewide economy. Th ere is a recreational provider, the Wekiwa Sp rings State Park Nature Adventures separate from the State Park management functions that operates the canoei ng and kayaking rental opportunities (FDEP, 2009). Being geographically close to the city of Orlando, Wekiwa springs and its associated

PAGE 34

34 spring runs to the Wekiva and St. Johns River might draw theme park visitors that are looking for time outdoors in the natural environment. Political Characteristics and Juri sdictions of Springs in Florida W ith the many springs throughout Florida, the majority are located on private lands not currently owned by the state. The management of sp rings, their associated waters and the land surrounding them fall on several polit ical entities. Most ruling jurisdictions whose decisions directly affect springs are at th e county level, however, the Flor ida Department of Environmental Protections Division of Parks and Recreation manage lands that surround seventeen of the states natural wonders, while se veral incorporated cities al so manage springs and their immediate lands for recreational purposes (FDE P, 2007b). The various uses of groundwater throughout the state are primarily for municipa l and business profit th rough the bottling of Floridas spring water. The five state water mana gement districts determine the intensity of the use and management of the groundwater that lie in the multiple aquifers underneath the states surface. Political Characteristics and Juri sdictions of Wakulla Sp rings Wakulla Spring is located completely within the political boundari es of Wakulla County. The springs headwaters, along with much of th e land that surrounds the spring, is owned and managed by FDEP. The Northwest Florida Wate r Management District (NWFWMD) is also responsible for additional land management, eros ion control and the continued research. The NWFWMD specifically monitors nut rients from nearby wastewater treatment facilities and also the use of fertilizer around the spring and its as sociated downstream water features that form the Wakulla River leading out to the St. Marks Ri ver (NWFWMD, 2008). Being located south of the state capital, Wakulla Springs water quality concerns have the dire ct attention of state agencies like the FDEP and DCA due to both its proximity and that Ta llahassees waste water

PAGE 35

35 treatment sprayfield is seen as a main contributor to the increase in nutrients and the decline in the health of the Wakulla Spring ecosystem (FDEP, 2004). Political Characteristics and Juri sdictions of Wekiw a Springs Located on the northeastern border of Orange County alongside Seminole County, Wekiwa Springs is also located within its ow n State Park managed by FDEP. Orange County, Florida is home to over a million residents is projected to continue to grow well beyond its current population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The St. Johns River Water Management District Division of Groundwater programs helps to track well and spring monitoring networks, providing data for planning and managing and protecting the water supply (SJRWMD, 2008). Social and Cultural Char acteristics of Springs For thousands of years, springs have served as an im portant part of Floridas cultural and social history. Floridas first in habitants, the Paleoindians, left evidence of their culture that dates back to the Pleistocene Epoch, some 10,00 0 to 12,000 years ago, (Scott, T.M. et al., 2004). The sea level at that time was approximately 115 to 148 feet below present levels. Artifacts of what appear to be tools made from chert, bone and ivory have been discovered around many springs. This suggests that these early residents of the state lived around springs and mostly likely received many of their resources, including fresh water, from the springs (Tesar & Jones, 2004). During the 1800s, the springs continued to grow in popularit y and started being altered by development for private and commercial uses. Th e intent with this development was to enhance the recreational and economic oppor tunities for the thousands living near and visiting the springs. Some of the modificati ons that took place, including the damming of spring runs and the formation of spillways to provide power for gristmills, forever ecologically changed some spring ecosystems (Scott et al., 2004, p. 7). With the continued use of groundwater for

PAGE 36

36 municipal drinking and health pu rposes, there is a growing con cern that as the population in Florida continues to increase, the spring flows will continue to decrease as groundwater is withdrawn at unsustainable rate s (Champion and Starks, 2001). Social and Cultural Characte ristics of Wakulla Springs Wakulla Springs is part of the cultural her itage of both W akulla C ounty and the state of Florida. The area has been known as a tourist destination since 1925 when George T. Christie purchased the land around the springs and began to run and market tours of the area (Revels, 2002). The infamous Edward Ball purchased th e land and the springs in 1934 and began the development of the onsite lodge in 1937. Mr. Newton Perry, a famous swim instructor, was hired by Ball in 1939, and with him the spring s magic was brought to the big screen of Hollywood. Wakulla Spring was featured in many short films that were displayed between feature films during this time (FDEP, 2004). Asid e from short films, the filming of two of the Tarzan movies during 1941 and 1942 took place at Wakulla Springs and some of the local residents had the opportunity to stand-in dur ing their production. Many scenes from the Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) were also filmed at Wa kulla Springs starring a nearby Tallahassee resident that pl ayed the creature in underwater scenes (FDEP, 2004). Wakulla Springs was dedicated a wildlife and bird sanctuary by the National Audubon Society in 1963. In 1966, the Secret ary of the United States Depart ment of the Interior, Stewart Udall, designated Wakulla Spring as a Nati onal Natural Landmark (FDEP, 2004). Throughout the following decades, Edward Ball resisted the increasing pressure to develop Wakulla Springs as a larger tourist attr action like other springs in Florida were becoming. Five years after Balls death in 1986, the state purchased the property an d added it to the state park system. Local residents as well as other state s upporters have contributed to the education of the importance of

PAGE 37

37 the spring and its springshed health throughout the years. In 2000, more than 3000 acres of land in Wakulla Springs springshed was included in the Wakulla Springs state parks boundary. Social and Cultural Characte ristics of Wekiw a Springs Throughout the state of Florida in the late 1800s and early 1900s, production of turpentine was a common and important way for people to make a reasonable living (FDEP, 2009). Turpentine is the crude sap from pine tree s, (Olmstead, 1856). Trees in this area were harvested for this resource, and then used in industry as a solvent for thinning oil-based paints or by itself in chemical form. This portion of central Florida near Wekiwa Springs was also heavily timbered in the 1930s. Roads and rail roads left by the loggi ng companies are still noticeable today. The area surrounding the spri ng was owned by Wilson Cypress Company until it was purchased in 1941 by the Apopka Sportsma ns Club for recreational use. Then in 1969 the State of Florida purcha sed the area and established a State Park (FDEP, 2008). Land Use And Florida Springsheds According to the United States Geological Survey, the agency that provides reliable scientific information describing the Earth, stat es that in order to enhance and protect the quality of life, activities that have the greatest potentia l harm to springs, s hould be sited farthest from it (USGS, 2008). Yet water can enter sinkhol es that are far away from springs making the protection of water quality even more importa nt (Bond, 2002). As described in Chapter One, when rain falls on the road, a bu ilding, or parking lots in urba n areas, runoff that contains chemicals can pollute the water in the aquifer. The state of Florida highly recommends that Best management Practices (BMPs) be taken into acco unt in springshed areas to minimize the impact of land use activities on springs. Measures such as stormwater retention ponds, the planting of native landscaping (xeroscaping), an d the nominal use of pesticid es and fertilizers on lawns and agricultural lands also help to protect both ground and surface wa ter that makes its way to the

PAGE 38

38 springs (Bond, 2002). Golf courses and their impact on the surrounding environment can be mitigated through the appropriate site select ion, design and manageme nt, (Bond, 2002). Less intensive land use is ideal around sp rings with the areas closest to the spring itself being very low intensity such as a forest or used fo r outdoor low-impact recreational purposes. Land use planning is often best implemented at the local scale and with Chapter 163, Part II of the Florida Statues, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, local jurisdictions are given the right to plan fo r and guide future growth and development, (1000 Friends of Florida, 2002) Known land management tools like the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and the professional guiding of intensive development away from land within springsheds are being effectively us ed throughout the state and many counties are beginning to use the lo cal governmental planning process and land development regulations to put together their own tailored guidelines for sensitive spring areas, whether on a mandatory, voluntary or incentive based system (2002). Land Use Around Wakulla Springs Land around W akulla Springs has been uni quely preserved throughout Floridas land development booms. In the years since the st ate purchased the springs and its surrounding 4000 acres, a working group became established to pr ioritize the protection measures for Wakulla Springs State Park. The working group meets on a quarterly basis since its formation and is comprised of state and local agencies, faculty fr om Florida State University, area businesses, environmental organizations and other various stakeholders including th e City of Tallahassee and federal government from the management at Apalachicola National Forest and the USGS (FDEP, 2004). The working group s mission is to continue to in crease the understanding of the hydrology associated with Wakulla Springs, to identif y the threats to water flowing to the spring, and to develop solutions that will overcome threats (FDEP, 2004). One way in which the

PAGE 39

39 working group has contributed a substantial solu tion to spring protecti on was through the support of a county wide Wakulla Springs Water Qualit y Protection Ordinance (94-28) adopted by the Wakulla County Board of County Commissioners on July 5,1994 that created additional regulations for the properties su rrounding the northern portion of the Wakulla River and Wakulla Springs. According to County staff, it sets requirements for the h andling or storage of regulated substances in quantities greater th an five gallons, which primarily impacts commercial activities. The ordinance also included a protection zon e where any proposed zoning or land use changes within that zone would be closely reviewed fo r consistency with the Ordinance and any other applicable provisions of the Land Development C ode or the Comprehensiv e Plan (Pingree et al., 2008). On April 21, 2008, this pr otection zone was expanded to include what at the time was considered the Wakulla Springs basin and the portions of it that laid within the countys political boundaries (Figure 2-3 below). Figure 2-3 Wakulla Springs Special Planning Area (Wakulla County Planning Department, 2008). Land Use Around Wekiwa Springs Wekiwa Springs and its surroundi ng lands fall within two stat e protective zones created by legislation at two different periods of tim e. Th e first zone created, the Wekiva River Protection

PAGE 40

40 Zone, was established after the passing of the Wekiva River Pr otection Area Act, (WRPAA) in 1988 (Part II, Chapter 369, F.S.) to protect the ecology and natural resources of the entire River System. It prohibits any development that is not considered low-de nsity residential or development that could be consid ered more disturbing than low-de nsity residential development. It also requires that any residential development maintain a rur al density and character. Both Orange and Seminole Counties have taken simila r regulatory measures in their Comprehensive Plans to ensure the WRPAA is implemented in their respective jurisdictions. On June 29, 2004 a second protection zone that encompasses Wekiwa Springs was established in the pass ing of the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act (Section 369.321(3), F.S.). This Act required all local governments within the Wekiva Study Area (zone) to amend their comprehensive plans to reflect new statutory requ irements for: master stormwater management plans; water supply facilities work plans; and interchange land use plans. Additionally, where the proposed Wekiva Parkway was planned to fall within 15 governments jurisdictions, land use strategies were required to reflect strategies to optimize ope n space and promote patterns of development that protect recharge areas. These zones have created a gr eat example of how land use can be directly connected with the ability to protect environmentally sensitive areas, which in turn ensures protection for the gr ound and surface water that flow s to Wekiwa Springs. With most of Orange Countys population (four out of five County resident s) living outside the central metropolitan city of Orlando, these already determined low-density land uses will help in protecting the water of Wekiwa Springs for generations to co me (Orange County Government, 2006). All of the characteristics detailed in this chapter provide evidence that both Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs are vital resources that have traditionally provided Florida with many positive

PAGE 41

41 benefits. These benefits along w ith the benefits that countless other springs throughout the state hold have been the focus of deba te and consideration for protecti on in recent years. Government agencies like FDEP and FDCA together with local governments and non-profit organizations as well as the public have held these debates and m eetings in order to gather necessary information to make informed decisions that will shape not only the future use of lands around the spring, but the water quality of spring forever.

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 3 LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, LAND USE C HANGE AND C OMPLEXITY THEORY Planning is now recognized as the legitimate authority for managing land use change within the constraints of the democratic pr ocess, (Kaiser et al., 1995). Land use planning integrates many large facets of society including e nvironmental issues that threaten not only the safety of the public, but it also deal with the other aspects of our experience of the environment, (Jacobs, 1997). Landscape Ecology and Land Use Planning The changin g uses of land in any region alters the landscape. The migration of settlement throughout this country in recent history has o ccurred with enormous fervor and intent. Landscape ecology is noted to be the intersectio n of many related disciplines that focus on the spatial and temporal pattern of the landscape, (Risser, 1987). Di sciplines that factor into the theoretical and sometimes pr actical consideratio n of landscape ecology include geology, hydrology, population and community eco logy, metrology, botany, zoology, limnology, planning, management and political sciences (Fie ld et al., 2003). The reasoning for taking on a landscape ecological perspective is not to think of any one discipline as more important than another, but rather, to highlight certain insights gained when inte grating concepts and theories at various scales to gain a comprehensive understa nding of the relationships and changes between humans and the environment (Field et al., 2003). Golley and Bellot (1991) discuss theoretical landscape ecology through their research of patterns and processes observed fr om the interaction of biota and the environment. They also discuss applied landscape ecology and how it uses the understanding of patterns and processes for planning and solving environmental problem s spatially. Naveh (1994) also comments on these two divisions and states that landscape ecology should e volve to be more than the

PAGE 43

43 ramification and spatial expansion of population, community, and ecosystem ecology, and attention should not be given solely to the natural, physical, and biological dimensions, but also include history, culture, socioeconomics and hum an ecological aspects connected with land use (p. 58). Hersperger (1994) defines landscape ecol ogy as the science that combines the geographers approach to studying the landscape as a spatial un it and the ecologists approach to studying the landscapes vertical structure. It includes the inte ractions of function, change and human influences. It can neither be labeled a pure science or a purely applied fi eld, (p. 17). According to Hersperger, landscape ecology gather s its concepts through three main categories: systems approaches, integrative or holistic con cepts, and classification theories. Forman and Gordon (1986) offer a scientific framework to landscape ecology closely based upon three characteristics of the landscape system; struct ure, function and change This scientific explanation of the principles of landscape ecology have recen tly brought closer attention to human impacts on the landscape, bringing what Fields and his colleagues see as a deliberate focus on humans in landscapes (Field et al., 200 3). The various debates in planning over land use, initiatives including smart growth and other similar concepts that target resource preservation, are increasing in importance within the boundaries of many fields due to rising populations and large questions about the environments carrying capacity (Field et al., 2003). These discussions reinforce that a landscape perspective is helpful when addressing and analyzing human interaction with their surroundings. This type of analysis is critical in the current planning fields, especially when decision-makers have limited time and access to information and are fully dependent upon planning professionals to deliver an overall perspective on future land use. Forman (1995), a renowned expert and known creator of the current

PAGE 44

44 understanding of landscape ecology, has commented that the most recent developments in this integrated discipline is the intertwining of all the independent efforts at understanding a physical area (through history, climate, ecology, etc.) and fitting the puzzl e pieces together, to see the overall conceptual design of landscape and regi onal ecology emerge, (p. 29). This framework begins with an understanding of the spatial relationship of the land between th e various particular ecosystems in the landscape, what Forman a nd Gordon describe as s tructure, (p. 35). In order to value structure in a landscape, its components of patches, corridors and matrices are discussed where the overall landscape is in its true fusion (Forman, 1995, p. 40). These descriptions of the landscape can be further broken down into the geol ogical origins, the changing shapes at different scales, the connect ivity to other landscapes its porosity, boundary shapes (topographical, political, etc.), contrasts and heterogeneity with other landscapes, as well as many other characteristics (p. 41). A final explanation of how the landscape relates to chosen components are essential to the distribution of resources like energy and the conservation of known ecological systems and species apart from modern human society (p. 41). Another piece in Forman and Gordons explanatory framework lies in function or flow, (p. 42). The ecological processes taking place throughout the various landscape features determine the function. In order to fully understand and examine the processes and ava ilable resources at the landscape ecological scale, all of the natural processes and human so cietal developments have to be realized. Essentially, func tion is derived from the examination of how all ecological processes move across the landscape with their co mbinations of structur al features (p. 42). With this in mind, function could be seen as infl uencing the structure of the landscape as much as structure is influencing func tion. The repeating structural pr ocesses produce what is known as patterns on the landscape (p. 43).

PAGE 45

45 The third and final basic component of the landscape ecological framework rests in the temporal analysis, or changing characteristics, of the interaction of landscape function and structure. This component is known as change. Specific characteristics and changes can be analyzed and displayed through variation curves where parameters of central tendency, the magnitude of change for certain variables on the landscape, and the rhythm at which these moving variables are changing (Forman, 1995, p. 50) The observation of no change can also occur and is known as a state of stability or meta-stability. The combination of both natural and human disturbances on the landscape are domina ting forces between its structure and function, forcing change to most likely occur. Forman and Gordon (1986) describe their notion of stability as revealing three possible, but different charact eristics: physical system stability, recovery stability and resistance stability (p. 55). Any form of stability emerges when periods of instability (change) are broken by these phases, a nd thus form the concep t of metastability, the state of being in equilibrium yet susceptible to being diverted to another equilibrium. An example that Forman and Gordon use is that of a mature landscape considered by experts as being very metastable, but once a disturban ce (either natural or human-induced is not specified) causes it to change, it is highly unlikely that the system will re turn to its state, (p. 58). Although change is an inevita ble occurrence in many landscape ecological analyses, many researchers have discussed their views of stabili ty in the landscape. George Perkins Marsh (1937) referred to man as being the most direct force of change and stated that in countries untrodden by man, all factors balance each other so that the geographical conditions may be regarded as constant and immu table, (p. 35). Eugene Odum (1971), observed ecological change as an orderly process of community development that is reasonably dire ctional and therefore,

PAGE 46

46 predictable, but also was aware that this was possible through a culmination in a stabilized ecosystem, (p. 262). Daniel Botkin (1990) sees stability locations as where the landscape has approved the changes into its ecosystem (p. 25). These accepted random qualities are what make the discordant harmonies of nature. The complexity within the changing structure and function of landscapes is discussed in terms of evolving order without a ny predictability, otherwise refe rred to as chaos theory. Many physical and social systems are evaluated, an alyzed and described through conditions and identified parameters, but fundamentally are unpred ictable. Chaos theory in its linkage with landscape ecology takes the tradi tional understanding of change and expands it (Hersperger, 1994). Scientists like Vivaldi (1989) state that the unknowns about change are the result of our terminal inability to measure or represent the pr esent without infinite pr ecision, (p. 49). It inhibits even uncertainty in predicting system behavior. However, these uncertainties in measurement and errors in research are accepte d as inevitable (Hersperger, 1994). Chaos explains the difficulty in measuring a certain sy stems original state when information isnt available or cannot be determined through scientif ic analysis. As Cartwr ight (1991) states, a chaotic system can reach any give n point in a variety of ways; it is impossible to infer from the present situation how the sy stem got there, (p. 48). Emergence of Complexity in Land Use Planning A tenet of chaos theory, complexity theory, has in recent decades been applied to the overall field of planning, especially with rega rds to analyzing the growth of urban systems through computer aided simulation (Byrne, 2003). Planners engage in surveying information from a wide background of sources, both qualita tive and quantitative, us ed to model various systems (urban or natural, rural, etc). This in formation then displays what has happened or will take place if certain actions are taken (p.175). A task for planners is to work within this complex

PAGE 47

47 framework of information while also engaging pe ople in a participatory way to fully understand the range of possible futures. This action of trying to produce a desired future through a democratic process cannot exist, according to Byrne, through a linear approach towards these various systems (p. 177). Complexity theory offe rs a broad perspective on the reality of now and of the future; including social and planning persp ectives and also provid es a way to understand potential learning processe s (Zuidema & De Roo, 2004). Reality seen within a complexity theory fr amework is uncertain. An intervention on a small scale can easily lead to large outcomes or nothing at all. Such is the case in planning where as researchers Zuidema and De Roo comment that one small remark in the course of a conversation concerning the future of a planning decision might be enough to tip a vote by one person for or against development, and ther eby changing the landscape of a town. This uncertainty and instability are i nherent to all processes, includ ing planning, and are therefore inescapable to a particular point (2004). This does not imply that all planning processes are futile, and in cases where more certainty lies through means of technica l processes, planning becomes obvious and useful. Through unders tanding the context from which planning approaches different systems and also recognizing the interacti ons between these systems that are present, a more holistic or expansionistic view emerges. Looking at large scale systems separately such as transportation corridors and energy supplies for a city or town will usually not work in coordinating adequate resource availa bility and conservation. These systems are intertwined and connected to each other as well as to their own context, and therefore a complex (expansionistic) view of this city or town emerges (Kramer & De Smit, 1991). Often, new concepts ideas and order can evolve out of this complexity where what appears to be moving towards chaos, will not necessarily be s ubjugated by chaos but can evolve into clear

PAGE 48

48 Communicative action Participative planning Actor consulting Scenario Planning Corporate planning Industrial planning structures and relationships at a higher level, where other struct ure-defining values and norms exists, (De Roo, 2003). The c onnection between order, chaos and complexity is still under much debate, but from a land use planning perspec tive, there exists a spectrum between highly ordered and highly complex, (Zuidema & De Roo, 2004). The debate focusing around complexity within a planning framework lies in the approach in which it functions. Figure 3.1 below displays extreme approaches in planning th at move across a spectrum from a technical rational approach to a communicative rational a pproach. Technical rati onale is used mostly when the situation presents itself in a simp le and ordered manner, working with facts and information that is certain. Wh ereas a communicative approach hardly factors in any component of certainty. Between these extremes lies a co mplex mixture of approaches where planners spend the majority of their time. Figure 3-1. Examples of Planning Approaches in a Spectrum (Zuidema & De Roo, 2004) Determining and describing systems like planni ng in relation to their complexity of change, Allan and Starr (1982) developed a fram ework to work within known as hierarchy theory. There are no particular levels of concep ts that are hierarchical over others within the framework. Instead, it leaves the level of focus contingent on th e focus of the study (Hersperger, Technical Communicative Order Complex Very Complex

PAGE 49

49 1994, p. 19). The hierarchical approach within landscape ecology encompasses vast amounts of information at various spatial and temporal scales (Hersperger, 1994). This concept of scale allows analysis to take place at different levels of a hierarchical system and also allows for connections to be made about complex systems (1994). Where a landscape might appear to be heterogeneous at one scale, it could indeed be considered homogeneous at another. These comparisons at different scales are essential when evaluating landscapes in terms of planning for appropriate land uses. According to Zonneveld (1990), the classificat ions described through landscape ecology: structure, function, and change, should serve as the basis for gathering information and making land use decisions. This incorporation provides guidance and mitigation for the alteration of land us e towards a more ecological ly sound direction. Application of Landscape Ecology Early pioneers that addressed ecological c oncerns and began looki ng at landscape ecology that em phasized decision-making through the asse ssment of the effects of human activities on natural systems, include Ian McHarg (1969) Ortolano (1984) Westman (1985), Lyle (1985), Hough (1984; 1990), Berger and Sinton (1985) and Sp irn (1984). Hersperg er (2004) notes that any application of landscape ecology to planning must address the problems that arise when the social and natural sciences are br ought together in problem orient ed studies of the environment, (p. 21). Its usually useful to define landscape boundaries in term s of what is being studied, for example, using political municipality boundari es for planning purposes, but making land use decisions based upon particular ec ological functions, natural phenomena as well as political, historical, social, and economic features can and should also be taken into account (Naveh, 1994). One way this has been achieved is through the defining of landscape boundaries for scientific and policy pu rposes through hydrological landscape structures such as watersheds and springsheds (Odum, 1971; Quinby, 1988; Herspe rger, 1994). Conceptually, analyzing the

PAGE 50

50 landscape through hydrological structures (i ncluding both surface and groundwater) in comparison to other landscape features only aids in determining what Berger (1987) describes as landscape synthesis: an overall understanding of th e relationship between humans and the natural environment for better planning. Changes in land use influences hydrological processes including runoff, infiltration and groundwater recharge. The modeling and understanding of hydrological processes within a watershed, or in the case of this resear ch, a boundary within a springshed, offers a useful means of evaluating th e effect of the changes in landscape patterns or land use resulting from policy decisions (Lin et al., 2007, Fohrer et al., 1999). Geographic information systems (GIS) has become an integral part of the assessment and interpretation of water resource information fo r environmental and land use planning (Semmens & Goodrich, 2005). The number of available tool s for processing and storing representative data of land and environmental features continues to expand. With this growth in technology, improvement of accuracy and increasing amounts of information can be weighed and analyzed within these hydrological targeted programs. GIS can then be appropriately used to describe consequences of modifications when the politics of an area can change the outcome of a land use decision (Selman, 1993). Worrall (1989) also understands the multi-discipline use of GIS and its potential impact in land-use pl anning implementation policy as the central technology in the science of land use and the study of societys interactions with the envir onment, (Aspinall, 2005). Despite these improvements and support, the linkages between GIS and decision-making procedures in planning still need considerable attention and effort (Semmens & Goodrich, 2005). Land Use Policy and Change Apart from the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution, land use decisions have been left to the state legislatures throughout the country to defer to a municipal home rule, (Schmidt & Buehler, 2006). In the early 1970s, an attemp t was made by Congress to pass a Land Use Policy

PAGE 51

51 Act that would have mandated the facilitation of information be tween national, state and local levels, but the attempt failed (Kayden, 2001). States have in turn been th e leaders in organizing and implementing zoning and land use planning le gislation. Their effort s however have not shown uniformity in their intergovernmental stru ctures or program objectives, (Bollens, 1992). Regional planning dates back to the 1920s with the estab lishment of Regional Planning Associations throughout major cities including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles (Schmidt & Buehler, 2006). Currently, the ma jority of land use decisions and policy is reliant on local level support through the privat e sector as well as planning interventions relying on economic efficiency rationale, rather than appealing to public interest or social justice, (Klosterman, 2003). It is recognized that l ittle coordination, oversight or guidance from state and regional entities is given to the local level planning decisions while the phys ical, environmental and social character of the area ch anges. According to the Brookings Institute, the most common form of local land use regulation throughout the United States currently is zoning (2006). Zoning separates land in a particular area into different uses or sections and has throughout its evolution pulled away from its hist orical roots of rigi dly separating uses lo t by lot, to a more flexible system that allocates the mixing of uses and focuses on larger areas of land (Brookings Institute, 2006). Zoning was originally designe d throughout most of the c ountry to help in the public health battles of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but it also indirectly served as a socio-economic separator of people by race and in come even with the he lp of modern planning tools and interventions like comprehensive plan s (Brookings Institute, 2006). Most local municipalities throughout the coun try, including every jurisdiction in Florida due to mandated state legislation, focus on the impacts of growth and development on local infrastructure and environmental systems. They look at the sing le site level scale as well as neighborhood or

PAGE 52

52 community scales to regional scales in order to determine a developments impacts and general benefit to the area. In short, land use policy choices are shaped by features of local governments and the demands of organizations and interests in the community (Feiock et al., 2008). People both for and against growth each seek to influence growth management policies, but are limited by governmental stru ctures that mediate between th ese political exchanges, help to establish the rules of the game, develop ince ntives and give opportunities for the public to bring about changes in policy (Jeong & Feiock, 2006; Lubell et al., 2005). Land use planning at this local level of regulation is rarely compared with efforts in water quality management, mostly due to the fact that both are independently admi nistered through different agencies that do not coordinate consistently (Wa ng, 2001). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) runs the largest national progr am to encourage planning and management at the physical watershed level and encourages decision makers to work with local residents to establish watershed collaborations (ONeill, 2005). The Office of Water with in the EPA stresses that state and tribal policymakers follow three guiding principles when engaging in watershed planning: 1. keep in mind the geographic focus defining the watershed base d on physical assessments of drainage patterns, 2. build partnerships watershed management is collaborative and this partnership should include the people most aff ected by the management decisions, ensuring that these people shape key decisions ab out planning and implementation, and 3. the techniques should be based on strong science and data partnerships need to gather and analyze the water quality and ecological functions or regional wa terways and the surround ing landscape (2008c). Floridas 29 delineated watersheds are divided into five separate main basins that are managed through the water management districts set in place through the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 (FDEP, 2009b). Partnerships between these water management districts and nonprofits

PAGE 53

53 such as the 1000 Friends of Florida have been building scientific information and organizing educational meetings with local residents and other key stakeholde rs to spread awareness about human behavior, including land use planning, and its affect on water quality and quantity within these watersheds. This type of partnership at the watershed level in recent years has been also applied to the hydrologic focus on springsheds like the Wakulla Springs Basin Working Group (FDEP, 2004). Federally, the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) applies to all springs surface waters throughout the state of Florida including the Wakulla and Wekiwa. Section 303 (c) of the 1972 amendments, establishes the statutory basis for the current water quality standards program for all surface waters of the United States (USEPA, 2008c). The key elements of these standards include: water quality standards to be defined as the designated beneficial use of a water segment and the water quality criteria necessary to suppor t those uses. The minimum beneficial uses considered by the states in establishing water quality standards under th e CWA are specified as: public water supplies, propagation of fish and wi ldlife, recreation, agricultural uses, industrial uses and navigation and must prot ect the public health, safety a nd welfare to serve the purposes of the Act (2009). The water not discharged from springs but remains in the ground before arriving to the surface is protected federall y under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j). This Act was origina lly passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the drinking supply, but was amended in 1986 and 1996 to encourage the protection of drinking water so urces including municipal gro undwater wells. A management option that the USEPA recommends to states is for the regulation of land uses that may release contaminants into critical source water protect ion areas, like springsheds (2008c). Potential sources of pollutants regulated through both Ac ts include landfills, underground or above ground

PAGE 54

54 fuel storage tanks, reside ntial or commercial septic systems, urban runoff from streets and lawns, farms and other operations that a pply pesticides and fe rtilizers as well as sludge disposal sites (2008c). The contaminants and increased nutrients levels found in springs, also referred to as pollution, can either be classi fied through policy as coming from a point or a non-point source. Point source pollution is determined to be derived from specific places such as pipes, ditches and sewers connected to plants and other industrial facil ities, abandoned mines, and oil leaks due to transportation (2008c). Non-point sources include inputs that ca nnot be directly linked to a discrete source, such as agricu ltural or stormwater runoff. Some of the inputs from agriculture include erosion of sediments w ith inorganic fertilizer, manure, and dissolved salts (2008c). Even with a growing number springs and other surface waters throughout the state containing higher amounts of non-point source pollution inputs such as nutrients like nitrates and phosphorus, policy has proven difficult to implement due to the lack of cer tainty in identifying where the contribution source is located. The detection of non-point source inputs within groundwater recharge areas is even more difficult to determine since this covers vast expanses of land (an example being the Wakulla Springs total springshed extendi ng as far north as the state of Georgia), with land uses va rying drastically throughout the ar ea (FDEP, 2004). The nature of some of the water quality problems within the springs indicate the possible known pollution (contaminant) sources (Hanson et al., 1988, p. 47). Many natural waterbodies such as springs can recover from certain increased levels of nutrients and other pollution, depending upon its discharge of uncontaminated ground water (flow), its temperature, and its pH levels (Odum, 1971). Over time, if these once minimal levels begin to change or increase, the ecosystem balance can quickly become disr upted and begin to decline th e overall health of the spring ecosystem. Despite the need to understand the us es and inputs within these sensitive water

PAGE 55

55 capture zones, state efforts have been limited by available funding for continued water quality monitoring and geological exploration, and also by vested property ri ghts (Carriker, 2000). In Florida, since their 2001 creation by the FDEP, the Florid a Springs Initiative (FSI) has been working with both private and public partners to delineate the necessary protection zones for springsheds throughout the state while also collecting and analyzing information concerning water quality and quantity issues (FSTF, 2007). The Groundwater Protec tion Section of the FDEP works with the FSI as well as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in researching groundwater movement and levels of contaminants that include nutrients present in groundwater. The contaminants will either eventually make their way to be used as drinking water or be discharged by nearby springs (2007). The colle cted information about levels of measured contaminants is ideally integrated with mandate d local comprehensive plans to help implement the states Water Resource Implementation Rule. It purpose is to protect aquifers and surface waters from depletion through measures such as preserving locations where high water recharge occurs, as well as protection of the water st orage and water quality by necessary management means that provide for compatible uses, (62-40 F.A.C. (1) (k), (5) (a)). Many counties and cities throughout the state are us ing research currently provided by state agencies to begin taking steps at protecting the springs that lie within their jurisdictional borders. Their proactive measures are through an understand ing of how the water that provi des springs with life is being affected by human activities. The Linkage: Landscape Ecology/GIS, Comp lexity Theory and Land Use Policy Landscape ecological principles and its integr a tion with GIS has the capacity and has proven its ability to combine very complicated po licy dealing with land use issues and aids its continued creation and implement ation of appropriate public po licy. There is agreement among GIS users that its technology and methodologies have the potential to make important impacts

PAGE 56

56 Land Use Policy Land Use Models Land Use Change Impact Assessment Models Environmental Socio-economic Physical Biological Hydrological Landscape Economic Social Cultural Political This framework is intended to provide a logical sequence for evaluating a plan or a policy. Direct consequences can be predicted using land use models while indirect consequences on the biophysical and socioeconomic environments are predicted using models for impact assessment. This allows plans and policies to be tailored to produce desired effects. It is a contribution to decisionmaking processes and policy formulation rather than merely a system for policy interpretation. in land-use planning, and specifically for investigating the possibl e effects of the implementation of policy, (Worall, 1989). As Aspinall (1993) and other authors who ha ve interfaced GIS with policy point out, this technology gives decisionmakers a means of establishing indirect consequences of policy implementation, includ ing environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments (Openshaw et al., 1987; Walker a nd Moore, 1988). The Figure 3.2 depicts an adapted framework from Aspinall of how the integration of GIS models and policies can effectively lead to a greater sense of the unders tanding of particular environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Figure 3-2. A conceptual framework for applyi ng GIS-based methods to land-use policy and land-use change (Adapted from Aspinall, 1993).

PAGE 57

57 The finished result of land use or impact assessment modeling may be in a map, graph, statistical reference or in a ta ble format where the GIS overlay allows for an easy summary of information. The final output is dependant on the specified spatial units of interest to the end users. However, the fight to eliminate uncertain ty in GIS towards efforts at protecting ecological systems through policy is only as effective as the knowledge that lies behind the information used to create each. Scholars ope rate under the knowledge that anyt hing stated or believed for certain usually leads to rationa l decisions and actions (Couclelis 2003). Yet there is a vast amount of information that is not known or continually changes due to unforeseen circumstances within the physical environment, politics, the economy or other social phenomenon that greatly affects efforts at obtaining, storing and analyzing information. Mathematics, logic, physics, linguistics and information theory are known for their extraordinary methods of accuracy, but all hold incomplete, inaccurate, imprecise or invalid information, (Couclelis, 2003). Planning tools such as GIS that take into consideration this void of information and explain the possible reasoning for it, can ultimately help those that will be effect ed by or are involved with the implementation of the final policy and political d ecisions made. If complexity theory can be accepted for its influence within these advanced sc ientific fields, it can also be accepted within the fields of land use planning and policy. Innes and Booher (2000) see this merge as necessary in cities and communities that seek an adaptive, sustainable systems approach in the face of unpredictable futures (p. 179). Many cities ac ross the country are facing an inevitable, unpredictable future due to the current econom ic downturn of 2008 and in Florida, as the population boom begins to slow, more efforts and attention towards land use policy for the protection of water quality and quantity in and around springs can begin to make its way to the forefront of policy.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 4 SPRINGS & PUBLIC PA RTICIP ATION: MANDATED OR VOLUNTARY Public Participation in Environmental Planning Throughout the beginning stages of m any pla nning processes, legislation at both the federal and state level require that the public be involved th rough participation in public hearings or give feedback on re view comments. Environmental planning in particular embodies a range of values, all needing to be considered equally and fairly and eventually integrated into final decisions about land use or other environmental matters. According to Randolph (2004), these values include everything from scientific and economic de terminations to issues of social equity and environmental ethics, ( p. 53). Many of these oppor tunities for public engagement leave all parties invol ved feeling frustrated that thei r comments were not heard, or even more perplexing, citizens are left feeling worse about the future of their cities and communities than before they began to take part in trying to help. These experiences may also leave planners and decisions-makers with am bivalence on involving the public in future planning decisions (Innes & Boohe r, 2004). Planners and citizens alike often disagree about processes, leading many to believe that adhe ring to any specific method may not be a wise approach (Webler et al., 2001). Nagel (1987) comments that citizen participation, as a basic political value is a slippery concept to describe or judge. Fischer (2000) notes that, at least on some level, almost everybody is for it, though many are quite skeptical of its value in practice, (p. 33). Environmental topics tend to direct discussions with th e public in a more technical direction, making it difficult for many citizen s to participate even under the best of circumstances. This leaves decisions open fo r debate only to professional politicians, economically concerned business people and th ose in the middle and upper middle classes who

PAGE 59

59 are ideologically motivated and well educated (Day, 1997; Gans, 1968). The more complex the issue under debate, the more need for pro fessional expertise, and Halberstam (1993) is quick to point out that these expe rts are not without what he describes as their difficulties. He states that the worries of an uninformed citizen ry are scarcely misplaced, yet during the past two decades, the public has had am ple occasion to worry about th e best and the brightest, (p. 35). Policy advice from experts is seen as merely an informed opinion, and while there is a need for experts to engage in informing the public of these opinions their expertise cannot stand alone, (Fischer, 2000). Fischer suggests that the opinions about issues under the topic of discussion in the public arena, however fa r-ranging and abstract they may be, need to eventually be translated into particular contexts for everyone involved with the public participation process. This context provides a social construct, making the meaning that individuals assign to environmental issues, like that of springs protection, less scattered and more cohesive. This social definition of the situation at hand is crucial to the application of policy, and local residents of eventual planning outcomes possess empirical information as well as pervasive intentions and motives unavailable to those out side the constructed context, (Fischer, 2000, p. 42). This local information should not define the situation at hand, but rather be acknowledged as an important considerat ion on the range of po ssible interpretations, (p. 44). The understanding of the formation of social definitions in local communities heavily depends on knowing what stakeholders believe the re ality of particular en vironmental issues to be. This process of investigation involves the expert(s) accepting stakeholders and other interested citizens understandings and processes of ev eryday life. However, the process of

PAGE 60

60 knowing cannot simply be understood as the e xclusive domain of the expert, (Fischer, 2000). The antiquated method of deciding on a policy, then introducing it to the public is a poor educational vehicle for complex t opics and grossly inadequate as a persuasion tool, (Beierle, 1999). Overall, these participat ory processes in environmenta l planning and policy need to combine technical expertise, ra tional decision-making, and public values and preferences, to produce the deliberate democratic compromise for the issue at hand (Cohen, 1997; Renn, 2006). To better understand how the social char acter and the structure of a community can influence the wide-ranging decisi ons made for local land use and other environmental decisions affecting regional and state resource s, social interaction needs to be considered and weighed into the public participation equation. Interactional Theory Social interaction m akes important contributions towards the ecological, cultural, organizational, and psychological outcomes. In teractional theory is a core property of a community, concentrating on aspects of communities that persist in modern society while other aspects are noticeably loosing their distinctiven ess, (Wilkinson, 1991). So cial interaction is used as a description for the influence of ru ralness on community life in modern society. Kenneth Wilkinson describes that there are three elements of a community ; the locality, the local society and the process of locally oriented coll ective actions, called th e community field. A locality is a territory where people live and meet their daily needs together, with vaguely delineated boundaries whereas a lo cal society is a comprehensive network of associations for meeting common needs and expressing common inte rests, comprised of units and branches of regional, national and even multinational orga nizations, (Wilkinson, 1991). The community field is a process of interrelated actions through which residents express their common interest in the local society, (Wilkinson, 1991).

PAGE 61

61 Land use policy in Florida targeted towards protecting environmental resources can and has been mandated through the Local Gove rnment Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Fl. Stat. Ann. 163-2511-3247 (1985) as well as the Environmental Land and Water Management Ac t, Fl. Stat. Ann. 380-012-12 (1972). Wakulla County has taken extraordinary local attempts through policy to protect its natural resources and more specifically, Wakulla Springs. However ge ographically specific Wakulla springs is in relation to the political boundaries of Wakulla County, the people of the area, like people in any geographic area (or locality), are no longer tied to one another si mply through that place, but rather through a local society of similar interests, values, and beliefs (Pavey et al., 2007). These local societies or communities of interest can then catapult the means for empowering and encouraging local political suppor t for issues such as springs protection thr ough institutional development, (Dukes, 1996). This collection of interest in a partic ular topic uses local resources and energy to collaboratively plan for the future, (Pavey et al., 2007). Describing stakeholder and co mmunity input towards local land use and environmental decisions can be discussed as local societies that comprise several community fields. The extent of community in a local society varies through time depending on the actions people take in response to local problems and opportunities, and through this definition, Wilkinson (1991) helps to explain how movements for particular int erests are initiated and could eventually lead to political action (p. 3). He describes the importance of a co mmunity as the mechanism of empirical contact between the individual and so ciety since society is an abstraction one can experience only indirectly or symbolically, (p. 3). The community also seeks to meet the needs of the people, especially the need for co llective involvement and the social definition of self, (p. 3). However, as Roland Warren (1963) points out in his work, The Community in

PAGE 62

62 America the observation of the community can also be described as a tur bulent arena of selfseeking actions that cannot be s een as a concrete collectivity or system, (p. 4). Decisionmaking processes within communities that hold expertise about commonly interests help to establish a mutual benefit for the entire community field, what Collins and Evans (2002) describe as interactional expe rtise. This type of contri bution allows for interesting interactions between contributo ry experts of both abstract/generalizable and local/practical knowledge domains, where the act ual interactions l eave all the particip ants cognitively changed, (Collins & Evans, 2002; Cordan, 2006). Interactional Theory & Springs Protection Policy Walter Rosenbaum (2008) views environmenta l degradation throughout the country as a twenty-first century problem thats resolved according to eighteenth -century rules through fundamental government arrangements such as institutional checks and balances, interest-group liberalism and federalism, (p. 61). This de mocratic process, although perhaps not always efficient in modern society, still provides co mmunities a chance to advance the protection of chosen environmental issues through their ow n choice of activeness. Wilkinson (1991) comments that the activeness emerging from within a community towards change, and in the case of this research, measures for policy that improve environmental protection, is formed through this process of interaction. The solidarity that forms due to the interaction of similar interests and actions toward those interests also provides a heightened sense of well-being for individuals within the community (Bridger & Luloff, 2001). With all the positive criticism from social scientific findings that have looked at how communities have engaged in shaping both local and regional environmental outcomes, bot h through awareness and policy, there are also known community traits that inhibit any activeness from ta king place. Communities with smaller populations show significantly lower leve ls of environmental activeness than their

PAGE 63

63 densely populated neighbors (Parisi et al., 2004). Education is also seen as central to enhancing ones capacity for understanding the importance of maintaining and improving the quality of the environment as a collective good, (Beaulieu & Isreal, 1997). Communities in economically disadvantaged regions are less li kely to engage in community e nvironmental activeness, yet in a 2002 study conducted across 208 communities throughout Mississippi, poverty and unemployment did not play a major role in expl aining differences in co llective efforts towards the environment, and researchers concluded that other conditions hampered the emergence of community activeness, (P arisi et al. 2004). Aside from efforts taken to gather citizen participation in environmental management discussions, the process through which the particip ation takes place is also of debate and could play a part in the other conditions that dilute the success of the longevity of activeness (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Disadvantages such as costs, the amount of time and dedication it takes and the lack of an overriding authority to actually take hold and use of any collective decisions made are embedded in various citizen particip atory processes throughout the country.

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY The focus of this research investigates the c onnection of land use cha nge with rising levels of detectable nitrogen. It looks at this connection within set boundaries lying in two separate springshed location s over the past three decades and how land use policy implemented at varying municipal scales has impacted the rate at which nitrogen is increasing. This research also looks at how the public participation process has play ed a key role in the development of land use policy for springs protection. The Wakulla and Wekiwa springsheds were chosen as case study locations from the numerous springs throughout the state due to the extensive amount of both scientific research conducted in these locations and significant loca l and state government and citizen involvement in the protection of each of the springs. My objectives outlined below follow the series of research questions presented in Chapter One. 1. To characterize the land use change in the Wakulla/Wekiwa springshed basins from the early 1900s to 2006/07 and investigate the spat ial and temporal relationship between the Wakulla and Wekiwa springs water quality with its rise in nitrogen and land use changes in a chosen boundary with th eir respective springsheds. My first objectives inve stigation will be focused on a boundary of a five mile radius from the spring vent, instead of the fi fteen proposed by the FGS, or th e entire springshed area of both springs. This boundary was chosen due to time constraints. The Wakulla Spring study area covers approximately 23% of the known total Wa kulla springshed area within the state of Florida. Another large portion of the Wakulla springshed extends north into the southern portion of Georgia. The chosen Wekiwa Spring boundary area covers approximately 9% of the total known Wekiwa springshed area. To begin look ing at land uses within both boundary areas, 2006/2007 GIS parcel data will be used to dete rmine use changes since the early 1900s. Land use, referring to the purpose to which the la nd is utilized, was determined by parcel data

PAGE 65

65 information from as far back as 1901 updated to 2006 for both Orange and Seminole Counties and 2007 for Wakulla County. Land use was determin ed by each parcels description, labeled in the GIS data as . Some parcels de scriptions could not be determined due to the data stating it contained no value. These parc els were still evaluated by the year they were built upon, but remained separated from other land use categories. The parcels numerous descriptions, 68 total, were categorized into si x main land uses (Table 5-1): 1. Residential, 2. Urban (including both commercial an d industrial), 3. Agricultural (r ural areas), 4. Institutional, 5. Utilities & Transportation, and 6. Environmental F eatures. The actual year built, labeled as , information associated with each parcel in both boundary locations, was used to determine what year the land, or parcel, actually became a particular land use. The parcels that did not contain an associated year <0> for the ac tual year built, were al so evaluated separately for various land uses as their own group. The land uses were evaluated after the determination of the actual year built and grouped in to one of five categories to ev aluate land use changes within the boundary area in recent history. The five categories for the act ual year built were: 1. No year known, 2. pre-1980, 3. 1980-1989, 4. 1990-1999, and 5. 2000-2006/07. To assist in my investigation of the use changes in relation to their evolving total nitrogen loads since the 1970s, the Watershed Assessment Model, better known as WAM, developed by Soil and Water Engineering Technologies, Inc. was used. It was created to allow engineers and planners to assess the water quality of both su rface and groundwater based upon land use, soils, climate and other factors. The model itself si mulates the primary physical processes that are important for watershed hydrologic and pollution transp ort. It carries out its functions through: Analyzing the current scenarios of stages, fl ows and constituent load s for water bodies of importance from existing land uses, la nd management practices and soils.

PAGE 66

66 Developing targets for flow and water quality improvements through the identification of existing sources in various land uses and regions, the loads to streams, reservoirs and lakes Analyzing the impacts of streams, reservoi rs and lakes through modifying land uses, BMP management and the crea tion of treatment areas The necessary GIS coverages used for this assessment include: Land Use Soils Topography Hydrology Basin and sub-basin boundaries Point sources and service area coverages Climate data Land use and soils description files The Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) was also chosen because of its ability to simulate the surface and groundwater flow as well as water quality for nitrogen within the 5-mile research boundary area. Through WAM, groundwat er, unlike surface water, can be routed to specific locations (reaches) that are not necessarily the closes t downstream waterbody, (HDR & SWET, 2008). Several simulations of the land use conditions within the watersheds in the boundary areas of both Wakulla and Wekiwa springs were conduct ed. Initial simulations of existing land use conditions for the current decade (2000-2010) and for previous decades (1970s, 1980s and 1990s) were conducted with data collected and made available by the Northwest Florida Water Management District for Wakulla County and th e St. Johns River Water Management District for both Orange and Seminole Counties and dist ributed through the Flor ida Geographic Data Library. Nitrogen parameters were obtained for both boundary areas from the Florida Department of Environmental Protections (FDE P) STORET database available online (FDEP, 2009c). This database stores biological, ch emical and physical data for ground and surface waters throughout the state. A detailed record of metadata for the shapefiles and information

PAGE 67

67 used in my initial land use categorization and for the WAM simulation can be found in Appendix C. All of the models generated through the use of WAM are lim ited in their capacity to display what is actually occurr ing in reality. The various gene ralizations and interpretations made from the models do not necessarily reflect the total and complete processes that are taking place in the water and springsheds they are tr ying to simulate. According to the WAM developers, the user is encour aged to use and understand these limitations prior to using the model. Some of the limitations include any rainfall collection data taken at individual stations not necessarily being representative of the ra infall across the chosen boundary area of study and the flow structures of stream sy stems is not factored into the software. Assumptions made by the model include that all the data used is correct after checking for errors; that the nitrogen model parameters within WAM is representative of the actual on-ground transpor t processes; that the streams, identified as reaches within the model, can be calculated based on drainage areas that are located upstream and that the model only simulates for this researchs purposes soluble nitrogen, sediment nitrogen and groundwater nitrogen daily loads. 2. To describe how major stakeholders and local residents have particip ated in the research and policy process for springs protection. Key informants for qualitative research were identified based on their knowledge or involvement in past or current discussions about springs protection. Additional interviewees were contacted through a technique known as "snowball sampling," where each key informant was asked to identify other knowledgeable indi viduals to interview (Bryman, 2004). To be eligible for an interview, individuals needed to possess expertise on the topic areas of the environmental knowledge, public policy and publ ic awareness of spri ngs protection. The

PAGE 68

68 individuals interviewed represen ted government agencies, environmental interest groups, and citizens that are active in pub lic decision-making processes. Table 5-1 Breakdown of Parcel Descrip tion and Land Use Categories Parcel Descriptions Land Use Categories Acreage Not Zoned for Agriculture Residential Automotive Repair, Service & Sales Boarding Homes Boarding Homes Condominiums Bowling Alleys, Skating Rings, Enclosed Arenas Homes for Aged Camps Mobile Homes Centrally Assessed MultiFamily (less than 10 units) Churches Multi-Family Clubs, Lodges & Union Halls Orphanages Community Shopping Centers Single-Family Condominiums Vacant Residential Cropland Soils Class 1 Acreage Not Zoned for Agriculture Cropland Soils Class 2 Urban (Commercial/Industrial) Cultural Organizations Automotive Repair, Service & Sales Daries/Feed Lots Bowling Alleys, Skating Rings, Enclosed Arenas Department Stores Churches Drive In Resturants Clubs, Lodges & Union Halls Financial Institutions Community Shopping Centers Florist, Greenhouses Cultural Organizations Forest, Park & Recreational Areas Department Stores Golf Courses Drive In Restaurants Grazing Land Soil Class 1 Financial Institutions Grazing Land Soil Class 2 Golf Courses Grazing Land Soil Class 3 Heavy Manufacturing Government Owned Leased by an NGO Lessee Hotels/Motels Homes for Aged Industrial Storage (Fuel, Equip., and Materials) Hotels/Motels Light Manufacturing Improved Agriculture Lumber Yards, Sawmills, Planning Mills Industrial Storage (Fuel, Equip., and Materials) Mining, Petro & Gas Lands Lumber Yards, Sawmills, Planning Mills Mixed Use, Store & Office Mining, Petro & Gas Lands Mortuaries, Cemeteries Mixed Use, Store & Office Mult i-Story Non-Professional Offices Mobile Homes Night Clubs, Bars & Cocktail Lounges Mortuaries, Cemeteries One Story Non-Professional Offices Multi-Family (less than 10 units) Parking Lots, Mobile Home Sales Multi-Family Private Hospitals Multi-Story Non-Professional Offices Private Schools

PAGE 69

69 Table 5.1 Continued Parcel Descriptions Land Use Categories Night Clubs, Bars & Cocktail Lounges Professional Service Buildings One Story Non-Professional Offices Repair Service Shops Ornamentals, Misc. Agricultur e Restaurants, Cafeterias Orphanages Service Stations Other Counties Stores (one story) Other Federal Supermarket Other Municipal Tourist Attractions Other State Vacant Commercial Outdoor Recreational Vacant Industrial Parking Lots, Mobile Home Sales Warehouses & Distribution Centers Private Hospitals Agricultural/Rural Private Schools Camps Professional Service Buildings Cropland Soils Class 1 Public Schools Cropland Soils Class 2 Repair Service Shops Daries/Feed Lots Restaurants, Cafeterias Florist, Greenhouses Rights-of-Way, Streets, Roads and Canals Forest, Park & Recreational Areas Rivers, Lakes & Submerged Lands Grazing Land Soil Class 1 Service Stations Grazing Land Soil Class 2 Sewage Disposal, Borrow Pits & Wetlands Grazing Land Soil Class 3 Single-Family Improved Agriculture Stores (one story) Orchard, Groves & Citrus Supermarket Ornamentals, Misc. Agriculture Timberland Outdoor Recreational Tourist Attractions Timberland Utilities Institutional Vacant Commercial Government Owned Leased by an NGO Lessee Vacant Industrial Other Counties Vacant Institutional Other Federal Vacant Residential Other Municipal Warehouses & Distributi on Centers Other State Wholesale, Manufacturing and Produce Outlets Public Schools Vacant Institutional Utilities and Transportation Centrally Assessed Rights-of-Way, Streets, Roads and Canals Sewage Disposal, Borrow Pits & Wetlands Utilities Environmental Features Rivers, Lakes & Submerged Lands The ultimate goal of a structured interview is for the interviewing of respondents to be standardized so that differences between in terviews can be minimized, (Bryman, 2004, p. 109). The research interview is a prominent data-c ollection strategy in both quantitative and

PAGE 70

70 qualitative research. It i nvolves the administration of a sc hedule that is set by both the interviewer and interviewee and the aim is for all interviewees to be given the exact same context of questioning. The goal of the interviewing is to ensure that interviewees responses can be collected and analyzed with reliability. Six personal interviews were conducted over the telephone between September and November of 2008. The interviews took no more than 30 minutes and interviewees were assured that a ll responses would remain confidential. The researcher conducted the interview by reading qu estions aloud as they were numbered on the question response sheet (see Appendix D for list of interview questions). All of the interviews were recorded by a voice activated Olympus r ecorder on Sony Microcassettes. Throughout the interview, I would write notes fo r points of reference on the actual interview questioning sheets. Immediately following the interview, I would repl ay the recorded interview and manually type word-for-word the exact responses given by each of the interviewees. The transcription of each interview took approximately 45 minutes. The steps of analysis in stakeholder responses after transcription included identifyi ng key phrases, words, and concepts; and then summarizing emerging themes (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The six key informant interviews were c onducted with a repres entative spectrum of individuals from both local and state govern ment, non-governmental agencies and private companies, along with private citizens; all advocating for springs protection in both study locations as well as throughout the state. These in terviews are an effectiv e means for collecting information that provide insight into ev ents, actions and other community processes, (Schwartz et al., 2001). It is diffi cult to obtain accuracy of key in formant data, but for six of the fourteen questions (questions numbered 8-13, s ee Appendix D), an aggr egation technique of looking at the mode response of yes, no, or a partial yes was used to understand the public

PAGE 71

71 participation processes and actions taking plac e in both case study locations, as well as thoughts on land use change impacts. This was chosen to establish more consistency and eliminate idiosyncratic observations, (Schwartz et al., 20 01). Responses beyond the modal ques for these six questions along with responses for the rema ining eight questions were summarized for emerging themes out of common phrases, word s and concepts (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Questions targeting ways in which the public ha s participated at a local level in springs protection policy were broken down into five separate questions, beginning with a broad acceptance of the public in deci sion making processes, narrowing down to final questions that looked at whether final decisions and actions concerning springs pr otection were actually made by the public.

PAGE 72

72 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS Land Use Change in Springsheds It has been well documented that springs are a part of not only local and regional land uses and economies, but are also under global influen ces (Brown et al., 2008). Other nations econom ies influence land use changes throughout ar eas of Florida where springs are located, and over a temporal scale, they impact springs. Th e principle source of water for springs, including both Wekiwa and Wakulla Springs is groundwater from the Floridan aquifer. The quality of the groundwater determines the basis for the health of the spring ecosystem (Brown et. al., 2008). Springs are thus dependent on their respective spr ingshed, with all the va rious land uses that are encompassed within, to provide the regional replenishing or recha rge of the water supply to the aquifer. Wakulla Springs Land Use Change For W akulla Springs, a boundary area c onsisting of 54,662 acres was analyzed. Unfortunately, close to 67% of the parcels ( over 36,000 acres) within the springshed study area did not have a corresponding actual year built. This might have been remedied if land cover data for both previous decades and current data were used in conjunction with land use information in this analysis to determine where and when certa in areas of land were de veloped or changed. These parcels were simply treated as a separa te category when looking at each spring boundary.

PAGE 73

73 Figure 6-1. Wakulla Springs Five Mile Study Boundary Since the turn of the last century, residen tial development has been the primary land use around Wakulla Springs that has steadily in creased. Between 1980 and 1989, over 2400 acres were converted into residential use, and an a dditional 1169 acres officia lly became agricultural lands. In the past two decades, between 1990 and 2007, an additional 6566 acres within the 5 mile radius boundary of Wakulla Springs has been converted to residential uses. Aside from the increase in land use over the decades for resi dential purposes, another 7367.51 acres within the study area is described as a use that falls under this researchs resident ial category, but does not carry an associated year built wi th it. Altogether, a total of 18,459.74 acres within the study area consisted of a residential use. Along with this increase in residential de velopment, no additional utilities or transportatio n use parcels were added in the past two decades. This could be because the utility and transportation parcels are alr eady included in the 313 acres of utilities and transportation that have no year associated with th em, or it could also mean that the utilities that support this growth are contained privately on residential parcels or located just outside of the

PAGE 74

74 study area. The parcel data used for this research did not clas sify the land known to be state owned property for Wakulla Springs State Park as i nstitutional, but rather as Forest, Park and Recreational Areas. Although this large amount of land is both state owned (which would place it under the institutional category) and a forested recreational area (grouped under agriculture/rural areas), the di fficultly in describing land uses simply through their individual parcel description became apparent. Table 6-1. Wakulla County Land Use Change (1925-2006). Wakulla Co. 1925-1979 Change In Acres 2,118.35 178.48 3658.09 1 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Wakulla Co. 2000-2006 Change In Acres 2885.62 103.54 914.02 22.97 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Figure 6-2. Wakulla County Land Us e Change In Acres (1925-2006)

PAGE 75

75 Figure 6-3. Wekiwa Springs Five Mile Study Boundary Wekiwa Springs Land Use Change Wekiwa Springs boundary encom passes 32,616 acres in Orange County and 16,631 acres in Seminole County. Approximately 60% of th ese two countys parcel information had no associated year where development may have occurred (43% in Seminole County and 17% in Orange County), but still carried significant descriptions of the parcels (eg. Agriculture, Residential) that were treated in their own category. In Oran ge County alone, Wekiwa Springs State Park encompasses 15,899 acres described as institutional. Another large portion of the State Park lies within Seminole Co unty with over a thousand acres also described as institutional. Similarly to that of the Wakulla Spring st udy area, increasing conve rsion to residential land uses is evident over time in both Orange an d Seminole Counties (See Table 6.2). In Orange County, over 2000 acres of land were converted to residential use in the 1980s. Along with the residential usage, more urban, commercial uses moved into the boundary area including two golf courses, one located less than .2 miles away from the sp ring boil. The acreage for residential development declined in the 1990s but increased between 2000-2006 converting a

PAGE 76

76 Orange Co. 1901-1979 Change In Acres 835.59 372.74 16954.2 1.2 3.78 2,530.69 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Utilities and Transportation Parcels with No Values l Orange Co. 2000-2006 Change In Acres 1349.66 148.33 8.95 6.99 0 9.51 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Utilities and Transportation Parcels with No Values little less than 1350 acres to residential use. Seminole County saw its fastest surge of development in the 1980s. Over 2600 acres during this decade were converted to residential use with over 83% of the land consisting of single fa mily lots. Together, both Orange and Seminole Counties have seen 17,935.6 acres of land within the Wekiwa Spri ngs study area converted to residential use. The majority of Wekiwa Spri ngs State Park is incl uded in Orange Countys Institutional category for the years between 1901-1979, with an additional 1114 acres under the same category with no associated year. Semi nole County also held approximately 2153.31 acres of institutional lands under no associated year, presuming that this area is their countys jurisdictional portion of the Wekiwa Springs State Park. Unlike what has happened in Wakullas boundary, land within both Orange and Seminole Countys boundary is being set aside for additional utility and transportation, assuming to accommodate (support) the rising residential development in the area. Table 6-2 Orange County Land Use Change (1901-2006) Figure 6-4. Orange County Land Us e Change In Acres (1901-2006)

PAGE 77

77 Figure 6-5. Orange C ounty Land Use (1901-2006)

PAGE 78

78 Seminole Co. 1900-1979 Change In Acres 3,590.90 565.1 107.19 72.33 17.8 55.84 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Utilities and Transportation Parcels with No Values Seminole Co. 2000-2006 Change In Acres 397.43 61.63 10.32 36.88 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Utilities and Transportation Parcels with No Values Table 6-3. Seminole County Land Use Change (1900-2006) Figure 6-6. Seminole County Land Us e Change in Acres (1900-2006)

PAGE 79

79 Figure 6-7. Seminole C ounty Land Use (1900-2006)

PAGE 80

80 Analyzing Nitrogen Presence Looking at nitrogens presence within existing land use conditions in both research boundary areas, an overwhelm ing percentage of its total load is located within medium density residential (MDR) areas. Twenty-three and a ha lf percent of the total nitrogen in the Wakulla boundary area was present in the MDR areas and almost half of the total nitrogen present in the Wekiwa boundary area, 48.4%, was found there with its land use only comp rising 23.4% of the total area. High amounts of nitr ogen were also present for both the spring boundary areas in low and high density residential desi gnated uses, plantations and or chards, field crops in Wakulla County and natural areas such as scrub and mixed wetland hard woods in both locations (see Table 6-4). The previous fourteen WAM simulations, si x taking place in each spring study area displaying the sediment and groundwater concentra tions of nitrogen and two that display the existing land uses in both of the spring study area, are able to depict that in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa boundary areas, concentratio ns of nitrogen have significan tly increased. There is an exception with the decrease of about 1,074 g, per hectare, per year of groundwater nitrogen concentration in the 1990s simula tion of Wakulla in comparison to existing concentrations, and a minimal change in groundwater concentrations within the Wekiwa Sp ring study area from the 1990s to the present. Other observations from th e models reveal that during the 1970s, land uses that contributed a larger porti on of nitrogen input for both the soil as well as groundwater were mainly natural areas of mixed forested lands in the Wakulla Spring study area. Citrus groves and other agricultural land uses with some pockets of low density reside ntial areas were the contributory sources to the Weki wa Spring study area nitrogen lo ading. As time progressed into the 1990s, large portions of land in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa springs study area was converted into low and medium density residential areas. In connection with this rise in land

PAGE 81

81 Table 6-4. Comparison of Simula ted Nitrogen Load for Existing Land Uses in the Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs Boundary Area Existing Land Use Mean Nitrogen Load (kg/ha) Existing Land Use Total Nitrogen Load (kg) Total Land Use Area (ha) Land Use Descriptions Wakulla Wekiwa Wakulla Wekiwa Wakulla Wekiwa Citrus Groves N/A 274.529 N/A 5781.6 N/A 21 Horse Farms N/A 219.304 N/A 1065.8 N/A 5 Groves and Orchards N/A 144.861 N/A 8213.6 N/A 57 Ornamental Nurseries N/A 89.3 N/A 24738 N/A 277 Tree Nurseries 158.358 N/A 1795.8 N/A 11 N/A Medium Density Residential 139.814 53.06 117552.8 251724.5 841 4744 High Density Residential 7.863 41.808 12.7 42635.8 2 1020 Low Density Residential 27.356 30.295 81166.6 40366 2967 1332 Hardwoods N/A 39.944 N/A 485.3 N/A 12 Hardwood Conifer Mixed 0.243 28.25 1224.8 23821.1 5039 843 Coniferous Plantations 1.803 24.268 8420.8 5248.4 4670 216 Scrub and Brushland 0.241 22.492 856.9 59265.9 3558 2635 Commercial and Services 13.116 19.967 2241.6 22529.1 171 1128 Industrial 7.79 19.309 25.2 2142.8 3 111 Field Crops 20.312 16.489 7864.2 1776.4 387 108 Barren Land N/A 15.627 N/A 354.4 N/A 23 Managed Landscape 132.615 12.72 1503.9 5429.8 11 427 Sewage Treatment N/A 9.839 N/A 350.7 N/A 36 Transportation Corridors N/A 9.692 N/A 1844.8 N/A 190 Improved Pastures 3.539 8.731 1619.8 1435.7 458 164 Woodland Pasture 1.236 7.917 75.1 474.5 61 60 Row Crops N/A 6.12 N/A 9.9 N/A 2 Bay Swamps 13.333 3.315 183.6 16.1 14 5 Cypress 9.664 3.315 821.9 18.8 85 6 Wetland Forested Mixed 10.839 3.177 8278.9 3839.5 764 1209 Freshwater Marshes 9.751 3.177 2061.5 1417.9 211 446 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 10.629 3.038 7034.3 12796.1 662 4212 Poultry Feeding Operation N/A 2.737 N/A 8.9 N/A 3 Open Water 2.997 2.287 257.3 1680.2 86 735 Rural Land in Transition N/A 2.099 N/A 28.9 N/A 14 Undeveloped Urban Land 0.636 1.953 13.4 517.3 21 265 Unimproved Pasture 1.382 N/A 122 N/A 88 N/A Mining 0.47 N/A 0.8 N/A 2 N/A TOTAL: 573.987 1119.62 499,876.60 520017.8 20112 20306

PAGE 82

82 Figure 6-8. Existing Land Uses for Wa kulla Springs 5-Mile Boundary Area

PAGE 83

83 Figure 6-9. Wakulla Spring Study Area Existi ng Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 84

84 Figure 6-10. Wakulla Land Uses in Comparis on to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1970s Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year FLUCCS CODE LAND USE 1100 Low Density Residential; Fixed Single Family Units 1200 Medium Density Residential; Fixed Single Family 1600 Extractive/Mining 1700 Educational Facilities/Commercial Services 2100 Pastures & Fields 4200 Upland Hardwood Forest 4300 Mixed Forest Land 6100 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 7500 Strip Mines, Quarries, Gravel Pits 7600 Transitional Areas

PAGE 85

85 Figure 6-11. Wakulla Land Uses in Comparis on to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1990s Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 86

86 Figure 6-12. Wakulla Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year LEON CO. LEON CO. WAKULLA CO.. WAKULLA CO..

PAGE 87

87 Figure 6-13. Wakulla Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen in 1970s Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year FLUCCS CODE LAND USE 1100 Low Density Residential; Fixed Single Family Units 1200 Medium Density Residential; Fixed Single Family 1600 Extractive/Mining 1700 Educational Facilities/Commercial Services 2100 Pastures & Fields 4200 Upland Hardwood Forest 4300 Mixed Forest Land 6100 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 7500 Strip Mines, Quarries, Gravel Pits 7600 Transitional Areas

PAGE 88

88 Figure 6-14. Wakulla Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen in 1990s Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year LEON CO. WAKULLA CO.. WAKULLA CO.. LEON CO.

PAGE 89

89 Figure 6-15. Existing Land Uses for Wekiwa Springs 5-Mile Boundary Area

PAGE 90

90 Figure 6-16. Wekiwa Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year SEMINOLE CO. SEMINOLE CO.

PAGE 91

91 Figure 6-17. Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparis on to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1970s Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 92

92 Figure 6-18. Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparis on to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1990s Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 93

93 Figure 6-19. Wekiwa Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 94

94 Figure 6-20. Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads 1970s Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 95

95 Figure 6-21. Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads 1990s Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 96

96 being converted into residential uses, the nitroge n contribution from low and medium residential areas in all spring study areas, as well as multip le dwelling unit locations within Orange County, also increased. Public Participation for Springs Protection To understand the persp ectives towards citizen attitudes, participation and barriers in generating extended education and policy for sp rings protection, key informant stakeholder interviews were conducted with individuals knowledgeable about local and state impacts in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa springheds. The majority of stakeholders thought co mmunities in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa springsheds were supportive of springs prot ection, especially sin ce, according to one respondent, its currently hot but ton issue. However, one res pondent commented that although the public might say theyre suppo rtive of springs protection, they dont really know what it means. When asked about what they thought th e publics view on spring s protection measures such as regulations and policy, the responses varied depending upon the spring study area. Wakulla Countys public, as well as its gove rnment, non-governmental organizations and businesses were commended for their support of protection meas ures and stakeholders even commented on its contagious influence of springs protection awareness on nearby municipalities. In the Wekiwa springshed, stakeholders t hought that the public support of springs protection measures was dependent upon its costs and any other adverse conditions that could result from approved measures. In respect to what they thought about the publics support of paying higher taxes to protect or restore springs, the respondents were split between seeing the public as supportive and seeing that the proposition and actual approva l would be a difficult task throughout many areas of the state. All stakeholders agreed that the public receives enormous

PAGE 97

97 recreational value as well as aes thetic, cultural, and psychological value from the springs simply by knowing that its a place nearby to get away from the hustle and bustle. One respondent stated that it was difficult to have a healthy Wakulla County without a healthy Wakulla springs; you just cant have on e without the other. To better understand the public s involvement in raising concerns about springs protection, stakeholders were as ked about various methods in which the public has contributed towards both benefits and costs associated with spring protection efforts. The stakeholders described that the majority of public invol vement was through local non-governmental, grassroots or environmental organizations where they would become educated about spring impacts and then report suggestions to County Commissioners, applicable state (regional) water management districts and even St ate Representatives. The majori ty of interviewed stakeholders think that the public has helped set many standards for local a nd state rules and regulations including an expanded springs pr otection area in Wakulla County and also has lent support for increased utility bills in some municipalitie s to offset costs for upgrading technology that processes wastewater. However, one stakeholder remarked that the public should not be heavily applauded for bringing information and concerns a bout springs to light, but rather state agencies, scientists and the media are the commendable responsible part ies for causing a shift in awareness about springs declining water quality and quant ity. The costs linked with this increased awareness was mentioned to consist mostly in mone tary costs associated w ith either legal fees, state and locally run programs that educate the public about springs as well as programs that purchase sensitive land within springshed area s, and the costs for purchasing the technology required to upgrade infrastructure such as advanced wastewater treatment systems.

PAGE 98

98 All interviewees agreed that attempts had been and are being made to help the public better understand the problem, alternatives, opportuni ties and/or solutions th ey could help with in regards to protecting springs. A beneficial forum for the public as well as agency and organizational involvement that was mentioned by several of the stakeholders, has been through state organized spring working groups. Anothe r agreement among all key informants was that public participation opport unities in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa springshed have been given the chance to operate in a format where th e public understands how their contribution has shaped and influenced final decisions made. On e respondent stated that the creditability of the organization she was involved with was heightened due to their efforts towards the publication of technical reports that hi ghlighted the degradation of the spring fed Wekiva River. This helped tremendously in being taken seriously by the appropr iate political forces at work in the Wekiwa springshed. In the words of this respondent, you just cant go to these groups and say, we think or believe, you have to have data and information to back it up. The stakeholder saw that the public has been enga ged in a participation process ma king sure that their concerns and ideas are understood, considered and reflected in the decision and are also made aware as to how they contributed in final decisions made. Some responses refl ected that, not only do non-governmental organizations as well as the government want to disseminate information to educate the public, they depend on it. An intere sting point was made when responding to this question that public input is not necessarily through hearings or work groups, but rather on a day-to-day basis. The stakeholders were spli t in their responses concerning whether specific partnerships have been created with the public for discussing alternatives and identifying a preferred solution throughout each aspect of the decision-making processes concerning springs protection. Some stakeholders commen ted that the public worked in tandem with

PAGE 99

99 government entities in establis hing the boundaries for the expanded spring protection area in Wakulla County, while others think that this process it still an ongoing story based on whether the political will of the politicians, the public and the various agencies and organizations involved will continue to make sure that they all work together to ensure lasting protection. All interviewed stakeholders agreed that th e public has not been gi ven the authority to produce or take any final decisi on-making actions concerning spri ngs protection. However, it was stated that the public makes its loudest co ntribution by voting for local government political positions and are also given the authority to vote directly on local referendums and ad valoreum taxes that go toward the purchase of sensitive lands, like those w ithin springsheds. As stated by one stakeholder, compromise needs to be es tablished, because youll have dual sides to a community: those that are interested in springs protection and those that wa nt to just develop in these vulnerable areas, and the public on either side does work its way into final decisions made. All of the key informants agreed that grow th and development in both springsheds has impacted the springs. One stakeholder simply stated, more people means more waste. A noted cause of this waste was the residential development that brought with it added nutrient application to the ground through a concentrated amount of septic tanks as well as fertilizer application for lawns. When asked what impacts of residential, commerci al or industrial growth and development during the next decade in both Wakulla and Wekiwa springs the key informants saw the outlook eerily similar. All stated that it might take a nother decade before any improvements, like regulations that have b een approved and are enforced and updated in

PAGE 100

100 Wakulla County, are even noticed. Were treading water here a nd if further development is allowed to go into known sensitive places, who knows what may happen to the springs. Discussion In 2005, the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) was asked to create Florida Springs Protection A reas, springshed lo cations, for the Florida Departme nt of Community Affairs. Using existing data from the USGS, FDEP and the FGS, the maps displayed an area of 15 square miles as the requirement to assist land use deci sions for the protection and restoration of spring water discharge quality, as well as quantity (G reenhalgh, 2005). Circles encompassing 15 square miles were centered on the actual spring vent and were then drawn outward for protection boundaries. Below is a map of what the FGS iden tified as spring protecti on areas (Figure 6-22). Figure 6-22. Floridas springs protecti on areas. (Greenhalgh & Baker, 2005).

PAGE 101

101 Although FDEP has determined that a significa nt portion of the north western and central locations of the state (a 32 county region) are w ithin what they qualify to be springs protection areas, it is not evident what that means for the existing and changing (fut ure) land uses within these areas. FDCA has identified major causes of concern for springs and th eir water quality that directly connect with land use decisions. Thes e causes include: lands caping, the increase in development in general within springsheds, water consumption, the dumping of concentrated pollutants into karst geographic locations, agriculture (including livestock), the use of land for golf courses and an increase in recreational act ivities in the spring and along the spring run (2008). Just within the spring study areas of this research, the land use for residential purposes has risen throughout the past thir ty years and according to the Fl orida Legislatures Office of Economic and Demographic Research, the countie s that contain these two springs study areas are projected to increase their population by anot her 125,000 in the next five and a half years (2009). This population growth brings with it de mands for additional residential dwelling units as well as other land uses includi ng utilities, institutions (schools), and commerci al uses that help to service this increase in the areas population. With the use of WAM to simulate the histor ical land use changes from a more natural landscape to developed, medium an d low density residential use, residential development has overwhelmingly added to the overall nitrogen loading in the Wakulla and Wekiwa Spring study areas. This supports FDCAs comme nts that the sprawl of urbaniz ing development adds to the overall degradation of the states springs and c ontributing water resources. The simulated total nitrogen load entering the Wakulla springs stud y area from medium residential areas alone is 56.6 kg per acre on a total of 2078 acres. Even with strong evidence from this research that displays how residential use is contributing the most nitrogen i nput within sensitive springshed

PAGE 102

102 locations, the question remains: what is the major contributing source of nitrogen from these residential areas within springsheds? The answer is as varied as the many contri buting sources that FDCA reports are overall contributing to the springs decline throughout th e state. One highly researched contributing source under considerable debate for updated polic y consideration is re sidential wastewater treatment facilities, both onsite (i ndividual) and municipal. As discussed in Chapter Two, onsite treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), commonl y installed in residential areas that are not readily available to connect with sewer systems ha ve become a hot topic of concern for locations around the state that are within these springshed areas. The WAM simulation did take into account municipal sewer service lo cations within both spring st udy areas, but is limited in its accuracy as to whether particul ar residential uses are indeed using an onsite wastewater treatment systems as opposed to being connected to sewer. In order to facilitate the states next actio ns towards remedying the nitrogen loading from onsite treatment and disposal systems, an und erstanding of awareness and attitudes toward environmental issues is essential, (Brennan & Dodd, 2009). Currently, the state has organized six working groups that each meet separately on a quarterly basis se rving to disseminate information throughout many organizations, agencies and the public about th e protection of that particular spring and springshed. Wakulla Spring is one of the six springs that has a strong working group while Wekiwa currently does not. While interviewing the various stakeholders fo r qualitative information regarding springs protection, a noted cause of the waste associated with residential development and its added nutrient application to the ground wa s stated to be from concentrated amounts of septic tanks as well as fertilizer application for lawns. All interviewees noted that it might take another decade

PAGE 103

103 before any improvements, like those that have been approved and are enforced and updated regularly in Wakulla County in regards to septic tank and septic system management, are even noticed. One stakeholder commented that they sa w the citizens of their county, treading water and that if further development is allowed to go into known sensitive places, who knows what may happen to the springs. Recommendations Many agencies and organizations throughout the state, both private and governm ent affiliated, have given recommendations regarding policy measures that can be taken in order to progressively protect springs. As noted, Wakulla County has been a local government leader in this area, setting an example for the rest of the 31 counties that contai n springs. The issue of nutrient input in the form of nitrogen from reside ntial onsite septic systems is not a new debate, yet the discussion over what actions to take to lessen these impacts are still under consideration at the state level for both new and existing systems. In 2008 report by the Florida Department of Health, it stated that less than 1% of Florid as 2.3 million OSTDS systems are actively managed and over half of these systems are 30 years old an d were installed under st andards less stringent than current standards, (DOH, 2008). This st atistic along with many other reports, including this research that provide a connection between residential land use, onsite septic systems and increased nitrogen into nearby waters supporting the need for increased attention towards the regulating and maintenance of these systems for the lasting hea lth of the states water quality and ultimately, springs. The Florida Department of Health regulates and tracks the installation and maintenance of onsite treatment and disposal systems, but under the considered and tabled 2009 Springs Protection Bill, that could have changed. One of the 22 measures considered as a part of the Bill included the transfer of the Department of Heal ths Bureau for Onsite Sewage to the Florida

PAGE 104

104 Department of Environmental Protection under an unnamed department. With the current sensitivity towards onsite septic systems contribu tions to decreased water quality in springs, I recommend that this measure be one that is reconsidered for dropping and taken away from any springs protection bills that are reintroduced for legislative considera tion. The state should follow the recommendations given for Wakulla Springs at their recent workshop in February of 2009 in regards to pursuing a feasibility study for setting up what they describe as a Responsible Management Entity (RME) that collects and distributes a supporting fee structure to ensure that all existing traditiona l onsite systems and newly installed performance based treatment systems function effectively, (1000 Friends of Fl orida, 2009). If systems are found not operating effectively, a separate f unding source possibly collected from annual property taxes could go into help ing to fund homeowners that have to upgrade their existing systems. This RME could be housed at a state level, remaining under the current Department of Healths Bureau for Onsite Sewage, but implemen ted and administered at a county level, with additional focus and funding targeted towards counties that contain springsheds of first magnitude springs. Even with this recommendation, public education that focuses on nutrient impacts to the groundwater and public participation in addressing funding options for this program is important. An additional recommendation is for local governme nts that have portions of their jurisdictions falling within a known delineated springshed, to use tools such as WAM to understand the current total nitrogen input resulting from th e existing land uses. In using GIS simulations, decision-makers can have access to baseline numbers for the amount of nitrogen (or phosphorus and total suspended solids) for particular land us es within their jurisdictional area and perform

PAGE 105

105 their own cost-benefit analysis as to what particular technology is available to reduce nitrogen loading from onsite wastewater treatment systems. Conclusions Springs p rotection in the state of Florida is a serious envi ronmental concern. The over 700 springs throughout the state gi ve residents not only a place to escape and enjoy the marvelous natural beauty Florida holds, but prov ide an outdoor tourist de stination for thousands of people every year that reside outside the state. Its evident through numerous academic studies and governmental reports th at Floridas growth has come with a price of degraded and declining levels of surface and groundwater. Th is studys results show that excess nutrients, specifically nitrogen, have signifi cantly increased within the past several decades. This increase is mostly attributed to the residential land uses associated with accommodating the states population growth. Other attributable sources from agricultural a nd silvicultural application of nitrogen based fertilizers also have been incr easing, possible due to increased demand for their local and traded uses. With active public involvement, the Wa kulla County council members approved a landmark ordinance in 1994 that set aside specific areas in the county as the special planning area to protect and preserve water quality in and around Wakulla Springs, (Appendix A). With the Wakulla County Water Quality Protection Regul ation (94-28) the county also became the first in the state to integrate measures w ithin the Future Land Use Element of their Comprehensive Plan for engagi ng in spring protection includi ng building setbacks and design standards within their desi gnated special planning area, (Wakulla County 2008). Wekiwa Springs has the advantage of being the headwaters of a state and federally protected river, the Wekiva. The Wekiva Ri ver under the Wekiva River Protection Act, approved in December of 1991, mandates that both Orange and nearby Seminole counties

PAGE 106

106 contain goals, objectives and po licies within their comprehensive plans that result in the protection of water quality, qua ntity and hydrology, (F.S. 369.301; F.A.C. ch.9J-27). Orange County has responded with their own Wekiva Rive r Protection Ordinance and additional goals, objectives and policies within their comprehensive pl an that protects the ri ver as well as Wekiwa Spring. The federal designation of portions of the Wekiva now protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, passed by Congress in October of 2000, also preserve s the natural, cultural and recreational values of the River and extends to its headwaters, Wekiwa spring (P.L. 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271). The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was originally created by Congress in 1968 to preserve designa ted rivers that hold particular outstandi ng natural, cultural and recreational values to ensure their appropria te use and if need be, necessary development (NWSR, 2007). A third layer of protection for the area, the Wekiva Pa rkway and Protection Act (F.S. 384) implements the recommendations of the Wekiva River Basin Committee while authorizing the designing and build ing of the Wekiva Parkway, an extension of roads that would complete the beltway around Orlando while also providing protection of the Wekiva River system, (ECFRPC, 2007). Current efforts for spring pr otection throughout Florida have taken the form of legislative bills that either provide guidelines to be used for governing any future impacts to springs or spur the creation of task forces that research the best ways of targeting springs prot ection for local areas (Florida Senate, 2008). During 2006, the Fl orida Springs Protection Act was introduced as an amendment to Chapter 369 F.S. to ensure a statewide springs protection plan. The bill, although supported by several committees, died on its second reading in the state Senate. The bill was introduced again in 2007, but included specific regulatory measures like the delineation of springsheds and primary protectio n zones for the Wakulla, Ichetucknee, Rainbow

PAGE 107

107 and Volusia springs; amendments to local compre hensive plans to protect spring water quality and quantity; the prohibition of certain recreat ional and development activities within the delineated protection zones; as well as other guidelines. Unfortunately, this bill was never heard. In 2008, two separate bills were submitted in regards to springs protection, the Florida Springs Stewardship Act and the Protection of Springs Act. The Stewardship Acts proposal consisted of the Springs Task Force collecting information on the 33 first magnitude springs as well as identifying the existing land uses within these springs areas, (Florida Senate, 2008). The Protection of Springs bill only chose Silv er and Rainbow Springs, both in Marion County, for the creation of basin management action plan s in their designated protection zone areas. These bills were not able to get past the General Government Appropriations Committee. Despite the slow legislative journey for springs protection, the need for regulatory measures for both land use within springsheds and water quality sta ndards for surface and groundwater throughout the state is imperative. Many organizations and the general public also see the necessity for springs pr otection. During this 2009 legislative cycle, Senate Bill 274, the Florida Springs Protection Act, contains many fa cets of what previous legislative bills have placed forth and combines them into one policy. It s intent takes into account the need to protect and restore the springs as their own ecological system as well as the groundwater that provides their function. Appendix B displays the main co mponents of the bill, which was passed by the Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee on March 17th of this year, and then passed by the Committee on Community Affairs on April 6th with amendment changes (Florida Senate, 2009). On May 2nd, the bill was indefinitely postpon ed and ultimately withdrawn from consideration.

PAGE 108

108 The state has, in recent years, taken a stan ce against this escalation in degraded water quality within springsheds with various policy m easures, most recently with the support of the Springs Protection Act (SPA S.B. 274, 2009) that aimed to protect the qua lity of the entire states water resources. The bill targeted regi onal and local governments involvement with the state in managing the various sources of polluta nts and nutrients that enter the ground, mostly through stormwater and a concentrat ion of individual septic system s, and eventually make their way into nearby springs. However, now with the bills untimely demise, more serious commitment from all regulating entities will be required to implement reasonable and reliable standards for businesses and residents to understand and follow. This might be a challenge for all parties involved to co ordinate their various re sponsibilities for protection and restoration, but presents opportunities for increas ed connections between agenci es and political boundaries for our shared natural resources. The bill, however targeted it was in addressing measures to help water quality, it did not a ddress the bigger picture of the degr aded water and its potential main cause, land use change to accommodate population growth. With the help of the Florida Springs Initia tive (FSI) and the alr eady six spring working groups in place serving as a mechanism for th e exchange of communication and information about springs issues and concerns, the many ag encies, committed grassroots and environmental organizations as well as individual citizens can co ntinue to have a forum to express ways to effectively implement and monitor the many changes necessary to eventually make an act similar to the 2009 bill, a successful one. These m easures, working towards the stabilization and hopeful decline of nitrogen and other nutrient loading into water bodie s and groundwater, are a small step in the direction of ensuring that Flor ida residents and visitors have access to necessary and desirable resources, especially clean water. The benefits that springs provide in light of their

PAGE 109

109 current demise is under serious debate at all leve ls of government, but as of late, implementation measures/regulations linking development and sp rings protection have not been adopted at a state level. Increased development for the co ntinued accommodation of population growth in the state of Florida is creating a larger and larger pa thway for increased nutrien ts to enter and further degrade water quality. This research has establ ished the recent history of rapid growth and associated nitrogen increase w ithin two small study areas around springs. Through the evidence that both the WAM model and stak eholder interviews provides, th ere is a need for more support for policy that targets nitroge n reduction in springsheds. The data accquired for both the overall look at the three countys parcel uses as well as WAMs data requirements was challenging, especi ally the interface back and forth between ArcView 3.2 and ArcGIS 9.3 with an end goal of obtaining the most accurate representation of the area under investigat ion. WAM is a pre-developed GIS model that is complex in its categorization of environmental data. With the models approach in developing various scenarios for land use change, the researcher ha d to overcome a learning curve that involved engineering principals and data management. Finding the appropriate data for the model was also challenging and often several attempts in contacting governmental agencies were made before acquiring the required information. A final limitation encountered with WAM involved the lengthy amount of time that the program based in ArcView 3.2 needed to run through in order to process the several tie rs of data necessary to give its output for each model. Other limitations encountered du ring this research was the representative quality and sheer small number of stakeholders th e researcher was able to interv iew. Despite the wide background and current involvement of the individuals in springs protection th at comprised the six interviewees, the research could have been able to generalize on a much wider scale if more

PAGE 110

110 interviews had been conducted. Also, there is a need for furthe r research to better understand and represent the extent to whic h the public has been involved with springs protection. Possible research efforts that were not investigated incl ude collecting past record s of participants at springs protection workshops and group meetings that focus on contributing factors of springs degradation. This is an impor tant avenue for planners and de cision-makers alike to understand and continually shape for future understanding. The public, the ultimate end users of water resources, do have the final choice in what wate r quality standards are. If citizens do not voice their concerns towards the known contributions to water degradation, water quality will continue to decline and Floridas springs will cease to embody the magical natural wonder they hold.

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX A WAKULLA CO. WATER QUALITY PROTEC TION RE GULATION/WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE (NO. 94-28) Intent: To protect and maintain the quality of water resources in Wakulla County and to ensure additional water quality protection to groundw ater that affects Wakulla Springs. Properties included within the special planning area are affected as well as contributing water bodies (rivers, streams, sloughs, sp rings and other water resources that flow into or directly affect water quality in Wakulla Springs). Ordinance Regulations: 1. Substances that are regulated by the state or county (Exhibit A of or dinance) that are in quantities greater than five (5) gallons if liquid and 50 pounds if solid shall be required to be registered with the Waku lla County Planning Department. 2. Any proposed new business or facility that requests permits for development/rezoning and is considering using any of the regulated substances, shall provide information at the time of the permit that documents its use, storage, or disposal so that the County is able to formulate approval conditions to monitor and protect ground and surface water. 3. Designates a Special Planning Area that specifies agricultural uses, targeting silviculture, to pursue the use of best mana gement practices, and shall be consistent with all EPA labeling rules and requirements. 4. Within the boundaries of the Special Pla nning Area, found on following page (has since changed and updated boundary on page 41), land uses may be restricted in addition to other land standards to protect and preserve water quality in surface and ground water resources. 5. The restrictions set forth within the boundary may allow land uses to be approved with specific conditions or restrictions to provide a buffering effect, prevent pollution, meet concurrency, make land uses compatible with adjacent or abutti ng land uses, or to ensure compliance with the County Co mprehensive Plan and development regulations. Restrictions may also be associated with ac tions that are independent of the original land use or rez oning approval and would then be approved by the County Commissioners at an adve rtised public hearing. 6. A violation of land use approval conditions or restrictions ma y result in code enforcement or additional legal action including the filing of liens. Properties that are seen in violation of land use conditions or restrictions cannot r eceive additional County land use approval or development permits until the identified violation has been corrected. 7. The design and selection of mate rials to contain any regulate d substance, must be able to preclude it from being discharged into the environment. The containment system must also be operated in a manner that rain fall or external moisture can be managed. 8. All of the property owners within the sp ecial planning area who use, store or manufacture the regulated substances shall upgrade or retrofit to new construction containment standards when any improveme nts are proposed or by January 30, 1999.

PAGE 112

112 9. Injection and drainage wells shall not be permitted within the Wakulla Springs Special Planning Area. Heat pump wells are also not allowed within the planning area unless it is shown by the applicant that suffici ent engineering and water contamination controls are designed into the system so no surface or ground water resources will be contaminated from its use. Monitoring and reporting processes are also required to be submitted to the Planning Department if approval is given for the installation of such devices. 10. Any discharge of any of the regulated substances into a septic tank or personal sewerage disposal facility will constitute a violation of this ordinance. Any floor drains, grease traps, and oil and water separators shall be constructed to prevent the infiltration of regulated substances into septic systems, soil, surface or groundwater. 11. Section 8 of this ordinance outlines the enforcement proce ss if a violation occurs. 1994 Special Planning Area Boundary

PAGE 113

113 APPENDIX B FLORIDA SENATE 2009, SPRI NGS BILL 274 FLORIDA SPR INGS PROTECTION ACT Intent: To e stablish that all countie s or municipalities where a designated first or second magnitude spring exists will be designated a spring protection zone. Outline of Proposed Bill: 1. FDEP is directed to adopt rules to implement spring protection zones. 2. The rules adopted need to in clude a priority list of 1st and 2nd magnitude springs with designations of high, medium or low pr iority based on nitrate measurements. 3. Based on the departments determination, ce rtain deadlines will apply in conjunction with 369.405 (#7 below): a. High priority springs, no later than July 1st, 2016. b. Medium priority springs, no later than July 1st 2019. c. Low priority springs, no later than July 1st, 2024. 4. Counties sand municipalities can seek to have specific geographic areas exempted from these designations through a demonstration that activit ies within these areas will not impact the springshed in a ma nner that leads to degradation. 5. FDEP is to develop standards and rules that provide minimum methodologies, data and tools for county to use to support a request for an exemption. 6. FDEP may deny an application for an ex emption or may modify boundaries of the specific geographic area for wh ich an exemption is requested. 7. The requirements for the spring protection zones include: a. All wastewater discharges from faciliti es with capacities greater than 100,000 gallons per day must achieve nitrogen con centrations less than or equal to 3 mg/L. b. All wastewater discharges from facilities with capacit ies less than 100,000 gallons per day but greater than 10,000 gallons per day must achieve nitrogen concentrations less than or equal to 10 mg/L. c. Septic systems in areas where densities are greater than or equal to 300 systems per square mile must connect to a centra l wastewater treatment facility or other centralized collection an d treatment system. d. Agricultural operations must implement applicable best-management practices, including nutrient management, and anim al feeding that is adopted by DACS no later than December 31st, 2009. e. All drainage wells must be evaluated and a remediation plan to reduce nitrogen loading must be implemented. f. All stormwater management systems constr ucted prior to 1982 must be evaluated and a remediation plan to reduce nitr ogen loading to groundwater must be developed and implemented. g. FDEP may require additional treatment or other actions to meet surface and groundwater quality standards. 8. New septic systems that are installed after July 1st, 2009 must be designed to meet a target annual average groundwater concentr ation of no more than 3 milligrams per liter total nitrogen at the owners property line. DOH shall develop and adopt by rule design standards for achieving target annual average groundwater concentrations. At

PAGE 114

114 a minimum these standards must consider th e relationship between the treatment level achieved by the system and are of useable property available for rainwater dilution. 9. The land application of sewage is prohibi ted and subject to a $250 fine for a first offense and a $500 fine for a second or subs equent offense by the authority given to the DOH. 10. After July 1, 2010, land applic ation of Class A, B, or AA wastewater residuals, as defined by FDEP, within the primary protec tion zone is prohibited. This does not apply to Class AA residuals (fertilizer products). 11. By December 31st, 2010, all county and municipal governments must, at a minimum, adopt the departments model ordina nce for Florida Friendly Landscaping. 12. The Florida Springs Onsite Sewage Treat ment and Disposal System Compliance Grant Program is established and administer ed by the DOH with a purpose to provide grants to low-income property owners in spring protection zones using septic systems to assist the property owners in complying with these rules. This program will be effective upon final adoption of department rules. a. Any property owner in a spring protection zone having an income less than or equal to 200% of the federal poverty leve l who is required to alter, repair, or modify any existing septic system to a nitrate-reducing treatment system may apply to the DOH for a grant to assist the owner with the cost of the compliance. b. The amount of the grant is limited to the cost difference between the replacement of a comparable existing system and that of an upgraded nitrate-reducing treatment system, but may not exceed $5000 per property. c. The grant must be in the form of a reba te to the property owner for costs incurred in complying with requirements for septic systems. It is the property owners responsibility to provide documentation of these costs in the grant application to DOH. 13. DACS shall be the lead agency in coordi nating the reduction of agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution for springs protection. 14. Comprehensive Plans shall include the following elements: a. Areas where a springs protection zone ha s been adopted by FDEP, during the first comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal report after July 1st, 2009, a spring protection measure that ensures the pr otection of and where necessary the restoration of water quality in springs shall be added to the appropriate comprehensive plan amendment. b. This measure must address minimum human impacts on springs from development through the protection of karst features during and after the development process, ensuring that fu ture development follows low-impact design principles, and ensuri ng that landscaping and ferti lizer use are consistent with the Florida Friendly Landscaping Program. 15. For state assistance in water pollution cont rols, eligible projects must be given priority according to the extent that each project is intended to remove, mitigate, or prevent adverse effects on surface or gr ound water quality and public health. 16. FDEP shall adopt a priority system rule. In the development of this rule, FDEP shall give priority to projects that: a. Eliminate public health hazards;

PAGE 115

115 b. Enable compliance with laws that require the elimination of discharges to specific water bodies; c. Assist in the implementation of total ma ximum daily loads and basin management action plans; d. Enable compliance with other pollution control requirements, including toxics control, wastewater residuals management, and the reduction of nutrients and bacteria e. Assist in the implementation of surf ace water improvement and management plans and pollutant load reduction goal s developed under state water policy; f. Promote reclaimed water use; g. Eliminate environmental damage caused by failing onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, with prio rity given to systems located with an area designated as an area of critical state concern or located in a sp ring protection area; h. Reduce pollutants to and otherwise promot e the restoration of state surface and groundwaters. 17. NO later than December 31st, 2011, FDEP, DACS, the NWFWMD, the Suwannee Rover Water Management District (S RWMD), the SJRWMD, and the SWFWMD shall assess nitrogen loading from la nds owned or managed by each respective agency and located within a spring protection zone for each of the four springs using a consistent methodology, evaluate existing management activities, and develop and begin implementing management plans to reduce impacts to the springs. 18. DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE DOH: a. Develop and implement a mandatory stat ewide onsite treatment and disposal system inspection program that shall: i. Be phased in over a 10-year cycle a nd provide that every system is inspected on a 5-year recurring cycle. ii. Initially target systems inspected un der current departmental criteria. iii. Provide an exemption of systems in areas where density of dwellings is fewer than one person per 3 acres unl ess the property abuts a water body or water segment that is listed by the department as impaired. iv. The local DOH department, local government, or state-licensed septic tank contractor or plumber shall charge an additional fee of $20 for each system inspected and an application must be submitted for approval to the DOH, with a copy delivered to the property owner. DOH must approve the system for continued use or notif y the owner of the requirement for a repair or modification permit. v. The revenue from the inspection fee mu st be deposited into appropriate department trust funds with a minimum of 50% of the revenue dedicated to the grant program. 19. The Acquisition and Restoration Counc il under the Florida Forever Act shall recommend for additions to the Conservation and recreation Lands list, giving weight to the following criteria: a. Any part of the project area falli ng within a springs protection zone. 20. On or after July 1st, 2011, other than no-phosphate a nd no-phosphorus fertilizers, fertilizer containing phosphorus may not be a pplied to urban turf anywhere in Florida, unless a soil or tissue test that is con ducted by a DACS approved method indicates:

PAGE 116

116 a. The level of available phosphorus is insufficient to establish new turf growth and a root system. A one-time application only of up to 1 pound of phosphate per 1000 square feet of are may be applied. 21. All personnel, statutory powers, duties and f unctions of the Bureau of Onsite Sewage in the Department of Health are transfe rred from the DOH to the DEP by a type two transfer (s. 20.06 F.S.).

PAGE 117

117 APPENDIX C GEODATA LISTING Original File Name Complied/Distributed Agency or Organization Data Creation Date Date Obtained Spring Locations (BESTAVAIL_SPRING_MASTERLIST_ 032009_OID) FDEP 3.20.09 3.23.09 Statewide Basins (BASINS) FDEP/FGDL 1998 12.08.08 Florida County Boundary Statewide (cntbnd) US Census Bureau/FGDL Northwest Florida Water Management District Land Use and Cover 2004 (lu_nwfwmd_2004) FDEP/FGDL 3.10.09 3.25.09 Northwest Florida Water Management District Land Use and Cover 1995 (lu_nwfwmd_199565) FDEP/FGDL 4.14.97 6.3.09 USGS 1:250,000 LAND USE LAND COVER 1970s (usgslu_1974) USGS/FDEP/FGDL 1974 6.3.09 County Parcel Information (orange_parcels_06_xown; seminole_parcels_06_xown; wakulla_parcels_06_xown) FDR/FGDL 12.31.06 10.15.08 County Water Management District Land Use 1990 (lu9048; lu9059) SJRWMD/FGDL 5.20.07 6.10.09 Statewide Water Management Land Use 2000 (lu0048; lu0059) SJRWMD/SWFWMD/ SFWMD 10.8.04 3.25.09 National Hydrography Dataset Linear Surface Water Drainage Network, 1:24,000 (nhd24flowline_may06) USGS/USEPA/ USDA Forest Service/FDEP/FGDL 5.1.06 8.15.08 Major Water Bodies of Florida (mjwaterbnd) National Atlas/ USGS/FGDL 10.1.06 8.15.08 Hydrologic Cataloging Units of Florida (watershed) FDEP/FGDL n/a 8.15.08 Hydrography Lines, 1:100,000 (hy100l48; hy100l59; hy100l65) USGS/FGDL 1990 8.15.08 Major Roads Statewide (major_roads) FDOT/FGDL 1.5.09 1.15.09 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Florida (nrcs_soils48; nrcs_soils59; nrcs_soils65) USDA/NRCS/FGDL 1990 8.15.08

PAGE 118

118 APPENDIX D TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE The following is the script and interview questions used when conducting the telephone interviews for this research in the fall of 2008, (between Septem ber and November). The purpose of this study is to provide informa tion that supports current and future land use policies. It does this by weighing factors asso ciated with point and non-point source pollution into decisions that effect signi ficant water resources, particularly Florida springs. This study is looking at two specific springsheds, the Wekiwa and the Wakulla, and its land use changes over time and it is also determining whether the la nd use changes have caused an impact on water quality, by looking at the level of nitrogen present. The third component of the research is looking at the public participation involved in the decision-making pro cess for policies that protect springs and how their role has also sh aped the current condition of these areas. You have been asked to be interviewed due to your involvement or knowledge of springs in the Wekiwa Spring study area. There is no compensati on for your participati on in this study. Your comments are very much appreciated and if at any time you feel uncomfortable during the interview, it can be terminated. Should you ha ve any questions regardi ng this research you can contact me by way of telephone at (352) 359-5067 or through email at sherith@ufl.edu or my supervisor, Paul D. Zwick, Ph. D. at (352) 392-4836 ext. 427 or at pdzwick@ufl.edu If you have questions regarding your righ ts as a research part icipant, please contac t the University of Floridas Ins titutional Review Board at (352) 392-0433. 1. How do you think local residents feel about springs protection? 2. How do you think local re sidents feel about spri ng protection measures (policies/regulations)? 3. In what particular ways to do you think local people get value from the springs? 4. How has the public raised concerns about springs protection within the past? 5. How do you think local taxpaye rs feel about paying to protect or restore springs? 6. Have any specific benefits resulted from local public involvement in springs protection efforts? If yes, can you please describe these benefits? 7. Have any costs resulted from local public involve ment in springs protection efforts? If yes, can you please describe these costs? 8. A main goal of local public part icipation is to provide citizen s with information to help them better understand the problem and any al ternatives, opportunitie s and/or solutions

PAGE 119

119 they could help with. To the best of your knowledge and understanding of the public, have there been any important actions aimed at achieving this goal in relation to springs protection? If yes, can you please describe these actions (what happened, who was involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, what was the outcome, etc.) 9. Another goal of public participa tion is to gather public input on particular information, various alternatives and/or decisions and understand how it shaped and influenced the final decision/s made. To the best of your knowledge and understanding of the public, have there been any important actions aimed at achieving this goal in relation to springs protection? If yes, can you describe thes e actions (what happened, when who was involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, what was the outcome, etc.) 10. A third goal of public participation is aiming to work direct ly with the public throughout the process to ensure that their concer ns and ideas are understood and considered, reflected in the alternatives developed, and are provided feedback on how they influenced the decision. To the best of your knowledge and involvement with the public, have there been any important actions aimed at achieving this goal? If yes, can you describe thes e actions (what happened, who wa s involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, wh at was the outcome, etc.) 11. A fourth goal of public participation is to se t up partnership with the public in each aspect of decisions made, including the finding of alte rnatives and the identification of the most preferred solution. The public functions in this respect to give advice and formulate solutions. To the best of your knowledge and involvement with the public, have there been any important actions aimed at achieving this goal in regards to springs protection? If yes, can you describe thes e actions (what happened, who wa s involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, wh at was the outcome, etc.) 12. One final goal of publication part icipation is to give the final decision-making action over to the public. To the best of your knowledge, have there been any important actions that have achieved this goal in regards to springs protection? If yes, can you describe thes e actions (what happened, who wa s involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, wh at was the outcome, etc.) 13. In your opinion, has residential, commercial or industrial growth/development impacted local springs? If yes, can you describe these impacts?

PAGE 120

120 14. During the next decade what impacts do you s ee the residential, commercial or industrial growth/development having on local springs? Can you describe these impacts? Other Comments: Is there anything else you would like to tell me ab out the public and springs protection/restoration efforts? Recommendations: Can you think of anyone else that you think I sh ould talk to the issues we have discussed? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TI ME AND ASSISTANCE. Do you have any questions th at you would like to ask me? Can I contact you again if I have any more questions? Would you like a copy of my final report?

PAGE 121

121 LIST OF REFERENCES 1000 Friends of Florida, Florida Departm ent of Community Development (DCA) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F DEP). (2002). Protecting Floridas springs: Land use strategies and best management practices. Retrieved June 30th, 2008, from http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP /publications/springsm anual.pdf 1000 Friends of Florida. (2009). Follow-up report to the Wakulla Spring restoration workshop. Retrieved July 10th, 2009 from http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/water/ W akPowerPoits/WakullaWkshopReportMater ials2009.doc.pdf Allen, P. (1997). Cities and regions as self-organizing systems Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. Allen, T. & Starr, T. (1982). Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Alva, A., Dou, H., Paramasivam, S., Wang, F., Graetz, D., & Sa jwan, K. (2006). An evaluation of sources of nitrogen in shallow gr oundwater using N abundance technique. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Report Part A 41, 2257-2269. Arnold, C. Jr. & Gibbons, C. (1996). Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 243-258. Aspinall, R. (1993). Use of geographic informa tion systems for interpreting land-use policy and modeling effects of land-use change. In R. Haines-Young, D. R. Green & S. H. Cousins (Eds.), Landscape ecology and geogr aphic information systems, pp. 223-236. New York: Taylor & Francis. _______. (2005). Geography and GIS support: Understand ing of relationships between society and Environment. Directions Magazine, Online Editorial: Nov 15th. Available online at: http://www.directionsmag.com/edito rials.php? article_id=2024&trv=1 Beierle, T. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review 16(3/4), 75-103. Berger, J. (1987). Guidelines for landscape synthesis: Some directions-old and new. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 295-311. Berger, J. & Sinton, J. (1985). Water, earth and fire: Land use and environmental planning in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Berndt, M., Oaksford, E., and Mahon, G.(1998). Groundwater. In E. Fernald and E. Purdam (eds.), Water Resources Atlas of Florida pp. 38-63. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Best, J.(Ed). (1989). Images of issues New York: Aldi ne de Gruyter.

PAGE 122

122 Bollens, S. (1993). Restructuring land use governance. Journal of Planning Literature 7(3): 211-226. Bond, P. (2002). Protecting Floridas springs Florida Geological Society Poster Series #10. Retrieved July 15th, 2008, from: http://aquacomm.fcla.edu/1826/1/poster10_150dpi.pdf Bonn, M. & Bell, F. (2003). Econom ic impact of selected Florida springs on surrounding local areas. Document present to the Florida Depa rtment of Environmental Protection, Florida Springs Task Force. Retrieved December 15th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/r eports/files/Econom icImpactStudy.doc Botkin, D. (1990). Discordant harmonies: A new ecology for the twenty-first century New York: Oxford University Press. Bridger, J. & A. Luloff. (2001) Building the sustainable comm unity: Is social capital the answer? Sociological Inquiry 71(4), 458-472. Brown, M., Chinners-Reiss, K., Cohen, M., Evans, J., Reddy, K., Inglett, P., Inglett, K., Frazer, T., Jacoby, C., Phlips, E., Knight, R., Notestein, S. & McKee. K. (2008). Summary and synthesis on the available lite rature on the effects of nut rients on spring organisms and systems. University of Florida Water Institute. Brennan, M. & A. Dodd. (2009). Expl oring citizen involvement in th e restoration of the Florida everglades. Society and Natural Resources 22(4), 324-338. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Byrne, D. (2003). Complexity theory and planning theory: A necessary encounter. Planning Theory, 2 (3), 171-178. Carriker, R. (2000). Floridas water: Supply, use, and public policy Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative Ex tension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida. FE 207. Retrieved March 9th, 2009. Available online at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ pdffiles/FE/FE20700.pdf Cartwright, T. (1991). Pl anning and chaos theory. Journal of the American Planning Association 57 (1), 44-56. Catlin, R. (1997). Land use planning, environm ental protection and growth management: The Florida experience. Ann Arbor Press: Chelsea, Michigan. Challete, A., Pratt, T. & Katz, B. (2002). Nitr ate loading as an indicator of nonpoint source pollution in the lower St. Marks-Wakulla rivers watershed. Tallahassee, FL: Northwest Florida Water Management District.

PAGE 123

123 Champion, K. & Starks, R. (2001). The hydrology and water quality of select springs in the Southwest Florida Water Management Dist rict. Water quality monitoring program, SWFWMD. Retrieved October 12th, 2008, from : http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/ docum ents/reports/springs.pdf Cohen, J. (1997). Procedure and substance in de liberate democracy. In Bohman, J. & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberate Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics MIT Press: Cambridge. Pp. 407-437. Collins, H. & R. Evans. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32, 125-143. Copeland, R. (2003). Florida spring classification system and spring glossary. Florida Geological Survey, Special Publication, 52. Cordan, M. (2006). Sustainable agriculture, science and the co-p roduction of expert knowledge: The value of in teractional expertise. Local Environment 11(4), 421-431. Couclelis, H. (2003). The certain ty of uncertainty. GIS and the limits of geographic knowledge. Transactions in GIS 7(2), 165-175. Criss, R. & Davisson, M. (2004). Fertiliz ers, water quality and human health. Environmental Health Perspecives, 10(112), 536 A. Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planni ng process: An essentia lly contested concept? Journal of Planning Literature 11(3), 421-434. De Roo, G. (2003). Environmental planning in the Netherlands: To good to be true; from command and control planning towards shar ed governance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. DeHan, R. (2002). Workshop to develop blue prints fo r the management and protection of Florida springs. Ocala, Florida, May 8-9, 2002. Fl orida Geological Survey Special Publication No. 51. Department of Community Affairs, (DCA). (2008) a. Division of Commun ity Planning: Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning. Retrieved September 30th, 2008, from: http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP/compplanning/index.cfm Departm ent of Community Affairs, (DCA). (2008)b. Protecting Floridas springs: An implementation guidebook. Retrieved September 30th, 2008, from: http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/F iles/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf Dickert, T. & Tuttle, A. (1985). Cumulativ e impact assessment in environmental planning: A coastal wetland watershed example. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5, 37-64.

PAGE 124

124 Driver, N. & Troutman, B. (1989). Regression m odels for estimating urban storm-runoff quality and quantity in the United States. Journal of Hydrology 109, 221-236. Dukes, E. (1996). Resolving public conflict: Tran sforming community and governance New York: Manchester University Press. East Central Florida Regional Planning C ouncil (ECFRPC). (2007). Wekiva river basin committee implementation progress report. Retrieved September 20th, 2008. Available at: http://www.ecfrpc.org/Programs-and-Projec ts/Environm ental/Wekiva-Commission.aspx EDR, Florida Legislature. (2008). Florida population, Office of Economic and Demographic Research. Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from: http://edr.state.fl.us/population.htm Feiock, R., Tavares, A. & Lubell, M. (2008). Po licy choices for growth managem ent and land use regulation. The Policy Studies Journal 36(3), 461-480. Field, D., Voss, P., Kuczenski, T., Hammer, R. & Radeloff, V. (2003). Reaffirming social landscape analysis in landscape eco logy: A conceptual framework. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 349-361. Fisher, M. (1994). When history accelerates In C. M. Hamm (ed). Modeling complexity and social change: Social knowledge and social process, p. 75-94. London: Athlone Press. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environmen t: The politics of local knowledge Duke University Press: Durham, NC. Florida Department of Community Affairs (F DCA). (2008). Protecting Floridas springs: An implementation guidebook. Retrieved February 15th, 2009, from: http:// www.dca.state.fl.us Florida Departm ent of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (2004). Wakulla springs: A giant among us, citizen and government action. Retrieved January 30th 2008, from: http://www.floridasprings.org/exploration/featured/wakulla/text/protectin g/action/ _____. (2007)a. Florida Springs Initiative: Progr am Summary and Recommendations. Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from: http://199.73.242.12/springs/reports/f iles/FSIreport2007FIN AL.PDF _____. (2007)b. Florida Springs State Parks. Retrieved November 10th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us /springs/locations.htm _____. (2008). Wastewater program. Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wastewater/ _____. (2009)a. Florida online park guide: W ekiwa springs state park. Retrieved November 10th, 2008, from: http://www.floridastateparks.org/WekiwaSprings/

PAGE 125

125 _____. (2009)b. Watershed management. Retrieved February 28th, 2009. Available online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/ _____. (2009)c. STORET. Retrieved May 25, 2009. Available online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.htm Florida Department of Health (DOH). (2008). Report on a range of costs to implement a mandatory statewide 5-year septic ta nk inspection program. Retrieved July 11th, 2009. Available online at: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/ENVIRONMEN T/ostds/pdfiles/form s/MSIP.pdf Floridas Growth Management Study Commission. (2001). A livable Florida for today and tomorrow: Final report. Retrieved September 30th, 2008, from: http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP/publications/GMSCFinal.pdf Florida Leg islature Office of Economic and Demographic Research. Retrieved July 11th, 2009. Available online at: http://edr.state.fl.us/ Florida Senate. (2008). Springs protection: An overview of recent activities. Committee on Environmental Preservation and Conservati on, Issue Brief 2009-317. Available online at: http://www.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/ 2009/Senate/reports/inte rim _reports/pdf/2009317ep.pdf ______. (2009). Senate bills for 2009 regular se ason: Browsing bill numbers between 200 and 298. Retrieved on March 18th, 2009 from: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/index.cfm ? Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Tab=session&St art=200&End=298&Year=2009&Chamber=Senate Florida Springs Task Force. (2000). Floridas sp rings: Strategies for prot ection and restoration. Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/s prings/reports/files/SpringsTaskF orceReport.pdf ______. (2007). Florida springs: Strate gies for protection and restor ation. Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Foley, J., DeFries, R., Asner, G., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S., Chapin, F., Coe, M., Daily, G., Gibbs, H., Helkowski, J., Hollowa y, T., Howard, E., Kucharik, C., Monfreda, C., Patz, J., Prentice, I., Ramankutty, N. & Snyder, P. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570-574. Follman, J. & Buchanan, R. (n.d.). Springs Fever: A Field and Recreation Guide to Florida Springs Retrieved on August 15th, 2008, from: http://fn1.tfn.net/springs/ Form an, R. (1987). The ethics of isolation, the sp read of disturbance, and landscape ecology. In Turner, Monica (ed.) Landscape hete rogeneity and disturbance. New York: Springer-Verlag.

PAGE 126

126 _______. (1995). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Forman, R. & Gordon, M. (1986). Landscape Ecology. New York: Wiley. Galloway, J., Dentener, F., Capone, D., Boyer, E., Howarth, R., Seitzinger, S., Asner, G., Cleveland, C., Green, P., Holland, E., Karl, D., Michaels, A., Porter, J., Townsend, A., & Vrsmarty, C. (2004). Nitrogen cycl es: Past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry, 70, 153-226. Gans, H. (1968). People and plans New York: Basic Books. Glasoe, S., Steiner, F., Budd, W., & Young, G. (1990). Assimilative capacity and water resource management: Four examples from the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 19, 17-46. Golley, F., & Bellot, J. (1991). Interactions of landscape ecology, planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning 21, 3-11. Greenhalgh, T. & A. Baker. (2005). Florida springs protection areas Florida Geological Surveys Open File Map Series No. 95. Gusfield, J. (1981). The Culture of public problems Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Halberstam, D. (1993). The best and the brightest New York: Fawcett. Hansen, N, Babcock, H., & E. Clark II (1988). Nonpoint-source water pollution The Conservation Foundation and the National A udubon Society: Washington D.C. and New York, N.Y. Available online at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1 3/e5/f5.pdf Harris, L. (1984). The fragmented forest: Island biogeograph y theory and the preservation of biotic diversity Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hartnett, F. (2000). Floridas springs: Strategies for protecti on and restoration. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. HDR Engineering, Soil and Water Engineering Technologies, Inc. (SWET). (2008). Rainbow Springs springshed assessment: Development and application of a GIS-based nonpoint source pollutant loading model for Ra inbow Springs, Final Report, 43 pgs. Hersperger, A. M. (1994). Landscape ecology an d its potential application to planning. Journal of Planning Literature 9 (1), 14-29. Holland, J. (1998). Emergence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

PAGE 127

127 Hough, M. (1990). Out of place New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ________. (1984). City form and natural process London: Croom Helm. Innes, J. & D. Booher. (2004). Reframi ng participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice 5(4), 419-436. Innes, J., & D. Booher. (2000). Indicators for sustainable communities: A strategy building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Planning Theory and Practice 1(2), 173186. Jeffers, J. (1980). Dynamic modeling of land-use a ssessment. In M. F. Thomas & J. T. Coppock (Eds.). Land Assessment in Scotland p. 119-126. Aberdeen: Aberd een University Press. Jeong, M. & R. Feiock. (2006). Impact fees growth management, and development: A contractual approach to local policy and governance. Urban Affairs Review 41(6), 749768. Jones, R. & Beardall, H. (2005). Florida hydri lla management summit: Facilitators summary report. December 6-7, Orlando, Florida. Conf lict Resolution Consortium. Retrieved on August 15th, 2008, from: http://www.floridadep.net/lands/invaspec/2nd levpgs/pdfs/SummitRe portEdit10-06.pdf Kaiser, E., Godshalk, D. & F. Chapin. (1995). Urban land use planning (4th ed.). Urbana: The University of Illinois Press. Kayden, J. (2001). National land use planning and re gulation in the United States: Understanding its fundamental importance. In R. Alterman (ed.) National Level planning in democratic countries Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Klosterman, R. (2003). Arguments for and agai nst planning. In Fainstein & Campbell (eds.) Readings in planning theory Maulden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Knox, E. & Moody, D. (1991). Influence of hydrology, soil properties, and agricultural land use on nitrogen in groundwater. In R. F. Follett, D. R. Keeney, R. M. Kruse (Eds.), Managing Nitrogen for Groundwater Q uality and Farm Profitability, p. 19-58. Madison, WI: Soil Science of America, Inc. Kramer, N. & J. de Smit. (1991). Systeemdenken Stenfert Kroese, Leiden. Krozlowski, J. (1986). Threshold approach in urban, regi onal and environmen tal planning: Theory and practice. New York: University of Queensland Press. Langtimm, C., OShea, J., Pradel, R. & Bec k, C. (1998). Estimates of annual survival probabilities for adult Florida manatees ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ). Ecology, 79(3), 981-997.

PAGE 128

128 Lemon, M. (ed.) (1999). Exploring environmental change using an integrative method. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. Lehner, P., Aponte-Clark, G., Cameron, D., & Frank, A. (1999). Stormwater strategies: Community response to runoff pollution National Resource Defense Council. Retrieved on November 30th, 2008, from: http://www.nrdc.org/water/po llution/storm /stoinx.asp Lin, Y., Hong, N., Wu, P. & C. Lin. (2007). Mo deling and assessing land -use and hydrological processes to future land-use and climat e change scenarios in watershed land-use planning. Environmental Geology 53: 623-634. Loper, D., Landing, W., Pollman, C., & Chan-Hilt on, A. (2005). Degradation of water quality at Wakulla Springs, Florida: Assessment and re commendations. Report of the peer review committee, Solving Water Pollution Problems in the Wakulla Springshed of North Florida Workshop, May 12-13; Tallahassee, Florida. Lubell, M., Feiock, R. & E. Ramirez. (2005). Political institutions a nd conservation by local governments. Urban Affairs Review 40(6), 706-725. Lyle, J.(1985). Design for human ecosystems. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lynch, T. & Harrington, J. (2003). The economic im pact of the Florida Wakulla springs birding and wildlife festival. The Florida State Univ ersity, Center for Ec onomic Forecasting and Analysis. Retrieved on January 15th, 2008, from: http://www.cefa.fsu.edu/wakula_birding03.pdf Marella, R. & York, D. (1998). W ater use. In E. A. Fernald and E. D. Purdam (eds.), Water Resources Atlas of Florida Institute of Science and P ublic Affairs. Florida State University, Tallaha ssee, Florida. Marsh, G. (1937). Man and nature D. Lowenthal, ed. Cambri dge, MA: Harvard University Press. McHarg, I. (1969). Design with nature Garden City, NJ: Natural History Press. Meinzer, O.(1927). Large springs in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Supply Paper, 557, 94. Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Munch, D., Toth, D., Huang, C., Davis, J., Fo rtich, C., Osburn, W., Phlips, E., Quinlan, E., Allen, M., Woods, M., Cooney, P., Knight, R., Clake, R., & Knight, S. (2006). Fifty-year retrospective study of the ecol ogy of Silver Springs, Florida Publication Number: SJ2007-SP4. St. Johns River Water Management Di strict, Palatka, FL. Nagel, J. (1987). Participation Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Naveh, Z. & Lieberman, A. (1984). Landscape ecology: Theory and application New York: Springer-Verlag.

PAGE 129

129 Nagel, J. H. 1987. Participation Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWS R). (2009). General information on the National wild and scenic rivers system. Retrieved on March 5th 2009, from: http://www.rivers.gov Naveh, Z. (1994). Landscape ecology: Theory and application New York: Springer-Verlag. Nolan, B., Ruddy, B., Hitt, K., Dennis, R. & He lsel, D. (1998). A national look at nitrate contamination of groundwater. Water Conditioning Purification, 39, 76-79. Retrieved on September 25th, 2008, from: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/wcp/index.html Northwest F lorida Water Management District (NWFWMD). (2008). Emerging waters: Springs of Northwest Florida. Public Information Bulletin 08-01. Retrieved on September 26th, 2008, from: http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/pubs/brochur es/S pringsOfNorthwestFlorida/EmergingWa ters.pdf Odum, E. (1971). Fundamentals of ecology (3rd ed). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. ONeill, K. (2005). Can watershed management unite town and country? Society & Natural Resources, 18(3), 241-253. Openshaw, S., Charlton, M., Wymer, C. & Craf t, A. (1987). A mark 1 geographical analysis machine for the automated anal ysis of point data sets, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 1, 335-358. Orange County Government (2006). Orange Count y, Florida comprehensive policy: Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Ora nge County Growth Management Department, Planning (pp.324). Retrieved on October 8th, 2008, from: http://www.orangecountyfl.net/cms/DEPT/gr owth/planning/com prehensive/EAR.htm Ortolano, L. (1984). Environmental planning and decision making John Wiley & Sons: New York. Parisi, D., Taquino, M., Grice, S. & D. Gill. ( 2004). Civic responsibility and the environment: Linking local conditions to communi ty environmental activeness. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 97-112. Patton, C. & Sawicki, D. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pavey, J., Muth, A., Ostermeier, D. & M. Stei ner-Davis. (2007). Build ing capacity for local governance: An application of interactional theory to developing a community of interest. Rural Sociology 72(1), 90-110.

PAGE 130

130 Pelham, T. (2007). A historical perspectiv e for evaluating Floridas evolving growth management process. In T. Chapin, C. Connerly and H. Higgins (Eds.), Growth management in Florid a: Planning in paradise p. 7-21. Hampshire UK: Ashgrove Publishing, Ltd. Pendall, R. Puentes, R. & J. Martin. (2006). From traditional to reformed: A review of the land use regulations in the nation s 50 largest metropolitan areas Research brief, The Brookings Institute: Washington D.C. Available online at: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2 006/08metropolitanpolicy_pendall.aspx Pingree, B., Stevens, L. & M. Corbett. (2008). Board consider ation of Wakulla Springshed regional partnership: Memorandum of understanding. Retrieved January 15th, 2009 from: http://www.mywakulla.com/docs/age ndas/January62009/Tab21AgendaRequest.pdf Portugali, J. (1999) Self-organization and the City Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Puckett, L. (1994). Nonpoint and point sources of nitrogen in major watersheds of the United States. USGS W ater Resources In vestigations Report 94-4001. Quinby, P. (1988). The contribution of ecologica l science to the development of landscape ecology: A brief history. Landscape Research 13(3), 9-11. Randolph, J. (2004). Environmental land use planning and management Island Press: Washington, D.C. Risser, P. (1987). Landscape ecolo gy: State of the art. In Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance M.G. Turner (Ed.). p. 3-14. New York: Springer-Verlag. Roeder, E. (2006). Onsite systems, nitrogen and springs protection. Powerpoint presented on May 4th, Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs, Di vision of Environmental Health, Florida Department of Health. Retrieved on September 30th, 2008, from: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/chdjackson/Docume nts/Jackson_Blue_springs4forweb.pdf Rosenbaum W. (2008). Environmental politics and policy (7th ed.). Washington DC: CQ Press. Saint Johns River Water Management District. (SJRWMD). (2009). Springs of the St. Johns River Water Management District: Ora nge County, Wekiwa springs. Retrieved on November 10th, 2008, from: http://www.sjrwmd.com/springs/orange/wekiwa.htm l Sanchez, T. & Mandle, R. (2007). Growth and change Florida style: 1970 to 2000. In T.S. Chapin, C. E. Connerly and H. T. Higgins (Eds.), Growth management in Florida: Planning in paradise p. 85-100. Hampshire UK: Ashgrove Publishing, Ltd.

PAGE 131

131 Scott, T., Means, G., Meegan, R., Means, R., Up church, S., Copeland, R., Jones, J., Roberts, T., & Willet, A. (2004). Springs of Florida, Florida Geological Soci ety. Bulletin No. 66. Retrieved on June 20th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/geologictopics/springs/bulletin66.htm Scott, T., Means, G., Means, R., & Meegan, R. (2002). First magnitude springs of F lorida Florida Geological Society Bulle tin No. 85. Retrieved on June 20th, 2008, from: ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/g eo/web/listpubs/OFR-85.pdf Schm idt, S. & R. Buehler. (2007). The planning process in the US and Germany: A comparative analysis. International Planning Studies 12(1), 55-75. Selman, P. (1993). Landscape ecology and countrysi de planning: Vision, theory and practice. Journal of Rural Studies 9(1), 1-21. Semmens, D., & D. Goodrich. (2005). Planning cha nge: Case studies illust rating the benefits of GIS and land-use data in environmental planning. Internat ional Conference on Hydrological Perspectives for Sustainable Development, Roorkee, India. 23-25, February. Sigua, G. & Tweedale, W. (2003). Watershed scale assessment of n itrogen and phosphorus loadings in the Indian River Lagoon basin, Florida. Journal of Environmental Management 67, 363-372. Smith, M. (1999). In R. A. Beauregard and S. BodyGendrot (eds). The urban moment: Cosmopolitan essays on the late 20th century city Transnational urbanism, p. 119-140. London: Sage. Smuts, J. (1926). Holism and evolution London: MacMillan. Spirn, A. (1984). The granite garden New York: Basic Books. Steiner, F. (1991). The living landscape: An ecologica l approach to landscape planning New York: McGraw-Hill. Stevenson, R., Pinowsha, A., & Wang, Y. (2004). Ecological condition of algae and nutrients in Florida springs. Contract #WM858, Final report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Tallahassee, FL. Tesar, L. & Jones, C. (2004). Wakulla Springs lodge site (8WA329) in Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park, Wakulla County, Florid a: A summary of eleven projects and management recommendations: Tallahassee, State of Florida, Divi sion of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeol ogical Research Report, 184 p. Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The Hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 132

132 United States Census Bureau, (USCB). (2008). American fact finder: Population finder for Orange County, Florida. Retrieved on August 28th, 2008, from: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SA FFPopulation? _event=Search&_name=Orange&_s tate=04000US12&_county=Orange&_cityTown=Orange&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&p ctxt=fph United States Department of Agriculture, (U SDA). (1998). Soil quality indicators: Infiltration. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil quality information sheet. Retrieved on November 15th, 2008, from: http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/publica tions/files/Inf iltration.pdf United States Environm ental Protection Agency, (USEPA). (2008)a. Polluted Runoff: NonPoint Source Pollution Glossary. Retrieved on November 15th, 2008, from: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Ecology/chap8.html _______. (2008)b. W ater quality criteria fir nitr ogen and phosphorus pollution. Retrieved on November 15th, 2008, from: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/index.htm _______. (2008)c. Handbook for developing watershed pl ans to restore and protect our waters. Retrieved on January 10th, 2009, from: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook. _______. (2009). Summary of the Clean W ater Act. Retrieved on March 10th, 2009 from: http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/cwa.html United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2008). About the USGS: Mission and vision. Retrieved on January 10th, 2009, from: http://www.usgs.gov/aboutusgs/ University o f Florida, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences (UF IFAS). (2008). Diagram and picture of Hydrilla (Hydrilla vertcillata) Retrieved on March 17th, 2009 from: http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.e du/im ages/hydver/hydver.jpg Vitousek, P., Aber, J., Howarth, R., Likens, G., Matson, P., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W, & Tilman, G. (1997). Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Causes and consequences. Ecological Applications 7, 737-750. Vivaldi, F. (1989). An experiment with mathematics. New Scientist 124 (1688), 46-49. Wakulla County. (2008). Future Land Use El ement. Wakulla County Planning Division. Walker, P. & Moore, D. (1988). SIMPLE. An i nductive modeling and mapping tool for spatiallyoriented data. International Journal of Ge ographical Information Systems 2, 347-363. Wang, X. (2001). Integrating water-quality management and land-use planning in a watershed context. Journal of Environmental Management 61: 25-36.

PAGE 133

133 Warren, R. (1963). The community in America Chicago: Rand McNally. Weber, K. & Perry, R. (2004). Gr oundwater abstraction impacts on spring flow and base flow in the Hillsborough River Basin, Florida, USA. Hydrology Journal 14, 1252-1264. Webler, T., Tuler, S. & R. Krueger. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435-450. Wilkinson, K. (1991). The community in rural America Middleton, Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press Willard, C. (1996). Liberalism and the problem of knowledge: A New rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Worrall, L. (1989). Design issues for planning -orientated spatial information systems. Mapping Awareness, 3, 17-20. Zonneveld, I. & Forman, R. (1990). Changing landscapes: An ecological perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag. Zuidema, C. & G. De Roo. (2004). Integrating comp lexity theory into pl anning: Truth or dare? AESOP Conference, Grenoble, 1-4 July.

PAGE 134

134 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sherith E. C olverson was born in Fort Be nning, Georgia. She attended elementary schooling in a number of states including New York, Pennsylvania and eventually finishing grade school in Athens, Tennessee. She attended and graduated high school with honors from Powell High School in Powell, Tennessee. Upon graduation in 1997, she began an undergraduate degree at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville (UTK). In 2000, she transferred from UTK to Florida Gulf Coast Univ ersity (FGCU) in Fort Myers, Florida. She graduated from FGCU in 2003 with her Bachel or of Arts in Envi ronmental Studies. Since her undergraduate degr ee, Mrs. Colverson has worked for both state and local government in Florida before returning to academ ia in 2006 to pursue a graduate degree focusing on public participation in environmental planning.



PAGE 1

1 LAND USE CHANGE, PLANNI NG POLICY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: THE IMPACT ON FLORIDA SPRINGS WATER QUALITY By SHERITH E. COLVERSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Sherith E. Colverson

PAGE 3

3 This thesis research and document is dedicated to my husband, Colin, who continues to both love and challenge me despite lifes obstacles. Thank you for providing me support and encouragement in our efforts towards helping the planet not only survive, but hopefully thrive for many more generations.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would lik e to acknowledge my committee chair, Dr. Paul D. Zwick, for his guidance and assistance in shaping the directi on and completion of my research. I would also like to thank Dr. Ruth Steiner and Dr. Mark Brennan for serving on my committee and pa ssing along their expert knowledge. In addition, I would al so like to thank Ms. Iris Pa tten for helping me narrow my thesis topic search and assuring me that I will get th rough the process. Many other individuals have provided assistance in the prep aration, data collection and editing of this document. First, I would like to thank all the st aff at Pandion Systems, Inc. for allowing me the opportunity to work in the enviro nmental field while stil l a student at UF and opening my eyes to the necessity for springs protection in Florida. I also am grateful for the Family, Youth and Community Sciences Department in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Florida who f unded my graduate studies during my 2006 academic year. Many thanks are also due to the develope rs and engineers of the Watershed Assessment Model. The team at Soil and Water Engineering T echnologies, Inc. helped to support me in using and fully understanding their GIS models capabilities. Many individuals are to thank for helping to provide various support in obtaining data for the GIS models used in this research: Greg Ma uldin with the Leon Count y GIS Department, Kate Norris and Sam Palmer at the University of Fl oridas GeoPlan Center, Mr. Kristopher Barrios with the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Debra Harri ngton and Tom Greenhalgh with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Carla Barnes with the Florida Public Service Commission, Brent Pell with Wakulla County, and Shannon Ashworth with Seminole County Environmental Services. I would also like to thank each and ever y individual who made them self available for an interview during my qualitative portion of this research.

PAGE 5

5 Lastly, but most certainly not l east, a big thank you to all my family and friends that have followed along with me on this a cademic journey. I praise God th at I am so blessed to have many wonderful people in my life and the freedom to pursue any dream that I can imagine; including graduate school.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............11 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 132 SPRINGSHED CHARACTERISTICS OF WAKULLA & WEKI WA SPRINGS, FLORIDA ....................................................................................................................... ........23The Importance of Springs ..................................................................................................... 23Wakulla Springs Environm ental Characteristics ........................................................... 29Wekiwa Springs Environmental Characteristics ............................................................ 31Economic Characteristics of Springs in Florida ..............................................................32Economic Characteristics of Wakulla Springs ................................................................ 33Economic Characteristics of Wekiwa Springs ................................................................ 33Political Characteristic s and Jurisdictions of Springs in Florida .....................................34Political Characterist ics and Jurisdictions of Wakulla Springs ....................................... 34Political Characterist ics and Jurisdictions of Wekiwa Springs ....................................... 35Social and Cultural Characteristics of Springs ................................................................ 35Social and Cultural Characteristics of Wakulla Springs .......................................... 36Social and Cultural Character istics of Wekiwa Springs .......................................... 37Land Use And Florida Springsheds ................................................................................. 37Land Use Around Wakulla Springs ......................................................................... 38Land Use Around Wekiwa Springs ..........................................................................393 LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, LAND USE C HANGE AND COMPLEXITY THEORY ........ 42Landscape Ecology and Land Use Planning .......................................................................... 42Emergence of Complexity in Land Use Planning .................................................................. 46Application of Landscape Ecology ......................................................................................... 49Land Use Policy and Change ..................................................................................................50The Linkage: Landscape Ecology/GIS, Comp lexity Theory and Land Use Policy ...............554 SPRINGS & PUBLIC PA RTICIPATION: MANDA TED OR VOLUNTARY .................... 58Public Participation in Environmental Planning ..................................................................... 58Interactional Theory ................................................................................................................60Interactional Theory & Springs Protection Policy .................................................................. 62

PAGE 7

7 5 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 646 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........72Land Use Change in Springsheds ...........................................................................................72Wakulla Springs Land Use Change ................................................................................. 72Wekiwa Springs Land Use Change ................................................................................. 75Analyzing Nitrogen Presence .......................................................................................... 80Public Participation for Springs Protection ..................................................................... 96Discussion .................................................................................................................... .........100Recommendations ............................................................................................................... ..103Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................105APPENDIX A WAKULLA CO. WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REGULATION/WATER QUALIT Y ORDINANCE (NO. 94-28) ............................................................................... 111B FLORIDA SENATE 2009, SPRINGS BILL 274 FLORIDA SPRINGS PROTECTI ON ACT ............................................................................................................113C GEODATA LISTING .......................................................................................................... 117D TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................... 118LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................121BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................134

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Floridas Population: Census Counts and Urban-Rural Breakdown, 1830-2000. (Catlin, 1997; EDR, 2008) .................................................................................................142-1 Spring Flow Classifi cations (Meinzer, 1927). ................................................................... 242-2 Floridas Spring Classification System (Copeland, 2003). ................................................255-1 Breakdown of Parcel Description and Land Use Categories .............................................686-1 Wakulla County Land Use Change (1925-2006). ..............................................................746-2 Orange County Land Use Change (1901-2006) ................................................................766-4 Comparison of Simulated Nitrogen Load for Existing Land Uses in the Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs Boundary Area ......................................................................................81

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Map of Floridas Springs (DEP, 2009c). ........................................................................... 242-2 Diagram and Picture of Hydrilla (UF IFAS, 2008). .......................................................... 302-3 Wakulla Springs Special Planning Ar ea (Wakulla County Planning Department, 2008). ........................................................................................................................ .........393-1 Examples of Planning Approaches in a Spectrum (Zuidema & De Roo, 2004) ................ 483-2 A conceptual framework for applying GIS-based methods to land-use policy and land-use change (Adapted from Aspinall, 1993). .............................................................. 566-1 Wakulla Springs Five Mile Study Boundary .....................................................................736-2 Wakulla County Land Use Change In Acres (1925-2006) ................................................746-3 Wekiwa Springs Five Mile Study Boundary .....................................................................756-4 Orange County Land Use Ch ange In Acres (1901-2006) .................................................. 766-5 Orange County Land Use (1901-2006).............................................................................. 776-6 Seminole County Land Use Change in Acres (1900-2006) ............................................... 786-7 Seminole County Land Use (1900-2006) .......................................................................... 796-8 Existing Land Uses for Wakulla Springs 5-Mile Boundary Area ..................................... 826-9 Wakulla Spring Study Area Existing Land Us es in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading ....................................................................................................................... .......836-10 Wakulla Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1970s ...................846-11 Wakulla Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1990s ...................856-12 Wakulla Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen............................866-13 Wakulla Land Uses in Comparis on to Groundwater Nitrogen in 1970s ...........................876-14 Wakulla Land Uses in Comparis on to Groundwater Nitrogen in 1990s ...........................886-15 Existing Land Uses for Wekiwa Springs 5-Mile Boundary Area ...................................... 896-16 Wekiwa Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading ................... 90

PAGE 10

10 6-17 Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Sedim ent Nitrogen Loading in 1970s ...................916-18 Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1990s ...................926-19 Wekiwa Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads ................. 936-20 Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads 1970s ..................... 946-21 Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads 1990s ..................... 95

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning LAND USE CHANGE, PLANNI NG POLICY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: THE IMPACT ON FLORIDA SPRINGS WATER QUALITY By Sherith E. Colverson August 2009 Chair: Paul D. Zwick Cochair: Ruth L. Steiner Major: Urban and Regional Planning Development in Florida over the last forty year s has rapidly accelerate d. With this growth and the associated changing landscapes, the states ability to ensure clean water for its residents has declined. Most of Florid as drinking water comes from th e states many aquifers. The source for these aquifers is derived from both ground and surface water. The health of Floridas aquifers can be measured in Floridas springs. State water quality standards do not sufficiently regulate the interaction between ground and surface waters where sp rings are present. A main concern for springs water quality is the rising level of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and nitrates. The current conditions and ongoing monitoring indi cate that nitrogen input is increasing in springs all over the state. This thesis looks at two pa rticular springs, Wakulla Springs in Wakulla County, and Wekiwa Springs in Orange County, through the us e of a Geographic Information System (GIS) interface, the Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) and land use data to determine and compare how the changing landscape for particular land uses is influencing the ri sing level of nitrogen present. Landscape ecological and complexity theory are used in analyzing this linkage. Lastly,

PAGE 12

12 interactional theory is discussed and used as a model to determine if stakeholder participation efforts have aided in the protection of springs through policy and education.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Floridas po pulation has increa sed from approximately two million in 1940 to more than 17 million in 2004 and is projected to exceed 26 million by 2030 (EDR, 2008). The majority of the migration has moved people into what the Un ited States census calls urban areas, instead of rural locations th roughout the state (see Table 1.1). This shift began through the establishment of the Florida s railroad system in the mid 1920s, which brought agricultural products to processing centers lo cated in urban areas. This sh ift along with the economic boom caused by transportation options, brought with it visitors from the north during winter months, sometimes referred to as snowbi rds, to the state for tourism as well as relocation. This combination of available transportation and rising populations also brought more entrepreneurs into the state to capitalize on opportunities for urban development (Catlin, 1997). As Floridas population continues to grow in the twenty-first century, increa sed amounts of pressure are on the states ability to ensure land and water reso urces for its people. The stewardship of these resources is very important. Stewardship is im plemented and carried out as a function of the states ability to effec tively create systems that balance the needs of its population with the preservation of both land and water. Thomas Sanchez and Robert Mandle (2007) disc overed that the rates and types of growth for nineteen of Floridas metropolitan areas be tween the years of 1970 and 2000 were increasing so incredibly fast, they were only comparable to the growth e xperienced by a total of forty-six large metropolitan areas across the country throughout the same period of time. The Naples metropolitan area in southwest Florida ranked se cond behind only Las Vegas in terms of urban development and land consumption in recent deca des (2007, p. 93). Theoretically, much of this growth has been tempered by the states adop tion of the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive

PAGE 14

14 Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Chapter 163, Part II F.S.), also known as Floridas Growth Management Act. Table 1-1. Floridas Popul ation: Census Counts and Urban-Rural Breakdown, 1830-2000. (Catlin, 1997; EDR, 2008) Year Total No. Population Change from No. Preceding Census Percent Change Urban No. Urban % Rural No. Rural % 1830 34,730 na na 0 0.0 34,730 100.0 1840 54,477 19,747 56.9 0 0.0 54,477 100.0 1850 87,445 32,968 60.5 0 0.0 87,445 100.0 1860 140,424 52,979 60.6 5,708 4.1 134,716 95.9 1870 187,748 47,324 33.7 15,275 8.1 172,473 91.9 1880 269,493 81,745 43.5 26,947 10.1 242,546 90.0 1890 391,422 121,929 45.2 77,358 19.8 314,064 80.2 1900 528,542 137,120 35.0 107,031 20.3 421,511 79.7 1910 752,619 224,077 42.4 219,080 29.1 533,539 70.9 1920 968,470 215,851 28.7 353,515 36.5 614,955 63.5 1930 1,468,211 499,741 51.6 759,778 51.7 708,433 48.3 1940 1,897,414 429,203 29.2 1,045,791 55.1 851,623 44.9 1950 2,771,305 873,891 46.1 1,566,788 56.5 1,204,51743.5 1960 4,951,560 2,180,255 78.1 3,077,989 62.2 1,873,57137.8 1970 6,791,418 1,839,858 37.2 5,544,551 81.7 1,244,89218.3 1980 9,746,324 2,954,906 43.5 8,212,385 84.3 1,533,39315.7 1990 12,937,926 3,191,602 32.7 11,828,47691.4 1,109,4508.6 2000 15,982,378 3,044,452 23.5 14,272,26389.3 1,710,11510.7 2010 projected 19,308,066 3,325,688 20.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2020 projected 22,477,886 3,169,820 16.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

PAGE 15

15 The act that requires all of Flor idas sixty-seven counties and f our hundred and ten municipalities to draft and adopt their own Local Government al Comprehensive Plan, serves to guide the direction of future growth and development for each county (DCA, 2008). However, the key elements of concern for the state and local m unicipalities included within the local comprehensive plans are mostly outdated. The state agency in charge of monitoring these updates and changes in loca l government, The Florida Department of Community Affairs, has been criticized by its own secretary, Thomas Pelham (2007), as failing to comply with the state growth management legislation. Pelham comments that the current state and regional planning process is substantially different than th e process envisioned by the 1985 legislationone where over 90% of all plan amendments submitted for review are approved, suggesting that the state might not be effectively monito ring for growth, (2007, p. 14). In a 2001 report by Floridas Growth Mana gement Study Commission, suggestions were made to the Department of Community Affair s (DCA) regarding the restructuring of the comprehensive planning process. One recommenda tion stated that the states review of local comprehensive plan amendments should be limited to the following three concepts: concerns of a natural resource of statewide significance; concerns of transportation facilities of statewide significance; or involving something with natural disaster preparedness in reducing risks to life, property or additional post disa ster expenditures (p. 33). Sin ce this 2001 report, the amendment process has been used for a wide variety of changes throughout al l municipalities in the state. With development throughout Florida increasi ng to accommodate the influx of population, the increase of impervious surfaces, from streets an d parking lots to rooftops of residential, commercial, institutional and industrial buildi ngs, has led to a considerable reduction of rainwater infiltration, and an in crease in the rate of accumulati on of stormwater runoff in many

PAGE 16

16 urban areas (Randolph, 2004). This decreased in filtration and increased accumulation make drainage and flooding problems worse, and lead to channeling erosion downstream. The runoff usually carries non-point source (NPS) water polluta nts that exceed the impact of industrial and municipal point discharges, a nd contribute to the pollution of waters throughout the United States (Randolph, 2004). All thes e pressures have led to documented degradation of the quality of one of Floridas most valued environmental resources; springs. Approximately 700 springs are located along the northern and central por tions of the state as of 2004 (Scott et al., 2004). Most of these springs are heavily dependent on the ground water supplied by the Floridan aquifer (Sco tt et. al., 2004). On a daily basi s, its been approximated that the springs discharge more than 8 billion gall ons of ground water from the Upper Floridan aquifer, where nearly 93% of the states popul ation obtains its drinki ng water (SWFWMD, 2001; Marella et al., 1998). These springs also provide unique habitat vital for the survival of many plants and animal species including th e Florida Manatee (L angtimm et al., 1998). However, the water quality of springs in recent years has been declining (Brown et. al., 2008). The karst openings around springs and their nearby waters are showi ng signs of being out of ecological balance due to the widespread grow th of algae and other invasive aquatic plants (Brown et. al., 2008). Continued monitoring of Florida springs by state agencies demonstrates that this imbalance is primarily caused by increasing levels of nitrogen; with the main contributors known to be from inorganic nitrogen sources like fertilizers, while organic sources like human or animal waste also contribute (FDEP, 2007). There have been several effort s to protect and restore these natural and aquatic treasures at all levels of government. In 1999, former Gove rnor Jeb Bush assigned the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) the responsibility of forming a coalition Task Force, to

PAGE 17

17 develop a statewide plan for sp rings protection and restoration (Florida Springs Task Force, 2000, p. 4). The Task Force presented th eir recommendations in the 2000 report, Strategies for Protection and Restoration The report identified several strate gies to ensure the restoration and protection of spring systems incl uding; the gathering of more sp ecific scientific information about springs, providing outreach to local gove rnments and non-profits, regulation, management, and also funding sources as tools to help implement protection measures. The Task Forces report also paved the wa y for the creation of the multi-million dollar funded Florida Springs Initiative (FSI) in 2001 (FDEP, 2007). One program within the FSI worked with DCA to establish the first st atewide voluntary Model Land Development Code Program. The programs main goal was to protect important natural ecosystems, especially those associated with springs, through the comprehe nsive planning process (FDEP, 2007). DCA has updated this model code and has incorporated it into a second edition publication, Protecting Floridas Springs: An Implementation Guidebook This guidebook provides many recommendations that include the limitation of in tense land uses in areas that could potentially harm Floridas aquifers. It provides a set of standards for the developmental design and locations of storm and wastewat er facilities, along with mana gement proposals to guide these services after thei r installation (2008). Four countiesCitrus, Levy, Marion and Wakulla were chosen to participate in a Model Land Development Code Program because of their verified negative impact on springs in their jurisdiction. To date, the Wakulla County Board of Commissioners has been the sole jurisdiction to vote unanimously on adopting the strategies and development standards recommended in the Model Land Development Code, protecting Wakulla spring and its associated resources (2007). Recently adopted amendments for Wakulla County s Comprehensive Plan also include changes

PAGE 18

18 that reflect additional targeted protection for Wakulla spring and its associated springshed. These measures are incorporated into several of their required elements including per F.S. Chapter 163; future land use, conservation and in tergovernmental coordina tion. Examples of the amendments involve design standards that provi de a significant buffer from spring and karst features; the establishment of goals for creati ng a County Water Manageme nt Conservation Plan; implementing inter-local agreements with neighb oring municipalities and state agencies to specify responsibilities for land development re gulations; stormwater management; and other potential springshed impacts. A recent University of Florida report summarizing knowledge about springs throughout the state has provided an enormous amount of info rmation for decision-makers to consider when writing and approving policy in springshe d locations. The report, entitled Summary and Synthesis of the Available Literature on th e Effects of Nutrients on Spring Organisms and Systems, details the multiple factors that stress spring ecosystems including an increase in the presence of nutrients, specifically nitrates, in the groundwater being discharged by springs (Brown et al., 2008). All of these factors significa ntly disturb springs ecosystems. This thesis focuses on the rise of nitrogen, occurr ing as either nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), organic or inorganic nitrogen (N), found in two partic ular springs: Wakulla Springs lo cated in the northern portion of the state in Wakulla County, and We kiwa Springs found in the central part of the state in Orange County. Nitrates are well investigated and docume nted in springs throughout Florida and are recognized as a problem of global scale. Nutrien t enrichment, principally resulting from the use of modern inorganic fertilizers, fossil fuel comb ustion as well as land us e change, has drastically altered biogeochemical cycles, (Vitousek et al., 1997; Brown et al., 200 8). Human behaviors

PAGE 19

19 like the application of commercial fertilizers and increased density of septic systems in karst locations without any intervening management activ ities, inevitably leads to increased levels of nitrate present in aquatic ecosystems. This is extremely important for decision-makers to understand when approving new development in environmentally sensitive regions. With the speed at which development in Florida has ta ken place throughout the past century, its been challenging to demonstrate the correlation be tween land use changes within environmental boundaries like that of springshe ds, and the lasting environmenta l consequences of degraded water quality. Some of th e leading contributory land use changes to the nutrient problem are: stormwater from impervious surfaces; the additi on of high density septic systems; and the various wastewater treatment processes that place high amounts of nut rients into the ground, eventually making its way to the groundwater and appearing in springs throughout the state (Randolph, 2004). Additionally, intensive agriculture increases the percentage of erosion and ultimate sediment load that leaches nutrients and chemicals into the groundwater in karst locations where springs are lo cated (Foley et al., 2005). A 2002 study in the Wakulla springshed pr epared by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD), entitled Nitrate loading as an indi cator of nonpoint source pollution in the lower St. Marks-Wakulla Rivers watershed presented the municipalities of Leon and Wakulla Counties as well as the City of Talla hassee with an assessment of the risk posed to drinking water wells (those existing and proposed) and surf ace water bodies by nitrate infiltration. This study was a glim pse of how the changing land use ha s contributed to the rise of the nitrogen present in the aquifer, in portions of both Leon and Wakulla Counties. The study also displayed that the re lative contribution from 1990-1999, of inventory sources from anthropogenic uses consisted primarily of commerci al fertilizer, onsite an d municipal wastewater

PAGE 20

20 treatment facilities, agricultural lands that contai n livestock, and residual disposal sources from wastewater treatment facilities (NWFWMD, 2002). The fertilizers used for crop production contain nitrogen and some agricultural areas also contain livestock that produce nitrogen as a bypr oduct of animal waste. These sources are "believed to be the major agricultura l sources contributi ng to nitrate (NO3 ) in shallow aquifer locations, (Knox & Moody, 1991). Many studies have looked at the relationship between applied nitrogen (N) fertilizers, the concentration of nitrates (NO3-) in the soil and its affects on levels of nitrates present in groundwater (Alva et al., 2006). A joint study conducted in 2006 by the Florida Department of Citrus the University of Florida, the USDA in Washington State, Savannah State University and the University of Saskatchewan, looked at the impact of nitrogen (N) fertilization for citrus production in central Florida and the associated rise in nitrate (NO3-) levels in the groundwater of near by residential areas. Conclusions of the study linked identified sources of nitrate (NO3), which impacted groundwater immedi ately under the citrus groves, to high concentrations of nitrate (NO3-N) found in the sampled we lls (groundwater) of the residential homes adjacent to the citrus groves. The nitrate contamination of municipal well water, coming from shallowly tapped groundwater sources, is widespread across the Unite d States, (Nolan et al., 1998). Researchers see it as only the result of a pus h for short-term economic gain of maximizing crop yields (Criss & Davisson, 2004). The consequences of this cost analysis have serious long-term repercussions that are not confined to the properties wher e the problems originate, (Criss & Davisson 2004). Onsite Treatment and Disposal Systems (OST DS), commonly called septic systems, are also another source of nutrient input into surface and groundwater. OSTDS installation is

PAGE 21

21 currently regulated by the Florida Department of Health (DOH) and local governmental entities. The initial permitting and installation of septic systems is beginning to recognize the need for nitrogen output control, and regulators are begi nning to require performance-based systems to mitigate the additional pollutants in particularly vulnerable areas of the state (Roeder, 2006). A white paper released in 2 008 by the DOH concentrated on the Wekiva River Study Area in central Florida; the paper presented findings th at plumes of effluent coming from the areas 55,000 onsite systems were entering the ground water, and that approximately one-half to onethird of the nitrogen released from the septic tank reaches groundwater, depending upon the soil type, (DOH, 2008; Ursin & Roeder, 2008). A pproximately one third of the population of Florida is served by personal OSTDS systems ( DOH, 2008; Ursin & Roeder, 2008). In order for the states groundwater to be considered sustainable there is a critical need to update the OSTDS installation and maintenance regulations. One avenue taken by local governments, has been the mandating of all new development to in stall individual propert y advanced wastewater treatment systems (Wakulla County Infrastructure Policy, 1.3.1). These systems are designed to produce an effluent of higher quality than norma lly achieved by secondary treatment processes. With increased attention focused on the rise in nitrogen in the form of nitrates in springsheds and groundwater throug hout the state, it is imperative to understand the genesis of the guiding regulatory structure of land use decisions at both the lo cal and state level. Land use decisions are influenced by a process that enable s concerned citizens and citizen groups to voice concerns, produce information and relate opinions regarding the future of springs and their associated springsheds to the pertinent decision ma kers. Planners tasked with land use decisions affecting springs and springsheds benefit from this process of public partic ipation. It provides a way to fully understand and critic ally judge eventual developmen t outcomes of both day-to-day

PAGE 22

22 and long-range planning goals and ach ievements. In order to intertwine these important avenues for springs protection, my hypot hesis is the following: The increase of changing land uses for urba n development to accommodate the growth in population within the Wakulla and Wekiwa springshed areas has contributed to the rise of nitrates, causing the decline of water quality in springs. This research seeks to respond to the following questions: 1. How (in what ways) has development contributed to this rise in nutrients associated with nitrogen (nitrates)? 2. How are stakeholders and the publ ic involved in protecting springs? The objectives from my stat ed hypothesis and research que stions are the following: To investigate the spatial relationship betw een the Wakulla and Wekiwa springs water quality data and land use changes within set study boundaries in their associated springsheds using a GIS interface tool, th e watershed assessment model (WAM). To describe how major stakehol ders and the public have been involved in both the research and policy processes for springs protection through interviews with stakeholders knowledgeable about both Wakulla and Wekiwa springs and discuss the available relevant information about the current public participation proce ss for springs protection. The population of the state is projected to cont inue to increase, placing more need for land development. Involvement from concerned citizens, through part icipatory protection efforts for significant resources such as ground water, may be the ultimate deciding factor of the future of water quality in Florida. GIS models help engin eers and planners to visually assess and analyze historic and projected land use changes in relation to monitored environmental parameters like water quality in order give the most well-info rmed recommendations to both the concerned citizens in the public as well as local and state decision-makers.

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 2 SPRINGSHED CHARACTERISTICS OF WA KULLA & WEKI WA SPRINGS, FLORIDA The Importance of Springs This research looks at two springs within Florida from a case study approach, the Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs, to examine the interconnecte dness of the declining h ealth of their water quality due to nutrient increase of nitrogen. Although research on springs throughout the state is well documented and recorde d, according to Knight and Notestein, there still remains a significant gap between the real and perceived th reats that nitrate pollu tion plays on the ecology of spring ecosystems, (Brown et al., 2008). Desp ite the need for additional studies that track the sources of nutrients over various temporal periods, springs pr ovide a window to understand the health and quantity of groundwat er, a resource that the future of Florida vitally depends upon. Springs are a marvelous natural wonder for peop le to experience. Behind these beautiful natural wonders lie many complicated biological hydrologic, and geological processes that spectators may take for granted. Florida is home to more than 700 identified springs, which are typically found in karst locations (Scott et al., 2004). These springs are scientifically classified based on their average discharge of water (2004). The amount of water discharged fluctuates depending upon the amount of ra infall that occurs around the recharge area within the springshed along with the amount of groundwater withdrawal within the known recharge areas (2004). Ultimately, it has been noted that pr ecipitation (climate) patterns determine the distribution of water on and under the ground (Ra ndolph, 2004). The discharge measurement of water is compared and classified by the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) or the United States Geological Survey (USGS) based upon an adapted system classification. Springs are placed into categories, called magnitudes, using the m easured amount of discharge present within a chosen spring location.

PAGE 24

24 Table 2-1. Spring Flow Cla ssifications (Meinzer, 1927). Magnitude Average Flow 1 100 cfs or more (64.6 mgd or more) 2 10 to 100 cfs (6.46 to 64.6 mgd) 3 1 to 10 cfs (0.646 to 6.46 mgd) 4 100 gpm to 1 cfs (448 gpm) 5 10 to 100 gpm 6 1 to 10 gpm 7 1 pint to 1 gpm 8 Less than 1 pint/min cfs = cubic feet per second gpm = gallons per minute mgd = million gallons per day pint/min = pints per minute A springs actual discharge is a varying flow rate based on various environmental conditions. According to the FGS, a springs magn itude is to be based on the median value of all the discharge measurements for the period of record, (Scott et al., 2004). Although a spring might be placed into the firs t of eight magnitudes, the dynamic flow of the spring might place it as a second or third magnitude several years la ter (Scott et al., 2004). Currently, there are 33 documented first magnitude springs and a total of 761 springs throughout the state. Figure 2-1. Map of Florid as Springs (DEP, 2009c).

PAGE 25

25 The discharge rates taken at each spring is driv en by the rate at which the recharge areas are receiving water. The recharge surface area, the springshed, is where water travels underground to an aquifer. The largest aquifer in the state is the Floridan Aquifer System (FAS), covering approximately 55% of th e state (Scott & Berndt et al., 1998). The rate at which the water recharges varies annually from one inch per year to more than ten (Scott et al., 2004). The historical category of a spring is based upon a state classification syst em developed in 2003 by Copeland (Scott et al., 2004). The state classi fication system is based on the geomorphology of an area, and describes springs by asking four questions. The ques tions include: is the point of discharge a vent or a seep? And is the point of discharge located onshore or offshore? Copelands classification system is displayed in Table 2.2 below. Comb ining Meinzers spring discharge classification and Cope lands systems of classifying springs, individual spring types and their magnitudes can be more accurately clas sified, investigated, a nd the surrounding lands can be better managed. Table 2-2. Floridas Spring Clas sification System (Copeland, 2003). SPRING Onshore Offshore Vent Onshore Vent Examples: Karst Spring Resurgence (River Rise) Estavelle (intermittent resurgence or exsurgence) Subaqueous riverine vent Sand boil Offshore Vent Examples: Offshore karst Unnamed offshore vent Offshore estavelle vent Seep Onshore Seep Examples: Subaerial riverine seep Subaqueous lacustrine seep Offshore Seep Examples: Unnamed offshore seep Offshore estavelle seep The geomorphology and geology of the state of Fl orida controls the distribution of where springs occur (Scott et al., 2004). Onshore spri ngs are mostly found where karst features are closer to the surface. This is in combination w ith where the potentiometric surface of the aquifer

PAGE 26

26 is high and where the actual surface elevation is lo w enough to allow groundwater to exist at that elevation (Randolph, 2004). Springs are generally found in lowlands near the states rivers and streams; most of the spring locations occur in th e northern and north central portions of the state. Discharge rates along with water quality a nd temperature are documented for several springs throughout Florida as bei ng stable over long periods of tim e, yet there are other several factors known to affect both the quality of water in springs. Some of the environmental factors contributing to noticeable changes include the distribution of the karst features within a springshed, the thickness of the confining units below the surface, the soil properties of the particular area, the topography of the area and the potentiometri c surface (Scott et al., 2004). Changes to the dynamic functioning of thes e biogeochemical processes through land development contribute to spring water qua lity degradation (Brown et. al., 2008). A springs recharge basin, or springshed, cons ists of the areas w ithin ground and surface water basins that contribute to the discharge of the spring, (DeHan, 2002). The karst features usually include sinking streams that bring surface water directly in contact with the aquifer. In fact, the actual recharge basin ma y include surface water drainage ba sins that bring water into the spring from outside the groundwater basin (Scott et al., 2004). Any decline of spring water flow also changes the composition of the propertie s that are present in the water (Cohen, 2008). The causes for the decline of fl ow in springs still remain unc ertain due to the lack of a clear understanding of the link between climate variability an d spring discharges (Cohen, 2008). Scientists who have gathered and analyzed long-term spring discharge data show a lower and weaker trend observed at many hi storically high discharge springs (2008, p. 78). Some reports on this subject identify the cause of the decline as extraction of groundwater for municipal and agricultural use (Web er and Perry, 2004).

PAGE 27

27 The texture of the soil in a springshed is one component that determines waters permeability and infiltration rate (USDA, 1998). For many soils in Florida, once they become saturated during a given precipitation event, a greater percentage of the precipitation will end up as surface runoff (Randolph, 2004). This means that contaminated surface water can be introduced to the springshed from various sources, well outside of the groundwater basin (Florida Springs Task Force, 2006). The chemi cal makeup of a springs discharge is a function of biology, hydrogeology, and land use within the ground and surface water drainage basins (Scott et al., 2004). The topography determines how surface water drains, and it also delineates drainage basin boundaries (watersheds or catchment s). However, the drainage over time affects topography through geomorphic pr ocesses, especially in karst areas (Randolph, 2004). Development also causes hydrologic changes. One effect is the increase of water flow in certain new areas, due to development changing th e historical flow of water, causing flooding downstream during periods of heavy rainfall. Ot her effects, such as urban runoff, introduce contaminants that negatively affect the wa ter quality (Randolph, 2004). Runoff from urban areas, is a substantial source of surface-water pollution in the Unite d States, (Driver & Troutman, 1989). The runoff from the impervious surfaces (rooftops, roads, and parking lots) or other surfaces that are consider ed impaired due to their compact ed or altered condition does not allow water to penetrate the gr ound as it normally would in the hydr ologic cycle (Lehner, 1999). Arnold and Gibbon (1996) stat e that when an areas impervio us cover reaches beyond 20% of a watersheds total area, ecological stress within streams is evident. Due to the impervious cover blocking any infiltration in urban locations within watersheds or springsheds, it also reduces the amount of groundwater available to recharge water feat ures like springs, es pecially during dry weather periods (Lehner, 1999). A prolonged amount of time where the groundwater flow is low

PAGE 28

28 can quickly lead to higher c oncentrations of contaminants and shortages of drinking water supplies (1999). For springs in Florida, pollutio n is degrading its quali ty of water through the increased input of chemicals and nutrients. Th e focus of study for many of the agencies that research and monitor the health of springs including FDEP, DOH and the state water management agencies, has been nutrient inpu ts, particularly nitr ates and phosphorus. There is a mature understanding of the sour ces of nitrogen enteri ng groundwater due to the recognition that it makes its way into spring s from its deposition on top of any land surface including atmospheric deposition and the fixation of nitrogen by plants (Brown et al., 2008). Research taking place in Silver Springs located in Marion Count y, Florida, provides evidence that a principal reason for the rise in nitrates at is the conversion of vegetated and forested land within the springshed to high intensity urban area s (Munch et. al., 2006). As stated in Chapter One, nitrogen in the form of nitr ate found present in the waters of springs are due to both organic and inorganic sources. When assimilating wher e sources of nitrogen are derived from, many researchers use various methodologies that calculate land use loading. More recent studies on inorganic nitrate loading (mostly fertilizers) in springs, use app lication rates and land use maps to estimate the amount of fertilizer applied to the particular area (Brown et al., 2008; MACTEC, 2007). The methods for calculating loadi ng rates for these inorganic nitrate sources are seen as an inexact science, however the estimation of loads from organic sources is relatively well-developed, (Brown et al., 2008). Most research assumes that the nutrient load from septic tanks and wastewater sprayfields is recharged into the Fl oridan Aquifer, with attenuation rates reaching 30% (Brown et al., 2008; MACTEC, 2007; Chelette et. al., 2002). Researchers have not witnessed a systematic flux in phosphorus le vels like those of nitrogen/nitrates in springsheds, despite know n high phosphorus concentrations like those in

PAGE 29

29 Indian River Lagoon. To date, no clear effort in understanding the l inks between geologic setting and levels of phosphorus concentrations or the dominance of certain algae and invasive plants in spring systems (Brown et al., 2008; Si gua and Tweedale, 2003; Stevenson et. al., 2007). When levels of both nitrogen and phosphorus be come too high in water bodies, the waters dissolved oxygen content rapidly declines leaving the particular ecosystem to be overtaken by harmful algal blooms and other rapidly produc ing aquatic vegetation (EPA, 2008b). This occurrence is known as eutrophication (Nixon, 1995). In these conditions, aquatic life in springs and their associated tributaries cannot survive. The primary nutrient of concern currently in springs is the rising levels of nitrate; mostly a ssociated with domestic on-site sewage disposal and the application of fertilizer s for various land uses usuall y associated with agriculture (Puckett, 1994). Aside from the marvelous wonder of clear, cl ean water that springs provide, they also help to supply unique habitat to different animals and plants (FSI, 2007). From turtles to alligators, several birds and many fish species as well as the pl ants that provide food and oxygen to the ecosystem. They all serve as indicators of the health for each of the springs and their associated spring runs. The locations of both Wakulla and Wekiwa Spring serve as important case study choices for this research. Surrounding each of these spri ngs lies thousands of acres that have been preserved as conservation lands by either the state or federal government. Yet, development pressure has changed the land uses around these natural areas throughout the past three decades. Wakulla Springs Environmental Characteristics W akulla Spring is located just south of the state capital of Tallahassee within the Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park. It is a first magnitude spring apart of what is known as the Woodville Karst Plain, one of the largest underwater cave systems in the United States (Hartnett,

PAGE 30

30 2000). The spring, averaging 250 mgd (million gallons per day) of water, provides the source for the Wakulla River, eventually making its wa y to the St. Marks River 10 miles downstream (Loper et. al., 2005). Figure 2-2. Diagram and Picture of Hydrilla (UF IFAS, 2008). Since the late 1990s, the invasive exotic plant, hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata ), has began to overtake the spring area and continues to be a nuisance for Wakulla Springs Park Management. Hydrilla is a submerged aquatic plant native to Southeast Asia and Afri ca, and brought into the state by the aquarium trade in the mid 1950s, maki ng its way into the stat es water bodies by the 1960s (Brown et al., 2008, p. 240). Once hydrilla is established into an aquatic location, its

PAGE 31

31 structure allows for it to grow from the bottom of the sediment to the surface of the water, forming a canopy that shades out other native pl ant species and restricts navigation (Jones and Beardall, 2005). The root system has many tubers that allow for it to re-sprout after its growth is stopped by the use of herbicides or physical removal (Brown et al., 2008, p. 240). Water quality measurements have been ta ken at Wakulla spring since 1907. Much attention in recent decades has been focused on th e rising nitrate levels traced to domestic and industrial wastewater treatment facilities in Wakulla County a nd nearby Leon County. Residual nutrients there are leaching as much as 55% of the nitrogen present; with 40% coming from effluent and 15% from residuals/biosolids (Cha llete et al., 2002; Richardson, 2005). A workshop in 2005 entitled Solving Water Pollution Problems in the Wakulla Springshed of North Florida summarized its information through a peer review committee report stating that nitrogen (in the form of nitrate) is the key nutrient fueling the gr owth attributed to the fact that nitrogen in the upper Wakulla River decreases more rapidl y than phosphorus with distance and the concentration of nitrate in Wakulla has increased in the past 30 years, whereas the concentration of phosphorus has not, (Lope r et al., 2005, p. viii). Wekiwa Springs Environmental Characteristics W ekiwa spring is located in Fl oridas Wekiwa Spri ng State Park on the border of Orange and Seminole counties. The area surrounding the spring is considered semitropical with the spring itself classified as a second magnitude spring forming the headwaters for the Wekiva River and eventually making its way to the St Johns River (SJRWMD, 2009). Measurements of the springs discharge have been taken by th e United States Geologica l Survey (USGS) since 1932, with the help of the St. Johns River Wate r Management District (SJRWMD) beginning in the early 1980s (SJRWMD, 2009). The maximum discharge measured, 92 cfs (cubic feet per second) occurred in October of 1960, with the mi nimum measurement to date of 29.4 cfs, from

PAGE 32

32 November of 1985 when the state was experienci ng below normal levels of rainfall (SJRWMD, 2009). The SJRWMD was able to determine the age of the water discharged from Wekiwa spring in April and July of 1995. Looking at the tritium, tritiu m/helium, and the delta carbon-13 and carbon-14 concentrations, the water being discharged was considered to be young (SJRWMD, 2009). Water quality measurements ha ve also been taken by the USGS since 1956 and the SJRWMD since 1984. Many properties of th e water are analyzed in laboratories after samples have been taken in the field. The understanding of the environmental char acteristics of both Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs help to create an appreciation from a scientific perspective why Floridians should devote more attention to their health. However, other characteristics exist and also contribute to their overall value. These aspects include their surrounding land us es, as well as their social, economic, political and cultural ch aracteristics that encompass w hy both residents and visitors treasures these dynamic hydrologic features. Economic Characteristics of Springs in Florida Typically people enjoy and love al l the recreational opportu nities that springs have to offer. From diving to swimming to ju st relaxing by the clean waters of the spring, Florida has many locations for both residents and tourists to enj oy. In 2001, four of the states 33 first magnitude springs accounted for nearly one million visitors well over 50% of the total visitors to all of Floridas twelve State Parks that feature springs (Bonn et al., 2003). The economic benefit to the surrounding areas of visited springs drives the local economies. Bonn and Bells study states that spring visitors to four of the twelve state parks (Ichetucknee, Wakulla, Homosassa and Volusia Blue Springs) average about $46 a day per person. This figure includes spending on lodging and dining, with most visitors in a party of between 4-5 individuals, visiting for about two to three days (Bonn et al., 2003).

PAGE 33

33 Economic Characteristic s of Wakulla Springs Edward Ball W akulla Springs State Park en compasses 4,741 acres of protected forest and has been managed by the state as a park for twenty-three years. An onsite lodge has 27 rooms for visitors and is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places (Bonn et al., 2003). This amenity along with the many outdoor recreational experiences that Wakulla Springs State Park provides, the park is considered a major economic contribution to the regiona l area and the state. Bonn and Bells economic evaluation of four Flor ida springs; Ichetuckn ee, Homosassa, Volusia Blue Springs and Wakulla springs, found that on average, $17 million in sales went to the springs counties due to the amount of visitors that chose to visit th e springs on an annual basis. However, the report also states that due to recen t declines in the envir onmental quality of the area because of rising nutrients and an increase in the amount of invasive plants, it has contributed to a negati ve effect on the market economy; with the sales, wages and employment being directly dependent on the high environmental quality of na tural attractions like Wakulla Springs (Bonn et al., 2003, p. 30). Despite th e environmental nuisances, annual educational events including the Wakulla Wildlife Festival take place every spring, he lping to bring direct and indirect economic benefits to both the St ate Park itself and the surrounding communities (Lynch et al., 2003). Economic Characteristic s of Wekiw a Springs To date, no specific economic research ha s taken place accounting for the input that Wekiwa springs brings to the overall regional and statewide economy. Th ere is a recreational provider, the Wekiwa Sp rings State Park Nature Adventures separate from the State Park management functions that operates the canoei ng and kayaking rental opportunities (FDEP, 2009). Being geographically close to the city of Orlando, Wekiwa springs and its associated

PAGE 34

34 spring runs to the Wekiva and St. Johns River might draw theme park visitors that are looking for time outdoors in the natural environment. Political Characteristics and Juri sdictions of Springs in Florida W ith the many springs throughout Florida, the majority are located on private lands not currently owned by the state. The management of sp rings, their associated waters and the land surrounding them fall on several polit ical entities. Most ruling jurisdictions whose decisions directly affect springs are at th e county level, however, the Flor ida Department of Environmental Protections Division of Parks and Recreation manage lands that surround seventeen of the states natural wonders, while se veral incorporated cities al so manage springs and their immediate lands for recreational purposes (FDE P, 2007b). The various uses of groundwater throughout the state are primarily for municipa l and business profit th rough the bottling of Floridas spring water. The five state water mana gement districts determine the intensity of the use and management of the groundwater that lie in the multiple aquifers underneath the states surface. Political Characteristics and Juri sdictions of Wakulla Sp rings Wakulla Spring is located completely within the political boundari es of Wakulla County. The springs headwaters, along with much of th e land that surrounds the spring, is owned and managed by FDEP. The Northwest Florida Wate r Management District (NWFWMD) is also responsible for additional land management, eros ion control and the continued research. The NWFWMD specifically monitors nut rients from nearby wastewater treatment facilities and also the use of fertilizer around the spring and its as sociated downstream water features that form the Wakulla River leading out to the St. Marks Ri ver (NWFWMD, 2008). Being located south of the state capital, Wakulla Springs water quality concerns have the dire ct attention of state agencies like the FDEP and DCA due to both its proximity and that Ta llahassees waste water

PAGE 35

35 treatment sprayfield is seen as a main contributor to the increase in nutrients and the decline in the health of the Wakulla Spring ecosystem (FDEP, 2004). Political Characteristics and Juri sdictions of Wekiw a Springs Located on the northeastern border of Orange County alongside Seminole County, Wekiwa Springs is also located within its ow n State Park managed by FDEP. Orange County, Florida is home to over a million residents is projected to continue to grow well beyond its current population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The St. Johns River Water Management District Division of Groundwater programs helps to track well and spring monitoring networks, providing data for planning and managing and protecting the water supply (SJRWMD, 2008). Social and Cultural Char acteristics of Springs For thousands of years, springs have served as an im portant part of Floridas cultural and social history. Floridas first in habitants, the Paleoindians, left evidence of their culture that dates back to the Pleistocene Epoch, some 10,00 0 to 12,000 years ago, (Scott, T.M. et al., 2004). The sea level at that time was approximately 115 to 148 feet below present levels. Artifacts of what appear to be tools made from chert, bone and ivory have been discovered around many springs. This suggests that these early residents of the state lived around springs and mostly likely received many of their resources, including fresh water, from the springs (Tesar & Jones, 2004). During the 1800s, the springs continued to grow in popularit y and started being altered by development for private and commercial uses. Th e intent with this development was to enhance the recreational and economic oppor tunities for the thousands living near and visiting the springs. Some of the modificati ons that took place, including the damming of spring runs and the formation of spillways to provide power for gristmills, forever ecologically changed some spring ecosystems (Scott et al., 2004, p. 7). With the continued use of groundwater for

PAGE 36

36 municipal drinking and health pu rposes, there is a growing con cern that as the population in Florida continues to increase, the spring flows will continue to decrease as groundwater is withdrawn at unsustainable rate s (Champion and Starks, 2001). Social and Cultural Characte ristics of Wakulla Springs Wakulla Springs is part of the cultural her itage of both W akulla C ounty and the state of Florida. The area has been known as a tourist destination since 1925 when George T. Christie purchased the land around the springs and began to run and market tours of the area (Revels, 2002). The infamous Edward Ball purchased th e land and the springs in 1934 and began the development of the onsite lodge in 1937. Mr. Newton Perry, a famous swim instructor, was hired by Ball in 1939, and with him the spring s magic was brought to the big screen of Hollywood. Wakulla Spring was featured in many short films that were displayed between feature films during this time (FDEP, 2004). Asid e from short films, the filming of two of the Tarzan movies during 1941 and 1942 took place at Wakulla Springs and some of the local residents had the opportunity to stand-in dur ing their production. Many scenes from the Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) were also filmed at Wa kulla Springs starring a nearby Tallahassee resident that pl ayed the creature in underwater scenes (FDEP, 2004). Wakulla Springs was dedicated a wildlife and bird sanctuary by the National Audubon Society in 1963. In 1966, the Secret ary of the United States Depart ment of the Interior, Stewart Udall, designated Wakulla Spring as a Nati onal Natural Landmark (FDEP, 2004). Throughout the following decades, Edward Ball resisted the increasing pressure to develop Wakulla Springs as a larger tourist attr action like other springs in Florida were becoming. Five years after Balls death in 1986, the state purchased the property an d added it to the state park system. Local residents as well as other state s upporters have contributed to the education of the importance of

PAGE 37

37 the spring and its springshed health throughout the years. In 2000, more than 3000 acres of land in Wakulla Springs springshed was included in the Wakulla Springs state parks boundary. Social and Cultural Characte ristics of Wekiw a Springs Throughout the state of Florida in the late 1800s and early 1900s, production of turpentine was a common and important way for people to make a reasonable living (FDEP, 2009). Turpentine is the crude sap from pine tree s, (Olmstead, 1856). Trees in this area were harvested for this resource, and then used in industry as a solvent for thinning oil-based paints or by itself in chemical form. This portion of central Florida near Wekiwa Springs was also heavily timbered in the 1930s. Roads and rail roads left by the loggi ng companies are still noticeable today. The area surrounding the spri ng was owned by Wilson Cypress Company until it was purchased in 1941 by the Apopka Sportsma ns Club for recreational use. Then in 1969 the State of Florida purcha sed the area and established a State Park (FDEP, 2008). Land Use And Florida Springsheds According to the United States Geological Survey, the agency that provides reliable scientific information describing the Earth, stat es that in order to enhance and protect the quality of life, activities that have the greatest potentia l harm to springs, s hould be sited farthest from it (USGS, 2008). Yet water can enter sinkhol es that are far away from springs making the protection of water quality even more importa nt (Bond, 2002). As described in Chapter One, when rain falls on the road, a bu ilding, or parking lots in urba n areas, runoff that contains chemicals can pollute the water in the aquifer. The state of Florida highly recommends that Best management Practices (BMPs) be taken into acco unt in springshed areas to minimize the impact of land use activities on springs. Measures such as stormwater retention ponds, the planting of native landscaping (xeroscaping), an d the nominal use of pesticid es and fertilizers on lawns and agricultural lands also help to protect both ground and surface wa ter that makes its way to the

PAGE 38

38 springs (Bond, 2002). Golf courses and their impact on the surrounding environment can be mitigated through the appropriate site select ion, design and manageme nt, (Bond, 2002). Less intensive land use is ideal around sp rings with the areas closest to the spring itself being very low intensity such as a forest or used fo r outdoor low-impact recreational purposes. Land use planning is often best implemented at the local scale and with Chapter 163, Part II of the Florida Statues, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, local jurisdictions are given the right to plan fo r and guide future growth and development, (1000 Friends of Florida, 2002) Known land management tools like the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and the professional guiding of intensive development away from land within springsheds are being effectively us ed throughout the state and many counties are beginning to use the lo cal governmental planning process and land development regulations to put together their own tailored guidelines for sensitive spring areas, whether on a mandatory, voluntary or incentive based system (2002). Land Use Around Wakulla Springs Land around W akulla Springs has been uni quely preserved throughout Floridas land development booms. In the years since the st ate purchased the springs and its surrounding 4000 acres, a working group became established to pr ioritize the protection measures for Wakulla Springs State Park. The working group meets on a quarterly basis since its formation and is comprised of state and local agencies, faculty fr om Florida State University, area businesses, environmental organizations and other various stakeholders including th e City of Tallahassee and federal government from the management at Apalachicola National Forest and the USGS (FDEP, 2004). The working group s mission is to continue to in crease the understanding of the hydrology associated with Wakulla Springs, to identif y the threats to water flowing to the spring, and to develop solutions that will overcome threats (FDEP, 2004). One way in which the

PAGE 39

39 working group has contributed a substantial solu tion to spring protecti on was through the support of a county wide Wakulla Springs Water Qualit y Protection Ordinance (94-28) adopted by the Wakulla County Board of County Commissioners on July 5,1994 that created additional regulations for the properties su rrounding the northern portion of the Wakulla River and Wakulla Springs. According to County staff, it sets requirements for the h andling or storage of regulated substances in quantities greater th an five gallons, which primarily impacts commercial activities. The ordinance also included a protection zon e where any proposed zoning or land use changes within that zone would be closely reviewed fo r consistency with the Ordinance and any other applicable provisions of the Land Development C ode or the Comprehensiv e Plan (Pingree et al., 2008). On April 21, 2008, this pr otection zone was expanded to include what at the time was considered the Wakulla Springs basin and the portions of it that laid within the countys political boundaries (Figure 2-3 below). Figure 2-3 Wakulla Springs Special Planning Area (Wakulla County Planning Department, 2008). Land Use Around Wekiwa Springs Wekiwa Springs and its surroundi ng lands fall within two stat e protective zones created by legislation at two different periods of tim e. Th e first zone created, the Wekiva River Protection

PAGE 40

40 Zone, was established after the passing of the Wekiva River Pr otection Area Act, (WRPAA) in 1988 (Part II, Chapter 369, F.S.) to protect the ecology and natural resources of the entire River System. It prohibits any development that is not considered low-de nsity residential or development that could be consid ered more disturbing than low-de nsity residential development. It also requires that any residential development maintain a rur al density and character. Both Orange and Seminole Counties have taken simila r regulatory measures in their Comprehensive Plans to ensure the WRPAA is implemented in their respective jurisdictions. On June 29, 2004 a second protection zone that encompasses Wekiwa Springs was established in the pass ing of the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act (Section 369.321(3), F.S.). This Act required all local governments within the Wekiva Study Area (zone) to amend their comprehensive plans to reflect new statutory requ irements for: master stormwater management plans; water supply facilities work plans; and interchange land use plans. Additionally, where the proposed Wekiva Parkway was planned to fall within 15 governments jurisdictions, land use strategies were required to reflect strategies to optimize ope n space and promote patterns of development that protect recharge areas. These zones have created a gr eat example of how land use can be directly connected with the ability to protect environmentally sensitive areas, which in turn ensures protection for the gr ound and surface water that flow s to Wekiwa Springs. With most of Orange Countys population (four out of five County resident s) living outside the central metropolitan city of Orlando, these already determined low-density land uses will help in protecting the water of Wekiwa Springs for generations to co me (Orange County Government, 2006). All of the characteristics detailed in this chapter provide evidence that both Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs are vital resources that have traditionally provided Florida with many positive

PAGE 41

41 benefits. These benefits along w ith the benefits that countless other springs throughout the state hold have been the focus of deba te and consideration for protecti on in recent years. Government agencies like FDEP and FDCA together with local governments and non-profit organizations as well as the public have held these debates and m eetings in order to gather necessary information to make informed decisions that will shape not only the future use of lands around the spring, but the water quality of spring forever.

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 3 LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, LAND USE C HANGE AND C OMPLEXITY THEORY Planning is now recognized as the legitimate authority for managing land use change within the constraints of the democratic pr ocess, (Kaiser et al., 1995). Land use planning integrates many large facets of society including e nvironmental issues that threaten not only the safety of the public, but it also deal with the other aspects of our experience of the environment, (Jacobs, 1997). Landscape Ecology and Land Use Planning The changin g uses of land in any region alters the landscape. The migration of settlement throughout this country in recent history has o ccurred with enormous fervor and intent. Landscape ecology is noted to be the intersectio n of many related disciplines that focus on the spatial and temporal pattern of the landscape, (Risser, 1987). Di sciplines that factor into the theoretical and sometimes pr actical consideratio n of landscape ecology include geology, hydrology, population and community eco logy, metrology, botany, zoology, limnology, planning, management and political sciences (Fie ld et al., 2003). The reasoning for taking on a landscape ecological perspective is not to think of any one discipline as more important than another, but rather, to highlight certain insights gained when inte grating concepts and theories at various scales to gain a comprehensive understa nding of the relationships and changes between humans and the environment (Field et al., 2003). Golley and Bellot (1991) discuss theoretical landscape ecology through their research of patterns and processes observed fr om the interaction of biota and the environment. They also discuss applied landscape ecology and how it uses the understanding of patterns and processes for planning and solving environmental problem s spatially. Naveh (1994) also comments on these two divisions and states that landscape ecology should e volve to be more than the

PAGE 43

43 ramification and spatial expansion of population, community, and ecosystem ecology, and attention should not be given solely to the natural, physical, and biological dimensions, but also include history, culture, socioeconomics and hum an ecological aspects connected with land use (p. 58). Hersperger (1994) defines landscape ecol ogy as the science that combines the geographers approach to studying the landscape as a spatial un it and the ecologists approach to studying the landscapes vertical structure. It includes the inte ractions of function, change and human influences. It can neither be labeled a pure science or a purely applied fi eld, (p. 17). According to Hersperger, landscape ecology gather s its concepts through three main categories: systems approaches, integrative or holistic con cepts, and classification theories. Forman and Gordon (1986) offer a scientific framework to landscape ecology closely based upon three characteristics of the landscape system; struct ure, function and change This scientific explanation of the principles of landscape ecology have recen tly brought closer attention to human impacts on the landscape, bringing what Fields and his colleagues see as a deliberate focus on humans in landscapes (Field et al., 200 3). The various debates in planning over land use, initiatives including smart growth and other similar concepts that target resource preservation, are increasing in importance within the boundaries of many fields due to rising populations and large questions about the environments carrying capacity (Field et al., 2003). These discussions reinforce that a landscape perspective is helpful when addressing and analyzing human interaction with their surroundings. This type of analysis is critical in the current planning fields, especially when decision-makers have limited time and access to information and are fully dependent upon planning professionals to deliver an overall perspective on future land use. Forman (1995), a renowned expert and known creator of the current

PAGE 44

44 understanding of landscape ecology, has commented that the most recent developments in this integrated discipline is the intertwining of all the independent efforts at understanding a physical area (through history, climate, ecology, etc.) and fitting the puzzl e pieces together, to see the overall conceptual design of landscape and regi onal ecology emerge, (p. 29). This framework begins with an understanding of the spatial relationship of the land between th e various particular ecosystems in the landscape, what Forman a nd Gordon describe as s tructure, (p. 35). In order to value structure in a landscape, its components of patches, corridors and matrices are discussed where the overall landscape is in its true fusion (Forman, 1995, p. 40). These descriptions of the landscape can be further broken down into the geol ogical origins, the changing shapes at different scales, the connect ivity to other landscapes its porosity, boundary shapes (topographical, political, etc.), contrasts and heterogeneity with other landscapes, as well as many other characteristics (p. 41). A final explanation of how the landscape relates to chosen components are essential to the distribution of resources like energy and the conservation of known ecological systems and species apart from modern human society (p. 41). Another piece in Forman and Gordons explanatory framework lies in function or flow, (p. 42). The ecological processes taking place throughout the various landscape features determine the function. In order to fully understand and examine the processes and ava ilable resources at the landscape ecological scale, all of the natural processes and human so cietal developments have to be realized. Essentially, func tion is derived from the examination of how all ecological processes move across the landscape with their co mbinations of structur al features (p. 42). With this in mind, function could be seen as infl uencing the structure of the landscape as much as structure is influencing func tion. The repeating structural pr ocesses produce what is known as patterns on the landscape (p. 43).

PAGE 45

45 The third and final basic component of the landscape ecological framework rests in the temporal analysis, or changing characteristics, of the interaction of landscape function and structure. This component is known as change. Specific characteristics and changes can be analyzed and displayed through variation curves where parameters of central tendency, the magnitude of change for certain variables on the landscape, and the rhythm at which these moving variables are changing (Forman, 1995, p. 50) The observation of no change can also occur and is known as a state of stability or meta-stability. The combination of both natural and human disturbances on the landscape are domina ting forces between its structure and function, forcing change to most likely occur. Forman and Gordon (1986) describe their notion of stability as revealing three possible, but different charact eristics: physical system stability, recovery stability and resistance stability (p. 55). Any form of stability emerges when periods of instability (change) are broken by these phases, a nd thus form the concep t of metastability, the state of being in equilibrium yet susceptible to being diverted to another equilibrium. An example that Forman and Gordon use is that of a mature landscape considered by experts as being very metastable, but once a disturban ce (either natural or human-induced is not specified) causes it to change, it is highly unlikely that the system will re turn to its state, (p. 58). Although change is an inevita ble occurrence in many landscape ecological analyses, many researchers have discussed their views of stabili ty in the landscape. George Perkins Marsh (1937) referred to man as being the most direct force of change and stated that in countries untrodden by man, all factors balance each other so that the geographical conditions may be regarded as constant and immu table, (p. 35). Eugene Odum (1971), observed ecological change as an orderly process of community development that is reasonably dire ctional and therefore,

PAGE 46

46 predictable, but also was aware that this was possible through a culmination in a stabilized ecosystem, (p. 262). Daniel Botkin (1990) sees stability locations as where the landscape has approved the changes into its ecosystem (p. 25). These accepted random qualities are what make the discordant harmonies of nature. The complexity within the changing structure and function of landscapes is discussed in terms of evolving order without a ny predictability, otherwise refe rred to as chaos theory. Many physical and social systems are evaluated, an alyzed and described through conditions and identified parameters, but fundamentally are unpred ictable. Chaos theory in its linkage with landscape ecology takes the tradi tional understanding of change and expands it (Hersperger, 1994). Scientists like Vivaldi (1989) state that the unknowns about change are the result of our terminal inability to measure or represent the pr esent without infinite pr ecision, (p. 49). It inhibits even uncertainty in predicting system behavior. However, these uncertainties in measurement and errors in research are accepte d as inevitable (Hersperger, 1994). Chaos explains the difficulty in measuring a certain sy stems original state when information isnt available or cannot be determined through scientif ic analysis. As Cartwr ight (1991) states, a chaotic system can reach any give n point in a variety of ways; it is impossible to infer from the present situation how the sy stem got there, (p. 48). Emergence of Complexity in Land Use Planning A tenet of chaos theory, complexity theory, has in recent decades been applied to the overall field of planning, especially with rega rds to analyzing the growth of urban systems through computer aided simulation (Byrne, 2003). Planners engage in surveying information from a wide background of sources, both qualita tive and quantitative, us ed to model various systems (urban or natural, rural, etc). This in formation then displays what has happened or will take place if certain actions are taken (p.175). A task for planners is to work within this complex

PAGE 47

47 framework of information while also engaging pe ople in a participatory way to fully understand the range of possible futures. This action of trying to produce a desired future through a democratic process cannot exist, according to Byrne, through a linear approach towards these various systems (p. 177). Complexity theory offe rs a broad perspective on the reality of now and of the future; including social and planning persp ectives and also provid es a way to understand potential learning processe s (Zuidema & De Roo, 2004). Reality seen within a complexity theory fr amework is uncertain. An intervention on a small scale can easily lead to large outcomes or nothing at all. Such is the case in planning where as researchers Zuidema and De Roo comment that one small remark in the course of a conversation concerning the future of a planning decision might be enough to tip a vote by one person for or against development, and ther eby changing the landscape of a town. This uncertainty and instability are i nherent to all processes, includ ing planning, and are therefore inescapable to a particular point (2004). This does not imply that all planning processes are futile, and in cases where more certainty lies through means of technica l processes, planning becomes obvious and useful. Through unders tanding the context from which planning approaches different systems and also recognizing the interacti ons between these systems that are present, a more holistic or expansionistic view emerges. Looking at large scale systems separately such as transportation corridors and energy supplies for a city or town will usually not work in coordinating adequate resource availa bility and conservation. These systems are intertwined and connected to each other as well as to their own context, and therefore a complex (expansionistic) view of this city or town emerges (Kramer & De Smit, 1991). Often, new concepts ideas and order can evolve out of this complexity where what appears to be moving towards chaos, will not necessarily be s ubjugated by chaos but can evolve into clear

PAGE 48

48 Communicative action Participative planning Actor consulting Scenario Planning Corporate planning Industrial planning structures and relationships at a higher level, where other struct ure-defining values and norms exists, (De Roo, 2003). The c onnection between order, chaos and complexity is still under much debate, but from a land use planning perspec tive, there exists a spectrum between highly ordered and highly complex, (Zuidema & De Roo, 2004). The debate focusing around complexity within a planning framework lies in the approach in which it functions. Figure 3.1 below displays extreme approaches in planning th at move across a spectrum from a technical rational approach to a communicative rational a pproach. Technical rati onale is used mostly when the situation presents itself in a simp le and ordered manner, working with facts and information that is certain. Wh ereas a communicative approach hardly factors in any component of certainty. Between these extremes lies a co mplex mixture of approaches where planners spend the majority of their time. Figure 3-1. Examples of Planning Approaches in a Spectrum (Zuidema & De Roo, 2004) Determining and describing systems like planni ng in relation to their complexity of change, Allan and Starr (1982) developed a fram ework to work within known as hierarchy theory. There are no particular levels of concep ts that are hierarchical over others within the framework. Instead, it leaves the level of focus contingent on th e focus of the study (Hersperger, Technical Communicative Order Complex Very Complex

PAGE 49

49 1994, p. 19). The hierarchical approach within landscape ecology encompasses vast amounts of information at various spatial and temporal scales (Hersperger, 1994). This concept of scale allows analysis to take place at different levels of a hierarchical system and also allows for connections to be made about complex systems (1994). Where a landscape might appear to be heterogeneous at one scale, it could indeed be considered homogeneous at another. These comparisons at different scales are essential when evaluating landscapes in terms of planning for appropriate land uses. According to Zonneveld (1990), the classificat ions described through landscape ecology: structure, function, and change, should serve as the basis for gathering information and making land use decisions. This incorporation provides guidance and mitigation for the alteration of land us e towards a more ecological ly sound direction. Application of Landscape Ecology Early pioneers that addressed ecological c oncerns and began looki ng at landscape ecology that em phasized decision-making through the asse ssment of the effects of human activities on natural systems, include Ian McHarg (1969) Ortolano (1984) Westman (1985), Lyle (1985), Hough (1984; 1990), Berger and Sinton (1985) and Sp irn (1984). Hersperg er (2004) notes that any application of landscape ecology to planning must address the problems that arise when the social and natural sciences are br ought together in problem orient ed studies of the environment, (p. 21). Its usually useful to define landscape boundaries in term s of what is being studied, for example, using political municipality boundari es for planning purposes, but making land use decisions based upon particular ec ological functions, natural phenomena as well as political, historical, social, and economic features can and should also be taken into account (Naveh, 1994). One way this has been achieved is through the defining of landscape boundaries for scientific and policy pu rposes through hydrological landscape structures such as watersheds and springsheds (Odum, 1971; Quinby, 1988; Herspe rger, 1994). Conceptually, analyzing the

PAGE 50

50 landscape through hydrological structures (i ncluding both surface and groundwater) in comparison to other landscape features only aids in determining what Berger (1987) describes as landscape synthesis: an overall understanding of th e relationship between humans and the natural environment for better planning. Changes in land use influences hydrological processes including runoff, infiltration and groundwater recharge. The modeling and understanding of hydrological processes within a watershed, or in the case of this resear ch, a boundary within a springshed, offers a useful means of evaluating th e effect of the changes in landscape patterns or land use resulting from policy decisions (Lin et al., 2007, Fohrer et al., 1999). Geographic information systems (GIS) has become an integral part of the assessment and interpretation of water resource information fo r environmental and land use planning (Semmens & Goodrich, 2005). The number of available tool s for processing and storing representative data of land and environmental features continues to expand. With this growth in technology, improvement of accuracy and increasing amounts of information can be weighed and analyzed within these hydrological targeted programs. GIS can then be appropriately used to describe consequences of modifications when the politics of an area can change the outcome of a land use decision (Selman, 1993). Worrall (1989) also understands the multi-discipline use of GIS and its potential impact in land-use pl anning implementation policy as the central technology in the science of land use and the study of societys interactions with the envir onment, (Aspinall, 2005). Despite these improvements and support, the linkages between GIS and decision-making procedures in planning still need considerable attention and effort (Semmens & Goodrich, 2005). Land Use Policy and Change Apart from the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution, land use decisions have been left to the state legislatures throughout the country to defer to a municipal home rule, (Schmidt & Buehler, 2006). In the early 1970s, an attemp t was made by Congress to pass a Land Use Policy

PAGE 51

51 Act that would have mandated the facilitation of information be tween national, state and local levels, but the attempt failed (Kayden, 2001). States have in turn been th e leaders in organizing and implementing zoning and land use planning le gislation. Their effort s however have not shown uniformity in their intergovernmental stru ctures or program objectives, (Bollens, 1992). Regional planning dates back to the 1920s with the estab lishment of Regional Planning Associations throughout major cities including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles (Schmidt & Buehler, 2006). Currently, the ma jority of land use decisions and policy is reliant on local level support through the privat e sector as well as planning interventions relying on economic efficiency rationale, rather than appealing to public interest or social justice, (Klosterman, 2003). It is recognized that l ittle coordination, oversight or guidance from state and regional entities is given to the local level planning decisions while the phys ical, environmental and social character of the area ch anges. According to the Brookings Institute, the most common form of local land use regulation throughout the United States currently is zoning (2006). Zoning separates land in a particular area into different uses or sections and has throughout its evolution pulled away from its hist orical roots of rigi dly separating uses lo t by lot, to a more flexible system that allocates the mixing of uses and focuses on larger areas of land (Brookings Institute, 2006). Zoning was originally designe d throughout most of the c ountry to help in the public health battles of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but it also indirectly served as a socio-economic separator of people by race and in come even with the he lp of modern planning tools and interventions like comprehensive plan s (Brookings Institute, 2006). Most local municipalities throughout the coun try, including every jurisdiction in Florida due to mandated state legislation, focus on the impacts of growth and development on local infrastructure and environmental systems. They look at the sing le site level scale as well as neighborhood or

PAGE 52

52 community scales to regional scales in order to determine a developments impacts and general benefit to the area. In short, land use policy choices are shaped by features of local governments and the demands of organizations and interests in the community (Feiock et al., 2008). People both for and against growth each seek to influence growth management policies, but are limited by governmental stru ctures that mediate between th ese political exchanges, help to establish the rules of the game, develop ince ntives and give opportunities for the public to bring about changes in policy (Jeong & Feiock, 2006; Lubell et al., 2005). Land use planning at this local level of regulation is rarely compared with efforts in water quality management, mostly due to the fact that both are independently admi nistered through different agencies that do not coordinate consistently (Wa ng, 2001). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) runs the largest national progr am to encourage planning and management at the physical watershed level and encourages decision makers to work with local residents to establish watershed collaborations (ONeill, 2005). The Office of Water with in the EPA stresses that state and tribal policymakers follow three guiding principles when engaging in watershed planning: 1. keep in mind the geographic focus defining the watershed base d on physical assessments of drainage patterns, 2. build partnerships watershed management is collaborative and this partnership should include the people most aff ected by the management decisions, ensuring that these people shape key decisions ab out planning and implementation, and 3. the techniques should be based on strong science and data partnerships need to gather and analyze the water quality and ecological functions or regional wa terways and the surround ing landscape (2008c). Floridas 29 delineated watersheds are divided into five separate main basins that are managed through the water management districts set in place through the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 (FDEP, 2009b). Partnerships between these water management districts and nonprofits

PAGE 53

53 such as the 1000 Friends of Florida have been building scientific information and organizing educational meetings with local residents and other key stakeholde rs to spread awareness about human behavior, including land use planning, and its affect on water quality and quantity within these watersheds. This type of partnership at the watershed level in recent years has been also applied to the hydrologic focus on springsheds like the Wakulla Springs Basin Working Group (FDEP, 2004). Federally, the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) applies to all springs surface waters throughout the state of Florida including the Wakulla and Wekiwa. Section 303 (c) of the 1972 amendments, establishes the statutory basis for the current water quality standards program for all surface waters of the United States (USEPA, 2008c). The key elements of these standards include: water quality standards to be defined as the designated beneficial use of a water segment and the water quality criteria necessary to suppor t those uses. The minimum beneficial uses considered by the states in establishing water quality standards under th e CWA are specified as: public water supplies, propagation of fish and wi ldlife, recreation, agricultural uses, industrial uses and navigation and must prot ect the public health, safety a nd welfare to serve the purposes of the Act (2009). The water not discharged from springs but remains in the ground before arriving to the surface is protected federall y under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j). This Act was origina lly passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the drinking supply, but was amended in 1986 and 1996 to encourage the protection of drinking water so urces including municipal gro undwater wells. A management option that the USEPA recommends to states is for the regulation of land uses that may release contaminants into critical source water protect ion areas, like springsheds (2008c). Potential sources of pollutants regulated through both Ac ts include landfills, underground or above ground

PAGE 54

54 fuel storage tanks, reside ntial or commercial septic systems, urban runoff from streets and lawns, farms and other operations that a pply pesticides and fe rtilizers as well as sludge disposal sites (2008c). The contaminants and increased nutrients levels found in springs, also referred to as pollution, can either be classi fied through policy as coming from a point or a non-point source. Point source pollution is determined to be derived from specific places such as pipes, ditches and sewers connected to plants and other industrial facil ities, abandoned mines, and oil leaks due to transportation (2008c). Non-point sources include inputs that ca nnot be directly linked to a discrete source, such as agricu ltural or stormwater runoff. Some of the inputs from agriculture include erosion of sediments w ith inorganic fertilizer, manure, and dissolved salts (2008c). Even with a growing number springs and other surface waters throughout the state containing higher amounts of non-point source pollution inputs such as nutrients like nitrates and phosphorus, policy has proven difficult to implement due to the lack of cer tainty in identifying where the contribution source is located. The detection of non-point source inputs within groundwater recharge areas is even more difficult to determine since this covers vast expanses of land (an example being the Wakulla Springs total springshed extendi ng as far north as the state of Georgia), with land uses va rying drastically throughout the ar ea (FDEP, 2004). The nature of some of the water quality problems within the springs indicate the possible known pollution (contaminant) sources (Hanson et al., 1988, p. 47). Many natural waterbodies such as springs can recover from certain increased levels of nutrients and other pollution, depending upon its discharge of uncontaminated ground water (flow), its temperature, and its pH levels (Odum, 1971). Over time, if these once minimal levels begin to change or increase, the ecosystem balance can quickly become disr upted and begin to decline th e overall health of the spring ecosystem. Despite the need to understand the us es and inputs within these sensitive water

PAGE 55

55 capture zones, state efforts have been limited by available funding for continued water quality monitoring and geological exploration, and also by vested property ri ghts (Carriker, 2000). In Florida, since their 2001 creation by the FDEP, the Florid a Springs Initiative (FSI) has been working with both private and public partners to delineate the necessary protection zones for springsheds throughout the state while also collecting and analyzing information concerning water quality and quantity issues (FSTF, 2007). The Groundwater Protec tion Section of the FDEP works with the FSI as well as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in researching groundwater movement and levels of contaminants that include nutrients present in groundwater. The contaminants will either eventually make their way to be used as drinking water or be discharged by nearby springs (2007). The colle cted information about levels of measured contaminants is ideally integrated with mandate d local comprehensive plans to help implement the states Water Resource Implementation Rule. It purpose is to protect aquifers and surface waters from depletion through measures such as preserving locations where high water recharge occurs, as well as protection of the water st orage and water quality by necessary management means that provide for compatible uses, (62-40 F.A.C. (1) (k), (5) (a)). Many counties and cities throughout the state are us ing research currently provided by state agencies to begin taking steps at protecting the springs that lie within their jurisdictional borders. Their proactive measures are through an understand ing of how the water that provi des springs with life is being affected by human activities. The Linkage: Landscape Ecology/GIS, Comp lexity Theory and Land Use Policy Landscape ecological principles and its integr a tion with GIS has the capacity and has proven its ability to combine very complicated po licy dealing with land use issues and aids its continued creation and implement ation of appropriate public po licy. There is agreement among GIS users that its technology and methodologies have the potential to make important impacts

PAGE 56

56 Land Use Policy Land Use Models Land Use Change Impact Assessment Models Environmental Socio-economic Physical Biological Hydrological Landscape Economic Social Cultural Political This framework is intended to provide a logical sequence for evaluating a plan or a policy. Direct consequences can be predicted using land use models while indirect consequences on the biophysical and socioeconomic environments are predicted using models for impact assessment. This allows plans and policies to be tailored to produce desired effects. It is a contribution to decisionmaking processes and policy formulation rather than merely a system for policy interpretation. in land-use planning, and specifically for investigating the possibl e effects of the implementation of policy, (Worall, 1989). As Aspinall (1993) and other authors who ha ve interfaced GIS with policy point out, this technology gives decisionmakers a means of establishing indirect consequences of policy implementation, includ ing environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments (Openshaw et al., 1987; Walker a nd Moore, 1988). The Figure 3.2 depicts an adapted framework from Aspinall of how the integration of GIS models and policies can effectively lead to a greater sense of the unders tanding of particular environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Figure 3-2. A conceptual framework for applyi ng GIS-based methods to land-use policy and land-use change (Adapted from Aspinall, 1993).

PAGE 57

57 The finished result of land use or impact assessment modeling may be in a map, graph, statistical reference or in a ta ble format where the GIS overlay allows for an easy summary of information. The final output is dependant on the specified spatial units of interest to the end users. However, the fight to eliminate uncertain ty in GIS towards efforts at protecting ecological systems through policy is only as effective as the knowledge that lies behind the information used to create each. Scholars ope rate under the knowledge that anyt hing stated or believed for certain usually leads to rationa l decisions and actions (Couclelis 2003). Yet there is a vast amount of information that is not known or continually changes due to unforeseen circumstances within the physical environment, politics, the economy or other social phenomenon that greatly affects efforts at obtaining, storing and analyzing information. Mathematics, logic, physics, linguistics and information theory are known for their extraordinary methods of accuracy, but all hold incomplete, inaccurate, imprecise or invalid information, (Couclelis, 2003). Planning tools such as GIS that take into consideration this void of information and explain the possible reasoning for it, can ultimately help those that will be effect ed by or are involved with the implementation of the final policy and political d ecisions made. If complexity theory can be accepted for its influence within these advanced sc ientific fields, it can also be accepted within the fields of land use planning and policy. Innes and Booher (2000) see this merge as necessary in cities and communities that seek an adaptive, sustainable systems approach in the face of unpredictable futures (p. 179). Many cities ac ross the country are facing an inevitable, unpredictable future due to the current econom ic downturn of 2008 and in Florida, as the population boom begins to slow, more efforts and attention towards land use policy for the protection of water quality and quantity in and around springs can begin to make its way to the forefront of policy.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 4 SPRINGS & PUBLIC PA RTICIP ATION: MANDATED OR VOLUNTARY Public Participation in Environmental Planning Throughout the beginning stages of m any pla nning processes, legislation at both the federal and state level require that the public be involved th rough participation in public hearings or give feedback on re view comments. Environmental planning in particular embodies a range of values, all needing to be considered equally and fairly and eventually integrated into final decisions about land use or other environmental matters. According to Randolph (2004), these values include everything from scientific and economic de terminations to issues of social equity and environmental ethics, ( p. 53). Many of these oppor tunities for public engagement leave all parties invol ved feeling frustrated that thei r comments were not heard, or even more perplexing, citizens are left feeling worse about the future of their cities and communities than before they began to take part in trying to help. These experiences may also leave planners and decisions-makers with am bivalence on involving the public in future planning decisions (Innes & Boohe r, 2004). Planners and citizens alike often disagree about processes, leading many to believe that adhe ring to any specific method may not be a wise approach (Webler et al., 2001). Nagel (1987) comments that citizen participation, as a basic political value is a slippery concept to describe or judge. Fischer (2000) notes that, at least on some level, almost everybody is for it, though many are quite skeptical of its value in practice, (p. 33). Environmental topics tend to direct discussions with th e public in a more technical direction, making it difficult for many citizen s to participate even under the best of circumstances. This leaves decisions open fo r debate only to professional politicians, economically concerned business people and th ose in the middle and upper middle classes who

PAGE 59

59 are ideologically motivated and well educated (Day, 1997; Gans, 1968). The more complex the issue under debate, the more need for pro fessional expertise, and Halberstam (1993) is quick to point out that these expe rts are not without what he describes as their difficulties. He states that the worries of an uninformed citizen ry are scarcely misplaced, yet during the past two decades, the public has had am ple occasion to worry about th e best and the brightest, (p. 35). Policy advice from experts is seen as merely an informed opinion, and while there is a need for experts to engage in informing the public of these opinions their expertise cannot stand alone, (Fischer, 2000). Fischer suggests that the opinions about issues under the topic of discussion in the public arena, however fa r-ranging and abstract they may be, need to eventually be translated into particular contexts for everyone involved with the public participation process. This context provides a social construct, making the meaning that individuals assign to environmental issues, like that of springs protection, less scattered and more cohesive. This social definition of the situation at hand is crucial to the application of policy, and local residents of eventual planning outcomes possess empirical information as well as pervasive intentions and motives unavailable to those out side the constructed context, (Fischer, 2000, p. 42). This local information should not define the situation at hand, but rather be acknowledged as an important considerat ion on the range of po ssible interpretations, (p. 44). The understanding of the formation of social definitions in local communities heavily depends on knowing what stakeholders believe the re ality of particular en vironmental issues to be. This process of investigation involves the expert(s) accepting stakeholders and other interested citizens understandings and processes of ev eryday life. However, the process of

PAGE 60

60 knowing cannot simply be understood as the e xclusive domain of the expert, (Fischer, 2000). The antiquated method of deciding on a policy, then introducing it to the public is a poor educational vehicle for complex t opics and grossly inadequate as a persuasion tool, (Beierle, 1999). Overall, these participat ory processes in environmenta l planning and policy need to combine technical expertise, ra tional decision-making, and public values and preferences, to produce the deliberate democratic compromise for the issue at hand (Cohen, 1997; Renn, 2006). To better understand how the social char acter and the structure of a community can influence the wide-ranging decisi ons made for local land use and other environmental decisions affecting regional and state resource s, social interaction needs to be considered and weighed into the public participation equation. Interactional Theory Social interaction m akes important contributions towards the ecological, cultural, organizational, and psychological outcomes. In teractional theory is a core property of a community, concentrating on aspects of communities that persist in modern society while other aspects are noticeably loosing their distinctiven ess, (Wilkinson, 1991). So cial interaction is used as a description for the influence of ru ralness on community life in modern society. Kenneth Wilkinson describes that there are three elements of a community ; the locality, the local society and the process of locally oriented coll ective actions, called th e community field. A locality is a territory where people live and meet their daily needs together, with vaguely delineated boundaries whereas a lo cal society is a comprehensive network of associations for meeting common needs and expressing common inte rests, comprised of units and branches of regional, national and even multinational orga nizations, (Wilkinson, 1991). The community field is a process of interrelated actions through which residents express their common interest in the local society, (Wilkinson, 1991).

PAGE 61

61 Land use policy in Florida targeted towards protecting environmental resources can and has been mandated through the Local Gove rnment Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Fl. Stat. Ann. 163-2511-3247 (1985) as well as the Environmental Land and Water Management Ac t, Fl. Stat. Ann. 380-012-12 (1972). Wakulla County has taken extraordinary local attempts through policy to protect its natural resources and more specifically, Wakulla Springs. However ge ographically specific Wakulla springs is in relation to the political boundaries of Wakulla County, the people of the area, like people in any geographic area (or locality), are no longer tied to one another si mply through that place, but rather through a local society of similar interests, values, and beliefs (Pavey et al., 2007). These local societies or communities of interest can then catapult the means for empowering and encouraging local political suppor t for issues such as springs protection thr ough institutional development, (Dukes, 1996). This collection of interest in a partic ular topic uses local resources and energy to collaboratively plan for the future, (Pavey et al., 2007). Describing stakeholder and co mmunity input towards local land use and environmental decisions can be discussed as local societies that comprise several community fields. The extent of community in a local society varies through time depending on the actions people take in response to local problems and opportunities, and through this definition, Wilkinson (1991) helps to explain how movements for particular int erests are initiated and could eventually lead to political action (p. 3). He describes the importance of a co mmunity as the mechanism of empirical contact between the individual and so ciety since society is an abstraction one can experience only indirectly or symbolically, (p. 3). The community also seeks to meet the needs of the people, especially the need for co llective involvement and the social definition of self, (p. 3). However, as Roland Warren (1963) points out in his work, The Community in

PAGE 62

62 America the observation of the community can also be described as a tur bulent arena of selfseeking actions that cannot be s een as a concrete collectivity or system, (p. 4). Decisionmaking processes within communities that hold expertise about commonly interests help to establish a mutual benefit for the entire community field, what Collins and Evans (2002) describe as interactional expe rtise. This type of contri bution allows for interesting interactions between contributo ry experts of both abstract/generalizable and local/practical knowledge domains, where the act ual interactions l eave all the particip ants cognitively changed, (Collins & Evans, 2002; Cordan, 2006). Interactional Theory & Springs Protection Policy Walter Rosenbaum (2008) views environmenta l degradation throughout the country as a twenty-first century problem thats resolved according to eighteenth -century rules through fundamental government arrangements such as institutional checks and balances, interest-group liberalism and federalism, (p. 61). This de mocratic process, although perhaps not always efficient in modern society, still provides co mmunities a chance to advance the protection of chosen environmental issues through their ow n choice of activeness. Wilkinson (1991) comments that the activeness emerging from within a community towards change, and in the case of this research, measures for policy that improve environmental protection, is formed through this process of interaction. The solidarity that forms due to the interaction of similar interests and actions toward those interests also provides a heightened sense of well-being for individuals within the community (Bridger & Luloff, 2001). With all the positive criticism from social scientific findings that have looked at how communities have engaged in shaping both local and regional environmental outcomes, bot h through awareness and policy, there are also known community traits that inhibit any activeness from ta king place. Communities with smaller populations show significantly lower leve ls of environmental activeness than their

PAGE 63

63 densely populated neighbors (Parisi et al., 2004). Education is also seen as central to enhancing ones capacity for understanding the importance of maintaining and improving the quality of the environment as a collective good, (Beaulieu & Isreal, 1997). Communities in economically disadvantaged regions are less li kely to engage in community e nvironmental activeness, yet in a 2002 study conducted across 208 communities throughout Mississippi, poverty and unemployment did not play a major role in expl aining differences in co llective efforts towards the environment, and researchers concluded that other conditions hampered the emergence of community activeness, (P arisi et al. 2004). Aside from efforts taken to gather citizen participation in environmental management discussions, the process through which the particip ation takes place is also of debate and could play a part in the other conditions that dilute the success of the longevity of activeness (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Disadvantages such as costs, the amount of time and dedication it takes and the lack of an overriding authority to actually take hold and use of any collective decisions made are embedded in various citizen particip atory processes throughout the country.

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY The focus of this research investigates the c onnection of land use cha nge with rising levels of detectable nitrogen. It looks at this connection within set boundaries lying in two separate springshed location s over the past three decades and how land use policy implemented at varying municipal scales has impacted the rate at which nitrogen is increasing. This research also looks at how the public participation process has play ed a key role in the development of land use policy for springs protection. The Wakulla and Wekiwa springsheds were chosen as case study locations from the numerous springs throughout the state due to the extensive amount of both scientific research conducted in these locations and significant loca l and state government and citizen involvement in the protection of each of the springs. My objectives outlined below follow the series of research questions presented in Chapter One. 1. To characterize the land use change in the Wakulla/Wekiwa springshed basins from the early 1900s to 2006/07 and investigate the spat ial and temporal relationship between the Wakulla and Wekiwa springs water quality with its rise in nitrogen and land use changes in a chosen boundary with th eir respective springsheds. My first objectives inve stigation will be focused on a boundary of a five mile radius from the spring vent, instead of the fi fteen proposed by the FGS, or th e entire springshed area of both springs. This boundary was chosen due to time constraints. The Wakulla Spring study area covers approximately 23% of the known total Wa kulla springshed area within the state of Florida. Another large portion of the Wakulla springshed extends north into the southern portion of Georgia. The chosen Wekiwa Spring boundary area covers approximately 9% of the total known Wekiwa springshed area. To begin look ing at land uses within both boundary areas, 2006/2007 GIS parcel data will be used to dete rmine use changes since the early 1900s. Land use, referring to the purpose to which the la nd is utilized, was determined by parcel data

PAGE 65

65 information from as far back as 1901 updated to 2006 for both Orange and Seminole Counties and 2007 for Wakulla County. Land use was determin ed by each parcels description, labeled in the GIS data as . Some parcels de scriptions could not be determined due to the data stating it contained no value. These parc els were still evaluated by the year they were built upon, but remained separated from other land use categories. The parcels numerous descriptions, 68 total, were categorized into si x main land uses (Table 5-1): 1. Residential, 2. Urban (including both commercial an d industrial), 3. Agricultural (r ural areas), 4. Institutional, 5. Utilities & Transportation, and 6. Environmental F eatures. The actual year built, labeled as , information associated with each parcel in both boundary locations, was used to determine what year the land, or parcel, actually became a particular land use. The parcels that did not contain an associated year <0> for the ac tual year built, were al so evaluated separately for various land uses as their own group. The land uses were evaluated after the determination of the actual year built and grouped in to one of five categories to ev aluate land use changes within the boundary area in recent history. The five categories for the act ual year built were: 1. No year known, 2. pre-1980, 3. 1980-1989, 4. 1990-1999, and 5. 2000-2006/07. To assist in my investigation of the use changes in relation to their evolving total nitrogen loads since the 1970s, the Watershed Assessment Model, better known as WAM, developed by Soil and Water Engineering Technologies, Inc. was used. It was created to allow engineers and planners to assess the water quality of both su rface and groundwater based upon land use, soils, climate and other factors. The model itself si mulates the primary physical processes that are important for watershed hydrologic and pollution transp ort. It carries out its functions through: Analyzing the current scenarios of stages, fl ows and constituent load s for water bodies of importance from existing land uses, la nd management practices and soils.

PAGE 66

66 Developing targets for flow and water quality improvements through the identification of existing sources in various land uses and regions, the loads to streams, reservoirs and lakes Analyzing the impacts of streams, reservoi rs and lakes through modifying land uses, BMP management and the crea tion of treatment areas The necessary GIS coverages used for this assessment include: Land Use Soils Topography Hydrology Basin and sub-basin boundaries Point sources and service area coverages Climate data Land use and soils description files The Watershed Assessment Model (WAM) was also chosen because of its ability to simulate the surface and groundwater flow as well as water quality for nitrogen within the 5-mile research boundary area. Through WAM, groundwat er, unlike surface water, can be routed to specific locations (reaches) that are not necessarily the closes t downstream waterbody, (HDR & SWET, 2008). Several simulations of the land use conditions within the watersheds in the boundary areas of both Wakulla and Wekiwa springs were conduct ed. Initial simulations of existing land use conditions for the current decade (2000-2010) and for previous decades (1970s, 1980s and 1990s) were conducted with data collected and made available by the Northwest Florida Water Management District for Wakulla County and th e St. Johns River Water Management District for both Orange and Seminole Counties and dist ributed through the Flor ida Geographic Data Library. Nitrogen parameters were obtained for both boundary areas from the Florida Department of Environmental Protections (FDE P) STORET database available online (FDEP, 2009c). This database stores biological, ch emical and physical data for ground and surface waters throughout the state. A detailed record of metadata for the shapefiles and information

PAGE 67

67 used in my initial land use categorization and for the WAM simulation can be found in Appendix C. All of the models generated through the use of WAM are lim ited in their capacity to display what is actually occurr ing in reality. The various gene ralizations and interpretations made from the models do not necessarily reflect the total and complete processes that are taking place in the water and springsheds they are tr ying to simulate. According to the WAM developers, the user is encour aged to use and understand these limitations prior to using the model. Some of the limitations include any rainfall collection data taken at individual stations not necessarily being representative of the ra infall across the chosen boundary area of study and the flow structures of stream sy stems is not factored into the software. Assumptions made by the model include that all the data used is correct after checking for errors; that the nitrogen model parameters within WAM is representative of the actual on-ground transpor t processes; that the streams, identified as reaches within the model, can be calculated based on drainage areas that are located upstream and that the model only simulates for this researchs purposes soluble nitrogen, sediment nitrogen and groundwater nitrogen daily loads. 2. To describe how major stakeholders and local residents have particip ated in the research and policy process for springs protection. Key informants for qualitative research were identified based on their knowledge or involvement in past or current discussions about springs protection. Additional interviewees were contacted through a technique known as "snowball sampling," where each key informant was asked to identify other knowledgeable indi viduals to interview (Bryman, 2004). To be eligible for an interview, individuals needed to possess expertise on the topic areas of the environmental knowledge, public policy and publ ic awareness of spri ngs protection. The

PAGE 68

68 individuals interviewed represen ted government agencies, environmental interest groups, and citizens that are active in pub lic decision-making processes. Table 5-1 Breakdown of Parcel Descrip tion and Land Use Categories Parcel Descriptions Land Use Categories Acreage Not Zoned for Agriculture Residential Automotive Repair, Service & Sales Boarding Homes Boarding Homes Condominiums Bowling Alleys, Skating Rings, Enclosed Arenas Homes for Aged Camps Mobile Homes Centrally Assessed MultiFamily (less than 10 units) Churches Multi-Family Clubs, Lodges & Union Halls Orphanages Community Shopping Centers Single-Family Condominiums Vacant Residential Cropland Soils Class 1 Acreage Not Zoned for Agriculture Cropland Soils Class 2 Urban (Commercial/Industrial) Cultural Organizations Automotive Repair, Service & Sales Daries/Feed Lots Bowling Alleys, Skating Rings, Enclosed Arenas Department Stores Churches Drive In Resturants Clubs, Lodges & Union Halls Financial Institutions Community Shopping Centers Florist, Greenhouses Cultural Organizations Forest, Park & Recreational Areas Department Stores Golf Courses Drive In Restaurants Grazing Land Soil Class 1 Financial Institutions Grazing Land Soil Class 2 Golf Courses Grazing Land Soil Class 3 Heavy Manufacturing Government Owned Leased by an NGO Lessee Hotels/Motels Homes for Aged Industrial Storage (Fuel, Equip., and Materials) Hotels/Motels Light Manufacturing Improved Agriculture Lumber Yards, Sawmills, Planning Mills Industrial Storage (Fuel, Equip., and Materials) Mining, Petro & Gas Lands Lumber Yards, Sawmills, Planning Mills Mixed Use, Store & Office Mining, Petro & Gas Lands Mortuaries, Cemeteries Mixed Use, Store & Office Mult i-Story Non-Professional Offices Mobile Homes Night Clubs, Bars & Cocktail Lounges Mortuaries, Cemeteries One Story Non-Professional Offices Multi-Family (less than 10 units) Parking Lots, Mobile Home Sales Multi-Family Private Hospitals Multi-Story Non-Professional Offices Private Schools

PAGE 69

69 Table 5.1 Continued Parcel Descriptions Land Use Categories Night Clubs, Bars & Cocktail Lounges Professional Service Buildings One Story Non-Professional Offices Repair Service Shops Ornamentals, Misc. Agricultur e Restaurants, Cafeterias Orphanages Service Stations Other Counties Stores (one story) Other Federal Supermarket Other Municipal Tourist Attractions Other State Vacant Commercial Outdoor Recreational Vacant Industrial Parking Lots, Mobile Home Sales Warehouses & Distribution Centers Private Hospitals Agricultural/Rural Private Schools Camps Professional Service Buildings Cropland Soils Class 1 Public Schools Cropland Soils Class 2 Repair Service Shops Daries/Feed Lots Restaurants, Cafeterias Florist, Greenhouses Rights-of-Way, Streets, Roads and Canals Forest, Park & Recreational Areas Rivers, Lakes & Submerged Lands Grazing Land Soil Class 1 Service Stations Grazing Land Soil Class 2 Sewage Disposal, Borrow Pits & Wetlands Grazing Land Soil Class 3 Single-Family Improved Agriculture Stores (one story) Orchard, Groves & Citrus Supermarket Ornamentals, Misc. Agriculture Timberland Outdoor Recreational Tourist Attractions Timberland Utilities Institutional Vacant Commercial Government Owned Leased by an NGO Lessee Vacant Industrial Other Counties Vacant Institutional Other Federal Vacant Residential Other Municipal Warehouses & Distributi on Centers Other State Wholesale, Manufacturing and Produce Outlets Public Schools Vacant Institutional Utilities and Transportation Centrally Assessed Rights-of-Way, Streets, Roads and Canals Sewage Disposal, Borrow Pits & Wetlands Utilities Environmental Features Rivers, Lakes & Submerged Lands The ultimate goal of a structured interview is for the interviewing of respondents to be standardized so that differences between in terviews can be minimized, (Bryman, 2004, p. 109). The research interview is a prominent data-c ollection strategy in both quantitative and

PAGE 70

70 qualitative research. It i nvolves the administration of a sc hedule that is set by both the interviewer and interviewee and the aim is for all interviewees to be given the exact same context of questioning. The goal of the interviewing is to ensure that interviewees responses can be collected and analyzed with reliability. Six personal interviews were conducted over the telephone between September and November of 2008. The interviews took no more than 30 minutes and interviewees were assured that a ll responses would remain confidential. The researcher conducted the interview by reading qu estions aloud as they were numbered on the question response sheet (see Appendix D for list of interview questions). All of the interviews were recorded by a voice activated Olympus r ecorder on Sony Microcassettes. Throughout the interview, I would write notes fo r points of reference on the actual interview questioning sheets. Immediately following the interview, I would repl ay the recorded interview and manually type word-for-word the exact responses given by each of the interviewees. The transcription of each interview took approximately 45 minutes. The steps of analysis in stakeholder responses after transcription included identifyi ng key phrases, words, and concepts; and then summarizing emerging themes (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The six key informant interviews were c onducted with a repres entative spectrum of individuals from both local and state govern ment, non-governmental agencies and private companies, along with private citizens; all advocating for springs protection in both study locations as well as throughout the state. These in terviews are an effectiv e means for collecting information that provide insight into ev ents, actions and other community processes, (Schwartz et al., 2001). It is diffi cult to obtain accuracy of key in formant data, but for six of the fourteen questions (questions numbered 8-13, s ee Appendix D), an aggr egation technique of looking at the mode response of yes, no, or a partial yes was used to understand the public

PAGE 71

71 participation processes and actions taking plac e in both case study locations, as well as thoughts on land use change impacts. This was chosen to establish more consistency and eliminate idiosyncratic observations, (Schwartz et al., 20 01). Responses beyond the modal ques for these six questions along with responses for the rema ining eight questions were summarized for emerging themes out of common phrases, word s and concepts (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Questions targeting ways in which the public ha s participated at a local level in springs protection policy were broken down into five separate questions, beginning with a broad acceptance of the public in deci sion making processes, narrowing down to final questions that looked at whether final decisions and actions concerning springs pr otection were actually made by the public.

PAGE 72

72 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS Land Use Change in Springsheds It has been well documented that springs are a part of not only local and regional land uses and economies, but are also under global influen ces (Brown et al., 2008). Other nations econom ies influence land use changes throughout ar eas of Florida where springs are located, and over a temporal scale, they impact springs. Th e principle source of water for springs, including both Wekiwa and Wakulla Springs is groundwater from the Floridan aquifer. The quality of the groundwater determines the basis for the health of the spring ecosystem (Brown et. al., 2008). Springs are thus dependent on their respective spr ingshed, with all the va rious land uses that are encompassed within, to provide the regional replenishing or recha rge of the water supply to the aquifer. Wakulla Springs Land Use Change For W akulla Springs, a boundary area c onsisting of 54,662 acres was analyzed. Unfortunately, close to 67% of the parcels ( over 36,000 acres) within the springshed study area did not have a corresponding actual year built. This might have been remedied if land cover data for both previous decades and current data were used in conjunction with land use information in this analysis to determine where and when certa in areas of land were de veloped or changed. These parcels were simply treated as a separa te category when looking at each spring boundary.

PAGE 73

73 Figure 6-1. Wakulla Springs Five Mile Study Boundary Since the turn of the last century, residen tial development has been the primary land use around Wakulla Springs that has steadily in creased. Between 1980 and 1989, over 2400 acres were converted into residential use, and an a dditional 1169 acres officia lly became agricultural lands. In the past two decades, between 1990 and 2007, an additional 6566 acres within the 5 mile radius boundary of Wakulla Springs has been converted to residential uses. Aside from the increase in land use over the decades for resi dential purposes, another 7367.51 acres within the study area is described as a use that falls under this researchs resident ial category, but does not carry an associated year built wi th it. Altogether, a total of 18,459.74 acres within the study area consisted of a residential use. Along with this increase in residential de velopment, no additional utilities or transportatio n use parcels were added in the past two decades. This could be because the utility and transportation parcels are alr eady included in the 313 acres of utilities and transportation that have no year associated with th em, or it could also mean that the utilities that support this growth are contained privately on residential parcels or located just outside of the

PAGE 74

74 study area. The parcel data used for this research did not clas sify the land known to be state owned property for Wakulla Springs State Park as i nstitutional, but rather as Forest, Park and Recreational Areas. Although this large amount of land is both state owned (which would place it under the institutional category) and a forested recreational area (grouped under agriculture/rural areas), the di fficultly in describing land uses simply through their individual parcel description became apparent. Table 6-1. Wakulla County Land Use Change (1925-2006). Wakulla Co. 1925-1979 Change In Acres 2,118.35 178.48 3658.09 1 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Wakulla Co. 2000-2006 Change In Acres 2885.62 103.54 914.02 22.97 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Figure 6-2. Wakulla County Land Us e Change In Acres (1925-2006)

PAGE 75

75 Figure 6-3. Wekiwa Springs Five Mile Study Boundary Wekiwa Springs Land Use Change Wekiwa Springs boundary encom passes 32,616 acres in Orange County and 16,631 acres in Seminole County. Approximately 60% of th ese two countys parcel information had no associated year where development may have occurred (43% in Seminole County and 17% in Orange County), but still carried significant descriptions of the parcels (eg. Agriculture, Residential) that were treated in their own category. In Oran ge County alone, Wekiwa Springs State Park encompasses 15,899 acres described as institutional. Another large portion of the State Park lies within Seminole Co unty with over a thousand acres also described as institutional. Similarly to that of the Wakulla Spring st udy area, increasing conve rsion to residential land uses is evident over time in both Orange an d Seminole Counties (See Table 6.2). In Orange County, over 2000 acres of land were converted to residential use in the 1980s. Along with the residential usage, more urban, commercial uses moved into the boundary area including two golf courses, one located less than .2 miles away from the sp ring boil. The acreage for residential development declined in the 1990s but increased between 2000-2006 converting a

PAGE 76

76 Orange Co. 1901-1979 Change In Acres 835.59 372.74 16954.2 1.2 3.78 2,530.69 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Utilities and Transportation Parcels with No Values l Orange Co. 2000-2006 Change In Acres 1349.66 148.33 8.95 6.99 0 9.51 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Utilities and Transportation Parcels with No Values little less than 1350 acres to residential use. Seminole County saw its fastest surge of development in the 1980s. Over 2600 acres during this decade were converted to residential use with over 83% of the land consisting of single fa mily lots. Together, both Orange and Seminole Counties have seen 17,935.6 acres of land within the Wekiwa Spri ngs study area converted to residential use. The majority of Wekiwa Spri ngs State Park is incl uded in Orange Countys Institutional category for the years between 1901-1979, with an additional 1114 acres under the same category with no associated year. Semi nole County also held approximately 2153.31 acres of institutional lands under no associated year, presuming that this area is their countys jurisdictional portion of the Wekiwa Springs State Park. Unlike what has happened in Wakullas boundary, land within both Orange and Seminole Countys boundary is being set aside for additional utility and transportation, assuming to accommodate (support) the rising residential development in the area. Table 6-2 Orange County Land Use Change (1901-2006) Figure 6-4. Orange County Land Us e Change In Acres (1901-2006)

PAGE 77

77 Figure 6-5. Orange C ounty Land Use (1901-2006)

PAGE 78

78 Seminole Co. 1900-1979 Change In Acres 3,590.90 565.1 107.19 72.33 17.8 55.84 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Utilities and Transportation Parcels with No Values Seminole Co. 2000-2006 Change In Acres 397.43 61.63 10.32 36.88 Residential Commerical/Industrial (Urban) Agricultural (Rural) Institutional Utilities and Transportation Parcels with No Values Table 6-3. Seminole County Land Use Change (1900-2006) Figure 6-6. Seminole County Land Us e Change in Acres (1900-2006)

PAGE 79

79 Figure 6-7. Seminole C ounty Land Use (1900-2006)

PAGE 80

80 Analyzing Nitrogen Presence Looking at nitrogens presence within existing land use conditions in both research boundary areas, an overwhelm ing percentage of its total load is located within medium density residential (MDR) areas. Twenty-three and a ha lf percent of the total nitrogen in the Wakulla boundary area was present in the MDR areas and almost half of the total nitrogen present in the Wekiwa boundary area, 48.4%, was found there with its land use only comp rising 23.4% of the total area. High amounts of nitr ogen were also present for both the spring boundary areas in low and high density residential desi gnated uses, plantations and or chards, field crops in Wakulla County and natural areas such as scrub and mixed wetland hard woods in both locations (see Table 6-4). The previous fourteen WAM simulations, si x taking place in each spring study area displaying the sediment and groundwater concentra tions of nitrogen and two that display the existing land uses in both of the spring study area, are able to depict that in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa boundary areas, concentratio ns of nitrogen have significan tly increased. There is an exception with the decrease of about 1,074 g, per hectare, per year of groundwater nitrogen concentration in the 1990s simula tion of Wakulla in comparison to existing concentrations, and a minimal change in groundwater concentrations within the Wekiwa Sp ring study area from the 1990s to the present. Other observations from th e models reveal that during the 1970s, land uses that contributed a larger porti on of nitrogen input for both the soil as well as groundwater were mainly natural areas of mixed forested lands in the Wakulla Spring study area. Citrus groves and other agricultural land uses with some pockets of low density reside ntial areas were the contributory sources to the Weki wa Spring study area nitrogen lo ading. As time progressed into the 1990s, large portions of land in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa springs study area was converted into low and medium density residential areas. In connection with this rise in land

PAGE 81

81 Table 6-4. Comparison of Simula ted Nitrogen Load for Existing Land Uses in the Wakulla and Wekiwa Springs Boundary Area Existing Land Use Mean Nitrogen Load (kg/ha) Existing Land Use Total Nitrogen Load (kg) Total Land Use Area (ha) Land Use Descriptions Wakulla Wekiwa Wakulla Wekiwa Wakulla Wekiwa Citrus Groves N/A 274.529 N/A 5781.6 N/A 21 Horse Farms N/A 219.304 N/A 1065.8 N/A 5 Groves and Orchards N/A 144.861 N/A 8213.6 N/A 57 Ornamental Nurseries N/A 89.3 N/A 24738 N/A 277 Tree Nurseries 158.358 N/A 1795.8 N/A 11 N/A Medium Density Residential 139.814 53.06 117552.8 251724.5 841 4744 High Density Residential 7.863 41.808 12.7 42635.8 2 1020 Low Density Residential 27.356 30.295 81166.6 40366 2967 1332 Hardwoods N/A 39.944 N/A 485.3 N/A 12 Hardwood Conifer Mixed 0.243 28.25 1224.8 23821.1 5039 843 Coniferous Plantations 1.803 24.268 8420.8 5248.4 4670 216 Scrub and Brushland 0.241 22.492 856.9 59265.9 3558 2635 Commercial and Services 13.116 19.967 2241.6 22529.1 171 1128 Industrial 7.79 19.309 25.2 2142.8 3 111 Field Crops 20.312 16.489 7864.2 1776.4 387 108 Barren Land N/A 15.627 N/A 354.4 N/A 23 Managed Landscape 132.615 12.72 1503.9 5429.8 11 427 Sewage Treatment N/A 9.839 N/A 350.7 N/A 36 Transportation Corridors N/A 9.692 N/A 1844.8 N/A 190 Improved Pastures 3.539 8.731 1619.8 1435.7 458 164 Woodland Pasture 1.236 7.917 75.1 474.5 61 60 Row Crops N/A 6.12 N/A 9.9 N/A 2 Bay Swamps 13.333 3.315 183.6 16.1 14 5 Cypress 9.664 3.315 821.9 18.8 85 6 Wetland Forested Mixed 10.839 3.177 8278.9 3839.5 764 1209 Freshwater Marshes 9.751 3.177 2061.5 1417.9 211 446 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 10.629 3.038 7034.3 12796.1 662 4212 Poultry Feeding Operation N/A 2.737 N/A 8.9 N/A 3 Open Water 2.997 2.287 257.3 1680.2 86 735 Rural Land in Transition N/A 2.099 N/A 28.9 N/A 14 Undeveloped Urban Land 0.636 1.953 13.4 517.3 21 265 Unimproved Pasture 1.382 N/A 122 N/A 88 N/A Mining 0.47 N/A 0.8 N/A 2 N/A TOTAL: 573.987 1119.62 499,876.60 520017.8 20112 20306

PAGE 82

82 Figure 6-8. Existing Land Uses for Wa kulla Springs 5-Mile Boundary Area

PAGE 83

83 Figure 6-9. Wakulla Spring Study Area Existi ng Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 84

84 Figure 6-10. Wakulla Land Uses in Comparis on to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1970s Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year FLUCCS CODE LAND USE 1100 Low Density Residential; Fixed Single Family Units 1200 Medium Density Residential; Fixed Single Family 1600 Extractive/Mining 1700 Educational Facilities/Commercial Services 2100 Pastures & Fields 4200 Upland Hardwood Forest 4300 Mixed Forest Land 6100 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 7500 Strip Mines, Quarries, Gravel Pits 7600 Transitional Areas

PAGE 85

85 Figure 6-11. Wakulla Land Uses in Comparis on to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1990s Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 86

86 Figure 6-12. Wakulla Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year LEON CO. LEON CO. WAKULLA CO.. WAKULLA CO..

PAGE 87

87 Figure 6-13. Wakulla Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen in 1970s Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year FLUCCS CODE LAND USE 1100 Low Density Residential; Fixed Single Family Units 1200 Medium Density Residential; Fixed Single Family 1600 Extractive/Mining 1700 Educational Facilities/Commercial Services 2100 Pastures & Fields 4200 Upland Hardwood Forest 4300 Mixed Forest Land 6100 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 7500 Strip Mines, Quarries, Gravel Pits 7600 Transitional Areas

PAGE 88

88 Figure 6-14. Wakulla Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen in 1990s Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year LEON CO. WAKULLA CO.. WAKULLA CO.. LEON CO.

PAGE 89

89 Figure 6-15. Existing Land Uses for Wekiwa Springs 5-Mile Boundary Area

PAGE 90

90 Figure 6-16. Wekiwa Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Sediment Nitrogen Loading Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year SEMINOLE CO. SEMINOLE CO.

PAGE 91

91 Figure 6-17. Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparis on to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1970s Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 92

92 Figure 6-18. Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparis on to Sediment Nitrogen Loading in 1990s Units for Sediment N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 93

93 Figure 6-19. Wekiwa Existing Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 94

94 Figure 6-20. Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads 1970s Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 95

95 Figure 6-21. Wekiwa Land Uses in Comparison to Groundwater Nitrogen Loads 1990s Units for Groundwater N Source Load = g/ha/year

PAGE 96

96 being converted into residential uses, the nitroge n contribution from low and medium residential areas in all spring study areas, as well as multip le dwelling unit locations within Orange County, also increased. Public Participation for Springs Protection To understand the persp ectives towards citizen attitudes, participation and barriers in generating extended education and policy for sp rings protection, key informant stakeholder interviews were conducted with individuals knowledgeable about local and state impacts in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa springheds. The majority of stakeholders thought co mmunities in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa springsheds were supportive of springs prot ection, especially sin ce, according to one respondent, its currently hot but ton issue. However, one res pondent commented that although the public might say theyre suppo rtive of springs protection, they dont really know what it means. When asked about what they thought th e publics view on spring s protection measures such as regulations and policy, the responses varied depending upon the spring study area. Wakulla Countys public, as well as its gove rnment, non-governmental organizations and businesses were commended for their support of protection meas ures and stakeholders even commented on its contagious influence of springs protection awareness on nearby municipalities. In the Wekiwa springshed, stakeholders t hought that the public support of springs protection measures was dependent upon its costs and any other adverse conditions that could result from approved measures. In respect to what they thought about the publics support of paying higher taxes to protect or restore springs, the respondents were split between seeing the public as supportive and seeing that the proposition and actual approva l would be a difficult task throughout many areas of the state. All stakeholders agreed that the public receives enormous

PAGE 97

97 recreational value as well as aes thetic, cultural, and psychological value from the springs simply by knowing that its a place nearby to get away from the hustle and bustle. One respondent stated that it was difficult to have a healthy Wakulla County without a healthy Wakulla springs; you just cant have on e without the other. To better understand the public s involvement in raising concerns about springs protection, stakeholders were as ked about various methods in which the public has contributed towards both benefits and costs associated with spring protection efforts. The stakeholders described that the majority of public invol vement was through local non-governmental, grassroots or environmental organizations where they would become educated about spring impacts and then report suggestions to County Commissioners, applicable state (regional) water management districts and even St ate Representatives. The majori ty of interviewed stakeholders think that the public has helped set many standards for local a nd state rules and regulations including an expanded springs pr otection area in Wakulla County and also has lent support for increased utility bills in some municipalitie s to offset costs for upgrading technology that processes wastewater. However, one stakeholder remarked that the public should not be heavily applauded for bringing information and concerns a bout springs to light, but rather state agencies, scientists and the media are the commendable responsible part ies for causing a shift in awareness about springs declining water quality and quant ity. The costs linked with this increased awareness was mentioned to consist mostly in mone tary costs associated w ith either legal fees, state and locally run programs that educate the public about springs as well as programs that purchase sensitive land within springshed area s, and the costs for purchasing the technology required to upgrade infrastructure such as advanced wastewater treatment systems.

PAGE 98

98 All interviewees agreed that attempts had been and are being made to help the public better understand the problem, alternatives, opportuni ties and/or solutions th ey could help with in regards to protecting springs. A beneficial forum for the public as well as agency and organizational involvement that was mentioned by several of the stakeholders, has been through state organized spring working groups. Anothe r agreement among all key informants was that public participation opport unities in both the Wakulla and Wekiwa springshed have been given the chance to operate in a format where th e public understands how their contribution has shaped and influenced final decisions made. On e respondent stated that the creditability of the organization she was involved with was heightened due to their efforts towards the publication of technical reports that hi ghlighted the degradation of the spring fed Wekiva River. This helped tremendously in being taken seriously by the appropr iate political forces at work in the Wekiwa springshed. In the words of this respondent, you just cant go to these groups and say, we think or believe, you have to have data and information to back it up. The stakeholder saw that the public has been enga ged in a participation process ma king sure that their concerns and ideas are understood, considered and reflected in the decision and are also made aware as to how they contributed in final decisions made. Some responses refl ected that, not only do non-governmental organizations as well as the government want to disseminate information to educate the public, they depend on it. An intere sting point was made when responding to this question that public input is not necessarily through hearings or work groups, but rather on a day-to-day basis. The stakeholders were spli t in their responses concerning whether specific partnerships have been created with the public for discussing alternatives and identifying a preferred solution throughout each aspect of the decision-making processes concerning springs protection. Some stakeholders commen ted that the public worked in tandem with

PAGE 99

99 government entities in establis hing the boundaries for the expanded spring protection area in Wakulla County, while others think that this process it still an ongoing story based on whether the political will of the politicians, the public and the various agencies and organizations involved will continue to make sure that they all work together to ensure lasting protection. All interviewed stakeholders agreed that th e public has not been gi ven the authority to produce or take any final decisi on-making actions concerning spri ngs protection. However, it was stated that the public makes its loudest co ntribution by voting for local government political positions and are also given the authority to vote directly on local referendums and ad valoreum taxes that go toward the purchase of sensitive lands, like those w ithin springsheds. As stated by one stakeholder, compromise needs to be es tablished, because youll have dual sides to a community: those that are interested in springs protection and those that wa nt to just develop in these vulnerable areas, and the public on either side does work its way into final decisions made. All of the key informants agreed that grow th and development in both springsheds has impacted the springs. One stakeholder simply stated, more people means more waste. A noted cause of this waste was the residential development that brought with it added nutrient application to the ground through a concentrated amount of septic tanks as well as fertilizer application for lawns. When asked what impacts of residential, commerci al or industrial growth and development during the next decade in both Wakulla and Wekiwa springs the key informants saw the outlook eerily similar. All stated that it might take a nother decade before any improvements, like regulations that have b een approved and are enforced and updated in

PAGE 100

100 Wakulla County, are even noticed. Were treading water here a nd if further development is allowed to go into known sensitive places, who knows what may happen to the springs. Discussion In 2005, the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) was asked to create Florida Springs Protection A reas, springshed lo cations, for the Florida Departme nt of Community Affairs. Using existing data from the USGS, FDEP and the FGS, the maps displayed an area of 15 square miles as the requirement to assist land use deci sions for the protection and restoration of spring water discharge quality, as well as quantity (G reenhalgh, 2005). Circles encompassing 15 square miles were centered on the actual spring vent and were then drawn outward for protection boundaries. Below is a map of what the FGS iden tified as spring protecti on areas (Figure 6-22). Figure 6-22. Floridas springs protecti on areas. (Greenhalgh & Baker, 2005).

PAGE 101

101 Although FDEP has determined that a significa nt portion of the north western and central locations of the state (a 32 county region) are w ithin what they qualify to be springs protection areas, it is not evident what that means for the existing and changing (fut ure) land uses within these areas. FDCA has identified major causes of concern for springs and th eir water quality that directly connect with land use decisions. Thes e causes include: lands caping, the increase in development in general within springsheds, water consumption, the dumping of concentrated pollutants into karst geographic locations, agriculture (including livestock), the use of land for golf courses and an increase in recreational act ivities in the spring and along the spring run (2008). Just within the spring study areas of this research, the land use for residential purposes has risen throughout the past thir ty years and according to the Fl orida Legislatures Office of Economic and Demographic Research, the countie s that contain these two springs study areas are projected to increase their population by anot her 125,000 in the next five and a half years (2009). This population growth brings with it de mands for additional residential dwelling units as well as other land uses includi ng utilities, institutions (schools), and commerci al uses that help to service this increase in the areas population. With the use of WAM to simulate the histor ical land use changes from a more natural landscape to developed, medium an d low density residential use, residential development has overwhelmingly added to the overall nitrogen loading in the Wakulla and Wekiwa Spring study areas. This supports FDCAs comme nts that the sprawl of urbaniz ing development adds to the overall degradation of the states springs and c ontributing water resources. The simulated total nitrogen load entering the Wakulla springs stud y area from medium residential areas alone is 56.6 kg per acre on a total of 2078 acres. Even with strong evidence from this research that displays how residential use is contributing the most nitrogen i nput within sensitive springshed

PAGE 102

102 locations, the question remains: what is the major contributing source of nitrogen from these residential areas within springsheds? The answer is as varied as the many contri buting sources that FDCA reports are overall contributing to the springs decline throughout th e state. One highly researched contributing source under considerable debate for updated polic y consideration is re sidential wastewater treatment facilities, both onsite (i ndividual) and municipal. As discussed in Chapter Two, onsite treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), commonl y installed in residential areas that are not readily available to connect with sewer systems ha ve become a hot topic of concern for locations around the state that are within these springshed areas. The WAM simulation did take into account municipal sewer service lo cations within both spring st udy areas, but is limited in its accuracy as to whether particul ar residential uses are indeed using an onsite wastewater treatment systems as opposed to being connected to sewer. In order to facilitate the states next actio ns towards remedying the nitrogen loading from onsite treatment and disposal systems, an und erstanding of awareness and attitudes toward environmental issues is essential, (Brennan & Dodd, 2009). Currently, the state has organized six working groups that each meet separately on a quarterly basis se rving to disseminate information throughout many organizations, agencies and the public about th e protection of that particular spring and springshed. Wakulla Spring is one of the six springs that has a strong working group while Wekiwa currently does not. While interviewing the various stakeholders fo r qualitative information regarding springs protection, a noted cause of the waste associated with residential development and its added nutrient application to the ground wa s stated to be from concentrated amounts of septic tanks as well as fertilizer application for lawns. All interviewees noted that it might take another decade

PAGE 103

103 before any improvements, like those that have been approved and are enforced and updated regularly in Wakulla County in regards to septic tank and septic system management, are even noticed. One stakeholder commented that they sa w the citizens of their county, treading water and that if further development is allowed to go into known sensitive places, who knows what may happen to the springs. Recommendations Many agencies and organizations throughout the state, both private and governm ent affiliated, have given recommendations regarding policy measures that can be taken in order to progressively protect springs. As noted, Wakulla County has been a local government leader in this area, setting an example for the rest of the 31 counties that contai n springs. The issue of nutrient input in the form of nitrogen from reside ntial onsite septic systems is not a new debate, yet the discussion over what actions to take to lessen these impacts are still under consideration at the state level for both new and existing systems. In 2008 report by the Florida Department of Health, it stated that less than 1% of Florid as 2.3 million OSTDS systems are actively managed and over half of these systems are 30 years old an d were installed under st andards less stringent than current standards, (DOH, 2008). This st atistic along with many other reports, including this research that provide a connection between residential land use, onsite septic systems and increased nitrogen into nearby waters supporting the need for increased attention towards the regulating and maintenance of these systems for the lasting hea lth of the states water quality and ultimately, springs. The Florida Department of Health regulates and tracks the installation and maintenance of onsite treatment and disposal systems, but under the considered and tabled 2009 Springs Protection Bill, that could have changed. One of the 22 measures considered as a part of the Bill included the transfer of the Department of Heal ths Bureau for Onsite Sewage to the Florida

PAGE 104

104 Department of Environmental Protection under an unnamed department. With the current sensitivity towards onsite septic systems contribu tions to decreased water quality in springs, I recommend that this measure be one that is reconsidered for dropping and taken away from any springs protection bills that are reintroduced for legislative considera tion. The state should follow the recommendations given for Wakulla Springs at their recent workshop in February of 2009 in regards to pursuing a feasibility study for setting up what they describe as a Responsible Management Entity (RME) that collects and distributes a supporting fee structure to ensure that all existing traditiona l onsite systems and newly installed performance based treatment systems function effectively, (1000 Friends of Fl orida, 2009). If systems are found not operating effectively, a separate f unding source possibly collected from annual property taxes could go into help ing to fund homeowners that have to upgrade their existing systems. This RME could be housed at a state level, remaining under the current Department of Healths Bureau for Onsite Sewage, but implemen ted and administered at a county level, with additional focus and funding targeted towards counties that contain springsheds of first magnitude springs. Even with this recommendation, public education that focuses on nutrient impacts to the groundwater and public participation in addressing funding options for this program is important. An additional recommendation is for local governme nts that have portions of their jurisdictions falling within a known delineated springshed, to use tools such as WAM to understand the current total nitrogen input resulting from th e existing land uses. In using GIS simulations, decision-makers can have access to baseline numbers for the amount of nitrogen (or phosphorus and total suspended solids) for particular land us es within their jurisdictional area and perform

PAGE 105

105 their own cost-benefit analysis as to what particular technology is available to reduce nitrogen loading from onsite wastewater treatment systems. Conclusions Springs p rotection in the state of Florida is a serious envi ronmental concern. The over 700 springs throughout the state gi ve residents not only a place to escape and enjoy the marvelous natural beauty Florida holds, but prov ide an outdoor tourist de stination for thousands of people every year that reside outside the state. Its evident through numerous academic studies and governmental reports th at Floridas growth has come with a price of degraded and declining levels of surface and groundwater. Th is studys results show that excess nutrients, specifically nitrogen, have signifi cantly increased within the past several decades. This increase is mostly attributed to the residential land uses associated with accommodating the states population growth. Other attributable sources from agricultural a nd silvicultural application of nitrogen based fertilizers also have been incr easing, possible due to increased demand for their local and traded uses. With active public involvement, the Wa kulla County council members approved a landmark ordinance in 1994 that set aside specific areas in the county as the special planning area to protect and preserve water quality in and around Wakulla Springs, (Appendix A). With the Wakulla County Water Quality Protection Regul ation (94-28) the county also became the first in the state to integrate measures w ithin the Future Land Use Element of their Comprehensive Plan for engagi ng in spring protection includi ng building setbacks and design standards within their desi gnated special planning area, (Wakulla County 2008). Wekiwa Springs has the advantage of being the headwaters of a state and federally protected river, the Wekiva. The Wekiva Ri ver under the Wekiva River Protection Act, approved in December of 1991, mandates that both Orange and nearby Seminole counties

PAGE 106

106 contain goals, objectives and po licies within their comprehensive plans that result in the protection of water quality, qua ntity and hydrology, (F.S. 369.301; F.A.C. ch.9J-27). Orange County has responded with their own Wekiva Rive r Protection Ordinance and additional goals, objectives and policies within their comprehensive pl an that protects the ri ver as well as Wekiwa Spring. The federal designation of portions of the Wekiva now protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, passed by Congress in October of 2000, also preserve s the natural, cultural and recreational values of the River and extends to its headwaters, Wekiwa spring (P.L. 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271). The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was originally created by Congress in 1968 to preserve designa ted rivers that hold particular outstandi ng natural, cultural and recreational values to ensure their appropria te use and if need be, necessary development (NWSR, 2007). A third layer of protection for the area, the Wekiva Pa rkway and Protection Act (F.S. 384) implements the recommendations of the Wekiva River Basin Committee while authorizing the designing and build ing of the Wekiva Parkway, an extension of roads that would complete the beltway around Orlando while also providing protection of the Wekiva River system, (ECFRPC, 2007). Current efforts for spring pr otection throughout Florida have taken the form of legislative bills that either provide guidelines to be used for governing any future impacts to springs or spur the creation of task forces that research the best ways of targeting springs prot ection for local areas (Florida Senate, 2008). During 2006, the Fl orida Springs Protection Act was introduced as an amendment to Chapter 369 F.S. to ensure a statewide springs protection plan. The bill, although supported by several committees, died on its second reading in the state Senate. The bill was introduced again in 2007, but included specific regulatory measures like the delineation of springsheds and primary protectio n zones for the Wakulla, Ichetucknee, Rainbow

PAGE 107

107 and Volusia springs; amendments to local compre hensive plans to protect spring water quality and quantity; the prohibition of certain recreat ional and development activities within the delineated protection zones; as well as other guidelines. Unfortunately, this bill was never heard. In 2008, two separate bills were submitted in regards to springs protection, the Florida Springs Stewardship Act and the Protection of Springs Act. The Stewardship Acts proposal consisted of the Springs Task Force collecting information on the 33 first magnitude springs as well as identifying the existing land uses within these springs areas, (Florida Senate, 2008). The Protection of Springs bill only chose Silv er and Rainbow Springs, both in Marion County, for the creation of basin management action plan s in their designated protection zone areas. These bills were not able to get past the General Government Appropriations Committee. Despite the slow legislative journey for springs protection, the need for regulatory measures for both land use within springsheds and water quality sta ndards for surface and groundwater throughout the state is imperative. Many organizations and the general public also see the necessity for springs pr otection. During this 2009 legislative cycle, Senate Bill 274, the Florida Springs Protection Act, contains many fa cets of what previous legislative bills have placed forth and combines them into one policy. It s intent takes into account the need to protect and restore the springs as their own ecological system as well as the groundwater that provides their function. Appendix B displays the main co mponents of the bill, which was passed by the Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee on March 17th of this year, and then passed by the Committee on Community Affairs on April 6th with amendment changes (Florida Senate, 2009). On May 2nd, the bill was indefinitely postpon ed and ultimately withdrawn from consideration.

PAGE 108

108 The state has, in recent years, taken a stan ce against this escalation in degraded water quality within springsheds with various policy m easures, most recently with the support of the Springs Protection Act (SPA S.B. 274, 2009) that aimed to protect the qua lity of the entire states water resources. The bill targeted regi onal and local governments involvement with the state in managing the various sources of polluta nts and nutrients that enter the ground, mostly through stormwater and a concentrat ion of individual septic system s, and eventually make their way into nearby springs. However, now with the bills untimely demise, more serious commitment from all regulating entities will be required to implement reasonable and reliable standards for businesses and residents to understand and follow. This might be a challenge for all parties involved to co ordinate their various re sponsibilities for protection and restoration, but presents opportunities for increas ed connections between agenci es and political boundaries for our shared natural resources. The bill, however targeted it was in addressing measures to help water quality, it did not a ddress the bigger picture of the degr aded water and its potential main cause, land use change to accommodate population growth. With the help of the Florida Springs Initia tive (FSI) and the alr eady six spring working groups in place serving as a mechanism for th e exchange of communication and information about springs issues and concerns, the many ag encies, committed grassroots and environmental organizations as well as individual citizens can co ntinue to have a forum to express ways to effectively implement and monitor the many changes necessary to eventually make an act similar to the 2009 bill, a successful one. These m easures, working towards the stabilization and hopeful decline of nitrogen and other nutrient loading into water bodie s and groundwater, are a small step in the direction of ensuring that Flor ida residents and visitors have access to necessary and desirable resources, especially clean water. The benefits that springs provide in light of their

PAGE 109

109 current demise is under serious debate at all leve ls of government, but as of late, implementation measures/regulations linking development and sp rings protection have not been adopted at a state level. Increased development for the co ntinued accommodation of population growth in the state of Florida is creating a larger and larger pa thway for increased nutrien ts to enter and further degrade water quality. This research has establ ished the recent history of rapid growth and associated nitrogen increase w ithin two small study areas around springs. Through the evidence that both the WAM model and stak eholder interviews provides, th ere is a need for more support for policy that targets nitroge n reduction in springsheds. The data accquired for both the overall look at the three countys parcel uses as well as WAMs data requirements was challenging, especi ally the interface back and forth between ArcView 3.2 and ArcGIS 9.3 with an end goal of obtaining the most accurate representation of the area under investigat ion. WAM is a pre-developed GIS model that is complex in its categorization of environmental data. With the models approach in developing various scenarios for land use change, the researcher ha d to overcome a learning curve that involved engineering principals and data management. Finding the appropriate data for the model was also challenging and often several attempts in contacting governmental agencies were made before acquiring the required information. A final limitation encountered with WAM involved the lengthy amount of time that the program based in ArcView 3.2 needed to run through in order to process the several tie rs of data necessary to give its output for each model. Other limitations encountered du ring this research was the representative quality and sheer small number of stakeholders th e researcher was able to interv iew. Despite the wide background and current involvement of the individuals in springs protection th at comprised the six interviewees, the research could have been able to generalize on a much wider scale if more

PAGE 110

110 interviews had been conducted. Also, there is a need for furthe r research to better understand and represent the extent to whic h the public has been involved with springs protection. Possible research efforts that were not investigated incl ude collecting past record s of participants at springs protection workshops and group meetings that focus on contributing factors of springs degradation. This is an impor tant avenue for planners and de cision-makers alike to understand and continually shape for future understanding. The public, the ultimate end users of water resources, do have the final choice in what wate r quality standards are. If citizens do not voice their concerns towards the known contributions to water degradation, water quality will continue to decline and Floridas springs will cease to embody the magical natural wonder they hold.

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX A WAKULLA CO. WATER QUALITY PROTEC TION RE GULATION/WATER QUALITY ORDINANCE (NO. 94-28) Intent: To protect and maintain the quality of water resources in Wakulla County and to ensure additional water quality protection to groundw ater that affects Wakulla Springs. Properties included within the special planning area are affected as well as contributing water bodies (rivers, streams, sloughs, sp rings and other water resources that flow into or directly affect water quality in Wakulla Springs). Ordinance Regulations: 1. Substances that are regulated by the state or county (Exhibit A of or dinance) that are in quantities greater than five (5) gallons if liquid and 50 pounds if solid shall be required to be registered with the Waku lla County Planning Department. 2. Any proposed new business or facility that requests permits for development/rezoning and is considering using any of the regulated substances, shall provide information at the time of the permit that documents its use, storage, or disposal so that the County is able to formulate approval conditions to monitor and protect ground and surface water. 3. Designates a Special Planning Area that specifies agricultural uses, targeting silviculture, to pursue the use of best mana gement practices, and shall be consistent with all EPA labeling rules and requirements. 4. Within the boundaries of the Special Pla nning Area, found on following page (has since changed and updated boundary on page 41), land uses may be restricted in addition to other land standards to protect and preserve water quality in surface and ground water resources. 5. The restrictions set forth within the boundary may allow land uses to be approved with specific conditions or restrictions to provide a buffering effect, prevent pollution, meet concurrency, make land uses compatible with adjacent or abutti ng land uses, or to ensure compliance with the County Co mprehensive Plan and development regulations. Restrictions may also be associated with ac tions that are independent of the original land use or rez oning approval and would then be approved by the County Commissioners at an adve rtised public hearing. 6. A violation of land use approval conditions or restrictions ma y result in code enforcement or additional legal action including the filing of liens. Properties that are seen in violation of land use conditions or restrictions cannot r eceive additional County land use approval or development permits until the identified violation has been corrected. 7. The design and selection of mate rials to contain any regulate d substance, must be able to preclude it from being discharged into the environment. The containment system must also be operated in a manner that rain fall or external moisture can be managed. 8. All of the property owners within the sp ecial planning area who use, store or manufacture the regulated substances shall upgrade or retrofit to new construction containment standards when any improveme nts are proposed or by January 30, 1999.

PAGE 112

112 9. Injection and drainage wells shall not be permitted within the Wakulla Springs Special Planning Area. Heat pump wells are also not allowed within the planning area unless it is shown by the applicant that suffici ent engineering and water contamination controls are designed into the system so no surface or ground water resources will be contaminated from its use. Monitoring and reporting processes are also required to be submitted to the Planning Department if approval is given for the installation of such devices. 10. Any discharge of any of the regulated substances into a septic tank or personal sewerage disposal facility will constitute a violation of this ordinance. Any floor drains, grease traps, and oil and water separators shall be constructed to prevent the infiltration of regulated substances into septic systems, soil, surface or groundwater. 11. Section 8 of this ordinance outlines the enforcement proce ss if a violation occurs. 1994 Special Planning Area Boundary

PAGE 113

113 APPENDIX B FLORIDA SENATE 2009, SPRI NGS BILL 274 FLORIDA SPR INGS PROTECTION ACT Intent: To e stablish that all countie s or municipalities where a designated first or second magnitude spring exists will be designated a spring protection zone. Outline of Proposed Bill: 1. FDEP is directed to adopt rules to implement spring protection zones. 2. The rules adopted need to in clude a priority list of 1st and 2nd magnitude springs with designations of high, medium or low pr iority based on nitrate measurements. 3. Based on the departments determination, ce rtain deadlines will apply in conjunction with 369.405 (#7 below): a. High priority springs, no later than July 1st, 2016. b. Medium priority springs, no later than July 1st 2019. c. Low priority springs, no later than July 1st, 2024. 4. Counties sand municipalities can seek to have specific geographic areas exempted from these designations through a demonstration that activit ies within these areas will not impact the springshed in a ma nner that leads to degradation. 5. FDEP is to develop standards and rules that provide minimum methodologies, data and tools for county to use to support a request for an exemption. 6. FDEP may deny an application for an ex emption or may modify boundaries of the specific geographic area for wh ich an exemption is requested. 7. The requirements for the spring protection zones include: a. All wastewater discharges from faciliti es with capacities greater than 100,000 gallons per day must achieve nitrogen con centrations less than or equal to 3 mg/L. b. All wastewater discharges from facilities with capacit ies less than 100,000 gallons per day but greater than 10,000 gallons per day must achieve nitrogen concentrations less than or equal to 10 mg/L. c. Septic systems in areas where densities are greater than or equal to 300 systems per square mile must connect to a centra l wastewater treatment facility or other centralized collection an d treatment system. d. Agricultural operations must implement applicable best-management practices, including nutrient management, and anim al feeding that is adopted by DACS no later than December 31st, 2009. e. All drainage wells must be evaluated and a remediation plan to reduce nitrogen loading must be implemented. f. All stormwater management systems constr ucted prior to 1982 must be evaluated and a remediation plan to reduce nitr ogen loading to groundwater must be developed and implemented. g. FDEP may require additional treatment or other actions to meet surface and groundwater quality standards. 8. New septic systems that are installed after July 1st, 2009 must be designed to meet a target annual average groundwater concentr ation of no more than 3 milligrams per liter total nitrogen at the owners property line. DOH shall develop and adopt by rule design standards for achieving target annual average groundwater concentrations. At

PAGE 114

114 a minimum these standards must consider th e relationship between the treatment level achieved by the system and are of useable property available for rainwater dilution. 9. The land application of sewage is prohibi ted and subject to a $250 fine for a first offense and a $500 fine for a second or subs equent offense by the authority given to the DOH. 10. After July 1, 2010, land applic ation of Class A, B, or AA wastewater residuals, as defined by FDEP, within the primary protec tion zone is prohibited. This does not apply to Class AA residuals (fertilizer products). 11. By December 31st, 2010, all county and municipal governments must, at a minimum, adopt the departments model ordina nce for Florida Friendly Landscaping. 12. The Florida Springs Onsite Sewage Treat ment and Disposal System Compliance Grant Program is established and administer ed by the DOH with a purpose to provide grants to low-income property owners in spring protection zones using septic systems to assist the property owners in complying with these rules. This program will be effective upon final adoption of department rules. a. Any property owner in a spring protection zone having an income less than or equal to 200% of the federal poverty leve l who is required to alter, repair, or modify any existing septic system to a nitrate-reducing treatment system may apply to the DOH for a grant to assist the owner with the cost of the compliance. b. The amount of the grant is limited to the cost difference between the replacement of a comparable existing system and that of an upgraded nitrate-reducing treatment system, but may not exceed $5000 per property. c. The grant must be in the form of a reba te to the property owner for costs incurred in complying with requirements for septic systems. It is the property owners responsibility to provide documentation of these costs in the grant application to DOH. 13. DACS shall be the lead agency in coordi nating the reduction of agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution for springs protection. 14. Comprehensive Plans shall include the following elements: a. Areas where a springs protection zone ha s been adopted by FDEP, during the first comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal report after July 1st, 2009, a spring protection measure that ensures the pr otection of and where necessary the restoration of water quality in springs shall be added to the appropriate comprehensive plan amendment. b. This measure must address minimum human impacts on springs from development through the protection of karst features during and after the development process, ensuring that fu ture development follows low-impact design principles, and ensuri ng that landscaping and ferti lizer use are consistent with the Florida Friendly Landscaping Program. 15. For state assistance in water pollution cont rols, eligible projects must be given priority according to the extent that each project is intended to remove, mitigate, or prevent adverse effects on surface or gr ound water quality and public health. 16. FDEP shall adopt a priority system rule. In the development of this rule, FDEP shall give priority to projects that: a. Eliminate public health hazards;

PAGE 115

115 b. Enable compliance with laws that require the elimination of discharges to specific water bodies; c. Assist in the implementation of total ma ximum daily loads and basin management action plans; d. Enable compliance with other pollution control requirements, including toxics control, wastewater residuals management, and the reduction of nutrients and bacteria e. Assist in the implementation of surf ace water improvement and management plans and pollutant load reduction goal s developed under state water policy; f. Promote reclaimed water use; g. Eliminate environmental damage caused by failing onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, with prio rity given to systems located with an area designated as an area of critical state concern or located in a sp ring protection area; h. Reduce pollutants to and otherwise promot e the restoration of state surface and groundwaters. 17. NO later than December 31st, 2011, FDEP, DACS, the NWFWMD, the Suwannee Rover Water Management District (S RWMD), the SJRWMD, and the SWFWMD shall assess nitrogen loading from la nds owned or managed by each respective agency and located within a spring protection zone for each of the four springs using a consistent methodology, evaluate existing management activities, and develop and begin implementing management plans to reduce impacts to the springs. 18. DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE DOH: a. Develop and implement a mandatory stat ewide onsite treatment and disposal system inspection program that shall: i. Be phased in over a 10-year cycle a nd provide that every system is inspected on a 5-year recurring cycle. ii. Initially target systems inspected un der current departmental criteria. iii. Provide an exemption of systems in areas where density of dwellings is fewer than one person per 3 acres unl ess the property abuts a water body or water segment that is listed by the department as impaired. iv. The local DOH department, local government, or state-licensed septic tank contractor or plumber shall charge an additional fee of $20 for each system inspected and an application must be submitted for approval to the DOH, with a copy delivered to the property owner. DOH must approve the system for continued use or notif y the owner of the requirement for a repair or modification permit. v. The revenue from the inspection fee mu st be deposited into appropriate department trust funds with a minimum of 50% of the revenue dedicated to the grant program. 19. The Acquisition and Restoration Counc il under the Florida Forever Act shall recommend for additions to the Conservation and recreation Lands list, giving weight to the following criteria: a. Any part of the project area falli ng within a springs protection zone. 20. On or after July 1st, 2011, other than no-phosphate a nd no-phosphorus fertilizers, fertilizer containing phosphorus may not be a pplied to urban turf anywhere in Florida, unless a soil or tissue test that is con ducted by a DACS approved method indicates:

PAGE 116

116 a. The level of available phosphorus is insufficient to establish new turf growth and a root system. A one-time application only of up to 1 pound of phosphate per 1000 square feet of are may be applied. 21. All personnel, statutory powers, duties and f unctions of the Bureau of Onsite Sewage in the Department of Health are transfe rred from the DOH to the DEP by a type two transfer (s. 20.06 F.S.).

PAGE 117

117 APPENDIX C GEODATA LISTING Original File Name Complied/Distributed Agency or Organization Data Creation Date Date Obtained Spring Locations (BESTAVAIL_SPRING_MASTERLIST_ 032009_OID) FDEP 3.20.09 3.23.09 Statewide Basins (BASINS) FDEP/FGDL 1998 12.08.08 Florida County Boundary Statewide (cntbnd) US Census Bureau/FGDL Northwest Florida Water Management District Land Use and Cover 2004 (lu_nwfwmd_2004) FDEP/FGDL 3.10.09 3.25.09 Northwest Florida Water Management District Land Use and Cover 1995 (lu_nwfwmd_199565) FDEP/FGDL 4.14.97 6.3.09 USGS 1:250,000 LAND USE LAND COVER 1970s (usgslu_1974) USGS/FDEP/FGDL 1974 6.3.09 County Parcel Information (orange_parcels_06_xown; seminole_parcels_06_xown; wakulla_parcels_06_xown) FDR/FGDL 12.31.06 10.15.08 County Water Management District Land Use 1990 (lu9048; lu9059) SJRWMD/FGDL 5.20.07 6.10.09 Statewide Water Management Land Use 2000 (lu0048; lu0059) SJRWMD/SWFWMD/ SFWMD 10.8.04 3.25.09 National Hydrography Dataset Linear Surface Water Drainage Network, 1:24,000 (nhd24flowline_may06) USGS/USEPA/ USDA Forest Service/FDEP/FGDL 5.1.06 8.15.08 Major Water Bodies of Florida (mjwaterbnd) National Atlas/ USGS/FGDL 10.1.06 8.15.08 Hydrologic Cataloging Units of Florida (watershed) FDEP/FGDL n/a 8.15.08 Hydrography Lines, 1:100,000 (hy100l48; hy100l59; hy100l65) USGS/FGDL 1990 8.15.08 Major Roads Statewide (major_roads) FDOT/FGDL 1.5.09 1.15.09 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Florida (nrcs_soils48; nrcs_soils59; nrcs_soils65) USDA/NRCS/FGDL 1990 8.15.08

PAGE 118

118 APPENDIX D TELEPHONE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE The following is the script and interview questions used when conducting the telephone interviews for this research in the fall of 2008, (between Septem ber and November). The purpose of this study is to provide informa tion that supports current and future land use policies. It does this by weighing factors asso ciated with point and non-point source pollution into decisions that effect signi ficant water resources, particularly Florida springs. This study is looking at two specific springsheds, the Wekiwa and the Wakulla, and its land use changes over time and it is also determining whether the la nd use changes have caused an impact on water quality, by looking at the level of nitrogen present. The third component of the research is looking at the public participation involved in the decision-making pro cess for policies that protect springs and how their role has also sh aped the current condition of these areas. You have been asked to be interviewed due to your involvement or knowledge of springs in the Wekiwa Spring study area. There is no compensati on for your participati on in this study. Your comments are very much appreciated and if at any time you feel uncomfortable during the interview, it can be terminated. Should you ha ve any questions regardi ng this research you can contact me by way of telephone at (352) 359-5067 or through email at sherith@ufl.edu or my supervisor, Paul D. Zwick, Ph. D. at (352) 392-4836 ext. 427 or at pdzwick@ufl.edu If you have questions regarding your righ ts as a research part icipant, please contac t the University of Floridas Ins titutional Review Board at (352) 392-0433. 1. How do you think local residents feel about springs protection? 2. How do you think local re sidents feel about spri ng protection measures (policies/regulations)? 3. In what particular ways to do you think local people get value from the springs? 4. How has the public raised concerns about springs protection within the past? 5. How do you think local taxpaye rs feel about paying to protect or restore springs? 6. Have any specific benefits resulted from local public involvement in springs protection efforts? If yes, can you please describe these benefits? 7. Have any costs resulted from local public involve ment in springs protection efforts? If yes, can you please describe these costs? 8. A main goal of local public part icipation is to provide citizen s with information to help them better understand the problem and any al ternatives, opportunitie s and/or solutions

PAGE 119

119 they could help with. To the best of your knowledge and understanding of the public, have there been any important actions aimed at achieving this goal in relation to springs protection? If yes, can you please describe these actions (what happened, who was involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, what was the outcome, etc.) 9. Another goal of public participa tion is to gather public input on particular information, various alternatives and/or decisions and understand how it shaped and influenced the final decision/s made. To the best of your knowledge and understanding of the public, have there been any important actions aimed at achieving this goal in relation to springs protection? If yes, can you describe thes e actions (what happened, when who was involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, what was the outcome, etc.) 10. A third goal of public participation is aiming to work direct ly with the public throughout the process to ensure that their concer ns and ideas are understood and considered, reflected in the alternatives developed, and are provided feedback on how they influenced the decision. To the best of your knowledge and involvement with the public, have there been any important actions aimed at achieving this goal? If yes, can you describe thes e actions (what happened, who wa s involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, wh at was the outcome, etc.) 11. A fourth goal of public participation is to se t up partnership with the public in each aspect of decisions made, including the finding of alte rnatives and the identification of the most preferred solution. The public functions in this respect to give advice and formulate solutions. To the best of your knowledge and involvement with the public, have there been any important actions aimed at achieving this goal in regards to springs protection? If yes, can you describe thes e actions (what happened, who wa s involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, wh at was the outcome, etc.) 12. One final goal of publication part icipation is to give the final decision-making action over to the public. To the best of your knowledge, have there been any important actions that have achieved this goal in regards to springs protection? If yes, can you describe thes e actions (what happened, who wa s involved, how did it start, what were the barriers, wh at was the outcome, etc.) 13. In your opinion, has residential, commercial or industrial growth/development impacted local springs? If yes, can you describe these impacts?

PAGE 120

120 14. During the next decade what impacts do you s ee the residential, commercial or industrial growth/development having on local springs? Can you describe these impacts? Other Comments: Is there anything else you would like to tell me ab out the public and springs protection/restoration efforts? Recommendations: Can you think of anyone else that you think I sh ould talk to the issues we have discussed? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TI ME AND ASSISTANCE. Do you have any questions th at you would like to ask me? Can I contact you again if I have any more questions? Would you like a copy of my final report?

PAGE 121

121 LIST OF REFERENCES 1000 Friends of Florida, Florida Departm ent of Community Development (DCA) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F DEP). (2002). Protecting Floridas springs: Land use strategies and best management practices. Retrieved June 30th, 2008, from http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP /publications/springsm anual.pdf 1000 Friends of Florida. (2009). Follow-up report to the Wakulla Spring restoration workshop. Retrieved July 10th, 2009 from http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/water/ W akPowerPoits/WakullaWkshopReportMater ials2009.doc.pdf Allen, P. (1997). Cities and regions as self-organizing systems Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. Allen, T. & Starr, T. (1982). Hierarchy: Perspectives for ecological complexity Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Alva, A., Dou, H., Paramasivam, S., Wang, F., Graetz, D., & Sa jwan, K. (2006). An evaluation of sources of nitrogen in shallow gr oundwater using N abundance technique. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Report Part A 41, 2257-2269. Arnold, C. Jr. & Gibbons, C. (1996). Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 243-258. Aspinall, R. (1993). Use of geographic informa tion systems for interpreting land-use policy and modeling effects of land-use change. In R. Haines-Young, D. R. Green & S. H. Cousins (Eds.), Landscape ecology and geogr aphic information systems, pp. 223-236. New York: Taylor & Francis. _______. (2005). Geography and GIS support: Understand ing of relationships between society and Environment. Directions Magazine, Online Editorial: Nov 15th. Available online at: http://www.directionsmag.com/edito rials.php? article_id=2024&trv=1 Beierle, T. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review 16(3/4), 75-103. Berger, J. (1987). Guidelines for landscape synthesis: Some directions-old and new. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 295-311. Berger, J. & Sinton, J. (1985). Water, earth and fire: Land use and environmental planning in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Berndt, M., Oaksford, E., and Mahon, G.(1998). Groundwater. In E. Fernald and E. Purdam (eds.), Water Resources Atlas of Florida pp. 38-63. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Best, J.(Ed). (1989). Images of issues New York: Aldi ne de Gruyter.

PAGE 122

122 Bollens, S. (1993). Restructuring land use governance. Journal of Planning Literature 7(3): 211-226. Bond, P. (2002). Protecting Floridas springs Florida Geological Society Poster Series #10. Retrieved July 15th, 2008, from: http://aquacomm.fcla.edu/1826/1/poster10_150dpi.pdf Bonn, M. & Bell, F. (2003). Econom ic impact of selected Florida springs on surrounding local areas. Document present to the Florida Depa rtment of Environmental Protection, Florida Springs Task Force. Retrieved December 15th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/r eports/files/Econom icImpactStudy.doc Botkin, D. (1990). Discordant harmonies: A new ecology for the twenty-first century New York: Oxford University Press. Bridger, J. & A. Luloff. (2001) Building the sustainable comm unity: Is social capital the answer? Sociological Inquiry 71(4), 458-472. Brown, M., Chinners-Reiss, K., Cohen, M., Evans, J., Reddy, K., Inglett, P., Inglett, K., Frazer, T., Jacoby, C., Phlips, E., Knight, R., Notestein, S. & McKee. K. (2008). Summary and synthesis on the available lite rature on the effects of nut rients on spring organisms and systems. University of Florida Water Institute. Brennan, M. & A. Dodd. (2009). Expl oring citizen involvement in th e restoration of the Florida everglades. Society and Natural Resources 22(4), 324-338. Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Byrne, D. (2003). Complexity theory and planning theory: A necessary encounter. Planning Theory, 2 (3), 171-178. Carriker, R. (2000). Floridas water: Supply, use, and public policy Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative Ex tension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida. FE 207. Retrieved March 9th, 2009. Available online at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ pdffiles/FE/FE20700.pdf Cartwright, T. (1991). Pl anning and chaos theory. Journal of the American Planning Association 57 (1), 44-56. Catlin, R. (1997). Land use planning, environm ental protection and growth management: The Florida experience. Ann Arbor Press: Chelsea, Michigan. Challete, A., Pratt, T. & Katz, B. (2002). Nitr ate loading as an indicator of nonpoint source pollution in the lower St. Marks-Wakulla rivers watershed. Tallahassee, FL: Northwest Florida Water Management District.

PAGE 123

123 Champion, K. & Starks, R. (2001). The hydrology and water quality of select springs in the Southwest Florida Water Management Dist rict. Water quality monitoring program, SWFWMD. Retrieved October 12th, 2008, from : http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/ docum ents/reports/springs.pdf Cohen, J. (1997). Procedure and substance in de liberate democracy. In Bohman, J. & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberate Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics MIT Press: Cambridge. Pp. 407-437. Collins, H. & R. Evans. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32, 125-143. Copeland, R. (2003). Florida spring classification system and spring glossary. Florida Geological Survey, Special Publication, 52. Cordan, M. (2006). Sustainable agriculture, science and the co-p roduction of expert knowledge: The value of in teractional expertise. Local Environment 11(4), 421-431. Couclelis, H. (2003). The certain ty of uncertainty. GIS and the limits of geographic knowledge. Transactions in GIS 7(2), 165-175. Criss, R. & Davisson, M. (2004). Fertiliz ers, water quality and human health. Environmental Health Perspecives, 10(112), 536 A. Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planni ng process: An essentia lly contested concept? Journal of Planning Literature 11(3), 421-434. De Roo, G. (2003). Environmental planning in the Netherlands: To good to be true; from command and control planning towards shar ed governance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. DeHan, R. (2002). Workshop to develop blue prints fo r the management and protection of Florida springs. Ocala, Florida, May 8-9, 2002. Fl orida Geological Survey Special Publication No. 51. Department of Community Affairs, (DCA). (2008) a. Division of Commun ity Planning: Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning. Retrieved September 30th, 2008, from: http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP/compplanning/index.cfm Departm ent of Community Affairs, (DCA). (2008)b. Protecting Floridas springs: An implementation guidebook. Retrieved September 30th, 2008, from: http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/F iles/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf Dickert, T. & Tuttle, A. (1985). Cumulativ e impact assessment in environmental planning: A coastal wetland watershed example. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5, 37-64.

PAGE 124

124 Driver, N. & Troutman, B. (1989). Regression m odels for estimating urban storm-runoff quality and quantity in the United States. Journal of Hydrology 109, 221-236. Dukes, E. (1996). Resolving public conflict: Tran sforming community and governance New York: Manchester University Press. East Central Florida Regional Planning C ouncil (ECFRPC). (2007). Wekiva river basin committee implementation progress report. Retrieved September 20th, 2008. Available at: http://www.ecfrpc.org/Programs-and-Projec ts/Environm ental/Wekiva-Commission.aspx EDR, Florida Legislature. (2008). Florida population, Office of Economic and Demographic Research. Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from: http://edr.state.fl.us/population.htm Feiock, R., Tavares, A. & Lubell, M. (2008). Po licy choices for growth managem ent and land use regulation. The Policy Studies Journal 36(3), 461-480. Field, D., Voss, P., Kuczenski, T., Hammer, R. & Radeloff, V. (2003). Reaffirming social landscape analysis in landscape eco logy: A conceptual framework. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 349-361. Fisher, M. (1994). When history accelerates In C. M. Hamm (ed). Modeling complexity and social change: Social knowledge and social process, p. 75-94. London: Athlone Press. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environmen t: The politics of local knowledge Duke University Press: Durham, NC. Florida Department of Community Affairs (F DCA). (2008). Protecting Floridas springs: An implementation guidebook. Retrieved February 15th, 2009, from: http:// www.dca.state.fl.us Florida Departm ent of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (2004). Wakulla springs: A giant among us, citizen and government action. Retrieved January 30th 2008, from: http://www.floridasprings.org/exploration/featured/wakulla/text/protectin g/action/ _____. (2007)a. Florida Springs Initiative: Progr am Summary and Recommendations. Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from: http://199.73.242.12/springs/reports/f iles/FSIreport2007FIN AL.PDF _____. (2007)b. Florida Springs State Parks. Retrieved November 10th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us /springs/locations.htm _____. (2008). Wastewater program. Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wastewater/ _____. (2009)a. Florida online park guide: W ekiwa springs state park. Retrieved November 10th, 2008, from: http://www.floridastateparks.org/WekiwaSprings/

PAGE 125

125 _____. (2009)b. Watershed management. Retrieved February 28th, 2009. Available online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/ _____. (2009)c. STORET. Retrieved May 25, 2009. Available online at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.htm Florida Department of Health (DOH). (2008). Report on a range of costs to implement a mandatory statewide 5-year septic ta nk inspection program. Retrieved July 11th, 2009. Available online at: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/ENVIRONMEN T/ostds/pdfiles/form s/MSIP.pdf Floridas Growth Management Study Commission. (2001). A livable Florida for today and tomorrow: Final report. Retrieved September 30th, 2008, from: http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP/publications/GMSCFinal.pdf Florida Leg islature Office of Economic and Demographic Research. Retrieved July 11th, 2009. Available online at: http://edr.state.fl.us/ Florida Senate. (2008). Springs protection: An overview of recent activities. Committee on Environmental Preservation and Conservati on, Issue Brief 2009-317. Available online at: http://www.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/ 2009/Senate/reports/inte rim _reports/pdf/2009317ep.pdf ______. (2009). Senate bills for 2009 regular se ason: Browsing bill numbers between 200 and 298. Retrieved on March 18th, 2009 from: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/index.cfm ? Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Tab=session&St art=200&End=298&Year=2009&Chamber=Senate Florida Springs Task Force. (2000). Floridas sp rings: Strategies for prot ection and restoration. Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/s prings/reports/files/SpringsTaskF orceReport.pdf ______. (2007). Florida springs: Strate gies for protection and restor ation. Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Foley, J., DeFries, R., Asner, G., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S., Chapin, F., Coe, M., Daily, G., Gibbs, H., Helkowski, J., Hollowa y, T., Howard, E., Kucharik, C., Monfreda, C., Patz, J., Prentice, I., Ramankutty, N. & Snyder, P. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570-574. Follman, J. & Buchanan, R. (n.d.). Springs Fever: A Field and Recreation Guide to Florida Springs Retrieved on August 15th, 2008, from: http://fn1.tfn.net/springs/ Form an, R. (1987). The ethics of isolation, the sp read of disturbance, and landscape ecology. In Turner, Monica (ed.) Landscape hete rogeneity and disturbance. New York: Springer-Verlag.

PAGE 126

126 _______. (1995). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Forman, R. & Gordon, M. (1986). Landscape Ecology. New York: Wiley. Galloway, J., Dentener, F., Capone, D., Boyer, E., Howarth, R., Seitzinger, S., Asner, G., Cleveland, C., Green, P., Holland, E., Karl, D., Michaels, A., Porter, J., Townsend, A., & Vrsmarty, C. (2004). Nitrogen cycl es: Past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry, 70, 153-226. Gans, H. (1968). People and plans New York: Basic Books. Glasoe, S., Steiner, F., Budd, W., & Young, G. (1990). Assimilative capacity and water resource management: Four examples from the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 19, 17-46. Golley, F., & Bellot, J. (1991). Interactions of landscape ecology, planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning 21, 3-11. Greenhalgh, T. & A. Baker. (2005). Florida springs protection areas Florida Geological Surveys Open File Map Series No. 95. Gusfield, J. (1981). The Culture of public problems Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Halberstam, D. (1993). The best and the brightest New York: Fawcett. Hansen, N, Babcock, H., & E. Clark II (1988). Nonpoint-source water pollution The Conservation Foundation and the National A udubon Society: Washington D.C. and New York, N.Y. Available online at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1 3/e5/f5.pdf Harris, L. (1984). The fragmented forest: Island biogeograph y theory and the preservation of biotic diversity Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hartnett, F. (2000). Floridas springs: Strategies for protecti on and restoration. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. HDR Engineering, Soil and Water Engineering Technologies, Inc. (SWET). (2008). Rainbow Springs springshed assessment: Development and application of a GIS-based nonpoint source pollutant loading model for Ra inbow Springs, Final Report, 43 pgs. Hersperger, A. M. (1994). Landscape ecology an d its potential application to planning. Journal of Planning Literature 9 (1), 14-29. Holland, J. (1998). Emergence. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

PAGE 127

127 Hough, M. (1990). Out of place New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ________. (1984). City form and natural process London: Croom Helm. Innes, J. & D. Booher. (2004). Reframi ng participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice 5(4), 419-436. Innes, J., & D. Booher. (2000). Indicators for sustainable communities: A strategy building on complexity theory and distributed intelligence. Planning Theory and Practice 1(2), 173186. Jeffers, J. (1980). Dynamic modeling of land-use a ssessment. In M. F. Thomas & J. T. Coppock (Eds.). Land Assessment in Scotland p. 119-126. Aberdeen: Aberd een University Press. Jeong, M. & R. Feiock. (2006). Impact fees growth management, and development: A contractual approach to local policy and governance. Urban Affairs Review 41(6), 749768. Jones, R. & Beardall, H. (2005). Florida hydri lla management summit: Facilitators summary report. December 6-7, Orlando, Florida. Conf lict Resolution Consortium. Retrieved on August 15th, 2008, from: http://www.floridadep.net/lands/invaspec/2nd levpgs/pdfs/SummitRe portEdit10-06.pdf Kaiser, E., Godshalk, D. & F. Chapin. (1995). Urban land use planning (4th ed.). Urbana: The University of Illinois Press. Kayden, J. (2001). National land use planning and re gulation in the United States: Understanding its fundamental importance. In R. Alterman (ed.) National Level planning in democratic countries Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Klosterman, R. (2003). Arguments for and agai nst planning. In Fainstein & Campbell (eds.) Readings in planning theory Maulden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Knox, E. & Moody, D. (1991). Influence of hydrology, soil properties, and agricultural land use on nitrogen in groundwater. In R. F. Follett, D. R. Keeney, R. M. Kruse (Eds.), Managing Nitrogen for Groundwater Q uality and Farm Profitability, p. 19-58. Madison, WI: Soil Science of America, Inc. Kramer, N. & J. de Smit. (1991). Systeemdenken Stenfert Kroese, Leiden. Krozlowski, J. (1986). Threshold approach in urban, regi onal and environmen tal planning: Theory and practice. New York: University of Queensland Press. Langtimm, C., OShea, J., Pradel, R. & Bec k, C. (1998). Estimates of annual survival probabilities for adult Florida manatees ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ). Ecology, 79(3), 981-997.

PAGE 128

128 Lemon, M. (ed.) (1999). Exploring environmental change using an integrative method. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. Lehner, P., Aponte-Clark, G., Cameron, D., & Frank, A. (1999). Stormwater strategies: Community response to runoff pollution National Resource Defense Council. Retrieved on November 30th, 2008, from: http://www.nrdc.org/water/po llution/storm /stoinx.asp Lin, Y., Hong, N., Wu, P. & C. Lin. (2007). Mo deling and assessing land -use and hydrological processes to future land-use and climat e change scenarios in watershed land-use planning. Environmental Geology 53: 623-634. Loper, D., Landing, W., Pollman, C., & Chan-Hilt on, A. (2005). Degradation of water quality at Wakulla Springs, Florida: Assessment and re commendations. Report of the peer review committee, Solving Water Pollution Problems in the Wakulla Springshed of North Florida Workshop, May 12-13; Tallahassee, Florida. Lubell, M., Feiock, R. & E. Ramirez. (2005). Political institutions a nd conservation by local governments. Urban Affairs Review 40(6), 706-725. Lyle, J.(1985). Design for human ecosystems. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lynch, T. & Harrington, J. (2003). The economic im pact of the Florida Wakulla springs birding and wildlife festival. The Florida State Univ ersity, Center for Ec onomic Forecasting and Analysis. Retrieved on January 15th, 2008, from: http://www.cefa.fsu.edu/wakula_birding03.pdf Marella, R. & York, D. (1998). W ater use. In E. A. Fernald and E. D. Purdam (eds.), Water Resources Atlas of Florida Institute of Science and P ublic Affairs. Florida State University, Tallaha ssee, Florida. Marsh, G. (1937). Man and nature D. Lowenthal, ed. Cambri dge, MA: Harvard University Press. McHarg, I. (1969). Design with nature Garden City, NJ: Natural History Press. Meinzer, O.(1927). Large springs in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Supply Paper, 557, 94. Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Munch, D., Toth, D., Huang, C., Davis, J., Fo rtich, C., Osburn, W., Phlips, E., Quinlan, E., Allen, M., Woods, M., Cooney, P., Knight, R., Clake, R., & Knight, S. (2006). Fifty-year retrospective study of the ecol ogy of Silver Springs, Florida Publication Number: SJ2007-SP4. St. Johns River Water Management Di strict, Palatka, FL. Nagel, J. (1987). Participation Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Naveh, Z. & Lieberman, A. (1984). Landscape ecology: Theory and application New York: Springer-Verlag.

PAGE 129

129 Nagel, J. H. 1987. Participation Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWS R). (2009). General information on the National wild and scenic rivers system. Retrieved on March 5th 2009, from: http://www.rivers.gov Naveh, Z. (1994). Landscape ecology: Theory and application New York: Springer-Verlag. Nolan, B., Ruddy, B., Hitt, K., Dennis, R. & He lsel, D. (1998). A national look at nitrate contamination of groundwater. Water Conditioning Purification, 39, 76-79. Retrieved on September 25th, 2008, from: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/wcp/index.html Northwest F lorida Water Management District (NWFWMD). (2008). Emerging waters: Springs of Northwest Florida. Public Information Bulletin 08-01. Retrieved on September 26th, 2008, from: http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/pubs/brochur es/S pringsOfNorthwestFlorida/EmergingWa ters.pdf Odum, E. (1971). Fundamentals of ecology (3rd ed). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. ONeill, K. (2005). Can watershed management unite town and country? Society & Natural Resources, 18(3), 241-253. Openshaw, S., Charlton, M., Wymer, C. & Craf t, A. (1987). A mark 1 geographical analysis machine for the automated anal ysis of point data sets, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 1, 335-358. Orange County Government (2006). Orange Count y, Florida comprehensive policy: Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Ora nge County Growth Management Department, Planning (pp.324). Retrieved on October 8th, 2008, from: http://www.orangecountyfl.net/cms/DEPT/gr owth/planning/com prehensive/EAR.htm Ortolano, L. (1984). Environmental planning and decision making John Wiley & Sons: New York. Parisi, D., Taquino, M., Grice, S. & D. Gill. ( 2004). Civic responsibility and the environment: Linking local conditions to communi ty environmental activeness. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 97-112. Patton, C. & Sawicki, D. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pavey, J., Muth, A., Ostermeier, D. & M. Stei ner-Davis. (2007). Build ing capacity for local governance: An application of interactional theory to developing a community of interest. Rural Sociology 72(1), 90-110.

PAGE 130

130 Pelham, T. (2007). A historical perspectiv e for evaluating Floridas evolving growth management process. In T. Chapin, C. Connerly and H. Higgins (Eds.), Growth management in Florid a: Planning in paradise p. 7-21. Hampshire UK: Ashgrove Publishing, Ltd. Pendall, R. Puentes, R. & J. Martin. (2006). From traditional to reformed: A review of the land use regulations in the nation s 50 largest metropolitan areas Research brief, The Brookings Institute: Washington D.C. Available online at: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2 006/08metropolitanpolicy_pendall.aspx Pingree, B., Stevens, L. & M. Corbett. (2008). Board consider ation of Wakulla Springshed regional partnership: Memorandum of understanding. Retrieved January 15th, 2009 from: http://www.mywakulla.com/docs/age ndas/January62009/Tab21AgendaRequest.pdf Portugali, J. (1999) Self-organization and the City Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Puckett, L. (1994). Nonpoint and point sources of nitrogen in major watersheds of the United States. USGS W ater Resources In vestigations Report 94-4001. Quinby, P. (1988). The contribution of ecologica l science to the development of landscape ecology: A brief history. Landscape Research 13(3), 9-11. Randolph, J. (2004). Environmental land use planning and management Island Press: Washington, D.C. Risser, P. (1987). Landscape ecolo gy: State of the art. In Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance M.G. Turner (Ed.). p. 3-14. New York: Springer-Verlag. Roeder, E. (2006). Onsite systems, nitrogen and springs protection. Powerpoint presented on May 4th, Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs, Di vision of Environmental Health, Florida Department of Health. Retrieved on September 30th, 2008, from: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/chdjackson/Docume nts/Jackson_Blue_springs4forweb.pdf Rosenbaum W. (2008). Environmental politics and policy (7th ed.). Washington DC: CQ Press. Saint Johns River Water Management District. (SJRWMD). (2009). Springs of the St. Johns River Water Management District: Ora nge County, Wekiwa springs. Retrieved on November 10th, 2008, from: http://www.sjrwmd.com/springs/orange/wekiwa.htm l Sanchez, T. & Mandle, R. (2007). Growth and change Florida style: 1970 to 2000. In T.S. Chapin, C. E. Connerly and H. T. Higgins (Eds.), Growth management in Florida: Planning in paradise p. 85-100. Hampshire UK: Ashgrove Publishing, Ltd.

PAGE 131

131 Scott, T., Means, G., Meegan, R., Means, R., Up church, S., Copeland, R., Jones, J., Roberts, T., & Willet, A. (2004). Springs of Florida, Florida Geological Soci ety. Bulletin No. 66. Retrieved on June 20th, 2008, from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/geologictopics/springs/bulletin66.htm Scott, T., Means, G., Means, R., & Meegan, R. (2002). First magnitude springs of F lorida Florida Geological Society Bulle tin No. 85. Retrieved on June 20th, 2008, from: ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/g eo/web/listpubs/OFR-85.pdf Schm idt, S. & R. Buehler. (2007). The planning process in the US and Germany: A comparative analysis. International Planning Studies 12(1), 55-75. Selman, P. (1993). Landscape ecology and countrysi de planning: Vision, theory and practice. Journal of Rural Studies 9(1), 1-21. Semmens, D., & D. Goodrich. (2005). Planning cha nge: Case studies illust rating the benefits of GIS and land-use data in environmental planning. Internat ional Conference on Hydrological Perspectives for Sustainable Development, Roorkee, India. 23-25, February. Sigua, G. & Tweedale, W. (2003). Watershed scale assessment of n itrogen and phosphorus loadings in the Indian River Lagoon basin, Florida. Journal of Environmental Management 67, 363-372. Smith, M. (1999). In R. A. Beauregard and S. BodyGendrot (eds). The urban moment: Cosmopolitan essays on the late 20th century city Transnational urbanism, p. 119-140. London: Sage. Smuts, J. (1926). Holism and evolution London: MacMillan. Spirn, A. (1984). The granite garden New York: Basic Books. Steiner, F. (1991). The living landscape: An ecologica l approach to landscape planning New York: McGraw-Hill. Stevenson, R., Pinowsha, A., & Wang, Y. (2004). Ecological condition of algae and nutrients in Florida springs. Contract #WM858, Final report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Tallahassee, FL. Tesar, L. & Jones, C. (2004). Wakulla Springs lodge site (8WA329) in Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park, Wakulla County, Florid a: A summary of eleven projects and management recommendations: Tallahassee, State of Florida, Divi sion of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeol ogical Research Report, 184 p. Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The Hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 132

132 United States Census Bureau, (USCB). (2008). American fact finder: Population finder for Orange County, Florida. Retrieved on August 28th, 2008, from: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SA FFPopulation? _event=Search&_name=Orange&_s tate=04000US12&_county=Orange&_cityTown=Orange&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&p ctxt=fph United States Department of Agriculture, (U SDA). (1998). Soil quality indicators: Infiltration. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil quality information sheet. Retrieved on November 15th, 2008, from: http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/publica tions/files/Inf iltration.pdf United States Environm ental Protection Agency, (USEPA). (2008)a. Polluted Runoff: NonPoint Source Pollution Glossary. Retrieved on November 15th, 2008, from: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Ecology/chap8.html _______. (2008)b. W ater quality criteria fir nitr ogen and phosphorus pollution. Retrieved on November 15th, 2008, from: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/index.htm _______. (2008)c. Handbook for developing watershed pl ans to restore and protect our waters. Retrieved on January 10th, 2009, from: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook. _______. (2009). Summary of the Clean W ater Act. Retrieved on March 10th, 2009 from: http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/cwa.html United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2008). About the USGS: Mission and vision. Retrieved on January 10th, 2009, from: http://www.usgs.gov/aboutusgs/ University o f Florida, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences (UF IFAS). (2008). Diagram and picture of Hydrilla (Hydrilla vertcillata) Retrieved on March 17th, 2009 from: http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.e du/im ages/hydver/hydver.jpg Vitousek, P., Aber, J., Howarth, R., Likens, G., Matson, P., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W, & Tilman, G. (1997). Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Causes and consequences. Ecological Applications 7, 737-750. Vivaldi, F. (1989). An experiment with mathematics. New Scientist 124 (1688), 46-49. Wakulla County. (2008). Future Land Use El ement. Wakulla County Planning Division. Walker, P. & Moore, D. (1988). SIMPLE. An i nductive modeling and mapping tool for spatiallyoriented data. International Journal of Ge ographical Information Systems 2, 347-363. Wang, X. (2001). Integrating water-quality management and land-use planning in a watershed context. Journal of Environmental Management 61: 25-36.

PAGE 133

133 Warren, R. (1963). The community in America Chicago: Rand McNally. Weber, K. & Perry, R. (2004). Gr oundwater abstraction impacts on spring flow and base flow in the Hillsborough River Basin, Florida, USA. Hydrology Journal 14, 1252-1264. Webler, T., Tuler, S. & R. Krueger. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435-450. Wilkinson, K. (1991). The community in rural America Middleton, Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press Willard, C. (1996). Liberalism and the problem of knowledge: A New rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Worrall, L. (1989). Design issues for planning -orientated spatial information systems. Mapping Awareness, 3, 17-20. Zonneveld, I. & Forman, R. (1990). Changing landscapes: An ecological perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag. Zuidema, C. & G. De Roo. (2004). Integrating comp lexity theory into pl anning: Truth or dare? AESOP Conference, Grenoble, 1-4 July.

PAGE 134

134 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sherith E. C olverson was born in Fort Be nning, Georgia. She attended elementary schooling in a number of states including New York, Pennsylvania and eventually finishing grade school in Athens, Tennessee. She attended and graduated high school with honors from Powell High School in Powell, Tennessee. Upon graduation in 1997, she began an undergraduate degree at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville (UTK). In 2000, she transferred from UTK to Florida Gulf Coast Univ ersity (FGCU) in Fort Myers, Florida. She graduated from FGCU in 2003 with her Bachel or of Arts in Envi ronmental Studies. Since her undergraduate degr ee, Mrs. Colverson has worked for both state and local government in Florida before returning to academ ia in 2006 to pursue a graduate degree focusing on public participation in environmental planning.