Citation
Assessing agricultural production and water resources conservation in the Florida Springs Region

Material Information

Title:
Assessing agricultural production and water resources conservation in the Florida Springs Region
Creator:
Mostacedo Marasovic, Silvia Jessica ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 online resource (75 pages) : illustrations ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Sustainable Development Practice field practicum report, M.D.P
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
The Floridan Aquifer System (FAS) provides water to more than 1,000 artesian springs in Florida, forming the largest concentration of freshwater and first magnitude springs in the world (FDEP, 2018a; FSI, 2018; Rosenau et al., 1977; Scott et al., 2004). These springs and their contributing groundwater basins define the 42,000 square miles Florida Springs Region (FSR) in the north and central area of the peninsula and the panhandle in Florida (FSI, 2018). The FSR provides a broad spectrum of environmental services. The FAS is the source of 90% of drinking water in the state; its springs offer critical habitats for plants and animals, provide recreational opportunities valuable for local citizens and the tourism sector and support agricultural production (Borisova et al., 2017; Donaldson, 2018; FDEP, 2019b; Knight, 2015). Given these broad economic and ecological benefits, two critical issues facing the FAS are declining spring flows, and excessive nutrient loads. Water levels declines occur as a result of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation practices, and higher nutrient concentrations may result from multiple practices including fertilizer use, leaking septic systems, and inadequate stormwater management (Borisova et al., 2017; FDEP, 2019b; FSI, 2018; Knight, 2015). This report looks at the relationships between agricultural production, groundwater withdrawals and simulated nitrogen application in the FSR to support current efforts to develop and adopt advanced Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to achieving success of the thirteen Outstanding Florida Springs (OFS) Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs). The main theme of the report is the importance of water resources conservation for maintaining the spring's ecosystem services, and the acknowledgement of the importance of agriculture production in the region. The study corresponds to an intermediate assessment using secondary data from official sources.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Major departments: Latin American Studies, African Studies.
General Note:
Major: Sustainable Development Practice.
General Note:
Advisor: Morgan, Stephen.
General Note:
Committee member: Porzecanski, Ignacio.
General Note:
Committee member: Knight, Robert.
General Note:
Committee member: Meeks, Angeline.
General Note:
The MDP Program is administered jointly by the Center for Latin American Studies and the Center for African Studies.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Silvia Jessica Mostacedo Marasovic.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
037835491 ( ALEPH )
Classification:
LD1780.1 2020 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

i ASSESSING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION IN THE FLORIDA SPRINGS REGION Silvia Jessica Mostacedo Marasovic A Research Report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Sustainable Development Pract ice Degree at the University of Florida, in Gainesville, FL USA April 2020 Supervisory Committee: Stephen Morgan PhD , Chair Ignacio Porzecanski PhD , Member Robert Knight PhD, Member Angeline Meeks MSc, Member

PAGE 2

i Dedication and Acknowledgements As yo u move in the intricacies o f your confinement, your audience awaits , and as the curtain timidly uncovers the outside world through a seep, we marvel , a s it is the cyan that our eyes enjoy, and the life that nests Silvia Jessica Mo stacedo Marasovic This project is dedicated to my parents who have always been in the frontline loving , supporting , and giving me advice in every stage and adventure I have undergone . I also want to dedicate this project to my siblings who have always bee n present accompanying and taking care of me. Finally, this is dedicated to my nieces and nephews. As they grow up, I hope they are able to transform their dreams in projects, and realities. I would like to thank to my advisory committee: t o Dr. Stephen M organ and Dr. Ignacio Porzecanski from the University of Florida for their encouragement , dedication and advice ; and to Dr. Robert Knight and Angeline Meeks from the Florida Springs Institute for opening to the opportunity to develop this project , and for sharing t he i r knowledge and dedication. I also want to thank Dr. Glenn Galloway and Dr. Andrew Noss for their trust, commitment, and support during the program; and to Dr. Renata Serra, Dr. Sara McKune, John Dain, and Dr. Saqib Mukhtar for their support to the project .

PAGE 3

ii I am thankful with the Florida Springs Institute team , especially to Heather Obara, Hillary Skowronski, Zoey Hendrickson, Haley Moody, Tessa Skiles, Nicole Pollio, Melissa Mouri z, and Julie Bahret for their companionship and sup port during the project . I would also like to thank to Jane Keeler , Lauren Samuels, Cecil ia and Phil Noss , Paula Bak, Katie McNamara, Stephanie Muench, So f ie Muench, Oswaldo Medina, Manuel Morales and his family, and Marliz Arteaga and her family for havi ng been like a family to me in Gainesville. I w ould like to thank to m y cohort , and my friends from other MDP cohorts and programs for the wonderful experience . I thank to my friends who have accompanied , supported, and encouraged me through all this pro cess, even before the program started : Gela Jove, Miguel Zalles, Fernando Neri, Marcial Iturri, Ricardo Jordán, Luis Sánchez, Paulina Arrau, Jorge Cadenasso Castro , Jorge Cadenasso Arrau , Marina Cassas, Beatriz Morales, Cristina Muñoz, Miryam Saade, María Paz Rivera, Carla López, Silvana Sánchez, Jeanette Lardé , Juliet Braslow, Carlos Villafuerte, Domingo Cordones, Erika Tenorio, and José Javier Gómez . This project was possible with the funding from the U niversity of F lorida M aster of Sustainable Practice Program Student Travel Funding, and the T ropical C onservation and D evelopment Program Practitioner Grant.

PAGE 4

iii Table of Contents Dedication and Acknowledgements ................................ ................................ ................................ i Table of Contents ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... iii List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. v List of Figures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . v List of Appendix ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ vi List of Abbreviations ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... vii Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1 1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 2 2. Literature review ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 7 2.1. Groundwater and Aquifers ................................ ................................ ............................... 7 2.2. ................................ ................................ ...................... 9 2.3. Floridan Aquifer System ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9 2.4. Florida Springs Region ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 2.5. E cosystem services ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 12 2.6. Ecosystem services and groundwater ................................ ................................ ............. 13 2.8. Nitrogen pollution and the springs in the FSR ................................ ............................... 15 2.9. Theory of Collective Action: Water as common pool resources ................................ ... 16 2.10. Water resources and springs related environmental legislation ................................ ..... 17 2.10.1. Clean Water Act ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 17 2.10.2. Florida Water Resources Act ................................ ................................ .................. 18 2.10.3. Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act ................................ ........................... 19 2.10.4. Florida Statutes ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 20

PAGE 5

iv 3. Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 4. Conceptual framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22 5. Methodo logy and analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ . 24 5.1. Variable opera bility and analytical categories ................................ ............................... 24 5.2. Instruments ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 24 5.3. Data analys is ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 26 6. Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 29 6.1. Agriculture economic importance ................................ ................................ .................. 29 6.2. Water withdrawal for crop production ................................ ................................ ........... 30 6.3. Nitrogen application ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35 6.4. Crop exports ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 40 6.5. Crop imports ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 41 6.6. Balance of trade ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 42 7. Utilization and discussion of results ................................ ................................ .................. 43 8. Cross scale, cross dis cipline and policy considerations ................................ .................... 45 8.1. Top down management perspectives ................................ ................................ ................. 45 8.2. Bottom up management perspectiv es ................................ ................................ ................ 47 9. Conclusions and recommendations ................................ ................................ .................... 49 10. Bibliography ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 51

PAGE 6

v List of Tables Table 1. Classification of springs according to their average flow ................................ ................. 9 ........................ 15 Table 3. Methodologica l design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 24 Table 4. Databases ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 25 Table 6. Crop Production Sales in Flori da in 2017 (USD) ................................ ........................... 29 Table 7. Water Withdrawal in Florida in 2016 (estimates in MGD) ................................ ............ 31 Table 8. Nitrogen Application in Flo rida in 2 016 (estimates in Lbs) ................................ ........... 36 List of Figures Figure 1. The groundwater system and terminology ................................ ................................ ...... 8 Figure 2. Ma p of the Floridan Aquifer System ................................ ................................ ............. 10 Figure 3. Florida Springs Region, Restoration Areas, and Water Management Districts ............ 12 Figure 4. NSILT Components ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16 Figure 5. Agricultural production and the Florida Springs Region: Conceptual framework ....... 22 Figure 6. Crop sales in the Florida Springs Region in 2017 (USD) ................................ ............. 30 Figure 7. Total groundwater withdrawal for crop production in the FSR in 2016 (MGD) .......... 32 Figure 8. Total N App for crop production in the FSR in 2016 (Lbs) ................................ .......... 37 Figure 9. Crop exports from Florida in 2018 (USD) ................................ ................................ .... 40 Figure 10. Crop imports to Florida in 2018 (USD) ................................ ................................ ...... 41 Figure 11. Florida TMDLs and BMAPs ................................ ................................ ....................... 43

PAGE 7

vi List of Appendix Ap pendix 1. Surface and groundwater extraction for crop production in Florida (MGD and percentages) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 59 Appendix 2. Nitrogen application recommendations (in pounds per acre) ................................ .. 61 Appendix 3. Top 20 counties in the Florida Springs Region with the most crop sales in 2017 ... 63 Appendix 4. Top 20 counties in the Florida Springs Region with the most groundwater withdrawal for crop production in 2016 ................................ ................................ ....................... 64 Appendix 5. Top 20 counties with the most nitrogen application for crop production in the Florida Springs Region in 2016 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 65

PAGE 8

vii List of Abbreviations (D) Data withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations in the original database BMAP Basin Management Action Plan BMP Best Management Practices BoT Balance of Trade CFS C ubic F eet per S econd COA Census of Agriculture CWA Clean Water Act EUWFD European Union Water Framework Directive EWP European Water Policy FAS Floridan Aquifer System FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FDEP Florida Departme nt of Environmental Protection FSAID Florida Statewide Agricultural Irrigation Demand FSI Florida Springs Institute FSR Florida Springs Region FSRA Florida Springs Restoratio n Areas FSFA Florida Springs Focus Areas FWMD Florida Water Managem ent District FWRA Florida Water Resources Act GPM Gallons Per Minute GWW Groundwater Withdrawal IAS Interm ediate Aquifer System

PAGE 9

viii IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management MCL Maximum Contaminant Levels MGD Million Gallons per Day NAICS Nort h American Industry Classification System NASS N ational Agricultural Statistics Service N App Nitrogen application NO 3 N Nitrate Nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge E limination System NPS Nonpoint sources of pollution NS ILT Nitrogen So urce Inventory and Loading Tool NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management District OFS Outstanding Florida Springs Pint/Min Pints Per Minute PS Point Sources of pollution SAS Surficial Aquifer System SDG Sustainable Development Goal SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SJRWMD Saint Jones River Water Management Rive r SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District SSA Sole Source Aquifer SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District TMDL Tot al Maximum Daily Load s

PAGE 10

ix UF IFAS University of Florida Institute of Food and Agriculture Services USCB U nited S tates Census Bureau USDA U nited S tates Department of Agriculture USGS U nited S tates Geological Survey

PAGE 11

1 Abstract The Floridan Aquifer Sy stem (FAS) p rovides water to more than 1,000 artesian springs in Florida , forming the largest concentration of freshwater and first magnitude springs in the world (FDEP, 2018a; FSI, 2018; Rosenau et al., 1977; Scott et al., 2004) . T hese springs and their contributing groundwater basins define th e 42,000 square miles Florid a Springs Region (FSR) in the north and central area of the peninsula and the panhandle in Florida (FSI, 2018) . The FSR provide s a broad spectrum of environmental services. The FAS is the source of 90% of drinking water in the state ; it s springs o ffer critical habitats for plants and animals , provide recreational opportu nities valuable for local citizens and the tourism sector and support agricultural production (Borisova et al., 2017; Donaldson, 2018; FDEP, 2019b; Knight, 2015) . Given these broad economic and ecological benefits, two critical issues facing the FAS are declining spring flows , and excessive nutrient loads . Water levels declines occur as a result of agricultural and urba n landscape irrigation practices, and higher nutrient concentrations may result from multiple practices including fertiliz er use , leaking septic systems , and inadequate stormwater management (Borisova et al., 2017; FDEP, 2019b; FSI, 2018; Knight, 2015) . This r eport l ooks at the relationships between agricultural production , groundwater withdrawals and simulated nitrog en application in the FSR to support current efforts to develop and adopt advanced Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to achieving success of the thirteen Outstanding Florida Springs (OFS) Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) . The main theme of the report is the importance of water resources conservation for maintaining the sprin and the acknowledgement of the importance of agriculture production in the region . The study corresponds to an intermediate assessment using secondary data from official sources .

PAGE 12

2 1. Introduction The Floridan Aquifer System (FAS) covers approximately 100,000 square miles in Florida, and reaches into other states of the Southeastern United States including: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina (USGS, n.d. b) . It is the source of 90% of drinking water in Florida (Borisova et al., 2017; Donaldson, 2018; FDEP, 2019b) . The FAS provides water to more than 1,000 artesian springs in the state , form ing the largest concentration of freshwater and first magnitude springs in the w orld (FDEP, 2018a; FSI, 2018; Rosenau et al., 1977; Scott et al., 2004) . The Florida springs are concen trated in an area that comprises 42,000 square miles, and incl udes 56 counties, forming the Florida Springs Region (FSR) (FSI, 20 18) . T hirty three first magnitude springs those having an average flow of 100 cubic feet per second or more are present in the state (Borisova et al., 2017; Rosenau et al., 1977; Scott et al., 2004) . In 2018, approximately 12 .6 million people ( 6 1% of the total population in Florida in that year ) lived in these counties (USCB, 2018) . The FSR provide s a broad spectrum of e cosystem services that directly and indirectly contribute to human wellbeing in a direct or an indirect way (Robert Costanza et al., 2017) . Among the provisioning service s , the FAS provi des water for agricultur al production. Florida is known as a specialty crop state. In 2017, crop production sales in Florida were estimated at 5,704 million USD; out (USDA & NASS, 2017). Furthermore, i n 2016, the FSR provide d 852 M illion G allons per D ay (MGD) of groundwater for crop production (Dieter et al., 2018; FDACS, 2018) . I n 2017, crop production sales in Florida were estimated at 5 . 7 b illion USD ; out of which 3 .1 b illion USD , or 55.5%, (USDA & NASS, 2017) . Among the regulation services, or those that provide benefit s from the regulation of ecosystem processes

PAGE 13

3 (Bates, et al., 2010) , the springs are involved in water purifi cation . The analysis of springs water quality reflects the extent and nature of ground water pollution, providing i ndications of the health of the groundwater resources (Donaldson, 2018) . As part of the cultural services, the springs pr ovide recreational opportunities valuable for (Borisova et al., 2017; FDEP, 2019b) . Different studies use different ecosystem valuation methods to analyze the economic importance of the springs related tourism activi ty. T h e annual consumer spending and employment generation in Silver Springs, Ichetucknee Springs, and Wakulla Springs were estimated at 73. 89 million USD and 1 , 060 jobs ; 28.65 million USD and 311 jobs ; and 28.02 million USD and 347 jobs, respectively ( Bonn 2004 ; Bonn and Bell 2003 in (Wynn et al., 2018) ). In addition, the total recreational value of Fanning Springs, Ichetucknee Springs, Blue Springs in Madison County, and Blue Springs in Gilchrist county was estimated at a bout 25 mill ion USD (Wu et al., 2018) . Finally, in relation to the supporting services, the FSR offers c r itical habitats for unique plants and animals (Borisova et al., 2017; FDEP, 2019b) . This is the case of the Florida manatee ( Trichechus manatus latirostris) , a t ropical endemic species that follow s a seasonal migration pattern to warm water sources such as the artesian springs during the winter to avoid the cold stress syndrome ( A. C. Allen et al., 2014) . From an environmental standpoint, the FSR is confronted with t he reduction of clear flowing groundwater availabilit y and decreasing spring flows (Borisova et al., 2017; FDEP, 2019b; FSI, 2018; Wu et al., 2018) . Long term groundwater declines are primarily the result of the increase of groundwater extractio n s for urban development an d agriculture production (Borisova et al., 2017; FDEP, 2019a; FSI , 2018; Wu et al., 2018) and less on long term rainfall trends (FSI, 2018; Knight, 2015) . Based on data from the USGS Water Data for the Nation database, in 2015 the groundwater withdrawal estimates for the FSR was 2,2 40 MGD used for

PAGE 14

4 public supply (47%), crop irrigation ( 32%), domestic use (7%), industrial use (7%), mining ( 2%), golf court irrigation (2%), ther moelectric power (1%), livestock (1%), and aquaculture (1%). It is important to indicate that between 2000 and 2015, t he water use proportion of public supply varied from 37% to 47% and the crop irrigation proportion varied from 44% to 32% (USGS, 2018) . Y ear to year variations in spring flows , are typically the result of normal rainfall variation in the FSR with annual averages ranging from about 40 to 64 inches and a long term annual average of about 53 in ches between 2000 and 2019 (NOAA, 2020) . With the reduction of groundwater levels , the discharges from groundwater in to streams decline, reverse, or stop completely , pos ing negative impacts fo r the aquatic ecosystems (de Graaf et al., 2019) . This has been the case of Kissengen Spring in Polk County. This spring used to discharge up to 20 MGD into the Peace River. It pro vided water that enabled Native Americans to inhabit the area; later in the 1800s it became a resort destination and sanatorium; and during World War II it served as a resting place for military members near the base in Bartow (Polk County Historical Commission & Southeastern Geological Society , 2011) . Nevertheless, in the 1950s, the spring dried as a result of groundwater capture (Polk County Historical Commission & Southeastern Geological Society, 2011) . In relation to a recent event, in 2019, Nestlé Waters North America has requested an amen d ment of its wate r use permit to pump 1.1 MGD from the Ginn ie Springs area for water bottling . Nestlé est for an amendment has raised concerns among different stakeholders including water advocates, local environmental groups, local citizens, student s, and local representatives (G. Allen, 2 020; Kalman, 2019; Luscombe, 2019) . These concerns included curre nt issues with groundwater levels, the need to reduce groundwater pumping and to recover the aquifer , and the use of single use plastic bottles (G. Allen, 2020) .

PAGE 15

5 The FSR also faces issues r esulting from excessi ve nutrient concentrations, p articularly nitrate nitrogen (NO 3 N) , which can lead to algal growth that affect s native s prings aquatic vegetation ; reduction of aquatic oxygen levels ; habitat degradation (Borisova et al., 2017; Eller & Katz, 2017; FDEP, 2019b; FSI, 2018) ; and the increase of human health exposure to pollutants (Eller & Katz, 2017) . Different sources contri bute to the concentration of nitrogen in the springs including atmospheric deposition, leaking septic systems, inadequate stormwater management, wa ste water treatment facilities, overapplication of urban and sports turfgrass fertilizers, farm fertilizers, and livestock waste (Borisova et al., 2017; FDEP, 2018b, 2018a) . Dif ferent biochemical processes and hydrogeological factors result in an environmental attenuation of nitrogen , followed by n itrogen in the form of nitrate loading into the aquifer (E ller & Katz, 2017; FDEP, 2018b) . The Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection (FDEP) has developed the Nitrogen Source Inventory and Loading Tool (NSILT) whic h estimates the relative contributions of nitrogen load ing into groundwater and different springs coming from different sources . In this sense, the contributions of fa rm fertilizers related nitrogen load in different springs were estimated at a pproximately 2% in Volusia Blue Springs, 6% in Magnolia Aripeka S prings, 11% in Silver Spri ngs, 12% for Wakulla Springs, 12% in Kings Bay Springs, 17% in Weeki Wachee Spring, 18% in Rainbow Springs, 19% in Homosassa Springs, 24% in Chassahowitzka Springs, and 80% for Jackson Blue and Merrits Mill Pond (FDEP, 2018b) . Similarly, a nother study identified 11% of the contributions from crop fertilizers in Kings Bay Springs, and 13% in Rainbow Springs ( Eller & Katz, 2017) . This enables an initial appreciation of the varied contributions to nitrogen loading that result from crop fertilizers . Wi thin this context, w ater resources conservation becomes essential for the maintenance of services . At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the

PAGE 16

6 importance of agriculture production for the economy o f Florida . T his r eport seeks to further the understanding of the relationship between agriculture production and water reso urces quality an d quantity in the FSR , as a means to inform management and policy efforts for water resources conservation. The document is organized as follows. The introduction provides an overall understanding of the context . The literature review provides biophysical principles of groundwater , aquifers , and springs , and their corresponding ecosystem services . T hen it explores generalities of the F AS and the F SR . Finally, it presents institutional arrangements and the policy framework governing the management of water r esources , groundwater, and the springs in Florida, with a focus on agriculture production . The objectives specific objectives. The conceptual framework aims to situate the logic of the analysis and its contextual relevance . The methodology and analysis section provides a thorough explanation of the rationale behind the interm ediate assessment of different official databases and the development of map s , as well as the main assumptions and information gaps that were present i n the study . The results are organized based on each specific objective . Th is is followed by th e utilizat ion and discussion of the results section which aims to expand about the usefulness of the results. The c ross scale, cross discipline and policy consid erations expands on the interdisciplinarity and multilevel approach of the report. The c onclusions and recommendations provide suggestions for current and future water management approaches.

PAGE 17

7 2. Literature r eview 2.1. Groundwater and Aquifers The main source of r eplenishing groundwater is precipitation. It percolates and enters the porous surface (American Water Works Association, 2014) . As a result of an initial infiltration process, in which the soil absorbs moisture, water occup ies the void spaces of interconnected pores of geologic material below the land surface (American Water Works Association, 2014; USGS, n.d. a) . Initially, water enters the unsaturated zone , that has presence of water and air. This zone is divided in two , the soil zone in which plant growth occurs, and the intermediate zone . It is followed by th e capillary fringe in which water molecules remain suspended against gravity. These three zones form the vadose zone. Different factors influence permeability , including: parent material, soil chemistry, climate, organisms living on and in the soil, topography, and time (American Water Works Association, 2014; USGS, n.d. a) . After water permeates the unsaturated zone, it reaches the saturated zone or aquifer. In this sense, aquifers are bodies of permeable rock that are a ble to hold or transmit water to wells and springs (American Water Works Association, 2014; USGS, n.d. a) . This zone is located under the water table , or the water level in which atmospheric pressure and hydraulic pressure are t he same. Under it, the hydraulic pressure increases wit h depth (American Water Work s Association, 2014; USGS, n.d. a) . Aquifers occur under two conditions: unconfined and confined. U nconfined aquifers are those and are unprotected. Their upper boundary is the water table ; they are influenced by the atmospheric p ressure ; they are easily recharged by precipitation ; and the wells that extract water from them are called water table wells (American Water Works Associa tion, 2014; USGS, n.d. e) . On the other hand, w hen the porous rock layers in the saturated zone become tilted, they can create layers of relatively

PAGE 18

8 impermeable materials above and below the porous layer, or confined bed s , forming a confined aquifer (American Water Works Association, 201 4; USGS, n.d. e) . When a well is drilled in an artesian aquifer, the internal pre ssure, or artesian pressure, enables water to move upwards without the help of a pump. The wells that extract water from these are called artesian wells (American Water Works Association, 2014; USGS, n.d. e) . The potentiometric surface is an imaginary surface to which water would rise in wells of a particular aquifer . In an unconfined aquifer this level is the water tabl e, in a confined aqui fer , it is the piezometric surface, or the static level of water in wells (Robins, 2020 ) . Groundwater pumping can influence water levels below ground whenever withdrawals exceed replenishment rates. This can form a cone of depression , and can even lead to a drying u p of the well and neighboring wells (American Water Works Association, 2014; USGS, n.d. a) ( Figure 1 ) . Figure 1 . The groundwater system and terminology Source : (Randolph, 2011) .

PAGE 19

9 2.2. Springs and s Springs are water resources that form when a body of flowing underground water at or below the water table finds an opening to the surface or another water body (St. Johns River Water Management District , 2020; USGS, n.d. d) . A springshed , or spring recharge basin, is an area within the groundwater basin that contributes to the discharge of a spring (St. Johns River Water Management District, 2020) . Springs are classified depending on the average discharge of wa ter. The classification in Table 1 is adapted from Meinzer (1927) (Scott et al., 2004) . Table 1 . Classification of springs according to their average flow Magnitude Average flow (discharge) Magnitude Average flow (dischar ge) 1 2 3 4 100 cfs or more (64.6 mgd or more) 10 to 100 cfs (6.46 to 64.6 mgd) 1 to 10 cfs (0.646 to 6.46 mgd) 100 gpm to 1 cfs (448 gpm) 5 6 7 8 10 to 100 gpm 1 to 10 gpm 1 pint to 1 gpm Less than 1 pint/min Notes: cfs = cubic feet per second; mgd = mi llion gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute; pint/min = pints per minute Source: (Scott et al., 2004) . 2.3. Floridan Aquifer System Florida is composed by three major aquifer systems: the Floridan Aquifer System (FAS), the Intermediate Aquifer System (IAS), and the Surficial Aquifer Sy stem (SAS) (Southeastern Geological Society, 1986; Scott, 1992a in (Scott et al., 2004) ) . The FAS aquifer (Sco tt et al., 2004) . It covers approximately 100,000 square miles in Florida, and reaches into other states of the Southeastern United States including: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and

PAGE 20

10 South Carolina ( Figure 2 ) (USGS, n.d. b) . Geologically, the FSR is characterized by permeable c arbona te sediments (limestone and dolomite) in the subsoil (Scott et al., 2004; USGS, n.d. b) . It thickens from 250 feet in Georgia to 3,000 feet in S outh Florida (USGS, n.d. b) . It is overlain by either a confining unit and the IA S (Scott et al., 2004) . Figure 2 . Map of the Floridan Aquifer System Source: (Williams & Kuniansky, 2015) .

PAGE 21

11 2.4. Florida Springs Region The geology of the FAS is composed by an abundance of porous rocks and cracks that enable groundwater to move easily. As a result, Florid a concentrates a large amount of springs of different magnitudes (USGS, n.d. d) . There are two types of sprin gs in the FAS : seeps and karst springs. Seeps occur when infiltrating wat er find layers of less permeability and needs to move laterally. Karst springs occur when groundwater discharges to the surface through karst openings (Scott et al., 2004; St. Johns River Water Management D istrict, 2020) . Most Florida springs are classified as karst (Scott et al., 2004) . At least 33 first magnitude, 191 second magnitude, and 151 third magnitude springs can be found in Florida mostly in the northern and central areas of the peninsula, and the central panhandle (Scott et al., 2004) . The FSR comprises 42,000 square miles and includes 56 counties lorida State (FSI, 2018) . The Florida Water Management Districts (FWMD) are responsible for the regional administration of water resources in the state. These are the North west Florida Water Management District (NWFWD), the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) , the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) , the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWWMD) , and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD ) (FDEP, 2019c) . Among them, the NWFWMD, SRWMD, SJRWMD, and SWWMD coincide with large concentrations of first, secon d, and third or greater magnitude springs. In addition, the Howard T. Odum Florida Springs Institute (FSI) divided the FSR in four Restoration Areas based on the inclusion of one or more major springs and t heir springsheds. These areas include the Panhandl e Restoration Area, the Suwannee Restoration Area, the Gulf Coast Restoration Area, and the St. Johns Restoration Area (FSI, 2018) ( Figure 3 ).

PAGE 22

12 Figure 3 . Florida Springs Region, Restoration Areas, and Water Management Districts Source: FDEP and FSI 2.5. E cosy stem services Ecosystem services refer to the benefits ecosystems provide to people (R. Costanza et al., 1997; Robert Costanza et al., 2017; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a) . Based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) , and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Project (T E EB), the four categories of ecosystem services include: Provisioning services combine with built, human, and social capital to produce food, fiber, timber or other provisioning benefits for hum an use (Costanza et al., 2017 : p5 ) . Within pristine ecosystems, provisioning services are absent .

PAGE 23

13 Cultural services combine with built, human, and social capital to produce recreation, scientific, sense of place, aesthetic, cultural identity, or other cultural benefits (Costanza et al., 2017 : p5 ) . Supporting services or habitat services describe the basic ecosystem processes which include primary productivity, nutrient cycling, habitat provision, soil formation, and biogeochemistry. These contribute indirectly to human wellbeing (Costanza et al., 2017: p 6) . Regulating services combine with the othe r three to produce flood control, water regulation, water purification, storm protection, air quality maintenance, human disease regulation, pollination, pest control, and climate control (Costanza et al., 2017 : p5) . Over time, a s societies become more urbanized and population grows, the land use intensity increases, and each of these ecosystem services become lower (Robert Costanza et al., 2017; de Groot et al., 2010) . 2.6. E cosystem services and groundwater Groundwater is one the most valuable environmental resources. Globally, approximately 3 0 . 1 % of freshwater is terrestrial groundwater ( Shiklomanov , I., 1993 in (USGS, n.d. c) ) . In addition, groundwater contributes to 94% of available (liquid) freshwater (Griebler & Avramov, 2015) . Groundwater provides a series of ecosystem services. T he provisioning services include water for drinking, irrigation, industrial services , mining, agriculture p roduction , energy production, and genetic resources . Groundwater is a major source of drinking water in the world (Griebler & Avramov, 2015) . It provides drinking water for almost 50% of the global population (OECD, 2017) . Globally, 30% of water for irrigation, and 40% of water used in indus try comes from

PAGE 24

14 groundwater (Gr iebler & Avramov, 2015; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005b) . In 2015, freshwater extraction was 5,690 MGD , and 3,580 MGD ( 63% ) corresponded to groundwater withdrawal . The uses correspond ed to public supply (more than 53.5%) ; irrigation (32.1 2 %); industrial ( 5.06%); domestic ( 4.94%); mining (2.49%); thermoelectric power (0.78%); livestock (0.72%); and aquaculture (less than 0.36%) (D ieter et al., 2018) . In relation to cultural services , g roundwater enables tourism , recreation activities , spiritual practices, and aesthetics (Griebler & Avramov, 2015) . Artifacts from early inhabitants can be found in Florida springs (Scott et al., 2004) . In addition, activities such as s wimming, snorkeling, diving , canoeing , animal watching are common in the FSR. Among the supporting services , groundwater releases water that is necessary for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and their biodiversity . In addition, it provides habitats and refuge for different species; and it supports food webs, an d enables nutrient cycling (Griebler & Avramov, 2015) . Different biochemical processes help attenuate impede or remove nitrogen movement from the land surface into the FAS . These processes , which are part of the nitrogen cycle, include nitrogen fixation, mine ralization, nitrification, denitrification, vola tilization, and cation exchange (Eller & Katz, 2017) . In addition, hydrogeological factors also support this role. These factors include the rate of recharge, soil composition, soil drainage, and hydrogeologic characteristics (Eller & Katz, 2017) . Finally, in terms of the regulating services , groundwater systems enable the purification of water, water storage with good quality for long periods of time (dec ades and even centuries), in situ biodegradation, the elimination of pathogenic microorganisms, drought and flood attenuation , erosion control, regulation of the water cycle , and maintenance of hydraulic conductivity (Griebler & Avramov, 2015) .

PAGE 25

15 2.7. P oint and nonpoint sources of water pollution Point source s (PS) of pollution are single and identifiable sources of pollution such as pipes or drains. Nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution have broad impacts but cannot be attributed to a single source (EPA Victoria, 2018) . NPS pollution is often associated with broad categories of land use (e.g. agriculture, urban lawns) which are associated with run off and can lead to soil erosion an d reduction in water quality ( Table 2 ) (EPA Victoria, 2018) . Table 2 . int sources, consequences and controls Practice Result Consequence Control S oil disturbance Erosion & sedimentation Smother bottom feeding or benthic organisms Transports other pollutants Conservation tillage Contour cropping Filter strips Detention ponds Wind breaks Excessive fertilizer use Nutrient pollution Algal g rowth Eutrophication Input management Excessive pesticide use Toxic pollution Accumulation in food chain Input management Integrated pest control Excessive irrigation Increased runoff Increased transport of pollutants Drip irrigation Source: (Randolph, 2011) (extract). 2.8. Nitrogen pollution and the sp rings in the FSR Nitrate nitrogen (NO 3 N) pollution in water resources is one kind of non point pollutant that causes accelerated eutrophication, or the enrichment of the waters (OSU, 2012) , and have caused the degradation of aquifers and their springs (Nolan and Stone, 2000; Kingsbury, 2008; Obeidat et al., 2008; Siliang et al., 2010). There are different point and nonpoint sources of nitrogen pollution associated with the springs in Flo rida . The NISLT to identify and quantify the major

PAGE 26

16 contributing nitrogen sources to groundwater in areas of interest (FDEP, 2018b) . Among the sources of nitrog en, it includes atmospheric deposition, wastewater treatment facilities effluents , failing septic systems , urban fertilizers, crop fertilizers, and livestock operations . In addition, there are different biochemical processes and hydrogeological factors tha t take place in the unsaturated zone that help attenuate the nitrogen load into the saturated zone (Eller & Katz, 2017) . For the purposes of this project, the focus is on the application of nitrogen at the land surface level ( Figure 4 ) . Figure 4 . NSILT Components S ource: (Eller & Katz, 2017) . 2.9. Theory of Collective Action : Water as common pool resources From an economic sense, water resources are characterized as common pool resources. As such, they are non excludable in provision anyone can access them but rivalrous in consumption once someone ha s access to them, they are not available for other uses (Letson, 2002 in (Wynn et al., 2018) heory depicts

PAGE 27

17 loss, has a negative implic ation in the way commons are managed (Hardin, 1968) . In other words, t here is a divergence between private interests wh ich tend to overutilize the resources and collective interests wh ich would be interested in c onserving water for other uses, including non consumptive ones (Maldonado, 2017) . institutions are essential for the management of common resources (Ostrom, 2000) . C ommunication, collaboration, creation of organization and water use associations , and the imple mentation of internal rules that help assign water resources efficiently , can favor more optimum outcomes from a social standpoint (Maldonado, 2017) . S everal principles for social norms for the management of the commons have been de veloped. These include: i) the presence of clear boundary rules and definition of who has the right to use the resource ; ii) local rules in use allow to effectively assign costs proportionate to benefits ; iii) the users of the resource design their ow n rules ; iv) the rules are enforced by local people who are accountable to the rest ; and v) a set of graduated sanctions (Ostrom, 2000 , p13:15 ) . 2.10. W ater resources and springs related environmental l egislation Drawing on the implications of the above mentioned theories, the Floridan Aquifer water resources coul d become a Tragedy of the Commons if their management and use is left to making. Several Federal and State regulations aim to set standards to protect water quality and quantity for s urface and groundwater resources in the United Stat es. 2.10.1. Clean Water Act The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) was created in 1972 , and amended in 1977 and 1987. It provides the policy and regulatory framework for the management of water quality in the US. It se ts forth a national goal of achieving a level of qu ality in all waters to support recreation and

PAGE 28

18 fish consumption : this standard is referred to as fishable and swimmable (Randolph, 2011) . In addition, it also aims to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into water bodies . For this, it has created the National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES), through which permits are granted as a means to c ontrol discharges (EPA, 2019) . To define this threshold, the CWA and its administering agency the US EPA calle d on the states to establish water quality standards for their water bodies, monitor compliance, and manage pollutant discharges to meet these standards (Randolph, 2011) . Given the importance and the diff use nature of runoff pollution, t 208 and the 1987 includes a planning, funding, and largely volun tary implementation program for primarily agricultural nonpoint sources (Randolph, 2011) . The To tal Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) a science based pollution reduction goal (Donaldson, 2019a) refers to a process to determine discharge limits of each violated pollutant that could be discharged into a water body an d still attain the Water Quality Standard. TMDLs are allocated to various sources, including industrial and municipal dischargers , hum an caused nonpoint sources load allocations, and natural NPS . The Watershed Implementation Plans are a tool to implement t he TMDLs (Randolph, 2011) . 2.10.2. Florida Water Resources Act I n 1972, the Florida Water Resources Act (FWRA) gave rise to the creation of regional water management districts 1 and have established systems for allocating water permits for consumptive use based on a series of criteria aimed t o ensure that the use is reasonable, beneficial, and 1 FWRA enabled the creation of the Northwest, Suwannee River, and Saint Jones River WMDs . The SFWMD and the SWFWMD were created statutorily to address flooding and water shortage problems (Borisova et al., 2017; Levin College of Law, 1972) .

PAGE 29

19 coherent with l egislation and the public interest (Purdum, 2002) . This act is a combination of prior appropriation and riparian laws 2 , in which the water resources belong to t he State and are not owned by anyone else; it provides consumptive use permits; and establishes minimum flow levels, and conservation areas (Purdum, 2002) . In re the FWMDs have identified thirty three first magnitude Outstanding Florida Springs for which they have developed Basin Management Action Plans and determined Total Maximum Daily L oads to limit nutrient pollution and suppo rt spring´s restoration (Borisova et al., 2017; Levin College of Law, 1972) . 2.10.3. Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act legislation identified 3 0 OFS that require additio nal protection for their conservation and restauration. These protections are represented in the Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) which are focused on reducing nitrogen pollution that impacts the water quality of these springs (Donaldson, 2019c, 2019a) . These plans are designed to achieve a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) (Donaldson, 2019a) . Through them, local governments are r equired to enact ordinances to regulate the residential use of fertilizers and the agricultural operations. In the second case, agricultural operations in area s where BMAPs have been adopted, require to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) which cove r water quality and water conservation strategies (Donaldson, 2019b) . 2 The prior appropriation doctrine establishes priorities among competitive users. Unde r this doctrine, earlier settlers have greater rights to water use. Riparian water rights are the b enefits associated with the use of water for owners of land bordering on or adjacent to bodies of water (Kaplowitz, 2019) .

PAGE 30

20 2.10.4. Florida Statutes The Fl orida State requires each Water Management District to determine M inimum Flow s for each surface water in the area a nd Minimum Water Levels of groundwater in the aquifer and the level at surface water . For this, t the FWMDs identify water levels under which withdrawals could threat the water resource or the ecological characteristics of the area. Similarly, the FWMDs ne ed to identify a minimum water level in the groundwater under which further withdrawals could pose a threat to the water resource. Based on the identified minimum flows and minimum levels, the FWMDs evaluate and provide permits for consumptive use of water aiming to ensure that the use is reasonable and beneficial (Purdum, 2002; 2016 Florida Statutes, n.d.) .

PAGE 31

21 3. Objectives General objective: Assess agricultural production and water resources to support current efforts to develop and adopt advanced Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to achieving success of the thirteen Ou tstanding Florida Springs (OFS) Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) in the Florida Springs Region . Specific objectives: A nalyze the economic importance of various crop types in the Florida Springs Re gion . A nal y ze these crops' relationship with nitrogen a pplication and groundwater withdrawals . Analyze international trade statistics to understand export and import patterns among .

PAGE 32

22 4. Conceptual f ramework The conceptual framework provides a visualization of the human and environmenta l dimensions of the Florida Springs Region ( Figu re 5 ) . It aims to present the scope of the current research . At the same time, it shows the complexity of the use of the groundwater resources in the Florida Springs R egion, as these provide different ecosystem services; are used by different actors and for different purposes , and the se uses are related with different types of impacts . These represent the series of trade offs that take place in water resources managemen t. Figu re 5 . Agricultural production and the Florida Springs Region : Conceptual framework The Florida Springs Region provides a diverse set of ecosystem services , including water , for agriculture production. Several Federal and S tate institutions and regulations have been established to address different aspects related to the use and quality of water resources. In

PAGE 33

23 relation to surface and groundwater extraction, the Water Management Districts are in charge of establis hing Minimum Flows and Minimum Water Levels. In relation to the control of nonpoint source pollutants, specifically nitrogen leaching, the Federal regulation requires the establishment of T MDL s in order to put in place protective measures for water resourc es . Within th is policy framework, crop production operations in the FSR would extract water mostly from the aquifer . O ver pumping of the aquifer can lead to reductions in the groundwater flow , and impair current and future availability , as well as critical habitats . An other important impact comes from the application of fertilizers , which can result in nitrates leaching into the soil and the contaminati on of groundwater. Other important impacts of agricultural production on the economic components c orrespond to the gene ration of employment and income, and the possibility of exporting production. Imports are also part of the economic sphere of agricultural production in Florida, which may not directly affect the springs for the purpose of this framewo rk.

PAGE 34

24 5. Method ology an d analysis 5.1. Variable operability and analytical categories T he methodological design is based on the research objectives. It indicates the different variables that are being assessed and their real definition . The operational de finition disaggregates the va riable into sub variables that will help inform the analyses , and the measurement is the unit of measure used for each sub variable ( Table 3 ) . Table 3 . Methodological design Variable Real def inition Operational definition Measurement Crop sales Crop sales produced in each county of the FSR 1. Crop sales per NAICS group 2. Crop sales per county 1. USD 2. USD Water withdrawals Groundwater and surface water withdrawal for agriculture productio n in each county of the FSR 1. Surface water withdrawn 2. Groundwater withdrawn 1. MGD 2. MGD Nitrogen application Nitrogen applied as fertilizer for crop production in each county of the FSR 1. Nitrogen recommendations as fertilizer on crops 1. Pounds (L bs) Crop imports Crop imports from foreign countries to Florida 1. Crop imports per NAICS group 1. USD Crop exports Crop exports from Florida to foreign countries 1 . Crop exports per NAICS group 1. USD FSR: Florida Springs Region ; USD: United States Dol lars; MGD: Million Gallons per Day. 5.2. Instruments A series of databases were searched , systematized, and used in order to inform each the objectives of the study. The criteria to use these databases included: origin by official sources for validity and reli ability , which include d governmental agencies and academia sources ; updated information; and homogenization of the data according to the North American Industry

PAGE 35

25 Classification System (NAICS) for crop production 3 . In this sense, t he main databases used for the study are presented in Table 4 . Table 4 . Databases Module Objective Databases Crop production T o analyze the economic importance of various crop types in the Florida Springs Region . 20 17 Census of Agriculture (COA) Water consumption T o anal y ze crops' relationship with groundwater withdrawals . USGS Estimated Use of Water in the United States County Level Data for 2015 (D ieter et al., 2018) . FDACS Florida Statewide Agricultural Irri gation Demand Online 2016 2040: Agricultural acreage and water demand projections (FDACS, 2018) . FDACS Florida Statewide Agric ultural Irrigation Demand Geodatabase (FDA CS, 2019) . Nitrogen application T o analyze crops' relationship with recommended nitrogen application . Recommended n itrogen a pplications for Florida's crops ( Literature review ) . FDACS Florida Statewide Agricultu ral Irrigation Demand Geodatabase (FDACS, 2019) . Crop imports and exports T o analyze import and export statistics . The United States International Trade (US Census Bureau, 2019) . These databases were or ganized in a master database and divided in modules to address each objective. The master data base contains information for all 67 counties in Florida, where 56 counties are considered to be "In the Florida Springs Region (FSR)", and 11 counties are "Out o f the FSR". 3 T he North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) classifies crop production in i) Oilseed and Grain Farming, ii) Vegetable and Melon Farming, iii) Fruit and Tree Nut Farmi ng, iv) Greenhou se, Nursery, and Floriculture Production, and v) Other Crop Farmin g (United States Census Bureau, 2017) .

PAGE 36

26 5.3. Data analysis The data analysis was based on a quantitative assessment of the dif ferent databases in order to provide information regarding each variable. The analysis of the economic importance of various crop types in the FSR, specifically crop sales, was based on the COA datab ase. In order to do so, the data was aggregated at state, county, and FSR located count y level to estimate total crop sales for each county, NAICS group, and NAICS group and county for 2017 . This information was later processed in ArcGIS to prepare maps indicating the distribution of crop sales per NAICS group, and the county ranking of crop sales in t he FSR . An important aspect to consider while reviewing the database and the analysis is that the original database contains withheld information to avoid disclosing data for individual operations, which explains wh y some graphs indicate unavailable inform ation. was based on the USGS and the two FDACS databases indicated in Table 4 . First, the USGS data enabled t o estimate groundwater and surface water withdrawal used for crop production in each county in Florida in 2015 . Th ese estimates enabled to obtain perc ent ages for surface and groundwater extraction that were later applied to obtain estimates for 2016 using the FDACS databases ( Appendix 1 ) . The justification for combining both databases and using percentages instead of the actual estimates is twofold. First, the USGS 2015 estimates for total withdrawal s for crop produc tion in Florida was 2,24 9 MGD, whereas the FDACS estimates for total water use in 2016 ranged between 2,06 7 MGD to 2,171 MGD. The differences would indicate a decrease in water consumption from 2015 to 2016 between 8% to 3.5%, respectively. Second, the FDA CS geodatabase for 2016 provides information regarding the use of water for each crop group , but it or surface water) , which the USGS does.

PAGE 37

27 Based on both observation s , the assumption is that the percentage s of water sources at a county level for crop production was relatively stable between both years. These percentages enabled to obtain estimates which were aggregated at state, county, and FSR located county level to estimate total gr oundwater withdrawal f or each county, crops group, and crops group and county for 2017. This information was later processed in ArcGIS to prepare maps indicating the distribution of groundwater withdrawal per crops group, and the county ranking of groundwa ter withdrawal in the FSR. In relation to nitrogen application, this variable can only serve as a proxy for nitrogen leaching into the groundwater system. Nevertheless, it is important to accompany these results with data from the field to identify how muc h nitrogen is actually being applied, how much is being absorbed by the plants, and how much infiltrates into the soil and ultimately into the springs. During the study, it has not been possible to find complete information that would enable aggregate this type of data for all the counties in Florida. In this sense, this section was based on a literature review of nitrogen application recommendations for different crops to obtain pound per acre estimates . It is important to consider that these estimates may vary based on the phe nological period of the plants, the type and structure of the soils, and the limiting capacity of other nutrients, among others . These are locally dependent variables. In this sense, different means were estimated for different crops ( Appendix 2). In addition, it is assumed that farmers would be applying fertilizers close to t he mean quantities. This data needs to be validated in the field. Within this scope, this data was combined with the acreage per crop data provided in the FDACS Geodatabase to obtain aggregated data at state, county, and FSR located county level to estimat e total nitrogen application for each county, crops group, and crops group and county for 2017. This information was later processed in ArcGIS to prepare maps simulating the distribution of nitrogen application per crops group, and the county ranking of gr oundwater

PAGE 38

28 withdrawal in the FSR. An important consideration is that not all the nitrogen being applied would leach into groundwater system as there are different attenuation processes that need to be evaluated. T he analysis of international trade was based on the US International Trade database. The data was aggregated to identify estimated of crop imports from foreign countries into the state of Florida, and exports to foreign countries from Florida in 2018 per NAICS groups.

PAGE 39

29 6. Results 6.1. Agriculture e conomic importance According to the COA, in 2017, crop production sales in Florida were valued at approximately 5,704 million USD; where approximately 3,166 million USD belonged to the Florida Springs Region (FSR) (Table 5). Total crop sales in Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Orange, and Lake added to approximately 1,393 million USD (Appendix 3). The maximum sales value for an individual county was approximately 410 million USD which belonged to Hillsborough ( Figure 6) . Table 5 . Crop Production Sales in Florid a in 2017 (USD) NAICS Group Florida Counties In the FSR Counties Out of the FSR (D) Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture 2,276,207,000 1,208,220,000 1,022,762,000 45,225,000 Fruit and Tree Nut 1,298,656,000 985,650,000 46,636,000 66,370,000 Vegetable and Melon 1,284,110,000 600,461,000 622,752,000 60,897,000 Other Crop 797,395,000 247,850,000 507,846,000 41,699,000 Oilseed and Grain 48,165,000 31,655,000 11,401,000 5,109,000 (D) 92,201,000 326,870 ,000 Total Sales (USD) 5,704,533,000 3,166,037,000 2,538,267,000 229,000 Source: (USDA & NASS, 2017) Note: (D) or data withheld to avoid disclosing data f or individual operations in the original database can explain the gaps when adding each column.

PAGE 40

30 Figure 6 . Crop sales in the Florida Springs Regi on in 2017 (USD) Source: (USDA & NASS, 2017) 6.2. Water withdrawal for crop product ion Based on the USGS, it was possible to estimate the reliance on surface and groundwater for crop production in all the counties in 2015 . In this se n se, the proportion of water withdrawal for irrigation for crop production from groundwater and surface wa ter in the FSR was 88% and 12%, respectively out of 808 MGD . In terms of reliance on groundwater, counties like Bay, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gulf, Libe rty, Nassau, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Seminole, Taylor, Union, Wakulla, and Walton would have relied enti rely in groundwater resources, while in counties like Gadsden and Clay the reliance were estimated at less than 20% ( Appendix 1 ) .

PAGE 41

31 According to the FDACS, in 2016 total water withdrawal used for irrigation of crop pr oduction in Florida was 2,067 MGD, where approximately 967 MGD were used in the Florida Springs Region (FSR) . Based on the reliance percentages for 2015, it was possible to obtain estimates of groundwater and surface water use for each NAICS group in 2017 ( Table 6 ). Table 6 . Water Withdrawal in Florida in 2016 (estimates in MGD) Crop group Florida Counties in the FSR Counties out of the FSR GW SW GW SW GW SW Citrus 376.20 133.25 310.28 58.35 65.92 74.90 Vegetables (fresh market) 227.24 97.06 143.14 17.26 84.10 79.80 Field crops 135.64 2.73 132.84 2.08 2.80 0.65 Greenhouse and Nursery 115.38 38.39 84.57 13.70 30.81 24.70 Sugarcane 73.83 592.64 5.31 1.13 68.51 591.51 Hay 71.84 50.17 60.67 13.41 11.17 36.76 Fruits (non citrus) 62.60 4.48 51.95 3.02 10.65 1. 46 Sod 34.64 14.55 32.42 5.33 2.22 9.22 Potatoes 33.19 3.01 31.15 0.82 2.04 2.19 Total 1,130.55 936.29 852.34 115.11 278.21 821.18 Total water withdrawal ( MGD) 2,066.84 96 7.45 1,099.39 Sources: Estimates based on data from (FDACS, 2019; USDA & NASS, 2017) Considering the percentages of grou ndwater extraction from USGS, and the data on crop production from FDACS, groundwater extraction was estimated at approximately 852 MGD in the FSR. The counties with the most groundwater withdrawal in the FSR were Highlands, Polk, DeSoto, Manatee, and Hard ee, with an additional consumption of approximately 371 MGD (Appendix 4). The maximum groundwater withdrawal for an individual county was approximately 89 MGD (Highlands) ( Figure 7).

PAGE 42

32 Figure 7 . Total groundwater withdrawal for crop production in the FSR in 2016 (MGD) Source: Estimates based on data from (Dieter et al., 2018; FDAC S, 2019) Based on the classification used by the FDACS for crop production, groundwater withdrawal s in 2016 in the FSR can be organized as follows: Citrus production had the greatest water consumption, corresponding to approximately 369 MGD, out of which 310 MGD would have corresponded to groundwater withdrawal The maximu m county value for GWW for citrus production was 68 MGD (Polk). In terms of the Florida springs, most groun dwater withdrawal for citrus production was located at the south of the FSR where some springs of 3 rd or greater magnitude can be found.

PAGE 43

33 The Lake, Ma rion, Hernando, and Volusia counties which are located in the central area of the FSR have an important con centration of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and greater magnitude springs. approximately 160 MGD, ou t of which 143 MGD would have corresponded to GWW. Manatee, Hillsborough, DeSoto, added to approximately 83 MGD. The maximum value for GWW for an individual county was approximately 50 MGD (Manatee). In terms of the Florida spring s, most groundwater withdrawal for vegetables (fresh market) production was located at the south of the FSR where some springs of 2 nd , 3 rd or greater magnitude can be found. Levy, St. Johns, Suwannee, and Hamilton are located in the central area of the FSR , which have an important concentration of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and greater magnitude springs. Field crops pro approximately 135 MGD, of which approximately 133 MGD would have corresponded to GWW. Suwannee, Madison, Jackson, approximately 83 MGD. The maximum value for GWW for an individual county wa s approximately 19 MGD (Suwannee). In terms of the Florida springs, most groun dwater withdrawal for field crops production was concentration of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and greater m agnitude springs. ap proximately 98 MGD, of which approximately 85 MGD would have corresponded to GWW. Volusia, Lake, Putnam, approximately 43 MGD. The maxi mum value for GWW for an individual county was approximately 17 MGD (Volusia).

PAGE 44

34 In terms of the Florida springs, most groundwater withdrawal for greenhouse and nursery production was located in the central and southern areas of the FSR. The central area has an important concentration of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and greater magnitude springs ; and the southern area has some springs of 2 nd , 3 rd or greater magnitude. approximately 74 MGD, of which approximately 61 MGD would have co rresponded to GWW. Highlands, Okeechobee, Brevard, Osceola, and added to 36 MGD. The maximum value for GWW for an individual county was approximately 15 MGD (Highlands). In terms of the Florida springs, most groundwater withdrawal for hay pr oduction was located in the south of the FSR, where some 3 rd and greater magni tude springs can be found. Suwannee county has an important concentration of 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd and greater magnitude springs. Fruits (non s approximately 55 MGD, of which approximately 52 MGD would have corresponded to GWW. Hillsborough, Polk, Hardee, approximately 43 MGD. The maximum value for GWW for an individual county was 28 MGD (Hillsborough). In ter ms of the Florida springs, most groundwater withdrawal for fruits (non citrus) production was located in the southern and central area of the FSR. The southern are has presence of some 2 nd and 3 rd and greater magnitude springs. The central area has an impo rtant concentration of 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd and greater magnitude springs. Sod pr approximately 38 MGD, of which approximately 32

PAGE 45

35 GWW added to approximately 17 MGD. The maximum value for GWW for an individual county was approximately 6 MGD (Highlands). In terms of the Florida springs, most groundw ater withdrawal for sod production was located in the southern and eastern area of the FSR, where som e 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd and greater magnitude springs are located. approximately 32 MGD, of which approximately 31 MGD would have corresponded to GWW. St. Johns, Putnam, Flagler, Osceola, and appr oximately 29 MGD. The maximum value for an individual county was approximately 15 MGD (St. Johns). In terms of the Florida springs, most groundwater withdr awal for potato production occurred in St. Johns, where some 2 nd magnitude springs can be found. 6.3. Nit rogen application The data analysis section provides an explanation of the different assumptions used to create the database to estimate nitrogen application. Nitrogen application refers to a simulation of the nitrogen inputs to land surface through crop f ertilization. The simulation was based on a bibliographical research on recommendations of nitrogen application ( Appendix 2 ) , and compared with the crops acreage estimate d in the FDACS database for 2016. It is assum ed that producers would be applying those recommendations. In situ exploration, as well as the corresponding analysis of the attenuation processes and the phenological period of the plants are needed to understand the concentrations of nitrogen loading int o the soil.

PAGE 46

36 Based on the FDACS, in 2016, the total crop production acreage in Florida was approximately 2 million acres 4 , out of which approximat ely 1.1 million acres were located in the FSR. Highlands, Polk, DeSoto, Hardee, and Suwannee had the largest ac reage ( 392 thousand acres ) . Ci area in the FSR. In this sense , Nitrogen application in 2016 in Florida 5 was estimated at approximately 250 million pounds; where approximate ly 158 million pounds were estimated to be applied in the FSR ( Table 7 ). Table 7 . Nitrogen Application in Florida in 2016 (estimates in Lbs) Crop Group Florida Counties in the FSR Counties ou t of the FSR Citrus 86,840,786 62,485,214 24,355,572 Hay 63,515,840 54,910,983 8,604,857 Field Crops 27,168,055 25,206,012 1,962,043 Potatoes 5,429,841 4,763,340 666,501 Sod 4,665,682 3,688,914 976,768 Greenhouse, nursery 5,5 55,559 3,424,108 2,131,451 Fruits (non citrus) 3,591,594 3,021,456 570,138 Sugarcane 52,729,135 452,209 52,276,926 Total (Lbs) 249,496,492 157,952,236 91,544,256 Source: Estimates based on data from (FDACS, 2019; Hochmuth & Hanlon, 2000; Morgan et al ., 2019; Mylavarapu et al., 2015; Shadd ox, 2016) 4 In 2017, the COA estimates for agricultural acreage was 2.8 million acres. Nevertheless, at a count y level, some information was withheld to avoid disclosing information about individual operations. For the analysis on nitrogen application, data from the FDACS for 2016 was used . 5 N itrogen application rates estimates in Florida were based on the FDACS c r op production acreage in 2016, and on fertilizer recommendations found in the literature mainly developed by the UF Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences (UF/IFAS) and information gathered by FDACS for some Basin Management Action Plans .

PAGE 47

37 The counties with the most nitrogen application were estimated to be Highlands, Polk, DeSoto, Hardee, and Suwannee ( approximately 56 million pounds ) ( Appendix 5 ) . The maximum nitrogen application value f or an individual county was approximately 15 million pounds (Highlands) ( Figure 8 ). Figure 8 . Total N App for crop production in the FSR in 2016 (Lbs) Source: Estimates based on data from (FDACS, 2019; Hochmuth & Hanlon, 2000; Morgan et al ., 2019; Mylavarapu et al., 2015; Shaddox, 2016) Based on the classification used by the FDACS for crop production, nitrogen application in 2016 in the FSR can be organized as follows: Citrus production would have had the greatest nitrogen application (N App), corresponding to approximately 62 million pounds. For Polk, DeSoto, Highlands, Hardee, and Indian River

PAGE 48

38 N App it was approximately 47 million pounds. The maximum value for an individual county was approximately 12 million pounds (Polk). In terms o f the Florida springs, most N App for citrus production was located at the south of the FSR, with some 3 rd or greater magnitude springs. Hay App would have corresponded to approximately 55 million pounds. For Suwannee, Alachua, Holmes, Walto App it was approximately 21 million pounds. The maximum value for an individual county was approximately 5 million pounds (Suwannee). In terms of the Florida springs, most N App for hay production was located at the FSR central area, and st , 2 nd , and 3 rd magnitude springs. App would have corresponded to approximately 25 million pounds. For Jackson, Suwannee, Gilchrist, Madison, and Okeechobe App it was approximately 11 million pounds. The maximum value for an individual county was approximately 2 million pounds (Jackson). I n terms of the Florida springs, most N App for field crops production was located at the central area of the FSR, wh ich has an important concentration of 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd and greater magnitude springs. App would have corresponded to approximately 5 million pounds. For App it was approximately 4 million pounds. The maximum value for an individual county was approximately 2 million pounds (St. Johns).

PAGE 49

39 In terms of the Florida springs, most N Ap4p for potato production was located in the central eastern area of the FSR, where some 2 nd and 3 rd and gre ater magnitude springs are located. App were estimated at approximately 4 million pounds. Highlands, App added to approximately 2 million pounds. The maximum value for an individual county was a pproximately 717 thousand pounds (Highlands). In terms of the Florida springs, most N App f or sod production was located at the south of the FSR, where some 3 rd and greater magnitude springs are located. App were estim ated at approximately 3 million App added to approximately 1.6 million pounds. The maximum value for an individual county was approximately 593 thousand million pounds (Volusia). In terms of the F lorida springs, most N App for greenhouse and nursery production was located at the central eastern area of the FSR, where several 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd and greater magnitude springs are located. Fruits (non App were estimated at approxi mately 3 million pounds. App added to approximately 2.6 million pounds. The maximum value for an individual county was approximately 1.7 million pounds (Hillsborough). In terms of the Florida springs, mo st N App for fruits (non citrus) production was located at the south of the FSR, in an area with several 2 nd and 3 rd and greater magnitude springs.

PAGE 50

40 6.4. Crop exports approximat ely 771 million USD. The main country of destination was Canada (455 million USD) ( Figure 9 ). The main countries of destination can be organized as follows: i) Vegetables and Melons Canada (79%); ii) Fruits and T ree Nuts Canada (55 %); iii) Mushrooms, Nursery and Related Products Canada (51%); iv) Other Agricultural Products Italy (24%); and v) Oilseeds and Grains Haiti (40%). Figure 9 . Crop exports from Florida in 2018 (USD) Sour ce: (USCB, 2018)

PAGE 51

41 6.5. C rop imports approximately 3,562 million USD. The main countries of origin were Guatemala (921 million USD), Colombia (860 million USD), Costa Rica (580 million USD), Mexico (542 millio n USD), and Peru (375 million USD) ( Figure 10). The main countries of origin and crops include: i) Fruits and Tree Nuts Guatemala (574 mi llion USD); ii) Mushrooms, Nursery and Related Products Colombia (679 million USD); iii) Vegetables and Melons Guatemala (311 million USD); iv) Other Agricultu ral Products Canada (23 million USD); and Oilseed and Grains Costa Rica (12 million US D). Figure 10 . Crop imports to Florida in 2018 (USD) Source: (USCB, 2018)

PAGE 52

42 6.6. Balance of trade I , and Fl s exports of crop production were valued at 771 million USD . As a result, the Balance of Trade (BoT) of crop produc tion was 2,791 million USD. Although there is a negative BoT , which suggests a trade deficit , it would be important to analyze internal trad e as wel l to understand even further the economic impact of crop trade .

PAGE 53

43 7. Utilization and d iscussion of results As an intermediate assessment, this project identifie d area along the Florida Springs Region that require careful attention regarding groundwa ter withdrawal and nitrogen application in terms of crop production . An area of importance would be the Suwannee R estoration area , in which there is a large concentration of first , second and greater magnitude springs, and in which the results of the analy sis suggest large activities regarding groundwater extraction and nitrogen application. In relation to the BMAPs, it has also been possible to identify that t hose that are still pending, also correspond to the Suwannee Restoration Area. Given their importa nce regarding the protection of Outstanding Florida Springs, it is necessary to continue with the adoption of thes e BMAPs ( Figure 1 1 ) . Figure 1 1 . Florida TMDLs and BMAPs Source: (Morrow, 2020) In relation to the information regarding nitrogen application, the simulation provides an overview of what could have been applied in 2016 at a regional scale. St ill, there is a need for the improvement of the database to be able to develop time series analysis and monitor the evolution of nitrogen application in the Florida Springs Region . T he NSILT aims to provide information on this matter , particularly on the relative co ntribution of nitrogen from different sources. These

PAGE 54

44 efforts would still need to continue in the future, and analyze the possibility of expanding the areas of analysis. In relation to the trade of crop production between co untries , it is important to under stand the trade as well within states. U nderstanding virtual water trades can also provide indications of the transport of water between countries and states, and lead to the understanding of how the production outputs rela te to other economies, societies, and environments.

PAGE 55

45 8. Cross scale, cross discipline and policy considerations 8.1. Top down management perspectives In relation to top down management perspectives for water resources conservation, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 aims to Ensure availability and sustainable (UN, 2015) . This goal includes all the dimensions of the water cycle the s ocial, economic, and environmental aspects, and its interrelationship with other SDGs , such as food, energy security, and biodiversity (UNE P DHI Centre, 2020) . Among its targets, SDG 6.3 and 6.4 aim to improve water quality by reducing pollution, and to increase water use efficiency, respectively (UN, 2015) . As a means of implementation, the SDG 6 includes of its target s, targe t 6.5 which aims b y 2030, implement inte grated water resources management (IWRM) at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as (UN, 2015) . This target focuses on understanding the needs of the different users and uses of water resources; and the laws , institutions and water governance mechanisms , in which institutions have a nested hierarchy of multi level governance in which the role of national and loc al institutions play an important role in water resources man agement . In the process of the IWRM requires : i) that interested parties to participate in the planning and implementation process, ii) that the implementation process includes both, planning and monitoring, iii) the introduction of the subsidiarity compon ent with the emphasis on the lowest level institutional scale for decision making , iv) the characterization of the economic value of water use and identify its efficiency, and v) a triple bottom assessment of the use of water resources can provide an under standing of the equity of its use. (Benson et al., 2019; UNEP DHI Centre, 2020) .

PAGE 56

46 Another top down perspective is the European Water Policy (EWP) and the creation of the European Un ion Water Framework Directive (EUWFD ) in the mid 1995 . The EWP main objectives are to (European Commission, 2019 : p1 ) . In relation to groundwater resources , the EUFWD efforts aim to avoid any type of pollution . O nly some issues such as nitrates, pesticides, and biocides include standards at the European level (European Commission, 2019 : p1 ) . As for o ther uses, the EWP takes a precautionary approach which prohibits direct discharges, and requires monitoring of groundwater bodies to take actions to prevent anthropogenic upward pollution trends . In the case of groundwater levels, the principle is that only a portion of the recharge that is not needed by the ecology can be abstracted . The EUWFD approach has created different interagency directives to address specific regional issues. These included the Dangerous Substances Directive, the Urban Waste Water Directive, Nitrates Directive, Drinking Water Directive , the Plant Protection Products Directive, the Biocides Directive, the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive, the Landfill Dir ective , the Waste Framework Directive, and the Industrial Emissions Directive, among others (European Commission, 2019 : p1 ) . Within the scope of the FSR, both perspectives relate directly to the objectives of this project in terms of the conservation of water quality and quantity, and the need for improvement practices in the agricultural sector to suppor t these objectives. Currently, the FWMDs have the essential role of man aging water resources based on the hydrogeological characteristics of the state and are supported by key institutions such as the FDEP and the FDACS. An IWRM approach would require a re gional vision of water resources management that takes a holistic appro ach to having overall objectives at a regional level aimed to achieve a good status of water resources for all waters by a set deadline. Considering the EWP framework, in relation to

PAGE 57

47 gr oundwater quality, the TMDLs would need to move towards a precautionary approach. In relation to groundwater levels, although the MFMLs consider ecological needs, when considering future population growth and the increase of water demands this entails , and climate change , future science based modelling approaches will need to introduce such demands to direct the MFMLs . Within this approach, the collaboration and coordination among the different stakeholders is required for water protection and sustainable u se . These actors include FWMD, the FDEP, the FDACS, the different sectors that are consumptive and non consumptive users of water resources, and those that require water for sustaining life (refer to Figu re 5 ). The creation of regional Directives could serve ensure full coordination of the regional goals of an IWRM , as long as the institutional framework avoids higher layers of bureaucracy, but improves coordination . The economic analysis of water use can enable the discussion around the cost effectiveness of the measures that can be considered in the region , and it needs to include the values of the ecosystem services as well . Finally, adequate water pricing can help conserve adequate supplies of the resource. Such a nalysis would need to consider political ecology considerations as well in order to define the characteristics of the instruments that could be implemented . 8.2. Bottom up management perspectives Throughout the document, it has been possible to see that crop p roduction poses a series of social, economic and environmental impacts. However, the current implementation of regulation tools of water withdrawal and the adoption of Best Management Practice s in agriculture may be lagging regarding the actual changes of lowering water flows and the increased levels of nitrogen that are product of different uses .

PAGE 58

48 Within this context, from a bottom up management perspective, in order to continue working towards a sustainable use of water resources and springs conservation in the Florida Springs Region, it is important to build an agriculture and springs conservation communication strategy that aims to help address this conundrum and move towards agr o environmental behaviors by generating a local multi stakeholder space , or several of them in different locations around the FSR, for dialogue about Florida springs topics that enables to build a collaborative and coope rative road map for springs conservation efforts. An example of such kind of space could be the Santa Fe Springs Protection Forum , in which different stakeholders participate to attend presentations on the springs in the Santa Fe river, and discuss on thes e . The vision of this strategy is to provide a transformative sp ace for springs conservation. Initially, a stakeholder analysis would provide a comprehensive and exhaustive understanding of the different stakeholders who participate in different spheres associated with the springs. Once this identification phase is com pleted, a series of workshops would follow to promote a safe space of face to face communication; sharing of perspectives and experiences related with the springs; understanding the limitat ions for adoption of BMPs and identification of strategies to address these; education; and peer to peer sharing of technologies. This requires the continuous support of the extensio n services to understand and support the adoption of best management pract ices. This type of space could provide the opportunity for the development of a road map for springs conservation at the local level, that in combination with other local efforts cou ld potentiate practices at larger scales.

PAGE 59

49 9. Conclusions and recommendatio ns From this project , it is possible to appreciate the complexity of the interactions between agricultur al production and groundwater resources and springs conservation. As an intermediate assessment, the document identifies physical areas that require att ention . Overall, the areas in which it has been possible to identify higher levels of groundwater extracti on coincide with those in which there would be high applications of nitrogen based fertilizers. One of such areas is the Suwannee county and its neigh boring counties, in which there is a large concentration of first, second, and third and greater magnitude springs, as well as large levels of groundwater withdrawal and a concentration of nitrogen application that could be affecting water resources in the area . The main limitation s in the analysis has been the identification of the amount of nitrogen application into the groundwater system resulting from agricultur al activities. Quantifying how much nitrogen reaching groundwater is due to agricultur al act ivities require s other analytical methods different from the ones used in the current study . In add ition, other considerations include the need for more frequent data collection, GPS and remote monitoring; and incorporation of private and public sources of data (ex. The Nitrogen Source Inventory and Loading Tool and the Blue Water Audit). Although there are some studies that model such impact, these are limited to specific locations. In the future, the results of the analysis need to be accompanied by furth er in situ research carried out over broader areas. In order to address some of the impacts on the springs, further advanced assessment on different parameters of the springs, as well as the identification of the impact of non point sources of pollution in to the Floridan aquifer and strategies to address these is needed. Timing , funding, alignment of laws and regulations, and the integration of research will be key

PAGE 60

50 component s of efforts to mitigate negative impacts on the springs . In terms of communication efforts, in order to disseminate knowledge and promote the adoption of best practice s, identification and work with stakeholders closer to the agricultur al sector would be needed . Finally, the study also brings management perspectives that include the use of an IWRM approach at a regional level for a holistic and integrated approach for w ater resources conservation, as well as a communication strategy at the local level to improve the adoption of best management practices and expand the knowledge of these p ractices at local levels.

PAGE 61

51 10. Bibliography Allen, A. C., Sattelberger, D., & Keith, E. (2014). The people vs. The Florida manatee: A review ered marine mammal and need for application. Ocean and Coastal Management , 102 , 40 46. Allen, G. (2020, November 8). The Water Is Already Low At A Florida Freshwater Spring, But Nestlé Wants More. NPR . https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/776776312/the water is already low at a florida freshwater spring b ut nestl wants more American Water Works Association. (2014). Groundwater (Fourth edition). Bates, S. F., Ash, N., Blanco, H., Brown, C., Garcia, K., Tomich, T., Vira, B., & Zurek, M. B. (2010). Ecosystems and Hu man Well Being: A Manual for Assessment Prac titioners . Island Press. Benson, D., Gain, A., & Giuppon, C. (2019). Moving beyond water centricity? Conceptualizing integrated water resources management for implementing sustainable development goals. Sustainab ility Science , 1 11. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s11625 019 00733 5 Borisova, T., Olexa, M. T., & Davis, J. (2017). Handbook of Florida Water Regulation: Florida Springs and Aquifer Protection Act . 4. Costanza, R., dArge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Oneill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The Nature , 38 7 (6630), 253 260. Costanza, Robert, de Groot, R., Braat, L. , Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services , 28 , 1 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008

PAGE 62

52 de Graaf , I. E. M., Gleeson, T., van Beek, L. P. H. (Rens), Sutanudjaja, E. H., & Bierkens, M. F. P. (2019). Environmental flow limits to global groundwater pumping. Nature , 574 (7776), 90 94. https://doi.o rg/10.1038/s41586 019 1594 4 de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity , 7 (3 ), 260 272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 Di eter, C. A., Linsey, K. S., Caldwell, R. R., Harris, M. A., Ivahnenko, T. I., Lovelace, J. K., Maupin, M. A., & Barber, N. L. (2018). Estimated Use of Water in the United States County Level Data f or 2015 [Data set]. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org /10.5066/f7tb15v5 Donaldson, L. (2018). . https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/Springs%20Fact%20Sheet%201.pdf Donaldson, L. (2019a). Basin Mana gement Action Plans: General Information . Florida Departmen t of Environmental Protection. https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/General%20Information%20for%20Basin%20M anagement%20Action%20Plans_0.pdf Donaldson, L. (2019b). Meeting the Fertilizer Requi rements of the Springs and Aquifer Protection Act: General Information . Florida Department of Environmental Protection. https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/Fertilizer%20Requirements_0.pdf Donaldson, L. (2019c). Springs and Aquifer Protection Act: Me eting the septic system permitting requirements . Florida De partment of Environmental Protection.

PAGE 63

53 https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/Springs%20and%20Aquifer%20Protection%20A ct_0.pdf Eller, K., & Katz, B. (2017). Nitrogen Source Inventory and Loading Tool: An integrated approach toward restoration of water q uality impaired karst springs. Journal of Environmental Management , 196 , 702 709. EPA. (2019). Summary of the Clean Water Act . https://www.epa.gov/laws regulations/summary clean water act EPA Victo ria. (2018). Point and nonpoint sources of water pollution [Text]. https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/your environment/water/protecting victorias waters/point and nonpoint sources of water pollution European Commission. (2019, July 8). Introduction to the EU Water Framework Directive . Water Framework Directive. https://ec .europa.eu/environment/water/water framework/info/intro_en.htm FDACS. (2018). Agricultural Acreage and Water Demand Projections . https://fdacs fsaid.com/ FDACS. (2019). Florida Statewide Agricultur al Irrigation Demand Geodatabase . Agricultural Water Supply Planning. https://www.fdacs.gov/Agriculture Industry/Water/Agricultural Water Supply Planning FDEP. (2018a). My home: My springs . YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9 -XVAsZeazdukr2ySWLDw FDEP. (2018b). Nitrogen Source Inventory Loading Tool (NSIL T) . https://floridadep.gov/dear/water quality restoration/content/nitrogen source inventory and loading tool nsilt 1

PAGE 64

54 FDEP. (2019a). 2019 Florida Water Plan . https://fdep.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=473b768b4af049bf91b287 9b83ea961c FDEP. ( 2019 b). Springs . https://floridadep.gov/springs/ FDEP. (2019c). Water Management Districts . https://floridadep.gov/water policy/water policy/content/water management districts FSI. (2018). Florida Springs Conservation Plan . https://floridaspringsinstitute. org/ wp content/uploads/2018/11/Springs Conservation Plan final draft FINAL.pdf Griebler, C., & Avramov, M. (2015). Groundwater ecosystem services: A review. The Society of Freshwater Science , 34 (1), 355 367. https://doi.org/10.1086/679903 Hardin, G. (1968) . Th e Tragedy of the Commons | Science . https://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full Hochmuth, G. J., & Hanlon, E. A. (2000). IFAS Standardized Fertilization Recommendations for Vegetable Crops . Kalman, J. (2019, November 3). Activists Rally f High Springs. The Independent Florida Alligator . https://www.alligator.org/news/activists rally for say no to nestle water grab protest/article_08af8258 febf 11e9 b615 f703d7b3dcd8.html Kaplowitz, M. D. (2019). R ipar ian rights. In Salem Press Encyclopedia of Science . Knight, R. L. (2015). Silenced Springs Moving from Tragedy to Hope . FSI Press. Levin College of Law, U. of F. (1972). An Analysis of the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972, Chapter 72 299, Laws of Fl orid a . Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Consulting Ground water Geologists. https://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004219/00001

PAGE 65

55 Luscombe, R. (2019, August 26). Nestlé plan to take 1.1m gallons of water a day from natural springs sparks outcry. The Guardian . https://www.theguard ian. com/business/2019/aug/26/nestle suwannee river ginnie springs plan permit Maldonado, J. H. (2017). Recursos de Uso Común . Agua en América Latina: abundancia en medio de la escasez mundial, Interamerican Development Bank Universidad de Los Andes. Mill ennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005a). Ecosystems and Human Well Being: Synthesis . Island Press. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005b). Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well being: Wetlands and water synthesis . World Resources In stit ute. Morgan, K. T., Kadyampakeni, D. M., Zekri, M., Shumann, A. W., Vashisth, T., & Obreza, T. A. (2019). 2018 2019 Florida Citrus Production Guide: Nutrition Management for Citrus Trees . Morrow, J. (2020, March 25). Impaired Waters, TMDLs, and Basin M anag ement Action Plans Interactive Map . Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Mylavarapu, R., Wright, D., & Kidder, G. (2015). UF/IFAS Standardized Fertilization Recommendations for Agronomic Crops . NOAA. (2020, February). Climate at a Glance: Co unty Time Series . National Centers for Environmental Information. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ OECD. (2017). Groundwater Allocation: Managing Growing Pressures on Quantity and Quality . OECD Publishing. Groundwater Allocation : Managing Growing Pressures on Q uantity and Quality

PAGE 66

56 Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 14 (3), 137 158. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.137 OSU. (2012). Eutrophication . http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/eutroph i.ht m Polk County Historical Commission, & Southeastern Geological Society. (2011). Historic Kissengen Spring . Purdum, E. (2002). Management Districts . Randolph, J. (2011). Environmental Land Us e Pl anning and Management (2nd ed.). Robins, N. (2020). Introducing hydrogeology . Dunedin Academic Press, 2020. https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/rcid:kpIH000013/id:kt0124D1EF/introducing hydrogeology/water table piezometric?kpromoter=federation Rosenau, J. C ., Faulkner, G. L., Hendry, C. W., & Hull, R. W. (1977). Springs of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 31 . Scott, T., Means, G., Meegan, R., Means, R., Upchurch, S., Copeland, R., Jones, J., Roberts, T., & Willet, A. (2004). Springs of Florida: Fl orida Geological Survey Bulletin 66 . https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094032/00001/pdf Shaddox, T. W. (2016). Fertility Cons iderations for Sod Production . St. Johns River Water Management District. (2020). Characteristics of springs . https://www.sjrwmd.com/waterwa ys/springs/characteristics/ 2016 Florida Statutes, Chapter 373 Water Resources Title XXVIII Natural Resources; Conse rvation, Reclammation, and use § Section 042 Minimum flows and minimum water levels. Retrieved October 19, 2019, from https://www.flsenate. gov/Laws/Statutes/2016/373.042

PAGE 67

57 UN. (2015). Sustainable Development Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable manag ement of water and sanitation for all . Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6 UNEP DHI Centre. (2020, January 1). SDG indicator 6.5.1 Monitoring Guide 2020 . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZq2Dxf_ggQ U nited States Census Bureau. (2017). North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Main Page . https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ U S Census Bureau. (2019). United States International Trade . https://usatrade.census.gov/ USCB. (2018). American Comm unity Survey 1 Year Estimates . USDA, & NASS. (2017). Census of Agriculture . https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/CDQT/chapter/1/table/1 USG S. (n.d. a). Aquifers and Groundwater . Retrieved September 15, 2019, from https://www.usgs.gov/special topic/water s cience school/science/aquifers and groundwater?qt science_center_objects=0#qt science_center_objects USGS. (n.d. b). Floridan Aquifer System Groundwater Availability Study . Retrieved September 15, 2019, from https://fl.water.usgs.gov/floridan/intro.html US GS. (n.d. c). How Much Water is There on Earth? Water Science School. Retrieved March 21, 2020, from https://www.usgs.gov/special topic/wate r science school/science/how much water there earth?qt science_center_objects=0#qt science_center_objects USGS. (n.d . d). Springs and the Water Cycle . https://www.usgs.gov/special topic/water science school/science/springs and water cycle?qt science_center _objects=0#qt science_center_objects

PAGE 68

58 USGS. (n.d. e). What is the difference between a confined and an unconfined (water table) aquifer? Retrieved September 15, 2019, from https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what difference between a confined and unconfined water tab le aquifer?qt news_science_products=0#qt news_science_products USGS. (2018). USGS Water Data for the N ation . https://waterdata.usgs.gov/fl/nwis/wu Williams, L., & Kuniansky, E. (2015). Revised Hydrogeologic Framework of the Floridan Aquifer System in Flori da and Parts of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina . https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1807/pdf/pp1807.pdf Wu, Natural Springs in Florida. Water , 10 (1379). https://doi.org/10.3390/ w10101379 Wynn, S., Borisova, T., & Hodges, A. (2018). Economic Value of the Services Provided by Flor ida Springs and Other Water Bodies: A Summary of Existing Studies. 2018 , 9.

PAGE 69

59 Appendices Appendix 1 . Surface and groundwater extraction for crop production in Florida (MGD and percentages) County In FSR Total Percentage Groundwater Percentage Surface Water Percentage Alachua 14.83 100.00 14.81 99.87 0.02 0.13 Baker 0 .35 100.00 0.29 82.86 0.06 17.14 Bay 1.54 100.00 1.54 100.00 0.00 Bradford 1.40 100.00 1.40 100.00 0.00 Brevard 32.82 100.00 30.35 92.47 2.47 7.53 Calhoun 2.85 100.00 2.71 95.09 0.14 4.91 Citrus 1.63 100.00 1.61 98.77 0.02 1.23 Clay 0.94 100.00 0.18 19.15 0.76 80.85 Columbia 1.85 100.00 1.85 100.00 0.00 DeSoto 41.26 100.00 41.01 99.39 0.25 0.61 Dixie 4.09 100.00 4.09 100.00 0.00 Duval 1.71 100.00 0.71 41.52 1.00 58.48 Flagler 11.46 100.00 11.19 97.64 0.27 2.36 Franklin 0.00 Gadsden 6.65 100.00 1.29 19.40 5.36 80.60 Gi lchrist 12.02 100.00 12.01 99.92 0.01 0.08 Gulf 0.05 100.00 0.05 100.00 0.00 Hamilton 18.25 100.00 18.24 99.95 0 .01 0.05 Hardee 32.51 100.00 32.20 99.05 0.31 0.95 Hernando 2.11 100.00 2.08 98.58 0.03 1.42 Highlands 81.41 100.00 67.12 82.45 14.29 17.55 Hillsborough 45.70 100.00 43.27 94.68 2.43 5.32 Holmes 0.60 100.00 0.59 98.33 0.01 1.67 Indian River 39.90 100.00 20.51 51.40 19.39 48.60 Jackson 24.52 100.00 24.44 99.67 0.08 0.33 Jefferson 4.07 100.00 3.83 94.10 0.24 5.90 Lafayette 7.10 100.00 7.08 99.72 0.02 0.28 Lake 30.25 100.00 27.58 91.17 2.67 8.83 Leon 0.86 100.00 0. 82 95.35 0.04 4.65 Levy 15.29 100.00 15.25 99.74 0.04 0.26 Liberty 0.06 100.00 0.06 100.00 0.00 Madison 13.39 100.00 13.38 99.93 0.01 0.07

PAGE 70

60 Manatee 53.49 100.00 52.64 98.41 0.85 1.59 Marion 9.91 100.00 9.56 96.47 0.35 3.53 Nass au 0.03 100.00 0.03 100.00 0.00 Okaloosa 0.36 100.00 0.36 100.00 0.00 Okeechobee 11.47 100.00 9.36 81. 60 2.11 18.40 Orange 8.74 100.00 7.40 84.67 1.34 15.33 Osceola 13.36 100.00 10.82 80.99 2.54 19.01 Pasco 7.50 100.00 7.36 98.13 0.14 1.87 Pinellas 0.74 100.00 0.39 52.70 0.35 47.30 Polk 86.10 100.00 79.12 91.89 6.98 8.11 Putnam 20.80 100.00 20.75 99.76 0.05 0.24 Santa Rosa 0.96 100.00 0.96 100.00 0.00 Sarasota 6.77 100.00 6.30 93.06 0.47 6.94 Seminole 2.73 100.00 2.73 100.00 0.00 St. Johns 37.56 100.00 37.41 99.60 0.15 0.40 St. Lucie 41.75 100.00 14.0 1 33.56 27.74 66.44 Sumter 5.26 100.00 5.16 98.10 0.10 1.90 Suwannee 27.98 100.00 27.89 99.68 0.09 0.32 Taylor 0.00 Union 1.14 100.00 1.14 100.00 0.00 Volusia 18.13 100.00 16.27 89.74 1.86 10.26 Wakulla 0.32 100.00 0.32 100.00 0.00 Walton 0.41 100.00 0.41 100.00 0.00 Washington 0.61 100.00 0.59 96.72 0.02 3.28 TOTAL 807.59 100.00 712.52 88.23 95.07 11.77 County Out FSR Total Percentage Groundwater Percentage Surface Water Percentage Broward 37.56 100.00 11.20 29.82 26.36 70.18 Charlotte 13.05 100.00 7.38 56.55 5.67 43.45 Collier 127.06 100.00 106.02 83.44 21.04 16.56 Escambia 1.91 100.00 1.91 1 00.00 0.00 Glades 121.01 100.00 8.57 7.08 112.44 92.92 Hendry 379.14 100.00 122.45 32.30 256.69 67.70 Lee 48.67 100.00 27.61 56. 73 21.06 43.27 Martin 104.87 100.00 9.34 8.91 95.53 91.09 Miami Dade 35.82 100.00 32.79 91.54 3.03 8.46 Monroe 0.01 100.00 0.01 100.00 0.00 Palm Beach 572.13 100.00 26.74 4.67 545.39 95.33 TOTAL 1,441.23 100.00 354.02 24.56 1087.21 75.44 Source: (D ieter et al., 2018)

PAGE 71

61 Appendix 2 . N itrogen application recommendations (in pounds per acre ) N Application Av erage SD N Application Av erage SD Asparagus Fern 80 0 Eggplant , Strawberries 150 0 Aspidistra 90 0 Fern 80 0 Avocados 90 0 Field Crops 114 28 Blackberries 80 0 Field Nursery 90 0 Blueberries 65 15 Field Corn 250 0 Broccoli , Potatoes , Sorghum 174 33 Field Crops 114 28 Cabbage , Potatoes 174 33 Field Peas 60 0 Cabbage , Potatoes , Sorghum 174 33 Grains 110 0 Caladium 90 0 Grapes 65 15 Carambola 90 0 Green Bea ns , Potatoes 174 33 Carrots , Peanuts 349 116 Green Beans , Strawberries 150 0 Carrots , Potatoes 174 33 Green cover crop , Potatoes , Sorghum 174 33 Chestnuts 90 0 Greenhouse Nursery 90 0 Citrus 153 24 Greens , Potatoes , Sorghum 174 33 Container Nursery 90 0 Hay 187 93 Coontie Fern 80 0 Hay , Improved Pastures 187 93 Corn 250 0 Hay , Oats 230 0 Corn , Cotton 235 34 Hay , Potatoes 174 33 Corn , Oats 250 0 Herbs 90 0 Corn , Pasture 235 34 Improved Pastures 56 35 Corn , Peanuts 235 34 Leatherleaf 80 0 Corn , Po tatoes 174 33 Lemons 188 66 Corn , Rye 250 0 Ligustrum 90 0 Corn , Small Grains 235 34 Liriope 90 0 Corn , Strawberries 150 0 Magnolia Trees 90 0 Corn , Wheat 235 34 Mangos 90 0 Corn , Silage 235 34 Melons , Peas , Strawberries 175 0 Cotton 62 51 Melons , St rawberries 175 0 Cotton , Oats 62 51 Millet 165 0 Cotton , Peanuts 62 51 Millet , Rye 165 0 Cotton , Rye 62 51 Mixed Crops 150 0 Cotton , Wheat 62 51 Mustard greens , Potatoes , Sorghum 174 33 Cucumber , Potatoes , Sorghum 174 33 Non Alfalfa , Other Hay 187 93 Cucumbers Fall Strawberries 150 0 Nursery 90 0 Cucumbers Spring , Strawberries 150 0 Oats 90 14 Dry Beans , Strawberries 150 0 Oats , Peanuts 90 14

PAGE 72

62 N Application Avg SD N Application Avg SD Onions , Strawberries 150 0 Sod 84 40 Ornamentals 87 8 Sorghum 1 50 0 Other Groves 90 0 Soybeans 36 28 Pasture 80 0 Specialty Farms 90 0 Pasture , Peanuts 22 21 Squash , Strawberries 150 0 Pasture , Potatoes 174 33 Strawberries 150 0 Pasture , Rye 110 0 Strawberries , Tomatoes 150 0 Peaches 90 0 Strawberries , Tomatoes Fall 150 0 Peanuts 22 21 Strawberries , Tomatoes Spring 150 0 Peanuts , Rye 50 0 Strawberries , Zucchini 150 0 Peanuts , Soybeans 22 21 Sugarcane 90 0 Peanuts , Wheat 22 21 Tobacco 80 0 PeanutsSpring 22 21 Tree Nurseries 90 0 Peas , Strawberries 150 0 Othe r Hay , Non Alfalfa 187 93 Pecans 88 4 Palm Trees 90 0 Peppers , Strawberries 150 0 Papaya 90 0 Peppers Fall , Strawberries 150 0 Tropical Fruit 90 0 Peppers Spring , Strawberries 150 0 Turf 84 40 Pittosporum 90 0 Wheat 80 0 Potatoes 174 33 Potato es , Sorghum 174 33 Potatoes , Watermelon 174 33 Potatoes , Watermelon 174 33 Rye 100 0 Rye 93 13 Small Grains 110 0 Small Veg , Strawberries 150 0 Small Veg Fall , Strawberries 150 0 Small Veg Spring , Str awberries 150 0 Small Veg Sum , Strawberries 150 0 Sources: Estimates based on data from (Hochmuth & Hanlon, 2000; Morgan et a l., 2019; Mylavarapu et al., 2015; Shaddox, 2016) .

PAGE 73

63 Appendix 3 . Top 20 counties in the Florida Springs Region with the most crop sales in 2017 Source: (USDA & NASS, 2017)

PAGE 74

64 Appendix 4 . Top 20 counties in t h e F lorida S prings R egion with the most ground water withdrawal for crop production in 2016 Source: Estimates based on data from (Dieter et al., 2018; FDACS, 2019)

PAGE 75

65 Appendix 5 . Top 20 counties with the most nit rogen application for crop production in the Florida Springs Region in 2016 Sources: Estimates based on data from (FDACS, 2019; Hochmuth & Hanlon, 2000; Morgan et a l., 2019; Mylavarapu et al., 2015; Shaddox, 2016)