Mapping and Monitoring Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in

Mapping and Monitoring Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Ichetucknee Springs - 2004

Final Report

June 30, 2004

Prepared for:

Suwannee River Water Management District 9225 County Road 49

Rout 3, Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060

Prepared by: R. C. Kurz

2803 Fruitville Road

Suite 130 Sarasota, FL 34237

(941) 954-4036

and

D. C. Woithe 5115 Palmetto Point Drive

Palmetto, FL

and

S.K. Notestein, T. K. Frazer, J. A. Hale, and S.R. Keller Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

University of Florida 7922 NW 71st Street

Gainesville, Florida 32653 (352) 392-9617

Executive Summary

Mapping and Monitoring SAV in Ichetucknee Springs 2004

i

In 2003, the SRWMD began collecting ecological data within the Ichetucknee Springs and River to provide baseline information regarding the current health of this aquatic ecosystem. This report describes the second year of data collection to further characterize the Ichetucknee River and includes the mapping and monitoring of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and collection and analysis of water quality data. The specific goals for this project were:

• To remap portions of the river which are exposed to intensive recreational use (e.g., docks used for entry and exit points by tubers, swimmers, and canoeists) and perform a change analysis of these areas to compare SAV map data between 2003 and 2004;

• To develop spatial data for river depth, flow, reach and tree canopy shade, and assess

those data with respect to 2003 SAV mapping data; and

• To conduct sampling of SAV, periphyton, and water chemistry to continue to document existing condition and to provide a basis for defining the relationship between water flow and SAV abundance and biomass.

SAV coverage declined by approximately 454 m2 or 0.1 acres between 2003 and 2004. This represents an approximate 2% loss within the remapped areas. The observed loss was a result of changes in SAV to either bare bottom or emergent vegetation coverage. The greatest losses of SAV occurred at the downstream take out area at US 27. A few small patches of Sagittaria and Valisneria converted to bare bottom (approximately 110 m2), along with one patch of Chara (140 m2). This loss in SAV appears to have been caused by disturbances resulting from reconstruction of the floating dock structures and also changes in flow velocities caused by the installation of a new floating barrier across the river at this location. Overall, changes in SAV coverage were minimal between the two mapping periods and the majority of loss can be explained by temporary impacts associated with the reconstruction of the take out area near US 27. Other losses were the result of conversion of former SAV polygons to emergent polygons, likely due to lower river water levels observed during the drier 2004 mapping period. Based on the spatial mapping analyses for the river, the vast majority of the river is less than 2 m deep. Just over 50% of the river is less than 1 m deep (75,000 m2), with a slightly smaller area (62,000 m2) between 1 and 2 m deep. The 2 to 3 meter interval is small (5,000 m2, less then 5%) and occurs in Reach 3 (Rice Marsh) and the lower reaches. In general, flow follows the same trends as the depth, with more rapid flow in areas with greater depth. With respect to river reach, tree canopy shade decreases from reach 1 to 3, increases to reach 6, then decreases again, although more gradually, to reach 9. The decrease in shade around reach 3 is due to the greater width of the river in this area, and the presence of Zizania beds beyond the tree canopy. These two characteristics result in more open surface area away from the fringing tree canopy. The decrease in shade in reaches 8 and 9 appear to be due in part to the more east-west orientation of the river.

Executive Summary


ii

Analyses between nutrients and SAV cover, SAV biomass and periphyton were made among samples collected from the main river. No significant relationships were observed (p > 0.05), between nutrients and these parameters, suggesting that nutrient concentrations are not limiting for SAV or periphyton in the main river. Specific analyses were also conducted to characterize relationships between SAV coverage and depth, flow and terrestrial canopy cover. SAV coverage and depth were positively correlated (r2 = 0.03), suggesting that depth was not limiting SAV growth in this river. We did not observe a significant correlation between stream flow and SAV coverage. When comparing SAV coverage to terrestrial canopy cover (%), a weak negative correlation was observed (r2 = 0.02), suggesting that terrestrial canopy, in some cases, may reduce potential SAV coverage. As part of the 2004 sampling effort, six distinct springs (collectively referred to as “feeder springs”) were individually investigated. Comparisons among feeder springs were also made for temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, color, total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, and periphyton abundance. Discharge values ranged from 1.5 m3/s for Singing Spring to 5.8 m3/s for Blue Spring. Based on these discharge estimates these feeder springs were collectively discharging 18.3 m3/s (646.3 cubic feet per second) of ground water. At the time of sampling, mean specific conductivity ranged from 291.0 µS/cm for Blue Spring to 352.0 µS/cm for Millpond Spring, with an average of 312.4 µS/cm for all six springs. Mean total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 333 µg/L for Millpond Spring to 1043 µg/L for Main Spring, with an average total nitrogen concentration of 663 µg/L for all six springs. Considerable variation in total nitrogen concentrations among the feeder springs was observed with higher values in the Main and Blue Springs. Mean periphyton abundance ranged from 0.025 mg chl/g host plant wet wt for Main Spring to 1.025 mg chl/g host plant wet wt for Singing Spring, with an average periphyton abundance of 0.371 mg chl/g host plant wet wt for all six springs. Several of the springs were significantly different with respect to periphyton abundance on host macrophytes. Periphyton abundance in the feeder springs was not significantly correlated with nitrate concentrations nor with total nitrogen concentrations. However, there was a significant positive correlation between periphyton abundance and soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations, as well as total phosphorus. This relationship suggests that phosphorous may be the limiting nutrient for periphyton in these feeder springs. Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are suggested to further characterize and document SAV and water quality conditions within the river:

1. Although only a small change in SAV coverage was observed within the high use areas, remapping should be conducted annually to maintain a historical record of coverage and also to assess whether the losses which occurred at the US 27 take-out dock area has recovered. A complete remapping effort of the entire river should be performed at least once every five years.

2. Creation of a digital map from the 1979 Dutoit study should be performed to compare

historical SAV and current trends in SAV coverage.

Executive Summary


iii

3. Water quality sampling should be continued to further assess the relationships between

groundwater flows and surface water quality in the river and associated relationships with SAV coverage, biomass, and periphyton abundance.

Forward and Acknowledgments


iv

Forward This report was prepared for the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan (PBS&J) under Contract No. 02/03-180. Acknowledgments Mr. Rob Mattson of the SRWMD was instrumental in coordinating the administrative aspects of the project with the various Park staff and provided direction and technical guidance throughout the project. Mr. Sam Cole, Park Biologist for the Ichetucknee Springs State Park, provided invaluable assistance in coordinating field mapping and sampling within the Ichetucknee Springs and River. He also provided data used in the canopy and depth mapping.

Contents


v

Section Page Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... i Forward ...................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................... iv 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Methods and Materials........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Project Area Description......................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 SAV Re-mapping in 2004....................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.1 SAV Mapping Methodology.................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2 Depth, Flow, and Tree Canopy Shade Mapping...................................... 2-5 2.2.3 River Reach.............................................................................................. 2-6 2.2.4 Tree Canopy Height and Shade ............................................................... 2-7 2.3 Preparation of Digital and Hard Copy Maps ........................................................ 2-12 2.4 SAV Mapping Quality Control Process................................................................ 2-12 2.5 SAV and Water Chemistry Sampling................................................................... 2-12 3.0 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 SAV Mapping ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 SAV Remapping ...................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Depth, Flow, and Tree Canopy Shade ..................................................... 3-2 3.2 SAV Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Ichetucknee River .................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Bivariate Analyses Between Parameters ................................................. 3-8 3.2.3 Selected Parameter Comparisons Between Years ................................... 3-9 3.2.4 Feeder Springs ....................................................................................... 3-11 4.0 References........................................................................................................................... 4-1 Appendices Appendix A - Metadata for Ichetucknee and Manatee Springs SAV Maps Appendix B – Depth, Velocity, and Tree Height Measurement Data for Ichetucknee Springs Appendix C - Graphs of Relationships between SAV and Depth, Velocity, and Tree Canopy Appendix D - SAV Remap Areas in 2004 and Change Analysis Maps Appendix E – SAV Depth, Flow, and Tree Canopy Shade Maps Appendix F - Data and Statistical Summaries from SAV Transect Sampling

1.0 Introduction


1-1

Ichetucknee Springs is a treasured natural resource and the 9th largest of 27 first magnitude springs or spring groups in Florida. The springs and associated spring run/river provides a significant source of freshwater, creates unique environmental conditions for rare aquatic habitats and biota, and is an important recreational attraction for visitors from around the world. However, the springs, its recharge basin, and downstream spring runs are fragile ecosystems and have potentially been impacted by human development during the past century, particularly through excess nutrient loading and groundwater withdrawals. Recognizing the importance of these unique systems, the Florida Springs Task Force was formed by various state and local agencies and private interest groups in 1999 to develop management strategies for preserving and protecting the state’s springs. The following study was managed by the Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) and funded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Florida Springs Initiative to address the Task Force’s Information Strategy, which was developed to implement monitoring programs to detect and document long-term trends in spring conditions. This project involved a continuation of research begun in 2003 to evaluate SAV and water quality conditions in the Ichetucknee Springs and River system as well as additional mapping and analysis to characterize the river. This information is being used to evaluate trends in ecological conditions in the springs and to provide better management tools for this aquatic ecosystem. The specific goals for this project were:

• To remap portions of the river which are exposed to intensive recreational use (e.g., docks used for entry and exit points by tubers, swimmers, and canoeists) and perform a change analysis of these areas to compare SAV map data between 2003 and 2004;

• To develop spatial data for river depth, flow, reach and tree canopy shade, and assess

those data with respect to 2003 SAV mapping data; and

• To conduct sampling of SAV, periphyton, and water chemistry to continue to document existing condition and to provide a basis for defining the relationship between water flow and SAV abundance and biomass.

2.0 Methods and Materials

Mapping and Monitoring SAV in Ichetucknee Springs 2004 2-1

2.1 Project Area Description The Ichetucknee Spring and River are located approximately three miles west of Fort White, Florida. The river crosses U.S. 27 and also defines a portion of the county boundary between Suwannee and Columbia County (Figure 2-1). The Ichetucknee River is fed by nine named springs located along the upper 2.5-miles of the river. The northernmost spring forms the head of the river and is known as Ichetucknee Spring or Head Spring (Figure 2-2). Flow from this spring travels southward and forms the Ichetucknee River proper. The remaining eight named springs of the group are, in downstream order, Cedar Head Spring, Blue Hole Spring, Roaring Springs, Singing Springs, Boiling Spring, Grassy Hole Springs, Mill Pond Spring, and Coffee Spring (Figure 2-3). Flow characteristics for the Ichetucknee Springs group are shown in Table 2-1. The springs are within the confines of the Ichetucknee Springs State Park, which occupies 2,241 acres in Columbia and Suwannee Counties and was established in 1970. Historically, the area was used by local residents for swimming, watering of livestock, and phosphate mining. The average river width is 6 to 10 m and average depth is approximately 1 m in the upper reaches of the river. At approximately 550 m downstream, the river meets the southward flow of Cedar Head Spring and Blue Hole Spring. The river then flows about 4800 m south, then 6400 m southwest and discharges into the Santa Fe River. Depth increases in the middle and lower reaches of the river to approximately 2 to 4 m. The Ichetucknee River lies within an ancient basin called the Ichetucknee Trace along the 50 ft contour line of USGS topographic maps (Dutoit, 1979). The contributing basin or spring-shed of the Ichetucknee Springs includes an area north toward Lake City and includes surface flows from several sinkholes including Rose Sink near the city of Columbia. Local recharge occurs in the vicinity of the headsprings through various sinkholes and percolation through limestone outcrops and sandy soils. The SRWMD is currently evaluating the groundwater basin of the springs through a separate Springs Initiative grant from the FDEP.

Figure 2-1 (above). Aerial of Ichetucknee River. Figure 2-2 (below). Ichetucknee head spring.



Table 2-1. Spring characteristics for Ichetucknee Springs.

Spring/Run

Mean Discharge (ft3/sec)*

Max. Discharge (ft3/sec)*

Min. Discharge (ft3/sec)*

Length of Spring Run Studied (ft.)

Ichetucknee** 360.0 578 241 17,388 *from: Florida Geological Survey (1977)

**period of record 1917-1974, n=375 measurements ***period of record 1932-1973, n=9 measurements

Figure 2-3. Map of Ichetucknee Springs System (from Florida Geological Survey, 1977).



2.2 SAV Re-mapping in 2004 Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) was mapped in the spring of 2003 in the Ichetucknee Springs and River spring run (Kurz et al., 2003). This information was gathered to document the existing spatial distribution and coverage of SAV in this important spring system. In 2004, SAV was re-mapped in high recreational use areas to evaluate changes in coverage over the past 12 month period. The mapping area in the Ichetucknee system was located entirely within Ichetucknee State Park extending from the head spring downstream to the US 27 Bridge. Only high recreational use areas were mapped within this boundary to evaluate changes between the 2003 and 2004 coverages during two consecutive spring seasons. The high use areas included the following areas:

• Headspring reach (between the headspring and the “put-in” dock • Mid point take-out dock • Dampier’s Landing dock • Downstream take-out dock at US 27

2.2.1 SAV Mapping Methodology Field mapping methods for the 2004 remapping effort employed transect mapping with GPS verification in select areas where a GPS signal was strong enough to meet FDEP mapping standards. SAV was classified according to the percent coverage of each species present. Following completion of field mapping, a seamless coverage of SAV bed polygons was created for the Ichetucknee Springs and River. All coverages were prepared using ESRI’s ArcView GIS software. All field mapping was performed during late April and early May 2003. Details describing the GIS software, GPS equipment, field mapping methods, final map preparation, and the quality control process follow. 2.2.1.1 GPS and GIS Specifications The primary field mapping computer hardware was a Compaq iPAQ, model number 3850, running Windows PocketPC. ESRI ArcPad Version 6.01.5 GIS software was used along with a Teletype World NavigatorTM GPS, CF v2.0, Card #1651. The ArcPad mapping software automatically retrieved positions from the GPS as the outline of the SAV bed (polygon) was traced and produced mapped features in the field. The ArcPad graphical user interface was customized with ArcPad Studio using VBScript and XML programing languages. The custom interface provided data entry forms specifically designed for the previous 2003 mapping effort and was used in the remap effort in 2004. The final map was prepared in ESRI ArcView 3.2. The Florida State Plane, North Zone, Datum HPGN (NAD 83/90) with units in Feet projection was used. The minimum mapping unit was 30 square feet.



Based on the FDEP Mapping Standards for GPS, the following minimum settings were used for all GPS/GIS based mapping: • PDOP <6.0 • Signal to Noise Ratio >6.0 • Elevation Mask = 15 deg. • Minimum positions = 25 • Minimum number of satellites = 4 • Logging interval of point features = 1 second • Coordinate system = latitude/longitude The images used as a base map were one meter resolution, 1:24,000 scale, 1999 USGS color infrared Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads (DOQQ). Quad number Q4823 Northeast was used for Ichetucknee Springs. During preliminary shoreline mapping using GPS, it was determined that the aerial photography for the Ichetucknee River was shifted approximately 25 feet to the north. The known benchmark at the US 27 bridge also confirmed the need to shift the DOQQ. Using the GPS mapped boundary of the headsprings and the benchmark location on the US 27 bridge, the image was shifted to the north along with the digitized shoreline boundary described below. 2.2.1.2 Field Mapping The shoreline feature created during the 2003 SAV maps was used to delineate the boundary of the mapping area. The shoreline boundary was demarcated at the interior edge of dry land, dense wetland hardwood forest, and/or emergent wetland vegetation. SAV was evaluated according to the percent coverage of all species present. The classification system, a modified Braun Blanquet cover estimate, follows the methods of Woithe and Sleszynski, (1996), for the nearby Rainbow River in Dunnellon, Florida. Cover categories used were 0%, 0-25%, 25-50%, and 50-100%. To simplify the recording of information in the field, the cover categories were represented by a 0, 1, 2 or 3, respectively. A systematic reconnaissance of an area was first performed to assess the species present, their cover categories, and how they should be delineated. Additional data collected were bottom feature type (SAV, bare, or emergent), date, and comments. Some of the information in the comments field includes substrate type (rock or sand), algae coverage, and species present in quantities less than the minimum mapping unit. Vegetation patches as small as 30 square feet were individually mapped. Transect mapping was performed as an alternative to GPS mapping in portions of the high use remapping areas. A 100-foot floating transect was devised using polyethylene rope, floats and weights. Weights were used to anchor the beginning and end points of the transect, which had large floats. Smaller floats were used to mark 25 foot segments. The beginning transect point was a fixed point with a location determined using GPS. The transect line was shifted down or up river by moving one of the weights. GPS points were taken at the beginning and endpoints of each transect to assist in locating transects within the river during the GIS desktop mapping. SAV polygons were hand drawn relative to the transect onto waterproof paper from the canoe, or while snorkeling. Notes and sketches were made regarding



the location of the transect relative to bends in the river. SAV polygons were drawn onto field sheets with lines representing the relative distance between transect line and river boundary. River stage in the Ichetucknee River was relatively low compared to 2003 and declined through the mapping period. Downstream water levels in the Santa Fe River levels have declined steadily since April 2004 as a result of droughty conditions throughout northwest Florida as shown in Figure 2-4.

Figure 2-4. Changes in river stage immediately downstream of the Ichetucknee River at the Santa Fe River USGS gaging station (source: USGS, 2004).

2.2.2 Depth, Flow, and Tree Canopy Shade Mapping Spatial data were developed for river depth, flow, reach and tree canopy shade. River flow and depth contours were developed from point data collected along 31 transects and from ground truthing. Tree canopy shade relied on aerial photography, ground-truthing, field data, and GIS modeling techniques. Characterization and assessment relative to SAV were done using raster data analysis.

2.2.2.1 Depth and Velocity Mapping and spatial analysis were conducted in order to further characterize the Ichetucknee River. Spatial data were developed for river reach, depth, velocity, and tree canopy shade, then assessed with respect to SAV using an overlay process. More detailed methods for field data



collection, map development and spatial analyses follow. All GIS work was done using ESRI ArcMap 8.3 ArcView and Spatial Analyst. All data originally in vector format were converted to raster format with one meter cell size for analysis. Metadata are provided in Appendix A. Draft maps of depth and velocity were developed from field measurements taken by the University of Florida as part of this mapping and monitoring project. Depth and velocity were measured at five equally spaced points along thirty one cross-sectional transects during April 2004 (Appendix B). Transect intervals were approximately 300 to 700 feet. Depth and velocity contours were visually interpolated and digitized between transect locations using GIS. First, the location of contour intervals was estimated across each transect by interpolating between measured locations. Contour lines were then interpolated between transects taking into consideration general characteristics of river geomorphology and specific known conditions. UF depth information was supplemented with field data collected by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) during the spring of 2003 (Sam Cole, Park Biologist). The draft depth contour map was ground-truthed and revised during field reconnaissances conducted in May 2004. Field location was determined using GPS/GIS on a hand held computer and printed maps showing depth, transect locations, and aerial photography. A sounding line was used to measure depth almost continuously between transects while traveling downstream and crossing back and forth across the river channel. The location of 1, 2, and 3 meter contours were verified or, as in most cases, newly determined. River stage was observed at staff gages during the ground-truthing and compared to stages recorded at the time of UF sampling. The headspring stage was the same, and the downriver stages were within a few centimeters. Field notes and revised depth contours were drawn onto the paper maps and later digitized in GIS. The river velocity map was developed using the field data collected at points across transects as well as the revised depth contours map. Delineation of flow contours between transects relied heavily on considerations of depth, width and the expected effect of cross-sectional area on river velocity. An example of the GIS window used to delineate flow is shown in Figure 2-5. The resulting flow map represents values based on a limited period of data collection, and therefore, depicts a rough estimate of flow based on hydrologic conditions for the spring of 2004. Velocity was not field measured in the uppermost 500 feet of the river. Because of the extreme variability of flow in and around the headspring boil, values were not assumed. 2.2.3 River Reach A river reach layer was developed to assess upstream-downstream differences in river characteristics in 2,000 foot river segments. Distance was measured along the center of the river channel using a distance tool in GIS. River reach values increase from one at the headspring to 9 at the downstream end of the study area. The area of each of the 9 river reaches is very similar (about 10% each) with two exceptions. The first reach is about 5% of the total river area, and the 3rd is about 20%. While river reaches were measured to be 2000 feet in length, the first reach is more narrow, and the third reach, the Rice Marsh area, is particularly wide. The first reach is the most shallow, narrow (and heavily shaded), and has the slowest flow. It receives discharge only from the headspring. Reaches downstream and higher in number receive input from additional springs.



Figure 2-5. Example transect and flow map.

2.2.4 Tree Canopy Height and Shade The horizontal extent of the tree canopy along the river banks was delineated in GIS from 1999 infrared Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads (DOQQ's) with 1 meter pixel resolution. Canopy extent was ground-truthed during April 2004. Observations and canopy conditions were recorded and modifications were drawn onto printed maps and later digitized. Field data were collected to determine the height of the tree canopy at 25 locations during the April 2004 field work (Figure 2-6). Field measurements and calculated tree canopy heights are in Appendix B. Canopy height measurements were made with a SUUNTO PM5/360P Clinometer. River width was measured either with a tape or from aerial photography with GIS distance tools.



Figure 2-6. Tree canopy and height measurement locations along the Ichetucknee River.

Locations were modified somewhat from the UF depth and velocity transects for ease of measurements and best representation of canopy conditions. A GIS point theme was created with one point representing each canopy measurement location. Canopy height was assigned to each point as an attribute. A continuous surface of canopy height was developed using the Spatial Analyst extension Inverse Distance Weighted tool. A line dividing the canopy on each side of the river was used as a barrier to interpolation. Therefore, only tree heights upriver and downriver, were to interpolate between points. Cell size used for modeling heights of the tree canopy surface was five meters. Example results of the tree canopy shade model are shown in Figure 2-7.



Figure 2-7. Example of tree canopy height map along the Ichetucknee River.

The Spatial Analyst “hillshade” command was used to cast a shadow from the surface of the tree canopy. The altitude and azimuth of the sun was calculated for the sun's position during summer conditions (June 21st) at six equally spaced time intervals throughout the daylight hours, beginning at 7:00 a.m. A theme was made for each of the six time intervals. The six themes were then summed to create a theme representing total amount of daily shade. The sum of the shading theme represents the length of time the water surface is shaded that day. Altitude and azimuth values were calculated by the following equations (Stine, 1985, Dickinson, 1980):

Hour angle ω = 15° per hour (365° per rotation / 24 hours per day), where ω = 0° at solar noon and mornings are positive.

Latitude φ = 30° north Declination δ = the angle between the equatorial plane and the sun = 23.45 * sin(360*(284+n)/365) where n is the day of the year



Solar zenith θZ = the angle between the zenith angle (the line straight over head) and the sun. cosθZ = (sinδ * sin φ) + (cos δ * cosφ * cos ω) Solar altitude α: the angle from the horizon to the sun with directly overhead, being 90° = 90 - θZ Solar azimuth θA = the bearing of the sun away from true north, with east being positive cosθA: (sinδ - sinφ * cosθZ) / (cosφ * sinθZ)

Examples of shading for each time interval are shown in Figure 2-8.

Figure 2-8. Examples of tree canopy shade over six time intervals along the Ichetucknee River.



Figure 2-8 (cont’d). Examples of tree canopy shade over six time intervals along the Ichetucknee River.



2.3 Preparation of Digital and Hard Copy Maps After each field mapping session, the information was transferred and compiled into the comprehensive, geographically referenced GIS database using ArcView 3.2. The GPS field delineation was redigitized "heads up" (traced) in the comprehensive layer to create clean, complete polygons with their associated attributes. For the transect mapping, the locations of the 100 foot transect lines were first digitized onto the basemap, using the GPS points as supplemental information. The SAV polygons and their attributes were then digitized "heads up" relative to transect lines from the field notes. The straight, fixed width transects of the field sheets were fit into the sinuous, changing width of the river with the aid of notes and sketches drawn onto the field sheets. 2.4 SAV Mapping Quality Control Process Quality control of the GIS map was performed to verify that all polygons were correctly labeled. The field data were thoroughly reviewed to assure that information was correctly transferred from the GIS file. The GIS files were checked to assure that all polygons were labeled, that adjacent polygons did not have the same attributes, and that attributes in all fields were correct (for example, that a polygon with Sagittaria kurziana coverage of 50-100% did not have a bottom feature type of "bare"). The completed GIS map was downloaded onto the handheld computer with GPS for field verification. This allowed for tracking and viewing one's location on the map while navigating the river. This field checking was done both by selecting random individual points in the river and by navigating upriver and observing approaching polygons. As the canoe approached a polygon, its characteristics (size and shape, species present, and cover category) were identified from the map, and verified by visual observation. Though the GPS signals were sometimes inadequate to delineate small polygons, they were sufficient to determine relative location of most polygons in the remapped areas of the river. Additional quality control was performed by comparing field sampling information from the SAV monitoring data taken by UF in the spring of 2004 at 31 transects. 2.5 SAV and Water Chemistry Sampling Sampling of SAV and water chemistry in the Ichetucknee Springs and River was conducted to document existing vegetation conditions and to identify relationships between stream velocity and SAV cover, biomass and community structure. The sampling protocol for SAV provided a statistically rigorous database that was used to assess multiple relationships between flow velocity, stage, water chemistry, physicochemical parameters (temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen), and light availability (e.g., canopy cover) and SAV species presence and cover. The sampling protocol followed similar methods developed by Frazer et al. (2001) for the sampling of five coastal rivers along west-central Florida (four of which were spring-fed).



Physical, chemical, and biological data were collected from the Ichetucknee River between approximately 9 AM and 6 PM on May 30th, 2003 and May 27th, 28th and 29th 2004. For both years, a total of 31 sampling transects (perpendicular to stream flow) were evenly distributed along the river (approximately 150 m between transects), beginning at the upper-most canoe launch near the head spring, and ending several hundred meters upstream of the final take-out point, near US 27. Several of these transects were adjacent to permanent sampling locations established by the Park. Along each transect, five stations were sampled; one in the middle and two to either side approximately one-third and two-thirds the distance to the shoreline. Mid-stream sampling locations were documented with a Garmin WAAS enabled GPS receiver (see Table F-1 for coordinates and Figure 3-1 for a graphical representation of transect locations). During 2004, additional sampling was carried out on six feeder springs (Main, Blue, Roaring, Singing, Boiling and Millpond). Sampling in each of these six feeder springs was carried out along a single transect comprised of five stations (more detail is provided in the Feeder Springs section of this report below).

In both 2003 and 2004, measures included: transect width, water column depth, stream flow, canopy cover, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, water column light attenuation, SAV coverage and biomass (selected transects, see below), periphyton abundance and substrate type. In 2004, water was collected at selected transects for chlorophyll, color and nutrient analyses, i.e. total nitrogen, ammonium, nitrate, total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus.

2.5.1 Physical and Chemical Measurements Stream widths were measured with a 50-m fiberglass tape measure. Water column depth was measured with a telescoping fiberglass survey rod. Stream velocities were measured at 60% of water column depth with a Marsh-McBirney Model 2000 portable flow meter reporting 5-second average values. Terrestrial canopy cover directly above each station was categorized visually as 0 to 100%. Measures of temperature (°C), specific conductivity (µS/cm), dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L), and pH were measured in situ with a Yellow Springs Instrument Company Model 650 hand-held meter. Li-Cor Instruments Inc. quantum light sensors were employed to simultaneously collect surface and downwelling light intensity (µmole photons/s/m2 of photosynthetically active radiation, PAR) with a data logger at selected locations. Light attenuation (Kd) was determined from the equation: Kd = [ln (Io / Iz)] / z, where Io is incident irradiance at the water surface and Iz is light intensity at depth z (m) (Kirk 1994). Divers visually

Figure 3-1. SAV sampling locations (in green).



determined the substrate type and assigned it to one of 10 categories: mud, mud/sand, mud/shell, mud/rock, sand, sand/shell, sand/rock, shell, shell/rock, or rock.

Surface water (ca. 0.25m depth) was collected as grab samples for chlorophyll analysis using 1-L wide-mouth Nalgene jars (pre-rinsed with ambient surface water from each station in the field). Chlorophyll concentrations (µg/L) were measured by filtering water through a 47 mm Gelman type A/E glass-fiber filter in the field (filtrate was used for analysis of color and inorganic nutrient concentrations; see below). Filters were stored over silica gel desiccant and placed in a dark cooler with ice for transport to the laboratory. In the laboratory, filters were stored frozen prior to analysis. Chlorophyll was extracted with a hot ethanol method described by Sartory and Grobbelaar (1984) and chlorophyll concentrations were determined spectrophotometrically (Method 10200 H; APHA, 1992). Additional surface water samples were collected in 250-ml acid-cleaned Nalgene bottles and transported on ice to the laboratory where they were analyzed for total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentration. Total nitrogen concentrations (µg/L) were determined from whole water samples by oxidizing water samples with persulfate and determining nitrate-nitrogen concentrations with a Bran-Luebbe autoanalyzer with a cadmium column reduction method (APHA 1992). Following persulfate digestion (Menzel and Corwin, 1965), total phosphorus concentrations (ug/L) were determined using the procedures of Murphy and Riley (1962). Ammonium (µg/L), nitrate+nitrite (µg/L), and SRP (µg/L) concentrations were all determined from water samples that had been filtered through a 47 mm Gelman type A/E glass-fiber filter in the field, placed in acid cleaned bottles, stored on ice and analyzed within 24 hours of collection. Ammonium and nitrate+nitrite are expressed as N-NH4+ and N-NO3-+NO2- respectively. Both ammonium (µg/L) and nitrate+nitrite (µg/L) concentrations were determined with a Braun-Luebbe autoanalyzer. SRP (µg/L) concentrations were determined with the methods used for total phosphorus except that the samples were not digested with persulfate. Finally, color (Pt-Co units) was determined spectrophotometrically (APHA 1992).

2.5.2 Aquatic Vegetation Estimates of SAV coverage (%) were made at all sampling locations along each transect in the main river (n = 155) and at each station in each of the six feeder springs (n = 30). Measures of SAV biomass (kg/m2) were collected only at 10 of the 31 regularly spaced transects (n = 50) along the main river. At each station, a 1-m2 quadrat was placed on the river bottom and the percent cover estimated visually. Coverage estimates were made for each SAV species. In addition, a total coverage estimate for all SAV species contained within the quadrat was made. At those transects where SAV biomass was harvested, a 0.25 m2 quadrat was placed on the bottom and the above-ground biomass contained within a quadrat removed by divers and transported to the surface. SAV was separated by species and the resultant fractions spun in a nylon mesh bag to remove excess water. Samples were then weighed with calibrated hand-held Pesola scales. Weights were recorded to the nearest 10 g for samples less than 1 kg and to the nearest 100 g for samples greater than 1 kg.



Periphyton associated with submersed macrophytes was sampled along the ten transects where SAV biomass measures were made. Along these transects, a representative sample of the most abundant macrophyte species was carefully removed and placed in a 1-L wide-mouth Nalgene jar with deionized water and stored in a cooler with ice until processed (within 24 hours of collection). Periphyton abundance was quantified with a method originally used by Moss (1981) and subsequently modified by Canfield and Hoyer (1988). In brief, periphyton removal was accomplished by vigorously shaking each bottle for 30 seconds, then pouring the resultant slurry though a 1.0-mm screen into a Nalgene beaker. Fresh deionized water was then added to the plant sample and the process repeated two additional times. The total slurry volume (ca. 1 to 1.5 L) was thoroughly mixed and a sub-sample (ca. 50 to 400 ml) filtered through a Gelman type A/E 47 mm glass-fiber filter. Filters were stored frozen in wide-mouth Nalgene jars that contained desiccant until analyzed for chlorophyll.

Periphyton abundance was expressed as mg chlorophyll/g of host macrophyte weight. Macrophyte weights were expressed as both wet and dry weights (wet wt and dry wt, respectively). Wet and dry weights for each macrophyte sample were determine by weighing the plants to the nearest 0.001 g on a Mettler Toledo AG204 scale. Wet (fresh) weights were measured after the macrophyte samples had been gently blotted with paper towels. Dry weights were measured after the macrophyte samples had been placed in a forced-air-drying oven maintained at 65 °C for approximately 48 hours.

2.5.3 Data Summaries and Statistical Analysis

All raw data used in summary figures and tables are available in electronic format. Mean transect values, where appropriate, were used to summarize physical, chemical and vegetative measures. When aquatic vegetation biomass estimates were equal to 0.0 kg wet wt m-2, a negligible value of 0.001 kg wet wt m-2 was used for subsequent statistical analyses. All statistical computations were performed with the JMP statistical software package (SAS Institute, Inc. 2000). Statements of statistical significance imply p < 0.05.

3.0 Results and Discussion


3-1

3.1 SAV Mapping 3.1.1 SAV Remapping Re-mapping in the Ichetucknee River was conducted using both GPS and transect field techniques followed by heads up digitization and editing. The most common species encountered in the Ichetucknee Springs and River were Sagittaria kurziana, Zizania aquatica, Vallisneria americana, Chara sp., Ludwigia repens, and Hydrocotyle sp. SAV maps for 2004 and 2003/2004 change analysis maps at the high use areas are presented in Appendix D. Approximately 25,678 m2 (6.35 acres) were remapped in 2004. The cover/area of each habitat type is shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 below. “Docks” represents the shaded area covered by existing dock/structure features at the take-out locations along the river (Dampier’s Landing, Mid Point, US 27 area).

Table 3-1. Comparison of bottom feature coverages between 2003 and 2004.

Type Cover - 2003 (sq. m) Cover - 2004 (sq. m) Difference (sq. m)Bare 974 1229 255Emergent 825 1024 199Docks 281 281 0SAV 23599 23145 -454

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Bare Emergent Docks SAVBottom Type

Cov

erag

e (s

q. m

eter

s)

Cover - 2003 (sq. m)

Cover - 2004 (sq. m)

Figure 3-1. Changes in coverage by habitat type within the Ichetucknee River between 2003 and 2004.



3-2

SAV coverage declined by approximately 454 m2 or 0.1 acres between 2003 and 2004. This represents an approximate 2% loss within the remapped areas. The observed loss was a result of changes in SAV to either bare bottom or emergent vegetation coverage. At the headspring, two new small patches of Ludwigia were mapped in 2004. One small patch of Zizania converted from SAV to bare coverage in the headspring reach, immediately downstream of the canoe launch area (see change analysis figures in Appendix D). A small patch of submerged Zizania converted to emergent Zizania in the same area. Some thinning of Sagittaria beds (50-100% density to 0-25% density) occurred in the canoe launch area. A few small patches of SAV converted from Sagittaria to Chara further downstream. At the Mid Point dock area, small shifts in SAV species occurred (Vallisneria to Sagittaria) as well as some thinning of Sagittaria. Approximately 10 m2 of SAV (Sagittaria) converted to bare bottom in this area. At the Dampier’s Landing area, no losses in SAV occurred between 2003 and 2004. Vegetation in a few polygons thinned during this period and one polygon exhibited a shift from Sagittaria to Chara. The greatest losses of SAV occurred at the downstream take out area at US 27. A few small patches of Sagittaria and Vallisneria converted to bare bottom (approximately 110 m2), along with one patch of Chara (140 m2). This loss in SAV appears to have been caused by disturbances resulting from reconstruction of the floating dock structures and also changes in flow velocities caused by the installation of a new floating barrier across the river at this location. Overall, changes in SAV coverage were minimal between the two mapping periods and the majority of loss can be explained by temporary impacts associated with the reconstruction of the take out area near US 27. Other losses were the result of conversion of former SAV polygons to emergent polygons, likely due to lower river water levels observed during the drier 2004 mapping period. 3.1.2 Depth, Flow, and Tree Canopy Shade Depth: In general, the majority of the Ichetucknee River is less than 2 meters deep. Just over 50% of the river is less than 1 m deep (75,000 m2), with a slightly smaller area (62,000 m2) between 1 and 2 m. The 2 to 3 m interval is small (5,000 m2, less then 5%) and occurs in reaches 3 (Rice Marsh) through 9. Contour intervals greater than 2 m are less continuous than the shallower contours. Typically these deeper contours are in shorter stretches and are in the outer river bends where flow is greatest. The primary spring vent at the headspring exceeds three meters (maximum depth of approximately 8m) though it is negligible in size (20 m2) . With respect to river reach, there is a fairly steady trend of increasing depth with reach. The 0-1m contour interval decreases from around 95% of the total reach area in reach one to 35% in reach 9. The 2-3m contour area increases from around 5% in reach 1 to 65% in reach 9. The jump in shallow depths (<1m) in reach 3 represents the wide, shallow Rice Marsh. With exception, the 2-3m contour interval increases slightly with reach to a maximum of 10% of total reach area in 8. Reach 1, of course, is an exception where the headspring vent is located. Flow: In general, flow follows the same trends as the depth, with more rapid flow in areas with greater depth. Some exceptions occur where the cross-sectional area of the river affects a change in flow. Slightly more than 40% of the river is less than 0.1 m/s, with slightly more than 20% in the



3-3

0.1- 0.2 and 0.2-0.3m/s intervals each. Flow does not exceed 0.3m/s until the rice marsh (reach 3). Less than 15% of the river is 0.3-0.4m/s. The very small remainder exceeds 0.4m/s. Flow also follows the same trend as depth with respect to river reach. Slower flow (<0.2 m/s) decreases with reach as more rapid flow (>0.2 m/s) increases. Again, the primary exception is the Rice Marsh (reach 3) where the river widens and is covered largely by Zizania aquatica growing in shallow, slow moving water. Tree Canopy Shade: Tree canopy heights calculated from field measurements ranged from 25 feet to 95 feet, with an average of 56 feet (Appendix B). Shading from the fringing tree canopy varies with horizontal canopy extent, orientation of the river to the sun, and, to a lesser extent, tree canopy height. The 12 hours of shade/day category covers the largest portion (40%) of the river surface. This area includes what lies directly beneath the fringing tree canopy. Other shade categories are similar in total area; the 2, 4, 6, and 8 hour/day categories cover between 10% and 20% of the river. The 0 and 10 hour/day categories cover less than 10% of the overall river area. With respect to river reach, tree canopy shade decreases from reach 1 to 3, increases to reach 6, then decreases again, although more gradually, to reach 9. The decrease in shade around reach 3 is due to the greater width of the river in this area, and the presence of Zizania beds beyond the tree canopy. These two characteristics result in more open surface area away from the fringing tree canopy. The decrease in shade in reaches 8 and 9 appear to be due in part to the more east-west orientation of the river. Ludwigia repens and Hydrocotyle sp., were mapped only in reach 1. Sagittaria kurziana has a fairly constant presence in each of the 9 reaches, ranging between approximately 35% and 65% coverage. Zizania aquatica represents about half of the area of reaches 1-3, less than 5% of reaches 4 and 5, and is absent in remaining reaches. Vallisneria americana coverage begins where Zizania ends, with 20%-35% coverage in reaches 4 through 9. With the exception of a large patch of Chara sp. in reach 2 that is largely outside of the main channel and somewhat unique, Chara is present primarily in reaches 5 through 10. Myriophyllum heterophyllum has over 10% coverage in reach 8 and less than 5% in reach 9. Zizania is present primarily in less than 1 m depth, and less than 0.2 m/s flow. High water levels at the time of the 2003 SAV mapping resulted in Zizania being over-represented as a submersed species. Greater coverage of Zizania, which is typically emergent, was submersed at the time of the 2003 mapping. While there was some adjustment made for this, and notes were made regarding whether Zizania was submersed or emergent at the time of mapping, it remains that much Zizania calculated as SAV is typically emergent. An inverse relationship does appear with Zizania coverage and increasing depth, flow, and tree canopy shade. Though coverage varies somewhat with each parameter, Sagittaria appears fairly independent of depth, flow, reach, or tree canopy shade. Chara has a positive trend of increasing coverage with increasing depth, flow and tree canopy shade and a weak but positive relationship with river reach. During field mapping, Chara was found to occur often in darker areas of rapid flow where rocky substrate was exposed. Vallisneria coverage appears to increase with increasing amounts tree canopy shade, while it is less strongly related to increasing depth and flow. Similar and opposite to



3-4

Zizania, Vallisneria is essentially absent before reach 4 and consistently present downstream of reach 4. Bare substrate does not appear to change with depth or flow, though it does increase with increasing depth. Depths greater than 3 m should be disregarded, as there is only one polygon at the headspring which exceeds 3m and is less than 20 m2. There appears to be a relationship between depth and species composition - with Zizania only occurring in depths shallower than 1 m. This is likely due to the physiological requirements of this species which cannot tolerate submerged conditions or low light conditions. This is also apparent in the relationship between percent tree canopy shade and occurrence of each SAV species. Zizania is more frequently observed in areas of the river with little to no shade, whereas Vallisneria occurs in the more shaded and deeper reaches of the river. Sagittaria does not appear to be light limited since it occurs consistently in both the open canopy and closed canopy areas of the river. While these trends may represent requirements or limitations for shade, depth and flow as indicated, each of these parameters is related to river reach. These trends may be related to other ecological or water chemistry conditions that change with river reach. The structure and energy flow of spring ecosystems changes as groundwater enters a spring, and is acted on by processes of primary production and respiration, among others (Myers and Ewel, 1990). Also, the influx of water from springs along the river may be related as well. The results of the SAV and water quality monitoring described below further explores potential relationships between measured parameters and SAV coverage and community structure. 3.2 SAV Monitoring Data summaries and statistical analysis results from the SAV monitoring data collection effort are presented in Appendix F.

3.2.1 Ichetucknee River Depth: Measured depths in 2003 ranged from 0.3 to 3.0 m, with the mean depth for all stations sampled in the river equal to 1.47 m (Table F- 2). In 2004, depths at the sampling stations ranged from 0.5 to 2.9 m, with a mean value of 1.49 m (Table F-3). In both years, mean transect depth generally increased with distance downstream (Figure F-2).

Stream velocity: Flow rates in 2003 ranged from –0.01 to 0.56 m/s, with a mean value equal to 0.20 m/s (Table F- 2). In 2004, along the main axis of the river, flow rates ranged from 0.01 to 0.55 m/s, with a mean value equal to 0.21 m/s (Table F-3). In both years, mean transect flow rates gradually increased with distance downstream (Figure F-3), probably the result of the additional springs discharging into the river. However, variation in flow rates among transects was often large and likely reflects differences in stream width and depth.

Substrate Type: In 2003, six different categories of river substrate were recorded; the majority being mud (47%) and sand (39%) (Figure F-4). In 2004, seven different categories of river



3-5

substrate were observed, the majority being sand (46%) and mud (23%) (Figure F-4). The prevalence of mud and sand substrates suggests that most of the river bottom is suitable for SAV colonization and growth.

Terrestrial canopy cover: Measured values ranged from 0 to 100 % canopy coverage, with the sampled river average equal to 40.3 % in 2003 (Table F-2) and 41.2 % in 2004 (Table F-3). Canopy coverage was lowest in the rice marsh region of the river (Figure F-5). These results correlate well with the results and maps of tree canopy shade analysis presented earlier in Section 3.1.

Temperature: In 2003, surface water temperatures ranged from 21.8 to 23.8 °C, with a mean of 23.1 °C (Table F-2). In 2003, the mean transect temperature gradually increased with distance downstream until approximately transect 14, from which point temperatures remained relatively stable (mean temperature for transects 14 through 31 was 23.6 °C, see Figure F-6). In 2004, upstream transect values were similar (range 21.8 °C to 22.9 °C), but mean transect temperatures decreased with distance downstream of transect 14, and the 2004 river average was 21.8 ºC (Table F-3). This difference between years is likely a reflection of the sampling regime. Sampling in 2004 was initiated at the most downstream transect and at the most upstream transect in 2003. Differences between years in the surface water temperatures are presumed to be a consequence of atmospheric temperature differences during the time of sampling and, possibly, influences from the Santa Fe River which near flood-stage levels during the spring of 2003. This may have also caused temperatures to be greater in the lower reaches of the Ichetucknee River compared to 2004 when the water column was dominated by cooler groundwater flows.

Specific conductivity: In 2003, values for specific conductivity ranged from 309 to 348 µS/cm, with a mean value of 327 µS/cm (Table F-2). Mean transect specific conductivity values generally increased with distance downstream (Figure F-7). In 2004, specific conductivity values were always less; mean values at specific transects ranged from 299 to 310 µS/cm with a river wide value of 305 µS/cm (Table F-3) and may be a reflection of differences in surface water input between years.

Dissolved Oxygen Concentration: In 2003, dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 3.6 to 8.1 mg/L, with an average value of 6.4 mg/L (Table F-2). Dissolved oxygen values rapidly increased from transect 1 to transect 14, but declined gradually with additional distance downstream (Figure F-8). In 2004, the pattern was similar; dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 3.7 to 7.4 mg/L, with an average value of 5.6 mg/L (Table F-3). Dissolved oxygen values rapidly increased from transect 1 to transect 14, but declined gradually with additional distance downstream. These observed patterns in dissolved oxygen concentration are consistent with other vegetated, spring-fed rivers (Frazer et al. 2001), in which the ground water emanating from spring vents has low DO values, and rapidly increases due to photosynthesis by aquatic autotrophs and atmospheric diffusion. The decline in dissolved oxygen downstream may be due to the presence of several spring discharges in the Floodplain Reach.



3-6

Light attenuation coefficient (Kd/m): In 2003, measured values for the light attenuation coefficient ranged from 0.49 to 0.71 Kd/m, and averaged 0.59 Kd/m (Table F-2). In 2004, light attenuation was measured at 30 of the 31 transects in the main river. Light attenuation coefficients ranged from 0.33 to 2.34 with an overall mean value of 0.90 (Table F-3). Elevated light attenuation values are calculated when light readings are made under low ambient light levels (such as under tree canopy or rain clouds). In 2003, only 4 measures of light attenuation were made, all in locations without terrestrial canopy cover. In 2004, 30 transects were sampled for light attenuation; however 12 transects had canopy cover that biased the measurements (Figure F-9). Excluding the 2004 stations which had canopy cover, results in an average value of 0.53 Kd/m, similar to the 2003 average value of 0.59 Kd/m.

pH: In 2003, measured values ranged from 7.24 to 7.90, with the sampled river average equal to 7.65 (Table F-2). A gradual increase in mean transect pH was noted (Figure F-10). In 2004, pH values ranged from 7.53 to 7.92, with a river wide average of 7.73 (Table F-3, Figure F-10). Although the mean pH for the majority of transects was slightly greater in 2004 than in 2003, the spatial patterns were similar in both years.

Total Nitrogen: Samples were not collected for an analysis of total nitrogen in 2003. In 2004, total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 500 to 933 µg/L with a mean value of 625 µg/L (Table F-3). Total nitrogen concentrations decreased from the headwaters to mid-river, and then remained relatively stable throughout the lower portions of the river (Figure F-11).

Nitrate: Samples were not collected for an analysis of nitrate in 2003. In 2004, nitrate concentrations ranged from 440 to 763 µg/L with a mean value of 523 µg/L (Table F-3). Nitrate concentrations generally decreased with distance downstream (Figure F-12).

Ammonium: Samples were not collected for an analysis of ammonium in 2003. In 2004, ammonium concentrations in the river were low and ranged from 7 to 16 µg/L with a mean value of 11 µg/L (Table F-3). Ammonium concentrations generally increased with distance downstream (Figure F-13). The majority of the nitrogen in this system was comprised of nitrate (Figure F-14).

Total Phosphorus: Samples were not collected for an analysis of total phosphorus in 2003. In 2004, total phosphorus concentrations in the river ranged from 23 to 54 µg/L, with a mean value of 47.3 µg/L (Table F-3). Total phosphorus concentrations increased from the headwaters to mid-river and then remained relatively stable throughout the lower portions of the river (Figure F-15).

Soluble Reactive Phosphorus: Samples were not collected for an analysis of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) in 2003. In 2004, SRP concentrations in the river ranged from 22 to 47 µg/L with a mean value of 42.7 µg/L (Table F-3). Similar to total phosphorus, SRP concentrations were



3-7

lowest in the upper river, but increased rapidly and were fairly uniform downstream of transect 8 (Figure F-16). The majority of the phosphorus in this system was comprised of SRP (Figure F-17).

Chlorophyll: Samples were not collected for an analysis of chlorophyll in 2003. In 2004, chlorophyll concentrations in the river ranged from 0.8 to 2.3 µg/L with a mean value of 1.6 µg/L (Table F-3). Water column chlorophyll concentrations were highest in the middle and lower reaches of the river (Figure F-18).

Color: Samples were not collected for an analysis of color in 2003. In 2004, color values ranged from 1 to 4 Pt-Co units, with lowest values occurring upstream and highest values downstream (Table F-3). Color values were low throughout the river (Figure F-19).

SAV Species: In 2003, 9 species of submersed aquatic vegetation were observed within sample quadrats. In order of rank abundance they were as follows: Sagittaria kurziana (strap-leaf Sagittaria) at 64 %, Zizania aquatica (wild rice) at 21 %, Vallisneria americana (tape grass) at 14 %, Chara sp. (muskgrass) at 11 %, Vaucheria sp. (filamentous algae) at 6 %, Fontinalis sp. (watermoss) at 4 %, Ludwigia repens (red ludwigia) at 4 %, Hydrocotle sp. (dollar weed) at 3 %, and Nasturtium officinale (watercress) at 1 % (Figure F-20). Myriophyllum heterophyllum (foxtail), although not observed in any of the sample quadrats, was noted to be present in the river.

In 2004, six species of submersed aquatic plants were observed within sample quadrats. In order of rank abundance they were as follows: Sagittaria kurziana (strap-leaf sagittaria) at 64 %, Vallisneria americana (tape grass) at 30 %, Chara sp. (muskgrass) at 7 %, Fontinalis sp. (watermoss) at 6 %, Cladophora sp. (filamentous algae) at 5 %, Zizania aquatica (wild rice) at 5 % (Figure F-20). Four additional species, Hydrocotle sp. (dollar weed), Ludwigia repens (red ludwigia), Nasturtium officinale (watercress) and Myriophyllum heterophyllum (foxtail), were observed infrequently outside of sampled quadrats.

SAV Coverage: In 2003, SAV coverage within the sampled quadrats ranged from 5 to 100 %, while mean values for transects ranged between 44 and 100 %. The overall mean (n = 155) for the river was 71 % (Table F-4). Mean transect SAV coverage, although variable, gradually increased with distance downstream (Figure F-21). In 2004, SAV coverage within the sampled quadrats ranged from 0 to 100 %, while mean values for transects ranged between 50 and 100 %. The overall mean for the river was 86 % coverage (Table F-5). In comparison with 2003, SAV coverage in 2004 was greater in the upper portions of the river, with mean transect values equal to 100% between transects 5 and 11 (Figure F-21).

SAV Biomass: In 2003, SAV biomass values ranged from 0.14 to 13.8 kg/m2 wet weight within the individual quadrats, while transects averages ranged between 2.4 and 6.5 kg/m2 wet weight. The sampled river average was 4.56 kg/m2 wet weight (Table F-4). In 2004, SAV biomass values ranged from 0 to 12.8 kg/m2 wet weight within the individual quadrats, while transects averages



3-8

ranged between 2.1 and 9.9 kg/m2 wet weight. The sampled river average was 5.3 kg/m2 wet weight (Table F-5). Highest average transect biomass was observed in the middle river zone, but no distinct spatial pattern was evident (Figure F-22).

Periphyton: In 2003, periphyton associated with macrophytes ranged from 0.01 to 0.44 mg chl/g host plant wet weight, while transect averages ranged between 0.02 and 0.27 mg chl/g host plant wet weight. The sampled river average was 0.11 mg chl/g host plant wet weight (Table F-4). In 2004, periphyton associated with macrophytes ranged from 0.004 to 0.14 mg chl/g host plant wet weight, while transect averages ranged between 0.01 and 0.08 mg chl/g host plant wet weight. In 2004, the sampled river average was 0.04 mg chl/g host plant wet weight (Table F-5). In 2003, periphyton abundance was higher in the upper and middle portions of the river than in 2004 (Figure F-23).

3.2.2 Bivariate Analyses Between Parameters Analyses between nutrients and SAV cover, SAV biomass and periphyton were made among samples collected from the main river. No significant relationships were observed (p > 0.05), between nutrients and these parameters, suggesting that nutrient concentrations are not limiting for SAV or periphyton in the main river. Specific analyses were also conducted to characterize relationships between SAV coverage and depth, flow and terrestrial canopy cover. SAV coverage and depth were positively correlated (Figure F-24, r2 = 0.03), suggesting that depth was not limiting SAV growth in this river. We did not observe a significant correlation between stream flow and SAV coverage (Figure F-25). When comparing SAV coverage to terrestrial canopy cover (%), a weak negative correlation was observed (r2 = 0.02, Figure F-26), suggesting that terrestrial canopy, in some cases, may reduce potential SAV coverage.

Specific analyses were conducted to characterize relationships between SAV biomass and depth, flow and terrestrial canopy cover. SAV biomass was positively correlated with depth (r2 = 0.12, Figure F-27), suggesting that depth does not limit SAV biomass. The increase in SAV biomass with depth may be the result of greater SAV leaf (blade) length in deeper water. The potential for a reduction in SAV biomass as river depths decline may exist based on this empirical relationship. There was a weak positive correlation (r2 = 0.04) between SAV biomass and flow (Figure F-28), suggesting that high flow rates do not limit SAV biomass. However, reductions in flow could result in reduced SAV biomass. There was a weak negative correlation (r2 = 0.05) between SAV biomass and terrestrial canopy coverage (Figure F-29), suggesting that terrestrial canopy cover, in some cases, may reduce potential SAV biomass.

A negative correlation between stream depth and periphyton abundance (r2 = 0.22) was observed (Figure F-30). A negative correlation between stream flow and periphyton abundance (r2 = 0.06) was also observed (Figure F-31). This suggests that as stream flow increases, periphyton may be dislodged at higher rates. Reductions in stream flow (and/or depth) could, in turn, facilitate higher periphyton abundance on macrophytes with negative impacts on the SAV community. There was no significant relationship between terrestrial canopy cover and periphyton abundance (Figure F-32).



3-9

Two additional relationships between periphyton abundance and the SAV community were also observed. When comparing average transect SAV coverage with average transect periphyton abundance, a significant negative correlation was noted (r2 = 0.41, Figure F-33). Comparing average transect SAV biomass with average transect periphyton abundance also revealed a marginally significant (p < 0.10) negative correlation (r2 = 0.15, Figure F-34). These correlations suggest that as periphyton abundance increases, both SAV coverage and biomass may be subject to decline. This is consistent with the observed increase in SAV coverage and biomass in 2004 and the lower periphyton abundance noted during the same period.

3.2.3 Selected Parameter Comparisons Between Years

Comparisons between years were made for depth, flow, canopy, temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, SAV coverage, SAV biomass and periphyton abundance. No comparison for total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, color or water column chlorophyll were made between years as these parameters were not measured in 2003. Transect locations have been graphically illustrated in Figure F-1 and the reader will note that some differences in transect location are evident between sampling years. We attempted to relocate transects in 2004 using GPS technology (identical to that used in 2003). In 14 of the 31 transects, the relocations were successful. In the remaining 17 transects, the 2004 sampling location were slightly different (approximately 10 to 100 m). We largely attribute these differences to poor GPS signal strength on both sample dates, particularly when under tree canopy.

To determine if the difference in sampling location was significant, data were pooled into two groups; those with transects sampled at the same location and those with transects sampled at slightly different locations. There was not a significant difference (p < 0.05) between annual average of all transects and annual averages of transects located at the same location. This suggests that despite some variance between years, transect location was not responsible for the statistical results.

The graphics employed in the comparisons between years utilize “means diamonds”. A means diamond illustrates a sample mean and 95% confidence interval. The line across each diamond represents the group mean. The vertical span of each diamond represents the 95% confidence interval for each group. Overlap marks are drawn above and below the group mean. For groups with equal sample sizes, overlapping marks indicate that the two group means are not significantly different at the 95% confidence level.

Depth: Average depth values were 1.47 m for 2003 (n = 155) and 1.49 m for 2004 (n = 155). The average values between sampling years were not significantly different (p > 0.05, Figure F-35). These results are surprising, given that in 2003, “flood” conditions were evident in the lower reaches of the river, where portions of the river bank were inundated.



3-10

Flow: Average flow values were 0.198 m/s for 2003 (n = 155) and 0.207 m/s for 2004 (n = 155). The average values between sampling years were not significantly different (p > 0.05, Figure F-36).

Terrestrial canopy coverage: Average canopy coverage values were 40.3 % for 2003 (n = 155) and 41.2 % for 2004 (n = 155). The average values between sampling years were not significantly different (α = 0.05, Figure F-37).

Temperature: Average temperature values were 23.08 ºC for 2003 (n = 94) and 21.81 ºC for 2004 (n = 136). The average values between sampling years were statistically different (α = 0.05, Figure F-38), but it should be recognized that the difference between sample averages was only 1.27 ºC. This difference may be attributed to variation in air temperature and/or time of sampling between dates. Uneven sample sizes were not responsible for this difference.

Specific conductivity: Average specific conductivity was 327.25 µs/cm in 2003 (n = 94) and 305.44 µs/cm in 2004 (n = 136). These values were statistically different (p < 0.05, Figure F-39), despite the relatively small absolute difference between years. The higher values measured during 2003 may be a result of the flood conditions that were present at that time.

Dissolved Oxygen: Average dissolved oxygen concentrations were 6.39 mg/L and 5.55 mg/L in 2003 (n = 94) and for 2004 (n = 136), respectively. The average values between sampling years were significantly different (p < 0.05, Figure F-40). The lower values measured during 2004 may have been influenced by differences in time of sampling, community productivity/respiration or the magnitude of groundwater entering the system.

pH: Average pH values were 7.65 for 2003 (n = 94) and 7.73 for 2004 (n = 136). The average values between sampling years were statistically different (p < 0.05, Figure F-41). In aquatic systems there is often a relationship between pH and dissolved oxygen concentrations as a consequence of photosynthesis, as pH rises as aqueous carbon dioxide is assimilated. When dissolved oxygen concentrations were plotted against pH, a positive correlation was evident for both sampling years. However, this does not explain the difference in pH between years, as average pH was slightly higher in 2004, while average dissolved oxygen concentrations were slightly lower in 2004. It is possible that sampling instrumentation accuracy limitations (+ 0.2 pH units) may have been responsible for the observed differences in average pH values between years.

Total SAV coverage: Average SAV coverage values were 70.8 % for 2003 (n = 155) and 85.9 for 2004 (n = 155). The average values between sampling years were statistically different (p < 0.05, Figure F-42).



3-11

Total SAV biomass: Average SAV biomass values were 4.56 kg wet wt./m2 for 2003 (n = 50) and 5.34 kg wet wt./m2 for 2004 (n = 50). The average values between sampling years were not statistically different (p < 0.05, Figure F-43). However, the trend of both SAV coverage and SAV biomass was consistent in that both increased between 2003 and 2004.

Periphyton abundance: Average periphyton abundance was 0.115 mg chl/g host plant wet wt for 2003 (n = 30) and 0.036 mg chl/g host plant wet wt for 2004 (n = 30). The average values between sampling years was statistically different (p < 0.05, Figure F-44).

3.2.4 Feeder Springs Numerous springs combine to form the Ichetucknee River. As part of the 2004 sampling effort, six distinct springs (collectively referred to as “feeder springs”) were individually investigated (see Tables F-6, F-7 and F-8). Comparisons among feeder springs were also made for temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, color, total nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, and periphyton abundance. These springs, listed in order of their downstream location relative to the the headwaters of the Ichetucknee River were: Main, Blue, Roaring, Singing, Boiling and Millpond. For each of these springs, samples were collected from one transect downstream of the spring vent. The location of these transects were selected in such a way as to allow future re-location, to facilitate an estimate of discharge and also to allow for an estimate of SAV coverage and periphyton abundance in a distinct location. Water samples were collected along these transects as well, not directly from the spring vent. The approximate mid-point coordinates of these transects (see Table F-1) and their distance from the spring vent were as follows: The Main Spring transect at latitude 29.98403, longitude -82.76172 and approximately 15 m downstream of the spring vent. The Blue Spring transect just upstream of the fence closest to the spring vent, and approximately 15 m downstream of the spring vent. The Roaring Spring transect at latitude 29.97640, longitude -82.75785 and approximately 3 m downstream of the spring vent. The Singing Spring transect at latitude 29.97613, longitude -82.75832 and approximately 3 m downstream of the spring vent. The Boiling Spring transect at latitude 29.97358, longitude -82.75980 and approximately 22 m downstream of the spring vent. The Millpond Spring transect at latitude 29.96621, longitude -82.76065 and approximately 45 m downstream of the spring vent.

Spring Discharge: Discharge values ranged from 1.5 m3/s for Singing Spring to 5.8 m3/s for Blue Spring (Table F-6). Based on these discharge estimates these feeder springs were collectively discharging 18.3 m3/s (646.3 cubic feet per second) of ground water. Temperature: At the time of sampling, mean temperature ranged from 21.73 ºC for Blue Spring to 21.94 ºC for Millpond Spring, with an average of 21.81 for all six springs (Table F-6, Figure F-45). Significant differences in temperature existed among the springs (Figure F-45) although the relative differences were small. Specific conductivity: At the time of sampling, mean specific conductivity ranged from 291.0 µS/cm for Blue Spring to 352.0 µS/cm for Millpond Spring, with an average of 312.4 µS/cm for all



3-12

six springs (Table F-6, Figure F-46). There were significant differences in specific conductivity among the springs (Figure F-46). Dissolved Oxygen: At the time of sampling, mean dissolved oxygen ranged from 4.21 mg/L for Main Spring to 0.52 mg/L for Singing Spring, with an average of 1.59 mg/L for all six springs (Table F-6, Figure F-47). There were several significant differences in dissolved oxygen among the springs with the Main Spring being the most different (Figure F-47). pH: At the time of sampling, mean pH values ranged from 7.44 for Boiling Spring to 7.55 for both Blue and Millpond Springs, with an average pH of 7.51 for all six springs (Table F-6, Figure F-48). Significant differences between several springs were noted (Figure F-48), although the range between springs was small. Color: At the time of sampling, mean water color ranged from 1.0 Pt-Co units for Main and Boiling Springs to 3.3 Pt-Co units for Millpond, with an average color value of 1.6 Pt-Co units for all six springs (Table F-7, Figure F-49). Significant differences between several springs were noted (Figure F-49), although the range between springs was small. Total Nitrogen: At the time of sampling, mean total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 333 µg/L for Millpond Spring to 1043 µg/L for Main Spring, with an average total nitrogen concentration of 663 µg/L for all six springs (Table F-7, Figure F-50). Considerable variation in total nitrogen concentrations among the feeder springs was observed with higher values in the Main and Blue Springs (Figure F-50). Nitrate: At the time of sampling, mean nitrate concentrations ranged from 293 µg/L for Millpond Spring to 780 µg/L for Main Spring, with an average nitrate concentration of 519 µg/L for all six springs (Table F-7, Figure F-51). As with total nitrogen, most of the springs were significantly different with respect to their nitrate concentra tions (Figure F-51). Ammonium: At the time of sampling, mean ammonium concentrations ranged from 8.3 µg/L for Singing Spring to 24.3 µg/L for Millpond Spring, with an average total nitrogen value of 16.6 µg/L for all six springs (Table F-7, Figure F-52). None of the springs were significantly different with respect to their ammonium concentrations (Figure F-52). Total Phosphorus: At the time of sampling, mean total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 23.7 µg/L for Main Spring to 58.3 µg/L for both Roaring and Singing Springs, with an average total phosphorus value of 49.9 µg/L for all six springs (Table F-7, Figure F-53). Several of the springs had significant differences in total phosphorus concentrations (Figure F-53). Soluble Reactive Phosphorus: At the time of sampling, mean soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations ranged from 23 µg/L for Main Spring to 62.0 µg/L for Roaring Spring, with an average SRP value of 51.3 µg/L for all six springs (Table F-7, Figure F-54). Several of the springs were significantly different with respect to their SRP concentrations (Figure F-54). Periphyton Abundance: At the time of sampling, mean periphyton abundance ranged from 0.025 mg chl/g host plant wet wt for Main Spring to 1.025 mg chl/g host plant wet wt for



3-13

Singing Spring, with an average periphyton abundance of 0.371 mg chl/g host plant wet wt for all six springs (Table F-8, Figure F-55). Several of the springs were significantly different with respect to periphyton abundance on host macrophytes (Figure F-55). Periphyton abundance in the feeder springs was not significantly correlated with nitrate concentrations (Figure F-56) nor with total nitrogen concentrations. However, there was a significant positive correlation between periphyton abundance and soluble reactive phosphorus concentrations (Figure F-57), as well as total phosphorus. This relationship suggests that phosphorous may be the limiting nutrient for periphyton in these feeder springs.

4.0 References


Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters. 1st Edition. Chapman and Hall, London, England.

American Public Health Association. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water

and Wastewater. 18th Edition. American Public Health Association, Inc. New York. Balci, P., Kennedy, J. H. 2003. Comparison of chironomids and other macroinvertebrates

associated with Myriophyllum spicatum and Heteranthera dubia. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, Volume 18.

Butcher, R. W. 1933. Studies on the ecology of rivers. I. On the distribution of

macrophytic vegetation in the rivers of Britain. Journal of Ecology. 21: 58-91. Canfield, D. E. and M. V. Hoyer. 1988. The nutrient assimilation capacity of the Little

Wekiva River, Final Report. Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Childs, D.L. 1999. Spatial Evaluation of Factors Influencing Hydrilla on the Rainbow River.

M.S. Project. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Dickinson, W.C., P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Solar Energy Technology Handbook. Marcel

Dekker, Inc. New York, New York. Dutoit, C. H. 1979. The carrying capacity of the Ichetucknee Springs and River. Masters

Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 176 pp. FDEP. 1996. Ichetucknee trace baseline monitoring, 1996. Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, Chemistry Section, Central Laboratory. 15 pp. FDEP. 1997. Biological assessment of the Ichetucknee River Columbia County. Florida

Department of Environmental Protection, Biology Section. 15 pp. FDEP. 1998. The Role of Ecological Assessments in Environmental Management. Florida

Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Laboratories. FDEP. 2000. Ichetucknee Springs State Park approved unit management plan. Division of

Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee, FL. FDEP. 2002. EcoSummary of Ichetucknee Springs. Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, Bureau of Laboratories. Frazer, T.K., M.V. Hoyer, S.K. Notestein, J.A. Hale and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2001. Physical,

Chemical and Vegetative Characteristics of Five Gulf Coast Rivers. Final Report. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, Florida

4.0 References


Hill, W.R. and B.C. Harvey. 1990. Periphyton responses to higher trophic levels and light in a shaded stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 47: 2307-2314.

Hutchinson, G. E. 1975. A treatise on limnology: Vol. III. Limnological botany. John

Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 660 pp. Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto Press. Jones, G.W., S.B.Upchurch, and K.M.Champion. 1996. Origin of Nitrate in Ground Water

Discharging from Rainbow Springs, Marion County, Florida. Ambient Ground-Water Quality Monitoring Program, Southwest Florida Water Management District. Brooksville, FL.

Kurz, R., P. Sinphay, W. E. Hershfeld, D. Woithe, S. Notestein, T. Frazer, J. Hale, S. Keller.

2003. Mapping and Monitoring Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Ichetucknee and Manatee Springs. Final Report. Suwannee River Water Management District, Live Oak, Florida.

Menzel, D.W. and N. Corwin. 1965. The measurement of total phosphorus in seawater

based on the liberation of organically bound fractions by persulfate oxidation. Limnology and Oceanography 10: 280-282.

Menzie, Charles A, 1980. The Chironomid (Insecta: Diptera) and Other Fauna of a

Myriophyllum picatum L. Plant Bed in the Lower Hudson River. Estuarine Research Federation

Moss, B. 1981. The effect of fertilization and fish on community structure and biomass of

aquatic macrophytes and epiphytic algae populations: An ecosystem experiment. Journal of Ecology. 64: 313-342.

Murphey, J. and J.P. Riley. 1962. A modified single solution method for the determination

of phosphate in natural waters. J. Environmental Quality. 4: 465-468. Meyers, R.L. and Ewel, J.J. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University Presses of Florida.

Gainesville, Florida. Nilsson, C. 1987. Distribution of stream edge vegetation along a gradient of current

velocity. Journal of Ecology. 75 (2): 513-522. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of

periphyton in a spring-fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 41: 57-60.

PBS&J. 2000. Rainbow Springs Aquatic Preserve 2000 Vegetation Mapping and Change

Analysis Report. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas. Dunnellon, Forida.

4.0 References


Rosenau, J. C., G. L. Faulkner, C. W. Hendry, Jr., and R. W. Hull. 1977. Springs of Florida.

Florida Geological Survey - Geological Bulletin No. 31, revised. From http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/springs_of_fl/aaj7320/content.html.

Sartory, D.P. and J.U. Grobbelaar. 1984. Extraction of chlorophyll a from freshwater

phytoplankton for spectrophotometric analysis. Hydrobiologia 114: 177-187. Stine, W.B., R.W. Harrigan. 1985. Solar Energy Fundamentals and Design. John Wiley &

Sons, Inc. New York. Thorp, A. G., R. C. Jones, D. P. Kelso. 1997. A comparison of water-column

macroinvertebrate in beds of differing submersed aquatic vegetation in the tidal freshwater Potomac River communities. Estuaries 20: 86-95.

Walsh, S. J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. In: Eve L. Kuniasky,

editor, U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011, p. 78-88.

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

effluents of north-central Florida state parks. USGS Final Report submitted to the Florida Park Service.

Warren, G.L., Hohlt, D.A., Cichra, C.E., VanGenechten, D. 2000. Fish and Aquatic

Invertebrate Communities of the Wekiva and Little Wekiva Rivers: A Baseline Evaluation in the Context of Florida’a Minimum Flows and Levels Statutes.

Water and Air Research, 1991. Diagnostic Studies of the Rainbow River. Southwest Florida

Water Management District. Brooksville, FL. Woodruff, A. 1993. Florida springs chemical classification and aquatic biological

communities. Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 117 pp.

Appendices


Appendix A

Metadata for Ichetucknee and Manatee Springs SAV Maps

Appendices


<?xml version="1.0" ?> - 

- <metadata xml:lang="en"> - <Esri> <CreaDate>20040621</CreaDate> <CreaTime>13164400</CreaTime> <SyncOnce>FALSE</SyncOnce> <SyncDate>20040621</SyncDate> <SyncTime>16345200</SyncTime> <ModDate>20040621</ModDate> <ModTime>16345200</ModTime> <MetaID>{4A2D8856-ED4F-4748-9EC0-88AF1CB98570}</MetaID> </Esri>

- <idinfo> <native Sync="TRUE">Microsoft Windows 2000 Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack

1; ESRI ArcCatalog 8.3.0.800</native> - <descript> <langdata Sync="TRUE">en</langdata> <abstract>This project involved the re-mapping of submerged aquatic vegetation

(SAV) in high use areas (near recreational access points) of the Ichetucknee Springs and spring run. 2004 mapping methods differ only slightly from the original 2003 field mapping methods: changes in SAV were hand drawn onto paper copies of the 2003 SAV map. The 2003 mapping was done throughout the study area, from the headspring to the US 27 bridge. SAV was field mapped primarily during April both years. This information will be useful to evaluate trends in ecological conditions in the springs and lead toward the better management of this aquatic ecosystem. Mapping methods for the original 2003 mapping follow: A combination of mapping methods was used. Field mapping methods were selected after an initial field reconnaissance and refined through several trial mapping efforts. Where Global Positioning System (GPS) signals were reliable and met or exceeded minimum standards, integrated GPS/GIS on a handheld computer was used for field mapping. These areas of GPS mapping cover roughly half of Ichetucknee Springs. In the narrow, heavily canopied areas of the Ichetucknee River where GPS signals were obstructed, transect mapping was performed. SAV was classified according to the percent coverage of each species present. Following completion of field mapping, a seamless coverage of SAV bed polygons was created for the Ichetucknee Springs and River. All coverages were prepared using ESRI's ArcView GIS software. All field mapping was performed during March, April, and early May 2003. The primary field mapping computer hardware was a Compaq iPAQ, model number 3850, running Windows PocketPC. ESRI ArcPad Version 6.01.5 GIS software was used along with a Teletype World NavigatorTM GPS, CF v2.0, Card #1651. The ArcPad mapping software automatically retrieved positions from the GPS as the outline of the SAV bed (polygon) was traced and produced mapped features in the field. The ArcPad graphical user interface was customized with ArcPad Studio using VBScript and XML programing languages. The custom interface provided data entry forms specifically designed for this mapping effort. A standard Dell laptop computer running Windows 2000 and ArcView 3.2 was used to reference information as needed. The laptop was operated using a 9 volt battery and power inverter. The

Appendices


final map was prepared in ESRI ArcView 3.2. The Florida State Plane, North Zone, Datum HPGN (NAD 83/90) with units in Feet projection was used. The minimum mapping unit was 30 square feet. Based on the FDEP Mapping Standards for GPS, the following minimum settings were used for all mapping: PDOP <6.0, Signal to Noise Ratio >6.0, Elevation Mask = 15 deg., Minimum positions = 25, Minimum number of satellites = 4, Logging interval of point features = 1 second, Coordinate system = latitude/longitude. A deviation of no more than 5 meters was deemed acceptable. A Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) benchmark at the U.S. 27 bridge was used to verify the accuracy of the GPS units used for mapping. Quality control and quality assurance were conducted by periodic point feature collection at several locations, including the U.S. 27 bridge, the concrete/rock wall at the head springs, and the Ichetucknee headsprings staff gage. GPS accuracy checks met the 5 meter deviation standard in open canopy areas where PDOP values typically ranged between 1.0 and 3.0 (< 6.0). Measured horizontal accuracy was typically within 1 to 2 m of the FDOT benchmark position. The images used as a base map were one meter resolution, 1:24,000 scale, 1999 USGS color infrared Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads (DOQQ). A shoreline feature was created to delineate the boundary of the mapping areas. The shoreline boundary was demarcated at the interior edge of dry land, dense wetland hardwood forest, and/or emergent wetland vegetation. Where conditions allowed for GPS mapping, the shoreline was followed with the GPS, in a canoe or on foot, sometimes using an extended pole for a receiver mount. Where GPS signals were obstructed by dense tree canopy, the shoreline was photo-interpreted from aerial photography. The photo-interpreted shoreline was field checked and edited to create a more accurate delineation. Where feasible, ground truthing was done using a GPS reference and edited in the field. In other cases, the width of the river was measured with a tape and the shoreline edited later during map preparation. SAV was evaluated according to the percent coverage of all species present. The classification system, a modified Braun Blanquet cover estimate, follows the methods of Woithe and Sleszynski, (1996), for the nearby Rainbow River in Dunnellon, Florida. Cover categories used were 0%, 0-25%, 25-50%, and 50-100%. To simplify the recording of information in the field, the cover categories were represented by a 0, 1, 2 or 3, respectively. A systematic reconnaissance of an area was first performed to assess the species present, their cover categories, and how they should be delineated. Additional data collected for each spring run were bottom feature type (SAV, bare, or emergent), date, and comments. Some of the information in the comments field includes substrate type (rock or sand), algae coverage, and species present in quantities less than the minimum mapping unit. Vegetation patches as small as 30 square feet were individually mapped for the Ichetucknee River. Portions of the Ichetucknee River where the GPS was used for SAV mapping are: 1) from the head spring to the end of the broad, open rice marsh, and 2) approximately 2000 ft of river upstream from the downstream take out point near U.S. 27. In these areas, SAV was mapped by following the perimeter of the bed with the GPS unit. This was done while observing the SAV from the canoe, or with a diver in the water guiding the canoe. The GPS receiver was either mounted to a telescoping pole, or on the bow of the canoe. SAV polygons were checked for positional and dimensional accuracy using the aerial photography, visible landmarks, and previously mapped features. A point feature was placed within each SAV polygon, and attributed using the customized forms. Transect mapping was performed as an alternative to GPS mapping in three general sections of the Ichetucknee River: 1) the confluence of the Mill Pond Spring to Dampier's Landing Dock, 2) Dampier's Landing to the power lines, and 3) the U.S. 27 bridge to the take out point. A 100-foot floating transect was devised

Appendices


using polyethylene rope, floats and weights. Weights were used to anchor the beginning and end points of the transect, which had large floats. Smaller floats were used to mark 25 foot segments. The beginning transect point of each of the three sections was a fixed point with a location determined using GPS. The transect line was shifted down or up river by moving one of the weights. GPS points were taken at the beginning and endpoints of each transect to assist in locating transects within the river during the GIS desktop mapping. SAV polygons were hand drawn relative to the transect onto waterproof paper from the canoe, or while snorkeling. Notes and sketches were made regarding the location of the transect relative to bends in the river. SAV polygons were drawn onto field sheets with lines representing the relative distance between transect line and river boundary.</abstract>

<purpose>To map the distribution of 2004 SAV in high use ares of the Ichetucknee Springs and River and assess changes from 2003 SAV coverage.</purpose>

</descript> - <citation> - <citeinfo> <origin>PBS&J - Sarasota</origin> <title Sync="TRUE">remap04</title> <ftname Sync="TRUE">remap04</ftname> <geoform Sync="TRUE">vector digital data</geoform> <onlink

Sync="TRUE">\\LAPTOP1\C$\DCW_Inc\Projects\Ichetucknee_Addendum\deliverable\Final_Deliverable\GIS\GIS_State_Plane\SAV\remap04.shp</onlink>

<pubdate>June 2004</pubdate> </citeinfo> </citation>

- <timeperd> <current>publication date</current> - <timeinfo> - <sngdate> <caldate>6/04</caldate> </sngdate> </timeinfo> </timeperd>

- <status> <progress>Complete</progress> <update>As needed</update> </status>

- <spdom> - <bounding> <westbc Sync="TRUE">-89.121426</westbc> <eastbc Sync="TRUE">-89.112798</eastbc> <northbc Sync="TRUE">30.747188</northbc> <southbc Sync="TRUE">30.737714</southbc> </bounding>

- <lboundng> <leftbc Sync="TRUE">517040.123695</leftbc> <rightbc Sync="TRUE">519617.363740</rightbc> <bottombc Sync="TRUE">661391.361093</bottombc>

Appendices


<topbc Sync="TRUE">664735.968463</topbc> </lboundng> </spdom>

- <keywords> - <theme> <themekt>plant</themekt> <themekey>SAV</themekey> <themekey>submerged aquatic vegetation</themekey> <themekey>aquatic plants</themekey> </theme>

- <place> <placekey>Ichetucknee Springs</placekey> <placekey>Ichetucknee River</placekey> <placekey>spring run</placekey> <placekey>Florida</placekey> </place> </keywords>

<accconst>None</accconst> <useconst>None</useconst> <natvform Sync="TRUE">Shapefile</natvform> - <ptcontac> - <cntinfo> - <cntperp> <cntper>Phinla Sinphay</cntper> <cntorg>PBS&J</cntorg> </cntperp>

<cntpos>Information Solutions Developer</cntpos> - <cntaddr> <addrtype>mailing and physical address</addrtype> <address>2803 Fruitville Road, Suite 130</address> <city>Sarasota</city> <state>Florida</state> <postal>34237</postal> <country>US</country> </cntaddr>

<cntvoice>(941)954-4036</cntvoice> <cntfax>(941)951-1477</cntfax> </cntinfo> </ptcontac> </idinfo>

- <dataIdInfo> <envirDesc Sync="TRUE">Microsoft Windows 2000 Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service

Pack 1; ESRI ArcCatalog 8.3.0.800</envirDesc> - <dataLang> <languageCode Sync="TRUE" value="en" /> </dataLang>

- <idCitation> <resTitle Sync="TRUE">remap04</resTitle> - <presForm>

Appendices


<PresFormCd Sync="TRUE" value="005" /> </presForm> </idCitation>

- <spatRpType> <SpatRepTypCd Sync="TRUE" value="001" /> </spatRpType>

- <geoBox esriExtentType="decdegrees"> <westBL Sync="TRUE">-89.121426</westBL> <eastBL Sync="TRUE">-89.112798</eastBL> <northBL Sync="TRUE">30.747188</northBL> <southBL Sync="TRUE">30.737714</southBL> <exTypeCode Sync="TRUE">1</exTypeCode> </geoBox>

- <dataExt> - <geoEle> - <GeoBndBox esriExtentType="native"> <westBL Sync="TRUE">517040.123695</westBL> <eastBL Sync="TRUE">519617.36374</eastBL> <northBL Sync="TRUE">664735.968463</northBL> <southBL Sync="TRUE">661391.361093</southBL> <exTypeCode Sync="TRUE">1</exTypeCode> </GeoBndBox> </geoEle> </dataExt> </dataIdInfo>

- <metainfo> <langmeta Sync="TRUE">en</langmeta> <metstdn Sync="TRUE">FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial

Metadata</metstdn> <metstdv Sync="TRUE">FGDC-STD-001-1998</metstdv> <mettc Sync="TRUE">local time</mettc> - <metc> - <cntinfo> - <cntorgp> <cntper>Phinla Sinphay</cntper> <cntorg>PBS&J</cntorg> </cntorgp>

- <cntaddr> <addrtype>mailing and physical address</addrtype> <city>Sarasota</city> <state>Florida</state> <postal>34237</postal> <address>2803 Fruitville Road, Suite 130</address> <country>US</country> </cntaddr>

<cntvoice>(941)954-4036</cntvoice> <cntpos>Information Solutions Developer</cntpos> <cntfax>(941)951-1477</cntfax> </cntinfo>

Appendices


</metc> <metd Sync="TRUE">20040621</metd> - <metextns> <onlink Sync="TRUE">http://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.html</onlink> <metprof Sync="TRUE">ESRI Metadata Profile</metprof> </metextns> </metainfo>

- <mdLang> <languageCode Sync="TRUE" value="en" /> </mdLang>

<mdStanName Sync="TRUE">ISO 19115 Geographic Information - Metadata</mdStanName>

<mdStanVer Sync="TRUE">DIS_ESRI1.0</mdStanVer> - <mdChar> <CharSetCd Sync="TRUE" value="004" /> </mdChar>

- <mdHrLv> <ScopeCd Sync="TRUE" value="005" /> </mdHrLv>

<mdHrLvName Sync="TRUE">dataset</mdHrLvName> - <distinfo> <resdesc Sync="TRUE">Downloadable Data</resdesc> - <stdorder> - <digform> - <digtinfo> <transize Sync="TRUE">0.099</transize> <dssize Sync="TRUE">0.099</dssize> </digtinfo> </digform> </stdorder> </distinfo>

- <distInfo> - <distributor> - <distorTran> - <onLineSrc> <orDesc Sync="TRUE">002</orDesc> <linkage

Sync="TRUE">file://\\LAPTOP1\C$\DCW_Inc\Projects\Ichetucknee_Addendum\deliverable\Final_Deliverable\GIS\GIS_State_Plane\SAV\remap04.shp</linkage>

<protocol Sync="TRUE">Local Area Network</protocol> </onLineSrc>

<transSize Sync="TRUE">0.099</transSize> </distorTran>

- <distorFormat> <formatName Sync="TRUE">Shapefile</formatName> </distorFormat> </distributor> </distInfo>

- <spdoinfo>

Appendices


<direct Sync="TRUE">Vector</direct> - <ptvctinf> - <esriterm Name="remap04"> <efeatyp Sync="TRUE">Simple</efeatyp> <efeageom Sync="TRUE">Polygon</efeageom> <esritopo Sync="TRUE">FALSE</esritopo> <efeacnt Sync="TRUE">106</efeacnt> <spindex Sync="TRUE">TRUE</spindex> <linrefer Sync="TRUE">FALSE</linrefer> </esriterm>

- <sdtsterm Name="remap04"> <sdtstype Sync="TRUE">G-polygon</sdtstype> <ptvctcnt Sync="TRUE">106</ptvctcnt> </sdtsterm> </ptvctinf> </spdoinfo>

- <spref> - <horizsys> - <cordsysn> <geogcsn Sync="TRUE">GCS_North_American_1983</geogcsn> <projcsn

Sync="TRUE">NAD_1983_StatePlane_Florida_North_FIPS_0903_Feet</projcsn> </cordsysn>

- <planar> - <planci> <plance Sync="TRUE">coordinate pair</plance> <plandu Sync="TRUE">survey feet</plandu> - <coordrep> <absres Sync="TRUE">0.000008</absres> <ordres Sync="TRUE">0.000008</ordres> </coordrep> </planci>

- <gridsys> <gridsysn Sync="TRUE">State Plane Coordinate System 1983</gridsysn> - <spcs> <spcszone Sync="TRUE">903</spcszone> - <lambertc> <stdparll Sync="TRUE">29.583333</stdparll> <stdparll Sync="TRUE">30.750000</stdparll> <longcm Sync="TRUE">-84.500000</longcm> <latprjo Sync="TRUE">29.000000</latprjo> <feast Sync="TRUE">1968500.000000</feast> <fnorth Sync="TRUE">0.000000</fnorth> </lambertc> </spcs> </gridsys> </planar>

- <geodetic> <horizdn Sync="TRUE">North American Datum of 1983</horizdn>

Appendices


<ellips Sync="TRUE">Geodetic Reference System 80</ellips> <semiaxis Sync="TRUE">6378137.000000</semiaxis> <denflat Sync="TRUE">298.257222</denflat> </geodetic> </horizsys> </spref>

- <refSysInfo> - <RefSystem> - <refSysID> <identCode

Sync="TRUE">NAD_1983_StatePlane_Florida_North_FIPS_0903_Feet</identCode> </refSysID> </RefSystem> </refSysInfo>

- <spatRepInfo> - <VectSpatRep> - <topLvl> <TopoLevCd Sync="TRUE" value="001" /> </topLvl>

- <geometObjs Name="remap04"> - <geoObjTyp> <GeoObjTypCd Sync="TRUE" value="001" /> </geoObjTyp>

<geoObjCnt Sync="TRUE">106</geoObjCnt> </geometObjs> </VectSpatRep> </spatRepInfo>

- <eainfo> - <detailed Name="remap04"> - <enttyp> <enttypl Sync="TRUE">remap04</enttypl> <enttypt Sync="TRUE">Feature Class</enttypt> <enttypc Sync="TRUE">106</enttypc> <enttypd>Ichetucknee Spring Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Map</enttypd> </enttyp>

- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">FID</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">FID</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">OID</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">4</attwidth> <atprecis Sync="TRUE">0</atprecis> <attscale Sync="TRUE">0</attscale> <attrdef Sync="TRUE">Internal feature number.</attrdef> <attrdefs Sync="TRUE">ESRI</attrdefs> - <attrdomv> <udom Sync="TRUE">Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically

generated.</udom> </attrdomv> </attr>

Appendices


- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">Shape</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">Shape</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Geometry</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">0</attwidth> <atprecis Sync="TRUE">0</atprecis> <attscale Sync="TRUE">0</attscale> <attrdef Sync="TRUE">Feature geometry.</attrdef> <attrdefs Sync="TRUE">ESRI</attrdefs> - <attrdomv> <udom Sync="TRUE">Coordinates defining the features.</udom> </attrdomv> </attr>

- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">SAG</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">SAG</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Number</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">5</attwidth> <attrdef>SAV species: Sagittaria kurziana</attrdef> <attrdefs>User Defined</attrdefs> - <attrdomv> - <edom> <edomv>0</edomv> <edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=0% Cover within 1 m^2

quadrant</edomvd> </edom>

- <edom> <edomv>1</edomv> <edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 1=0-25% Cover within 1 m^2





quadrant</edomvd> </edom> </attrdomv> </attr>

- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">VAL</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">VAL</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Number</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">5</attwidth> <attrdef>SAV species: Vallisneria americana</attrdef>

Appendices


- <attrdomv> - <edom> <edomv>0</edomv> <edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=0% Cover within 1 m^2







quadrant</edomvd> </edom> </attrdomv>

<attrdefs>User Defined</attrdefs> </attr>

- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">MYR</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">MYR</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Number</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">5</attwidth> <attrdef>SAV species: Myriophyllum heterophyllum</attrdef> <attrdefs>User Defined</attrdefs> - <attrdomv> - <edom> <edomv>0</edomv> <edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=0% Cover within 1 m^2






- <edom> <edomv>3</edomv>

Appendices


<edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=75-100% Cover within 1 m^2 quadrant</edomvd>

</edom> </attrdomv> </attr>

- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">CHA</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">CHA</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Number</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">5</attwidth> <attrdef>SAV species: Chara sp.</attrdef> - <attrdomv> - <edom> <edomv>0</edomv> <edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=0% Cover within 1 m^2









- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">LUD</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">LUD</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Number</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">5</attwidth> <attrdef>SAV species: Ludwigia repens</attrdef> - <attrdomv> - <edom> <edomv>0</edomv> <edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=0% Cover within 1 m^2


- <edom> <edomv>1</edomv>

Appendices


<edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=0-25% Cover within 1 m^2 quadrant</edomvd>

</edom> - <edom> <edomv>2</edomv> <edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=25-50% Cover within 1 m^2





- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">HYD</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">HYD</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Number</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">5</attwidth> <attrdef>SAV species: Hydrocotyle sp.</attrdef> - <attrdomv> - <edom> <edomv>0</edomv> <edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=0% Cover within 1 m^2









- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">ZIZ</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">ZIZ</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Number</attrtype>

Appendices


<attwidth Sync="TRUE">5</attwidth> <attrdef>SAV species: Zizania aquatica</attrdef> <attrdefs>User Defined</attrdefs> - <attrdomv> - <edom> <edomv>0</edomv> <edomvd>Braun Blanquet Cover Category, 0=0% Cover within 1 m^2







quadrant</edomvd> </edom> </attrdomv> </attr>

- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">BOT_FEAT</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">BOT_FEAT</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">String</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">13</attwidth> <attrdef>Bottom Feature</attrdef> - <attrdomv> - <edom> <edomv>SAV</edomv> <edomvd>Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Bottom Feature</edomvd> </edom>

- <edom> <edomv>Emergent</edomv> <edomvd>Emergent Bottom Feature</edomvd> </edom>

- <edom> <edomv>Bare</edomv> <edomvd>Bare Bottom Feature</edomvd> </edom>

- <edom> <edomv>Other</edomv> <edomvd>Other Bottom Feature (i.e. pista, algae)</edomvd> </edom>

Appendices


</attrdomv> <attrdefs>User Defined</attrdefs> </attr>

- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">COMMENTS</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">COMMENTS</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">String</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">100</attwidth> <attrdef>Field Comments</attrdef> </attr>

- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">FIELD_MAP_</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">FIELD_MAP_</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Number</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">16</attwidth> <attrdef>Field Mapping Date (format YYYYMMDD)</attrdef> <attrdefs>User Defined</attrdefs> </attr>

- <attr> <attrlabl Sync="TRUE">SQ_M</attrlabl> <attalias Sync="TRUE">SQ_M</attalias> <attrtype Sync="TRUE">Number</attrtype> <attwidth Sync="TRUE">18</attwidth> <attrdef>Area in square meters</attrdef> <atnumdec Sync="TRUE">2</atnumdec> <attrdefs>User Defined</attrdefs> </attr> </detailed>

- <overview> <eaover>Attribute Fields Description, (Possible Values): Values based on Braun

Blanquet Cover Categories 0=0%, 1=0-25%, 2=25-50%, 3=50-100% cover within 1m^2 quadrant. FID = Internal feature number Shape = Feature geometry SAG = SAV species: Sagittaria kurziana, (0,1,2,3) VAL = SAV species: Vallisneria americana , (0,1,2,3) MYR = SAV species: Myriophyllum heterophyllum , (0,1,2,3) CHA = SAV species: Chara sp., (0,1,2,3) LUD = SAV species: Ludwigia repens , (0,1,2,3) HYD = SAV species: Hydrocotyle sp., (0,1,2,3) ZIZ = SAV species: Zizania aquatica , (0,1,2,3) BOT_FEAT = Bottom Feature, (SAV, Emergent, Bare, Other) COMMENTS = Field Comments FIELD_MAP_ = Field Mapping Date (format YYYYMMDD) SQ_M = Calculated Area in Square Meters</eaover>

</overview> </eainfo>

<mdDateSt Sync="TRUE">20040621</mdDateSt> - <dataqual> - <lineage> - <procstep> <procdesc Sync="TRUE">Metadata imported.</procdesc> <srcused Sync="TRUE">G:\Projects\SRWMD_Spring_Veg\FinalGISDeliverables\State

Plane\ichsavmap2003.shp.xml</srcused> <date Sync="TRUE">20030709</date> <time Sync="TRUE">15432500</time>

Appendices


</procstep> - <procstep> <procdesc Sync="TRUE">Dataset copied.</procdesc> <srcused Sync="TRUE">C:\DCW Inc\Projects\Ichetucknee Addendum\raw

data\IcheSAVMap2003</srcused> <date Sync="TRUE">20040405</date> <time Sync="TRUE">20590700</time> </procstep>

- <procstep> <procdesc Sync="TRUE">Dataset copied.</procdesc> <srcused

Sync="TRUE">C:\DCW_Inc\Projects\Ichetucknee_Addendum\WIP\remap2004\remap04</srcused>

<date Sync="TRUE">20040621</date> <time Sync="TRUE">13164400</time> </procstep> </lineage>

- <attracc> <attraccr>Quality control of the GIS map was performed to verify that all polygons

were correctly labeled and that no polygons were smaller than the minimum mapping unit. The field data were thoroughly reviewed to assure that information was correctly transferred from the GIS file. The GIS files were checked to assure that all polygons were labeled, that adjacent polygons did not have the same attributes, and that attributes in all fields were feasible (for example, that a polygon with Sagittaria kurziana coverage of 50-100% did not have a bottom feature type of "bare").</attraccr>

</attracc> <complete>remap of high use zones within study area100% completed as of June

2004</complete> </dataqual> </metadata>

Appendices


Appendix B

Depth, Velocity, and Tree Height Measurement Data for the Ichetucknee Springs and River

Appendices


Appendix B-1. River depth and velocity at each transect and station location. These data, collected by the Universtiy of Florida, were used to develop depth and velocity contour maps. YEAR MONTH DAY TRANSECT STATION WIDTH (m) DEPTH (m) FLOW (m/s)

2004 4 28 1 1 . 1.0 0.10 2004 4 28 1 2 . 1.1 0.06 2004 4 28 1 3 12 1.2 0.11 2004 4 28 1 4 . 2.3 0.10 2004 4 28 1 5 . 1.2 0.09 2004 4 28 2 1 . 0.8 0.09 2004 4 28 2 2 . 1.2 0.12 2004 4 28 2 3 9 1.2 0.15 2004 4 28 2 4 . 1.0 0.03 2004 4 28 2 5 . 0.9 0.04 2004 4 28 3 1 . 1.1 0.05 2004 4 28 3 2 . 1.2 0.19 2004 4 28 3 3 10 1.1 0.14 2004 4 28 3 4 . 1.0 0.14 2004 4 28 3 5 . 0.5 0.09 2004 4 28 4 1 . 0.6 0.05 2004 4 28 4 2 . 1.3 0.10 2004 4 28 4 3 12.5 1.7 0.22 2004 4 28 4 4 . 2.8 0.09 2004 4 28 4 5 . 1.9 0.13 2004 4 28 5 1 . 1.0 0.12 2004 4 28 5 2 . 1.8 0.16 2004 4 28 5 3 9 2.1 0.27 2004 4 28 5 4 . 1.5 0.27 2004 4 28 5 5 . 1.5 0.17 2004 4 28 6 1 . 1.0 0.04 2004 4 28 6 2 . 1.0 0.14 2004 4 28 6 3 16.5 1.4 0.16 2004 4 28 6 4 . 1.5 0.04 2004 4 28 6 5 . 1.2 0.08 2004 4 28 7 1 . 1.1 0.02 2004 4 28 7 2 . 1.5 0.16 2004 4 28 7 3 11 1.6 0.14 2004 4 28 7 4 . 1.6 0.14 2004 4 28 7 5 . 1.3 0.30 2004 4 28 8 1 . 0.8 0.02

Appendices


2004 4 28 8 2 . 1.6 0.33 2004 4 28 8 3 17 2.4 0.30 2004 4 28 8 4 . 2.4 0.24 2004 4 28 8 5 . 0.9 0.03 2004 4 28 9 1 . 0.9 0.03 2004 4 28 9 2 . 1.6 0.10 2004 4 28 9 3 15 1.7 0.21 2004 4 28 9 4 . 1.6 0.13 2004 4 28 9 5 . 1.1 0.01 2004 4 28 10 1 . 1.4 0.34 2004 4 28 10 2 . 2.2 0.51 2004 4 28 10 3 14 2.2 0.34 2004 4 28 10 4 . 1.9 0.17 2004 4 28 10 5 . 1.6 0.24 2004 4 28 11 1 . 1.3 0.16 2004 4 28 11 2 . 2.1 0.23 2004 4 28 11 3 14.2 2.4 0.34 2004 4 28 11 4 . 1.7 0.34 2004 4 28 11 5 . 0.9 0.01 2004 4 28 12 1 . 1.0 0.02 2004 4 28 12 2 . 1.7 0.27 2004 4 28 12 3 16 2.2 0.39 2004 4 28 12 4 . 2.2 0.34 2004 4 28 12 5 . 0.8 0.05 2004 4 28 13 1 . 1.3 0.33 2004 4 28 13 2 . 1.6 0.35 2004 4 28 13 3 17 1.4 0.28 2004 4 28 13 4 . 1.4 0.13 2004 4 28 13 5 . 1.0 0.09 2004 4 28 14 1 . 1.8 0.12 2004 4 28 14 2 . 2.0 0.11 2004 4 28 14 3 24 1.7 0.21 2004 4 28 14 4 . 0.6 0.02 2004 4 28 14 5 . 0.6 0.02 2004 4 28 15 1 . 1.3 0.15 2004 4 28 15 2 . 2.1 0.23 2004 4 28 15 3 25 2.4 0.23 2004 4 28 15 4 . 1.2 0.24 2004 4 28 15 5 . 0.7 0.20 2004 4 28 16 1 . 1.2 0.01 2004 4 28 16 2 . 1.4 0.06

Appendices


2004 4 28 16 3 22 2.1 0.25 2004 4 28 16 4 . 2.1 0.31 2004 4 28 16 5 . 1.3 0.19 2004 4 28 17 1 . 1.1 0.22 2004 4 28 17 2 . 1.7 0.30 2004 4 28 17 3 24 1.6 0.30 2004 4 28 17 4 . 1.7 0.10 2004 4 28 17 5 . 1.7 0.24 2004 4 28 18 1 . 0.7 0.17 2004 4 28 18 2 . 1.4 0.31 2004 4 28 18 3 24 1.4 0.44 2004 4 28 18 4 . 1.3 0.29 2004 4 28 18 5 . 1.0 0.14 2004 4 28 19 1 . 1.9 0.24 2004 4 28 19 2 . 1.9 0.20 2004 4 28 19 3 19 2.2 0.26 2004 4 28 19 4 . 1.5 0.09 2004 4 28 19 5 . 1.0 0.06 2004 4 28 20 1 . 1.2 0.25 2004 4 28 20 2 . 1.5 0.30 2004 4 28 20 3 17 1.7 0.31 2004 4 28 20 4 . 2.0 0.44 2004 4 28 20 5 . 1.3 0.18 2004 4 28 21 1 . 1.0 0.11 2004 4 28 21 2 . 1.9 0.12 2004 4 28 21 3 20.3 2.0 0.11 2004 4 28 21 4 . 2.0 0.33 2004 4 28 21 5 . 1.7 0.16 2004 4 28 22 1 . 0.6 0.13 2004 4 28 22 2 . 1.1 0.06 2004 4 28 22 3 19 1.6 0.43 2004 4 28 22 4 . 1.1 0.36 2004 4 28 22 5 . 0.6 0.03 2004 4 28 23 1 . 1.5 0.31 2004 4 28 23 2 . 1.9 0.36 2004 4 28 23 3 14 2.2 0.35 2004 4 28 23 4 . 1.5 0.22 2004 4 28 23 5 . 0.9 0.03 2004 4 28 24 1 . 0.9 0.06 2004 4 28 24 2 . 1.7 0.26 2004 4 28 24 3 18 1.7 0.24

Appendices


2004 4 28 24 4 . 1.6 0.31 2004 4 28 24 5 . 1.7 0.18 2004 4 28 25 1 . 0.6 0.34 2004 4 28 25 2 . 1.9 0.41 2004 4 28 25 3 18 1.9 0.43 2004 4 28 25 4 . 1.3 0.27 2004 4 28 25 5 . 1.0 0.06 2004 4 28 26 1 . 1.0 0.16 2004 4 28 26 2 . 1.2 0.18 2004 4 28 26 3 23.5 1.4 0.22 2004 4 28 26 4 . 0.8 0.43 2004 4 28 26 5 . 2.2 0.44 2004 4 28 27 1 . 2.9 0.49 2004 4 28 27 2 . 2.0 0.49 2004 4 28 27 3 19 1.6 0.16 2004 4 28 27 4 . 1.5 0.16 2004 4 28 27 5 . 1.2 0.11 2004 4 28 28 1 . 1.0 0.05 2004 4 28 28 2 . 1.5 0.19 2004 4 28 28 3 18 2.8 0.26 2004 4 28 28 4 . 2.1 0.40 2004 4 28 28 5 . 1.7 0.45 2004 4 28 29 1 . 1.3 0.07 2004 4 28 29 2 . 1.5 0.15 2004 4 28 29 3 19 2.8 0.34 2004 4 28 29 4 . 2.1 0.32 2004 4 28 29 5 . 1.7 0.15 2004 4 28 30 1 . 1.6 0.35 2004 4 28 30 2 . 1.8 0.51 2004 4 28 30 3 18 1.3 0.55 2004 4 28 30 4 . 0.9 0.47 2004 4 28 30 5 . 0.7 0.39 2004 4 28 31 1 . 0.6 0.03 2004 4 28 31 2 . 0.9 0.20 2004 4 28 31 3 17 2.0 0.32 2004 4 28 31 4 . 2.3 0.41 2004 4 28 31 5 . 2.9 0.17

Appendices


Tr

anse

ct

Hor

izon

tal

Dis

tanc

e to

Tr

ee (f

eet)

% A

ngle

to

Cro

wn

Obs

erve

r H

eigh

t (fe

et)

Can

opy

Hei

ght (

feet

)

T1M - A 41 90.0% 34 40B 41 96.0% 34 42T2M - A 48 102.0% 34 52B 48 142.0% 34 71T3 - A 35 70.0% 34 27B 35 102.0% 34 39T4 - A 50 85.0% 34 45B 50 65.0% 34 35T5 - A 70 55.0% 34 41B - 34 T6 - A 122 42.0% 34 59B 68 46.0% 34 42T7 - A 10 140.0% 34 38B 120 45.0% 34 57T8M - A 85 54.0% 34 49B 100 44.0% 34 47T9 - A 215 24.0% 34 54B 90 52.0% 34 50T10 - A 90 42.0% 34 41B 215 30.0% 34 67T11 - A 120 55.0% 34 69B 270 32.0% 34 89T12 - A 267 20.0% 34 56B 57 50.0% 34 31

Appendices


T13M - A 300 15.0% 34 48B 50 50.0% 60 30T14 - A 80 40.0% 60 37B 80 50.0% 34 43T15M - A 95 72.0% 34 71B 95 64.0% 34 64T17M - A 55 122.0% 34 70B 55 94.0% 34 55T18M - A 70 100.0% 34 73B 70 84.0% 34 62T21M - A 70 112.0% 34 81B 70 132.0% 34 95T22M - A 55 82.0% 34 48B 55 108.0% 34 62T25M - A 65 122.0% 34 82B 65 78.0% 34 54T26M - A 75 96.0% 34 75B 75 88.0% 34 69T28M A 74 100.0% 34 77B 74 88.0% 34 68T29 A 66 136.0% 34 93B 66 74.0% 34 52T30 A 34 142.0% 34 51B 34 90.0% 34 24T31 A 60 88.0% 34 56B 60 110.0% 34 69

Appendices


Appendix C

Graphs of Relationships between SAV and Depth, Velocity, and Tree Canopy

Appendices


Relative Distributions of SAV Cover by Depth

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0-1 1-2 2-3 >3Depth Interval (meters)

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al D

epth

Inte

rval

Are

a

Bare substrateZizania aquaticaHydrocotyle sp.Ludwigia repensMyriophyllum heterophyllumChara sp.Vallisneria americanaSagittaria kurziana

Relative Distributions of SAV Cover by Flow

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.5

Flow Interval (meters/second)

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al F

low

Inte

rval

Are

a


59,000 m2 30,000 m2 31,000 m2 17,000 m2 3,000 m2 200 m2

Appendices


Relative Distributions of SAV Cover by River Reach

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

River Reach

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al R

iver

Rea

ch A

rea

Bare SubstrateZizania aquaticaHydrocotyle sp.Ludwigia repensMyriophyllum heterophyllumChara sp.Vallisneria americanaSagittaria kurziana

8,00

0 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

30,0

00 m

2

13,0

00 m

2

Relative Distributions of SAV Cover by Tree Canopy Shade

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tree Canopy Shade (hours/day)

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al T

ree

Cano

py

Shad

e Ar

ea


57,0

00 m

2

4,00

0 m

2

18,0

00 m

2

22,0

00 m

2

14,0

00 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

11,0

00 m

2

Appendices


Relative Distribution of Depth (m) by River Reach

0%10%

20%30%40%

50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9River Reach

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al R

iver

Rea

ch A

rea

>32-31-20-1

8,00

0 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

30,0

00 m

2

13,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

14,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

Relative Distribution of Flow (m/s) by River Reach

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9River Reach

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al R

iver

Rea

ch

Area

0.5 - 0.60.4 - 0.50.3 - 0.40.2 - 0.30.1 - 0.20.0 - 0.1

5,00

0 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

30,0

00 m

2

13,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

14,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

Appendices


Relative Distribution of Shade (hrs/day) by River Reach

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9River Reach

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al R

iver

Rea

ch

Area

121086420

8,00

0 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

30,0

00 m

2

13,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

15,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

14,0

00 m

2

16,0

00 m

2

Appendices


Appendix D

SAV Remap Areas in 2004 and Change Analysis Maps

2803 Fruitville Road, Suite 130Sarasota, Florida 34237Phone: 941.539.4036Fax: 941.951.1477

Submerged Aquatic Vegetationin Ichetucknee Springs and River

Spring 2004G:\Projects\Ichetucknee2004\MXD\figure_1.mxd

0 100 20050Feet

LegendBoundary

Bare

Sagittaria kurziana 0-25%


Vallisneria americana 0-25%



Chara sp. 0-25%

Chara sp. 25-50%

Ludwigia repens 50-100%

Hydrocotyle sp. 0-25%

Zizania aquatica 0-25%



Sagittaria(0-25%)/Vallisneria(25-50%) Mix





Sagittaria(0-25%)/Zizania(0-25%) Mix


Sagittaria(0-25%)/Chara(0-25%) Mix



Ludwigia(50-100%)/Zizania(0-25%) Mix

Sagittaria(0-25%)/Vallisneria(0-25%)/Chara(50-100%) Mix


Ludwigia(25-50%)/Hydrocotyle(0-25%)/Zizania(25-50%) Mix

Headspring R

each

Rice M

arshR

each

Blue Hole Spring

Canoe/Tube Launch Area

Headspring

2803 Fruitville Road, Suite 130Sarasota, Florida 34237Phone: 941.539.4036Fax: 941.951.1477®


Spring 2004G:\Projects\SRWMD_Spring_Veg\DraftGISDeliverables\MXD/figure_5.mxd

0 100 20050Feet

LegendBoundary

Bare







Chara sp. 0-25%

Chara sp. 25-50%



















Mid Point Dock

2803 Fruitville Road, Suite 130Sarasota, Florida 34237Phone: 941.539.4036Fax: 941.951.1477® Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

in Ichetucknee Springs and RiverSpring 2004

G:\Projects\SRWMD_Spring_Veg\DraftGISDeliverables\MXD/figure_7.mxd

0 100 20050Feet

LegendBoundary

Bare







Chara sp. 0-25%

Chara sp. 25-50%



















Dampier's Landing

US 27 Take Out Area




0 100 20050Feet

LegendBoundary

Bare







Chara sp. 0-25%

Chara sp. 25-50%



















U.S. 27 Bridge


Change Analysis for Submerged Aquatic Vegetationin Ichetucknee Springs and River between

Spring 2003 and Spring 2004G:\Projects\Ichetucknee2004\MXD\figure_1.mxd

0 100 20050Feet

LegendBoundary

Change Analysis from 2003 to 2004Trend

NO CHANGEBARE TO LUD (50-100%)BARE TO SAG (50-100%)BARE TO ZIZ (0-25%)EMERGENT TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ ZIZ (25-50%) MIXCHA (50-100%) TO BARE

CHA (50-100%) TO CHA (0-25%)CHA (50-100%) TO CHA (25-50%)LUD (0-25%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO EMERGENTLUD (0-25%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (25-50%) MIX

LUD (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO EMERGENTLUD (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (25-50%) MIXLUD (50-100%)/ ZIZ (0-25%) TO ZIZ (50-100%)SAG (0-25%)/CHA (0-25%) TO CHA (0-25%)SAG (0-25%)/CHA (50-100%) MIX TO CHA (0-25%)

SAG (0-25%) TO SAG (25-50%)SAG (0-25%)/VAL (50-100%) MIX TO BARESAG (0-25%)/VAL (50-100%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/ VAL (25-50%) MIXSAG (50-100%) TO BARE

SAG (50-100%) TO SAG (0-25%)SAG (50-100%) TO SAG (25-50%)SAG (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIXTO SAG (0-25%) SAG (50-100%)/ ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/ ZIZ(0-25%) MIXVAL (0-25%)/CHA (25-50%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/VAL(0-25%)/ CHA (50-100%) MIX

VAL (50-100%) TO BAREVAL (50-100%) TO SAG (25-50%)VAL (50-100%) TO SAG (50-100%)/ VAL (50-100%) MIXVAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)

VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)ZIZ (25-50%) TO BAREZIZ (25-50%) TO EMERGENTZIZ (25-50%) TO ZIZ (0-25%)

Headspring Reach

Rice M

arshR

each

Blue Hole Spring

Canoe/Tube Launch Area

Headspring



Spring 2003 and Spring 2004G:\Projects\SRWMD_Spring_Veg\DraftGISDeliverables\MXD/figure_5.mxd

0 100 20050Feet

LegendBoundary


NO CHANGE

BARE TO LUD (50-100%)

BARE TO SAG (50-100%)

BARE TO ZIZ (0-25%)

EMERGENT TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ ZIZ (25-50%) MIX

CHA (50-100%) TO BARE

CHA (50-100%) TO CHA (0-25%)

CHA (50-100%) TO CHA (25-50%)

LUD (0-25%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO EMERGENT

LUD (0-25%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (25-50%) MIX

LUD (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO EMERGENT

LUD (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (25-50%) MIX

LUD (50-100%)/ ZIZ (0-25%) TO ZIZ (50-100%)

SAG (0-25%)/CHA (0-25%) TO CHA (0-25%)

SAG (0-25%)/CHA (50-100%) MIX TO CHA (0-25%)

SAG (0-25%) TO SAG (25-50%)

SAG (0-25%)/VAL (50-100%) MIX TO BARE

SAG (0-25%)/VAL (50-100%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/ VAL (25-50%) MIX

SAG (50-100%) TO BARE

SAG (50-100%) TO SAG (0-25%)

SAG (50-100%) TO SAG (25-50%)

SAG (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIXTO SAG (0-25%)

SAG (50-100%)/ ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/ ZIZ(0-25%) MIX

VAL (0-25%)/CHA (25-50%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/VAL(0-25%)/ CHA (50-100%) MIX

VAL (50-100%) TO BARE

VAL (50-100%) TO SAG (25-50%)

VAL (50-100%) TO SAG (50-100%)/ VAL (50-100%) MIX

VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)

VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)

VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)

ZIZ (25-50%) TO BARE

ZIZ (25-50%) TO EMERGENT

ZIZ (25-50%) TO ZIZ (0-25%)

Mid Point Dock


® Change Analysis for Submerged Aquatic Vegetationin Ichetucknee Springs and River between


0 100 20050Feet

LegendBoundary


NO CHANGE

BARE TO LUD (50-100%)

BARE TO SAG (50-100%)

BARE TO ZIZ (0-25%)

EMERGENT TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ ZIZ (25-50%) MIX

CHA (50-100%) TO BARE

CHA (50-100%) TO CHA (0-25%)

CHA (50-100%) TO CHA (25-50%)

LUD (0-25%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO EMERGENT

LUD (0-25%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (25-50%) MIX

LUD (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO EMERGENT

LUD (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (25-50%) MIX

LUD (50-100%)/ ZIZ (0-25%) TO ZIZ (50-100%)

SAG (0-25%)/CHA (0-25%) TO CHA (0-25%)

SAG (0-25%)/CHA (50-100%) MIX TO CHA (0-25%)

SAG (0-25%) TO SAG (25-50%)

SAG (0-25%)/VAL (50-100%) MIX TO BARE

SAG (0-25%)/VAL (50-100%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/ VAL (25-50%) MIX

SAG (50-100%) TO BARE

SAG (50-100%) TO SAG (0-25%)

SAG (50-100%) TO SAG (25-50%)

SAG (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIXTO SAG (0-25%)

SAG (50-100%)/ ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/ ZIZ(0-25%) MIX

VAL (0-25%)/CHA (25-50%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/VAL(0-25%)/ CHA (50-100%) MIX

VAL (50-100%) TO BARE

VAL (50-100%) TO SAG (25-50%)

VAL (50-100%) TO SAG (50-100%)/ VAL (50-100%) MIX

VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)

VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)

VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)

ZIZ (25-50%) TO BARE

ZIZ (25-50%) TO EMERGENT

ZIZ (25-50%) TO ZIZ (0-25%)

Dampier's Landing

US 27 Take Out Area




0 100 20050Feet

LegendBoundary


NO CHANGEBARE TO LUD (50-100%)BARE TO SAG (50-100%)BARE TO ZIZ (0-25%)EMERGENT TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ ZIZ (25-50%) MIXCHA (50-100%) TO BARECHA (50-100%) TO CHA (0-25%)CHA (50-100%) TO CHA (25-50%)LUD (0-25%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO EMERGENTLUD (0-25%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (25-50%) MIXLUD (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO EMERGENTLUD (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO LUD (25-50%)/HYD (0-25%)/ZIZ (25-50%) MIXLUD (50-100%)/ ZIZ (0-25%) TO ZIZ (50-100%)SAG (0-25%)/CHA (0-25%) TO CHA (0-25%)SAG (0-25%)/CHA (50-100%) MIX TO CHA (0-25%)SAG (0-25%) TO SAG (25-50%)SAG (0-25%)/VAL (50-100%) MIX TO BARESAG (0-25%)/VAL (50-100%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/ VAL (25-50%) MIXSAG (50-100%) TO BARESAG (50-100%) TO SAG (0-25%)SAG (50-100%) TO SAG (25-50%)SAG (50-100%)/ZIZ (0-25%) MIXTO SAG (0-25%) SAG (50-100%)/ ZIZ (0-25%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/ ZIZ(0-25%) MIXVAL (0-25%)/CHA (25-50%) MIX TO SAG (0-25%)/VAL(0-25%)/ CHA (50-100%) MIXVAL (50-100%) TO BAREVAL (50-100%) TO SAG (25-50%)VAL (50-100%) TO SAG (50-100%)/ VAL (50-100%) MIXVAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)VAL (50-100%) TO VAL (25-50%)ZIZ (25-50%) TO BAREZIZ (25-50%) TO EMERGENTZIZ (25-50%) TO ZIZ (0-25%)

U.S. 27 Bridge

Appendices


Appendix E

SAV Depth, Flow, and Tree Canopy Shade Maps

Headspring

Reach #1

Reach #2


Depth Mapsin Ichetucknee Springs and River


0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3

Reach # 2

Reach # 1



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3


Spring 2004

Rice MarshReach #3

Reach #2



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3


Spring 2004

Reach # 4

Reach # 3



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3


Spring 2004

Reach # 5

Reach # 4



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3

Flood Plain


Spring 2004

Reach # 5

Reach # 6



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3


Spring 2004

Reach #6

Reach #5



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3


Spring 2004

Reach #7

Reach #6



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3


Spring 2004

Reach # 7

Reach # 8



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3


Spring 2004

Rearch # 8

Rearch # 9



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3


Spring 2004

Reach # 9

Reach # 8



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

DepthMeters

1

2

3

>3

U.S. 27 Bridge


Spring 2004

Reach #1

Reach #2


Flow Mapsin Ichetucknee Springs and River


0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Reach # 2

Reach # 1



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Spring 2004

Reach #3

Reach #2



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Spring 2004

Reach # 4

Reach # 3



0 100 20050Feet

Legend

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Reach


Spring 2004

Reach # 5

Reach # 4



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Flood Plain


Spring 2004

Reach # 5

Reach # 6



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Spring 2004

Reach #6

Reach #5



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Spring 2004

Reach #7

Reach #6



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Spring 2004

Reach # 7

Reach # 8



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Spring 2004

Rearch # 8

Rearch # 9



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Spring 2004

Reach # 9

Reach # 8



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

FlowMeters/second

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

U.S. 27 Bridge


Spring 2004

Headspring

Reach #1

Reach #2


Tree Canopy Shadein Ichetucknee Springs and River


0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Reach # 2

Reach # 1



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Spring 2004

Rice Marsh

Reach #3

Reach #2



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Spring 2004

Reach # 4

Reach # 3



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Spring 2004

Reach # 5

Reach # 4



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Flood Plain


Spring 2004

Reach #6

Reach #5



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Spring 2004

Reach #7

Reach #6



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Spring 2004

Reach # 7

Reach # 8



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Spring 2004

Rearch # 8

Rearch # 9



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Spring 2004

Reach # 9

Reach # 8



0 100 20050Feet

LegendReach

Canopy ShadeHours

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

U.S. 27 Bridge


Spring 2004

Appendices


Appendix F

Data and Statistical Summaries from SAV Transect Sampling

Appendices


Table F-1. Sampling coordinates for the Ichetucknee River as sampled by Frazer et al. on April 2003 and 2004.

2003 2004 Transect Latitude Longitude Transect Latitude Longitude

1 29.98310 -82.76071 1 29.98315 -82.76064 2 29.98207 -82.76027 2 29.98220 -82.76015 3 29.98079 -82.75928 3 29.98107 -82.75932 4 29.97948 -82.75875 4 29.97940 -82.75872 5 29.97825 -82.75927 5 29.97824 -82.75925 6 29.97680 -82.75886 6 29.97703 -82.75901 7 29.97541 -82.75895 7 29.97552 -82.75872 8 29.97412 -82.75938 8 29.97419 -82.75932 9 29.97228 -82.75999 9 29.97250 -82.75996

10 29.97115 -82.75998 10 29.97138 -82.75977 11 29.96992 -82.76015 11 29.97006 -82.76008 12 29.96885 -82.76086 12 29.96898 -82.76085 13 29.96770 -82.76151 13 29.96792 -82.76153 14 29.96697 -82.76173 14 29.96680 -82.76172 15 29.96511 -82.76192 15 29.96552 -82.76160 16 29.96445 -82.76287 16 29.96449 -82.76290 17 29.96383 -82.76447 17 29.96363 -82.76437 18 29.96320 -82.76574 18 29.96330 -82.76559 19 29.96188 -82.76811 19 29.96306 -82.76705 20 29.96154 -82.76797 20 29.96246 -82.76768 21 29.96069 -82.76931 21 29.96145 -82.76896 22 29.96031 -82.77084 22 29.96037 -82.77087 23 29.95987 -82.77306 23 29.95997 -82.77225 24 29.95926 -82.77319 24 29.95907 -82.77287 25 29.95922 -82.77435 25 29.95933 -82.77415 26 29.95931 -82.77556 26 29.95912 -82.77488 27 29.95913 -82.77627 27 29.95905 -82.77558 28 29.95842 -82.77834 28 29.95862 -82.77783 29 29.95774 -82.77968 29 29.95813 -82.77910 30 29.95653 -82.78011 30 29.95677 -82.78013 31 29.95537 -82.78222 31 29.95543 -82.78215

2004 Transect Latitude Longitude Main 29.98403 -82.76172 Blue . . Roaring 29.97640 -82.75785 Singing 29.97613 -82.75832 Boiling 29.97358 -82.75980 Millpond 29.96621 -82.76065

Appendices


Table F-2. Ichetucknee River mean values from data collected on April 30, 2003. N = 5 for depth, flow, canopy and N > 3 for others. Width Depth Flow Canopy Temperature Specific Dissolved Light

Transect (m) (m) (m/s) Cover (%) (°C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Oxygen (mg/L)

pH Attenuation (Kd/m)

1 17 1.0 0.11 78 21.9 320 4.3 7.46 0.49 2 21 1.0 0.18 20 21.8 320 4.5 7.46 3 15 1.0 0.22 90 21.8 320 4.7 7.57 4 16 1.2 0.26 86 21.9 312 3.7 7.27 5 26 1.0 0.23 0 21.9 311 4.1 7.45 0.58 6 45 0.8 0.20 0 22.1 309 5.0 7.49 0.58 7 54 1.1 0.23 10 22.2 314 4.9 7.50 0.71 8 50 1.0 0.24 2 22.3 315 5.2 7.59 9 1.0 0.15 5 22.5 323 5.2 7.67

10 1.0 0.17 0 22.6 322 6.2 7.61 11 0.9 0.13 0 23.0 321 6.7 7.75 12 1.4 0.13 0 23.2 322 7.4 7.70 13 1.2 0.14 33 23.3 321 7.6 7.79 14 1.2 0.15 0 23.5 321 7.8 7.84 15 1.5 0.17 30 23.6 329 7.4 7.61 16 23 1.8 0.23 90 23.6 332 7.2 7.63 17 26 1.8 0.21 80 23.6 335 7.1 7.67 18 1.3 0.23 0 23.6 334 7.2 7.72 19 1.9 0.15 36 23.6 334 7.2 7.75 20 1.8 0.18 61 23.6 334 7.2 7.77 21 20 2.1 0.24 64 23.7 334 7.2 7.74 22 1.5 0.26 68 23.7 335 7.2 7.75 23 1.8 0.26 78 23.7 335 7.1 7.68 24 21 1.8 0.14 100 23.7 336 7.1 7.74 25 21 1.7 0.23 0 23.6 339 7.0 7.73 26 1.6 0.24 60 23.6 336 7.0 7.71 27 21 2.1 0.27 50 23.7 336 7.1 7.70 28 1.8 0.18 58 23.6 336 6.9 7.70 29 2.3 0.22 50 23.6 334 6.9 7.70 30 1.8 0.22 40 23.5 340 6.6 7.71 31 20 2.0 0.17 60 23.6 337 6.9 7.76

Mean Values 1.47 0.20 40.29 23.08 327.25 6.39 7.65 0.59

Appendices


Table F-3. Ichetucknee River mean values from data collected on April 28, 2004. N = 5 for depth, flow, canopy and N > 3 for others. Width Depth Flow Canopy Temperature Specific Dissolved Light

Transect (m) (m) (m/s) Cover (%) (°C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Oxygen (mg/L)

pH Attenuation (Kd/m)

1 12 1.4 0.09 96 21.8 309 4.2 7.53 1.57 2 9 1.0 0.09 0 21.9 309 4.6 7.60 1.90 3 10 1.0 0.12 24 22.0 309 5.0 7.58 1.69 4 13 1.7 0.12 64 21.9 299 4.5 7.64 5 9 1.6 0.20 0 22.0 297 4.3 7.63 0.58 6 17 1.2 0.09 20 22.1 296 5.2 7.64 0.42 7 11 1.4 0.15 56 22.2 297 3.7 7.64 0.63 8 17 1.6 0.18 0 22.4 297 5.2 7.72 0.40 9 15 1.4 0.10 0 22.4 303 5.2 7.73 0.47

10 14 1.9 0.32 0 22.6 299 6.1 7.80 0.52 11 14 1.7 0.22 0 22.7 299 6.3 7.83 0.58 12 16 1.6 0.21 0 22.8 300 7.1 7.85 0.39 13 17 1.3 0.24 48 22.8 300 6.9 7.89 1.38 14 24 1.3 0.10 8 22.9 300 7.4 7.87 0.72 15 25 1.5 0.21 12 22.7 305 6.9 7.87 0.42 16 22 1.6 0.16 32 22.4 317 6.2 7.82 0.46 17 24 1.6 0.23 84 22.3 308 6.6 7.79 0.25 18 24 1.2 0.27 0 22.2 310 6.6 7.79 0.54 19 19 1.7 0.17 84 22.0 308 6.4 7.84 0.44 20 17 1.5 0.30 48 21.8 308 6.1 7.81 1.68 21 20 1.7 0.17 32 21.6 309 6.2 7.78 1.21 22 19 1.0 0.20 88 21.4 309 5.9 7.76 2.34 23 14 1.6 0.25 72 21.2 309 5.4 7.72 1.20 24 18 1.5 0.21 72 21.1 309 5.3 7.71 0.98 25 18 1.3 0.30 40 21.0 310 5.1 7.70 1.10 26 24 1.3 0.29 60 20.9 310 5.0 7.67 0.70 27 19 1.8 0.28 76 20.8 309 4.9 7.67 1.33 28 18 1.8 0.27 56 20.8 309 4.8 7.67 0.87 29 19 1.9 0.21 56 20.7 304 4.7 7.67 0.33 30 18 1.3 0.45 96 20.6 310 4.8 7.69 1.12 31 17 1.7 0.23 52 20.6 310 5.0 7.71 0.72

Mean Values 1.49 0.21 41.16 21.83 305.31 5.54 7.73 0.90

Appendices


Table F-3, continued. Ichetucknee River mean values from data collected on April 28, 2004. N = 3.

Transect Water Column Color Total Nitrate Ammonium Total Soluble Reactive

Chlorophyll (µg/L) (Pt-Co units) Nitrogen (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Phosphorus (µg/L) Phosphorus (µg/L)

1 2 0.8 1 933 763 7 23 22 3 4 5 0.8 1 833 683 8 38 38 6 7 8 1.3 1 677 573 10 45 44 9

10 11 1.6 1 593 510 8 50 45 12 13 14 2.1 2 517 450 9 52 46 15 16 17 2.3 1 500 440 12 52 47 18 19 20 2.1 2 537 440 14 54 47 21 22 23 1.8 3 543 450 16 53 46 24 25 26 1.8 4 537 460 13 53 46 27 28 29 1.7 4 580 463 16 53 46 30 31

Mean Values 1.6 1.9 625.0 523.3 11.4 47.3 42.7

Appendices


Table F-4. Ichetucknee River mean values from data collected on April 30, 2003. N = 5.

SAV Coverage SAV Biomass Periphyton Abundance Dominant SAV Transect

(%) (kg/m2 wet weight ) (mg chl/g host wet wt.) Species

1 47 Sagittaria kurziana 2 52 3.32 0.11 Sagittaria kurziana 3 44 Sagittaria kurziana 4 67 Sagittaria kurziana 5 61 3.26 0.11 Zizania aquatica 6 74 Zizania aquatica 7 51 Zizania aquatica 8 69 4.49 0.12 Sagittaria kurziana 9 51 Sagittaria kurziana

10 57 Zizania aquatica 11 44 2.43 0.27 Zizania aquatica 12 81 Sagittaria kurziana 13 72 Sagittaria kurziana 14 82 6.43 0.14 Sagittaria kurziana 15 77 Sagittaria kurziana 16 52 Sagittaria kurziana & Vallisneria americana 17 59 4.06 0.07 Sagittaria kurziana 18 90 Sagittaria kurziana & Vallisneria americana 19 54 Sagittaria kurziana 20 92 3.46 0.05 Chara sp. 21 88 Sagittaria kurziana 22 82 Sagittaria kurziana 23 82 5.73 0.08 Sagittaria kurziana 24 80 Chara sp. & Fontinalis sp. 25 100 Vallisneria americana 26 84 5.98 0.02 Sagittaria kurziana 27 100 Sagittaria kurziana 28 78 Chara sp. & Sagittaria kurziana 29 70 6.48 0.05 Vallisneria americana 30 72 Sagittaria kurziana 31 82 Chara sp.

Mean Values 70.8 4.56 0.11 Sagittaria kurziana

Appendices


Table F-5. Ichetucknee River mean values from data collected on April 29, 2004. N = 5.

SAV Coverage SAV Biomass Periphyton Abundance Dominant SAV Transect


1 68 Sagittaria kurziana 2 91 3.81 0.03 Sagittaria kurziana 3 97 Sagittaria kurziana 4 92 Sagittaria kurziana 5 100 5.76 0.04 Sagittaria kurziana 6 100 Sagittaria kurziana 7 100 Sagittaria kurziana 8 100 9.92 0.03 Sagittaria kurziana 9 100 Sagittaria kurziana

10 100 Sagittaria kurziana 11 100 9.52 0.02 Sagittaria kurziana 12 80 Sagittaria kurziana 13 100 Vallisneria americana 14 100 5.28 0.03 Sagittaria kurziana 15 92 Vallisneria americana 16 84 2.52 Sagittaria kurziana 17 96 0.04 Vallisneria americana 18 70 Sagittaria kurziana 19 72 Vallisneria americana 20 74 2.29 0.01 Sagittaria kurziana 21 69 Sagittaria kurziana 22 68 Sagittaria kurziana 23 50 2.11 0.08 Sagittaria kurziana & Chara sp. 24 90 Sagittaria kurziana 25 95 Vallisneria americana 26 86 6.04 0.06 Vallisneria americana 27 71 Vallisneria americana & Fontinalis sp. 28 92 Vallisneria americana 29 86 6.10 0.03 Sagittaria kurziana 30 57 Fontinalis sp. 31 84 Chara sp.

Mean Values 85.9 5.34 0.04 Sagittaria kurziana

Appendices


Table F-6. Feeder springs' mean values from data collected on April 27, 2004. N = 5 for depth, flow, canopy and N > 3 for others.

Discharge Canopy Temperature Specific Dissolved pH Light Spring

(m3/s) Cover (%) (°C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Oxygen (mg/L) Attenuation (Kd/m)

Main 2.6 20 21.8 310 4.2 7.54 0.44 Blue 5.8 30 21.7 291 2.3 7.55 .

Roaring 3.2 46 21.8 301 0.7 7.45 1.68 Singing 1.5 20 21.8 300 0.5 7.52 0.57 Boiling 3.2 0 21.9 320 0.8 7.44 0.81

Millpond 2.0 100 21.9 352 1.1 7.55 2.18

Mean 3.1 36 21.8 312.4 1.6 7.51 1.14

Table F-7. Feeder springs’ mean values from data collected on April 28, 2004. N = 3.

Color Total Nitrate Ammonium Total Soluble Reactive Spring (Pt-Co units) Nitrogen (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) Phosphorus (µg/L) Phosphorus (µg/L)

Main 1 1043 780 14 24 23 Blue 1 920 677 18 46 47

Roaring 1 520 460 14 58 62 Singing 2 607 473 8 58 60 Boiling 1 553 433 21 56 57

Millpond 3 333 293 24 57 58

Mean 1.6 662.8 519.4 1.6 49.9 51.3

Appendices


Table F-8. Ichetucknee River feeder springs mean transect values from data collected on April 29, 2004. N = 5.

SAV Coverage SAV Biomass Periphyton Abundance Dominant SAV Spring


Main 0 . 0.03 Ludwigia repens Blue 76 . 0.17 Sagittaria kurziana

Roaring 86 . 0.41 Sagittaria kurziana Singing 23 . 1.03 Sagittaria kurziana Boiling 38 . 0.66 Sagittaria kurziana

Millpond 74 . 0.15 Sagittaria kurziana

Mean 50 . 0.41

ICHETUCKNEE RIVERTRANSECT LOCATIONS

29.950

29.955

29.960

29.965

29.970

29.975

29.980

29.985

-82.785 -82.780 -82.775 -82.770 -82.765 -82.760 -82.755Longitude

Latit

ude 2004

2003

Figure F-1. Graphical representation of transect locations for each year.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

DEP

TH (m

)

20032004

Figure F-2. Mean transect depth (m) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

FLO

W (m

/s)

20032004

Figure F-3. Mean transect flow (m/s) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Mud

Mud/Sand

Sand

Sand/Shell

Sand/Rock

Shell/Rock

Rock

FREQ

UEN

CY O

F O

CCU

RREN

CE B

Y SE

DIM

ENT

TYPE

PERCENT

20042003

Figure F-4. Histogram of the sediment types for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and

May 2004.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

TER

RES

TRIA

L C

AN

OPY

CO

VER

(%)

20032004

Figure F-5. Mean transect canopy cover (%) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and

May 2004.

20.0

20.5

21.0

21.5

22.0

22.5

23.0

23.5

24.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

TEM

PER

ATU

RE

(°C)

20032004

Figure F-6. Mean transect temperature(°C) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May

2004.

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

SPEC

IFIC

CO

NDU

CTI

VITY

(µS/

cm a

t 25

°C)

20032004

Figure F-7. Mean specific conductivity (µS/cm) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and

May 2004.

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

TRANSECT

DIS

SOLV

ED O

XYG

EN (m

g/L)

20032004

Figure F-8. Mean transect dissolved oxygen (mg/L) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003

and May 2004.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30TRANSECT

Kd/

m

2004 w/ canopy cover2004 w/o canopy cover2003 w/o canopy cover

Figure F-9. Light attenuation coefficients (Kd/m) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003

and May 2004.

7.0

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

8.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

pH

20032004

Figure F-10. Mean transect pH for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

TOTA

L N

ITR

OG

EN (µ

g/L)

Figure F-11. Mean transect total nitrogen concentration (µg/L) for the Ichetucknee River on

May 2004.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

NIT

RA

TE (µ

g/L)

Figure F-12. Mean transect nitrate concentration (µg/L) for the Ichetucknee River on May

2004.

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

AM

MO

NIA

(µg

/L)

Figure F-13. Mean transect ammonium concentration (µg/L) for the Ichetucknee River on

May 2004.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

(µg/

L)

Total Nitrogen (µg/L)Nitrate (µg/L)Ammonium (µg/L)

Figure F-14. Mean concentrations (µg/L) for nitrogen species in the Ichetucknee River on

May 2004.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

TOTA

L PH

OSP

HOR

US

(µg/

L)

Figure F-15. Mean transect total phosphorus concentration (µg/L) for the Ichetucknee River

on May 2004.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

SOLU

BLE

REA

CTI

VE P

HO

SPH

OR

US

(µg/

L)

Figure F-16. Mean transect SRP concentrations (µg/L) for the Ichetucknee River on May

2004.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

CO

NC

ENTR

ATI

ON

(µg/

L)

Total Phosphorus (µg/L)

Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (µg/L)

Figure F-17. Mean concentrations (µg/L) for phosphorus species in the Ichetucknee River on

May 2004.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

CH

LOR

OPH

YLL

(µg/

L)

Figure F-18. Mean transect chlorophyll concentration (µg/L) for the Ichetucknee River on

May 2004.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

CO

LOR

(Pt-C

o un

its)

Figure F-19. Mean transect color (Pt-Co units) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2004.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

None

Chara sp.

Cladophora sp.

Fontinalis sp.

Hydrocotyle sp.

Ludwigia repens

Sagittaria kurziana

Vallisneria americana

Vaucheria sp.

Zizania aquatica

FREQ

UENC

Y O

F O

CCUR

REN

CE B

Y SP

ECIE

S

PERCENT

20042003

Figure F-20. Frequency of SAV species in the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May

2004.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

SAV

PER

CEN

T C

OVE

RA

GE

20032004

Figure F-21. Mean transect SAV percent coverage for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003

and May 2004.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

SAV

BIO

MA

SS (k

g/m

2 wet

wei

ght)

20032004

Figure F-22. Mean SAV biomass (kg wet wt /m2) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003

and May 2004.

Figure F-23. Mean periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt) for the Ichetucknee

River.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TRANSECT

PER

IPH

YTO

N A

BU

ND

AN

CE

(mg

chl/g

hos

t pla

nt w

et w

eigh

t)

20032004

Bivariate fit of total SAV coverage (per m) by depth (m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100TO

TAL

SAV

CO

VER

AGE

(per

m)

.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

DEPTH (m)

Linear Fit Figure F-24. Empirical relationship between stream depth and submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) coverage for the Ichetucknee River for data collected on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit TOTAL COVERAGE (per m) = 66.539214 + 7.9931973 DEPTH (m) Summary of Fit R Square 0.03R Square Adjusted 0.02Root Mean Square Error 30.30Mean of Response 78.35Observations 310Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 7282.28 7282.28 7.9279 Error 308 282918.40 918.57 Prob > F C. Total 309 290200.67 0.0052 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 66.539214 4.534688 14.67 <.0001 DEPTH (m) 7.9931973 2.838849 2.82 0.0052

Bivariate fit of total SAV coverage (per m) by flow (m/s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100TO

TAL

SAV

CO

VER

AGE

(per

m)

.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6

FLOW (m/s)

Linear Fit Figure F-25. Empirical relationship between stream flow and submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) coverage for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit TOTAL COVERAGE (per m) = 77.656429 + 3.4349223 FLOW (m/s) Summary of Fit R Square 0.0002R Square Adjusted -0.003Root Mean Square Error 30.69Mean of Response 78.35Observations 310Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 51.76 51.764 0.0549 Error 308 290148.91 942.042 Prob > F C. Total 309 290200.67 0.8148 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 77.656429 3.440063 22.57 <.0001 FLOW (m/s) 3.4349223 14.65344 0.23 0.8148

Bivariate fit of total SAV coverage (per m) by terrestrial canopy cover (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100TO

TAL

SAV

CO

VER

AGE

(per

m)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CANOPY %

Linear Fit Figure F-26. Empirical relationship between terrestrial canopy cover and submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) coverage for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit TOTAL COVERAGE (per m) = 82.09763 - 0.0919814 CANOPY % Summary of Fit R Square 0.02R Square Adjusted 0.01Root Mean Square Error 30.44Mean of Response 78.35Observations 310Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 4718.57 4718.57 5.0908 Error 308 285482.11 926.89 Prob > F C. Total 309 290200.67 0.0248 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 82.09763 2.397179 34.25 <.0001 CANOPY % -0.091981 0.040767 -2.26 0.0248 Bivariate fit of total SAV weight (kg/m2) by depth (m)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

TOTA

L W

EIG

HT

(kg/

m2)

.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

DEPTH (m)

Linear Fit Figure F-27. Empirical relationship between stream depth and submersed aquatic vegetation

(SAV) biomass for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004.

Linear Fit TOTAL WEIGHT (kg/m2) = 1.9679876 + 2.0156925 DEPTH (m) Summary of Fit R Square 0.12R Square Adjusted 0.11Root Mean Square Error 3.37Mean of Response 4.94Observations 100Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 157.0304 157.030 13.7974 Error 98 1115.3531 11.381 Prob > F C. Total 99 1272.3836 0.0003 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 1.9679876 0.87071 2.26 0.0260 DEPTH (m) 2.0156925 0.542657 3.71 0.0003

Bivariate fit of total SAV weight (kg/m2) by flow (m/s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14TO

TAL

WEI

GH

T (k

g/m

2)

.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6

FLOW (m/s)

Linear Fit Figure F-28. Empirical relationship between stream flow and submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) biomass for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit TOTAL WEIGHT (kg/m2) = 3.6597828 + 6.4010781 FLOW (m/s) Summary of Fit R Square 0.04R Square Adjusted 0.03Root Mean Square Error 3.52Mean of Response 4.94Observations 100Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 54.7277 54.7277 4.4046 Error 98 1217.6559 12.4251 Prob > F C. Total 99 1272.3836 0.0384 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 3.6597828 0.708485 5.17 <.0001 FLOW (m/s) 6.4010781 3.049993 2.10 0.0384

Bivariate fit of total SAV weight (kg/m2) by terrestrial canopy cover (%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14TO

TAL

WEI

GH

T (k

g/m

2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CANOPY %

Linear Fit Figure F-29. Empirical relationship between terrestrial canopy cover and submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) biomass for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit TOTAL WEIGHT (kg/m2) = 5.5333753 - 0.0186212 CANOPY % Summary of Fit R Square 0.04R Square Adjusted 0.03Root Mean Square Error 3.52Mean of Response 4.94Observations 100Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 53.9344 53.9344 4.3380 Error 98 1218.4492 12.4332 Prob > F C. Total 99 1272.3836 0.0399 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 5.5333753 0.450436 12.28 <.0001 CANOPY % -0.018621 0.008941 -2.08 0.0399

Bivariate fit of periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) by depth (m)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Perip

hyto

n Ab

unda

nce

( mg

chl/g

hos

t wet

wt.)

.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

DEPTH (m)

Linear Fit Figure F-30. Empirical relationship between stream flow and periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit Periphyton Abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) = 0.1905863 - 0.0683048 DEPTH (m) Summary of Fit R Square 0.22R Square Adjusted 0.21Root Mean Square Error 0.075Mean of Response 0.075Observations 60Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 0.09459853 0.094599 16.7006 Error 58 0.32853480 0.005664 Prob > F C. Total 59 0.42313333 0.0001 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 0.1905863 0.029829 6.39 <.0001 DEPTH (m) -0.068305 0.016714 -4.09 0.0001

Bivariate fit of periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) by flow (m/s)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Perip

hyto

n Ab

unda

nce

( mg

chl/g

hos

t wet

wt.)

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6

FLOW (m/s)

Linear Fit Figure F-31. Empirical relationship between stream flow and periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit Periphyton Abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) = 0.1201158 - 0.1858195 FLOW (m/s) Summary of Fit R Square 0.06R Square Adjusted 0.05Root Mean Square Error 0.082Mean of Response 0.075Observations 60Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 0.02709620 0.027096 3.9683 Error 58 0.39603713 0.006828 Prob > F C. Total 59 0.42313333 0.0511 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 0.1201158 0.024883 4.83 <.0001 FLOW (m/s) -0.18582 0.093281 -1.99 0.0511

Bivariate fit of periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) by canopy cover (%)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Perip

hyto

n Ab

unda

nce

( mg

chl/g

hos

t wet

wt.)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CANOPY %

Linear Fit Figure F-32. Empirical relationship between terrestrial canopy cover and periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit Periphyton Abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) = 0.0845967 - 0.0003781 CANOPY % Summary of Fit R Square 0.02R Square Adjusted 0.01Root Mean Square Error 0.084Mean of Response 0.075Observations 60Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 0.01007622 0.010076 1.4149 Error 58 0.41305711 0.007122 Prob > F C. Total 59 0.42313333 0.2391 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 0.0845967 0.013392 6.32 <.0001 CANOPY % -0.000378 0.000318 -1.19 0.2391

Bivariate fit of mean total SAV coverage (%) by mean periphyton abundance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100M

ean

TOTA

L SA

V C

OVE

RAG

E (%

)

0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3

Mean Periphyton Abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt.)

Linear Fit Figure F-33. Empirical relationship between mean periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt) and submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) coverage (%) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit Mean(TOTAL COVERAGE) = 91.545075 - 168.12046 Mean(Periphyton Abundance) Summary of Fit R Square 0.41R Square Adjusted 0.38Root Mean Square Error 14.33Mean of Response 78.88Observations 20Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 2557.2579 2557.26 12.4535 Error 18 3696.2141 205.35 Prob > F C. Total 19 6253.4720 0.0024 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t|Intercept 91.545075 4.81119 19.03 <.0001Mean(Periphyton Abundance

-168.1205 47.64042 -3.53 0.0024

Bivariate fit of mean total SAV weight (kg wet wt/m2) by mean periphyton abundance

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10M

ean

TOTA

L SA

V W

EIG

HT

(kg/

m2)

0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3

Mean Periphyton Abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt.)

Linear Fit Figure F-34. Empirical relationship between mean periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt) and submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) biomass (kg wet wt/m2) for the Ichetucknee River on May 2003 and May 2004. Linear Fit Mean(TOTAL WEIGHT) = 6.0236089 - 12.231785 Mean(Periphyton Abundance) Summary of Fit R Square 0.15R Square Adjusted 0.10Root Mean Square Error 2.07Mean of Response 5.08Observations 19Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 13.309291 13.3093 3.0995 Error 17 72.997503 4.2940 Prob > F C. Total 18 86.306794 0.0963 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t|Intercept 6.0236089 0.717411 8.40 <.0001Mean(Periphyton Abundance

-12.23179 6.947714 -1.76 0.0963

One-way analysis of depth (m) by year

DEP

TH (m

)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-35. A comparison of the average depth (m) values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe

r Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%

2003 155 1.47 0.049 1.37 1.562004 155 1.49 0.049 1.39 1.59Grand Mean

310 1.48

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level Mean 2004 A 1.49 2003 A 1.47 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of flow (m/s) by year

FLO

W (m

/s)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-36. A comparison of the average flow (m/s) values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe


2003 155 0.198 0.010 0.179 0.2162004 155 0.207 0.010 0.188 0.226Grand Mean

310 0.202


One-way analysis of terrestrial canopy coverage (%) by year

CAN

OPY

%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-37. A comparison of the average terrestrial canopy coverage (%) values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe


2003 155 40.3 3.42 33.6 47.02004 155 41.2 3.42 34.4 47.9Grand Mean

310 40.7


One-way analysis of temperature (° C) by year

TEM

P (°

C)

21.0

21.5

22.0

22.5

23.0

23.5

24.0

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-38. A comparison of the average temperature (ºC) values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe


2003 94 23.08 0.074 22.94 23.232004 136 21.83 0.062 21.68 21.93Grand Mean

230 22.32

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level Mean2003 A 23.082004 B 21.83 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of specific conductivity (uS/cm at 25 ºC) by year

SP. C

ON

D. (

uS/c

m)

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-39. A comparison of the average specific conductivity (µS/cm) values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe


2003 94 327.25 0.797 325.67 328.812004 136 305.44 0.662 304.14 306.75Grand Mean

230 314.35


One-way analysis of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) by year

DO

(mg/

L)

4

5

6

7

8

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-40. A comparison of the average dissolved oxygen (mg/L) values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe


2003 94 6.39 0.113 6.16 6.612004 136 5.55 0.094 5.36 5.73Grand Mean

230 5.89


One-way analysis of pH by year

pH

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-41. A comparison of the average pH values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe


2003 94 7.65 0.011 7.63 7.682004 136 7.73 0.009 7.71 7.75Grand Mean

230 7.70


One-way analysis of total SAV coverage (%) by year

TOTA

L C

OVE

RAG

E (p

er m

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-42. A comparison of the average total SAV coverage (%) values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe


2003 155 70.8 2.39 66.1 75.52004 155 85.9 2.39 81.2 90.6Grand Mean

310 78.4


One-way analysis of total SAV weight (kg wet wt/m2) by year

TOTA

L W

EIG

HT

(kg/

m2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-43. A comparison of the average total SAV weight (kg wet wt/m2) values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe


2003 50 4.56 0.507 3.56 5.572004 50 5.34 0.507 4.33 6.34Grand Mean

100 4.95


One-way analysis of periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) by year

Perip

hyto

n Ab

unda

nce

( mg

chl/g

hos

t wet

wt.)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

2003 2004

YY

Figure F-44. A comparison of the average periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt) values for the Ichetucknee River between years. Means for One-way Anova Level Numbe


2003 30 0.115 0.0138 0.087 0.1422004 30 0.036 0.0138 0.009 0.064Grand Mean

60 0.075


One-way analysis of temperature (° C) by feeder spring

TEM

P (°

C)

21.70

21.75

21.80

21.85

21.90

21.95

Blue Boiling Main Millpond Roaring Singing

Feeder Spring

Figure F-45. A comparison of temperature (ºC) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 21.73 0.006 21.71 21.74Boiling 3 21.92 0.006 21.91 21.94Main 3 21.77 0.006 21.76 21.79Millpond 3 21.94 0.006 21.93 21.96Roaring 3 21.75 0.006 21.74 21.77Singing 3 21.77 0.006 21.75 21.78Grand Mean

18 21.81

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanMillpond A 21.94Boiling A 21.92Main B 21.77Singing B 21.77Roaring B C 21.75Blue C 21.73Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of specific conductivity (µS/cm) by feeder spring

SP. C

ON

D. (

uS/c

m)

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360


Feeder Spring

Figure F-46. A comparison of specific conductivity (µS/cm) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 291.00 0.136 290.70 291.30Boiling 3 320.00 0.136 319.70 320.30Main 3 310.00 0.136 309.70 310.30Millpond 3 352.00 0.136 351.70 352.30Roaring 3 301.33 0.136 301.04 301.63Singing 3 300.00 0.136 299.70 300.30Grand Mean

18 312.39

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanMillpond A 352.00Boiling B 320.00Main C 310.00Roaring D 301.33Singing E 300.00Blue F 291.00 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) by feeder spring

DO

(mg/

L)

0

1

2

3

4

5


Feeder Spring

Figure F-47. A comparison of dissolved oxygen (mg/L) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 2.29 0.153 1.95 2.62Boiling 3 0.76 0.153 0.43 1.10Main 3 4.21 0.153 3.88 4.54Millpond 3 1.10 0.153 0.77 1.44Roaring 3 0.67 0.153 0.33 1.00Singing 3 0.52 0.153 0.19 0.86Grand Mean

18 1.59

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanMain A 4.21Blue B 2.29Millpond C 1.10Boiling C 0.76Roaring C 0.67Singing C 0.52 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of pH by feeder spring

pH

7.35

7.40

7.45

7.50

7.55

7.60

7.65


Feeder Spring

Figure F-48. A comparison of pH between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 7.55 0.011 7.53 7.58Boiling 3 7.44 0.011 7.42 7.47Main 3 7.54 0.011 7.52 7.56Millpond 3 7.55 0.011 7.52 7.57Roaring 3 7.45 0.011 7.43 7.47Singing 3 7.52 0.011 7.50 7.55Grand Mean

18 7.51

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanBlue A 7.55Millpond A 7.55Main A 7.54Singing A 7.52Roaring B 7.45Boiling B 7.44 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of color (Pt-Co units) by feeder spring

Col

or (P

t-Co

units

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Feeder Spring

Figure F-49. A comparison of color (Pt-Co units) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 1.33 0.430 0.40 2.27Boiling 3 1.00 0.430 0.06 1.94Main 3 1.00 0.430 0.06 1.94Millpond 3 3.33 0.430 2.40 4.27Roaring 3 1.33 0.430 0.40 2.27Singing 3 1.67 0.430 0.73 2.60Grand Mean

18 1.61

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanMillpond A 3.33Singing A B 1.67Roaring A B 1.33Blue A B 1.33Boiling B 1.00Main B 1.00Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of total nitrogen (µg/L) by feeder spring

TN (µ

g/L)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100


Feeder Spring

Figure F-50. A comparison of total nitrogen (µg/L) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 920.00 14.969 887.40 952.60Boiling 3 553.33 14.969 520.70 585.90Main 3 1043.33 14.969 1010.70 1075.90Millpond 3 333.33 14.969 300.70 365.90Roaring 3 520.00 14.969 487.40 552.60Singing 3 606.67 14.969 574.10 639.30Grand Mean

18 662.78

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanMain A 1043.33Blue B 920.00Singing C 606.67Boiling C D 553.33Roaring D 520.00Millpond E 333.33 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of nitrate (µg/L) by feeder spring

NO

3 (µ

g/L)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


Feeder Spring

Figure F-51. A comparison of nitrate (µg/L) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 676.67 5.932 663.74 689.59Boiling 3 433.33 5.932 420.41 446.26Main 3 780.00 5.932 767.08 792.92Millpond 3 293.33 5.932 280.41 306.26Roaring 3 460.00 5.932 447.08 472.92Singing 3 473.33 5.932 460.41 486.26Grand Mean

18 519.44

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanMain A 780.00Blue B 676.67Singing C 473.33Roaring C D 460.00Boiling D 433.33Millpond E 293.33 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of ammonium (µg/L) by feeder spring

NH

4 (µ

g/L)

0

10

20

30

40

50


Feeder Spring

Figure F-52. A comparison of ammonium (µg/L) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 18.00 4.416 8.38 27.62Boiling 3 20.67 4.416 11.05 30.29Main 3 14.00 4.416 4.38 23.62Millpond 3 24.33 4.416 14.71 33.96Roaring 3 14.00 4.416 4.38 23.62Singing 3 8.33 4.416 -1.29 17.96Grand Mean

18 16.56

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanMillpond A 24.33Boiling A 20.67Blue A 18.00Main A 14.00Roaring A 14.00Singing A 8.33 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of total phosphorus (µg/L) by feeder spring

TP (µ

g/L)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Feeder Spring

Figure F-53. A comparison of total phosphorus (µg/L) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 46.33 0.408 45.44 47.22Boiling 3 55.67 0.408 54.78 56.56Main 3 23.67 0.408 22.78 24.56Millpond 3 57.33 0.408 56.44 58.22Roaring 3 58.33 0.408 57.44 59.22Singing 3 58.33 0.408 57.44 59.22Grand Mean

18 49.94

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanRoaring A 58.33Singing A 58.33Millpond A B 57.33Boiling B 55.67Blue C 46.33Main D 23.67 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) by feeder spring

SRP

(µg/

L)

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65


Feeder Spring

Figure F-54. A comparison of soluble reactive phosphorus (µg/L) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 47.00 0.561 45.78 48.22Boiling 3 57.00 0.561 55.78 58.22Main 3 23.00 0.561 21.78 24.22Millpond 3 58.33 0.561 57.11 59.56Roaring 3 62.00 0.561 60.78 63.22Singing 3 60.33 0.561 59.11 61.56Grand Mean

18 51.28

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanRoaring A 62.00Singing A B 60.33Millpond B C 58.33Boiling C 57.00Blue D 47.00Main E 23.00 Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

One-way analysis of periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) by feeder spring Pe

riphy

ton

Abun

danc

e ( m

g ch

l/g h

ost w

et w

t.)

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50


Feeder Spring Figure F-55. A comparison of periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt.) between feeder springs. Means for One-way Anova Level Number Mean Std Error Lower 95% Upper 95%Blue 3 0.173 0.1599 -0.179 0.525Boiling 3 0.657 0.1599 0.305 1.009Main 3 0.025 0.1599 -0.327 0.377Millpond 3 0.152 0.1599 -0.200 0.504Roaring 3 0.413 0.1599 0.061 0.765Singing 2 1.025 0.1958 0.594 1.456Grand Mean

17 0.371

Std Error uses a pooled estimate of error variance Comparisons for all pairs using Tukey-Kramer HSD (Alpha = 0.05) Level MeanSinging A 1.025Boiling A B 0.657Roaring A B 0.413Blue A B 0.173Millpond B 0.152Main B 0.025Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different

Bivariate fit of periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) by nitrate (µg/L)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50Pe

riphy

ton

Abun

danc

e ( m

g ch

l/g h

ost w

et w

t.)

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

NO3 (µg/L)

Linear Fit Figure F-56. Empirical relationship between nitrate concentrations and periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt) for the feeder springs of the Ichetucknee River on May 2004. Linear Fit Periphyton Abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) = 0.7682162 - 0.0007603 NO3 (µg/L) Summary of Fit R Square 0.11R Square Adjusted 0.05Root Mean Square Error 0.39Mean of Response 0.37Observations 17Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 0.2711865 0.271186 1.7694 Error 15 2.2990225 0.153268 Prob > F C. Total 16 2.5702089 0.2033 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 0.7682162 0.31331 2.45 0.0269 NO3 (µg/L) -0.00076 0.000572 -1.33 0.2033

Bivariate fit of periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) by SRP (µg/L)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50Pe

riphy

ton

Abun

danc

e ( m

g ch

l/g h

ost w

et w

t.)

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

SRP (µg/L)

Linear Fit Figure F-57. Empirical relationship between soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations and periphyton abundance (mg chl/g host plant wet wt) for the feeder springs of the Ichetucknee River. Linear Fit Periphyton Abundance (mg chl/g host wet wt) = -0.340803 + 0.0140228 SRP (µg/L) Summary of Fit R Square 0.25R Square Adjusted 0.20Root Mean Square Error 0.36Mean of Response 0.37Observations 17Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 1 0.6337767 0.633777 4.9094 Error 15 1.9364322 0.129095 Prob > F C. Total 16 2.5702089 0.0426 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept -0.340803 0.332888 -1.02 0.3222 SRP (µg/L) 0.0140228 0.006329 2.22 0.0426

Mapping and Monitoring Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in

Documents

Transcript of Mapping and Monitoring Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in