REMOTE KARST SPRING CHARACTERIZATION AND GROUPING TO FOCUS LONG-TERM MONITORING EFFORTS IN SEQUOIA, KINGS CANYON, AND GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARKS

Karst hydrogeologic fieldwork in remote settings is often challenging: assessing spring behavior, aquifer characteristics, and long-term monitoring can be prohibitively expensive in both time commitment and resources needed to assess these systems. Additionally, many standard hydrogeologic methodologies are often not allowed when these areas are managed as wilderness. Here, we assess the value of two methods to categorize remote karst springs into grouping for long term monitoring of a small number of select springs: a geomorphic method and a hydrochemical method. The first of these methods is derived from Springer et al. (2008) and groups springs based on morphological features while the second uses major ion data, field water quality, and discharge data to group springs within a multivariate statistical framework.

Using springs from Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, in California, and Grand Canyon National Park, in Arizona, both methods were used to group springs and then the intra- and intergroup variability of aquifer behavior and associated ecosystems were assessed to determine the ability of these methods to differentiate between spring characteristics. Results suggest that the two methods provide distinctly different groupings: the hydrochemical method separates springs into groups with similar aquifer characteristics while the geomorphic categorization separates springs into groups with similar aquatic habitats. For long-term monitoring efforts, both of these methods provide a good means of reducing the number of sites needed for intensive monitoring, however due to the differences between methods, it is essential to determine the goal of the monitoring efforts prior to employing the characterization.