Springsheds of the 

Santa Fe River Basin

Sam B. Upchurch, Ph.D., P.G.

Jian Chen, P.G.

Crystal R. Cain

SDII Global Corporation

Tampa, Florida

May 9, 2008
Springshed

• Area contributing 

water to the 

discharge of a 

spring. 

• Includes 

– Groundwater basin 

and

– Surface water basin
Sample Map – Ichetucknee 

Springs

• Based on high 

resolution data

• 1-foot contour 

interval

• Note that basin 

appears to pass 

under the 

Northern 

Highlands

Upchurch and Champion (2005)
Project Expanded to Two Phases

• Phase I 

– Literature review

– Springshed delineation using existing upper 

Floridan potentiometric surface data from 

2000

– Capture zones modeled using USGS and 

SRWMD groundwater flow models

– Reported on in June 2007

– Comments by Alachua County and FDEP
Project Expanded to Two Phases

• Phase II

– Alachua County 

developed 

• High-resolution 

monitoring 

network

• “Newberry Plain” 

of the Western 

Valley

– Sites located 

and surveyed

– Water levels 

measured in 

September 2007
Project Expanded to Two 

Phases

– Phase II Continued

• Geostatistical analysis to evaluate adequacy 

of monitoring network

• Delineation of springsheds using highresolution monitoring network and 1 foot 

contours

• Revision of report
Area Overview

LEGEND

County Boundaries

Hydrography

Springs

0μ1 2 4

Miles

STUDY AREA

WORTHINGTON SPRINGS

SANTA FE SPRINGS

SANTA FE RISE

DARBY SPRINGS

HORNSBY SPRING

COLUMBIA SPRINGS

BLUE SPRING POE SPRINGS DEVIL'S EYE

DEVIL'S EAR

JULY SPRING

SIPHON CREEK RISE

WILSON SPRINGS

BETTY SPRINGS

OASIS SPRINGS

JAMISON SPRINGS

COFFEE SPRINGS

DEVIL'S EYE SPRING VENT

GRASSY HOLE

MISSION SPRING VENT

ICHETUCKNEE HEAD SPRING CEDAR HEAD SPRING

SUNBEAM SPRINGS

GINNIE SPRINGS

ALACHUA

GILCHRIST

LAFAYETTE

SUWANNEE

COLUMBIA

UNION

BRADFORD

TREEHOUSE
Spring Clusters

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

Ichetucknee Cluster

Sunbeam Cluster

Betty Spring Cluster

Wilson Spring Cluster

Siphon Creek Cluster

Ginnie Springs Cluster

Poe-July Cluster

Hornsby-Columbia Cluster

Santa Fe Rise

Santa Fe Springs Cluster

Worthington Spring

ALACHUA

UNION

COLUMBIA

GILCHRIST

SUWANNEE

DIXIE

LAFAYETTE BRADFORD

BAKER

SPRING CLUSTERS

County Boundaries

Hydrography

!( Springs

μ

0 2.5 5 10

Miles
Physiographic Provinces

DIXIE

ALACHUA

COLUMBIA

LAFAYETTE

SUWANNEE

UNION

BAKER

CLAY

GILCHRIST

BRADFORD

LEVY

PUTNAM

DUVAL

MADISON

TAYLOR

NASSAU

Northern Highlands

Gulf Coastal Lowlands

Western Valley

Central Valley

Trail Ridge

Brooksville Ridge

Duval Upland

Bell Ridge

High Springs Gap

Alachua Lake Cross Valley

Coastal Swamps

Kenwood Gap

LEGEND

County Boundaries

Hydrography

μ

0 2.5 5 10

Miles
Aquifer Confinement

ALACHUA

DIXIE

UNION

GILCHRIST

LAFAYETTE

COLUMBIA

SUWANNEE

BRADFORD

LEVY

BAKER

County Boundaries

Hydrography

Springs

HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITONS

CONFINED

SEMICONFINED

UNCONFINED

μ

0 2 4 8

Miles
2000 Potentiometric Surface

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

ALACHUA

DIXIE

UNION

GILCHRIST

LAFAYETTE

COLUMBIA

SUWANNEE

BRADFORD

LEVY

BAKER

50 30

40

10

20 60 70

50

70 40

40

50

40

60

50

30

60

70

LEGEND

County Boundaries

Hydrography

Potentiometric Surface

! Springs

μ

0 2 4 8

Miles
Why Index Period of 2000?

• The District’s groundwater flow model was

calibrated to conditions in 2000 (Schneider

and others, 2008),

• 2000 was a dry year, so the potentiometric

surface should have maximum relief and

enhance ability to identify springsheds, and

• Potentiometric data were relatively

abundant.
Springshed Delineation from 

Potentiometric Surface Data

• Well density is low in many critical areas

• Available data contoured at 1-foot interval

• Contour map reconciled with known geology 

and USGS 2000 potentiometric surface
Results

ALACHUA

DIXIE

UNION

GILCHRIST

LAFAYETTE

COLUMBIA

SUWANNEE

BRADFORD

LEVY

BAKER

County Boundaries

Hydrography

Springs

Springshed Boundaries

HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITONS

CONFINED

SEMICONFINED

UNCONFINED

μ

0 2 4 8

Miles

A

B

C D

E

F

G

H

B = Betty Spring cluster (north) A = Ichetucknee cluster

H = Santa Fe Rise G = Hornsby-Columbia

Spring cluster

F = Poe-July Springs

cluster

E = Ginnie Springs

cluster

D = Sunbeam and Wilson

Spring clusters

C = Betty Spring cluster (south)
Phase I Delineation 

Evaluation

• Individual springsheds could not be 

identified because of

– Low monitoring well density

– High hydraulic conductivities and/or 

conduit flow results in relatively flat 

potentiometric surfaces near springs

• Springsheds could be identified for 

spring clusters 
Phase II, High-Resolution 

Springshed Delineation

• Mix of domestic 

wells, monitoring 

wells and 

piezometers

• Includes

– Alachua County 

network, 

– SRWMD WARN 

data,

– Danone/Coca-Cola 

wells

-83.5 -83 -82.5 -82 -81.5 -81

29

29.5

30

30.5

31

1

3 2

4

5

6

7

8

11 10 9

12

13

15 14 16

17 18

19 20

21 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42 43

44

45

46

47

48 49

50

51

52

53 54

55

56

5758

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

72 71

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

10099

101

102 103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120 121

122123 124

125

126 127

128

129 130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

141140

142

143

144

145

1467

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157158 159 160

162 161

163

164165

166

167

168 169

170

171

172 173

174

175

176

177

178 179180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198200199

201

202

203

204

205
Regional Potentiometric 

Surface

• Distal wells 

provide 

boundary 

conditions

• Reproduces 

potentials in 

Newberry 

Plain well
Local Potentiometric Surface

• Focus on 

Newberry 

Plain area

• Note coneofdepression 

near 

Gainesville
Geostatistical Analysis

• Used to evaluate monitoring network 

in terms of

– Spacing of sampling points

– Need for additional sampling points

– Level of uncertainty associated with 

contour maps (I.e., potentiometric 

surface maps)

– Identification of anomalous data points
Geostatistical Analysis

• Two steps

– Structural analysis

• “Rules” of contouring

• Detection of local variability

• Uncertainty related to distance between sampling 

points

– Kriging

• Map showing property distribution

• Map showing uncertainty distribution

• Map that identifies “outliers”
Variogram

• Reflects model 

developed to 

characterize 

variability 

between sample 

pairs as a 

function of 

sample point 

spacing

Nugget = 15 ft.

2

Range =350,000 ft.

Sill =800 ft.

2

Nugget

Range

Sill
Nugget Effect

• Caused by 

local 

variability

– Short term

– Transient

– Caused, in 

part, by 

sampling 

over a 

month 

period

Well -091420001; Gilchrist County

0

5

10

15

20

25

Jan-76 Dec-80 Dec-85 Dec-90 Jan-96 Dec-00 Dec-05

Date Water Level (feet, NGVD)

Gilchrist County Well
Kriged Potentiometric Surface

2500000 2600000 2700000

Easting (Feet)

200000

250000

300000

350000

Northing (Feet)

- 45 - Contours

Wells

Springs

Legend

Kriged

Potentiometric

Surface

Elevation

(feet NGVD)

10

25

40

55

70
Kriged Standard Deviation

• Shows the 

distribution 

of 

uncertainty

• Units of 

feet based 

on KSD

(kriged 

standard 

deviations)

2500000 2600000 2700000

Easting (Feet)

200000

250000

300000

350000

Northing (Feet)

- 45 - Contours

Wells

Springs

Legend

Kriged

Standard

Deviation

(KSD; 

feet)

2

6

10
Residuals

• Observed 

water level 

– kriged 

water level

• Helps 

identify 

outliers

2500000 2600000 2700000

Easting (Feet)

200000

250000

300000

350000

Northing (Feet)

- 45 - Contours

Wells

Springs

Legend

Residuals

(feet)

-20

-16

-12

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

16

20
Network Evaluation

• Network is good within the Newberry 

Plain and vicinity

• There is no need for additional wells 

in the Newberry Plain area

• There is an uncertainty (the nugget) 

when contouring between wells of up 

to ±10 feet because of local 

variability
High-Resolution Springshed 

Delineation
Springshed Evaluation

• High-resolution monitoring allows for 

resolution of springsheds with much 

more confidence than with the typical 

regional potentiometric surface map

• Confidence in springsheds of major 

spring clusters ranges from moderate 

to high

• There is still a problem with where 

the water in the southern part of the 

Newberry Plain discharges
Modeling Capture Zones

• Identify spring contribution areas 

through groundwater flow modeling

• USGS Megamodel by Sepúlveda (2002)

• Suwannee River WMD Model by 

Schneider and others (2008)

• 5, 10, 100 year capture zones 

attempted

• Utilized inverse particle tracking to 

model capture zones
Why Use Two Models?

• Models rarely 

agree

• Conservative to 

include results 

of all models

• Models differ 

in features and 

construction

Rainbow Springs 10-year travel times
USGS Megamodel

• Regional model

• 3-D model

• 5,000 x 5,000 ft. cells

• Layers 

– 1, Surficial Aquifer, is a constant head 

boundary

– 2, Intermediate Aquifer System

– 3, upper Floridan Aquifer

• Does not account for most springs

• Cannot deal with conduit flow
USGS Megamodel

COLUMBIA

SUWANNEE

BAKER

UNION

LAFAYETTE

ALACHUA

BRADFORD

DIXIE

GILCHRIST

HAMILTON

MADISON

Mega-Model

County Boundaries

Hydrography

5 year

10 year

25 year

100 year

Steady-State

μ

0 2.5 5 10

Miles
Megamodel Conclusions

• Could not accurately reproduce 

capture zones of springs not 

explicitly in model

– Steady state run produced spatially and 

temporally unrealistic results

– Absence of many springs and of siphons 

that capture river water in model a 

limitation

– Constant head in Layer 1 apparently 

prevents accurate representation of 

dispersed recharge
District Model

• Regional model

• 3-D model

• 5,000 x 5,000 ft. cells

• Active Layers 

– 1, Surficial Aquifer

– 2, Intermediate Aquifer System

– 3, upper Floridan Aquifer

– 4, middle confining unit

– 5, lower Floridan aquifer
District Model (cont.)

• Accounts for 

– All 1st and 2nd magnitude springs, 

– Many 3rd magnitude springs, and 

– All major siphons and swallets

• Cannot deal with conduit flow
District Model

ALACHUA

DIXIE

GILCHRIST

UNION

COLUMBIA

LAFAYETTE

SUWANNEE

BRADFORD

LEVY

SDII Model

County Boundaries

Hydrography

5 year

10 year

25 year

100 year

Steady-state

μ

0 2 4 8

Miles

Rose Creek Sink

Siphon Creek

Worthington, 

Santa Fe

Hornsby, 

Treehouse, 

Columbia

Ginnie to Poe 
District Model Conclusions

• Appears reasonable with respect to 

many springsheds in steady-state 

mode

• This is important because the 

District uses steady-state modeling 

to evaluate permit applications

• Model cannot accurately model 

capture zones based on travel time 

because it cannot account for conduit 

flow
District Model Conclusions

• Model provides insight into flow 

systems

– When aquifer approximates flow through 

homogeneous aquifer, travel times can 

be approximated

– When flow is dominated by conduit 

transport, the model may approximate 

springshed in steady-state mode but not 

short-term capture zones
Evaluations of Springsheds

• Springsheds from potentiometric surface 

and model are consistent within limitations

• Addition of swallets and siphons is critical 

to capture zone modeling

• Rum Island – Gilchrist Blue springshed 

remains large for magnitude of spring 

discharge

• Flow to springs is limited from Bell 

Ridge/Waccasassa Flats area and Northern 

Highlands
Evaluations of Springsheds

• Many springs are dominated by 

swallets that capture water from 

Northern Highlands

• Springs are dominated by conduit 

flow

• Worthington and Santa Fe Springs 

are not consistent with Floridan 

aquifer potentials
Recommendations

• It is not appropriate to set up protection 

zones based on model-based travel times

– Models do not deal with conduit flow – karst 

flow is too complex

– Dye tracing proves that basins are larger than 

model predictions and that travel times in 

conduits are shorter

• Spring protection zones should consist of 

all areas within the springshed and 

streams that discharge to swallets
Recommendations

• Siphon-spring systems have been identified 

by Butt et al. (2007), do they need special 

protection strategies?

• The entire Newberry Plain should be 

considered a springshed and subject to 

primary protection measures

• Areas north of the river in Columbia 

County are as important as those areas of 

Alachua and Gilchrist counties in the 

Newberry Plain
Recommendations

• Sub-regional model 

– Needed because of growth in Lake City 

and Gainesville/Alachua areas

– Allow refinement of karst system

– Transient model

– Integrated surfacewater/groundwater 

model
Recommendations

• Model being developed privately 

for Western Valley may better 

refine knowledge

• Dye tracing

– Robinson Sinks

– Western Valley

– Poe Springs
Thank You, Any 

Questions?