Florida Springs Initiative Monitoring 

Network Report and 

Recognized Sources of Nitrate 

February 2010 

Prepared by Debra Harrington, Gary Maddox, P.G., and Richard Hicks, P.G. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration 

Bureau of Watershed Restoration 

Ground Water Protection Section
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

i 

Acknowledgements: 

The authors would like to acknowledge contributions made to this report by Connie Bersok and 

Kathryn Holland, Springs Initiative Section, for their suggestions and edits; Jing Wang and 

Teayann Tinsley, Ground Water Protection Section, for assistance in management of springs 

data and in performing data assessments; and to Linda Lord, Watershed Planning and 

Coordination Section, for her assistance in developing the report template. Many thanks also to 

those who provided review comments on the draft document. 

For more information on the water quality assessments and data used in the 

development of this report, please contact: 

Debra Harrington 

Email: Debra.Harrington@dep.state.fl.us

Phone: (850) 245-8232 

For more information on the Springs Initiative Monitoring Network and discharge 

measurements used in the development of this report, please contact: 

Gary Maddox 

Email: Gary.Maddox@dep.state.fl.us . 

Phone: (850) 245-8511 

For more information on the Recognized Sources discussion, please contact: 

Richard Hicks 

Email : Richard.W.Hicks@dep.state.fl.us

Phone : (850)245-8229 

Correspondance to the authors can be mailed to: 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Ground Water Protection Section 

2600 Blair Stone Rd. MS 3575 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

ii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The statewide Springs Monitoring Network began in 2001 when the Florida Legislature first 

provided funding for the Florida Springs Initiative. The purpose of this report is to provide a 

summary of the first 5 years of monitoring water quality and spring discharge by the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Data available for this report were collected 

from 2001 through 2006. 

The Spring Monitoring Network currently includes quarterly water quality monitoring (at 49 

spring vents and 9 underwater conduits that feed springs) and discharge monitoring (at 35 

stations near springs). This is the most comprehensive spring water quality monitoring and 

measurement network in the state and provides information for all of Florida’s first magnitude 

springs and many other springs that are located in state parks. This assessment provides 

baseline data on general chemistry and discharge that can be used to evaluate influences due 

to salinity, interaction with surface water, recharge, and discharge. Analysis of these data show 

some interesting observations related to the impact of human activities on the springs. 

Currently, nitrate enrichment stands out as the most pressing issue because of the ecological 

impacts to spring systems. As of January 2010, 14 springs/spring groups and 10 waterbodies 

deriving their flow from springs have been identified by FDEP as impaired because of nitrate 

enrichment. A section of this report is dedicated to evaluating and identifying the sources of 

nitrate that are causing adverse effects in several of these spring systems. 

Key findings of this report are summarized below. 

Nutrients 

• The introduction of nitrogen is the most obvious stressor to the ecology of springs in Florida, 

stimulating profuse overgrowth of algae and causing imbalance in ecosystems of spring 

runs. 

o Primary anthropogenic sources are fertilizer, animal waste, human wastewater, and 

atmospheric deposition of air emissions; 

o Of the 49 network springs, today only Alexander and Silver Glen Springs (located in 

the Ocala National Forest) continue to have nitrate concentrations that are near the 

range of what would be considered true background levels. Detectable nitrate 

concentrations in springs in remote areas may provide evidence that atmospheric 

deposition of nitrogen exists as a measurable source; 

o Over 40 percent (21 of 49) of the springs in the network have nitrate median 

concentrations greater than 1 mg/L. Springs in the network that have the highest 

nitrate concentrations include Fanning, Troy, Lafayette Blue, Manatee, and Devils 

Ear (of the Suwannee River Basin Group), Apopka and Rock Springs (of the Middle 

St. Johns River Basin), Jackson Blue (of the Apalachicola-Chipola River Basin 

Group) and Lithia Major (of the Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin); 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

iii 

o The springs with the highest nitrate concentrations are in agricultural areas or areas 

with a mixture of agricultural and residential development; 

o In 2008, FDEP proposed a nitrogen threshold of 0.35 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for 

nitrogen in clear water streams, including spring vents (applicable to nitrate and 

nitrate+nitrite). Based on median nitrate+nitrite values, 36 of the 49 network springs 

(73 percent) exceed this proposed threshold. 

• Phosphorus, the other nutrient essential to aquatic ecosystems, is found at relatively high 

concentrations in most of the springs due to its natural abundance in ground water. 

o The Hawthorn Group, a geologic unit naturally rich in phosphate and the source of 

phosphate that is mined in other parts of the state, is in contact with the limestone of 

the Upper Floridan aquifer, the source of water to nearly all springs in Florida. As a 

result, both ground water and spring water in all of these areas (except in the 

Panhandle where the Hawthorn Group is absent) have moderate to high 

concentrations of orthophosphate, the inorganic form of phosphorus found in these 

geologic materials; 

o Research has shown that phosphorus does influence algal growth, particularly in 

concentrations greater than 0.090 mg/L. However, the naturally elevated 

background concentration in many springs makes it difficult to determine if 

anthropogenic sources contribute appreciably to phosphorus in springs. 

• Potassium, another nutrient evaluated in this report, can come from either anthropogenic or 

natural sources. However, an analysis of the data indicates that several springs in the 

network contain potassium concentrations that are from fertilizer or other human-related 

sources. Research has not shown that potassium alone is a cause of impairment in springs. 

Salinity Indicators 

• Twenty-five percent (12 of 49) of the springs in the network are significantly influenced by 

natural sources of saline water. Sodium, chloride, potassium, sulfate, and specific 

conductance are all chemical indicators of salinity. There are two categories of saline 

influenced springs based on the source of water: 

o Most of the springs in the network that are located in the Springs Coast Basin of 

southwest Florida are influenced by salinity to varying degrees due to their proximity 

to the coast and sea water. These include the Homosassa and Chassahowitzka 

Springs Groups, among others. The Spring Creek Springs Group of the 

Ochlocknee-St. Marks Basin are similarly influenced by sea water because of their 

coastal setting; 

o Another saline influence - deep naturally mineralized ground water in areas near the 

St. Johns River and in southwestern Florida - is responsible for the saline 

characteristics of network springs like Salt, Alexander, Volusia Blue and several 

others. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

iv 

Ground Water-Surface Water Interaction Indicators 

• Some chemical characteristics of spring water can be used to evaluate the sources of water 

being discharged by springs and their potential vulnerability to surface sources of 

contamination: 

o Concentrations of analytes such as dissolved oxygen (DO), calcium, sulfate, total 

dissolved solids, organic carbon, and fecal coliform bacteria can be used to identify 

springs that may at times have a surface water component (ones that are readily 

recharged by rainfall) as compared to springs which discharge from deeper, stable 

ground water sources; 

o Jackson Blue, Rainbow, Fern Hammock, and several other springs have water 

quality characteristics that suggest they are readily recharged by rainfall and could 

be highly vulnerable to nearby surface inputs; 

o Springs in the Spring Creek Group are among a subset of springs that often 

backflow, receiving and later discharging surface water; 

o Springs like Wekiwa and Volusia Blue appear to be discharging water that includes a 

significant component of deeper, more mineralized ground water. However, the 

elevated nitrate concentrations in both of these indicate that they are still vulnerable 

to contamination from surface sources. 

Discharge 

• Climatic and/or human influences have reduced the discharge of many springs and caused 

some springs to cease flowing: 

o The value in measuring discharge is that it provides direct information related to the 

effects of precipitation and ground water withdrawal from springs in susceptible 

areas; 

o Several examples in the report provide information on long-term trends of discharge 

relative to other factors. The long historical record for Silver River was used in this 

report as an example of changes in spring discharge in Silver Springs and the 

possible causes. Other springs will be included in this type of analysis in the future; 

o Discharge data are also essential when pollutant loads to receiving surface waters 

are being calculated. As more discharge measurements are made under this 

program, it will be possible to more thoroughly analyze the impacts of precipitation 

and water usage on spring flow and water quality. 

Recognized Sources of Nitrate in Springs 

• Several nutrient-impaired springs in representative areas of the state were evaluated in this 

report to help understand the range of potential and recognized sources of nitrate causing 

their impairment. These included Wakulla Spring, Troy Spring, Fanning-Manatee Springs, 

Ichetucknee Springs Group, Silver Springs Group, Rainbow Springs Group, Wekiva-Rock 

Springs Group, Volusia Blue Spring and Weeki Wachee Spring. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

v 

• Overall, the application of inorganic fertilizers to agricultural lands (row and field crops, hay 

and silage, and pasture); lawn and turf; and nursery plants provides the most significant peracre potential for nitrogen inputs to ground water and springs. Recommended fertilization 

rates published for specific uses (e.g., crops, turf grass) may underestimate actual amounts 

applied in the more vulnerable spring areas. Soil in these areas has very low fertility and is 

very permeable. Therefore, fertilizer may need to be re-applied to compensate for nitrogen 

losses due to leaching and/or denitrification that occur after heavy precipitation: 

o Fertilizer appears to be a significant source of the nitrate at most of these springs. 

Inorganic fertilizer is the main source of nitrate causing impairment of Jackson Blue 

Spring and the Rainbow Springs Group and a very significant component in several 

of the other springs, based on nitrogen isotope data and land use information. 

• Application of animal waste to pasture or agronomic crops is a viable means of managing 

these materials. However, large animal feeding operations (such as poultry farms and 

dairies) may be challenged by the sheer volume of waste generated by these operations, 

and the disposal of these wastes in a manner that will maximize nitrogen uptake. Annual 

volumes of manure generated by dairies and poultry operations are very significant (50,000 

lb/yr per cow and 4,000 lb/yr per 1,000 chickens): 

o In two of the springsheds assessed, Troy and Fanning-Manatee, animal waste was a 

significant source of nitrate in the nutrient-impaired springs, based on nitrogen 

isotope data and land use information. According to FDEP data, there are 23 poultry 

farms in the Troy Spring springshed and 8 dairy farms in the combined springshed of 

Fanning and Manatee Springs. 

• Domestic wastewater (reclaimed water) discharged to ground water by wastewater facilities 

has the potential of contributing significant nitrate loads to springsheds. This is particularly 

true where there are concentrated areas of residential development in the more vulnerable 

areas near springs. Domestic wastewater plants can discharge large volumes of treated 

wastewater to ground water. While nitrogen concentrations are reduced by treatment and 

land application processes, significant loading of nitrogen to ground water may still occur: 

o In the Wakulla Springs springshed, domestic wastewater from a municipal sprayfield 

has been proven to be the major source of nitrate causing nutrient impairment of the 

spring; 

o In the Wekiva-Rock Springs springshed, there are many domestic wastewater 

facilities that discharge treated water to ground water via sprayfields, rapid infiltration 

basins and irrigation water to golf courses and other sites. The large volume of 

wastewater applied by some of these facilities is likely to be contributing to nitrate 

loading in area ground water and springs. 

• Residential land use within more vulnerable areas of springsheds are sources of nitrate in 

the ground water and springs: 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

vi 

o Higher-density residential areas in which the homes are on individual septic tanks 

can produce significant inputs of nitrate to ground water. In the springshed of Weeki 

Wachee Spring, a large area of medium-density residential development on septic 

tanks produces inputs of nitrate from both septic systems and fertilizers applied to 

lawns and golf courses. These are considered the primary sources of nitrate causing 

nutrient impairment of the spring; 

o A similar scenario also applies to much of the Wekiva-Rock Springs springshed, 

which includes large areas of residential development on septic tanks.

• Atmospheric deposition is a source of nitrogen loading to ground water, particularly where 

ground water is more vulnerable or where there is less vegetative uptake of nitrogen before 

it leaches into the aquifer. Atmospheric deposition is considered the source of low levels of 

nitrate found in background springs located in remote areas.

Recommendations 

The following are recommended future actions: 

• Update the existing springs monitoring plan to better define objectives and establish a well 

designed network to address specific issues;. 

• Include information on ecological effects associated with nitrate enrichment, in addition to 

water quality and flow; 

• Evaluate the existing quarterly monitoring network of springs to potentially include other 

priority springs that may have issues, provide information from under-represented regions of 

the state, conduct trend and strategic monitoring, and integrate springs monitoring and 

restoration with other initiatives within FDEP; 

• Collaborate with other organizations that also conduct springs monitoring in order to 

integrate, to a greater degree, assessments of discharge data in annual reporting; explore 

the collection of data and information on a larger number of priority springs; and develop 

consistency in naming conventions and GIS locations for spring monitoring stations. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

vii 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY __________________________________________ II

Nutrients ___________________________________________________ ii

Salinity Indicators ___________________________________________ iii

Ground Water-Surface Water Interaction Indicators ________________ iv

Discharge __________________________________________________ iv

Recognized Sources of Nitrate in Springs ________________________ iv

Recommendations ___________________________________________ vi

INTRODUCTION ________________________________________________ 1

Objective ___________________________________________________ 1

Springs Initiative Research and Monitoring Program _______________ 1

BACKGROUND _________________________________________________ 2

Florida Springs ______________________________________________ 2

Spring Issues _______________________________________________ 3

Ecological Imbalances Caused by Nutrients _____________________ 3

Reduced Spring Discharges __________________________________ 6

SPRING DATA ________________________________________________ 10

Spring Monitoring Network ___________________________________ 10

Quality Assurance __________________________________________ 14

Data Management ___________________________________________ 14

SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR KEY ANALYTES _____________________ 16

Nutrients __________________________________________________ 16

Nitrogen ________________________________________________ 17

Phosphorus _____________________________________________ 22

Potassium_______________________________________________ 27

Salinity Indicators __________________________________________ 30

Ground Water – Surface Water Interaction ______________________ 33

Discharge _________________________________________________ 43

SUMMARY OF MONITORING NETWORK FINDINGS __________________ 48
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

viii 

Nutrients __________________________________________________ 48

Salinity ___________________________________________________ 49

Ground Water-Surface Water Interaction ________________________ 49

Discharge _________________________________________________ 49

RECOGNIZED SOURCES OF NITRATE IN SPRINGS __________________ 50

Aquifer Vulnerability ________________________________________ 50

Potential Sources of Nitrate __________________________________ 53

By-Springshed Evaluation of Nitrate Sources ____________________ 55

Wakulla Spring ___________________________________________ 56

Troy Spring ______________________________________________ 58

Fanning and Manatee Springs _______________________________ 58

Ichetucknee Springs Group _________________________________ 59

Silver Springs Group ______________________________________ 60

Rainbow Springs Group ____________________________________ 61

Wekiwa and Rock Springs __________________________________ 61

Volusia Blue Spring _______________________________________ 62

Weeki Wachee Spring _____________________________________ 63

RECOMMENDATIONS __________________________________________ 64

REFERENCES _________________________________________________ 66

APPENDIX A: NITRATE MEDIANS FOR ALL SPRINGS WITH DATA (1998-2008)

 _____________________________________________________________ 71

APPENDIX B: SPRINGS MASTER LIST (1998-2008) __________________ 76

APPENDIX C: INFORMATION ON BACKGROUND SPRINGS ___________ 89

APPENDIX D: STATUS OF SPRING MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVEL 

IMPLEMENTATION _____________________________________________ 91

APPENDIX E: MAPS SHOWING GROUND WATER NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS 

NEAR SELECTED SPRINGS _____________________________________ 93
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

ix 

List of Figures

Figure 1: Distribution of Springs in Florida ................................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2: Explosion of Algal Growth in Springs ......................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3: Trends in Silver River Discharge, Precipitation and Population in Marion County, Florida ....................... 7

Figure 4: Historical and Recent Photographs of Kissingen Springs Site ..................................................................... 8

Figure 5: Quarterly Spring Monitoring Station Locations ......................................................................................... 10

Figure 6: Median Concentrations of Nitrate+Nitrite in Spring Network (2001-2006) .............................................. 19

Figure 7: Median Orthophosphate Concentrations in Spring Network (2001-2006) ................................................. 24

Figure 8: Nitrate and Orthophosphate in Network Springs (2001-2006) ................................................................... 26

Figure 9: Median Potassium Concentrations in Spring Network (2001-2006) .......................................................... 27

Figure 10: Potassium and Nitrate+Nitrite Concentrations and Potassium-Sodium Ratios in Select Springs .............. 30

Figure 11: Median Sodium Concentrations in Spring Network (2001-2006) .............................................................. 31

Figure 12: Salinity Influence on Select Springs as Indicated by Sodium-Sulfate Ratio .............................................. 32

Figure 13: Plot of Median Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Network Springs .................................................... 38

Figure 14: Historical Discharge Trends for Rainbow Springs Group and Volusia Blue Spring ................................. 47

Figure 15: Selected Springs with Significant Nitrate Issues and their Springsheds .................................................... 51

Figure 16: Aquifer Vulnerability in Spring Areas ....................................................................................................... 52

List of Tables 

Table 1: Spring Monitoring Network-Water Quality and Discharge Stations ........................................................... 11

Table 2: Spring Water Quality Sampling Analytes ................................................................................................... 12

Table 3: Fixed Station Discharge Measurement Sites Associated with Springs ........................................................ 13

Table 4: Ammonia and Nitrate+Nitrite in Spring Network (2001-2006) .................................................................. 18

Table 5: Nitrate+Nitrite Concentrations in Background Springs with Available Data .............................................. 21

Table 6: Summary of Background Orthophosphate Concentrations in Ground Water.............................................. 23

Table 7: Orthophosphate and Potassium in Spring Network (2001-2006) ................................................................ 25

Table 8: Significant Potassium Concentrations in Springs and their Correlation with Sodium and Nitrate+Nitrite . 29

Table 9: Sodium and Chloride in Spring Network (2001-2006)................................................................................ 34

Table 10: Specific Conductance and Sulfate in Spring Network (2001-2006) ............................................................ 35

Table 11: Dissolved Oxygen and Calcium in Spring Network (2001-2006) ............................................................... 37

Table 12: Total Dissolved Solids and Turbidity in Spring Network (2001-2006) ....................................................... 40

Table 13: Color and Total Organic Carbon in Spring Network (2001-2006) .............................................................. 41

Table 14: pH and Fecal Coliform in Spring Network (2001-2006) ............................................................................. 42

Table 15: Mean Monthly Discharge at U. S. Geological Survey Spring Stations ....................................................... 44

Table 16: Quarterly Discharge at Spring Network Stations (2001-2006) .................................................................... 45

Table 17: Potential Sources of Nitrate to Ground Water in Florida Spring Areas and Estimated Loadings ............... 54

Table 18: Nitrogen-related Land Use Characteristics for Selected Springsheds ......................................................... 57
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

Objective 

The statewide springs monitoring network began in 2001 when the legislature first provided 

funding for the Florida Springs Initiative. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of 

the first 5 years of monitoring water quality and spring discharge by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP). Data available for this report were collected from 2001 

through 2006. 

Springs Initiative Research and Monitoring Program 

The deteriorating condition of springs in Florida was recognized in 1999 by the Governor and 

FDEP Secretary who directed the formation of a multi-agency Springs Task Force to 

recommend strategies to protect and restore springs. The task force produced a report, 

Florida’s Springs: Strategies for Protection and Restoration, which identified existing problems 

in Florida’s spring systems and produced recommendations for specific steps to address them. 

The 2001 Florida Legislature provided the initial funding for the Florida Springs Initiative. Since 

then, the program has used annual appropriates to focus on three broad areas: education and 

outreach; protection and restoration; and research and monitoring. 

The Springs Task Force recommendations led to a variety of research and characterization 

activities to better understand spring systems, their relationship to the geology and land uses in 

their capture areas, their water quality, and their discharge. The 2007 springs program update, 

2007 Florida Springs Initiative Program Summary and Recommendations, contains information 

on the research and monitoring activities performed since the program began. This document 

can be found at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/springs/reports/files/FSIreport2007FINAL.PDF. The 

spring water quality and discharge monitoring program described in this report was developed 

and implemented in response to the Springs Task Force recommendations. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

2 

BACKGROUND 

Florida Springs 

Florida is one of the few places in the world with natural limestone springs and is unique in 

having the greatest number of first magnitude springs (large springs with discharges historically 

greater than 100 cubic feet per second). Thirty-nine of Florida’s 67 counties have springs, or 

include areas of land that contribute water to springs (known as springsheds). These 39 

counties comprise roughly half of the state’s land area. Springs exist in four of the state’s Water 

Management Districts and four of the FDEP regulatory districts. In addition to providing a 

unique recreational resource, our springs provide important base discharge to rivers and 

streams, freshwater to estuaries, and critical habitat to plants and animals that are unique to 

springs. The distribution of springs in Florida is shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1: Distribution of Springs in Florida 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

3 

Between 1950 and 2000, Florida's population has increased five-fold (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2005). With growth has come an unavoidable increase in ground water withdrawals, as well as 

extensive land use changes. During the twentieth century, reductions in discharge have been 

noted for many of Florida's springs. Incompatible land use practices in vulnerable areas along 

with increasing ground-water withdrawals have resulted in some springs that have poor water 

quality or decreased discharges. Since the 1970s, scientists have observed degrading water 

quality in many of Florida springs, which in many cases may be related to increases in nutrient 

loadings, specifically nitrogen. Contaminants that reach ground water and are discharged by 

springs are often related to agricultural and residential fertilizer applications, animal waste, 

urban stormwater runoff, and human wastewater from septic tanks and wastewater sprayfields. 

Spring Issues 

Over the years, people who live near springs and visit springs have seen them degrade, in 

some places due to changes in the amount of water discharged and in others due to algae 

growth and decreased biological diversity that may stem from degraded water quality. The 

condition of many springs has also been physically degraded because of poor land 

management practices or overuse. 

Ecological Imbalances Caused by Nutrients 

Spring water is generally a composite of mainly ground water and a smaller contribution of 

water from the surface, depending on the spring. If water from the surface enters the aquifer 

that is connected to a nearby spring, the water can move quickly through the aquifer and 

discharge at the spring vent (United States Geological Survey, 2009). Elevated concentrations 

of nutrients in water discharged from a spring vent can cause ecological imbalances in the 

spring system. In response to the nutrient enrichment, coupled with other factors, many spring 

openings (or vents) and their receiving waters have experienced abnormal and profuse growths 

of algae and/or aquatic vascular plants such as the invasive exotic plant hydrilla. This 

overgrowth may replace native plants and make spring runs less hospitable to fish, snails, 

crayfish, turtles and other animals that depend on the spring habitat. In some of the more 

profound examples, such as Silver Springs and Weeki Wachee Spring, algal mat accumulations 

can be feet in thickness. Nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate) is considered the main chemical indicator of 

nutrient enrichment of springs and nitrate concentrations have increased dramatically since the 

1970s in many of the springs that have been sampled over the decades. 

Excessive algal growth has been studied and is considered a “nuisance” in rocky streams when 

there is a >20% cover (Mattson 2009 pers. comm.). Periphyton (including benthic algae, 

filamentous algae, Nitella sp., etc.) is commonly used to determine the percent of growth on the 

stream or creek bottom near springs. Excessive growth of periphyton can inhibit the growth of 

other submerged aquatic vegetation, which is considered the most important aquatic habitat for 

fish and other aquatic organisms. Ecosystem indices are used to demonstrate the impairment 

and include gross primary productivity, net primary productivity, system respiration rate and 

ecological efficiency. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

4 

One algal group of major concern for springs in Florida is the filamentous cyanobacteria, 

primarily in the genus Lyngbya (Stevenson et al, 2007). Studies have shown that, with 

increased nutrient loading to a waterbody, the cyanobacteria frequently respond most prolifically 

(Gao, 2008). Increases in Lyngbya biomass is a management issue in many Florida springs 

(Stevenson et al., 2004). The photographs in Figure 2 show examples of excessive algal 

growth due to nutrient enrichment. 

Biological studies in the past have suggested that excessive algal growth is linked to nutrients in 

many of our major springs. Laboratory experiments (Cowell and Dawes, 2004) and field studies 

(Hornsby et al., 2000) indicated that Lyngbya biomass and the biomass and diversity of the 

general cyanobacteria population increased with elevated nitrate concentration, especially when 

the nitrate concentration was higher than 0.30 mg/L. Field studies indicated that the percent 

biovolume of cyanobacteria in the algal community also increased with increased total 

phosphorus (TP) concentrations, especially when the TP concentration was higher than 0.090 

mg/L (Potapova and Charles, 2005). However, there has still been uncertainty as to the linkage 

between algal growth and nutrient concentrations and researchers believe that other factors 

also contribute. A more recent study by microbiologists (Jennifer et al., 2008) also found that 

the dense blooms of Lyngbya are increasingly responsible for declining water quality and habitat 

degradation in springs; however it did not find any clear correlation between the presence of 

Lyngbya and ionic strength, inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus or average N/P ratios. Joyner et al. 

2008 also mentioned that nutrients and sunlight levels may control the overall biomass but do 

not affect the distribution of the species that seems to be randomly introduced. They postulated 

that perhaps birds and humans (recreational swimmers and boaters) may be responsible for 

accelerating the dispersal of Lyngbya filaments. 

FDEP is researching some spring specific assessment tools that involve different approaches 

than the Stream Condition Index (SCI), which was originally designed for freshwater, flowing 

streams. Springs frequently have lower dissolved oxygen and higher specific conductance than 

typical freshwater streams, which makes the SCI inappropriate to use. Some of the tools 

applicable to springs and spring runs include habitat assessment, hydrologic modification 

scoring, qualitative periphyton collection, rapid periphyton survey and linear vegetation survey. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

5 

a) Cyanobacteria (Blue-Green Algae) in Weeki Wachee (left) and Mission Springs (right) 

b) Floating Algal Mats in Guaranto Spring 

Figure 2: Explosion of Algal Growth in Springs 

(Photo of Weeki Wachee and Mission Springs by Aga Pinowska; Guaranto Spring by Joe North; FDEP Bureau of Watershed 

Restoration). 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

6 

Reduced Spring Discharges 

The source of water discharged by springs in Florida is primarily the Upper Floridan aquifer, the 

underground limestone reservoir that many thought would provide unlimited amounts of water 

without adverse effects. Yet, in some areas, springs have stopped flowing or have experienced 

significant declines in discharge due to declining ground water levels. Declining ground water 

levels can also be accompanied by water quality changes in springs as they begin to pick up 

more of the characteristics of deep mineralized zones of ground water in inland areas or 

seawater in coastal areas. Decreasing spring discharge may also be accompanied by 

increases in the growth of algae, which could be somewhat related to an increase in available 

light in a shallower water column and subtle water quality changes. 

Fluctuation in discharge of Florida springs is more easily understood when it can be observed 

over a long period of time. Unfortunately, only a handful of these springs have enough historical 

discharge data to provide information on long-term trends. The Silver Springs group in the 

Ocklawaha River Basin is an example that has enough data to evaluate long term changes in 

discharge, as measured in the Silver River just down river from the spring vents. The Silver 

River depends almost entirely on discharge from approximately 30 spring vents located along 

the upper mile of the river; therefore river discharge is approximately equivalent to the 

cumulative spring discharge. Figure 3 shows the long-term trend of discharge in Silver River 

just below the cumulative spring vents (Station 02239501) along with precipitation and 

population trends. Over the period of measurement, discharge of the Silver River has decreased 

by more than 250 cubic feet per second (cfs). The net decrease in discharge over the last 56 

years (shown with a trend line) reflects a discharge loss equivalent to two minimal firstmagnitude springs. 

Long-term discharge data for the Silver River show decreases in discharge that occurred in the 

1950s, late 1960s and again in the early 2000s. The trends in precipitation and population 

growth are important keys in determining contributing factors in evaluating these decreases. 

Periods of low rainfall correspond with most of the time periods during which discharge went 

down. In particular, a lowering of discharge occurred during a severe period of drought in late 

1998 to 2003. While there is only a slight decrease in the long-term precipitation trend, the 

precipitation data indicate fewer significant episodic events of over 12 inches of monthly rainfall 

have occurred since the early 1980s. This illustrates the fact that episodic tropical precipitation 

events make significant contributions to ground water recharge and thus spring discharge. 

Drought influence on discharge is amplified by ground water consumption. In fact, increased 

ground water withdrawals coincident with population growth can be an even more significant 

factor affecting spring discharge during periods of drought. In some areas of central and 

southwest Florida, the withdrawals to meet demands of growth on top of drought conditions 

have caused severe ground water supply issues and could be influencing spring discharge. 

Discharge volumes from many Florida springs have significantly declined over time, and some 

have quit flowing altogether. Long-term withdrawals of ground water can lower water levels in 

the aquifer until there is no longer a sufficient pressure gradient to cause a spring to 

discharge.In these cases, a spring’s discharge can gradually diminish, as in the case of White 

Springs (aka White Sulphur Springs) in Hamilton County, or the spring can suddenly 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

7 

Figure 3: Trends in Silver River Discharge, Precipitation and Population in Marion 

County, Florida

stop flowing, as in the case of Kissengen Spring in Polk County. In addition, spring discharge 

can also be reduced or stopped by modifications to the spring pool, such as the construction of 

walls or dams, and in some cases intentional plugging of the spring vents. 

Kissengen Spring was once a second-magnitude spring and a frequently-visited recreational 

site. It initially showed declining average annual flows and then three years later (1950) 

abruptly ceased flowing completely. Discharging at a rate as high as 43.6 cfs in 1933, 

Kissingen Spring had its discharge decline to a 40-year record low of 15 cfs and ceased 

discharging altogether in 1950. Kissingen Spring stopped flowing at a time when there was a 

major regional lowering of water levels in the Upper Floridan and intermediate aquifers that 

corresponded with ground water withdrawals by the phosphate industry (SWFWMD, 2002). 

Ground water withdrawals for agricultural and public supply needs may have also contributed to 

the decline of these ground water levels (Rosenau, 1977). Figure 4 shows photographs of 

Kissengen Spring before and after it stopped flowing. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

8 

(a) Year 1923 

(b) Year 2008 

Figure 4: Historical and Recent Photographs of Kissingen Springs Site 

Note: (a) photo from a postcard published in 1923 (State Archives of Florida); (b) photo taken in 2008 

shows former spring pool now dry (Clint Kromhout, Florida Geological Survey). 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

9 

In the rapidly growing Tampa Bay region, ground water withdrawals have significantly reduced 

water levels in the Upper Floridan aquifer. Examples of springs in southwest Florida that no 

longer consistently flow include Bobhill Spring in Hernando County; Palma Ceia , Purity, Eureka 

and Six Mile Creek Springs in Hillsborough County; Seven Springs in Pasco County; and Phillipi 

Spring in Pinellas County. The Suwannee River Basin has other stresses on the aquifer, which 

include withdrawals for agricultural irrigation, phosphate mining and paper mill process water. 

In the Suwannee River Basin, springs that essentially no longer flow include Pettis Spring in 

Madison County; Ewing Spring in Taylor County; and White Springs in Hamilton County. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

10 

SPRING DATA 

Spring Monitoring Network 

The current Florida Springs Water Quality Monitoring Network is a fixed-station network 

consisting of 49 spring vents (Table 1) and several wells that intersect underwater conduits. 

The spring vent data are discussed in this report. These stations represent 23 historical firstmagnitude and 9 second-magnitude springs located in the basin groups of northwest, northcentral, and central Florida (Figure 5). These springs were selected for monitoring because of 

their value as unique ecological and recreational resources. Most are located in state parks or 

are on other public lands. 

Figure 5: Quarterly Spring Monitoring Station Locations 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

11 

Table 1: Spring Monitoring Network-Water Quality and Discharge Stations

STATION /1 WATERBODY NAME

SAMPLING 

EVENTS PERIOD OF RECORD

SAMPLING 

MEASUREMENTS PERIOD OF RECORD /2

Apalachicola - Chipola Basin

9674 JACKSON BLUE SPRING 21 2001-2006 19 01-2002 - 10-2006

Choctawhatatchee - St. Andrew Basin

9700 MORRISON SPRING 21 2001-2006 6 07-2002 - 10-2006

9739 GAINER SPRING #1C 21 2001-2006 19 01-2002 - 10-2006 (Gainer Spgs Group)

9740 GAINER SPRING #2 21 2001-2006 19 01-2002 - 10-2006 (Gainer Spgs Group)

9741 GAINER SPRING #3 21 2001-2006 19 01-2002 - 10-2006 (Gainer Spgs Group)

11371 CYPRESS SPRING 12 2002, 2004-2006 14 10-2001 - 10-2006

Middle St. Johns Basin

9670 ALEXANDER SPRING 21 2001-2006 10 10-2001 - 10-2006

9673 VOLUSIA BLUE SPRING 21 2001-2006 8 10-2001 - 10-2006

9687 SILVER GLEN SPRINGS 21 2001-2006 10 10-2001 - 10-2006

10786 SALT SPRINGS (MARION) 10 2004-2006 10 07-2004 - 10-2006

11390 DELEON SPRING (VOLUSIA) 11 2002, 2004-2006 10 07-2004 - 10-2006

11403 WEKIWA SPRING (ORANGE) 15 2002-2006 10 10-2002 - 10-2006

11456 FERN HAMMOCK SPRINGS 6 2002, 2005-2006 1 Oct-06

11463 JUNIPER SPRINGS 12 2002-2006 9 07-2004 - 10-2006

11479 ROCK SPRINGS (ORANGE) 11 2002, 2004-2006 10 07-2004 - 10-2006

Ochlockonee - St. Marks

9692 SPRING CREEK RISE MAIN 18 2001-2006 0 n/a

9695 WAKULLA SPRING 21 2001-2006 17 01-2002 - 10-2006

9744 SPRING CREEK RISE #2 19 2001-2006 1 Oct-06

Ocklawaha Basin

6989 APOPKA SPRING 10 2002-2006 0 n/a

9720 SILVER SPRING MAIN 21 2001-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

9722 BLUE GROTTO SPRING 21 2001-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

11395 RECEPTION HALL SPRING 14 2002-2006 1 Oct-06

Springs Coast Basin

9704 HOMOSASSA SPRING #2 21 2001-2006 3 01-2005 - 10-2006 (Homosassa Group)

9705 HOMOSASSA SPRING #1 21 2001-2006 3 01-2005 - 10-2006 (Homosassa Group)

9706 HOMOSASSA SPRING #3 21 2001-2006 3 01-2005 - 10-2006 (Homosassa Group)

9707 CHASSAHOWITZKA SPRING MAIN 21 2001-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

9708 CHASSAHOWITZKA SPRING #1 21 2001-2006 9 07-2004 - 10-2006

9709 HUNTER SPRING 21 2001-2006 1 Jul-06

9710 TARPON HOLE SPRING 21 2001-2006 0 n/a

9716 WEEKI WACHEE SPRING 21 2001-2006 4 04-2005 - 10-2006

Suwannee River Basin

9671 LAFAYETTE BLUE SPRING 14 2001-2006 5 07-2004 - 10-2006

9672 MADISON BLUE SPRING 14 2001-2006 6 07-2004 - 10-2006

9677 DEVILS EAR SPRING (GILCHRIST) 17 2001-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

9678 FANNING SPRINGS 15 2001-2006 7 10-2001 - 10-2006

9681 HORNSBY SPRING 3 2001, 2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

9683 MANATEE SPRING 17 2001-2006 9 10-2001 - 10-2006

9694 TROY SPRING 13 2001-2006 5 07-2004 - 10-2006

9713 ICHETUCKNEE HEAD SPRING (COLUMBIA) 18 2001-2006 6 07-2005 - 10-2006

9714 MILL POND SPRINGS (COLUMBIA) 10 2001, 2004-2006 6 07-2005 - 10-2006

9717 BIG SPRING (BIG BLUE SPRING) (JEFFERSON) 18 2001-2002, 2004-2006 9 07-2004 - 10-2006

9719 WACISSA SPRING #2 18 2001-2006 0 n/a

9743 BLUE HOLE SPRING (COLUMBIA) 18 2001-2002, 2004-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

10499 FALMOUTH SPRING 3 2001, 2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

11386 MISSION SPRINGS 9 2001-2002, 2004-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin

11383 LITHIA SPRING MAJOR 12 2002-2006 10 07-2004 - 10-2006

Withlacoochee Basin

9699 BUBBLING SPRING 21 2001-2006 10 07-2004 - 10-2006

9701 RAINBOW SPRING #1 21 2001-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

9702 RAINBOW SPRING #4 21 2001-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

9721 RAINBOW SPRING #6 21 2001-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006

WATER QUALITY DISCHARGE

/1 Station Numbers refer to FDEP Springs Initiative Monitoring Network and OGWIS database.

/2 Period of record for quarterly manual discharge measurements may include data gaps.

Note:
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

12 

Spring water quality samples are collected quarterly by a Florida Geological Survey (FGS) 

sampling team that is dedicated to springs monitoring. Most of these samples are collected 

from spring vents, but a few are collected from wells that intersect spring conduits. Chemical 

and field analytes collected routinely at each station on a quarterly basis are shown in Table 2. 

In addition to the core analytes, trace metals have been collected on a multi-year rotating basis. 

 

Table 2: Spring Water Quality Sampling Analytes 

Analytes included in quarterly monitoring Analytes included in special surveys

 Calcium D, T Aluminum D, T 

 Magnesium D, T Arsenic D, T 

 Sodium D, T Barium D, T 

 Potassium D, T Boron D, T 

 Chloride D, T Cadmium D, T 

 Sulfate D, T Cobalt D, T 

 Fluoride D, T Chromium D, T 

 Alkalinity as CaCO3 D, T Copper D, T 

 Nitrate + Nitrite D, T Iron D, T 

 Ammonia D, T Manganese D, T 

 Kjeldahl Nitrogen D, T Nickel D, T 

 Total Phosphorous D, T Lead D, T 

 ortho-Phosphate D Selenium D, T 

 Specific Conductance D Tin D, T 

 Organic Carbon T Strontium D, T 

 Dissolved Solids T Zinc D, T 

 Suspended Solids T 

 Turbidity T 

 Color T 

 Total Coliform T 

 Fecal Coliform T 

 Enterococci T 

 Water Temperature X 

 pH X 

 Specific Conductance/Salinity X 

 Dissolved Oxygen X 

 Secchi Depth X /1 

 Estimated Sample Depth X 

 Stage X /1 

 Discharge X /1 

Notes: 

T=total, unfiltered sample 

D=dissolved, filtered sample 

X=field measurement 

/1=not collected at all stations 

As part of the Springs Initiative Monitoring Program, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is 

contracted to collect stage and/or discharge data at 35 stations near springs. Table 3 contains 

a list of these sites and their pertinent data. Most of them are “real-time” sites, with up-to-theminute data available online at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/fl/nwis/current/?type=discharge&group_key=NONE. 

In addition, the program measures discharge to coincide with water quality sampling at some of 

the network springs. Spring stations with discharge data are shown in Table 1. Discharge is 

measured manually at these stations within 24 hours of water quality sampling. The FGS and 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

13 

Table 3: Fixed Station Discharge Measurement Sites Associated with Springs 

U.S. Geological 

Survey Station Waterbody 

Real-time 

Data 

Availability 

Measurement 

Frequency Period of Record 

02358975 1 Jackson Blue Spring near Marianna Yes continuous 4/2003 – present 

02327022 1 Wakulla River near Crawfordville Yes continuous 10/2004 – present 

02327030 1 Spring Creek near Spring Creek Yes continuous new gage 

02327033 1 Lost Creek near Arran Yes continuous 1928-1981; 10/1988 – 

present 

02326993 1 Fisher Creek near Tallahassee Yes continuous new gage 

02320250 1 Troy Spring near Branford Yes continuous 1942–1995; 1998; 

3/2002 – present 

02322685 1 Ichetucknee Head Spring Yes continuous 2/2002 – present 

02322687 1 Cedar Head Spring Yes continuous 2/2002 – present 

02322688/1 Blue Hole Spring Yes continuous 2/2002 – present 

02322691/1 Mission Group Yes continuous 2/2002 – present 

02322694/1 Devil's Eye Spring Yes continuous 2/2002 – present

02322695 1 Mill Pond Spring Yes continuous 2/2002 – present 

02322698 1 Ichetucknee River at Dampier's Landing Yes continuous 2/2002 – present 

02322699 1 Coffee Spring No 7 measurements 

per year 

2/2002 – present 

02322700 1 Ichetucknee River at U.S. 27 Yes continuous 2/2002 – present 

02323502 1 Fanning Spring near Wilcox Yes continuous 1930-1998; 6/2001 – 

present 

023235051 Little Fanning Spring near Wilcox no 

 7 measurements 

per year 

023235661 Manatee Spring near Chiefland Yes continuous 1932-1998; 1/2001 – 

present 

023105451 Weeki Wachee River near Weeki 

Wachee Yes continuous 1984-85; 10/2000 – present 

023106501 Chassahowitzka Springs nr Homosassa 

Springs Yes continuous 1964-1978; 1985; 1988; 1997 – present 

023106781 Homosassa Springs near Homosassa Yes continuous 

1931-33; 1936; 1956; 

1961; 1963-1978; 

1988-89; 10/1995 – 

present 

023107471 Crystal River at Bagley Cove near 

Crystal River Yes continuous 10/2002 – present 

022361601 Silver Glen Springs near Astor Yes continuous 11/2002 – present 

02235500 Blue Springs near Orange City, FL Yes continuous 3/1932 – present 

02239500 Silver River near Ocala, FL Yes continuous 10/1932 – present 

02302000 Crystal Springs near Zephyrhills, FL Yes continuous 10/1934 – present 

02306000 Sulphur Springs at Sulphur Springs, FL Yes continuous 

1917, 1929, 1930-35, 

1945-46, 1956 – 

present 

02310660 Ruth Springs Run near Homosassa, FL Yes continuous 5/2006 – present 

02310675 Hidden River near Homosassa, FL Yes continuous 1/1997 – present 

02310690 Halls River near Homosassa, FL Yes continuous 

10/2000-11/2003; 

6/2006 – present 

02312764 Gum Springs near Holder, FL Yes continuous 10/2003 – present 

02313100 Rainbow River at Dunnellon, FL Yes continuous 

1899; 1905; 1907; 

1917; 1929 – present 

02319302 Madison Blue Spring near Blue Springs, 

FL Yes continuous 

1932; 1946; 1956; 

1961; 1963; 1974; 

1977; 1985; 1990-91; 

1993; 1995-96; 1998; 

2/2002 – present 

02326900 St. Marks River near Newport Yes continuous 

1956-1994; 7/1996 – 

present 

02235000 Wekiva River near Sanford, FL Yes continuous 10/1931 – present 

Notes: 1 - Funded by Springs Initiative
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

14 

the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) began collecting discharge 

measurements in July 2004, and since July 2006, the USGS has collected these data. 

In addition to water quality and discharge measurements, quarterly to biannual bioassessments 

are performed in selected spring runs by the FDEP Environmental Assessment Section. These 

bioassessments include assessing riparian zone health, habitat description, biological sampling 

and limited water quality sampling. Reports on the biological assessments produced by the 

Environmental Assessment Section are available online from FDEP at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/cgi-bin/reports/results.asp. 

Quality Assurance 

Water quality sampling procedures are outlined in the Springs Initiative Monitoring Standard 

Operating Procedures, which adhere to the FDEP standard operating procedures for sampling 

and analysis program activities (http://www.floridadep.org/labs/qa/sops.htm). All water quality 

samples collected through this effort are analyzed by the FDEP Central Chemistry Laboratory, a 

facility certified by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program. 

Adherence to standard field protocols is verified by periodic internal and external field audits of 

the sampling program. These field audits are carried out by Springs Initiative staff, working with 

the Environmental Assessment Section. Assessment of field measurement accuracy is 

accomplished through internal (FDEP) and external (USGS) field reference sample programs. 

Formalized procedures for computerized and manual data review, developed for the FDEP 

Status Network, are also applied to spring monitoring program data. 

Data Management 

Water quality samples are tracked from the field to the laboratory via the FDEP Automated Data 

Management (ADM) program. Analytical results are transferred electronically from the FDEP 

Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) to the FDEP Watershed Monitoring 

Section, where they are processed and merged with corresponding field data, and linked to the 

corresponding site data. Computerized accuracy and completeness checks are automatically 

run, in addition to a variety of other quality assurance checks. Data files are then manually 

checked using field sheets and results from the computerized reviews to identify obvious 

random or systematic errors. 

After preliminary data review for a project is completed, a copy of the project file is transferred to

the samplers for their review. A project review is completed and then the data are considered 

“release quality”, ready to be made available to the general public. The Springs Initiative 

network data used in this report are from 2001 through 2006. 

Manual discharge data from quarterly sampling sites have been collected by FGS, NWFWMD 

and USGS staff. These measurements are performed using USGS standard operating 

procedures for collecting stream profile discharge. USGS fixed-station (“real-time”) discharge 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

15 

measurements are collected from automated stations using index-velocity or stage-discharge 

gages. Acoustic Doppler profiling sondes are used at some locations. 

All field measurements and water quality data collected through the quarterly Springs Network 

are housed in the FDEP Oracle-based Generalized Water Information System (OGWIS). From 

here, data are periodically uploaded to Florida STORET and are also exported to Hydroport, a 

ground-water quality data retrieval and analysis tool currently under development. Data 

included in this report represents a subset that met the quality assurance standards for the 

program. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

16 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR KEY ANALYTES 

Nutrients 

Nutrient over-enrichment causes the impairment of many surface waters, including springs. The 

two major nutrient groups monitored include nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). Nitrogen and 

phosphorus are essential nutrients to plant life, including algae. For aquatic vegetation and 

algae to grow, both nutrients have to be present. In fact, one can be present in excess but if the 

other is not present, overgrowth of vegetation or algae is not likely to occur. Historically, many 

spring systems have had sufficient phosphorus to cause an overabundance of plant growth but 

this was limited by very low concentrations of nitrogen. 

Nitrogen is found in several forms and is ubiquitous in the environment. Nitrate (NO3) is the 

form of nitrogen that occurs in the highest concentrations in ground water and springs. Nitritenitrogen (NO2) is an intermediate form of nitrogen that is almost entirely converted to nitrate in 

the nitrogen cycle. While nitrate and nitrite are frequently analyzed and reported together as 

one concentration (nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen), the nitrite contribution is always insignificant. 

Historically nitrogen was only a minor constituent of spring water and typical nitrate 

concentrations in Florida were less than 0.2 mg/L until the early 1970s. Since then, nitrate 

concentrations of greater than 1 mg/L can be found in many springs. With sufficient phosphorus 

in the water column, seemingly low nitrogen concentrations can actually cause a significant shift 

in the balance of spring ecological communities, leading to the degradation of biological 

systems due to overgrowth of algae and sometimes aquatic plants. 

Research into the relationship of nutrients to algal growth in springs has provided basis for 

some science-based values that can serve as thresholds. In an FDEP-funded study, Michigan 

State University researchers found that algal species reductions occurred at nitrogen 

concentrations below 0.591 mg/L for the algal genus Vaucheria spp. and below 0.250 mg/L for 

the more prevalent Lyngbya wollei (Stevenson et al., 2007). Another reference threshold was 

provided in documentation supporting spring run-related Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 

for the Wekiva River and Rock Springs Run by FDEP (Gao, 2008). This Wekiva River/Rock 

Springs Run TMDL was based on a nitrogen threshold of 0.286 mg/L, established at a level that 

would reduce overall periphyton biomass concentration to an acceptable level. Another 

example of a nitrate threshold was used for the TMDL developed for the Suwannee River and 

several springs. This method employed a change point analysis that was performed to help 

understand the functional relationship between periphyton growth and nitrate concentration 

(Hallas and Magley, 2008). It provided a statistical analysis of the range of nitrate 

concentrations over which periphyton growth would occur. Based on the combined body of this 

research, FDEP has proposed a surface water standard for nitrogen in clear water streams 

(including spring vents) of 0.35 mg/L, which applies to both nitrate and nitrate+nitrite and is 

based on the FDEP assessment methodology using binomial statistics (set forth in Chapter 62-

303.533, F.A.C). 

Ammonia-nitrogen is seldom detected in spring water because of its tendency to transform 

degrade rapidly to other nitrogen forms. However, when detected, it can be an important 

indicator of sources of potential contamination. As organic nitrogen decomposes, it converts 

first to ammonia, then to nitrite plus nitrogen gas, and finally to nitrate. This process is 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

17 

shortened if the nitrogen is from an inorganic source like fertilizer or the atmosphere. The 

nitrification process can be incomplete in areas of poor drainage or high water-table conditions, 

in which case some ammonia can be transported to ground water and remain somewhat stable 

for a period of time. 

Phosphorus, the other essential nutrient governing algal growth in aquatic systems, has a 

critical concentration that is much lower than the nitrogen threshold. Stevenson et al. (2007) 

found that when nitrogen was present at elevated concentrations, the phosphorus thresholds for 

Vaucheria spp. and Lyngbya wollei were 0.026 and 0.033 mg/L, respectively. Phosphorus in 

water can originate from natural sources, primarily phosphate-rich subsurface material. For the 

Wekiva River and Rock Springs Run TMDLs, the conservative phosphorus threshold was 

established at 0.065 mg/L (Gao, 2008). This target phosphorus threshold used by Gao (2008) 

was higher than what may be appropriate for other springs because the Wekiwa and Rock 

Springs are in the Middle St. Johns Basin where phosphorus concentrations are naturally 

elevated in the Upper Floridan aquifer. Anthropogenic sources of phosphorus include fertilizers, 

animal waste, human wastewater, biosolids, and industrial wastewater effluent. The tendency 

for phosphorus to leach to ground water at a particular application or disposal site is based on 

soil characteristics and phosphorus application rates. Phosphorus tends to readily adsorb to 

clay and organic material in soil and is more likely to be mobile in sandy soil or areas where the 

soil adsorptive capacity for phosphorus has been exceeded. However, inputs of phosphorus 

from anthropogenic sources affecting ground water and springs are not easily traced because a 

significant amount of phosphorus in ground water and springs comes from natural sources. 

Ambient phosphorus concentrations in ground water in the recharge areas or springsheds of 

springs are frequently higher than the algae-based thresholds offered by Stevenson et al. 

(2007). 

Another major nutrient, potassium (K), occurs naturally under some conditions, but under others 

it can be an indicator of human impacts. Common inorganic agricultural fertilizers contain 

nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (N-P-K) as their major components. Potassium can readily 

move through ground water and when nitrate and potassium concentrations are both elevated in 

spring samples, the source is often inorganic fertilizers. However, potassium can also be 

present from land application of manures and municipal wastewaters. The fate of potassium 

once it infiltrates to the ground water is controlled mainly by cation exchange where the affinity 

of geologic material for potassium is greater than for calcium, magnesium and/or sodium. 

Potassium is also a significant component of sea water, thus springs near the coastline or those 

discharging water from deeper mineralized ground water would be naturally high in potassium. 

Elevated potassium can serve as a good indicator of anthropogenic impacts where sea water 

influence is not an issue. In a following section of this report, the potassium–sodium (K-Na) 

ratio is discussed as a possible way to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic sources. 

Nitrogen 

The spring monitoring program includes data for ammonia and nitrate+nitrite, which are 

summarized in Table 4. The median values for nitrate+nitrite and ammonia for the entire 2001-

2006 monitoring period are shown and compared to medians for 2006, the most recent 

complete year of data. Most springs have not had detectable concentrations of ammonia and 

the ones that did had ammonia at very low concentrations. Detectable concentrations of 

ammonia were found consistently (at low levels) in DeLeon and Volusia Blue Springs (Middle 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

18 

Table 4: Ammonia and Nitrate+Nitrite in Spring Network (2001-2006) min median max min median max min median max min

medianmax

Apalachicola - Chipola Basin

Jackson Blue Spring 0.005 0.005 0.08 0.005 0.005 0.08 0.34 3.3 3.7 3 3.35 3.7

Choctawhatatchee - St. Andrew Basin

Cypress Spring 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.34 0.36 0.42 0.35 0.375 0.39

Gainer Spring #1C 0.005 0.005 0.038 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.15 0.18 0.24 0.18 0.195 0.2

Gainer Spring #2 0.005 0.005 0.035 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.18 0.23 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.23

Gainer Spring #3 0.005 0.005 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.19 0.2 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.21

Morrison Spring 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.15 0.165 0.19 0.15 0.16 0.17

Middle St. Johns Basin

Alexander Springs 0.005 0.005 0.018 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.029 0.053 0.065 0.045 0.055 0.059

DeLeon Spring 0.012 0.041 0.092 0.027 0.0555 0.072 0.58 0.99 1.3 0.58 0.795 1.1

Fern Hammock Springs 0.005 0.005 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.078 0.0865 0.09 0.078 0.0845 0.088

Juniper Springs 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.073 0.089 0.094 0.089 0.0895 0.091

Marion Salt Springs 0.005 0.005 0.018 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.092 0.093 0.096

Rock Springs 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.005 0.005 0.005 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.6

Silver Glen Springs 0.005 0.005 0.022 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.046 0.049 0.055 0.046 0.0485 0.049

Volusia Blue Spring 0.005 0.005 0.096 0.005 0.0155 0.058 0.31 0.645 1.1 0.42 0.61 0.79

Wekiwa Spring 0.005 0.005 0.029 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.29 1.4 1.7 0.97 1.035 1.5

Ochlockonee - St. Marks

Spring Creek Rise #1 0.005 0.038 0.091 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.018 0.14 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.23

Spring Creek Rise #2 0.005 0.0195 0.06 0.011 0.0355 0.06 0.016 0.17 0.27 0.016 0.103 0.19

Wakulla Spring 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.37 0.69 1 0.51 0.555 0.66

Ocklawaha Basin

Apopka Spring 0.005 0.005 0.041 0.005 0.005 0.005 4.1 4.55 5.1 4.4 4.5 4.7

Blue Grotto Spring 0.005 0.005 0.07 0.005 0.005 0.038 1.3 1.5 3.2 1.5 1.5 1.7

Reception Hall Spring 0.005 0.005 0.029 0.005 0.005 0.005 1.2 1.4 2.6 1.4 1.55 1.6

Silver Spring Main 0.005 0.005 0.1 0.005 0.005 0.1 0.91 1.1 1.2 0.99 0.995 1.2

Springs Coast Basin

Chassahowitzka Spring #1 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.49 0.575 0.65 0.53 0.6 0.63

Chassahowitzka Spring Main 0.005 0.005 0.014 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.43 0.53 0.61 0.51 0.56 0.57

Homosassa Spring #1 0.005 0.0155 0.028 0.01 0.0135 0.02 0.18 0.51 0.57 0.49 0.51 0.52

Homosassa Spring #2 0.018 0.0285 0.034 0.022 0.0335 0.034 0.43 0.5 0.53 0.45 0.49 0.51

Homosassa Spring #3 0.005 0.005 0.014 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.49 0.54 0.6 0.53 0.53 0.54

Hunter Spring 0.005 0.005 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.34 0.39 0.47 0.4 0.41 0.42

Tarpon Hole Spring 0.005 0.005 0.031 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.093 0.185 0.21 0.15 0.185 0.2

Weeki Wachee Main Spring 0.005 0.005 0.067 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.66 0.765 0.93 0.75 0.765 0.78

Suwannee River Basin

Big Spring 0.005 0.005 0.029 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.1 0.165 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.18

Blue Hole Spring 0.005 0.005 0.08 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.51 0.695 0.79 0.72 0.755 0.79

Devil's Ear Spring 0.005 0.005 0.017 0.005 0.005 0.005 1.1 1.6 2 1.5 1.65 1.7

Falmouth Spring 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.39 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

Fanning Springs 0.005 0.005 0.037 0.005 0.005 0.005 3.7 5.2 6.3 4.8 4.85 5.5

Hornsby Spring 0.005 0.005 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.3 0.48 0.68 0.48 0.58 0.68

Ichetucknee Head Spring 0.005 0.005 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.77 0.84 0.74 0.8 0.83

Lafayette Blue Spring 0.005 0.0085 0.059 0.005 0.005 0.012 1.7 2.2 2.7 1.7 2.3 2.5

Madison Blue Spring 0.005 0.005 0.028 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.97 1.5 2 1.3 1.5 1.5

Manatee Spring 0.005 0.005 0.014 0.005 0.005 0.005 1.6 1.8 2 1.7 1.8 2

Mill Pond Spring 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.31 0.46 0.56 0.46 0.52 0.56

Mission Spring 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.37 0.58 0.64 0.58 0.61 0.64

Troy Spring 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.005 0.005 0.005 1.1 2.2 3 1.8 2.2 2.6

Wacissa Spring #2 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.24 0.4 0.47 0.34 0.41 0.43

Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin

Lithia Springs Major 0.005 0.005 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.011 2.2 2.9 5.5 2.2 2.8 5.5

Withlacoochee Basin

Bubbling Spring 0.005 0.005 0.018 0.005 0.005 0.011 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5

Rainbow Spring #1 0.005 0.005 0.015 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.96 1.35 1.8 1.7 1.75 1.8

Rainbow Spring #4 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.005 0.005 0.005 1.3 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7

Rainbow Spring #6 0.005 0.005 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1

2006

BASIN & SPRING NAME

2001-2006 2006 2001-2006

Ammonia (610) Nitrate+Nitrite as N (630)

Values in red are higher than the Nitrate+Nitrite threshold of 0.35 mg/L proposed criterion 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

19 

St. Johns River Basin), Spring Creek Rise #1 and #2 (Ochlocknee-St. Marks River Basin), 

Homosassa Spring #1 and #2 (Springs Coast Basin) and Lafayette Blue (Suwannee River Basin 

Group). DeLeon Spring and Spring Creek Rise #1 had the highest ammonia concentrations. 

Overall, ammonia concentrations for 2006 were essentially the same as the median values for 

the 2001 to 2006 period, which suggests that there are no significant trends in ammonia for the 

springs with detections. 

As discussed previously, elevated nitrate-nitrogen is an issue for most of Florida’s springs that 

have been sampled. A following section in this report includes a discussion on the recognized 

sources of nitrate in some of the more significantly impacted springs. Appendices A and B

provide a summary of nitrate concentrations in all springs in Florida that have nitrate data and 

their locations. Depending on location, the nitrogen found in ground water and spring water has 

been found by isotope analyses to be from inorganic sources such as fertilizer, organic sources 

such as human wastewater or animal manure, or a combination of the two (Katz, 1999; Katz, 

2005; Kendall, 1998). The network springs represent the majority of the springs in the state and 

their data indicate that elevated nitrate (expressed as nitrate+nitrite-total) is a widespread 

problem, as is shown by data from the network springs in Figure 6. 

Figure 6: Median Concentrations of Nitrate+Nitrite in Spring Network (2001-2006) 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

20 

Three benchmarks can be used to evaluate nitrate-nitrogen data in this report: the median 

value for all network springs, the proposed nitrate criterion for clear streams, and the natural 

background nitrate concentration. The median nitrate+nitrite concentration for all springs in the 

network combined was 0.65 mg/L. This median is almost twice as high as the proposed FDEP 

criterion of 0.35 mg/L. Based on the proposed standard, about two-thirds (almost 74 percent) of 

the network springs have median nitrate+nitrite concentrations high enough to promote algal 

growth problems. 

The third benchmark is the nitrate-nitrogen concentration in background springs. In a pristine 

setting, the concentration of nitrate in a spring is at least an order of magnitude lower than the 

proposed nitrate standard of 0.35 mg/L. Based on data from multiple sources, there are 

presently only a small number of springs in the state with sufficient data that exhibit nitrate 

concentrations close to background conditions as shown in Table 5. The concentrations of 

nitrate+nitrite in these springs are believed to be primarily due to atmospheric deposition since 

they are mostly located in remote settings such as national forests or away from land use 

activities considered as nitrogen sources. Some springs previously considered as background 

springs have had increases in their nitrate concentrations to the point that they are no longer 

considered as such. This may be due to increases in atmospheric deposition of nitrogen from 

anthropogenic sources or to other factors such as nearby septic systems at campgrounds. 

More information on springs with background water quality with respect to nutrients can be 

found in Appendix C. 

Only 2 of the 49 network springs (3 percent) have nitrate+nitrite concentrations that are at or 

below background when combining other sources of data with the network data. The lowest 

nitrate+nitrite concentrations for first and second magnitude springs included in the monitoring 

network (Figure 6) were found in the Ocala National Forest. Silver Glen, Fern Hammock, and 

Alexander Springs, all located in the Middle St. Johns Basin, have relatively lower nitratenitrogen concentrations due to their remote locations and the absence of regional sources of 

contamination. Other relatively lower concentrations are also found in the western panhandle in 

the Choctawhatchee River–St. Andrew Bay Basin Group with Cypress Spring, Morrison Spring 

and the Gainer Group. These lower concentrations correspond with land uses that include less 

agriculture and lower population density. Morrison and Cypress Spring are located in a dense 

gum and cypress forest. The Gainer Group is located where there are heavily forested lands, 

some in public ownership. 

Jackson Blue, Fanning, Apopka and Lithia Major Springs are among the most nitrate-laden 

springs in the network, with nitrate+nitrite concentrations approaching 3 mg/L or higher. Of 

these, Fanning Spring has the highest nitrate+nitrite concentration. It is noteworthy that these 

three springs are located in areas that include agriculture and/or former agricultural areas 

undergoing urbanization. 

Jackson Blue Spring (Figure 6), in the Chipola River Basin of the Apalachicola-Chipola River 

Basin Group, has the highest nitrate concentration of all first magnitude springs in the state, and 

thus provides the highest loading of nitrate to its receiving surface water, Merritts Mill Pond. 

The source area of Jackson Blue Springs includes areas of intensive farming in northern 

Jackson County and southern Alabama. 

The Suwannee River Basin Group (equivalent to the area covered by the Suwannee River 

Water Management District) has more springs than any of the other basins and the 

nitrate+nitrite concentrations vary geographically across the area. Springs in the leastdeveloped western part of the area have much lower nitrate+nitrite concentrations in 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

21 

Table 5: Nitrate+Nitrite Concentrations in Background Springs with Available Data 

Spring Basin County Magnitude Nitrate+Nitrite Median 

(mg/L) 

Alexander Spring Middle St. Johns Lake 1 0.044

Beecher Spring Middle St. Johns Putnam 2 0.007

Clifton Springs Middle St. Johns Seminole 3 0.009

Copper Spring Suwannee Dixie 2 0.010

Green Cove Springs Lower St. Johns Clay 2 0.002

Mud Spring (Putnam) Middle St. Johns Putnam 3 0.022

Newport Spring Ochlocknee – St. Marks Wakulla 3 0.005

Orange Spring (Marion) Ocklawaha Marion 3 0.004

Satsuma Spring Middle St. Johns Putnam 3 0.007

Silver Glen Springs Middle St. Johns Marion 1 0.046

Snail Springs Middle St. Johns Lake 5 0.015 

Sun Eden Spring Ocklawaha Lake 4 0.030

Suwannee Springs Suwannee Suwannee 2 0.020

Sweetwater Springs Middle St. Johns Marion 2 0.037

Waldo Spring Suwannee Taylor 3 0.007

Washington Blue Spring 

(Choctawhatchee)

Choctawhatchee–St. 

Andrew

Washington 2 0.027

Welaka Spring Lower St. Johns Putnam 3 0.034 

 

Background Springs Overall Median 0.015

Statewide Springs Overall Median 0.670

First-magnitude Springs Overall Median 0.570

Note: 

Sources of data include FDEP, water management districts and the USGS. Springs in BOLD are included in the FDEP Spring 

Network. Background springs have nitrate-nitrogen levels < 0.05 mg/L.
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

22 

comparison to many springs in the rest of the basin. Generally the northern, central and eastern 

regions of the area all have springs with elevated nitrate+nitrite concentrations (Figure 6). 

These regions include a significant amount of agricultural land uses, especially the Middle 

Suwannee Basin, which includes dairies, hay fields, row crops and poultry farms. 

The Ocklawaha River Basin includes Silver Springs, a group of springs that has the largest 

aggregate discharge of all springs in Florida. Silver Spring Main, Reception Hall and Blue 

Grotto Spring are the main springs in the Silver Spring Group. These all have nitrate+nitrite 

concentrations greater than 1 mg/L and lie to the east of an urban area as well as numerous 

horse farms and other agricultural properties. Further south in the Ocklawaha River Basin is 

Apopka Spring (located in Lake Apopka), which has an elevated median nitrate+nitrite 

concentration of 4.55 mg/L. Apopka Spring is surrounded by a region of historically intensive 

agricultural land uses, including row crops, nurseries and citrus groves. Ground water in this 

area also has very high nitrate concentrations in localized areas. 

The Rainbow Springs Group, in the Withlacoochee River Basin, consists of a cluster of spring 

vents in the northern portion of the basin. The Rainbow Springs Group includes multiple springs 

that have nitrate+nitrite concentrations greater than 1 mg/L. These springs create the 

headwaters of the Rainbow River which flows southward to the Withlacoochee River. Sources 

of nitrogen in this area include historical agricultural lands, large horse farms and thoroughbred 

training facilities, transitioning to smaller ranchettes and urban residential development. 

The Springs Coast Basin includes eight springs in the network that are within the 

Chassahowitzka, Kings Bay, Homosassa, and Weeki Wachee spring groups. Seven of the 

network springs in the Springs Coast Basin have nitrate+nitrite concentrations that exceed 0.35 

mg/L. Further to the south in the Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin, Lithia Major Spring, the furthest 

south of all springs in the network, has a nitrate+nitrite median of 2.9 mg/L. Agricultural and 

urban landscapes, including residential turf grass, ornamental plants, and golf courses, are past 

and present sources of the nitrogen in these basins. 

Phosphorus 

Phosphorus is measured as both total phosphorus and orthophosphate by the spring monitoring 

program. Total phosphorus consists of organic and inorganic fractions. The soluble inorganic 

form of phosphorus is orthophosphate. Since there is very little organic phosphorus in ground 

water, with few exceptions, only the inorganic form of phosphorus, orthophosphate, is found in 

springs. Orthophosphate is also the natural form of phosphorus found in geologic material and 

the form of phosphorus found in conventional fertilizers. Throughout much of Florida, the 

Miocene-age Hawthorn Group is a massive geologic unit that is naturally rich in phosphorus. 

This material lies on top of the porous and permeable limestone of the Upper Floridan aquifer in 

which most spring systems occur and it can provide a continuing source of phosphorus to the 

ground water. 

The natural abundance of phosphorus varies across the state and as a result background 

ground water concentrations vary. Table 6 provides a summary of median orthophosphate 

concentration in ground water of the surficial, intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems in the 

eight basin groups that have springs. The Suwannee, Ocklawaha, Middle St. Johns, 

Withlacoochee, and Tampa Bay Tributaries basins all have elevated concentrations of 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

23 

Table 6: Summary of Background Orthophosphate Concentrations in Ground Water 

Basin 

Median Orthophosphate Concentrations in Aquifer Systems 

(mg/L) 1985-2006

Surficial Intermediate Floridan 

Apalachicola-Chipola 0.275 0.1 0.04 

Choctawhatchee-St. Andrew Bay 0.025 0.008 0.012 

Middle St. Johns 0.049 0.105 0.067 

Ochlocknee-St. Marks 0.025 0.05 0.0255 

Ocklawaha 0.146 0.089 0.056 

Springs Coast 0.116 N/A 0.027 

Suwannee 0.066 0.092 0.061 

Tampa Bay Tributaries 0.088 0.011 0.034 

Withlacoochee 0.074 0.002 0.058 

Note: Ground water data from the FDEP historical Background and current Probabilistic monitoring networks 

orthophosphate in ground water from one or more aquifers, in comparison to the phosphorus 

thresholds proposed by Stevenson, et al. (2007). In the Suwannee River Basin Group, all three 

aquifers have elevated orthophosphate, with median concentrations as high as 0.092 mg/L. In 

the Middle St. Johns Basin, median orthophosphate concentrations in ground water were as 

high as 0.105 mg/L. Phosphorus is usually higher in the intermediate aquifer as shown in the 

data for most basins. The intermediate-aquifer wells are representative of ground water from 

the Hawthorn Group, which provides a significant source of orthophosphate. 

Springs in the Suwannee River Basin Group and the Middle St. Johns River Basins had the 

highest orthophosphate concentrations, with many of them having phosphorus concentrations 

higher than the 0.03 mg/L median value as shown in Figure 7. A summary of median 

orthophosphate concentrations in the individual springs is provided in Table 7. 

The springs in the network with the highest orthophosphate concentrations are Wekiwa, Rock, 

Hornsby, Volusia Blue, Fanning, Lithia Springs Major, Ichetucknee Group, DeLeon, Alexander, 

Lafayette, and Big Springs. Springs in the Choctawhatchee-St. Andrew Basin, similar to ground 

water, have low concentrations of phosphorus. Overall most spring orthophosphate 

concentrations in 2006 were relatively unchanged compared to median values for 2001-2006, 

so no significant trends are obvious for this 5-year period. Also, there is no obvious correlation 

between orthophosphate and nitrate concentration in these data (Figure 8). 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

24 

Figure 7: Median Orthophosphate Concentrations in Spring Network (2001-2006) 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

25 

Table 7: Orthophosphate and Potassium in Spring Network (2001-2006) min median max min median max min median max

minmedianmax

Apalachicola - Chipola Basin

Jackson Blue Spring 0.012 0.019 0.022 0.012 0.014 0.017 0.25 0.3 0.36 0.3 0.32 0.36

Choctawhatatchee - St. Andrew Basin

Cypress Spring 0.023 0.0245 0.027 0.024 0.024 0.025 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.37 0.425 0.45

Gainer Spring #1C 0.01 0.013 0.015 0.01 0.011 0.013 0.23 0.27 0.37 0.27 0.285 0.33

Gainer Spring #2 0.01 0.012 0.016 0.01 0.011 0.012 0.23 0.26 0.34 0.23 0.3 0.34

Gainer Spring #3 0.002 0.012 0.014 0.009 0.0095 0.012 0.24 0.26 0.29 0.25 0.285 0.29

Morrison Spring 0.021 0.023 0.029 0.021 0.021 0.022 0.55 0.57 0.62 0.57 0.59 0.6

Middle St. Johns Basin

Alexander Springs 0.043 0.049 0.052 0.049 0.0495 0.05 3.24 3.7 4.2 3.6 3.785 4

DeLeon Spring 0.036 0.051 0.065 0.047 0.0505 0.052 3.9 4.8 6.8 3.9 4.05 4.8

Fern Hammock Springs 0.022 0.022 0.033 0.022 0.022 0.024 0.25 0.265 0.32 0.25 0.27 0.32

Juniper Springs 0.019 0.0245 0.027 0.024 0.0245 0.026 0.24 0.26 0.32 0.26 0.29 0.31

Marion Salt Springs 0.01 0.014 0.015 0.01 0.0135 0.015 28.7 37.4 40.4 31.1 36.2 40.4

Rock Springs 0.082 0.0865 0.092 0.084 0.0875 0.092 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4

Silver Glen Springs 0.022 0.0265 0.037 0.024 0.0255 0.028 7.2 8.7 9.4 7.2 8.215 8.8

Volusia Blue Spring 0.058 0.068 0.079 0.063 0.0655 0.069 3.9 5.755 8.6 4.7 5.405 7.7

Wekiwa Spring 0.088 0.12 0.13 0.1 0.125 0.13 1.58 1.7 1.74 1.6 1.7 1.74

Ochlockonee - St. Marks

Spring Creek Rise #1 0.008 0.0295 0.035 0.032 0.032 0.032 10.9 79.55 229 39.2 39.2 39.2

Spring Creek Rise #2 0.016 0.027 0.033 0.025 0.0265 0.028 6.7 35.5 196 10.8 96.4 182

Wakulla Spring 0.014 0.028 0.034 0.016 0.026 0.03 0.5 0.56 0.69 0.55 0.61 0.69

Ocklawaha Basin

Apopka Spring 0.01 0.03 0.032 0.022 0.029 0.032 1.00 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.35

Blue Grotto Spring 0.03 0.039 0.055 0.037 0.0385 0.055 0.59 0.63 0.73 0.63 0.685 0.73

Reception Hall Spring 0.034 0.042 0.046 0.036 0.0365 0.039 0.58 0.66 0.76 0.66 0.685 0.76

Silver Spring Main 0.03 0.044 0.049 0.042 0.042 0.043 0.52 0.58 0.68 0.56 0.575 0.58

Springs Coast Basin

Chassahowitzka Spring #1 0.015 0.019 0.024 0.015 0.0165 0.019 1.21 2.5 5.8 2.2 4.45 5.6

Chassahowitzka Spring Main 0.014 0.018 0.022 0.014 0.0155 0.019 2 7.6 19.9 8 15.95 19.9

Homosassa Spring #1 0.013 0.016 0.022 0.014 0.014 0.015 14.2 21.55 30.3 19.2 22.2 26.9

Homosassa Spring #2 0.008 0.016 0.023 0.012 0.013 0.015 29.1 35.7 41.4 31.7 37.35 38.5

Homosassa Spring #3 0.01 0.015 0.021 0.013 0.013 0.013 4.1 7.1 12.9 4.3 8.9 11.6

Hunter Spring 0.017 0.026 0.03 0.017 0.022 0.025 0.67 1.25 2.1 1.3 1.6 1.7

Tarpon Hole Spring 0.014 0.03 0.035 0.024 0.0275 0.03 4.1 9.3 35.5 7.2 14.15 35.5

Weeki Wachee Main Spring 0.002 0.006 0.013 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.21 0.325 0.38 0.32 0.365 0.38

Suwannee River Basin

Big Spring 0.041 0.045 0.057 0.041 0.045 0.047 0.35 0.415 0.6 0.41 0.445 0.46

Blue Hole Spring 0.038 0.047 0.053 0.039 0.045 0.047 0.29 0.35 0.48 0.34 0.355 0.41

Devil's Ear Spring 0.038 0.042 0.053 0.038 0.0395 0.041 0.4 0.43 0.52 0.41 0.455 0.5

Falmouth Spring 0.033 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.26 0.36 0.45 0.26 0.355 0.45

Fanning Springs 0.058 0.066 0.076 0.064 0.0655 0.066 2.4 3.1 4 3.6 3.65 4

Hornsby Spring 0.075 0.085 0.088 0.085 0.0865 0.088 1 1 1.1 1 1.05 1.1

Ichetucknee Head Spring 0.019 0.022 0.024 0.019 0.0205 0.023 0.075 0.14 0.22 0.14 0.17 0.18

Lafayette Blue Spring 0.04 0.045 0.061 0.042 0.044 0.047 0.84 1 1.3 1.1 1.19 1.2

Madison Blue Spring 0.03 0.0395 0.052 0.036 0.037 0.038 0.4 0.485 0.99 0.41 0.47 0.62

Manatee Spring 0.018 0.024 0.027 0.018 0.022 0.025 1 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4

Mill Pond Spring 0.047 0.055 0.058 0.047 0.0555 0.057 0.5 0.56 0.71 0.56 0.62 0.65

Mission Spring 0.048 0.056 0.061 0.048 0.055 0.057 0.45 0.5 0.56 0.47 0.5 0.56

Troy Spring 0.024 0.030 0.059 0.026 0.029 0.03 0.79 1.2 1.57 1.1 1.3 1.57

Wacissa Spring #2 0.03 0.036 0.037 0.032 0.0325 0.037 0.38 0.42 0.5 0.39 0.465 0.5

Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin

Lithia Springs Major 0.056 0.0595 0.064 0.06 0.062 0.064 0.78 0.86 1 0.79 0.86 0.87

Withlacoochee Basin

Bubbling Spring 0.03 0.037 0.04 0.033 0.034 0.037 0.075 0.17 0.19 0.15 0.16 0.19

Rainbow Spring #1 0.022 0.029 0.034 0.024 0.027 0.029 0.055 0.12 0.16 0.055 0.115 0.14

Rainbow Spring #4 0.029 0.034 0.041 0.029 0.0325 0.034 0.055 0.13 0.18 0.055 0.13 0.18

Rainbow Spring #6 0.022 0.029 0.036 0.023 0.027 0.029 0.14 0.29 0.34 0.29 0.305 0.32

Values in red are higher than the Springs Initiative network median of 0.030 mg/L for phosphorus/orthophosphate and 0.63 mg/L for potassium.

2001-2006 2006

BASIN & SPRING NAME

2001-2006 2006

Orthophosphate (671) Potassium (937)
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

26 

 

0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18

Silver Glen

Alexander

Fern Hammock

Juniper

Marion Salt

Spring Creek #1

Big Spring

Morrison

Spring Creek #2

Gainer #1C

Tarpon Hole

Gainer #3

Gainer #2

Cypress

Hunter

Wacissa #2

Mill Pond

Hornsby

Homosassa #2

Homosassa #1

Chassahowitzka Main

Homosassa #3

Chassahowitzka #1

Mission

Volusia Blue

Wakulla

Blue Hole

Weeki Wachee

Ichetucknee Head

DeLeon

Falmouth

Rainbow #6

Silver Spring

Bubbling

Rainbow #1

Reception Hall

Wekiwa

Blue Grotto

Madison Blue

Rainbow #4

Rock

Devil's Ear

Manatee

Lafayette Blue

Troy

Lithia Major

Jackson Blue

Apopka

Fanning

Orthophosphate (as P mg/L)

0 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.5 5.4

Nitrate + Nirite (as N mg/L)

ORTHOPHOSPHATE

 NITRATE

Figure 8: Nitrate and Orthophosphate in Network Springs (2001-2006) 

Proposed nitrate criterion 

(0.35 mg/L) shown as dashed 

red line. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

27 

Potassium 

Potassium has been measured as total and dissolved potassium in the monitoring network. 

There was little difference between the results for dissolved and total forms in the descriptive 

statistics and this discussion refers to total concentrations. As discussed previously, potassium 

can serve as an indicator of either saline water influence or contamination from sources such as 

fertilizers. Median potassium values for the network springs are shown in Table 7 and the 

distribution of potassium in the spring network is shown in Figure 9. 

Figure 9: Median Potassium Concentrations in Spring Network (2001-2006) 

Potassium is one of the major components of seawater, which commonly has potassium 

concentrations as high as 390 mg/L. In network springs, the highest concentrations are found in 

springs in coastal regions and in interior regions where deep ground water is highly mineralized. 

The Springs Coast Basin has many coastal springs in tidal areas subject to seawater influences. 

These include Homosassa Springs #1, #2, and #3, Tarpon Hole and Chassahowitzka Main 

Spring, which all have elevated potassium. In the Springs Coast Basin, most of the samples 

exceeded the median for potassium in the network springs (0.63 mg/L). Potassium in the two 

Spring Creek Springs (#1 and #2) located in a tidal creek along the coast line of the 

Ochlocknee-St. Marks River Basin is also elevated. However, these springs function tidally and 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

28 

saline water from the estuary often backflows into them for periods of time. So when 

discharging, the Spring Creek Springs often are discharging recycled seawater. 

Ground water and many springs in the Middle St. Johns River Basin have elevated potassium 

concentrations due to another type of natural occurrence. The Floridan aquifer system along 

and beneath the St. Johns River corridor is naturally highly mineralized with relict saline water 

from past higher sea level stages, which has a tendency to migrate upward (Boniol, 2008; 

Spechler and Halford, 2001). The springs within this area discharge ground water that is 

enriched in potassium as well as sodium and chloride. Most of the ground water samples from 

the FDEP ambient monitoring wells in the Middle St. Johns Basin, regardless of aquifer, exceed 

the spring network median for potassium of 0.63 mg/L because of the naturally mineralized 

water. 

The relationship between potassium and sodium, along with other chemical data, can 

sometimes be used to help differentiate between naturally occurring potassium due to salinity 

and potassium from other sources. The premise is that sodium and potassium concentrations in 

salinity-influenced springs should be similarly proportional where the potassium-sodium ratio is 

less than 0.04:1. Based on that assumption, potassium-sodium ratios higher than 0.04:1 may 

indicate that the potassium is not associated with salinity but may instead be from an 

anthropogenic source such as inorganic fertilizer, septic tanks, animal manure and/or landapplied wastewater. Table 8 provides a more detailed breakdown of springs showing that those 

with saline influence have a predominance of naturally occurring potassium (potassium-sodium 

ratio <0.04:1) compared to those with higher potassium-sodium ratios. Table 8 also shows 

springs with potential correlation between elevated potassium, high potassium-sodium ratios 

and elevated nitrate. Where fertilizer is a source of nitrate, potassium may also be elevated. 

Figure 10 is a graph showing potassium and nitrate concentrations along with potassiumsodium ratios. The springs with the highest potassium-sodium ratios (>0.20:1), correspond with 

some of the highest spring nitrate-nitrogen concentrations throughout the state. The 

comparison of nitrate, potassium and the potassium-sodium ratios may help identify those 

springs that are degraded from recent or historical fertilizer use. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

29 

 

Table 8: Significant Potassium Concentrations in Springs and their Correlation with 

Sodium and Nitrate+Nitrite 

Spring Basin 

Potassium 

median 

(mg/L) 

Sodium 

median 

(mg/L) 

PotassiumSodium Ratio 

X:1 

Nitrate 

median 

(mg/L) 

Potassium Mainly Due to Saline Water Influence (Potassium-Sodium Ratio <0.04:1)

Alexander Middle St. Johns 3.7 133 0.03 0.05 

Marion Salt Middle St. Johns 37.4 1200 0.03 0.10 

Sliver Glen Middle St. Johns 8.7 253 0.03 0.05 

Spring Creek #2 Ochlockonee- St. Marks 35.5 1021 0.03 0.17 

Tarpon Hole Springs Coast 9.3 268 0.03 0.19 

Chassahowitzka #1 Springs Coast 2.5 66 0.04 0.58 

Chassahowitzka Main Springs Coast 7.6 211 0.04 0.53

Homosassa #1 Springs Coast 21.6 588 0.04 0.51 

Homosassa #3 Springs Coast 7.1 194 0.04 0.54 

Hunter Springs Coast 1.3 33 0.04 0.39 

Spring Creek #1 Ochlockonee- St. Marks 79.6 2170 0.04 0.14 

Volusia Blue Middle St. Johns 5.8 155 0.04 0.65 

Potassium Potentially Due to Anthropogenic Sources (Potassium-Sodium Ratios 0.10:1-0.20:1)

Blue Grotto Ocklawaha 0.63 6.6 0.10 1.50 

Fern Hammock Middle St. Johns 0.27 2.7 0.10 0.09 

Juniper Middle St. Johns 0.26 2.6 0.10 0.09 

Reception Hall Ocklawaha 0.66 6.7 0.10 1.40 

Wakulla Ochlockonee-St. Marks 0.56 5.3 0.11 0.69 

Mill Pond Suwannee 0.56 5.0 0.11 0.46 

Blue Hole Suwannee 0.35 3.0 0.12 0.70 

Hornsby Suwannee 1.00 8.5 0.12 0.48 

Devils Ear Suwannee 0.43 3.6 0.12 1.60 

Big Spring Suwannee 0.42 3.3 0.12 0.17 

Cypress Suwannee 0.40 3.1 0.13 0.36 

Wacissa Suwannee 0.42 3.2 0.13 0.40 

Mission Suwannee 0.50 3.8 0.13 0.58 

Falmouth Suwannee 0.36 2.6 0.14 1.10 

Gainer #3 Choctawhatchee-St. Andrew 0.26 1.8 0.15 0.20 

Madison Blue Suwannee 0.49 3.3 0.15 1.50 

Gainer #1C Choctawhatchee-St. Andrew 0.27 1.7 0.16 0.18 

Gainer #2 Choctawhatchee-St. Andrew 0.26 1.6 0.17 0.23 

Jackson Blue Apalachicola-Chipola 0.30 1.8 0.17 3.30 

Wekiwa Middle St. Johns 1.70 9.8 0.17 1.40 

Potassium Most Likely Due to Anthropogenic Sources (Potassium-Sodium Ratio >0.20:1) 

Lafayette Blue Suwannee 1.00 4.88 0.20 2.20 

Apopka Middle St. Johns 1.30 5.70 0.23 4.55 

Rock Middle St. Johns 1.30 5.20 0.25 1.50 

Manatee Suwannee 1.10 4.19 0.26 1.80 

Morrison Choctawhatchee-St. Andrew 0.57 1.86 0.31 0.17 

Troy Suwannee 1.20 3.10 0.39 2.20 

Fanning Suwannee 3.10 5.42 0.57 5.20 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

30 

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Blue

Grotto

Fern

Hammock

Reception

Hall

Ju

niper

Wakulla

Mill Pon

d

Blue

Hole

Hornsby

Devil's

Ear

Big

Spring

Cypress

Wacissa

#2

Mission

Falmouth

Gainer #3

Madison

Blue

Gainer #1C

Gainer #2

Jackson

Blue

Wekiwa

Lafayette

Blue

Apopka

Rock

Manatee

Morrison

Troy

Fanning

Nitrate plus Nitrite (Total as N mg/L)

Potassium (Total as mg/L)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Potassium - Sodium Ratio

Nitrate + Nitrite

Potassium

Potassium-Sodium Ratio =>0.10:1

Figure 10: Potassium and Nitrate+Nitrite Concentrations and Potassium-Sodium Ratios 

in Select Springs 

Salinity Indicators 

Although most springs are considered to be fresh waters, fresh and saline characteristics are 

important to document to evaluate changes in spring chemistry. Springs can be characterized 

based on their salinity analyte levels and mineral content. Salinity analytes commonly used as 

indicators include chloride, sodium, sulfate, and specific conductance. Concentrations of these 

indicators can in some cases be used to identify ground water chemistry changes due to 

drought and/or anthropogenic influences. Increasing trends in these salinity indicators could be 

caused by lack of recharge during low-rainfall periods, over pumping the aquifer, or a 

combination of the two. Coastal springs that are tidally influenced cannot be easily evaluated 

for any trends in salinity since the concentrations vary with the tidal cycle. However, long-term 

increasing trends for salinity indicators in coastal springs could indicate saltwater intrusion. 

Sodium and chloride are the major saline components of seawater. Elevated sodium 

concentrations shown on Figure 11 are generally limited to springs in coastal areas and springs 

within the Middle St. Johns River Basin, where the Floridan aquifer system is naturally saline 

due to sea water that was trapped in carbonate host rocks during past higher sea level stands. 

For the most part, the same springs that have elevated potassium also have elevated sodium 

and chloride due to this mineralized ground water. The median sodium and chloride 

concentrations of all springs in the sampling network are 4.97 and 8.6 mg/L, respectively. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

31 

Figure 11: Median Sodium Concentrations in Spring Network (2001-2006) 

In the more saline springs, sodium and chloride concentrations are both greater than 1,000 

mg/L. Those with the highest sodium and chloride concentrations include Springs Creek Rise 

#1 and #2, Marion Salt, Homosassa #1, #2, #3, and Tarpon Hole. Silver Glen, Chassahowitzka 

Spring Main, Volusia Blue, and Alexander Springs are mineralized springs that also have 

elevated sodium. Once again, most of these springs are either in coastal areas or in the inland 

area of saline ground water in the Middle St. Johns River Basin. 

The mineral content of springs with naturally higher salinity can have an influence on biological 

diversity within their receiving waters and is therefore important to consider when evaluating 

their ecological health. The sodium-chloride (Na-Cl) and sodium–sulfate (Na-SO4) ratios were 

used to categorize the springs into low salinity and those influenced by high salinity sources 

(including coastal and inland mineralized ground water). These are shown in Figure 12. All of 

the springs in the Springs Coast Basin (with the exception of Weeki Wachee) are included in the 

high salinity-influenced group. Many of the springs in the area of mineralized ground water near 

the St. Johns River are also included in the high salinity-influenced group. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

32 

(mg/L) (a) Springs most influenced by salinity1 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Spring Creek #1Spring Creek #2

Homosassa #1Homosassa #2

Chassahowitzka Main

Tarpon Hole

Homosassa #3

Volusia Blue

DeLeon

Chassahowitzka #1

Marion SaltCypress \1

Alexander

Hunter

Jackson Blue \1

Silver Glen

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sodium-Sulfate Ratio

Sodium

Chloride

Sodium-Sulfate Ratio

1 Note: Jackson Blue and Cypress Springs have low chloride and sodium levels, are not tidally influenced, and not known to tap 

mineralized water yet their sodium-sulfate ratio is atypical compared to other freshwater springs. 

 (mg/L) (b) Springs less influenced by salinity 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Gainer #3

Gainer #1C

Gainer #2

Wacissa #2

Blue Hole

Rainbow

#4

Morrison

Mission

Big

Spring

Wakulla

Rainbow

#1

Apopka

Fern Hammock

Wekiwa

Juniper

Weeki Wachee

Lafayette Blue

Bubbling

Devil's Ear

Rock

Madison Blue

Ichetucknee Head

Troy

Fanning

Falmouth

Lithia Major

Mill Pond

Silver Spring

Hornsby

Manatee

Rainbow

#6

Blue Grotto

Reception Hall

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sodium-Sulfate Ratio

Sodium

Chloride

Sodium-Sulfate Ratio

Figure 12: Salinity Influence on Select Springs as Indicated by Sodium-Sulfate Ratio 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

33 

Cypress and Jackson Blue Spring have anomalously higher Na-SO4 ratios than expected 

because neither is tidally influenced and not known to tap mineralized water. Both springs are 

located relatively close together in the northern panhandle region and may be expressing a 

distinctive ground water chemistry that could be naturally occurring or influenced in some way 

by anthropogenic sources. As expected, the specific conductance of the more saline springs is 

higher than what is typically found in freshwater. 

Sodium, chloride, specific conductance and sulfate concentrations for the springs in the 

monitoring network are shown in Tables 9 and 10. The salinity-influenced springs that are also 

tidally influenced were found to have high variation in concentrations of sodium, chloride and 

other salinity indicators. Most of the tidally influenced springs with elevated sodium and chloride 

concentrations also had a higher sodium-sulfate ratio (Figure 12). The tidally influenced 

springs, based on these parameters, include Spring Creek #2 and the majority of the network 

springs in the Springs Coast Basin (Chassahowitzka Spring Main, Tarpon Hole, Homosassa #1, 

#2, and #3, Chassahowitzka #1, and Hunter Springs). 

Springs with decreases in sodium (by 3 mg/L or more when comparing the 2000-2005 median 

and the 2006 concentration) include DeLeon, Volusia Blue, Silver Glen, and Alexander Springs. 

Springs that had notable decreases in chloride medians (by 2 mg/L or more) include DeLeon, 

Spring Creek #1, Volusia Blue, Silver Glen and Marion Salt. Decreases in salinity indicators 

were noted for several springs in the Middle St. Johns Basin. These could be due to the dilution 

created by aquifer recharge during wetter climatic periods. 

Ground Water – Surface Water Interaction 

Ground water residing in the aquifer for years to decades is often the primary source of spring 

water. However, some springs have greater contributions from water that was much more 

recently rainwater or surface water. Several indicator analytes can be used to evaluate the 

relative inputs of water that was more recently surface water or rain water. 

Low dissolved oxygen (DO) is a normal characteristic of ground water and is understandably a 

typical characteristic of spring water, however there is a wide range in DO concentrations in 

springs across the state. Springs that have greater recent surface and rain water contributions 

and those that have more local recharge generally have DO concentrations that are higher than 

typical for ground water. Many springs that have continuously higher-than-typical DO 

concentrations are shallow, have shallow flow systems and receive a lot of recharge from local 

precipitation. High DO can also occur in springs in or adjacent to rivers. These springs may 

have DO concentrations that fluctuate based on precipitation and river stage. During normal 

conditions, the discharge from these springs closely resembles ground water in water quality. 

However, in response to river stage rises during wetter periods or after significant storm events, 

some of these springs can reverse flow and receive surface water and for a time afterward 

discharge water that is more like surface water in chemical composition than ground water. 

This can also occur for some tidal springs that on occasion can receive surface water during 

high tide. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

34 

Table 9: Sodium and Chloride in Spring Network (2001-2006) min median max min median max min median max

minmedianmax

Apalachicola - Chipola Basin

Jackson Blue Spring 1.5 1.79 2.1 1.75 1.86 2 3.7 4.3 4.6 4.2 4.25 4.4

Choctawhatatchee - St. Andrew Basin

Cypress Spring 2.32 3.1 3.8 2.75 2.89 3.1 3.1 4 4.8 3.6 3.75 4

Gainer Spring #1C 1.4 1.645 2.2 1.79 1.825 1.89 2.5 2.9 3.2 2.9 2.9 3

Gainer Spring #2 1.2 1.57 2.3 1.54 1.67 1.71 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.7

Gainer Spring #3 1.5 1.785 2.4 1.96 1.975 2.01 2.9 3.25 3.6 3.2 3.4 3.5

Morrison Spring 1.7 1.855 1.9 1.88 1.88 1.9 2.5 2.75 3 2.7 2.8 2.8

Middle St. Johns Basin

Alexander Springs 110 133 153 125 130 138 210 240 270 230 240 260

DeLeon Spring 67.7 98.5 158 67.7 72.45 98.5 130 180 250 130 135 180

Fern Hammock Springs 2.3 2.715 2.9 2.67 2.815 2.9 4 4.3 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.5

Juniper Springs 2.2 2.63 2.86 2.76 2.81 2.86 4 4.4 4.6 4.2 4.4 4.5

Marion Salt Springs 982 1200 1360 1050 1220 1360 1800 2300 2500 1900 2200 2500

Rock Springs 4.4 5.2 5.76 5.42 5.585 5.76 8.1 8.9 9.4 9.1 9.3 9.4

Silver Glen Springs 207 252.5 285 216 247 257 380 450 480 380 420 480

Volusia Blue Spring 97.2 154.5 228 121 140 211 160 280 420 230 255 390

Wekiwa Spring 8.4 9.78 10.5 9.6 10.05 10.3 14 16 17 16 16 17

Ochlockonee - St. Marks

Spring Creek Rise #1 300 2170 6530 1100 1100 1100 520 3000 12000 1900 1900 1900

Spring Creek Rise #2 182 1020.5 5590 306 2633 4960 330 1800 9800 500 5000 9500

Wakulla Spring 4.4 5.3 7.35 5.33 5.82 7.35 7.6 8 11 8 8.65 11

Ocklawaha Basin

Apopka Spring 4.94 5.695 6.04 5.57 5.965 6.03 12 13 15 13 13 14

Blue Grotto Spring 5.4 6.565 7.39 6.66 7.205 7.39 8.9 11 12 11 11 12

Reception Hall Spring 5.7 6.72 7.41 6.75 7.27 7.41 8.8 11 12 11 11 11

Silver Spring Main 5 6.45 7 6.41 6.575 6.72 9 10 11 9.6 10 10

Springs Coast Basin

Chassahowitzka Spring #1 31.5 65.95 162 58 124 152 61 125 290 97 235 280

Chassahowitzka Spring Main 51 210.5 564 216 458 564 87 365 1000 380 840 1000

Homosassa Spring #1 391 587.5 855 544 619.5 772 680 1050 1600 980 1100 1400

Homosassa Spring #2 830 985.5 1140 903 1045 1090 1500 1850 2100 1600 1850 1900

Homosassa Spring #3 113 194 359 118 258 332 210 350 650 210 465 610

Hunter Spring 14.4 33.15 56.3 34.2 45.1 56.3 26 61.5 110 55 80 110

Tarpon Hole Spring 113 267.5 988 203 416 988 200 515 1800 330 775 1800

Weeki Wachee Main Spring 3.6 4.295 5.24 4.47 4.955 5.24 6.7 7.55 8 7.7 7.9 8

Suwannee River Basin

Big Spring 2.9 3.33 5 3.44 3.445 3.9 5 5.4 6 5.2 5.4 5.6

Blue Hole Spring 2.67 3.005 3.54 2.97 3.17 3.54 4.3 4.9 5.5 4.8 4.9 5

Devil's Ear Spring 3.15 3.615 5.1 3.52 3.615 4.08 6.3 6.75 8.7 6.3 6.6 7.1

Falmouth Spring * 2.47 2.63 2.72 2.47 2.595 2.72 4.1 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Fanning Springs 4.15 5.42 6.39 5.42 5.65 5.83 8.3 10 12 10 10 11

Hornsby Spring * 8.46 8.52 8.55 8.52 8.535 8.55 12 13 13 13 13 13

Ichetucknee Head Spring 2.1 2.3 2.76 2.4 2.62 2.76 3.6 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.45 4.5

Lafayette Blue Spring 4.2 4.88 6.8 4.96 5.64 5.68 7.9 8.7 12 8.6 9.7 10

Madison Blue Spring 2.77 3.275 4.4 3.04 3.38 3.67 4.7 5.5 6.7 5.3 5.4 5.9

Manatee Spring 3.69 4.19 4.85 4.28 4.39 4.85 7.2 8.25 9 8.2 8.7 9

Mill Pond Spring 4.3 4.97 6.08 4.81 5.085 5.58 6.8 7.2 8.1 6.8 7.05 7.2

Mission Spring 3.5 3.75 4.51 3.75 4.015 4.51 5.4 5.9 6.3 5.6 5.75 5.9

Troy Spring 2.68 3.1 3.9 3.1 3.37 3.5 5.3 5.8 7.3 5.5 5.9 6.1

Wacissa Spring #2 2.79 3.23 3.83 3.32 3.4 3.83 4.8 5.1 5.6 5 5.2 5.5

Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin

Lithia Springs Major 12.6 15.3 18.3 14.3 15.2 16 26 32 35 29 30.5 32

Withlacoochee Basin

Bubbling Spring 2.6 3.21 3.5 3.15 3.33 3.34 5.2 6 6.4 5.7 6 6.1

Rainbow Spring #1 2 2.525 2.78 2.67 2.725 2.78 3.6 4.2 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.8

Rainbow Spring #4 2.2 2.8 3.06 2.82 2.945 3.06 4.2 4.95 5.4 5.3 5.35 5.4

Rainbow Spring #6 2.89 3.9 4.22 4.09 4.215 4.22 4.8 6.9 7.3 6.9 7.2 7.3

Values in red are higher than the Springs Initiative network median of 4.97 mg/L for sodium and 8.6 mg/L for chloride.

2001-2006 2006

Total Sodium (mg/L) (929) Total Chloride (mg/L) (940)

BASIN & SPRING NAME

2001-2006 2006
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

35 

Table 10: Specific Conductance and Sulfate in Spring Network (2001-2006) min median max min median max min median max min

medianmax

Apalachicola - Chipola Basin

Jackson Blue Spring 238 249 270 247 254 263 0.92 1.2 1.4 0.99 1.15 1.2

Choctawhatatchee - St. Andrew Basin

Cypress Spring 208 215 232 215 217.5 232 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3

Gainer Spring #1C 117 138 160 136 139.5 142 2.3 2.45 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.5

Gainer Spring #2 108 115 143 117 117.5 121 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.5

Gainer Spring #3 114 121.5 130 124 125.5 129 2 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.15 2.2

Morrison Spring 200 221.5 241 223 227 241 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4

Middle St. Johns Basin

Alexander Springs 928 1050 1160 990 1080 1140 56 62 68 62 62 64

DeLeon Spring 699 853 1180 699 765 853 24 33 41 24 25.5 33

Fern Hammock Springs 111 114 120 111 114 120 5 5.55 5.9 5 5.55 5.9

Juniper Springs 109 113.5 122 112 115.5 122 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.5 5.75 5.9

Marion Salt Springs 6300 7800 8120 6350 7695 8120 400 500 540 400 475 540

Rock Springs 246 254 276 248 262.5 276 18 19 19 18 19 19

Silver Glen Springs 1540 1905 2050 1540 1925 1970 150 170 180 150 165 170

Volusia Blue Spring 848 1240 1780 1030 1235 1600 29 44.5 67 37 41 58

Wekiwa Spring 327 339 362 331 347 362 20 21 22 21 21.5 22

Ochlockonee - St. Marks

Spring Creek Rise #1 2100 8980 31900 6240 6240 6240 85 410 1600 270 270 270

Spring Creek Rise #2 1400 5250 34400 1800 18100 34400 59 250 1300 77 688.5 1300

Wakulla Spring 286 306 360 303 308.5 323 9 10 12 10 10.5 12

Ocklawaha Basin

Apopka Spring 243 249.5 268 249 256.5 268 10 11 12 11 11 11

Blue Grotto Spring 440 461 518 491 504 518 59 63.5 82 68 69 70

Reception Hall Spring 460 502 534 493 509.5 521 57 72.5 82 67 68.5 72

Silver Spring Main 430 451 510 440 446.5 462 21 30.5 65 21 24.5 26

Springs Coast Basin

Chassahowitzka Spring #1 504 782 1590 620 1150 1300 14 24 46 19 38 45

Chassahowitzka Spring Main 590 1540 3880 1540 3155 3820 18 56.5 150 59 120 150

Homosassa Spring #1 2560 3760 5200 3310 3860 4910 100 150 220 140 155 190

Homosassa Spring #2 4920 6090 7030 5340 6050 6700 210 260 300 230 245 280

Homosassa Spring #3 922 1415 12200 922 2170 12200 33 54 96 34 68 85

Hunter Spring 287 417 598 378 462 598 12 16.5 22 15 17.5 22

Tarpon Hole Spring 943 2010 6620 1430 2765 6620 30 72.5 250 49 105.5 250

Weeki Wachee Main Spring 293 317 341 327 332 341 8.8 10 11 10 10 10

Suwannee River Basin

Big Spring 298 326 370 328 335.5 339 5.5 6.2 6.6 6.2 6.25 6.6

Blue Hole Spring 287 297.5 309 293 304 309 4.2 4.7 28 4.3 4.4 4.6

Devil's Ear Spring 356 371.5 388 372 383.5 388 12 13 15 12 12 13

Falmouth Spring * 396 400 400 396 398 400 11 11 11 11 11 11

Fanning Springs 440 475 498 483 488 490 19 21 23 22 22 23

Hornsby Spring * 434 436 490 434 435 436 40 42 83 40 41 42

Ichetucknee Head Spring 305 320 340 327 334 340 8.2 8.7 9.3 8.2 8.55 8.8

Lafayette Blue Spring 416 428.5 454 447 450 454 10 13 14 13 13 14

Madison Blue Spring 268 282 309 286 290 291 9.8 12 17 12 12 13

Manatee Spring 452 474.5 528 473 483 497 24 32.5 42 31 33 35

Mill Pond Spring 337 350 363 345 348 356 19 23 29 19 21 23

Mission Spring 283 304 311 304 307 309 5.3 6.9 8.7 5.3 5.7 5.9

Troy Spring 266 362 388 374 383.5 388 11 12 13 12 12 13

Wacissa Spring #2 230 267 300 258 280 285 3.9 5 5.3 5 5 5.3

Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin

Lithia Springs Major 464 500.5 532 464 488.5 517 51 70 88 51 66.5 67

Withlacoochee Basin

Bubbling Spring 314 332.5 357 323 332 348 7.6 8.6 10 7.6 7.8 8

Rainbow Spring #1 133 151 161 144 156 160 4.4 4.8 5.2 4.8 4.85 4.9

Rainbow Spring #4 237 250 267 244 258 264 4.5 5.05 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.1

Rainbow Spring #6 234 331 355 321 339.5 355 8.5 37 44 34 36 36

Values in red are higher than the Springs Initiative network median 16.5 mg/L for sulfate and surface water criteria of 1275 uS/cm for specific conductance.

2001-2006

BASIN & SPRING NAME

2001-2006 2006 2006

Specific Conductance (uS/cm) (94) Total Sulfate(mg/L) (945)
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

36 

The medians for DO in network springs are summarized in Table 11 and are plotted relative to 

typical spring and surface water DO concentrations in Figure 13. Springs with the highest DO 

concentrations (greater than 5 mg/L) include Jackson Blue, Rainbow Spring #1, Juniper, Fern 

Hammock, Rainbow #6, Rainbow #4, and Hunter Springs. These springs are presumably under 

significant surface water influence and/or receive rapid recharge from local precipitation. Eight 

springs have DO concentrations less than 1 mg/L. These include Big, Lafayette Blue, Rock, 

Falmouth, Mission, Mill Pond, Volusia Blue, Troy, DeLeon, Wekiwa, and Hornsby Springs. 

These data suggest that ground water is usually the predominant source of water to them and 

their interaction with local sources of recharge is somewhat dampened, perhaps by a confining 

geologic unit. 

One issue that becomes apparent upon review of the DO data is that for some springs, the 

maximum values are sometimes significantly greater than the median DO values. This type of 

variation could indicate that although the primary source water may be ground water, there 

could be times when significant surface water fluxes occur. Temporary anthropogenic effects 

on DO can even occur at springs frequented by recreational scuba divers in instances where 

the spring retains the diver’s expended oxygen. This may explain why DO in Volusia Blue 

Spring, a spring frequented by divers, has been as high as 6.7 mg/L in comparison to its 

median, which is less than 1.0 mg/L. 

Evaluating other indicators can help in understanding the sources of water and vulnerability to 

contamination in springs. Figure 14 shows the total dissolved solids (TDS), calcium and sulfate 

medians for network springs relative to one another. Medians for TDS, calcium and sulfate are 

also presented in Tables 10 through 12. The springs at the top of the chart are significantly 

influenced by fresh surface water; in the center the predominant influence is ground water and 

those at the bottom are influenced by either modern seawater or deep saline ground water. The 

elevated TDS and sulfate concentrations that indicate saline water influence are notable for 

some of the coastal springs and those in the area of mineralized ground water near the St. 

Johns River, which is consistent with sodium and chloride concentrations. Some of the springs 

with low DO also have elevated concentrations of calcium and sulfate, suggesting a chemical 

signature consistent with the Upper Floridan aquifer, whereas others have higher DO 

concentrations and corresponding lower sulfate, calcium and TDS, more characteristic of fresh 

surface waters. 

Median values for several other indicators of surface water influence are provided in this report. 

These include turbidity (Table 12); color and total organic carbon (Table 13); and pH and fecal 

coliform bacteria (Table 14). The concentration and variability of these ground water–surface 

water interaction indicators might be useful in identifying springs that are more readily or least 

likely to be influenced by surface water or direct recharge from rainfall. Median and maximum 

values for turbidity and total organic carbon were relatively low for all network springs with the 

exception of Spring Creek Rise #1 and #2. Spring Creek Rise #1 and #2 were among the few 

springs that had notable fluctuations in color and pH, which like DO, suggests a fluctuation 

between water sources. High levels of color and total organic carbon with corresponding low 

pH can indicate that tannic surface water such as a swamp or blackwater stream is an 

intermittent source of water to the spring. 

There were significant fluctuations in fecal coliform counts for many of the network springs as 

shown in Table 14 when comparing median to maximum coliform values. The median values 

for fecal coliform were below detection for most of the network springs. The maximum values 

for several springs were expressed as intermittent small spikes in fecal coliform counts that are 

not unusual for natural surface waters and not necessarily indicative of a contaminant source. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

37 

Table 11: Dissolved Oxygen and Calcium in Spring Network (2001-2006) min median max min median max min median max min

medianmax

Apalachicola - Chipola Basin

Jackson Blue Spring 0 7.08 9.38 6 6.555 6.75 41.4 46.1 19.2 44.2 47.9 48.8

Choctawhatatchee - St. Andrew Basin

Cypress Spring 3.87 4.615 5.25 3.87 4.365 4.78 30.8 36.3 38 36.2 37.35 38

Gainer Spring #1C 1.33 1.72 2.95 1.33 1.45 1.74 17.9 22.9 34.6 22.1 22.95 23.4

Gainer Spring #2 1.65 2.05 3.04 1.65 1.99 2.58 15.8 18.25 23.7 17.7 18.6 19.1

Gainer Spring #3 1.42 1.825 2.59 1.42 1.625 1.86 17.1 18.65 20.8 19.2 19.7 20.8

Morrison Spring 2.76 3.08 3.71 2.76 2.9 3.08 30.8 33.8 34.8 33.7 33.9 34.8

Middle St. Johns Basin

Alexander Springs 0.92 1.13 1.56 1.12 1.205 1.39 39.2 46.3 148 44.1 45.8 48.5

DeLeon Spring 0.17 0.38 2.14 0.17 0.26 1.14 50.8 54.8 72.7 53.2 53.8 55.4

Fern Hammock Springs 5.44 6.145 6.61 5.44 5.165 6.61 12.4 13.15 22.5 13 13.5 22.5

Juniper Springs 5.86 6.22 7.67 5.86 6.015 6.21 10.9 13.6 14.5 13.7 14.1 14.5

Marion Salt Springs 2.23 2.56 3.92 2.23 2.345 2.55 160 197 219 182 196 219

Rock Springs 0.67 0.88 1.51 0.69 0.78 1.04 30.2 31.5 33.8 31.5 32.45 33.8

Silver Glen Springs 2.03 2.775 4.1 2.56 2.625 3.04 62.7 72.95 79.1 67.2 73 74.6

Volusia Blue Spring 0.27 0.55 6.7 0.3 0.43 0.63 56.1 63.65 76.4 63.6 69.3 76.4

Wekiwa Spring 0.18 0.35 0.58 0.18 0.26 0.3 39.6 43 61.5 42.7 43.05 43.6

Ochlockonee - St. Marks

Spring Creek Rise #1 0.2 2.005 8.94 1.36 1.36 1.36 52.5 118.25 264 80.7 80.7 80.7

Spring Creek Rise #2 0.12 1.36 7.48 1.27 2.12 2.97 41.4 78.6 234 53.5 141.75 230

Wakulla Spring 1.17 1.92 4.78 1.17 1.485 1.92 38.1 44.3 46.7 42 45.65 46.7

Ocklawaha Basin

Apopka Spring 2.01 2.105 2.79 2.01 2.09 2.11 29 31.5 32.4 31.3 32.4 32.4

Blue Grotto Spring 2.77 3.61 6.08 3.59 3.645 4.08 67.30 75.5 94.2 81.3 84.1 94.2

Reception Hall Spring 2.93 3.57 5.99 3.34 3.575 3.73 71.9 80.75 91.5 85.5 86.05 86.8

Silver Spring Main 1.18 1.67 2.45 1.18 1.37 1.67 73.1 77.4 81.2 78.3 79.65 81.2

Springs Coast Basin

Chassahowitzka Spring #1 3.9 4.48 5.76 4.22 4.385 4.56 48.5 54.3 60.9 54.4 56.85 60.9

Chassahowitzka Spring Main 2.63 4.31 5.6 4.02 4.275 4.43 49.9 59.2 75.1 60.5 72.3 75.1

Homosassa Spring #1 3.1 3.805 4.74 3.48 3.56 3.76 54.6 62.15 340 58.3 63.25 74

Homosassa Spring #2 1.78 3.67 5.52 3.2 3.415 3.54 70.7 80.3 88.9 77.7 80.3 88.9

Homosassa Spring #3 3.28 4.1 5.4 3.59 3.95 4.14 36.8 43.8 53.4 40.1 48.65 53.4

Hunter Spring 4.03 5.11 6 4.73 4.935 5.15 28.6 30.8 35.2 31.1 33.8 35.2

Tarpon Hole Spring 1.78 2.425 2.98 2.33 2.335 2.44 43.5 52.85 88.7 49.9 62.8 88.7

Weeki Wachee Main Spring 1.11 1.56 2.13 1.11 1.4 1.71 48.2 52.2 59.1 52.4 56.5 59.1

Suwannee River Basin

Big Spring 0.75 0.975 2.95 0.75 0.85 1.36 48.5 54.25 67.8 55.3 57.1 58.1

Blue Hole Spring 1.26 1.83 2.76 1.85 1.955 2.14 47.9 53.95 56.8 52.5 55.5 56.8

Devil's Ear Spring 2.37 3.42 5.21 3.55 3.725 5.21 62 66.7 70.3 67.5 69.55 70.3

Falmouth Spring 0.58 0.64 1.28 0.58 0.61 0.64 62.8 63.1 67.3 62.8 65.05 67.3

Fanning Springs 0.75 2.04 2.63 1.87 1.97 2.1 77.7 85.8 105 88 89.6 91.6

Hornsby Spring 0.29 0.3 0.47 0.29 0.295 0.3 72.6 72.9 74.3 72.6 72.75 72.9

Ichetucknee Head Spring 3.25 3.53 4.81 3.37 3.445 3.81 47.4 57.6 70.3 60.8 61.6 63.4

Lafayette Blue Spring 0.52 0.96 1.97 0.76 1 1.2 67.2 72.75 76.7 73.5 75 75.1

Madison Blue Spring 1.01 1.94 2.34 1.94 2.03 2.03 39.3 42.3 47.1 41.3 44.4 47.1

Manatee Spring 1.03 1.565 3.09 1.11 1.31 1.35 82.4 89.05 97.1 89.9 93.5 95.8

Mill Pond Spring 0.21 0.61 2.61 0.38 0.59 0.61 52.6 56.8 59.6 54.2 57.1 58.4

Mission Spring 0.35 0.63 1.48 0.59 0.655 0.77 47.1 50.8 55.9 50.3 53.6 55.9

Troy Spring 0.29 0.53 2.1 0.49 0.53 0.72 37.6 64.5 70.8 64.5 68.2 70.8

Wacissa Spring #2 2.17 2.71 5.55 2.48 2.775 2.97 35.8 41.7 46 42.7 44 46

Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin

Lithia Springs Major 1.66 2.02 2.98 1.66 1.755 2.17 64.1 71 78.8 69.3 71 72.1

Withlacoochee Basin

Bubbling Spring 3.94 4.45 7.38 3.94 4.305 4.36 49.6 58.2 66.5 58.2 58.45 59.1

Rainbow Spring #1 5.68 6.58 7.02 5.68 6.36 6.58 18.7 22.45 24.8 22.3 22.8 24

Rainbow Spring #4 4 5.17 6.01 4 4.76 5.05 38.1 42.55 67.4 41.9 44.15 67.4

Rainbow Spring #6 4.75 5.74 7.19 5.35 5.685 5.71 38.1 54.4 60.1 54.4 57.25 60.1

Values in red are higher than the Springs Initiative network median of 54.3 mg/L for calcium and surface water criteria of 5 mg/L for DO.

2006

BASIN & SPRING NAME

2001-2006 2006 2001-2006

Dissolved Oxygen (299) Total Calcium (916)
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

38 

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

Hornsby

Wekiwa

DeLeon

Troy

Volusia Blue

Mill Pond

Mission

Falmouth

Rock

Lafayette Blue

Big Spring

Alexander

Spring Creek #2

Weeki Wachee

Manatee

Silver Spring

Gainer #1C

Gainer #3

Blue Hole

Wakulla

Madison Blue

Spring Creek #1

Lithia Major

Fanning

Gainer #2

Apopka

Tarpon Hole

Marion Salt

Wacissa #2

Silver Glen

Morrison

Devil's Ear

Ichetucknee Head

Reception Hall

Blue Grotto

Homosassa #2

Homosassa #1

Homosassa #3

Chassahowitzka Main

Bubbling

Chassahowitzka #1

Cypress

Hunter

Rainbow #4

Rainbow #6

Fern Hammock

Juniper

Rainbow #1

Jackson Blue

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Figure 13: Plot of Median Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Network Springs 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

39 

1.E+001.E+011.E+021.E+031.E+04

Fern Hammock

Gainer #2

Juniper

Gainer #3

Gainer #1C

Rainbow #1

Cypress

Morrison

Rainbow #4

Apopka

Rock

Jackson Blue

Wacissa #2

Madison Blue

Blue Hole

Mission

Weeki Wachee

Wakulla

Big Spring

Ichteucknee Head

Bubbling

Wekiwa

Rainbow #6

Mill Pond

Troy

Hunter

Devil's Ear

Falmouth

Lafayette Blue

Silver Spring

Fanning

Manatee

Blue Grotto

Hornsby

Reception Hall

Lithia Major

Chassahowitzka #1

DeLeon

Alexander

Volusia Blue

Homosassa #3

Chassahowitzka

Tarpon Hole

Silver Glen

Homosassa #1

Spring Creek #2

Homosassa #2

Marion Salt

Spring Creek #1

TDS, Sulfate and Calcium Log 

(Total as mg/L)

Figure 14: Plot of Median Total Dissolved Solids, Sulfate and Calcium Concentrations in 

Network Springs 

Surface Water Influence 

Ground Water Influence 

Saline Water Influence 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

40 

Table 12: Total Dissolved Solids and Turbidity in Spring Network (2001-2006) min median max min median max min median max min median

max

Apalachicola - Chipola Basin

Jackson Blue Spring 125 145 173 125 136.5 147 0.025 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.175 1.7

Choctawhatatchee - St. Andrew Basin

Cypress Spring 102 120.5 143 102 113.5 130 0.025 0.1 0.75 0.05 0.125 0.15

Gainer Spring #1C 68 79 125 69 76 125 0.025 0.2 6.6 0.1 0.125 1.2

Gainer Spring #2 50 66 82 58 65.5 68 0.1 0.15 0.65 0.1 0.225 0.4

Gainer Spring #3 58 67.5 74 60 68.5 71 0.025 0.15 0.45 0.1 0.225 0.4

Morrison Spring 106 124 132 106 109 126 0.025 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.1 0.1

Middle St. Johns Basin

Alexander Springs 498 538 601 529 533 541 0.025 0.1 4.1 0.05 0.1 0.35

DeLeon Spring 328 446 620 328 367.5 446 0.15 0.55 0.8 0.45 0.5 0.7

Fern Hammock Springs 55 65 78 61 67 78 0.15 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.225 0.6

Juniper Springs 53 66 76 58 65 75 0.05 0.15 0.4 0.1 0.125 0.2

Marion Salt Springs 3440 4360 4560 3570 4085 4560 0.2 0.35 0.7 0.25 0.325 0.7

Rock Springs 132 142.5 155 140 144 155 0.025 0.15 0.3 0.15 0.2 0.3

Silver Glen Springs 854 1020 1060 854 1020 1060 0.025 0.1 0.35 0.1 0.1 0.25

Volusia Blue Spring 396 640 898 531 574.5 816 0.05 0.25 19 0.1 0.35 19

Wekiwa Spring 175 188 201 186 193 201 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.125 0.2

Ochlockonee - St. Marks

Spring Creek Rise #1 1120 4895 20000 3380 3380 3380 0.3 1 2 0.59 0.59 0.59

Spring Creek Rise #2 767 2890 16700 976 8338 15700 0.1 0.65 2.8 0.6 1.7 2.8

Wakulla Spring 160 175 187 160 169.5 178 0.025 0.15 1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Ocklawaha Basin

Apopka Spring 122 138 159 122 135.5 144 0.10 0.225 0.6 0.1 0.175 0.25

Blue Grotto Spring 217 273 301 217 287 301 0.025 0.1 0.45 0.05 0.1 0.3

Reception Hall Spring 277 301 319 306 307.5 319 0.025 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.125 0.15

Silver Spring Main 199 259 302 229 243.5 257 0.025 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.245 0.5

Springs Coast Basin

Chassahowitzka Spring #1 267 396 843 321 553.5 651 0.025 0.1 0.45 0.05 0.175 0.25

Chassahowitzka Spring Main 310 825 2100 825 1615 1950 0.1 0.25 1.3 0.15 0.25 0.3

Homosassa Spring #1 1310 2000 2940 1800 2030 2460 0.55 1.2 7.2 1 1.2 1.9

Homosassa Spring #2 2710 3220 4080 2970 3220 3620 0.5 1.9 3 1 1.55 3

Homosassa Spring #3 480 727 1260 511 938 1140 0.15 0.325 0.9 0.2 0.35 0.45

Hunter Spring 143 206 302 196 230.5 294 0.025 0.1 1.3 0.05 0.125 0.25

Tarpon Hole Spring 488 983 3250 744 1450 3250 0.25 0.5 6.8 0.5 0.725 1

Weeki Wachee Main Spring 150 174 190 170 182 186 0.025 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

Suwannee River Basin

Big Spring 166 182 221 166 180 187 0.1 0.25 13 0.2 0.25 0.25

Blue Hole Spring 149 167.5 203 150 155.5 164 0.025 0.15 1.4 0.15 0.225 0.4

Devil's Ear Spring 196 208.5 228 197 215.5 228 0.025 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.125 0.3

Falmouth Spring 204 209 210 204 206.5 209 0.25 0.3 0.3 0.25 0.275 0.3

Fanning Springs 254 268 323 254 257 276 0.05 0.25 1 0.1 0.25 1

Hornsby Spring 247 275 313 247 261 275 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.2

Ichetucknee Head Spring 164 182 204 164 179 184 0.025 0.2 2.7 0.1 0.175 0.35

Lafayette Blue Spring 222 238.5 263 238 239 248 0.1 0.375 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.35

Madison Blue Spring 147 158 171 147 151 160 0.15 0.25 0.95 0.15 0.2 0.25

Manatee Spring 251 272.5 304 251 271 283 0.2 0.3 1 0.2 0.45 1

Mill Pond Spring 168 198 244 189 195.5 199 0.025 0.15 0.55 0.1 0.15 0.45

Mission Spring 151 170 178 151 166 178 0.025 0.1 0.45 0.1 0.125 0.25

Troy Spring 171 203 214 196 213 214 0.025 0.2 2.7 0.1 0.2 0.25

Wacissa Spring #2 136 153 195 136 150 157 0.05 0.25 1.1 0.25 0.45 1.1

Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin

Lithia Springs Major 264 306.5 317 266 282.5 309 0.025 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.2

Withlacoochee Basin

Bubbling Spring 155 183 200 155 171 180 0.025 0.1 0.25 0.05 0.175 0.25

Rainbow Spring #1 68 83 102 69 80.5 96 0.025 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.125 0.15

Rainbow Spring #4 127 135 146 127 136.5 146 0.025 0.1 1.6 0.05 0.2 0.25

Rainbow Spring #6 125 190 207 175 184.5 203 0.025 0.1 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.15

Values in red are higher than Total Dissolved Solids statewide median for Springs Initiative stations of 202.5 mg/L and 

Turbidity threshold of 29 mg/L based on surface water criteria for Class I Potable and Class III Fresh waters

Total Dissolved Solids (70300) Turbidity (76)

BASIN & SPRING NAME

2001-2006 2006 2001-2006 2006
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

41 

Table 13: Color and Total Organic Carbon in Spring Network (2001-2006) min median max min median max min median max min

medianmax

Apalachicola - Chipola Basin

Jackson Blue Spring 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 5 0.5 0.5 4.6 0.5 0.5 0.5

Choctawhatatchee - St. Andrew Basin

Cypress Spring 2.5 2.5 30 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Gainer Spring #1C 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 3.75 5 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5

Gainer Spring #2 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 5 5 0.5 0.5 5.1 0.5 0.5 0.5

Gainer Spring #3 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 3.75 5 0.5 0.5 2.6 0.5 0.5 0.5

Morrison Spring 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Middle St. Johns Basin

Alexander Springs 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 5 0.5 0.5 2.3 0.5 0.5 0.5

DeLeon Spring 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 5 5 0.5 1.3 2 0.5 1.2 1.4

Fern Hammock Springs 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 3.75 5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Juniper Springs 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Marion Salt Springs 2.5 2.5 10 5 5 5 0.5 1 1.3 1 1 1

Rock Springs 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 5 5 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5

Silver Glen Springs 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 3.75 5 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5

Volusia Blue Spring 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 5 10 0.5 1.7 2.5 0.5 1.55 1.7

Wekiwa Spring 2.5 2.5 5 5 5 5 0.5 1.2 1.7 0.5 1.2 1.2

Ochlockonee - St. Marks

Spring Creek Rise #1 2.5 55 200 60 60 60 1.6 6.1 16 6.3 6.3 6.3

Spring Creek Rise #2 2.5 60 200 20 40 60 1.7 5.4 16 3.8 5.4 7

Wakulla Spring 2.5 5 30 2.5 3.75 10 0.5 0.5 2.9 0.5 0.5 1.1

Ocklawaha Basin

Apopka Spring 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 2.5 5 0.50 0.5 2.7 0.5 0.5 0.5

Blue Grotto Spring 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.50 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5

Reception Hall Spring 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Silver Spring Main 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.5

Springs Coast Basin

Chassahowitzka Spring #1 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 5 5 0.5 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.5

Chassahowitzka Spring Main 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 3.75 5 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5

Homosassa Spring #1 2.5 2.5 20 5 5 10 0.5 1 3.1 0.5 0.8 1.2

Homosassa Spring #2 2.5 2.5 15 5 7.5 15 0.5 1.1 3.3 1 1.25 2.5

Homosassa Spring #3 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 3.75 5 0.5 1.05 2.9 0.5 0.75 1.1

Hunter Spring 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 3.75 5 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5

Tarpon Hole Spring 2.5 2.5 10 5 5 5 0.5 0.5 1.4 0.5 0.5 1

Weeki Wachee Main Spring 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Suwannee River Basin

Big Spring 2.5 2.5 30 2.5 5 5 0.5 0.5 3.2 0.5 0.5 1.1

Blue Hole Spring 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5

Devil's Ear Spring 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 3.75 10 0.5 0.5 2.2 0.5 0.5 2.2

Falmouth Spring 2.5 5 5 5 5 5 0.5 1.1 1.8 0.5 0.8 1.1

Fanning Springs 2.5 2.5 5 5 5 5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Hornsby Spring 2.5 10 10 10 10 10 1 1.5 2 1.5 1.75 2

Ichetucknee Head Spring 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lafayette Blue Spring 2.5 5 40 5 5 5 0.5 1.55 5.2 1.2 1.4 1.5

Madison Blue Spring 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 5 5 0.5 0.5 3 0.5 0.5 0.5

Manatee Spring 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 5 5 0.5 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.5 1.1

Mill Pond Spring 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 5 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5

Mission Spring 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 2.5 5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Troy Spring 2.5 5 60 5 5 5 0.5 0.5 7.8 0.5 0.5 0.5

Wacissa Spring #2 2.5 2.5 40 2.5 5 10 0.5 0.5 4.2 0.5 0.5 1.1

Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin

Lithia Springs Major 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 5 5 0.5 0.5 2.7 0.5 0.5 0.5

Withlacoochee Basin

Bubbling Spring 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 5 5 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5

Rainbow Spring #1 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 5 5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Rainbow Spring #4 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 2.5 5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Rainbow Spring #6 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 5 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5

Values in red are higher than the Color threshold of 20 Pt-co based on current official application of the Lake Condition Index

 and Total Organic Carbon statewide median for Springs Initiative stations of 0.5 mg/L

Color (81) Total Organic Carbon (680)

BASIN & SPRING NAME

2001-2006 2006 2001-2006 2006
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

42 

Table 14: pH and Fecal Coliform in Spring Network (2001-2006) min median max min median max min median max

minmedianmax

Apalachicola - Chipola Basin

Jackson Blue Spring 7.17 7.525 8.06 7.3 7.4 7.6 0 0 6 0 0.5 2

Choctawhatatchee - St. Andrew Basin

Cypress Spring 7.35 7.69 7.82 7.5 7.65 7.8 0 0 2 0 0 1

Gainer Spring #1C 7.58 8.02 8.57 7.7 8.05 8.2 0 0 20 0 0 1

Gainer Spring #2 7.58 8.19 8.78 7.8 8.05 8.2 0 0 18 0 0 1

Gainer Spring #3 7.68 8.15 8.78 7.9 8 8.2 0 0 12 0 0 1

Morrison Spring 7.4 7.6 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.9 0 0 1 0 0 1

Middle St. Johns Basin

Alexander Springs 7.32 7.7 7.87 7.6 7.65 7.8 0 0 1 0 0 0

DeLeon Spring 7.14 7.32 7.56 7.2 7.35 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fern Hammock Springs 7.73 8 8.3 7.8 8 8.1 88 175 422 132 293 422

Juniper Springs 8 8.225 8.7 8.2 8.2 8.3 0 0 2 0 0 0

Marion Salt Springs 7 7.46 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rock Springs 7.13 7.585 7.8 7.5 7.5 7.8 0 0 4 0 0 0

Silver Glen Springs 7.43 7.735 7.92 7.7 7.75 7.8 0 0 1 0 0 0

Volusia Blue Spring 7.07 7.3 7.44 7.2 7.25 7.4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wekiwa Spring 6.83 7.21 7.5 7.1 7.2 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ochlockonee - St. Marks

Spring Creek Rise #1 6.83 7.23 7.91 7.2 7.2 7.2 0 0 8 0 0 0

Spring Creek Rise #2 6.84 7.22 7.75 7.1 7.35 7.6 0 2 8 1 1.5 2

Wakulla Spring 7.2 7.48 7.93 7.4 7.41 7.6 0 0 2 0 0.5 2

Ocklawaha Basin

Apopka Spring 7.51 7.82 8 7.6 7.75 8 0 0 30 0 0 0

Blue Grotto Spring 7.02 7.32 7.43 7.2 7.2 7.3 0 0 100 0 1 7

Reception Hall Spring 7 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.3 0 0 10 0 1 4

Silver Spring Main 6.99 7.28 7.4 7.2 7.25 7.4 0 0 24 0 0 0

Springs Coast Basin

Chassahowitzka Spring #1 7.28 7.5 8.08 7.3 7.4 7.5 0 0 22 0 0 4

Chassahowitzka Spring Main 7.29 7.48 7.75 7.4 7.4 7.4 0 0 70 0 0 0

Homosassa Spring #1 7.28 7.51 7.67 7.4 7.5 7.6 0 0 2 0 0 2

Homosassa Spring #2 7.1 7.445 7.62 7.4 7.4 7.6 0 0 2 0 0 2

Homosassa Spring #3 7.29 7.575 7.81 7.4 7.45 7.7 0 0 10 0 0 0

Hunter Spring 7.6 7.91 8.02 7.6 7.85 7.9 0 0 2 0 0 0

Tarpon Hole Spring 7.39 7.54 7.72 7.4 7.5 7.6 0 0 15 0 0 0

Weeki Wachee Main Spring 7.17 7.5 7.72 7.4 7.45 7.5 0 0 2 0 0 2

Suwannee River Basin

Big Spring 7 7.36 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.6 0 0 3200 0 3 44

Blue Hole Spring 7.14 7.495 7.72 7.3 7.5 7.5 0 0 8 0 0 0

Devil's Ear Spring 7.1 7.31 7.5 7.1 7.35 7.5 0 0 2 0 0 2

Falmouth Spring 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 0 4 74 0 2 4

Fanning Springs 6.97 7.1 7.35 7 7.05 7.3 0 0 10 0 0 8

Hornsby Spring 7.15 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 0 3 12 0 0 0

Ichetucknee Head Spring 7.2 7.43 7.91 7.3 7.35 7.6 0 0 5 0 0 0

Lafayette Blue Spring 6.9 7.115 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 0 2 14 0 2 4

Madison Blue Spring 7.43 7.595 7.8 7.5 7.7 7.8 0 0 4 0 0 0

Manatee Spring 7 7.115 7.43 7 7.1 7.2 0 0 16 0 0 2

Mill Pond Spring 7.09 7.38 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.5 0 0 4 0 0 2

Mission Spring 7.17 7.4 7.91 7.3 7.4 7.6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Troy Spring 7.24 7.37 7.56 7.3 7.35 7.47 0 0 6 0 0 0

Wacissa Spring #2 6.97 7.5 7.73 7.4 7.6 7.7 0 0 88 0 3 10

Tampa Bay Tributaries Basin

Lithia Springs Major 7.16 7.3 7.41 7.3 7.3 7.34 0 0 0 0 0 0

Withlacoochee Basin

Bubbling Spring 7.1 7.38 7.96 7.2 7.3 7.5 0 0 4 0 0 0

Rainbow Spring #1 7.8 8.01 8.7 7.6 7.95 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rainbow Spring #4 7.35 7.59 8.18 7.4 7.45 7.6 0 0 2 0 0 2

Rainbow Spring #6 7.2 7.57 7.75 7.3 7.4 7.5 0 0 6 0 0 0

Values in red are higher than pH Range of acceptable values (6 to 8.5) based on surface water criteria for Class I Potable and Class III Fresh waters

and Fecal Coliform of 4 col/100 mL - Class I Potable Water (Gainer Spring only); or 400 col/100 mL - Class III Fresh (all other springs)

pH (406) Fecal Coliform (31616)

BASIN & SPRING NAME

2001-2006 2006 2001-2006 2006
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

43 

Fern Hammock Springs and Big Spring both had samples that were over the Class III 

freshwater threshold of 400 colonies/100 mL for fecal coliform bacteria. The data for Big Spring 

indicate that increased precipitation and severe storm events may be related to episodic higher 

bacteria counts that occurred from 2003 to 2005. However, Fern Hammock Spring consistently 

has high fecal coliform counts. A chronic bacteria issue like this usually suggests that there is a 

persistent source of bacteria nearby. This finding of elevated fecal coliform in Fern Hammock 

Spring agrees with annual FDEP EcoSummaries for Juniper Creek, downstream from Fern 

Hammock, which have frequently reported the detection of elevated enterococci bacteria counts 

in Juniper Creek. These bacteria in both waters may be from the same or a similar source. 

Discharge 

Spring discharge is an important component of the Springs Initiative monitoring program. 

Discharge data are used to document current status relative to the past and help scientists 

understand the impacts of climatic fluctuations as well as human influences on changes in 

discharge over time. Regular (and in some instances continuous) discharge measurements 

coupled with water quality data also help us interpret discharge-related changes in water quality. 

Florida’s water management districts are the regional agencies assigned with the responsibility 

of regulating water withdrawals and have either adopted or proposed minimum flows and levels 

for many of the springs. Springs with adopted and/or proposed minimum flows and levels and 

their status are shown in Appendix D. 

Two types of discharge data are collected in support of the Springs Initiative program, 

automated measurement at fixed gaging stations and quarterly spring discharge monitoring 

near water quality monitoring stations. 

Long-term discharge and stage data have been collected by the USGS for only a few springs. 

However, in recent years more springs have been included in real-time stage and discharge 

gaging stations established by the USGS and Florida’s water management districts. Under the 

Springs Initiative, the USGS has expanded the number of springs monitored for discharge. 

Table 15 provides a summary of mean monthly discharges measured at USGS stations 

associated with springs in Florida. Most of these are “real-time” sites, with up-to-the-minute data 

available online at the following link: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/fl/nwis/current/?type=flow&group_key=NONE

In addition to fixed gaging stations, manual discharge measurements are collected within the 

same time frame and location as quarterly water quality sampling. This effort, begun in July, 

2004, provides data for making loading estimates for nutrients and other analytes of interest. 

Table 16 provides quarterly discharge data from locations at or near spring water quality 

monitoring stations for those springs that were selected to be included in the quarterly discharge 

monitoring stations. 

The absence of discharge data for some springs listed in these tables, in part, reflects the lack 

of data prior to the Springs Initiative program which began in 2001. Until that time, there was no 

statewide program designed specifically to monitor baseline conditions at Florida’s springs. 

Prior to this time, the discharge measurement work was conducted by the USGS and water 

management districts but it was not conducted for a large number of springs. Therefore, there 

is very little long-term (greater than 50 year) regular data collection for spring discharge and it is

difficult to assess discharge trends over time. Fortunately, for a handful of Florida springs 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

44 

Table 15: Mean Monthly Discharge at U. S. Geological Survey Spring Stations 

Basin/Discharge Station Mean Monthly Average Discharge by Year (in cubic feet per second) 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Apalachicola - Chipola 

Jackson Blue Spring nr Marianna, FL -- -- 236.57 123.69 175.60 104.61 

Middle St. Johns 

Silver Glen Springs nr Astor, FL -- 129.60 116.37 112.37 93.59 99.18 

Volusia Blue Springs nr Orange City, FL -- 150.58 156.27 143.26 170.44 167.29 

Wekiva River nr Sanford, FL1

242.21 321.34 412.23 329.81 341.90 270.97 

Ochlockonee – St. Marks 

Wakulla River nr Crawfordville, FL1

-- -- -- 427.55 631.85 605.29 

Ocklawaha 

Silver River nr Ocala, FL1

444.94 501.08 686.92 537.21 -- -- 

Springs Coast 

Chassahowitzka River nr Homosassa, FL1

49.50 55.30 70.35 71.78 66.08 61.30 

Crystal River @ Bagley Cove nr 

Crystal River, FL (Tidally-corrected) 1 -- 652.10 614.77 975.01 944.38 891.32 

Homosassa Springs @ Homosassa Springs, FL 83.73 86.57 103.12 103.32 96.62 84.57 

Weeki Wachee River nr Brooksville, FL1

131.13 141.33 206.61 209.30 193.78 155.37 

Suwannee River 

Blue Hole Spring nr Hildreth, FL -- 74.73 -- -- 191.47 156.10 

Cedar Head Spring nr Hildreth, FL -- 3.15 -- -- 12.10 10.15 

Devil's Eye Spring nr Hildreth, FL -- 39.44 -- -- 56.77 48.12 

Fanning Springs nr Wilcox, FL 54.14 59.03 57.38 95.67 73.04 62.57 

Ichetucknee Head Spring nr Hildreth, FL -- 22.07 -- -- 70.50 69.56 

Ichetucknee River @ U.S. 27nr Hildreth, FL1

-- 198.51 -- -- -- -- 

Madison Blue Spring nr Blue Springs, FL -- 58.41 114.99 143.07 129.98 69.42 

Manatee Spring nr Chiefland, FL 102.14 90.43 134.75 198.55 220.38 159.96 

Mill Pond Spring nr Hildreth, FL -- 15.91 -- -- 37.00 30.97 

Mission Springs Complex nr Hildreth, FL -- 58.17 -- -- 112.60 93.13 

Troy Spring nr Branford, FL -- 77.85 136.38 85.46 132.97 146.52 

Withlacoochee 

 Rainbow River at Dunnellon, FL 543.65 548.41 625.08 648.28 693.28 619.12 

Notes: 

1

- Includes aggregate spring discharge from multiple springs 

-- - Indicates no discharge measured that year 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

45 

Table 16: Quarterly Discharge at Spring Network Stations (2001-2006) 

Basin/Spring Name 

Discharge by Month/Year in Cubic Feet per Second 

07/2004 10/2004 01/2005 04/2005 07/2005 10/2005 01/2006 04/2006 07/2006 10/2006 

Apalachicola - Chipola 

 Jackson Blue Spring 96.60 98.50 126.00 231.00 108.13 112.96 168.66 96.64 106.00 64.80 

Choctawhatchee - St. Andrews 

 Cypress Spring 93.20 91.07 108.42 80.00 70.20 66.86 99.26 97.32 92.30 83.40 

 Gainer Springs Group 180.00 162.00 179.00 160.09 120.65 190.57 158.86 30.09 150.00 160.00 

 Morrison Spring 46.90 49.20 -- -- -- -- -- 46.38 67.20 85.90 

Middle St. Johns 

 Alexander Springs 90.86 166.03 137.53 93.76 104.37 -- 93.55 200.84 80.20 126.00 

 DeLeon Spring 15.94 46.93 32.35 21.61 11.43 31.32 35.92 248.15 28.90 28.70 

 Fern Hammock Springs -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.10 

 Juniper Springs 6.46 20.99 13.41 6.72 5.40 -- 3.33 5.37 24.10 12.80 

 Marion Salt Springs 72.24 91.04 110.29 67.35 55.83 67.32 75.88 103.09 86.50 77.80 

 Rock Springs 52.69 65.49 65.76 48.40 57.90 60.77 66.33 58.10 47.80 50.40 

 Silver Glen Springs 66.39 136.59 107.57 98.00 97.19 -- 56.88 68.12 96.50 109.00 

 Volusia Blue Spring -- -- 208.42 150.87 -- 123.37 188.82 159.12 159.00 144.00 

 Wekiwa Spring 50.82 92.92 85.27 -- 76.98 64.47 68.05 82.14 60.30 63.00 

Ochlockonee-St. Marks 

 Spring Creek Rise #2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 366.00 

 Wakulla Spring 386.00 403.00 346.00 544.00 -- 598.00 250.29 372.50 -- 496.00 

 Wakulla River (County Rd 365) 391.00 416.00 368.00 620.50 -- 616.00 296.84 266.00 818.50 657.50 

Ocklawaha 

 Reception Hall Spring (SS) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 304.00 

 Silver Spring Main -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 292.00 253.00 

Springs Coast 

 Chassahowitzka Spring #1 9.70 19.90 10.68 3.51 6.74 10.10 7.06 -- 6.66 10.90 

 Chassahowitzka Main Spring -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 27.10 60.20 

 Homosassa Springs Group -- -- 93.00 -- -- -- -- -- 81.40 79.30 

 Weeki Wachee Main Spring -- -- -- 166.67 -- 220.26 -- -- 146.00 158.00

Suwannee River 

 Big Spring (Wacissa) 38.21 83.34 73.48 57.74 56.20 56.59 44.26 53.60 48.80 

 Blue Hole Spring (Ichetucknee) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 133.00 118.00 

 Devil's Ear/Eye (Gilchrist) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 168.00 108.00 

 Fanning Springs 157.00 -- 118.00 -- -- 90.18 -- 86.23 93.80 87.30 

 Ichetucknee Head Spring -- -- -- -- 69.43 39.56 19.69 47.73 64.30 60.30 

 Lafayette Blue Spring 50.39 -- -- -- -- 109.66 -- 117.17 67.00 44.50

 Madison Blue Spring 96.02 -- 184.85 -- -- 145.84 117.01 84.00 64.10 

 Manatee Spring 138.00 123.00 156.00 -- -- 170.67 140.71 172.38 168.00 135.50 

 Mill Pond Spring (Ichetucknee) -- -- -- -- 22.71 30.11 19.69 21.51 23.00 27.80 

 Mission Spring (Ichetucknee) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 75.40 77.60 

 Troy Spring 68.70 -- -- -- -- 88.19 203.66 110.00 97.00 

Tampa Bay Tributaries 

 Lithia Springs Major 39.55 109.45 46.79 34.72 47.23 40.67 64.42 6.37 34.40 33.10 

Withlacoochee 

 Bubbling Spring (Rainbow) 26.32 81.92 53.92 31.07 21.21 47.51 18.56 80.66 18.30 12.00 

 Rainbow Spring #1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 21.80 55.10 

 Rainbow Spring #4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 131.00 100.00 

Notes: All discharge measurements prior to 7/2006 were made by the Florida Geological Survey except for those in the 

Apalachicola-Chipola, Choctawhatchee-St. Andrew, and Ochlockonee-St. Marks Basins, which were made by the Northwest Florida 

Water Management District. Discharge measurements for 7/2006 and 10/2006 were made by the U. S. Geological Survey. 

Springs in BOLD are “historical” first magnitude springs that historically had discharges of 100 cubic feet per second or 

greater.Values in italics reflect the mean of two or more discharge measurements, and dashes (--) reflect no data collected for that 

quarter. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

46 

(notably Volusia Blue, Silver and Rainbow), the USGS has collected frequent and continuous 

discharge measurements since the late 1920s and early 1930s, which provides some idea of 

how springs respond over a longer period of time. Figure 14 shows long-term spring discharge 

trends for the Rainbow Group of the Withlacoochee Basin and Volusia Blue Spring of the Middle 

St. Johns Basin. The discharge trend for Silver River was presented as Figure 3. 

The historical records of discharge from the Rainbow Springs Group and Volusia Blue Spring 

are most likely dictated by precipitation, similar to what was demonstrated for Silver Springs. 

Periods of low discharge seen in Figure 14 would most likely be during periods of drought but 

discharge could also be influenced by ground water withdrawals. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

47 

(a) Rainbow River below Rainbow Springs Group 

0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

192819321936194019441948195219561960196419681972197619801984198819921996200020042008

Year

Discharge (cfs)

Discharge (cfs) Discharge Trend

(b) Volusia Blue Spring Run 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

192819321936194019441948195219561960196419681972197619801984198819921996200020042008

Year

Discharge (cfs)

Discharge (cfs) Discharge Trend

Figure 14: Historical Discharge Trends for Rainbow Springs Group and Volusia Blue 

Spring 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

48 

SUMMARY OF MONITORING NETWORK FINDINGS 

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the results of the water quality and 

measurement work conducted under this program to date and to document the status of this 

particular set of high priority springs. These springs, selected based on their historical, 

recreational and/or ecological significance, generally represent the range of natural conditions 

and responses to human influences confronting first and second magnitude springs statewide. 

Nutrients 

One of the most significant findings in this report is the large number of springs that have 

elevated nitrate (nitrate+nitrite) concentrations relative to background and relative to the 

proposed nitrogen threshold. A background nitrate+nitrate concentration of 0.02 mg/L was 

calculated from median concentrations for the springs with lowest nitrate concentrations in the 

state. This concentration was exceeded by all 49 network springs. Of the network springs, 

Alexander, Silver Glen and Juniper Springs, located in the Ocala National Forest, had the 

lowest nitrate+nitrite concentrations; however other springs not in the network have lower nitrate 

medians. The FDEP-proposed nitrate standard for clear waters, including springs, of 0.35 mg/L 

was exceeded by median nitrate+nitrite concentrations in 36 of the 49 springs in the network 

(approximately 73 percent). Over 40 percent of network springs had nitrate+nitrite medians 

greater than 1 mg/L. Network springs with the highest nitrate-nitrogen concentrations (in 

descending order) include Fanning, Apopka, Jackson Blue, Lithia Major, Troy, Lafayette Blue, 

Manatee, Devil’s Ear, and Rock Springs. Sources of the nitrate in several of the more impacted 

springs are discussed in a following section of this report. 

Phosphorus, as orthophosphate, was found to occur at significant concentrations in ground 

water discharged by most springs in the network. While anthropogenic sources of phosphorus 

do exist in these areas, elevated concentrations correspond with natural background 

phosphorus concentrations in the Upper Floridan aquifer. Phosphorus occurs at naturally high 

concentrations in some portions of the surficial aquifer and the Hawthorn Group, which lies atop 

the Tertiary limestones of the Upper Floridan aquifer throughout much of the state. This natural 

background condition makes it difficult to identify any potential anthropogenic inputs in areas 

where they could be a concern. Only the springs in the Choctawhatchee-St. Andrew Basin, 

where the Hawthorn Group material is absent, had low phosphorus concentrations. 

Potassium is also an important nutrient that can be useful to help identify possible nutrient 

sources. Potassium concentrations and potassium–sodium ratios in springs were used to 

identify springs where potassium is most likely of an anthropogenic origin. Nearly as mobile as 

nitrate when in solution, potassium is a key component of inorganic fertilizers and was found at 

above background concentrations in several of the springs that also had elevated nitrate. The 

springs with the highest probability of significant anthropogenic potassium sources based on 

potassium-sodium ratios and corresponding elevated nitrate in descending order include 

Fanning, Troy, Morrison, Manatee, Rock and Apopka springs. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

49 

Salinity 

Salinity indicators were used to identify the springs that are saline-influenced due to their setting 

near the coast or inland in an area that includes the St. Johns River of the Middle St. Johns 

River Basin. Saline-influenced springs were found to have naturally elevated concentrations of 

sodium, chloride, specific conductance, total dissolved solids, as well as potassium. The St. 

Johns River area and coastal waters in the Springs Coast Basin are two settings with 

significantly elevated concentrations of these analytes. Interpreting trends in salinity indicator 

concentrations can be difficult due to many factors such as tidal fluctuations, changes in aquifer 

recharge due to fluctuations in precipitation or ground water withdrawal. At this time, the 

available quarterly monitoring data for network springs is not sufficient to establish long term 

salinity trends with adequate confidence. Future work will use the salinity indicators in 

conjunction with discharge data to evaluate springs with declining trends. 

Ground Water-Surface Water Interaction 

Ground water–surface water indicators that include DO, total dissolved solids, sulfate and 

calcium were used to compare spring water to ground water and surface water. This approach 

helped to identify the predominant sources of water influencing the various springs and identify 

those springs that are more vulnerable to recent ground water recharge or surface water. The 

springs with the highest DO concentrations, which may indicate a significant surface water 

component or more direct infiltration of rainfall, in decreasing order include Jackson Blue, 

Rainbow #1, Juniper, Fern Hammock, Rainbow #6, Rainbow #4, Hunter, Cypress, 

Chassahowitzka #1, Bubbling and Homosassa #1 springs. Persistently elevated fecal coliform 

bacteria counts in one spring, Fern Hammock Spring, point to a nearby source of contamination. 

Calcium, total dissolved solids and sulfate concentrations in many of these springs that interact 

most with water from the surface also have chemical signatures closer to surface water than 

ground water from the Upper Floridan aquifer. 

Discharge 

Because of the lack of long-term discharge data for springs, significant trends are difficult to 

discern. The monitoring network data are helpful in determining short term changes and longer 

term changes when combined with data from other sources. Three springs with 50 to 75 year 

records–Silver, Rainbow and Volusia Blue – show a slow decline in discharge from the late 

1950s and early 1960s to present. This trend is likely due to low rainfall but in some cases it 

could be worsened by ground water withdrawals. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

50 

RECOGNIZED SOURCES OF NITRATE IN SPRINGS 

As discussed previously in this report, nitrogen enrichment, primarily by nitrate-nitrogen, has 

been linked with the overgrowth of algae and resultant ecological impacts to spring runs. The 

water discharged from spring vents is mainly from ground water, thus the discharge of nitrate 

into spring systems comes from ground water. This is not surprising since nitrate is the most 

widespread contaminant in the state impacting ground water quality (FDEP, 2008a). 

The occurrence of nitrate in the springs of a particular area depends on the proximity and 

relative nitrogen contribution of sources and the vulnerability of the ground water to 

contamination. This section of the report provides an assessment of nitrate sources impacting 

10 springs or spring groups that are impaired by nutrients and documents the major sources 

most likely impacting those springs. The springs that are assessed and their approximate 

contributing areas (springsheds) are shown in Figure 15. 

Aquifer Vulnerability 

One thing that all springs have in common is that they occur in areas of karst terrain. Karst 

areas exist where limestone is near enough to the land surface to be exposed to weathering 

and dissolution processes. Infiltrating precipitation and surface water can cause erosion and 

dissolution of the underlying limestone, create sinkholes and solution channels and enlarge 

underground caves and conduits within the aquifeIn karst areas, the soils are sandy and 

permeable and the thickness of overburden between the surface and the underlying aquifer may 

be minimal. These types of areas need the most protection from sources of nitrate such as 

septic tanks, wastewater disposal sites, animal waste, and areas where fertilizer is applied. In 

addition, soils in these areas are low in natural fertility and moisture-holding capacity and 

sometimes require excessive amounts of irrigation water and fertilizer for successful production 

of agricultural crops. 

While the immediate area of a spring always lies within a vulnerable karst area, its springshed 

can extend for miles and include ground water recharge areas that are not so vulnerable. To 

evaluate the relative aquifer vulnerability within springsheds, a tool developed by the Florida 

Geological Survey (FGS) can be used. In 2004, the FGS developed a statewide GIS model for 

aquifer vulnerability known as the Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (FAVA; in Arthur et 

al, 2007). By utilizing information on depth to ground water, hydraulic head differences, 

thickness of confining units, soil permeability and other characteristics, this model predicts the 

vulnerability of the underlying aquifer systems to surface contamination. Figure 16 shows the 

FAVA model results for aquifer vulnerability for the Upper Floridan aquifer in the spring areas. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

51 

Figure 15: Selected Springs with Significant Nitrate Issues and their Springsheds 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

52 

Figure 16: Aquifer Vulnerability in Spring Areas 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

53 

Potential Sources of Nitrate 

As discussed in a previous section of this report, the sources of nitrate are of mainly human 

origin. In general, inorganic fertilizer is the predominant source of nitrate influencing water 

quality overall (SJRWMD, 2007). However, for some springs, other sources may be just as 

significant depending on their prevalence and location in the springshed. Table 17 provides a 

comparison of nitrogen loadings for the range of nitrate sources that are most likely to occur in 

spring areas. Estimated fertilizer inputs are from published agronomic rates provided by the 

University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). Potential input from 

other sources was calculated from actual research data or data from typical permitted facilities. 

Inorganic fertilizer use is difficult to estimate because application amounts and frequencies vary. 

However it would not be unusual for a farmer or homeowner to apply more than an IFAS 

recommended rate for a variety of reasons necessary for successful crop production, thus the 

rates in Table 17 should be considered estimates. Low soil fertility, excessive fertilizer leaching 

because of rain events or over irrigation, and multiple cropping of agricultural fields are all 

reasons why growers might fertilize in excess of the IFAS-recommended rates. Also, overfertilization is not uncommon for some residential homeowners. The high potential for fertilizer 

leaching in the excessively-drained sandy soils typical of spring areas is a major reason that 

inorganic fertilizer is such a prevalent source of nitrate in the ground water and springs. The 

amount of nitrogen leaching to ground water from fertilizer applied to crops has been estimated 

at 20 to 35 percent under a Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain scenario (Bohlke and Denver, 1995); 

however the amount under these soil conditions would likely be higher. 

Animal waste is used as a fertilizer source in several of these springsheds and IFAS provides 

recommended application rates for chicken and cow manure. However, animal waste 

management is often a significant challenge for poultry operations, dairies and horse farms. 

Disposal demands of animal waste often exceed recommended application rates. For larger 

dairies, for example, accepted practices of spray irrigating liquid waste and land spreading solid 

waste per IFAS-recommendations are difficult to follow because of the large volumes of manure 

being managed. A typical dairy cow generates approximately 50,000 lb/year of raw manure 

(Van Horn et al, 1990). Under an ideal scenario it has been estimated that only 6.6 percent of 

the waste from beef and dairy operations would leach to ground water, but under less favorable 

conditions up to 60 percent could leach (Van Horn et al, 1991). An average 1,000 lb horse 

generates over 14,000 lb/year of manure, and when confined to a stall can produce 730 cu ft/yr 

of bedding material that must be managed (Davis and Swinker 2003). The poultry industry in 

North Florida produces about 4,000 lb of manure for every 1,000 chickens (Mitchell et al, 1990). 

Leaching of nitrogen from poultry waste could range from 0 to 30 percent (Jacob and Mather, 

1997). A small percentage of leaching of nitrate from either type of operation, because of the 

volume, could amount to a significant load of nitrate to ground water. 

Domestic wastewater discharge to ground water also can contribute significant loads of nitrate 

and can impact springs. This is particularly a concern when facilities discharging large volumes 

of secondarily-treated wastewater are located near springs or along preferred ground water flow 

pathways to springs. Nitrogen loading amounts from many of the larger facilities can be similar 

to or higher than those from inorganic fertilizers applied to agricultural sites, with the ultimate 

amount received by ground water depending on specific practices at the application sites. Also, 

wastewater loadings from residential septic tanks can be significant in aggregate in large, 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

54 

Table 17: Potential Sources of Nitrate to Ground Water in Florida Spring Areas and 

Estimated Loadings

Nitrogen Source Estimated Nitrogen 

Inputs per Year 

(lb/acre/year 

unless otherwise 

noted) 

Comments

Agriculture and Turf Grass

Row and field crops- field corn, 

inorganic fertilizer1

210 Irrigated; (Mylavarapu et al, 2009), 

Vegetables, inorganic fertilizer1 60 – 200 Sweet corn, potatoes, tomatoes, at 200 /lb/ac/crop 

(Hochmuth and Hanlon, 2000) 

Hay field/Silage, inorganic 

fertilizer1

320 Bahia grass, assume 4 cuttings; (Mylavarapu et al, 

2009) 

Fertilized pasture, inorganic 

fertilizer1

50–160 Bahia grass; (Mylavarapu et al, 2009) 

Fertilized pasture, cow manure 

(wet and dry) 

102-274 Recommended rates in WAM model document; 

(SWET, 2002) 

Fertilized pasture, poultry litter 257-275 Recommended rates in WAM model document; 

(SWET, 2002) 

Silviculture, inorganic fertilizer1 40-50* 

150-200** 

*Per application, recommended for newly planted 

sites, not used on an annual basis; (UF/IFIS, 

2008); ** for pine straw production, max 1,000 

lb/acre/20-yr period (Minogue et al, 2007) 

Container nursery, control 

release fertilizer, inorganic1

17-472 Based on 2 to 3 lb control release fertilizer/ yd3 of 

potting mix, ranging from pot sz #1 to pot sz #25 

spacing (Yeager, 2009; Garber et al, 2002) 

Citrus grove, inorganic fertilizer 

– historical 

100- 300 oranges; 

90-240 grapefruit 

Documented application rates (Parsons and 

Boman;2006) 

Inorganic fertilizer, 

bermudagrass-central Florida1

174-261 4-6 lb/1000 sq ft; (Sartain et al, 2009) 

Inorganic fertilizer, St. Augustine 

grass-central Florida1

87-131 2-3 lb/1000 sq ft; (Sartain et al, 2009) 

Domestic Wastewater

High density residential septic 

system- conventional 

129 Assumes 4 systems per acre, 57.7 mg/L and 184 

gpd; (based on Hazen and Sawyer, 2009) 

Medium density residential 

septic system- conventional 

64.6 Assumes 2 systems per acre, 57.7 mg/L and 184 

gpd; (Hazen and Sawyer, 2009) 

Low density residential septic 

system- conventional 

6.5 Assumes 1 system per 5 acres, 57.7 mg/L and 184

gpd; (Hazen and Sawyer, 2009) 

High density residential septic 

system – performance-based 

77.4 Assumes 4 systems per acre, 34.6 mg/L and 184 

gpd; (based on Harden et al, 2009) 

Medium density residential 

septic system – performancebased 

38.7 Assumes 2 systems per acre, 34.6 mg/L and 184 

gpd; (based on Harden et al, 2009) 

Low density residential septic 

system – performance-based 

3.9 Assumes 1 system per 5 acres,34.6 mg/L and 184 

gpd; (based on Harden et al, 2009) 

Secondary Treated Effluent 21,900-46,820 lb/yr Loading based on concentration X discharge rate; 

typical values with concentration depending on 

individual plant requirements; typical secondary 

effluent concentration range 7.2 – 15.4 mg/L, for 

example discharge of 1 MGD was assumed 

Advanced Waste Treatment 

(AWT) Effluent 

9,120 lb/yr Loading based on concentration X discharge rate; 

normal AWT requirement to treat to 3 mg/L , for 

example discharge of 1 MGD was assumed 

Atmospheric deposition 32.8 2008 wet deposition average for 4 north and 

central Florida sites; (from USGS National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program web site) 

Note: 1Estimated loadings from fertilization are conservative, based on recommended agronomic rates and not actual field data. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

55 

subdivisions where residential lots are closely spaced. However, loadings are much lower in 

less densely developed areas. Recent septic tank research in Florida shows that the nitrogen 

loadings from performance-based residential septic tanks are approximately 40 percent lower 

than those from conventional septic systems but they do not typically meet the 10 mg/L 

treatment expectation (Harden et al, 2009 in draft). 

Inputs of atmospheric deposition of nitrate can be significant, as seen in Table 17. Atmospheric 

deposition in precipitation varies significantly, with higher concentrations occurring in more 

urban areas. According to the USGS National Atmospheric Deposition Program data, in a less 

populated area of northwest Florida with little agriculture, the median TN concentration in 

atmospheric deposition (as wet deposition) over the past 10 years was only 0.12 mg/L. 

However in the Orlando area, where atmospheric deposition from urban sources such as 

vehicle emissions and industry exists, the median TN concentration from wet deposition was 

almost ten times higher (1.1 mg/L). Atmospheric deposition in agricultural areas may also be 

significant. The 10-year median TN concentration in precipitation at a Gadsden County site, 

which has row and field crop farming, was 0.69 mg/L. While these inputs by atmospheric 

deposition can be significant, several reports note that atmospheric deposition’s actual load of 

nitrogen to ground water is expected to be low in comparison to other sources when they are 

present (Chelette et al, 2002; Katz et al, 2005; MACTEC, 2009; SJRWMD 2007). Atmospheric 

inputs of nitrogen, although significant, are spread across all areas, and are thus available at 

manageable concentrations which allow plant uptake or attenuation by soil. The nitrate 

concentrations in some background springs discussed earlier in the report may include inputs 

from atmospheric deposition or natural sources, since these springs are not generally near 

significant agricultural or wastewater-related sources of nitrogen. These springs generally have 

nitrate concentrations of less than 0.05 mg/L. 

It is common for nitrate in a spring to be coming from a mixture of sources. As a further 

complication, a spring is often being impacted by a mixture of sources that include sources that 

are no longer present due to land use changes. The springs selected for this discussion 

(Figure 15) have been impacted by a range of sources. Some have springsheds that are 

dominated by agricultural land uses whereas others have a higher percentage of urbanresidential land use. 

By-Springshed Evaluation of Nitrate Sources 

The major influence on the water quality of most springs is ground water that flows through 

regional and local subsurface systems. If there is adequate ground water quality data, there is 

usually a relationship between nitrate in ground water in a particular springshed and the nitrate 

concentration in the spring(s). Most of the available nitrate data for ground water is from 

targeted sampling of private wells by the FDOH, thus the springsheds with the largest number of 

wells sampled for nitrate are typically the ones with more widespread ground water quality 

issues. This targeted sampling is conducted under the FDEP Water Supply Restoration 

Program in areas where contaminant sources are known or suspected to exist. The analyses 

are run at the FDOH central laboratory and water quality and sample location data are 

maintained in a database by FDEP. In some of these springsheds there is also ground water 

data from Floridan aquifer system wells sampled under other programs. Appendix E provides 

maps of each of these spring areas showing the nitrate concentrations in wells with data. This 

summary information represents data collected over varying periods of record, depending on 

area. No attempt was made to distinguish between data sources, although the majority of the 

wells are private drinking water wells. It is assumed that the majority of these private wells 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

56 

withdraw water from the Upper Floridan aquifer, since it is the main potable water source in 

these areas. 

The breakdown of land uses potentially contributing to nitrate issues in these springsheds and 

numbers of specific sources that may contribute nitrate to ground water and springs is shown in 

Table 18. Using the information in Tables 17 and 18, along with information from previous work 

in these springsheds, some assertions can be made about the sources of nitrate impacting 

these springs. This type of information may be useful in predicting the sources of nitrate in 

springsheds where less information is available. 

Wakulla Spring 

Wakulla Spring, impaired by nutrients, had a median nitrate concentration of 0.69 mg/L and the 

concentration has been declining slightly over the past several years. Its springshed is large, 

extending northward into southern Georgia and includes the city of Tallahassee and several 

smaller communities in Leon and Wakulla counties. Several studies have indicated that the 

Woodville Karst Plain, which extends from the southern outskirts of Tallahassee southward and 

makes up 40 percent of the springshed in Florida, is the major focus area for nitrate sources 

potentially impacting the spring because of the high vulnerability of the aquifer in this region 

(Figure 16). 

Over 29 percent of the 302 wells in the springshed with nitrate data had concentrations higher 

than 1 mg/L, and 15 wells had nitrate concentrations higher than the ground water standard (10 

mg/L). The highest nitrate concentration in a well was 32 mg/L. Wells with the highest nitrate 

concentrations (>10 mg/L) are in the southern (high vulnerability) area of the springshed. 

Studies (Chelette et al, 2002; Katz et al, 2009) have indicated that the (17.5 MGD) City of 

Tallahassee municipal wastewater sprayfield is a large source of nitrate in this area and that it is 

impacting the spring. Until recent years, agricultural fertilizers applied to the sprayfield site may

have also added to the load of nitrogen coming from the site. 

Nitrate isotopic signatures in recent spring water samples (∂15N at 8.8 to 9 ‰) indicate that the 

nitrate is mainly of an organic waste origin (Katz et al, 2009). Numerous residential septic tanks 

also exist in the vicinity and are particularly concentrated in Woodville, located several miles to 

the north of the spring, and in several large subdivisions within the springshed. Ground water 

traces and cave divers have documented that large underground conduits are able to transmit 

water rapidly from source areas (Hazlett-Kinkaid, 2007; FSU, 2009). A dye trace from the 

Tallahassee municipal wastewater sprayfield to Wakulla Springs showed that the ground water 

travel time was approximately 60 days (Hazlett-Kinkaid, 2007). The major historical source of 

nitrate in the spring is wastewater from the municipal sprayfield; however it is likely that septic 

tanks in the more vulnerable areas are also significant contributors. The City of Tallahassee 

wastewater treatment plant will soon be upgraded to provide advanced wastewater treatment 

(AWT), which should reduce the nitrate wastewater concentration by 75 percent. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

57 

Table 18: Nitrogen-related Land Use Characteristics for Selected Springsheds

Springshed

Total Acres

Row and Field 

Crops (percent) 

Improved Pasture 

(percent) 

Hayfield (percent)

Citrus (percent)

No. Dairies

No. Ornamental 

Nurseries 

No. Poultry Farms

10. No. Cattle Feeding 

Operations 

11. No. Horse Farms 

12. High Density 

Residential 

(percent) 

13. Medium Density 

Residential 

(percent) 

14. Low Density 

Residential 

Jackson Blue 85,677 30.1 7.6 (1) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 3.9 Wakulla 570,271 2.8 2.1 (1) 0 1 14 3 1 17 2.3 4.5 5.9 Troy 75,018 19 10.7 (1) 0 1 12 23 11 9 0 0.2 5.7 Fanning-Manatee 131,553 18.8 15.5 (1) 0 8 0 1 6 1 0.1 1.3 6.2 Ichetucknee Group 245,390 5.4 10.1 (1) 0 0 8 4 3 18 0.5 3 8.6 Silver Group 316,879 3.6 10.4 (2) 0.3 2 23 3 0 241 1 6.5 0.3 Rainbow Group 439,198 1.4 19.1 (2) 0 4 19 1 1 199 0 0.7 11.1 Wekiwa-Rock 564,141 3.6 6.7 (2) 4.6 0 288 12 2 213 1.9 8.7 6.4 Volusia Blue 66,793 0 2.2 (2) 0.2 0 5 2 0 6 1.8 28.7 14.6 Weeki Wachee 153,732 20.5 (1) (2) 1.1 (4) 34 14 (3) 27 2 11.6 11.4 Notes: Information on wastewater facilities is from the FDEP wastewater facilities database (WAFR). Other data were obtained from the following lthese water management districts: NWFWMD, 2004: SJRWMD, 2004; SRWMD, 2006-2008; and SWFWMD, 2006. 

1 - combined with row and field crops 2 - combined with improved pasture 3 - combined with poultry farms as “feeding operations" 4 - combined with horse farms and aquaculture as “specialty farms” 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

58 

Troy Spring 

Troy Spring, on the Suwannee River, had a median nitrate concentration of 2.2 mg/L and is included 

under the Suwannee River Nutrient TMDL. Its springshed extends northeastward from the spring 

vent and includes a rural, agricultural area of Suwannee County that has approximately 30 percent of 

its land use in field and row crops, hayfields and improved pasture. There are also 23 poultry farms 

and 11 cattle feeding operations in the springshed. Ground water throughout this entire springshed is

highly vulnerable (Figure 16), which is typical of all springs in the Middle Suwannee Basin. 

Over 50 percent of the 148 wells in this springshed with nitrate data had concentrations higher than 1

mg/L and more than 10 percent of the detected concentrations were higher than 10 mg/L. The 

highest nitrate concentration in a well was 26 mg/L. Wells with elevated nitrate concentrations are 

distributed throughout the springshed and wells with the highest concentrations are in the 

northwestern and central portions of the springshed. Private wells with the highest nitrate 

concentration are near poultry farms, field and row crop/hayfields, improved pastures, cattle feeding 

operations, and ornamental nurseries. 

Troy Spring was sampled for nitrate isotopes in 1997, 1998, 2001 and 2005 and ∂15N values were 

5.4, 5.4, 6.7 and 5.3 ‰, respectively (Katz et al, 1999; Albertin et al, 2007). The isotope results 

suggest that the nitrate is from mixed inorganic and organic sources, which is consistent with the land 

use pattern of mixed agricultural activities (Katz et al, 1999). According to Hornsby and Mattson 

(1998), in 1997 fertilizer accounted for 48.9 percent of the total nitrogen inputs in Suwannee County,

followed by poultry litter (34.1 percent). This information indicates that nitrate in Troy Spring is from 

inorganic fertilizer applied to row and field crops, hay, and pastures as well as poultry manure. 

Fanning and Manatee Springs 

Fanning and Manatee Springs are the largest springs in their combined springshed, which includes 

the towns of Chiefland, Trenton and Fanning Springs. Fanning Spring, an historical first magnitude 

spring, had the highest median nitrate concentration of all network springs at 5.2 mg/L. The median 

nitrate concentration in Manatee Spring was 1.8 mg/L. Both springs are impaired by nutrients and 

included under the Suwannee River Nutrient TMDL. The Upper Floridan aquifer is highly vulnerable 

within the entire springshed (Figure 16). Of the 188 wells in the springshed with nitrate data, over 57 

percent had nitrate concentrations higher than 1 mg/L and over 5 percent have nitrate concentrations 

higher than the 10 mg/L ground water standard. The highest nitrate concentration in a well was 62 

mg/L. 

Agricultural land uses dominate this area, with more than 34 percent of the area in the combined uses 

of row and field crops, hay fields and improved pastures. Most of the springshed area is in Levy and 

Gilchrist Counties. Both counties are ranked among the highest in the state for silage corn 

production, with Levy consuming more than 3,700 and Gilchrist consuming more than 2,000 tons of 

nitrogen fertilizer per year (Obreza and Means, 2006). There are 8 dairies in the springshed and 6 of

these are large, requiring industrial wastewater permits. There are 8 domestic wastewater treatment 

plants that discharge to ground water, with the 0.475 MGD City of Chiefland and the 0.2 MGD City of 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

59 

Trenton plants the largest and the others much smaller. Less than 8 percent of the springshed is in 

residential land use and 6.2 percent of that residential land use is low density. 

Nitrogen 15 values for both Fanning and Manatee Springs fall within the range indicative of mixed 

inorganic and organic sources of nitrogen, with ∂15N values of 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3‰ over a 10-year 

period and the ∂15N for Manatee Spring at 5.8‰ in 1997 (Katz et al, 1999 and Albertin et al, 2007). 

These isotope results are in agreement with the land use in the area dominated by heavy fertilizer use

and numerous large dairy operations. 

Ichetucknee Springs Group 

Of the springs in the Ichetucknee Group, nitrate concentrations in Ichetucknee Head Spring (0.77 

mg/L), Blue Hole (0.695 mg/L), and Mission Spring (0.58 mg/L) were the highest. Blue Hole and 

Mission were listed as impaired by nutrients. The springshed of the Ichetucknee Group includes an 

upland area where the Upper Floridan aquifer characterized as vulnerable and a karst plain area in 

which it is characterized as more vulnerable. The largest urban center, Lake City, is in the upland 

area. The upland area has a clay confining layer between the surface and the aquifer, whereas the 

more vulnerable karst plan (about 56 percent of the springshed, Figure 16) has no confining layer. 

The land uses in this springshed include medium density residential and commercial development in 

the Lake City area and mainly rural agricultural lands in the remainder of the springshed. Mediumand low-density residential development makes up 11.6 percent of the springshed. Many residences 

within the Lake City service area are provided municipal wastewater treatment by the (3 MGD) city 

wastewater plant, which discharges secondarily-treated effluent to a sprayfield southwest of the city. 

The sprayfield is approximately 10 miles north of the Ichetucknee Head Spring (Katz and Griffin, 

2007) and near the historical river channel known as the Ichetucknee Trace. Agricultural land uses in

the springshed include row and field crops, improved pasture and hay, which combined make up 

about 15 percent of the springshed’s land uses. Ground water data from the springshed indicate that 

over 22 percent of the wells with data in the springshed have nitrate concentrations greater than 1 

mg/L. Two wells in the springshed had nitrate concentrations higher than the ground water standard. 

Nitrogen isotope data from several of the springs in the Ichetucknee Group show that the springs in 

this group are not all influenced by the same sources of nitrogen. The ∂15N results for Ichetucknee 

Head Spring an Blue Hole Spring indicated that the nitrate was mainly from inorganic sources, the 

results from Mission Spring indicated that the nitrate may be from a combination of inorganic and 

organic sources, and the results for Devils Eye Spring, also nutrient-impaired, indicated that the 

nitrate was from an organic nitrogen source (Albertin et al, 2007; Katz and Griffin, 2007). The 

contribution of nitrate to Devils Eye Spring from a wastewater source was confirmed by a dye trace 

that linked a nearby septic tank drainfield on state park land to Devils Eye Spring. Another dye trace, 

conducted on a larger scale, linked Rose Sink (located about 4 miles south of the Lake City 

sprayfield) with several of the Ichetucknee Group springs (Butt and Murphy, 2003). The land uses in 

the watershed of Rose Creek includes agricultural and forest lands that are being converted to 

residential areas. Separate dye trace studies have confirmed the connection of Black and Dyal Sinks, 

located in Clayhole Creek, with Rose Sink and the springs. Stormwater in Clayhole Creek flows 

underground in Black, Clayhole and Dyal Sinks before it moves toward Ichetucknee Springs. Clayhole 

Creek was found to be connected to Rose Sink and the Ichtucknee Springs. However, no direct 

evidence has specifically linked the sprayfield to the springs. Multiple sources of nitrate are impacting 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

60 

these springs, with fertilizer from agricultural fields, pastures, and possibly residential lawns being the 

most significant in the springs with the greatest discharge. 

Silver Springs Group 

The Upper Floridan aquifer within most of the springshed of the nutrient-impaired Silver Springs 

Group is highly vulnerable to contamination (88 percent in Figure 16). Of the springs in the Silver 

Springs Group, Silver Main (AKA: Mammoth Spring) has the highest discharge and had a median 

nitrate concentration of 1.1 mg/L. Nitrate concentrations in these springs have steadily increased as

the springshed transitioned from natural land to agricultural and urban development. According to the

most recent land use figures (2004), approximately 8 percent of the springshed is in urban 

development. Over 66 percent of the 328 wells in the springshed with nitrate data had concentrations 

higher than 1 mg/L and 23 wells had nitrate concentrations higher than 10 mg/L. The highest nitrate 

concentration in a well was 31 mg/L. The more elevated nitrate concentrations in wells were found in 

the central and western areas of the springshed. 

The largest city in the springshed (and in close proximity to the springs) is Ocala. Ocala’s two 

municipal wastewater treatment plants (approximately 9 MGD total capacity) and wastewater and 

residuals application sites are in the 100-year capture zone of the spring group. The capture zone 

also includes the (0.998 MGD) Silver Springs Shores wastewater plant and application site, plus 

approximately 10 smaller wastewater facilities. Also, many of the residential areas in the 100-year 

capture zone are on individual septic tanks. According to the Marion County Planning Department 

(Kuphal, 2005), most of the domestic wastewater loading of nitrogen in Marion County, which includes 

the spring group’s 10-year capture zone, may be from septic tanks. Much of land in the springshed is 

used for thoroughbred horse farms and exists as improved pasture. There are approximately 241 

horse farms in the 100-year capture zone and improved pasture and/or hayfields make up 10 percent 

of the land use in the area. Other land uses that could contribute nitrate to ground water and the 

springs include 23 ornamental nurseries and 39 golf courses. 

A USGS study of nitrate in ground water of the Silver Springs area (Phelps, 2004) found that for a 

network of wells in urban areas, the median nitrate concentration in ground water was 1.15 mg/L and 

for as similar network in agricultural areas, it was 1.7 mg/L. Nitrate isotope data in the ground water 

samples from those wells indicated that the source of nitrate in the agricultural areas appeared to be

mainly inorganic fertilizers and in the urban areas the ∂15N values were in a range that suggested a 

mixture of inorganic and organic nitrogen sources. The ∂15N results for the springs were variable. 

Phelps (2004) found that the source of nitrate in Silver Main was inorganic on one occasion and 

mixed inorganic and organic on another occasion. In a later sampling, SJRWMD found that most of 

the springs sampled had values in the mixed source range (Toth and Knowles, 2007). Based on the 

land use and other data, the main sources of nitrate in the springs most likely include inorganic 

fertilizer applied to pastures and wastewater from septic tanks and municipal wastewater application 

sites. Because of the large number of horse farms in the springshed, horse manure could also be a 

contributing source. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

61 

Rainbow Springs Group 

All of the network springs in the Rainbow Springs Group have median nitrate concentrations higher 

than 1 mg/L. The Upper Floridan aquifer is highly vulnerable to contamination in over 95 percent of 

their springshed (Figure 16). This area is mostly rural, with Williston and Dunnellon being the largest 

population centers. The City of Williston’s 0.45 MGD municipal wastewater treatment plant, which 

discharges to a sprayfield, is the largest point source of domestic wastewater and most areas outside 

of Williston’s service area are on individual septic tanks. The predominant agricultural land use that 

could be a nitrogen source in the springshed is improved pasture (19.1 percent, which also includes 

hayfields in the available landuse coverage). Many of these pastures are associated with the large 

number of horse farms in the springshed (approximately 199, Table 18). 

Over 41 percent of the 222 wells in the springshed with nitrate data had concentrations higher than 1 

mg/L and 2 of those had nitrate concentrations higher than the ground water standard. The highest 

nitrate concentration in a well was 23 mg/L. The distribution of elevated ground water wells are found 

throughout the entire springshed and the wells with the most elevated nitrate levels (>10 mg/L) are in

the central portion of the springshed. 

A SWFWMD assessment of nitrate sources in the Rainbow Springs area (Jones et al, 1996) identified 

fertilized pastures as the principal source of nitrate in the springs because primarily inorganic sources 

were identified in ∂15N analyses of ground water and spring water samples. Nitrogen loading 

calculations showed that pasture fertilization contributed the largest amount of nitrogen in the study

area and the highest nitrate concentrations in ground water samples were found near pasture lands. 

About 10 years later, Albertin et al (2007) found ∂15N values were lower than 3‰ in spring water 

samples, which agreed with the SWFWMD finding that the nitrate source in the springs was inorganic 

fertilizer. The available information indicates that the main source of nitrate causing impairment of the 

springs is inorganic fertilizer applied to pastures. 

Wekiwa and Rock Springs 

The Upper Floridan aquifer is highly vulnerable to contamination in more than 76 percent of the 

combined springsheds of Wekiva and Rock Springs, also known as the Wekiva ground water basin 

(Figure 16). Apopka Spring and several other springs are also included in this group. Nitrate 

concentrations in these two springs increased significantly during the 1980s to their maximum 

concentrations in the mid-to-late 1990s and then declined somewhat to their current levels. The 

nitrate concentration in Wekiva declined from a high of over 2 mg/L to approximately 1 mg/L or lower. 

The 2006 median nitrate concentrations for Wekiva and Rock were 1.0 and 1.3 mg/L, respectively, 

and these two springs are part of the nutrient-impaired Wekiva River system. Over 6,600 wells 

(mainly private drinking water wells) in the springshed have been sampled by FDOH for nitrate since 

the late 1980s. Of these, over 44 percent had nitrate concentrations higher than 1 mg/L and over 15 

percent exceeded 5 mg/L. Almost 400 wells in this springshed had nitrate concentrations higher than 

the 10 mg/L ground water standard. 

The Wekiwa-Rock Springs springshed, which also includes other springs such as Apopka Spring, 

includes a mixture of urban and agricultural land uses. This area, just north of Orlando, experienced a 

significant population growth spurt in the mid-1980s and many agricultural lands were converted to 

more urban uses. Citrus growing, once a dominant land use in the springshed, was reduced 

dramatically in the mid –to-late 1980s due to winter freezes, the rising real estate values and the citrus 

canker eradication program, which took many acres of citrus out of production. Now, only 4.6 percent 

of the springshed is in citrus production. Nitrate contamination of ground water in areas of current or 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

62 

past citrus production is a well documented issue in the ridge citrus growing area, which includes this 

springshed. 

Other sources of nitrate may now be replacing citrus as potential impacts to the springs. Residential

land use is accompanied by wastewater treatment facilities. There are approximately 85 domestic 

wastewater plants in the springshed and 15 of them have design capacities of greater than 10 MGD. 

Wastewater from these facilities is applied to sprayfields and rapid infiltration basins, used for 

irrigation water on golf courses, and a very small portion is discharged to surface water. In areas not 

on municipal sewer, homes are on septic tanks. Residential land use is also accompanied by fertilizer

use on lawns and turf areas such as golf courses. A recent study found that lawn fertilizer 

applications on residential homes result in nitrate concentrations of 1 to 2 mg/L in shallow ground 

water (MACTEC, 2009). There are approximately 36 golf courses in the springshed using fertilizer 

and there are also over 200 small horse farms that may also apply fertilizer. Fertilizer impacts from

commercial plant nurseries may also be an issue in the springshed. There are approximately 288 

ornamental nursery sites in the springshed and well data from several suggests that some nurseries 

may be significant sources of nitrate in the ground water. 

Nitrogen isotope data suggest that different areas of the springshed are impacted by different 

sources. The ∂15N results for 15 well and spring samples collected in the late 1990s (Toth and 

Fortich, 2001) indicated that at about half of the sites were in the range of inorganic sources, four 

were definitely associated with organic sources, and the remainder could have been from a mixture of 

inorganic and organic sources. The ∂15N results for a 2009 sampling by FDEP and the USGS (Katz 

and Griffin, 2009; MACTEC, 2009) were also mixed, with the results for Rock Spring more indicative 

of an inorganic origin and results for Wekiwa Spring perhaps more indicative of organic sources or a 

mixture of organic and inorganic sources. The elevated concentration of boron in samples from 

Wekiwa Spring may be related to domestic wastewater (Hicks, 2009). The combination of information 

indicates that the sources of nitrate in Wekiwa and Rock Springs are multiple. Trends in nitrate 

concentrations in both springs indicate that past use of inorganic fertilizer for citrus was once a major 

source of nitrate in both springs that now may be dissipating. Existing nearby municipal wastewater 

disposal and application sites and residential septic tanks are sources of the nitrate in Wekiwa Spring 

and both springs may now be impacted by existing sources of inorganic fertilizer such as residential 

lawns, golf courses and ornamental nurseries. 

Volusia Blue Spring 

The Volusia Blue springshed is highly urbanized and includes parts of Deltona, Orange City, DeBary, 

Lake Helen and DeLand and ground water in this area is highly vulnerable (Figure 16). The median 

nitrate concentration in Volusia Blue Spring is 0.645 and there is low level ground water contamination 

by nitrate. Over 45 percent of its springshed is in residential land use and there are 21 domestic 

wastewater facilities discharging to ground water. Most of the residences in the springshed are on 

city sewer. There is very little agricultural land use in this springshed; however it does include 21 golf 

courses. 

Over 13% of the 45 wells in the springshed with nitrate data (all private wells) had concentrations 

higher than 1 mg/L. The highest nitrate concentration in a well was 9.9 mg/L. The wells with elevated 

nitrate concentrations are mainly found in the northwestern portion of the springshed but there is a 

lack of data in many areas. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

63 

There is no nitrogen isotope data for Volusia Blue Spring or ground water in the springshed, but 

based on the land use characteristics, the likely sources of the nitrate causing impairment of the 

spring include a mixture of inorganic fertilizer from residences and golf courses and domestic 

wastewater. 

Weeki Wachee Spring 

The Weeki Wachee Springs group lies in western Hernando County in a springshed that includes 

residential development at its western end, nearest the springs, and rural agricultural lands in the 

eastern part of the springshed. The springshed includes portions of both Hernando and Pasco 

Counties. The median nitrate concentration in Weeki Wachee Main Spring is 0.765 mg/L and it has 

been listed as impaired due to excessive nutrients. Residential development makes up the largest 

portion of the Weeki Wachee springshed, about 25 percent and a combination of agricultural lands 

accounts for about 20 percent of the springshed. Domestic wastewater treatment is decentralized 

throughout the springshed, with the largest domestic wastewater facility being the 0.75 MGD facility at 

Hernando Airport. The largest communities, Spring Hill, Shady Hills, and Weeki Wachee do not have 

central wastewater treatment facilities. 

Over 41 percent of the 153 wells in the springshed with nitrate data had concentrations higher than 1 

mg/L and 8 wells had nitrate concentrations higher than 10 mg/L. The highest nitrate concentration in

a well was 24 mg/L. The wells with elevated nitrate are mainly found in the western portion of the 

springshed and the highest nitrate levels (>10 mg/L) are found in clusters in the north central part of 

the springshed to the west and south of the city of Brooksville. 

Twenty-four springs in the SWFWMD were sampled for nitrogen isotopes between 1991 and 1999 

and over 80 percent of the ∂15N values were below 6.2‰, with most indicating that inorganic fertilizer 

was the more significant source of nitrate in the Springs Coast region (Champion and Starks, 2001). 

Based on the land uses near the springs, much of the fertilizer appears to come from nearby 

subdivisions and golf courses (Champion and Starks, 2001). There are 30 golf courses in the 

springshed and most are near the spring. The main sources of nitrate causing impairment of Weeki 

Wachee Spring most likely include inorganic fertilizer applied to nearby residential lawns and golf 

courses and wastewater from septic tanks. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

64 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

One of the advantages of a multi-year monitoring program is that there are opportunities to review the

plan and data and make adjustments when necessary. The following are proposed actions for future 

emphasis and recommendations for improving and enhancing the usefulness of this program and its 

reporting. 

1. Update the springs monitoring plan so that it defines priorities and establishes a well 

designed network to address specific priorities. 

Since the statewide spring monitoring program began, much has been learned about the condition of 

springs and the issues that are being faced. The current spring monitoring plan will be adapted to 

focus on these priority issues. 

2. Include information on ecological effects associated with nutrient enrichment, in addition to 

water quality and flow. 

Evaluating the occurrence, trends, and impacts of nutrients on spring ecosystems is a major area of 

interest and a focus for upcoming springs monitoring and research. The TMDL Program relies on this 

program to provide information and data for springs so that their water quality and ecological 

conditions can be evaluated and the nutrient-impaired springs can be identified and addressed. 

Future reports will include more detailed information on spring water quality data and document 

nutrient-related impacts on spring ecosystems. 

3. Evaluate the existing monitoring network to potentially include other priority springs that 

may have issues, provide information from under-represented regions of the state, and 

integrate springs monitoring and restoration with other monitoring and restoration initiatives 

of FDEP. 

The original emphasis of monitoring under this program was on higher magnitude springs and/or 

those associated with state parks. However, other springs with potential issues and those 

representing water quality conditions in other regions of the state should also be considered for 

monitoring under this program. Limited and sporadic nitrate data have been compiled for some of 

these non-network springs from multiple sources (Appendix A). Many of these springs that represent 

water quality from smaller springsheds may have a greater and more immediate response to localized 

contaminant sources and monitoring data from them may be helpful in evaluating the impacts of 

springshed-scale land use and restoration activities including agricultural best management practices. 

Under the available monitoring budget, expansion of the network may mean relying on other 

organizations or programs to collect data from some of the current monitoring stations. 

4. Collaborate with other organizations that also conduct monitoring and discharge 

measurements to obtain more information on discharge, develop consistency in naming 

convention and locations of springs stations and coordinate data sharing and monitoring 

activities. 

If funding is available, measurement of spring discharge should continue under the FDEP program. It 

is important to maintain discharge stations to observe long term trends that would not otherwise be 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

65 

detected. This report includes a comprehensive assessment of available discharge data collected as 

part of the Springs Initiative Network and the USGS. The discharge data will be available for future 

assessment the influences on changes in spring discharge. The network discharge stations are 

measured at the same time water quality samples are collected. These data will be used in the future 

to help characterize contaminant loading and ground water transport issues. Future reports will also 

include discharge information on springs that have established minimum flows and levels. 

Efforts have been made to address inconsistencies in the spring naming convention between 

agencies and accuracy issues for spring sampling stations. Many of these issues have been resolved 

and an approach for identifying inconsistencies and making corrections has been proposed. The 

FDEP 2008 Springs Master List (Appendix B) contains the conventional names for known springs

along with the best available information on station location. This list also contains some updates to 

the 2004 Springs of Florida report, submitted as Bulletin 66 by the FGS. This list is offered as a 

means of obtaining consistency in naming convention with FDEP programs and for other agencies as 

well. The FDEP Springs Master List is also available as a GIS layer which will be updated when 

necessary and used to review potential new stations that might be added to the network in the future. 

Future reports will not be limited to the Springs Initiative-collected data, but will include information 

from other data sources as well. An obvious way to achieve the goal of increasing the pool of 

available spring water quality and discharge data is to work with other organizations in the state to 

develop a common platform for sharing consistent, high quality data. It is anticipated that a new 

FDEP water quality database is to be developed by the Bureau of Watershed Restoration and it may 

serve as a common data transfer and retrieval platform to exchange data between organizations that 

do monitoring. Three of the water management districts currently also perform routine spring 

monitoring and there are also occasional special projects that include spring data collection. One 

important action that is recommended for the upcoming year is to work more closely with other 

organizations to collaborate and share spring data and work on common strategies as we collect new 

data. This collaboration will benefit the assessment of trends in springs and help identify springs that 

are impaired by nutrients and need restoration plans. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

66 

REFERENCES 

Albertin, A., J. O. Sickman, A. Pinowska, R. J. Stevenson, and M. Anderson, 2007. Stable Isotope 

Compositions of Macroalgae, Sediment and Nitrate in Florida Springs. Final Report, Task 1, 

October 31, 2007. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Arthur, J. D., H. A. R. Wood, A. E. Baker, J. R. Cichon, and G. L. Raines, 2007. Development and 

Implementation of a Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment in Florida. Natural 

Resources Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, p. 93-107. 

Bohlke, J. K., and J. M. Denver, 1995. Combined Use of Ground Water Dating, Chemical and 

Isotopic Analyses to Resolve the History and Fate of Nitrate Contamination in Two Agricultural 

Watersheds, Atlantic Coastal Plain, Maryland. Water Res. Research, Vo. 31, No. 9, pp 2319-

2339. 

Boniol, D., SJRWMD, 2/5/2008 personal communication to R. Hicks, FDEP, on cause of elevated 

chloride in Upper Floridan aquifer and springs along Middle St. Johns River. 

Butt, P. L., and G. J. Murphy, 2003. Dyal and Black Sinks Dye Trace, Columbia County, Florida, MaySeptember, 2003. Karst Environmental Svcs. for FDEP Springs Initiative. 

Campion, K. M., and R. Starks, 2001. The Hydrology and Water Quality of the Springs in WestCentral Florida. SWFWMD Water Quality Monitoring Program report, May 2001. 

Chelette, A. R., T. R. Pratt and B. G. Katz, 2002. Nitrate Loading as an Indicator of Nonpoint Source

Pollution in the Lower St. Marks-Wakulla Rivers Watershed. NWFWMD Water Resources 

Special Report 02-1. 

Cowell, B.C., and C. L. Dawes, 2004. Growth and Nitrate-Nitrogen Uptake by the Cyanobacterium 

Lyngbya wollei. J Aquat Plant Man 42: 69–71. 

Davis, J. G., and A. M. Swinker, 2003. Horse Manure Management – Quick Facts. Colordado State 

University Cooperative Extension, AGF-212-03. 

Florida Springs Task Force, 2000. Florida’s Springs: Strategies for Protection and Restoration; 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 59 p. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2008. EcoSummaries, Environmental Assessment 

Section. Available on the internet at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/cgi-bin/reports/results.asp

FDEP, 2008a. Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List 

Update, October 2008. 

FSU, 2009. Woodville Basin Tracer Study, FDEP Agreement No WM926., Florida State University 

Department of Oceanography. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

67 

Garber, M. P., J. M. Ruter, J. T. Midcap and K. Bondari, 2002. Survey of Container Nursery Irrigation

Practices in Georgia. HortTechnology, October-December 2002, 12(4). 

Gao, X., 2008. Nutrient TMDLS for the Wekiwa River (WBIDs 2956, 2956A, and 2956C) and Rock 

Springs Run (WBID 2967). FDEP Div. Water Res. Mgmt, Bur. Watershed Mgmt. 

Hallas, J. F. and W. Magley, 2008. Nutrient and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL for the Suwannee River, 

Santa Fe River, Manatee Springs (3422R), Fanning Springs (3422S), Branford Spring (3422J), 

Ruth Spring (3422L), Troy Spring (3422T), Royal Spring (3422U), and Falmouth Spring 

(3422Z). FDEP Div. Water Res. Mgmt., Bur. Watershed Mgmt. 

Hand, J., 2004. Typical Water Quality Values for Florida Lakes, Streams and Estuaries, FDEP 

Watershed Assessment Section. In draft. 

Harden, H. and J. Chanton, 2009. Interim Findings of Wakulla County, Florida Performance-Based 

Septic System Study, in draft. Florida State University Oceanography Department. 

Hazen and Sawyer, 2009. Florida Onsite Sewage Nitrogen Reduction Strategies Study, Task A2. 

Literature Review of Nitrogen Reduction Technologies for Onsite Sewage Treatment Systems 

for Florida Department of Health Contract CORCL. 

Hazlett-Kinkaid, 2007. Tallahassee SE Spray Field Tracer Test- 2006-2007, Final Report on the 

Setup and Results, Woodville Karst Plain, North Florida. 

Hicks, R., 2009. Findings of Reclaimed Water Sampling Event, Wekiva BMAP Area. FDEP 

September 3, 2009 internal memorandum to J. Gihring. 

Hochmuth, G. J., and E, A. Hanlon, 2000. IFAS Standardized Fertilization Recommendations for 

Vegetable Crops. UF/IFAS CIR 1152. 

Hornsby, D., and R. Mattson, 1998. Surfacewater Quality and Biological Monitoring Annual Report 

1997. SRWMD Water Res. Rep. WR98-03. 

Hornsby, D., R. A. Mattson, and T. Mirti, 2000. Surface water quality and biological monitoring. 

Annual Report. 1999. Suwannee River Water Management District Technical Report WR-00-

04. iv, 148 pp. 

Jacob, J. P., and Mather, F. B., 1997. Florida’s Commercial Broiler Industry. Gainesville, UF/IFAS 

FS PS20. 

Jennifer J. J., R. W. Litaker, and H. W. Paerl, 2008. Morphological and Genetic Evidence that the 

Cyanobacterium Lyngbya wollei (Farlow ex Gomont) Speziale and Dyck Encompasses at 

Least Two Species, Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 June; 74(12): 3710–3717. 

Jones, G. W., S. B. Upchurch, and K. M. Champion, 1996. Origin of Nitrate in Ground Water 

Discharging from Rainbow Springs, Marion County, Florida. SWFMD Ambient Ground-Water 

Monitoring Program Report, June 1996. 

Katz, B. G., H. D. Hornsby, J. F. Bohlke, and M. F. Mokray, 1999. Sources and Chronology of Nitrate 

Contamination in Spring Waters, Suwannee River Basin, Florida. USGS WRI Report 99-4252. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

68 

Katz, B. G., 2004. Sources of nitrate contamination and age of water in large karstic springs of 

Florida. Environmental Geology 46:689-706. 

Katz, B., R. Copeland, T. Greenhalgh, and R. Ceryak, 2005. Using Multiple Chemical Indicators to 

Assess Sources of Nitrate and Age of Ground Water in a Karstic Spring Basin, Environmental 

and Engineering Geoscience; November 2005; v. 11; no. 4; p. 333-346; DOI: 

10.2113/11.4.333. 

Katz, B. G., and D. W. Griffin, 2009. Using Geochemical and Microbiological Indicators to Refine the 

Assessment of Nitrate Sources in the Wekiwa Springs Basin. USGS Deliverable for FDEP 

Contract No. 929. 

Katz, B. G., D. W. Griffin, J. H. Davis, 2009. Groundwater Quality Impacts from the Land Application 

of Treated Municipal Wastewater in a Large Karstic Spring Basin: Chemical and 

Microbiological Indicators, Science of the Total Environment 407 (2009) 2872-2886. 

Katz, B., D. W. Griffin, P. B. McMahon, H. Harden, E. Wade, R. W. Hicks, and J. Chanton, 2009. Fate 

of Effluent-Borne Contaminants Beneath Septic Tank Drainfields Overlying a Karst Aquifer. 

USGS Special Pub. in draft. 

Kendall, C., 1998. Tracing Nitrogen Sources and Cycling in Catchments in Isotope Tracers in 

Catchment Hydrology (1998), C. Kendall and J. J. McDonnell (Eds.). Elsevier Science B.V., 

Amsterdam, pp. 519-576. 

Kuphal, T., 2005. Quantification of Domestic Wastewater Discharge and Associated Nitrate Loading 

in Marion County, Florida. Marion County Planning Department, August, 2005. 

MACTEC, 2009. Draft Data Summary Report Sources of Nitrate in the Wekiva River Basin, Phase II. 

Prepared for SJRWMD and FDEP under SJRWMD Contract 25009. 

Mattson, R.A., SJRWMD, 2009, personal communication. 

Mattson, R. A., E. F. Lowe, C. L. Lippincott, J. Di, and L. Battoe, 2006. Wekiva River 

and Rock Springs Run Pollutant Load Reduction Goals. Report to the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. St. Johns River Water Management District. 

Minogue, P. J., H. K. Ober, S. Rosenthal. Overview of Pine Straw Production in North Florida: 

Potential Revenues, Fertilization Practices, and Vegetation Management Recommendations. 

UF/IFAS FOR125. 

Mitchell, C. C., J. O. Donald, and J. Martin, 1990. The Value and Use of Poultry Waste as a Fertilizer. 

Alabama Coop. Extension Serv. Circ. ANR-244. Auburn, AL. 

Mylavarapu, R., D. Wright, G. Kidder, and C. G. Chambliss, 2009. UF/IFAS Standardized Fertilization 

Recommendations for Agronomic Crops. University of Florida IFAS Extension SL129. 

Obreza, T., and G. Means, 2006. Characterizing Agriculture in Florida’s Lower Suwannee River 

Basin Area, UF/IFAS SL 241. 

Parsons, L. and B. Boman, 2006. Best Management Practices for Florida Citrus. HortTechnology, 

July-September 2006 16(3). 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

69 

Phelps, GG., 2004. Chemistry of Ground Water in the Silver Springs Basin, Florida with an Emphasis 

on Nitrate. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5144. 

Potapova, M. and D. F. Charles, 2005. Choice of Substrate in Algae-based Water Quality 

Assessment. J. North American Benthological Soc. 24(2): 415-427. 

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

Bureau of Geology and Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bull. 31 (revised). 

461 p. 

Sartain, J. B., L. T. Trenholm, E. F. Gilman, T. A. Obreza, and G. Toor, 2009. Frequently Asked 

Questions about Landscaping Fertilization for Florida-Friendly Landscaping Ordinances. 

University of Florida IFAS, ENH1115. 

Scott, T. M., G. H. Means, R. P. Meegan, R. C. Means, S. B. Upchurch, R. E. Copeland, J. Jones, T. 

Roberts, and A. Willet, 2004. Springs of Florida. Florida Geological Svy. Bull. 66, 377 p. 

SJRWMD, 2007. Sources, Transport and Transformations of Nitrate-N in the Florida Environment. 

SJRWMD Special Pub. SJ2007-SP10 pepared by the Univ. of Florida School of Forest 

Resources and Conservation. 

Soil and Water Engineering Technology, 2002. Computer Modeling Services for the Suwannee River 

Watershed, FDACS #7148. 

Spechler, R., and K. J. Halford, 2001. Hydrogeology, Water Quality and Simulated Effects of GroundWater Withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer System, Seminole County and Vicinity. USGS 

WRI 01-4182. 

Stevenson, R. J., A. Pinowska, A. Abertin and J. O. Sickman, 2007. Ecological Condition of Alga and 

Nutrients in Florida Springs: The Synthesis Report. Department of Zoology, Michigan State 

Univ., FDEP Contract WM 858. 

SWFWMD, 2002. Upper Peace River An Analysis of Minimum Flows and Levels, August, 25, 2002. 

DRAFT. SWFWMD Ecological Evaluation Section. 

Toth, D.J., 1999. Water quality and isotope concentrations from selected springs in the St. Johns 

River Water Management District. Technical Publication SJ99-2. Palatka, Fla.: St. Johns River 

Water Management District. 

Toth, D. J., and C. Fortich, 2002. Nitrate Concentrations in the Wekiva Ground Water Basin with 

Emphasis on Wekiwa Springs. SJRWMD Technical Pub. SJ2002-2. 

Toth, D. J. , and L. Knowles, 2007. Silver Springs Characterization Phase III-Isotope, Anthropogenic,

Pesticide, and Wastewater Chemical Characterization. Deliverable for Agreement S0277 with 

FDEP. 

UF/IFIS Florida Forest Stewardship Bulletin, last updated July 3, 2008. 

http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/florida_forestry_information/forest_management/fertilization.

html
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

70 

United States Census Bureau, 2005. Interim State Projections, Statistics on the internet at 

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/PressTab6.xls . 

United States Geological Survey, 2009. The Water Cycle: Springs; Publication on the internet at 

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclesprings.html . 

Van Horn, H.H., R. A. Nordstedt, A. V. Bottcher, E. A. Hanlon, D. A. Graetz, and C. F. Chambliss, 

1991. Dairy Manure Management: Strategies for Recycling Nutrients to Recover Fertilizer 

Value and Avoid Environmental Pollution. UF/IFAS Circular 1016. 

Yeager, T. H., 2009. Current Fertilization Practices Used in Container Nurseries. UF/IFAS, 

unpublished manuscript.
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

71 

APPENDIX A: NITRATE MEDIANS FOR ALL SPRINGS 

WITH DATA (1998-2008) 

≤0.2 mg/L 0.2-0.5 mg/L 0.5-1 mg/L 1-3 mg/L >3 mg/L

ALEXANDER SPRING 

[BKG] ALA930971 (ALACHUA) 

ALLEN MILL POND 

SPRINGS ALLEN SPRING APOPKA SPRING* 

BEECHER SPRING [BKG] ALAPAHA RIVER RISE 

BLUE HOLE SPRING 

(COLUMBIA) ** 

ALLIGATOR HOLE 

SPRING BALTZELL SPRING 

BELTONS MILLPOND 

HEAD SPRING 3 [BKG] AUCILLA SPRING BLUEBIRD SPRINGS 

ALLIGATOR 

SPRING (MARION) 

** BETTY SPRING 

BIG SPRING (BIG BLUE 

SPRING) (JEFFERSON) BAIRD SPRING #1 BOBHILL SPRING - 

ANDERSON 

SPRING BOYETTE SPRING* 

BLUE ALGAE BOIL 

SPRING [BKG] BECKTON SPRING BUGG SPRING (LAKE) 

BATHTUB SPRING 

(SUWANNEE) CONVICT SPRING 

BLUE CREEK SPRING BETEEJAY SPRING 

CANAL 485A SPRING 

2 

BIG KING 

SPRING** 

DOUBLE RUN 

SPRING (LAKE) 

BLUEBERRY SPRING 

[BKG] 

BLACK SPRING 

(JACKSON) CEDAR HEAD SPRING 

BLUE GROTTO 

(LEVY)* 

FANNING 

SPRINGS** 

BOULDER SPRINGS 

BLACK SPRINGS 

(CITRUS) 

CHASSAHOWITZKA 

SPRING #1 - 

BLUE GROTTO 

SPRING (MARION) 

- 

HAYS SPRING 

(JACKSON) 

BRADLEY SPRING 

BLUE HOLE SPRING 

(JACKSON) COFFEE SPRINGS BONNET SPRING HEALTH SPRING* 

BRIGHT ANGEL SPRING BLUE RUN SPRING 

COL1012972 

(COLUMBIA) 

BOULWARE 

SPRINGS 

JACKSON BLUE 

SPRINGCAMP LE NO CHE 

SPRING [BKG] BLUE SINK SPRING 

COL428981 

(COLUMBIA) 

BRANFORD 

SPRING 

LAF924971 

(LAFAYETTE) 

CAMP SEMINOLE 

SPRINGS BOAT SPRING CRAB SPRING 

BRIDAL CHAMBER 

SPRING 

LAKE BLUE 

SPRINGCATFISH SPRINGS 

(MARION) 

BRUNSON LANDING 

SPRING DARBY SPRING 

BUBBLING 

SPRING** 

MOORING COVE 

SPRINGS 

CEDAR ISLAND SPRING 

(TAYLOR) 

BUZZARD LOG 

SPRING 

DELEON SPRING 

(VOLUSIA) * 

BUCKHORN 

SPRING MAIN * OWENS SPRING 

CEDAR SPRING CASSIDY SPRINGS DOGWOOD SPRING 

CANAL 485A 

SPRING 1B - 

RUTH SPRING 

(LAFAYETTE)** 

CLIFTON SPRINGS [BKG] 

CATFISH SPRING 

(CITRUS) 

DOUBLE SPRING 

(JACKSON) 

CATFISH 

CONVENTION 

HALL SPRING* 

SHANGRI-LA 

SPRINGS 

COL522981 (COLUMBIA) 

CHASSAHOWITZKA 

SPRING MAIN ELLAVILLE SPRING 

CATFISH HOTEL 

SPRING SOCRUM SPRING 

COLUMBIA SPRING CITRUS BLUE SPRING FALMOUTH SPRING - 

CATFISH 

RECEPTION HALL 

SUW718971 

(SUWANNEE)* 

COPPER SPRING[BKG] CORDLE SPRING GADSEN SPRING 

CHRISTMAS TREE 

SPRING 

SUW725971 

(SUWANNEE) 

CROAKER HOLE SPRING CYPRESS SPRING GEMINI SPRINGS #3 

COL61982 

(COLUMBIA) 

SUWANNEE BLUE 

SPRINGDIX625991 (DIXIE) 

DEVILS EYE SPRINGS 

(SUWANNEE) GEMINI SPRINGS ** 

CRYSTAL BEACH 

SPRING 

(PINELLAS) TRAIL SPRING 

DIX625992 (DIXIE) DIX625994 (DIXIE) GUM SPRING #3 

CRYSTAL 

SPRINGS 

(PASCO)* TROOP SPRING 

DIX625993 (DIXIE) FENNEY SPRING 

HAM610981 

(HAMILTON) 

CRYSTAL SWAMP 

SPRING #1 

(PASCO) 

DOBES HOLE SPRING GAINER SPRING #2 

HIDDEN RIVER HEAD 

SPRING - 

CRYSTAL SWAMP 

SPRING #2 

(PASCO) 

DROTY SPRING [BKG] GAINER SPRING #3 

HIDDEN RIVER 

SPRING #2 ** 

CRYSTAL SWAMP 

SPRING #3 

(PASCO) 

EVA SPRING 

GATOR SPRING 

(HERNANDO) 

HOMOSASSA SPRING 

- 

DEVILS EAR 

SPRING 

(GILCHRIST)** 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

72 

≤0.2 mg/L 0.2-0.5 mg/L 0.5-1 mg/L 1-3 mg/L >3 mg/L

FERN HAMMOCK 

SPRINGS 

GIL729971 

(GILCHRIST) 

HOMOSASSA SPRING 

#1 - 

DEVILS KITCHEN A 

SPRING 

FOLSOM SPRING 

GRASSY HOLE 

SPRING 

HOMOSASSA SPRING 

#3 - 

DEVILS KITCHEN B 

SPRING 

FOREST SPRING 

HALLS RIVER HEAD 

SPRING 

ICHETUCKNEE HEAD 

SPRING (SUWANNEE) 

- 

FIRST 

FISHERMANS 

PARADISE 

GAINER SPRING #1C 

HAM54012 

(HAMILTON) 

JENKINS CREEK 

SPRING * 

GARDEN OF EDEN 

SPRING 

GARNER SPRING 

HOLMES BLUE 

SPRING 

LAF929972 

(LAFAYETTE) GEYSER SPRING 

GIL99974 (GILCHRIST) 

HOMOSASSA SPRING 

#2 LEVY BLUE SPRING 

GILCHRIST BLUE 

SPRING** 

GINGER ALE SPRING HORN SPRING LILLY SPRING GINNIE SPRINGGREEN ALGAE BOIL 

SPRING HORNSBY SPRING 

LIME RUN SPRING OR 

SINK (SUWANNEE) GLEN SPRING 

GREEN COVE SPRINGS 

[BKG] HORSEHEAD SPRING 

LITTLE KING SPRING 

** GREEN SINK 

GREEN SPRING HUNTER SPRING 

LITTLE SPRING 

(HERNANDO) 

GUARANTO 

SPRING 

HAM522981 (HAMILTON) 

IDIOTS DELIGHT 

SPRING 

LOG SPRING 

(MARION) GUM SPRING #1** 

HAM923973 (HAMILTON) 

JEF64991 

(JEFFERSON) LOST RIVER SPRING GUM SPRING #2 - 

HAMPTON SPRING 

(TAYLOR) [BKG] 

JEFFERSON BLUE 

SPRING 

MILL POND SPRING 

(JACKSON) 

GUM SPRING 

MAIN** 

HOLTON CREEK RISE 

LAF710981 

(LAFAYETTE) MISSION SPRINGS - 

HAM1017971 

(HAMILTON) 

IRON SPRING 

(LAFAYETTE) 

LAF718971 

(LAFAYETTE) 

MYRTLES FISSURE 

SPRING 

HAM610982 

(HAMILTON) 

ISLAND SPRING 

LIME SPRING 

(SUWANNEE) OTTER SPRING 

HAM610983 

(HAMILTON) 

JABO SPRING 

LOG SPRING 

(JEFFERSON) 

PALM SPRINGS 

(SEMINOLE) - 

HAM610984 

(HAMILTON) 

JAMISON SPRINGS LOUISE SPRINGS PEGASUS SPRING 

HAM612982 

(HAMILTON) 

JEF312991 (JEFFERSON) 

MAGNOLIA CIRCLE 

SPRING PICKARD SPRING HART SPRINGSJEF63991 MAGNOLIA SPRING 

POTTER CREEK 

SPRING 

INDIAN CAVE 

SPRING 

JEF63992 (JEFFERSON) MATTAIR SPRINGS 

RAINBOW BRIDGE 

SEEP NORTH 

INDIAN CREEK #3 

SPRING 

JEF63993 (JEFFERSON) 

MILL POND SPRINGS 

(COLUMBIA) RAINBOW SPRING 

JACOBS WELL 

SPRING 

JUG ISLAND SPRING MINNOW SPRING 

RUTH SPRING 

(CITRUS) JULY SPRING 

JUNIPER SPRINGS 

NATURAL BRIDGE 

SPRING SALLY WARD SPRING 

LADIES PARLOR 

SPRING 

LAF1024001 

(LAFAYETTE) NICHOLS SPRING SAWDUST SPRING 

LAF57981 

(LAFAYETTE) 

LAF93971 (LAFAYETTE) POE SPRING 

SILVER SPRING MAIN 

** 

LAF57982 

(LAFAYETTE) 

LEV719991 (LEVY) 

PONCE DE LEON 

SPRING (HOLMES) SIPHON CREEK RISE 

LAF919972 

(LAFAYETTE) 

LEV97991 (LEVY) 

PUMPHOUSE 

SPRINGS 

SPRINGBOARD 

SPRING 

LAF929971 

(LAFAYETTE) 

LITTLE COPPER SPRING 

[BKG] RHODES SPRINGS #1 

SUW919971 

(SUWANNEE) 

LAFAYETTE BLUE 

SPRING* 

LURAVILLE SPRING RHODES SPRINGS #2 

TANNER SPRING 

(HAMILTON) 

LETTUCE LAKE 

SPRING 

MAGNESIA SPRING RHODES SPRINGS #4 

TROTTER MAIN 

SPRING - 

LITHIA SPRING 

MAJOR* 

MAINTENANCE SPRING ROSSETER SPRING TURTLE SPRING 

LITTLE OTTER 

SPRING 

MANATEE MINERAL 

SPRING 

SALT SPRING 

(HERNANDO) WAKULLA SPRING * 

LITTLE RIVER 

SPRING* 

MARION BLUE SPRING SANDBAG SPRING 

WEEKI WACHEE 

SPRING - 

MAD610981 

(MADISON) 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

73 

≤0.2 mg/L 0.2-0.5 mg/L 0.5-1 mg/L 1-3 mg/L >3 mg/L

MARKEE SPRING [BKG] SANLANDO SPRINGS 

WILSON HEAD 

SPRING (MARION) * 

MAD610982 

(MADISON) 

MCCRABB SPRING [BKG] 

SHADY BROOK HEAD 

SPRING #2 

MAD612981 

(MADISON) 

MIAMI SPRING 

ST. MARKS RIVER 

SWALLET 

MAD612982 

(MADISON) 

MOCCASIN SPRINGS STARBUCK SPRING 

MADISON BLUE 

SPRING** 

MORRISON SPRING 

SULPHUR SPRING 

(HILLSBOROUGH) 

MANATEE 

SPRING** 

MOSQUITO SPRINGS 

SUMTER BLUE 

SPRING 

MASTODON BONE 

SPRING 

MUD SPRING (PUTNAM) 

[BKG] SUNBEAM SPRING MEARSON SPRING 

MUNROE SPRING 

SUW923971 

(SUWANNEE) MORGAN SPRING 

NASHUA SPRING [BKG] 

SUWANACOOCHEE 

SPRING 

NATURAL WELLS 

(LEON) 

NEWPORT SPRING 

[BKG] TAY924993 (TAYLOR) 

NO NAME COVE 

SPRING 

NOVA SPRING 

THOMAS SPRING 

(JEFFERSON) 

ORANGE GROVE 

SINK 

NUTALL RISE TREEHOUSE SPRING 

ORANGE GROVE 

SPRING 

ORANGE SPRING 

(MARION) [BKG] TWIN SPRING OSCAR SPRING 

PALM SPRINGS (LAKE) 

[BKG] 

VOLUSIA BLUE 

SPRING 

PEACOCK 

SPRINGS 

PARKER ISLAND SPRING VORTEX SPRING PERRY SPRING 

RIVER SINK SPRING WACISSA SPRING #2 

POT HOLE 

SPRING 

ROCK SINK SPRING 

WITHERINGTON 

SPRING POT SPRING 

SALT SPRINGS 

(MARION) WOODS CREEK RISE 

RACCOON ISLAND 

SPRING 

SALT SPRINGS (PASCO) 

#2 

RAINBOW SPRING 

#1** 

SANDYS SPRING [BKG] 

RAINBOW SPRING 

#4** 

SANTA FE RIVER RISE 

(ALACHUA) 

RAINBOW SPRING 

#6** 

SANTA FE SPRING 

(COLUMBIA) 

RECEPTION HALL 

SPRING** 

SATSUMA SPRING [BKG] 

ROCK BLUFF 

SPRINGS** 

SHARKS TOOTH SPRING 

ROCK SPRINGS 

(ORANGE) * 

SILVER GLEN SPRINGS 

[BKG] 

ROCKY VENT 

SPRING 

SNAIL SPRINGS [BKG] ROYAL SPRING 

SPRING CREEK RISE #2 

RUM ISLAND 

SPRING 

SPRING CREEK RISE 

MAIN 

RUNNING 

SPRINGS #2 

SPRING WARRIOR 

SPRING 

RUNNING 

SPRINGS#1 

ST. MARKS RIVER RISE 

(LEON) 

SHIPWRECK 

SPRING 

STEINHATCHEE RIVER 

RISE SUN SPRINGS 

STEINHATCHEE SPRING 

[BKG] 

SUW919973 

(SUWANNEE) 

SULFUR SPRING 

(ORANGE) TELFORD SPRINGSUN EDEN SPRING 

[BKG] TIMBER SPRING 

SUWANNEE 

SPRINGS[BKG] TROY SPRING- 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

74 

≤0.2 mg/L 0.2-0.5 mg/L 0.5-1 mg/L 1-3 mg/L >3 mg/L

SWEETWATER SPRINGS 

[BKG] 

TURTLE 

MEADOWS 

SPRING 

TARPON HOLE SPRING 

TURTLE NOOK 

SPRING 

SALT SPRINGS (PASCO) 

#2 

RAINBOW SPRING 

#1** 

SANDYS SPRING [BKG] 

RAINBOW SPRING 

#4** 

SANTA FE RIVER RISE 

(ALACHUA) 

RAINBOW SPRING 

#6** 

SANTA FE SPRING 

(COLUMBIA) 

RECEPTION HALL 

SPRING** 

SATSUMA SPRING [BKG] 

ROCK BLUFF 

SPRINGS** 

SHARKS TOOTH SPRING 

ROCK SPRINGS 

(ORANGE) * 

SILVER GLEN SPRINGS 

[BKG] 

ROCKY VENT 

SPRING 

SNAIL SPRINGS [BKG] ROYAL SPRING 

SPRING CREEK RISE #2 

RUM ISLAND 

SPRING 

SPRING CREEK RISE 

MAIN 

RUNNING 

SPRINGS #2 

SPRING WARRIOR 

SPRING 

RUNNING 

SPRINGS#1 

ST. MARKS RIVER RISE 

(LEON) 

SHIPWRECK 

SPRING 

STEINHATCHEE RIVER 

RISE SUN SPRINGS 

STEINHATCHEE SPRING 

[BKG] 

SUW919973 

(SUWANNEE) 

SUN EDEN SPRING 

[BKG] TELFORD SPRINGSUWANNEE 

SPRINGS[BKG] TIMBER SPRING 

SWEETWATER SPRINGS 

[BKG] TROY SPRINGTARPON HOLE SPRING 

TURTLE 

MEADOWS 

SPRING 

TAY616991 (TAYLOR) 

TURTLE NOOK 

SPRING 

TAY616992 (TAYLOR) 

WEKIWA SPRING 

(ORANGE) * 

TAY622991 (TAYLOR) 

TAY625991 (TAYLOR) 

TAY625993 (TAYLOR) 

TAY625995 (TAYLOR) 

TAY69991 (TAYLOR) 

TAY69992 (TAYLOR) 

TAY730991 (TAYLOR) 

TAY76991 (TAYLOR) 

TAY76992 (TAYLOR) 

TAY924991 (TAYLOR) 

TOBACCO PATCH 

LANDING SPRING 

WACISSA SPRING #3 

WADESBORO SPRING 

WALDO SPRING [BKG] 

WALKER SPRING 

(JEFFERSON) 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

75 

≤0.2 mg/L 0.2-0.5 mg/L 0.5-1 mg/L 1-3 mg/L >3 mg/L

WARM MINERAL SPRING 

 

WASHINGTON BLUE 

SPRING 

(CHOCTAWHATCHEE) 

 

WASHINGTON BLUE 

SPRINGS (ECONFINA) 

 

WEEKI PRESERVE 

SPRING 

 

WELAKA SPRING [BKG] 

WELLS LANDING 

SPRING 

 

WHITE SULPHUR 

SPRINGS (HAMILTON) 

[BKG] 

 

WILLIFORD SPRING 

WILSON SPRING 

(COLUMBIA) 

 

WW GAY SPRING 

Notes: 

Data used in this summary from all springs with any available data, with some having very limited data. 

Sources include Springs Monitoring Network, water management districts, U. S. Geological Survey, and 

special projects. Springs included in Springs Initiative Monitoring Network are in BOLD. BKG signifies 

that the spring may be considered for use as representing background water quality for nitrate. ** 

indicates elevated concentration with increasing trend; * indicates elevated concentration with decreasing 

trend; - indicates elevated concentration with no trend. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

76 

APPENDIX B: SPRINGS MASTER LIST (1998-2008) 

The FDEP 2008 SPRINGS MASTER LIST consists of springs that were visited by the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Water Management Districts and the United 

States Geological Survey and have available water quality or discharge data. It is provided 

as a reference tool to assist in consistency in the statewide naming system and locational 

accuracy. This information will be updated in future reports as necessary. This springs 

master list intentionally contains some springs that are known to no longer flow and includes 

associated waterbodies (such as karst windows, sinks and river rises) that are important for 

studying springs. There may be variations in the spring magnitudes reported in this 

document when compared to other publications. Spring magnitude is sometimes assigned 

based on historical information (groups of vents) rather than more recent conditions at a 

single spring vent. Spring magnitude in this document was assigned using available data 

from the best available recent flow conditions; however, for some springs the magnitude was 

only available in historic documents and/or reported for a group of vents. The spring 

magnitudes used in this report were primarily those published by Water Management 

Districts, Florida Geological Survey and the United States Geological Survey. The 

Information collected by the Florida Geological Survey about spring flow in 2002-2003 

reflects hydrologic conditions significantly influenced by the severe drought Florida 

experienced (1998-2003). Springs that had stopped flowing during this time period were 

noted and future visits to obtain discharge data will need to be collected to analyze whether 

these springs will recover and if their magnitudes have changed over the long term. 

The FDEP SPRING MAGNITUDE CATEGORIES for this report (shown below) was 

developed to differentiate between those springs that may flow once again in the future, 

depending on aquifer levels and recharge (Magnitude = 0), and those springs that have 

ceased flowing entirely and are not expected to recover regardless of changes in 

hydrogeologic and climatic conditions (Magnitude = None). 

1st Magnitude - > 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) 

2nd Magnitude - >10 - 100 cfs 

3rd Magnitude - >1 - 10 cfs 

4th Magnitude - >100 gal/min (gallons per minute) - 448 gal/min (1 cfs) 

5th Magnitude - >10 to 100 gal/min 

6th Magnitude - >1 to 10 gal/min 

7th Magnitude - >1 pint to 1 gal/min 

8th Magnitude - Equal to or less than 1 pint/min 

0 Magnitude - No longer flowing but may recover 

None - No longer flowing at any time 

Unknown - No record of spring discharge available 

(FDEP 2009 Magnitude Categories based on FGS Springs of Florida – Bulletin 66 (2004); and 

Rosenau et al. (1977), p. 4, as adapted from Meinzer (1927), p. 3) 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

77 

Appendix B continued 

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

A. WAYNE LEE SPRING UNKNOWN Sumter 28 51 34.91399 82 05 15.70999 Group 4

ABDONEY SPRING 2 Citrus 28 47 48.69199 82 35 10.05200 Group 5

ADAMS SPRING UNKNOWN Hamilton 30 25 54.77617 83 11 53.50664 Group 1

ALA930971 (ALACHUA) 2 Alachua 29 49 40.59403 82 38 27.00682 Group 1

ALA930972 (ALACHUA) 2 Alachua 29 50 40.78445 82 37 51.08022 Group 1

ALAPAHA RIVER RISE 1 Hamilton 30 26 20.28889 83 05 22.42420 Group 1

ALEXANDER SPRING 1 Lake 29 04 52.68291 81 34 33.18088 Group 2

ALLEN MILL POND SPRINGS 3 Lafayette 30 09 46.22781 83 14 35.05582 Group 1

ALLEN SPRING 2 Columbia 29 49 38.15700 82 38 45.68000 Group 1

ALLIGATOR HOLE SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 54.40000 82 03 3.300000 Group 1

ALLIGATOR SPRING (CITRUS) UNKNOWN Citrus 28 48 1.617369 82 35 16.71294 Group 5

ALLIGATOR SPRING (MARION) 3 Marion 28 57 36.81699 82 13 45.67599 Group 4

ANDERSON SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 21 12.27474 83 11 23.01402 Group 1

APOPKA SPRING 2 Lake 28 33 59.76522 81 40 50.40767 Group 1

ARIPEKA SPRING #1 3 Hernando 28 26 18.71084 82 39 31.62071 Group 5

ARIPEKA SPRING #2 3 Hernando 28 26 7.061749 82 39 32.15602 Group 5

AUCILLA SPRING 3 Jefferson 30 20 25.08000 83 59 25.89199 Group 1

BAIRD SPRING 3 Citrus 28 42 30.95218 82 34 39.35640 Group 5

BAIRD SPRING #1 3 Citrus 28 42 26.91486 82 34 41.51827 Group 5

BAIRD SPRING #2 3 Citrus 28 42 29.88287 82 34 42.80038 Group 5

BAIRD SPRING #3 3 Citrus 28 42 32.85551 82 34 46.71904 Group 5

BAIRD SPRING #4 3 Citrus 28 42 33.33298 82 34 48.98520 Group 5

BALTZELL SPRING 2 Jackson 30 49 50.15996 85 14 3.839999 Group 2

BAMBOO SPRING UNKNOWN Putnam 29 30 57.04920 81 52 0.177000 Group 1

BANANA SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 48 3.635420 82 35 17.43986 Group 5

BAPTIZING SPRING UNKNOWN Suwannee 30 08 1.905399 83 08 2.962999 Group 1

BARREL SPRING (JACKSON) 4 Jackson 30 35 32.75884 85 10 14.44799 Group 2

BARREL SPRING (ORANGE) 3 Orange 28 42 41 81 28 18 Group 2

BATHTUB SPRING (SUWANNEE) 2 Suwannee 30 05 30.21454 83 05 54.01471 Group 1

BEAR CREEK RISE UNKNOWN Franklin 29 58 54.30176 84 27 47.41685 Group 1

BEAR SPRING (CITRUS) 0 Citrus 28 48 6.469849 82 35 14.12002 Group 5

BEAR SPRING (LAKE) UNKNOWN Lake 28 39 6.139329 81 43 0.778870 Group 1

BEAVER CREEK SPRING 2 Taylor 29 45 57.41093 83 20 6.178850 Group 1

BECKTON SPRING 2 Washington 30 38 55.12913 85 41 37.18691 Group 3

BECKY SPRINGS UNKNOWN Clay 30 05 7.080000 81 53 45.95999 Group 2

BEECHER SPRING 2 Putnam 29 26 55.16801 81 38 48.70600 Group 2

BELCHER SPRING 2 Citrus 28 47 48.28700 82 35 10.62800 Group 5

BELL SPRING (GILCHRIST) 3 Gilchrist 29 35 50.79904 82 56 28.21750 Group 1

BELL SPRINGS (COLUMBIA) 2 Columbia 30 19 45.81407 82 41 17.45412 Group 1

BELTONS MILLPOND HEAD SPRING 1 2 Sumter 28 45 26.55900 82 03 44.59600 Group 4

BELTONS MILLPOND HEAD SPRING 2 2 Sumter 28 45 27.49099 82 03 43.57200 Group 4

BELTONS MILLPOND HEAD SPRING 2A 2 Sumter 28 45 28.39299 82 03 48.28200 Group 4

BELTONS MILLPOND HEAD SPRING 2B 2 Sumter 28 45 29.19599 82 03 45.04899 Group 4

BELTONS MILLPOND HEAD SPRING 3 2 Sumter 28 45 29.67200 82 03 45.30500 Group 4

BELTONS MILLPOND HEAD SPRING 4 2 Sumter 28 45 30.36599 82 03 47.49800 Group 4

BETEEJAY LOWER SPRING UNKNOWN Hernando 28 41 31.95474 82 35 34.35756 Group 5

BETEEJAY SPRING UNKNOWN Hernando 28 41 25.39399 82 35 29.41099 Group 5

BETTY SPRING 3 Suwannee 29 54 53.19651 82 50 23.84184 Group 1

BIG HOLE SPRING UNKNOWN Sumter 28 45 33.04499 82 05 54.93999 Group 4

BIG KING SPRING 3 Levy 29 06 59.12338 82 38 32.13899 Group 1

BIG SPRING (BIG BLUE SPRING) (JEFFERSON) 2 Jefferson 30 19 39.84153 83 59 5.378890 Group 1

BIG SPRING (TAYLOR) 2 Taylor 29 58 27.36930 83 44 19.79620 Group 1

BLACK SPRING (JACKSON) 2 Jackson 30 41 55.40302 85 17 40.07576 Group 2

BLACK SPRINGS (CITRUS) 3 Citrus 28 52 38.27996 82 35 56.40000 Group 5

BLACKWATER SPRINGS 3 Lake 28 53 17.12547 81 29 50.83507 Group 2

BLIND SPRING 2 Hernando 28 39 28.32177 82 38 4.620950 Group 5

BLUE ALGAE BOIL SPRING 5 Lake 28 52 30.37651 81 26 26.32505 Group 2
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

78 

Appendix B continued 

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

BLUE CREEK SPRING 2 Taylor 29 50 41.01000 83 33 28.04299 Group 1

BLUE GROTTO (LEVY) UNKNOWN Levy 29 23 16.16999 82 29 10.78000 Group 1

BLUE GROTTO SPRING (MARION) UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 54.90590 82 02 59.59132 Group 1

BLUE HOLE SPRING (CITRUS) UNKNOWN Citrus 28 47 55.63427 82 35 22.33819 Group 5

BLUE HOLE SPRING (COLUMBIA) 1 Columbia 29 58 49.90703 82 45 30.37913 Group 1

BLUE HOLE SPRING (JACKSON) 2 Jackson 30 49 12.52347 85 14 41.62271 Group 2

BLUE RUN SPRING UNKNOWN Hernando 28 41 12.50199 82 36 5.165000 Group 5

BLUE SINK SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 20 8.485690 82 48 30.39404 Group 1

BLUE SPRING (OKALOOSA) UNKNOWN Okaloosa 30 37 46.69438 86 27 6.818399 Group 3

BLUE SPRING (SUWANNEE) 2 Hamilton 30 25 22.95072 83 00 55.52798 Group 1

BLUEBERRY SPRING 4 Lake 28 51 2.634480 81 26 41.48441 Group 2

BLUEBIRD SPRINGS 3 Citrus 28 47 20.38027 82 34 46.25806 Group 5

BLUFF SPRINGS 3 Bay 30 25 30.95550 85 32 54.19590 Group 3

BOAT SPRING 3 Hernando 28 26 11.57851 82 39 23.43617 Group 5

BOBHILL SPRING 3 Hernando 28 26 4.957999 82 38 27.97499 Group 5

BONNET SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 07 27.56312 83 08 17.45944 Group 1

BOULDER SPRINGS 5 Lake 28 52 17.96837 81 27 0.355459 Group 2

BOULWARE SPRINGS 4 Alachua 29 37 15.20673 82 18 25.90535 Group 1

BRADLEY SPRING 3 Taylor 29 42 0.169960 83 24 40.06998 Group 1

BRANFORD SPRING 2 Suwannee 29 57 17.52526 82 55 42.27174 Group 1

BRANTLEY SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 00 29.81797 82 59 11.46652 Group 1

BREAM FOUNTAIN SINK UNKNOWN Wakulla 30 10 33.5 84 24 56.5 Group 1

BRIDAL CHAMBER SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 53.20000 82 03 5.5 Group 1

BRIGHT ANGEL SPRING UNKNOWN Putnam 29 30 59.65919 81 51 43.52339 Group 1

BRUMBLEY SPRING 2 Jefferson 30 20 41.38685 83 58 51.63329 Group 1

BRUNSON LANDING SPRING 3 Washington 30 36 33.22386 85 45 30.88954 Group 3

BUBBLING SPRING 3 Marion 29 06 4.455680 82 26 5.451359 Group 4

BUCKHORN EAST SPRING 2 Hillsborough 27 53 20.67399 82 18 5.189999 Group 2

BUCKHORN SOUTH SPRING 2 Hillsborough 27 53 12.84600 82 18 18.75699 Group 2

BUCKHORN SPRING MAIN 2 Hillsborough 27 53 21.81079 82 18 9.796899 Group 2

BUCKHORN SPRINGS #395 UNKNOWN Hillsborough 27 53 38.3 82 17 53.1 Group 2

BUCKHORN SPRINGS #396 UNKNOWN Hillsborough 27 53 38.7 82 17 6.2 Group 2

BUCKHORN SPRINGS #397 UNKNOWN Hillsborough 27 53 26.5 82 16 36.8 Group 2

BUCKHORN WEST SPRING 2 Hillsborough 27 53 21.14100 82 18 16.81900 Group 2

BUGG SPRING (LAKE) 2 Lake 28 45 7.152230 81 54 5.462210 Group 1

BUZZARD LOG SPRING 2 Jefferson 30 19 48.49867 83 59 12.80159 Group 1

CAMP GROUND SPRING (TAYLOR) 2 Taylor 30 04 4.265109 83 33 13.76329 Group 1

CAMP LE NO CHE SPRING 4 Lake 28 57 8.716000 81 32 31.88219 Group 2

CAMP SEMINOLE SPRINGS 4 Marion 29 30 21.79252 81 57 5.232059 Group 1

CAMPGROUND SPRING (GILCHRIST) 3 Gilchrist 29 53 57.44377 82 51 57.94091 Group 1

CANAL 485 SPRING 5 3 Sumter 28 46 7.5 82 07 1.241000 Group 4

CANAL 485A SPRING 1B 3 Sumter 28 46 10.60300 82 07 4.804000 Group 4

CANAL 485A SPRING 2 3 Sumter 28 46 12.93499 82 07 3.375 Group 4

CANAL SPRING 2 Hillsborough 28 02 5.227980 82 20 34.88254 Group 1

CARLTON SPRING 9 Taylor 30 03 29.76897 83 35 14.53200 Group 1

CASSIDY SPRINGS 2 Jefferson 30 19 57.79618 83 59 20.53168 Group 1

CATFISH CONVENTION HALL SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 55.58935 82 02 38.06163 Group 1

CATFISH HOTEL SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 55.40000 82 02 42.40000 Group 1

CATFISH RECEPTION HALL UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 53.79999 82 03 6.400000 Group 1

CATFISH SPRING (CITRUS) 2 Citrus 28 53 52.79992 82 35 56.40000 Group 5

CATFISH SPRINGS (MARION) 3 Marion 29 30 55 81 51 42 Group 1

CEDAR COVE SPRINGS UNKNOWN Citrus 28 54 6.840000 82 35 57.11999 Group 5

CEDAR HEAD SPRING 3 Columbia 29 58 59.87992 82 45 31.31999 Group 1

CEDAR ISLAND SPRING (PASCO) UNKNOWN Pasco 28 22 1.014060 82 41 59.36424 Group 5

CEDAR ISLAND SPRING (TAYLOR) 2 Taylor 29 48 58.72960 83 35 1.974440 Group 1

CEDAR SPRING 5 Lake 28 52 21 81 26 54 Group 2

CHARLES SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 10 2.509970 83 13 49.27000 Group 1

CHASSAHOWITZKA SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 42 54.95108 82 34 34.35600 Group 5

CHASSAHOWITZKA SPRING #1 3 Citrus 28 42 58.24206 82 34 30.31906 Group 5

CHASSAHOWITZKA SPRING #2 2 Citrus 28 42 57.66401 82 34 31.62517 Group 5

CHASSAHOWITZKA SPRING MAIN 1 Citrus 28 42 55.86505 82 34 34.33253 Group 5

CHATTAHOOCHEE SPRING 4 Gadsden 30 41 50.67820 84 50 55.82004 Group 2

CHIMNEY SPRINGS (MARION) UNKNOWN Marion 29 14 40 81 38 34 Group 2
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

79 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

CHOCTAWHATCHEE SPRINGS (WALTON) UNKNOWN Walton 30 24 5.713776 86 03 35.78040 Group 3

CHRISTMAS TREE SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 58.29999 82 02 57.30000 Group 1

CHUMUCKLA SPRINGS 5 Santa Rosa 30 50 0 87 17 48 Group 4

CITRUS BLUE SPRING 2 Citrus 28 58 9.601569 82 18 52.34349 Group 4

CLAM SPRINGS UNKNOWN Gadsden 30 41 45.69064 84 51 28.71323 Group 2

CLEMMONS SPRING 3 Washington 30 38 29.09601 85 41 34.67252 Group 3

CLIFTON SPRINGS 3 Seminole 28 41 59.53977 81 14 17.22397 Group 2

COFFEE SPRINGS 3 Suwannee 29 57 34.04671 82 46 31.17827 Group 1

COL1012971 (COLUMBIA) 2 Columbia 29 51 24.88338 82 43 47.98160 Group 1

COL1012972 (COLUMBIA) 2 Columbia 29 51 23.37868 82 43 54.11730 Group 1

COL101971 (COLUMBIA) 3 Columbia 29 49 55.96126 82 40 9.711159 Group 1

COL101974 (COLUMBIA) 2 Columbia 29 50 2.393589 82 40 36.04461 Group 1

COL101975 (COLUMBIA) 4 Columbia 29 50 1.755999 82 40 41.55200 Group 1

COL1105041 3 Columbia 29 58 49.88199 82 45 28.86199 Group 1

COL428981 (COLUMBIA) 3 Columbia 29 51 12.72895 82 36 19.87571 Group 1

COL522981 (COLUMBIA) 3 Columbia 30 19 15.75972 82 45 21.29422 Group 1

COL522982 (COLUMBIA) 3 Columbia 30 19 17.26456 82 45 23.50213 Group 1

COL61982 (COLUMBIA) 4 Columbia 29 56 17.89600 82 31 49.32700 Group 1

COL917971 (COLUMBIA) 3 Columbia 29 55 29.37913 82 46 19.16566 Group 1

COL928971 (COLUMBIA) 3 Columbia 29 53 10.18589 82 45 5.507169 Group 1

COL930971 (COLUMBIA) 2 Columbia 29 49 52.19215 82 39 24.26237 Group 1

COLUMBIA SPRING 1 Columbia 29 51 14.79924 82 36 43.03174 Group 1

CONVICT SPRING 3 Lafayette 30 05 18.02483 83 05 45.48202 Group 1

COPPER SPRING 2 Dixie 29 36 50.45069 82 58 25.89046 Group 1

CORDLE SPRING UNKNOWN Walton 30 59 7.200000 86 12 47.52000 Group 3

COW SPRING 0 Suwannee 30 06 19.01994 83 06 49.70999 Group 1

CRAB SPRING 2 Citrus 28 43 1.916940 82 34 33.06892 Group 5

CRAYS RISE 2 Wakulla 29 59 22.19995 84 24 28.80000 Group 1

CRESCENT BEACH SUBMARINE SPRING 2 St. Johns 29 46 6 81 12 30 Group 5

CRESCENT DRIVE SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 52 39 82 35 54.95999 Group 5

CROAKER HOLE SPRING 2 Putnam 29 26 18 81 41 21 Group 2

CRYSTAL BEACH SPRING (PINELLAS) 2 Pinellas 28 05 3.964060 82 47 5.109109 Group 5

CRYSTAL SPRINGS #5 (PASCO) 2 Pasco 28 10 58.23999 82 11 8.530000 Group 2

CRYSTAL SPRINGS #6 (PASCO) 2 Pasco 28 10 58.78000 82 11 7.763000 Group 2

CRYSTAL SPRINGS (PASCO) 2 Pasco 28 10 55.92310 82 11 6.530750 Group 2

CRYSTAL SWAMP SPRING #1 (PASCO) 2 Pasco 28 11 13 82 10 52 Group 2

CRYSTAL SWAMP SPRING #2 (PASCO) 2 Pasco 28 11 6 82 10 48 Group 2

CRYSTAL SWAMP SPRING #3 (PASCO) 2 Pasco 28 11 7 82 11 34 Group 2

CYPRESS SPRING 2 Washington 30 39 29.00 85 41 4.00 Group 3

D-1415 SEEP UNKNOWN Duval 30 16 26 81 50 6 Group 2

DALKEITH SPRINGS 3 Gulf 30 00 20.73024 85 08 59.69472 Group 2

DANIEL SPRINGS 3 Jackson 30 56 55.66901 85 18 27.75491 Group 2

DARBY SPRING 2 Alachua 29 51 9.417669 82 36 21.46651 Group 1

DEER SPRING 3 Gilchrist 29 50 28.19260 82 42 26.36682 Group 1

DELEON SPRING (VOLUSIA) 2 Volusia 29 08 3.408110 81 21 45.89416 Group 2

DEVILS EAR SPRING (GILCHRIST) 1 Gilchrist 29 50 7.256180 82 41 47.76176 Group 1

DEVILS EYE SPRING (GILCHRIST) 2 Gilchrist 29 50 6.574130 82 41 47.72224 Group 1

DEVILS EYE SPRINGS (SUWANNEE) 2 Suwannee 29 58 25.22532 82 45 36.03208 Group 1

DEVILS KITCHEN A SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 53.59999 82 03 4.800000 Group 1

DEVILS KITCHEN B SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 54 82 03 5.199999 Group 1

DIX625991 (DIXIE) 3 Dixie 29 43 36.80999 83 20 40.72600 Group 1

DIX625992 (DIXIE) 3 Taylor 29 43 8.560999 83 20 46.35600 Group 1

DIX625993 (DIXIE) 2 Dixie 29 40 37.17999 83 21 38.96299 Group 1

DIX625994 (DIXIE) 3 Dixie 29 40 35.61400 83 21 50.50699 Group 1

DIX95971 (DIXIE) 3 Dixie 29 42 15.83409 82 57 9.872500 Group 1

DOBES HOLE SPRING UNKNOWN Pasco 28 26 3.799999 82 10 10.90000 Group 4

DOGWOOD SPRING 2 Gilchrist 29 50 17.00300 82 42 6.456129 Group 1

DOUBLE RUN SPRING (LAKE) 3 Lake 28 40 46.5 81 44 31.69999 Group 1

DOUBLE SPRING (HILLSBOROUGH) UNKNOWN Hillsborough 28 02 10.43940 82 20 37.52772 Group 1

DOUBLE SPRING (JACKSON) 2 Jackson 30 42 13.67995 85 18 11.16000 Group 2

DRINKING SPRING UNKNOWN Washington 30 36 44.82669 85 49 23.58432 Group 3

DROTY SPRING 4 Lake 28 49 41.03508 81 30 37.29700 Group 2

EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA UNNAMED SPRING NW UNKNOWN Osceola 28 20 1.320000 81 14 23.28000 Group 4

EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA UNNAMED SPRING SW UNKNOWN Osceola 28 16 23.52000 81 17 26.52000 Group 4
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

80 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

EATON CREEK SPRINGS UNKNOWN Marion 29 20 18 81 53 2 Group 1

ECONFINA UNNAMED SPRING NONE Bay 30 25 53.46072 85 32 50.76532 Group 3

EGLIN BLUE SPRING UNKNOWN Okaloosa 30 38 45.81445 86 27 6.634979 Group 4

ELDER SPRING 3 Seminole 28 44 27.78490 81 17 28.75768 Group 2

ELLAVILLE SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 23 4.077999 83 10 21.01832 Group 1

ENTERPRISE SPRINGS UNKNOWN Volusia 28 51 40.64000 81 14 56.43000 Group 2

ESPIRITU SANTO SPRING 4 Pinellas 27 59 26.07046 82 41 12.35867 Group 1

EUCHEE SPRING 3 Walton 30 44 13.63769 86 11 36.57512 Group 3

EUREKA SPRING 2 Hillsborough 28 00 21.44066 82 20 45.15040 Group 1

EUREKA SPRING #1 0 Hillsborough 28 00 23.07344 82 20 39.33276 Group 1

EUREKA SPRING #2 0 Hillsborough 28 00 24.07341 82 20 36.33288 Group 1

EUREKA SPRING #3 0 Hillsborough 28 00 24.07345 82 20 32.33256 Group 1

EUREKA SPRING #4 0 Hillsborough 28 00 24.07341 82 20 37.33296 Group 1

EUREKA UNNAMED SPRING 2 Hillsborough 28 00 26.72675 82 20 38.59777 Group 1

EVA SPRING 3 Taylor 29 40 39.76997 83 23 57.31001 Group 1

EWING SPRING NONE Taylor 30 04 26.76468 83 39 56.54159 Group 1

FALMOUTH SPRING 1 Suwannee 30 21 40.18722 83 08 5.970300 Group 1

FANNING SPRINGS 2 Levy 29 35 15.32190 82 56 7.095590 Group 1

FANNING SPRINGS #1 UNKNOWN Levy 29 35 16.18800 82 56 9.599999 Group 1

FANNING SPRINGS #2 UNKNOWN Dixie 29 35 22.55999 82 56 13.38000 Group 1

FARA SPRING 2 Madison 30 16 34.43991 83 14 8.947900 Group 1

FENHOLLOWAY SPRING 9 Taylor 30 04 23.40126 83 40 0.323760 Group 1

FENNEY SPRING 2 Sumter 28 47 41.99128 82 02 17.21057 Group 4

FERN HAMMOCK SPRINGS 2 Marion 29 11 0.863840 81 42 29.50127 Group 2

FIRST FISHERMANS PARADISE 1 Marion 29 12 56.09999 82 02 50.40000 Group 1

FISH HOOK SPRING #1 UNKNOWN Marion 29 30 34.12380 81 54 5.450399 Group 1

FISH HOOK SPRING #2 UNKNOWN Marion 29 30 32.54700 81 54 8.294400 Group 1

FLETCHER SPRINGS 2 Lafayette 29 50 48 82 53 34 Group 1

FOLSOM SPRING 3 Taylor 30 06 49.85995 83 34 41.32998 Group 1

FOREST SPRING 4 Putnam 29 27 31.67992 81 39 30.59999 Group 2

GADSEN SPRING 2 Jackson 30 42 12.08682 85 17 18.42258 Group 2

GAINER SPRING #1 2 Bay 30 25 40.70280 85 32 49.73711 Group 3

GAINER SPRING #1C 2 Bay 30 25 39.62275 85 32 45.82853 Group 3

GAINER SPRING #2 2 Bay 30 25 38.61220 85 32 53.95200 Group 3

GAINER SPRING #3 2 Bay 30 25 44.30301 85 32 55.63251 Group 3

GALLOWAY SPRING UNKNOWN Washington 30 35 50.85632 85 50 31.25684 Group 3

GARDEN OF EDEN SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 58.09999 82 02 54.80000 Group 1

GARNER SPRING 2 Jefferson 30 19 49.11654 83 58 59.21860 Group 1

GATOR SPRING (HERNANDO) 4 Hernando 28 26 2.754559 82 39 5.613409 Group 5

GATOR SPRING (JACKSON) UNKNOWN Jackson 30 46 40.32731 85 10 1.735970 Group 2

GEMINI SPRINGS UNKNOWN Volusia 28 51 45.97999 81 18 46.06000 Group 2

GEMINI SPRINGS #1 UNKNOWN Volusia 28 51 43.91999 81 18 38.88000 Group 2

GEMINI SPRINGS #2 UNKNOWN Volusia 28 51 43.91999 81 18 38.88000 Group 2

GEMINI SPRINGS #3 UNKNOWN Volusia 28 51 45.97815 81 18 41.05552 Group 2

GEYSER SPRING 1 Marion 29 12 55.40000 82 03 0.300000 Group 1

GIL1012971 (GILCHRIST) 2 Gilchrist 29 51 21.24492 82 43 55.88223 Group 1

GIL1012972 (GILCHRIST) 3 Gilchrist 29 51 21.77981 82 43 57.75408 Group 1

GIL1012974 (GILCHRIST) 2 Gilchrist 29 51 52.12699 82 44 24.25899 Group 1

GIL101971 (GILCHRIST) 3 Gilchrist 29 49 56.42900 82 40 42.24899 Group 1

GIL107971 (GILCHRIST) 2 Gilchrist 29 53 27.61499 82 52 26.99800 Group 1

GIL107972 (GILCHRIST) 2 Gilchrist 29 53 56.39000 82 51 58.51899 Group 1

GIL729971 (GILCHRIST) 2 Gilchrist 29 53 21.67300 82 52 29.88399 Group 1

GIL729972 (GILCHRIST) 4 Gilchrist 29 54 45.94500 82 50 12.43200 Group 1

GIL729973 (GILCHRIST) 4 Gilchrist 29 54 48.25300 82 50 12.08100 Group 1

GIL84971 (GILCHRIST) 2 Gilchrist 29 49 47.50374 82 53 29.18496 Group 1

GIL917972 (GILCHRIST) 3 Gilchrist 29 51 36.97899 82 52 46.32400 Group 1

GIL917973 (GILCHRIST) 4 Gilchrist 29 51 31.85399 82 52 51.06900 Group 1

GIL928971 (GILCHRIST) 3 Gilchrist 29 52 32.15182 82 45 6.810659 Group 1

GIL928972 (GILCHRIST) 4 Gilchrist 29 52 49.64600 82 45 11.91000 Group 1

GIL99971 (GILCHRIST) 4 Gilchrist 29 55 16.79100 82 49 26.77099 Group 1

GIL99972 (GILCHRIST) 3 Gilchrist 29 55 51.30745 82 48 8.696920 Group 1

GIL99974 (GILCHRIST) 3 Gilchrist 29 55 6.956000 82 46 18.26100 Group 1

GILCHRIST BLUE SPRING 2 Gilchrist 29 49 47.64094 82 40 58.26535 Group 1

GINGER ALE SPRING 5 Seminole 28 41 33.56890 81 23 27.89735 Group 2
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

81 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

GINNIE SPRING 2 Gilchrist 29 50 10.82130 82 42 0.437039 Group 1

GLEN JULIA SPRINGS 4 Gadsden 30 39 5.692319 84 42 26.69903 Group 2

GLEN SPRING 4 Alachua 29 40 30.04207 82 20 52.43622 Group 1

GOLD HEAD BRANCH UNKNOWN Clay 29 50 30.11995 81 57 14.40000 Group 2

GRASSY HOLE SPRING 2 Columbia 29 58 4 82 45 35 Group 1

GREEN ALGAE BOIL SPRING 5 Lake 28 52 32.87693 81 26 24.73410 Group 2

GREEN COVE SPRINGS 3 Clay 29 59 36.24157 81 40 40.47754 Group 2

GREEN SINK N/A Hillsborough 27 52 2.924999 82 17 0.844000 Group 2

GREEN SPRING 3 Volusia 28 51 46.03924 81 14 50.92382 Group 2

GROTTO SPRINGS 3 Calhoun 30 35 57.88413 85 09 51.27853 Group 2

GUARANTO SPRING 2 Dixie 29 46 47.26883 82 56 23.84944 Group 1

GUM SPRING #1 2 Sumter 28 57 33.48499 82 13 50.82499 Group 4

GUM SPRING #2 2 Sumter 28 57 13.83699 82 14 12.69200 Group 4

GUM SPRING #3 2 Sumter 28 57 13.20799 82 14 14.50399 Group 4

GUM SPRING #4 2 Sumter 28 57 10.79999 82 14 26.5 Group 4

GUM SPRING MAIN 2 Sumter 28 57 31.39798 82 13 53.49317 Group 4

HALLS RIVER HEAD SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 49 36.50900 82 34 49.17599 Group 5

HALLS RIVER SPRING #1 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 49 20.88000 82 35 38.20499 Group 5

HALLS RIVER SPRING #2 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 49 35.68180 82 34 59.62633 Group 5

HAM1017971 (HAMILTON) 3 Hamilton 30 25 33.79700 83 01 20.88800 Group 1

HAM1017972 (HAMILTON) 4 Hamilton 30 25 40.47299 83 01 40.49499 Group 1

HAM1017973 (HAMILTON) 4 Hamilton 30 25 23.64299 83 00 38.31499 Group 1

HAM1017974 (HAMILTON) 2 Hamilton 30 25 3.781919 82 57 57.46288 Group 1

HAM1019971 (HAMILTON) 4 Suwannee 30 23 24.61700 82 55 36.59600 Group 1

HAM1019972 (HAMILTON) 4 Hamilton 30 24 1.292000 82 56 36.33799 Group 1

HAM1023971 (HAMILTON) 2 Hamilton 30 23 10.11599 82 54 22.86899 Group 1

HAM522981 (HAMILTON) 3 Hamilton 30 20 35.32299 82 50 29.10499 Group 1

HAM54012 (HAMILTON) 3 Madison 30 33 8.884000 83 15 36.94299 Group 1

HAM610981 (HAMILTON) 2 Hamilton 30 24 56.42700 83 11 57.74100 Group 1

HAM610982 (HAMILTON) 2 Madison 30 25 2.762259 83 12 26.66790 Group 1

HAM610983 (HAMILTON) 2 Hamilton 30 25 13.47192 83 12 51.37945 Group 1

HAM610984 (HAMILTON) 2 Hamilton 30 26 25.51546 83 13 10.50028 Group 1

HAM612982 (HAMILTON) 3 Madison 30 28 29.08714 83 14 36.17819 Group 1

HAM923972 (HAMILTON) 4 Hamilton 30 25 8.223999 83 08 42.52500 Group 1

HAM923973 (HAMILTON) 3 Hamilton 30 25 8.139970 83 08 56.64997 Group 1

HAMILTON SPRING (CALHOUN) 3 Calhoun 30 31 9.308459 85 09 47.51557 Group 2

HAMPTON SPRING (TAYLOR) 4 Taylor 30 04 53.35975 83 39 46.24549 Group 1

HARDEN SPRING UNKNOWN Seminole 28 49 16.99758 81 25 0.730489 Group 2

HART SPRINGS 2 Gilchrist 29 40 32.66691 82 57 6.160750 Group 1

HAYS SPRING (JACKSON) 2 Jackson 30 53 42.33124 85 13 28.14546 Group 2

HEALTH SPRING 3 Pinellas 28 06 23.08536 82 46 20.08888 Group 5

HEATH SPRING UNKNOWN Seminole 28 44 42.69725 81 07 41.34605 Group 2

HEIDI HOLE SPRING UNKNOWN Jackson 30 46 50.56900 85 09 48.34100 Group 2

HEILBRONN SPRING 9 Bradford 30 01 25.86248 82 09 22.38911 Group 1

HELENE SPRING 3 Lake 28 52 23.79999 81 27 10 Group 2

HENRY GREEN SPRING UNKNOWN Sumter 28 52 9.457999 82 05 40.93200 Group 4

HIDDEN RIVER HEAD SPRING 3 Citrus 28 46 7.357000 82 34 59.68900 Group 5

HIDDEN RIVER SPRING #2 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 46 7.010000 82 35 3.633999 Group 5

HIDDEN RIVER SPRING #6 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 46 3.942660 82 35 6.357480 Group 5

HIDDEN SPRING (JACKSON) UNKNOWN Jackson 30 42 20.19995 85 18 26.08999 Group 2

HIDDEN SPRING (SUWANNEE) 3 Suwannee 30 06 9.373859 83 06 50.39761 Group 1

HIGHTOWER SPRING 3 Washington 30 36 18.18864 85 45 55.50811 Group 3

HILL SPRINGS UNKNOWN Jackson 30 39 51.62946 84 55 34.62005 Group 2

HOLE IN THE ROCK SPRING UNKNOWN Jackson 30 47 0.196219 85 09 22.11250 Group 2

HOLIDAY SPRING 3 Lake 28 44 25.44860 81 49 4.688540 Group 1

HOLLY SPRING N/A Gilchrist 29 55 3.837503 82 49 26.44824 Group 1

HOLMES BLUE SPRING 2 Holmes 30 51 6.034500 85 53 9.047509 Group 3

HOLTON CREEK RISE 1 Hamilton 30 26 15.78461 83 03 26.48951 Group 1

HOLTON CREEK RISE 1 Hamilton 30 26 16.51192 83 03 27.41133 Group 1

HOMOSASSA SPRING 2 Citrus 28 47 58.93832 82 35 19.35920 Group 5

HOMOSASSA SPRING #1 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 47 56.66733 82 35 18.69090 Group 5

HOMOSASSA SPRING #2 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 47 56.64695 82 35 18.78832 Group 5

HOMOSASSA SPRING #3 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 47 56.63299 82 35 18.67376 Group 5

HOMOSASSA UNNAMED SPRING #1 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 47 53.86829 82 35 23.74112 Group 5
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

82 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

HOMOSASSA UNNAMED SPRING #2 0 Citrus 28 47 52.92319 82 35 22.74140 Group 5

HORN SPRING 2 Leon 30 19 8.888840 84 07 43.44718 Group 1

HORNSBY SPRING 0 Alachua 29 51 1.279399 82 35 35.52436 Group 1

HORSEHEAD SPRING 2 Jefferson 30 20 41.50060 83 59 40.35473 Group 1

HORSESHOE SPRING 3 Pasco 28 23 51.18316 82 41 23.82767 Group 5

HOSPITAL SPRING UNKNOWN Hernando 28 31 54.98266 82 37 37.36164 Group 5

HOUSE SPRING 0 Citrus 28 53 50.27996 82 35 27.59999 Group 5

HUNTER SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 53 39.94721 82 35 32.93339 Group 5

ICHETUCKNEE HEAD SPRING (SUWANNEE) 2 Suwannee 29 59 3.097499 82 45 42.72664 Group 1

IDIOTS DELIGHT SPRING 3 Citrus 28 53 16.62661 82 35 22.03278 Group 5

INDIAN CAVE SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 56.09999 82 02 52.80000 Group 1

INDIAN CREEK #1 SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 05 35.90600 82 25 6.349000 Group 4

INDIAN CREEK #2 SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 05 35.59200 82 25 15.83719 Group 4

INDIAN CREEK #3 SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 05 34.63847 82 25 15.20820 Group 4

INDIAN CREEK #4 SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 05 34.81608 82 25 16.22650 Group 4

INDIAN SPRING (WAKULLA) 4 Wakulla 30 15 2.878629 84 19 19.50193 Group 1

INDIAN SPRINGS (GADSDEN) UNKNOWN Gadsden 30 31 24.69792 84 47 27.69683 Group 1

INDIAN WASHTUB 2 JACKSON 30 47 17.01799 85 08 42.45700 Group 2

INDIGO SPRINGS UNKNOWN Putnam 29 40 3 81 45 43 Group 2

IRON SPRING (LAFAYETTE) 3 Lafayette 29 49 40.80468 83 18 27.49460 Group 1

IRON SPRINGS (DIXIE) 3 Dixie 29 40 25.04800 82 57 27.33400 Group 1

ISABELLA SPRING 2 Pasco 28 24 0 82 39 0 Group 5

ISLAND SPRING 3 Seminole 28 49 24.40000 81 25 1.800000 Group 2

JABO SPRING 2 Taylor 29 52 57.31038 83 37 22.50797 Group 1

JACK PAUL SPRINGS 2 Washington 30 36 46.29343 85 44 1.461409 Group 3

JACKSON BLUE SPRING 1 Jackson 30 47 25.85359 85 08 24.31805 Group 2

JACKSON BLUE SPRING APALACHICOLA 1 Jackson 30 36 59.28347 84 55 19.37320 Group 2

JACKSON SPRING 3 Holmes 30 42 42.03409 85 55 41.01653 Group 3

JACOBS WELL SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 54.20000 82 03 6.800000 Group 1

JAMISON SPRINGS 3 Columbia 29 55 32.97299 82 46 12.44200 Group 1

JEF312991 (JEFFERSON) 3 Jefferson 30 20 41.82199 83 59 45.06400 Group 1

JEF63991 2 Jefferson 30 19 29.81300 83 59 9.109000 Group 1

JEF63992 (JEFFERSON) 2 Jefferson 30 19 23.50699 83 59 12.08499 Group 1

JEF63993 (JEFFERSON) 2 Jefferson 30 18 8.215199 83 58 46.62691 Group 1

JEF64991 (JEFFERSON) 2 Jefferson 30 20 38.87900 83 58 49.49199 Group 1

JEFFERSON BLUE SPRING 2 Jefferson 30 19 50 83 59 20 Group 1

JENKINS CREEK SPRING 2 Hernando 28 31 19.98443 82 38 3.362243 Group 5

JENKINS CREEK SPRING #5 UNKNOWN Hernando 28 31 20.98444 82 38 3.362243 Group 5

JOHNSON SPRING 3 Gilchrist 29 49 53.39302 82 40 46.95758 Group 1

JONATHAN SPRING 3 Columbia 29 50 1.642200 82 40 31.49835 Group 1

JUG ISLAND SPRING 2 Taylor 29 50 47.65399 83 36 33.06999 Group 1

JULY SPRING 1 Columbia 29 50 10.22827 82 41 47.02639 Group 1

JUNIPER SPRINGS 3 Marion 29 11 1.341710 81 42 44.68090 Group 2

JURASSIC SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 53 42.27223 82 35 23.71117 Group 5

KING SPRING (CITRUS) UNKNOWN Citrus 28 52 54.19170 82 35 42.17575 Group 5

KING SPRING (JACKSON) UNKNOWN Jackson 30 38 11.52064 84 55 10.24881 Group 2

KINGS BAY SPRING #1 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 53 17.33734 82 35 23.06302 Group 5

KINI SPRING 1 Wakulla 30 16 43.72463 84 20 33.64004 Group 1

KISSENGEN SPRING NONE Polk 27 50 33.09899 81 48 40.29480 Group 3

LADIES PARLOR SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 52.70000 82 03 5.199999 Group 1

LAF1024001 (LAFAYETTE) 3 Lafayette 30 00 27.06199 82 58 56.10400 Group 1

LAF57981 (LAFAYETTE) 3 Lafayette 30 05 25.68699 83 06 31.58100 Group 1

LAF57982 (LAFAYETTE) 3 Lafayette 30 03 40.23209 83 03 26.53030 Group 1

LAF710981 (LAFAYETTE) 4 Lafayette 30 02 42.35899 83 02 1.910000 Group 1

LAF718971 (LAFAYETTE) 2 Lafayette 29 57 34.11421 82 57 11.94293 Group 1

LAF718972 (LAFAYETTE) 2 Lafayette 30 00 41.85805 83 00 15.33938 Group 1

LAF721001 (LAFAYETTE) UNKNOWN Lafayette 30 6 51.5 83 13 35.9 Group 1

LAF721002 (LAFAYETTE) UNKNOWN Lafayette 30 6 24.5 83 6 24.5 Group 1

LAF919971 (LAFAYETTE) 4 Lafayette 30 06 11.57699 83 08 51.52800 Group 1

LAF919972 (LAFAYETTE) 3 Lafayette 30 05 31.72951 83 06 48.07464 Group 1

LAF922975 (LAFAYETTE) 3 Madison 30 15 40.19907 83 14 47.69735 Group 1

LAF922976 (LAFAYETTE) 3 Madison 30 15 38.05693 83 14 58.86251 Group 1

LAF922977 (LAFAYETTE) 4 Lafayette 30 15 34.87300 83 15 5.402000 Group 1
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

83 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

LAF924971 (LAFAYETTE) 2 Lafayette 30 06 7.960390 83 09 57.99048 Group 1

LAF924972 (LAFAYETTE) 4 Lafayette 30 06 17.29499 83 12 14.09499 Group 1

LAF929971 (LAFAYETTE) 3 Lafayette 30 12 40.60735 83 14 43.44262 Group 1

LAF929972 (LAFAYETTE) 3 Lafayette 30 11 24.34132 83 15 1.506960 Group 1

LAF929973 (LAFAYETTE) 2 Lafayette 30 10 48.03586 83 14 51.87034 Group 1

LAF93971 (LAFAYETTE) 3 Lafayette 29 57 40.87699 82 57 16.51300 Group 1

LAFAYETTE BLUE SPRING 1 Lafayette 30 07 33.00333 83 13 34.08019 Group 1

LAKE BLUE SPRING 3 Lake 28 44 55.14114 81 49 40.11390 Group 1

LAKE JESSUP SPRING 3 Seminole 28 42 36.79920 81 16 4.764680 Group 2

LAKE LOWERY EAST SPRING 3 Clay 29 51 40.12380 81 58 48.40561 Group 2

LAKE LOWERY NORTH SPRING 3 Clay 29 52 17.71783 81 59 17.63199 Group 2

LAKE LOWRY WEST SPRING 3 Clay 29 51 57.68345 81 59 44.23545 Group 2

LAMARS LANDING SPRING UNKNOWN Jackson 30 46 49.24599 85 09 55.68400 Group 2

LANCASTER SPRING 3 Levy 29 11 26.52114 82 59 17.41960 Group 1

LAST SPRING UNKNOWN Hillsborough 28 02 2.788660 82 20 33.30365 Group 1

LETTUCE CREEK SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 43 8.950439 82 34 36.35615 Group 5

LETTUCE LAKE SPRING 3 Hillsborough 28 01 5.526590 82 21 0.256000 Group 1

LEV719991 (LEVY) 2 Levy 29 27 3.699540 82 41 43.31525 Group 1

LEV97991 (LEVY) 3 Levy 29 11 30.40299 82 59 19.41299 Group 1

LEVY BLUE SPRING 3 Levy 29 27 2.686319 82 41 56.27890 Group 1

LILLY SPRING 2 Gilchrist 29 49 46.98133 82 39 40.36496 Group 1

LIME RUN SPRING OR SINK (SUWANNEE) 1 Suwannee 30 23 22.19 83 09 50.83 Group 1

LIME SPRING (SUWANNEE) 2 Hamilton 30 23 28.38763 83 10 7.319929 Group 1

LITHIA SPRING MAJOR 2 Hillsborough 27 51 58.60184 82 13 53.29394 Group 2

LITHIA SPRING MINOR 2 Hillsborough 27 51 55.14299 82 13 51.58299 Group 2

LITTLE BLUE SPRING (GILCHRIST) UNKNOWN Gilchrist 29 49 49.14569 82 41 1.782639 Group 1

LITTLE BLUE SPRING (JEFFERSON) 2 Jefferson 30 19 51.03000 83 59 20.53162 Group 1

LITTLE CHASSAHOWITZKA SPRING 1 Citrus 28 42 55.95105 82 34 31.35612 Group 5

LITTLE COPPER SPRING 3 Dixie 29 38 1.362910 82 58 0.646569 Group 1

LITTLE DEVIL SPRING 3 Gilchrist 29 50 4.428100 82 41 49.31750 Group 1

LITTLE FANNING SPRING 2 Levy 29 35 11.02801 82 56 7.694230 Group 1

LITTLE HIDDEN SPRING 3 Citrus 28 53 8.813439 82 35 38.62216 Group 5

LITTLE KING SPRING 3 Levy 29 06 39.04787 82 38 52.13514 Group 1

LITTLE LAGOON SPRING UNKNOWN Jackson 30 37 14.50375 85 10 2.874900 Group 2

LITTLE OTTER SPRING 2 Gilchrist 29 38 11.10198 82 57 30.33849 Group 1

LITTLE RIVER SPRING 2 Suwannee 29 59 48.71054 82 57 58.74329 Group 1

LITTLE SALT SPRING 3 Sarasota 27 04 31.20167 82 13 59.33027 Group 3

LITTLE SPRING (CITRUS) 2 Citrus 28 54 1.190479 82 35 43.33308 Group 5

LITTLE SPRING (HERNANDO) 2 Hernando 28 30 48.47083 82 34 51.69967 Group 5

LIVINGSTON SPRING UNKNOWN Madison 30 28 34.21996 83 24 39.80891 Group 1

LOG SPRING (JEFFERSON) 2 Jefferson 30 20 25.92060 83 59 34.81299 Group 1

LOG SPRING (MARION) 2 Marion 29 12 58.59999 82 02 53.30000 Group 1

LOST RIVER SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 58.59999 82 02 53.5 Group 1

LOST SPRINGS (CITRUS) UNKNOWN Citrus 28 56 14.91622 82 40 48.37332 Group 5

LOUISE SPRINGS 4 Hamilton 30 20 47.36599 82 49 54.19499 Group 1

LOWERY PARK SPRING UNKNOWN Hillsborough 28 00 54.06875 82 27 52.34039 Group 2

LUMBERCAMP SPRINGS 3 Gilchrist 29 42 23.69994 82 56 17.00002 Group 1

LURAVILLE SPRING 3 Suwannee 30 07 10.40094 83 10 1.649139 Group 1

MAD610981 (MADISON) 3 Madison 30 24 53.86241 83 12 5.322200 Group 1

MAD610982 (MADISON) 2 Madison 30 24 54.23900 83 12 7.045000 Group 1

MAD612981 (MADISON) 2 Madison 30 27 2.957999 83 13 23.83400 Group 1

MAD612982 (MADISON) 2 Madison 30 28 20.95100 83 14 35.67200 Group 1

MAD922971 (MADISON) 4 Madison 30 18 24.17300 83 12 53.61499 Group 1

MAD922972 (MADISON) 4 Madison 30 18 12.33399 83 13 20.78899 Group 1

MAD922973 (MADISON) 4 Madison 30 18 8.538000 83 13 29.33799 Group 1

MAD922974 (MADISON) 4 Madison 30 18 8.267999 83 13 29.81400 Group 1

MAD922975 (MADISON) 4 Madison 30 17 36.63299 83 13 57.20600 Group 1

MAD922976 (MADISON) 4 Madison 30 16 56.91899 83 13 57.54599 Group 1

MADISON BLUE SPRING 1 Madison 30 28 49.56870 83 14 39.70762 Group 1

MAGGIE SPRINGS UNKNOWN Jefferson 30 20 24.28435 83 58 57.68033 Group 1

MAGNESIA SPRING 4 Alachua 29 35 0.263510 82 08 58.53592 Group 1

MAGNOLIA CIRCLE SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 53 38.42999 82 35 58.91000 Group 5

MAGNOLIA SPRING 4 Hernando 28 26 1.933480 82 39 8.956299 Group 5
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

84 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

MAINTENANCE SPRING 4 Sumter 28 45 24.39399 82 04 5.363999 Group 4

MANATEE MINERAL SPRING UNKNOWN Manatee 27 29 51.40801 82 32 57.03590 Group 2

MANATEE SANCTUARY SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 53 26.86285 82 35 33.37428 Group 5

MANATEE SPRING 1 Levy 29 29 22.20199 82 58 36.73699 Group 1

MARION BLUE SPRING 2 Marion 29 30 51 81 51 25 Group 1

MARKEE SPRING 4 Lake 28 52 14.15240 81 27 9.831280 Group 2

MASTODON BONE SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 56.59999 82 03 1.5 Group 1

MATTAIR SPRINGS 3 Suwannee 30 22 41.05200 82 53 28.02899 Group 1

MAUND SPRING 3 Jackson 30 44 46.71532 85 12 55.79978 Group 2

MCBRIDE SLOUGH SPRING 3 Wakulla 30 14 23.93959 84 16 10.43449 Group 1

MCCLAIN SPRING 3 Citrus 28 47 46.57000 82 35 13.89699 Group 5

MCCRABB SPRING 3 Dixie 29 41 7.758529 82 57 36.73482 Group 1

MEARSON SPRING 2 Lafayette 30 02 28.83594 83 01 30.10126 Group 1

MESSANT SPRING 2 Lake 28 51 21 81 29 56 Group 2

MESSER SPRING UNKNOWN Hillsborough 27 53 41.08844 82 17 49.32960 Group 2

MIAMI SPRING 3 Seminole 28 42 36.59590 81 26 34.91134 Group 2

MILL POND SPRING (JACKSON) 2 Jackson 30 42 13.31995 85 18 27 Group 2

MILL POND SPRINGS (COLUMBIA) 2 Columbia 29 57 59.98197 82 45 35.91104 Group 1

MILLERS CREEK SPRING 3 Citrus 28 54 3.959960 82 36 13.68000 Group 5

MILLERS FERRY SPRING UNKNOWN Washington 30 34 27.77538 85 50 25.72831 Group 3

MINNOW SPRING 2 Jefferson 30 19 53.52347 83 59 11.73418 Group 1

MISSION SPRINGS 2 Columbia 29 58 34.37300 82 45 28.35699 Group 1

MOCCASIN SPRINGS 4 Lake 28 51 8.205480 81 26 34.45814 Group 2

MOORING COVE SPRINGS 4 Lake 28 45 0.421310 81 50 1.227769 Group 1

MORGAN SPRING 2 Hamilton 30 25 12.79995 83 12 26.5 Group 1

MORMAN BRANCH SPRING 3 Marion 29 11 32.83309 81 39 27.86598 Group 2

MORRISON SPRING 2 Walton 30 39 28.38082 85 54 14.17758 Group 3

MOSQUITO SPRINGS 3 Lake 29 02 11.32972 81 26 4.990630 Group 2

MUD HOLE SUBMARINE SPRING UNKNOWN Lee 26 15 51.31547 82 01 2.335079 Group 2

MUD SPRING (HERNANDO) 2 Hernando 28 32 46.97600 82 37 29.35400 Group 5

MUD SPRING (PUTNAM) 3 Putnam 29 27 39.59996 81 39 41.40000 Group 2

MUNROE SPRING UNKNOWN Leon 30 19 59.72840 84 10 41.62004 Group 1

MYRTLES FISSURE SPRING 2 Gilchrist 29 51 28.58899 82 44 2.467999 Group 1

MYSTIC SPRINGS 5 Escambia 30 51 29.23726 87 18 49.31999 Group 4

NAKED SPRING UNKNOWN Gilchrist 29 49 47.70630 82 40 52.58592 Group 1

NASHUA SPRING 4 Putnam 29 30 32.75995 81 40 37.19999 Group 2

NATURAL BRIDGE SPRING 1 Leon 30 17 6.664700 84 08 49.64182 Group 1

NATURAL WELLS (LEON) NONE Leon 30 17 54.10999 84 14 14.88000 Group 1

NEWPORT SPRING 3 Wakulla 30 12 45.70141 84 10 42.56281 Group 1

NICHOLS SPRING UNKNOWN Sumter 28 50 22.95000 82 12 9.319999 Group 4

NO NAME COVE SPRING 1 Marion 29 12 56.20000 82 02 46.69999 Group 1

NORTHSIDE SPRING #1 UNKNOWN Wakulla 30 14 15.10638 84 16 52.31978 Group 1

NORTHSIDE SPRING #2 UNKNOWN Wakulla 30 14 15.30333 84 16 52.48624 Group 1

NOVA SPRING 3 Seminole 28 49 3.020000 81 25 6.650000 Group 2

NUTALL RISE 1 Taylor 30 09 1.724470 83 57 47.82391 Group 1

OASIS SPRING 3 Gilchrist 29 55 31.70699 82 46 49.46499 Group 1

OLD PLANK ROAD SPRING UNKNOWN Leon 30 20 9.4992 84 8 54.7008 Group 1

ORANGE GROVE SINK N/A Suwannee 30 07 20.92080 83 07 55.14960 Group 1

ORANGE GROVE SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 07 38.13488 83 07 50.74802 Group 1

ORANGE SPRING (MARION) 3 Marion 29 30 38.34216 81 56 38.65955 Group 1

OSCAR SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 55.90000 82 03 2.800000 Group 1

OTTER SPRING 2 Gilchrist 29 38 41.28798 82 56 33.90968 Group 1

OWENS SPRING 2 Lafayette 30 02 45.39289 83 02 28.06918 Group 1

PALM SPRINGS (LAKE) 4 Lake 28 50 37.57890 81 27 0.342470 Group 2

PALM SPRINGS (SEMINOLE) 3 Seminole 28 41 28.03000 81 23 34.22999 Group 2

PALMA CEIA SPRING 8 Hillsborough 27 55 18.73560 82 29 17.93493 Group 1

PANACEA MINERAL SPRING 3 Wakulla 30 02 4.736759 84 23 22.63632 Group 1

PANACEA MINERAL SPRING #1 3 Wakulla 30 02 4.852279 84 23 23.63902 Group 1

PANACEA MINERAL SPRING #2 3 Wakulla 30 02 4.979219 84 23 24.29397 Group 1

PANACEA MINERAL SPRING #3 3 Wakulla 30 02 6.129959 84 23 26.28934 Group 1

PARKER ISLAND SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 53 1.369999 82 35 43.25 Group 5

PEACOCK SPRINGS 2 Suwannee 30 07 23.61518 83 07 59.35274 Group 1

PEGASUS SPRING 3 Seminole 28 41 47.00000 81 23 24 Group 2
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

85 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

PERRY SPRING 2 Lafayette 30 05 47.06556 83 11 17.70103 Group 1

PETTIS SPRING NONE Madison 30 27 25.18560 83 42 43.59540 Group 1

PHILLIPPI SPRING NONE Pinellas 28 01 6.78000 82 41 26.15220 Group 1

PICKARD SPRING 2 Gilchrist 29 49 49.92287 82 39 43.51370 Group 1

PINEHURST SPRING NONE Sarasota 27 14 26.17926 82 30 29.34972 Group 3

PINEY WOOD SPRING 4 Washington 30 39 30.78499 85 41 26.30076 Group 3

PITT SPRING 3 Bay 30 25 58.67917 85 32 47.14061 Group 3

POE SPRING 2 Alachua 29 49 32.57676 82 38 56.30232 Group 1

POE WOODS SPRING UNKNOWN Alachua 29 49 20.9279 82 38 53.4119 Group 1

PONCE DE LEON SPRING (HOLMES) 2 Holmes 30 43 16.32589 85 55 50.46574 Group 3

POT HOLE SPRING 2 Dixie 29 48 38.45339 82 56 9.081239 Group 1

POT SPRING 2 Hamilton 30 28 14.88900 83 14 3.836800 Group 1

POTTER CREEK SPRING 2 Citrus 28 43 53.76118 82 35 47.56253 Group 5

POTTSBURG CREEK SPRING 3 Duval 30 17 23.99995 81 34 15.23999 Group 2

PUMP SPRING UNKNOWN Suwannee 30 08 19.63928 83 08 6.974739 Group 1

PUMPHOUSE SPRINGS 3 Citrus 28 47 47.38365 82 35 17.85627 Group 5

PURITY SPRING NONE Hillsborough 28 01 19.06777 82 27 39.34044 Group 2

RACCOON ISLAND SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 56.70000 82 02 39 Group 1

RACCOON SPRING UNKNOWN Jackson 30 42 24.56995 85 18 14.87002 Group 2

RAINBOW BRIDGE SEEP NORTH 4 Marion 29 06 6.936909 82 26 15.79804 Group 4

RAINBOW BRIDGE SEEP SOUTH 4 Marion 29 06 8.087999 82 26 16.18099 Group 4

RAINBOW CAVE SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 05 24.88474 82 25 35.23601 Group 4

RAINBOW EAST SEEP 3 Marion 29 06 9.728209 82 26 14.29706 Group 4

RAINBOW SEEP #1 UNKNOWN Marion 29 06 9.753260 82 26 15.04143 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING 1 Marion 29 06 9.867000 82 26 14.98899 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING #1 UNKNOWN Marion 29 06 8.913279 82 26 14.87918 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING #2 UNKNOWN Marion 29 06 8.345050 82 26 14.18437 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING #3 UNKNOWN Marion 29 06 7.545169 82 26 13.97961 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING #4 UNKNOWN Marion 29 06 6.866930 82 26 13.77318 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING #5 UNKNOWN Marion 29 05 54.60687 82 26 10.93715 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING #6 UNKNOWN Marion 29 05 34.11041 82 25 42.83152 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING #7 UNKNOWN Marion 29 05 32.12585 82 25 36.36965 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING #8 UNKNOWN Marion 29 05 4.625999 82 25 44.07499 Group 4

RAINBOW SPRING NORTH UNKNOWN Marion 29 06 9.705460 82 26 16.36306 Group 4

RAINBOW UNNAMED SWAMP SPRING 8 Marion 29 05 36.49985 82 25 44.31486 Group 4

RECEPTION HALL SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 52.60665 82 03 5.050980 Group 1

RHODES SPRINGS #1 2 Leon 30 17 1.789939 84 09 18.55663 Group 1

RHODES SPRINGS #2 2 Leon 30 17 11.25901 84 09 35.83871 Group 1

RHODES SPRINGS #3 2 Leon 30 16 51.53736 84 08 50.38638 Group 1

RHODES SPRINGS #4 2 Leon 30 17 0.714190 84 09 26.17790 Group 1

RITA MARIE SPRINGS UNKNOWN Hernando 28 41 24.53772 82 35 20.10944 Group 5

RIVER SINK SPRING 1 Wakulla 30 16 36.72480 84 20 27.63959 Group 1

RIVERDALE SPRING UNKNOWN Hernando 28 29 6 82 12 6.999839 Group 4

RIVERSITES SPRINGS UNKNOWN Marion 29 26 29 81 55 25 Group 1

ROARING SPRING 2 Columbia 29 58 34.37277 82 45 28.35705 Group 1

ROCK BLUFF SPRINGS 2 Gilchrist 29 47 56.70244 82 55 7.105729 Group 1

ROCK SINK SPRING 2 Dixie 29 43 40.44799 82 56 57.40000 Group 1

ROCK SPRINGS (ORANGE) 2 Orange 28 45 23.20357 81 30 6.245029 Group 2

ROCKY CREEK SPRING UNKNOWN Jackson 30 40 31.24113 85 07 55.38263 Group 2

ROCKY VENT SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 55.5 82 02 38.30000 Group 1

ROOKS SPRINGS 3 Jackson 30 41 16.43657 85 14 3.795939 Group 2

ROSE CREEK SINK N/A Columbia 30 04 9.000119 82 41 48.00011 Group 1

ROSSETER SPRING 2 Hamilton 30 32 40.78377 83 15 0.204660 Group 1

ROYAL SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 05 1.363339 83 04 29.20753 Group 1

RUM ISLAND SPRING 2 Columbia 29 50 0.672610 82 40 47.39167 Group 1

RUNNING SPRINGS #1 2 Suwannee 30 06 16.07075 83 06 57.32302 Group 1

RUNNING SPRINGS #2 2 Suwannee 30 06 14 83 06 56 Group 1

RUTH SPRING (CITRUS) 2 Citrus 28 43 56.87501 82 35 42.21258 Group 5

RUTH SPRING (LAFAYETTE) 3 Lafayette 29 59 44.78153 82 58 36.50271 Group 1

RYLES SPRING 2 Hernando 28 41 13.79554 82 36 50.82443 Group 5

SALLY SPRING 3 Calhoun 30 34 13.08406 85 10 24.31085 Group 2

SALLY WARD SPRING 2 Wakulla 30 14 29.08981 84 18 38.87953 Group 1

SALT CREEK HEAD SPRING (CITRUS) UNKNOWN Citrus 28 43 23.94948 82 35 5.356679 Group 5

SALT SPRING (HERNANDO) 2 Hernando 28 32 46.74907 82 37 8.275120 Group 5
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

86 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

SALT SPRINGS (MARION) 2 Marion 29 21 2.357279 81 43 58.05198 Group 2

SALT SPRINGS (PASCO) 2 Pasco 28 17 33 82 43 6 Group 5

SALT SPRINGS (PASCO) #2 2 Pasco 28 17 35.51400 82 43 4.423999 Group 5

SANDBAG SPRING 2 Jackson 30 47 19.39445 85 13 18.90706 Group 2

SANDYS SPRING 5 Lake 28 44 42.10472 81 48 35.94628 Group 1

SANLANDO SPRINGS 2 Seminole 28 41 19.32374 81 23 43.06663 Group 2

SANTA FE RIVER RISE (ALACHUA) 1 Alachua 29 52 26.01811 82 35 29.89038 Group 1

SANTA FE SPRING (COLUMBIA) 1 Columbia 29 56 5.295730 82 31 49.51350 Group 1

SATSUMA SPRING 3 Putnam 29 30 45.35995 81 40 31.79995 Group 2

SAWDUST SPRING 3 Columbia 29 50 24.05018 82 42 12.63676 Group 1

SECOND FISHERMANS PARADISE UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 56.40000 82 02 43.19999 Group 1

SEMINOLE SPRING (LAKE) 2 Lake 28 50 44 81 31 22 Group 2

SEMINOLE SPRINGS (VOLUSIA) 5 Volusia 28 50 43.78862 81 14 2.654089 Group 2

SEVEN SISTERS SPRING (HAMILTON) 3 Hamilton 30 25 2.999929 83 09 19.19001 Group 1

SEVEN SPRINGS (PASCO) NONE Pasco 28 12 52.04015 82 39 56.35727 Group 5

SHADY BROOK HEAD SPRING #2 3 Sumter 28 47 8.957999 82 02 44.13300 Group 4

SHADY BROOK HEAD SPRING #3 UNKNOWN Sumter 28 46 46.95699 82 02 36.30099 Group 4

SHADY BROOK HEAD SPRING #4 UNKNOWN Sumter 28 45 15.96000 82 04 59.30400 Group 4

SHANDS BRIDGE SPRING 3 St. Johns 29 59 16 81 37 28 Group 2

SHANGRI-LA SPRINGS 3 Jackson 30 47 24.59713 85 08 34.38618 Group 2

SHARKS TOOTH SPRING 4 Lake 28 52 23.72635 81 26 24.09780 Group 2

SHELL CRACKER 3 Washington 30 39 4.375439 85 41 14.65876 Group 3

SHEPHERD SPRING 3 Wakulla 30 07 31.07993 84 17 7.800000 Group 1

SHINGLE SPRING 2 Suwannee 29 56 3.816460 82 55 13.62360 Group 1

SHIPWRECK SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 55.59999 82 02 38.40000 Group 1

SHIRLEY SPRING 3 Suwannee 30 12 39.62994 83 14 41.34998 Group 1

SILVER GLEN SPRINGS 1 Marion 29 14 45.03814 81 38 36.50110 Group 2

SILVER GLEN SPRINGS NATURAL WELL 2 Marion 29 14 44.52 81 38 37.07 Group 2

SILVER SPRING #8 1 Marion 29 12 57.73619 82 02 44.98739 Group 1

SILVER SPRING #9 1 Marion 29 12 56.16346 82 02 43.83229 Group 1

SILVER SPRING MAIN 1 Marion 29 12 58.34214 82 03 9.472390 Group 1

SIMS SPRING (MARION) 4 Marion 29 30 29 81 53 24 Group 1

SINAI SPRING UNKNOWN Jackson 30 39 52.54999 84 54 37.65689 Group 2

SINGING SPRING UNKNOWN Columbia 29 58 33.83903 82 45 28.44467 Group 1

SIPHON CREEK RISE 1 Gilchrist 29 51 22.28795 82 43 58.98265 Group 1

SIX MILE CREEK SPRING NONE Hillsborough 28 01 5.071403 82 20 17.33172 Group 1

SKIPPER SPRING UNKNOWN Washington 30 34 32.92917 85 50 37.58481 Group 3

SNAIL SPRINGS 5 Lake 28 49 25.84383 81 29 11.31755 Group 2

SOCRUM SPRING UNKNOWN Polk 28 09 7.055532 82 00 39.29454 Group 2

SPRING CREEK RISE #10 UNKNOWN Wakulla 30 4 28.3799 84 19 39.7559 Group 1

SPRING CREEK RISE #2 UNKNOWN Wakulla 30 04 54.42469 84 19 47.62675 Group 1

SPRING CREEK RISE #3 UNKNOWN Wakulla 30 4 54.3719 84 19 45.84 Group 1

SPRING CREEK RISE MAIN UNKNOWN Wakulla 30 04 48.63741 84 19 47.30992 Group 1

SPRING WARRIOR SPRING 2 Taylor 29 56 6.066280 83 36 35.15659 Group 1

SPRINGBOARD SPRING 2 Jackson 30 42 26.63996 85 18 23.76000 Group 2

ST. MARKS RIVER RISE (LEON) 1 Leon 30 16 33.77095 84 08 56.15862 Group 1

ST. MARKS RIVER SWALLET N/A Leon 30 17 3.292000 84 09 2.604999 Group 1

STARBUCK SPRING 2 Seminole 28 41 49.24784 81 23 28.21542 Group 2

STEINHATCHEE RIVER RISE 1 Dixie 29 46 11.68369 83 19 30.12578 Group 1

STEINHATCHEE SPRING 4 Lafayette 29 50 28.54567 83 18 29.04943 Group 1

STEVENSON SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 25 1.519970 83 09 10.61999 Group 1

SULFUR SPRING (ORANGE) 4 Orange 28 46 12.65159 81 30 33.06001 Group 2

SULPHUR SPRING (HILLSBOROUGH) 2 Hillsborough 28 01 16.08143 82 27 5.885679 Group 2

SULPHUR SPRING (ORANGE) 2 Orange 28 46 12.65999 81 30 33.06000 Group 2

SUMTER BLUE SPRING UNKNOWN Sumter 28 47 8.800007 82 02 41.39988 Group 4

SUN EDEN SPRING 4 Lake 28 44 39.97697 81 49 11.59727 Group 1

SUN SPRINGS 2 Gilchrist 29 42 17.05265 82 56 0.697960 Group 1

SUNBEAM SPRING 2 Columbia 29 55 41.13994 82 46 11.32999 Group 1

SU-NO-WA SPRING 6 Nassau 30 26 17.16518 81 52 59.30781 Group 4

SUW1017971 (SUWANNEE) 3 Hamilton 30 25 42.43583 83 01 46.56536 Group 1

SUW1019971 (SUWANNEE) 4 Suwannee 30 22 58.03200 82 54 54.58600 Group 1

SUW1023971 (SUWANNEE) 4 Suwannee 30 23 47.29200 82 56 13.92700 Group 1

SUW106971 (SUWANNEE) 4 Suwannee 30 01 57.65500 83 00 48.62300 Group 1
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

87 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

SUW107971 (SUWANNEE) 2 Suwannee 29 53 48.15500 82 52 22.18400 Group 1

SUW718971 (SUWANNEE) 3 Suwannee 30 03 50.56465 83 03 43.18801 Group 1

SUW725971 (SUWANNEE) 3 Lafayette 30 03 43.25575 83 03 26.30310 Group 1

SUW917971 (SUWANNEE) 3 Suwannee 29 55 56.60827 82 48 2.703239 Group 1

SUW917972 (SUWANNEE) 4 Gilchrist 29 54 46.34100 82 50 42.54200 Group 1

SUW919971 (SUWANNEE) 3 Suwannee 30 05 1.090139 83 05 13.40472 Group 1

SUW919972 (SUWANNEE) 4 Suwannee 30 05 27.20699 83 05 50.46100 Group 1

SUW919973 (SUWANNEE) 3 Suwannee 30 06 9.239000 83 06 51.34499 Group 1

SUW919974 (SUWANNEE) 4 Suwannee 30 06 19.32299 83 07 16.74499 Group 1

SUW922971 (SUWANNEE) 3 Suwannee 30 17 8.689959 83 13 51.70001 Group 1

SUW922972 (SUWANNEE) 4 Suwannee 30 18 46.40200 83 12 35.10699 Group 1

SUW922973 (SUWANNEE) 3 Suwannee 30 18 47.58699 83 12 35.30799 Group 1

SUW922974 (SUWANNEE) 4 Suwannee 30 18 48.18499 83 12 35.47600 Group 1

SUW923971 (SUWANNEE) 4 Suwannee 30 23 31.01099 83 10 1.037999 Group 1

SUW923972 (SUWANNEE) 4 Hamilton 30 24 15.91499 83 09 27.75800 Group 1

SUW925971 (SUWANNEE) 2 Suwannee 30 25 39.80400 83 03 3.807000 Group 1

SUW925972 (SUWANNEE) 2 Suwannee 30 25 39.84799 83 03 33.49199 Group 1

SUW925973 (SUWANNEE) 3 Suwannee 30 25 27.18800 83 04 8.437000 Group 1

SUW925974 (SUWANNEE) 3 Suwannee 30 26 12.07600 83 04 43.78899 Group 1

SUW925975 (SUWANNEE) 4 Suwannee 30 26 13.45000 83 05 13.01300 Group 1

SUWANACOOCHEE SPRING 2 Madison 30 23 12.01740 83 10 18.35921 Group 1

SUWANNEE BLUE SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 04 53.29804 83 04 8.476819 Group 1

SUWANNEE SPRINGS 2 Suwannee 30 23 40.11979 82 56 4.335470 Group 1

SWEETWATER SPRINGS 2 Marion 29 13 7.600939 81 39 35.52839 Group 2

SYLVAN SPRINGS 2 Bay 30 25 54.33621 85 32 53.60106 Group 3

SYLVAN SPRINGS #2 3 Bay 30 25 53.79534 85 32 50.32999 Group 3

TANNER SPRING (HAMILTON) 2 Hamilton 30 27 52.46996 83 13 3.839990 Group 1

TANNER SPRINGS (JACKSON) UNKNOWN Jackson 30 49 29.83666 85 19 30.68039 Group 2

TARPON HOLE #2 SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 52 53.92300 82 35 37.35600 Group 5

TARPON HOLE SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 52 54.63844 82 35 41.33285 Group 5

TARPON SPRINGS 0 Pinellas 28 08 47.04936 82 45 32.36508 Group 5

TAY616991 (TAYLOR) 2 Taylor 29 55 9.462999 83 40 56.14599 Group 1

TAY616992 (TAYLOR) 2 Taylor 29 54 45.11268 83 39 2.941740 Group 1

TAY622991 (TAYLOR) 2 Taylor 29 52 24.79993 83 37 32.59999 Group 1

TAY625991 (TAYLOR) 3 Taylor 29 44 38.53499 83 20 42.25300 Group 1

TAY625992 (TAYLOR) UNKNOWN Taylor 29 45 41 83 20 6 Group 1

TAY625993 (TAYLOR) 2 Dixie 29 43 53.12400 83 20 47.92500 Group 1

TAY625995 (TAYLOR) 4 Dixie 29 44 2.454000 83 20 49.70200 Group 1

TAY69991 (TAYLOR) 3 Taylor 29 58 11.67113 83 44 43.47149 Group 1

TAY69992 (TAYLOR) 3 Taylor 29 58 14.67700 83 44 47.73300 Group 1

TAY730991 (TAYLOR) 2 Taylor 30 09 12.67499 83 51 20.62800 Group 1

TAY76991 (TAYLOR) 3 Taylor 29 40 34.90996 83 23 7.270009 Group 1

TAY76992 (TAYLOR) 2 Dixie 29 45 41 83 20 6 Group 1

TAY77041 (TAYLOR) 4 Taylor 29 58 19.10200 83 44 45.86999 Group 1

TAY77042 (TAYLOR) 4 Taylor 29 58 16.23399 83 44 43.42500 Group 1

TAY77043 (TAYLOR) 2 Taylor 29 58 20.56699 83 44 40.47199 Group 1

TAY77044 (TAYLOR) 4 Taylor 29 58 19.35399 83 44 41.60199 Group 1

TAY924991 (TAYLOR) 3 Taylor 30 06 28.64659 83 37 38.61797 Group 1

TAY924993 (TAYLOR) 3 Taylor 30 06 29.97431 83 37 41.43925 Group 1

TELFORD SPRING 2 Suwannee 30 06 25.37823 83 09 56.66104 Group 1

THOMAS SPRING (JEFFERSON) 2 Jefferson 30 20 22.96831 83 59 32.36658 Group 1

THOMAS SPRING (SUWANNEE) 2 Lafayette 30 08 13.79745 83 13 50.49731 Group 1

THREE SISTERS SPRINGS 2 Citrus 28 53 19.41119 82 35 21.08767 Group 5

THREE SISTERS SPRINGS #2 2 Citrus 28 53 17.19500 82 35 23.10900 Group 5

THUNDERING SPRINGS 6 Holmes 30 55 14.73953 85 53 27.13902 Group 3

TIMBER SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 56.29999 82 02 29.80000 Group 1

TOBACCO PATCH LANDING SPRING 3 Marion 29 25 42.72739 81 55 26.08666 Group 1

TRAIL SPRING 3 Gilchrist 29 53 54.08929 82 52 0.166149 Group 1

TRAM SPRINGS UNKNOWN Orange 28 46 4 81 28 14 Group 2

TREEHOUSE SPRING 1 Alachua 29 51 17.58981 82 36 10.35690 Group 1

TRICKLE SPRING UNKNOWN Lake 28 52 17.20000 81 27 6 Group 2

TROOP SPRING 3 Gilchrist 29 54 41.07900 82 50 32.44999 Group 1

TROTTER #1 SPRING 3 Citrus 28 47 46.88900 82 35 10.83299 Group 5

TROTTER LOWER SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 47 47.93881 82 35 10.35887 Group 5
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

88 

Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GROUP

TROTTER MAIN SPRING 3 Citrus 28 47 47.31958 82 35 11.02786 Group 5

TROTTER UPPER SPRING UNKNOWN Citrus 28 47 47.93881 82 35 9.358800 Group 5

TROY SPRING 1 Lafayette 30 00 21.69384 82 59 51.00913 Group 1

TURTLE MEADOWS SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 57.20000 82 02 45.19999 Group 1

TURTLE NOOK SPRING UNKNOWN Marion 29 12 57 82 02 42 Group 1

TURTLE SPRING 2 Lafayette 29 50 50.61469 82 53 25.02992 Group 1

TWIN CAVES SPRING 3 Jackson 30 47 12.88261 85 08 41.77590 Group 2

TWIN SPRING 2 Gilchrist 29 50 25.63335 82 42 21.10921 Group 1

UNNAMED SPRING (CITRUS) 2853010823543 UNKNOWN Citrus 28 53 1.371589 82 35 43.25219 Group 5

UNNAMED SPRING (DIXIE) 2941100825735 UNKNOWN Dixie 29 41 10.52029 82 57 35.41763 Group 1

UNNAMED SPRING (DIXIE) 2949090825600 UNKNOWN Dixie 29 49 9.979999 82 56 0.349999 Group 1

UNNAMED SPRING (GILCHRIST) 2953480824601 UNKNOWN Gilchrist 29 53 48.59191 82 46 1.673470 Group 1

UNNAMED SPRING (LAFAYETTE) 2953400831438 UNKNOWN Lafayette 29 53 40.41315 83 14 38.92344 Group 1

UNNAMED SPRING (ORANGE) 2840500813321 UNKNOWN Orange 28 40 50.29344 81 33 21.42539 Group 1

UNNAMED SPRING (TAYLOR) 2952240833733 2 Taylor 29 52 24.89994 83 37 33.80001 Group 1

UNNAMED SPRING (TAYLOR) 3006250833735 UNKNOWN Taylor 30 06 25.85866 83 37 35.92492 Group 1

UNNAMED SPRING (WASHINGTON) 3034400855021 UNKNOWN Washington 30 34 40.58345 85 50 21.17558 Group 3

UNNAMED SPRING (WASHINGTON) 30344100855016 UNKNOWN Washington 30 34 41.56355 85 50 16.77052 Group 3

UNNAMED SPRING (WASHINGTON) 30400700853920 UNKNOWN Washington 30 40 7.627150 85 39 20.89911 Group 3

UNNAMED SPRING (WASHINGTON) 3040090853919 UNKNOWN Washington 30 40 9.909589 85 39 19.72147 Group 3

UNNAMED SPRING NEAR ARIPEKA FL UNKNOWN Pasco 28 23 53.00800 82 40 26.36291 Group 5

VOLUSIA BLUE SPRING 1 Volusia 28 56 50.94154 81 20 22.51824 Group 2

VORTEX SPRING 2 Holmes 30 46 13.98784 85 56 54.50546 Group 3

WACISSA SPRING #1 UNKNOWN Jefferson 30 20 22.12573 83 59 30.39676 Group 1

WACISSA SPRING #2 UNKNOWN Jefferson 30 20 23.58924 83 59 29.33542 Group 1

WACISSA SPRING #3 3 Jefferson 30 20 26.13378 83 59 26.67958 Group 1

WACISSA SPRING #4 UNKNOWN Jefferson 30 20 25.49767 83 59 25.92293 Group 1

WADDELL MILL POND SPRING 3 Jackson 30 52 38.28438 85 20 41.64000 Group 2

WADESBORO SPRING 4 Clay 30 09 26.99992 81 43 21.35999 Group 2

WAKULLA NO NAME SPRING 3 Wakulla 30 12 53.33224 84 15 59.41858 Group 1

WAKULLA SPRING 1 Wakulla 30 14 6.643819 84 18 9.214449 Group 1

WALDO SPRING 3 Taylor 30 02 57.04281 83 37 47.73504 Group 1

WALKER SPRING (JEFFERSON) 3 Jefferson 30 16 50.75199 83 51 13.72699 Group 1

WALKER SPRING (SUWANNEE) UNKNOWN Suwannee 30 08 0.648199 83 07 47.22877 Group 1

WALSINGHAM SPRING 3 Washington 30 28 32.69891 85 31 42.73823 Group 3

WARM MINERAL SPRING 3 Sarasota 27 03 35.64500 82 15 35.83389 Group 3

WASHINGTON BLUE SPRING (CHOCTAWHATCHEE) 2 Washington 30 30 47.73214 85 50 49.86765 Group 3

WASHINGTON BLUE SPRINGS (ECONFINA) 2 Washington 30 27 10.16100 85 31 49.32756 Group 3

WATERFALL SPRINGS 2 Marion 29 06 5.255279 82 26 8.390400 Group 4

WATERMELON SPRING (GILCHRIST) UNKNOWN Gilchrist 29 49 30.9 82 49 30.8999 Group 1

WEBBVILLE SPRINGS 3 Jackson 30 50 21.21000 85 20 4.329099 Group 2

WEEKI PRESERVE SPRING UNKNOWN Hernando 28 29 52.07000 82 38 22.71999 Group 5

WEEKI WACHEE SPRING 1 Hernando 28 31 1.885910 82 34 23.39827 Group 5

WEKIVA SPRINGS (LEVY) 2 Levy 29 16 49.49424 82 39 21.89728 Group 1

WEKIWA SPRING (ORANGE) 2 Orange 28 42 42.79146 81 27 37.51506 Group 2

WELAKA SPRING 3 Putnam 29 29 40.39415 81 40 23.69773 Group 2

WELLS LANDING SPRING 3 Marion 29 25 15.65587 81 55 10.85120 Group 1

WHITE CAVE SPRING UNKNOWN Jackson 30 37 51.86034 84 55 21.86471 Group 2

WHITE SPRINGS (LIBERTY) 3 Liberty 30 25 0.706224 84 55 7.695839 Group 1

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS (HAMILTON) 0 Hamilton 30 19 47.82400 82 45 39.04299 Group 1

WHITEWATER SPRINGS 3 Putnam 29 38 1.319959 81 38 34.43999 Group 2

WILLIFORD SPRING 2 Washington 30 26 22.38643 85 32 51.29220 Group 3

WILSON HEAD SPRING (MARION) 3 Marion 28 58 47.14367 82 19 17.27813 Group 4

WILSON SPRING (COLUMBIA) 2 Columbia 29 54 0.181660 82 45 30.77006 Group 1

WITHERINGTON SPRING 3 Orange 28 42 53.72999 81 29 23.67000 Group 2

WOLF HEAD SPRING UNKNOWN Lake 28 38 41.86741 81 42 23.74372 Group 1

WOODBINE SPRING UNKNOWN Santa Rosa 30 22 16.06800 87 06 42.01199 Group 4

WOODS CREEK RISE 2 Taylor 30 07 26.70199 83 37 27.25699 Group 1

WORTHINGTON SPRING 4 Union 29 55 35.78551 82 25 33.30310 Group 1

WW GAY SPRING 5 Clay 30 09 14.09723 81 43 42.76177 Group 2

WW GAY SPRING #1 5 Clay 30 09 14.46663 81 43 41.50566 Group 2

WW GAY SPRING #2 5 Clay 30 09 14.09723 81 43 42.76177 Group 2

YALAHA SPRINGS UNKNOWN Lake 28 44 54.96000 81 48 20.16000 Group 1

ZOLFO SPRINGS NONE Hardee 27 30 13.13712 81 48 23.29668 Group 3
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

89 

APPENDIX C: INFORMATION ON BACKGROUND 

SPRINGS 

 

Background Springs- Locations 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

90 

Summary information: Nitrate Concentrations in Potential Background Springs 

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE WBID MEDIAN 

COMBINED DATABASE 

NITRATE + NITRITE 

TOTAL # 

SAMPLES 

# SAMPLES 

>0.60 mg/L 

# SAMPLES 

>0.35 mg/L 

ALEXANDER SPRING 1 2918Z 0.05 169 1 1 BEECHER SPRING 2 2895A 0.0065 6 0 0 BELTONS MILLPOND HEAD SPRING 3 2 1359 0.014 5 0 0 BLUE ALGAE BOIL SPRING 5 2948 0.02 4 0 0 BLUEBERRY SPRING 4 2929A 0.025 4 0 0 CAMP LE NO CHE SPRING 4 2929 0.01 5 0 0 CLIFTON SPRINGS 3 2981E 0.009 11 0 0 COPPER SPRING 2 3422A 0.01 6 0 0 DROTY SPRING 4 2955 0.03 6 0 1 GREEN COVE SPRING 2 2213Q 0.003 26 0 0 HAMPTON SPRING (TAYLOR) 4 3518Z 0.02 5 0 0 LITTLE COPPER SPRING 3 3422A 0.02 6 0 0 MARKEE SPRING 4 2948 0.02 5 0 0 MCCRABB SPRING 3 3422 0.03 4 0 0 MUD SPRING (PUTNAM) 3 2213O 0.0225 12 0 0 NASHUA SPRING 4 2213N 0.0065 4 0 0 NEWPORT SPRING 3 793X 0.006 10 0 0 OORANGE SPRING (MARION) 3 2747 0.006 26 0 0 PALM SPRINGS (LAKE) 4 2929A 0.01 5 0 0 SANDYS SPRING 5 2838G1 0.05 5 0 0 SATSUMA SPRING 3 2213N 0.006 5 0 0 SILVER GLEN SPRING 1 2893A3 0.049 203 40 42 SNAIL SPRING 5 2955 0.02 8 0 0 STEINHATCHEE SPRING 4 3573Z 0.04 32 0 0 SUN EDEN SPRING 4 2838D 0.03 8 0 0 SUWANNEE SPRING 2 3341Y 0.011 41 0 0 SWEETWATER SPRINGS 2 2905B 0.037 62 0 0 WALDO SPRING 3 3473B 0.014 6 0 0 WELAKA SPRING 3 2213N 0.034 6 0 0 WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS (HAMILTON) 0 3341Z 0.01 11 0 0 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

91 

APPENDIX D: STATUS OF SPRING MINIMUM FLOWS 

AND LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION 

WMD SPRING NAME COUNTY ADOPTED PROPOSED

SR Alapaha River Rise Hamilton 2013 

SJR Alexander Spring Lake 2013 

SR Allen Mill Pond Springs Lafayette 2011 

SR Anderson Spring Suwannee 2013 

SR Bell Spring (Gilchrist) Gilchrist 2011 

SR Big Spring (Taylor) Taylor 2015 

SWF Blind Spring Hernando 2009 

SR Blue Hole Spring (Columbia) Columbia 2010 

SR Bonnet Spring Suwannee 2011 

SR Branford Spring Suwannee 2011 

SWF Bubbling Spring Marion 2009 

SWF Buckhorn Spring Main Hillsborough 2008 

SR Charles Spring Suwannee 2011 

SWF Chassahowitzka Spring #1 Citrus 2009 

SWF Chassahowitzka Spring Main Citrus 2009 

SR COL101974 (Columbia) Columbia 2010 

SR Columbia Spring Columbia 2010 

SWF Crab Spring Citrus 2009 

SWF Crystal Springs (Pasco) Pasco 2007 

SJR DeLeon Spring (Volusia) Volusia 2011 

SR Devils Ear Spring (Gilchrist) Gilchrist 2010 

SR Falmouth Spring Suwannee 2013 

SR Fanning Springs Levy 2006 

SJR Gemini Springs Volusia 2011 

SJR Green Spring Volusia 2010 

SR Guaranto Spring Dixie 2011 

SWF Gum Spring Main Sumter 2010 

SR Hart Springs Gilchrist 2011 

SWF Hidden River Head Spring Citrus 2010 

SR Holton Creek Rise Hamilton 2013 

SWF Homosassa Spring Citrus 2009 

SR Hornsby Spring Alachua 2010 

SR 

Ichetucknee Head Spring 

(Suwannee) Suwannee 2010 

NWF Jackson Blue Spring Jackson 2012 

SWF Jenkins Creek Spring Hernando 2008 

SR July Spring Columbia 2010 

SWF Kings Bay Spring #1 Citrus 2010 

SR Lafayette Blue Spring Lafayette 2011 

SR Lime Run Spring Or Sink (Suwannee) Suwannee 2013 

SR Lime Spring (Suwannee) Suwannee 2013 

SWF Lithia Spring Major Hillsborough 2008 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

92 

WMD SPRING NAME COUNTY ADOPTED PROPOSED

SR Little River Spring Suwannee 2011 

SWF Little Spring (Hernando) Hernando 2008 

SR Madison Blue Spring Madison 2005 

SR Manatee Spring Levy 2006 

SJR Messant Spring Lake 1992 

SJR Miami Spring Seminole 1992 

NWF Morrison Spring Walton 2015 

SWF Mud Spring (Hernando) Hernando 2008 

SR Nutall Rise Taylor 2015 

SJR Palm Springs (Seminole) Seminole 1992 

SR Peacock Springs Suwannee 2011 

SR Poe Spring Alachua 2010 

SR Pot Hole Spring Dixie 2011 

SR Pot Spring Hamilton 2013 

SWF Potter Creek Spring Citrus 2009 

SWF Rainbow Spring Marion 2009 

SR Rock Sink Spring Dixie 2011 

SJR Rock Springs (Orange) Orange 1992 

SR Royal Spring Suwannee 2011 

SR Rum Island Spring Columbia 2010 

SWF Ruth Spring (Citrus) Citrus 2009 

SR Ruth Spring (Lafayette) Lafayette 2011 

SWF Ryles Spring Hernando 2010 

SWF Salt Spring (Hernando) Hernando 2008 

SJR Sanlando Springs Seminole 1992 

SR Santa Fe Spring (Columbia) Columbia 2010 

SJR Seminole Spring (Lake) Lake 1992 

SJR Silver Glen Springs Marion 2013 

SJR Silver Spring Main Marion 2011 

SR Siphon Creek Rise Gilchrist 2010 

SJR Starbuck Spring Seminole 1992 

SR Steinhatchee River Rise Taylor 2015 

SR Stevenson Spring (SUW923973) Suwannee 2013 

SWF Sulphur Spring (Hillsborough) Hillsborough 2007 

SR SUW1017972 (alias Blue Spring) Suwannee 2013 

SR Suwanacoochee Madison 2013 

SR Suwannee Spring Suwannee 2013 

SR TAY76992 (Taylor) Taylor 2015 

SR Treehouse Spring Alachua 2010 

SR Troy Spring Lafayette 2011 

SJR Volusia Blue Spring Volusia 2006 

SR Wacissa Group Jefferson 2015 

NWF Wakulla Spring Wakulla 2012 

SWF Waterfall Springs Marion 2009 

SWF Weeki Wachee Spring Hernando 2008 

SJR Wekiva River and Springs Orange 1992 

SJR Wekiva River and Springs Orange 2013 

SR White Sulphur Springs (Hamilton) Hamilton 2013 

Note: This table is based on information provided by the water management districts as of 11/09 and subject to change. 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

93 

APPENDIX E: MAPS SHOWING GROUND WATER 

NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS NEAR SELECTED 

SPRINGS 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Jackson Blue Spring 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

94 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Wakulla Spring 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

95 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Troy Spring 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

96 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Fanning and Manatee Springs 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

97 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Ichetucknee Springs Group 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

98 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Silver Springs Group 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

99 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Rainbow Springs Group 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

100 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Wekiwa Springs Group 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

101 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Volusia Blue Spring 
Springs Initiative Monitoring Report 

102 

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshed, Weeki Wachee Springs 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration 

Bureau of Watershed Restoration 

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3575 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/