# Florida Springs Initiative Monitoring Network Report and Recognized Sources of Nitrate

February 2010

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

# Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoratio n 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 th eir suggestions and edits; Jing Wang and Teayann Tinsley, Ground Water Protection Section, f or assistance in management of springs data and in performing data assessments; and to Lin da Lord, Watershed Planning and Coordination Section, for her assistance in develop ing the report template. Many thanks also to those who provided review comments on the draft doc ument.

For more information on the water quality assessmen ts 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 Moni toring 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 disc ussion, 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 2 001 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 qu ality and spring discharge by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Dat a available for this report were collected from 2001 through 2006.

The Spring Monitoring Network currently includes qu arterly water quality monitoring (at 49 spring vents and 9 underwater conduits that feed sp rings) and discharge monitoring (at 35 stations near springs). This is the most comprehen sive spring water quality monitoring and measurement network in the state and provides infor mation 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 th at can be used to evaluate influences due to salinity, interaction with surface water, rechar ge, 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 mos t 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 identifi ed by FDEP as impaired because of nitrate enrichment. A section of this report is dedicate d 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 s tressor 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, anim al waste, human wastewater, and atmospheric deposition of air emissions;

o Of the 49 network springs, today only Alexander an d 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 l evels. Detectable nitrate concentrations in springs in remote areas may provi de evidence that atmospheric deposition of nitrogen exists as a measurable sourc e;

o Over 40 percent (21 of 49) of the springs in the n etwork have nitrate median concentrations greater than 1 mg/L. Springs in the network that have the highest nitrate concentrations include Fanning, Troy, Lafay ette 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 Apalac hicola-Chipola River Basin Group) and Lithia Major (of the Tampa Bay Tributari es Basin);

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

iii 

## o The springs with the highest nitrate concentration s are in agricultural areas or areas with a mixture of agricultural and residential deve lopment;

o In 2008, FDEP proposed a nitrogen threshold of 0.3 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for nitrogen in clear water streams, including spring v ents (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 aquati c ecosystems, is found at relatively high concentrations in most of the springs due to its na tural 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 o f these areas (except in the Panhandle where the Hawthorn Group is absent) have moderate to high concentrations of orthophosphate, the inorganic for m 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, t he naturally elevated background concentration in many springs makes it d ifficult to determine if anthropogenic sources contribute appreciably to pho sphorus in springs.

• Potassium, another nutrient evaluated in this repo rt, 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 f rom fertilizer or other human-related sources. Research has not shown that potassium alo ne is a cause of impairment in springs.



# Salinity Indicators

• Twenty-five percent (12 of 49) of the springs in t he 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 locate d in the Springs Coast Basin of southwest Florida are influenced by salinity to var ying degrees due to their proximity to the coast and sea water. These include the Homo sassa and Chassahowitzka Springs Groups, among others. The Spring Creek Spr ings Group of the Ochlocknee-St. Marks Basin are similarly influenced by sea water because of their coastal setting;

o Another saline influence - deep naturally minerali zed ground water in areas near the St. Johns River and in southwestern Florida - is re sponsible for the saline characteristics of network springs like Salt, Alexa nder, 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 vul nerability to surface sources of contamination:

o Concentrations of analytes such as dissolved oxyge n (DO), calcium, sulfate, total dissolved solids, organic carbon, and fecal colifor m bacteria can be used to identify springs that may at times have a surface water comp onent (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 o ther springs have water quality characteristics that suggest they are readi ly recharged by rainfall and could be highly vulnerable to nearby surface inputs;

o Springs in the Spring Creek Group are among a subs et of springs that often backflow, receiving and later discharging surface w ater;

o Springs like Wekiwa and Volusia Blue appear to be discharging water that includes a significant component of deeper, more mineralized g round water. However, the elevated nitrate concentrations in both of these in dicate 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 provid es direct information related to the effects of precipitation and ground water withdrawa l 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 rec ord 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 l oads to receiving surface waters are being calculated. As more discharge measuremen ts are made under this program, it will be possible to more thoroughly ana lyze the impacts of precipitation and water usage on spring flow and water quality.



# Recognized Sources of Nitrate in Springs

• Several nutrient-impaired springs in representativ e areas of the state were evaluated in this report to help understand the range of potential an d recognized sources of nitrate causing their impairment. These included Wakulla Spring, T roy Spring, Fanning-Manatee Springs, Ichetucknee Springs Group, Silver Springs Group, Ra inbow 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 nurser y 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, tur f 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 t he 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 sig nificant component in several of the other springs, based on nitrogen isotope dat a and land use information.

• Application of animal waste to pasture or agronomi c crops is a viable means of managing these materials. However, large animal feeding ope rations (such as poultry farms and dairies) may be challenged by the sheer volume of w aste generated by these operations, and the disposal of these wastes in a manner that w ill 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 Fanni ng-Manatee, animal waste was a significant source of nitrate in the nutrient-impai red springs, based on nitrogen isotope data and land use information. According t o FDEP data, there are 23 poultry farms in the Troy Spring springshed and 8 dairy far ms in the combined springshed of Fanning and Manatee Springs.

• Domestic wastewater (reclaimed water) discharged t o ground water by wastewater facilities has the potential of contributing significant nitra te loads to springsheds. This is particularly true where there are concentrated areas of resident ial development in the more vulnerable areas near springs. Domestic wastewater plants can discharge large volumes of treated wastewater to ground water. While nitrogen concentr ations 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 waste water from a municipal sprayfield has been proven to be the major source of nitrate c ausing nutrient impairment of the spring;

o In the Wekiva-Rock Springs springshed, there are m any domestic wastewater facilities that discharge treated water to ground w ater via sprayfields, rapid infiltration basins and irrigation water to golf courses and oth er sites. The large volume of wastewater applied by some of these facilities is l ikely 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 hom es 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 resid ential development on septic tanks produces inputs of nitrate from both septic s ystems and fertilizers applied to lawns and golf courses. These are considered the p rimary sources of nitrate causing nutrient impairment of the spring;

o A similar scenario also applies to much of the Wek iva-Rock Springs springshed, which includes large areas of residential developme nt on septic tanks.

• Atmospheric deposition is a source of nitrogen loa ding to ground water, particularly where ground water is more vulnerable or where there is l ess vegetative uptake of nitrogen before it leaches into the aquifer. Atmospheric depositio n is considered the source of low levels of nitrate found in background springs located in remo te areas.



# Recommendations

The following are recommended future actions:

• Update the existing springs monitoring plan to bet ter define objectives and establish a well designed network to address specific issues;.

• Include information on ecological effects associat ed 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 info rmation 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 con duct springs monitoring in order to integrate, to a greater degree, assessments of disc harge 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 DA TA (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 LEVE L IMPLEMENTATION ____________________________________ _________ 91

APPENDIX E: MAPS SHOWING GROUND WATER NITRATE CONCE NTRATIONS 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, Preci pitation and Population in Marion County, Florida . ...................... 7 Figure 4: Historical and Recent Photographs of Ki ssingen Springs Site .............................. ....................................... 8 Figure 5: Quarterly Spring Monitoring Station Loc ations ............................................ ............................................. 10 Figure 6: Median Concentrations of Nitrate+Nitrit e in Spring Network (2001-2006) ................... ........................... 19 Figure 7: Median Orthophosphate Concentrations in Spring Network (2001-2006) ....................... .......................... 24 Figure 8: Nitrate and Orthophosphate in Network S prings (2001-2006) ................................ ................................... 26 Figure 9: Median Potassium Concentrations in Spri ng Network (2001-2006) ............................ .............................. 27 Figure 10: Potassium and Nitrate+Nitrite Concentrat ions and Potassium-Sodium Ratios in Select Springs .............. 30 Figure 11: Median Sodium Concentrations in Spring N etwork (2001-2006) ................................ .............................. 31 Figure 12: Salinity Influence on Select Springs as Indicated by Sodium-Sulfate Ratio ................. ............................. 32 Figure 13: Plot of Median Dissolved Oxygen Concentr ations in Network Springs ......................... ........................... 38 Figure 14: Historical Discharge Trends for Rainbow Springs Group and Volusia Blue Spring ............. .................... 47 Figure 15: Selected Springs with Significant Nitrat e 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 Site s Associated with Springs ......................... ............................... 13 Table 4: Ammonia and Nitrate+Nitrite in Spring Ne twork (2001-2006) ................................. ................................. 18 Table 5: Nitrate+Nitrite Concentrations in Backgr ound Springs with Available Data .................. ............................ 21 Table 6: Summary of Background Orthophosphate Con centrations in Ground Water........................ ...................... 23 Table 7: Orthophosphate and Potassium in Spring N etwork (2001-2006) ................................ ................................ 25 Table 8: Significant Potassium Concentrations in Springs and their Correlation with Sodium and Nitra te+Nitrite . 29 Table 9: Sodium and Chloride in Spring Network (2 001-2006).......................................... ...................................... 34 Table 10: Specific Conductance and Sulfate in Sprin g Network (2001-2006) ............................. ............................... 35 Table 11: Dissolved Oxygen and Calcium in Spring Ne twork (2001-2006) ................................. .............................. 37 Table 12: Total Dissolved Solids and Turbidity in S pring 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. Geologica l Survey Spring Stations .......................... ............................. 44 Table 16: Quarterly Discharge at Spring Network Sta tions (2001-2006) ................................. ................................... 45 Table 17: Potential Sources of Nitrate to Ground Wa ter 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 2 001 when the legislature first provided funding for the Florida Springs Initiative. The pu rpose of this report is to provide a summary of the first 5 years of monitoring water quality and s pring discharge by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Data available fo r this report were collected from 2001 through 2006.



# Springs Initiative Research and Monitoring Program

The deteriorating condition of springs in Florida w as recognized in 1999 by the Governor and FDEP Secretary who directed the formation of a mult i-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 Re storation , which identified existing problems in Florida’s spring systems and produced recommenda tions for specific steps to address them. The 2001 Florida Legislature provided the initial f unding for the Florida Springs Initiative. Since then, the program has used annual appropriates to f ocus on three broad areas: education and outreach; protection and restoration; and research and monitoring.

The Springs Task Force recommendations led to a var iety of research and characterization activities to better understand spring systems, the ir 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/FS Ireport2007FINAL.PDF . The spring water quality and discharge monitoring progr am described in this report was developed and implemented in response to the Springs Task For ce 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 sprin gs (large springs with discharges historically greater than 100 cubic feet per second). Thirty-nin e of Florida’s 67 counties have springs, or include areas of land that contribute water to spri ngs (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 regulator y districts. In addition to providing a unique recreational resource, our springs provide i mportant base discharge to rivers and streams, freshwater to estuaries, and critical habi tat 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 inc reased 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 c entury, 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 resul ted 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 c ases 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 resid ential 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 vi sit springs have seen them degrade, in some places due to changes in the amount of water d ischarged 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 gro und water and a smaller contribution of water from the surface, depending on the spring. I f 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 Geologi cal 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 enrichm ent, 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 sprin g 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 (nitrat e) is considered the main chemical indicator of nutrient enrichment of springs and nitrate concentr ations 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 cons idered 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 o f growth on the stream or creek bottom near springs. Excessive gro wth of periphyton can inhibit the growth of other submerged aquatic vegetation, which is consid ered the most important aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. Ecosystem indice s 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 Flo rida 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 cyan obacteria frequently respond most prolifically (Gao, 2008). Increases in Lyngbya biomass is a management issue in many Florida spri ngs (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 ele vated 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 a lso 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 an d researchers believe that other factors also contribute. A more recent study by microbiolo gists (Jennifer et al., 2008) also found that the dense blooms of Lyngbya are increasingly responsible for declining water q uality 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 lev els may control the overall biomass but do not affect the distribution of the species that see ms to be randomly introduced. They postulated that perhaps birds and humans (recreational swimmer s 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 or iginally designed for freshwater, flowing streams. Springs frequently have lower dissolved o xygen and higher specific conductance than typical freshwater streams, which makes the SCI ina ppropriate to use. Some of the tools applicable to springs and spring runs include habit at assessment, hydrologic modification scoring, qualitative periphyton collection, rapid p eriphyton 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 P inowska; 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 Florid a is primarily the Upper Floridan aquifer, the underground limestone reservoir that many thought w ould provide unlimited amounts of water without adverse effects. Yet, in some areas, sprin gs 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 cha nges in springs as they begin to pick up more of the characteristics of deep mineralized zon es of ground water in inland areas or seawater in coastal areas. Decreasing spring disch arge may also be accompanied by increases in the growth of algae, which could be so mewhat 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 h andful 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 dow n river from the spring vents. The Silver River depends almost entirely on discharge from app roximately 30 spring vents located along the upper mile of the river; therefore river discha rge is approximately equivalent to the cumulative spring discharge. Figure 3 shows the long-term trend of discharge in Silver R iver just below the cumulative spring vents (Station 022 39501) 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 discharg e 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. Th e trends in precipitation and population growth are important keys in determining contributi ng 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 occur red during a severe period of drought in late 1998 to 2003. While there is only a slight decreas e in the long-term precipitation trend, the precipitation data indicate fewer significant episo dic events of over 12 inches of monthly rainfall have occurred since the early 1980s. This illustra tes the fact that episodic tropical precipitation events make significant contributions to ground wat er recharge and thus spring discharge.

Drought influence on discharge is amplified by grou nd 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 c ould be influencing spring discharge. Discharge volumes from many Florida springs have si gnificantly declined over time, and some have quit flowing altogether. Long-term withdrawal s of ground water can lower water levels in the aquifer until there is no longer a sufficient p ressure 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 Cou nty, or the spring can suddenly

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

7 

## Figure 3: Trends in Silver River Discharge, Precipi tation 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 pluggi ng 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 s topped flowing at a time when there was a major regional lowering of water levels in the Uppe r Floridan and intermediate aquifers that corresponded with ground water withdrawals by the p hosphate industry (SWFWMD, 2002). Ground water withdrawals for agricultural and publi c 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 flowin g.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

8 (a) Year 1923

(b) Year 2008



## Figure 4: Historical and Recent Photographs of Kiss ingen Springs Site

Note: (a) photo from a postcard published in 1923 (State Archives of Florida); (b) photo taken in 200 8 shows former spring pool now dry (Clint Kromhout, F lorida Geological Survey).

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

9 

## In the rapidly growing Tampa Bay region, ground wat er withdrawals have significantly reduced water levels in the Upper Floridan aquifer. Exampl es 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 Basi n has other stresses on the aquifer, which include withdrawals for agricultural irrigation, ph osphate mining and paper mill process water. In the Suwannee River Basin, springs that essential ly 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 Monitorin g Network is a fixed-station network consisting of 49 spring vents ( Table 1 ) and several wells that intersect underwater condu its. 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 bec ause of their value as unique ecological and recreational r esources. Most are located in state parks or are on other public lands.

Figure 5: Quarterly Spring Monitoring Station Locat ions

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

11 

## Table 1: Spring Monitoring Network-Water Quality and Dischar ge 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 - 10-20 06 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 - 10-200 6
9687 SILVER GLEN SPRINGS 21 2001-2006 10 10-2001 - 10-20 06 10786 SALT SPRINGS (MARION) 10 2004-2006 10 07-2004 - 10 -2006 11390 DELEON SPRING (VOLUSIA) 11 2002, 2004-2006 10 07-2 004 - 10-2006 11403 WEKIWA SPRING (ORANGE) 15 2002-2006 10 10-2002 - 1 0-2006 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 07-200 4 - 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 - 10-200 6 (Homosassa Group)
9705 HOMOSASSA SPRING #1 21 2001-2006 3 01-2005 - 10-200 6 (Homosassa Group)
9706 HOMOSASSA SPRING #3 21 2001-2006 3 01-2005 - 10-200 6 (Homosassa Group)
9707 CHASSAHOWITZKA SPRING MAIN 21 2001-2006 2 07-2006 - 10-2006
9708 CHASSAHOWITZKA SPRING #1 21 2001-2006 9 07-2004 - 1 0-2006
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 - 10-200 6 Suwannee River Basin

9671 LAFAYETTE BLUE SPRING 14 2001-2006 5 07-2004 - 10-2 006
9672 MADISON BLUE SPRING 14 2001-2006 6 07-2004 - 10-200 6 9677 DEVILS EAR SPRING (GILCHRIST) 17 2001-2006 2 07-200 6 - 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 0 7-2005 - 10-2006 9714 MILL POND SPRINGS (COLUMBIA) 10 2001, 2004-2006 6 0 7-2005 - 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, 2004-20 06 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 M onitoring Network and OGWIS database.

/2 Period of record for quarterly manual discharge me asurements may include data gaps. Note:

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

12 

## Spring water quality samples are collected quarterl y by a Florida Geological Survey (FGS) sampling team that is dedicated to springs monitori ng. Most of these samples are collected from spring vents, but a few are collected from wel ls that intersect spring conduits. Chemical and field analytes collected routinely at each stat ion 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 Progra m, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is contracted to collect stage and/or discharge data a t 35 stations near springs. Table 3 contains a list of these sites and their pertinent data. Mos t of them are “real-time” sites, with up-to-theminute data available online at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/fl/nwis/current/?type=dis charge&group_key=NONE

. 

## In addition, the program measures discharge to coin cide with water quality sampling at some of the network springs. Spring stations with discharg e 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 – pr esent 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 continu ous 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

02323505 1 Little Fanning Spring near Wilcox no 7 measurements per year
02323566 1 Manatee Spring near Chiefland Yes continuous 1932-1998; 1/2001 – present

02310545 1 Weeki Wachee River near Weeki

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

02310650 1 Chassahowitzka Springs nr Homosassa

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

02310678 1 Homosassa Springs near Homosassa Yes continuous 1931-33; 1936; 1956; 1961; 1963-1978; 1988-89; 10/1995 – present

02310747 1 Crystal River at Bagley Cove near

Crystal River Yes continuous 10/2002 – present

02236160 1 Silver Glen Springs near Astor Yes continuous 11/ 2002 – present 02235500 Blue Springs near Orange City, FL Yes cont inuous 3/1932 – present 02239500 Silver River near Ocala, FL Yes continuous 10/1932 – present 02302000 Crystal Springs near Zephyrhills, FL Yes c ontinuous 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 c ontinuous 5/2006 – present 02310675 Hidden River near Homosassa, FL Yes contin uous 1/1997 – present
02310690 Halls River near Homosassa, FL Yes continu ous 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 continu ous 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 continuou s 1956-1994; 7/1996 – present 02235000 Wekiva River near Sanford, FL Yes continuo us 10/1931 – present Notes: 1 - Funded by Springs Initiative

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

14 

## the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NW FWMD) began collecting discharge measurements in July 2004, and since July 2006, the USGS has collected these data.

In addition to water quality and discharge measurem ents, quarterly to biannual bioassessments are performed in selected spring runs by the FDEP E nvironmental Assessment Section. These bioassessments include assessing riparian zone heal th, habitat description, biological sampling and limited water quality sampling. Reports on the biological assessments produced by the Environmental Assessment Section are available onli ne from FDEP at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/cgi-bin/reports/res ults.asp

.



# Quality Assurance

Water quality sampling procedures are outlined in t he Springs Initiative Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures , which adhere to the FDEP standard operating proce dures 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 La boratory Accreditation Program.

Adherence to standard field protocols is verified b y periodic internal and external field audits of the sampling program. These field audits are carrie d out by Springs Initiative staff, working with the Environmental Assessment Section. Assessment o f field measurement accuracy is accomplished through internal (FDEP) and external ( USGS) field reference sample programs. Formalized procedures for computerized and manual d ata review, developed for the FDEP Status Network, are also applied to spring monitori ng 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 t ransferred electronically from the FDEP Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) to the FDEP Watershed Monitoring Section, where they are processed and merged with c orresponding 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 assu rance checks. Data files are then manually checked using field sheets and results from the com puterized reviews to identify obvious random or systematic errors.

After preliminary data review for a project is comp leted, 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 th e general public. The Springs Initiative network data used in this report are from 2001 thro ugh 2006.

Manual discharge data from quarterly sampling sites have been collected by FGS, NWFWMD and USGS staff. These measurements are performed us ing 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 a t some locations.

All field measurements and water quality data colle cted through the quarterly Springs Network are housed in the FDEP Oracle-based Generalized Wat er Information System (OGWIS). From here, data are periodically uploaded to Florida STO RET and are also exported to Hydroport, a ground-water quality data retrieval and analysis to ol currently under development. Data included in this report represents a subset that me t 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 m any surface waters, including springs. The two major nutrient groups monitored include nitroge n (N) and phosphorus (P). Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential nutrients to plant life, i ncluding 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 a lgae is not likely to occur. Historically, many spring systems have had sufficient phosphorus to ca use an overabundance of plant growth but this was limited by very low concentrations of nitr ogen.

Nitrogen is found in several forms and is ubiquitou s in the environment. Nitrate (NO 3 

## ) is the form of nitrogen that occurs in the highest concent rations in ground water and springs. Nitritenitrogen (NO 2 

## ) is an intermediate form of nitrogen that is almos t 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 n itrite 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 u ntil 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 concent rations can actually cause a significant shift in the balance of spring ecological communities, le ading to the degradation of biological systems due to overgrowth of algae and sometimes aq uatic plants.

Research into the relationship of nutrients to alga l growth in springs has provided basis for some science-based values that can serve as thresho lds. In an FDEP-funded study, Michigan State University researchers found that algal speci es 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 thresh old was provided in documentation supporting spring run-rel ated 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 concentrati on to an acceptable level. Another example of a nitrate threshold was used for the TMD L developed for the Suwannee River and several springs. This method employed a change poi nt analysis that was performed to help understand the functional relationship between peri phyton growth and nitrate concentration (Hallas and Magley, 2008). It provided a statistic al analysis of the range of nitrate concentrations over which periphyton growth would o ccur. Based on the combined body of this research, FDEP has proposed a surface water standar d for nitrogen in clear water streams (including spring vents) of 0.35 mg/L, which applie s to both nitrate and nitrate+nitrite and is based on the FDEP assessment methodology using bino mial 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. A s 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 sour ce 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 gr ound 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 co ncentrations, 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 conser vative 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 s prings because the Wekiwa and Rock Springs are in the Middle St. Johns Basin where pho sphorus concentrations are naturally elevated in the Upper Floridan aquifer. Anthropoge nic sources of phosphorus include fertilizers, animal waste, human wastewater, biosolids, and indu strial wastewater effluent. The tendency for phosphorus to leach to ground water at a partic ular application or disposal site is based on soil characteristics and phosphorus application rat es. Phosphorus tends to readily adsorb to clay and organic material in soil and is more likel y to be mobile in sandy soil or areas where the soil adsorptive capacity for phosphorus has been ex ceeded. However, inputs of phosphorus from anthropogenic sources affecting ground water a nd springs are not easily traced because a significant amount of phosphorus in ground water an d springs comes from natural sources. Ambient phosphorus concentrations in ground water i n 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 natur ally under some conditions, but under others it can be an indicator of human impacts. Common in organic 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 pota ssium concentrations are both elevated in spring samples, the source is often inorganic ferti lizers. However, potassium can also be present from land application of manures and munici pal wastewaters. The fate of potassium once it infiltrates to the ground water is controll ed 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 wa ter, thus springs near the coastline or those discharging water from deeper mineralized ground wa ter 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 differentia te between natural and anthropogenic sources.



# Nitrogen

The spring monitoring program includes data for amm onia and nitrate+nitrite, which are summarized in Table 4 . The median values for nitrate+nitrite and ammoni a for the entire 2001- 2006 monitoring period are shown and compared to me dians for 2006, the most recent complete year of data. Most springs have not had d etectable concentrations of ammonia and the ones that did had ammonia at very low concentra tions. 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 Netw ork (2001-2006)minmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmax

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 0.02 9 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 0.4 9 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 0.09 3 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 0.1 9 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 0.0 1 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 0.01 2 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 t hreshold 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) an d Lafayette Blue (Suwannee River Basin Group). DeLeon Spring and Spring Creek Rise #1 had the highest ammonia concentrations. Overall, ammonia concentrations for 2006 were essen tially 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 rep ort includes a discussion on the recognized sources of nitrate in some of the more significantl y 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 nitrog en 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 com bination of the two (Katz, 1999; Katz, 2005; Kendall, 1998). The network springs represen t the majority of the springs in the state and their data indicate that elevated nitrate (expresse d as nitrate+nitrite-total) is a widespread problem, as is shown by data from the network sprin gs 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-ni trogen 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 nitra te+nitrite concentration for all springs in the network combined was 0.65 mg/L. This median is alm ost twice as high as the proposed FDEP criterion of 0.35 mg/L. Based on the proposed stan dard, about two-thirds (almost 74 percent) of the network springs have median nitrate+nitrite con centrations high enough to promote algal growth problems.

The third benchmark is the nitrate-nitrogen concent ration in background springs. In a pristine setting, the concentration of nitrate in a spring i s at least an order of magnitude lower than the proposed nitrate standard of 0.35 mg/L. Based on d ata from multiple sources, there are presently only a small number of springs in the sta te with sufficient data that exhibit nitrate concentrations close to background conditions as sh own 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 sp rings previously considered as background springs have had increases in their nitrate concent rations to the point that they are no longer considered as such. This may be due to increases i n atmospheric deposition of nitrogen from anthropogenic sources or to other factors such as n earby septic systems at campgrounds. More information on springs with background water q uality with respect to nutrients can be found in Appendix C

. Only 2 of the 49 network springs (3 percent) have n itrate+nitrite concentrations that are at or below background when combining other sources of da ta 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 Gl en, Fern Hammock, and Alexander Springs, all located in the Middle St. Jo hns Basin, have relatively lower nitratenitrogen concentrations due to their remote locatio ns and the absence of regional sources of contamination. Other relatively lower concentratio ns 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 c orrespond 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 locate d where there are heavily forested lands, some in public ownership.

Jackson Blue, Fanning, Apopka and Lithia Major Spri ngs are among the most nitrate-laden springs in the network, with nitrate+nitrite concen trations approaching 3 mg/L or higher. Of these, Fanning Spring has the highest nitrate+nitri te concentration. It is noteworthy that these three springs are located in areas that include agr iculture and/or former agricultural areas undergoing urbanization.

Jackson Blue Spring ( Figure 6 ), in the Chipola River Basin of the Apalachicola-C hipola 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 ar eas of intensive farming in northern Jackson County and southern Alabama.

The Suwannee River Basin Group (equivalent to the a rea covered by the Suwannee River Water Management District) has more springs than an y 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 Backgrou nd Springs with Available Data

Spring Basin County Magnitude Nitr ate+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 dist ricts 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 agric ultural 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. Sil ver Spring Main, Reception Hall and Blue Grotto Spring are the main springs in the Silver Sp ring Group. These all have nitrate+nitrite concentrations greater than 1 mg/L and lie to the e ast of an urban area as well as numerous horse farms and other agricultural properties. Fur ther south in the Ocklawaha River Basin is Apopka Spring (located in Lake Apopka), which has a n elevated median nitrate+nitrite concentration of 4.55 mg/L. Apopka Spring is surro unded by a region of historically intensive agricultural land uses, including row crops, nurser ies and citrus groves. Ground water in this area also has very high nitrate concentrations in l ocalized areas.

The Rainbow Springs Group, in the Withlacoochee Riv er Basin, consists of a cluster of spring vents in the northern portion of the basin. The Ra inbow Springs Group includes multiple springs that have nitrate+nitrite concentrations greater th an 1 mg/L. These springs create the headwaters of the Rainbow River which flows southwa rd to the Withlacoochee River. Sources of nitrogen in this area include historical agricul tural lands, large horse farms and thoroughbred training facilities, transitioning to smaller ranch ettes and urban residential development.

The Springs Coast Basin includes eight springs in t he network that are within the Chassahowitzka, Kings Bay, Homosassa, and Weeki Wac hee spring groups. Seven of the network springs in the Springs Coast Basin have nit rate+nitrite concentrations that exceed 0.35 mg/L. Further to the south in the Tampa Bay Tribut aries 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 o f phosphorus found in geologic material and the form of phosphorus found in conventional fertil izers. Throughout much of Florida, the Miocene-age Hawthorn Group is a massive geologic un it that is naturally rich in phosphorus. This material lies on top of the porous and permeab le 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 t he 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, int ermediate 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 Conce ntrations in Ground Water

Basin Median Orthophosphate Concentrations in Aquifer Sys tems (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 B ackground and current Probabilistic monitoring netw orks



## orthophosphate in ground water from one or more aqu ifers, in comparison to the phosphorus thresholds proposed by Stevenson, et al. (2007). I n 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 c oncentrations in ground water were as high as 0.105 mg/L. Phosphorus is usually higher i n the intermediate aquifer as shown in the data for most basins. The intermediate-aquifer wel ls are representative of ground water from the Hawthorn Group, which provides a significant so urce of orthophosphate.

Springs in the Suwannee River Basin Group and the M iddle 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 spr ings is provided in Table 7

. The springs in the network with the highest orthoph osphate concentrations are Wekiwa, Rock, Hornsby, Volusia Blue, Fanning, Lithia Springs Majo r, Ichetucknee Group, DeLeon, Alexander, Lafayette, and Big Springs. Springs in the Choctaw hatchee-St. Andrew Basin, similar to ground water, have low concentrations of phosphorus. Over all most spring orthophosphate concentrations in 2006 were relatively unchanged co mpared to median values for 2001-2006, so no significant trends are obvious for this 5-yea r 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 S pring Network (2001-2006)

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

25 

## Table 7: Orthophosphate and Potassium in Spring Net work (2001-2006)minmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmax

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 0.2 6 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 0.015 5 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 Initiativ e network median of 0.030 mg/L for phosphorus/ortho phosphate 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 Spr ings (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 conc entrations. As discussed previously, potassium can serve as an indicator of either saline water in fluence or contamination from sources such as fertilizers. Median potassium values for the netwo rk 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 seawate r, which commonly has potassium concentrations as high as 390 mg/L. In network spr ings, 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, Tar pon 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 sp rings (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 dis charging recycled seawater.

Ground water and many springs in the Middle St. Joh ns River Basin have elevated potassium concentrations due to another type of natural occur rence. The Floridan aquifer system along and beneath the St. Johns River corridor is natural ly highly mineralized with relict saline water from past higher sea level stages, which has a tend ency to migrate upward (Boniol, 2008; Spechler and Halford, 2001). The springs within th is area discharge ground water that is enriched in potassium as well as sodium and chlorid e. 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, alon g with other chemical data, can sometimes be used to help differentiate between nat urally occurring potassium due to salinity and potassium from other sources. The premise is th at sodium and potassium concentrations in salinity-influenced springs should be similarly pro portional where the potassium-sodium ratio is less than 0.04:1. Based on that assumption, potass ium-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 show ing that those with saline influence have a predominance of natura lly occurring potassium (potassium-sodium ratio <0.04:1) compared to those with higher potass ium-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 concentrat ions along with potassiumsodium ratios. The springs with the highest potass ium-sodium ratios (>0.20:1), correspond with some of the highest spring nitrate-nitrogen concent rations 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 Sp rings 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 (Pot assium-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 3.3 0 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

B l u e G r o t t o

F e r n H a m m o c k

R e c e p t i o n H a l l

J u n i p e r

W a k u l l a

M i l l P o n d

B l u e H o l e

H o r n s b y

D e v i l ' s E a r

B i g S p r i n g

C y p r e s s

W a c i s s a # 2

M i s s i o n

F a l m o u t h

G a i n e r # 3

M a d i s o n B l u e

G a i n e r # 1 C

G a i n e r # 2

J a c k s o n B l u e

W e k i w a

L a f a y e t t e B l u e

A p o p k a

R o c k

M a n a t e e

M o r r i s o n T r o y

F a n n i n gNitrate 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 0.7Potassium - Sodium Ratio 

### Nitrate + Nitrite

Potassium

Potassium-Sodium Ratio =>0.10:1



## Figure 10: Potassium and Nitrate+Nitrite Concentrat ions and Potassium-Sodium Ratios in Select Springs



# Salinity Indicators

Although most springs are considered to be fresh wa ters, 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 s pecific conductance. Concentrations of these indicators can in some cases be used to identify gr ound water chemistry changes due to drought and/or anthropogenic influences. Increasin g trends in these salinity indicators could be caused by lack of recharge during low-rainfall peri ods, over pumping the aquifer, or a combination of the two. Coastal springs that are t idally 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 coasta l 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 eleva ted 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 netwo rk are 4.97 and 8.6 mg/L, respectively.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

31 

## Figure 11: Median Sodium Concentrations in Spring N etwork (2001-2006)

In the more saline springs, sodium and chloride con centrations 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 T arpon Hole. Silver Glen, Chassahowitzka Spring Main, Volusia Blue, and Alexander Springs ar e 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 highe r salinity can have an influence on biological diversity within their receiving waters and is ther efore important to consider when evaluating their ecological health. The sodium-chloride (Na-C l) and sodium–sulfate (Na-SO 4 

## ) ratios were used to categorize the springs into low salinity an d those influenced by high salinity sources (including coastal and inland mineralized ground wa ter). These are shown in Figure 12 . All of the springs in the Springs Coast Basin (with the ex ception of Weeki Wachee) are included in the high salinity-influenced group. Many of the spring s in the area of mineralized ground water near the St. Johns River are also included in the high s alinity-influenced group.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

32 (mg/L) 

### (a) Springs most influenced by salinity 1

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

S p r i n g C r e e k # 1

S p r i n g C r e e k # 2

H o m o s a s s a # 1

H o m o s a s s a # 2

C h a s s a h o w i t z k a M a i n

T a r p o n H o l e

H o m o s a s s a # 3

V o l u s i a B l u e

D e L e o n

C h a s s a h o w i t z k a # 1

M a r i o n S a l t

C y p r e s s \ 1

A l e x a n d e r

H u n t e r

J a c k s o n B l u e \ 1

S i l v e r G l e n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Sodium-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

G a i n e r # 3

G a i n e r # 1 C

G a i n e r # 2

W a c i s s a # 2

B l u e H o l e

R a i n b o w # 4

M o r r i s o n

M i s s i o n

B i g S p r i n g

W a k u l l a

R a i n b o w # 1

A p o p k a

F e r n H a m m o c k

W e k i w a

J u n i p e r

W e e k i W a c h e e

L a f a y e t t e B l u e

B u b b l i n g

D e v i l ' s E a r
R o c k

M a d i s o n B l u e

I c h e t u c k n e e H e a d T r o y

F a n n i n g

F a l m o u t h

L i t h i a M a j o r

M i l l P o n d

S i l v e r S p r i n g

H o r n s b y

M a n a t e e

R a i n b o w # 6

B l u e G r o t t o

R e c e p t i o n H a l l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6Sodium-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 hi gher Na-SO 4 

## 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 p anhandle region and may be expressing a distinctive ground water chemistry that could be na turally occurring or influenced in some way by anthropogenic sources. As expected, the specifi c 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 variatio n in concentrations of sodium, chloride and other salinity indicators. Most of the tidally inf luenced springs with elevated sodium and chloride concentrations also had a higher sodium-sulfate rat io ( 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 medi ans (by 2 mg/L or more) include DeLeon, Spring Creek #1, Volusia Blue, Silver Glen and Mari on Salt. Decreases in salinity indicators were noted for several springs in the Middle St. Jo hns 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 d ecades is often the primary source of spring water. However, some springs have greater contribu tions from water that was much more recently rainwater or surface water. Several indic ator analytes can be used to evaluate the relative inputs of water that was more recently sur face water or rain water.

Low dissolved oxygen (DO) is a normal characteristi c of ground water and is understandably a typical characteristic of spring water, however the re is a wide range in DO concentrations in springs across the state. Springs that have greate r recent surface and rain water contributions and those that have more local recharge generally h ave DO concentrations that are higher than typical for ground water. Many springs that have c ontinuously higher-than-typical DO concentrations are shallow, have shallow flow syste ms and receive a lot of recharge from local precipitation. High DO can also occur in springs i n or adjacent to rivers. These springs may have DO concentrations that fluctuate based on prec ipitation and river stage. During normal conditions, the discharge from these springs closel y resembles ground water in water quality. However, in response to river stage rises during we tter 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 (200 1-2006)minmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmax

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 Initiativ e 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 Sprin g Network (2001-2006)minmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmax

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 2.1 5 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 1 3 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 Initiativ e network median 16.5 mg/L for sulfate and surface water criteria of 1275 uS/cm for specific conductan ce. 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 summarize d 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 Jackso n 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. T hese include Big, Lafayette Blue, Rock, Falmouth, Mission, Mill Pond, Volusia Blue, Troy, D eLeon, 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 fluxe s occur. Temporary anthropogenic effects on DO can even occur at springs frequented by recre ational scuba divers in instances where the spring retains the diver’s expended oxygen. Th is 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 understandi ng the sources of water and vulnerability to contamination in springs. Figure 14 shows the total dissolved solids (TDS), calcium an d 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 signific antly influenced by fresh surface water; in the center th e 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 indica te saline water influence are notable for some of the coastal springs and those in the area o f mineralized ground water near the St. Johns River, which is consistent with sodium and ch loride concentrations. Some of the springs with low DO also have elevated concentrations of ca lcium and sulfate, suggesting a chemical signature consistent with the Upper Floridan aquife r, whereas others have higher DO concentrations and corresponding lower sulfate, cal cium and TDS, more characteristic of fresh surface waters.

Median values for several other indicators of surfa ce 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 grou nd water–surface water interaction indicators might be useful in ide ntifying 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 C reek 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 to tal 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 colifo rm 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 nece ssarily indicative of a contaminant source.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

37 

## Table 11: Dissolved Oxygen and Calcium in Spring Network (200 1-2006)minmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmax

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 3 6.2 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 3 3.7 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 1 48 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 4 3.05 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 4 9.9 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 5 6.8 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 4 6 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 Initiativ e network median of 54.3 mg/L for calcium and surfa ce 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 Concentr ations in Network Springs

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

391.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, S ulfate 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 S pring Network (2001-2006)minmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmax

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 0.0 5 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 0.2 25 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 0.1 75 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 0.12 5 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 0.12 5 0.15 Rainbow Spring #4 127 135 146 127 136.5 146 0.025 0.1 1.6 0.0 5 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 Solid s statewide median for Springs Initiative stations of 202.5 mg/L and Turbidity threshold of 29 mg/L based on surface wat er 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)minmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmax

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 o f 20 Pt-co based on current official application of the Lake Condition Index and Total Organic Carbon statewide median for Spri ngs 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)minmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmaxminmedianmax

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 acceptabl e 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 Potabl e Water (Gainer Spring only); or 400 col/100 mL - C lass 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 sample s that were over the Class III freshwater threshold of 400 colonies/100 mL for fec al coliform bacteria. The data for Big Spring indicate that increased precipitation and severe st orm events may be related to episodic higher bacteria counts that occurred from 2003 to 2005. H owever, 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 Jun iper Creek, downstream from Fern Hammock, which have frequently reported the detecti on of elevated enterococci bacteria counts in Juniper Creek. These bacteria in both waters ma y be from the same or a similar source.



# Discharge

Spring discharge is an important component of the S prings 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 instance s continuous) discharge measurements coupled with water quality data also help us interp ret discharge-related changes in water quality. Florida’s water management districts are the region al agencies assigned with the responsibility of regulating water withdrawals and have either ado pted 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 suppor t 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 collec ted by the USGS for only a few springs. However, in recent years more springs have been inc luded 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 numbe r of springs monitored for discharge. Table 15 provides a summary of mean monthly discharges meas ured at USGS stations associated with springs in Florida. Most of these a re “real-time” sites, with up-to-the-minute data available online at the following link: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/fl/nwis/current/?type=flo w&group_key=NONE

In addition to fixed gaging stations, manual discha rge measurements are collected within the same time frame and location as quarterly water qua lity sampling. This effort, begun in July, 2004, provides data for making loading estimates fo r nutrients and other analytes of interest. Table 16 provides quarterly discharge data from locations a t or near spring water quality monitoring stations for those springs that were sel ected to be included in the quarterly discharge monitoring stations.

The absence of discharge data for some springs list ed in these tables, in part, reflects the lack of data prior to the Springs Initiative program whi ch 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) reg ular data collection for spring discharge and it is difficult to assess discharge trends over time. For tunately, for a handful of Florida springs

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

44 

## Table 15: Mean Monthly Discharge at U. S. Geologica l Survey Spring Stations

Basin/Discharge Station Mean Monthly Average Discharge by Year (in cubic fe et per second)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Apalachicola - Chipola Jackson Blue Spring nr Marianna, FL -- -- 236.57 12 3.69 175.60 104.61

Middle St. Johns Silver Glen Springs nr Astor, FL -- 129.60 116.37 1 12.37 93.59 99.18 Volusia Blue Springs nr Orange City, FL -- 150.58 1 56.27 143.26 170.44 167.29 Wekiva River nr Sanford, FL 1 242.21 321.34 412.23 329.81 341.90 270.97

Ochlockonee – St. Marks Wakulla River nr Crawfordville, FL 1 -- -- -- 427.55 631.85 605.29

Ocklawaha Silver River nr Ocala, FL 1 444.94 501.08 686.92 537.21 -- --

Springs Coast Chassahowitzka River nr Homosassa, FL 1 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, FL 1 131.13 141.33 206.61 209.30 193.78 155.37

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 -- -- 5 6.77 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, FL 1 -- 198.51 -- -- -- -- Madison Blue Spring nr Blue Springs, FL -- 58.41 11 4.99 143.07 129.98 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 1 32.97 146.52

Withlacoochee Rainbow River at Dunnellon, FL 543.65 548.41 6 25.08 648.28 693.28 619.12 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 Sta tions (2001-2006)

Basin/Spring Name Discharge by Month/Year in Cubic Feet per Second07/200410/200401/200504/200507/200510/200501/200604/200607/200610/2006

Apalachicola - Chipola Jackson Blue Spring 96.60 98.50 126.00 231.00 108.13 112.96 168.66 96.6 4 106.00 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 8 6.50 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 10.9 0 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 4 8.80 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 64.1 0 Manatee Spring 138.00 123.00 156.00 -- -- 170.67 140.71 172.38 1 68.00 135.50 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 f or those in the Apalachicola-Chipola, Choctawhatchee-St. Andrew, an d 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. Geolo gical Survey. Springs in BOLD are “historical” first magnitude springs that hist orically had discharges of 100 cubic feet per secon d or greater.Values in italics reflect the mean of two or more discharge measurem ents, and dashes (--) reflect no data collected for that quarter.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

46 

## (notably Volusia Blue, Silver and Rainbow), the USG S has collected frequent and continuous discharge measurements since the late 1920s and ear ly 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 B asin and Volusia Blue Spring of the Middle St. Johns Basin. The discharge trend for Silver Ri ver was presented as Figure 3

. The historical records of discharge from the Rainbo w 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

1 9 2 8

1 9 3 2

1 9 3 6

1 9 4 0

1 9 4 4

1 9 4 8

1 9 5 2

1 9 5 6

1 9 6 0

1 9 6 4

1 9 6 8

1 9 7 2

1 9 7 6

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 8

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 6

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 8



### YearDischarge (cfs) 

### Discharge (cfs) Discharge Trend

(b) Volusia Blue Spring Run

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

1 9 2 8

1 9 3 2

1 9 3 6

1 9 4 0

1 9 4 4

1 9 4 8

1 9 5 2

1 9 5 6

1 9 6 0

1 9 6 4

1 9 6 8

1 9 7 2

1 9 7 6

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 8

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 6

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 8



### YearDischarge (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 da te and to document the status of this particular set of high priority springs. These spr ings, selected based on their historical, recreational and/or ecological significance, genera lly 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 r elative 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 sprin gs with lowest nitrate concentrations in the state. This concentration was exceeded by all 49 n etwork springs. Of the network springs, Alexander, Silver Glen and Juniper Springs, located in the Ocala National Forest, had the lowest nitrate+nitrite concentrations; however othe r springs not in the network have lower nitrate medians. The FDEP-proposed nitrate standard for cl ear waters, including springs, of 0.35 mg/L was exceeded by median nitrate+nitrite concentratio ns in 36 of the 49 springs in the network (approximately 73 percent). Over 40 percent of net work springs had nitrate+nitrite medians greater than 1 mg/L. Network springs with the high est 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 thi s report.

Phosphorus, as orthophosphate, was found to occur a t significant concentrations in ground water discharged by most springs in the network. W hile anthropogenic sources of phosphorus do exist in these areas, elevated concentrations co rrespond with natural background phosphorus concentrations in the Upper Floridan aqu ifer. Phosphorus occurs at naturally high concentrations in some portions of the surficial aq uifer and the Hawthorn Group, which lies atop the Tertiary limestones of the Upper Floridan aquif er 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 lo w phosphorus concentrations.

Potassium is also an important nutrient that can be useful to help identify possible nutrient sources. Potassium concentrations and potassium–so dium 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 compon ent of inorganic fertilizers and was found at above background concentrations in several of the s prings 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 s prings.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

49 

# Salinity

Salinity indicators were used to identify the sprin gs that are saline-influenced due to their setting near the coast or inland in an area that includes t he 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 disso lved 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 anal ytes. 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 gr ound water withdrawal. At this time, the available quarterly monitoring data for network spr ings is not sufficient to establish long term salinity trends with adequate confidence. Future w ork 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 gr ound water recharge or surface water. The springs with the highest DO concentrations, which m ay 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, Rain bow #4, Hunter, Cypress, Chassahowitzka #1, Bubbling and Homosassa #1 spring s. 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 concent rations 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 i n determining short term changes and longer term changes when combined with data from other sou rces. Three springs with 50 to 75 year records–Silver, Rainbow and Volusia Blue – show a s low decline in discharge from the late 1950s and early 1960s to present. This trend is lik ely 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 en richment, primarily by nitrate-nitrogen, has been linked with the overgrowth of algae and result ant ecological impacts to spring runs. The water discharged from spring vents is mainly from g round 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 groun d water quality (FDEP, 2008a).

The occurrence of nitrate in the springs of a parti cular area depends on the proximity and relative nitrogen contribution of sources and the v ulnerability 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 nu trients and documents the major sources most likely impacting those springs. The springs t hat 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 t hey occur in areas of karst terrain. Karst areas exist where limestone is near enough to the l and surface to be exposed to weathering and dissolution processes. Infiltrating precipitat ion and surface water can cause erosion and dissolution of the underlying limestone, create sin kholes 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 t he surface and the underlying aquifer may be minimal. These types of areas need the most pro tection from sources of nitrate such as septic tanks, wastewater disposal sites, animal was te, and areas where fertilizer is applied. In addition, soils in these areas are low in natural f ertility and moisture-holding capacity and sometimes require excessive amounts of irrigation w ater and fertilizer for successful production of agricultural crops.

While the immediate area of a spring always lies wi thin a vulnerable karst area, its springshed can extend for miles and include ground water recha rge 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 gr ound 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 th e Upper Floridan aquifer in the spring areas.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

51 

## Figure 15: Selected Springs with Significant Nitrat e 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 pr edominant 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 locat ion in the springshed. Table 17 provides a comparison of nitrogen loadings for the range of ni trate 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 Agricul tural Sciences (IFAS). Potential input from other sources was calculated from actual research d ata or data from typical permitted facilities.

Inorganic fertilizer use is difficult to estimate b ecause application amounts and frequencies vary. However it would not be unusual for a farmer or hom eowner 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 fertilit y, excessive fertilizer leaching because of rain events or over irrigation, and mult iple cropping of agricultural fields are all reasons why growers might fertilize in excess of th e IFAS-recommended rates. Also, overfertilization is not uncommon for some residential homeowners. The high potential for fertilizer leaching in the excessively-drained sandy soils typ ical 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 fe rtilizer applied to crops has been estimated at 20 to 35 percent under a Mid-Atlantic Coastal Pl ain scenario (Bohlke and Denver, 1995); however the amount under these soil conditions woul d likely be higher.

Animal waste is used as a fertilizer source in seve ral of these springsheds and IFAS provides recommended application rates for chicken and cow m anure. However, animal waste management is often a significant challenge for pou ltry operations, dairies and horse farms. Disposal demands of animal waste often exceed recom mended application rates. For larger dairies, for example, accepted practices of spray i rrigating liquid waste and land spreading solid waste per IFAS-recommendations are difficult to fol low because of the large volumes of manure being managed. A typical dairy cow generates appro ximately 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 leac h to ground water, but under less favorable conditions up to 60 percent could leach (Van Horn e t al, 1991). An average 1,000 lb horse generates over 14,000 lb/year of manure, and when c onfined 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 fr om either type of operation, because of the volume, could amount to a significant load of nitra te to ground water.

Domestic wastewater discharge to ground water also can contribute significant loads of nitrate and can impact springs. This is particularly a con cern 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 specif ic practices at the application sites. Also, wastewater loadings from residential septic tanks c an be significant in aggregate in large,

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

54 

## Table 17: Potential Sources of Nitrate to Ground Wa ter 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 fertilizer 1 

### 210 Irrigated; (Mylavarapu et al, 2009),

Vegetables, inorganic fertilizer 1 

### 60 – 200 Sweet corn, potatoes, tomatoes, at 200 /l b/ac/crop (Hochmuth and Hanlon, 2000) Hay field/Silage, inorganic fertilizer 1 

### 320 Bahia grass, assume 4 cuttings; (Mylavarapu et al, 2009) Fertilized pasture, inorganic fertilizer 1 

### 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 Recommen ded rates in WAM model document; (SWET, 2002) Silviculture, inorganic fertilizer 1 

### 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, inorganic 1 

### 17-472 Based on 2 to 3 lb control release fertilize r/ yd 3 

### 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 Florida 1 

### 174-261 4-6 lb/1000 sq ft; (Sartain et al, 2009)

Inorganic fertilizer, St. Augustine grass-central Florida 1 

### 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 residentialseptic 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 Loa ding 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 discha rge 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 av erage for 4 north and central Florida sites; (from USGS National Atmospheric Deposition Program web site) Note: 1 Estimated loadings from fertilization are conservat ive, based on recommended agronomic rates and not a ctual field data.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

55 

## subdivisions where residential lots are closely spa ced. However, loadings are much lower in less densely developed areas. Recent septic tank r esearch 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 the y 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, w ith higher concentrations occurring in more urban areas. According to the USGS National Atmosp heric Deposition Program data, in a less populated area of northwest Florida with little agr iculture, 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 depo sition from urban sources such as vehicle emissions and industry exists, the median T N concentration from wet deposition was almost ten times higher (1.1 mg/L). Atmospheric de position in agricultural areas may also be significant. The 10-year median TN concentration i n 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 c omparison to other sources when they are present (Chelette et al, 2002; Katz et al, 2005; MA CTEC, 2009; SJRWMD 2007). Atmospheric inputs of nitrogen, although significant, are sprea d 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, sin ce these springs are not generally near significant agricultural or wastewater-related sour ces 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 f rom 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 h ave 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 sp rings 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 wa ter in a particular springshed and the nitrate concentration in the spring(s). Most of the availa ble nitrate data for ground water is from targeted sampling of private wells by the FDOH, thu s the springsheds with the largest number of wells sampled for nitrate are typically the ones wi th more widespread ground water quality issues. This targeted sampling is conducted under the FDEP Water Supply Restoration Program in areas where contaminant sources are know n or suspected to exist. The analyses are run at the FDOH central laboratory and water qu ality 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 und er other programs. Appendix E provides maps of each of these spring areas showing the nitr ate 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 d ata sources, although the majority of the wells are private drinking water wells. It is assu med that the majority of these private wells

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

56 

## withdraw water from the Upper Floridan aquifer, sin ce 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 nit rate 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 a bout the sources of nitrate impacting these springs. This type of information may be use ful 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 inclu des 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 south ern outskirts of Tallahassee southward and makes up 40 percent of the springshed in Florida, i s the major focus area for nitrate sources potentially impacting the spring because of the hig h 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 concentration s 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) ha ve indicated that the (17.5 MGD) City of Tallahassee municipal wastewater sprayfield is a la rge source of nitrate in this area and that it is impacting the spring. Until recent years, agricult ural 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 con centrated in Woodville, located several miles to the north of the spring, and in several large subdi visions within the springshed. Ground water traces and cave divers have documented that large u nderground conduits are able to transmit water rapidly from source areas (Hazlett-Kinkaid, 2 007; FSU, 2009). A dye trace from the Tallahassee municipal wastewater sprayfield to Waku lla Springs showed that the ground water travel time was approximately 60 days (Hazlett-Kink aid, 2007). The major historical source of nitrate in the spring is wastewater from the munici pal sprayfield; however it is likely that septic tanks in the more vulnerable areas are also signifi cant contributors. The City of Tallahassee wastewater treatment plant will soon be upgraded to provide advanced wastewater treatment (AWT), which should reduce the nitrate wastewater c oncentration by 75 percent.Springs Initiative Monitoring Report57Table 18: Nitrogen-related Land Use Characteristicsfor 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 (percent) 15. No. Golf Courses 16. No. Domestic Wastewater Facilities, discharging to ground waterJackson Blue 85,677 30.1 7.6 (1) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 3.9 1 0Wakulla 570,271 2.8 2.1 (1) 0 1 14 3 1 17 2.3 4.5 5.9 11 17Troy 75,018 19 10.7 (1) 0 1 12 23 11 9 0 0.2 5.7 0 0Fanning-Manatee 131,553 18.8 15.5 (1) 0 8 0 1 6 1 0.1 1.3 6.2 1 8Ichetucknee Group 245,390 5.4 10.1 (1) 0 0 8 4 3 18 0.5 3 8.6 3 13Silver Group 316,879 3.6 10.4 (2) 0.3 2 23 3 0 241 1 6.5 0.3 39 13Rainbow Group 439,198 1.4 19.1 (2) 0 4 19 1 1 199 0 0.7 11.1 14 14Wekiwa-Rock 564,141 3.6 6.7 (2) 4.6 0 288 12 2 213 1.9 8.7 6.4 36 85Volusia Blue 66,793 0 2.2 (2) 0.2 0 5 2 0 6 1.8 28.7 14.6 15 21Weeki Wachee 153,732 20.5 (1) (2) 1.1 (4) 34 14 (3) 27 2 11.6 11.4 30 18Notes:Information on wastewater facilities is from the FDEP wastewater facilities database (WAFR). Other data were obtained from the following land use GIS coverages forthese water management districts: NWFWMD, 2004: SJRWMD, 2004; SRWMD, 2006-2008; and SWFWMD, 2006.1- combined with row and field crops2- combined with improved pasture3- 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 ni trate concentration of 2.2 mg/L and is included under the Suwannee River Nutrient TMDL. Its spring shed extends northeastward from the spring vent and includes a rural, agricultural area of Suw annee 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 Su wannee 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 conce ntrations 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 wit h 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 199 7, 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 an d organic sources, which is consistent with the lan d use pattern of mixed agricultural activities (Katz et al, 1999). According to Hornsby and Mattson (1998), in 1997 fertilizer accounted for 48.9 perce nt of the total nitrogen inputs in Suwannee County, followed by poultry litter (34.1 percent). This in formation 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 concentratio n 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. T he 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 mor e than 34 percent of the area in the combined uses of row and field crops, hay fields and improved pas tures. 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, 200 6). There are 8 dairies in the springshed and 6 of these are large, requiring industrial wastewater pe rmits. There are 8 domestic wastewater treatment plants that discharge to ground water, with the 0.4 75 MGD City of Chiefland and the 0.2 MGD City of

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

59 

## Trenton plants the largest and the others much smal ler. Less than 8 percent of the springshed is in residential land use and 6.2 percent of that reside ntial land use is low density.

Nitrogen 15 values for both Fanning and Manatee Spr ings 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 lan d 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 co ncentrations 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 charac terized as vulnerable and a karst plain area in which it is characterized as more vulnerable. The l argest urban center, Lake City, is in the upland area. The upland area has a clay confining layer b etween 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 den sity residential and commercial development in the Lake City area and mainly rural agricultural la nds 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 muni cipal wastewater treatment by the (3 MGD) city wastewater plant, which discharges secondarily-trea ted effluent to a sprayfield southwest of the city. The sprayfield is approximately 10 miles north of t he Ichetucknee Head Spring (Katz and Griffin, 2007) and near the historical river channel known a s the Ichetucknee Trace. Agricultural land uses in the springshed include row and field crops, improve d pasture and hay, which combined make up about 15 percent of the springshed’s land uses. Gr ound water data from the springshed indicate that over 22 percent of the wells with data in the sprin gshed have nitrate concentrations greater than 1 mg/L. Two wells in the springshed had nitrate conc entrations higher than the ground water standard.

Nitrogen isotope data from several of the springs i n the Ichetucknee Group show that the springs in this group are not all influenced by the same sourc es 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 nitr ate may be from a combination of inorganic and organic sources, and the results for Devils Eye Spr ing, also nutrient-impaired, indicated that the nitrate was from an organic nitrogen source (Albert in 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 stat e park land to Devils Eye Spring. Another dye trac e, conducted on a larger scale, linked Rose Sink (loca ted about 4 miles south of the Lake City sprayfield) with several of the Ichetucknee Group s prings (Butt and Murphy, 2003). The land uses in the watershed of Rose Creek includes agricultural a nd 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 s prings. Stormwater in Clayhole Creek flows underground in Black, Clayhole and Dyal Sinks befor e it moves toward Ichetucknee Springs. Clayhole Creek was found to be connected to Rose Sink and th e Ichtucknee Springs. However, no direct evidence has specifically linked the sprayfield to the springs. Multiple sources of nitrate are impac ting

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

60 

## these springs, with fertilizer from agricultural fi elds, pastures, and possibly residential lawns bein g the most significant in the springs with the greatest d ischarge.



# Silver Springs Group

The Upper Floridan aquifer within most of the sprin gshed of the nutrient-impaired Silver Springs Group is highly vulnerable to contamination (88 per cent in Figure 16 ). Of the springs in the Silver Springs Group, Silver Main (AKA: Mammoth Spring) ha s the highest discharge and had a median nitrate concentration of 1.1 mg/L. Nitrate concent rations in these springs have steadily increased as the springshed transitioned from natural land to ag ricultural 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 t he springshed with nitrate data had concentrations higher than 1 mg/L and 23 wells had nitrate concent rations higher than 10 mg/L. The highest nitrate concentration in a well was 31 mg/L. The more elev ated nitrate concentrations in wells were found in the central and western areas of the springshed.

The largest city in the springshed (and in close pr oximity to the springs) is Ocala. Ocala’s two municipal wastewater treatment plants (approximatel y 9 MGD total capacity) and wastewater and residuals application sites are in the 100-year cap ture 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. Al so, many of the residential areas in the 100-year capture zone are on individual septic tanks. Accor ding to the Marion County Planning Department (Kuphal, 2005), most of the domestic wastewater loa ding of nitrogen in Marion County, which includes the spring group’s 10-year capture zone, may be fro m septic tanks. Much of land in the springshed is used for thoroughbred horse farms and exists as imp roved pasture. There are approximately 241 horse farms in the 100-year capture zone and improv ed 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 Silv er 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 wa s 1.7 mg/L. Nitrate isotope data in the ground wat er 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 S ilver Main was inorganic on one occasion and mixed inorganic and organic on another occasion. I n 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 nitrat e 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 G roup 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 D unnellon being the largest population centers. The City of Williston’s 0.45 M GD municipal wastewater treatment plant, which discharges to a sprayfield, is the largest point so urce of domestic wastewater and most areas outside of Williston’s service area are on individual septi c tanks. The predominant agricultural land use tha t could be a nitrogen source in the springshed is imp roved 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 (approximat ely 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 high er than the ground water standard. The highest nitrate concentration in a well was 23 mg/L. The d istribution of elevated ground water wells are foun d 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 Rainb ow Springs area (Jones et al, 1996) identified fertilized pastures as the principal source of nitr ate in the springs because primarily inorganic sour ces were identified in ∂ 15N analyses of ground water and spring water sampl es. Nitrogen loading calculations showed that pasture fertilization cont ributed the largest amount of nitrogen in the study area and the highest nitrate concentrations in grou nd 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 th at 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, al so known as the Wekiva ground water basin ( Figure 16 ). Apopka Spring and several other springs are als o included in this group. Nitrate concentrations in these two springs increased signi ficantly during the 1980s to their maximum concentrations in the mid-to-late 1990s and then de clined somewhat to their current levels. The nitrate concentration in Wekiva declined from a hig h of over 2 mg/L to approximately 1 mg/L or lower. The 2006 median nitrate concentrations for Wekiva a nd Rock were 1.0 and 1.3 mg/L, respectively, and these two springs are part of the nutrient-impa ired Wekiva River system. Over 6,600 wells (mainly private drinking water wells) in the spring shed have been sampled by FDOH for nitrate since the late 1980s. Of these, over 44 percent had nitr ate 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 incl udes other springs such as Apopka Spring, includes a mixture of urban and agricultural land u ses. This area, just north of Orlando, experienced a significant population growth spurt in the mid-1980 s and many agricultural lands were converted to more urban uses. Citrus growing, once a dominant l and use in the springshed, was reduced dramatically in the mid –to-late 1980s due to winte r freezes, the rising real estate values and the ci trus canker eradication program, which took many acres o f 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 i n the ridge citrus growing area, which includes thi s springshed.

Other sources of nitrate may now be replacing citru s as potential impacts to the springs. Residential land use is accompanied by wastewater treatment fac ilities. 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 spra yfields and rapid infiltration basins, used for irrigation water on golf courses, and a very small portion is discharged to surface water. In areas n ot on municipal sewer, homes are on septic tanks. Res idential 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 g olf 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 collecte d 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, an d the remainder could have been from a mixture of inorganic and organic sources. The ∂ 15N results for a 2009 sampling by FDEP and the USG S (Katz and Griffin, 2009; MACTEC, 2009) were also mixed, w ith the results for Rock Spring more indicative of an inorganic origin and results for Wekiwa Sprin g perhaps more indicative of organic sources or a mixture of organic and inorganic sources. The elev ated 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 u se of inorganic fertilizer for citrus was once a ma jor source of nitrate in both springs that now may be d issipating. Existing nearby municipal wastewater disposal and application sites and residential sept ic tanks are sources of the nitrate in Wekiwa Sprin g and both springs may now be impacted by existing so urces 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 0.6 45 and there is low level ground water contaminatio n by nitrate. Over 45 percent of its springshed is i n 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 nit rate data (all private wells) had concentrations higher than 1 mg/L. The highest nitrate concentrat ion in a well was 9.9 mg/L. The wells with elevate d nitrate concentrations are mainly found in the nort hwestern 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 s ources of the nitrate causing impairment of the spring include a mixture of inorganic fertilizer fr om residences and golf courses and domestic wastewater.



# Weeki Wachee Spring

The Weeki Wachee Springs group lies in western Hern ando 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 inc ludes portions of both Hernando and Pasco Counties. The median nitrate concentration in Week i 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 pe rcent and a combination of agricultural lands accounts for about 20 percent of the springshed. D omestic wastewater treatment is decentralized throughout the springshed, with the largest domesti c wastewater facility being the 0.75 MGD facility a t 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 nitrat e 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 o f 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 th at inorganic fertilizer was the more significant source of nitrate in the S prings Coast region (Champion and Starks, 2001). Based on the land uses near the springs, much of th e 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 fertili zer 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 pr ogram 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 enha ncing the usefulness of this program and its reporting.

1. Update the springs monitoring plan so that it de fines 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 c urrent spring monitoring plan will be adapted to focus on these priority issues.

2. Include information on ecological effects associ ated with nutrient enrichment, in addition to water quality and flow.

Evaluating the occurrence, trends, and impacts of n utrients on spring ecosystems is a major area of interest and a focus for upcoming springs monitorin g 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-impair ed springs can be identified and addressed. Future reports will include more detailed informati on on spring water quality data and document nutrient-related impacts on spring ecosystems.

3. Evaluate the existing monitoring network to pot entially include other priority springs that may have issues, provide information from under-rep resented regions of the state, and integrate springs monitoring and restoration with o ther monitoring and restoration initiatives of FDEP.

The original emphasis of monitoring under this prog ram 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 regi ons of the state should also be considered for monitoring under this program. Limited and sporadi c 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 g reater and more immediate response to localized contaminant sources and monitoring data from them m ay be helpful in evaluating the impacts of springshed-scale land use and restoration activitie s 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 discharg e, develop consistency in naming convention and locations of springs stations and co ordinate data sharing and monitoring activities.

If funding is available, measurement of spring disc harge should continue under the FDEP program. It is important to maintain discharge stations to obse rve long term trends that would not otherwise be

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

65 

## detected. This report includes a comprehensive ass essment 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 disc harge. 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 i n the spring naming convention between agencies and accuracy issues for spring sampling st ations. 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 statio n location. This list also contains some updates t o 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 availab le 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 I nitiative-collected data, but will include informat ion 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 i s to work with other organizations in the state to develop a common platform for sharing consistent, h igh quality data. It is anticipated that a new FDEP water quality database is to be developed by t he Bureau of Watershed Restoration and it may serve as a common data transfer and retrieval platf orm to exchange data between organizations that do monitoring. Three of the water management distr icts currently also perform routine spring monitoring and there are also occasional special pr ojects that include spring data collection. One important action that is recommended for the upcomi ng 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 assessme nt of trends in springs and help identify springs t hat are impaired by nutrients and need restoration plan s.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

66 

# REFERENCES

Albertin, A., J. O. Sickman, A. Pinowska, R. J. Ste venson, 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 Environment al Protection.

Arthur, J. D., H. A. R. Wood, A. E. Baker, J. R. Ci chon, and G. L. Raines, 2007. Development and Implementation of a Bayesian-based Aquifer Vulnerab ility Assessment in Florida. Natural Resources Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, p. 93-107.

Bohlke, J. K., and J. M. Denver, 1995. Combined Us e of Ground Water Dating, Chemical and Isotopic Analyses to Resolve the History and Fate o f Nitrate Contamination in Two Agricultural Watersheds, Atlantic Coastal Plain, Maryland. Wate r 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 alon g Middle St. Johns River.

Butt, P. L., and G. J. Murphy, 2003. Dyal and Blac k Sinks Dye Trace, Columbia County, Florida, MaySeptember, 2003. Karst Environmental Svcs. for FDE P Springs Initiative.

Campion, K. M., and R. Starks, 2001. The Hydrology and Water Quality of the Springs in WestCentral Florida. SWFWMD Water Quality Monitoring P rogram 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 Wat ershed. NWFWMD Water Resources Special Report 02-1.

Cowell, B.C., and C. L. Dawes, 2004. Growth and Ni trate-Nitrogen Uptake by the Cyanobacterium Lyngbya wollei

. J Aquat Plant Man 42 : 69–71.

Davis, J. G., and A. M. Swinker, 2003. Horse Manur e Management – Quick Facts. Colordado State University Cooperative Extension, AGF-212-03. Florida Springs Task Force, 2000. Florida’s Springs: Strategies for Protection and Re storation ; Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 59 p.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 200 8. EcoSummaries, Environmental Assessment Section. Available on the internet at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/cgi-bin/reports/res ults.asp


## FDEP, 2008a. Integrated Water Quality Assessment f or Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update, October 2008.

FSU, 2009. Woodville Basin Tracer Study, FDEP Agre ement No WM926., Florida State University Department of Oceanography.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

67 

## Garber, M. P., J. M. Ruter, J. T. Midcap and K. Bon dari, 2002. Survey of Container Nursery Irrigation Practices in Georgia. HortTechnology, October-Dece mber 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 Di ssolved Oxygen TMDL for the Suwannee River, Santa Fe River, Manatee Springs (3422R), Fanning Sp rings (3422S), Branford Spring (3422J), Ruth Spring (3422L), Troy Spring (3422T), Royal Spr ing (3422U), and Falmouth Spring (3422Z). FDEP Div. Water Res. Mgmt., Bur. Watershe d Mgmt.

Hand, J., 2004. Typical Water Quality Values for F lorida 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 Unive rsity Oceanography Department.

Hazen and Sawyer, 2009. Florida Onsite Sewage Nitr ogen Reduction Strategies Study, Task A2. Literature Review of Nitrogen Reduction Technologie s 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 Flo rida.

Hicks, R., 2009. Findings of Reclaimed Water Sampl ing Event, Wekiva BMAP Area. FDEP September 3, 2009 internal memorandum to J. Gihring

. Hochmuth, G. J., and E, A. Hanlon, 2000. IFAS Stan dardized Fertilization Recommendations for Vegetable Crops. UF/IFAS CIR 1152.

Hornsby, D., and R. Mattson, 1998. Surfacewater Qu ality and Biological Monitoring Annual Report 1997. SRWMD Water Res. Rep. WR98-03.

Hornsby, D., R. A. Mattson, and T. Mirti, 2000. Su rface water quality and biological monitoring. Annual Report. 1999. Suwannee River Water Managemen t District Technical Report WR-00- 04. iv, 148 pp.

Jacob, J. P., and Mather, F. B., 1997. Florida’s C ommercial Broiler Industry. Gainesville, UF/IFAS FS PS20.

Jennifer J. J., R. W. Litaker, and H. W. Paerl, 200 8. Morphological and Genetic Evidence that the Cyanobacterium Lyngbya wollei (Farlow ex Gomont) Speziale and Dyck Encompasses a t Least Two Species, Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008 Jun e; 74(12): 3710–3717.

Jones, G. W., S. B. Upchurch, and K. M. Champion, 1 996. Origin of Nitrate in Ground Water Discharging from Rainbow Springs, Marion County, Fl orida. 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 Basi n, Florida. USGS WRI Report 99-4252.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

68 

## Katz, B. G., 2004. Sources of nitrate contaminatio n 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 i n a Karstic Spring Basin, Environmental and Engineering Geoscience; November 2005; v. 11; n o. 4; p. 333-346; DOI: 10.2113/11.4.333. Katz, B. G., and D. W. Griffin, 2009. Using Geoche mical 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. Grou ndwater Quality Impacts from the Land Application of Treated Municipal Wastewater in a Large Karstic Spring Basin: Chemical and Microbiological Indicators, Science of the Total En vironment 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 Cyc ling in Catchments in Isotope Tracers in Catchment Hydrology (1998), C. Kendall and J. J. Mc Donnell (Eds.). Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 519-576.

Kuphal, T., 2005. Quantification of Domestic Waste water 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 R iver Water Management District.

Minogue, P. J., H. K. Ober, S. Rosenthal. Overview of Pine Straw Production in North Florida: Potential Revenues, Fertilization Practices, and Ve getation Management Recommendations. UF/IFAS FOR125.

Mitchell, C. C., J. O. Donald, and J. Martin, 1990. The Value and Use of Poultry Waste as a Fertilize r. Alabama Coop. Extension Serv. Circ. ANR-244. Auburn , AL.

Mylavarapu, R., D. Wright, G. Kidder, and C. G. Cha mbliss, 2009. UF/IFAS Standardized Fertilization Recommendations for Agronomic Crops. University of Florida IFAS Extension SL129.

Obreza, T., and G. Means, 2006. Characterizing Agr iculture in Florida’s Lower Suwannee River Basin Area, UF/IFAS SL 241.

Parsons, L. and B. Boman, 2006. Best Management Pr actices for Florida Citrus. HortTechnology, July-September 2006 16(3).

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

69 

## Phelps, GG., 2004. Chemistry of Ground Water in th e Silver Springs Basin, Florida with an Emphasis on Nitrate. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5144.

Potapova, M. and D. F. Charles, 2005. Choice of Su bstrate 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 Environ mental 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 Flori da-Friendly Landscaping Ordinances. University of Florida IFAS, ENH1115.

Scott, T. M., G. H. Means, R. P. Meegan, R. C. Mean s, 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 Transformatio ns of Nitrate-N in the Florida Environment. SJRWMD Special Pub. SJ2007-SP10 pepared by the Uni v. of Florida School of Forest Resources and Conservation.

Soil and Water Engineering Technology, 2002. Compu ter Modeling Services for the Suwannee River Watershed, FDACS #7148.

Spechler, R., and K. J. Halford, 2001. Hydrogeolog y, 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 Min imum Flows and Levels, August, 25, 2002. DRAFT. SWFWMD Ecological Evaluation Section.

Toth, D.J., 1999. Water quality and isotope concent rations from selected springs in the St. Johns River Water Management District. Technical Publicat ion SJ99-2. Palatka, Fla.: St. Johns River Water Management District.

Toth, D. J., and C. Fortich, 2002. Nitrate Concent rations 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 u pdated 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 P rojections, Statistics on the internet at http://www.census.gov/population/projections/PressT ab6.xls

. United States Geological Survey, 2009. The Water C ycle: 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 Rec ycling Nutrients to Recover Fertilizer Value and Avoid Environmental Pollution. UF/IFAS C ircular 1016.

Yeager, T. H., 2009. Current Fertilization Practice s 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)* FAN NING

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 BLUESPRINGCAMP 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 BLUESPRINGCATFISH 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 BLUESPRINGDIX625991 (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) HOMOSA SSA 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) RAIN BOW 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 m anagement districts, U. S. Geological Survey, and special projects. Springs included in Springs Init iative Monitoring Network are in BOLD . BKG signifies that the spring may be considered for use as repres enting background water quality for nitrate. ** indicates elevated concentration with increasing tr end; * 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, Wat er Management Districts and the United States Geological Survey and have available water q uality 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 futu re reports as necessary. This springs master list intentionally contains some springs tha t are known to no longer flow and includes associated waterbodies (such as karst windows, sink s and river rises) that are important for studying springs. There may be variations in the s pring magnitudes reported in this document when compared to other publications. Spri ng magnitude is sometimes assigned based on historical information (groups of vents) r ather than more recent conditions at a single spring vent. Spring magnitude in this docum ent was assigned using available data from the best available recent flow conditions; how ever, for some springs the magnitude was only available in historic documents and/or reporte d 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 Sur vey about spring flow in 2002-2003 reflects hydrologic conditions significantly influe nced 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 wi ll 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 th at 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 rec over 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 recov er None - No longer flowing at any t ime
Unknown - No record of spring discharge available
(FDEP 2009 Magnitude Categories based on FGS Spring s of Florida – Bulletin 66 (2004); and Rosenau et al. (1977), p. 4, as adapted from Meinze r (1927), p. 3)

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

77 Appendix B continued

SPRING NAME MAGNITUDE COUNTY LATITUDE LONGITUDE BASIN GR OUP
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 GR OUP
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 GR OUP 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 Grou p 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 GR OUP
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 GR OUP
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 GR OUP
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 GR OUP 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 Grou p 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 Grou p 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 GR OUP
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 Grou p 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 GR OUP
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 GR OUP 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 GR OUP 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 GR OUP
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- LocationsSprings Initiative Monitoring Report90Summary information: Nitrate Concentrations in Potential Background SpringsSPRING NAME MAGNITUDE WBID MEDIANCOMBINED DATABASEBASINNITRATE + NITRITETOTAL #SAMPLES# SAMPLES>0.60 mg/L# SAMPLES>0.35 mg/LALEXANDER SPRING 1 2918Z 0.05 169 1 1 MIDDLE ST. JOHNSBEECHER SPRING 2 2895A 0.0065 6 0 0 MIDDLE ST. JOHNSBELTONS MILLPOND HEAD SPRING 3 2 1359 0.014 5 0 0 WITHLACOOCHEEBLUE ALGAE BOIL SPRING 5 2948 0.02 4 0 0 MIDDLE ST.JOHNSBLUEBERRY SPRING 4 2929A 0.025 4 0 0 MIDDLE ST. JOHNSCAMP LE NO CHE SPRING 4 2929 0.01 5 0 0 MIDDLE ST.JOHNSCLIFTON SPRINGS 3 2981E 0.009 11 0 0 MIDDLE ST. JOHNSCOPPER SPRING2 3422A 0.01 6 0 0 SUWANNEEDROTY SPRING4 2955 0.03 6 0 1 MIDDLE ST. JOHNSGREEN COVE SPRING 2 2213Q 0.003 26 0 0 LOWER ST. JOHNSHAMPTON SPRING (TAYLOR) 4 3518Z 0.02 5 0 0 SUWANNEELITTLE COPPER SPRING 3 3422A 0.02 6 0 0 SUWANNEEMARKEE SPRING4 2948 0.02 5 0 0 MIDDLE ST. JOHNSMCCRABB SPRING 3 3422 0.03 4 0 0 SUWANNEEMUD SPRING (PUTNAM) 3 2213O 0.0225 12 0 0 MIDDLE ST. JOHNSNASHUA SPRING4 2213N 0.0065 4 0 0 LOWER ST. JOHNSNEWPORT SPRING 3 793X 0.006 10 0 0 OCHLOCKONEE - ST. MARKSORANGE SPRING (MARION) 3 2747 0.006 26 0 0 OCKLAWAHAPALM SPRINGS (LAKE) 4 2929A 0.01 5 0 0 MIDDLE ST. JOHNSSANDYS SPRING5 2838G1 0.05 5 0 0 OCKLAWAHASATSUMA SPRING 3 2213N 0.006 5 0 0 LOWER ST. JOHNSSILVER GLEN SPRING 1 2893A3 0.049 203 40 42 MIDDLEST. JOHNSSNAIL SPRING5 2955 0.02 8 0 0 MIDDLE ST. JOHNSSTEINHATCHEE SPRING 4 3573Z 0.04 32 0 0 SUWANNEESUN EDEN SPRING 4 2838D 0.03 8 0 0 OCKLAWAHASUWANNEE SPRING 2 3341Y 0.011 41 0 0 SUWANNEESWEETWATER SPRINGS 2 2905B 0.037 62 0 0 MIDDLE ST.JOHNSWALDO SPRING3 3473B 0.014 6 0 0 SUWANNEEWELAKA SPRING3 2213N 0.034 6 0 0 LOWER ST. JOHNSWHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS (HAMILTON) 0 3341Z 0.01 11 00 SUWANNEE

### 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 s ubject to change.

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

93 

# APPENDIX E: MAPS SHOWING GROUND WATER NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS NEAR SELECTED SPRINGS

Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Jackson Blue Spring

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

94 Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Wakulla Spring

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

95 Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Troy Spring

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

96 Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Fanning and Manatee Springs

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

97 Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Ichetucknee Springs Group

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

98 Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Silver Springs Group

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

99 Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Rainbow Springs Group

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

100 Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Wekiwa Springs Group

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

101 Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Volusia Blue Spring

### Springs Initiative Monitoring Report

102 Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of Springshe d, Weeki Wachee Springs

### Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoratio n

Bureau of Watershed Restoration 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3575 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/