Abstract
The Floridan aquifer system (FAS) is known to be one of the most productive aquifer systems in the USA. With the FAS being a karst aquifer, it presents unique challenges to land-use planners because of inherent vulnerabilities to contamination through direct connections between the aquifer and the surface. In this study, a new geographic information systems (GISs)-based index, the Karst Aquifer Vulnerability Index (KAVI), incorporates geologic layers used in intrinsic groundwater vulnerability models (GVMs) plus an epikarst layer specific to karst, with land-use coverages to create a specific groundwater vulnerability model. The KAVI model was compared to another specific vulnerability model, the Susceptibility Index (SI). Tabulation of the percentage areas of vulnerability classes reveals major differences between the two models with SI suggesting greater vulnerability for the study area than KAVI. Validation of these two models found that KAVI vulnerability levels best reproduced spatially varying concentrations of nitrate, orthophosphate, and arsenic in the aquifer. Sensitivity analysis, the application of a variation index, and measuring the effective weights for each parameter included in KAVI confirmed the importance of epikarst but also aquifer hydraulic conductivity. The inclusion of land use was justified; however, effective weight analysis determined its assigned weight was too high as used in the initial calculation of KAVI.
Modified from Van Beynen, P.E., M.A. Niedzielski, E. Bialkowska-Jelinska, K. Al Sharif, and J. Matusick. 2011. Comparative study of specific groundwater vulnerability of a karst aquifer in Central Florida. Applied Geography 32(2), 868–877. Used with permission from Elsevier.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Aller, L., T. Bennet, J.H. Lehr, and R.J. Petty. 1985. DRASTIC: A standardized system for evaluation of groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. US EPA EPA/600/2-85/018, 63 p.
Armstrong, B., D. Chan, A. Collazos, and J.L. Mallams. 2003. Doline and aquifer characteristics within Hernando, Pasco, and northern Hillsborough Counties. In Karst studies in West Central Florida, ed. L.J. Florea, H.L. Vacher, and E.A. Oches, 39–51. Southwest Florida Water Management District: Florida.
Arthur, J.D., A.R. Wood, A.E. Baker, J.R. Cichon, and G.L. Raines. 2007. Development and implementation of a Bayesian-based aquifer vulnerability assessment in Florida. Natural Resources Research 16 (2): 93–107.
Doerfliger, N., P.Y. Jeannin, and F. Zwahlen. 1999. Water vulnerability assessment in karst environments: A new method of defining protection areas using a multi-attribute approach and GIS tools (EPIK). Environmental Geology 39 (2): 165–176.
Foster, S. 1987. Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk, and protection strategy. In Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants, ed. by W. van Duijvenbooden, and H.G. van Waegenungh, 69–86. Proceedings of the International Conference held in the Netherlands, TNO Committee on Hydrological Research 38.
Frances, A., E. Paralta, J. Fernandes, and L. Ribeiro. 2001. Development and application in the Alentejo region of a method to assess the vulnerability of groundwater to diffuse agricultural pollution: The Susceptibility Index. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on future groundwater resources at risk, ed. L. Ribeiro, 35–44. Lisbon: CVRM.
Gogu, R.C., and A. Dassargues. 2000. Sensitivity analysis for the EPIK method of vulnerability assessment in a small karst aquifer, southern Belgium. Hydrogeology Journal 8: 337–345.
Goldscheider, N., M. Klute, S. Strum, and H. Hötzl. 2000. The PI method—a GIS based approach to mapping groundwater vulnerability with special consideration on karst aquifers. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Geologie 46 (3): 157–166.
Guo, Q., Y. Wang, X. Gao, and T. Ma. 2007. A new model (DRARCH) for assessing groundwater vulnerability to arsenic contamination at basin scale: A case study in Taiyuan basin, northern China. Environmental Geology 52: 923–932.
Hillsborough County. 2005. About the county. Hillsborough County. Tampa, Florida. http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/about/, October 2005.
Lodwick, W.A., W. Monson, and L. Svoboda. 1990. Attribute error and sensitivity analysis of map operation in geographical information systems: Suitability analysis. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 4 (4): 413–428.
Miller, J.A. 1986. Hydrogeological framework of the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-B.
Napolitano, P., and A.G. Fabbri. 1996. Single parameter sensitivity analysis for aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC and SINTACS. In Applications of geographic information systems in hydrology and water resources management, ed. by K. Kovar, and H.P. Nachtnebel, 559–566. Proceedings of the 2nd Hydro GIS Conference: International Association of Hydrological Sciences, IAHS Publication 235.
Randazzo, A.F., and D.S. Jones. 1997. The geology of Florida. Gainsville, FL: The University of Florida Press.
Ravbar, N., and N. Goldscheider. 2009. Comparative application of four methods of groundwater vulnerability mapping in a Slovene karst catchment. Hydrogeology Journal 17: 725–733.
Ribeiro, L. 2000. SI: A new index of aquifer susceptibility to agricultural pollution. Internal report, ER-SHA/CVRM, Lisbon, Portugal.
Sepulveda, N. 2002. Simulation of groundwater flow in the Intermediate and Floridan Aquifer Systems in peninsular Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 02-4009.
Stigter, T.Y., L. Ribeiro, and A.M.M. Carvalho Dill. 2006. Evaluation of an intrinsic and a specific vulnerability assessment method in comparison with groundwater salinization and nitrate contamination levels in two agricultural regions in the south of Portugal. Hydrogeology Journal 14 (1–2): 79–99.
Swancar, A., and C.B. Hutchinson. 1992. Chemical and isotopic composition and potential for contamination of water in the upper Floridan Aquifer, west-central Florida, 1986–89. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-47.
van Brahana, J. 2008. Karst aquifers. Encyclopedia of water science, 2nd ed. http://www.informaworld.com/10.1081/E-EWS2-120010039.
van Stempvoort, D., L. Ewert, and L. Wassenaar. 1993. Aquifer vulnerability index (AVI): A GIS compatible method for groundwater vulnerability mapping. Canadian Water Resources Journal 18: 25–37.
Zwahlen, F. ed. 2004. Vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbonate (karst) aquifers, final report COST Action 620. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, EUR 20912:297.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
van Beynen, P.E., Niedzielski, M., Bialkowska-Jelinska, E., Alsharif, K. (2018). Investigating Groundwater Vulnerability of a Karst Aquifer in Tampa Bay, Florida. In: White, W., Herman, J., Herman, E., Rutigliano, M. (eds) Karst Groundwater Contamination and Public Health. Advances in Karst Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51070-5_31
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51070-5_31
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-51069-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-51070-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)