Investigating Groundwater Vulnerability of a Karst Aquifer in Tampa Bay, Florida

  • Philip E. van BeynenEmail author
  • Michael Niedzielski
  • Elzbieta Bialkowska-Jelinska
  • Kamal Alsharif
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Karst Science book series (AKS)


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.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hillsborough County. 2005. About the county. Hillsborough County. Tampa, Florida., October 2005.
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Randazzo, A.F., and D.S. Jones. 1997. The geology of Florida. Gainsville, FL: The University of Florida Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ribeiro, L. 2000. SI: A new index of aquifer susceptibility to agricultural pollution. Internal report, ER-SHA/CVRM, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. van Brahana, J. 2008. Karst aquifers. Encyclopedia of water science, 2nd ed.
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip E. van Beynen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Niedzielski
    • 2
  • Elzbieta Bialkowska-Jelinska
    • 1
  • Kamal Alsharif
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography, Environment and PlanningUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations