USGS
South Florida Information Access
SOFIA home
Help
Projects
by Title
by Investigator
by Region
by Topic
by Program
Results
Publications
Meetings
South Florida Restoration Science Forum
Synthesis
Information
Personnel
About SOFIA
USGS Science Strategy
DOI Greater Everglades Science Plan
Education
Upcoming Events
Data
Data Exchange
Metadata
publications > wri > 02-4050 > quantifying recharge/discharge > measured vertical head gradients

Interactions Between Surface Water and Ground Water and Effects on Mercury Transport in the North-central Everglades

By Judson W. Harvey, Steven L. Krupa, Cynthia Gefvert, Robert M. Mooney, Jungyill Choi, Susan A. King, and Jefferson B. Giddings

Home
Introduction
Hydrogeology of NC Everglades
Quantifying recharge and discharge
- Approach
- Land-surface topograhy, SW slope, water-level flux
- Horizontal hydraulic gradients
- Horizontal GW flow velocities
- Vertical hydraulic gradients
- Peat hydraulic properties
- Measured vertical head gradients vs hydrogeologic model simulations
- Recharge and discharge estimates
- Water balance
Use of Geochemical Tracers
Effect of GW and SW Interactions
Summary
References
PDF Version

Measured Vertical Head Gradients Compared with Hydrogeologic Model Simulations

Factors affecting recharge and discharge were examined using a simple hydrogeologic model of ground-water flow beneath levees. An analytical solution from Barlow and Moench (1998) was used to compute the hydraulic head distribution in a "leaky aquifer" with a hydraulic restricting layer at the top (representing peat). One-dimensional (horizontal) flow through an aquifer with uniform hydrogeologic properties is assumed in the model, and allows for vertical leakage across the peat. The stress applied to the model was a sudden 1-m change in head at the left boundary (representing an increase in the water level of a canal that is separated from the wetland by a levee). Because of the one-dimensional flow assumption, the head at the left boundary of the aquifer (in contact with the canal) is equal to the canal water level and is constant with depth. That boundary condition is common to many models of interactions between surface water and ground water, and, in the present case, represents the hypothetical situation where the canal fully penetrates the aquifer (fig. 15a). A constant surface-water level in the wetland was simulated using the "source bed" option, which holds the hydraulic head constant at the top of the restricting layer. This option is the best way to simulate how surface water that discharged from the aquifer would quickly flow away from the levee vicinity toward the wetland interior, leaving surface-water levels in the vicinity of the levee approximately constant for the period of the simulation. The hydrogeologic parameters used in model simulations were as follows: aquifer depth -60 m, peat depth -1 m, K in aquifer -30 m/d, K in peat -0.3 m/d, and specific storage in both aquifer and peat -0.001 m.

graphics showing hydrogeologic simulation
Figure 15. Hydrogeologic simulation of head change in aquifer capped with wetland peat responding to a change in water level at the left boundary (canal/levee complex). Schematic of simulated aquifer system (top, A), equilibrium head distribution after 1-meter rise in water level in canal at left boundary (bottom, B). [larger image]

The primary result of the hydrogeologic simulation was determining that the effect of ground-water flow beneath the levee extended only 0.5 km into the wetland (fig. 15b). Even in a simulation with a K value for peat that was two orders of magnitude smaller than measured values (approximately 0.3 m/d), the distance of interaction increased only by approximately a factor of 2. Beyond 0.5 km, the simulated vertical head gradient across the peat was 3 x 10-6 or less, which is much smaller than typical vertical hydraulic gradients actually measured in interior areas of WCA-2A (typically 0.003 or higher, fig. 13). Even an improved two-dimensional model of ground-water flow beneath the levee probably would not change the observed mismatch between model and observations in the interior part of WCA-2A. Therefore, it was concluded that ground-water flow beneath levees is not an adequate explanation for a substantial part of the recharge and discharge that occurs in interior areas of WCA-2A.

If water-level differences across levees and ground-water flow beneath the levee do not control recharge and discharge in interior areas of the wetlands, then what factors do? Other factors possibly controlling recharge and discharge may include fluctuations in surface-water levels in the wetlands. A constant surface-water level with no spatial or temporal changes in water-surface slope was assumed in the hydrogeologic model. Field observations discussed earlier indicated that surface-water levels and slopes change rapidly at times, because of water releases between WCAs. Surface-water slope in the wetland varies from essentially flat at certain times to a factor of 2 greater than the land-surface slope at other times. The effect of surface-water dynamics on interactions between surface water and ground water is discussed later as part of the interpretation of measured recharge and discharge fluxes.

Next: Recharge and discharge estimates >



| Disclaimer | Privacy Statement | Accessibility |

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
This page is: http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/wri/02-4050/measuredvert.html
Comments and suggestions? Contact: Heather Henkel - Webmaster
Last updated: 13 January, 2005 @ 12:09 PM (KP)