Search SOFIA: 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 > peat hydr. properties 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 Peat Hydraulic Properties The overall mean estimate of K determined for Everglades peat was 26 cm/d or 0.84 ft/d (Harvey and others, 2000). That estimate of K is similar to that of very fine sand, but lower by approximately 2 orders of magnitude than the limestone and sand aquifer underlying the peat. That finding, and because the peat is laterally extensive, is the basis for concluding that peat is the most important aquifer layer restricting vertical movement of water between ground water and surface water. The mean estimate of K in peat was higher for WCA-2A compared with ENR (43 and 8.1 cm/d or 1.4 and 0.27 ft/d, respectively). Estimates of K in peat are plotted with depth at both sites in figure 14. Both sites indicated that K was higher at the bottom of the peat near the transition to sand or limestone. The average K from the upper part of the peat at WCA-2A (30 cm/d or 1 ft/d) was used in Darcy-flux calculations at WCA-2A, because that layer was more likely to control the vertical flux. Figure 14. Hydraulic conductivity of wetland peat in Everglades Nutrient Removal (ENR) project (top, A) and wetland peat and underlying sand layer in Water Conservation Area 2A (WCA-2A) (bottom, B), north-central Everglades, south Florida. [larger image] Next: Measured vertical head gradients vs hydrogeologic model simulations >

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
This page is: http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/wri/02-4050/peathp.html
Comments and suggestions? Contact: Heather Henkel - Webmaster
Last updated: 13 January, 2005 @ 12:07 PM (KP)