Figure 1. Map of southern Florida showing Everglades National Park and the locations of the sites to be considered for a water collection gallery. [larger image]

Water-control works constructed north of the Everglades National Park since its establishment have changed the amount and seasonal distribution of water replenishment to the Park from the north. A long period of below average rainfall on the Park since 1961, superimposed on the effects of the man-made works has resulted in hydrologic conditions that the U.S. National Park Service considers detrimental to the plant and animal life in the Park.

The feasibility of maintaining certain hydrologic conditions by artificial development and control of water at selected areas in the Park is now being studied by the U. S. National Park Service. One plan under consideration involves furnishing water at the rate of 100 cfs (cubic feet per second) to the upper part of the Shark River Slough in the northeast area of the Park during critical dry periods. In connection with this study the National Park Service requested the U.S. Geological Survey to determine if a proposed water-collection gallery, about 4000 feet long near the northeast corner of the Park (fig. 1), could yield water at a rate of 100 cfs continuously for as long as 100 days.

The 100-cfs rate is equal to about 4 times the minimum monthly surface-water inflow toward the Park, and about one-third the average annual surface flow toward the Park as determined from discharge measurements made before construction of control works immediately north of the Park.

The site at the northeast corner of the boundary of the Park was selected because it was presumed that most of the water pumped from a gallery there would receive replenishment by ground-water flow from Conservation Area 3A (fig. 1) where the water levels are generally higher than those in the Park. However, core holes and other information furnished by the Corps of Engineers indicated that the transmissibility of the water-table aquifer at the northeast corner of the Park might not be adequate to permit sufficient quantities of water to be induced to a gallery of reasonable dimensions from Conservation Area 3A. Thus, the National Park Service requested the U.S. Geological Survey also to investigate an alternate site (fig. 1) along the eastern boundary of the Park 8 to 10 miles south of the Tamiami Canal. The alternate site was selected because preliminary tests, by the Corps of Engineers, along the eastern boundary indicated that the transmissibility of the water-table aquifer is relatively low from the Tamiami Canal southward for about 8 miles and then increases considerably, southward.

This report presents the results of hydrogeologic tests at the proposed site at the northeast corner of the Park and at the alternate site along the eastern boundary. It gives estimates of the length of gallery that would be required at each site to obtain the sustained yield of 100 cfs for as long as 100 days. Estimates are made concerning the effect that pumping from a gallery along the eastern Park boundary might have on the water levels in the aquifer in the area surrounding the gallery.

(The entire report is available below)

---

Information about on-line reading and printing of historic documents

These reports and documents have been scanned from the original hard-copy materials and are made available on the internet in both HTML and PDF formats. Because these are scanned documents, we are unable to provide fully-accessible versions of these reports. If you cannot fully access the information in these documents, please contact Heather S. Henkel at hhenkel@usgs.gov.

The HTML versions of these documents have been created to provide the information in a format that is quickly and easily readable over the Internet. Selective pages and images can be printed from this HTML version by placing the cursor inside the right-hand frame and selecting the print option from the browser. The PDF version of the reports are also provided, and are the recommended format to use for the best printer format and resolution.

Please note - some PDF files are very large (over 2 MB) and may take some time to download, depending on your system.

View the HTML version of the report (downloads faster for on-line reading)

View the PDF version of this report (1.45MB)