Construction material potential of the eastern Georgia coastal plain : an evaluation

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL POTENTIAL OF THE
EASTERN GEORGIA COASTAL PLAIN
AN EVALUATION
Michael 5. Friddell and
Jeane 5. Brackman
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
BULLETIN 108

Cover: Dunes near Stillmore, Emanuel County.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL POTENTIAL OF THE EASTERN GEORGIA COASTAL PLAIN AN EVALUATION
Michael S. Friddell Jeane S. Brackman
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Lonice C. Barrett, Commissioner Environmental Protection Division Harold F. Reheis, Assistant Director Georgia Geologic Survey William H. McLemore, State Geologist
Prepared as part of the Accelerated Economic Minerals Program
Atlanta 1990
BULLETIN 108

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ................. ............ .......... ................... ......... .......... ........ ......... ..... ................. .................................... 1

Introduction ... ................... ................................................................. ......................................................... .. 1

Purpose and Scope ....... .......... ... ................ ... ........................................................................................... .... 1

Previous Work .................... ........... ...... ................... ............................ ............... ..... ...................................... 1

Physiography of the Study Area .................................................................................... ................... ............ 3

Geology of the Study Area .......... ....... ..... ......... ..... .......... ...................... ....... ................................................5

Procedures and Methods ........................................................................ ....................................... .............9 Delination of Areas with Potential for Aggregate Production ..................................... ........................ ... 9 Sampling ............ ............................................................................................................ ................... .. 10 Sample Identification ............................. ............... .... ........ ......... ...................... ................................... 10 Laboratory Procedures ............... .. .............. .......... ....... ................... ................................ .. ....... ............ 12 Evaluation of the Sieve Data ....... ..... ....... ............................................................................................ 12

County Reports .......... ......... ... ....................................... .............................. ............ ... .......................... ...... 13 Appling County ..... .......... ........................ ............................................................................................. 13 Bacon County ................................ ....... ................. ....... .... .......................................... .... .. ...... ............. 13 Brantley County ........................... ........................ ............................ ...................................... ............. .36 Bryan County .................................... ... .................................. ............ ...... ..... ............ ........................ ..36 Bulloch County ................................ ........... ...................................................... .. ................................. 44 Burke County ............................... .......... ..... ..................................................................... ... ......... .......44 Camden County ............................. ..........................,.... ......................................................................55 Candler County ............................... ...... ........................................................................ .. ................ ... .70 Charlton County ....................... ....................... ....... ... .. ... .... .................................................................70 Chatham County ........................ ................................ ........... ...... ....................................................... .82 Columbia County .................... ..... ................................... .................... ..... .... .............. .......................... 82 Effingham County ............................. .......... .... ... ............ ..... ......... ..... .......... ....... .. ................................ 91 Emanuel County ...................... .. ......................................................................................... .. ..... ........ 106 Evans County ......................... .................... ............................................... ......... ............................... 106 Glascock County .................................... ....... ... ....... ..... .............. ............ ... ........................................ 123 Glynn County ..... ................... ............................ ........ ................... .......... ............... ............................. 123 Jefferson County .................... ........... ................................................ .......... .............. ..... ..... ........... ... 130 Jenkins County ............................... ..... ................... ........................................................................... 149 Liberty County ............. .... ................................ ................ ........................... ................... .. .................. 157 Long County ............................. ....................................................... ............................... .. ................. 157 McDuffie County .......... .. ....... ... ....... ..... .. .............. ................. ...... ....................... ................................ 163 Mcintosh County ........................... .... ..... .......... ................................. ......................................... ........ 174 Pierce County ....... .......... .. ... .. ........ ................................................... .. .............................. ................. 174 Richmond County ................... ............. ....... .................. .......... .. .. .. .............. ..... ......... ... .... ... ............... 189 Screven County ................... .. .................................................... ........................................................200 Tattnall County ........ ......................................... .... .............................................................................200 Toombs County ........ ....... .. ........ ...... ............. .... ............................................................................. .... 207 Warren County ....... ............. ......... ............... ............. ... ..... .......... .. .....................................................226 Wayne County ................... .. ...... .. .. .......... ....... .......... ............................... .......................................... 232

Summary ......................................................................... ...................................... ................... .. ............ .. 232 References ............ ................ ... ................................................................. .............................. .............. ... 238

Iii

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Plate

cover

1. Construction Material Potential of the Eastern Georgia Coastal Plain ..................................... envelope

Figures

1. Location of Study Area ............................................................................................ ............................ .2

2. Physiographic Provinces of the Study Area ....... ...... .. .. ........ ....................................................... ......... 4

3. Geologic Map of the Study Area ................... ............ ........................................................................... 6

4. Generalized Stratigraphic Column of the Study Area ........................................................................... 7

5. Index to Topographic Maps of the Study Area and Abbreviations for each Quadrangle Sampled ... 11

6. Map of Appling County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled .................................................... 14

7. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BNE-1 .................................. ................................ ...... .......... ......... 15

8. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BNE-2 ..................................................................................... ...... 16

9. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alt-2a .................................................................................. .. ........ 17

10. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alt-2b .................................... ......................... ............................... 18

11. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASW-1 a .................................................................................. ...... 19

12. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASW-1 b ................................................ ........................................ 20

13. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Cof-1a .......................................................................................... 21

14. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Cof-1b .......................................................................................... 22

15. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BNE-4 ................................................ ........ .... .......... .....................23

16. Map of Bacon County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled .....................................................25

17. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alm-1a .......................................................................................... 26

18. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alm-1 b ............................................ .... ........ .. ........................ ........ 27

19. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alm-1c ............... .......... ....... ....................... ......................... .......... 28

20. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alm-1d ............................................ ..............................................29

21. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Crw-1a ..........................................................................................30

22. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Crw-1b ................................................ ... .... ................................... 31

23. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Crw-1c .................................................................... ................ ...... 32

24. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Crw-2 ............................................................................................ 33

IV

Figure

Page

25. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Ses-1 ................ ....................................... ...... ............................... 34

26. Map of Brantley County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ................................................. .37

27. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Hob-1 ............. .......................... .............. ......................................38

28. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Nah-1 ..... ........ .. .............. .................................. ..... .......... ...... ....... 39

29. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wyn-1a ... ....... .. ................. ....... ........... ............. ................. ........ .... 40

30. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wyn-1b ........ .... .............................................................................41

31. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Brn-1 ........................................................ .................................... 42

32. Map of Bryan County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ......................................................45

33. Size Distribution Curve of Sample MSW-1 .........................................................................................46

34. Size Distribution Curve of Sample MSW-3 .........................................................................................47

35. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Dai-2 .................................. ... ............................... .. ....................... 48

36. Map of Bulloch County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ....................................................50

37. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Nev-1 ................................................ .................................. .......... 51

38. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bro-1 ..................................................,......................................... 52

39. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Reg-1 ....................,......................................................................53

40. Map of Burke County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ........ ................. .. ...........................56

41. Size Distribution Curve of Sample SMp-1 ...........................................,............................................... 57

42. Size Distribution Curve of Sample McB-1 ........................................................................................... 56

43. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Kys-2 .............................................. ...........,..................................59

44. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Kys-1 a ...................................................................... .................... 60

45. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Kys-1b ............ .............................................................................. 61

46. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ldl-1a ....... ...................................................... ....... ........................ 62

47. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ldl-1b ................................................. ...........................................63

48. Map of Camden County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled .................................................. 65

49. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Woo-1 ...........................................................................................66

50. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BoL-1 ........................................................................ .................... 67

51. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Kng-1 ....... .................................... ...... ........................................... 68

v

Figure

Page

52. Map of Candler County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ...................................................71

53. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Met-1 ............................................................................................72

54. Size Distribution Curve of Sample MtS-1 ............................................................................................ 73

55. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Sti-3 .............................................. ................................................ 74

56. Map of Charlton County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ........................................... ....... 76

57. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Fol-1a ........................................................................................... 77

58. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Fol-1 b ............... .............. ..............................................................78

59. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bou-1 ........................................................................ .................... 79

60. Size Distribution Curve of Sample MNE-1 ................................................ .......................................... 80

61. Map of Chatham County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled .............................................. ... 83

62. Size Distribution Curve of Sample MSE-1 .............................................. ........................ .................... 84

63. Size Distribution Curve of Sample GaC-1 ...........................................................................................85

64. Map of Columbia County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled .......... ...................................... 87

65. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Grv-1 ..................................................................................... .... ... 88

66. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Har-1 ............................................................................................89

67. Map of Effingham County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ............................................... 92

68. View of Dredge at Coastal Sand Company, Eden, Georgia ............................... ................................ 93

69. View of Classifiers and Conveyor Belt at Coastal Sand Company, Eden, Georgia ............................ 93

70. Size Distribution Curve of Sample SpN-1 ...........................................................................................94

71. Size Distribution Curve of Sample SpS-1 a ......................................................................................... 95

72. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Sps-1b .................................................................... ........... ... ........ 96

73. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mel-1a ............................................................. ................... ..... ..... 97

74. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mel-1b ................................................... .. ............... ...................... 98

75. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Kil-1 .............................................................................................. 99

76. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Lee-1 .......................................................................................... 100

77. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Edn-1 ...................................... .................................................... 101

78. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Edn-2 ............................................................................. ............. 102

vi

Figure

Page

79. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bri-1 ................................................ o.... ooo .. ooo oo .. o........o................o103

800 Size Distribution Curve of Sample MSW-2 ............ o........................ oooooo ..o............ oo...................... o.... 104

81. Map of Emanuel County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ..... 000 0000 .. oo ..o...... 00 00 ......0........... 107

82. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Nor-1 ..o......o.............. o................... oo .... o...........o.............. o...... o.... o108

830 Size Distribution Curve of Sample Adr-1 oooooooooo ....oo........ o.. ooo........oo ..ooooooooooooo ......o...... oo .. ooooooooooooo .... o109

84. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Sti-2 ....000 ..000 ....000 ....00 00 o..oo 0000 ........ 00 0....... 00 o00 0000 .... 00 ... 00 .. 000.00 .. 00 00 000 11 0

85. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Nun-1 00000000 00000 00 .........................0000 ....o........oo.oooo...... 00 .................. 111

860 Size Distribution Curve of Sample Del-1 o............ oo ................ oo... oo ...... ooooooooo....... oooooo ............. oo .. oo ..... 112

870 Size Distribution Curve of Sample TSE-1 ....o................... oo.......................... oo .. oo ................ oooooo ... oo .... 113

88. Size Distribution Curve of Sample TSE-2a 0000 .. 00 ...... 00 ..... 00.00 ....00 ...... 000000 00 .. 00 00 0000 00 o...... 000 ................ oo 114

890 Size Distribution Curve of Sample TSE-2b oooooooo .... ooooooOO ......oooooo .. ooo ...... OOoooo ......... oo .. oooo...... oo.oooooooo.. .. 115

90. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Sti-1 ......00 ......00.... 0000.. 000000 .. 00 ... 00 ......00 .. 00 ....00 .. 00 .. 00 00 .......... 000 00 ........ 116

91. Map of Evans County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled oooo .......oo... oo.... oo ..oooo........ oooo.......... 118

92. Size Distribution Curve of Sample DCr-4 oooooooooo .......... oooo oo.... oo ... oooo .......... oo .. oo ....oo ... oooooo.oo..... oo .. oo ...... 119

93. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Dai-1 .... oo .. oooooooooooo oo .... oo.... oo .. OOOO ........ oooooooo .. oooo ... oo ..oo .... oo ........ oo ....120

94. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Clx-1 ....... oooooo .... oo .......... oo ..oooooooooooo .. oooooooooo .... 00 0000 000oo .... oooooooo00 .... 121

95. Map of Glascock County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled oooo oo 00 .... 00 .. oo .... 00 .. 00 00 000000 .. 0000 oooo 124

96. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Gbs-1 a 00 ..... 0000 .. 00 oooo .. 00 ...... 00 .. 00 0000 ..........00.... 00 .. 00 00 ... oooooo .....000 00 00 00 125

97. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Gbs-1 b 0000000000 0000000000 ...... 00... 00000000 .... 000000 .. 00 ........ 0000 000000000000 00 00000 ... 126

98. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Gbs-2a oooooooooooo .. oooooo 00 00 00 ......... 00 000000000 .... oo .... oo 000000 .... 00 00 00000 .. 000000 00 127

990 Size Distribution Curve of Sample Gbs-2b oooooooooooooOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o...oo .. oo ............ OO.. ooooooooooooooooo .. 128

1000 Map of Glynn County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ...... oo .. ooooooooooo ... oo .... oo .... ooooooooo .. ooo131

1010 Size Distribution Curve of Sample Ste-1 ..0........0000 .. 0000000 00000000 ................. 0000 ... 00 00 .. 00........... 00000 ........o132

102. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BrW-1 ............ oooooooooooooooooo oo oo ooooooooooooooo ..........oo.oooooo ........oooooo ....0133

103. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bla-1 ........ ................ oo ...... .......... oo oooooooooooooo ... oo.oooooooooooo oooo oooooo ... 134

104. Map of Jefferson County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ..0000..... 00 00 .. 00 oooooooo ....00 .......... 136

105. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-3c .oo.. ooooooo oooooooooo oooo ........ oo.oooooo .. oo ...... ooooooooo .... oo .. oooo oo ......... 137

vii

Figure

Page

106. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-3b .......... .. .......... ............ .......... .... .......... .............. ................ 138

107. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BoP-3 ...................... ............ .. ... ........................................ ..... .....139

108. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-1 ........................... ............................. ............................ ...... 140

109. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-3a ................................................................... ............. ..... ... 141

11 0. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-2a ........................... ................ ............. .............. .................. 142

111 . Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-2b ........................................................................................ 143

112. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BoP-2 ............................. ................... ...................... .. ................. 144

113. Size Distribution Curve of Sample KyP-1 ................................................................................... ....... 145

114. Size Distribution Curve of Sample KyP-2 .......... ................................................................... ,............ 146

115. Map of Jenkins County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ................................................. 148

116. Gravelly Zone at CSRA-19, Jenkins County ................................................ ..................................... 149

117. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Per-1 ................................ .. .. ........ .............................................. 150

118. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mil-1a ........ .... .............................................................................. 151

119. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mil-1b .......................................................................................... 152

120. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mil-2 ........................................................ ........................ ........... 153

121. Size Distribution Curve of Sample FrP-1 .............................................. ............................................ 154

122. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BaB-1 ...................... ...................... ............................................. 155

123. Map of Liberty County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled .......... ......................................... 158

124. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Dor-1a ............ ............ ........................ ........................................ 159

125. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Dor-1b ........................................................................................ 160

126. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Dor-1c ........................................................................... ............. 161

127. Map of Long County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ............... ....................................... 164

128. Stockpiles of Mortar and Concrete Sand at Satilla Sand Company, Long County ........................ 165

129. Dredge at Satilla Sand Company, Long County ................................. .............................................. 165

130. Size Distribution Curve of Sample GSW-1 ............................................................ ............. .............. 166

131. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Doc-1 ....................................................... ................................... 167

132. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bug-1 ................................................... .... ............ ... ....... ............. 168

VIII

Figure

Page

133. Map of McDuffie County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled .............................. .... ............ 170 134. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ThE-1 .......................................................................................... 171 135. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ThE-2 .......................................................................................... 172 136. Map of Mcintosh County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled .................................. ............ 175 137. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Cox-1 .................................................................................. .. ...... 176
138. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bug-2 .......................................................................................... 1n
139. Map of Pierce County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled .................................... .............. 179 140. Size Distribution Curve of Sample WcE-1 ........................................................................................ 180 141. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BkW-2 ........................................................................................181 142. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BkE-1 a .......................................................................................182 143. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BkE-1b ....................................................................................... 183 144. Size Distribution Curve of Sample DiU-1 a ........................................................................................184 145. Size Distribution Curve of Sample DiU-1 b ........................................................................................ 185 146. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BkW-1a ...................................................................................... 186 147. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BkW-1b ................................................................................ ...... 187 148. Map of Richmond County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ............................................. 190 149. Size Distribution Curve of Sample AuW-1 ............................................................. ........................... 192 150. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bly-1 .......... .................................... .. ........................... ................ 193 151. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Hep-1 .......................................................................................... 194 152. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Hep-2 ........................... ......... ........................ .............................. 195 153. Size Distribution Curve of Sample AuE-1a ....................................................................................... 196 154. Size Distribution Curve of Sample AuE-1b ....................................................................................... 197 155. Size Distribution Curve of Sample AuE-2 ................................................... ................... ................... 198 156. Map of Screven County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ............................................... 201 157. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BSL-1 ......................................................................................... 202 158. Size Distribution Curve of Sample SyS-1 ... ......................................................... ....... ....................... 203

IX

Figure

Page

159. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Hil-1 ........................................... ..... ........ ................................. .... 204

160. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Dov-1 ..........................................................................................205

161. Map of Tattnall County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ....... ................................ .......... .208

162. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tis-1 ................................ .............. .......................... ..... ........ .... .. 209

163. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tis-2 .................................... ............ ........................ ................. .. 21 0

164. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Oho-1 .................... ............ ....... .... ............. .. ................... .. .......... 211

165. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASE-1 .................... .............. ........................... ..................... ....... 212

166. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASE-2 ........................ .................................. ................. ..... .. ....... 213

167. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASE-3 ............................... ...... ................... ............... .. ................ 214

168. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alt-1 a .................... .. ................. .. ................. ........................ ........ 215

169. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alt-1b ............ ................... ........................ ........ ..................... ...... 216

170. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Cob-1 ........................ ..................................... ...... ............... ... ..... 217

171. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Rds-1 ......................................... ..... ......... ............. .... ... ..... .. .. ..... .218

172. Map of Toombs County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ........................... ...................... 220

173. Size Distribution Curve of Sample OkP-1 ............... ........................ ................ ..... ............ ... .............. 221

174. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Lyo-1 ..... ........ ... ......... .. ....... .. ........ ........... ... .. .................... .... ...... 222

175. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BNE-3 ......................................................................................... 223

176. Size Distribution Curve of Sample JnC-1 ......................... .. .............. ............... ..... .. .... ............ ...... .. .. .224

177. Map of Warren County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ............. ........... .............. ............ 227

178. Gravelly Zone at BeS-1, Warren County ...................... ..... .... ...... ........... ... ....... .......... .............. ........ 228

179. View of Inactive Pit at BeS-1, Warren County ...................................................... ....... ....... ............... 228

180. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BoP-1 ....... .................... ......... ................. ........................ ....... ..... 229

181. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BeS-1 ........................ ............... ..... ................. .. .... ...................... 230

182. Map of Wayne County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ....... .............................. ............. 233

183. Size Distribution Curve of Sample JNW-1 .......... .......... ........................ ............................. .. ............. 234

184. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Scr-1 ................. .. .................. ......... ......... ..... .......... ...... ...... ......... 235

185. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Eve-1 ........................... ................. .............. ................................ 236

X

TABLES

Page

1. Appling County Sample Data ............. .. .. ..... ................. ............ ............... ............. .............................. .24

2. Bacon County Sample Data ..... .. ............. .... ..... ....... ... .. ....... ............... ....... ....... ... .. ... .. ..... .................... 35

3. Brantley County Sample Data ....... ............................. ............ ........................ ....... ..... ..... .. ..... ........ .. ... 43

4. Bryan County Sample Data ..... ....... ... .. .. ................................ .... .................. ..... ....................... ........... 49

5. Bulloch County Sample Data ..... .. .................................... ............. ......... .......... .......................... .........64

6. Burke County Sample Data ................. .. ... .. ............ .......... ..... .... ... ......... ...... ................ ..... ...... ......... ...64

7. Camden County Sample Data ............. ................ ........ ................ .. ........ ......... ..... ... .. .......... .. .. ............ 69

8. Candler County Sample Data ............... ................ ..... ........ ........... ..... ................. ... .... ....... ... ..... .... ......75

9. Charlton County Sample Data ........ .... ...................... ................. ....... ... .... ....... ............ ........................81

10. Chatham County Sample Data ....... ...................... ............ ....... ... .......................... ...... ...... .......... ..... ... 86

11. Columbia County Sample Data ....... ........ .......... ........................ ..................... ................. .. ....... ...........90

12. Effingham County Sample Data ........ .... ........ .......................... .. ........ .... ................. ............ ............... 105

13. Emanuel County Sample Data ...................... ............ ............... .. .... ... ... .... ............ ........................ ..... 117 14. Evans County Sample Data ................. .. ...... .... .. ... ..... .. ..... ... ......... .............. ....... ..... .......................... 122

15. Glascock County Sample Data ..... ....... .. ...................... ................... ... .. ... ..... .... ........ ........... ..... ......... 129

16. Glynn County Sample Data ................. ...... .... ..... ..... .. .............. .......... .......... .. .... .......... ..... .................135

17. Jefferson County Sample Data ...................... ....... .......... .... ...... ..................... ............ ............ ........... 147

18. Jenkins County Sample Data .............. ............. .... ..... ............ .......... ............................. .. ........ ........... 156

19. Liberty County Sample Data ............ ..... ................. ... .................. .................. .... ................................ 162

20. Long County Sample Data ....................................... .......................... .......... ..... ............ ........... ...... ...169

21. McDuffie County Sample Data ........................... .. .............. ......................... ...................................... 173

22. Mcintosh County Sample Data ..................................... ................................... ...................... ...........178

23. Pierce County Sample Data ............... .. .. ... ...... ...... ................................. .......... ...................... ........... 188

24. Richmond County Sample Data ........ ........... ............ ..... ..... ..... ......... ............. ............ ........................199

25. Screven County Sample Data ...................... .. ... ........................ .. ... ......... ... .... ..... .. ........ ................... .206

26. Tattnall County Sample Data ...................... .......... .. .......... .... ... .... ..... ..... .................................. ....... .. 219

27. Toombs County Sample Data ........ .... ..... ... ........... ............ ..... ... .... ..... ..... ... ..... .... ..... ..... ....... ....... .. .... 225

28. Warren County Sample Data ......................................... .. ...... ...... ..... ........ .... ..... ............................... 231

29. Wayne County Sample Data ................... ...... ... ........ ..... .. ... .............. .................... .. ............ ... ............237

XI

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL POTENTIAL OF THE EASTERN GEORGIA COASTAL PLAIN
AN EVALUATION
Michael S. Friddell and Jeane S. Brackman

ABSTRACT
Construction costs in the Georgia Coastal Plain are theoretically higher than they could be due to the fact that most coarse construction aggregate used there (primarily crushed stone) is transported from the Piedmont Province. The first of this three-part study, Bulletin 106, covers the western third of the Coastal Plain, the area west of 1-75. The purpose of this, the second part, (Fig. 1), is to evaluate the potential construction aggregate reserves in the eastern third of the Coastal Plain. The study area covers 29 counties, which is approximately 13,000 square miles.
Sites within the study area were prioritized as to their potential for aggregate production. The bases of the prioritization are the soil type present, proximity to sand or gravel pits described in both published and unpublished literature, geomorphic features indicative of aggregate deposits, and proximity to active or recently inactive commercial producers of aggregate. One hundred and forty four samples from 115 sites were evaluated in order to determine whether or not deposits of economic value are present.
INTRODUCTION
Aggregate, as defined by industry, is composed of unconsolidated rock particles. Fine aggregate ranges from 0.075 mm to 4.75 mm in size; whereas, the size range for coarse aggregate is from 4.75 mm to 3.5 inches. Sand and gravel are generally divided into two categories: construction aggregate and industrial sand. Construction aggregate uses include asphaltic concrete sand, concrete sand, mortar sand, plaster sand, and road fill. The category of industrial sand includes such products as glass sand, foundry sand, abrasive sand (sand blasting, sawing, glass grinding), filtration sand, engine or traction sand, and ground silica for filler or abrasives.
Within the area reported, hydraulic dredging (usually in man-made ponds) is utilized to mine sand and gravel and to pump the slurry to screens and classifiers which size the sand and gravel. After sizing, the products are moved by conveyor belts to stockpiles.
Three general areas are delineated as most fa-

vorable for aggregate production. These areas are flood plains; dune fields, along the major rivers; and the Fall Line Hills District. In addition to the dune fields, seven deposits were conservatively judged to have reserves in excess of 100,000 cubic yards. The flood plain deposits along the major rivers and streams of the study area offer the best possibilities for commercial development of aggregate deposit.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Purpose
Within the coastal plain of Georgia, construction costs are higher than necessary due to the fact that aggregate is transported great distances from the Piedmont Province to construction sites in the Coastal Plain Province. Therefore, if adequate aggregate reserves, particularly coarse aggregate, could be located in the Coastal Plain, resulting in a reduction in haulage distance from plant to job site, construction costs could be lowered.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the aggregate potential of the eastern Coastal Plain (Fig .1) in order to locate favorable areas for aggregate production. Current aggregate producers within the study area were also evaluated as to production, acreage owned, depth of current mining, products, and market area.
Since it is not always possible to anticipate the geographic areas in which the demand for aggregate may occur, demographic divisions were avoided. This should provide a better indication of the availability of both fine and coarse aggregate deposits.
Scope
This study area is that part of the Coastal Plain Province of Georgia that lies east of a line drawn north to south along the western borders of Warren, Glascock, Jefferson, Emanuel, Toombs, Appling, Bacon, Pierce, Brantley and Charlton counties. This encompasses approximately 13,000 square miles, and includes 29 counties.
PREVIOUS WORK
The major work concerning sand and gravel exploration and evaluation in Georgia is that of Teas

1

I

!

r. . .,. . '\ j~ --.J< .,.rf . ' I PICitUH 1 . ...

I
r

JACitSOM

! .,,.n .. ~

.... )-

cou

/

I

l lllltluu,.

Jhn~:~m:~~
I

'~OI'INHfTr 1
tuuo11
'

i
"' ,.:..u'"t.,, , run

I

~- I

\

I

OQOij\U

I

CUtt;q

I

0

20 40 60 Miles

F3 I
20 40 60 Kilometers

N
t

I

r'1u1'

\ I ( ~P.t.LU ~G

(

\ . \ -" ,. .... ~ ,.,f.~iif';H!it l - r , ._a;;!,

' ! \

I

\

'{

. "
" \

J .\,.\ ~ I "

s+uiJy ARt~"ir\

SlUDY ...~Uf'ltGCJ.'IERY'

'

/'

A R E A"'fu:

\ ......

\

( /'

(Pn:S(Jnl itudy' area) ,.,
I
IHII-!.U

11111111

I
- i....---...l
\
i ----!I-- --~ .---
Figure 1. Location of Study Area.

2

(1921 ). In addition to canvassing and discussing classification, properties, testing, procedures, uses, transportation and production methods of sand and gravel, Teas performed a survey of sand and gravel resources of the State. These locations can be identified in this report by the notation Ts followed by a number.
The mineral resources of the Central Savannah River Area were studied by Hurst, et al. (1966). They reported on the sand and gravel resources of Burke, Columbia, Emanuel, Glascock, Jefferson, Jenkins, McDuffie, Screven and Warren Counties. Their study included a brief description of various pits and outcrops in that area. These locations can be identified in this report by the notation CSRA, followed by the location number from the report.
The Department of Natural Resources (Environmental Protection Division) of Georgia publishes a listing of surface mining and land reclamation activities yearly. This publication lists all permitted surface mining activities since January 1, 1969. Important information concerning each operator, such as, the product mined, operator, county of operation, acres permitted, acres reclaimed, and the status of the operation (whether active or inactive) is contained in this publication.
Steele and O'Connor (1987) outlined mining operations in Georgia. This publication lists mineral commodities by county, their producers, and plant locations.
PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE STUDY AREA
The study area lies within the Coastal Plain Province of Georgia. Five districts are present in the study area: they are the Fall Line Hills, Vidalia Upland, Bacon Terraces, the Okefenokee Basin, and the Barrier Island Sequence Districts (Fig.2).
Clark and Zisa (1976) described these districts as follows:
"Fall Line Hills District- The Fall Line is the northern boundary of this district as well as the boundary between the Atlantic Plain and the Appalachian Highlands Major Divisions. Geologically, it is the contact between the Cretaceous and younger sediments of the Coastal Plain and the older, crystalline rocks of the Piedmont. Several stream characteristics change as they flow south through this area: rapids and shoals are common near the geologic contact, floodplains are considerably wider on the younger sediments and the frequency of stream meanders increases.... The southern boundary then closely follows the northernmost occurrence of the undifferentiated

Neogene geologic unit which underlies the Vidalia Upland. The Fall Line Hills District is highly dissected with little level land except the marshy floodplains and their better drained, narrow stream terraces. Stream alleys lie 50 to 250 feet below the adjacent ridge tops... Relief gradually diminishes to the south and east. Maximum elevations are approximately 760 feet between Columbus and Macon and gradually diminish to a minimum elevation of 150 feet south of Augusta.
"Vidalia Upland pjstrjct - The Vidalia Upland District is a moderately dissected area with a well developed dendritic stream pattern on gravelly, clayey sands. Floodplains are narrow except along the principal rivers which have a wide expanse of swamp bordering both sides of the channel. Relief varies from 100 to 150 feet. Elevations in the district range from 500 feet in the northwest to 100 feet in the southeast indicating the regional dip. The northern and northwestern boundary approximates the northernmost occurrence of the undifferentiated Neogene geologic unit. The southwestern and southern boundary is the base of the Pelham Escarpment and the southern drainage divide of the Altamaha River. The southeastern boundary follows the Orangeburg Escarpment at approximately the 150 foot elevation. The escarpment rises 50-70 feet above the Barrier Island Sequence District.
"Bacon Terraces District- Several moderately dissected terraces, generally parallel to the present coastline, are detectable on topographic maps of the Bacon Terraces District. However, they are very difficult to observe on the ground because the east facing scarps are very subtle. The terrace levels occur at elevations of 330-31 0 feet, 295-275 feet, 265-255 feet, 240 feet, 230 feet, 215-190 feet, and 180-160 feet. This district, on the north, west, and south, corresponds to the Satilia River drainage basin with its boundaries on the basin divide. The eastern boundary is the western base of Trail Ridge at approximately the 150 foot elevation. The southeast-trending, very extended, dendritic drainage pattern has formed on Upper Tertiary sediments ...
"Okefenokee Basjn District- Low relief, decreasing to the southeast, and numerous swamps are characteristic of the Okefenokee Basin District. Relief varies from approximately 50 feet to less than 5 feet. Elevations in the district range from 240 feet in the northwest on Pliocene - Pleistocene deposits to 75 feet in the southeast on Pleistocene deposits ..... The northern and western boundaries of the district coincide with the northern and western drainage divides of the

3

N
t
I 82"
From Clark and Zisa, 1976.
Figure 2. Physiographic Provinces of the Study Area. 4

Suwannee River. The eastern boundary is the western base of Trail Ridge.
NBarrjer Island Seguence pjstrjct - Pleistocene sea levels advanced and retreated several times over the Barrier Island Sequence District to form a step-like progression of decreasing altitudes toward the sea. These former, higher sea levels existed as barrier island-salt marsh environments similar to the present coast. The former sea levels left shoreline deposit complexes parallel to the present coastline at characteristic elevations: Wicomico, 160-95 feet; Penholoway, 70-76 feet; Talbot, 40-46 feet; Pamlico, 25 feet; Princess Anne, 13 feet; Silver Bluff, 5 feet; Holocene, the present mean sea level...
Relief varies from 50 to 75 feet on the east side of Trail Ridge to just a few feet near marshes and along the coast. Maximum elevations are approximately 160 feet on Trail Ridge. The western boundary is at the western base of Trail Ridge as far north as the Altamaha River, where the ridge becomes obscure. North of the Altamaha River the western boundary is the base of the Orangeburg Escarpment which approximates the 150 foot elevation."
GEOLOGY OF THE STUDY AREA
The study area includes Upper Cretaceous-Tertiary, Eocene, Miocene, Pleistocene and Holocene sediments as well as Quaternary Alluvium (Figs. 3,4).
Oconee Group
The Oconee Group (Huddlestun,1981) consists of light-gray to white, prominently horizontal to crossbedded, laminated to thick bedded, finely to coarsely micaceous, kaolinitic, well- to poorly- sorted, fine- to coarse-grained sand, containing gravels and clasts to large irregularly shaped masses of kaolin especially at its base (P.F. Huddlestun, pers. comm.,1987).
These sediments crop out in McDuffie, Richmond, Glascock, Jefferson and Burke counties. The thickness varies from 0 to more than 300 feet.
Lisbon Formation
The Lisbon Formation is gray, silty, micaceous, clayey, fossiliferous marl of Middle Eocene age. It occurs in northeastern Burke County where it has, also, been termed the McBean Formation. The Lisbon averages 50 feet in thickness.
Huber Formation
Buie (1978) describes the Huber Formation as

"...very diverse, ranging from beds of high-purity and sandy kaolin to thick, crossbedded members of coarse, pebbly sand, and even conglomerate composed of boulders of pisolitic kaolin..."
Barnwell Group
The Upper Eocene Barnwell Group in the study area consists of the Clinchfield Formation, Dry Branch Formation and the Tobacco Road Sand.
Clinchfield Formation
Typically, the Clinchfield is fine- to mediumgrained, well sorted, generally thick-bedded, massive, fossiliferous, calcareous sand. Within the study area, the Clinchfield Formation consists of an up-dip Albion Member and a down-dip Utley Limestone Member (Huddlestun and Hetrick, 1985). Both of these members are discontinuous in areal occurrence.
The Albion Member consists of spiculite, spiculitic clay and mudstone and opal cemented, poorly bedded to massive sandy spiculite and spiculitic sandstone (Carver, 1972; Huddlestun and Hetrick, 1985). The thickness of the Albion varies from 0 to 22.5 feet.
The Utley Limestone Member of the Clinchfield Formation is a sandy, glauconitic, slightly argillaceous, fossiliferous limestone varying in thickness from 0 to greater than 36 feet (Huddlestun and Hetrick, 1985). It occurs in the Savannah River area, consistently from central Burke to central Screven counties, and is mainly found in the shallow subsurface.
Dry Branch Formation
The Dry Branch Formation consists of three members: the Twiggs Clay Member, the Irwinton Sand Member and the Griffins Landing Member. The units both interfinger with and grade into one another. The Twiggs Clay Member, generally present in the lower portion of the Dry Branch, is a pale greenish gray, locally calcareous, silty, montmorillonitic clay. In the Savannah River area it is as thin as 10 feet, and discontinuous in occurrence (Huddlestun and Hetrick, 1985). The Irwinton Sand member, which comprises the major portion of the Dry Branch present in the study area, is a fine- to medium-grained, well sorted, horizontal to undulatory to cross-bedded sand which contains noncalcareous, nonfossiliferous sand and discontinuous clay laminae. The Irwinton Sand Member is no more than 40 feet thick in the study area.
The Griffins Landing Member of the Dry Branch, which is restricted to the down-dip portion of the forma-

5

EXPLANATION

N

~i; l QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM

t

I QUATERNARY

(PLEISTOCENE AND HOLOCENE)

BARRIER ISLAND DEPOSITS

PI QUATERNARY
[2J SATILLA FORMATION
(PLEISTOCENE AND HOLOCENE) MARSH AND LAGOON DEPOSITS
g QUATERNARY
E) CYPRESSHEAD FORMATION
(PLIOCENE)

[01 ALTAMAHA FORMATION
l!:iJ HAWTHORNE GROUP

...,,..,... "..,..... -32

MIOCENE DEPOSITS

~EOCENE
~ BARNWELL GROUP
lflll UPPER CRETACEOUS-TERTIARY
IJW.J OCONEE GROUP

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

-31

ot::===2~5===:350 Miles

0

30

60 Kilometers

Revised from Lawton, 1977.
Figure 3. Geologic Map of the Study Area.

6

UP DIP
zww
e 0
~
w
.a.J.
zww
0 0
:a:.i

Satilla Formation Cypresshead Formation
Raysor Formation

DOWN DIP

Q)

'0

z w

"0
~

w

0 0

....

Q)

:iii ~

....J

zww
0 0
~
::i
0

....

Q)

D..

D..

zww :J

(.)

0 w

Q)
'0

"0
~..-..

Q)

~

-0 ....J

w z

....
Q)
D..

- w
(.)

D.. :J

0w ....

~ ~ ..J Q) ....J

Ebenezer Member Berryville Clay Member Tybee Phosphorite Member
Marks Head Formation
Altamaha Formation

Coosawhatchie Formation
Parachucla Formation

Hawthorne Group

Suwannee Limestone

Barnwell Group

Tobacco Road Sand

I Ocmulgee Formation

Irwinton

Griffins Landing Member

Sand Member Twiggs Clay Member

Dry Branch Formation

Ocala Group

Albion Member

Utley Limestone Member

Clinchfield Formation

McBean Member

I

Lisbon Formation

"Tallahatta" Formation

Oconee Group

Huber Formation

Wilcox Group undifferentiated

Clayton Formation

Note: This stratigraphic column is schematic and is not intended to represent the stratigraphy of any specific area.

Figure 4. Generalized Stratigraphic Column of the Study Area. 7

tion in the study area east of the Ogeechee River, was described by Huddlestun and Hetrick, 1985 as "... a fairly well-sorted, massive to vaguely and rudely bedded, calcareous sand." The Griffins Landing Member is as much as 72 feet thick at its type locality in Burke County.
Tobacco Road Sand
The Tobacco Road Sand generally is a mediumto coarse-grained, poor1y sorted, pebbly sand which is vaguely and thickly bedded and averages 20-30 feet in thickness. The Sandersville Limestone, a basal member of the formation in Washington County, Georgia, is a slightly sandy, thick-bedded, massive, fossiliferous limestone. Its maximum thickness is 19 feet (Huddlestun and Hetrick, 1985).
Suwannee Limestone
The Suwannee Limestone is a very pale orange, massive and thick-bedded fossiliferous, mealy limestone (Huddlestun, et al., in preparation). The outcropping Suwannee Limestone in the study area is restricted to the central part of northern Screven County. Elsewhere, it is a subsurface unit. The Suwannee reaches a maximum thickness of 50 feet in the study area (Huddlestun,et al., in preparation); however, according to M.E. Hartley (written communication), it is as thick as 100 feet near Blue Springs,Screven County.
Altamaha Fonnatlon
Huddlestun, et al. (in preparation) described the Altamaha as follows: "The Altamaha Formation consists typically of thickly bedded, massive, argillaceous, moderately to poorly sorted, fine-to coarse-grained pebbly sand or sandstone, clayey sand, and sandy clay or claystone. There are local occurrences of prominently cross-bedded fluvial channel, cut-and-fill structures in which the bedding is thin to thick. The characteristic features of the Ahamaha include very poor sorting of the sediments and wide ranging grainsize, the common occurrence of feldspar and the common but irregular induration of the sediment in outcrop." The Altamaha ranges from 100 to 150 feet thick in northern Screven County (P.F.Huddlestun, pers. comm., 1987).
Hawthorne Group
According to Huddlestun, in preparation, "The lithology of the Hawthorne Group is dominantly sand

and clay. Subordinate lithic components of the Hawthorne Group include dolomite; dolostone; calcite; limestone; phosphorite; phosphate; silica in the form of claystone (opal cristobalite), chert, and siliceous microfossils; heavy minerals; carbonaceous material and lignite; zeolites; and fossils."
Parachucla Fonnatlon
The Parachucla Formation is an argillaceous sand to sandy clay with minor beds of calcareous, shelly sands and phosphatic, fossiliferous, sandy limestone or dolostone (Huddlestun, in preparation).
Marks Head Formation
According to Huddlestun, in preparation, "The Marks Head Formation consists of slightly dolomitic (rarely calcareous), phosphatic, argillaceous and sandy clay with scattered beds of dolostone, limestone, siliceous claystone. In general, quartz sand appears to be the dominant lithic component of the formation; whereas, clay is both a major and characteristic component." The clay mineral assemblage of the Marks Head is dominated by palygorskite and sepiolite.
Coosawhatchle Fonnatlon
Within the study area the exposed Coosawhatchie is represented by a lower member (Berryville Clay) and an upper member (Ebenezer) and in the coastal area by the Tybee Phosphorite Member.
The Berryville Clay is a yellowish to olive-gray sihy, phosphatic, calcareous, siliceous clay (Huddlestun, in preparation). The Berryville is exposed in eastern Effingham County, where it is 9 feet thick at its type locality, but reaches 54 feet thick in the subsurface.
The Ebenezer Member is a gray to olive-gray, phosphatic, micaceous fine- to medium-grained, wellsorted clayey sand. The Ebenezer Member is exposed in eastern Effingham County where, at its type locality, it is 7 feet thick in outcrop. The Tybee Phosphorite is a commercial phosphorite in Chatham County, consisting of richly phosphatic argillaceous sand (Huddlestun, in preparation).
Cypresshead Formation The Cypresshead Formation was described
(Huddlestun, in preparation) as a "..well-sorted, fine-

8

grained sand with thin discontinuous clay layers or laminae." Also present locally within the Cypresshead are coarse, pebbly, channel cut-and-fill sediments. Bedding in the Cypresshead is thin to massive. The Cypresshead Is 23 feet thick in its type locality near Jesup, Georgia (Huddlestun, in preparation).
Satllla Formation
The Satilla Formation consists of variably fossiliferous, locally cross-bedded, fine- to medium-grained sands (Barrier Islands Deposits) and clays. The Satilla ranges up to 40 feet in thickness within the study area (Huddlestun, in preparation).
Quaternary Alluvium
The Alluvium present along the streams and rivers of the study area consists of clayey sands with some clay beds and lenses. The sands are fine- to coarse-grained and gravelly.
PROCEDURES AND METHODS
Delineation of Areas with Potential for Aggregate Production
Areas within the study area were prioritized as to their potential for production of aggregate. This prioritization was based on four factors: 1) soil type, 2) proximity to sand or gravel prospects or pits described in published literature, as well as locations obtained from unpublished material on file at the Georgia Geologic Survey, 3) proximity to active and inactive producers of sand and gravel, and 4) geomorphic features such as terrace surfaces and point bars (primarily along rivers).
Soli Type
The soil types (associations) used in targeting areas for potential aggregate production were selected from two types of county soil surveys. The two types are: (1) detailed, 1:20,000 scale, photographic base, soil surveys published by the United States Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service) in cooperation with the University of Georgia (College of Agriculture) and (2) somewhat generalized, 1:63,360 scale surveys on file at the Georgia Geologic Survey, produced by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Office of Planning and Research). The detailed, photographic base surveys were used wherever possible; however, these are not available for all of the counties in the study area. In the counties without detailed soil surveys, the generalized soil surveys were

used (see insert, Plate 1, for the survey used in each county).
The soil type or types used for targeting were selected after reviewing the sieve data of each county survey for the soil or soils which contained the coarsest sand and the least amount of fine material (<#200 mesh). The soil associations selected from the detailed soil surveys were Flomaton, Fripp, Helena, Kershaw, Klej, Kureb, Lakeland, Lakewood, Mascotte, Olustee, Paola, Tifton, and Troup. The soil associations selected from the generalized soil maps were #24 (example- Kershaw, Lakeland and Chipley), #32 (example - Kershaw, Lakeland, Lucy and Troup), #39 (example- Fuquay and Lakeland), and #41 (exampleMascotte, Alapaha and Rutledge). Following selection of the soil types, their areal extent was plotted on 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.
Sand and Gravel Prospects and PHs
The locations of gravel pits, sand pits, and prospects on file at the Georgia Geologic Survey as well as those discussed by Teas (1921) and those discussed by Hurst, et al. (1966)- which were considered to be of significance and, if they could be accurately located-were plotted on 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. The sand pits present on the 1:24,000 topographic maps were also used in prioritizing areas for aggregate production potential.
Active and Inactive Mines
The location of all active or recently inactive (since 1969) commercial aggregate mines within the study area, listed in the Department of Natural Resources (Environmental Protection Division) directory of surface mining reclamation activities and the mining directory of Georgia, published by the Georgia Geologic Survey, were plotted on 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. A telephone survey was carried out to verify and update the information contained in the directory of surface mining and in the mining directory. If the owner or former owner of a currently inactive aggregate mine could not be contacted, the information contained in the two directories was used.
Geomorphic Features
Each 1:24,000 scale topographic map within the study area was visually inspected for the presence of geomorphic features (point bars, river terraces and dune complexes) associated with sand and gravel deposits. Point bars were identified by their general lack of vegetation, flat to undulating surface, and their occurrence on the concave side of streams. Terraces

9

(former valley floors) were identified by their generally flat topographic surface and their proximity to present day rivers and streams. Dune fields were recognized as being hills present, generally, along the north and east sides of major creeks and rivers. After these features were identified, their areal extent was outlined on the 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.
Prioritization
After plotting the four targeting variables ('previously mentioned locations and features), a circle with a radius of 1 mile was circumscribed about each Teas locality, pit, and active or recently inactive aggregate mine. In order to assign a rank for aggregate potential to various sections of the study area, the area enclosed by one of the four targeting variables was assigned a rank of one (1). Where two of the targeting variable areas overlapped, the zone of overlap was assigned a rank of two (2). In a similar fashion, the overlap of three targeting variables produces a rank of three (3) and the overlap of four targeting variables produces a rank of four (4). For example, a soil body (or any of the other features or circular areas) would be assigned a value of one, but the portion of this soil body within one mile of an active aggregate mine (operation) would be assigned a value of two and; if this overlapping area was within a mile of a Teas sample locality, it would be assigned a value of three. The priority (rank) of the areas sampled is listed in the tables under the individual county descriptions.
Plate 1, which shows the potential for aggregate production within the study area, is a compilation of the prioritized 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.
Sampling
The sampling method, as discussed below, was designed to collect samples representative of actual "in place" material. The samples include fine- to coarse-grained particles. In normal commercial processing, the finer size particles are removed during washing and screening; thus, some substandard material is upgraded to a product meeting commonly accepted standards, such as those of the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM).
Sampling was carried out to field check the information obtained from the aggregate potential map and to further evaluate the sand and gravel bodies potential for aggregate production. Areas within each county with high (two or greater) assigned values for aggregate potential, which were accessible by truck or boat, were examined. If these areas appeared to have any

potential value based on field observations, they were sampled. In the event that only sites with low (one) assigned values for aggregate potential were present within the county. the sites selected for sampling were randomly selected. Sediment sampling was performed either by auger or by trenching.
Auger
At most localities, sampling was carried out using a truck-mounted Giddings' soil probe equipped with a 4.5 inch spiral auger. The depth of the auger holes varied depending on the point at which either the auger could not penetrate the sediment or the sample could not be retrieved. The inability of the auger to retrieve a sample was caused by (1) encountering the water table or (2) encountering clay or clayey sand which created a frictional resistance in excess of the auger's pulling capability.
After retrieval, sediments from each 4.5 foot auger run were examined and placed on a plastic sheet. A new sample was begun as each appreciable change in sediment grain size was noted. After completion of the hole, each separate sample was split by hand to a weight of 2 to 3 pounds (5 to 20 for gravel) and placed in a sample bag labeled with depth and locality information.
Trench
Some localities afforded a natural exposure, such as a gully, so that trenching provided an adequate sample. At these localities, the surface of the face to be sampled was cleaned to a depth of one inch, a plastic sheet placed at the base of exposure, and a trench from 3 to 6 inches wide was cut into the face to a depth sufficient to provide an adequate sample. In all cases, unless otherwise noted, the entire vertical face of the exposure with the exception of overburden (if present) was sampled. The material collected on the plastic sheet was then placed in a sample bag and labeled with height of the exposure sampled and location.
Sample Identification
Each sample of this report is identified by an abbreviation of the name of the quadrangle in which the sample was taken ( Fig. 5) and is numbered consecutively (numbers are repeated for each quadrangle). In the event that more than one sample (from a different depth) was taken at a single outcrop or auger hole, an alphabetical suffix was added to each sample designation, starting with the letter "a" for the stratigraphically highest sample. Thus, Alt-1 a, and Alt1b represent samples a and b from the first auger or

10

N
t

l ~)t.)

0

10

20

30 MILES

~,___.,~::::=J

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS

Figure 5. Index to Topographic Maps of the Study Area and Abbreviations for each Quadrangle Sampled.

11

trench sample in the Altamaha quadrangle.
Laboratory Procedures
In the laboratory, the samples were placed in a drying oven at 230 Fahrenheit for 24 hours. After drying and preliminary sieving (through a 3/8 inch sieve) the samples were divided into two categories, (1) those containing particles larger than 3/8 inch and, (2) those containing no particles larger than 3/8 inch.
Samples containing panicles larger than 3/8 Inch
For those samples which contain particles greater than 3/8 inch, the entire sample was weighed and then sieved through 1/2 inch and 3/8 inch sieves. Particles retained on the 1/2 inch and 3/8 inch sieves were brushed free of clay and fine sand. This finergrained material was returned to the bulk sample. The nominal diameter of the particles retained on the 1/2 inch sieve was measured using calipers. Following this, the particles were divided into the categories of 3/4 inch, 1 inch and 1-1/2 inch (nominal diameter) and the weight of each category recorded. The remainder of the sample was treated in the same manner described in the section for samples containing no particles greater than 3/8 inch (see following section). Following the sieving of the finer fractions, the weight percentage for each sample was calculated using Folk's method (1974, p. 34-35).
Samples containing no panicles greater than 3/8 Inch
After drying, each sample was split using a mechanical splitter until a sample size of approximately 250 grams was obtained. This split was weighed and the weight recorded. The split was then washed on a #200 mesh sieve until the water from the sieve was clear. The split was then placed in a drying oven at 2300 Fahrenheit and left overnight. Following drying, the sample was reweighed and the washed weight recorded. The sample was then sieved through a nest of sieves consisting of #4, #8, #16, #30, #50, #1 00, and #200 mesh. After dry sieving, the weight retained on each sieve was recorded. The weight of the additional material passing the #200 sieve was added to the weight of less than #200 size fraction obtained from the wet sieving. The weight percent passing for each fraction was then calculated.

Evaluation of the Sieve Data
The size distribution curves were analyzed according to ASTM standard C-33 (the standard for a fine aggregate). The ASTM C-33 grain-size requirements are as follows:

Sieve Analysis

Sieve Size

Percentage Passing

(U.S. Standard) 3/8 in. (9.50 mm) #4 mesh (4.76 mm) #8 mesh (2.38 mm) #16 mesh (1.19 mm) #30 mesh (0.59 mm) #50 mesh (0.297 mm) #100 mesh (0.149 mm) #200 mesh (0.075 mm)

(finer than) 100 95 to 100 80 to 100 50 to 85 25 to 60 10 to 30 2 to 10 Oto 3

Some of the samples are mixtures of fine and coarse material, and , thus, do not meet ASTM standards for either coarse or fine aggregate. Because such mixtures can be processed to produce aggregate that meets ASTM standard C-33, these samples are discussed in some detail in the text. Although the major purpose of the present study is to analyze sediments of the Coastal Plain for aggregate potential, the majority of the natural materials do not meet ASTM standard C-33. In an effort to classify these materials as to which may be best for upgrading to fine or coarse aggregate, a simple rating scheme has been devised. This rating scheme and values assigned to each sample are based on whether the sample meets one or more of the following sieve analysis requirements:

Sieve Analysis Requirements
(a) > 40% of the sample is larger (nominal diameter) than #50 mesh (0.297 mm).
(b) <15% of the sample is smaller (nominal diameter) than #200 mesh (0.075 mm).
(c) > 5% of the sample is larger (nominal diameter than #4 mesh (4.76 mm).
Each of the above requirements has a value of one; therefore, the rating of the sample can vary from 0 to 3. For example, a sample with less than 15 percent material smaller than 0.075 mm (#200) and meeting neither of the other two requirements would

12

have a value of one; whereas, a sample which has more than 40 percent by weight larger than 0.297 mm (#50) and has less than 15 percent material smaller than 0.075 mm would have a value of two. These rating values are listed in the table for each county under the heading "rating."
COUNTY REPORTS
APPLING COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Appling County lies within two physiographic districts of the Coastal Plain Province. The northern haH of this county lies within the Vidalia Upland District; the southern haH lies within the Bacon Terraces District. Surficial sediments of the county are derived from the Altamaha Formation.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 152) reported that there are small deposits suitable for construction aggregate found in this county. What is available is present in the northern part of the county in the form of terrace deposits along the Altamaha River (Fig. 6, Ts-9).
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas of Appling County were the Troup sand, the Troup-Wicksburg complex and the Mascotte sand. These sandy soils are generally present as high ground in swampy areas throughout the county, and as dunes along the southwestern border of the county. The geomorphic features targeted were sand bars along the Altamaha River, and dunes along Big Satilla Creek. Nine samples from six sites: BNE-1, BNE-2, Alt-2a, Alt-2b, ASW-1 a, ASW-1b, Cof-1a, Cof-1b, BNE-4 (Figs. 6-15, Table 1). were selected for analysis in Appling County.
Evaluation
Samples taken from point bars along the Altamaha River, BNE-1, BNE-2 (Fig. 6) show some aggregate potential. They contain very little clay, and are well sorted. Sample BNE-2 passes ASTM standard C33, and BNE-2 could be upgraded to meet these standards. The bars have an areal extent of eight, and nine acres, respectively. Water is available for processing, but the areal extent makes these localities

useful for only a small scale operation. Alt-2a is taken from that part of the barclosest to the bank. It contains more silty material than that of Alt-2b which was taken about 10 feet inland. Sample ASW-1 contains 30 percent clayey material and has very little material that can be considered coarse. The other samples taken in Appling County, Cof-1, and BNE-4, show very little potential for aggregate use.
Mining Activity
Only one sand company, F.E.J. Sand (Fig. 6, #279) has been recently active. They were permitted for four acres, and have not mined in the last 8 years.
Summary Evaluation
The point bars along the Altamaha River provide Appling County's best possibility for commercial aggregate production. Although the areas are small, the sand is well-sorted. The Altamaha River would provide water for processing. A light-duty road is present within a mile of each bar, and would provide access to the sites. The potential for fine aggregate production in Appling County is moderate.
BACON COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
This county lies within the Bacon Terraces District. Surficial sediments of this county are derived from the Altamaha Formation.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 153-154) reported that small local deposits of sand suitable for glass are found in several isolated areas of Bacon County. According to Teas (1921 ), sand dunes are present along the east side of Big Hurricane Creek. (Fig. 16, Ts-1).
Present Study
The soil types used in targeting sandy areas for this study were #24 and #37. These soils are present as linear bodies (oriented northwest to southeast) in interfluve areas throughout the county. The geomorphic features targeted were sand dunes along the northeastern banks of Hurricane and Little Hurricane Creeks. These dunes coincide with the targeted soil types. Nine samples from four sites were taken ( Alm1a, Alm-1b, Alm-1c, Alm-1d, Crw-1a, Crw-1b, Crw-1c, Crw-2b, Ses-1 (Figs. 16-25, Table 2).

13

N
t
r - -I

EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality Inactive producer or one producing fill material Abandoned pit, product unknown
D Deposit sampled or dls,cussed In text

0

5 Miles

FA &'3

H E3 H

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 6. Map of Appling County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

14

....
01

I

100

90

1- 80 :I:
~
jjj 70
:s:

m> 60

ffi
z

50

LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w a.. 20

10

1000

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3/<:f.5"3/8.. 4

I

I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

~""'- I

I

"'~

I

)

Appling County BNE-1

' \

' ~

l.

I

\

\

' ' .....

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

_....,. _ _ _ _ .....

- - ..... -

,.. .... ,_

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
- -

0.001

..

- i ... ....

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 7. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BNE-1.

....
ca

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100 90

-3." 1.5 .. 3~~5"3/8" 4

'II

I' I

I'

8 1 6 30 50 100 200

"' I ~

I

I' I

I

~

I

.... 80 :I: G jjj 70
i:
> 60
a:l

I
I

ffi 50
z

L..L.. 40
z
w(J 30
a: ~ 20
10

Appiing County BNE-2

' ~ ~

!

['-.

~

1000

100

10

1 _Q

0.1

O.Dl

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

~--------------.------rG~R~A~V~ETL___:~T----------s,SA~N~D~----------~------~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------l 4

COBBLES

,.._..,"o"c:

<:11\lo:::

l"'nAo"o::: MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,.._Mo ..... r-,.. I

BOULDERS

-r"''o A.lr-1

I

c-AA.Ir"''\

'

,.. ,..

I

,.... AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 8. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BNE-2.

........ I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70 ~
m> 60
ffi 50
2 u. 40 12
wua: 30
w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

_a" 1.5 .. 3/<j'.S"J /8"" 4. . B 1-6 30 50 100 200

I

II I

~ ""'!

I

~

Appling County Alt-2a

l\
1\
' ........ lw--...

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

..... - ......... .-....

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-- r-

lt'"Aklr""''.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
11"11 "T"

0.001

*

,..1 AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 9. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alt-2a.

.... I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3/4;.5"3/8" 4

II

I' I

II

., B, 1..6 30 50 100 200

~ ~

.

I

90

" ~

1- 80

:I:

I

"w 70
:5:
>m 60

',,
j

ffi 50

I

z

u.. 40

1z -
~ a(w.:) 30
w
Q. 20 f.

10

I
I

1000

Appling County Alt-2b

100

10

I

1\

'"I\

1.0

' '"' I 0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

r----C-O-B-B-L-E-S-----~--'-f'-\-AO-"~~R~A~VE-L-1:-:1~-11:---.-------M-E-~-I~~~~D------F-I-N-E ---~--------S-I-L-T--O-R--C-L-A-Y---------1 *

I

I ..... - ............. ,.. I

BOULDERS

--A.Ir""l

I

l"AII.I,....

I

...... ,...

I

,.... A'\1

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 10. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alt-2b.

.... I

100

90

1- 80 J:
~
jjj 70
!:
> 60
CD

ffi 50
2

LL. 40

1-

2

awuaw:.

30 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4'.5 "3/8" 4

I

I I

II

8 16 30 50 100 200 ~

'

(ill

I

I'll

Appling County ASW-1a

\

'l. I
1\

~

1\

I

\

\

,\ ~
1 "

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

....,._..,.....,, r-,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MED I UM

FINE

--A,r-o

~AIII.II"'I.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
r>- 11 T

0.001

*

r" l /\ V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 11. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASW-1a.

~ I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
~
jjj 70
i:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
2
.u..... 40
2 (wJ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3/<~.5"3/8 " 4

-I

II I

8 1__6 30 50 100 200

~

T

AppJing County ASW-1b

1\
~
l
1\

1\

1

I

'I' '

1000

100

COBBLES

I

I ,..- ......... r-r- I

BOULDERS

10

1.0

0 .1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-~ At.U""I

I

C'AIIll,...,.

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~II "'T"

I

0.001

*

,..... . AV

I **

GRADATION CURVE

"Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 12. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASW-1b.

I.l.l.. I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
!:
> 60
Ill
aw: 50
2 LL 40 12 ~ 30
a: w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

- _,_ -

--

...,. -

- .- -- -- -- ---

I

II I

II

~

I

Appling county Cof-1a

-



-

(
' l
I I\
li>
~
\
\
~
I\
\
~
I '

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

----------------~------~G~R~A~V~E~LG~~R~A~~IN~~=S-I~Z~ES~IAN~N;MDI~L~L-I-M-E--T-E-R--S,--------:S:IL~T~O~R~C~L:A~Y~------~*

COBBLES

N'\1\0CC

1:1~1<:

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

....,. ..... ...,...,, ..... ...,

-r-"'oAIr-"1

t

l"'Aill~

l"II"T"

1"'-IAV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 13. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Cof-1a.

N N

I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
(!'
jjj 70
;:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
.uz.... 40
(wJ 30
a:
w Q.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 .. 3 ~".5"3/8" 4 . 8

16 30 50 100 200

II

II I

~

I I

~

~

I

~

I

~

I

j

l}

lD
1\
\
_\

Appling County Cof-1b

\ ~ " -
I

1000

100

COBBLES ... - .......... r-.....
BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

---~~.-.

lt'AIII.I-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Dl
SILT OR CLAY
l"'ll.,..

0.001

,.... A V

* **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 14. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Cof-1b.

w1'1)

I

100

90

1- 80 J:
w ~ 70
i:
>m 60

ffi
z

50

L.L. 40
1z -
(waJ: 30
w a.. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 ".5"3/8" 4

II

I

I

8 1 6 30 50 100 200

"""'

I

II

I
Appling County BNE-4

, ~ ~

I

\

\
~

1\

I I\

'1\ b

' "

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

I I I BOULDERS ~E~6~'::-..:.~.. ~-~':~'!:- ~------ ~~.':'~L.,__ 1 ~~~:! ~-~':~'!:- 1 ------ ~~.~~ .,__ 1 ~~~:! coarse lrrmruS~L~ine

[

0.001 *
~ A v I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 15. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BNE-4.-

Sample designation

Table 1: Appling County Sample Data

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit
(Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

BNE-1

3

auger

3

1

no4

2

BNE-2

3

trench

3

1

yes

2

Alt-2a

4

auger

6

1

no

1

Alt-2b

4

auger

6

1

no

2

ASW-1a

6-1/2

auger

6-1/2

2

no

0

ASW-1b 6-1/2- 10 auger

3-1/2

2

no

1

Cof-1a

3-1/2

auger

3-1/2

2

no

1

Cof-1b 3-1/2 - 8-1/2 auger

5

2

no

0

BNE-4

7-1/2

auger

10

3

no

0

1 For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2 Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3 Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
4 Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.

24

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'--1
3130'

,.___
I
___jI

I--- -

-----
1
I
'---1
I

EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality ... Abandoned pit, product unknown
EJ Deposit sampled or discussed in text

t N
_J~

H H H

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 16. Map of Bacon County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

25

I I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3 '.5"3/8" 4

~

I'

I

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

~

I

II

90

1- 80
:r:
(.!'
jjj 70
i:
>co 60
ffi 50
2 LL 40
1z -
uwa: 30
w 0.. 20
10

I JJJJJ

I
I
I
I
Bacon County Alm-1a
I _ JillllJ_j J __lJJJlLL.L _l

'l I

1\

' ~

I 1\

l

'I ( ~

I

\

\I

'I\ ~

I I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

.----------------.------7G~R~A~VTIE~L-------r----------S.SAANNDD-----------==r------~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~ *

COBBLES

,...,...""".:

"'"'.:

MED IUM

FINE

BOULDERS I

i ..... -"'"'. r"""" I

-r"''I.A,Ir""l

I

'""A. I I""\

I

r>ll,..

I

,... . AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 17. Size Distribution Curve of Sample A_lm-1a.

~ .....

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3/ll;,. 5 "3/8 "" 4

I

''I

I

8 1-6 30 50 100 200

' ~

I

90

1- 80 :I: 0 jjj 70
i:
>m 60

ffi
z

50

LL 40
1z -
Cwaw:J 30 -
a. 20

10

Ill
1111 J

Bacon County
II I
I IIU

l
Alm-1b
111111
III Ill

~
\
' l I 1

I

I

\ I

\

\

I

\

\
Q..,.

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

___ .. .........

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

--~--

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

,.............

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY --

0.001

*

......... ,

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 18. Size Distribution Curve of Sampte Alm-1b.

...,
Cit

I

100

-

90

1- 80 ::1: C!' jjj 70
!!:
> 60
Ill

ffi
z

50

u.. 40
1z -
a(UJ:J 30
UJ
Q.. 20

10 Ill

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 11.".5"3 8" 4

II

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

~

I

II

Bacon County Alm-1c

II II

II II

!1
, l
1\

~

\

I

~

I

~

I

\

~

' l I~

b

'

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

.,.._.., ... ,r-,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGERA VEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

--.0.~,.-o

C"A .. I,..,

very fine

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
-

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,...,,..,...

0.001

*

,...IA'-1'

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 19. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alm-1c.

...,
~

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
~
jjj 70
iii:
c>a 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
a(wJ: 30
w c.. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3) ~F5 "3/8 " 4

[I

I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200
I
'-'"

I I
Bacon County Alm-1d

rt

\

I

~

\

I

(

1\
\
\
' ~ ~

10

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

..,.....,....., ..... ,.......,

---

I

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-- r-

r"A .. II""''o

very fine

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
I
I

!
0.01
SILT OR CLAY
1'> 11 """'"

0.001

*

r-.1 AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wen1worth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 20. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alm-1d.

w
0

I

100
90
1- 80
weJ:, 70
i:
> 60
1:0
ffi 50
2 LL 40 12
a(w.:) 30
w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 . ".5"3/8'' 4

II

I I

II

8 ,

H3 30 50 100 200

a,

I

I

'

1
I
1,\

ll

~

I l - 1\ I

I

\
~

~

\

I

\

Bacon County Crw-1a
u lliT 1 _L llll ll l _____ll_W_l_j j___l_ -

1\ I I
~ I
~I
- '----- Lf '-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
~--------------,-----,G~R~A~V~EL~--~--r---------~S~ANNOD------------y-------~S~IL~T~O:R~C~L~A~Y~------l *

COBBLES

l"l'lAOCC:

"""' "

l"l'liiOCC:

MEDIUM

FINE

l BOULDERS l '"~9-8 ~~:.~.. 1 .:~.':.~~" '----- f~~Y.,SL.,_" o ~~!~ l.':':~'!'" o ---- ~~-~~ ,;__ o ~~!~ Icoarse lmoc!i:~}-~ine

[ ~ .., I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 21. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Crw-1a.

.w.. I

100

90

1- 80 :I:
wt!' 70
i:
>m 60

ffi 50
z

LL 40

1z -

w
(rx.):

30

w

Q. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 . 3fo~:.5 " 3/8" 4

'I

II I

II

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

~

I

Bacon County Crw-1b

\
'' ,1\ 1\

r\

\

\

I

I

1\

I

~

'

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I

-1""'1t.no1 ~~

I

l""'l:'loA\/LI

I

CAt..ln

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Q1

SILT OR CLAY

c11

I

0.001

*

r1 AV

I* *

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 22. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Crw-1b.

w
1'1)

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

- " 3/4:.5 "3/8.. 4

II

II I

II

8 16 30 50 100 200

"'\:JJ

T

[1

90

~
~

1- 80

1\

:::r:
(!)
jjj 70
s:

' 1..

I

:\

> 60
a:l

(
\

ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
uwa: 30 w

~~~~--~~~~~~~~'~~~
Bacon County Crw-1c

\
' ~ \ ~
"'\

Q. 20

10

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

LO

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
r--------------,-----,~~~~~~~~----!S~A~NmD~----------r-----~S~I~LT~O~R~C~L~A~Y~----~ *

COBBLES

r-n"occ

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

,....,......,...,, .......

- - aor-o

6"Aalr"''o.

...... _.

-1 A'I.J

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 23. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Crw-1c.

ww I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

.3 ~' 1.5 .. 3 ''.-5"3/8" 4

II

I

I

8 1...6 a_o 50 100 200

I

~

I

90

1- 80 :I:
w(!' 70
i:

>ca 60

aw :
z

50

u.. 40
1z -
w~ 30
w Q.. 20

10

1000

Il,l

I I I

Bacon County
100

~

11

Crw-2

\
~

1\.

I
II

' ~

11

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

... - ........ --
BOULDERS

--.-.~-

......... -

I

I
I I
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY ..... ~

0.001 *
,... \.... . **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 24. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Crw-2.

w
~

I

100
90
t- 80
::I:
w ~ 70
i:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
zt-
a(w.:) 30
w
Q. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 " 3A :. 5 "3/8" 4

II

II ' I

~

,a. 1-6 3_0 50 100 200

I

I

~

~

-~

I

I

~

Bacon County Ses-1

~
' ~ '(~ "' "U,.,.

10 1000

100 COBBLES

I

I

I

......_

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FJNE

I

I .... -.nru rr- I

--A\lr'"l

I very

SAND

I

BOULDERS

coarse I coarse lrred'um

GEOR.GIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

I
I I
'
l~
0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~ T

I

0.001

*

,... AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 25. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Ses-1.

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Table 2: Bacon County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Alm-1a

21/3

auger

2-1/2

3

no

2

Alm-1b

2-1/2- 5 auger 2-1/2

3

no

2

Alm-1c

5-8

auger

3

3

no

2

Alm-1d

8- 10 auger

2

3

no

2

Crw-1a

6

auger

1

3

no

1

Crw-1b

6-7

auger

1

3

no

1

Crw-1c

7- 12

auger

5

3

no

0

Crw-2

10

auger

10

2

no

2

Ses-1

9

auger

9

2

no

1

1 For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2 Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3 Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.

35

Evaluation
None of the samples selected met ASTM Standard C-33. Sample Alm-1 (Fig. 16) was taken from an 8 foot high dune along Big Hurricane Creek. The underlying material is clay. This fairly clean and wellsorted sand is typical of dune sand in these areas and may be suitable for limited use. Samples Crw-1a, 1b and 1c are from a dune along Big Hurricane Creek (Fig. 16).
The Sample Ses-1 was taken from the south side of Hurricane Creek.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Bacon County.
Summary Evaluation
In Bacon County, the only sand deposits found that could be commercially mined are those represented by samples Alm-1 and Crw-1. These are both from dunes along Big Hurricane Creek. The potential for fine aggregate production in Bacon County is low.
BRANTLEY COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Brantley County lies primarily within the Barrier Island District, but parts of the county lie within the Bacon Terraces District and the Okefenokee Basin District. The surficial material of the county is derived from the Cypresshead Formation, the barrier island deposits, and Quaternary alluvium.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 267 [at the time of Teas, Brantley County was part of Wayne County]) reported that the sand bars in the Satilia River consist of white, mediumgrained sand and were most prominent where U.S. Highway 84 crosses the Satilla River (Fig. 26, Ts-42).
Present Study
The soil type used in targeting specific sites for sampling was #24 and is found along major creeks. A distinct geomorphic feature in this county is Trail Ridge (Fig. 26). Five sites were selected for sampling and evaluation: Hob-1 , Nah-1 , Wyn-1 a, Wyn-1 b, Brn-1 , (Figs. 26-31, Table 3).

Evaluation
None of the samples taken passed ASTM standard C-33. Sample Hob-1 was taken from the edge of Trail Ridge near the Satilla River, and sample Nah-1 was taken just west of the Satilla River along U.S. Highway 84. These deposits have too great a percentage of fine-grained sand and clay particles to meet aggregate production standards.
The area along the east bank of the Satilla River is currently being mined for construction aggregate. An attempt was made to sample this sand, but access was not possible. The samples taken from near this area, Wyn-1 and Bm-1, were evidently not representative of the sand being mined because these samples consist of material that is too fine-grained for use as a construction aggregate.
Mining Activity
There has been a great deal of mining activity in the past in Brantley County. However, at the present time there is only one active mine operated by Florida Crushed Stone (Fig . 26, #699} . The products of this mine are concrete and masonry sand. Average yearly production is about 50,000-100,000 tons. Twenty of the 68 acres permitted are being mined to a depth of 25 feet.
There are five recently inactive sand operations in the county. These were operated by Brantley Sand Co. #222, Hall Sand Co. #223 and #208, Santee Sand Co. #303,and Satilla Mining Corp. #754 (Fig. 26). No information is available on these inactive pits.
Summary Evaluation
The results from the samples taken in Brantley County suggest the fine aggregate potential of this county is low. However, as evidenced by the mining activity, there are isolated areas that are profitable to mine. Therefore, the construction material potential of Brantley County is moderate.
BRYAN COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Bryan County lies within the Barrier Island District. Surficial sediments are derived from the Cypresshead Formation, Quaternary Alluvium and barrier island deposits.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 167) noted that there are small dunes along the Canoochee River.

36

----- ----~ .... ..........

N
t

' '

~-1

\' .._____2_ 08
I 223
", ~ ..........

''-. _

ft

\llobokc.n

I

~

I

I I

I
I
~
~
~
'~
\

-....... -.......

0

5 Miles

6:3::~~~

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county .

I
I
31~5'
EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
Inactive producer or one producing
fill material "' Abandoned pit, product unknown
0 Deposit sampled or discussed in text

Figure 26. Map of Brantley County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

w
01

I

100
90
1- 80 J: CJ jjj 70
s:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
a(wJ: 30
w c.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 .. 3/4 ''r5"3/8"' 4

I

11 I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200
I
Jl

I

"1\

~~

\
\

~
\
~ I
I

I

, \
l

Brantley County Hob-1

1000

100

COBBLES
,_,....,, ,.-,..
BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

-r-. ar-o

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

II""Aa. l -

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
i

I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
t"'t "T'"

0.001



,.... AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 27. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Hob-1.

w
tO

I

100
90
t- 80
:I: Cl jjj 70
i:
> 60
CD
ffi 50
z
LL 40
zt-
(wa): 30 w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

-

- " .- ; , ptt- ,_,

_ , ......

_.,,..

4

II

II I

.a

._ 16 30 50 100 20

I'"'"

I

I' I

~

l

I I
I
I

r
I

~

\

~rantley County Nah-1

\
'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

---------------,------~~~~~~G~R~A:IN:~SI~ZSE AIN~NM~IDLL~I~M~ET-E-R-S---~------~SI~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~----~ *

COBBLES

ME.DIUM

FINE

1

I "'"""'nnl rr I

BOULDERS

r"'r")A,Ir::l

I

C!AI\In

I

C'll T

I

rl AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 28. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Nah-1.

8 I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
0w 70
i:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
2
.L.L... 40
z
wu 30 0w::::
Q. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

I'' I' - " 3/4'.5"3/8" 4
'I

8. 1.6 30 50 100 200

1

~
,"

I

\

I

' ,1
1\

~~~~---U~U-~~--_.~~~~ ~~~

'

\

Brantley County Wyn -1a

\

10

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

....,._..,..,., _,..,

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

- - .... ~~.-,

IC"AR.Il""''o

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
""II 'T'

0.001

*

~~ AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 29. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wyn-1a.

..c.a.. I

100
90
1- 80 J:
w ~ 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
a(w.:): 30
w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 " 3/<~"3 /8" 4

I

1 I

'I

8, Hl 3.0 50 100 200

I

.... r""''

I

,r\
\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Brantley County Wyn-1b

:>

\

I

\

,I \

\

I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

----------------~------,G~R~A~V7oE~-L -~G~RA~I~N~S~IZ~E~~INS~MA~NI~LD~L~I~M-E--T-E-R--S.--------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~L:A:Y~------~ *

COBBLES

/"'/"\/\CCC

"''"'"'

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

....,._ ........ , .- ,..

--At. or-o

r>Ak l -

r<111 ~

,.... A~

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 30. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wyn-1b.

t I

100
90
1- 80 ::I:
(!'
jjj 70
i:
> 60
al
ffi 50
2
u.. 40
12
auw: 30
w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3." 1.5""3}4":_..5"3/8"" 4

I'

II I

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

1:11

I I

I ~ ~

I
Brantley County Brn-1

\

\

\

'l l 1\

I ~I

\

\

' JI

_ L_

__ _

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

L__

__

1000

100

COBBLES

I
BOULDERS

__ ...,..,, - -

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - ... ~r-o

r"'Aal.....

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY

"' ' ' -

- A'\..1

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 31. Size Distribution curve of Sample Brn-1.

Table 3: Brantley County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Hob-1a

10

auger

10

2

no

1

Nah-1

9

trench

9

2

no

1

Wyn-1a

6-1/2

auger 6-1/2

3

no

1

Wyn-1b

6-1/2- 14 auger

7

3

no

1

Bm-1

10

auger

10

1

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3lncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.

43

Present Study
The soil series used to target sites for sampling and analyses was Kershaw and is found in the northwestern corner of the county in interfluve areas. The geomorphic features targeted were sand bars along the Ogeechee River and sand dunes along the Canoochee River. Three samples were taken from these targeted features for analysis: MSW-1, MSW-3, Dai-2, (Figs. 32-35, Table 4).
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33. Samples MSW-1 and MSW-3 (Fig. 32) were taken from sand bars along the Ogeechee River. Both contain too high a percentage of fine-grained sand.
Sample Dai-2 was taken from an area along the Canoochee River. This sample has low percentages of silt or clay, and contains minor amounts of small gravel.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive quarries in Bryan County.
Summary Evaluation
The fine aggregate potential of Bryan County is low.
BULLOCH COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Approximately three quarters of Bulloch County (Fig. 36) lies in the Vidalia Upland district, the remaining quarter is a part of the Barrier Island District. The same approximate line that divides this county into two physiographic districts also is the geologic contact. The larger section of the county derives its surficial sediments from the Cypresshead Formation. Surficial sediments consisting of Quaternary alluvium are found along the Ogeechee River, which forms the northeastern border of the county.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 168) reported that concrete sand for local use was mined from a small pit in Statesboro (Fig.36, Ts-44). Teas(1921,p.168)also reported that clean fine-grained sand is present along the north and east sides of Lotts Creek (Fig. 36, Ts-2).

Present Study
The soil type used to target areas for sampling was the Kershaw series and is found along Lotts Creek. The geomorphic features that were targeted are sand dunes along the north and east sides of Lotts Creek. Three samples were taken from these areas : Nev-1, Bro-1, Reg-1 (Figs. 36-39, Table 5).
Evaluation
None of the samples selected passed ASTM standard C-33. Sample Nev-1 (Fig. 36) was taken from an area of dune sands along the east side of Lotts Creek (see Teas, 1921, p. 168), but this sample is too clayey to make it an economical aggregate deposit.
Sample Bro-1 (Fig. 36) represents a deposit of very fine- to medium- to coarse-grained sand; however, the amount of coarse-grained material present is not sufficient to make it an economic deposit.
Sample Reg-1 is almost 30 percent clayey material, but if this were washed out, the sand may have use as an aggregate source. Most of the clayey material occurs in the upper 5 feet; from 5 to 8 feet in depth, the sand is coarser grained and less clayey.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Bulloch County.
Summary Evaluation
Only one of the three samples taken, Reg-1, shows any potential for aggregate production, and then only after extensive washing.
The construction aggregate potential for Bulloch County is low.
BURKE COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Burke County lies almost entirely in the Vidalia Upland District. Only the northwestern corner lies in the Fall Line Hills District. The surficial sediments of Burke County are derived from the Oconee Group, the Barnwell Group, the Altamaha Formation and Quaternary alluvium.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 169) reported that 2 miles north of Waynesboro a small pit provided fine-grained mortar sand for use in Waynesboro (Fig. 40, Ts-3). Sand in

44

_..........
N
t

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
D Deposit sampled or discussed in text

0

5 Miles

H H F3

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county .
Figure 32. Map of Bryan County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.
45

..c,. I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3 " 1.5 .. 3/4~:.5"3/Su 4

I

I I

I

8 1_6 30 50 100 200

1

~ !'o '

I

90

.I~,

1- 80 :I:
w(!) 70
i:
>r::o 60
ffi 50
2
u. 40
12
(w.) 30 a: wa.. 20

I
Bryan County MSW-1

,i\
\
I
' \
J \ \

10

1000

100

1\ ~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

BOULDERS

,..,,..,...,..,, ,........

-r""''oa~

l""A .. I""

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
l

i
I
I
I
I
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
...... ~

0.001

*

,...t AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 33. Size Distribution Curve for Sample MSW-1.

.~ .... I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
i:
> 60
al
ffi 50
2 LL 40 12
(wJ 30 a: w a.. 20
10
1000

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

,, - ~-~

..

II ,I

II

II

.- -

"" '

~

~

h

- . -- -

I

II

I~

I

I
II
I I
l I
I

I
,

Bryan County MSW-3

D
1\

\

' ~

I

h .

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

COARSGERAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

BOULDERS

-

.......... _,.....

--A~Ir-"1

,. ........ ,....

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
l
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~ . . . . . . .

0.001

*

rtiA'I

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 34. Size Distribution Curve for Sample MSW-3.

c I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100
90
1- 80 Je,::,
iii 70 i:
> 60
CQ

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5" 3/4'r5"J/8" 4

I'

II I

II

-B 16 30 50 100 200 I IIIII

~t::l

I\
1\

l

I

ffi 50
2

I I

LL 40
1z -
w 30 (a.:) w
c.. 20
10

Bryan County Dai-2

I I

I II

I I

I II

\
\
' ~ ~ ""

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

r---------------,------,G~A~A~V~E~L------,---------~SAMNwDn------------,---------------------------,

COBBLES

r-nAocc:

c:~c:

f'nJ\ccc MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

I

I - - n n ~roo I

BOULDERS

,....~A,Ir"l

I

C'I\Ain

I

<"II "'T'

I

,..... AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 35. Size Distribution Curve for Sample Dai-2.

Table 4: Bryan County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

MSW-1a

4

auger

4

1

no

2

MSW-3

4

auger

4

1

no

2

Dai-2

13

auger

13

2

no

2

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2'fhicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
49

I ----

I
I

N
t

EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality
Abandoned pit, product unknown
0 Deposit sampled or discussed In text

--- - ....-.,......-

--

0

5 Miles

i:;:a::::::E1+3==::::::::::EF33

H H H

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county .
Figure 36. Map of Bulloch County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

50

U....l I

100
90
.... 80 :::L
"jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
aw: 50
z
.L..L. 40
z
~ 30
aw :
Q. 20
10

..

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

.. 3 h 5 "3/8" 4

8 16 30 50 100

II

I

I

1

~~

T

~

1\

' \

I

' I
1' \

I\

I \

' 1\

11)

Bulloch County Nev-1

--

' I

200 If
I
l
-

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

.... .-,....r<oo ~~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

r'I"'ACCI::

I::IMI::

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-r""'oA'>6P""I

~AIO.J-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01 SILT OR C LAY
ot"ll ""r"

0.001

*

,..... A'-1'

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 37. Size Distribution Curve for Sample Nev-1.

Ul N

I

100 I
90

1- 80

J:
wC) 70

i:

> 60

al

I

ffi 50
z

LL 40

1z -

I

uaw: 30 I
w Q.. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

- -

.. " II

..
II I

-

--

II

-

-.,.-,

--

--

-I -

---
II I

f\

~

' I

\

I

,\ I

a

'\

\ l \ I
' I

\
~

Bulloch County Bro-1

~ ~

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SA ND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,..,"r"'llnlr-~ I

- - ... ,1r-o

I

roo-

j

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

,...,_

j

0.001

*

-"'"

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 38. Size Distribution Curve for Sample Bro-1.

I Uwl

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"w 70
!:
> 60
aJ
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3/4".5"3/8"" 4

'II

II I

8 16 3.0 50 100 200

,_.. ~

I

fi
~ ~

\
\
(

I\
I\
\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I I

Bulloch County Reg-1

\
\
~
......

-

- l_l__ _

.__

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

...,._...,....,._.,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

,....F""'OI.ao-o

~Atl..lr""\

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
r"'ll....

0.001

*

,....IA.V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 3 9. Size Distribution Curve for Sample Reg-1.

Table 5: Bulloch County Sample Data

Sample

Depth1

designation (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit
(Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Nev-1

11

auger

11

2

no

0

Bro-1

9

auger

9

2

no

0

Reg-1

8

auger

8

2

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3lncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
54

the vicinity of Keysville provided material for the manufacture of cement blocks (Fig. 40, Ts-4).
Hurst, et al., (1966) reported two active sand pits about 4 miles northeast of Waynesboro; and two inactive gravel pits, one approximately 2.9 miles north of Gough, andoneonthe Burke-Jenkins County line (Fig. 40, CSRA-1, CSRA-2, CSRA-3). These pits are now inactive.
Present Study
The soil type used for targeting sites for sampling in Burke County is #32 which is present in the northern part of the county near the streams. Seven samples were taken from five areas: SMp-1, McB-1, Kys-2, Kys-1a, Kys-1b, ldl-1a, ldl-1b (Figs., 40-47, Table 6).
Evaluation
The sample SMp-1 (Fig. 40) represents a gravelly zone approximately 6 feet thick at the location of an abandoned pit. This sample does not pass ASTM standard C-33 because this deposit is too finegrained. However, the fact that the sample contains some coarser grained material, makes this deposit of approximately 10 acres potentially suitable for aggregate production. The material surrounding this gravelly zone is clayey, and would be considered waste. This deposit is easily accessible by way of U.S. Highway 25.
Sample McB-1 (Fig.40) represents a 25 foot thick deposit of clayey fine- to coarse-grained sand with occasional gravel. This sample does not meet ASTM standard C-33, but could be upgraded to meet it. This deposit of approximately 5 acres is easily accessible by way of Ga. Highway 56.
Sample Kys-2 was taken from a 10 foot high sand dune north of Keysville. This sand is typical of the dune sands of south Georgia, very clean and wellsorted fine- to medium-grained sand. This could be useful for glass sand. The deposit is approximately 3 acres in extent and is located on Ga. Highway 88. The deposits represented by samples Kys-1 and ldl-1 contain too high a percentage of fine-grained material, and were not considered further.
Mining Actlvhy
There are no active quarries or pits in Burke County. Sand and gravel was mined in the past at the location of CSRA-3 and sample SMp-1 (Fig. 40).
Summary Evaluation
The deposits represented by Samples SMp-1 and

McB-1 could be potential construction aggregate sources. The location of SMp-1 was mined in the past. Overall the construction material potential for fine or coarse aggregate production in Burke County is considered to be low.
CAMDEN COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Camden County lies within the Barrier Island District of the Coastal Plain Province. The surficial sediments of Camden County are derived from the Satilla Formation, the barrier island deposits, and Quaternary alluvium.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 170) noted that, according to S.W. McCallie (personal communication.), sand from the bed of St. Marys River is loaded onto barges and shipped to St. Marys and the adjoining coastal islands for local use (Fig. 48, Ts-5).
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas of Camden County are Fripp-Duckston and Olustee. The Fripp-Duckston series is generally found along the coastline as well-drained dune fields. The Olustee is present as isolated pods of sand adjacent or proximal to creeks and rivers of central and southern Camden County. One geomorphic feature, an area of point bars along the Satilla River, in western Camden County, was targeted. Three samples from Camden County were sieved : Woo-1, Bol-1 , Kng-1 ( Figs. 4851, Table 7).
Evaluation
None of the samples taken (Woo-1, Bol-1, and Kng-1) meet ASTM standard C-33. The deposits represented by these samples have no potential for aggregate production due to either excessive amounts of material finer than #200 (Woo-1, Bol-1) or poor grain size distribution (Kng-1).
Mining Activity
There are no active commercial aggregate operations in Camden County. A sand dredge was operated along the Satilla River in northwestern Camden County by a Mr. McDonald. No further information is available. One abandoned sand pit is located southeast of Kingsland.

55

8200'

(

I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I

*CSRA2

ec.nn

\

I

\

N
t

~elw.a....l......V...,.:. .

c.r
:

('

i

\ '\ \ ., .

-..........Sardis
\

CSRA3.."--;~ ~rd -.,

/

...,...... .........

C'-;

/ "'

?

/

/
/
/
/
/
o
F*3
0

/
/
/

3300'

5
Fa

M~les

5 Kilometers

EXPLANATION

I

Sample locality

* Central Savannah

() Teas' sample locality 4 Abandoned pit,
product unknown

River Authority study locations
I' .q Deposit sampled
or discussed in text

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.

Figure 40. Map of Burke County Showing Localities and Deposns Sampled.

(II ~

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
we,:, 70
i:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
LL. 40
1z -
(waJ: 30
w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 3/4"'F5.,318 4

'I I' <lllo..,.

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200

1

I

I

' [\ ~ \ ' ~

~

I

Burke County SMp-1

tl
' ," \.
~ ---~:J

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

.-.- ........ .-'"

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-r"'oAr-

~"~~~.. ....,

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C""ll T

0.001

*

,..... AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 41. Size Distribution Curve for Sample SMp-1.

Ul

I

100

90

1- 80
:r:
0w 70
s:

>en 60

ffi
z

50

u.. 40
1z -
U(.J) 30
a: ~ 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

II 3 ~.'.5"3/8..

4

]I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

~ I'.. I

I

~

I
Burke County McB-1

!"'~

,1\

I

1\

1 1\

J

I

l_

II

1\

II

\

l

\

I

1\

~

"'

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

---~ .... -....

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

- - .... -

...... -

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
I
I
I
I

I
I I
I
0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,...,, -

0.001

*

.......

& .. 1

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 42. Size Distribution Curve for Sample McB-1.

Cll ~

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5-.. 3 l4"r5"3/8" 4 . 8

I'

[I

I I

I '

1__6 30 50 100 200

~

I

1 r

90

1\

~ 80 ::I:
(!J
jjj 70
i:
>m 60

ffi
z

50

LL. 40
z ~
aCw:J 30
w a.. 20

10

1000
I

1"1

~

I

Burke County Kys-2

COBBLES

[\
\ ~

~

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I coARs~RAIVEL FINE lcoARsEI ME~~~~o 1 FINE

BOULDERS

,.,._.,.......,, r--l'o

-r-.At. l r- 1

C"AI'II.Ir"\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C"ll '"I""

0.001

I"

L"l AV +

**

GRADATION CURVE

"Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 43. Size Distribution Curve for Sample Kys-2.

g I

100

90

1- 80
~ (!)
jjj 70
i:
>m 60

ffi
z

50

LL 40
1z -
awu: 30
w Q. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3A~"5"3/8"' 4 . 8

'

1 I' I

II

16 30 60 100 200
I
""' ~

__\

<il.

[l

!1

l

I

l

uII l

,!II I

I 11

[

Burke County Kys-1a

Ill

I II II

I Ill I

II I l l l Jlilllll 1 -- lliill_li_

I

\ l

1(

' " '-

~-

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

....,_.,....,.,_,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

"'"'II o c-~G:: RAVEL "'~'"

SA ND MEDIUM

FINE

,..,_ ~

r>oA .. I -

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
I

-~-
0.01

S LT 0 CLAY

I

R

r"'II"T'

0.001

*

r'"IAV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 44. Size Distribution Curve for Sample Kys-1a.

a.... I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
s:
> 60
a:!
ffi 50
z
LL 40
z1-
(w.J 30 f-
a:
w
ll.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 IS",5"3/8" 4

jl

11 ' 1

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200
I
~
~ ~

1\
ll

~

'

\

I \

{

\

'

Burke County Kys-1b

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
I
I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

-----------------r----~G~R~A~V"E~L___G:R:A:I~N:_S~IZ:E:~IN~SM~A~ILN~LDI~M~~E-T-E-R-S--~~------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y:-------~ *

COBBLES

/''r\1\CCI::

I::IM<:

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

....,._....., ..... , ,__,...

- - A1r-o

,"1A.._ I _

r'tll...,..

, . . . A~

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 45. Size Distributjon Curve for Sample Kys-1b.

~ I

100

90

I- 80 :I: C!' jjj 70
!:
> 60
al

ffi 50

z

I

LL 40 I

1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w Q. 20
I

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

,, 3" 1.5 .. 3 ~r5"3~"

~

I

4
II

.a

,, 16 30 50 100 200

,...._

I

~

l

~
"I 1\ ' _\

I
I
I

l '

I

I

1\

~

\

\

Burke County ldl-1a
I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
1"1"\AD"I::

1::1~11::

1"1"\AD"<::

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,..._..,ru ~l" I

BOULDERS

,...~A\Ir-'1

I

C'AI'I..U"\.

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT 0 R CLAY

t"'ll "'T

I

0.001

*

f"l AV

lit*

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 46. Size Distribution Curve for Sample ldl-1a.

8 I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w(!' 70
!:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
Cwa:J 30
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3.(4::...5 "3/8 "

- - - -- .-- ---

1

:1 I

II

1

"'

I

' r\

\

I

~

I I

\

~

I \

\

'

I

Burke County Id1-1b.

Ll.--'i-- L L ...

. . I . . . . . . . J . . . _ _ j _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ , - - ' - - ' - - L . . . L . . J

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,..._,.....,, ~.-..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRA VEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND M ED IU M

FINE

,....r-'11 A li. #'T""I

t:"A ... I r\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C"ll "T"

0.001

f'"'l A V

* **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System *"Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 47. Size Distribution Curve for Sample ldl-1b.

Table 6: Burke County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 Sample (Feet) type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

SMp-1

6

trench

23

1

no4

2

McB-1

25 trench

25

1

no4

2

Kys-2

10 trench

10

2

no

1

Kys-1a

5

auger

5

2

no

1

Kys-1b

5-9 auger

4

2

no

0

Idl-1a

3

auger

3

1

no

0

Idl-1b

3- 11 auger

8

1

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3lncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used; see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.

64

N
t
----'

EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality Abandoned pit, product unknown [ ] Deposit sampled or discussed In text

HH H

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 48. Map of Camden County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

65

I I

100

90

1- 80 :I: t!' jjj 70
i:
>m 60

ffi 50
z I

u.. 40

1z -
w(.)

30

~ ~

a:

I

~ 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3." 1.5" 3/< ';.5"3/.8" 4 . 8

II rn

[I

1

H> 3.0 50 100 20.0
r-u. "f"lllo. ;, ~
'

I
I

I
Camden County Woo-1

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

...,_...,..,.,r-....

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

M E DSIAUNMD

FI NE

--Ao~l

~ A .. t~

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
r'I II "T"

0.001

*

,...I A V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 49. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Woo-1.

.c.... I

100
90
... 80 :I:
"w 70
i:
m> 60
ffi 50
2
...LL. 40
z
(w.) 30
a:
w a. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 ,, 3 IJ".S"J/a" 4 . a 16 30 50 100 200

II

II ' I

I

1

, . .... I \

~
\
~
\
{
\
'

Camden County Bol-1.

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

--MI"!!o .--~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVE.L

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-r"'!!A\Ir""l

C"Aiidf"'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C"11 T

0.001

*

f'l AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 50. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bol-1.

I I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
w 0 70
i:
m> 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
- 1z -
w(J 30
a:
w
~ 20
10 Ill

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 11 1.5" J/~r5 "J/8" 4 . 8

ill

II I

II

-- -- 30-

100 200

1

- ..... Iii......._

'

Camden County Kng-1

II I I I

Ill I I

I
I
I
\ \
'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

~--------------r-----~~~--~~G~R~A~I=N-~SsIZsE~AINNNDMDIL-L-I-M-E-T-E-R-S--~r-------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~----~

COBBLES

MEDIUM

FLNE

BOULDERS

,...,....r"'o,.... ,...,....

,....,..., A'1r-1

C"Aiirdn

c:"ll T"

,.... . AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 51. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Kng-1.

Table 7: Camden County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priorityl of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Woo-l

12

auger

12

0

no

0

BoL-l

12-1/2 auger

12-1/2

2

no

0

Kng-1

10

auger

10

2

no

1

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3lncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.

69

Summary Evaluation
The potential for either fine or coarse aggregate production in Camden County is considered to be low.
CANDLER COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Candler County lies within the Vidalia Uplands District of the Coastal Plain Province. The majority of the surficial sediments of the county are derived from the Altamaha Formation.
Previous Work
Teas (1921, p. 170-171) mentioned the occurrence of coarse-grained sand near Metter (Fig. 52, Ts6) and deposits of fine- to medium-grained sand along Fifteenmile Creek and the Canoochee River (Fig. 52, TS-7, 8).
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas of Candler County were the Kureb and Kershaw series. These soil associations are generally present in conjunction with dune fields paralleling the eastern banks of the major creeks and rivers of the county, particularly the Ohoopee and Canoochee Rivers and Fifteenmile Creek. Three samples from Candler County were sieved: Met-1, MtS-1, Sti-3 ( Figs. 52-55, Table 8).
Evaluation
None of the samples sieved meet ASTM standard C-33. Although all three samples contain little material finer than #200, and the dune deposits represented by the samples have very large reserves, the general grain size is too fine and too uniform for use as a concrete aggregate.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive commercial aggregate mining operations in Candler County.
Summary Evaluation
The dune sands along Fifteenmile Creek and the Canoochee River offer large reserves of easily mined sand. Unfortunately , this sand is too fine grained for use as construction aggregate; therefore, the potential

fortine aggregate production is considered to be low.
CHARLTON COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Charlton County lies within the Okefenokee Basin District and the Barrier Island District. Its surficial sediments are derived from the Satilia Formation, barrier island deposits, the Cypresshead Formation, and Quaternary alluvium (Fig. 3).
Previous Studies
Teas (1921 p. 171-172) reported that the eastern part of Charlton County has some patchy sands scattered throughout. There is sand 6 to 8 feet in thickness mentioned as being east of Folkston, and 2 to 6 feet thick along the St. Marys and Satilla Rivers.
Present Study
The soil types used in targeting areas for analyses were #24 and #41. The geomorphic features targeted are dunes along the St. Marys River near Boulogne. Four samples were taken from 3 sites: Fol1a, Fol-1b, Bou-1, MNE-1 (Figs. 56-60, Table 9).
Evaluation
None of the samples analyzed met ASTM standard C-33. They are all too fine grained.
Mining Actlvhy
There is one active mining operation in Charlton County. Florida Rock Industries (Fig. 56, #534) has an operation near Stokesville in southeastern Charlton County. This is an 8 acre pit in the vicinity of their old pit of 333 acres. This pit produces glass sand, mortar sand, and concrete sand. Their market area is a 50 mile radius and they use trucks and railroad for transportation. They have an average yearly production of 100,000-500,000 tons. They use a hydraulic sand pump, a front end loader and a dredge. This pit has been in operation since 1983. There was one sand dredge company working on the St. Marys River, but it is evidently not in business anymore.
Summary Evaluation
The samples taken in this county indicate the potential for fine aggregate production in this county is low, but since there is an active producer in the county, there are obviously isolated favorable areas. Therefore, the aggregate potential for Charlton

70

N
t
I
I

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
0 Deposit sampled
or discussed In text

o5 3:=E3:=E:35 Miles

bd Fd bd

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 52. Map of Candler County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.
71

....
N

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.6 " 3/~rS"J/8'' 4

II II I

II

8, L.6 30 50 100 200

I

I Ill

90

.... 80 :I:
(!J
jjj 70
i:
> 60
Ill

ffi 50

2

'
u...... 40

2

w(.)
a:
w

30

I ~

Q. 20

I
Candler County Met-1

10 I Ill I I I 111111 I I I IIIII L I I L__

R

~

' \ \

(

\
\
\
J

'1\

\

L_

'L_ ~
-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

~--------------.------,G~R~A~V~E~L--~~~--------~SA~N~Do------------,------~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~*

COBBLES

rnAocc

"''"''"'

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

- - - _...,.

- - aoo.-o

,...., .. ,....,.

...... -

-- .. ..... . **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 53. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Met-1.

....
w

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5-" 3/4~.5"3/8" 4 - _a

I

IJ I

if

1

1 ao 50 100 200

~

T

90

..... 80 ::I:
w ~ 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
.z....
(wa..:) 30
w 0.. 20
10

Candler County
llll__Lj lW ll

MtS-1
lllll l_

1
\ ,
ll
1\
\
i
1\ \
\
'1\
1\
~ ....

1000

100

10

1_0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I --nr:~~ r::'""' I

roA\.Ir::l

I

CA I\J n

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

J

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

<:"II T

I

0.001

,.... AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 54. Size Distri~ution Curve of Sample MtS-1.

.... I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

100

3 " 1.5 .. 3~(:.5"3 8 " 4 - 8

-II

II I

II

16 30 50 100 200

"'

I

If

90

I I

.... 80 :t CJ jjj 70
:s:
>ca 60
ffi 50 2
.L..L. 40
z
w(.) 30
cr:
w 0.. 20
10

I
I I I I
Ill I I

Candler County
I I
I TI!JIII I I

Sti-3 111111
1111111 1 I _

1\
1\
I
1\ I
'
\
\

~

\

\

'

1\

b

-

'--

"'--

I _L_

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0,01

0.001

COBBLES

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

*

I BOULDERS J,~<:~B~~~~" ~-~~~~-----Mf~.~~L.,_~ 1 ~~!~ ~-~':~~---ftml~o~l <;M 1 ~~!~ lcoarselmeji~~~~ine

[

I"I - AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 55. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Sti-3.

Table 8: Candler County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Met-1

14 trench

14

2

no

2

MtS-1

6 auger

20

2

no

2

Sti-3

4

auger

25

3

no

2

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3lncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.

75

I -----
N
t

OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL} WILDLIFE REFUGE

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
Abandoned pit, product unknown
0 Deposit sampled or discussed in text

0

5 Miles

A H F3

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county ,
Figure 56. Map of Charlton County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

76

::1 I

100

90

~ 80 :I:
w(!) 70
i:
>m 60

ffi 50
z

u. 40

1z -

w
(.)

30

a:

w

c.. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"" 3/<i:.5"3/8" 4 .B

I

;I I

1..6

30

50 100
I

200

'

- l"'oo

""tf\.

\
' 1\ b 1 1 \ \ I '

Charlton County Fol-1a

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,..,...,.....,, r-ro

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-r""'t. A, .-,

C"AII.ln

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
r>ll "T"

0.001

*

,.,.I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 57. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Fol-1a.

....

CID

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
w ~ 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
aCwJ: 30
w
0.. 20
10 I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

-

- -- -- --- - -,-- ., - ,_, II""" ~~- ~- " ~

~

-- ~

I

jl I

I

1

(!)

I

,\

I
Charlton County Fol-1b

~
\
1tl
1\
' ~ ~ \ '

II I

II I

l

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDI UM

FINE

BOULDERS

___ .......... r-....

-- -

,.............

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
--

0.001

*

-~"''-"

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 58. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Fol-1b.

...... I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w(!) 70
i\:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
uw 30
c:r:::
w
0.. 20
10

,_

.,.
-- -- - -- -
' I

3~~.5"3/8 II
:t I

U.S.
.
I'

STANDARD
. .I

SIEVE SIZE
'""""~\ I

, \

---

I
1
Charlton County Bou-1

\
\ \ I ~ \
\
\
I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
I I
I
I I
I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,..._ ..... ,_,_...._

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--ar-o

~AII.Ir'"<lo

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,....,.......

0.001

*

-tA'\.1 .

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 59. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bou-t

C 0

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
"w 70
i:
> 60
a:l
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z (aww.:) 30
ll.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 .. 3 :.5"3/8" 4

tl

I I

II

8 16 30 50 100 200
I ~
" ~ 1[i

\
' \ \ ~

\
\
\ I
l

Charlton County MNE-1

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

...... _..,. ... ,.-,...

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--lr-o

lf'I'AAir""'.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Ql
SllT OR CLAY
,...I....

0.001

*

"IAV

itifo

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 60. Size Distribution Curve of Sample MNE-1.

Table 9: Charlton County Sample Data

Sample

Depth1

designation (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Fol-1a

4-1/l

trench

4-1/l

1

no

1

Fol-1b 4-1/2- 7-1/2 auger

3

1

no

0

Bou-1a

8

auger

8

2

no

0

MNE-1

14-1/l auger

14-1/l

3

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.

81

County is considered to be moderate.
CHATHAM COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Chatham County lies within the Barrier Island Sequence District of the Coastal Plain Province. Surficial sediments of the county are derived from the Satilla Formation and the barrier island deposits.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 173) noted the occurrence of gravel near Salt Creek (Fig. 61, Ts-10) and a belt of fine-grained sand north of the Ogeechee River (Fig. 61, Ts-11).
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting areas of Chatham County was Kershaw. This soil association is present in the western portion of the county along the Ogeechee River. Two samples from Chatham County were sieved: MSE-1, GaC-1 (Figs. 61-63; Table 10).
Eva1uatlon
None of the samples meet ASTM standard C-33; however, the deposit represented by sample GaC-1 could be upgraded to meet specifications. The other sample failed because it was too fine-grained. The deposit from which sample GaC-1 was taken is exposed in an abandoned sand pit. The deposit is at least 30 feet thick and probably quite extensive (several acres). A sandy, silty, clay overburden 20 feet thick is present at this locality, probably making the deposit uneconomical to mine.
Mining Activity
Shuman Construction of Savannah produces sand from a 32 acre tract (Fig. 61, #750). The sand is transported within a 100 mile radius by truck. No information as to mining depth or production figures is available. Other pits in Chatham County are either inactive or currently producing fill material. There are several inactive pits which have been reclaimed and probably produced fill material.
Edward W. Simmons was permitted for 1 acre and 3 acres, respectively (Fig. 61, #479, #434). M.A. Banks was permitted for 1 acre (Fig. 61, #680). A 2 acre pit (Fig. 61, #385) was operated by Diamond Enterprises of Savannah. Ledbetter Construction

Company of Savannah (Fig. 61, #495) was permitted for 2 acres; however, the pit has since been reclaimed. M.C. Anderson of Gordon City mined fill dirt from two pits in Chatham County (Fig. 61, #324, #253). Pit #253 was permitted for 5 acres and pit #324 was permitted for 23 acres. Both of these pits have since been reclaimed. Galbreath Clearing and Grading of Savannah Produces fill sand from a 29 acre pit; currently the sand is mined to a depth of 10 feet.
Saylor Marine operated a dredge in the Savannah River. No further information is available.
Joe Fuller is permitted to mine fill material from a 2 acre pit (Fig. 61, #35). R&R Construction has a 1 acre pit in Chatham County (Fig. 61, #898) from which they produce sand (probably used as fill material).
Summary Evaluation
Chatham County has a low potential for the production of either fine or coarse aggregate. One area of the county which does contain some coarse material is the area of floodplain of the Savannah River in the eastern portion of the county. Where exposed, the overburden is too thick to allow a profitable large scale operation; however, this overburden may be thinner elsewhere in the floodplain.
COLUMBIA COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Columbia County lies within two districts of two physiographic provinces. These districts are the Fall Line Hills of the Coastal Plain Province and the Washington Slope of the Piedmont Province. The surficial sediments of the county are derived from the Oconee Group; the Barnwell Group; and the granites, granite gneisses, schists, and minor ultramafic rocks of the Piedmont.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 293) noted that some gravel is present east of Harlem (Fig. 64, Ts-45).
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites for sampling were the Tifton and Helena series. These are scattered throughout the part of the county contained in the study area. No distinct geomorphic features are evident in Columbia County. Two samples were taken for analyses: Grv-1, Har-1 (Figs. 64-66, Table 11 ).

82

N
t

EXPLANATION
Sample locality ()Teas' sample locality Active aggregate producer Inactive producer
or one producing fill material "" Abandoned pit,
product unknown
0 Deposit sampled or discussed in text

0........-.
A
0

5 F3 E"3

Miles

E3 ~ 5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county .
Figure 61. Map of Chatham County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled ..

83

..01

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

-- " 3 ~.-5"3/8 "' 4

.8

II

I

'- 1

16 3..0 50 100 200

(Jl

T

. -

90

~

1- 80 ::I:
"jjj 70
i:
>ca 60
ffi 50
2 LL 40
1z -
uwa: 30
w Q.. 20
10
1000

\

I \,

I

, I 1\

I

-

Chatham County MSE-1

\

\ I

, \

I

\ I

.

I

1\

~

L_

-

_L_

-

_....._

if"
L..

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FII\JE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

...... _ ........ , ,.-,..

--&olr""o

r'>A .. o..-...

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
1"'>11....

0.001

*

-- A\.1

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 62. Size Distribution Curve of Sample MSE-1.

eCnD

1

100

90

1- 80 J:
(!'
jjj 70
i:
>m 60

ffi
z

50

LL. 40
1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w ~ 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3/4'~6 "3/8"" 4

I

II ' I II]

,8, 1 f3 3.0 50 100 200

"""""- I

T

" ~

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Chatham County GaC-1

l

I I

1111

llll l l llillll l J llill

~
~
I I
,ll
1\
f++IK+--t~H--11------+++H-+--+-t--t---++ 1\
!
"'r--n.

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

...,._ .... ..,., ~,.,.

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--.,.~-

~AR.Ir""'o

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
l"ll 'T'

0.001

*

11"""1 II.V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 63. Size Di.;tribution Curve of Sample GaC-1.

Sample designation

Table 10: Chatham County Sample Data

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

MSE-1

13

auger

13

3

no

2

GaC-1

4

trench

30

2

no4

2

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3lncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text. 4 Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.
86

N
t

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
0 Deposit sampled or discussed In text

0

5 Miles

EE3=:C:=EE?3=:C:::::EE'33

E3 Fl E3

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county .
Figure 64. Map of Columbia County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.
87

ClD ClD

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
"jjj 70
:s:
c>c 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

-

.,, - --

... _ ,__

I' I

. - - -- -- ---

--..

I

~
1\
~I
~
!\
I\ I
'1\
I ~
'\.
'

Columbia County Grv-1

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

~--------------.------rG~R~A~V~E7L------~---------s.sA~N~D~----------~------~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------l *

COBBLES

('1''\AON:::

1:::1~11:::

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

- - ..... - - -

..... _ .... ~ -

...... .._ , _

....... .....

,.. i ... ...if

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 65. .Size Distribution Curve of Sample Grv-1.

CD CD

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
i:
m> 60
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

" 3 _:r5 "3 /8"'

I

1 "1

4 .8
~ 1

16 ao 50 100 200

I

I

!"'or..

~
"I' I' I'll. ~

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Columbia County Har-1

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

~-------------,------~M7.~~~~~G~R~A~I~NSAS~INZiED~IN---M-IL-L-I-M-E--TyE-R-S-----~SI~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~----~ *

COBBLES

f'nAo"'c

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

,.. ....... ...,...,,,-,....

- -A or- o

~At. l n

It' ll ..,..

~ IAV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 66. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Har-1.

Sample designation

Table 11: Columbia County Sample Data

Depth1 Sample (Feet) type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body Sampled

Natural material passmg ASTMC-33

Rating3

Grv-1

7

auger

7

1

no

0

H ar-1

7

auger

7

2

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
90

Evaluation
Neither of the samples passed ASTM standard C-33. Both contain some coarse grained material, but nearly 50% of Har-1 and 30% of Grv-1 are finer than #200 mesh.
Mining ActlvHy
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Columbia County.
Summary Evaluation
The potential for fine aggregate production in Columbia County is low.
EFFINGHAM COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Effingham County lies within the Barrier Island District of the Coastal Plain Province. The surlicial sediments are derived from the Cypresshead Formation and the barrier island deposits.
Previous Work
Teas(1921, p. 197) noted theoccurrenceof large amounts of gray and pale yellow sand along the Ogeechee River as well as gravel within the river bed (Fig. 67, Ts-12). Teas also noted a thin deposit of sand in a railway cut, 2 miles south of Guyton.
Present Study
The soil types used in targeting areas of Effingham County were #24 and #25, which are present in the northern portion of the county. Geomorphic features targeted were several dune fields in southwestern Effingham County. Eleven samples representing 9 sites in Effingham County were sieved: SpN-1, SpS1a, SpS-1b, Mel-1a, Mel-1b, Kil-1, Lee-1, Edn-1, Edn2, Bri-1, MSW-2 (Fig. 67 and Figs. 70-80, Table 12).
Evaluation
None of the samples pass ASTM standard C-33. Generally, the samples are too fine grained and too well sorted. One sample from a point bar of the Ogeechee River (MSW-2) could be upgraded to meet specifications for a fine aggregate. This point bar, however, is too small to support a commercial operation.

Mining ActlvHy
Atlas Sand and Gravel of Eden (Fig. 67, #614) produces concrete and masonry sand. Their products are shipped within a 90 mile radius by truck. The sand is mined using a dredge in man-made ponds. Then the material is pumped to classifiers and then to the stockpiles. Atlas Sand and Gravel owns 356 acres and has already mined 40 acres to a depth of approximately 25 feet. Annual production is between 100,000 and 500,000 tons.
Coastal Sand Company (Fig. 67, #865) is currently mining an 18 acre tract using a dredge (Fig. 68). The material is then pumped to classifiers (Fig. 69) and then stockpiled. The products of this pit, mortar and concrete sand, are transported by truck to the Savannah market area.
Bobby Murray Land Clearing (Fig. 67, #805) produces fill, concrete and masonry sand from a 2 acre pit in southwestern Effingham County. The products are shipped by truck to the Savannah market area. The sand is mined using a dredge in a man-made pond. The material is pumped to classifiers. Bobby Murray Land Clearing owns 10 acres with 8 remaining to be mined. The sand is currently mined to a depth of 15 feet. Annual production is between 10,000 and 50,000 tons.
Southern Aggregates (Fig. 67, #777) operates a 6-acre sand pit for asphalt paving material.
Sam Finley Incorporated (Fig. 67, #283) mined sand for asphalt. The mine was permitted for 34 acres, and has since been reclaimed.
Frank A. Miller Jr. (Fig. 67, #536) operated a 2 acre sand pit. The product of this pit is not known: further information is not available.
Southern Natural Resources of Wilmington, North Carolina has a permit to mine 20 acres. This pit is currently inactive and no further information is available .
Dawes Mining Company (Fig. 67, #1 07) mined out a 130 acre pit near Eden. This pit has been reclaimed. No further information is available.
Summary Evaluation
The potential for production of fine aggregate in Effingham County is moderate. The floodplain of the Ogeechee River in the southwestern part of the county, as with the deposit represented by sample MSW-2, has the best potential for production of fine aggregate.

91

81~5'

N

SpN-1

t

OE:::::c::::::es:::::::::E:35 MiIes

H H H

0

5 Kilometers

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
Active aggregate producer
Inactive producer or one
producing fill material
A Abandoned pit, product unknow
D Deposit sampled or discussed In text

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.

Figure 67. Map of Effingham County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

92

Figure 68. View of dredge at Coastal Sand Company, Eden, Georgia.
Figure 69. View of classifiers and conveyor belt at Coastal Sand Company, Eden, Georgia. 93

~
.lao

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
w ~ 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
uaw: 30
wa.. 20
10 II

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

~

- u 3 <f; 5 "3/8" 4

II

I I

a t13 30 50 100 200
I

"r\

' \

~

I \

\

\

I

'

Effingham County SpN-1

111

II I

I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

COARSGERAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

I

I __ ,.,.,... 9.-- ,.. I

- - ... ~r-

I

...... .._,_

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

- -

I

0.001

*

- JA'\.i .

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 70. Size Distribution Curve of Sample SpN-1.

CD Ul

I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
Gw 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
.Lz..L. 40
uwa: 30
w Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 " 314':.-s "3/B" 4 - 13. 1..6 3D 50 100 200

II

I' I II

II

!""

I

"'~

\

' ~

\

\
\ \

1\

\

~

Effingham County SpS-1a

' '

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I I
I I

1000
I

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARSGERAIVEL FINECOARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

I

I ,...r'\.nnl ~C" I

l"""nA\Ir-1

I

~AI\.H"'\

I

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C'll T

I

0.001

I*

1"""'1 AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 71. Size Distribution Curve of Sample SpS-1a.

40 Ga

I

100
90
.... 80 J:
(.!'
iij 70
i:
> 60
ell
ffi 50
z
u. 40
12
(wJ 30 a: w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 .. 3/4':~5 "3/8"' 4

~

II

II I

II

_8 16 30 50 100 200

'

I

1 1
1

~h

1\

I

' \

I

\

l

I

Et_

\

I

\

I
I
Effingham County SpS-1b

\
\ ~ \ I
\
'

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

I

I "'_..,,., .,-,.. I

-r"''o A.,,....

I

il""Aiun

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

.ro "T

I

0.001

"

~" AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 72. Size Distribution Curve of Sample SpS-1b.

.C..D..

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

a" 1.5 .. 3 :w5 "J/8 " 4

I

1 I

II

1

a 16 30 50 100 200

qJ" ~I

I

q
90

1- 80 :I:
"w70
f:
> 60
a:l
ffi 50
2 u.. 40
1z -
0wa: 30
w
~ 20
10

I
Effingham County Mel-1a
Il l I I I III I I I I I I 111 11 1 I I l

-~
\
' ~ \ (~ 1\ \ ' ~ ~ "

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,...,-.-..n ~ ~ I

-r"'IIA\H""I

I

,ro.Aa.ln

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~~~ -r

I

0.001

*

r>l AV

1**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 73. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mel-1a.

CD CD

I

100
90
1- 80 l:
(!l
jjj 70
:5:
> 60
lXI
fzfi 50
LL 40
1z uaww: 30
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 .?r5"3/8'" 4

I

r

I

a 1 6 30
~ !)II
1"11

50 100

200
I

R ;\

I

1\ I

lb

1

~

1

' I

l\ [

~ I

........

Effingham County Mel-1b

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

f'nAcc~RAVEL ME~~~~D r-----~---------.------~~~-----.----------~Mn------------,----------------------------, *

COBBLES

t:IM<=

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

BOULDERS

..... -,....~ .... ~

,......, A,, .... ,

very

SAND

coarse I coarse lmecfoum

ro.....

r- ,.,v

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 74. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mel-1b.

(ID (ID

I

100

90

1- 80
wcJ;:, 70
i:
> 60
Ill

ffi
z

50

LL 40
12
Cwa:J 30
w c:L 20

10

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 . ~. 5 "3/8" 4

_a 16 30 50 100 200

I

I I

I

1

~

I

H
~
\
I(
\
' ~ \ ~ \ \

Effingham County Kil-1

1000

100

COBBLES

""'"'<'"'

BOULDERS

- . - .......... r-ro

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

ME~I~~D

FINE

-- -

lf"AII.o..-...

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
...,,,_.

,... .,._,

* **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 7 5. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Kil-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3 " 1.5 .. 3~".5"3/8" 4

8 16 30 50 100 200

II

11 I

I'

I

(!)

I

II '

I'

90

I,

1- 80
~
0 jjj 70
i:
>r::c 60

1\

' I
,\

I
I

\

I

Q

I I

ffi 50
z

1\ \

LL 40

1z -

(w.) 30

g....

a:
w I:L. 20

Effingham County Lee-1

\
~
i\
~,

10 I I I I I I

I ll I I I I I I

IIII I I I I l_

l _ '----

_L__

_

I

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

I

I

,...l""''t.nno r-l"'

I very

GRAVEL

very I

r"AI\ 1 1""\

I

BOULDERS

coarse I coarse )medium! fine I fine

O.Q1

SILT OR CLAY

~ tl ..,..

I

0.001

*

l"' l AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 76. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Lee-1.

--0 I

100

90

1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
!:
>m 60
ffi 50
2
LL 40
1z -
uwa: 30
w a. 20

10

I I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3 14''.5 "3/8" 4 - 8. 1...6 30 50 100 200

[I

I

I

I

ilD i--1'11

I

I
I I

Effingham County Edn-1

II II

I II

II I I

I II

I
1\
\
1

I \

\

' I (

1\

\

\

I

\

~
\
~

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.,

0.01

0.001

~----~---------r----~G~RA~V71E~L--G-R=~A~IN~~=S=I~Z~ES~IAN~NM~DIL~L~I~M~-E-T-E-R-rS------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~ *

COBBLES

l"'r\J\OCC

CI~IC

f'r\J\CCC

MEDIUM

FINE

l BOULDERS I~E~B~~~~" ~-~';!.'!_1------~.'7~L., __ 1 ~~~~ ~-~':~'!-1--m~l~o~l .,__ 1 ~~.':~ lcoarselrTIOOi.,S~~~ine

I I"'IAV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 77. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Edn-1.

-0
N

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

-

,,-- " 3/~'.S "3/8" 4

II I

II

,, 8 16 30 50 100 200 I

g

-

90

~ 80
weJ:, 70
:5:
> 60
al
ffi 50
2
LL 40
~
2 (w.) 30
a:
w a.. 20

I
I
Effingham County Edn-2

10 Wlll_l

I I

1111 II

_illW _U__l __illj_ I I

I 1\
\ I
1
I
\
II \ I I
\
I\ \ I
l
1\
-~

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

~-------------,----~~~~~~G~R~A~IN--S-IZ-E~SIN~AM~NI~LD,L-IM--E-T-E-R-S----r-----~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~----~ *

COBBLES

/Y'II\OCC

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

.... - ..... .-..,....,....

--~or-o

r"AII.Ir""\

r"IIT

,..41\V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figute 78. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Edn-2.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5" 3/< ",5"3/8" 4 . 8 16 30 50 100 200

I

I' I

I
~

90

1- 80

:I:
0w 70

!:
> 60

I

al

ffi
z

50

LL 40

1z -

....
0 w

awu: 30
w
~ 20

Effingham County Bri-1

' ~ "14. 1\ \
1\ b
"

10

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

COARSGERAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

1

I I ,...1""'\.rH"''II r-to

BOULDERS

r-~A\H""I

I

C'AI\.Ir\

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll T"

I

0.001

*

,...., t\.V

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 79. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bri-1.

...
0
~

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100
90
..... 80 J:
w ~ 70
i:
> 60
Cll
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
uaw: 30
w a.. 20
10
1000

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 .. 3 .r:. 5"3/8'' 4

II

II I

II

8. 16 30 50 100 200

~

I.

I

II

1'-

' 1

I

I

I

I

I

Effingham County MSW-2

1\ 1\

-1\. ~ l"""l

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0 .001

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND ME.DIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

*

l BOULDERS I,_<:~B~~~~" ~-~'!.~'!- '------ ~~-~~L.,__ 1 ~e_;y ~-~'!.~~- '-M-.a ,~,9,1 ;M , ~~_;y Icoarse IITllkliuS~~~ine

[ ~ "" I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 80. Size Distribution Curve of Sample MSW-2.

Sample designation

Table 12: Effingham County Sample Data

Depth1 Sample (Feet) type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

SpN -1

5

auger

5

1

no

0

SpS-la

6

auger

6

1

no

0

SpS-lb

6- 10 auger

4

1

no

0

Mel-la

4

auger

4

2

no

2

Mel-lb

4-7

auger

3

2

no

0

Kil-l

7

auger

7

1

no

0

Lee-1

7

auger

7

3

no

0

Edn-1

4

trench

4

3

no

2

Edn-2

12

auger

12

3

no

2

Bri-1

6

auger

6

1

no

0

MSW-2

4

auger

4

1

no4

2

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.

2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.

3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate

deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate).

For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures

section of the text.,



4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.

105

EMANUEL COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Emanuel County lies within the Vidalia Uplands District of the Coastal Plain Province. The surficial sediments are derived mainly from the Altamaha Formation, with minor amounts of sediments being derived from the Hawthorne Group and the Barnwell Group.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 197-199) reported that gravel and coarse sand deposits are present in terrace deposits along the Ohoopee River (Fig. 81, Ts-14). Extensive deposits of fine-to medium-grained sand, ranging from 10 to 15 feet thick, are present along the east sides of the Canoochee and Little Canoochee Rivers. The sand at Pendleton Creek (Fig. 81, Ts-15) was used for traction sand in Teas's time.
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 373-378) described five active sand pits in Emanuel County (Fig. 81, CSRA 4,9,11,12,14); all five are small and produce locally used sand. There is one small gravel pit (Fig. 81, CSRA 5). Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 373-378) also mentioned the presence of 3 inactive gravel pits (Fig. 81, CSRA 6, 7, 8) and 3 inactive sand pits (Fig. 81, CSRA 10, 13, 15). Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 386-388) noted 4 gravels prospects (Fig. 81, CSRA 35, 36,37, 38) and 2 sand prospects (Fig. 81, CSRA, 38, 39).
Present Study
The soil type used in targeting sites for sampling was #24 which is located along the eastern sides of major creeks in Emanuel County. The geomorphic areas targeted are large sand dunes along the northeast sides of the Ohoopee and Canoochee Rivers.
Nine samples were collected from eight localities: Nor-1, Adr-1. Sti-2, Nun-1, Del-1, TSE-1, TSE-2a, TSE2b, Sti-1 ( Figs. 81-90, Table 13). These samples from Emanuel County are from dune deposits with the exception of samples TSE-2a and TSE-2b, which are from a probable terrace deposit.
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33. All the samples analyzed were too well-sorted and lack enough coarse material for use as construction aggregate.
Mining Activity
There has been no recent mining activity in Emanuel County. Some small pits were described by

Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 373-378).
Summary Evaluation
The construction aggregate potential for fine aggregate production in Emanuel County is low.
EVANS COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Evans County lies within portions of two physiographic districts of the Coastal Plain Province, the Vidalia Upland District and the Barrier Island Sequence District. The surficial sediments of the county are derived from the Altamaha Formation and, to a lesser extent, the Cypresshead Formation.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 200) noted the occurrence of a medium-grained sand deposit approximately 50 acres in extent (Fig. 91, Ts-16). Teas also noted sand deposits on the east side of Canoochee Creek.
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas was the Kershaw series, which is present on the east side of the Canoochee River in east central and northwestern Evans County. Geomorphic features targeted in Evans County were dune fields located on the eastern side of the Canoochee River in the northwestern portion of the county. Three samples representing 3 sites in Evans County were sieved: DCr-4, Dai-1, Clx1 (Figs. 91-94, Table 14). One sample (Cix-1) is representative of the dune sands of the area.
Evaluation
None of the samples pass ASTM standard C-33. While the samples are excellent in so far as the amount of material passing the #200 sieve, they are generally too fine grained and too well sorted to be considered as a source for fine aggregate.
Mining Activity
Currently there is only one active aggregate operator (Fig. 91, #887) in Evans County. Evans Concrete of Claxton mines concrete and masonry aggregate by dredge from man-made ponds. The material is pumped in a slurry to classifiers and is then transported by truck to markets within a 50 mile radius. The company owns 8 acres and the deposit is being mined to a depth of 27 feet. Annual production is between 10,000 and 50,000 tons.

106

I
,/
/
;
/
/ '
;
/
;

\ I \ \ \ \ \ \
*CSRA 36\
' ' )' "'-. ' ' ' 7 I I I

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
Abandoned pit, product unknown
* Central Savannah River Authority study locations
11 Deposit sampled or discussed in text

N
t

0
~
H
0

5 Miles
E?l F+'3
H H
5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 81. Map of Emanuel County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

107

I ....
0 00

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 " 3/4". 5 "3/8" 4

I

II I

I

8 1 6 30 50 100 200

I

<14

I

90
.... 80 ::t:
w<.!l 70

~
I '
1\
\

!:

> 60
al

\

ffi 50
2

' I

.zu..... 40
(aww,:) 30
~ 20

Emanuel County Nor-1

\
\
\

I

10

1\
Q.......

--

-

--

-~

-

-

I _L -

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

r--------------.-----.~~~~~~--~----!s~A~N~D~----------r-----~S~I~LT~O~R~C~L~A~Y~----~

COBBLES

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

.....,_...,..,, .,..,..

_,... A~lr-0

l"'Aal-

very fine

I'll~

,.... A-

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figura 82. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Nor-1.

i- I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3fi~"c5 "J/8 '' 4

rr rr

II

_a
1

16 30 50 100 200

<ll

r

90

1

1- 80
:I:
"w 70
s:

, l
ll

I

> 60
aJ

,1\_
1\ I

I

ffi 50

I

z

LL. 40

1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w a. 20
10

Emanuel County Adr-1
I I

1 '

1

I

'

\-,

l

I

1000

100

10

1_0

Q_l

0_01

0_001

----------------~------,G~R~A~V~E~LG-R-~A~I~N~~S~I:Z_E~~SIN~A~MNI~LDL,I-M--E-T-E--R-S----_--------~S~IL~T~O~R-C~L~A~Y~-------, *

COBBLES

"""ceo::

"'""

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

...,._..,....,,r-,.,

,.....-..aor-

r-AA.Ir"''o

r-II"T"

r"'-IAV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 83. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Adr-1.

- I 0

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

-

.. " 3f~~5 ..3 /.S.. 4

I

II I

8 16 ao 50 100 200

,.._

I

~ II

~
90

1- 80 J:
"w 70

, ~
1\

I

i:
>co 60
ffi 50
2 u. 40
1z -
UuaJ: 30 !-
UJ
Q. 20

I
Emanuel County Sti-2

, \
\
I

~

1\

\

I

\

\

I

I
10

1\
\., .....

I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

O.Q1

0.001

r----C-O-B-B-L-E-S -----~-1"-'1-""-\1-\o-c~~R~AV~EL-"-' ..-'"--.--------M-E-;~I~~~-D------F-IN-E---,--------S-I-L-T--O-R--C-L-A-Y--------1*

BOULDERS

.-.,.._...,...,. - -

_ ...., ~-

ro.AII.I-

...... "'P

...... A""-'

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 84. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Sti-2.

............ I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3 " t.S .. 3~f:.-5"3/-8" 4

I

I' I

I'

8 1. 6 30 5 0 100 200

I

(IJ

I

90

1

.... 80
~
w(.!J 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
.zL..L. 40
(wJ 30 a: w
Q. 20
10
1000
I

\ \
I
l
1\
\
(

Emanuel County Nun-1

\
\
\
\
l
' 1\
-~

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I ~OARSE I GRAIVEL FINECOARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

I

I ,...--.,..,..11 r ~ I

r'r")A't~l

I

CA~U"\

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll T

I

0.001
I*

f"'l AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 85. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Nun-1.

........
N

I

100

90

1- 80 e:I,::, jjj 70
i:
> 60
al

ffi 50
z

LL 40

1z -

wua:

30

~
I I

w

a.. 20 ~

I I
10 llll

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3/4f'r5"3/IJ" 4

I

II I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

' I'll

I

!"'

Emanuel County Del-1

I I

I II

I I

Ill

l\

'it.
1\

' i

I

1\

\

\

' 1\

I \

~

'-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0 .01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

~---------------,------,G~R~A~vT.E~L--~~~~----------s.sA~NNDo-------------r-------~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~ *

COBBLES

"'"'"oc~::

"''"'"'

MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,.._.....,...,, r-ro I

BOULDERS

--..,~ r-

I

r>Aill'"'

I

,.. ..,.

f

,...... AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 86. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Del-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

90

1- 80 :I: 0 jjj 70
i:
m> 60

ffi
z

50

3." 1.5 .. 3 ifr5"3/8" 4

I

II I II

II

8, t 30 50 100 200

1 ~""'

I

=t

, l
1\

' \

' -

I

LL 40

1z -

........

(wa.:) 30
w

Emanuel County TSE-1

w

c.. 20

10

I
I

II
I I

II I I
II II

\
' ~ '

1000

100

10

1.0

0,1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

*

I

I

,..."n.rur-co

I

BOULDERS

r"' n A \ H""" I

I

C'A.fi.U"\

I

~liT

I

~ IAV

I **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 87. Size Distribution Curve of Sample TSE-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100

90

I I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5" 3 ~.5"3/8" 4

'II

II I

II

8 1__6 30 50 100 200

~

I

II I

I

-

1- 80

h

:I:
(!'
jjj 70
i:
> 60
Ill

1\

I -

''\

I

ffi 50
z

I

l

[\

LL 40 I

\

1-

I

\I

I

2

-~

(wJ 30

a:

w
0.. 20

I

Emanuel County TSE-2a

~

~

I

"'

10

1000

100

CO8 8 LES

BOULDERS

_ _ ,.... .... ,~,...

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--or-'1

rt<A .. I,.,_

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,.... ,,......

0.001

*

I"" IAV o

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 88. Size Distribution Curve of Sample TSE-2a.

......
en

I

100

90

1- 80 :I: C!' jjj 70
i:
>r:c 60

ffi
z

50

LL. 40
1z -
uaw: 30 -
w Q.. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

-- --- - 1.5 " 3/4". 5"3/8" 4 - . -

[I

IT I

1

1

-- -I

II

I""(

' ~

~

I

I

~

I ' I
Emanuel County TSE-2b

" I r\
~
1\.
'~
' ~
It--
I

10

1000

100

I I

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FI NE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

....,.,.,...,.....,, _,..

...... - ... ~ -

"'"' -"' ll._ j -

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
oP"II '"I"'"

0.001

*

J""L I A V ,

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 89. Size Distribution Curve of Sample tSE-2b.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3/4/'.5"3/8" 4

II

II I

II

8 1_6 30 50 100 200

-

I

II

90 I I

1- 80 :L
(!;!
jjj 70
i:
>ca 60

ffi 50
z

I
LL 40

1z -

-

w(.) 30

a:

I

w

Emanuel County Sti-1

~

Q. 20

~
1\
' ' \
' 1\ ,

10 1000

~

-

-

'

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

COBBLES

BOULDERS

_..._.,...,. ~ .... ,..

COARSGE RAVEL FINE
,....roo. ao~.-,

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

.... AIIit.l""-

SILT OR CLAY
,..II..,...

*

,..1 A.V ~

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 90. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Sti-1.

Table 13: Emanuel County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Nor-1

20

trench

20

3

no

2

Adr-1

8

trench

8

2

no

2

Sti-2

4

auger

4

4

no

2

Nun-1

4

auger

20

4

no

2

Del-l

6

trench

10

2

no

2

TSE-1

4

trench

10

1

no

2

TSE-2a

6

trench

6

1

no

2

TSE-2b

6-13 auger

7

I

no

I

Sti-I

7-I/2 auger

7-I/2

4

no

I

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.

117

\

\

I
\

i

...........

/

' ~n

/

EXPLANATION ........._ __________../'

Sample locality () Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer

0 &=3
H
o

J~

5 ~les F"""'d

H H 5 Kilometers

Inactive producer or one producing fill material

... Abandoned pit, product unknown
0 Deposit sampled or discussed In text

Refer to Plate 1 tor overall construction material potential of thls county.

Figure 91. Map of Evans County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

118

......
G

I

100
90
1- 80 :I: 0 jjj 70
i:
> 60
a:!
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
uaw: 30
wa.. 20
10 I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 (~5"3/8" 4

II

II I

II

_a

-, Hi 30 50 100 200 I Ir I I

' ~

I

I \

i

I

(

1' \
\
\
' I

Evans County DCr-1

I I

1111

\
\ I
\
~
'

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I --nru r-ro I

,....noA\Ir""l

I

C " A k U"\

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~H T

I

0.001

*

,...J J\V

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 92. Size Distribution Curve of Sample DCr-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 " 3/4".EI "3/8" 4 . 8

II

II I

II

1

16 3J> 50 100 200

~ Ill!

I

90
1- 80 J:
"w 70
5:
c>c 60

H

1\
1\ ~

1

I

1\

I
I

~

r

ffi 50
2

LL. 40

1-

2

~
N 0

wua: 30
w Q. 20

Evans County Dai-1

10 I I

Jl I I

Ill II

I ll

I

\

I

\

' l
1\

\

~

'

1000

100

COBBLES
......- ... no,...,.
BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

- M 11. 1. 1 r- 1

~Afl l n

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
COli -r

0.001

f"" l /\ V

* **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 93. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Dai-1.

-- I N

100
90
1- 80 :J:
w ~ 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
u.. 40 12 (wJ 30
a:
w a. 20
10
1000

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3 ".5"3/~" 4

II

I

I

8 1_6 30 50 100 200

-, "'-

I

:'II~

, ~
\ I

I

I

I

\ \ ,

Evans County Clx-1

' I I

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

-..- ............ - -

- - ... -

,... ... . r-..

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Dl
SILT OR CLAY
...... ....

0.001

*

,..,., ~

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 94. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Clx-1.

Table 14: Evans County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

DCr-4

10 trench

20

1

no

0

Dai-1

10 auger

10

2

no

2

Clx-1

14 auger

20

2

no

2

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses.of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
122

Evans Concrete has operated 4 pits in Evans County. These inactive pits are as follows: (1) Mine #111 (Fig. 91) produced concrete and masonry sand which was mined by dredge and transported by truck to markets within a 45 mile radius. This pit was mined to a depth of 27 feet, permitted for 37 acres, and production was between 50,000 and 100,000 tons per year. (2) Mine #639 (Fig. 91) produced fill and masonry sand which was mined using a front-end loader and then transported by truck to markets within a 45 mile radius. This pit was mined to a depth of 10 feet, permitted for 5 acres, and produced less than 10,000tons annually. (3) Mine#627 (Fig. 91) produced concrete sand which was mined using a cutterhead dredge and then transported by truck to markets within a 45 mile radius. This pit was mined to a depth of 18 feet, permitted for 35 acres, and produced between 10,000 and 30,000 tons per year. (4) Mine #814 (Fig. 91) produced concrete and masonry sand which was mined using a cutterhead dredge and then transported by truck to markets within a 45 mile radius. This pit was mined to a depth of 25 feet, permitted for 11 acres, and produced between 10,000 and 50,000 tons per year.
The Daisy Sand Mine (Fig. 91, #488) of Evans County was permitted for 2 acres, reclamation is complete and no further information such as products, markets or mining data is available.
Eason Contracting Company of Statesboro operated an 8 acre sand pit in Evans County (Fig. 91, #148). The reclamation is complete but no further information such as products, markets or mining data is available.
Summary Evaluation
The dune areas east of the Canoochee River, such as the deposit represented by Clx-1, contain huge reserves, but, unfortunately, the uses for this sand are limited due to the poor size gradation.
The potential for fine aggregate production in Evans County is considered to be low to moderate. The floodplain of the Canoochee River probably has the best potential for aggregate production within the county.
GLASCOCK COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Glascock County lies within two districts of two physiographic provinces. These districts are the Fall Line Hills of the Coastal Plain Province and the Washington Slope of the Piedmont Province. The surficial sediments of the county are derived from the Barnwell Group and the Oconee Group; and the gran-

ites of the Piedmont.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 200) noted that one small sand pit near Gibson (Fig. 95, Ts-17) provided concrete sand for local use only. Hurst, et al. (1966) also mentioned a small locally used pit near Gibson (Fig. 95, CSRA16), but listed the primary use as fill dirt.
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting areas was #32, which is present in the interfluve areas. Four samples were taken from two sites: Gbs-1a, Gbs-1b, Gbs-2a and Gbs-2b (Figs. 95-99, Table 15).
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33; however, two samples (Gbs-1 a and Gbs-2a) could be upgraded. The others, Gbs-1b and Gbs-2b, have too great a percentage of fine-grained material. Sample Gbs-1a represents a five foot thick zone of surficial sand that covers an area of approximately 10 acres. Gbs-2a represents a 3-V2 foot thick deposit of fine-to medium-grained sand that is also the deposit mentioned by Teas (1921, p. 200).
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Glascock County.
Summary Evaluation
The two sites represented by samples Gbs-1a and Gbs-2a are too small for any use other than local use and would require processing. Overall the potential for fine aggregate production in Glascock County is low.
GLYNN COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Glynn County lies within the Barrier Island District of the Coastal Plain Province. The surficial sediments are derived from the Satilla Formation and the barrier island deposits.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 201) stated, "No commercial deposits of sand are operated in the county, nor were any deposits noted likely to be of commercial value."

123

, /
/
,

/
/
- / "'
/ "'

N
t

H H 0

H 5 Kilometers

\
I
~ '
EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
* Central Savannah River Authority study locations
D Deposit sampled or discussed in text

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 95. Map of Glascock County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.
124

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3 ~. 5 "3/.8" 4

II

I

I

6 ,

16 30 50 100 200

en~'-

I

90

1- 80 J:
w(!' 70
!:
> 60
al

ffi
z

50

LL. 40

~

~

I

' I
I

I

I I

\

'll
1\

\

1

\

1z -

...
N Ut

(w.) 30
a:
w Q. 20

Glascock County Gbs-1a

10

II 11

I II

~
1\
~
\."

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

~-------------,------~M7.G~R~A~IN~~S~IZ~E~~ISNAM~NI~LD~LI-M-E-T-E-R--S---r-------~SI~L~T~O~R~C~LA~Y~------l *

COBBLES

r-nAoc<=

MED IUM

FINE

BOULDERS

,....,... ... r"'o, ~,..

-r"''A\Ir"'"l

C'l\fl.lr'\

C"ll T

1""'1 AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 96. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Gbs-1a.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3 ?.5"3'8" 4

I

,I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 20.0

1

(Q

I

90

b. .

.... 80 J:
w ~ 70
!:
>m 60

1 I

\ ,

"1\

I

_\

I

1

ffi 50
z

.L.L.. 40
z

-1\)
~

wua: 30
w
0.. 20

Glascock County Gbs-1b

l 1\ \
'1\,..

10

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

I

I ..... _ ....... , r-,.. 1

- - Atlr'"l

I

C"AIIUf"'\

I

BOULDERS

O.Dl

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll ~

1

0.001



...... 1\V

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System *"Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 97. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Gbs-1b..

...
1'\) ~

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

_3" 1.5 .. 3/<f :.5 "3 /.8" 4

I

il '

8 16 30 50 100 200

~

I

90

1- 80 :I:
w(!' 70
!:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
u... 40
1z -
(w,) 30
a:
w Q. 20
10

Glascock County Gbs-2a

I ll

II I

11 1111

III ll l lilllli l l 1111 11

1\ ~
l
, l
1\

1\

I

\

(

\

\ \

1\
~

J~

'--

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I I coARS~R~vE\INE lcoARSEI ME;I~~o 1 FINE

I

I - 1""\. no ~~ I

".-,Aur::

I

CA~In

I

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~u T

I

0.001

I*

f""l AV

I* *

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 98. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Gbs-2a.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100
90
1- 80
:t
"jjj 70
i:
> 60
ID

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 .. 3A~".5"3/8" 4

'I

II I

II

B 16 30 50 100 200

I l"o

I'~

I

~

r\.

~

' 'I~ I

ffi 50

2

-

u. 40

1-

2

-~
01

w
(J

30

a:

w

a.. 20

Giascock County Gbs-2b

10

1000

100

COBBLES

1

I 1"\_..,, J r-ro. I

BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-r""tA\.Ir-1

I

C>AII.U"'\

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

,.. .. .,..

I

0.001

*

,.. . AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 99. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Gbs-2b.

Table 15: Glascock County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Gbs-1a

5

trench

5

3

no4

1

Gbs-1b

5-11

trench

6

3

no

1

Gbs-2a

3-1/2

auger

3-1/2

3

no4

2

Gbs-2b 3-1/2-8 auger

4-1/2

3

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text. 4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.
129

Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas of Glynn County were the Olustee and Fripp series. Olustee is generally found adjacent to local creeks and rivers; whereas, Fripp is present along the coast as dune sand. Three samples representing 3 deposits from Glynn County were sieved: Ste-1, BrW-1, Bla-1 (Figs. 100-103, Table 16).
Evaluation
None of the samples sieved passed ASTM standard C-33. All materials tested were too fine grained or too clayey to be utilized for construction materials.
Mining Activity
Currently, there are no active pits producing sand for construction aggregate in Glynn County. The following operators once produced sand; although, currently, the sand is used for fill material or the product is unknown.
H.S. McDonald and Sons of Brunswick (Fig. 100, #141) operated a 10 acre pit in Glynn County. The reclamation of the pit has been completed and the products of the pit are unknown and no further information is available.
McDonald Materials Corporation of Lithonia at one time operated a dredge on the Altamaha River north of Brunswick. No further information as to products or mining data is available.
Road Builders, Incorporated of Lithonia (Fig. 100, #630) operated a 21 acre pit which has since been reclaimed. No further information as to products or mining data is available.
Russell Paulk (Fig. 100, #454) of Brunswick operated a 4 acre pit which has since been reclaimed. Fill sand was the material produced from this pit.
Seaboard Construction Company of Brunswick (Fig. 100, #783) operated a 4 acre pit which has since closed. The only product of this operation was fill material.
The Altamaha Sand Company operated two sand pits in Glynn County, the Mock pit and the Harlem pit. No further information is available as to products or mining data.
Summary Evaluation
The fine aggregate production potential for Glynn County is considered to be low. The only areas which offer any possibilitiesforfine or coarse aggregate production is the bed and floodplain of the Altamaha River.

JEFFERSON COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Most of Jefferson County lies within the Vidalia Upland District. The northern part, and the eastern tip lie in the Fall Line Hills District. The surficial sediments in this county are derived from the Barnwell Group, the Oconee Group and the Altamaha Formation.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 206-208) reported a small locally used deposit (Fig. 104, Ts-18) of sand; a small sand deposit (Fig. 104, Ts-19) with gravels; a small deposit of gravelly sand near Stapleton, (Fig. 104, Ts-20), and a small gravel deposit between Wrens and Spread (Rg. 104, Ts-21).
Hurst, et al., (1966 p. 379) reported the presence of two inactive gravel pits (Fig. 104, CSRA 17, CSRA 18). Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 389-390) mentioned two small gravel prospects (Fig. 104, CSRA 40, CSRA-41) that have not been worked.
Present Study
The soil associations used in targeting sites for sampling were #24 and #32, which are found along the east sides of major rivers and creeks. Ten samples were taken from seven sites: LoS-3c, LoS-3b, BoP-3, LoS-1, LoS-3a, LoS-2a, LoS-2b, BoP-2, KyP-1, KyP2, (Figs. 104-114, Table 17).
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33; however, the deposit represented by samples LoS-3a, 3b, and 3c could be economically profitable to mine. The sample LoS-3a represents 10 feet of probably unusable overburden, but the lower 8-1/2 feet (represented by samples LoS-3b and 3c) consist of a fine- to medium-grained sand that could be usable as fine aggregate. The areal extent of this deposit is approximately 15 acres. Sample BoP-3 represents an 8 foot thick deposit of fine- to mediumto coarse-grained well-sorted sand. The areal extent of this deposit is approximately 40 acres.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Jefferson County.
Summary Evaluation
There are two deposits in Jefferson County, (LoS-3 and BoP-3) that could be suitable for local use.

130

I
I
\
I

N
t
Uttle St. Simons I.

EXPLANATION
Sample locality Inactive producer or
one producing fill material .t.. Abandoned pit, product unknown
D Deposit sampled or discussed ln text

06;;;a:::::::~;;;;;;;;;c::::eEd=i5 MiIes

H H H

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 100. Map of Glynn County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

131

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3." 1.5"' 3 ~"..5"3/a" 4

'II

I' I

jl

a 16 30 50 100 200

I

I

1\

90

\
\

t- 80 :I:

\ I

(!)
ijj 70
s:

l

I

[\ .

'

> 60
Ill

' I
{

ffi 50

I I

~

z

LL 40

1z -

...
w
N

(wJ 30
a:
w
a.. 20

Glynn County Ste-1

I \

1

I

1

I

I

10

I

I

L_ _ I -

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

~,.. .-.-r"'lor"'lol

-L.....- --

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-r""''IA'llr-1

ii""Aill'"'

O.Q1
SILT OR CLAY
1"'11 ,_

0.001

*

- AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 101. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Ste-1

I ....
w w

100
90
1- 80 ::I:
w(,:, 70
:s:
> 60
CD
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
wu 30
0:
w
Q. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

a_" 1.5 .. 3/4':.5 "318.. 4 .8

I

I' I I' I I'

1

I I

16 30 50 100 200

II) .. ~

I

"~D.

\

\

~

I

\

~

\

, \
\

Glynn County BrW-1

10

I

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

..... - ............. .-""

--..........

,... . . . . r""'.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
..........

0.001

*

-.......

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 102. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BrW-1

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100

90

.... 80 ::t
(,!)
jjj 70
25:
>m 60

ffi
z

50

u.. 40

1z -

~ 30

....
w -'="

aaw.:. 20

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

3" 1.5 u 3 ~:t''.5"3/8" 4

II

II I

II

8 16 30 50 100 200
I ro.....
"'~f\.

\

1\

I\

I

ct

I I

\

\

l

I '

I
Glynn County Bla-1

10

Ill Ill

I Ill I ill

Ill II Ill I I

I I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...,... .... r"'ll r-,...

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

-r-1 a'1r-1

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

C""Aio.lf""\

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
l""l t "T'

0.001

*

f""'l 1\V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 103. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bla-1

Sample designation

Table 16: Glynn County Sample Data

Depth1 Sample (Feet) type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passmg ASTMC-33

Rating3

Ste-1

8

auger

1-1/4

2

no

0

BrW-1

14-1/2 auger

14-1/2

1

no

0

Bla-1

8

auger

8

1

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
135

3300'

N
t

"'\

I

I EXPLANATION

I
r

Sample locality

I

() Teas' sample locality

I

I

* Central Savannah River Authority

study locations

0 Deposit sampled or discussed In text
I
)

\

\
I
)

I
I
I
I

\

OE:=;r:::=:E;:::::;c:=:J=~5 Miles

' ' ',csRAj1

H F3 E3

0

5 Kilometers

' ........... _ /,.

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construct ion material potential of this county.

Figure 104. Map of Jefferson County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

136

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

- 1.5 II 3/4'. 5 "3-/r-'"

, I

II I

- . - -- -- -- ---

l

I

"'-"

90

'

1- 80 :I:
(.!'

1
,')

jjj 70
i:

\

>m 60

ffi
z

50

' ,~
1\

I

'

LL 40

1z -

...
w......

w
(J

30

a:

w

Q. 20

Jefferson County LoS-3c

10 I

I I

I III

l
1\
\
\
'I ~ ~

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I -1""'\.MMI r-c- I

,....,1\,tr:::l

I

CAIP\.Ir\

I

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

Cit T

I

0.001

,... . ltV

I **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 105. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-3c.

..w
GD

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"w 70
i:
c>a 60

3 " 1.5 .. 3/4'.5"3/8" 4

I

I' I

8 16 30 50 100 200
I
"" H
~
I\

I

1\

I

I

\

I

I

\

I

\

ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w I:L 20

--

I

Jefferson County LoS-3b

--

--

----

l

1\

\

~

\

\

L--

I ~.

10

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

1000

100

I

COBBLES

I

---- --
BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

I

SAND

ICOARSEI MEDIUM

I
FINE

- --

.......... -

0.01
SILT OR CLAY ....... -

0.001

I*

,..., .. .. ..

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 106. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-3b.

...
cwo

I

100

90

1- 80 J:
w ~ 70
s:
>en 60
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
uaw: 30
w Q. 20

10

I I
I I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 31('.5 "3/8" 4

I

II I

8 16 30 50 100 200

--/_

I

I I
I

Jefferson County BoP-3

II I

111111

II I

111111

~
\
' ~
1\
\
~
1\ \
\
Ito
"-.......,

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

ro-n.no r ro

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

,...._1\,,,...,

C"AJirt.U'"\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

O.Dl
SILT OR CLAY
C'll 'T

0.001

*

f""'l AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 107. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BoP-3.

...
8

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3 ~'.5"3/8" 4

I'

fl I

fl

8 16 3.0 50 100 200

I

v

I II

90

1- 80 J: C!J jjj 70
i:
> 60
lXI

ffi
z

50

u.. 40

1z -
awuw: 30
c.. 20

10

Jefferson County

1

I I

Illll l lWllll l

I
I
LoS-1
llllll
illillll_l _

~
I
I
r
l [
)

I

\ _\

f\. u.....

--

-

-

1000

100

COBBLES



,..,....~ .... r-~ 1

BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

,....,..,.A,,r-.

r

C"1\,.. .,

1

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

"----0.01

SILT OR CLAY

,r"'o ll...,..

r

0.001

*

,.... AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 108. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-1.

..~.... I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
2 LL. 40 12 (w.) 30
a:
w
Q. 20
10

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3/<f'.5"3/8" 4

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

I' I

II

I
l

I I

, ' "'1\ \

I

l

1\

t

' I

Jefferson County LoS-3a

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,..._"""'' ,...,...

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-nA\lr-1

C"A"-.t n

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C" ll T

0.001

*

1""'1 AV

*it

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 10 9. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-3a!.

....
~ Ill)

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3/4'.5"3/8'' 4

I

~I I

I

8 1.6 30 50 100 200

i"o

I

~

90

~r\.

1- 80 :I:
"w 70
i:
> 60
al

\
\
' 1\ ~ \I

ffi 50
z

zu.
1-

40

I
~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~ ~__,
i-

I

w(.) 30

aw :

i

Jefferson County LoS-2a

'--

[

Q.. 20

10

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

- - - - r"'"""'

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--A~r-o

~.........

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01 SILT OR
,..,, ..,...

0.001

,...., A'\J

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 110. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-2a.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100
90
.... 80 :I:
wt!' 70
i:
m> 60

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 '" 3/~'. 5"3/8 " 4

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

I I

I

~

I

~""

~

~

-

~

I

........

ffi 50
z

LL 40

1z -

....
""(,)

(waJ: 30
w a.. 20

J etterson County LoS-2b

10

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

1"\-r.no ~~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-~ " ' ' . - '

~1\llo.lf""\

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
C'll "T'

0.001

*

f"'l AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 111. Size Distribution Curve of Sample LoS-2b.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

-

-- II 3/<f-'~5 "3/ 8"

4

8 16 30 50 100 200

II

II I

I'

~

I

II

90

R I~

~ 80
J:

' ~

(!:I
jjj 70

\

i:
>m 60

\

I

'\

ffi 50
2

I

I

I

'

I

LL 40

I

~ z

I

-

(w.) 30
a:
w c.. 20

Jefferson County BoP-2

10

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRA VEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

l BOULDERS l,_~?-8~~!:,~.. L-:<:r.~- '------ ~~.':'_5L~ -- o~~!Y I_':':~~-,------~~~~ ' .,__ , ~~!Y Icoarse lmediu~~~ine

[

0.001 *
~ .., I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 112. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BoP-2.

....
~
Ul

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(!'
jjj 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 ~.5"3/8"" 4

[I

I' I

II

8 16 30 50 100 200

~ \Ill

T

~

Ill

~
' \ \ \
\

1\

\

~

\

Jefferson County KyP-1

\

1000
I

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARSGE RAIVEL FINECOARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

BOULDERS

....,_.,..,..., - -

- - At.or-1

~A.Ir""'o

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
'"''',...

0.001

I*

,..., .A-.J

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 113. Size Distribution Curve of Sample KyP-1.

~ Q)

I

100

90

1- 80 :I:
w(.!J 70
!::
m> 60

ffi
z

50

.zL.L... 40
- (w.) 30
a:
w Q.. 20

10

I ll
Ill

-

---

'II

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

. - --

I

I'

-
'

--- --- . - -- - -
t[J

I

i"'h.

II

r\

I

' tl \

\
~

"'
I

I
l

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Jefferson County KyP-2

II II

I I II

I

II II

II II

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

.... - ..... .... . .-,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

- - A"-IP""I

r"A.Ir"'o

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
... II~

0.001

*

1"'1 A~

......

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System "*Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 114. Size Distribution Curve of Sample KyP-2.

Table 17: Jefferson County Sample Data

Sample

Depth1

designation (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2
thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

LoS-3c

13- 18-1/2 auger

5-1/2

1

no4

2

LoS-3b

10-13

auger

3

1

no4

1

BoP-3

8

auger

8

1

no4

2

LoS-1

3

auger

3

1

no

1

LoS-3a

10

auger

10

1

no

0

LoS-2a

2-1/2

auger

2-1/2

1

no

0

Los-2b

2-1/2- 5 auger

2-1/2

1

no

0

BoP-2

7

auger

8

1

no

0

KyP-1

10

trench 10

1

no

0

KyP-2

4

trench 4

1

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.

147

~------
/
/ "'
I
I
I
I
\
\
\ \ \ \ \ ' " '
EXPLANATION

\ .........

I

I
I

N
t

---?> - * CSRA 20 0

5 Miles E3

H H Fl

0

5 Kilometers

Sample locality
Abandoned pit, product unknown
* Central Savannah River Authority study locations
[3 Deposit sampled or discussed in text

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county .
Figure 115. Map of Jenkins County Srrowlng Localities and Deposits Sampled.

148

If larger deposits similar to that represented by sample LoS-3 are present elsewhere, with less overburden, they could be economical to mine. The potential for fine aggregate produCtion in Jefferson County is low.
JENKINS COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Jenkins County lies within the Vidalia Upland District of the Coastal Plain Province. The surficial sediments of the county are derived from the Altamaha Formation and the Barnwell Group.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 208) noted the occurrence of small gravel lenses in a cross-bedded, clayey sand near Millen (Fig. 115, Ts-22).
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 379) noted an active sand pit south of Magnolia Springs State Park (Fig. 115, CSRA 19). The pit was reported to cover 2 acres and vary from 5 to 15 feet in depth. The section is described as an 18 foot thick bed of medium-grained sand; the lower 15 feet of which contains several bands of quartz pebbles up to 1 inch in diameter (Fig. 116).

Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 380) reported a small (300' X 100' X 7') active sand pit at Bay Gull Branch (Fig. 115, CSRA 20). A cross-section of the pit showed 10 feet of medium-grained sand overlying 6 feet of finegrained, argillaceous, semiconsolidated sandstone.
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 380) reported a small (300' X 150' X 4') sand pit containing fine-grained sand with approximately 10 percent hardpan pebbles (Fig. 115, CSRA 21).
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 390) suggested two areas as possibilities for commercial development of aggregate: "(1) Along the banks and hill sides of Sand Hill Branch between U.S. Highway 25 and Georgia Highway 121. (2) East of the confluence of Sculls Creek and Richardson Creek. A 1/2 mile-wide area of dune-like sand hills, covered with oak and pine, extends to the northeast for about 3 miles."
Present Study
The soil series used were Kershaw and Troup series which are present along the local creeks and rivers throughout the county. Six samples representing five sites in Jenkins County were sieved : Per-1, Mil-1a, Mil-1b, Mil-2, FrP-1, BaB-1 (Fig. 115 and Figs. 117-122, Table 18).

Figure 116. Gravelly zone at CSRA-19, Jenkins County
149

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3 lf'.5"3/8"" 4

8 16 30 50 100 200

T I I

~

I

I

90

I'

I

\..

.... 80
:eI,::,

_3

I

I

I

jjj 70

i:

> 60
IXl

I

~

ffi 50

-z
u.z..... 40

...
Ul 0

uwa: 30
w I:L. 20

Jenkins County Per-1

tl

I

\

' Ill..

~

~

I

10

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

I BOULDERS l ~E9_B~~~~.. ~-~~~'!-~------~-~~L.,__ 1 ~~!:! ~-~~~'!-~------~~~-~~ _. __ 1 ~~~:! lcoarselmeji..;'~~~ine

l

0.001

~ ~ I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 117. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Per-1.

.... C...l.l

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(.!'
jjj 70
i:
> 60
In
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w Q. 20
I
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5" 3!4''.5"3/8" 4

'I

II I [I

6 1 6 30 50 100 200

~ ['1.

I

~"I

,1\ I I

I I

I I

ll

1\

'D ~

,\

\

\

1

Jenkins County Mil-1a

I I

I I I I

\

I

~ -1
~ I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,..,...,..,..,, .-....

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAV EL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - A\.lr-1

~1\~lr"\.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I I
1

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II "T"

0.001

*

,...I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 118. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mil-1a.

I c.......n.,

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70
i:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
uaw: 30
w Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 314".5"3/S" 4

a 1_s so so 100 200

11 111

I'

,_.

T

~

~

I

' \

' ~

\

\

1\
~
'
Jenkins County Mil-1b

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

O.Q1

0.001

~--------------~----~~~~-----.----------~SA~N~D~-----------,----------------------------, *

COBBLES

r-r."o"c

MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

BOULDERS

---- --

.-

a -

.... a&O_

...,, , -

- .........

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 119. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mit-1b.

I ....
Uw l

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
!:
>co 60
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w Q. 20
10 I I I I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

- ---

~ ,.

II

II ' '

"
II

- . - -- -- -- ---

l

I

I

' --u,

, """' ~ I

I

I

I

1 ~ I

Jenkins County Mil-2

I I

II II

I I

IIII

'~ I

' \

I

\

' l

I\

~ ......

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...,.......,...,. r-1""

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-r"'>A,Ir-"1

t"AI'I.In

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
l""ll "T'"

0.001

*

J"'OI .1\V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 120. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mil-2.

....
"A'.

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(!)
jjj 70
s:
> 60
In
ffi 50
z
u.z..... 40
(w.) 30
a:
w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 .. 3 ~'.5"3/8 '' 4

. I

I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

~

I

~

I

Jenkins County FrP-1

l

111 I I

II II I I

Ill I I l lJilll l l l illill l l l --

~

1\

~ I

I

~

1\ 1

I

\

J

\ \
\ \

~ I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL COARSE I FINE

SAN D MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

l I I BOULDERS

1 _<::~8 ~~~~.. ~-~':'L 1 ______ ~~-~3,L., __

1

~~~:!

~-~':~'!-, ----- 1~.~1

., __

~!!rY
1 --

~~ coarse a..JJUSmIL1Tf.Jne

J

0.001

" ' "

J**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 121. Size Distribution Curve of Sample FrP-1.

....
Cl'l Cl'l

I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
"jjj 70
i:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
.zL..L. 40
(wa.:) 30 w
a. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

;3"

. o II
1.0

-
;j

.,II.-JI

-

fl.- - It ;jjlj

4

ts 1 6 ;:so 50 100 zoo

I'

1

I

I

....... ........

~

~

Jenkins County BaB-1

~
I ~
'I\I g \ ' '

1000
I

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I ~OARSE I GRAIVEL FINECOARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

BOULDERS

....,_...,...,. , _ ...,.

---

r'OA .. Ir""'o.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,..,,...,..

0.001

I *

..... IA'-..1'

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 122. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BaB-1.

Table 18: Jenkins County Sample Data

Sample

Depth1

designation (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2

thickness of Priority3

the deposit of body

(Feet)

sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Per-l

10

auger

10

2

no4

1

Mil-la

9

auger

9

2

no

2

Mil-lb 9- 10 auger

1

2

no

0

Mil-2

12

trench

14

2

no4

3

FrP-1

15

trench

15

3

no

2

BaB-1

9

auger

9

2

no

1

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3lncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.

156

Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33 (generally being too fine grained or too well sorted); however, two samples (Per-1, and Mil-2) marginally failed the test and could be upgraded to meet specifications. Sample Per-1 is from a hilltop, represents a deposit 10 feet thick, and has an areal extent of as much as 10 acres. The reserves of this deposit could be in excess of 161,000 cubic yards. There is a secondary road within 2 miles of the deposit; however, the availability of water at this locality is questionable.
The deposit represented by sample Mil-2 probably averages 14 feet in thickness and has an areal extent of 5 acres. Thus, the probable reserves of this deposit are in excess of 100,000 cubic yards. A primary road is within 0.5 mile of this deposit and a local stream is within 0.5 mile of the deposit, possibly affording sufficient water for processing.
Mining ActlvHy
There are no active or recently inactive commercial aggregate mining operations in Jenkins County.
Summary Evaluation
The potential for commercial production of fine aggregate in Jenkins County is considered to be low. The deposits represented by samples Per-1 and Mil-2 would probably only supply local demand.
LIBERTY COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Liberty County lies within the Barrier Island District of the Coastal Plain Province. The surficial sediments are derived from the Satilla Formation, the Cypresshead Formation, and the barrier island deposits.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 215; Fig. 123, Ts-24) reported a small clayey gravel deposit near Fleming. He stated that the deposit is too small and the material is of too poor quality for commercial use.
Present Study
The part of Liberty County that has desirable sandy soils is located on Fort Stewart and was not considered forstudy. Three samples were taken from one site: Dor-1 a, Dor-1 b, Dor-1c (Figs. 123-126, Table

19).
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33; however, the deposit represented by samples Dor1b and Dor-1ccould be upgraded. These samples are from the lower 9-1/2 feet of a 12 foot interval.
Mining ActlvHy
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Liberty County.
Summary Evaluation
At the site represented by Dor-1, the upper two feet (sample Dor-1a) is fine-grained silty sand. The next two samples, Dor-1 b and Dor-1 c consist of fineto medium- to coarse-grained clayey sand with some granules at depths of 2 feet to 7 -1/2 feet and 7-1/2 feet to 12 feet, respectively. The sample is only representative of 12 feet, but the deposit possibly extends deeper. The areal extent of this deposit is approximately 10 acres, thus, yielding reserves exceeding 160,000 cubic yards.
This deposit could possibly be of some commercial value, but is limited by its relatively small size. The construction material potential for fine aggregate production in Liberty County is low.
LONG COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Long County lies within portions of two physiographic districts of the Coastal Plain Province, the Barrier Island Sequence and the Vidalia Upland. The surficial sediments of Long County are derived from the Cypresshead and Satilla formations and the barrier island deposits.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 214) noted the occurrence of a "sand-hill belt" east of the Altamaha River in what is now Long County (Fig. 127, Ts-23). Teas mentioned a pit in the sand hill belt which covered 8 to 10 acres, averaged 10 feet in depth, and provided a source for locomotive sand.
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas of Long County was the Kershaw series which is present as elongate deposits parallel to the Altamaha River in

157

, /,/
/"
" , \ .. ,"'- ..

I
I
I
I
t-- -.. _ I
... " ' - ....................

...

,' \ ..

en

CD

8130'
N
t EXPLANATION Sample locality () Teas' sample locality A Abandoned pit, product unknown

3145'

.......... .... .......... A
.. ............... ..........

0

5 Miles

Ei3 F3 E3

0

5 Kilometers

St. Catherines I.

Refer to Plate 1 tor overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 123. Map of Liberty County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

- --- - . - --

- . - -- -- -- ---

I

I' I

I'

'-::l!

I

90

.... 80 J:
w(,!' 70
:s:

> 60
a:l

ffi 50
z

.zL..L. 40

....
cUo l

uwa: 30
w Q. 20

Liberty County Dor-1a

~

"' 'il"'~

I

\

'

I

_ ,__

-

-

10

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...,...,.r.n1 r-ll"

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--A\Ir-"1

~At.ll"'\

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
.... II T

0.001

,..... A 'V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 124. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Dor-1a.

I ....
en
0

100
90
t- 80
J:
(!J
ijj 70
i:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
zt-
(wJ 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

.3" 1.5 .. 3 ~'.5"3/8" 4

a_ 16 30 50 100 200

II

I I

~II!..

I

I I

"'~

I

~
~
~
~Q
' r\. ~ ~

Liberty County Dor-1b

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

I

I ,...,....r"'lru r-ro I

- - A~tr-o

I

lt"'Ar"

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

'""II.,...

I

0.001

"

,.... A'V

I **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 125. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Dor-1b.

.G.....) I

100
90
.... 80 J:
w ~ 70
!:
>m 60
ffi 50
2
.L.L... 40
z wua: 30
w Q.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5- .. 3~j ;,5"3 '8"

I

I' I

4

B.

~ I

"' ~

16 30 50 100 200

I

I

!\
~ ~
"

Liberty County Dor-1c

1\ ~
~
'1\ ~ " ~

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...,....,.....,, .-,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-r"''o At.lr-1

~Aa.lr"\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
r tt T

0.001

*

,.... AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 126. Size Distribution Curve of .Sample Dor-:1c.

Sample designation

Table 19: Liberty County Sample Data

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2
thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural
material
passing ASTMC-33 Rating3

Dor-1

0-2 auger

2

1

no

0

Dor-1b

2- 7-1/2 auger

5

1

no4

1

Dor-1c

7-1/2-12 auger

4-1/2

1

no4

1

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 31ncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text. 4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.
162

southwestern Long County. Geomorphic features targeted were dune fields which generally correspond to the soil bodies which were targeted. Three samples from dune deposits were sieved: GSW-1, Doc-1, Bug1 (Fig. 127 and Figs. 130-132, Table 20).
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33 due to their fine-grain size and sorting. This is unfortunate, since the deposits represented by the samples have very little (<5%) material smaller than #200 mesh and have very large reserves.
Mining Activity
There is one active and several inactive producers of aggregate In Long County.
The Satilla Sand Company of Ludowici owns two sand pits in Long County (Fig. 127, #091, #606). Currently, only one pit (#091) is being mined. Pit #091, which is 11 acres in extent, produces masonry, concrete, and fill sand (Fig. 128). These products are transported within a 60 mile radius by truck. The sand is mined to a depth of 35 to 40 feet by dredge in manmade ponds (Fig. 129). Annual production is between 50,000 and 100,000 tons. Pit #606 is 30 acres in size and produces concrete and mortar sand. These products are transported within a 100 mile radius by truck and rail. The sand is mined by dredge to a depth of 55 feet in man-made ponds. No information as to annual production was available.
The Altamaha Sand Company of Ludowici (Fig. 127, #108) operated a 13 acre pit. This pit has since been reclaimed and no product information or mining data is available.
Dawes Silica Mining Company also operated a sand pit in the same general areas as the Satilla and Altamaha sand companies. No further information is available.
Summary Evaluation
The fine aggregate production potential of Long County is considered to be moderate. The areas along the floodplain of the Altamaha River have potential for aggregate production. The vast reserves of dune sand on the northeast side of the river are appealing but possible uses are somewhat limited.
McDUFFIE COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
McDuffie County lies within two districts of two

physiographic provinces. These districts are the Fall Line Hills of the Coastal Plain Province and the Washington Slope of the Piedmont Province. The surficial sediments of the county are derived from the Oconee Group and the Barnwell Group; and the granites, granite gneisses, schists, and metavolcanic rocks of the Piedmont.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 313) reported surficial sand with some gravel near Boneville (Fig. 133, Ts-25).
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 391-393) reported several small occurrences of sand and gravel deposits that are not commercially valuable.
Present Study
The soil types targeted for sampling sites were the Tifton and Helena series, and are present as isolated pods throughout the county. Two samples were taken for analysis: ThE-1, ThE-2 (Figs. 133-135, Table 2).
Evaluation
Neither sample, ThE-1 or ThE-2 passed ASTM standard C-33, but both could be upgraded to meet specifications for a fine aggregate.
Mining Activity
There is one active mining operation in McDuffie County. Knox Rivers Construction Company (Fig. 133, #179) is currently mining two acres of a 4 acre pit to a depth of 10 feet. This sand is being used for asphalt, and no processing is being done.
Thomson Construction Supply Company at one time operated a 3 acre pit. The products were mortar sand and fill dirt.
Another pit, #712, operated by D.J. James, is now being used as a landfill. They were permitted for 5 acres, but mined only 1 acre for mortar sand.
Summary Evaluation
The deposit represented by the samples ThE-1 and ThE-2 is 5 acres in areal extent. The fine- to medium- to coarse- to very coarse-grained sand extends to a depth of approximately 6 feet. This deposit contains approximately 48,000 cubic yards. This deposit could have some commercial potential, but its small size may prevent this. The potential for fine aggregate production in McDuffie County is low.

163

""\ \ \. ' '-' \

EXPLANATION

Sample locality

() Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer

Inactive producer or one producing fill material

' \ ''-,

Abandoned pit, product unknown
111 Deposit sampled or

"\ discussed In text

,, ''-'\.

N
t

0

5 Miles

E...---=r::::::::F3~:C::::E:3

HH H

0

5 Kilometers

... .......... ....
............ ....
............ ... .......... .... .......... ....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Ref.er to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 127. Map of Long County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

164

Figure 128. Stock piles of Mortar and Concrete Sand at Satilla Sand Company, Long County.
Figure 129. Dredge at Satilla Sand Company, Long County. 165

.... i

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
"w 70
i:
> 60
al

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

-I I

- .. I

-

I

- . - - -- .-- ---

T

tt.

I

' ~
\ ,

1-\y
\
j ,

ffi
z

50

LL 40
1z -
uwa: 30 w
0.. 20

Long County GSW-1

10

I
111111

1

II I

II I

llillll l l __illill

I
I
I
I\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
~---------------,------7G~RuA~vnE~L--~~~--~------s,SA~N~Do-------------r-------~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~*

COBBLES

r-nAocc

"''~'"'

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

.-..- ........ ,~...

....,.....,.._ _,

t"'Aio.i-

,..ll"'r

-iA~

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 130. Size Distribution Curve of Sample GSW-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

.3" 1.5 .. 3/<"'.5"3/8" 4

I

I' I

II

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

(p

I

90

i I

1- 80 :I:
"w 70
i:
> 60
al

\ I
1
I

ffi 50
z

u. 40

1z -

.... .0....

wua: 30
w a.. 20

Long County Doc-1

I
\ \

10

I I
I I

II I
II I

I 1111
I !Il l

' I~

1000
I

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARSGE RAIVEL FINECOARSEl MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

I

I ,.,-~n r~ I

l""r""''A\/~

I

C"Aa.ln

I

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll T

I

0.001

J *

,.., AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 131. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Doc-1.

....
i

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100 90

. . . ..... ._

I

II I

II

- .-

,-- -I- ---
f\

1- 80 J:
wC!J 70
!:
> 60
al
ffi 50
2
LL 40 12
uaw: 30
w a.. 20

Long County Bug-1

I
I
I
\
_l

10

-

_L..._

-

1\

-

l

__....__ \-.. .....

-

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

O.Q1

0.001

-----------------.------,G~R~A~VT.~E L--G~~R~A~I~N~~S::IZ~ESAI~NN~MD~IL~L~~IM~-E-T-ErR--S----~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A;Y~------~ *

COBBLES

,.,....""""

"'~'"

rr-.Acc-.:: MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

,.._...,....,, r-lf"'

- - a .. o.-o

r"'A .. I.......

""'' _..

,.... A'\..-'

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 132. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bug-1.

Table 20: Long County Sample Data

Sample

Depth1 Sample

designation (Feet) type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

GSW-1

9

auger

9

2

no

2

Doc-1

3

auger

10

3

no

2

Bug-1

9

auger

9

2

no

1

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
31ncreasing nu merical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.

169

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate
producer
Inactive producer or one producing fill material
.... Abandoned pit, product unknown
* Central Savannah River Authority study locations
\
\

N
t

0

5 Kilometers

CSRA 50
* * CSRA 49
*csRA 47//
/
/

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potentlal of this county.
Figure 133. Map of McDuffie County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

170

--......

l

100
90
.... 80 J:
w(!' 70
s:
>co 60
ffi 50
z
.Lz..L. 40
(wJ 30
a: w
c.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

-

----..- .

"
-~ -

'II

I

-
b. ...... 1

. - - --

I

I

-I-I -

~

" ~

" ~ 11

1\ I

1\ I

McDuffie County ThE-1

I' ~

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SA ND MED IU M

FINE

I

I

,...1""\nnl r:::C"'

I

BOULDERS

,...n A\ lC:I

I

C'/\f!.ln

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
I I I
I

I
1

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C'll T"

I

0.001

*

rat 1\ V

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 134. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ThE-1.

I .........
N

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5"" 3/~'.5"3/8" 4

I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200
I

""' ' - I

90

"'~

1- 80 J:
~
jjj 70
;: >m 60
ffi 50
z

I

I

I

I

u.. 40

.z...

'
:-

r w 30
(,)

a:

w

a.. 20

McDuffie County Th E-2

10 I1' 1Ill I I I

I I
lLLIII l_L I

I ill
II II

I,
I
I I~,.
\ I
' "~
' ~ I I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

O.Dl

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
r---------------,------_G~R~A~V~E7L---=~~~~-----s.sAAIN~oo------------,------~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------l*

COBBLES

'"""'"oc.:

<:11\1<::

l"nAoc.: MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

_ _... _ _ , ..--..

.....

a o.-o

- &A.Ir"''>

...., 00 -

,.. 1 ....... .,

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 135. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ThE-2.

Table 21: McDuffie County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

ThE-1

5

trench

5

1

no4

1

ThE-2

6

auger

6

1

no4

1

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3lncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text. 4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.
173

MciNTOSH COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Mcintosh County lies within the Barrier Island District of the Coastal Plain Province. The surficial sediments are derived from the Satilla Formation and the barrier island deposits.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 217) noted the occurrence of sand hills paralleling the Altamaha River (Fig. 136, Ts-26). These hills, along the southwestern border of the county, reach a height of some 60 feet and contain enormous reserves of sand.
Teas (1921, p. 217-218) mentioned a 10 acre pit operated by the Altamaha Supply Company near the Seaboard Air Line Railway in these same sand hills (Fig. 136, Ts-26).
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas of Mcintosh County was the Lakeland series, which is present as dune fields in the southwestern part of the county, east of and parallel to the Altamaha River. Geomorphic features targeted are the dune fields along the Altamaha River. Two samples from the area of dunes: Cox-1, Bug-2 (Figs.136-138, Table22) were sieved.
Evaluation
Neither of the samples passed ASTM standard C-33. The samples are generally too fine-grained and too well sorted. The deposits represented by these samples have very large reserves but limited uses.
Mining Activity
There are no active commercial aggregate mining operations in Mcintosh County. There were two operations in the past: Santee Sand Company and McDonald Sand.
Santee Sand of Cocoa Beach, Florida operated an 8 acre pit which has since been reclaimed, (Fig. 136, #277). No further information on products or mining data is available.
The McDonald Sand Company operated a dredge along the Altamaha River. No further information is available.
Summary Evaluation
The potential for fine aggregate production in

Mcintosh County is considered to be low. Although there are extremely large deposits of sand in the southwestern portion of the county, their use is limited.
PIERCE COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Most of Pierce County lies within the Bacon Terraces District. The far eastern corner lies within the Barrier Island District. The surficial sediments of Pierce County are derived from the Altamaha Formation, and the Cypresshead Formation.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 227-229) reported an extensive sand deposit on the north side of the Satilla River (Fig. 139, Ts-28). An old pit (Fig. 139, Ts-29) was wor1<ed in this large sand dune, and was abandoned prior to Teas investigation. Teas also reported extensive sand deposits north and east of Hurricane and Little Hurricane Creeks (Fig. 139, Ts-30).
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites for sampling is the Kershaw series, which is present along the north side of the Satilla River, and along the north side of Hurricane Creek. The geomorphic features targeted were dunes along the north sides of Hurricane Creek and the Satilla River. These features correspond to the soil series targeted. Eight samples were taken from five sites in Pierce County: WcE-1, BkW-2, BkE-1a, BkE-1b, DiU-1a, DiU-1b, BkW-1a, BkW-1b (Figs. 139-147, Table 23).
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33, but several could be upgraded. Samples WcE-1, Bkw-2, DiU-1 and Diu-2 represent an extensive dune along the north side of the Satilla River. The samples show that the material is somewhat fine-grained, but the dune field is extensive, and there are several small abandoned pits in the area. The entire dune area represented by these samples covers approximately 2500 acres and, therefore, about 61 million cubic yards of sand. Sample BkW-1a and 1b are from the periphery of the same dune, and size analyses (Figs. 146-147) show that this area is probably not useable for construction aggregate. Samples BkE-1 a and BkE-1b represent the dune field north and east of Alabaha Creek. There are abandoned sand pits near

174

N

t

I
I

I

I

()Ta-27

EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality Inactive producer or
one producing fill material
Abandoned pit, product unknown
0 Deposit sampled or discussed In text

0

5 Miles

Ee+a=:::::=::E3::::=E3

F H F3

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county .
Figure 136. Map of Mcintosh County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

175

........,
G)

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3 " 1.5 " 314'~.5 "3/8" 4

II

[1'1

[I

-8 1.6 30 50 100 200

~

I

90
~

1- BO J:
w ~ 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
uaw: 30
w a.. 20

I
I
I
Mcintosh County Cox-1

10

1000

100

COBBLES

I

I ,..,,-....,.ru r~ I

BOULDERS

\

~

~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-..-.AII.tr'""l

I

,nAIJI. J I""\

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0 .01

SILT OR CLAY

r'"ll.,..

I

0.001

*

,.... AV

i*

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 137. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Cox-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3/4:h.-5 "3/8" 4

II

I I

I

8 "L6 30 50 100 200

~

I

II

90 1- 80

~

" I

t\

:I:
0w 70
:;::
> 60
al

~
1\
I '

ffi 50
z

I

....
............

LL 40
1z -
a(w.:) 30
w a.. 20

I
Mcintosh County Bug-2

I \

10

I
I

I

\
' .._..

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

0.01

0.001

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

*

__ ...,...,., .,..,..
BOULDERS

-r""'o .....-,

... .AIIII.I-

nw ~

~I A'\J

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System "*Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 13 8. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bug-2.

Table 22: Mcintosh County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Cox-1

10

auger

10

3

no4

2

Bug-2

7-1/2 auger

7-1/2

2

no

2

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3lncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text. 4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.
178

,-
_t
_I- J
r-I
1
,-
-1 C)Ts-30 I
L-I ...
L_
Ts-29

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
C) Teas' sample locality
Active aggregate producer
Inactive producer or one producing fill material
... Abandoned pit, product unknown
LJ Deposit sampled or discussed in text

N
t

0
I
F3 R 0

5 Miles
F3
5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.

Figure 139. Map of Pierce County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

179

.....
OD 0

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
"ws: 70
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10
1000

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 '" 3/4~.5 "3/8" 4

I'

I' I

I'

-8 1_6 3 0 50 100 200

I

~

I

~
~
I

I

I

Pie-rce County
100

WcE-1

\
\

' \
- ~ . ~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

BOULDERS

-..- ......... .,_,..

- - . ... .,.... .

... ... .. , r"'llo

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
.... ,, ....

0.001



,... . A~

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 140. Size Distribution Curve of Sample WcE-1.

--QD

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 314'.5"3/8 "' 4

[I

II I

II

8 1.6 30 50 100 200

1

~

I

90
1- 80 :I:
w(,:, 70
:s: > 60
a:l
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w a. 20
10

Pierce County Bk W- 2

~
I,

ll
ll ~

ll

I ~

I

'

I

l\

\

\

1++-1-++-+-J~I-----+H++-+-t--+-

ll
\
b.....

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

COARS~RAVEL ME~I~~D r-----------------~------~~r<------,-----------~~--------------~------~---------------------, *

COBBLES

FINE

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

BOULDERS

....,._..,.....,,_,..

---

~..._.._.,.....

.... 11-r"

r'\ I A 'Io.I

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 141. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bk W-2.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

-

-

- ...... Ill

_ ., _

II

I' I

~
I'

- -- - . --

I

~

--I

~I-I -

90

1- 80 :I:

I

(!:'

jjj 70

i:

> 60
Ill

ffi 50
z

~ r.

I

II I

I

~

1\

'

I

l

\

1\ ,

u.. 40

1z -

....
OD N

w(J 30
a:
w 0.. 20

Pierce County BkE-1a

10

I I

111 1I I

I I

111 111

I
\
\
\ ,
I~

1000

100

COBBLES

I

I ror"\nrll ~co I

BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

,....f"')A\.1~1

I

Cl\.1\ln

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

Cll 'T

I

0.001

*

f"l AV

I **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 142. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BkE-1a.

I ....
Cw l

100

-- --- 3 "

-- -- 1.5 ..

,
3~11-". 5 "3/8

U.S.
~.

STANDARD
-~

SIEVE

SIZE

II

I' I

II 1

Cll

I

90

tl

1- 80 J:
"w 70
;:

> 60
lXI

ffi
z

50

.zL.&... 40
Cwa:J 30
w a.. 20

10

I
Pierce County BkE-1b

\ I 1

II

I i
I

I

I

\

I

\

I

\

I

' ~

I
I

l

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAV EL

COARSE

FINE

SA ND M EDIUM

FINE

I

I "_...,,..., r ~ I

,...~A\Ir-'1

I

~J\~ I r"\

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~II T

I

0.001

*

f"l A V

I **

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 143. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BkE-1b.

100

90

1-- 80 ::L
w ~ 70
i:
> 60
a:l

ffi 50
z

u.. 40

1z--

w30

(.)

i

a:
w D.. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3/4'.'.5"3/8" 4

II

II I

II

8 1 .6 30 50 100 20.0

I

~

I

~

I

I

R

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Pierce County DiU-1a

\
\
l'o.....

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND ME D I UM

FINE

0 .01 SILT OR CLAY

BOULDERS

,__..,.. ,......,! COBBLES very

GRAVEL

very

,,. .. ,.,., 1 -~- ........ _ .......... 1 - - - --- l.........._..r............ ~; .... ..,. 1 4= ; ........

v ery

SAN D

... .......... ........ ... ,... ... ......

very
.f;..,...,. I .,:;........

SILT coarse lfT'lEI:jiuml fine

0.001



,..., Av

"*

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System *"Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 144. Size Distribution Curve of Sample DiU-1a.

...
=

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

--- - . --
II II I

-

I'

-

-

1'

lP~

-- -I-

--
II

~
90

1- 80 J:
we,:, 70
!:
m> 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w a.. 20
10 l l l l

I

Pierce County DiU-1b

II I

I II

II I

I II

l 1\
'
\
\
_\
(
\
\
\
\
' \ ~ ""

1000
I

t;UtHSLt::>

100
I

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

I

C::.dl\.l n

coARSE I FINE lcoARsEI MEDiLiM 1

FINE

I

BOULDERS

___ ..,. ...,, .-....

_ _ A .. IP'"'I

ro A IIo.i r"'o

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
r"'lll..,...

1
r"'o l AV .

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 145. Size Distribution Curve of Sample DiU-1b.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5" 3/4'~.5"3/8" 4

II

I' I

II

-8 16 30 50 100 200 I

90

~

1- 80 :I: C' jjj 70
i:
>co 60

ffi 50
2

u. 40

1-

2

~ 30

...

cwr:

CID Gl

a.. 20

Pierce County BkW-1a

1\

(

\

\

' ~

I\

I ~

\

I

\ ,

10

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

Y________ _ _O_ _ _C_L_ _ ~--------------~----~G~R~A~V~E~L------.---------~SATN~D~-----------.--------S-I_L_T

I*

COBBLES

,...,.,"ocr::

r:::~r:::

MEDIUM

FINE

R A

BOULDERS

-

-- --

a -

l"'lo & -

-

A " ' ,...

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 146. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BkW-1a.

- I .C..ID..

100

90

1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70
i:
>m 60

ffi 50

2
LL 40 I

tz -

I

wua: 30 r
w
0.. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 !f;..5"3/8"" 4

:

[I I II

8. 16 30 50 100 200

~

I

~

i\

\
\
' 1\ ~
\
'

I

Pierce County BkW-1b

I
l

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

..... - ........ ,_.,.,

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--A~r-o

~AII.Ir""\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
r'OII,..

0.001

,..IA"o.J

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 147. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BkW-1b.

Sample designation
WcE-1

Table 23: Pierce County Sample Data

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

12

trench

22

4

no4

2

BkW-2

12

auger

12

2

no4

2

BkE-1a

7

auger

7

3

no4

2

BkE-1b 7- 10-1/2 auger

3-1/2

3

no4

2

DiU-1a

10

auger

10

4

no4

2

DiU-1b 10- 14 auger

4

4

no

2

BkW-1a

6

auger

6

1

no

1

BkW-1b

6-10 auger

4

1

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detai1ed ds cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.

188

the location of the sample, which suggest that this sand may be useable. The deposit covers approximately 45 acres, thus, yielding reserves of approximately 73,000 cubic yards.
Mining Actlvhy
There is one small mining operation in Pierce County. Pope Concrete Products has a 1 acre pit (Fig. 134) in the large dune field along the Satilla River. Their market radius is 25 miles, and the current mining depth is 6 feet.
There are several inactive aggregate pits in Pierce County. Ellis McNeal (Figs.139,#224)formerly operated an 18 acre sand pit in this same dune field. Dixie Concrete Service operated a 6 acre pit for self use; this pit was in the Alabaha Creek dune field.
Summary Evaluation
The extensive dune fields along the Satilla River and Alabaha Creek have provided aggregate sand in the past, and now have one active producer. The potential for fine aggregate production in Pierce County is moderate.
RICHMOND COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Richmond County lies within three districts of two provinces. These districts are the Fall Line Hills and Vidalia Upland of the Coastal Plain Province and the Washington Slope of the Piedmont Province. The surficial sediments of the county are derived from the Oconee Group and the Barnwell Group and granite gneisses of the Piedmont.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 233-236) noted two active pits and two properties of interest in Richmond County.
The Richmond County pit (Fig. 148, Ts-31) owned by the county covered 10 acres and provided sand and gravel for road building concrete aggregate. The depth of the pit varied from 10 to 28 feet.
The Georgia Sand and Gravel Company (Fig. 148, Ts-32) produced washed sand and gravel for concrete aggregate and other uses from a pit adjacent to the "county pit." The depth of the pit was approximately 26 feet.
The Oats property (Fig. 148, Ts-33) mentioned by Teas, was 1 acre in extent and contained a gravel bed 5 to 10 feet thick in a sandy clay matrix.

Three to ten feet of coarse-grained, slightly clayey sand is exposed in a sand pit at Wheless Station (Fig. 148, Ts-34). Teas noted that the pit covered one-third of an acre and that the sand produced was used for local work.
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 380-383) described seven sand pits or prospects in Richmond County:
(1)The A&MSand and GraveiCompany(Fig. 148, CSRA 22) operated a 10 acre pit in a massive, thickly bedded, fine-to medium-grained sand. This sand was mined to a depth of 10 feet.
(2) The Richmond County Sand Pit (Fig. 148, CSRA 23) was 2 acres in extent and contained massive, thickly bedded sand. This pit was approximately 20 feet deep.
(3) The Speer Sand and Gravel Company operated a 2 acre pit on a 20 acre tract of land from which they produced washed sand and gravel (Fig. 148, CSRA 24) . A cross-section of the pit shows 2 feet of overburden and 6 to 8 feet of fine-to mediumgrained sands containing clay clasts which overlie 30 feet of gravelly (1 0%) sand.
(4) A small (450' X 200') sand pit containing medium-to very coarse-grained sand was mined to a depth of 15 feet (Fig. 148, CSRA 25).
(5) The R.J. Gaines pit (Fig. 148, CSRA 26) produced fill dirt for the county and state. The pit was 2 acres in extent and was mined to an average depth of 20 feet. The material being mined is a coarsegrained clayey, silty sand.
(6) Augusta Sand and Gravel operated a sand pit which covered several acres and was mined to a depth of 40 feet (Fig. 148, CSRA 27).
(7) Richmond County operated a 4 acre sand pit along the Savannah River (Fig., 148, CSRA 28). A cross-section showed 18 feet of medium-grained sand overlying 10 feet of gravelly (1 0%) coarse-grained sand.
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 393-394) also reported five localities as gravel prospects:
(1) At the intersection of the Georgia Railroad and the Columbia-Richmond line there are beds of gravelly (20%) sand 3 feet thick, which extend for 0.5 miles in a NE-SW direction (Fig. 148, CSRA 53).
(2) Road and stream cuts at Belair on the Gordon Highway (Fig. 148, CSRA 54) expose a foot or more of subangular pea gravel. This gravel, however, is laterally discontinuous.
(3) Outcrops and ditch exposures indicate that the floodplain of the Savannah River between Butler-

189

s:foo

EXPLANATION

Sample locality

N
t

--- -- , ~

4

Ts-34

' A
~32

() Teas' sample locality
Active aggregate producer

Inacti-ve producer or
one producing fill

material

/ "

( 2816 \oo

Au~-2 \

\ <;:c'sRA 55

... Abandoned pit,
product unknown

...
co
0

I

/ " / "
/ "
/ "

.271 287

* *CSRA 25

.;~-~\~A-uE-1 ~~

.&.+176 Gracewood

CSRA 26

. 1 798. - ._.___ ~

q 1

* Central Savannah River Authority- study locations
~ Deposit sampled or

discussed in -text

0

5 Miles

&d

I

I

I

I

t='l f"OOOOI ~

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.

Figure 148. Map of Richmond County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

Creek and the levee (Fig. 148, CSRA 55) has potential for containing gravel deposits.
(4) Over 6 feet of kaolinitic sand containing layers of pebbles up to 2 inches in diameter, averaging under 1 inch in diameter, is exposed in a road cut at the intersection of Ga. Highway 56 and Bennoch Mill Road (Fig. 148, CSRA 56).
(~) A gravel and sand pit west of Interstate 20 and 1 mile south of Skinner Road has produced very coarse sand and gravel up to 0.5 inch in diameter, and in a ratio of 1 part gravel to 5 parts sand.
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas of Richmond County was Troup. This soil series is found in interfluve areas in southeastern and north central Richmond County. Geomorphic features targeted were point bars found along the Savannah River. Seven samples representing six sites from Richmond County: AuW-1, Bly-1, Hep-1, Hep-2, AuE-1a, AuE-1b, AuE-2, (Figs. 148-155, Table 24) were sieved. Although none of the samples meet ASTM standard C-33, two samples (Hep-2, AuE-2) could be upgraded to meet those standards even though they have considerable amounts of fine material.
Evaluation
The deposit represented by Hep-2 may be as large as 5 acres. Assuming a tabular deposit 5 feet in thickness, reserves are in excess of 40,000 cubic yards.
The deposit represented by AuE-2 could be as large as 10 acres. Assuming a tabular deposit 7.5 feet thick, reserves could be as large as 121,000 cubic yards.
Mining ActlvHy
There are 16 inactive and 11 active sand pits in Richmond County. Active pits include:
Southern Aggregate Company of Augusta operates two pits (Fig. 148, #108, #494). Pit #018 is permitted for 89 acres. The product of this pit is concrete sand which is transported within a radius of 50 miles by truck. The sand is mined by a cutter head dredge and pumped to classifiers. Current mining depth is 35 to 40 feet, and annual production is between 100,000 and 500,000 tons. No information was available on Pit #494.
Knox River Construction Company of Thorn son (Fig. 148, #718) is permitted for 15 acres. The sand pit is mined for asphalt sand which is transported

by truck to their plant. Mining is currently to a depth of 8 feet, and annual production is between 10,000 and 50,000 tons.
H.G. James of Augusta operates a sand pit which is permitted for 5 acres (Fig.148, #232). The product of this pit is fill sand which is transported within a 10 mile radius by truck. Sand is mined to a depth of 10 feet, and annual production is less than 10,000 tons.
A. J. Harrison of Martinez is currently permitted to mine a 20 acre tract (Fig. 148, #176). The product of this pit is mortar sand and fill sand which is transported within a 20 mile radius by truck. Current mining depth is 20 feet with annual production being between 10,000 and 50,000 tons.
U.S. Duffie Sand Company of Augusta (Fig. 148, #99) is permitted for 2 acres. The product of this pit is masonry sand. The major market for this product is the Augusta area. Annual production is between 10,000 and 50,000 tons.
Duffie Construction Company of Martinez mines fill sand which i s transported within a 10 mile radius by truck (Fig. 148, #271 ). The company owns 10 acres of land, and 2.5 acres remain to be mined.
Davis Aggregate Corporation of Augusta is permitted to mine 10 acres (Fig. 148, #217). The product is fill sand which is transported within a 25 mile radius by truck. The sand is currently mined to a depth of 10 feet.
Bellamy Sand and Gravel of Beech Island, South Carolina, is currently permitted to mine 4 acres (Fig. 148, #798). The company produces mortar sand which is transported within a 25 mile radius by truck. The sand is mined by a front-end loader. The current depth of mining is approximately 15 feet. No information is available as to production figures.
Georgia Vitrified Brick of Harlem is permitted to mine two 15 acre tracts of sand. The sand is used generally for fill material and is mined by front-end loader. No further information is available as to depth of mining or production figures.
Inactive pits include: S.A. Hauling Company of Augusta which mined a 2 acre pit that has since been reclaimed (Fig. 148, #209). No further information is available as to products or mining data. Speer Sand and Gravel of Augusta mined a 6 acre tract of land for sand and gravel (Fig. 248, #075). Annual production was between 50,000 and 100,000 tons. No further information Is available. Richmond Paving Company of Augusta mined sand from a 4 acre pit which has since been reclaimed (Fig. 148, #286).

191

100 90 I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

a 3" 1.5 3/4"~5"3/a 4 .

111 30 so 100 200

II

[I I

[I

~~ I

I

~

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1- 80 :I:

I

"w 70

~

i:

>co 60
ffi 50

1\
,1\

z

LL 40

1\

1z -

.....

w30
(aJ:
w

Richmond County AuW-1

\
"t\...

N

Q. 20

10

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

~--------------.------rG~R~A~vuE~L------~--------~SA~N~oo------------,------~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------l

COBBLES

rnAD"c

<::1~1<::

MEDI UM

FINE

I BOULDERS ~ ~~~~B~~~~.. L~:~~- ~ ------ ~~~.':'!.L~, -- 1 ~~~~ ~-~~~-1-M---,~,~~ <;-- 1 ~~~~ Icoarse lmediuS~~~ine

[ ~ " I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 149. Size Distribution Curve of Sample AuW-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

a _a" 1.s 3{4:;.5 ''3/a 4 .

1s ao so 100 200

I I'' II

~

I

90

~

1- 80

:I:

(.!'
jjj 70

t
1

!:

>60
a:l

l

ffi
z

50

\
I

u.. 40
1z -

,~ I
\

w(J 30

....
cw o

a:
w a.. 20

Richmond County Bly-1

\
1+++++-+---H\r--+--+++++-

10

1 Ill I I I

ll IIlii I I I I

1111
LllLL

'
~

1000

100 COB8 LES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

--

- - .... -

......... F""'.

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
....... --

0.001

*

...... ... ....

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 150. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bly-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

..,

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3/4".5"3/8.. .4 . 8 16 30 50 100 200

II II I

""U

I

I

II

90

~

1- 80

I

:I: CJ jjj 70
i:

I

" ~

1\

> 60
Ill

'

ffi 50

1\ ,

I

z

LL 40

\

1z -

w(.) 30

....
co
oCio

a:
w 0.. 20

Richmond County Hep-1

\
""'b.

10

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

...,._...,..,..,.-,...

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

F I NE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - ... - ~ .-,

~AIIo.lr"''o

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II"T"

0.001

*

r'tiAV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 151. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Hep-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3 " 1..5 .. 3,/4:,'. 5 "3/8" 4

8 16 30 50 100 200

II

II I

II

FP"-...r-&,

I

I

90 1- 80

~
' ~

:I:
w(.!' 70
!:

"1'

I

> 60
ell

I

1' ~ I

-G
Ul

ffi
z

50

LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w

Richmond County Hep- 2

\ I

I

'I\
1++-1~-f-'+--'-+-~~d-H++-1-1------!---!--++

a.. 20

10

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I """rH',.. r-~ I

,.....,Aur::::

I

CAI!.In

1

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C'll T

I

0.001

*

1'"'1 b.V

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 152. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Hep-2.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3#~.S"MI" 4

T

II I

B. 16
~ .......

30

50

100
I

200

90

"'b

~ 80 l:
w(!) 70
i:
> 60
al

ffi
z

50

u.. 40

I~

~

j 1\

~

" "-.

I

'\..

~

z ~

w(.J 30

......
~
01

aw :
Q. 20

Richmond County AuE-1a

10

1000

100

COBBLES
----- -....
BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL.FINE
....._-. -

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

......... ,_

0.01
SILT OR CLAY ....... -

0.001

"

,... .......,

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System ""Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 153. Size Distribution Curve of Sample AuE-1a.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 3/4".5 ''3/-8" 4

I I' '

I'

a 1 s 30 so 100 200

lp~

I

90
1- 80
:r::
0w 70
i:
> 60
Ql
ffi 50
z

" ~

I

1

\ I
' ~ '~ ~ ~

I I

LL 40

1z -

-co
......

(wJ 30
a:
w a.. 20

Richmond County AuE-1b

10

I
Ill l l l

I I
II Llll I J J

Il l I II II

I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

...,.._..,....,.,.,..,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - A ~ J P'"" I

~AIII.Ir""\

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II'T'

0.001

*

,.....,., ,._.

*it

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 154. Size Distribution Curve of Sample AuE-1b.

=... I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"w 70
2!:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5"" 3/4'.5"3/8 " 4

8

'I'

II I

~~ I

1 6 30 50 100 200

I

I

~

r\

" I

q

I

Richmond County AuE-2

t!

\ I

' 1\

~

.......

"'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
I

I

I

- - -

l

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIU M

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

I I BOULDERS ~~-~~-B~~~~.. ~-~':~~- 1 ------ ~~-~~ L.,__ 1 ~~!~ ~-~'=-~~- 1 ------~~.~~ .,__ 1 ~~!~ coarse lmedi~~~~ine

I

0.001

"1 Av

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 155. Size Distribution Curve of Sample AuE-2.

Sample designation

Table 24: Richmond County Sample Data

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

AuW-1

4-1/2 trench

4-1/2

2

no

1

Bly-1

10

auger

10

2

no

2

Hep-1

7-1/2 auger

20

1

no

1

Hep-2

5

trench

5

1

no4

1

AuE-1a

2-1/2 auger

2-1/2

2

no

1

AuE-1b

2-1/2 auger

2-1/2

2

no

1

AuE-2

7-1/2 auger

7-1/2

2

no4

1

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.

199

Payton-Wren Sand Company of Augusta mined and has since reclaimed three 4 acre pits (Fig. 148, #287, #516, #667) and one 1 acre pit (Fig. 148, #114). No further information concerning these pits is available.
V.B. James Sand and Gravel Company of Augusta was permitted to mine a 20 acre tract. The product of this pit was fill sand with the mining depth being 12 feet and production less than 10,000 tons annually.
Other pits, about which there is no information include: Hutchinson Sand, James Pit, Kellas Pit, Clausson Lawrence Construction Pit, and the Simmons Septic Tank Pit.
Summary Evaluation
The fine aggregate production potential for Richmond County is considered to be moderate to high. The area of the county most likely to contain coarse aggregate is the floodplain of the Savannah River.
The deposits represented by samples Hep-2 and AuE-1 are too small for all but local use; however, it is possible that these deposits could be larger than expected.
SCREVEN COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Screven County lies almost entirely within the Vidalia Upland District. The extreme southeastern part of the county lies within the Barrier Island District. The surficial sediments are derived primarily from the Altamaha Formation and the Cypresshead Formation. The remainder is comprised of Quaternary alluvium, Oligocene residuum, and Barnwell Group.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 237-238) reported that the Savannah and Ogeechee Rivers have extensive sand bars that could be useful for commercial aggregate (Fig. 156, Ts-35).
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 383-385) reported several active sand pits in Screven County. CSRA 29 (Fig. 156) is the site of a sand pit on the east bank of Brier Creek, sporadically mined for glass sand. CSRA 30 (Fig. 156) is a fill dirt operation. Several small inactive pits are also reported (CSRA 31, CSRA 32, CSRA 33, and CSRA 34, Fig. 156).
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 395) also noted some alluvial sand in Screven County. A sand dune east of

Beaver Dam Creek is several miles long and 200-300 feet wide (Fig. 156, CSRA-58). The Ogeechee Creek bed near U.S. Highway 301 and Sylvania also contains possible aggregate sand (Fig. 156, CSRA 59). Gravel is reported near the western border on Ga. Highway 21 (Fig. 156, CSRA 60).
Present Study
The soil types used for targeting sites for sampling were #24 and #30 and are present in the southern and western third of the county.
Four samples were taken from four sites in Screven County: BSL-1, SyS-1, Hil-1, and Dov-1, (Figs. 156-160, Table 25).
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33 but two of the samples (BSL-1, SyS-1) represent deposits that could be upgraded. Samples Hil-1 and Dov-1 have too much fine-grained sand and silty material to be considered further.
Sample BSL-1 was taken from a sand bar on the Savannah River. The areal extent is approximately 1 acre and the estimated reserve is approximately 10,000 cubic yards. Sample SyS-1 represents a fineto medium- to coarse-grained sand. The areal extent is approximately 2 acres, and has reserves probably exceeding 10,000 cubic yards.
Mining Activity
There are five inactive pits in Screven County. The products from these pits are unknown.
Summary Evaluation
Despite the fact that two of the samples show usable grain size, the small extent of these deposits severely limits their potential. The construction material potential for fine aggregate production in Screven County is com~idered to be low.
TA TTNALL COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Tattnall County lies within the Vidalia Upland District of the Coastal Plain Province except for the extreme eastern tip which lies within the Barrier Island District. The surficial sediments of the county are

200

~\./\.
r/'

N
t
~ E3:::JH:::::C::::EF3::35 Kilometers
:N:CSRA 33

EXPLANATION
Sample locality

CSRA 32*

() Teas' sample locality

Abandoned pit, product unknown
* Central Savannah River Authority

0 Deposit sampled or discussed In text

study locations

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.

Figure 156. Map of Screven County Showlng Localities and Deposits Sampled.

201

N 0 N

I

100

90

I 1- 80
J:
"w 70
!:
> 60
Ill

ffi
z

50

.zu.... 40
wuaw: 30
a. 20

10

1000

-

- - -- -- -- --- ,,

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

. ..,__

....... - _., .....

~

-.

I

I I

I

I

I

t)o

~

\..

1 '-.

I

~

Screven County
100

I
" ~ ll

' \
\ I

BSL-1

l
1\ ~ I
1"1't>

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

BOULDERS

.................... , r-,..,

COARSGE RAVEL FINE
-r-"0 ~r-

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

~ ....... ,,..,.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
i
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~ "T"

0.001

*

~~ 1\V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 157. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BSL -1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3/< ~5"3/8'' 4

II

II I

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200

~ \P.i

I

~

90

.... 80 ::I:

"f'i

"w 70
i:
m> 60
ffi 50
z

l

' 1\

I

'1\ \

u. 40

1z -

N 0 Col

(w.) 30
a:
w a.. 20

Screven County SyS-1

' ~ b ~ '

10

1000

100

COBBLES

I

r ,... . . . . ,....ru r-eo I

BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

r.>nA\.11'""1

I

C'A~In

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C'll "T"

I

0.001

*

/""'I AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 158. Size Distribution Curve of Sample SyS-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

-

- _..,.. ___,_

~

I'

II I

I'

- -- --- - .

1

(Jiroi'oo

-- -I-

I

...,~
90

\

1- 80 J:
w(.!] 70
i:
> 60
al
ffi 50
2

" ~

1D

1\

I

\

I

\

II

1\

I

~

I
I

LL 40 12

'

N 0
~

uaw: 30
w
Q. 20 ~

Screven County Hil-1

10

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,...,...,.nru .- ..... I

,....r-.A\Ir-1

I

f"'AIUI'"'\

I

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

l"ll 1""

I

0.001

*

,..... AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 159. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Hil-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 .. 3~~".5"3/8"

I

II I

-4 a
l!lo ~

16' 30 50 100 200

I

I

--a.

90

~),

1- 80 J:
w ~ 70
i:
>r:c 60

ffi
z

50

LL. 40

1z -

I

uaw: 30
w
0.. 20

Screven County Dov-1

' ~ ~

I I

I 1\ I

I

1 "\t

1\.

I

I r-\..

I

I

I

I

i

I

10

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I I coARS~RAIVEL FINE lcoARSEI ME~~~~o 1 FINE

BOULDERS

.- ......... ...,, .,...,..,.

- - .....-,

l"'Akl-

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
11""11 ....-

I*

,.... AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 160. Size Distributi'on Curve of Sample Dov-1.

Table 25: Screven County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural
material
passing ASTMC-33 Rating3

BSL-1

4

auger

6

1

no4

2

SyS-1

9

auger

9

2

no4

1

Hil-l

2

trench

2

1

no

0

Dov-1

7-1/2

auger

7-1/2

2

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text. 4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.
206

derived from the Altamaha and Cypresshead Formations.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 250) noted that a belt of sand from 1 to 4 miles wide, varying from 4 to 25 feet in thickness, was present along the east side of the Ohoopee River from Battle Creek north to the county line (Fig, 161, Ts-36). Teas attributed the upper part of this sand to an aeolian origin, and the lower part to a flood-plain deposit.
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas of Tattnall County were the Kureb and Kershaw series which are present as dunes along the major streams of the county, particularly the eastern side of the Ohoopee River. Geomorphic features targeted were the dune fields along the Ohoopee River in western Tattnall County. Ten samples representing nine sites in Tattnall County were sieved: Tis-1, Tis-2, Oho-1, ASE-1, ASE-2, ASE-3, Alt"1a, Alt-1b, Cob-1, Rds-1, (Figs.161-171, Table 26). Samples ASE-3, Alt-1 a, and Alt-1 b are from point bars. The remaining seven samples are from the dune fields.
Evaluation
None of the samples meet ASTM standard C-33 for fine aggregate. The deposits represented by the dune samples contain tremendous reserves; however, due to their fine grain size and excellent sorting, their use as aggregate is quite limited. The two deposits represented by samples ASE-3 and Alt-1a and Alt-1b marginally failed to meet standard C-33 and could be upgraded to meet specifications.
The deposit represented by sample ASE-3 probably has an areal extent of 10 acres and a minimal thickness of 4 feet. Reserves, assuming a 10 acre tabular body 4 feet thick, are approximately 64,000 cubic yards.
The deposit represented by samples Alt-1a and Alt-1 b is relatively small with minimal reserves of approximately 6,000 cubic yards.
Mining Activity
Currently, there are two inactive sand pits in Tattnall County. The Satilla Sand Company was permitted to mine 5 acres (Fig. 161, #698). This pit has since been reclaimed and no further information is available. Tattnall County operated a 1 acre pit for road- building material for the county (Fig. 161, #815). No further information is available.

Summery Evaluation
The potential for fine aggregate production in Tattnall County is considered to be low to moderate. The deposits represented by samples ASE-3 and Alt 1a and Alt-1b are relatively small and not readily accessible. Commercial size deposits may exist within the county. The most promising areas are within the flood plain of the Altamaha River.
TOOMBS COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Toombs County lies entirely within the Vidalia Uplands District. The surficial sediments of Toombs County are derived primarily from the Altamaha Formation and the Hawthorne Group, with some Quaternary alluvium.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 264) reported that a fine- to medium-grained sand belt is present along Pendleton Creek throughout the county (Fig. 172, Ts-37).
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas for sampling were the Paola and Kershaw series. These are present in interfluve areas throughout the county. Four samples were taken in Toombs County: OkP-1, Lyo-1, BNE-3, JnC-1 (Figs. 172-176, Table 27).
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C 33, but some of them represent deposits that could be upgraded. The deposit represented by OkP-1 is an extensive dune along Pendleton Creek. The sand is approximately 7-1/2 feet thick, fine- to mediumgrained, and has some pebbles present. The areal extent of the deposit is approximately 300 acres, with possible reserves of 3 million cubic yards of sand.
The deposit represented by sample Lyo-1, which marginally failed ASTM standard C-33, is a sixteenfoot high sand dune. This deposit is composed of very fine-to medium-grained sand with minor amounts of coarse material. The areal extent is approximately 20 acres, and has possible reserves in excess of 200,000 cubic yards of sand.
Sample JnC-1 contains too great a percentage of fine grained material to be considered further.

207

--- \ \ \ \
\

N

EXPLANATION

t

Sample locality

() Teas' sample locality

Inactive producer or one producing
fill material

D Deposit sampled or discussed In text

0

5 Miles

~::::::::E::::c:::E~

H H E3

0

5 Kilometers

------/
,
, /
I
I

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 161. Map of Tattnall County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.
208

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

- - - _.,__ -~ -r-

I

I' I

'

-- -- -..- ~
I'

--=
~

- ~
......

I

~

\

' ~

\

I

(~

1\

I

\

\

\

LL 40

1:z-

.,o~

wua: 30
w
0.. 20

Tattnall County Tis-1

10 I

I I

II II

~

\

\

I

~

\

'

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

--.- ........ 1 .........

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - A~~r-1

~A.fr"'o

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
...... "'J'"

0.001

*

...... . A'lo.,

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 162. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tis-1.

I N....
0

100
90
1- 80 J:
"jjj 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
2
u.. 40
12
w(.) 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 11.".5"38'' 4

[I 11 r

[I

a 16 30 so 100 200

I

l;f'

I

~

l_

1\ I

I

'

I

I I

1\

\

I

I

Tattnall County Tis-2

\
, \
\
.,1\

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

t ....,_,.....,, ~ro I

- - Ar-

I

r'"Aa..lr""'o

i

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~ T

I

0.001

*

,..... . AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 163. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tis-2.

..~ ...... I

100

90

1- 80 :I:
w(.!' 70
i:

> 60
al

ffi
z

50

LL 40

1z -

I

t (wJ 30
a:
w ~ 20 !

.I I
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 ".5 "3/8" 4

[I

I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

1

~~

I

[I .

f1

, ~
1\

I
l

I

I

\

I

\

I

, I l

\

\

Tattnall County Oho-1

I ~

1\

II II

II II

~

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,..,...n~l r-lf'

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVE L

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-~A\.Ir-1

~ AI\I J"'\.

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C"ll "T"

0.001

*

~~ AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 164. Size DistriQution Curve of Sample Oho-1.

I .......,
N

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
uaw: 30
w a.. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

-

-- II 3{4;. 5 "3/8" 4

8 16 3..0 50 100 200

II

I

II

'

I

~

I

1\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

I I

I Tattnall County ASE-1

10

1000

----
100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

....,_,..,..., r-,..

b -

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--a~r-o

,.,A .. I-

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,..,,, ._

0.001

*

,...1 A'l

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 165. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASE-1.

I ...1\)
w

100
90
1- 80 :I: C!' jjj 70
i:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z - (wJ 30
a:
w D.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

-

II 3fo ".5"3/8" 4

8 16 30 50 100 200

I'

I I

I

1

(II

I

I-ll

~ I

\

'

I

\

I I \I

.I

1

I

Tattnall County ASE-2

II I

J I

II I

I l

'' I I \ ~

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

....,._....,....,,_....

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - r- o

t"'AILI-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
,...,,"r'

0.001

,...jA..._.,

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 166. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASE-2.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100

-- -- --- - - -- --- ,

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
.. - _,__ . - .

II

I' I

~ l"""'oo..'

I

I'

90

~

~ 80 J:
(.!'
jjj 70
i:
> 60
CCI
ffi 50
z

I

I I

i' ~

I

I

1

I
I

u.. 40

1z -

.N...
~

a(w.:J 30
w a.. 20

Tattnall County ASE-3

I

10

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

.... _ ........ , r-....

10

1.0

' ~ 0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

_,... .. ,,r-,

r> AIII.In

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
lf'll T"

0.001

*

~~ AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 167. Size Distribution Curve of Sample ASE-3.

I .N...
Ul

100
90
1- 80 :I:
~
jjj 70
:5:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
w(J 30
a:
w ~ 20
10

--- ..

I

I' I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

. - - -- ---

I'

~

I

I

"\. q

I I

\

I

~
I

Tattn all County Alt-1a

I

I I

II II

Ill I I I III I I I I I I IIII I I I I I

1\
........ looc:..

---
I
I I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...,....,.....,, r-,....

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

-r-. All.lr-1

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

~1\t._lf"'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.D1
SILT OR CLAY
~II "'T"

0.001

*

f""'l A.V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 168. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alt-1a.

.P.I..)
Ga

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100
90
1- 80 :I:
wCJ 70
i:
> 60
al

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 .. 3 <1"'.5 " 3/ 8 ''

II

I

4

8

:> ~ I

~

16 30 50 100 200

I

T

\

\
, \ ~

ffi
z

50

u.. 40

1z -

(w.) 30 1a: w

Tattnall County Alt-1b

~
I,

0.. 20

~

10

'1\

I"'~

'

~

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

r--------------.-----.~~~~~~--G~R--A-IN-!Ss~IZAE~NI~ND~M-I-L-L-IM--E-T-E-R-rS-----~S~I:LT~O~R~C~L~A~Y~----~*

COBBLES

N'\AOC<:

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

COBBLES GRAVEL SAN D SILT ......,...... I -~- ~-v-ery-------- I -......II. ....... 4-; ... .... I v~:-....r.. y....

very ...,.. ...........

I,_,.. ..... ~ ...

. .....,_..,.. ,.....,!

f.: ......

,

vf:e~..r. .y...

,..,.. 1!to rc a ~t1t rn.f ofT na I v.fe\"r~y;

CL~Y

**

oarse lrnedJUml fin e

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 169. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Alt-1b.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

--

. - --

II

II I

II

. - - - -- ---

~

I

!I

90
1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70
i:

~

rt

I I

I

~

\

> 60

al
ffi 50
z

' \
1

LL 40

1z -

(w.) 30

...N.....

a:
w a.. 20

Tattnall County Cob-1

10 Jlil

11 I
II I

11 I
II I

\
\ \--,
I~

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

..-..- ......... ~...,.

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FIN E

,...r"''o A'lr-1

~AI'II.Ir"'l

O.Ql
SILT OR CLAY
COli "T"

0.001

*

1""1 /\V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 170. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Cob-1.

I .N...
00

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

,, 3 " 1.5 .. 3 "'r5"3/8II

II

T

-
1

. - --- -- -- ---

!11

I

90
~

1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70
i:
>cc 60
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
wua: 30
w a.. 20

II

I

I

Tattnall County Rds-1

I
[{

I '

l

I

~
l \
1

10 1000

-
100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...-.-...-.. r-,....

1\

~ --
-

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

_,...,AII.II'"""I

C"'AII.II"""''

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I I

I
II
0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C'lll T

I I
0.001

r"" f A.V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 171. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Rds-1.

Sample designation

Table 26: Tattnall County Sample Data

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

Tis-1

10

auger

10

1

no

2

Tis-2

12

auger

12

2

no

2

Oho-1

20

trench

20

2

no

2

ASE-1

4

trench

8

2

no

1

ASE-2

16

trench

16

1

no

2

ASE-3

4

auger

4

1

no4

2

Alt-1a

4

auger

4

1

no4

2

Alt-1b

4

auger

4

1

no4

2

Cob-1

25

trench

25

3

no

2

Rds-1

8

trench

8

3

no

2

1 For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations.
3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text.
4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.

219

N
t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I New Branch

I

I
I

I
I

I

I

I

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
t) Teas' sample locality
Active aggregate producer
Inactive producer or one producing fill material
bJ Deposit sampled or discussed in text

I
I

0

5 Miles

~~::;;;c:::~

H E3 F3

0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county .
Figure 172. Map of Toombs County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

220

-PI)_
fQ

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3 " 1.5 .. 3 ",5 "3/8"" 4

I'

I

I

8 16 3D 50 100 200
I roo

90

,PI ~

~ 80 :I:
(.!'
jjj 70
i:
>co 60

I
, \
\ I
I I

ffi 50
2 LL. 40
~
2
aCwJ: 30
w D.. 20
10
1000

Toombs County
100

\

'\\,

OkP-1

I~

' I

J
I

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GR AVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I -'"'ru~ c:~ I

,..."1 Aur::

I

CJ\.Mn

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C ll T

I

0.001

r-t AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 173. Size Distribution Curve of Sample OkP-1.

I ~
N

100

90

1- 80 :I:
(!'
iii 70 !:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
w(J 30
a:
w 0.. 20

10

11
illl

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5 .. 3fo "'. 5 "3/8"' 4.

I

I I

a 16 30 50 100 200 T :}

~

\

I
I

I I
I

Toombs County Lyo-1

II I

II I

II I

II I

\ \
' ~

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

..... - ..... rooo.-,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGERAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

--a~-

,...Aa l ....,

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,..,,"'P'

0.001

*

-~A~

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 174. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Lyo-1.

N
N w

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5 3/4"r5"3/8"" 4 . 8 1_6 3 .0 5 0 100 200

I

I' I

~"'- I

l

~
90

1- 80 J:
"w 70
i:
>co 60

ffi
z

50

~ 40

1z -

w
()

30

0:: w

0.. 20

I

I
Toombs County 8 NE-3

l
1\
'1++-l~-+\l+---+--+H-H-+-+-

10

1000

100

1\ I 'l
I ~"--.........,;

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

_..._..,......, , ,.._r-a

-r-o.A~r."

c.""AA.Ir"'\

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C"ll 'T"

0.001

*

r-1 .1\V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 175. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BNE-3.

I NN,.

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3 " 1.5 .. 3 ~5 "3/8" 4

I

II I

'I

8 16 30 50 100 200

~

I

90

~

1- 80 J:
"jjj 70
!!:
c>c 60

fzfi 50
LL. 40
1z -
(wJ 30 a: w
0.. 20

10

I
I

Toombs County JnC-1

I II

I II

I II

I II

I
' \
\ .. ~

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,..,......, .... , ,-,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

,...r-.A1.1.-o

~Aa.l'"'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
L'"ll ~

0.001

*

,..._, AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 176. Size Distribution Curve of Sample JnC-1.

Sample designation

Table 27: Toombs County Sample Data

Depth1 (Feet)

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

OkP-1

8

auger

7-1/2

2

no4

2

Lyo-1

16 trench

16

2

no4

2

BNE-3

3

auger

3

1

no4

1

JnC-1

9

trench

9

1

no

2

1 For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2'fhicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text. 4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.
225

Mining Activity
There is one active aggregate producer in Toombs County. For the past three years, Cato's Sand and Gravel Company (Fig. 172, #744) has been mining masonry and concrete sand from a 3-1 /2 acre pit of a 10 acre tract in southern Toombs County. The mining depth is 10 to 20 feet, and average yearly production Is approximately 74,000 tons.
Toombs-Aitamaha Sand Company operated a 4 acre pit (Fig. 172, #390) that has since been reclaimed.
Summary Evaluation
The deposit represented by OkP-1 has sufficient reserves to be considered for aggregate production, but the sand is too well sorted. The deposits represented by Lyo-1 and BNE-3 have insufficient reserves to be considered for possible aggregate production and are also too well sorted.
The potential for fine aggregate production in Toombs County is considered to be low to moderate.
WARREN COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Warren County lies within three districts of two physiographic provinces. Thes.e districts are the Fall Line Hills and Vidalia Uplands of the Coastal Plain Province and the Washington Slope of the Piedmont Province. Surficial sediments are derived from the Barnwell Group of the Coastal Plain and granites, granite gneisses, schists and quartzites of the Piedmont Province.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 334) noted a pit on the Old Carr property (Fig. 177, Ts-38) which was mined for gravel until 1912. The worked face of the pit was approximately 1500 feet by 100 to 200 feet wide. The gravel present was badly decomposed. Also Teas noted clayey gravel in a well at Norris Crossing and at a nearby railroad cut.
Teas (1921, p. 336) noted 5 miles from Warrenton surficial gravel covering approximately 30 acres (Fig. 177, Ts-39). Teas also noted wells showing from 4 to 15 feet of gravel in the same general area. He noted gravel beds from 5 to 8 feet thick in the wells belonging to Henry Tucker, 5 feet thick in a well at the Dotson Place, and 10 feet thick in a well on the Lynn

Tucker property (Fig. 177, Ts-40). A gravel bed 8 feet thick was also penetrated by a well on the Spense property (Fig. 177, Ts-41).
Teas (1921 , p. 335) described coarse "clay gravel" and "sand gravel" from 10 to 18 feet thick being present in wells in the general area, 4 -1/2 miles west of Warrenton on the Warrenton-Powelton road (Fig. 177, Ts-46).
Teas (1921, p. 336) described a 700 foot long cut exposing 4 to 10 feet of "medium-to coarse-pebbled gravel" (Fig. 177, Ts-47). Teas (1921, p. 336) also described a pit containing 4 to 7 feet of clayey coarse sand.
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 396) described an exposure of 3 to 10feet of sand and gravel (Fig. 177, CSRA-61). The upper 2 to 4 feet of this exposure is a clayey sand which overlies a 1 to 6 foot thick bed of gravel within a coarse-grained sand matrix.
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 396) noted an outlier estimated to be 15 to 18 acres in extent which contained 2 to 5 feet of gravel (Fig. 177, CSRA-62). A second outlier (Fig. 177, CSRA-64), approximately 1 mile by 0.25 miles in areal extent and containing gravel from 5 to 15 feet thick, was also described by Hurst ,et al. (1966, p. 396). The occurrence of gravels near Andrews Church (Fig. 177, CSRA-65) was also reported by Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 396).
Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 397) described the Baker property of Teas (1921) as a deposit up to 10 feet thick and extending for one mile (Fig. 177, CSRA-66). Hurst, et al. (1966, p. 397) also described a deposit near Norris Crossroads (Fig. 177, Ts-38, CSRA-67) and the Henry Tucker, Lynn Tucker and Dotson properties (Fig. 177, Ts-40, CSRA-69).
Hurst, et al. described an active operation mining an 8 foot thick gravel layer. This layer is contained within an outlier 1 mile long by 0.25 to 0.5 mile wide.
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas of Warren County were the Flomaton Variant, Tifton, and Helena series. These soils are present as isolated pods in the southern portion of the county. Two samples from Warren County: BoP-1, BeS-1 (Fig. 177 and Figs. 180-181, Table 28) were sieved.
Evaluation
Neither sample passed ASTM standard C-33; however, the deposit represented by BoP-1 could be upgraded to meet specifications and the deposit represented by BeS-1 (Fig. 178 and 179) could produce fine and coarse aggregate.

226

i

0

5 Miles

1-------=l F"3 F---=1

1=3 E3 F3

0

5 Kilometers

__ ,................_ j '

I

<' -

"'- ....

..............

~
... /
EXPLANATION

Sample locality

C) Teas' sample locality
* Central Savannah River Authority study locations
D Deposit sampled or discussed In text
Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.

Figure 177. Map of Warren County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled.

227

Figure 178. Gravelly zone at BeS-1, Warren County.
Figure 179. View of inactive pit at BeS-1, Warren County. 228

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100
90
1- 80 :I: C!J jjj 70
i:
> 60
Ill

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

" 3/4~.5 " 3 s 4

I'

I

, . 8, 16 ao 50 100 200

"""'

T rT

\_

~

J

I

I I

I

T

I I

I

ffi 50
z

l

u. 40

1'\)
c1'o\)

1z -
(w J

30

.

a:

w

ll.. 20

Warren County BoP-1

10 I l l I I I IIII I I I I I I III I I I I I

~
I~
1\.,
-'P..
I I

I I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

...,.,..,......,,..,.,_,..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRA VEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-.-.~ .-

C"AII.Ir""\

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
.... 11"'1"'

0.001

*

I"''I AV ~

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 180. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BoP-1.

w N
0

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w(!) 70
5::
> 60
Cll
ffi 50
z
.Lz..L. 40
(wJ 30 cw:c
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 !J".S"J/8" 4

II

II I

II

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

I

I

II

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

~
' ' \ , ~
Warren County BeS-1

~ ~ ~

I I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

__ ...,..,...._,_.

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

--r-

r>AAI-

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
I'll~

0.001

*

-IA'\1

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 181. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BeS-1.

Sample designation

Table 28: Warren County Sample Data

Depth1 Sample (Feet) type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

BoP-1

12

trench

12

1

no4

2

BeS-1

14

trench

14

2

no4

2

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 31ncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed discussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text. 4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.
231

The deposit from which sample Bop-1 was taken could have an areal extent as large as 3 acres. Assuming a tabular body 12 feet thick, reserves would be only 58,000 cubic yards.
The deposit represented by sample BeS-1 could have an areal extent of as much as 5 acres; thereby having reserves in excess of 100,000 cubic yards.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive commercial aggregate mining operations within the Coastal Plain portion of Warren County.
Summary Evaluation
The potential for production of fine aggregate in Warren County is considered to be low to moderate. Although the two deposits samples are probably too small for commerical aggregate production, other larger deposits may be present within these areas.
WAYNE COUNTY
Geology and Physiography
Wayne County lies within the Vidalia Upland District, the Bacon Terraces District, and the Barrier Island District. The surficial sediments of Wayne County are derived from the Altamaha Formation, the Cypresshead Formation, and barrier island deposits with minor amounts of Quaternary alluvium.
Previous Studies
Teas (1921, p. 268) reported surficial and residual sand bordering the Altamaha River in Wayne County (Fig. 182, Ts-43).
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting areas for sampling were the Lakeland, Lakewood and Klej series. These are sparsely present .in interfluve areas near the borders of the county. Three samples were taken in Wayne County: JNW-1, Scr-1, Eve-1 (Figs. 182-185, Table 29).
Evaluation
None of the samples passed ASTM standard C33. Sample JNW-1, however, marginally failed and could be upgraded to meet specifications. This sample, taken at the site of a 15 acre inactive sand and gravel
I

pit, represents a 50 acre deposit with reserves in excess of 1.7 million cubic yard. The other samples represent deposits containing too great a percentage of fine grained material to be considered further.
Mining Activity
There are 11 inactive sand pits in Wayne County. Shepard Construction Company operated an 11 acre pit (Fig. 182, #520) and produced sand, gravel and fill material, primarily for road use. Seaboard Construction Company operated a 23 acre pit (Fig. 182, #493) which produced asphalt sand.
Summary Evaluation
Considering the number of inactive sand and gravel pits in Wayne County, and the potential of the particular pit represented by sample JNW-1, the potential for fine aggregate production in Wayne County is considered to be moderate.
SUMMARY
Favorable Areas
There are three general areas within the study area which are the most favorable for sand production. These are: (1) The flood plains of the Altamaha, Ohoopee, Ogeechee, and Savannah Rivers, (2) the Fall Line Hills area, and (3) the dune fields along the Altamaha, Ohoopee, and Ogeechee Rivers.
Favorable Deposits
The floodplain deposits along the major rivers of the study area offer the best possibilities for commercial development of aggregate deposits. This is partly due to the ready availability of a water supply for washing and sizing the sand.
Very few deposits within the study area were identified as being economic for aggregate production due to either inadequate estimated reserves or generally poor grain-size distributions. Deposits of economic size and quality could exist within the general areas sampled. For this reason, the users of this publication are encouraged to concentrate on the favorable areas as mentioned above but to, also, use the information within each county section to narrow the areas of search for a deposit within a specific geographic area.
Only 7 deposits (with the exception of the dune deposits) were conservatively judged to have reserves in excess of 100,000 cubic yards. These depos-

232

N

EXPLANATION

t

- Sample locality

() Teas' sample locality

Inactive producer or one producing
fill material

Abandoned pit, product unknown
D Deposit sampled or discussed in text

0

5 Miles

E4 E3 H

0

5 Kilometers

I
Refer to Plate 1 for overall c_.onstructlon material potential of this count,y .
Figure 182. Map of Wayne County Showing Localities and Deposits Sampled. 233

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3 ,, 1.5 " 3/4". 5 "3/8"

'I'

II l

4
~

r--;

8 -
~

16 30 50 100 200

I

I

90

"""a

1- 80 J:
(.!'
jjj 70
i::
> 60
Ill

-

I

I

~

~
I
l
I I\ I

ffi 50
z

u. 40

1z -

w(.) 30

w N
.Do

cr.
w Q. 20

Wayne County JNW-1

'

1\ j

I

'1\

.\

\I

10 Ill I I l

11
llllW_ll

II I
II I

\.
~

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

_._ .... ..,.or-"""

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

--- r-

l"aa t-

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,.. -

0.001

*

,....IIAV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 183. Size Distribution Curve of Sample JNW-1.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5" 3 ~.5"3 /8" 4 . a 16 a_o 50 100 200

I'

II I

II

1

\II

I

90

~

l

1- 80 :I:

1\

"w 70
!:
> 60
CD
ffi 50

1
I l
1\
'

z

LL 40

1z -

w ~
Ul

wua: 30
w
0.. 20

Wayne County Scr-1

\
I \
\ \
\

I

10 I
1 1000

I 1 II
I I II
100

Ill I I

\

II! I !

'

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0 .01

0.001

I

COBBLES

I I coARS~R~VEL FINE lcoARsEI Mdl~~o 1 FINE

SILT OR CLAY

~ *

BOULDERS

,..,.,........,...,, ~"

- - A'lr-1

C"AIIIo.lr'\

C"ll 'T

,-. I 1\V

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System **Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 184. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Scr-1.

PI)
w
CJ)

I

100
90
1- 80 ::I:
"jjj 70
i:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
wua: 30
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5 .. 3 ~1".5 "3/8"" 4

[I

'

II

8 16 3 .0 50 100 200

r~ ....

T

II

"""~\

\

\

~

I

\

\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Wayne County Eve-1

I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

~---------------,------,G~R~A~V~E~LG-R-A~~IN~~~SI~Z-E---INSSAMANINLDLDI-M--E-T-E--R-S-----r--------S~IL~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~

COBBLES

,..,...1\oc~::

"'~'"

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

...... - .... - .... ""'

very

GRAVEL

coarse I coarse lmediuml fine

,..A ... r"'t.

11 ""

--r

,....., AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

*Unified Soil Classification System "*Wentworth-Lane Class Limits

Figure 185. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Eve-1.

Sample designation

Table 29: Wayne County Sample Data

Depth1 Sample (Feet) type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit (Feet)

Priority3 of body sampled

Natural material passing ASTMC-33

Rating3

JNW-1

24 trench

24

1

no4

2

Scr-1

9-1(2 auger

9-1(2

3

no

2

Eve-1

7

auger

7

1

no

0

1For trench samples this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of the trench samples are estimated from field observations. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for containing aggregate deposits) or rating (Potential for uses of the sands other than construction aggregate). For a more detailed dis cussion of the methods used, see the laboratory procedures section of the text. 4Marginally failed ASTM C-33, can be upgraded to meet specifications.
237

its are as follows: The deposit represented by sample Per-1 (Figs. 115 and 117) is from a hillside in northern Jenkins County. The material from the deposit does not meet ASTM standard C-33 but it can be upgraded to meet these standards. This deposit is 10 feet thick and may have an areal extent of as much as 100 acres; reserves could be in excess of 160,000 cubic yards; thus, meeting local demand for fine aggregate. A local creek which may provide a sufficient water supply is within 2 miles of this deposit. A secondary road is within 2.5 miles of the deposit.
Sample Mil-2 (Figs. 115 and 120), located in Jenkins County, represents a deposit that probably averages 14 feet in thickness and has an areal extent of 5 acres; thus, reserves probably exceed 100,000 cubic yards. This deposit could produce fine aggregate with minor amounts (<15%) of fine gravel. There is a small, local stream within 0.5 miles and a primary road is within 0.5 miles of the deposit.
The deposit represented by sample Dor-1 (Figs. 123-126), located in Liberty County, could provide a source of fine aggregate. This deposit, which could be upgraded to meetASTM standardC-33, is 10 feet thick and covers as much as 10 acres; thus, the calculated reserves exceed 160,000 cubic yards. This deposit is within 0.25 miles of a secondary road; however, the water supply for processing is somewhat questionable.
The deposit represented by sample AuE-2, (Figs. 148 and 155), located in eastern Richmond County, could be as large as 10 acres with a minimal thickness of 7.5 feet. Assuming a tabular body of these dimensions, the reserves would be in excess of 120,000 cubic yards. This deposit is within 0.5 miles of a primary road and within 0.5 miles of a local stream which may provide an adequate water supply for processing.
Sample BeS-1 (Figs. 177-179 and 181) represents a deposit from a probable terrace deposit in Warren County, with a possible areal extent of 5 acres and a thickness of 14 feet. Assuming a tabular body of these dimensions, the reserves of this deposit may be in excess of 122,000 cubic yards. A small creek within 1 mile of this deposit may provide sufficient water for processing, and a primary road within 2 miles could provide access.
Sample JNW-1 (Figs. 172 and 183) represents a deposit in Wayne County, which has an areal extent of 50 acres and a thickness of 24 feet. Thus, possible reserves exceed 1.75 million cubic yards. Both a local water supply and a secondary highway are within 0.5 miles of this deposit.
Sample BNE-3 (Figs. 172 and 175) is from a point bar of the Altamaha River in Toombs County. This point bar may be as large as 35 acres with a minimum thickness of 3 feet; thus, there are reserves in excess of 170,000 cubic yards. The availability of water for this deposit is not a problem since it adjoins the river;

however, the nearest secondary road is slightly over2.5 miles from the deposit.
Dune Sands
The areas north and east of major streams such as the Altamaha, Ohoopee and Ogeechee Rivers, as well as local creeks, contain hugh reserves of finegrained aeolian sands. For example, one dune deposit, represented by sample OkP-1 (Figs. 172 and 172) in Toombs County, has an estimated reserve in excess of 3 million cubic yards. Unfortunately, these sands, which are fine-grained and well-sorted, have limited use in the construction industry. Given the tremendous reserves available, other uses for these sands should be explored.
REFERENCES
A.S.T.M., 1983, Annual book of standards section 4: construction, Volume 4.02 concrete and mineral aggregates: Phadelphia, American Society for Testing and Materials, 890 p.
Buie, B. F., 1978, The Huber formation of eastern cen-
tral Georgia, in Georgia Geologic Survey, Short
Contributions to the Geology of Georgia, Bulletin 93, p. 1-7.
Clark, W.Z., and Zisa,A.C., 1976, Physiographic map of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey, scale 1:2,000,000.
Environmental Protection Division, 1984, Georgia surface mining and land reclamation activities: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, 41 p.
Folk, R.L., 1974, Petrology of sedimentary rocks: Hemphill Publishing Co., Austin, Texas, 182 p.
Georgia Geologic Survey, 1976, Geologic map of Georgia: Atlanta, scale 1:500,000.
Huddlestun, P. F., 1981, Correlation chart- Georgia Coastal Plain: Georgia Geologic Survey Openfile report 82-1.
Huddlestun, P.F., 1988, A revision of the lithostratigraphic units of the Coastal Plain of Georgia, The Miocene through Holocene: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 104, 162 p.

238

Huddlestun, P.F., Hetrick, J.H., Kellam, M.F., McFadden, S.S., in preparation, Geology of the GuH Trough Area, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey
Huddlestun, P.F., and Hetrick, J.H., 1985, Upper Eocene Stratigraphy of Central and Eastem Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey, Bulletin 95, 78 p.
Hurst, V. J., Crawford, T.J., and Sandy, John, 1966, Mineral Resources of the Central Savannah River Area: U.S. Department of Commerce, Technical Assistance Program, and Athens, University of Georgia Geology Department, Vol. 1, 467 p.
Kline, S.W., and O'Connor, B.J., 1981, Mining directory of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 2, 18th ed., 49 p.
Lawton, D.E., 1977, Geologic map of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey, scale 1:200,000.
Steele, W.M., and O'Connor, B.J., 1987, Mining Directory of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 2, 19th ed., 92 p.
Teas, L.P., 1921, Preliminary report on the sand and gravel deposits of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 37, 392 p.
239

NOTES

NOTES

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SUR
83
EXPLANATION
Teas' specific sample locality ~ Teas' sample areas
t Active aggregate producer Inactive producer, or one producing fill material
* Abandoned pit, product unknown
.. CSRA Localities ~ Soil type indicative of a sandy soil (II7J Geomorphic feature indicative of a sand or gravel deposit
C J Low potential for aggregate prodluction
Moderate potential for aggregate production High potential for aggregate production
Potential areas for aggregate production surrounding Teas' sample localities, active aggregate producers, inactive producers, and' abandoned pits are shown by a circle (radius = 1 mile).
33

D

COUNTIES FOR WHICH DETAILED PUBLISHED PHOTO BASE SOIL SURVEY MAPS WERE USED AS A DATA SOURCE
COUNTIES FOR WHICH GENERALIZED, UNPUBLISHED SO IL MAPS ON FILE AT THE GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY WERE USED AS A DATA SOURCE

32
SOURCES
Aydelott, D.G., Paulk, H.L., and Bacon, D.O., 1961, Soil Survey of Wayne County, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 74 p.
Brown, J.R., 1968, Soil Survey of Jenkins County, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 61 p.
Byrd, H.J., Aydelott, D.G., Bacon, D.lD., and Stone, E.M., 1961, Soil Survey of Mcintosh County, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 62 p. Frost, L.W., 1981, Soil Survey of Col111mbia, McDuffie, and Warren Counties, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Cons:ervation Service, 119 p. Georgia Department of Natural Resources; 1978, The Georgia Resource Assessment Program, User's Guide, Soils: Atlanta, Georgia, 78 p.
Georgia Surface Mining and Reclamation Activities, 1984: Georgia Department of Natural Resources Surface Mined Land Reclamation Program, 41 p. Hurst, V.J., Crawford, T.J., and Sandly, J., 1966, Mineral Resources of the Central Savannah River Area: U.S. Department of Commerce, Technical Assistance Program and Athens, University of Georgia Geology Department, Vol. 1, 467 p.
Looper, E.E., 1982, Soil Survey ofLiberty and Long Counties, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 129 p.
Paulk, H.L., 1968, Soil Survey of Bulloch County, Georgia: U.S.D.A. 31. Soil Conservation Service, 75 p.
_______ , 1973, Sorl Survey of Montgomery, Toombs, and Wheeler Counties, Georgia: U.S.D.A. :Soil Conservation Service, 63 p. _______ , 1980, Soil Survey Glf Candler, Evans, and Tattnall Counties, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 96 p. _______ , 1981, Soil Survey of Richmond County, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 126 p. Rigdon, T.A., 1975, Soil Survey of Appling and Jeff Davis Counties, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 65 p. _______ , and Green, A.J., 19180, Soil Survey of Camden and Glynn Counties, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 82 p.
Stoner, H.T., 1968, Soil Survey of Pie:rce County, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 43 p.
Teas, L.P., 1921, A Preliminary Report on Sand and Gravel Deposits of Georgia: Geological Survey of Georgia Bulletin 37, 392 p.
Wilkes, R.L., Johnson, J.H., Stoner, H.T., and Bacon, D.O., 1974, Soil Survey of Bryan and Chatham Ccounties, Georgia: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 71 p.

BULLETIN 108
81"
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL POTENTIAL OF THE EASTERN
GEORGIA COASTAL PLAIN
by
Michael S. Friddell
and
Jeane S. Brackman

S1mons Island

0 31 '

10E3:::J3::::ECE=a::::lo~=========13:':0=======2E0~========~30 Miles
Scale 1:500,000

82

Base from U .S. Geological Survey State base map

8P

. '
r

For convenience in selecting our reports from your bookshelves, they are color-keyed across the spine by subject as follows :

Red Dk. Purple
Maroon Lt. Green Lt. Blue Dk. Green Dk. Blue Olive Yellow
Dk. Orange Brown Black Dk . Brown

Valley and Ridge mapping and structural geology

Piedmont and Blue Ridge mapping and structural

geology



Coastal Plain mapping and stratigraphy

Paleontology

Coastal Zone studies

Geochemical and geophysical studies

Hydrology

Economic geology

Environmental studies

Engineering studies

Bibliographies and lists of publications

Petroleum and natural gas

Field trip guidebooks

Collections of papers

Colors have been selected at random, and will be augmented as new subjects are published.

Editor: Patricia A. Allgood Cartographer: Don Shellenberger
$7612/500
The Department of Natural Resources is an equal opportunity employer and offers all persons the opportun ity 10 ompete and participate in each area of DNR employment regardless of race, o lor, religion sex, national origin, age, handicap, or och e r non- me rit factors.