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

Construction Material Potential of the
Middle Georgia Coastal Plain
An Evaluation
Jeane S. Brackman
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
BULLETIN 119

Cover Photo: A typical sand dune complex of the Middle Georgia area.

Construction Material Potential of the
Middle Georgia Coastal Plain
An Evaluation
Jeane S. Brackman
Deparunent of Natural Resources Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner
Environmental Protection Division Harold F. Reheis, Director Georgia Geologic Survey
William H. McLemore, State Geologist
Prepared as part of the Accelerated Economic Minerals Program
Atlanta 1991
BULLETIN 119

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
.ABS'IRACf ..... ... ..... ... ....... ................................................... ........................ ... ... ..... ... ... .... ...... ... 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................ ................ 1 IN'rR.ODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .. ... ............ ... ..... .. .. ... .. ... ... ... ... .... .. .... ... .. ... ... .... ... .. ...... .... ... .. ... .... .. .... .. .... 1 PREVIOUS WORK...................................................................................................................... 3 PHYSIOGRAPHY ................................................................... ... ..... ....... .... .................... .... ...... .... 3 GEOWGY .................... ............... ............ .................... .............................. .. .............................. 5
Quaternary alluvium............................................................................................................ 5 Altamaha Formation ..... ...... ... ... ..... ....... ......... ............... ... .. .... .. ................ ...... ... ......... .. ....... . 5 OHgocene sediments .. .. ...... .... .. ... .... .. .... .. ... ... ... .... ...... ... .. ... ... ..... .. .... ... .. ... ... .. ... ....... .. ... ... .... . 5 Barnwell Group .. ... .. ....... .. ... .. .. ... .. ... ... ... .... ... ... .. .... .. ... ... ... ....... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ....... ... .. ... .... .... . 5 Marshallville Formation ....................................................................................................... 5 Oconee Group .. ... ..... ... ... .. ... .. .... .. ... .... .. ............ .. .... .. ... ... ... .... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 5 Hawthorne Group .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .... .. .... ... .. ... .... ...... .. ... ... ... ... .... ... .. .... ... .. ... .... .. .... .. 5
Statenville Formation............................ .... ...... ...... .. ... ...... ....... .. ... ...... ... ...... .... ... ... ... . 5 Cypresshead Formation ..... .. .......... .. ....... ... .. ... ... ... .... .. ... .... .. ... ... ... .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. 5 Miccosukee Formation.............................................................................................. 7 PROCEDURES AND ME1'HODS .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ....... ........ ... .. ..... .. 7 Delineation of Areas with Potential for Aggregate .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .... .. ... ..... .. . 7 Production .... ... .... ... .. .... ... .. .... .. ... .... .. ... .... .. .... .. ...... ... .... ... ... ......... ... ... ... ... .... .... ... ... ....... ..... .. 7 Soil'I'ype .. .. .... .. ... .... ..... .... .. ... ... .... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... .... ... .. ... ... .... .. .... ... .. ... .... ............... .... 7 Sand and Gravel Localities .............................................. ................................. .... .... 7 Sand or Gravel Producers .. .. .... .. .... .. .... .. ... ... ... ... ... .... .. .... .. ... ... ... .... .. .... ... .. .... .. ... .... .. . 7 Geomorphic Features ....... ... ... ... ... ......... ...... ... ... ... .. .. ... ... .. .... ..... ... ... ...... .... ...... ..... .... 7 Asstgmnent of Priorities .. ..... ... ... ... ... ...... .... ... .. ... ... .... .. ... .... .... ..... .. .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ....... ... ..... 7 Sampling ............................................................................................................................. 9 Auger .................................. ............................................... .. .................................... 9 1'rench ...................................................................................................................... 9 Sample Identification .. .. ... ... .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... .... ... ... ...... ... .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .. .... .. ..... .... ... .. ... .... 9 LABORATORY PROCEDURES................................................................................................... 9 Particles larger than 3/8" ......................................................................................... 9 Particles smaller than 3/8" .............................................................. ......................... 10 EVALUATION OF TilE SIEVE DATA ........................................................................................... 10
COUNIY REPORI'S .................................................................................................................... 10 Atkinson County .................................................................................................................. 10 Baldwin County ............................ .... ... ... ... .. .......... .. ............................................ .. .............. 15 Ben Hill County ....... ....... ............ .................. .... ........... .... ............................. ................ .. ..... 21 Berrien County ........................................................................................... ... ...................... 28 Bibb County ........................................................................................................................35 Bleckley County ................................................................................................................... 42 Clinch County......................................................................................................................47 Coffee County ............................................... .. ........................ ............................................. 53 Cook County ........................................................................................................................ 59 Crisp County ....................................................................................................................... 59 Dodge County .. ..................... ............ .... ......................................... .......... ........................ .... 63 Dooly County ............................................................................. .. ........................................ 67 Echols County .. ................ ................................... ....... ......................................................... 73 Hancock County .......... ....... .................... .... .................. ... ........................... ... ...................... 80 Houston County .................................................................................................................. 86 Irwin County........................................................................................................................ 94
lll

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page Jeff Davis County.............. ......... ... ......... ............ ....... ... .......... ............ ...... ............................ 100 Johnson County ............................................. ............. ... .............................................. ... .... 108 Jones County ................................. .. ... ..... ....... ...... .. ................... ............. .... .. ....... ....... ......... 116 Lanier County ...................................................................................................................... 120 Laurens County .......... ..... ..... .. ......... ... .. ......... .... ............ ...... .... .. .. ..................... .. ...... ..... ...... 124 Lowndes County ...................... ............................................................................................ 131 Montgomery County............................................................................................................. 137 Peach County ........... ......... ................. ................ ....................... .......................................... 143 Pulaski County .................................................................................................................... 143 Telfair County ..... ... ........................ .... .... .... ... .... ......................................... .................. ...... .. 152 Tift County ................................................... .. .. .. ..... ...... .................. ...... ....... ...... ..... .... ........ 159 'l'reutlen County ....................._,................. ............................................................................ 164 Turner County ..................................................................................................................... 173 'l'wiggs County ..................................................................................................................... 179 Ware County ............................. ......... ........ ..... ........... .. ............... ......... ..... .. .... ..................... 187 Washington County ....................... ...... ... ... .............. ........................... .......... .. ..................... 196 Wheeler County ............................................................................. ... ..... ................... ........... 202 Wilcox County ..................................................................................................................... 210 Wilkinson County .. .. ............. ... ......... ...................... ....... ..... ................................................. 219
SUMMAR.Y EVALUATION .......... .... ..... ... ..................... .... ................ ...... ...................... .. ..... ...... .. 226
REFERENCES ................................................................................ ... ....... ........... .................... ..227
FIGURES
Figure 1. Location Map of the Study Area ... .. ... ... ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .... .. .... .. ... ... ... ... ... .... .... .. ... .. .... 2 Figure 2 . Physiographic Map of the Study Area .. .. .. .. ... ... ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... .. .. .. ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. 4 Figure 3. Geologic Map of the Study Area................. ..................... ........................................... 6 Figure 4. Index of Soil Maps ................... ... ... .... ..... .......... ..... ...... ... ... ... .... .. ... .... .. ....... ... ...... .. ... 8 Figure 5. Atkinson County Map .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ....... .... .. .. .... .. ... . 11 Figure 6. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Atk-1 .... ... .. .. .. ... .... .. . .. .... .. .. .... .. ... .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... ..... . 12 Figure 7. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Atk-2 .................................................................. 13 Figure 8. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Atk-3 ................................................................... 14 Figure 9. Baldwin County Map .. .. ....... .. ... .... .. ... ... ............ ... ....... ... ... ... ... .. .... ... ... ... ..... ... ... .... ... . 17 Figure 10. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bal-l................. .................................... .. ............ 18 Figure 11. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bal-2 .................. ........... ............ .. ...... ...... ............ 19 Figure 12. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bal-3.. .................. ... ........... .. .............. ......... ........ 20 Figure 13. Ben Hill County Map.. .. ............. .. ... ...................... ...................... ........... ...... ... ......... .. 22 Figure 14. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BeH-1 .. ..... ................... .. ...... ... ........ .... .. .............. 23 Figure 15. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BeH-2 ... .. .. ... .... .... ................................. .. ....... ..... 24 Figure 16. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BeH-3a ...................... .......................................... 25 Figure 17. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BeH-3b ....... .. ............... ...... ............. .................... 26 Figure 18. Size Distribution Curve of Sample BeH-4 ........... .. ..................................................... 27 Figure 19. Berrien County Map..... ... ... ...... ........ .. ... ........ ......... ...... ... .. .. .... ....... .. ......................... 29 Figure 20. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Ber-1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .... ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ...... ... ...... ... .. ... 30 Figure 21. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Ber-2 .. .. ........ .................. .. ... .. .............................. 31 Figure 22. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Ber-3 .. .... ... .. ...... .. ... .... ......... .... .. .. .... ...... .... .. ... ..... 32 Figure 23. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Ber-4 .... .... ........ .... ......... .. ..... .. ... .......................... 33 Figure 24. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Ber-5 .. .... .. ... ... .. ... .. .. .... .......... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ...... ....... . 34 Figure 25. Bibb County Map .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. ... ... ... .. 36 Figure 26. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Bib-la.................................................................. 37
iv

FIGURES (Continued)
Page
Figure 27. Size Distrtbutton CuiVe of Sample Bib-lb ................................................................. 38 Figure 28. Size Distrtbutton CuiVe of Sample Bib-2 .. ...... .. .. .... ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... 39 Figure 29. Size Distrtbution CuiVe of Sample Bib-3 .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. ...... ... ... .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. 40 Figure 30. Size Distrtbution CuiVe of Sample Bib-4 .................... ............................................... 41 Figure 31. Bleckley County Map .. ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... .. .... ... ... .. ... .... .. .... .. .... .. ... ... .. ....... .... ... ... . 43 Figure 32. Size Distrtbutton CuiVe of Sample Ble-1 ... ..... ................ .... ... .... ....... ..... ... .. .......... ...... 44 Figure 33. Size Distrtbution CuiVe of Sample Ble-2a....... .... .... .. .... .. .... .. ... .... .. .... .. ... ... .. .... .. ... .... . 45 Figure 34. Size Distrtbutton CuiVe of Sample Ble-2b.... .... ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .... .. ... ... .... .. ... ... ..... ... .... ... . 46 Figure 35. Clinch County Map .. ... ... .... ...... ... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... ... ... .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .... .... .. . 48 Figure 36. Size Distrtbution CuiVe of Sample Cln-1 ........................................................ ........... 49 Figure 37. Size Distrtbution CuiVe of Sample Cln-2 ................................................................... 50 Figure 38. Size Distrtbution CuiVe of Sample Cln-3 ................................................................... 51 Figure 39. Size Distrtbution CuiVe of Sample Cln-4 ................................................................... 52 Figure 40. Coffee County Map................... ............... .... .... .......................................................... 54 Figure 41. Size Distrtbution CuiVe of Sample Cof-1 ................................................................... 55 Figure 42. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Cof-2 .............. ..... .. ......... .. ............. ...................... 56 Figure 43. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Cof-3 ..................... ..................................... .. ....... 57 Figure 44. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Cof-4 .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . 58 Figure 45. Cook County Map .. ... ... .. ... .... .... .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... .... 60 Figure 46. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Coo-l .. ... ................................................... ...... ..... 61 Figure 47. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Coo-2 .................................................................. . 62 Figure 48. Crisp County Map .. .. ... ... .... ...... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. ... ..... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .... .. ........... 64 Figure 49. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Cri-1 ....................................... .. ........................... 65 Figure 50. Dodge County Map .... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ...... ... ... ... .... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... .. 66 Figure 51. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Dod-1 .. .... ... ... ... .... .. .... .. .... .. ..... .. ... ... .... .. ... ..... .. .... 68 Figure 52. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Dod-2 .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... .... .. .... ....................... .... 69 Figure 53. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Dod-3 .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 70 Figure 54. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Dod-4a.......... ... .. .. .. .... ... ... ... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .... . 71 Figure 55. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Dod-4b .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .... .. ...... .... .... .. .. 72 Figure 56. Echols County Map .............................................. ... ................ ...... ............... ............. 74 Figure 57. Size Distrtbution CuiVe of Sample Ech-1 .......... .. ....................................................... 75 Figure 58. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Ech-2a ........................... ... ................................... 76 Figure 59. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Ech-2b ................................................................. 77 Figure 60. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Ech-3.. .... .. ... ... .... ... .. ... .. .... .... .. .... .. .. .... ..... ... ......... 78 Figure 61. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Ech-4 ................................................................... 79 Figure 62. Hancock County Map ................................................................................................ 81 Figure 63. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Han-1 ........ ...... ... .... ... ..... .... .. .. .. .. ... ....... ..... ... .. .... . 82 Figure 64. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Han-2 ......................... . .. ......... ................. ...... ...... 83 Figure 65. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Han-3 .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .... .. .... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .... .. ... ... .. .. 84 Figure 66. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Han-4 .... .. .... ... .... ............ .... .. ...... ... ...... ... ... .. ... .. .. . 85 Figure 67. Houston County Map ..... ..... ...... ... ................ ... ... ... ... ... ............ ............ ... ... ..... ... ... ... .. 87 Figure 68. Size Distribution CuiVe of Sample Hou-1 .. .... .. ...... .. .. .. ...... ... .. ..... .. .. .... ..... .... .... ... .. .... 88 Figure 69. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Hou-2 ................................. .................. ............ ... 89 Figure 70. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Hou-3 .. .... .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .............. ..... ... .... .. .. 90 Figure 71. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Hou-4 ................................................... ............... 91 Figure 72. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Hou-5 .................................................................. 92 Figure 73. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Hou-6 .. .... .. .. .... .. .... ... ...... .. .. .. .. .... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... . 93 Figure 74. Irwin County Map .... ... .... .. ... . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. ... .. .. .. ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. 95 Figure 75. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Irw-1 .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 96 Figure 76. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Irw-2.. ... .... .. .... .. ... ... .... ...... .. .... .. ...... ... .. .... .... .... .. .. 97 Figure 77. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Irw-3 ..... .... .. .... ... ...... .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ... ... ... .... .. .. .... ... .. . 98 Figure 78. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Irw-4 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. . 99
v

FIGURES (Continued)
Pa&e Figure 79. Jeff Davis County Map ............................................................................................ 101 Figure 80. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample JeD-1 ...... ... .................. .... .......... .... ............. ....... 102 Figure 81. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample JeD-2 .... ...... .. .......... ...... ..... ........ ... ............. ..... ... 103 Figure 82. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample JeD-3 ......................... ......... ...... ... .... ............... ... 104 Figure 83. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample JeD-4 ................................................................. 105 Figure 84. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample JeD-5 .................... ... ... ..... .. ..... .............. ............. 106 Figure 85. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample JeD-6 ............... ... ... .. .............................. ..... ....... 107 Figure 86. Johnson County Map .............. ... ..................... ..... ....... ...... .............................. .... ... . 109 Figure 87. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Joh-1 ..... ..... .. ............ ....... .......... .. ................. ..... 110 Figure 88. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Joh-2 ................................................................. 111 Figure 89. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Joh-3 ................................................................. 112 Figure 90. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Joh-4a ............................................................... 113 Figure 91. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Joh-4b ...... ................ ......... .. .............................. 114 Figure 92. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Joh-5 ................................................................. 115 Figure 93. Jones County Map .................................................................................................. 117 Figure 94. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Jon-1 ................................................................. 118 Figure 95. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Jon-2 .. ... ...... ...................... ..... ........................... 119 Figure 96. Lanier County Map ................... ....... .... .. ........... ............... .. ..................................... 121 Figure 97. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Lan-1 ............ ....... .. .......... .. .......................... ..... . 122 Figure 98. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Lan-2 ................................................................. 123 Figure 99. Laurens County Map ..................................... ....... .................................................. 125 Figure 100. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Lau-1 ................................................................. 126 Figure 101. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Lau-2 ................................................................. 127 Figure 102. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Lau-3 ................................................................. 128 Figure 103. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Lau-4 ................................................................. 129 Figure 104. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Lau-5 ................................................................. 130 Figure 105. Lowndes County Map .............................................................................................. 132 Figure 106. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Low-1 ................................................................. 133 Figure 107. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Low-2 ................................................................. 134 Figure 108. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Low-3 ................................................................. 135 Figure 109. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Low-4 ................................................................. 136 Figure 110. Montgomery County Map ........................................................................................ 138 Figure Ill. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mon-la .............................................................. 139 Figure 112. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mon-lb .............................................................. 140 Figure 113. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mon-2 ................................................................ 141 Figure 114. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Mon-3 ................................................................ 142 Figure 115. Peach County Map .................................................................................................. 144 Figure 116. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Pch-1 ................................................................. 145 Figure 117. Pulaski County Map ................................................................................................ 146 Figure 118. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Pul-1 .................................................................. 147 Figure 119. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Pul-2 .................................................................. 148 Figure 120. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Pul-3 .................................................................. 149 Figure 121. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Pul-4 .................................................................. 150 Figure 122. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Pul-5 .................................................................. 151 Figure 123. Telfair County Map ................................................................................................. 153 Figure 124. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tel-l .................................................................. 154 Figure 125. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tel-2a ................................................................ 155 Figure 126. Size Distribution Cutve of Sample Tel-2b ................................................................ 156 Figure 127. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tel-3 .................................................................. 157 Figure 128. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tel-4 .................................................................. 158 Figure 129. Tift County Map ...................................................................................................... 160 Figure 130. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tif-1 ................................................................... 161
vi

FIGURES (Continued)
Pate
Figure 131. Size Distribution Curve of Sample T1f-2a ................................................................. 162 Figure 132. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tif-2b ................................................................. 163 Figure 133. 'I'reutlen County Map .... .......................................................................................... 165 Figure 134. Size D1strtbution Curve of Sample 'I're-1a ................................................................ 166 Figure 135. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tre-1b ................................................................ 167 Figure 136. Size Distribution Curve of Sample 'I're-2 .................................................................. 168 Figure 137. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tre-3 .................................................................. 169 Figure 138. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tre-4 .................................................................. 170 Figure 139. Size Distribution Curve of Sample 'I're-5 .................................................................. 171 Figure 140. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tre-6 .................................................................. 172 Figure 141. 1'umer County Map ............ .. .................................................................................. 174 Figure 142. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Tm-1 ................................................................. 175 Figure 143. Size Distribution Curve of Sample 'I'rn-2 ................................................................. 176 Figure 144. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Trn-3 ................................................................. 177 Figure 145. Size Distribution Curve of Sample 'I'rn-4 ................................................................. 178 Figure 146. '!Wiggs County Map .. .............. ................................................................................. 180 Figure 147. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Twi-1a ................................................................ 181 Figure 148. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Twi-1b ............................................................... 182 Figure 149. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Twl-2 ................................................................. 183 Figure 150. Size Distribution Curve of Sample 1\v-i-3 ................................................................. 184 Figure 151. Size Distribution Curve of Sample 1\vi-4 ................................................................. 185 Figure 152. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Twi-5 ................................................................. 186 Figure 153. Ware County Map .... ............................................................................................... 188 Figure 154. Size Distribution Curve of Sample War-1 ................................................................ 189 Figure 155. Size Distribution Curve of Sample War-2 ................................................................ 190 Figure 156. Size Distribution Curve of Sample War-3 ................................................................ 191 Figure 157. Size Distribution Curve of Sample War-4 ................................................................ 192 Figure 158. Size Distribution Curve of Sample War-5 ................................................................ 193 Figure 159. Size Distribution Curve of Sample War-6 ................................................................ 194 Figure 160. Size Distribution Curve of Sample War-7 ................................................................ 195 F:.lgure 161. Washington County Map ............ ................... .......................................................... 197 Figure 162. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Was-1 ................................................................ 198 Figure 163. Size DiStribution Curve of Sample Was-2 ................................................................ 199 Figure 164. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Was-3 ................................................................ 200 Figure 165. Size DiStribution Curve of Sample Was-4 ................................................................ 201 Figure 166. Wheeler County Map .............. ................................................................................. 203 Figure 167. Size DiStribution Curve of Sample Whe-1 ................................................................ 204 F:tgure 168. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Whe-2 ................................................................ 205 Figure 169. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Whe-3 ................................................................ 206 Figure 170. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Whe-4 ................................................................ 207 Figure 171. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Whe-5 ................................................................ 208 Figure 172. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Whe-6 ................................................................ 209 Figure 173. Wilcox County Map ........ ... ...................................................................................... 211 Figure 174. Size DiStribution Curve of Sample Wlx-1 ................................................................. 212 Figure 175. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wlx-2 ................................................................. 213 Figure 176. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wlx-3 ................................................................. 214 Figure 177. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wlx-4 ................................................................. 215 Figure 178. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wlx-5a ............................................................... 216 Figure 179. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wlx-5b ............................................................... 217 Figure 180. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wlx-6 ................................................................. 218 Figure 181. Wilkinson County Map ......... ................................................................................... 220 Figure 182. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wik-1 ................................................................. 221
vii

FIGURES (Continued)
Page
Figure 183. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wik-2 ......... ........................................................ 222 Figure 184. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wik-3 ... .. ... ........ ............................................ .. ... 223 Figure 185. Size Distribution Curve of Sample Wlk-4 ................................................................. 224 F.tgure 186. Size Distrtbution Cuxve of Sample Wlk-5 ................................................................. 225
TABLES
Table 1. Sieve AnalysiS System .. ... .. ... .... ... ....... ..... .... .. ...... ... ... .... .. ............ .... .. ...... ... ...... .... ...... 15 Table 2. Atkinson County Sample Data .................................................................................... 15 Table 3. Baldwin Counly Sample Data..................................................................................... 16 Table 4. Ben Hill Counly Sample Data .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ... . 21 Table 5. Berrien County Sample Data .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .... ... ... .. .. .. 28 Table 6. Bibb County Sample Data .. ... ....... .... .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... ... ... .. ... . 35 Table 7. Bleckley County Sample Data... .................................................................................. 42 Table 8. Clinch County Sample Data .. ... ... ... ............................................................................ 47 Table 9. Coffee County Sample Dala .. ... ... ... ... .. ....... .. ............. ...... ...... ... ...... ...... ... ...... ...... ........ 53 Table 10. Cook County Sample Data.......................................................................................... 59 Table 11. Crisp County Sample Data .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ..... ..... .... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . 63 Table 12. Dodge County Sample Data ........................................................................................ 67 Table 13. Echols County Sample Data ....................................................................................... 73 Table 14. Hancock County Sample Data .................................................................................... 80 Table 15. Houston County SampJe Data .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. ... .. ...... .. .. ...... ... ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. 86 Table 16. Irwin County Sample Data .... ..................................................................................... 94 Table 17. Jeff Davis County Sample Data .................................................................................. 100 Table 18. Johnson County Sample Data .................................................................................... 116 Table 19. Jones County Sample Data ....... ... .............................................................................. 120 Table 20. Lanier County San1ple Data ........................................................................................ 120 Table 21. Laurens County Sample Data ..................................................................................... 124 Table 22. Lowndes County Sample Data .................................................................................... 131 Table 23. Montgomery County Sample Data .............................................................................. 137 Table 24. Peach County Sample Data ........... ............................................................................. 143 Table 25. Pulaski County Sample Data ...................................................................................... 152 Table 26. Telfair County Sample Data ........................................................................................ 159 Table 27. Tift County Sample Data ........... ......... ........................................................................ 164 Table 28. Treutlen County Sample Data .................................................................................... 173 Table 29. Turner County Sample Data ....................................................................................... 179 Table 30. 1\vlggs County Sample Data ....................................................................................... 187 Table 31. Ware County Sample Data ............ .............................................................................. 196 Table 32. Washtngton County Sample Data .. ......... .................................................................... 202 Table 33. Wheeler County Sample Data .... ................................................................................. 210 Table 34. Wilcox County Sample Data ................ .. ..................................................................... 219 Table 35. Wilkinson County Samp1e Data .................................................................................. 226
PLATE
Plate 1 ......................................... .. ... ......................................................................................... cover envelope
Vlll

Construction Material Potential of the Middle Georgia Coastal Plain
An Evaluation JeaneS. Brackman

ABSTRACT
Construction costs in the Georgia Coastal Platn are probably higher than they could be because most of the coarse construction aggregate used there (prtmartlycrushed stone) is transported from the Piedmont Province. The purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation of the construction materlal of the middle third of the Coastal Platn, approximately 11,000 square mlles.
The study area covers all of twenty-three counties (Atkinson, Ben H111, Berrien, Bleckley, Clinch, Coffee, Dodge, Echols, IIWin, Jeff Davis, Johnson, Lamer, Laurens, Montgomery, Pulaski, Telfair, Treutlen, Twiggs, Ware, Washington, Wheeler, Wilcox, and Wilkinson): and covers parts oftwelve counties: Baldwin, Hancock, and Jones are not entirely within the Coastal Plain: Cook, Crisp, Dooly, Houston, Lowndes, Peach, Tift. and Turner were partially covered in GGS Bulletin 106, (Frlddell 1987]: Bibb County is in both of these catagories.
Sites within the study area were prioritized as to their potential for aggregate production based on the: 1) soil type present: 2) proximity to sand or gravel pits described in both published and unpublished literature: 3) geomorphic features indicative of aggregate deposits: and 4) proxlmity to active or recently inactive conunercial mining operations.
Four counties (Baldwin, Echols, Hancock, and Pulaski) were found to have moderate to high potential for aggregate production.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to extend her gratitude to those who painstakingly reviewed this manuscript. These people include Brian Thames, Bruce O'Connor, and Mike Frlddell (who also provided much needed advice from time to time) of the Geologic Survey: Bob Dickerson of the Georgia Department of Transportation: and Bob Carver of the University of Georgia. Thanks also to Mike

Laney, Tony McCook and Scott Setser of the Geologic Survey for invaluable field assistance. Appreciation also goes to the cartographic and editorial staff of the Geologic Survey.
INTRODUCTION
The first ofthis three part study, Bulletin 106 (Frlddell, 1987, see Figure 1), covered the western third of the Coastal Plain, the area west of Interstate 75. The second part, Bulletin 108 (Frlddell and Brackman, 1990), evaluated the potentlal construction aggregate reserves in the eastern third of the Coastal Plain.
Aggregate, as defined by industry, is composed of unconsolidated rock particles. Fine aggregate ranges from 0.075 nun to 4. 75 nun in size, and coarse aggregate ranges in size from 4.75 nun to 3.5 inches (8.89nun). Uses for construction aggregate include concrete, mortar, plaster, brick, masonry sand and fill material. Mining ofsand and gravel in this area of the State 1s done primarily by back-hoe and front-end loader.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
PurPOSe
Within the Coastal Plain ofGeorgia, construction costs are higherthan in otherparts ofthe State because coarse aggregate must be transported great distances. Therefore,identtficationofadequate aggregate reserves located in the Coastal Plain, probably, could lower construction costs.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the aggregate production potential of the central third of the Coastal Plain by studying the resources available, and locating favorable areas for aggregate production. Because it is not always possible to anticipate the geographic areas in which the demand for aggregate may occur, demographic divisions were not considered, thus, providing a better indication ofthe true availability ofboth fine and coarse aggregate deposits.

1

'\'''''uoo

t , .... {J

' \

..

l"'
I

\
'
\"'" <1"

' N
L..

n-"-.-

-

-

t.
--

-

,---

-

"

'

1"il,l;t.'\,

"1\ II I'' ,,

u '

/

"&HI \
-\

N
t
10 MILES

. ... ,.
.1---

,,. \

r pr"tA[THEQ 11 '- t

t

\--- (

. I

f
"1

" " ~

, n:

'"\ < t.tc'Wf .} 'r'~o

ru C

.....

( .. \~.

.,~1

\

f/ I >I

. . I

P. rese"nt
' t tl

, .

rJ'Study f -

I A
J ,'rr
Afea ,_

I- I Ml u

....... Jilf~c:idt,
'

'

.1\l ,.nO>'"~ 1

I

.L.._._- -.

________ J.

\

't_!

Ftgure 1. Location map of the study area. 2

Scope
The study area is that part ofthe Coastal Plain Province of Georgia that lies east oflnterstate 75, and west of a ltne drawn north to south along the easternborders ofWashington, Johnson,Treutlen, Montgomecy, Jeff Davis, Coffee, and Ware counties. This area encompasses approximately 11 ,000 square miles and includes the entirety of twentythree counties, with partial coverage of twelve others.
PREVIOUS WORK
The major previous work concerning sand and gravel exploration and evaluation in Georgia is that of Teas (1921). Teas performed a thorough sutvey of sand and gravel resources of the entire State.
The Department of Natural Resources. Environmental Protection Division of Georgia maintatnsa record ofsutfacemtning andlandreclamation activities which is updated yearly. This listing includes information on sutface mintng activities permitted since Januacy 1, 1969. The information includes the product mined. operator. location of operation. acres permitted, acres reclaimed. and the status of the operation (whether active or inactive).
Steele and O'Connor (1987) identified the mtntng operations in Georgia. This publication lists the mtneral commodities by county. producers' names. and the plant locations.
An evaluation of the construction material potential of the eastern and western thirds of the Coastal Plain have been evaluated by Friddell (1987) and Friddell and Brackman (1990). respectively.
PHYSIOGRAPHY
The study area lies within the Coastal Plain Province ofGeorgia. Six physiographic districts are present in the study area; they are the Fall Une Hills, Vidalia Upland, Bacon Terraces. Okefenokee Basin. Fort Valley Plateau, and Tlfton Upland Distrtcts (Figure 2). Clark and Zisa (1976) described these districts as follows:
"Fall Line Hills Dlslrict- The Fall Line is the northern boundary of this district.... Geologically, tt is the contactbetweenthe Cretaceous andyounger 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 levelland except the marshy floodplains and their better drained, narrow stream terraces. Stream valleys 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 d1mtnish to a mtn1mum elevation of 150 feet south ofAugusta.
"Fort Valley Plateau District- (The Fort Valley Plateau District)... is characterized by flat-topped interfluves with narrow, 50-150 feet deep. steepwalled valleys. This area is distinct from the Fall Line Hills in that the broad. flat-topped interfluves are the dominant feature, there are fewer streams, and there is less local relief. The area is less dissected than the Fall Line Hills because it 1s underlain by the more clayey units of undilferentiated Eocene. Paleocene and possible Cretaceous age sediments. Elevations range from 550 feet in the north to 250 feet in the southeast, indicating a soulheast regional dip.
"'Tifton Upland District - A well developed. extended. dendritic dratnage pattern is formed on the undi1Terentiated Neogene sediments In the Tifton Upland District. Characteristically, the interfluves are narrow and rounded, rising 50 to 200 feet above the narrow valley floors. Elevations range from 480 feet in the norlh to 150 feet in the southeast. indicating the regional slope."
"Vidalia Upland District -The Vidalia Upland District is a moderately dissected area with a well developed dendritic stream pattern on gravelly, clayey sands. Floodplalns 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 undlfferentiated Neogene geologic unit. The southwestern and southern boundary 1s 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 eleva-

3

N
t
Fort Valley Province
\-

/ /'-_"'I.
I
-"' S 0 N ~ 'f'

Ot:===j20~~~~40. Miles
Oc=j2~0==::::340 Kilometers

Okefe\ nokee

~

L --,
l I L 0 W N D E S ,1 r ,._.. ; rxx~r;rJ

~-,!

CLINCH
- Bas.m,I

\

L- :l

---

1

\
''

s-; E C H 0 L

~

I I

~ - - - - - ' - ~-------.;

(Clark and Zlsa, 1976)

Figure 2. Physiographic map of the study area.

4

tlon. The escarpment rises 50-70 feet above the Barrier Island Sequence District.
"BaconTerraces District- Several moderately dissected terraces, generally parallel to the present coastline, are detectable on topographic maps of theBaconTerracesDistrict. However, theyarevery difficult to observe on the ground because the east facing scarps are very subtle. The terrace levels occur at elevations of 330-310 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 Satllla River drainage basin with its boundaries on the basin divide. The eastern boundary is the western base ofTrail Ridge at approximately the 150 foot elevation. The southeast-trending, very extended, dendritic drainage pattern has formed on Upper Tertiary sediments.
"Okefenokee Basin District - Low relief, decreasing to the southeast, and numerous swamps are characteristic ofthe 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... At the extreme southern end of the district the St. Marys River turns east and flows through a gap in Trail Ridge. The northern and westernboundaries ofthe district coincide with the northernand westernboundariesofthe Suwannee River. The eastern boundary is the western base ofTrail Ridge.
GEOLOGY
The geology of the study area is illustrated in Figure 3. This section contains briefdescriptions of units cropping out in the study area.
Quaternary alluvium
Quaternary alluvia consist of unconsolidated sediments, found infloodplains of rivers and streams, and eolian sand dunes alongmajorrivers and streams of the study area.
Altam&ha Formation
The Altamaha Formation is Miocene to Pliocene in age (Huddlestun, pers. comm.); and, according to Friddell (1987, p. 10), "consists of thinto thick-bedded, locally cross-bedded, variably indurated, well-to poorly-sorted, feldspathic, argilla-

ceous,locallygravelly. fine- to coarse-grained sand to clay."
Oll,ocene sediments
These Oligocene sediments are primarily composed of limestone and dolostone.
Barnwell Group
Sediments of the Barnwell Group are Late Eocene in age; and, according to Huddlestun and Hetrick (1985, p. 16-17), are predominately composed of very fine-to very coarse-grained quartz sand in thin to thick, horizontally-bedded layers.
Marshallville Formation
According to Hetrick (1991), the Marshallville Formation consists of fine- to medium-grained sand interlayered with clay. Generally, the Marshallville Formation crops out as channel deposits of fine-grained sand and clay. The Marshallville also occurs as thin to thick beds of cross-bedded, fine- to medium-grained sands. These sediments are Paleocene in age.
Oconee Group
Sediments of the Oconee Group are Upper Cretaceous to Tertiary in age and consist pr1marily of kaolin, kaolinitic sand, and mica, with minor amounts of heavy minerals present in mediumgrained sand (Hetrick and Frtddell, 1990).
Hawthorne Group
In the study area, the Hawthorne Group is represented by the Statenville, Cypresshead, and Miccosukee Formations (Huddlestun 1988, p. 9296, p. 119-129, respectively).
Statenville Formation
The Statenville Formation, middle Miocene 1n age, consists of cross-bedded "argillaceous, dolomitic, phosphatic sand." It is predominately composed of fine- to coarse-grained well- to poorlysorted quartz sand.
Cypresshead Formation
The Cypresshead Formation, late Pliocene in

5

N
t
EXPLANATION
f~ i~ Quaternary Alluvium
[l~f~t) Altamaha Formation

Oligocene Sediments
~ Barnwell Group

Marshallville Formation

~ Oconee Group

~ Hawthorne Group ~ Miccosukee Formation

[ 3 Hawthorne Group
~ Statenville Formation

Hawthorne Group



Cypresshead Formation

Oc==~2E0===~4JO Miles
ot::==2I0==340==:560 Kilometers

(After Lawton, 1977; Huddlestun, pers. comm.) For detailed description, see text.
Figure 3. Geologic map of the study area.
6

age, consists prtmarJly of quartz sand, including some "pebbles and gravel, heavy minerals, mica, trace fossils..."
Miccosukee Fonnation
The Miccosukee Formation, late Pliocene in age, is plimartly composed ofsand, with clay being predominant in certain areas. The Miccosukee is usually found in thin beds of fine-to mediumgrained sand, and locally. is found occurring as scour and fill structures filled with coarse-grained sediments and gravel stringers.
PROCEDURES AND :METHODS

neBneation ofAreg with Potential for ~2ate

Procluctlon

Areaswere prioritizedbased on four factors: 1) soil type: 2) proxfmity to known sand or gravel localities: 3) prox1mity to known sand or gravel m1n1ng operations: and 4) geomorphic features present.

Soil Type

The soil associations used in targeting areas

for potentlal aggregate production were selected

from two types of county soil surveys: 1) detailed

1:20,000 scale, photographic based soil surveys

published by the United States Department of

Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in coopera-

tion with the University of Georgia College ofAgri-

culture: and, 2) generalized 1:63,360 scale maps

on file at the Georgia Geologic Survey, produced by

the Georgia Department of Natural Resources'

Office of Planning and Research. The detailed,

photographicbase surveyswere preferred: however,

these were not available for all counties in the study

area (Figure 4).



After reviewing the published grain sfze 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 following soil

associationswere chosenfrom the detailed surveys:

Alapaha, Fuquay, Kershaw, Lakeland, Mascotte,

Paola, Rutlege, and Troup: and these from the

generalized maps: #24 - Chipley, Kershaw, Lake-

land: #39- Fuquay, Lakeland: and #41 -Alapaha,

Mascotte, Rutlege. Following the selection of soil

types, their areal extent was plotted on 1:24,000

scale topographic maps.
Sand and Gravel Localities
The locations of gravel pits, sand pits, and prospects on file at the Georgia Geologic Survey, as well as localities discussed by Teas (1921), were plotted on 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. In some cases, Teas (1921) localities could not be accurately located on modem maps and were not included.
Sand or Gravel Producers
The Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Office of Surface Mining and Land Reclamation maintains a listing ofactive orrecentlyinactive (since 1969) commercial aggregate mines in Georgia. These were checked against the listing in the Mining Directory of Georgia (Steele and O'Connor, 1987) published by the Georgia Geologic Survey. The locations were then plotted on the 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used in this study. Finally, a field surveywas carried out to verifY and update this information and to gather data on the mining operations.
Geomorphic Features
Each topographic map was visuallyinspected for geomorphic features such as point bars, river terraces and dune complexes that are generally associated with sand and gravel deposits. Point bars were identified by their general lack of vegetation, flat to undulating surface, and their orientation on the convex side of stream banks. Terraces (former valley floors) were identified by their generally flat surface and their proxfmity to present day streams. Dune fields were recognized as being hills present generally along the north and east sides of major streams. The areal extent of these features was outlined on the 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.
Assloment of Priorities
In order to assign a rank to different areas for aggregate potential, numerical values were assigned on the basis of the four ranking factors. A value of one (1) was assigned to a site where one of the variables existed: a value of two (2) was assigned where two factors overlap. In sfmilar fashion, the overlap of three variables produce a value of three

7

N

'

t

""' WASHINGTON I \ I

/'

- ~ TWIGGS\

/ ~ _.-.;(::";~:~T::::T:-_"1-{(

.r--1~,:-il'f:: .~1lrlf''t~~~i! -~'CH

t.... -..

,

~

,
(

I
I
HO

U

S

T

O~I'N\Y.,~-A :~,..r,,::,.:.~-e-~'~~'.~:'.'Kr-~'~"~"\'.S;.;~--'i.(~:',:~:~.~:.1.;-..'~::;:L1.;:A~~:-:U~?IR~-:'.E.:.;.;N:.~'-".!S/.t":~-:.~-:~"_<,~..~-:,~'r-~-:,:~~.<;'~!~';;y.>~';-P-~

D Counties with detailed 1:20,000 scale soil surveys from the United States Department of Agriculture.
Counties with generalized soil surveys from Georgia Geologic Survey files.

32"~\)~:.p~-:Ji,~'llf~~-~~::~; { DOOLY

. >.'''.::-:::/

,,.,,_.~;:c..-.)~"'WHEELER l tJ

ot:===~2J0~~~~~43o Miles
Ot:=~2J0~=~40 Kilometers

'l?Mi r ~

TURNER}--.n, BEN HILL

d

L_ ( L"L_r- -j('ii~),;.;_~,;!(~!~l(j~~\7-J

'1..- -(

IRWIN ~~):

,;..,.:v;;-e::;;.';:b

{_:,?it::~~:;~~A

l' ~\}._ BERRIEN f .,,,..,~' if.:,/t.:!"~"":r-..,..~~::.;._. ~

83
Figure 4. Index of soil maps. 8

(3), and four variables produce a value of four (4). The priority, or rank ofthe areas sampled is listed in the tables under the individual county descriptions.
Plate I (see pocket). which shows the potential for aggregate production. Js a compilation of the Information plotted on the 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. Interpretation of what constitutes an area ofpotential for construction materials may have changed slightly from sJmilar work done for the Southwestern Coastal Plain (F'Iiddell, 1987) and for the Eastern Coastal Plain (Friddell and Braclanan, 1990). These difierences are due to improvements 1n the database. The plates which show th1s potential for these three studies may not match up exactly; however, consistency within each study is assured.
Samplln&
Areas were sampled in order to field check the Information compiled and to evaluate these areas for aggregate production. Accessible areas wilhin each county with high (two or greater. when possible) assigned values for aggregate potential were examined: and, if the areas appem.-ed lo have potential aggregate value based on field observations. they were sampled. The sampling method, as described below. was designed to insure that the samples collectedwould show a true representation ofthe actual material present. Sediment samples were gathered by either auger or trenching. When possible, sampling was carried out by the use of a truck-mounted Gidding's soil probe equipped with a 4.5" spiral auger. Alternate methods of sampling included trenching, when a natural exposure was encountered, or hand augertng when sampling a point bar in a river.
Auger
At most localities. samplingwas carried out by the use of a truck-mounted Gidding's soil probe, equipped with a 4.5" spiral auger. The depth of the auger holes varied and depended upon the point at which either the auger could not penetrate the sediment or the sample could not be retrieved. Samples could not be retrieved from below the water table or, in some cases, from clay or clayey sand. At the completion of each four-foot auger run, one-third of the material retained on each flight was retrieved, examined. described, and placed in a labeled sample bag. If, at any sample locality,

an appreciable change In grain-size was notiCed, a new sample was begun and so deSignated. At localities where 1t was not possible to use the Gidding's Soil Probe, such as a sand bar accessible only by boat, a hand augered sample was taken.
Trench
Some localities, such as gullies or road cuts, offered a natural exposure that made augertng unnecessary. At such localitiestrenching provided an adequate sample. The surface of the face to be sampled was cleaned to a depth of approximately one inch and a trench ofapproximately three to six inches wide was cut into the face. The sample was then collected, examined, described, and placed in a labeled sample bag. As was the casewith augered samples, when an appreciable change in grain size was noted, a new sample was begun and so designated.
Sample Identification
Each sample of this report is identified by an abbreviation ofthe name ofthe county in which the sample was taken and is numbered consecutively within each county. In the event that more than one sample was taken from a single site, an alphabetical suffix was attached to each sample designation. startingwith "a" for the stratigraphically highestsample. Thus, Dod-4a andDod-4brepresent two samplesfrom the fourth sampletaken inDodge County: Dod-4abeing the first sample taken at this site.
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
In lhe laboratory, the samples were placed in a drying oven at 230 degrees Fahrenheit for 24 hours. After drying, the samples containing very coarse material were sieved through a 3/8" sieve and were separated from the other samples. Laboratory procedures continued as described below.
Particles larger than 3/8"
For those samples which contained particles greater than 3/8," the entire sample was weighed and then sieved through 3/4," 1/2," and 3/8" sieves. Particles retained on these sieves were brushed free of clay and fine sand. This finergrained material was returned to the bulk sample.

9

The nominal diameter of the particles retained on the 3/4" sieve was measured using calipers. Following this, the weight of each categozy was recorded. The remainder ofthe sample was analyzed in the same manner as the samples conta:in.ing no particles greater than 3/8" (see following section). Followtng the sieving of the finer fractions, the weight percentage for each sample was calculated using the method of Folk (1974, p. 34-35).
Particles smaller than 3/8"
After dzylng, each sample was split, using a mechanical splltter.until a sample size of approximately 150grams was obtained. This material was weighed and the weight recorded. The sample was then washed on a #200 mesh sieve until the water ran clear. The split was placed in the dzying oven at 230 Fahrenhe~t and left overnight. After drying. the sample was reweighed and this washed weight recorded. The dzy sample was then sieved mechanically for approximately 15 minutes, using a Ro-Tap machine and a nest of sieves consisting of 414, #8, 1116, #30, #50. # 100, and #200 mesh. After dzy sieving, the weight retained on each sieve was recorded and the weight ofthe material retained in the pan (less than #200 mesh) was added to the calculated weight ofthe <#200 mesh fraction. The weight percent passing for each fraction was then calculated.
EVALUATION OF THE SIEVE DATA
The siZe distribution curves were analyzed according to A.S1M Standard C-33, the standard for a fine aggregate (Table 1) . In normal commercial processing of aggregate material, the fine-sized material is removed duringwashing and screening; thus, some material that ls naturally substandard is upgraded to a producl that meets commonly accepted standards such as those of the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM). Some of the samples are mixtures of fine and coarse material. and, thus. do not meet ASTM standards for either fine 'or coarse aggregate. Because such mixtures can be processed to produce aggregate that meets AST.M: Standard C-33, these samples are discussed in some detail in the text. Although the major purpose ofthis study is to analyze sediments of the Coastal Plain for aggregate potential. the majority ofmatertalsintheirnaturalstatefaU tomeetASTM Standard C-33.
In an effort to classify these materials as to which may be best for upgrading to fine or coarse

aggregate, Friddell (1987, p. 15) deviSed a value system. Values assigned to each sample are based on whether the sample meets one or more of Frlddell's sieve analysis requirements (seeTable 1). Each ofFrlddell's requirements has a value of one; so the rating of a particular sample can vazy from 0 to 3. These rating values are listed 1n the table for each county.
COUNTY REPORTS
Atkinson County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Atkinson County are derived from theAltamahaFormatlon. Atkinson County lies within the Bacon Terraces and the Tifton Upland Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921. p. 153) described mediumgrained sand hJlls along the banks of Seventeenmile Creek (Fig.5, Ts-1) and the Satilla River(Ftg.5, Ts-2). The upper portion ofthis sand is said to be suitable for mortar sand.
Present Study
The soil association used ln targeting areas for sampling in Atkinson County was #24 (see p. 7) which is present as sand hllls along the Alapaha and Satilla Rivers and Seventeenmile Creek. The geomorphic features used 1n targeting were the large sand hllls present along the Alapaha and Satllla Rivers and Seventeenmile Creek. The preferred soil type, geomorphic features, and the favorable areas described byTeas overlap each other in Atkinson County. Three sttes were sampled in Atkinson County (Fig.5, Table 2.).
Evaluation
Sample Atk-1 was taken from a deposit of sandy soil; sample Atk-2 was taken from the sand dunes along the Satllla River. Sample Atk-3 was taken from an area of sandy soil and sand hllls along the Alapaha River. Although the site represented by sample Atk-3 contained some coarse material, none of the samples tested met AS1M Standard C-33.

10

--- --,

8 t ' s 1'09 ' '

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
III Teas' sample locality 9 Geomorphic feature
R Sandy soil type

--------

N

0

5 Miles

t

R R R

0

5 Kilometers

HHR

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

Figure 5. Atkinson County map.

11

.......
I N

100
90
1- 80 :I:
C)
jjj 70
::
> 60
al
ffi 50
2 LL 40 12 (wJ 30
aw :
a.. 20
10 I I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I'

I' I

II

I ~

I

~
~
~
~

(
~

j

l

\

Atkinson County Atk-1

Ill II

Ill I I

!1\ \

I

\
~

\ ~

1000

100

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-r""'o At.IP't

.t'OAI-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
... II "'T"

0.001

*

,.... #ltV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 6. Size distribution curve of Sample Atk-1.

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

......

v.>

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

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

II

II I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

ell

T

[1

90
1- 80 :I:
~
jjj 70
3:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10
1000
I

1\

I

"

I
I

"1,\

I

T

1\ I I
\

i'

~

\

Atkinson County Atk-2

\

' ~

'' .J

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

I I coARs~R~VEL FINE lcoARSEI ME~iG~0 1 FINE

BOULDERS

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

-- r- <

t'I>A._ l _

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
"""'' ' ._

I*

- "'""-"

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 7. Size distribution curve of Sample Atk-2.

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

......
+::-
I

100

90

1- 80
:I:
w(.!' 70
s: > 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w Q. 20
10

I I
llLl l

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I' I

I

, . 8 16 30 50 100 200

<Ill

I

~

I'

' I I

I

' I

~

'

I

1\

I

\

~

\

Atkinson County Atk-3

\

\.

II II

II I

~

II II

II I

"

1000

100 CO
BBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAV EL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

F I NE

BOULDERS

.,...,......,r"'o, r-ro

- r-o A, r- r

~1\~ln

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
.r'"ll "T"

0.001

*

r'l AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 8. Size dJstrtbutlon curve of Sample Atk-3.

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

Sieve Size (U.S. Standard)
3/8" 4 8 16 30 50 100 200

Table 1. Sieve Analysis System

Sieve Analysis ASTM Percentage
Passing

Fiiddell's Percentage Passing

100 95 to 100 80 to 100 50 to 85 25 to 60 10 to 30
2 to 10 0 to 3

95 to 100
Oto 40 0 to 15

Table 2. Atkinson County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum

thickness

Pliolity ofl

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Matelial passing
ASTM-C-33

Fliddell Ratingl

Atk-1

8'

auger

8'

2

Atk-2

9.5'

auger

9.5'

3

Atk-3

16'

auger

16'

2

no

1

no

2

no

2

lncreasing numelical values represent higher pliority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Atkinson County.
Summary Evaluation
There are extensive sand dunes in Atkinson County: however, these do not contain enough coarse-grained material and are too well-sorted for use in construction aggregate. The construction matelial potential for Atkinson County is consid-

ered to be low.
Baldwin County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments in Baldwin County are derived from the crystalline rocks of the Piedmont Province, the Oconee Group, and Quaternary alluvium. Most of Baldwin County lies outside the study area within the Piedmont Province, but the

15

southern portion of the county lies within the Fall Une Hills District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921) reported no commercially suitable sand present in the Coastal Plain of Baldwin County.
Present Study
The soil series usedintargetingsites inBaldwin County was Lakeland. This soil type is present sporadically throughout the county as terrace deposits and sand dunes. The geomorphic features targeted are the sand hills on the eastern side ofthe Oconee River south of Milledgeville.
Three sites were sampled in Baldwin County (Fig.9: Table 3).
Evaluation
Sample Bal-l was taken along the penphe:ry ofan abandoned sandpit (Fig.9) . Sample Bal-2 was taken at the slte of a reported occurrence of sandy soil. These samples were analyzed and proved to be too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate. and do not meet ASTM Standard C-33. However. sample Bal-3 does meet these standards. Sample

Bal-3 1S from a possible terrace deposit of the Oconee River consisting ofa layer ofcoarse-grained sand. This terrace deposit occurs over an area of approximately 5 acres with a thiclmess of approximately 9 feet. This terrace deposit could yield reserves of 99,000 tons.
Mining Activity
There are several small, abandoned sand pits in Baldwin County for which no information 1s available. There is, however, one active aggregate operation. M& W Sand ofHaddock. Georgia (Fig.9) operates a 46 acre pit 1n southwestern Baldwin County. M & W has an average yearly production of 50,000 to 100,000 tons, and a production capacity of 60 tons per hour. Mining is done by hydraulics, foilowed by screen washing. The approx:Jmate wastage is 300Al. M & W Sand uses trucks to send concrete and masonry sand to various areas of Central Georgia.
Summary Evaluation
There are sites in Baldwin County that can provide construction material as evidenced by the site ofsample Bal-3 and the site ofM &W Sand. The construction material potential for BaldwinCounty is considered to be moderate to high.

Table 3. Baldwin County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depthl

Minimum2

Natural

thickness

Priority of3 Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

Bal-l

6'

auger

30'

1

Bal-2

7.5'

auger

7.5'

2

Bal-3

9'

trench

9'

2

no

1

no

1

no4

1

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; thicknesses that are less than the depths
of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 3 Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 4 Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

16

\
\ 33"04'48"
\

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
Abandoned pit, product unknown
Geomorphic feature
;W.~'t~ Sandy soil type

N
t

0

5 Miles

E3 E3 E3

R H R 0

5 Kilometers

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 9. Baldwin County map.

17

......
I 00

100

90

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

ffi
z

50

LL 40
1z -
uaw: 30
w
0.. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

I I

:-- ..,)_. I

I

""""

Baldwin County Bal-1

' 1\ '1'-
' ~
'

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - A .. IP""I

l"''A.Ir"''.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

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

0.001

,..., AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 10. Size distribution curve of Sample Bal-l.

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

- I \0

100
90
1- 80 ::I:
(!l
jjj 70
s:
>co 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w ~ 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I'

I' I

~~~-

I
~

I

I

~

I
Baldwin County Bal-2

i

~

I
I

I I\

\
\.\.. I

'"' ' I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBB LES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,...1""\.,DI r::c- I

,....nA,,~.

I

CAI\In

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

Cll T

I

0.001

*

f"'l AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 11. Size distribution curve of Sample Bal-2.

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

N
I 0

100
90
1- 80 :I: C!l jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30 a: w
0.. 20
10

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

'I

I' I

'lb. I

I

r-t.

I

~

\.

\ II

I

l.:

I

I

J

I I

I

~
~
I

Baldwin County Bal-3

l' 1\ ~ ~
""""""

1000

100

COBBLES

I

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

BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

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

I

c:-Aiun

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

l'"' ll T

I

0.001

*

ro1 A V

I **

GRADATION CURVE Figure 12. Size distribution curve of Sample Bal-3.

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

Ben Hill County
Geology and Physiography
The sutficial sediments present in Ben Hill County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and Quatemcuy alluvium. Ben Hlll County lies entirely Within the Coastal Plain Province and is representedbytheVidalia Upland, BaconTerraces, and Tifton Upland Districts.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 156) reported an apparent terrace deposit consisting of coarse sand three mlles northwest of Fitzgerald (Fig.13, Ts-3). This sand had been mined previous to Teas' time, and at the time of Teas' report was being used locally for concrete sand. Teas (1921, p. 157) also noted the presence ofa large sand belt lhat extends along the AlapahaR1verthroughoutwestemBen Hlll County, (F1g.l3. Ts-4); and he, particularly, noted the extensiveness ofthe belt near Rebecca (Flg.13, Ts-5). Teas (1921, p. 157) also noted the presence of coarse sand in the Ocmulgee River bed.
Present Study
The soil associations used in targeting areas for sampling in Ben Hill County were Alapaha,

Fuquay. Kershaw, and Troup. These are present throughout the county as sand hills and terrace deposits. The geomorphic features targeted are possible terraces and sandbars associatedwith the Ocmulgee River and sand hills along the Alapaha River. Four sites were sampled in Ben Hill County (Fig.13, Table 4).
Evaluation
None of the samples analyz.ed met .AS1M StandardC-33. SampleBeH-1 was takenfromafavorable soil body, but proved to be too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate. Samples BeH-2, BeH-3a, BeH-3b and BeH-4 were taken from favorable sites noted by Teas (F1g.13, Ts-4, Ts-5, and Ts-3, respectively). These are too well-sorted and too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate.
Mining Activity
There is no active or recently inactive mining activity in Ben Hill County.
Summary Evaluation
There were no sites found that could provide construction aggregate in Ben Hill County. The constructionmaterial potential for Ben Hill County is considered to be low.

Table 4. Ben Hill County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Sample type I

Minimum2

Natural

thickness

Priority of.3

Material passing

of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

BeH-1

12'

auger

12'

1

BeH-2

12'

auger

12'

3

BeH-3a

16'

trench

24'

3

BeH-3b

8'

auger

24'

3

BeH-4

12'

auger

8'

2

no

0

no

1

no

2

no

1

no

1

lFor 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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

21

---~--L~
I BeH-3a, BeH-3b
& Ts-5
I
EXPLANATION
Sample locality f) Teas' sample locality
~ Geomorphic feature
j:l@f;j Sandy soil type

N
t
BeH-1~ i3~42'53'
j _ _ _ _ _ _ _r
__j. _.&t~j

0
R

g-----g5 Miles

0

5 Kilometers

RHH

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

Figure 13. Ben Hill County map.

22

N
Vol

I

100

90

1- 80 J:
w(,:, 70
3:
>m 60

ffi
z

50

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

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I I

II

8

16 30 50 100 200

-...

I

!'Ill. .~

'
' I " ~ I ' ~ \. ~

Ben Hill County BeH-1

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--At.lr-1

~AII.. I r"\.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II "T"

0.001

*

,..,.. AV

**

GRADATION CURVE FJgure 14. Size distribution curve of Sample BeH-1.

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

.N.p.

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(!'
jjj 70
3:
>r:a 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
wc(.c) 30
w
Q.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I I

I

I

I

I

I
Ben Hill County BeH-2

.\

~
\
1" \
1\
I \,

\

\

I

~ I
_l 1

'-"'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

r----------------,------~G~R~A~V~E~L--~~-.----------SSAANNDD~-----------r--------~S~IL~T~O~R~C;L~A~Y~------l*

COBBLES

r"r'\ACC'.-

.........

r"r'\ACC'IO

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

"'"nnl r-ro

,...r"''A\Ir-"1

C"AIIr.lr"\

C"ll T"

("'I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 15. Size distribution curve of Sample BeH-2.

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

N Ul

I

100
90
1- 80
e:::r,:
jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10
1000

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

il I

"' II

I

I

-1

,'\

I

1\

\

I

\

I

\

\

\

1

Ben Hill County
100

BeH-3a

I 1\

\

~

L_

' -

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

-r""'AIr-1

C"A.I,...,

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0 .01
SILT OR CLAY
r-11 'T

0.001

*

,... . A...,-

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 16. Size distribution curve of Sample BeH-3a.

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

tv
0\

I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
w(.!' 70
3:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w c.. 20
--
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

I' I

II

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

II

"'-A

I ~
I 11

I I I I
I
I
I
Ben Hill County BeH-3b

l

r

1\

\

\

' I
I \ ,\

l

\

' \

\

!(

~~-

--

--

~--

-

-

-~

-

~

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

_,_,. At ..-o

f"AI-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,..,, -r

0.001

*

-~A'-"

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 17. Size distribution cuxve of Sample BeH-3b.

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

N -1

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"w 70
3:
> 60
ell
ffi 50
2 LL 40 12 ~ 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I I

I

(;t;;

8 16 30 50 100 200

T......... I

I

I

~

~

"
1\

\

Ben Hill County BeH-4

~
\ ,
1\ I '\: 1
'a

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

,..... - r-

r-Aklr""'.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
I'll~

0.001

*

1"\'A""-.1

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 18. Size distribution curve of Sample BeH-4.

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

Berrien County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments ofBerrien County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and the Miccosukee Fonnation. BerrienCounty lies entirely within the Tifton Upland District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 157) noted the presence offairly coarse-grained sand overlain by fine-grained sand near Nashville (Fig.19, Ts-6). This sand was used locally at the time of Teas' report. East of the Alapaha River, within the sand belt, there is a particular occurrence of coarse sand noted by Teas (Fig.19, Ts-7).
Present Study
The soU series used itl targeting s!tes in BerrienCountywereFuquay,MascotteandRutlege. These soU types are present as terraces and sand dunes along the Alapaha, New, and WUlacoochee Rivers. The geomorphic features targeted were

sand dunes along the Alapaha and New Rivers, and correspond to the preferred soU types. Five sites were sampled in Berrien County (Fig.19, Table 5).
Evaluation
Ber-1 was taken from a sand dune along the Alapaha River. Ber-2 and Ber-4 were taken from a preferred soU type. Sample Ber-3 was taken from a site of the preferred soU type, and near a locality noted by Teas (1921). Sample Ber-5 was taken from a preferred soU type, and a possible terrace deposit. None of the samples analyzed met ASTM Standard C-33.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recentlyinactive IIlin1ng operations in Berrien County.
Summary Evaluation
All the sites represented by samples in Berrien County apparently contain sand that is too finegrained for use as construction aggregate: therefore, the construction material potential for Berrien County is considered to be low.

Table 5. Berrien County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Sample type

Minimum!

thickness

Priority of2

of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

Ber-1

12'

auger

12'

2

Ber-2

8'

auger

8'

2

Ber-3

6.5' auger

6.5'

2

Ber-4

8'

auger

4'

1

Ber-5

8'

auger

7'

2

no

0

no

0

no

0

no

0

!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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered whUe sampling. 2Jncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

28

83"15'01"
N
t

3 112'26"

0

5 Miles

R R bd

0R H R5 Kilometers

,---
1
I
I

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

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
~ Geomorphic feature ~ Sandy soil type

Figure 19. Berrien County map.

29

(.):)
I 0

100

90

1- 80

:J:
we,:, 70 !

3:

I

> 60
Cll

ffi 50
2

u.. 40 12 ~ 30
a:
w
Q.. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

II I

I

Berrien County Ber-1

"i\
1\
\ \
~ \
\
'{
'

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

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

~Aa.lr-t.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II"?"

0.001

*

"I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 20. Size distribution curve of Sample Ber-1.

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

,w_.

I

100
90
1- 80
:r:
"w 70
s:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30 a: w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I I

I

I

..8 16 30 50 100 200



l

1

~

~

~
'~~
l ' ''

I
I

Berrien County Ber-2
I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...-~"' r-1"'

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

_ _ A , I t""' l

C!'AI'Un

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
~II "T"

0.001

,.... AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 21. Size distribution curve of Sample Ber-2.

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

I w
N

100
90
1- 80 J:
w(,:, 70
3:
> 60
CQ
ffi 50
2 LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I'

I I

J

I

Berrien County Ber-3

" \

~

\

r\

I

\

II

' ~

\

~

\

I '

l

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

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

-~ . , ,,...

I

~Ati.U"'\.

I

BOULDERS

O.Ql

SILT OR CLAY

~ ~

I

0.001

*

,... . AV

I **

GRADATION CURVE Figure 22. Size distribution curve of Sample Ber-3.

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

{j.)

{j.)

I

100

90

1- 80
w:e:,I::, 70
3:
>m 60

ffi 50
z

u. 40

1z -

!

wua: 30 r~-

w
a..

20

I

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

[I

I I

I

I

I

I

""

~

~~

[\

I

\.

~

\

\
' '

Berrien County Ber-4

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,.._.....,,.., , 1"'"1"

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

_,.., A._rr-o

C"'Ail l r""\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
PII 'T

0.001

*

~I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 23. Size distribution curve of Sample Ber-4.

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

w

+::-.

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(,:,
jjj 70
:s:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

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

I

I I

I

" ~

1\

I

I

I

Berrien County Ber-5

\
\
' ~ \ b \ \

I

-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
II
I
I I
I

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 I ~E?_B~~~~" !_'!."..~'!.- 1 ------ ~,'~f~L., __ 1 ~~~:r: 1_':."..~'!.- 1 ------ 1 ~,~ 1 ,.,.... ,.. 1 v,..~..r...y. I coarse lmed"1SumILlTf_1ne

[

0.001 *
J** 1
" "v

GRADATION CURVE Figure 24. Size distribution curve of Sample Ber-5.

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

Bibb Countv
Note: A description of the aggregate potential for that part of Bibb County which lies west of 1-75 may be found in Construction Material Potential of the Coastal Plain of Southwestern Geor~ia: An Evaluation, Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 106; (Friddell, 1987, p. 23-28).
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Bibb County are derived from the crystalline rocks ofthe Piedmont, the Oconee Group, and Quaternary alluvium. The part of Bibb County that is within the study area lies within the Fall Line Hills District ofthe Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 159) reported that the Macon Sand and Supply Company had a sand operation onthewestbank oftheOcmulgeeR1ver(Fig.25, Ts8) and shipped the sand at least as far as Atlanta. Finer-grained sand is reported east of this site (Teas, 1921, p. 160; Fig.25, Ts-9).

Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites for sampling was Lakeland. The geomorphic features present are possible terrace deposits near the Ocmulgee River. Five samples representing four sites were analyzed from Bibb County (F1g.25, Table 6).
Evaluation
Samples Bib-1a, Bib-1b, and Bib-4were taken near the sites of aggregate quarries operated by Williams Brothers (Fig.25, A-024 and A-023, respectively). Neither of these samples met ASTM StandardC-33. Bib-1 was toowell-sortedandBib4 was too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate in its natural state. However, samples Bib-2 and Bib-3 represent an abandoned sand pit; and they both met ASTM Standard C-33.
Mining Activity
Williams Brothers operates three aggregate pits in Bibb County (Fig.25, A-022, A-023, A-024) but would not reveal any information concerning their operation. All that is lmown is that there are active construction aggregate pits in Bibb County.

Table 6. Bibb County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth!

Sample type

Minimum2

Natural

thickness

Priority of3

Material passing

of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

Bib-1a

10'

trench

30'

2

Bib-1b

20'

trench

30'

2

Bib-2

15'

trench

20.5'

2

Bib-3

10.5'

auger

25.5'

2

Bib-4

4'

auger

4'

1

no

1

no

1

no4

2

no4

1

no

0

lFor 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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 4Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

35

N
t
3<fso'26"
,(''
Bib-1a & Bib-1b

EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
jig Sandy soil type

0
Fd

r------1

5 Miles
R

0

5 Kilometers

RRR

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

Figure 25. Bibb County map.

36

UJ

-J

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
"jjj 70
!:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(wJ 30
cr.
w a.. 20
10

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

fl rn

II

8 16 30 50 100 200

~ ,....,_

I

'"

"" r' r\

\

I

1\

\

I

'"1\

I

I

I

1\

Bibb County Bib-1 a

~
I \,...

- - -- -

- - - ~-

I

I

l

-

--

~

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

,...r-oo A~ r- o

~AII.. r'\.

O.Ql
SILT OR CLAY
l""ll,..

0.001

*

1"'1 AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 26. Size distribution curve of Sample Bib-la.

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

w

00

I

100
90
~ 80 J:
C)
jjj 70
3::
> 60
1:0
ffi 50
z
LL 40
~ z
(w.) 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I' I' I

I'

ll. l"ooo...'

~

I

[1

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I I
Bibb County Bib-1 b

~

~

I

I

~

\

1\

I 1

I

' I\.

~

1000

100

COBBLES

I

I --.-..n r-~ I

BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-~A\.u-

I

C'Ah.. t n

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

c.'l i T-

I

0.001

*

(""I AV

I* *

GRADATION CURVE Figure 27. Size distribution curve of Sample Bib-1b.

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

w
\0

I

100

90

.... 80 J:
w(.!' 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
a.. 20
10

lllll _l

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

p

II

II I

[II

II

8 16 30 50 100 200

~

I

~

I

II

' ~

~

~

I

Bibb County Bib-2
lllilll U-. TTT 1

' ~ \ \ 1
~
1. I
~
\.
,.~ .

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

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

_ _ A,,,...

I

C"Aa.ln

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~ -r

I

0.001

,.... "''-'

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 28. Size distribution curve of Sample Bib-2.

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

-+>-
0

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.SW3/4". 5" 3/8" 4

II II I

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200

'"~ tiA. '-"

I

II I

90

1- 80

J:
~
Lij 70

3:

>en 60

I

ffi 50
z

LL 40
1z -
uwa: 30
w a.. 20

'-- - - - -

Bibb County Bib-3

-

--

-

-

-

10

1\

I

1\

j

~

j

II 1\

I

~

'I\ \

~

'-

-

-

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

--- ~ir-o

,...Aio.lr"o.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
..... .. "'P'

0.001

*

..... . A'-1

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 29. Size distribution curve of Sample Bib-3.

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

~ .........

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w(!J 70
3:
>m 60
ffi 50
2 LL 40 12 (w.) 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10

3"

_ .. U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I' I

c

,... ~

16 30 50 100

I

T

200

'

I~

r\

I

r\

\.
' \. ~ '

Bibb County Bib-4

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,.. ,.... r'll r'll -~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

,.._A,I~I

C'AII.Ir"'o

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II T

0.001

*

r-1 1\V

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 30. Size distribution curve of Sample Bib-4.

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

SummCJJll Evaluation
The sites represented by samples Bib-1 and Bib-4 were, respectively, too well-sorted and too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate. Theirproxtmityto existing sand operations roughly defines the extent of these existing pits. The most favorable area for new aggregate potential in Bibb County is represented by samples Bib-2 and Bib3. The deposit sampled occurs over an area of approximately 10 acres and to a depth of at least 25.5 feet; this deposit could yield 555,000 tons of material. The construction material potential in this part of Bibb County is considered to be moderate.
Bleckley County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Bleckley County are derivedfrom the Barnwell Group, theAltamaha Formation. and deposits ofOligocene age. Bleckley County lies within the Fall Line Hills and Vidalia Upland Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.

Previous Study
Teas (1921) reported no significant amount of suitable sand in Bleckley County.
Present Study
The soil associationtargeted inBleckleyCounty was #24 (seep. 7), which is present as isolated areas remotely associated with the Ocmulgee River. There were no apparent geomorphic features indicative ofsand or gravel deposits. Three samples, representing two sites, were analyzed for aggregate potential (Fig.31; Table 7).
Evaluation
Samples Ble-2a and Ble-2b represent the preferred soil type. The material failed to meet ASTM Standard C-33 and is too well-sorted for use as construction aggregate. Sample Ble-1 represents a four foot exposure of clayey sand with occasional pebbles. This site extends for approximately 20 acres and to a depth of four feet. This clayey sand deposit could produce as much as 174,000 tons before upgrading. Although this

Table 7. Bleckley County Sample Data

Sample designation

Minimum2

Natural

thickness

Priority of3 Material passing

Depth 1 Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

Ble-1

4' trench

4'

1

Ble-2a

5' auger

9.5'

2

Ble-2b

4.5' auger

9.5'

2

no4

1

no

0

no

0

I 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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 3Jncreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 4Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

42

83"21'17"

'
'

/
/
eBie-1/
/

\
\
\ /~

32"23'12"

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
~ Geomorphic feature
- Sandy soil type

N
t

0
F"3
0
H

5 Miles
E3 F3
5 Kilometers
R H

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

Figure 31. Bleckley County map.

43

I ..,,....

100

90

1- 80
::c
0
iii 70 3:
> 60
al

ffi 50
z

LL 40

1z -

w
(.)

30

a:

w

Q. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I' '&..... ~

I

I

I

I

.. ~ n..
~-' ..........

~

I

~

' 1\

I

~
\

'I \ ~

Bleckley County Ble-1

\
I ' I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ""_",..' r-~ I very

GRAVEL

I

CAI\.In

I

BOULDERS

coarse [coarse lrnediuml fine

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

c11 T

I

0.001

*

1""'1 AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE FJgure 32. Size distribution cmve of Sample Ble-1.

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

~

Vl

I

100
90
1- 80 eJ,::, jjj 70
3:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
aCwJ: 30
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1,5" 3/ 4",5" 3/ 8M 4

I

r 1 I'

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200

r.

I

I~

l'

'l

1\

I I

,_l
I \

'1\

\

\

1

\

Bleckley County Ble-2a

\

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I I COARS~RAIVEL FINE lcoARSEI ME~~~~o 1 FINE

BOULDERS

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

- r"'lo A ... ~ r-1

C"AII.II""\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I I
I
I
I I
I

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
.... ~ ...-

I*

- A"-~

......

GRADATION CURVE Figure 33. Size distribution curve of Sample Ble-2a.

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

~
01

I

100

90

1z- 80
G jjj 70
3:
> 60
CQ

ffi
z

50

LL 40 12
<wa.J: 30
w Q. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

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

I I

I I

I

I

.,.a 1s 30 so 100 200

" " ' - - I'

I

I

I'
\

l

I

I

I

Bleckley County Ble-2b

l

\

\

\

'

l

I I li

\

\

I

\

'- -.

-

-

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

I

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

--A''~'

I

~1\r..IJ""\

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
I
I
I I
I
I

I
I
I
I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"lf T

I

0.001

*

,..., AV

.....

GRADATION CURVE Figure 34. Size distribution curve of Sample Ble-2b.

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

sample failed to meet.ASTM Standard C-33, it may be upgraded and made suitable for construction aggregate.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Bleckley County.
Summary Evaluation
Sample Ble-1 represents the most favorable site for aggregate potential Jn Bleckley County: however, thls material dld not meet ASTM Standard C-33. The construction material potential for Bleckley County ts considered to be low to moderate.
Cnnch County
Geology and Physiography
The surllcial sediments of ClJnch County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and the Statenville Formation of the Hawthorne Group. Clinch County lies almost entirely within the Okefenokee Basin District, but has small areas within the Bacon Terraces and Tifton Uplands Distrtcts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 178) noted the presence of surtlcial sand on the Satilla Terrace along the

Alapaha River, but none ofthis sand is ofaggregate quality (F1g.35, Ts-10).
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting sites in Clinch Countywas #41 (see p. 7), which is present as surllcial material throughout the county. There were no apparent geomorphic features indicative of sand or gravel deposits in Clinch County. Four sites were sampled and analyzed for construction aggregate in Clinch County (Fig.35; Table 8).
Evaluation
All samples were taken from the preferred soil type, however, all are too fine-grained and too wellsorted for use as construction aggregate.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive aggre-
gate operations in Clinch County.
Summary Evaluation
All samples proved to be too fine-grained and too well-sorted for use as construction aggregate, therefore, the construction material potential for Clinch County is considered to be low.

Table 8. Clinch County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum

thickness

Priority ofl

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Ratlngl

Cln-1

8'

auger

8'

1

no

1

Cln-2

4'

auger

4'

1

no

0

Cln-3

12'

auger

12'

1

no

2

Cln-4

8'

auger

8'

1

no

0

lincreastng numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

47

82"44'50"
N
t

I
I

I

II---

I
I !_I __

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
~ Sandy soil type

I
L
r I
\
I
I
I_
I

0

5 Miles

Fd H H

0g g g5 Kilometers

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

Figure 35. Clinch County map.

48

~

\0

I

100
90
~ 80 ::I:
w ~ 70
3:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
uz..... 40
w(.) 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

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

8 16 30 50 100 200

h
"'UI

I

I'

~

' K

~

' \ ,

Clinch County Cln-1

\ \
' 1\ '\.. '

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
J
I I
I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

I I I BOULDERS laCrgOeBBI LsEmSall

~~A .. ~.

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

1

(

r-- A ll..lr""\

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY

~ .. ~

L I** ~ AV

GRADATION CURVE Figure 36. Size distribution curve of Sample Cln-1.

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

ll1
I 0

100
90
1- 80 :I: 0 jjj 70
3:
> 60
III
fzfi 50
LL 40
~ z
~ 30
a: w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

II I

II

I

~

I

1\.

\
\
i
~
\
\

Clinch County Cln-2

1\

'\

\

' I

I

Ill I I I _jjJJJI I I I Ul lll

~
I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

--~-

~AI,...,.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
rt>ll 'T

0.001

*

r'" l AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 37. Size distribution cuiVe of Sample Cln-2.

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

V.....l.

I

100
90
1- 80
::I: (!1
jjj 70
3:
> 60
1:0
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
(w.) 30 0w : 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I

I I

I

I

~

I I

I

~

~
\

Clinch County Cln-3

\
''\I \ ' \ I '' \

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I --nru r-C" I

,-.noA\Ir... l

I

C"A"-In.

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~II "T

I

0.001



,..., AV

1

GRADATION CURVE Figure 38. Size distribution curve of Sample Cln-3.

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

Vl
I N

100
90
1- 80 :::r::
w ~ 70
3:
> 60
ttl
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
aUJ. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I I

I

T

~ ~

1\

', I 1\

\

l

\

I 1\
~
\
\

Clinch County Cln-4

I

r '

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
r----------------,------,G~R~A~V~~E Lr-~~-r----------SSAANNDr-----------~--------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~LA~Y~------l *

COBBLES

1"1"\1\occ:

c:u,oc:

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

.................... . ~....

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

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

--

........ ,~

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 39. Size distribution curve of Sample Cln-4.

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

Coffee Countv
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments in Coffee County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and Quaternary alluvium. Coffee County lies entirelywithin the Coastal Plain Province, with the greater portion of Coffee County lying within the Bacon Terraces District, and the remainder being situated in the Vidalia Upland and Tifton Upland Districts.
Previous Study
A large sand belt along Seventeenmile Creek was reported byTeas, (1921, p. 178; Fig.40, Ts-11). He also noted a small sand pit (p. 178; Fig.40, Ts12) that has been worked intermittently, with the sand being used for local paving, as well as foundry use. More sand of this type was reported by Teas (1921) along the railroad north of Douglas (p. 179; Fig.40, Ts-13). Teas also reported the presence of coarse sand bars in the Ocmulgee River.
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting sites in Coffee County was #24 (see p. 7). which corresponds to the geomorphic features targeted; the large sand hills along the banks ofthe Satilla River and Seventeenmile River. Four sites were sampled and analyzed for aggregate (Fig.40; Table 9).

Evaluation
The area from which samples Cof-1 and Cof4 were taken represents the favorable soil type, the targeted geomorphic feature, and was an area mentioned by Teas (1921, p. 178-179). The material present at these sites failed to meetASI'M Standard C-33. The sediments are too fine-grained
and too well-sorted for use as construction aggre-
gate. Samples Cof-2, and Cof-3 marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33, but could be upgraded. These two sampleswere taken from areassimilarto the sites for Cof-1 and Cof-4, but may be suitable for construction aggregate, if upgraded.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Coffee County.
Summary Evaluation
The deposits represented by Cof-2 and Cof-3 could be sources of construction aggregate. Cof-2 represents a site of about 20 acres, and approximately 12 feet in thickness. Reserves could prove to yield 500,000 tons, before upgrading. The site represented by Cof-3 encompasses approximately 200 acres, with a thickness of approximately 16 feet; reserves could yield 6,000,000 tons, before upgrading. The construction material potential of Coffee County is considered to be moderate.

Table 9. Coffee County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum

thickness

Priority ofl

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rattngl

Cof-1

8'

auger

8'

3

Cof-2

14'

auger

14'

2

Cof-3

16'

auger

16'

3

Cof-4

16'

auger

16'

3

no

2

no2

2

no2

2

no2

2

I Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).
2Margtnally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

53

8t'51'00"

N
t

------"j

I

I

,,.J

I

, \- ~...
;~ ____________
-----
EXPLANATION
n Sample locality Teas' sample locality
Abandoned pit, product unknown
Geomorphic feature
~~~ Sandy soil type

I 3130'31"
I
1_ 1
I
I
I

0

5 Miles

R R R

0

5 Kilometers

HHH

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

Figure 40. Coffee County map.

54

Vl

Vl

I

100
90
~ 80 ::I:
~
jjj 70
3:
> 60
a:l
ffi 50
z
LL 40
z ~
Caw:J 30
w a.. 20
10 I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

II I

rr

I

" ~
,ll I

Coffee County Cof-1

II I I

I II I

1\
I ' \I ll \ \ 1\ \ '

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

~..... _ _ F"''o .... o

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--A"-Ir-"1

~AI-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
1"011 ""r"

0.001

*

,.... A'\J



GRADATION CURVE Figure 41. Size custrtbution curve of Sample Cof-1.

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

Vl

0\

I

100
90
1- 80
~ ~
jjj 70
:s: > 60
t:Q
ffi 50
z
LL 40
z1-
~ 30
a:
aw.. 20
10 I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I'

II I

I'

I

~

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

~

~

I I

\

I

I

\1

I

'

I

Coffee County Cof-2

II Ill

111111

I

r \

\

I

\

'"\_
'\..

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I J coARS~RAIVE\INE JcoARSEI ME~~~~ 1 FINE

BOULDERS

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

,....,.... At.lr-1

C"l\fl.ll'"'\

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II 'T

0.001

I*

f"'l 1\V

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 42. Size dtstrtbutlon curve of Sample Cof-2.

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

Vl -..l

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
~
jjj 70
s:
> 60
al
aw: 50
z
u. 40
1z -
~ 30
aw :
a.. 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 I

I

"
I'
~ I
1\

'
1' \
\

1

Coffee County Cof-3

III I

I II

l
1\
\I
\

I

1\

I

l.t.

I "

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

-~ A'lr""l

C"Afl.lt"'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II T"

0.001

*

1"'1 AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 43. Size distribution curve of Sample Cof-3.

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

Ul 00

I

100
i
90

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I'

I' I

I'

I'll

I

I'

1\

1- 80
weJ:, 70
s:
> 60
IXl
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w ~ 20
10

I

Coffee County Cof-4

I I

II II

I I

II II

I

~

I

\ I

1 ,

I

\

I

\

\ ,

I

\
\
~
""""'

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

BOULDERS

........... ro.ro.o ~,...

- - Ar-o

~Akl-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
,..II "'W"'

0.001



,.... A'\J

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 44. Size distrtbution curve of Sample Cof-4.

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

Cook County
Note: A description ofthe aggregate potential for that part of Cook County which Ues west ofl-75 may be found in Construction Material Potential of the Coastal Plain of Southwestern GeoiJlia: An Evaluation, Georgia Geologic Smvey Bulletin 106; (Friddell, 1987, p. 52-54}.
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Cook County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and the Miccosukee Formation. Cook County lies entirely within the Tifton Upland District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teasreported no significant amount orquality ofsand suitablefor commercial use in CookCounty.
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting sites for sampling in Cook County was #39 (see p. 7) which is present at higher elevations in the county. There were no apparent geomorphic features indicative of

sand or gravel deposits in Cook County. 1\vo sites were sampled in Cook County, (Fig.45, Table 10).
Evaluation
Sample Coo-l was taken from a preferred soil type, but it failed to meet AS1M Standard C-33, because the material is too fine-grained. Sample Coo-2 was also taken from a preferred soil type. The material marginally failed AS1M Standard C-33, but could be upgraded.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Cook County.
Summary Evaluation
The site represented by sample Coo-2 could be a possible source ofaggregate, but the construction material potential of this part of Cook County is considered to be low.
Crisp County
Note: A description ofthe aggregate potential for that part ofCrisp County which lies west ofl-75

Table 10. Cook County Sample Data

Sample designation

Minimum!

Natural

thickness

Priority of2 Material passing

Depthl Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Frtddell Rating2

Coo-l

12'

auger

12'

2

Coo-2

8'

auger

7'

1

no

0

no3

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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 2Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 3Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

59

83"25'25"
N
t

EXPLANATION
- Sample locality . . Sandy so1l type

OIr--~ ----.-....F..-3--.---,F.---d--i5 Miles

0

5 Kilometers

RHR

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

Figure 45. Cook County map.

60

0...".1..

I

100
90
1- 80
~ ~
jjj 70
3:
>co 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
aw :
a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

'I

II I

I I'

~ ()>,

I

I

' ~
I ~,,

\
' ~ )_,

\. .....

Cook County Coo-1

I

I

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000
I

cOBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARSGE RAIVELFINECOARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

I *I FINE

SILT OR CLAY

I

I ,..1""'\I"'U:H r::c- I

BOULDERS

,.,.OA\Ir":l

I

~1\J\..U"\

I

lt'"ll T

I

r"'l AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 46. Size distribution cuiVe of Sample Coo-l.

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

0\ N

I

100
90
1- 80 J: C!' Lij 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
uwaw: 30
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

'I I

............
):,

I

I

I

I

I I
Cook County Coo- 2
Ill I I I __ II U II L I I 111 111 I J L_

'1\
-~

I i\

I

'I ~

\

I

\

I

\

~

\

'\

\

-

L__ .

'

- ---

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

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 Figure 47. Size distribution cmve of Sample Coo-2.

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

may be found 1n Construction Matertal Potential of the Coastal Plain of Southwestern Georgia : An Evaluation. Georgia Geologic Smvey Bulletin 106: (Friddell, 1987, p. 64-66).
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Crisp County are dertvedfrom theAltamaha Formation and deposits of Oligocene age. CI1sp County lies within the TiftonUpland District ofthe Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teasreportedno suitable amount orqualityof sand for commercial use in Crtsp County.
Present Study
The soil sertes used for targeting sampling sites in CI1sp County was Lakeland, which is present as isolated pods. There were no apparent geomorphic features indicative of sand or gravel deposits in CI1sp County, and only one site was sampled for analysis (Fig.48, Table 11).
Evaluation
Sample CI1-1 was taken from a preferred soil body. The matertal is too fine-grained to meet ASTM Standard C-33.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations 1n CI1sp County.

Summary Evaluation
The sample containing the coarsest grained sand is too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate. The construction aggregate potential for this part of Crisp County is considered to be low.
Doda;e Countv
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments ofDodge County are dertved from theAltamaha Formation and deposits ofOligocene age. Dodge County lies entirelywithin the Vidalia Uplands District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 189) reported fine-grained sand near Eastman (Fig. 50, Ts-14) suitable for building purposes. He also reported that medium- to coarsegrained sand is found on sand bars throughout the OcmulgeeRiver(Teas, 1921, p. 189; Fig.50, Ts-15). Teas (1921, p. 189-190) reported an occurrence of gravel with pebbles up to two inches in diameter northwest of Eastman (Fig. 50, Ts-16). This gravel had been used for building and roads. A thin gravelly deposit two miles long, near Gresston, (Fig.50, Ts-17) was reported byTeas (1921, p. 190).
Present Study
The soil association #39 (seep. 7) was used in targeting sites in Dodge County and can be found

Table 11. Crisp County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum

thickness

Priortty of

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Matertal passing
ASTM-C-33

Frtddell Rating I

Crt-1

7'

auger

7'

1

no

0

I Increasing numertcal values represent higher priortty (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

63

N
t

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
[W:&J~~] Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

I

I I

I

I I

0

5 Kilometers

RR R

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

Figure 48. Crisp County map.

64

0\ VI

I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
(!)
jjj 70
3:
> 60
CQ
ffi 50
2
.Lz..L. 40
~ 30
a::
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

II I

8 16 3Q 50 100 200

--I

I

I

'""' \

\

~

\

I

'r\ ~

\..

Crisp County Cri-1

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAV EL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM ,

FINE

,...r"''o All.lr-1

C'A~In

very fine

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II 'T

0.001

*

,.... .1'\V

**

GRADATION CURVE FJgure 49. Size distribution curve of Sample Cri-1.

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

N

EXPLANATION

t

Sample locality

{) Teas' sample locality

S Geomorphic feature

tfftt;J:z1 Sandy soil type

/ '

/ "

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

0
Fd H

5 Miles
R

0

5 Kilometers

RRR

Figure 50. Dodge County map.
66

throughout the county. Geomorphic features targeted were the extensive sand hffis found along the Ocmulgee and Little Ocmulgee Rivers. Five samples representing four sites were analyzed for aggregate potential (Ffg.50, Table 12).
Evaluation
The site for sample Dod-1 was a preferred soil type and was mentioned by Teas (1921, p.189). Samples Dod-4a and 4b were taken from a preferred soil type. None of these samples met ASTM Standard C-33; however, Dod-4a represents the upper 8 feet ofa 30 acre site and could be upgraded to meetstandards. Samples Dod-2 and Dod-3 were also taken from preferred soil types. Dod-2 marginally failed to meet ASTM Standard C-33, but could be upgraded: and Dod-3 represents a one-foot thick gravelly layer, which could provide a small amount of fine- and coarse-grained aggregate.

Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Dodge County.
Swnmary Evaluation
The site representedbyDod-3 containscoarse material, but the site is too small to be ofeconomic value. Overall, the construction material potential for Dodge County is considered to be low to moderate.
Dooly Countv
Note: A description ofthe aggregate potential for that part of Dooly County which lies west of I75 may be found in Construction Material Potential of the Coastal Plain of Southwestern Georgia: An Evaluation, Georgia Geologic Smvey Bulletin 106: (Friddell, 1987, p. 77-78).

Table 12. Dodge County Sample Data

Sample designation

Minimum2

Natural

thickness

Priority of3 Material passing

Depth I Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

Dod-1

15' trench

20'

2

Dod-2

5'

trench

5'

1

Dod-3

1' trench

1'

1

Dod-4a

6'

auger

8'

1

Dod-4b

2' auger

8'

1

no

2

no4

0

no5

3

no5

1

no

0

I 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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 4Contains material coarser than is required by ASTM Standard C-33. 5Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

67

0'1

00

I

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

l
Il l I I I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

[I

II

I

I

1]0~

I

Dodge County Dod-1

Jl

[Il l

IIli i I I I I IIII I I I I I

' I

\ j

I

'

I

t\

\

1

1

1\

\

\

' I

,\
\

_

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

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

~A Air-..

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

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

0.001

1"'1 AV

it*

GRADATION CURVE Figure 51. Size distribution curve of Sample Dod-1.

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

0\ \0

I

100
90
1- 80 ::I:
w(.!' 70
::
>m 60
ffi 50
2
.u..... 40
2 ~ 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

II

II I

II-...._r-l ~I

I

~

Dodge County Dod-2

'\ I 'u ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ J

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

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

~Aalr"<<o

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,.,, -

0.001

*

- A '\.1

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 52. Size distribution curve of Sample Dod-2.

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

-.J 0

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
w(!' 70
3:
> 60
lXI
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z (cww:)c 30
a.. 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

I

I I

I

I

\

\..

'

I

I

~

\ II

f

~

~
~~

Dodge County Dod-3

I l

I IU

Ill I I I 11 1.1 1111 I IIU!I I I I _

" ~
"'' ~ .........

1000

100

COBBLES

I

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

BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

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

I

C"'Aillr'"'\

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

11"'11 "T'

I

0.001

*

1"" 1 AV

I **

GRADATION CURVE Figure 53. Size distribution curve of Sample Dod-3.

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

--...J

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(.!'
jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w Q. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

Jl I' I

I

I

I

"""'ClCo

~

Dodge County Dod-4a

~ I
1\
[{
1
~
!'\
~
\
' I " "'

10
-

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...,...r"'o..,l .-.-.

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-r"''oA\.1~1

t:'"AIIiun

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
COli "T"

0.001

*

,.., . A.V

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 54. Size distribution curve of Sample Dod-4a.

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

-..l N

I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
(!)
jjj 70
3:
> 60
a::l
ffi 50
z
L..L.. 40
z
~ 30 a: w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4'1.5" 3/8" 4

8 16 30 50 100 200

II II I

II

I

I

I'

~

' \.

J
I

""~
" .)

I

Dodge County Dod-4b

I I

1000

100

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

--A~~

very

SAND

coarse I coarse lmecfuml fine

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
-
!
I I
I I
I
I

O.Q1
SILT OR CLAY
,..,,....

0.001

*

- ... '-"

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 55. Size distribution curve of Sample Dod-4b.

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

Geology and Physiography
The surficial sedimentsfound inDooly County are composed primarily of deposits of OlJgocene age, and secondarily by deposits of the Altamaha Formation. Dooly County lies within the Fall Line Hills and Tifton Upland Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas reported no sand or gravel suitable for aggregate in Dooly County.
Present Study
No soil type or geomorphic feature indicative of sand or gravel deposits was found in Dooly County.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Dooly County.
Summary Evaluation
Therewere no favorable areas in DoolyCounty

from which to select a site for sampling, therefore, no analyses were done. The construction mate11al potential for Dooly County is considered to be low.
Echols County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Echols County are composed of the Hawthorne Group and the Miccosukee Formation. Echols County lies within the Tifton Upland and the Okefenokee Basin Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 195-196) noted the presence of large sand dunes at Statenville (Fig.56, Ts-18). These dunes are composed of 2 to 3 feet of coarsegrained sand overlain by8 feet offine-grained sand.
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting sites for sampling in Echols Countywas #24 (seep. 7) which is present along the Alapaha River. This overlaps the large sand hills along the Alapaha River, targeted as geomorphic features. Five samples rep-

Table 13. Echols County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum I

thickness

Priority of2

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

Ech-1

8' auger

8'

2

Ech-2a

16' auger

19.5'

3

Ech-2b

4' auger

19.5'

3

Ech-3

12' auger

12'

1

Ech-4

12' auger

11'

3

no

2

no

2

no3

2

no3

2

no

0

I 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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 2Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 3Marginally failed AS'IM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

73

83'1> 1'40"
N
t

11"

-------------

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
S Geomorphic feature !lliil Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

H H H

0

5 Kilometers

HHH

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

Figure 56. Echols County map.

74

-...,J VI

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
w(!1 70
s:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z wa(,:) 30
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5.3/4".5" 3/8. 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

I I

I

I

I

.,~' b.

1\

Echols County Ech-1

1\
~

1\

\

\

I

I

\

I

\ I

~

I

\ I

'I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

O.Ql

0.001

~---------------r-----.G~R~A~VT.E~GLR--A-I=N~~S~I~Z~E--~INS~AM~INLDLDI~M-E--T-E-R--S---lf------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~

COBBLES

rnAcc<=

"''"''"'

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

..... -.ro~l r-~

-nA\/r-1

c:."Aiil. i r"\

COli T

~I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 57. Size distribution curve of Sample Ech-1.

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

-..J
I 0\

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(!l
jjj 70
3:
> 60
a:l
ffi 50
z
LL. 40
1z -
~ 30 a: w Q. 20
10

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

I I

I

I

I

I I II

I~

~

I

' l

I I

1\

I I

I

~

I I

!\

\

I

.\

!

\

I

Echols County Ech-2a

I !

I !Ill

I

~

1\

I

\

I

'(

\
'

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,....1""\,n& ct:- I

,....~1\ur:::::

I

C'A~In

I

BOULDERS

0 .01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll T

I

0.001

r-1 AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 58. Size distribution cwve of Sample Ech-2a.

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

-....)

-....)

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

100

~

I'

I I

Iff

I

rl.""'

I

90

"'~

1- 80 :I:
w(!' 70
3:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w ll.. 20

10

I
I

Echols County Ech-2b

II II

II II I I

II II

111111

I
I
I
i
\
~
' ~ \ 'r\ l~ "" ~

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...,....r"'lo,.,, r-ro

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

,...,.,At.l.-1

C"J\II.Ir'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C"ll "T"

0.001

*

l"'"l AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 59. Size distribution curve of Sample Ech-2b.

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

-...J

00

I

100
90
t- 80
:I:
~
jjj 70
s:
> 60
a:l
ffi 50
z
LL 40
zt-
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

Ill I I I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

II I

II

"I8 16
(Jlo

30

50

100 200
I

~
\

I

~

Echols County Ech-3
Ill I II I I I _ Il l Lll I L 1 _

1,\ I

~
' ~
l\
\
~
~

-

' )
--

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-- ar-

~A.If"'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II T

0.001

*

,... 1\V

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 60. Size distribution curve of Sample Ech-3.

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

-...J

\0

I

100
90
.... 80 ::I:
~
i:ij 70
3:
>r:n 60
ffi 50
z
.uz..... 40
(wJ 30
a:
w
a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

II I

II

I

<I> ""r-

I

' r\

\

Echols County Ech-4

\
\ \
' \ \ t _l
\
I '

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

~---------------,,-----,G~R~A~V~E~L~~~-r----------SS~A~N~D,_----------~--------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~ *

COBBLES

l"'r"\1\CCI:::

1:::1~11:::

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

,.. _..,...,, r"'l"

- - A'lr"'l

C"AIII.In

~II.,..

,.... AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 61. Size distribution curve of Sample Ech-4.

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

resenting four sites were analyzed for construction aggregate in Echols County (F.Ig.56, Table 13).
Evaluation
Sample Ech-1 represents a site within a favorable geomorphic feature. Sample Ech-4 represents a site within a favorable soil body and geomorphic feature. Sample Ech-2a represents the upper sixteen feet of a twenty foot sample from a site within a favorable soil type. These samples are too wellsorted for use as construction aggregate, and failed ASTM Standard C-33. However. sam.Ple Ech-2b, which represents the lowerfour feet ofsample Ech2a, is comprised of coarse-grained sand and marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33. Sample Ech3 represents a site within a favorable soil body. and marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33, and can be upgraded.
Mining Activity
There is one active aggregate operation in Echols County. Rountree Construction operates a two acre pit in a forty acre tract. They mine approximately 10.000 tons per year by way of backhoe and dredge. This material is transported by truck to the Valdosta and Lowndes County areas.
Summary Evaluation
The site represented by samples Ech-2a and Ech-2b could be exploited for construction mate-

rial, but the sixteen feet ofoverburden represented by sample Ech-2a would probably make this stte unprofitable. The 5 acre. 12-foot thick deposit represented by sample Ech-3 could be a source of aggregate. This deposit could provide as much as 129,000 tons of material, before upgrading. Considering these two sites, and the presence of an active aggregate operation, the construction material potential for Echols County is considered to be moderate to high.
Hancock Countv
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Hancock County are derived from the crystalline rocks of the Piedmont Province and the Barnwell Formation. Most of Hancock County lies outside the study area in the Piedmont Province, but the southern section of the county lies within the Fall Line Hills District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 203) reported sand and pebble layers within clay near Carr's Station in Hancock County (Fig.62, Ts-19).
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting sites for sampling in Hancock County was #24 (see p. 7), which is present sporadically throughout the

Table 14. Hancock County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum

thickness

Priority ofl

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Ratingl

Han-1

8'

auger

8'

2

Han-2

5'

auger

5'

1

Han-3

8'

auger

8'

1

Han-4

6'

auger

6'

2

no2

2

no2

1

no2

3

no

0

I Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 2Margtnally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

80

82"58'35"

N

t

/ "'

- 33"16'32"

I
I
,-,J
"

EXPLANATION Sample locality () Teas' sample locality
Geomorphic feature
1}~;1~1 Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

R RR

0

5 Kilometers

HHH

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

Figure 62. Hancock County m;:1p.

81

00
I N

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70
3:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w ll.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

I

:1 I

II

I

I

T

[1

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

~ ~

""'"'~

I

"' ~"-i"o ~

I

'

""I"""
!'-

Hancock County Han-1

"'"'

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

F INE

,.... r""'o A1. r-

C"J\II.Ir""'.

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
COli 'T'

0.001

*

t"'t 1\V

**

GRADATION CURVE FJgure 63. Size distribution curve of Sample Han-1.

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

w00

I

100
90
1- 80
:::t:
w(!} 70
3:
m> 60
fzfi 50
u. 40
1z -
wau: 30
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

II I

rr--.~

16 3Q 50 100 200

I

I

I'

" \

"

I

~

I \

~

~

Hancock County Han-2

' \.
' \.
' ~

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

i ,.._rr.rr. rr- I

,...n A\t~l

I

C"l\illln

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll T

I

0.001

*

1""1 AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 64. Size distribution curve of Sample Han-2.

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

00
~

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(!'
jjj 70
3:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
2
u.. 40
12
~ 30 -
a:
w
ll.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

,----

-

3"

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

- , 4 8 16
lii~ ..(J
' \

30

50 100 200

I

I

I

\

I

I

' ' ~

I I
I

I

I

j

i

I

\

Hancock County Han-3

~

\ ...

i

"" I ~I

l

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

~---------------,-----,G~R~A~VIEE~L---=~~~~~---ssAANNDD------------li-------;S~Il~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~ *

COBBLES

'""'"o""'

<=1~1c::

MEDIUM

FINE

BOUU!lERS

..... ,....r... no ,...,....

--Ar-

r-Aa.l-

,..,, ~

,...I A'\1

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 65. Size distribution curve of Sample Han-3.

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

00 VI

I

100
90
1- 80 J: e, jjj 70
3:
>co 60
ffi 50
2 LL 40 12 ~ 30
a:
w ~ 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

I

I I

t

Jl -..;:.I.
~ ... ,

I

I

' ' r" '" \ I \

~

I

\

l '

Hancock County Han-4

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I coARS~AAIVEL FINE lcoARSEI ME;I~~o 1 FINE

]

I

I ,...,.UH'H ~~ I

,...~A\I L t

I

C"Afi.H"''\

l

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY

~~~ T

I

] *

f"'l AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 66. Size distribution curve of Sample Han-4.

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

county, remotely associated wtth various creeks. The geomorphic feature noted was a possible terrace nearTown Creek. Four sites were sampled for analysis of construction aggregate in Hancock County (Fig.62, Table 14).
Evaluation
Sample Han-4 represents a preferred soil type. This sample failed to meetASTM Standard C33: the material is too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate. Sample Han-1 was taken at a favorable soU body: and at a locality mentioned by Teas (1921, Fig.62, Ts-44). Sample Han-2 was taken from a preferred soU type. Sample Han-3 was taken from a site that was an abandoned pit, and also, is a favorable soU type. These samples all contain coarse-grained material. All four samples marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 but could be upgraded.
Mining Activity
With the exception of one abandoned pit for which no information is available, there are no active or recently inactive aggregate operations in Hancock County.
Summary Evaluation
The site represented by sample Han-1 is 5 acres in extent, approximately 8 feet thick, and

contains coarse-grained material. Sample Han-2 represents a 5 acre site, wtth coarse-grained sand and gravel at least 4 feet in thickness. Sample Han3 represents a 10 acre, abandoned sand pit. The deposit extended to a depth of 8 feet. These three sites could be sources for construction aggregate in Hancock County, possibly providing 87,000 tons: 42,000 tons: and 174,000 tons of material, respectively, before upgrading. The construction material potential for Hancock County is considered to be moderate to high.
Houston County
Note: A description ofthe aggregate potential for that part of Houston County which lies west of 1-75 may be found in Construction Material Potential of the Coastal Plain of Southwestern Georgia: An Evaluation, Georgia Geologic Sutvey Bulletin 106: (Friddell, 1987, p. 99-103).
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Houston County are derived from the Barnwell Group and the Marshallville Formation. Houston County lies wtthin the FortValleyPlateau and the Fall Line Hills Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 204) reported a sand deposit approximately 5 acres in extent near Perry (Fig.67,

Table 15. Houston County Sample Data

Sample designation

Minimum

Natural

thickness

Priority of2 Material passing

Depthl Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASfM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

Hou-1

13'

trench

13'

2

Hou-2

12'

trench

12'

2

Hou-3

12'

auger

12'

2

Hou-4

7'

auger

7'

2

Hou-5

8'

trench

8'

2

Hou-6

20'

trench

20'

0

no

0

no3

2

no

1

no

0

no

1

no

0

IFor trench samples. this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Increaslng numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 3Marg1nally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

86

83"43'54''

EXPLANATION

N

Sample locality

t

() Teas' sample locality

Inactive aggregate producer
S Geomorphic feature
!];~~\~ Sandy soil type

0
F"3 H F

0

5

HHH

5 Miles
l
Kilometers

32"27'29"

I -,

-I - - - -

I I
-L-..-- - -- --

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

Figure 67. Houston County map.

87

00 00

I

100
90
1- 80 c:.I,::, jjj 70
3:
> 60
1%1
ffi 50
2 LL 40
1z -
[ ~ 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4" .5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

II I

II

~

I

I

~ :"'oo...
'""~

Houston County Hou-1

~
'I\ ~ \ ' ~ \ ~ \ '

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

r---------------~-----,G~R~A~V~E~L------,---------~SAANAino------------,----------------------------,*

COBBLES

rv'"o"c

c: ...,c

MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

BOULDERS

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

-F""'r-

I"'Aa.ll""\

l"'II"T"

,..IAV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 68. Size distribution cuiVe of Sample Hou-1.

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

00

\0

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

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

I

I I

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

~

I

90
1- 80 :I: C!' jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10
1000
I

~

' I

Houston County Hou-2

\
' l
1\
'
1\ \
' ~ ~

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

I I COARS~R~VE\INE lcoARSEI MEg~~o 1 FINE

BOULDERS

" ' " ' " " I r~

,....~1\'1~1

C"AII.Ir""\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
t"-11 'T

0.001

I*

~I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

F:tgure 69. Size distribution curve of Sample Hou-2.

1.0 0

I

100

90

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

> 60
al

ffi
z

50

LL 40
zt-
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

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

[I

I I

I

<!loo ' I

I

~

I

l

\
' ~ I \

Houston County Hou-3

l
1\
\
\
' ~ """-

10

Ill
Ill I I I

II II
IIli i I L

II I
Ulll

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
r----------------r----~G~R~A~vnE~L---=~~~-------ssAANNDD------------li------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~ *

COBBLES

IV\1\0CC

1::11\IC

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

-----.

---

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

very fine

....,,,._

- a A '\1

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 70. Size distribution cmve of Sample Hou-3.

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

\...0...

I

100
90
1- 80 ::I:
(.!'
jjj 70
:s:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
II:
w a.. 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

.... to....

I f1

1\.

\

\ \ '\
\
\

Houston County Hou-4

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I I COARS~RjvEL FINE lcoARSEI ME;~~~o 1 FINE

I

I ,....'"'"" rlt' I

,-..noAU~I

I

C'l\.~ln

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
'

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY

e- 11 T

I

) *

1""' 1 /\V

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 71. Size distribution curve of Sample Hou-4.

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

\0 N

I

100

90

1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
s:

>m 60

ffi
z

50

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

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

l -

I

I I

-

16 30 50 100 200

I
~ i"o

I

I

~,

[

r\

'- I

I

\

I

1\

I \

\

~

\

\

\

\

Houston County Hou-5

I l l I I J II I I I I 111111

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

~-------------.-----,~~~----.---------!s~AN~mo~----------r-----~S~I ~LT~O~R~C~L~A~Y~----~

COBBLES

MED IUM

FINE

BOULDERS

-- - - -

. . . -~

,.. ..... -

...... -

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

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 72. Size distribution curve of Sample Hou-5.

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

w\0

I

100 I
90
1- 80 :I:
wC!' 70
s:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I' I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

..!.

I

I I

~h

\
' \ \
\ ~

~
\ I I~
\ _l
'

Houston County Hou-6

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
1
I
I

1000
I

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARSGERAIV E L FINECOARSEI ME DSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

BOULDERS

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

,....r""'A\Ir-"1

C'AII.Ir"\

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II "'T"

0.001

I *

,.... "" V

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 73. Size distribution curve of Sample Hou-6.

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

Ts-20). Although a small pit had been worked at that site, Teas reported that the sand is too finegrained and not suitable for construction purposes.
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites in Houston County was Lakeland, which is present near various streams throughout Houston County. The geomorphic features noted were sand hills along Indian Creek. Six siteswere sampled and analyzed for construction aggregate in Houston County (Fig.67, Table 15).
Evaluation
Samples Hou-1, Hou-3, and Hou-5were taken from a preferred soil type and targeted geomorphic feature. These samples did not meet ASTM Standard C-33, as thematertalts too well-sorted. Sample Hou-4 was taken from the preferred soil type, and Hou-6 was taken from what appeared to be a favorable site from field observation. Both of these samples proved to be too fine-grained for construction aggregate. The site from which sample Hou-2 was taken was a 12-foot high sand dune. This site is a preferred soil type and a targeted geomorphic feature. Near this site is an abandoned sand pit for which no information is available. The material in this sample marginally failedASTM Standard C-33 and could be upgraded.

Mining Activity
There are two mining operations in Houston County (Fig.67, F-807, F-578). Both are operated by the county and produce only fill material for use in road building.
Summary Evaluation
The site represented by sample Hou-2 offers the best possibility for aggregate production in Houston County. The material marg1nally failed ASTM Standard C-33 but could be upgraded. The construction material potential for this part of Houston County is considered to be moderate.
Irwin County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Irwin County are derivedfrom theAltamaha Formation. hwinCounty, which is completely within the Coastal Plain Province, lies almost entirely within the Tifton Upland and Bacon Terraces Districts, with a small portion being in the Vidalia Upland District.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 205-206) reported large sand hills along the Alapaha River which may have conunercial value (Fig.74, Ts-21).

Table 16. Irwin County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum

thickness

Priority ofl

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating I

Irw-1

4'

auger

4'

1

Irw-2

12'

auger

12'

1

Irw-3

20'

auger

20'

2

Irw-4

20'

auger

20'

3

no

0

no2

1

no2

2

no2

2

!Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).
2Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

94

N
t
-----,-,

EXPLA.NATION
Sample locality
- Teas' sample locality Abandoned pit, product unknown
Geomorphic feature
~Mft11 Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

H H H

0

5 Kilometers

HHH

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

Figure 74. hwin County map.

95

\0

0'1

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100
90
1- 80 J:
"jjj 70
:s:
>co 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40 12
~ 30 cc w
Q. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

-..... I

I I

I

1'-

~

~

ll
I

I "' ~

j
I

I '

I

Irwin County lrw-1

10

I
I

I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
~---------------,------,G~R~A~V~E=.L--~~~~~~----SSAANNDD~-----------r--------~S~IL~T~O~R~C:L~A~Y~------l*

COBBLES

r"r\J\OCE:

E:I~IE:

MED IUM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

....,_...,L,,_.,

r"A._ , ,...

~ 11 ~

f""l /\V

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 75. Size distribution cmve of Sample Irw-1.

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

\0 -....l

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
CwJ 70
3:
>co 60 wcc 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30 aw : a.. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

II I

8 16 30 ........... '--'

50 100 200
I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Irwin County lrw-2

i

\

I

1\

I

t\

I I

\

' ~

I

\

~

\

'

10

1000
I

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARSGE RAIVEL FINECOARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

I
I
I
0.01
SILT OR CLAY

I BOULDERS

~~-~?_8 ~~~~.. l_v_e_~v_-~------~~~-~_:;L.,__

1

~~~~

l_v_e_~~-~------~~-~ 1

, . - -

1

~~ry --

Jcoarse lmed1"uSmI1LT1.1ne

I

0.001

I *

,. . 1 Av

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 76. Size distribution curve of Sample Irw-2.

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

\0 00

I

100

90

~ 80 :I:
~
jjj 70
:=:
>co 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
z ~
~ 30
a:
w Q. 20

10

II
II

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II I

II

8
I

16 30 50 100 200

<li

I

"b.

\

I

' \

II 1

Irwin County lrw-3

II Ill
II Ill

II I I I 111111

~
\
\ I
\ \

1\

~

I

"'

I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

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

~Aio.lr"'lo

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
l'll ..-

0.001

*

/"''Ll A V

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

\0 \0

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

100

II

II I

I'

I

~

I

90

~

.... 80 :I:
wC-' 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
2
.zL..L. 40
~ 30
cc
w
0.. 20

10

I I
I I

1000

[{
1

I

,1\
\

i\ ~

\

Irwin County lrw-4

1

II I
II I
100

\

1111

\.

II II
10

1.0

' 0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I .... - .... ru rl" I

,....,.., A\lr""l

I

CAI\.In

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Ql

SILT OR CLAY

~tl T

I

0.001

*

1"1 AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 78. Size distribution curve of Sample IIw-4.

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

Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites for sampling in Irwin County were Alapaha, Fuquay, Kershaw and Troup. These soU types are present along the vartous rivers and creeks of the county, and roughly correspond to some ofthe geomorphic features. The geomorphic features noted were the sand hills present along the Alapaha River. Four sites were sampled and analyzed for construction aggregate in Irwin County (FJg.74, Table 16).
Evaluation
Sample lrw-1is from a preferred soU type. The sample did not meet ASTM Standard C-33 and is too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate. Sample lrw-2 was also taken from a preferred soil type. This sample marginally faUed ASTM Standard C-33 but could be upgraded. Samples Irw-3 and lrw-4 were taken from the preferred soil type andthe site oftargetedgeomorphicfeatures. Sample lrw-3 was taken from an area near the site of an abandoned sand pit. These samples marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33.
Mining Activity
Other than an abandoned sand pit, forwhlch no information is available, there are no active or

recently inactive aggregate operations 1n Irwin County.
Summary Evaluation
Three samples from Irwin County (Irw-2, lrw3, and Irw-4) marginally failed ASTM C-33 and could provide construction aggregate, with upgrading. The construction material potential for Irwin County is low to moderate.
Jeff Davis CountY
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Jeff Davis County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and Quaternary alluvium. Jeff Davis County lies within the Vidalia Upland and Bacon Terraces Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 206) reported that coarse sand is present in a terrace deposit ofthe Ocmulgee River near Lumber City (Fig. 79, Ts-22) and 1n sand bars throughout the course of the Ocmu1gee River.
Present Study
The soU series used in targeting sites for

Table 17. Jeff Davis County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimuml

thickness

Priority ofl

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rat1ng2

JeD-1

4'

auger

4'

1

no3

2

JeD-2

10'

auger

10'

2

no

0

JeD-3

2'

auger4

2'

2

no3

2

JeD-4

3'

auger4

3'

2

no3

2

JeD-5

3'

auger4

3'

2

yes

2

JeD-6

16'

auger

24'

2

no3

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. ThJclmesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determlned to be unsuitable was encountered whUe sampling. 2Increastng numerical values represent hlgher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or raUng (
potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 3Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications. 4River sample. taken with a hand auger.

100

82"35'41"
N
t
I
'I ~52'10"
I
f)

0

- - -fJ- - -
EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
Geomorphic feature IJilil Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

E3 E3 H

0

5 Kilometers

RRR

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

Figure 79. Jeff Davis County map.

101

-0
I N

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

100

I'

I I

I

I

~

I

90

1- 80
c:.I:;:,
iii 70
s:
>r:a 60
cw:: 50
z
u. 40
1z -
~ 30 c:: w
Q. 20
10

Jeff Davis County JeD-1

I

II I

II II

Ill I I J Ulill

II II

:'}
' \ ,
l
1\
\
1\
\
\
' l
1\
~
'

1000

100

COBBLES
_____ ,..., .,-,...
BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL COARSE I FINE
,.._.._ ,,..-.

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

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

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I I

I
1

0.01
SILT OR CLAY ,.. ,, -

0.001

- .,,

**

GRADATION CURVE F:tgure 80. Size distribution curve of Sample JeD-1.

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

-0
(j.l

I

100
90
1- 80 ::I:
(!1
iii 70 :!:
> 60
al
wa: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

II I

l!. I --.

I

i'ool
~

1\

\

\

\

' ~

\

I

b

!

_l

'

Jeff Davis County JeD-2

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

i

I ,,....,..,..,, ,...,..

BOULDERS

GRAVEL

COARSE I FINE

f

--liLt. H - I

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

C"AilU'"'o

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

...... .....

I

0.001

,.. . A~

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 81. Size distribution curve of Sample JeD-2.

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

.....
0
..&;:..

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

100
90
1- 80 J:
w(!) 70
:5:
> 60
al
a:
zU.l 50
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
U.l
Q.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I' I' !

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

r

I

~

i\.

\

I

\

I

t

'

~

Jeff Davis County JeD-3

~

f1

I

I

~

' 1\

1000

100

10

'

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

~---------------r-----,GR~A~V"E~L---G=~R~A~I~N--S-IZ--EssINAANMNIDL-L-IM--E-T-E-R--S---li------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~-------,*

COBBLES

,v,l\oct:

t:ol\ot:

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

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

......... -

,.... ......

""I _,,

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 82. Size distribution curve of Sample JeD-3.

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

-0
Vt

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8. 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

100

I

II I

:1.

............. ~

-

I

90

'--'

1\

1- 80 :I:
"w 70
s:
> 60
ell
0w::: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w Q. 20
10
1000
l

ll I 1

~

I

l\

\

Jeff Davis County JeD-4

ll

1\

_\

J

I
COBBLES

....... ~

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I coARS~R~VEL FINE lcoARSEI ME~~~~ 1 FINE

BOULDERS

,.,._r"'O,...,r-,...

_ _ .._~r-

~Aklr""\.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
.... .. .....

I*

J"''IIA~

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 83. Size distribution cuxve of Sample JeD-4.

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

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100 90

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/ 8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

II I

IT

I

- """~

[

I

II

~

i

1- 80 :I:
(!'
jjj 70
::
> 60
al

I I
I
I I

I

I I

I

~

ffi 50
2
u.. 40

I
~
11

12
~ 30

1:1

I

11

......

a:
w

Jeff Davis County JeD-5

0 0'1

a.. 20

I \

I

10

\ I
~

1'-1. ~

I

I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

CO. B BL ES
.-...... , ._...,
BOULDERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

-r-.. . ...-,

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

........ , . .

SILT OR CLAY
,.., . ..-

*

,.... AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 84. Size distribution curve of Sample JeD-5.

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

......
8 I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

100

I

II I II

II

tf.

""'-"

I

I II

90

"

_I

1- 80 :I:
~
jjj 70
3:
>m 60

ffi 50
z

I

' 1
l
1\ I
'l I
1\

LL. 40
1z -
(w.) 30
0::
w Q. 20

10

I
I

1000

I

'

\

Jeff Davis County JeD-6

\

I I

JLU

' ~ \

I l

II II

""'

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I coARs~R~VEL FINE lcoARSEI ME~~~~o 1 FINE

I

BOULDERS

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

- - .o. r-

l"Aio.l-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
.-.-r -r ...-

I*

-A "-'

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 85. Size distribution curve of Sample JeD-6.

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

sampling in Jeff Davis County were Kershaw and Mascotte, which are present as isolated areas throughout the county. The geomorphic features noted were the sand hills along Hurricane Creek. Six sites were sampled and analyzed for construction aggregate in Jeff Davis County (Fig. 79, Table 17).
Evaluation
Sample J eD-2 was taken from a preferred soil body and geomorphic feature. The material is too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate and does not meet ASTM Standard C-33. Sample JeD1was taken from a preferred soil type and near the site ofan abandoned sand pit for which no information is available. Sample JeD-6 was taken from a preferred soil type and, also, the site of a targeted geomorphic feature. These samples marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 and could be upgraded.
The remaining three samples, JeD-3, JeD-4, andJeD-5, are from point bars along the Ocmulgee River. SamplesJeD-3 andJeD-4marginallyfailed ASTM Standard C-33 but could be upgraded. Sample JeD-5 meets ASTM Standard C-33. Depending on the water level, these point bars in the Ocmulgee River canvaryfrom approximately five to ten acres in size and could provide from 20,000 to 40,000 tons of material.
Mining Activity
Other than an abandoned pit, for which there is no information available (Fig. 79). there are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Jeff Davis County.
Summary Evaluation
The point bars along the Ocmulgee River offer the best possibility for aggregate production in Jeff Davis County. But due to theirlimited areal extent, min1ng may not be profitable. The construction material potential for Jeff Davis County is considered to be moderate.
Johnson County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Johnson County are derived primarily from the Altamaha Group with minor deposits of the Barnwell Group and

Quaternary alluvium. Johnson County lies in the Coastal Plain Province and almost entirely within the Vidalia Upland District. A small portion of the county lies in the Fall Line Hills District.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 209) reported that the sand belt along the Little Ohoopee River (Fig.86, Ts-23) consisted of fine-to medium-grained sand and was at that time being used as traction sand. Teas (1921, p. 209) reported a 5-acre gravel deposit, about 2 feetthick(Fig. 86, Ts-24), belongingto J.H. Rowland, located about 5 miles from Wrightsville. Teas (1921) also reported a 20-acre deposit ofgravel and concrete sand near Donovan (Teas, 1921, p. 209210: Flg.86, Ts-25). Gravel was reported by Teas (1921, p. 21 0) at the McCrary property, 6 miles northwest of Wrightsville, (Fig.86, Ts-26): the Brantley property, 3 milesfromWrlghtsv1lle, (Flg.86, Ts-27): the Smith property, 2 miles from Adrian (Fig.86, Ts-28): the Flanders property, 1.5 miles from Adrian, (Fig.86, Ts-29): and an occurrence of clayey gravel at Neels Creek (Fig.86, Ts-30).
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting sites in JohnsonCountywas#39 (seep. 7), which overlaps the geomorphic features noted, sand hills along the Little Ohoopee River. Six samples representing five sites were analyzed for construction aggregate (Fig.86, Table 18).
Evaluation
Sample Joh-2 is from the preferred soil type and a targeted geomorphic feature. Samples Joh1, Joh-3 and Joh-5 are from sites noted by Teas (1921: Fig. 86, Ts-28, Ts-25, and Ts-24, respectively). Samples Joh-4a and Joh-4b are from a site noted by Teas (1921, Fig.86, Ts-23), which is also a location of the preferred soil type, and a targeted geomorphic feature.
None of the samples analyzed met ASTM Standard C-33. All samples, with the exception of Joh-4a, were too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate. Although there is some coarsegrained material present in sample J oh-1, there is too much fine-grained material, and the deposit is too small to be considered. Sample Joh-4a is too well-sorted and marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 but could be upgraded. This sample represents a fifteen-acre site with possible reserves of 500,000 tons, before upgrading.

108

82"43'12"

N

t

"""- .
I

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
Geomorphic feature
ti~~i:l Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

H H H

0H H R5 Kilometers

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

Figure 86. Johnson County map.

109

..........
I 0

100
90
1- 80
J:
"jjj 70
3:
> 60
aJ
ffi 50
z
LL. 40
1z -
~ 30 1-
wa:
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I' I' L

II

8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

I

I I'

b.

~

Johnson County Joh-1

.~
~ ._.
'
r\
1\
' ,,_. ~ '
- -1...-.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
l
I
_l

1000

100

10

1.0

0 .1

O.Ql

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

r----------------r-----.GR~A~VJiE~L--~~.----------ss~A~NDD~----------]1------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y;-------~ *

COBBLES

/Y\1\DC>C

"'~'"

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

---~r-

,... .... -

.... , , _

,... i ......,

. ...

GRADATION CURVE Figure 87. Size distribution curve of Sample Joh-1.

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

-- I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
==
~ 60
ffi 50
2 LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

I

II I

I'

I
I
I'

\

' ~

I
I

' \

\

' ~

I I

\

!

' '\

Johnson County Joh-2

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

---------------r----~nA.~--~~G~~R~A~I~NS~SAIZ~EN~IDN=-M-I-L-L-IM--E-T-E~R-S-----~S~I~LT~O~R~C~L:A~Y~----~*

COBBLES

,.,...,<>~"'-

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

- - .._ ..- .

t"'A .. II""'l

11"0 11 .....

,.... .11.'-1

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 88. Size distribution cmve of Sample Joh-2.

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

..............
N

I

100
90
1- 80
~ (!)
iii 70 3:
> 60
Ill
azw: 50
~ 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

[I

[I I

8 16 3Q 50 100 200

....... ~

I

I
Johnson County Joh-3

I
'1\ 'i\
\
' " " I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDI UM

FINE

_..., . ;, _ ;

""A .. Ir"'Oo.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,.,,,_

0.001

*

"'"" I "'" i

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 89. Size distribution curve of Sample Joh-3.

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

........

........
Vl

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

100

I

II I

I

~ ~

I

I

90
1- 80 :I:
w(!' 70
3:
>cc 60

I

' "

1\

\

I

I

\

\

aw: 50
z
LL 40 12
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

Johnson County Joh-4a

I

I !

Ill

Ill I I I IILlll I I I JlJJ l l L J_J _

\
1

~

I\

\

\

'i\

I

~I

1000

100 COBB LES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARS E

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

__ .... ..,. .-....

- - .._,. . _,

r>A.Ir""''.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
I
I
I
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
11"'"11,..

0.001

*

,.... I'I.V

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 90. Size distribution curve of Sample Joh-4a.

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

..........
~

I

100
90
..... 80 :I: 0 jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
aw: 50
z
LL 40
.z....
~ 30
aw :
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I' I

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200

""

I

~tl

~
' ~
' \ \ '1\ ~ \. '

Johnson County Joh-4b

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

I I BOULDERS 1,5:?._6 ~~~~.. L'::':':.~-------~!~.~_5L"-- 1 ~~~~ !_'::':~~-------~~' ,.-- 1 '..!_~_r_y coarse 1n __a_..J.J.,uSmIL1Tt.Jne

[

0.001
"' "" I**

GRADATION CURVE FJgure 91. Size distribution curve of Sample Joh-4b.

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

............
Ul

I

100
90
1- 80
:I:
(!'
jjj 70
3:
> 60
Cll
aw: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

II I

ll!iolo... ~

I

I

""'"~

Johnson County Joh-5

'

b

I

I

"1\

'I ~

~

I~

.........

i

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBB LES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

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

,...oA\.11':":1

I

CAMn

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

c-11 T

I

0.001

*

,.... AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 92. Size distribution curve of Sample Joh-5.

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

Table 18. Johnson County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depthl

Sample type

Minimum2

thickness

Priority of3

of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

Joh-1

7'

auger

7'

2

no

2

Joh-2

8'

auger

8'

2

no

0

Joh-3

8'

auger

8'

1

no

1

Joh-4a

18'

trench

21'

3

no4

2

Joh-4b

3'

auger

21'

3

no

0

Joh-5

7'

auger

6'

1

no

1

lFor trench samples, this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thicknesses ofthe deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of
the trench samples are estimated from field observations. Thicknesses that are less than the depths
of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 3I.ncreasing numerical values 1epresent hlgher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 4Margtnally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgrade-d to meet specifications.

Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive aggregate operations in Johnson County.
Summary Evaluation
Sample Joh-4a could be suitable for construction aggregate use: however, the supplywould be l1mited. Construction material potential for Johnson County is considered to be low.
Jones County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Jones County are derived from the crystalline rocks of the Piedmont Province, the Barnwell Group, and the Oconee Group. Most of Jones County lies within the Piedmont Province and outside the study area: however, the southern portion lies within the Fall Line HUls District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921) made no mention of occurrences of sand or gravel in the Coastal Plain of Jones County.

Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites in Jones County was Lakeland, which is present sporadically throughout the county. There were no geomorphic features apparent that are indicative of sand orgravel deposits. Two sampleswere analyzed for construction aggregate in Jones County (Fig.93, Table 19).
Evaluation
Both samples were taken from preferred soil types. Jon-1 was too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate, and failedASTM Standard C-33. Jon-2 marginally failed ASTM Standard C33 but could be upgraded.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive aggregate operations in Jones County.
Summary Evaluation
The site represented by sample Jon-2 could provide construction aggregate, but supply is Umited. The construction material potential for Jones County is considered to be low.

116

--- --- 83"32'02"
------------
\
\ \ \
N
t
\
\ \ \

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
~ ~~ Sandy soil type

0
bd
0
H

5 Miles
bd H
5 Kilometers
HH

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

Figure 93. Jones County map.

117

- I 00

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70
3:
>m 60
aw: 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

111

~

I

II

~- "

' '' \.

'\
I \

I

-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Jones County Jon-1

1000

100

COBBLES

I

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

BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

...... r""'oA\tr-1

I

C'Aa.lr"\.

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

...... "T'

I

0.001

*

" AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 94. Size distribution curve of Sample Jon-1.

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

............
\0

I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
w(,:, 70
:s: > 60
CQ
aw: 50 z
.L.L.. 40
z
~ 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5"3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

I

-6

I

Jones County Jon-2

~
~
1\
\
.\
(
1\
\
' I
1\
\
~
'\ i

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

f't"\J\cc~RAVEL ME~t~:Mo r----------------r----~~~~-----.----------~~~-----------r--------------------------~*

COBBLES

c ... c

f'nAccc

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

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

--~

~AI,...._

,..,, ..-

- ~ .A '\_.1

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 95. Size diStribution curve of Sample Jon-2.

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

Table 19. Jones County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum

thickness

Priority ofl

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell RaUngt

Jon-1

4'

auger

4'

1

Jon-2

5.5'

auger

5.5 '

1

no

0

no2

1

lincreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 2Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

Lanier County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Lanier County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and the Miccosukee Formation. Lanier County lies within the Coastal Plain Province and almost entirely within the Tifton Upland District with a small portion being in the Okefenokee Basin.
Previous Study
Teas made no mention of sand or gravel deposits in Lanier County.
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites for samplinginLanierCounty were Fuquay, Mascotte, and Rutlege. This is present at higher elevations near streams. The geomorphic features targeted were the sand hills along the Alapaha River. 1\vo

sites were sampled for construction aggregate in Lanier County (Fig.96, Table 20).
Evaluation
Sample Lan-1 was taken from a targeted geo~orphic feature. This sample failed to meet ASTM Standard C-33, because the material is too fine-grained. Sample Lan-2 was taken from a preferred soil type. This sample was too well-sorted to meet ASTM Standard C-33.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive aggregate operations in Lanier County.
Summary Evaluation
There is no evidence that any significant amount or quality ofconstruction material exists in Lanier County. Therefore, the construction mate-

Table 20. Lanier County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum

thickness

Priority ofl

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Ratingl

Lan-1

8'

auger

8'

1

Lan-2

4'

auger

4'

1

no

0

no

0

lincreasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

120

8:f04'31 "

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
~ Geomorphic feature
l\1~~(4 Sandy soil type

N
t

OE r---3-r--r=E--=3r--r=-E---3-15 Miles

0

5 Kilometers

HH R

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

Figure 96. Lanier County map.

121

-tv
tv

I

100
90
.... 80 :I: C!J jjj 70
3:
>en 60
aw: 50
z
L..L.. 40
z
~ 30
a:
w ll.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

II I

II

I

~
~

~

I\

II
I

' \

I

1\

\
t
\
I \

\

Lanier County Lan-1

1000

100 COBB LES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ................. "'' ,...r'" I very

GRAVEL

I

C"Aa..n

I

BOULDERS

coarse I coarse lmediuml fine

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

..... "'r'

I

0.001

*

"" AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 97. Size distribution curve of Sample Lan-1.

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

w N 1

100

90

1- 80

:I:

wC) s:

7

0

> 60
al

aw: 50
z

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

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4" .5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

If

I'

~

I

I

II

~~

\
r\
\
\
\

Lanier County Lan-2

I 1\
I \ '\
\
' I-'.
I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRA V EL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MED I U M

FINE

-r"''oA\Ir-"1

C'"l\111.11""\.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Dl
SILT OR CLAY
rt-11.,..

0.001

*

1".1 AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 98. Size distribution curve of Sample Lan-2.

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

rial potential for Lanier County is considered to be low.
Laurens County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Laurens County are derived from the Altamaha Formation, the BarnwellGroup, and Quaternaryalluvium. Laurens County lies within the Vidalia Upland and Fall Line Hills Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 211) noted an extensive occurrence of sand at what is now East Dublin (Fig.99, Ts-31). Sand was being mined from this locality during the time of his study. Also noted was the occurrence of coarse sand in the flood plain and sand bars of the Oconee River (Teas. 1921, p. 212). Teas (1921, p. 213) reported a gravel deposit on the Carter property (Fig.99, Ts-32) that covers 3000 acres and is 2 to 5 feet thick.
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting sites for sampling in Laurens County was #24 (see p. 7) and is present as a floodplain deposit east of the Oconee River. Geomorphic features noted were the sand hills and sand bars present along the Oconee River. Five sites in Laurens County were sampled

and analyzed for construction aggregate potential (Fig.99, Table 21).
Evaluation
Sample Lau-1 was taken from a preferred soil type. Analysis shows that the material is too wellsorted and too fme-grained for use as construction aggregate. Sample Lau-5 was also taken from a preferred soil type. Sample Lau-4 was taken from an occurrence ofsand reported in the unpublished files at the Geologic Survey. Although neither Lau4 or Lau-5 met ASTM Standard C-33, the material could be upgraded for use as construction aggregate.
Samples Lau-2 and Lau-3 were taken at the site of a sand pit operated by Holmes Co. (Fig.99, 1156), which also is a site noted by Teas (1921). Sample Lau-2 is representative of the entire site. Sample Lau-3 represents a thin, continuous gravel layer. Both of these samples marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 and could be upgraded. This material has been used in the recent past for aggregate.
Mining Activity
Holmes Sand and Gravel Co. recently operated a pit at East Dublin, (Fig.99, I-156) but no infommtion is available about their operation. C.M.G. Co. (Fig.99, F-489) operated a pit for producing fill material. but no other information is available.

Table 21. Laurens County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth I

Sample type

Minimum2 thickness of the deposit

Priority oP body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

Lau-1

7'

auger

12'

1

Lau-2

25'

trench

25'

2

Lau-3

l'

trench

1'

2

Lau-4

5'

trench

5'

2

Lau-5

15'

auger

15'

l

no

0

no4

2

no4

2

no4

2

no4

1

lFor trench samples, this figure is the verticallenglh of Lh lrench .
2Thicknesses of the deposits greater than the depth of the a uge r hole or grea ter than the height of the trench samples are estin1ated from field ob servation s. Thiclrn sses thaL are less Lhan Lhe d epths
of the auger holes show that material delem1 ineclto be uns uJLable wa en co unL red while sampling. 3fncreasing numerical valu es r present hig her priorlly (potential for <.1ggr ga l , depo Its ) or rating
(polenlial for uses of sands other lhan construction ag_~regale) .
4Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

124

/
/

\
\ \ \

32"32'25"
''1 J

\
\
\
EXPLANATION
Sample locality
miiiill Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
Inactive aggregate producer Abandoned pit, product unknown
~ Geomorphic feature ~ ~~ Sandy soil type

/
/
~Er/

/

/

N

t

0

5 Miles

ld R R

0g g ld5 Kilometers

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

Figure 99. Laurens County map.

125

1--'

N 0\

I

100
90
1- 80 :I: C!l jjj 70
s:
>co 60
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
ll.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I'

II I

II

!

!

T

~

' 1 I

I
I

Laurens County Lau-1

\ \
~
' 1"1

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-- ~ ~-

'""'A-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
,..,, ~

0.001

,.1 AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 100. Size distribution curve of Sample Lau-1.

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

-N
.....,J

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

100

I'

I I

!I

I

90

~

1-- 80 eJ,::, jjj 70
3:
~ 60

wa: 50 z

LL 40

~ 1z-
~

30

I

a:
- w
a.. 20

I

10

I
I

I
l

II

Laurens County Lau-2

II II

I II II

ll ll

I II II

J
\

\
\
1 I

I

~

I

\

I

' ~

I

\

\

I

' I
I'

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

l

I ..... - ..... " r-r- I

BOULDERS

,...r""''A\.tr""l

I

C'AJ\Ir'\

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C' U 'T

I

0.001

*

1""'1 AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 101. Size distrtbutlon cmve of Sample Lau-2.

......

N 00

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

100

I

I I

I

~ i1lo

I

90

""'

~ 80 :I:
0w 70 ::
>r::o 60
aw: 50
:z
u.. 40
z ~
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10
1000

Laurens County Lau-3

-

--

1\

' I ~

' -~

-

---

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

BOULDERS

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

--~1r-1

C'OAII.II"'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
C'OII T

0.001

*

f""l AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 102. Size distribution curve of Sample Lau-3.

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

-N
\0

I

100

90

1- 80 J:
w ~ 70
3:
> 60
al
cw:: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30 c:: w Q. 20
10

I
Jllll _

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4". 5" 3/8~ 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

I

I I

I

I

I

I I

""'

I

I

I

Laurens County Lau-4

I I

II II

I I

I I II

1\
1\
~ I
-' ~ I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

___ ,....,...,r-~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

,....r""'oAt.lr-1

C"AA.Ir"'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
l"'ll"''"'

0.001

*

,...IAV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 103. Size distribution cUive of Sample La.u-4.

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

.......

w
0

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(,!'
jjj 70
:s:
>m 60
Iw!: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
I!:
w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

II I

!I

<!0 ~

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Laurens County Lau-5

\

D

I

' ~

I I

' \
' \

I
I I

\

I
I

' \

b

'

L__ L__

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

..-..-- - -

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MED IUM

FINE

-- --

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

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
,..,, -

0.001

- ... , ,

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 104. Size distribution curve of Sample Lau-5.

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

Summary Evaluation
ThesiterepresentedbyLau-2 andLau-3isthe location of Holmes Sand and Gravel Co. This site offers the best possibility for aggregate production in Laurens County. The potential for aggregate production in Laurens County is considered to be moderate.
Lowndes Countv
Note: A description ofthe aggregate potential for that part ofLowndes County which lies west of 1-75 may be found in Construction Material Potential of the Coastal Plain of Southwestern Georgia: An Evaluation, Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 106: (Friddell, 1987, p. 107-112).
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Lowndes County are derived from the Miccosukee Formation. Lowndes County lies within the Tifton Upland District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 216) noted that coarse sand is present in the Withlacoochee River bed.
Present Study
The son association used in targeting sites in Lowndes County was #24 (see p. 7) and is found throughout the county along streams. There were no apparent geomorphic features indicative of

suitable sand or gravel occurrences noted. Four sites were sampled for analysis in Lowndes County (Fig.105, Table 22).
Evaluation
Samples Low-1, Low-3, and Low-4were taken from preferred soil types. Sample Low-2 was taken from a preferred soil type and in the vicinity of an aggregate producer (Fig.105, #659). None of the samples met ASTM Standard C-33. Low-1 and Low-4 are too fine-grained and too well-sorted for use as construction aggregate. Low-2 and Low-3
are too well-sorted for use as construction aggre-
gate.
Mining Activity
There are four active producers in Lowndes County: however, all produce only fill material. Richard DeLoach (Fig.105, F-659) operates an 8 acre pit in Lowndes County. Reames and Son Construction operates three pits (Fig.105, F-884, F-827, F-828) of 10, 25, and 35 acres, respectively. Scruggs Co. owns a pit (Fig. 105, F-884) but no information about its operation was available for this study.
Summary Evaluation
None ofthe sites sampled in Lowndes County offer good possibilities for construction aggregate production. The only mining activity is for fill material. The construction material potential for this part of Lowndes Countyis considered to be low.

Table 22. Lowndes County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimuml

thickness

Priority of2

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

Low-1

4'

auger

0

1

no

0

Low-2

8'

auger

8'

2

no

1

Low-3

8'

auger

8'

2

no

0

Low-4

8'

auger

8'

1

no

0

!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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 2Increastng numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating {potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

131

83"16'43"

N
t
30"49 '57"-

EXPLANATION
Sample locality Inactive aggregate producer [;!,fH1t;l Sandy soil type

0
H H

5 Miles
R

0

5 Kilometers

RH H

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

Figure 105. Lowndes County map.

132

......

w w

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
~
jjj 70
s: > 60
Ill
aw: 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I I

I

lr.\.L. I
I

I

I

~ ...
"' )i

""""f\.\

I

' ~

1\
\
~

\ \
'

Lowndes County Low-1

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

-r"''o A\.lr-1

t:'Atul"'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II T

0.001

*

~I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 106. Size distrtbutlon cUive of Sample Low-1.

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

-w
.j:>.

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

3" 1.5" 3/4" .5" 3/8. 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

I I

I

I

90
1- 80 :I:
w(!) 70
3:
> 60
Cll
aw: 50
z
LL. 40
.z....
~ 30 -
a:
- w
Q.. 20

~

I

\

'
1\

' ~

I

\

\
' \

~

Lowndes County Low-2

' '

10

1000

100

I I I

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES
___ ,.. .,..,..
BOULDERS

----~,-

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

,.. ... ._

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

I

I

O.Q1
SILT OR CLAY ..... . -

0.001

*

- .....,

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 107. Size dJstrtbutlon cUIVe of Sample Low-2.

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

,_.

w
Ul

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
3:
> 60
lXI
aw: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I I

I'

I

~

\

I
Lowndes County Low-3

l
1\
' ~ \ \ \
I~
" '

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRA VEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

GRAVEL

very

coarse )rnediuml fine I fine

rt'AII. i Mt.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
I I
I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,.. ,...

0.001

*

ra a A~

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 108. Size distribution cuiVe of Sample Low-3.

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

-w
I 0\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

100

'\

I

I I

I

I

90
1- 80 :I:
wC!' 70
3:
> 60
Ill
0w::: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20

I
Lowndes County Low-4

' I'\ \ ' ~ \ ~ I \. '

10

I I

I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

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

COBBLES

1"1"\J\Dt>l::

MEDIUM

FINE

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

-- r-

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

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

""'' A"'l

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 109. Size distribution curve of Sample Low-4.

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

Monte;omerv County
Geology and Physiography
The surllcialsediments of Montgomery County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and Quaternary alluvium. Montgomery County lies within the Vidalia Upland District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 221) mentioned that coarse sand is present in the Oconee River bed.
Present Study
The soil series used in selecting sites for sampling in Montgomery County were Kershaw and Paola, and occur sparsely as isolated bodies. The geomorphic features sited were sand hills and sand bars along the Oconee River. Four samples representing three sites in Montgomery County were analyzed (Ffg.llO, Table 23).
Evaluation
Sample Mon-3 was taken from a targeted geomorphic feature. The material is too fine-grained and too well-sorted for use as construction aggregate. Samples Mon-1a and Mon-1b were taken from the proximity of a sand pit referenced in Georgia Geologic Surveyfiles. The upper four feet of

this sample (Mon-1a) marg1nally failed to meet ASTM Standard C-33 but could be upgraded. The lower four feet ofthe sample (Mon-1b) also failed to meetASTM StandardC-33; thematerialistooflnegrained. Sample Mon-2 was taken from a preferred soil type; the material marginally failed ASIM Standard C-33 but could be upgraded.
Mining Activity
Montgomery Sand Company, a division of Florida Crushed Stone Co. (Ffg.110, A-355), operates a 60 acre pit from a 420-acre tract ofland near Mount Vernon and the Oconee River. Mining is done by a suction dredge. Concrete, mortar, trap (for golf course use), and sandblasting sand, in addition to well gravel, is transported bytruckfrom the pit to within a 250-mile radius.
Swnmary Evaluation
The site represented by sample Mon-2 is a 40 acre tract: the sampled material extends 13 feet in depth. Sample Mon-1a represents a twenty acre tract and extends four feet in depth. Although the material analyzed marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33, both these sites could provide limited amounts of construction aggregate. There is, however, construction aggregate being mined at the Montgome:ry Sand Company. The construction material potential for Montgomery County is considered to be moderate.

Table 23. Montgomery County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum I

thickness

Priority of2

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

Mon-1a

4'

auger

8'

2

no3

2

Mon-1b

4'

auger

8'

2

no

0

Mon-2

13'

auger

13'

1

no3

1

Mon-3

6'

auger

6'

1

no

0

IThicknesses 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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths
of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 2Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).
3Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

137

32"1 0'42"

82"35'41 "

, ____

... - -

I

N
t

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
S Geomorphic feature
E Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

F3 F3 F3

0

5 Kilometers

HHH

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 110. Montgomery County map.
138

-w
\0

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
wt!' 70
3:
m> 60
aw: 50
2
u. 40
12
~ 30
a:
w ~ 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I'

I

I

I

<J>.

I

f\

I'

I I

' '

Montgomery County Mon-1 a

II II

IIII

1' \
\
\
~
'

1000
I

COBBLES

100
I

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAIVEL FINECOI ARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

BOULDERS

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

_,.., A ~ .t r- 1

C'A--..11""\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
l""ll "T

0.001

I*

,...... A V

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 111. Size distribution cmve of Sample Mon-1a.

......

~
0

I

100

90

1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70 i
s:

~ 60

a:
zUJ 50

u.. 40

1z -

~ 30

a:

UJ
Q. 20

I

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/ 4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

I I

I

I

I

"'""" 1\

b

I

'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
Montgomery County Mon-1 b

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGERAVEL FINE
-r""' o ar-1

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

~Aa.rr<~o

O.ol
SILT OR CLAY
..... II

0.001

*

,... A '\J

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 112. Size distribution curve of Sample Mon-1b.

--~ I

100
90
1- 80 J:
(!'
jjj 70
3:
>r:a 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(awJ: 30
w a.. 20
10

3"

--- U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

1.5"3/4".5"3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I'

II I

I'

~

I

~
" ~

I
Montgomery County Mon-2

y
\
(
1\
\
I \
'
\ \ '\.

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE -r""' o At.r-o

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

~A........

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,._II...-

0.001

*

,... A'\.1

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 113. Size dJstrtbutlon curve of Sample Mon-2.

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

-~
I tv

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(.!)
jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
wa: 50
z
LL. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w c.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

r

II I

8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I """"!:

I I

B
,I\ ~ ~ \

1\

I

\

'\.

\

Montgomery County Mon-3

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBB LES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MED I UM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

l

BOULDERS

1.~~-B~~!:~ .. L':'.':':.~_, ______ }>~.c>:.~!;L., __

,

~~!~

1_':'.':~~-------~.'::. .,__

, I 1 ~!lrv

r~StLTt

-- coarse II:UJum Jne

l

0.001 *
'" Av I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 114. Size distribution cmve of Sample Mon-3.

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

Peach County
Note: A description ofthe aggregate potential for that part of Peach County which lies west of I75 maybefound in Construction Matenal Potential of the Coastal Plain of Southwestern Geor~ia: An Evaluation, Georgia Geologic Sutvey Bulletin 106; (Friddell, 1987, p. 150-160).
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Peach County are derived from the Barnwell Group, the Oconee Group and the Marshallville Formation. Peach County lies within the Fall Line Hills and the Fort Valley Plateau Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas made no mention of sand occurrences in Peach County.
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites in Peach County was Lakeland and occurs as isolated bodies near streams. A possible terrace deposit of the Echeconnee Creek is the geomorphic feature targeted. It overlaps a targeted soil body. One site in Peach County was analyzed for construction aggregate (Fig.115, Table 24).
Evaluation
Sample Pch-1 is from a preferred soil body, whichcorrespondsto a targetedgeomorphic feature, and is inthe vicinity ofan inactive sand pit (Fig. 115, 1-525). The matenalis too fine-grained, and too well-sorted for use as construction aggregate.

Mining Activity
At one time Southern Aggregate of Augusta operated a sand pit in Peach County (F1g.115, 1525), but it has since been reclaimed and no other information is available.
Swnmary Evaluation
The site sampled in Peach County evidently would not be a good source for construction material, and there is no m1n1ng activity. Therefore, the construction material potential for this part of Peach County is considered to be low.
Pulaski County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments ofPulaski County are derived from deposits ofOligocene age and Quaternary alluvium. This countylieswithin the Fall Line Hills and Vidalia Upland Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 229-230) noted that the sand bars in the Ocmulgee River were possible sources of aggregate.
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting sites for sampling in Pulaski County was #39 (see p. 7). and is found along the Ocmulgee River, roughly corresponding to the targeted geomorphic features. The geomorphic features noted were the sand hills. ten-aces. and sand bars along the Ocmulgee River. Five siteswere sampled, and analyzedfor construction aggregate potential (Fig.11 7, Table 25).

Table 24. Peach County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum

thickness

Priority ofl

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Ratingl

Pch-1

8'

auger

8'

3

no

0

!Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

143

83"53' 15"
N
t
/

1-525 Pch-1

I .-. '
--

_ _ .J

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
Inactive aggregate producer
~ Geomorphic feature
mIJi1!iiM Sandy soil type

0
Fd
0
ld

5 Miles
Ed F3
5 Kilometers
H R

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

Figure 115. Peach County map.

144

......

~
lll

I

100
90
1- 80 ::I:
"w 70
3:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I' I

I'

<ll. ~.

I

I
Peach County Pch-1

~

' \ ~ I

'"-

I

\

I ' 1\
~
\
I '

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDI U M

FINE

I

I ,...-..nru r-eo I

,....r"t A \tr" l

I

C"l\rt..ln

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll 'T

I

0.001

*

1"'1 A V

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 116. Size distrtbutlon curve of Sample Pch-1.

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

8:f28'20"

32"17'01"

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
~ Geomorphic feature ~ Sandy soil type

N

0

5 Miles

t

bd Ed Fd

0

5 Kilometers

RHR

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

Figure 117. Pulaski County map.

146

......

~
-.l

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w(.!) 70
3:
>co 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
Q.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

rr-p

I

8 16 3() 50 100 200

J

-

I

r-

' l
1\

I
Pulaski County Pul-1

D

~

I

\

\

~

~
"

1
._l
-

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

....,_ronl r"'r'

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

FINE

,...~A'I .~I

~A ...I n

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Ql SILT OR CLAY
r'> lf......

0.001

,..... AV

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 118. Size distribution cUIVe of Sample Pul-l .

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

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

I

'I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

I

I

I

- ....

90

~

.... ""-c.

.... 80 :I:
"jjj 70
3:

I

"'\. ~

I

>m 60

I

ffi 50
2

~I
f\

L..L... 40

2

~ 30

.......

a:
w

Pulaski County Pul-2

~
00

0.. 20

10

I I

II II II I I

II I
II I

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

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,...,.......,ru r-,r"'o I

,...n A\lr""l

I

~1\ltt..Jn

I

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll T

I

0.001

*

f"'r /\V

I**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 119. Size distribution curve of Sample Pul-2.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

100

I'

I' I

I'

I

~

I

90

1- 80 :I:
(!J
jjj 70
3:
> 60
I:C

ffi 50
2

LL 40

1-

2

~ 30

a:

Pulaski County Pul-3

........

w

~

a.. 20

1.0

10

'

\

I

' ~

\

'1\
1\

\

' ~

'

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,..,..,.nn1 r-c- I

"'"'A'1r-1

I

C"AIUn

I

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll T

I

0.001

*

1"1 1\V

I**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 120. Size distribution cwve of Sample Pul-3.

-Ul
I 0

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(!)
jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
aw: 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

I

I' I

8 16 3() 50 100 200

'"""""""'I

I

y

I

'"' ~

I I

'I I~

I

\

\.

'\

'

Pulaski County Pul-4

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

--a,r-

roaaor-<o.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I I
I
I

I I
I

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

0.001

*

,...I A<O..I

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 121. Size distribution curve of Sample Pul-4.

--Ul

I

100
90
1z- 80
(!J
jjj 70
:s: >co 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w 0.. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

I I

~~ I

I

,'"~

I

II

I
I

l

'

I

Pulaski County Pul-5

~ ,

10 1000

100 COBB LES

1\

1\ -..

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

,...r-oo. At..r-1

~AIIt.lr""'o

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,...II"'''"

0.001

*

#"'01 A'-1

it it-

GRADATION CURVE Figure 122. Size distribution curve of Sample Pul-5.

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

Evaluation
Samples Pul-l and Pul-2 were taken from the preferred soU type where it corresponds to the terraces along the Ocmulgee River. Samples Pul-3 and Pul-4 were taken from the sand hills along the Ocmulgee River. Sample Pul-5 was taken from a sand bar on the Ocmulgee River. None of the material analyzed met ASTM Standard C-33. Samples Pul-l, Pul-2, and Pul-4 are too finegrained, and samples Pul-3 and Pul-5 are too wellsorted for use as construction aggregate.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive aggregate operations in Pulaski County.
Summary Evaluation
Although the material in sample Pul-2 is too fine-grained, it could be upgraded. This site is a 50 acre tract. If mined to a depth of 15 feet, this site could produce reserves up to 545,000 tons, before upgrading. There are several sand bars along the Ocmulgee River that could also provide some construction aggregate. The sand bar sampled (Pul-5) extends for approximately 20 acres and to a depth of approximately 2 feet. The construction material potential for Pulaski County is moderate to high.

Telfair County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments ofTelfair County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and Quaternary alluvium. Telfair County Ues within the Vidalla Upland District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 257) reported a small pit near Lumber City, (Fig.l23, Ts-33) that produced good quality concrete sand. Teas (1921, p. 258) also mentioned a deposit of medium-grained sand at Sugar Creek (FJg.l23, Ts-34) and again mentioned the presence of good quallty sand in sand bars along the Ocmulgee River (1921, p. 258).
Present Study
The soU association #39 (see p. 7) was used in targeting sites for sampling inTelfair County and generally corresponds to the sand hills along the Ocmulgee River. The geomorphic features targeted are the sandhills and sandbars alongthe OcmuJgee River. Five samples representing four sites in Telfair County were analyzed for aggregate potential (Table 26).

Table 25. Pulaski County Sample Data

Sample designation

Minimum

Natural

thickness

Priority of2

Material passing

Depthl Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Frtddell Rating2

Pul-l

13.5' auger

13.5'

2

Pul-2

15'

trench

15'

2

Pul-3

15'

auger

15'

2

Pul-4

2.5' auger

2.5'

1

Pul-5

2'

auger3

2'

1

no

0

no

3

no

2

no

0

no

2

lFor 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. Thiclmesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling.
3Rfver sample, taken with a hand auger.

152

8t'54'03"

N

t

/
/

s-22

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
[Ill Teas' sample locality
Abandoned pit, product unknown
~ Geomorphic feature ~~\i~ Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

R Fl H

0

5 Kilometers

RHH

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 123. Telfair County map.

153

......

Ul ~

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(!'
jjj 70
3:
> 60
[D
aw: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I I

!:.

.... I

""'

..__...~

I

f1

r\

I

~

\
' ~
I '\.
'

Telfair County Tel-1

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

----------------~------,G~R~A"nv E~L-G-R-A=~IN~~S~I~Z~E~~INSAM~N~ILDL~IM--E-T-E--R-S----r------~S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A;Y:-------~ *

COBBLES

COARSE

FINE

MEDI UM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

-- r-o

il""Aiit.l....._

r'"ll T'

,...I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 124. Size distrtbutlon curve of Sample Tel-l.

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

-VI
VI

I

100
90
1- 80 :t
w ~ 70
3:
> 60
al
aw: 50
z
LL 40
z1-
~ 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

I I

..:. J.,1"--

16 30 50 100 200

I

I

I'

' "'

~
~ li
1\
1\

Telfair County Tel-2a

II I

I I

\

' '
1\

I

\

\..
'

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ,..._nn r-t" I

T"'~A\.Ir-1

I

C'AMn

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~II T

I

0.001

r"l AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 125. Size distribution curve of Sample Tel-2a.

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

........

VI

0'1

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

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

I'

I' I

I

--.... 8 16 30 50 100 200

..

I

90

"' ~

1- 80 ::I:
(,:,
ijj 70
3:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

Ill I l J

Telfair County Tel-2b
ll LII J I I I JHlilJ J i

"\. \ \. ~ ~ " -

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

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

COBBLES

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

-----

-

- - .. . -

.......... roo.

...... -

..... ...... ;1

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

FJgure 126. Size distribution curve of Sample Tel-2b.

-U\
'-l

I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
w(,:, 70
3:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a: w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

I' I

'

l "'-"

I

i
' ~
'[\ \ \ \, ' \

Telfair County Tel-3

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

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

,....'"'1\\1~1

I

CAJ..Ir'\

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

Cll T

I

0.001

~ AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 127. Size distribution curve of Sample Tel-3.

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

......

VI 00

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(.!'
jjj 70
s:
> 60
aJ
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

I I

I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200

~ -.....:..

I

:"'

Telfair County Tel-4

I

' \

I

' ~

' \

' \ \

'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
~
I I

10

J

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

---------------r----~nA-~G-R-A~I~N~S~I~ZE~~ISNA~MNI~L~DL~I-M-E--T-E-R-S-r------:S~IL~T~O:R~C~LA~Y~----~

COBBLES

MEDIUM

FlNE

_.............. r-.... BOULDERS

,.._ ... lr""O

l"'A .. Ir"'o.

It'll 'T'

~ AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 128. Size distribution curve of Sample Tel-4.

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

Evaluation
SampleTel-l was taken from the vicinity ofan abandoned sand pit and a possible terrace deposit. Samples Tel-2a and Tel-2b were taken from the preferred soil type. Samples Tel-3 and Tel-4 were taken from the sand hills along the Ocmulgee River where they correspond to a preferred soil type. None of the samples met ASTM Standard C-33. Tel-l and Tel-2b are too fine-grained: Tel-3 andTel4 are both too fine-grained as well as too well-sorted for use as construction aggregate. However, Tel-2a marginally failed, it could be upgraded.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Telfair County. Teas (1921, p.257) mentioned a small pit in the county, and there is another abandoned pit for which no information is available.
Swnmary Evaluation
Sample Tel-2a represents a 10-foot thick deposit of coarse-grained sand and gravels that extends for approximately 10 acres. This site is in the vicinity ofan abandoned pit. Overall, the construction material potential for Telfair County is considered to be low.
Tift County
Note: A description ofthe aggregate potential for that part of Tift County which lies west of 1-75

may be found in Construction Material Potential of the Coastal Plain of Southwestern Geomia: An Evaluation, Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 106; (Friddell, 1987, p. 230-238).
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Tift County are derived from the Altamaha Formation. Tift County lies within the Tifton Upland District ofthe Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas made no mention ofsand deposits inTift County.
Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites for sampling in Tift County were Lakeland and Mascotte. There were no apparent geomorphic features indicative ofsand orgravel deposits present in Tift County. Three samples representing two sites were analyzed from Tift County for construction aggregate potential (Fig.l29, Table 27).
Evaluation
Samples Tif-1, Tif-2a and Tif-2b were taken from areas of preferred soil types. None of the samples metASTM Standard C-33. All are too wellsorted for use as construction aggregate.

Table 26. Telfair County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth

Minimum!

thickness

Priority of2

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

Natural Material passing
ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

Tel-l

8'

auger

8'

1

Tel-2a

10'

auger

10'

2

Tel-2b

2'

auger

0

2

Tel-3

8'

auger

8'

2

Tel-4

12'

auger

12'

2

no

0

no3

2

no

0

no

0

no

1

!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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 2Increasing numerical values represent h1gher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 3Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

159

8:f30'31"

~ ---

1
I
I

N
t

1_ _,
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPLANATION
Sample locality
M~J Sandy soil type

0
bd
0
H

5 Miles
bd Fd
5 Kilometers
HH

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

Figure 129. Tift County map.

160

......

0.....\.

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w(!) 70
3:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
(w.J 30
a:
w c.. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/a 4 a 16 30 so 100 200

I

l I

I

~

I

II

~

''1\ \ I

\

\

I
I

' \

I

\

\

l\

~

Tift County Tif-1
_,

10

1000
I

COBBLES

100
I

I

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I COARSGE RAIVEL FINECOARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

BOULDERS

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

-,.-,At.lr-1

~AII.Ir""\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II~

0.001

I *

~. 1 A'\.~

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 130. Size distribution curve of Sample Ttf-1.

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

.....

0'1 N

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w(!' 70
3:
> 60
Ill
aw: 50
z
u. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

II I

II

I

it

I

I ""'"

T ~

T 1

I ~I

I
l

' l

I
1
I
I
l

I

I

Tift County Tif-2a

I '\
"

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I I coARS~R~VEL FINE lcoARSEJ ME~~~~o I FINE

BOULDERS

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

- - .. ~-

i"OAIII.I-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
l"'oll"'l""

0.001

I*

,...IA V

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

FJgure 131. Size distribution curve of Sample Ttf-2a.

-0w'1

I

100
90
1- 80
:::r:
t!' jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
wa:: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

~

I'

I I

I

I

~

I

"""'
1\ \

Tift County Tif-2b

, I

\

\
'
' \
\
"

1000
I

COBBLES

100
I

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARSGERAVEL FIN ECOARSEI

MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

I

I -.n.nn1 r-r- I

r"r-,A'I~I

I

C'At.U"\

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll "T

I

0.001

I *

t"'l 1\V

I**

GRADATION CURVE FJgure 132. Size distribution curve of Sample Tif-2b.

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

Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Tift County.
Summary Evaluation
None of the areas targeted in Tift County are potential sites for aggregate production. The materials present are too well-sorted. The construction material potential for this part of Tift County is considered to be low.
Treutlen Countv
Geology and Physiography
The surllcial sediments of Treutlen County are derived from the Altamaha Formation and Quaternary alluvium. Treutlen County lies within the Vidalia Upland District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 264) mentionedseveralsmallsand deposits in Treutlen County. A small pit north of Soperton (Flg.l33, Ts-35) provided sand for local use. Near Red Bluff Creek (Flg.l33, Ts-36) there is an occurrence offine-grained sand. Medium- to coarsegrained sand is present in the Oconee River bed.

Present Study
The soU series used in targeting sites for sampling in Treutlen County was Lakeland and is found at various places along Pendleton Creek and the Oconee River. The geomorphic features noted were the sand hills at Pendleton Creek. and near the Oconee River. Seven samples representing six sites were analyzed for aggregate potential from Treutlen County (Table 28).
Evaluation
SamplesTre-la, Tre-lb andTre-2 were taken from areas of the preferred soU type that correspond to targeted geomorphic features. Samples Tre-3 and Tre-4 were taken from sand bars along the Oconee River. Samples Tre-5 and Tre-6 were taken from areas noted by Teas (1921, p.264).
None of the samples analyzed met ASTM Standard C-33. Samples Tre-la, Tre-3, and Tre-4 were too well-sorted. Samples Tre-1b, Tre-2, Tre5, and Tre-6 were too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate.
Mining Activity
Other than the small pits mentioned by Teas (1921, p. 264), there are no known active or inactive mining operations in Treutlen County.

Table 27. Tift County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depthl

Minimum2

Natural

thickness

Priority of.3 Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

Tif-1

8'

auger

8'

1

T1f-2a

4'

trench

16'

1

Tif-2b

12'

trench

16'

1

no

0

no

1

no

1

lFor 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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 3Increas1ng numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

164

82"35'33"

N
t

I ----

3rn'a7"
-------

EXPlANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
Abandoned pit, product unknown
Geomorphic feature
!B Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

Ed Fd H

0

5 Kilometers

RHR

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

Figure 133. Treutlen County map.

165

-~ I

100
90
.... 80 J:
w(.!' 70
3:
> 60
a:l
ffi 50
z
.u..... 40
z
(w,) 30
a:
w Q.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

II I

I'

b.

I

~

I

I

I
Treutlen County Tre-1 a

b
" ~ ' \ ' I
~
\
\
1\
\ \ I
~I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,.._ro.,....o .-""

N"\AD~<=

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

,..._,.,Jr-1

lt'>l'+.-.lr""\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Ql
SILT OR CLAY
C" ll T

0.001 *

1""1 /\V

*+

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 134. Size distribution cmve of Sample Tre-la.

......

0\

-...J

I

100
90
1- 80
:I:
~
jjj 70
::
>m 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
0wa: 30
w a.. 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

I

<!l

I

~
' ~
' l
1\
\
' ~ \ ~ '\

Treutlen County Tre-1 b

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MED IUM

FIN E

I

I _ _ ..., ,., . ~co I

,...nA\1~1

I

CAt..ln

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C" U -r

I

0.001



1"1 AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

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

FJgure 135. Size distrtbututlon curve of Sample Tre-1b.

~

0'1 00

I

100
90
1- 80
J:
"jjj 70
s:
> 60
In
aw: 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

I'

I

I'

8 16 30 50 100 200

h ___,

I

~
I'
~
' \ \ -,
I ''' ~

Treutlen County Tre-2

I
-

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

--a.-o

r>Aio.lr""'.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

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

0.001

*

-fA"I

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 136. Size distribution curve of Sample Tre-2.

......

0'1 \0

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100 90

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

I

II I

I

8 16 3Q 50 100 200

'

I

I

"" \

J

1- 80 :I:
(,:,
jjj 70
3:
>co 60

aw: 50
z

LL 40

1z -

~ 30

a:

w a..

20

10

1000
I

I

Treutlen County Tre-3

I
I
COBBLES

I II

I II I

'\

I II

I II I

"

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARS~R~VEL FINE lcoARSEI MEgi~~D 1 FINE

BOULDERS

,.,......,,...i r-1!">

-r"'At.lr-o

~AA.Ir"'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
l"''II-

0.001

I*

,.... A'-i'

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 137. Size distribution curve of Sample Tre-3.

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

--....)
0

I

100
90
1- 80 :I: C!J jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
u.. 40
.z....
~ 30
a:
w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 " 1.5"3/4".51' 3/8" 4 8 16 30 50 100 200

II

II I

I'

I

I

~

I

11

l

I 1\

I

\

I I

I
I
I
I
I
Treutlen County Tre-4
I

I \

\

'

' \

\

\

I

\

I '

l

\

\

~'-...,

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

'""'""'<-<::

ME~~~~D

FINE

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

-- .........

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

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
--

*

. .... ~ ,_,

......

GRADATION CURVE

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

F1gure 138. Size distribution cmve of Sample Tre-4.

.....

-.....1..

I

100
90
1- 80 :I: 0 jjj 70
s:
> 60
Ill
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(wJ 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

II I

I

_8._

16
........ I

30

50

100 200

I

I

"Uo

I
Treutlen County Tre-5

' ~

I

' \ \

I
I !

' 1\

I

~

" I

I

i

1000
I

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I ~OARSE I GRAJVEL FINECOARSEJ MEDSIAUNMD J

FINE

I

BOULDERS

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

- - A<t.rr-o

C"Aio.ll"'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II 'T'

0.001
I*

,.... AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 139. Size dtstrtbutlon curve of Sample Tre-5.

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

.....

-...1 N

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
w(.!) 70
s:
>m 60
aw: 50
z
u. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8. 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

II I

I~

I

I

I

-.._...

I

II

' " \ .,

!
I !
i

\.

I

I '

I"

'

j
Treutlen County Tre-6

I
I I
I I II

1000

100

COB BLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

-r"'!o A\lr'"l

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

~J\II.Ir"\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
COli "T"

0.001

*

,... 1 J\V

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 140. Size distribution curve of Sample Tre-6.

Table 28. Treutlen County Sample Data

Sample designation Depth

Minimum!

Natural

thickness

Priority of2 Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

ASTM-C-33

Friddell Ratlng2

Tre-la

8'

auger

9.5'

2

Tre-lb

1.5'

auger

9.5'

2

Tre-2

12'

auger

12'

2

Tre-3

1'

auger3

1'

1

Tre-4

2'

auger3

2'

1

Tre-5

9.5'

auger

9.5'

1

Tre-6

3'

auger

3'

1

no

0

no

0

no

1

no

1

no

2

no

0

no

0

lThtcknesses of the deposits greater than the depths of the auger holes or greater than the height of
the trench samples are estimated from field obseiVations. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 2Increaslng numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 3River sample, taken with a hand auger.

Summary Evaluation
None of the samples analyzed for aggregate potentialmetASTM Standard C-33, and there is no evidence to support the potential for aggregate production in this county. The construction material potential for Treutlen County is considered to be low.
Turner County
Note: A description ofthe aggregate potential for that part ofTurner County which lies west ofl75 maybefound inConstruction Material Potential of the Coastal Plain of Southwestern Geor~ta: An Evaluation, Georgia Geologic SuiVey Bulletin 106: (Friddell, 1987, p. 239-242).
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments ofTurner County are derived from the Altamaha Formation. Turner County lies within the Tifton Upland District ofthe Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 265) reported one small deposit ofmedium-grained sand at Deep Creek in Turner County (Fig.l41, Ts-37).

Present Study
The soil series used in targeting sites for sampling in Turner County were Kershaw and Lakeland, which are present as isolated bodies near Wolf, Deep and Lake Creeks. There were no apparent geomorphic features indicative ofsand or gravel deposits. Four sites were sampled, and the material analyzed for aggregate potential (Table 29).
Evaluation
Samples Trn-1, Trn-3 and Trn-4 were taken from areas ofpreferred soil types: sampleTrn-2 was taken from a preferred soil type that corresponds to a locality mentioned byTeas (1921, p.265). None of the samples metASTM Standard C-33. Trn-3 ~too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate. Samples Trn-1, Trn-2, and Trn-4 are too wellsorted, but containvery little fine-grained material. These three samples could be upgraded to meet ASTM Standard C-33.
Mining Activity
Prior to 1985, Reeves Construction Company was mining a 20-acre pit for fill material in Turner County (Fig.l41, I-691). This pit is no longer active.

173

83"39'12"
N
t
~-----
1
I
I
I
I
I I
I
~- ~---
1-691.

EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality Inactive aggregate producer
liiJ Sandy soil type

0
1------;!
0
H

5 Miles
bd Fd
5 Kilometers
Ed R

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

Figure 141. Turner County map.

174

.......
-...l VI

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
3:
>m 60
aw: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

~

II II I

IT

8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

~

T

r-- P.

~
'
:\
\

I

I

~

\

\

\

Turner County Trn-1

[
\
T
I """

1000
I

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARSGE RAIVEL FINECOARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

BOULDERS

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

,...._ "'~~-

C"'A,...,.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
"'' "7"'

0.001
I*

,.., .av

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 142. Size distribution cwve of Sample Tm-1.

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

-......:1
0\

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

100

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

II I

II

8 16 3() 50 100 200

I

<ll,

I

90

~ D.

1- 80 J: e,:, jjj 70
3:
> 60
a:l

1\
'
I \

wa: 50
z

'

LL. 40

~

1z -
~ 30
a:
w
ll.. 20

Turner County Trn-2

1\
\ \
I 1\

I

10

\
~

-

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

--------------~----~~~~G~R~A~I~N~S~I~ZE~SIN~AM~NI~LD~L-I-M-E--T-E-R-S--r-----~S:I~LT~O~R~C~L~A~Y~----~*

COBBLES

I"'AADCC:

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

,..._ "' - ~~r-o

C"'Aiil. ll"'\

C"'ll "T"

r'OI AV

*it

GRADATION CURVE Figure 143. Size dtstrtbutlon cUIVe of Sample Tm-2.

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

-.....,J
.....,J

I

100

90

1- 80 :I:
(.!'
jjj 70
3:
>cc 60

aw: 50
z

u. 40

1z -

I

~ 30 r-

a:

w

Cl.. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I'

I' I

I'

~

I

I

I

"' ' \
1\.

\

\

'

I

' I
1\ I

~

I I

'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Turner County Trn-3

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

----------------~----~G~R~A~V"E~L--G-R=A~I~N~~S-IZ-E--I~NS~MANNInLD-L-I-M-E--T-E--R-S--~~-------;S~IL~T~.~O~R~C~L~A~Y~-------,*

COBBLES

COARSE

FINE

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

- - .. ~ r-

r't.A.Ir"l

I'O ~t "P'

-'-"

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 144. Size distribution curve of Sample Trn-3.

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

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

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

I

I I

I

8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I ~""'

I

1

90

1

1- 80

:I:

0 w
s:

70

> 60
ctl

I

I

ffi 50
z

LL 40

1z -

--....1
00

~ 30

a:

w c..

20

10

Turner County Trn-4

'---~ L _ _

l
1\
\
I ' l \ t._

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

COBBLES

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

*

BOULDERS

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

- - A<o.1r-1

t"A.Ir""\

.r"ll "'r

,.... A.V

**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 145. Size distrtbutlon cmve of Sample Trn-4.

Table 29. Tumer County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depthl

Minimum

Natural

thickness

Priority of2 Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

Trn-1

12'

auger

12'

1

Trn-2

8'

auger

8'

2

Trn-3

8'

auger

8'

1

Trn-4

10'

trench

10'

1

no3

2

no3

2

no

0

no3

0

lFor trench samples, this figure is the vertical length of the trench.
2Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).
3Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33, may be upgraded to meet specifications.

Summary Evaluation
The sites represented by samples Trn-1, Trn2 and Trn-4 have some potential for aggregate production. The construction material potential for this part of Turner County is moderate.
Twle;e;s County
Geology and Physiography
The surllcial sediments of'l\viggs County are derived from the Barnwell Group, the Oconee Group, deposits of Oligocene age, and Quaternary alluvium. Twiggs County lies within the Fall Line Hills and the Vidalia Upland Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 265) noted the occurrence of coarse-grained sand along Big Sandy Creek (FJg.146, Ts-38). He also noted the occurrence of medium-grained sand on the tops of hills in 1\viggs County (Fig.146, Ts-39).
Present Study
The soU series used in targeting sites in1\viggs County was Lakeland and is found along the Ocmulgee River, as well as Big Sandy and Turkey Creeks. The geomorphic feature targeted was a

possible terrace deposit ofthe Ocmulgee River. Six samples, representing five sites in 1\viggs County, were analyzed for aggregate potential (FJg.146, Table 30).
Evaluation
Samples 1\vi-1a, 1\vi-1b, 1\vi-3, and 1\vi-4 were taken from areas of preferred soU types. Sample Twi-2 was taken from an area mentioned by Teas (1921, p. 265). Sample 1\vi-5 was taken from a site where a preferred soU type corresponds with the terrace deposit.
None of the material in these samples met ASTM Standard C-33: however, sample 1\vi-4 contains very little fine-grained material and some coarse gravel.
Mining Activity
Quality Sands operates a 37 acre sand pit in 1\viggs County (Fig. 146), but no information about their operation was available for this publication.
Summary Evaluation
The site represented by sample 1\vi-4 is a 15 acre tract, and the deposit extends for a depth of approximately 5 feet. This site could yield as much as 270,000 tons, before upgrading. The construction material potential for'l\viggs County is considered to be moderate.

179

83'20'48"
N
t
\

0

5 Miles

R Fd H

0

5 Kilometers

RRR

Ill Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
Geomorphic feature
[~i~:j Sandy soil type

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

Figure 146. Twiggs County map.

180

100

90

.... 80 :I:
w ~ 70 ~

> 60
al

ffi
z

50

u.z.... 40

--00

~ 30
a:
w Ill.. 20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II

I

I

<L ~

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
I
Twiggs County Twi-1 a

~
\
' ~ ' ~
\
\ I
1\ ~ "'

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

i ,.._nn r::t- I

,...~A,,~.

I

~AMn

I

BOULDERS

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C"ll T

I

0.001

f""J AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE

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

Figure 147. Size distribution curve of Sample Twi-la.

......

00
N

I

100

90

.... 80 J:
w ~ 70
s:

> 60
aJ

ffi 50
2

LL 40

1-

2

~ 30

aw :
a..

20

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

rr-

j1'"

8
"2:

16 30
T '"V'~

50 100 200
I

I,
\
~
b

I

1\

\

\
~
\
I "

Twiggs County Twi-1 b

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
I
I
I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - Allo # ~ l

C'"AII.In

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
t""ll T

0.001

*

J""''l AV

....

GRADATION CURVE Figure 148. Size dfstrtbutlon cUIVe of Sample Twi-1b.

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

,_.

00 Vol

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
wC) 70
== > 60
CQ
ffi 50
2
u.. 40
12 ~ 30
a:
w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

II I

!.. . !

I

::.

I

' "-

1\

\

' , I

\

\

~

\

\

Twiggs County Twi-2

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I coARS~R~VE L FINE lcoARSEI ME~tu~o 1 FINE

I

BOULDERS

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

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

~Aio. l -

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I
I
I

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
....... -r-

I*

,..I A 'ILl

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 149. Size distribution cuiVe of Sample Twi-2.

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

........

00
~

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"w 70
s:
> 60
Ctl
aw: 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30 cr: w 0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I'

J

I'

8 16 3() 50 100 200
I

1"'1

I
I
Twiggs County Twi-3

' \ \ ,\
\
I \
' 1\ \ \ ' \ '

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

- - Alr-1

~AAir""'o

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
,..II~

0.001

*

-A-

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 150. Size distribution curve of Sample Twi-3.

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

......
00 U\

I

100

90

.... 80

J:

w ~ ::

7

0

> 60
al

wa: 50
z

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

10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

I

r I

I

I

IJV
~ i'o....
~
"

Twiggs County Twi-4

II I I

II I

~
" ~
"'

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,..,....r-...,1 r-~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

,....,.., A1.1r-1

C"Afl.lr\.

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
1["'11 "T"

0.001

*

r"l AV

......

GRADATION CURVE Figure 151. Size distribution cUive of Sample 1\vi-4.

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

-00
0'1

I

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8. 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

100

I

I I

I

I

roo

90

1- 80 :I:

I

0

jjj 70

s:

>m 60

aw: 50
z

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

10

I
Twiggs County Twi-5

' \

' I ~

I

' ~
I \

I 1\

1

' \

\

\

~

"""'

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

---- ~~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

GRAVEL

very

coarse lmediuml fine I fine

~~

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Ql
SILT OR CLAY
_ ., ~

0.001

*

- ~

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 152. Size distribution cutve of Sample Twi-5.

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

Table so. Twiggs County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depthl

Min1mum2

Natural

thickness

Priority of.3 Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

1\vi-1a

9'

auger

11'

1

1\vi-1b

2'

auger

11'

1

1\vi-2

10'

trench

10'

1

1\vi-3

11'

auger

11'

1

1\vi-4

5'

trench

5'

1

1\vi-5

14'

auger

14'

2

no

0

no

0

no

0

no

0

no

3

no

1

lFor trench samples, this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Thiclmesses 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. Thiclmesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 3Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate) .

Ware County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Ware County are derived from the Altamaha Formation: as well as the Statenville and the Cypresshead Formations of the Hawthorne Group. Ware County lies within the BaconTerraces and the Okefenokee BasinDistricts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 266) mentioned the occurrence ofmedium-to coarse-grained sand along the Satilla River (Ftg.153,Ts-40): and particularlyat the railroad crossing (Ftg.153, Ts-42). Teas (1921, p. 266) reported that clean medium-grained sand is present in large quantities on the banks of the Satilla River (Ftg.153, Ts-43) and along the banks of Seventeenmile and Hog Creeks (Fig.153, Ts-41).
Present Study
The soil association targeted for sampling sites in Ware County was #24 (see p. 7). This overlaps the geomorphic features noted which are the sand hills along the SaUlla River and Seventeenmile and Hog Creeks. Seven samples were analyzed for construction material potential in Ware County (Fig.153, Table 31).

Evaluation
Sample War-2 was taken from the vicinity of an abandoned sand pit that is within an area targeted for preferred soil type. Sample War-5 was taken from a targeted geomorphic feature. Sample War-6 was taken from an area ofpreferred soil type which corresponds to the sand hills along the Satilla River. Sample War-7 was taken from an area mentioned byTeas (1921, p. 266; Ftg.153, Ts42), which corresponds to a targeted geomorphic feature, and is also in the vicinity of an abandoned sand pit. None of these samples met ASTM Standard C-33. Sample War-5 is too well-sorted, and samples War-2, War-6, and War-7 are too finegrained for use as construction aggregate.
Samples War-1 and War-4 were taken from areas in which a targeted soil type, targeted geomorphic features, and also a Teas locality (1921, p.266; Fig.153, Ts-40 and Ts-43, respectively) overlap. War-1 represents a 12 foot deep sample of a deposit which covers approximately 50 acres: War-4 represents a 13 foot deep sample of a tract that covers approximately 70 acres. Sample War3, taken from the vicinity of a fill-material pit (Fig.153, F-651). represents a 12 foot deep sample of a tract that extends for approximately 80 acres. Even though these samples did not meet ASTM
Standard C-33, they could be upgraded for use as
construction aggregate and could (before upgrad-

187

82"2 1'15"

--,

J',

.....~ I

N
t

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
lliiiii] Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
Inactive aggregate producer
Abandoned pit, product unknown
Geomorphic feature
liD Sandy soil type

0

5 Miles

RRR

0

5 Kilometers

HE:8

Refer to Plate 1 for overall construction material potential of this county.
Figure 153. Ware County map. 188

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

100

II

II I

[I

I

., clo

I

90

\

1- 80 J:

'

w ~ 70

3:
m> 60

ffi 50
z

LL 40

1z -

(w.) 30

......
00
\0

a:: w
Q. 20

Ware County War-1

10

I I
lllll

Ill II
Il l I I

Il l I I
Il l I I

\

'

I I

l

I

1\

\

'

I

I

~\

I

'"' J

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDI U M

FINE

BOULDERS

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

- - At.6r'"l

'-"'AII.Ir""'.

very fine

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
r" lf 'T'

0.001

*

,... I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 154. Size distribution cmve of Sample War-1.

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

-\0
0

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
::w(!' 70
~ 60
a:
zUJ 50
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
UJ
Q.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

~

I

JI I

I

8 16 3() 50 100 200

....

I

I II
Ware County War-2

"l\
\
' \ \ \
I 1"' \ ~ \
' I '

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - r-o

roAIO.I......

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
1"1 1 ,..

0.001

,...1 A.V

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 155. Size distribution cmve of Sample War-2.

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

-- I \0

100
90
.... 80 J:
w ~ 70 ~
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
~ 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w I:L 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5"3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

II I

t!J

~
' ~ 1\

I

I

' (
\

I

\

I

\

\

'
\ ~

Ware County War-3

' "'

1000

100 COBBLES

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

BOULDERS

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

- - A'lr-1

c:"'A ... In

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
r'll "T"

0.001

*

/""I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 156. Size dJstrtbution curve of Sample War-3.

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

......

\0 N

I

100

90

1- 80 J:
wC) 70
3:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
~ 30
aw :
Q. 20
10

11111__ I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8. 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II

II I

II

~

I

~

ll
I,

I

,1\ I

\
\

Ware County War-4
illLU 1 1 1 ____lillll1 LL

1\
\
\
\
~
\. ~, -

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

- --

......... -

0.01
SILT OR CLAY --

0.001

*

... ~ .....~

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 157. Size distribution cmve of Sample War-4.

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

-\0

I.Jo,)

I

100
90
1- 80 :I: 0 jjj 70
3:
> 60
a:!
aw: 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30
aw :
a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

II J

J

-.- 8 16 3() 50 100 200 I

I
Ware County War-5

~
' l
1\
'' I \ \ \ ' \ ~
"

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
-
I
I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

,...,......,r"'ll r-~

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAN D MEDIUM

FINE

..... r"'' A\1~1

C"I\Ain

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

0.001

*

,... . llV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 158. Size distribution cUive of Sample War-5.

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

.......

\.;0:..

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
~
jjj 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
L1. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5"3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

'I

II I

'I

~ --... I

I

' ~ H
~
~
\

Ware County War-6

ll
1\ \
' ~ \ ' '\ ._.

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAN D MEDI U M

FINE

I

I ............ rl...,l r' r'" I

-~1\\11""1

I

C'l\f\U'"l

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

Cll T

I

0.001

*

,... . 11V

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 159. Size distribution curve of Sample War-6.

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

.......

\0 Ul

I

100 l
90
~ 80 J:
w(.!' 70
3:
> 60
Ill
aw: 50 z
LL 40
z ~
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8. 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

I I

J.

I

I I

~

I

I'"'

I I

I

'-

I

\

\
\
~
\
\ ,

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Ware County War-7

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

I I BOULDERS ~-~~-B~~~~" L~':':.~- 1 ______ ~Y_5LL' -- 1 ~e~~ L~':~~- 1 ------ ~~-~~ .,__ 1 ~~~~ J coarse lmediu~~~ine

I

0.001

"' 1 A"

J**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 160. Size distribution curve of Sample War-7.

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

1ng) yield as much as 1,000,000: 2,000,000: and 2,100,000 tons of sand, respectively.
Mining Activity
There are four active aggregate producers in Ware County (Fig.153, A-009, F-651, F-790, A825). Pit# F-651is operated by the Ware County Conunission and produces only flll material. Pit # F-790 is a 4 acre pit operated by the city ofWaycross and, also, produces flll material. Pit # A-009 is an 8 acre pit operated by Minchew Sand, and pit # A825 a 10 acre pit operated by Waycross Sand. No other information is available for any of these operations.
Summary Evaluation
The deposits represented by samples War-1, War-4, and War-3 could provide 430,000: 660,000: and 70,000 tons of sand, respectively, if the material were upgraded to ASTM Standard C-33. There is evidence of sand mtntng throughout the county, especially in the sand hllls along the rivers and creeks. No information was attainable from the sand producers in the county other than the fact that two producers are actively producing sand products. The construction material potential for Ware County is considered to be moderate.

Washinlnon County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments ofWashingtonCounty are derived from the Barnwell Group, the Oconee Group, and Quatemaxy alluvium. Washington County lies within the Fall Line Hills and the Vidalia Upland Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 267) noted an occurrence of coarse-grained sand near Big Buffalo Creek (Fig.161, Ts-44).
Present Study
The soU series used in targeting sites for sampling in Washington County was Fuquay, and can be found as small sandy bodies scattered throughout the county. The geomorphic features noted were the sand hllls along the Oconee River. Four siteswere sampled and analyzed for construction aggregate in Washington County (Ftg.161, Table 32).
Evaluation
Sample Was-1 was taken from sand hills along the Little Ohoopee River. Sample Was-2 was

Table 31. Ware County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depthl

Minimum

Natural

thickness

Priority of2 Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

War-1

12'

auger

12'

3

War-2

9'

auger

9'

2

War-3

12'

trench

12'

1

War-4

13'

auger

13'

2

War-5

8'

auger

8'

1

War-6

8'

auger

8'

2

War-7

8'

auger

8'

2

no3

2

no

0

no3

1

no3

2

no

1

no

0

no

lFor trench samples, this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 3Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications.

196

32"58'53"

0 0

lA
/F)

0

Was-1

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer ~ Geomorphic feature
E Sandy soil type

N

0

5 Miles

H Fl H

t

0

5 Kilometers

RRR

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

Figure 161. Washington County map.

197

......

1.0 00

I

100
90
1- 80 ::t e,:, jjj 70
3::
>m 60
aw: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
a.. 20
10

----

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

8 16 3() 50 100 200

r ,---

I

I

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

~

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

I
I
Washington County Was-1

~

I'

l' \

~

I

\

I

\

I

\.

I

~

"

I

1000

100

COBBLES
- - - --
BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

FINE

--- .. -

,.. .... ,_

0.01
SILT OR CLAY ......

0.001

*

... . "' .. .~

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 162. Size distribution cmve of Sample Was-1.

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

- I \0
\0

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w ~ 70
3:
> 60
Ill
aw: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

II rrr

I

8 16 3Q 50 100 200

~too

-

I

I'

tL

" ~

!

1\

I
Washington County Was-2
-

\
' \ \ ' \ \ ~ \

-

-- -

"""

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ..-.--nn .... ~ I very

GRAVEL

I

CAI\.IM

I

BOULDERS

coarse [coarse lmediuml fine

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~ -r

I

0.001



r1 ltV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 163. Size distribution curve of Sample Was-2.

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

N

0 0

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

90

1- 80 :I:
(!'
jjj 70

3:

>m 60

wa: 50

z

!

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

I'

II I

II lb r---.6

I

I

\

i

I

II I

I

\

I

I I
I

'I 1 I [

I

rl

I

u. 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w
Q. 20
10

I
'
I
I I
11111

I

Washington County Was-3

II I

1111

1 _illlll

II II

[ T T
1
1\
~

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

~--------------,------,G"R~A~V~E~L------,---------~SA~ND~------------,--------S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A~Y~------~*

COBBLES

COARSE

FINE

MEDIUM

FINE

- -- - BOULDERS

,...,_ ....

,.. --

.. .. .....

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

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 164. Size distribution cmve of Sample Was-3.

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

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD Sl EVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

100

II

II I

II

I

I

I I

90
~

1- 80
:I:
t!' jjj 70
3:
> 60
Ill

tl
~
i'
~
\.

ffi 50
z
u.. 40

1\.
".....

1z -

(wJ 30
a:

Washington County Was-4

tv

w

0......

CL. 20

10

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I COARS~RjVEL FINE lcoARSEI ME~~~~o 1 FINE

J

I

I ,...,....,.,,.,. rl"" I

"r")A\1~1

I

CAf\U"'\

I

BOULDERS

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY

c:.--11 "'r

I

I*

1"""1 AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 165. Size distribution cuxve of Sample Was-4.

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

taken from an area where the preferred son type corresponds to the sand hills along the Oconee River. Sample Was-4 was taken from an area ofthe preferred son type. None of these samples met .ASIM Standard C-33. Samples Was-1 and Was-4 are too fine-grained, and samples Was-2 and Was3 are too well-sorted for use as construction aggregate.
Mining Activity
There is one active aggregate producer in Washington County. Anglo-American mines one acre of a 16 acre pit to a depth of 20 feet with a backhoe. The gravel undergoes no processing but is immediately transported by trucks to their kaolin pits for use as road gravel. Less than 10,000 tons is produced annually.
Summary Evaluation
There were no areas found in Washington County that could provide material for aggregate production. with the possible exception of the deposit being mined for road gravel by AngloAmerican. The construction material potential for Washington County is considered to be moderate to low.
Wheeler County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Wheeler County arederivedfrom theAltamahaFormation. Wheeler

County Ues within the Vidalia Upland District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 268-269) reported that a large deposit ofclayey sandygravel at the Darcyproperty (Fig.166, Ts-45) had been used for aggregate prior to his study. At the Little Ocmulgee River (Ffg.166, Ts-46), there are large deposits ofmedium-grained sand (Teas, 1921, p. 269). Teas (1921, p. 273) also noted a sandy gravel deposit 3.5 miles south of Glenwood (Fig.166, Ts-47) and large quantities of sand in the Oconee River (1921, p. 273).
Present Study
The son series used in determining sandy areas in Wheeler County were Kershaw and Paola. The targeted son bodies correspond to the geomorphic features, which are sand hills along the north and east sides of Alligator Creek. Six sites were sampled and analyzed for construction aggregate in Wheeler County (Fig.166, Table 33).
Evaluation
SampleWhe-2 isfrom an areawhere a targeted geomorphic feature corresponds with a deposit of the preferred son type; however, the material is too well-sorted for use as construction aggregate.
Samples Whe-1 and Whe-6 are from deposits of the preferred soil type and in the vicinity of some small abandoned pits. Whe-1 represents a 10-foot deep auger sample. of a site of approxi-

Table 32. Washington County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth I

Minimum

Natural

thickness

Priority of2 Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled

ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

Was-1

7'

auger

7'

1

Was-2

8'

auger

8'

2

Was-3

25'

trench

25'

2

Was-4

4.5' auger

4.5'

1

no

1

no

1

no

2

no

1

lFor trench samples, this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

202

N
t
Ts-45 ()
/

EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality
+ Active aggregate producer
Inactive aggregate producer
Abandoned pit, product unknown
Geomorphic feature
Rj Sandy soil type

~

0

5 Mi~s

Fl Fd R

0

5 Kilometers

RHR

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

Figure 166. Wheeler County map.

203

N 0
I ~

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100

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

II

I

8 16 30 50 100 200
I

90

~

1- 80 :I:
"w 70
3:
>ca 60
wa: 50
z
.L.L... 40
z
~ 30
a:
w ll.. 20

I
Wheeler County Whe-1

l
1\
'
\
\
\
(
\ \
\

10

1000

100

\
~
"-

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

BOULDERS

......,_ ...... , r"""

,....r""'o At.lr-1

~AI-

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I
I I
I
I
I

I I
I I
0.01
SILT OR CLAY
rooo ~

0.001

*

,.,I A~

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 167. Size distribution curve of Sample Whe-1.

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

N 0
Ul

I

100
90
.... 80 :I:
"w 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
.L..L. 40
z
w(J 30
a:
w ~ 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

8 16 3() 50 100 200

...._,

I

1"1

1\

~

I

~
' ~
' 1\

\

I

1\

\

Wheeler County Whe-2

' '

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAV EL
COARSE I FIN E

SA ND MEDI UM

F INE

I

I "l'"'t..nn ~~ I

r"OA\/CI

I

~1\1\ln

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C'll T

I

0.001

f""l 6 V

I* *

GRADATION CURVE Figure 168. Size distribution curve of Sample Whe-2.

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

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

100 90

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

'I

111

II

8 16 30 50 100 200

~ ~~

I

..... 80 ::I: 0 jjj 70
3:
~ 60

aw: 50
2

LL 40

.z....

~ 30

a:

Wheeler County Whe-3

N

w

0

Q.. 20

0\

I !
I I
I
, l
1\

10

1000

100

\

\

10

1.0

" ~ 0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.01

0.001

COBBLES

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MED I UM

FINE

SILT OR CLAY

I

I _,..uuu c::~ I

BOULDERS

,....('""'J "'-'c

I

CAMn

I

c11 T

I

r"l liV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 169. Size dJstributlon curve of Sample Whe-3.

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

N

0
-.....)

I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5"3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

100

II

II I

I

I

<Ill

I

90

~
11

.... 80 :I:
"w 70
3:
m> 60
ffi 50
z
.zu..... 40
wuaw: 30
Q. 20
10
1000

,1\
\

I
Wheeler County Whe-4

\
' '
\
\
\
' \ \ ........

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I

I ..... - .... no r-ro I

,....nA'-1~1

I

~A"-In

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

C!'ll T

I

0.001

*

1""'1 AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 170. Size distribution cutve of Sample Whe-4.

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

tv 0
00

I

100
90
1- 80 ::::t
"w 70
::
> 60
a:l
aw: 50
2
u.. 40
12
~ 30
cr:
w a.. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I'

I I

I

I

(Jlo~

I

Jo

\

'

\
1
Wheeler County Whe-5

10

1000

100

COBBLES

I

I .... -~ ...... r-1" I

BOULDERS

' ~ .....

-

--

-

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

,...~A'Ir-1

I

C'A.r..U"'\

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

COli,..

I

0.001

*

,... AV

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 171. Size distribution cuzve of Sample Whe-5.

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

N 0 \0

I

100
90
~ 80 J:
(!J
jjj 70
3:
>m 60
aw: 50
z
LL 40
z ~
~ 30
a:
w Q. 20
10 I

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

[I

I

........... ~

I

I'

'-'1

,

Wheeler County Whe-6

I I

II II

\
' \ ,
\
1\
\ ,
\
\ ~ '

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

I I I BOULDERS COBBLES very

GRAVEL

I

~u~

I

~-~~ ' ---" coarse I coarse lmediuml tine

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

,_ --

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~ .. ~

I

0.001

*

no "

I"*

GRADATION CURVE Figure 172. Size distribution cuiVe of Sample Whe-6.

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

mately 30 acres, that could produce 500,000 tons ofmaterial. Whe-6 represents a 20-foot deep auger sample, of a site of approximately 15 acres, that could produce 500,000 tons ofmaterial. Samples Whe-4 and Whe-5 are from an area mentioned by Teas (1921, p. 269; Fig.166, Ts-46), that corresponds to preferred soil types. Whe-4 is a 10-foot auger sample, from a 10-acre deposit, that could produce 200,000 tons of material. Whe-5 is a 20foot auger sample, of a 20-acre deposit from the vicinity of a sand pit (Fig.166, A-191), that could produce 400,000 tons of material. Sample Whe-3 isfrom a small sand bar along the Oconee River and could produce 4,000 tons of material. These samples marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 becausetheyaretoowell-sorted; however, because they contain little fine-grained material, they could be upgraded.
Mining Activity
There is one active producerinWheelerCounty. HollandAsphaltCompany operates 10acresofa20 acre tract (Fig.166, A-191). The operation is an open pit; they mine with a front-end loader and produce less than 10,000 tons annually for the exclusive use of Holland Asphalt. J.L. Clegg (deceased) formerly operated a sand pit (Fig.166, 1126) for which no information is available.

Summary Evaluation
Several of the sites sampled contain coarsegrained material and could be upgraded to provide aggregate. There is some aggregate m1n1ng taking place atthe present time. The constructionmaterial potential of Wheeler County is considered to be moderate.
Wilcox Countv
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments of Wilcox County are derived from the Altamaha Formation, deposits of Oligocene age, and Quatematy alluvium. Wilcox County lies within the Vidalia Upland, Tifton Upland, and Fall Line Hills Districts of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 273) reported that only sparsely distributed deposits ofsand occurinWilcoxCounty, with the exception ofthe sand bars ofthe Ocmulgee River.
Present Study
The soil association targeted inWilcox County was #39 (see p. 7 ), and is present primarily along

Table 33. Wheeler County Sample Data

Sample designation

Depth I

Minimum2

Natural

thickness

Priority of3 Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating3

Whe-1

10'

trench

10'

2

Whe-2

12'

auger

12'

2

Whe-3

2'

auger5

2'

1

Whe-4

10'

trench

10'

3

Whe-5

20'

trench

20'

3

Whe-6

20'

auger

16'

2

no4

2

no

0

no4

2

no4

2

no4

2

no4

2

lFor 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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 3Increastng numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating (potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate). 4Margtnally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications. 5River sample, taken with a hand auger.

210

83"1 8'25"
N
t

EXPLANATION
Sample locality
() Teas' sample locality
S Geomorphic feature
- Sandy soil type

0
bd R

5 Miles
R

0

5 Kilometers

RHH

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

Figure 173. Wilcox County map.

211

- I N
N

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

100

I' I' I

~ r""o'o.l

I

90

~ ~

1- 80 X
(.!'
jjj 70
s:
> 60
CD
ffi 50
z

II

l

I l
I
l

u.. 40

1z -
~ 30
a:
w
Q. 20 10 1000

1\

Wilcox County Wlx-1

\

'1\

100

10

1.0

' -0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

O.Ql

0.001

r----------------,------,G~R~A~V~E~L-------r----------SSAANNDD~---------=~--------~S~IL~T~O~R~C~LA~Y~------l*

COBBLES

'"'"o""

"'~'"

MEDIUM

FINE

I

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

BOULDERS

,...r-t. A\lr""l

I

rAIIo.lr"

I

11"'"11 T

I

1"1 AV

J**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 174. Size distribution curve of Sample Wlx-1.

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

N......
V)

I

100
90
1- 80 J:
(,:,
jjj 70
3:
c>o 60
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
aw :
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

'I

I' I

' - "\.)11 --:::Io

I

~ ),.

\.

~

\.

I

~

\ ~

"

Wilcox County Wlx-2

I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

..... - ...... .-. r-r->

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

.-.-A\.Ir-1

it"AIIUr'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01 SILT OR CLAY
l'll T

0.001

* " 1"'1

1

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 175. Size distribution curve of Sample Wlx-2.

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

.N.....
.p..

I

100

90

1- 80 ::I:
"jjj 70
3:

> 60
a:l

aw :
z

50

u. 40

1z -
~ 30
a:
w a.. 20

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5" 3/4".5" -3/ 8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

II lfl

I& ..... I I

I

~

'

Wilcox County Wlx-3

~

I

~

''
' 1\

' '

10

1000

100

II
I
I

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

COARSGE RAVEL FINE

MEDSIAUNMD

FINE

I

I

,...,...r"'oro o r-,.,

I

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

I

~A.Ir""\

(

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

I

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~II "T"

I

0.001

"

,..,. AV

1**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 176. Size distribution curve of Sample Wlx-3.

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

- I N
VI

100
90
.... 80 :I:
0w 70
3:
>m 60
aw: 50
z
.zu.... 40
~ 30
a:
w c:L. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

I

I I

I

........ I
~

I

I

1\
r\
~ ~
' \ .,

Wilcox County Wlx-4

\
\
\
~
'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

~---------------,------,G~R~AMV~~E L--~G~R~AI~N ~S~IZ:E_I~NssiMA~NI~LD~L-IM-E~T-E-R-S---~--------~S~I~LT~O~R~C~L~A~Y~-------,

COBBLES

r"I"\J\OC<::

"''"''"'

f'l"\l\OC::t:

MEDIUM

FINE

I

1 ,..,,..\.1.,..u .-.-. I

BOULDERS

,...~Au~

I

~A'-.In

I

~ T

I

1""'1 AV

1

GRADATION CURVE FJgure 177. Size distribution cmve of Sample Wlx-4.

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

N.......
0\

I

100
90
1- 80 :I: 0 jjj 70
::
> 60
al
aw: 50
z
u.. 40
1z -
~ 30 a: w a.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5" 3/8" 4 8 16 3() 50 100 200

II

II I

!

I

I

II

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

!'!I ~~

1\

~

~ ,

I

l

1\

I

~

'- I I
I
l

Wilcox County Wlx-5a

I

1000

100

COB BL ES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

- - .. ~-

........ J r-.

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

0.001

*

" I AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 178. Size distribution curve of Sample Wlx-5a.

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

N

>--'
-....l

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
we,:, 70
s:
> 60
Ill
aw: 50 :z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30 a:: w
Q.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/ 4".5"3/ 8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I'

I I

I

1

~

I I
Wilcox County Wlx-5b

~' :;..
\.
' [\
~
\
\
I \ i\ b
\
'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I I coARs~RAIVEL FINE lcoARSEI ME;I~~o 1 FINE

BOULDERS

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

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

~Ailll. l -

0.01

0.001

SILT OR CLAY
of" ll .....

I*
...... .........,

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 179. Size distribution curve of Sample Wlx-5b.

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

.N.....
00

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
(!'
jjj 70
s:
> 60
Cll
aw: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30 -
a:
w ~ 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

-

I

II

-

- T - -~

:;}.

\

'

II

I 1\

I

\

I

Wilcox County Wlx-6

~
\
\
_l
\
\
~
"

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

0.01

0.001

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

.----------------,------,G~R~A~VTIE~L--~~~~----------S.sAANNDD-------------r--------S~I~L~T~O~R~C~L~A;Y~------~*

COBBLES

rnAccc

<:11\11:

MEDIUM

FINE

BOULDERS

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

--At or-o

~A&Ir"''l.

1"011.....

.1"1 A'l.l

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 180. Size dJstributlon CUive of Sample Wlx-6.

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

the Alapaha River. Geomorphic features targeted were the sandbars ofthe Ocmulgee River, and sand hills along the Alapaha River. Seven samples representing six sites were analyzed for aggregate potential in Wilcox County (Fig.173, Table 34).
Evaluation
Sample Wlx-1 was taken from a sand bar along the Ocmulgee River. Sample Wlx-2 was taken from a preferred soil type. Samples Wlx-3, Wlx-4, Wlx-5a andWlx-5bwere taken from an area ofsand hills. SampleWlx-6 was taken from an area ofsand hills, which coincide with the preferred soil type. None of these samples met ASTM Standard C-33; however, the material represented by sample Wlx1 contains very little fine-grained material and could be upgraded for use as construction aggregate. The remaining samples are too fine-grained for use as construction aggregate.
Mining Activity
There are no active or recently inactive mining operations in Wilcox County.
Summary Evaluation
None of the material sampled from the targeted areas metASTM Standard C-33, and there is no evidence ofmining having gone on in the past in

Wilcox County. Therefore, the construction material potential for Wilcox County is considered to be low.
Wilkinson County
Geology and Physiography
The surficial sediments ofWilkinson County are derived from the Barnwell Group, the Oconee Group, Quaternary alluvium, and the Altamaha Formation. Wilkinson County lies within the Fall Line Hills District of the Coastal Plain Province.
Previous Study
Teas (1921, p. 274) reported medium- to coarse-grained sand suitable for concrete in the bed of Big Sandy Creek (Fig.181, Ts-48).
Present Study
The soil association used in targeting sites for sampling inWilkinson County was Fuquay, and is present as small bodies throughout the county. The geomorphic feature noted is a possible terrace deposit of the Oconee River. Five areas were sampled and analyzed for construction material potential in Wilkinson County (Fig.181, Table 35).

Table 34. Wilcox: County Sample Data

Sample designation Depth

Minimuml

Natural

thickness

Priority of2 Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Friddell Rating2

Wlx-1

3'

auger4

3'

1

Wlx-2

8'

auger

8'

1

Wlx-3

8'

auger

8'

1

Wlx-4

9.5'

auger

9.5'

1

Wlx-5a

8'

auger

9'

1

Wlx-5b

1.5'

auger

9'

1

Wlx-6

16'

auger

16'

3

no3

2

no

0

no

0

no

1

no

0

no

0

no

0

I 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. Thicknesses that are less than the depths
of the auger holes show that material determined to be unsuitable was encountered while sampling. 2Increaslng numerJcal values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other lhan construction aggregate). 3Marginally failed ASTM Standard C-33 may be upgraded to meet specifications. 4River sample. taken with a hand auger.

219

' \

EXPLANATION
Sample locality () Teas' sample locality Inactive aggregate producer Abandoned pit, product unknown
lffi\[i!Jt! Sandy soil type

N
t

0

5 Miles

H H H

0

5 Kilometer:>

HHH

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

Figure 181. Wilkinson County map.

220

-N
I N

100
90
1- 80 :I:
w(!J 70
3:
> 60
al
ffi 50
z
LL 40
1z -
(w.) 30
a:
w Q.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

r

I I

I

8 16 30 50 100 200



r

''' ~ ~ ' \

Wilkinson County Wik-1

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIU M

FINE

I

I ,..._nru r-C" I

r"nA\ 11::1

I

~Af!t..lr"\

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01

SILT OR CLAY

~II T'

I

0.001

*

,.., 1\V

I**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 182. Size distribution cuiVe of Sample Wik-1.

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

N

N N

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
"jjj 70
:s:
>m 60
aw: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30 a: w
0.. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.5"3/4".5"3/8" 4 8 16 3Q 50 100 200

I

I

II I

I

'"'

T
~

I

I
I
I
Wilkinson County Wik-2

~

'',

I

\

\

\

' I

\

~

"'

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY I
I I
I

1000

100

COBBLES

BOULDERS

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

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

very

GRAVEL

coarse I coarse )mediuml fine

roAII.Ir"'\

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

0.001

,..... A'V

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 183. Size distribution curve of Sample Wik-2.

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

tv tv
Vl

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
0w 70
3:
> 60
ell
wa: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w D. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

I

II I

II

I

<\

I

~

~
\ ,

Wilkinson County Wik-3

1\
' \ \ \ I I
1\
t
\.
' "

1000

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I

COBBLES

I I coARS~R~VEL FINE lcoARSEI ME~~~~o 1 FINE

I

I ~l""lnn r-~ I

,....r"\A,,r-.

I

C"J\"-Ir'\

I

BOULDERS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

O.Ql

0.001

SILT OR CLAY

~~~ T'

I

I*

,..... A V

i**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 184. Size distribution cuiVe of Sample Wik.-3.

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

N N
~

I

100
90
1- 80 :I:
~
jjj 70
s:
>cc 60
aw: 50
z
LL 40
1z -
~ 30
a:
w Q. 20
10

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

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

8 16 30 50 100 200

_]

~ .---

,~

,..-

~

~

~

I

\

I

' ~ _l

' \ \ ~

\

'

Wilkinson County Wik-4 I

I

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

1000

100

COBBLES
- -- __
BOULDERS

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND MEDIUM

FINE

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
..... . . -

0.001

*

-'"' "I

*

GRADATION CURVE F.fgure 185. Size distribution cmve of Sample Wik-4.

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

tv

tv
VI

I

100

90

1- 80 J: C' Uj 70
3:
>m 60
ffi 50
z
u. 40
1z -
uwa: 30
- w
Q. 20

10

I
JI L

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3" 1.s 3/4".s 3/8" 4 8 16 30 so 100 200

I

I' I

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

I

' ~

I
\

~
' \ \

Wilkinson County Wik-5

I I

II I

I I

II I

\
\
' \ \ \ "'

1000
I

COBBLES

100

10

1.0

0.1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

I I COARSGE RAIVEL FINECOARSEI MEDSIAUNMD I

FINE

I

BOULDERS

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

--AII.Ir-1

c:"'AII.Ir'\

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

0.01
SILT OR CLAY
~II T'

0.001

J *

r"l AV

**

GRADATION CURVE Figure 186. Size distribution curve of Sample Wik-5.

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

Table 35. Wilkinson County Sample Data

Sample designation Depthl

Minimum

Natural

thickness

Priority o~ Material passing

Sample type of the deposit body sampled ASTM-C-33

Frtddell Rating2

Wlk-1

5'

auger

5'

1

Wlk-2

11'

auger

11'

1

Wlk-3

11'

auger

11'

1

Wlk-4

5'

auger

5'

1

Wlk-5

24'

trench

24'

2

no

0

no

0

no

0

no

2

no

2

lFor trench samples, this figure is the vertical length of the trench. 2Increasing numerical values represent higher priority (potential for aggregate deposits) or rating
(potential for uses of sands other than construction aggregate).

Evaluation
Samples Wik-1, Wik-2, Wik-3, and Wik-4 were taken from areas of the targeted soil type. None of these samples met AS1M Standard C-33 because they are all too fine-grained. Sample Wik5 was taken from a 20 acre tract that lies within the preferred soil type and coincides with a possible terrace deposit of the Oconee River. This material also failed AS1M Standard C-33 because it is too well-sorted.
Mining Activity
The city of Gordon operates a two acre pit (Ffg.181, F-881) from which it produces an average of 10,000 to 50,000 tons of fill material annually. No other information was available for publication.
Summary Evaluation
The site represented by Wik-5 could provide construction aggregate if upgraded. If the twenty acre tract were mined to a depth of 24 feet, the site could yield up to 1,000,000 tons, before upgrading. The construction material potential for Wilkinson County is considered to be low to moderate.
SUMMARY EVALUATION
Baldwin, Echols, Hancock, and Pulaski Counties were found to have moderate to high potential for construction aggregate in the study area.

In Baldwin County, sample Bal-3 (Ffg.9) represents a possible terrace deposit of the Oconee River. The coarse-grained material covers a 5 acre site to a depth of approximately 9 feet. Ifwashing were necessary, the Oconee River is within 2 miles of this site: Milledgeville is only a few miles away: and a secondary road that could provide transportation is within a few hundred feet of the site. This particular site could provide 98,000 tons of construction aggregate. However, the site is near the Piedmont where crushed stone is readily available for use as construction aggregate. Therefore, the BaldwinCountysite is probablynot attractive as an aggregate source.
Pulaski County has two sites that were found to be possible sources for aggregate. The site of sample Pul-2 (Fig.117) is a 50-acre deposit that extends to a depth of 15 feet. It is within 1 mile of both the Ocmulgee River and a major road: thus, providing water and transportation. Sample Pul-5 (Fig.11 7) is representative ofthe several sand bars found along the banks ofthe Ocmulgee River. The one sand bar sampled is approximately 20 acres in extent, and the coarse sand is at least 2 feet thick.
In Hancock County, three of the sampled areas of coarse-grained material marginally failed tomeetAS1M Standard C-33 andcould possiblybe upgraded. These sites could be sources for construction aggregate. The site of sample Han-1 (Fig.62) covers 5 acres, and the deposit extends to
a depth of approximately 8 feet. This site could provide as much as 70,000 tons of material. It
occurs at the bank of a small creek that could provide water for washing, and the site is on a

226

secondary road that could provide transportation. Sample Han-2 (Ftg.62) was from a 5 acre deposit that extends for a depth of approximately 4 feet and could provide as much as 35,000 tons of material. To the west. there is a creekwithin a mile ofthiS site and to the north, a secondary road. An abandoned sand pit is the site of sample Han-3. ThiS deposit iS approximately 10 acres in areal extent, and the material extends to a depth of approximately 8 feet. This site could provide as much as 140,000 tons of aggregate. A creek is within a few hundred feet of this site, but the nearest major road is 5 miles away.
The disadvantages of all these deposits are that they all would require some upgrading, and they are all nearthe Piedmontwhere crushed stone iS readily available at a reasonable price.
Sample Ech-2b (Fig.56) from Echols County could provide quality construction aggregate, but the removal of 16 feet of overburden probably would prohibit any commercial exploitation ofthis site. Sample Ech-3 (Fig.56) represents a 12 foot deep, 5 acre deposit of coarse-grained sand that could be upgraded for construction aggregate use. The site iS a few thousand feet from a secondary road, which would provide transportation, and within 1000 feet of a creek which could provide water for washing.
REFERENCES
AS.T.M., 1983,Annualbookofstandards- section 4: Construction, Volume 4.02- Concrete and mineral aggregates: Philadelphia, American Society for Testing and Materials, 890 p.
Calhoun, J.W., 1981, Soil survey of Crisp and Turner Counties Georgia: USDA Son Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of Georgia College of Agriculture, 120p.
Calhoun, J.W., 1983, Soil survey of Tift County. Georgia: USDA Soil Conservation Service. in cooperation with the University of Georgia College ofAgriculture, 102 p.
Calhoun,J.W., and Wood, G.J.,1969, Soil survey of Ben Hill and Irwin Counties, Georgia: USDA Son Conservation Service,in cooperationwith the University of Georgia College of Agriculture, 63 p.

Clark, W.Z., Jr., and Ztsa, AC., 1976, Physiographic map of Georgia: 1:2,000,000 map, Georgia Geologic Survey.
Folk, R L., 1974, Petrology of Sedimentaiy Rocks: Hemphill Publishing Co., Austin Texas, 182
p.
Friddell, M.S., 1987, Constructionmaterial potential ofthe Coastal Plain of southwestern Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 106, 253 p.
Friddell, M.S., and Brackman, J.S., 1990, Construction matertal potential of the eastern Georgia Coastal Plain: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 108, 239 p.
Hetrtck, J.H., 1991, A geologic atlas of the Fort Valley area: Georgia Geologic Survey Geologic Atlas 7.
Hetrtck, J.H., and Friddell, M.S., 1990, A geologic atlas of the Central Georgia Kaolin District: Georgia Geologic Survey Geologic Atlas 6.
Huddlestun, P.F., 1988, A revision of the lithostratigraphic units ofthe Coastal Plain of Georgia, the Miocene through Holocene: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 104, 162 p.
Huddlestun, P.F., and Hetrick, J.H., 1985, Upper Eocene stratigraphy of central and eastern Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 95, 78p.
Iseley, E. E., Sullivan, J.L., and Wilkes, RL., 1964; Son survey of Treutlen County, Georgia: USDA Soil. Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of Georgia College of Agriculture, 79 p.
Lawton, D.E., 1977, Geologic map of Georgia: 1:2,000,000 scale map, Georgia Geologic Suzvey.
Paulk, H.L., 1973, Soil suzvey of Montgomery, Toombs, and Wheeler Counties, Georgia: USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of Georgia College of Agrtculture, 63 p.
Payne, H.H., 1976, Soil survey of Baldwin, Jones. and Putnam Counties, Georgia: USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperationwith the

227

University of Georgia College of Agriculture, 73p.
Rigdon, TA, 1975, Soil survey ofAppling and Jeff Davis Counties, Georgia: USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of Georgia College ofAgriculture, 65 p.
Smith, E.H., 1985, Soil survey ofWashington and Wllkinson Counties, Georgia: USDASoil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of Georgia College of Agriculture, 123 p.
Steele, W.M., and O'Connor, B.J., 1987, Mining directory of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 2, 92 p.
Stevens, J.G., 1973, SoU survey of Berrien and Lanier Counties, Georgia: USDA SoU Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University ofGeorgia College ofAgriculture, 66 p.
Teas, L.P., 1921, Preliminary report on the sand and gravel deposits of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 37, 392 p.
Woods, J.C., 1963, Soil survey of Twiggs County, Georgia: USDA Soil Consetvation Service, in cooperation with the University of Georgia College ofAgriculture, 64 p.
Woods, J.C., 1979, Soil sutvey of Bibb County, Georgia: USDA Soil ConseiVation Service, in cooperation with the University of Georgia College ofAgriculture, 88 p.
Woods, J.C., and Smith, E.H., 1983, SoU sutveyof Dooly and Macon Counties, Georgia: USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of Georgia College of Agriculture, 128 p.
228

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
84'
1EO~E3~=c~LJ~joE=============~10E==============2S0~=============330 Miles Scale I :500,000
33'

BULLETIN 119 PLATE I

83'

82'

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL POTENTIAL OF THE MIDDLE
GEORGIA COASTAL PLAIN
by Jeane S. Brackman

33'

32'

EXPLANATION

31

Teas' specific sample locality

~ Teas' sample areas

+ Active aggregate producer

0 Inactive producer, or one producing fill material
* Abandoned pit, product unknown

Soil type indicative of a sandy soil

(..\'S:S) Geomorphic feature indicative of a sand or gravel deposit
C:=J Low potential for aggregate production C=:J 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).

84"

83"

32'
1'20.000 COUNTIES FOR WHICH DETAILED SCALE SOIL SURVEYS FROM USDA WERE USED AS A DATA SOURCE COUNTIES FOR WHICH GENERALIZED SOIL SURVEYS ON FILE AT THE GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY WERE USED AS A DATA SOURCE
Base from U.S. Geo logical Survey State base map
82'

For convenience in selecting our reports from your bookshelves, they are color-keyed across the spine by subject as follows:

Red

Valley and Ridge mapping and structural geology

Dk. Purple Piedmont and Blue Ridge mapping and structural geology

Maroon Coastal Plain mapping and stratigraphy

Lt. Green Paleontology

Lt. Blue Coastal Zone studies

Dk. Green Geochemical and geophysical studies

Dk. Blue Hydrology

Olive

Economic geology

Mining directory

Yellow Environmental studies

Engineering studies

Dk. Orange Bibliographies and lists of publications

Brown

Petroleum and natural gas

Black

Field trip guidebooks

Dk. Brown Collections of papers

Colors have been selected at random, and will be augmented as new subjects are published.

Editor: Patricia Allgood Cartographer: Don Shellenberger
$68 31 /500
The Department of Natural Resources is an equal opportunity employer and offers all persons the opportunity to compete and participate in each area of DNR employment regardless ofrace, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or other non-merit factors.