Hydrogeology of the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area, Georgia

HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE GULF TROUGH- APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA, GEORGIA
Madeleine F. Kellam Lee L. Gorday
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Georgia Geologic Survey

Cover Photo: Windmill on a domestic well in Tarrytown, Montgomery County, Georgia.

HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE GULF TROUGHAPALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA, GEORGIA
Madeleine F. Kellam Lee L. Gorday
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Lonice C. Barrett, Commissioner Environmental Protection Division
Harold F. Reheis, Assistant Director Georgia Geologic Survey
William H. McLemore, State Geologist
Atlanta 1990
BULLETIN 94

M. Wallace Holcombe
IN MEMORIAM
Wallace Holcombe, the Geologic Survey's Senior Enviromnental Technician for the last ten years, passed away on October 8, 1990. Wallace was always prepared to go the extra mile to see that , the needs of the Geologic Survey staff were met. His diligence in maintaining the geological equipment and field vehicles in proper working condition allowed the staff to maintain their field and laboratory schedules. Wallace's contributions to the success of this report and numerous others over the last ten years will be greatly missed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
General ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 2 Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Sources of data ......................................................................................................................... 2 Methods of investigation............................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................... 4 Description of study area .............................................. ......... ......... ................................................ 4 Location .................................................................................................................................... 4 Demography and population ............................... .... ......... ................................ ....... .................. 4 Physiography and drainage ....................................................................................................... 7 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Previous investigations ....................................................... ........................... .................................. 7 Geologic framework ................................................................. ;....................................................... 11 Hydrologic framework .................... :................................................................................................ 11 General ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Surficial aquifer ........................................................................................................................ 12 Floridan aquifer system ............................................................................................................. 12 Claibome aquifer ...................................................................................................................... 15 Clayton aquifer ......................................................................................................................... 17 Cretaceous aquifers .................................................................................................................. 17 Potentiometric trends and water use ............................................................................................... 19 General ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Potentiometric surface of the upper Floridan aquifer ................................................................. 19 Potentiometric trends ................................................................................................................ 21 Water use ................................................................................................................................. 24 Well construction ...................................................................................................................... 28 Ground-water availability ................................................................................................................ 28 General ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Well characteristics and aquifer properties ................................................................................ 28
Specific capacity ..................................................................................................................30 Specific capacity indices .......................................................................................................30 Transmissivity ...................................................................................................................... 30 Hydraulic conductivity .........................................................................................................31 Recharge ................................................................................................................................... 31 Ground-water flow .................................................................................................................... 31 Analysis of ground-water availability ......................................................................................... 31 Lithologic factors and availability of ground water ............................................................... 32 Ground-water flow factors and availability of ground water ................................................. 32 Ground-water quality ...................................................................................................................... 33 General .....................................................................................................................................33 Ground water-quality in the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment .................................... 33 Sulfate in ground water ........................................................................................................ 34
Distribution of sulfate .................................................................................................... 34 Source of sulfate ............................................................................................................34 Barium in ground water ....................................................................................................... 34 Distribution of barium ...................................................................................................34 Source ofbarium ........................................................................................................... 35 Natural radioactivity in ground water ................................................................................... 35

Distribution of radioactivity ............................................................................................ 35 Source of radioactivity .................................................................................................... 36

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 37 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 38 References ...................................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix A. Depth to the top and bottom ofthe Floridan aquifer system .........................................43 Appendix B. Wells used in hydraulic parameter and inorganic chemistry plates .............................. 55 Appendix C. Wells used in barium and gross alpha plates ............................................................... 63 Appendix D. Permeabtlity test results .............................................................................................. 71

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

1. Location of study area .. ..... ... .... .. ... .... .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ... ... ....... .. ..... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ...... ... .. .. ........ ... ... ... ... .. 5 2. Approximate location of the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment..................................... 6 3. Physiographic districts of the study area .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 8 4. Geographic extent of the surficial aquifer in the study area ....................................................... 13 5. Geographic extent of the Floridan aquifer system in Georgia ...................................................... 14 6. Approximate geographic extent of the Claiborne aquifer in the study area ................................. 16 7. Approximate geographic extent of the Clayton aquifer in the study area .................................... 18 8. Water level in the Upper Floridan aquifer, May 1985 ................................................................. 20 9. Water levels in Floridan aquifer wells, Ben Hill and Mitchell Counties ....................................... 22 10. Water levels in Floridan aquifer wells, Worth and Toombs Counties ........................................... 23 11. Water-level change, Floridan aquifer system, 1969-1978 ........................................................... 25 12. Typical well construction, Floridan aquifer system ..................................................................... 29 13. Areas at greatest risk for elevated levels of natural radioactivity in ground water .......................40

TABLES

1. Number of acres irrigated, 1974 and 1984 ................................................................................. 26 2. Water use in the study area, by county, in million gallons per day ............................................. 27

PLATES

(Plates in separate envelope)

1. Stratigraphic units in the GulfTrough-Apalachicola Embayment area and their relationship to the Floridan aquifer system
2. Thickness of sediments overlying the Floridan aquifer system in the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area
3. Geology and configuration of the top of the Floridan aquifer system in the GulfTrough-Apalachicola Embayment area
4. Geology and configuration of the base of the Floridan aquifer system in the GulfTrough-Apalachicola Embayment area
5. Thickness of the Floridan aquifer system in the GulfTrough-Apalachicola Embayment area 6. Locations of wells used in mapping aquifer properties and water quality 7. Specific capacity values for wells tapping the Floridan aquifer system in the GulfTrough-Apalachicola
Embayment area 8. Specific capacity indices for wells tapping the Floridan aquifer system in the GulfTrough-Apalachicola
Embayment area 9. Estimated transmissivity values for wells tapping the Floridan aquifer system in the Gulf Trough-
Apalachicola Embayment Area

vi

PLATES (Continued)
(Plates in separate envelope) 10. Estimated hydraulic conductivity values for wells tapping the Floridan aquifer system in the
Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area 11. Major ion geochemistry of ground water from the Floridan aquifer system in the Gulf Trough-
Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area 12. Total dissolved solids in ground water from the Floridan aquifer system in the Gulf Trough-
Apalachicola Emabayment area 13. Distribution of sulfate in ground water from the Floridan aquifer system in the Gulf Trough-
Apalachicola Embayment area 14. Distribution of barium in ground water from the Floridan aquifer system in the Gulf Trough-
Apalachicola Embayment area 15. Distribution of gross alpha activity in ground water from the Floridan aquifer system in the
Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area
Vll

HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE GULF TROUGH -APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA, GEORGIA
Madeleine F. Kellam Lee L. Gorday

ABSTRACT
The geologic make-up and hydrologic properties of the Floridan aquifer system in the study area are controlled by the presence of the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment. The Floridan aquifer system, within the trough-embayment, is composed ofdense, deep-water limestones; and it is thickly overlain by Miocene and younger sediments.
Throughout the GulfTrough, and in most of the Apalachicola Embayment, the permeability of the aquiferislowerthanthat typical ofthe Floridan system outside the trough-embayment. This is due to a combination offactors, including the low primarypermeabilityofthe deep-waterlimestones ofthe trough-embayment; limited development of secondary permeability due to thick overburden; and, possibly, a lack of joints or fractures to enhance movement of ground water. However, certain areas withintheApalachicola Embayment and along its south flank are exceptions to this trend. The contact between the Miocene and Oligocene sediments in these areas is a zone of enhanced permeability.
The quality ofwater from the Floridan aquifer system is reduced in certain parts ofthe study area. Inthe Colquitt-Thomas-Grady Counties area, sluggish ground-water flow through the lower parts of the aquifer has inhibited the dissolution of gypsum and the removal of sulfate from the aquifer, causing high sulfate levels. The source of elevated levels of barium in ground water from Ben Hill County is not understood. High concentrations of natural radioactivity (mainly as Radium-226) occuringround waterfromtheWheelerMontgomery and Tift-Berrien Counties areas. The ultimate source is Uranium-238, probably derived from weathered crystalline rocks of the Piedmont. The uranium was incorporated in the crystal structure ofthe abundant phosphate minerals of the Miocene confining sediments. Oxidizing recharge waters flowing through these sedi-

ments dissolved uranium and transported it into the aquifer. The uranium was deposited on the aquifer matrix in areas where reducing conditions were encountered. The pyrite content ofthe troughembayment limestones provided such reducing conditions. asdid decaying organicmattertrapped in paleo-sinkholes within the top ofthe Oligocene strata. Radioactive decay now contributes Radium-226 to ground water in these areas.
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL
This investigation is the culmination of a multi-year study by the Georgia Geologic Survey of the geology and ground-water hydrology of the GulfTrough andApalachicola Embayment, which are part of a subsurface paleo-marine channel system in the Georgia Coastal Plain. The Floridan aquifer system, the most widely used aquifer in the Coastal Plain, is affected bythe presence ofthe Apalachicola Embayment, and by its northeastward extension, the Gulf Trough. Both the quality and the availability of ground water in and near the trough-embayment are reduced. In view of the continuing water needs of municipal, agricultural, and industrial users of this aquifer, a comprehensive study of the geology and hydrogeology of this area was conducted in order to explain the causes of reduced well yields and water quality.
This study of the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment includes three reports. A data report (McFadden and others, 1986) presents lithologic logs and a table surrnnarizing stratigraphic data on all wells used in the ensuing geologic and hydrologic investigations. The locations of these wells are displayed on a 1:500,000 scale base map. A geologic report (Huddlestun and others, in preparation) presents the stratigraphic frame-

1

work for the hydrologic investigation of the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment. The geologic report contains lithologic and faunal descriptions of stratigraphic units, isopach and structure-contour maps, and discussions of the nature, origin, and geologic history of the troughembayment. The present report, which was completed in 1988, describes the aquifers in the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area, presents data on the availability and quality of ground waterfrom the Floridan aquifer system, and makes recommendations for the future development of ground-water resources in the area.
PURPOSE
The Floridan aquifer system is the most widely used aquifer in Georgia. Potentiometric maps of the Floridan system in Georgia consistently show an anomalous steepening of the potentiometric surface trending northeastward across the Coastal Plain, from Grady County in the southwest, to Bulloch County in the northeast. This anomaly roughly parallels the trend of the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment. The Floridan aquifer system in the vicinity of this anomaly exhibits poor well yields and locally reduced water quality, including abnormally high concentrations of barium, sulfate, and natural radioactivity. The present study was designed primarily to examine the hydrogeology of the Floridan aquifer system in the Gulf TroughApalachicola Embayment area. The goal of this study was to assess the principal controls on the occurrence, availability, and quality of ground water from the Floridan system in the study area. Specifically, the following aspects were to be addressed:
1) the cause of the potentiometric anomaly; 2) ground-water occurrence and movement in the Upper Floridan aquifer; and; 3) water quality, particularly the mechanisms which produce the abnormally high barium, sulfate, and natural radioactivity levels which appear to be associated with the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment.
SCOPE
Prior studies of the ground-water hydrology of the Gulf Trough area were hampered by an incomplete understanding of its complex geology. This study used data from approximately 500 wells to define the stratigraphy ofthe GulfTroughApalachicola Embayment area. The interpretation of the geology of the trough-embayment area

which has emerged from this study allows a more comprehensive view of the hydrogeology of the trough-embayment area than had been possible previously. The hydrogeology phase of this study was designed (1) to describe the lithology and extent of aquifers in the vicinity of the troughembayment; (2) to produce new data on the hydraulic characteristics of the Floridan aquifer system in the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment; (3) to discuss the hydraulic characteristics ofthe Floridan aquifer systemin the area; and (4) to examine the possible causes of the reduced quality and availability of ground water from the Upper Floridan aquifer in and near the trough-embayment.
SOURCES OF DATA
Data for the hydrogeologic study were gatheredfrom a variety ofsources, both published and unpublished. Published sources oflithologic data and stratigraphic data include collections of well logs by Herrick (1961) and Applin and Applin (1964). Asumma:ry ofpetroleum exploration wells in Georgia (Swanson and Gernazian, 1979) provided stratigraphic and well location data. In addition to well logs from these sources, a number of additional wells were examined and five wells were cored and examined specifically for this project. These were all wells for which the Georgia Geologic Survey (GGS) retains cutting or core samples in its cuttings library or wells drilled (cored) specifically for this project. All are assigned a sequential registration number, known as a GGS number, and are available for inspection at the Georgia Geologic Survey in Atlanta. The stratigraphic data obtained from all the above sources have been published in Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 56 (McFadden and others, 1986).
Sources of unpublished geologic data include the files of the GGS in Atlanta and those of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division office in Doraville, Georgia. These files include lithologic logs prepared by staffofthe GGS and USGS and a small number of logs prepared by the staffs of petroleum exploration companies.
Hydrologic data for this study were obtained primarily from the files ofthe GGS, the USGS, ~nd the Water Resources Management Branch ofthe Georgia Environmental ProtectionDivision. These data include well-construction details, production-test data, and water-quality analyses. Published water-quality data were also included in

2

this study (Grantham and Stokes, 1976). Permeability tests were conducted on cores collected during the project, and the results are summarized in Appendix D. The potentiometric maps of the Floridan aquifer used in this report were produced by the Water Resources Division of the USGS (Clarke and others, 1979; Bush and others, 1987).
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
The wells chosen for inclusion in the study were those for which the most complete information was available in the form of lithologic logs or cuttings, well construction data, and verifiable locations. These locations were field checked wherever possible. Geophysical and paleontological logs were also available in some case. In addition, five wells were cored and geophysically logged, specifically, for this study.
The definition ofthe Floridan aquifer system in the study area was reexamined on the basis of the revised stratigraphic interpretation ofthe Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area. Using lithologic and geophysical logs ofall wells from the stratigraphic data base, the top and base of the Floridan aquifer system in the study area were determined and its thickness was mapped. The depth to the top ofthe Upper Floridan aquifer was also calculated and mapped. Appendix A lists the wells used in mapping the aquifer and includes land surface elevations, depth to top of the aquifer, and elevations of its top and base. More complete information on these wells is presented by McFadden and others (1986).
Specific-capacity maps were constructed using data from well production tests. These tests variedgreatlyin duration, rangingfrom an hour or less to several days. Construction ofthe wells also varied widely in such details as diameter, depth, and length of open borehole. Specific-capacity indices were obtained by dividing the specificcapacity values by the length of open borehole of the well; thus, normalizing, in part, the varying well construction. Maps were constructed to show the range and distribution of specific-capacity indices. Appendix B summarizes construction data for these wells.
Time-drawdown data, needed to calculate transmissivity (T). storativity (S). and hydraulic conductivity, are vexy limited for the study area. However, an estimate of transmissivity can be obtained from the specific capacity (Q /s). Lohman (1979, p. 52) noted a relationship between specific capacity and transmissivity of confined aquifers which can be expressed as:

T = 2.3CQ/s )
41t w

.

log (2.25Tt/r2~ S\

where pumping rate (Q). drawdown (s). and duration of test (t) are measured during the well production test, and rw is the diameter of the well.This relationship was used to estimate the transmissivity of the aquifer at wells for which time-drawdown data is not available. Pertinent data on these wells is summarized in Appendix B.
Storage cooefficients (S) for the Floridan aquifer system in the study area were, also, not generally available. AS value typical for confined aquifers (0.0001) was used in the transmissivity estimations. The effect of changes in the S on the estimated transmissivity value is relatively small; an order of magnitude change in the S value, typically, produces only an ll per cent change in the estimated transmissivity. Transmissivity estimates derived using this method agreed well with values obtained using time-drawdown data.
Tests ofvertical hydraulic conductivity were conducted on 140 core samples from the five core holes drilled for this study and from two U. S. Gypsum cores. Test samples were selected at intervals ofapproximately 25 feet Sampling intervals varied, however, where sample gaps occurred or where the core was fragmented. The sides of core sampleswere sealed bywrapping themtightly with impermeable tape. Polyvinylchloride caps were fitted on the ends of the samples and sealed with silicone sealer. The samples were oriented vertically and saturated with water. Water was introduced from the bottom of the core sample to minimize the possiblity of trapping air in the sample.
Core samples varied greatly in permeabilty, making it neccessary to employ both constant head and falling head tests. Samples with relatively high vertical hydraulic conductivity values were tested using the constant head method. In this method, a constant head gradient was established across the sample while measuring the rate of flow. A constant head was maintained by the use of an overflow tube on the supply side of the sample. The flow rate was measured by noting the time required to fill a known volume. Head gradients used ranged up to approximately 2 feet.
Measurements were made at three or more different gradients for each sample. For each measurement, the flow rate was plotted against the head gradient. If the values plotted on a line that extended through the origin, then laminar

3

flow conditions through the sample were assumed. A non-linear plot of values was assumed to indicate turbulent flow through the sample. These samples were retested at lower head gradients. In several instances, scatter of the head gradient versus flow rate plot could not be attributed to turbulent flow. Measurements repeated several hours later showed a linear plot, suggesting that the saturation of the sample may have caused swelling of clay minerals. A longer interval between saturation and testing eliminated this problem.
When flow through the core sample was too small to be measured readily by timing, the filling of a known volume, falling head tests were used. Fallinghead testsmeasure the rate atwhich water enters the sample. Following saturation, a tube of known cross-sectional area, open to the sample, was filled with water. The rate at which the water level in the tube dropped was measured. The initial head gradient (the difference in height between the water level in the supply tube and the discharge point) ranged up to 5.5 feet. The head values were plotted against time to insure that there were no sudden changes in the rate of decline.
Samples of low permeability, typically, required several days to saturate. Those samples which did not saturate after four days or more could not be tested and are assumed to have a vertical hydraulic conductivity of0.001 ft/day or less. This appears to be a conservative figure, as several samples which did saturate had vertical hydraulic conductivity values lower than 0.001 ft/day.
Hydraulic conductivity values were calculated using readily available equations derived from Darcy's Law (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, p. 335-336). Vertical hydraulic conductivity data are presented in Appendix D.
Water-quality maps were produced using a combination of published and unpublished data. Sequential identification numbers were assigned to the wells and municipal water systems used in the maps, keyed to appendices which list sources of data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the many people whose assistance helped make this report possible. Sue Rodenbeck and Susan Mosteller collected and checked much ofthe data on which this study was based. Stephen McFadden partici-

pated in the early portion of this study and also provided information on research into the occurrence of radionuclides in ground water. John Fernstrom, now retired from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's Ground-water Program, contributed data onthe occurrence ofnatural radioactivity in the GulfTrough/Apalachicola Embayment area. Wendell Pope, of Abner Pope and Sons Well Drilling, supplied well data and cooperatedwith geophysical logging ofwells in the vicinity of Alapaha. Grady Thompson, of Bishop Pump and Well Service, provided well data and general observations on the nature of the Gulf Trough/Apalachicola Embayment. He also as-_ sisted in repairing a damaged inflatable packer. James Miller and Woody Hicks ofthe U.S. Geological Survey reviewed the manuscript and made many helpful comments.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
LOCATION
The 27-county study area is located in the Coastal Plain Province of Georgia. The Coastal Plain covers approximately 60 percent of the state's total area and contains Georgia's major aquifers. The study area extends northeastward from the southwestern comer of the state to the Savannah River, an area of approximately 11,550 square miles (Figure 1). The study area takes in the Apalachicola Embayment and Gulf Trough (Figure 2), as well as adjacent portions of the Coastal Plain. The Apalachicola Embayment occupies the southwestern end of the study area, and the GulfTrough occupies the central portion.
DEMOGRAPHY AND POPULATION
The total estimated population of the study area was 492,900 in 1985 (Bachtel, 1987). with a populationdensity ofapproximately 43 people per square mile. The population is primarily rural, producing agricultural and forest products as the main economic activities. A number ofsmall cities are located in the study area, eight ofwhich have populations in excess of 10,000. These eight cities are: Bainbridge, Douglas, Fitzgerald, Moultrie, Statesboro, Thomasville, Tifton, and Vidalia. Only Moultrie (15,508) and Thomasville (18,352) contain populations greater than 15,000 (Bachtel,

4

0

20

40 Ml

I II I

I 1---4 1----1 0 20 40 KM

N
t

Figure 1. Location of the study area.
5

0

20

40 Ml

E3 E3

I 1-1 H 0 20 40 KM

N
t

Figure 2. Approximate location of the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment. (After Huddlestun and others, in prep.)
6

1987).
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
Portions offive physiographic districts make up the study area: the Tifton Upland, Vidalia Upland, Dougherty Plain, Bacon Terraces, and Barrier Island Sequences Districts (Clark and Zisa, 1976). TheTiftonandVidalia Uplands comprise the majority of the study area (Figure 3). These two districts are topographically high areas, ranging in elevation from about 500 feet above sea level in the north and northeast to about 100 feet above sea level in the southeast. The regional slope is southeastward, towards the Atlantic coast. Drainage in these areas is well developed and dendritic.
The westem edge ofthe study area, including portions of Decatur, Grady, Mitchell, and Worth Counties, lies in the Dougherty Plain, a gentlyrolling karstic lowland. The regional slope of this district is southwestward, towards the Gulf of Mexico. Maximum elevations of about 300 feet above sea level occur in the northeast and a minimum elevation of about 77 feet above sea level in the southwest, at Lake Seminole. The Dougherty Plain contains few surface streams but many sinkhole lakes and marshes.
Portions of Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Ben Hill, Coffee, Irwin, and Jeff Davis Counties lie in the Bacon Terraces District, an area of subtly dissected terraces, paralleling the present coastline. Terrace levels range in elevation from about 330 to about 160 feet above sea level. Drainage is southeast-trending, dendritic, and extended.
The easternmost end of the study area, ineluding Effingham County and portions ofBulloch and Screven Counties, lies in the Barrier Island Sequence District, an area of abandoned shorelines parallel to the present coast. This area exhibits slight to moderate dissection, with marshes occupying poorly drained lowlands.
The study area is crossed by several of the state's major rivers. The Flint River forms the western boundary of the study area and flows through Decatur County in the extreme southwestern part ofthe study area. The Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers join in the vicinity of Jeff Davis, Montgomery, and Toombs Counties to form the Altamaha River. The Savannah River forms the eastern boundary of the study area.
CLIMATE
The climate ofthe study area is influenced in the west by the Gulf of Mexico and in the east by

the Atlantic Ocean. Winters are generally mild, and summers are hot and humid. The mean annual temperature for the period ofrecord, 1951 to 1980, was 65.7 F at the Tifton experiment station of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Mean annual precipitation for the same period and location was 46.61 inches. March and July are, usually, the wettest months oftheyearinthe studyarea: while October and November are the driest. Evapotranspiration rates are highest in the spring and summer.
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
The Floridan aquifer system has been known by a number ofnames, among them, the principal artesian aquifer, the Tertiary limestone aquifer, the Floridan aquifer, and most recently and formally, the Floridan aquifer system. The large geographic extent of the Floridan aquifer system in Georgia has, until recently, limited the detail of most investigations. Early reports on the hydrogeology of the Floridan in Georgia were of a reconnaissance nature, due to the incompletely understood geology of the Coastal Plain. More detailed work, on a single county or smaller scale, has added to the general understanding of the hydrogeology of the aquifer; and as more detail emerges from these small studies, a larger regional picture of the Floridan aquifer system is being developed. The influence of the Gulf TroughApalachicola Embayment on the Floridan aquifer system in Georgia has only recently been studied.
One ofthe earliest reconnaissance studies of ground water in Georgia was that of McCallie (1908), who described wells and springs throughout Georgia and included many driller's logs and water-quality analyses in his descriptions. He identified the upper Eocene limestone, which he called the Vicksburg-Jackson limestone, as the major water-bearing unit of the Coastal Plain. Stephenson and Veatch (1915) related ground water to stratigraphy, and summarized the geology and water resources of the Coastal Plain by county, including information on well construction, well yields, subsurface geology, and water quality. Meinzer (1923). in his summary ofgroundwater occurrence in the United States, identified the Eocene and Oligocene formations of Georgia as important water-bearing strata.
In view of the rapid rate at which groundwater resource development was occurring in the Southeast, Warren (1944) published results of investigations of limestone aquifers of the Coastal

7

EXPLANATION
[I!J] Barrier Island Sequence District
l:i\\J Bacon Terraces District
tf=j Dougherty Plain District
({;WJi1 Vidalia Upland District ~ Tifton Upland District

/l{(~~~~~~~ 33~,..(.;A:;=x.=::.;::~:" -33o

kSCREVENiif.:',

tt;jitlt~~{ )' "''j;?Niffi/fi;,;~,YHc\IH~~ ~;,,, ~fir.)I ..............._..,~,.,.,,.,,...:.:.,...
Illj ,t,C;;}-'r.i,i.;-i:;.i~;S':{5~1:'~''~-'.'~''i'g'Cl{'A~'"~Ni'lD'l>LlM''E":'RU',Hf.'~:,<~:',W:".?~;,'i.',~.',m'.,t".,u'.'~,.r:.,..
- ,,,, -w ""''lf~~~~\tli~R@1'1_

~I].~ ) ~"r'NI.I l

11'

G ~

H-41.1,

'

:~TAT

00

....;;.........:.::":L'":;:':",,"J.!..<. -'"' DAVIS'...;f;::i-':"-A:P:PoL,I;N:G,'.:~:l .82o

PELHAM ESCARPMENT<,
,..t ,c:.c:: ;:
F ~-MIT
f_
c-_-_-_:-_-_-._:: 31-t-:
f=t_--D_E-C_-AT_-UR
1-
/-

COLQUITT COOK -
31

'.:::::::-:-::;::f-.
;!.!.~$....~
I
83

-~ 8140

Study Area

0

20

40 60 Kilometers

o

20

40 Miles

After Clark and Zisa, 1976.

Figure 3. Physiographic districts of the study area.

Plain. Warren noted that the principal artesian aquifers in the Southeast are limestones of Eocene and Oligocene age, which crop out in a belt extending northeastward from the southwestern corner of Georgia, roughly paralleling the Fall Line. Recharge areas were identified in the area of outcrop, and also in the Valdosta area. where lime sinks allow direct access to the aquifer. Warren included the Oligocene Suwannee Limestone and the Eocene Ocala Limestone in the principal artesian aquifer, and identified the impeiVious clays and marls of the Miocene Hawthorne Formation as the upper confining unit. Transmissivity values for the principal artesian aquifer were calculated to range from 100,000 to 1,000,000 square feet per day (ft2 / d). Herrick and Wait (1956) characterized the availability and quality of ground water from Coastal Plain strata, including the middle Eocene to lowerMiocene principal artesian aquifer. They cited dolomitization as the cause of reduced utility ofthe principal artesian aquifer in the vicinity of Grady, Thomas. and Colquitt Counties, and mentioned the presence of a "subsurface structural trough" in this area as the cause ofdecreased permeability ofthe aquifer and increased hardness ofthe ground water. In a 1960 study, Wait described ground-water quality in the Ocala Limestone, characterizing the water as moderately hard to hard, slightly alkaline, and of calcium bicarbonate type. He noted that in some areas of the Tifton Upland, water from the Ocala Limestone contained elevated levels of sulfate. The principal artesian aquifer was redefined to include limestones ofMiocene age. Wait presented water-quality data for southwestern Georgia, and discussed the relationship of structural features and sinkholes to water-quality trends in the area.
In a study that has formed the basis for much ofthe subsequentgeologic and hydrogeologic work in the Coastal Plain, Herrick (1961) published a collection of lithologic logs ofwells in the Coastal Plain of Georgia. He described well cuttings from 354 wells, noting possible water-bearing units in each.
Among the reports detailing ground-water resources of single counties in the study area was that of Owen (1963) on the geology and groundwater resources of Mitchell County. Mitchell County was divided into three hydrologic zones. the Dougherty Plain, the solution escarpment. and the Tifton Upland. Mitchell County lies, for the most part, in the Dougherty Plain. In this karstic lowland, the Ocala Limestone is at the land surface, overlain by a blanket of residuum. Water in the Ocala Limestone is under unconfined con-

ditions, except where the overburden of clayey residuum is sufficiently thick to confine it. Wells drilled in the Dougherty Plain often tap the middle Eocene Tallahatta Formation, in addition to the Ocala. Few wells have been drilled in the solution escarpment. probably due to the greater thickness of overburden in this area. In the Tifton Upland, the Ocala Limestone is deeply buried by thick Miocene and Oligocene deposits, which Owen interpreted as evidence of downwarping in the extreme southeastern part of the county. The term principal artesian aquifer was not used in this study because the Oligocene and Eocene limestone are unconfined overmost ofMitchell County.
Callahan (1964) attempted to quantify the amount of water available from Coastal Plain aquifers, including the principal artesian aquifer. The principal artesian aquifer was redefined as an aquifer system made up of a number of interconnected water-bearing strata. Aquifer geometry. flow wnes, water quality, and recharge were considered. An estimated maximum "safe yield" of the principal artesian aquifer system was calculated, and the probable effects of maximum pumpage on water levels in the aquifer and in streams were assessed. Using potentiometric maps of the principal artesian aquifer, Callahan noted an apparent decrease in transmissivity in the position now identified as the Gulf TroughApalachicola Embayment. Two northeast-trending faults, offsetting or constricting the permeable wnes ofthe aquifer, were postulated as the cause of this anomaly.
Sever (1966). in another small-scale study, surveyed the ground water and geology of Thomas County. He identified the Eocene Ocala Limestone and Oligocene Suwannee Limestone as the principal aquifer in the county. excluding the middle Eocene Lisbon Formation due to its highly mineralized waters. Sever noted the wide range of weli yields in Thomas County, from 60 gallons per minute (gal/min) in the northeast. to 3,000 gal/ min in the southeast; and he postulated a fault, the Ochlockonee fault, to explain the steep gradient of the potentiometric surface of the principal artesian aquifer. In addition, certain water-quality anomalies were identified, including elevated levels of sodium chloride and sulfate.
In a paper on the Tertiary limestone aquifers of the southeastern states. Stringfield (1966) identified the Ocala Limestone and the Suwannee Limestone as the major water-bearing units in Georgia, and described the hydraulic properties, recharge, and water quality of these units. The steepening of the hydraulic gradient across the

9

Georgia Coastal Plain was discussed and anumber of possible explanations were given. A written
communicationfrom H.E. LeGrand Un Stringfield,
1966, p. 123) attributed the anomaly to the proximity of the recharge area. LeGrand's theory was that there was upward leakage from the principal artesian aquifer to the overlying Miocene rocks, which diminished as the water moved under the confiningHawthome Formation, and as the aquifer became thicker and more permeable. Stringfield (p.132) attributed the potentiometric anomaly to "recharge and discharge relationships and...changes in the permeability and thickness of the limestone."
Sever and Herrick (1967) discussed the origin of poor-quality ground water, high in sulfate, iron, flouride, and total dissolved solids, derived from wells in the Grady County area. They concluded that this water, formerly thought to be from the Ocala Limestone, was probably being obtained from a limestone of early Oligocene age, never before described in Georgia.
Sever (1969) reported the results of aquifer tests and water-quality analyses at the cities of Alapaha, Coolidge, Fitzgerald, and Thomasville. Transmissivityvalues calculated for wells tapping the Oligocene and Eocene limestones ranged from
16,000-ft2I d at Fitzgerald to as large as 2, 700,000 ft2I d at Thomasville. The extremely high trans-
missivityvalue obtainedfrom theThomasville test was attributed to solution of the limestone along structurally-producedjoints and fractures. In addition to calculations of transmissivity, storage coefficients were derived where possible, and the effects of future pumpage were estimated.
Zimmerman (1977) explained variations in the transmissivity ofthe principal artesian aquifer in Colquitt County as the result offacies changes across a paleogeographic feature which he identified with the Suwannee Strait. Reduced transmissivity was attributed to deposition offine-grained clastic sediments within the strait, contrasted with deposition of more permeable carbonates outside the feature. The Ochlockonee fault of Sever (1966) was used to explain such waterquality anomalies as high concentrations of dissolved solids, especially sulfate.
Krause (1979), in a study ofthe geohydrology of Brooks, Lowndes, and westem Echols Counties, described the principal artesian aquifer in Brooks County as containing rocks ofthe Claibome Group, the Ocala Limestone, Suwannee Limestone, and limestone of the lower Hawthome Formation. These limestones are jointed, enhancing solution of the limestone and allowing conduit flow of ground water. Recharge takes

place through the area's many sinkholes and permeable lake bottoms and the bed of the Withlacoochee River.
Gelbaum (1978), in a paper on the geology and ground water of the Gulf Trough, extended the trough northeastward into Screven and Effingham Counties on the basis of potentiomet..: ric maps of the principal artesian aquifer. She discussed possible causes oflow yields from wells in the vicinity ofthe trough, suggesting that many wells may not penetrate the aquifervery deeply, or at all, due to the greater depth to the top of the aquifer in the Gulf Trough. Another possibility mentioned was a thinning of Oligocene strata in the trough, making the aquifer thinner overall. Faulting parallel to the trough and facies changes across the trough were also considered as possible causes oflowwellyields. In laterwork on the Gulf Trough, Gelbaum and Howell (1982) used specific-capacity indices to characterize groundwaterflow across different areas ofthe trough. The potentiometric anomaly which marks the trough was described as the result of a combination of structural and depositional factors. They attributed the reduced transmissivity of the aquifer in the trough to facies changes resulting in denser limestones deposited in the trough, with downfaulted blocks locally forming ground-water flow barriers.
Bush (1982) simulated the predevelopment flow in the Tertiary limestone aquifer. The model revealed that the majority of flow in the aquifer prior to development occurred in the unconfined and thinly confined portions of the aquifer. In these areas, high recharge and discharge produced an active shallowflow zone and a less active deeperzone. Transmissivityvalues for unconfined and shallowly confined areas commonly exceeded 1,000,000 square feet per day (ft21d). The thickly confined areas ofthe aquifer had lower transmissivities, due to the retarded discharge and sluggish ground-water flow.
The geology and configuration of the top of the Floridan aquifer system was mapped by Miller (1986). He followed Gelbaum in attributing the reducedtransmissivityofthe aquiferinthe trough to faulting, stating that extensive graben faulting along the trend of the trough could have dropped low-permeability Miocene clastics into contact with permeable limestones of the aquifer, effectively damming ground-water flow across the trough. In 1986, Miller restated this conclusion in the context of a Regional Aquifer System Analysis (RASA). Although this work is the most complete and comprehensive report on the geology of the Floridan aquifer system to date, it employed rela-

10

tively few data specific to the Gulf TroughApalachicola Embayment area.
An unpublished M. S. thesis by Korosy (1984) delineated ground-water flow patterns in the Ochlockonee River area of northwest Florida and southwest Georgia. Korosy used uranium isotope distributions to identify recharge areas and areas where the development ofsecondary permeability in the limestones of the Floridan aquifer is inhibited by retarded ground-water flow and thick overburden.
GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK
The study area is located in the Coastal Plain geologic province. The Coastal Plain is underlain by a seaward thickeningwedge ofsediments ranging in age from late Cretaceous to Holocene, resting unconformably on a basement complex of Piedmont crystalline rocks; Triassic grabens filled with red-bed sediments and volcanic rocks; and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. Coastal Plain sedimentruy units generally dip to the southeast and exhibit an outcrop pattern that strikes northeast to southwest. The oldest outcropping sedimentary units of the Coastal Plain are exposed along the Fall Line in southwest Georgia, and the youngest crop out along the coast.
The Apalachicola Embayment along with the GulfTrough, its narrow northeastward extension, is a linear, subsurface depression continuous with the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2). The troughembayment exhibits as much as 600 feet ofburied relief and varies in width from 35 miles in the extreme southwestern corner of the state to approximately 6 miles at its narrowest in Jeff Davis County. The feature cannot be traced east of central Bulloch County.
The Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area is distinguished by radical changes in the geometry and lithology of stratigraphic units in the study area (Plate 1). The presence of the Gulf Trough is first apparent in Claibornian-age sediments, which show a facies boundary between clastic and carbonate sedimentation which approximatesthe position ofthe trough-embayment. Claibornian sediments are also anomalously thin in the vicinity ofthe feature. The Upper Eocene in the trough-embayment is represented by a dense, fine-grained, relatively deep-water limestone that is thinner than the adjacent Upper Eocene Ocala Limestone. The boundary between Eocene and Oligocene sediments is difficult to distinguish in well cuttings from the trough-embayment, due to their lithologic similarity. The Lower Oligocene

Ochlockonee Formation ofthe trough-embayment is a dense, fine-grained limestone. There is no typical Suwannee Limestone in the troughembayment. The Okapilco Member of the Suwannee, a coarser-grained, more variable, coralline limestone, occupies its stratigraphic position. In general, the Oligocene section in the trough-embayment is thicker than normal and contains a deeper-water faunal assemblage. Lower Miocene sediments in the trough-embayment are also unusually thick, particularly the Parachucla Formation of Aquitanian age.
The Apalachicola Embayment and Gulf Trough are interpreted to have been produced by the Suwannee Currentwhich flowed from the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic Ocean and inhibited sedimentation in the trough-embayment duiing the middle and upper Eocene (Huddlestun and others, in preparation). Falling sea level during the Early Oligocene probably initiated the cessation of the current. The filling of the troughembayment began, continuing into the lower Miocene.
Plate 1 shows generalized stratigraphic columns for representatiye parts of the study area. The stratigraphy and geologic history of the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment are complex, and this report addresses only those aspects pertinent to a discussion of the hydrogeology of the area. For a more thorough treatment of the geology of the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area, the reader is referred to Huddlestun and others (in preparation).
HYDROLOGIC FRAMEWORK
GENERAL
Aquifers are rock units which store significant quantities ofwater and transmit that waterto wells which tap the rock units. The amount of water considered to be significant varies with the water needs and water availability of an area. A confined, or artesian, aquifer is one which is overlain by a layer of relatively impermeable material. Pressure inthe aquifer exceeds atmospheric pressure, causing water to rise above the level of the aquifer in tightly cased wells tapping the aquifer. The imaginary surface, coinciding with the level to which water from the aquifer will rise in artesian wells is called the potentiometric smface. An unconfined aquifer is one which contains water in contact with the atmosphere by way of the open spaces in the permeable material. The

11

upper smface of water in an unconfined aquifer is called thewater table. For this reason, unconfined aquifers are also called water-table aquifers. Water in unconfined aquifers is at abnosphertc pressure at the water table. The configuration of the water table is usually a subdued replica of the land smface.
The Coastal Plain province of Georgia contains the State's major aquifers. Of these, the Upper Floridan aquifer, a confined ~arbonate aquifer of Middle Eocene to Oligocene age, is the most widely used. In much ofthe study area, the Floridan is overlain by sediments of Miocene and younger age, which are sufficiently permeable to form an unconfined surficial aquifer. The surficial aquifer in the study area locally yields quantities of water sufficient for domestic supply.
Other major aquifers which extend into the study area include the Clayton, Claiborne, and Providence aquifers and the Cretaceous aquifer system. All are confined aquifers. Because these aquifers are more deeply burted than the Flortdan aquifer system, they are used extensively only in areas where the Floridan system is absent or yields insufficient water. Increased costs associated with the drilling ofdeep wells make use ofthe Floridan aquifer system the most practical in areas where it yields sufficient water.
SURFICIAL AQUIFER
Miller (1986) noted that the Floridan aquifer systeminmostplaces is overlainbyan unconfined surficial aquifer (Figure 4). In the study area, the surficial aquifer is composed of sediments of Miocene to Holocene age, which vary greatly in thickness and permeability. In areas where the Upper Floridan aquifer or its upper confining unit crop out, such as the Dougherty Plain (Figure 4) no surficial aquifer is present.
The surficial aquifer in the majority of the study area is made up primarily of unconsolidated clastic sediments ofthe Miocene Hawthorne Group. Although the Hawthorne Group sediments are characteristically high in clay content and act as the upper confining unit for much ofthe Flortdan aquifer, they vary greatly in lithology over the study area. Beds of coarser matertallocally yield supplies of water adequate for domestic supply. The Hawthorne Group also varies greatly in thickness in the study area, due to the presence of the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment. Deposition ofthe Hawthorne Group sediments completed the majority of infilling of the trough, primarily through deposition of the limestones of the lower Miocene Parachucla Formation.

Areal variations in lithology produce widely different well yields over the study area, even in wells drtlled to the same depths, or in the same formations. Although the Parachucla Formation contains considerable amounts of dense dolomite, it may locally yield adequate amounts of water for domestic supply, particularly in areas where it contains beds of coquinoid limestone. Seasonal variations in water levels and well yields may also be extreme, as water-table aquifers respond quickly to fluctuations in precipitation. The surficial aquifer is used primarilyfor domestic supply because of its small and variable well yields. Locally, the surficial aquifer may yield adequate waterfor other purposes, but indrought years water supplies from this aquifer often prove to be unreliable. Even in areas where it is not used to supply water to wells, the surficial aquifer is important as a source of recharge to the Upper Floridan aquifer.
FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
The Floridan aquifer system is a thick sequence of permeable carbonate rocks, ranging in age from Paleocene to Miocene, which are in some degree of hydraulic connection. The Floridan aquifer system blankets all ofFlorida, most ofthe Coastal Plain of Georgia (Figure 5), and adjacent portions of South Carolina and Alabama. The Floridan aquifer system consists of a single permeable zone in its updip regions, confined by less permeable sediments. Downdip, the aquifer system contains two permeable zones, the Upper and Lower Flortdan aquifers, separated by one of a number of local confining units designated by Miller (1986) as middle confining units I-VIII. The Floridan aquifer system is represented onlybythe Upper Floridan aquifer throughout most of the study area. Although Miller (1986) and Bush (1982) mapped an intra-aquifer low permeability zone in the area southeast of the Apalachicola Embayment, this study did not divide the aquifer system into upper and lower permeable zones. The Floridan aquifer system is separated from the surficial aquifer by a relatively impermeable confining unit. This upper confining unit varies considerably in age, lithology, thickness, and permeability. The interbedded clays and sands of the Miocene Hawthorne Group form the confining unit for the Floridan aquifer system over most of the Coastal Plain of Georgia. Locally, however, the Miocene section also contains dense dolomites or other carbonate layers which form a portion ofthe confining unit. The Suwannee Limestone, a major component of the Upper Flortdan aquifer, locally

12

0

20

40 Ml

I I E""3

I 1---1 1---1 0 20 40 KM

N
t

Figure 4. Geographic extent of the surficial aquifer in the study area. Shaded area indicates aquifer. (After Miller, 198 6.)
13

0

20 40 Ml

E3 E3

I t=-1 H 0 20 40 KM

N
t

Figure 5. Geographic extent of the Floridan aquifer system. Shaded area indicates aquifer. (After Miller, 1986.)
14

forms a part of the confining layer. The stratigraphic relationship between the
Miocene and the Oligocene sediments in the study area is complex, and for this reason, the top and thickness ofthe upperconfiningunit ofthe Floridan system have not been mapped. Plate 2 shows the thickness of all sediments overlying the Floridan aquifer system, including both the surficial aqui-
fer and the upper confining unit of the Floridan
system. The confining Miocene sediments have been
removed by erosion in parts ofthe study area. The Pelham Escarpment, an erosional feature of the Coastal Plain, divides the Dougherty Plain in southwestern Georgia from the Tifton and Vidalia Uplands ofthe central Coastal Plain. West of this scarp, erosion has removed most of the Miocene sediments and all but a fringe of Oligocene sediments. The Upper Eocene Ocala Limestone. a major part of the Floridan aquifer system, is exposed at the surface. overlain only by clayey residuum. Locally, this residuum is sufficiently thick and impermeable to produce confined or semi-confined conditions in the Floridan. The upper confining unit has been breached by the Withlacoochee River and by numerous sinkholes in Brooks County. and in the Lowndes and westem Echols Counties to the east. Recharge to the Floridan aquifer system takes place in this area from the river and through sinkholes and porous lakebeds (Krause, 1979).
The boundaries of the Floridan aquifer system cross both rock- and time-stratigraphic boundaries. Within the study area, the Upper Floridan aquifer is primarily Middle Eocene to Oligocene in age. Any ofthese units maybe oflow permeabilitylocally and maybe excluded from the aquifer as a result. The massive limestone of the lowermost Miocene may form a part ofthe aquifer in a few small areas.
Plates 3 through 5 illustrate the geology and geometry of the Floridan aquifer system in the study area. The geology and configuration of the top of the aquifer is shown in Plate 3. as determined by examination of well cuttings, cores and geophysical logs and by permeability testing of core samples. The top of the aquifer in the study area conforms most closely to the top ofOligocene sediments. Exceptions include areas such as the Dougherty Plain, where the Oligocene sediments have been removed by erosion. and the southcentral partoftheApalachicola Embayment, where the lowermost Miocene limestones may be sufficiently permeable to form a portion ofthe aquifer.
The regional strike of the top of the Floridan

aquifer system is southwest to northeast, but the direction of dip varies due to the presence of the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment. The top of the aquifer also varies in degree ofdip, from a rate of 3.5 feet per mile southeast of the Apalachicola Embayment to 62 feet per mile on the south flank ofthe GulfTrough. The subsurface reliefofthe top of the aquifer in the trough-embayment averages 350 feet, with a maximum of approximately 500 feet in the vicinity of southwestern Tift County.
Plate 4 shows the geology and configuration of the base of the Floridan aquifer system. This boundary is the base of the lowermost permeable limestone, as determined on the basis of well cuttings, cores. electric logs, and permeability tests. The lower confining unit varies in age and lithology, from the impermeable limestones ofthe upperEocene intheThomas-Brooks-southeastern Colquitt-southern Cook Counties area, to indurated sands ofthe middle Eocene southeast ofthe Gulf Trough.
Plate 5 shows the thickness of the Floridan aquifer system in the study area. At its thickest, near the central portion of the study area, the aquiferis 800-900feet thick.The aquiferis thinnest in Screven and northern Effingham Counties where the Oligocene and upper Eocene limestones grade into clastic sediments. The aquifer is also thin in the Apalachicola Embayment and southwestern GulfTrough, where impermeable limestones make up the lower portion of the Oligocene section.
The Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment is an area of rapid and complex facies changes. The trough-embayment contains limestones of a deeper-water origin than those beyond the flanks of the feature (Huddlestun and others. in preparation). Thus, theflanksofthetrough-embayment represent areas ofrapid facies change. Additional facies changes mark the transition from the Apalachicola Embayment to the GulfTrough, and also the northeastern termination of the Gulf Trough. The relationship of the Floridan aquifer system to the stratigraphic units in the study area is shown on Plate 1, using a series ofstratigraphic columns keyed to various parts of the study area. Complete descriptions ofthese stratigraphic units can be found in Huddlestun and others (in preparation).
CLAIBORNE AQUIFER
The Claibome aquifer extends into the westem part of the study area (Figure 6), and it underlies the Floridan systemin Mitchell, northern Worth, and extreme northwestern Colquitt Counties (McFadden and Perriello, 1983). The

15

0

20

40 Ml

I I E3

I 1---1 1---1 0 20 40 KM

N
t

Figure 6. Approximate geographic extent of the Claiborne aquifer in the study area. Shaded area indicates aquifer. (After Arora, 1984.)
16

Claibome aquifer is composed of Middle Eocene sands of the Tallahatta Formation in its updip portion, and in some areas it includes clastic sediments ofthe lower part ofthe overlying Lisbon Formation and the underlying Hatchetigbee Formation. The Claibome is confined above by the clay-rich upper part of the Lisbon Formation. In the downdip region, where the Claibome aquifer enters the study area, the distinctions between the Claibome aquifer and the overlying Floridan aquifer system become less distinct due to facies changes in both aquifers. Although the Upper Eocene to Middle Eocene section is carbonate, the uppermost Claibome sediments consist of relatively impermeable glauconitic limestones which serve to confine the Claibome aquifer.
Recharge to the Claibome aquifer is through its outcrop area in the northwestem part of the Coastal Plain and possibly through downward leakage from the Floridan aquifer system. Outside the study area, in the vicinity ofAlbany, declining head in the Claibome aquifer may be causing such leakage (McFadden and Perriello, 1983). Potentiometric declines in the Albany area, and throughout the area occupied by the Claibome aquifer, suggest that it is not a good candidate for extensive development in the study area.
CLAYTON AQUIFER
The Lower Paleocene Clayton aquifer extends intothe study area inwestemMitchell and northem Worth Counties (Figure 7). This aquifer underlies the Claibome aquifer and is separated from it by a confining unit which consists of the Nanafalia Formation and the clay-rich upper Clayton Formation (McFadden and Perriello, 1983). The Clayton aquiferismade up ofpermeable limestone of the middle unit of the Clayton Formation. It locally includes permeable sands ofthe upper and lower parts ofthe Clayton Formation. The Clayton aquifer is confined below by clay layers in the lower Clayton Formation and upper Providence Sand. Recharge is by leakage from other aquifers and by infiltration in the area of outcrop. This aquifer has a relatively small outcrop area; thus recharge to it is limited (McFadden and Perriello, 1983).
The Clayton aquifer has been extensively developed inthe area northwest oftheApalachicola Embayment. Large ground-water withdrawals, combined with the limited recharge to this aquifer, have resulted in dramatic head declines in the Clayton aquifer. Although a small portion of this aquifer extends into the study area, its future development potential is low. Because this aquifer

underlies the more productive Floridan aquifer system, no wells tapping the Clayton exclusively are known in the study area.
CRETACEOUS AQUIFERS
The interbedded sands and clays ofthe Cretaceous stratigraphic units of the Coastal Plain form a number of aquifers and intervening confining units throughout the area. Pollard and Vorhis (1980) identified seven such Cretaceous aquifers in the Coastal Plain and designated them aquifers A1 through A,. These aquifers are rarely tapped in the study area, due to the ease of obtainingwaterfrom the shallowerFloridan aquifer system.
Aquifer A extends into Screven County, in 1
the northeastem portion of the study area. In 1976, 1.5 million gallons of water were pumped from this aquifer for industrial use in Screven County (Pollard and Vorhis, i980).
The Providence aquifer of southwestern Georgia, also called Aquifer~. is unconformably overlain by the Clayton Formation. It is composed of the the upper sand member of the Upper Cretaceous Providence Sand. Lithology of the aquifer is variable, ranging from a sand in the updip region to a coquina in the downdip region. The aquifer underlies a portion ofMitchell County, and the northern part ofWorth County. Recharge to the Providence aquifer is through its area of outcrop. Discharge is to streams and also to the Clayton aquifer, through upward leakage. The declining head in the Clayton aquifer has increased the potential for such upward leakage.
Pollard and Vorhis (1980) also identified an aquifer, which they designated~ composed primarily of the Cretaceous Cusseta Sand. Where aquifer ~ underlies the study area, it is not separated from the Providence aquifer (aquifer~) by a confining unit. Hence, Pollard and Vorhis called this aquifer ~CA. also called the Providence-Cusseta aquifer. No wells are known in the study area which tap this aquifer exclusively.
The greatest development potential for the Cretaceous aquifers is north of the study area, in their updip regions, where they are closer to the surface and contain a greater percentage of sand. Due to the availability ofwater from the shallower Floridan aquifer system, the Cretaceous aquifers are rarely tapped in the study area. Northeast of the Gulf Trough, aquifer A1 is used quite extensively, and the Providence aquifer is used in the vicinity ofAlbany and Americus. Potential for use of the Providence aquifer also exists in northern

17

0

20

40 Ml

I I E3

I r:::l 1---f 0 20 40 KM

N

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

t

Figure 7. Approximate geographic extent of the Clayton aquifer in the study area. Shaded area indicates aquifer. <After Arora, 1984.)
18

Worth County. Although deeper Cretaceous aquifers cross the Gulf Trough study area, few wells are known which tap them exclusively, and development potential for these aquifers in the study area is quite low at present. The reader is referred to Pollard and Vorhis' (1980) study ofthe Cretaceous aquifers for a more complete treatment of their hydrology.
POTENTIOMETRIC TRENDS AND WATER USE
GENERAL
The potentiometric surface of a confined aquifer is an imaginary surface connecting the altitudes to which water will rise in tightly cased wells tapping the aquifer. Water rises in the wells due to hydraulic head. A potentiometric map is a contour map of this imaginary surface, constructed from water-level measurements made in wells completed in the aquifer. The varying altitudes on a potentiometric map represent hydraulic head values. The slope of the potentiometric surface is, therefore, the hydraulic gradient. Ground water flows downgradient, from areas of high hydraulic head to areas of low hydraulic head. Under isotropic conditions, flow directions are perpendicularto the potentiomentric contours, and for this reason, potentiometric maps reveal ground-water flow patterns.
POTENTIOI\.ffiTRIC SURFACE OF THE UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER
Many factors influence the configuration of the potentiometric surface of a confined aquifer. Aquifer properties, recharge to the aquifer, and discharge from the aquifer interact to produce the ground-water conditions depicted by the potentiometric map. The potentiometric map of the Upper Floridan aquifer in Georgia shows highest head values at the northwestern limit of the aquifer, near its outcrop area (Figure 8). Head values generally decline southeastward, with the steepest hydraulic gradient perpendicular to the trend of the GulfTrough. A "dome" or high area appears in the Brooks-Lowndes-Thomas-Cook Counties area. East of this high. the potentiometric surface is relatively flat, with head values declining eastward. This smooth eastward slope is broken by four significant lows in the potentiometric surface, caused by high water use at Savannah, Brunswick, St. Marys, and the Jesup-Doctortown

area. The physical properties of the aquifer, such
as transmissivity and storage coefficient, can affect the steepness of the hydraulic gradient. For example, low transmissivity may produce a steep hydraulic gradient, visible on the potentiometric map as closely spaced contours. The potentiometric map of the Upper Floridan aquifer in Georgia illustrates this point (Figure 8). The highly permeable,locally cavernouslimestoneswhich make up the aquifer outside the GulfTrough have very high transmissivity values, typically greater than 10,000ft2/d and commonly greater than 100,000
ft2I d. The potentiomentric surface of the Floridan
system in the Atkinson-southeastern Coffee-Bacon-Appling Counties area, where the Suwannee and Ocala Limestones form the bulk of the aquifer, is characterized by an extremely low hydraulic gradient. This contrastswith the northernBerriennorthwestern Coffee-northwestern Jeff Davis Counties area of the Gulf Trough, where the dense, micritic to dolomitic limestones of the trough have a much lower transmissivity, typically 10,000 ft2/d or less. This is illustrated by the potentiometric contours, which are closely spaced across the trough. The Gulf Trough cannot be detected east of central Bulloch County. This is reflected by the potentiometric contours, which begin to diverge in this area.
Recharge to an aquifer and discharge from it also affect the configuration ofthe potentiometric surface. Recharge areas are characterized by high hydraulic head. On the potentiometric map, high head values can be observed in the Dougherty Plain, where recharge occurs by the direct infiltration of rainfall. Another recharge area appears as a potentiometric "dome" or high area in the vicinity of Lowndes, Brooks, eastern Thomas, and southern Cook Counties, where the upper confining unit is breached by numerous sinkholes and by the Withlacoochee River, allowing recharge to enter the system rapidly. Natural discharge from an aquifer occurs where a stream is in hydraulic connection with an aquifer and the hydraulic head of the stream is lower than that of the aquifer. The Floridan aquifer in the western portion of the study area discharges to the Flint River south ofAlbany.
Other types of natural discharge are possible. Leakage to other aquifers can occur, but it does not show on potentiometric maps because it is diffuse. This type of discharge can occur when an adjacent aquifer has suffered severe head declines as a result ofpumping. Leakage between
aquifers is sometimes apparent as an overall

19

TENNESSEE
..J

EXPLANATION
- - 1 2 0 - WATER-LEVEL CONTOUR - Shows altitude at which water level would have stood In tightly cased wells. Contour Interval Ia 10 feet below 100-foot contour, 20 feet above 100- and below -60-foot contours. Datum Is sea level. Contours based on 924 data points.
0
0

0

R

-\

E C H ~-.:-Sf ~s-o--l

D

A

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 MILES

Figure 8. Water level in the Upper Floridan aquifer, May 1985 (Clarke, et. al., 1986).

20

lowering of head values over time in the affected area. Large quantities ofwater are also discharged offshore. beyond the scope ofmost potentiometric mapping.
Pumpage from wells is a majortype ofgroundwater discharge. During 1980, pumpage from the Floridan aquifer system in Georgia totaled more than 600 million gallons per day (Krause and Hayes, 1981). Sustained pumpage from an aquifer can result in water levels lower than predevelopment levels. The May 1985 potentiometric map ofthe Upper Floridan aquifer system (Figure 8) shows several areas where the water levels have been lowered as a result ofpumpage. The cities of Savannah and Brunswick, on the Georgia Coast. are areas of such water-level declines. The concentric, hatchured contour lines centered on these cities delineate a type offeature called a cone of depression. A cone of depression can be produced around any pumping well; however, extensive, sustained pumpage is required to produce a regional cone of depression, such as those shown.
POTENTIOMETRIC TRENDS
The potentiometric surface of an aquifer is not static. Climatic variations cause changes in the water levels in an aquifer, through changes in precipitation and infiltration rates, evapotranspiration rate, and stream stages. All of these factors influence the amount of water available for recharge to the aquifer. These climatic changes, in turn, produce dramatic variations in water levels through pumpage. Ground-water levels in the Floridan aquifer system in Georgia are generally lowest in the late fall following the driest months of the year, when evapotranspiration rates are high and agricultural withdrawals are heavy. Water levels are generally highest in spring, following late winter and spring rains coupled with low evapotranspiration rates. These short-term fluctuations in water levels are best observed by studying hydrographs, or graphic records, ofwater levels in a single well or stream over time.
Long-term fluctuations also occur in the potentiometric surface of aquifers, and these changes are magnified when the aquifer is developed. Long-term fluctuations in the potentiometric surface occur when there are prolonged changes in recharge, discharge, or flow paths, such as those produced by drought or by increased pumpage from wells. These long-term changes can be observed by studying hydrographs or by constructing water-level change maps.

In northeastern Ben Hill County, in the updip portion ofthe aquifer, the Upper Floridan is thinly confined and close to a recharge area. Figure 9a clearly shows the seasonal variation, with waterlevel highs produced by peak recharge in the late winterand spring and lows occuring inthe summer and fall. The drought years of 1981 and 1986 produced record low water levels, but water-level recovery was rapid. Little water-level decline was observed in this well during the period of record (1972-1987). Asimilarpatterncan be observed in the record from the Mitchell County well (Figure 9b), which is also thinly confined and close to a recharge area, the Dougherty Plain. This hydrograph shows the 1981 drought to have been locally more severe than that of 1986.
The hydrograph of the city of Sylvester well, inWorth County, shows subdued seasonal peaks (Figure lOa). The Floridan system is more thickly confined in this area, which contributes to this effect. The drought years of 1981 and 1986 are clearly indicated. This hydrograph suggests a greater long-term decline in the potentiometric surface in the Sylvester area than in the lessthickly-confined areas to the north and northeast. The Toombs County well (Figure lOb). near the city ofVidalia, experienced a steady potentiometric decline for the period of record (1974-1987), with a more severe decline during the drought of 1986. The subdued peaks of the curve show that this well is located in an area where the aquifer is thickly confined.
Other types of water-level fluctuations are possible, including those caused by pumping, by atmospheric pressure changes, and by aquifer loading (Hendry and Sproul, 1966). Pumping a well causes a drop in water level in that well and produces a cone of depression in the potentiomentric surface around the well. Other wells located inside the radius of influence of the pumping well will also show declines in water levels. Atmospheric pressure changes also cause water-level fluctuations. When atmospheric pressure decreases. water levels rise, and when atmospheric pressure increases, waterlevels drop. Aquifer loading can also cause changes in water levels, and may be responsible for a portion of the water-level rise noted after periods of increased rainfall. The sediments overlying a confined aquifer become saturated with water and exert increased pressure on the aquifer, thus raising water levels. Changes in water levels caused by atmospheric pressure changes and aquifer loading are are minor.
Water-level change maps show the net change

21

-- -35 Q) Q)
c

~

(i5
>

-40

Q)

-....
Q)
as
~
-45

Ben Hill County

72 73 74 75 76 11 18 19 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
calendar year

b) -35

Mitchell County

-40
Q)
--Q)

c .

Q5
>

-45

Q)

-....
Q)
as

~ -so

-55 18 79 80 81 82 83 84 8 5 86 87
calendar year

Figure 9. Water levels in Floridan aquifer wells. a>. Trees Inc., northern Ben Hill County. b). Wright well, eastern Mitchell County.
22

a)

-190

- ~ CD
-Q) -195
c::
(i5
>
Q)
-'-
Q)
ttS -200
~

Worth County

72 73 7 4 7 5 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 8 4 85 86 87
cal en dar year b)
Toombs County
-155
Q)
--Q)
c:: -160
-(i5
>
CD
-'- -165
(!)
ttS
3:
-170
74 7 5 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 8 5 86 87
calendar year
Figure 10. Water levels in Floridan aquifer wells. a>. City of Sylvester, Worth County. b). City of Vidalia, Toombs County.
23

in water levels over large areas. Development of aquifers as water supplies produces changes in recharge and discharge relationships. Declines in water levels commonly result from large withdrawals of ground water. In the Floridan aquifer system, water levels over much of the Coastal Plain have declined (Figure 11). No decline is seen at the northwest extent of the aquifer near the outcrop area, andinthe Brooks-Lowndes-ThomasCook Counties area, where the aquifer is recharged. The largest water-level declines appear at Savannah and in Wayne and Long Counties in the vicinity of Jesup and Doctortown. These declines are the result of large industrial withdrawals to supply the paper industries in these cities. Regional water-level declines resulting from these large withdrawals do not extend westward of the Gulf Trough, suggesting that the low transmissivity of the aquifer within the trough prevents the pumpage-produced pressure changes from extending further westward.
A comparison of the May 1980 (Krause and Hayes, 1981) and May 1985 (Bush and others, 1987) potentiometricmaps ofthe upperpermeable zone ofthe Floridan aquifer system (now called the upper Floridan aquifer) in Georgia shows that major water-level decline occurred in only one portion of the study area. The southwestern portion of the state, in and adjacent to the Dougherty Plain, showed a water-level decline of 10 to 30 feet. This decline was brought about by a combination of local drought conditions and resulting increased pumpage during this time.
WATER USE
Totalreported ground-water use inthe study area in 1985 was approximately 179.4 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) (Turlington and others, 1987). Most ofthis waterwas withdrawn from the Floridan aquifer system. Municipalitieswere once the mainconsumers ofgroundwaterinthe Coastal Plain and still rely almost exclusively on wells to provide adequate water to meet public-supply needs. Agricultural withdrawals, however, account for an increasing percentage ofground-water use and in most counties have surpassed municipal use. Locally, industrial withdrawals form a growing segment of total ground-water use. Ground water is used for thermoelectric power generation in two counties of the study area.
The largest ground-waterwithdrawals inthe study area are for agricultural purposes, including both irrigation and livestock use. Recent decades have seen phenomenal growth in the number of acres of irrigated farmland (Table 1, after

Bachtel, 1987). With the advent in the seventies of sophisticated irrigation systems supplied by water wells, ground-water withdrawals have played an increasingly large role in crop irrigation. The largest agriculturalwithdrawals in 1985, an average of 32.94 million gallons per day (Mgal/d), were in Decatur County (Turlington and others, 1987). Four other counties reported agricultural withdrawals in excess of 5 Mgal/d: Mitchell, with 11.29 Mgal/d; Colquitt, with 7.54 Mgal/d; Tift, with 6.58 Mgal/d; and Screven, with 5.10 Mgal/ d. Some ofthe withdrawals reported from Decatur and Mitchell Counties, which borderthe Dougherty Plain, mayhave been obtainedfrom the Clayton or Claiborne aquifers. Total reported agricultural use in the study area in 1985 was 106.08 Mgal/ d. These figures are average daily-use estimates which do not take into account the highly seasonal nature of irrigation withdrawals.
The city ofThomasville is the largest municipal user of ground water in the study area, withdrawing 4.51 million gallons per day for public supply purposes (Turlington and others, 1987). Three other cities in the study area reported withdrawals in excess of 3.00 Mgal/d. They were: Adel, with 3.71; Douglas, with 3.11; and Moultrie, with 3.08 Mgal/d. Total reported ground-water withdrawal for public supply in the study area for 1985 was 45.45 Mgal/d. Self-supplied domestic and commercial withdrawals locally form a large segment of county-wide ground-water use. Estimates ofground-water use inthis categoryinclude all household water users not supplied by public water systems, as well as commercial users such as restaurants, hotels, stores and other businesses. These amounts also include withdrawals by military and recreational facilities, schools, hospitals, prisons, and other institutions (Turlington and other, 1987). Total withdrawals for these and other categories are presented in Table 2.
Industrial users locally account for significant ground-water withdrawals. Colquitt and Thomas Counties contain two of the largest population centers in the study area, and industrial withdrawals are correspondingly high. Significant withdrawals for industrial use in 1985 were reported for Colquitt County, 1.30 Mgal/d and Thomas County, 1.28 Mgal/d. BothJe:IIDavis and Screven Counties have established textile industries which withdraw large quantities of
ground water, 1.68 Mgal/d inJeffDavis, and 1.36
Mgal/d in Screven County. Total industrial and
mining use in 1985 was 9. 78 Mgal/d. Thermoelectric power generation, a separate category ofwater

24

EXPLANATION - - 8 - Line of equal water-level change.
<Interval in feet, varies)

'~

0

20

40 Ml

II I II

N

I 1--1 1--1 0 20 40 KM

t

Figure 11. Water-level change, Floridan Aquifer System, 1969-78. (After Clarke et. al., 1978.)
25

Table 1. Number of acres irrigated, 1974 and 1984 (after Bachtel, 1987).

County
Appling Atkinson Bacon Ben Hill Berrien Brooks Bulloch Candler Coffee Colquitt Cook Decatur Effingham Evans Grady Irwin Jeff Davis Mitchell Montgomery Screven Tattnall Telfair Thomas Tift Toombs Wheeler Worth

1974
609 624 376 265 1904 1484 559 851 2430 3623 2074 9575 29 564 1840 1653 217 8353
46 276 2246 406 632 5262 1190 147 1363

Year

1984
3012 5365 4475 10625 11530 10056 14870 12010 21000 28373 8164 66872 25885 2620 12272 7034 19350 54506 2341 14300 7122 10760 7078 39516 10149 2187 19382

26

Table 2. Water use in the study area, by county. in million gallons per day (Turlington and others, 1987).

County

Public Supply

Domestic Industry

and

and

Commercial Mining

Agricultural

Thermo electric

Total

Appling Atkinson Bacon Ben Hill Berrien Brooks Bulloch Candler Coffee Colquitt Cook Decatur Effingham Evans Grady Irwin Jeff Davis Mitchell Montgomery Screven Tattnall Telfair Thomas Tift Toombs Wheeler Worth

0.89 0.35 0.56 2.69 0.36 1.56 1.32 0.63 3.51 3.65 3.84 2.14 0.73 0.45 2.17 0.68 0.72 2.86 0.33 1.32 1.06 1.54 5.19 3.26 2.16 0.23 1.25

Total

45.45

0.75 0.22 0.41 0.28 0.51 0.63 1.49 0.29 0.93 0.65 0.45 1.33 1.08 0.22 0.90 0.35 0.53 0.78 0.32 0.81 1.54 0.27 0.99 0.32 0.58 0.18 0.79
17.60

0.15 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.72 0.08 0.01 1.68 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.00 0.16 1.28 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
9.78

0.75 1.13 1.01 2.44 3.87 2.11 3.39 2.11 4.52 7.54 1.13 32:94 0.44 0.21 1.57 1.10 4.06 11.29 1.07 5.10 1.17 3.47 1.55 6.58 1.59 0.56 3.38
106.08

0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.49

2.76 1.70 2.46 5.41 5.45 4.30 7.00 3.03 8.96 13.14 5.42 37.21 2.52 1.60 4.72 2.14 6.99 14.93 1.72 8.59 3.77 5.44 9.01 10.41 4.33 0.97 5.42
179.40

27

use, accounts for a portion ofground-water use in two counties in the study area. Total withdrawals for power generation in 1985 were 0.49 Mgal/d; 0.22 Mgal/d were reported from Appling County and 0.27 Mgal/d from Effingham County.
WELL CONSTRUCTION
Wells constructed in the Floridan aquifer system follow a fairly consistent pattern. The well istypically drilled to the top ofthe aquifer, usually the first major limestone unit encountered, and casing is installed. Drilling is then resumed; the aquifer is penetrated, and the bottom of the hole is left open. The massive limestones ofthe Floridan system require no well screens. The well is developedbypumping, airlift, orsurgingtoremove drilling fluids, and a pump is installed. A diagram of the construction of a typical Floridan aquifer system well is shown in Figure 12. Within the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment, such construction methods may not produce a satisfacto:ry welL Because the top of the Floridan aquifer system is deeperthan normal, itmaybe necessa:ry to geophysically log a well, or collect and examine well cuttings carefully, in order to ensure that the aquifer is actually penetrated. The lowermost Miocene unit in some areas within the the troughembayment is a dense, massive limestone, which superficially resembles the limestone of the Floridan. The Miocene limestone is significantly less permeable than the Oligocene limestonewhich usually forms the top of the aquifer, but in most areas can be distinguished by the presence of sand in the Miocene limestone. For best yields, wells drilled in the vicinity of the Gulf TroughApalachicola Embayment should be completed in Oligocene and, where permeable, upper Eocene limestones. However, these limestones in the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment are, in general, less permeable than those outside. For this reason, it may be necessa:ry to drill wells with a much longer open-hole inteiVal, thus allowing flow into the borehole from a number of the most permeable zones, thereby maximizing yield. All of these factors may increase the cost ofdrillingwells in the vicinity of the trough-embayment.
Water quality may dictate well-construction practices in some parts of the study area. The lowermost Miocene sediments and uppermost portions ofthe Oligocene limestones may contain zones of naturally radioactive water which must be cased offifthe well is to be used. This topic will be dealt with in greater detail in the water-quality section of this report.

GROUND WATER AVAILABILITY
GENERAL
The amount of ground water available from an aquifer is dependent on many interrelated factors, including the volume and hydraulic properties of the aquifer and the amount and distribution ofrecharge and discharge. In addition, the method ofwell construction can influence the ease with which water can be obtained from an aquifer.The GulfTrough-ApalachicolaEmbayment has been noted as an area of reduced well yields from the Floridan aquifer system. A variety of theories have been advanced to explain this.
WELL CHARACTERISTICS AND AQUIFER PROPERTIES
In order to assess the availability of ground water from an aquifer it is necessa:ry to attempt to quantify its hydraulic properties. Such properties include transmissivity, storage coefficient, and hydraulic conductivity. These quantities cannot be measured directly, but they can be derived using aquifer-test data and applying various formulae derived from Darcy's Law, a basic equation of ground-water flow. Well yields, which can be measured directly, are also useful for assessing ground-water availability; however, they are affected by factors other than those intrinsic to the aquifer. The locations of wells used to assess aquifer properties are displayed on Plate 6.
Specific capacity is a measure of the yield of a pumping well. It is the rate of ground-water withdrawal, expressed in gallons per minute, per unit of drawdown, expressed in feet (gpm/ft). The specific-capacity value of a well gives a rough estimate ofground-water availability, but reflects properties of the well in addition to properties of the aquifer. Factorswhich influence the efficiency ofpumping wells, such as well diameter, degree of well development, and pumping rate affect the specific-capacity value. The length of open borehole or screen and the length ofpumping time also affect specific capacity. When the specific-capacity value is divided by the length of open borehole, in feet, the result is an average yield per crosssectional area of aquifer, known as the specificcapacity index. Specific-capacity indices can be compared more directly than specific capacityvalues, but the indices do not allow for the va:rying efficiencies of wells of different construction. In fractured carbonate aquifers, specific capacity

28

surficial aquifer
upper confining
unit
Floridan aquifer system
lower confining
unit

Casing and Cement Grout
Open Hole

Figure 12. Typical well construction, Floridan aquifer system.
29

indices may be anomalously high. Transmissivity (T) is a measure ofthe relative
ease with which water moves through an aquifer. It is the rate at which water will move through a unit width of aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. Transmissivity is expressed in units of
feet squared per day (ft2I d). Transmissivityvalues
reflect both the permeability ofthe aquifer and the thickness ofthe aquifer. Storage coefficient is the volume ofwater an aquifer releases from or takes into storage per unit surface area under a unit change in head. This dimensionless number is a measure of both the expandability of water and the compressability ofthe aquifer. The response of an aquifer to changes in the ground-water flow system is dependent in part on the storage coefficient and transmissivity.
Hydraulic conductivity is another relative measure ofthe permeability ofan aquifer. It is the rate at which water moves through a unit area of aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient, and it is expressed in feet per day (ft/d). The hydraulic conductivity (K) value is commonly obtained by dividing the transmissivityvalue by the thickness of the aquifer. This approach assumes that the transmissivity is homogeneous. Where this is not the case, the K value obtained represents an average value.
Speciftc Capacity
Although specific-capacityvalues are affected by the construction and development of a given well in addition to the physical properties of the aquifer, they are often useful as a gauge of the availability of ground water from an aquifer in a given area. Low specific-capacity values often indicate an area where aquifer permeability is reduced, making ground water difficult to obtain. The effects of differing well diameters ~nd depths produce many exceptions to this general rule, however. Specific capacity values from the Floridan aquifer system in the study area are displayed on Plate 7. Examples_ of areas in the troughembayment where wells exhibit low specific-capacityvalues include: the Hazelhurst area, in Jeff Davis County; the Lyons area, in Toombs County; and the vicinity of Meigs, in northern Thomas and southern Mitchell Counties. Northern Berrien County, in the vicinity of Enigma, is also characterized by low specific-capacityvalues, but data in this area are sparse. These areas may be contrasted with the city ofTifton, in Tift County, north of the Gulf Trough. Wells in the Tifton area have much higher specific capacity values than many

wells within the trough-embayment, but allowances must be made for the much larger diameters of the Tifton city wells compared to those commonly drilled elsewhere in the study area.
Specific-Capacity Indices
In order to minimize the effect ofvarying well depths on specific-capacity values, specific-capacity indices were calculated. Like the specificcapacity values, the indices vary considerably, but generally they are lower in the the troughembayment than outside it (Plate 8). Several observations can be made using specific-capacity indices which are not possible using specificcapacity values. The southwestern half of the study area, from Coffee County southwestward, exhibited generally higher specific-capacity indices than does the northeastem half. The specificcapacity indices in this area are also lower inside the trough-embayment than outside it. For example, in the Tift and Berrien Counties area, and southwestward, 17 of 22 wells with specific-capacity indices of 0. 1 gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/ft2) or less lie in the trough-embayment. This trend continues to the northeast, as far as and including Tattnall County. In this area, 39 of 45 wells with specific-capacity indices in excess of 0.1 gpm/ft2lie outside the Gulf Trough. The influence of the trough can be seen as far northeastward as Statesboro, in central Bulloch County. Wells on the north side ofStatesboro have higher specific capacity indices than those on the south side, which lie near the probable terminus ofthe GulfTrough.
Transmissivity
The range and distribution of estimated transmissivity values are shown on Plate 9. In the northeastem portion of the study area, from northern Berrien County to central Bulloch County, transmissivity values are lowest along the trend of the Gulf Trough. Low values also extend northward beyond the flank of the trough proper, into Wheeler, Montgomery, and southeastern Telfair Counties, and southward beyond the flank into Appling County. The southwestern part of the study area shows a more complex distribution of transmissivity values. Although low transmissivity values are observed within the trough-embayment, they also occur in scattered places to the north of the trough in Worth County and western Tift County. Low values are observed withinthethe trough-embaymentasfar southward

30

asnorthernGradyandThomas Counties. whereas the southern portions of these counties exhibit some ofthe highest estimated transmissivityvalues in the study area. The Cairo East-Side Water Plantwell exhibits a transmissivityvalue of430,000
ft2I d, probably a result ofa large void encountered
during drilling (Dan Wells. pers. comm.). On the southeastern side ofthe trough-embayment, high
transmissivityvalues (100,000 ft2 I d or greater) can
be observed in southern Thomas. southern Cook and Berrien Counties, and central Coffee County.
Hydraulic Conductivity
The distribution and range of estimated hydraulic-conductivityvalues (Plate 10) in the study area is broadly similar to that of transmissivity values. The lowest values cluster along the trend of the trough-embayment. The highest values in the study area appear in the Dougherty Plain, along the northern edge of the Apalachicola Embayment and along the southern flank of the trough-embayment from central Coffee County southwestward into Berrien, Cook, and Thomas Counties. A Cairo city wellwithin the embayment, in Grady County, has an estimated hydraulic
conductivity value of 5800 ft.I d.
RECHARGE
Recharge patterns are an important factor in ground-water availability. The Floridan aquifer system receives recharge from a varietyofsources. One primary recharge area isthe Dougherty Plain, where the upper Eocene Ocala Limestone crops out or is covered by a thin veneer of residuum. Topographic slopes in this area are low and infiltration rates high. Rainfall infiltrates the aquifer directly, at an estimated rate of 10 inches peryear over an area of 4000 square miles (Bush, 1982). Limestones of the Floridan system also crop out northeast ofthe DoughertyPlainas far asWilkinson and Laurens Counties, but recharge in this area isreduced bythe smalleroutcrop area and steeper topographic slope. Further to the northeast, Oligocene and Eocene rocks are primarily clastic in the outcrop area, but grade downdip into limestones. Recharge to the Floridan in this area is through the clastic Jacksonian aquifer (Vincent, 1982), which is continuous with, and stratigraphically equivalent to, a portion of the downdip carbonate Floridan aquifer system.
The upper confining unit of the Floridan is thin in the Brooks and Lowndes Counties area, and it is breached by numerous sinkholes as well as by the Withlacoochee River. Krause (1979)

estimated that, on the average, the Withlacoochee
River loses 112 cubic feet ofwater per second (ft3I
s) to the aquifer. Sinkholes along the stream will accept all the water from the river when flow rates
do not exceed 40 ft3 Is.
A third important source of recharge to the Floridan aquifer system is diffuse leakage of water from overlying clastic sediments. Although clay layers of very low permeability separate the Floridan from these overlying sediments, small amounts of water are able to move across the confining layers and enter the aquifer. Areas where the potentiometric surface has been lowered by pumping of the aquifer are particularly subject to leakage of this type. The amount of water which crosses the confining layer in any given area is small, but taken over the entire extent of the aquifer, the amount of recharge by leakage is significant (Bush, 1982).
GROUND-WATER FLOW
The potentiometric map ofthe Floridan aquifer system shows the effects ofthe GulfTrough on ground-water flow (Figure 8). Water entering the aquifer system northwest of the Gulf Trough flows laterally downgradient towards discharge points to the southeast. The hydraulic gradient north of the trough is fairly uniform, but it steepens abrubtly across the trough. The low-permeability limestones of the Gulf Trough exert a damming effect on ground water in the aquifer. Northeast of the Gulf Trough, in Bulloch County and northeastward, the direction ofground-waterflow is southeast, under a uniform hydraulic gradient. Southeast of the Gulf Trough, ground-water flow is sluggish, despite the high transmissivity of the aquifer in this area (Bush, 1982).
Ground-water flow in the southwestern half of the study area shows a more complex pattern. Water entering the aquifer where it is unconfined and thinly confined in the Dougherty Plain area flows laterally downgradient both to the southeast and southwest. Water entering the aquifer in the recharge area near Valdosta flows downgradient in all directions, away from the potentiometric high. It is important to note that certain areas in and near the Apalachicola Embayment, such as the southern Cook and Berrien Counties area, receive ground-water flow from two directions, across the Gulf Trough from the north and from the Valdosta area in the south.
ANALYSIS OF GROUND-WATER AVAILABILITY
The availability of g~ound water from the

31

Floridan aquifer system in the study area is determined by a complex interaction of 1) the lithology of the rocks which compose the aquifer, 2) the morphology of the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment, and 3) the recharge, discharge, and flow relationships within the trough-embayment. These factors combine to reduce the permeability of the Floridan system in this area and hence affect the availability of ground water from the aquifer.
Uthologic Factors and Availability of Ground Water
The Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment appearto have existed asbathymetric depressions from middle Eocene through early Miocene time. Because the trough and embayment were different environments, in terms of water depth and energyconditions, thanthe surrounding shallow shelf, stratigraphic units change in li~ thology as they cross the trough-embayment. The rocks which were deposited in the troughembayment are fine-grained, relatively deep-water limestones (Huddlestun and others, in preparation) Permeability tests show these limestones to be lower in average primary premeability than those found outside. Some stratigraphic units are confined to the trough-embayment and show abrupt facies changes from rocks ofthe same age outside the trough. For example, the Lower Oligocene Ochlockonee Formation and its Pridgen Limestone Member are both relatively deep-water limestones and are confmed to the trough or embayment, whereas the more permeable, shallow-water Bridgeboro Limestone occupies the flanks. A similar situation occurs in the Upper Eocene; the permeable, shallow-water Ocala Limestone is present outside the troughembayment, and a dense, deeper-water limestone (undifferentiated Upper Eocene limestone) is present inside it.
Another possible cause of reduced permeability ofthe Floridan aquifersysteminthetroughembayment may be the presence ofsmall amounts of swelling clay within the limestone. Visual and microscopic examinations connnonly do not reveal the presence of any clay. However, its presenceissuggestedbythefact thatlimestones inthe trough, the Ochlockonee Limestone for example, oftenproduce core samples which are longerthan the coring run. For example, a fifteen-foot coring run may yield sixteen feet of core when removed from the core barrel. Also, during permeability testing, some newly saturated samples produce hydraulic conductivity values that decrease with

time. Samples that are allo.ved to "rest" after saturation yield values that plot linearly. This effect is interpreted to be the result of swelling of clays during saturation.
Northeast of the Gulf Trough, in portions of Bulloch and Screven Counties, the Oligocene sediments contain a higher percentage of clastic material than do those to the southwest. The Oligocene section in Bulloch County may locally be represented by a sandy limestone or even a sand, and the Upper Eocene limestones grade laterally updip into clastic rocks of the Barnwell Group. The Floridan aquifer system in this area exhibits reduced permeability as a result.
Ground-water Flow Factors and Availability ofGround Water
All of the above factors relate, for the most part, to the primary permeability ofthe limestone. Secondarypermeabilityis producedby dissolution of the limestone as ground water flows through joints, fractures, and other openings in the rock, and it is the major source ofpermeability in most limestone aquifers. Both the lithology of the limestones and the morphology of the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment may affect the secondary permeability of the Floridan aquifer system in the study area.
The development of secondary permeability in limestone aquifers follows a connnon pattern. Massive limestones, which mayhave little primary permeability, are prone to develop networks of joints, which then provide apathforground-water flow. Dissolution ofthe limestone occurs along the joints. The degree to which dissolution occurs along a givenground-waterflow path is dependant on the length of the flow path and the saturation ofthewaterwith respect to carbon dioxide. Short, shallow flow paths traversed by water relatively high in carbon dioxide concentration will undergo the most dissolution per unit volume oflimestone. In this way, shallow flow zones are developed at the expense ofthe deeper flow zones (Rhoades and Sinacori, 1941).
Bush (1982), in his model of pre-development flow inthe Tertiary (Floridan) aquifer system, showed that the greatest degree of secondary permeabilitywas produced inthe unconfined and thinly confined portions of the aquifer, where the most active flow was taking place. These areas had the greatest inflow and outflow of ground water, and hence experienced the greatest degree of dissolution.
The Floridan aquifer systemwithin the study area conforms to the pattern ofhighest permeability

32

inthe unconfined orthinlyconfined areas. Permeability is low in areas such as the Gulf Trough, where the aquiferis overlainbya thickoverburden. This is also true for the thickly confined Wheeler and Montgomery Counties area, for the Appling and Bacon Counties area within the Southeast Georgia Embayment, and for the thickly confined portions of the Apalachicola Embayment. The ApalachicolaEmbayment in Colquitt Countyis an example of thick overburden coupled with low permeability; however, thinly confined portions of the embayment show much higher permeability. This is true in southeastern Grady County, where thinner overburden and proximity to recharge from the Valdosta area produce a more active flow system. The southern Cook and Berrien Counties area receives ground-water flow from across the GulfTrough as well as recharge from the Valdosta area. Transmissivity of the shallow zone of the
Floridan system in this area reaches 360,000 ft2I
d, one of the highest values reported from the study area.
Development of secondary permeability, and, hence, the availability of ground water in the GulfTrough and Apalachicola Embayment area is dependant on such lithologic factors as the density of the deep-water limestones in the area, their susceptibility to fractures, and possibly, the presence of swelling clays within the limestones. The morphology of the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment exerts a profound influence on ground-water availability by determining the thickness of sediments overlying the aquifer and by its effects on regional groundwater flow patterns.
GROUND-WATER QUALITY
GENERAL
All ground water is ultimately derived from precipitation. Precipitation contains almost no impurities; however, the soil and rocks which this water infiltrates contribute various chemical constituentsto thewater. The chemicalspeciespresent in ground water, and their concentrations, reflect all ofthe chemical processes that have affected the water since it fell as precipitation. The elements present in the rocks along the flow path of the water, the solubility of the rocks, the pH of the water, and the sequence in which that water contacts the various minerals along its flow path, are some of the factors which will affect the chemical makeup of ground water (Freeze and

Cherry, 1979).Aswatermoves through the ground its chemical constituents and their concentrations may change. Ground water in a limestone aquifertypicallybecomes higherin dissolved solids and in pH with longer residence time.
The quality ofgroundwaterfrom the Floridan aquifer system in the study area is, in general, quite good. The Georgia Rules for Safe Drinking Water establish primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for potentially harmful substances in drinking water, and secondary MCLs for substances that affect the sight, taste, or smell of drinking water. Water from the majority ofwells in the area falls below the specified MCLs. Elevated levels ofsulfate, barium, and natural radioactMty are, however, associated with the GulfTrough and Apalachicola Embayment, and reduce water quality in some areas.
Ground-water chemistry may be characterized by examining the abundance of the major cations, including calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium, and the major anions, including bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride. The relative percentages of these ions in a water sample may be illustrated by using Piper diagrams (Piper, 1944). Plots ofthe concentration ofthe major ions (in milliequivalents per liter) are known as Stiff diagrams (Stiff, 1951).
GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN THE GULF TROUGH AND APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT
The dominant anion in ground water from the Floridan aquifer is bicarbonate (Plate 11). Most ofthe sampleswhich showed greaterthan 15 percent sulfate anions were from wells located in theApalachicola Embayment. Cationpercentages were more variable, but calcium was the most prevalent cation. Ground-water samples taken from near recharge areas typically contained a high ratio of calcium to other cations. Most of the samples which had significant percentages of sodium orpotassiumwere takenfromwellslocated in the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment.
Because ground water typically increases in dissolved solids content as it progresses downgradient through the flow system, dissolvedsolids concentration is a useful indication of flow path length or residence time. Water from the Floridan aquifer system in the study area contains total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations ranging from 26 milligrams per liter (mg/1) to 761 mg/ 1; however, most values fall between 130 and 250 mg/1. High TDS values are present within the Apalachicola Embayment in Grady County and in southern Colquitt County, where the thick

33

overburden retards ground-water flow and increases residence time. Most IDS values reported for ground water from Thomas County are high, although some fall within the typical range of the study area. Slightly elevated values are reported for water from scattered wells in Brooks and Appling County, inthe thickly confined Southeast Georgia Embayment. The Georgia Rules for Safe Drinking Water establish a secondary MCL of 500 mg/1 dissolved solids. Elevated levels of sulfate, barium, and natural radioactivity have been reported from the study area. The close geographic association of such water-quality anomalies with the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment suggests a possible relationship.
SULFATE IN GROUND WATER
The secondary MCL for sulfate in drinking water has been established not to exceed 250 mg/ 1. Sulfate may produce a detectable taste at 300 to 400 mg/1, and at 500 mg/1 it will produce a medicinal taste and, possibly, a laxative effect (Lehr and others, 1980).
Distribution of Sulfate
Elevated levels of sulfate have been reported from wells tapping the Floridan aquifer system in the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area. Plate 13 shows the range and distribution of sulfate levels in the study area. Sulfate concentrations exceeding 100 mg/1 are restricted to the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment, with the exception of water from one USGS test well in Cook County. A number of counties southeast of thetrough-embaymentcontainwellsthat produce water with sulfate concentrations of 50 to 100
mg/1. They include Appling, Atkinson, Bacon,
southern Berrien, Evans, and southern Tattnall Counties.
Sulfate levels vary widely with depth. For example, water samples from the USGS test well at Adel in Cook County, varied from 256 mg/1 at a depth of227 to 243 feet, to 610 mg/1 at 452 to 468 feet (Grantham and Stokes, 1976). Nearby municipal wells in Adel do not exceed 400 feet in depth, and sulfate concentrations in water from. these wells are less than 100 mg/1. Water samples from the USGS test well at Cairo, in Grady County, contained concentrations of sulfate that ranged from 5.6 mg/1 to as high as 1000 mg/1, depending on the depth sampled (Grantham and Stokes, 1976). The lowest concentrations were from samples obtained from sediments overlying the Floridan aquifer, whereas the highest concentra-

tions were from the base of the Floridan aquifer.
Source of Sulfate
Themostcommonsource ofsulfate inground water is gypsum. Within and southeast of the Apalachicola Embayment, the lowermostportions ofthe Floridanaquifersystemcontains significant amounts of interstitial gypsum. Southeast of the Apalachicola Embayment, the lower part of the Upper Eocene Ocala Limestone contains sufficient amounts ofinterstitial gypsum to exclude it from the aquifer.
The presence of the Gulf Trough and ApalachicolaEmbaymentinhibitsthe development ofsecondary permeability in the lower parts ofthe Floridan aquifer system. Reduced permeability in tum inhibits the dissolution of gypsum and the removal of sulphate from the aquifer. Relatively high concentrations ofgypsum thus remain inthe aquifermatrixin its lowerparts. Sluggish groundwater flow through these zones and correspondingly longer residence time contribute to the elevated levels of sulfate in ground water.
BARIUM IN GROUND WATER
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division samples water from public-supply systems for barium content. The m~orityofthese analyses were conducted ontreated water; however, barium concentrations are not affected by most types of water treatments. The established primary MCL for barium in drinking water is 1000 micrograms per liter (ug/1). Barium concentrations in ground water from the Floridan aquifer system are generally low. Most of the water samples analyzed between January 1976, and June 1982, had concentrations ofbariumthatwere at orbelow the 200 ug/1 detection limit.
Distribution of Barium
Plate 14 shows the concentration of barium for those samples that exceeded the detection limit and also showsthe total number ofmunicipal water systems in each county whose samples fell below the detectionlimit for barium. The Floridan aquifer system is assumed to be the source for most public-supply systems in the study area; however, this could not be confirmed in all cases due to a lack of well construction data. Samples from specific wells known to tap the Floridan aquifer system are distinguished onthe map from those taken from public-supply systems, which may use more than one well, or from wells of

34

unknown construction. Detectable concentrations of barium are
generally restricted to wells north ofthe axis ofthe Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment. Concentrations ofbarium in excess of the drinking water standards are found at Fitzgerald, in Ben Hill County(Plate 14). FitzgeraldmunicipalwellsA, B, C, D, and E consistently produce water with barium concentrations in the range of 1300 to 2260 ug/1. Water samples from city wells F and G, which are shallower than wells A through E, contain concentrations at or below the detection limit. Shallow domestic wells tapping the Floridan system in the vicinity of Fitgerald also produce waterwith lower concentrations of barium,ranging from 250 to 350 ug/l. High barium concentrations thus appear to be confined to the lower portions of the aquifer. Water samples collectedfrom discrete depth intervals in municipal wells C and E failed to pinpoint zones ofbarium concentration, possibly due to mixing of water in the borehole.
Source of Barium
The source of barium in the Fitzgerald area is not understood. Mineral sources of barium in ground water include such common minerals as barite and such rare ones as gorceixite (Milton and others, 1958; Michel and others, 1982). Barite is one of the most common barium-containing minerals; however, its solubilityis such that water would typicallybe saturatedwith respect to barium at concentrations that fall below the limits of detection. The presence ofsulfate, even at relatively moderate concentrations, will cause the precipitation of barite, thus removing barium from the ground water. Sulfate levels in ground water must be relatively low in order for levels of barium to reach detection limits. This most often occurs where bacterial activity removes sulfate from the ground water (Gilkeson and others, 1983) and may be the case in the Fitzgerald area. This study found no evidence ofa causal relationship between elevated barium levels and the presence of the trough -embayment.
NATURAL RADIOACTIVITY IN GROUND WATER
Elevated activity of radioactive elements is closely associated with the Gulf TroughApalachicola Embayment. Several public-supply wells have yielded water that exceeds drinking water standards for natural radioactivity and have been plugged or reconstructed as a result. In other cases, water from affected and una1Iected

wells is combined in the municipal water system, and the mixed water then meets drinking water standards.
Radioactivity is a product of the unstable decay ofa number ofdifferent naturally occurring radioactive isotopes. The Georgia Rules for Safe Drinking Water specify MCLs for several specific isotopes aswell as for total particle activity. Within the study area, the only two parameters known to exceed the MCLs are gross alpha activity and Radium-226. All municipal water systems are tested for gross alpha activity, for which the MCL is 15 picocuries per liter (piC/l).excluding radon and uranium. Water sampleswhich exceed 5 piC/ 1 gross alpha activity are then tested for the combined level of Radium-226 and Radium-228. The MCL for this parameter is 5 piC/1. Radium226 and 228 are ofconcern from a health standpoint because they can be ingested and can accumulate in the bones. The daughter products ofthe nuclides are short-lived alpha-emitters, which are particularly hannful to the body (Gilkeson and others, 1983).
Laboratory results indicate that Radium226 is the dominant alpha emitter in the study area, and that Radium-228 activity is negligible. Because of the greater availability ofdata on gross alpha activity, and because the majority of that activity can be attributed to Radium-226, only gross alpha activity was mapped in this study.
Distribution of Radioactivity
Plate 15 shows the known values of gross alpha activity in the study area. Most ofthe values included are from samples collected from the distribution lines of municipal water systems. If a system uses multiple wells, the values often cannot be assigned to water from any particular well. Two types of map symbols are used to distinguish these values from those ofwater from specific wells. The majority of samples tested had gross alpha activities of 4 piC/1 or less. Many of the samples that exceeded this level were taken from wells in the Gulf Trough or Apalachicola Embayment. The two areas that show the highest gross alpha activity are the Tift-Berrien Counties area, and theWheeler-Montgomery Counties area. The occurrence of radioactivity in these areas indicates two separate patterns.
High gross alpha levels in ground water are associated with high gamma-rayactivity. Gammaray logs of water wells can help identify zones which will produce water with high gross alpha levels. In the Wheeler-Montgomery Counties area, two distinct zones of gamma radiation can be

35

identified on gamma-ray logs. The upper zone appears above the Floridan aquifer in the Miocene section, where it appears to be associated with voids in the limestone (John Fernstrom, EPD, personal communication). The lower zone ofhigh gamma radiation is located at the top of the Floridan aquifer system. Several public supply wells in the area contained water which exceeded drinking water standards for radiation. The cities of Ailey, Alamo, Mount Vernon, and Tarrytown drilled new wells to replace those that yielded water with high radiation levels. The new wells were cased to greater depths in an attempt to exclude the radioactive zones. Most ofthese wells subsequently produced water which met standards, with one exception. The replacement well at Alamo was cased to four feet above the base of the gamma-ray anomaly. Water from the well met drinking water standards for five years before the radiation again exceeded standards. In 1987, a third well was drilled and logged, and casing was installed to a depth below the zones of radiation. Thiswell now produceswaterfree from significant amounts of radiation.
High radiation levels in ground water from the Tift and Berrien Counties area are restricted to wells that are in or near the GulfTrough; however, high gross alpha activity is not found in all of the wells within the trough. Highest levels are found inthevicinityofTifton, inTift County, andAlapaha. in Berrien County.
The city of Tifton, on the north flank of the GulfTrough, has removed municipal well5 from production due to high radioactivity levels. The gamma log of this well shows large gamma anomalies at depths of 350 feet (cased), 495 feet, and 525 feet. The city replaced this well with municipal well 7, located 3400 feet to the northwest, farther from the trough. The gamma log of well 7 shows moderate gamma-ray activity at 190 feet (cased) and at 290 feet. The gross alpha actMty of the water from this well is at or below background levels. Gross alpha activity of water from nearbymunicipalwellnumber4has declined
from 7 2 piC/1 to 4 1 piC/1 since well 5 was
taken off line. The city of Alapaha, which lies in the Gulf Trough, has two production wells, both of which produce water with higher than normal amounts of radioactivity. Gamma-ray logs ofthese wells show high gamma-ray activity between depths of 380 and 400 feet. A test well (GGS 3555) was drilled, logged, and sampled in an attempt to develop a new well to supply water to the city ofAlapaha. An inflatable packerwas used to isolate and sample discrete depth inteiVals.

The packerwas set at depths of360, 375, and 381 feet. Tests of water samples collected from beneath the packer for each of these depths indi-
cated gross alpha activities of 12 2, 12 2, and
10 2 piC/1, respectively. A gamma-ray log showed no discrete zones of high radiation. A nearby domestic well, located 800 feet to the east, produceswaterwhich meets drinking water standards, but this well is significantly shallower than the city ofAlapaha test well. Although at the same land elevation, the domestic well is cased to 272 feet, while the test well is cased to 358 feet.
Assuming that bothwells are cased to the top of the aquifer, this means that there is a significant amount ofreliefon the top ofthe aquifer. Logs of the city ofTifton municipal wells also indicate that the top of the aquifer is irregular, and wells number 4 and 5, which produce waterwith higher than normal gross alpha activity, are located in areas where the top ofthe aquifer is low. Drillers in the Berrien County area also report that high radioactivity seems to be associated with low areas of the top of the aquifer.
Source of Radioactivity
Radioactivity in the study area is dominated by the decay of Radium-226. Radium-226 is a part. of the Uranium-238 decay series that follows, in order, Uranium-238, Thorium-234, Proactinium-234, Uranium-234, Thorium-230, and Radium-226. Radium-226 in tum decays to form Radon-222, and a succcession ofshort-lived daughter products. The activity levels of these isotopes vary. Some, like Uranium-238, have low alpha particle activity, while others, such as Radium-226, are shorter-lived and have high activity levels.
In order to define the controls on the occurrence of Radium-226 in ground water, it is necessary to determine the activity of the other isotopes in the decay series (Gilkeson and others, 1984). These data are not available for the study area; however, certain hypotheses canbe made as to the source of the radioactivity.
Uranium-bearing minerals are the ultimate source ofthe Radium-226 in ground water in the study area. Elevated radioactivity levels are geographicallywidespread, indicatingthatthe source of the parent isotopes is also widespread. The Miocene and younger sediments in the Coastal Plain contain clastic sediments derived from the crystalline rocks of the Piedmont, which contain uranium-bearing minerals such as monazite. Portions of the Miocene sediments in Georgia are

36

rich in radioactive phosphate minerals, which contain inclusions of Piedmont-derived quartz, microcline, and opaque minerals. Additionally, the dark phosphate pellets contain pyrite and carbonaceous organic matter (Simmons, 1968). Uranium is soluble under oxidizing conditions and precipitates under reducing conditions. Uranium was incorporated in the phosphate minerals due to the reducing conditions produced by the decay oforganic matter and the presence of pyrite. Under proper conditions the uranium contained in these minerals can be leached and can enter the ground water.
Typically, ground water in recharge areas is oxidizing and has relatively high levels ofuranium, which has a low activity level (Korosy, 1984). As ground water enters reducing conditions, the uranium is deposited on the aquifer matrix, lowering concentrations ofuranium in ground water. The uranium then decays. producing daughter products with high activitylevels, such as Radium226. Through the alpha recoil process, the Radium226 is thrown offthe aquifer matrix, and it enters the ground water (Gilkeson and others, 1983).
Reducing conditions in an aquifer can be produced where ground-water flow is sluggish, or where reducing agents such as pyrite or organic matter are present in the aquifer. The GulfTrough and Apalachicola Embayment provide these conditions. The thicksediments overlying the Floridan aquifer system in the GulfTrough and parts ofthe Apalachicola Embayment retard the inflow of oxygen-rich water. In addition, the limestones which comprise the Floridan system in the trough and embayment are less permeable and contain more pyrite than their counterparts outside the feature. Finally, the top of the Oligocene section was exposed and eroded. The paleo-karst developed on this surface trapped fine-grained sediments, rich in organic debris.
High radioactivity levels follow the trend of the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment, appearing most often in water from the lower Miocene section and the upper portion of the Floridanaquifersystem. Itis probable that reducing conditions produced in the Lower Miocene sediments and the Oligocene limestones ofthe Floridan system caused the precipitation of uranium on the aquifer matrix and overlying sediments. The Floridan aquifer system in the Wheeler-Montgomery-Toombs Counties area, though outside the Gulf Trough, is thickly confined and its upper surface karstic and irregular. Therefore, it would also provide the reducing conditions necessary for the precipitation ofuranium. Radioactive decay of

the uranium would then contribute Radium-226 to the ground water.
Gilkeson and others (1984) and Michel and others (1982) demonstrated the importance of analyzing data on all isotopes in the decay series in order to develop a comprehensive model ofthe distribution ofradioactivity in ground water. Thus, further delineation of the controls on the occurrence of Radium-226 will require more data on the distribution of the parent and daughter isotopes. However, the available information is useful in understanding the mechanism by which Radium-226 enters the ground water, and in identifying areas where high levels of natural radioactivity are likely to be encountered.
SUMMARY
The hydrogeology of the study area is dominated by the presence of a subsurface geologic feature known as the Apalachicola Embayment and by its narrow. northeastward extension, the Gulf Trough. The Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment extends, in Georgia, from the extreme southwestcomerofthe Statenortheastward to central Bulloch County. The feature is sinuous and trough-shaped, widest at the southwest and narrowing northeastward. It was produced by a marine current, the Suwannee Current, which was active in the study area from the middle Eocene through the early Oligocene. This current flowed northeastward from the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic, inhibiting sedimentation in the Apalachicola Embayment and Gulf Trough during the late Eocene. Rising sea level during the late Oligocene and Miocene caused the cessation of the current. Filling of the trough-embayment occurred during the Oligocene and early Miocene (Aquitanian) .The Suwannee Current controlled sedimentation in the trough-embayment from late Eocene through early Miocene. The Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment are characterized by dense, low-permeability, deeper-water limestones. Upper Eocene sedimentsinthe troughembayment are uncharacteristically thin, whereas those on the north and south flanks are much thicker. Oligocene sediments thicken as they cross the trough-embayment, as do the lower Miocene sediments.
The Floridan aquifer system is the most widely used aquifer in the Coastal Plain of Georgia. It iscomposed ofa thicksequence of permeable

37

limestones, ranging in age from Paleocene to early Miocene. The Floridan aquifer system in its updip region is composed of a single permeable zone, whereas downdip one of several regional middle confining units divides the system into an Upper and a Lower Floridan aquifer. The lower confining unit of the system is highly variable in age and lithology. Throughout most of its extent in Georgia, the aquifer is confined above by clastic and carbonate rocks, mostly Miocene in age. Locally, the upper confining unit has been breached by sinkholes or streams, and in some areas it has been removed entirely by erosion. Thus, water in the Floridan aquifer system may be under semiconfined or unconfined conditions in these areas.
The Floridan aquifer system in the study areayields groundwaterfor agricultural, domestic, municipal, and industrial uses. Total water use in thestudyareain 1985was 179.4Mgal/d.Dramatic increases in ground-water withdrawals for irrigation in recent years have produced water-level declines in some areas; nevertheless. the Floridan aquifer system continues to yield adequate quantities of water to support these withdrawals.
Within the Gulf Trough and parts of the Apalachicola Embayment, the availability of ground water from the Floridan aquifer system is less than in surrounding areas. The permeability of the aquifer is reduced by a combination of factors: the lowprimarypermeabilityofthe deeperwater limestones of the trough-embayment; the greater thickness of overburden which limits development of secondary permeability, and possibly, a lack of joints or fractures to enhance movement of ground water. Certain areas within the Apalachicola Embayment and along its south flank are exceptions to this trend, however. The contact between the Miocene and Oligocene sediments in these areas is a zone of enhanced secondarypermeability, capable ofsupplyinglarge quantities of water to wells.
The qualityofgroundwaterfrom the Floridan aquifer system is reduced in certain parts of the studyarea. Elevated levels ofsulfate, barium, and natural radioactivity are associated with the Gulf Trough andApalachicolaEmbayment. High levels ofsulfate are reportedfromthe trough-embayment and from the Colquitt-Thomas-Grady Counties area. The most probable source of sulfate in ground water from the Floridan aquifer system in and southeast ofthe trough-embayment is interstitial gypsum contained in the limestones of the system. The sluggish ground-water flow through the lower parts ofthe aquifer system has inhibited the dissolution of gypsum and the removal of

sulphate from the aquifer. The long residence time of ground water in these lower parts produces high concentrations of sulphate.
Elevated levels of barium in ground water from the Floridan aquifer system are reported from the vicinity of Fitzgerald in Ben Hill County. The source of the barium is not understood. High levels of barium in ground water are usually the result of bacterial activity which lowers the concentration of sulfate in the water. This prevents the precipitation of barite and allows the concentration of barium in ground water to rise. Bacterial activity may be the cause of elevated barium concentrations in the Fitzgerald area.
High levels of natural radioactivity are also associated with the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment. The highest levels are found in the Wheeler-Montgomery Counties area, and in the Tift-Berrien Counties area, but elevated radioactivity levels are reported from water samples at other locations throughout the trough and embayment. The ultimate source of radioactivity in the ground water from this area is Uranium:. 238, probably derived from natural sources in or near the study area. The crystalline rocks of the Piedmont Province contain such uranium-bearing minerals as monazite, which were weathered and transported into the Coastal Plain. Also, the phosphate minerals of the Miocene sediments incorporate uranium in their crystal structure, and, hence, are another potential source. Uranium is soluble under oxidizing conditions and precipitates under reducing conditions. Oxidizing waters in recharge areas dissolve uranium from these sources and transport it until reducing conditions are encountered. Uranium is then deposited on the aquifer matrix. Reducing conditions are provided by the limestones of the trough-embayment because of their pyrite content and thick overburden. Paleo-sinkholes could also have provided reducing conditions, due to the decay of trapped organic matter. Through decay of the uranium, Radium 226 is thrown off the aquifer matrix and carried in ground water.
RECO~NDATIONS
The following recommendations are intended to provide suggestions for maximizingwater quality and yield for wells in the study area.
1) Wells should be located as far from the axis of the GulfTrough and Apalachicola Embayment as possible, in areas with the thinnest overburden.

38

2) Whenever practical, wells should be geophysically logged to locate permeable zones and facilitate design of efficient wells.
3) Water samples should be collected from wells drilled in the areas of high radioactivity (Figure 13). These samples should be analyzed for
gross alpha levels.
4) Municipalities located in the area of high radioactivity should run gamma-ray logs of new wells so that radioactive zones may be cased.
5) Municipalities which already have wells producing radioactive water may wish to consider drilling small-diameter test wells when choosing sites for new wells. These wells could be drilled at less expense than large-diameterwells, and could then be enlarged if conditions were found to be favorable.
6) The Miocene sediments in the GulfTrough and Apalachicola Embayment area should be investigated as an alternatiVe source of groundwater supply.
REFERENCES
Applin, E.R and Applin, P.L.,1964, Logs of selected wells in the Coastal Plains of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 74, 229 p.
Arora, Ram, ed., 1984, Hydrologic evaluation for Underground Injection Control in the Coastal Plain of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Smvey Hydrologic Atlas 10, 41 plates.
Bachtel, D.C., ed.,1987, The Georgia County Guide: The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Athens, Ga., 171 p.
Bush, P.W., 1982, Predevelopment Flow in the Tertiary Limestone Aquifer, Southeastern United States; A Regional Analysis from Digital Modeling: U. S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations 82-905, 41 p.
Bush, P.W.,Barr, G.L, Clarke,J.S. andJohnston, RH.,1987, Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Florida and in Parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama, May 1985: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 86-4316, 1 sheet.
Callahan, J.T., 1964, The Yield of Sedimentary Aquifers ofthe Coastal Plain, Southeast River Basins: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1669-W, 56 p.
Clark, W.Z., and Zisa, AC.,l976, Physiographic Map of Georgia, scale 1:2,000,000, Georgia

Geologic Survey. Clarke,J.S., Faye,RE.,and Brooks,Rebekah,1983,
Hydrogeology of the Providence Aquifer of Southwest Georgia; Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 11, 5 plates. Clarke.J.S.,Hester, W.G., and O'Byrne, M.P., 1978, Ground-Water Levels and Quality Data for Georgia, 1978: U.S. Geological Survey Openfile Report 79-1290, 94 p. Clarke, J.S., Longsworth, S.A, Joiner, C.N., Peck, M.F., McFadden, K.WandMilby, B.J. ,1986, Ground-water Data for Georgia, 1986: U. S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 87-376, 177 p. Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A.,1979, Groundwater: Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 604 p. Gelbaum, Carol, 1978, The Geology and GroundWater of the Gulf Trough, in Short Contributions to the Geology of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 93, p. 38-47. Gelbaum, Carol, and Howell, Julian, 1982, The Geohydrology of the Gulf Trough, in Arden, P.D., Beck, B.F., and Morrow, Eleanore, eds., Proceedings ofthe Second Symposium onthe Geology of the Southeastern Coastal Plain: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 53, p. 140-153. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 1977: Rules for Safe Drinking Water, Chapter 3913-5, 657 p. Gilkeson, RH., Cartwright, Keros, Cowart, J.B., and Holtzman, R.B., 1983, Hydrogeologic and Geochemical Studies of Selected Natural Radioisotopes and Barium in Groundwater in Illinois: University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Water Resources Center Research Report No. 180, 93 p. Gilkeson, R.H., Perry, Jr., E. C., Cowart, J.B., and Holtzman, R.B, 1984, Isotopic Studies ofthe Natural Sources of Radium in Groundwater in Illinois: University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Water Resources Center Report No. 187, 50 p. Grantham, R.G., and Stokes,W.R., 1976, Groundwater Quality Data for Georgia: U. S. Geological Survey Open-file Report. 216 p. Hem, J.D. 1985, Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water, 3rd. edition; U. S. Geological Survey Watersupply Paper 2254, 263 p. Hendry, C.W., Jr., and Sproul, C.R.,l966, Geology and Ground-water Resources of Leon County, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 47, 178 p.

39

0

20

40 Ml

I I E3

I 1--1 1--1 0 20 40 KM

N
t

Figure 13. Areas at greatest risk for elevated levels of natural radioactivity in ground water. 40

Herrick, S.M., and Wait, R.L., 1956, Ground Water in the Coastal Plain of Georgia: American WaterWorksAssoc. SoutheasternSec.Jour., v. 20, no. 1, p. 73-86.
Herrick, S.M., 1961, Well Logs of the Coastal Plain of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 70, 462 p.
Huddlestun, P.F., Hetrick, J.H., Kellam, M.F.. McFadden, S. S., in review, Geology of the GulfTrough-Apalachicola Embayment Area, Georgia, Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 123, (in preparation).
Korosy, M.G., 1984, Ground Water Flow Patterns as Delineated by Uranium Isotope Distributions in the Ochlockonee River Area, Southwest Georgia and Northwest Florida: unpublished M. S. thesis, Florida State University, Geology Department, 179 p.
Krause, R.E., 1979, Geohydrology of Brooks, Lowndes, and Western Echols Counties, Georgia: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 78-117, 48 p.
Krause, R.E., and Hayes, L.R., 1981, Potentiometric Surface of the Principal Artesian Aquifer in Georgia, May 1980: Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 6, 1 sheet.
Lehr, J.H., Gass, T.E., Pettyjohn, W.A., and DeMarre, Jack, 1980, Domestic Water Treatment: McGraw-Hill Book Company, NewYork, N.Y., 264 p.
Lohman, S.W., 1979, Ground-water Hydraulics, U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708, 70 p.
McCallie, S.W., 1908, A Preliminary Report on the Underground Waters of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 15, 370 p.
McFadden, S.S., Hetrick, J.H., Kellam, M.F., Rodenbeck, S.A, and Huddlestun, P. F., 1986, Geologic Data of the Gulf Trough Area, Georgia: Georgia Geologic SurveyInformation Circular 56, 345 p.
McFadden, S.S., and Perriello, P.D., 1983, Hydrogeology of the Clayton and Claiborne Aquifers in Southwestern Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 55, 59 p.
Meinzer, O.E., 1923, The Occurrence of Ground Water in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 489, 321 p.
Michel, Jacqueline, Cole, K. H., and Moore, W. S., 1982, Uraniferous Gorceixite in the South Carolina Coastal Plain (U.S.A): Chern. Geol., val. 35: p. 227-245.
Miller, J. A, 1982, Geology and Configuration of the Top of the Tertiary Limestone Aquifer

System: U. S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 81-1178, 1 plate. Miller, J. A., 1986, Hydrogeologic Framework of the FloridanAquifer System in Florida and in Parts of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-B, 91 p. Milton, Charles, Axelrod, J. M.. Carron, M. K.. and McNeil, F. S. ,1958, Gorceixite from Dale County,Alabama: TheAmerican Mineralogist, val. 43, 1958, p. 688-694. Owen. Vaux, 1963, Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Mitchell County, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 24, 40 p. Piper, A.M.. 1944, A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation ofwater analyses: Am. Geophys. Union Trans., v. 25, pp. 914923. Pollard, L. D., and Vorhis, R. C., 1980, The Geohydrology of the Cretaceous Aquifer System in Georgia, Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 3, 5 plates. Rhoades, Roger, and Sinacori, M. N., 1941, Pattern of Ground-water Flow and Solution: Journal of Geology, v. 49, no. 8, p. 785-794. Sever, C. W., 1966, Reconnaissance ofthe Ground Water and Geology of Thomas County, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 34, 14 p. Sever, C. W., 1969, Hydraulics of Aquifers at Alapaha, Coolidge, Fitzgerald, Montezuma, and Thomasville, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 36, 16 p. Sever, C. W., and Herrick, S. W., 1967, Tertiary Stratigraphy and Geohydrology in Southwestern Georgia: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 575-B, p. B50-B53. Simmons, W.B., Jr. 1968, Mineralogy of south Georgia and North Carolina phosphorite: unpublished M.S. thesis, University of Georgia, Geology Department. 77 p. Stephenson, L. W., and Veatch, J. 0, 1915, Underground Waters of the Coastal Plain of Georgia, and a Discussion of the Quality of the Waters: U. S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 341, 321 p. Stiff, H.A., Jr., 1951, The interpretation of chemical water analysis by means of patterns: Jour. of Petrol. Tech., v. 3, No. 10, Technical Note 84, pp. 15-16. Stringfield, V. T., l966,ArtesianWaterinTertiary Limestone in the Southeastern United States: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 517, 226 p.

41

Swanson, D. E., and Gernazian, Andrea, 1979, Petroleum Exploration Wells in Georgia: Georgia Geologic SuiVey Information Circular 51, 67 p.
Turlington, M. C., Fanning, J. L., and Doonan, G. A., 1985, Water Use in Georgia by County for 1985: Georgia Geologic SuiVey Information Circular 81, 109 p.
Vincent, H. R., 1982, Geohydrology of the Jacksonian Aquifer in Central and Eastcentral Georgia: Georgia Geologic SuiVey Hydrologic Atlas 8, 3 sheets.
Wait, R L., 1960, Source and Quality of Ground Water in Southwestern Georgia: Georgia Geologic SuiVey Information Circular 18, 72 p.
Warren, M.A., 1944, Artesian Water in Southeastern Georgia: Georgia Geologic SuiVey Bulletin 49, 140 p.
Zimmerman, E. A., 1977, Ground-WaterResources of Colquitt County, Georgia: U. S. Geological SuiVey Open-file Report 77-56, 41 p.
42

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

** APPLING

50 204

515

b 840

B

148 225

520

1325

B

161 242e

550

b 640

B

1059 203

b 520

1701 144

610

28L005 130

540

** ATKINSON
107 214 410 295 425 199 918 243 1548 171 1549 189 1557 206 1714 193 1715 195 1716 212 1717 150 1848 164 1855 154 1877 166 2122 186 2164 162

260

780

B

274

b 425

B

290

b 460

B

270

b 445

B

340

b 380

270

b 300

290

b 360

300

b 330

270

b 335

310

b 350

350

b 390

340

b 420

360

b 370

360

b 400

350

b 430

360

b 410

** BACON
58 201

450

b 625

B

** BEN HILL
154 353 160 355 355 363 1738 359 1830 368 1832 354 1838 248 1842 335 1858 362 1863 372 1867 352 1868 365

256

b 739

B

260

b 380

B

243

b 295

260

b 410

B

240

b 310

240

b 370

B

130

b 232

B

200

b 310

B

260

b 382

B

210

b 215

264

b 330

180

b 240

43

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

1869 378 1872 334 1883 350 1884 356 1898 335 2111 260 3037 197
** BERRIEN
159 250 1368 291 1815 235 1843 244 1856 249 1860 243 1875 215 1881 272 1960 210 2039 307 2040 220 2049 214 2082 308 2083 217 2104 226 2105 222 2128 216 2146 223 2167 220 3542 320 3555 278
** BROOKS
3 165 21 195 77 200 87 245 469 210 723 191 759 235 840 189 846 219 888 150 889 184

190

b 270

230

b 240

B

270

b 368

300

b 410

B

240

b 706

B

130

b 218

100

b 390

B

b 317

380

b 550

B

260

b 485

B

270

b 298

270

b 290

260

b 285

320

b 350

a 300

b 335

240

b 300

440

b 575

B

250

b 278

230

b 310

b 500

230

b 320

270

b 320

240

b 340

420

b 430

275

b 350

230

b 244

604

1016

B

440

b 540

60

b 200

B

175

b 310

B

120

b 160

b 220

150

b 304

B

210

b 240

110

b 231

B

105

b 205

175

b 296

B

100

b 200

120

b 156

44

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

892 212 893 228 894 127 895 228 896 223 897 205 898 127 899 219 900 201 901 225 902 218 911 215 912 155 1005 213 1006 183 1106 185 1387 235 1390 165 1436 185 3189 220 3208 160 3209 200 3211 260
** BULLOCH
81 162 378 223 393 193 430 305 432 185 439 241 553 155 571 290 576 252 580 228 586 230 666 222 929 242 1044 190 1707 187 1709 215 3210 200 3520 198

190

b 240

150

b 250

90

b 190

120

b 240

B

100

b 200

160

b 250

100

b 209

B

90

b 220

B

100

b 186

110

b 210

120

b 226

B

170

b 218

80

b 200

B

190

b 230

120

b 220

115

b 205

150

b 300

B

100

b 180

90

b 182

143

b 335

B

a 61

a 223

627

B

a 186

472

B

300

430

B

365

585

B

475

b 577

B

348

b 456

B

380

b 460

470

b 560

310

b 515

B

383

505

B

351

b 450

363

b 512

B

360

b 410

330

b 670

B

286

b 360

334

524

B

450

b 520

430

b 480

302

556

B

270

605

B

45

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

3522 118

450

770

B

** CANDLER
429 193e 574 255 575 218 581 273 582 285 591 215 592 249 636 278 740 230 963 232 1702 268

320

b 577

B

345

b 471

B

413

b 533

B

296

b 430

B

389

b 450

327

b 450

B

307

b 450

B

329

b 371

327

b 431

B

524

b 635

B

440

b 530

** COFFEE

434 198e

400

b 600

B

445 165

290

1010

B

446 270

495

1085

B

468 312

530

1250

B

508 265

540

1350

B

509 309

520

1370

B

510 280

440

1280

B

1538 257

b 400

1825 315

620

b1120

B

3033 215

340

b 600

B

3034 200

290

b 600

B

3041 251

400

b 650

B

3127 275

a 420

1300

B

3541 290

567

b1026

B

** COLQUITT

170 287

470

820

B

175 317

460

640

B

188 282

245

570

B

688 330

b 523

B

767 312

415

b 555

785 280

210

b 267

786 266

165

b 254

B

848 282

350

b 485

B

870 238

400

b 500

877 352

515

b 850

B

1018 235

145

b 155

46

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

1242 279 1243 365 1246 291 1248 310 1256 299 1260 305 1268 305 1416 270 1419 307 1455 355 1467 290 1614 330 1617 355 1620 328 1649 328 1910 332 1911 235 1918 338 1922 239 1943 358 1952 332 1964 324 1965 359 1968 318 1975 350 2043 365 2094 338 3179 350 3195 330 3196 245 3199 290 3212 225 3213 270 3214 245 3456 348 3535 290 3544 255 3545 350 14H10 357
** COOK 25 293 39 240

240

b 270

290

b 300

440

b 495

430

450

b 545

440

b 560

B

460

b 540

270

b 300

475

280

b 380

440

b 500

480

b 530

460

b 620

B

280

b 365

440

b 540

b 760

a 130

b 190

582

b 702

B

250

b 267

176

b 240

622

b1017

B

482

b 522

b 482

480

670

B

230

b 250

470

b 640

B

260

b 285

b 705

470

830

B

620

B

396

a 170

590

B

a 195

149

500

B

500

396

700

B

175

b 240

316

791

B

440

885

B

358

b 491

B

209

b 270

47

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

105 272 114 235 118 228 122 239 682 236 684 295 966 241 1423 245 1497 231 1576 295 1638 268 1927 290 1969 222 3350 205

b 280

b 220

190

b 280

200

b 270

240

b 260

260

b 500

B

195

444

B

215

b 275

200

b 230

b 370

290

b 320

b 581

240

b 300

170

b 440

B

** DECATUR
10 130 49 133 57 135 168 88 206 270 228 131 805 316 1359 299 3359 118 3360 119 3434 140

82

373

B

a 190

390

B

a 115

400

B

a 138

530

B

930

B

75

375

B

598

b 904

B

340

b 442

B

56

b 185

B

50

b 145

85

b 160

** EFFINGHAM

211

75

457 102

458 70

569 48

1035 17

1704 34

2179 95

3107 120

3108 112

3109 113

3110 109

3140 57

3155 68

195

b 400

B

277

b 360

250

b 360

B

319

b 400

220

240

165

b 175

180

b 345

B

146

b 198

168

b 188

158

b 210

281

b 315

233

b 276

48

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

** EVANS
635 105
773 193
1547 143

368

445

b 700

B

440

** GRADY
140 265e 141 235 196 209 205 245 493 308 801 163 883 238 884 239 916 233 962 205 1446 242

368

b 495

B

402

b 434

365

587

B

477

b 587

B

340

b 550

B

190

b 215

460

b 482

472

b 550

70

b 205

B

471

670

B

300

b 353

** IRWIN
274 331 1551 292 1552 315 1712 350 1713 378 1847 344 1847 344 1865 340 1873 330e 1961 330 1979 328 2017 325 2114 355 2134 322 2154 317 3103 353

230

b 630

B

570

b 620

320

b 340

250

250

b 300

250

b 310

250

b 310

154

b 352

B

270

b 350

220

b 352

B

180

b 320

B

220

b 501

B

210

b 330

B

170

b 233

255

b 365

B

260

b 696

B

** JEFF DAVIS

157 250

557

b 840

B

1165 252

580

1749 280

b 520

1826 220

580

3128 272

a 440

b1250

B

3384 202

425

b 760

B

49

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

3457 287

450

1270

B

** MITCHELL
89 335

305

b 337

100 371

a 315

b 500

B

109 318

370

850

B

218 177

90

b 310

B

400 318

b 316

417 160

63

b 84

564 164e

50

340

B

620 265

0

b 171

B

1397 272

b 648

B

1539 153

a 50

1459 322

240

3081 340

234

b 822

B

** MONTGOMERY

190 260

370

319 133

220

b 240

450 221

330

b 500

B

514 190

430

b 547

B

515 170

315

b 512

B

600 258

283

b 645

B

1520 291

390

3153 222

471

b 700

B

25R002 239

b 400

** SCREVEN

295 212

413 192

462 220

578 165

590 111

979 160

1007 261

1170 41

1175 90

B31

71

B32

75

B36

49

B37 102

134

268

B

91

b 216

B

220

b 300

177

b 207

123

143

B

180

637

B

180

b 325

B

60

b 123

B

30

116

B

a 30

61

B

a 33

114

B

a 37

113

B

118

213

B

50

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

** TATTNALL
180 182 522 187 572 172 583 250 593 190 662 213 1509 228 1530 210 1531 165 1545 97 1731 153 1741 130 1742 205 1743 224 1744 217 1745 212 3026 210

480

b 820

B

505

b 678

B

510

b 950

B

634

b 675

412

391

415

b 465

380

b 480

350

590

b 710

B

500

b 550

B

460

490

520

b 630

B

600

500

460

b 744

B

** TELFAIR
375 249
507 250
1053 263

225

1145

B

170

b 515

B

208

** THOMAS
19 235 132 258 401 285 495 305 603 201 747 200 748 189 768 230 771 272 778 255 779 245 784 170 787 230 807 178 808 225 810 265 811 268 814 229

155

b 300

B

170

b 505

B

180

b 400

B

516

b 905

B

b 240

165

b 240

58

b 80

130

b 175

a 210

b 295

190

b 200

125

b 269

B

85

b 115

125

b 225

95

b 205

B

115

b 180

170

b 195

205

b 245

a 140

b 250

B

51

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

817 195 826 261 830 210 854 232 866 180 886 262 914 285 915 275 924 305 925 248 934 198 995 255 996 260 1022 191 3186 327 3188 200 3207 238 3215 248 3534 330
** TIFT
82 328 292 355 419 338 1465 370 1632 325 1687 321 1692 329 1782 335 1903 250 1912 269 1914 295 1930 295 1977 311 1989 324 1993 392 2027 330 2034 600 2067 300 2088 390 2095 395 16J005 295 16J030 280

45

b 250

B

195

b 210

330

b 360

165

b 270

B

105

b 190

395

b 410

195

b 220

b 395

500

b 530

356

b 380

130

b 240

B

140

b 170

160

b 180

a 110

b 240

B

470

b 810

B

a 96

740

B

130

701

B

157

565

B

444

892

B

256

b 501

B

270

b 585

B

170

b 350

B

200

b 260

b 540

b 700

870

278

b 580

B

580

b 670

365

400

308

b 352

b 95

b 280

B

450

b 490

254

b 294

575

470

195

b 220

185

200

865

1050

B

860

b1046

B

52

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

** TOOMBS
95 198 146 205 640 217 650 290 652 231 667 194 1090 292 1521 176 1540 212 1542 230 1546 220 1700 252 1732 247 1740 208 1753 236 1754 255 1800 188 1801 240 1802 188 1803 169
** WHEELER
92 225 336 180 337 141 340 235 1045 195 3080 172 3084 161 23Q002 205
** WORTH
232 260 420 355 456 410 1231 425 1235 350 1265 407 1405 372 1644 412 1762 340

448

1180

B

645

460

b 560

420

b 808

B

b 715

b 715

600

b 885

B

460

370

510

b 530

640

b 820

B

370

390

640

680

b 740

480

b 600

b 600

630

500

b 609

B

630

b 575

254

b 288

360

1100

B

345

b 610

B

295

b 340

170

260

900

B

250

1050

B

240

a 50

b 80

65

b 180

B

280

b 300

190

b 460

B

225

b 300

220

b 235

240

b 405

B

210

410

b 430

53

APPENDIX A: DEPTH TO THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER (CONTINUED)

WELL NUMBER

LAND SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)

DEPTH TO TOP OF AQUIFER (FEET)

DEPTH TO BOTTOM OF AQUIFER (FEET)

USED

USED

ON BASE ON

OF AQUIFER ISOPACH

MAP

MAP

1939 36D 1999 370 2023 389 2024 378 2045 340 2066 395 2080 338 2093 296 3154 322

360

b 620

B

374

b 610

B

240

180

90

b 210

B

300

b 320

275

110

550

820

B

Notes: a maximum depth to top of aquifer b minimum depth to top or bottom of aquifer e land surface elevation is estimated B indicates that the well was used on the bottom of
aquifer structure-contour map indicates that the well was used on the isopach map

54

MAP OWNER/WELL NAME NUMBER

APPENDIX B: WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC PARAMETER AND INORGANIC CHEMISTRY PLATES

OTHER ID# GGS, USGS GRID

DIAM- CASING TOTAL DIS- DRAW LENGTH SAMPLE ETER LENGTH DEPTH CHARGE DOWN OF DATE (IN) (FT) (FT) (GPM) (FT) TEST

PLATES DATA SOURCE

** APPLING

B001 CITY OF BAXLEY

1059 27N001 12

B002 FILTERED ROSIN PROD. CO. 27N004

8

B003 GEORGIA POWER #1

27P001

12

B004 GEORGIA POWER #2

27P002

12

BOOS CITY OF BAXLEY

27N003

12

B006 ALTAMAHA MHP

6

B007 GA BAPTIST CHILDRENS HOME

4

B008 R. PEARCE

28N001

0

B009 TOWN OF SURRENCY

0

** ATKINSON

B010 CITY OF WILLACOOCHEE #2 918 21J003 0

B011 CITY OF WILLACOOCHEE #1 21J001

0

B012 CITY OF PEARSON

23J003

0

** BACON

B013 CITY OF ALMA

58 26L001

10

B014 CITY OF ALMA #3

26L004

12

B015 DEERING MILLIKEN SER. #2

16

** BEN HILL

B016 CITY OF FITZGERALD C

154 20M003 12

B017 CITY OF FITZGERALD D

355 19M001 12

B018 CITY OF FITZGERALD E

1898

12

B019 CITY OF FITZGERALD F

12

BOZO CITY OF FITZGERALD G

12

B021 TREES, INC.

3037 20N002 6

B022 CITY OF FITZGERALD A

20M002

10

B023 H. COWAN

21N001

0

** BERRIEN

B024 CITY OF ALAPAHA

1368 20K002 8

B025 CITY OF RAY CITY #2

10

B026 CITY OF NASHVILLE #4

1815 20H003 16

B027 CITY OF NASHVILLE #5

16

B028 CITY OF ENIGMA #2

19K005

6

B029 J.C. TYSON

18J022

0

B030 CITY OF NASHVILLE #2

19H026

0

8031 CITY OF RAY CITY #1

20G009

0

** BROOKS

B032 C.L. WILLAFORD

900 17F007 4

B033 J.M. TYSON #1

1005 16F009 4

B034 CITY OF MORVEN #3

8

B035 FAWN H!GHTS S/D

4

B036 FERNWOOD MHP #1

4

B037 CITY OF QUITMAN #3

17E012

0

** BULLOCH

B038 STATESBORO AIR FIELD #2 81

10

500 764 1000 13.3 24HRS 04/28/71 H,T,S 1,4

525 625 100 3.0 20MIN I I H

1

455 680 750 5.0 8HRS

II H

1

490 711 750 8.0 8HRS I I H

564 849 704 10.0 24HRS 04/18/67 H,T,S 2,4

470 600 200 4.0 ?

08/27/80 H,S 3

578 650 300 10.0 1HR 05!15/84 H,S 3

580 700

0 0.0

03/12/63 T,S 4

553 651

0 0.0

05/11/66 T,S 4

289 445 380 408 361 471

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

05/09/66 H,T,S 4 05/09/46 H,T,S 4 12/01/59 H,T,S 4

363 626 360 1.6 5HRS 12/02/59 H,T,S 1,4

501 840 1000 15.0 12HRS I I H

1

397 795 2250 25.0 10HRS I I H

2

260 750 1000 23.0 8HRS

II H

2

283 612 1016 16.0 24HRS 12/03/51 H

2,4

250 663 1192 17.0 12HRS I I H

1

295 453 1200 19.0 8HRS

II H

1

318 450 1212 32.0 24HRS I I H

2

272 390

0 0.0

I I T,S

260 825

0 0.0

04/22/71 T,S 4

189 299

0 0.0

04/20/67 T,S 4

368 550 999999 999.9 999999 I I H

5' 1

208 396 750 1.5?

11/30/78 H,T,S 3

283 485 1000 1.0 24HRS 06/18/70 H,T,S 2,4

280 505 1000 1.0 24HRS I I H

2

386 620 225 40.0 24HRS 03/09/82 H, T, S 3,4

380 540

0 0.0

05/09/66 T,S 4

265 450

0 0.0

08/02/61 T,S 4

200 350

0 0.0

05/26/43 T,S 4

158 186 185 230 160 315 180 220 99 126 120 304

0 0.0

06/20/74 T,S

0 0.0

06!20/74 T,S

285 5.0 24HRS 11/04/82 H,T,S 3

56 10.0 24HRS 10/22/84 H,T,S 3

56 2.0 1HR 10/10/84 H,T,S 3

0 0.0

08/03/61 T,S 4

275 475 500 28.0 ?

II H

55

MAP OWNER/WELL NAME NUMBER

APPENDIX B: WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC PARAMETER AND INORGANIC CHEMISTRY PLATES (CONTINUED)

OTHER ID# GGS, USGS GRID

DIAM- CASING TOTAL DIS- DRAW LENGTH SAMPLE ETER LENGTH DEPTH CHARGE DOWN OF DATE (IN) (FT) (FT) (GPM) (FT) TEST

PLATES DATA SOURCE

B039 CITY OF STATESBORO #4 378

18 400 555 1040 92.0 ?

II H

2,1

B040 WILLOW HILL SCHOOL

430

6 386 450 36 12.5 8HRS I I H

1

B041 CITY OF BROOKLET #1

32T13

8 302 510

0 0.0

06110143 T,S 4

B042 BULLOCH CO. GROWERS ASSN. 666

6 357 670 350 9.0 ?

II H

B043 CITY OF STATESBORO #7

20 360 490 1400 133.0 24HRS I I H

B044 CITY OF BROOKLET #1

553

8 346 525 175 13.0 3HRS I I H

2

B045 ITT GRINNELL #1

10 320 430 500 80.0 8HRS I I H

2

B046 COOPER WISS #1

8 315 420 400 40.0 24HRS I I H

2

B04 7 GA. SOUTHERN COLLEGE #'I

8 420 550 225 90.0 8HRS I I H

2

B048 GA. SOUTHERN COLLEGE #2

8 420 610 610 90.0 8HRS I I H

2

B049 CITY OF STATESBORO #2 31T010

8 320 555 305 5.0 ?

01106160 H,T,S 2

B050 COUNTRY CLUB HILLS S/D

6 375 480 220 15.0 24HRS 12130180 H,T,S 3

B051 GEORGIAN WALK WATER CO.

6 296 420 210 4.0 6HRS I I H

3

B052 LAKESID~ ESTATES SID

8 281 355 500 10.0 ?

II H

3

B053 NEVILS WATER ASSOCIATION

8 475 600 385 4.0 9HRS I I H

3

B054 CITY OF PORTAL

30U002

0 395 596

0 0.0

04111163 T,S 4

BOSS A. DORMAN

32U002

0 150 516

0 0.0

06111143 T,S 4

** CANDLER

B056 CITY OF METTER #2 SOUTH 29T010

10 386 616 626 14.0 24HRS 09112/79 H,T,S 1,2

B057 CITY OF METTER #2 NORTH 29T011

12 321 540 1000 4.0 12HRS I I H

1

B058 CITY OF METTER #2

29T006

0 308 520

0 0.0

08107161 T,S 4

B059 L. RUSHTON

29U001

0 350 389

0 0.0

03131/66 T,S 4

** COFFEE

B060 CITY OF AMBROSE

1825

8 442 1120 385 5.0 8HRS I I H

B061 CITY OF DOUGLAS #5

23L004

16 514 684 1800 1.1 33HRS I I H

2

B062 CITY OF DOUGLAS #4

23L002

14 506 728 1250 1.8 36HRS 04117167 H,T,S 1,2

B063 CITY OF NICHOLLS #3

10 506 760 800 8.0 24HRS 07107181 H,T,S 2

B064 PARKVIEW VILLAGE MHP

4 370 380 50 2.0 ?

II H

3

B065 CITY OF DOUGLAS #3

23L003

0 395 590

0 0.0

08102161 T,S 4

** COLQUITT

B066 CITY OF MOULTRIE #3

175 15H007 16 425 752 1040 31.0 24HRS 04109/58 H,T,S

B067 CITY OF NORMAN PARK

3195

8 490 1220 305 28.0 24HRS I I H

1, 2

B068 SWIFT & CO #4

15H011

18 380 800 500 120.0 ?

II H

1

B069 CITY OF MOULTRIE #5

15H040

18 422 580 2150 8.0 ?

09101176 H,T,S 3

B070 CRESTWOOD S/D

4 324 480 40 3.0 24HRS 11119182 H,T,S 3

B071 COLQUITT COUNTY HOSPITAL 15H032

10 438 564 500 2.0 48HRS I I H

3

B072 CITY OF ELLENTON #2

8 246 410 150 20.0 48HRS I I H

3

B073 D.E. SMITH

14J001

0 260 350

0 0.0

04128169 T,S 4

B074 D.C. SMITH

15J003

0 300 380

0 0.0

04/28169 T,S 4

B075 T. WILLIAMS

16J019

0 386 684

0 0.0

04128169 T,S 4

B076 G. POWELL

17 J015

0 726 1008

0 0.0

04129169 T,S 4

B077 N.C. BRANNON

17H022

0 215 350

0 0.0

04129169 T,S 4

B078 R. BAKER

17H014

0 218 298

0 0.0

05125165 T,S 4

B079 MT. OLIVE BAPTIST CHURCH 16H032

0 310 500

0 0.0

04!29/69 T,S 4

B080 BRIDGEPORT BRASS CO.

16H014

0 425 579

0 0.0

05125165 T,S 4

56

MAP OWNER/WELL NAME NUMBER

APPENDIX B: WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC PARAMETER AND INORGANIC CHEMISTRY PLATES (CONTINUED)

OTHER ID# GGS, USGS GRID

DIAM- CASING TOTAL DIS- DRAW LENGTH SAMPLE ETER LENGTH DEPTH CHARGE DOWN OF DATE (IN) (FT) (FT) (GPM) (FT) TEST

PLATES DATA SOURCE

8081 SOUTH GEORGIA WATER CO. 16H022

0

B082 N.D. GUNN

15H022

0

B083 J. KIRK II

15H030

0

B084 O.C. CAUSEY

15H019

0

8085 W.M. BROOKS

15H004

0

8086 W.H. SUMMERLAIN

15H002

0

8087 J .A. FAISON

14H015

0

8088 R.L. MILLINGS #2

14H009

0

B089 L. FUNDERBURKE

15H033

0

B090 H. TOMLINSON

15H002

0

B091 E. LEWIS

15G004

0

B092 L. SMITH

15G010

0

B093 D. BELL

16G007

0

B094 K.G. CARDIN

17G014

0

B095 C. LAWRENCE

16G001

0

B096 E. WALDEN

17G001

0

B097 TYSON & DEAN DRILLING 16H018

0

B098 G. COLE

16G022

0

B099 CITY OF BERLIN #1

16G017

0

B100 K.G. CARDIN #2

17G015

0

B101 J.B.VAUGHN

16J009

0

8102 CITY OF NORMAN PARK

16J002

0

B103 J .B. PRICE

15J012

0

B104 CITY OF DOERUN #2

14J002

0

8105 E.T. GAY

0

** COOK

B106 CITY OF ADEL #3

122 18H002 12

8107 CITY OF ADEL #1

39 18H005 12

B108 CITY OF ADEL #4

682 18H008 12

B109 CITY OF LENOX #2

684 18J012 8

8110 CITY OF ADEL #5

1218 18H033 18

B111 CITY OF CECIL

1423 18G018 8

8112 CITY OF ADEL #2B

12

8113 CITY OF ADEL #6

16

B114 SUNSHINE TRAILER COURT

4

8115 CITY OF SPARKS

18H015

0

B116 USGS ADEL TEST WELL

18H016

0

** DECATUR

8117 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE #3 228 9F486 12

8118 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE #2 804 9F519 12

B119 J. CAMPBELL CO.

1412 10E199 4

8120 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE #5

14

8121 AMOCO FABRICS CO. #1

8F008

12

B122 AMOCO FABRICS CO. #2

9F003

12

B123 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE #1

20

515 700 396 480 840 840 458 625 485 930 44 740 630 810 285 403 457 780 426 474 394 494 372 431 182 210 155 310 215 307 202 318 294 400 205 320 200 400 206 315 531 630 499 817 417 528 266 555 256 426

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

10/08/69 T,S 4 04/28169 T,S 4 04128/69 T,S 4 05/12165 T,S 4 05/12/65 T,S 4 05/12!65 T,S 4 04/30/69 T,S 4 04!30169 T,S 4 04/30/69 T,S 4 04121/64 T,S 4 05/11/65 T,S 4 04/30169 T,S 4 05111/65 T,S 4 10107/69 T,S 4 04/30/69 T,S 4 05111/65 T,S 4 04129/69 T,S 4 04129/69 T,S 4 05/11165 T,S 4 10107!69 T,S 4 04128/69 T,S 4 06112165 T,S 4 04/28/69 T,S 4 05112165 T,S 4 04/19/67 T,S 4

231 386 500 10.0 8HRS

II H

2

213 375 1200 20.0 8HRS 04/19167 H, T,S 2,4

253 335 1200 6.0 10HRS I I H

1,2

266 501 308 3.0 10HRS I I H

1

200 393 1571 5.0 8HRS 11/28/78 H,T,S 1,2

214 308

53 12.8 5HRS 03/17165 H,T,S 1'4

221 359 1120 30.0 8HRS

II H

2

229 405 1865 4.0 24HRS 11/17/65 H,T,S 2,4

256 300 60 21.0 24HRS 08/15185 H,T,S 3

400 407

0 0.0

04/29/65 T,S 4

207 865

0 0.0

12101/64 T,S 4

109 464 122 351 285 329 230 375 127 222 100. 240 147 445

1260 58.0 20MIN 02/05/38 H,T,S

1700 0.5 22HRS 05/02/67 H,T,S

15 1.0 ?

II H

1700 47.0 6HRS

II H

1,2

800 4.0 ?

II H

2

800 4.0 ?

II H

2

1650 62.0 12HRS I I H

2

57

MAP OWNER/WELL NAME NUMBER

APPENDIX B: WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC PARAMETER AND INORGANIC CHEMISTRY PLATES (CONTINUED)

OTHER ID# GGS, USGS GRID

DIAM- CASING TOTAL DIS- DRAW LENGTH SAMPLE ETER LENGTH DEPTH CHARGE DOWN OF DATE (IN) (FT) (FT) (GPM) (FT) TEST

PLATES DATA SOURCE

B124 DECATUR COUNTY AIR PARK 8F494

10

B125 C.W. WHITE

8F004

0

B126 H.M. WHITLEY

9F001

0

B127 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE #4 9F488

0

B128 A.J. NEWTON

9F002

0

B129 RED BARN MHP

4

** EFFINGHAM

B130 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD #2 211

10

B131 WESTWOOD HEIGHTS S/D

961 36S004 11

B132 CITY OF SAVANNAH

1035 36S021 8

B133 DAWES SILICA COMPANY

1527 34R043 12

B134 DAWES SILICA COMPANY

1704 34R044 8

B135 CITY OF RINCON #2

36S022

10

B136 FORT HOWARD PAPER CO. #1 36S025

14

B137 FORT HOWARD PAPER CO. #2 36S026

14

B138 FORT HOWARD PAPER CO. #3 36S027

8

B139 LAKESIDE WATER CO. #2

8

B140 SEPCO #1

10

B141 SEPCO #2

10

B142 FOXBOW NORTH S/D #2

8

B143 FOXBOW NORTH S/D #1

8

B144 LAKESIDE FARMS S/D #3

8

B145 MEADOWWOOD S/D

4

B146 PECAN GROVE S/D

6

B147 SILVERWOOD PLANTATION

14

B148 TARA MHP

4

B149 GOSHEN VILLAS

8

B150 COASTAL PUBLIC SERVICE CO

0

B151 CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RR 34R036

0

** EVANS

B152 CITY OF CLAXTON

773 30R002 10

B153 CITY OF CLAXTON #2

30R001

12

B154 CLAXTON POULTRY CO. #1

10

B155 CLAXTON POULTRY CO. #3

10

B156 CITY OF DAISEY #2

8

B157 P.H. JONES

30S002

0

B158 CITY OF CLAXTON

30R003

0

B159 G. TIPPENS
** GRADY

310001

0

B160 CITY OF CAIRO #8

16

B161 CITY OF WHIGHAM

8

B162 GRADY CO. CHILD DEV. CTR.

4

B163 CITY OF CAIRO #1

12F030

. 0

B164 USGS CAIRO TEST WELL

12F036

0

240 408 607 8.0 ?

II H

2

78 83

0 0.0

09/07/61 T,S 4

82 88

0 0.0

08/08/61 T,S 4

147 485

0 0.0

08/09/61 T,S 4

83 105

0 0.0

03/30/62 T,S 4

200 220

40 5.0 24HRS I I H

3

180 400 400 20.0 ?

II H

2

303 565 900 9.0 4HRS I I H

234 454 600 9.3 ?

II H

320 689 2600 17.0 ?

II H

1,2

312 520 500 6.0 ?

II H

1

281 500 700 72.0 12HRS I I H

2

280 500 750 7.8 10HRS I I H

2

280 520 750 14.0 24HRS I I H

2

282 500 300 16.0 1HR 04/11/86 H,T,S 2

300 500 400 4.0 3HRS I I H

2

240 500 525 6.0 12HRS I I H

2

242 500 800 8.0 12HRS I I H

2

320 460 600 17.0 24HRS I I H

3

317 440 500 15.0 8HRS 11/02/82 H,T,S 3

340 450 500 10.0 8HRS I I H

3

340 440 90 2.0 24HRS 12/12/83 H,T,S 3

323 420 300 7.0 24HRS I I H

3

292 500 1001 16.4 24HRS 09/23/86 H,T,S 3

284 355 50 12.0 8HRS 01/18/84 H,T,S 3

295 410 360 70.0 24HRS I I H

3

280 425

0 0.0

01/29/41 T,S 4

273 431

0 0.0

03/12/40 T,S 4

452 805 510 2.7 1HR 04/28/71 H,T,S

401 701 780 7.0 ?

II H

1,2

420 620 600 5.0 24HRS I I H

2

380 600 1000 10.0 4HRS

II H

2

491 705 400 6.0 24HRS 10/26/83 H,T,S 3

440 480

0 0.0

11/14/63 T,S 4

600 662

0 0.0

08/04/66 T,S 4

460 515

0 0.0

04/01/66 T,S 4

390 465 2500 2.0 11HRS I I H

3

426 604 160 48.0 36HRS 10/18/77 H,T,S 3

286 425 30 20.0 2HRS I I H

492 671

0 0.0

10/02/62 T,S 4

560 740

0 0.0

06/23/64 T,S 4

58

MAP OWNER/WELL NAME NUMBER

APPENDIX 8: WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC PARAMETER AND INORGANIC CHEMISTRY PLATES (CONTINUED)

OTHER ID# GGS, USGS GRID

DIAM- CASING TOTAL DIS- DRAW LENGTH SAMPLE ETER LENGTH DEPTH CHARGE DOWN OF DATE (IN) (FT) (FT) (GPM) (FT) TEST

PLATES DATA SOURCE

** IRWIN

B165 CITY OF OCILLA #3

274 20L003 12

8166 CITY OF OCILLA #4

3103

12

8167 CITY OF OCILLA #2

12

8168 J.W. PAULK

21L001

0

8169 J. MCDUFFIE

18M001

0

** JEFF DAVIS

8170 CITY OF HAZELHURST #3 1165

12

B171 HAZELHURST MILLS #5

6

8172 CITY OF DENTON

8

8173 LAKE OWL HEAD S/D

6

8174 S. STOKES & C.W. CAIN #1 24M001

0

8175 CITY OF HAZELHURST #2 25N004

0

** MITCHELL

8176 CITY OF CAMILLA #3

218

12

8177 GRAVEL HILL PLANTATION 1062 13K001 10

B178 CITY OF PELHAM #4

3081

12

8179 BOWEN MOBILE ESTATES

4

B180 HINSONTON COM WATER ASSN

6

8181 CITY OF SALE CITY #2

10

8182 CITY OF CAMILLA #1

12H004

0

8183 CITY OF CAMILLA #4

0

8184 L. BATEMAN

12M006

0

B185 CITY OF COTTON

13H006

0

8186 CITY OF PELHAM #1

12G001

0

B187 G.W. HENDLEY

11H001

0

B188 E. VANN, JR.

12J001

0

** MONTGOMERY

8189 CITY OF UVALDA #2

3153

8

B190 CITY OF MT VERNON #1

8

B191 CITY OF AILEY #2

4

B192 CITY OF ALSTON #1

8

8193 MONTGOMERY CORR. INST. #2

6

8194 CITY OF TARRYTOWN #2

4

8195 WILDWOOD.MHP

4

B196 T.A. BLOCKER

25S001

0

B197 CITY OF AILEY #1

25R001

0

B198 CITY OF MT VERNON

25R002

0

B199 CITY OF UVALDA #1

250002

0

** SCREVEN

8200 J.P. KING #2

32U018

24

8201 INDIGO MOBILE ESTATES

4

8202 CITY OF HILLTONIA

32X034

0

B203 P.H. JOHNSTON

31X017

0

8204 MEAD INVESTMENT CORP. 33X020

0

266 645 1000 30.0 ?

08/02/61 H,T,S 1,4

303 696 1200 20.0 12HRS I I H

1

266 672 1200 20.0 12HRS I I H

2

432 620

0 0.0

04/20167 T,S 4

195 230

0 0.0

05104166 T,S 4

600 950 1052 37.0 24HRS I I H

3

595 800 450 8.0 24HRS I I H

2

430 475 250 10.0 ?

II H

3

435 500 235 17.0 30HRS 03/21/86 H,T,S 3

435 450

0 0.0

03!06!63 T,S 4

450 648

0 0.0

01/05/60 T,S 4

155 341 2000 4.0 6HRS

II H

2

116 386 732 2.0 5HRS I I H

240 822 856 72.0 24HRS I I H

112

300 465 41 5.0 1HR

II H

3

300 345 145 10.0 8HRS

II H

3

242 575 503 40.0 8HRS

II H

3

120 396

0 0.0

03129!63 T,S 4

150 335

0 0.0

05/08158 T,S 4

142 287

0 0.0

02/11/60 T,S 4

300 305

0 0.0

02/10/60 T,S 4

190 720

0 0.0

02/10/60 T,S 4

100 110

0 0.0

05/02/67 T,S 4

382 460

0 0.0

02/11/60 T,S 4

501 700 400 700 516 700 522 700 450 570 474 580 415 504 373 452 345 403 347 400 430 700

250 83.0 20HRS 08108175 H,T,S

480 27.0 20HRS 02118/81 H,T,S 2

340 ~60.0 36HRS 06104/81 H,T,S 3

183 4.0 22HRS 08/28/72 H,T,S 3

380 15.0 24HRS 02102170 H,T,S 3

165 44.0 ?

II H

3

45 3.0 24HRS 08131176 H,T,S 3

0 0.0

04118167 T,S 4

0 0.0

08104161 T,S 4

0 0.0

03105/43 T,S 4

0 0.0

03106!63 T,S 4

253 670 1815 36.0 ?

II H

173 220

50 29.0 2HRS

II H

3

178 400

0 0.0

05104164 T,S 4

160 249

0 0.0

09117163 T,S 4

205 369

0 0.0

08112/63 T,S 4

59

MAP OWNER/WELL NAME NUMBER

APPENDIX B: WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC PARAMETER AND INORGANIC CHEMISTRY PLATES (CONTINUED)

OTHER !D# GGS, USGS GRID

DIAM- CASING TOTAL DIS- DRAW LENGTH SAMPLE ETER LENGTH DEPTH CHARGE DOWN OF DATE (IN) (FT) (FT) (GPM) (FT) TEST

PLATES DATA SOURCE

B205 GA. DEPT. OF TRANS.

34W004

0

B206 CITY OF SYLVANIA #2

32W015

0

B207 CITY OF SYLVANIA #1

32W013

0

B208 CITY OF SYLVANIA #4

32W070

0

B209 H.!. CONNER &C. FARMER 31W010

0

B210 CITY OF NEWINGTON

33U009

0

B211 CITY OF OLIVER

33U019

0

** TATTNALL

B212 GEORGIA STATE PRISON #3 879

12

B213 CITY OF MANASSAS

3026

8

B214 CITY OF REIDSVILLE #1 29Q001

8

B215 GEORGIA STATE PRISON #1 28Q002

8

B216 GEORGIA STATE PRISON #2

10

B217 GA. STATE PRISON UNIT C

14

B218 CITY OF GLENNVILLE #2

8

B219 CITY OF GLENNVILLE #3

12

B220 GEORGIA FORRESTRY COMM. 28P001

0

B221 CITY OF GLENNVILLE #1 30P001

0

** TELFAIR

B222 CITY OF LUMBER CITY #1 24P006

6

B223 CITY OF MCRAE #1

22Q001

14

B224 CITY OF NCRAE #3

1053 22Q003 12

B225 CITY OF LUMBER CITY

10

B226 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE #2

6

B227 CITY OF SCOTLAND

10

B228 N.S. WHEELER

24P008

0

B229 J.E. DOBSON
** THOMAS

22N001

0

B230 THOMASVILLE ARMY AIR BASE 19 14F012 10

B231 CITY OF THOMASVILLE #4 56 14E010 16

B232 CITY OF THOMASVILLE #3 186 14E011 16

B233 CITY OF THOMASVILLE #6 401 14E013 20

B234 WAVERLY MINERAL PROD. #1 495 13G003 8

B235 0. NESMITH

769 13F003 4

B236 CITY OF MEIGS

3186

10

B237 CIRCLE C MHP #3

4

B238 HIDDEN ACRES SID

6

B239 LAKE LILLIQUIN SID

10

B240 LAKE RIVERSIDE SID

6

B241 RIVERWOOD ESTATES #2

6

B242 SUGARWOOD ESTATES MHP

4

B243 CITY OF THOMASVILLE #5 14E012

0

B244 CITY OF COOLIDGE

15G011

0

B245 D.O. MIMMS

15E002

0

B246 CITY OF BOSTON

15E005

0

220 434 150 301 190 490 197 257 212 275 200 280 270 290

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

03116170 T,S 4 05121143 T,S 4 11117159 T,S 4 06117/70 T,S 4 03116170 T,S 4 09118163 T,S 4 09118163 T,S 4

556 855 1270 24.0 12HRS I I H

1,2

555 744 305 12.3 4HRS

II H

3

560 713 400 15.0?

08104161 H,T,S 1,4

500 810 550 20.0 30MIN 03104136 H,T,S 1,2,4

460 818 700 19.0 30MIN I I H

2

551 940 1016 10.0 8HRS 02117182 H,T,S 2

520 729 300 3.0 24HRS I I H

2

560 800 750 6.0 24HRS 12122186 H,T,S 3

508 955

0 0.0

04114167 T,S 4

344 714

0 0.0

05112166 T,S 4

350 450 132 5.5 ?

II H

120 640 1200 5.0 7HRS I I H

235 545 750 6.0 18HRS I I H

375 868 900 35.0 1HR

II H

2

242 343 170 15.0 120HRS 08109183 H,T,S 3

266 600 1700 65.0?

03125177 H,T,S 3

400 778

0 0.0

03106163 T,S 4

270 415

0 0.0

05105166 T,S 4

180 300 112 305 108 550 157 400 605 905 168 261 460 1004 228 288 134 240 196 294 226 360 181 340 261 300 230 400 237 383 155 210 150 235

425 960 1000 3200 280 30 160 45 200 500 150 175 50
0 0 0 0

5.6 1HR 1.3? 2.0 3HRS 9.0 23HRS 85.0 ? 4.0 1HR 80.0 2HRS 5.0 18HRS 2.0 6HRS 1.0 12HRS 15.0 24HRS 16.0 24HRS 5.0 18HRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

01106164 H,T,S 12102151 H,T,S 12102151 H,T,S
II H 01124164 H,T,S
II H II H 10115184 H,T,S II H 12118184 H,T,S 01116184 H,T,S 09119183 H,T,S II H 08101161 T,S 01106164 T,S 01107164 T,S 01107164 T,S

1,4 2,4 1,4 1,2 1,2,4
1 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4

60

MAP OWNER/WELL NAME NUMBER

APPENDIX B: WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC PARAMETER AND INORGANIC CHEMISTRY PLATES (CONTINUED)

OTHER ID# GGS, USGS GRID

DIAM- CASING TOTAL DIS- DRAW LENGTH SAMPLE ETER LENGTH DEPTH CHARGE DOWN OF DATE (IN) (FT) (FT) (GPM) (FT) TEST

PLATES DATA SOURCE

B247 CITY OF PAVO

16F004

0 104 305

0 0.0

01/06/64 T,S 4

** TIFT

B248 CITY OF TIFTON #6

3125

24 280 652 2360 5.0 12HRS I I H

B249 CITY OF TIFTON #2

17K062

12 275 501 1000 5.5 30MIN 04/28/58 H,T,S 1,4

8250 CITY OF TIFTON #5

20 360 610 1500 13.4 7HRS

II H

1

B251 ABAC #1

10 263 500 700 47.0?

12/22/78 H,T,S 3

B252 A8AC #2

10 260 514 800 10.0 10HRS I I H

2

8253 CITY OF TIFTON #4

20 398 612 1500 63.0 8HRS

II H

2

B254 WENDELL HOBBS S/0 #1

4 147 220 70 5.0 1HR 01/04/79 H,T,S 3

B255 NORTHGATE LAKE S/D #2

0 253 340 50 20.0 24HRS I I H

3

B256 PEBBLE BROOK MEADOWS #1

6 201 400 150 5.0?

03/20/78 H,T,S 3

B257 PINE HILL MHP

4 407 600 20 30.0 24HRS 10/19/82 H,T,S 3

B258 SPRING HILL PROPERTIES

6 192 320 150 10.0 24HRS I I H

3

B259 CITY OF TIFTON #7
B260 TOWN & COUNTRY MHP

14 350 750 2335 4.5 24HRS 11/24/86 H,T,S 3

6 190 300

20 5.0 24HRS I I H

3

B261 WHISPERING PINES ESTATES

4 400 480 150 20.0 24HRS I I H

3

B262 CITY OF TIFTON

18K001

0 390 610

0 0.0

06/19/70 T,S 4

** TOOMBS

B263 VIDALIA AIR FIELD

85

10 470 864 235 8.0 ?

II H

B264 CITY OF VIDALIA #1

650

16 430 808 1600 18.0 24HRS I I H

1,2

B265 CITY OF VIDALIA

26R003

16 442 800 1200 27.0 24HRS I I H

1

B266 CITY OF VIDALIA #2

26R001

8 720 1000 200 6.0 6HRS 08/04/61 H, T,S 1,4

B267 CITY OF LYONS #1

17 500 698 500 33.0 8HRS 08/15/80 H,T,S 2

B268 CITY OF LYONS #2

19 487 764 1043 41.0?

06/06/68 H,T,S 2

B269 CITY OF VIDALIA #3

16 442 761 1200 28.0 24HRS 08/22/73 H,T,S 2

B270 MCNATT FALLS S/D #1

4 475 605 35 35.0 ?

II H

3

B271 T.C. TALLEY

28R001

0 511 714

0 0.0

04/14/67 T,S 4

B272 TOOMBS CO. BD. OF ED.

270001

0 654 885

0 0.0

03/12/63 T,S 4

** WHEELER

B273 LITTLE OCMULGEE ST. PK. 1045

10 165 266 500 20.0 24HRS I I H

B274 CITY OF ALAMO #2

23R001

0 352 600 800 75.0 24HRS I I H

B275 LITTLE OCMULGEE ST. PK. 220004

10 194 248 500 18.3 12HRS I I H

1

B276 F. JOYCE

24P001

0 400 610

0 0.0

05/06/66 T,S 4

B277 T.B. CLARK

22R001

0 220 253

0 0.0

03!07!63 T,S 4

B278 CITY OF GLENWOOD
** WORTH

24R001

0 300 380

0 0.0

01/05/60 T,S 4

B279 C.E. BUCK FARM #1

420 14L007 6 73 180 146 7.0 8HRS I I H

B280 CITY OF SYLVESTER #3

15L021

18 146 536 1018 131.0 6HRS 02/05/72 H,T,S

B281 CITY OF WARWICK #2

10 200 350 1100 5.0 36HRS 06/15/82 H,T,S 3

B282 WORTHY MANOR S/D

10 60 185 465 14.0 8HRS 04!07!72 H,T,S 3

B283 L.L. LEVERETTE

14M002

0 206 240

0 0.0

05/10/65 T,S 4

B284 G.W. STROM

14M001

0 160 215

0 0.0

05/10/65 T,S 4

8285 W.J. PATE

14L002

0 260 430

0 0.0

05/10/65 T,S 4

B286 CITY OF SUMNER

16L001

0 160 410

0 0.0

05/10/65 T,S 4

B287 H.APPERSON

14K003

0 195 370

0 0.0

05/10/65 T,S 4

61

MAP OWNER/WELL NAME NUMBER
B288 I.J. WHITE B289 F. BROWN B290 CITY OF WARWICK

APPENDIX B: WELLS USED IN HYDRAULIC PARAMETER AND INORGANIC CHEMISTRY
PLATES (CONTINUED)

OTHER ID# GGS, USGS GRID

DIAM- CASING TOTAL DIS- DRAW LENGTH SAMPLE ETER LENGTH DEPTH CHARGE DOWN OF DATE (IN) (FT) (FT) (GPM) ( FT) TEST

PLATES DATA SOURCE

15K003 14K005 14N001

0 206 240 0 240 280 0 160 325

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

05/10/65 T,S 4 05/04/66 T,S 4 04/20/67 T,S 4

PLATES CODES: H Hydraulic Parameters, Plates 7-10 T Total Dissolved Solids, Plate 12 S Sulfates, Plate 13
DATA SOURCE CODES: 1 Georgia Geologic Survey files 2 Water Resources Management Branch
files 3 Ground-Water Program files 4 Grantham and Stokes (1976) 5 Sever (1969)

62

MAP SUPPLY NAME NUM.

APPENDIX C: WELLS USED IN BARIUM AND GROSS ALPHA PLATES

WELL OTHER BARIUM NUM. ID # SAMPLE
DATE

BARIUM RAD. CONC. SAMPLE ( ugll) DATE

GROSS RA226 RA228

ALPHA ACT IV- ACT IV-

ACT. ITY

ITY

(piCil) (piCil) (piCil)

** APPLING

C001 ALTAMAHA MHP

B006 07!21178 <ZOO. 04121183 <2

cooz BASS SID EAST

05112182 <200. I I

C003 CITY OF BAXLEY

05112182 <ZOO. 05112182 2+2

C004 COOPER TRAVEL TRAILER PK.
coos GA BAPTIST CHILDRENS HOME

11115178 <200. I I BOO? 09108181 <200. 07126183 2+2

C006 THE VILLAGE MHP

07121178 <ZOO. I I

COO? TOWN OF SURRENCY

08120181 <200. 09108181 <2

** ATKINSON

COOS CITY OF PEARSON

04107182 <200. 04107182 <4

C009 CITY OF WILLACOOCHEE

04107182 <200. 04107182 4+-2 4.4 <1.0

** BACON

C010 BACON APPERAL

06112180 <200. I I

C011 CITY OF ALMA

03131182 <200. 05110184 2+-2

C012 HIGHLAND PARK SID

09117181 <200. I I

C013 LEE MHP

09117181 <200. I I

** BEN HILL

C014 CITY OF FITZGERALD

a A B022 I I 1300. I I

C015 CITY OF FITZGERALD C016 CITY OF FITZGERALD

a B

I I

a c B016 I I

2300. I I 2000. I I

C017 CITY OF FITZGERALD

a D B017 I I 1600. I I

C018 CITY OF FITZGERALD

a E B018 I I 2100. I I

C019 CITY OF FITZGERALD
cozo CITY OF FITZGERALD

b

B019 I I

b G BOZO I I

200. I I 100. I I

C021 CITY OF FITZGERALD

I I

12131180 3+-2 1.2

C022 FOWLER (domestic)

c

I I

250. I I

C023 GLADDEN (domestic) c

I I

350. I I

C024 GAINES (domestic)

c

I I

300. I I

C025 MERRITT (domestic)

c

I I

350. I I

C026 NETTLES (domestic) c

I I

350. I I

C02? MCDUFFIE (domestic) c

I I

300. I I

C028 BAGLEY (domestic)

c

I I

250. I I

C029 GRANTHAM (domestic) c

I I

350. I I

C030 GIBBONS (domestic) c

I I

250. I I

C031 ANDERSON (domestic) c

I I

250. I I

** BERRIEN

C032 CITY OF ALAPAHA

08128179 230. I I

C033 CITY OF ALAPAHA

I I

08102183 7+-2 6.9 <1.0

C034 CITY OF ALAPAHA

2

I I

08102183 7+-2 6.5 <1.0

C035 CITY OF ALAPAHA

T1

I I

06110177 11+-2 4.4 <1. 0

C036 BENNETTS MHP

2

01128182 <200. I I

C037 CITY OF ENIGMA

1

08128179 <200. 02119179 6+-2 6.2 0.2

C038 CITY OF ENIGMA

2 B028 I I

12127183 2+-2

C039 CITY OF NASHVILLE

03122182 <200. 05129184 <2

C040 SOUTHWOOD MHP

07123181 <ZOO. I I

C041 CITY OF RAY CITY

07!22181 <200. 02119179 5+-2 1.2

63

MAP SUPPLY NAME NUM.

APPENDIX C: WELLS USED IN BARIUM AND GROSS ALPHA PLATES (CONTINUED)

WELL OTHER BARIUM NUM. ID # SAMPLE
DATE

BARIUM RAD. CONC.' SAMPLE (ugll) DATE

GROSS RA226 RA228 ALPHA ACT IV- ACTIVACT. ITY ITY (piCil) (piCil) (piCil)

C042 CITY OF RAY CITY C043 WALKER TRAILER PARK
** BROOKS
C044 CITY OF BARWICK C045 CITY OF QUITMAN C046 JA MAR SID C047 CITY OF MORVEN C048 SHADY ACRES SID C049 TROUPVILLE MOBILE ESTATES
** BULLOCH
COSO 301 TRAILER PARK C051 BULLOCH CO. CORR. INST. C052 CITY OF BROOKLET C053 CITY OF PORTAL C054 CITY OF STATESBORO C055 CITY OF STATESBORO AIRPT. C056 CLARK 1 S MOBILE HOME VILL. C057 COACH HOUSE ESTATES MHP C058 COLONIAL HEIGHTS SID C059 COUNTRY CLUB HILLS C060 COUNTRY LAKES SID C061 CYPRESS LAKE MHP C062 FOREST HEIGHTS SID C063 FOREST HILLS SID C064 FRANKVILLE WATER ASSN. C065 FRANK 1 S TRAILER PARK C066 GEORGIA SOUTHERN COLLEGE C067 GROVE LAKES SID C068 HAZELWOOD SID C069 JANE BEAVER SID C070 JOHNSON MHP C071 LAKE COLLINS ESTATES C072 LAKESIDE ESTATES C073 LANIER TRAILER PARK C074 LEE 1 S RIVERSIDE ESTATES C075 LEEFIELD WATER ASSN. C076 MILL CREEK ESTATES C077 MELSON LAW WATER SYSTEM C078 NEVILS WATER ASSOCIATION C079 NEWTON 1 S MH VILLAGE C080 REGISTER WATER ASSN. C081 RIDGEVIEW APARTMENTS C082 TANKERSLEY SID C083 BARN MHP C084 THOMAS TRAILER PARK C085 WESTCHESTER SID

B031 I I

02102184 <3

07124179 <200. I I

07129181 <200. I I 11120179 <200. 02124182 <3 12118178 <200. I I 08103181 <200. I I 08104181 <200. I I 08103181 <200. I I

02108182 <200. I I 05121180 <200. I I 03124182 <200. 03124182 <3 12110181 <200. I I 02108182 <200. 08113182 <4 01105178 <200. I I 10119178 <200. I I 12109181 <200. I I 06122178 <200. I I B054 12109181 <200. I I 08126181 <200. I I 03115179 <200. I I 12110181 <200. I I 06115182 <200. I I 09117181 <200. I I 08127181 <200. I I 01119182 <200. 01119182 <4 01119182 <200. I I 01119182 <200. I I 01103179 <200. I I 10120181 <200. I I 10119178 <200. I I 06115182 <200. I I 10105178 <200. I I 06115182 <200. I I 03123182 <200. I I 08126181 <200. I I 09117181 <200. I I B053 09117181 <200. 05112182 <4 02108182 <200. I I 09116181 <200. I I 08126181 <200. I I 06115182 <200. I I 08126181 <200. I I 02!07179 <200. I I 07127178 <200. I I

64

MAP SUPPLY NAME NUM.

APPENDIX C: WELLS USED IN BARIUM AND GROSS ALPHA PLATES (CONTINUED)

WELL OTHER BARIUM NUM. ID # SAMPLE
DATE

BARIUM RAD. CONC. SAMPLE (ugll) DATE

GROSS RA226 RA228

ALPHA ACTIV- ACTIV-

ACT. ITY

ITY

(piC/l) (piCil) (piCil)

C086 WINDFIELD S/D

06115182 <200. I I

C087 WOODLAND MOBILE ESTATES

04116179 <200. I I

C088 YOUNGBLOOD MHP

12110181 <200. I I

C089 ZETTEROWER MHP

12109181 <200. I I

** CANDLER

C090 CITY OF METTER

03122178 <200. 03!22178 3+-2

C091 CITY OF PULASKI

08127181 <200. 08127181 <2

** COFFEE

C092 BITTAKER TRAILER PARK

02116182 <200. I I

C093 CITY OF AMBROSE

B060 12120177 280. 05110184 <3

C094 CITY OF BROXTON

03130182 <200. 03130182 7+-2 5.4 <1.0

C095 CITY OF DOUGLAS

02116182 <200. 02115182 2+-2

C096 CITY OF NICHOLLS

03130182 <200. 01101100

C097 CITY OF NICHOLLS

2

I I

12107183 3+-2 2.4

C098 EVANS TRAILER PARK

2

11118181 <200. I I

C099 GENERAL COFFEE STATE PK.

04110179 <200. I I

C100 HARPER'S MHP

09127178 <200. I I

C101 HEAD SID

09129178 <200. I I

C102 HILLSIDE TRAILER PARK

03130182 <200. I I

C103 LITTLE ACRES TAILER PARK

04109179 <200. I I

C104 NORTH SIDE MHP

03107178 <200. I I

C105 PARKVIEW MOBILE HOME VIL.

B064 10108181 <200. 07122182 4+-3 2.6

C106 SOUTHERN WATER INC.

01104182 <200. I I

C107 TOWN & COUNTRY TRAILER PK

09114178 <200. I I

** COLQUITT

C108 BEAR CREEK SID

08103181 <200. I I

C109 CITY OF BERLIN

05126178 <200. 02117183 2+-2

C110 COLQUITT CO. MEM. HOSP.

B071 07121178 <200. 10105182 <4

C111 CRESTWOOD SID

B070 01101100

12127181 2+-2

C112 CITY OF DOERUN

08103181 385. 09126183 2+-1

C113 CITY OF ELLENTON

07123181 <200. 03124183 2+-2

C114 CITY OF FUNSTON

05126178 <200. 09114182 2+-2

C115 HARTSFIELD COMMUNITY

02104182 340. 02120184 6+-2 4.9 <1. 0

C116 CITY OF MOULTRIE

12122181 <200. 01109184 2+-2

C117 CITY OF NORMAN PARK

07123181 <200. 02120184 <2

C118 CLUBVIEW SID

08103181 <200. I I

C119 COUNTRY CIRCLE SID

07106179 <200. I I

C120 DEMOTT SID

09114181 <200. I I

C121 GREEN ACRES ESTATES

01/22179 <200. I I

C122 INDIAN LAKES SID

09114181 <200. I I

C123 PINEY GROVE SID

10/24179 <200. I I

C124 RIVERSIDE MANUFACTURING

08122178 <200. I I

C125 RIVERWOOD SD

10127181 <200. I I

C126 RUFUS MHP

11114178 <200. I I

C127 SANDS MHP

05102179 <200. I I

C128 SHADY GROVE SID

10127181 <200. I I

65

MAP SUPPLY NAME NUM.

APPENDIX C: WELLS USED IN BARIUM AND GROSS ALPHA PLATES (CONTINUED)

WELL OTHER BARIUM NUM. ID # SAMPLE
DATE

BARIUM RAD. CONC. SAMPLE (ugll) DATE

GROSS RA226 RA228 ALPHA ACT IV ACT IV ACT. ITY ITY (piCil) (piCil) (piCil)

C129 SPENCEFIELD AIRPORT

01121182 <200. I I

C130 SPENCETON SID 1

08120181 <200. I I

C131 SPENCETON SID 2

08120181 <200. I I

C132 TALOKAS CIRCLE SID

08120181 <200. I I

C133 YANCEY TRAILER RENTALS

03116179 <200. I I

** COOK

C134 CITY OF ADEL

02119181 <200. 03103183 <2

C135 CITY OF CECIL

02119181 <200. 09113182 <4

C136 CITY OF LENOX

04114181 <200. 02101183 <2

C137 CITY OF SPARKS

08118181 <200. 09108183 <4

C138 GIDDENS TRAILER PARK

08118181 <200. I I

C139 TILLMANS TRAILER PARK

06128179 <200. I I

** DECATUR

C140 CITY OF ATTAPULGUS

I I

08109183 8+-2 4.6 <1.0

C141 CITY OF ATTAPULGUS

2

I I

06107184 14+-2 11.2 <1.0

C142 CITY OF ATTAPULGUS

02110181 250. I I

C143 CITY OF BAINBRIDGE

05114180 <200. 10119182 <3

C144 CITY OF CLIMAX

04115182 <200. 04117184 <1

C145 DECATUR CO. CORR. INST.

12105178 <200. I I

C146 DECATUR CO. IND. PARK

05121179 <200. I I

C147 DOLLAR COMMUNITY APTS.

06121179 <200. I I

C148 ENGELHARDS M&C

06/21179 <200. I I

C149 FLINTWOOD SID

04103179 <200. I I

C150 JAMES TRAILER PARK

02122179 <200. I I

C151 MEADOWBROOK SID

11119179 <200. I I

C152 REDBARN NHP

B129 06102181 <200. 08119182 <3

C153 ROBINWOOD ESTATES

08114180 <200. I I

C154 SANDY ACRES MHP

08105181 <200. I I

C155 TOWN OF BRINSON

09110181 <200. 09120183 <2

** EFFINGHAM

C156 BLOOMINGDALE SID

03118182 <200. I I

C157 CITY OF GUYTON

01113182 <200. 01113181 <3

C158 CITY OF RINCON

04120182 <200. 09120178 1+-2

C159 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD

12105177 <200. 01104183 <3

C160 GLEN LEE TRAILER PARK

01113182 <200. I I

C161 GOSHEN TERRACE

B149 03111182 <200. 03119182 <2

C162 HAGIN WATER WORKS

04119179 <200. I I

C163 LAKE CHERIE MHP

10116179 <200. I I

C164 LAKESIDE FARMS SID

05106182 <200. I I

C165 MELDRIM LAKES

09118178 <200. I I

C166 REDGATE MHP

12115181 <200. I I

C167 WESTWOOD HEIGHTS SID

04120182 <200. I I

** EVANS

C168 CITY OF BELLVILLE

04115182 <200. 04115182 <3

C169 CITY OF CLAXTON

05105182 <200. 05105182 <2

C170 CITY OF DAISY

04115182 <200. 03123184 <2

66

MAP SUPPLY NAME NUM.

APPENDIX C: ~ELLS USED IN BARIUM AND GROSS ALPHA PLATES (CONTINUED)

~ELL OTHER BARIUM NUM. ID # SAMPLE
DATE

BARIUM RAD. CONC. SAMPLE (ug/l) DATE

GROSS RA226 RA228

ALPHA ACT IV ACT IV-

ACT. ITY

ITY

(piC/ l) (piC/l) (piC/l)

C171 CITY OF HAGAN

05/05/82 <200. 05/05/82 <2

C172 EVANS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

04/15/82 <200. I I

** GRADY

C173 CITY OF CAIRO

09/14/78 <200. 10/26/81 3+-2 2.3

C174 CITY OF ~HIGHAM

B161 06/28/82 200. 04/10/84 2+-2

C175 DOLLAR MHP

12/03/80 270. 01/31/83 <2

C176 GAY'S MHP

11/14/78 <200. I I

C177 MAX~ELL COMMUNITY

02/14/79 <200. I I

C178 PINE TERRACE ESTATES

08/25/81 <200. I I

C179 RENO ~ATER SYSTEM

02/14/79 200. 04/10/84 1+-1

C180 SOUTHERN TERRACE MHP

09/24/81 <200. I I

C181 ~ALDEN TRAILER PARK #1

04/09/81 <200. I I

** IR~IN

C182 CITY OF MYSTIC

01/11/82 <200. 01/31/84 <2

C183 CITY OF OCILLA

09/11/80 <200. 12/07/82 <2

C184 FOREST ESTATE S/D
C185 IRWINVILLE WATER ~ORKS co

10/30/78 485. I I 01/11/82 <200. I I

C186 KITCHENS MHP

02/06/79 310. I I

C187 SIZLAND TRAILER PARK

08/27/79 340. I I

** JEFF DAVIS

C188 B & B TRAILER PARK

02/08/82 <200. I I

C189 CITY OF DENTON

B172 04/12/78 <200. 08/30/82 <4

C190 CITY OF HAZELHURST

04/06/78 300. 02/09/83 4+-2 3.9 <1.0

C191 EDGEWOOD TRAILER PARK

11/19/81 223. I I

C192 DENDERSON TRAILER PARK

02/08/82 <200. I I

** MITCHELL

C193 BOWEN MOBILE ESTATES

B179 04/24/79 <200. 11/30/82 <3

C194 CITY OF BACONTON

02/25/82 <200. 07/27/83 <3

C195 CITY OF CAMILLA

11/19/79 <200. 09/28/82 <3

C196 CITY OF PELHAM

12/16/80 <200. 11/16/82 <4

C197 CITY OF SALE CITY

06!22/82 <200. 09/28/82 <4

C198 HINSONTON WATER ASSN.

B180 06/22/82 285. 06/12/84 2+-2

C199 SHADY GROVE TRAILER PARK

03/29/82 <200. I I

C200 ~ACO COMMUNITY

10/23/80 <200. I I

** MONTGOMERY

C201 ALLMONDS TRAILER PARK

01/18/79 <200. I I

C202 CHARLOTTE ~ATER ASSN.

04/02/82 220. I I

C203 CITY OF AILEY

B191 02/02/82 <200. 01/04/78 21+-3 20.7 0.2

C204 CITY OF AILEY (MODIFIED)

B191 I I

09/22/82 <3

C205 CITY OF ALSTON

B192 02/24/82 <200. 02/24/82 <3

C206 CITY OF MOUNT VERNON

B190 05/24/78 <200. 02/28/78 29+-5 25.5 0.5

C207 CITY OF MOUNT VERNON

2

09;15/81 <200. 08/05/82 <3

C208 CITY OF TARRYTOWN

1

03/21/78 400. 03/21/78 30+-5 51.0 1.2

C209 CITY OF TARRYTOWN

2 B194 01/06/82 410. 03/15/82 2+-2

C210 CITY OF UVALDA

04/02/82 <200. 04/02/82 <4

C211 MONTGOMERY CO CORR INST

05/10/82 <200. 10/25/83 <3

67

MAP SUPPLY NAME NUM.

APPENDIX C: WELLS USED IN BARIUM AND GROSS ALPHA PLATES (CONTINUED)

WELL OTHER BARIUM NUM. ID # SAMPLE
DATE

BARIUM RAD. CONC. SAMPLE (ugll) DATE

GROSS RA226 RA228 ALPHA ACT! V ACT IVACT. ITY ITY (piC/l) (piC/l) (piC/l)

C212 WILDWOOD MHP

B195 I I

08105182 5+-2 4.8 <1.0

** SCREVEN

C213 BRINSONS TRAILER PARK

12120178 <200. I I

C214 CITY OF HILTONIA

06120178 <200. 09130182 <4

C215 CITY OF NEWINGTON

08125181 <200. 08125181 <2

C216 CITY OF OLIVER

08125181 <200. 08125181 <2

C217 CITY OF SYLVANIA

06107178 <200. 11118182 <3

C218 GREEN ACRES MHP

12121178 <200. I I

C219 INDIAN BRANCH TRAILER PK.

12120178 <200. I I

C220 INDIGO MOBILE ESTATES

B201 12121178 <200. 07127183 <2

C221 PO-ROBIN MHP

12121178 <200. I I

** TATTNALL

C222 BEARDS CREEK TRAILER PARK

01106182 <200. I I

C223 CITY OF COBBTOWN

01106182 <200. 01106182 <3

C224 CITY OF COLLINS

09118178 <200. 05117182 <4

C225 CITY OF GLENNVILLE

11109177 <200. 09114182 <2

C226 CITY OF MANASSAS

B213 01106182 <200. 01102182 <4

C227 CITY OF REIDSVILLE

09119178 <200. 09114183 <3

C228 GEORGIA STATE PRISON

06116182 <200. 06116182 <2

** TELFAIR

C229 CITY OF HELENA

02104182 <200. 01126184 2+-2

C230 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE

01/18182 <200. 01112184 3+-1

C231 CITY OF JACKSONVILLE

2 B226 I I

04126183 5+-2 4.5 <1.0

C232 CITY OF LUMBER CITY

12101181 330. 12102181 3+-1

C233 CITY OF LUMBER CITY

B222 01101100

12101183 3+-1

C234 CITY OF MCRAE

01108182 270. 03108184 3+-1

C235 CITY OF MILAN

12122181 <200. 08126182 4+-2

C236 CITY OF SCOTLAND

12108181 245. 08123183 <3

** THOMAS

C237 CINDY LANE SID

02112181 <200. I I

C238 CIRCLE C MOBILE ESTATES

02102182 <200. 04119184 3+-1

C239 CITY OF BOSTON

08102178 <200. 01125183 <2

C240 CITY OF COOLIDGE

07118179 <200. 11109182 2+-2

C241 CITY OF MEIGS

12118180 210. 03108179 2+-2

C242 CITY OF OCHLOCKNEE

06123182 <200. 06105184 <3

C243 CITY OF PAVO

07118179 <200. 08130182 <3

C244 CITY OF THOMASVILLE

03125182 <200. 09129183 <3

C245 CRABAPPLE HILLS

02112181 <200. I I

C246 CRESTWOOD MHP 1

09109181 <200. I I

C247 CRESTWOODMHP 2

09109181 <200. I I

C248 FOREST PARK MHP

01118179 <200. I I

C249 FOXCROFT SID

01118179 <200. I I

C250 LITTLE ACRES ESTATES

09117181 <200. I I

C251 OAKLAND SID

03123182 <200. I I

C252 PEBBLE HILL PLANTATION

05110179 <200. I I

C253 PINE LAKE ESTATES MHP

09117181 <200. I I

68

MAP SUPPLY NAME NUM.

APPENDIX C: WELLS USED IN BARIUM AND GROSS ALPHA PLATES (CONTINUED)

WELL OTHER BARIUM NUM. ID # SAMPLE
DATE

BARIUM RAD. CONC. SAMPLE (ug/l) DATE

GROSS RA226 RA228

ALPHA ACT IV- ACT IV-

ACT. ITY

ITY

(piC/l) (piC/ l) (piC/l)

C254 ROSE CITY ESTATES

12/23/80 <200. I I

C255 SHADY REST MHP

03/23/82 <200. I I

C256 SUGARWOOD ESTATES MHP

B242 05/02/82 <200. 04;25/84 2+-1

C257 SUNNY BELLE ACRES WA ASSN

04/02/81 <200. I I

C258 THOMAS CO. CORR. INST.

09!23!80 <200. I I

C259 TINY ACRES MHP

03!09!82 <200. I I

C260 TOWN & COUNTRY ESTATES

10!09!80 <200. I I

C261 TWIN ACRES S/D

11/19/81 <200. I I

** TIFT
C262 ABRAHAM BALDWIN AG. COL.

12/16/80 210. 09/02/82 3+-2 2.3

C263 BAILEYS TRAILER PARK

02/15/79 <200. I I

C264 BAR WMHP

06/23/81 <200. I I

C265 BOWEN-WRIGHT S/D

10/16/78 <200. I I

C266 CHURCH OF GOD CAMPGROUND

09/29/81 <200. I I

C267 CITY OF OMEGA

06/22/82 355. 05!22/84 <3

C268 CITY OF TIFTON

03/09/82 225. I I

C269 CITY OF TIFTON

4 B253 I I

02/10/83 7+-2 4.8 <1.0

C270 CITY OF TIFTON

5 B250 I I

02/10/83 15+-3 16.9 <1.0

C271 CITY OF TIFTON

7 B259 I I

11/26/86 3+-1

C272 CITY OF TYTY

12/16/80 <200. 10/07/82 <4

C273 COUNTRY HAVEN TRAILER PK.

02/02/82 <200. I I

C274 FERRY LAKE TRAILER PARK

08/24/81 <200. I I

C275 FOREST LAKE ESTATES

02/15/79 <200. I I

C276 GREEN ACRES MHP

04/16/79 240. I I

C277 HIDE A WAY TRAILER PARK

09/26/79 <200. I I

C278 HOBBS S/D

11/21/78 <200. I I

C279 KEENS TRAILER PARK 1

01/08/81 <200. I I

C280 OAK RIDGE TRAILER PARK

09/10/80 220. I I

C281 PEBBLE BROOK MEADOWS S/D

06/21/82 <200. 06;21/82 <3

C282 PINE HILL MHP

B257 06/28/82 215. 03!29!84 20+-2 25.9 <1.0

C283 PITTS TRAILER PARK

12/08/80 <200. I I

C284 SEABROOK TRAILER PARK

02/15/79 <200. I I

C285 SELPH TRAILER PARK

06/01/82 <200. I I

C286 SPRING HILL PROPERTIES

B258 10/13/81 <200. I I

C287 TIFT AREA MHP

06/28/79 <200. I I

C288 TOWN & COUNTRY ESTATES

B260 06/28/82 225. 05/31/84 <2

C289 VEAZEY TRAILER PARK

05/06/82 400. I I

C290 WILSONS MHP

10/16/78 <200. I I

C291 WHISPERING PINES MHP

B261 06/14/82 270. 02!21/84 11+-2 8.6 <1.0

C292 YANCEY TRAILER PARK

02/09/82 <200. I I

** TOOMBS
C293 CAT0 1 S TRAILER PARK

11/04/81 <200. I I

C294 CENTER HILL MHP

02!08!82 <200. I I

C295 CITY OF LYONS

02!09!82 <200. 12/08/82 2+-2

C296 CITY OF SANTA CLAUS

03!30!78 <200. 02!08!82 <4

C297 CITY OF VIDALIA

02/09/82 <200. 02/08/82 <4

69

MAP SUPPLY NAME NUM.

APPENDIX C: WELLS USED IN BARIUM AND GROSS ALPHA PLATES (CONTINUED)

WELL OTHER BARIUM NUM. ID # SAMPLE
DATE

BARIUM RAD. CONC. SAMPLE (ugll) DATE

GROSS RA226 RA228 ALPHA ACTJV- ACTJVACT. ITY ITY (piCil) (piCil) (piCil)

C298 M & T WATER WORKS

03109182 <200. I I

C299 MCNATT FALLS SID

B270 03109182 200. 03101182 4+-2 3.3 <1.0

C300 PETROSS WATER SYSTEM

11104181 <200. I I

C301 SHADY ACRES TRAILER PARK
** WHEELER

11102178 <200. I I

C302 CITY OF ALAMO

11107179 500. 01124178 188+- 196 0.4

C303 CITY OF ALAMO

2 B274 10121181 <200. 04124180 11+-2 4.8 <1.0

C304 CITY OF ALAMO

3

I I

09101187 <2

C305 CITY OF GLENWOOD
** WORTH

B278 11108177 285. 12115181 3+-2 2.1

C306 CITY OF POULAN

04121182 250. 05101184 3+-2

C307 CITY OF SUMNER

06115181 215. 12109182 2+-2

C308 CITY OF SYLVESTER

06110181 <200. 11118182 2+-2

C309 CITY OF WARWICK

B281 05125182 <200. 04124184 <3

C310 CONGER MHP

06110181 <200. I I

C311 ISABELLA WATER SYSTEM

05113182 200. I I

C312 NETHER MHP

04120181 210. I I

C313 PINE NEEDLE LANE TR. PK.

04122182 <200. I I

C314 PLEASANT HILLS MHP

02109181 <200. I I

C315 SOWEGA YOUTH HOME

05114179 <200. I I

C316 WORTHY MANOR SID

B282 08112181 <200. 08111183 <2

Notes:

a Barium concentration data from memorandum of 9117174 on file at the Georgia Geologic

Survey, no sample date given

b Barium concentration data from memorandum of 912180 on file at the Georgia Geologic

Survey, no sample date given

c Barium concentration data from file notes dated 7131178 on file at the Georgia Geologic

Survey, no sample date given

70

APPENDIX D: PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS

SAMPLE NUMBER

SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET)

VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
( FT/D)

** GGS 3199
137 139 138 140 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136
** GGS 3213
106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 96 97 98 99 100

276 305 330 360 385 403- 410 434- 436 462- 468 488 518 545 569 596 622 647 671 695 725 748 770 787
226 244- 261 271- 275 293- 297 367- 390 439- 443
466 501 527 547 575 597 629 651 674 725 748 776 800

0.048 0.056 0.027 D N S 0.081 2.2 25. 12. 0.034 0.098 0. 52 0.58 0.44 0.17 0.23 0.017 0.066 0.0022 0.0026 0.022 0.0083
47. 13. 6.8 0.31 0.097 3.2 48. 9.8 0.53 0.024 0.27 0.17 0.00083 0.033 0.0011 0.092 4.2 5.3
0.023

71

APPENDIX D: PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS (CONTINUED)

SAMPLE NUMBER

SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET)

VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCT! VITY ( FT /D)

101 102 103 104 105
** GGS 3535
91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76
** GGS 3541
75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57

826 853 887 899- 903 198
797 822- 838
848 873 899 925 948- 951 977- 980 1005 1023-1028 1057 1081 1106 1128 1150 1173-1177
422 443 464 491 520- 521 545 575 592- 600 625- 633 643- 661 673- 675 698- 701 718- 720 744- 748 769 794 817- 818 845- 849 875

0.032 0.0099 0.020 0.062 0.13
0.0055 0.0034 0.0050 0.0068 0.0086 0.00048 0.0020 0.0091 0.00057 0.0042 0.0056 0.0044 0.00084 0.0016 0.0032 0.00044
0.067 1.0 D N S D N S D N S 0.00037 0.0011 0.00049 0.75 0.18 0.036 0.011 0.018 0.048 0.0076 0.022 0.00044 0.0099 0.078

72

APPENDIX D: PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS (CONTINUED)

SAMPLE NUMBER

SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET)

VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY CFT /D)

56 55 54 53 A 52 51 50
** GGS 3542
94 93 92
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
** GGS 3544
29 30 31

901 924
957 979 1002 1024 1051
609 642 651- 662 722 729 744 749 761 764 786 796 806 810 824 850 874 901 936 952 974 1008 1033 1058-1062 1086 1107-1121 1145-1146 1170 1225-1238 1246-1255 1265-1267
150- 154 170- 171
192

0.0094 D N S
0.047 0.25 0.0029 0.078 0.16
0.26 1.6 2.1 11. 99. 23. 1.8 0.020 0.0038 0.21 0.030 0.0066 0.88 0. 71 2.1 0.030 0.018 0.040 0.016 0.44 3.7 0.0088 0.0063 D N S 0.018 0.029 0.027 0.0037 0.0028 0.0041
0.0024 D N S
0. 0071

73

APPENDIX D: PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS (CONTINUED)

SAMPLE NUMBER

SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET)

VERTICAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (FT/D)

32

204- 215

4.6

** GGS 3545
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

312- 317 337- 339
363 423 456 483 506 525- 536 546- 560 583 610- 619 642 667 704 729 755- 759 783

D N S D N S 3.9 0.17 0.20
1.5 0.0098 0.013 0.019 0.016 0.0050 0.021 0.0042 0.046 0.00080 0.099 0.023

Notes:

D N S denotes samples that did not saturate

Sample depth is listed as a range where core recovery was poor

74

See separate envelope for Plates 1 - 15

For convenience in selecting our reports from your bookshelves, they will be color-keyed across the spine by subject as follows:

Red Dk. Purple
Maroon Lt. Green Lt. Blue Dk. Green Dk. Blue Olive
Yellow
Dk. Orange Brown Black Dk. Brown

Valley and Ridge mapping and structural geology Piedmont and Blue Ridge mapping and structural geology Coastal Plain mapping and stratigraphy Paleontology Coastal Zone studies Geochemical and geophysical studies Hydrology Economic geology Mining directory Environmental studies Engineering studies Bibliographies and lists of publications Petroleum and natural gas Field trip guidebooks Collections of papers

Colors have been selected at random, and will be augmented as new subjects are published.

$5598/500

Editor: Patricia A Allgood Cartographer: Don Shellenberger.

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 of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or other non-merit factors.

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

DISTRIBUTION OF BARIUM IN GROUND WATER FROM THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kellam and
Lee L. Gorday 1990

EX PLA NATION

01:n8o6

WATER SYSTEM - Top number is inventory number from Appendix C. Bottom number is barium concentration in micrograms per liter (ugjl). Open circle denotes sample taken from water system.

25 350

WELL- Top number is inventory number from Appendix C. Bottom number is barium concentration in micrograms per liter (mgjl). Closed circle denotes sample taken from
a specific well.

CO UNTY-WIDE DATA - Block shows number of public supply systems within each county which produced water at or below the detection limit (200 ug/1) for barium. Data lor each public supply is included in Appendix C.

For system names, well numbers, and sampling dates, see Appendix C.

,;I

1 Statesboro

~

UQ

~_,<;; v Georilo Southern

B LL0 CH 0 Brooklet ~

.

,'.,

.~
0

Tusc::ulu m '"'

" 0

E P'F I N

Sprmglield

,:>Arcole ,,St ilson

\)Guyton

oPineora

83

LFA R

~

-r,,o.":"_r---r,", I JEFF I Snlpesvil11!'0
I
I

IS
J

...---"
I

~,?

........._

I I
~lest Green

"""' "....,.
BACON

I F E E

Gordy I

~

Nicholls_
J_

Dewitt ,,,...I ....,.,, []

l

---,

I

I
I
----L----,------
1
Eldorendo

B a,c, o,.n t o n

rI -

Sctilt!y 0 Funston

Nmman PatkO
~

co

~ -ij"

M""''

BerlinO ____ __,

.....

f')l '--------1

Will coochee

~

I

,

-~BER

R

I

EN "/

, 'D
,,o

1
I

Pom~ I I
(l,.

Kic<lood
T K

'"""'
IN

'~---.J

I

l

I

"')
I

\

'

\

~t-----------:~

.----_j I

I

83

I

\ 'iCectl

L) Ray Ctty I

I

---[]----+-\\ I-----
' chfoc~nee

".-- -- - - - -Bfo-rn-ey" =---\\.---_____L310--
"\

- _j

' I
).

) '

DE

0 175

I

G R A 2D70 y

~,._,_

,

I '

i

"e."'

\

t""'

'
I

I

I

Pina P'~_,;p--j-<-~..._

MAS

0 '
" '
:I '
Barwick.
BRO

Morven\
. 'l, I
(

\ '--v-

KS

) "

r '

I
I

I ,O, !f2o

o RenQ

------------ -- _j ---------- ()0D.RL''f" OAM

A

2
St c

r5d0am0

I o CaiVIIr>'

Beachton 0

r-"
r~
Bl~o:<~.t~on~'t---~D~"~'c'---Q~u~ot~m_)a.n :!!l.--~'71/ SE A60.. R0

_J ' ""\..,. Metcalf
___ ____ -- ------

rOG""'"'"'

rdoo

------.:i:.

./ 1~ 0 ~==0 ~~~~ 10 ==~20~~~= 30 ===40 MILES

\

10

0

10

20

30

40

50 KILOMETERS

<.~an kln'-_~_.,

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/Gulf Trough

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 14

DEPARTMEN T OF NAT URAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORG IA GEOLOGIC SURVE Y

DISTRIBUTION OF SULFATE IN GROUND WATER FROM THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kellam an d
Lee L. Gorday 1990

EXPLANATION WELL- Number is sulfate concentration in mill igrams per liter (mg/ 1). Data point size indicates range of sulfate concentrations. Sulfate less than i 00 mgjl Sulfate iOO to i99 mgjl Sulfate 200 mg/1 or greater For well number, see Plate 6. For well name and construction, see Appendix B.

63
/
/

/
/
'~

- --1'~

"').-

I

,0 -~ ___..

,5
/

('\,

. . T<Hrytown

NorTantown

K bee.)...

I

/

/
/

0/ .4

Alamo

l

0
4.0 Jollnson Corner

32--c~---+-------

/

/
/

T EL FA

/

/

~~

I

o ::t....,, 1,... --------!~..B-ow.en..._

I

Mdl

<5.V. .o.a

""\..._
~ ( .AbO. ~ o~;-- ' ,I E N fH'"l"l_ L

-Jacksonvlill!
--.,.

I

wojtwll' 0 '

r

a Irwin~.

---1'
--,_ J5~ _____

-R"Mysti c

o Pridgen

Ch1.J!a

\ Hardinao \

R
JEFF
Snipasville 0

----
Oew!tl

31 --
I
I
I
).
I
)

r-"'
...r ~

6.0 i 0 [!'<i

f

}

I

. ~ ~ S!g-.;be

Norman Par lll:S. B
0.8 .o .o

r oo".$.msfieh94 sc111t,

.o.4

'fi1
I' .c CoUoc

0 Funston
.6.4
c4.~

.1 . 3. 6

Pelham

~~

r----L' - ---,----

-lI

-MeiSS

~

Murpny.

Eldor.:ndo

1
I

'--'---------L .~.~.6

4:-------------

,

\

0 Reno

Attapulgu s 0

------- -- ---------- _l A sterdt~m0

1 o C;)l\fary

BRO KS

I

( u Groover\fl'le

Raden

- - - - ""-""- - -- - - - _j' --
I

1
- -------.s. o Nankn"""'""' ,

64

;
9.5
Nashville

)
I
') - __________\i
as"

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

Y esboro

~

210

1v~ o Qeor&i Southern

B LL0 CH

w.....Br<~~Wok l et

:').U ~ 9

"Nevi ls

'-z

Shawrt ee
.

Clyo ''-
~ ?

.....". !-_,
l tJ SCUium ..,.

\ \

E F''F I N HA

I

Springfield

Stillwetl '
g \f\.,

~ s.1 't

~Rincon n
.0

I
I
,.

.~'.,. t~v-1--'#

0

20 40 Ml

I

H H 0 20 40 KM

Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/ Gu lf Trough

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 13

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS IN GROUND WATER FROM THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kellam and
Lee L. Gorday 1990
EXPLANATION 761 WELL - Number is total dissolved solids concentration, in milligrams per liter (mg/1) . Data point size indicates range of total dissolved solids concentrations. 136 Total dissolved solids below 200 mgjl e243 Total dissolved solids from 200 to 399 mg/1 e761 Total dissolved solids 400 mg/1 or greater For we ll number, see Plate 6. For well name and constru ction see Appendix B.

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 12

32

+ - -- -- - -

/

/
/

T ELFA

/

/

~~

84
,-1/ "'- -~ ~""'"-LI\

1L... Y' Oakfield

-'r I

.136

1

I

I

o F'rid&:ei'l

I

.148

lrwlnv.iJ fsa

lT'-, - ---rI

J59

~Mystic
~R

n(Sh"T" H i_,.j
~ster

~l.---,.
\

D.>< ~~3SJJ'ner

Hartlingo \

"'r~---:u--.,-_~.6..0

~
?

-------r-

JEFF
Snipe!;ville 0
E E

f
.. /

, /)

~

.99

) "

------ L' - ----~~----

Eldorendo
I
3 1 0 - - L -- - - ~- Bnn11an
II '"'-..s-_~

I .~62
~-------J \

'
\

Ocrlfoc~Mee 318

, -\ I

I
)

\

266

~~>o---4"1~ G R A .26D Y

t""'"
I

I'

I

Whghom

~

)

I
r

I

o Re no

I

---- - _j--------- - I Facevilhe

A ~ierd-m_0

1 o Calv&r)'

I
3'4 .--- _ j ! ! _~e!a

Fender
_

-.J

0

Cro~ lar"\.d 1 6 5

--r
!

o121

I

)

Pav~ 82
~
' '
I~

.166 190
BRO

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

162o



Johnso11

COrrl<ilr

oCedar Cros5in

I
82

Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/Gulf Trough

DE PARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DI V ISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

289 F. Br own
54 3 2 Na + K

A
1

Ca

Mg

Worth County 2 345
Cl

104 Doerun, Georgia

Colquitt County

54 3 2 1 01 2 3 4 5

7 3 D. E. Sm ith 543 21 0
Na + K
Ca
Mg

Colquitt County
2 34 5 Cl

85 W. M. Brooks
5432 1 Na + K
Ca
Mg

Colquitt County
2 345 Cl
H C03

83 J . Kirk II

Colquitt County

5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 345

84 0. C. Causey

Colquitt County

5 4 3210 1 2345

"':: f : : : ~ :> : :~ ::~

66 Moultrie, Georgia #3

Colquitt County

":1:::'t ~ :s:: ]=~

90 H. Tom li nson

Na + K 5

4

3

2

1

a

Ca

Mg

Colquitt County 2 345
Cl

93 D. Bell
543 21 Na + K
Ca
Mg

Colquitt Count y
2 34 5 Cl

97 Tyson & Dean Drilling Co. Colquitt County 543210123 4 5

Na + K

Cl

Ca

Mg

95 C. L awrence 54 3 2 1 0

Colquitt Count y
2 345

A'

MAJOR ION GEOCHEMISTRY OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM

EXPLANATIO N

Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kellam
and Lee L. Gorday
1990

000 Well Name
54321 0

County Name
2 345

CAT IONS

AN IONS
\
~

Stiff Diagram. Shows concentration of major ions In mlll lequlvalentsillter !meqfl). Number preceding well name is well identification number in Appendix B.

/
/
/
/
r: ./ .
I '
I '
I

cr-
Piper Diagra m . Shows relative percen ta ges o f major Ions.

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 11
c-c
cr-

)
G R A D

A- A'

\
~ .
cr-

0

10

20

30

18:0EE:EE:EO=::=;=::=;;i<10==~20"====="3c0==4EO=:===il.50

40 MILES Kl LOM ETERS

\
~..
B-B'
cr -

DEPARTMEN T OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIV ISION GEO RGIA GEOLOGIC SURVE Y

ESTIMATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VALUES FOR WELLS TAPPING THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM

IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madel eine F. Kellam and
Lee L Gorday 1990
EXPLANATION WELL - Number is estimated hydraulic conductivity in feet per day (It/d) . Data point size indicates range of hydraulic conductivity values.
0 3.4 Hydraulic conductivity i 0 ft/d or lower Hydraulic conductivity from 11 to 100 ft/d
es2o Hydraulic conductivity greater than 100 ft/d
For well number, see Plate 6. For well name, construction , and production test data, see Appendix B.

/ (,".
I

~/\
,.~---- --~--330
,. /
0 Mill haven
CHil ltonia.

I

olew S

I

5 c REVE

0 Woodcllff

~ylvani a It man
9

o Portal
13

130

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 10

R A

lttapu1gos

:J
_ j A sterd-am-
----- ---------- -

I o Calv!lrl'

TE L FA R

c-- -- --
1

--- I So-;;;;;;-" . '-\...l

M>ll

<.....\"'\...,

'

Queenslond
HI L L

'- ~ ,
,

JEFF
Snipesville
0

I
I
---rI

,Mystlt:
'R
I
/
J
-------r-J

o Pridgeii

o C0d11 r Crossing

Johnson Corner

BAC0 N

- L ~-

- - - - , - - :;; Om<Jg a

-

Crosland

I

I

Norm111n Parke
4 .6

l

c (JI1

J
(
___ ~-" BerlinO ____.

a ? ' BERRIEN
--~

p,soo . e.-1.

~PND

Nashville

I

'
[.._

-~

, l il '

I

}-_
\

lII~-

---------~'\

'o/lfa (

....-----_.]

I

83

20 \ ) 1,R9a0y 9.t\t_j!
_.\:~t:'__ L __j

Pavo
120.

Barwir:k
BRO

Boston

Dixre 0

sJIBD""~

\, 10

0

10

20

30

40 MILES

~~~~~~====~~~~=====

( 0 GroovervHie

Baden

)

10

0

10

20

30

40

50 KILOMETERS

-------- ------ tlc~call

_jl

"""" o Nankin.. ~.
---------1.

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

0

20

40 Ml

I

IH H 0 20 40 KM

Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/Gulf Trough

DEPARTMENT OF N ATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
I

ESTIMATED TRANSMISSIVITY VALUES FOR WELLS TAPPING THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA

EXPLANATION
e78,ooo WELL - Number is estimated transmissivity in feet squared per day (ft' /d). Data point
size indicates range of transmissivity values.
630 Transmissivity less than 5,000 It' / d
9, 900 Transmissivity from 5,000 to 49,999 ft' /d
e1s,ooo Transmissivity equal to or greater than 50,000 ft'/d
For well number, see Plate 6. For well name, construction, and production test data, see Appendix B.

Hydrogeology and Compilation
by
Madeleine F. Kellam and
Lee L. Gorday
1990

::; Lewis

s c R EVE N

0 Woodcliff

Sylvania }.(Altman
"4<r

BULLETIN 94 PL ATE 9

TELFA R

c Ced ar
Cmssl ng

"J o h n s o n
Corner

~l
I
I
I
I
I
l_

l r w 1n v i!!e 0
J59

I JEF F I Snlpesvllle0

__ _ ____ LI _ ___I r _ _ _

F-

I

I

3

I
I
I
).

I

)
r I
(~
,

I

I

I

o'"ttapuiJIUS

I

j _: : ---------- -~tood>m-o

-------

0 Hartsfield

a,aOO Norman ?;,rkO

___Ber li nO ____.

I

_______ I

---\

I

\

~

I

;T~K'i'tm~~'"r-J

J

; I

I
' ~

I
__________l\).

J

...-----..J'

I

\

I

880 ~ 60,0

) Ray '"'0'--'
_ .ci~~ -L _j

Barwick

19,000 e 'M'"'" I (

BRO

\ ""---v. 1,800 ...
K S 8,2oo )
r-"

\ .~~~'~-t~~jt--~Q:u':i1t9;m! ':a:nG]._.-:';:;;:;;;;-"7 sc:,.eo .o. R~

I

, 10

0

10

20

30

40

~~~~~=-=~~~~~~~~

MILES

__ ______ j ( o Grooverv1/le ~

)

10

0

10

20

30

40

50 KILOMET ERS

'\.-....

- - - - - --.L

~ O Nillnkin""

- ------~

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,0 0 0 map of Georgia, 1970.

0

20 40 Ml

I

IH H 0 20 40 KM

Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/Gulf Trough

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIV ISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

SPECIFIC CAPACITY INDICES FOR WELLS TAPPING THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kell am and
Lee L. Gorday 1990

EXPLANATION
1.5 WELL - Number is specific capacity index in gallons per minute per foot of drawdown per foot of open borehole (gpmjtt' ).
For well number, see Plate 6. For well name, construction, and production test data, see Appendix B.

I I

0 Johnsen
Coruer

T E LFA

c---------Bowen

1

Mill

R o.1 0 Mystic

~0.11 Jccksonville o Pndgeii

JEFF

I

J

I
_T ____ r'"~......._

o.11

I 'Wellt Green I

, ' " ' ~

BAC0 N

E E

Sale City~oi.
ELL .
.,o II 0"'"'""0
IOSOOIO ~C0.32
l' .Ocouon
I
~

Sc tlley"' 0 Funston

Norman Parko O. O15

Berl ino

/
~-

----~

I

Mora

I

- - - \\_______ --jI

, BERRIEN
..._..:-1-;;~."0~~2

~--/ WU I coocnee

I

~~~ f-.

T

K

I

N

S

.. . !
u~-"-'

I I

I

'~t!----------\l.

"I""I

....----_)
I
I

I
83

0 oenmark
0.77. .
NevilS.
I
'\

BULLETIN 94 PLATE B

0

20 40 Ml

I

IH H 0 20 40 KM

----A __ sterd0 :~_jI o Calvary
--------

~

( <l Groover vi'!e

Baden

Metcll!lf

_jl

--------

- - - -- - o NanKin,. ~,
---------1

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 197 0.

Approxi mate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/Gulf Trough

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVI SION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

SPECIFIC CAPACITY VALUES FOR WELLS TAPPING THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM

IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
Hydrogeology and Compilation
by
Madeleine F. Kellam and
Lee L. Gorday 1990

/"'-:.
J> 330 --77"-r'-'-----~-,.---33

/
, /

, /

0 MiUh.tven

(,.
I
I

0 Hilltoni~

I

I

o lewis

I
I

SCREVE N

<J Woodcliff

.,. Sylvania

EXPLANATION
220 WELL - Number is specific capacity in gallons per minute per foot ol drawdown (gpm/ft).
For well number, see Plate 6. For well name, construction, and production test data, see Appendix B.

82

Ford

/'---J.
;'

o Portal
2.9

53.

f
(

I
/ c

I

----

I

Al inec

<.

--- ~---Q:::~--1\.--./- -~-'\,

I

-'\

\

83

I
/\) I
,-l
,...r ~ r-"'
J
f

j -r-- .J[Wil.lh Ll\ -'l I I I I I
l_

(""- - - -

I
I

I

---r 1...__ ) r-
H (,.j

, JS~
"L--~

I

I

0 Hartslield

0 Funston

.Ocottnn
ol
{

NOI'man Parka
11

/
/
/ '
i"lA,,

T E L FA R

- - Bow;;;;, -"\...l
<....... . '"\.._
EN ;oH"'""1''''"Ld L ~ "'--

JEFF I
I SF1ipesvlll1!!0

I

o Pridgen

I

------r-

E E

I

I

---\

I

'-----------1

I

I

}
I
'~ ~---------1'

8 erlinU ---~

I
I
I
)

I

)

I

I
r
r~

I

Attapulgus

I I

J-: 0

- - - - - - - - - - _lvt"d-m_o

Co l " "

Beachton0

--------

57.

B a r w oc k
BRO

Quit m an

'" ''

I

! 10

0

10

20

30

40 MILES

\,~~Ea~======c=============c=====~

( o GrooverviHe

,

10

0

10

20

30

40

50 KILOMETERS

_______ --~-~-------- __ __1 - - - - - -

'\...,.
__. o Ntmkin"" ""'

I

o Cedar Cross1ng

0 Jol"lnson
Corner

A

NG

.30

N
ogia~E3~28~o~E3~40 Ml
1
0 20 40 KM
Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embaymen t/G ulf Trough

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 7

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

LOCATIONS OF WELLS USED IN MAPPING AQUIFER PROPERTIES AND WATER QUALITY

Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kellam
and
Lee L. Gorday 1990

33

33

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 6

EXPLANATION 281 WELL - Number is well identification number from Append ix B.

82
I

I

/'~

/

'

/ 0 59
(

5 4 0..1Portal

I

40

\

/ C J\~~-~L"'--Ef"'.'~\c.ll

I

Alineo

56 .

I

(. t

/"\"- -

_ _ _ ......

I

- - - - -
..

I E>. elslqr

Cobbtown

, .- - - / - _ -

.., "

. sa 0 0e11mark Nevils.

1 0 157

- ~.,

\

/

.-. . .... 32

,1- ... . ............... . .....

/

/
/

T EL

/

/

~~

o 272~ohnson
Corner

JEFF
Snipesvi llec

I
82

I

o 187
I
-- ---- L----~- ---

I
I
I
I.
I
)
I
(
f~

---- -- ---------- _j 0 A sterdm

I o Calvary

o 284
0 82 I
I I Red I Rock 0

Sigs l f
0 5 86 ~~ 0 Hart sfiel d
1 87
11 8 8
(

102
Norm:an Pa r~

82

67

81

98

4 96
~

9 9 o o 9 1,.

0 97

Berfl ,-

~ "..

10 0 1 -

.5 - --~

Barney

I
-:r1
~

o Pridgoiii

r
I
16 8 "/
------,--J'

F EE
I
I
----~\ ______ _jI

Wilt coot;he e

I

- I , BERRIEN

' 27

Webe~

J
I
' ~

. - - - - . . J'

Kirl<lan1d2 '~n _ .

1

T K I N S ~----J

I
l \
----------~

Al ~3

34 0

Morven \ -~~~ f
(

e~rwick

33

BRO

\ '--v. 35 "'
K S 36 )
.,--/

)~
-------r .!;O:ABOAi~O

\/EC10E:::EI:J3CE30:::l:===::===10=========2=0 ========3=0=====i===40 MILES

--------_jl------ _______ Metcalf

( 0 Gtooverville

Baden

1

10

"\....,..

,_. ~ O N ankln"'

0

10

20

30

40

50 KILOMETERS

/11, c.
N
og8~E~---J~~o~E---J4~o. Ml
0 20 40 KM
Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/Gulf Trough

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

THICKNESS OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA

Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kellam and
Lee L. Gorday 1990
\ \
I

EXPLANATION

- - ---30 0 - - LINE OF EQUAL THICKNESS - Shows thickness, in feet, of the Floridan aquifer system. Contour interval is 100 feet. Dashed where approximately located.

0 291 WELL - Number is thickness, in feet, of the Floridan aquifer system .

. <=115

WELL - Number is minimum thickness, in feet, of the Floridan aquifer system. The thickness is known to be at least this value . These data generally represe nt wells for which either the top or the bottom of the aquifer is uncertain. These points will dictate the location of contours of lower value, but may not influence contours of higher value.

BULLETIN 94 PL ATE 5

Eldor~ndo
Base map from U.S. GeOlogical Survey 1:500 ,000 map ol Georgia, 1970.

-~

\
- \ 300

~

) Ray City

~ --.._ <:~~y-;;, --.._ ~ _j

~--.-q~~~-~~L__ _ _ _ _Ba~ rneLy _~~-" ~ 10

4oo .............

Pavo

<=4 04 1.._

! .e:192



.~111) '

8 wl1;>120

'\

0'

00 ~12 ~ orven \
l

(

\.._

<:130

~"

M &"'~

<=12 1 B R 0

K S

j

r- omasvillll,130

<:106

>-~ ., "'~ark -
. ;::::110

<:644 I

--;;c= Boston

-::_,t~r>!no

' <:140

o i} >e c'\

Qui't"m' an~
2:1 . '

120
(
SE Atl DA PI:r>

,..._,

I

'\ <= 09 , 10

0

10

20

30

40 MILES

i "6'o 0 0 '"""" '"

<oo

\, S:E:::El::J1~:0CE0:==0=======1=0=c==2=0==:e=3=0======4=0=ol==5=0==K=I=LO::JMETERS

I M:c:f______ _j'__

0 ~135 "\....,..

- - - - Q Nankin"' "'"'"' -------......l

0

20

40 Ml

I

IH H
0 20 40 KM

Approx imate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/G ulf Trough

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

GEOLOGY AND CONFIGURATION OF THE BASE OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM

IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kell am and
Lee L. Gorday 1990

,/\
330 ---;;/-- -- -~ - - 33

'
//

-32 ~I

/
'
(
1
<-761.
I I 5

0 Mi!lhaven

'

-26 .
-39

( ~,

OHiUto ni a.

"")

~1

:>Lewis

lo,_;/ )

._)

. VEN;;
.'

EXP LANATION

----- 200~ - STR UCTURE CONTOUR - Shows the altitude, in feet, of the base of the Floridan aquifer system. Datum is mean sea level. Contour interval is 100 feet. Dashed where approximately located.

-441 WELL - Number is altitude, in feet, of the base of the Floridan aquifer system .

. <175

WELL - Number is the maximum altitude, in feet, of the base of the Floridan aquifer system. The base of the Floridan aquifer system is known to be below this altitude. These data generally represent wells that did not penetrate the base of the Floridan aquifer system. Wells that penetrated 100 feet of the Floridan aquifer system, or less,
are not plotted, but are included in Appendix A. These points will dictate the locations
of contours of higher value, but may not influence contours of lower value .

--300

<-sqn
. _Y_2Tinson
<- e<1ner

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 4

(
/1) I
,..J
,...r ,r-"'
)

I

I """'5&8

----

.L ---6~1 o CtJlvf

< 28.sl!achton0

~ -..... Ht-"-- - - - -

'0~

/

IS I
<-ssac..:], I

A p

NG

-T-.-_Jt"----

I 1
Gm

I

~""","'

I

ACON

E I

J_

I

. 'I/V'

..J
_j _ _J

.~

I
vv A-"'""-' '-23 ~

\

CecH

L'\

- -

' -....._ ......._
,..- - - - -:::,l.
I
I
Ray CIW,,__,
I
_ _J

~ -so0

,

----------~

' '"' '
(
<-1 \~ ...,
)
r-'

1
II OGcoomlllo

/ \10~~~~o0=~==~=10=====2~0 ==~~=30=====40 MILES

10

0

10

20

30

40

50 KILOMETERS

I

_j-------.:. -------.....-'. - - ---..___

<-115 '-v..
oNanki n.._ ~

Base map from U.S. Geological SUrvey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

GEOLOGY O F THE BASE OF THE F LORIDAN AQUI F ER IN T HE STUDY AREA
N
o1[:~E3~2~o~E3~40 Ml
f= H H
0 20 40KM
C,o.Fifi O U.
EXPLANATION
IIITI Rocks of Ollg'Jcene age - Ochlockonee Limestone
~ Rocks of late Eocene age - Ocala Limestone
mRocks of middle Eocene age - Lisbon Formation, undifferentiated middle Eocene Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment!Gul f Trough

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

GEOLOGY AND CONFIGURATION OF THE TOP OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 3

EXPLANATION

----200

STRUCTURE CONTOUR - Shows the altitude, in feet, of the top of the Floridan aquifer system. Datum is mean sea level. Contour interval is I 00 feet.

1B6 WELL - Number is altitude, in feet, of the top of the Floridan aquifer system.

?:210

WELL- Number is minimum altitude, in feet, of the top of the Floridan aquifer system. The top of the Floridan aquifer system is known to be no lower than this altitude. These data represent wells for which there are gaps in the well cuttings or core, which were only partially logged, or wel ls for which the cuttings descriptions from previous workers did not include the entire well. These points will dictate the location of contours of lower value, but may not influence contours of higher value.

< 216 WELL - Number is the maximum altitude, in feet, of the top of the Floridan aquifer system. The top of the Floridan aquifer system is known to be below this altitude. These data generally represent wells that did not penetrate the top of the Floridan aquifer system. These points will dictate the locations of contours of higher value, but may not influence contours of lower value.

I
.?
100 "

Red,,
I Rock '"'
~
I

0

i2

I

0

0

i2

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kell am and
Lee L. Gorday 1990
()

83
!
l ~/
/
_(,

/
/
/
/

T ELF

<-67
, BERRIEN
- , -30 -21
J
( ' \
)
- L __j
0

IS
j
-m:,
_T ___ rI "

I I
West Green

B A C

I
I
I
--l I
-194 1
-.2 ~
-198
I
l \
_ _ _ .'1,
<:>
<f
I

l
7 A lln e<J -172

OMef'des

,

. ~lennville0 \

1

. -33 b

'

/

\ -347(

<'-.,

I

I

- \ I1 ~ I

.... I /.1\

c:' ,

'~
I

'0G/

.------"

~ SonG enoy~I

I
I
I
I
-410 ~,
" II - 66o _j
I -1> 0 0

=

-

=

-

=



0
=



=

-

=

=

=10

20

10

0

10

20

30

30

40

50

40 MILES KILOMETERS

Egypto
'''"'

'7~
---'1C-!-y-o--' , ">-~QO

CH
e :-1 Brooklet
-155'"

0 Arcol !l

0Stilscn

...

oPin~"

~Ri~;on

I
)

\
t

__..~ .)_

.---~

((

0Madow

8l11nford'i. \
;., -22\ <ft

~203;
tv - -\

----

\
l

OEd~~ -271 /

;'

r y \ - uM~irn/'

I ,
y

GEOLOGY OF THE TOP OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER IN THE STUDY AREA

N

0

20 40 Ml

I E3 E"3

IH H 0 20 40 KM

' 0'

EXPLANATION
~ Flocks of Oligocene age - Suwannee Limestone, Okapllco Limestone member
and undifferentiated Oligocene limestone
illl Flocks of late Eocene age - Ocala Limestone and equivalents
Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/Gulf Trough

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIV ISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

THICKNESS OF SEDIMENTS OVERLYING THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM

IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Madeleine F. Kellam and
Lee L Gorday 1990

100

'o 330 - --

;

/
;

/
;
(,.

0 MII It-.aven oH1Ut or,i a

30. :S33

o l ew iso

:S30

- - - - -100

EXP LANATION

LINE OF EQUAL THICKNESS - Shows thickness, in feet, of sediments overlying the Floridan aquifer system . Contour interval is 100 feet. Dashed where approximately located.

110
,; so

WELL - Number is thickness, in feet, of sediments overlying the Floridan aquifer system.
WELL - Number is maximum thickness, in feet, of sediments overlying the Floridan aquifer system. The thickness is known to be no greater than this value. These data represent wells for which there are gaps in the well cuttings or core, which were only partially logged, or wells for which the cuttings descriptions by previous workers did not indude the entire well. These points will dictate the location of contours of higher value, but may not influence contours of lower value.

~3 16

WELL - Number is minimum thickness, in feet, of sediments overlying the Floridan aquifer system . The thickness is known to be at least this value. These data generally represent wells that did not penetrate the top of the Floridan aquifer system. These points will dictate the location of contours of lower value, but may not influence contours of higher value.

/">-_~ ------ T

/

.. '? 283

,-5

"

/

(;)<::;

/

'1i

"470

4SO
0 Denmark
o38 0 G Nevils

32
/

/
~/

lb

()

i>0

~~
--\'.._

()
"'

~ '--

FA R

TATT

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 2

0

,;s o.

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

. ~1s

/
./.

I

Boinbridge

r so D
)
I
r
,-~

I

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

3 0 0 270 : J 240

( 400
\

\

l I

__ L __l -~Jj

) RavCitv}_.J

~0 0

----- __ __ _\;.

12 0

-------- _J ------ Metct!llf

0 Grooverv1lle 10 0

I

1

Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embaym ent/ Gulf Trough

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
Hydrogeology and Compilation by
Mad eleine F. Kellam and
Lee L. Gorday 1990

TENNESSEE

I

NORTH CAROLINA

N

FLORIDA

()

25

50 MILES

0

30

60 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION Floridan Aquifer System
mNot Present

0 :r:

a:0 ()

Ua.J

0a.
UJ

UJ
~ <(
ti>

z w
w
0
-0
a.J.

zww
0
-0
:::!!

>a:
<(

1a:-
w

z w
w

1- (J

0

(!}

z
<(
e,
a:
:J
m

...I Ill

0

~

0

>

A

B

c

D

E

Miccosukee Formation

Miccosukee Formation

F

G

H

Coosa whatchie
Formation

0.

:l

0
~

Meigs

(!} Member

<I>
c
~
-s0:::
;:

:<rU: undifferen-
tiated sand and
clay

Parachucla Formation

Altamaha

0. :l 0
~
(!} undifferen-

<I>
c

t iated

~
-s0:::
.;;:

:<rU:

Chattahoochee Formation

Formation
0. :l
0 no data
~
Cl
Q)
c
~
-s0:::
;;:
:<rU: Parachucla
Formation

Altamaha Formation

Coosawhatchie Formation

0. :l 0

Meigs Member.

~

(!} und ifferen-

Q)

tiated

c sand and

~
-s0:::
;;:

clay

:<rU: Parachucla

Formation

Altamaha Formation
a.
:l
0 no data
~
Cl
Q)
c
~
-0
s::: ;;:
:<rU: Parachucla
Formation

Altamaha Formation

Coosa whatchie Formation

0. :l
0

Meigs Mem er

~

Cl

<I> no data c
~
-s0:::
;;:
:<rU: Parachucla

Formation

Altamaha Formation

Coosa -

whatchie

a.
:l

Formation

0
~

Cl

Marks Head

Q)

c

-~
0

Formation

s:::

;;:

:<rU: Parachucla

Formation

Alt amaha Formation

zw w
ow 8- '
Ow ::i

-z
<(
z a:
-0 m
<(

.J

0

"Tallahatta Formation

Upper Eocene limeston e

undifferentiated Middle Eocene
limest one
"Tallahatta" Fo r m a t i o n

unnamed Middle Eocene
limes tone

"Tallahatta" Form at i o n

Mid dle Eocene limestone
"Tallah atta Formation

limestone

"Tallah atta Formation

limestone

Lisbon Formation
undifferentiated sand

:rw:r::

z
<(
z

m 0
...J

<(

Ill

w

z
w

z

(J

<(

0 w
.J
If

:~;::
-c
:::!!

undiffer entiated

Sabi nian

Midway /Wi lcox Midway / Wilc ox

sedim ents

Midway / Wilcox Midway /Wilcox Midway / Wi lcox Midway /W ilcox Midway /Wilcox Midway/ Wilcox

Grou ps

Grou ps

Groups

Groups

Groups

Groups

Groups

Groups

ndifferentiated undifferentiated

un differentiated undifferentiated und ifferentiated undifferentiated undifferentiated undifferentiat ed

0<az: undifferentiated

Cretaceous

I

:c9
1-'

<az:

sediments

undifferentiated

Cretaceous sediments

undiffer entiated Cretaceo us sedim en ts

undifferentiated Cretaceous sediments

undifferentiated Cretaceous sediments

undifferentiated undifferentiated

Cretaceous

Cretaceous

sediments

sediments

undifferentiated Cretaceous sediments

undifferentl ated Cretaceous sediments

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 1

-I

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

DISTRIBUTION OF GROSS ALPHA ACTIVITY IN GROUND WATER FROM THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
IN THE GULF TROUGH/ APALACHICOLA EMBAYMENT AREA
Hydrogeology and Compilation
by
Madeleine F. Kellam and
Lee L. Gorday 1990

EXPLANATION

o194

WATER SYSTEM - Top number is inventory number from Appendix C. Bottom number

<3

is gross alpha activity in picoCuries per liter (piC/1). Values greaterthan 3 piC/1 are denoted

by underline. Open circle denotes sample taken from water system.

313
<3

WELL - Top number is inventory number from Appendix C. Bottom number is gross alpha activity in picoCuries per liter (piC/1). Values greaterthan 3 piC/1 are denoted by underline. Closed circle denotes sample taken from a specific well.

For system names, well numbers, sampling dates, and analyses for additional radiological parameters, see Appendix C. Screen indicates areas for which the occurrence of radioactivity is discussed in the text

208
302
83
I
/
TELFA R

o Pridgen

I JEFF
i SnJpnvllle0
I
I

82

I
r

I

/--J.

o Port<~ I

r

/

I
r

I

I

I

I

Al ineo

(,l
_..../\--

I ()((l!IISiD!

_ _ ..,

I

-0~- -l!-~o-wo- \

<3

\

I
\

TB 0 Deomar~ ' t r 4 4 !s

O(.;e(lar
Cros :'.mS

0 Johnson
Corner

1 <2
82

E E

I
I
I
I
I
)
,-I
f~
-----------

I
\ \
I
I
I
__J_I :: -------

Crosland
Norman ParkO 117 <2

AS

Billrw k k
BRO

~IJ

l I

~------------~\

I

.----_j I
83

' \

' L' --

_ _ jI

'I

Mor ven \ '"' I
(

''--v.

KS

) "

r-"

I

, / 10

0

10

20

30

40 MILES

\i~DB~~======~====~======~======

( o Grooverville

10

0

10

20

30

40

50 KILOMETERS

-1-""'-~------J ------

"""' 0N!'Inkin"'~
--------..s.

0

20

40 Ml

I

IH H 0 20 40 KM

Approximate Extent of the Apalachicola Embayment/Gulf Trough

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey 1:500,000 map of Georgia, 1970.

BULLETIN 94 PLATE 15