HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE DUBLIN AND MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEMS
OF EAST-CENTRAL GEORGIA
JohnS. Clarke, Rebekah Brooks, and Robert E. Faye
B-Aquller discharge to streams
In vicinity of well
EXPLA NAT I ON
AQUIFER CHANNEL SANDS CONFINING ZONE. SANDY CONF INING ZO NE CL AY L ENS WAl"ER LEVEL DIRECTION OF GAOUNO- WATEfl FLOW
Prepared as part of the Accelerated Ground-Water Program
in cooperation with the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
INFORMATION CIRCULAR 74
Geologic Units
In this report, for the purpose of simplicity, formations of Late Cretaceous and Paleocene age that are present in the study area and have similar lithologies and(or) equivalent stratigraphic positions, are grouped into informal geologic units. Some informal geologic units were assigned names taken from geologic formations of equivalent age from adjacent areas. For example the Peedee-Providence unit consists of age equivalents of the Peedee Formation in western South Carolina, and the Providence Sand in western Georgia. Although the informal geologic units are age equivalents of the formations, they are not necessarily lithostratigraphic equivalents.
COVER PHOTO:
Schematic diagram of recharge and discharge, and the direction of ground-water flow in the Gordon, Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems.
HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE DUBLIN AND MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEMS OF EAST-CENTRAL GEORGIA By
John S. Clarke, Rebekah Brooks, and Robert E. Faye
Prepared as part of the Accelerated Ground-Water Program
in cooperation with the Department of the Interior
u.s. Geological Survey
Department of Natural Resources J. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner Environmental Protection Division Harold F. Reheis, Assistant Director
Georgia Geologic Survey William H. McLemore, State Geologist
Atlanta, Georgia 1985
INFORMATION CIRCULAR 74
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ................................... .... .
............ ....... . Introduction .................... . Purpose and Scope
..................... . Method of study ..................... . Test-well drilling program
Well-numbering system.. ................................ .. . Previous studies ................................................. . Acknowledgments ............................... ..........
Geology . ..................... .... General setting .................................................. Depositional environments ...... Geologic units ..................................... Upper Cretaceous . ............................. Cape Fear unit . ..... ~ , ................... Middendorf-Blufftown unit Black Creek-Cusseta unit Peedee-Providence unit ....................
...................... Paleocene . .................... .. Lower Huber-Ellenton unit . .. Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit . ....... . Post-Paleocene
Channel sands ... .......................... Structure ........................................................ .
Hydrology ......................... . Aquifer systems ...................................... Definition ................................. Dublin aquifer system...................... Midville aquifer system Dublin-Midville aquifer system Altitude of tops of aquifer systems and confining units Thickness and sand content . .......................... Aquifer and well properties
Specific capacitY Transmissivity ......................................... Hydraulic conductivity Yield .................................................. . Ground-water levels .... ......................................... Seasonal and long-term fluctuations Potentiometric surface ... Estimated 1944-50 potentiometric surface October 1980 potentiometric surface Mine dewatering operations Long-term water-level declines Recharge ..................................... Discharge .................................. Water use ....................................... Well construction ................................. Water quality .....................................
Summary . ........
Page
1
1
2 2 4 4 4
6 6 6 7 10 10 10 12 12
13 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15
16 16
17 17 17 22 22 22 26 28 28 28 31 35 35 35 36 36 39 39 39
43 47
iii
TABLE OF CONr ENr S--Continued
Page
Selected references 47
Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
Appendix A.--Record of selected wells.......................... 52
Appendix B.--Water-quality analyses for the Dublin,
Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems............. 60
Lisr OF ILLUsr RAT IONS
Page
Figure
1. Map showing location of study area, physiographic
provinces, and areas covered by investigations as
part of the Upper Cretaceous-lower Tertiary aquifer
study................................................ 3
2. Map showing number and letter designations for 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangles covering east-central Georgia. 5
3. Map showing locations of selected wells and
hydrogeologic sections in east-central Georgia.......
8
4. Schematic diagram showing deltaic depositional
environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Figures 5-10. Map showing:
5. Structural features, outcrop area, and altitude of
the top of the Dublin and Dublin-Midville aquifer
systems........................................... 18
6. Altitude of the top of the Midville aquifer system... 19
7. Altitude of the top of the Black Creek-Cusseta
confining unit.................................... 20
8. Structural features and altitude of the base of the
Midville and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems 21
9. Thickness and percentage of sand in the Dublin and
Dublin-Midville aquifer systems 23
10. Thickness and percentage of sand in the Midville
and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems 24
Figure 11. Graph showing comparison of observed transmissivity
computed from time-drawdown or time-recovery
data with estimated transmissivity computed from
equation(!).......................................... 26
Figure 12. Map showing estimated transmissivity of the Dublin, Mid-
ville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems 27
Figures 13-17. Hydrographs showing: 13~ Mean monthly water levels in the Dublin-Midville
aquifer system at well 30AA4, and the cumulative
departure of precipitation at National Weather
Service station 090495, Richmond County,
1979-81............................................ 29
14. Mean monthly water levels in the Jacksonian aquifer
at well 21T1, Laurens County, 1973-82.............. 29
15. Water-level fluctuations in wells 18Ul and 18U2,
Twiggs County, and the cumulative departure of
precipitation at National Weather Service sta-
tion 095443, Bibb County, 1975-82.................. 30
iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS--Continued
Page
Figures 16-17. Hydrographs showing--Continued:
16. Mean monthly water levels in the Midville aquifer
system at well 28X1, Burke County, 1980-84 30
17. Mean monthly water levels in the Midville aquifer
system at well 24V1, Johnson County, 1980-84 30
Figure
18. Map showing estimated potentiometric surface of the
Dublin and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems, 1944-50 32
19. Map showing potentiometric surface of the Dublin and
Dublin-Midville aquifer systems, October 1980 33
20. Diagram showing head difference between the Dublin and
Midville aquifer systems in Twiggs and Laurens Coun-
ties and between the Gordon and Midville aquifer
systems in Burke CountY 34
21. Maps showing Huber Corporation mine dewatering operation
and its effect on ground-water flow, central Twiggs
County, 1968-72....................................... 37
22. Map showing location of water-level monitoring wells
and water-level declines in the Midville and Dublin-
Midville aquifer systems, 1950-80 38
23. Schematic diagram of recharge and discharge, and the
direction of ground-water flow in the Gordon, Dublin,
Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems 40
Figure
24. Map showing estimated ground-water discharge to streams
from aquifers in east-central Georgia, October-
November 19 54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
25. Graph showing Georgia kaolin production, 1900-1980 43
26. Diagram showing well construction and lithologic and
geophysical properties of aquifer sediments at well
16U1, near Warner Robins, Houston County 44
27. Map showing dissolved-solids concentration of water
from the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville
aquifer systems, 1940-82 45 28. Map showing iron concentration and pH of water from
the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer
systems, 1952-82...................................... 46
v
Plate Plate
PLATES
In pocket
1. Hydrogeologic sections A-A' and B-B'. 2. Hydrogeologic sections C-C', D-D', and list of wells
shown on hydrogeologic sections.
Table 1. 2. 3. 4.
TABLES Page
Generalized correlation of geologic and hydrologic units of Late Cretaceous and Tertiary age in Georgia 11
Aquifer properties at wells in which aquifer tests were
conducted ............................................ 25 Hydraulic conductivity of sediments cored at well 24V1,
near Wrightsville, Johnson County 28 Estimated water use from the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-
Midville aquifer systems, 1980 42
vi
CONVERSION FACTORS
For use of readers who prefer to use SI (metric) units, conversion factors for terms used in this report are listed below:
Multiply foot (ft)
~ 0.3048
To obtain meter (m)
inch (in.)
25.4
millimeter (mm)
mile (mi)
1.609
kilometer (km)
Area
square mile (mi2)
2.590
square kilometer (km2)
Flow
gallon per minute (gal/min)
0.06309
liter per second (1/s)
million gallons per day (Mgal/d)
0.04381 43.81
cubic meters per second (m3/s)
liter per second (1/s)
Concentration
part per million
1
1000
milligrams per liter (mg/1) micrograms per liter (~g/1)
Transmissivity
foot s~uared per day (ft /d)
0.0929
meter squared per day (m2/d)
Specific capacity
gallon per minute per foot [(gal/min)/ft]
0.207
liter per second per meter [(1/s)/m]
Specific conductance
micromho per centimeter
1
at 25 Celsius
(~mhos/em at 25C)
microsiemens per centimeter at 25 Celsius (~S/cm at 25C)
degrees Fahrenheit (F) degrees Celsius (C)
Temperatures 5/9(F-32) 9/5(C+32)
degrees Celsius (C) degrees Fahrenheit (F)
vii
HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE DUBLIN AND MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEMS OF EAST-CENTRAL GEORGIA By
John S. Clarke, Rebekah Brooks, and Robert E. Faye
ABSTRACT
During 1980, an estimated 121 million gallons of water per day was pumped in a 26-county area in east-central Georgia from sand aquifers of Paleocene and Late Cretaceous age. Maximum withdrawals were at the kaolin mining and processing centers in Twiggs, Wilkinson, and Washington Counties, where water levels have declined as much as 50 feet since 1944-50. In the southern two-thirds of the study area, water levels have shown little, if any, change. Declining water levels and increasing competition for ground water have caused concern over the adequacy of ground-water supplies. This report defines the areal extent and describes the hydrogeology of the Paleocene-Upper Cretaceous aquifers of east-central Georgia, and evaluates the effects of man on the ground-water flow system.
Hydrogeologic data from four test wells indicate that the aquifers consist of alternating layers of sand and clay that are largely of deltaic origin. The aquifers contain discontinuous confining units of clay and silt that are believed to extend for only short distances and are not significant in a regional evaluation. For this reason, the aquifers were grouped into two regional aquifer systems that are bounded by three regional confining units. The Dublin and Midville aquifer systems were each named for a geographic feature near a test well that penetrates sediments which are representative of the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer system.
In the northern third of the study area, the confining unit between the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems is absent and the aquifer systems combine to form the Dublin-Midville aquifer system. The aquifer systems range in thickness from 80 to 645 feet and their transmissivities range from 800 to 39,000 feet squared per day. The hydraulic conductivity ranges from 15 to 530 feet per day. Wells yield as much as 3, 400 gallons per minute. Chemical analyses of water from 49 wells indicate that watel." from both aquifer systems is of good quality except in the central part of the study area, where iron concentrations are as high as 6,700 micrograms per liter and exceed the 300 micrograms per liter recommended limit for drinking water.
The principal recharge to the aquifer systems is from precipitation that occurs within and adjacent to the outcrop areas. The principal discharge is to streams in the outcrop area, although in the southern part of the study area, discharge occurs by leakage into overlying units.
INTRODUCTION
In east-central Georgia, sand aquifers of Paleocene and Late Cretaceous age yielded an estimated 121 Mgal/d during 1980. About 60 percent of this withdrawal was at the kaolin mining and processing centers in Twiggs, Wilkinson, and Washington Counties. At these centers, water levels have declined as much as 50 ft since 1944-50. Concern over declining water levels, together with increasing
1
competition for ground-water resources between municipal, industrial, and agricultural users, spurred interest in evaluating available supplies of ground water. An understanding of the hydrogeologic properties of the aquifer systems is important for effective management of the ground-water resources.
This study was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Geologic Survey Branch. This report is one in a series presenting the results of studies being conducted on the lower Tertiary-Upper Cretaceous aquifers in the Georgia Coastal Plain as part of the Georgia Accelerated Ground-Water Program. Two previous reports described aquifers in s .outhwestern Georgia, whereas this report is one of three that describe aquifers in east-central Georgia (fig. 1).
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this report is to define the areal extent and describe the hydrology and geology of the PaleoceneUpper Cretaceous aquifers of east~central Georgia. The effects of man on the ground-water-flow system were also evaluated. The 26-county study area covers 9,200 mi2 and is generally bounded to the east by the Savannah River, to the west by the Ocmulgee River, and to the north by the Fall Line (fig. 1).
Methods of Study
With the exception of the southern part ' of the study area, data resources for the study were comprehensive. Data were obtained from published reports, consultant's reports, from files of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Georgia Geologic Survey, water-use and waterquality files of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and local industries and municipalities.
Borehole geophysical logs, and lithologic and paleontologic data were obtain-
ed from Herrick (1961) and from files of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Georgia Geologic Survey, and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. These data, supplemented by data from four test wells, were used to construct hydrogeologic sections and maps showing the areal extent and the approximate top, base, and thickness of the two aquifer systems that were delineated.
Water levels measured in more than 80 wells during October 20-24, 1980, were used to construct a map showing the configuration of the potentiometric surface. Water-level data from reports by LaMoreaux (1946), LeGrand and Furcron (1956), and LeGrand (1962) were used to prepare a map showing the configuration of the potentiometric surface for the period 194450. Until recently, topographic maps were not available to accurately locate and determine the latitude and longitude of the wells listed in these reports. Because this information was crucial for the construction of accurate potentiometric maps, plots of well locations were transferred from original field maps onto more accurate U.S. Geological Survey 7.5minute topographic quadrangle maps and were field checked, where possible. The data were used to construct a map showing the configuration of the potentiometric surface during 1944-50. Water-level declines were then estimated by comparing the 1944-50 and October 1980 potentiometric surfaces. Continuous water-level recorders were installed on seven wells to monitor water-level fluctuations and long-term water-level trends.
During the investigation, water samples for chemical analysis were obtained from four test wells and from two other wells. Data from these analyses together with historical data from 43 additional wells were used to map areal trends in pH, and in dissolved-solids and iron concentrations.
Aquifer transmissivity was computed from time-drawdown and time-recovery data collected from the four test wells, and from published and unpublished aquifer-
2
..
l -fCO ' YA''L L E Y W
wr rt t
A.t.io
-,
'D ll
RIDGE
l l.
..
l,tl u
~' IDG~
-y "
..._
(I s.vru
.I
n"
lTJ'H 5
"' .r. ;.~o~r.
\ '
t.llll I
1 ~ ,,. ll"iU'r
f.
. 0 ~~~, ~
'" n
,.' ~
\I~,,Q -
~
~ -
f_ 1.. 011E't Ovl IIGR:H:.
l
~ .. .\ Olj'H " .~1,. ~cw' '
)
EXPLANATION
AREA OF REPORT
Hydrogeology of the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems of east-central Georgia (this report)
Hydrogeology of the Gordon aquirer system of eastcentral Georgia (Brooks and olhers, 1985)
Hydrogeology of the Clayton aquifer of southwest Georgia (Clarke and olhers, 1984)
Hydrogeology of the Providence aquifer of southwesl Georgia (Clarke and others, 1983)
~ L;~
Geohydrology of the Jacksonian aquifer in central and east-cenlral Georgia (Vincent, 1982)
Where study areas overlap, 2 or more palterns are shown
\ ~ IH) U r
33 '
I. It flit!!. 10 It\ E
,.
~-.
'"\;
( tf ,_, R,. I
L t
...
rttU.AS
...
-----L~-
g- f'f ~ ,,. ~ll
, 4"~
14 11
c
0\4" tOt
"0 s ....
I
I'
Figure 1.-Location of study a rea, physiographic provinces, and areas
covered by investigations as part of the Upper Cretaceous-lower Tertiary
aquifer study.
3
test and specific-capacity data. Transmissivity values were mapped to show areal trends. Permeameter analyses of core samples collected at well 24V1 were used to estimate the vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity of confining units. Aquifer hydraulic conductivity was estimated from aquifer-test data.
Ground-water-use data for municipal!ties and industries were obtained from water-use reports submitted quarterly to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Agricultural water-use data were obtained from water-use surveys sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey and conducted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service during 1979-80.
Test-Well Drilling Program
Because of insufficient geologic, hydrologic, and water-quality data in the southern half of the study area, four test wells were drilled during 1980 and 1981 as part of this study (fig. 3). The wells are near Midville, in Burke County (28X1); near Wrightsville, in Johnson County (24V1); near Dublin, in Laurens County (21U4); and in northern Pulaski County (18T1), along a line that approximately parallels the strike of the strata. Each of the wells completely penetrated Tertiary strata and all except well 18T1 completely penetrated Upper Cretaceous strata. Drill cuttings, cores, paleontologic samples, and geophysical logs were obtained from each well and were used to correlate geologic units, aquifers, and confining units.
Each of the four test wells was screened in Upper Cretaceous strata (pls. 1 and 2). After completion of each well, water samples were collected for chemical analysis and water-level recorders were installed. These wells are now part of statewide ground-water-level and groundwater-quality monitoring networks.
Well-Numbering System
With the exception of wells in South Carolina, wells in this report are numbered according to a system based on the U.S. Geological Survey Index to Topographic Maps of Georgia (fig. 2). Each 7. 5-minute topographic quadrangle in the State has been given a number and letter designation beginning at the southwest corner of the State. Numbers increase eastward and letters increase alphabetically northward. The letters "I" and "0" are omitted. Quadrangles in the northern part of the State are designated by double letters. Wells inventoried in each quadrangle are numbered consecutively beginning with 1. Thus, the fourth well scheduled in the Sandersville quadrangle in Washington County is designated 22X4.
In areas where modern water-level data were unavailable, wells were used from Georgia Geological Survey reports (LaMoreaux, 1946; LeGrand and Furcron, 1956; and LeGrand, 1962). Because these wells are not included in the modern data base and thus were not assigned grid numbers, the sequential well numbers from the reports were retained. In South Carolina, wells are designated by letters prefixing sequential well numbers as follows: SRP, Savannah River Plant; AK, Aiken County; AL, Allendale County; and VSC, Plant Vogtle, SC. Additional information regarding wells used in this report may be obtained by referring to the well identification number in any correspondence to the District Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, 6481-B Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Doraville, Ga. 30360.
Previous Studies
Previous reports about the study area include descriptions of t\J.e geology and ground-water resources of Baldwin, Hancock, Jones, Twiggs, Washington, and Wilkinson Counties (LaMoreaux, 1946); Burke,
4
83 '0
82
BB AA
z
y
v
p .~.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 8 29 30 31 32 33 34
Modified from index to topographic maps of Georgia U.S , Geological Survey
0
10
20
30
40 MILES
Figure 2.-Number and letter designations for 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles covering east-central Georgia.
5
Columbia, Glascock, Jefferson, McDuffie, Richmond, and Warren Counties (LeGrand and Furcron, 1956); and Bibb, Crawford, Houston, Macon, Peach, Schley, and Taylor Counties (LeGrand, 1962). The three reports include descriptions of drill cuttings and outcropping sediments, and tables listing well-construction, waterlevel, well-yield, and water-quality data.
Pollard and Vorhis (1980) described the geohydrology of the Cretaceous aquifer system in southern Georgia. That report includes hydrogeologic sections and maps showing the altitude of the tops of the aquifers and their approximate thicknesses. Siple (1967), in a comprehensive study, described the geology and groundwater resources of the Savannah River Plant, S.C., near the Georgia-South Carolina border. The effects of suspected Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic faulting on ground-water flow near the Savannah River in Georgia and South Carolina were evaluated by Faye and Prowell (1982). As part of a series of reports on the lower Tertiary-Upper Cretaceous aquifers in Georgia, Vincent (1982) described the geohydrology of the Jacksonian aquifer in the study area and Clarke and others ( 1983; 1984) described the hydrogeology of the Providence aquifer and the Clayton aquifer in southwest Georgia, including Housston and Pulaski Counties (fig. 1).
Geologic reports describing the study area include maps showing the geology and mineral resources of the Macon-Gordon kaolin district in Twiggs and western Wilkinson Counties (Buie and others, 1979), and the geology of the central Georgia kaolin district in Wilkinson, Washington, Baldwin, and Hancock Counties (Hetrick and Fridel!, 1983, part I). Prowell and others (1985) correlated geologic units along a line extending across the central part of the study area, providing stratigraphic correlations between western and eastern Georgia and western South Carolina based on new data from the test wells drilled as part of the present study. Herrick (1961) presented litho-
logic logs and paleontologic data from wells throughout the Coastal Plain of Georgia. Guidebooks describing outcropping sediments in the study area include: Herrick and Counts (1968), Pickering (1971), and Huddlestun and others (1974). Other hydrologic and geologic reports are listed in Selected References.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend their appreciation to the many well owners, drillers, and managers of municipal and industrial waterworks who readily furnished information about wells. In particular, the writers wish to thank Douglas M. Dangerfield of M. R. Chasman and Associates, Athens, Ga.; Gerald S. Grainger of the Southern Company, Birmingham, Ala; Robert Massey of Layne-Atlantic Company, Savannah, Ga.; Sam M. Pickering of Yara Engineering, Deepstep, Ga.; and Dan Zeigler of Southeast Exploration and Production Company, Dallas, Tex, for providing hydrologic and geologic data. Conway Mizelle of Insurance Services of Georgia provided historical records of municipal water use in the study area.
Lin D. Pollard, u.s. Geological Sur-
vey, organized and monitored the testwell-drilling program. Laurel M. Bybell, Raymond A. Cristopher, Lucy E. Edwards,
and Norman 0. Frederiksen, u.s. Geologi-
cal Survey, identified fossils in core samples from the test wells. The writers extend particular appreciation and ac-
knowledgment to David C. Prowell, u.s.
Geological Survey, for his invaluable advice and assistance regarding the correlation of lithologic and stratigraphic units within the study area. Special appreciation is extended to Willis G. Hester and Ellie R. Black for preparing the illustrations in this report.
GEOLOGY
General Setting
Coastal Plain sedimentary rocks within the study area (fig. 1) consist of alter-
6
nating layers of sand, clay, and limestone that range in age from Late Cretaceous through Holocene. These strata dip and progressively thicken to the southeast, reaching a maximum thickness of at least 3, 000 ft in the southern part of the study area. The approximate northern limit of the strata and the contact between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic provinces is marked by the Fall Line (fig. 1). The strata crop out in discontinuous belts that are generally parallel to the Fall Line (fig. 3). The sedimentary sequence unconformably overlies igneous and metamorphic rocks of Paleozoic age, and consolidated red beds of early Mesozoic age (Chowns and Williams, 1983).
The age and stratigraphic correlations of geologic units in east-central Georgia long have been controversial because fossil evidence is sparse, lithologies of adjacent units are commonly similar, and some units can only be observed in drill cuttings. For example, certain strata in the study area that were assigned by early workers to the Upper Cretaceous. Tuscaloosa Formation have recently been shown by palynologic and stratigraphic studies to be of younger Cretaceous and Tertiary age (Tschudy and Patterson, 1975, p. 434, 437). According to David C. Prowell (U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1982), the Tuscaloosa Formation and unnamed rocks of equivalent age are absent in most of the study area, except possibly in southern Pulaski and Treutlen Counties.
Sediments of Late Cretaceous and Tertiary age in east-central Georgia commonly contain thick lenses of kaolin. These lenses grade from deposits of relatively pure kaolin having economic importance into clayey sand. The origin of the kaolin is controversial, but it is generally agreed that the kaolin was derived from the weathering of crystalline rocks of the Piedmont physiographic province (fig. 1) and probably was deposited in a deltaic environment (Kesler, 1963, P 10). Kaolin is useful in distinguising sediments of Late Cretaceous age from sediments of Tertiary age. According to Ret-
rick and Friddell (1983, part II), kaolin of Tertiary age may be distinguished by physical hardness; a very faint, greenish-gray cast; irregular fractures; and the presence of Panolites (a type of burrow). Kaolin of Late Cretaceous age is soft, white to pale tan, and has a conchoidal fracture and a high mica content.
Depositional Environments
The depositional environments of sediments in the study area controlled the distibution and types of lithologies that accumulated and thus effected the hydrologic properties of the sediments. In the study area, sediments of Late Cretaceous age were deposited mainly in deltaic environments where sediment-laden rivers and streams entered la~er bodies of water. Deltaic depositional environments are characterized by three principal subenvironments, in seaward order: the delta plain, the delta front, and the prodelta (fig. 4).
The delta plain is the level or nearly level surface composing the most landward part of a large delta (fig. 4). The lower delta plain shows some tidal marine influence, whereas the upper delta plain shows little, if any, tidal influence. On the delta plain, sediment-laden rivers and streams deposit coarse permeable sand and clayey sand mostly within distributary channels. Interdistributary bays and marshes accumulate discontinuous deposits of clay and fine sand that are relatively impermeable.
The delta front is a narrow zone seaward of the delta plain and within the effective depth of wave erosion. Deposition is most active in this subenvironment and sediments are chiefly interlayered silty sand, silt, and clay that generally become finer in texture in a seaward direction.
The prodelta lies below the effective depth of wave erosion and marks the most seaward part of a delta. Sediments deposited in this fully marine subenvironment consist mostly of laminated clay and
7
14
15
16
17 18
19 20
21
22 23
24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
EE
EXPLANATION
A-A' LINE OF HYDROGEOLOGIC S ECTION
DDI
P I14 NUMBER-LETTER COMBINATION INDICATES THE 1:24,000-SCALE MAP IDENTIFICATION FOR GEORGIA
2 WELL-Number is sequential well identification number located within each 1:24,000-scale map
AA
WELL AND IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR PREVIOUS REPORTS-Number is _,
county sequential number. Well is not included in the number-letter
1
combination system listed above
b7
LaMoreaux, 1946
o1-4
LeGrand and Furcron, 1956
?8
LeGrand, 1962
AK-436 WELL lOCATED IN SOUTH CAROLINA-Number is well identification number
z
y
lJ~
r~
. I ;- .. I_ -_~t-ao~;~.-- , ~~-- - ~06:~T~~~
X
32 33 34 35 36 37 EE
DD
cc
BB
- --
AA
I _l-IZ
I I
IY
X
w
00
w
v
u
:-1:
.:
T
T
s
s
j
I~-~ $
R
II L'" . I ~----
... ,..
-t-
'
'
I
Q
Q
32v
!-...-_ !---~--
p
p
~~a$:'e ~~~~ ~~p2,~~~~~08~0Sur~ey
Figure 3.-Locations of selected wells and hydrogeologic sections in east-central Georgia.
~
(
j
(
?
('-......u m i t of t i d a I i nt I u e n c e \ (
)
) Pre (de lta rocks
A
-shoreline
-Seaward
-Delta
growth
A'
Pre-delta rock s
Sea level
- Delta growth
EXPLANATION
Delta plain
Delta front
Prodelta
t"!~l-:1~i,~-~~~~E7.J.&~I
Co11 r se clayey sand nnd discontinuous deposits ol clay
and fine sand
lnterlayered silly Laminated clay
sand, silt. and
and fine silt
clay
Figure 4,-Sc{lematic diagram showing deltaic depositional environments.
9
fine silt that are more laterally continuous than sediments deposited in delta front and delta plain environments.
Geologic Units
In this report, for the purpose of
simplicity, formations of Late Cretaceous
and Paleocene age that are present in the
study area and have similar 1ithologies
and(or) equivalent stratigraphic posi-
tions, are grouped into informal geologic
units (table 1). Some informal geologic
units were assigned names taken from geo-
logic formations of equivalent age from
adjacent areas. For example, the Peedee-
Providence unit consists of age equiv-
alents of the Peedee Formation in western
South Carolina, and the Providence Sand
in western Georgia (table 1). Although
the informal geologic units are age equi-
valents of the formations, they are not
necessarily lithostratigraphic equiva-
lents. Geologic units in the study area
include, in ascending order: the Cape
Fear unit, the Middendorf-Blufftown unit,
the Black Creek-Cusseta unit, the Peedee-
Providence unit, the lower Huber-Ellenton
unit, the Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit, and
post-Paleocene units.
The following
lithostratigraphic descriptions are based
on Prowell and others (1985).
Upper Cretaceous
Cape Fear unit
The Cape Fear unit has a maximum known thickness of about 700 ft in the study area (well 25T2, pls. 1 and 2) and has been recognized in boreholes from western South Carolina to central Georgia (Prowell and others, 1985). In mast of the study area, the unit unconformably overlies pre-Cretaceous "basement" rock, although it is thought to locally overlie unnamed rocks equivalent to the Tuscaloosa Formation (table 1) in the extreme southern part of the study area in Pulaski and Treutlen Counties. The Cape Fear unit does not crop out in the study area and its northern limit is just north of well 19W6 on section B-B' (pl. 1), well
22Y30 on section C-C', and well SRP-P4A on section D-D' (pl. 2). The approximate northern limit of the Cape Fear unit is outlined on figure 8.
The Cape Fear unit corresponds to the UK1 lithologic unit of Prowell and others ( 1985) which has been assigned an early Austinian age on the basis of fossil evidence in wells 18T1 and 21U4 (pl. 1). Sediments described in the present report as the Cape Fear unit at wells 23T1 and 25T2 (section B-B', pl. 1) were assigned by Mayer and Applin (1971, pl. 13) to the Tuscaloosa Formation of Eaglefordian age (table 1). The strata that Mayer and Applin identified as the Tuscaloosa Formation in this area were considered to be updip facies equivalents of the upper part of the Atkinson Formation, also considered by earlier workers to be of Eaglefordian age (Applin, 1955; Applin and Applin, 1967). Studies by Hazel (1969), Valentine (1982), and Owens and Gohn (1985) have redefined the age of the upper part of the Atkinson Formation as Austinian (table 1), which corresponds to the age assigned to the Cape Fear unit by Prowell and others (1985). Consequently, sediments assigned to the Cape Fear unit at wells 23T1 and 25T2 are thought to be Austinian in age and correlative with both the upper part of the Atkinson Formation of Mayer and Applin (1971) and the UK1 lithologic unit of Prowell and others (1985).
Throughout most of the study area, the Cape Fear unit consists of poorly sorted, angular, fine to coarse sand admixed with kaolin that has a buff to pale-green cast and is commonly iron stained (pl. 1). In the northern part of its extent, the unit is semi-indurated owing to a large percentage of crystobalite cement. The Cape Fear unit is generally expressed on geophysical logs as a zone of low electrical resistivity (pls. 1 and 2). The lithology of the unit, together with a sparsity of marine organisms in core samples (Prowell and others, 1985), suggests that the Cape Fear unit,was deposited in an upper delta plain environment (fig. 4).
10
Table 1.-Generalized correlation of geologic and hydrologic units of Late Cretaceous and Tertiary age in Georgia. (Modified from Prowell and others, 1985)
~ERIE5 EUROPEAN STAGE
PROVINCIAL STAGE
w
ALABAMA
WESTERN GEORGIA E
LITHOLOGIC UNIT
EASTERN GEORGIA SOUTH CAROLINA
w
E
GEOLOGIC UNIT
THIS REPORT
THICKNESS (FEET)
HYDROLOGIC UNIT
'z"
'0 "
Undifterenli ated
0
"
'z"
Chan ian
'0 "
0
,_
"' f-- '
-'
0
Rupe1ian
Priabonian
Bar1 onian Uz J
UJ
0
~
Lutetian
Undifferentiated Chic kasawhayan
Vicksburgian Jacksonian Claibornian
l
Paynes Hammock Sand
Chickasawhay Fo rma lion
Byram Forma tion
"'-"Hlitl~ Lt-11111... R<.>d 61ull Cl~ 11
th.ulo4U .~J~ f.;;ufll~lhlll
Ia~
Yazoo Cl y "' ~- ~t ~~ll"'r., Ftn Q.tu.avJ :t..s
Lisc:.on Formation
Ocala Limestone
"'-,-..11t 4!!U1111 ,,..
'
Lisbon Formation
I
M1
Hawthorn Formation Hawthorn Formation
I
I ~U ,,,,...,,~~
I
;; I l!!.n.ru.tl a"d<;~or ~:~ ....
Suwanee Limestone
Cooper Formation
(lt$.1111!y Nomt>ou)
: I ~ I
o,
~ I 5 I
I
0-1000
I
Eg
....., f-l~ ''mdlpl.l lolf!kiUII>I
I
_j
n<';j!lfii Ll''ilfi"T."'d
Barnwell Formation
ur1..1o>IL ..(mb'l'nJ
E7
'
IJ,~I IJ II I I I III Posl-Paleocene units
r-------
Jacksonian aquifer 2
1;
~1 w
,
Lisbon/Mc8ean
McBe~n ") Santee
Es E4
'"'""'""" ::::::::~
- - - ---r - - - - - - - - Confinir"'g unit
..........
Yoresian
Uz J
Thanet ian
UJ
0
0
UJ
<-'
Danian
0-
Sabinian Midwayan
Tallahal!a For!T)alion
Tallaharra Formation f . - 'J - - _E_3__ _ 1 ~2
""'-.u '-I'll ,_u.
Ml"f'U 11181t"f"ll'l.llll F olt~
t\II IUI!'o!! ll rotmlll l iiHII
T'l.u:.>O.!t.a!'lofl I'.., Mllf ll'!
Il l 111 1 111 1 1111
""' lllat au , wu .,.._
Nanalalia/Bker Hill fms.J
p2
lll.l.l.l..l.llllllllllflllllllllllllllllllll .. N""'l~ ~,
1" 9 . ,,.,.,~:;.,."
,,...,
~ ao 11 1 t:. II C~ F:~ . o.,.;ojo ,.,_
I 111 1111 II
Clayton Formation
Clayton Formation
P,
~~~:~~~~~:~~~~ II
Huber Forma ti on
Black Ming Forma li on
Bl ack Mtngo
Group
Ellenton
... v ....
N ,.,,,,,.n.,,,,
Formation IIIII ti"I"''IIILI~
Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit
Lower HuberEllenton unit
0 - 130 0-2 0 0
Gordon aquifer system 3
-----
Confining unit
--
Dublin aquifer
Maestrichtian
Navarroan
Ta y l ~ran
I' r,,, ro ~ B lull C h d lk
Ri pl ey Formation
' I Por.;."ldenoc,. StM Ripley Formation
Demopolis Chalk
Cusseta Sand
UK6 UKs
I
I! I II
1
Peedee Formation
Unnamed rocks
Peedee-Providence unit
" I
0- 380
system
------
UK4
Black Creek-Cusseta
Black Creek Formation
unit
0-240
Confining unit
f--- - - - - -
if)
Campanian
:::>
0
UJ
0
<
1-
Santonian
UJ
a:
Austinian
Moore'/ i iJe Chalk Eutaw Formation
Blufftown Formation Eutaw Formation
UK 3
l l l llllll ll ll l ll l Unnamed rocks (Coastal areas)
Middendorf-Biufftown unit
0-520
UK z
14fdoa,.4ort f Qr~ l lo n Middendorf Formalio n
UK 1
Cape Fear Formalion Cape F@&r Forma lion
Cape Fear un1t
0-700
0
Con i acian
ffi
00-
Turon i an
:::>
r-- '
,_
Eaglefordian
lll l ll l lll lllll ll ll lllll l llllllllll
Tuscaloosa Fo rmation Tusca loo3D Form otio ,
lll lllllll llllllllllll l l lll l l l
Unnamed rocks
Unnamed rocks
(Coastal areas)
(Coastal areas)
Midville aquifer system
cOiiiriiin"':.;i,- -
Cenomanian
Woodbinian
II
1 LaMoreaux {1946); Kesler (1963). 2 Vin cent (1982) 3 Bro oks and others ( 1985).
In the southern part of the study area, the unit becomes less indurated and more sandy, and is expressed on geophysical logs by increased electrical resistivity at wells 23T1 and 25T2 (pl. 1). Changes in the lithologic character of the unit are also recognizable by changes in the drilling rate, and by sonic and lithologic logs at two oil-test wells (GGS 789 and GGS 964, Swanson and Gernazian, 1979) drilled near well 25T2. The transition from semi-indurated clayey sand in the north to poorly consolidated, cleaner sand in the south may be the result of lithologic changes during deposition or may reflect the southern limit of the crystobalite cementation process (D. C. Prowell, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 1983). This transition begins between wells ' 24U1 and 23T1 on section B-B' (pl. 1) and between wells 24V1 and 25T2 on section C-C' (pl. 2).
Middendorf-Blufftown unit
The Middendorf-Blufftown unit has a maximum known thickness of about 520 ft in the study area (well 25T2, pl. 1) and includes strata that belong to the Middendorf Formation of eastern Georgia and western South Carolina and that are age equivalents of the Eutaw and Blufftown Formations of western Georgia, and the UKl, UK2, and UK3 lithologic units of Prowell and others (1985) (table 1). The unit overlies the Cape Fear unit and is distinguished by its lack of induration, better sorted sands, and carbonaceous character.
The lower part of the MiddendorfBlufftown unit consists of poorly consolidated, angular to subangular, fine to very coarse sand containing silt and white to buff kaolin (section A-A', pl. 1). The upper part of the unit consists of alternating beds of silty clay and subangular, medium to coarse sand. These lithologies, and marine microfauna found in core samples (Prowell and others, 1985), suggest that the Middendorf-Blufftown unit was deposited in a delta plain environment under some marine influence (fig. 4).
Black Creek-Cusseta unit
The Black Creek-Cusseta unit has a maximum known thickness of about 240 ft in the study area (well 25T2, pl. 1), and includes strata that are age equivalents of the Black Creek Formation of western South Carolina, the Cusseta Sand of western Georgia, and the UK4 lithologic unit of Prowell and others (1985) (table 1). The unit unconformably overlies the Middendorf-Blufftown unit and is distinguished by its better sorted sands, finegrained character, and a relatively high clay content.
In the southern two-thirds of the study area, the Black Creek-Cusseta unit consists of gray-green clayey silt and fine sand that is well sorted, very micaceous, carbonaceous, and locally glauconitic (section A-A.', pl. 1). In this area, the top of the unit can be distinguished on borehole geophysical logs as a zone of low electrical resistivity and high natural gamma radia'tion (pls. 1 and 2). These geophysical characteristics are typified by the wells shown on section A-A' (pl. 1). The Black CreekCusseta unit in the southern part of the study area was probably deposited in a delta front or prodelta environment, as indicated by its lithology and an abundance of marine macrofauna and microfauna (Prowell and others, 1985). The approximate northern limit of the prodelta or delta front deposits generally corresponds to the northern limit of the Black Creek-Cusseta confining unit (table 1) shown in figure 7. (See section on Aquifer Systems.)
In the northern third of the study area, the Black Creek-Cusseta unit grades into clayey, fine to medium, subangular to subrounded quartz sand and silty clay that is moderately well sorted and contains thick, discontinuous, locally carbonaceous, kaolinitic clay beds. These lithologies are indicative of more landward deposition on the delta front and lower delta plain (fig. 4). Marine microfossils recognized in samples from northern areas, however, suggest a strong marine influence (Prowell and others, 1985).
12
The transition from fine-grained, prodelta or delta front deposits in the southern part of the area, to coarser grained, more landward deltaic deposits in the northern part of the area, is reflected by changing patterns on borehole geophysical logs (pls. 1 and 2). For example, along section B-B 1 (pl. 1), an increased percentage of sand in the unit is indicated by a general increase in electrical resistivity on log patterns in wells to the north.
Peedee-Providence unit
The Peedee-Providence unit is the youngest unit of Late Cretaceous age in the study area and has a maximum known thickness of about 380 ft (well 23T1, pl. 1). The unit includes strata that are age equivalents of the Peedee Formation in western South Carolina, the Ripley Formation and Providence Sand in western Georgia, and the UK5 and UK6 lithologic units of Prowell and others (1985) (table 1). The unit overlies the Black Creek-Cusseta unit and is distinguished from it by a higher percentage of sand, a lower percentage of glauconite, and on geophysical logs by higher electrical resistivity and lower natural gamma radiation (pls. 1 and 2).
The lower part of the Peedee-Providence unit consists of well-sorted, wellrounded, fine to medium quartz sand, silt, and off-white to buff kaolin that contains thin beds of micaceous and highly carbonaceous clay (section A-A 1 , pl. 1). The upper part of the unit consists of silty kaolin and fine to medium sand that is subangular, moderately sorted, kaolinitic, and contains thin beds of coarse sand and gravel. The upper 20 to 40 ft of the unit commonly is an orangered weathered zone. These lithologies, and an abundance of marine microfauna (Prowell and others, 1985), suggest that the lower part of the Peedee-Providence unit was deposited in a marginal marine barrier complex. The upper part of the unit was deposited in a delta plain or marsh under some marine influence, as indicated by a sparsity of marine fossils.
Paleocene
Lower Huber-Ellenton unit
The lower Huber-Ellenton unit unconformably overlies the Peedee-Providence unit and has a maximum known thickness of about 200 ft (well 25T2, pl. 1). The unit includes strata that are age equivalents of the Ellenton Formation in western South Carolina (Siple, 1967), the lower part of the Huber Formation in eastern Georgia (Buie and others, 1979), the Clayton and Porters Creek Formations in western Georgia (table 1), and the Pl lithologic unit of Prowell and. others (1985).
The lower Huber-Ellenton unit consists of a basal layer of poorly sorted, silty, fine to coarse, angular, noncalcareous quartz sand containing varying percentages of kaolin, lignite, and mica (section A-A 1 , pl. 1). The remainder of the unit consists of locally carbonaceous, kaolinitic clay. The diversity of marine microfauna and these lithologies are indicative of deposition in a deltaic environment under marine influence.
In the southern third of the study area, the unit is more calcareous and grades into relatively porous, mediumgray, glauconitic and highly fossiliferous limestone interlayered with fine to coarse sand and beds of calcareous clay. This lithofacies was identified in drill cuttings from well 25T2 (pl. 1) and is indicative of deposition in an open marine shelf environment that periodically received an influx of clastic sediment.
Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit
The Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit has a maximum known thickness of about 130 ft in the study area and includes strata that are age equivalents of the Black Mingo Formation in western South Carolina and the Tuscahoma, Nanafalia, and Baker Hill Formations (Gibson, 1982) in western Georgia (table 1). The unit overlies the lower Huber-Ellenton unit and is unconformably overlain by post-Paleocene
13
units. North of wells 20V4 (section B-B', pl. 1) and 24V1 (section C-C', pl. 2), the Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit is truncated by post-Paleocene units. The Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit is distinguished by a high percentage of clay and is characterized on borehole geophysical logs as a zone of high natural gamma radiation when compared to the overlying post-Paleocene units (pl. 1).
In the northern two-thirds of the study area, the Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit consists of thin-bedded, medium to darkgray, silty, carbonaceous and kaolinitic
clay (section A-A', pl. 1). An abundance
of marine fauna suggest that the unit was deposited in a marginal marine (lagoonal to shallow shelf) environment.
In the southern one-third of the study area, the Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit consists of gray-green, fine to medium, well-rounded, calcareous, quartz sand and interbedded limestone that is highly fossiliferous and glauconitic. These lithologies were observed in cuttings from wells AL-66 and AL-19 (section D-D', pl. 2), and suggest that here the unit was deposited in an open marine shallow shelf environment.
Post-Paleocene
acter than the underlying Cretaceous and Paleocene units and consist of alternating layers of sand, limestone, marl, and clay. For a more detailed discussion of post-Paleocene units, see Brooks and others (1985).
Channel sands
The channel sands (LaHoreaux, 1946) consist of discontinuous deposits of cross-bedded coarse sand, gravel, and kaolin fragments derived from underlying sediments and basement rock. These deposits fill ancient stream channels and range in thickness from a few inches to about 25 ft. The channel sands are present in northern Twiggs, Wilkinson, and Washington Counties, and in southern Jones, Baldwin, and Hancock Counties. The age of the channel sands is unknown, but LaHoreaux (1946) suggested that they might be of late Eocene age (table 1) as indicated by: (1) a gradational transition into sediments of Jacksonian age at some localities, and (2) their close association with onlapping Eocene strata. Kesler (1963), on the other hand, suggested that the Channel Sands might be a mixture of reworked sediments of Late Cretaceous to Miocene age that were redeposited during the. Pliocene Epoch.
Post-Paleocene units in the study area range from Eocene to Hiocene in age and include strata that are the age equivalents of: (1) the Fishburne, Congaree, and Cooper Formations in western South Carolina; (2) the upper part of the Huber Formation, the Barnwell Formation, and the Suwannee Limestone in eastern Georgia; (3) the HcBean and Hawthorn Formations in western South Carolina and eastern Georgia; (4) the Tallahatta Formation, Hoodys Branch Formation, and Ocala Limestone of western Georgia; and (5) the Lisbon Formation that is recognizable throughout most of the Georgia Coastal Plain (table 1). The post-Paleocene units unconformably overlie the Baker HillNanafalia unit and have a maximum thickness of about 1, 000 ft (well 25T2, pl. 1). Over most of the study area, postPaleocene units are more marine in char-
Structure
Units of Late Cretaceous and Paleocene
age in the study area generally dip to
the southeast and strike to the north-
east. Hajor structural features (fig. 5)
reported in the study area include: the
Belair fault (Prowell and O'Connor, 1978)
and the Gulf Trough (Herrick and Vorhis
1963).
'
The northeast-trending Belair fault
crosses Burke,
R1.tchhemonsdt,udyandar
ea Co
luimn biaJefCfoeursnotines'
(fig. 5). The fault is a high-angle
reverse fault, upthrown on the southeast
side and has a maximum vertical displace-
ment of 100 ft at the base of Coastal
Plain strata (Prowell and O'Connor,
1978).
14
A projection of the northeast-trending Gulf Trough may cross the southeastern part of the study area into Bulloch and Screven Counties (Miller, 1982). The Gulf Trough has an adverse effect on the ground-water flow system, as evidenced by low well yields, low transmissivity, high dissolved-solids concentrations, and steepened potentiometric gradients in the Floridan aquifer system (formerly principal artesian aquifer) in southwestern Georgia (Zimmerman, 1977). It is likely that similar effects occur in the vicinity of the Gulf Trough in eastern Georgia. On the basis of what they considered to be anomalous potentiometric data, Faye and Prowell (1982) inferred that the Gulf Trough may extend into Bulloch and Screven Counties, which is farther northeastward than previously interpreted. A significant reduction in well yields and transmissivity (fig. 12) in the Dublin aquifer system between Dover, in Screven County, and Statesboro, in Bulloch County (wells 32U19 and 31Tll, Appendix A) may support the presence of the trough. (See section on Aquifer Properties.) Several different opinions as to the nature and origin of the Gulf Trough have been expressed by previous investigators. Patterson and Herrick (1971, p. ll-12) presented a summary of these differing views: (1) that the feature represents a buried submarine valley or strait, (2) that it is a grabben, (3) that it is a syncline, or (4) that it is a buried solution valley. The authors prefer the second hypothesis. Further study will be required to assess the nature and origin of the Gulf Trough and its effect on the ground-water flow system.
HYDROLOGY
Aquifer Systems
Definition
An aquifer system is herein defined as a body of material of varying permeability that acts as a water-yielding hydrologic unit of regional extent. The con-
cept of an aquifer system is desirable because it provides a framework for grouping local aquifers and confining units into a regional hydrologic unit. This study defines the Dublin aquifer system of Paleocene and Late Cretaceous age and the Midville aquifer system of Late Cretaceous age. Each aquifer system was named for a geographic feature near a test well that penetrates strata representative of the geologic and hydrologic properties of the aquifer system. This method of naming allows aquifer systems to cross time and geologic formation lines and is therefore independent of changing stratigraphic nomenclature.
Although the aquifer systems defined herein are regional in extent, they contain discontinuous confining layers that locally separate them into two or more aquifers. Such local confining units are not significant in a regional evaluation, but they increase the complexity of the hydrologic framework. The number and thickness of confining units penetrated by wells in the study area were measured from borehole geophysical logs, and descriptions of drill cuttings and core samples. Confining units 20 ft or more thick were considered to be most significant and are shown on cross sections A-A', B-B', C-C', and D-D' (pls. 1 and 2). Three confining units were judged sufficiently thick and widespread to have regional significance, and together with the Coastal Plain floor, define the upper and lower limits of the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems.
In the study area, several aquifers and aquifer systems are used for water supply. They are, in descending order: (1) the Jacksonian aquifer (Vincent, 1982), comprised largely of calcareous sand and limestone of the Barnwell Formation (2) the Gordon aquifer system (Brooks and others, 1984), comprised largely of sands of early and middle Eocene age; and (3) the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems of this report. The general correlations of the aquifer units are shown in table l.
15
Dublin aquifer system
The Dublin aquifer system was named for sediments penetrated by well 21U4 (pls. 1 and 2; Appendix A) drilled near Dublin, Laurens County. At this well, the upper part of the Dublin aquifer system consists of fine to coarse sand and limestone of the lower Huber-Ellenton unit, whereas the lower part consists of alternating layers of kaolinitic sand and clay of the Peedee-Providence unit (table 1). The Dublin aquifer system is confined above by clayey beds of the Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit and below by clay and fine silt of the upper part of the Black Creek-Cusseta unit.
Throughout most of the study area, the Dublin aquifer system is a single hydrologic unit, because clay layers within the system seem to have limited areal extent (pls. 1 and 2). For example, on section A-A', several clay layers are present within the aquifer system at well 21U4, that are absent at wells 18T1 and 24V1. These layers may be local confining units, but do not extend laterally over a large enough area to be considered regionally significant confining units. Exceptions occur in the western and eastern parts of the study area, where widespread clay layers divide the Dublin aquifer system into several discrete aquifer units.
In the western part of the study area, the upper part of the Dublin aquifer system grades laterally into the Paleocene Clayton aquifer of Clarke and others (1984); and the lower part grades laterally into the Upper Cretaceous Providence-Cusseta aquifer of Clarke and others (1983). This division is shown at well 18T1 on section A-A 1 (pl. 1) where the upper part of the Peedee-Providence unit grades into silty clay and very clayey sand that forms a confining unit which continues westward and separates the Clayton and Providence-Cusetta aquifers. To the east, near the Savannah River, clays within the upper part of the lower Huber-Ellenton unit form a confining unit that separates an upper aquifer
of Paleocene age from a lower aquifer of Late Cretaceous age (wells AL-19 and AL-23, pl. 2).
In the eastern part of the area, the confining unit that overlies the Dublin aquifer system is less than 20 ft thick and is not an effective confining unit. In this area, the Dublin aquifer system is hydraulically connected with the overlying Gordon aquifer system (table 1). This hydraulic connection occurs near the Savannah River and is characterized by wells 31Z2 and AL-324 (section D-D 1 , pl. 2). In southern Laurens County and in Treutlen County, the Dublin and Gordon aquifer systems may be connected between wells 23T1 and 25T2 (section B-B', pl. 1).
Midville aquifer system
The Midville aquifer system was named for sediments penetrated by well 28X1 (pl. 1; Appendix A) near Midville, Burke County. At this well, the upper part of the Midville aquifer system consists of fine to medium sand of the lower part of the Black Creek-Cusseta unit and the lower part of the aquifer system consists of alternating layers of medium to coarse sand, silt, and kaolin of the MiddendorfBlufftown unit (table 1). In the eastern part of the study area, the Hidville aquifer system locally includes as much as 35 ft of sand from the upper part of the Cape Fear unit (wells SRP-P5A and AL324, pl. 2). The Midville aquifer system is confined above by the upper part of the Black Creek-Cusseta unit and its base is marked by semi-indurated to unconsolidated kaolinitic sand of the Cape Fear unit.
At wells 20V4, 23T1, and 25T2 (section B-B 1 , pl. 1), the Cape Fear unit which forms the base of the Midville aquifer system contains several layers of poorly consolidated, permeable sand, ranging in thickness from about 20 to 210 ft. In the southern part of the study area, these permeable sand layers make up over 50 percent of the Cape Fear unit (wells 23T1, 25T2, pl. 1) and are prob-
16
ably hydraulically connected with the overlying Midville aquifer system. This hydraulic connection occurs between wells 24U1 and 23T1 on section B-B 1 (pl. 1) and between wells 24V1 and 25T2 on section C-C 1 (pl. 2).
Dublin-Midville aquifer system
In the northern one-third of the study area, the Black Creek-Cusseta confining unit that separates the Dublin aquifer system from the Midville aquifer system becomes sandier and is, therefore, not an effective confining unit. In this area, the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems combine to form a single aquifer system, herein called the Dublin-Midville aquifer system. Changes in the lithology and confining character of the intervening Black Creek-Cusseta confining unit are illustrated on sections B-B 1 , C-C 1 , and D-D 1 (pls. 1 and 2). For example, along section B-B 1 the confining unit progressively thins to the north, decreasing to a thickness of about 35 ft at well 20V4. North of well 20V4 the confining unit is absent and the two aquifer systems combine to form the Dublin-Midville aquifer system. The approximate northern limit of the Black Creek-Cusseta confining unit is outlined in figure 7.
The Dublin-Midville aquifer system is generally confined above by clayey beds of the Baker Hill-Nanafalia unit and below by semi-indurated, kaolinitic sand of the Cape Fear unit (table 1). In the northern part of the study area, the Baker Hill-Nanafalia confining unit is absent and the Dublin-Midville aquifer system is hydraulically connected with the overlying Gordon aquifer system (well 24X5, pl. 1). In the extreme northern part of the study area, the Cape Fear confining unit is absent-and the DublinMidville aquifer system overlies low permeability rocks that are part of the Coastal Plain floor (fig. 8).
Altitude of Tops of Aquifer Systems and Confining Units
Borehole geophysical and lithologic logs of wells in the study area were used to estimate the altitudes of the tops of: (1) the Dublin and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems (fig. 5); (2) the Midville aquifer system (fig. 6); (3) the Black Creek-Cusseta confining unit (fig. 7); and (4) the base of the Midville and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems (fig. 8). In Bulloch and Screven Counties, it was not possible to measure accurately the altitudes of the top and base of theaquifer systems because of sparse geologic control. In this part of the area, the contours shown in figures 5-8 represent an approximation of the top of a unit. Depths below land surface to the top of a unit may be calculated by subtracting the altitude of the top of the unit (figs. 5-8) from the altitude of
land surface shown on u.s. Geological
Survey 7. 5-minute topographic quadrangle maps.
Thickness and Sand Content
Maps showing the approximate thickness, sand content, and number of sand layers having a thickness of 20 ft or more in the Dublin, Midville, and DublinMidville aquifer systems were constructed using data from geophysical and lithologic logs (figs. 9, 10). The number of sand layers 20 ft or more thick is an indication of the number of separate waterbearing intervals available to be screened in a well. The aquifer systems have the greatest potential for development in areas where the thickness, percentage of sand (figs. 9, 10), and the transmissivity (fig. 12) are greatest. Aquifer system thicknesses were computed by comparing maps showing the altitude of the top of each aquifer system with the altitude of the top of the underlying regional confining unit or base of the aquifer system. For example, the thickness of
17
EXPLANATION
OUTCROP AREA OF LOWER TERTIARY AND CRETACEOUS SEDIMENTARY ROCKS, UNDIFFERENTIATED
D -
DUBLIN AQUIFER SYSTEM-Area in which Dublin aquifer system acts as a discrete aquifer system. Contours in this area show top of Dublin aquifer system
bl:~;~ ous~;~~~~~~;'/~L; cAo'!~1i~;~ ::u~Je~Ms~~:~~ ~o~t~~~s ~~b:~~sa~~e~i~~~~~e t~~u~r
Dublin-Midville aquifer system
~-- FAULT-U, upthrown side; 0, down thrown side; dashed where inferred
-a-- STRUCTURE CONTOUR-Shows altitude of top of Dublin and Dublin-
Midville aquifer sytems. Dashed where approximately located . Contour interval 100 feet. Datum is sea level
130 DATA POINT-Number is altitude of top of Dublin or
Dublin-Midville aquifer system, in feet /
.,...
~3
.._ OL .... ~E
fj
... .~,
a <" " N. "' ' =
- 321 ~~
:--~Q "-/
t-~
f-'
00
R
-600 ~ E M ~
,.... .,oa,--
----~:.,.....
___ - - - - - _...,,_
I 'I r ' I
110
!t'
'{J
r.. MILCS
32"
!l:i.-ifi --P, Qm L.i S.. Gil e ~clfl11~ 5~otrn ,
83"
13to:JI& bU!Io ma.!UI t IUlO, OVO
82"
Outcrop arco:J lrom Geologic Mop of Georgia, 1976
Figure 5.-Structural features, outcrop area, and altitude of the top of the Dublin and Dub linMidville aquifer systems.
'
EXPLANATION
- 0 - - STRUCTURE CONTOUR-Shows altitude of top of Midville aquif~r system . Dashed where approximately located. Contour interval 100 feet. Datum is sea level
/ 8 OAT A POINT-Number is altilude of top of Midville aquifer system, in feet
cqL_~r-.,~Eii
"N <
I'
f--1
~
. \'J :;,rt
7"~'/ <
,_
co~ _.., '"'"(;.
-
c.~:Y"',. '1'0~0- - = . I '"'' "-/ ~-_:.-------- o\\."-~ e N
_...:;..- . - - - - - _ _e. - 'r , /,
e'-"c.~ .
.
A
t
.. 5!!!o!
~ / /
"'
El L
- - ~ // -~"'/0~//</'~'/'' ------ ~"" '
-O~v"\.1'_.... --- ..
,'[~~--;/ .....-
w ' L r<.
\ '
/
- /
""
//
/ /.------ -~--
--
0
.! -
/ -"' ""
--
_,....-
sc. E
__,F./"7.~ ~- ~/,,/0/"'0~,0.{'/;{;.~./.~- ~~~~-----~ -----=------.-:'-.'--"-"''' ~~ .'.1...,.../r .I '
';-;'/'>
7"" /, <
.,<f'
..
. '
__
.,.. '~
/J:"-"' / ,
a<fl-:;; I
.
. .. - - -- - -
oM'
--
'/:,./c .,._.,,aa. ------ -
-.....-: ~
\. '-
(,
.. E "l ">. .': 6
,<:
/
/ r " / .
.
--
-
-~-~ ..~ -- - . .....
'
. /
/ , / '// /_,//
' /
. . . . - - - - " -
.
-- ---
~~ ..... - . - / ;;;:
'
000
... , / / / / / / / __, / <r \.oo- -
>/' / / / / / / /
/ /
' /
0 I
..._
-
--
~
~ /' 0 /1 -% / , : /
, / / ---- / / / . /
l,
"' - -
//
. /
/ //
/
\
, ,/ / _,-" //
,
/
/
1,.
// //
'//
32'
~
10
0".1
l!)
<IQ MIL:::.S
LL..___. __L .iU l i l
I
1
I
.Ba~t f ro m U C OCo:r;lco l f:.stNII f Stale base ITI81)S, t3ti0 000
83'
82'
Figure 6.-Aititude of the top of the Midville aquifer system.
EXPLANATION
- 0-- STRUCTURE CON T OUR-Shows altitude of top of Black Creek-Cusseta confining unit Dashed whe r e approximately located. Contour interval 100 teet. Datum is sea level
-4.!U e
DATA
POI N T-~ U mbcr
I&
altHDde'
of
IOD
Of
B I:IOk.
Crottc - C u~:n:~ t a
aoniinln!:!
Ul'l-11 .
In
taet
--
'
#o ot E I
~
0
~a
-=
~
-
''""""'.-J---~---- / ./.. ... ~""" _3~ ~;; < ' ' c o ,
_,.
>~"''I_..-- -1r' o\lo'~''"V /f I r
9 A. A
L
;;u/ / _.(, . ,_
--
'7
- ' :://
/ , ,.. .....
~~---~- /-~~ ----.
. '"s~ r '"' /
;;/
~-:r- .-~~/ ----~ --~., v
}v'' i
-
/
'
o.F
/
_/:::/~-/- ;;/;.-- ?
_,..,.-
------ - / /
7-/../0. -,~ ----- _::. ~- ,. ~"'?::,. ~::-=-- .,~ ~--- . "
.,o9-1v.~~"~" /
~//./ r
/ rL// .-
"?/).,-/o/''' / Y ,;r
,c"'/..,..,o.<. /"7"&/.:\
___.- .
--
\ -
" 1$ C R
~
,!
"
-,.V - ~/, ~\.&~ - -;/ _~"/ / .< . ~~--:~----------------- //~ ~- <>
,<>
' <>"'
-;-' ;/,,/
.,
v -'
.. /
. -/.
.
_
//~. ./0.,a/"'.'.~-/~-/ ~...._.
_,,oo
-------
-- /~-~% ; / / / / /
_/ /_
,. ,
. $
-
/,/
.. _______ _ / / :// ;,//; // /7 / / /
.. :.---""'________ ----
/ /
/
/
/ ..:
,,. _~
;/'J/// / // /
/ //
/ // /
/
c " 7
/ 7:
,
)._ ~-
.-
- -..ucc<.
'- i'\
/
/ " - ": -:oc
/
$ 2 -f
...
0
10
20
JO
~0 Mll:O:S
a n h'O n~Q )oo l u ~u r vn
82"
QiMa ~ maps, l:liQ U,OOO
Figure 7
Altitude of the top of the Black Creek-Cusseta confining unit.
EXPLANATION BASE OF COASTAL PLAIN STRATA-Contours in this area show base of Coastal
Plain stra !a
I I CAPE FEAR CONFINING UNIT- Contours in this area show top of Cape Fear L - - J confining unit
-f;-- FAUL T-U, up thrown side; D, downthrown side; dashed wher03 inferred
-0-- STRUCTURE CONTOUR-Shows altitude of base of the Midville or Dublin-Midville aquifer system ~ Dashed where approximately located . Contour interval 100 feet. Datum is sea level
-so
DATA POINT-Number is altitude of top of Cape Fear confining unit, in feet
l. T69
DATA POINT-Number is altitude of top of basement rock, in feet
33'
t-:1
'"""
-6e.ift. '
C. 1\ ~; u :/11 E l L
i.: E .......
I)
10
.:'o
30
-to r.11L'-::.
32'
1.. " ' I
I
I
Da1u1 tr(l m. Us. c.eo 4a Q1CIII ! ~ur ,lt )' Slalc base map~ t ~ O Q..Qtl[]
83 '
82'
Figure B.-Structural features and altitude of the base of the Midville and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems.
the Midville aquifer system was computed by subtracting the altitude of the Cape Fear confining unit, or base (fig. 8), from the altitude of its top (fig. 6).
The Dublin aquifer system ranges in thickness from about 145 ft in western Houston County to about 570 ft in eastern Laurens County (fig. 9). The Midville aquifer system ranges in thickness from about 195 ft in eastern Burke County, to about 645 ft in Dodge County (fig. 10). The Dublin-Midville aquifer system ranges in thickness from about 80 ft in northern Jefferson County, to about 620 ft in western Aiken County, S.C. (figs. 9, 10).
Aquifer and Well Properties
Specific capacity
The specific capacity of a well is defined as yield per unit of drawdown, generally expressed in gallons per minute per foot [(gal/min)/ft]. Values range from 0.7 (gal/min)/ft at well 27AA2 tapping the Dublin-Midville aquifer system in Richmond County, to 69.3 (gal/min)/ft at multiaquifer well 16U20 tapping both the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems in Houston County (Appendix A). Specific-capac.ity data are used to estimate aquifer transmissivity.
Transmissivi ty
The transmissivity of an aquifer is a measure of the aquifer's ability to transmit water, and generally is expressed in feet squared per day (ft2 /d). Transmissivity values listed in table 2 and Appendix A, and shown in figure 12, are probably somewhat lower than the total aquifer system transmissivity because they have been measured only from the interval of the aquifer system that was screened in a given well.
Transmissivities were calculated by analysis of time-drawdown or time-recov-
ery data, and by application of a linear regression model to specific-capacity data (table 2; fig. 12; Appendix A). The linear regression model was based on paired specific-capacity and transmissiv~ ity data from 16 wells (table 2) distributed throughout the study area and was used to estimate an approximate relation of transmissivity to specific capacity. The resulting equation is listed below:
T = 420 + 554 X sc,
(1)
where T is the estimated transmissivity in
feet squared per day, and
SC is the specific capacity in gallons per minute per foot.
The correlation coefficient is 0.9. Considering that a correlation coefficient of 1.0 indicates a perfect correspondence between two variables, a value of 0.9 indicates that specific capacity is a reasonable approximation of transmissivity. A comparison of observed transmissivity computed from time-drawdown or time-recovery data with estimated transmissivity computed from equation (1) is shown in figure 11. Transmissivity estimated using equation (1) differed from the transmissivity computed using time-drawdown or time-recovery data by an average of 30 percent, and ranged from 73 percent lower to 78 percent higher.
The transmissivity of the Dublin, Midville~ and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems is shown in figure 12. In the northern third of the study area, the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems are combined and the contours on figure 12 are representative of the Dublin-Midville aquifer system. In the southern twothirds of the study area, the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems are separate hy-
drologic units, and transmissivity data from wells tapping the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems, and from multiaquifer wells tapping both aquifer systems, are plotted on figure 12.
22
EXPLANATION
DUBLIN-MIDVILLE AQUIF ER SYS TEM-Area in which Dublin and Midville aquif er systems from a combined aquifer system. Values in this area are tor the Dublin-Midville aquifer system
D . DUBLIN AQUIFER SYSTEM -Area in which Dublin aquifer system form s a discrete aquifer s ystem
-
~--F AU L T- U, upthrown side; 0, d own thrown side; dashed whe r e i n terred
-200-- LINE OF EQUAL THICKNES S OF THE DUBLIN AQUIF ER SYSTEM-Dashed where approximately located.. Inter va l 100 feet
DATA POINT
~ THICKNESS-Number is thickness of Dublin or Dublin-Midville aquifer system, in feet
PE:ACEN'T SAN D-Number is the perce ntage of sand in the Dublin or Dubl in-Midville aquife r system rank ed :s f o ll ow~,:/ 1, 0-60; 2, 60 -7 0; 3, 70-80; 4, B0-90; 5, 90 1 00 /
~
NUMBER OF SAND LAYER S 20 FE ET OR MORE THI CK
33'
1:-..J C/..J
~ rrn
~-
1-L;:
E
--
---
-----
r
---
t)
tO
:.>o
30
<~ \HU:S.
32'
83"
82"
Figure 9.-Thickness and percentage of sand in the Dublin and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems.
EXPLANATION
DUBLIN-MIDVILLE AQ UIFER SYSTEM-Area in which Dublin and Midville aquifer systems form a combined aQuifer system. Values in this area are lor Dublin-Midville aquifer system
D
-
MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEM-Area in which Midville aquifer system forms a discrete aquifN system
-7-- FAULT-U, upthrown side; D, downthrown side; dashed where inferred
-700-LINE OF EQUAL THICKNESS OF THE MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEM-Dashed where
...
approximately located. Interval 100 feet
DATA POINT
T H ICKNESS-Number is thickness of Mdvillc or Dublin-Mid ville aquifer system, in fee t
'
PERCENT SAND -Number is t he percentage of ~and in the
Mid~lle _or Dub~n-~idville_ aq~ife r sy_s tem ranke~ as follows:
1, 0 60, 2. 60 70, 3, 70 80, 4, 80 90; 5, 90 100
L ~UMBEFI OF SAND LAYERS 20 FEET OR MORE THICK
:-.
L
:<3"
t..v,..
o
'to
~,w
..! o
AIO ''lt.C"'
32'
1
& ~u:t~-Ovilo.;lu i thirt.,."..-
::;;u:iw- bHo ~~ 1.D OO,OQG
83"
82"
Figure 10.-Thickness and percentage of sand in the Midville and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems.
Table 2,--Aquifer properties at wells in which aquifer tests were conducted
County
Well number Aquifer
Open interval
(feet)
Yield (gal/min)
Specific capacity [(gal/min)/ft]
Observed
transmissivity (ft2/d)
Hydraulic conductivity
(ft/d)
Bibb Burke
Houston
16V20 Dublin-
Midville
50
31Z8 Dublin,
Midville
83
31Z4
do.
85
28X1 Midville
40
31Z2 Dublin,
Midville
125
16U11 Midville
70
17U13
do .
-
16T2 Dublin,
Midville
60
17U8
do .
40
565
--
-
110
1,200 1,300 1,000
1,560 755
9.8
-
2.1
56.4 44.9 33,0
44.5 23.6
4,100
31,000 26,000
7,100
21,000 29,000 20,000
32,000 7,800
80
370 310
180
170 410
-
530 200
Richmond
29BB19 Dublin-
Midville
20
--
-
30AA14
do.
60
-
-
30AA15
do.
20
-
--
30BB33
do.
25
400
8.1
30AA12
do.
137
505
4.0
29BB3
do.
30
400
8.5
6,900
340
7,600
130
6,600
330
7,900
320
3,400
25
3,200
110
Twiggs
18V7 Dublin-
Midville
100
2,060
52.8
37,000
370
17V4
do.
90
1,175
12,1
8,700
100
18V18
do.
-
(1 )
-
32,000
--
18V19
do.
-
( l)
-
34,000
--
18V20
do.
-
(l )
-
34,000
-
18V21
do.
-
( 1 )
-
32,000
-
Washington 22Y29 Dublin-
Midville
68
22Y32
do .
70
1,040 835
22.1 19.0
7,300
110
7,200
100
22Y7
do .
30
220
4.0
2,700
90
Wilkinson
19W1 Dublin-
Midville
210
( 1)
-
6,800
30
19W4
do.
50
705
7.3
3,300
65
19W2
do.
210
( l)
-
5,100
25
19W3
do.
210
(l)
-
3,600
15
1 No yield recorded, observation well for aquifer test.
25
37. 00{]
26,QDD I <1 , 6 tlfl' ~
r,
I ' I I I I I
b
' '\
' '
o ~Q~~--L-L-+-J--L-L~~. .~~~--- "~--~~
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
Figure 11.---Comparison of observed transmissivity computed from timedrawdown or time-recovery data with estimated transmissivity computed from equation(1).
The transmissivity of the Dublin-Midville aquifer system ranges from about 800 ft2/d at well 27AA2 in northern Richmond County, to about 39,000 ft 2 /d at well 16U20 in Houston County, and exceeds 20,000 ft 2/d in Twiggs, Houston, Wilkinson, Washington, Laurens, and Burke Counties (fig. 12; Appendix A). The transmissivity of the Dublin aquifer system ranges from 2,200 ft2/d at well 19Ul in Twiggs County to about 35,000 ft 2/d at ~ell 20U6 in Wilkinson County. A reduction in transmissivity in the Dublin aquifer system between wells 32U19 in Screven County and well 31T11 in Bulloch County (fig. 12; Appendix A) may be due to the effects of the Gulf Trough. (See section on Structure.) The transmissivity of the Midville aquifer system ranges from about 5,000 ft2/d at well 21U4 in Laurens County to about 29,000 .ft2/d at wells 16U4 and 16Ull in Houston County (fig. 12; Appendix A).
Hydraulic conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity, like transmissivity, is a measure of an aquifer's ability to transmit water, under a hydraulic gradient, and is commonly expressed in feet per day (ft/d). Horizon-
tal hydraulic conductivity is estimated by dividing the transmissivity at a well by the footage of the well bore open to the aquifer.
At the Wrightsville test well (well 24V1; Appendix A; pl. 1), core samples were collected for laboratory measurement of vertical and horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the confining units within and separating the aquifer systems. The samples were collected from: (1) a clay in the upper part of the Dublin aquifer system (607 .8-608.7 ft), (2) the clayey lower confining unit (1,100.91,101.5 ft), and (3) a clay within the upper part of the Midville aquifer system (1,200.8-1,200.7 ft). The samples were sealed in wax and sent to Core Laboratories, Dallas, Tex. , for permeameter analysis. Results of the analysis are summarized on table 3. Of the three samples, vertical and horizontal conductivity values were largest in the clay from the upper part of the Dublin aquifer system, and were smallest in the clay within the upper part of the Midville aquifer system. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity values ranged from 1.4 x lo-4ft/d to 8.4 x 10-1ft/d. Corresponding vertical hydraulic conductivity values ranged from 8.2 x 10-5ft/d to 2.4 x 10-1ft/d (table
3).
Horizontal hydraulic conductivities in the aquifer systems were estimated at 24 wells by dividing the observed transmissivity by the total open interval in the well. Values ranged from 15 ft/d to 530 ft/d (table 2).
Horizontal hydraulic conductivity is useful in estimating the transmissivity of the entire saturated thickness of an aquifer. For example, at well 28X1 in Burke County (Appendix A), the transmissivity estimated from aquifer-test data was 7,100 ft2/d and is relative only to the open interval in the well ( 40 ft). On the other hand, the transmi~sivity
26
EXPLANATION
DUBLIN-MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEM-Area in which Dublin and Midville aquifer
systems form a combined aquiler system
D
AREA IN WHICH DUBLIN AND MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENTIATED
-s-LINE OF EQUAL TRANSMISSIVITY. IN THOU SANDS OF FEET SQUARED
'
PER DAY-Interval is 5000 feet sq uared per day
" DATA POINT-Number is tran s mi ssivi ty, in thousands of feet
s quared per day
WELL IDENTIFICATION BY AQUIFER SYSTEM
Dublin-Midville
Midville
+ f
Dublin Dublin and Midville (multiaquifer well)
l
~
331-
(
~
-l
32.
0
10
1.. , , , , 1
_______y__
:.\ O
4 0 MIl : S
(~:."t~ ~~::; -~:J14?tQJog:~~.SWtY'f
83'
82'
Figure 12.-Estimated transmissivity of the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems.
Table 3.--Hydraulic conductivity of sediments cored at well 24V1, near Wrightsville, Johnson County
Interval (ft)
Hydrologic unit
Lithologic description
Hydraulic conductivity1
(ft/d)
Horizontal
Vertical
607.8608.7
1,100.91,101.5
1,200.01,200.7
Clay within Dublin aquifer system
Black CreekCusseta confining unit
Clay within Midville aquifer system
Micaceous, carbonaceous, silt and clay
Micaceous, carbonaceous, clayey silt and very fine sand
Micaceous clay and silt
8.4 X 10-1 2 2 X 10-2 1.4 X 10-4
2.4 X 10-1 1.1 X 10-4 8.2 X 10-5
1Values measured by permeameter analysis of core samples.
relative to the total saturated thickness of the aquifer system was about 40,000 ft2/d and was estimated by multiplying the horizontal hydraulic conductivity (180 ft/d) by the total saturated thickness (about 220 ft). This value is probably somewhat larger than the actual transmissivity of the aquifer system because: (1) the estimated value does not account for variation in transmissivity within the aquifer system, and (2) it is likely that the screens were put in the most productive zones of the aquifer.
Yield
Yields exceeding 1,000 gal/min are obtained from wells tapping the Dublin aquifer system in Laurens and Screven Counties; the Midville aquifer system in Houston County; and the Dublin-Midville aquifer system in Twiggs, Washington, Wilkinson, and Jefferson Counties (Appendix A). Multiaquifer wells tapping both the Dublin and the Midville aquifer systems in Houston and Burke Counties also have been reported to yield more than 1,000 gal/min.
Ground-Water Levels
Seasonal and Long-Term Fluctuations
Water-level fluctuations in the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems are related to seasonal changes in precipitation, evapotranspiration, and pumping rates. A network of seven water-level monitoring wells was established during 1975-83 to monitor seasonal fluctuations and long-term trends (fig. 22; Appendix A). The wells are near Midville in Burke County (well 28X1), near Wrightsville in Johnson County (well 24V1), near Dublin in Laurens County (well 21U4), near McBean in Richmond County (well 30AA4), near Adams Park in Twiggs County (well 18U1), near Gordon in Wilkinson County (well 19W4), and in northern Pulaski County (well 18T1).
Although there are no exact data to indicate the extent of water-level fluctuations where the Dublin-Midville aquifer system is unconfined in its outcrop area, annual water-level fluctuations probably range from 1 to 15 ft, depending on the location and the amount of precip-
28
itation. For example, the water level in well 30AA4, tapping the Dublin-Midville aquifer system where it is semiconfined, about 4 mi south of the outcrop area at McBean, Richmond County, fluctuated about 1.3 ft in 1980 and 0.8 ft in 1981 (fig. 13). A comparison of the water level in this well with the cumulative departure of precipitation at National Weather Service station 090495 (Augusta WSO AP (R) GA) near Augusta, Richmond County (fig. 13), indicates that the water level is influenced primarily by seasonal changes in precipitation. From June 1979 to April 1981, mean monthly water levels in the well declined 0.5 ft, corresponding to a period of lower-than-normal precipitation. Small rises in the water level during this period probably reflected changes in local pumping. Water-level fluctuations in the nearby outcrop area of the Jacksonian aquifer (Vincent, 1982) probably reflect water-table conditions and correspond to those that would be expected in wells located in the outcrop area of the Dublin-Midville aquifer system. For example, the average annual water-level fluctuations at well 21T1 north of Dexter, Laurens County (location shown in fig. 3), ranged from about 6 to 13 ft during 1973-82 (fig. 14).
Mean monthly water levels in the Dublin aquifer system at well 18U1 near Adams Park in Twiggs County showed annual fluctuations ranging from about 0.9 to 1.8 ft during 1975-82 (fig. 15). Although the well is about 3 miles from the outcrop area, water levels in the well are probably affected both by seasonal changes in precipitation and by changes in pumping rates in the Huber-Warner Robins area, about 9 mi north of the well, where pumpage exceeded 30 Mgal/d during 1980. A comparison of mean monthly water levels in well 18U1 with the cumulative departure of precipitation at National Weather Service station 095443 (Macon WSO AP (R) GA) near Avondale in southern Bibb County (fig. 15) shows that prior to March 1977, water levels in the well seemed to show a greater response to precipitation. This is suggested by a water-level rise of 1.8 ft from March 1976 to March 1977 that generally corresponded
114 r -- - - --,-- - - - - - - - , - -- --------, 40
w 0
<( LL 1 16 0:
::>
(/)
0z 1 17
<(
_j
(/)
w 30 I
0 z
20 ~
_j
~ 1Z t w
_j
ffi 122
f<(
5:
123
/ Waler level
124 L __
_ _ _-----l._ _ __ _
1979
1960
_j__ __
_
196 1
_ J . QQ
Figure 13.-Mean monthly water levels
in the Dublin-Midville aquifer system
at well 30AA4, and the cumulative departure of precipitation at National Weather Service station 090495, Richmond County, 1979-81.
25
fw-Wo
W:
g;"-"-
~ 30
_(/)
ujo >z ~:3 35 aw:?o;
f-...J
~~ 40
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Figure 14.-Mean monthly water levels in the Jacksonian aquifer at well 21T 1, Laurens County, 1973-82. Modified from Stiles and Mathews (1983).
to a period of greater-than-normal precipitation (fig. 15). After March 1977, the water level in the well was probably influenced more by changes in pumping rates than by precipitation. This is suggested by a water-level decline of about 1. 7 ft from March 1977 to March
29
w
(.)
~ 162 a:
:e:n> 163
<0z 164
--' ~ ! 66 -
Mean monthly water level
-w-'
CD
166
.... 138
w
w u. 130
B
z
I
I
I
Dashed where no mcord avollabla
-
_j 140
w
>w 14i
--'
a:
.<w....
142
;;: 1~3 -
,,,,, _
145
Periodic water level 146
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Figure 15.- Water-level fluctuations in wells 18U1 and 18U2, Twiggs County, and the cumulative departure of precipitation at National Weather Service station 095443, Bibb County,
1975-82.
Mean monthly water levels in the Midville aquifer system at wells 28X1 (fig. 16) near Midville, Burke County, and well 24V1 (fig. 17) near Wrightsville, Johnson County, show fluctuations primarily in response to changes in regional pumping.
49
UJ (.) <(
u. a: ::>
(/)
a z
<( ...J
;::
0 5I
...J UJ CD
....
UJ
UuJ. ~ ~2
_j
UJ
>
UJ ...J
a:
.U..J. 53
<(
;;:
54 1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Figure 16.-Mean monthly water levels in the Midville aquifer system at well 28X1, Burke County, 1980-84.
1982, a period of generally greater-~han normal precipitation and increased pumping in the Huber-Warner Robins area; and by a water-level rise of about 1.4 ft from November 1981 to December 1982, a period of lower-than-normal precipitation and reduced pumping in the Huber-Warner Robins area.
Well 18U2 is about 1,000 ft northeast of well 18U1 and taps the Midville aquifer system (see location, fig. 3). Periodic water-level measurements in well 18U2 from June 1976 to October 1982 indicate a decline in water level of about 7 ft and a seasonal response to pumping similar to that in well 18U1 (fig. 15). The larger decline in well 18U2 is probably due to greater pumping from the Midville aquifer system than from the Dublin aquifer system in the Huber-Warner Robins area (table 4).
UJ (.) <(
au:.
::>
(/)
0 z
<(
...J 13 0
;::
0 .w..J CD
>ww-
"-
~ 13 1
w...J >
UJ ...J
a:
.U..J.
<(
;::
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Figure 17.-Mean monthly water
levels in the Midville aquifer
s y s t e m a t w e II 2 4v-1-, - J o h n s o n
County, 1980-84.
30
This is because the aquifer system is deeply buried and is not affected by local precipitation, and the outcrop area is too far away for varying rates of recharge to have a pronounced effect on the water level. Well 24V1 is about 13 mi south of the outcrop area and well 28X1 is about 18 mi south (fig. 3). In addition, there is little, if any, local pumping from the Midville aquifer system in these areas. (See section on Water Use.) Most of the pumping is to the north where the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems combine to form the DublinMidville aquifer system. Mean monthly water levels in well 28Xl rleclined 4.6 ft from June 1980 to January 1984 (fig. 16). Similarly, mean monthly water levels in well 24V1 declined 2.1 ft from November 1980 to November 1983 (fig. 17). These declines probably reflect increased regional pumping.
Potentiometric Surface
The potentiometric surface of an aquifer is an imaginary surface representing the altitude to which water would rise in tightly cased wells that penetrate the aquifer (Lohman, 1972). The potentiometric surfaces of Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems were contoured primarily from well data. Within and near the outcrop area, potentiometric contours cross rivers and streams where the altitude of the stream surface was considered to be nearly coincident with the altitude of the potentiometric surface. Although there are few data to indicate the extent of water-level fluctuations in the outcrop area, annual waterlevel fluctuations probably range from 1 to 15 ft, depending on the location and the amount of precipitation. (See section on Seasonal and Long-Term Fluctuations.) Consequently, natural water-level fluctuations in the outcrop area of the Dublin-Midville aquifer system _are probably too small to alter the configuration of the potentiometric surface at the contour interval used in figures 18 and 19.
The potentiometric maps on figures 18 and 19 show the principal direction of
ground-water flow and areas of recharge and discharge. Four major discharge areas--the Ocmulgee River to the west, the Savannah River to the east, and the Oconee and Ogeechee Rivers in between--are drains to the regional ground-water-flow system. Ground-water discharge to these rivers is indicated by potentiometric contours that bend upstream in an inverted "V" pattern showing that the hydraulic gradient is toward the stream. The potentiometric contours also show two major ground-water divides--one to the southwest between the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers, and the other to the southeast between the Oconee and Savannah Rivers. There also are a large number of small ground-water divides in the outcrop area that generally correspond to interstream drainage divides. Significant quantities of precipitation recharge the aquifer near divides in the outcrop area.
In the southern two-thirds of the study area, the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems are separate hydrologic units. However, owing to a scarcity of data in this part of the area, figures 18 and 19 show data from both the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems. In a few parts of the study area, there are sufficient water-level data to define potentiometric differentials between several aquifer systems (fig. 20). Water-level measurements indicate that: (1) the potentiometric surface of the Midville aquifer system was about 20 ft higher than the potentiometric surface of the Dublin aquifer system in central Twiggs County in September 1981, and about 2 ft higher near Dublin, Laurens County, in January 1982; and (2) the potentiometric surface of the Midville aquifer system was about 12 ft higher than the potentiometric surface of the Gordon aquifer system (table 1) near Midville, Burke County, during May-June 1980.
In a multiaquifer well, the water level is a composite of the head of each of the aquifers tapped by the well. For example, near Dublin in Laurens County, well 21U2 (Appendix A) taps the Jacksonian aquifer, the Gordon aquifer system,
31
-D EXPLANATION DUBLIN-MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEM-Area in which Dublin and Midville aquifer systems form a combined aquifer s ystem
D
AREA IN W~I CH. DUBLIN AND MIDVILLE. AQUIFER SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENTIATEDContours '" tht s a rea are for the Oubhn aquifer system
- 200-- POT EN TIOMETRI C CONTOUR-Shows altitude at which water would have sto od in tightly cased we lls . Dashed w h ere approximately locate d . Conto ur interval 5 0 feet. Datum is s ea level
WELL IDENTIFIC ATION BY AQUIFER
Dublin aquifer sy st em
+
Midville aquifer sys tem
+
Dublin and Midville aqu ife r systems (multiaqulfer well)
'
Dublin-Midville aquifer system
--...;
33"
C;,j !:>:I
I
j
l'
"
/
,...._,./, I'
<I
10
ltCI
~~0
.&0:. MI L:;S
32"
sau Ito U .5 - Oeo1oo~z:a1 S~.orny
:i.U! buc rn-:ra I'I!IGO,OOQ
83"
82"
Figure 18.-Estimated potentiometric surface o f the Dublin and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems, 1944-50.
-D DUBLIN-MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEM-Ar ea in which D ublin an d Midville aquifer systems form a combined aquifer syslem
D
AREA IN WHICH DUBLIN AND MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENTIATEDContours in this area are for the Dublin aquifer syste m
- 200 -- POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR -S hows a ltitud e at which water level would have stood in tightly cased wells , Dashed w h e r e approximately located. Contour int e rval 50 feet . Datum is sea l eve l
WELL IDENTIFICATION BY AQUIFER
Dublin aquifer system
f
Midville aquifer system
+
Dublin and Midville aqu ifer systems
(multiaquifer well)
Du b lin-Midville aquifer system
33"
UJ UJ
-'.
"
ARK.'we
' \ \ \ ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ -')-f!f . )' ~
32'
0Lw...u_u_.LLL"l
co I
:l O
10 UIL::':
Une lrGm U'io GarO-g \~~~ ~~~rv~Y S\J \c b a:;c m .:~ p c , 11)00,000
83"
82"
O u tcro p ;JrCn lr o m Cco l og 1c r,\ ;JD ol GClo r q 1;1 11 1Ei
Figure 19.-Potentiometric surface of the Dublin and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems, October 1980.
TWIGGS COUNTY
18U1
18U2
10 -
---?--- -
- 200
165.4(9 .. ,4- 81)
- - -?---?-
300 --?--- -
0 N
__j_
~
T
r--
r-?-
... 1411S....0(D 1 4~e 1]
(
GORDON AQUIFER SYSTEM
f- --?-- -
CONFINING UNIT
- --?- --
w
0
<
40
-
lL
a:
::::l
- (/)
DUBLIN AQUIF!Oil
0 500
z
<
_j
SYSTEM
LAURENS COUNTY
21 LJ2
. "' 52 7(1~28-82)
" TI r- - - ? - - -
21 04
'21U!.
I
36.2( 1-28-82)+ u 33 9{1-28-82)
1---?-: r---?--
JACKSONIAN AQUIFER
CONFINING
""""' -
UNIT
GORDON CONFINING
~
r--rU-N-IT-
=
JACKSONIAN
AQUIFER CONFINING
AQUIFER
SYSTEM UNIT
BURKE COUNTY
28W4
2B.X I
0
,--- ~ ~ 60.7{5-23-80)
_j_
~0)
--
- 100
JACKSONIAN
AQUIFER - 200
CONFINING
=
1--
~
~ GORDON AQUIFER ~
~
CONFINING
300 UNIT
SYSTEM
-
UNIT
w 0
400 < lL a: ::::l (/)
500 0
z <
_j
:;: 6()0 r--
t=:
- 600 :;:
0
_j
w
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONFiNING-- - UNIT--
DUBLIN
AQUIFER
SYSTEM
0
_j
w
- til 700
DUBLIN AQUIFER
til SYSTEM - 700
f-
f-
w
w
co
w
lL
~
~"'" "BOO
~
:i
f-
(l_ 900 w 0
CONFINING UNIT
!==
'--.--
\opon hole at bottom of casing
CONFINING UNIT
ONFINING
w
lL
- BOO Z
UNIT
I
IE;;;
- f900 (l_
r==
w
0
AQUIFER
SYSTEM
i=
1000 -
- 000
""'""""''
- 1100
MIDVILLE
AQUIFER
SYSTEM
MIDVILLE
AQUIFER
- SYSTEM
100
- 1200
I==
I
- 1200
1300
----
1300
EJ
WELL SCREEN
52 7(1-28-82)
EXPLANATION
WATER LEVEL-Number outside parentheses is water level in leer below land surface; number inside parentheses is date of measurement
_L
-t-
~~AO OIFF~REhC, Ill =:ET
Figure 20. -Head difference between the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems in Twiggs and Laurens Counties and between the Gordon and Midville aquifer systems in Burke County.
and the Dublin aquifer system. A comparison of its water level with that of nearby well 21U5, which taps only the Dublin aquifer system, shows that the water level in well 21U5 was about 18 ft higher than that in well 21U2 (fig. 20). This large difference probably means that the water level in well 21U2 is more representative of the Gordon aquifer system and the Jacksonian aquifer. The water level in well 21U4 tapping only the Midville aquifer system was 16.5 ft higher than in multiaquifer well 21U2 (fig. 20).
In the northern one-third of the study area, the maps shown on figures 18 and 19 are representative of the potentiometric surface of the Dublin-Midville aquifer system. In this area, discontinuous confining units within the Dublin-Midville aquifer system (pls. 1 and 2) may result in local confinement (Area A, fig. 23). Evidence for local zones of confinement within Upper Cretaceous sediments near Gordon, Wilkinson County, were outlined in a report by the Georgia Geologic Survey (1980).
Estimated 1944-1950 potentiometric surface
The map of the 1944-50 potentiometric surface was constructed mainly from data collected during 1944-50. Some data f(om 1938-44 and 1950-71 were used in areas where there was no significant water-level change.
The predevelopment potentiometric surface of an aquifer represents natural conditions before man-induced stresses such as pumping were applied. Over most of the study area, the 1944-50 potentiometric surface (fig. 18) of the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems is probably a close approximation of the predevelopment surface, because ground-water withdrawals were small and were limited to widely distributed pumping centers. Exceptions occurred in the vicinity of pumping centers such as: (1) Sandersville and an area southwest of Deepstep, in Washington County; (2) Augusta, in Richmond County; (3) Steven's Pottery, in Baldwin County; and (4) the
Huber-Warner Robins area, in Twiggs and Houston Counties (fig. 18). In these areas, the potentiometric surface was sufficiently lowered to form small cones of depression and the principal direction of ground-water flow was toward the pumping centers. Over most of the rest of the study area, the principal direction of ground-water flow was toward major rivers and streams.
October 1980 potentiometric surface
The configuration of the October 1980 potentiometric surface is similar to the 1944-50 surface except near areas of large-scale pumping, where water levels have declined (fig. 19). Pumping has produced major cones of depression in southern Bibb County, at Deepstep, in Washington County, and at Gordon, in Wilkinson County (fig. 19). Continued pumping also caused expansion of existing cones at Sandersville in Washington County, and in the Huber-Warner Robins area in Twiggs and Houston Counties. Small cones of depression also developed near Augusta, Richmond County, south of Macon, Bibb County, north of Louisville, Jefferson County, and north of Dover, Screven County.
Ground-water withdrawals from the Dublin-Midville aquifer system southwest of Deepstep, Washington County, have caused water levels to decline over a large area (fig. 22). As a result, potentiometric contours have shifted northward and the ground-water divide between Bluff Creek and Gumm Creek has become less pronounced since 1944-50 (compare figs. 18 and 19).
Mine dewatering operations
Commercial kaolin and other clay deposits in the study area are mined by the open-pit method and the clays are hauled by truck or transported by pipeline as a slurry to a central processing plant. A typical mining operation involves exploratory core drilling to measure the depth, thickness, areal extent, and quality of the deposit, followed by removal of the overburden and mining of the clay.
35
Flooding of the mines by water from the Dublin-Hidville aquifer system and overlying aquifers is possible, and this is prevented at several mine pits by a system of dewatering wells constructed in, and upgradient from, the pits. The dewatering wells are pumped continuously to mainta.in the water level below the working level of the mine.
A typical mine dewatering operation is that of the Huber Corporation mine (Oxford, 1968) near Jeffersonville, Twiggs County (fig. 21). Eight dewatering wells were designed and located to maximize drawdown and maintain the water level below the lowest planned altitude of mining (about 250 ft). Each well is pumped continuously at rates ranging from 2, 000 to 3,400 gal/min. Prior to pumping, water in the Dublin-Midville aquifer system at the site generally flowed westward toward Buck Branch (A, fig. 21). The amount of drawdown produced by the dewatering operation (B, fig. 21) was sufficient to reverse the direction of ground-water flow in the vicinity of the mine (C, fig. 21). Due to the intersection of adjacent cones of depression (well interference), actual drawdown at the site was probably greater than that shown in figure 21.
Long-Term Water-Level Declines
During the predevelopment or prepumping period, water levels in the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems remained relatively steady because aquifer recharge and discharge were in natural equilibrium. After pumping commenced, ground-water withdrawals in some areas caused a reduction in compressive aquifer storage and a corresponding decline in water levels (Lohman, 1972, p. 8). During 1944-50, cones of depression formed at pumping centers in Washington, Richmond, Baldwin, Twiggs, and Houston Counties (fig. 19). Although data for the predevelopment period are lacking, it is likely that water levels declined slightly prior to 1944-50 in the vicinity of these pumping centers.
The few data available indicate that from 1950 to 1980, water levels in the
southern two-thirds of the study area declined little, if any. Water levels in the northern one-third of the study area, however, declined as much as SO ft in the vicinity of the kaolin mining and processing centers in Twiggs, Wilkinson, and Washington Counties; and at industrial and municipal pumping centers near Augusta in Richmond County and south of Macon in Bibb County (fig. 22). Areas having declines of 25 ft or less were widely scattered throughout the northern third of the study area.
Recharge
Because much of the study area is covered by sandy soil, it is likely that a large percentage of the 45 inches of average annual rainfall enters the ground and is available to recharge the underlying aquifers. The Dublin-Midville aquifer system is recharged by precipitation in the vicinity of drainage divides, and also along a narrow and discontinuous outcrop belt that generally parallels the Fall Line (fig. 5). In northern Twiggs, Wilkinson, and Washington Counties, and southern Jones, Baldwin, and Hancock Counties, confining units have been cut through by ancient streams whose channels are filled with permeable sand and gravel (channel sands of LaMoreaux, 1946). The channel sands provide conduits through which precipitation can recharge the aquifer system (fig. 23).
Recharge also occurs where the Baker Hill-Nanafalia confining unit is absent, or is too sandy or thin to provide effective confinement, and potentiometric gradients are vertically downward (Area C, fig. 23). The Baker Hill-Nanafalia confining unit is apparently absent north of
well z4xs in Washington County, south of
well 24Vl in Johnson County, and south of well 23Tl in Laurens County (pl. 1). The Baker Hill-Nanafalia confining unit is less than 20 ft thick in the eastern part of the study area between wells 28Xl and SRP-PSA (section A-A', pl. 1) and wells P4A and A1-324 (section D-D', pl. 2). In these areas, the overlying Gordon aquifer system (table 1) is probably hydraulically connected with the Dublin or Dublin-
36
A-PREPUMPING LEVEL
EXPLANATION
!~ REA OF MINING OPERATION
L-~'-..>:8:#
-160- WATER-LEVEL CONTOUR-Shows altitude at which water would have stood in tightly cased wells. Dashed
where approximately located. Contour interval 10 feet. Datum is sea level
- s o - LINE OF EQUAL DRAWDOWN-Dashed
where approximately located.
Interval 10 feet
0 1b P,UMPING
W ATER (c LEVEL
------~.-..DIRECTION OF GROUND-WATER FLOW
18V2(170)
e DEWATERING WELL-Number inside
parentheses is altitude of water surface in feet; number outside parentheses is well identification
18V9(84)
-.... DEWATERING WELL-Number inside parentheses is drawdown in feet; number outside parentheses is weii identification
83 29' Base from U S. Geological Survey Marion 1:24,000, 1973
83 28'
0
1000 2000 3000 4000
5000 FEET
~~-LLL----~--~-----L--~
Figure 21.-Huber Corporation mine dewatering operation and its effect on ground-water flow, central Twiggs County, 1968-72.
37
EXPLANATION
WATER -LEV E"L OECLINE. IN F&T- Estl m iQtad tt~ ca mputfrr.g :decUN! -w h;ure r:ont1:nu& fr tun
\ bo 19_44 - fiCJ snd i"~-aG _p1J"!e n tlom~ tJfe surrae01 r"t a r::ra:d
-
Mora t l'!el'\ -5 0
. 0 2 5""' 00
1.!51~ t WELL AND I_O.ENo'n FtCAT! ON NUMBER---fllumbe.r o.n to:~ fa wahtt"ri!IIVt!l doc lino , In f~ ~t.
J-tl
NunitJiiU!i ;o.n bHf0111 ll'lo w "cr-IGc! c J ~ .a.t'E!r-lell11 d:no llne
-
a r t - 1CJal)
~~~~ WA1 rn-LE\IEL M'ONI TOR WELL. IoND t0NTIFIC'-T 10ff NUMBER-E.q,u.lpr;u::d 'IWhh
1CIU1
w-.patJiluoU.!S wraror ""-'e ~te l r.Eaorder
WEL.L IO ENTIF.ICATlON EPt AOUJf!::R
Dubl in BQ \3iret ,a~y~rm
Mld"-'tiiG ~QLITi i!r sy1>.tern
Cl.lb lirt.- MTd,. III G AQ'UIU11r t:i~1om
+
Ou~H n and MidYl lle a-q1.1 H'er :ayt ! Drnl
(rnuJrlilqulfer Well)
11Y'OfiOGRr\FJH.-sl'lc w..a; w alele "'t~ tt'tlni:l
~fw .,
= !:: gu
~~; 16V18
n~1 tl~
tm
!D
3;1"
..,. "':)
'-...!::.:: ~ ..r-.
:~ ~
~u t 1
r~
'11"
\.
. - 29aS-f2 '
:-:... ~-
'
/ .- < .n
~~~ -1
"'
,..
--'----= I;:
t<;~t
ill jj:;I,:;,,--;;.,t,,.,-
J
S0AA2 ".....
. '
tvn
ua
- ;. :30.AA4~a...
.... '\.... J ,
B -~A ~ r~ ~~~ E
(
.9
"
20W86
11!1 .11
12 1 511 -l Q ,~
t~8>t1
2c vot3"9-
"0"0
,.,
. ""~'
;:. 't t::
18Vl'.
... - " I r.' .__ -=.,
.fJU - 1H ~l
'1/10.-aJ BQ_
17.;5lllilt71QI 80
~<!!~-' !~~ 5-0 r.J
. t:., ..\"'
,
"'"'-.,
-..: .....
~
,~1
.,..II.-? 1U4
~
"-..
-=c.,.-~ ;:.
l\li
'
s "" II;
.1."<01.8'1
c
\
- ~
..
.".'.~
3 2' u~ ~
l.l"f'c,',o,o-~..".'.7. -~..,.,.,-~."".,~ , --,,+,.
,. ,#)
\
.....
..-;
! -U~
0
UR,..~ 1~'K 1..~1 ~'UI!.i
J~ - o f" , ""
10
:0
:0
ol(l MILES
!;,a n HtFnU.!i GlrrJol.fOHII Cil.i .1urvA;r 5itra bue maps, 1 ~'0 .01:10
83'
82'
Figure 22.-Location of water-level monitoring wells and water-level declines in the Midville and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems, 1950-80.
Midville aquifer systems. If potentiometric gradients in these areas are vertically downward, this interconnection would provide a conduit for recharge to enter the aquifer systems.
Discharge
South of the outcrop area where potentiometric gradients are upward, water from the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems is discharged into overlying aquifer systems (Areas D and E, fig. 23). Vertical potentiometric gradients favoring up"ward flow were observed between the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems in central Twiggs County and near Dublin, Laurens County; and between the Gordon (table 1) and Midville aquifer systems near Midville, Burke County (fig. 20). The water level in multiaquifer well 21U2 near Dublin, Laurens County (Appendix A) indicates that there is a potential for vertical flow from the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems into the overlying Jacksonian aquifer and Gordon aquifer system (fig. 20).
In the outcrop area, the Dublin-Midville aquifer system discharges water largely into streams (Area B, fig. 23). Ground-water discharges as indicated by streamflow measurements during the drought period of October-November 1954 (Thomson and Carter, 1955) are plotted on figure 24. These data represent the measured stream discharge divided by the drainage area of the stream, and were generally greatest in the eastern part of the study area. The high discharge in this area may be the result of: (1) the high storage properties of the aquifer, which result in delayed drainage to streams, or (2) a greater interconnection between aquifers and streams in that area.
WATER USE
An estimated 121 Mgal/d was pumped from the Dublin, Midville, and DublinMidville aquifer systems during 1980 (table 4). Of this amount, about 75
percent was used by industry, 23 percent by municipalities, and 2 percent by agriculture.
The Dublin aquifer system supplied an estimated 9.3 Mgal/d during 1980, of which about 56 percent was used by municipalities, 32 percent by industries, and 12 percent by agriculture. Major users of the Dublin aquifer system include the cities of Warner Robins and Dublin, and industries in Houston, Pulaski, and Screven Counties.
The Midville aquifer system is not used in most of the study area because water can be obtained from shallower aquifers at lower cost. During 1980, the only major users of the Midville aquifer system were the city of Warner Robins and industrial and agricultural users in Houston County, which withdrew an estimated 11.1 Mgal/d.
During 1980, an estimated 100.7 Mgal/d was withdrawn from the Dublin-Midville aquifer system (table 4). Maximum withdrawals were at the kaolin mining and processing centers in Twiggs, Wilkinson, and Washington Counties where pumpage exceeded 72.8 Mgal/d. Pumping by kaolin companies accounted for about 60 percent of the total water withdrawn from the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems. About 54 percent of the water pumped by the kaolin industry .is used for processing and pipeline slurry operations, and 46 percent is for mine dewatering operations (LaMoreaux and Associates, 1980). The amount of kaolin mined in Georgia increased from about 9 million tons during 1941-50 to about 46 million tons during 1971-80 (fig. 25). It is likely that the amount of water pumped from the Dublin-Midville aquifer system by the kaolin industry has increased proportionately during 1941-80.
WELL CONSTRUCTION
Wells tapping the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems typically have screenline construction. This
39
0
w ' u '
r
(
~
"0
c
::J
0.._
Ol
(/)
0 E
c
Q)
.......
0 (/)
....... >.
u (/)
.Q._) .._
Q)
"0 '+-
::J
Q)
.c
cr
....... (1j
"0 Q)
c
(1j >
"0
Q)
.O._l ~
(1j c .c u .0
(/) :J
"0 0
uu
c
c
(1j
(1j
Q) Q)
Ol
s
0
_j
lL
0:
w
~
s-<
w
z
0
N
0 '
z
::::J
0
z
0
C)
(f)
0
z
w
z
0
z z
0: C)
_j
lL
1<(
z
<(
_J
0:
w
lL
::::J
a -<
-<
(f)
_j
w
z z -<
I
u
N
C)
z z lzL 0 u
lL
z
0
u >-
0
z -<
(f)
(f)
z
w
_j
>-<
_j
u
w
w >
_j
0:
w
f-
s-<
0
z
0
f-
u
w 0- :
0
()_
01 X
w
I)'(
~ '
GQJ
40
c '+-
0 .0
E ::J .(.1_j 0
Ol c
(1j 0
"0 "..0_
u 0
(.')
(1j Q)
E .c
Q) .......
.c u
c
(f)
I ~ 0
(Y)
C\J .._
.Q._)
Q)
.......
::J (1j Ol ~
LL
EXPLANATION
OUTCRO~ AREA OF LOWER T ERT I...RY A ND CRET.. C~OUS SEDIM E NTARY HOCKS, UNOI FfERENT io\'te-O
- 0 . 3-- LI NE OF EOUft l GAOUNO-WAT!:A OISCH ~RG E TO STREAJAS--De.s hell whe r-t iiOPfO);Ima.tely
-
lacate.O. tn.terval 0 . 1 c ub to foo t pot ~eeond Pet" a.qua r o mil e ot d!ra.ln.age ar-.fl-a
(0.22)TKu
A DATA P O INT-Number lncldo paren tl'uues It gr.;;~ un.d-water dlaei'IDtQG 10 Jttear.nc
tn eublo tool p-ot second p.ec .11qmsre milo or Cl(31nago .R.ro iL Leile.rs IDd rcate
--~
'-
QII!!Oioglc lor111111!on al moo-su rhHil ::it:a fion u foltow.~; ;.
TKu-L..owar T.erthu)' - Orelllceout. u n.Qitf.era~tJ st el:l PI)--P oal - Pat~eono unU!i
'
.(
E N
/
.
B'"' ,,~ N
El L
33.
/
.H..:.::.-.
\
\ ,_
;<
--- ., ~
4 "' ...,
\
"'-...,_0
(D.DGIo
I
{O.O!_JPJ:l
,....X.,O)Po
"-,.-- .....
E II N U I.
\..
\.
-=-~
~
-0--....:!-~ A U R
'
(
=
\
-~
\
::l !:I ::n::
" \....'.
t':
f
\,,
32'
....
~
'i I 1
:~
'{'
"F MILES
,. . . IJVT"l v:iF- ei-.Ol"OG\~irBiJivn State ".._. maps, 1 5-001000
83'
82'
Oulcro p ar ea lr om G(I~OOI~ Ma p ol Geo rgia , 1976
Figure 24.-Estimated ground-water discharge to streams from aquifers in eastcentral Georgia, October-November 1954.
Table 4.--Estimated water use from the Dublin, Midville, ?nd Dublin-Midville aquifer systems, 1980 [<, less than]
Dublin aquifer system
Ground-water use (Xgal/d)
Midville aquifer system
Dublin-Midville aquifer system
:::;,
~
~
rl
"'~
:l
w
rl
:l
u
rl
~
County
..O.:J)
rl
"0' .
.-< u rl
>:: ;::;:l:
rl
"'rl
~
w
-":ol'
>::
H
rl
"'~
:l
w
rl
:u l
rl
Count2 totalV
~
..b.C:
rl
.--<
"0' .
rl
"'.-<
~
w
u
{/)
rl
>::
-:ol
;::;:l:
" H
rl
"~ '
:l w
rl
:l u
ri
Count2 totalV
~
..b.C:
rl
"0' .
.-< u rl
>:: ;::;:l:
.--<
"'ri
~
w
{/)
-:ol >::
Count2 Grand
H
totalV total.V
Bibb
-- - -- -
-- -- -- -
-
--
3. l
3. l
3. 1
Burke
0.1 0.3 0.1
0.5
-- -- 0. 1 0. 1
-
-
-- --
6
Emanuel
-- -- --
-
-- -- -- --
-- -
--
--
-
Houston
. 4 3.4 1.4
5.2
0.3 8.4 2.3 11.0
--
1.6
-- 1.6
17.8
Jefferson --
--
--
--
-- -- --
--
0.3
<.1
. 7
1.0
1.0
Johnson
. l
. 1
--
. 2
--
--
--
--
-- -- -- --
. 2
Jones
-
-- -
--
--
-
--
--
-
.3
--
. 3
.3
Laurens
3
. 7
. 5
1.5
-
-
-
--
-
-- -- --
1.5
Pulaski
- I .3
. 7
1.0
-- -- -- -
-
-- - - --
1.0
Richmond
--
--
-
-
-- -
--
--
-- 10.7
9.2 19.9
19.9
Screven
-
-- .6
. 6
-
- - --
--
-- -- -- -
6
Twiggs
. 2
.1
--
. 3
--
-
--
-
--
.1 38.2 38.3
38.6
Washington -
-- --
--
-- - -- --
2
. 2 lO. 7 11. l
11. l
Wilkinson
--
<.1
<. 1
<. 1
--
--
--
--
--
1.5 23.9 25.4
25.4
TotalsV 1.1 4.9 3.3
9.3
0.3 8.4 2.4 11. 1
0.5 14.4
' - - - - -"--- - -'---- -
1/ ValuEs are estimated growing-season withdrawals averaged over a 365-day period.
"'Jj Totals do not include domestic use.
85.8
100.7
121. 1
42
5 0 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
(f) 45 -
z
0 f- 40 -
LL
0
~ 35-
0
_.J
_.J 30 -
~
~ 25 -
z
0 f- 20
()
::::l 0
0 15 a:
CL
z
_.J
0
<(
~
5
<1900 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80
YEAR
Figure 25.-Georgia kaolin production, 1900-1980. Modified from Stockman and Pickering (1977).
type of construction and the lithologic and geophysical properties of aquifer sediments are typified by well 16Ul at Warner Robins, Houston County (fig. 26; Appendix A).
In some areas, the individual aquifer systems supply insufficient quantities of water and are used together or in combination with other aquifers. Multiaquifer wells in Warner Robins, Houston County (well 16U1, fig. 26; Appendix A), and in Burke County (wells 31Z1, 31Z3, 31Z4, and 31Z8, Appendix A) tap both the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems. In Jefferson County, multiaquifer wells (wells 26AA1, 26Y7, and 26Y8, Appendix A) tap both the Dublin-Midville aquifer system and the overlying Gordon aquifer system (table
1).
WATER QUALITY
Water from the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems is generally of good chemical quality. With the exception of high concentrations of iron in the central part of the study area, constituent concentrations are within Georgia Environmental Protection Division (1977) standards and recommended limits for drinking water (Appendix B).
Water-quality analyses indicate that concentrations of dissolved solids and most other constituents generally increase from the outcrop area southward (fig. 27; Appendix B). Values of pH are generally lower near the outcrop area and range from a low of 3.7 at well 20W44 in Wilkinson County to a high of 8.6 at well 13T11 in Bulloch County (fig. 28; Appendix B). The low values of pH in the northern part of the study area are probably the result of reactions involving the oxidation of a sulfur species or ferrous iron (Hem, 1970, p. 93-95).
The presence of iron in drinking water is objectionable because of its taste, staining capacity, and encrusting property. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (1977) recommends a concentration limit of 300 ~g/L of iron in drinking water. Concentrations of dissolved iron range from less than 300 ~g/L near the outcrop area and in the southern part of the study area, to more than 6,700 ~g/L at well 23U3 in Laurens County in the central part of the study area (fig. 28).
Iron in ground water may be derived from decaying organic debris or from iron-bearing minerals, such as pyrite, in the aquifer sediments. The iron in these materials is dissolved as it comes in contact with oxygenated ground water, producing soluble ferrous iron and sulfate (Hem, 1970, p. 124). Near the outcrop area where concentrations of dissolved oxygen are high, iron concentrations generally are less than 300 ~g/1. This comparatively low concentration is
43
w
0
<(
0
lL
a:
:J
(/)
1 00
0
z
<(
_J
5 200
0
_J
w
en 300
f-
w
w
lL
-z 400
-
I f-
Q_ 500
w
0
z
0
i=
GEOPHYSICAL WELL LOGS
0
::::)
0: f-
>-
(9
0
<(
::2' (/)
(f)
_(
z
0
0
0
I f-
_(
_(
_(
2
<(
(')
:J _J
0 w
z
<(
-
f-
<( z
f- w
z f-
>-
-f-
>
f-
(/)
w
0 0
(/)
$:
Q_ Q_
w
(/)
a:
--------
HYDROLOGIC UNIT
GORDON AQUIFER SYSTEM
CONFINING UNIT
DUBLIN AQUIFER SYSTEM
CONFINING UNIT
MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEM
EXPLANATION
U/.:) ~:~::! s AN D
B
eLAY
ETI2] SANDY CLAY
GRAVEL
~....!{....;""'""'
I I SCREEN
~CEMENT
Figure 26.-Well construction and lithologic and geophysical properties of aquifer sediments at well 16U1, near Warner Robins, Houston County.
44
-D EXPLANATION DUBLIN-MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEM-Area in which Dublin and Midville aquifer systems fo r m a combined aQuifer system
AREA IN WHICH DUBLIN AND MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENTIATEDContours in this area are for the Dublin aQuifer system
- S O- - LINE OF EQUAL DISSOLVED-SOLIDS CONCENTRATION-Dashed where
approximately loca ted. Inter va l 50 milligrams per liter
+ 28X1{83E) DATA POINT-Number outside parentheses is well identification; number inside parentheses is dissolved- solids concentration in milligrams per !iter; E, estimated tram sum of co ns tituents
/'-c-
WELL IDENTIFICATION BY AQUIFER
Dublin aquife r system Midville aQuifer system Dublin-Midville aquifer system
/
~,
L
:;; 3
..,..
c.n
i'
IU 1(&3El
+
~\\ \ ~ --
1..
:;,. nMC tol \ ulno:r.J
\ \ '0
"< .,,
\ 6nlfiO)
..............
""'......._ ,D().___
- - - - - ' - '
fti.I I TC1~'H
--31T1 1(121)
t '' T
210
310
4j MJL :S
32"
trom u;to: Go lo.;:lcal aurTIIIl'
82"
S tal e b.1::o m.Jp::. 1. 500,000
Figure 27.-Dissolved-solids concentration of water from the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems, 1940-82.
EXPLANATION
-
DUB Ll N-M iO VILLE AQUIFER SYSTEM-Area In wh i ch the Oub tfn and Mt dv i11 e aqu, fer
systems form a combined aquifer system
D
AREA IN WHICH DUBLIN AND MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENTIATED-
Contours In this area are for the Dublin aquifer system
IRON CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
r---1 Greater than 300-Concentrations greater than 300 micrograms per liter
L____J can cause staining of clothing, utensils, and fixtures
~ Less tha.rt "3 00-No treatment r e qu ired lor mo at U~us
-7.0-- LINE OF EQUAL pH- Interva l 1.0 uofL Da s hed where approx imate ly located
18V7
DAiA PO lNT-Number Js Well ' dentlfjc a tl on
,J!!!.- rto..n oone e n:t ratl on, In microlram.t ~e r tr t a: e. - I)H, Jn unit&:
W ELL IOENTIFICA T I ON BY A.OUIFER
Cubltn a Quifo.r ayorm Mldwllle aquUer J.Yitl/1'11
Dublin-;Midvllle aquifer system
:n
..,.
0':>
K IE
El " -
wE. L L
/
0
10
20
30
~0 MIL ::::S
32'
aue ffcun 0 :i. Co logt ~l S ur~e y Gttttv t:111:a mQOil. t .!00,000
83'
82'
Figure 28.-lron concentration and pH of water from the Dub I in, Mid ville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer systems, 1952-82.
due to a short period of contact between the oxygenated ground water and the source material. As the ground water moves downdip, more iron goes into solution as the dissolved-oxygen supply is gradually depleted. As a result, iron concentrations in the central part of the study area exceed the 300 ~g/L recommended limit for drinking water. Farther downdip ferrous iron may combine with a reduced sulfur species and precipitate to form a ferrous sulfate, such as pyrite (Jackson and Patterson, 1982), or ferrous iron may combine with colloidal ferric hydroxide and coprecipitate (Langmuir, 1969). These reactions, together with cation exchange, decrease the concentration of iron to less than 300 lJ g/L in the southern part of the study area (fig. 28).
SUMMARY
In east-central Georgia, interlayered sand and clay of Paleocene and Late Cretaceous age form the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems. In the northern third of the study area, the systems combine to form the Dublin-Midville aquifer system. The aquifer systems have thicknesses that range from 80 to 645 ft and include discontinuous clay layers that result in local zones of confinement. Estimated hydraulic conductivities of aquifer sediments range from 15 to 530 ft/d. The aquifer systems have transmissivities that range from about 800 to 39,000 ft2/d, and wells yield as much as 3,400 gal/min. Water from the aquifer systems is of good quality except in the central rart of the study area, where iron concentrations are as high as 6,700 ~g/L and exceed the recommended limit of 300 ~ g/L for drinking water.
During 1980, the aquifer systems supplied an estimated 121 Mgal/d, about .60 percent of which was withdrawn for kaolin mining and processing. Water levels in the aquifer systems have shown little change since 1950 in the southern two-
thirds of the study area, but localized declines of as much as 50 ft have occurred due to pumping near industrial, municipal, and kaolin mining and processing centers in the northern third of the study area.
Recharge of the aquifer systems by precipitation occurs within and adjacent to the outcrop areas of aquifer sediments, and where ancient stream channels eroded through the overlying confining zone and were filled with permeable sand. Ground-water discharge occurs largely to streams in the outcrop area. Within the southern half of the study area, aquifer discharge occurs through leakage into overlying units.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Applin, E. R., 1955, A biofacies of Woodbine age in the southeastern Gulf Coast region: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 264-I, p. 187-197.
Applin, P. L., and Applin, E. R., 1967, The Gulf Series in the subsurface in northern Florida and southern Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 524-G, 34 p.
Bechtel Corporation, 1982, Studies of postulated Millett Fault: Unpublished report on file at U.S. Geological Survey, Doraville, Georgia, variously paged.
Brooks, Rebekah, Clarke, J. S., and Faye, R. E., 1985, Hydrogeology of the Gordon aquifer system of east-central Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 75.
Buie, B. F., Hetrick, J. H., Patterson, S. H., and Neeley, C. L., 1979, Geology and industrial mineral resources of the Macon-Gordon kaolin district, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 79-526, 2 sheets, scale 1:62,500.
47
Chowns, T. M., and Williams, C. T., 1983, Pre-Cretaceous rocks beneath the Georgia Coastal Plain--Regional implications, in Gohn, G. S., ed., Studies related~o the Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1886--Tectonics and seismisity: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1313-L, p. L1-L42.
Clarke, J. s., Faye, R. E., and Brooks,
Rebekah, 1983, Hydrogeology of the Providence aquifer of southwest Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 11, 5 sheets.
1984, Hydrogeology of the Clayton ----aq-uifer of southwest Georgia: Georgia
Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 13, 6 sheets.
Eargle, D. H., 1955, Stratigraphy of the outcropping Cretaceous rocks of Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin
1014, 101 P
Faye, R. E., and Prowell, D. C., 1982,
Some effects of Late Cretaceous and
Cenozoic faulting on the geology and
hydrology of the Coastal Plain near
the Savannah River, Georgia and South
Carolina:
U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 82-156, 73 P
Ferris, J. G., Knowles, R. H., Brown,
R. H., and Stallman, R. w., 1962,
Theory of aquifer tests: U.S. Geelogical Survey Water-Supply Paper
1536-E, 173 P
Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 1977, Rules for safe drinking water: Chapter 391-3-5, 57 p.
Georgia Geologic Survey, 1980, Hydrogeological investigation of the Gordon Service Company Hazardous Waste Facility in Wilkinson County, Georgia, variously paged.
Georgia Geological Survey, 1976, Geologic map of Georgia: Atlanta, Georgia, 1:500,000.
Gibson, T. G., 1982, New stratigraphic unit in the Wilcox Group (upper Paleocene-lower Eocene) in Alabama and Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1529H, p. H23-H32.
Gohn, G. S., Higgins, B. B., Smith,
c. c., and Owens, J. P., 1977, Litho-
stratigraphy of the deep corehole (Clubhouse Crossroads corehole 1) near Charleston, South Carolina, in Rankin,
D. w., ed., Studies related to the
Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1886--a preliminary report: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1028-E, p. E59-E70.
Hazel, J. E., 1969, Cytheresis eaglefordensis Alexander, 1929--A guide fossil for deposits of latest Cenomanian age in the Western Interior and Gulf Coast regions of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 650-D, P D155-D158.
Hazel, J. E., Bybell, L. M., Christopher, R. A., and others, 1977, Biostratigraphy of the deep corehole (Clubhouse Crossroads corehole 1) near Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake of 1886--a preliminary report, in Rankin,
D. w., ed., Studies related to the
Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1886--a preliminary report: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1028-F, P F71-F89.
Hem, J. D., 1970, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1473, 363 P
Herrick, S. M., 1961, Well logs of the Coastal Plain of Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 70, 462 P
Herrick, S. M., and Counts, H. B., 1968, Late Tertiary stratigraphy of eastern Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Guidebook for Third Annual Field Trip, 88 P
48
Herrick, S. M., and Vorhis, R. C., 1963, Subsurface geology of the Georgia Coastal Plain: Georgia Geological Survey Information Circular 25, 80 P
Hetrick, J. H., and Friddell, M. S., 1983, A geologic study of the central Georgia kaolin district, parts I, II, and III: Georgia Geologic Survey Open-File Report 83-1, variously paged.
Huddlestun, P. F., Marsalis, w. E., Pick-
ering, S. M., Jr., 1974, Tertiary stratigraphy of the central Georgia Coastal Plain: Geological Society of America Guidebook 12, 35 P
Jackson, R. E., and Patterson, R. J , 1982, Interpretation of pH and Eh trends in a fluvial-sand aquifer system: Water Resources Research, v. 18, no. 4, p. 1255-1268.
Kesler, T. L., 1963, Environment and origin of the Cretaceous kaolin deposits of Georgia and South Carolina: Georgia Geological Survey Mineral Newsletter, v. 16, nos. 1 and 2, 11 P
LaMoreaux, P. E., 1946, Geology and ground-water resources of east-central Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 52, 173 p.
LaMoreaux and Associates, Inc., 1969, Plan for dewatering the kaolin clay deposit at the Chambers Mine, Wilkinson County, Georgia: Unpublish~d report on file at U.S. Geological Survey, Doraville, Georgia, 26 p.
-
-l-in19d80is, tHriycdtr:ologUynpoufbltihsheedGeorergpioartk
aoon
file at U.S. Geological Survey, Dora-
ville, Georgia, 139 p.
Langmuir, Donald, 1969, Iron in ground waters of the Magothy and Raritan Formations in Camden and Burlington Counties, New Jersey: New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development Water Resources Circular 19, 49 p.
LeGrand, H. E., 1962, Geology and groundwater resources of the Macon area, Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 72, 68 P
LeGrand, H. E., and Furcron, A. S., 1956, Geology and ground-water resources of central-east Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 64, 174 P
Lohman, s. W., 1972, Ground-water hydrau-
lics: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 708, 70 p.
Mayer, J. c., and Applin, E. R., 1971,
Stratigraphy, in Mayer, J. C., Geologic framework and petroleum potential of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and Continental Shelf: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 659, P 26-65.
Miller, J. A., 1982, Geology and configuration of the top of the Tertiary limestone aquifer system, Southeastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-1178, 1 sheet.
Owens, J. P., and Gohn, G. S., 1985, Depositional history of the Cretaceous Series in the United States Coastal Plain: stratigraphy, paleoenvironments, and basin evolution: Symposium on the stratigraphy and depositional history of the Atlantic Continental Margin, [in press].
Oxford, E. F., 1968, Development of a kaolin body under hydrostatic pressure: Society of Mining Engineers of America Institute of Mining Engineers, 68-AG-358, 19 p.
Patterson, S. H., and Herrick, S. M., 1971, Chattahoochee anticline, Apalachicola embayment, Gulf Trough, and related structural features, southwestern Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Information Circular 41, 16 P
Pickering, S. M., Jr., 1971, Lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the north-central Georgia Coastal Plain: Georgia Geological Survey Fieldtr~p Guide, 1971, 15 P
49
Pollard, L. D., and Vorhis, R. C., 1980, Geohydrology of the Cretaceous aquifer system in Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 3, 5 sheets.
Prowell, D. C., and O'Connor, B. J., 1978, Belair fault zone: Evidence of Tertiary fault displacement in eastern Georgia: Geology, v. 6, p. 681-684.
Prowell, D. C., Christopher, R. A., Edwards, L. E., Bybell, L. M., and Gill, H. E., 1985, Geologic section of the updip Coastal Plain of central Georgia to western South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Series Map MF 1737 [in press].
Reineck, H. E., and Singh, I. B., 1980, ' Depositional sedimentary environments with reference to terrigenous clastics: Heidleburg, German, SpringerVerlag, 2d ed., p. 321-370.
Scrudato, R. J., 1969, Kaolin and associated sediments of east-central Georgia: Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 89 p.
Seismograph Service Corporation, 1971, Report on seismograph surveys conducted in Barnwell, Aiken, and Allendale Counties, South Carolina (DP-MS-80-44I): unpublished report on file at U.S. Geological Survey, Doraville, GA, 45 P
Siple, G. E. , 196 7, Geology and ground water of the Savannah River Plant and vicinity, South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1841, 113 p.
Sirrine Company, 1980, Ground-water re-
source study, Sirrine Job No. P-1550 ,
DCN-001: Unpublished report on file at U.S. Geological Survey, Doraville, GA, 26 P
Stephenson, L. W., and Veatch, J. 0., 1915, Underground waters of the Coastal Plain of Georgia, with a discussion of The quality of the waters by R. B. Dole: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 341, 539 p.
Stiles, H. R., and Matthews, S. E., 1983, Ground-water data for Georgia, 1982: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-678, 147 p.
Stockman, K. E., and Pickering, S. M., Jr., 1977, Georgia's mineral industry, progress from a metals to industrial minerals producer (abs.): National Institute of Mineral Engineers proceedings.
Stricker, V. A., 1983, Base flow of streams in the outcrop area of southeastern sand aquifer: South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4106, 17 p.
Swanson, D. E., and Gernazian, Andrea, 1979, Petroleum exploration wells in Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 51, 67 p.
Thomson, M. T., and Carter, R. F., 1955, Surface-water resources of Georgia during the drought of 1954, part !Streamflow: Georgia Geological Survey Information Circular 17, 79 p.
Tschudy, R. H., and Patterson, S. H., 197 5, Palynological evidence for Late Cretaceous, Paleocene, and early middle Eocene ages for strata in the
kaolin belt, central Georgia: u.s.
Geological Survey Journal of Research, v. ~, no. 4, p. 437-445.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977, National interim primary drinking water regulations: EPA-570/9-76003, 159 P
50
Valentine, P. C., 1982, Upper Cretaceous subsurface stratigraphy and structure of coastal Georgia and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1222, 33 p.
Van Nieuwenhuise, D. s., and Colquhoun,
D. J., 1982, The Paleocene-lower Eocene Black Mingo Group of the eastcentral Coastal Plain of South Carolina: South Carolina Geology, v. 26, no. 2, p. 47-67. Vincent, H. R. , 1982, Geohydrology of the Jacksonian aquifer in central and east-central Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 8, 3 sheets. Zimmerman, E. A., 1977, Ground-water resources of Colquitt County, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-56, 41 p.
51
APPENDICES
County
Georgia
I I Well
Geologic. Survey Latitude-
numbers
No.
loua:itude
Name o.:: owner
Appendix A.-Reeord of selected wells
lu..~ a A, agricultural; D, domestic.; I, industrial; P, public. 8upply; o, observation, Wacer Level: Reported levels are given in feet, me.uured levels are given in feet and cenths; L, airline measure~ot; F, flowing. "lteld: <, less
than. Transm.issivity: t, detern.ined fro1:1 aquifer teat; "' estimated from regressioD equation]
I I Oa<e I Dep'h , ..p,h 01a- Al<i,udel
drl l l..o!d
of
of
of
of
or
well cuing
well
land
''-'--' 11
Above (+) or below (-) I Dat:e of
Yield
I SpeCl.fic capacity
100dified (h)
(ft)
(Ln.)
surface Aquifer(s)
land surface (ft)
(gal/min) (gal/dn/ft)
f Use
Remarks
Bibb
16V25 17Wit
3242520834437
32~812-
0833232
a & c Hooper Hill 12, vell 2
Tom's Foods, 1
210
205
245
100
10
Dublin-
400
Hidvilb
335
do.
-60 -70.2
-30 -24.4
16V2
324230-
Bibb Co. Wacer
0833911
Auchoricy, ~Jell 2 I 1941
220
106
10
335
do.
16'118
1853
3Z42ZG-
P<lck.aging Corp.
0833857
of America, 2
I 03~7--67 I 240
160
10
335
do.
16Wl8
2117
324619-
0833743
Georgia Kraft, 1 I 03-27-46 l 244
60
310
do.
l6Vl
3242290833908
Cochran Field, 1
368
132
10
305
do.
16W8
JS1
32~656-
0833~26
Streit ...n Biscuic Co.
190
110
370
do.
-63.9 -57.6
-71 -91.1
-34 -54.2
-94 -95.5
-104
16W5
3246150833903
Arascronli Cork, 4 I 1948
2ll5
120
251
do.
16W27
3246160833743
Ceorgb. Kraft, 3 I 09-10-79 I 290
150
305
do.
01
16Vl9
JZ434G-
tv
0834228
B & C Goodall, 2
165
155
410
do.
16W25
2158
3246110833903
Armacrong Cork, 4A
245
125
290
do.
16V12
321!1540834200
II & G Thornh.ill, 1
133
127
315
do,
16V11
32422008))90tS
Packaging Corp. of America, L
240
150
10
370
do.
16W24
3246220833925
Ar1D5trong Cork, 5 l 1964
243
UJO
320
do.
l&Vl6
3244240833837
Standard 011 Co.
191
142
340
do.
Bleckley
19T2
3222430832038
Middle Geor&ia College, lA
1970
680
620
370
Dublin
Bulloch
31TlJ
101!4
3227230814624
Statesboro, 5
1969 [1,526 11,390
202
do.
-42 -60 -71.0
-50
-60
-70 -71 -84 -87 -54
-70 -100
-92
Burke
JlZJ
330847-
Ca. Power Plant
Uublin,
0814537
Vogtle, Makeup 5 !08-26-77 [ 851
m
10
197
Midville
-25.1
-2~.2
31Zl 31Z8 Z8Xl
31Z~
29'!3
3444
3308460814552
33082808145118
325232 0821315
330t13QOdl4541.
3305160820115
Ca. PO\Ier Plant
Vogtle, liakeup 6 IIZ-22-77 I 850
450
Vogtle observation well, 5
uses ::."Ex N-1
Midville
1972
850
513
U!- -80 l 1,01!5 I 903
Vogtle observation well, 1
883
502
w~ynoQI bf.II'O, 3
1981
557
447
10 20,tl
214
do.
211
do.
2"
Hid ville
Dublin,
206
H.idville
310
Dublin
-U.l -43.3
-38 -49.0 -53.0
-37.9
-106
1%5 lo-24-80
06-30-57
01~3-7!:1
05-12-41 lQ-24-80
03-13-67 10-24--60
04-20-46 01-29-7!:1
08- -41 I(r24-!!0
1D-OZ-53
60 1,140
565 350 410 620 450
06-15--48
10~2-7!:1
10-24-80
05-21-7&
12-18-b9
1968 03-Q3-67 12-29-77 12-18-04 ll-11-t12
04-Q1-5!:1
as- -10
IQ-24--HO
09-D8-6b
Otl-24-77 10-22-tiO
12-U~-77
l0-22-80
07-DB-72 06-Q4-tl0 11-15-82
07-Qii-72
02-14-!H
630 250 100 525
30 350 465
40
80 3,335 3,320
110
1,2001,250
...
10.3
...
10.3 4.8 1.6 2.8
18.7 2.7 21.9
5.0 26.9 40.S
2.1
Screen 205-210 ft. Transmissivity 2,600 fr2/d.* Screen 100-110, 178-Hitj, 200-220, 232-242 ft. Wacerquality aDlllysis, 06-{)9-75. Well 6 inC<;$ Bull. 72.
Screen 106-121, 126-146, 174-17!:1, 21D--2ZO ft. Transmissivity 4,100 ft2/d. t Well 39 in GGS Bullecin 72. ~~~~nf!~~~~O, 192-207, 215-230 ft. TrannissiYitf
Screen 60-70, 16D--170, 212-217 ft. Water-quality analys15, 06-19-68. Tran.sm.issivicy 5,300 ft2/d.* Screen 132-147, 224-234, 314-319, 353-368 !t. Transmissivity 6,100 ft2/d.
Screen llQ-JlS, 125-130, 1>5-160, 175-190 ft. Trans-
* missivity 3,100 tt2/d.
Screen 120-130, 150-165, 125-235, 255-260 tc. Transmissivity- 4,600 ft2/d. * well 23 in GGS ~1-
letin 72. Scr111en 15o-190, 200-210, 270-280 fc. Tu.n511.issivicy
z,ouo tr2/d.
Scr11en 155-165 fc. Translliss1v1ty 3,200 ttl/d. Screen 120-155, 225-240 ft. Transmissivity ll,OOO ttl/d.*
Scnen 127-133 ft. Transmissivity 1,900 tc2/d.*
Translllissivity 13,000 ft2/d. 'Ill
Sc:reen 100-105, 133-153, 168-173, 228-243 ft. Waterquality analysis, 06-o9-75,
Screen 142-147, 157-162 ft. Well 33 in CGS Bullecin 72.
Sc:reen 6:./.o-61:10 ft. Water-quality analyds, Ob-LQ-75.
PacKer test 139D-14H ft. Water-quality analysis, 01-14-66. Transmissivicy 3,20ll ft2/d.* Screen 437-~62, 4b8-483, 49ti-512, 53b-546, 5>u-572, 67b-6jb, 720-732, 78ij-1:120 ft. Tra.nsDissivity 15,000 ft2/d."~~~
Screen 45o-462, 47D-4!12, 490-505, 515-530, 54D-552, 557-567, 62o-635, 674-694, 711-728, 78G-792, 81G-820
ft. Trans.Ussivity 23,000 ft2fd.. *
Screen 513-533, 555-576, 702-723, 829-tl50 ft. Transrdssivity 31,000 ft2/d. t Screen 903-923, 1025-1045 ft. Wacer~ualicy analysis, 05-23-80. Transmissivity 7,100 ft2/d.t
Screen 502-524, 545--566, 735--756, 862-8tl3 ft. Translliui.vity 26,000 tt2/d. t
Scuan 447-557 ft.
County
Geora1a Geologic
I n::~rs Su~:Y ~~:~~~
Naae or owner
Appendix A.--Record of selected wells-Continued
[Uae: A, aa:rtcultural; D, dometic~ 1, indu.atrial; P, public tupply; 0, observation, Water Level: Reporced levels are
<. given in feet, m&e.aured levels are given in feet and tenths; L, airline JRaaurement; J, flo11ina Yield:
less
than. translllissivitv: t. determined from aquifer test; * estimated from rearessioc equa:tion]
I I I dDrail<leed Doefprh [Deopfrh Diaoofe<er Alroifrudel
or.
well ea..tng
well
land
modified (ft)
(ft)
(in.)
surface Aquifer(s)
Water 1e~l
Above (+) or below (-) land surface (fc)
I l)j,~ Yield
(g&l/llin)
Spe.c:ific
ce.pacity
(gal/aln/fc) I
Reaaarks
Burke
28W4 JIZZ
3252270821301
H:idville Bxpmt. Sta., 2 (Va. Well & Supply, 2)
500
292
:nos27-
Ga. Power Plane
oa14543
Vogtle, 'IW-1
(Stndby mkup 11)
1972
928
505
10
Columbia I 28B81
ZS4
332701-
0820853
Crovetovn, I
1951(?) 1 320
120
27U8
3324580821938
tlarle.a, 8
JS
30
72
Glasc0.k. I 26AA3
33154ti08Z2711
Thiele Kaolin, Wl 1OS-Ql-71 1 153
145
Houston
17U6
37 0
323628-
0833702
Warner Robins, 1 1 02- -54 I 375
185
12
16U4
323556-
0833840
Warner RobiiU, 9 I 1o- -71 I 490
330
12
l6Ul3
323S2Z-
0834245
Gleat011's HtlP 1
1969(?)
95
90
Gordon,
269
Jacksonian
Dublin,
214
Midville
Dublin-
Midville,
545
Haaement
Dublin-
536
Midville
Dublin-
Midville,
4<0
Gordon
Dublin,
397
Midville
400
Midville
Dublin-
450
Midville
16T6
3Z28090834456
Perry, 2
07-2I-72 I 650
320
10
3BO
do.
01
I6V3
32375~
c.:>
0833945
Centet'fille, 2
1965
678
320
10
430
do.
16Ull
3Z.3150-
Hu~ton Cq . ITl.
0834100
of Cacm.,
Sanderfur 8.4., 2 I 08-ZZ-77 I 625
515
10
l80
Midville
17U4
3236040833445
R.obin11 All, 7
440
266
10
292
do .
17Ul0
1816
323716-
0833507
Robins AF~, )A
1969(1) I 305
190
12
Dublin,
275
Midville
17Ul3
3237260833507
Robins ATI, 3
1942(?) I 375
12
275
Midville
I6U1
010
323552-
0833&48
Wtt.rner Robins, 5 I 1962(?) I 422
235
12
Dublin,
424
Midville
16V20
2119
3Z3807-
0833743
Warner Robins, 6 I 1968(?) I 4JS
250
12
Dublin-
394
Midville
16T2
1094
322619-
083381Z
Pabst Brvery, 4 I 1967(?) I 640
295
12
I6V24
323927083421Z
Georgia Forestry
Collllllission
I 09- -57 I Z85
285
151'1
3228180834729
Jamea Sim.eraon, Peach Co., f&'tll and ranch
186
170
l6V5
3238370814118
Centerville, 3
510
370
10
l6T7
2159
J22758083445Z
Perry, 3
630
320
10
16T5
3277220834419
Prry, I
4&5
)14
10
Dublin,
300
Midville
Dublin-
470
Midville
397
do .
455
Midville
Dublin-
380
Midville
293
do .
17U8
3236450833!118
Robins AFB, Old 5
1943(?) I 370
200
12
Dublin,
296
MidvUle
-60.7
-40 -33.0
-105 -25 -24.1
-66 -68.3 -111 -122.1 -101 -88.7
-45
-60 -78.0 -80 -120.2
-68 -68.2 -3B -38.Z L -ZI.6 -30.0 L
-24.1 -132 -129.4 -1!6 -117.0 L
-5 -12.4 -150 -144.9
-65
-14t!
-60 Q
-35
-32 44.7
05-23-80
07~9-72
11-13-82
1,200
03- -51
1946
1~24-80
06-10-71 1Q-2Q-t!O
OZ-10-54 11-01-76 I0-()5-71 lQ--22-80
06-26-69
07-13-7Z IO-Z:t.-80
1965 10-22-80
08-ll-77 lQ-2Z-80
10-17-51:J 10-Z2-80
07-24-6~
1Q-22-80
lQ-- -4Z 11-27-62 11--Ql-7b
07-16-6S lQ-28-80
12-18-b7 lQ-22-tW
196Z 1D-Z2-80
lbO
90 800 1,615
25 1,060 1,340 1,300
99U
1,000 1,100 1,040 1,500
75
OZ-20-71
ll--Q8-7b
11-18-69 06-25-64 ll--Q4-7&
07-02-U 07-24-6'1
70 1,000 1,060-
1,500 1,080
755
50.4
"
Screen 292-302, 395-415, 434-444, 455-465, 4t!4-494 ft.
Screen 505-535, 555-585, 695-705, 730-750, 815-850 ft. Tranndsaiviry 21,000 feZ/d. t
Open Aole 120-320 f r. Open hob, 3Q-J5 lt. Well Z6 in ~s &ullectn 64.
6,2 47.1 5Z 17.3 30.3 2l.b 44.9 41.3
33.0 45.1:$ 69.3 44.5
Screen 145-150 fr. Transllissiviry 3,900 fc2/d.*
Sc:reen 185-195, 2t!5-295, 345-365 fr. Tran&llisslvity
26,000 ft2/d. * Well 7 in GGS Bulletin 72.
Screen 330-340, 361)-380, 405-415, 46Q-480 ft. Tran.ll.issivity 29,000 ft2/d. *
Screen 9o-95 fc. Tran.flllsaiviry 10,000 ft2/d. Screen 3Z(J-330, 34Q-350, ldo-t.20, 510-520, 5~Q-600, b30-640 fc. Warer-qu.ality an~~.lysis, 0.4-19, Zl-7!11. Trans1111n1vicy 17,000 feZ/d.
Screen 32Q-l30, 648-67ts fe. Trans.U.ssivity .. 12,000 tt2/d
Screen 515-575, 605-615 fr. Transll.iutvity 29,000 tt2/d.t
Sc:reen 266-286, 315-3Z5 ft. Translllissivity 23,000 ftZ/d.*
Screen I9(}-210, 285-305 fr.
Transmissivity 20,000 ftz/d.t Well 3 tn GGS Bulletin 72. Screen 235-245, 270-280, 349-354, 366-371, 392-412 fr. tre.nsmlssivity 26,000 fr2/d.*
Sc:reen 25D-260, 290-310, 391)-400, 415~25 ft. transadssivley 39,000 ft2/d.*
Screen Z95-300, 310-330, 34o-360, 438-443, 510-52U, 56ll-565, 58Q-5t!5, 600-630 ft. Transnalssivicy 32,000 ftl/d. t
Well 10 in GGS Hulletin 72.
27.t! 53.7 51.9
23.0
23.0
Screen 17D-175 ft:.
Screen 37ll-390, 430-440, 48Q-50U ft. Translllis:'llvity 16,000 ftl/d
Screen 32D-330, 390-400, 41U-420, 430-4~0, ~70-5!10, 610-6ZO ft. Transllliulviry 30,000 fr 2Jd.
Screen 3lt.-324, 362-367, 376-3!11, 40HI5, 426-436, t.45-465 ft. Trans11isahity 1),000 It2/d.*
Sc:reen :wo-210, 260-270, 29~300, 360-370 ft. 11isa1.viry 7,800 ftl/d. t well 4 in GC bulletin 72. Well destroyed, 1971.
Tuns-
County
Well numbers
Georgia
...Geologic Survey
Latitude-
longitud~~:
Name or owner
A.ppendix A.--Record of selec:ted walb--Continued
[llsel
A, agric:ultural; D, domestic; I, industrial; P, public supply; 0, obset"vation, Water 'Level: Reported. levels at"e
given in feet, measured Levels are given in feet and tenths; t., .airline ~aeasurement; f', flowing. Yiald: <, less than. Transatssivity: t, detendned fro11 aquifer test:; *, estiaated froe regression equation)
Date
Depth l}epth
I Diameter: AltitUdll
Water ..level
ddlled or
odilied.
of well (It)
of casing
(ft)
of well (in.)
r:f Ulnd
IIUJ:fii-CIII
Aquifer(s)
I Above (+) or below (-)
Dt< of
land surface (ft)
ua,nt.,ment
Yield (gal/min)
Sp ~:~i hc capac:ity (gal/ll.in/ft)
u..
Ke.atk
Jefferson I 26M1 26Y8 26l'7
3316270822433
3306400822523
3306290822501
J. M. Huber, 1
05- -65 I 351
192
f. Gresbrecht
IUcllilrd JOh1!5on. 1
435
435
08-27-78 I 425
225
Dublin-
10
4"
Midville, Gordon
14.5
"5
....
13.5
382
do.
-162 -165.1!
-118.2 -145.8
-108 -l:l6.9
05- -6!1 10-20-80
11-13-ltl 10-2U-1!0
0~ -71! 1D-20-I!O
305 1.000 1,250
8.5 16.t.
26Yl
330024-
0822729
J. P. Stevens, AI
540
45D
1D
3!U
Dublin
-68
1977
1,000
10
JohDJ;C
24VJ.
3453
3:l42090if24302
USGS, Wrightsville Fi~etower TW-1
I Otl- -80 11,780 11,120
355
ltidvllle
-f28.& -132.1
Oti-29~0
lD-23-tiO
J ....
17X2
2141
325234063315t.
Jones eo 1
11- -68
75
35
Dublin-
430
Midville.
-!0 -60 L
ll-27-btl
10-21-80
l5D
10.1
17WS l8Wl
325225-
08J3148
JQniii:S Co. , 3
!03
"
4!0
do.
325:.!23-
Griswold Ele-
0832923
lllentary School
1951!
40
40
24
475
da.
-3 -!5
-28.7
04-10-71!
02-20-79
195
10-18-bl)
Uut:eoa
23U3
323121-
Amc-i c:11n H'(lmf
0S251211
PrudiU!CII Co I
690
2307
3232490tJ2SH9
hst Dublin, 1
12- -so 1 sao
455
01
~
23U4
1031
3232110825:1.04
East Dublin, Z
1. .5
662
580
208
Dublin
Dubh.n,
24.
Midville
230
l>ublin
-2.5 -2.0
_,.
-51.0
-29
1975
11-16-76
9D5
05-ol-75
11-10-76
bOO
04-29-65
645
16.1
23U6
3231000825124
Laurens Park, 3 Mob.asco
604
455
!2
21U4
3524
32303o0830243
USGS 0 L.a.u~s Co,, 1'W-3
01- -82 I 1.685 11,060
21U
do .
282
Midville
-
04-Ql-7b 10-27-1!0
1,700
32.7
-35.8
Ul-28-tJZ
2102
32303D-
!;a, D.O.T. ti7A 2 ,
0830l46
Rest stop ~o~ell I 09- -68 I 509
229
Dublin,
Cordon,
ZIU
,l11.c~ nun
48 -52.7
09-03-68
01-21!-82
160
Pulaski
21US 18S3
32303U-
uses. Laurens
0830240
Co., 'N-1
11-QS~O] ij()()
800
6,4
282
Dublin
3216150832800
Hawkinsville, 1
1959
473 .,,
225
do .
-33.9
01-28-8:.!
1959
250 F
10-)0-80
1,200
60
18S1l!
321656-
0832750
Rawk.insville
450
228
do.
03-16-43
10-30-tiO
25U
l8TI 18Sl0
Richmond I 29ti1H
2':i8Bl 2gM1
30AA4 27M2 2gAA3
35 U 526
3222450832901
3222450832tl00
3325290820039
331:50>01!20055
3318380820557
33152508157.47
33212Q0821630
3319Qg082054Q
uses. Arrowhead
cest well, 1
I 09- -8111,560
970
E'ort:als Co.
03- -81 I szo
325
llic:bmond eo., 9 I 12- -st! I uo
90
Richmond Co. 0 10 I 09- -66
85
55
aeph:dbah, 1 Mcllean, 2
01:-()3-55 1 295
2"
... 1967
m
Fe. Cordon, 1 Hephzibah, 3
200
190
04-22-74 I 484
319
36,24, !2
!2
334
Hidville
Dublin,
238
Gordon
Dublin-
!<0
Midville
,..
do .
... 432
Dublin-
Mi.dvllle,
293
Gordon
Dublin-
434
Midville
410
do.
-56.7
+1.15
-13 -!6
-14.3 -39.7
-17tl -191!.3
-121 -121.2
-62.7 -62.6
-173 -177.4
05-}2-ijl
04-22~1
12-od-51! ll-2l-7b
og-20-t.6 11.}-22-ijO
02-03-55 11-16-78
06- -7'} 1Q-22-tW
ll-24-76 10-24-I!U
04-23-74
1D-2l~O
60 1,080
275 810 !25
40 255
22.4 6.!
27.9 5.7
0.7 3.9
Screen 192-202, 215-220, 232-241:, 305-310, 334-349 ft.. Tranll'rllissivity ... S,lOU ft2/d. *
Slotted casing 235-435 It. Sc:reen 225-392, 392-425 ft. Transmissivity 9,500 ft2/d. * Sereen 450-530 ft. Water-quality analysiS, 01!-20-111. TransrU.ssivicy 6,000 ft2/d.* Scuen 1120-1140, lLb0-121!0, 13:.!01340 ft. Watu:~}!~l analysts, Od-29-~U. Transrrlssi.vit:y 6,700
Screen 35-65 ft. Water-quality analysis, U6-o9-75.
Transmilosivity 6,000 ft 2/d. *
Screen 63-lOJ ft. Water-quality tu~alysh, 10-18-60. Well 14 in CCS l!.ullet:in ~2.
Screen Sdo-590, 6ll4-6lll, 624-629, b42-652 ft:. Tr:an&-
* missivit:y 9,300 ft2/d.
Screen 455-516, 571-594 ft. Transmissivity 19,000
ft 2/d. *
Screen 1060--Wtk.l, 122o-1240 ft. Water-quality analysis, 01-26--82.
Ser4i!en 229-234, 335-346, 495-500 ft ,
Hrolten dt"ill stem in ~11. Screen 45d-470 ft. Tranttuissivicy 34,000 fc.2/d.*
Screen !HQ-9ij0, lllo-1130, 1270-121fll It. Water:~~~~!~~ aJUiilysis, 05-12-81. Trans..Usi.vity 7, !00
Screen 3:.!5-335, 345-355, 360-370, l!40-445, 475-480, 501:-510 h. Transm.issivlcy 13,000 ft2fd.
Screen 90-110. Trans.Gis,ivity- l,WO ttl/d.*
Screen 55-85 ft:. Transmissivity 16,000 fr:.Z/d.*
Screen 2tl5-295 ft. Transmissivity - 3,600 ftl/d.*
Sc:retn 174-19:.!, 29'1-319, 341-372, 393-434 ft.
Screen 190-200 fc. Transmissivity 1!00 fc2;d.* Screen 319-325, 346-367, 381-402, 4311-444, 465--'175 h . Trans,.issivity 2,b00 ft2/d. *
Cou"ty
Georgia Geologic
n~:~rs I Su~~:y I ~~~~~~~~:
Name or owner
Appendix A.-Record of aelected velb--<:outinued
[Use:
A, agricultural; D, do~Mtstic:; I, industrial; P, public supply; 0, observation, Water Le.,el: Reported levels are
<, given in teet, measured levels are given in feet and tenths; L, aitl1ne llll!asurament; F, flowing. Yield:
less
than. Transmissivity: t, detemined from aquifer test; . estimated fro11 re.greaaion equation)
dlrlailt:leed
or k!Odifted
Doefpth
orell (ft)
I I Doefpth
DiaroDfet:er
easing (ft)
wdl (in.)
I I Ale o!tfude
land surface. Aquihr(s)
I I W'B er l.ave.l --------- -
Above (+) or below- (-)
Oatrr of
laod surface (ft)
l.aaaurna"c
Yield (gal/min)
Specific.
capacity (gal/llin/ft)
I Us e
Remarks
lUctu.ond I 2~AA7
29M5 29.U6 lOMb lOAAJl
)0AA12
3320l!50820310
E'ine Hill, 1
10- - 72 250
ll4
,,.
llubllnMidvllle
-6 -CJ.t.
10- -72
lQ-22-60
255
2.0
3321070820409
Pine Hill, 2
195
96
2l7
do.
331tM)50820ll>9
Floe Hill, 3
.,. 09- -17 25H
14
100
do.
u
-6.9
04-Q4-74
lD-22~0
510
0
09-28-77
-36. 2
lG-22-ttO
870
5.9
332106081594&
]321370815!112
lUc:haond Co 1 Richmond Co t1
'" 214
255
170
147
do.
DO
do.
28 -53.2
-19
05-27-71
10-22-80
890
03-15-tiO
ll!lO
3316300!!1555l!
Kimber ly~:aark PW-4
lCJ!!O
674
387
290
do.
-145
09-011-80
505
4.0
30AA.l5
3316070815532
Kimber ly~lark OW-3
1980
618
360
221
do.
-69.6
09-08-80
29AA10
129
322322-
Gracewood, 1
23
1940
0820320
(Ga. Troa;. School)
"' 329
164
do.
-15
Otl-06-46
28AA.04
331926-
01 01
30M5
08211139
3315440815718
Port GordOC'l, 4
Pine Hill, 5 (ttcBean, 3)
" 85
527
310
do.
165
do.
T
08-Ql-45
45
1.4
- 25 - 22.03
07-26-72
10-22-80
310
29M4
332006-
Pine Hill, 4
0820005
(Goshen ~ll)
11 - 17-M 162
to
lZ
210
do.
-41 -41.6
Ot-o7-70
10-22:-80
350
29MB
3318540820708
Rabcock-wileox plant Jline
482
442
305
do.
-150 -153 .2
()g-24-67
10-23-80
210
29884
332309-
0820113
Gracewood, 3
O.-<l>-1
130
90
lZ
165
do.
-20 -34.4
06-25-74
10-23-110
400
29885
332409-
0820107
Richmond Co., 16 110- -70 122
92
lZ
165
do.
-24.3 -38.2
11-12-70 10-22-80
1,050
30.9
308833
332325-
0815920
Monsanto, l
ll)J ...t.ft....r., 171
146
lZ
143
do.
-12
07-13-74
-29.4
10-21-80
400
8.1
28AA6
3317260820823
Oak Ridg, 1
340
300
412
do.
-131 -136.3
11-21-67
lC>-21-80
120
30M2
33204o-
-18
08- -64
0815655
Olin, l
OS.- -64 315
270
lO
l2S
do.
-3)
lG-21-80
600
7. 7
29SA18
3 71
332511-
0820213
Silvererelilt & Ple-.d.ng Hgcs. School
262
lSZ
ll
185
do.
-132
02-23-54
150
301UJl
3326150815608
Nipro, 8
Of.- -65 103
83
10
127
do.
'-9.1
06- -65
tG-21-tiO
3/lO
6.5
30.U14
3116li:S0815608
Killbcrly-(:lark OW-2
1980
637
380
267
do.
30Ml
585
331!:141-
0815712
Continental Can Co.
317
ll6
153
do.
308823 29SlH9
3326490815552
3322370820129
Columbia Nit:ro, 10
Gracew-ood School, 1
lOS
"
10
125
do.
150
120
215
do.
-112 -52
_,-17.4
-37
09-08-80
03- -59
185
07-20-66
01-QS-79
4<l5
197 9
150
13.7 25.4
Screen 114-125, 139-155, 168-178, 223-239 ft. Watuqualtty analysis, to-22-72, 01-26-70. Transralssivity 1,500 ft2/d. Screen 96-107 lJQ-146, 161-188 ft. Water-quallty .1.nalysh, 04-17-H, 01-2&-70. Screen 159-180, 199-249 ft. Trans~atsdvity 3,700 ft2/d.* Water-quality analy&ls, 03-27-7':1.
screen 161-222 ft.
Screen 170-200. 208-211~. 226-246 ft. Serun 387-390, 394-409, 436-446, 458-41:12, 520-552, 596-635, 65Q-664 ft. Transraisstvity 3,400 ft2/d. T Water-quality analysis, 06-JQ-80. Seru" 360-365, 37tl-383, 404-409, 437-442, 465-470,
~:;~::;.~~~~!3~' 6:~~;5:~~,!~~-5~!~e:~:!i~t!t.
analyis, 05-04-80.
Screen 176-1'J6 ft.
Screen 85-95 ft.. Tu.ns11issivity "' 1,200 fc2/d.*
Screen 21}-225, 265-275, 33}-345, -'llQ-420, 507-517 ft.
Screen !01!-160 ft. Tranallisstvity J,ZOO ft 2 /d.*
Serun 442-t.82 ft.
Screen 90-130 f c.
Screen 92-122 ft. Transmissiv1ty 18,000 ft2/d.*
Sc.nen 146-171 ft. Tram;missivity .. 7,900 ft2/d.l
Sc.raen 30Q-340 ft.
Screen 27Q-315 ft. Transra.issivit:y 4,700 ft2/d~*
Scrun 152-162 ft.
Sereeon 83-103 ft. Transm.iuivit:y 4,000 ftl/d.* Screen 380-385. 41o-4l.5, 445-45U, 4go-4tl5, 50Q-505,
i!~~~;.~!~;:6~, 7~~05~~~~~~oo~a~!~:632 ft.
quality analysis, 05-Q3-80. Screen 116-126, 301-311 ft. Transllliss'lvity 8,000 ft2/d.* Scrun 85-105 ft. Water-qu.alit:y analysis, 07-10-715. Trausmiuivity 14,000 ft2/d. Serean 12o-140 ft.. Transllisstvity 6,900 ft2/d.l/t
Append!,.: A.--Record of selected "'ells--Continued
[Use: A, agricultural; D, domestic; I, indu1trial; P, public supply; 0, observation, Water Level: Reported levels are given in feet, measured levels are given in feet and tenths; L, airline 111easurement; F, flowing. Yield: (, less
than. Transmissivity: t, detemined from aquifer test; *, estimated from regression equation]
County
Georgia
Geologic
n~:~;rs I Su~=~Y I ~~~~~~~:
Name or 011mer
Dat:e
I Depth
drilled
of
or
well
111odifh:d (ft)
I I Depth Diameter
of
of
casing
well
(ft)
(in.)
I Altitude of land surfac:e
I
Aqu1fer(s)
Wat:er level
Above (+) or below (-) I
land surface (h)
D.,te of
'iield
I Specific c:apac:ity
(gal/min) (gal/min/ft) I Un
Remarks
Ucha.ond I 30&1:121:1
29BB 12
308Bl2
Z9B83
Sctvatl
32U19
)4\</5
32U17
Twigg
l7V19
17V6
18Ul
3)2b010815951
3326100820003
3323220815933
3323280820014
3236040814411
3246240812900
'"
3236080814423
3242180833333
360
324314-
0833002
3232590832649
Babc:ock-Wilc:ox, 7
" .,
Babcock-wilcox, 61 1961(1)
51
"
Monsanto, 1
196d(t) I 111:1
148
h~H::.oc 5 CL'Gbl.z Co., 1
1968
170
140
King
I Finishing Co., 3 ll- -71 1 1,331 1! ,007
C. B. Pfeiffer
1933
804
800
King Finilhing Co., 1
1965(?) 1 1,326 11,115
J, M. l:luber Co.
HP-4
1'l72
no
70
J. M. Huber Co.
mine 1oo1ell -4
I 10- -53 I 310
285
Georgia Kraft, USGS 3
616
596
10
10 12
12
..
Dublin-
ll5
Midville
140
do.
143
do.
162
do.
158
Dublin
119
do.
155
do.
Dublin-
270
Midville
470
do.
442
Dublin
01 0')
18V7
324113-
J, M. Huber Co.
0832809
DW-1
I 02- -67 I 225
85
18
Dublin-
326
Midville
18V3
324134-
J. H. Huber Co.
08321135
DW-6
I 04- -72 I 330
170
18
405
do.
18V2
324144-
J, M. Huber Co.
0832832
DW-7
I 07- -72 I 340
200
18
390
do.
11:1W13
324731-
Georgia
0832814
Kaolin Co 5
1937
)06
506
10
420
do.
18W5
415
324721-
Georgia
08321135
Kaolin Co., 10
03~1-55 I 372
150
10
455
do.
19Wll:l
416
324708-
Georgh
0832053
Kaolin eo 11
ll-28-55 I H3
160
10
425
do.
HIW2
1104
324JS1-
Georgia
0832814
Kaolin Co., l2
02~4-65 I 552
210
10
18Wl
324743-
Georgia
0832637
Kaolin Co.
Twisco well
04- -41 I 238
228
10
19U2 1901 19Vl
604
323747-
0832109
602
32372~-
01:1321119
3241140832037
Twiggs Co. Board Of Ed!JC.
Twiggs Co. Board of Educ.
'" 440 ' " 440
Jeffersonville, 31 03-10-78 I 685
625
2005 17V!l
3236110831512
3242140833333
E. t. Smith
J, M. Huber Co HP-2
1951
420
401
,.
16Wl4
3248000832823
Georgia Kaolin Co., 4
201
10
465
do.
512
do.
510
Dublin
Dublin-
508
Midville
... 522
450
do.
270
do.
... 440
-10 -16.8 -12.5 -19.3 -15 -26 -26.5 -42
F +12.6
+62
+26.5 -16 L -19 L
-118
-164.S
-)1 -58.5
-148 -160 -138 -157
-79
-60
-103 -101.9
-134 -144
-170 -175.1 -252 -240.4 -250 -236.4 -244.9 -247 -205 -182.6
-7
-65
04- -66 01-17-79 06- -61 03-28-7S 09-10-61:1 06-30-77 U-{)}-68 01-14-79 11-{)2-71 10-22-80
06-08-39
06- -6S ll-22-72 1Q-20-80
Io- -53
lQ-21-80
03- -67 1D-ZD-80
03-15-72 04-17-79 08--{)2-72 04-17-79 12-31-44 10-20-80
03-24-55
02-28-55 lD-20-80
03-18-65 12-26-7H
01-{)4-45 1D-20-tW 02-14-59 11-{)5-82
11-30-5~
11-{)7-78 1()-21-80 03-10-78 05-J0-51:1 11-10-71:1
02-<)9-51
525 170 400 400 1.750 96t:l F 40 F 870 f 1,500 p 1,040 111
2,060
1 .56.5 2,t130
)00 504
560
608
)0
125 125 495
)88
03-25--37
500
18.0
0.5 32.6
34.7 S.l
52.8 43.5 34.5 14.2 19.3 21
''
23.6 32.3 38.5
Screen 43-63 ft.
Screen 37-57 ft .
Screen 14t:I-17!S ft. Wate r-quality analysis. UJ-17-76.
Screen 14Q-17U ft. Tr.ansll.iss1.vity 3,200 ftl / d.T Screen 1007-1022, 1032-1047. 115()-1210 ft. Translliuivity us,OOO ftl/d. *
Screen 1115-1130, 1153-116!1, 1214-1224, 1266-1326 ft. Water-quality analysis. 06-18-75, 08-19-81.
0 21 ~:=~~i~~-~oi ~~~~:~ ~~~-180, 21LJ-220 ft. traruo-
ScreM 285-305 ft. t'ransadssivity 2,300 ft2/d.*
Screen 596-606 ft. Water-quality analysis, 06-10-75.
Screen 85--13.5. 15D-18S, 195--210 ft. Wacer-quality analysia. 04-23-11. Traundssivit:y 37,000 ftZ/d.t
Screen 17(}-180, l4D-2BO. 305-325 ft. Water-quality analysis, 12-16-44. Trans!l.issivity 25,000 ft'J./d.*
Screen 200-2Hl, 24D-275. 21:15-320 ft. Transmissivity
20,000 ft:2/d..
Well 18 in GGS Bulletin 52,
Screen 150-160. 240-250, 28(}-290 ft.
Screen 16Q-165, 21(}-220, 24(}-250, 28(}-285 ft. Water-
~~:!!~s=~~~~;i!, 1~~~6-~:}/~~;13-74, 06-o9-75.
ScreeQ 210-220, 285-295, 315-325, 375-385 ft. Water~~~}!~~ analysis, 09-28-76. Transmissivity 12,000
Screen 2Z8-238 ft. Watu-qudicy analysis. 12-23-44. Wel.l ZO in GCS lkllle.tin 52,
Screen 395-40S, '-2.5-435 ft . Screen 395-410, 43D-435 ft. t'ransmisdvity 2,200 ft2/d.* Screen 625-675 ft. Transmissivity 13,000 !t2/d. *
Screen 40H20 ft. Pump reQIOvcd in 1979. Transmissivity 1!1,000
ft2/d. * ::~~~7:ii~~O:!!;!~ o:~~-~;i~9~~:-~i- Translds-
letin 52.
Appendix A.-R.ee;ord of selected wells-Coodnued
I U.-e :
A, agrie;ultural; D, do~aest1e;; 1, industrt.al; P, public. supply; 0, oWerva~ion, Vater Level: Reported levela are given in feet, me.. ured levels are given in feet and tenths; L, airline measure~~~eot; F, flowing. Yield: (, leaa
than. Tranmiss1v1ty: t detenained from aquifer teat; * estit~~ated from regresion equation]
County
\olelL OYIIbef
Gec.tcgt G.rPiogi.,.
Surv y t;o.
Uttitudelon.gitude
Na~Qe ot awner
Uate
Depth Depth
Ahitude
Watlllr- level
drilled IDOdHied
of well (ft)
-1"'"""'" of
e;asing (ft)
of well (in.)
of land surface
Aquifer(a)
Above (+) or below (-) land surface (ft)
D.at:e of measurement
'tield (gal/llin)
Specific eapac.ir::y (&&1/a:Ln/ft)
u
._.rks
Twt~~:gs
l7Vil
J:l,.l500113J321
J. M .tiuber Co., H.P-5
DubUn-
440
60
12
265
!tidville
+8
02-08-72.
1501' 1,175
12.1
!~:~~; ~o;~~Oo2;~~~~t 374-394, 41D-430 ft. Trensmb-
111VIII 1aV1\II li!V:.!:U
324122-
J. M. Huber Co.,
onztUS
B-2
19b7
225
324103-
J. M. Huber Co
01:132827
C-2
19b7
225
324100-
J. M. Huber eo.,
011321123
D-2
1967
225
'"'
do.
370
do.
325
do.
-so
03-06-67
-72
03-Q6-67
-46
03-Q6-b7
yt Transllisaivity 32,000 ft2fd.. TransmJ.uivity .J/1,000 ft2fd. !:Jt
Transmissivity 34,000 ft:2Jd. i/f
1aV2l
324!12-
J . M. Huber Co.,
0d32tw8
t:.- 2
19&7
225
310
do.
-24
03-()6-67
Tra.nallissivity - 32,000 ft2/d. ~It
I9V6
)2{j1l90tl3204!:1
Jeffersooville, 2
1957(?) I 58U
520
do.
-245 -247
1977 04-11-711
I8U2 lla..s:h l n,.:tnal 22Y2~
323301-
08~l6J!:I
Ga. Kraft, USGS TW-2
1,227 11,175
330154-
Amerie:an Ind.
011:.!5241
Clay Co., P-5
Ol-3o-75 I 410
278
10
442
Midville
Dublin-
42U
Midville
-U!2 -194
Ol-27-7S lD-22-80
1,040
22.1
Se;reeD. U75-1185 ft. Water-quality analyais, 09-28-76.
Screen 278-306, 310-340, 39o-400 ft. Traumiutvity 1,300 tt2/d.t
21Xll
32571501130024
Freeport ltaolin, 2
06-28-75 I 315
195
10
36H
do.
-81 -91.4
06-26-75
10-23-80
500
.8
* Se;reen 195-200, 21~230, 259-274, 295-305 ft. Trans-
missivity 860 ft2/d.
22Wl1
J25101083S750
.Eaglehard Kin.
& Chem., Card-1 I 01- ~b I 180
160
215
do.
01- -b6
+2.S
1D-22-80
ISS
4.6
Screen 160-180 h. Truallisahrity 30000 ft2/d..*
21X~
3lH12-
0t130lll
Englehard., WG-2 I 07-31-59 I 365
180.
10
295
do.
Screen 180-190, 225-230, 275-260, 314-324, 355-360 ft.
-70
07-31-59
335
2.3
1.
transllliuivity 1, 700 ft2/d. *
01
-J
22Y22
)30131-
fhiele Kaolin
I 251
0825611
H-2
191
320
do.
-43
03-26-54
285
Screen 191-197, 213-219, 236-248 ft.
23X27 21Xl4 22W10
325848082<4&09
Sandet'Sville, 8
750
480
450
do.
325702-
Thiele
0830340
Ka.olin co., t..-2 I 09- -72 I 360
140
"
265
do.
3251211-
0ll25104
Oconee, I
311
281
218
do.
-216.5 -220.6
-48 -51.6
-3 -9.2
02-04-74 1D-23-60
1(H)2-72 10-22-80
1D- -60 lQ-22--80
500 1,230
455
16.6
Sc:ree11 481>-485, 60Hl0, 6~55, 695-705. 740-745 ft. Se;reen 14D-l50, 17C>-190, llD-230, 25Q-270, 290-310. 360-JaO ft. Tranam.f..aivity 9,600 ft:2/d.
Screen 281-311 ft.
22Y27
330US70t!25bU3
American Ind. Clay Co., H-5 (Challbers. H.ine)
Hlb3
28b
110
260
do.
-7.0
07-11-63
670
10.6
Screen llC>-120. l6Q-170, 2Q0-210. 276-286 ft. Tranea.hs1v1ty 6,300 tr.2/d.*
23XJ3 23X32
325~04-
Thiele
0824911
Kaolin Co., f--'4 I 01- -71 I 70U
455
10
455
do.
32511110824917
tbJ.ele
Kaolin eo . P-1 1 06- -su I 518
407
452
do.
-222 -231.9
-205 -222.8
01-15-71
ll-09-78
610
06-1D-50
1D-22-80
400
38 1.5
Screen 455-460, 495-500, 55s-560, 605-615 65~660,
675-690 fr. Traoamiuivity 21,000 f"c.2/d. *
Screen o\07-417. 484-504 ft. Tranallinivity 4,600 fr.2;d.*
23Yl7
lSU6
330030-
0824711
Or, Gil11ore , 2
433
470
do.
-170
1D-15-tJ5
23lC.l3 23X39
"
3257390824tl26
Sandersville, 4
760
535
10
32~06-
&nglo-luurte;an
01124932
Clay Co. 2
1973
795
12
211Yl3
152
330139-
0823732
Geors:i.a Forestry eo-.tesion
526
320
470
do.
440
do.
Dublin-
Midvilh,
385
Gordo a
-220 -24t!.3
-211
-135 -159.3
07-03~4
11-()6-81
06-21-73
03-17-4tl 1Q-22-60
400 1,251)
36.4 23.6
Se;reen 535-540, 560-565, 660-670, 694-699, 704-709,
* 755-760 ft. Trannduivit.y 21,000 ft2/d.
Well 37 in GGS Bulletin 52.
Water level deeper ttl.n -300 ft: oo. 1Q-23-80. Trana-
misllivity 13,000 ft2/d. *
Screen 32()-330, 35Q-355, 375-380, lt4D-445, 46s-4700 49D-500 ft.
24)(5 22Y30 22Y24
33571801123820
Sepco SX 79 (Geisbric:ht)
19110 U,54l 11,136
330142-
American Iod.
0IIl5t104
Clay Co., H.-7
11-12-79 I 341
175
10
33013s0825254
ADeriean Ind. Clay Co., P-2.\
380
3hJ
10
Dublin-
Midville,
375
Bue.ent
Dublin-
33U
Midville
434
do.
-127.8 -124.t!
-76.9
-211
04-30-80 1D-23-80
10-22-.80
04-28-72
525 1,015
6 29.0
Open bole, 1136-2541 fc.
Se;reen 175-185, 2IQ-240, 26()-270 ft. T"tan5111issivity
4,100 ft2/d. *
Se;reen 31~330, 340-350, 37()-380 ft. T"tanaainivity 16,000 ft:l/d
Count y
Georgia
I I Wdl
Geologic. Survey Wtitude-
Qulllbere
No.
longitude
Naue or owne. r
Appendix A.-Rec.ord of selected welle--continued
l U ~t A, agricultural; D, domestic; I, industrial; P, public. supply; O, o'bii;ervatiou, Water Level: Reported levels are given in feet, c.easure.d b.vels are. given In feet and tenth5; L, airline .e&sureme.nc; F, flowing. Yield: (, l ess than. transraissivity: T, detet"lllined from aquifer test; *, estimated frou regression equation]
I I I I I Date
Depth Depth Diameter Altitude
drilled
of
of
of
of
or
well cuing
~o>ell
land
GOdified (ft)
(ft)
(in.)
surfaee Aqulfer(s)
Water lavel
Above (+) or belo11 (-) I
land su.rfaee. (ft)
Datil of
I Yield
Spedfic eapac.ity
(gal/ain) (gal/min/ft) I Ua:e
lt.e~~arks
Washington I 22Y26
3301430825807
Americ.au Ind.
Clay eo., M-4:S
Oublin-
-63
262
155
10
330
M:idville
-55
06-21-67
07-D3-7b
570
Sc.reea 155-170, 185-200, 22Q-230, 24Q-250 fr. Trans-
7.2
I
missivit.y 11,400 fr2/d. *
21Xl6
3Z572208303l0
Thiele Kaolin Co ., A-4
152
140
2611
do.
Screen 14D-150 ft. Tranamiuivity 11,000
-39
04-26-76
20
20.0
ft:2/d.*
ZlXZO
1811
3357490830045
Aaerican Ind . Clay Co. ( Buffalo China Clay Mine)
370
135
12
320
do.
21Xl0
3259060830233
Englehard, WC-1
302
118
10
300
do.
22Y32
)30151-
Al:l.~rieau Ind..
0825234
Clay Co., P-6
1982
372
280
12,10
400
do.
- 112 .2 -104.8
-70 -56
-189 -184.2
06-16-75
11-18-76
510
07-31-5\:1
02-26-79
470
lHJtH~2
11-15-82
d40
5.9 3.2 19.0
Screen 135-1~5. 18D-220, 235-250, 285-290, 355-365 ft. Transldssiviry 3,700 ft2/d.*
t~~nf~ij~~~B, 194-204, 286-296 ft. Tran&lds&ivity ...
Sc.ree.n 280-310, 312-342, 352-362 ft. Tranaad.ssivity ... 7,200 feZ/d. t
22Y7
3302360825649
Juliau Veal, tear. hole 2
19420) I 114
36
248
do.
Screen 36-41, 54-69, 104-114 ft. Well 18 in GGS
-17
08-30-42
220
4.0
0
Bulletin 52. Transmisdvity 2,700 ft2/d.t
Wilkinson ~ 19W6
1524
325104-
Georgia
0831958
Kaolin Co ., 13
12- ~5 I 490
130
10
400
do.
19X13
325253-
0832952
town of Gordon, 1 1 1938
146
40
345
do.
19X3
32524.3-
Preeporr Kaolin
0832024
Plant, 2
1963
351
80
350
do.
-48 -48 L
-18 -20 -126.9
12-Zl-65
1Q-20----ij0
805
09-1~44
65
10- ~3 10-20-80
18.3 4.3
Screen 130-140, 200-210, 235-245, 310-320, 365-375 ft. Transllinivity 11,000 ft2/~.* Water-quality analysb, 06-o9-75.
Sereen 40-146. Translldsdvity 2,800 ft2/4.* Well 24 io. GGS Bulletin 52.
Screen 80-90, 123-128, 137-142, 16ij-17J, 243-248, 258-261~. 284-294, 312-322, 336-341 ft.
19X6
325327-
he~port Kaolin
-60
1960
0i:J3Z050
Rese.a["cb well
1960
305
262
390
do.
-100.9
lD-20-80
430
5.4
Sc-reen 262-172 fr::. Traruud.uivity 3,400 fr.2/d.*
01
00
20W1
325135
Et~,ibbard
Sereen 135-215 f~. Warer-qu.ality analysis, 06-18-68.
0831322
Plant, 10
1966
245
135
12
290
do.
-18
04-0tl-66
1,370
13.2
Transmissivir.y 7,700 ft2/d.*
20W39
2257
3251070831329
Eo&lhard Plant, 13
01- -1o I 265
150
12
280
do.
-55
09-23-70
-68 L
Otl-26-tiO
1,210
13
Screen 15D-210, 245-265 fr.. transmissivity 7,600 ft2/d.*
20W40
3251030831351
~lehard
Plant, 14
11- -73 I 360
160
12
296
do.
-5lt.6 -88
lD-Ol-73 02-26-79
1,040
11. 7
Screen 16D-2ZO, 27D-280, 30G-3JO ft.. Tun.smi5s1v1ty,. 6,900 tc2/d. *:
19WZ
3248440831658
J. M. Huber
300
90
320
do.
-33.9 -29.5
04-17-69 12-26-7tl
Perforated c.asil)g, 9D-300 ft. Translllissivity 5,100 fr.2/d. 1/t
19W4 19W1
)248460831655
3248370831657
J. M. Huber J. M. Kuber
215
115
'"
320
do.
280
280
301
do.
~~~~~nf!i~~~2lJt14D-150, 18G-210 ft. Tranui.ssivity
-49.2
04-17-69
705
7.3
-15.6 -11.5
04-17-b~
12-26-7tl
Perforated ca.si"C)g, 7D-280 fc. -e.nuatd.uhrit.)t
6,tJOO ft2/d.. 1./t
21W3
3249330tB0447
town of toouboro, 1
1950
372
235
do.
+1.6
1951
375
20W2 19W16
19W3
3248440831105
Town oi lrvinton, old 1
1956
uo 260
380
do.
3251530831948
Freeport i(aolin, P-8
410
280
10
390
do.
3248510831704
J . M:. Hu!Nic
300
300
319
do.
-100 -103.2
195~
1D-21-80
500
Screen 160-UIO f"c: .
-85
06- -80
Screen 28D-320, 360-400 ft. Transllisdvit)' 4,700
-87.2
1o-2o-go
900
7.8
ft2/d
-31 -28.8
04-18-69 12-26-78
~~~~~:d~~eing, 90-300 ft. Tranamissivit~ 3,600
20U6
3237470831235
Tow of Allentown
1981
440
320
430
Dublin
-171
Otl- -81
315
63.2
Sereeu 32Q-340, 352-362, 375-385, 4ZQ-440 ft. Water:~~!~~ ana.lyds, 08-194U. Transadssivity 35,000
19WS
3252240831954
Freeport Kaolin, P-7
Dublin-
491
210
10
375
Midville
-40
Sereen 210-230, 276-266, 353-373, 406-416 ft. Trans-
03-21-75
430
3.3
missivity 2,200 ft2/d. *
21X2
3253510830628
EnJlehard Gib-1
365
328
360
do.
-126
Sc.re.en 328-348 ft. Wat.e.r-q_u.ality analysh, 06-lG-75,
02...03-71
100
7.1
04-17-79. Transmissivity 4,400 ftZ/d. *
:vx9
325400083124tJ
Eaglehard KL-3
352
207
10
370
do.
-75
12-11-5tl
Sc.reen 207-212, 244-249, 271-276, 306-316, 34G-J45 ft.
-99.2
10-21-tiO
505
4.4
Translli.tdvity 2,900 ft2/d.*
21X1
325350083071!
Englehard Gib-2
585
280
12
420
do .
-130 -145
05-03-71
10-21-80
865
13.7
Screen 280-2~0, 33~340, 352-372, 40o-420, 445-475, 485-495 ft. Transmissivity 8,000 ft2/d.
Appendix A.-Record of selected w-alls-Continued
[Use: A, agricultural; D, domesric; I, inducrial; P, public. supply; 0, obse rvation, Water Level: Reported leveb are
given in feet, meaeured levels are aiven in feet and tenths; L, airline measure~~~ent; F, flO'-'lng. 'field: <, less
than . Tcans aiss ivity: f, detetll.ined froe~ aquifer rest; , esciuced from t'llt.(treseion ~llAt:ionl
Councy
Georgia
Well
I Geologic Survey
ou11.bers
No.
1
I I Wilkinson 20W10
-
Latitudelona:itude
3245510831005
tl.at~~e or owner Kat Toller
Dace drilled
"' modified
Uepth of well (fr)
Depth of casing (ft)
Dia~ter
of well ( in.)
Altitude of
land surface
Aquifet"(s)
I Watu l.eve.l
Above (+) or ~low (-)
Date of
I Yield
I Scappeaccifitlyc
land sut'face {ft)
measurement (gal/min) (gal/min/ft) I Un I
Reraarks
-
- 87
2
l>ublin-
232
Kidvilb
+9.tJ +2
09-23-44 10-Zl-t:IU
J ( 0.5
-
D
Well 65 in GGS Bulletin 52.
20X6 I
- I 3256280830925
Bbdr.lake Plantation
-
28
36
2"
do.
21W4 I
- I 324532OH3044 7
Toocasbo1:o
190:
" ' 310
235
do.
20W43 21Wl
- I 3248440831105
- I 3249390830233
lrvinton, 2 Oiwy. 57 well)
!nglehard Min. & Cbem., Dixie H.ine, 1
t 'i i l
"' 120
-
631
3SO
12
"0
,.
do. do.
19X9
I 19Xl
-
1 03823S129S295-
-
325429-
0831735
Gordon (196b lol'e.ll)
Ivey, 1
1966
267
65
"'
1965(?) 223
205
-
360
do. do.
-11.7 -10.1
-6 -5.8
-36 -34.2
-140 -l35.t:l
-16 -18.2
-70
09-24-44 10-21-t:IO
09-3()-82 ll-ll-tt2
05-U-82 11-ll-82
11-JU-78 11-11-82
07- -66 10-20-80
1965
-
300 315
1,230
soo
-
-
26.7 24.4
3.0 3.6
-
D
Dug wdl. Well 4 in GCS Bulletin 52.
Screen 225-240, 252-257, 268-278, 292-302 ft. Water-
p
qualicy analysis, 09-Ql-82.
Screen 120-140, 20Q-220 ft. Water-qualitt analysis,
p
05-12-82. Transmissivity 14,000 ft2jd.
Sc.reen 350-370, 39D-400, 416-436, 51D-520, 54Q-560,
[
58Q-600 ft. Tran51Ussivity 2,100 fc1jd.*
Screen 65-75, 105-110, 135-140, 155-160, 254-264 ft.
p
Tran1miuivity 2,400 feZ/d.*
p
Screen 105-213 ft. Water-q_ualicy analysts, 06-18-68.
2QW4./j I
- I 324844-
Inrinton, Ga.
19Xl0 I
08Jll05
- I 3253260831836
(U.S. 441 vell)
Gordon, 3 (1974 well)
191:J2 1974
.., 283
22S
340
-
"'' '"
do. do.
-127 -124.6
-
IJ6-02-t:l2
11-11-81
'"
05-13-74
4SO
-
Screen 225-245, 255-275 ft. Water-quality analysis,
p
06-oJ-82.
-
Screen 185-195, 204-215, 268-273, 290-31!, 32Q-325 ft.
p
Water-qualicy analysill, 05-16-74.
01
I 19Wl4
I
-
I 3251160832112
I I Gordon Svc. Co. EPD 'N-6
I I I 1980
204
124
Dublin-
I I Midville,
..o
Gordon
-137.0
05- -!SO
-
-
Screen 124-204 ft. Water-level recorder installed,
0
05-25-t:l).
tO
I Bechtel Corp., 1973. J. E. Sirrine Co., 1980.
w. G. IC.eclt and Assoc1ate5, Inc., 1965. E. r. Oxford, 1968.
P. E. t..aHoreaux Assocites, 1969.
Appeodix B .-War.er-q~Ulity analyse& for the Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Kid ville aquifer 1yata.,
(Analy by u.s. Geological Survey, except aa noted. <, l t:han)
Well
D.t.t~:=
~
M1ll11rat118 per liter
g
! .
j
~ f
. ! ~ 0 . ~
;;: ~ ~ tl
Dissolved I H.-rd- 1
aolida
y 0
!,g,LI>
f- f
li!
'0
!
a ~
.8
u c:Q ~~ ..,,
.. ! ~ ~ ~ ~e.
~ Hil ._ I
..~~
.. !-j
~
::lN
~~
: ~.:~~
8.
J.:!. ~~
3
~
~
.~ e
]
K:1crogram5 per litar
.~ ~
~
6 8
e
~
!
]
g
[
~
~
number
hn~1: ao::- n.il.nu
Aquifer(&) .umpl..d
Georgia 'Eo.virou.ental Procec::tiou Divhion reco~~~D~endad limiu (R) and at:andards (S) for aafa drinking water, 1977
I
ljt~ C'CIUZS.t:
16W2.4 IArutc~q Cork, 5
16Wl8 ICeor,.:.ll Kraft, 1
16Vl6 l:l t.aad.!lir4 011 Co.
17W4 l'1oaa Food, 1
DublinMidville
do. do. do.
06-09-75 [10
2.s I 0.2 1 2.4 I 0.7
06-19-68 9.0 I 1 _, I ., I _, 1 1 11-1!1-59 5.6 1.2 .s 4.0 .2 117
06-0!J-75 1 12
1.8 I .1 I 2.2 I .2 ~ u
UaeUaz Call:ll!:t
liJt% ~~td.ll.l.t O.onP Co.lhp , !!
Dublin
06-1()-75 110 29
!.0 1.9 I 2.1 l.ll
~:~ I ~:~ I 1/
~~~ I ~~~
15 (R)
~' I~~' I ~~' l~c~ I ~~~ I~~' I~~) I ~s~ ! ~~'
!4
l.l 6.4
'
'
2.4 I o.o I 4.9 16.00 I 37 I 24
'' .l I 2.0
4.0
.o 110
36 I 28 40
!.8
~ I 1.1 I .03 I 23
1 I .,. ~~5.3l <\19.0
s. 1 439 4s.s 42o.o o
5.!
I''' l't., ' 1-1 ., I I o ~ __ 431 4s.3 42o.o
I< 88
10 I c 10 I o
.,
60
"
68 15
''
.I
a I .04 .03 1 110 110 I 11 I l 'l6e [ 116.5 <\23 I .:. .u I <100 I <I
5,200
90 (0.5 <1
5,000 (R)
10
lul.loob CCil.l ll!T
0)
0
llrll I""H"' ;
Dublin
501-14-66 I -
7.2 .oo
- I 85
IIOrb CoUJ)t'l'
4.00
- 121 - 181-1 -1 8.6 1 - 1 )
ZSI.l 'USGS, SEX TV-1, M1h1lle
t!!dvllle
Os-23-80 I 13
8.1 1.6 10 I 4.5 I -
!3
!.8
.!
o 13 1 21 1 l't26[46.t[42o.9 ~
- 100
50
(!0
2,900
!30 (.!
130 160
Uca.atm; Cssl\t'l'
16T7 !fat:q, Ga., 3
DublinMidville 1 06-11-74 110
3.4 I .3 I 1.0 l .2
8.4
1.8
.!
.oo I .oo I 31 I 26 I 10 110 I 43s [44.0 [418.9 1 G
.o I 430
16
320
34 I 29
20
17Vl0 ]lb~Lu AFB, 3
dO-
09-22-52 I 8.5 1 3.0 I .9 I 2.1
11
I' !.8
.o
.60
t I o I 46J [ 4s.9
11 I 1:
30
I' Jfthrr&.b" COIDI:rt
1m P. Stev~. IA
Dublin
Joh:.!IG::t. (Q,jn.n-
24tll 1\lVG.S, Wrighu-
Vllla_Fit:e 'tOV.I', TW-1
Midville
08-2()-81 131
" 5.1
2.3 I 4.8 12
08-29-80 1 13 12
1.0 23 I 3.2
- 47J
9.3
1.9 0.2
- 58
16 1-1 460 [ 46.9 [421.2 I -
"
200 -
- 1 112 109 341 ol4us[4J.s[426.0 -
10
:lwtCcM#II.tr
18W'1 IGrhvnld E.l-..
!cboo!.. 17WS IJCI~ County, 3
17Xl llooll!la County, 1
17W8 lloUII! County, 2
DublinMidville d
do.
do.
1()-18-60 I 9.5 I 2.6 I .t
5os-Ol-78 1 e.o 1 2.0
I o6-o9-7sl 8.1 1.1
'
.2
6o3-13-78
' I '
1.33.2 .!
121 10 !4
.8 .0 .l
3.0
' ''
.2 I 2.2 .0
.311 :1: I "I I _,' .o
- r 25 I 24 I 1 [ 0 I 423 ls.g[4z1.o I .... I u.
1
30 5.7
!6
o 4zz 4s.4
- ' 0 30 25
.!
!3
-;
!8
.. -
10
1,500
10
''
(.[ (].
23
""
40
(.[
no
10
70 .o
120
~
~
Vell
=""'
OVI!.er or name
Date Aquifer h) aa.pled
~
Georgia IDYlrom.ntal Protection Division recoe~~ended 11a1ta (1): aud ataodards (S) for aah drlnlting vuu, 1977
.\l)pendix B.--water-quality analyaaa tor tbe Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aquifer ayateJDS-Coo.tinued
(Analyaea by u.s. Geoloaical Survey, except u noted. <, leu thu)
Milligrama per liter
n;:~~!:ed I :::!!
Hicrogr-.m~~ per liter
i~ f
~
I ~
Q~
. .e f
~
)l
~
Nl ~
. 3 , ;! ::.
~~
l: i ~ l ~
. ~
Q~1Q
~ ~
~
~
! a
~~.~
~.:i
~
.5' .s
ie;
~
B
""'
;]~ ~~ 8Nl :~i
~
! sg 5r i:i -.-1 j ~
:
]
~
3
~
~
j
.
s
! .
~ e :.
A 3~
c
e
~
~!~ I ~!~ I ll
~ ~~
15 (>)
~~' I ~~' I ~~' l~c~ I ~ I fs, I ~'
2,0 (S)
10 (S)
5,000 (a)
LaureDII Coun'ty
21U4IUSCS, I..e.urena, TW-3
lltivillo
ot-28-82 1 n
7.8 I 0.8 .: I 1.0 I 46 ).ilbo
8.9 I 1.0 I 2.3
56 I 75 123 1 D 1us 146.4 ' 424.9
33 l<l DC
(1
<10 I 4,200 I <10
.,
<O.l I <1
72
680
23U3 1Amartcan HeProd. Co.
23U4 Ilu't DubliD, Ca., 2
23U6 II..e.unD& Park Kill, 3
.,.Duou.. ...
06-lo-75 I 11 115
11-Q9-76
.8
.6 I 3.71 51
42
-
44
1o-3o-75 I 16
1.9
01-16-76
69
04-21-76
92
9.8 I 2.1 5.2
. l I o.oo I .ol I 79 I 76 l4t I o f4tzJI46.JI'zl lt6
33
124 I 6.6
,2
93
6.8
58
6.9
92
7,3
41 24
26 1<100
18
-
t.O -
6,700
100
.o
2 I - I <10
m
~
Fulaaki County
18TII uses Arrowhead TV-I
Midville
05-12-81 I 16
3.1 I .6 ll.O I 6.1 1 29
(4
10
2,3 .o I a.s
26 I 71 Ito I o I 479 146.1 J4z4.S I - I 38
- - (1
<10 I 5,600 I <IO
79
27 ]1,000
K.icbmoDd County
29nliR1ebond Co., 10 30AA1] CM1t1Dntal (~~oo C.a.
29AAlj Bephsi'Dah, 1 29.v.3 U.pbdbab, 3 30Ml2 IKiaberly Clark,
PW-4 30liRJ21Moa.aoto, 1
29AJ.71Fin. B.lll, 1
29M6 l'tae !.111, 3 29MS Pioe Bill. 2
(CoebeD. w.ll)
Dublin-
Midville I 06-17-78 I 1.5 I .4 I .4
do.
10-17-60 u
1.0
1
do.
(}4-11-55
do.
06-17-75116
.3
do.
7o6-3o-so
do.
8oJ-17-761 .8
do.
91o-27-72 4.6
.8
6oi-26-76
do.
6o3-27-79
'04-17-74 I 4.2
..
do
6ot-26-76
I . 1
.4
.z' l
95
.21 .3
s..t
14
1.8
2.4 I 3.o 3.0
2.0 I 1.4
.1 I 3.4 ,1
.1
(.05
.2 I s.o
7,4 78
2.1 .o
18 1 16
11 4ta14s.7
of-
"7.1 ' 421.5 l!s.6 44.714u.o
"
1051 6.1
5.7
i1
sz'' I-
5.7 4.9 6.7
28 .1 32
5.6
10
1 I ''
.1
(I
O 0'-
Scl'n*'l'l Ccuflt!
)ltllll"C'l.ioll..J,. JIilililhlnJ,
3416 C. l'!df!ee
DuU do.
11.8 i:i g::~::!~ 1 ~;
170 .5 1.2
24
'7
1 ~~~
93 93
09-()9-63]12.
6.4 2.9
2.4 I 118
97
e.o I 2.5
7.6110
.31 .Oil .4 I D
.o I 124 m
136
1.26 132 "z1o 17.sJzs.o
23
4zts a.4 '-21.2
Jll.l ( 28 lol42oo ) 47.Il"24.0
2 :~~c~: 1 ~ I 2
15 I 10
30
560 I 20 I <IO
00
01-
0 800
0'-
10
,,.. <10
10
9
(.5
(.!
(I
160
1W111 ("(l~CIU
18W31 Ca. Kaalill Co. Tvtacc
DublinMidville
12-23-44
_, 22
18
2.0 I 2.0
.o I .80
- 24 I 6
18.0
!
Well number'
Ovllet' Ot' ne-
Dace Aquihr-(!1') saapled
Ceoraia Environ.ental Protection Divhion reco-.nded liaita (R) and standard' (S) fo-r aah drinkinawater, 1977
Appendix :s.--water-qu.ality analyiU fot" th Dublin, Midville, and Dublin-Midville aqu!.fet" tyttltiiLII-Cont"inued (Analyse by U.S. Geological Survey, eJtcept a6 noted. (, le11 than)
KilligraiiiS per liter
.
i
g
i
l!
~
= ~
8
~ ~
g .
a
0
(j
~
f
D1vol.,~rd ll.r:d~t.u}l,!;
qlid.-
e I
Hic-rog-rsma per liter
f
u
~
~
.~ ~~~
~ ~ g~
~ "
~I !i !
e~ ~~
! ~
~
~
~
~
~.
;~
e~
~i t~
;:~
~N
~~
2~
~!
3 .; ~
~
~
i 5
~
~
~ ~
~ .
!
!
~
.! ~
"' ~ ~
3 ~
,:!
~
~i~ I ~i~ I 11
~~I ~~
"(a)
~~) I ~~) I ~~) I ~,~jD I ~ I ~~, I ~~)I Z;j
lO (S)
e
5,000 (a)
t v i g a : e o u n r.
Dublin-
lSllUIC.., Kaolin Co., 11
Midville I 06-Q9-75 I 11
4.1 I 0. 1 I 1.3 I 0.1 I 14
11
0.1
1.1 I 0.1 I 1.2
ll"" lcl.. K..olin Co., 12
do.
6o9-28-76
66
.. o.o3 I 35 I 27 I 111
o I 433
1 115.8 l'u.o
). 8
36 2.2
(1
11
<10
<2 I 60 I <o.5
(1
l!WU G:~. ICaolin Co., 4
do .
10o6-15-71
54
6o9-28-76
50
68
6. 3
63
).2
65 6.0
..,_, J.JV11J. K. Huber C~t . ,
UUI IIG'. X.ratt, uses 3
1.61.!': -ca. Xraft, uses 2
do. Dublin Midville
04-2.3-71 lll 06-10-75 1 15
~i~=;~ I!;
6.5 I .7 I 1.5 l .3118
117
1.3 1 18
2.7 183
::~ I :~ I ~:i I ~:~ I i~
15
.o
68 I 22
"25
8.6 9.3
3.0
.1 I 1.4
' 3.4
.27
i:! I <:~
.18
"
I" I)) 1"1'1 '" 1 .oo 128 121 48
.Ol
0 4160
46.4 ~21.0
11
20
30
10
59
50 I <1 I 1m
ND
Ill)
(10
<2 I 50 I <.s
.23 84 r,a 14 o 4gz 46.7 24 .oo 60 63 14 o 484 46.2 24
J~ I i~ I In~ <i
630 ) , 700
~I ~:;
30
30
(1
30
(1
<20
<l
100 I 20
m
17VI9 I J. K. H.lbu Co~.
DublinMidville I 06-09-75 I n I n
. 3 I 1.e I .2 I 35
"
.6
2.5 I <. 1 I 2.3
.oJ I 51 I 49 I 291 ol 458 146.7 1" 19.5
11 1<100 I <1
<2 <2 (10
60 I <.s
(1
t-:1
w...h1nfcoa C1umr<~
llllliSandenville, 3
:n1a D~aJ..cba'C' carp., c 1
Dublin-
Midville I 11-28-40 1 14 112
,9 I 3.0 I .6 130
25
2.1
5.5
.5
do .
06-10-75 I 11
.71 . 6 I 1. 1 I .2
.9
1.8
.1 It.,
63 I 58134 . o3 I 35 I 19
31 425 l 4s.1 r"l9
13 1<100 I <I
30
50 I <-5
(1
"fl"lr:.:..:n-o:~ COil?!:! I
Jlx:!llllJ.]..dusrd Corp., ~tb .. l
19Xlllvay Ga.
UlOI 1
Cordon, 3
(1974 well)
Dublin-
Midville I 06-10-75 I 16
2.31 ,3 I 3.513 . 7
do.
06-18-68 I 9.8 I .6 I .3 I 1.2 I .3
do.
05-16-74 112
.6 I 2.4
.7.1
3.2 1.8
.1 .1
.04 . 10
. oo I 51 I 42
ol 454 l4s.6 ~21
36
15
16
o11115l 45.9 1 421
6.0
42
2
3.1
'
"
5 I --
46.7
-1<100
.100
10
20
<10 I <10
nvA tooa:s bo.ro (1982 well)
do.
809-01-82
2.17
so I 11
9.0
.011 .01
96
<w I <lo I oo I no I <100 <to I <10 I <IO 1<10
(10
(10
iM:'JU1Irvintoo, l (1982 well)
::ap"l' Irwinton, 2
(1982 well)
do.
806-03-82
do
Bo5-12-22
.1112
.4
<LO I <1.0 I 19
8.5 I <.Oll <. 1
70 1 3.7
12
...
<5
4.0
(10 1<10
<10 I <100
<10 I <10 I <Io I<IO
(10
<10
l0\l6J Allentovn (1981 well)
Dublin
5o8-19-81 112 1 53.6
149 1122 115
<.O 1 229
134
280 I 6.8
<10 I <5 I <5
300
(10
<1 I <1
(1
<10
:H:r.:u Englehar-d Corp.,
10
Dublin-
Midville I 06-18-68 1 8.5 I 1.1 I .2 I 1.6 I 6.0
1.2
1.8
. 1 I 1. 1
23
16
41 4z71 45 . 1 l 419.o
J:./ Water havina a CaC03 h.ardnes1 of 0 "to 60 mg/L 1s classified
"soft": 61 ~o 120 mg/L, "moderately hard"; 121 to 180 m.g/1.,
-~rd; aod IIIOt"e than 181 ag/L. "very hard.""
2/ Cu:boo dioUda eoocentration calculated from -ssured value of
-
pK aod bicarbonate ion.
1/ State end Federal atandarda for fluoride are set according to
temperature.
t~
!!.:i;.~:l~;
Analysia by
GPae-orkrgeiraLEa.bnvoirraotno~raye,ntCalh
arlanon, S.C. Protection Oiv.
!J"7! Analysis by J. E. Si-rrine Co., Greenville, S.C. Analysis by Tribble & Richardson, Inc Kaeou, Ga.
9} Analysis by Law & Company, At"b.nta, Ga.
iJ o\nalysh by Georgia Dep"t. of Public Health.
GEORGI.I\ DEPARTME~IT OF NA TURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TECTION D IVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
"m ' '
z
0
~
sw
u w
~
A
18T1
200' SE A LEV EL
PO S T- PALEOC ENE UNITS
200'
40 0'
600 '
aoo -
Prepared in cooperation with t he UN I TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIO R
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
u
u '
z
,0_
u w
00
24V1
POST- PALEOCENE UNITS
POS T-PA LEOCENE UNI TS
"Q'
z
,0 _
u w
00
I I I I
NE
A'
SRP-P5A
INFORMATION CIRCU LAR 74 PLATE 1
- GOO'
14001 1600'
NW
8
RUBY QUARRY
20V4
1200'-
E XP L ANATION WEL L ID ENTI FICA T ION NUMB :=: R
I C UNITS uni 1
Vc r t i cJI 1::ca l c gr Ga tly exaggera t ed
10 MIL E S
V (t r t i Ga l S G<~ I e Qfflit tly exagge ra tad
:!Q o\iii LES
E XPLAN ATION
[?/.(j SAND
LITHOLOGY
0
CAR BO NACEOUS
~C A LCAREOUS
l~S AND
l~ j { l
KAQI -
IN
!TI
C
1 :~'!~1 GRAIJEL
1-:...-. 1GLAU CONITIC
1-:..---:.__LI M:<". HL
~:=:=:~ C l A Y
~NO SAMPLE
Mod ili o>d l ru rn f'rQw ell !Hi d oll: e r:; [ 1085)
Q
,__
()
I"'
I I
POST-P ALOc EN UNITS
23T 1
800'
SE
s
25T2
R
/
__ ,.J
'-,~
~'
SEA LEV EL
:~
[
r
f
\
LOC ATION OF HYDROGE OLOG I C SECT IONS
HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE DUBLIN AND MIDVILLE AQUIFER SYSTEMS OF EAST-CENTRAL GEORGIA.
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURA L RESO URCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEO L OGIC S URV EY
NW
c
5 00'
23X28
400 1
SEA L EVEL
24V1
SE
c
25T2
Prepared in cooperation with the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICA L SURVEY
1900' 200 0 1 2100 '
240 0 1
2600' 2700'
10 Vert ica l sca le gren tl y exagger ated
EXPLANATION
20 MI LES
400' 3001 200 ' 1 00 ' SEA LEVEL
NW D
EXPLANAT I ON
900 1 1000 1 1 100 1
30AA13
2100' 2600 ' 27 00'
SRP-P1A
LOCATION O F HYDR OG EOLOG IC SECTI ON S
POST-PALEOCENE UNITS
SRP-P5A
INFORMATI ON CIRCULAR 74 PLATE 2
List of wells on hydrogeologic sections
County
Well number
Georgia Geologic
Survey number
Latitudelongitude
Name or owner
Date drilled
or modified
Altitude of land surface (feet)
Burke
28Xl
3444
3252320821315
USGS, Midville SEXTW-1
06- 04- 80
269
3! Z2
--
330828- Ga. Power Co.
0814542 Pl ant Vogtle TW-1 03- -72
217
Johnson
24V1
3453
324209- USGS, Wrightsville
0824302 Firetower, TW-1
08-29-80
355
Laurens
21 U4
3524
3230300830243
USGS, Laurens TW-3
12-16-81
282
23Tl
51
322840-
0824530 Grace McCain, I
06- -45
280
Pulaski
!BTl
3511
322245- USGS, Arrowhead
0832901 TW-1
04-15-81
334
Richmo nd
30AA1
585
331941- Continental Can
0815712 Company
1959?
!53
30AA13
3446
331628- Kimberly-Clark Co.
0815558 Observation 1
1980
287
Treutlen
25T2
730
322313 -
0823234 Gillis, 1
Washington
22Y3 0
--
3301420825804
American Ind. Clay , M-7
08- - 61
351
ll-12-79
330
23X28
1050
325907-
0824814 Sandersville, 9
05-13-66
450
24X5
--
3357180823820
Sepco SX79-1 Geisbricht
1980
375
Wilkinson
19W6
1524
3251040831958
Ge orgia Kaolin Co e, 13
12- -65
400
20V4
3165
324257-
0831324 Willis Allen, I
02- -76
413
Aiken,
s.c.
AK- 438
--
3329200815250
AK-438, Town of Bath
1974?
240
SRP- P!A
--
3317070813949
Savannah River Plant, PlA
02-04 - 62
288
SRP-P4A
--
3315020814812
Savannah River Plant, P4A
08-07-62
105
Allendale ,
Al-19
--
S.C .
3302290812649
Al-19, Fred Whitaker Co.
10- -63
162
A1-23
--
Al-66
--
Barnwell, SRP-P5A
--
S.C.
330101 0811806
3306470813356
3308340813627
Al-23, Town of Allendale
Al-66, Creek
Pl antation
Savannah River Pl ant, P5A
--
181
12- -78
200
12- -62
208
SE
o
POST-PALEOCENE UN I TS
HYDROGEOLOGY OF T HE DUBLIN AND MIDVI L LE AQU IFER SYSTEMS OF EAST-CENTRAL GEORGIA.
Modified from Faye and Prowell ( 1982 )