Hydrogeology of the Dublin and Midville aquifer systems of east-central Georgia

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 )