SELECTED AQUIFER-TEST INFORMATION FOR THE COASTAL

PLAIN AQUIFERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA

By Walter R. Aucott and Roy Newcome, Jr.

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 86-4159

Prepared in cooperation with the

SOUTH CAROLINA WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION

Columbia, South Carolina

1986

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dallas L. Peck, Director

For additional information write to:

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey, WRD 1835 Assembly Street, Suite 658 Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports

SectionFederal Center, Bldg. 41 Box 25425Denver, Colorado 80225 (Telephone: 303/236-7476)

CONTENTSPage

Abstract -------------------------------------------------------------- 1Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------- 1

Definition of terms ---------------------------------------------- 2Previous investigations ------------------------------------------ 2

Generalized geohydrologic framework of the Coastal Plain aquifers ----- 3Aquifer test data ----------------------------------------------------- 3

Sources ---------------------------------------------------------- 3Limitations ------------------------------------------------------ 3Simplifying assumptions ------------------------------------------ 8

Methods of analysis --------------------------------------------------- 15Aquifer tests ---------------------------------------------------- 15Specific capacities ---------------------------------------------- 17

Use of test data ------------------------------------------------------ 17Summary --------------------------------------------------------------- 17Selected references --------------------------------------------------- 28

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page Figure 1. Map of the location of the Coastal Plain of South

Carolina ------------------------------------------------- 42. Generalized geohydrologic section A-A' --------------------- 53. Generalized geohydrologic section B-B' --------------------- 5

4-6. Map of the distribution of:4. Previously published aquifer-test and specific-capacity

test information ------------------------------------- 75. Aquifer tests ------------------------------------------ 166. Reported specific-capacity tests ----------------------- 27

TABLESPage

Table 1. Generalized geohydrologic correlation chart ----------------- 62. Aquifer-test and general well information ------------------- 93. Selected specific-capacity test and general well

information ----------------------------------------------- 18

III

SELECTED AQUIFER-TEST INFORMATION FOR THE COASTAL PLAIN AQUIFERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA

By Walter R. Aucott 1 and Roy Newcome, Jr. 2

ABSTRACT

Aquifer and well hydraulic characteristics are determined from more than 100 multiple-well and single-well aquifer tests in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Specific-capacity data are presented for many areas where aquifer-test information is sparse. The characteristics determined are based largely on well performance tests conducted by well drillers and con­ sulting engineers. Although use of this information has many limitations, it has value in establishing comparative hydraulic properties for the Coastal Plain aquifers.

INTRODUCTION

Ground-water from the Coastal Plain aquifers of South Carolina is a valuable resource. Many municipalities and industries located in the Coastal Plain are dependent on ground water for their water supply. Efforts to describe, develop, plan the use of, and manage this resource require knowledge of the hydraulic characteristics of the aquifers. The results of only a few aquifer tests have been published to date, for areas in South Carolina.

The objective of this report is to present the results of representa­ tive aquifer tests and specific-capacity tests for the Coastal Plain aqui­ fers of South Carolina. This report is limited in scope to data from the files of the U.S. Geological Survey and the South Carolina Water Resources Commission for the Coastal Plain aquifers of South Carolina. The data from most of the aquifer tests has not been previously analyzed to determine hydraulic characteristics of the aquifers. Published reports containing the results of aquifer tests are noted for reference.

The U.S. Geological Survey has been conducting a series of investiga­ tions of major aquifers throughout the United States as part of the Regional Aquifer Systems Analysis (RASA) program. These studies provide a more com­ prehensive understanding of ground-water availability throughout the Nation. The Coastal Plain aquifers in South Carolina are being studied as a part of this program. This report has been produced as a part of the RASA program.

1 Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey2 Hydrologist, South Carolina Water Resources Commission

Definition of Terms

Several terms are used frequently in this report. Transmissivity, storage coefficient, specific capacity, hydrologic boundary, multiple-well aquifer test, and single-well aquifer test are defined below to avoid con­ fusion in their use.

Transmissivity is defined as the rate at which water of the prevailing kinematic viscosity is transmitted through a unit width of the aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient. It is generally expressed in units of cubic feet per day per foot, reduced to feet squared per day. Transmissivity is the most important and widely used parameter that describes the transmission of water through an aquifer. It can be used to predict the potential yield of a proposed well for a specified drawdown and to estimate the pumping effect of wells on one another.

The storage properties of an aquifer are indicated by the storage coefficient. The storage coefficient is defined as the volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit change in head. The term is dimensionless. In confined aquifers, water released from storage is the result of compression of the aquifer and expansion of the water. Storage coefficients generally are between 0.001 and 0.00001 for confined aquifers. In unconfined aquifers, water is released from storage mostly by gravity drainage of the aquifer pores. This results in much higher storage coefficients; 0.2 is typical.

Specific capacity is defined as the rate of discharge from a well divided by the drawdown of the water level in that well and is expressed in gallons per minute per foot. For comparability, specific capacity ideally is based on a 1-day period of pumping when possible, or a shorter period may be graphically projected to 1 day. Estimates of aquifer transmissivity can be made from specific-capacity data, although well efficiency, which is independent of transmissivity, affects specific capacity.

Hydrologic boundary is used to denote a significant change in hydraulic characteristics, such as that produced by a stream penetrating the aquifer or substantial changes in aquifer permeability or thickness. This concept is commonly used in the analysis of aquifer tests to explain the effects of nonhomogeneities or finite nature of the aquifer on the test data.

A multiple-well aquifer test in this report refers to a test where drawdown is measured in one or more observation wells other than the pumped well. The storage coefficient can be computed in a multiple-well test. A single-well aquifer test is a test where drawdown is measured only in the pumped well.

Previous Investigations

Although this report is the first comprehensive listing of the results of aquifer tests in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina, and it presents the results of many tests for the first time, it is not the first effort con­ cerned with the subject. Results of aquifer tests in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina were included in reports by Siple (1957 and 1967), Marine and Root (1976), Root (1977), Zack (1977), Hayes (1979), Park (1980 and 1985), and Cahill (1982). Most of the data in these reports were either original analyses of tests conducted by the investigator or the reporting of results

obtained by other investigators and consulting engineers. In addition, a considerable amount of specific-capacity data, mostly from drillers' records, were reported by Siple (1975), Hayes (1979), and Park (1980 and 1985) . Other tests have been reported individually by the consulting engi­ neers or drilling companies conducting the tests. All of the above informa­ tion, where used in the tabulation of aquifer test results in this report, is appropriately referenced.

GENERALIZED GEOHYDROLOGIC FRAMEWORK OF THE COASTAL PLAIN AQUIFERS

The Coastal Plain (fig. 1) is underlain by a coastward-thickening wedge of sediment consisting of sand, silt, clay, and limestone of Holocene to Late Cretaceous age. These sediments are underlain by pre-Cretaceous rocks consisting of consolidated sedimentary rocks of Triassic age and a complex of metamorphic and igneous rocks similar to those found near the surface in the Piedmont.

The wedge of sediments underlying the Coastal Plain of South Carolina (figs. 2 and 3) has been divided into six regional aquifers, with interven­ ing confining units, by Aucott and others (in press). These six aquifers; the surficial aquifer, the Floridan aquifer system, the Tertiary sand aqui­ fer, the Black Creek aquifer, the Middendorf aquifer, and the Cape Fear aquifer; are correlated with geologic formational units in table 1. A detailed description of the configuration and characteristics of these aqui­ fers can be found in Aucott and others (in press) and in Colquhoun and others (1983).

AQUIFER-TEST DATA Sources

Published aquifer-test information and analyses for the Coastal Plain aquifers of South Carolina are available from the following sources: Siple (1957, 1967, 1975), Marine and Root (1976), Root (1977), Zack (1977), Hayes (1979), Park (1980, 1985), and Cahill (1982). Distribution of previously published aquifer test information, by county, is shown in figure 4. These sources include multiple-well tests, single-well tests, and specific- capacity tests. Previously published aquifer tests were reanalyzed and included herein only if the measurement data were available. Otherwise, results previously published are not repeated here.

A great quantity of raw data from the files of the U.S. Geological Sur­ vey and the South Carolina Water Resources Commission was utilized in this study. This consisted mostly of well-performance tests conducted by dril­ lers. The largest part of these data consisted of specific capacity tests only, although many aquifer tests, mostly single-well, were available. Almost none of the information was collected by or under the supervision of U.S. Geological Survey or South Carolina Water Resources Commission personnel.

Limitations

Aquifer tests provide their most reliable information when they are conducted with wells tapping a substantial part of the aquifer. Much less representative data result when a minor fraction of the aquifer thickness is tapped or when two or more separate aquifers are screened by the same well.

» fJS £ o

OO00

O

00

00

Oro00

Oin ro

o* ro

ororo

oCVJro

Figure 1.--Location of the Coastal Plain of South Carolina (modified from Aucott and Speiran, 1985a).

A LAND SURFACE AND SEA LEVEL

PARRISISLAND CHARLESTON

SURFICIAL AQUIFER 7A

MYRTLE BEACH

CONFINING UNITSr H

Figure 2.--Generalized geohydrologic section A-A r (modified from Aucott and Speiran, 1985a).

BCOLUMBIA

SEA LEVEL LAND SURFACE TERTIARY SAND AQUIFER

ORANGEBURG STGEORGE

SURFICIAL AQUIFER

BCHARLESTON

FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM

EXPLANATION

- CONFINING UNITS

Figure 3.--Generalized geohydrologic section B-B' (modified from Aucott and Speiran, 1985a).

Table 1.--Generalized geohydroloKic correlation chart

[Adapted from Siple, 1959]

Aquifer System Geologic formations' Description

Surficial Quaternary Coastal terrace

deposits_____

Sand and clay, reddish-brown, orange and

white. __ __

Floridan aquifero

system Tertiary

(downdip)

Cooper Group

(lower part)

Ocala Limestone

Limestone and marl, gray to white, silty to

sandy, phosphatic.

Limestone, white to cream, calcitized,

fossiliferous, glauconitic.

Santee Limestone Limestone, white to creamy yellow, fossil­

if erous, glauconitic; interbedded in part

with gray to yellow sandstone.____________

Barnwell Formation Sand, red to brown, fine- to coarse-grained,

massive.

Tertiary sand

(updip)

Tertiary

McBean Formation

Congaree Formation

Sand, green to yellow, fine-grained,

glauconitic; gray-green glauconitic marl.

Sand and sandstone, yellowish-brown to green,

fine- to coarse-grained, quartzose,

glauconitic; dark green to gray clay.

Black Mingo Forma­

tion (upper part)

Shale, gray, sandy; black sandy limestone,

may be carbonaceous and fossiliferous in

places._____________________________________

Black Creek Cretaceous

Black Creek

Formation

Sand, gray to white, quartzose, calcareous,

micaceous, phosphatic, glauconitic; dark

gray to black thinly laminated clay con­

taining nodules of pyrite and marcasite

and fragments of lignite._________________

Middendorf Cretaceous Middendorf Formation

Sand, light-gray, fine- to coarse-grained,

micaceous, glauconitic, and in part

calcareous; green, purple, and maroon

clay; greenish-gray micaceous silty

sandstone. __ _____________ __

Cape Fear Cretaceous Cape Fear Formation

Clay, reddish-brown, gray and green; yellow

to white fine- to coarse-grained sand with

traces of mica. __ ___ _____

These are geologic formations that are generally associated with a given aquifer. However, a

given aquifer may not consist of the same formations in all areas, and locally, an aquifer may

consist of parts of additional formations not listed.

Carbonate equivalent of the Tertiary sand aquifer.

35°/

3

EX

PL

AN

AT

ION

C -

PU

BL

ISH

ED

S

OU

RC

E O

FA

QU

IFE

R-T

ES

T A

ND

SP

EC

IFIC

- C

AP

AC

ITY

IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

A

S

LIS

TE

D

BE

LOW

A-

CA

HIL

L(I

982)

B-

HA

YE

S (

1979

) C

- M

AR

INA

AN

D R

OO

T (1

976)

D

- R

OO

T(1

97

7)

E -

PA

RK

(I980)

F-

PA

RK

0985)

G-

SIP

LE

(I9

57

) H

- S

IPL

E(I

967)

I -

SIP

LE

(I975)

J -

ZA

CK

(I977)

0

10

20

30

40

50

MIL

ES

i i

i i

I I

Figure 4.--Distribution of previously published aquifer-test and specific-

capacity test information.

In South Carolina it is common for wells to have multiple screened intervals in order to obtain as much water as possible from a particular well. Where several water-bearing beds are separated by thin nonproducing beds, the entire zone often behaves as a unit having a common water level, or hydrostatic pressure, and a common water quality. If water-bearing beds are separated by thick beds of much lower permeability, the water-bearing beds are likely to represent separate aquifers with differing hydrostatic pressures and possibly differing water-quality characteristics.

Some of the aquifer tests were made at wells in which the producing zones probably represent parts of more than one aquifer. In these situa­ tions it is not known what proportion of the well discharge is provided by each aquifer; therefore, the values for transmissivity derived from multiple-aquifer wells that are reported in table 2 should be considered as minimum estimates of the total transmissivity of these combined aquifers.

Simplifying Assumptions

The nature of the available data required that several assumptions be made. The first assumption is that the data available accurately represent the particular test conducted. The absence of control over test procedures means that the quality of the data is uncertain. This is particularly true for specific-capacity tests where a series of measurements over time that can be evaluated to detect possible unusual occurrences is unavailable. A number of single-well and multiple-well aquifer tests were not used because of data irregularities that may have reflected improper test procedures.

Partial penetration is a potential problem with many of the tests. No correction was made for partial penetration, for three reasons. First, most of the tests used were from large-scale municipal or industrial wells that screen most of an aquifer. Second, most drillers are likely to screen only the most permeable sediments in an aquifer, leaving the least permeable part of the aquifer unscreened. Last, many of the wells that are partially screened use multiple screens and it would be difficult to accurately make corrections. As a result of the lack of correction for partial penetration, the transmissivities presented are probably underestimates.

The effects of well loss and inadequate development can produce a sig­ nificant error in estimates of transmissivity derived from specific-capacity data. Because no corrections for these effects can be made with the avail­ able data, transmissivity estimates derived from specific-capacity data will tend to be underestimates of the actual values. Multiple-well and single- well aquifer tests provide the most accurate estimates of transmissivity. In areas of high data density, some tests yielding lower transmissivities have not been presented because they seem unrepresentative of aquifer trans­ missivity in that area. Where aquifer tests are sparse or nonexistent, selected specific-capacity data are presented. The greater specific capac­ ities in each aquifer in a general area were considered to be the most free of test errors and, therefore, most representative of the actual aquifer transmissivity. This is because most errors would tend to result in an underestimation of the transmissivity.

Table

2.--Aquifer-test and

general

well in

form

atio

n

Coun

ty

SCWRC

well

No.

No.

Aiken

Coun

tyAK

-452

39

W-X1

A I l

endale Co

unty

AL-66

37Z-q3

AL-268

34AA-q2

AL-3

26

33BB-p1

Bamberg

County

BAM-24

3lX-

m5

Barn

well

Co

unty

BW-7

5 34

W-s5

BW-7

9 35W-f1

BW-2

69

38Y-o1

Beaufort Co

unty

BFT-795

2711-15

BFT-

1560 25HH-p6

BFT-

1566

25

HH-p

12

BFT-

1570

25HH-p17

Berk

eley

Cou

nty

BRK-141

16W-

x1BRK-175

18AA

-U1

BRK-443

18AA-e4

BRK-45

7 19Z-b3

Lati

­

tude

3320

15

330655

330101

325631

3317

15

3221

40

3323

4833

1229

3222

19

3226

02322615

3226

28

3324

2333

0031

3304

3833

0927

Long

i -

tude

8143

59

8133

56

8118

0781

1420

8102

28

8115

40

8124

0781

3937

8041

34

8034

5680

3432

8034

32

7956

0279

5526

795935

8001

30

Loca

tion

Sava

nnah

Ri

ver

Plan

t

Morr

is Fa

rm

A I lendale

Fairfax

Bamberg

Blac

kvil

le

Wi 1

1 ist

onSavannah Ri

ver

Plant

Port

Ro

yal

Datha

Island

Datha

Isla

ndDatha

Isla

nd

St.

Stephen

Goos

e Creek

Mt.

Holl

yMo

ncks

Corner

1 Aquifer

Middendorf/

Blac

k Creek

Blac

k Creek/

Tertiary

F I or

i dan

F I or

i dan

Tert

iary

Tert

iary

/Bl

ack

Creek

Midd

endo

rfMiddendorf

Surf ici

al

Surf

ici

alSurf ici

alSurf ici

al

Middendorf

F I or

i dan

Middendorf

F I or

i dan

Screened

Scre

en

interval

leng

th

(fee

t)

(fee

t)

445-690

390-715

240-

328

257-339

140-356

204-465

490-680

430-600

45-9

4

50-5

859-66

51-5

9

1,09

4-1,

260

200-280

1,530-1,642

177-246

115

125

(OH) 40 80 50 100

110

(OH)

(OH)

(OH)

(OH) 60 75 80 50

Well

Date

diam

eter

of

(i

nche

s) te

st

18 18/8

16/6 10 12 12 10 8 8 4 4 4

18/10/6

10 14/8 6

1111

2/79

5/80

5/83

2/75

9/75

1/78

12/52

5/76

11/8

311/83

11/8

3

7/80

8/73

7/82

1/84

Duration

of test

dd/recoy.

(hours)

12/2

24/4

24/-

24/2

6.5/

-

21/-

12/6

----

23/23

4/1

4/0.

54/

0.5

24/-

24/7

121-

24/-

Pumping

rate

(gal

/min

)

2,005

1,500

752

298

500

703

1,40

4567

322 40 40 40 305

130

800

350

Spec

ific

capa

city

Tr

ansm

is-

6 [(

gal/

min)

si

vity

Remarks

/ft]

(f

t /d

)

31 16 7.4

1.3

2.9

6.9

12 38 54 8.3

10. 9.8

17 2.7

17 2.0

9,40

0

9,00

0

2,900

Also

known

as A

L-310.

500

500

4,400

13,000

14,000

Listed as

LA

-33

inSiple, (1

957)

.

15,000-- S=

0.00

01;

Haye

s (1979)

repo

rted

T=

15,0

002

ft /d

and

5=0.0001.

2,400

4,300

2,70

0

3,50

0790

4,500

S=0.

0005

.71

0

Tabl

e 2.

--A

quif

er-t

est

and

general

well

in

form

atio

n--C

onti

nued

Coun

ty

SCWR

C we

ll

No.

No.

Calh

oun

Coun

tyCA

L-27

29R-f2

CAL-

30

28T-

b1

CAL-

34

27U-

h1

CAL-

41

28S-

k1CA

L-42

26

S-01

CAL-

43

27S-

t1

CAL-

48

28T-b2

Char

lest

on Co

unty

CHM-163

17DD-m5

o

CHN-173

16CC

-y1

CHN-186

20FF

-V1

Lati

­

tude

3348

3633

3954

3333

43

3341

5033

4235

3341

38

333952

3247

1732

5042

3236

00

Long

i -

tude

8054

5480

4632

8042

36

8045

2480

3934

8040

57

8046

23

7952

1879

4940

8006

22

Location

Teep

akSt

. Ma

tthe

ws

Cameron

St.

Matt

hews

Ft.

Motte

St.

Matt

hews

St.

Matt

hews

Moun

t Pl

easa

ntSnee Fa

rms

Kiawah Island

Aquifer

Middendorf

Tertiary/

Blac

k Cr

eek

Tert

iary

/Bl

ack

Cree

kMiddendorf

Tert

iary

/Bl

ack

Cree

kTe

rtia

ry/

Blac

k Cr

eek

Tertiary

Middendorf

Midd

endo

rfMi

dden

dorf

Scre

ened

Sc

reen

interval

leng

th

(feet)

(feet)

305-405

170-408

250-280

510-770

220-300

260-340

100-200

1,829-1,912

1,575-1,862

2,018-2,210

65 50 30 100 80 60 100 83 95 166

Well

Da

te

diameter

of

(inches) test

6 10 8

12/8 10 10 12 16 16 8

2/76

4/80

5/76

7/78

2/81

12/7

5

2/81

2/83

2/84

3/77

Dura

tion

of te

st

Pumping

dd/r

ecoy

. ra

te

(hours)

(gal

/min

)

22/3.5

20/3

24/-

6/1.

714/-

10/- 5/-

24/-

24/24

24/-

524

500

250

1,12

052

5

535

450

750

450

430

Specific

capacity

Tran

smis

- 6

[(ga

l/mi

n)

sivity

Rema

rks

/ft]

(ft

/d)

9.7

26 11 14 27 24 7.5

4.7

2.5

1.7

3,00

06,

200

4,60

0

5,600

Also known

as CA

L-60

1.10,000

Also known

as CA

L-60

2.

13,0

00

Also known

as CA

L-60

0.

2,200

Also known

as CA

L-60

8.

1,60

01,

200

3,50

0

Ches

terf

ield

Co

unty

CTF-62

18G-u1

Clar

endo

n Co

unty

CLA-

29

2lS-

y1

CLA-30

19Q-

J1

Col le

ton

Coun

tyCOL -232

30AA-C4

Darl

ingt

on Co

unty

DAR-

89

16L-q1

DAR-

94

19K-o2

DAR-112

16L-

X1

3440

31

334025

3353

12

330402

3416

08

3422

1934

1554

7955

58

8014

55

8000

46

8057

14

7948

27

8004

2479

4817

Cher

aw

Manning

Turbevi

I le

Lodge

Darl

ington

Hart

svi

I le

Darl ington

Middendorf

Blac

k Creek/

Middendorf

Blac

k Cr

eek

F I or

i dan/

Blac

k Cr

eek

Cape Fear

Middendorf

Cape

Fear/

Middendorf

80-125

525-700

164-417

480-520

530-624

214-306

314-620

30 55 40 30 50 60 100

6 8 10 6 12 10 12

8/77

11/74

3/76

10/8

1

4/73

9/76

10/78

24/- 8/1

23/1

24/2 8/-

24/-

24/17

105

754

503

240

600

1,02

2951

5.3

15 13 5.3

4.5

16 5.3

700

Also

known

as CTF-601.

5,400

2,700

2,300

900

S=0.

000

05;

Park (1

980)

repo

rted

T=

940

ft /d

and

S=0.

0003

.5,100

1,30

0

Tabl

e 2.--Aquifer-test an

d general

well

information--Continued

County

SCURC

well

No.

Ife-

Dqrc

hest

tr County

DOR-88

21BB

-ni3

DOR -206 21AAT2

Florence County

FLO-146

16M-

W1FLO-147

13P-

d1

FLO-221

13N-d3

FLO-247

15Q-p3

Georgetown Co

unty

GEO-73

7U-q1

GEO-

125

7U-J

1

GEO-

173

llU-

il

GEO-185

11W-

r1GEO-188

12W-M

GEO-228

lOV-

vl

Horry

Coun

tyHO

-284

6T-q2

HO -287

7Q-p

1

HO-309

6R-q

3

HO-333

6T-i

1HO-335

3R-b

2

Lat

i -

tude

3257

3433

0150

341011

3359

34

3408

0034

5144

3331

5733

3343

3333

2433

2125

3321

4333

2524

3336

4333

5111

3346

07

3338

3433

4900

Longi

-

tude

801207

8012

20

794718

7933

28

7933

0079

4421

7903

4379

0044

7921

3479

2255

7927

4279

1659

785851

7904

18

785805

7856

4078

4154

Location

Summ

ery

i I le

Summervi L

le

Flor

ence

Pampl ico

Mars Bl

uff

Lake City

Inlet

Oaks

Gard

en C

ity

Brow

ns Ferry

Geor

geto

wnSampit

Georgetown

Surfside Be

ach

Conw

ay

Conw

ay

Myrtle B

each

N. My

rtle

Be

ach

Aquifer

Midd

endo

rfMi

dden

dorf

Midd

endo

rfBl

ack

Creek

Blac

k Cr

eek

Blac

k Cr

eek/

Middendorf

Blac

k Cr

eek

Blac

k Cr

eek

Blac

k Cr

eek

Blac

k Creek

Blac

k Cr

eek

Blac

k Cr

eek

Blac

k Creek

Middendorf

Blac

k Cr

eek

Black

Creek

Blac

k Cr

eek

Screened

inte

rval

(f

eet)

1,62

2-1,

750

1,58

7-1,

746

354-665

210-300

106-124

406-613

475-610

330-

600

551-672

625-655

654-800

440-

686

419-

616

612-728

360-375

314-

746

308-700

Screen

leng

th

(fee

t)

73 75 155 60 18 85 50 75 70 30 100

132 70 71 15 110

195

Well

diameter

( inches)

6 6 12 8 8 18 8 6 8 8 8/4

10 10/8 8 4 20 10/8

Date Of

3te

st

7/79

10/8

1

4/62

2/65

12/80

8/83

3/83

2/77

3/80

9/80

3/85

1/72

4/73

8/77

5/72

5/74

Duration

of te

stdd/recoy. 4

(hours)

24/-

24/2

24/-

12/-

4/-

24/7 5/-

24/2

25/2 6/-

-/12

24/12

7.5/

123

/1

32/-

24/4 8/8

Pumping

rate

(gal/min)

900

510

1,40

0536

118 75 100

188

201 37 175

517

503

517 32 500

503

Spec

ific

capacity

[(gal/min)

/ft] 6.3

2.4

11 7.2

2.4

15 4.3

1.2

3.4 .40

.45

2.1

5.8

10. 1.1

6.3

9.7

Tran

smis

- si

vity

(f

t /d

)

3,800

400

2,70

03,

000

2,40

03,

400

1,700

600

1,200

200

400

600

2,000

3,40

0

600

1,900

3,100

, 6

Remarks

Park (1980) reported

3,10

0 ft /d

.

Zack (1977) re

port

ed3,500

ft /d

.Zack (1977) re

port

ed600

ft /d

.

Zack (1

977,

) re

port

ed

HO-335A

3R-b

2 33

4900

78

4154

N. My

rtle

Beach

Blac

k Cr

eek

308-412

702,

760

ft"/

d.10/8

5/74

8/4

305

4.8

1,70

0 Pa

cker

test of

to

p 4

screens

in HO

-335

.

Tabl

e 2.--Aquifer-test and

general

well

in

form

atio

n--C

onti

nued

Coun

ty

well

No

.

SCWR

C No

.

Lati

­

tude

Long

i­

tude

Loca

tion

Aquifer

Horry

County-

- Con

t i nued

HO -33

6

HO-345

HO-353

HO-410

HO-4

16HO

-463

HO- 46

7HO-473

HO- 482

HO -48

3HO

-571

HO- 596

HO -663

HO-6

66HO -68

3HO

-688

HO -696

HO-730

HO- 74

2HO

- 75

2HO- 85

8HO -85

9HO

-86

7

Jasper

3Q-U

1

7R-J

1

6T-m5

6S-s1

6T-h

12Q

-y4

3Q-p

13R

-g1

4R-s1

4R-x2

7Q-o

17T

-h1

6T-p5

8S-r4

5S-g

16T-64

7R-t

5

5S-i

83R-f2

3R-o7

5S-y

107T-u4

3Q-b3

County

3350

20

3348

34

3337

1533

4143

3338

1533

5056

3351

2333

4855

3346

2733

4508

3352

1433

3834

333607

3341

1833

4314

3339

2533

4608

3343

0333

4805

3347

5233

4036

3335

3533

5408

7840

11

7900

19

7857

4178

5632

785742

7839

0878

4417

7843

0178

4646

784831

7904

4879

0231

7859

07

7907

0978

5358

785613

790040

7851

36784422

7844

5678

5431

790040

7841

58

N. My

rtle

Bea

ch Bl

ack

Cree

k

Conw

ay

Blac

k Creek/

Midd

endo

rfGa

rden

City

Blac

k Creek

Myrt

le B

ch.

AFB

Blac

k Cr

eek

Gard

en City

Black

Cree

kN.

My

rtle

Beach

Blac

k Cr

eek

Wamp

ee

Blac

k Cr

eek

N. My

rtle

Be

ach

Blac

k Cr

eek

Myrt

le Be

ach

Blac

k Cr

eek

Myrt

le B

each

Black

Cree

kCo

nway

Mi

dden

dorf

near Bucksport

Blac

k Cr

eek

Surf

side

Beach

Blac

k Cr

eek

Bucksport

Blac

k Cr

eek

Myrt

le B

each

Blac

k Cr

eek

Myrt

le B

ch.

AFB

Blac

k Cr

eek

Burning

Ridge

Black

Creek/

Midd

endo

rfMy

rtle

Bea

ch

Black

Cree

kN.

My

rtle

Beach

Blac

k Cr

eek

Myrt

le Beach

Black

Cree

kMy

rtle

Beach

Blac

k Cr

eek

Gard

en C

ity

Black

Cree

kLi

ttle

River

Black

Cree

k

Screened

interval

(fee

t)

300-580

495-780

396-482

348-458

334-680

302-560

92-3

90324-530

340-624

346-602

654-795

655-748

410-624

388-575

366-634

395-597

408-802

370-660

326-622

290-658

369-635

340-700

203-372

Scre

en

leng

th

(feet)

150

100 70 90 120 95 70 84 142

150 80 50 70 90 150 85 189

150

150

150

150

200 72

Duration

Well

Date

of

te

st

diameter

of

dd/recoy.

(inc

hes)

te

st

(hou

rs)

10/8

20/8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 10 10 12 10 10 10 10 12 10

8/74

5/75

3/75

11/7

64/

779/80

9/79

12/8

04/80

6/80

9/78

10/7

93/

81

8/81

12/8

18/82

2/82

10/82

2/83

6/83

4/84

7/84

11/8

3

24/8

24/-

24/2

326

/424

/23

24/2

24/1

124

/224/8

24/8

24/2

24/2

325

/2

24/2

24/7

24/9

24/6

24/4

24/2

324/23

24/1

224

/24

35/2

4

Pumpi ng

rate

(g

al/m

in)

503

703

300

201

400

508

300

390

450

450

503

200

513

226

503

403

1,00

1 503

510

520

503

760

370

Spec i f i

c

capa

ci ty

[(ga

l/mi

n)

/ft] 6.1

23 2.2

1.4

5.9

4.6

11 2.8

3.7

5.4

14 3.0

2.3

4.6

5.7

3.2

10. 5.8

3.8

5.4

8.0

4.3

2.5

Tran

smis

- 6

sivi

ty

Remarks

(ft

/d)

2,000

Zack (1977) re

port

ed

2,00

0 ft /d

.9,700

800

400

2,700

1,40

06,000

700

1,20

01,

500

3,900

900

1,10

0

1,30

02,000

1,20

02,000

2,00

01,

000

2,500

2,20

01,

200

1,30

0

Flor

idan

145-330

(OH)

12

5/57

25/9

1,

600

100

47,0

00

5=0.

0004

; Hazen

&Sa

wyer

(1957) &

Hayes

(197

9) re

port

ed

T=47

,000

ft

/d &

5=0.00036.

Table

2.--

Aqui

fer-

test

an

d general

well information--Continued

Coun

ty

SCWRC

well

No

. No

. .

Kershaw

Coun

tyKER-19

23J-u2

KER-

139

25M-

g1KER-148

23K-

i1

Lee

Coun

tyLE

-18

190-

g1LE

-19

190-

g2LE

-36

23L-

k1

Lex in

g to

n Co

unty

LEX -89

37P-V2

LEX-156

32R-

b1

Mari

on C

ount

yMR

N-67

9M-p2

MRN-89

9M-p

1MR

N-91

10

M-k3

Marl

boro

County

MLB-

117

15J-

d3MLB-145

14K-b1

Orangeburg C

ount

y

ORG-217

24V-

g1OR

G-20

0 29V- t1

Rich

I and

Coun

tyRIC-52

27Q-13

RIC-62

26R-C2

Lati

­

tude

3425

2634

1306

3423

49

3403

51340350

341724

335529

334910

3411

56341143

341248

343004

3424

16

3327

57332642

335244

334944

Long

i­

tude

802015

803324

8023

19

8003

5680

0353

8020

29

8131

02810605

791404

791428

791544

794253

793558

802912

8050

59

8041

33803810

Location

Beth

une

Camden

Bethune

Lync

hbur

gLynchburg

Luck

now

Leesvi I le

Gast

on

Mull

ins

Mul

I ins

Mul

I ins

near

Blenheim

Brow

nsvi

lie

Santee

Orangeburg

East

over

Wate

ree

Aqui

fer

Middendorf

Middendorf

Midd

endo

rf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Midd

endo

rfMiddendorf

Tertiary

Middendorf

Black

Creek

Middendorf

Scre

ened

in

terv

al

(fee

t)

140-

190

94-134

123-

152

316-

511

391-536

175-258

38-9

329

6-32

6

228-

356

194-

334

326-

346

68-124

150-

240

244-

356

835-

950

102-

112

380-

544

Screen

length

(feet)

35 20 18 60 65 35 36 30 50 48 20 27 76 50 100 10 103

Well

Da

te

diameter

of

(inches) te

st

8 6 8

16/8

16/8 8 8 8

10/8 10 12 10 12/8 10 20/10

620/10

9/53

6/78

2/77

11/7

23/73

5/78

3/76

5/72

5/72

7/79

6/72

6/59

4/82

3/77

7/78

4/76

10/7

4

Duration

of te

st

Pumping

dd/r

ecoy

. ra

te

(hou

rs)

(gal

/min

)

46/2

424/1

24/2

287-

247-

207-

21/1

224/2

12/1

024

/2 3/1

28.5/4

24/2

24/5 6/-

2/2

24/8

300

102

300

805

798

268

115

200

570

602

372

362

1,00

2

254

1,00

0

120

2,00

0

Specific

capa

city

Tr

ansm

is-

[(ga

l/mi

n)

sivi

ty

Remarks

/ft]

(f

t /d)

2.6

3.0

7.5

9.0

6.0

2.5

...

14 14 5.5

3.0

21 33 5.0

15 3.3

22

400

8=0.

0002

.90

0 Al

so known

as KE

R-60

1.4,

800

3,400

3,00

02,600

2,50

03,300

2,800

1,60

090

0

4,90

08,000

Also

kn

own

as M

LB-600.

1,50

0 Al

so kn

own

as O

RG-601.

18,000

1,90

09,300

5=0.

0001

.

Table

2.--Aquifer-test and

gene

ral

well information--Continued

Coun

ty

well

No

.

Sumter

SU-120

SU-1

51B

SU-153

SU-156

SU-159

SU-179

SCWRC

No.

Coun

ty23Q-r3

24S-d2

23Q-

r125

0-g1

24P-

g124

0-t1

Lati

­

tude

3351

47

3344

13

3351

5434

0306

3358

01340235

Longi­

tude

802253

802810

802236

803235

802858

802528

Loca

tion

Sumter

P i new

ood

Sumter

Remb

ert

Shaw A

FBDa

lzel

l

Aqui

fer

Middendorf/

Black

Creek

Midd

endo

rf

Midd

endo

rfMi

dden

dorf

Black

Cree

kMiddendorf

Scre

ened

in

terv

al

(fee

t)

294-670

690-

740

533-633

145-

318

182-

242

140-

435

Scre

en

leng

th

(feet)

100 50 100 95 40 120

Well

Da

te

diameter

of

(inches) te

st

24/1

2 10

/65

8 7/76

22/1

2 8/76

12/10

6/77

20

9/75

12/10

3/79

Duration

of te

st

dd/r

ecoy

. (hours)

24/- 7/1

24/46

24/1 7/-

22/-

Pumping

rate

(g

al/m

in)

1,800

265

1,400

1,212

650

1,302

Spec

ific

ca

paci

ty

[(ga

l/mi

n)

/ft]

19 5.8

14 36 12 22

Tran

smis

- sivity

Remarks

(ft

/d)

7,10

0

2,70

0 Pa

rk (1

980)

re

port

ed2,

800

ft /d

.7,

100

5=0.

0005

.12

,000

4,200

15,0

00

Wi 1

1 iamsburg

Coun

tyWIL-26

WIL-

33WI

L-10

9WI

L-11

8

16S-

g2

17U-

r116

T-e2

17S-u1

3343

50

3331

2433

3928

334021

794820

795235

794908

795013

near Ki

ngst

ree

Lane

Kingstree

Kingstree

Black

Creek/

Midd

endo

rfBlack

Creek

Black

Creek

Cape Fe

ar/

Midd

endo

rf

565-

755

580-

636

304-

660

750-944

50 30 110 50

10/8

1/

61

6 6/

6918

5/78

18

11/7

6

24/-

24/-

72/96

24/1

700

150

754

500

10. 1.1

10. 3.5

2,700

460

2,900

Also

known a

s WI

L-75

.450

See

table

1 fo

r aquifer

correlation.

Aquifer

names

sepa

rate

d by

a sl

ash

indicate a

mul

tiaq

uife

r well or

a we

ll in

whi

ch the

aquifer

desi

gnat

ion

is le

ss

cert

ain.

The

firs

t aquifer

list

ed is the

one

for

whic

h th

e water

level

is co

nsid

ered

to

be m

ost

representative.

"Ter

tiar

y" in

dica

tes

the

Tertiary s

and

aqui

fer.

2 "(OH)" indicates

the

well

is a

n open h

ole

thro

ugho

ut th

e designated in

terv

al.

Scre

en le

ngth

s may

be less than s

cree

ned

interval because

of multiple w

ell

scre

ens.

Mont

h/ye

ar or year only o

f te

st.

Upper

number refers to

drawdown, lower

number re

fers

to re

cove

ry.

Spec

ific

capacity b

ased o

n drawdown a

t 24

hours or pr

ojec

ted

to 2

4 ho

urs

where

test

du

rati

on is less than 2

4 ho

urs.

6 S is

th

e st

orag

e coefficient.

METHODS OF ANALYSIS Aquifer Tests

Table 2 is a compilation of selected aquifer-test information and related well information for the Coastal Plain aquifers of South Carolina. This table includes only the tests deemed to be representative of the respective aquifer transmissivities. Between one-half and one-third of the multiple-well and single-well aquifer tests that were evaluated have been incorporated into this table. The distribution of the tests, by county, is shown in figure 5.

Multiple-well aquifer tests, those using an observation well, were gen­ erally analyzed by either the Theis method for nonleaky aquifers (Theis, 1935), or the Hantush-Jacob method for leaky aquifers (Hantush-Jacob, 1955). Both of these methods involve a type-curve matching technique. Reported transmissivity results for multiple-well tests are derived considering all available data, including measurements from observation wells and the pumped well.

Multiple-well test results reflect the aquifer properties between the pumped well and one or more observation wells; however, single-well aquifer tests reflect the aquifer transmissivity in the general vicinity of the pumped well. Single-well aquifer tests generally were analyzed by using straight-line solutions for drawdown (Cooper and Jacob, 1946) or recovery (Theis, 1935). Curve-matching solutions are usually not feasible with single-well data because of the general lack of good early-time data and the interference from other factors in the pumped well early in the pumping period. The slope of the best-fit line through data points plotted as water level or drawdown versus time was used to compute transmissivity in the equation:

T = 35.2Q/(As/Alog t)

where T = transmissivity, in feet squared per day;Q = discharge rate, in gallons per minute; andAs/Alog t = slope of best-fit line of drawdown versus log time.

This method is usually adequate before leakage becomes significant because u, which is equal to r 2 S/4Tt, is less than 0.01 at small values of time (t) considering the small effective radius (r) of the pumping well and reason­ able storage coefficients (S) (Lohman, 1972, p. 23). Although recovery data frequently yield better analyses than drawdown data, most analyses relied on drawdown data because they were more available. Storage coefficients cannot be accurately determined from single-well aquifer test data.

Problems previously mentioned, such as partial penetration and lack of control over data collection, will affect analysis of aquifer tests. Many more single-well aquifer tests were not used than were used. The drawdown versus log time plots of the rejected tests were not linear or they formed no consistent pattern, indicating either that the assumptions of the method of analysis were violated or that inadequate test procedures were used in the data collection. In some cases, insufficient data were available for an adequate analysis. Some multiple-well aquifer tests were also rejected for similar reasons. Well losses and aquifer losses resulting from poor well

15

EX

PL

AN

AT

ION

V C

H C

ST

EI'

/LA

MC

AS

T

r OFAN)GEBU.V.<

/ 2

3-N

UM

BE

R

OF

AQ

UIF

ER

TE

ST

S

RE

PO

RT

ED

FO

R

82

EA

CH

C

OU

NT

Y

LIS

TE

D I

N

TH

IS R

EP

OR

T

0

10

20

3

0

40

50

MIL

ES

I I

I I

I I

81°

80°

Figure 5.--Distribution of aquifer tests.

development do not affect multiple-well tests and probably affect single- well tests only very early in the tests, a period not relied on in the analysis of the single-well tests.

Specific Capacities

Selected specific-capacity tests for areas where aqliifer-test data were unavailable or sparse are presented in table 3. About 10 percent of the available specific-capacity tests are included in this table. The distribu­ tion of tabulated specific-capacity tests is shown in figure 6.

The specific-capacity of a well can provide the basis for an estimate of a minimum aquifer transmissivity. Estimates of transmissivity can be obtained from specific-capacity data by a number of methods, including those of Brown (1963) and Bedinger and Enunett (1963). There is a direct relation between specific-capacity and aquifer transmissivity for a given condition of effective well diameter, duration of test, and storage coefficient. In actual practice, however, well loss varies widely resulting in a wide range of specific-capacity derived transmissivities in locations where numerous tests are available.

USE OF TEST DATA

Application of the transmissivity data should be made keeping in mind the limitations of the available test data and the methods of analysis, as previously discussed. The nature of the aquifer sediments also has bearing on the use of these data. Aquifers in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina typically consist of lenses of sand of varying thickness and areal extent. These lenses are idealized together both laterally and vertically as if they were a continuous, homogeneous single mass, although they are really not. This nonhomogeneity directly results in the common occurrence of hydrologic boundaries, as recognized in the analysis of the aquifer tests. It also results in significant variation in transmissivity over short distances.

The use of these data must be with the above uncertainties in mind. In areas where the density of data is relatively high, more confidence can be placed in the range of transmissivity values. Conversely, where the data density is low or consists mostly of transmissivity estimates derived from specific-capacity tests less confidence is appropriate. Extrapolation of these test results into nearby areas can yield meaningful results if the aquifer materials and the screened intervals are similar. Extrapolation of test results from one aquifer to estimate transmissivity in another aquifer has little meaning. In any case, the use of these data must be done with consideration of their limitations.

SUMMARY

Aquifer and well hydraulic characteristics obtained from more than 100 multiple-well and single-well aquifer tests in th,e Coastal Plain of South Carolina were tabulated by county. Multiple-well aquifer tests were ana­ lyzed by the Theis method for nonleaky aquifers and the Hantush-Jacob method for leaky aquifers. Single-well tests were analyzed by straight-line solu­ tion techniques for drawdown (Cooper-Jacob) and recovery (Theis recovery) tests. Specific-capacity test data are presented for areas where aquifer- test information is sparse. The data are based largely on well performance tests conducted by well drillers and consulting engineers. Many tests are

17

Tabl

e 3.

--Se

lect

ed s

peci

fic-

capa

city

test an

d ge

nera

l we

ll in

form

atio

n

Coun

ty

well

No

.

SCWR

C No

.

Lati­

tude

Longi­

tude

Loca

tion

Aquifer

Screened

interval

(feet)

Screen

Well

Date

length

diameter

of

(feet)

(inc

hes)

test

Duration

Pump

ing

of te

st

rate

4

(hou

rs)

(gal

/min

)

Spec

i f i

c

capacity

[(ga

l/mi

n)

/ft]

Aiken

Coun

tyAK

-440

AK-4

76AK

-516

AK-5

38

41U-

U441U-V2

39X-

k6

38X-n2

3330

59333058

331714

331713

815053

815115

814028

813828

Burn

etto

wnBu

rnet

town

Savannah Ri

ver

Plant

Savannah Ri

ver

Plan

t

Midd

endo

rfMiddendorf

Midd

endo

rf

Midd

endo

rf/

Blac

k Cr

eek

160-

200

126-

169

600-850

425-850

30 30 100

195

6 6 11 18

5/69

6/69

9/82

2/52

24 24 24 --

197

197

1,40

0

560

12 20.

14 60.

Alle

ndal

e Co

unty

AL-22

AL-47

AL-48

Bamberg

BAM -22

BAM -23

BAM -2

7

Barnwell

BW-57

BW-6

0BW-61

BW-63

BW-78

BU-2

68

BW-310

Beau

fort

BFT-

449

BFT-652

BFT

671

34BB-k1

35DD-f1

33Z-

y1

County

32X-g2

32X-

d13l

X-m6

Coun

ty25Y-c4

35Y-b8

35Y-

c735

X-v1

36W-

J137Y-f2

38Y-

d1

Coun

ty24

JJ-c

127

KK-H

1

27LL

-d2

325850

3246

39

330518

331855

3219

27331714

331410

331410

331410

331500

332358

331328

331452

321930

321313

320922

811634

8122

27

811420

810820

810825

8102

29

812245

812200

812100

812130

812520

8134

47

813852

8027

3780

4301

804356

Alle

ndal

eGroton

Plan

tati

onUlmer

Denmark

Denmark

Bamberg

Barn

well

Barn

well

Barn

well

Barnwell

Wi I li

sten

Savannah Ri

ver

Plant

Sava

nnah

Ri

ver

Plan

t

Fripp

Isla

ndHilton He

adIs

land

Hilt

on He

adIs

land

Blac

k Cr

eek

Tert

iary

/Bl

ack

Cree

kF 1

ori dan

Tert

iary

Tertiary

Blac

k Cr

eek

Tert

iary

Tertiary

Tertiary

Tert

iary

Middendorf

Middendorf/

Blac

k Cr

eek

Blac

k Creek/

Middendorf

F 1 or

i dan

F 1 ori

dan

F I ori dan

672-825

820-990

180-

300

162-297

194-

286

448-539

180-295

218-320

220-308

282-312

568-

770

360-600

285-576

96-150

140-200

145-

221

75 140 50 60 50 50 40 48 44 30 65 125 55 (OH)

(OH)

(OH)

10 8 10 12 12 12 18 8 8 12 12 18 8 12 12 16

2/80

3/78

1/79

2/73

3/78

5/78

7/62

6/68

5/68

9/68

1/78

11/51

10/7

7

3/74

6/75

12/80

2 -- 24 24 24 24 12 12 12 -- 17 24 12 8 8 12

1,25

01,

750

700

503

503

1,500

536

500

520

554

1,404

540

754

280

1,50

0

2,25

5

24 28 18 3.4

4.1

18 8.2

16 15 11 11 25 14 6.7

250 80.

Tabl

e 3.

--Se

lect

ed s

peci

fic-

capa

city

te

st an

d ge

nera

l well informat

ion-

-Con

tinu

ed

Coun

ty

well

No.

Beau

fort

BFT-1389

Berkeley

BRK-

26BR

K-47

BRK-

159

BRK-

166

BRK-

201

BRK-210

BRK-

213

BRK-

459

SCWR

C No.

Lati

­

tude

Long

i -

tude

Loca

tion

Aqui

fer

Coun

ty-

- Con

t i nued

28JJ-n2

Coun

ty15X-n1

22Y-

w117

BB-g

118X-r1

19Z-

s119

AA-W

219

BB-C

119Z-b5

3217

03

331735

3310

16325824

331619

3306

4733

0006

3259

3833

0938

8048

59

7941

1080

1717

8053

02795752

8001

0780

0256

8002

1980

0110

Waddell

Mari-

culture

Center

Jame

stow

nRidgevi lie

Cainhoy

Macbeth

Oakl

eyMt.

Holly

Goose

Creek

Moncks Corner

F 1 ori dan

Blac

k Cr

eek

F 1 ori

dan

F 1 ori

dan

F I ori

dan

F I ori

dan

F I ori dan

F I ori

dan

F I ori

dan

Scre

ened

Sc

reen

interval

leng

th

(fee

t)

(fee

t)

125-190

700-

880

283-372

219-315

40-102

64-252

65-3

23TD=322

195-305

(OH) 50 40 (OH)

(OH)

(OH)

(OH)

(OH) 75

Well

Da

te

Dura

tion

Pu

mpin

gdiameter

of

of te

st

rate

3 4

(inches) te

st

(hou

rs)

(gal

/min

)

14 16/6 6 6 4 6 8 8 18

3/83

24

5/80

241/

6519

7619

7419

7411/6

05/64

3/84

24

1,20

5

275

300

421 50 250

550

326

437

Specific

capacity

[(ga

l/mi

n)

/ft]

120 2.

34.

730. 3.8

6.2

14 5.6

6.6

Char

lest

on C

ount

yCH

N-13

6

CHN-167

CHN-

189

CHN-

294

CHN-314

CHN-

3/-'.

CHN-360

18DD-b1

17DD-g7

19EE

-d1

18CC-e1

20DD-y2

21EE-63

22FF

-p2

324920

3248

2932

4401

325413

324544

324403

323634

7956

57

795330

8003

23

795915

8009

52

801452

801953

Char

lest

onHeights

Moun

t Pleasant

Riverland

Terrace

Hanahan

Rantowles

Rave

nel

Litt

le Edisto

Isla

nd

F I ori

dan/

Tert

iary

Midd

endo

rfF I

ori dan/

Tert

iary

F I ori

dan

F I ori dan/

Tertiary

F I ori dan

Floridan

504-573

1,800-1,986

148-581

198-

361

150-

611

148-

555

103-

521

69 80 (OH)

(OH)

(OH)

(OH)

(OH)

6 8 4 6 6 4 4

4/60

2/83

241/

71

5/66

1979

7/56

4/69

220

1,04

0110

400

300 10 60

5.4

7.8

12 17 5.3

5.0

6.0

Ches

terf

ield

Cou

nty

CTF-55

22J-

J134

2802

8015

29McBee

Middendorf

214-325

4010

12/7

3 14

348

35

Clarendon

Coti

ntv

CLA-16

CLA-20

21S-r3

2lS-

m1

3341

37

3341

17

8012

47

8011

37

Manning

Manning

Black

Creek/

Midd

endo

rfBl

ack

Cree

k/Mi

dden

dorf

565-605

590-

640

25 50

6 8

1953

1964

200

752

15 22

Tabl

e 3.

--Se

lect

ed s

peci

f1c-

capa

city

tes

t an

d general

well informatio

n--C

onti

nued

County

SCWR

C well

No

. No

.

Clar

endo

n Co

unty

- -

CLA-22

19Q-i1

CLA-25

23T-

v1

Col leton

County

COL -20

26BB

-q1

COL -38

29AA

-k1

COL -49

26BB

-q3

COL -5

0 26CC-e2

Darlington C

ounty

DAR-35

171 -v

5DA

R-71

20K-t1

DAR-

77

19K-

g1DAR-80

19K-

f1

o

DAR-82

20K-

r1DA

R-86

17

L-m1

DAR-

87

19M-y1

DAR-

96

171 -v

3 DAR-105

19K-

g3

DAR-123

17L-

m2

Oil Ion

County

DIL-8

11J-

WDIL-74

11J-

J2DIL-85

1U-k

6DI

L-86

11

J-J5

DIL-

88

9L-b

1DIL-93

1U-v1

DIL-94

12K-

v1

Dorc

hest

er C

ount

yDO

R-36

24

Y-M

DOR -40

22Z-

g DO

R -42

23Y-

hDOR-73

22Z-x1

Lati

­

tude

Long

i -

tude

Loca

tion

Aquifer

Continued

335330

333539

325610

330214

325702

3254

47

3430

21342150

3423

1134

2301

342115

3417

54341012

3430

21

3423

09

3421

54

3425

21342800

3427

5634

2807

3419

58342512

342009

3313

37

330820

3313

3033

0538

800115

8021

19

8038

01805033

803758

803846

795122

8005

3680

0401

800412

8007

01795202

8004

06795122

8003

57

794510

792209

792030

792026

792030

791100

792141

792600

8027

01

802340

802700

801852

Turb

evil

leSummerton

Walterboro

Will

iams

Walterboro

Walterboro

Soci

ety

Hill

Hart

svi lie

Hart

svi lie

Hart

svi lie

Hart

svi lie

Darl

ingt

onLa

mar

Soci

ety

Hill

Hart

svi lie

Mech

anic

vi I le

Dill

onHa

mer

Hame

rHa

mer

Lake

View

Dill

onLa

tta

Harleyville

Dorchester

Harl

eyvi

I le

Ridgevi

1 le

Blac

k Creek

Midd

endo

rf

F 1 ori

dan

Blac

k Creek

Middendorf

Middendorf

Midd

endo

rfMi

dden

dorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Midd

endo

rfMiddendorf

Midd

endo

rf

Midd

endo

rf

Midd

endo

rf

Midd

endo

rfMiddendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

F 1 ori

dan

F 1

ori

dan

F I ori

dan

F I ori dan

Scre

ened

Screen

Well

Da

te

interval

length

diameter

of

(feet)

(feet)

(inches) te

st

200-

320

636-740

102-

628

650-700

1,60

2-1,

664

1,69

8-1,

760

127-

378

205-293

126-

166

204-236

208-

294

282-360

368-

476

175-373

133-

163

171-371

190-257

171-

405

138-

236

172-

316

503-569

258-319

340-

390

163-

289

206-

325

270-489

227-325

15 60 (OH) 50 62 62 168 50 23 32 50 40 60 85 20

200 38 140 60 50 35 61 50 55

(OH)

90 (OH)

8 8 10 10 6 6 8 10 8 10

12 12 8 18 8 16 10 8 10 12 8 8

20/10

10 6 10 12

1956

1970

1942

1963

3/70

9/70

1954

1962

1967

1970

3/

7119

7219

7211/75

1949

1956

10/65

1973

1972

1976

1980

1972

1960

9/70

Spec

ific

Du

rati

on

Pumping

capa

city

of test

rate

[(gal/min)

(hours)

(gal

/min

) /f

t]

24 24 -- -- -- -- 19 -- 24

24 -- 24 24 8 10 21 24 14 -- -- 24 --

150

525

240

328

1,25

41,431

240

800

278

530

1,43

0465

626

250

375

800

780

360

525

521

500

703

650

500

660

708

250

8.3

12 17 9.3

16 22 6.0

42 14 15

39 18 8.0

2.7

9.1

29 11 14 12 9.1

4.2

10. 8.4

8.6

41 6.2

14

Table

3.--

Sele

cted

spe

cifi

c-ca

paci

ty t

est

and

general

well in

form

atio

n--C

onti

nued

County

well

No

.

SCWR

C No

.

Lati

­

tude

Longi­

tude

Location

Aqui

fer

Spec

i f i

c

Screened

Screen

Well

Date

Duration

Pumping

capa

city

interval

length

diam

eter

of

of te

st

rate

[(

gal/

min)

(feet)

(fee

t)

(inches) test

(hou

rs)

(gal

/min

) /f

t]

Dorc

hest

er County- -Continued

DOR -7

4DOR -149

Flor

ence

FLO-4

FLO-8

FLO-

10FL

O-17

FLO-

33FL

O-95

FLO- 105

FLO-113

FLO-114

FLO-

118

FLO-

125

FLO-

127

FLO-

148

FLO-153

FLO-154

FLO-

155

FLO-

156

FLO-161

FLO-

162

FLO-

179

FLO-

184

FLO-

188

FLO- 189

FLO-200

FLO-201

FLO-

202

FLO-204

23Z-g2

23AA-M

County

16M-t1

18N-

i313P-e1

16Q-

k216M-I1

16M-

d316Q-k1

16M-

W18P-s1

18N-

i615M-p1

16M-

S312

R-b3

18N-

i2-1

6M-r

1

12R-

b218P-v1

16M-

x1

16Q-

t2

17M-t1

12R-

6415

Q-e3

15Q-

e215

Q-q2

13N-

d214

M-p2

18N-

i5

3309

00330359

341153

340812

335944

335200

3412

02341413

335220

341055

3356

0634

0801

341134

3411

59334952

340813

341155

3349

58335559

3410

38

3351

29

3411

57334804

335500

335445

335140

340854

341122

340819

802315

8022

38

794550

795620

793405

794500

794540

7948

4779

4557

7947

5679

5601

795653

794452

7946

19792640

795619

794715

792648

795623

7948

51

794543

7950

57792652

794444

794434

794414

793339

793920

795609

Dorc

hest

erRi

dgev

i lie

Flor

ence

Timm

onsv

i I l

ePamplico

Lake

City

Flor

ence

Flor

ence

Lake

City

Florence

Olanta

Timm

onsv

i I l

eFl

oren

ceFlorence

Johnsonvi

1 le

Timmonsvi

1 le

Flor

ence

Johnsonvi

1 le

Olanta

Florence

Lake

City

Flor

ence

John

sonv

i 1 l

eSc

rant

onScranton

Lake

City

Mars

Bl

uff

Flor

ence

Timmonsvi

1 le

F I or

i dan

F I or

i dan

Middendorf/

Cape Fe

arBlack

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Middendorf

Middendorf

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Middendorf

Midd

endo

rfBlack

Creek

Middendorf

Middendorf/

Cape Fe

arMiddendorf

Black

Creek

Middendorf/

Cape Fe

arBlack

Creek/

Midd

endo

rfMi

dden

dorf

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek/

Midd

endo

rfBlack

Creek

Middendorf

Middendorf

206-

325

65-396

261-726

156-

170

182-192

451-481

325-

648

330-375

152-

426

60-276

240-338

211-256

260-

495

309-495

264-496

355-475

303-

706

789-

870

175-

220

230-660

160-

556

306-

578

285-410

205-

420

200-430

280-580

106-

122

291-346

372-476

(OH)

(OH) 80 14 10 30 70 40 50 34 36 30 99 100 75 70 150 80 30 159 52 146 70 40 40 110 16 40 82

6 6 6 8 10 10 10 6 10 10 8 6 12 10 10 8 24 12 8 24 10 12 10 8 8 12 8 8 18

10/73

9/63

1/37

1911

3/47

8/47

2/53

5/54

6/55

12/55

9/53

1/59

24

1958

10/7

6 2

2/68

2412

/67

25

8/68

15/68

367/

71

71

1969

24

1963

2419

7819

7811/7

9 24

12/8

0 26

10/7

8 12

3/81

7

600

238

1,180

234

100

250

1,15

0340

1,250

450

450

488

1,000

700

500

517

1,46

9

668

300

1,25

0

750

1,30

0350

700

912

754

115

302

580

37 6.4

11 6.2

1.3

2.5

14 6.4

12 4.2

6.3

8.9

11 12 9.3

6.1

14 14 3.3

9.5

12 6.5

5.3

10.

14 6.6

2.3

6.0

3.7

Table

3.--

Sele

cted

specific-capacity t

est

and

gene

ral

well

informatio

n--C

onti

nued

ro

ro

Coun

ty

SCWRC

well

No.

No.

Lati­

tude

Long

i -

tude

Location

Aqui

fer

Florence C

ounty- - Co

nt i nued

FLO-

211

16Q-

i2

FLO-247

15Q-

p3

Geor

geto

wn Co

unty

GEO-

9 10W-U

GEO-24

10W-

m4GEO-39

13V-

q1GEO-90

13V-

S1GEO-

105

7U-n

1GE

O-11

7 8V

-a1

GEO-

193

13V-

o2GE

O-21

0 8V-n1

GEO-211

9V-u2

GEO-

220

11S-

S2

GEO-

222

13V-

o3GE

O-22

7 9U

-r2

Hampton

County

HAM -3

1 34DD-y2

HAM -36

33DD-y5

HAM-46

32CC-U

Horr

y County

HO-314

50-g

5HO

-475

4P-u1

HO-513

8R-U

HO-659

6R-e

26HO

-751

50

-h1

HO- 859

7T-u

4

3353

21

335144

3322

0633

2217

3326

2733

2642

333255

3329

19

3327

29332706

332555

3341

57

332704

333144

323900

3245

2132

5238

3403

57335020

334736

334919

3403

19333535

794608

794421

791633

7917

2579

3345

7931

11790330

790512

793451

790806

791002

792112

793412

791256

805325

811400

8104

57

785346

7845

12790621

7859

54785240

790040

Lake

City

Lake

City

Geor

geto

wnGe

orge

town

Andrews

Andrews

Murrells Inlet

No.

Litc

hfie

ldBe

ach

Andrews

Pawleys

Isla

ndPawleys

Isla

ndDe

ep C

reek

Elem

. Sc

hool

Andrews

Plan

ters

vi lie

Yemassee

Esti

llHampton

Lori

sLo

ngs

Bucksport

Black

Mine

Lori

sGarden C

ity

Black

Creek/

Midd

endo

rfBl

ack

Creek/

Midd

endo

rf

Blac

k Creek

Cape Fe

arBlack

Creek

Blac

k Creek

Blac

k Creek

Black

Creek

Blac

k Creek

Blac

k Creek

Black

Creek

Blac

k Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

F I on"

dan

F 1 ori

dan

Tertiary

Black

Creek

Blac

k Creek

Blac

k Creek

Surf

icial

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Screened

Scre

en

interval

leng

th

(fee

t)

(fee

t)

285-574

406-613

385-875

1,19

0-1,

344

710-790

730-810

450-770

507-

557

598-792

420-602

450-

686

380-425

700-800

464-643

90-145

105-

152

640-

841

280-320

132-369

420-590

10-4

7260-320

340-700

90 85 50 55 80 80 100 50 67 170

130 30 80 110

(OH)

(OH)

125 40 60 90 37 60 200

Well

Da

te

diameter

of

(inc

hes)

te

st

12 18 8 824/8 20 8 10 20 10 10 6 16 8 12 10 16 10 10 8 4 10 12

8/82

8/83

11/43

10/4

93/

659/

745/77

2/79

1/75

10/82

10/82

8/83

9/84

11/84

1953

1959

1965

8/73

7/79

5/81

2/78

6/83

7/84

Dura

tion

Pumping

of te

st

rate

4

(hours)

(gal

/min

)

24 24 -- -- 24 48 24 7 48 24 23 24 22 24 -- 24 24 26 26 26 24 24

751

751

375 90 602

351

250 21 354

230

300

112

380

200

900

421

1,89

0

400

246

205 46 402

760

Spec

ific

ca

paci

ty

[(ga

l/mi

n)

/ft]

10 15 2.9

1.0

4.5

4.6

2.3

4.2

2.3

1.0

1.5

1.3

2.4

2.0

30 28 18 1.9

3.2

5.5

8.2

2.6

4.3

T abIe

3.-

- Selected

spec

ific

-cap

acit

y te

st an

d general

well information- -Cont i nu

ed

.

Coun

ty

SCWR

C well

No.

No. __________

Jasp

er Co

unty

JAS-101

30HH-f1

JAS-108

31GG-f1

JAS-111

31JJ

-02

JAS-158

29FF-g1

JAS-346

30HH-01

Kershaw

Coun

tyKE

R-69

22

J-y5

KER-

87

24K-p1

KER-101

28M-

w2KER-141

28N-J1

KER-

159

25L-C1

Lee

Coun

tyLE-1

2 21

M-g1

LE-1

5 21M-f1

LE-2

0 21M-o1

LE-27

2lM-

b2LE

-55

23N-

b3

I Pxinqton

Coun

ty

LEX -32

37Q-

a8

LEX -154

33Q-

k3LEX -159

33P-o1

LEX-180

34R-t1

LEX-191

31S-n1

LEX-195

37P-U11

LEX- 249

32Q-k1

LEX -608

36P-u1

Mari

on C

ount

yMR

N-37

A 11

M-q1

MRN-

42

11M-

x1

~

Lati

­

tude

i

3229

2032

2850

3217

2632

3757

3227

59

3425

2234

2112

3410

1834

0859

341927

341341

341306

3412

4234

1402

3409

38

3354

5933

5240

3357

1033

4612

3342

15

335501

3352

5233

5550

341101

341026

Longi­

tude

8058

5080

5850

8104

37805311

805936

801951

8028

5380

4754

8045

3380

3235

8013

3280

1446

8014

1980

1103

8021

02

8130

3281

1000

8114

3081

1525

8103

10

8130

4781

0528

8125

04

7923

47

7923

42

_ -

- - -

Location

'

Ridge

I and

Cypress

Wood

sHardeevi lie

Poco

tali

goRi

dgel

and

Bethune

Cassatt

Elgin

Elgi

nShepard

Bish

opvi

lie

Bish

opvi

lle

Bish

opvi

lle

Bish

opvi

lle

Red

Hill

Leesvi lie

Edmu

ndLe

xing

ton

Pel ion

Swan

sea

Leesvi lie

Glenn

Village

Summ

it

Mari

on

Mari

on

Aqui

fer

-"

F I ori dan

F I on"

dan

F I ori

dan

F I ori dan

Floridan

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Blac

k Cr

eek

Midd

endo

rfMiddendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Blac

k Cr

eek/

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Black

Creek/

Middendorf

Midd

endo

rf/

Black

Creek

__ .,-,.

"

Screened

inte

rval

(feet)

190-450

70-3

40182-600

90-167

130-220

90-1

4761

-92

116-141

115-147

136-170

243-320

276-312

217-

337

138-330

64-1

25

in QQ

3U-OO

150-264

75-1

05275-305

286-425

33-53

290-388

70-1

70

200-430

350-520

Scre

en

length

(feet)

(OH)

(OH)

(OH)

(OH)

(OH) 40 31 25 25 34 25 36 55 100 40 35 68 15 30 80 20 60 80 40 40

Well

diam

eter

(i

nche

s)

12 12 16 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 12 8 8 10

20 10 6 8 4 6 6 10

20/10

Date

- of

3 > test

1954

1953

1969

1953

7/84

1960

1970

1976

kill

1/83

1951

1968

1974

1977

1/81

2/70

1973

1970

11/7

7

4/76

1981

1981

1948

5/50

Dura

tior

of

te

st^

(hours)

3 8 24 4 10 -- 48 8 24 24 -- -- 22 24 24 24 24 -- 12 46 22 24 -- --

-

i Pumping

rate

(gal

/min

)

1,012

1,86

51,

040

900

270

448

264

203

150

250

510

542

750

1,10

045

4

150

500

150

284

1,000 60 120 95 400

525

- -

Specific

capac

i ty

[(ga

l/mi

n)

/ft]

140

120 98 45 78 6.

17.8

2.7

2.3

9.3

28 26 13 13 17 5.0

6.5

1.9

5.5

29 3.3

5.2

3.7

10 8.8

Table 3.

--Se

lect

ed s

peci

fic-

capa

city

tes

t and

gene

ral

well information--Continued

Coun

ty

well

No.

SCWR

C No

.

Lati

­

tude

Longi­

tude

Loca

tion

Aqui

fer

Mari

on C

ount

y- - Co

nt i nued

MRN-

43MR

N-65

MRN-66

MRN-

72

MRN-81

MRN-

83

Marlboro

MLB-

51

MLB-

93ML

B-94

4>

MLB-109

MLB-110

MLB-112

MLB-131

MLB-139

MLB-140

MLB-142

MLB-149

MLB-160

MLB-

180

10M-

k211N-c1

10N-g1

11MT

1

10M-q1

10M-

U

County

15H-

S3

13G-W

15H-

t5

15J-d1

15J-

d215

H-I2

14G-U

15I-a1

15l-

i1

15H-

J215

H-t4

15H-r1

13H-

c2

3412

1934

0910

340855

3410

41

3411

38341226

343626

344012

343628

342943

342935

343715

344212

343404

3433

56

3438

48343636

3436

4734

3931

791530

7922

1579

1827

7923

12

791836

791658

794102

7932

24794036

7942

50794310

7941

15793626

794046

794106

794002

794052

794200

793216

Mu 1

1 i ns

Marion

near

Mul I ins

Marion

Mari

onMu

1 1 i

ns

Benn

etts

vi I le

McCo

llBe

nnet

tsvi

I le

Blenheim

Blen

heim

Benn

etts

vi 1 le

near

McCol I

Benn

etts

vi lie

Benn

etts

vi 1 le

Benn

etts

vi lie

Benn

etts

vi lie

Benn

etts

vi lie

McCo

ll

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Middendorf/

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Cree

k

Middendorf/

Cape Fe

arMiddendorf

Midd

endo

rf/

Cape

Fe

arMiddendorf

Middendorf

Cape Fe

arMi

dden

dorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Middendorf

Screened

Scre

en

Well

Da

te

interval

leng

th

diameter

of

(fee

t)

(fee

t)

(inc

hes)

te

st

331-374

100-235

96-123

290-

497

182-355

178-

322

40-375

54-105

45-3

51

107-357

75-115

220-

345

65-100

65-125

72-132

60-160

45-1

3260

-140

80-212

43 48 27 55 55 50 110 14 48 141 40 125 20 60 60

80 62 40 75

12/1

010 6/4

10 10 12 10 8 10 10 10 8 6 10 10

10 ... 8 10

1951

1970

1972

1977

7/67

6/78

6/77

1954

1954

1957

1957

1958

11/7

7..

...

9/78

7/77

1/80

9/84

Spec i f i

c

Duration

Pumping

capacity

of te

st,

rate

[(

gal/

min)

4

(hours)

(gal/min)

/ft]

62 24 -- -- 24 24 24 -- -- 24 -- 12 24 25 23 24 2

514

339 87 955

402

400

350

340

800

508

325

200

151

350

560

351

500

200

403

7.9

6.4

3.6

7.0

6.8

3.8

3.3

5.2

5.6

15 16 2.0

5.4

18 4.6

6.1

10.

12 2.1

Orangeburg C

ounty

ORG-

30ORG-35

ORG-

37OR

G-49

ORG-84

ORG-

97OR

G-10

8

29V -c

31T-

n132T-s3

29V- 11

30W-k

32V- r3

27W-

U2

3329

1033

3750

3336

50332750

332240

332655

332100

805230

810400

810600

805130

810020

810730

804044

Orangeburg

North

Nort

hOrangeburg

Cope

Norway

Bowman

Tertiary

Tertiary

Tert

iary

Midd

endo

rfTe

rtia

ryTertiary

Black

Creek/

Middendorf

TD=192

131-162

95-1

2176

4-91

2TD

=147

170-231

588-940

29 31 16 90 (OH) 60 75

8 8 8 10 12 8 10

1956

1957

1963

1964

1973

1980

-- 20 5 24

500

350

260

1,01

2600

710

1,10

0

10.

50.

19 37 15 19 12

Tabl

e 3.

--Se

lect

ed s

pecific-capacity t

est

and(general

well

in

form

atio

n--C

onti

nued

Coun

ty

well

No.

SCWR

C No.

Lati­

tude

Longi

-

tude

Location

Aqui

fer

Specific

Screened

Screen

Well

Date

Duration

Pumping

capacity

interval

leng

th

diam

eter

of

of test

rate

[(gal/min)

(fee

t)

(fee

t)

(inches)

test

(hou

rs)

(gal

/min

) /f

t]

Oran

gebu

rg County-

- Con

t i nue

dORG-109

ORG-123

ORG-200

ORG-216

ORG-218

ORG-221

ORG-222

ORG-227

ORG-

228

ORG-604

OR G-

605

R i ch

I and

RIC-25

RIC-

63RI

C-78

RIC-293

RIC-301

32T-

r

3lT-t1

29V- t1

23W-

k2

23V-

X1

26V- o1

26X-g1

31V-

q2

3lW-g1

32T-

J3l

T-m

Coun

ty28

Q-d1

26R-

C129P-r3

.29Q

-n1

26Q-X2

3336

41333625

3326

4633

2237

332522

3327

3933

1838

332653

3323

4033

3846

3337

52

3355

0033

4950

3356

31335244

335045

810608

810006

8050

5880

2007

802303

8040

01803858

8103

17

810250

8105

4181

0209

8048

00803820

805211

8053

36803802

Nort

hOr

ange

burg

Orangeburg

Euta

wvil

le

Eutawville

El loree

Bowman

Norway

Cope

Nort

hNo

rth

Conga ree

Eastover

Colu

mbia

Colu

mbia

East

over

Black

Creek

Blac

k Creek

Middendorf

F I on"

dan/

Blac

k Creek

F I on"

dan

/Black

Creek

Middendorf

F I on"

dan

Tertiary/

Blac

k Creek

Tertiary

Tertiary

Tertiary

Middendorf

Midd

endo

rfMi

dden

dorf

Midd

endo

rfBlack

Creek

238-476

218-318

843-944

179-

460

140-

424

707-1,007

40-3

0042

9-48

9

90-1

87210-261

122-

163

80-1

6041

7-54

216

2-29

4TD=161

220-

250

50 25 101

281

284

300

(OH) 60 (OH) 51 41 20 103 16 ... 30

10 4 10 16 16 16 6 10 16 8 8 8 20 8 6 12

11/7

9 24

1968

1980

24

1980

4

1980

1980

12

1981

1980

1980

6

1975

1975

24

1942

8/74

2419

56

1519

6819

70

759

100

1,585

1,74

2

1,25

3

2,200 50 750

1,50

050

325

0

150

2,000

300

325

524

22 17 48 29 16 60.

18 17 21 17 11 3.5

22 3.5

7.7

4.6

Sumter Co

unty

SU-7

SU-64

SU-7

2SU-72A

SU-7

8SU

-84

SU-8

5SU-122

SU-132

SU-1

36

23P-

t10

23P-t8

24P-

f124P-f2

23R-

o122

Q-e1

24P-

d122

Q-h1

22P-

y123Q-r2

3356

0833

5607

3358

51335830

3347

2733

5459

335905

3359

00335506

3351

56

802053

802100

802915

802903

8024

47801928

802832

801200

801924

802251

Sumter

Sumter

Shaw A

FBShaw A

FBSu

mter

Sumter

Shaw

AFB

Sumter

Sumt

erSumter

Middendorf

Midd

endo

rfBl

ack

Creek

Blac

k Creek

Blac

k Creek

Middendorf

Blac

k Creek

Black

Cree

kMiddendorf

Middendorf/

Blac

k Creek

415-625

493-607

270-340

240-340

126-

312

452-

720

167-278

73-97

406-

626

292-663

80 55 70 40 34 100 45 8

100

100

8 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 12 22

1941

24

1951

7/51

1956

5/59

819

5919

585/68

2010/65

24

1,25

090

060

050

375

21,404

850

100

1,825

1,75

0

29 28 19 7.2

10. 9.7

17 11 12 23

Tabl

e 3.

--Se

lect

ed sp

ecif

ic-c

apac

ity

test an

d general

well information--Continued

Coun

ty

well

No

.

SCWRC

No.

Lati-

Longi­

tude

tu

deLo

cati

onAq

uife

rScreened

Scre

en

interval

length

(feet)

(feet)

Well

Date

diam

eter

of

(inc

hes)

te

st

Spec

i f i

c

Duration

Pumping

capacity

of test,

rate

[(

gal/

min)

4

(hou

rs)

(gal

/min

) /ft]

Sumter County-

- Con

t i nued

SU-137

SU-1

41SU-142

SU-145

SU-1

54SU

-166

SU-1

70SU

-198

SU-201

24P-

d225N-W1

24P-

e524

P-e2

25Q-

a224

P-e3

23Q-

t118

P-q1

25Q-

b1

335904

802834

340555

803213

335930

8030

0133

5938

80

2940

3355

41

803055

3359

40

802925

3351

18

802044

3356

42

7958

4733

5459

803103

Shaw A

FBRe

mber

tHi

gh Hills

High

Hi

lls

Wedgef iel

dHi

gh Hi

lls

Poca

lla

Woods

Bay

Wedgef iel

d

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Middendorf

Black

Creek

227-292

145-

161

299-

328

242-402

211-

237

292-444

TD=203

560-570

231-

286

65 16 26 65 26 72 15 10 30

10 6 6 8 6 8 6 6 10

1964

1970

1970

10/7

65/

693/74

1976

9/80

-- 24 24 24 24 24 -- 8 24

752 55 300

465

100

461

250

115

225

18 3.2

15 14 2.4

4.9

8.1

3.5

3.8

Will

iams

burg

Co

unty

WIL-3

WIL-

12WI

L-37

WIL-

38

16T-

e116S-y2

12S-

c116

S-d1

3339

54

7949

51334005

794915

3344

51

792710

3344

00

794805

Kingstree

King

stre

eHemingway

near

Kin

gstr

ee

Black

Creek

Black

Creek

Midd

endo

rfMiddendorf/

Cape

Fe

ar

400-

630

455-

520

833-

891

660-1,000

60 50 58 110

18/8

16/6

16/8

16/12

1941

8/52

1970

1969

-- -- 18 --

1,600

307

743

1,200

10. 5.8

14 19

See

table

1 for

aquifer

correlation.

Aquifer

name

s separated

by a

sl

ash

indi

cate

a m

ulti

aqui

fer

well or a

well in

whi

ch th

e aquifer

designation

is less certain.

The

first

aquifer

list

ed is th

e on

e for

which

the

test

is co

nsid

ered

to be m

ost

representative.

"Ter

tiar

y" in

dica

tes

Tertiary s

and

aquifer.

TD=x

indicates

tota

l depth

of well.

Scre

en"(

OH)"

in

dica

tes

the

well

is an

open

hole throughout the

desi

gnat

ed in

terv

al,

length ma

y be

less than s

creened

interval be

caus

e of

multiple well sc

reen

s.

Month/year or y

ear

only o

f test.

4 Because m

ost

test

s li

sted

in th

is ta

ble

are

well performance

test

s on

large

capacity m

unic

ipal

or in

dust

rial

wells,

it is

expe

cted

th

at the

duration o

f mo

st of th

e tests, for

whic

h no

dur

atio

n wa

s no

ted,

is a

t le

ast

8 ho

urs.

35 °

/*a

EX

PLA

NA

TIO

N

B

AR

IIWE

LL I

BA

MB

ER

G

4 - N

UM

BE

R O

F S

PE

CIF

IC-C

AP

AC

ITY

T

ES

TS

RE

PO

RTE

D F

OR

EA

CH

82

C

OU

NTY

LIS

TE

D I

N T

HIS

RE

PO

RT

0

10

2

0

30

4

0

50

MIL

ES

I L

I I

I I

80

C

Figure 6.--Reported specific-capacity tests.

not reported because they do not appear to be representative of aquifer transmissivity. Although this information should be applied cautiously, it is of value in estimating transmissivity and storage-coefficient values for the Coastal Plain aquifers.

SELECTED REFERENCES

Aucott, W. R., Davis, M. E., and Speiran, G. K., (in press), Geohydrologic framework for the Coastal Plain aquifers of South Carolina: U.S. Geo­ logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4271.

Aucott, W. R., and Speiran, G. K., 1985a, Ground-water flow in the Coastal Plain aquifers of South Carolina: Ground Water, v. 23, no. 6.

----- 1985b, Potentiometric surfaces of the Coastal Plain aquifers of South Carolina, prior to development: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4208, 5 sheets.

Bedinger, M. S., and Emmett, L. F., 1963, Mapping transmissibility of allu­ vium in the lower Arkansas River valley, Arkansas, in Short papers in geology and hydrology: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 475-C, p. C188-C190.

Brown, R. H., 1963, Estimating the transmissibility of an artesian aquifer from the specific capacity of a well, in Methods of determining perme­ ability, transmissibility, and drawdown, Bentall, Ray, compiler: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-1, p. 336-338.

Bush, P. W., 1982, Predevelopment flow in the Tertiary limestone aquifer,Southeastern United States; a regional analysis from digital modeling: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 82-905, 41 p.

Cahill, J. M., 1982, Hydrology of the low-level radioactive-solid-wasteburial site and vicinity near Barnwell, South Carolina: U.S. Geologi­ cal Survey Open-File Report 82-863, 101 p.

Colquhoun, D. J., Woollen, I. D., Van Niewenhuise, D. S., Padgett, G. G., Oldham, R. W., Boylan, D. C., Bishop, J. W., andHowell, P. D., 1983, Surface and subsurface stratigraphy, structure and aquifers of the South Carolina Coastal Plain: University of South Carolina, Department of Geology, 78 p.

Cooke, C. W., 1936, Geology of the Coastal Plain of South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 867, 196 p.

Cooper, H. H., Jr., and Jacob, C. E., 1946, A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing well field history: American Geophysical Union Transactions, vol. 27, no. 4, p. 526-534.

Faye, R. E., and Prowell, D. C., 1982, Effects of Late Cretaceous andCenozoic 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, D. B., Brown, R. H., and Stallman, R. W., 1962, Thoery of aquifer tests: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-E, 174 p.

Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, J. A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 604 p.

Hantush, M. S., and Jacob, C. E., 1955, Non-steady radial flow in an infi­ nite leaky aquifer: American Geophysical Union Transactions, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 95-100.

Hayes, L. R., 1979, The ground-water resources of Beaufort, Colleton,Hampton, and Jasper Counties, South Carolina: South Carolina Water Resources Commission Report no. 9, 91 p.

28

Krause, R. E., 1982, Digital model evaluation of the predevelopment flowsystem of the Tertiary limestone aquifer, southeast Georgia, northeast Florida, and southern South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 82-173, 27 p.

Kruseman, G. P., and Ridder, N. A., 1979, Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data: International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improve­ ment, Bulletin 11, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 201 p.

Lohman, S. W., 1972, Ground-water hydraulics: U.S. Geological Survey Pro­ fessional Paper 708, 70 p.

Lohman, S. W., and others, 1972, Definitions of selected ground-waterterms--revisions and conceptual refinements: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1988, 21 p.

Marine, I. W., 1979, Hydrology of buried crystalline rocks at the Savannah River Plant near Aiken, South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 79-1544, 160 p.

Marine, I. W., and Root, R. W., Jr., 1976, Summary of hydraulic conductivity tests in the SRP separations areas in Savannah River Laboratory envi­ ronmental transport and effects research annual report, 1975: Aiken, S.C., E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Savannah River Laboratory, USERDA Report DP-1412.

Park, A. D., 1980, The ground-water resources of Sumter and Florence Coun­ ties, South Carolina: South Carolina Water Resources Commission Report No. 133, 43 p.

----- 1985, The ground-water resources of Charleston, Berkeley and Dor­ chester Counties, South Carolina: South Carolina Water Resources Com­ mission Report No. 139, 146 p.

Renken, R. A., 1984, The hydrogeologic framework for the southeastern United States Coastal Plain aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 84-4243.

Root, R. W., Jr., 1977, Results of pumping tests in shallow sediments in the separations areas in Savannah River Laboratory environmental transport and effects research annual report, 1976: Aiken, S.C., E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Savannah River Laboratory, USERDA Report DP-1455.

Siple, G. E., 1946, Progress report on ground-water investigations in South Carolina: South Carolina Research, Planning and Development Board Bulletin No. 15, 166 p.

----- 1956, Memorandum on the geology and ground-water resources of theParris Island area, South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, 29 p.

----- 1957, Geology and ground water in parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Alien- dale Counties, South Carolina: prepared for Savannah River Operations Office of the Atomic Energy Commission, copy on file with the U.S. Geo­ logical Survey, Columbia, S.C., 128 p.

----- 1959, Guidebook for the South Carolina Coastal Plain field trip of the Carolina Geological Society, Nov. 16-17, 1957: South Carolina State Development Board, Division of Geology Bulletin No. 24, 27 p.

----- 1967, Geology and ground water of the Savannah River Plant and vicin­ ity, South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1841, 113 p.

----- 1975, Ground-water resources of Orangeburg County, South Carolina: South Carolina State Development Board, Division of Geology Bulletin No. 36, 59 p.

29

Speiran, G. K., and Aucott, W. R., (in press), Effects of sediment deposi- tional environment on the geochemistry and quality of ground water in Cretaceous aquifers in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina: U.S. Geo­ logical Survey Water-Supply Paper.

Theis, C. V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the piezometricsurface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground- water storage: American Geophysical Union Transactions, vol. 16, p. 519-524.

Theis, C. V., Brown, R. H., and Meyer, R. R., 1963, Estimating the transmis sibility of aquifers from the specific capacity of wells: U.S. Geo­ logical Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-1, p. 331-341.

Zack, A. L., 1977, The occurrence, availability, and chemical quality of ground water, Grand Strand area and surrounding parts of Horry and Georgetown Counties, South Carolina: South Carolina Water Resources Commission Report No. 8, 100 p., 9 plates.

* GOVERNMENT PRIHTIHG OFFICE: 1988 - 730135 / 40006

30