HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION AND GROUNDWATER SOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

FOR BUTLER COUNTY

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA

Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr.State Geologist

HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION AND GROUNDWATER SOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

FOR BUTLER COUNTY

OPEN-FILE REPORT __

ByMarlon R. Cook,

Ralph R. Norman, and

Gheorghe M. L. Ponta

Full funding for this project was provided by the Geological Survey of Alabama as part of the GSA Statewide Groundwater Assessment.

Draft Subject to Revision

Tuscaloosa, Alabama2014

CONTENTS

PageIntroduction............................................................................................................................... 1Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... 1Physiography and topography................................................................................................... 2Hydrogeology........................................................................................................................... 2

Lower Cretaceous undifferentiated..................................................................................... 3Tuscaloosa Group............................................................................................................... 5

Coker Formation........................................................................................................... 5Gordo Formation........................................................................................................... 6Eutaw Formation........................................................................................................... 8

Selma Group....................................................................................................................... 9Mooreville and Demopolis Chalks............................................................................... 9Ripley Formation.......................................................................................................... 9

Cusseta Sand Member............................................................................................. 9Unnamed Upper Member....................................................................................... 10

Prairie Bluff Chalk........................................................................................................ 10Providence Sand............................................................................................................ 11

Midway Group.................................................................................................................... 11Clayton Formation........................................................................................................ 11Porters Creek Formation............................................................................................... 12Neheola Formation........................................................................................................ 12

Wilcox Group...................................................................................................................... 12Salt Mountain Limestone.............................................................................................. 13Nanafalia Formation..................................................................................................... 13Tuscahoma Sand........................................................................................................... 13Hatchetigbee Formation................................................................................................ 14

Claiborne Group.................................................................................................................. 14Tallahatta Formation..................................................................................................... 14Lisbon Formation.......................................................................................................... 15

Hydrogeologic assessment methodology............................................................................ 15Well depth..................................................................................................................... 16Depth to water............................................................................................................... 16Pumping rates................................................................................................................ 16Specific capacity........................................................................................................... 17Net potential productive intervals................................................................................. 18Potentiometric surfaces and groundwater level impacts............................................... 19Hydrographs and aquifer decline curves....................................................................... 20

Hydrogeologic assessment.................................................................................................. 21Ripley aquifer................................................................................................................ 21

Well depth............................................................................................................... 22Depth to water......................................................................................................... 22Pumping rates.......................................................................................................... 22Specific capacity..................................................................................................... 22Net potential productive intervals and downgradient limit of fresh water............. 22Potentiometric surfaces and groundwater level impacts......................................... 23

i

Pre-1961 static groundwater levels................................................................... 23Pre-1996 static groundwater levels................................................................... 23Current static groundwater levels..................................................................... 24

Hydrographs and aquifer decline curves................................................................. 24Clayton aquifer.............................................................................................................. 26

Well depth............................................................................................................... 28Depth to water......................................................................................................... 28Pumping rates.......................................................................................................... 28Specific capacity..................................................................................................... 29Net potential productive intervals and downgradient limit of fresh water............. 29Potentiometric surfaces and groundwater level impacts......................................... 29Hydrographs and aquifer decline curves................................................................. 30

Well capture zones.............................................................................................................. 31Groundwater exploration and additional groundwater source development...................... 31

Conclusions and recommendations........................................................................................... 34References cited........................................................................................................................ 38

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURESPage

Figure 1. Butler County hydrogeologic assessment area in south-central Alabama........... 2Figure 2. Physiographic regions for Alabama including the Butler County

hydrogeologic assessment.................................................................................... 3Figure 3. Generalized stratigraphy for Butler County......................................................... 4Figure 4. Basement faulting and chloride concentrations in water from the Tuscaloosa

Group aquifer....................................................................................................... 7Figure 5. Diagram depicting drawdown and potentiometric surfaces prior to and after

pumping in a confined aquifer............................................................................. 19Figure 6. Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 1................ 25Figure 7. Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 2................ 26Figure 8. Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 3................ 27Figure 9. Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 4................ 27Figure 10. Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 5................ 28Figure 11. Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Clayton aquifer well K-2......... 30

PLATES

Plate 1. Assessment area and digital elevation model for the Butler County hydrogeologic assessment

Plate 2. Geology for the Butler County hydrogeologic assessment areaPlate 3. Hydrogeologic cross section B-B’, Lowndes, Butler, and Covington Counties,

AlabamaPlate 4. Hydrogeologic cross section C-C’, Wilcox, Butler, and Crenshaw Counties,

Alabama

ii

Plate 5. Geologic structure for the top of the Ripley Formation, Butler County hydrogeologic assessment area

Plate 6. Geologic structure for the top of the Clayton Formation, Butler County hydrogeologic assessment area

Plate 7. Depth to water for the Ripley aquiferPlate 8. Normalized pumping rates for the Ripley aquiferPlate 9. Normalized specific capacities for the Ripley aquiferPlate 10. Net potential productive intervals for the Ripley aquifer in the Butler County

hydrogeologic assessment areaPlate 11. Pre-1961 potentiometric surface for the Ripley aquiferPlate 12. Pre-1996 potentiometric surface for the Ripley aquiferPlate 13. Current potentiometric surface for the Ripley aquiferPlate 14. Depth to water for the Clayton aquiferPlate 15. Normalized pumping rates for the Clayton aquiferPlate 16. Normalized specific capacities for the Clayton aquiferPlate 17. Net potential productive intervals for the Clayton aquifer in the Butler County

hydrogeologic assessment areaPlate 18. Historic potentiometric surface for the Clayton aquiferPlate 19. Current potentiometric surface for the Clayton aquifer

iii

INTRODUCTION

All public-water supplies in Butler County are produced from groundwater sources. Due

to increasing population and water demands and significant water level declines in the Ripley

aquifer, the Butler County Water Authority and Greenville water Works & Sewer Board joined

to form the Butler County Water Cooperative (BCWC) to maximize resources to develop future

water sources. The first joint water source development venture was a test well in northeast

Butler County to test the potential of the deep Gordo aquifer. This well was unsuccessful but

provided valuable scientific data for future ventures. More recently, the coop requested the

Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA) to conduct a comprehensive county-wide hydrogeologic

assessment to characterize subsurface hydrogeologic conditions and to identify future viable

groundwater sources.

The purpose of the project was to generate data that can be used by the BCWC to make

informed decisions related to development of new groundwater sources in the County. These

data will be used by GSA to better understand the hydrogeology of Butler County south-central

Alabama, as part of the statewide groundwater assessment being conducted by GSA. Data from

oil and gas and water wells provide opportunities to see into the subsurface to evaluate

groundwater quantity and quality characteristics that can be used to develop and protect

groundwater sources. Data from oil and gas test wells and numerous water wells were evaluated

during this investigation (plate 1). Hydrogeologic, geochemical, and land-use data were used to

evaluate groundwater recharge, movement, aquifer storage, and the potential for developing

additional groundwater sources from Cretaceous aquifers in the BCWC service area.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Geological Survey of Alabama acknowledges those individuals whose participation

and cooperation made this study possible. BCWC president, Judge Steve Norman; Mayor Dexter

McClendon; Representative Charles Newton; Mr. Chris Finley, Manager, Greenville Water

Works and Sewer Board; Mr. Wesley Bass, Butler County Manager, Artesian Utilities; Mr.

Bobby Hood Jr., Manager Fort Deposit Water and Sewer Board; Mr. Kenneth Blackburn,

Manager, Georgiana Water Works and Sewer Board; and Mr. Josh Pierce, Goodwyn, Mills, and

Cawood were instrumental in providing assistance for the completion of this research.

1

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHY

The area of investigation covers about 3,000 square miles (mi2) in south-central Alabama

and includes Butler and parts of Crenshaw, Lowndes, Wilcox, Monroe, Conecuh, and Covington

Counties and the cities of Greenville and Georgiana (fig. 1 and plate 1). The investigation area

lies primarily in the Southern Red Hills district of the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic

section. The Southern Red Hills are classified as southward-sloping uplands of moderate relief

(fig. 2).

HYDROGEOLOGY

The geology of the area of investigation is composed of coastal plain sediments overlying

piedmont crystalline rocks. Coastal plain sediments vary in age from lower Cretaceous to middle

Eocene (fig. 3 and plate 2) and are composed of interbedded sand, clay, and limestone that dip

south-southwestward at about 30 to 40 feet per mile (ft/mi) (plate 3). These sediments thicken

southwestward toward the center of the Gulf of Mexico basin from about 2,500 ft in central

Lowndes County to more than 8,000 ft in northern Covington County (plate 3).

2Figure 1.—Butler County hydrogeologic assessment area in south-central Alabama.

LOWER CRETACEOUS UNDIFFERENTIATED

Lower Cretaceous sediments overlie metamorphic and igneous crystalline rocks in the

Bullock County area. Pink nodular limestone fragments and red and green clay near the top of

the unit distinguish it from the massive sands of the overlying Late Cretaceous Coker Formation

of the Tuscaloosa Group (Davis, 1987). The total thickness of Lower Cretaceous sediments is

known to reach more than 7,000 ft in Mobile Bay (Maher and Applin, 1968). Sediments of Early

3

Figure 2.—Physiographic regions for Alabama including the Butler County hydrogeologic assessment.

Cretaceous age do not crop out in Alabama, but thin northward and pinch out in the subsurface

south of the Fall Line. The total thickness of Lower Cretaceous sediments was not penetrated in

wells drilled in the assessment area. Descriptions of drill cuttings by Alabama State Oil and Gas

Board personnel indicate that Lower Cretaceous sediments are composed of alternating sand,

gravel and clay layers. Sands are described as medium to very coarse grained with abundant

gravel, large pink feldspar crystals, and pink nodular limestone fragments. Clays are purple, red,

brown, and green and are micaceous.

4

Figure 3.— Generalized stratigraphy for Butler County.

There is currently no water production from the Lower Cretaceous in Alabama. However,

due to shallower formations with water containing chlorides above drinking water standards, it is

unlikely that the Lower Cretaceous would be suitable as a potable water source.

TUSCALOOSA GROUPCOKER FORMATION

The Coker Formation typically composes the lower part of the Tuscaloosa Group in most

of Alabama. Smith (2001) recognized a threefold subdivision of Tuscaloosa sediments in

southeast Alabama that included the lower Tuscaloosa Coker Formation and overlying upper

Tuscaloosa Gordo Formation separated by the “middle marine shale.” This well-defined

stratigraphic separation was observed throughout the Butler County assessment area in oil and

gas exploratory wells and was adopted for this research. Smith (2001) stated that the maximum

thickness of the Coker Formation in southeast Alabama is about 400 to 450 ft. Descriptions of

drill cuttings from the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 (Alabama Oil and Gas Board permit

number (OGB #) 308) well in southwest Butler County combined with geophysical log

correlations indicate that the top of the Coker Formation was encountered at a depth of about

3,617 ft (-3,253 ft MSL) and the unit is about 274 ft thick. In central Lowndes County the Coker

Formation was encountered in the C. S. Wright #1 oil and gas test well (OGB #517) at a depth of

1,600 ft (-1,400) and was about 300 ft thick and has a dip rate of about 50 ft/mi, which compares

to the rate of dip documented by Smith (2001) of about 42 ft/mi in southeast Alabama and about

59 ft/mi documented by Cook and others (2013) in Bullock County.

Smith (2001) described Coker sediments as light-gray to reddish-orange, ferruginous-

stained, poorly sorted, invariably etched sand with trace amounts of coarse muscovite mica,

igneous and/or metamorphic rock fragments, and coarse grains of orthoclase feldspar with grain

size from fine to very coarse (0.03 to 2.0 millimeters (mm)), and gravel that is generally pale-

pink to grayish-orange, usually somewhat rounded, and granular (2 to 4 mm) to rarely pebble (4

to 32 mm) in size. Interbedded clays are finely muscovitic, noncalcareous, silty, and varicolored

yellow, orange, red and purple. The formation is described by Alabama Oil and Gas Board

personnel from Butler County well cuttings as alternating sand and shale layers. Sands are

medium to coarse-grained and micaceous. Shales are dark gray, micaceous, and carbonaceous.

The Coker Formation is a minor aquifer in southeast Alabama and due to excessive chlorides,

has no potential for economic fresh-water production in Butler County.

5

“MIDDLE MARINE SHALE”

The “middle marine shale” is an informal name for a relatively thin yet persistent clay or

shale that occurs throughout Alabama (Smith, 2001). Although the unit is not recognized at the

surface and has no significance as an aquifer, it is useful in determining the top of the Coker

Formation and base of the overlying Gordo Formation for data correlation and drilling. The unit

consists of medium-gray to olive-gray, massive-bedded to thinly laminated, finely muscovitic

and lignitic, quartzose silty clay and shale, which in part is moderately calcareous and contains

common to abundant thin-walled pelecypod shell fragments (Smith, 2001). The unit was

encountered in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 (OGB #308) well in southwest Butler

County at a depth of 3,492 ft (-3,128 ft MSL) and is about 125 feet thick. Drill cuttings from the

unit in the Hooks #1 well was described as shale, gray, greenish, and black, micaceous, and

carbonaceous. The unit was encountered in the C. S. Wright #1 well (OGB #517) in central

Lowndes County at a depth of 1,525 ft (-1,325 ft MSL) and is about 75 ft thick.

GORDO FORMATION

The Gordo Formation is the upper unit of the Tuscaloosa Group and is well defined from

drill cuttings and geophysical log character where is occurs throughout Alabama. The base of the

unit is defined as the contact with the “middle marine shale.” The upper contact with the Eutaw

Formation is mainly defined by sediment color and relatively massive clay layers in the upper

part of the Gordo, related to the different environments of deposition of the two units. The origin

of the Eutaw Formation is primarily marginal marine whereas the Gordo originates from fluvial

deposition (Cook, 1993). The basal Eutaw is composed of a regionally persistent massive sand

layer with marine material including shell fragments, aragonite, and glauconite and colors from

gray to buff. The top of the Gordo is nonfossiliferous and is characterized by relatively massive,

varicolored (orange, brown, red, pink, and purple) clays, coarse-grained sand, and gravel. The

Gordo Formation was encountered in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308)

in southwest Butler County at a depth of 3,002 ft (-2,638 ft MSL) where it is 490 feet thick (plate

3). In contrast, the updip Gordo in central Lowndes County in the C. S. Wright #1 well (OGB

#517) was penetrated at 960 ft (-760 ft MSL) and was about 560 ft thick. Smith (2001) reported

that the dip of the Gordo Formation in Coffee, Dale, and Henry Counties is to the south-

southwest at about 35 ft/mi. In the Butler County area, the Gordo dips south-southwest at about

50 ft/mi (plate 3). The Gordo Formation is the primary aquifer for Bullock, Barbour, and Pike

6

Counties in southeast Alabama and Montgomery, Elmore, Autauga, and Lowndes Counties in

the central part of the state. Although individual water-producing sands are relatively thin, the

accumulated contribution from the entire formation yields adequate quantities of excellent

quality water. Influxes of deep mineralized water into Cretaceous aquifers (including the Gordo

aquifer) along the Alexander City, Towaliga, and Bartletts Ferry Faults that underlie the coastal

plain in central Alabama have profoundly influenced groundwater quality in southwest

Montgomery, southern Lowndes, and Butler Counties (Cook, 2002) (fig. 4).

7Figure 4.—Basement faulting and chloride concentrations in water from the Tuscaloosa Group aquifer.

EUTAW FORMATION

The Eutaw Formation extends from west and central Alabama, where it is about 350 to

400 ft thick, to eastern Alabama where the formation thins to less than 300 ft. The formation

outcrops about 25 miles north of the assessment area in southern Autauga County. The Eutaw

Formation was encountered in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) in

southwest Butler County at a depth of 2,730 ft (-2,366 ft MSL) where it is 262 feet thick (plate

3). In contrast, the Eutaw in central Lowndes County in the C. S. Wright #1 well (OGB #517)

was penetrated at 650 ft (-450 ft MSL) and was about 320 ft thick. (plate 4).

Smith (2001) described the subsurface Eutaw in Bullock, Pike, and Barbour Counties as

very fine quartzose sandy clay and calcareous shale containing traces of glauconite and

phosphatic grains with very rare pelecypod shell fragments. Clays and shales are interbedded

with lenses and thin beds of indurated very fine- to fine-grained quartzose sandstone, sandy

limestone, and thin beds of sand. The Eutaw is described from drill cuttings from the Gulf

Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) in southwest Butler County as gray, fine- to

medium-grained, micaceous and glauconitic sand with interbedded gray micaceous shale. Drill

cuttings from the C. S. Wright #1 well (OGB #517) in central Lowndes County were described

as medium- to coarse-grained glauconitic sand with abundant phosphatic material and bone

fragments. Cook (1993) stated that excessive concentrations of fluoride in water from the Eutaw

aquifer in eastern Lowndes and western Montgomery Counties was derived from phosphatic and

skeletal fish material in the Eutaw sediments.

The Eutaw Formation in west and central Alabama can be divided into three distinctive

lithologic layers: the lower basal sand unit, the middle Eutaw unit, and the upper Tombigbee

Sand member (Cook, 1993). The basal sand unit is persistent and is recognized in geophysical

log character across the state. Geophysical log character and net sand mapping suggests that the

basal sand unit was deposited as a barrier island complex that extended from northeast

Mississippi across much of Alabama (Cook, 1993). The basal sand supplies water for public

water supplies throughout west and central Alabama and is a target for water well drilling where

chlorides or fluoride is not excessive.

8

SELMA GROUP

The Selma Group is upper Cretaceous in age and includes the Mooreville Chalk,

Demopolis Chalk, Ripley Formation, Providence Sand, and Prairie Bluff Chalk in south-central

Alabama.

MOOREVILLE AND DEMOPOLIS CHALKS

The Mooreville Chalk is a yellowish-gray to dark-bluish-gray clayey compact

fossiliferous chalk and chalky marl. The upper part of the formation is composed of the Arcola

Limestone Member, which includes two to four beds of light-gray dense, brittle fossiliferous

limestone about 10 ft thick (Raymond and others, 1988). Thickness ranges from 270 ft in west

Alabama to more than 800 ft in the central part of the state. The Mooreville Chalk was

penetrated in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) in southwest Butler

County at a depth of 1,920 ft (-1,556 ft MSL) where it was 810 ft thick (plate 3).

The Demopolis Chalk is a light-gray to medium-light-gray fossiliferous chalk. The lower

part of the formation consists of thin beds of marly chalk. Thickness ranges from 495 ft in

Sumter County to about 500 ft in central Alabama. It was penetrated in the Gulf Refining

Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) in southwest Butler County at a depth of 1,420 ft (-

1,056 ft MSL) where it was 500 ft thick (plate 3).

RIPLEY FORMATIONCUSSETA SAND MEMBER

The basal part of the Ripley Formation in east and central Alabama is designated as the

Cusseta Sand Member. Outcrop exposures of the Cusseta Sand Member in Alabama extend from

the Chattahoochee River in northeastern Barbour County and southeastern Russell County

westward through Central Bullock County into southern Montgomery County (Smith, 2001). In

outcrop, the Cusseta consists predominantly of cross-bedded coarse quartzose sand and granular

gravel with subordinate beds of dark-gray to black carbonaceous clay (Smith, 2001). The

Cusseta surface exposure (recharge area) in Bullock County varies from 5 to 10 miles wide from

the Barbour County line westward to Union Springs and thins to less than 2 miles wide into

Montgomery County (plate 2). Along the Chattahoochee River, the Cusseta averages about 200

ft in thickness. Westward, the Cusseta gradually thins to about 125 ft in eastern and central

Montgomery County and merges with the Demopolis Chalk in south-central Montgomery

County. Plate 4 shows the Cusseta Member extending westward in the subsurface, pinching out

east of Greenville in northeastern Butler County. However, farther west across Butler County, 9

the basal Ripley Formation is dominated by medium to coarse-grained sand and could actually

be a westward extension of the Cusseta Member. The Cusseta Member was identified by Smith

(2009) in the Butler County Water Supply District Test Well #1 in northeast Butler County

where it was penetrated at a depth of 372 ft (-12 ft MSL) and was 187 ft thick. Smith described

the unit as poorly sorted fine- to coarse-grained sand, micaceous and glauconitic. The Cusseta

Sand Member is historically a major water producer in northern Dale and southern Pike

Counties.

UNNAMED UPPER MEMBER

The unnamed upper member of the Ripley Formation extends in outcrop across the entire

state of Alabama with the upgradient terminus extending across southern Montgomery,

Lowndes, and Dallas Counties in the central part of the state (plate 2). Smith (2001) described

the surface exposed Ripley as massive-bedded to cross-bedded, glauconitic fine sands and sandy

clay with thin indurated beds of fossiliferous sandstone having a total thickness of about 135

feet. Smith (2001) stated that the unnamed upper member of the Ripley Formation consists of

predominantly fine-grained lithologies and serves as an aquiclude. The Ripley Formation was

penetrated in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) in southwest Butler

County at a depth of 1,146 ft (-782 ft MSL) and was 274 ft thick and was described as

fossiliferous, very coarse-grained sand (plate 3). It was penetrated in the Butler County Water

Supply District Test Well #1 in northeast Butler County at a depth of 290 ft (70 ft MSL) and was

97 ft thick. Plate 5 shows that the Ripley Formation dips south-southwest at about 27 ft/mi

through Butler County and increases to about 33 ft/mi in Covington and Conecuh Counties. The

Ripley Formation is the sole source of public water supplies for much of Butler County.

PRAIRIE BLUFF CHALK

The Prairie Bluff Chalk is a bluish-gray firm sandy, fossiliferous, brittle chalk that crops

out from Sumter County to south-central Bullock County where it grades into the Providence

Sand (Raymond and others, 1988). It reaches a maximum outcrop thickness of 110 ft in Lowndes

County (Raymond and others, 1988) and thickens downgradient before it grades into the

Providence Sand at depth in Butler County (plate 3). Although locally absent, it serves as an

aquiclude in central and western Butler County.

10

PROVIDENCE SAND

The Providence Sand is the uppermost unit within the Cretaceous System in eastern

Alabama. In outcrop, the Providence extends from the Georgia state line through northern

Barbour, southern Bullock and Montgomery Counties and terminates in southeastern Lowndes

County (Szabo and others, 1988) (plate 2). It was penetrated in the Gulf Refining Company K.

Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) well in southwest Butler County at a depth of 1,010 ft (-646 ft MSL)

and was 130 ft thick. The Providence Sand is a minor aquifer in southeast Alabama and serves an

aquiclude in Butler County, composed of fossiliferous chalk and chalky shale. Therefore it is not

a target for water well drilling in Butler County.

MIDWAY GROUP

The Midway Group is lower Tertiary in age and includes the Clayton Formation, Porters

Creek Formation, and the Naheola Formation in south-central Alabama.

CLAYTON FORMATION

The oldest Tertiary sediments in Alabama rest unconformably upon sediments assignable

to the Upper Cretaceous Providence Sand (Smith, 2001). In Alabama, these beds are assigned to

the Clayton Formation, which is named from typical exposures near the town of Clayton in west-

central Barbour County (Langdon, 1891). In outcrop, the Clayton Formation extends from the

Georgia state line in southeastern Barbour County westward to east-central Marengo County in

west-central Alabama. The outcrop, or recharge area in the Butler County hydrogeologic

assessment area trends northwestward from northwestern Crenshaw, through extreme

northeastern Butler, southwestern Lowndes, and into northern Wilcox Counties (plate 2). The

Clayton Formation dips south-southwest at a rate of about 33 ft/mi in the hydrogeologic

assessment area (plate 6). It consists of a geographically widespread basal transgressive sand

composed of 5 to 10 ft of gravelly medium to coarse quartzose sand and clay pebbles. The

overlying beds generally consist of 10 to 25 ft of highly fossiliferous sandy limestone, usually

represented by deeply weathered exposures of ferruginous sand containing chert fragments

(Smith, 2001). This limestone is normally overlain by massive-bedded silty clay and clayey very

fine sand. In many exposures, the top of the formation is marked by a very glauconitic clayey

sand, which is usually deeply weathered, resulting in reddish or reddish-brown residual

ferruginous sandy clay containing thin lenses and seams of the dehydrated iron oxide goethite,

commonly known as brown iron ore (Smith, 2001).11

The Clayton Formation was penetrated in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well

(OGB #308) well in southwest Butler County at a depth of 842 ft (-478 ft MSL) and was 130 ft

thick. Drill cuttings from the Clayton in this well were described as hard gray limestone and clay

at the top and about 90 ft of coarse-grained sand and sandy lime at the base. The Clayton

Formation is a major source of water supplies in southeast Alabama, but has a limited number of

wells in the Butler County hydrogeologic assessment area and is considered a minor aquifer.

However, depending on water quality, the Clayton Formation should be considered as a target

for future water supply development.

PORTERS CREEK FORMATION

The Porters Creek Formation in outcrop extends from Sumter County in west-central

Alabama to southwester Pike County in the southeast part of the state (Szabo and others, 1988).

It consists of dark-brown to black massive marine clay at the base and brownish-gray calcareous,

glauconitic, shelly, silty Clay at the top. The unit becomes increasingly calcareous eastward

where a prominent limestone occurs in the middle of the formation and the upper part grades into

calcareous, micaceous silt and fine-grained sand (Raymond and others, 1988). The Porters Creek

Formation was penetrated in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) well in

southwest Butler County at a depth of 730 ft (-366 ft MSL) and was 120 ft thick. The Porters

Creek Formation in the Butler County hydrogeologic assessment area serves as an aquiclude.

NAHEOLA FORMATION

The Naheola Formation is identified in outcrop from Sumter County in west-central

Alabama to northwest Butler County (Szabo and others, 1988). The unit is divided into the Oak

Hill Member at the base and Coal Bluff Marl Member at the top. The Oak Hill Member consists

of brownish-gray laminated sandy silt and silty clay and beds of greenish-gray fine-grained sand.

Lignite, 1 to 7 ft thick, is present locally at the top of the member. The Coal Bluff Marl Member

consists of glauconitic partly fossiliferous sand and fossiliferous sandy marl and contains thin-

bedded silty clay in the upper part. The Naheola Formation was not identified in the subsurface

in Butler County.

WILCOX GROUP

The Wilcox Group is lower Tertiary in age and includes the Salt Mountain Limestone,

Nanafalia Formation, and the Tuscahoma Sand in south-central Alabama.

12

SALT MOUNTAIN LIMESTONE

Although most likely hydraulically connected to the underlying Clayton Formation, the

Salt Mountain Limestone is considered as a separate hydrogeologic unit due to its distinctive

lithologic character of fossiliferous limestone with quartz sand interbeds (Smith, 2001). The

presence locally in the study area of clay beds occurring between the Clayton Formation and the

overlying Salt Mountain Limestone, assigned to the Porters Creek Formation by Smith (2001),

indicates local hydraulic separation of the two units in the Butler County hydrogeologic

assessment area.

The Salt Mountain in southeast Alabama is a major aquifer composed of porous and

permeable limestone. Westward, the unit is more clastic and is described in the Gulf Refining

Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) well in southwest Butler County as sand, very

glauconitic and light gray hard limestone. The Salt Mountain Limestone was penetrated in the K.

Hooks #1 well at 580 ft (-216 ft MSL) and was 150 ft thick. The Salt Mountain Limestone is not

considered as a target for water source development in Butler County.

NANAFALIA FORMATION

The Nanafalia Formation crops out from southern Barbour in southeast Alabama,

westward through central Crenshaw and Butler Counties in the south-central part of the state,

and continues into east Mississippi in southern Sumter County. It consists of massive cross-

bedded sand and glauconitic and fossiliferous fine sands (Smith, 2001). The recharge area in

Butler County is about 8 miles wide, on average (Szabo and others, 1988). The Nanafalia

Formation in the subsurface consists of greenish-colored and glauconitic-stained coarse to very

coarse quartzose sand, fragments of marine fossils, and abundant medium to coarse glauconite.

Some usually dense, indurated, frequently sandy limestone beds occur. (Smith, 2001). The

Nanafalia Formation was penetrated in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB

#308) well in southwest Butler County at a depth of 500 ft (-136 ft MSL) and was 80 ft thick.

Although the Nanafalia Formation is present in the southern two-thirds of Butler County it is not

considered as a target for public water supply source development but may be accessed for

domestic or agricultural supplies.

TUSCAHOMA SAND

The Tuscahoma Sand crops out from northern Henry County in southeast Alabama,

through southern Crenshaw and Butler Counties in south-central Alabama, to northern Choctaw

13

County in the southwest part of the state. Its thickness in outcrop varies from about 90 ft in

Henry County to 350 ft in Choctaw County. The Tuscahoma Sand was penetrated in the Gulf

Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) well in southwest Butler County at a depth of

380 ft (-16 ft MSL) and was 120 ft thick. It was described by Smith (2001) as predominantly

fine-grained clay/shale lithologies in southeast Alabama and serves as an aquiclude throughout

the southeast and south-central parts of the state.

HATCHETIGBEE FORMATION

The Hatchetigbee Formation crops out from central Henry County in southeast Alabama,

through extreme southern Crenshaw and Butler Counties in south-central Alabama, to central

Choctaw County in the southwest part of the state. Its thickness varies from about 35 ft in

southeast Alabama to 250 ft in the southwest part of the state. The Hatchetigbee Formation was

penetrated in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) well in southwest

Butler County at a depth of 240 ft (124 ft MSL) and was 140 ft thick. It was described by

Raymond and others (1988) as gray, brown, and olive-green, locally cross-bedded, very fine- to

fine-grained sand and interlaminated carbonaceous, sparsely micaceous, silty clay, silt, and

sandy clay. The lower 6 to 35 feet is the Bashi Marl Member, a pale-olive to greenish-gray fine-

grained, glauconitic, fossiliferous sand and marl containing boulder-sized calcareous sandstone

concretions. The Hatchetigbee Formation in southern Butler County may provide limited

quantities of water for domestic or agricultural use.

CLAIBORNE GROUP

The Claiborne Group is middle Tertiary in age and includes the Tallahatta and Lisbon

Formations in south-central Alabama.

TALLAHATTA FORMATION

14

The Tallahatta Formation crops out from central Henry County in southeast Alabama,

through extreme southern Crenshaw and Butler Counties in south-central Alabama, to central

Choctaw County in the southwest part of the state. Its thickness varies from about 50 ft in

southeast Alabama to 125 ft in the southwest part of the state. The Tallahatta Formation was

penetrated in the Gulf Refining Company K. Hooks #1 well (OGB #308) well in southwest

Butler County at a depth of 110 ft (254 ft MSL) and was 130 ft thick. It was described in the

subsurface in southeast Alabama by Smith (2001) as predominantly thick sands and thinner sand

units interbedded with thin sandy limestones, sandy clays, and clays. The Tallahatta Formation

in only present in parts of extreme southern Butler County and may provide limited quantities of

water for domestic or agricultural use.

LISBON FORMATION

The Lisbon Formation crops out from central Henry County in southeast Alabama,

through extreme northern Covington County, extreme southern Butler County, and northern

Conecuh County in south-central Alabama, and grades into the Gosport Sand/Lisbon Formation

undifferentiated in southern Choctaw County in the southwest part of the state. Smith (2001)

reported that in the subsurface the Lisbon Formation is 60 to 80 ft thick in central Covington

County and is composed of sand; greenish-gray to yellowish-gray, sparingly glauconitic, silty,

and fine- to medium-grained and limestone; light-gray, quartzose sandy, highly fossiliferous,

frequently vugular, highly porous and permeable. The Lisbon Formation in only present in parts

of extreme southern Butler County in outcrop is not a viable aquifer in the county.

HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Aquifers are parts of formal geologic units that are capable of storing and transmitting

useful quantities of groundwater. Geologic strata or beds in the subsurface that contain the

highest percentages of sand and/or limestone and conversely the lowest percentages of silt and

clay are most likely to contain economic quantities of water. Groundwater in these strata is

contained in intergranular pore spaces (storage) and has the critically important property of

interconnectedness of the porosity (permeability) to allow water to flow through the sediments to

wellbores (transmissivity). Thus, locating porous and permeable sand and limestone beds within

geologic formations and determining where they are thickest are important factors in predicting

which geographic areas and geologic units have the greatest potential for containing and

subsequently producing economic quantities of groundwater.15

Eighteen geologic units in the Cretaceous and Tertiary Systems, varying in age from

about 135 to 40 million years, underlie Butler County. However, only nine of these have

hydrogeologic characteristics that define them as aquifers in Butler County and, of these, only

one (Ripley Formation) is a proven major aquifer capable of producing adequate quantities of

water for sustainable public, industrial, or irrigation water supply. The Clayton Formation may

have potential for future development, but is currently unproven. The Gordo and Eutaw

Formations, Salt Mountain Limestone, and Nanafalia and Hatchetigbee Formations are minor

aquifers due to limiting hydrogeologic characteristics, limited geographic extent, or questionable

water quality, and have limited water source development potential.

WELL DEPTH

Well depth is generally constrained by limiting factors such as the cost associated with

drilling wells and the quantity and quality of water required by the well supply. Well

construction costs are directly related to well depth. Therefore, knowledge of well depths in

particular areas can help reduce unnecessary construction costs. Depths of wells constructed in a

particular aquifer generally correlate with the dip of the geologic formation, so that depths

increase as the distance from the formation outcrop increases. The depth of a well is also

important as related to the quantity and quality of water. Wells may need to be constructed at

depths sufficient to provide adequate water quantity and quality, which relates to the intended

use of the well.

DEPTH TO WATER

Depth to water data are necessary to produce potentiometric surface maps from which

aquifer dynamics such as hydraulic head and gradient can be determined. When subtracted from

the well head elevation, depth to water yields a water level elevation (hydraulic head). The

surface created by mapping the hydraulic head is the potentiometric surface (discussed

separately). Depth to water measured in wells constructed in aquifers of interest supplies

valuable information to guide plans for construction of future wells. Pump size, pump setting

depths, and cost to lift water to the land surface are important issues that depend on depth to

water. With these data, important decisions can be made on economic feasibility and practicality

of a future well.

Depth to water values for selected wells constructed in the Ripley and Clayton aquifers,

were collected from wells with a chalked steel tape, or in some cases, retrieved from the original

16

driller’s log or public water supplier measurements. Water levels and well head elevations were

recorded along with GPS coordinates to accurately place well locations on project plates. The

water levels were then added to the plates and contoured where possible to show known and

interpolated depth to water within the assessment area.

PUMPING RATES

Pumping rates are influenced by well performance characteristics and aquifer hydraulic

properties such as permeability and transmissivity. Specific yield (discussed separately) can be

determined by dividing the pumping rate by the amount of drawdown. Pumping rates and yields

are useful in determining the capability of an aquifer to produce a sustained quantity of water and

avoiding excessive pumping. Effects of excessive pumping (depletion) include well failure,

increased pumping costs, land subsidence and possibly reduction of water in lakes and streams.

Well pumping rates for the Ripley and Clayton aquifers were collected from original

drillers log records and pumping tests. Pumping rates were normalized by casing size and

contoured to depict known and interpolated rates in the assessment area.

SPECIFIC CAPACITY

Well discharge is largely related to aquifer characteristics, but it is also a function of the

mechanical aspects of wells and the required flow rate to meet the needs of the users. Pumping

rates therefore should not be considered the maximum yield of an aquifer at a given location.

Water level and pumping rate data commonly are recorded as drawdown measured during a few

hours of pumping at a specific rate or in some stepped progression of rates during a pumping

test. From these data specific capacity can be calculated and is expressed as gallons per minute

per foot of drawdown (gpm/ft).

Specific capacity data along with estimates of total dynamic head are useful in well

design, wherein pump head-capacity curves can be combined with specific capacity curves to

determine scenarios for well discharge rates (Driscoll, 1986). Specific capacity, though related in

part to well construction and pump test factors, is also a general indicator of aquifer

transmissivity, and empirical mathematical relationships and statistical measures have been

developed for aquifers elsewhere to assist in groundwater development programs and well design

(Robertson, 1963; Theis, 1963; Walton and Neill, 1963; Bradbury and Rothschild, 1985;

Driscoll, 1986; Mace, 1997). Larger populations in urban areas require more water than rural

17

areas, which is shown in specific capacity data where high capacity wells are concentrated

around population centers. Fewer, more widely spaced, high capacity wells are constructed in

rural areas and are used for rural water utilities, agriculture, and industry. In these cases, specific

capacity maps may provide inaccurate regional depictions of aquifer quality and therefore should

be evaluated with other aquifer data to make accurate judgments of aquifer producibility.

Specific capacities were calculated for selected wells constructed in the Ripley and

Clayton aquifers in the assessment area, normalized by casing size, and contoured to depict the

geographic distribution and magnitude of specific capacity values.

NET POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVE INTERVALS

Delineation of porous and permeable zones and the determination of their thicknesses in

this study relied upon the use of geophysical well logs with the aid of drillers’ logs and sample

descriptions. Because geophysical well logs have only been acquired in a portion of the water

wells and oil and gas test holes drilled in the area, the analyses and interpretations presented here

do not constitute a comprehensive study of all wells. Continuous recordings of measurements of

the natural gamma radiation (gamma ray logs) of the subsurface sediments, coupled with

resistivity and spontaneous potential (SP) logs, were the principal means of determining the

likely presence and thicknesses of quartz sand and limestone intervals in formations penetrated

by boreholes. Gamma ray logs are not affected by formation water salinity, whereas resistivity

and spontaneous potential logs are electrical measurements of the formation sediments and their

contained water. Typically not recorded in water well test holes, due to costs and other

considerations, are porosity measuring logging devices. These tools, as well as numerous other

types of logs, have been utilized for years in the oil and gas exploration industry to help

determine porous and permeable beds. This study presents results of a method commonly used in

oil and gas exploration called “net sand mapping” whereby each gamma ray log is calibrated as a

measure of the percent sand and/or limestone. For the purposes of this water source assessment,

summations of the thickness of sand and permeable limestone recorded as the “net potential

productive interval” (NPPI) for each well that penetrated and logged each potential aquifer were

determined. Thicknesses of the NPPI were plotted on maps and the values were contoured. Data

for this assessment were limited to the net thickness in which the percentage of “clean” aquifer

matrix was analyzed to be greater than 75 percent for the logged interval. Limiting the net

thicknesses to this high percentage of “clean” aquifer matrix (less than 25 percent clay or silt-

18

sized, or shaly limestone materials) provides optimum analysis of the highest quality aquifer (or

potential productive intervals). It should be noted that maps depicting NPPI thicknesses do not

always coincide with thicknesses of the geologic formations. For example, it is not uncommon

for a geologic formation to thicken southward in the study area, while the net sand/limestone

content thins. Depositional environments, sediment supply, and post-depositional geologic

events determine the thicknesses of the geologic units and affect other characteristics such as

porosity and permeability. It should also be stressed that whereas locating areas of thick NPPIs

does increase the probability of finding usable aquifers, it does not guarantee that desired

quantities of groundwater with desired water quality can be obtained. Resistivity logs generally

show higher resistivity values in cleaner sand and limestone intervals where fresh water is

present. Spontaneous potential logs can be helpful as well, especially in determining bed

boundaries. Use of resistivity and SP logs complements the aquifer quality and thickness

determinations, and, though less definitive, they can be used in those wells in which gamma ray

logs were not acquired to give a general estimate of net aquifer thickness. Data generated from

NPPI assessments commonly indicate limits of water production in an evaluated aquifer as a

combination of net aquifer thickness and water-quality (salinity) estimation from geophysical

logs. However, due to the low resistivity character of Cretaceous aquifers in southeast and south-

central Alabama, determinations of salinity from resistivity logs is difficult in these formations.

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACES AND GROUNDWATER LEVEL IMPACTS

A potentiometric water level is the elevation to which water rises in a properly

constructed well that penetrates a confined aquifer (fig. 5). The potentiometric surface is an

imaginary surface representing the confined pressure (hydrostatic head) throughout all or part of

a confined aquifer. This surface is helpful in determining directions of groundwater movement,

hydraulic gradients, and depths from which water can be pumped at particular locations (Cook

and others, 2013). When water is removed from the aquifer by pumping or by reductions in

recharge, the potentiometric surface will fluctuate accordingly (drawdown/production or climatic

impact) (fig. 5). The difference between pre-pumping static water levels and partially recovered

water levels affected by pumping is termed residual drawdown (Driscoll, 1986). It is important to

note that as long as the potentiometric surface remains above the stratigraphic top of the aquifer,

the aquifer media remains saturated so the declining surface only represents a decline in

hydrostatic pressure. If the water level declines below the stratigraphic top of the aquifer, it

19

becomes unconfined, possibly causing irreversible formation damage. Presently, no known water

levels in southeast Alabama are in danger of declining below the stratigraphic top of any aquifer.

Therefore, potentiometric surfaces and residual drawdown values provide important information

to determine the effects of water production, strategies for water source protection, and future

water availability (Cook and others, 2013).

Groundwater levels and production impacts were evaluated using three maps prepared for

each aquifer. Initial static water levels (depth to groundwater at or near the time of well

construction) were obtained from well and drillers logs. Water levels were adjusted for mean sea

level elevation, plotted according to location, and contoured to create an initial static

potentiometric surface map. Evaluation of initial static groundwater levels enables understanding

of groundwater conditions prior to or in early stages of pumping.

20

Figure 5.—Diagram depicting drawdown and potentiometric surfaces prior to and after pumping in a confined aquifer (modified from fetter, 1994).

Due to the temporal progression of aquifer development an intermediate potentiometric

surface map was constructed for the Ripley aquifer to show development and production impacts

up to 1996.

A current potentiometric surface map was prepared using current water levels from all

available wells in the project area for the Ripley and Clayton aquifers. Wells were identified

from GSA well files and Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) list of

public water supply systems. Current depth to groundwater measurements were made using steel

tape or air line measurement devices, the water levels were adjusted for mean sea level elevation,

plotted according to location, and contoured to create a current potentiometric surface map.

Evaluation of current groundwater levels enables understanding of current groundwater

conditions and calculations of current groundwater storage volumes.

Comparing initial static groundwater levels with current levels enables the calculation of

aquifer drawdown, and characterization of production and/or climactic impacts and changes in

groundwater yield. Impacted areas with adequately spaced wells have isolated water level

impacts related to individual wells. Areas with closely spaced wells create “cones of depression”

where individual well impact areas coalesce to form relatively large potentiometric surface

impacts that may cover tens of square miles. Impact assessments are essential to understand the

geographic extent of impact areas and the potential for additional, future development of

groundwater from specific aquifers and locales.

HYDROGRAPHS AND AQUIFER DECLINE CURVES

Groundwater levels fluctuate almost continuously in response to recharge to and

discharge from aquifers by natural and artificial processes, which can include pumpage from

wells, natural groundwater discharge, recharge from changing rates of precipitation, and

evapotranspiration (DeJarnette and others, 2002). GSA maintains water level files for about 450

wells and springs throughout Alabama. Water levels in most of these wells have been measured

semiannually or annually for more than 15 years with many having water level records of more

than 30 years. Groundwater levels in a select group of these wells were used to construct

hydrographs (graphical illustrations of water level fluctuations over a specified time period).

Wells were selected to illustrate various aquifer drawdown trends and to document temporal and

spatial characteristics of declining groundwater levels in major pumpage centers in southeast

Alabama.

21

Generally, all wells with significant pumping rates will exhibit water level declines due to

the fact that water can be pumped faster than it can move through aquifer material to the well

bore (fig. 5). Most hydrographs will have two regression line frequency signatures. One is a long

wave length related to pumpage or long-term drought. The other is an overprinted short wave

length related to seasonal changes in recharge.

Groundwater levels, measured and recorded throughout the life of a well, can be

displayed on a hydrograph that shows the history of groundwater level fluctuation. Hydrographs

can be used to explain impacts of aquifer confinement, drought, pumpage, and well efficiency.

Regression lines constructed from individual water level measurements collected over many

years describe long-term trends of groundwater fluctuation. In areas where water levels indicate

long-term declines, regression lines are termed “decline curves.” Multiple hydrographs and

decline curves in specific areas and aquifers can be used to evaluate groundwater production

impacts and depressions in potentiometric surfaces, commonly known as “cones of depression,”

to estimate changes in groundwater storage, and to predict future groundwater availability.

HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENTAlthough southeast Alabama has five major and four minor aquifers, stratigraphic facies

and geochemical changes westward across the state cause significant declines in the fresh-water

bearing and transmission characteristics of geologic units. Butler County has only one major

aquifer (Ripley Formation) and one minor aquifer (Clayton Formation) hydrogeologic

assessment focuses on

RIPLEY AQUIFERStratigraphic analyses related to this hydrogeologic assessment indicates that the Cusseta

Member of the Ripley Formation may extend westward through Butler County, beyond its

current terminus stated in previous assessments. However, aquifer characteristics described

below are representative of the Cusseta and upper unnamed members of the Ripley Formation

combined.

WELL DEPTH

Depths of identified wells constructed in the Ripley aquifer vary from less than 300 ft,

southward to more than 1,000 ft. The shallowest identified well is 280 ft, near the Lowndes

County line in northeast Butler County, and the deepest is 1,081 ft at Georgiana in south-central

Butler County.

22

DEPTH TO WATER

Depth to water increases gradationally downgradient (south-southwest) at about 25 ft/mi

from about 100 ft in northern Butler County to more than 300 ft in the southern part of the

county (plate 7). Depth to water is affected by drawdown throughout the central part of the

county from Greenville to Georgiana (plate 7).

PUMPING RATES

Pumping rates were examined from selected area public supply wells as well as private

supply and irrigation wells. Pumping rates were normalized with respect to well screen diameter

to provide a better comparison from well to well. Normalized pumping rates vary from 1.25

gallons per inch of screen diameter (g/in) in well B-3-1, a private water supply well in

northeastern Butler County to 102.5 g/in in Georgiana 2 well, a public water supply well in the

south-central part of the county (plate 8).

SPECIFIC CAPACITY

Plate 9 shows normalized specific capacities for wells constructed in the Ripley/Cusseta

aquifer in Butler County. Specific capacities were normalized with respect to well screen

diameter to provide a better comparison from well to well. Normalized specific capacities vary

from .08 gallons per foot of drawdown per inch of screen (g/ft/in) in well B-16-2, a private water

supply well in northeastern Butler County, to 3.2 g/ft/in for well Greenville 5. No discernable

trend is seen in the data, which is probably due to factors related to well construction.

NET POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVE INTERVALS AND DOWNGRADIENT LIMIT OF FRESH WATER

Sand beds of the Cretaceous Ripley Formation and its locally present Cusseta Sand

Member form the major aquifer in the assessment area. The thickest NPPI (175-200 ft) area of

the Ripley/Cusseta aquifer extends from eastern Crenshaw County across central Butler County

and into northern Conecuh County and eastern Monroe County (plate 10). Well L-10-1

(Greenville Water Works and Sewer Board well no. 6) had the thickest NPPI in Butler County

(196 ft). From well L-10-1, the NPPI thins northward towards the Ripley outcrop at a rate of

about 13 ft/mi and thins southward to less than 100 ft in northern Covington County and central

Conecuh County (plate 10). The downgradient limit of freshwater occurrence extends from

southernmost Crenshaw County across northern Covington County and central Conecuh County

(plate 10). Therefore, water in the Ripley aquifer throughout Butler County is fresh water.

23

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACES AND GROUNDWATER LEVEL IMPACTS

Evaluations of water levels for three time intervals were needed to show the progression

of production impacts from the Ripley aquifer in Butler County. Greenville wells 1, 2, and 3

were constructed prior to 1961. Initial or earliest recorded water levels from these wells along

with water levels from wells in southeast Alabama were used to show the relatively unimpacted

potentiometric surface. Water levels collected from wells constructed prior to 1996 were used to

show changes to the potentiometric surface since 1961 and recent water levels were used to

construct the current potentiometric surface, which shows current production impacts for the

Ripley aquifer.

PRE-1961 STATIC GROUNDWATER LEVELS

Initial static groundwater levels measured in Greenville wells 1, 2, and 3 and Luverne

well L-5 were used with contours from a previous investigation in southeast Alabama to

construct a pre-1961 potentiometric surface for the Ripley aquifer. Greenville well 1 was

constructed in 1946 and had a significant impact on the 1961 potentiometric surface (plate 11).

The impact area in the Greenville area in 1961 covered about two mi2. The hydraulic gradient for

the Ripley aquifer is about 0.0019 (10 ft/mi). Groundwater flow is southward across Butler

County (plate 11).

PRE-1996 STATIC GROUNDWATER LEVELS

Available water levels for wells constructed in the Ripley aquifer prior to 1996 were used

to construct a potentiometric surface indicative of conditions in 1996. The potentiometric surface

shows that water production impacts occurred in northeastern Butler County south of the town of

Fort Deposit, where maximum drawdown was more than 100 ft, the Greenville area, where

maximum drawdown was more than 100 ft, a single well (Butler 4) impact of more than 100 ft.

southwest of Greenville, the Georgiana area, where maximum drawdown was about 40 ft, and

the vicinity of the towns of Rutledge and Luverne in central Crenshaw County, where maximum

drawdown was more than 50 ft (plate 12). The impact area in the Greenville area in 1996

covered about 35 mi2.

CURRENT STATIC GROUNDWATER LEVELS

Current static groundwater levels were collected for available wells constructed in the

Ripley aquifer. The water levels were used to construct a potentiometric surface indicative of

current conditions. When compared to 1996 conditions, impact areas are similar with the

24

exception of expansion of the impact area south of Greenville, due to additional well

construction (plates 12, 13). However, drawdown in individual wells has changed significantly.

Drawdowns in Greenville wells 2 and 4 and Georgiana wells 1 and 2 have increased, while

Butler County Water Authority wells 1, 3, and 4 have partially recovered (plates 12, 13).

Current unimpacted potentiometric groundwater level elevations in the Ripley aquifer

vary from 279 ft MSL near the recharge area in northeastern Butler County to 152 ft MSL at

Georgiana in south-central Butler County (plate 13). The largest drawdown occurs in the Butler

3 well, which has a current water level elevation of about 93 ft MSL (plate 13).

HYDROGRAPHS AND AQUIFER DECLINE CURVES

The Ripley Formation is the major water supply source for Butler County. Wells

constructed in the Ripley aquifer were selected based on the quantity and quality of information

available to generate long-term hydrographs that show varying conditions related to groundwater

production, drought, and seasonal fluctuations that impact the Ripley aquifer. Wells selected

include five public water supply wells, all operated by the city of Greenville. The oldest

available water levels for city of Greenville wells number 1, 2, and 3 were 1964, 1956, and 1964

respectively. No water levels were available for well number 1 between 1964 and 1998, however

the rate of water level decline for that period was about two feet per year (ft/yr) (fig. 6). The

water level recovered about 14 feet from 1998 to 1999 but declined again from 1999 to 2003 at a

rate of 2.3 ft/yr (fig. 6). The water level recovered more than 50 ft during early 2003, possibly

the result of being shut down for well maintenance, but declined back to its pre-2003 level in

mid-2004 (fig. 6). Between 2004 and 2012, well number 1 recovered at a rate of 2.8 ft/yr. Since

late 2012, the rate of recovery increased to 12.5 ft/yr, most likely the result of additional water

supply development and normal precipitation (fig. 6).

25

The water level in Greenville well number 2 declined at a rate of 2.7 ft/yr between 1956

and 1996 (fig. 7). Drawdown during that period was more than 100 ft. Between 1996 and 2002

the water level recovered at a rate of 0.8 ft/yr (fig. 7). As with well number 1, the water level in

well number 2 recovered more than 80 ft from early 2003 to late 2004 (fig. 7). Since 2004, the

water level has recovered at a rate of about 2 ft/yr (fig. 7).

The water level in Greenville well number 3 declined 100 ft (a rate of 2.7 ft/yr) between

1964 and 2001 (fig. 8). Between 2001 and 2012 the rate of decline slowed to about one ft/yr,

with the exception of late 2004 and early 2005, when the water level declined about 40 ft (fig. 8).

Since 2012 the water levels has recovered at a rate of about 12 ft/yr (fig. 8).

The water level in Greenville well number 4 declined about 85 ft between 1972 and 1996

(a rate of about 3.5 ft/yr) (fig. 9). The water level recovered at a rate of about 1.3 ft/yr from 1996

to 2004, was stable from 2004 to 2012, and recovered about 40 ft from mid-2012 to mid-2013

(fig. 9). However, since mid-2013 the water level has declined about 20 ft (fig. 9).

26

Figure 6.—Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 1.

Greenville well number 5 has the most widely fluctuating water level of those evaluated,

possibly in response to drought and variable pumping (fig. 10). The water level was relatively

stable from mid-2000 to early 2002, but declined more than 40 ft from early 2002 to early 2003,

before recovering to pre decline levels (fig. 10). From mid-2003 to 2007 the water level declined

at a rate of about 3.3 ft/yr, but has recovered at a rate of about 2.1 ft/yr since 2007 (fig. 10).

CLAYTON AQUIFERStratigraphic analyses and hydrogeologic data related to this hydrogeologic assessment

indicates that the Clayton Formation is a widely developed aquifer throughout the assessment

area but is classified as a minor aquifer due to relatively few high capacity wells and potential

water quality issues primarily related to the occurrence of iron. Aquifer and well characteristics

described below are representative of the Clayton aquifer and provide information about current

conditions and potential future aquifer development.

27

Figure 7.—Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 2.

28

Figure 8.—Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 3.

Figure 9.—Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 4.

WELL DEPTH

Depths of identified wells constructed in the Ripley aquifer vary from less than 100 ft, near the

outcrop, southward to about 700 ft, in southern Butler County. The shallowest identified well is

36 ft, near the updip limit in northern Bullock County, and the deepest is 700 ft, south of

Georgiana.

DEPTH TO WATER

Depth to water increases gradationally downgradient (south-southwest) in northern Butler

County at about 10 ft/mi from about 25 ft nearest to the recharge area to more than 75 ft

southwest of Greenville (plate 14). Depth to water is affected by drawdown in individual wells

but no regional drawdown trends occur in the Clayton aquifer in the assessment area (plate 14).

PUMPING RATES

Pumping rates were examined from selected area public supply wells as well as private

supply and irrigation wells. Pumping rates were normalized with respect to well screen diameter

to provide a better comparison from well to well. Normalized pumping rates vary from 1.25 g/in

29

Figure 10.—Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Greenville well no. 5.

to 5.0 g/in in well G-28-1, a private water supply well in the west-central part of the county

(plate 15). Currently, all known Clayton aquifer wells in Butler County are small diameter with

no pumping rates greater than 20 gpm. No public water supply wells are constructed in the

Clayton aquifer in Butler County.

SPECIFIC CAPACITY

Plate 16 shows normalized specific capacities for wells constructed in the Clayton aquifer

in Butler County. Specific capacities were normalized with respect to well screen diameter to

provide a better comparison from well to well. Normalized specific capacities vary from 0.12

g/ft/in in well C-27-1, a private water supply well in north-central Butler County, to 0.75 g/ft/in

for well F-15-1, a private supply well in the northwestern part of the county. No discernable

trend is seen in the data, which is probably due to factors related to well construction.

NET POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVE INTERVALS AND DOWNGRADIENT LIMIT OF FRESH WATER

Sand and limestone beds of the Tertiary Clayton Formation form a widely developed but

minor aquifer in the assessment area. The minor aquifer designation is due to a lack of high

capacity wells and relatively small production rates from small diameter wells in Butler County.

The thickest NPPI (greater than 125 ft) forms an east-west trending linear area extending from

Elba in west-central Coffee County through southern Crenshaw and Butler Counties (plate 17).

The thick NPPI area in Butler County is about 15 miles wide from Bolling in the central part of

the county to just north of McKenzie in the extreme southern part of the county (plate 17). Well

Q-27-4 (Georgiana Water Works and Sewer Board well no. 6) had the thickest Clayton NPPI in

Butler County (196 ft). The NPPI thins northward towards the Clayton outcrop at a rate of about

6 ft/mi to less than 50 ft in northern Butler County (plate 17). The downgradient limit of

freshwater occurrence extends across central Covington and Conecuh Counties. Therefore, water

in the Clayton aquifer in all of Butler County is fresh water (plate 17).

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACES AND GROUNDWATER LEVEL IMPACTS

Evaluations of potentiometric surfaces for the Clayton aquifer in Butler County were

evaluated for initial water levels at the time of well construction and for current water levels

measured recently. The resulting comparison of historic and current potentiometric surfaces

provides information about the progression of production or climate impacts on the Clayton

aquifer in the assessment area. Comparison of the two potentiometric surfaces shows that,

although there are a number of wells constructed in the Clayton aquifer in Butler County, there is 30

essentially no water level impact from production (plates 18, 19). The hydraulic gradient for the

Clayton aquifer from historic, initial water levels is about 0.0026 (14 ft/mi). Groundwater flow is

southwestward across Butler County (plate 18). The hydraulic gradient for the Clayton aquifer

from current water levels is about 0.0024 (13 ft/mi). Groundwater flow is south-southwestward

across Butler County (plate 19).

HYDROGRAPHS AND AQUIFER DECLINE CURVES

Long-term water level data is limited for wells constructed in the Clayton aquifer in

Butler County. The GSA GAP maintains long-term water levels (since 1983) for one Clayton

well (K-2) in east-central Butler County. The hydrograph constructed from these data show that

the water level fluctuates seasonally each year, on average, about five ft between 1983 and 1989

(fig. 11). After 1989, the frequency of water level fluctuations became multi-year and increased

to more than 10 ft, on average, most likely in response to drought and more variable precipitation

(fig. 11).

31

32

Figure 11.—Hydrograph showing long-term water levels in Clayton aquifer well K-2.

WELL CAPTURE ZONES

33

A capture zone is the area of groundwater contribution to a water well. Knowledge of

capture zones is used to construct wells with proper spacing and production rates to avoid over

production and excessive aquifer drawdown. Also, it is important to know the area of

groundwater contribution to a well so that contaminant sources may be monitored and controlled.

Capture zone analysis provides critical information for groundwater source development and

infrastructure planning. Capture zones may be used to determine the likelihood of interference

of wells constructed in the same aquifer or for determining adequate well spacing in areas where

groundwater development is occurring or may occur in the future. Capture zones were modeled

for 120 wells constructed in eight major aquifers in southeast and south-central Alabama.

Hydrologic data were collected from GSA well files, open-file reports, and field assessments.

The GPTRAC program requires well location, aquifer confinability, transmissivity, hydraulic

gradient, flow direction, the quantity of water production, production time, and aquifer thickness.

The hydraulic gradient (head loss per unit length of water movement) is a particularly important

factor in groundwater production and in the ability to model groundwater flow and the effects of

water production. Groundwater flow rates are directly proportional to the hydraulic gradient, so

that a 50% increase in the hydraulic gradient will result in a 50% increase in the rate of water

flow in a given aquifer sand (Driscoll, 1986). Information required for implementation of the

GPTRAC program was obtained from GSA well files and GSA open file wellhead protection

reports. The shape of each modeled capture zone is based on the hydrologic conditions in the

aquifer and average water production rates. Most capture zones are asymmetrically shaped and

are characterized by a linear component oriented in the direction of groundwater flow. Optimum

well spacing for wells constructed in major aquifers in the project area is given in table 1.

GROUNDWATER EXPLORATION AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER SOURCE DEVELOPMENT

34

One of the primary purposes of this GSA Groundwater Assessment Program (GAP)

investigation was to recommend sites for test well drilling in the BCWC service area. Test well

locations were developed from interpretation of field assessments and available hydrogeologic

data. Possible test well construction areas were determined after discussions with BCWC

management and consultants to assure that the needs and requirements of BCWC were addressed

in the location process. General locations are given in this report. However, specific locations

will be determined by BCWC based on land availability and engineering requirements. Three

initial requirements for test well locations were areas with optimum NPPIs, areas with adequate

separation from other wells constructed in the same aquifer or other recommended test well

areas, and areas that would permit the most efficient and economical water production while

providing additional water supplies to areas with the most critical need. Based on discussions

with BCWC management and consultants, areas that satisfy, hydrogeologic, engineering, and

future water demand requirements for additional Ripley aquifer development are east of the city

of Greenville along Butler County Road 50 and secondarily, along Butler County Road 10,

southeast of the city of Greenville.

Areas for Ripley aquifer test well drilling, recommended by the GSA GAP.

35

Table 1.—Well capture zones and optimum well spacing for south Alabama aquifers.

AquiferRange of residual

drawdown (feet)

Average capture zone area

(mi2)

Optimum well spacing(miles)

Along strike of hydraulic gradient direction

Up or down gradient direction

Gordo 0-154 1.9 1.5 2.0

Ripley 0-149 2.6 1.0 2.5

Clayton 0-204 2.0 1.0 2.0

Nanafalia 0-189 1.2 1.0 2.0

Tallahatta 1-119 0.5 1.0 1.5

Tuscahoma 31-119 3.5 1.5 2.5

Lisbon 0-33 0.6 1.0 1.0

Crystal River 0-27 1.0 1.0 1.0

Area 1 is along Butler County Road 50, east of the Persimmon Creek road crossing.

The NPPI thickness for test wells along County Road 50 varies from about 80 to 120

ft. Optimum well spacing in an east-west direction is about 1 mile. If test well

construction is successful, as many as eight production wells in the Ripley aquifer

could be constructed along County Road 50. Plate 5 shows the configuration

(elevation MSL) of the top of the Ripley Formation. Well depths to penetrate the

entire Ripley/Cusetta aquifer would vary from about -200 ft MSL on the west end of

the recommended area to about -100 ft on the east end of the area near the Crenshaw

County line.

Area 2 is along Alabama State Highway 10 from the County Road 50 intersection

southeastward to the Crenshaw County line. Along the western part of the area, care

would need to be taken so that any wells along County Road 50 would not be within

2 miles of any wells constructed along State Highway 10. The NPPI thickness

increases southward from County Road 50 so that test wells constructed along state

Highway 10 would penetrate NPPIs from 90 ft thick at the western end of the area to

more than 175 ft thick on the eastern end of the area. If test well construction is

successful, as many as eight production wells could be constructed along State

Highway 10. Well depths would be consistently about -200 ft MSL throughout

recommended area 2.

Based on hydrogeologic data, the Clayton aquifer may be capable of yielding

economic quantities of water in Butler County. Currently, the aquifer is only

developed for private and agricultural water supplies. NPPI mapping indicates that

the Clayton aquifer productive interval varies from about 75 ft to more than 150 ft

and may be viable as a public water supply source throughout Butler County from

State Highway 10 southward. Plate 6 shows the configuration of the top of the

Clayton Formation. Well depths to evaluate the entire Clayton aquifer would be from

75 ft MSL along State Highway 10 to -100 ft MSL in extreme south Butler County.

However, questions have arisen as to the quality of water (excessive iron) produced

from the Clayton aquifer in Butler County. Currently, the GSA GAP has no analytical

data to determine the quality of Clayton water in Butler County. However,

geochemical characteristics related to depth, pH, and oxidation/reduction potential

36

would suggest that dissolved iron would not be present in Clayton water in southern

Butler County. As soon as a suitable Clayton well is located in the Greenville area,

the GSA GAP will collect water samples and perform a comprehensive geochemical

assessment to determine the overall quality of water from the Clayton aquifer in

central Butler County.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

All public-water supplies in Butler County are produced from groundwater

sources. Most of this water is produced from the Ripley aquifer. Due to increasing population

and water demands and significant water level declines in the Ripley aquifer, the Butler County

Water Authority and Greenville water Works & Sewer Board joined to form the Butler County

Water Cooperative (BCWC) to maximize resources to develop future water sources. The purpose

of this project was to generate data that can be used by the BCWC to make informed decisions

related to development of new groundwater sources in the County.

The geology of the area of investigation is composed of coastal plain sediments overlying

piedmont crystalline rocks. Coastal plain sediments vary in age from lower Cretaceous to middle

Eocene and are composed of interbedded sand, clay, and limestone deposited in environments

that include marine, marginal marine, and fluvial. These sediments thicken southwestward

toward the center of the Gulf of Mexico basin from about 2,500 ft in central Lowndes County to

more than 8,000 ft in northern Covington County. Detailed descriptions of each geologic unit

underlying Butler County are included in the report text. However, it is concluded that the

Ripley/Cusetta and Clayton aquifers are the only units with viable potential for future public

water supply development. Therefore, the comprehensive hydrogeologic assessment only

includes the Ripley/Cusetta and Clayton aquifers. Specific assessment categories include well

depths, depth to water, pumping rates, specific capacities, NPPI thicknesses, potentiometric

surfaces, water level drawdowns, optimum well spacing, and recommendations for test well

drilling.

Depths of identified wells constructed in the Ripley aquifer vary from less than 300 ft,

southward to more than 1,000 ft. The shallowest identified well is 280 ft, near the Lowndes

County line in northeast Butler County, and the deepest is 1,081 ft at Georgiana in south-central

Butler County. Depth to water increases gradationally downgradient (south-southwest) at about

25 ft/mi from about 100 ft in northern Butler County to more than 300 ft in the southern part of

37

the county. Normalized pumping rates vary from 1.25 gallons per inch of screen diameter (g/in)

in well B-3-1, a private water supply well in northeastern Butler County to 102.5 g/in in

Georgiana 2 well, a public water supply well in the south-central part of the county. Normalized

specific capacities vary from .08 gallons per foot of drawdown per inch of screen (g/ft/in) in well

B-16-2, a private water supply well in northeastern Butler County, to 3.2 g/ft/in for well

Greenville 5. No discernable trend is seen in the data, which is probably due to factors related to

well construction.

The thickest NPPI (175-200 ft) area of the Ripley/Cusseta aquifer extends from eastern

Crenshaw County across central Butler County and into northern Conecuh County and eastern

Monroe County. Well L-10-1 (Greenville Water Works and Sewer Board well no. 6) had the

thickest NPPI in Butler County (196 ft). From well L-10-1, the NPPI thins northward towards

the Ripley outcrop at a rate of about 13 ft/mi and thins southward to less than 100 ft in northern

Covington County and central Conecuh County. Chlorides in excess of drinking water standards

in the Ripley/Cusetta aquifer does not occur in Butler County.

Evaluations of water levels for three time intervals (pre-1961, pre-1996, and current)

were needed to show the progression of production impacts from the Ripley aquifer in Butler

County. Greenville well 1 was constructed in 1946 and had a significant impact on the 1961

potentiometric surface. The impact area in the Greenville area in 1961 covered about two mi2.

The hydraulic gradient for the Ripley aquifer is about 0.0019 (10 ft/mi) and groundwater flow is

southward across Butler County.

The pre-1996 potentiometric surface shows that water production impacts occurred in

northeastern Butler County south of the town of Fort Deposit, where maximum drawdown was

more than 100 ft, the Greenville area, where maximum drawdown was more than 100 ft, a single

well (Butler 4) impact of more than 100 ft. southwest of Greenville, the Georgiana area, where

maximum drawdown was about 40 ft. The impact area in the Greenville area in 1996 covered

about 35 mi2.

When compared to 1996 conditions, current production impact areas are similar with the

exception of expansion of the impact area south of Greenville, due to additional well

construction. However, drawdown in individual wells has changed significantly. Drawdowns in

Greenville wells 2 and 4 and Georgiana wells 1 and 2 have increased, while Butler County Water

Authority wells 1, 3, and 4 have partially recovered.

38

Hydrographs constructed for key Ripley/Cusetta wells show that the oldest available

water levels for city of Greenville wells number 1, 2, and 3 were 1964, 1956, and 1964

respectively. The rate of water level decline for Greenville well no. 1 between 1964 and 1998

was about two ft/yr. Between 2004 and 2012, well number 1 recovered at a rate of 2.8 ft/yr.

Since late 2012, the rate of recovery increased to 12.5 ft/yr, most likely the result of additional

water supply development and normal precipitation.

The water level in Greenville well number 2 declined at a rate of 2.7 ft/yr between 1956

and 1996. Drawdown during that period was more than 100 ft. Between 1996 and 2002 the water

level recovered at a rate of 0.8 ft/yr. As with well number 1, the water level in well number 2

recovered more than 80 ft from early 2003 to late 2004. Since 2004, the water level has

recovered at a rate of about 2 ft/yr.

The water level in Greenville well number 3 declined 100 ft (a rate of 2.7 ft/yr) between

1964 and 2001. Between 2001 and 2012 the rate of decline slowed to about one ft/yr. Since 2012

the water levels has recovered at a rate of about 12 ft/yr.

The water level in Greenville well number 4 declined about 85 ft between 1972 and 1996

(a rate of about 3.5 ft/yr). The water level recovered at a rate of about 1.3 ft/yr from 1996 to

2004, was stable from 2004 to 2012, and recovered about 40 ft from mid-2012 to mid-2013.

However, since mid-2013 the water level has declined about 20 ft.

Greenville well number 5 has the most widely fluctuating water level of those evaluated,

possibly in response to drought and variable pumping rates. The water level was relatively stable

from mid-2000 to early 2002, but declined more than 40 ft from early 2002 to early 2003, before

recovering to pre decline levels. From mid-2003 to 2007 the water level declined at a rate of

about 3.3 ft/yr, but has recovered at a rate of about 2.1 ft/yr since 2007.

Stratigraphic analyses and hydrogeologic data related to this hydrogeologic assessment

indicates that the Clayton Formation is a widely developed aquifer throughout the assessment

area but is classified as a minor aquifer due to relatively few high capacity wells and potential

water quality issues primarily related to the occurrence of iron.

Depths of identified wells constructed in the Ripley aquifer vary from less than 100 ft,

near the outcrop, southward to about 700 ft, in southern Butler County. The shallowest identified

well is 36 ft, near the updip limit in northern Bullock County, and the deepest is 700 ft, south of

Georgiana.

39

Depth to water increases gradationally downgradient (south-southwest) in northern Butler

County at about 10 ft/mi from about 25 ft nearest to the recharge area to more than 75 ft

southwest of Greenville.

Normalized pumping rates vary from 1.25 g/in to 5.0 g/in in well G-28-1, a private water

supply well in the west-central part of the county. Currently, all known Clayton aquifer wells in

Butler County are small diameter with no pumping rates greater than 20 gpm. No public water

supply wells are constructed in the Clayton aquifer in Butler County.

Normalized specific capacities vary from 0.12 g/ft/in in well C-27-1, a private water

supply well in north-central Butler County, to 0.75 g/ft/in for well F-15-1, a private supply well

in the northwestern part of the county.

Sand and limestone beds of the Tertiary Clayton Formation form a widely developed but

minor aquifer in the assessment area. The minor aquifer designation is due to a lack of high

capacity wells and relatively small production rates from small diameter wells in Butler County.

The thickest NPPI (greater than 125 ft) forms an east-west trending linear area extending from

Elba in west-central Coffee County through southern Crenshaw and Butler Counties. The thick

NPPI area in Butler County is about 15 miles wide from Bolling in the central part of the county

to just north of McKenzie in the extreme southern part of the county. Well Q-27-4 (Georgiana

Water Works and Sewer Board well no. 6) had the thickest Clayton NPPI in Butler County (196

ft). The NPPI thins northward towards the Clayton outcrop at a rate of about 6 ft/mi to less than

50 ft in northern Butler County. The downgradient limit of freshwater occurrence extends across

central Covington and Conecuh Counties. Therefore, water in the Clayton aquifer in all of Butler

County is fresh water.

Comparison of the two potentiometric surfaces shows that, although there are a number

of wells constructed in the Clayton aquifer in Butler County, there is essentially no water level

impact from production. The hydraulic gradient for the Clayton aquifer from historic, initial

water levels is about 0.0026 (14 ft/mi). Groundwater flow is southwestward across Butler

County. The hydraulic gradient for the Clayton aquifer from current water levels is about 0.0024

(13 ft/mi). Groundwater flow is south-southwestward across Butler County.

A capture zone is the area of groundwater contribution to a water well. Knowledge of

capture zones is used to construct wells with proper spacing and production rates to avoid over

production and excessive aquifer drawdown. Optimum well spacing for the Ripley aquifer is one

40

mile east-west and 2.5 miles north-south. Optimum well spacing for the Clayton aquifer is one

mile east-west and 2.0 miles north-south.

Possible test well construction areas were determined after discussions with BCWC

management and consultants to assure that the needs and requirements of BCWC were addressed

in the location process. Area 1 is recommended for Ripley/Cusetta aquifer test well drilling east

of Greenville along Butler County Road 50 from the Persimmon Creek crossing to the Crenshaw

County line. Area 2 is recommended for Ripley/Cusetta aquifer test well drilling southeast of

Greenville along Alabama State Highway 10 from the County Road 50 intersection to the

Crenshaw County line. Area 3 is for Clayton aquifer test well drilling and includes all of south

Butler County from Alabama State Highway 10 southward to the Covington County line.

However, prior to Clayton aquifer test well drilling, potential water quality issues, primarily

related to iron in the northern part of Area 3 should be addressed.

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, G. I., Butts, C., Stephenson, L. W., Cooke, C. W., 1933, Geology of Alabama,

Geological Survey of Alabama Special Report 14, 97 p.

Bradbury, K. R., and Rothschild, E. R., 1985, A computerized technique for estimating hydraulic

conductivity of aquifers from specific capacity data: Ground Water, v. 23, no. 2, p. 240-

245.

Cook, M. R., 1993, The Eutaw aquifer in Alabama: Alabama Geological Survey Bulletin 156,

105 p.

Cook, M. R., 2002, Alternative water source assessment: An investigation of deep Cretaceous

aquifers in southeast and south-central Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama open file

report, 43 p.

Cook, M. R., Smith, K. M., and Rogers, A. L., 2013, Hydrogeologic characterization and

groundwater source development assessment for the South Bullock County Water

Authority: Geological Survey of Alabama Open-file Report 1309, 26 p.

Davis, M. E., 1987, Stratigraphic and hydrogeologic framework of the Alabama Coastal Plain:

U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Investigations Report 87-4112, 39 p.

Driscoll, F. G., 1986, Groundwater and wells: St. Paul, Minnesota, Johnson Division, 1089 p.

Fetter, C. W., 1994, Applied Hydrogeology: New York, Macmillan College Publishing

Company, Inc., p. 201.

41

Geological Survey of Alabama, 2006, Geologic map of Alabama, Digital Version 1.0 (CD):

Geological Survey of Alabama Special Map 220A.

Maher, J.C., and Applin, E. R., 1968, Correlation of subsurface Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks

along the Eastern Gulf Coast: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Cross

Section Publication 6, p. 11-12.

Mace, R. E., 1997, Determination of transmissivity from specific-capacity tests in a karst aquifer:

Ground Water, v. 35, no. 5, p. 738-742.

Neathery, T. L., Bentley, R. D., Higgins, M. W., Zietz, I., 1976, Preliminary interpretation of

aeromagnetic and aeroradioactivity maps of the Alabama Piedmont, Geological Survey

of Alabama Reprint Series 42, in Geology, v. 4, p. 375-381.

Raymond, D. E., Osborne, W. E., Copeland, C. W., Neathery, T. L., 1988, Alabama

Stratigraphy: Alabama Geological Survey Circular 140, 98 p.

Robertson, C. E., 1963, Well data for water well yield map: Missouri Geological Survey and

Water Resources, 23 p.

Sapp, C. D., and Emplaincourt, Jacques, 1975, Physiographic regions of Alabama: Alabama

Geological Survey Special Map 168.

Smith, C. C., 2001, Implementation assessment for water resources availability, protection, and

utilization for the Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers watersheds: Geological Survey

of Alabama Open-File Report, 148 p.

Smith, C. C., 2009, Lithologic descriptions and geologic assignments of sediments encountered

in Butler County Water Supply District test well no.1, County Highway 50 site, Butler

County, Alabama: Consultants report, 14 p.

Szabo, M. W., Osborne, W. E., Neathery, T. L., and Copeland, C. W., Jr., 1988, Geologic map of

Alabama, southwest sheet (1:250,000): Alabama Geological Survey Special Map 220.

Theis, C. V., 1963, Estimating the transmissivity of a water table aquifer from the specific

capacity of a well: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1536-I, p. 332-336.

Walton, W. C., and Neill, J. C., 1963, Statistical analysis of specific-capacity data for a dolomite

aquifer: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 68, p. 2251-2262.

42

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA420 Hackberry Lane

P.O. Box 869999Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35486-6999

205/349-2852

Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr., State Geologist

A list of the printed publications by the Geological Survey of Alabama can be obtained from the Publications Office (205/247-3636) or through our web site

at http://www.gsa.state.al.us/.

E-mail: publications@gsa.state.al.us

The Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA) makes every effort to collect, provide, and maintain accurate and complete information. However, data acquisition and research are ongoing activities of GSA, and interpretations may be revised as new data are acquired. Therefore, all information made available to the public by GSA should be viewed in that context. Neither the GSA nor any employee thereof makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report. Conclusions drawn or actions taken on the basis of these data and information are the sole responsibility of the user.

As a recipient of Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of the Interior, the GSA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, or disability in its programs or activities. Discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited in federally assisted GSA education programs. If anyone believes that he or she has been discriminated against in any of the GSA’s programs or activities, including its employment practices, the individual may contact the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Serving Alabama since 1848

43