• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Conversion factors
 Title Page
 Letter of transmittal
 Table of Contents
 Acknowledgement
 Introduction and purpose
 Geology
 Water resources
 Evolution of karst terrain
 Water quality
 Potentiometric surface
 Water usage - Mineral resource...
 Land use
 Solid waste disposal
 Summary
 Reference
 Back Matter














Group Title: Special publication ;, no. 33
Title: Environmental geology and hydrogeology of the Gainesville area, Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000114/00001
 Material Information
Title: Environmental geology and hydrogeology of the Gainesville area, Florida
Series Title: Special publication
Physical Description: vii, 70 p. : ill. (some col.), maps (some col.) ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Hoenstine, Ronald W
Lane, Ed ( Edward ), 1935-
Publisher: Published for the Florida Geological Survey by State of Florida, Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Resource Management, Florida Geological Survey
Place of Publication: Tallahassee
Publication Date: 1991
 Subjects
Subject: Groundwater -- Florida -- Gainesville Region   ( lcsh )
Geology -- Florida -- Gainesville Region   ( lcsh )
Karst -- Florida -- Gainesville Region   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 68-70).
Statement of Responsibility: by Ronald W. Hoenstine and Ed Lane.
Funding: Special publication (Florida Geological Survey (1989)) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00000114
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001754278
oclc - 26676285
notis - AJG7267
lccn - 93620302
 Related Items
Other version: Alternate version (PALMM)
PALMM Version

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Conversion factors
        Section
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Letter of transmittal
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    Acknowledgement
        Page vii
    Introduction and purpose
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Geology
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Water resources
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Evolution of karst terrain
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    Water quality
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Potentiometric surface
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    Water usage - Mineral resources
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
    Land use
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
    Solid waste disposal
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
    Summary
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
    Reference
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
    Back Matter
        Back Matter
Full Text





~I;" s

~C~:. "
:


n ::

:Y :~
.j.


'5

r-
;;';


I'
.j7




r'l


..... .... ....

















~-;~lt~oP~




,J.
:- r


;~~~~ ;1




t-
: ~Ll~~r*-

'"~t~2~~ Ui7
P,
I:C
~~i35; :a..--
`"
-
r.
h,'.












STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Tom Gardner, Executive Director



DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Jeremy A. Craft, Director



FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Walter Schmidt, State Geologist and Chief











SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33

ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
OF THE
GAINESVILLE AREA, FLORIDA
By
Ronald W. Hoenstine and Ed Lane












Published for the

FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Tallahassee
1991










DEPARTMENT
OF
NATURAL RESOURCES


LAWTON CHILES
Governor


JIM SMITH
Secretary of State



TOM GALLAGHER
State Treasurer



BETTY CASTOR
Commissioner of Education


BOB BUTTERWORTH
Attorney General



GERALD LEWIS
State Comptroller



BOB CRAWFORD
Commissioner of Agriculture


TOM GARDNER
Executive Director










LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL


FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Tallahassee

June 1991





Governor Lawton Chiles, Chairman
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Tallahassee, Florida 32301





Dear Governor Chiles:


The Florida Geological Survey, Division of Resource Management, Department of Natural
Resources, is publishing as Special Publication No. 33, Environmental Geology and Hydrogeology
of the Gainesville Area, Florida, prepared by staff geologists Ed Lane and Ronald W. Hoenstine. This
report presents data on the geology and hydrology of the Gainesville area, which is a rapidly growing
urban area in Florida. This report is timely because of the growth rate, and the information will be
of significant use to local, county, and state planners, as well as to the private sector. The data will
assist these groups to develop and implement long range plans to effectively manage this growth.




Respectfully,




Walter Schmidt, Ph.D.
State Geologist and Chief
Florida Geological Survey























































Printed for the

Florida Geological Survey

Tallahassee
1991



ISSN 0085-0640






iv












CONTENTS
Page

Acknow ledgem ents .......... ...... .... ........ ..... .................. vii
Introduction and purpose ........................ ..................... 1
Lo c a tio n ..... ............................. ................. ..................... 1
Transportation ................................................................. 1
C lim a te .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. 1
M ap coverage ...................................... ............................. 1
W ell and locality numbering system ................................................ 5
Previous investigations ........................................................... 5
Geology ............................ ...................... .......... ......... 10
G eom orphology ........ ....................................................... 10
Geologic history ............................ ............................. ...... 13
W after reso urces .................. ........ ... ..................................... 17
Hydrologic cycle ..................................... ......................... 17
Surface water ............................................................... 17
Glen Springs .................................................................. 21
Aquifers ...................................................................... 21
Floridan aquifer system ...................................... .................. 21
Intermediate aquifer system ........................ ............. .............. 25
Surficial aquifer system ...................................................... 25
Evolution of karst terrain .......................................................... 25
Chemical weathering of carbonate rocks .......................................... 26
Karst in the Gainesville area .............. ................................. 27
Water quality .................... ..... .................... ............ 34
Potentiometric surface ............. .... .............................. 40
Water usage ............. ...................... ................... ......... 48
Mineral resources .............................................. 48
Clay..................................................... ....... .... ....... 48
Peat...................... ........... ..... ............ ......................... 50
Limestone ...................... .............................................. 50
Undifferentiated resources ............... ...................................... 54
Land use ................. .................................................. 54
Solid W aste D disposal ................................... ............ .............. 62
Summary ...................................... ................... ... 65
References ........................... .. ............. ........................... 68

FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1. Location map .................. .............................................. 2
2. Study area.................................................................... 3
3. Transportation map for Alachua County .......................................... 4
4. Average monthly air temperature at Gainesville .................................. 6
5. Monthly rainfall distribution for Gainesville ....................................... 6
6. Annual rainfall for Gainesville ..................... ............................ 7
7. Topographic map coverage of Alachua County ................................ 8










Page

8. Locality and well numbering system ........................................... 9
9. Geomorphology of Gainesville and Alachua County ................ ........... 11
10. Terraces and shorelines of Gainesville and Alachua County .. ..................... 12
11. Stratigraphic column .......................................................... 14
12. Cross section location map ...................................... ............... 15
13. Cross section A-A' ....................... .... ................................ 16
14. Cross section B-B' ............. ............................................. 16
15. Hydrologic cycle .............................................................. 18
16. Surface water resources of Alachua County ................ .................... 19
17. Generalized cross section showing hydrogeological
features common to the Gainesville area ................ ...................... 22
18. Porosity and permeability of granular material ............................... .. 23
19. Hydrostratigraphic correlation chart ............................................ 24
20. Evolution of karst landscape and underground drainage........................... 27
21. Topographic map of the Gainesville area ........................................ 29
22. Karstified top of Ocala Group limestone ......................................... 31
23. Two sinkholes on the University of Florida campus (photo) ...... .................. 32
24. Block diagram of Alachua County .............................................. 33
25. Paynes Prairie (photo) ...................................... .................... 33
26. Location of Gainesville VISA area .............................................. 38
27. VISA area topography ................................... ...................... 39
28. Potentiometric surface maps of the upper Floridan
aquifer system ................................. ... ............. ..... ...... 41
29. Change in potentiometric surface of the upper
Floridan aquifer system from September 1987 to May 1988 ...................... .. 46
30. Graphs showing relationships between rainfall and
recharge to the Floridan aquifer ................. ..... .......................... 47
31. Fresh ground- and surface-water withdrawals ................. .................. 49
32. Mineral resources map of Alachua County. ................................... 51
33. General soil map of Gainesville ................................................ 52
34. Residential land use .......................................................... 55
35. Commercial land use ......................................................... 56
36. Industrial land use ............................................................ 58
37. Agricultural land use ..................... ............. ........................ 59
38. Institutional land use .................. ....................................... 60
39. Governmental land use ........................................................ 61
40. Miscellaneous land use ....................................................... 63
41. Location map Northeast Landfill .................. ............................ 64

TABLES
TABLE Page
1. Water quality analyses for Glen Springs for 1946 and 1972 ...... .................. 20
2. Specific parameters of an upper Floridan aquifer system well used in
DER's ambient ground-water program .......................................... 35
3. Specific parameters of an intermediate aquifer system well used in
DER's ambient ground-water program ..................... ... .......... 36
4. Specific parameters of a surficial aquifer system well used in
DER's ambient ground-water program .................................... ....... 37
5. Analyses of clay near Gainesville ............................................... 53
6. Analyses of Alachua County peats ................. ........................... 53
7. Volatile organic compound analyses, Northeast Landfill. ........................... 66
8. Metal analyses, Northeast Landfill .................... ......................... 67












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The authors would like to express their thanks to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation for their support and assistance in providing data essential to the water quality and land
use sections of this report. Appreciation is extended to the St. Johns River Water Management District,
the Suwannee River Water Management District and the Alachua County Department of Environmental
Services for providing specific water resources data. Additional thanks are due to the Gainesville
Regional Utilities for well field data.

Special thanks are due to our Florida Geological Survey colleagues: Bill Yon, Steve Spencer, Frank
Rupert, Jackie Lloyd, Walt Schmidt, Richard Johnson, Tom Scott and Ken Campbell, for their
assistance in interpreting stratigraphic data, helpful suggestions and review of the text. Appreciation
is due Cindy Collier for typing the manuscript, and to Jim Jones and Ted Kiper for drafting all figures
except figures 15, 17, 18, and 20, which were drafted by Ed Lane.






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
OF THE
GAINESVILLE AREA, FLORIDA

By
Ronald W. Hoenstine, P.G. #57 and Ed Lane, P.G. #141


INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Florida's population growth rate has been and
continues to be phenomenal. The Gainesville
area accounts for a significant part of this
growth. It is estimated that 80 percent of
Alachua County's 1988 population of 182,940
(approximately 146,352) is located in the Gaines-
ville urban area (Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, 1989). Although Gainesville
is expected to show a modest growth rate of 10.6
percent for the period 1985 to 2000, the unincor-
porated urban area is projected to grow by 61.8
percent during the same period of time (Depart-
ment of Growth Management, 1989). This urban
growth with its associated construction, trans-
portation, water supply, and energy needs, and
waste disposal will substantially impact the
environment.
The principal objective of this report is to
illustrate the important role that geology must
contribute in land-use planning for the Gaines-
ville urban area by integrating cultural, climato-
logical, geological, and hydrological data. This
report summarizes and interprets available
cultural information and scientific data. This
information should be especially useful in
updating Alachua County's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Graphics are emphasized as a
means of presenting data in a format that can
be readily used by the general public, scientists,
planners, water managers, and public policy
makers.

LOCATION

The City of Gainesville is located in north-
central peninsular Florida, near the center of
Alachua County (Figure 1). Gainesville, which
also serves as the administrative seat for
Alachua County, is virtually equidistant from
both extremes of the state's extent. It is situated


approximately 330 miles from both Pensacola in
the western panhandle and Miami near the
southern tip of the peninsula. Figure 2 shows the
areal extent of this study.

TRANSPORTATION

This location results in Gainesville being a
major transit point for both the county's and
state's transportation systems (Figure 3). A
number of highways pass near or through
Gainesville: Interstate 75, and State Highways
24, 26, 27, 41, 301, and 441. In addition, the CSX
Transportation has a railroad route that con-
nects Gainesville with Ocala to the south and
with Jacksonville and other points north. Several
airlines have scheduled service to Gainesville
Regional Airport.

CLIMATE

Gainesville's subtropical climate is
characterized by mild winters and relatively hot
summers. Monthly average temperatures range
from a maximum of 82F in July and August to
a minimum of 58F in January and February.
Thunderstorms, which are frequent during the
summer, contribute to the area's average annual
rainfall of 54.6 inches. Figures 4, 5 and 6 il-
lustrate these ts data.

MAP COVERAGE

A total of 26 United States Geological Survey
(USGS) topographic maps completely or partially
cover Alachua County (Figure 7). Of this number,
the following six USGS topographic maps com-
pletely or partially cover the immediate study
area: Arredondo sheet, Gainesville West sheet,
Gainesville East sheet, Orange Heights sheet,
Micanopy sheet, and Rochelle sheet (Figure 7).












PENSACOLA


FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY





JACKSONVILLE


C%






SCALE


FGSA70491 cIV 3 L





Figural1. Location map for Allachua County, study area, and City of Gainesville. Red circles
indicate air-distances from Gainesville.





SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


R18E R19E


EXPLANATION


:7 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
SU.S. NUMBERED HIGHWAY
@ STATE HIGHWAY
l AIRPORT
N.E. LANDFILL


0 2 MILES

0 3 KILOMETERS

SCALE


FGS280491


Figure 2. Study area map.








FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


EXPLANATION
, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
' U.S. NUMBERED HIGHWAY
@ STATE HIGHWAY
- CSX RAILROAD
AIRPORT
LANDFILL S.W. OF ARCHER
N.E. LANDFILL


Figure 3. Major transportation routes for Alachua County.






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


These maps, which were used as base maps to
plot field data, are 7.5 minute quadrangles at a
scale of 1:24,000. All of the maps depict land
surface using 10-foot contour intervals. In addi-
tion, the Florida Department of Transportation
general highway map for Alachua County was
used in plotting roads and describing locations.

WELL AND LOCALITY NUMBERING SYSTEM

There are two numbering systems used in this
report. One is a well numbering system based
on sample number assignments. The Florida
Geological Survey maintains a sample repository
of drill cuttings from wells. Each well is assigned
a unique accession number, such as W-1762,
which is used to identify samples from that well.
The second numbering system used in this
report is a well and locality numbering system
based on the location of the well or locality, and
uses the rectangular system of section, town-
ship and range for identification (Figure 8). The
number consists of six parts. These are: 1) a
prefix letter designating L for locality, or W for
well, 2) two-letter county code, 3) the township,
4) the range, 5) the section, and 6) the quarter/
quarter location within the section.
The basic rectangle is the township, which is
6 miles on a side and encompasses 36 square
miles. It is consecutively measured by tiers both
north and south of the Florida base line, and an
east-west line that passes through Tallahassee,
as Township North or South. This basic rec-
tangle is also consecutively measured both east
and west of the principal meridian, a north-south
line that passes through Tallahassee, as Range
East or West. It is common practice in recording
the township and range numbers, that the T is
left off the township numbers and the R is left
off the range numbers. Each township is divided
equally into 36 one-mile-square blocks called
sections, and are numbered 1 through 36 as
shown in Figure 8.
The sections are divided into quarters labeled
"a" through "d." In turn, each of these one-
quarter sections is further subdivided into
quarters with these quarter/quarter squares
labeled "a" through "d" in the same manner. The
"a" through "d" designation may be carried to
any extent needed.


The location of well W-5675 on Figure 8 would
be in the center of the southeastern quarter of
the southeastern quarter of section 5, Township
10 South, Range 20 East, Alachua County, and
designated: WAa-10S-20E-5dd.
The cross-sections in this report include both
well numbers for each well. For clarity, cross-
section location maps include only the sample
accession number.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

There have been a number of geologic and
hydrogeologic investigations published on the
Gainesville area. These encompass a diversity
of topics ranging from geology, mineral
resources and soil surveys to water resources
and environmental issues.
Dolan and Allen (1961) discussed the geology
and archaeological significance of Darby and
Hornsby Springs sites. Clark et al. (1964)
addressed the general hydrogeology of Alachua
County; Rosenau et al. (1977) published a more
site-specific study on the water use and water
quality of Glen Springs; Williams et al. (1977),
discussed the geology of the western part of
Alachua County; Miller (1986) published a com-
prehensive study of the hydrogeology of the
Floridan aquifer system; Marella(1988) reported
on water use and trends.
Other studies include Knapp (1978), who
presented the environmental geology of the
Gainesville region in a map format. Hoenstine
et al. (1990) published a mineral resources map
of Alachua County. The Department of Growth
Management of Alachua County (1989) compiled
statistical data on population, housing and
transportation for Alachua County. The Alachua
County Department of Planning and Develop-
ment (1989) prepared the Conservation Element
of the Alachua County Comprehensive Land Use
Plan addressing major development, urban
service, goals, objectives and policies.
The Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983 man-
dated the establishment of an Ambient Ground-
water Quality Network to aid in the prediction
and detection of contamination of Florida's
ground-water resources. This legislation pro-
vides for constructing a statewide network of
wells to monitor background quality of ground






















Figure 4, Average monthly air temperature at Gainesvllle for period of record 1953-1988
(NOAA, 1988).

10




c AVERAGE 4.4





5 -


0
c ^] ^ 1- >^ CT Q- > U
S( D 3 3 3 a) O (D
FGS310491 b- ) < M V) 0 z 0
.. .." '' '..:. '.= ;; .






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


80

75

70
70 AVERAGE


60



50 -

45 -

40

35
30


1(1 o 0 0 0 o o o 0o o
L0101010101010


Figure 6. Annual rainfall at Gainesville for period of record 1903-1988, showing deviation
above and below average amount (NOAA, 1988).


SFGS0020491

FGS320491







FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


Figure 7. Topographic map coverage of Alachua County, U.S. Geological Survey 7-1/2 minute
quadrangles.






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


20 EAST


a b a b


5
a b a ,b

c d c d

SECTION 5

VAa-10S-20E-5dd
W-5675


0 5 MILES
oD KILOMETERS
SCALE


R21 E R22E


FGS340491


Figure 8. Locality and well numbering system used in this report.


RANGE


It'

CD


T--i
nI


6 5 4 3 2 1

7 8 9 10 11 12

18 17 16 15 14 13

19 20 21 22 23 24

30 29 28 27 26 25

31 32 33 34 35 36


T8S


T9S


TIOS


T11S

T12S


wilwah,






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


water. The Alachua County Department of
Environmental Services (ACDES), in cooperation
with the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and the Florida Geological Survey,
has established a network of 10 ambient wells
in Alachua County. As a result of ACDES's con-
tinuing aquifer definition research program, two
reports have been prepared to date. The first
report (Macesich, 1988) describes the sediments
overlying the Floridan aquifer system and
delineates three zones of relative aquifer con-
finement. The second report (Green et al., 1989)
presents the results of hydrogeological analysis
of the 10 ambient wells throughout the county.

GEOLOGY

GEOMORPHOLOGY

The Gainesville area is located on the eastern
flank of the Ocala Platform, formerly called the
Ocala Uplift a structural feature described by
Purl and Vernon (1964) as "...a gentle anticlinal
flexure about 230 miles long and 70 miles wide
exposed near the surface in west-central
Florida." It falls within White's (1970) Northern
proximall) and Central (mid-peninsular) Zones.
The boundary marking the juncture of these two
geomorphic zones approximates a line that
passes through the cities of St. Augustine,
Palatka, Hawthorne, and Gainesville. In the
study area, the Cody Scarp forms this boundary
(Figure 9).
Puri and Vernon (1964) named and described
the Cody Scarp, which extends westward into
the Florida panhandle, as the most persistent
topographic break in the state. Figure 9 shows
the Cody Scarp forming an irregular line from
east to west, then, near Newnans Lake trending
north-south along the eastern side of the study
area, and finally turning to the west and north-
west. In general, it approximates the 100-foot
elevation contour line. The sinuous path followed
by this scarp is believed by White (1970) to be
the result of stream erosion and dissolution of
underlying carbonate rocks.
The Northern Highlands is a major geomorphic
feature located within the northern zone. This
zone covers the majority of the study area,


occupying the northern two-thirds of the
Gainesville region. The Northern Highlands can
be characterized as a broad upland having
moderate relief, steep to gentle slopes and
incised streams. Topography is characterized by
maximum elevations ranging from 170 to 215
feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the north-
central part of the study area. The Cody Scarp
forms its southern boundary.
The Central Highlands is a broad geomorphic
feature located directly south and west of the
Northern Highlands in Alachua County. It is a
region of topographic highs which rise above the
surrounding lowlands. This major geomorphic
region includes the Western Valley, Central
Valley, and Alachua Lake Cross Valley, portions
of which are present in the study area (Figure 9).
The Western Valley, a large lowland area
located within the Central Highlands, is located
to the south and southwest of Gainesville. The
portion of the Western Valley present in the
study area has elevations ranging from 70 to 100
feet above MSL.
The Central Valley occupies the eastern and
southeastern portions of the study area. A
subunit of the Central Highlands, this elongate
feature is oriented parallel with the length of the
peninsula, and encompasses Newnans Lake and
numerous wetlands. In general, the elevation
ranges between 70 and 100 feet above MSL.
The Alachua Lake Cross Valley serves as a
gap joining the northern end of the Central Valley
with the Western Valley. Elevations in this area
display little variation, ranging from 50 to 60 feet
above MSL. This geomorphic feature is named
for Alachua Lake, a large lake which once
occupied the basin today called Paynes Prairie.
The northern section of the Brooksville Ridge
is present in extreme southwestern Alachua
County. This highland feature, a subdivision of
the Central Highlands, is a large, linear high
extending 110 miles from eastern Gilchrist
County southeastward into southern Pasco
County. Extremely variable in elevation, the
Brooksville Ridge attains a height of approx-
imately 135 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in
Alachua County. The sediments making up the
Brooksville Ridge include sand, clayey sand, and
sandy clay which overlie limestone and dolomite.















-N-


o' 0 2 4 MILES CO

SCALE

EXPLANATION |
SI NORTHERN HIGHLANDS
Lr CENTRAL HIGHLANDS Z
/ CENTRAL VALLEY Z
lach, WESTERN VALLEY
HIGH SPRINGS GAP
Lake Cross ALACHUA LAKE CROSS VALLEY
Valley Ce l fr/ 0 BROOKSVILLE RIDGE
Xelyr [-- FAIRFIELD HILLS

Fairfield CODY SCARP (toe at 100')

Figure 9. Geomorphology of Alachua County (after White, 1970).

Figure 9. Geomorphology of Alachua County (after White, 1970).
















-N-





o 2 416t1S
0 3 6 KLO TC 0
SCALE
0

EXPLANATION m
0I-0
S170'-215' COHARIE TERRACE 0
S100'-170' SUNDERLAND TERRACE (COOKE, 1939)
OKEFENOKEE TERRACE (MACNEIL, 1950)
l 70'-100' WICOMICO TERRACE r

F G)
CGS360491


FGS360491


Figure 10. Terraces and shorelines of Alachua County (after Healy, 1975).







SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


A small section of the Fairfield Hills is present
in the southern part of the county near the town
of Micanopy. This geomorphic subzone of the
Central Highlands is a north-south trending
topographic high that separates the Western
Valley from the Central Valley in Alachua
County.
Several Pleistocene age marine terraces are
present in the study area. These plains, which
are generally considered depositional features
formed during higher sea stands, are superim-
posed on the surface topography of the Gaines-
ville area. Healy (1975) recognized three marine
terraces in this area based on elevation (Figure 10).
These terraces which, from highest to lowest,
include the Coharie Terrace (170 to 215 feet
above MSL), the Sunderland/Okefenokee Terrace
(100 to 170 feet above MSL), and the Wicomico
Terrace (70 to 100 feet above MSL). In the study
area, these terraces occur from north to south,
respectively, reflecting the higher elevations to
the north and lower elevations towards the
south.

GEOLOGIC HISTORY

Located in north-central Florida, the Gaines-
ville area is characterized by surface and near-
surface siliciclastics (clays, silts and sands)
overlying thick Cenozoic and Mesozoic carbon-
ates (limestone, dolomite). These in turn overlie
Paleozoic quartzitic sand and shale basement
rocks. Figure 11 is a generalized stratigraphic
column showing the sediments present in the
study area from the Middle Eocene to Holocene.
The geology of this area has been influenced
by the Ocala Platform, a structural high with its
axis situated west of Gainesville. In the
Gainesville area, the influence of this feature is
evidenced by the strata dipping to the northeast.
As a result, Ocala Group limestone, which is
exposed in the western part of the county, is
covered by a thick sequence of Hawthorn Group
sediments in eastern Alachua County.
To date, the deepest penetration of subsurface
sediments in this area occurred in an oil test well
drilled by Tidewater Association at a site located
approximately nine miles northwest of Gaines-


ville (W-1465, Township 8S, Range 18, section 23).
Here, basement rocks consisting of Paleozoic
age quartzitic sandstone and shale were en-
countered at 3,135 feet below land surface
(Applin, 1951; Barnett, 1975). The rocks are
overlain by thousands of feet of Mesozoic and
Tertiary carbonates and a surface veneer (57 feet)
of siliciclastics ranging in age from Miocene to
Holocene. Figure 12 is a location map for the
geologic cross sections illustrated in Figures 13
and 14. These show the occurrence of near
surface geologic formations in the Gainesville
area.
The oldest rocks exposed in Florida crop out
southwest of Gainesville in Levy County. These
rocks, belonging to the Avon Park Formation,
were deposited in a shallow marine environment
approximately 47-43 million years ago during the
Middle Eocene Epoch. This formation has only
subsurface occurrences in the Gainesville area
at approximate depths at or greater than 150 feet
below mean sea level (MSL) (Figure 14). In the
study area, these carbonates consist of a dark
brown to tan, highly indurated, fossiliferous
dolomite with interbedded limestone and
dolomitic limestone. The fossils include, among
others: carbonized plant remains, echinoid
molds and casts and foraminifera. This forma-
tion comprises part of the Floridan aquifer
system.
Ocala Group limestones, which were deposited
in a shallow marine environment approximately
38 to 40 million years ago during the Late Eocene
Epoch, overlie the Avon Park Formation. These
limestones are the oldest rocks that crop out in
the Gainesville area. In this report, the various
formations comprising the Ocala Group are com-
bined and referred to as the "Ocala Group
Undifferentiated" (Figures 13 and 14). These
sediments are primarily limestones and vary in
composition from a soft, pale orange to white,
poorly to moderately indurated, moderately to
highly porous, relatively pure limestone (CaCO,)
to a less porous, highly indurated dolomite
(CaMg(CO3)2). Variable in thickness, the Ocala
Group averages between 200 and 300 feet. In
W-2447, the thickest or most complete section
of Ocala Group limestone measuring 210 feet in
thickness was encountered (Figure 14).





FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
SYSTEM SERIES FORMATION
Holocene


QUATERNARY


TERTIARY


Pleistocene


Pliocene


Miocene


Oligocene


Eocene


Undifferentiated
Sands and
Clays


Hawthorn Group


/absent
V/// / //////


Ocala Group


Avon Park
Formation
Figure 11. Shallow stratigraphic column for study area.


i


--







SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


Figure 12. Geologic cross section location map.









FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


WAa-10S-20E-6aa


FEET METERS
200 60



40

100-


*20



MSL



- -20


FGS570491


WAa-10S-20E-10b


A'


DIFFERENTIATED MSL
TD 87'


J I' SCALE
TD 258' 0 2 4 MILES

0 3 6 KILOMETERS


VERTICAL EXAGGERATION IS APPROXIMATELY 190 TIMES


Figure 13. Cross section A-A'.


WAa-9S-19E- 12bc

W-4043

FEET METERS
200 --60



40


100-L


-100-


WAa-9

W-315


11


WAa-9S-20E-32cb

W-146

5-20E-20cc

3


B'


WAa- 10S-20E-5cc

W-5675
WA(


/


- -20 OCALA GROUP UNDIFFE

I TD 261'
TD 285'

FGS580491 TD 33
TD 335'

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION IS APPROXIMATELY 190 TIMES

SCALE
0 2 4 MILES

0 3 6 KILOMETERS


-10S-20E-16


WAa-10S-20E-33cd

W-5621


MSL


TD 90'


AVON PARK FM.


TD 370'


Figure 14. Cross section B-B'.


-100-3


?- A-_ -?







SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


Although the Oligocene age Suwannee
Limestone overlies the Ocala Group in very
limited localized areas of northwestern and
western Alachua County, it is missing in the
study area due to erosion. As a result, in the
study area the Ocala Group is overlain by the
younger Miocene Series Hawthorn Group. These
sediments, consisting of interbedded phosphatic
clay, sand, dolomite, and limestone, and i are undif-
ferentiated in this report and are referred to in
the cross sections as "Hawthorn Group Undif-
ferentiated" (Figures 13 and 14). These diverse
lithologic sediments, which were deposited in a
shallow marine environment approximately 25 to
6 million years ago, have surface or near-surface
occurrences throughout the eastern two-thirds
of the study area. Exceptions occur in the
southwestern portion of the Gainesville area,
west of the Cody Scarp, where undifferentiated
sands and clays directly overlie the Ocala Group.
The thickness of the Hawthorn Group is
variable, ranging from maximum values of
approximately 200 feet in the northern portion of
the study area to zero in the southwest. Cross
section B-B' (Figure 14) shows the Hawthorn
Group to have a thickness of 190 feet in W-3153
(Township 9S, Range 20E, section 20ca). A thick
section of Hawthorn Group sediments can be
observed at the Devil's Millhopper (Township 9S,
Range 19E, section 15d) (Scott, 1986), which is
a designated State Geological Site (Figure 2).
Undifferentiated sands and clays form a
veneer over the majority of the study area
(Macesich, 1988). These are Pleistocene and
Holocene age sediments consisting of sands,
silts, clayey sands and clays. This unit, which
overlies the Hawthorn Group when present, is
variable in thickness averaging between 20 and
30 feet (Figures 13 and 14). In areas where the
Hawthorn Group is missing, these sediments
directly overlie the Ocala Group limestone.

WATER RESOURCES

THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE

The hydrologic cycle describes the continuous
movement and interaction of water in all its
phases on, above, and below the earth's surface.
Figure 15 shows the main phases of the hydro-
logic cycle in Florida.


The hydrologic cycle is driven by the elemental
forces of sunshine and gravity. Figure 15 shows
the paths water may take as it moves through
the hydrologic cycle. Starting at the ocean, the
sun's radiation heats the ocean's surface and
evaporates fresh water, which is carried aloft by
rising convection currents of air, eventually
forming clouds of water vapor. The clouds drop
their moisture as rain, snow, or hail. Under usual
atmospheric conditions some of the precipita-
tion evaporates before it reaches the ground.
After precipitation reaches the ground, three
things can happen to it: some will evaporate
directly from the soil, plants, and free bodies of
water, as evapotranspiration or evaporation;
some may infiltrate the soil or rocks; and some
may run off across the land surface. The runoff
may contribute to normal surface drainage in the
form of streams or lakes, eventually returning to
the ocean to begin the hydrologic cycle anew.
Water that finds its way underground, however,
will have a more circuitous route before it returns
to the sea. Some water may percolate downward
to recharge ground-water aquifers, then move
laterally until being discharged to stream beds
or in surface or submarine springs. Some under-
ground water may be taken up by plants and
evapotranspired to the atmosphere; some may
be withdrawn by wells for human use. In the
Gainesville area, two of the most important
paths are recharge to the ground-water aquifers
by infiltration and recharge through karst
features, such as sinkholes or other dissolu-
tionally enlarged openings in the limestone.

SURFACE WATER

A number of surface water features are
present in the study area. These features, which
include lakes, ponds, streams, springs, and
swampy areas are summarized in Figure 16. The
majority of these are located in the southern and
eastern portions of the study area. Variable in
size, they range from small streams and ponds
to larger features such as Newnans Lake and a
large, less defined lowland area known as
Paynes Prairie located on the southern boundary
of the study area. Smaller features include Lake
Kanapaha, Lake Alice, Wauberg Lake, Bivans
Arm, Hogtown Prairie, as well as Turkey Creek,
Little Hatchet Creek, Hogtown Creek and Buck
Bay, a swampy region located to the north of
Gainesville (Figure 16).







PLANT
OF __i ,EVAPOTRANSPIRATION


SOE AR EVAPORATION
ENERGY FROM
suRIACE WATE,









Fi,,g- 15 Hyd logic sh its a phases as they i Floida (te L id H i.. i 1991)
~1 jjj :{;L.' :"


LaI~ffiPIM:ThiW.'
7 ~ ph A .







SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


Figure 16. Surface water resources of Alachua County.







FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


Table 1. Water quality analyses of Glen Springs for 1946 and 1972 (Rosenau et al., 1977).
Units are in milligrams per liter unless otherwise indicated.

Date of Collection April 16 February 24 April 17
1946 1972 1972

Nitrate (NO2 as N) -- 0.00 --
Nitrate (NO3 as N) 0.41 0.00
Calcium (Ca) 15 19
Magnesium (Mg) 6.7 8.5
Sodium (Na) 3.2 3.4
Potassium (K) .6 .4
Silica (SiOz) 10 5.4
Bicarbonate (HCO3) -- 54
Carbonate (C03) -- 18 --
Sulfate (S04) -- 4.0
Chloride (Cl) 3.4 7.0
Fluoride (F) .4 0.4
Nitrate (NO3) 1.8 --
Dissolved oxygen (DO) -- --
Dissolved solids
Calculated -- 110
Residue on evaporation at 180'C 76 95
Hardness as CaCO3 65 83 --
Noncarbonate hardness as CaCOa -- 8
Alkalinity as CaCO3 83 74
Specific conductance (micromhos/cm at 250C) 143 170
pH (units) 7.0 7.2
Color (platinum cobalt units) 0 5
Temperature (oC) -- 22.0 --
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD, 5-day) -- -0.0
Total organic carbon (TOC) -- -- .0
Organic nitrogen (N) -- -- .40
Ammonium (NH4 as N) -- -- .00
Nitrate (NO, as N) -- .87
Orthophosphate (P04 as P) -- -- .38
Total phosphorus (P) -- .42
(Micrograms per liter)
Boron (B) -- -- 0
Strontium (Sr)- --
Arsenic (As) -- 0
Cadmium (Cd) -- 0
Chromium (Cr6) -- -- 0
Cobalt (CO) -- 0
Copper (Cu) -- 0
Iron (Fe) 10 --
Lead (Pb) -- -- 0
Zinc (Zn) -- 0
Mercury (Hg) -- -- .0






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


Glen Springs

A small spring system known as Glen Springs
is located within the city of Gainesville (Township
9S, Range 20E, section 30dc). This prominent
local spring, which is currently used as a private
recreational facility, is a tributary to Hogtown
Creek and is located in the northwestern portion
of the Oklawaha River Basin (Rosenau et al.,
1977). The pool is an irregularly-shaped, elongate
feature measuring approximately 20 feet in
length and 10 feet in width.
Presently, this pool is enclosed by a concrete
structure which directs flow to two in-line con-
crete swimming pools immediately downstream
from the springs. The flow originates from
several small submerged solution channels in
the limestone rocks that form the bottom of the
pool (Rosenau et al., 1977). The water flows into
the swimming pools from which it flows down
a ravine to Hogtown Creek.
Spring flow is generally consistent, but low in
volume. Flow measurements undertaken by the
USGS in the years 1941, 1946, 1956, 1960 and
1972 give values that vary from a minimum of
0.30 cubic feet per second (cfs) on April 17,1972,
to a maximum of 0.42 cfs on October 17, 1960
(Rosenau et al., 1977).
Analyses of water samples taken by the U.S.
Geological Survey for the years 1946 and 1972
are shown in Table 1. These values show a
relatively small variation over time for the
majority of tested parameters. One exception is
nitrates (NO3 as N) which show relatively large
fluctuations. This may be attributed to the
seasonal effect of agriculture practices such as
fertilization and spraying which occur within the
drainage basin. April is a period during which
fertilization of crops, pastures and lawns is in
progress in contrast to February when this
practice is less intensive.

AQUIFERS

Figure 17 illustrates several hydrogeological
features commonly encountered in Florida sedi-
ments and rocks. This figure particularly applies
to the local conditions in the Gainesville area.
All ground water occupies the open spaces,
or pores, that occur in many of the rocks of the


earth's crust. Aquifers are defined as units of
rocks or sediments that yield water in sufficient
quantities to be economically useful for society's
activities.
Porosity and permeability are two fundamental
characteristics of rocks or sediments that control
the quantities of water that they can store,
transmit, or release. Porosity and permeability
are intimately related. A porous medium, such
as clean sand or gravel, has voids which may
contain water, as shown in Figure 18. Perme-
ability is a measure of a porous medium's ability
to allow fluids to move through its pores. By
definition, then, permeability implies that a
rock's pores are interconnected so fluids can
move through them. A clean sand, therefore, is
permeable; water can migrate through it (Figure
18a). Porous rocks are not always permeable,
however. A similar, well-sorted sand may have
its interstices filled with clay, small grains or
organic matter, or some other fine-grained
material, which effectively blocks the free pas-
sage of water (Figure 18b). In this case, the sand
would be classified as having low permeability.
Limestone, though usually thought of as being
"solid" rock, often has a granular texture and
considerable porosity and permeability, either
primary (developed when the limestone was
deposited) or secondary (developed after deposi-
tion). Ground-water flow through granular and
porous limestone is, therefore, similar to flow
through sand. This is an important concept to
keep in mind during the following discussions
of aquifers and chemical weathering of
limestone. Three aquifer systems are present in
the Gainesville area. From deepest to shallowest,
these are the Floridan aquifer system, the inter-
mediate aquifer system and the surficial aquifer
system.

Floridan Aquifer System

The Floridan aquifer system is the principal
artesian aquifer system in this area and extends
into Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina
(Miller, 1986). It is the source of Gainesville's
public water supply. Figure 19 correlates the
geologic stratigraphic units, which include the
Ocala Group and the Avon Park Formation, with
the Floridan aquifer system.








urban runoff with contaminants

PUMPING Floridan aqufer
DRAINAGE WELL potentiometric surface
WELL L ....
IN Apr recharge
SINKHOLE through recharge by
liopen sinkhole infiltration











,:rL FLORIDAN AOUIFER SYSTEM









and Hoenstine, 1991).






sPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


Figure 18. P-s~ity ad -.aebifty.- hol, by t I exampl,, o at mil sports gmn,[,,r








HYDRO-
STRATIGRHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC UNIT SERIES


UNDIFFERENTIATED TERRACE, POST-MIOCENE
MARINE AND FLUVIAL DEPOSITS
SURFICIAL AQUIFER
SYSTEM




INTERMEDIATE
AQUIFER SYSTEM HAWTHORN GROUP MIOCENE
OR
INTERMEDIATE
CONFINING UNIT



OCALA GROUP
FLORIDAN AQUIFER EOCENE
SYSTEM
SYSTEM AVON PARK FORMATION

FGS010291

Figure 19. Hydrostratigraphic correlation chart (modified from Southeastern Geological Society Ad Hoc Com-
mittee, 1986).






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


The Ocala Group limestone forms the top of
the Floridan aquifer system throughout the
study area. In general, these sediments dip to the
northeast with approximate maximum elevations
of 60 feet above MSL present in the west and
minimum elevations of approximately MSL along
the eastern boundary of the study area
(Figure 13). Due to these dipping beds, the top
of the Ocala Group occurs closer to land surface
in the western part of the study area and is
covered by thicker Hawthorn sediments to the
east.
Recharge to the Floridan aquifer system in the
Gainesville area occurs from several sources.
The most significant include rainfall and ground-
water inflow from potentiometrically high areas
to the northeast in the Interlachen area through
numerous karst features and in the western
portion of the study area where the Ocala Group
is at or near land surface. Locally, Hogtown
Creek flows directly into the aquifer system
through Hogtown Sink; at one time, Prairie Creek
flowed into the Floridan aquifer system via
Alachua Sink (Wetterhall, 1965). In addition,
recharge occurs by sinkholes which are present
throughout the area. This latter mechanism is
especially evident at Devil's Millhopper where
water enters the aquifer through a cavity
exposed at the bottom of the sink. Drainage
wells also provide recharge to the aquifer.


Intermediate Aquifer System
and
Intermediate Confining Unit

An intermediate aquifer system is present in
the Gainesville area within the limestone and
sand layers in the Hawthorn Group (Hoenstine
et al., 1989). A number of wells derive water from
this aquifer system. The majority of these
domestic wells are located in the central and
eastern portion of the study area where
Hawthorn Group sediments attain thicknesses
of 100 feet or more (Figure 13).
The source of water for the intermediate
aquifer system is derived primarily from the
Floridan aquifer system in areas where the
potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer
system is higher than that of the intermediate


aquifer system. Conversely, it is derived from the
overlying surficial aquifer system in areas where
the potentiometric surface of the intermediate
aquifer system is higher than the Floridan
aquifer system (Wetterhall, 1965).
Sediments within the Hawthorn Group also
may act as a confining unit. These fine-grained
sediments retard the interchange of water
between the overlying and underlying aquifer
system.

Surficial Aquifer System

A shallow surficial aquifer system comprised
of Pleistocene sands is present over much of the
eastern and northern part of the study area.
These water-bearing sediments, which overlie
the Hawthorn Group, occur at depths as shallow
as five feet below land surface (Clark et al., 1964).
Recharge of the surficial aquifer system
occurs primarily through downward percolation
of rainwater and to a lesser extent by seepage
from lower sediments in areas where the poten-
tiometric surface of the lower aquifer systems
are above that of the surficial aquifer system.
Water is discharged from this aquifer system
through a number of mechanisms including
wells, evapotranspiration, evaporation, and
lateral movement of water down gradient to
lakes and streams. Wells drilled into the surficial
aquifer system tap sediments of variable
thicknesses. Wells that draw water from a few
feet of permeable sediments yield small quan-
tities of water suitable for domestic needs. Wells
completed through tens-of-feet of sediments can
supply ample and relatively dependable quan-
tities suitable for industrial and agricultural
purposes.

EVOLUTION OF KARST TERRAIN

The evolution of any terrain into characteristic
landforms involves weathering, as well as ero-
sional and depositional processes. These include
wind, flowing water, frost heaving, slumping, or
wave activity, to name a few. In most areas, the
predominant weathering, erosional, transporting,
and depositional agent is water, either falling,
flowing across the land, or circulating through
subsurface rocks.






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


Gainesville lies in a karst terrain, an area
characterized by undulating hill-and-swale
topography, sinkholes, disappearing streams,
springs, and caves. The two things necessary to
create karst are abundant in the area: limestone
in the shallow subsurface and slightly acidic
ground water to dissolve it.

CHEMICAL WEATHERING OF CARBONATE ROCKS

The creation of karst involves the development
of underground drainage systems (Figure 20d).
Most chemical erosion processes that create
karst take place unnoticed, underground, and
imperceptibly slowly. Over time, perhaps after
thousands of years, evidence of these persistent
processes will occur as the formation of a
sinkhole, a spring, ground subsidence, an influx
of muddy water in a well, or as some other karst
phenomenon that may interfere with society's
activities.
Chemical weathering is the main erosional
process that forms karst terrain, generally
following the evolutionary sequence shown in
Figure 20a-d. As rain falls, some nitrogen and
carbon dioxide gases dissolve into it, forming a
weakly acidic solution. When the water contacts
decaying organic matter in the soil, it can
become even more acidic (Figure 20b). When the
water contacts limestone, its corrosive attack
begins. All rocks and minerals are soluble in
water to some extent, but limestone is especially
susceptible to dissolution by acidic water.
Limestones, by nature, tend to be fractured,
jointed, laminated, and to have units of differing
texture, all characteristics which, from the
standpoint of percolating ground water, are
potential zones of weakness. These zones of
weakness in the limestone are avenues of attack
that, in time, the acidic waters will enlarge and
extend. Given geologic time, conduits will form
in the rock which can allow water to flow rela-
tively unimpeded for long distances.
During the chemical process of dissolving the
limestone, the water takes into solution some of
the minerals. The water containing the dissolved
minerals moves to some point of discharge,
which may be a spring, a stream bed, the ocean,
or a well (Figure 20b).
Removal of the rock, with the continuing for-
mation or enlargement of cavities, can ultimately


lead to the collapse of overlying rocks or
sediments. If the collapse is sudden and com-
plete, an open sinkhole will result, sometimes
revealing the cavity in the rock. More often,
though, debris or water covers the entrance to
subterranean drainage. Partial subsidence of the
overburden into cavities will form swales at the
surface, producing hummocky, undulating
topography. By this slow, persistent process of
dissolution of limestone and subsequent col-
lapse of overburden, the land is worn down to
form a karst terrain (Figures 20c and 20d).
At some point in this process of dissolution
of underground rocks, any existing surface
drainage system will begin to be transformed
into a dry or disappearing stream system.
Continuing dissolution of the limestone will
create more swales and sinkholes, which will
divert more of the surface water into the under-
ground drainage. Eventually, all of the surface
drainage may be diverted underground, leaving
dry stream channels that flow only during floods,
or disappearing streams that flow down swallow
holes (sinkholes in stream beds) and reappear
at distant points to flow as springs or resurgent
streams.

KARST IN THE GAINESVILLE AREA

There are a variety of karst features in the
Gainesville area. Figure 21 shows the extent to
which the area's topography has been dissected
by karst features. Figure 22 illustrates the
karstified, pinnacled top of the Ocala Group
limestones.
Sinkholes are common features in the Gaines-
ville area (Figure 23). Sinclair and Stewart (1985)
classify the sinkholes that occur in the
Gainesville area as three types: solution, cover-
collapse, and cover-subsidence. In their classi-
fication, solution sinkholes occur in areas where
limestone is exposed at land surface or is
covered by thin soil and permeable sand. Under
these conditions the land surface subsides
gradually. The topographic expression of this
type of sinkhole is usually a bowl-shaped depres-
sion that may have ponded water. The rolling,
hill-and-swale topography of the Gainesville area
is shown in Figure 24, a three-dimensional block
diagram of Alachua County. Cover-collapse
sinkholes generally occur suddenly, in areas









SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


LIMESTONE with laonts, fractures,
bedding planes



Figure 20b. Detail of Figure 20a showing early stages of karst formation. Limestone is
relatively competent and uneroded. Chemical weathering is just beginning, with little in-
ternal circulation of water through the limestone. Swales, forming incipient sinkholes, act
to concentrate recharge (after Lane, 1986).








FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


^^^c^^^ ^::T:: :F 'SINKHOLE



Figure 20c. Advanced karst landscape. Original surface has been lowered by solution and
erosion. Only major streams flow in surface channels and they may cease to flow in dry
seasons. Swales and sinkholes capture most of the surface water and shunt it to the
underground drainage system. Cavernous zones are well developed in the limestone (after
Lane, 1986).


Dol
Figure 20d. Detail of Figure 20c showing advanced stage of karst formation. Limestone
has well developed interconnected passages that form an underground drainage system,
which captures much or all of prior surface drainage. Overburden has collapsed into cavities
forming swales or sinkholes. Caves may form. Land surface has been lowered due to loss
of sand into the limestone's voids. Hornsby Spring, in the northwestern part of Alachua
County (Fig. 16), is an example of a cavernous, underwater spring (after Lane, 1986).















1. 2'





I -- --_' --^ ,





i -




c7-


1-. *' I
FGS400491



Figure 21. Simplified topographic map of the study area showing larger karst features. Hun,
dreds of smaller sinkholes and karst depressions do not show at this scale.


-I-



0 1 MILES
0 1 KILOMETERS

ELEVATION. FT. ABOVE
I-MSL. 25' INTERVAL AND
SELECTED INTERMEDIATE
ELEVATIONS.

SKARST DEPRESSION

PERENNIALLY WET
cJ KARST LKES









FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


where limestone is near the surface. Sinkhole
walls tend to be near-vertical, exposing lime-
stone in the dissolution pipes that lead to the
underground drainage system. Cover-subsidence
sinkholes occur where the overburden is relatively
permeable and poorly cohesive, which charac-
terizes much of th, soil in the Gainesville area.
In areas of thick sand, cover subsidence may be
sudden or proceed slowly over many years,
producing sinkholes only a few feet in diameter
and depth. The relatively soft and porous lime-
stones that underlie Alachua County have been
extremely karstified, as shown in Figure 22. This
stage of karstification would equate with Figures
20c and 20d.
Several major karst features are developed
along the southern boundary of the study area,
from west to east: Hogtown Prairie, Bivans Arm,
Paynes Prairie, and Newnans Lake. Newnans
Lake is one of four large lakes in eastern
Alachua County. These lakes occupy depres-
sions formed by karst, which removed extensive
amounts of the limestone bedrock and allowed
the overburden to subside. Newnans Lake has
poorly developed and ill-defined upstream and
peripheral drainage systems; it drains south to
Orange Lake by Prairie Creek.
Hogtown Prairie and Paynes Prairie are peren-
nially wet basins, whose flat floors are covered
by organic soils and dense growths of wetland
vegetation (Figure 25). Their basins are internally
drained karst depressions, meaning that all
surface water drainage is into their basins, with
no surface water outflow. Some areas of their
basins may have standing water during all or
part of the year, such as Lake Kanapaha in the
southwest end of Hogtown Prairie. The fluctua-
tion in the levels of surface and ground water in
and around the basins are the net result of
natural factors, such as rainfall and infiltration,
evapotranspiration, and runoff and drainage of
the surrounding uplands. Also, human modifica-
tions, such as dikes, ditches, and other water-
level control structures, affect their drainage
characteristics.
Bivans Arm, projecting northwesterly from
Paynes Prairie, has artificial lake levels higher
than Paynes Prairie. These water levels are
controlled by dikes that carry U.S. 441 and State
Road 329 around the northwest rim of Paynes
Prairie. Under natural conditions, prior to human
modification, Bivans Arm was just a tributary of


Paynes Prairie. Numerous other lakes and peren-
nially wet areas occur in sinkholes or other karst
features throughout the study area, as shown in
Figure 21, and many more are too small to show
at this scale.
The main sources of recharge for the internally
drained basins are direct rainfall and runoff from
surrounding uplands. They also receive ground-
water recharge from lateral seepage out of the
adjacent siliciclastic sediments or from the
underground karst drainage network in the
limestones. The existence of these lakes is
dependent on the capricious operation of their
underground karst drainage systems, as can be
illustrated by the following historical account of
Paynes Prairie, from the Providence Journal,
September 14, 1891.

"A LOST LAKE
"A curious spectacle was to be seen on the
outskirts of Gainesville, Florida, recently. Alachua
Lake, from 10 to 15 miles in length and covering
some 40,000 acres of land, is no more. On its
banks were lying thousands of dead fish, dead
alligators floated ghastly in pools of black water,
and the atmosphere was heavy with noxious
gases. Men and boys were there in throngs with
hoes and rakes, dragging to shore hundreds of
fish which had sought the pools for refuge. The
waters were fairly alive with their struggles for
existence. Except for a small stream known as
Payne's Creek, flowing from Newman's Lake into
the Sink, the two main basins of the Sink, and a
few stagnant pools, no water is now to be seen
where a few years ago steamers were plowing
their way. This is the second time since 1823 that
a similar occurrence has taken place. At that time
the bed of the lake was a large prairie Payne's
Prairie having in it a body of water called the
Sink and a small creek. In 1868 heavy rains filled
up the prairie, but the water disappeared after a
short time and the prairie was again dry land. In
1873, after a series of heavy rains, the Sink over-
flowed and the creek swelled to the dimensions
of a lake. During several years the water increased
till a larger lake was formed and for fully fifteen
years sufficient depth of water stood over the
prairie to allow passage of small steamers. During
the last two years, however, the waters have been
gradually lowering, and about four weeks ago
they commenced going down with surprising
rapidity, the lake falling about 8 feet in ten days,
until now nothing is left of Alachua Lake but the
memory of it. The Sink is considered the cause
of this change. There is evidently an underground
passage connected, and for some reason not
understood this underground passage has been
acting as a drain until all the water in the lake has
been drawn off."










SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


Figurm 22. R,,,,,l of ... dying phosphsteb ...ing ,d,,,,Its exposed th... pin-I.,e
of karstifie d Coal, Gro.p C-ftsn. en~l Phosphate Comp,,y pit US, M~achos County,
.g0. Eisct location Ilk,,,n. FGS photo.









FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


Figure 23. Two sinkholes on the University of Florida campus. These have been landscaped
to create cool, scenic areas. Township 10S, Range 20E, section 6. FGS photos.








SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


o 5 miles
0 8 kilometers
SCALE

Figure 24. Block diagram of Alachua County, showing land surface relief and the effects
of karst and surface erosion on topography, view from southeast to northwest (from FGS
data).


Figure 25. Paynes Prairie showing dense stands of vegetation in the perennially wet karst
depression. Higher, rolling uplands in the distance to the south. FGS photograph looking
south from east side of Route 441, south of Gainesville.


~f~rsa~i[









FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


The following is from the Washington Evening
Star of September 18, 1891:
"The Star recently printed an account of the dis-
appearance of Alachua Lake in Florida, a lake
that was so well established that a steamboat
line was maintained on it. A U.S. Geological
Survey party has been engaged at work in that
region. A member of this party, Mr. Hersey
Munroe, who is now in the city, gave an interesting
account of the lake, or rather the ex-lake, to a Star
reporter. Alachua Lake, said Mr. Munroe, is
situated in north latitude 29035' and west
longitude 82020' in Alachua County, Fla., and
2 miles south of Gainesville, the county seat. The
lake was formerly a prairie, known as Alachua
Prairie before the Seminole war during 1835-37.
It has since been named Paynes Prairie, after
King Payne, an old Seminole chief of an early day.
The prairie was a great grazing spot for the
Indians' cattle and later was used for a like
purpose and for tillage by the whites, some fine
crops of corn and cotton being grown. The prairie
lands are immense meadows, covered by the
finest grass, interspersed with clumps of
beautiful oak trees and palmettoes. These lands
are subject to inundation during the summer
season. Hatchet Creek rises 3 miles north of
Gainesville and flows in every direction of the
compass for a distance of 10 miles, emptying in-
to Newmans Lake, a beautiful sheet of water
covering 10 square miles.

'HOW THE LAKE WAS FORMED

'The overflow from Newmans Lake forms a
large creek named Prairie Creek, which wended
its way through Paynes Prairie to Alachua Sink,
one of the curiosities of the State. There the
waters found their way into a subterranean
passage. Visitors, to have their curiosity gratified
by seeing what the effect would be to have logs
thrown into the sink, were the probable cause of
the overflow of Paynes Prairie. The logs would
float out to the center of the sink, whirl around
in a circle and suddenly disappear. This choking
of the outlet to the waters of Prairie Creek caused
the overflow and made a sheet of water sufficient
to float small steamers and other craft.
One steamer in particular had a splendid
freight traffic, during the vegetable season
carrying shipments of vegetables from its wharf
on Chaeala pond across Alachua Lake to the
mouth of Sweetwater branch, the nearest point
to Gainesville, the principal place for shipment
north. After the overflow and the forming of a lake
it was christened Alachua Lake. This name has
been decided upon by the United States Board
of Geographic Names. Alachua Lake is 8 miles
long, east and west, and in one place 4 miles in
width, north and south, covers 10,000 acres, and
the average depth is from 2 to 14 feet deep.


'LOWERING FOR SEVERAL YEARS

'For several years the lake has been gradually
lowering. The elevation of the water above sea
level as given by the Savannah, Florida and
Western Railroad some years ago is 64 feet. By
accurate levels run by one of the topographical
parties of the Geological Survey working in this
section during the winter of 1890-91 the elevation
of the water was found to be 58 feet, thus showing
that the lake had been changing elevation; and
about two weeks ago I was informed that Alachua
Lake had disappeared entirely, that only small
pools remained and the usual amount immediately
around the sink.' "

WATER QUALITY

The Alachua County Department of Environ-
mental Services monitors a number of water
wells in Alachua County which are part of the
department's statewide ambient ground-water
quality network. This network is made up of wells
placed in areas assumed to be unaffected by
man at the present time.
One of these wells is located near the west-
central part of the study area (Township 9S,
Range 18E, section 36). This four-inch well is
drilled to a depth of 135 feet below land surface
into the upper Floridan aquifer loan ae system. Table 2
lists the specific parameters analyzed and their
respective values for this well. Another well
(Township 10S, Range 21E, section 11) located
to the east of the study area is drilled to a depth
of 100 feet below land surface into the interme-
diate aquifer system. Table 3 lists the specific
parameters analyzed and their respective values
for this well. A well located slightly further east
of Gainesville (Township 9S, Range 21 E, section 7)
is drilled into the surficial aquifer system (Table 4).
All of the values for these three wells are below
established U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency limits for potable water.
Water chemistry values for the Floridan aquifer
system are high in bicarbonate, calcium and
magnesium. These can be attributed to the
limestone and dolomitic limestone comprising
this aquifer system. Similarly, the intermediate
aquifer system has relatively high values for
calcium and bicarbonate representing dissolu-
tion of the carbonate water-bearing units. In
contrast, the water chemistry of the surficial
aquifer system shows minimal values for










SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33






Table 2. Water quality analysis of an upper Floridan
aquifer ground-water quality monitor well
(Township 9S, Range 18E, section 36;
Department of Environmental Regulation data, 1989).

PARAMETER AVERAGE UNITS*
1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane 0.0000 #g/I
1, 1, 2 Trichloroethane 0.0000 Mg/I
1, 1 Dichloroethene 0.0000 Mg/I
1, 1 Dichloroethane 0.0000 Mg/I
1, 2 Dichloroethane 0.0000 Ag/1
1, 2 Dichlorobenzene 0.0000 pg/I
1, 2 Dichloropropane 0.0000 /g/I
1, 3 Dichlorobenzene 0.0000 g/Il
1, 4 Dichlorobenzene 0.0000 g/I
1122 Tetrachloroethane 0.0000 #g/I
Arsenic 0.0000 mg/I
Barium 0.0000 mg/I
Bicarbonate 170.0000 mg/I
Bromoform 0.0000 Mg/I
Bromomethane 0.0000 Ig/I
Bromodichloromethane 0.0000 g9/I
C1, 3 Dichloropropene 0.0000 gl/I
Cadmium 0.0000 mg/I
Calcium 73.0000 mg/I
Carbonate 0.0000 mg/I
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0000 Mg/I
Chloromethane 0.0000 9g/I
Chloride 7.0000 mg/I
Chloroethane 0.0000 g/
Chlorobenzene 0.0000 pg/I
Chloroform 0.0000 pg/I
Chromium 0.0000 mg/I
Conductivity 260.0000 umhos/cm
Copper 0.0000 mg/I
Cyanide 0.0000 mg/I
Dibromochloromethane 0.0000 Mg/I
Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.0000 Mg/I
Fecal Coliform 0.0000 col/100ml
Fluoride 0.2600 mg/I
Iron 0.0000 mg/I
Lead 0.0000 mg/I
Magnesium 1.8000 mg/I
Manganese 0.0000 mg/I
Mercury 0.0000 mg/I
Methylene Chloride 0.0000 Mg/I
Nitrate 0.1600 mg/I
pH 7.4000 s.u.
Phosphate 0.0000 mg/I
Potassium 0.2000 mgll
Silver 0.0000 mg/I
Sodium 4.6000 mg/I
T1, 2 Dichloroethene 0.0000 /g/I
T1, 3 Dichloropropene 0.0000 9g/I
Tetrachloroethane 0.0000 /g/I
Trichloroethane 0.0000 g//I
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.0000 Mg/I
Vinyl Chloride 0.0000 jg/I
1, 2 Dibromoethane 0.0000 #g/I
2 Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether 0.0000 Ag/I
Benzene 0.0000 4g/I
Ethyl Benzene 0.0000 /g/I
Toluene 0.0000 pg/I

g/l = micrograms per liter col/100ml = coliform bacteria count per 100 milliliter
mg/I = milligrams per liter
s.u. = standard units
umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter










FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


PARAMETER
1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane
1, 1, 2 Trichloroethane
1, 1 Dichloroethene
1, 1 Dichloroethane
1, 2 Dichloroethane
1, 2 Dichlorobenzene
1, 2 Dichloropropane
1, 3 Dichlorobenzene
1, 4 Dichlorobenzene
1122 Tetrachloroethane
Arsenic
Barium
Bicarbonate
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Bromodichloromethane
C1, 3 Dichloropropene
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloromethane
Chloride
Chloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium
Conductivity
Copper
Cyanide
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Fecal Coliform
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Methylene Chloride
Nitrate
pH
Phosphate
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
T1, 2 Dichloroethane
T1, 3 Dichloropropene
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1, 2 Dibromoethane
2 Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
Benzene
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene

pg/I = micrograms


Table 3. Water quality analysis of an intermediate
ground-water quality monitor well
(Township 10S, Range 21E, section 11;
Department of Environmental Regulation data, 1989).

AVERAGE
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
170.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
44.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
8.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
260.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4000
0.0510
0.0000
16.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
7.4000
0.0000
0.3000
0.0000
5.2000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

per liter col/100m = coliform bacteria count per 100 milliliter


mg/I = milligrams per liter
s.u. = standard units
umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter


UNITS*

pg/I
pg/I
pg/I
pgll
pg/I
rgf/l
rg/I
cg/I
pg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
pg/I


mg/I
mg/I
mgli
mg/I

pg/I

mg/I
pg/I
g'll
pg/Il
mg/I
umhos/cm
mg/I
mg/I
pg/I
pg/I
col/100ml
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/l
mg/I
mg/I
pg/I
mg/I
s.u.
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/l
Ag/I
pg/I
pg/I
/g/I
Ag/I
pg/I
ag/I
agli
pg/I
pg/I
pg/I
pg/I
f-g'i










SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33






Table 4. Water quality analysis of a surficial aquifer
ground-water quality monitor well
(Township 9S, Range 21E, section 7;
Department of Environmental Regulation data, 1989).

PARAMETER AVERAGE UNITS*
1, 1, 1 Trichloroethane 0.0000 fg/I
1, 1, 2 Trichloroethane 0.0000 Ag/I
1, 1 Dichloroethene 0.0000 Ag/I
1, 1 Dichloroethane 0.0000 ig/I
1, 2 Dichloroethane 0.0000 Ag/I
1, 2 Dichlorobenzene 0.0000 ag/I
1, 2 Dichloropropane 0.0000 Ag/I
1, 3 Dichlorobenzene 0.0000 Ig/I
1, 4 Dichlorobenzene 0.0000 Ag/I
1122 Tetrachloroethane 0.0000 ag/I
Arsenic 0.0000 mg/I
Barium 0.0000 mg/I
Bicarbonate 4.0000 mg/I
Bromoform 0.0000 ag/I
Bromomethane 0.0000 Ag/I
Bromodichloromethane 0.0000 ag/I
C1, 3 Dichloropropene 0.0000 ag/l
Cadmium 0.0000 mg/I
Calcium 0.4000 mg/I
Carbonate 0.0000 mg/I
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0000 Ag/I
Chloromethane 0.0000 Ug/I
Chloride 10.0000 mg/I
Chloroethane 0.0000 Ag/I
Chlorobenzene 0.0000 ag/I
Chloroform 0.0000 agll
Chromium 0.0000 mg/I
Conductivity 45.0000 umhos/cm
Copper 0.0000 mg/I
Cyanide 0.0000 mg/I
Dibromochloromethane 0.0000 Ag/I
Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.0000 ag/I
Fecal Coliform 0.0000 col/100ml
Fluoride 0.0000 mg/I
Iron 0.8000 mg/I
Lead 0.0000 mg/I
Magnesium 0.7700 mg/I
Manganese 0.0290 mg/I
Mercury 0.0000 mg/I
Methylene Chloride 0.0000 Ag/I
Nitrate 0.0000 mg/I
pH 4.9000 s.u.
Phosphate 0.0000 mg/I
Potassium 0.2000 mg/l
Silver 0.0000 mg/I
Sodium 5.7000 mg/I
T1, 2 Dichloroethene 0.0000 fg/I
T1, 3 Dichloropropene 0.0000 Ag/I
Tetrachloroethane 0.0000 Ag/I
Trichloroethane 0.0000 Ag/I
Trichlorofluoromethane 0.0000 Ag/I
Vinyl Chloride 0.0000 jg/I
1, 2 Dibromoethane 0.0000 Ag/I
2 Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether 0.0000 ig/I
Benzene 0.0000 Ag/I
Ethyl Benzene 0.0000 jg/I
Toluene 0.0000 Ag/I

g/I = micrograms per liter col/100ml = coliform bacteria count per 100 milliliter
mg/l = milligrams per liter
s.u. = standard units
umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter







FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


I -I **Z- I*






0 MILE X]
0 1 KILOMETER
SCALE eS*








VISA WELL
AMBIENT MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
E[ FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WELL LOCATIONS
SINKHOLE LOCATIONS
C SOUTHWEST PART OF STUDY AREA
VISA BOUNDARY FGS410491

Figure 26. Location of Gainesville Very Intense Study rea (VISA) (Florida Deparment of
Environmental Regulation and Suwannee River Water Management District data, 1990).













VIEW FROM THE SOUTHWEST

ELEVATION ANGLE = 20


Figure 27. Perspective view of the VISA topography and the top of the Ocala Group limestone (after Lindquist, 1989).


o






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


bicarbonate and calcium and high values for
chloride and sodium. These parameters may be
derived from precipitation of marine aerosols
(ocean-derived moisture) (Ceryak et al., 1983).
As a part of the ambient ground-water pro-
gram, DER and the Suwannee River Water
Management District are in the process of
establishing a Very Intense Study Area (VISA)
network within the city of Gainesville. This VISA
is located in southwestern Gainesville (Figures
26 and 27). In contrast to the ambient wells,
which are strategically placed to monitor unaf-
fected areas whose ground water is not associ-
ated with degradation due to pollution sources,
the VISA wells are intended to monitor the
impact of and potential or confirmed pollution
sources on local water quality (based on land-
use activity).
The Gainesville VISA is placed in an area
designated as "mixed urban-residential" covering
approximately 30 square miles. This VISA will
have a number of wells installed to monitor the
local area's water quality. Water from these
wells will be compared to that of nearby wells
in the ambient ground-water quality background
network to determine if any degradation is
occurring as a result of land-use activities within
the VISA.

POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE

Figures 28a-28e show the potentiometric
surface of the upper Floridan aquifer system for
the months of May and September for the years
1978,1980,1982,1984,1986, and 1988 (St. Johns
River Water Management District data). The
potentiometric surface is a measurement used
by hydrogeologists to show the elevation or
altitude (expressed in feet above mean sea level)
at which the water level would stand in tightly
cased wells that penetrate the aquifer.
These contoured data show that Alachua
County and Gainesville have a potentiometric
surface that ranges from 40 to 85 feet above
MSL, generally from west to east. The effect of
rainfall, and relatively rapid recharge to the
Floridan, is demonstrated in Figures 28d and
28e. During the years 1984, 1985, and 1986 this
part of the state experienced deficits in annual


rainfall of up to 15 inches. During drought times
the aquifer was not being recharged and, in
essence, ground-water mining was occurring, as
evidenced by the expanding and deepening cone
of depression in the potentiometric surface over
the study area. During periods of normal rainfall
the aquifer recovers and appears to have been
relatively stable over a decade in which
Gainesville has experienced substantial growth,
as shown by a comparison between Figures 28a
and 28e. Figure 29 lends support to this observa-
tion since the potentiometric surface experienced
changes from minus one foot to minus four feet
in the period from September 1987 to May 1988,
similar to seasonal fluctuations shown for prior
years (Figures 28a-e). As would be expected, the
metropolitan study area experienced the greatest
fluctuations in the potentiometric surface, while
a large part of the rest of Alachua County had
very little or no observed change.
Figure 30 demonstrates the close relationship
between rainfall and recharge to the aquifer.
Periods of intense or prolonged rainfall recharge
the aquifer with water, causing an increase in the
aquifer's potentiometric surface and raising the
water levels in wells that tap the aquifer. The lag
times between rainfall events and recharge
changes are controlled by variable natural and
man-made factors. For example, periods of
drought or lower-than-average rainfall will result
in depletion of water from storage in the aquifer,
with corresponding lower water levels in wells.
In general, longer periods of rainfall deficits
cause the most pronounced lowering of the
potentiometric surface. In addition, during
droughts society's water usages tend to in-
crease, further aggravating the stresses on the
aquifer. Irrigation of farms and lawns increase
to compensate for loss in expected rain. With the
return to normal rainfall patterns, it takes longer
for recharge to replenish the overlying units and
eventually reach the deeper, confined aquifer.
Other factors, such as the location and physical
nature of drainage wells, and karst features such
as sinkholes can have local effects on the rates
and quantity of recharge. Rainfall distribution
patterns can also affect recharge, particularly
when it is the summer thunderstorm variety,
which often deluges a relatively small area while
providing no rain to nearby areas.






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33



IR17E R18E I R19E R20E I R21E I R22E

0 5 miles
Skilometers T6S


70 T7S
70

606 70 80
T8S



80
80 T
TIOS


50 T11S
6060

T12S

ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MSL
WELL
50 '-MAY
0 -SEPTEMBER420491
60 -.SEPTEMBER






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY



I R17E R18E I R19E I R20E I R21E I R22E

o 5 miles
0 8 kilometers


ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MSL
WELL
50 .- MAY
60 -SEPTEMBER


FGS430491





SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33



I R17E I R18E i R19E R20E R21E I R22E

0 5 miles
50 0 8 kilometers T6S


0 6060 7070 T7S
40 7 0 \ 80

80
8 T8S


40 T9S


80 T1OS

0 50 70
70 T11I
0* \

50 T12S

ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MSL
WELL
50 MAY FGS440491
60B SEPTEMBER






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY



R17E I R18E I R19E I R20E I R21E I R22E

0 5 miles
5050 0 8 kilometers

F 0 60\ 7n 80


ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MSL
WELL
50M MAY
60 / SEPTEMBER FGS450491


Figure 28. Potnometri urac of the upper Foridan aquifer system in Alachua County,
May 1984 and September 1984 (after unpublished SJRWMD potentiometrl surface map,).










I R17E I R18E I R19E R20E I R21E I R22E

0 5 miles

40 50 kilometers T6S

S6060 70 8
\ I7 \ 0 8 0 U S
8O

T8S


40 3 T9S

80
80 T1OS


50 "0 T11S
S60

T12S

ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MSL
WELL
50 MAY
60 SEPTEMBER FGS440491


Fiure-28e& Poentiometric surfaeoftheupperFloddanaquifer ystemiAlahua ...nty,
May 1986 and September 1986 (after unpublished SJRWMD potentometi, i urfaes maps).










IR17EI R18E R19E R20E R21E I R22E
T6S
0 5 miless T6S
0 8 kilometers


1 0
T7S

TSI



T10S


T11S
0
.0 .0 T12S

WELL
S CHANGE (FEET)


FGS460491

















-d I


M J D J D J D J D J D J
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990









.....- . .. :r -:;~ l,.: .....






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


WATER USAGE

Figure 31 shows the various water usages for
both ground- and surface-water withdrawals in
the St. Johns River Water Management District
for 1986 (the latest year for which data are
available). These data clearly illustrate the
importance of the Floridan aquifer system, as it
was the source of more than 90 percent of the
ground water withdrawn in the district in 1986
(SJRWMD data).
Figure 31 shows the dominance of the
agricultural sector and to a lesser extent the
public water supply as users of ground water.
Together, these two categories account for 73
percent of the ground water withdrawn from the
district in 1986.
The household sector is currently the largest
user of ground water in Gainesville. Data for the
period 1985-1988 showed that this category
accounts for approximately 69 percent of total
usage (Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU),
1989). Additional categories and their usage for
this period include utilities (11.68%), urban irriga-
tion (10.91%), commercial/industrial (6.00%),
power production (1.59%) and cooling (1.00%).
It should be noted that agricultural water usage
is very sensitive to weather conditions and
shows the greatest seasonal variations in
withdrawals.
The primary source of potable water as well
as water used for industrial and public utilities
in the Gainesville area is the Floridan aquifer
system. The greatest volume is withdrawn from
the GRU Murphree Municipal well field. Currently,
some 19.6 million gallons of water per day (gpd)
is taken from this well field. Two other smaller
systems used primarily for potable water are
located at Sunniland Training Center (231,000
gpd) and Wimberly Estates (11,000 gpd).
GRU estimates the demand for water use in
the Gainesville area for the next 10 years will
show 2.37 percent annual increase in residential
use and a 2.45 percent annual increase in
commercial use.
Computer modeling indicates that approxi-
mately 35 to 75 billion gallons of rainwater
recharges the Floridan aquifer system in the
Gainesville area (GRU data, 1989). In addition,
GRU treats wastewater from the Kanapaha ter-
tiary treatment plant and returns approximately
80 percent of this water to the Floridan aquifer


system. This would suggest that even with
projected increases in usage, the Gainesville
area should have a more than adequate supply
of potable water for the foreseeable future.

MINERAL RESOURCES

The following discussion of the economic
geology of Alachua County is not intended to be
a complete investigation leading to immediate
industrial development because, in some cases,
the data represents information on a single
outcrop, pit or mine. However, favorable data
may indicate that certain areas warrant further
investigation.
Figure 32 is a mineral resources map which is
designed to present an overview of the major
mineral commodities in the Gainesville area.
Factors such as thickness of overburden as well
as the quality and volume of the deposit will
affect the mining of the mineral commodity at
any specific site. The following is a discussion
of clay, peat, limestone, and undifferentiated
resources of the study area.

CLAY

Clay occurs primarily as surface and near-
surface sediments in the southern portion of the
study area with smaller deposits located to the
northeast and west of the Gainesville urban area
(Figure 32). The predominant mineralogical
forms in Alachua County are smectite and
kaolinite (United States Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), 1985). Kaolinite occurs as a matrix
material in the quartz sands present along a
narrow portion of the Alachua-Putnam County
boundary. In contrast, the more abundant
smectite-bearing sediments occur over a much
broader area of the county and are generally
associated with the near-surface Hawthorn
Group sediments.
The SCS (1985) utilizes the uppermost 80
inches of the sediment profile to map soil type
and determine usefulness of the material in any
given locality. In the Alachua County soil study,
the SCS identified several sandy, clayey, loam
soil types as being present in the county. Some
of these clayey soil types are present just south
of Gainesville in areas such as Paynes Prairie
State Preserve, Levy Lake and Orange Lake.






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33



GROUND WATER




03.33Mgrld ,-- .o "o., ,,







Domestio Self-upplied
Commeerol/lnduatrial S -lf-su pJ,, e 82.33 Mga/Vd
127.96 Mgol/d

4.71 M./d -.5


SURFACE WATER
















20.50 Ml/d 15.47 Mg4l/d






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


Figure 33 is modified from the 1985 Alachua
County SCS map to show the study area. There
are several major soil associations present in
and around Gainesville. These include the
Candler-Apopka soils (well drained sandy soils),
the Arredondo-Gainesville and Millhopper-
Bonneau-Arredondo and Blichton-Lochloosa-
Bivans soils (sandy to loamy soils), the
Millhopper-Lochloosa-Sparr, Chipley-Tavares-
Sparr and Pelham-Mulat and Pamona-Wauchula-
Newnan soils (sandy, loamy to clayey soils), and
the Monteocha-Surrency and Ledwith-Wauberg
soils (sandy, loamy and clayey soils).
This soil survey also provides data on the
general suitability of soils for use as construction
materials. The SCS states that the Candler-Apopka
soil association, which is present in the south-
eastern quarter of the Gainesville area, are good
sources of sand.
Clay has not been mined in Alachua County
since the early 1920's when it was extracted near
Campville (sample 1, section 33, Township 9S,
Range 22E). The clay from this site was used in
the manufacture of a poor grade of common
brick (Greaves-Walker et al., 1949). They reported
that, in addition to common brick, test results
indicated the clay from this site would make a
good grade of refractory brick (Table 5).
Hickman and Hamlin (1965) reported on a clay
test of sediments located west of Gainesville
(Figure 32, sample 2, Township 9S, Range 18E,
section 33) in which an auger sample penetrated
12 feet of a dark buff colored clay beginning at
a depth of four feet. The test results indicated
the material to be suitable as ceramic clay. The
results also showed the clay to have excellent
bloating qualities at 1900F. These tests indicate
that utilization of clay sediments as an economic
commodity may warrant further investigation.

PEAT

Figure 32 shows the presence of several
potential peat deposits within the Gainesville
area. These include some relatively large areas
at or near Newnans Lake. These areas are peren-
nially wet and conducive to the accumulation of
organic material which decomposes to form
peat.


Davis (1946) reported on three peat deposits in
Alachua County: 1) in Lake Wauberg (sample 1,
section 9, Township 11S, Range 20E), 2) in New-
nans Lake (sample 2, section 5, Township 10S,
Range 21E), and 3) in the marsh of Orange Lake
(sample 3, section 12, Township 12S, Range 22E).
Table 6 gives the analyses of the deposits.
The Soil Conservation Service (1985) desig-
nated numerous areas of the county as having
peaty soils. A number of these soils occur in the
study area (portions of the Paynes Prairie State
Preserve). The SCS soil type associated with
peat or peaty muck in this area is the
Ledwith-Wauberg.
Peat is not presently mined in Alachua County.
However, if operations were to begin, the typical
extraction process involves the removal of
surface vegetation followed by site dewatering
and then removal of peat by draglines or
bulldozer. The material would then be shredded
and stockpiled for future use. Currently, all
Florida peats are used for horticultural purposes.

LIMESTONE

Limestone has been mined extensively to the
west and southwest of Gainesville for years. Its
close proximity to the ground surface in these
areas enhances the place value of the deposit.
Economic deposits of limestone are limited to
this part of the study area since the top of the
limestone dips and deepens to the northeast
(Figure 13).
Four companies presently mining limestone
in Alachua County use the open pit method for
extracting rock. Heavy equipment removes vege-
tation and overburden material prior to mining.
The limestone in this area is generally soft and
friable, however, if indurated, blasting may be
required to loosen the deposit to enhance
recovery.
The water table is commonly 25 to 30 feet
below the top of the mineable limestone. Drag-
lines permit mining to depths 40 to 50 feet below
the water surface. Therefore, the maximum mine-
able section ranges from 65 to 80 feet.
Stockpiled sediments are loaded by dragline
or front-end loaders into trucks and transported
to processing areas. Processing techniques
involve reduction and screening to obtain
various size fractions (Campbell, 1986).










FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT Or NATURAL RESOU


Figure 32. Mineral resources map of Alachua County (from Hoenstine et al., 1990).








FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY








72 10 5
5





a s











SCALE rsseoie









ILS ON UPLANDS
Wa AOAEDONDO-AINESVILLE-MILLHOPPER assooatron Nn el to nloping, well draioed
7 10































OLS OFE DSON LGHT KNOLLS AND IN SIONAL ARES BEEN
5u 3taei map of su am ore ( moe Ie rn .S. S,' r, s vi v






19E 85O).PF)R BONNELOEMRREONPIP R a,.ss t.ion Nearilyg A le' topn wl r
sI s s ar s an oad o4 inchoa are dre l oamy below




SOI OFa HE FLATWOODS, ON SOUGHT KNOLLS, AND INRANSITIONALAREAS BETWEEN
THS PLANS AND THE FLA MPWLOODS.
CAdre loGSy04belo91














Figpr 33. e er l soil MaLp T o so,:;ai;r. N (m- if, f.ro U,.' S. oil. Coserato, an.1.c
i I9 I I I
0 KILO ET NaERSo
SOILS ON SAND RIDGES
,:rJDLE R .,-k A I N ea,: ,r, lr, frl. 1,. sc op r ,' isSc a ess n.e ,fi ,, :n 4,1..e Jl a ,', 3


SOILSON UPLANDS
ARREDONDO-'iNll) ILE-M ILr.OPPER association: Nearly level to sloping, well drained














Figure 33. General soil map of study area (modified from UndS. Soil Conservation Service,















1985). ,







SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33





Table 5. Characteristics of Campville Clay
(From Greaves-Walker et al., 1949)

Forming Behavior ............................................... ................ Good
Drying Behavior .................... ........................................... Excellent
Firing Behavior .................... .............................................. Good
Firing Range ....................................................... ............. Wide
Dry Com pressive Strength ........................................................ 258 psi
Dry Modulus of Rupture ......................................................... 90 psi
Fired Compressive Strength, Laboratory Cone 10 ................................... 1022 psi
Fired Modulus of Rupture, Cone 10 ............................................... 382 psi
Resistance to Abrasion, Dry .................................. ....... ............. Good
Resistance to Abrasion, Fired, Laboratory Cone 10 ..................................... Fair
Percent Water of Plasticity ......................................................... 11.6
Percent Absorption, Fired, Laboratory Cone 10 ..........................................15.4
Percent Linear Shrinkage, Dry ....................................................... 1.9
Percent Linear Expansion, Fired, Laboratory, Cone 10 .................................... 1.2
Percent Total Linear Shrinkage, Laboratory, Cone 10 .................................... 0.7
Fired Color, Laboratory Cone 10 .................................................. White
Pyrometric Cone Equivalent, (PCE) Cone 30 .................................... .. 30020F.

Silica (SiO) ............... ................ ....... ...... ..... ................. 80.88%
Alumina and Titania (Al203 + TiO,) .............................................. 12.11%
Ferric O xide (FeO03) .................................................. ............ 1.00%
Lime (CaO) ................. ............ .... ................. ............... 0.03%
Magnesia (MgO) ................................................................0.23%
Alkalies (Na20 + K20) ................ ........................................... None
Loss on Ignition (Ign) ............................................................ 5.73%
Total ................................ .................................... 99.98%




Table 6. Analysis of Alachua County Peats
(From Davis, 1946)

Moisture Free Basis. Analysis in Per Cent
Proximate Analysis Ultimate Analysis

BTU Per Pound
Volatile Fixed
Sample/Location Matter Carbon Ash H C N O S Moisture Free

1 In Lake Wauberg near Micanopy,
Levy Grant, Lot 9, T11S, R20E 43.6 13.6 40.1 4.2 33.8 2.9 18.5 0.5 5960
2 In Newmans Lake
sec. 5, T10S, R21E 21.4 4.9 73.7 1.9 15.5 1.2 7.5 0.2 --
3 Orange Lake, in drained marsh
sec. 12, T12S, R22E 60.5 30.7 8.8 5.9 55.9 3.4 25.4 0.6 9460






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


Limestone from western Alachua County is
utilized primarily as base course material. The
product is usually distributed to nearby Florida
markets and occasionally to south Georgia.
Total resource and production estimates are not
available. The wide occurrence, thin overburden
and thick sections of the Ocala Group limestone
suggest that these deposits can be economically
mined for many years.

UNDIFFERENTIATED RESOURCES

The majority of the surface and near-surface
sediments within the study area are comprised
of sand, clayey sand, clay and organic muck
(Figure 32). The clay and muck are located in
areas that are often inundated by water. In
contrast, the sand and clayey sand have more
widespread occurrences.
The sand and clayey sand are especially
important as a source of fill in the county for the
many low lying areas which are subject to
flooding. In addition, the organic-rich sands may
have value as top soil. A future comprehensive
investigation of these undifferentiated sediments
may lead to additional economic or industrial
applications.

LAND USE

A computerized data base designed to identify
specific land use patterns in Florida has been
developed by the University of Florida. These
data are based on a number of sources including
municipal and county property taxes, assess-
ments and platbooks. To date, approximately
100 specific land uses have been defined, all of
which have been grouped by the Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation (DER) under
one of seven general land use categories. These
seven broad categories are residential, commer-
cial, industrial, agricultural, governmental,
institutional and miscellaneous.
Figures 34 through 40 are computer generated,
color-coded illustrations that show either the
number of parcels or the acreage within a
section (640 acres) which are devoted to the
stated land use. These numbers are based on
percentages of the area in the section on the
map which contains the greatest numerical sum


(in parcels or acreage as indicated) of that
specific land use. For example, the section in
Alachua County which has the greatest number
of parcels for residential land use contains 1335
parcels (Figure 34). This section is shown on the
map in the same color as the 81 to 100 percent
category. The other sections are shown in colors
representing intervals from 1 to 100 percent,
based on this 100 percent value of 1335.
The residential category includes vacant
residential, single family, mobile homes, condo-
miniums, and multi-family units. Not surprisingly,
the greatest concentration of residential develop-
ment in Alachua County occurs in Gainesville,
the county's largest city. Figure 34 shows the
densest concentration of residential areas
located in northern and eastern Gainesville, with
another concentration in the central part of the
city. The lightest density of residential develop-
ment occurs in western Gainesville.
The most recent county census shows that the
city of Gainesville accounts for 52.09 percent of
the total residential housing in Alachua County,
a total of 27,508 units (1980 Census of Housing,
U.S. Department of Census). This census showed
the remainder of the county to contain 25,298
units.
The dense development in northern and
eastern Gainesville occurs in areas where a
relatively thin layer of undifferentiated sand and
clay (15-20 feet) overlies Hawthorn Group
sediments that are as much as 175-feet thick
(Figure 13). Clays and sandy clays within the
Hawthorn Group act as a confining unit for the
Floridan aquifer system, retarding the downward
movement of potential contaminants from the
land surface. However, the near-surface occur-
rence of the Hawthorn Group and included inter-
mediate aquifer system presents a potential
danger of contamination in this area from lawn
fertilizers, herbicides and septic tank effluents.
Although the primary source of water here is the
Floridan aquifer system, contamination of the
intermediate aquifer system could preclude its
future utilization as a potable water source.
Figure 35 shows the degree of commercial
land use in the Gainesville area. The commercial
land use classification includes vacant commer-
cial property, department stores, supermarkets,
regional and community shopping centers, pro-
fessional services buildings, service stations,

































'LI

luu 1-20 IM 21-40 ~41-60
.nlrrr 61-80 = 81-100 GAGIINESVILLE
N. f. .,Od~l e d... -1 .....





































1-20 21-400 ~ 1-4
661-80 ~ 81-100 F-1, AINESILLE

SNo dot, or do,, of ,ccur FGS500491


FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


parking lots, restaurants, motels, golf courses,
and tourist attractions. This category type is
concentrated primarily in central Gainesville,
with a smaller concentration in northwestern
Gainesville. The rest of the study area is lightly
represented by this category.
Certain specific uses including service sta-
tions, golf courses and parking lots associated
with shopping centers, malls and supermarkets
pose special environmental concerns. Hydro-
carbons from leaking underground fuel tanks
and runnoff from paved lots, which may infiltrate
surrounding soils or fertilizers and pesticides
from golf courses, could cause substantial
damage to all three aquifer systems present in
the study area. Such contaminants could easily
enter the porous surface sands comprising the
surficial aquifer system in the Gainesville area
and continue downward into the sands and
carbonate units of the underlying intermediate
aquifer system, which is especially thick in
central Gainesville. Similarly, breaches in the
overlying sediments of the Hawthorn Group
could result in the eventual entry of contaminants
into the Floridan aquifer system, thus degrading
the primary source of water for the city of
Gainesville (Figure 17).
The industrial category includes a diversity of
land uses including light manufacturing, heavy
equipment manufacturing, warehousing, can-
neries and lumber yards. Statistical data for 1988
indicates that the manufacturing sector accounts
for 6.1 percent of the labor force in Alachua
County (Department of Growth Management,
1989). This includes boat building, energy pro-
ducts, metal works and container construction.
The industrial sector is localized in central and
north-central Gainesville with light concentra-
tions occurring in the southwestern and north-
eastern portions of the study area (Figure 36).
The concentration of industrial activities in
central and north-central Gainesville poses
serious environmental risks to the intermediate
aquifer system contained within the thick
Hawthorn Group sediments. The near-surface
occurrences of this aquifer, as well as the over-
lying surficial aquifer system in these areas and
their resultant susceptibility to contamination,
requires that restrictive procedures involving the
usage and disposal of industrial chemicals must
be implemented and closely monitored.


Agriculture represents a substantial portion of
Alachua County's economy. This land use
category includes crops, vegetables, nursery
stock, dairy, and livestock. Statistics for 1987
show that agricultural acreage totaled 192,255
acres which generated an estimated income of
$37,771,805 (Department of Growth Management,
1989).
In contrast to the county, the central part of
the study area, which includes much of urban
Gainesville, has minimal acreage devoted to
agricultural activities (Figure37). Significant
acreage devoted to agriculture is concentrated
primarily around the periphery of the study area.
Important environmental concerns associated
with agricultural practices involve the large scale
use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers.
These present a potential danger to Gainesville's
three aquifer systems. These concerns are
potentially more serious than those associated
with other land uses as agricultural practices are
widespread and interact with a greater diversity
of geologic environments. This concern may be
reduced for the unincorporated areas of Gaines-
ville and the county as a whole in the future as
combined growth and development expand at
the expense of agriculture.
The institutional category is primarily localized
in central Gainesville (Figure38). It includes
churches, private schools and colleges, private
hospitals, clubs, convalescent homes and
cultural organizations. This land use has the
potential to introduce contaminants to the
various aquifer systems via runoff from im-
properly designed parking lots which could
infiltrate surrounding unpaved sediments. This
is of concern throughout the study area for both
the surficial and intermediate aquifer systems
due to the presence of relatively porous and
permeable surface sands and the near-surface
occurrence of both aquifer systems.
As the largest city in Alachua County, Gaines-
ville has a number of city and county govern-
mental activities. They include city and county
governmental facilities, public colleges, hos-
pitals, and schools. As Figure 39 shows, these
activities are concentrated primarily in northeast
and southwest Gainesville.
The northeastern grouping of institutional
parcels is primarily governmental facilities and
the southwestern group is associated with the







FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


0 1-20 21-40-4
41.i~d-60 1:~:81-100 F-1, GAINESVILLE

N.N dlil .1 doap 1- FG51049












































1-20 21-40 41-60
61-80 1 81-100 GAIlNESVILLE
FGS540491 No dat. .1 d- -f 0-Ueu


SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO 33






































iurr [ 1-20 = 81-loo
21-40 I L, GAINESVILLE
FGS520491 O No d.f. .1 d- ..j osu


FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


































1~~r 0 -20 221-40 41-60
61-80 81-100 GAIaca NEWLI-E
sFGS530491 3 -u N. data ., d... -i -c.,u








FigurM39. G .... =alland usR:map, lWperoent = 640 e(unpublished data, Flodda
DepOauent at Env, onenta Rgulation, 1990).


sPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33












Universityof Forida Simlar tothe Institutional
category, the governmental activities have the
Potential to aff ect ground wat., q-11ity through
-,11l of propertyy designed p-ve parking
.to


everything not covered by the above categories
Th see I uds such thing. as railroads, river.
lakes, saw a Ispsa and right of way storess
,,ad,, and dttch,,

SOLID WASTE DISPOSALL

G iheav,11. he. on. active landfill which our-
b.Y.-voisvesai Al-lbe.u County. This class



on stat, Read 24 (Figure 3) Pe-11 .7 Pit..'l
m 12 1.11,000 tons of refuse is placed in huss
bmdf I ech 'as r
Liners, which were Installed to prevent the
d I .a p ... lat,,n of ... armirumb, to the
underlying aqi esfr,,, I, eticaer12
acres of this ". A in ad firms U1 acres 11
planned tI be'lnedwhich wil r ... t in for.
of 251/, acres re bsalled I ners at this landf I
Ai system has b asn I htate ed wh ch colleMt
leach-t The leachate Is partially treated on site
arru then uransp-ned to I .,at, watt, Uvotr-n


active until 11;g.Thr.Ti atibaed on iertmn-e



A~n gocdf ve c11ca Ime landfill (the Northeast
La_'Ib p"Sen f -th in the study -re Tb :
landfill, which operated from 972 to 1 982,


Street (FFgg.... a it 41). Q -g app--alyte
120 cos, thc Northeast Landfill -a the rml
..c. I s 'at ite or Al,,hua C ...ty during
the time of its operation This pc,,.d was bef-r
the require- nt for nors and ,n,,q",ently,
..at. was ti id n un baed re.".
The landfill site he. rolling ..rfacetopogbsphy


feet be,,e M$I- n the northwestern portion of
the landfill The general surface elevations slope
F th, -trieas d g inpnto Gum Four Swamp
(Fguire ell

lr 'hslnfl a drawn mp by HN Hnll mdder
C contract to the A Iachba County Public Works
Department (CHM Hill, 1990). Figure 41 shows
the location of onbute monitor rg sites and
off eit. private walle used for as me Iii T base
we s are complooed Irt. the auffi-ll and
Fl,,,dan a ...... Its rri
Data for" "' Is In sit. indicate that the top
.1 In. c. .a Gr,,p limest one, which beer ...nt,
jhe, upper unit of the Floridan aquifer system In
h ..are. -,u,,o at depth of 50 f..t b.Iow MSL
('H'y H i9 S The aattob and dolomite
sed,..n;. of the O) 0 ,cup ase overlain by
appr-xmately 120 felt If Hawthorn Group
phosphatic Clays, $and,, 'I ay radend and
sarom-e Th... are in turn ... hann by ... face
Jdiments consisting of10 to 20feet offne to
c..r.. gr baed sand.
Three aqulfer systems are present at this ilt
Th ... ... 1""' 1 1. deeper 1. shallower, he
Flondebacurfore yetem the intermediate aquler
system and the .urfrc I quit,, system
Ana lyssa of sediments .otfltd it the
Floridan aquifer yyst- In in a area nd car. that








the I ...tb., dolomite and flh-l..ficl
,,d ,,is of [he Hawthorn Group Imp-, eble
Lllit trou-e t-cs sediments fr.. the



-xet,i this a, yet little studied unit, may serve
Is I, P irtent local s-c.c of potable wat., to

A aurfrc ol a,,,fv, cscor --o .,thin the
.r,,aca sands rsocaed wit the no fffern
flated sand and clay unttat vre h
H..th.,b Group (Fig.... 13 and 14). Wete
y,.Ido from ..11. completed in this un t very fr m
2 1, 10 pull... per minute (CCiM Hil 1 990)






























SC 1-20 Z GAINESVILLE
--- R 21-40
FGS5504913 o ---m 1 No doat or does not occur





FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY



ST-D
BOUN-~Y-












~11 11TI 1111TI

DFTLL



Fi-4.L..to 1 N-has Lndil. N. .,CMHil,190

64,






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


Table 7 gives analyses of water samples
tested for volatile compounds (VOC's) taken
from well NE-6SN (Figure 40) for the years 1985
to 1989. This well is an on-site monitoring well
tapping the surficial aquifer system. Testing of
water samples from this well in May 1988 showed
1,1-Dichlorothene and vinyl chloride values to be
significantly higher than EPA's proposed maxi-
mum contaminant levels (Table 7). Subsequent
tests showed high, but reduced, values through
July 13, 1989, the last date for which testing
results are available.
Water analyses of a number of on-site shallow
monitoring wells showed the presence of certain
metals including barium, cadmium, chromium,
iron, lead, and manganese to have concentrations
higher than proposed EPA maximum standards
(Table 8).
In general, sampling results of on-site monitor-
ing wells completed into the Floridan aquifer
system shows concentrations of VOC's to be
below detection limits. However, metals were
detected in all wells with several samples show-
ing concentrations of manganese, sulfate, and
total dissolved solids in amounts higher than
proposed EPA maximum standards (CH2M Hill,
1990).
The level of contamination present in the
surficial aquifer system is not surprising given
its proximity to land surface and the disposal of
waste into unlined cells during the landfill's
lifetime. The proximity of the intermediate
aquifer system to the surficial aquifer system
and the varied nature of the Hawthorn Group
sediments suggest a potential for contamination
of this aquifer system. An investigation of this
aquifer system is presently planned (CH2M Hill,
1990). The metals detected in the Floridan
aquifer system may be derived from on-site
surface waste. The varying lithology of the
Hawthorn Group may result in breaks in the
overlying confining Hawthorn clays, thus pro-
viding contaminants a conduit to the Ocala
Group limestones.

SUMMARY

The data and information in this report reveals
the intimate relationship among climate, geology,
and hydrogeology of the Gainesville area. This
relationship must be an integral part of environ-
mentally responsible land-use planning and
resource management. There are demonstrated


reasons for citizens, planners, and other govern-
mental agencies to have concerns with regards
to past, and future, industrial, agricultural, and
urban development.
Protection of Gainesville's ground-water
resources must be a top priority in any planning,
development, or regulatory context. The car-
bonate rocks of the Floridan aquifer system
occur at or near land surface in the study area.
Their high degree of karstification provides easy,
and rapid, access to the aquifer by rainwater and
any entrained contaminants. Urbanization, which
is particularly concentrated in the central part
of the study area, increases the types and
amounts of contaminants to the aquifer, as well
as concentrating runoff so that the natural
filtering action of soil overburden is bypassed.
Potential threats to ground-water quality due to
urbanization include improperly installed septic
tanks and drain fields, leaking storage tanks for
petroleum or other chemicals, runoff from paved
areas, drainage wells, and improper landfilling
practices.
Agriculture has a significant presence around
the periphery of the study area and is a major
part of the area's economy. Widespread use of
chemicals to increase yields poses a significant
threat to the ground water. Indiscriminant and
over-application of irrigation water increases the
possibility of ground-water contamination.
In addition to its threat to Gainesville's ground
water, karst also poses danger to property.
Characteristic karst phenomena, such as sink-
holes and ground subsidence, are contiuiung
processes in the Gainesville area. Information
about the occurrence and distribution of the
area's limestone and other sediments can alert
planners or land users that certain sites may

warrant detailed investigation.
A knowledge of the location of potential
mineral resources is also important to planners.
Areas that have economic value may conflict
with usage categories such as residential, indus-
trial, and agricultural. These data are an integral
part of the process of developing an effective
comprehensive land use plan. Frequently, urban
or other development occurs in areas underlain
by mineral deposits, thereby precluding future
extraction of the minerals, even though some of
these minerals may be needed for development.
In addition, the exploitation of these mineral
resources can represent substantial employment
and income to the private sector, as well as tax
revenue to county and state governments.
































Table 7. Volatile organic compound analyses, Northeast Landfill, Alachua County.
All concentrations in micrograms per liter. (Data from CH2M Hill, 1990).
"1
t"

1,1,1- 1,1-01 1,1-DI 1,2-01 1,2-DI TETRA TETRA 1,2-DI TRICHLORO T-BUTYL DI- TOTAL TOTAL O
TRICHLORO CHLORO CHLORO METHYLENE CHLORO CHLORO CHLORO CHLORO CHLORO VINYL CHLORO CHLORO CHLORO FLUORO METHYL ETHYL CHLORO- CHLORO TOTAL AROMATIC CHLORINATED 0
STATION DATE ETHANE ETHANE ETHEME CHLORIDE ETHENE ETHANE ETHENE ETHANE FORM CHLORIDE METHANE ETHANE PROPANE METHANE ETHER BENZENE BENZENE TOLUENE XYLENE BENZENE BENZENE VO'S COMPOUNDS SOLVENTS
0
ONSITE SHALLOW
MONITORING WELLS

NE-6SN 25-MAY-88 -- 2 36 7 12 3 -13 -- NA 5 5 12 110 7 10 311 158 153 m
NE-6SN 25-MAY-88 72 31 4 10 3 9 NA 14 14 6 110 8 9 289 161 128
NE-ASN 27-JUNE-88 -- 25 12 2 3 2 4 13 5 NA 11 10 5 3 7 5 106 40 65 0
H) NE-6SN 27-JUNE-88 37 24 3 3 A 6 32 10 N 13 11 4 4 8 7 165 46 119
H NE-6SN 07-NOV-88 56 24 NA 7 2 36 7 NA NA 9 9 5 94 6 7 263 131 132 0
NE-6SN 07-NOV-88 54 24 NA 7 1 35 5 NA NA 8 8 5 90 5 7 251 124 127
NE-6SN 23-FEB-89 55 15 NA 2 1 23 NA 4 10 8 3 93 7 9 229 129 96 -
NE-6SN 10-APR-89 4 30 NA 65 3 NA 12 9 3 90 7 9 291 l29 A62 0
NE-6SN 13-JUL-89 62 30 NA 1 -- 45 4 NA 11 8 3 100 8 8 280 138 142 >
NE-6SN 13-JUL-89 -- 57 27 NA 3 -- -- 41 -- -- -- NA -- 11 8 3 99 7 8 265 137 128 r

DRINKING WATER CRITERIA (I) 200 ** 7(2) ** ** 3 3 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 1 70(** ** 0(4) ** *C

NO APPLICABLE DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
(1) FLORIDA MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED Ni
(2) USEPA PROPOSED MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
(3) NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER CRITERIA FOR LINDANE (GAMHA-BHC)
(4) USEPA PROPOSED MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS FOR P-DICHLOROBENZENE

-- = NONE DETECTED
NA = NOT ANALYZED











Table 8. Metals analyses, Northeast Landfill, Alachua County.
All concentrations in milligrams per liter. (Data from CH2M Hill, 1990).



TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
STATION DATE ARSENIC ANTIMONY BARIUM BERYLLIUM CADMIUM CHROMIUM COPPER IRON LEAD MANGANESE MERCURY NICKEL SILVER SODIUM ZINC ALUMINUM CALCIUM MAGNESIUM POTASSIUM STRONTIUM


ONSITE SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS

NE-IS 13-DEC-85
NE-1S 12-AUG-86
NE-1S 14-NOV-86
NE-1S 11-FEB-87
NE-1S 03-JUN-87
NE-1S 22-SEP-87
NE-1S 10-DEC-87

NE-2SN 18-MAY-88
NE-2SN 27-JUN-88
NE-2SN 07-NOV-88
NE-2SN 06-FEB-89
NE-2SN 11-APR-89
NE-2SN 13-JUL-89

NE-3S 13-DEC-85
NE-3S 13-DEC-85
NE-3S 12-AUG-86
NE-3S 14-NOV-86
NE-3S 14-NOV-86
NE-3S 12-FEB-87
NE-3S 03-JUN-87
NE-3S 03-JUN-87
NE-3S 21-SEP-87
NE-3S 21-SEP-87
NE-3S 10-DEC-87

NE-3SN 18-MAY-88
NE-3SN 27-JUN-88
NE-3SN 07-NOV-88
O" NE-3SN 06-FEB-89
" NE-3SN 06-FEB-89
NE-3SN 10-APR-89
NE-3SN 13-JUL-89

NE-4S 13-DEC-85
NE-4S 11-AUG-86
NE-4S 14-NOV-86
NE-4S 11-FEB-87
NE-4S 03-JUN-87
NE-4S 21-SEP-87

ME-5SN 18-MAY-88
NE-5SN 07-NOV-88
NE-5SN 06-FEB-89
NE-5SN 11-APR-89
NE-5SN 12-JUL-89

ONSITE SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS


0.005 NA
0.003 NA
-- NA
NA
NA
NA

0.005 NA
-- NA
NA
NA
NA
NA



NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
-- NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
-- NA
NA
MNA
NA


NE-6SN 25-MAY-88
NE-6SN 25-MAY-88
NE-6SN 27-JUN-88
NE-6SN 07-NOV-88
ME-6SN 07-NOV-88
NE-6SN 06-FEB-89
NE-6SN 10-APR-89 --
NE-6SN 13-JUL-89
NE-6SN 13-JUL-89 -

DRINKING WATER CRITERIA (1) 0.050


0.20 -- 0.010 -- 21 0.013 0.09 MR -- 55 0.03 12
-- NA 0.010 0.035 -- 11 0.035 0.10 NR NA NA 68 0.08 NA
NA 0.012 -- 4.8 -- 0.10 0.0007 NA NA 68 -- NA
NA -- -- -- 4.3 0.002 0.10 -- NA NA 67 0.03 NA
NA -- -- -- 4.9 -- 0.08 0.0002 NA NA 62 0.01 NA
NA -- -- 5.0 -- 0.11 -- NA NA 75 -- NA
NA -- -- -- 5.7 -- 0.14 -- NA NA 90 -- NA

0.38 NA -- -- 8.2 0.066 0.03 0.0005 NA NA 36 0.03 NA
0.17 NA 0.033 -- 4.9 0.045 -- -- NA NA 30 -- NA
-- NA -- 0.010 -- 1.1 0.020 -- -- NA NA 26 0.01 NA
NA -- 0.015 -- 2.0 0.009 0.01 -- NA NA 28 -- NA
NA -- 0.007 -- 1.1 0.009 -- -- NA NA 28 -- NA
NA -- 0.004 1.5 0.005 0.01 -- NA NA 28 -- NA

2.1 0.012 0.070 0.02 16 0.032 0.10 NR -- -- 3.9 0.44 50
2.2 -- 0.015 0.090 0.02 22 0.037 0.11 -- -- 4.3 0.43 56
0.20 NA 0.010 0.005 -- 0.92 0.005 0.03 NR NA NA 13 0.06 NA
2.4 NA -- -- -- 10 -- 0.06 -- NA NA 16 -- NA
1.9 NA -- -- -- 1.0 -- 0.06 0.0005 NA NA 16 -- NA
S NA -- -- -- 8.5 0.004 0.09 -- NA NA 10 0.04 NA
NA -- -- -- 3.1 -- 0.06 -- NA NA 8.0 0.02 NA
NA -- -- -- 2.4 -- 0.05 -- NA NA 6.3 0.01 NA
A -- -- -- 1.2 -- 0.06 -- NA NA 8.3 -- NA
A -- -- -- 1.2 0.06 -- NA NA 8.3 -- NA
A -- -- -- 5.7 -- 0.07 -- NA NA 12 0.03 NA

NA -- -- -- 2.1 NA NA 9.4 -- NA
0.03 NA -- 0.004 1.6 0.02 -- NA NA 6.9 -- NA
-- NA -- 0.012 -- 2.5 0.002 0.01 -- NA NA 5.5 0.01 NA
NA -- 0.004 1.5 -- 0.02 -- NA NA 8.1 -- NA
-- -- 0.003 -- 1.5 -- 0.02 -- NA NA 8.0 -- NA
A -- 0.005 1.9 -- 0.02 -- NA NA 9.1 NA
NA -- -- -- 1.8 -- 0.05 -- NA NA 8.2 -- NA

0.009 -- -- 0.32 0.040 -- NR -- -- 3.7 1.9 --
NA 0.020 0.002 0.02 2.0 0.065 -- AR NA NA 5.1 3.2 NA
NA 0.013 -- -- 1.0 0.070 0.03 0.0009 NA NA 4.8 2.1 NA
NA -- -- -- 4.2 0.044 0.01 -- NA NA 5.1 3.0 NA
NA -- -- 1.1 0.055 0.02 -- NA NA 7.3 2.3 NA
NA -- -- -- 1.9 0.02 -- NA NA 4.6 2.2 NA

-- NA 0.30 -- 0.01 -- NA NA 3.2 -- NA
NA 0.006 0.75 0.005 -- NA NA 3.0 0.01 NA
-- A -- 0.004 -- 0.36 0.004 -- -- NA NA 3.1 -- NA
NA -- 0.009 -- 0.86 0.007 0.01 -- NA NA 3.3 NA
NA -- .. 0.19 -- -- NA NA 3.3 NA



NA 0.001 0.02 12 -- 0.30 -- NA NA 62 0.02 NA
NA 0.001 -- 11 -- 0.29 -- NA NA 61 0.01 NA
0.02 NA -- 0.005 0.01 9.7 0.007 0.29 -- NA NA 60 0.03 NA
-- NA 0.004 0.025 0.02 13 0.009 0.33 0.0003 NA NA 61 0.06 NA
NA 0.004 0.026 0.02 13 0.008 0.34 0.0003 NA NA 59 0.05 NA
NA 0.002 0.014 -- 13 0.005 0.30 -- NA NA 66 0.07 NA
NA 0.003 0.023 -- 13 0.006 0.32 0.0004 NA NA 64 0.04 NA
NA 0.0015 0.005 -- 11 0.002 0.28 0.0002 NA NA 69 0.02 NA
NA 0.0015 0.004 -- 11 0.002 0.28 -- WA NA 70 0.02 NA

1.00 ** 0.010 0.050 1.0(2) 0.3 0.050 0.050(2) 0.002 0.050 160(3) 5.00 **


** NO APPLICABLE DRINKING WATER CRITERIA
(1) NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER CRITERIA UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
(2) NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER CRITERIA
(3) FLORIDA PRIMARY DRINKING WATER CRITERIA


NA NOT ANALYZED
-- = NONE DETECTED
MR = NOT REPORTED BECAUSE OF OC DATA


NA NA NA
NA NA NA
97 7.4 NA
150 7.6 5.8
148 7.4 6.8
107 8.1 6.2
150 7.8 4.8
83 7.6 6.1
90 7.4 5.8
** ** **






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


REFERENCES

Alachua County Department of Planning and Development, 1989, Alachua County Comprehensive
Plan, 60 p.

Applin, P. L., 1951, Preliminary report on buried pre-Mesozoic rocks in Florida and adjacent states:
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 91, 28 p.

Barrett, R. S., 1975, Basement structure of Florida and its implications: in Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies Transactions, v. 25, pp. 122-142.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1989, Florida statistical abstract: University of Florida,
25 p.

Campbell, K. M., 1986, The industrial minerals of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Information
Circular 102, 94 p.

Ceryak, R., Knapp, M. S., and Burnson, T., 1983, The geology and water resources of the Upper
Suwannee River Basin, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigation 87,165 p.

CH2M Hill, 1988, Report on the drilling services at the Alachua County Landfills, Alachua County,
Florida, 38 p.

1990, Preliminary contamination assessment plan-Alachua County Northeast Landfill,
42 p.

Clark, W. E., Musgrove, R. H., Menke, C. G., and Cagle, J. W., 1964, Water resources of Alachua,
Bradford, Clay and Union Counties, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of
Investigation 35, 170 p.

Cooke, C. W., 1939, Scenery of Florida interpreted by a geologist: Florida Geological Survey Bulletin
17, 118 p.

Davis, J. H., 1946, The peat deposits of Florida, their occurrence, development, and uses: Florida
Geological Survey Bulletin 30, 250 p.

Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, 1989, Alachua County, Florida information
and data book, 90 p.

Dolan, E. M., and Allen, G. T., 1961, Investigation of Darby and Hornsby Springs, Alachua County,
Florida: Florida Geological Survey Special Publication 7, 124 p.

Gainesville Regional Utilities, 1989, Assessment and response to the St. Johns River Water
Management District water shortage declaration, 41 p.

Greaves-Walker, A. F., Turner, P. P., and Hagerman, R. S., 1949, The development of a structural clay
products industry using Florida clays: University of Florida Engineering and Industrial
Experiment Station Bulletin 30, Gainesville, Florida 48 p.






SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 33


Green, R., Duncan, J., Seal, T., Weinberg, J. M., and Rupert, Frank, 1989, Characterization of the
sediments overlying the Floridan aquifer system in Alachua County, Florida: Florida
Geological Survey Open File Report 29, 114 p.

Healy, H. G., 1975, Terraces and shorelines of Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series 71,
scale approximately 30 miles to 1 inch.

Hickman, A. C., and Hamlin, H. P., 1965, Ceramic clay investigations in Alachua, Clay and Putnam
Counties, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Information Circular 46, 46 p.

Hoenstine, R. W., Cooper, R., and Lane, E., 1989, An extension of the intermediate aquifer system in
north-central Florida (abs.): Florida Scientist, v. 52, p. 29-30.

Spencer, S. and Lane, E., 1990, Mineral resources of Alachua County, Florida: Florida
Geological Survey Map Series 131, 1:125,000.

Johnson, R. A., 1989, Geologic descriptions of selected exposures in Florida: Florida Geological
Survey Special Publication 30, 175 p.

Knapp, M. S., 1978, Gainesville Sheet Environmental Geology Series: Florida Bureau of Geology Map
Series 79, 1:125,000 scale.

Lane, E., 1986, Karst in Florida: Florida Geological Survey Special Publication 29, 100 p.

and Hoenstine, Ronald W., 1991, Environmental Geology and Hydrology of the Ocala
area, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Special Publication 31, p.

Lindquist, Robert, 1989, Report on the hydrogeologic setting of the ambient program Very Intensive
Study Area in Alachua County, Florida: unpublished report for Alachua County Office of
Environmental Protection, 22 p.

Macesich, M., 1988, Geologic Interpretation of the aquifer pollution potential in Alachua County,
Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open File Report 21, 25 p.

MacNeil, F. S., 1950, Pleistocene shore lines in Florida and Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 221-F, pp. 95-107.

Marella, R. L., 1988, Water withdrawals, use and trends in the St. Johns River Water Management
District: St. Johns River Water Management District Technical Publication 88-7, 131 p.

Miller, J. A., 1986, Hydrogeologic framework of the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and in parts of
Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-B,
91 p.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 1981-1986, Climatological Annual
Summaries, Florida.

Puri, H. S., and Vernon, R. O., 1964, Summary of the geology of Florida and a guidebook to the classic
exposures: Florida Geological Survey Special Publication 5 (revised), 312 p.

Rosenau, J. C., Faulkner, G. L., Hendry, C. W., Jr., and Hull, R. W., 1977, Springs of Florida: Florida
Geological Survey Bulletin 31 (revised), 461 p.


69






FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


Scott, T. M., 1986, Devil's Millhopper, Alachua County, Florida: in Geological Society of America
Centennial Field Guide Southeastern Section, p. 335-337.

Sinclair, W. C., and Stewart, J. W., 1985, Sinkhole type, development and distribution in Florida: Florida
Geological Survey Map Series 110, scale approximately 30 miles to 1 inch.

Southeastern Geological Society (SEGS) Ad Hoc Committee on Florida Hydrostratigraphic Unit
Definition, 1986, Hydrogeological Units of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Special
Publication 28, 8 p.

United States Soil Conservation Service, 1985, Soil survey of Alachua County Florida: U.S. Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with University of Florida, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Services, 185 p.

United States Department of Census, 1980 Census.

Wetterhall, W. S., 1965, Reconnaissance of springs and sinks in west-central Florida: Florida
Geological Survey Report of Investigation 39, 42 p.

White, W. A., 1970, The Geomorphology of the Florida peninsula: Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletin
51, 164 p.

Williams, K. E., Nicol, D., and Randazzo, A. F., 1977, The geology of the western part of Alachua County,
Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigation 85, 98 p.












FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
903 WEST TENNESSEE ST.
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32304-7700


Peter M. Dobbins, Admin. Asst.
Jessie Hawkins, Custodian


Walter Schmldt, Chief


Vanessa Allred, Library Asst.


Alice Jordan, Librarian
Sandie Ray, Admin. Secretary


GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS SECTION


Thomas M. Scott, Senior Geologist/Administrator
Jon Arthur, Petrologist Ted Kiper, Cartographer
Paulette Bond, Geochemist Milena Macesich, Research Asst.
Dianne Brien, Research Asst. Mel Martinez, Research Asst.
Ken Campbell, Sedimentologist Ted Maul, Research Asst.
Cindy Collier, Secretary Robert Mince, Research Asst.
Mitch Covington, Biostratigrapher John Morrill, Driller
Joel Duncan, Sed. Petrologist Bruce Nocita, Research Assoc.
Bob Fisher, Research Asst. Larry Papetti, Research Asst.
Rick Green, Research Asst. Albert Phillips, Asst. Driller
Mark Groszos, Research Asst. Frank Rupert, Paleontologist
Kent Hartong, Research Asst. Frank Rush, Lab Tech.
Jim Jones, Cartographer Tom Seal, Research Asst.
Clay Kelly, Research Asst.


MINERAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY SECTION

Jacqueline M. Lloyd, Senior Geologist/Administrator
Ed Lane, Env. Geologist Ron Hoenstine, Env. Geologist
Steve Spencer, Economic Geologist


OIL AND GAS SECTION


Brenda Brackin, Secretary
Robert Caughey, Dist. Coordinator
Joan Gruber, Secretary
Don Hargrove, Engineer
Scott Hoskins, Dist. Coordinator


L. David Curry, Administrator


Barbara McKamey, Secretary
Joan Ragland, Geologist
Marycarol Reily, Geologist
Koren Taylor, Research Asst.
Charles Tootle, Pet. Engineer




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs