Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the 

Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval 

Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, 

Georgia,1998 and 1999

by David C. Leeth

_____________________________________________________________________________________

U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4272

Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE DEFENSE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

SOUTHERN DIVISION NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

Atlanta, Georgia

2002
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not 

constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government

For additional information write to:

State Representative

U.S. Geological Survey

Peachtree Business Center, Suite 130

3039 Amwiler Road

Atlanta, GA 30360-2824

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Denver Federal Center

Box 25286

Denver, CO 80225-0286
Contents iii

CONTENTS

Abstract 1

Introduction 2

Purpose and scope 2

Previous investigations 2

Description of the study area 5

Well-naming system 5

Hydrogeology 7

Acknowledgments 7

Methods of investigation 7

Sampling methods 11

Laboratory methods 11

Quality assurance and control 12

Comparison between background and landfill ground-water quality 12

Ground-water-level and precipitation data collection 13

Configuration of the water table at Sites 5 and 16 13

Soil chemistry 14

Ground-water quality 16

Summary 21

Selected references 21

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures 1-2. Maps showing: 

1. Study area, structural features, and Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay boundary, southeastern Georgia 3

 2. Sites 5 and 16, and wells sampled for chemical analysis to characterize background water-quality 

conditions, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia 4

Figure 3. Lithostratigraphy and hydrogeology of Miocene and younger sediments, Naval Submarine Base Kings 

Bay, Camden County, Georgia 8

4. Map showing altitude of water-table surface at Sites 5 and 16, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, March 13, 1998 9

5. Graphs showing water-table fluctuations in wells 33E123, 33E124, and 33E128 and daily precipitation at 

well 33E124, Sites 5 and 16, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia, 

November 1997 to October 1999 10

6. Map showing sites 5 and 16, and location of soil samples collected for chemical analysis, Naval Submarine 

Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia 15

7. Diagram showing percentage composition of major ionic constituents in water from background 

wells and wells at Sites 5 and 16, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia 19

 8. Dot plots of selected inorganic constituents and field properties, grouped by location, Naval Submarine 

Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia, 1998–99 20
iv Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

TABLES

Table 1. Well-construction data for selected wells, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, 

Georgia, 1998 and 1999 6

2. Concentration of constituents detected in soil sampled at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden 

County, Georgia, September 1998, January 1999, and October 1999 16

3. Field properties and inorganic constituents in water from test wells, Naval Submarine Base Kings 

Bay, Camden County, Georgia, September 1998, January 1999, and October 1999 17

4. P-values computed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum hypothesis test comparing site concentrations to 

background concentrations assuming the populations are equal, Naval Submarine Base Kings 

Bay, Camden County, Georgia, September 1998 and October 1999 18

VERTICAL DATUM

Sea Level: In this report, “sea level” refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)—a geodetic 

datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called 

“Sea Level Datum of 1929.”

HORIZONTAL DATUM

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Historical data collected 

and stored as North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) have been converted to NAD 83 for use in this report.
Abstract 1

SOIL CHEMISTRY AND GROUND-WATER QUALITY 

OF THE WATER-TABLE ZONE OF THE SURFICIAL 

AQUIFER, NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE KINGS BAY, 

CAMDEN COUNTY, GEORGIA, 1998 AND 1999

By David C. Leeth

ABSTRACT

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation 

with the U.S. Department of the Navy, began an 

investigation to determine background ground-water 

quality of the water-table zone of the surficial aquifer 

and soil chemistry at Naval Submarine Base Kings 

Bay, Camden County, Georgia, and to compare these 

data to two abandoned solid-waste disposal areas 

(referred to by the U.S. Navy as Sites 5 and 16). The 

quality of water in the water-table zone generally is 

within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) drinking-water regulation. The pH of 

ground water in the study area ranged from 4.0 to 7.6 

standard units, with a median value of 5.4. Water 

from 29 wells is above the pH range and 3 wells are 

within the range of the USEPA secondary drinkingwater regulation (formerly known as the Secondary 

Maximum Contaminant Level or SMCL) of 6.5 to 8.5 

standard units. Also, water from one well at Site 5 had 

a chloride concentration of 570 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L,), which is above the USEPA secondary 

drinking-water regulation of 250 mg/L. Sulfate 

concentrations in water from two wells at Site 5 are 

above the USEPA secondary drinking-water 

regulation of 250 mg/L.

Of 22 soil-sampling locations for this study, 4 

locations had concentrations above the detection limit 

for either volatile organic compounds (VOCs), baseneutral acids (BNAs), or pesticides. VOCs detected in 

the study area include toluene in one background 

sample; and acetone in one background sample and 

one sample from Site 16—however, detection of these 

two compounds may be a laboratory artifact. 

Pesticides detected in soil at the Submarine Base 

include two degradates of 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethane (DDT): 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(pchlorophenyl)ethane (4,4'-DDD) in one background 

sample, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethene 

(4,4'−DDE) in one background sample and one 

sample from Site 16; and dibenzofuran in one sample 

from Site 16. BNAs were detected in one background 

sample and in two samples from Site 16.

Hypothesis testing, using the Wilcoxon rank-sum 

test (also known as the Mann-Whitney test), indicates 

no statistical difference between ground-water 

constituent concentrations from Sites 5 and 16, and 

background concentrations. Hypothesis testing, 

however, indicates the concentration of barium in 

background ground-water samples is greater than in 

ground-water samples collected at Site 16.
2 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

INTRODUCTION

Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay (NSB), a U.S. 

Department of the Navy (Navy) facility in Camden County, 

Ga. (fig. 1), has been a Trident Submarine installation since 

1982. From the early 1950’s until 1978, the facility was 

operated by the U.S. Department of the Army (Army) as a 

military ocean terminal. In 1978, the Navy began operation 

of Kings Bay as a fleet ballistic-missile-support facility; in 

1979, the base was officially named Naval Submarine Base 

Kings Bay (NSB Kings Bay). 

Because of past activities by the Army, NSB Kings Bay 

has several sites that were used to dispose of solid waste. 

Preliminary results from investigations at two of these sites 

(5 and 16) (fig. 2) indicate concentrations of metals in 

ground water from the water-table zone of the surficial 

aquifer and organic compounds in the soil are above 

detection limits (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1994a, b). 

These results, however, could be a reflection of background 

conditions at NSB Kings Bay. Also, organic compounds 

detected in soil are associated with the pesticide 1,1,1-

trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT), which was 

used extensively nationwide until 1973 (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1990a). Until the 

current study (1999), background water-quality and soil 

conditions at NSB Kings Bay had not been quantified; 

previous studies focused on small-scale, site-specific 

ground-water conditions. 

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 

cooperation with the Navy, began an investigation to 

compile and compare background ground-water-quality 

and soil conditions to two areas affected by past solidwaste disposal. Data collected during this study will be 

used by the Navy to assess the quality of water in the 

water-table zone of the surficial aquifer; and thus, allow the 

Navy to more effectively manage ground-water resources 

and to monitor water-quality conditions in the water-table 

zone.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes background ground-water quality 

of the water-table zone of the surficial aquifer and soil 

chemistry at NSB Kings Bay; then compares background 

conditions to ground-water-quality data and soil chemistry 

from two areas affected by past landfill solid-waste 

disposal. Long-term water-level data and data used to 

define the configuration of the water table at Sites 5 and 16 

were collected to help define long-term water-level 

fluctuations and ground-water flow directions (fig. 2).

Study objectives were to:

• define background ground-water-quality 

conditions using selected field properties and 

concentrations of trace metals, and major 

ions in the water-table zone of the surficial 

aquifer, using a network of monitoring wells;

• define background soil chemistry of selected 

organic compounds from a network of 

soil-sampling locations;

• define the vertical and horizontal extent of 

areas that may have been affected by past 

landfill solid-waste disposal;

• compare data on background conditions to 

data collected in areas that may be 

impacted by landfill solid-waste 

disposal; and

• determine long-term water-level fluctuations 

and the configuration of the water table 

at sites impacted by past landfill 

solid-waste disposal.

The study area encompasses about 12 square miles (mi2) 

of the NSB Kings Bay and adjacent area; the surficial 

aquifer was evaluated from land surface to a depth of about 

35 feet (ft). The scope of the work included observationwell drilling, soil boring and hand augering, examination of 

geophysical logs and surveys; water-level measurements; 

sampling ground water from 29 wells for chemical analysis; and sampling soil at 22 locations for chemical analysis.

Previous Investigations

Herrick (1965) discussed the subsurface extent of 

Pliocene (?)-Pleistocene deposits in coastal Georgia. Gregg 

and Zimmerman (1974) discussed the geologic and 

hydrologic controls of chloride contamination in aquifers at 

Brunswick, Ga. Geologic and hydrogeologic data for NSB 

Kings Bay were discussed in the initial environmental 

impact statement for the base (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 1977) and by a follow-up study specifically 

addressing the extent of the unconfined ground-water 

system (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978). Soils and 

Materials Engineers, Inc., discussed the ground-water 

resources in Pliocene to Holocene deposits at Skidaway 

Island, Ga. (1986a), and in Miocene deposits at Colonel’s 

Island, Ga. (1986b).
Introduction 3

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey

1:100,000 Digital Line Graph data

GLYNN

CAMDEN

Brunswick

St Marys

Crooked

River

State

Park

82°

31°

81°30'

30°30'

31°30'

82°30'

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

Atla

ntic

Oc

e

a

n

Satilla River

Crooked R Cumberland Island

Colonels Islan

Woodbine d

Dome

0 5

0 5

10

15 KILOMETERS

15 MILES

10

NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE BOUNDARY

Cumberland Sound

Woodbine

40 40

spur

95

GEORGIA SOUTH

 CAROLINA

Enlarged area

FLORIDA

Southeast

Georgia

Embayment

Fall Line

EXPLANATION

STUDY AREA—See figure 2 for detailed map

APPROXIMATE AXIS OF SOUTHEAST GEORGIA EMBAYMENT

STRUCTURAL DOME

Figure 1. Study area, structural features, and Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay 

boundary, southeastern Georgia.
4 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

0 45 METERS 15

0 100 200 FEET

N N

0 45 METERS 15

0 100 200 FEET

N

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Harriets Bluff, 1:24,000, 1994

1:100,000 Digital Line Graph data

0

0

1.0 MILE

0.5 1.0 KILOMETER

0.5

Bay

Kings

River

North

SITE 5

Towhee Trail

33E155

33E153 33E154

33E149

33E152

33E151

33E127

33E150

33E128

33E129 33E148 33E156

33E126

Crab

Island

33E169

33E161

33E167

33E129

33E166

33E164

33E163

33E165

33E168

33E158

33E157

33E159

33E119

33E120

33E133

33E136

33E135

33E131

33E119

33E120

33E124

33E137

33E123

33E147

33E138

33E138

33E145

33E146

33E143

33E144

33E141

33E142

33E140

33E139

33E122

33E121

33E125

33E162 33E132

33E134

33E160

KINGS BAY 

NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE

Figure 2. Sites 5 and 16, and wells sampled for chemical analysis to characterize background waterquality conditions, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia.

SITE 16

Site 16

Site 5

GROUND-WATER SAMPLING SITE AND WELL NAME

EXPLANATION
Introduction 5

Several authors have described the hydrogeology, 

geology, and water quality in aquifers located in 

southeastern Georgia—an area that encompasses NSB 

Kings Bay. Brown (1984) evaluated the impact of 

development on availability and quality of ground water in 

eastern Nassau County, Fla., and southeastern Camden 

County, Ga. Saltwater intrusion and water quality in the 

Floridan aquifer system of northeastern Florida—including 

southern Camden County, Ga.—was evaluated by Spechler 

(1994). Recent site-specific investigations that have 

evaluated the hydrology and geology of NSB Kings Bay 

include site remediation reports for the Navy (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 1993, 1994a,b). Leeth (1998) 

described the hydrogeology and water-quality data of the 

surficial aquifer—including the water table—near Site 11 

at the northern end of the base. Selected data on estuarine, 

surface- and ground-water quality, and estuarine sediment 

data were reported by Leeth and Holloway (2000).

 More areally extensive studies include those of Krause 

and Randolph (1989) who conducted a digital model 

evaluation of the Floridan aquifer system, and compiled an 

extensive bibliography on the hydrology and geology of 

southeastern Georgia, and adjacent parts of Florida and 

South Carolina. Krause and others (1984) presented 

hydrogeologic data for coastal Georgia. Clarke and others 

(1990) described the geology and ground-water resources 

of coastal Georgia, including the surficial aquifers. A 

review and revision of the shallow lithostratigraphy of the 

Georgia Coastal Plain was discussed in detail by 

Huddlestun (1988). 

Description of the Study Area

Description of the physiography and climate of the NSB 

Kings Bay study area is included to aid readers in 

comparing site-specific data from this report with data from 

other locations. NSB Kings Bay is in southeastern Camden 

County, Ga., and is bounded to the north by Crooked River 

State Park; to the east by Crooked River and Cumberland 

Sound; to the south by the corporate boundary of St Marys, 

Ga.; and to the west by Georgia State Highway 40-Spur 

(fig. 1). NSB Kings Bay lies in the Barrier Island Sequence 

District, Sea Island Section of the Coastal Plain Province of 

Georgia (Clark and Zisa, 1976). Topographic relief across 

NSB Kings Bay is low, with the minimum altitude of sea 

level to the east and a maximum altitude of about 34 ft 

above sea level to the west. Topographic relief is largely a 

result of relict shorelines that were formed during global 

sea level decline (Leve, 1966).

The study area consists of about 12 mi2, approximately 

centered around the NSB Kings Bay boundary (fig. 1). The 

two areas possibly affected by past landfill solid-waste 

practices are referred to by the Navy as Site 5 and Site 16. 

These sites are both located in the east-central portion of 

the base (fig. 2).

The climate of Camden County, Ga., is humid 

subtropical and is characterized by long, warm, relatively 

wet summers, and mild relatively dry winters. The meanannual rainfall for Camden County ranges from about 52 to 

54 inches (St. Johns River Water Management District, 

1977). About 60 percent of the annual rainfall occurs from 

June through September, ranging from about 6 to 8 inches 

per month. October through May are the driest months, 

when normal rainfall ranges from about 2 to 4 inches per 

month (Brown, 1984). Evapotranspiration in southern 

Camden County is about 30 to 40 inches per year, with 

about 60 percent occurring from April through September 

(Brown, 1984).

Well-Naming System

Observation wells used in this report are named 

according to a system based on the USGS index of 

topographic maps. Each 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle 

in Georgia has been given a number and letter designation 

beginning at the southwestern corner of the State. Numbers 

increase eastward and letters increase alphabetically 

northward. Quadrangles in the northern part of the area are 

designated by double letters. The letters “I”, “II”, “O”, and 

“OO” are omitted. Wells inventoried in each quadrangle 

are numbered consecutively beginning with 1. Thus, the 

17th well numbered on the 33E quadrangle is designated 

33E017. For this study, all wells are located on the 

USGS Harriet’s Bluff 7.5-minute topographic 

quadrangle designated 33E in the well-naming system 

outlined above.

In addition to permanent monitor wells, temporary 

piezometers were used in this study to measure water 

levels; and temporary monitor wells were used to collect 

water samples. A summary of well name (grid numbers), 

other identifier, location, and selected construction 

information for wells used in this report is given in table 1. 

Additional information on well locations and construction 

specifications, and geologic and hydrologic data from this 

report may be accessed through the USGS National Water 

Information System (http://water.usgs.gov/ga/nwis/gw) or 

at the USGS Georgia District Office, Atlanta, Ga.
6 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

Table 1. Well-construction data for selected wells, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

[do., ditto; GPS, Global Positioning System; altitude refers to distance above or below sea level]

Site 

name

Other 

identifier

Sampling 

location Well use Location method Latitude Longitude

Altitude (feet)

Top of 

screen

Bottom 

of screen

Land 

surface

33E119 KBA-05-01 background1/

1/Sample collected outside of Sites 5 and 16 areas. 

water quality level 30.8012 -81.54387 13.5 3.5 16

33E120 KBA-05-02 do. do. do. 30.8019 -81.54356 10.6 0.6 13.1

33E121 KBA-05-03 Site 5 do. do. 30.8014 -81.54254 12.0 2.0 15.04

33E122 KBA-05-04 do. do. do. 30.801 -81.54305 13.2 3.2 15.74

33E123 KBA-05-05 do. water level, water quality do. 30.80112 -81.54161 11.6 1.6 15.13

33E124 KBA-05-06 do. do. do. 30.80107 -81.54116 13.2 3.2 16.47

33E125 KBA-05-07 do. water quality do. 30.80082 -81.54163 12 2.0 14.54

33E126 KBA-16-01 Site 16 do. do. 30.79112 -81.5358 10.4 .4 17.28

33E127 KBA-16-02 do. do. do. 30.79156 -81.53608 7.8 -2.2 15.28

33E128 KBA-16-03 do. water level, water quality do. 30.79156 -81.53687 10.3 .3 16.34

33E129 KBA-16-04 background do. do. 30.79108 -81.53787 10.7 .7 15.65

33E131 LF-01 do. water quality do. 30.79 -81.5116 11.8 2.3 20.13

33E132 DW-1 do. do. do. 30.7977 -81.52 5.89 -3.6 10.96

33E133 MC-01 do. do. do. 30.7775 -81.5166 9.0 -.5 14.21

33E134 PW-01 do. do. do. 30.7925 -81.5638 12.4 7.4 27.37

33E135 TP-01 do. do. do. 30.7847 -81.5594 11.5 6.5 26.45

33E136 SW-01 do. do. do. 30.7858 -81.5513 11.5 6.7 21.72

33E137 PZ-05-01 Site 5 water level do. 30.80063 -81.54221 11.8 6.8 12.31

33E138 PZ-05-02 do. do. do. 30.80061 -81.54341 12.5 7.5 14.88

33E139 PZ-05-03 do. do. do. 30.80062 -81.54413 14.6 9.6 16.46

33E140 PZ-05-04 do. do. do. 30.80103 -81.54361 15 10 15.31

33E141 PZ-05-05 do. do. do. 30.80152 -81.54376 14.7 10.4 14.68

33E142 PZ-05-06 do. do. do. 30.80183 -81.54344 15.1 10.9 15.06

33E143 PZ-05-07 do. do. do. 30.80115 -81.54232 14.9 10.4 14.93

33E144 PZ-05-08 do. do. do. 30.80103 -81.54305 15.4 10.4 15.97

33E145 PZ-05-09 do. do. do. 30.80164 -81.54231 14.5 9.5 15.48

33E146 PZ-05-10 do. do. do. 30.80168 -81.54265 12.9 7.9 15.17

33E147 PZ-05-11 do. do. do. 30.80119 -81.54185 11.9 6.9 14.7

33E148 PZ-16-01 Site 16 do. do. 30.79106 -81.53537 10.9 5.9 12.31

33E149 PZ-16-02 do. do. do. 30.79168 -81.53528 10 5.0 14.21

33E150 PZ-16-03 do. do. do. 30.79173 -81.53627 6.7 1.7 13.22

33E151 PZ-16-04 do. do. do. 30.79145 -81.53606 9.0 4.0 12.67

33E152 PZ-16-05 do. do. do. 30.79106 -81.5364 11.6 6.6 14.8

33E153 PZ-16-06 do. do. do. 30.79061 -81.5364 12.5 7.5 14.92

33E154 PZ-16-07 do. do. do. 30.79065 -81.5354 12.6 7.6 14.78

33E155 PZ-16-08 do. do. do. 30.79035 -81.53583 11.6 6.6 17.49

33E156 PZ-16-09 do. do. do. 30.791 -81.5358 11.1 6.1 16.97

33E157 BG-01 background water quality GPS 30.80331 -81.54399 5.9 .9 15.5

33E158 BG-02 do. do. do. 30.8018 -81.54027 6.1 1.1 15.5

33E159 BG-03 do. do. do. 30.8007 -81.54609 5.3 .3 15

33E160 BG-04 do. do. do. 30.8 -81.54788 5.5 .5 15

33E161 BG-05 do. do. do. 30.78852 -81.54014 0.8 -4.3 10.5

33E162 BG-06 do. do. do. 30.79929 -81.54886 5.4 .4 15

33E163 BG-07 do. do. do. 30.78766 -81.534 7.2 2.2 11.5

33E164 BG-08 do. do. do. 30.78984 -81.5339 5.1 .1 9.5

33E165 BG-09 do. do. do. 30.79265 -81.53696 -1.7 -6.7 8

33E166 BG-10 do. do. do. 30.79536 -81.53695 -0.7 -5.7 9

33E167 BG-11 do. do. do. 30.79143 -81.54045 0.6 -4.5 10

33E168 BG-12 do. not sampled2/

2/Well was not sampled because of insufficient water.

do. 30.78728 -81.53543 5.7 .7 13.5

33E169 BG-13 do. water quality do. 30.7994 -81.5441 5.6 .5 15
Methods of Investigation 7

Hydrogeology

Camden County is underlain by about 5,500 ft of 

Cretaceous to Holocene Coastal Plain strata (Wait and 

Davis, 1986). These strata consist of unconsolidated to 

semi-consolidated clastic sediments, and semi-consolidated 

to consolidated carbonate sediments, which strike 

southwest to northeast, and dip and thicken to the 

southeast. The strata unconformably overlie Proterozoic 

felsic volcanic rocks in northern Camden County, and 

Paleozoic metamorphic rocks in southern Camden County 

(Chowns and Williams, 1983). NSB Kings Bay lies 

southeast of a structural dome that is centered northwest of 

Woodbine, Ga., on the northern flank of the Southeast 

Georgia Embayment (fig. 1).

Hydrogeologic units in the study area include, in 

descending order, the surficial aquifer (Miller, 1986; 

Krause and Randolph, 1989; and Clarke and others, 1990); 

the upper and lower Brunswick aquifers (Clarke and others, 

1990); and the Floridan aquifer system (Miller, 1986). In 

this report, only the water-table zone of the surficial 

aquifer, as described by Leeth (1998), is discussed.

A general description of the lithology and hydrology of 

the water-table zone of the surficial aquifer is included 

herein and shown in figure 3. For a more extensive 

discussion of the water-table zone, the reader is referred to 

Leeth (1998). The lithology of the water-table zone consists 

of fine-to-medium sand of the undifferentiated surficial 

sand, Satilla Formation, and the upper part of the 

Cypresshead Formation of Huddlestun (1988). Water in 

these sediments occurs under unconfined (water-table) 

conditions. The thickness of the water-table zone generally 

varies between 60 and 80 ft across the study area, largely as 

a result of variations in topography (Leeth, 1998). In 

addition, because the thickness of the surficial aquifer is 

computed from the water-table surface to the base of the 

aquifer, temporal variations in the water-table surface also 

will affect thickness. It also should be noted that, because 

of an increase in the clay and silt content with depth, there 

is a resistance to vertical ground-water flow between about 

10 and 40 ft below sea level (Leeth, 1998)—this resistance 

can be the basis for division of the water table into upper 

and lower parts. In this report, only the upper part (about 

the top 35 ft) of the water-table zone is considered. 

Analysis of aquifer-test data from the water-table zone 

(Leeth, 1998) yielded a range of hydraulic conductivity 

from 6.7 to 13 feet per day (ft/day).

Acknowledgments

The cooperation and assistance of Mr. Anthony B. 

Robinson and Ms. Rhonda Bath of the U.S. Department of 

the Navy, NSB Kings Bay, are gratefully acknowledged.

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

Methods of investigation consisted of both indirect 

and direct measurements of various hydrologic and 

geologic properties, including test drilling, water-level and 

rainfall measurements, chemical analysis of soil and 

water-quality samples, aerial photograph analysis, and 

pine-stand age estimation (Harlow and others, 1978). 

Graphical and statistical methods are used to help describe 

water-quality data. 

Long-term continuous and synoptic water-level 

measurements were made at selected wells. Synoptic waterlevel measurements were used to construct a water-table 

map for Sites 5 and 16 (fig. 4). Continuous water-level 

measurements in three wells were used to assess waterlevel fluctuations and trends in the water table (fig. 5).

For this study, 13 wells were installed in the water-table 

zone of the surficial aquifer to collect water samples for 

chemical analysis (only 12 of the 13 were used to collect 

water samples), and 20 piezometers were installed in the 

water-table zone to measure water levels. Seventeen 

existing wells completed in the water-table zone were used 

to measure water levels and/or collect water samples for 

chemical analysis. Wells were installed with a GeoprobeTM 

system using 1.5-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 

casing and screen. A 2.5-inch-diameter probe was pushed 

into the aquifer material, then removed and a screen was 

placed in the resultant hole. Screens were 5 ft long with 

0.010-inch slots, and each well was completed with a 1- to 

2-ft-thick bentonite seal. Piezometers were constructed 

using a hand auger and completed with 1-inch-diameter 

PVC pipe and screen. Screens were 5-ft long with 0.010-

inch slots. A 3-inch-diameter stainless-steel hand auger was 

advanced about 2 ft below the water-table surface; then 

removed and a screen placed in the resultant hole. 

Piezometers were completed using natural aquifer material 

(sand) with no bentonite seal. Well and auger data were 

collected using either standard leveling techniques where 

horizontal accuracy of one hundreth of a second was 

necessary; or a Global Positioning System where accuracy 

of one tenth of a second was sufficient (table 1).
8 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

MIDDLE

25456585

50

125145105165185205225245265285305315

SYSTEM SERIES FORMATION1 GAMMA RADIATION2 LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION HYDROLOGIC UNIT3 HY

TERTIARY

MIOCENE

QUATERNARY

HOLOCENE

AND

PLEISTOCENE LOWER Marks Head Formation Undifferentiated surficial sand and Satilla Formation Cypresshead Formation Coosawhatchie Formation Surficial aquifer Confining unit Upper Brunswick aquifer 

PLIOCENE

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1 From Huddlestun, 1988.2 Natural gamma values reported in counts per second. 

?

?

?

?

Data truncated

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

A-marker3

Sand, dark brown, tannish brown, tannish gray, loose to medium, very fine to fine, well-sorted, quartz sand. Dark brown to black organic rich layer occurs at 5 to 10 feet below land surface. 

Sand, tannish-gray to gray, soft to stiff, fine-to-medium sand in a silty, clay matrix, with some interbedded clay and silt; calcareous and shelly at base of section. Sand and clay, dark-to-olive green, interbedded medium-to-coarse sand and clay. Differentiated from the overlying formation by the first occurrence of coarse, euhedral phosphate. Limestone, dark gray, and tan, hard, friable, phosphatic limestone with abundant bivalve fossils. 

Water-table zone: Fbedded silt occurring cause an increase in this area. Occurrencethousands of square to 100 gallons per miCoastal Plain.

Upper confining un

occurrence from CrooGeorgia; areal extent

Upper water-bearinand fine gravel. KnowPark to St Marys, GeLower confining un

sand occurring intermthroughout. Known oState Park to St Marysquare miles.Lower water-bearin

and fine gravel. KnowState Park to St Marysquare miles.

Upper Brunswick co

liquid limit, medium to Occurrence at least textent: several hund

Upper Brunswick aq

limestone with well-dis coastal in extent; amiles. Under artesian 

Figure 3. Lithostratigraphy and hydrogeology of Miocene and younger sediments, Naval Submarine Base KinGeorgia (Leeth, 1998).

3 From Clarke and others, 1990.4 Water-bearing properties based on lithology, no hydraulic data currently available.
Methods of Investigation 9

33E124

9.85

33E137

9.68

33E123

10.89

33E147

11.20

33E138

11.41

33E145

12.39

33E146

12.42

33E143

12.97

33E144

12.84

33E141

14.25

33E142

13.82

33E140

13.16

33E139

11.88

33E124

9.85

33E155

11.34

33E153

11.37 33E154

10.24

33E149

6.94

33E152

10.30

33E151

8.26

33E150

7.03

33E128

9.84

33E129

11.40

33E148

8.49

33E156

9.43

12.0

14.0

11.5

12.5

13.5

13.0

10.5

10.0

11.0

11.0

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

0 45 METERS 15

0 100 200 FEET

N

0 45 METERS 15

0 100 200 FEET

N

EXPLANATION

APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF FORMER LANDFILLS (SITES 5, 16)

WATER-LEVEL CONTOUR—Shows altitude of water table on March 13, 1998. 

Contour intervals 0.5 foot (Site 5) and 1.0 foot (Site 16). Datum is sea level. 

Dashed were approximately located

GENERALIZED DIRECTION OF GROUND-WATER FLOW

WELL—Top number is well name. Bottom number is water-level altitude in feet 

above sea level

10.5

Site 16

Site 5

Figure 4. Altitude of water-table surface at Sites 5 and 16, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, March 13, 1998.
10 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

4

6

8

10

12

Well 33E128

Well 33E124

PRECIPITATION, IN

INCHES PER DAY

3

2

1

0

1997 1998 1999

Nov Dec Dec Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Apr Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Oct Nov May June July Aug Sept

5

7

9

11

13

MEAN-DAILY WATER LEVEL, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

Well 33E124

2

4

6

8

10

Well 33E123

Blank where

data missing

Figure 5. Water-table fluctuations in wells 33E123, 33E124, and 33E128 and daily precipitation at well 33E124, Sites 5 and 16, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, 

Georgia, November 1997 to October 1999.
Methods of Investigation 11

Sampling Methods

Water samples from 29 wells were analyzed for field 

properties, dissolved concentrations of inorganic constituents, and selected metals. Field properties were measured 

using standard USGS techniques (Wilde and others, 1988). 

Specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, and water 

temperature were measured using a multiple-electrode 

sonde in a flow-through chamber (Hydrolab IITM). Before 

measuring, the electrodes were calibrated for pH and 

specific conductance using quality-control standards; 

because the sonde contains a calibrated thermistor, 

standards were not brought to sample temperature.

Well-purging procedures were as follows: (1) the static 

water level was measured using an electric water-level 

indicator; (2) well volume was calculated based on the 

static water level and well diameter; (3) a nonaerating, 

submersible pump was slowly lowered into the well so that 

particulates were not disturbed; and (4) the pump was 

started and the pump rate adjusted to limit drawdown. At a 

minimum, three casing volumes were purged from the well 

before samples were collected. In addition, field 

measurements were recorded during purging. If field 

measurements did not stabilize after three volumes were 

removed, purging was continued until field measurements 

stabilized. Both unfiltered (total) and filtered (dissolved) 

samples were collected. Filtered samples were collected by 

passing ground water through a 0.45-micrometer per meter 

(μm) Supor® (polyethersulfone) capsule filter. All samples 

to be analyzed for metals (excluding mercury) were 

contained in acid-rinsed 250-milliliter (mL) high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) bottles and preserved with 1 mL of 

nitric acid. Samples to be analyzed for mercury were 

contained in acid-rinsed 250-mL glass jars and preserved 

with 10 mL of a nitric acid, potassium dichromate mix. 

Samples to be analyzed for major ions were contained in 

500-mL HDPE bottles with no preservatives. Samples to be 

analyzed for nutrients were contained in 125-mL HDPE 

jars that were field rinsed and chilled to 4° Celsius (C) after 

sample collection.

Twenty-four soil samples, including two duplicate soil 

samples, were collected and analyzed for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds 

(SVOCs), organochlorine pesticides (pesticides), dioxins, 

and furans. Using a 3-inch-diameter stainless-steel bucket 

auger, soil samples were collected in 6-inch intervals from 

depths between 3 and 7 ft below land surface and placed in 

250-mL wide-mouth glass jars without preservatives.

Historical aerial photographs were used to help verify 

the location and extent of Sites 5 and 16. Photographs were 

compiled for the area surrounding and including the Naval 

Submarine Base Kings Bay (which appears on the Harrietts 

Bluff, 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map). 

Aerial photographs were obtained from the USGS, Earth 

Resources Observation Systems (EROS), EROS Data 

Center, Sioux Falls, S. Dak., for years 1957, 1974, 1977, 

and 1993. Aerial photography was flown at different 

heights (varying by year) and by different agencies. Four 

digital orthophoto quadrangle (DOQ) images that cover the 

area of Harrietts Bluff topographic quadrangle were used to 

georeference the photographs. DOQ data were compiled 

from source imagery (aerial photography) flown in 

February of 1988.

A truck-mounted, 4-inch-diameter auger was used to 

drill verification borings within areas that were identified 

on the aerial photographs. Drill sites were selected based 

upon ease of access, geophysical anomalies identified in 

previous reports, (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1994a,b) 

and the estimated landfill boundaries located from aerial 

photography. Auger flights were advanced in 5-ft runs 

using a one-to-one downfeed to rotation ratio, where 

practicable. Augers were retrieved every 5 ft and were 

examined for landfill material. Depths of borings ranged 

from 10 to 25 ft. Each boring was terminated in 

undisturbed sediment at a minimum of 5 ft below the base 

of the landfill material. Finally, at Site 5 estimates of pinestand age were used to positively identify areas that had 

been undisturbed for a minimum of 30 years (the approximate time when the landfill would have been active). Pinestand age was estimated using allometric correlation of the 

trunk diameter at breast height versus age.

Laboratory Methods

Water-quality analyses were performed by the USGS 

water-quality laboratory in Ocala, Fla., based on the USGS 

National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) methods 

described by Fishman (1993). Water-quality analyses 

included common ions, selected trace metals, and nutrients. 

Soil analyses were performed by Quanterra Environmental 

Services (Quanterra), Denver, Colo., under the direction of 

the NWQL using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) (1996) methods. Soil analyses included dioxins 

and furans, pesticides, SVOCs, and VOCs.

Inorganic water-quality analyses for concentrations of 

common ions and trace elements were analyzed by using 

inductively coupled plasma, with the exception of lead 

(graphite furnace atomic absorption) and mercury (coldvapor atomic absorption). SVOCs and VOCs were 

analyzed in soils by purge-and-trap gas chromatography 

and electron-impact mass spectrometry (GC/MS)—USEPA 

methods 8260B and 8270C, respectively. Pesticides were 

analyzed by purge-and-trap gas chromatography 

(GC)—USEPA method 8081A—and dioxins and furans 
12 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

were analyzed by high-resolution gas chromatography and 

low-resolution mass spectroscopy (HRGC/LRMS)— 

USEPA method 8280 (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1996).

A reporting level is the smallest measured concentration 

of a constituent that may be reliably reported using a given 

analytical method (for some constituents, the reporting 

level occasionally may be raised due to matrix interference 

in a sample). In general, data values reported are equal to or 

less than the detection limits of the cited USEPA methods. 

In some instances, reported values are estimated because 

the laboratory used methods that differed from the USEPA 

method. For example, a value is reported as estimated when 

the sample required dilution.

Quality Assurance and Control

To detect any measurement bias and variability 

associated with data collection and laboratory analyses, 

quality-assurance and quality-control (QA/QC) procedures 

were used in this study. Quality-control samples were 

collected to ensure that contamination did not occur during 

the collection, transport, storage, and analysis of field 

samples. During this study, field quality control was 

verified using trip blanks and duplicate samples. Trip 

blanks consisted of three 40-mL glass vials filled with 

pesticide-grade water. The trip blanks were transported to 

the field in insulated coolers, remained unopened in the 

field, and were sent to the NWQL and Quanterra 

laboratories and analyzed with the field samples. The 

purpose of a trip blank is to assess the impact of shipping 

conditions on the sample and subsequent data. Duplicate 

samples also were collected, shipped, and analyzed. The 

purpose of duplicate samples is to assess any impact on the 

data of collecting, shipping, and analyzing the samples. 

Laboratory QA/QC included but was not limited to daily 

blanks, daily standards, daily instrument tuning, and 

quality-control check samples. Laboratory QA/QC 

procedures for ground-water samples are described by Pritt 

and Raese (1995). Laboratory QA/QC procedures for soils 

samples are described by Quanterra Environmental 

Services (1997).

Comparison Between Background and 

Landfill Ground-Water Quality

In this report, water-quality data are used to characterize 

the background ground-water quality of the water-table 

zone at NSB Kings Bay and to compare the background 

ground-water-quality data to areas that have been affected 

by past landfill disposal. In addition, these data were 

compared to Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 

Environmental Protection Division (GaEPD) (1993) and 

USEPA (1990a,b) drinking-water standards. Laboratory 

analytical methods used in this study were selected because 

of the low reporting limits, which were markedly lower 

than the drinking-water standards.

Background ground-water quality was determined by 

locating and examining the water quality of wells 

representative of uncontaminated conditions. Background 

monitoring wells were placed mostly in undisturbed areas 

indicated from aerial photographs. Three wells, however, 

were located in disturbed areas—one on a firebreak and 

two located within a utility (power line) right-of-way. It is 

unlikely that either activity would have affected the 

ground-water quality.

Concentrations of major ions in ground-water samples 

from background wells were examined for anomalies or 

outliers to ensure that wells chosen to represent background 

conditions were not affected by human activities. Trilinear 

(Piper, 1944) diagrams, used in this report, are a graphical 

method of water-quality data presentation that can be used 

to associate water samples with different water types or to 

compare major ion concentrations between two areas. Also, 

linear trends and other relations that may be important are 

more readily apparent on Piper (1944) diagrams. Additional 

graphical methods include dot plots of location and 

concentration that allow a visual comparison between 

background constituent concentrations and concentrations 

in areas that were possibly impacted by past landfill 

disposal (Sites 5 and 16) (fig. 2).

Finally, hypothesis testing using the nonparametric 

Wilcoxon rank-sum test (also known as the Mann-Whitney 

test) was used to compare the different groups of data 

(Helsel and Hirsch, 1995). As Helsel and Hirsch (1995) 

pointed out, hypothesis testing offers two advantages over 

more traditional graphical methods:

• hypothesis tests insure that every analyst of 

data using the same methods will arrive at 

the same result—computations can be 

checked on and agreed to by others; and

• hypothesis tests present a measure of the 

strength of the evidence (the p-value)—the 

decision to reject a hypothesis is augmented 

by the risk of that decision being incorrect. 

In this report, the initial or null hypothesis (H0) for the 

test statistic was that the median concentrations of a given 

constituent for background samples and landfill samples 
Configuration of the Water Table at Sites 5 and 16 13

are equal. This leads to an alternative hypothesis (H1) 

that median concentrations at a site were not equal to 

background concentrations. If x represents 

background concentrations and y represents the 

concentration at a particular site, the null hypothesis 

can be expressed:

H0: x and y are samples from the same distribution, 

or H0: Probability (x ≥ y) = 0.025.

H1: x and y are samples from different distributions, 

or H1: Probability (x ≥ y) ≠ 0.025.

In this report, the error rate—or significance level (αlevel)—selected is 5 percent (0.05). The error rate (α) is a 

“management tool” that gives the probability of incorrectly 

rejecting the null hypothesis (typically called a Type I error 

by statisticians). This value is independent of the data and 

arbitrary; however, statisticians typically use 5 percent 

(0.05), and thus, the value is used here. The null hypothesis 

is rejected if the p-value is less than the α-level and can be 

expressed more succinctly:

Reject H0 when: p-value < 0.025.

If the original null hypothesis was rejected (that x and y 

were the same), then the hypothesis test was computed 

again, using the null hypothesis (H0) that the median 

concentrations of a given constituent for background 

samples is greater than the median concentration at a 

particular landfill site. The null hypothesis leads to the 

alternative hypothesis (H1) that the median concentration of 

a given constituent for background samples and 

concentrations at a particular site are equal; thus:

H0: x is from a distribution that is generally higher 

than y, or H0: Probability (x > y) ≥ 0.025.

H1: y is from a distribution that is generally higher 

than x H1: Probability (x ≥ y) ≤ 0.025.

The error rate for this test was identical to the error rate 

used for the original test.

Ground-Water-Level and Precipitation 

Data Collection

Long-term continuous and synoptic water levels were 

measured in selected wells and piezometers near Sites 5 

and 16 (fig. 2). Long-term water levels were collected 

using a transducer and data-logger set to collect hourly 

measurements of the water levels from wells 33E123, 

33E124 and 33E128 (fig. 5). Synoptic water levels were 

collected from selected wells and piezometers located near 

Sites 5 and 16 using an electric water-level indicator to 

show the configuration of the water-table surface (table 1). 

Precipitation data were collected at Site 5 near well 33E124 

using a tipping-bucket rain gage and data-logger set to 

collect hourly measurements.

CONFIGURATION OF THE WATER TABLE 

AT SITES 5 AND 16

Ground-water-level and precipitation data were used 

to determine water-level trends and the configuration of the 

water table at Sites 5 and 16 (fig. 4). These data can be 

used to compare water levels in the study area with 

similar settings along the Georgia coast. These data may 

also be useful in estimating recharge rates and groundwater flow velocities.

Water-level hydrographs were compared to precipitation 

bar graphs to evaluate ground-water-level trends and 

seasonal variations in the water table at Sites 5 and 16 

(fig. 5). October through May generally are the dry months 

when normal rainfall ranges from 2 to 4 inches per month 

(Brown, 1984). Precipitation data collected adjacent to well 

33E124 (at Site 5) are consistent with seasonal patterns 

described by Brown (1984) who determined that 60 percent 

of annual rainfall occurs from June through September, 

with a range of about 6 to 8 inches a month. Generally, 

ground-water levels peak during periods of high 

precipitation, such as late July 1998; and recede during 

periods of low precipitation, such as February through 

September 1999 (fig. 5). Although the wells are located 

relatively close to tidal estuaries, there is no evidence of 

tidally induced water-level fluctuations in the wells. Water 

levels declined from about 2 to 5 ft in all wells from 

October 1998 to October 1999.

The water-table surface at Sites 5 and 16 was delineated 

using synoptic water levels measured in selected wells and 

piezometers on March 13, 1998. At Site 5, ground water 

flows from northwest to southeast; at Site 16, ground water 

flows from southwest to northeast (fig. 4). Because the 

water table generally is a subdued replica of the land 

surface (Heath, 1983), one can infer from examination of 

topographic data that ground water from both sites 

eventually discharges into tributaries of the North River 

(fig. 2).
14 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

SOIL CHEMISTRY

Results from the chemical analysis of soil samples from 

auger borings completed in the shallow subsurface were 

used to compare the geochemical variability of soils at 

Sites 5 and 16 to background soil conditions. Of the 22 

locations sampled in this study, samples from four 

borings—SS-BG-02, SS-BG-05, SS-16-01, and SS-16-

04—have concentrations above the detection limit for 

either VOCs, base-neutral acids (BNAs) or pesticides (fig. 

6, table 2). Also, samples from three borings—SS-BG-02, 

SS-16-01 and SS-16-04—have concentrations of VOCs or 

pesticides that were below the detection limit but could be 

estimated from the analytical results (fig. 6, table 2). In a 

duplicate sample from boring SS-16-04, the pesticide 

degradate 4,4'-DDE was detected at an estimated 

concentration of about 0.93 microgram per kilogram 

(μg/kg); however, this compound was not detected in the 

original sample. 

VOCs detected in the study area include toluene in the 

sample from boring SS-BG-02 and acetone in samples from 

borings SS-BG-05 and SS-16-01 (fig. 6, table 2). Detection 

of VOCs in soil is questionable because VOCs volatilize 

soon after contacting the atmosphere. Conditions that could 

contribute to detection of VOCs in soil include either recent 

spillage or longer residence time in soil because of 

saturation in water or sorption into high liquid limit clays. 

There is no evidence to suggest that recent spillage could 

be a factor for either the background samples where 

VOCs were detected (toluene from SS-BG-02 and acetone 

from SS-BG-05) or for the acetone in the sample collected 

from boring SS-16-01. Both background sites are fairly 

remote and inaccessible, and active waste disposal at Sites 

5 and 16 ceased decades ago. A more plausible 

explanation could be that these detections are laboratory 

artifacts, perhaps from incomplete instrument cleaning 

between analyses. 

Pesticides detected in soil at NSB Kings Bay include, 

4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE, both degradates of DDT and 

dibenzofuran (table 2). The detection of pesticides in 

background soil samples is similar to that found at the two 

sites. It is reasonable to expect the random detection of 

pesticides in soil at NSB Kings Bay at both background 

locations and from areas affected by past landfill disposal. 

The use of broad-spectrum pesticides, such as DDT prior to 

the early 1970’s, is well documented in scientific and 

popular literature. While data on the national distribution of 

pesticides in soils are not available, data from more than 

38,000 community water-supply wells published by the 

USEPA (1990d) indicate that over 10 percent of the wells 

contained pesticides or their degradates. Detections of 

pesticides in water-supply wells indicate that the 

occurrence of pesticides in the subsurface is pervasive in 

the United States and a similar percentage of occurrences 

would seem likely for soil data (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1990d). A USGS study in the 

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin shows that 

in bed-sediment samples, organochlorine 

insecticides—such as chlordane and DDT—are common 

in the basin (Frick and others, 1998). At NSB Kings Bay, 

the percentage of pesticides detected is much less than the 

10 percent detected by the USEPA (1990d). These data 

suggest there is no difference between the occurrence of 

pesticides in background soils (locally and nationally) 

and the occurrence in soils at Sites 5 and 16. Thus, either 

the landfills do not contain pesticides or the pesticides 

are immobilized by organic matter so that detection is 

not possible.

BNAs were detected in samples collected from borings 

SS-BG-02, SS-16-01, and SS-16-04 at NSB Kings Bay 

(fig. 6, table 2). Many BNA compounds detected at 

NSB Kings Bay have been detected in soil samples and 

are known to occur throughout the United States and 

Canada (Ogner and Schnitzer, 1970). All BNAs detected 

at NSB Kings Bay are associated with pesticides—most 

are creosol derivatives used as emulsifiers for application 

of DDT. Because BNA compounds are associated 

with pesticide application, occur naturally, and have 

similar occurrences in both background and site samples, 

there is no evidence to suggest that background 

concentrations differ from concentrations for either Site 5 

or Site 16.
Soil Chemistry 15

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey Harriets Bluff, 1:24,000, 1994

1:100,000 Digital Line Graph data

0

0

1.0 MILE

0.5 1.0 KILOMETER

0.5

SITE 5

SITE 16

Bay

Kings

River

North

Crab

Island

SS-BG-07

SS-BG-11

SS-BG-09

SS-BG-10

SS-BG-08

SS-BG-02

SS-BG-13

SS-BG-04

SS-BG-01

SS-BG-03

SS-BG-05

SS-BG-06

Towhee Trail

KINGS BAY 

NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE

0 45 METERS 15

0 100 200 FEET

N N

N

0 45 METERS 15

0 100 200 FEET

Site 5

Site 16

SOIL SAMPLING SITE AND IDENTIFICATION

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. Sites 5 and 16, and location of soil samples collected for chemical analysis, Naval Submarine 

Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia.

SS-16-01

SS-05-04

SS-05-03

SS-05-02

SS-05-02

SS-05-01

SS-05-05

SS-16-02

SS-16-03

SS-16-04

SS-16-05
16 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

Table 2. Concentration of constituents detected in soil sampled at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, September 1998, January 1999, and October 1999

[Constituent concentrations analyzed by Quantera Environmental Services, Denver, Colorado; do., ditto; BNA, 

base-neutral acids; VOC, volatile organic compound; 4,4'-DDD, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane; DDE, 

1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethene]

Sample 

number

Sampling 

location Constituent Constituent type

Concentration 

(micrograms per 

kilogram)

Detection limit 

(micrograms 

per kilogram)

SS-BG-02 background1/

1/Sample collected outside of Sites 5 and 16 areas.

4-methylphenol BNA 1,400 330

SS-BG-02 do. toluene VOC 26 5.0

SS-BG-02 do. 4,4'-DDD pesticide 2/0.51

2/Estimated.

1.7

SS-BG-02 do. 4,4'-DDE do. 2/1.4 1.7

SS-BG-05 do. acetone VOC 70 25

SS-16-01 Site 16 acenaphthene BNA 390 330

SS-16-01 do. acetone VOC 2/ 15 25

SS-16-01 do. 2-methylnaphthalene BNA 250 330

SS-16-01 do. dibenzofuran BNA 2/110 330

SS-16-01 do. fluorene BNA 2/120 330

SS-16-04 do. diethyl phthalate BNA 2/1,100 330

SS-16-04 do. phenanthrene BNA 2/74 330

SS-16-04 do. 4,4'-DDE pesticide 2/,3/.93 

3/Duplicate sample.

1.7

GROUND-WATER QUALITY

Results from the chemical analysis of water samples 

from the water-table zone at NSB Kings Bay were used to 

compare background water-quality conditions with the 

geochemical variability of ground water in areas that have 

been affected by past landfill disposal. Water samples 

collected from selected wells were analyzed for dissolved 

concentrations of inorganic constituents including trace 

metals. Field properties—pH, specific conductance, and 

water temperature—were measured onsite before sample 

collection. Analysis of water from 21 wells was used to 

represent background conditions; from 5 wells to represent 

conditions at Site 5; and from 3 wells to represent 

conditions at Site 16 (table 3).

Water-quality data for field properties including pH, 

specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and major 

inorganic constituents routinely are used to describe the 

general chemical composition and aesthetic and taste 

characteristics of ground water. Values for pH, specific 

conductance, and dissolved oxygen were measured in all 29 

wells in the study, and major constituents were measured in 

21 wells (table 3). Major constituents and properties that 

were outside the aesthetically based USEPA recommended 

secondary drinking-water regulation (SDWR) (formerly 

known as the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level or 

SMCL) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990b) 

include pH, sodium, chloride, and sulfate. The pH of 

ground water in the study area ranged from 4.0 to 7.6 

standard units with a median value of 5.4 standard units. 

The pH of water from most of the wells is outside the 

acceptable SDWR range of 6.5 to 8.5 standard units (table 

3) with only three wells—33E131, 33E132, and 

33E157—within the SDWR range. The sodium 

concentration in water from well 33E120 is 270 mg/L; this 

is noteworthy because the USEPA (1976) recommends that 

persons on a salt-restricted diet avoid drinking water with 

concentrations greater than 270 mg/L. Also, a chloride 

concentration of 570 mg/L in water from well 33E120 is 

above the SDWR. Sulfate concentrations in water from 

wells 33E120 and 33E122 exceed the SDWR of 250 mg/L. 

Finally, a specific conductance value of 9,560 

microsiemens per centimeter (μS/cm) at 25 ° C measured 

in water from well 33E132 is very high and likely due to 

the proximity of the well to an estuary (water from this well 

was not analyzed for chloride).
Ground-Water Quality 17

Table 3. Field properties and inorganic constituents in water from test wells, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Geo

1999, and October 1999

[analyses by U.S. Geological Survey, Ocala, Florida; units—mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens/centimeter; do., ditto; < less than, —

Well 

name Well type Date

Specific conductance

(μS/cm)

Dissolved oxygen 

(mg/L),

Field pH

 (standard units)

Nitrogen, ammonia, 

as N dissolved 

(mg/L)

Nitrogen, nitrite, as N,

dissolved 

(mg/L)

Orthophosphate 

phosphorous, as 

P, dissolved

(mg/L)

Calcium, dissolved 

(mg/L)

Magnesium, dissolved 

(mg/L)

Sodium, dissolved

(mg/L)

Potassium, dissolved

(mg/L)

Chloride, dissolved

(mg/L)

33E119 background 10/07/99 350 <0.5 4.9 1.20 <.01 .01 39 2.1 8.9 .7 38 33E120 do. 10/07/99 2,820 <.5 4.2 4.90 .01 .02 270 9.8 270 1.9 570 33E121 Site 5 09/15/98 284 <.5 5.4 — — — — — — — — 33E122 do. 10/07/99 924 <.5 5.6 .30 <.01 .02 110 8.7 78 9.2 46 33E123 do. 10/06/99 145 <.5 5.2 .40 <.01 .01 11 1.7 8.6 .3 15 33E124 do. 10/06/99 200 <.5 5.5 6.90 .01 .02 4.9 2.6 11 3.8 16 33E125 do. 10/06/99 146 <.5 5.6 .09 <.01 .01 17 5.4 3.4 .5 4.4 33E126 Site 16 09/15/98 368 <.5 5.8 — — — — — — — — 33E127 do. 10/05/99 334 <.5 6.0 2.40 .01 .02 55 3.8 4.5 3.5 5.3 33E128 do. 10/05/99 268 <.5 5.7 1.70 .03 40 2.5 5.5 8.3 9.4 33E129 background 09/15/98 305 <.5 5.2 3.20 .01 .03 26 4.5 17 9.9 29 33E131 do. 01/29/99 1,500 <.5 6.7 — — — — — — — — 33E132 do. 01/29/99 9,560 <.5 6.6 — — — — — — — — 33E133 do. 01/29/99 2,000 <.5 5.5 — — — — — — — — 33E134 do. 01/29/99 360 <.5 4.0 — — — — — — — — 33E135 do. 01/29/99 261 <.5 4.8 — — — — — — — — 33E136 do. 01/29/99 307 <.5 6.1 — — — — — — — — 33E157 do. 10/06/99 668 <.5 7.6 .20 .01 .45 120 5.0 11 .6 23 33E158 do. 10/06/99 173 <.5 4.0 2.30 .02 .01 .3 2.5 10 1.8 20 33E159 do. 10/06/99 190 <.5 5.9 .09 .01 .12 3.8 5.3 180 .2 35 33E160 do. 10/06/99 223 <.5 4.5 .06 .01 .02 5.3 4.1 22 .2 34 33E161 do. 10/05/99 249 <.5 4.5 .20 .01 .01 2.7 6.0 27 .7 63 33E162 do, 10/06/99 148 <.5 4.5 1.90 .01 .18 15 1.1 5 1.9 13 33E163 do. 10/05/99 130 <.5 5.0 4.70 .01 .02 .7 1.2 14 5.1 13 33E164 do. 10/05/99 111 1.1 4.9 2.70 .01 .02 3.1 2.2 6 4.0 10 33E165 do. 10/05/99 308 <.5 5.4 .70 .01 .57 35 2.7 19 1.9 42 33E166 do. 10/05/99 135 <.5 4.9 1.70 .01 .01 11 2.6 5 7.3 11 33E167 do. 10/05/99 82 <.5 4.8 2.90 <.01 .02 .3 1.1 4 3.4 8.4 33E169 do. 10/06/99 113 <.5 5.6 .09 .01 .02 1.1 .5 17 .3 23 
18 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

Piper (1944) trilinear diagrams and dot plots were used 

to graphically compare background water-quality data with 

data collected from Sites 5 and 16. Piper (1944) diagrams 

can be used to distinguish water types of different water 

samples, and show geochemical trends and other relations 

that may be important for water-quality interpretation. The 

piper diagram shown in figure 7 displays no apparent 

trends or groupings in the major ion composition of water 

collected in this study. Whereas the composition of water at 

Site 5 seems to be higher for sulfate and chloride than at 

Site 16, the composition of waters from Sites 5 and 16 fall 

within the same area of the diagram as the composition of 

background water, indicating that there is little difference 

between the percentage of major ionic constituents in 

background water and water from Sites 5 and 16. Water 

composition varies throughout the study area (fig. 7), which 

likely reflects the diverse nature of the soils that overlie the 

surficial aquifer, the vegetation, and localized areas of 

recharge at NSB Kings Bay.

Dot plots—a variation of the scatter plot—are used to 

show the differences between two or more groups of 

variables (Helsel and Hirsch, 1995). Dot plots for selected 

constituents and field properties for both whole water 

(total) and filtered (dissolved) trace element samples 

collected from wells at Sites 5 and 16, and background 

wells are shown in figure 8. When a constituent or property 

was outside the USEPA primary maximum contaminant 

level (MCL) or SDWR, a line(s) showing the MCL or 

SDWR was plotted (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1990b, 1990c).

Dot plots, comparing background water quality to water 

quality at Sites 5 and 16, indicate for the constituents and 

properties examined, that maximum concentrations in 

water from background wells are greater than maximum 

concentrations at Site 5 and Site 16. Also, the range of 

background constituent concentrations and field values at 

Sites 5 and 16 lies within the range of concentrations and 

values of background water. Two exceptions are the 

relatively high concentrations (below the MCL) of 

chromium and vanadium detected in wells at Site 5. The 

relatively high chromium concentration is from a wholewater sample from well 33E124. A dissolved sample 

collected from well 33E124 at the same time and using the 

same equipment, had a chromium concentration below the 

detection limit; the high concentrations in whole water 

were not replicated when the well was resampled. The 

relatively high vanadium concentration is from a wholewater sample from well 33E125. As was the case for well 

33E124, the dissolved sample collected from well 33E125 

at the same time and using the same equipment, had a 

vanadium concentration below the detection limit. Possible 

causes of these anomalous concentrations of chromium and 

vanadium would include particulate contamination of the 

sample (from formation sediment), contamination of the 

sample from sampling equipment (a stainless-steel pump 

was used for water collection), or improper sample 

handling in the field or during the time of analysis. 

P-values from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test were computed for constituents with a minimum of three 

concentration values above the detection limit (table 4). 

Hypothesis testing indicates that when comparing constituent concentrations at each former solid-waste disposal site 

(Sites 5 and 16) to background concentrations and using the 

null hypothesis (H0), the populations are equal—the null 

hypothesis can be rejected only when comparing barium 

concentrations at Site 16 to background concentrations. 

Furthermore, recompiling these values using the null 

hypothesis (H0) that the concentration of barium in background ground water is greater than the concentration in 

ground water at Site 16, indicates that the null hypothesis 

cannot be rejected for this case. From examination of the 

p-values, there is no difference between constituent concentrations from Site 5, Site 16, and background 

concentrations—except for concentrations of barium. 

Hypothesis testing indicates that background barium concentrations are higher than concentrations at Site 16.

Table 4. P-values computed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum 

hypothesis test comparing site concentrations to 

background concentrations assuming the populations are 

equal, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, 

Georgia, September 1998 and October 1999

[—, denotes data not sufficient for hypothesis testing]

Constituent

Site 5 Site 16

Total Dissolved Total Dissolved

Arsenic 0.369 0.741 — 0.356

Barium .085 .074 0.010

1\.996

.013

1\.996

Beryllium — — — —

Cadmium — — — —

Chromium .356 .571 .571 —

Cobalt .203 — — —

Copper — — — —

Lead — — — —

Nickel .525 — — —

Vanadium .732 .887 — —

Zinc .463 .596 .414 .596

Selenium — — — —

Bromide — .709 — —

1/Denotes p-value assuming that background concentrations 

are greater than site concentrations.
Ground-Water Quality 19

Site 5

Background

Sampling location

EXPLANATION

Site 16

CALCIUM

CATIONS ANIONS

PERCENT

PERCENT

PERCENT

100

80

60

40

20

0

20

0

40

60

80

100

20

0

40

60

80

100

SODIUM PLUS POTASSIUM

MAGNESIUM

CHLORIDE

CARBONATE PLUS BICARBONATE

SULFATE

CALCIUM PLUS MAGNESIUM

SULFATE PLUS CHLORIDE

80

100

60

40

20

0

80

100

60

40

20

0

20

0

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

20

0

40

60

80

100

40

60

80

0

20

0

40

60

80

100

20

0

Figure 7. Percentage composition of major ionic constituents in water from background wells 

and wells at Sites 5 and 16, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia.
20 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

0

5

10

15

20

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Background Background Site 5 Site 16

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Site 5 Site 16

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Arsenic Barium

Beryllium Cadmium

CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 8. Dot plots of selected inorganic constituents and field properties, grouped 

by location, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia, 1998–99.

Dissolved

Total

Data below reporting levelData below reporting levelData below reporting level
Summary 21

SUMMARY

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with 

the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), began an 

investigation at the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay (NSB 

Kings Bay) to compare background water-quality and soil 

conditions to conditions at two sites impacted by past solidwaste disposal (landfills). Investigations to date (2001) have 

focused on assessing water-quality and soil conditions at 

individual sites; however, these data were not sufficient to 

allow the Navy to make sound management decisions 

regarding possible remediation of the sites.

During 1998-1999, 13 wells and 20 piezometers were 

installed in the water-table zone of the surficial aquifer to 

measure water levels and to evaluate water chemistry. 

Water samples from 29 wells were analyzed for dissolved 

concentrations of inorganic constituents and selected 

metals. Twenty-two soil samples and two duplicate soil 

samples were collected and analyzed for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds 

(SVOCs), pesticides, dioxins, and furans. Historical aerial 

photographs for 1957, 1974, 1977, and 1993 and pine-stand 

ages were used to help verify the location and extent of two 

former landfills. A truck-mounted, 4-inch-diameter auger 

was used to drill verification borings within areas that were 

identified in the aerial photos.

In soil, only 3 samples from 3 locations out of the 22 

sampled locations have concentrations above the detection 

limit for VOCs, base-neutral acids (BNAs), or pesticides. 

One sample was collected from a background location and 

two samples were collected from former landfill sites. 

VOCs detected in soils at two background sites include 

toluene and acetone, which typically have very short 

residence times in soils; detection of these compounds is 

likely an artifact of the laboratory analyses. Pesticides 

detected in soil at NSB Kings Bay include, 1,1-dichloro2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (4,4'-DDD) (one background 

site) and 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethene (4,4'−

DDE) (one background and one former landfill site), both 

degradates of 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane 

(DDT), and dibenzofuran (one former landfill). Data 

collected during this study suggest there are no differences 

between concentrations of pesticides at background wells 

and concentrations in ground water at Sites 5 and 16. BNAs 

were detected at one background and one former landfill 

site. All BNAs detected are associated with pesticides; most 

are creosol derivatives used as emulsifiers for application of 

DDT. Many BNAs compounds that are detected occur 

naturally throughout the United States, and many are 

associated with pesticide applications. Because of these 

factors and because BNAs have similar occurrences in 

background and former landfill site samples, there is no 

evidence that concentrations for past landfill sites differ 

from background concentrations.

In ground water, trace-metal concentrations were below 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

maximum contaminant levels. In addition, graphical 

comparison of trace metal concentrations indicates the 

range of concentrations for background samples is similar 

to that of samples collected from former landfill disposal 

sites. Results from hypothesis testing, using the Wilcoxon 

rank-sum test, do not indicate differences in concentration 

between background concentrations and concentrations at 

former landfill sites—except for barium. Hypothesis test 

results for barium indicate that background concentrations 

of barium are likely to be higher than barium concentrations 

detected at Site 16. 

Major ion chemistry and field properties for groundwater samples indicate that for all but three of the wells 

sampled, pH was outside the acceptable range of the 

USEPA secondary drinking-water regulation (formerly 

known as the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level or 

SMCL). Chloride concentrations in well 33E120 exceeded 

the secondary drinking-water regulation; sulfate 

concentrations in wells 33E120 and 33E122 also exceeded 

the secondary drinking-water regulation. 

Finally, a comparison of soil chemistry and water quality 

at background sites to soil chemistry and water quality from 

landfill disposal sites, does not indicate any appreciable 

difference between background and site-specific 

concentrations; however, pH data indicate that the quality 

of water in the water-table zone at Naval Submarine Base 

Kings Bay is aesthetically poor. 

SELECTED REFERENCES

Brown, D.P., 1984, Impact of development on availability 

and quality of ground water in eastern Nassau County, 

Florida, and southeastern Camden County, Georgia: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 83-4190, 113 p.

Clark, W.Z., and Zisa, A.C., 1976, Physiographic map of 

Georgia: Atlanta, Ga., Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources., Geologic and Water Resources Division, 

one plate, scale 1:2,000,000.

Clarke, J.S., Hacke, C.M., and Peck, M.F., 1990, Geology 

and ground-water resources of the coastal area of 

Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 113, 106 p.
22 Soil Chemistry and Ground-Water Quality of the Water-Table Zone of the Surficial Aquifer, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, 1998 and 1999

Chowns, T.M., and Williams, C.T., 1983, Pre-Cretaceous 

rocks beneath the Georgia Coastal Plain-Regional 

implications; in Gohn, G.S., ed., Studies related to the 

Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1886-

tectonics and seismicity: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1313-L, p. L1-L42.

Fishman, M.J., ed., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Determination of inorganic and organic 

constituents in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-125, 217 p.

Frick, E.A., Hippe, D.J., Buell, G.R., Couch, C.A., Hopkins, 

E.H., Wangsness, D.J., and Garrett, J.W., 1998, Water 

quality in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River 

basin, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, 1992-95: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1164, 38 p.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 1993, Rules for 

safe drinking water: Atlanta, Ga., Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division, chap. 391-3-5, p. 

601-729.

Gregg, D.O., and Zimmerman, E.A., 1974, Geologic and 

hydrologic control of chloride contamination in 

aquifers at Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2029-D, 44 p. 

Harlow, W.M., Harrar, E.S., and White, F.M,.1978, 

Textbook of Dendrology: New York, McGraw-Hill, 6th 

ed., 510 p. 

Heath, R.C., 1983, Basic ground-water hydrology: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220, 85 p.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1995, Statistical methods in 

water resources: New York, Elsevier, 529 p. 

Herrick, S.M., 1965, A subsurface study of Pleistocene 

deposits in Coastal Georgia: Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Mines, Mining, and 

Geology Information Circular 31, 8 p.

Huddlestun, P.F., 1988, A revision of the lithostratigraphic 

units of the Coastal Plain of Georgia, the Miocene 

through Holocene: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 

104, 162 p.

Krause, R.E., Mathews, S.E., and Gill, H.E., 1984, 

Evaluation of the ground-water resources of coastal 

Georgia—Preliminary report on the data available as of 

July 1983: Georgia Geologic Survey Information 

Circular 62, 55 p.

Krause, R.E., and Randolph, R.B., 1989, Hydrology of the 

Floridan aquifer system in southeast Georgia and 

adjacent parts of Florida and South Carolina: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-D, 65 p.

Leeth, D.C., 1998, Hydrogeology of the surficial aquifer in 

the vicinity of a former landfill, Naval Submarine Base 

Kings Bay, Camden County, Georgia: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-

4246, 28 p.

Leeth, D.C., and Holloway, O.G., 2000, Estuarine waterquality and sediment data, and surface-and groundwater quality data, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Camden County, Georgia, January 1999: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-75, 13 p.

Leve, G.W., 1966, Ground water in Duval and Nassau 

Counties, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of 

Investigations 43, 91 p.

Miller, J.A., 1986, Hydrogeologic framework of the Floridan 

aquifer system in Florida and in parts of Georgia, South 

Carolina, and Alabama: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1403-B, 91p.

Montgomery, D.C., and Peck, E.A., 1982, Introduction to 

linear regression analysis: New York, John Wiley and 

Sons, 504 p.

Ogner, G., and Schnitzer, Morris, 1970, Humic substances: 

Fulvic acid-dialkyl phtahalate complexes and their role 

in pollution: Science, v. 170, no. 3955, p 317-318.

Piper, A.M., 1944, A graphic procedure in the geochemical 

interpretation of water analyses: American Geophysical 

Union Transactions, v. 25, p. 914-923.

Pritt, J.W., and Raese, J.W., eds., 1995, Quality assurance/

quality control manual, National Water Quality 

Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

95-443, 35 p.

Quanterra Environmental Services, 1997, Quality assurance 

management plan for environmental services: Denver, 

Colo., Quanterra Environmental Services, variously 

paged.

Rousseeuw, P.J., 1984, Least median of squares regression: 

Journal of the American Statistical Association, v. 79, 

p. 871-888.

Soils and Materials Engineers, Inc., 1986a, Ground-water 

availability of the Pliocene-Recent aquifer system, 

Skidaway Island, Georgia, report prepared for the 

Branigar Organization, Inc.: Columbia, S.C., Soil and 

Material Engineers, Inc., report 4486-049, variously 

paged. 

____ 1986b, Ground-water availability of the Miocene 

aquifer system, Colonels Island, Georgia, report 

prepared for Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc.: 

Columbia, S.C., Soil and Material Engineers, Inc., 

report 4486-046, 50 p. 
 23

Spechler, R.M., 1994, Saltwater intrusion and quality of 

water in the Floridan aquifer system, northeastern 

Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 92-4174, 76 p.

St. Johns River Water Management District, 1977, Water 

resources management plan, phase I: Palatka, Fla., St. 

Johns River Water Management District, 86 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977, Environmental Impact 

Statement for Submarine Support Base, Kings Bay, 

Georgia.

____ 1978, Groundwater investigation and installation of 

monitor well system FBM Submarine Support Base 

Kings Bay, Georgia, variously paged.

U.S. Department of the Navy, 1993, Interim corrective 

measure screening investigation report for Site 11, Old 

Camden County Landfill, Naval Submarine Base Kings 

Bay, Georgia, variously paged.

____ 1994a, 1993 Field Program and January 1994 

groundwater sampling event for Site 11, Old Camden 

County Landfill, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, 

Georgia: U.S. Department of the Navy, technical 

memorandum, 443 p.

____1994b, Resource conservation and recovery act facility 

investigation report for Sites 5 and 16 and site history 

file information for Site 12, Naval Submarine Base 

Kings Bay, Georgia: U.S. Department of the Navy, v. 1-

2, variously paged.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976, Quality 

criteria for water: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 256 p. 

____ 1986, Test methods for evaluating solid waste, 

physical/chemical methods: Cincinnati, Oh., U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-SW-846, 

(revised December 1996), 3rd edition, variously paged. 

____ 1990a, Suspended, cancelled, and restricted pesticides: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Compliance Monitoring, Office of 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances, EN-342.

____ 1990b, Secondary maximum contaminant levels 

(section 143.3 of part 143, National secondary 

drinking-water regulations): U.S. Code of Federal 

Regulations, Title 40, Parts 100 to 149, revised July 1, 

1990, p. 674.

____ 1990c, Maximum contaminant levels (subpart B of part 

141, National primary drinking-water regulations): 

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 100 to 

149, revised July 1, 1990, p. 559-563.

____ 1990d, National pesticide survey: project summary: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, report 

570990NPS6, 6 p. 

____ 1996, Drinking water regulations and health 

advisories: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

report EPA 822-B-96-002, 11 p.

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, Iwatsubo, R.T., 

1988, National field manual for the collection of waterquality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, 

2 v., variously paged.

Wait, T.L., and Davis, M.E., 1986, Configuration and 

hydrology of the pre-Cretaceous rocks underlying the 

Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 86-4010, 1 sheet.