##

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#####

#

#

##

#

# ##

#

# #

# #

# #

##

#

##

#

#

#

##

# ## # #

# # #

##

# # ##

#

#

##

## # # ##

#

# #

#

## ##

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

### ####

# # #

##

##

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

## #

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

## # ##

##

#

#

#

# ##

# #

#

###

#

##

##

#

##

# ### # ### #

######

#

# #

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

# ##

## # # ##

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

####

#

#

##

##

#

#

# #

# #

# # #

#

#

#

####

#

#

#

# # #

# #

# #

#

##

#

#

# # ##

# #

#

#

# # #

#

#

# # ## #

#

## # ## # #

##

#

#

##

# #

###

# #

## ##

#

#

#

#

#

## ##

## # # # ## # # ## # # #

#

# # # # ## # ## ##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

######## ## ###

###

###

######

##

###

#

#

# #

##

#

# ##

##

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

# ### #

# ###

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

# # # #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# # # #

# # ##

#

#

# #

#

# # ### # # ### #

##

#

#

#

# #

#

# # #

#

#

# #

# # ## # # ##

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# # #

# #

#

# #

#

#

# ##

# #

#

##

#

#

# # # # # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

###

#

#

#

# # #

# # # # ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

# # #

#

# # ##

# #

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

##

# #

#

#

# # #

#

# #

#

#

# # #

#

# #

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

# #

## # ## #

#

#

##### ## # # ###

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

# # # #

#

#

# #

# ## #

# # # #

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

##

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# ###

#

#

#

# # # #

#

# #

# # #

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

# # ## #

### # #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# # #

# ###

#

##

#

# #

#

# ## #

#

# #

# #

#

#

#

##

# # # #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

##

#

#

##

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

# # # #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

## # #

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

# #

#

# #

#

####

#

#

# # # #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

####

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

# ## #

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

# #

## #

#

###

#

# # #

#

##

#

###

## # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

##

#

####

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

####

#

#

# ####

#

#

# #

# #####

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

## ###

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

# ##

# # #

#

#

# #

#

#

# # #

#

# #

#

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

# #

# #

# #

# #

#

# # # # #

#

# #

#

# # # # ##

#

# #

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

# # ## #

#

#

#

Aiken

Macon

Miami

Tampa

Albany

Dothan

ATLANTA

Orlando

Waycross

Savannah

Lake City

Fort Myers

MONTGOMERY

TALLAHASSEE Pensacola

Jacksonville

Alabama

Georgia

South Carolina

Florida

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Data Series 669

A product of the Groundwater Resources Program

Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the 

Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and Parts of 

Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama

Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties 

of the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and 

Parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama

By Eve L. Kuniansky and Jason C. Bellino

A product of the Groundwater Resources Program 

Data Series 669

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Kuniansky, E.L., and Bellino, J.C., 2012, Tabulated transmissivity and storage properties of the Floridan aquifer 

system in Florida and parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 669, 37 p., 

(available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/669)
iii

Acknowledgments

This compilation relies heavily on data compiled by the South Carolina Department 

of Natural Resources (SCDNR); St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) 

and Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD), Florida; Northwest Florida 

Water Management District (NWFWMD); Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(SWFWMD); and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The authors wish 

to thank the following for providing electronic versions of their databases and tables of 

aquifer tests: Drennan Park of SCDNR; Rob Devlin and Camille Ransom of South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC); Emily Richardson and Robert 

Peterson of SWFMWD; Chris Richards of NWFWMD; David Toth and Dale Jenkins of 

SJRWMD; and Carlos Herd of SRWMD.

In addition, the authors wish to thank the following U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

employees for providing electronic versions of databases and tables of aquifer tests: Trey 

Grubbs, Christy Crandall, and Hal Davis in Tallahassee, Florida; and Lester Williams, John 

Clarke, Jaime Painter, and Lynn Torak in Atlanta, Georgia. Additionally, we greatly appreciate the peer reviews of the report provided by USGS employees Andrew O’Reilly, Daniel J. 

Hippe, and Patrick Tucci (retired) and editorial reviews provided by Michael Deacon and 

Amy Swancar.
iv

Abbreviations

FAS Floridan aquifer system

FGS Florida Geological Survey

GGS Georgia Geological Survey

GSA Geological Survey of Alabama

GWRP Groundwater Resources Program

IA Intermediate aquifer

IC Intermediate confining unit

ID Identifier

LFA Lower Floridan aquifer

LL Latitude-longitude

MCU Middle Floridan confining unit

NWFWMD Northwest Florida Water Management District

NWIS National Water Information System

RASA Regional Aquifer System Analysis

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

SCP Southeastern Coastal Plain

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District 

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District

SRWMD Suwannee River Water Management District 

SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District

UFA Upper Floridan aquifer

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
v

Contents 

Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................................3

 Hydrogeologic Units ............................................................................................................................4

 Types of Tests and Methods of Analysis ..........................................................................................4

 Location Datum and Accuracy ..........................................................................................................6

 Well-Identification Systems ...............................................................................................................6

Summary Statistics ........................................................................................................................................7

 Upper Floridan Aquifer and Floridan Aquifer System ....................................................................7

Middle Floridan Confining or Semi-Confining Units .......................................................................9

Lower Floridan Aquifer ........................................................................................................................9

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................10

Appendix 1.....................................................................................................................................................17

Figures

1. Map showing the location of the Floridan aquifer system, geologic structure, 

 and relative confinement .....................................................................................................................2

2. Graph showing transmissivity estimates from aquifer pumping tests of the 

 Upper Floridan aquifer and Floridan aquifer system wells ............................................................9

3. Graph showing transmissivity estimates from specific-capacity tests of the 

 Upper Floridan aquifer and Floridan aquifer system wells ............................................................9

Tables

1. Transmissivity and storage coefficients from aquifer pumping tests (link) .................................3

2. Transmissivity estimates from specific-capacity tests (link) .........................................................3

3. Summary statistics for the transmissivity of the Floridan aquifer system 

 and the Upper Floridan aquifer from aquifer pumping tests ..........................................................7

4. Summary statistics for the transmissivity of the Floridan aquifer system and 

 the Upper Floridan aquifer from specific-capacity data ................................................................8

5. Summary statistics for the storage properties of the Floridan aquifer system 

 and the Upper Floridan aquifer from aquifer pumping tests ..........................................................8
vi

Conversion Factors and Datums

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in) 

inch (in) 

foot (ft) 

mile (mi) 

2.54

25.4 

0.3048 

1.609 

centimeter (cm) 

millimeter (mm) 

meter(m) 

kilometer (km) 

Area

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate 

gallon per minute (gal/min) 

gallon per day (gal/d) 

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 

billion gallons per day (Bgal/d)

0.06309 

0.003785

0.04381

0.00004381 

liter per second (L/s) 

cubic meter per day (m3

/d)

cubic meter per second (m3

/s) 

cubic meter per second (m3

/s)

Specific capacity 

gallon per minute per foot 

[(gal/min)/ft] 

0.2070 liter per second per meter 

[(L/s)/m]

Transmissivity* 

foot squared per day (ft2

/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d)

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to either the North American Datum of 1927 

(NAD27) or North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

*Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot times 

feet of aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2]xft. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot 

squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience. 
vii
viii
Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of 

the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and Parts of 

Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama 

By Eve L. Kuniansky and Jason C. Bellino 

Abstract

A goal of the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater 

Resources Program is to assess the availability of fresh water 

within each of the principal aquifers in the United States with 

the greatest groundwater withdrawals. The Floridan aquifer 

system (FAS), which covers an area of approximately 100,000 

square miles in Florida and parts of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, is one such principal aquifer, 

having the fi fth largest groundwater withdrawals in the Nation, 

totaling 3.64 billion gallons per day in 2000. Compilation of 

FAS hydraulic properties is critical to the development and 

calibration of groundwater fl ow models that can be used to 

develop water budgets spatially and temporally, as well as to 

evaluate resource changes over time. Wells with aquifer test 

data were identifi ed as Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA), Lower 

Floridan aquifer (LFA), Floridan aquifer system (FAS, Upper 

Floridan with some middle and/or Lower Floridan), or middle 

Floridan confi ning unit (MCU), based on the identifi cation 

from the original database or report description, or comparison of the open interval of the well with previously published 

maps. 

This report consolidates aquifer hydraulic property data 

obtained from multiple databases and reports of the U.S. 

Geological Survey, various State agencies, and the Water 

Management Districts of Florida, that are compiled into tables 

to provide a single information source for transmissivity and 

storage properties of the FAS as of October 2011. Transmissivity calculated from aquifer pumping tests and specifi c-capacity 

data are included. Values for transmissivity and storage coeffi -

cients are intended for use in regional or sub regional groundwater fl ow models; thus, any tests (aquifer pumping tests and 

specifi c capacity data) that were conducted with packers or for 

open intervals less than 30 feet in length are excluded from the 

summary statistics and tables of this report, but are included in 

the database. 

The transmissivity distribution from the aquifer pumping 

tests is highly variable. The transmissivity based on aquifer 

pumping tests (from 1,045 values for the UFA and FAS) 

ranges from 8 to about 9,300,000 square feet per day (ft2

/d) 

and values of storage coeffi cient (646 reported) range from 

3×10-9 to 0.41. The 64 transmissivity values for the LFA 

range from about 130 to 4,500,000 ft2/d, and the 17 storage 

coeffi cient values range from 7×10-8 to 0.03. The 14 transmissivity values for the MCU range from 1 to about 600,000 

ft2/d and the 10 storage coeffi cient values range from 8×10-8

to 0.03. Transmissivity estimates for the UFA and FAS for 

442 specifi c capacity tests range from approximately 200 to 

1,000,000 ft2/d. 

Introduction 

A goal of the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater 

Resources Program (GWRP) is to assess the availability of 

water in the principal aquifers in the United States (http://

water.usgs.gov/ogw/gwrp/activities/regional.html, accessed 

August 2011). Groundwater withdrawals from 66 principal 

aquifers of the United States were estimated by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in 2000, and the Floridan aquifer 

system (FAS) was ranked as having the fi fth largest groundwater withdrawals in the Nation, totaling 3.64 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d) in 2000 for irrigation, public-supply, 

and self-supplied industrial water uses (Maupin and Barber, 

2005). Currently, the FAS is the primary source of drinking 

water for about 10 million people. Almost 50 percent of the 

water withdrawn from the FAS is used for irrigation (Marella 

and Berndt, 2005). The FAS covers an area of approximately 

100,000 square miles (mi2) in Florida and parts of Georgia, 

South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi (fi g. 1).

One of the tools for assessing groundwater availability 

is the development of a regional groundwater fl ow model of 

the aquifer system that can be used to develop water budgets 

spatially and temporally, as well as evaluate groundwater 

resource change over time. Compilation of hydraulic properties of the FAS is critical to the development and calibration 

of regional or subregional groundwater fl ow models. To fulfi ll 

this need, the U.S. Geological Survey GWRP developed the 

FAS hydraulic-property database for the availability study.
2 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

District (SRWMD) Florida, Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD), Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), South Florida Water Management 

District (SFWMD), Geological Survey of Alabama (GSA), 

Georgia Geological Survey (GGS), and Florida Geological 

Survey (FGS). Aquifer-test data for the FAS were not available for Mississippi as the FAS is not used for water supply 

in that state. The compiled aquifer hydraulic-property data 

were incorporated into an electronic database using Microsoft 

Access (MS Offi ce 2007) for ease of retrieval and analysis.

Transmissivity and storage properties provided by other 

agencies have not been reviewed and approved by the USGS; 

however, the relevant aquifer tests were reviewed and deemed 

accurate by the source agency that compiled the test results, 

and the data that are available are aggregated and documented 

in this report (tables 1 and 2). Completion of the metadata 

and fi eld verifi cation of the well location and attributes were 

beyond the scope of the project. Thus, the electronic database 

Purpose and Scope 

This report presents a tabulation of existing transmissivity 

and storage property data compiled from aquifer pumping tests 

for the FAS as of October 2011, and documents the database 

created for the FAS groundwater availability study. In addition, summary statistics are presented for the hydrogeologic 

units within the FAS. The report and database are available 

to the public in electronic format at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/669. 

Much of the material in the introductory sections of this report 

is reference material for documentation of information contained within the database.

Aquifer hydraulic-property data were compiled from 

USGS reports; the USGS National Water Information 

System database (NWIS); and databases or spreadsheets 

or reports from the South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources (SCDNR), St. Johns River Water Management 

District (SJRWMD) and Suwannee River Water Management 

35° 35°

30°

80°

80°

30°

85°

85°

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

0 100 200 MILES

CHATTAHOOCHEE

“ARCH”

GULF TROUGH

SOUTHEAST GEORGIA

EMBAYMENT

SUWANNEE

STRAIT

PENINSULAR ARCH

OCALA “UPLIFT”

SOUTH FLORIDA

BASIN

SOUTHWEST GEORGIA

EMBAYMENT

SOUTH 

CAROLINA

FLORIDA

ATLANTIC OCEAN

GULF OF MEXICO

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

EXPLANATION

Degree of confinement of

 the Floridan aquifer system

Confined

Thinly Confined

Unconfined

Axis of a positive feature 

Axis of a negative feature 

Boundary of negative feature 

Direction of structural feature 

Fault – U, upthrown block; 

 D, downthrown block 

U

D

U

U D

U

U D

D

U

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

D

U

U

U

D

D

U

U

D

Figure 1. Location of the Floridan aquifer system, geologic structure, and relative 

confinement (modified from Miller, 1986). 
Introduction 3

and the tables in this report serve to document the transmissivity and storage data compiled for the GWRP FAS groundwater 

availability study. This report includes only tests that involve 

aquifer pumping and does not include results of slug tests or 

permeameter tests of cores.

Tables 1 and 2 are an abbreviated version of the database 

that were organized to make the most important data relatively 

easy to extract and use to create a spatial dataset with various 

types of plotting software. Transmissivity and storage data in 

tables 1 and 2 are organized alphabetically, fi rst by hydrogeologic unit, then by state, and lastly by county. Table 1 includes 

the following FAS database fi elds: a character identifi er, 

latitude and longitude, horizontal datum of the latitude and 

longitude, transmissivity, storage coeffi cient, depth to the top 

of the interval tested, and depth to the bottom of the interval 

tested, remarks about the data, and the major hydrogeologic 

unit. Table 1 includes results of single- and multi-well aquifer 

pumping tests for wells with open intervals greater than 

30 feet (ft). Table 2 presents transmissivity estimates from 

specifi c capacity tests, and contains the same information just 

described for table 1, except there are no storage coeffi cients. 

Table 1. Transmissivity and storage coeffi cients from aquifer

 pumping tests, Excel spreadsheet available for

 download at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/669/

Table 2. Transmissivity estimates from specifi c-capacity 

 tests, Excel spreadsheet available for download at

 http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/669/

The database includes additional fi elds that are not in 

tables 1 and 2 that came from the individual source agency 

database for identifi cation of the well and stratigraphic units, 

and that describe the method of analysis. The different well 

identifi cation fi elds in the database and methods of analysis 

are described in detail in several introductory sections within 

this report. The reference fi eld within the database is a character remarks type of fi eld directly from the original source 

agency and is not always a full report citation. These references have not been verifi ed and are provided in the database 

to enable users to locate the original data and the fi le report 

for the aquifer-test analysis from the source agency if desired. 

Additionally, the remarks fi eld directly from the original 

source agency is provided in this database and in tables 1 and 

2 with no editing for consistency or content. A complete list of 

fi elds and their descriptions can be found in the data dictionary 

in appendix 1 of this report. 

Previous Studies 

Data from the following previous studies have been 

incorporated into this report. The FAS database has a reference 

fi eld and a remarks fi eld that cite the source of the respective 

data. In some cases, the citation may be an unpublished report 

by the USGS, a State agency, or a consultant. 

The hydrogeologic framework for the entire FAS was 

developed by Miller (1986) as part of the USGS Regional 

Aquifer System Analysis (RASA) program (1978–95). Bush 

and Johnston (1988) published a compilation of transmissivity and storage values for 114 aquifer tests of the Upper 

Floridan aquifer as part of the RASA program. The locations 

of the wells from that report were digitized, and the hydraulicproperty data were incorporated into the FAS database and 

the tables in this report. Kellam and Gorday (1990) tabulated 

117 transmissivity estimates for the Gulf-Trough area in 

Georgia. If a well in Kellam and Gorday (1990) was in the 

NWIS database, the latitude and longitude were taken from 

NWIS; otherwise, the locations were digitized from plate 9 of 

that report. Clarke and others (2004) compiled data, including 

transmissivity at 324 wells, storage coeffi cient at 115 wells, 

and vertical hydraulic conductivity of 72 core samples from 

27 sites, for a 67 county area of the FAS in coastal South 

Carolina and Georgia. Newcome (1993, 2000) published 

compilations of aquifer tests for the Coastal Plain of South 

Carolina, and the majority of these properties were supplied 

as part of the SCDNR database. Much of the data in these 

compilations, as well as data compiled by the Florida Water 

Management Districts and SCDNR, includes data previously 

published from the following reports: Allen (1987); Aucott 

and Newcome (1986); Barr and Pratt (1981); Barr and others 

(1981); Barraclough (1962); Bentley (1977, 1979); Bermes 

(1958a,b); Bermes and others (1963); Bradner (1994); Broska 

and Barnette (1999); Brown (1984); Cagle and Newton 

(1963); Callahan (1964); Clarke and Krause (2000); Clarke 

and others (2004); Cooper and Warren (1945); Dyar and others (1972); Fairchild (1977); Fairchild and Bentley (1977); 

Falls and others (1997); Faulkner (1973); Franks and Phelps 

(1979); Gillett and others (2004); Gonthier (2011); Harrelson 

and Falls (2003); Hayes (1979); Hayes and others (1983); 

Hickey (1979); Hickey and Barr (1979); Hicks and others 

(1987); Hutchinson (1985, 1992); Johnston and others (1982); 

Jones and Maslia (1994); Jones and others (2002); Kellam 

and Gorday (1990); Krause and Randolf (1989); Leve (1966, 

1983); Lichtler and others (1968); Logan and Euler (1989): 

Matthews and Krause (1984); McConnell and Hacke (1993); 

McFadden and others (1986): Menke and others (1961); 

Meyer (1962, 1974); Miller and others (1978); Mitchell 

(1981); Moore and others, 1993; Motz (1974); O’Reilly and 

others (2002); Pascale (1974); Pascale and Wagner (1982); 

Peek (1959); Phelps and Rohrer (1987); Phelps and Spechler 

(1997); Planert and Aucott (1985); Pride and others (1966); 

Randolph and others (1985); Reese (2002); Reese and Cunningham (2000); Robertson and Mallory (1977); Ross (1980); 

Ross and Munch (1980); Rutledge (1982); Ryder and others 

(1980); Schiner and others (1988); Sever (1965 a,b, 1969, 

1972); Singh and others (1983); Snipes and others (1995a,b); 

Stewart and others (1978); Szell (1993); Tibbals and Frazee 

(1976); Tibbals and Grubb (1982); Tibbals and others (1980); 

Torak and Painter (2006); Torres and others (2001); Wait and 

Gregg (1973); Wagner and others (1980); Warner and Aulenbach (1999); Warren (1944); Williams (2010); Wilson (1977); 

Wilson and Gerhart (1982); Wolansky and Coral (1985); and 

Wyrick (1960). 
4 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

Hydrogeologic Units 

Details of the hydrogeologic framework for the FAS were 

fi rst published by Miller (1986, 1990) and Bush and Johnston 

(1988), and the hydrogeologic units used herein are consistent with the units used in those reports. The FAS is a thick 

sequence of carbonate rocks, predominantly of Tertiary age, 

confi ned on the top by late and middle Miocene-series rocks 

and on the bottom by early Paleocene-series rocks (Miller, 

1990). From top to bottom, the major hydrogeologic units of 

the FAS as defi ned by Miller (1986) are: the Upper Floridan 

aquifer (UFA); middle Floridan confi ning units (MCU); and 

the Lower Floridan aquifer (LFA). Where present, the MCU 

can be either semiconfi ning or fully confi ning. Miller (1986) 

delineated seven middle Floridan confi ning units, which are 

of relatively low permeability and subregional extent, that 

separate the UFA from the LFA. Miller (1986) also delineated 

an eighth confi ning unit that separates permeable zones of the 

LFA. The UFA is the most productive part of the system and 

contains fresh water throughout most of the study area. The 

LFA contains fresh water over some of the study area, but contains saltwater south of Lake Okeechobee. The coastal extent 

of fresh water is generally less in the LFA than in the UFA 

(Bush and Johnston, 1988).

The karst features within the FAS vary greatly between 

different parts of the aquifer system as a result of areal differences in the degree of confi nement and structural features, as 

well as facies changes within the system, and development 

of preferential fl ow and dissolution conduits. For example, 

circular sinkhole lakes cover much of the landscape in central 

Florida; miles of submerged conduits over 50 ft in diameter 

have been mapped by Global Underwater Explorers as part of 

their Woodville Karst Plain project near Tallahassee, Florida; 

and the Flint River fl ows across the Dougherty Plain physiographic province of Georgia and parts of Florida and Alabama, 

which is in the outcrop of the Floridan and has its own distinct 

karst features. Thus, the single-, dual-, and triple-porosity 

nature of the permeability within the units of the FAS is variable as a result of the differences in the rocks and post-depositional processes.

The regional hydrogeologic units for FAS aquifer tests 

described in the tables and database are identifi ed as the 

Floridan aquifer system (FAS—the Upper Floridan with some 

middle and/or lower Floridan units), the UFA, the MCU, 

and the LFA. No effort was made to differentiate the middle 

Floridan units into the numbered confi ning units defi ned by 

Miller (1986). The decision to assign a well to one of these 

units was based on the identifi cation from the source database, 

information about the aquifer tests from the report description 

of the aquifer test, or comparison of the open interval reported 

for the well to mapped surfaces or cross-sections from Miller 

(1986), Sepúlveda (2002), Reese and Alvarez-Zarikian (2007), 

Reese and Richardson (2008), or Williams and Gill (2010). 

The database also includes aquifer-test information for 

hydrogeologic units not considered part of the FAS. These 

units include the intermediate aquifer system (IA) or the 

intermediate confi ning unit (IC), which are named hydrogeologic units above the FAS in west-central Florida; and units 

of the Southeastern Coastal Plain (SCP) aquifer system in 

Alabama and Georgia. A few aquifer tests were identifi ed for 

combined parts of the IA and UFA (IA-UFA). These tests are 

included in tables 1 and 2, although no summary statistics 

are provided for these hydrogeologic units. The database also 

includes information from packer tests or data from tests from 

wells with open intervals less than 30 ft in length. Although 

the packer-test data are useful for site-specifi c studies and 

are provided in the database, they are less useful for providing estimates for transmissivity of the regional aquifer, 

which lumps together many local permeable zones within the 

regional hydrogeologic units. These data, therefore, are not 

summarized in this report.

Types of Tests and Methods of Analysis 

Numerous types of aquifer pumping tests and analytical 

methods were used to calculate transmissivity and storage 

properties by the various agencies that originally compiled 

the data. The source databases sometimes contained information about the method of analysis in a remarks fi eld, method 

fi eld, or method code fi eld, but this information was not 

always available. Each aquifer test and analytical method has 

its own assumptions, requirements, and limitations, some of 

which may be violated during the test. Users of this report and 

database should be aware of these assumptions and limitations 

in order to properly evaluate the transmissivity and storage 

values obtained from a test. Common potential errors include 

partial penetration of the well, water derived from adjacent 

confi ning or semiconfi ning beds, and use of data from early 

stages of the test when borehole storage can affect results. 

Many textbooks and USGS reports provide thorough 

discussions of aquifer tests and estimates based upon very old 

techniques, such as fl ow-net analysis. Textbooks for formation-tests, aquifer-tests, and slug-tests analyses have been 

developed by Lee (1982), Driscoll (1986), Dawson and Istok 

(1991), Kruseman and de Ridder (1994), Walton (1962, 1996), 

Hall and Chen (1996), Hantush (1964), and Kasenow (1997). 

Some of the USGS compilations include Ferris and others 

(1962), Benthall (1963), Stallman (1971), Lohman (1979), and 

Reed (1980). Lee (1982) describes well testing as it applies to 

petroleum engineering and is not commonly used by hydrogeologists. Driscoll (1986) is a comprehensive reference covering all aspects of well design, drilling, and testing. A popular 

resource for aquifer tests is Kruseman and de Ridder (1994), 

which covers most types of tests in detail. 

The USGS has published software for analysis of 

aquifer-test and slug-test data. Barlow and Moench (1999) 

published the FORTRAN program WTAQ, which is based on 

radial axisymmetric fl ow to a well under confi ned or unconfi ned conditions. Maslia and Randolph (1986) developed a 

FORTRAN program TENSOR2D for analysis of the transmissivity tensor for multi-well tests under anisotropic conditions. 
Introduction 5

Halford and Kuniansky (2002) published spreadsheets for 

some of the most commonly applied single-well test methods. 

Walton (2007) recommends analysis of multi-well aquifer 

tests through simulation utilizing parameter estimation. Some 

of the tests conducted since the mid-1990s were analyzed with 

numerical models (Sepulveda, 2006; Yobbi and Halford, 2008; 

Gonthier, 2011) that utilize a modifi ed version of MODFLOW 

1996 (Harbaugh and McDonald, 1996) called MODOPTIM 

(Halford, 2006). 

The majority of the aquifer test results in this report are 

from single-well pumping tests, from which the estimates were 

made by fi tting the drawdown data to various analytical solutions. Mathematically, analytical solutions are boundary value 

problems in which partial differential equations for groundwater fl ow are solved using specifi c boundary conditions. Almost 

all of the single-well tests assume (1) radial symmetry, (2) a 

homogeneous, isotropic aquifer of infi nite extent and constant 

thickness, (3) well discharge of a constant rate, and (4) an 

initially horizontal potentiometric surface. The two most common analysis methods—the curve fi tting (match point) method 

of analyses published by Theis (1935, 1938), and the CooperJacob straight-line fi t method of analysis published by Cooper 

and Jacob (1946) and Jacob (1947)—also assume the aquifer 

is confi ned. Analyses can be performed on data collected during the recovery period (referred to as recovery analyses) and 

have the same assumptions as those just stated. 

Many of the aquifer test results compiled herein represent 

water contributed from the relatively less permeable confi ning 

or semi-confi ning units in addition to water pumped directly 

from the aquifer. In such cases, the pumped aquifer is called 

a “leaky aquifer,” and the analytical solution most commonly 

used is provided in Hantush and Jacob (1955), Hantush (1960) 

and Cooper (1963), which present a solution for drawdown 

in a pumped aquifer that has an impermeable base overlain 

by a leaky confi ning unit. Boulton (1963) published a method 

for leaky aquifers called a delayed yield analysis. During the 

early part of the aquifer test, water is released from storage in 

the pumped aquifer and the leaky confi ning unit. Eventually, 

the discharge comes into equilibrium with the leakage through 

the confi ning unit from the unstressed aquifer, and the system 

reaches a quasi steady-state (Halford and Kuniansky, 2002). 

Frequently, the pumped wells do not fully penetrate the 

aquifer or the aquifer is unconfi ned. Methods that account for 

partial penetration (Hantush, 1961a,b) or methods that account 

for the aquifer being unconfi ned (Jacob, 1944) were applied 

for some of the analyses.

Halford and others (2006) researched the interpretation of 

single-well tests with the Cooper-Jacob method through comparison of manual fi t of simulated aquifer tests by different 

analysts (628 tests; transmissivity range 100 to 100,000 ft2

/d 

(10 to 10,000 m2/d); various degrees of partial penetration; 

and some simulations of unconfi ned aquifers). Cooper-Jacob 

transmissivity estimates in confi ned aquifers were minimally 

affected by partial penetration, vertical anisotropy, or different analyst. Cooper-Jacob transmissivity estimates of simulated unconfi ned aquifers averaged twice the known values. 

Transmissivity estimates of unconfi ned aquifers were not 

improved by interpreting results with an unconfi ned aquifer 

solution (Halford and others, 2006). 

Some aquifer test results were derived from data 

collected during the initial phases of the pumping tests before 

the aquifer system had reached equilibrium. These tests are 

identifi ed as non-equilibrium tests, and the method of analysis 

used is one of the analytical solutions previously mentioned. 

Several of the transmissivity values were derived from 

step-drawdown tests (Rorabaugh, 1953; Driscoll, 1986). These 

are single-well tests that are frequently conducted after well 

development to determine the correct sizing of the production 

pump and the effi ciency of the well. Thus, the data obtained 

are more common than single- or multi-well aquifer pumping 

test data, but not as common as specifi c-capacity data. Stepdrawdown tests provide a better estimate of transmissivity 

than estimates from specifi c capacity tests. However, transmissivity estimates obtained by collecting a full time-series of 

drawdown data from a single well that is pumped at a high, 

constant rate and analyzed with the Cooper-Jacob method are 

better than estimates from either step-drawdown or specifi c 

capacity tests (Halford and Kuniansky, 2002; Halford and 

others, 2006).

One method of analysis from multiple wells once 

the system is at equilibrium or quasi steady-state is called 

distance-drawdown and is noted as the method of analysis for 

some of the tests. Distance-drawdown is a simple graphical 

method described in Weissman and others (1977), and can be 

applied to both confi ned and unconfi ned aquifers; however, 

only transmissivity can be estimated using this technique 

(Kuniansky and Halford, 2002). 

Specifi c-capacity data are the most widely available 

aquifer-test data and represent the ratio of the pumping rate 

divided by the drawdown, most commonly reported in gallons 

per minute per foot of drawdown [(gal/min)/ft)]. Although 

the well should be pumped at a constant rate for at least 24 

hours to obtain accurate values (Driscoll, 1986), the length of 

pumping is often much shorter, resulting in overestimation of 

transmissivity. Empirical formulas have been developed to calculate transmissivity from the specifi c capacity data (Brown, 

1963; Driscoll, 1986; Theis and others, 1963; Turcan, 1963). 

Some of the remarks included in the specifi c capacity table 

mention that a regression formula was used. In such cases, 

regression was generally accomplished by plotting specifi c 

capacity against transmissivity estimates from Cooper-Jacob 

or Theis analysis. Regardless of the analytical method used, 

the transmissivity estimates from specifi c capacity data 

should be considered the least accurate method to estimate 

transmissivity.

Aquifer pumping tests can yield more accurate 

transmissivity values than storage coeffi cients because the 

solutions to the groundwater fl ow equation (analytical or 

numerical) are somewhat insensitive to the value of storage. 

Many of the single-well aquifer tests results compiled have 

estimates of storage; however, the reliability of storage values 

obtained from single-well tests is questionable (Halford and 
6 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

Kuniansky, 2002). Some compiled test results had storage values greater than 1, and these were deleted from the database 

because such values are physically impossible. 

The transmissivity and storage values reported here are 

identical to the original values, including the number of signifi cant fi gures. Transmissivity estimates for aquifer pumping 

tests should probably be considered by the user to be accurate 

to no more than one to two signifi cant digits, however, and 

specifi c-capacity estimates should be considered accurate to 

one signifi cant digit or only as an estimate of the order of magnitude. Storage coeffi cients should be considered to only be 

accurate to the order of magnitude, or, at most, to 1 signifi cant 

digit. 

Location Datum and Accuracy 

In the conterminous United States, the three horizontal 

geodetic datums most commonly used are the North American 

Datum of 1927 (NAD27) , the North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD83), and the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84). 

For practical purposes, a latitude-longitude coordinate in 

WGS84 in the conterminous United States is equivalent to the 

corresponding NAD83 coordinate (Defense Mapping Agency, 

1987). 

The accuracy of a given latitude-longitude coordinate 

is dependent upon many factors, one of the most infl uential 

being the method of measurement. Most currently available 

handheld global positioning system units can achieve a horizontal accuracy of 12 to 40 ft (0.1 to 0.5 seconds), depending 

on the satellite reception at the time of measurement. Accuracy diminishes substantially when plotting latitude-longitude 

coordinates by hand using a 7.5-minute topographic map 

(map scale 1:24,000). The estimated accuracy of this method 

is about 1,000 ft (5 seconds; 0.001 decimal degrees). Another 

source of error is the differences between different horizontal 

datums. Based on maps prepared by the National Geodetic 

Survey available from (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOLS/

Nadcon/Nadcon.html, accessed July 7, 2011), the difference 

in latitude over the extent of the FAS could be as great as 

1.5 seconds, and in longitude as great as 0.7 seconds, between 

NAD27 and NAD83. Thus, location errors from the use 

of inconsistent horizontal datums would be less than 400 ft 

(0.0005 decimal degrees).

For two reports for wells in northwest Florida, Wagner 

and others (1980) and Allen (1987), the only location information on the wells was the township, range, and section 

of the well. The location coordinate in the database was 

determined as the centroid of the township, range, and section. Each section is about 1 square mile, thus the worst-case 

error in location would be about 2,500 ft or about 10 seconds 

(0.003 decimal degrees). 

The latitude-longitude coordinates are reported in 

decimal degrees to 5 decimal places. Locations within NWIS 

were converted to NAD83, but no effort was made to convert all of the supplied latitudes and longitudes to the same 

horizontal datum. All location coordinates reported before 

1990 were probably determined from a topographic map based 

on the NAD27 datum. 

Well-Identification Systems

Because the hydraulic-property data came from numerous 

sources and databases, multiple well-identifi cation systems 

have been used. For this study, each well was assigned a 

unique FAS identifi er (uniqueID fi eld in database), which 

refl ects the source agency for the data and a sequence number. 

For example, a uniqueID of “sjrwmd314” represents dataentry number 314 from the St. Johns River Water Management 

District. Alternate well identifi cations are listed in the database 

under local site names and numbers. After compilation of all 

the data, some duplicate entries were found and deleted from 

the database; however, the original FAS ID was not changed 

in such cases so there are gaps in the sequence number of the 

uniqueID.

Well data inventoried and stored in the NWIS database by 

the USGS is referenced to a unique site-identifi cation number, 

which is referred to as the USGS site ID herein. For wells, the 

USGS site ID is referred to as a latitude-longitude (LL) site 

ID. The LL site ID is a 15-digit identifi cation number assigned 

to the site and contains no blanks or alphabetical characters. 

The LL site ID is initially assigned from the latitude and longitude, in degree-minute-second (DDMMSS) format, of a point 

believed to represent the location of the well, followed by a 

2-digit sequence number. Once the USGS site ID is assigned, 

it has no locational signifi cance beyond representing the location available at the time the site was inventoried and entered 

into the NWIS database. The fi rst six digits of the USGS site 

ID represent the value of latitude, the 7th through 13th digits 

represent the value of longitude, and the 14th and 15th digits 

are sequence numbers used to distinguish between sites at the 

same location. Leading zeros are used in the USGS site ID if 

the value of the latitude is less than 10 degrees, the value of 

the longitude is less than 100 degrees, or the sequence number 

is less than 10 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2011).

Because the USGS site ID is cumbersome, wells in 

Georgia are also identifi ed according to a system based on the 

USGS index to topographic maps of Georgia, as described in 

Jones and Maslia (1994):

“* * *Each 71⁄2-minute topographic quadrangle 

in the State has been given a number and a letter 

designation beginning at the southwest corner of 

the State. Numbers increase eastward and letters 

increase alphabetically northward. Quadrangles 

in the northern part of the State are designated by 

double letters. The letters “I,” “O,” “II,” and “OO” 

are not used. Wells inventoried in each quadrangle 

are numbered sequentially, beginning with 1. Thus, 

the fourth well inventoried in the 34H quadrangle in 

Glynn County is designated 34H004* * *” 
Summary Statistics 7

Data supplied by SCDNR use a well identifi cation system 

developed by the South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SCDHEC). SCDHEC assigns identifi -

ers to wells on the basis of their location as determined by use 

of a latitude-longitude grid system. South Carolina is divided 

into a grid matrix of 5 minutes of latitude and 5 minutes of 

longitude, forming 5- by 5-minute cells. Each cell has a corresponding number and uppercase letter(s), for example, 36Y. 

The 5-minute cells are further divided into a grid of twentyfi ve 1-minute latitude by 1-minute longitude cells, each having 

a lowercase letter that starts with “a” and continues through 

“y”; for example, 36Y-e. Wells located within a 1-minute cell 

are numbered consecutively; for example, the fi rst well inventoried in 36Y-e would be assigned the number 36Y-e1. In addition to a SCDHEC identifi er, each well in South Carolina is 

assigned a county designation by the SCDNR; this consists of 

a three-letter abbreviation for the county name and a sequentially assigned number. For example, BAM-62 represents the 

sixty-second well that was inventoried in Bamburg County 

(Clarke and others, 2004).

In Florida, there is no uniform system employed by State 

agencies to number wells. Local well names or well numbers 

assigned by water management districts or other agencies are 

used for identifi cation.

Summary Statistics 

Summary statistics for the transmissivity and storage 

property data were computed for the aquifer pumping tests 

(which include step-drawdown estimates) in table 1 and for 

transmissivity from specifi c-capacity tests in table 2. The summary statistics were developed for major hydrogeologic units 

of the FAS. Tests from wells with open intervals greater than 

30 ft from the UFA and the FAS units are summarized as one 

hydrogeologic unit representing the most productive part of 

the FAS, and tests from wells in the MCU and LFA units are 

summarized separately. No summary statistics are provided for 

hydrogeologic units outside the FAS, for packer test data, or 

for data from wells with open intervals less than 30 ft.

The descriptive statistics were calculated using Microsoft 

Excel 97-2003. The reported statistics include the mean, 

median, mode, standard deviation, sample variance, kurtosis, 

skewness, range, minimum, maximum, and count. The mean is 

the arithmetic average of the data. The median is the value for 

which 50 percent of the values are greater and 50 percent are 

less. The mode is the value that occurs most frequently in the 

dataset. The standard deviation is the square root of the sample 

variance and is a statistical measure that indicates the spread 

of the values in a dataset about the mean, and is reported 

in the same units as the values in the dataset. The sample 

variance is calculated assuming that the sample mean is the 

expected value by computing the average of the sum of the 

squared differences between each sample value and the mean 

of all values. Kurtosis is a statistical measure of the shape or 

“peakedness” of the distribution of the values. A large kurtosis 

value indicates that most of the values surround the mean, and 

the tails of the distribution are small, with the opposite being 

true for a small kurtosis value. Skewness is a measure of the 

asymmetry of the sample distribution and can be positive or 

negative. The sign of the skewness relates to the direction 

of the asymmetry (a negative value indicates there are more 

values that are far less than the mean, with the opposite being 

true for a positive value). If the tail of the distribution is far 

to the left of the mean, the median would typically be less 

than the mean. Skewness close to zero implies a symmetric 

distribution. The maximum is the largest value, the minimum 

is the smallest value, and the range is the absolute difference 

between them. The count is the total number of values used to 

calculate the statistics

Upper Floridan Aquifer and Floridan Aquifer 

System 

The most regionally productive units of the FAS are the 

Upper Floridan aquifer, and, when no confi ning unit is present, 

the combined Upper Floridan and middle or lower Floridan 

aquifers (UFA and FAS in the hydrogeologic unit description). 

The summary statistics for transmissivity in table 3 cover 

results from 1,045 tests in the UFA and FAS units and indicate 

a wide range in values, from 8 to about 9,300,000 ft2/d, with 

a median value of 27,000 ft2/d and a mean of 98,000 ft2/d. 

The histogram shown in fi gure 2 indicates that the majority of 

transmissivity estimates are between 10,000 and 100,000 ft2/d 

(610 values), with 242 values between 1,000 to 10,000 ft2/d 

and 151 values between 100,000 to 1,000,000 ft2/d. Twentytwo values are less than 1,000 ft2

/d and 20 values are greater 

than 1,000,000 ft2/d. The bins for the histogram were selected 

to break the data into groupings based on order of magnitude, 

and indicate that the data are log-base-10 distributed (fi g. 2).

Table 3. Summary statistics for the transmissivity of the 

Floridan aquifer system and the Upper Floridan aquifer from 

aquifer pumping tests.

[ft2/d, foot squared per day; ft4/d2, foot to the fourth power per day squared]

Description of statistic Value and units

Mean 98,000 ft2

/d

Median 27,000 ft2

/d

Mode 13,000 ft2/d

Standard deviation 370,000 ft2/d

Sample variance 140,000,000,000 ft4

/d2

Kurtosis 374 ft2/d

Skewness 16 ft2

/d

Range 9,300,000 ft2

/d

Minimum 8 ft2/d

Maximum 9,300,000 ft2/d

Count 1,045 (unitless)
8 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

There are 442 transmissivity estimates from specifi ccapacity tests for the FAS and UFA wells. The summary 

statistics for these tests are shown in table 4. The majority 

of these transmissivity estimates (357 values) range from 

1,000 to 100,000 ft2

/d; of these, 194 values range from 

1,000 to 10,000 ft2/d. Outside the 1,000 to 100,000 range, 40 

values are less than 1,000 ft2/d and 44 values are greater than 

100,000 ft2/d, with only 1 value greater than 1,000,000 ft2/d 

(fi g. 3). The histograms of the transmissivity estimates from 

specifi c capacity data and from aquifer tests were created 

using identical bins (fi gs. 2 and 3).

The wide observed range in transmissivity (six orders of 

magnitude) is typical of carbonate rock aquifers that have a 

wide range in karstifi cation. Typically, the range in hydraulic 

conductivity is greatest in areas where the dissolution of rock 

creates conduits in facies that dissolve readily or there are 

high-porosity units that have interconnected vugs with diameters greater than 0.1 ft (Shoemaker and others, 2007).

Values for the storage coeffi cient for confi ned aquifers 

generally range from 10-5 to 10-3 (Bouwer, 1978; Fetter, 1994). 

Specifi c yields of unconfi ned aquifers typically range from 

10-2 to 0.4 (Johnson, 1967). An attempt was made to differentiate wells in the unconfi ned (upper confi ning unit thin or 

absent), thinly confi ned (upper confi ning unit less than 100 ft 

thick or breached) and confi ned (upper confi ning unit greater 

than 100 ft thick and not breached) parts of the Floridan 

aquifer system by comparing the well locations with the map 

of these areas from Miller (1986). A summary of descriptive 

statistics for the 646 storage values is provided in table 5. The 

median value for storage is slightly larger for the unconfi ned 

system (0.0009) than the confi ned system (0.0004), but this 

differentiation did not result in the largest reported storage 

value being from the unconfi ned part of the system. The 

largest storage value is 0.41, which is too large for a confi ned 

aquifer, and the smallest is 3×10-9, which is not considered a 

realistic value because it is less than what would be expected 

if storage were attributable only to the compressibility of 

water (Fetter, 1994). Values less than 1×10-5 indicate that the 

storage coeffi cient is extremely small (that the aquifer is fully 

confi ned) and the very large values suggest the aquifer is 

effectively unconfi ned rather than confi ned or semiconfi ned; 

even though the most extreme storage values are unrealistic, 

they may have some physical meaning and therefore were 

not deleted from the FAS database. Nevertheless, values of 

the storage coeffi cient did follow generally expected patterns: 

(1) of the 399 wells identifi ed in the confi ned part of the aquifer, 21 percent had storage values greater than 0.001; (2) of the 

193 wells identifi ed in the thinly confi ned part of the aquifer, 

23 percent had storage values greater than 0.001; and (3) of 

the 54 wells identifi ed in the unconfi ned part of the aquifer, 

30 percent had storage values greater than 0.001. 

Table 4. Summary statistics for the transmissivity of the 

Floridan aquifer system and the Upper Floridan aquifer from 

specific-capacity data.

[ft2/d, foot squared per day; ft4/d2, foot to the fourth power per day squared]

Description of statistic Value and units

Mean 40,000 ft2

/d

Median 10,000 ft2

/d

Mode 3,000 ft2

/d

Standard Deviation 98,000 ft2

/d

Sample Variance 9,600,000,000 ft4

/d2

Kurtosis 68 ft2

/d

Skewness 7 ft2

/d

Range 1,300,000 ft2

/d

Minimum 160 ft2

/d

Maximum 1,300,000 ft2

/d

Count 442 (unitless)

Table 5. Summary statistics for the storage properties of the Floridan aquifer system and the Upper Floridan aquifer 

from aquifer pumping tests. 

[All values shown are unitless]

Description of statistic All Values Unconfined

value

Thinly confined

value

Confined

value

Mean 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003

Median .0004 .0009 .0006 .0004

Mode .0004 .001 .0001 .0004

Standard Deviation .02 .009 .03 .02

Sample Variance .0005 .00008 .0008 .0005

Kurtosis 270 15 180 330

Skewness 16 3.7 13 18

Range .41 .05 .39 .41

Minimum 3×10-09 .000026 .000013 3×10-09

Maximum .41 .05 .39 .41

Count 646 54 193 399
Summary Statistics 9

Middle Floridan Confining or Semi-Confining 

Units 

Fourteen aquifer pumping tests utilized wells identifi ed as 

open to one of the middle confi ning units. These tests yielded 

transmissivity values that range from 1 to about 600,000 ft2/d, 

with a median value of about 30,000 ft2/d (table 1). Only two 

of the transmissivity values are less than 1,000 ft2

/d and eight 

are greater than 10,000 ft2/d. Only one specifi c-capacity estimate of transmissivity, of about 40,000 ft2

/d, is available for 

the middle confi ning unit (table 2). 

Of the 14 aquifer tests for the MCU, 10 have reported 

values for the storage coeffi cient, and these range from 8×10-8 

to 0.03; however, the majority of the reported storage coeffi cients (8 values) are less than 10-3 (table 1). The median storage coeffi cient is about 0.0002. Because the MCU is confi ned 

over the entire study area, values over 0.001 are unlikely to be 

accurate; however, such large storage coeffi cient values might 

indicate that the aquifer has greater storage in the vicinity of 

the tested well or that the estimated storage is not accurate.

Lower Floridan Aquifer 

Results from 64 aquifer tests are available for the LFA 

and indicate a transmissivity range from 130 to 500,000 ft2/d, 

with a median value of 4,700 ft2

/d (table 1). Eleven values are 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Transmissivity range for each frequency bin of the histogram, in feet squared per day

Frequency

0 – 10 10 – 100 100 – 1,000 1,000 – 10,000 10,000 – 100,000 100,000 – 1,000,000 1,000,000 – 10,000,000

Frequency

0

50

100

150

200

250

Transmissivity range for each frequency bin of the histogram, in feet squared per day

0 – 10 10 – 100 100 – 1,000 1,000 – 10,000 10,000 – 100,000 100,000 – 1,000,000 1,000,000 – 10,000,000

Figure 2. Transmissivity estimates from aquifer pumping tests of the Upper Floridan aquifer and Floridan aquifer 

system wells. 

Figure 3. Transmissivity estimates from specific-capacity tests of the Upper Floridan aquifer and 

Floridan aquifer system wells. 
10 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

between 100 and 1,000 ft2/d; 31 values are between 1,000 and 

10,000 ft2/d; 11 values are between 10,000 and 100,000 ft2/d; 

8 values are between 100,000 and 1,000,000, and only 

3 values are greater than 1,000,000 ft2

/d. Only four specifi ccapacity estimates are available (three of approximately 

100,000 ft2/d and one of about 30,000 ft2/d) for the LFA.

Only 17 storage coeffi cient estimates for the LFA are 

available from the 64 aquifer tests, and these range from 

7×10-8 to about 0.03. The median storage value is 0.0004, and 

12 of the 17 values are less than 0.001. Because the LFA is 

confi ned over the entire study area, values over 0.001 might 

indicate that the aquifer has greater storage in the vicinity of 

the tested well or the estimated storage is not accurate. 

References Cited 

Allen, T.W., 1987, Hydrogeology of the Holmes, Jackson, 

and Washington Counties area Florida: Tallahassee, Florida 

State University, Masters Thesis, 191 p.

Aucott, W.R., and Newcome, Roy, Jr., 1986, Selected aquifer 

test information for the Coastal Plain aquifers of South 

Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 86–4159, 30 p.

Barlow, P.M. and Moench, A.F., 1999, WTAQ-A computer 

program for calculating drawdowns and estimating hydraulic properties for confi ned and water-table aquifers: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99–4225, 74 p.

Barr, D.E., and Pratt, T.R., 1981, Results of aquifer aest and 

estimated drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer, northern 

Gulf County, northwest Florida: Northwest Florida Water 

Management District Water Resources Special Report 81–1, 

38 p.

Barr, D.E., Maristany, Augustin, and Kwader, Thomas, 1981, 

Water resources of southern Okaloosa and Walton Counties, 

northwest Florida: Northwest Florida Water Management 

District Water Resources Assessment 81-1.

Barraclough, J.T., 1962, Ground-water resources of Seminole 

County, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations 27, 91 p.

Benthall, Ray, 1963, Methods of determining permeability, 

transmissibility, and drawdown: U.S. Geological WaterSupply Paper 1536–I, 100 p.

Bentley, C.B., 1977, Aquifer-test analysis for the Floridan 

aquifer in Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties, Florida: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 77–36, 50 p.

Bentley, C.B., 1979, Aquifer coeffi cients determined from 

multiple well effects, Fernandina Beach, Florida: Ground 

Water, v. 17, no. 6, p. 525–531.

Bermes, B.J., 1958a, Interim report on geology and groundwater resources of Indian River County, Florida: Florida 

Geological Survey Information Circular 18, 74 p.

Bermes, B.J., 1958b, Interim report on the ground-water 

resources of Flagler County, Florida: Florida Geological 

Survey Information Circular 13, 32 p.

Bermes, B.J., Leve, G.W., and Tarver, G.R., 1963, Geology 

and ground-water resources of Flagler, Putnam, and St. 

Johns Counties, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report 

of Investigations 32, 97 p. 

Boulton, N.S., 1963, Analysis of data from non-equilibrium 

pumping tests allowing for delayed yield from storage: 

Institute of Civil Engineers Proceedings (London), v. 26, 

p. 469–482.

Bouwer, Herman, 1978, Groundwater Hydrology: New York, 

McGraw-Hill, 480 p.

Bradner, L.A., 1994, Ground-water resources of Okeechobee 

County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 92–4166, 41 p.

Broska, J.C., and Barnette, H.L., 1999, Hydrogeology and 

analysis of aquifer characteristics in west-central Pinellas 

County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

99–185, 23 p.

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

and quality of ground water in eastern Nassau County, Florida, and southeastern Camden County, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 83–4190.

Brown, R.H., 1963, Estimating the transmissivity of an 

artesian aquifer from the specifi c capacity of a well: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536–I, p. 336–338.

Bush, P.W., and Johnston, R.H., 1988, Ground-water hydraulics, regional fl ow, and ground-water development of the 

Floridan aquifer system in Florida and in parts of Georgia 

and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1403–C, 80 p.

Cagle, Jr., J.W., and Newton, J.G., 1963, Geology and groundwater resources of Escambia County, Alabama: Tuscaloosa, 

Geological Survey of Alabama, Bulletin 74, 205 p.

Callahan, J.T., 1964, The yield of sedimentary aquifers of the 

coastal plain, southeast river basins: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 1669–W, 56 p.

Clarke, J.S., Leeth, D.C., Taylor-Harris, DáVette, Painter, J.A., 

and Labowski, J.L., 2004, Summary of hydraulic properties 

of the Floridan aquifer system in coastal Georgia and adjacent parts of South Carolina and Florida: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientifi c Investigations Report 2004–5264, 54 p.
References Cited 11

Clarke, J.S., and Krause, R.E., 2000, Design, revision, and 

application of ground-water fl ow models for simulation of 

selected water-management scenarios in the coastal area of 

Georgia and adjacent parts of South Carolina and Florida: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 00–4084, 93 p. 

Cooper, H.H., Jr., 1963, Type curves for nonsteady radial fl ow 

in an infi nite leaky artesian aquifer, in Bentall, Ray, compiler, Shortcuts and special problems in aquifer tests: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1545–C, 

p. C48–C55.

Cooper, H.H. and Jacob, C.E., 1946, A generalized graphical 

method for evaluating formation constants and summarizing 

well fi eld history: American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 27, p. 526–534.

Cooper, H.H., and Warren, M.A., 1945, The perennial yield of 

artesian water in the coastal area of Georgia and northeastern Florida: Economic Geology, v. 40, no. 4, p. 263–282.

Dawson, Karen and Istok, Jonathan, 1991, Aquifer testing: 

Design and analysis of pumping and slug tests: Lewis Publishers, 280 p.

Defense Mapping Agency, 1987, Department of Defense 

World Geodetic System 1984: Its defi nition and relationship with local geodetic systems: Defense Mapping Agency 

Technical Report 8350.2, Washington, D.C.

Driscoll, F.G., 1986, Groundwater and wells (2d ed): Johnson 

Division, St Paul, Minn., 1,089 p.

Dyar, T.R., Tasker, G.D., and Wait, R.L., 1972, Hydrology of 

the Riceboro area, coastal Georgia: Georgia Water Quality 

Control Board, Final Report, 74 p.

Fairchild, R.W., 1977, Availability of water in the Floridan 

aquifer in southern Duval and northern Clay and St. Johns 

Counties, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations 76–98, 53 p.

Fairchild, R.W., and Bentley, C.B., 1977, Saline-water intrusion in the Floridan aquifer in the Fernandina Beach area, 

Nassau County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations 77–32, 27 p.

Falls, W.F., Baum, J.S., Harrelson, L.G., Brown, L.H., and 

Jerden, J.L. Jr., 1997, Geology and hydrogeology of Cretaceous and Tertiary strata, and confi nement in the vicinity 

of the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site, 

South Carolina and Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 97–4245, 125 p.

Faulkner, G.L., 1973, Geohydrology of the Cross-Florida 

Barge Canal area with special reference to the Ocala vicinity: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

73–1, 117 p.

Ferris, J.G., Knowles, D.B., Brown, R.H., and Stallman, R.W., 

1962, Theory of aquifer tests: U.S. Geological WaterSupply Paper 1536–E, 174 p.

Fetter, C.W., 1994, Applied Hydrogeology (3d ed.): New York, 

Macmillan, 691 p.

Franks, B.J., and Phelps, G.G., 1979, Estimated drawdowns 

in the Floridan aquifer due to increased withdrawals, Duval 

County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations 79–84, 22 p.

Gillett, Blakeney, Raymond, D.E., and Moore, J.D., 2004, 

Hydrogeology and vulnerability to contamination of major 

aquifers in Alabama: Area 11: Tuscaloosa, Geological 

Survey of Alabama Circular 199E, 97 p.

Gonthier, G.J., 2011, Summary of hydrologic testing of the 

Floridan aquifer system at Fort Stewart, Georgia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1020, 28 p.

Halford, K.J., 2006, MODOPTIM: A general optimization program for ground-water fl ow model calibration and groundwater management with MODFLOW: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientifi c Investigations Report 2006–5009, 62 p.

Halford, K.J., and Kuniansky, E.L., 2002, Documentation of 

spreadsheets for the analysis of aquifer-test and slug-test 

data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–197, 

51 p. 

Halford, K.J., Weight, W.D., and Schreiber, R.P., 2006, Interpretation of transmissivity estimates from single-well pumping aquifer tests: Ground Water, v. 44, no. 3, p. 467–471.

Hall, Phil and Chen, Joe, 1996, Water well and aquifer test 

analysis: Water Resources Publication, 412 p.

Hantush, M.S., 1960, Modifi cation of the theory of leaky 

aquifers: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65, no. 11, 

p. 3713–3725.

Hantush, M.S., 1961a, Drawdown around a partially penetrating well: Journal Hydraulics Division 87 (I-IY4), July 1961.

Hantush, M.S., 1961b, Aquifer tests on partially penetrating 

wells: Journal Hydraulics Division 87 (HY5), September 

1961.

Hantush, M.S., 1964, Hydraulics of wells, in Ven Te Chow, 

Advances in hydroscience: New York and London, Academic Press.

Hantush, M.S. and Jacob, C.E., 1955, Non-steady fl ow in an 

infi nite leaky aquifer: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 36, p. 95–100.
12 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

Harbaugh, A.W., and McDonald, M.G., 1996, Programmer’s 

documentation for MODFLOW-96, an update to the U.S. 

Geological Survey modular fi nite-difference ground-water 

fl ow model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

96–486, 220 p.

Harrelson, L.G., and Falls, W.F., 2003, Hydrogeology and 

aquifer tests in the Floridan aquifer system at selected sites, 

coastal Georgia, 2001, in Leeth, D.C., Clarke, J.S., Craigg, 

S.D., and Wipperfurth, C.J., 2003, Ground-water conditions and studies in Georgia, 2001: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4032, p. 82–87.

Hayes, L.R., 1979, The ground-water resources of Beaufort, 

Colleton, Hampton, and Jasper Counties, South Carolina: 

South Carolina Water Resources Commission Report no. 9, 

91 p.

Hayes, L.R., Maslia, M.L., and Meeks, W.C., 1983, Hydrology and model evaluation of the principal artesian aquifer, 

Dougherty Plain, southwest Georgia: Georgia Geologic 

Survey Bulletin 97, 91 p.

Hickey, J.J., 1979, Hydrogeologic data for the South Cross 

Bayou subsurface-injection test site, Pinellas County, 

Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78–575, 

87 p.

Hickey, J.J., and Barr, G.L., 1979, Hydrogeologic data for 

the Bear Creek subsurface-injection site, St. Petersburg, 

Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78–853, 

53 p.

Hicks, D.W., Gill, H.E., and Longsworth, S.A., 1987, Hydrogeology, chemical quality, and availability of ground 

water in the Upper Floridan aquifer, Albany, Georgia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

87–4145, 52 p.

Hutchinson, C.B., 1985, Hydrogeology of the Cross Bar 

Ranch well-fi eld area and projected impact of pumping, 

Pasco County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 85–4001, 89 p.

Hutchinson, C.B., 1992, Assessment of hydrogeologic conditions with Emphasis on water quality and wastewater 

injection, southwest Sarasota and west Charlotte Counties, 

Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2371, 

p. 74.

Jacob, C.E., 1944, Notes on determining permeability by 

pumping tests under water-table conditions: U.S. Geological 

Survey mimeographed report.

Jacob, C.E., 1947, Drawdown test to determine the effective 

radius of artesian well: Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Paper 2321, v. 112, p. 1047–1064.

Johnson, A.I., 1967, Specifi c yield-compilation of specifi c 

yields for various materials: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 1662–D.

Johnston, R.H., Bush, P.W., Krause, R.E., Miller, J.A., and 

Sprinkle, C.L., 1982, Summary of hydrologic testing in 

Tertiary limestone aquifer, Tenneco offshore exploratory 

well Atlantic OCS, leaseblock 427 (Jacksonville NH 17-5): 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2180, 15 p.

Jones, L.E., and Maslia, M.L., 1994, Selected ground-water 

data, and results of aquifer tests for the Upper Floridan 

aquifer, Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia, area: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 94–520, 107 p.

Jones, L.E., Prowell, D.C., and Maslia, M.L., 2002, Hydrogeology and water quality (1978) of the Floridan aquifer 

system at U.S. Geological Survey Test Well 26, on Colonels 

Island, near Brunswick, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4020, 44 p.

Kasenow, Michael, 1997, Introduction to aquifer analysis: 

Water Resources Publications, LLC, 413 p.

Kawecki, M.W., 1995, Meaningful interpretation of step-drawdown tests: Ground Water, v. 33, no. 1, p. 23–32.

Kellam, M.F. and Gorday, L.L., 1990, Hydrogeology of the 

Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment area, Georgia: 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental 

Protection Division, Georgia Geologic Survey, Atlanta, 

Georgia, Bulletin 94, 73 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.

Kruseman, G.P. and de Ridder, N.A., 1994, Analysis and evaluation of pumping test data: International Institute for Land 

Reclamation and Improvement, The Netherlands, 377 p.

Lee, John, 1982, Well testing: New York, Society of Petroleum 

Engineers of AIME, 159 p.

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

Counties, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of 

Investigations 43, 91 p.

Leve, G.W., 1983, Relation of concealed faults to water quality and the formation of solution features in the Floridan 

aquifer, northeastern Florida: Journal of Hydrology, v. 61, 

no. 4, p. 251–264.

Lichtler, W.F, Anderson, Warren, and Joyner, B. E, 1968, 

Water resources of Orange County, Florida: Florida Board 

of Conservation, Division of Geology Report of Investigations, no. 50, 150 p.
References Cited 13

Logan, W.R., and Euler, G.M., 1989, Geology and groundwater resources of Allendale, Bamburg, and Barnwell 

Counties and part of Aiken County South Carolina: South 

Carolina Water Resources Commission Report no. 155, 

113 p.

Lohman, S.W., 1979, Ground-Water Hydraulics: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 708, 70 p.

Marella, R.L., and Berndt, M.P., 2005, Water withdrawals and 

trends from the Floridan aquifer system in the southeastern 

United States, 1950–2000: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 

1278, 20 p.

Maslia, M.L. and Randolph, R.B., 1986, Methods and 

computer program documentation for determining anisotropic transmissivity tensor components of two-dimensional 

ground-water fl ow: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 86–227, 64 p.

Matthews, S.E., and Krause, R.E., 1984, Hydrogeologic data 

from the U.S. Geological Survey test wells near Waycross, 

Ware County, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 83–4204, 29 p. 

Maupin, M.A., and Barber, N.L., 2005, Estimated withdrawals 

from principal aquifers in the United States, 2000: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1279, 46 p.

McConnell, J.B., and Hacke, C.M., 1993, Hydrogeology, 

water quality, and water-resources development potential 

of the Upper Floridan aquifer in the Valdosta area, southcentral Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 93–4044, 44 p.

McFadden, S.S., Hetrick, J.H., Kellam, M.F., Rodenback, 

S.A., and Huddlestun, P.F., 1986, Geologic data of the Gulf 

Trough area, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 56, 345 p.

Menke, C.G., Meredith, E.W., and Wetterhall, W.S., 1961, 

Water Resources of Hillsborough County, Florida: State 

Board of Conservation, Florida Geological Survey Report 

of Investigations 25, 101 p.

Meyer, F.W., 1962, Reconnaissance of the geology and 

ground-water resources of Columbia County, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations 30, 74 p.

Meyer, F.W., 1974, Evaluation of the hydraulic characteristics 

of a deep artesian aquifer from natural water-level fl uctuations, Miami, Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Report of 

Investigations 75, 32 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.

Miller, J.A., 1990, Groundwater atlas of the United States 

Segment 6, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina: 

U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

730–G, 28 p.

Miller, J.A., Hughes, G.H., Hull, R.W., Vecchioli, John, and 

Seaber, P.R., 1978, Impact of potential phosphate mining 

on the hydrology of Osceola National Forest, Florida: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 78–6, 

159 p.

Mitchell, G.D., 1981, Hydrogeologic data of the Dougherty 

Plain and adjacent areas, southwest Georgia: Atlanta, Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 58, 124 p.

Moore, Jerry, Benson, S.M., Snipes, D.S., Daggett, John, 

James, April, Kroening, David, Price, Sarah, Price, Van, Jr., 

and Temples, Thomas, 1993, Characterization of aquifer 

properties in Coastal Plain sediments in Burke County, 

Georgia: Southeastern Section Meeting Geological Society 

of America, March 1993, Abstracts with Programs, v. 25, 

no. 4., p. 58.

Motz, L.H., 1974, Hydrologic effects of the Tampa Bypass 

Canal: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 74–257, 

48 p.

Newcome, Roy, Jr., 1993, Pumping tests of the Coastal Plain 

aquifers in South Carolina: South Carolina Water Resources 

Commission Report 174, 52 p.

Newcome, Roy, Jr., 2000, Results of pumping tests in the 

Coastal Plain of South Carolina: South Carolina Department 

of Natural Resources Water-Resources Open-File Report 5, 

26 p.

O’Reilly, A.M., Spechler, R.M., and McGurk, B.E., 2002, 

Hydrogeology and Water-Quality Characteristics of the 

Lower Floridan Aquifer in East-Central Florida: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

02–4193, 60 p.

Pascale, C.A., 1974, Water resources of Walton County, 

Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Report of Investigations 

76, 65 p.

Pascale, C.A., and Wagner, J.R., 1982, Water resources of the 

Ochlockonee River area, northwest Florida: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations 81–1121, 114 p.

Peek, H.M., 1959, Record of wells in the Ruskin area of 

Hillsborough County, Florida: Florida Geological Survey 

Information Circular 22, 85 p.

Phelps, G.G., Rohrer, K.P., 1987, Hydrogeology in the area 

of a freshwater lens in the Florida aquifer system, northeast 

Seminole County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 86–4078, 74 p.
14 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

Phelps, G.G., and Spechler, R.M., 1997, The relation between 

hydrogeology and water quality of the lower Floridan aquifer in Duval County, Florida, and implications for monitoring movement of saline water: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 96–4242, 58 p.

Planert, Michael, and Aucott, W.R., 1985, Water-supply potential of the Floridan aquifer in Osceola, eastern Orange, and 

southwestern Brevard Counties, Florida: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84–4135, 

69 p.

Pride, R.W., Meyer, F.W., and Cherry, R.N., 1966, Hydrology 

of Green Swamp area in central Florida: Florida Geological 

Survey Report of Investigations 42, 137 p.

Randolph, R.B., Krause, R.E., and Maslia, M.L., 1985, 

Comparison of aquifer characteristics derived from local 

and regional aquifer tests: Ground Water, v. 23, no. 38, 

p. 309–316.

Reed, J.E., 1980, Type curves for selected problems of fl ow to 

wells in confi ned aquifers: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. B3, 

106 p.

Reese, R.S., 2002, Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage 

and Recovery in Southern Florida: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4036, 56 p.

Reese, R.S., and Cunningham, K.J., 2000, Hydrogeology 

of the Gray Limestone Aquifer in Southern Florida: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99–4213, 244 p.

Reese, R.S., and Alvarez-Zarikian, C.A., 2007, Hydrogeology and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Performance in the 

Upper Floridan Aquifer, Southern Florida: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientifi c Investigations Report 2006–5239, 117 p., 

(appendixes on CD).

Reese, R.S., and Richardson, Emily, 2008, Synthesis of the 

hydrogeologic framework of the Floridan aquifer system 

and delineation of a major Avon Park permeable zone 

in central and southern Florida: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientifi c Investigations Report 2007–5207, 60 p., 4 pls.

Robertson, A.F., and Mallory, M.J., 1977, A digital model of 

the Floridan aquifer north of Tampa, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 77–64, 

29 p.

Rorabaugh, M.I., 1953, Graphical and theoretical analysis of 

step-drawdown test of artesian well: Proceedings, American 

Society of Civil Engineers, v. 79.

Ross, F.W., 1980, Effects on the Floridan aquifer of ground 

water withdrawals for fernery freeze protection, southeast 

Putnam County, Florida: St. Johns River Water Management District Technical Publication no. SJ 80–9, 41p.

Ross, F.W., and Munch, D.A., 1980, Hydrologic investigation of the potentiometric high centered about the Crescent 

City Ridge, Putnam County, Florida: St. Johns River Water 

Management District Technical Report no. 5, 75 p.

Rutledge, A.T., 1982, Hydrology of the Floridan aquifer in 

northwest Volusia County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Open-File Report 82–108, 

116 p. and 1 sheet.

Ryder, P.D., Johnson, D.M., and Gerhart, J.M., 1980, Model 

evaluation of the hydrogeology of the Morris Bridge well 

fi eld and vicinity in west-central Florida: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations 80–29, 92 p.

Schiner, G.R., Laughlin, C.P., and Toth, D.J., 1988, 

Geohydrology of Indian River County, Florida: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 88–4073, 110 p.

Sepúlveda, Nicasio, 2002, Simulation of ground-water fl ow in 

the intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems in peninsular 

Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4009, 130 p.

Sepúlveda, Nicasio, 2006, An aquifer-test preprocessor for the 

ground-water fl ow model calibration program MODOPTIM 

and its Application to a well fi eld in Duval County, Florida: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientifi c Investigations Report 

2005–5233, 62 p.

Sever, C.W., 1965a, Ground-water resources and geology 

of Seminole, Decatur and Grady Counties, Georgia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1809–Q, 30 p.

Sever, C.W., 1965b, Ground-water resources of Bainbridge, 

Georgia: Georgia Geological Survey Information Circular 

32, 10 p.

Sever, C.W., 1969, Hydraulics of aquifers at Alapaha, 

Coolidge, Fitzgerald, Montezuma, and Thomasville, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 36, 

16 p.

Sever, C.W., 1972, Ground-water resources and geology of 

Cook County, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 72–345, 40 p.

Shoemaker, W.B., Kuniansky, E.L., Birk, Steffen, Bauer, 

Sebastian, and Swain, E.D., 2008, Documentation of a 

Conduit Flow Process (CFP) for MODFLOW-2005: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6–A24, 50 p.

Singh, U.P., Eichler, G.E., Sproul, C.R., and Garcia-Bengochea, J.I., 1983, Pump-testing the Boulder Zone, South 

Florida: American Society of Civil Engineering, Journal of 

the Hydraulics Division, v. 109, no. 8, p. 1152–1160.
References Cited 15

Snipes, D.S., Benson, S.M., and Price, Van, Jr., 1995a, 

Hydrologic properties of aquifers in the central Savannah 

River area—Volume 1: Clemson, S.C., Clemson University 

Department of Geological Sciences, 353 p.

Snipes, D.S., Benson, S.M., and Price, Van, Jr., 1995b, 

Hydrologic properties of aquifers in the central Savannah 

River area—Volume 2: Clemson, S.C., Clemson University 

Department of Geological Sciences, 204 p.

Stallman, R.W., 1971, Aquifer-test design, observation, and 

data analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 3, chap. B1, 26 p.

Stewart, J.W., Goetz, C.L., and Mills, L.R., 1978, Hydrogeologic factors affecting the availability and quality of ground 

water in the Temple Terrace area, Hillsborough County, 

Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 78–4, 38 p.

Streltsova, T.D., 1976, Hydrodynamics of groundwater fl ow 

in a fractured formation: Water Resources Research, v. 12, 

no. 3, p. 405–414.

Szell, G.P., 1993, Aquifer characteristics in the St. Johns River 

Water Management District, Florida: St. Johns River Water 

Management District Technical Publication SJ93-1, 495 p.

Theis, C.V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the 

piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge 

of a well using ground water storage: Transaction of the 

American Geophysical Union, v. 16, 519–524 p.

Theis, C.V., 1938, The signifi cance and nature of the cone of 

depression in ground-water bodies: Economic Geology, 

v. 38, p. 889–902.

Theis, C.V., Brown, R.H., and Meyer, R.R., 1963, Estimating 

the transmissivity of aquifers from the specifi c capacity of 

wells: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536–I, 

p. 331–341. 

Thiem, G., 1906, Hydrologische methodern: Leipzig, 

Geghardt, 56 p.

Tibbals, C.H., and Frazee, J.M., Jr., 1976, Ground-water 

hydrology of the Cocoa well-fi eld area, Orange County, 

Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 75–676, 

67 p.

Tibbals, C.H., and Grubb, H.F., 1982, Aquifer test results, 

Green Swamp area, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations 82–35, 29 p.

Tibbals, C.H., Anderson, Warren, and Laughlin, C.P., 1980, 

Ground-water hydrology of the Dade City area, Pasco 

County, Florida, with emphasis on the hydrologic effects of 

pumping from the Floridan aquifer: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations 80–33, 64 p.

Torak, L.J., and Painter, J.A., 2006, Geohydrology of the 

Lower Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin, 

Southwestern Georgia, Northwestern Florida, and Southeastern Alabama: U.S. Geological Survey Scientifi c Investigations Report 2006–5070, 80 p.

Torres, A.E., Sacks, L.A., Yobbi, D.K., Knochenmus, L.A., 

and B.G. Katz, 2001, Hydrogeologic framework and 

geochemistry of the intermediate aquifer system in parts of 

Charlotte, De Soto, and Sarasota Counties, Florida: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

01–4015, 74 p.

Turcan, A.N., Jr., 1963, Estimating the specifi c capacity of a 

well: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 450-E, 

p. 145–148.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, User’s Manual for the National 

Water Information System of the U.S. Geological Survey 

Groundwater Site-Inventory System Version 4.11: This 

report is accessible online at: http://wwwnwis.er.usgs.gov/

nwisdocs4_11/gw/GW.user.book.html. 

Wagner, J.R., Hodecker, W.A., and Murphy, Robert, 1980, 

Evaluation of industrial water availability for selected 

areas of the Northwest Florida Water Management District: Northwest Florida Water Management District Water 

Resources Assessment 80-1, Havana, Florida, 354 p.

Wait, R.L., and Gregg, D.L., 1973, Hydrology and chloride 

contamination of the principal artesian aquifer in Glynn 

County, Georgia: Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Hydrologic Report 1, 93 p.

Walton, W.C., 1962, Selected analytical methods for well and 

aquifer evaluation: Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin no. 

49, 81 p.

Walton, W.C., 1996, Aquifer Test Analysis with Windows TM: 

Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press, 336 p.

Walton, W.C., 2007, Aquifer Test Modeling: Boca Raton, Fla., 

CRC Press, 222 p.

Warner, Debbie, and Aulenbach, B.T., 1999, Hydraulic 

characteristics of the Upper Floridan aquifer, Savannah and 

St Marys, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information 

Circular 105, 23 p.

Warren, M.A., 1944, Artesian water in southeastern Georgia, 

with special reference to the coastal area: Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 49, 140 p.

Weissman, Warren, Jr., Knapp, J.W., Lewis, G.L., and Harbaugh, T.E., 1977, Introduction to hydrology: New York, 

Harper and Row, 704 p.
16 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

Williams, L.J.., 2010, Summary of hydrologic testing of the 

Floridan aquifer system at Hunter Army Airfi eld, Chatham 

County, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2010–1066, 30 p.

Williams, L.J., and Gill, H.E., 2010, Revised hydrogeologic 

framework of the Floridan aquifer system in the northern 

coastal area of Georgia and adjacent parts of South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Scientifi c Investigations 

Report 2010–5158, 103 p., 3 plates.

Wilson, W.E., 1977, Ground-water resources of Desoto and 

Hardee Counties, Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology 

Report of Investigations 83, 102 p.

Wilson, W.E., and Gehardt, J.M., 1982, Simulated effects of 

groundwater development on the potentiometric surface of 

the Floridan aquifer, west-central Florida: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1217, 83 p.

Wolansky, R.M., and Corral, M.A., Jr., 1985, Aquifer tests 

in west-central Florida, 1952-76: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 84–4044, 127 p.

Wyrick, G.G., 1960, The ground-water resources of Volusia 

County, Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of 

Investigations 22, 65 p.

Yobbi, D.K., and Halford, K.J., 2008, Numerical simulation 

of aquifer tests, West-Central Florida (revised): U.S. Geological Survey Scientifi c Investigations Report 2005–5201, 

85 p. 
Appendix 1. Database Dictionary for the Aquifer Pumping Test Compilation 17

Appendix 1. Database Dictionary for the Aquifer Pumping Test Compilation 

comma-delimited table is the fi eld name for each column in 

the Microsoft Access© database table. Table A.1–1 provides 

fi eld name, type of fi eld, fi eld length, and a brief description of 

the data in the fi eld. Following table 1–A.1, is the Microsoft 

Access© generated information about each fi eld that might be 

useful for a database programmer or for developing queries.

The hydraulic-property database was developed as one 

main table using Microsoft Access (MS-Offi ce 2007)©. 

The fi nal table is saved as both an Microsoft Access© database and a comma-delimited ASCII fi le for download as 

part of this data series report from the USGS Publications 

Warehouse (http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/669 ). The fi rst line of the 
18 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

Table 1-1. Description of fields in the Floridan aquifer system hydraulic-properties database. 

[ID, identifi er; GIS, geographic information system; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Field name Data type Field length Description

objectid Long integer 4 Object ID; required for GIS-only

uniqueID Text 255 Unique identifi cation number based on source agency

grid_number Text 255 USGS topographic map index identifi cation number

local_site_no Text 255 Local site identifi cation number fi eld from other agency

local_site_nm Text 255 Local site name fi eld from other agency

usgs_site_no Text 15 15-digit USGS site identifi cation number

usgs_site_nm Text 50 USGS station name

well_owner Text 255 Name of well owner (business name only; no personally identifi able information 

 is provided)

lat_dd Double 8 Latitude, in decimal degrees

long_dd Double 8 Longitude, in decimal degrees

horiz_datum_cd Text 5 Horizontal datum

county_nm Text 255 County name

state_nm Text 2 2-letter state abbreviation

fi ps_cd Text 5 5-digit federal information processing standards (FIPS) state-county code

T_ft2_d Double 8 Transmissivity, in feet squared per day

S Double 8 Storage coeffi cient, dimensionless

test_type_cd Text 255 Code identifying the type of test performed. Abbreviations used: 

 APT, aquifer pumping test; PAK, packer test; SPC, specifi c capacity test; 

 THK, thickness of tested interval for APT less than 30 feet.

method_cd Text 255 Code identifying the analysis method used to calculate or estimate aquifer 

 properties. Abbreviations used: unk, unknown method used; DY, delayed yield 

 (Boulton, 1963); FF, fracture fl ow (Streltsova, 1971); FLOW_NET, fl ow net 

 analysis; L, leaky (Hantush, 1960 or Hantush and Jacob, 1955 or Cooper, 1963); 

 multiple, multiple analysis methods used value averaged; NL, non-leaky 

 (Theis, 1935); NUM, numerical method (modeled); REC, recovery 

 (Theis, 1935; Cooper, 1963; or Cooper and Jacob, 1946); SL, straight line 

 (Cooper-Jacob, 1946); SPC, specifi c capacity (Theis and others, 1963; 

 Turcan, 1963; Brown, 1963; or Driscoll, 1986); STEP_DD, step draw down 

 (Rorabaugh, 1953 or Driscoll, 1986).

test_start_date Date/time 8 Start date/time of test

test_end_date Date/time 8 End date/time of test

test_duration_hrs Text 5 Duration of test, in hours

reference Text 255 Reference for method used in test analysis or for document from which test data 

 were gathered

remarks Text 255 Remarks/comments

stratigraphic_unit Text 255 Stratigraphic unit(s) tested. Abbreviations used for some: Ap, Avon Park 

 Formation; Avm, Middle Avon Park Formation; H, Hawthorn Formation; 

 Oc, Ocala Formation; Tp, Tampa Limestone; Su, Suwannee Limestone; 

 Pz3, Permeable zone 3 (Intermediate aquifer).

top_interval Double 8 Top of interval tested, feet below land surface

bot_interval Double 8 Bottom of interval tested, feet below land surface

hydrogeologic_unit_cd Text 255 Code identifying the aquifer system(s) or unit(s) which was tested. Abbrevia-

 tions used: FAS, Floridan aquifer system (upper Floridan aquifer with parts of 

 middle or lower Floridan units); IA, Intermediate aquifer system; 

 IA-UFA, Intermediate aquifer system and part of upper Floridan aquifer system; 

 IC, Intermediate confi ning unit; LFA, lower Floridan aquifer; MCU, middle 

 Floridan confi ning unit; SCP, southeastern coastal plain; UFA, upper Floridan 

 aquifer.

confi nement_cd Text 1 Code describing degree of confi nement of the Floridan aquifer system 

 (Miller, 1986). Abbreviations used: C, confi ned-confi ning unit greater than 

 100 feet thick and unbreached; T, thinly confi ned-confi ning unit less that 

 100 feet thick and breached; U, unconfi ned- confi ning unit thin or absent; 

 Z, beyond up dip limit of Floridan aquifer system.
Microsoft Access Generated Database Field Definition 19

Microsoft Access Generated Database Field Definition

Columns

Name Type Size

objectid Long Integer 4

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: False

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Fixed Size, Auto-Increment

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: Default

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Required for GIS-only

 GUID: {guid {E0E90CCD-DD7F-445C-90B5-6553B6AE8F4C}}

 OrdinalPosition: 0

 Required: False

 SourceField: objectid

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

uniqueID Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1275

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Unique identifi cation number based on source agency

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {639A5B78-4621-4326-B963-3DF953F0894C}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 1

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: uniqueID

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True 

grid_number Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General
20 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

 Name Type Size

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1620

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: USGS topographic map index identifi cation number

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {0C27DA32-09D9-489B-8441-4F9EC550F6D6}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 2

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: grid_number

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: False

local_site_no Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1830

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Local site identifi cation number

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {83D59159-6B6A-4BDD-B4E6-AA2CC54336C2}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 3

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: local_site_no

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: False

local_site_nm Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 3105

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False
Microsoft Access Generated Database Field Definition 21

 Name Type Size

 Description: Local site name

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {3080F031-476E-43A4-9053-733AD1EB6A9D}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 4

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: local_site_nm

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: False

usgs_site_no Text 15

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1755

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: 15-digit USGS site identifi cation number

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {B3D73888-AD11-4AA0-9019-653394552B5D}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 5

 Required: False

 SourceField: usgs_site_no

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

usgs_site_nm Text 50

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 2070

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: USGS station name

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {4AD39808-0B95-4A35-9565-C434D7A9FE7D}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 6

 Required: False
22 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

 Name Type Size

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: usgs_site_nm

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

well_owner Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1335

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Name of well owner

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {9608F9F7-B488-4482-80A1-7D1B70542C52}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 7

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: well_owner

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

lat_dd Double 8

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: False

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1044

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 DecimalPlaces: 5

 Description: Latitude, in decimal degrees

 DisplayControl: Text Box 

 Format: Standard

GUID: {guid {FFFAF0A3-845F-4EAE-8618-EA02F7BED978}}

 OrdinalPosition: 8

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: lat_dd

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General
Microsoft Access Generated Database Field Definition 23

 Name Type Size

long_dd Double 8

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: False

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1170

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 DecimalPlaces: 5

 Description: Longitude, in decimal degrees

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 Format: Standard

 GUID: {guid {C2D81EFF-E222-4461-BE96-9D2DE25B5474}}

 OrdinalPosition: 9

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: long_dd

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

horiz_datum_cd Text 5

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 825

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Horizontal datum

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {780E2ACA-19CE-4CA9-A608-EE0311FB9A29}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 10

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: horiz_datum_cd

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

 county_nm Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General
24 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

 Name Type Size

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1164

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: County name

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {5690A501-147F-41D2-81F5-A9646EC7318D}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 11

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: county_nm

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

state_nm Text 2

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 456

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: State abbreviation

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 12

 Required: False

 SourceField: state_nm

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

fi ps_cd Text 5

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 732

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: 5-digit federal information processing standards (FIPS) state/county code

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {A681C3C4-40B4-4DE1-B4C1-03FA0A55DA67}}

 IMEMode: 0
Microsoft Access Generated Database Field Definition 25

 Name Type Size

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 13

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: fi ps_cd

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

T_ft2_d Double 8

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: False

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1056

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 DecimalPlaces: 0

 Description: Transmissivity, in feet squared per day

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 Format: Standard

 GUID: {guid {DE8ED91B-1992-41AE-88A1-E77B5F614BDA}}

 OrdinalPosition: 14

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: T_ft2_d

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

S Double 8

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: False

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1104

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 DecimalPlaces: Auto

 Description: Storage coeffi cient, dimensionless

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {12BA80EA-2062-4886-A709-EC29A564A788}}

 OrdinalPosition: 15

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: S

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General
26 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

 Name Type Size

test_type_cd Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1110

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Code identifying the type of test performed

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {D185B460-B86D-4824-9380-11031B092B20}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 16

 Required: False

 SourceField: test_type_cd

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

method_cd Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: Default

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Code identifying the analysis method used to calculate or estimate 

 aquifer properties

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {76701EFE-A31E-46E5-9EE3-FDD7654BB67A}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 17

 Required: False

 SourceField: method_cd

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

test_start_date Date/Time 8

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: False

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Fixed Size

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False
Microsoft Access Generated Database Field Definition 27

 Name Type Size

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 2145

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Start date/time of test

 GUID: {guid {3BAB5291-A84D-4D57-8FBB-5841256BCE9F}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 18

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 ShowDatePicker: For dates

 SourceField: test_start_date

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

test_end_date Date/Time 8

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: False

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Fixed Size

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1590

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: End date/time of test

 GUID: {guid {2A8F3CB9-5267-482C-A9EB-30A38221A0A9}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 19

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 ShowDatePicker: For dates

 SourceField: test_end_date

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 test_duration_hrs Text 5

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 2010

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Duration of test, in hours

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {0C77C398-6038-43E9-83A6-F71C674F3365}}
28 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

 Name Type Size

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 20

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: test_duration_hrs

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

 reference Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 4188

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Reference for method used in test analysis or for document from 

 which test data were gathered

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {E2496DE0-FEC1-44B7-B991-C14E3FAE62EA}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 21

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: reference

 SourceTable: ` aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: False

remarks Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 9600

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Remarks/comments

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {021A5AF1-23C9-4373-B5A9-AE52A76A5DB0}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 22

 Required: False
Microsoft Access Generated Database Field Definition 29

 Name Type Size

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: remarks

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: False

stratigraphic_unit Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 3900

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Stratigraphic unit(s) tested

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {DE3299CC-51D8-4F4C-8A8F-8DA14CF2B719}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 23

 Required: False

 SourceField: stratigraphic_unit

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True

top_interval Double 8

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: False

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 888

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 DecimalPlaces: Auto

 Description: Top of interval tested, feet below land surface

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {4F5410F4-23FB-428D-A0FA-88CEBAAEA5E3}}

 OrdinalPosition: 24

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: top_interval

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General
30 Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System

 Name Type Size

bot_interval Double 8

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: False

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1080

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 DecimalPlaces: Auto

 Description: Bottom of interval tested, feet below land surface

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {D1C9F6C8-B738-42D8-91C1-55184A834E11}}

 OrdinalPosition: 25

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: bot_interval

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

hydrogeologic_unit_cd Text 255

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 1155

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: Code identifying the aquifer system(s) or unit(s) which was tested

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {AA704713-B003-4D1D-A885-7E4CB2EAB66D}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 26

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: hydrogeologic_unit_cd

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True
Microsoft Access Generated Database Field Definition 31

 Name Type Size

confi nement_cd Text 1

 AggregateType: -1

 AllowZeroLength: True

 AppendOnly: False

 Attributes: Variable Length

 CollatingOrder: General

 ColumnHidden: False

 ColumnOrder: Default

 ColumnWidth: 384

 CurrencyLCID: 0

 DataUpdatable: False

 Description: One-letter code describing degree of confi nement of the Floridan 

 aquifer system

 DisplayControl: Text Box

 GUID: {guid {CB7FE995-D14B-4998-B7D2-91C82242A647}}

 IMEMode: 0

 IMESentenceMode: 3

 OrdinalPosition: 27

 Required: False

 ResultType: 0

 SourceField: confi nement_cd

 SourceTable: aquifer_properties_master

 TextAlign: General

 UnicodeCompression: True 


Kuniansky and Bellino—Tabulated Transmissivity and Storage Properties of the Floridan Aquifer System—Data Series 669