Geology of Bay County, Florida ( FGS: Bulletin 57)

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Geology of Bay County, Florida ( FGS: Bulletin 57)
Series Title:
Bulletin - Bureau of Geology, Florida Dept. of Natural Resources ; 57
Physical Description:
vii, 96 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Schmidt, Walter, 1950-
Clark, Murlene Wiggs
Florida -- Bureau of Geology
Donor:
unknown ( endowment ) ( endowment )
Publisher:
Dept. of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology published for Bureau of Geology, Division of Resource Management, Florida Dept. of Natural Resources
Place of Publication:
Tallahassee, Fla.
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1980

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Geology -- Florida -- Bay County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Bibliography: p. 75-84.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Walter Schmidt and Murlene Wiggs Clark.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:

The author dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law and all related or neighboring legal rights he or she had in the work, to the extent allowable by law.
Resource Identifier:
ltqf - AAA1881
notis - ABZ2118
alephbibnum - 000354060
oclc - 07094542
issn - 0271-7832 ;
System ID:
UF00000246:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

UNIV. OF FLA. LIBRARIES








STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Elton J. Gissendanner, Executive Director

DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Casey J. Gluckman, Division Director

BUREAU OF GEOLOGY
Charles W. Hendry, Jr., Chief






BULLETIN NO. 57




GEOLOGY OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA



By
Walter Schmidt and Murlene Wiggs Clark






Published for
BUREAU OF GEOLOGY
DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES


TALLAHASSEE


1980


QE
99

In. 57
: c. 2














STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Elton J. Gissendanner, Executive Director

DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Casey J. Gluckman, Division Director

BUREAU OF GEOLOGY
Charles W. Hendry, Jr., Chief






BULLETIN NO. 57




GEOLOGY OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA



By
Walter Schmidt and Murlene Wiggs Clark






Published for
BUREAU OF GEOLOGY
DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

TALLAHASSEE


1980









DEPARTMENT


OF

NATURAL RESOURCES




BOB GRAHAM
Governor


GEORGE FIRESTONE
Secretary of State

BILL GUNTER
Treasurer


RALPH D. TURLINGTON
Commissioner of Education


JIM SMITH
Attorney General

GERALD A. LEWIS
Comptroller

DOYLE CONNER
Commissioner of Agriculture


ELTON J. GISSENDANNER
Executive Director





LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL


Bureau of Geology
Tallahassee
October 30, 1980


Governor Bob Graham, Chairman
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Dear Governor Graham:

The Bureau of Geology, Division of Resource Management, Depart-
ment of Natural Resources is publishing as Bulletin 57 "Geology of Bay
County, Florida," prepared by Walter Schmidt (Bureau of Geology) and
Murlene Wiggs Clark (Northwest Florida Water Management District).

Bay County is experiencing rapid population and industrial growth, and
this trend is expected to continue. This report fulfills a need for information
on the stratigraphy of the area, which is the foundation of ground-water
resources investigations. Information on the mineral deposits is also
presented, along with data which will be helpful in further study of the
geology of the Florida Panhandle.

Respectfully yours,



Charles W. Hendry, Jr., Chief
Bureau of Geology














































Printed for the
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Division of Resource Management
Bureau of Geology


Tallahassee
1980








iv







CONTENTS


P re fa c e . . . . . .. .. . . . .
Acknow ledgem ents ...............................
Introduction .. .... .. ...... .. .. ................... .


S e ttin g . . . . . . .
Purpose .......................
Location and Extent .................
Maps ...................... .
Population Development ..............
Transportation ....................
C lim ate . . . . . .
Metric Conversion Factors ......
Well and Outcrop Numbering System .....
Previous Investigations ..............
G eology ..... ... ...... ...
Introduction . . . . . .
Methods of Investigation and Data Base ...
Physiography ..................
Sand H ills ..............
Sinks and Lakes ................
Flat-woods Forest ...............
Beach Dunes and Wave-Cut Bluffs ....
Terraces and Ancient Shorelines ...
Springs .....................
Steepheads ...................
Geophysical Surveys .. .....
G ravity . . . . .
Magnetic .................
Aeroradioactivity .. ......
Geologic Structure .................
Stratigraphy .... .. .. ........ ....... .
Introduction .................
Igneous and Paleozoic Rocks ..........
Mesozoic Era .....................
Cenozic Era ..................... .
Paleocene Series .............
Midway Stage ...............
Eocene Series .................
W ilcox Stage ..............
Claiborne Stage ........ .
Tallahatta Formation ......
Lisbon Formation ..........
Jackson Stage ...............
Ocala Group .............
Lower Facies ..........
Upper Facies ....... ..
Oligocene Series ..............
Vicksburg Stage .............
Marianna Limestone .......
Suwannee Limestone .......
Miocene and Pliocene Series .......
Tampa Stage ...............
H history . . . .
Lithologic Description .......
Thickness and Description ....
Paleontology and Age .......


. . . . 1

2
. . . .
. . . . 3


. . . . . . . . 3
. . . . . . I . 3
. . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . 5

. . . . . . . 6





. . .. . . . . 9
............................. 1.9
..10
.... .............. .... ... 10
. . . ... .. .. 1 1
. . . . . . . 1 1
. . . . .... . . 1 3
. . . . . . . 1 4
. . . . .. . 1 5
. . . . . . . 1 5


. 17
...2 1
...2 1
. .23
...23
23
...23
S. 23
24


......26
..... 26
......28
.... ..29
......29
...... 29
. 30
......30

... .. 30
......30
. . 30

. . 3 1
.31

. . .3 1
..... 31

..... 32
...... 32
...... 33
......33
...... 33
...... 33
.33
... 35
......3 5
...... 36


........................
. . . I . . .
. I . . . . .
....................
........................
. . I . . . . .
........................
........................


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


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






Alum Bluff Stage ... .... ....... ................ ........ 36
History............................................. 36
Chipola Formation ...................................... ... 37
History ...................................... ........ 37
Lithologic Description ........................ ............ 37
Thickness and Distribution ................................. 37
Paleontology and Age ................................... 38
Bruce Creek Limestone .................................... 38
History ...................................... ........ 38
Lithologic Description .................................... 39
Thickness and Distribution ........... ..................... 40
Paleontology and Age .................................. .. 40
Choctawhatchee Stage...................................... 41
History ...................................... ........ 41
Intracoastal Formation .............................. ....... 44
History ............. .............. .................. 44
Lithologic Description .................................... 45
Thickness and Distribution ................................. 47
Paleontology and Age ................................... 50
Jackson Bluff Formation ..................................... 54
History ...................................... ........ 54
Lithologic Description .................................... 55
Thickness and Distribution ................................. 55
Paleontology and Age .................................... 58
Pliocene to Recent Clayey Sands ...............................58
Economic Geology ............................................. 71
Sand and Gravel ...................................... .......... 71
Clay ........................................................71
Peat ................................................. ....... 71
Heavy Minerals .................................................72
Limestone ................................. ................... 72
Oil and Gas .................................................... 73
Groundwater .................................................. 73
References ................. ................ ........75
Appendices
Appendix A Geologic Logs of Five Selected Core Holes .................... 85
Appendix B Listing of Well Cuttings and Core Data ........................ 91
























vi







ILLUSTRATIONS


Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

25.
26.
27.

28.

29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.

Table
1.
2.


Location of Bay County, Florida ..........................
Index to U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangles .................
Well and Outcrop Numbering System ......................
Geologic Data Base ..................................
Physiographic Subdivisions in Bay County ...................
Dendritic Drainage developed in the Sand Hills ................
Sand Hills as seen along Route 20 ........................
Karst Drainage developed in the Sinks and Lakes ..............
Flat-woods Forest as seen along Route 231 .................
Coastal Features developed in the Beach Dunes and
Wave-Cut Bluffs ..................................
Coastal sand dunes in St. Andrews State Park ................
Elevation Zones or "Terraces" in Bay County ...............
Topographic Profiles across Bay County ....................
Steephead development in Sand Hills ......................
Principal Geologic Structures near Bay County ................
Stratigraphic Nomenclature for the Geologic Formations in
Bay County .....................................
Structural Map of Top of Bruce Creek Limestone ...............
Location of "Type" Core for the Intracoastal Formation ...........
Structural Map of Top of Intracoastal Formation ................
Isopach Map of the Intracoastal Formation ...................
Planktonic Foraminiferal Range Chart for Well W-2212 ..........
Planktonic Foraminiferal Range Chart for Well W-2950 ..........
Planktonic Foraminiferal Range Chart for Well W-14077 .........
Biostratigraphic Zonation of the Intracoastal Formation in
14 wells from Bay and Walton Counties ..................
Intracoastal Formation Outcrop along Econfina Creek ...........
Jackson Bluff Formation Outcrop along Econfina Creek ..........
Stratigraphic Correlation Chart of the Shallow Sediments
in Bay C county ................... ............ .
Isopach Map of the Pliocene to Recent Clayey Sands and Sands
in Bay C county ...................................
Citronelle Formation Outcrop in Northern Bay County ...........
Location of Geologic Cross-Sections ......................
Geologic Cross-Section A-A' ....... ....................
Geologic Cross-Section B-B' ...........................
Geologic Cross-Section C-C' ..........................
Geologic Cross-Section D-D' ......... ................
Geologic Cross-Section E-E' ............................
Geologic Cross-Section F-F' ...........................
Geologic Cross-Section G-G ........................
Geologic Cross-Section H-H' ..........................
Geologic Cross-Section I-I' .............................
Sand Mine near Callaway ..............................
Geologic Description of Core W-13965 .....................
Geologic Description of Core W-14101 .....................
Geologic Description of Core W-14077 .....................
Geologic Description of Core W-14108 ................... .
Geologic Description of Core W-14125 ...................


Metric Conversion factors ........................................92
Sand Producers in Bay County ..................... .......... 93


Page
. . 4
.. ... .5
. . 8
.........12
. . 1 3
. . 1 4
. . .15
. . 1 6
. . 16

. . 17
.. ..... 18
. . 1 9
. . 2 0
........ 22
....... 24

......... 27
....... 42
.. ..... 46
. . 4 8
....... 49
. . .. 5 1
. . . 5 1
... .... 5 2

. . . 53
. .. 5 5
. . . 5 6

... .... 5 7

......... 59
....... 60
.61
.62
.. 63
64
65
.... ... 66
67
.. 68
69
70
.72
.........86
.........87
. . 8 8
..89
..... 90





GEOLOGY OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

By

Walter Schmidt
and
Murlene Wiggs Clark

PREFACE


This report is the result of a detailed study of the geology of Bay
County, Florida. The county is relatively flat in relief and is mostly covered
with Pleistocene to Recent quartz sands. An increase in the amount of sub-
surface data available in the form of well cuttings, core samples, and
geophysical well logs has made possible this report on the stratigraphy of
the area.

Because the Neogene in the Bay County area represents a relatively
undescribed section, and because of its prolific microfauna, this section
commands the most attention in this report. Two new formations are
recognized, although they were first described by Huddlestun (1976a) in
Walton County, Florida. The Bruce Creek Limestone is identified and
mapped using the lithologic and stratigraphic definition described by
Huddlestun. The Intracoastal Formation is also identified and mapped;
however, this unit has been modified from the original use by Huddlestun in
Walton County.

The time of deposition for these new formations has been estimated,
based on planktonic foraminiferal zones, and calcareous nannofossils. The
Bruce Creek Limestone is considered Middle Miocene, the Intracoastal
Formation is considered late Middle Miocene to Late Pliocene.

In the Past, the Miocene of the Florida Panhandle has generated a lot of
interest from geologists. The outcrops throughout the area contain an
abundant fossil fauna which has been described by many paleontologists.
Because the sediments have been classified and dated a number of
successive times, a brief history of the nomenclature and its changes is in-
cluded in this report. The pre-Neogene sediments are also addressed,
although the deeper strata have fewer wells with samples available.

The Bay County area represents a critical region in understanding the
geology of the Florida Panhandle. Future research will continue east into
the center of the Apalachicola Embayment and west towards the Gulf of
Mexico Sedimentary Basin.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was begun in early 1978. It is the first report of a planned
geologic research program to cover the coastal area of the Florida
Panhandle.

The writers are appreciative of the financial assistance given by the
Northwest Florida Water Management District during the data collection
stage of the research. Tom Kwader and Jeff Wagner of the district
reviewed the manuscript and contributed valuable assistance in discus-
sions on the area.

Dr. Ramil C. Wright of the Geology Department, Florida State Universi-
ty, reviewed the biostratigraphic zonation of the Intracoastal Formation, and
his assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

The authors thank Paul F. Huddlestun, whose work in southern Walton
County laid the foundation for this and future work in Florida Panhandle
coastal stratigraphy.

The St. Joe Paper Company, the International Paper Company, and the
Prosper Energy Corporation graciously permitted stratigraphic core tests
on their properties. The data obtained from those cores were
invaluable to this study. Their cooperation is gratefully acknowledged.

The authors express their appreciation to the members of the geologic
staff of the Florida Bureau of Geology for many helpful discussions and con-
structive criticism of our work.






BULLETIN NO. 57


INTRODUCTION

SETTING

Bay County is located in the central part of the Florida Pan-
handle (fig. 1), and is part of a large sedimentary basin consisting of
southern Alabama, southern Georgia, and Florida, called the eastern Gulf of
Mexico sedimentary basin. This basin is divided into two sedimentary,
provinces, the North Gulf Coast Sedimentary Province and the Florida
Peninsula Sedimentary Province (Pressler, 1947, p. 185). The latter is
characterized by nearly 20,000 feet of carbonates and evaporites; the
former province consists mainly of plastic sediments, totalling over 15,000
feet in thickness. The North Gulf Coast and Florida Peninsula sedimentary
provinces are separated by Pressler (1947) along a general line through
northern peninsular Florida from Levy to Nassau counties.
Bay County has a thickness of Cenozoic sediments approaching
3,500 feet (Toulmin, 1955). This sediment accumulation is in part due to
the fact that Bay County is located on the western flank of yet another more
localized sedimentary basin, named the Apalachicola Embayment
(Pressler, 1947). This feature, together with the adjacent parts of the Gulf
of Mexico basin, cover an area of approximately 30,000 square miles
(Pressler, 1947). The synclinal axis of this embayment trends south-
southwestward from extreme southwestern Georgia across western
Florida, plunging toward the Gulf of Mexico. The sedimentary fill in the
deepest part of the embayment attains a thickness of over 15,000 feet.
This section thins updip toward the north and east in Alabama and Georgia,
and east and south on the Ocala Uplift in central Florida, and west towards
Walton County (which lies immediately west of Bay County). These
sediments range in age from Triassic to Recent, and are similar to those
deposits of the same age in southern Alabama and southern Georgia. The
Tertiary formations, however, become more calcareous in their eastern and
southern facies.


PURPOSE

Population and industrial growth trends in Panama City and the Bay
County area indicate a need for additional information on the mineral
deposits as well as stratigraphy, which contributes to the data-base needed
for ground water resources investigations.
The purpose of this study was to make a detailed examination of the
geology of Bay County and to examine the stratigraphic relationships of the
near-surface deposits. Geological data were collected predominantly
through the examination of well cuttings and cores from oil test wells, water
supply wells, and stratigraphic core tests. Surface exposures are very
limited throughout the county. The core holes were drilled by the Florida
Bureau of Geology in specific areas where subsurface data were sparse.






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


C O
R12W


Figure 1. Location of Bay County, Florida.


LOCATION AND EXTENT

Bay County is situated in the south central part of the Florida Panhandle
(fig. 1). The county is bordered by the Gulf of Mexico on the south, Walton
County to the west, Washington and Jackson counties to the north, and
Calhoun and Gulf counties to the east. Its county seat and major city,
Panama City, is located on St. Andrews Bay which is approximately 103


T2S





BULLETIN NO. 57


miles southeast of Pensacola, 98 miles southwest of Tallahassee, and 98
miles south of Dothan, Alabama.
The county encompasses about 481,920 acres (753 square miles)
and is about 36 miles wide and averages about 25 miles from north to south.

MAPS

Bay County is completely covered by U.S. Geological Survey
7Y2-minute (1:24,000 scale) topographic quadrangles. The index to
published maps is shown as figure 2. Other useful maps covering Bay
County published by the U.S.G.S. include the Tallahassee Sheet
(1:250,000), and the State of Florida (1:500,000 scale).


Figure 2. Index to U.S. Geological Survey 7 Minute
Topographic Quadrangle.


BAY COUNTY





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


The General Highway Map of Bay County prepared by the Florida
Department of Transportation is available from that state agency. An ex-
cellent "Picto-Map" which denotes roads and surface features is available
from the Bay County Chamber of Commerce.
Other maps which cover the county in some form include the Bay
County soils map found in the Florida General Soils Atlas, Planning District
2 report, published by the Florida Division of State Planning; Mark Hurd
Aerial photographs which correspond to the 71/-minute U.S.G.S.
quadrangles (these are published by Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc., 345
Pennsylvania Avenue, South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426); and the
satellite image mosaic of the State of Florida at a 1:500,000 scale, publish-
ed by the U.S.G.S. Aerial photographic coverage is also available from the
Florida Department of Transportation.

POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Bay County was established April 24, 1913. The county takes its
name from St. Andrew's Bay, on which it is situated.
During World War II Panama City was a major ship-building and in-
dustrial center. It became the temporary home of thousands of war-time
workers, who came to the city from many parts of the nation. Tyndall Air
Force Base and the Naval Coastal System Center, presently located on the
bay, are major contributors to the economy of the area. Other important
economic factors include agriculture, forestry, commercial fishing, and
paper manufacturing. Tourism is of major importance, and the county's
beaches are one of the principal tourist attractions in west Florida.

The population has grown about 12.1 percent between 1960 to 1970
(from 67,131 to 75,283). It is predicted that the population will approach
91,100 by 1980, and 128,300 by 2010 (the 1978 Florida Almanac, D.
Marth, ed.). Panama City is expected to total 80,000 in population in
1990, a 40 percent increase over 1970.

TRANSPORTATION

Bay County is served by one railroad, The Atlanta and Saint Andrews
Bay Railroad, and one major public airport, the Panama City-Bay County Air-
port (Fannin Field), located just north of Panama City.
The county is crossed by numerous highways, with Florida Routes 77,
79, and U.S. 231 being the major north-south roads, and Florida Routes
20, 22, 388, and U.S. 98 being the major east-west roads. There are
many other secondary roads that make most of the county accessible.

CLIMATE

The geographical position of Bay County is reflected in the humid sub-
tropical climate with an annual average temperature of 680F (21 C) varying





BULLETIN NO. 57


from an average 530F (120C) in January to an average of 820F (280C) in
July. Due to an average elevation of just 21 feet above sea level, and being
located next to the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the county is free
from extremes of heat or cold. The average annual rainfall is 58 inches, with
July, August and September being the wettest months.

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

In order to prevent much awkward duplication of parenthetical
conversion of units in the text of reports, the Florida Bureau of Geology has
adopted the practice of inserting a tabular listing of conversion factors. For
the use of those readers who may prefer to use metric units rather than the
customary U.S. units, the conversion factors for terms used in this report
are given in Table 1.


TABLE 1. Metric conversion factors for terms used in this report.

MULTIPLY BY TO OBTAIN
acres 0.4047 hectares
acres 4047.0 sq. meters
cubic yards 0.7646 cu. meters
feet 0.3048 meters
inches 2.540 centimeters
inches 0.0254 meters
miles 1.609 kilometers
sq. miles 2.590 sq. kilometers


WELL AND OUTCROP NUMBERING SYSTEM

The locality and well numbering system used in this report is based on
the location of the locality or well, and uses the rectangular system of sec-
tion, township and range for identification. The number consists of five
parts. These are: 1) a prefix letter designating L for locality, or W for well,
2) the township, 3) the range, 4) the section and 5) the quarter/quarter
location within the section.
The basic rectangle is the township, which is 6 miles on a side and en-
compasses 36 square miles. It is consecutively measured by tiers both
north and south of the Florida base line, and an east-west line that passes
through Tallahassee as Township ? North or South. This basic rectangle is
also consecutively measured both east and west of the principal meridian
and a north-south line that passes through Tallahassee as Range ? East or
West. In recording the township and range numbers, the T is left off the
township numbers and the R is left off the range numbers. Each township is
divided equally into 36 one-mile square blocks called sections, and are
numbered 1 through 36 as shown on figure 3.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Figure 3. Well and Outcrop numbering system used by the
Florida Bureau of Geology.


The sections are divided into quarters with the quarters labeled
"a" through "d" as shown on figure 3. In turn, each of these one-
quarter sections is divided into quarters with these quarter/quarter
squares labeled "a" through "d" in the same manner. The "a"





BULLETIN NO. 57


through "d" designation of quarters may be carried to any extent
deemed useful.
The location of the well W-14108 as shown on figure 3 would be
in the center of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 1, Township 1S, Range 15W, Bay County.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Numerous reports which have discussed geologic and biologic
aspects of the Florida Panhandle have made reference to Bay Coun-
ty; however, only those reports that deal specifically with the
geology of Bay County are mentioned below.
Various surface exposures and a few well descriptions have been
reported by Cooke and Mossom (1927), Cushman and Ponton (1932),
Hobbs (1939), Vernon (1942), Cooke (1945), and Puri (1953). Other
reports which have emphasized surface geomorphology or water
resources include MacNeil (1949), Toler and Shampine (1 962), Musgrove
et. al. (1965), Musgrove et. al. (1968), Foster (1972), Winker and Howard
(1977), and Schmidt (1979).
Bay County does not have an abundance of surface exposures or "out-
crops" of many rock formations. This is because most of the county is
covered with reworked quartz sands from the various marine terraces that
are present in the vicinity. Consequently, cuttings from water wells have
been used in correlating the subsurface strata throughout the county. It has
not been until recent years that the subsurface information, in the form of
cuttings, cores, and geophysical logs, has accumulated to the point where
some geologic conclusions can be drawn, as in the form of this report.
Other reports that deal with specific topics on the county's geology will be
referenced in the text when they have direct bearing on the discussion.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


GEOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

In the past, the central part of the Florida Panhandle has received
considerable attention from geologists. Vernon (1942) published The
Geology of Holmes and Washington Counties, Florida. These counties are
located immediately north of Bay County. Moore (1955) published The
Geology of Jackson County, Florida, which is to the northeast of Bay Coun-
ty; and Schmidt and Coe (1978) reported on the regional stratigraphy of
that three-county area. Puri (1953) published A Contribution to the Study
of the Miocene of the Florida Panhandle, which is a comprehensive study of
the microfauna and a thorough description of the assemblages. These
reports included lithologic and paleontologic analysis of the stratigraphic
units present. In addition to the paleontologic assemblages being identified,
the formations present were correlated in the form of geologic cross-
sections, structure contour maps, and isopach maps. This information was
used in determining the structural as well as the depositional history of the
study area.
More recently, Huddlestun (1976) reported on the Neogene
stratigraphy of the central panhandle. His study dealt primarily with Walton
County, which is located just northwest and west of Bay County. In his
study, Huddlestun had the unique opportunity to compare the Neogene
stratigraphic sequence along the coast (in Walton County), with the
northern, updip equivalent in Walton County, which corresponds
stratigraphically with Vernon's Holmes and Washington counties study. The
stratigraphy of Bay County has many characteristics in common with
coastal Walton County.
The southern one-third of Walton County, Bay, southern
Calhoun, southern Liberty, Gulf, and Franklin counties contain a
thickened sequence of Neogene sediments. This structural feature
has been called the Apalachicola Embayment (Pressler, 1947). In
these counties, the Neogene sediments apparently represent a
deeper marine, farther offshore equivalent of their contem-
poraneous updip units to the north, (Huddlestun, 1976; Wiggs and
Schmidt, 1979). In addition, these units are much thicker in the
south than the age-equivalent units to the north.
Because of this off-shore, near-shore concept, as well as the in-
crease in sedimentation rate (Clark and Wright, 1979), the correla-
tion of these units with the better exposed equivalents updip re-
quires excellent geologic control. The recent increased availability
of well cuttings and cores in Bay County has made this attempt at
correlation possible.
Ground-water resources have received only a small amount of
attention in the Bay County area. Foster (1972) published data on
water chemistry and constructed two geohydrologic cross-sections
across the county, using water-well information. Musgrove and





BULLETIN NO. 57


others (1965), reported on the water resources of the Econfina Creek
Basin, which includes part of southern Washington County and the
eastern parts of Calhoun and Gulf counties. Their project was
primarily involved with surface water characteristics, with ground
water being only a minor chapter in their publication.
The economic geology of the surface deposits in Bay County
has received only brief mention in the literature. Schmidt (1979) in-
cludes the area in a generalized discussion of surface lithology in
the eastern Florida Panhandle. Reves (1961), and Yon and Hendry
(1970) reported on the limestone resources of Washington, Holmes,
and Jackson counties, and the mineral resources of Holmes,
Walton, and Washington counties, respectively. All these counties
occur north and northwest of Bay County.

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION AND DATA BASE

Because of the gentle dip of the strata, and the veneer of Pleistocene
terrace deposits that cover the county, there are very few locations where
formations crop out within the area. The present study, therefore, is based
mostly on subsurface information consisting of cuttings from water and oil
wells, stratigraphic core tests, drillers' logs, and geophysical information
obtained by the Florida Bureau of Geology and the Northwest Florida Water
Management District (fig. 4). In all, 103 wells and cores were available
throughout the county for study, with 21 having geophysical logs available.
Well samples are stored by the Florida Bureau of Geology in
Tallahassee, Florida. The cuttings were examined with a binocular
microscope, and for uniformity in descriptions, a computer sheet
for each well was filled out, with such parameters as major rock
types, color, estimated porosity, grain type, grain size, induration,
cement type, sedimentary structures, accessory minerals and
fossils present being described. The geologic logs were compared
with the natural gamma logs when available, to aid in determining
the depth and thickness of the lithologic units.

PHYSIOGRAPHY

Florida has been divided into five topographic regions by
Cooke (1939) which are as follows: the Coastal Lowlands, the
Western Highlands, the Marianna Lowlands, the Tallahassee Hills,
and the Central Highlands. Vernon (1951), on the basis of origin and
age, divided the physiography into four major divisions: the Delta
Plain Highlands, the Tertiary Highlands, the Terraced Coastal
Lowlands, and the River Valley Lowlands. He further subdivided
these major divisions into smaller units and applied local names to
them. In 1964, Puri and Vernon divided Florida into six major
physiographic groups. These six primary divisions are again sub-
divided into secondary and tertiary physiographic units. More







12 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY



recently, White (1970) reported on the Geomorphology of the Florida
Peninsula. His work divides the peninsula into three zones and then

subdivides these zones based on local features. His study,
however, does not include Northwest Florida, where Bay County is
located.
Other than the Puri and Vernon (1964) study which deals with the en-
tire state, and thus includes Bay County, the only study which covers the
Bay County area specifically is Musgrove, et al. (1965). That report deals
primarily with water resources of the area, but does divide the county into
four physiographic divisions (see fig. 5): The Sand Hills, Sinks and Lakes,
Flat-woods Forest, and Beach Dunes and Wave-cut Bluffs. The following is
taken from the descriptions given by Musgrove et. al. (1965).






JIN ACKSO N CO.433
1934
T2N 4 Ts








S13617 0---- 14108 -13622 01t

TIS 4920 TI
85870 3753

83230 I 012498 *2893
02143
SAM 14101 2982 0
z
08873 z 0
T82S o77772307 2



A15 35716 717 s A 74
13587 04714
o2950 3038 el 0102 A 14125
T3S 3089 ,2389 685 13974765 T3
05 204094 0 04690 08367
52038 360 827 0816A

985 33GAMMA LO 24 21824
3 3508 05369
388 68420 A2240
4R H7 0

BAY COUNTY 12258
M 4 KILOMETERS47
3s EXPLANATION TOO
WELL CUTTINGS
AGAMMA LOSS NG 121110
CORE HOLES 125050
0 12525

4Z_ 0 916
T6S 2192 I

0 9 *2189


Figure 4. Geologic Data Base.






BULLETIN NO. 57


S RIW R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W

[JACKSON C2.._
T2N T2N



TIN I TIN




TIS TIS




T2S .T2S





T3S T3S








1 3
T WVEA CUT' BLUFF '
I NI Ii, I I
FLAT-WOODS FOREST

SAND HILLS
TWS SINKS AND LAKES T6S

RI7W RI6W RI5W RI4W RI3W RI2W

Figure 5. Physiographic subdivisions in Bay County, modified
from Musgrove, Foster, and Toler, 1965.



The physiographic divisions in Bay County have developed on
a series of marine terraces which were carved into the surface
deposits during Pleistocene times by sea level fluctuations. Low
swampy areas occur throughout each of these divisions, but are
more prevalent in the Flat-woods Forest.


SAND HILLS


The sand hills in the northern part of the county are erosional
remnants of the higher marine terraces, which were between 100
feet and 270 feet above present sea level. Puri and Vernon (1964)




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


called the high terrace remnant, a portion of which is in the
northeast part of the county, the New Hope Ridge. They assign the
remaining part of the sand hills in Bay County to the Greenhead
Slope in the west, and the Fountain Slope in the eastern part of Bay
County. The sand hills are characterized by gently rolling forested
land with a dendritic drainage pattern (figs. 6 and 7).


Figure 6. Dendritic drainage pattern developed in Sand Hills
(Fountain Quad.).

SINKS AND LAKES

The sinks and lakes occur in the section of the county west of Econfina
Creek, where they have developed within the sand hills. This area is
typified by irregular sand hills and numerous sink holes and sink-hole lakes.
The sink holes range in diameter from a few feet to broad flat areas, such as
those in the Deadening Lakes area in southern Washington County and
north-central Bay County; these can be up to two miles wide. This
physiographic division was developed by the solution of the underlying
limestone and the subsequent collapse of the overlying material into the






BULLETIN NO. 57


Figure 7. Gentle roll of the Sand Hills as seen looking east on Route 20.


solution chamber. Most of the lakes have no surface outlets; their drainage
is mostly to the underlying ground-water system (fig. 8).

FLAT-WOODS FOREST

The Flat-woods Forest is the largest physiographic division in the coun-
ty. It is slightly rolling to flat land lying on the terraces below an elevation of
70 feet (fig. 9). Most of this division is covered with pines, except for the
areas cleared for agriculture. The Flat-woods Forest is well drained with the
exception of some low areas around the bays on the 0 to 10 foot and 10 to
25 foot terraces. During rainy weather these low areas of the flat woods
become inundated. A few small perennial swamps occur at various loca-
tions throughout the Flat-woods Forest.

BEACH DUNES AND WAVE-CUT BLUFFS

The fourth division occurs adjacent to the Gulf coast and is
characterized by beach dune deposits and wave-cut bluffs (figs. 10
and 11). The beach dune deposits are the youngest sediments in the
basin and are the most rapidly changing physiographic feature.
Puri and Vernon (1964) placed these last two divisions within
their Gulf Coastal Lowlands province, which are gently sloping
plains that extend to the coast from the highlands. The landforms in
this province are composed of barrier islands, coastal ridges,





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


-igure b. Karst type "internal" drainage pattern developed in
the sinks and lakes (Crystal Lake Quad.).


Figure 9. Low relief of the


-woods Forest, looking north on
231.





BULLETIN NO. 57


estuaries, lagoons, relict spits and bars, and sand dune ridges. All
of these features are generally parallel to the present coast, in-
dicating an origin shaped by coastal environments.


Figure 10. Typical coastal features such as spits, bars, and
lagoons developed along the coast (Long Point Quad.).


TERRACES AND ANCIENT SHORELINES

Marine terraces are the former bottoms of ancient seas, and
they are generally covered with deposits of sand, clay, silt, and
shells. They are bounded along their inner margin (landward) by
shoreline features such as relict beach ridges, inner lagoons, and
seaward-facing wave-cut scarps.
Ancient marine surfaces were first mapped in Florida by Matson and
Sanford (1913), who divided the state into a dissected upland surface and
three marine terraces. Leverett (1931) further developed their work by
describing numerous coastal landforms of their Pensacola Terrace through
the use of better topographic maps.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Figure 11. Coastal sand dunes in St. Andrews State Park.


Subsequent work on terrace mapping in Florida resulted in maps
published by MacNeil (1949), Alt and Brooks (1965), and Healy (1975b).
Each of these studies covers the entire state and divides the state into 7 or
8 terraces, based on surface elevation. Numerous other authors have cor-
related local studies with these statewide terraces, based on elevation.
These include Vernon (1942), Heath and Smith (1954), Peek (1958,
1959), Klein and others (1964), Hendry and Sproul (1966), Marsh
(1966), Yon (1966), and Puri and others (1967).
More recently, Winker and Howard (1977a,b) have differentiated the
relict shorelines of Florida into three sequences. These sequences are bas-
ed on relative age of the shoreline features found within each region. Along
the Gulf Coast they have named these the Escambia Sequence, for eleva-
tions below 10 m; the Wakulla Sequence, for a discontinuous scarp bet-
ween 20 and 30 m above present sea level; and the Gadsden Sequence,
for an extensive beach ridge plain reaching a maximum elevation of 100 m.
Because of the different methods previously used to map the terraces
throughout the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, and the complex post-
depositional history of most of the younger sediments, the Bay County ter-
race map in this report is based only on elevations (fig. 12). This method
has its own inherent problems, because past episodes of sea-level fluctua-
tions do not necessarily leave their remnants at a single elevation. In Bay
County, eight terraces based on elevation have been mapped (Healy,
1975b). Two topographic profiles prepared across the county (fig. 13),
show little or no correlation to these eight terracing episodes. Therefore, in





BULLETIN NO. 57


this report these eight "terraces" have been simplified to four units or
"elevation zones" (fig. 12).
The terraces mapped in Bay County by Healy (1975b) are as follows:
Combined Zones
(in this report)


Silver Bluff Terrace
Pamlico Terrace
Talbot Terrace
Penholoway Terrace
Wicomico Terrace
Okefenokee Terrace
Coharie Terrace
High Pliocene Terrace


0- 10 feet elevation
10- 25 feet elevation
25- 42 feet elevation
42- 70 feet elevation
70-100 feet elevation
100-170 feet elevation
170-215 feet elevation
215-320 feet elevation


0- 25ft.

25- 70 ft.

70-1 70 ft.

170-320 ft.


zones ("Terraces") in Bay


19














COUNTY AY
LINE

I00' BEAR (Io'
SAY ROUTE 38

50 WEST BAY PANAMA
50, CITY 50,
BEACH 0














B

ECONFINA
RIVER BETTS
250
JUNIPER
CREEK
200

ROUTE 20


YOUNGSTOWN
too' E
CREEK




MSL


100' 3o

20
SO'


S 10i 20 KILOMETERS
8 16 MILES

























B





ST. ANDREW 50'
EAST SOUND
BAY 0 CROOKED
SI ND
ol77> /7-> o MSL


Figure 13. Topographic profiles from north (left) to south (right) across Bay County.


ro
o


w


C
m



O
0
-n

m
0
I
0
-<





BULLETIN NO. 57


These have been paired, (for example, the Silver Bluff and
Pamlico 0-25 feet), to produce four elevations zones (fig. 12) for Bay
County. This was, done to simplify the map, and because true
terrace-breaks are difficult to identify in the area.

SPRINGS

Bay County has two major springs: Gainer Springs, a first
magnitude spring, and Pitts Spring, a third magnitude spring
(Rosenau and Faulkner, 1974). A first magnitude spring is one with
an average flow greater than 100 cubic feet per second (64.6 million
gallons per day). A second magnitude spring has an average flow
between 10 and 100 cubic feet per second, and a third magnitude
spring flows at less than 10 cubic feet per second (6.46 million
gallons per day).
Gainer Springs, formerly called Blue Springs, is actually three major and
at least two minor springs (Rosenau et al., 1977). They are located about
2.3 miles north of Bennett, approximately one-quarter mile downstream
from the Highway 20 bridge, in Township 1S, Range 13W, section 4,
southwest quarter. The springs are along both sides of Econfina Creek.
Limestone can be seen exposed along the banks of the creek in the
vicinity. The springs are privately owned and have been renamed Emerald
Springs.
Pitts Spring is located about 7.5 miles NW of Youngstown and
2.75 miles N of Bennett, at T1S, R13W, section 4, northeast quarter.
It, too, discharges into the Econfina Creek, and the spring run is
about 100 feet to the main stream flow. Both these springs are used
by local residents for swimming. Other than for recreation use, the
springs are undeveloped.
Two other springs not in Bay County, but nearby, are Blue Springs and
Williford Spring (Rosenau and Faulkner, 1974). These two springs also are
located along the Econfina Creek and their spring runs are major tributaries.
Both are considered second magnitude springs. They are located in
Washington County, a short distance upstream from Route 20. Both spr-
ings emerge from limestone cavities. Blue Springs has been developed by
International Paper Company; it has facilities for swimming, picnicing and
fishing, and is a Boy Scout recreation area.
Other smaller springs that exist in the northern parts of Bay
County have resulted from local perched water tables and dry up in
years with less than average rainfall.


STEEPHEADS

Steepheads were first described by Sellards and Gunter (1918b, p.
27) as circular spring heads with nearly vertical bluffs, which form the upper
ends of narrow, deeply incised, stream-eroded ravines. Development of





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


steepheads occur through headward erosion by spring-fed streams. Water
that has percolated downward to a relatively impermeable sandy clay bed
moves laterally to larger streams, which have these layers exposed on their
drainage slopes. The headward erosion starts at the stream bank and
gradually migrates outward into the higher sands. The sands are well
enough cemented by silt and clay to retain nearly vertical side walls of the
deep ravines through which the streams flow. Vegetation also helps to
stabilize the ravine walls.
In northern Bay County, steepheads have formed in the sand hills, and
areas of higher elevation. These areas are underlain by near-surface sands,
which in turn are underlain by sandy clay and shelly clay beds of the
Jackson Bluff Formation.
Excellent examples of steepheads as noted by Foster (1965) occur in
northeastern Bay County. One in T1 N, R12W, section 7 has about 55 feet
of relief, and its seepage feeds a stream that empties into Hammond Pond
in Washington County. Another steephead in T1N, R12W, section 5, is
about 60 feet deep, and was carved by headward erosion of springs that
feed a tributary to the Econfina Creek (fig. 14).


head development in the Sand Hills (Compass
Lake Quad.).





BULLETIN NO. 57


GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS

GRAVITY

Gravity mapping measures the changes in gravity from one place to
another. Theoretically, measurements of this type will reflect changes in
the density of the earth's crust, or in many instances in "basement"
elevation. This type of information is an important tool used in oil and gas
exploration.
Two gravity surveys have been published that include Bay County in its
entirety or in part. Chaki and Oglesby (1972) include Bay County in their
map of Northwest Florida. Their Bouguer Anomaly Map was prepared using
a 4 milligal contour interval. A slight depression is indicated in the western
one-third of the county, where readings less than -18 milligals exist.
Readings less than -26 milligals occur in the extreme northeast part of the
county. The highest readings occur in the southeast portion of the county
along the coast, where values approaching -10 milligals were recorded.
Off-shore to the southwest, readings increase until a value in excess of 42
milligals is recorded about 80 miles offshore.
Applegate and others (1978) included a regional Bouguer Anomaly
Map in their report on the Apalachicola Embayment, which covered only the
southeastern one-half of Bay County. The map shows a northwestern trend
of decreased values from -10 milligals near the coast to -20 milligals near
Panama City.

MAGNETIC

Geodata International, Inc. (1976-1977) has flown and compiled for
the U.S. Geological Survey a Residual Magnetic Intensity Map of the
1:250,000 Tallahassee Sheet. The map shows a relatively high reading in
the north-central part of the county, reading less than -461 gammas.
Another relative high occurs in the southeastern part of the county where
readings as high as -225 gammas were recorded. The lowest readings
occur in the southwest part of the county, which show -650 gammas to be
the lowest recorded measurement. Along with gravity, magnetic surveys
are done as a preliminary to seismic work to establish approximate depth
and character of the basement rocks.

AERORADIOACTIVITY

Geodata International, Inc. also produced a Total Count Gamma Ray In-
tensity Map of the 1:250,000 Tallahassee Sheet area. Bay County is
located in the southwestern portion of the area covered by that map. The
contour interval is 25 counts and the range observed in Bay County is from
7 counts per second to over 300 counts per second. No significant trends
are apparent in the county; however, an anomalous high is present just
north of Lynn Haven. What accounts for this, is not clear at present.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Trace quantities of radioactive material are found in all rocks. For this
reason radioactivity surveys are an important tool in geologic and lithologic
mapping.

GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE

The Apalachicola Embayment (Pressler, 1947) is the main geologic
structure influencing the sediments which are found in the subsurface
throughout Bay County. Bay County is situated on the western flank of this
embayment. To the west in Walton County and beyond, the sediments
thicken toward the Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin. East of the
Apalachicola Embayment is a negative structural feature named the Suwan-
nee Straits (Dall, 1892; Puri and Vernon, 1964). This structure trends
northeast-southwest with its axis approximately through Jefferson and
Madison counties (fig. 1 5). North of the Bay County area is a feature called
the Chattahoochee Anticline (Veatch, 1911; Puri and Vernon, 1964). This
is a broad flexure mapped in the tri-state area of Alabama, Florida and
Georgia. This feature is an elongate anticline that trends northeast-
southwest and crests in Jackson County.







CHATTAHO HEE O O 20 MILES
ANTICI I O0 16 32 KILOMETERS


FLORIDA
PENINSULA SEDIMENTARY
PROVINCE
NORTH GULF COAST
SEDIMENTARY PROVINCE


Figure 15. Principal geologic structures near Bay County.


24




BULLETIN 57


The Apalachicola Embayment has received considerable prior attention
by geologists, A summary of the Various authors' descriptions is given by
Patterson and Herrick (1971), and May (1977). The feature was first nam-
ed the Chattahoochee Embayment (Johnson, 1891), as pointed out by
May (1977). It is referred to here as the Apalachicola Embayment because
it is the common name used by most geologists, and it seems appropriate
to adhere to the most recognized term. This embayment is a relatively
shallow basin between the Ocala and Chattahoochee uplifts. It is narrowest
in the northeast, and it opens on the south and southwest. The axis,
therefore, is generally aligned northeast-southwest (fig. 15).
It has been estimated that the deeper parts of this embayment,
together with adjacent portion of the Gulf Basin, cover an area of approx-
imately 30,000 square miles (Pressler, 1947). The magnitude of the basin
appears to increase with depth, which would indicate a long continued
development. Near the surface the Quaternary and Neogene rocks are
gently downwarped, whereas the older Paleogene and Mesozoic rocks are
downwarped to a progressively greater extent. Correspondingly, the older
strata are thicker (Murray, 1961). As the embayment plunges toward the
Gulf, the sedimentary fill attains a thickness of nearly 15,000 feet. The
sediments range in age from Triassic to Recent (Applegate et al., 1978)
and are very similar to those of southern Mississippi and Alabama, except
that the Tertiary formations become progressively more calcareous to the
east.
Foster (1972) reports the existence of four faults in the Bay County
shallow sediments; that is, in the upper limestone of the Floridan Aquifer,
and the overlying clays, shell beds and sands. His report, however, does
not include geologic evidence for this. For the faults postulated, he has
assigned the downthrown side to the south, and a graben structure near
Panama City Beach.
Below the sedimentary fill, metamorphosed Paleozoic deposits are
believed to have been encountered (Applegate et al., 1978). On the top of
the Paleozoics, the Mesozoic rocks reach a thickness of over 10,000 feet,
and the Cenozoic rocks are generally less than 3,000 feet in thickness.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


STRATIGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

The rocks that underlie Bay County range in age from late Pre-
Cambrian to Recent. The oldest rock exposed in the vicinity is the Chipola
Formation, an Early Miocene limestone. It can be observed along the Econ-
fina Creek just north of the Bay-Washington County line. Figure 16 is a list
of the geologic formations that occur in the surface and subsurface in Bay
County.
Opportunities to view the strata at the surface are limited because the
county is flat and, for the most part, low in elevation. The Econfina Creek is
the only stream which has cut deep enough into the near-surface sands to
expose any pre-Pleistocene deposits. Along the creek, the Jackson Bluff
Formation (Pliocene), the Intracoastal Formation (Miocene-Pliocene), and,
as mentioned above, the Chipola Formation can be see in outcrop.



IGNEOUS AND PALEOZOIC ROCKS

The igneous and Paleozoic rocks of Florida have been described by a
number of geologists (Grasty and Wilson 1967; Bass 1969; Milton and
Grasty 1969; Milton 1972; Barnett 1975). A number of very early
geologic age determinations from well samples from central Florida have
been made (Milton 1972). These rocks include "metabasalts" in Volusia
County. "granites" in Lake and Orange counties, "granite" and dioritee" in
St. Lucie County, and a "metabasalt" in Hilsborough County. Age deter-
minations on this group range from 226 6 million years through 308 5
million years, to 480 100(?) million years, or from Early Triassic or Late
Permian through Middle Pennsylvanian to Early Cambrian.
The Paleozoic sediments from deep wells in Florida have been
described and correlated by Applin (1951), Bridge and Berdan (1952),
and Cramer (1971). Strata range in age from Early Ordovician to Early
Devonian, based on fossil evidence. In the Bay County area very few deep
wells have been drilled. In the western part of the county a well drilled by
Charter Exploration Company bottomed at 12,191 feet below the surface
in a granite of possible late Pre-Cambrian age. Other deep wells drilled near
Bay County include two in Gulf County, one of which bottomed in a dacite
porphyry, and one which bottomed in a late Pre-Cambrian or early Cam-
brian granodiorite. Each of these were drilled to depths approaching
13,000 feet. In Washington County two wells drilled to about 11,500 feet
intersected a Cambrian or Upper Cambrian quartzite and meta-arkose. In
southern Walton County a well encountered granite at 14,480 feet below
the surface. This information was compiled by Barnett (1975). His study
utilized deep core samples to plot basement structure, in an attempt to
make tectonic implications for Florida's geologic past.







BULLETIN NO. 57







5 0 ROCK UNITS OR FORMATIONS, AND DESCRIPTIONS
w C 1
l -- g --
__ ___________________________.__i s


RECENT
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUARTZ SANDS


UNEISTODCENE

UNDIFFERENTIATED CLAYEY SANDS AND GRAVELS


JACKSON BLUFF FORMATION GRAY-OLIVE GREEN, CLAYEY, SANDY, SHELL MARL.







INTRACOASTAL FORMATION GRAY-OLIVE GREEN, SANDY, ARGILLACIOUS, POORLY CONSOL-
IDATED VERY MICROFOSSILIFEROUS CALCARENITE.


BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE WHITE TO LIGHT YELLOW, MODERATELY INDURATED, GRANU-
LAR LIMESTONE.


CHIPOLA FORMATION SANDY, VERY LIGHT-ORANGE, FOSSILIFEROUS LIMESTONE.



TAMPA STAGE LIMESTONES SANDY, MICRITIC, WHITE TO LIGHT GRAY LIMESTONES.


SUWANNEE LIMESTONE LIGHT GRAY TO YELLOW GRAY, DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE, OFTEN
HIGHLY ALTERED, SUCROSIC, ALTERED FOSSIL TYPES.
MARIANNA LIMESTONE LIGHT GRAY, MASSIVE, CHALKY, GLAUCONITIC, SLIGHTLY
SANDY LIMESTONE, ABUNDANT LARGE FORAMINIFERA.

OCALA LIMESTONE LIGHT ORANGE TO WHITE, HIGH POROSITY LIMESTONES; SMALL
AMOUNTS OF SAND AND CHERT, GLAUCONITE IN LOWER FACIES
ABUNDANT MICRO-FOSSILS.


TALLAHATTA


UNDIFFERENTIATED WILCOX


UNDIFFERENTIATED MIDWAY


SELMA GROUP


EUTAW FORMATION
TUSCALOOSA FORMATION


CREKAM-COULUKUO GLAUCONITIC, SANDY LIMESTONE; LIGIGT
GRAY CLAY; SOFT PYRITIC LIMESTONE; GRAY, CALCAREOUS
GLAUCONITIC SAND,__
CREAM-COLORED, GLAUCONITIC, SANDY, CLAYEY LIMESTONE
AND GRAY, SANDY, CALCAREOUS CLAY.


SANDY, CREAM-COLORED, GLAUCONITIC LIMESTONE; CALCAR-
EOUS SAND; GRAY, PASTY LIMESTONE; MICACEOUS CLAY.


GRAY, MICACEOUS, SANDY CLAY; WITH SEAMS OF SANDY, SOFT
LIMESTONE.


MARLS, CALCAREOUS CLAYS, AND LIMESTONE; INTERBEDDED
SANDS, GLAUCONITIC, MICACEOUS.


CALCAREOUS SANDSTONE, SANDY CHALK.
MARINE AND NON-MARINE SANDS AND SHALES.


LOWER UNDIFFERENTIATED REDDISH-BROWN SALES AND SANDSTONES
LOWER NSAEANSADTE.


COTTON VALLEY GROUP VARICOLORED MUDSTONE AND SANDSTONE.
HAYNESVILLE FORMATION RED-GRAY, CALCAREOUS SHALES, SANDSTONES, MICRITE.
SMACKOVER FORMATION LIMESTONE, DOLOMITIC LIMESTONES.
NORPHLET FORMATION RED SANDSTONES, SILTSTONES AND SHALES.


EAGLE MILLS FORMATION ARMGLCACA
INDURATED SHALES; OFTEN CONTAINS SILLS AND DIKES OF
IGNEOUS ROCKS.


QUARTZITE/META-ARKOSE



GRANITE "BASEMENT"?


27


O
O
0
ro"









O
0


0
0
P-7




O
O


O
q


Figure 16. Stratigraphic nomenclature for the geologic forma-

tions in Bay County.


>-
a

z

w


0
Z:

D
o


PLIOCENE






UPPER




MIDDLE
MIOCENE



LOWER


- I


w
z

(0
0
w
IJ
-I


OLIGOCENE










EOCENE


PALEOCENE


UPPER
CRETACEOUS


JURASSIC





TRIASSIC




S CAMBRIAN



PRE-CAMBRIAN


I


m


I


m .- --- I -


L ~~ -. -- -L -L -L -. -- -. ~ ~ -


YI~C~C~





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


MESOZOIC ERA


Descriptions of the Mesozoic rocks in the vicinity of Bay County have
been reported by Arden (1974), and Applegate and others (1978).
Overlying the Paleozoic igneous rocks is the Eagle Mills Formation of
Triassic age. This formation contains dikes or sills of basic igneous rocks.
Its overall lithology has been described by Applegate, et al. (1978) as well-
indurated, highly micaceous sandstones, argillaceous siltstones, and well-
indurated shales.
In the eastern part of the county, based on a deep oil test well (Permit
No. 746) near the Gulf County line, the Eagle Mills Formation is probably
absent, thinning from about 200 feet thick in western Bay County. This well
has the Norphlet, Smackover and Haynesville formations overlying the
basal granite. These formations are all Upper Jurassic in age. The Norphlet
is 267 feet thick and consists of red sandstones, siltstones and shales. The
Smackover Formation totals 163 feet thick and is composed of limestone
and dolomitic limestones. This unit revealed oil locked in a dense im-
permeable section of limestone and conglomeratic calcareous sandstone.
The next-younger formation, the Haynesville, is just over 300 feet in
thickness and is composed of red to gray, very well-indurated, calcareous
shales, a few well-sorted, fine-grained sandstones, and a few thin-bedded
micrites.
The three above-mentioned formations apparently thin westward, as
only a thin Haynesville section is present in a deep well drilled in western
Bay County. Further west these units thicken as they plunge into the
Mississippi Embayment. In a well drilled by Charter Exploration Company in
Section 27 of Township 1S, Range 17W, or near the Pine Log State
Forest, the Eagle Mills Formation is overlain by 2,600 feet of the Cotton
Valley Group sediments. This group also overlies the Haynesville in eastern
Bay County. The Cotton Valley is upper most Jurrassic in age, and is a
varicolored mudstone and coarse sandstone.
Above the Cotton Valley are undifferentiated Lower Cretaceous sands
and shales. These units vary from 5,000 to 6,000 feet in thickness. Above
these lie the white sands of the Lower Tuscaloosa Formation, which is Up-
per Cretaceous in age.
The Tuscaloosa Formation has been divided into three members, a
nonmarine lower Tuscaloosa, marine Tuscaloosa, and upper Tuscaloosa.
The nonmarine lower member is a poorly sorted, gray to green, fine to
coarse sand and variegated shales. The marine member is a gray,
laminated, micaceous, glauconitic, hard shale, with shell fragments and car-
bonaceous seams and flecks. The upper member consists of gray to
cream, fine, calcareous, micaceous clayey, silty sandstone with beds of
calcareous shale. The thickness of the Tuscaloosa varies, but has been
reported to be over 700 feet in thickness (Puri and Vernon, 1964).
Overlying the Tuscaloosa in Panhandle Florida is the Eutaw Formation,
a gray to cream, calcareous, fine sandstone that changes downdip into a





BULLETIN NO. 57


soft, pasty, sandy chalk with limestone seams. It ranges between 150 and
300 feet in thickness.
Above the Eutaw are sediments of Austin Age. These beds are
equivalent to the Mooreville Chalk in Alabama. In northwest Florida these
sediments are gray, soft, glauconitic, micaceous, fine to coarse quartz
sand interbedded with gray-green, soft, calcareous, thin-bedded clay,
averaging 350 to 450 feet thick.
Overlying the Austin Age sediments are beds of Taylor Age. They are
cream to gray, clayey, pasty chalk with thin beds of calcareous clay and
marl. Their thickness is generally less than 500 feet.
The uppermost Cretaceous sediments are beds of Navarro Age. The
presence of these sediments is questionable in northwest Florida. A thin,
gray, pasty marl at the top of the Taylor beds occurs in the western Panhan-
dle. Its presence in the Bay County vicinity has not been shown.
The Mesozoic sediments total approximately 10,000 feet in combined
thickness in the vicinity of Bay County. Their first occurrence generally is
found deeper than 3,000 feet below sea level, and the sequence con-
tinues to about 13,000 feet below sea level.

CENOZOIC ERA

In the Florida Panhandle an unconformity separates the basal
Paleocene sediments from the Upper Cretaceous rocks (Applin and Applin,
1944; Rainwater, 1960). The closest to Bay County that this unconformity
has been reported is in the vicinity of Tallahassee. Applin and Applin (1944)
have stated that in the Tallahassee area Paleocene strata lie unconformably
on beds of Taylor Age, with the Navarro equivalent and upper beds of
Taylor Age being present.

PALEOCENE SERIES

MIDWAY STAGE

The Paleocene Series in Northwest Florida consists of plastic beds of
Midway Age. The Midway Stage has been divided into three units in
Alabama: the Clayton, Porters Creek, and Naheola formations. In the
panhandle of Florida these formations are undifferentiated, which led
Chen (1965) to treat the entire stage as the Midway Formation.
Lithologically, the formation consists of dark green-gray, micaceous and
slightly glauconitic, laminated, and calcareous shales, with minor amounts
of thin-bedded argillaceous and fossiliferous limestones, and glauconitic
and calcareous sandstones. The thickness of these sediments varies from
250 to 750 feet throughout the central panhandle.
The Midway Formation underlies the entire Florida Panhandle and ex-
tends widely throughout the southeastern coastal plain. Regionally, the ver-
tical and lateral changes of lithologic character and thickness of the unit are
rather great, as demonstrated by Chen (1965). His isopach-lithofacies





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


maps indicate that the plastic sediments, such as glauconitic and
arenaceous shale and sandstones, are more dominant around the Chat-
tahoochee Arch than elsewhere in the panhandle. In addition, calcareous
shale is a major lithologic component that occurs over most of the panhan-
dle region, except in the southeastern area, where limestone is predomi-
nant.

EOCENE SERIES

The Eocene Series in the southeastern Gulf Coastal Plain has been
divided into three stages. These stages are the Wilcox Stage, which is
Lower Eocene; the Claiborne Stage, which is Middle Eocene; and the
Jackson Stage, which is Upper Eocene.

WILCOX STAGE

The Wilcox Stage has been divided into three formations in southern
Alabama, where it crops out. The stratigraphic equivalent of these three
formations (the Nanafalia, Tuscahoma, and Hatchetigbee formations) has
been recognized in the Florida Panhandle as undifferentiated Wilcox. Chen
(1965), as he did with the Midway Stage, again treats the Wilcox Stage in
northwest Florida as a formation.
In the outcrop belt in Alabama to the north of the study area, the Wilcox
Stage has been demonstrated to be unconformable with both overlying and
underlying rocks. In Florida, however, no distinctive geologic evidence of
unconformable relationships is recognized. The top of the Wilcox is
generally drawn on the first appearance of green-gray and slightly
calcareous shale; or gray, glauconitic, arenaceous and calcareous shale; or
brown, unfossiliferous limestone. The base of the formation is defined by
the top of the Midway Formation.
In the Florida Panhandle the Wilcox Formation includes marine and
deltaic plastic sediments. These consist of glauconitic and calcareous
sandstone; and green-gray, micaceous, calcareous, glauconitic and silty
shale.
Chen (1965) shows, by using regional lithofacies maps, that the
amounts of plastic sediments decrease southeastward away from the
panhandle toward peninsular Florida. His maps also show the Wilcox to vary
in thickness from less than 200 feet in the eastern panhandle to near
1,000 feet southeastward.

CLAIBORNE STAGE

TALLAHATTA FORMATION, LISBON FORMATION

The exposed strata of the Claiborne Stage in southern Alabama have
been divided into three formations; which are in ascending order: the
Tallahatta Formation, the Lisbon Formation, and the Gosport Sand. Further





BULLETIN NO. 57


downdip in the subsurface of northwest Florida, the sediments become
more calcareous and less readily differentiated into distinct formations
(Toulmin, 1955). As a result, the Claiborne is divided into only two forma-
tions in the western part of Panhandle Florida; the Lisbon Formation at the
top and the Tallahatta Formation below. These formations are correlative in
time of deposition with the Avon Park Limestone and the Lake City
Limestone, respectively, in peninsular Florida.
The Tallahatta in northwest Florida consists of glauconitic and
calcareous sandstone; green-gray, glauconitic, arenaceous, and
calcareous shale; and glauconitic, argillaceous limestone. The Lisbon is
commonly a glauconitic, arenaceous, and fossiliferous limestone with some
beds of calcareous shale. The combined thickness of the Claiborne near
Bay County approaches 800 feet.

JACKSON STAGE

OCALA GROUP

LOWER FACIES, UPPER FACIES

The literature pertaining to the Ocala Group is extensive, and has been
adequately reviewed in previous publications and will not be repeated here.
Summaries are contained in Vernon (1942, 1951), Cooke (1945), Puri
(1957) and Puri and Vernon (1964).
The Upper Eocene strata in Florida have been separated by Puri
(1957), on the basis of a detailed biostratigraphic study, into three forma-
tions of the Ocala Group; the Inglis, the Williston, and the Crystal River, in
ascending order.
In Panhandle Florida the Ocala crops out in Jackson and Holmes coun-
ties, which are located along the Alabama state line north of Bay County.
In his study on Holmes and Washington counties, Vernon (1942) was
able to divide the Ocala into two lithologic facies. The lower facies is typical-
ly developed in southern Alabama; it bears a lower Jackson fauna, and con-
sists of greenish-gray, glauconitic, sandy limestone. The upper and more
typical facies is exposed in Holmes County, and is described by Vernon as
a limestone that is light yellow to white, massive, and porous, and often
silicified.
The Ocala was described in Jackson County by Moore (1955). He
describes its lithology as a white to cream colored, generally soft, granular,
permeable, fossiliferous, pure limestone. Overlying the Ocala, Moore iden-
tifies the Bumpnose Limestone Member of the Crystal River Formation (the
youngest and uppermost formation of the Ocala Group). The Bumpnose is
characterized by soft, white limestones with Lepidocyclina chaperi (a large
flat foraminifera).
The top of the Ocala Group dips between 10 and 15 feet per mile as it
approaches Bay County from the north (Vernon, 1942; Schmidt and Coe,
1978). In Bay County the Ocala is entirely a subsurface unit. In this study





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


the Ocala was intersected in only a few wells, those being in the northern
part of the county, and the wells are too few and too poorly distributed to
sufficiently calculate a dip; however, the general trend of 10 to 15 feet per
mile is expected to continue southward to the gulf.
The three formations into which Puri (1957) divided the Ocala are not
recognizable in Bay County. As a result, the system devised by Vernon
(1942), that is, an upper and lower faces, is applied in Bay County. The
lower facies consists of a light orange to white limestone with high porosity,
both micrite and sparry calcite cement, crystal and skeletal grain types,
small amounts of glauconite and sand, and abundant fossils. Dominant
fossils include foraminifera, mollusks, echinoids, bryozoans, and corals.
The large foraminifera are dominated by species of Lepidocyclina, Oper-
culinoides and Asterocyclina. The upper facies is similar, except that
glauconite is rare and chert is more common.
The total thickness of the Ocala in Bay County can be estimated from
the available data. In the northern part of the county, thicknesses are less
than 200 feet, the top of the Ocala being over 300 feet below sea level. In
the south the top of the Ocala dips to approximately 800 feet below sea
level and attains a thickness of over 400 feet. The dip and thickness,
therefore, increases in a nearly due-south direction.


OLIGOCENE SERIES

VICKSBURG STAGE

MARIANNA LIMESTONE

Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletins 21, 29 and 54 (Vernon, 1942;
Cooke, 1945; and Yon and Hendry, 1972) contain historical summaries
pertaining to the Vicksburg Stage sediments.
The Marianna Limestone was originally named by Matson and Clapp
(1909, pp. 51-52). They described a soft, porous, light gray to white
limestone at Marianna, Jackson County, Florida. The outcropping Marianna
is exposed at the surface along a narrow band striking nearly east-west
through Marianna, Florida. In Holmes County, the outcrop belt turns to the
north and the strike changes to northwest-southeast as it crosses the
Alabama state line.
From the outcrop area in Holmes and Jackson counties the Marianna
Limestone dips gently towards the gulf coast (Vernon, 1942; Moore,
1955; Schmidt and Coe, 1978) at approximately 11 to 13 feet per mile. Its
dip into southern Bay County is estimated to increase slightly to perhaps 15
or 16 feet per mile. The thickness is generally uniform in Jackson, Holmes
and Washington counties, but can be expected to thicken slightly in Bay
County.
The few wells that penetrate the Marianna in northern Bay County in-
dicate it can be characterized as a light gray, massive, chalky limestone.





BULLETIN NO. 57


Commonly present are large foraminifera of the genera Lepidocyclina.
Small amounts of glauconite and sand are common, as are sparry calcite,
and rare occurrences of pyrite.

SUWANNEE LIMESTONE

The name Suwannee Limestone was first used by Cooke and Mansfield
(1936) to describe exposures of a hard, crystalline, yellowish limestone
visible on the Suwannee River between Ellaville (Suwannee County) and
White Springs (Hamilton County). Later, Vernon (1942), Cooke (1945),
and Moore (1 955) established the formation's presence in the panhandle
of Florida.
The outcrop belt in the north-central panhandle parallels that of the
Marianna Limestone. The Suwannee in this area has been mapped and
reported by Vernon (1942), Moore (1955), and Reves (1961). In general,
it can be described as a tan to bluff-colored, dolomitic, and sometimes
clayey, limestone. In some areas the Suwannee is predominantly dolomitic.
In Bay County, the Suwannee Limestone has been identified from a few
wells along the northern and eastern edges of the county. It consists of
light-gray to yellow-gray limestone, with micrite and biogenic grain types; it
is moderately indurated and contains fossil mollusks and foraminifera.
Locally, the limestone may be dolomitized, and shows a sucrosic dolomitic
lithology that is highly altered and well indurated, with recrystallized fossils.
The Suwannee averages 50 to 70 feet in thickness in Washington
County and appears to maintain that thickness in Bay County. The top of
the formation dips to the south towards the Gulf from an elevation of about
100 feet below sea level along the northern edge of the county, to more
than 500 feet below sea level in the southeast end of the county, a dip of
about 13 or 14 feet per mile.

MIOCENE AND PLIOCENE SERIES

TAMPA STAGE

HISTORY The name Tampa Formation was first used by Johnson
(1888, p. 235) for the limestone sediments exposed near some of the
lakes and bays in the Tampa area. Prior to 1888 other geologists had
described the rocks exposed in that area; however, none gave the deposits
a name (for a historical summary see Vernon, 1942).
Later, Dall (1892) gave a more complete description of these ex-
posures and distinguished two facies, which he named and included within
the "Tampa Limestone". After further study, Dall (1892) then included the
"Tampa", "Chipola", and "Alum Bluff" beds from the panhandle in a "Tam-
pa Group".
Matson and Clapp (1909) used the "Tampa Formation" for those
sediments restricted to the vicinity near Tampa, Florida. Mossom (1925,
1926) included some outcrops near Brooksville in the Tampa Formation,





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


and he retained the name "Chattahoochee Formation" (of Dall, 1892) for
the strata he considered separate but contemporaneous near and west of
the Apalachicola River.
In 1929, Cooke and Mossom abandoned the name Tampa Formation
and used the "Tampa Limestone". They then proceeded to redefine the
Tampa to include the Tampa Formation of earlier workers, the "Chat-
tahoochee", and part of Matson and Clapp's (1 909) Hawthorn Formation.
Cooke and Mansfield (1936) restricted the previous definition of the
Tampa and included the lower portions of it in their new Suwannee
Limestone. Cooke (1940) subsequently equated the Tampa Limestone
with the Chickasawhay Formation of Mississippi, based on mollusks.
In 1942, Vernon, in his study of Holmes and Washington counties in
Panhandle Florida, reviewed the original name Tampa Formation, and
revised it to include "all sediments lying above the Suwannee Limestone
and below the Alum Bluff Group." His lithologic description included sand,
silts, clay, marls and limestone, and he further stated that the limestone
facies was restricted to the lower part only.
Cooke (1945) later correlated the fossiliferous portion of the Chat-
tahoochee Limestone with the Tampa. The rocks exposed in western
Florida, described by Vernon (1942) were later described as Lower
Miocene in the Third Field Trip of the Southeastern Geological Society
(1945).
Puri (1953), in a biostratigraphic study of the Miocene of the Florida
Panhandle, revived the term Chattahoochee to include the updip silty and
clayey facies of the Tampa Stage. The Tampa Stage of Puri included all
Miocene sediments lying between the Oligocene Series and the Alum Bluff
Stage. That definition included similar sediments exposed in the Florida
Panhandle and their equivalents in the Central and Western Gulf states. In
the Florida Panhandle, Puri (1953) recognized two lithofacies of the Tampa
Stage; a calcareous St. Marks facies downdip and a silty Chattahoochee
facies updip.
Moore (1955), two years after Puri's work, reported on the geology of
Jackson County, Florida. This county is located in the limestone outcrop
belt of the Florida Panhandle. Moore preferred to go back to Cooke and
Mansfield's (1 936) definition, but used the term Tampa Formation instead
of Tampa Limestone because he felt in Jackson County that the formation is
primarily clay and clayey marl.
Hendry and Yon (1958), in a report on the geology of the area in and
around the Jim Woodruff Reservoir, used Puri's (1953) definitions and
discussed the Chattahoochee facies in the vicinity.
Reves (1961) erroneously attributed Puri (1953) with referring the
Chattahoochee and St. Marks to formation status for the Panhandle
sediments. In fact, Puri used "facies" to describe these sediments,
whereas the "Chattahoochee Formation" was first used by Dall (1894) in
describing the beds exposed along the Apalachicola River near the town of
Chattahoochee.
Since Reves work in 1961, Puri and Vernon (1964) published their






BULLETIN NO. 57


comprehensive Summary of the Geology of Florida. In that report they
established the Chattahoochee Formation and the St. Marks Formation as
comprising the Tampa Stage (Lower Miocene). They included type locality
descriptions for both formations, but did not attempt to map their areal ex-
tent. Since 1964, several publications have reported on the geology of
various areas throughout the Florida Panhandle, and all have used Puri and
Vernon's nomenclature. Their description describes the St. Marks facies
downdip as calcareous, and the updip Chattahoochee as a silty facies.


LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION Bay County is a considerable distance
west of the "type" description for the formations in the Tampa Stage. The
county is 50-60 miles southwest of the town of Chattahoochee and about
100 miles west of the town of St. Marks. Because the cuttings obtained from
wells in Bay County do not correspond precisely with either the Chat-
tahoochee or St. Marks formations the interval will be described as Tampa
Stage Undifferentiated. The limestone exhibits lithotypes similar to the St.
Marks description; however, chalky, silty and sandy horizons which are
associated with the Chattahoochee are not uncommon.
The Tampa Stage limestones in Bay County, as observed from well cut-
tings and core samples, can be described as a white to light gray limestone
with biogenic, micritic and crystal grain types, moderately indurated with a
micrite cement, minor amounts of quartz sand and a trace of pyrite. It often
has a chalky appearance and contains fossil remains of foraminifera, coral,
and mollusks.


THICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTION As shown by geologic cross section
A-A' (fig. 31), the thickness of the Tampa in Bay County is variable. Along
the northern part of the county its thickness ranges between 50 and 100
feet. The thickness can be expected to stay within that range as the unit
dips to the south. The top of the Tampa dips from approximately sea-level in
the northern part of the county to nearly 500 feet below sea-level at the ex-
treme southeastern corner of the county. This calculates to a dip of ap-
proximately 17 to 18 feet per mile in a southerly direction; this is an
estimate due to the undifferentiated nature of the Tampa downdip. The
strike of the Tampa is approximately east-west in Bay County.
The Tampa stage is entirely subsurface in Bay County, and its upper
part may lithologically grade into the Chipola and Bruce Creek Limestones
downdip. The transition zone where lower Bruce Creek, Chipola, and Tam-
pa become indistinguishable is not clearly understood; however, the zone
can be generally located as shown on cross-sections E-E', F-F', H-H',
and I-I' (figs. 35-39). In general, the first hard limestone penetrated in a
well in the northern quarter of the county is Tampa, whereas the southern
part is underlain by Bruce Creek; the Chipola being a less competent
limestone. For further discussion see the lithologic description of the Bruce
Creek Limestone and figure 27 in this report.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


PALEONTOLOGY AND AGE Many authors in previous publications
have described the fossils identified from the Tampa (Dall 1890, 1915;
Mansfield, 1937; Puri, 1953; Weisbord, 1973). The majority of the fauna
includes mollusks, corals, and benthic foraminifers. Poag (1972) reported
on some planktonic foraminifers of the Chicksawhay Formation along the
Gulf Coast. On the basis of samples collected from the Tampa at Falling
Water Sink in Washington County, he placed the basal portion of the Chat-
tahoochee Formation in the Late Oligocene.
Banks and Hunter (1973) reported on post-Tampa, pre-Chipola
sediments in the eastern Florida Panhandle. They applied the name the Tor-
reya Formation to clays, sands and shell beds found in Liberty, Gadsden,
Leon, and Wakulla counties. The stratigraphic position of the Torreya was
determined by the presence of Miogypsinids (a foraminifera genera).

ALUM BLUFF STAGE

HISTORY The name Alum Bluff beds was used by Dall (1892) to
describe the unfossiliferous sands and clays between the Chipola Marl and
the upper fossiliferous beds at Alum Bluff on the Apalachicola River. Matson
and Clapp (1909) expanded the unit to include as members the Chipola
Marl, the Oak Grove Sand, and the Shoal River Marl. They used the term as
a formation and added other members, in addition to the three mentioned
above. Gardner (1926) felt the faunal differences between the Chipola,
Oak Grove, and Shoal River were great enough to raise the Alum Bluff For-
mation to group rank. Cooke and Mossom (1929) used the name Hawthorn
Formation (first used by Dall, 1892, in Central Florida) for beds they felt
were equivalent in age to the Alum Bluff Group, and found east of the
Apalachicola River. Cooke (1945) then divided the Alum Bluff Group into
three formations: the Hawthorn (east of the Apalachicola River), the
Chipola, and the Shoal River (both west of the Apalachicola River). Puri
(1953) added the Oak Grove of Gardner (1926) to Cooke's three forma-
tions and called them all facies of the Alum Bluff Stage (Middle Miocene).
Later, Puri and Vernon (1964) included in the Alum Bluff Stage the Shoal
River, Oak Grove, Chipola, and Hawthorn formations, and added the Pen-
sacola Clay, Course Clastics, and Fort Preston formations.
Huddlestun (1976) redefined the marine deposits of the "Central
Florida Panhandle." He included in the Alum Bluff Group five formations: the
Chipola Formation, the Oak Grove Sand, the Shoal River Formation, the
Choctawhatchee Formation, and the Jackson Bluff Formation. The main
mass of the Alum Bluff Group was considered by Huddlestun to be
restricted to the eastern margin of the Gulf Coast Basin and to the vicinity of
the Chattahoochee Arch (see fig. 15). Planktonic foraminifera were used
by Huddlestun to establish the time of deposition of the deposits. He
reported the Chipola Formation to be Early Miocene, the Oak Grove Sand
and part of the Shoal River Formation to be Middle Miocene, the Choc-
tawhatchee Formation of Late Miocene Age, and the Jackson Bluff Forma-
tion to be Pliocene in age.





BULLETIN NO. 57


Later, in 1977, Huddlestun and Wright reported on a sea-level lowering
that took place in Late Miocene time. Their evidence came from the Choc-
tawhatchee Formation as defined by Huddlestun (1976).
In Bay County the Chipola and Jackson Bluff formations are recognized
and mappable. In addition, the Bruce Creek Limestone is recognized. The
Bruce Creek is discussed in detail in a later section.

CHIPOLA FORMATION

HISTORY The name Chipola Formation was suggested by Burns in
1889 (in Dall, 1892). He discovered and made large collections from shell
beds exposed on the Chipola and Apalachicola Rivers. Dall and Stanley-
Brown (1894) visited the area a few years later and called the formation the
Chipola shell marl. Matson and Clapp (1909) included these beds as a
member in their Alum Bluff Formation, and Gardner (1926) later promoted
the member to a formation. In 1953, Puri referred to the Chipola as a faces
of the Alum Bluff Stage; then, with Vernon (1964), they redefined it as a
formation once again.

LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION The Chipola Formation has been
described by Puri and Vernon (1964) in the area of its type locality as a
blue-gray to yellowish brown, highly fossiliferous marl studded with
molluscan shells. They further state that this marly facies only exists in the
vicinity of the Chipola and Apalachicola Rivers. Further west, Cooke (1945)
described two other facies: a sandy limestone which he said is mostly sub-
surface, and a light colored, coarse, sandy facies that contains clay.
In the Bay County area the Chipola paraconformably overlies the Tam-
pa Stage sediments of Late Oligocene Early Miocene age and it, in turn, is
paraconformably overlain by the upper part of the Middle Miocene Bruce
Creek Limestone, and the Pliocene Jackson Bluff Formation.
The lithology of the Chipola varies slightly throughout its areal extent in
Bay County; however, it can be summarized as a very light orange, sandy
limestone, with crystal, micrite and pellet grain types, fine to coarse grain
size, a sparry calcite and micrite cement, with foraminifera, mollusks, coral
and bryozoans. Its induration, porosity, sand content, and occasionally the
presence of argillaceous material, are the common lithologic variables.
The Chipola is distinguishable from the underlying Tampa sediments in
that the Tampa is generally a pure white limestone with relatively rare
fossils. The Chipola is distinguished from the Bruce Creek again by the lat-
ter being a purer limestone. This distinction is a subtle one and often dif-
ficult to identify.

THICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTION The Tampa and Chipola sediments
are indistinguishable from the Bruce Creek Limestone downdip (figs. 35 and
39). The Chipola Formation, therefore, is not mapped in the southern half of
Bay County. Along the Washington County line (fig. 28) the unit appears to
strike almost east-west and maintains a thickness of about 50 feet. The top





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


of the formation dips along the strike from near sea-level east of the Econ-
fina Creek to about 150 feet below sea level near East River, a dip of about
five feet per mile.

PALEONTOLOGY AND AGE The molluscan fauna of the Chipola was
first recorded by Burns in 1889 (in Dall, 1892). He made collections from a
shell bed on the Chipola River. His field notes were unpublished but ob-
tained by the U.S. Geological Survey. Gardner (1926) collected samples
from a number of outcrops in the Florida Panhandle, including the Econfina
Creek in Bay County. Her report is a comprehensive study of the molluscan
fauna of the Alum Bluff Group. In 1965, Vokes commented on the age of
the Chipola, as indicated by the Muricinae (Mollusca: Gastropoda). She
suggested that the formation might be equivalent to the Helvetian of Europe
(lower Middle Miocene). A number of additional reports on the fauna of the
Chipola Formation have been published in the Tulane Studies in Geology
and Paleontology Series (vols. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13). The benthic
foraminifera of the Chipola Formation were described by Cushman (1920),
Cushman and Ponton (1932), and Puri (1953). Puri's report also included
a list of identified ostracod species. Planktonic foraminifera were described
by Gibson (1967), Akers (1972), and Huddlestun (1976). Gibson (1967)
stated in his report that the planktonic foraminifera indicated correlation with
the Globigerinatella insueta Zone, the same zone to which he refers the up-
per part of the Calvert Formation of Maryland and the Pungo River Forma-
tion of North Carolina. Akers (1972) agreed with Gibson on the G. insueta
Zone, for which a Burdigalian age is assigned (upper Lower Miocene). Hud-
dlestun (1976a) also put the Chipola in that zone and further stated that he
considered it to be transitional in age between the Early and Middle
Miocene.
In addition to foraminifera, Akers (1972) discovered the presence of
some calcareous nannofossils in the Chipola material. He reported occur-
rences of Discoaster deflandrei Bramlette and Riedel, and Braarudosphaera
bigelowi (Gran and Braarud) Deflandre, as well as small unidentified coc-
coliths in low frequencies. Coral species from the Chipola were reported by
Vaughan (1919) and Weisbord (1971). Finally, Bender (1971), in sam-
pling corals from the Chipola, dated them using the He/U radiometric age.
He placed a concordant age of 14-18 m. y. on ten of the samples. This
would put the Chipola in the early Middle Miocene or late Lower Miocene.

BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE

HISTORY The Bruce Creek Limestone was named by Huddlestun in
1976. He included it in a group of three formations he mapped in coastal
Walton County. The three formations in ascending order are the Bruce
Creek Limestone, the St. Joe Limestone, and the Intracoastal Limestone.
Huddlestun placed these three formations in the Coastal Group, which he
explained was a new name for Alum Bluff equivalent carbonate units that
underlies the coastal area of Walton County and vicinity.




BULLETIN NO. 57


Huddlestun's description of the Coastal Group also states that he could
only recognize two lithologic types within the group. The first type is usually
a well-indurated, coarsely calcarenitic, light colored, poorly microfossil-
iferous limestone; and the second type is a younger (and therefore overly-
ing), unconsolidated to moderately indurated, extremely microfossiliferous,
less coarsely calcarenitic, argillaceous, glauconitic, and phosphatic
limestone; and colors range from olive to yellowish gray.
The Coastal Group is recognized by Huddlestun as far west as Niceville
in Okaloosa County, and as far east as Carrabelle in Franklin County. He
further states that it is not present in southern Washington County, or at
Alum Bluff in Liberty County.
Lithologies from this formation have been referred to previously as a
limestone facies of the Chipola Formation (Gardner, 1926; Cooke and
Mossom, 1929). Limestones of similar description were reported by
Cooke and Mossom (1929) in southwestern Washington County in the
vicinity of the Choctawhatchee River.
The type locality of the Bruce Creek Limestone, as designated by Hud-
dlestun (1976), is several hundred feet downstream from the county road
bridge over Bruce Creek in T1N, R18W, north-half of section 2, Walton
County, Florida. At this locality, one to two feet of pale bluish-green, uncon-
solidated, soft, slightly argillaceous, sandy, slightly macrofossiliferous
limestone is exposed. It is mostly a subsurface unit and, at this writing, the
type locality is the only known exposure.

LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION Samples from the type outcrop on
Bruce Creek in Walton County can be correlated lithologically with cuttings
and cores from areas in Bay County. As noted for Walton County, the
downdip carbonates can be divided into two broad lithologic types in Bay
County also. The two units consist of well-consolidated, white to light gray
limestone, overlain by a poorly consolidated, argillaceous, abundantly
microfossiliferous limestone. The lower unit corresponds to the Bruce
Creek Limestone as mapped in Walton County by Huddlestun (1976).
In Bay County the Bruce Creek Limestone is a white to light yellow-
gray, moderately indurated, granular to calcarenitic limestone. It may con-
tain up to 20 percent quartz sand, with common minor accessories being
phosphorite, glauconite, and pyrite. In some locations sparry calcite or
dolomite is present. It is commonly cemented by micrite and becomes less
indurated towards the east. The Bruce Creek Limestone is dominated by
macrofossils, but microfossils including planktonic and benthic foraminifera,
ostracods, bryozoans, and calcareous nannofossils are also present.
The Bruce Creek is overlain in Bay County by the Intracoastal Forma-
tion or the Jackson Bluff Formation. It can be distinguished from the In-
tracoastal unit by containing less sand, clay and phosphate. It is also much
more indurated and crystalline. The Bruce Creek constrasts also in color
with a white to light yellow-gray being easily distinguished from the olive-
gray green color of the Intracoastal. Lastly, the Bruce Creek is less
fossiliferous than the Intracoastal with the latter having abundant





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


microfossils. In northern Bay County the Bruce Creek is sometimes overlain
by the Jackson Bluff Formation. The Jackson Bluff is much less indurated
and contains larger quantities of sand and clay. The Jackson Bluff is essen-
tially an olive-green shell marl, which is easily distinguished from the white,
crystalline to micritic Bruce Creek Limestone.
Underlying the Bruce Creek is the Chipola Limestone. The differences
between the Chipola and Bruce Creek are subtle. The Chipola is light
orange-gray, in contrast with the white to light yellowish-gray color of the
Bruce Creek. In addition, the Bruce Creek was not observed to contain
fossil corals, as does the Chipola. Downdip, because the two units are
lithologically so similar, their relationship is unclear. The lower Bruce
Creek's lithology apparently grades into the upper Chipola as it trends from
north to south. In the southern part of the county the Bruce Creek, Chipola,
and Tampa Stage limestones become lithologically indistinguishable. The
Suwannee Limestone of Oligocene age, underlies this undifferentiated
Bruce Creek Chipola Tampa type lithology (figure 27). Although the
Suwannee is similar to this unit in overall appearance, it is much more in-
durated and crystalline, and generally dolomitic. There is also a reduction in
the quartz sand and fossil content in the Suwannee. Better coverage in the
form of well samples and cores would aid in the understanding of this rela-
tionship.

THICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTION The Bruce Creek Limestone is
found in the subsurface throughout most of Bay County. The only area from
which it is absent is the northeastern corner of the county (fig. 17). It ex-
tends westward across southern Walton County and is thought to lose its
identity somewhere in southern Okaloosa County. To the east the Bruce
Creek has been identified in a core on St. Joe Spit in Gulf County and in a
core near Dead Lake in Calhoun County. Beyond this, its eastern extent is
uncertain. Huddlestun (1976), however, reported that the Bruce Creek
Limestone exists as far east as Franklin County. The unit thins updip and
finally pinches out in the northeastern corner of the county. The Bruce
Creek is a very low angle wedge-shaped deposit reaching a maximum
thickness along the Gulf Coast of about 300 feet. Because very few wells
penetrate the entire thickness of the Bruce Creek along the coast, an
isopach map of the limestone was not constructed.
The top of the unit strikes northwest-southeast and dips approximately
to the southwest. In the northern part of Bay County elevations of greater
than 50 feet below sea-level are common. It dips to 300 feet below sea-
level along the coast, at a gentle dip of approximately 12 feet per mile (fig.
17).

PALEONTOLOGY AND AGE In Walton County, Huddlestun (1976)
dated the Bruce Creek Limestone as Middle Miocene (Langhian Stage of
Europe), based on planktonic foraminifera identified from a clay bed within
the unit. In Bay County the clay unit is absent, and planktonic foraminifera
are rare in most other parts of the formation. The presence of





BULLETIN NO. 57


Globigerinoides sp. at the base of the unit establishes the Bruce Creek as
Miocene or younger in Bay County also.
The following planktonic foraminifera were listed by Huddlestun (1976)
as being identified from the Bruce Creek Limestone in Walton County:
Cassigerinella chipolensis Globigerinitella insueta
Globigerina praebulloides praebulloides Globoquadrina dehiscens
G. bulloides G. altispira
G. druryi Globorotalia fohsi peripheroronda
G. eamesi G. fohsi lobata
G. falconensis G. fohsi praefohsi
G. foliata G. mayor
G. quinqueloba G. cf. minutissima
Globigerinita glutinata G. praemenardii archeomenardii
G. uvula Globorotaloides hexagona variablis
Globigerinoides sicana Praeorbulina glomerosa curva
G. sacculifera sacculifera P. glomerosa glomerosa
G. sacculifera quadrilobata Sphaeroidinellopsis seminulina
G. subquadrata
Calcareous nannofossils are also present in the Bruce Creek
Limestone in Bay and Walton counties; however, due to the crystalline and
well-indurated nature of the rock, their preservation is poor. As a result,
positive identification is difficult and only a few long ranging species were
noted. Representatives of the genera Discoaster, Baarudosphaera, and
Scyphosphaera were identified.
Other microfossils common in the Bruce Creek include benthic
foraminifera, ostracods, bryozoans, and echinoid remains. Macrofossils
present are dominated by mollusks.

CHOCTAWHATCHEE STAGE

HISTORY- Sediments of the Choctawhatchee Stage in northwest
Florida are exposed in a narrow band extending from 20 miles west of
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, northwest to DeFuniak Springs, Walton
County, Florida, a distance of about 80 miles. The exposed sediments are
tan, orange-brown, or gray-green sandy clays, clayey sands, and shell
marls. The outcrops are generally poorly exposed and of small extent. Sub-
surface control is also weak, with true stratigraphic relationships being
poorly understood.
Langdon (1889) first published on sediments in this area, when he
described the outcrop at Alum Bluff, Liberty County. He called the strata
the "Alum Bluff deposits", which he equated with the Miocene of the
Carolinas. In 1894, Dall and Stanley-Brown re-described the section at
Alum Bluff and applied the name "Alum Bluff Formation" to the lower
fossiliferous sands. They named the upper fossiliferous marl the "Ecphora
bed" after a gastropod which they considered characteristic of that bed.
They also reported the "Ecphora bed" along the Chipola River in Calhoun
County and at Jackson Bluff in Leon County.
Matson and Clapp (1909) were first to use the term "Choctawhatchee
Marl." They derived the name from the Choctawhatchee River where a






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


R17w R16w R15w RI4W Ri3W RII2W

JACKSON CO.



BRUCE
T h[T / CREE K
iMESTONE







ST 50 FT-30
TINs ABE TIN



-tOOFT.





-15OFT. 1







'17W R1 O2 -R50 FT.
49200FTs
91













-250Figure 17. Structural contour map of the top of the Bruce Creek
$T CONTOUR N AL OF-IOOFT.






Dequivat to te "Ec a b" at Alm B. In 1929, Coe
-27
-T4300FTT













Mossom, 1929) recognized three faunal zones within the "Choctawhat-RI

Figure 17. Structural contour map of the top of the Bruce Creek
Limestone.



fossiliferous clayey marl is exposed in the banks. This marl they considered
equivalent to the "Ecphora bed" at Alum Bluff. In 1929, Cooke and
Mossom referred the "Choctawhatchee Marl" to the "Choctawhatchee
Formation." On the basis of the molluscan fauna, Mansfield (in Cooke and
Mossom, 1929) recognized three faunal zones within the "Choctawhat-
chee Formation." The oldest was the Arca zone, the second was the Ec-
phora zone, and the third and youngest was named the Cancellaria zone.
Later, in a report co-authored with Ponton (Mansfield and Ponton, 1932),
Mansfield named a fourth faunal zone, the Yoldia zone. Mansfield and Pon-
ton considered the Yoldia and Arca zones to be Middle Miocene and the
Ecphora and Cancellaria zones to be Late Miocene.


42





BULLETIN 57


Smith (1941) used the name "Permenter's Farm beds" for a unit he felt
was older than the Ecphora zone but younger than Arca. He considered
these beds, which were located on the old Permenter farm south of
DeFuniak Springs, to be Middle Miocene in age.
Vernon (1942), in his study of the geology of Holmes and Washington
counties, decided these four zones were approximately the same age but
were different facies within the "Choctawhatchee Formation." Cooke
(1945) abandoned the name "Choctawhatchee Formation" and placed the
Yoldia and Arca zones in the Middle Miocene "Shoal River Formation," and
the Ecphora and Cancellaria zones in the "Duplin Marl" of Late Miocene
age. He felt a major unconformity existed between these two formations,
which represented a regression of the sea throughout the entire Atlantic
Coastal Plain.
Purl (1953) divided the "Miocene Series" into three stages, the upper-
most of which was the "Choctawhatchee Stage." In this stage he placed
four "biofacies": the Yoldia, Arca, Ecphora, and Cancellaria after Vernon
(1942). He considered the Yoldia and Arca biofacies to be down-dip time-
equivalents of the Ecphora and Cancellaria biofacies. It should be noted
that rock unit nomenclature was not emphasized in Puri's work.
Later, Purl and Vernon (1964), using the "stage" concept that was
erected by Puri (1953), applied rock unit names to the various biofacies
within the "Choctawhatchee Stage". They placed the Arca biofacies in the
"Red Bay Formation," the Yoldia biofacies in the "Yellow River Formation,"
and the Ecphora and Cancallaria biofacies in the"Jackson Bluff Formation".
Rainwater (1964) proposed that in northwest Florida all the "Upper
Miocene" sediments be combined into the "Duplin-Shoal River Formation."
He defined the Upper Miocene of the Florida Panhandle as being equivalent
to the Choctawhatchee Stage, and part of the Alum Bluff Stage of Purl
(1953).
Waller (1969) discussed some of the stratigraphic problems within the
"Choctawhatchee Group" and suggested that the Arca zone was older
than the Ecphora and Cancellaria zones based on the species of
Argopecten present.
Akers (1972) studied the planktonic microfossils foraminiferaa and
calcareous nannofossils) of the Choctawhatchee Stage, and established a
zonation of the Miocene of the area using the biostratigraphic zonation of
Blow (1969). He placed the Yellow River Formation (the Yoldia faunizone)
in the Middle Miocene, the Red Bay Formation (the Arca faunizone) in the
Upper Miocene, and the Jackson Bluff Formation (the Ecphora and
Cancellaria faunizones) in the Pliocene. These age assignments have been
considered reliable and are in agreement with benthonic evidence found by
Beem (1973) from the same area. Beem reported on the paleoecology of
these deposits based on a combination of present-day species distribu-
tions and several statistical parameters, including a planktonic-benthonic
ratio, and population diversity measurements. The fauna were shown to be
indicative of water depths less than 100 meters and affected by abnormal
concentrations of organic carbon.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Huddlestun (1976) redefined the marine deposits of the central Florida
Panhandle on the basis of lithology, and included five formations in his
"Alum Bluff Group" (see historical summary of the Alum Bluff Stage in this
report). He recognized the Choctawhatchee Formation as a distinct
lithologic unit. This formation he stated was the Arca zone of Mansfield
(1930, 1932), and the Permenter's Farm beds of Smith (1941). The type
locality described was the exposure at Red Bay, Walton County, T2N,
R17W, northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of sec. 15. Also
recognized as the youngest formation of the "Alum Bluff Group" by Hud-
dlestun was the Jackson Bluff Formation. This unit is addressed later in this
report.


INTRACOASTAL FORMATION

HISTORY- The Intracoastal Formation was first described by Hud-
dlestun in 1976. He used the name Intracoastal Limestone to describe a
"soft, sandy limestone of Pliocene age that underlies the coastal area of
western Florida". His description pertained mostly to southern Walton
County. The Intracoastal Limestone was placed in the "Coastal Group" by
Huddlestun. For a historical account of the Coastal Group, see the section
on the Bruce Creek Limestone in this report.
Huddlestun took the name from the Intracoastal Waterway #1 core
(W-8873), located in Walton County, Florida in T3S, R18W, northeast
quarter of the southwest quarter of sec. 11 (fig. 18). The interval to which
he assigned this formation in that core is between 67 feet and 180 feet
below land surface. Huddlestun (1976) included a lithologic description for
the "type core".
Huddlestun's lithologic description for the Intracoastal varies from the
type area in Walton County to southern Gulf and Franklin counties. In
Walton County he described it as a "soft, unconsolidated to slightly
recrystallized, fossiliferous, sandy limestone". In outcrops in Gulf County
he described it as varying from, "... a very calcareous, shelly soft and un-
consolidated to partially indurated, sandy calcarenite, to a shelly, granular,
even-textured, slightly indurated, soft limestone".
In Walton County, where the type Intracoastal core is located, Hud-
dlestun points out that he recognized two broad lithologic types within his
"Coastal Group". One type is found in the Bruce Creek Limestone and
other older limestones, and the second type is found in all the younger units
of the group; this would include his St. Joe Limestone and the Intracoastal
Limestone. These two latter units are separated in the Walton County area
by a phosphoritic sand unit. The lithologies of the St. Joe and Intracoastal
Limestones are very similar, with the major difference being that the St. Joe
contains less plastic and fossiliferous material than the Intracoastal.
In Bay County a unit of nearly identical lithology is present at the same
stratigraphic interval. This unit, then, can be correlated with the St. Joe and
Intracoastal Limestones in Walton County. In Bay County, however, the





BULLETIN NO. 57


phosphoritic sand unit which separates the two formations in Walton Coun-
ty to the west is not present.
In well cuttings and core samples, the St. Joe and Intracoastal
Limestones of Huddlestun in Walton County are indistinguishable from each
other and from the correlative unit in Bay County. This being the case, the
two units are here combined under one formational name, the Intracoastal
Formation.
In this report, then, the Intracoastal Formation will be used for the body
of sediments which was called the Intracoastal Limestone and St. Joe
Limestone in Walton County and for correlative units of the same lithology in
Bay, Okaloosa, Calhoun, Gulf, and possibly Franklin counties in
northwest Florida.

LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION- The Intracoastal Formation in Bay Coun-
ty is a very sandy, highly microfossiliferous, poorly consolidated,
argillaceous, calcarenitic limestone. Throughout its extent it contains minor
amounts of glauconite, pyrite, heavy minerals, mica, and in some cases
over 10 percent phosphorite. The phosphorite content averages between
3 and 7 percent. The quartz sand content is variable, depending on the
depth within the unit, and the geographic location. Quartz sand generally in-
creases upward and toward the west. The uppermost samples en-
countered often are dominated by quartz sand, whereas near the base of
the unit it may be only a few percent. The calcium carbonate content of the
Intracoastal increases toward the base of the unit, while the sand
decreases with depth.
The Intracoastal lithology varies in some parts of the county, particular-
ly near the coast, where it may best be described as a sandy, calcarenitic
shell bed, with planktic and benthic foraminiferal tests being abundant. In all
portions of Bay County the Intracoastal is characteristically fossiliferous and
contains foraminifera, ostracods, mollusks, echinoids, and shark teeth. The
fossil content of the formation diminishes northward towards the pinch-out
zone, near the Washington-Bay County line.
The major lithologic components of the Intracoastal are the fossil
material, quartz sand, and calcium carbonate grains, with these being
cemented by micrite and clay. The micrite content seems to be high in the
western part of the county, while the clay content increases towards the
east. The formation is generally poorly indurated, but tends to be better
consolidated along its northern limits.
Unwashed samples of the Intracoastal are yellow-gray when dry and
dark olive-green when wet. Samples washed on a 62 micron sieve are buff
to speckled gray in color.
The type core for the Intracoastal Formation, as previously stated, was
described from Walton County by Huddlestun (1976). This core will be
used as the "type core" for the present study also, with the revised defini-
tion of the Intracoastal Formation being used. That is, Huddlestun's St. Joe
Limestone unit is not recognized, but that lithologic unit is incorporated into
the redefined present usage of the Intracoastal Formation.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


The following is a geologic log of the Intracoastal Formation from the
type core located in Walton County (see fig. 18).
Core no.: W-8873
Core name: Intracoastal Waterway #1
Location: Walton Co., T3S, R18W, Sec. 11, dbc
Elevation: 40 ft.
Total depth: 300 ft.
Samples: 23 core boxes 0-300 ft.
Date Completed: January, 1969
Logs run: gamma, electric
Intracoastal Formation: 66.5 ft. to 226 ft.

S (WASHINGTON L
WALTON \ F -


BAY 0O


G
0 IS 3t KI U

0 10 20 M

Figure 18. Location of Type Core for
the Intracoastal Formation, W-8873, In-
tracoastal Waterway Core No. 1, T3S,
R18W, Sec. 11, dbc.


Depth in feet below Lithologic Description
land surface

0-66.5 Overlying the Intracoastal Formation are yellowish-brown quartz
sands. These sands are noncalcareous, unfossiliferous, poorly con-
solidated, and contain small amounts of silt, clay, and heavy minerals.
66.5-70 CALCAREOUS SHELLY SAND, light gray to yellowish-gray, medium
grained quartz sands, with medium sphericity and subangular to
angular roundness. Poorly to moderately indurated with micrite and
clay cement. Accessory minerals include up to 40 percent limestone,
clay up to 5 percent, and mica less than one percent. Fossil mollusks
are common, as are bryozoans and foraminifera.
70-76 SANDY CALCARENITE, medium light-gray, moderately indurated
calcarenite, with micrite cement. Grain types include biogenic
fragments, and micrite with size ranges from micro to very coarse.
Accessory minerals include up to 35 percent quartz sand, and less
than one percent mica. Mollusk shells are present, but less common
than above; also present are foraminifera and ostracods.
76-87 LIMESTONE, yellowish-gray to light olive-gray, moderately indurated
limestone with micrite cement. Grain types include micrite and
biogenic fragments, and range in size from micro to very coarse. Pin-
point vugs are common. Accessory minerals include up to 15 percent





BULLETIN NO. 57


87-120






120-178








178-186




186-226






226-Total Depth


quartz sand, and small amounts of mica. Common fossils include
mollusks, bryozoans, echinoids, foraminifera, and ostracods.
LIMESTONE, yellowish-gray to light olive-gray, moderately indurated
limestone with micrite cement. Pin-point vugs common. Grain types
include micrite and biogenic fragments that range from micro to very
coarse. Accessory minerals include up to 5 percent quartz sand, and
less than one percent mica. Fossils include foraminifera, ostracods,
mollusks, and bryozoans in the form of molds, casts, and preserved
tests. Oysters and pectenids are common, and the limestone has a
rubbly, bioclastic texture.
LIMESTONE, yellowish-gray to light olive-gray, moderately indurated
to poorly consolidated limestone. Massive, structureless, fine grained,
even textured unit with biogenic and micrite grain types. Accessory
minerals include varying amounts of quartz sand (up to 15 percent),
and small amounts (usually less than 5 percent) of clay, silt, mica,
phosphorite, and glauconite. Trace amounts of pyrite have been
noted in the lower part of the interval. Foraminifera are abundant;
other fossils include some chalky mollusk molds, echinoids, and
ostracods. Sections of core are missing between 122'-126',
132'-147', and 149.5'-152'.
SANDY LIMESTONE, yellowish-gray to grayish-orange. Poorly con-
solidated, with micrite cement. Glauconite and phosphorite abundant.
Also present are varying amounts of quartz sand and small percen-
tages of clay and mica. Fossils are less common than above with
some chalky mollusk molds, foraminifera, ostracods, and echinoids.
This interval corresponds to Huddlestun's phosphoritic sand unit.
LIMESTONE, yellowish-gray, moderately indurated. Massive, struc-
tureless, mostly fine grained unit with biogenic and micrite grain
types. Accessory minerals include small amounts of quartz sand
(usually less than 10 percent), one percent or less of phosphorite,
and a trace of pyrite. Foraminifera are common, with chalky fossil
mollusks and echinoids being present. Sections of core are missing
between 199'-202', and 204'-214'. This interval corresponds to
Huddlestun's St. Joe Limestone.
Bruce Creek Limestone is present under the Intracoastal. In this core,
its consists of a moderately indurated, dolomitic limestone.


THICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTION- The Intracoastal Formation in Bay
County is a low-angle wedge-shaped deposit (see figs. 19 and 20), with its
greatest thickness (up to 240 ft.) occurring along the coast. The unit thins
and rises in elevation to the north. It has approximately an 8-foot per mile
dip in a southwestern direction. The strike, then, is northwest to southeast.
To the east and west, its full lateral extent is not well known beyond the
boundaries of Bay and Walton counties. Further to the east, in Calhoun and
Gulf counties, the Intracoastal has been identified from a few well cuttings
and cores scattered throughout the area. Huddlestun (1976) reported an
outcrop of the Intracoastal in Franklin County, which is the farthest east it
would be expected, based on the structural features in the area (see fig.
15). The only other reported outcrop of this formation is along the Econfina
Creek, where Route 388 crosses about 1.5 miles west of Bennett, Bay
County (fig. 25). Huddlestun reported that at this location the Intracoastal is
an indurated to partly indurated, sandy, shelly limestone; to a very
calcareous, shelly sandstone. Both outcrops tend to be more sandy than
their subsurface equivalents.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


-50 FT 35

-100
T3S





T4S


BAY COUNTY
6P 2 3 4I KILOMETERS
TSS CONTOUR INTERVAL 5OFT.
MEAN SEA LEVEL OFT.
DEPTH TO FORMATION AT WELL LOCATION 0-90


LEVEL


EA LEVEL
OFT
-50FT


-IOOFT.
TSS










T5$


-150FT.

-200 FT.
- 250FT. TO


RI5W RIOW 518W R14W R13W R51W


Figure 19. Structural contour map of the
Formation.


top of the Intracoastal


The Intracoastal extends westward across southern Walton County
and into southern Okaloosa County, where it may grade or interfinger with
the Pensacola Clay, which is present in the western Florida Panhandle.
In Bay County, the Intracoastal Formation is directly overlain by either a
blanket of Pliocene to Recent sands or by the Jackson Bluff Formation. The
sand unit most commonly overlies the Intracoastal in southern Bay County,
and the Jackson Bluff is most common further north. The Jackson Bluff is
sporadic in the southeastern part of the county due to either irregular
deposition or post-depositional erosion.
The upper part of the Intracoastal, although predominantly a quartz sand,
can easily be distinguished from the Pliocene Recent sand unit. The top of


48


R 17W R16W R15W R14W R13W R 112W




BULLETIN NO. 57 49

the Intracoastal always contains phosphorite, poorly consolidated
limestone, and microfossils, usually planktonic and benthonic foraminifera.
The younger overlying sands do not generally contain phosphorite, are not
calcareous, and fossils are rare.
The Jackson Bluff Formation is more difficult to separate from the In-
tracoastal Limestone. The Jackson Bluff is commonly an argillaceous, san-
dy shell bed that grades into a highly fossiliferous, sandy limestone. The
Jackson Bluff contains a much greater abundance of mollusks and clay than
the Intracoastal. The limestone portions of the Jackson Bluff, in addition to
having more mollusks, are also better indurated than the Intracoastal. In col-
or, the Jackson Bluff limestones are light grays in contrast with the olive-
green to buff color of the Intracoastal.




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


In all of Bay County where the Intracoastal exists, it is underlain by the
Bruce Creek Limestone. The two units are readily differentiated. The Bruce
Creek is much better consolidated and highly indurated, it is less sandy,
and much less fossiliferous than the Intracoastal. From well cuttings, the In-
tracoastal appears as an olive-green, soft marl, while the Bruce Creek is
usually a white to light yellow-gray, well indurated limestone.

PALEONTOLOGY AND AGE Some fauna from the Intracoastal Formation
in Walton County have been described by Huddlestun (1976). His description
included mollusk skells and foraminifera. The two known outcrops of the
Intracoastal one along Econfina Creek in Bay County and one near Car-
rabelle in Franklin County, have been referred to as the Cancellaria zone
and described by Cooke and Mossom (1929), Cook (1945), and Puri
(1953). Their descriptions generally refer to it as a shelly limestone.
In Bay County, as in Walton County, the Intracoastal is a richly
microfossiliferous calcarenite. Huddlestun (1976) identified numerous
planktonic foraminifera from the Intracoastal, and by using various zonation
schemes (Berggren, 1973; Blow, 1969; and Lamb and Beard, 1972), he
established the time of deposition of the Intracoastal from late Early
Pliocene to Late Pliocene. He further ndted that the oldest beds in the In-
tracoastal Limestone of Walton County are entirely Late Pliocene, while
sedimentation to the east in the Apalachicola Embayment began in Early
Pliocene time.
Cuttings from 14 wells in southern Bay County were examined
biostratigraphically by the use of planktonic foraminifera, in an attempt to tie
the Intracoastal sediments in with world-wide zonation schemes. The In-
tracoastal Formation in southern Bay County has a well preserved, prolific
foraminiferal fauna. The time of deposition was determined as late Middle
Miocene to Late Pliocene. Missing planktonic zones were also discovered
within the unit, near the Miocene-Pliocene boundary, indicating a probable
hiatus.
It should be noted here that the Intracoastal, as defined in this report,
includes the older St. Joe Limestone of Huddlestun (1976). This would ac-
count for the longer range in time of deposition found in the Bay County
sediments from what was previously reported from Walton County.
The zonation of planktonic foraminifera used for the Intracoastal
sediments in Bay County relies on the schemes of Bolli (1957), Lamb and
Beard (1972), and Berggren (1973, 1977). In all wells examined, the base
of the Intracoastal was found to fall within the fohsi zones of Bolli. The top of
the unit was less consistent, occurring somewhere within Berggren's PI-1
to PI-5 zbnes. The Pliocene zonation of Berggren was preferred over the
scheme of Lamb and Beard because it offered better zonal resolution; and,
of greatest importance, it was more compatible with marker species found
in the Intracoastal Formation. The Pliocene zonation of Lamb and Beard
relies heavily on the genus Pulliniatina, which was not found in the Bay
County fauna. The Lamb and Beard zonation was used, however, for the
Late Miocene sediments occurring within the Intracoastal. Bolli's zonation






BULLETIN NO. 57 51




for the late Middle Miocene was used because of the presence of

Globorotalia fohsi at the base of each study well. Range charts of three

selected wells are shown in figures 21, 22, and 23.


Globigerino nepenthes/druryi
Globigerinoides obliquus extremes
Globoquadrino oltispira
Goboquodrina dehiscens
Globorotalio acostoensis
Globorotalia crossoformis
Globorotalia dutertrei
Gbborotalia fohsi peripherorondo
Globorotalio fohsi fohsi
Globorotolio fohsi lobta-
Globorotalia fohsi robust
Globorotalia humerosa
Globorotolia margarita
Globorotolio menardii
Gblborotalio multicamerata
Globorotolia proemenardii
Globorotalia puncticul ta
Globorotoaia siakensis
Globorotoala tumido
Sphaeroidinellopsis seminulina
Sphoaroidinellopsis subdehiscens

G fohsi Iobota -raousta PL- I PL2
zone

MIDDLE MIOCENE ER PLOCE



Figure 21. Planktonic foraminiferal

range chart for well W-221 2.



Globigerina nepenthes/druryi
Globigerinoides obliquus extremus
Globoquadrina altispira
Goboquadrino dehiscens
Globorotalio acostaensis
Globorotalia c rassaformis
Globorotolia dutertrei
Globorotolio fohsi fohsi
Globorotolia fohsi Iobato
Globorotalia fohsi peripheroronda
Globorotalia fohsi robusta
Globorotalia humeroso
Globorotolia morgaritas
Globorotalia menardii
Globorotaolio multicamerata
Globorotalia prehirsuta
Globorotalio praemenordii
Globorotolia puncticulata
Globorotolio siakensis
Globorotalio tumido1
Globorotolio dehiscens
Sphaeroidinellopsis seminulina
Sphaeroidinellopsis subdehiscens

G. fohsi Iobato-robusto PL-I-PL5


MIDDLE MIOCENE ? PLIOCENE


Figure 22. Planktonic foraminiferal

range chart for well W-2950.





52 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


--_____DEPTH o2 2 01 H0 H o O OBO o o o o0 o 0o0
SPECIES. 0 .
GobiOa na nepenthes/dru ry i 0U
Glbigerinoides obliluus extremes
Globoquadrinao ltispira
Globoquadrina dehiscens
Globorotalia ocostoensis
Globorotolia craosoformis
Globorotolia fohsi peripherorondo
Gbborotalia fohsi fohsi
Gbborotalia fohsi lobato
Globorotalia fohsi robust
Globorotalio humeroso
Globorotalia morgoaritoae
Globorotalio menordii
Globorotalio multicoamerato
Globorotoliao paemenardii
Globorotolio infloto /puncticulota
Globorotalia siakensis
Globorotalia tumido
Sphaeroidinellopsis seminulino
Sphoeroidinellopsis subdehiscens
G fohsi lobot-robustoa one G. Siokensis zone PL- I PL-2 ? c

MIDDLE MIOCENE LOWER PLIOCENE U. PLIOCENE

Figure 23. Planktonic foraminiferal range chart for well
W-1 4077.


From these range charts it can be seen that there are missing zones.
This would raise the possibility of a hiatus occurring at the end of the
Miocene and during the early Pliocene. The specific donation of each study
well can be seen in fig. 24. A gap emerges in this diagram due to a pattern
of missing zones across Bay County. The bottom boundary of the gap is
generally found with the G. fohsi lobata robusta zone; however, evidence
exists for deposition as late as the G. menardi zone or possibly as late as
the lower G. acostoensis zone. The top boundary of the gap is consistently
found within the PI-1 zone.



Partial List of Planktonic Foraminifera
Identified from the Intracoastal Formation
in Bay County


Globigerina dutertrei GI fohsi lobata
G. nepenthes G. fohsi peripheroronda
Globogerinoides conglobatus G. fohsi robusta
G. obliquus G. humerosa
G. obliquus extremus G. inflata
G. quadrilobatus sacculifer G. lenguaensis
G. quadrilobatus triloba G. margaritae
G. ruber G. menardii
Globorotalia acostaensis G. merotumida
G. continuosa G. multicamerata
G. crassaformis G. plesiotumida
G. exilis G. praemiocenica
G. fohsi fohsi G. praehirsuita





BULLETIN NO. 57


G. praemenardii
G. puncticulata
G. ronda
G. scitula
G. siakensis
G. tumida
Globoquadrina altispira
G. dehiscens


Hastigerina siphonifera
Orbulina bilobata
0. suturalis
0. universe
Sphaeroidinella dehiscens
Sphaeroidinellopsis seminulina
S. subdehiscens


I II2IG.foshfoshi I l1111111 1"
Figure 24. Biostratigraphic zonation of the Intracoastal Formation
in 14 wells from Bay and Walton counties. Uncertain zones
represented by hatched pattern. Taken from Clark and Wright,
1979.


In addition to the missing zones, there are two other reasons for con-
cluding that a hiatus exists within the Intracoastal Formation. One is an in-
crease in quartz sand content near the level where missing zones are
noted. An episode of erosion or reworking and subsequent transgression
could account for this. Further evidence is noted when sedimentation rates
for the interval are estimated. Results show that either a dramatic change in
sedimentation rate occurred, or a hiatus exists (Clark and Wright, 1979).
This haitus may be a mid-latitude expression of a Late Miocene decline
in worldwide sea level due to Antarctic glaciation. This sea level drop has
been further documented in Florida by Huddlestun and Wright (1977) from
the Florida Panhandle, and by Peck et. al. (1977) from south Florida.
In addition to the planktonic foraminifera present, calcareous nan-
nofossils were identified from a number of samples of the Intracoastal For-
mation. Although range charts were not prepared for the nannofossils, the





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


general assemblage zone agrees with the planktonic foraminifera evidence;
that is, a range in time of deposition from late Middle Miocene to Middle
Pliocene is called for. A partial listing of identified species from the In-
tracoastal follows:

Partial List of Calcareous Nannofossils
Identified from the Intracoastal Formation
in Bay County

Braarudosphaera bigelowi D. quinqueramus
Catinaster coalitus D. surculus
Coccolithus pelagicus D. variabilis
Cyclococcolithina macintyrei Discolithina sp.
Discoaster brouweri Helicopontosphaera sp.
D. calcaris Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica
D. challenger Reticulofenestra sp.
D. kugleri Spenollthus abies
D. neohamatus Spenolithus sp.
D. pentaradiatus

Other relatively rare microfossil fragments appeared to include spicules
and parts of diatoms.



JACKSON BLUFF FORMATION

HISTORY- See the historical notes on the Choctawhatchee Stage (in
this report) for the sequential changes in the nomenclature leading up to the
current usage.
Puri and Vernon (1964) are credited with naming the "Jackson Bluff
Formation". They combined the Ecphora and Cancellaria biofacies because
both are exposed at Jackson Bluff in Leon County. This is the only ex-
posure at which more than one biofacies has been observed. They includ-
ed the Jackson Bluff in the Choctawhatchee Stage of Puri (1953), which
included all Miocene sediments of post Alum-Bluff Age in the Florida
Panhandle and their equivalents in the central and western Gulf states. This
is approximately equivalent to the Upper Miocene Series.
Akers (1972) and Huddlestun (1976) have studied the planktonic
foraminiferal fauna of the Jackson Bluff Formation and assign its age to the
earliest Late Pliocene. This age assignment appears valid from the Bay
County data, also.
The type section, as designated by Puri and Vernon (1964), is in a
drainage ditch and the face of an old road-metal borrow pit, about 150
yards south of the dam at Jackson Bluff along the Ochlockonee River. This
bluff is 0.6 miles upstream from the Florida Route 20 bridge in T1 S, R4W,
the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of
sec. 21, Leon County, Florida. The section exposed here is about 40 feet





BULLETIN NO. 57


in thickness, of which the upper 12 feet is Jackson Bluff (except for a two
foot sand and soil zone).


Figure 25. Intracoastal Formation outcrop, located along the west bank of
Econfina Creek about 100 yards downstream from the route 388 bridge.


LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION- The Jackson Bluff Formation at the type
locality consists of three clayey, sandy shell beds. The beds are differen-
tiated on slight lithologic variation and their mollusk assemblage.
Huddlestun (1976) reports three broad lithofacies within the areal ex-
tent of the Jackson Bluff age sediments: a shell-bed facies, a shelly sand
and clay facies, and a limestone facies. In outcrop, the shell bed lithology is
most widely distributed. The limestone facies is referred to as the new for-
mation, the Intracoastal Formation.
In Bay County the Jackson Bluff Formation is a calcareous sandy clay
to clayey sand containing large quantities of mollusk shell material (fig. 26).
Seams of gray to white, fossiliferous, sandy limestone occur within the unit.
In unwashed well cuttings, the Jackson Bluff is an olive-green, poorly con-
solidated marl. Washed samples are described as shell beds, composed
mostly of mollusks in combination with lesser amounts of bryozoans,
planktonic and benthonic foraminifera, echinoids, ostracods, and shark
teeth. Phosphate and heavy minerals are common accessories within the
formation.


THICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTION- The Jackson Bluff Formation is
found through most of the central and southern parts of the Florida




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Panhandle. Its outcrop pattern is a narrow belt extending from the southern
Washington County area, eastward to the Jackson Bluff area of Leon
County. From there the outcrop belt apparently turns southwest where ex-
posures have been reported by Banks and Hunter (1973), and Huddlestun
(1976) from the vicinity of Crawfordville in central Wakulla County.


Figure 26. Jackson Bluff Formation outcrop, located on east bank of the
Econfina Creek about 100 yards downstream from the Route 20 bridge.



The formation is a relatively thin blanket-type deposit throughout its ex-
tent. In Bay County, which for the most part is downdip from the outcrop
belt, the geometry of the deposit is difficult to ascertain. Its absence in
many wells precludes an interpretation (see figs. 34 and 36). Its greatest
thickness occurs downdip near the coast, where it approaches 150 feet in
thickness. From this vicinity northward the unit thins, and in some locations
is not present at all. This is most likely because of either irregular deposition
due to undulatory bottom conditions, or post-depositional erosion, or both.
The Jackson Bluff Formation in Bay County overlies the Intracoastal
Formation in all but the extreme northern part of the county. Parts of the
lower Jackson Bluff probably interfinger or grade into the upper part of the
Intracoastal Formation (fig. 27). This relationship is difficult to determine,
especially in northern Bay County where the Intracoastal begins to lose its
identity. The two units can be distinguished by the more calcareous and





BULLETIN NO. 57


microfossiliferous nature of the Intracoastal Formation when compared with
the macrofossiliferous clayey nature of the Jackson Bluff.
The Jackson Bluff also overlies the Bruce Creek Limestone and/or the
Chipola Limestone in northern Bay County. The olive-green marl of the
Jackson Bluff contrasts markedly with the well consolidated and indurated
white to light-gray limestone lithology of the Chipola and Bruce Creek for-
mations.
Overlying the Jackson Bluff is the Pliocene to Recent sand unit. The
two are readily distinguished by the sands having no limestones, very little
clay, and fossils being very rare.



UPDIP DOWNDIP
WASHINGTON CO. GULF OF MEXICO
EPOCH NORTH ROCK UNIT SOUTH
RECENT
PLEISTOCENE UNCONSOLIDATED SANDS
AND CLAYEY SANDS

PLIOCENE JACKSON BLUFF FM.
INTRACOASTAL FORMATION


W SEDIMENT
Sy/ NOT
SPRESEN

INTRACOASTAL FORMATION


BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE
MIOCENE
CHIPOLA FORMATION --

o

-- TAMPA STAGE LIMESTONES

OLIGOCENE SUWANNEE LIMESTONE
__ MARIANNA LIMESTONE
EOCE N E
OCALA LIMESTONE

Figure 27. Stratigraphic correlation chart of the shallow sediments in Bay
County.


57





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


PALEONTOLOGY AND AGE Fossil mollusk shells are abundant
throughout the Jackson Bluff sediments and have been discussed exten-
sively in the literature (Mansfield 1930, 1932; Gardner 1926-1944; Cooke
Mossom 1929; and others). Corals from the Jackson Bluff were identified
by Weisbord (1972). Microfossils are also abundant with ostracods having
been reported by Howe (1935), and foraminifera having been reported by
Cushman (1920), Cushman and Ponton (1932), Puri (1953) and Beem
(1973). Akers (1972) and Huddlestun (1976) examined the planktonic
foraminifera from the outcropping and downdip Jackson Bluff. They both
concluded that, based on the planktonic zones of Blow (1969), the
Jackson Bluff Formation was deposited in the middle to earliest Late
Pliocene. Akers (1972) also reported the presence of calcareous nan-
nofossils from some horizons within the Jackson Bluff. Their age correlates
well with the planktonic foraminifera zones.
The faunal assemblage noted for the Jackson Bluff of Bay County ap-
pears to include most of the previously reported fossil types. A few
planktonic foraminifera, however, reveal that the age of the unit here may
be uppermost Pliocene and may extend into the Pleistocene. No con-
clusive evidence for this was found.

PUOCENE TO RECENT CLAYEY SANDS

A Pliocene to Recent clayey sand and sand unit covers the Neogene
sequence in Bay County (fig. 28). This unit includes some clayey sand and
gravel which probably correlates with the Citronelle Formation, some
reworked clayey sands from higher elevations, Pleistocene terrace sands,
and Recent coastal sands.
The sediments which may correlate to the Citronelle Formation occur at
the higher elevations in the extreme northeastern corner of the county. The
Citronelle Formation's type locality is near the town of Citronelle in
Alabama. In northwestern Florida it consists of fluvial, cross-bedded sands,
gravels and clays, and post-depositional limonite. In Bay County the
sediments in the vicinity of the Washington and Jackson county line contain
orange, clayey sands with some gravel; this may be Citronelle or reworked
Citronelle (fig. 29). Most of these deposits are commonly found at eleva-
tions exceeding 200 feet.
Tan to light-orange, clayey sand is found southward at lower eleva-
tions, generally in the flat-woods of central Bay County. This lithology is
probably a result of reworking of some of the higher hills during Pleistocene
sea level fluctuations.
The remaining near-surface sands cover the majority of the county and
consist of unconsolidated white to light-gray quartz sand. Grain sizes range
from very fine to gravel, and are subangular with medium sphericity. Heavy
minerals are present (up to 19 percent), with phosphorite beginning to ap-
pear near the base of the unit. These near-surface sands cover all of Bay
County, except along the stream channel of Econfina Creek, where
Neogene beds are exposed.





BULLETIN NO. 57


The terrace deposits generally thicken from zero feet in the northern
part of the county to nearly 100 feet near the coast. Iron stain and thin clay
lenses are rarely encountered in well cuttings. The unit is generally un-
fossiliferous, except for occasional shell beds which are predominately
molluscan in nature. Other fauna in these beds include rare finds of
foraminifera, ostracods, echinoids and bryozoans.
The Pliocene to Recent sands directly overlie two different units in Bay
County; the Intracoastal Formation or the Jackson Bluff Formation. The In-
tracoastal Limestone differs from the overlying sands in its greater indura-
tion and more calcareous nature. Even thought the top of the Intracoastal is


I t SW I RISC I RISW RIR4 RI3


50FT.


TZs




62
T3S
F---









J
IOOFT.


r8 05 5 Tes
50FT
156
RITw RIW RISw R4w R13W RIw2

Figure 28. Isopach map of the Pliocene to Recent clayey sands
and sands in Bay County.


BAY COUNTY
o1 1 2 3A ILES
0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS
S CONTOUR INTERVAL LOFT
THICKNESS AT WELL LOCATION 070


*62


59





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Figure 29. Citronelle Formation outcrop in a
borrow pit along Route 231 near the Bay-Jackson
County line. Notice gravel stringers.


usually sandy, it can be distinguished from the overlying sands by its
phosphorite and its minimum limestone content of one percent.
The Jackson Bluff Formation differs from the overlying sands in that it is
more calcareous, argillaceous, and contains an abundance of fossil mollusk
shells.
These clayey sands deposited during Pliocene and Pleistocene times
were directly related to sea-level fluctuations during glacial and interglacial
periods. Fluctuating sea levels caused the ancient coastline to migrate, and
as a result, older deposits were reworked and redeposited in response to
these various terracing episodes.
Along the present coast there are numerous recent features which are
the result of recent longshore marine forces transporting sand. These in-
clude offshore bars, and spits. Coastal eolian features such as dunes are
also common. These sands are often only a few tens of feet thick and are
clean white quartz sands. A few accessories include organic and heavy
minerals.






BULLETIN NO. 57


G
WASHINGTON CO


F'


BAY COUNTY
i 0 4 MILES
0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS


Figure 30. Location of geologic cross-sections.


61


6842












A'


W-141018
100 30
20 A-1 EXPLANATION


0 2S-W-813 PLIOCENE -RECENT SANDS




o-C BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE
CHIPOLA / TAMPA LIMESTONE BLUFF








rn


I 2 3 4 MILES TN
20 7 S AI 2 3 4 5 6M KILOMETERS T



-40


III
-l0 -6 0
-F40 -o gi --ct A---A'.--
-500 ......






F eo0 ----- -s-A



-4 0 .. .. .
........

F ig u re ----------- .............-A '











B'


W- 13965
3S-12W-14
W-325 747 W- 4714
5-13W-U


5O
S w

50 -
10

O -- O

-10
-50
-20

100 -30

-40
150 -
-50so


200 60

-70

250
-80


300 290

-100

350
-110


400 -120

-130

450 -
-140

-150
500


r MSL










I T I I I I i I I I
I I- ?-T T I
T I I I I
TLT
L L I_ T __I I I I I I I I I I I
I T I I I I 1 1 11 1 1



ri T -- IA
I 1 1 z I I-



Figue 32 Ge logi cros-sctio B-


EXPLANATION


PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS

JACKSON BLUFF

INTRACOASTAL FORMATION

BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE

SUWANNEE LIMESTONE

PLIOCENE .*MIOCENE


1 2 3 4 MILES
1 2 3 4 5 6 KILOMETERS







B


0)


W-14101


W-7370


w
C
1-

m
-I

z

z

p
(n
NM


-


aw


_K











- I
B

100 30 W-2508
C W-2212 4S-14W-10
1 W-14077
20 W-2950 4S-14W-3 W- 5237 W-5369 5S-IW-6
50 S-vue W-,2902 4S-14w- 4-135-I-
2W-3620 W-8273 4S-14W-4

o EXPLANATION
o -0 .. .. .....--- -7-- MSL

-0 PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS L I

-020 -JACKSON BLUFF
INTRACOASTAL FORMATION
BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE

-150 SUWANNEE LIMESTONE rn


60PLIOCENE .MIOCENE



-200 90
200 T 'lI0-IT Ii I /I I 'I II I ,/,I..... ....2. 3 4 MILES O

02 3 4 5 6 KILOMETERS

-250




--'co
-300 -


-400 2


-450 o


-500-


Figure 33. Geologic cross-section C-C'.







,oo 3 So D

20 W-299 W-2 W-3371 W-49N
50 W-5 3 W-5W12 W-2189
I0 w-6842 W-293

0- EXPLANATION
0o I MSL
-1o0PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS
-50 -JACKSON BLUFF




1- PLIOCENE MIOCENE
-450
-40


Io 2s 4 5 6- KIOETR









-4500
!!!i!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- [ i ii i C!::,i iT-:_ ~~;ii~~iiii
: : : : : : : : ', ', : ', : : : : ', : : : ', : : ', ',i : ', : : : ', ', :- : : : : :
',,,' ,: ', ', : ', : ,,, : :,,,, :, ,,, ', : .. .. : .. :. : .. .. :.. ... ... .: :. : :: : T : +- :+ : :::i :: : ,
3150 T.' '. ', T,' '.'T '.'CEW [, 'I 'i i '" '' '; '' '' '' '" ] ''' l i '' 7 ''..- Z, 7 7 7 -
'" 'i '"i '" ::' 'T "' *" : '" ': ': '" : . . ':' . ''' ':: :'
.. , , , , : , ,, ,, : ,, ,, : : , , , ,, . , , , ; -




SODrT *~ ILYTR


0)
01





0)
0)


E
0 30 W-13617 E
S-1W-4 W-14101 W-13
20 'S-W-34 3s 1.7 W-4

s o 0 EXPLANATION

o 0 o J-j. \ 'MSL
0 s PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS

-so JACKSON BLUFF
_INTRACOASTAL FORMATION

PRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE
-4o CHIPOLA /TAMPA LIMESTONE




-70 G






SPFigure 35. Geologic cross-section E-E'.NE
-250- 0
o 2 3 4 MILES r

-3 -90 I I 3 4 5 6 KILOMETERS 0

-100
30 110

-120



-1430


Figure 35. Geologic cross-section E-E'.






F
W w-3433
S12-12 -3


40

100 30
W-7373 F'
20
0 W-5716 W-933 W-1378
10


0 EXPLANATION


-20 PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS
JACKSON BLUFF


-40 INTRACOASTAL FORMATION
-150 BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE mI
CHIPOLA /TAMPA LIMESTONE

SUWANNEE LIMESTONE


-250- l OCALA/MARIANNA LIMESTONE Z
-80 9

9 2 3 4 MILES
I 2 3 4 5 6 KILOMETERS

-350

F
-120
-400-








Figure 36. Geologic cross-section F-F'
-550 EN2=z -- -

Figure 36. Geologic cross-section F-F'.





0)
00




G G'
W-14108

SOdL
20 4W-7 1 W35 4-1 1

---


,, -t;TTT 10 EXPLANATION
-10

-20 PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS "

-.00 -3,, ,-,-- JACKSON BLUFF





CHIPOLA /TAMPA LIMESTONE

-00 -0 -- SUWANNEE LIMESTONE

-50 OCALA/ MARIANNA LIMESTONE m
PLIOCENE .MIOCENE 0

-I 2 3 4 MILES 0
I 2 3 4 5 6 KILOMETERS


-110

-120 G<






-00 150

Figure 37. Geologic cross-section G-G'.















S-34-2143


40 W-53.-H
I-



o -









-40 BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE Z
-oCHIPOLA / TAMPA LIMESTONE z



-- OCALA/MARIANNA LIMESTONE i
-20
POLICE NE MIOCENE


-300- I 23456 KILOMETERS
0 10


Figure 38. Geologic cross-section H-H'.


0)
cc






0


40

00 30 3 12 I4

W-14077
20 SS-IIW-6 W-2939
50 S-12 W-23
0 o10 V EXPLANATION
,1A; T-.T--, .- -r_-T^ TT- .- -- !MSL
o- "- TT _ro+Tg PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS 1

-T JACKSON BLUFF

-200 -30---------- -r'- 'INTRACOASTAL FORMATION
-30 ---- BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE r

-0 .4o CHIPOLA /TAMPA LIMESTONE

-o-2 0 SUWANNEE LIMESTONE

-0o OCALA / MARIANNA LIMESTONE C)

o PLIOCENE ** MIOCENE 0

00 .. i2 3 4 MILES 0
90I 2 3 4 5 6 KILOMETERS

-100
-350 110




-130
-140
-150

-500 15


Figure 39. Geologic cross-section I-I'.





BULLETIN NO. 57


ECONOMIC GEOLOGY

The development of mineral commodities in Bay County has not been
conducted on a large scale, with the exception of ground water. The only
other local mineral commodities that have been utilized for a commercial
market are quartz sands and gravel.

SAND AND GRAVEL

Relatively little information has been published concerning the
economic potential of the quartz sands and gravels of Bay county. Sellards
and Gunter (1918) reported that an excellent grade of coarse building sand
existed near Panama City on the Gulf Coast. Martens (1926a), briefly
described some sand deposits from Bay County. He further stated that
deposits of sand were commercially worked near Callaway, a second loca-
tion about nine miles east of Panama City, another location about five miles
northeast of Lynn Haven, and another just north of Youngstown. The major
use of these pits was for road material.
Historically, sand and gravel have been the major mineral resource
utilized in Bay County. In 1957, Calver reported three active operations.
Presently, there are six different pits in operation, owned by four com-
panies. The major use remains road base; however, asphalt and foundation
fill are how of great importance also. The operations as of 1979 are listed in
table 2.

Table 2. Sand Producers
Company Name Mine Name Location
Calloway Sand Co. Calloway Pit (fig. 40) T4S, R13W, sec. 12
Florida Asphalt Paving Co. Hutchinson Pit T3S, R14W, sec. 12
Florida Asphalt Paving Co. Register Pit T2S, R13W, sec. 13
Gulf Asphalt Corp. Gulf Asphalt Pit T2S, R13W, sec. 13
Gulf Asphalt Corp. Gulf Asphalt Pit T2S, R13W, sec. 14
Pitts Sand Co. Lynn Haven Mine T3S, R14W, sec. 12

CLAY

Calver (1957) reported one location with potential development of clay
in the southeast part of the county. Our present information lists one pro-
ducer in the county, Pitts Sand Company, The Lynn Haven Mine at T3S,
R14W, sec. 12. This material is a clayey quartz sand.

PEAT

Development of peat in Bay County would most likely occur at low
elevations along the present bays. One peat producer was reported by
Calver (1957) near the east end of East Bay. This operation is no longer ac-
tive.




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Figure 40. Sand mine, near Callaway, Florida.

HEAVY MINERALS

A number of studies have addressed potential heavy minerals develop-
ment west of Bay County towards the city of Pensacola (War Minerals
Report 141, 1943; and Miller 1945), and east of Bay County near the city
of Apalachicola (Larsen, 1958; Revell, 1958; Bates, 1959). Bay County,
however, has received very little attention. Martens (1926b) reported
some small deposits of heavy concentrates on the shoreward side of
Crooked Island, along St. Andrews Sound. He also noted heavy minerals
along the outer beach, concentrated on the upper part of the beach near
the foot of the dunes. Page 144 of his report gives the percent by number
of grains each heavy mineral type represented from that locality. No indica-
tions were seen of any deposit large enough to be workable. Heavy
minerals were noted sporadically all along the gulf beaches, but they are
small deposits and only locally concentrated.

LIMESTONE

Limestone is present near the surface in Bay County only along the
northern part of the Econfina Creek in the vicinity of Route 20. The
limestone in this area has not been tested but it is doubtful if it would be of
any significance to the limestone industry. To the north of Bay County in
Washington, Holmes and Jackson counties there are considerable
resources of limestone available for development (Reves, 1961; Yon and
Hendry, 1970).





BULLETIN NO. 57


OIL AND GAS

Ten deep oil and gas exploratory wells have been drilled throughout
Bay County. All have been dry holes. The most recent was drilled in 1973
in the northwest part of the county, to a depth of 12,313 feet below the
surface. This bottomed in a granite, which was considered "basement".
In Gulf County, only a few miles from the Bay County line, Hunt Oil
Company in 1974 (permit No. 746) drilled a test well to a depth of 13,284
feet. This hole disclosed oil-stain locked in 161 feet of the Smackover For-
mation, which was found between 12,485 feet and 12,646 feet below sea
level. This formation is a limestone which has very low permeability,
generally less than 0.01 md (millidarcy) and very low porosity (5 percent to
10.9 percent). Below the Smackover, oil stain was also present in a con-
glomeratic calcareous sandstone of the Norphlet Formation. This unit had
slightly higher permeability values, usually below 1.4 md, and a porosity
range between 5.6 percent and 11.2 percent.
The Smackover Formation has produced oil and gas in extreme
northwestern Florida, near Jay in Santa Rosa County. It is this horizon that
geologists feel may have the best potential in the vicinity of Bay County
also. It has been postulated (Applegate and others, 1978) that the
Smackover exists in the subsurface of southeastern Bay County. This area
would be the most likely candidate for future activity of the oil and gas in-
dustry in Bay County.


GROUND WATER

Ground water in Bay County exists under both unconfined (the water-
table aquifer), and confined (the Floridan aquifer) conditions. The general-
ized hydrologic environment of the local aquifers and the movement of
water through them has been discussed in reports by Musgrove, Foster,
and Toler (1965), and Foster (1972).
The water-table aquifer is composed primarily of quartz sand and
gravel, with clayey sand and sandy clay lenses occurring sporadically. The
thickness of this unit is variable and may attain 150 feet along the coast.
Water levels range from near land surface to 65 feet below land surface.
The sediments comprising this aquifer correspond to the Pliocene to Re-
cent sand units on the geologic cross-sections (figs. 31-34).
Rain is readily absorbed by the porous surface sands. Surface runoff
depends on the amount and intensity of the rainfall. Water absorbed by the
surface sands percolates downward to the water-table, where the sand is
saturated. The quartz sands are not very soluble; therefore; the mineral
content of the water from the water-table aquifer is relatively low. Wells tap-
ping this aquifer, however, do contain high amounts of iron and are slightly
acidic causing them to be corrosive to metallic well casings.
The water eventually migrates through the water-table aquifer and
discharges into streams and springs. Some of the water seeps downward




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


through a low permeability zone of clay and sandy shell beds (the Jackson
Bluff Formation) into the underlying calcareous units.
The calcareous units are limestones and dolomites of the Floridan
Aquifer. The top of this aquifer is near sea level in the northeast part of the
county and dips to greater than 250 feet below sea level at the coast
(Foster, 1972; Vernon, 1973; Kwader and Schmidt, 1978). It is estimated
to be 1100 feet thick along the coast in Bay County (Foster, 1965).
Included in the Floridan Aquifer in this county, in descending order, are
parts of the Intracoastal Formation, the Chipola Formation, the Bruce Creek
Limestone, the Tampa Stage limestones, the Suwannee Limestone, and
the limestones of the Ocala Group.
The Floridan Aquifer is recharged locally by seepage from the overlying
water-table aquifer and, where the water-table aquifer is breached, by sinks
and lakes in the northern part of the county and in Washington County.
Regional recharge takes place north of Bay County where the limestones
are near the surface in Washington, Holmes and Jackson counties, and in
southern Alabama. This recharged water migrates down-dip to Bay County.
The potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer has been mapped by
Foster (1972), Healy (1975a), and Rosenau and Meadows (1976). Con-
tours on potentiometric maps represent the imaginary surface to which
water would rise above the aquifer in tightly cased wells. It can be inferred
from the above-mentioned maps that water is moving in a southwest direc-
tion toward the Gulf of Mexico. A local exception to this is along the Econ-
fina Creek where the ground water discharges through springs along the
creek.
It has been estimated (Causey and Leve, 1976) that the thickness of
the potable zone of the Floridan ranges between 250 feet and 1000 feet in
Bay County, increasing in thickness northward away from the coast. It has
also been estimated (Pascale, 1975) that the yield of most fresh water
wells (12 inches in diameter) would vary from less than 250 gallons per
minute (GPM) near the southeast coast to greater than 500 GPM in the
northern part of the county. Along the coast, however, public supply wells
(16 inches in diameter) rarely yield 500 GPM, although most two inch wells
into the Floridan Aquifer provide enough water for most domestic supplies.
Panama City and surrounding subdivisions changed to a surface water sup-
ply in 1967. This was done because of the continually declining water
levels in wells, and the increased potential for salt-water intrusion.
Foster (1972) prepared four maps to show the expected dissolved
solids, hardness, and concentrations of chloride and fluoride in water from
wells that tap the upper part of the Floridan Aquifer in the county. Each map
shows the concentration of minerals to be highest near the coast. Other
hydrochemical data from natural discharge (springs) of the limestone
aquifer has been published by Rosenau and others (1977).





BULLETIN NO. 57


BAY COUNTY

REFERENCES

Akers, W. H., 1973, Planktonic Foraminifera and Biostratigraphy of Some
Neogene Formations, Northern Florida and Atlantic Coastal
Plain: Tulane Studies in Geol. and Paleo. V. 9, 140 p.

Alt, D., and Brooks, H. K., 1965, Age of the Florida Marine Terraces:
Journal of Geology, V. 73, n. 2, pp. 406-411.

Applegate, A. V. Pontigo, F. A. Jr., and Rooke, J. H., 1978, Jurassic
Smackover Oil Prospects in the Apalachicola Embayment: The Oil
and Gas Journal, January, 1978, V. 76, n. 4, pp. 80-84.

Applin, P. L., 1951, Preliminary Report on Buried pre-Mesozoic Rocks in
Florida and Adjacent States: U. S. Geological Survey Circ. 91,
28 p.

Applin, P. L. and Applin, E. R., 1944, Regional Subsurface Stratigraphy
and Structure of Florida and Southern Georgia: Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Bull., V. 28, pp. 1673-1753.

Arden, Daniel D., 1974, A Geophysical Profile in the Suwannee Basin,
Northwestern Florida: in Symposium on the Petroleum Geology of
the Georgia Coastal Plain; Georgia Geological Survey Bull. 87, pp.
111-122.

Banks, J. E., and Hunter, M. E., 1973, Post-Tampa, Pre-Chipola Sedi-
ments Exposed in Liberty, Gadsden, Leon, and Wakulla Counties,
Florida: Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. V. 23, pp. 355-363.

Barnett, Richard S., 1975, Basement Structure of Florida and its Tectonic
Implications: in Transactions Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. V. 25,
pp. 122-142.

Bass, M., N., 1969, Petrography and Ages of Crystalline Basement Rocks
of Florida, Some Extrapolations: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologist,
Mem. 11, pp. 283-310.

Bates, John D., 1959, The Apalachicola Area as Prospective for Heavy
Mineral Investigation: Heavy Mineral Report No. 2, Company
Report, Coastal Petroleum Company, Tallahassee, Florida.

Beem, Kenneth A., 1973, Benthonic Foraminifera Paleoecology of the
Choctawhatchee Deposits (Neogene) of Northwest Florida: Un-




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


published Dissertation, Department of Geology, University of Cincin-
nati, 201 p.

Bender, Michael, 1971, The Reliability of He/U Dates on Corals: Amer.
Geophy. Union Trans., V. 52, N. 4, p. 366 (abstract).

Berggren, W. A., 1973, The Pliocene Time-Scale: Calibration of Plank-
tonic Foraminiferal and Calcareous Nannoplankton Zones: Nature,
V. 243, N. 5407, pp. 391-397.

Berggren, W. A. 1977, Late Neogene Planktonic Foraminiferal Biostrati-
graphy of the Rio Grande Rise (South Atlantic): Marine Micropaleon-
tology, V. 2, pp. 265-313.

Blow, W. H., 1969, Late Middle Eocene to Recent Planktonic Foramini-
feral Biostratigraphy: Proceedings of the First International Con-
ference on Planktonic Microfossils, V. 1, pp. 199-421.

Bolli, H. M., 1957, Planktonic Foraminifera from the Oligocene-Miocene
Cipero and Lengua Formations of Trinidad B. W. I.: U. S. Nat. Mus.
Bull., No. 215, pp. 97-123.

Bridge, J., and Berdan, Jr. M., 1952, Preliminary Correlations of the
Paleozoic Rocks from Test Wells in Florida and Adjacent Parts of
Georgia and Alabama: in Fla. Geol. Survey Guidebook: Assoc. Am.
State Geologist 44th Ann. Mtg. Field Trip, 1952, pp. 29-38.

Calver, James L., 1957, Mining and Mineral Resources: Florida
State Geological Survey Bull. 39, 132 p.

Causey, L. V., and Leve, G. W., 1976, Thickness of the Potable-Water
Zone in the Floridan Aquifer: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series
No. 74.

Chaki, Susan, and Oglesby, Woodson R., 1972, Bouguer Anomaly Map of
Northwest Florida and Adjacent Shelf: Florida Bureau of Geology
Map Series No. 52.

Chen, Chih Shan, 1965, The Regional Lithostratigraphic Analysis of
Paleocene and Eocene Rocks of Florida: Florida State Geological
Survey Bull. 45, 105 p.

Clark, Murlene Wiggs, and Wright, Ramil C., 1979, Subsurface Neogene
Biostratigraphy of Bay County, Florida: in Transactions Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies, V. 29 (in press).




BULLETIN NO. 57


Cooke, C. Wythe, and Mossom, Stuart, 1927, Geology of Florida:
in Florida State Geological Survey Twentieth Annual Report.

Cooke, C. Wythe, and Mossom, Stuart, 1929, Geology of Florida;
Florida State Geol. Survey 20th Ann. Report, 1927-1928, pp.
29-227.

Cooke, C. Wythe, and Mansfield, W. C., 1936,The Suwannee Limestone
of Florida (abstract): Geol. Soc. America Pro., 1935, p. 71-72.

Cooke, C. W., 1939, Scenery of Florida Interpreted by a Geologist:
Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 17, 118 p.

Cooke, C. Wythe, 1940, in paper by Wendell C. Mansfield -Mollusks of the
Chickasawhay Marl: Jour. Paleontology, V. 14, p. 171-172.

Cooke, C. Wythe, 1945, Geology of Florida: Florida State Geological
Survey Bull. 29, 342 p.

Cramer, F. H., 1971, Position of North Florida Lower Paleozoic Block in
Silurian time Phytoplankton Evidence: Jour. Geophys. Res., V. 76,
pp. 4754-4757.

Cushman, Joseph A., 1920, Lower Miocene Foraminifera of Florida:
U. S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 128, pp. 67-74, 1 pl.

Cushman, Joseph A., and Ponton, Gerald M., 1932, The Foraminifera of
the Upper Middle, and Part of the Lower Miocene of Florida: Florida
State Geological Survey Bull. 9.

Dall, W. H., 1890, Contributions to the Tertiary Fauna of Florida:
Wagner Free Inst. Sci. Trans., V. 3, pt. 1.

Dall, William Harris, and Harris, Gilbert D., 1892, The Neocene of North
America: U. S. Geol. Survey Bull. 84, 349 p.

Dall, W. H,, and Stanley-Brown, Joseph, 1894, Cenozoic Geology along
the Apalachicola River: Bull. Geol. Soc. American V. 5, p. 152.

Dall. W. H., 1915, A Monograph of the Molluscan Fauna of the Orthaulax
pugnas Zone of the Oligocene of Tampa, Florida: U. S. Nat. Mus.
Bull. 90, 173 p.

Foster, James B., 1965, Geology and Ground Water Hydrology of Bay
County, Florida: Unpublished Report, Florida Bureau of Geology, in
cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey.




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Foster, James B., 1972, Guide to Users of Ground Water in Bay County,
Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series 46.

Gardner, Julia A., 1926-1944, The Molluscan Fauna of the Alum Bluff
Group of Florida: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 142, pts. 1-4,
1926; pt. 5, 1928; pt. 6, 1937; pt. 7, 1944.

Geodata International, Inc., 1976-77, Residual Magnetic Intensity and
Total Count Gamma Ray Intensity: 1:250,000 scale for U. S.
Geological Survey, corresponding to the Tallahassee topographic
sheet. 7035 John W. Carpenter Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75247.

Gibson, T. G., 1967, Stratigraphy and Paleoenvironment of the Phosphate
Miocene Stata of North Carolina: Geol. Soc. America, Bull., V. 78,
pp. 631-650.

Grasty, R. L., and Wilson, J. T., 1 967, Ages of Florida Volcanics and of
Opening of the Atlantic Qcean (abstract): Am. Geophys. Union
Trans., V. 48, p. 212-213.

Healy, H. G., 1 975a, Potentiometric Surface and Areas of Artesian Flow of
the Floridan Aquifer of Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map
Series No. 73.

Healy, H. G., 1975b, Terraces and Shorelines of Florida: Florida Bureau
of Geology Map Series 71.

Heath, R. C., and Smith P. C., 1954, Ground Water Resources of Pinellas
County, Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Report Of In-
vestigations 12, 139 p.

Hendry, Charles W., Jr., and Yon, J. William, Jr., 1958, Geology of the
Area in and Around the Jim Woodruff Reservoir: Florida State
Geological Survey Report of Investigations 16, pt. 1, 55 p.

Hendry, Charles W. Jr., and Sproul, C. R., 1966, Geology and Ground
Water Resources of Leon County, Florida: Florida State Geological
Survey Bull. 47, 178 p.

Hobbs, Susan Smith, 1939, Stratigraphy and Micropaleontology of Three
Wells in Bay and Franklin Counties, Florida: Ohio State University,
M. A. Thesis.

Howe, Henry V., and others, 1935, Ostracoda of the Arca Zone of the
Choctawhatchee Miocene of Florida: Florida State Geological
Survey Bull. 13, 47 p.





BULLETIN NO. 57


Huddlestun, Paul F., 1976a, The Neogene Stratigraphy of the Central
Florida Panhandle: Dissertation, Florida State University Geology
Department, Tallahassee, Florida.

Huddlestun, Paul F., 1976b, The Neogene Stratigraphy of the Central
Florida Panhandle: Geol. Soc. America Section Meeting, V. 8, N. 2,
p. 203 (abstract).

Huddlestun, Paul F., and Wright, Ramil C., 1977, Late Miocene Glacio-
Eustatic Lowering of Sea Level: Evidence From the Choctawhat-
chee Formation, Florida Panhandle: Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol.
Soc. V. 27, pp. 299-303.

Johnson, Lawrence Clement, 1888, The Structure of Florida: Am. Jour.
Sci. 3rd ser., V. 36, pp. 230-236.

Johnson, L. C., 1891, The Chattahoochee Embayment: Geol. Soc.
Amer., Bull, V. 3, pp. 128-133.

Klein, H., Schroeder, M. C., and Lichtler, W. F., 1964, Geology and Ground
Water Resources of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida: Florida
State Geological Survey Report of Investigations 37, 101 p.

Kwader, Thomas, and Schmidt, Walter, 1978, Top of the Floridan Aquifer
of Northwest Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 86.

Lamb, J. L., and Beard, J. H., 1972, Late Neogene Planktonic Foramini-
fers in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and Italian Stratotypes: Univ.
Kansas Paleontological Cont., Art. 57, 67 p.

Langdon, D. W., 1889, Some Florida Miocene: American Sci., 3rd ser.,
V. 38, pp. 322-324.

Larsen, A. L. 1958, A Heavy Mineral Analysis of Pleistocene Terrace
Sands in Liberty and Wakulla Counties, Florida: Thesis, Florida State
University Geology Department, Tallahassee, Florida.

Levereit, F., 1931, The Pensacola Terrace and Associated Beaches and
Bars in Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bull. 7, 44 p.

MacNeil, F. Stearns, 1949, Pleistocene Shore Lines in Florida and
Georgia: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 221-F.

Mansfield, W. C., 1930, Miocene Gastropods and Scaphopods of the
Choctawhatchee Formation of Florida: Florida State Geological
Survey Bull. 3, 142 p.




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Mansfield, Wendell C., and Ponton, Gerald M., 1932, Faunal Zones in the
Choctawhatchee Formation of Florida: Washington Acad. Sci., F.
Vol. 22, pp. 84-88.

Mansfield, W. C., 1932, Miocene Pelecypods of the Choctawhatchee
Formation of Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 8, 240 p.

Mansfield, W. C., 1937, Mollusks of the Tampa and Suwannee Limestone
of Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 15, 334 p.

Marsh, O. T., 1966, Geology of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties,
Western Florida Panhandle: Florida State Geological Survey Bull.
46, 140 p.

Martens, James H. C., 1926a, Sand and Gravel Deposits of Florida:
Florida State Geological Survey 19th Annual Report, pp. 33-123.

Martens, James H. C., 1926b, Beach Deposits of Ilmenite, Zircon, and
Rutile in Florida: Florida State Geological Survey 19th Annual
Report, pp. 124-154.

Marth, Del, and Marth, J., Editor, 1978, The 1978 Florida Almanac:
Published by Willow Creek, for the Miami Herald.

Matson, George Charlton, and Clapp, F. G., 1909, A Preliminary Report on
the Geology of Florida with Special Reference to the Strati-
graphy: Florida State Geological Survey, 2nd Annual Report, pp.
25-173.

Matson, G. C., and Sanford, S., 1913, Geology and Ground Waters of
Florida: U.S. Geology. Survey Water Supply Paper 319, pp. 31-35.

May, J. P. 1977, The Chattahoochee Embayment: Southeastern
Geology, V. 18, pp. 149-156.

Miller, Rosewell III, 1945, The Heavy Minerals of Florida Beach and Dune
Sands: American Mineralogist, V. 30, pp. 65-75.

Milton, C., and Grasty, R., 1969, "Basement" Rocks of Florida and
Georgia: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologist Bull., V. 53, pp.
2483-2493.

Milton, Charles, 1972, Igneous and Metamorphic Basement Rocks of
Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletin No. 55, 125 p.

Moore, Wayne E., 1955, Geology of Jackson County, Florida: Florida
State Geological Survey Bull. 37.




BULLETIN NO. 57


Mossom D. Stuart, 1925, A Preliminary Report on the Limestone and Marls
of Florida: Florida State Geological Survey, Annual Report 16, pp.
27-203.

Mossom, D. Stuart, 1926, A Review of the Structure and Stratigraphy of
Florida, With Special Reference to the Petroleum Possi-
bilities: Florida State Geological Survey, Annual Report 17, pp.
169-275.

Murray, Grover E., 1961, Geology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Pro-
vince of North America: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, New York,
692 p.

Musgrove R. H., Foster, J. B., and Toler, L. G. 1965, Water Resources of
the Econfina Creek Basin: Florida State Geological Survey Report of
Investigations 41.

Musgrove, R. H., Foster, J. B., and Toler, L. G., 1968, Water Resource
Records of the Econfina Creek Basin Area, Florida: Florida Division
of Geology, Information Circular 57.

Pascale, Charles A., 1975, Estimated Yield of Fresh-Water Wells in
Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 70.

Patterson, S. H., and Herrick, S. M., 1971, Chattahoochee Anticline,
Apalachicola Embayment, Gulf Trough and Related Structural
Features, Southwestern Georgia, Fact or Fiction: Georgia Geol.
Survey, Information Circular 41, 16 p.

Peek. H. M., 1958, Ground Water Resources of Manatee County, Florida:
Florida State Geological Survey Report of Investigations 18, 99 p.

Peek. H. M., 1959, The Artesian Water of the Ruskin Area of Hillsborough
County, Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Report of Investiga-
tions 21, 96 p.

Peck, D. M., Missimer, T. M., Wise, S. W., and Wright, R. C., 1977, Late
Miocene (Messinian) Glacio-Eustatic Lowering of Sea Level:
Evidence from the Tamiami Formation of South Florida:
Florida Scientist, V. 40, Supp. 1, p. 22 (abstract).

Poag, C. Wylie, 1972, Planktonic Foraminifers of the Chickasawhay
Formation, United States Gulf Coast: Micropaleontology, V. 18, N.
3, pp. 257-277.

Pressler, E. D., 1947, Geology and Occurrence of Oil in Florida: Am
Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., V. 31, pp. 1851-1862.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Puri, Harbans S., 1953, Contribution to the Study of the Miocene of the
Florida Panhandle: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 36, 345 p.

Puri, Harbans S., 1957, Stratigraphy and Zonation of the Ocala Group:
Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 38, 248 p.

Puri, H. S., and Vernon, R. O., 1964, Summary of the Geology of Florida
and a Guidebook to the Classic Exposures: Florida State Geological
Survey, Special Publication 5, Revised.

Puri, H. S., Yon., J. W. Jr., and Ogelsby, W. R., 1967, Geology of Dixie
and Gilchrist Counties, Florida: Florida Division of Geology Bulletin
49, 155 pg.

Rainwater, E. H., 1 960, Paleocene of the Gulf Coastal Plain of the United
States of America: International Geol. Cong., 21st Copenhagen
1960, Report Pt. 5, pp. 97-116.

Rainwater, E. H., 1964, Regional Stratigraphy of the Gulf Coast Miocene:
Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., Trans., V. 14, pp. 81-124.

Revell, S. R., 1958, Heavy Mineral Content of Some Pleistocene Sands of
Leon and Wakulla Counties, Florida: Thesis, Florida State Universi-
ty, Geology Department, Tallahassee, Florida.

Reves, William D., 1961, The Limestone Resources of Washington,
Holmes, and Jackson Counties, Florida: Florida State Geological
Survey Bull. 42.

Rosenau, Jack C., and Faulkner, Glen L., 1974, An Index to Springs of
Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series 63.

Rosenau, Jack C., and Meadows, Paul E., 1976, Potentiometric Surface
of the Floridan Aquifer in the Northwest Florida Water Management
District, May. 1976: U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources In-
vestigation No. 77-2, Open File Report.

Rosenau, Jack C., Faulkner, Glen L., Hendry, Charles W., Jr., and Hull,
Robert W., 1977, Springs of Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology
Bull. 31, Revised.

Schmidt, Walter, and Coe, Curtis, 1978, Regional Structure and Strati-
graphy of the Limestone Outcrop Belt in the Florida Pan
handle: Florida Bureau of Geology Report of Investigations 86.

Schmidt, Walter, 1979, Environmental Geology Series, Tallahassee
Sheet: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series 90.




BULLETIN NO. 57


Sellards, E. H., and Gunter, Herman, 1918a, Geology Between the
Apalachicola and Ochlockonee Rivers in Florida: Florida State
Geological Survey Tenth Annual Report, pp. 9-66.

Sellards, E. H., and Gunter, H., 1918b, Geology Between the Choctaw-
hatchee and Apalachicola Rivers in Florida: Florida State Geological
Survey Eleventh Annual Report, pp. 77-102.

Smith, R. Hendee, 1941, Micropaleontology and Stratigraphy of a Deep
Well at Niceville, Okaloosa County, Florida: American Assoc. Petrol.
Geol., Bulletin, V. 25, No. 1, pp. 263-286.

Southeastern Geological Society, Third Field Trip, 1945, Stratigraphy of
the Outcropping Formations in Western Florida: Nov. 9, 10, 1945,
93 p.

Toler, L. G., and Shampine, W. J., 1962, Quality of Water from the Floridan
Aquifer in the Econfina Creek Basin Area, Florida: Florida State
Geological Survey Map Series 10.

Toulmin, Lyman D., 1955, Cenozoic Geology of Southeastern Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, V.
39, N. 2, pp. 207-235.

Vaughan, Thomas Wayland, 1919, Corals and the Formations of Coral
Reefs: Smithsonian Inst. Report for 1917, pp. 189-276.

Veach, Otto, and Stephenson, L. W., 1911, Preliminary Report on the
Geology of the Coastal Plain of Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull. 26.

Vernon, Robert 0., 1942, Geology of Holmes and Washington Counties,
Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 21, 161 p.

Vernon, R. 0., 1951, Geology of Citrus and Levey Counties, Florida:
Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 33, 256 p.

Vernon, Robert 0., 1973, Top of the Floridan Artesian Aquifer: Florida
Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 56.

Vokes, E. H., 1965, Note on the Age of the Chipola Formation (Miocene)
of Northwestern Florida: Tulane Stud. Geol., V. 3, N. 4, pp.
205-208.

Waller, Thomas R., 1969, The Evolution of the Argopecten gibbus stock
(Mollusca: Bivalvia), With Emphasis on the Tertiary and Quaternary
Species of North America: J. Paleontol., V. 43, N. 5, Suppl., 125 p.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


War Minerals Report 141, 1943, Beach Sands Near Pensacola, Santa
Rosa, Escambia, and Okaloosa Counties, Florida: U. S. Department
of Interior Bureau of Mines, W. M. R. 141 Rutile, Zircon, Ilmenite,
Kyanite.

Weisbord, Norman E., 1973, New and Little-Known Corals from the Tampa
Formation of Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Bull. 56, 156 p.

Weisbord, Norman E., 1972, Corals from the Chipola and Jackson Bluff
Formation of Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Geological Bull. 53,
105 p.

White, William A., 1970, Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula: Florida
Bureau of Geology Geological Bull. 51, 164 p.

Wiggs, Murlene, and Schmidt, Walter, 1979, Stratigraphy and Paleo-
geography of the Neogene in Bay County, Florida (abstract): Florida
Scientist V. 42, Supplement 1, p. 44.

Winker, C. D., and Howard, J. D., 1977a, Correlation of Tectonically
Deformed Shorelines on the Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain:
Geology, V. 5, pp. 123-127.

Winker, Charles D., and Howard, James D., 1977b, Plio-Pleistocene
Paleogeography of the Florida Gulf Coast Interpreted from Relict
Shorelines: in Transactions: Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies, V. 27, pp.

Yon, J. W., Jr., 1966, Geology of Jefferson County, Florida: Florida Geo-
logical Survey Bull. 48, 119 p.

Yon, J. William, Jr., and Hendry, C. W., Jr., 1970, Mineral Resource Study
of Holmes, Walton, and Washington Counties, Florida: Florida
Bureau of Geology Bull. 50.

Yon, J. William, Jr., and Hendry, Charles W., Jr., 1972, Suwannee Lime-
stone in Hernando and Pasco Counties, Florida: Florida Bureau of
Geology Bull. 54 Part 1, 42 p.






BULLETIN NO. 57


APPENDIX A
GEOLOGIC LOGS OF FIVE SELECTED CORE HOLES






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


W-13965 MEJETTE 1
ELEVATION: 70'
LOCATION: BAY COUNTY FLORIDA
TOWNSHIP 3S RANGE 12W SECTION 14bc
LONGITUDE 85* 24' 58"W LATITUDE 30 13' 20"N

DESCRIPTION

SAND, GRAYISH ORANGE TO WHITE IN COLOR, POORLY INDURATED TO UNINDURATED, 30% INTER-
GRANULAR POROSITY, GRAINSIZE VERY COARSE TO VERY FINE IN RANGE, MODE MEDIUM TO COARSE,
HEAVY MINERALS 1%, UP TO 10% CLAY, PALE RED PURPLE CLAY BED PRESENT 1 FOOT THICK, MICA PRE-
SENT 1%, UNFOSSILIFEROUS.



SAND, WHITE TO PALE BROWN, 34-15% POROSITY, CLAY PRESENT UP TO 10%, MICA 1%, HEAVY MINERALS
1%, UNINDURATED TO POORLY INDURATED, GRAINSIZE VERY COARSE TO VERY FINE, MODE COARSE TO
MEDIUM, UNFOSSILIFEROUS.



CLAY, OLIVE GRAY, 11% INTERGRANULAR AND INTRAGRANULAR POROSITY, POORLY INDURATED SAND
45%, MICA I%, PLANKTIC AND BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA AND MOLLUSKS PRESENT.





SAND, LIGHT OLIVE GRAY, 29% INTERGRANULAR POROSITY, GRAINSIZE MODE MEDIUM, RANGE COARSE
TO FINE, POOR INDURATION, CLAY AND MICRITE CEMENT, PHOSPHATE 8%, MICRITE 2%, CLAY 1%,
MOLLUSKS, ECHINOIDS, AND PLANKTIC AND BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA. SHELL BEDS OCCUR CONTAINING
30% INTERGRANULAR POROSITY, POORLY INDURATED, MICRITE CEMENT, PHOSPHATE 5%, MICA 1%, MICRITE
2%, MOLLUSKS, FORAMINIFERA, OSTRACODES AND BRYOZOANS.







LIMESTONE, YELLOWISH GRAY, 11% POROSITY, POORLY INDURATED, CLAY AND MICRITE CEMENT, BIO-
GENIC GRAINTYPE, SAND 10%, PHOSPHATE 3%, PLANKTIC AND BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA AND MOLLUSKS.

CLAY, YELLOWISH GRAY, 11% POROSITY, MEDIUM INDURATION, SAND 20%, LIMESTONE 15%, PHOSPHATE
3%, PLANKTIC AND BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA AND MOLLUSKS.





LIMESTONE, YELLOWISH GRAY, POROSITY 10-15%, VUGULAR TO PINPOINT VUGS, BIOGENIC, MICRITIC AND
CRYSTALLINE GRAIN TYPE, GRAINSIZE MODE MICROCRYSTALLINE, RANGE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTO-
CRYSTALLINE. MODERATE INDURATION WITH MICRITE AND CLAY CEMENT, MICA 1%, CLAY UP TO 10%,
SAND 1%, PHOSPHATE 1%, DOLOMITE PRESENT, PLANKTIC AND BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA, BRYOZOANS,
MOLLUSKS, ECHINOIDS AND OSTRACODES PRESENT.


LIMESTONE, WHITE, 5-11% VUGULAR POROSITY, CRYSTALLINE GRAINTYPE, GRAINSIZE MICROCRYPTO-
CRYSTALLINE, RANGE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALLINE, MODERATE INDURATION, UP TO 30% DOLO-
MITE, FORAMINIFERA PRESENT.


LIMESTONE AS ABOVE BUT VUS INLIMESTONE ARE FILLED WITH CLAY AND SHELL MATERIAL.


Figure 41.


LIMESTONE WITH ABUNDANT FORAMINIFERA.








BULLETIN NO. 57






















o W-14101 OTTER CREEK 1
H- 0 ELEVATION: 50'
Mo m < LOCATION: BAY COUNTY FLORIDA
-L i- 2 TOWNSHIP IS RANGE 17W SECTION 34dd
a !LI |LONGITUDE 80- 55' 40"W LATITUDE 30 21' 20"N

DESCRIPTION
50o oo
C SSAND, WHITE, 33% INTERGRANULAR POROSITY, UNINDURATED, HEAVY MINERALS AND PHOSPHATIC SAND
PRESENT, GRAINSIZE MODE MEDIUM. RANGE COARSE TO FINE.
S 25



50

SAND, WHITE, 29% INTERGRANULAR POROSITY, UNINDURATED, GRAINSIZE MODE COARSE, RANGE VERY
COARSE TO MEDIUM, HEAVY MINERALS I%, CLAY 9%, WOOD FRAGMENTS IN SAMPLE.
75



o00 SAND. WHITE, 30% INTERGRANULAR POROSITY, UNINDURATED. GRAINIZF MODE VERY COARSE, RANGE
GRAVEL TOCOARSE,CLAY I7.PYRITE 1%, MICA 1%.


125

6 ,6 0
'T-' CLAY I%, MICA 1%. PLANKTIC AND BENTHC FORAMINIFERA, OSTRACODES, MOLLUSKS, ECHINOIDS



SAND, LIGHT GRAY, 30T INTERGRANULAR POROSITY, LIMESTONE 11- PHOSPHATE 1- R BY

-175



200 LIMESTONE, YELLOWISH GRAY, 15I POROSITY PINPOINT VUGS, MODERATE INDURATION GRAIN TYPE
BIOGENIC AND MICRITIC, GRAINSIZE RANGE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALLINE, MODE MICROCRY-
STALLINE, SAND 3%, PHOSPHATE SAND I%, MOLLUSKS, PLANKTIC AND BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA.


225
LIMESTONE YELLOWISH GRAY. 10% POROSITY MOLDIC WITH PINPOINT ,VUG, GRAINTYPES BIpGENIC, CRY
STALLINE AND MICRITIC, GRAINSIZE RANGE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALLINE, MODE MICROCRY-
STALLINE, CLAY 5%. PHOSPHATE 1% SAND I% MOLLUSKS AND FORAMINIFERA.
250



275
CLAY, OLIVE GRAY COLOR, 4% FRACTURE POROSITY, POOR INDURATION, SAND 30%.


Figure 42. Geologic description of core W-14101.






88 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY

0 W-14077 WILLIAMS BAY 1
z 0 ELEVATION:30'
H a O-. TOWNSHIP 5S RANGE IIW SECTION 6aa
o < .. a1 LONGITUDE 85 23'25"W LATITUDE 3005' 5"N

DESCRIPTION
S 0 50 100 SAND 33% INTRRGRANULAR POROSITY. COLOR VERY LIGHT GRAY TO LIGHT GRAY, UNINDURATED TO
o) CPS POORLY INDURATED. CLAY CEMENT. GRAIN SIZE GRANULE TO FINE. MODE MEDIUM TO COARSE;
Z
El) =~^~ 25 CLAY. LIGHT GRAY. POROSITY 18% INTRAGRANULAR, POORLY INDURATED, SAND 40%, MICA I%.

z SAND. VERY LIGHT (;RAY. 34% INTERGRANULAR, POROSITY UNINDURATED GRAINSIZE, VERY COARSE TO
SdMEDIUM, MODE COARSE, HEAVY MINERALS 1%, MICA I%.
50
t(.- CLAY. BROWNISH GRAY. 0% INTERGRANULAR AND INTRAGRANULAR POROSITY, POORLY INDURATED,
-- .SAND 45%, MICA 1%. HEAVY MINERALS 1%.


S0070SAND. MEDIUM LIGHT GRAY TO PALE YELLOW BROWN, 33% INTERGRANULAR POROSITY UNINDURATED,
6 GRAINSIZE RANGE GRANULE TO FINE. MODE MEDIUM,CLAY I%, PYRITE I%, HEAVY MINERALS 1%.

too0 CLAY. MEDIUM LIGHT GRAY, 15% POROSITY, SAND 20%, MICA 1%, FOSSILIFEROUS.
JACKSON BLUFF
SHELL BED, MEDIUM GRAY, 33% POROSITY, LIMESTONE 40%, SAND 1%, FORAMINIFERA, BRYOZOANS,
MOLLUSKS.

125

LIMESTONE. YEI.I.OWISH GRAY, 18% INTERGRANULAR POROSITY "WITH PINPOINT VUGS, GRAIN TYPE BIO-
Z GENIC AND MICRITIC. GRAIN SIZE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALLINE, MODE MICROCRYSTALLINE,
0 I| O MODERATE INDURATION. PHOSPHATE 2%, SAND 1%, PYRITE 1%, RICH PLANKTIC AND BENTHIC FORAMINI-
FERAL ZONE. ECHINOIDS, MOLLUSKS, BRYOZOANS AND OSTRACODES, CLAY PRESENT.

I-I-
cr- -
0 175 -
LL 175 LIMESTONE SAME AS ABOVE.



200
U)

0--





250
a: ~ 225





SHELL BED, YELLOWISH GRAY, 28% INTRAGRANULAR POROSITY, POOR INDURATION, LIMESTONE 15%,
3-c PHOSPHATE 1%, SAND I%, MICA 1%. ABUNDANT FORAMINIFERA, MOLLUSKS, BRYOZOANS, ECHINOIDS AND
SOSTRACODES PRESENT.
275
DOLOMITE, DARK YELLOWISH BROWN, 9% POROSITY, MODERATE INDURATION, LIMESTONE 5%, FORAMINI-
FERA, BRYOZOANS, MOLLUSKS.






325
LIMESTONE, YELLOWISH GRAY, 12% VUGULAR POROSITY, GRAIN TYPE BIOGENIC AND MICR1TIC, GRAIN SIZE
wt Y VERY COARSE TO MICROCRYSTALLINE, MEDIUM MODE, MODERATE INDURATION, SAND 4%, PHOSPHATE
z 3%, FORAMINIFERA PRESENT.

4) 350

SILIMESTONE, YELLOWISH GRAY, 6% INTRAGRANULAR POROSITY, PINPOINT VUGS, GRAINTYPE BIOGENIC
I AND MICRITIC, GRAIN SIZE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALLUNE, MODE MICROCRYSTALLINE,
| NDRIPHOSPHATE 1%,CLAY 7%, SAND 1%, FORAMINIFERA PRESENT.
375


Cr
4

U | LIMESTONE, YELLOWISH GRAY, POROSITY 12%, VUGS AND PINPOINT VUGS, GRAINTYPE MICRITIC AND
S I BIOGENIC, GRAINSIZE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALUNE. MODE MICROCRYSTALLINE, MODERATE
D I INDURATION, PHOSPHATE 9I1%, SAND R ALI ER% S OTL FOMIFERAMOLLUSKS AND FOSSIL MOLDS PRESENT.
4 25



450



r75

w
z LIMESTONE YELLOWISH GRAY, POROSITY 12%, VUGS, AND PINPOINT VUGS, GRAINTYPE, MICRITE AND
z 5 BIOGENIC, GRAINSIZE, VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALUNE. MODERATE INDURATION. MICRITE
Z CEMENT, QUARTZ SAND 1%, SPARRY CALCITE 1%, PHOSPHORITE I, CLAY I% FORAMINIFERA, MOLLUSKS
SAND FOSSIL MOLDS, THIN CALCAREOUS CLAY BED, ABUNDANT FORAMINIFERA.




Figure 43. Geologic description of core W-14077.








BULLETIN NO. 57 89

o W-14108 WARMOUTH POND
S ELEVATION: 70'
o LOCATION: BAY COUNTY FLORIDA
1L- 2 TOWNSHIP IS RANGE 15W SECTION Ibc
o 0a 2 LONGITUDE 85 41' 53"W LATITUDE 300 25'57"N

DESCRIPTION
: o 0o Io
CPS SAND. LIGHT GRAY. POROSITY INTERGRANULAR 30%. GRAINSIZE MODE MEDIUM RANGE FINE TO COARSE,
'UNINDURATED. HEAVY MINERALS 1%.









PHOSPHATE I%.MOLLUSKSFORAMINIFERA.OSTRACODES.
75







LIMESTONE LIGHT GRAY. % INTERGRANULAR POROSITY.GRAINTYPEMICRITE. BIOENI SKELETAL
125 GRAINSIZE RANGE FINE TO COARSE. MODERATE INDURATION. SAND 10%. PHOSPHATE 2%. FORAMINIFERA.
MOLLUSKS.












2500
00TAMPA
LIMESTONE. LIGHT GRAY.309B INTERGRANULAR. VUGULAR POROSITY. GRAINTYPE MICRITE, CRYSTALLINE.
AND PELLET GRAINSIZH MEDIUM. GOOD INDURATION. SPARRY CALCITE CEMENT. DOLOMITE I(%.
MOLLUSKS

225

WITH PINPOINT VUGS. ALTERATION 90-100/. GOOD INDURATION. CRYSTALLINITY EUHEDRAL. GRAINSIZE
VERY FINE. DOLOMITE(CEMENT SPARRY(CAL(CITE 4%. SUCROSIC. FOSSIL MOLDS. MOLLUSKS. FORAMINI-
250



275




300 .IME.STONE. VERY PALE ORANGE TO VERY LIGHT GRAY. POROSITY 25% INTERGRANULAR WITH PINPOINT
VU(;S. (;RAINTYPt %III PIf tL I %, L \NhL k I I ALT~ I u iNt I-IN A SIZL ViA, .- tf GOOD INDIB RATION N lE a MB -IIBLS' \N N u B1 .B LISS lliI '-I L 1 L ILVB ,I B* il .B I 1 1 IL r1.II -I. I ',I, :,-I
EORAMINIFERA PRESENT.(HALKY TO SU(ROSI('

325



350



375 LIMESTONE (IAUSTE.TI INTIHT R GRAY TO VERY PAOLE ORANGE. "PI MORI( AND 'LE .INIE (;NRANO -



400



425

SIZE MODE FINE. MODERATE INDURATION. M(CRITE ( FMI.NT. (`CHALKY. WITH FORAMINIF-.RA

450
H RT. DUSKY YELLOWISH BROWN. NO OBSERVABLE POROSITY. (,EO) I NDURATION. IIMESONE 5'/,



LIMESTONE, VERY PALE ORAN t. 24' INTRGRANU.AR POROSIIY. GRAINeYPE MI(RIII( 0AND (RY
STALLIN-. GRAINSIZE VERY FINE TO (COARSE, MODIERATE INDURAIIIION. MI('RITIh (EMIfNT (,I.AO('*ONI-FE
31f, SAND I7, PHOSPHATE IV, SPE(CKL.ED). I-ORAMINIFIERA
LIMESTONE. WHITE. 201,g POROSITY. IN1FR.R(;RANI:IAR AND MO1 I)1(. GRAINIYPE. ( RYSI ,%11.Nl AND


Figure 44. Geologic description of~core W-1 41 08.






90 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


S W-14125 BEE BAY
-z [ ELEVATION: 67'

S0 -r < LOCATION: CALHOUN COUNTY FLORIDA
c oL- 2 TOWNSHIP 3S RANGE IOW SECTION 19bd
cr 0a i LONGITUDE 85 16'25"W LATITUDE 30* 12'20"N
u-
(. 0() Q (3
DESCRIPT ION













LL -D
SAND, LIGHT BROWN TO VERY PALE ORANGE, 31 INTERGRANULAR POROSITY, GRAINSIZE, MODE MEDIUM
I- ;:'*::*:'* S\TO COARSE, RANGE FINE TO VERY COARSE. UNINDURATED, HEAVY MINERALS I1%, CLAY 1%, MICA 1%.




75 0 CLAY, OLIVE GRAY, 5-9% POROSITY, FRACTURE AND INTRAGRANULAR, POOR INDURATION, MICA 1%,C
LL HEAVY MINERALS 1%, SAND 30%, PHOSPHATE 5%, FORAMINIFERA, MOLLUSKS, ECHINOIDS, OSTRACODES.

u-
m o LIMESTONE, YELLOWISH GRAY, 129 POROSITY, FRACTURE AND PINPOINT VUGS, GRAINTYPE BIOGENIC
o AND MICRITIC, GRAINSIZE RANGE FROM VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALIINE MODE MICRO
z- CRYSTALLINE, MODERATELY INDURATED. MICRITIC CEMENT, PHOSPHATE 5%, SAND 10%0 MICA 1%, CLAY
0 5%, FORAMINIFERA, MOLLUSKS, ECHINOIDS AND OSTRACODES.

1o 5
LIMESTONE, YELLOWISH GRAY, 15% POROSITY, FRACTURE PINPOINT VOGS AND VUGS, BIOGENIC GRAIN.
STYPE, GRAINSIZE MODE MICROCRYSTALLINE, RANGE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALLINE, MODERATE
INDURATION WITH MICRITE CEMENT AND CLAY CEMENT. CLAY 10%, PHOSPHATE 3%, SAND 50%, MICA I%,
---- .- FORAMINIFERA ANDMOLLUSKS.
150

LIMESTONE, YELLOW GRAY. 15% VUGULAR PINPOINT VUGS AND FRACTURE POROSITY, GRAINTYPE BIO-
o GENIC, GRAINSIZE, RANGE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALLINE, MODE MICROCRYSTALLINE, MICRITE
Q AND CLAY CEMENT, MODERATE INDURATION. CLAY 10% SAND 5%, MICA 1 PHOSPHATE 1%; PLANKTONIC
S- 17 AND BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA, AND MOLLUSKS.




200





CRYSTALLINE, MODERATE INDURAION WITH MICRITE CEMENT, SAND 10%. PHOSPHATE 1%, CLAY 5%
DOLOMITE !0%, MOLLUSKS AND FORAMINIFERA.

250



275



4300

0 -BENTHIC FORAMINIFERA. MOLLUSKS AND BRYOZOANS.

325



350
35 LIMESTONE. YELLOWISH GRAY. 12% POROSITY PINPOINT VUGS AND VUGS, GRAINTYPE BIOGENIC AND
MI'RITI(, GRAINSIZE MODE FINE TO MICROCRYSTALLINE. RANGE FROM VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRY.





400


S I-m CLAY YELLEOWGRAY 5%POROS N. POSRSIBTYPMEABL. POORLY INDURATE DI. PLANKTIC AND
F 425
LIMESTONE, WHITE TO YELLOW GRAY. 12% POROSITY WITH PINPOINT VUGS. GRAINTYPE BIOGENIC AND







LIMESTONE, 4T25% POROSITY. VUGULAR AND MOLDIC POR OSITY T O N POTUSSIBLY PERMEABLE. GRAINTYPE
C MODERATE INDURATION WITH MIRITE CEMENT. MICRITE 4. SAND FORAMINIFERA AND MOLLUSKSOMIT



MOLLUSKS PRESENT, BECOMES SLIGHTLY DOLOMITE


Figure 45. Geologic description of core W-14125.





BULLETIN NO. 57













APPENDIX B

LISTING OF WELL CUTTINGS AND CORE DATA


County


By ................ Bay
Cn............ Calhoun
Gf................ Gulf
W I............. Walton
Ws..........Washington


Sample Type


Geophysical logs


Cut ........... Cuttings
C ................ Core

E .............. Electric
G ............. Gamma
C .............. Caliper
FI .......... Flow meter


Depths in feet




Full Text

PAGE 1

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Elton J. Gissendanner, Executive Director DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Casey J. Gluckman, Division Director BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Charles W. Hendry, Jr., Chief BULLETIN NO. 57 GEOLOGY OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA By Walter Schmidt and Murlene Wiggs Clark Published for BUREAU OF GEOLOGY DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TALLAHASSEE 1980

PAGE 2

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BOB GRAHAM Governor GEORGE FIRESTONE JIM SMITH Secretary of State Attorney General BILL GUNTER GERALD A. LEWIS Treasurer Comptroller RALPH D. TURLINGTON DOYLE CONNER Commissioner of Education Commissioner of Agriculture ELTON J. GISSENDANNER Executive Director LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Bureau of Geology Tallahassee October 30, 1980 Governor Bob Graham, Chairman Florida Department of Natural Resources Tallahassee Florida 32301 Dear Governor Graham: The Bureau of Geology, Division of Resource Management, Depart ment of Natural Resources is publishing as Bulletin 57 "Geology of Bay County, Florida," prepared by Walter Schmidt (Bureau of Geology) and Murlene Wiggs Clark (Northwest Florida Water Management District). Bay County is experiencing rapid population and industrial growth, and this trend is expected to continue. This report fulfills a need for information on the stratigraphy of the area, which is the foundation of ground-water resources investigations. Information on the mineral deposits is also presented, along with data which will be helpful in further study of the geology of the Florida Panhandle iii Respectfully yours, Charles W. Hendry, Jr. Chief Bureau of Geology

PAGE 3

Printed for the Florida Department of Natural Resources Division of Resource Management Bureau of Geology Tallahassee 1980 iv CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . .......... 3 Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Purpose . . . . . . . . . 3 Location and Extent . . . . . . 4 Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Population Development . ...... ...... .... 6 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . 6 Climate . . . . . . . . ... 6 Metric Conversion Factors . . . . .... . ... .... . .... 7 Well and Outcrop Numbering System . .... 7 Previous Investigations . . . . . . . . . . 9 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Introduction . . . . ... 1 0 Methods of Investigation and Data Base . . . . . . . . .. 11 Physiography . . . . . . . 11 Sand Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Sinks and Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 4 Flat-woods Forest . . . . . 15 Beach Dunes and Wave-Cut Bluffs . . . . . . . . .. 1 5 Terraces and Ancient Shorelines ...... . . . . . .... 17 Springs . . . . . . . . .... 21 Steepheads . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Geophysical Surveys . . . . ... ........... 23 Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Magnetic . . . . . . . . . .... 23 Aeroradioactivity . . . . ...... . . .... 23 Geologic Structure . . . . . . . . ..... 2 4 Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Introduction . . . . . . . ... . .... 26 Igneous and Paleozoic Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 Mesozoic Era . . . . . . ..... ........... 28 Cenozic Era . . . . . . . . . 29 Paleocene Series . . . . . . . . .. 29 Midway Stage . . . . ..... .... ...... 29 Eocene Series . . . . . . . ... 30 Wilcox Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 Claiborne Stage . . . . . . . . . . 30 Tallahatta Formation . . . . . . . .. 30 Lisbon Formation . . . . . . . . . . 30 Jackson Stage . . . . . . . . . 31 Ocala Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Lower Facies . ... ....... ........ 31 Upper Facies . . . . .. 31 Oligocene Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 32 Vicksburg Stage . . ............... 32 Marianna Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . ... 32 Suwannee Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 Miocene and Pliocene Series . . . . . . 33 Tampa Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 History . . . . . . . . . 33 Lithologic Description . .. 35 Thickness and Description . . . . . . . . ..... 35 Paleontology and Age . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 v

PAGE 4

Alum Bluff Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... 36 History . . . . . . . 36 Chipola Formation . . . . 37 History . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 Lithologic Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Thickness and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . 37 Paleontology and Age . . 38 Bruce Creek Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 History . . . . . . . . . 38 Lithologic Description .......... 39 Thickness and Distribution . . 40 Paleontology and Age . ....... . .... ......... .... 40 Choctawhatchee Stage . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 History . .... 41 Intracoastal Formation . . . . . .. 44 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Lithologic Description . . . . 45 Thickness and Distribution . . . . . .... 4 7 Paleontology and Age . . . . . . ........ . .... . .... 50 Jackson Bluff Formation ..... 54 History . . . . . ..... 54 Lithologic Description . . . . . . . 55 Thickness and Distribution . 55 Paleontology and Age . . . . . . . . . 58 Pliocene to Recent Clayey Sands . . . . . . . . . . 58 Economic Geology . . . . . . 71 Sand and Gravel . . . . . . . 71 Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71 . . . . . . ... 71 Heavy Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 Oil and Gas. ... 73 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 References . . . . . . 7 5 Appendices Appendix A Geologic Logs of Five Selected Core Holes 85 Appendix B Listing of Well Cuttings and Core Data .......... .... . . . 91 vi l f f f f l I ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1 Location of Bay County, Florida . . . . . . . . . .... 4 2. Index to U S G .S. Topographic Quadrangles .. 5 3. Well and Outcrop Numbering System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Geologic Data Base . . . . . . . 12 5. Physiographic Subdivisions in Bay County . 13 6 Dendritic Drainage developed in the Sand Hills ..................... .... 14 7. Sand Hills as seen along Route 20 ... 15 8 Karst Drainage developed in the Sinks and Lakes 16 9 Flat-woods Forest as seen along Route 231 ....................... .... 16 1 0. Coastal Features developed in the Beach Dunes and 11. 12 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Table Wave-Cut Bluffs . ...... 17 Coastal sand dunes in St. Andrews State Park 1 8 Elevation Zones or Terraces" in Bay County . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Topographic Profiles across Bay County 20 Steephead development in Sand Hills . . . . . . . 22 Principal Geologic Structures near Bay County . . . . . . . . . 24 Stratigraphic Nomenclature for the Geologic Formations in Bay County . . . . . . 27 Structural Map of Top of Bruce Creek Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Location of "Type" Core for the Intracoastal Formation 46 Structural Map of Top of Intracoastal Formation . . . . . . . . . 48 Isopach Map of the Intracoastal Formation ..... . ... 49 Planktonic Foraminiferal Range Chart for Well W-2212 51 Planktonic Foraminiferal Range Chart for Well W-2950 . . . . . 51 Planktonic Foraminiferal Range Chart for Well W-14077 52 Biostratigraphic Zonation of the Intracoastal Formation in 14 wells from Bay and Walton Counties ............. . .... ... Intracoastal Formation Outcrop along Econfina Creek ............ . Jackson Bluff Formation Outcrop along Econfina Creek Stratigraphic Correlation Chart of the Shallow Sediments in Bay County Isopach Map of the Pliocene to Recent Clayey Sands and Sands 53 55 56 57 in Bay County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Citronelle Formation Outcrop in Northern Bay County 60 Location of Geologic Cross-Sections . . . . . . 61 Geologic Cross-Section AA' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Geologic Cross-Section BB' . . . . 63 Geologic Cross-Section C-C' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Geologic Cross-Section DD' . . . . 65 Geologic Cross-Section E E . 66 Geologic Cross Section F-F' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Geologic Cross-Section G-G' 68 Geologic Cross-Section H-H' 69 Geologic Cross-Section 1-1' . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Sand Mine near Callaway . . . . . 72 Geologic Description of Core W-13965. . . . . 86 Geologic Description of Core W-141 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Geologic Description of Core W-14077 . 88 Geologic Description of Core W-141 08 89 Geologic Description of Core W-14125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 1 Metric Conversion factors . 2 Sand Producers in Bay County . 92 ...... 93 vii

PAGE 5

I I I I I I f [ I GEOLOGY OF BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA By Walter Schmidt and Murlene Wiggs Clark PREFACE This report is the result of a detailed study of the geology of Bay County, Florida. The county is relatively flat in relief and is mostly covered with Pleistocene to Recent quartz sands. An increase in the amount of sub surface data available in the form of well cuttings, core samples, and geophysical well logs has made possible this report on the stratigraphy of the area. Because the Neogene in the Bay County area represents a relatively undescribed section, and because of its prolific microfauna, this section commands the most attention in this report. Two new formations are recognized, although they were first described by Huddlestun (1 976a) in Walton County, Florida. The Bruce Creek Limestone is identified and mapped using the lithologic and stratigraphic definition described by Huddlestun The Intracoastal Formation is also identified and mapped; however, this unit has been modified from the original use by Huc;Jdlestun in Walton County The time of deposition for these new formations has been estimated, based on planktonic foraminiferal zones, and calcareous nannofossils The Bruce Creek Limestone is considered Middle Miocene, the Intracoastal Formation is considered late Middle Miocene to Late Pliocene. In the Past, the Miocene of the Florida Panhandle has generated a lot of interest from geologists The outcrops throughout the area contain an abundant fossil fauna which has been described by many paleontologists. Because the sediments have been classified and dated a number of successive times, a brief history of the nomenclature and its changes is in cluded in this report. The pre L Neogene sediments are also addressed, although the deeper strata have fewer wells with samples available. The Bay County area represents a critical region in understanding the geology of the Florida Panhandle. Future research will continue east into the center of the Apalachicola Embayment and west towards the Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin.

PAGE 6

2 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was begun in early 1978. It is the first report of a planned geologic research program to cover the coastal area of the Florida Panhandle The writers are appreciative of the financial assistance given by the Northwest Florida Water Management District during the data collection stage of the research. Tom Kwader and Jeff Wagner of the district reviewed the manuscript and contributed valuable assistance in discus sions on the area. Dr. Ramil C. Wright of the Geology Department, Florida State Universi ty, reviewed the biostratigraphic zonation of the Intracoastal Formation, and his assistance is gratefully acknowledged The authors thank Paul F. Huddlestun, whose work in southern Walton County laid the foundation for this and future work in Florida Panhandle coastal stratigraphy The St. Joe Paper Company, the International Paper Company, and the Prosper Energy Corporation graciously permitted stratigraphic core tests on their properties. The data obtained from those cores were invaluable to this study Their cooperation is gratefully acknowledged. The authors express their appreciation to the members of the geologic staff of the Florida Bureau of Geology for many helpful discussions and con structive criticism of our work. B ULL E TIN NO. 57 3 INTRODU C TION SETTING Bay County is located in the central part of the Florida Panhandle (fig 1), and is part of a large sedimentary basin consisting of southern Alabama, southern Georgia, and Florida, called the eastern Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin This basin is divideq into two sedimentary provinces, the North Gulf Coast Sedimentary Province and the Florida Peninsula Sedimentary Province (Pressler, 1947, p 185). The latter is characterized by nearly 20,000 feet of carbonates and evaporites; the former province consists mainly of clastic sediments, totalling over 15,000 feet in thickness. The North Gulf Coast and Florida Peninsula sedimentary provinces are separated by Pressler ( 1 94 7) along a general line through northern peninsular Florida from Levy to Nassau counties. Bay County has a thickness of Cenozoic sediments approaching 3,500 feet (Toulmin, 1955). This sediment accumulation is in part due to the fact that Bay County is located on the western flank of yet another more localized sedimentary basin, named the Apalachicola Embayment (Pressler, 194 7). This feature, together with the adjacent parts of the Gulf of Mexico basin, cover an area of approximately 30,000 square miles (Pressler, 194 7). The synclinal axis of this embayment trends south southwestward from extreme southwestern Georgia across western Florida, plunging toward the Gulf of Mexico The sedimentary fill in the deepest part of the embayment attains a thickness of over 15,000 feet This section thins updip toward the north and east in Alabama and Georgia and east and south on the Ocala Uplift in central Florida, and west towards Walton County (which lies immediately west of Bay County) These sediments range in age from Triassic to Recent and are similar to those deposits of the same age in southern Alabama and southern Georgia The Tertiary formations, however become more calcareous in their eastern and southern facies PURPOSE Population and industrial growth trends in Panama City and the Bay County area indicate a need for additional information on the mineral deposits as well as stratigraphy, which contributes to the data base needed for ground water resources investigations The purpose of this study was to make a detailed examination of the geology of Bay County and to examine the stratigraphic relationships of the near surface deposits Geological data were collected predominantly through the examination of well cuttings and cores from oil test wells, water supply wells, and stratigraphic core tests. Surface exposures are very limited throughout the county The core holes were drilled by the Florida Bureau of Geology in specific areas where subsurface data were sparse

PAGE 7

4 B UREAU OF GE OLO G Y I 'OUN. TOWN I "' 8 1 ir '='I => \: j G' & < $CAl.[ c 0 Figure 1 Location of Bay County, Florida. LOCATION AND E XTENT Bay County is situated in the south central part of the Florida Panhandle (fig. 1 ). The county is bordered by the Gulf of Mexico on the south, Walton County to the west, Washington and Jackson counties to the north, and Calhoun and Gulf counties to the east Its county seat and major city, Panama City, is located on St. Andrews B ay which is approximately 103 I I I I J I B ULL E TIN NO. 5 7 5 miles southeast of Pensacola 98 miles southwest of Tallahassee, and 98 miles south of Dothan, Alabama The county encompasses about 481,920 acres (753 square miles) and is about 36 miles wide and averages about 25 miles from north to south MAPS Bay County is completely covered by U .S Geological Survey 7%-minute (1 :24,000 scale) topographic quadrangles The index to published maps is shown as figure 2. Other useful maps covering Bay County published by the U S G S include the T allahassee Sheet (1 :250,000), and the State of F lorida (1 :500,000 scale). B A Y COUNTY Figure 2 Index to U .S. Geological Survey 7% Minute T opographic Quadrangle

PAGE 8

6 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY The General Highway Map of Bay County prepared by the Florida Department of Transportation is available from that state agency An ex cellent "Picto-Map" which denotes roads and surface features is available from the Bay County Chamber of Commerce. Other maps which cover the county in some form include the Bay County soils map found in the Florida General Soils Atlas, Planning District 2 report, published by the Florida Division of State Planning; Mark Hurd Aerial photographs which correspond to the ?%-minute U.S.G.S. quadrangles (these are published by Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc., 345 Pennsylvania Avenue, South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426); and the satellite image mosaic of the State of Florida at a 1 :500,000 scale, publish ed by the U.S.G.S. Aerial photographic coverage is also available from the Florida Department of Transportation POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT Bay County was established April 24, 1913. The county takes its name from St. Andrew's Bay, on which it is situated. During World War II Panama City was a major ship-building and in dustrial center. It became the temporary home of thousands of war-time workers, who came to the city from many parts of the nation Tyndall Air Force Base and the Naval Coastal System Center, presently located on the bay, are major contributors to the economy of the area Other important economic factors include agriculture, forestry, commercial fishing, and paper manufacturing. Tourism is of major importance and the county's beaches are one of the principal tourist attractions in west Florida. The population has grown about 12. 1 percent between 1960 to 1970 (from 67,131 to 75,283). It is predicted that the population will approach 91,100 by 1980, and 128,300 by 2010 (the 19 78 Florida Almanac, D. Marth, ed.). Panama City is expected to total 80,000 in population in 1990, a 40 percent increase over 1970. TRANSPORTATION Bay County is served by one railroad, The Atlanta and Saint Andrews Bay Railroad, and one major public airport the Panama City-Bay County Air port (Fannin Field), located just north of Panama City. The county is crossed by numerous highways with Florida Routes 77, 79, and U.S. 231 being the major north-south roads, and Florida Routes 20, 22, 388, and U.S. 98 being the major east west roads. There are many other secondary roads that make most of the county accessible. CLIMATE The geographical position of Bay County is reflected in the humid sub tropical climate with an annual average temperature of 68F (21 C) varying BULLETIN NO. 57 7 from an average 53F (12C) in January to an average of 82F (28C) in July. Due to an average elevation of just 21 feet above sea level, and being located next to the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the county is free from extremes of heat or cold The average annual rainfall is 58 inches, with July, August and September being the wettest months METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS In order to prevent much awkward duplication of parenthetical conversion of units in the text of reports, the Florida Bureau of Geology has adopted the practice of inserting a tabular listing of conversion factors. For the use of those readers who may prefer to use metric units rather than the customary U.S. units, the conversion factors for terms used in this report are given in Table 1 TABLE 1. Metric conversion factors for terms used in this report. MULTIPLY BY TO OBTAIN acres 0.4047 hectares acres 4047. 0 sq meters cubic yards 0 .7646 cu. meters feet 0 .3048 meters inches 2 .540 centimeters inches 0.0254 meters miles 1.609 kilometers sq. miles 2.590 sq. kilometers WELL AND OUTCROP NUMBERING SYSTEM The locality and well numbering system used in this report is based on the location of the locality or well, and uses the rectangular system of sec tion, township and range for identification. The number consists of five parts. These are: 1) a prefix letter designating L for locality, or W for well, 2) the township, 3) the range, 4) the section and 5) the quarter/quarter location within the section. The basic rectangle is the township, which is 6 miles on a side and en compasses 36 square miles. It is consecutively measured by tiers both north and south of the Florida base line, and an east-west line that passes through Tallahassee as Township ? North or South. This basic rectangle is also consecutively measured both east and west of the principal meridian and a north-south line that passes through Tallahassee as Range ? East or West. In recording the township and range numbers, the T is left off the township numbers and the R is left off the range numbers. Each township is divided equally into 36 one-mile square blocks called sections, and are numbered 1 through 36 as shown on figure 3.

PAGE 9

8 z .. .... -.... ., .... ., .. .... ., .. .... "' .. .... "' .. .... ., .. .... BUREAU OF GEOLOGY BAS P. I -15W-Ibc Figure 3. Well and Outcrop numbering system used by the Florida Bureau of Geology The sections are divided into quarters with the quarters " throu h "d" as shown on figure 3 In turn, each of these one a g r s divided into quarters with these quarter/quarter quarter sel cb IOI nds I" a" through "d" in the same manner. The "a" squares a e e BULLETIN NO. 57 9 through "d" designation of quarters may be carried to any extent deemed useful. The location of the well W-141 08 as shown on figure 3 would be in the center of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 1 S, Range 15W, Bay County. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Numerous reports which have discussed geologic and biologic aspects of the Florida Panhandle have made reference to Bay Coun ty; however, only those reports that deal specifically with the geology of Bay County are mentioned below Various surface exposures and a few well descriptions have been reported by Cooke and Mossom (1927), Cushman and Ponton (1932), Hobbs (1939), Vernon (1942), Cooke (1945), and Puri (1953). Other reports which have emphasized surface geomorphology or water resources include MacNeil (1949), Toler and Shampine (1962), Musgrove et. al. (1965), Musgrove et. al. (1968), Foster (1972), Winker and Howard (1977), and Schmidt (1979) Bay County does not have an abundance of surface exposures or "out crops" of many rock formations This is because most of the county is covered with reworked quartz sands from the various marine terraces that are present in the vicinity. Consequently, cuttings from water wells have been used in correlating the subsurface strata throughout the county It has not been until recent years that the subsurface information, in the form of cuttings, cores, and geophysical logs, has accumulated to the point where some geologic conclusions can be drawn, as in the form of this report. Other reports that deal with specific topics on the county's geology will be referenced in the text when they have direct bearing on the discussion.

PAGE 10

10 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY GEOLOGY INTRODUCTION In the past the central part of the Florida Panhandle has received considerable attention from geologists. Vernon (1942) published The Geology of Holmes and Washington Counties, Florida. These counties are located immediately north of Bay County. Moore (1955) published The Geology of Jackson County, Florida which is to the northeast of Bay Coun ty; and Schmidt and Coe (1978) reported on the regional stratigraphy of that three-county area. Puri (1953) published A Contribution to the Study of the Miocene of the Florida Panhandle, which is a comprehensive study of the microfauna and a thorough description of the assemblages. These reports included lithologic and paleontologic analysis of the stratigraphic units present. In addition to the paleontologic assemblages being identified the formations present were correlated in the form of geologic cross sections, structure contour maps, and isopach maps This information was used in determining the structural as well as the depositional history of the study area. More recently, Huddlestun (1976) reported on the Neogene stratigraphy of the central panhandle. His study dealt primarily with Walton County, which is located just northwest and west of Bay County. In his study, Huddlestun had the unique opportunity to compare the Neogene stratigraphic sequence along the coast (in Walton County), with the northern, updip equivalent in Walton County, which corresponds stratigraphically with Vernon's Holmes and Washington counties study The stratigraphy of Bay County has many characteristics in common with coastal Walton County. The southern one-third of Walton County, Bay, southern Calhoun, southern Liberty Gulf, and Franklin counties contain a thickened sequence of Neogene sediments. This structural feature has been called the Apalachicola Embayment (Pressler, 194 7) In these counties, the Neogene sediments apparently represent a deeper marine farther offshore equivalent of their contem poraneous updip units to the north, (Huddlestun, 1976; Wiggs and Schmidt, 1979). In addition these units are much thicker in the south than the age-equivalent units to the north. Because of this off-shore, near-shore concept, as well as the in crease in sedimentation rate (Clark and Wright, 1979), the correla tion of these units with the better exposed equivalents updip re quires excellent geologic control. The recent increased availability of well cuttings and cores in Bay County has made this attempt at correlation possible Ground-water resources have received only a small amount of attention in the Bay County area Foster (1972) published data on water chemistry and constructed two geohydrologic cross-sections across the county, using water-well information. Musgrove and BULLETIN NO. 57 11 others (1965), reported on the water resources of the Econfina Creek Basin, which includes part of southern Washington County and the eastern parts of Calhoun and Gulf counties Their project was primarily involved with surface water characteristics, with ground water being only a minor chapter in their publication The .economic geology of the surface deposits in Bay County has rece1ved only brief mention in the literature Schmidt (1979) in cludes the area in a generalized discussion of surface lithology in the eastern Florida Panhandle. Reves (1961 ), and Yon and Hendry (1970) reported on the limestone resources of Washington Holmes, and Jackson counties, and the mineral resources of Holmes Walton, and Washington counties, respectively. All these occur north and northwest of Bay County METHODS OF INVESTIGATION AND DATA BASE Because of the gentle dip of the strata, and the veneer of Pleistocene terrace deposits that cover the county, there are very few locations where formations crop out within the area. The present study, therefore, is based mostly on subsurface information consisting of cuttings from water and oil wells, stratigraphic core tests, drillers' logs, and geophysical information obtained by the Florida Bureau of Geology and the Northwest Florida Water Management District (fig 4) In all, 103 wells and cores were available throughout the county for study, with 21 having geophysical logs available. Well samples are stored by the Florida Bureau of Geology in Tallahassee, Florida. The cuttings were examined with a binocular microscope, and for uniformity in descriptions, a computer sheet for each well was filled out, with such parameters as major rock types, color, estimated porosity, grain type, grain size, induration, cement type, sedimentary structures, accessory minerals and fo.ssils present being described The geologic logs were compared w1th the gamma logs when available to aid in determining the depth and thickness of the lithologic units. PHYSIOGRAPHY Florida has been divided into five topographic regions by Cooke (1939) which are as follows: the Coastal Lowlands, the Western Highlands, the Marianna Lowlands, the Tallahassee Hills and central Highlands Vernon (1951 ), on the basis of origin and age d1v1ded the physiography into four major divisions : the Delta Plain Highlands the Tertiary Highlands the Terraced Coastal Lowlands, and the River Valley Lowlands. He further subdivided these major divisions into smaller units and applied local names to them: In 1. 964, Puri and Vernon divided Florida into six major groups These six primary divisions are again sub diVIded mto secondary and tertiary physiographic units. More

PAGE 11

12 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY recently, White (1970) reported on the Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. His work divides the peninsula into three zones and then subdivides these zones based on local features. His study however, does not include Northwest Florida, where Bay County is located Other than the Puri and Vernon (1964) study which deals with the en tire state, and thus includes Bay County, the only study which covers the Bay County area specifically is Musgrove, et al. (1965). That report deals primarily with water resources of the area, but does divide the county into four physiographic divisions (see fig 5): The Sand Hills, Sinks and Lakes, F lat-woods Forest, and Beach Dunes and Wave-cut Bluffs. The following is taken from the descriptions given by Musgrove et. al. (1965). WASHINGTON CO. "' .... B5S7e v "" ee" z l us . ... 1358 7 BAY COU NTY I 0 I > '"US 0 I 2 34 lt llOII'HERS EXP L A N ATION wELL CUTTINGS loGAM M A LOGS I COAE HOLES F igure 4. Geologic Data Base 'I"" _____lJACKSON CO. I I I I ,,, .. .,0 I .,... Z9B2 I 13000 J T2N TON ns T2 S ns T4 S "' T6S B ULL E TIN N O 57 RI7 W R i6W RI5W RI3W BAY COUNTY RI7W Figure 5. 0 I J II FLAT -WOODS FOREST w SAND HILLS m S INK S AND LAKES R ISW RI5W RI4W R I 3 W RI2W Physiographic subdivisions in Bay County, modified from Musgrove, Foster, and Toler, 1 965. 1 3 T2N "" '" T2S T3S T4S T5S T6S The physiographic divisions in Bay County have developed on a series of marine terraces which were carved into the surface deposits during Pleistocene times by sea level fluctuations Low swampy areas occur throughout each of these divisions, but are more prevalent in the Flat woods Forest SAND HILLS The sand hills in the northern part of the county are erosional remnants of the higher marine terraces, which were between 1 00 feet and 270 feet above present sea level. Puri and Vernon (1964)

PAGE 12

14 BUREA U OF GEO L OG Y called the high terrace remnant, a portion of which is in the northeast part of the county, the New Hope Ridge. They assign the remaining part of the sand hills in Bay County to the Greenhead Slope in the west and the Fountain Slope in the eastern part of Bay County The sand hills are characteri zed by gently rolling forested land with a dendritic drainage pattern (figs 6 and 7) Figure 6 Dendritic drainage pattern developed in Sand Hills (Fountain Quad.) SINKS AND LAK ES The sinks and lakes occur in the section of the county west of E confina Creek, whe 're they have developed within the sand hills This area is typified by irregular sand hills and numerous sink holes and sink-hole lakes. The sink holes range in diameter from a few feet to broad flat areas such as those in the Deadening Lakes area in southern Washington County and north central Bay County ; these can be up to two miles wide. This physiographic division was developed by the solution of the underlying limestone and the subsequent collapse of the overlying material into the BULLETIN NO. 57 15 Figure 7. Gentle roll of the Sand Hills as seen looking east on Route 20. solution chamber Most of the lakes have no surface outlets; their drainage is mostly to the underlying ground-water system (fig. 8). FLAT-WOODS FOREST The Flat-woods Forest is the largest physiographic division in the coun ty. It is slightly rolling to flat land lying on the terraces below an elevation of 70 feet (fig 9). Most of this division is covered with pines, except for the areas cleared for agriculture. The Flat-woods Forest is well drained with the exception of some low areas around the bays on the 0 to 1 0 foot and 1 0 to 25 foot terraces During rainy weather these low areas of the flat woods become inundated. A few small perennial swamps occur at various loca tions throughout the Flat-woods Forest. BEACH DUNES AND WAVE CUT BLUFFS The fourth division occurs adjacent to the Gulf coast and is characterized by beach dune deposits and wave-cut bluffs (figs 1 0 and 11 ) The beach dune deposits are the youngest sediments in the basin and are the most rapidly changing physiographic feature. Puri and Vernon (1964) placed these last two divisions within their Gulf Coastal Lowlands province which are gently sloping plains that extend to the coast from the highlands The landforms in this province are composed of barrier islands coastal ridges,

PAGE 13

16 Figure 8 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Karst type "internal" drainage pattern developed in the sinks and lakes (Crystal Lake Quad.) Figure 9. Low relief of the Flat-woods Forest, looking north on Route 231. BULL E TIN NO. 57 17 estuaries, lagoons, relict spits and bars, and sand dune ridges All of these features are generally parallel to the present coast in dicating an origin shaped by coastal environments Figure 1 0. Typical coastal features such as spits, bars and lagoons developed along the coast (Long Point Quad ) TERRACES AND ANCI E NT SHOR E LINES Marine terraces are the former bottoms of ancient seas, and they are generally covered with deposits of sand, clay, silt and shells They are bounded along their inner margin (landward) by shoreline features such as relict beach ridges inner lagoons, and seaward-facing wave-cut scarps Ancient marine surfaces were first mapped in Florida by Matson and Sanford (1913), who divided the state into a dissected upland surface and three marine terraces. Leverett ( 1 931) further developed their work by describing numerous coastal landforms of their Pensacola Terrace through the use of better topographic maps.

PAGE 14

18 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Figure 11 Coastal sand dunes in St. Andrews State Park Subsequent work on terrace mapping in Florida resulted in maps published by MacNeil (1949). Alt and Brooks (1965). and Healy (1975b). Each of these studies covers the entire state and divides the state into 7 or 8 terraces, based on surface elevation Numerous other authors have cor related local studies with these statewide terraces, based on elevation These include Vernon (1942), Heath and Smith (1954), Peek (1958, 1959), Klein and others (1964), Hendry and Sproul (1966). Marsh (1966), Yon (1966), and Puri and others (1967). More recently, Winker and Howard (1977a,b) have differentiated the relict shorelines of Florida into three sequences. These sequences are bas ed on relative age of the shoreline features found within each region. Along the Gulf Coast they have named these the Escambia Sequence, for eleva tions below 10 m; the Wakulla Sequence, for a discontinuous scarp bet ween 20 and 30m above present sea level; and the Gadsden Sequence, for an extensive beach ridge plain reaching a maximum elevation of 100m. Because of the different methods previously used to map the terraces throughout the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, and the complex post depositional history of most of the younger sediments, the Bay County ter race map in this report is based only on elevations (fig 12). This method has its own inherent problems, because past episodes of sea level fluctua tions do not necessarily leave their remnants at a single elevation In Bay County, eight terraces based on elevation have been mapped (Healy, 1975b). Two topographic profiles prepared across the county (fig 13), show little or no correlation to these eight terracing episodes. Therefore, in I I r \ l f I ( I I I I I t I I I BULLETIN NO. 57 19 this report these eight "t h "elevation zones" (fig 12rraces ave been simplified to four units or The terraces mapped in Bay County by Healy (1975b) are as follows: Silver Bluff Terrace Pamlico Terrace Talbot Terrace Penholoway Terrace Wicomico Terrace Okefenokee Terrace Coharie Terrace High Pliocene Terrace RJ7W R t6W " 01 0 feet elevation 1 025 feet elevation 25-42 feet elevation 4270 feet elevation 70-100 feet elevation 100-170 feet elevation 1 70-215 feet elevation 21 5 -320 feet elevation R15W R I4W RI3W TIN TIS "' T4S T5S T6S BAY COUNTY L.!..,.L....J..., 0 I S 11: rm AND PAMLICO 1 0 F T 6 1 0 -ZS F T l?m TALBOT AND P ENH O L O WAY l1:lliJ TERRACES 25-4 2 FT. 6 42-70FT tJ1 8 IOOi70FT COHARIE AND HIG H PLIOCE N E ls:)1l TERRA C E S 170-215FT. a 2 1 5 -320FT Rt7W Combined Zones (in this report) 025ft. 2570 ft. 70-170 ft. 170-320 ft " TIN TIS T2S "' T4S T5S T6 S RJ6W RI5 W R I4W R13W RI2W Figure 12. Elevation zones ("Terraces") in Bay County

PAGE 15

20 SllllL ) ft : 3 :::! J : .l.]]j BUREAU OF G E OLOGY ro :>, c: :::l 0 () co en en 0 ..c: 0> :s ..c: "'5 0 en 0 ..c: ..... 0 c: E _g en ;;::: 0 ..... c. (.) c. (I) ..... 0> 0 c. 0 fQ) ..... :::l 0> u:: BULLETIN NO. 57 21 These have been paired, (for example, the Silver Bluff and Pamlico 0-25 feet), to produce four elevations zones (fig 12) for Bay County. This was done to simplify the map, and because true terrace-breaks are difficult to identify in the area. SPRINGS Bay County has two major springs : Gainer Springs a first magnitude spring and Pitts Spring a third magnitude spring (Rosenau and Faulkner 197 4) A first magnitude spring is one with an average flow greater than 100 cubic feet per second (64. 6 million gallons per day) A second magnitude spring has an average flow between 1 0 and 1 00 cubic feet per second, and a third magnitude spring flows at less than 1 0 cubic feet per second (6.46 million gallons per day). Gainer Springs, formerly called Blue Springs, is actually three major and at least two minor springs (Rosenau et al., 1977). They are located about 2.3 miles north of Bennett, approximately one quarter mile downstream from the Highway 20 bridge in Township 1 S, Range 13W, section 4 southwest quarter. The springs are along both sides of Econfina Creek Limestone can be seen exposed along the banks of the creek in the vicinity The springs are privately owned and have been renamed Emerald Springs. Pitts Spring is located about 7.5 miles NW of Youngstown and 2. 75 miles N of Bennett, at T1 S, R13W, section 4 northeast quarter. It, too discharges into the Econfina Creek, and the spring run is about 1 00 feet to the main stream flow. Both these springs are used by local residents for swimming Other than for recreation use, the springs are undeveloped Two other springs not in Bay County, but nearby are Blue Spr i ngs and Williford Spring (Rosenau and Faulkner 1974). These two springs also are located along the Econfina Creek and their spring runs are major tributaries Both are considered second magnitude springs They are located in Washington County a short distance upstream from Route 20. Both spr ings emerge from limestone cavities Blue Springs has been developed by International Paper Company; it has facilities for swimming, picnicing and fishing and is a Boy Scout recreation area Other smaller springs that exist in the northern parts of Bay County have resulted from local perched water tables and dry up in years w i th less than average rainfall STE E PHEADS Steepheads were first described by Sellards and Gunter (1918b, p 2 7 ) as circular spring heads with nearly vertical bluffs, which form the upper ends of narrow deeply incised, stream eroded ravines Development of

PAGE 16

22 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY steepheads occur through headward erosion by spring-fed streams Water that has percolated downward to a relatively impermeable sandy clay bed moves laterally to larger streams which have these layers exposed on their drainage slopes. The headward erosion starts at the stream bank and gradually migrates outward into the higher sands. The sands are well enough cemented by silt and clay to retain nearly vertical side walls of the deep ravines through which the streams flow Vegetation also helps to stabilize the ravine walls. In northern Bay County, steepheads have formed in the sand hills, and areas of higher elevation These areas are underlain by near-surface sands, which in turn are underlain by sandy clay and shelly clay beds of the Jackson Bluff Formation Excellent examples of steepheads as noted by Foster (1965) occur in northeastern Bay County. One in T1 N, R12W, section 7 has about 55 feet of relief, and its seepage feeds a stream that empties into Hammond Pond in Washington County. Another steephead in T1 N R12W, section 5, is about 60 feet deep, and was carved by headward erosion of springs that feed a tributary to the Econfina Creek (fig 1 4). Figure 14. Steephead development in the Sand Hills (Compass Lake Quad.). \ I t 4 I } I BULLETIN NO. 57 23 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS GRAVITY Gravity mapping measures the changes in gravity from one place to another. Theoretically, measurements of this type will reflect changes in the density of the earth s crust, or in many instances in "basement" elevation. This type of information is an important tool used in oil and gas exploration Two gravity surveys have been published that include Bay County in its entirety or in part. Chaki and Oglesby (1972) include Bay County in their map of Northwest Florida. Their Bouguer Anomaly Map was prepared using a 4 milligal contour interval. A slight depression is indicated in the western one-third of the county, where readings less than -18 milligals exist. Readings less than -26 milligals occur in the extreme northeast part of the county. The highest readings occur in the southeast portion of the county along the coast, where values approaching -10 milligals were recorded. Off-shore to the southwest, readings increase until a value in excess of 42 milligals is recorded about 80 miles offshore. Applegate and others (1978) inCluded a regional Bouguer Anomaly Map in their report on the Apalachicola Embayment, which covered only the southeastern one-half of Bay County. The map shows a northwestern trend of decreased values from -1 0 milligals near the coast to -20 milligals near Panama City MAGNETIC Geodata International, Inc. (1976-1977) has flown and compiled for the U .S. Geological Survey a Residual Magnetic Intensity Map of the 1 :250,000 Tallahassee Sheet. The map shows a relatively high reading in the north-central part of the county, reading less than -461 gammas. Another relative high occurs in the southeastern part of the county where readings as high as -225 gammas were recorded. The lowest readings occur in the southwest part of the county, which show -650 gammas to be the lowest recorded measurement. Along with gravity, magnetic surveys are done as a preliminary to seismic work to establish approximate depth and character of the basement rocks. AERORADIOACTIVITY Geodata International, Inc also produced a Total Count Gamma Ray In tensity Map of the 1 :250,000 Tallahassee Sheet area. Bay County is located in the southwestern portion of the area covered by that map. The contour interval is 25 counts and the range observed in Bay County is from 7 counts per second to over 300 counts per second. No significant trends are apparent in the county; however, an anomalous high is present just north of Lynn Haven What accounts for this, is not clear at present.

PAGE 17

24 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Trace quantities of radioactive material are found in all rocks For this reason radioactivity surveys are an important tool in geologic and lithologic mapping. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The Apalachicola Embayment (Pressler, 1947) is the main geologic structure influencing the sediments which are found in the subsurface throughout Bay County. Bay County is situated on the western flank of this embayment. To the west in Walton County and beyond, the sediments thicken toward the Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin East of the Apalachicola Embayment is a negative structural feature named the Suwan nee Straits (Dall, 1892; Puri and Vernon, 1964). This structure trends northeast southwest with its axis approximately through Jefferson and Madison counties (fig. 15) North of the Bay County area is a feature called the Chattahoochee Anticline (Veatch, 1911; Puri and Vernon, 1964). This is a broad flexure mapped in the tri-state area of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. This feature is an elongate anticline that trends northeast southwest and crests in Jackson County. NORTH GULF COAST SEDIMENTARY PROVINCE I 0 10 20 MILES = 0 16 32 KILOMETERS FLORIDA PENINSULA SEDIMENTARY Figure 15. Principal geologic structures near Bay County I f BULLETIN 57 25 The Apalachicola Embayment has received considerable prior attention by geologists, A summary of the Various authors' descriptions is given by Patterson and Herrick (1971 ), and May (1977). The feature was first nam ed the Chattahoochee Embayment (Johnson, 1891 ), as pointed out by May (1977). It is referred to here as the Apalachicola Embayment because it is the common name used by most geologists and it seems appropriate to adhere to the most recognized term. This embayment is a relatively shallow basin between the Ocala and Chattahooches uplifts It is narrowest in the northeast, and it opens on the south and southwest. The axis therefore, is generally aligned northeast southwest (fig. 15). It has been estimated that the deeper parts of this embayment, together with adjacent portion of the Gulf Basin, cover an area of approx imately 30,000 square miles (Pressler 194 7) The magnitude of the basin appears to increase with depth, which would indicate a long continued development Near the surface the Quaternary and Neogene rocks are gently downwarped, whereas the older Paleogene and Mesozoic rocks are downwarped to a progressively greater extent. Correspondingly the older strata are thicker (Murray 1 961 ) As the embayment plunges toward the Gulf, the sedimentary fill attains a thickness of nearly 15,000 feet The sediments range in age from Triassic to Recent (Applegate et al., 1978) and are very similar to those of southern Mississippi and Alabama, except that the Tertiary formations become progressively more calcareous to the east Foster (1972) reports the existence of four faults in the Bay County shallow sediments; that is, in the upper limestone of the Floridan Aquifer, and the overlying clays, shell beds and sands His report, however, does not include geologic evidence for this. For the faults postulated he has assigned the downthrown side to the south, and a graben structure near Panama City Beach. Below the sedimentary fill, metamorphosed Paleozoic deposits are believed to have been encountered (Applegate et al., 1978). On the top of the Paleozoics, the Mesozoic rocks reach a thickness of over 1 0,000 feet, and the Cenozoic rocks are generally less than 3,000 feet in thickness

PAGE 18

26 BURE AU OF G E OLOGY S TRATIGRAPHY INTRODUCTION The rocks that underlie Bay County range in age from late Pre Cambrian to Recent. The oldest rock exposed in the vicinity is the Chipola Formation an Early Miocene limestone It can be observed along the Econ fina Creek just north of the Bay-Washington County line. Figure 16 is a list of the geologic formations that occur in the surface and subsurface in Bay County Opportunities to view the strata at the surface are limited because the county is flat and for the most part, low in elevation. The Econfina Creek is the only stream which has cut deep enough into the near-surface sands to expose any pre-Pleistocene deposits Along the creek, the Jackson Bluff Formation (Pliocene), the Intracoastal Formation (Miocene-Pliocene), and as mentioned above, the Chipola Formation can be see in outcrop IGNEOUS AND PALEOZOIC ROCKS The igneous and Paleozoic rocks of Florida have been described by a number of geologists (Grasty and Wilson 1967; Bass 1969; Milton and Grasty 1969; Milton 1972; Barnett 1975). A number of very early geologic age determinations from well samples from central Florida have been made (Milton 1972). These rocks include "metabasalts" in Volusia County "granites" in Lake and Orange counties, "granite" and "diorite" in St Lucie County, and a "metabasalt" in Hilsborough County. Age deter minations on this group range from 226 6 million years through 308 5 millen years, to 480 1 00(?) million years, or from Early Triassic or Late Permian through Middle Pennsylvanian to Early Cambrian The Paleozoic sediments from deep wells in Florida have been described and correlated by Applin (1951 ), Bridge and Berdan (1952), and Cramer ( 1 9 71 ) Strata range in age from Early Ordovician to Early Devonian based on fossil evidence. In the Bay County area very few deep wells have been drilled In the western part of the county a well drilled by Charter Exploration Company bottomed at 1 2, 1 91 feet below the surface in a granite of possible late Pre Cambrian age Other deep wells drilled near Bay County include two in Gulf County one of which bottomed in a dacite porphyry, and one which bottomed in a late Pre-Cambrian or early Cam brian granodiorite Each of these were drilled to depths approaching 13,000 teet In Washington County two wells drilled to about 11 ,500 feet intersected a Cambrian or Upper Cambrian quartzite and meta arkose. In southern Walton County a well encountered granite at 1 4, 480 feet below the surface This information was compiled by Barnett (1975). His study utilized deep core samples to plot basement structure, in an attempt to make tectonic implications for Florida's geologic past. r r [ l l l f r I I I I I \. ... I u 0 N w u u 0 0 Q: w a.. J: u 0 a.. w >RECENT 1----1 BULLETIN NO. 57 ROCK UNITS OR FORMATIONS, AND DESCRIPTIONS UN D I FFERENT I ATED QUART Z SANDS z 0 PLIOCENE w UNDI F FERENTIAT E D C LAYEY SAND S AND GRAVELS JACKSON BLUFF FORMATION I NTR,\COASTAL FORMATION GRAY-OLIVE GREEN, CLAYEY, SANDY, SHELL M ARL. GRAY-OLIVE GREEN, SANDY, ARGI L LACIOUS, POORLY CONSOL IDATED VERY MICROFOSSILIFEROUS CALCARENITE. g UPPER BRUCE C REEK LIMESTONE WHITE TO LIGHT YELLOW, MODERATELY INDURATED, GRANU lAR LL\IESTONE MIDDLE MIOCENE g .,. w z w "' 0 w LOWER OLIGOCENE ;1 E OCE NE a.. PALEOCENE U P PER C RETACE O U S C H IPOLA FORMATION TAMP A STAGE LIMESTONES SUWANNEE LIMESTONE M A R IANNA LIMESTONE OCALA LIMESTONES LJSBIT, TALLAHATIA UNDIFFERENTIATED WILCOX U N D I FFERENT IATED MIDWAy SELMA GROUP EUTAW FORMATION T USCA LOOSA FORMAT I O N SANDY, VERY LIG HT-ORANGE, FOSSILIFEROUS LIMESTONE. SANDY, M ICRITIC Y.'HIT E T O LIG H T GRAY LIMESTONES. L IGHT TO YELLOW GRAY, DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE, OFTEN IIIGHLY ALTERED SUCROSI C ALTERED FOSSI L TYPES. LIGH TGRAY, MASSIVE, C H A LKY, GLAUCONITIC SLIGIITLY SANDY LIMESTONE, ABUNDANT LARGE FORAMINifERA. LIGHT ORANGE TO WHITE.IliGH POROSITY LIMESTONES : SMALL AMOUNTS OF SAND AND C HERT; GLAUCONIT E IN LOWER FACIES ABUND,\ N T MICRO-FOSSILS. CREA,IT
PAGE 19

28 BUREAU OF G E OLOGY MESOZOIC ERA Descriptions of the Mesozoic rocks in the vicinity of Bay County have been reported by Arden ( 1 9 7 4) and Applegate and others ( 1 9 7 8). Overlying the Paleozoic igneous rocks is the Eagle Mills Formation of Triassic age. This formation contains dikes or sills of basic igneous rocks. Its overall lithology has been described by Applegate et al. ( 1 978) as well indurated, highly micaceous sandstones, argillaceous siltstones, and well indurated shales. In the eastern part of the county based on a deep oil test well (Permit No. 7 46) near the Gulf County line, the Eagle Mills Formation is probably absent, thinning from about 200 feet thick in western Bay County. This well has the Norphlet, Smackover and Haynesville formations overlying the basal granite. These formations are all Upper Jurassic in age. The Norphlet is 267 feet thick and consists of red sandstones, siltstones and shales The Smackover Formation totals 1 63 feet thick and is composed of limestone and dolomitic limestones This unit revealed oil locked in a dense im permeable section of limestone and conglomeratic calcareous sandstone. The next younger formation, the Haynesville, is just over 300 feet in thickness and is composed of red to gray, very well indurated, calcareous shales, a few well-sorted, fine-grained sandstones, and a few thin-bedded micrites The three above-mentioned formations apparently thin westward, as only a thin Haynesville section is present in a deep well drilled in western Bay County. Further west these units thicken as they plunge into the Mississippi Embayment. In a well drilled by Charter Exploration Company in Section 27 of Township 1 S, Range 17W, or near the Pine Log State Forest, the Eagle Mills Formation is overlain by 2,600 feet of the Cotton Valley Group sediments. This group also overlies the Haynesville in eastern Bay County. The Cotton Valley i s upper most Jurrassic in age, and is a varicolored mudstone and coarse sandstone. Above the Cotton Valley are undifferentiated Lower Cretaceous sands and shales. These units vary from 5,000 to 6,000 feet in thickness Above these lie the white sands of the Lower Tuscaloosa Formation, which is Up per Cretaceous in age. The Tuscaloosa Formation has been divided into three members, a nonmarine lower Tuscaloosa, marine Tuscaloosa, and upper Tuscaloosa. The nonmarine lower member is a poorly sorted, gray to green, fine to coarse sand and variegated shales. The marine member is a gray, laminated, micaceous, glauconitic, hard shale, with shell fragments and car bonaceous seams and flecks. The upper member consists of gray to cream fine, calcareous, micaceous clayey, silty sandstone with beds of calcareous shale. The thickness of the Tuscaloosa varies, but has been reported to be over 700 feet in thickness (Puri and Vernon, 1964). Overlying the Tuscaloosa in Panhandle Florida is the Eutaw Formation, a gray to cream, calcareous, fine sandstone that changes downdip into a I i > f J 1 I ( B ULL ET IN N O 57 29 soft, pasty, sandy chalk with limestone seams. It ranges between 150 and 300 feet in thickness. Above the Eutaw are sediments of Austin Age These beds are equivalent to the Mooreville Chalk in Alabama In northwest F lorida these sediments are gray, soft, glauconitic micaceous, fine to coarse quartz sand interbedded with gray green, soft calcareous, thin bedded clay, averaging 350 to 450 feet thick. Overlying the Austin Age sediments are beds of Taylor Age They are cream to gray, clayey, pasty chalk with thin beds of calcareous clay and marl. Their thickness is generally less than 500 feet. The uppermost Cretaceous sediments are beds of Navarro Age The presence of these sediments is questionable in northwest F lorida. A thin, gray, pasty marl at the top of the Taylor beds occurs in the western Panhan dle Its presence in the Bay County vicinity has not been shown The Mesozoic sediments total approximately 10,000 feet in combined thickness in the vicinity of Bay County Their first occurrence generally is found deeper than 3,000 feet below sea level, and the sequence con tinues to about 13,000 feet below sea level. C E NOZOIC ERA In the Florida Panhandle an unconformity separates the basal Paleocene sediments from the Upper Cretaceous rocks (Applin and Applin, 1944; Rainwater, 1960). The closest to Bay County that this unconformity has been reported is in the vicinity of Tallahassee Applin and Applin (1944) have stated that in the Tallahassee area Paleocene strata lie unconformably on beds of Taylor Age, with the Navarro equivalent and upper beds of Taylor Age being present. PALEOC E N E SERI E S MIDWAY STAG E T he Paleocene Series in Northwest Florida consists of clastic beds of Midway Age The Midway Stage has been divided into three units in Alabama: the Clayton, Porters Creek, and Naheola formations In the panhandle of Florida these formations are undifferentiated, which led Chen (1965) to treat the entire stage as the Midway Formation Lithologically, the formation consists of dark green gray micaceous and slightly glauconitic, laminated, and calcareou s shales with minor amounts of thin-bedded argillaceous and fossiliferous limestones, and glauconitic and calcareous sandstones The thickness of these sediments varies from 250 to 750 feet throughout the central panhandle The Midway Formation underlies the entire F lorida Panhandle and extends widely throughout the southeastern coastal plain Regionally, the ver tical and lateral changes of lithologic character and thickness of the unit are rather great, as demonstrated by Chen (1965). His isopach-lithofacies

PAGE 20

30 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY maps indicate that the clastic sediments, such as glauconitic and arenaceous shale and sandstones, are more dominant around the Chat tahoochee Arch than elsewhere in the panhandle. In addition, calcareous shale is a major lithologic component that occurs over most of the panhan dle region, except in the southeastern area, where limestone is predomi nant EOCENE SERIES The Eocene Series in the southeastern Gulf Coastal Plain has been divided into three stages These stages are the Wilcox Stage which is Lower Eocene; the Claiborne Stage, which is Middle Eocene; and the Jackson Stage, which is Upper Eocene WILCOX STAGE The Wilcox Stage has been divided into three formations in southern Alabama, where it crops out. The stratigraphic equivalent of these three formations (the Nanafalia, Tuscahoma, and Hatchetigbee formations) has been recognized in the Florida Panhandle as undifferentiated Wilcox. Chen (1965), as he did with the Midway Stage, again treats the Wilcox Stage in northwest Florida as a formation. In the outcrop belt in Alabama to the north of the study area, the Wilcox Stage has been demonstrated to be unconformable with both overlying and underlying rocks. In Florida, however, no distinctive geologic evidence of unconformable relationships is recognized. The top of the Wilcox is generally drawn on the first appearance of green-gray and slightly calcareous shale; or gray, glauconitic, arenaceous and calcareous shale; or brown, unfossiliferous limestone. The base of the formation is defined by the top of the Midway Formation. In the Florida Panhandle the Wilcox Formation includes marine and deltaic clastic sediments These consist of glauconitic and calcareous sandstone; and green-gray, micaceous, calcareous, glauconitic and silty shale. Chen (1965) shows, by using regional lithofacies maps, that the amounts of clastic sediments decrease southeastward away from the panhandle toward peninsular Florida. His maps also show the Wilcox to vary in thickness from less than 200 feet in the eastern panhandle to near 1 ,000 feet southeastward CLAIBORNE STAGE TALLAHATTA FORMATION, LISBON FORMATION The exposed strata of the Claiborne Stage in southern Alabama have been divided into three formations; which are in ascending order : the Tallahatta Formation, the Lisbon Formation, and the Gosport Sand Further BULLETIN NO. 57 31 downdip in the subsurface of northwest Florida, the sediments become more and less readily differentiated into distinct formations 1 955). As a result, the Claiborne is divided into only two forma tions 1n the western part of Panhandle Florida; the Lisbon Formation at the top and the Tallahatta Formation below. These formations are correlative in of deposition with the Avon Park Limestone and the Lake City Limestone, respectively, in peninsular Florida The Tallahatta in northwest Florida consists of glauconitic and calcareous sandstone; green-gray, glauconitic, arenaceous and calcareous shale; and glauconitic, argillaceous limestone The Lisbon is commonly a glauconitic, arenaceous, and fossiliferous limestone with some beds of calcareous shale. The combined thickness of the Claiborne near Bay County approaches 800 feet. JACKSON STAGE OCALA GROUP LOWER FACIES, UPPER FACIES The pertaining to the Ocala Group is extensive, and has been rev1ewed in previous publications and will not be repeated here. Summanes are contained in Vernon (1942, 1951 ), Cooke (1945), Puri (1957) and Puri and Vernon (1964). The Upper Eo?ene strata in Florida have been separated by Puri (_1957), on the bas1s of a detailed biostratigraphic study, into three forma tions of the Ocala Group; the Inglis, the Williston, and the Crystal River in ascend1ng order In Florida the Ocala crops out in Jackson and Holmes counties, wh_1ch are located along the Alabama state line north of Bay County In on Holmes and Washington counties, Vernon (1942) was able to d1v1de _the Ocala into two lithologic facies The lower facies is typical developed southern Alabama; it bears a lower Jackson fauna, and con of gr_een_lsh-gray, glauconitic, sandy limestone. The upper and more fac1es 1s in Holmes County, and is described by Vernon as a that 1s lrght yellow to white, massive, and porous, and often SiliCified. was described in Jackson County by Moore (1955). He descnbes 1ts l1th?logy as a white to cream colored, generally soft granular, fossiliferous, pure limestone. Overlying the Ocala Moore iden tifies the Bumpnose Limestone Member of the Crystal River Formation (the youngest and uppermost formation of the Ocala Group) The Bumpnose is charactenzed by soft, white limestones with Lepidocyclina chaperi (a large flat foraminifera) The top of the Ocala Group dips between 1 0 and 1 5 feet per mile as it approaches Bay County from the north (Vernon, 1942; Schmidt and Coe, 1978). In Bay County the Ocala is entirely a subsurface unit. In this study

PAGE 21

32 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY the Ocala was intersected in only a few wells, those being in the northern part of the county and the wells are too few and too poorly distributed to sufficiently calculate a dip ; however, the general trend of 1 0 to 15 feet per mile is expected to continue southward to the gulf The three formations into which Puri ( 1 95 7) divided the Ocala are not recognizable in Bay County. As a result the system devised by Vernon (1942), that is, an upper and lower facies, is applied in Bay County. lower facies consists of a light orange to white limestone with high poros1ty both micrite and sparry calcite cement, crystal and skeletal grain types, small amounts of glauconite and sand, and abundant fossils Dominant fossils include foraminifera, mollusks, echinoids bryozoans, and corals The large foraminifera are dominated by species of Lepidocyclina Oper culinoides and Asterocyclina. The upper facies is similar, except that glauconite is rare and chert is more common The total thickness of the Ocala in Bay County can be estimated from the available data In the northern part of the county, thicknesses are less than 200 feet the top of the Ocala being over 300 feet below sea level. In the south the top of the Ocala dips to approximately 800 feet below sea level and attains a thickness of over 400 feet. The dip and thickness therefore, increases in a nearly due-south direction. OLIGOCENE SERIES VICKSBURG STAGE MARIANNA LIMESTONE Florida Bureau of Geology Bulletins 21, 29 and 54 (Vernon, 1942; Cooke, 1945; and Yon and Hendry, 1972) contain historical summaries pertaining to the Vicksburg Stage sediments The Marianna Limestone was originally named by Matson and Clapp (1909, pp 51-52). They described a soft, porous, light to limestone at Marianna Jackson County F lorida The outcropping Mananna is exposed at the surface along a narrow band striking nearly east-west through Marianna Florida In Holmes County the outcrop belt turns to the north and the strike changes to northwest-southeast as it crosses the Alabama state line From the outcrop area in Holmes and Jackson counties the Mar i anna Limestone dips gently towards the gulf coast (Vernon 1942; Moore, 1955; Schmidt and Coe, 1978) at approximately 11 to 13 feet per mile. Its dip into southern Bay County is estimated to increase slightly to perhaps 1 5 or 16 feet per mile. The thickness is generally uniform in Jackson Holmes and Washington counties, but can be expected to thicken slightly in Bay County . The few wells that penetrate the Marianna in northern Bay County Indicate it can be characterized as a light gray, massive, chalky limestone BULLETIN NO. 57 33 Commonly present are large foraminifera of the genera Lepidocyclina. Small amounts of glauconite and sand are common, as are sparry calcite, and rare occurrences of pyrite SUWANNEE LIMESTON E The name Suwannee Limestone was first used by Cooke and Mansfield (1936) to describe exposures of a hard, crystalline, yellowish limestone visible on the Suwannee River between Ellaville (Suwannee County) and White Springs (Hamilton County) Later, Vernon (1942), Cooke (1945), and Moore (1955) established the formation's presence in the panhandle of Florida. The outcrop belt in the north central panhandle parallels that of the Marianna Limestone The Suwannee in this area has been mapped and reported by Vernon (1942), Moore (1955), and Reves (1961 ). In general, it can be described as a tan to bluff-colored dolomitic, and sometimes clayey limestone In some areas the Suwannee is predominantly dolomitic. In Bay County, the Suwannee Limestone has been identified from a few wells along the northern and eastern edges of the county It consists of light gray to yellow gray limestone with micrite and biogenic grain types ; it is moderately indurated and contains fossil mollusks and foraminifera. Locally, the limestone may be dolomitized, and shows a sucrosic dolomitic lithology that is highly altered and well indurated, with recrystallized fossils. The Suwannee averages 50 to 70 feet in thickness in Washington County and appears to maintain that thickness in Bay County The top of the formation dips to the south towards the Gulf from an elevation of about 1 00 feet below sea level along the northern edge of the county, to more than 500 feet below sea level in the southeast end of the county, a dip of about 13 or 14 feet per mile. MIOCENE AND PLIOCEN E S ERIES TAMPA STAG E HISTORY The name Tampa F ormation was first used by Johnson (1888, p. 235) for the limestone sediments exposed near some of the lakes and bays in the Tampa area. Prior to 1888 other geologists had described the rocks exposed in that area; however, none gave the deposits a name (for a historical summary see Vernon 1942). Later, Dall (1892) gave a more complete description of these ex posures and distinguished two facies, which he named and included within the "Tampa Limestone" After further study, Dall (1892) then included the "Tampa", "Chipola and "Alum Bluff beds from the panhandle in a "Tam pa Group" Matson and Clapp (1909) used the Tampa Formation" for those sediments restricted to the vicinity near Tampa, Florida. Mossom (1925, 1926) included some outcrops near Brooksville in the Tampa Formation,

PAGE 22

34 BUREAU OF GE OLO G Y and he retained the .name Chattahoochee Formation (of Dall, 1892) for the strata he considered separate but contemporaneous near and west of the Apalachicola River. In 1929, Cooke and Mossom abandoned the name Tampa Formation and used the "Tampa Limestone". They then proceeded to redefine the Tampa to include the Tampa Formation of earlier workers the "Chat tahoochee", and part of Matson and Clapp s (1909) Hawthorn Formation Cooke and Mansfield ( 1936) restricted the previous definition of the Tampa and included the lower portions of it in their new Suwannee Limestone Cooke (1940) subsequently equated the Tampa Limestone with the Chickasawhay F ormation of Mississippi based on mollusks In 1942, Vernon in his study of Holmes and Washington counties in Panhandle Florida, reviewed the original name Tampa Formation and revised it to include "all sediments lying above the Suwannee Limestone and below the Alum Bluff Group." His lithologic description included sand silts clay marls and limestone and he further stated that the limestone facies was restricted to the lower part only Cooke (1945) later correlated the fossiliferous portion of the Chat tahoochee Limestone with the Tampa The rocks exposed in western Florida described by Vernon (194 2) were later described as Lower Miocene in the Third Field Trip of the Southeastern Geological Society (1945). Puri (1953), in a biostratigraphic study of the Miocene of the Florida Panhandle, revived the term Chattahoochee to include the updip silty and clayey facies of the Tampa Stage The Tampa Stage of Puri included all Miocene sediments lying between the Oligocene Series and the Alum Bluff Stage That definition included similar sediments e x posed in the Florida Panhandle and their equivalents in the Central and Western Gulf states. In the Florida Panhandle, Puri (1953) recogni z ed two lithofacies of the Tampa Stage; a calcareous St Marks facies downdip and a silty Chattahoochee facies updip. Moore (1955), two years after Puri's work reported on the geology of Jackson County, Florida. This county is located in the limestone outcrop belt of the Florida Panhandle Moore preferred to go back to Cooke and Mansfield's (1936) definition, but used the term Tampa Formation instead of Tampa Limestone because he felt in Jackson County that the formation is primarily clay and clayey marl. Hendry and Yon (1958), in a report on the geology of the area in and around the Jim Woodruff Reservoir, used Puri s (1953) definitions and discussed the Chattahoochee facies in the vicinity. Reves (1961) erroneously attributed Puri (1953) with referring the Chattahoochee and St Marks to formation status for the Panhandle sediments In fact, Puri used facies" to describe these sediments whereas the "Chattahoochee Formation" was first used by Dall (1894) in describing the beds exposed along the Apalachicola River near the town of Chattahoochee Since Reves work in 1961, Puri and Vernon (1964) published their BULLETIN NO. 57 3 5 comprehensive Summary of the Geology of Florida In that report they established the Chattahoochee Formation and the St Marks Formation as comprising the Tampa Stage (Lower Miocene) They included type locality descriptions for both formations, but did not attempt to map their areal ex tent. Since 1964, several publications have reported on the geology of various areas throughout the Florida Panhandle and all have used Puri and Vernon s nomenclature Their description describes the St Marks facies downdip as calcareous, and the updip Chattahoochee as a silty facies. LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION Bay County is a considerable distance west of the type description for the formations in the Tampa Stage The county is 50-60 miles southwest of the town of Chattahoochee and about 1 00 miles west of the town of St. Marks Because the cuttings obtained from wells in Bay County do not correspond precisely with either the Chat tahoochee or St Marks formations the interval will be described as Tampa Stage Undifferentiated The limestone exhibits lithotypes similar to the St Marks description ; however, chalky silty and sandy horizons which are associated with the Chattahoochee are not uncommon. The Tampa Stage limestones in Bay County as observed from well cut tings and core samples, can be described as a white to light gray limestone with biogenic, micritic and crystal grain types moderately indurated with a micrite cement minor amounts of quartz sand and a trace of pyrite. It often has a chalky appearance and contains fossil remains of foraminifera, coral, and mollusks. TH. ICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTION -As shown by geologic cross section A A (fig. 31), the thickness of the Tampa in Bay County is variable Along the northern part of the county its thickness ranges between 50 and 1 00 feet The thickness can be expected to stay within that range as the unit dips to the south. The top of the Tampa dips from approximately sea level in the northern part of the county to nearly 500 feet below sea level at the ex treme southeastern corner of the county This calculates to a dip of ap proximately 1 7 to 18 feet per mile in a southerly direction; this is an estimate due to the undifferentiated nature of the Tampa downdip. The strike of the Tampa is approximately east west in Bay County The Tampa stage is entirely subsurface in Bay County, and its upper part may lithologically grade into the Chipola and Bruce Creek Limestones downdip. The transition zone iNhere lower Bruce Creek Chipola and Tam pa become indistinguishable is not clearly understood ; however, the zone can be generally located as shown on cross sections E-E F-F 1 H-H 1 and 1 11 (figs 35-39). In general, the first hard limestone penetrated in a well in the northern quarter of the county is Tampa whereas the southern part is underlain by Bruce Creek ; the Chipola being a less competent limestone For further discussion see the lithologic description of the Bruce Creek Limestone and figure 27 in this report

PAGE 23

36 BUREAU OF GE OLO G Y PALEONTOLOGY AND AGEMany authors in previous publications have described the fossils indentified from the Tampa (Dall 1890, 1915; Mansfield, 1937; Puri, 1953; Weisbord, 1973). The majority of the fauna includes mollusks, corals, and benthic foraminifers. Poag (1972) reported on some planktonic foraminifers of the Chicksawhay Formation along the Gulf Coast. On the basis of samples collected from the Tampa at Falling Water Sink .in Washington County, he placed the basal portion of the Chat tahoochee Formation in the Late Oligocene. Banks and Hunter (1973) reported on post Tampa, pre Chipola sediments in the eastern Florida Panhandle They applied the name the Tor reya Formation to clays, sands and shell beds found in Liberty, Gadsden, Leon and Wakulla counties The stratigraphic position of the Torreya was determined by the presence of Miogypsinids (a foraminifera genera). ALUM BLUFF STAGE HISTORY The name Alum Bluff beds was used by Dall (1892) to describe the unfossiliferous sands and clays between the Chipola Marl and the upper fossiliferous beds at Alum Bluff on the Apalachicola River Matson and Clapp (1909) expanded the unit to include as members the Chipola Marl, the Oak Grove Sand, and the Shoal River Marl. They used the term as a formation and added other members, in addition to the three mentioned above Gardner (1926) felt the faunal differences between the Chipola, Oak Grove, and Shoal River were great enough to raise the Alum Bluff For mation to group rank. Cooke and Mossom (1929) used the name Hawthorn Formation (first used by Dall, 1892, in Central Florida) for beds they felt were equivalent in age to the Alum Bluff Group, and found east of the Apalachicola River Cooke (1945) then divided the Alum Bluff Group into three formations : the Hawthorn (east of the Apalachicola River), the Chipola, and the Shoal River (both west of the Apalachicola River). Puri (1953) added the Oak Grove of Gardner (1926) to Cooke s three forma tions and called them all facie s of the Alum Bluff Stage (Middle Miocene). Later, Puri and Vernon (1964) included in the Alum Bluff Stage the Shoal River, Oak Grove, Chipola, and Hawthorn formations, and added the Pen sacola Clay, Course Clastics and Fort Preston formations Huddlestun (1976) redefined the marine deposits of the "Central Florida Panhandle He included in the Alum Bluff Group five formations : the Chi pola Formation, the Oak Grove Sand the Shoal River Formation, the Choctawhatchee Formation and the Jackson Bluff Formation The main mass of the Alum Bluff Group was considered by Huddlestun to be restricted to the eastern margin of the Gulf Coast Basin and to the vicinity of the Chattahoochee Arch (see fig. 15). Planktonic foraminifera were used by Huddlestun to establish the time of deposition of the deposits. He reported the Chipola Formation to be Early Miocene, the Oak Grove Sand and part of the Shoal River Formation to be Middle Miocene the Choc tawhatchee Formation of Late Miocene Age, and the Jackson Bluff Forma tion to be Pliocene in age BULLETIN NO. 57 37 Later, in 1977, Huddlestun and Wright reported on a sea level lowering that took place in Late Miocene time Their evidence came from the Choc tawhatchee Formation as defined by Huddlestun (1976). In Bay County the Chipola and Jackson Bluff formations are recognized and mappable In addition, the Bruce Creek Limestone is recognized The Bruce Creek is discussed in detail in a later section. CHIPOLA FORMATION HISTORY The name Chipola Formation was suggested by Burns in 1889 (in Dall, 1892). He discovered and made large collections from shell beds exposed on the Chipola and Apalachicola Rivers Dall and Stanley Brown (1894) visited the area a few years later and called the formation the Chipola shell marl. Matson and Clapp (1909) included these beds as a member in their Alum Bluff Formation and Gardner ( 1926) later promoted the member to a formation. In 1953, Puri referred to the Chipola as a facies of the Alum Bluff Stage; then, with Vernon (1964), they redefined it as a formation once again LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION The Chipola Formation has been described by Puri and Vernon (1964) in the area of its type locality as a blue-gray to yellowish brown highly fossiliferous marl studded with molluscan shells They further state that this marly facies only exists in the vicinit.y of the Chipola and Apalachicola Rivers. Further west Cooke (1945) descnbed two other facies: a sandy limestone which he said is mostly sub surface, and a light colored, coarse, sandy facies that contains clay In the Bay County area the Chipola paraconformably overlies the Tam pa Stage sediments of Late Oligocene Early Miocene age and it, in turn, is paraconformably overlain by the upper part of the Middle Miocene Bruce Creek Limestone, and the Pliocene Jackson Bluff Formation The lithology of the Chipola varies slightly throughout its areal extent in County; however it can be summarized as a very light orange, sandy with crystal micrite and pellet grain types, fine to coarse grain s1ze, a sparry calcite and micrite cement with foraminifera mollusks, coral and bryozoans Its induration, porosity, sand content, and occasionally the presence of argillaceous material, are the common lithologic variables. The Chipola is distinguishable from the underlying Tampa sediments in that the Tampa is generally a pure white limestone with relatively rare foss1ls. The Chipola is distinguished from the Bruce Creek again by the lat ter being a purer limestone This distinction is a subtle one and often dif ficult to identify THICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTION The Tampa and Chipola sediments are indistinguishable from the Bruce Creek Limestone downdip (figs. 35 and 39). The Chipola Formation, therefore, is not mapped in the southern half of Bay County Along the Washington County line (fig. 28) the unit appears to strike almost east-west and maintains a thickness of about 50 feet. The top

PAGE 24

38 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY of the formation dips along the strike from near sea level east of the Econ fina Creek to about 1 50 feet below sea level near East River, a dip of about five feet per mile PALEONTOLOGY AND AGE-The molluscan fauna of the Chipola was first recorded by Burns in 1889 (in Dall, 1892). He made collections from a shell bed on the Chipola River His field notes were unpublished but ob tained by the U .S. Geological Survey. Gardner (1926) collected samples from a number of outcrops in the Florida Panhandle, including the Econfina Creek in Bay County Her report is a comprehensive study of the molluscan fauna of the Alum Bluff Group In 1965, Vokes commented on the age of the Chipola, as indicated by the Muricinae (Mollusca : Gastropoda) She suggested that the formation might be equivalent to the Helvetian of Europe (lower Middle Miocene) A number of additional reports on the fauna of the Chipola Formation have been published in the Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology Series (vols 7 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13) The benthic foraminifera of the Chipola Formation were described by Cushman (1920), Cushman and Ponton (1932), and Puri (1953). Puri's report also included a list of identified ostracod species. Planktonic foraminifera were described by Gibson (1967), Akers (1972), and Huddlestun (1976). Gibson (1967) stated in his report that the planktonic foraminifera indicated correlation with the Globigerinatella insueta Zone the same zone to which he refers the up per part of the Calvert Formation of Maryland and the Pungo River Forma tion of North Carolina. Akers (1972) agreed with Gibson on the G. insueta Zone for which a Burdigalian age is assigned (upper Lower Miocene). Hud dlestun (1976a) also put the Chipola in that zone and further stated that he considered it to be transitional in age between the Early and Middle Miocene. In addition to foraminifera Akers (1972) discovered the presence of some calcareous nannofossils in the Chipola material. He reported occur rences of Discoaster deflandrei Bramlette and Riedel, and Braarudosphaera bigelowi (Gran and Braarud) Deflandre, as well as small unidentified coc coliths in low frequencies Coral species from the Chipola were reported by Vaughan (1919) and Weisbord (1971 ) Finally, Bender (1971 ) in sam pling corals from the Chipola dated them using the He / U radiometric age He placed a concordant age of 14-18 m y on ten of the samples This would put the Chipola in the early Middle Miocene or late Lower Miocene BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE HISTORY The Bruce Creek Limestone was named by Huddlestun in 1976. He included it in a group of three formations he mapped in coastal Walton County The three formations in ascending order are the Bruce Creek Limestone the St. Joe Limestone and the Intracoastal Limestone. Huddlestun placed these three formations in the Coastal Group, which he explained was a new name for Alum Bluff equivalent carbonate units that underlies the coastal area of Walton County and vicinity. B ULL E TIN N O 57 39 Huddlestun's description of the Coastal Group also states that he could only recognize two lithologic types within the group. The first type is usually a well indurated, coarsely calcarenitic, light colored poorly microfossil iferous limestone ; and the second type is a younger (and therefore overly ing), unconsolidated to moderately indurated, extremely microfossiliferous, less coarsely calcarenitic, argillaceous, glauconitic, and phosphatic limestone; and colors range from olive to yellowish gray The Coastal Group is recognized by Huddlestun as far west as Niceville in Okaloosa County, and as far east as Carrabelle in Franklin County He further states that it is not present in southern Washington County, or at Alum Bluff in Liberty County Lithologies from this formation have been referred to previously as a limestone facies of the Chipola Formation (Gardner, 1926; Cooke and Mossom 1929). Limestones of similar description were reported by Cooke and Mossom (1929) in southwestern Washington County in the vicinity of the Choctawhatchee River The type locality of the Bruce Creek Limestone as designated by Hud dlestun (19 7 6) is several hundred feet downstream from the county road bridge over Bruce Creek in T1 N, R18W north half of section 2, Walton County, F lorida At this locality, one to two feet of pale bluish green, uncon solidated, soft, slightly argillaceous sandy, slightly macrofossiliferous limestone is exposed It is mostly a subsurface unit and, at this writing the type locality is the only known exposure LIT HOLOGIC D E SCRIPTION Samples from the type outcrop on Bruce Creek in Walton County can be correlated lithologically with cuttings and cores from areas in Bay County. As noted for Walton County, the downdip carbonates can be divided into two broad lithologic types in Bay County also. The two units consist of well-consolidated white to light gray limestone, overlain by a poorly consolidated, argillaceous abundantly microfossiliferous limestone The lower unit corresponds to the Bruce Creek Limestone as mapped in Walton County by Huddlestun (1976). In Bay County the Bruce Creek Limestone is a white to light yellow gray, moderately indurated, granular to calcarenitic limestone. It may con tain up to 20 percent quart z sand with common minor accessories being phosphorite glauconite and pyrite In some locations sparry calcite or dolomite is present. It is commonly cemented by micrite and becomes less indurated towards the east. The Bruce Creek Limestone is dominated by macrofossils, but microfossils including planktonic and benthic foraminifera, ostracods, bryozoans, and calcareous nannofossils are also present. The Bruce Creek is overlain in Bay County by the Intracoastal F orma tion or the Jackson Bluff F ormation. It can be distinguished from the In tracoastal unit by conta i ning less sand, clay and phosphate It is also much more indurated and crystalline The Bruce Creek constrasts also in color with a white to light yellow gray being easily distinguished from the olive gray green color of the Intracoastal. Lastly the Bruce Creek is less fossiliferous than the Intracoastal with the latter having abundant

PAGE 25

40 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY microfossils. In northern Bay County the Bruce Creek is sometimes overlain by the Jackson Bluff Formation The Jackson Bluff is much less indurated and contains larger quantities of sand and clay The Jackson Bluff is essen tially an olive green shell marl, which is easily distinguished from the white, crystalline to micritic Bruce Creek Limestone. Underlying the Bruce Creek is the Chipola Limestone. The differences between the Chipola and Bruce Creek are subtle The Chipola is light orange-gray, in contrast with the white to light yellowish gray color of the Bruce Creek. In addition the Bruce Creek was not observed to contain fossil corals as does the Chipola Downdip, because the two units are lithologically so similar, their relationship is unclear The lower Bruce Creek's lithology apparently grades into the upper Chipola as it trends from north to south In the southern part of the county the Bruce Creek, Chipola, and Tampa Stage limestones become lithologically indistinguishable The Suwannee Limestone of Oligocene age, underlies this undifferentiated Bruce Creek Chipola Tampa type lithology (figure 27). Although the Suwannee is similar to this unit in overall appearance, it is much more indurated and crystalline and generally dolomitic. There is also a reduction in the quartz sand and fossil content in the Suwannee Better coverage in the form of well samples and cores would aid in the understanding of this rela tionship. THICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTION The Bruce Creek Limestone is found in the subsurface throughout most of Bay County The only area from which it is absent is the northeastern corner of the county (fig. 1 7). It ex tends westward across southern Walton County and is thought to lose its identity somewhere in southern Okaloosa County. To the east the Bruce Creek has been identified in a core on St. Joe Spit in Gulf County and in a core near Dead Lake in Calhoun County Beyond this its eastern extent is uncertain Huddlestun (1976), however, reported that the Bruce Creek Limestone exists as far east as Franklin County. The unit thins updip and finally pinches out in the northeastern corner of the county The Bruce Creek is a very low angle wedge-shaped deposit reaching a maximum thickness along the Gulf Coast of about 300 feet Because very few wells penetrate the entire thickness of the Bruce Creek along the coast, an isopach map of the limestone was not constructed. The top of the unit strikes northwest-southeast and dips approximately to the southwest. In the northern part of Bay County elevations of greater than 50 feet below sea level are common It dips to 300 feet below sea level along the coast, at a gentle dip of appro x imately 12 feet per mile (fig 17). PALEONTOLOGY AND AGEIn Walton County, Huddlestun (1976) dated the Bruce Creek Limestone as Middle Miocene (Langhian Stage of Europe), based on planktonic foraminifera identified from a clay bed within the unit In Bay County the clay unit is absent, and planktonic foraminifera are rare in most other parts of the formation The presence of BULLETIN NO. 57 41 Globigerinoides sp at the base of the unit establishes the Bruce Creek as Miocene or younger in Bay County also The following planktonic foraminifera were listed by Huddlestun (1976) as being identified from the Bruce Creek Limestone in Walton County : Cassigerinel/a chipolensis Globigerinitella insueta G/obigerina praebulloides praebulloides G/oboquadrina dehiscens G. bulloides G altispira G druryi Globorotalia fohsi peripheroronda G eamesi G fohsi lobata G falconensis G fohsi praefohsi G foliata G mayori G quinqueloba G cf. minutissima Globigerinita glutinata G praemenardii archeomenardii G. uvula Globorotaloides hexagona variablis Globigerinoides sicana Praeorbulina glome rosa curva G. sacculifera sacculifera P. glomerosa glomerosa G. sacculifera quadrilobata Sphaeroidinel/opsis seminulina G subquadrata Calcareous nannofossils are also present in the Bruce Creek Limestone in Bay and Walton counties; however, due to the crystalline and well-indurated nature of the rock, their preservation is poor. As a result, positive identification is difficult and only a few long ranging species were noted. Representatives of the genera Discoaster, Baarudosphaera and Scyphosphaera were identified Other microfossils common in the Bruce Creek include benthic foraminifera, ostracods, bryozoans, and echinoid remains. Macrofossils present are dominated by mollusks. CHOCTAWHATCHEE STAGE HISTORYSediments of the Choctawhatchee Stage in northwest Florida are exposed in a narrow band extending from 20 miles west of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, northwest to DeFuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida, a distance of about 80 miles. The exposed sediments are tan orange-brown, or gray green sandy clays, clayey sands, and shell marls The outcrops are generally poorly exposed and of small extent. Sub surface control is also weak, with true stratigraphic relationships being poorly understood. Langdon (1889) first published on sediments in this area, when he described the outcrop at Alum Bluff, Liberty County. He called the strata the "Alum Bluff deposits", which he equated with the Miocene of the Carolinas. In 1894, Dall and Stanley-Brown redescribed the section at Alum Bluff and applied the name "Alum Bluff Formation" to the lower fossiliferous sands. They named the upper fossiliferous marl the "Ecphora bed" after a gastropod which they considered characteristic of that bed They also reported the "Ecphora bed" along the Chipola River in Calhoun County and at Jackson Bluff in Leon County Matson and Clapp (1909) were first to use the term "Choctawhatchee Marl. They derived the name from the Choctawhatchee River where a

PAGE 26

42 -lOOFT. -150FT -250FT. BUREAU OF G E OLOGY BAY COUNTY 0 I 2 3 4 CICTOUit INTRYAL50fl IIEo\H 5(A\.EvtL ()fl. OE'TK TO A T Vltll LOCA HO H 1 110 lOOFT. -200FT. FT. Figure 1 7 Structural contour map of the top of the Bruce Creek Limestone. fossiliferous clayey marl is exposed in the banks This marl they considered equivalent to the "Ecphora bed" at Alum Bluff In 1929, Cooke and Mossom referred the "Choctawhatchee Marl" to the "Choctawhatchee Formation." On the basis of the molluscan fauna Mansfield (in Cooke and Mossom, 1929) recognized three faunal zones within the "Choctawhat chee Formation The oldest was the Area zone, the second was the Ec phora zone, and the third and youngest was named the Cancellaria zone. Later in a report coauthored with Ponton (Mansfield and Ponton 1932), Man;field named a fourth faunal zone, the Yoldia zone. Mansfield and Pon ton considered the Yoldia and Area zones to be Middle Miocene and the Ecphora and Cancellaria zones to be Late Miocene r I I \. [ I BULL E TIN 57 43 Smith (1941) used the name "Permenter's Farm beds" for a unit he felt was older than the Ecphora zone but younger than Area. He considered these beds which were located on the old Permenter farm south of DeFuniak Springs to be Middle Miocene in age Vernon (1942), in his study of the geology of Holmes and Washington counties, decided these four zones were approximately the same age but were different facies within the Choctawhatchee Formation. Cooke (1945) abandoned the name "Choctawhatchee Formation" and placed the Yoldia and Area zones in the Middle Miocene "Shoal River Formation," and the Ecphora and Cancellaria zones in the "Duplin Marl" of Late Miocene age He felt a major unconformity existed between these two formations, which represented a regression of the sea throughout the entire Atlantic Coastal Plain Puri (1953) divided the "Miocene Series" into three stages, the upper most of which was the "Choctawhatchee Stage." In this stage he placed four "biofacies": the Yoldia Area, Ecphora and Cancellaria after Vernon (1942). He considered the Yoldia and Area biofacies to be down-dip time equivalents of the Ecphora and Cancellaria biofacies It should be noted that rock unit nomenclature was not emphasized in Puri's work. Later Puri and Vernon (1964), using the "stage" concept that was erected by Puri (1953), applied rock unit names to the various biofacies within the "Choctawhatchee Stage". They placed the Area biofacies in the "Red Bay Formation," the Yoldia biofacies in the Yellow River Formation," and the Ecphora and Cancallaria biofacies in the Jackson Bluff Formation Rainwater ( 1964) proposed that in northwest Florida all the "Upper Miocene sediments be combined into the "Duplin-Shoal River Formation He defined the Upper Miocene of the Florida Panhandle as being equivalent to the Choctawhatchee Stage, and part of the Alum Bluff Stage of Puri (1953). Waller (1969) discussed some of the stratigraphic problems within the "Choctawhatchee Group" and suggested that the Area zone was older than the Ecphora and Cancellaria zones based on the species of Argopecten present Akers (1972) studied the planktonic microfossils (foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils) of the Choctawhatchee Stage and established a zonation of the Miocene of the area using the biostratigraphic zonation of Blow (1969). He placed the Yellow River Formation (the Yoldia faunizone) in the Middle Miocene, the Red Bay Formation (the Area faunizone) in the Upper Miocene, and the Jackson Bluff Formation (the Ecphora and Cancellaria faunizones) in the Pliocene These age assignments have been considered reliable and are in agreement with benthonic evidence found by Beem (1973) from the same area Beem reported on the paleoecology of these deposits based on a combination of present-day species distribu tions and several statistical parameters, including a planktonic-benthonic ratio, and population diversity measurements The fauna were shown to be indicative of water depths less than 1 00 meters and affected by abnormal concentrations of organic carbon.

PAGE 27

44 BUREAU OF G E OLOGY Huddlestun (1976) redefined the marine deposits of the central Florida Panhandle on the basis of lithology, and included five formations in his "Alum Bluff Group" (see historical summary of the Alum Bluff Stage in this report). He recognized the Choctawhatchee Formation as a disti_nct lithologic unit. This formation he stated was the Area zone of Mansfield (1930, 1932), and the Permenter s Farm beds of Smith (1941 ) The type locality described was the exposure at Red Bay, Walton County, T2N, R17W, northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of sec 15. Also recognized as the youngest formation of the "Alum Bluff Group" by dlestun was the Jackson Bluff Formation This unit is addressed later 1n th1s report INTRACOASTAL FORMATION HISTORY The Intracoastal Formation was first described by Hud dlestun in 1976. He used the name Intracoastal Limestone to describe a soft sandy limestone of Pliocene age that underlies the coastal area of western Florida". His description pertained mostly to southern Walton County The Intracoastal Limestone was placed in the "Coastal Group". by Huddlestun For a historical account of the Coastal Group, see the sect1on on the Bruce Creek Limestone in this report Huddlestun took the name from the Intracoastal Waterway #1 core (W-8873), located in Walton County, Florida in T3S R18W, northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of sec 11 (fig. 18). The interval to which he assigned this formation in that core is between 67 feet and 180 feet below land surface Huddlestun (1976) included a lithologic description for the "type core" Huddlestun's lithologic description for the Intracoastal varies from the type area in Walton County to southern Gulf and Franklin In Walton County he described it as a "soft, unconsolidated to slightly recrystalli z ed, fossiliferous, sandy limestone". In outcrops in Gulf County he described it as varying from, ... a very calcareous shelly soft and un consolidated to partially indurated, sandy calcarenite, to a shelly, granular, even textured, slightly indurated, soft limestone". In Walton Coun ty, where the type Intracoastal core is located, Hud dlestun points out that he recognized two broad lithologic types within his "Coastal Group". One type is found in the Bruce Creek Limestone and other older limestones and the second type is found in all the younger units of the group ; this would include his St. Joe Limestone and the Intracoastal Limestone. These two latter units a r e separated in the Walton County area by a phosphoritic sand unit The lithologies of the St. Joe and Intracoastal Limestones are very similar, with the major difference being that the St. Joe contains less clastic and fossiliferous material than the Intracoastal. In Bay County a unit of nearly identical lithology is present at the same stratigraphic interval. This unit, then, can be correlated with the St Joe and Intracoastal Limestones in Walton County In Bay County, however the ) I B ULL E TIN N O 5 7 4 5 phosphoritic sand unit which separates the two-. formations in Walton Coun ty to the west is not present. In well cuttings and core samples the St Joe and Intracoastal Limestones of Huddlestun in Walton County are indistinguishable from each other and from the correlative unit in Bay County This being the case, the two units are here combined under one formational name the Intracoastal Formation. In this report then the Intracoastal Formation will be used for the body of sediments which was called the Intracoastal Limestone and St Joe Limestone in Walton County and for correlative units of the same lithology in Bay, Okaloosa, Calhoun, Gulf, and possibly Franklin counties in northwest Florida. LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION The Intracoastal Formation in Bay Coun ty is a very sandy, highly microfossiliferous, poorly consolidated, argillaceous, calcarenitic limestone Throughout its extent it contains minor amounts of glauconite pyrite heavy minerals, mica and in some cases over 1 0 percent phosphorite The phosphorite content averages between 3 and 7 percent. The quartz sand content is variable, depending on the depth within the unit and the geographic location. Quartz sand generally in creases upward and toward the west The uppermost samples en countered often are dominated by quart z sand whereas near the base of the unit it may be only a few percent. The calcium carbonate content of the Intracoastal increases toward the base of the unit while the sand decreases with depth. The Intracoastal lithology varies in some parts of the county, particular ly near the coast, where it may best be described as a sandy, calcarenitic shell bed with planktic and benthic foraminiferal tests being abundant. In all portions of Bay County the Intracoastal is characteristically fossiliferous and contains foraminif era, ostracods, mollusks, echinoids, and shark teeth The fossil content of the formation diminishes northward towards the pinch-out zone, near the Washington Bay County line The major lithologic components of the Intracoastal are the fossil material, quartz sand, and calcium carbonate grains with these being cemented by micrite and clay The micrite content seems to be high in the western part of the county while the clay content increases towards the east The formation is generally poorly indurated, but tends to be better consolidated along its northern limits. Unwashed samples of the Intracoastal are yellow-gray when dry and dark olive-green when wet Samples washed on a 62 micron sieve are buff to speckled gray in color The type core for the Intracoastal Formation, as previously stated, was described from Walton County by Huddlestun (1976). This core will be used as the "type core for the present study also, with the revised defini tion of the Intracoastal Formation being used. That is, Huddlestun's St. Joe Limestone unit is not recognized but that lithologic unit is incorporated into the redefined present usage of the Intracoastal Formation

PAGE 28

46 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY The following is a geologic log of the Intracoastal Formation from the type core located in Walton County (see fig. 18) Core no. : W-8873 Core name : Intracoastal Waterway # 1 Location: Walton Co., T3S R18W, Sec 11, dbc Elevation: 40 ft. Total depth: 300 ft. Samples: 23 core boxes 0-300 ft Date Completed: January, 1969 Logs run: gamma, electric Intracoastal Formation: 66. 5 ft. to 226ft. WALTON 0 II 0 10 20M G u L F Figure 18. Location of Type Core for the Intracoastal Formation, W-8873, In tracoastal Waterway Core No 1 T3S R18W Sec. 11, dbc Depth in feet below land surface Lithologic Description 0-66.5 66.5-70 70-76 76-87 Overlying the Intracoastal Formation are yell()wish-brown quartz sands. These sands are noncalcareous, unfoss1hferous, poorly con solidated, and contain small amounts of silt, clay, and heavy minerals. CALCAREOUS SHELLY SAND, light gray to yellowish-gray, med1um grained quartz sands, with medium sphericity and subangular to angular roundness Poorly to moderately indurated w1th m1cr1te and clay cement. Accessory minerals include up to 40 percent limestone, clay up to 5 percent, and mica less than one percent. Fossil mollusks are common, as are bryozoans and foraminifera. SANDY CALCARENITE, medium light-gray moderately Indurated calcarenite, with micrite cement. Grain types include biogenic fragments and micrite with size ranges from micro to very coarse. Accessory minerals include up to 35 percent quartz sand, and less than one percent mica. Mollusk shells are present, but less common than above; also present are foraminifera and ostracods. LIMESTONE, yellowish-gray to light olive-gray, moderately indurated limestone with micrite cement. Grain types include m1cr1te and biogenic fragments, and range in size from micro to very coarse. Pin point vugs are common Accessory minerals include up to 15 percent 87-120 120-178 178-186 186-226 226-Total Depth BULLETIN NO. 57 47 quartz sand, and small amounts of mica Common fossils include mollusks, bryozoans echinoids, foraminifera, and ostracods. LIMESTONE yellowish-gray to light olive-gray, moderately indurated limestone with micrite cement. Pin-point vugs common. Grain types include micrite and biogenic fragments that range from micro to very coarse. Accessory minerals include up to 5 percent quartz sand, and l ess than one percent mica Fossi l s include foraminifera os tracods, mollusks and bryozoans in the form of molds, casts, and preserved tests. Oysters and pectenids are common and the limestone has a rubbly, bioclastic texture. LIMESTONE, yellowish-gray to light olive-gray, moderately indurated to poorly consolidated limestone Massive, structureless, fine grained even tex tured unit with biogenic and micrite grain types Accessory minerals include varying amounts of quartz sand (up to 1 5 percent). and small amounts (usually less than 5 percent) of clay silt, mica phosphorite and glauconite. Tr ace amounts of pyrite have been noted in the lower part of the interval. For a minifera are abundant; other fossils include some chalky mollusk molds, echinoids, and ostracods. Sections of core are missing between 122'-126', 132' -147', and 149.5'-152'. SANDY LIMESTONE yellowish-gray to grayish-orange. Poorly con solidated, with micrit e cement. Glauconite a nd phosphorite abundant. Also present are varying amounts of quart z sand and small percen tages of clay and mica. Fossils are less common than above with some chalky mollusk molds, foraminifera ostracods, and echinoids This interval corresponds to Huddlestun's phosphoritic sand unit. LIMESTONE yellowish-gray, moderately indurated. Massive struc tureless, mostly fine grained unit with biogenic and micrite grain types Ac cesso ry minerals include small amounts of quartz sand (usually less than 10 p e rcent). one percent or less of phosphorite, and a trac e of pyrite. Foraminifera are common with chalky fossil mollusks and echinoids being pre se nt. Sections of core are missing between 199'-202:. and 204'-214'. This interval corresponds to Huddle stu n 's St. Joe Limestone. Bruce Creek Limestone is present under the Intracoastal. In this core, its consists of a moderately indurated, dolomitic limestone. THICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTIONThe Intracoastal Formation in Bay County is a low-angle wedge-shaped deposit (see figs 19 and 20), with its greatest thickness (up to 240ft.) occurring along the coast. The unit thins and rises in elevation to the north It has approximately an 8;foot per mile dip in a southwestern direction. The strike then is northwest to southeast. To the east and west, its full lateral extent is not well known beyond the boundaries of Bay and Walton counties. Further to the east, in Calhoun and Gulf counties, the Intracoastal has been identfied from a few well cuttings and cores scattered throughout the area. Huddlestun (1976) reported an outcrop of the Intracoastal in Franklin County which is the farthest east it would be expected, based on the structural features in the area (see fig. 15). The only other reported outcrop of this formation is along the Econfina Creek, where Route 388 crosses about 1 5 miles west of Bennett, Bay County (fig. 25). Huddlestun reported that at this location the Intracoastal is an indurated to partly indurated, sandy, shelly limestone; to a very calcareous, shelly sandstone. Both outcrops tend to be more sandy than their subsurface equivalents

PAGE 29

48 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY l I lOOFT 5 0 FT B A Y COUNTY COIHOUII 1/tffiiV.t.L W(.t. N UA L E VEL OFT -50FT. l OOF T 150fT. -200FT. I 0FT. 111 Figure 1 9. Structural contour map of the top of the Intracoastal Formation The Intracoastal extends westward across southern Walton County and into southern Okaloosa County, where it may grade or interfinger with the Pensacola Clay, which is present in the western Florida Panhandle In Bay County, the Intracoastal Formation is directly overlain by either a blanket of Pliocene to Recent sands or by the Jackson Bluff Formation The sand unit most commonly overlies the Intracoastal in southern Bay County and the Jackson Bluff is most common further north. The Jackson Bluff is sporadic in the southeastern part of the county due to either irregular deposition or post-depositional erosion The upper part of the Intracoastal, although predominatly a quartz sand, can easily be distinguished from the Pliocene Recent sand unit. The top of B ULL E TIN NO. 57 49 the Intracoastal always contains phosphorite poorly consolidated limestone, and microfossils, usually planktonic and benthonic foraminifera The younger overlying sands do not generally contain phosphorite, are not calcareous, and fossils are rare The Jackson Bluff Formation is more difficult to separate from the Intracoastal Limestone. The Jackson Bluff is commonly an argillaceous san dy shell bed that grades into a highly fossiliferous sandy limestone The Jackson Bluff contains a much greater abundance of mollusks and clay than the Intracoastal. The limestone portions of the Jackson Bluff, in addition to having more mollusks, are also better indurated than the Intracoastal. In col or, the Jackson Bluff limestones are light grays in contrast with the olive green to buff color of the Intracoastal. "'" lOOFT. 1 5 0FT .c ., BAY COUNTY INTERVAL 50fT THICKH[SS AT W[ll LOCATION f70 Figure 20. Isopach map of the Intracoastal Formation.

PAGE 30

50 BUREAU O F GE OLOGY In all of Bay County where the Intracoastal exists, it is underlain by the Bruce Creek Limestone. The two units are readily differentiated The Bruce Creek is much better consolidated and highly indurated, it is less sandy, and much less fossiliferous than the Intracoastal. From well cuttings, the In tracoastal appears as an olive green soft marl, while the Bruce Creek is usually a white to light yellow gray, well indurated limestone PALEONTOLOGY AND AGESome fauna from the Intracoastal Formation i n Walton County have been described by Huddlestun (1976). His description included mollusk skells and foraminifera The two known outcrops of the Intracoastal one along Econfina Creek in Bay County and one near Car rabelle in Franklin County, have been referred to as the Cancellaria zone and described by Cooke and Mossom (1929), Cook (1945), and Puri (1953). Their descriptions generally refer to it as a shelly limestone In Bay County, as in Walton County, the Intracoastal is a richly microfossiliferous calcarenite. Huddlestun (1976) identified numerous planktonic foraminifera from the Intracoastal, and by using various z onation schemes (Berggren, 1973; Blow, 1969; and Lamb and Beard, 1972), he established the time of deposition of the Intracoastal from late E arly Pliocene to Late Pliocene He further noted that the oldest beds in the Intracoastal Limestone of Walton County are entirely Late Pliocene while sedimentation to the east in the Apalachicola Embayment began in Early Pliocene time. Cuttings from 1 4 wells in southern Bay County were examined biostratigraphically by the use of planktonic foraminifera, in an attempt to tie the Intracoastal sediments in with world wide zonation schemes The In tracoastal Formation in southern Bay County has a well preserved prolific foraminiferal fauna The time of deposition was determined as late Middle Miocene to Late Pliocene Missing planktonic z ones were also discovered within the unit near the Miocene Pliocene boundary indicating a probable hiatus It should be noted here that the Intracoastal, as defined in this report includes the older St Joe Limestone of Huddlestun (1976). This would ac count for the longer range in time of deposition found in the Bay County sediments from what was previously reported from Walton County The z onation of planktonic foraminifera used for the Intracoastal sediments in Bay County relies on the schemes of Bolli (1957), Lamb and Beard (1972), and Berggren (1973, 1977). In all wells examined, the base of the Intracoastal was found to fall within the fohsi z ones of Bolli. The top of the unit was less consistent occurring somewhere within B erggren's Pl1 to Pl-5 z ones The Pliocene zonation of Berggren was prefe r red over the scheme of Lamb and Beard because it offered better z onal resolution; and, of greatest importance it was more compatible with marker species found in the Intracoastal F ormation. The Pliocene z onation of Lamb and Beard relies heavily on the genus Pulliniatina which was not found in the Bay County fauna The Lamb and Beard zonation was used, however for the Late Miocene sediments occurring within the Intracoastal. Bolli s z onation ( l t t \ l l ( I l \ I I l BULL E TIN NO. 57 51 for the late Middle Miocene was used because of the presence of Globorotalia tohsi at the base of each study well. Range charts of three selected wells are shown in figures 21, 22, and 23. Figure 21 Planktonic foraminiferal range chart for well W -2212. Figure 22. Plankto foram range chart for well W-2950.

PAGE 31

52 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY MIDDLE MIOCENE L OWER PliOCENE U PLIO CENE Figure 23. Planktonic foraminiferal W-14077. range chart for well From thes e range can be seen that there are missing zones. would the poss1b1hty of a hiatus occurring at the end of the M1ocene and early Pliocene. The specific zonation of each study well be seen 1n f1g. 24. A gap emerges in this diagram due to a pattern of m1ss1ng zones _across Bay County The bottom boundary of the gap is ge nerally found ':"_lth the G. fohsi lobata robusta zone; however, evidence ex1sts for depos1t1on as late as the G. menardi zone or possibly as late as the acostoensis zone The top boundary of the gap is consistently found w1th1n the Pl-1 zone Partial List of Planktonic Foraminifera Identified from the Intracoastal Formation in Bay County Globigerina dutertrei G nepenthes Globogerinoides conglobatus G obliquus G. obliquus extremus G quadrilobatus sacculifer G quadrilobatus triloba G ruber Globorotalia acostaensis G. continuosa G crassaformis G exilis G fohsi fohsi Gl fohsi lobata G fohsi peripheroronda G fohsi robusta G humerosa G inflata G. lenguaensis G. margaritae G menardii G merotumida G multicamerata G plesiotumida G praemiocenica G praehirsuita ( I r I t ( t [ I l I j l l G. praemenardii G puncticulata G ronda G scitula G siakensis G tumida Globoquadrina altispira G dehiscens lJ N22 N 22 PL-6 w PL-5 t-<1 PL-4 w ..J z C\i w PL-3 01-0 z PL-2 ->..J ..J Cl. a:: PL -lc <1 PL-Ib w PL -Ia 1w N17 G acostoensis tw <1 z ..J G menardii w Nl5 (.) w 1NI4 G. siakensis :::;; ..J 0 G .lobatarabusta 0 :::::: :::;; z G fashi foshi I BULLETIN NO. 57 53 0 0 "' ... .. "' "' ... .. "' "' .. "' I Hastigerina siphonifera Orbulina bilobata 0 suturalis 0. universa Sphaeroidinella dehiscens Sphaeroidinellopsis seminulina S subdehiscens N N "' N .. ;:: "' I ;;; "' ill :! N 'l' .. I I V,j) '---Figure 24. Biostratigraphic zonation of the Intracoastal Formation in 1 4 wells from Bay and Walton counties. Uncertain zones represented by hatched pattern Taken from Clark and Wright, 1979. In addition to the missing zones, there are two other reasons for con cluding that a hiatus exists within the Intracoastal Formation. One is an in crease in quartz sand content near the level where missing zones are noted An episode of erosion or reworking and subsequent transgression could account for this. Further evidence is noted when sedimentation rates for the interval are estimated Results show that either a dramatic change in sedimentation rate occurred, or a hiatus exists (Clark and Wright, 1979). This haitus may be a mid latitude expression of a Late Miocene decline in worldwide sea level due to Antarctic glaciation This sea level drop has been further documented in Florida by Huddlestun and Wright (1977) from the Florida Panhandle, and by Peck et al. (1977) from south Florida In addition to the planktonic foraminifera present, calcareous nan nofossils were identified from a number of samples of the Intracoastal For mation. Although range charts were not prepared for the nannofossils, the

PAGE 32

54 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY general assemblage zone agrees with the planktonic foraminifera evidence; that is, a range in time of deposition from late Middle Miocene to Middle Pliocene is called for. A partial listing of identified species from the Intracoastal follows: Partial List of Calcareous Nannofossils Identified from the Intracoastal Formation in Bay County Braarudosphaera bigelowi Catinaster coalitus Coccolithus pelagicus Cyclococcolithina macintyrei Discoaster brouweri D. calcaris D challengeri D. kugleri D neohamatus D pentaradiatus D quinqueramus D. surcu/us D. variabilis Discolithina sp. He/icopontosphaera sp Reticulofenestra pseudoumbilica Reticulofenestra sp Spenolithus abies Spenolithus sp. Other relatively rare microfossil fragments appeared to include spicules and parts of diatoms. JACKSON BLUFF FORMATION HISTORY See the historical notes on the Choctawhatchee Stage (in this report) for the sequential changes in the nomenclature leading up to the current usage Puri and Vernon (1964) are credited with naming the "Jackson Bluff Formation". They combined the Ecphora and Cancellaria biofacies because both are exposed at Jackson Bluff in Leon County. This is the only ex posure at which more than one biofacies has been observed. They includ ed the Jackson Bluff in the Choctawhatchee Stage of Puri (1953), which included all Miocene sediments of post Alum-Bluff Age in the Florida Panhandle and their equivalents in the central and western Gulf states. This is approximately equivalent to the Upper Miocene Series. Akers (1972) and Huddlestun (1976) have studied the planktonic foraminiferal fauna of the Jackson Bluff Formation and assign its age to the earliest Late Pliocene This age assignment appears valid from the Bay County data, also. The type section, as designated by Puri and Vernon (1964), is in a drainage ditch and the face of an old road-metal borrow pit, about 1 50 yards south of the dam at Jackson Bluff along the Ochlockonee River. This bluff is 0.6 miles upstream from the Florida Route 20 bridge in T1 S, R4W, the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of sec. 21 Leon County, Florida The section exposed here is about 40 feet B ULL E TIN N O 5 7 55 in thickness, of which the upper 1 2 feet is Jackson Bluff (except for a two foot sand and soil zone). Figure 25. Intracoastal Formation outcrop, located thte Econfina Creek about 1 00 yards downstream from e rou e LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION The Jackson Bluff Formation at type locality consists of three clayey sandy beds. The beds are dlfferen tiated on slight lithologic variation and their mollusk Huddlestun ( 1 9 7 6) reports three broad lithofacies w_lthm theh alrleal exd d ents a shell bed fac1es, as e Y san tent of the outcrop, the shell bed lithology is The lim_ estone facies is referred to as the new for mation the Intracoastal Formation. Count the Jackson Bluff Formation is a calcareous. san?y clay lin Bay d c:ntaining large quantities of mollusk shell matenal (fig. tso c ayeyf to white fossiliferous, sandy limestone occur within the umt. earns o g k on B luff is an olive green poorly con In unwashed well cuttings, the Jac s d "bed as shell beds composed solidated marl. amounts of, bryozoans mostly of mollusks In com Ina I . d d hark planktonic and benthonic foraminifera echlnoldS, ostraco the teeth. Phosphate and heavy minerals are common accessones WI formation THICKNESS AND DISTRIBUTION The Jackson Bluff Formation is found through most of the central and southern parts of the Flonda

PAGE 33

56 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Panhandle. Its outcrop pattern is a narrow belt extending from the southern Washington County area, eastward to the Jackson Bluff area of Leon County. From there the outcrop belt apparently turns southwest where ex posures have been reported by Banks and Hunter (1973), and Huddlestun (1976) from the vicinity of Crawfordville in central Wakulla County. Figure 26. Jackson Bluff Formation outcrop, located on east bank of the Econfina Creek about 100 yards downstream from the Route 20 bridge. The formation is a relatively thin blanket-type deposit throughout its ex tent. In Bay County, which for the most part is downdip from the outcrop belt, the geometry of the deposit is difficult to ascertain Its absence in many wells precludes an interpretation (see figs 34 and 36). Its greatest thickness occurs downdip near the coast, where it approaches 1 50 feet in thickness. From this vicinity northward the unit thins, and in some locations is not present at all. This is most likely because of either irregular deposition due to undulatory bottom conditions, or post-depositional erosion, or both. The Jackson Bluff Formation in Bay County overlies the Intracoastal Formation in all but the extreme northern part of the county. Parts of the lower Jackson Bluff probably interfinger or grade into the upper part of the Intracoastal Formation (fig. 27) This relationship is difficult to determine, especially in northern Bay County where the Intracoastal begins to lose its identity. The two units can be distinquished by the more calcareous and BULLETIN NO. 57 57 microfossiliferous nature of the Intracoastal Formation when compared with the macrofossiliferous clayey nature of the Jackson Bluff. The Jackson Bluff also overlies the Bruce Creek Limestone and/or the Chipola Limestone in northern Bay County The olive green marl of the Jackson Bluff contrasts markedly with the well consolidated and indurated white to light-gray limestone lithology of the Cl1ipola and Bruce Creek for mations. Overlying the Jackson Bluff is the Pliocene to Recent sand unit The two are readily distinguished by the sands having no limestones, very little clay, and fossils being very rare. EPOCH RECENT LEISTOCEt 0:: w 3:: 0 .J UPDIP WASHINGTON CO. NORTH ROCK UNIT UNCONSOLIDATED SANDS AND CLAYEY SANDS CHIPOLA FORMATION DOWN DIP GULF OF MEXICO SOUTH TAMPA STAGE LIMESTONES oLIGOCENE MARIANNA LIMESTONE EOCENE OCALA LIMESTONE Figure 2 7. Stratigraphic correlation chart of the shallow sediments in Bay County.

PAGE 34

58 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY PALEONTOLOGY AND AGE Fossil mollusk shells are abundant throughout the Jackson Bluff sediments and have been discussed exten sively in the literature (Mansfield 1930, 1932; Gardner 1926-1944; Cooke Mossom 1929; and others) Corals from the Jackson Bluff were identfied by Weisbord (1972). Microfossils are also abundant with ostracods having been reported by Howe (1935), and foraminifera having been reported by Cushman (1920), Cushman and Ponton (1932), Puri (1953) and Beem (1973). Akers (1972) and Huddlestun (1976) examined the planktonic foraminifera from the outcropping and downdip Jackson Bluff They both concluded that, based on the planktonic zones of Blow (1969), the Jackson Bluff Formation was deposited in the middle to earliest Late Pliocene Akers (1972) also reported the presence of calcareous nan nofossils from some horizons within the Jackson Bluff. Their age correlates well with the planktonic foraminifera zones. The faunal assemblage noted for the Jackson Bluff of Bay County ap pears to include most of the previously reported fossil types A few planktonic foraminifera, however, reveal that the age of the unit here may be uppermost Pliocene and may extend into the Pleistocene No con clusive evidence for this was found PLIOCENE TO RECENT CLAYEY SANDS A Pliocene to Recent clayey sand and sand unit covers the Neogene sequence in Bay County (fig. 28). This unit includes some clayey sand and gravel which probably correlates with the Citronelle Formation, some reworked clayey sands from higher elevations, Pleistocene terrace sands, and Recent coastal sands. The sediments which may correlate to the Citronelle Formation occur at the higher elevations in the extreme northeastern corner of the county. The Citronelle Formation's type locality is near the town of Citronelle in Alabama. In northwestern Florida it consists of fluvial cross-bedded sands gravels and clays, and post-depositional limonite. In Bay County the sediments in the vicinity of the Washington and Jackson county line contain orange, clayey sands with some gravei; this may be Citronelle or reworked Citronelle (fig. 29). Most of these deposits are commonly found at eleva tions exceeding 200 feet Tan to light-orange, clayey sand is found southward at lower eleva tions, generally in the flat-woods of central Bay County This lithology is probably a result of reworking of some of the higher hills during Pleistocene sea level fluctuations. The remaining near-surface sands cover the majority of the county and consist of unconsolidated white to light gray quartz sand. Grain sizes range from very fine to gravel, and are subangular with medium sphericity Heavy minerals are present (up to 1 9 percent), with phosphorite beginning to ap pear near the base of the unit. These near-surface sands cover all of Bay County, except along the stream channel of Econfina Creek, where Neogene beds are exposed. BULLETIN NO. 57 59 The terrace deposits generally thicken from zero feet in the northern part of the county to nearly 1 00 feet near the coast. Iron stain and thin clay are rarely encountered in well cuttings. The unit is generally un except for occasional shell beds which are predominately molluscan 1n nature Other fauna in these beds include rare finds of foraminifera, ostracods, echinoids and bryozoans The Pliocene to Recent sands directly overlie two different units in Bay County; the Intracoastal Formation or the Jackson Bluff Formation. The In tracoastal Limestone differs from the overlying sands in its greater indura tion and more calcareous nature Even thought the top of the Intracoastal is "r' ______.l_JACKSON CO I I I . L I TU I I I BAY 1/H(IIYAl 50fT THICKHESS ATWHLlOC.I.TIOH t70 150FT. Figure 28. Isopach map of the Pliocene to Recent clayey sands and sands in Bay County

PAGE 35

60 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Figure 29. Citronelle Formation outcrop in a borrow pit along Route 231 near the Bay-Jackson County line Notice gravel stringers. usually sandy, it can be distinquished from the overlying sands by its phosphorite and its minimum limestone content of one percent. The Jackson Bluff Formation differs from the overlying sands in that it is more calcareous, argillaceous, and contains an abundance of fossil mollusk shells. These clayey sands deposited during Pliocene and Pleistocene times were directly related to sea-level fluctuations during glacial and interglacial periods Fluctuating sea levels caused the ancient coastline to migrate, and as a result, older deposits were reworked and redeposited in response to these various terracing episodes. Along the present coast there are numerous recent features which are the result of recent longshore marine forces sand. These include offshore bars, and spits. Coastal eolian features such as dunes are also common. These sands are often only a few tens of feet thick and are clean white quartz sands. A few accessories include organics and heavy minerals. BULLETIN NO. 57 61 E G BAY COUNTY 0 I 2 3 M I LUI'E TERS o' Figure 30. Location of geologic cross-sections

PAGE 36

'0 -o -200 -70 _,00 -350 _J -110 "0 _,,., 40 -500 -150 B W-14101 '0 ->0 -100 -4 -30 -250 ->>0 -450 A' Figure 31 Geologic cross-section A-A B' Figure 32. Geologic cross-section B-B'. EXPLANATION PLIOCENERECENT SANDS D JACKSON BLUFF Em INTRACOASTAL FORMATION BRUCE CREEK LIMESTON E CHI POL A I TAMPA LIMESTONE SUWANNEE LIMESTONE a OCALA I MARIANNA LIMESTONE e I 2 3 4 5 6 KIL.OMETERS EXPLANATION PL IOCENE-RECENT SANDS JACKSON BLUFF INTRACOASTAL FORMATION BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE SUWANNEE LIMESTONE PLIOCENE MIOCENE 2 3 4 MILES I 2 3 4 5 6 D llliJ IBl g en N D:l c: :a m )> c: 0 "11 C) m 0 r-0 C) -< D:l c: r r m ::::! z z 0 c.n ...... en w

PAGE 37

" > 100 l 3l 20 00 W-2.902 4S-14WI 3 4S-13W8 v .. -., = :>::>IIWb ______....... ......, MSL -200i::: IIIWI!!III!11W!IIi!l;!li!WWI!JIIIIllilllil i i !iiiiirflfl!llll -400 F i gur e 33. Geol o gi c c ros s-s e c tion C C' .. tOO 30 0 20 -0>0 -200 -2.50 -400 -120 -030 Figure 34. Geo l ogic c ro ss sec t ion 0 -0'. EXPLANATION P LIOCENE-REC ENT SANDS D J ACKSON BLUFF [fill INTRACOASTAL FORMATION BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE SUWANNEE LIMESTONE m PLIOCENE MI OCEN E I 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 K I LOMETERS 0' EXPLANAT ION PLIOCENER EGEN T SANDS JACKSON B L UFF INTRACOAST A L F ORMA T ION BRUCE CREE K LIMES T ONE PLIOC ENE MIOCE NE Z 3 4 MILES 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 KI LOIIIIETERS 0' 0) -'=" aJ c: J:l m )> c: 0 ., C) m 0 r-0 C) -< IJ:!E EEl c: r r m ::! z z 0 en ...., 0) en

PAGE 38

. 000 100 -;. 3 0 20 "l 00 0 0 -00 -00 -100 -30 000 -200 -zoo ->00 -000 -<> u o -120 -030 -040 ->00 ,-000 -160 -oo 000 .. -ZOO -zoo _..., -400 >00 F w-3433 r I 00 -ZO ->0 -o -00 -60 -70 -90 -0>0 -000 E W Eo EXPLANATION SANDS JACKSON BLUFF FORMATION BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE CHI POL A I TAMPA LIMESTONE PLIOCENE I 2 3 4 MILES 3 4 5 6 KILOMETERS 0 Figure 35. Geologic cross-section E-Eo. E XPLANATION PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS D JACKSON BLUFF INTRACOASTAL FORMATION Iii BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE CHI POL A IT AMPA LIMESTONE SUWANNEE LIMESTONE a OCALA /MARIANNA LIMESTONE !...........,t. MILES I 2 3 4 5 6 K I L OMETERS s
PAGE 39

G "' >0 H 0 "0 000 1 :0 >O 00 --1-fG' EXPLANATION PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS D JACKSON BLUFF INTRACOASTAL FORMATION g BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE GHIPOLA /TAMPA LIMESTONE SUWANNEE LIMESTONE 00 OCALA I MARIANNA LIMESTONE PLIOCENE MIOCENE z 3 I 2 3 4 5 6 ICILOMETERS Figure 37. Geologic cross-section G-G0 --==------EXPLANATION PLIOCENE-RECENT SANDS D JACKSON BLUFF lli3 ., INTRACOASTAL FORMATION BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE CHIPOLA I TAMPA LIMESTONE SUWANNEE LIME STONE m OCALA /MARIANNA LIMESTONE Ill PLIOCENE . MIOCENE z 3 I 2 3 c:: 0 "TT c;) m 0 r-0 c;) -< Ill c:: rrm -t z z !::> en ...... Q) co

PAGE 40

70 BUREAU OF G E OLOGY 0 111111 w z z w z 9 0 2 z ... ... ... 0 ::l w <( .. ... :> z H W H z "' ::l ::i 0 w 3 <( "' "! ... V> _j -' ;;_ w a. ... "' 0 : : X ... -' i:l ::i ;; w 3 .. .. CD ... w !:: V> "' w z .. :l w w N n 8 z z 0 w z w .. .. " "' :> '" 0 ... "' i' :> ;;; 'l :!: CD V> 0 SIJ] B N 2 0 0 0 J.lH a 0 c: 0 () a> (/) en (/) 0 .... () () c;, 0 0 a> (!) 0) C') a> .... ::J Ol u::: BULLETIN NO. 57 71 ECONOMIC GEOLOGY The development of mineral commodities in Bay County has not been conducted on a large scale, with the exception of ground water The only other local mineral commodities that have been ut i lized for a commercial market are quartz sands and gravel. SAND AND GRAVEL little information has been published concerning the Relatively economic potential of the quartz sands and gravels of Bay county Sellards and Gunter (1918) reported that an excellent grade of coarse building sand existed near Panama City on the Gulf Coast. Martens (1926a), briefly described some sand deposits from Bay County. He further stated that deposits of sand were commercially worked near Callaway a second location about nine miles east of Panama City, another location about five miles northeast of Lynn Haven and another just north of Youngstown The major use of these pits was f or road material. Historically sand and gravel have been the major mineral resource utilized in Bay County In 195 7, Calver reported three active operations Presently there are six different pits in operation, owned by four com panies The major use remains road base; however, asphalt and foundation fill are how of great importance also. T he operations as of 1979 are listed in table 2. Table 2 Sand Producers Company Name Mine Name Location Calloway Sand Co. Calloway P i t (fig 40) T4S R13W, sec 12 Flo r ida Asphalt Paving Co Hutchinson Pit T3S, R14W sec 12 Florida Asphalt Paving Co Registe r Pit T2S R13W, sec 13 Gulf Asphalt Corp Gulf Asphalt Pit T2S R13W, sec 13 Gulf Asphalt Co r p Gulf Asphalt Pit T2S, R13W sec 14 P i tts Sand Co. Lynn Haven Mine T3S, R14W sec 12 CLAY Calver (1957), reported one location with potential development of clay in the southeast par t of the county Our present information lists one pro ducer in the county, Pitts Sand Company, The Lynn Haven Mine at T3S, R14W, sec 12. This material is a clayey quart z sand PEAT Development of peat in Bay County would most likely occur at low elevations along the present bays One peat producer was reported by Calver ( 1 95 7) near the east end of E ast Bay This operation is no longer ac tive

PAGE 41

72 BUREAU OF G E OLOGY Figure 40. Sand mine, near Callaway, Florida. HEAVY MINERALS A number of studies have addressed potential heavy minerals develop ment west of Bay County towards the city of Pensacola (War Minerals Report 141, 1 943; and Miller 1945), and east of Bay County near the city of Apalachicola (Larsen, 1958; Revell, 1958; Bates, 1959). Bay County, however, has received very little attention Martens (1926b) reported some small deposits of heavy concentrates on the shoreward side of Crooked Island along St. Andrews Sound. He also noted heavy minerals along the outer beach, concentrated on the upper part of the beach near the toot of the dunes Page 1 44 of his report gives the percent by number of grains each heavy mineral type represented from that locality. No indica tions were seen of any deposit large enough to be workable Heavy minerals were noted sporadically all along the gulf beaches but they are small deposits and only locally concentrated. LIMESTON E Limestone is present near the surface in Bay County only along the no' rthern part of the E confina Creek in the vicinity of Route 20. The limestone in this area has not been tested but it is doubtful if it would be of any significance to the limestone industry To the north of Bay County in Washington, Holmes and Jackson counties there are considerable resources of limestone available for development (Reves 1 961 ; Yon and Hendry, 1970). BULLETIN NO. 57 73 OIL AND GAS Ten deep oil and gas exploratory wells have been drilled throughout Bay County. All have been dry holes. The most recent was drilled in 1973 in the northwest part of the county, to a depth of 12,313 feet below the surface This bottomed in a granite which was considered "basement" In Gulf County, only a few miles from the Bay County line, Hunt Oil Company in 197 4 (permit No 7 46) drilled a test well to a depth of 13,284 teet This hole disclosed oil stain locked in 1 61 feet of the Smackover For mation, which was found between 12,485 feet and 12,646 feet below sea level. This formation is a limestone which has very low permeability, generally less than 0.01 md (millidarcy) and very low porosity (5 percent to 10. 9 percent) Below the Smackover, oil stain was also present in a con glomeratic calcareous sandstone of the Norphlet Formation This unit had slightly higher permeability values usually below 1 4 md, and a porosity range between 5.6 percent and 11 2 percent The Smackover Formation has produced oil and gas in extreme northwestern Florida near Jay in Santa Rosa County It is this horizon that geologists feel may have the best potential in the vicinity of Bay County also. It has been postulated (Applegate and others 1978) that the Smackover exists in the subsurface of southeastern Bay County. This area would be the most likely candidate tor future activity of the oil and gas in dustry in Bay County. GROUND WATER Ground water in Bay County exists under both unconfined (the water table aqu i fer) and confined (the Floridan aquifer) conditions The general ized hydrologic environment of the local aquifers and the movement of water through them has been discussed in reports by Musgrove, Foster, and Toler (1965), and Foster (1972). The water table aquifer is composed primarily of quartz sand and gravel, with clayey sand and sandy clay lenses occurring sporadically. The thickness of this unit is variable and may attain 1 50 feet along the coast. Water levels range from near land surface to 65 feet below land surface The sediments comprising this aquifer correspond to the Pliocene to Re cent sand units on the geologic cross-sections (figs 31 -34) Rain is readily absorbed by the porous surface sands. Surface runoff depends on the amount and intensity of the rainfall. Water absorbed by the surface sands percolates downward to the water table, where the sand is saturated The quartz sands are not very soluble; therefore; the mineral content of the water from the water-table aquifer is relatively low. Wells tap ping this aquifer, however do contain high amounts of iron and are slightly acidic causing them to be corrosive to metallic well casings. The water eventually migrates through the water table aquifer and discharges into streams and springs. Some of the water seeps downward

PAGE 42

74 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY through a low zone of clay and sandy shell beds (the Jackson Bluff Formation) into the underlying calcareous units. The calcareous units are limestones and dolomites of the Floridan Aquifer The top of this aquifer is near sea level in the northeast part of the county and dips to greater than 250 feet below sea level at the coast (Foster, 1972; Vernon, 1973; Kwader and Schmidt, 1978). It is estimated to be 11 00 feet thick along the coast in Bay County (Foster, 1965). Included in the Floridan Aquifer in this county in descending order, are parts of the Intracoastal Formation, the Chipola Formation, the Bruce Creek Limestone, the Tampa Stage limestones, the Suwannee Limestone, and the limestones of the Ocala Group. The Floridan Aquifer is recharged locally by seepage from the overlying water-table aquifer and, where the water-table aquifer is breached, by sinks and lakes in the northern part of the county and in Washington County. Regional recharge takes place north of Bay County where the limestones are near the surface in Washington, Holmes and Jackson counties, and in southern Alabama. This recharged water migrates down-dip to Bay County. The potentiometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer has been mapped by Foster (1972), Healy (1975a), and Rosenau and Meadows (1976). Con tours on potentiometric maps represent the imaginary surface to which water would rise above the aquifer in tightly cased wells It can be inferred from the above-mentioned maps that water is moving in a southwest direc tion toward the Gulf of Mexico. A local exception to this is along the Econ fina Creek where the ground water discharges through springs along the creek It has been estimated (Causey and Leve, 1976) that the thickness of the potable zone of the Floridan ranges between 250 feet and 1 000 feet in Bay County, increasing in thickness northward away from the coast. It has also been estimated (Pascale, 1975) that the yield of most fresh water wells (12 inches in diameter) would vary from less than 250 gallons per minute (GPM) near the southeast coast to greater than 500 GPM in the northern part of the county. Along the coast, however, public supply wells (16 inches in diameter) rarely yield 500 GPM, although most two inch wells into the Floridan Aquifer provide enough water for most domestic supplies. Panama City and surrounding subdivisions changed to a surface water sup ply in 1967. This was done because of the continually declining water levels in wells, and the increased potential for salt-water intrusion Foster (1972) prepared four maps to show the expected dissolved solids, hardness, and concentrations of chloride and fluoride in water from wells that tap the upper part of the Floridan Aquifer in the county Each map shows the concentration of minerals to be highest near the coast. Other hydrochemical data from natural discharge (springs) of the limestone aquifer has been published by Rosenau and others ( 1977). BULLETIN NO. 57 75 BAY COUNTY REFERENCES Akers, W. H., 1973, Planktonic Foraminifera and Biostratigraphy of Some Neogene Formations, Northern Florida and Atlantic Coastal Plain: Tulane Studies in Geol. and Paleo 9, 140 p Alt, D and Brooks, H K 1965, Age of the Florida Marine Terraces: Journal of Geology, V. 73, n. 2, pp. 406-411. Applegate, A. V. Pontigo, F. A. Jr. and Rooke J H 1978, Jurassic Smackover Oil Prospects in the Apalachicola Embayment: The Oil and Gas Journal, January, 1978, V. 76, n. 4, pp 80-84. Applin, P. L., 1951, Preliminary Report on Buried pre-Mesozoic Rocks in Florida and Adjacent States: U. S. Geological Survey Circ 91, 28 p Applin, P. L. and Applin, E. R., 1944, Regional Subsurface Stratigraphy and Structure of Florida and Southern Georgia : Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., V. 28, pp. 1673-1753. Arden Daniel D 197 4, A Geophysical Profile in the Suwannee Basin, Northwestern Florida: in Symposium on the Petroleum Geology of the Georgia Coastal Plain; Georgia Geological Survey Bull. 8 7, pp. 111 -122. Banks, J. E and Hunter, M. E., 1973, Post-Tampa, Pre-Chipola Sedi ments Exposed in Liberty, Gadsden, Leon, and Wakulla Counties, Florida: Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc Geol. Soc. V 23, pp. 355-363. Barnett, RichardS., 1975, Basement Structure of Florida and its Tectonic Implications: in TransactionsGulf Coast Assoc Geol. Soc V 25, pp 122-142. Bass, M. N., 1969, Petrography and Ages of Crystalline Basement Rocks of Florida, Some Extrapolations: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologist, Mem 11, pp. 283-310. Bates, John D 1959, The Apalachicola Area as Prospective for Heavy Mineral Investigation: Heavy Mineral Report No. 2, Company Report, Coastal Petroleum Company, Tallahassee, Florida. Seem, Kenneth A., 1 9 7 3, Benthonic Foraminifera Paleoecology of the Choctawhatchee Deposits (Neogene) of Northwest Florida : Un-

PAGE 43

76 BUREAU OF G E OLOGY published Dissertation, Department of Geology, University of C i ncin nati, 201 p. Bender, Michael 1971, The Reliability of He/ U Dates on Corals: Amer. Geophy. Union Trans. V 52, N 4, p 366 (abstract). Berggren, W A 1973, The Pliocene Time-Scale : Calibration of Plank tonic Foraminiferal and Calcareous Nannoplankton Zones : Nature V 243, N. 5407, pp 391-397. Berggren W A. 1977, Late Neogene Planktonic Foraminiferal Biostrati graphy of the Rio Grande Rise (South Atlantic): Marine Micropaleon tology, V. 2, pp. 265-313. Blow, W H., 1969, Late Middle Eocene to Recent Planktonic Foramini feral Biostratigraphy: Proceedings of the First International Con ference on Planktonic Microfossils V 1 pp 199421 Bolli, H M 1 95 7, Planktonic Foraminifera from the Oligocene-Miocene Cipero and Lengua Formations of Trinidad B W 1 .: U. S Nat Mus. Bull., No 215, pp. 97-123. Bridge J. and Berdan, Jr M., 1952, Preliminary Correlations of the Paleozoic Rocks from Test Wells in Florida and Adjacent Parts of Georgia and Alabama: in Fla. Geol. Survey Guidebook: Assoc. Am. State Geologist 44th Ann. Mtg Field Trip, 1952, pp. 29-38. Calver James L., 1957, Mining and Mineral Resources: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 39, 132 p Causey, L. V., and Leve, G W 1976, Thickness of the Potable Water Zone in the Floridan Aquifer: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No 74. Chaki, Susan and Oglesby, Woodson R., 1972, Bouguer Anomaly Map of Northwest Florida and Adjacent Shelf : Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 52. Chen Chih Shan, 1965, The Regional Lithostratigraphic Analysis of Pal e ocene and Eocene Rocks of Florida : Florida State Geological Survey Bull 45, 1 05 p Clark Murlene Wiggs and Wright Ramil C., 1979, Subsurface Neogene Biostratigraphy of Bay County, Florida : in T r ansactions Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, V 29 (in press). B ULL E TIN NO 57 77 Cooke C Wythe and Mossom, Stuart 1927, Geology of Florida : in Florida State Geological Survey Twentieth Annual Report. Cooke, C. Wythe and Mossom, Stuart, 1929, Geology of Florida; Florida State Geol. Survey 20th Ann. Report, 1927-1928, pp 29-227. Cooke, C. Wythe and Mansfield, W C., 1936, The Suwannee Limestone of Florida (abstract): Geol. Soc America Pro 1935, p. 71-72. Cooke, C. W., 1939, Scenery of Florida Interpreted by a Geologist: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 1 7, 118 p. Cooke, C. Wythe, 1940, in paper by Wendell C Mansfield -Mollusks of the Chickasawhay Marl: Jour. Paleontology V. 1 4 p 171-172. Cooke, C Wythe, 1945, Geology of Florida : Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 29, 342 p Cramer F H 1971, Position of North Florida Lower Paleozoic Block in Silurian time Phytoplankton Evidence : Jour. Geophys Res. V 76, pp. 4754-4757. Cushman, Joseph A 1920, Lower Miocene Foraminifera of Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Prof Paper 128, pp. 67-74, 1 pl. Cushman, Joseph A and Ponton, Gerald M., 1932, The Foraminifera of the Upper Middle, and Part of the Lower Miocene of Florida: F lorida State Geological Survey Bull. 9. Dall, w H 1890, Contributions to the Tertiary Fauna of Florida: Wagner Free lnst. Sci. Trans., V. 3, pt 1 Dall, William Harris and Harris, Gilbert D., 1892, The Neocene of North America: U. S Geol. Survey Bull. 84, 349 p Dall, W H., and Stanley Brown, Joseph, 1894, Cenozoic Geology along the Apalachicola River: Bull. Geol. Soc. American V 5, p. 152. Dall, W H., 1915, A Monograph of the Molluscan F auna of the Orthaulax pugnas Zone of the Oligocene of Tampa, Florida: U S. Nat. Mus Bull. 90, 173 p Foster, James B 1965, Geology and Ground Water Hydrology of Bay County Florida: Unpublished Report Florida Bureau of Geology, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey

PAGE 44

78 BUREAU O F G E OLOGY Foster James B 1972, Guide to Users of Ground Water in Bay County, Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series 46. Gardner, Julia A., 1926-1944, The Molluscan Fauna of the Alum Bluff Group of Florida: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof Paper 142, pts 1-4, 1926; pt 5, 1928; pt. 6, 1937; pt. 7, 1944. Geodata International, Inc 1976-77, Residual Magnetic Intensity and Total Count Gamma Ray Intensity: 1 :250,000 scale for U S. Geological Survey, corresponding to the Tallahassee topographic sheet. 7035 John W Carpenter Freeway, Dallas, Texas 7524 7. Gibson, T. G., 1967, Stratigraphy and Paleoenvironment of the Phosphate Miocene Stata of North Carolina: Geol. Soc. America Bull., V 78, pp. 631 -650. Grasty, R L., and Wilson, J T., 1967, Ages of Florida Volcanics and of Opening of the Atlantic Ocean (abstract): Am. Geophys. Union Trans V. 48, p. 212-213. Healy, H G 1975a, Potentiometric Surface and Areas of Artesian F low of the Floridan Aquifer of Florida : Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 73. Healy H G., 1975f, Terraces and Shorelines of Flor i da: Florida B u r eau -of-Ge ei0JY Map Series 71 ::Ot.oLOCI C(lfl_ Heath R. C., and Smith P C 1954, Ground Water Resources of Pinellas County, Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Report Of In vestigations 12, 139 p. Hendry, Charles W Jr and Yon, J William, Jr., 1958, Geology of the Area in and Around the Jim Woodruff Reservoir: Florida State Geological Survey Report of Investigations 16, pt. 1 55 p. Hendry Charles W Jr., and Sproul, C. R., 1966, Geology and Ground Water Resources of Leon County, Florida : Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 47, 178 p. Hobbs, Susan Smith, 1939, Stratigraphy and Micropaleontology of T hree Wells in Bay and Franklin Counties, F lorida: Ohio State University, M. A. Thesis Howe, Henry V., and others, 1935, Ostracoda of the Area Z one of the Choctawhatchee Miocene of Florida : Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 13, 4 7 p. ( t t r I B ULL E TIN NO. 57 79 Huddlestun, Paul F 1 9 7 6a, The Neogene Stratigraphy of the Central Florida Panhandle: Dissertation, Florida State University Geology Department, Tallahassee, Florida Huddlestun, Paul F., 1976b, The Neogene Stratigraphy of the Central Florida Panhandle: Geol. Soc. America Section Meeting, V. 8, N. 2, p 203 (abstract) Huddlestun, Paul F., and Wright, Ramil C 1977, Late Miocene Glacio E ustatic Lowering of Sea Level : Evidence From the Choctawhat chee Formation, Florida Panhandle : Trans Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. V 27, pp 299-303. Johnson, L awrence Clement, 1888, The Structure of Florida: Am. Jour. Sci. 3rd ser., V. 36, pp. 230-236. Johnson, L. C 1891, The Chattahoochee Embayment : Geol. Soc Amer Bull, V 3, pp 128-133. Klein, H., Schroeder, M C., and Lichtler, W. F., 1964, Geology and Ground Water Resources of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Report of Investigations 37, 101 p Kwader, Thomas and Schmidt, Walter 1978, Top of the Floridan Aquifer of Northwest Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 86. Lamb, J L., and Beard, J H 1972, Late Neogene Planktonic Foramini fers in the Caribbean Gulf of Mexico, and Italian Stratotypes : Univ. Kansas Paleontological Cont., Art 57, 67 p. Langdon D W., 1889, Some Florida Miocene: American Sci., 3rd ser., v 38, pp 322-324. Larsen, A. L. 1958, A Heavy Mineral Analysis of Pleistocene Terrace Sands in Liberty and Wakulla Counties, Florida: Thesis, Florida State University Geology Department, Tallahassee, Florida Leverett, F., 1931, The Pensacola Terrace and Associated Beaches and Bars in Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bull. 7 44 p MacNeil, F. Stearns, 1949, Pleistocene Shore Lines in Florida and Georgia: U. S Geological Survey Professional Paper 221-F. Mansfield, W C., 1930, Miocene Gastropods and Scaphopods of the Choctawhatchee Formation of Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 3, 142 p.

PAGE 45

80 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Mansfield, Wendell C., and Ponton, Gerald M., 1932, Faunal Zones the Choctawhatchee Formation of Florida: Washington Acad. Sc1., F. Vol. 22, pp 84-88. Mans 1e . , f ld w c 1 932 Miocene Pelecypods of the Choctawhatchee Formation of Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Bull 8, 240 p. Mansfield, w c., 1937, Mollusks of the Tampa and Suwannee Limestone of Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 15, 334 p Marsh, 0. T., 1966, Geology of Escambia and Santa. Rosa Counties, Western Florida Panhandle: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 46, 140 p. Martens, James H. C 1926a, Sand and Gravel Deposits of Florida: Florida State Geological Survey 19th Annual Report, pp. 33-123. Martens James H. C., 1926b, Beach Deposits of Ilmenite, Zircon, and Rutile in Florida: Florida State Geological Survey -1 9th Annual Report, pp. 124-154. Marth Del, and Marth, J Editor, 1978, The 19 78 Florida Almanac: Published by Willow Creek, for the Miami Herald. Matson, George Charlton, and Clapp, F. G 1909, A Preliminary Report the Geology of Florida with Special Reference to the Strati graphy: Florida State Geological Survey, 2nd Annual Report, pp. 25-173. Matson, G. c and Sanford, S., 1913, Geology and Ground Waters of Florida: U.S Geology. Survey Water Supply Paper 319, pp. 3135. May, J. P 1977, The Chattahoochee Embayment: Southeastern Geology, V. 18, pp '149-156 Miller, Rosewell Ill, 1945, The Heavy Minerals of Florida Beach and Dune Sands: American Mineralogist, V 30, pp. 6575. Milton, c., and Grasty, R., 1969, "Basement" Rocks of Florida and Georgia : Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologist Bull., V. 53, pp 2483-2493. Milton, Charles, 1972, Igneous and Basement Rocks of Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Bullet1n No. 55, 125 p. Moore Wayne E., 1955, Geology of Jackson County, Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 37. BULLETIN NO. 57 81 Mossom D Stuart, 1925, A Preliminary Report on the Limestone and Marls of Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Annual Report 16 pp 27-203. ' Mossom, .D. Stua:t. 1926, A Review of the Structure and Stratigraphy of Flonda, Wtth Special Reference to the Petroleum Possi bilities: Florida State Geological Survey, Annual Report 1 7 pp 169-275. Murray, Grover E., 1961, Geology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Pro vince of North America: Harper and Brothers Publishers New York 692 p. ' Musgrove R. H., Foster, J. B., and Toler, L. G. 1965, Water Resources of the Econfina Creek Basin: Florida State Geological Survey Report of Investigations 41 Musgrove, R. H., Foster J. B., and Toler, L. G., 1968, Water Resource Records of the Econfina Creek Basin Area, Florida: Florida Division of Geology, Information Circular 57. Pascale, Charles A., 1975, Estimated Yield of Fresh Water Wells in Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 70. Patterson, S. H., and Herrick, S. M., 1971, Chattahoochee Anticline Apalachicola Embayment, Gulf Trough and Related Features, Southwestern Georgia, Fact or Fiction : Georgia Geol. Survey, Information Circular 41, 16 p Peek H .. M., 1958, Ground Water Resources of Manatee County, Florida: Flonda State Geological Survey Report of Investigations 18, 99 p Peek. H M The Water of the Ruskin Area of Hillsborough C?ounty, Flonda : Flonda State Geological Survey Report of Investiga tions 21, 96 p. Peck, M., Missimer, T. M., Wise, S W., and Wright, R C., 1977, Late (Messinian) Glacio-Eustatic Lowering of Sea Level: Evtdence from the Tamiami Formation of South Florida Florida Scientist, V 40, Supp. 1, p 22 (abstract). Poag, C 1 .972, Planktonic Foraminifers of the Chickasawhay Formatton, Umted States Gulf Coast: Micropaleontology, v 18, N 3, pp, 257-277. Pressler, E. D., 1947, Geology and Occurrence of Oil in Florida: Am Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., V. 31, pp. 1851-1862.

PAGE 46

82 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY Puri, Harbans S., 1953, Contribution to the Study of the Miocene of the Florida Panhandle: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 36, 345 p. Puri, Harbans S., 1957, Stratigraphy and Zonation of the Ocala Group: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 38, 248 p Puri, H. S., and Vernon, R. 0., 1964, Summary of the Geology of Florida and a Guidebook to the Classic Exposures: Florida State Geological Survey, Special Publication 5 Revised. Puri, H. S., Yon., J. W. Jr., and Ogelsby, W. R., 1967, Geology of Dixie and Gilchrist Counties, Florida: Florida Division of Geology Bulletin 49, 155 pg. Rainwater, E. H., 1960, Paleocene of the Gulf Coastal Plain of the United States of America: International Geol. Gong., 21st Copenhagen 1960, Report Pt. 5, pp. 97-116. Rainwater, E. H., 1964, Regional Stratigraphy of the Gulf Coast Miocene: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., Trans., V. 14, pp. 81-124. Revell, S. R 1958, Heavy Mineral Content of Some Pleistocene Sands of Leon and Wakulla Counties, Florida: Thesis, Florida State Universi ty, Geology Department, Tallahassee, Florida. Reves, William D., 1961, The Limestone Resources of Washington, Holmes, and Jackson Counties, Florida: Florida State Geological Survey Bull. 42. Rosenau, Jack C., and Faulkner, Glen L., 1974, An Index to Springs of Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series 63. Rosenau, Jack C., and Meadows, Paul E., 1976, Potentiometric Surface of the Floridan Aquifer in the Northwest Florida Water Management District, May. 19 76: U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources In vestigation No. 77-2, Open File Report. Rosenau, Jack C., Faulkner, Glen L., Hendry, Charles W., Jr., and Hull, Robert W., 1 9 7 7 Springs of Florida : Florida Bureau of Geology Bull. 31 Revised. Schmidt, Walter and Coe, Curtis, 1978, Regional Structure and Strati graphy of the Limestone Outcrop Belt in the Florida Pan handle: Florida Bureau of Geology Report of Investigations 86. Schmidt Walter, 1979, Environmental Geology Series, Tallahassee Sheet: Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series 90. BULLETIN NO. 57 83 Sellards, E. H and Gunter Herman 19 Apalachicola and 1 Between the Geological Survey Tenth Annual RRiverts m Flonda: Florida State epor pp. 9-66. Sellards, E. H., and Gunter H 1918b hatchee and Apalachi;ola. Rivers in' Bet. ween the ChoctawSurvey Eleventh Annual Report, pp State Geological Smith, R. Hendee, 1941, Micropaleontot Well at Niceville, Okaloosa Count a.nd of a Deep Geol., Bulletin, v 25, No 1 Amencan Assoc. Petrol. Southeastern Geological Society Third F I the Outcropping Formations' in 194N5, Stratigraphy of 93 p on a: ov. 9, 1 0, 1945, Toler, L. G., and Shampine, W J., 1962 Q Aquifer in the Econfina Creek B' uallty of from the Floridan Geological Survey Map Series 1 O.asm Area, Flonda : Florida State Toulmin, Lyman D 1955 c Florida, and Georgia.' of Southeastern Alabama, 39, N 2, pp. 207 2 .35. c e ro eum Geologists Bulletin, v Vaughan Thomas Wayland 1919 C Reefs: Smithsonian Rep' ort 9an1 d7 the F,1ormations of Coral pp 89-276. Veach, Otto, and Stephenson L w . Geology of the Coastal .of G, 1 9 GPrellmmary Report on the eorgla. a Geol. Survey Bull. 26. Vernon, Robert 0 1942 G 1 Florida: Florida State Counties, 0., 1951, Geology of Citrus and Leve Countie Ffonda State Geological Survey Bull 33, 256 / s, Florida: Vernon Robert 0 1973 T of G I M, op o f the Floridan Artesian Aquifer: eo ogy ap Senes No. 56. Florida Vokes, E. H 1 965 N t h of e Formation (Miocene) 205-208. u eo V 3, N. 4, pp. Waller, Thomas R., 1969, The Evolution of th A (Mollusca: Bivalvia}, With Emphasis e rgo'!ecten gibbus stock Species of North America: J. Quaternary .. uppl., 125p.

PAGE 47

84 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY War Minerals Report 1 41 1 943, Beach Sands Near Pensacola, Santa Rosa, Escambia, and Okaloosa Counties, Florida : U S Department of InteriorBureau of Mines, W M. R. 141 -Rutile, Zircon, Ilmenite, Kyanite. Weisbord, Norman E., 1973, New and Little-Known Corals from the Tampa Formation of Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Bull. 56, 156 p. Weisbord, Norman E., 1972, Corals from the Chipola and Jackson Bluff Formation of Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Geological Bull 53, 105 p. White, William A., 1970, Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula: Florida Bureau Bull j 1, 164 p. j WtvC "I l f\ Wiggs, Murlene, and Schmidt, Walter, 1979, Stratigraphy and Paleo geography of the Neogene in Bay County, Florida (abstract) : Florida Scientist V 42, Supplement 1, p. 44. Winker, C. D., and Howard, J D., 1977a, Correlation of Tectonically Deformed Shorelines on the Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain: Geology V 5, pp. 123-127. Winker, Charles D and Howard, James D., 1977b, Plio-Pleistocene Paleogeography of the Florida Gulf Coast Interpreted from Relict Shorelines: in Transactions : Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, V 27, pp Yon, J. W., Jr., 1966, Geology of Jefferson County, Florida: Florida Geo logical Survey Bull 48, 11 9 p. Yon, J. William, Jr and Hendry, C. W., Jr., 1970, Mineral Resource Study of Holmes, Walton, and Washington Counties, Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Bull. 50. Yon, J William, Jr., and Hendry, Charles W., Jr., 1972, Suwannee Lime stone in Hernando and Pasco Counties, Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology Bull. 54 Part 1, 42 p. BULLETIN NO. 57 85 APPENDIX A GEOLOGIC LOGS OF FIVE SELECTED CORE HOLES

PAGE 48

86 ,_; u z ... J:Q :I: 0.. ff.;f I FOOT fR. SENT Ill. USFOSSIUFEROUS. SAND, \llltiTE TO PALE IROIII'N, :UISt. POROSI TY, CLAY fRENT UP TO MICA 1\1, HEAVY MINERAlS UNINOUR!r.TEO TO POORLY lNOORATED, GRAISSIZE VERY COARSE TO VERv'FINE, NODE COARSE TO MEDIUM USFOSSILIHROUS CLAY OLIVE GRAY ,u;o JSTRAGR.AA.'ULAR POROSIIY POORLY 1/.IE.'IT, PIIOSPIIAlE "II C A !oiiCRITE F ORA."'ISIFERA OSTRACODES AND BRYOZOANS ll"'ESTOSE, YELLOII.lSII GRAY, II" POROSITY, POORLY INDURATED. CLAY A.'.JD !o!ICRITE CE.IIE!'>'T, 810 GESI( CRAINITP, SA.'ID lin, PIIOSPUATF l$, PLANKTIC AND BENTltrC FORA."'INIFERA AND !oiOllUSJCS C LAY YELLOII.'ISU GRAY, POROSIIT, WEOilil-4 ISDURATI6S. SAND :!m, ll"'ESTOS PUOSPUATE H. PLASKTIC A.'1D nsnnc FORA.I41S1FERA ANDMOLLUS.ICS llJ,t!;STOSE, YELLO\ItlSU CRAY, POROSITY VUCULAR TO PINPOl.'H VUGS, BIOCESIC,MICRJTIC AND CRYSTALLINE CRAIN TYI'E, CRAINSIZ !oiODE MICROCRYSTALLINE, RA1>'C VERY COARSE TO CRYPTO. CRYSTALLISE. )1100ERATE JSDURATIOS lolllJ NICRJTE AND CLAY CE.IotE.''il, MICA CLAY UP TO IOOi, SASD PUOSI'IIATE DOLO!oiiTE PRESENT, PLA.'IKTIC ASD BENTliiC FORA."'ISI F ERA, BR, 'OZOANS, MOLLUS K S, ECIIISOIDS A.'10 O STRACOOES PRESEST Ll'o!E$TOS, VolUTE, VUGULAR POROSIIT CRYSTALLISE CRAISTYPE, CRAISSIZE MICROCR,'PTO. CRYSTALLISE, R A SGE VERY COARS E T OCRYPTOCRYSTALLINE.!otODERATE I SDUJUTI0.'1, UP TOJO':t OOJ.O. MITE, F ORA.'IISIFERAPRESE/'o'T. 11.'101 ABUNDANT F ORA.'IISIFERA. UMST 0 SASABO\'EBUTVUGSISU."'ESTOSAREfllllniCLAYMIOSUELLMATERIAL Geologic description of core W -13965. Figure 42. BULLETIN NO. 57 W-14101 OTTER CREEK ELEVATION : 50' LOCATION: SAY COUNTY FLORIDA TOWNSHIP IS RANGE 17W SECTION 34dd LONGITUDE 80" 55' 40"W LATITUDE 30" 21' 20" N DESCRIPTION SASO ,YIJIITE,JJll l'ollRC RASULAIII'OIIOSIIY U S ISLIUIIAlf.D.II A V VMINJ:.IIAI.SASOPIIOSPIIA 1K"$ASlJ PIIESE NT.GRAISSIZE MOOf: I>IUJIU."' TO FIN F. SA/\ 0 V.JIIH . !9l f'OIIOSIIY USINDURAT GRAISSill ).lOOt. LOAR5E RASG \'I;R' TO MEOIUM.IIF.A\' Y ).!ISioiULS WOOD FRAG!olf.STS I N SA."'PL E SIIHL 8 "0. l>RA Y I $11 YHLO W IN fOLOR I NTUG R A S ULAR POR O SITY, SA/Io'04Piil.li."'EST OSE 1 -.. PLASKTIC AND BESIIII C fORA."'J.>;IfERA. M OLLUS KS. I:CIIISOios' S A SO. tiGill J.Ot JSTF.RG RA.>;lJUR POROSITY. tl!olli$10 .<;E I O.l. PIIOSI'IIAJ!o MICA ClA FOIIA."'INIFERA. O SIRACOOES.MOLLUSKS ASD t:C iti.';OJO S . UMU ID S L nl.lO III $11 l i f'OROSITV. Pl.'olf'OIS T V U G S MODt:RATE I ,>;OLJRATIO:"i. GRAI.'; TYPE BI()Gf ,>;f{" MICRITIC RA/Io'G Vf.RY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTAL U SE. ).100 ."'ICROCRY S IALLISE SASO J l SAI'O , ,MOLLUSKS PLASKHC ASO BF.NIIIIC F ORA.'II SIFERA ll!otEST O SE. H : L L OV.ISII G RAY. IOl POROSITY !otOLDIC Willi B I ,OGI:.'I:IC. C R '' STAt U S A S D MICRITIC. RA.'IG E \ ERY COARSE TO .\100[ MICIIOCR\ I , AND FORA.\IISIHRA GRA \ COLO R U fRA ClU R E POROSITY .POOR SASO JO) Geologic description of core W-1 41 01 87

PAGE 49

88 z ,_.: 0 u z u.. I Q I :2 a_ r-1-0::: <[ l) Q.. 0 O:::W W lL (.!)(./) 0 F igure 43. B U REA U OF GEO L OG Y W-1407 7 WILLIAMS BA Y EL EVA T I O N : 30' LOCATION : BAY C OUNTY FLORIDA T OWNSHI P 55 RANGE II W S E C T ION 6oo L O NGITUDE 85 2 3 25"W L A TITUDE 30 5 5 N YUI.Y Ut,lll t,II. ,\Y_ J.l;J-ISH. RCRANU L AII. PQROS I IY USISOOII:AHO GRAISSIZE. VERY COAII.SE T O J.IHJ\ UIUIOut .. mAYY l't rLo W BIIO\\SISU :(H !Sif.RGRANULAII AND INI RAGRASUU.R P OROSITY. t'OORLY ISOOR.I.TED. A 1-..UUYY l'l. SAS l>.m.UtU).\ U(;lll t;RAY TOP,I.l.EYEL LOWBRO\\'S,H'liST ERGRAS U l.AIIPOROSITY USISOURATEO. flAY I.I[Dil \1\IG\tl GR-\Y. 1 S':' POROSITY SA.>;O .:V't !o!ICA l'l.FOSSIUFER OUS JAO.:SOS BLUFF Mf.OIUM GRAY. H'l POROSITY. U!oiESTOSf. SASO l'l. FOilA \I ISIFER,I.. U tESTOS E YFil.OIIIIS HGRAY.I5'l1S1ERGRAI'UU.MPOR0SIIY-III "llltPISPOIST\'UGS,GRAISTWEBIOGb"lf ASLl CRAIS SIZE VERY COARSE TO CRWI OCRYS TAlliSf., .'4lCR0CRYSTALli ,"E. L'iOURATlOS. PUO!iPUAlE !\li. SASO PYRITE I'J. R lctt PLASK! l C AND BF.SHII C F0RA'4lSl HRAL ZOSf. (11lSOIDS. BRYOZOANS ASOOSTRACOOES .Cl.A Y PRESENT Sllf.ll BED YEllOWISH GRA'' !A ISTRAGRAS ULAR POROSITY.I'OOR ISOORATIOS, Ll'4f.STOSE PIIOSI'l!Al SA.>lO t'J. )II(' A l'J. ABUSOA.>ll fORA. USI FERA. !-!OLLUSKS. BRYOZOA.\;$ [(" Il l SOlOS ASO OSTRACOO ESPRESES T DARK YELLOWJ S !I BROWN. 9l POROSITY. !o!OOERATE lNOUUllOS. Ll.ll f.STOSE S'l. fORA.\ollSI FERA BRYOZOASS ,lo!OLLUSKS LlloiESTOSE V(lLO .. lSII GRAY I n VUCULAR POROSlTY GRA I S TYPE BIOGENIC ASOloll(RJTIC" GRA I S SIZE VERY COA R S E TO !ollCR0CR''STALUSE. !o!EOIIM !-lODE !-IO D ERATE ISOORAliOS. SA..\;0 H. PHOSPHATE H.FDRA.\Il S lfERAPRESEST. lllo!ESTOSE '"HLO .. lSII GRAY 6!1& POROSITY. VUCS. CRA I STYPE B!OGE.\;1( ASO !o!ICRlTIC. GRAlS SIZE VERY COARSE T O ( RYPTOCRYSTALUNE lotOOE .\II C ROCRYSTAU ISE. LlJ.tES!OSE YELLOYolSII GRAY. POROSITY l l'l.. VUGS AND VUGS. CRA l STYPE J.tiCRlTTC ASO lllOCHiiC, GRAlSSJZE VERY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRYSTALLISE. !-!ODE !-llC R OCRYSTALLlSE. MODERATE JSDURAllOS, PIIOSPIIA TE 9:\ l!l, SAND F ORA.\IIS l FERA.JotOLLUSKS AND F OSSIL MOLDS PRES EST UIIESTOSE '"E LLO'IIJSII GRAY POROSITY U'A. VUGS, Al'iD VUGS, GRAJSTYPE. MICRITE AND 8l0GESIC. GRA I SSIZE. VERY COARSE 10 CRYP10CRYSTALUSE M ODERA T E I SDURA TIOS. !ollCRITE COIEST, QUARTZ SASD SPARRY CALCITE I ':' CLAY l'l. fORA.\IlSIFEilA.loiOLWSKS AND FOSSI L M OLDS. nttS C ALCAREOUSCLAY BED. ABUS DAS T FORA."4lN1FEU Geologic description of core W -14077. z >-' g 0 l)Z U. F ::r: .. .. ::; o._ ,_ ,_ ::;
PAGE 50

90 Figure 45. BUREAU OF GEOLOGY W-14125 BEE BAY ELEVATION : 67' LOCATION: CALHOUN COUNTY FLORIOA TOWNSHIP 3S RANGE lOW SECTION 19bd LONGITUDE 85' 16' 25"W LATITUDE 30' 12' 20' N SAI'W, U CI\T BRO'II'N TO VERY PALE ORA.'iGE,JI \\ ISTERGRANUU.R POROSITY ,GRA JSSIZE, MODE MEOllo"lol T O COARSE. RA."CE F ISE 1 0 VERY COARSE. USISDUR.ATEO, IIEAVY !o!ISERALS 1'). CLA Y !o!ICA 1'). CU.Y, OU\' E GRAY. S' POROSIIY, fRACTURE A!'>O POOR I SOURATIOS, !oiiCA I 'll IIEAVV !oiiSUALS SASO JO'l PUOSI'IIATE S'l\ FORAIUS IFERA. !oiO LLUS)($, ECIII SOIOS, OSTRA("OOES. U!I ESIOS E C R IIY. I];\ POROSITY. FRACTURE ASD Pl!! VERY COARSE T O CRYI' TOCRYSTALUNE. MODE ).IJC'R O CRYSTALLISE. ).IQ0RA1E l'r ISDURAlEO. !o!ICRITIC CE."'E.'IT, PIIOSPIIATE '" SASO 101-. MI(A '"CLAY S!\, fORA!oiiSIHRA, !o/OLLUSKS, ECIIISOIOS ASOOSTRACOD LI\I E$T0 S E. VELLOII'IS I I GRAY IS POROS ITY. FRACTURE PJSI'OL'H VUCS AND VUGS, B I OGENIC GRA IN YYPf.CR A I S S ilfMODEMIC"ROCR\ STALLINE. R A.o,;GEVERVC"OARSETUC"RVI'TOCRVS TALLIS E.MODERATE INOORAIIQSYIIT/t!-IIC"RITEC"f..'IESTANDC"LAYCE.\IE N T.C"LAV FOIIA!oiiNI FERA AND Ll.llf.ST OSE \ 'ELLO'fl' {.IIAY. \'UI,;ULAR P I SPOL._T VUGS AND FRAC"TUR POROSITY. GRAISJYP E BID GtSIC.CMAI.O,:S IH.RASGE\'ERYCOARSETOCRYPTOCR VSTALLIS E,!>tODEioiiCROCRY SIALLISE.MIC"RITE ASll C"LA\' C"f..\IENT. MOOERATE I SOUIIAT IOS.CLAY 1 (\, PfiOSI'IlATE !(\;PLANKTONIC" AS0BENTIII("f011-'.IIISIFERA.ASD.IJOLLUSKS. 1.1\IESTOSt .. nLLO'fiiSH GRAY POROSITY !otO LDIC" IIIHII PINPOINT \'UGS GRAIN T Y P E BIOCE. .. IC. M l CRIIIC, ASll C"II\"STALLISE CRA ISSIZE MOUE M ICROCRYS TAlliNE. RANGE V ERY COARSE T O CRll'fO. CRY S TALWiE. MODERAH ISOUIIATION YIITII 1-IIC"IUJE CE.\IE.''H S A N D IW. PIIWIIATE 1!1.. (LAY l'l. OOLD!oHT E 1&1. )o!QLLUSKS A.' W tOIIA\II SifERA C"LA\' Oll\'t. t.RAY f"IIAI IURt POROSITY. POOR I.'>OURATIOS. MICA Hi. 5.1.!'10 l 'ii, Pt.ASKTI C ASD YHLOIIIS II t.ll"\' l!l POROSITY P JSPOIST \"\JLS ASO VUI,;S. C IIAI.'>lYH BIOI, L'>K' "NO lilt II IlK". GIIA I 'Sill MOUio FISt T O MICIIOCRVS T ALU.'>E. IIAS GE FRIDt Vf.RY COARSE TO CRYPTOCRY S T ALl lSI l:;t, PI.ANK I I C ANOBENJIIJ(" K.l 1 0 \'lltoii (;M. \Y t : J POROSITY Ill till PI.'>POI N T VUGS. Gl\ ... t,\ "lYPE I(" .ISO 'II( MilK". C R.\IS Sill 1-!0Dl. III ("ROCRYST.Illt:-il 11.1:-it;l FRO .'! .. !o!OOlMAlt 11"1111 .lllfllll[ ct.\lb'ii . IIKMtll S.ISO 1:4. .INO!olOltuSKS Bt: t O .'It.S S U (;IIIl\ OOLO.'IIIII' U !ollS TOSL I'OROSIIl'. \'UG U LAR ASD MOLOir POROSITY T O POSSIIII Y Glt.ltSn"P( fUSTAUISt ASO !>tlfRITIC". MOOEIIATt TO GOOD ISlllJRATIOS. MK' Rillo Cl:.'llSI. OOLO!olllt J.;o:J Geologic description of core W-14125. BULLETIN NO. 57 91 APPENDIX B LISTING OF WELL CUTTINGS AND CORE DATA County By ................ Bay Cn ............ Calhoun Gf ................ Gulf WI. . ... Walton Ws. Washington Sample Type Cut ........... Cuttings C ................ Core Geophysical logs E .............. Electric G ............. Gamma C .............. Caliper Fl .......... Flow meter Depths in feet

PAGE 51

..., "' s] "' ,.. .=! j "' ,p ] il' .... $ .... u ., 140 By 19 T4S Rl4W, Sec. 14 1 5 1 By 29 T4S, Rl4W, Sec. 1 0 2.24 By 25 T45 Rl4W, Sec. 24 588 By 29 TSS, Rl3W, Sec. 7 0 589 By 28 T SS Rl4W, Sec. 12 590 By 19 TSS, Rl3W, Sec. 7 0 683 By 13 T3S RlSW, Sec. 36 685 By 4 T 3 S Rl4W, Sec. 19 728 By 6 T3S, Rl4W, Sec. 8 0 813 By 13 T3S RlSW, Sec. 36 816 By 15 T3S, Rl5W, Sec. 36 824 By 32 T4S, Rl4W, 5ec. 10 852 By 27 T3S, Rl6W, Sec. 28 863 By 13 T3S, Rl4W, Sec. 9 933 By 2 T3S RlSW, Sec. 21 0 1 378 By 10 T3S, Rl6W, Sec. 36 0 88 1 747 By 9 T3S Rl3W, Sec. 19 0 72 1 834 By 2 49 T2N, R.l2W, Sec. 25 0 2 1 43 By 74 'rlS, Rl2W, Sec. 28 0 55 ..., "' "' ,.. .=! "' -3 00 :;J c "' il' j u g .... -" & u 8 "' 2189 Gf 23 65, RllW, Sec. 31 0 156 2 1 92 By 16 T6S, Rl2W, Sec. 23 2212 By 27 Rl4W, Sec. 3 0 so 2238 By 11 35 Rl6W, Sec. 36 0 2 3 89 By 1 8 fr3S RlSN Sec. 19 0 2508 By 29 T4S, Rl4W, Sec. 10 0 88 2699 By 11 T4S, Rl6W, Sec. 1 0 75 2770 Gf 8 T7S Rl1W, Sec. 5 0 1 45 2879 By 12 TJS, Rl6W, Sec. 20 0 2893 By 53 T1S, Rl5W, Sec. 27 2 902 By 1 3 T4S, RlSW, Sec. 4 0 70 2905 By 0 2939 By 12 T6S Rl2W, Sec. 23 0 105 2950 By 21 T3S, Rl6W, Sec. 18 0 2959 By 21 T3S, Rl6W, Sec. 21 0 2982 By 70 TlS, Rl2S, Sec. 35 0 3000 By 58 T3S, Rl3W, Sec. 14 0 30 3325 By 1 6 T3S, Rl4W, Sec. 9 0 3 .371 By 31 TSS Rl4W Sec. 1 0 I DEPTH TO "' 0 .... .s "' :5 00 p. 8 I '0 .... a B::1 .tJ 6 A "' C/l 350 170 285 260 437 435 438 3 45 SSG 640 603 148 590 497 85 220 498 7003 151 312 434 106 147 150 8 1 1 2 1 183 DEPTH TO "' 0 .... .s "' :5 "' p. 1:! I '0 8. B::1 .tJ A 6 "' C/l 247 253 124 220 425 152 307 450 60 105 142 265 501 113 134 190 210 436 5021 95 265 605 121 273 265 442 497 121 273 466 430 4834 165 195 5009 45 115 500 143 3 43 487 "' "'""' 0 o_s 00 00 00 00 u h d 120 110 65 70 88 161 72 l50 5 5 40 "' 'tjB 0 "' "'"' "' "' n .tJ t=A 156 80 96 1 52 155 60 88 123 7 5 145 110 70 169 121 152 1 05 1 77 121 152 117 45 30 30 45 70 143 200 I Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut I Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut Cut : ] & E G E G E,G 00 ; .... "' & E,G E I I I I co N m c: ::IJ m )> c: 0 ., C) m 0 r-0 C) -< m c: r r m -4 z z !=> U1 ...... co w

PAGE 52

+' .2! DEP'IR 'lt> .... .-< .;1 .... .:1 .:'l "' 00 E 1! 00 :;J c b' @'"' ] .-< d .-< u "' ,.g ,:j 3433 By 151 lS, Rl2W, Sec. 3 0 145 3620 By 8 T3S, Rl.SW, Sec. 28 0 85 240 3753 By 128 TlS, Rl2S, Sec. 18 0 4178 By 126 TlN, Rl2W, Sec. 31 0 4690 By 14 T3S, Rl4W Sec. 1 9 0 112 4714 By 28 T3S Rl3W, Sec. 8 0 77 1 98 4982 By 28 TSS, Rl3W, Sec. 7 0 96 340 5237 By 32 T4S, Rl4W, Sec. 13 0 65 1 25 5369 By 3 1 T4S, Rl3W, Sec. 8 0 70 170 5716 By 10 T2S RlSW, Sec. 36 11 101 5717 By 9 T2S, RlSW, Sec. 36 1 0 100 5 812 By 16 T4S, Rl4W Sec. 30 0 lOS 305 5993 By 1 8 T4S, RlSW, Sec. 9 0 120 3 1 9 6287 By 25 T4S, Rl3W Sec. 18 0 90 115 6842 By 8 T4S, RlSW, Sec. 15 0 75 127 287 6985 By 9 T4S, RlSW, Sec. 4 0 75 25 1 7370 By 15 T2S Rl6W, Sec. 2 1 0 120 320 737 3 By 41 T2S, Rl4W, Sec. 16 0 55 135 +' w DEPTH TO .... .;1 .... 3 -" .:1 i c "' 00 0 00 j c z b' '2 g +' "' .-< > "" .tJ u 8 "' ,.g ,:j 7387 By 10 TSS, Rl4W, Sec. 12 0 115 125 8273 By 10 T3S, RJ.Sti, sec. 35 0 90 220 8323 Wl 28 T2S, R18l;, Sec. 36 8367 By 39 T3S, Rl4W, Sec. 28 0 72 155 8433 By 10 T4S RlSW, Sec. 4 8587 W l 15 T2S, RlSI;, Sec. 13 0 96 8592 Wl 4 5 TlN Rl7W, Sec. 20 8702 By 10 T4S, RlSW, Sec. 16 0 8873 Wl 40 T3S RlSW, sec. 11 12111 By 1 0 TSS Rl3W, Sec. 25 12258 By 10 T4S Rl4W, Sec. 36 12498 By 70 TlS, Rl7W, Sec. 27 0? 75 12505 By 10 TSS, Rl3W, Sec. 25 0 1 45 345 12723 Gf 20 T6S RllW, Sec. 31 0 164 13347 By 1 0 T3S Rl4W, Sec. 9 0 50 13587 By 30 T3S, Rl7W, Sec. 4 0 65 240 13617 By 61 TlS, Rl.6W, Sec .. 4 0 52 75 85 13622 Ws 139 TlN R13W, sec. 361 o 100 13965 By 70 T3S, Rl2W, Sec. 14 0 62 158 187 .... 0 .... 0 "' 00 w 00 '0 a .-< 6 5 u "' 1 6 1 388 4531 145 602 85 5000 110 4610 90 234 112 500 77 645 96 399 65 575 70 370 307 500 lOS 5 90 120 357 90 470 75 483 75 420 120 190 55 .... 0 .... 0 "' 00 $ .1) 00 h 1 .-< 5 "' 174 115 440 90 455 235 72 495 152.5 198 230 32.5 206 560 60 300 520 600 12 313 620 145 325 164 570 50 510 65 109 182 52 130 200 230 406 450 62 .tJ li.:i Cut 155 Cut Cut Cut Cut 121 Cut 244 Cut Cut 100 Cut 90 Cut 90 Cut 200 Cut 199 Cut Cut 160 Cut 176 Cut 200 Cut so Cut ....,., 0.:'! 0000 .!:l.tJ Mi Cut 130 Cut Cut 83 Cut Cut c c Cut c Cut Cut 75? Cut 200 Cut Cut Cut 175 Cut 1 0 Cut Cut 29 c 00 .' .-< 00 : & E E,G,C,Fl E 00 .' ] 00 >. & G G CD OJ c: :a m )> c: 0 "TT c;) m 0 r-0 c;) -< OJ c: r r m ::::! z z !=> (II ...... CD (II

PAGE 53

96 SOOT l=rs,l;tjd-OOD adJ;r, aldw(::>l?!' .... "' sp.res 0 0 "' M M UO'f=l'roCYI ti o! o!