<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Conclusion
 References
 Appendices


FGS



Heavy-mineral reconnaissance off the Gulf Coast of Northwest Florida ( FGS: Open file report 28 )
CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001027/00001
 Material Information
Title: Heavy-mineral reconnaissance off the Gulf Coast of Northwest Florida ( FGS: Open file report 28 )
Series Title: ( FGS: Open file report 28 )
Physical Description: 66 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Geological Survey
United States -- Minerals Management Service
Publisher: Florida Geological Survey
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla
Publication Date: 1988
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Geology -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Marine mineral resources -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Heavy minerals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 40-42).
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "Final report submitted to United States Minerals Management Service by the Florida Geological Survey"--added t.p.
Funding: Digitized as a collaborative project with the Florida Geological Survey, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
 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: aleph - 001545481
oclc - 22438967
notis - AHF9001
System ID: UF00001027:00001

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

UF00001027 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Methods
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 6
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Results
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 18
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Conclusion
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 34
    References
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 40
    Appendices
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Copyright
            Main
Full Text








State of Florida
Department of Natural Resources
Tom Gardner, Executive Director




Division of Resource Management
Jeremy Craft, Director




Florida Geological Survey
Walt Schmidt, State Geologist and Chief












Open File Report 28








Heavy-Mineral Reconnaissance off the
Gulf Coast of Northwest Florida





























3 1282 Q4543 e093




q9





LI~P~r.
















Heavy-Mineral Reconnaissance

off the Gulf Coast of

Northwest Florida











Final Report

Submitted to

United States Minerals Mabnagement Service

by the

Florida Geological Survey

February 1988


Cooperative Agreement No. 14-120001-30296








Table of Contents



Contents....................................................... i

List of Figures. ......................... ....................ii

List of Appendices.. ........................................iii

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

Acknowledgements ................................ 1

Description of the Study Area................................. 2

Previous Investigations............... ........................ 4

Methods........... ............... ....... ..... .... ....... ...... 6

Seismic Profiling....................................... .

Vibracoring .......... ...... .... ..... .... .................. 6

Laboratory Methods....................................... 6

Heavy-Mineral Separation..................................16

X-ray Diffractometry......... ......0... ....... ....... 16

Textural Analysis........................................ 18

Results...... ......................... ....... ....... ............. i

Seismic Profiling....................................... 1

Textural Analysis......................................... 18

Heavy-Mineral Analysis................. *.............. 28

Conclusions ......................... ....... .... .............. 34

References...... .... ....... ..................................40








List of Figures ;.


Figure 1


Figure 2


Figure

Figure

Figure


Figure 6


Figure 7


Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22


Regional setting showing general bathymetry
and sample locations.................. ............. 3

GEOPULSE track lines for seismic survey, showing
locations of profiles in figure 3.................. 7

Selected GEOPULSE sub-bottom seismic profiles...... 8

Flowchart of laboratory procedures.................15

Textural data mean versus standard deviation
(environmental data from Friedman, 1967)...........20

Textural data: skewness versus kurtosis
(environmental data from Friedman, 1961)............21.

Textural data: core mean versus core standard .
deviation (environmental data from Friedman, 1979).22

Core #4: mean vs.depth..............................23

Core #6: mean vs. depth............................24

Core *12: mean vs. depth........................ 25

Core #13: mean vs. depth...........................26

Core #143 mean vs. depth.........................27

Core #4: standard deviation vs. depth..............29

Core #6: standard deviation vs. depth..............30

Core #12: standard deviation vs. depth..............31

Core #13: standard deviation vs. depth............. 32

Core #14s standard deviation vs. depth.............33

Core #4: percent heavy minerals vs. depth...........35

Core #6: percent heavy minerals vs. depth..........36

Core #12: percent heavy minerals vs. depth.........37

Core #13: percent heavy minerals vs. depth..........3B

Core #14: percent heavy minerals vs. depth.........39


.- ..Page









List of Appendices


Appendix Page


A Core Locations............... ....... ....................43

B Core Logs..................................................44

C Textural Data.............................................58

D Combined Heavy-Mineral Data from Magnetic Separation,
Point Counting and X-Ray Diffractometry,
2-3 Phi Fraction...........................................61

E Combined Heavy-Mineral Data from Magnetic Separation,
Point Counting and X-Ray Diffractometry,
3-4 Phi Fraction.............. ........... ................ 63

F Point, Count Data for Selected Samples of 3-4 Phi
Heavy-Mineral Fraction....................................65

6 Comparison of Average Mineral Percentages in the Heavy-
Mineral Fraction for Surface (Arthur et al., 1986) and
Vibracore Samples.........................................66








INTRODUCrTON


The United States Minerals Management Service (MMS) in
conjunction with the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology/University
of Texas at Austin (BEG/UT) sponsored the Continential Margins
Program in order to promote research into the occurrence of
economic minerals on the continental margins of the United
States. This report to MMS is the result of the third year
funding through a cooperative agreement between the Florida
Geological Survey and MMS/BEG/UT.

This investigation was undertaken in order to examine the
depth distribution of heavy-mineral deposits off the Gulf of
Mexico coast of Northwest Florida. This study also contributes
valuable granulometric data needed to assess potential off-shore
sand deposits. It is a continuation of the year one research
effort aimed at analyzing the distribution of heavy minerals in
bottom grab samples in this area. A systematic effort was made to
identify areas of likely concentration of heavy minerals, using
two lines of approach.

First, utilizing the results of the year one study, areas
showing the greatest concentrations of heavy minerals were
delineated. The recognition of these areas resulted from
literature surveys and sample analyses completed for the year one
investigation and surveying any more recent literature on the
area.

Second, high resolution seismic profiling was utilized in
order to further investigate and locate bars and shoals shown on
the bathymetric charts of the area. Numerous track lines were run
providing detailed vertical profiles of the features (Figure 3).

Based on the above reconnaissance, locations were selected
for the collection and detailed mineralogic/sedimentologic
analysis of a set of vibrocores ranging in length up to 6 meters.
In combination with the previous surface mineral studies, these
cores provide accurate and useful information on the potential
for economic heavy-mineral resources on the Northwest Florida
shelf.



Acknowledqements

The MMS provided funds for this investigation under the
Continental Margins Program, Cooperative Agreement number 14-12-
0001-30296. Coordination of the agreement was provided by the
Texas Bureau of Economic Geology/University of Texas at Austin.
We greatly appreciate the efforts of .ll the individuals
associated with these two organizations who were involved with
the project. The Florida Geological Survey particularly
appreciates the efforts and the understanding of Mr. Mike Hunt








(MMS) and.Mr. Doug Ratcliff and.Ms. Carolyn Condon (BEG/UT).

The Florida Geological Survey greatfully acknowledges the
efforts of Dr. Joseph Donoghue of Florida State University, who
served as the principal investigator, and Ms. Michelle Allard,
graduate student in Geology at Florida State University who
served as co-investigator on the project ( unpublished report to
the Florida Geological Survey, 1988). Coordination of the
research effort at the Florida Geological Survey was under Dr.
Thomas Scott with valuable assistance from Mr. Jonathan Arthur.
Much gratitude is due to Dr. Walter Schmidt, Chief of the Florida
Geological Survey, for his efforts in alleviating problems which
arose during the duration of this project. We also appreciate the
drafting work of Mr. Jim Jones and Mr. Ted Kiper of the Florida
Geological Survey.

The following people provided valuable assistance in
the successful completion of this project: Mike Weinberg,
of FSU Geology, who assisted in all of the field work, including
the diving, and much of the preliminary heavy-mineral-..-
analysis. FSU Geology graduate students Sandee Weiterman,.
Shakhar Melkote, Jim Pospichal, Dave Clark, Steve Bedosky, Diane
Donnally and Bob Fisher participated in the cruises and
assisted with the coring and seismic work. Divers Tom
Loftin, Anne Rudloe, Cathy Guinon and Carrie Philips
provided essential support for the vibrocoring operation.
Dean Milliken of the Florida Institute of Oceanography and
Capt. Robert Millender and his crew on the R/V Bellows
made the two cruises a successful and enjoyable
experience. David Allison of FSU provided valuable
computer help with the data reduction. Ami Kaharoeddin
assisted with the settling tube analysis.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA


The area of this investigation .is a portion of the
northeastern Gulf of Mexico on the Florida inner continental
shelf, (Figure 1), extending from offshore Saint George
Island,(84 deg. 52.78 min. longitude) to offshore Panama City,
(S8 deg.44.86 min. longitude). The area is located within the
Gulf Coast province. The subsurface geology is dominated by
marine to shallow marine sediments. The total stratigraphic
section encompasses over 50,000 feet (Murray,1960). The area is
an extension of the Gulf Coastal Plain, an accumulation of
gently-dipping Cretaceous to Tertiary sediments, whose source
area is the Appalachian Mountains (Stewart, 1962). From
approximately 80 km north of the present coastline southward a
number of Pleistocene terraces occur. Their development is
correlated with interglacial highstands of the sea.

The climate of the study area is classified as
humid-semitropical. The mean annual temperature is 68.9 degrees F
(20.5 deg. C). Mean annual rainfall is 142.8 cm (Schnable and












N



I I


84*30'


EXPLANATION
VIBROCORE LOCATIONS
.-60, BATHYMETRY IN FEET


29*30'


0 5 10 15 M1
0 5 10 15 20 KM.
SCALE


Figure 1


Regional setting showing general bathymetry
and sample locations.


30*00'


85*00'








Goodell, 1368). Significant geomorphologic features in thce utud;
area include numerous estuari s, lagoons, and barrier islands.
The northeastern Gulf of Mexico is a depo-sitiorial basin for a
number of coastal plain rivers, the largest in Florida
being the Apalachicola riv'r (Figure 1).

The Apalachicola River is formed 172 km north of
Apalachicola Bay by the intersection of the Flint and
Chattahoochee Rivers at Jim Woodruff Dam on Lake Seminole at the
Florida-Georgia state line. The Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers
begin in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces of northern
Georgia and Alabama, draining the Appalachian Piedmont and
Coastal Plain regions. In the Blue Ridge 'the Chattaihoochee' Rivet
travels through mostly weathered sediments. In the Piedmont
region, both rivers drain areas of Proterozoic-Paleozoic
metasediments. The remainder of the drainage basin is veneered
with Cretaceous to Recent sediments, comprised primarily of
poorly consolidated marine sand and clays (Bedosky, 1S37).

The watershed of the Apalachicola River covers an area of
50,800 square km. The drainage basin of the Apalachicola River
proper covers 6,200 square km (Leitman, et al., 1982) and is 170
km long. With a flow which averages 651 m3 sec-", the river
delivers an average of 1.5 million tons of sediment to
Apalachicola Bay per year (Isphording, 1985).

Major embayments in the study area are Apalachicola Bay/East
Bay, a delta-estuary system at the mouth of the Apalachicola
River, and Saint Joseph Bay on the west. Apalachicola Bay is
separated from the Gulf of Mexico by three barrier islands: from
east to west, Dog Island, St. George Island, and St. Vincent
Island. Two other barriers occur in the Panama City area: Crooked
Island and Shell Island.

Offshore shoals in the study area are extensively developed
near St. George Island and Cape San Bias (Figure 1). These
shoals, Cape San Bias Shoal and Cape St. George Shoal, extend to
the southwest offshore from Cape San Bias and St. George Island,
respectively. The western portion of the region is barren of
shoals, possibly due to an increase of unidirectional wave
energy in that region.


PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS



Several recent heavy-mineral studies have been completed in
Florida and the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Goldstein (1942)
described the heavy-mineral assemblage characteristic of the
E.-stern Gulf Province. He reported that the assemblage consists
of low- and high-rank metamorphic -and igneous minerals
transported by river systems draining the Appalachian Piedmont
and Coastal Plain regions. Van Andel and Poole (1960) studied









the .sedimentary provinces of the CGulf of Mexico and their
respective source aress. Frivers draining the so.utlh-ern
Appalachians were considered primarily responsible for the
sediments of the Eastern Gulf Province. The first phase of the
present MMS/FGS study, a heavy-mineral reconnaissance of surface
sediment along the coast of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico
(Arthur et al., 1986) found the surface heavy-mineral suite to
consist of ilmenite, kyanite, staurolite, tourmaline, zircon, and
rutile, with minor amounts of epidote, sphene, amphibole,
magnetite, sillimanite, leucoxene, and garnet. The samples in
that study were retrieved using a Shipek grab sampler along
shore-transverse transects from Pensacola eastward to Apalachee
Bay.

Brenneman (1957) found a significantly larger proportion of
heavy minerals in the fine-sand fractions than in the coarse
fraction from off shore St. George Island. He explained the
presence of heavy minerals as being due to a lack of current
strength to remove the heavy minerals from the sediment.

Tanner et. al (1961) reported the heavy-mineral content in
offshore shoals near the Apalachicola River delta. They
hypothesized that the heavy-mineral abundance increases with
depth in the shoals, and noted that this concentration with depth
might prove to be economically viable. This investigation
identified essentially the same heavy-mineral suite as Arthur et
al.(1986).

Kofoed and Gorsline (1963) reported that the coarse sediment
fraction off Apalachicola Bay was comprised of reworked relict
quartz sand with minor percentages of transported heavy minerals
or calcareous material derived locally. Fine-grained material in
the area was believed to be a contribution of the Apalachicola
River. Ware and Kirkpatrick (1981) conducted a shallow drilling
project on Cape St. George Shoal. Percentages of heavy minerals
present in twenty test wells ranged from 0.04% to 2.83%. Only 5
samples out of 95 total contained heavy-mineral percentages
greater than 1%. The heavy-mineral suite reported in their study,
and in Stapor's (1973) study mentioned below, is in general
agreement with the suite described in Arthur et al.(1986).

Lader (1974) investigated the heavy-mineral distribution
offshore from Cape San Bias. He hypothesized that the greatest
heavy-mineral content would be in areas of highest energy and
that heavy minerals would be sorted with respect to their mass
densities. Conclusions from his work refuted that hypothesis,
however, indicating an inverse relationship between mean grain
size and heavy-mineral content. He concluded that size, rather
than weight, was a significant factor relating to heavy-mineral
abundance. Stapor (S173a,b) researched the delivery processes
responsible for the deposition of heavy minerals in the vicinity
of Apalachicola, Florida. In the Gulf of Mexico a fine-grained,
heavy-mineral-rich sand is concentrated and later deposited on
the beach as a result of transport processes in the Gulf which








remove the coarse material from the original sediment. In the
boys and sounds, fines are removed and coarser deposits remain.
This is due to the lower energy conditions in these areas.

Grosz and E3cowitz (1983) conducted a heavy-mineral
reconnaissance of Florida's Atlantic continental shelf. The
survey focused on economic minerals, specifically titanium oxide
minerals, and zirconium/hafnium and rare-earth bearing minerals
derived from igneous and metamorphic terranes of the Appalachians;
and transported by fluvial and long shore processes. Flores and
Shideler (1979) studied the outer continental shelf offshore from
Texas. They related heavy-mineral variations to provenance and
ascribed local variability to genetic differences in sea-floor
sediments. Other regional heavy-mineral projects completed
offshore from Mississippi and Alabama include Hsu (1960),
Foxworth et al. (1962), Drummond and Stow (1979), and Doyle and
Sparks (1990). Saffer (1955), reported the heavy-mineral content
in river and beach sand samples of northwest Florida, Georgia,
and Alabama.


METHODS


Seismic Profilina In June of 1986, two research cruises were
carried out on the R/V Bellows. The first cruise collected data
utilizing the high-resolution GEOPULSE sub-bottom seismic
profiler. The GEOPULSE system has a high-resolution sound source,
which at 350 joules produces an acoustic source level of 120 dB,
and generates a frequency spectrum of 400 Hz to 14 kHz. A
catamaran towed behind the vessel serves as a lightweight
platform for the sound source. The instrument can profile
sub-bottom stratigraphy with a resolution of one meter to a depth
of about 50 meters. Approximately 320 km of transects were run
from Dog Island Reef, Florida westward to Panama City, Florida
(Figure 2). Sedimentary structures, such as sand bodies and
paleo-channels, were mapped as potential locations for
vibrocoring on the second cruise. Examples are shown in Figure 3.


Vibrocorina Eleven 7.6 cm diameter vibrocores were retrieved
on the second five-day cruise, ranging in length from 2 to 6
meters. Figures 1 and 2 show the coring locations. Details of the
locations are given in Appendix A. Core logs for each core are
presented in Appendix B.


Laboratory Methods

A flowchart of laboratory procedures is shown in Figure 4.
The cores were initially split and logged. Core logs are detailed
in Appendix B. Samples weighing approximately 100 grams each were
taken at 20 cm. intervals from the centers of the cores. The
samples were then oven-dried at 40 degrees Celsius and a split







AS*00'


END *20A


30*00'


START


EXPLANATION
VIBROCORE LOCATIONS
'60'\ BATHYMETRY IN FEET
*- SEISMIC LINES


0 5 10 15 MI
I I I I
0 5 10 15 20 KM
SCALE


Figure 2


GEOPULSE track lines for seismic survey, showing
locations of profiles in figure 3.


STMRT


29'30


84*30'



































Figure 3


Selected GEOPULSE sub-bottom seismic profiles


_ j
:





































Figure 3a Portion of seismic line between transects 19 and 19a

f











remove the coarse material from the original sediment. In the
boys and sounds, fines are removed and coarser deposits remain.
This is due to the lower energy conditions in these areas.

Grosz and E3cowitz (1983) conducted a heavy-mineral
reconnaissance of Florida's Atlantic continental shelf. The
survey focused on economic minerals, specifically titanium oxide
minerals, and zirconium/hafnium and rare-earth bearing minerals
derived from igneous and metamorphic terranes of the Appalachians;
and transported by fluvial and long shore processes. Flores and
Shideler (1979) studied the outer continental shelf offshore from
Texas. They related heavy-mineral variations to provenance and
ascribed local variability to genetic differences in sea-floor
sediments. Other regional heavy-mineral projects completed
offshore from Mississippi and Alabama include Hsu (1960),
Foxworth et al. (1962), Drummond and Stow (1979), and Doyle and
Sparks (1990). Saffer (1955), reported the heavy-mineral content
in river and beach sand samples of northwest Florida, Georgia,
and Alabama.


METHODS


Seismic Profilina In June of 1986, two research cruises were
carried out on the R/V Bellows. The first cruise collected data
utilizing the high-resolution GEOPULSE sub-bottom seismic
profiler. The GEOPULSE system has a high-resolution sound source,
which at 350 joules produces an acoustic source level of 120 dB,
and generates a frequency spectrum of 400 Hz to 14 kHz. A
catamaran towed behind the vessel serves as a lightweight
platform for the sound source. The instrument can profile
sub-bottom stratigraphy with a resolution of one meter to a depth
of about 50 meters. Approximately 320 km of transects were run
from Dog Island Reef, Florida westward to Panama City, Florida
(Figure 2). Sedimentary structures, such as sand bodies and
paleo-channels, were mapped as potential locations for
vibrocoring on the second cruise. Examples are shown in Figure 3.


Vibrocorina Eleven 7.6 cm diameter vibrocores were retrieved
on the second five-day cruise, ranging in length from 2 to 6
meters. Figures 1 and 2 show the coring locations. Details of the
locations are given in Appendix A. Core logs for each core are
presented in Appendix B.


Laboratory Methods

A flowchart of laboratory procedures is shown in Figure 4.
The cores were initially split and logged. Core logs are detailed
in Appendix B. Samples weighing approximately 100 grams each were
taken at 20 cm. intervals from the centers of the cores. The
samples were then oven-dried at 40 degrees Celsius and a split

































Figure 3b


Portion of seismic transect 15


-I~-------- -- ;- ~- ---- ----- -'----,-~ ..^.......:, ~ .~.. _I I I ~ ; I

























"9, .

".f ''
t. ': i's>




.~"-,. 4 -'p 4














*. .. j.







.i'? .r' 4'





....




iit,
*. .c; '-" r r
S.:..vr..~



fl.r .. (l)

g *
pij *t~."' p
'~ :. ~~~"p




























Figure 3c Portion of seismic line between transects 13 and 14









S.,

..'rcr.~ I ~ir
.4..rl ~ .i%
\~~ ~~ ~ S~. ~










? ....











.~~ I.~:



r. 1.



;* I








:14











Archive half of core -Open core & split


Approximately
100 grams bulk sample

Oven-dry 400 C
I Ip


Split
-7 1H


Weigh, sieve using
Bradley sonic sifter to
Isolate 2-3 phi and 3-4
phi size fractions


SI
Split to 10 grams


Rinse with distilled
water and oven-dry


Heavy liquid separation
using sodium
metatungstate


Rinse heavy and light
mineral separates with
10 molar HCI and dry


Weigh
l


separation of magnetite


Garnet and Ilmenlte Separate llmenlte and
grain-counted to deter- garnet using magnetic
mine modal percentages separator

Powder remaining
minerals and mount on
1 X 1" slide


2 grams textural analysis


Sieve to remove coarse

and fine fractions


Rinse and oven-dry
sand fraction


Settling tube analysis
using 1 m settling tube


Statistical analysis
using SETTUBE
computer program


I Compare assemblage to
XRD, measure peak standards and determine
heights, determine amounts of minerals In
mineral assemblage assemblage


Flowchart of laboratory procedures.


i .. I ,l t "


I I I II


|:. -


. I I _


I


- i


q


Figure 4









was .set aside for textural analysis. A sieving culiiparison wai
made using theo r'-.ti (Mi utani 1'CT.. ,rth d Arnd l: -i :'1 .',
Sonic Sifter. Similar rYsults '.wre g.' ncr .tcd fro:,, each. The
material was sieved usinc the Sonic Sifter at whole-phi-' intervals
to isolate the 2-3 and 3-4 phi fractions. The whole-phi intervals
were split down to ten grams, rinsed with distilled watch, and
oven-dried.

Heavy-mineral Separation Heavy-mineral separation was
achieved by use of the heavy liquid sodium metatungstate (density
2.90 g/cmO). Ninety milliliters of heavy liquid were mixed with a
sample in a separatory funnel. The funnel was then centrifuged
for forty-five minutes at 1500l rpm. The separated heavy minerals
were retrieved from the funnel and rinsed with 10 molar
hydrochloric acid to avoid deposition of a tungsten precipitate
on the grains. The heavy minerals were then rinsed with
double-distilled water and dried again. The light minerals
remaining in the funnels were treated in the same mann-e" z- the
heavy minerals. Both fractions of the samples were weighed to
obtain relative dry weight percentages in each sample (Appendix
C).
The components of the heavy-mineral suite were analyzed by
first separating the magnetite using an electromagnet. Ilmenite
and garnet were separated from the bulk heavy minerals by a
Frantz Isodynamic Magnetic Separator. The separator was set at
0.4 amps, with tilt and side slope angles of 25 and 20 degrees
respectively, to separate garnet and ilmenite from the remainder.
The garnet and ilmenite mixture was weighed and grain-counted
under a binocular microscope to calculate relative mroda.i
percentages of each (Appendices D and E).

X-Ray Diffractometry The remaining heavy-mineral assemblage was
analyzed using the Philips PW-1710 automated X-ray diffractometer
with a copper target. The samples were prepared by powdering f.:.r
3 minutes with a ball mill. The powder was spiked with a known
weight of the mineral fluorite for use as a calibrating factor in
quantitative X-ray diffractometry (XRD). The mixture was mounted
on a 2.6 cm x2.6 cm glass microscope slide using a Duco cement
and acetone slurry. The slides were X-rayed within a range of 10
to 70 degrees 20 at generator settings o.f 20 milliamps and 40
kilovolts.
The diffraction peaks and their heights from the X-ray
spectra were compared to standards prepared for this project
using a variety of heavy-mineral compositions and proportions.
Pealk height was used for ease of measurement and because
preliminary tests showed that pealk height is a reliable index I .of
weight percent. To ascertain the rep:':Cdu.:ci:ility of the
peak-height measurements, replicates were; mado for a nu~.nr ':
the sample XRD slides. Ten of them *.,ere chosen at random and
scanned. Poal heicg:ts were compared t.s tho corresponding; pac.!::
o*n thfi sample slides. Avcrago per ccent ce\,viatic-n f:.r 11l of the
measured peaks for each of the mincrali- identi:.fied in th
replicate samples was 12 percent. This wa,, a good 'lnvel of
repoducibility, bo-.cd on eX.tenEivc proeviouiL, c',p;rii.i rI;ltTicon .iith









... powder diffraction. This was also based on the fact that ali -T
the factors identified by Pryor and Hester (19S9) and Vk.n t.n'Al
(1959) as having a measurable effect on reproducibility were
minimized.

The peaks and their d-spacing shown below were used for
quantifying the XRD data for the nine heavy minerals found in the
powdered samples. For each miner41 in every sample, one of the
peaks in the list below was located and its height above
background was measured. Confirmatory peaks were then searched in
order conclusively to identify the mineral. The peak height was
then converted to a dimensionless ratio by dividing it by the
.h.ight of one of the peaks attributable to the fluorite spike,
whose weight percentage in each sample was known. This
normalization enabled the quantitative determination of the
percentage of that mineral in the sample. For a few samples, an
additional peak was used for sillimanite, sphene and zircon, as
shown below.







Mineral Peak d -spacing
Name Label (Angstroms)

Epidote (Epl) 2.90
Hornblende (Hol) 3.14
Kyanite (Kyl) 3.18
Rutile (Rul) 3.25
Sillimanite (Sil) 3.42
(Si2) 3.37
Sphene CSp2) 3.00
CSp3) 2.61
Staurolite (Sti) 2.69
Tourmaline (To2) 2.56
Zircon (Zil) 3.30
CZi2) 4.43
Fluorite (F11) .1.93
(Spike) (F12) 3.15


The Florida Geological Survey holds some reservations
concerning the use of the XRD for quantification and identi-
----fi-ationo f heavy minerals. However, considering the non-
economic quantities of the heavy minerals found within the study
area as determined by heavy liquid separation, XRD and optical
methods, we believe that these.concerns are not critical to the
resource evaluation. We also feel that XRD may provide a rapid,
first approximation of the mineral suite and mineral abundances
and "is a ialuable' tool for resource investigations.










e.':ttjarl Analysis T.:itural analysis was carried out on thl
settling tube in the FSU Sedimentology Laboratory. The tube it
modeled after Gibbs' (1974) device, which had a settling distance
of 140 ::m and a diameter of 12 cm. The Florida State Univcrsity
settling tube has a settling distance of 100 cm and a diameter of
13 cm. A Cahn digital electrobalance is connected to the settling
tube system.

One hundred and twenty six samples from the cores underwent
grain size analysis. The individual samples-weighed between 0.5
and 2 grams. Each sample was first sieved using the Bradley Sonic
Sifter to remove sizes coarser than -1 phi and finer than 4 phi.
These two fractions were weighed on the Mettler balance and the
percentages of the original sample weight were calculated. The
remainder of the sample was rinsed with distilled water and
oven-dried.

Statistical analysis of the settling tube data was
achieved by use of the SETTUBE computer program, written by A.
Kaharoeddin of Florida State University. The program is designed
to calculate moment measures and histograms from points defining
the slope of the settling tube printout of cumulative weight
versus setting time. Textural data is presented in Appendix C.


RESULTS


Seismic Profilina

The seismic lines shown in Figure 3, totaling approximat-ly
320 km, provided high resolution profiles of the upper 50 meters
of the seafloor of the northeastern Gulf of Maxico inner shelf.
These data in conjunction with the existing bathymetric maps were
utilized in the selection of the vibrocoring sites. Numerous
subsurface features were recognized on the profiles (Figure Sa-
c).

The most commonly encountered subsurface structure was
buried channels, representing ancient positions of the
Apalachicola River, with its tributaries and distributaries.
Other structures observed included subsurface lenticular sand
bodies, and buried scarps. The first two probably represent
nearshore or barrier island features while the third may be the
result of dissolution of the Tertiary limestones that approach
the surface in the easternmost part of the study area. Examples
are shown in Figure 3.


Te'.tur'l Analysis

The sample suite consists of a moderately sorted,
finely-skewed fine sand. The percentage of fines is negligible


. :J- ; 4~* &'*'i'i


".










in all samples except for two. from. Core 5. Mean percent of fine
is less than 0.1 wt.%. Percentage of gravel coarserr than -1 phi
or 2 mm) was zero in all samples. The gross textural data
indicate that the depositional environment of the samples studied
was one of moderate energy, with deposition dominated by fine to
medium sand, and virtually no mud or gravel. Further analysis of
the depositional environments of these sediments is obtained
through the-use of scatter plots of various parameters against
each other (Figures 5-7). The results of these-plots are compared
to the results obtained from previous investigations that
utilized measured grain size parameters from known environments.

Figure 5 is a plot of sample-mean vs. standard deviation
showing two fields labeled R (River) and B (Beach) as taken from
Friedman (1967). It can be seen that most of the samples fall in
the River field, although a significant number lie within the
Beach field. The result .underscores the interplay that has taken
place on a continual basis throughout the study area, with the
Apalachicola River and its distributaries migrating across. th.e-_
area during low-stands, and beaches developing during high-
stands.

Figure 6 plots skewness vs. kurtosis, with another set of
environmental fields from Friedman (1961). The fields represent
Beach (B) and River (R) sand samples. Again, most of the samples
cluster close to the line, with the scatter approximately equal
on either side, indicating further that the environment was
influenced by both beach and river hydrodynamic processes.

In order to determine if there were any east to west
differences among the cores, the core mean grain size was plotted
versus the core standard deviation. Results are shown in Figure
7. Once again Friedman's (1979) River (R) and Beach (B) fields
are superimposed. It can be seen that the three easternmost
cores and the three westernmost cores fall in the River field.
The western cores may have been more influenced by ancient deltas
to the west of the present one, located just east of the town of
Apalachicola (Figure 1). The data, however, are still mixed -
five cores plot in the Beach field.

Textural characteristics and heavy-mineral concentrations of
the surface sediments in the study area were also checked for the
presence of trends by analyzing both the surface vibracore
samples from this study and the samples from transects 14 through
21 of the Arthur, et al. (1986) investigation. No regional trends
were found.

For the five longest cores (cores 4, 6, 12, 13, and 14) depth
profiles"were plotted for mean grain size (Figures 8-12),
standard deviation (Figures 13-17). A general coarsening upward
trend can be detected in most of the cores in the study area.
This trend is most prominent in cores 13 and 14 (Figures 11 and
12).











!z
0


E-I
94













E-4
MT


2.0





1.5





1.0





0.5


+



+
0
a



RIVER % + q

+ +
0 a
o m.I


O A


BEACH


2.0 2.5


MEAN (PHI)


Figure 5


Textural data: mean versus standard deviation
(environmental data from Friedman, 1967).


20


COBS
4
5
7
a

to
10
11
12
. 1
14


G A
t


B

0
A

+
a


1 +m I


AA


A


1.0


1.5


3.0


3.5


e
Q


EB
a 0










60.0-



0. BEACH RIVER a
50.01"



40.0-
A
A
A
30.0-
A A

0 A CORE SYOL
20.0 O
S+ o 7 0
Sa A
A + l A 9 A
10. 0




-1.0 .0 1.0 2.0 3.0


SKEWNESS

Figure 6 Textural data: skewness versus kurtosis
(environmental data from Friedman, 1961).


. ,.. 21


a























RIVER


r)0.5-



0
o


O


BEACH


2.0


2.5


CORE MEAN


Figure 7


Textural data: core mean versus core standard
deviation (environmental data from Friedman, 1979)


1.54


z
0

E-
-e


1.0-


COX
4
10
a
6
.7
a
XI
12
13
14


A
0
A
O
0

+
O


3.0


I


__ I


';.-^r 'l^ *'*;-l*'(




GORE #4

3.5


3.3-

3.2

3.1-

3

2.9-

S 2. -

*. 2.7


2.5

2.4

2.3 -

2.2 -

1 -.2.1 ---
0 40 80 120 160 200 240

DEPMH (CM)


Core #4: mean vs. depth.


Figure 8






CORE


#6


2.5
2.7

2.5
2.4-
2.3-
2.2
2.1
2-

1.8-
1.7-
1.6-
1.5
1.4-
1.3
1.2-
1.1
i-/
0.9
0.8
0.7 0-
0 20 40 60 60 100 120 140 160


DEPTH (CM)


Figure 9 Core 16: mean vs. depth.


180





















































100


Core #12: mean vs. depth.





r
Pr
.1
;i




; -


I


h:


-'
...





pc~n i.e
i'l


SI


A-


a i .


uu'Lt ff Iz


200


DEPTH (CM)


300


400


: ii
Y
i


Figure 10




<,


CORE #13


2.8

2.7

2.6

2.

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5


0 200 400 4600


DEPTH (CM)


Core #13: mean vs. depth.


I


Figure 11




%e%.Jc--ff I F


80 120


160


DEPTH (CM)


Core #14: mean vs. depth.


3 :
1: :
:C'~
::
'
I '*

i:.
r~
.'
!:) :


h)


200


240


280


~I.


Figure 12










The? 7~orting profiles (Figur:c 13-17) indiaete miodefitce
sorting, with a tendency for poorer sorting t..oward the top
evident in some cores (c.g.,cores 4, 14 and the upper half of 13;
Figures 13, 17 and 1C, respectively). On t o- contrary, sorting
worsens with depth in core 6 (Figure 14).




Heavy-mineral Analysis

Heavy minerals, as a percentage of the bulk weight, varied
from 0.03% to 1.4% with a mean of 0.3%. Figures 18-22 show the
percentage of heavy minerals vs. depth in each of the plotted
cores. The samples were divided into two fractions within the
sand size range, 2-3 phi and 3-4 phi. On average there was
slightly more sample in the finer 3-4 phi fraction. Forty-three
percent of the sample weight fell within the 3-4 phi fraction,
while 40% occurred within the 2-3 ohi-"ange. There was also a
larger percentage of heavy minerals in the finer range, an.
average of 0.5% in the 3-4 phi fraction versus 0.2% in the 2-3
phi fraction.

Magnetite averaged 5.6% by weight in the 2-3 phi fraction
and 3.5% in the 3-4 phi fraction. Garnet + Ilmenite averaged
9.7% by weight in the 2-3 phi fraction and 6.4% in the 3-4 phi
fraction. It can be seen that, on the average, the garnet +
ilmenite weight is nearly twice the weight of the magnetite for
both size fractions.

Nine heavy minerals were detected by XRD in the sample
suite. Kyanite, sillimanite and zircon were found to be the
most abundant of the low-susceptibility minerals in both size
fractions. Kyanite favors the coarser fraction, while zircon
slightly favors the finer. The percentages obtained from the XRD
analyses are relative, the sum of the peak heights on the X-ray
diffractogram being recalculated to 100%. In order to compare
these percentages with the weight percentages of magnetite,
ilmenite and garnet, the XRD results have been renormalized. This
normalization involved subtracting the magnetite + ilmenite +
garnet percentage from 100% and then taking the sum of the
percentages obtained from the XRD data and adjusting it to equal
the difference. The results are shown in Appendices D and E for
the 2-3 phi and 3-4 phi fractions, respectively.

It can be seen that kyanite, sillimanite and zircon remain
the predominant heavy minerals, even in comparison with
magnetite, ilmenite and garnet, particularly in the coarser
2-3 phi fraction. In both size fractions, kyanite, sillimanite
and zircon comprise about 70% of the heavy-mineral suite.
Staurolite, rutile and hornblende are concentrated in the
fine fraction. Magnetite and tourmaline favor the coarse
fraction. Ilmenite shows no preference. Sphere, epidote and




!- UKm. f4-


1.8

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3


0 40 80 120 160 200

DEPTH (CM)


Core #4: standard deviation vs. depth.


240


Figure 13










e.':ttjarl Analysis T.:itural analysis was carried out on thl
settling tube in the FSU Sedimentology Laboratory. The tube it
modeled after Gibbs' (1974) device, which had a settling distance
of 140 ::m and a diameter of 12 cm. The Florida State Univcrsity
settling tube has a settling distance of 100 cm and a diameter of
13 cm. A Cahn digital electrobalance is connected to the settling
tube system.

One hundred and twenty six samples from the cores underwent
grain size analysis. The individual samples-weighed between 0.5
and 2 grams. Each sample was first sieved using the Bradley Sonic
Sifter to remove sizes coarser than -1 phi and finer than 4 phi.
These two fractions were weighed on the Mettler balance and the
percentages of the original sample weight were calculated. The
remainder of the sample was rinsed with distilled water and
oven-dried.

Statistical analysis of the settling tube data was
achieved by use of the SETTUBE computer program, written by A.
Kaharoeddin of Florida State University. The program is designed
to calculate moment measures and histograms from points defining
the slope of the settling tube printout of cumulative weight
versus setting time. Textural data is presented in Appendix C.


RESULTS


Seismic Profilina

The seismic lines shown in Figure 3, totaling approximat-ly
320 km, provided high resolution profiles of the upper 50 meters
of the seafloor of the northeastern Gulf of Maxico inner shelf.
These data in conjunction with the existing bathymetric maps were
utilized in the selection of the vibrocoring sites. Numerous
subsurface features were recognized on the profiles (Figure Sa-
c).

The most commonly encountered subsurface structure was
buried channels, representing ancient positions of the
Apalachicola River, with its tributaries and distributaries.
Other structures observed included subsurface lenticular sand
bodies, and buried scarps. The first two probably represent
nearshore or barrier island features while the third may be the
result of dissolution of the Tertiary limestones that approach
the surface in the easternmost part of the study area. Examples
are shown in Figure 3.


Te'.tur'l Analysis

The sample suite consists of a moderately sorted,
finely-skewed fine sand. The percentage of fines is negligible


. :J- ; 4~* &'*'i'i


".






'CORE #6

Il*- --------------:-------
1.3-

1.5-

1.4



1.J -
1.2-







0.8-I

0.7 -

0.-

0.5

0.4 f v i l li 'li
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
DEPTH (CM)


Figure 14 Core 16: standard deviation vs. depth.
















o 1.2 -

1.1

i 1-

0.9

0.8

0.7-

0.6

0.5 -
0 100 200 300 400
DEPmT (CM)


Core #12: standard deviation vs. depth.


,,COL # 1k2-----Iz


Figure 15






CORE #13


1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5


0 200 400


DEPTH (CM)


Core #13: standard deviation vs. depth.


600


Figure 16




CORE #14

1.6
1.5-
1.4-


1.2
1,2


O 1
0.9-
0 0.8

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4-
0.3-
0.2
0.1 1 a -
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280

DEPTH (CM)


Core #14: standard deviation vs. depth.


Figure 17








garnet are present in small amounts in only..afew.
samples. The titanium heavy minerals (iimenite, rul'il-_o and '
sphene) comprise on average, 11.1% and 13.6% of the total,
for the 2-3 phi and 3-4 phi fraction, respectively.
The profiles of Iheavy-mineral weight percentage (Figures 18-22)
show little variation (a range of 0.3 weight percent) or trend
with depth. In general, however, the heavy fraction increases
upward in cores 5 and 13 and decreases upward in core 14 (Figure
22). For all cores except 7 and 14, the heavy-mineral
concentrations of the surface sample exceed those of the sampled
interval immediately below.
Results of the heavy-mineral analysis are tabulated in
Appendices C through G. Point count data for electedd intervals
containing the highest percentages of heavy minerals are shown in
Appendix F. A comparison of the data from the year one study
(Arthur et al.,1986) can be found in Appendix G.


CONCLUSION

This investigation has provided an in-depth look at heavy-
mineral occurrence on the inner shelf of the northeast Gulf of
Mexico. Heavy minerals constitute, on the average, 0.1 weight
percent of the 2-3 phi fraction (Appendix D). This fraction
constitutes 39.7% of the bulk weight. The 2-3 phi heavy minerals
therefore constitute 0.04% of the bulk weight of the sediments.
Likewise, heavy minerals make up, on average, 0.6 weight percent
of the 3-4 phi fraction (Appendix E). This fraction comprises
43.3% of the bulk weight. The 3-4 phi heavy minerals therefore
make up 0.26% of the bulk weight of the sample. Total weight of
heavy minerals is approximately 0.3% of the bulk sediment. The
titanium minerals (rutile, ilmenite, sphene) comprise an
estimated 0.04% of the bulk sediment weight.

None of the samples analyzed contained heavy minerals in
amounts greater than 1.4% of the total sediment. The heavy
minerals were found to be more than .four times as abundant in the
finer sand than in the coarser sand fraction. Kyanite dominates
both fractions, followed by sillimanite and zircon. Ilmenite,
rutile and hornblende are also significant, especially in the
finer sand fraction.

Some previous investigations suggested the possibility of
economically important heavy-mineral deposits in the area
investigated (Tanner at al.,1961). This study did not locate any
heavy-mineral deposits of sufficient grade to be considered of
potential economic importance. To be of economic importance, a
deposit would have to be greater than ten times more concentrated
than the overall average found in this area. Data from this
investigation suggest that sands from this area may be a
potential glass sand resource.

Continually shifting depositional environments, from river
to ba:,ch to near-hc.rc, appear to have heavily reworked the sand




COREL #4



0.4-

0.35-


S0.3--

0.25 -

i 0.2-

a. 0.15-

0.1

0.05 -

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
DEPTH (CM)


Core #4: percent heavy minerals vs. aepth.


Figure 18






CORE


0.45


0.4


0.35


0.3


0.25


0.2


0.15


0.1


#6


20 40 60 80 100 120 140


DEPTH (CM)


Core 16: percent heavy minerals vs. depth.


C"


160


180


Figure 19





CORE #12

OZ

0.45

0.45


z 0. -

0.3-




0.2

0.15-
0.1 -
0.1

0.05 a a i
0 100 200 300 400
DEPHm (CM)


Core #12: percent heavy minerals vs. depth.


Figure 20






CORE #13


1.5
1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1


200 400


DEPTH (CM)


Core 113: percent heavy minerals vs. depth.


Figure 21




CORE #14


0 0 4 80 120 160 200


DEPTH (CM)


Core #14: percent heavy minerals vs. depth.


i
' zf

I


A.


240


280


Figure 22









dJopo its of the. inner... Ael f of..tho n.o;thc; & .rri..GCulf f i'.iof i,
off northwestern Florida. The resulting scdimcnt iu a m~c's.r-c'ly
sorted, finely-skewed, fine sand with virtually no gravel or Lud
fraction present. Although ample heavy-mineral material appears
to be available for concentration, as evidenced by c.oncntre.tc
of 50% and higher on some of the pre=mnt-day beaches, i' would
appear that such concentrations do not survive unless they are
rapidly drowned and buried. This has not been the case in the
inner shelf, where the sea level has risen relatively slowly and
the Apalachicola River has periodically changed its course over
the past 10,000 years CSchnable, 1966; Schnable and Goodell,
.1968). The slow rise of sea level during the Holocene, and tha
consequent. re-working of inner shelf sediments may have been the
reason for the low heavy-mineral concentrations in the inner
shelf of the northeastern Gulf. If this is the case, heavy-
mineral' concentrates may be found further out on the shelf and
upper slope, where low-stand beach and river channel deposits
underwent in-situ drowning during the rapid sea-level rise
associated with the waning of the late-Wisconsin glaciers.


REFERENCES


Arthur, J.D., Melkote, S., Applegate, J., and Scott, T.M., 1986,
Heavy-mineral reconnaissance off the coast of the
Apalachicola River delta, northwest Florida: Florida
Bureau of Geology Report of Investigation No. 95, Sip.

Bedosky, S.J., 1987, Recent sediment history of Apalachicola Bay,
Florida: unpublished M.S. Thesis, Fla. State Univ.,
Tallahassee, Florida, 235 p.

Brenneman, L., 1957, Preliminary sedimentary study of certain
sand bodies in the Apalachicola Deltas unpublished M.S.
Thesis, Fla. State Univ.,Tallahassee, Florida, 151p.

Doyle, L.J. and Sparks, T.N., 1980, Sediments of the Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida (MAFLA) continental shelf: Jour.
Bed. Petrology, v.50, n.3, p.905-916.

Drummond, S.E., and Stow, S.H., 1979, Hydraulic differentiation
of heavy minerals, offshore Alabama and Mississippi,
Summary Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v.90, p.806-807.

Flores, R.M., and Shideler, G.L., 1978, Factors controlling
heavy-mineral variations on the south Texas outer con-
tinental shelf, Gulf of Mexicos Jour. Sad. Petrology
v.48, n.1. p.269-280.

FoXworth, R.D., Priddy, R.R., Wendell, B.J., and Moore, W.S.,
1962, Heavy minerals of sand from recent beaches of the
Gulf Coast of Mississippi and associated islands Miss.
Geol. Surv. Bull. 93, p.1-92.


... An








garnet are present in small amounts in only..afew.
samples. The titanium heavy minerals (iimenite, rul'il-_o and '
sphene) comprise on average, 11.1% and 13.6% of the total,
for the 2-3 phi and 3-4 phi fraction, respectively.
The profiles of Iheavy-mineral weight percentage (Figures 18-22)
show little variation (a range of 0.3 weight percent) or trend
with depth. In general, however, the heavy fraction increases
upward in cores 5 and 13 and decreases upward in core 14 (Figure
22). For all cores except 7 and 14, the heavy-mineral
concentrations of the surface sample exceed those of the sampled
interval immediately below.
Results of the heavy-mineral analysis are tabulated in
Appendices C through G. Point count data for electedd intervals
containing the highest percentages of heavy minerals are shown in
Appendix F. A comparison of the data from the year one study
(Arthur et al.,1986) can be found in Appendix G.


CONCLUSION

This investigation has provided an in-depth look at heavy-
mineral occurrence on the inner shelf of the northeast Gulf of
Mexico. Heavy minerals constitute, on the average, 0.1 weight
percent of the 2-3 phi fraction (Appendix D). This fraction
constitutes 39.7% of the bulk weight. The 2-3 phi heavy minerals
therefore constitute 0.04% of the bulk weight of the sediments.
Likewise, heavy minerals make up, on average, 0.6 weight percent
of the 3-4 phi fraction (Appendix E). This fraction comprises
43.3% of the bulk weight. The 3-4 phi heavy minerals therefore
make up 0.26% of the bulk weight of the sample. Total weight of
heavy minerals is approximately 0.3% of the bulk sediment. The
titanium minerals (rutile, ilmenite, sphene) comprise an
estimated 0.04% of the bulk sediment weight.

None of the samples analyzed contained heavy minerals in
amounts greater than 1.4% of the total sediment. The heavy
minerals were found to be more than .four times as abundant in the
finer sand than in the coarser sand fraction. Kyanite dominates
both fractions, followed by sillimanite and zircon. Ilmenite,
rutile and hornblende are also significant, especially in the
finer sand fraction.

Some previous investigations suggested the possibility of
economically important heavy-mineral deposits in the area
investigated (Tanner at al.,1961). This study did not locate any
heavy-mineral deposits of sufficient grade to be considered of
potential economic importance. To be of economic importance, a
deposit would have to be greater than ten times more concentrated
than the overall average found in this area. Data from this
investigation suggest that sands from this area may be a
potential glass sand resource.

Continually shifting depositional environments, from river
to ba:,ch to near-hc.rc, appear to have heavily reworked the sand








S FriiJmcn, C ;. 1?'D I, Di t ir.ct ionI betwo n .du.i:, .. ...
river ;c.aids from their tucxturacl chara .tL ;;.. : :. .
Sed. Petrology, vol.31, n.4, p.514-529.


Friedman, G.M., 1967, Dynamic proccZEsses nd SbZ.tist'i:::.
parameters compared for size and frequency distribu-tion
of beach and river sands: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v.37,
p.327-354.

Friedman, G.M., 1979, Address of the retiring president of the
Internat ional' .Assbc at i on..of Sedimentol ogists:.
Differences' in size distributions of populations of
particles among sands of various origins:
Sedimentology, v.26, p.3-32.

Gibbs, R.J., 1974, A settling tube system for sand size analy-
sis, Jour. of Sed. Petrology, v.44, p.583-588.

Goldstein, A., 1942, Sedimentary petrologic provinces of,the..
northern Gulf of Mexicos Jour. Sed. Petrology v.12,
n.2, p.77- 84.

Grosz, A.E., and Escowitz, E.E., 1983, Placer heavy minerals of
the United States Atlantic continental shelf:
Southeastern Section Geol. Soc. Amer., Abstracts with
Programs, 1983, p.103.

Hsu, K.J., 1960, Texture and mineralogy of the Recent sands of
the Gulf Coast: Jour. of Sed. Petrology vol.30, no. 3,
p.380-403.

Isphording,W.C., 1985, Sedimentological investigation of
Apalachicola Bay,Floridaestuarine system, prepared for
the Mobile District, Corps of Engineers, University of
Alabama, BER Report no. 343-260. 99p.

Kofoed, J.W., and Gorsline, D.S., 1963, Sedimentary environments
in Apalachicola Bay and vicinity, Florida, Jour. of
Sed. Petrology, v.33, n.l, p.205-223.

Lader, G., 1974, A sedimentological investigation of coastal
cells from Cape San Bias to Indian Pass, Florida;
unpublished'M.S. thesis, Florida State University, 96p.

Mizutani, S., 1963, A theoretical and experimental consideration
on the accuracy of sieving analysis, Journal cf Earth
Science, Nagoya, Japan, v.ll, p.1-27.

Murray, G.E., 1960, Geologic framework of Gulf Coastal Province
of United States: in Shepard, P.P., PhelCer, F.B., and
Van Andel, T.H., eds., Recent Sediments, Nc.rthws.;-t
Gulf of Mexico: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geol., Tul-;.,
Oklahoma, 349p.


41


:-;..










Pryor, W., and Hooter, N., 1969, X-ray diffraction nnaiysis of
heavy minerals: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v.39, p.1384-89.


Saffer P.E.,1955, A preliminary investigation of river and bach
samples collected in the states of Florida, Georgia,
and Alabama: unpublished M.S. Thesis, Fla. State Univ.,
Tallahassee, Florida, 59p.

Schnable, J.E., 1966, The evolution and development of the part
of the northwest Florida. +st. un.publ... P.hD ..
dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
Florida, 231 p.

Schnable, J.E., and Goodell, H.G., 1968, Pleistocene-Recent
stratigraphy, evolution and development of the
Apalachicola coast, Floridas Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec.
Paper n.112, 72p.

Stapor, F.W., 1973a, Heavy-mineral concentrating processes, and
density/shape/size equilibria in the marine and coastal
dune sands of the Apalachicola, Florida, region: Jour.
Sed. Petrology, v.43, n.2, p.396-407.

Stapor, F.W., 1973b, Coastal sand budgets and Holocene beach
ridge plain development, northwest Florida: unpubl.
PhD dissertation, Fla. State Univ., Tallahassee, 219p.

Stewart, R.A., 1962, Recent sedimentary history of St. Joseph
Bay, Floridas unpublished M.S. thesis, Fla. State
Univ., Tallahassee, Florida, 70p.

Tanner, W.F., Mullins, A., and Bates, J.D., 1961, Possible
masked heavy-mineral deposit, Florida Panhandle:
Economic Geology, v.56, p.1079-1087.

Van Andel, T., 1959, Reflections on the interpretation of heavy-
mineral analysis: Jour. Sed. Petrology, v.29,
p.153-163.

Van Andel, T.H., and Poole, D.M., 1960, Sources of recent
sediments in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Jour. of Sed.
Petrology, v.30, n.l., p.91-122.

Ware, P.W., and Kirkpatrick, 1981, Preliminary geologic eval-
uation of portions of Cape St. George Shoal on state
drilling lease 224-A, in the Gulf of Mexico, Franklin
County, Floridasunpublished Coastal Petroleum Company
report 59p.


_II


....I n.~._.









dJopo its of the. inner... Ael f of..tho n.o;thc; & .rri..GCulf f i'.iof i,
off northwestern Florida. The resulting scdimcnt iu a m~c's.r-c'ly
sorted, finely-skewed, fine sand with virtually no gravel or Lud
fraction present. Although ample heavy-mineral material appears
to be available for concentration, as evidenced by c.oncntre.tc
of 50% and higher on some of the pre=mnt-day beaches, i' would
appear that such concentrations do not survive unless they are
rapidly drowned and buried. This has not been the case in the
inner shelf, where the sea level has risen relatively slowly and
the Apalachicola River has periodically changed its course over
the past 10,000 years CSchnable, 1966; Schnable and Goodell,
.1968). The slow rise of sea level during the Holocene, and tha
consequent. re-working of inner shelf sediments may have been the
reason for the low heavy-mineral concentrations in the inner
shelf of the northeastern Gulf. If this is the case, heavy-
mineral' concentrates may be found further out on the shelf and
upper slope, where low-stand beach and river channel deposits
underwent in-situ drowning during the rapid sea-level rise
associated with the waning of the late-Wisconsin glaciers.


REFERENCES


Arthur, J.D., Melkote, S., Applegate, J., and Scott, T.M., 1986,
Heavy-mineral reconnaissance off the coast of the
Apalachicola River delta, northwest Florida: Florida
Bureau of Geology Report of Investigation No. 95, Sip.

Bedosky, S.J., 1987, Recent sediment history of Apalachicola Bay,
Florida: unpublished M.S. Thesis, Fla. State Univ.,
Tallahassee, Florida, 235 p.

Brenneman, L., 1957, Preliminary sedimentary study of certain
sand bodies in the Apalachicola Deltas unpublished M.S.
Thesis, Fla. State Univ.,Tallahassee, Florida, 151p.

Doyle, L.J. and Sparks, T.N., 1980, Sediments of the Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida (MAFLA) continental shelf: Jour.
Bed. Petrology, v.50, n.3, p.905-916.

Drummond, S.E., and Stow, S.H., 1979, Hydraulic differentiation
of heavy minerals, offshore Alabama and Mississippi,
Summary Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v.90, p.806-807.

Flores, R.M., and Shideler, G.L., 1978, Factors controlling
heavy-mineral variations on the south Texas outer con-
tinental shelf, Gulf of Mexicos Jour. Sad. Petrology
v.48, n.1. p.269-280.

FoXworth, R.D., Priddy, R.R., Wendell, B.J., and Moore, W.S.,
1962, Heavy minerals of sand from recent beaches of the
Gulf Coast of Mississippi and associated islands Miss.
Geol. Surv. Bull. 93, p.1-92.


... An












APPENDIX A

DETAILED CORE LOCATION


CORE
CORE # LENGTH (cm) LORAN-C COORDINATES W. Latitude N. Longitude

4 250 14247,22 46511.17 29 36.81 84 52.78

5 89 14223.94 46484.00 29 33.01 84 54.13

6 200 14198.96 46505.35 29 32.43 84 59.08

7 174 14156.16 46473.46 29 26.81 85 02.73

8 93 14169.58 46530.27 29 31.96 85 04.78

9 103 14084.64 46639.05 29 34.96 85 22.98

10 100 14088.17 46666.20 29 37.44 85 24.28

11 117 14137.37 46800.32 29 51.30 85 26.78

12 388 14140.67 46870.28 29 57.55 35 30.81

13 610 14002.00 46935.53 30 02.90 85 37.07

14 280 14084.21 46993.89 30 07.70 85 44.86
































Appendix B Core Logs




CORE NUMBER: CA-86-STA4


Latitude: 29.36.81
Longitude: 84.52.78


Corr. Depth: 35 ft.
Core Length: 250 cm


0-35cm Dark yellowish-brown, medium fine, subrounded,
well-sorted sand, a few broken Pelecypod shells, uniform
lithology. Gradational contact.









35-120cm Greenish-gray, silty sand intermixed with
coarse sand, poorly sorted. Scattered shell fragments.
Gradational contact.





120-130cm Light olive-gray silty sand mixed with
coarse sand, poorly sorted very small shell chips. Gra-
dational contact.
130-155cm Dark greenish-gray, coarse and angular sand,
slightly clayey, poorly sorted. Large shell fragments
present, random orientation.





155-250cm Very light gray-white medium-fine,
subrounded sand. Dark gray clumps randomly scattered
sand is well-sorted, uniform lithology.


45

















CORE NUMBER: CA-86-STA5


Latitude: 29.33.01

Longitude: 84.54.13


Corr. Depth: 45 ft.


Core Length:


89 cm


IIn .--... LI IHUL~kI UINCI1II~I I


F l %(-- -


.......... .... .......,..,
........ ....... ....... .......
................liiiiiii~~3 j~ii


L I IULU1 T


0-5cm Olive-gray, coarse suhangular sand and shell
hash abundant organic. Shell hash consists of small
fragments. Sharp contact.

5-40cm Olive-gray, medium coarse, subangular and In
medium gray clay matrix. Minor amount of shell hash.
Large clay spheres scattered randomly, gradational con-
tact.



40-89cm Grayish-black, medium-fine grained sand and
mud. Large black organic chunks scattered randomly.
At 68cm a large, black tree fragment is present.





































46


MAL ULUUIG UtS N







CORE NUMBER:


Latitude: 29.32.43

Longitude: 84.59.08


Corr. Depth: 36 ft.


Core Length:


200 cm


0-lOcm Olive gray, coarse, angular sand with minor
clay. Large amount of randomly oriented shell hash,
closely packed. One noticeable burrow 5cm In length.
Gradational contact.





10-120cm Dark-gray, fine-grained, clayey sand with
minor scattered shell fragments. One large overturned
inarticulated mollusk shell, bioturhatlon noticeable.
Gradational contact.









120-140cm Grayish-black,-organic-rich sandy clay.
Large tree knob near base, below which shell hash is
present. Gradational contact.

140-155cm Bluish-gray organic-rich sandy clay. No
shells are present. Uniform lithology. Gradational
contact.
155-200cm Medium bluish-gray clay, medium reddish-
brown to dark yellowish-orange, medium-coarse sand.
The sand and clays mix with no specific pattern. Clay
sections are rounded, possibly burrow in-fills. No
shell present.


47


CA-86-STA6








CORE NUMBER:


Latitude: 29.26.81

Longitude: 85.02.73


CA-86-STA7

Corr. Oepth: 20 ft.

Core Length: 174 cm.


0-100cm Yellowish-gray, medium-fine, suhrounded sand.
Small shell fragments randomly scattered, no evidence
of bioturbatlon, minor amounts of mica. Uniform 11tho-
logy. Gradational contact.













100-174cm Medium light-gray, medium-coarse, angular
sand. Shell fragments present. Small, Intact, inar-
ticulated coquina pelecypods. Uniform lithology.


iiii~i~iiiiii .........i







........... '' ''' ''' 'i...........;


,.. ............ .............
















CORE NUMBER: CA-86-STA8


Latitude: 29.31.96

Longitude: 85.04.78


Corr. Depth: 21 ft.

Core Length: 93 cm.


F~~O I M TTL lUPTP ncrfnT8TTfnH


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





..................
,,0,,0...,.**........t.)
......... ...... : :::::.:.. ::::
iiiiili i~iiS)iiiliiiiiii~iiiii




iiiliiiiiiiliiiiiii~iiiiiiiiii~


i~i~i~iiiirtl~iiiiii~iti!i

.. ,o. ..... o. o .. o .


0-75cm Yellowish-gray, coarse, subangular sand.
Small, black, shell fragments randomly scattered. One
long, thin burrow 12 cm In length. Uniform lithology.
Gradational contact.











75-93cm Pale-olive, coarse, fossillferous sand.
Forams, and Inarticulated mollusks present. Small
shell fragments. Some hioturbation at 80 cm.



































49


---------------------"-~ --`


l i 141 Illn r


1.1 UnUuna uiEnlTr I LI1

















Latitude: 29.34.96

Longitude: 85.22.98


CORE NUMBER: CA-86-STA9

Corr. Depth: 30 ft.

Core Length: 103 cm.


wru nnwm FI *Nnzfl nfr, ..rn. nr1


L 1I I fUU I


.........
.......
.............i...........






.............
..................iiiiii


.................i~ii


LI InULULAIL U JL.KLIr I IU


a --- ---~- ~--


0-103cm Yellowish-gray, medium-coarse, subangular
sand, minor blotite randomly scattered. Bloturbation
around 18 cm. Small shell fragments randomly oriented.
Lithology constant, moderate sorting.
















































50
















Latitude: 29.37.44
Longitude: 85.24.28


CORE NUMBER: CA,86-STA10
Corr. Depthl


30 ft.


Core Length: 100 cm.


0-100cm Very light-gray..subangular, fine-grained
sand, medium, sorted, scattered shell fragments.
Inarticulated mollusk shells. Burrows present 10-20 cm
in length.


51













CORE NUMBER: CA-86-STA11


Latitude: 29.51.30

Longitude: 85.26.78


Corr. Depth: .27 ft.
Core Length: 117 cm.


LITHROLGIC ESCRIPTION
0-21cm Grayish-orange, medfum-fine grained, subrounded,
well-sorted sand. One inarticulated mollusk. Burrow
fill at 14 cm. Uniform lithology. Gradational con-
tact.
21-45cm Yellowish-gray, medium-coarse, surrounded
sand, minor, unevenly distributed shell fragments,
minor organic.





45-117cm White, moderately-sorted, medium-fine sand.
Scattered heavy minerals, shell fragments.










Latitude: 29.57.55

Longitude: 85.30.81


CORE NUMBER: CA-86-STA12

Corr. Depth: 22 ft.

Core Length: 388 cm.


0-17cm Light olive-gray, well-rounded,, fin .sand.
Mionr amount of shell fragments. Well sorted, grada-
tional contact.

17-43cm Yellowish-gray, well-rounded, medium-coarse
sand, minor Inarticulated, unoriented pelecypods.
Gradational contact.

43-59cm Very light-gray, subangular, medium-coarse
sand, minor small shell fragments, unevenly distri-
buted, moderate sorting. Gradational contact.



59-110cm Olive-gray, subrounded, medium-coarse silty
sand. Grades to darker color with depth. Large amount
of shell hash. Minor Intact pelecypods, no orienta-
tion. Gradational contact.







110-205cm Dark greenish-gray, subrounded, coarse,
silty sand, shell present, mollusks in live position,
and articulated, pelecypods, gastropods. Gradational
contact.



















iilliiliilii!! filln H:tii



.u. i .... ... ...







i ii









.. ........................~~~
S.......~....~~..~... ...... ~
* b* Y .Ir .
..........



..... ......

















W ... .::
i i mi .:ii ~ii!iiiiiir


205-380cm Medium dark-gray, subangular, coarse, silty
sand, minor broken fossils randomly scattered. Semi-
uniformed lithology. Gradational contact.






















380-388cm Medium dark-gray, subangular, medium-coarse
sand. Large shell fragments, pelecypod shells, mode-
rate sorting.




I~__~__
_I_


Latitude:


30.02.90


Longitude: 85.37.07


Corr. Depth: 23 ft.

Core Length: 610cm


ii ~i i 14otQ**Q ii ,,i niii tQ

. ..... ....... ..
:: :: :::ir :;;i ::::::ii ::
::: ::::: :;;;;::::::::::::::::






.............
.iiiiii iii .ii iiiiiii i iiii

ii""llljtllll" ii~llllj-llkJij



,O..l OO O OO O


:::::::::: ::::: ;: :: ::i::: ::;
::? |:::::J:|:7.. .. i:::.:::::.

i ottitiifii!illiKlil~l mt;i~i
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::



iiii~i ii iiiIt~iiii iiii
?- iii~i~rii~iii ~ :mi


0-13cm Yellowish-gray, subrounded, medium-fine sand,
no fossils, no structure. Very sharp contact.


13-66cm Dark greenish-gray, subrounded, fine-clayey
sand. Small shell fragments, unoriented. Bioturba-
tion, burrows oriented vertically. Gradational con-
tact.


66-240cm Olive-gray, subangular, medium-coarse silty
sand. Large shell fragments present. Whole inar-
ticulated valves. Shells oriented concave up. Grada-
tional contact.


240-273cm Dark gray, medium-coarse, muddy sand. Abun-
dant shell fragments, concave upward, minor broken
pelecypod shells. Gradational contact.


273-310cm Black, subrounded, medium-fine muddy sand.
Uniform lithology. Organic matter present. Minor
amount of small fossil fragments.


:'55


'CORE NUMBER: CA-86-STA13

























310-490cm Olive-gray to olive-black, subrounded, muddy
fine sand. Uniform lithology, no fossils, no hiotur-
hation, high organic content. Gradational contact.





















490-610cm Olive black, subrounded, medium fine muddy
sand. Large round mud balls. Sand contains large
amounts of fine shell hash. Wood fragments present at
520 cm.




















CORE NUMBER: CA-86-STA14


Latitude: 30.07.70




Longitude: 85.44.86


Corr. Depth: 42 ft.




Core Length: 280 cm.


O'-30cm Yellowish-gray, subangular, medium-fine sand.

Well sorted, no fossils, minor bioturbatlon. Grada-

tional contact.









30-54cm Light olive-gray at top yellowish gray at

base. Suhangular, medium-fine sand. Minor mud clumps,

fossil fragments, mollusk shells. Gradational contact.













































54-280cm Dark yellowish-brown, grading to dark-medium

gray at base. Subangular, medium-fine sand. Lacks

fossils. One mud Infilled burrow.


57


" ' ' ' ' ' ' '
""' """"" """" "" "'
"' ' ' ' ' "' '
"' ' ' ' ' "
"' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' '
........ ..,. ...................
..............,.... .........,....
................... ..............
......., ............ .............
................,.. ..,.....,.....
................... ..............
................ .................
"" ,.......... .. ...........
...............,... ..,...........
................... ..............
................... ..............
................... ..............
........... ............... .......
... ................... ..........
................................,
................... ..............
................. ................
................... ..............
.......,.......,... ..............
................... ..............
,..............,.,, ,.,.....,.,...
................... ..............
....,............. ... .. .....
................... ..............
................... ..............
................... ........ .....
,,..,.............. .....,..,...,.
................... ..............
................... ..............
' : : : : ' ' ' ' '
""' '"""""""""""
""' ""' """"""""' "
' ' ' ' ' i ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' : ' ' ' ' '
""""" """" """""
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
""""""""""""""""'
I ~ i i I i, ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ I ~ I
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ` ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
1~~: ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
` ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' i''''''''''

::: ""' "' """' ""' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' '
................... ....... ::: : : : :
' ~' ' ' ' ' ' '
""""""" """"""''''


fii:iiiiii:
: : : : :
'
'
'''''''''' :: : :: i i ''''' it
( 1 I ~ 1 r I I I I t I I 1 I 1 I I ~ r I I
' , ' ' : : : : : : : : : :
, , ' '
' ' ' '
i
........... : : : :
""~"""'"' '""'
i ' ' i ' '
' ' ' i '
' ' ' ' ' ' '
"' """"" ' ' 'iiIiI
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
""""""" """"'
.............. :: i

''' i ' ' '
""""'" """""'"

~ "



i : :::
'''' '''
ii::::i .....,,... :,......,
' ' ' ' ' ' '
: : ii
:: '
"""' """""""'" ::
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' '
i,, I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ r
1 I ~ ~ I I 1 I I ~I I 1 I ~ r ~ 1 I ~
' ' ' ' : ' ' : : :
' ' ' ' ' ' '




























Appendix Cs Textural Data


Sample Wt. = Total sample weight, including fines.
HM. Tot. Wt. X% Heavy-mineral weight as a percent of total
sample weight.
Percent Fines = Weight percent of total sample finer than 62
microns.
Mean = Mean grain size (phi units).
Std. Dev. Standard deviation.


___







CWE f-KT7 SFMi.:E
*j, (C.,) WT.( 0,,)


H14.TOT PER.N7T
fT% FIr PL3


MI STr. SKEW- KU-
DEV. t53 TC313


4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5

5

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
1e
18
11
11
11
11
11
II
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
18


90. 72 0. C9 0.071 k.6MG
103.576 0.079 0.010 2.941
67.879 140 8. 06 2.141
188.00 0.059 0.066 2.783
34.0ZS 0.09 .0.135 2.945
110.240 0.065 0. 3.39~
187,737 08, 7 0.233 3.462
82,728 0.308 9836 3.0C69
101.176 .0 .23 0. 8 2.649
99.728 0.893 .9,68 2.874
95.357 0.425 038 2.847
97.657 0.878 0.23 3,32
128.170 0.047 0.089 2.617
49.29 0.O266 0. 25 2.157
180.935 0.183 0.0 0 2.6 5
55.231 0.107 2.050 1,976
81.450 0.138 0.050 2.953
96,876 8.047 3.250 2.855
73.272 0.447 0.087 .,733
46.019 0.123 .206 2;758
47.778' .20e 215 & 583
51.441 0.179 0.075 1.476
71.757 0.224 0.191 2.503
94.528 0167 0.224 Z.714
90.721 .122 0.174 2)437
99.798 .224 .164 2.615
83.910 L.293 0.081 2&682
52.237 0.109 8.114 2.483
93.218 0231 8 88 1.710
106.916 0.288 0.803 1.534
11.380 0.231 o.BB 1.660
120.62 0.394 0.04 1.775
108.251 0.232 08.1 1.633
116.947 0,211 0.004 1.293
72.425 0.342 8, 00 1.185
109.541 8.158 8.00 1.612
186.299 0.132 0.08 1.420
97.938 0.098 0.80 1.709
107.287 0.363 0.012 1.659
108.774 8.108 0.011 1.726
96.663 .'145 9.03 1.698
109.506 0.325 0.7 1.700
112.773 0.123 0.004 1.465
95.541 0.163 0.0.- .8076
107.905 0.238 0.005 1.819
89.0%96 .239 0.03 1.091
118.648 0.254 8.012 2.288
190.498 0.98 8: 0.7 2.138
14.484 0.131 0.068 2.387
173.6I0 0.281 0.007 2.346
91.611 0.219 0.018 2.433
118.699 .133 9 .02 2.44
89.771 0 .401 0.028 1.883
95.576 0.123 L.08M 2.488
117.416 0.032 .8 4 2.081
108.745 0.238 0.o00 2.057
12.677 0276 0.B9M 1.886
105.720 0.138 8.003 1.972
110.150 L.254 8.R23 1.989
76.7509 0.116 0.011 2.198
52.908 0.197 0.15 1.512
81.765 0.361 0.,13 1.977
51.974 0.169 0.019 1.168
39.024 0.191 0.813 1.381
48.045 8.340 L.8 4 1.034
73.066 0.238 0.038 2.373
88.448 0.889 L0.50 2.343
80.640 0.385 0.0582 1.792
105.927 1.162 0.826 2094
84.406 0.461 0.048 1.948
89.978 0.447 0.043 1.952
80.120 0.114 0.048 1.440


S59


1.53S -0.743 4. 65
0.432 0.U5S 6.364
1.208 -. 612 4.697
0.395 -0.237 6.091
0,974 -0. C'3 6.513
0.044 0.333 2.561
0.844 0.348 2.360
Q.812 -1.351 16.526
0.971 -1.276 12.089
0,.74 -;563 16.722
0.836 -1.416 17.350
L.397 1.885 11.513
0.439 -1.296 36.811
1.262 -0.710 5,432
0.715 0.551 5.640
1.497 -0.498 3.402
.695 0.251 4.212
9.613 L.183 4.647
8.488 1.636 41.947
1.486 -0.267 3.60O
1.548 165 3.354
1.107 0.847 7.651
1.487 -0.977 3.335
1441 -0.831 3.855
1.568 -.234 3.518
1.091 0.597 3.309
.0931 0.739 5.574
1.469 C.376 3.964
L.345 -0.118 3.348
0.327 0.764 55.553
0.215 0 560 29.418
0.353 1.448 27.411
0.423 P.5M 4L.571
.L599 -1.064 16.415
0.409 -1.885 21.794
0.487 -1.493 17.783
q.55 -1.488 14.453
8.215 2699 0.880
0.447 2.112 31.823
L.438 2.61 33.575
.688 -0782 10.192
0.591 -0.075 12.878
.377 8.742 32.119
0.329 -0.336 4.835
0.438 -0.987 34.841
.653 -1.545 17.499
0.331 -.975 27.874
0322 1.724 40.734
8.289 .625 51.421
.294 2.033 39.559
0.360 1.776 27.121
0.28 0.952 25.218
0.594 1.640 18313
8.444 -0.035 2.403
0.563 1.247 15.418
0.341 -0.797 7.4@0
0.849 -1.494 10.580
0.719 -1.507 14.941
8.559 1.297 17.516
0.55 -0.371 18.03
1.023 -0.234 4.863
.842 -0.884 9.471
1.439 -0.160 2.552
1.391 -08.36 2.733
1.618 -0.067 2.0.9
0.664 0.452 7.7%
0.750 0.728 7.451
1.40 -0.366 4.013
0.688 0.588 0.104
1.078 -0.111 5.851
1.113 -.265 5.716
1.137 0.007 5.909







COV: ;'PrH SA ILE
*3. (C;.) UT. W").


12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
CW


86.236
88.601
94.011
78.664
65.5C3
85.671
101.601
112.854
67.719
87.215
8866,280
63.279
71.841
78.919
87.394
98.249
86.505
86.348
91.354
93.798
97.825
161.653
86.714
87.637
98.116
76.735
75.0453
64.037
58.965
79.79
89.985
66.651
47.113
118.697
117.962
91.479
91.021
98.39
199.310
187.443
93.80
99.406
92.411
94.473
16.2386
108.253
118.677


K. TUT PFRIET?7
WTX FINES


0.126
8.111
9.252
0.431
0.333
0.714
8.499
L.782
9.8*8
L.731
1.431
.5 91
0.488
. 453
0.681
. 356
8.318
1.808
0.365
L266
L725
L W1
.849
8.53
. 189
8.334
6.259
0.189
9.233
L835
SM35
0.391
. 194
8.199
8.205
8,L
9.804
0.192
9.153
. 109
8.174
S.409
6.159
L.274
9,266
6.49
L 338
9.864
8.275
L Ml


I*:'J STD. S DAV'. rESS


0.C44 1.667
0.033 1.905
L03o 1.878
0.082 2.112
0.076 1.841
0.052 2.180
.L036 1.694
9.059 1.718
0.44 1.976.
0.956 1.895
6.03 1.888
0.843 L2.6-
9.58 1.757
90.22 1.778
0.C8 1.570
0.058 2.055
9.927 2125
0.824 8.019
L.083 2.063
.031 &.065
.M6 2.197
9.041 1.913
L.036 1.915
.09 eLO
L 133 2.648
0.069 .365
. 155 8.756
L.093 1,667
.088 .189
L.143 2.557
L.181 L.771
S0.150 .8235
L 148 2.418
.838 2.059
9041 .3566
L0e6 1.769
L.068 LI.8
,.069 1.965
0.075 2.422
0.18 2.443
0.128 z2. 5
0.041 8.03m
L 1535 .735
0.188 8.036
.2828 3.839
.304 L.943
8.998 1.793
8.045 1.813
9.101 2.139


0.970 8.263
1.C47 -0.346
0.642 -0.839
1.159 -0.055
1.307 -0. 39
0,933 0.113
1.160 -0.312
1.418 -0.3v7
1.17 -0.213
1.080 6.110
1.337 -8.343
0.831 0.063
1.318 -.265
1.288 -0.355
1.240 -0.487
0.969 -0.172
0.7082 0.69
1.015 -0.813
.687 -8e.96
.,617 1.356
.523 1.699
8706 1.372
.754 0.668
.671 0.965
.947 .787
0716 1.433
0.968 .714
1.791 -0.133
1.98 -0.231
1.130 L398
1.157 .888
1.484 0840
1.381 -0 142
1.047 -8634
.508 1.889
1.562 -0.324
1.170 -0.397
8983 0.755
.8408 8665
0.91 0.939
1.004 8.612
0.688 1.384
L.969 0.758
1.068 .455
1.044 8.490
1.306 0.370
S.196 1.171
.759 1.318
8.869 8.174


KUlR-
TOr;3

7.943
6.131
7.743
5.985
4.792
5.479
3.826
7.342
7.420
4.483
11.568
4.381
4.521
8.953
18.739
6.301
16.0657
13.265
16. 1%
13.919
11.379
8.42
4.408
10.524
3.929
2.370
4.549
3.255
&.765
3.778
4.126
8.94
18.059
3.092
6.114
7.292
6.492
5.782
4.189
12.495
3. 822
3.112
2.452
1.703
7.197
12.638
11.562































Appendix D: Combined Heavy-Mineral Data from Magnetic
Separation, Point-Counting and X-Ray
Diffractometry, 2-3 Phi Fraction.


Depth (cm)
Hmin % 2-3 phi

% Magnetite, Ilmenite, Garnet


% Epidote, etc.


= Depths or intervals in core.
= Weight percent of heavy minerals
in 2-3 phi fraction.
= Percentages of each mineral, from
magnetic separation and point-
counting.
= Percentages of each mineral as
determined by x-ray
'di ffractometry.













ClE I EPINll I S s % s S S S S % %
(Ct. 2-3 PWI NM#CTIE JILEUIE GMEr EPI- MiM- MY- u- SIu.I- PIEf SIAf- IGIw- ZI1- TOT.
1OTE R KL ITE TU.E IMdE OLITE M.UE u.i


4 0-40
4 6M
4 80-12
4 140-2
4 228-240
5 9"60
6 8
6 21-"0
6 100-18l
7 0
7 W-4
7 68
7 AD
7 1J-160
B 0-46
B f6-M
9 040
9 68-10
1O 8-66
11 0-60
11 88-1M
12 0-80
12 ine-ia
12 28-26
12 2M-38
12 32&-389
13 f-40
13 E6-12E
13 14-168
13 168-240
13 26-32
13 348-4
13 42-468
13 480-540
13 560-94
14 6
14 "-60
14 E2-68
14 188
14 2890-2


L.1
0.1
LIt
0.1
.at
.LI
0.1
Ll.
0.1
6.2
8.1
0.0
IL.
0.0
0.1
6.1
0.1
8.2
0.1
at

0.3
a0.
0.1
L.2
L.3
0.3
L.1
L.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3

0.2
0.2
8.3
A.1


2.3
0.1
0.0
L.9
3.8
0.0
3.6
L5
1.5


1.3
6.5
1.8
2.9
2.1
2.1


L.7
0.9
3.4


3.6
5.6
14.3
9.4
125
3.18
3.2
L.9
8.6
A.6
9.5
4.8
12.5
2.0
5.9
S.6
7.4


3.3
6.0
Le
6.4
3.3
6.0


1.3


2.9
1.7
4.4

1.7
29
.7
4.4
1.7
4.9
3.9
5.7
5.6
4.0
15.4
L6.
10.9
L.3
14.4
14.3
9.4
3.8
2,6
6.6
7.4
12.9
13.4
6.2
11.3
5.3
4.0
4.9
0.9


LI2
0.7
0.3
a.1
a01
0L6
0.4
L.5
a0.
8.1
A
aI
0.8
0.0
0.1
9.8
1.1
1.3
0.3
1.8
24
0.5
0.4
2.8
.8B
2.2
0.4
0.0
6.1
6.1
0.3
0.7
1.4
0.9
1.6
1.3
0.9
8.4
8.1
0.3


0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.9
0.0
0-0
.06
0.0
0.0
0.6

0.6
0.6

0.0

0.8
.66


0.0


0.6
aO


O.6


08.
086



0.e
0.6






6.6
0.0
6.6


7.4



0.6
a0s
0.
a 8
L6
0.8
&9
8.8
S.0
L-6
.6


06 51.2
0.0 73.7
0. 93.2
0. 47.7
0. 50.5
a0 37.9
0. 39.9


L0 35.9
0.0 83.9
L6 0.0
0.0 59.9
0. 42.8
0.0 49.4
00 72.2
0. 73.1
0. 59.9


6.0 57.0
08 57.6
LO 81.6
as &6
0.0 8.6
0. 61.8
L. 21.9
0.0 68.1
49.3 34.5


0. 64.6
O.0 74.3
0. 37.5
0.8 32.8
0.8 3.0
0.0 8.8
8.0 .80


5.6S 2.7
0.9 19.6
0.6 0.0
8. 47.7
0.0 10.5
a& 5.5
0. 6.3
9.2 0. &6
0. 87.1
15.6 46.0
a$ a#
6.0 2.8
00 97.1
a6 39.8
a0 26.7
60 19.5
0.0 12.4
10.2 0.0
0.0 6.3
04 0.
5.5 0.6
.0 14.5
.0 5.1
19.4 51.2
60 9.3
0. 309


0. 50.3
0. : 67.0
4.6 33.5
0.8 11.6
0. 13.8
&.0 10.1
LO 91.8
&8 57.7
8. 67.2
12.7 57.9


&.6

0.0
Le
&6
aS





8.8

&0
0.0

8.0
0S
&e
&e







0.0
aS



0as
&06
0.0
as
0.
0.
00
8.0
6.0
&e
a@
49.2

0.0

L0
LO
&e

0.0
0.8
0.0


L&
&6
as
0O0
&6
AG
&6
L*
L&
0.




a*
as
0.0








as
0.0
0.
0.




0as




LS
0.0
00
0.0
0.
0.
9.9
0.8
L0
0.0
8.0


0.0
0.6

&.0
8.0
0.0

0.0
&O0
*0.
&0.
0.0
0.0


0.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
83.5
0.6
LI



&O

00
0.0
0.0
13.3



&0.
0.6
0.0
&8.
.0



13.5
0.0
0.6
3.6
00
0.0
01.
8.0
00
LO





0a


10.
8.0
LO.
0.0
as
16.


0a
&
as

0.6
as
a@0
as
as


8I ito.o0



15.4 a lea
0.0 10.0
0.0 1l(.0
0.6 IC3.i.
15.4 1(0.e
6.0 100.0
0.8 i3.3
35.9 1JC9.
35.9 103.0
13.4 180.
L.I 1Ik.1
1& IC..C
10.4 1o.0
0.0 19.0
a.s 188.0
0.8 10.?0
15.7 M1C3.
3.6 l3.0
3.0 13.0
2.1 1(%. '
0.0 leCo.
5.7 1(.86
3.6 1C9.0
0.0 I1.0
2.4 1s00.
2.7 103.8
43.1 10..C
0.0 1r0.0
34.2 I .0
3.9 109.0
0.0 1U9.0
0.0 100 ,
27.4 1it.
0.0 10.3
7.8 e10.0
0.0 110.3




























Appendix E: Combined Heavy-Mineral Data from Magnetic
Separation, Point-Counting and X-Ray
Diffractometry, 3-4 Phi Fraction.


Depth (cm) =
Hmin % 3-4 phi

% Magnetite, Ilmenite, Garnet =


% Epidote, etc.


Depths or intervals in core.
Weight percent of heavyi
minerals in 3-4 phi fraction.
Percentages of each mineral,
from magnetic separation .nd
point-counting.
Percentages of each mineral as
determined by x-ray
di ffractometry.








13M N. IEPIH HIM S % % % % % S %S s S S
(CL. J 3-4 PHI MIE- ILIEW- GMET EPI- If- KWiM- I- SILLI- SPIEE SITJ- TOU1- ZIR- TTAL
TH1E 1TE U0I ILEMU ITE TILE MI IE LITE MIINE Ctl


4 8-40 0.1
4 68 8.1
4 129 0.1
4 140-168 0.3
4 J18-226 .4
4 240 L.1
5 M-3 8.2
6 8 1.8
6 28- a.1t
6 1i0-128 .l
6 14-10 6.2
7 8 1.6
7 28-40 1.9
7 66 2.6
7 88 1.6
7 188-12 1.8
7 148-168 9
a8 -21 .7
8 48-88 .6
9 0-48 ,2
9 60-160 8.2
is 1 0-6U 0.2
1f 80-68 8.1
11 80-100 8.3
12 *8-8 8.2
12 1J-120 L. J
12 148-201 8.3
12 228-248 L.2
12 268-329 8.2
12 346-380 0.2
13 0-48 1.8
13 8.-68 1.0
13 18 8.7
13 128 1.6
13 140-168 1.3
13 188-288 1.4
13 220-248 1.8
13 260-288 .1
13 300-38 88
13 40W-428 8.9
13 449-468 0.3
13 468-583 8.3
13 52-608 0.2
14 O-W 0.2
14 60-148 8.2
14 160-180 0.2
14 21-2za 8.3
14 24e-260 0.5


1.5
5.9
L0.
LI
L8.
L4
2.5
2.3
0.6
3.2
3.6
1.7
8.7
8.9
8.6
0.5
8.8
S.5
8.5
1.2
2.3
2.9
1.7
6.5
3.8
2.9
4.5
8.3
4.1
4.5
4.5
10.7
1.6
1.0
2.8
0.0
0.9
1.1
2.3
1.9
2.8
1.9
5.1
2.1
6.3
4.4
6.6
0.1
4.5
4.4


3.8
5.I
2.4
9.7
8.8
1.3
6.
2.6
0L6
3.8
24.2
5.9
0.7
6.9
0.3
0.5
4.7
7.8
4.7
1.1
3.8
2.6
6.8
L I
6.5
3.5
4.3
7.8
16.7
4.9
8&6
5.8
18.4
4.5
3.4
5.5
8.6
3.9
3.2
5.3
1.9
1.9
&.3
5.6
4.0
7.7
4.3
6.5
6.7
4.4
6.4


1.4
0.9
8.2
6.3
L.0
L.2
1.5
8.3
e.8
8.4
4.4
1.8
8.0
0.4
8.8
1.6
4.4
0.8
L.1
I.1
0.3
0.7
0.0
0.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
8.6
0.5
0.5
8.3
8.4
0.2
0.7
8.6
0.1
8.4
1.2
8.5
0.0
8.8
5.2
2.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.1
0&2


0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
LO


0.8
0.0
0.8
80
8.0
19.4
0.0
0.0
17.4
0.0
0.0
80.
Lf
8.8
08.0
0.0
0.0
8.
8.8
8.0
0.0
12.9
LO
8.80

8.8
0.8



0.0
L 0
O.8
8.8
0.0
0.8
6.6
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0-0


0.8 S3.3 L. 0.6
L8 0. 0.L 70.2
8.8 8.0 4.7 d.4
59.5 L8 17.4 a.0
0. 0.8 62.8 0.0
a.0 8.8 0.L 98.
8.8 0. 8.8 68.6
L8 65.3 0.8 29.5
80 31.6 8.0 28.7
L.0 55.0 0.L 3.7
0. 48.5 L0. 0.6
0.8 86.2 0.8 8.S
.8 19.3 8.8 32.1
8.8 3f..5 11.1 24.5
44.1 L. L. 16
28.7 186 0.8 28.7
8.0 0.0 50.8 0.8
0.8 78.8 9.2 6.
6.8 0.8 a.8 74.6
8.0 00 a.0 97.6
45.5 45.5 .8 3.6
8. 55,8 28.5 a0.
8.0 91.7 L0. 0.
8.8 73.8 as 8.0
8.6 65.6 0.8 27.4
0.8 64.4 8.8 13.9
8.L 49.3 0.8 35.2
0.0 46.9 15.5 .0
8.8 8. L0.8 45.2
26.1 26.1 .0 &I
8.8 8.0 0.8 89.4
0.0 67.8 0.0 11.6
&6.2 18.3 aL 0.0
0 0.0 0 0. 86.1
0.8 0.0 .06 91.8
.0. .0 15.6 39.2
8.0 80.0 0 0.8
31.3 17.2 3.4 0.8
8.0 46.3 8.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .0 38.2
0.0 0.8 0.8 O8.8
0.0 45.0 0.0 35.0
8.0 67.6 L0. 13.5
8.0 0.0 93.8 80.
0.0 8.0 8.8O 53.7
0.0 0.0 0.0 72.4
0.0 71.0 0.0 15.1
32.1 0.0 11.1 49.4
0.0 50.9 0.0 12.4
36.3 a i,3 r 0A tA- _


L0.
8.
7.6
0.8
8.6
0.0
L.
8La
8.8
8.6
0.8



6.8
22.9
L.8
0.0
0.0

L6
0.8
6.e
0.0
0.8
8.8
8.0
8.8
8.0
Le


8.8
8.0

0.0
8.0


L 0
0.0
0.8

8.8

0.0
0.8
0.0
8.0

0.0
0.0
0.e


32.2
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
a.


0.8
8.8
0.8
e.8
8.8
0.8
0.0
0.6
36.6
S.0
0.8
e.0
28.9
0.0
0.8
0.8
8.8
8.0
L0.
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
L8.0
0.8
ae

8.0

0.0
0.8
0.0

0.0
23.6
0.0
0.0
76.7
11.3
34.4
30.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
no


0.8 8.0 10.8
8.0 18.8 108.8
6.0 53.7 lt~.3
L.a 13.1 100.6
L8. 37.2 1(9.8
L.8 0.0 lea.
0. 0.0 10M3.
L0 8.0 O100.
8.0 7.9 1(8.0
L.8 6.1 19.8o
.8 0.0 10.0
L.8 4.3 108.0
6.0 10.3 1(0.0
8.0 6.3 1U0.8
6.6 2.1 109.0
0.8 0.0 108.
8.0 42.9 10t.0
8.0 0.0 18L0.
8.0 19.4 1.3.0
8.8 0.0 109.0
L.0 10.8 18.0
8.0 0.0 IC0.9
L0, 13.3 1J 0
08. 0.0 110.0
.0 O.rL If .0
8.0 0.0 1a.0
0.0 2.1 li?.0
0.0 12.7 1M8.0
8.0 26.1 10 .8
8.0 0.0 1t1.0
0.0 0.0 10C0.
23.6 2.1 1(0.0
8.0 14.8 180.D
0.0 0.0 10.0
44.6 0.0 109.0
0.0 18.1 10ie.
31.3 0.8 1i9.0
0.0 11.2 1(O.P
30.2 5.7 180.0
0.0 15.3 0i3.0
0.0 3.6 J10.Q
0.8 6.1 113.0
0. 0.0 .0 3.0
0.0 0.0 1(0.D
0.0 1. 7 10:.
0.0 0.0 li0.0
0.0 0.0 1K~,
0.8 27.6 l6ia.
e a o A we i.











Appendix F. Point Count Data For Selected Samples of 3-4 Phi Heavy Mineral Fraction.

SA LE OPAGUES KYAIITE SILLINANITE ZIRCON TOURLW INE GA6RET STAJIROLITE PhENE EPIDOTE HDRNEBLENDE OTHER

6-0 55 1 4 3 5 1 4 2 2 3 3
6-8 56 18 7 1 6 1 4 .2 2 2 4
7-8 48 l2 7 3 4 8 7 2 i 3 3
7-40 44 23 11 1 1 8 1 1 3 6
7-6 44 24 8 3 4 2 2 1 l 2 7
7-88 49 24 6 3 2 1 8 3 6 3 2
8-9 34 33 11 2 4 1 5 1 1 2 7
13-128 45 22 1 3 3 8 8 2 1 2 6

IMEA H 46 21 8 3 3 2 6 2 1 3 5


*Duplicate
HDoes not include duplicate analysis.


4
i0
i S.








S'w







Appondi-, 1. C:.-mporvi :*,o-n if Aviraerc Mineral Percentagoc in th,
. ) j 1y Mir.vv'r, :.1 Fr -i't, i *'n Ir r f.n'o (Ar hhIur t, At l 1 1 ) Cnd
'I r r' i.Ampl .

Arthur, et al., 19335
Tran .t--to t 14 through 21 Prestnt Study

2-3 Phi 3-4 Phi 2-3 Phi 3-4 Phi


OPAQUES* 37.1 50.1 14.0 14.4
KYANITE 24.5 18.7 39.2 28.8
STAUROLITE 11.8 7.9 0.9 4.7
TOURMALINE 10.4 4.9 4.9 3.3
ZIRCON 2.0 7.3 7.3 9.1
EPIDOTE 4.9 2.3 0.9 1.0
SPHENE 1.3 0.4 1.6 2.0
AMPHIBOLE 5.5 1.6 1.2 6.5
SILLIMANITE 1.9 8.3 29.3 29.6
*3ARNET 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.7

*Includes Magnetite, Ilmonite, Leucoxene and Rutile.










FLRD GEOLOSk ( IC SUfRiW


COPYRIGHT NOTICE
[year of publication as printed] Florida Geological Survey [source text]


The Florida Geological Survey holds all rights to the source text of
this electronic resource on behalf of the State of Florida. The
Florida Geological Survey shall be considered the copyright holder
for the text of this publication.

Under the Statutes of the State of Florida (FS 257.05; 257.105, and
377.075), the Florida Geologic Survey (Tallahassee, FL), publisher of
the Florida Geologic Survey, as a division of state government,
makes its documents public (i.e., published) and extends to the
state's official agencies and libraries, including the University of
Florida's Smathers Libraries, rights of reproduction.

The Florida Geological Survey has made its publications available to
the University of Florida, on behalf of the State University System of
Florida, for the purpose of digitization and Internet distribution.

The Florida Geological Survey reserves all rights to its publications.
All uses, excluding those made under "fair use" provisions of U.S.
copyright legislation (U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107), are
restricted. Contact the Florida Geological Survey for additional
information and permissions.