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.









214

:7 --.7::

















r -"
.....,;. -s
.--- i ,L~~; -: -'`'-;,;~:~



















~~~--Z7
rtrr










lle


















*i-
-- .k-i?;- ---~;` n~ar-,













Me.
'I,~~i j-~-






rg
~b:~rLT7
M-f~ r
ti7~t

AF~




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

DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Casey J. Gluckman, Director

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


REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


SHALLOW


STATIGRAPHY OF OKALOOSA COUNTY
AND VICINITY, FLORIDA


Murlene Wiggs Clark and Walter Schmidt







Published for the
BUREAU OF GEOLOGY
DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
in cooperation with
NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

TALLAHASSEE
1982

















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
Commisloner of Agriculture


ELTON J. GISSENDANNER
Executive Director







LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL


Bureau of Geology
Tallahassee
July 30, 1982


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

Dear Governor Graham,

The Bureau of Geology, Division of Resource Management,
Department of Natural Resources, is publishing as Report of Investiga-
tion 92, "Shallow Stratigraphy of Okaloosa County and Vicinity, Flor-
ida," prepared by Murlene Wiggs Clark (Northwest Florida Water Man-
agement District) and Walter Schmidt (Bureau of Geology).

The Okaloosa County area is critical to the understanding of the
geologic transition between the clastics of the Gulf of Mexico Sedi-
mentary Basin to the west and the carbonates of the Florida platform
to the east. This report fulfills a need for stratigraphic information,
which is essential for ground water resources investigations, mineral
development, and community planning.

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
1982








iv








CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ......................................................... 1
Acknowledgments ................................................ 2
Metric Conversion Factors .............................................. 3
Location of Study Area ................................................. 4
Types of Geologic Data Used ........................................... 6
Historical Summary...... ............................................. 6
Geologic Setting and Structure .......................................... 7
Stratigraphy ..................................................... 8
OcalaGroup Limestone ............................................. 10
Lithology ............................... .............. ........... 10
Geometry and Areal Extent ........... ............................ 10
Overlying and Underlying Units ..................................... 10
Age Determination ................................................ 11
Bucatunna Clay ..................................................... 12
Lithology ................................................... 12
Geometry and Areal Extent ....................................... .. 12
Overlying and Underlying Units .................................. 12
Age Determination ................................................ 12
Chickasawhay Limestone and Tampa Stage Limestone .................... 13
Lithology ................................................... 13
Geometry and Areal Extent. ......................................... 14
Overlying and Underlying Units ....................................... 14
Age Determination ................................................ 15
Alum Bluff Group Undifferentiated ................................... 16
Lithology ................................................... 16
Geometryand Areal Extent ........................................... 16
Overlying and Underlying Units ..................................... 16
Age Determination ............................................... 17
Bruce Creek Limestone ............................................... 18
Lithology ................................................... 18
Geometry and Areal Extent .......................................... 19
Overlying and Underlying Units ................................... 19
Age Determination ................................................ 20
Intracoastal Formation ............................................... 21
Lithology ..................................... ................ 21
Geometry and Areal Extent ........................ ... .......... 21
Overlying and Underlying Units ..................................... 22
Age Determination ................................................ 24
Four-Mile Village Member ..................................... 24
Lithology ..... ................................ ................ 24
Type Core .................................................... 25
Geometry and Areal Extent ..................................... 26
Overlying and Underlying Units ............................... 26
Age and Depositional History ................................... 27
Pensacola Clay ............................................... 28
Lithology ................................................... 28
Geometry and Areal Extent ........................................ .. 28
Overlying and Underlying Units ..................................... 29
Age Determination ................................................ 29
Miocene coarse clastics .............................................. 31
Lithology .......... ..................................... .... 31
Geometry and Areal Extent ......................................... 31
Overlying and Underlying Units ...................................... 31
Age Determination ................................................ 32







Citronelle Formation ................................................. 33
Lftho gy .......................... .............................. 33
Geometry and Areal Extent .......................................... 33
Overlying and Underlying Units ..................................... 33
Depositionat History and Age Determination ........................... 33
Piocene to Recent Sands ......................................... 35
Lithology .................................... .. ............. 35
Geometryand Areal Extent........................................ 35
Overlying and Underlying Units .................................... 35
Depositionat History .............................................. 36
Selected Bibliography .................................................. 47
Appendix-Listing of Well Cuttings and Core Data .......................... 49








ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
1. Location of Study Area .............. ............................. 4
2. Geologic Data Base ................................................ 5
3. Principal Geologic Structures in Vicinity of Okaloosa County .............. 8
4. Structural Map of the Top of the Undifferentiated Tampa Stage
Limestone and Chickasawhay Limestone ............................ 13
5. Structure Map of the Top of the Bruce Creek Limestone ................... 18
6. Isopach Map of the Bruce Creek Limestone ............................ 20
7. Structure Map of the Top of the Intracoastal Formation ................... 22
8. Isopach Map of the Intracoastal Formation ........................... 23
9. Location of Type Core for the Four-Mile Village Member of the
Intracoastal Formation ............................................ 25
10. Structure Map of the Base of the Citronelle Formation and
Pliocene-Recent Sand Unit ...................................... 34
11. Location of Geologic Cross-Sections ................................ 36
12. Geologic Cross-Section A-A' ...................................... 37
13. Geologic Cross-Section B-B' .................................... .... 38
14. Geologic Cross-Section C-C' ...................................... 39
15. Geologic Cross-Section D-D' ................................ ....... 40
16. Geologic Cross-Section E-E'........................................ 41
17. Geologic Cross-Section F-F'. ....................................... 42
18. Geologic Cross-Section G-G' ..................... .................. 43
19. Geologic Cross-Section H-H' .................................. ...... 44
20. Geologic Cross-Section -I' .......................................... .. 45
21. Geologic Cross-Section J-J' ....................................... 46







SHALLOW STRATIGRAPHY OF OKALOOSA COUNTY
AND VICINITY, FLORIDA

By
Murlene Wiggs Clark
and
Walter Schmidt

INTRODUCTION

Okaloosa County and vicinity represent a critical area in the
understanding of the shallow stratigraphy and general geology of the
western Florida Panhandle. To the east, the limestones of the Floridan
Aquifer are near the land surface. This aquifer (east of the study area)
accounts for most supply wells in the area, as recharge takes place
locally, and sinkholes, caves, and springs are common. Since the lime-
stone is near the surface, there are many limestone and dolomite
mines, both active and abandoned.
West of Okaloosa County the limestone continually dips to the
southwest. Near Pensacola the first limestone is encountered in wells
at depths in excess of 1000 feet below sea level. As the limestone gets
deeper, the plastic wedge of sediments above it becomes thicker. In
Santa Rosa and Escambia counties this wedge of quartz sands and
gravels is utilized as a fresh-water source called the sand and gravel
aquifer. These sediments contain clay and other minor accessory min-
erals such as limonite, mica, heavy minerals, and some shell material.
Clay, sand, and gravel mines are common in this area. This transition
zone between the clastic-dominated sediments on the edge of the Gulf
of Mexico Sedimentary Basin and the limestone dominated sediments
of the Florida Peninsula Sedimentary Province occurs in the Okaloosa
County area.
This study deals only with the stratigraphic units within 1000 feet
of the land surface. Water-well cuttings were the main source of infor-
mation in correlating the various geologic units. Geophysical well logs
were also used to assist in formation mapping.




2 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY.-- -

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is part of a regional stratigraphic research program
covering the coastal area of the Florida Panhandle.
The writers are appreciative of the financial assistance given by
the Northwest Florida Water Management District. Douglas Barr,
Thomas Kwader, and Jeffrey Wagner of the District reviewed the
manuscript. Their knowledge of the-geohydrology of the study area
contributed to a better understanding of the local stratigraphy.
Dr. Sherwood W. Wise and Dr. Ramil C. Wright of the Geology
Department, Florida State University, assisted with calcareous nanno-
fossil and foraminifera identification, respectively.
The authors thank Paul F. Huddlestun, whose work in Walton
County assisted in making stratigraphic correlations east of the study
area.
Finally, we express our appreciation to the members of the geo-
logic staff of the Florida Bureau of Geology for constructive criticism
of our work.




REPORTo INV ESTIGAT N. 92 3

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
iT he Filorida Bureau f Geology, in order to prevent duplication of
parenthetical 'conversion .,nits; inserts a tabular listing of conversion
factors to obtain metricunits;


Multiply by to obtain
feet 0.3048 meters
inches 2.5400 centimeters
inches 0.0254 meters
miles 1.6090 kilometers




4 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY

LOCATION OF STUDY AREA
The study area outlined in Figure 1 includes Okaloosa County and
portions of neighboring Santa Rosa and Walton counties, Florida. The
western boundary is delineated by a north-south line drawn through
Garcon Point and Milton, in central Santa Rosa County. The eastern
limit of the study area is drawn to include a north-south sequence of
five cores in western Walton County (Figure 2). To the north, the study


1 0 20 30 40MILES
0 2O 30 40 KILOMETERS

3,W M,30W ,II I ,I W ,lR2tW ,tW .IMW R2SW *R24V .R23W aR22w R RwZI ro2. Ww a mIaw RIw I
Figure 1. Location of Study Area




REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


area is limited by the Florida-Alabama state line and, to the south, it is
bounded by the Gulf of Mexico. These limits were chosen totake the
best advantage of cores and cuttings available in the vicinity of Oka-


Figure 2. Geologic Data Base





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


loosa County. Enough area is included in Walton and Santa Rosa
counties to overlap the studies of Marsh (1966), in Escambia and Santa
Rosa counties, and Huddlestun (1976a), in Walton County.
TYPES OF GEOLOGIC DATA USED
Geologic data was obtained from cores, cuttings, and geophysi-
cal well logs (Figure 2). Cuttings from oil tests and water wells were
the most abundant and consequently the most heavily relied upon
sources of information. The oil test sites were located mainly in the
northern half of Okaloosa County, whereas the bulk of the water wells
were drilled to the south near the population centers of Fort Walton
Beach, Niceville, and Valparaiso. In all, cuttings from 120 wells were
described for this study. Five cores from Walton County and one in
northern Okaloosa County were also available. Geophysical well logs
were examined from wells in Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton coun-
ties; however, no correlations across the study area were attempted.
Eglin Air Force Base covers the south central portions of Santa
Rosa and Okaloosa counties. This is a restricted area where very little
subsurface information has been obtained. Cross sections have been
constructed through this area using the few sets of well cuttings avail-
able, and using points to the north and south on either side of the Eglin
Air Force Base.
HISTORICAL SUMMARY
Few studies have addressed the stratigraphy of Okaloosa County
in detail. Much of the previous geologic interest in the area has been
due to the location of the "Oak Grove Sand" outcrop in northern Oka-
loosa County. This surface exposure has been documented in the liter-
ature beginning with Johnson (1893) and Dall and Stanley-Brown
(1894). Others, such as Gardner (1926), Cooke and Mossom (1929),
Cooke (1945), Puri (1953), Vernon and Puri (1956), and Puri and Vernon
(1964) also discussed the Oak Grove locality. Cooke (1945) included
additional descriptions of other formations which crop out in Okaloosa
County: the Shoal River, Chipola, and Citronelle formations and the
Pleistocene terrace deposits.
Puri (1953) constructed two cross-sections in Okaloosa and
neighboring Walton County which depicted his faces concept of for-
mations for the Neogene of this area. Puri and Vernon (1956) produced
a very generalized east-west cross-section through the Florida Panhan-
dle, again using the facies concept of formations.
Marsh (1966) completed the first detailed investigation of the
western Florida Panhandle. His report included geologic cross-sec-
tions throughout Escambia and Santa Rosa counties and one cross-
section extending from Escambia to Walton County along the Gulf
Coast. Marsh described formations on a lithologic basis and con-
structed isopach and structure contour maps for many Paleogene and
Neogene units in the area. Barraclough and Marsh (1962) published





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


one cross-section through coastal Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton
counties and constructed an isopach of the Floridan Aquifer in the
western Florida Panhandle. Marsh (1962) also published on the hydro-
logic importance of the Bucatunna Clay in Escambia and Santa Rosa
counties. He included structure contours of the unit and cross-sec-
tions showing its extent. A basic hydrologic data report for Okaloosa
County was prepared by Foster and Pascale (1971), which included
lithologic descriptions of several wells in Okaloosa County, but did not
include formational contacts.
Huddlestun (1976a) conducted a detailed study of Walton County,
including geologic cross-sections, isopachs, and structure contour
maps of the Neogene units. Huddlestun extended his study into Oka-
loosa County to include the Oak Grove area.
An overview of the water resources of Okaloosa County was com-
piled by Foster and Pascale (1971), and Trapp, Pascale, and Foster
(1977). The latter included two hydrologic cross-sections and structure
contour and isopach maps of the major hydrologic units. A detailed
hydrologic investigation of southern Okaloosa and Walton counties
was completed by the Northwest Florida Water Management District
(Barr, Hayes, and Kwader, 1981), which included structure contours,
cross-sections, and isopachs of the hydrologic units in the area.
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND STRUCTURE
The stratigraphy of the Okaloosa County area is influenced by two
main structural features: the Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin and
the Chattahoochee Anticline (Figure 3). The study area is structurally a
homocline situated on the western flank of the Chattahoochee Anti-
cline andlor on the extreme eastern flank of the Gulf of Mexico Sedi-
mentary Basin.
The Chattahoochee Anticline is a NE-SW trending flexure that was
active during the late Tertiary or early Quaternary in the Florida Pan-
handle (Stephenson, 1928). The Chattahoochee Anticline crests in
Jackson County and separates the Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin
from the Apalachicola Embayment farther east. Huddlestun (1976a)
noted that many formations in Walton County pinch out against the
anticline. Many formations in the study area dip to the southwest par-
tially in response to this feature.
The Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin is a large regional feature and
the study area occupies a small part of its eastern edge. Away from the
Chattahoochee Anticline, toward the Gulf basin, the dip of the strata is
gentle (less than one half of a degree); however, it begins to steepen in
central Santa Rosa County (to greater than one degree). The apparent
increase in dip could be a feature of basin topography or it could be a
result of subsidence due to the deposition of a large volume of
post-Middle Miocene clastics (Wright and Clark, 1980).
The top of the Chickasawhay Limestone (Oligocene) is a smooth
southwesterly dipping surface on which Neogene sediments were




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Figure 3. Principal Geologic Structures in Vicinity of Okaloosa County

deposited. Along the coast, the Bruce Creek Limestone and the Intra-
coastal Formation follow this general southwestern trend. The Alum
Bluff Deposits and the Pensacola Clay also dip gently to the south-
west. The Bruce Creek Limestone and the Intracoastal Formation
thicken southward, but no change in thickness is observed to the
west. The Pensacola Clay thickens dramatically to the west and the
Alum Bluff sediments thicken somewhat in the same direction.
No faults have been interpreted in the study area; however, just to
the west, in north central Santa Rosa County, is the step faulted Pol-
lard Graben, which occurred from Jurassic to Late Oligocene time
(Marsh, 1966; Sigsby, 1976).
STRATIGRAPHY
Between the northern and southern portions of the study area, there
is a pronounced change in the Neogene stratigraphic column which
reflects a northern nearshore-southern offshore depositional relation-




REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


ship. The Neogene units are composed primarily of sands and clays in
the north, and grade south and southwest into downdip offshore lime-
stone deposits. The Neogene units (which are of primary concern in
this report) were deposited on the surfaces of older Paleogene
limestones.
Near the coast five formations overlie the Oligocene Chickasawhay
Limestone. They are the Bruce Creek Limestone which forms the base
of the coastal Neogene column which, in turn, is overlain by the Pensa-
cola Clay to the west and the Intracoastal Formation to the east. The
Miocene Coarse Clastics overlie the Pensacola Clay and, in part, the
Intracoastal Formation. The Pliocene-Recent Sands top the coastal
Neogene column and are found at the surface throughout the southern
portion of the study area.
To the north, the Miocene Alum Bluff Group (undifferentiated) was
deposited on the Oligocene Chickasawhay Limestone, which overlies
the Oligocene Bucatunna Clay or the Eocene Ocala Group Limestone.
Above the Alum Bluff deposits are the Miocene coarse Clastics and
the Citronelle Formation. The Miocene coarse clastics form a wedge
beneath the Citronelle thickening to the west.
Between the northern and southern parts of the study area, there is
a broad central transition zone where the more plastic northern units
grade into the carbonate units to the south. The Bruce Creek Lime-
stone, which rests directly on the Chickasawhay Limestone in the
south, pinches out northward into the middle of the more plastic Alum
Bluff sediments that lie updip. The top of the Alum Bluff grades south-
ward into a fine, clayey sand which interfingers with a sandy, clayey
limestone of the Intracoastal Formation. There are east-west transi-
tions between units as well. The Bruce Creek is continuous in the
east-west direction throughout the study area; however, overlying
units are not laterally continuous. The Intracoastal Formation grades
westward into the Pensacola Clay near the Santa Rosa-Okaloosa line.
Clastic deposits composed mainly of quartz sands overlie the entire
region.
These relationships may best be understood when the geologic
cross-sections (Figures 11-21) are consulted along with the discussion.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


OCALA GROUP UMESTONE
The undifferentiated limestones of the Ocala Group form the base
of the stratigraphic column as it is described in the Okaloosa County
study area. Lithologic descriptions of the Ocala indicate that it is a
chalky, white limestone made up almost entirely of microfossils (Ver-
non, 1942; Schmidt and Coe, 1978). The characteristic Ocala lithology
is encountered in this study, but includes layers of dolomitic lime-
stone. The zones of sucrosic dolomite within the Ocala are similar to
the lithology of the Chickasawhay Formation, making any differentia-
tion between the two units questionable. In this report, the Ocala is
delineated where it underlies the Bucatunna Clay.
There has been no attempt to differentiate the Ocala into its three
characteristic formations as has been done in the peninsula. This
stratigraphic interval in the Okaloosa County area is not readily subdi-
vided lithologically and, as a result, it is referred to as Ocala Group
limestone undifferentiated.
LITHOLOGY
The Ocala Group limestone in the study area varies from a white to
light gray, chalky, fossiliferous limestone to a tan, sucrosic dolomite.
The limestone and dolomite lithologies are interlayered. Glauconite
and calcite rhombs are present as accessories (less than one percent)
with a small amount of quartz sand (less than five percent). The Ocala
is extremely fossiliferous, containing foraminifera (Operculinoides,
sp, Lepidocyclina, sp., and others), mollusks, and bryozoans. The unit
is moderately indurated with micritic or dolomitic cement.
GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
The Ocala Group limestones underlie almost all of Panhandle Flor-
ida. The Ocala crops out in Jackson County at elevations greater than
100 feet, and is found at a depth of 1,940 feet below sea level in south-
ern Escambia County (Marsh, 1966). The Ocala dips at about 17 feet per
mile to the southwest. Due to poor well control in the study area, deter-
minations of the thickness and geometry were not made.
OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
The Ocala Group limestones are overlain by the Bucatunna Clay
andfor the Chickasawhay Limestone in the study area. The Ocala is dif-
ferentiated from the Bucatunna Clay by a lithologic change from lime-
stone to clay. The Ocala Group limestones are sometimes difficult or
impossible to distinguish from the Chickasawhay Limestone, due to
the common appearance of both units as sucrosic dolomites.
The Ocala overlies the Lisbon Formation throughout the study area.
The white, chalky, microfossiliferous limestone to tan, sucrosic dolo-
mite of the Ocala can be distinguished fhe cream, sandy, pyritic,
glauconitic limestone and light gray clay and sand lithjology of the Lis-
bon (Puri and Vernon, 1964).





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92 11

AGE DETERMINATION
The Ocala Group has been dated as Upper Eocene in the western
Florida Panhandle (Marsh, 1966). No age determination was attempted
in this study; therefore, the date of Upper Eocene after Marsh will be
accepted.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


BUCATUNNA CLAY
The Bucatunna Clay Member of the Byram Formation was extended
from its type area in Wayne County, Mississippi, into the western Flor-
ida Panhandle by Marsh (1962, 1966). Marsh described the unit as
pinching out eastward in Walton County. The Bucatunna Clay may be
present between the Ocala and Chickasawhay Limestones in the sub-
surface of much of the study area, but a scarcity of deep wells pre-
vents verification of this. The Bucatunna Clay is positively identified
from only four wells. These are W-2978, W-3071, W-4286, and W-4388
(see figures 12, 13, 14, 17), located in the northwest part of the study
area.
LITHOLOGY
In Okaloosa County, The Bucatunna Clay is a moderate brown to
dusky yellow brown clay. It contains up to 10 percent quartz sand and
less than one percent phosphate. Limestone is a common accessory;
however, with only cuttings available, it is difficult to know if the lime-
stone occurs within the Bucatunna Clay or is contamination from
above. The Bucatunna Clay is sparsely fossiliferous containing forami-
nifera, bryozoans, and mollusks.
GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
The Bucatunna Clay may be present throughout a large part of the
study area; however, poor deep well control limits the documentation
of this occurrence. In southern Okaloosa County only one well reaches
the unit and to the north only three reach or penetrate it. In some parts
of the study area, the absence of the Bucatunna Clay can only be
detected by the observation of a clear Ocala-Chickasawhay contact.
Since this contact is often not distinct, there is corresponding doubt
as to whether the Bucatunna Clay is absent in a well, or whether the
well is deep enough to have reached the unit. The Bucatunna Clay as
reported by Marsh (1962) extends eastward from Mississippi into Wal-
ton County, Florida, where it pinches out. The presence of the Buca-
tunna Clay is also noted to the north in Alabama.
OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
The Bucatunna Clay is easily distinguished from the Ocala Group
Limestone below and the Chickasawhay Limestone above. The dense,
brown clay of the Bucatunna forms a marked contrast with the gray to
white carbonate units above and below. The lower contact with the
Ocala is often gradational.
AGE DETERMINATION
Marsh (1966), using benthic foraminifera, dated the Bucatunna Clay
as Oligocene. The type Bucatunna section in Mississippi was dated as
Middle Oligocene. No attempt was made to date the Bucatunna in this
study.




REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


Figure 4. Structural Map of the Top of the Undifferentiated Tampa
Stage Limestone and Chickasawhay Limestone

CHICKASAWHAY LIMESTONE AND TAMPA STAGE LIMESTONE
Marsh (1966) extended the Chickasawhay Limestone into the Florida
Panhandle from its type exposure on the Chickasawhay River in Mis-
sissippi. The name Chickasawhay Limestone will be retained in this
report. The Chickasawhay Limestone and the limestones of the Tampa
Stage are lithologically indistinguishable in the Okaloosa County area.
It was, therefore, not considered useful to separate the two formations
on the geologic cross-sections or in the following discussion. The lith-
ologic unit will be referred to as the Chickasawhay Limestone, with no
further mention of the Tampa Stage Limestone as a separate unit.
LITHOLOGY
The Chickasawhay Limestone is primarily a tan, sucrosic dolomite,
but it may also occur as a cream to buff fossiliferous limestone. The
limestone usually exhibits some degree of dolomitization. The lime-





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


stone and dolomite lithologies alternate laterally and vertically within
the unit, with limestone slightly more common in the western part of
the study area. Accessory minerals include glauconite, clay, pyrite,
and calcite rhombs (each less than 1 percent). Quartz sand is also pres-
ent, being slightly more common near the top of the unit. The Chicka-
sawhay is moderately to well indurated with a dolomitic cement. The
calcareous portions of the Chickasawhay are more fossiliferous than
the dolomitic lithofacies. Fossil types present in both lithologies
include foraminifera, mollusks, bryozoans, and echinoids.
GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
In the Florida Panhandle, the Chickasawhay limestone extends from
Escambia County eastward to Walton County, where it grades into the
Suwannee Limestone. The Chickasawhay Limestone is confined to
the subsurface in Florida; however, the correlative Suwannee Lime-
stone outcrops in a semicircular belt in the north-central Florida Pan-
handle. The Chickasawhay dips uniformly to the southwest at approxi-
mately 25 feet per mile (Figure 4). The thickness of the Chickasawhay
in the study area has not been determined because of a paucity of
wells which penetrate the unit and because of a previously discussed
problem in recognizing the contact with the underlying Ocala Group
limestones. Marsh (1966), working in Escambia and Santa Rosa coun-
ties, Florida, stated that the Chickasawhay thickens toward the Gulf
from 30-40 feet in the north to as much as 130 feet along the Gulf
coast.
OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
In the Okaloosa County area the undifferentiated Chickasawhay/
Tampa limestones are overlain by the Bruce Creek Limestone, the
Alum Bluff sediments, or the Miocene coarse clastics. The Chicka-
sawhay is easily distinguishable from the Miocene coarse clastics.
The Chickasawhay is primarily a dolomite, whereas the Miocene
coarse clastics are quartz sands and shell beds. The difference
between the Chickasawhay and Alum Bluff deposits are equally as
pronounced. The Alum Bluff is composed of sand, clay, and shell
beds, which can easily be separated from the dolomite and dolomitic
limestone of the Chickasawhay. The Bruce Creek is a white to light yel-
low gray, granular, slightly sandy, fossilifeious limestone, and can be
distinguished from the sucrosic dolomite of the Chickasawhay. Some
uncertainty arises when the Bruce Creek becomes slightly dolomitized
in the western portions of the study area. In such cases, the minor
phosphate content in the Bruce Creek helps distinguish it from the
Chickasawhay.
The Chickasawhay Limestone overlies the Ocala Group limestones
throughout most of the study area with the occasional exception of an
intervening unit, the Bucatunna Clay. A problem exists in recognizing
the Ocala-Chickasawhay contact when the Bucatunna Clay is not pres-





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


ent. The white, fossiliferous, chalky limestone lithology which usually
denotes the Ocala is not well defined in the study area. White to light
tan, extremely microfossiliferous layers appear below the initial sucro-
sic dolomite of the Chickasawhay. These microfossiliferous zones are
interbedded with, and grade downward into, more sucrosic dolomite.
Whether the top of the Ocala should be placed at the first microfossil-
iferous zone or whether the Chickasawhay should include the dolo-
mitic and microfossiliferous layers is not apparent. Chen (1965) sug-
gested that increases in the accessory mineral glauconite may be
used as a parameter for separating the two units. The regions of
increased glauconite content do not always coincide with beds of
increased microfossil content so the uncertainty of the Ocala-Chicka-
sawhay contact remains.
When the Bucatunna Clay is present, the base of the Chickasawhay
is apparent, and the Ocala can be recognized by stratigraphic position.
The dolomitic nature of the Chickasawhay contrasts with the brown,
dense clay lithology of the Bucatunna.
AGE DETERMINATION
Marsh (1966), on the basis of foraminifers, placed the Chickasawhay
in the Vicksburg Stage (Oligocene). Poag (1972), using world-wide
planktonic foraminiferal zonations, correlated the Chickasawhay with
beds of Late Oligocene age in Europe. He further correlated the Chick-
asawhay with the lower part of the Chattahoochee Formation and
upper part of the Suwannee Limestone in Northern Florida. (The Chat-
tahoochee Formation is the western facies of the Tampa Stage as
described by Puri and Vernon, 1964.)





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


ALUM BLUFF GROUP UNDIFFERENTIATED
In central Okaloosa County a series of shell beds, clays, and sands
is encountered which belongs stratigraphically within the Alum Bluff
Group of Huddlestun (1967a, b). Huddlestun combined the Chipola
Formation, the Shoal River Formation, the Oak Grove Sand, the Choc-
tawhatchee Formation, and the Jackson Bluff Formation into the Alum
Bluff Group. Prior to 1976, the clayey, sandy, shell beds in the western
panhandle were described using biozones, lithofacies, and chrono-
stratigraphic units, which are poorly defined and confusing (Cooke and
Mossom, 1929; Puri, 1953). On a lithologic basis the writers cannot dis-
tinguish between these units in central Okaloosa County and will refer
to these sediments as the Alum Bluff Group.
LITHOLOGY
The Alum Bluff Group sediments in the study area are composed of
sands, clays, and shell beds. The lithology ranges from a sandy clay or
clayey sand to a shell marl to a pure sand or clay. Accessory minerals
may include phosphate, glauconite, heavy minerals, pyrite, and mica.
Micritic matrix and limestone beds also occur. The Alum Bluff sedi-
ments are generally poorly to moderately consolidated with clay and/or
carbonate cement. Common fossil types include bryozoans, mollusks,
foraminifera, ostracods, and echinoids.
The above lithology is characteristic of northern Okaloosa County;
however, to the south the unit contains a transition zone which is char-
acterized by an unfossiliferous fine sand containing up to 25 percent
clay. This transitional zone grades into or interfingers with the Intra-
coastal Formation along the coast.
GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
The Alum Bluff sediments extend in a wide band across the central
and northern portion of the study area. To the west, the Alum Bluff dis-
appears in Santa Rosa County as it interfingers with the Miocene
coarse clastics and the Pensacola Clay. To the east, the sediments
continue into Walton County and are differentiated by Huddlestun
(1976a) into the Choctawhatchee Formation, the Oak Grove Sand, the
Shoal River Formation, and the Chipola Formation. No attempt at such
division was made here. The Alum Bluff probably continues northward
into Alabama, while to the south it grades into the Intracoastal Forma-
tion just north of Choctawhatchee Bay. The maximum thickness
encountered is approximately 300 feet.
OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
The Alum Bluff Group is overlain by the Miocene coarse clastics,
the Pliocene-Recent Sands, and the Citronelle Formation. The Alum
Bluff sediments overlie the Chickasawhay Limestone and, in part, the
Intracoastal Formation and Bruce Creek Limestone. The Intracoastal
Formation, Bruce Creek Limestone, Pensacola Clay, and the Miocene




REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


coarse clastics are also laterally equivalent with the Alum Bluff sedi-
ments. These relationships are best understood when considered in
conjunction with the geologic cross-sections (Figures 12-21).
The Alum Bluff sediments can be distinguished from the overlying
sand units (the Miocene coarse clastics, the Pliocene-Recent Sands,
and the Citronelle Formation) by the higher clay, mica, and fossil con-
tent in the Alum Bluff. The Alum Bluff sediments can easily be distin-
guished from the underlying Chickasawhay and Bruce Creek lime-
stones by their indurated carbonate character, as opposed to the
poorly consolidated plastic nature of the Alum Bluff.
In several cases, the Alum Bluff is laterally related to other units by
interfingering, or gradational relationships. The Alum Bluff grades into,
and/or interfingers with, the Intracoastal Formation. These two units
are not easily separated. The Intracoastal Formation contains less clay
and more carbonate, phosphate, and microfossils than the Alum Bluff.
As the Alum Bluff becomes a transitional lithology to the south and
the Intracoastal Formation begins to lose definition to the north, the
relationship between the two units becomes obsure, especially since
their respective lithologies are similar.
The Miocene coarse clastics, according to Marsh (1966), and as
shown in Figure 13, interfinger with and overlie the Alum Bluff Group
sediments. The Bruce Creek Limestone underlies and, in part, interfin-
gers with the Alum Bluff sediments. The Alum Bluff sediments inter-
finger with and, in part, overlie the Pensacola Clay in central Okaloosa
County. The Pensacola Clay is predominantly a massive bedded, silty
clay, containing some sand and almost no fossil material except near
the base. The Alum Bluff contains shell beds and is alternately a
clayey sand to sandy clay. The Pensacola contains less sand, much
more clay and less fossil material than does the Alum Bluff. In areas
where the Alum Bluff sediments are transitional into both the Intra-
coastal Formation and the Pensacola Clay, distinguishing between the
units is difficult. In areas where the Alum Bluff is characterized by a
fine sand with up to 25 percent clay, the difference between it and the
Pensacola Clay is based on the substantially greater clay content and
the lesser sand content of the Pensacola Clay.
AGE DETERMINATION
The age of the Alum Bluff sediments was not determined here. Hud-
dlestun (1976a) dated the group as ranging from late Early Miocene
(N7) to Late Miocene (N17) using planktonic foraminifera. This agrees
with dates placed on these shell beds by earlier authors (Langdon,
1889; Puri, 1953). Akers (1972), using calcareous nannofossils along
with planktic foraminifera, also established a Miocene age for these
deposits (N14-N17). Much of the outcrop material sampled by the
above mentioned authors came from east of the study area.




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


BRUCE CREEK LIMESTONE
The Bruce Creek Limestone is an easily recognized unit which has
been found to occur parallel to the coastal regions of the Florida Pan-
handle (Schmidt, Clark, and Boiling, 1981). It crops out in Bruce Creek
in Walton County where Huddlestun (1976a) described the type sec-
tion. Elsewhere it is confined to the subsurface (Schmidt and Clark,
1980). The Bruce Creek Limestone in the study area is a wedge-shaped
deposit pinching out in north-central Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Wal-
ton counties from a maximum thickness along the coast.
LITHOLOGY
In Okaloosa County and vicinity, the Bruce Creek Limestone is a
white to light gray, moderately indurated, granular, occasionally calcar-
enitic limestone. The Bruce Creek is fossiliferous, containing plank-
tonic and benthic foraminifera, echinoid spines, ostracods, and mol-
lusks. Fossil molds are commonly observed in cores throughout the


Figure 5. Structure Map of the Top of the Bruce Creek Limestone





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


unit. The Bruce Creek contains pyrite, phosphate, mica, clay, calcite
rhombs, and glauconite, each in quantities less than 1 percent. Quartz
sand may compose up to 50 percent of the samples in rare instances.
Commonly, however, it ranges from 1 to 20 percent. Increased sand
percentages appear to coincide with the northern limits of the forma-
tion in the study area. The Bruce Creek becomes dolomitic (up to 40
percent) to the west, and slightly dolomitic (less than 5 percent) in
southern Okaloosa County. In the northern part of the study area, the
Bruce Creek is somewhat crystalline and appears gray in color. The
unit contains micrite and occasionally is cemented by dolomite.

GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
The Bruce Creek Limestone is present across the southern portion
of Okaloosa County (Figure 5). The Bruce Creek extends westward into
Santa Rosa and Escambia counties where it becomes dolomitized and
loses some of its definition. To the east, the Bruce Creek may extend
into Franklin County. The Bruce Creek is confined to the subsurface in
a wedge paralleling the coastal regions of the Florida Panhandle. In
the study area it reaches its maximum thickness of about 170 feet on
the coast in Okaloosa County (Figure 6). The unit thins to the north
away from the coast and pinches out in north central Santa Rosa, Oka-
loosa, and Walton counties. The Bruce Creek strikes northwest to
southeast and dips to the southwest at approximately 26 feet per mile.

OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
The Bruce Creek overlies the Chickasawhay Limestone, underlies
the Intracoastal Formation and the Pensacola Clay, and intertongues
with the Alum Bluff deposits updip. The main distinction in the study
area between the Chickasawhay and the Bruce Creek is that the former
is a sucrosic dolomite and the latter is a granular, white to gray lime-
stone which shows only minor amounts of dolomitization. The Intra-
coastal Formation is easily distinguished from the Bruce Creek by the
poorly indurated, foraminiferal hash lithology of the Intracoastal when
compared to the moderately indurated, granulated limestone of the
Bruce Creek. The Intracoastal Formation also contains much greater
quantities of quartz sand, phosphate, and clay than does the Bruce
Creek. The limestone lithology of the Bruce Creek contrasts sharply
with the argillaceous nature of the Pensacola Clay. The Bruce Creek
and the Pensacola Clay are probably vertically gradational due to the
interlayering of clay and limestone near the contact. The Alum Bluff is
composed of clay, sand, and shell beds and contrasts with the lime-
stone lithology of the Bruce Creek. The Bruce Creek has an unusual
relationship with the Alum Bluff in that it overlies and underlies this
unit. The Bruce Creek occurs as a tongue extending northward from
the coast into the Alum Bluff Group sediments (Figures 18-21).





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Figure 6. Isopach Map of the Bruce Creek Limestone

AGE DETERMINATION
The Bruce Creek Limestone in Walton County contains a
microfossiliferous clay bed which Huddlestun (1976a) dated as
Middle Miocene. Planktonic foraminifera, such as the Globorota-
lia fohsi lineage from the top of the unit in the study area, corrob-
orate this date. Foraminifera are rare lower in the unit and zona-
tion is difficult, especially since the microfossiliferous clay layer
is absent in Okaloosa and Santa Rosa counties. Globigerinoides
found near the bottom of the Bruce Creek in Okaloosa County
suggest an age no older than Miocene.





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


INTRACOASTAL FORMATION
The Intracoastal Formation, as formally named by Schmidt and
Clark (1980), is a combination of three units previously proposed in
Walton County by Huddlestun (1976a). Huddlestun's original units
were the Intracoastal Limestone, a phosphatic sand unit, and the St.
Joe Limestone. Schmidt and Clark combined the Intracoastal and St.
Joe limestones into the Intracoastal Formation because of their litho-
logic similarity. The phosphatic sand is not present in the Bay County
area discussed by Schmidt and Clark; it therefore was not addressed
in their study. In the present study, the phosphatic sand will be dis-
cussed as the Four-Mile Village Member of the Intracoastal Formation.
LITHOLOGY
In Okaloosa County, the Intracoastal Formation is lithologically
made up of an upper and lower carbonate unit and an intervening
phosphatic sand. The carbonate layers of the Intracoastal Formation
are composed of poorly consolidated, sandy, clayey, microfossilifer-
ous limestone. They contain accessories such as pyrite, glauconite,
and heavy minerals in quantities of generally less than 1 percent and
greater amounts of phosphate, clay, and quartz sand.
Fossils are abundant and well preserved, consisting of planktonic
and benthic foraminifera, mollusks, echinoids, bryozoans, and ostra-
cods. The carbonate portion of the Intracoastal appears yellow gray to
greenish gray and includes clay and micrite.
The Four-Mile Village Member is a phosphatic sand composed of
moderately rounded medium to coarse grained quartz and phosphate
grains. This layer is sparsely fossiliferous in Okaloosa County, contain-
ing few planktonic and benthic foraminifera. Micrite is a cementing
agent for the phosphatic sand unit.
The Intracoastal Formation changes in lithologic character in north-
ern and western Okaloosa County. To the west and north, the carbon-
ate versus phosphatic sand (Four-Mile Village Member) delineations
within the formation begin to break down. The unit as a whole changes
in lithology, becoming more sandy to the north, with a corresponding
loss of carbonate and increase in clay content. The unit also increases
in sand and clay to the west. The abundant microfauna diminishes as
the formation grades into the Pensacola Clay and Alum Bluff deposits.
GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
The Intracoastal Formation is present only along the extreme south-
ern portion of Okaloosa County (Figures 7 and 8). To the north the unit
extends barely across Choctawhatchee Bay before it grades into the
fine sands and clays of the Alum Bluff sediments. The Intracoastal
Formation extends to the Santa Rosa County line where it interfingers
with and grades into the Pensacola Clay. To the east the Intracoastal
Formation may extend as far as Franklin County in a broad arc along





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


WtANm a tA ALrVL..0
M2 w 4tw 1 24 %2s


124 W R23W RO2W ROIW


Figure 7. Structure Map of the Top of the Intracoastal Formation

the coast. The Intracoastal Formation is a wedge-shaped unit which
thickens offshore and thins inland. The unit reaches a maximum
observed thickness of 440 feet along the coast in Okaloosa County.

OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
The Intracoastal Formation overlies the Bruce Creek Limestone and
underlies the Pliocene-Recent Sands. The Intracoastal Formation lat-
erally grades into, and interfingers with, both the Alum Bluff sediments
and the Pensacola Clay.
The Intracoastal Formation is a clayey, sandy, foraminiferal lime-
stone which differs from the pure white granular limestone of the
Bruce Creek. The Bruce Creek contains less sand, clay, phosphate,
and fossil material than the Intracoastal. The Bruce Creek is also more
indurated than the Intracoastal.
The Pliocene to Recent Sands exhibit a relatively clean quartz sand
lithology which is easily distinguished from the clayey, sandy carbo-
nate of the Intracoastal Formation. The overlying sands are unconsoli-


-


:r*




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


dated in contrast with the poorly consolidated nature of the Intra-
coastal Formation. The Intracoastal also contains a much more abun-
dant fossil assemblage than the Pliocene to Recent Sands.
Northward, the Intracoastal Formation grades into the Alum Bluff
Group. The Alum Bluff in central Okaloosa County is a very fine quartz
sand containing about 25 percent clay and some mica. The Alum Bluff
in this area contains little carbonate or fossiliferous material. The Intra-
coastal, in contrast, contains somewhat less clay but more carbonate,
phosphate, and pyrite than the Alum Bluff. In the zone where the two
units intergrade, the Intracoastal is diminished in fossiliferous mate-
rial, but still contains more than the Alum Bluff.
To the west the Intracoastal Formation grades into and interfingers
with the Pensacola Clay. The Pensacola Clay is largely an unfossilifer-
ous, dense, silty clay, in contrast with the Intracoastal, which is not as
uniform in lithology and contains less clay and more sand and
carbonate as well as abundant fossil material.


Figure 8. Isopach Map of the Intracoastal Formation




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


The Intracoastal Formation in Okaloosa County was deposited In a
transitional environment between marine carbonate conditions which
supported an abundant microfauna eastward and areas of diminished
fossil content in which clay was the dominant lithic type westward.
AGE DETERMINATION
In Okaloosa County, the Intracoastal Formation has been dated as
late Middle Miocene to Pliocene using planktonic foramlnlfera. The
base of the Intracoastal Formation Is consistently found within the G.
fohsi zones and the top Is probably contained within the G. margarltae
zone, although the top of the unit is often too sparsely populated by
planktonic foraminifera to zone. The hiatus noted within the Intra-
coastal Formation by Huddlestun (1976a) In Walton County and Clark
and Wright (1979) in Bay County Is also present In Okaloosa County.
The Late Miocene appears to be absent from the stratlgraphic column
in the coastal area. Evidence for this Is the fact that the G. slakensls
zone, the G. menardll zone, and the G. acostaensis zones are missing,
leaving the material from the G. fohsi zones directly below sediment
belonging within the G. margitae zone.
THE FOUR-MILE VILLAGE MEMBER
Huddlestun (1976a) Informally proposed that the phosphatic sand in
Walton County be considered as a new formation. Further study by the
authors has shown that the phosphatic sand is better suited for mem-
ber status within the Intracoastal Formation. The core Coffeen No. 1
(W-8865) contains, according to Huddlestun (personal communica-
tion), the best example and the greatest thickness of the phosphatic
sand unit. The Interval between 211 feet and 269 feet In the Coffeen
No. 1 core Is here designated as the type section of the Four-Mile Vil-
lage Member. The type core was drilled in T2S, R21W, Sec. 35, NE/4 of
the NE4, which is near the town of Four-Mile Village in southwestern
Walton County (Fig. 9).
LITHOLOGY
Huddlestun's description of the phosphatic sand will be used as the
lithologic description of the Four-Mile Village Member. Because his
study included cores with the best available examples of the phos-
phatic sand which occurs in Walton County, his description is used
here.
The Four-Mile Village Member Is an unconsolidated to Indurated,
massive bedded, calcareous, microfossiliferous, slightly argillaceous,
glauconitic, phosphoritic sand or sandstone. The phosphate grains are
pelletal, rounded to irregular In shape and range In color from black to
brown and orange. Fine, bony, bloclastic debris of vertebrate origin is
commonly found (Huddlestun, 1976a).





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


TYPE CORE


Figure 9. Location of Type Core for the
Four Mile Village Member of the
Intracoastal Formation

The following is a geologic log of the Four-Mile Village member
from the type core located in Walton County:

Core No.: W-8865
Core Name: Coffeen No. 1
Location: Walton County, T2S, R21W, Sec. 35, NE/4, NE/4
Elevation: 42 feet
Total Depth: 501 feet
Samples: 40 core boxes 0-501 feet
Date Completed: February 1967
Logs Run: Gamma
Four Mile Member: 211 to 269 feet
For a complete lithologic description of the entire core see Hendry,
1972 (pp. 93-96).





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Depth in Feet
Below Land Surface Lithologic Description
0-107 Unconsolidated Quartz Sands. Gray to orange-brown, medium
to coarse grained, minor amounts of clay, silt, heavy minerals,
and organic.
107-211 Intracoastal Formation. Calcilutite, light yellowish gray, sandy,
phosphatic, and glauconitic, macro-and microfossiliferous,
poor to moderately indurated.
211-217 Top of Four-Mile Village Member. Quartz sand, yellow gray,
fine to very coarse, subangular, medium sphericity,
calcareous, minor amounts of glauconite.
217-228 Quartz sand, olive-gray, fine to very coarse, subangular, me-
dium sphericity, calcareous, glauconltic, microfossiliferous.
228-250 No sample.
250-255 Quartz sand, pale yellow-brown, medium grained, subangular,
medium sphericity, calcareous, minor amounts of clay, silt,
phosphorite, glauconlte, slightly microfossillferous.
255-262 No sample.
262-266 Quartz sand, pale yellow-brown, fine medium grained, suban-
gular, calcareous, clay, silt, phosphorite, glauconlte, microfos-
sils common-benthic and planktic foraminifera.
266-268.5 No sample.
268.5-269 Base of Four-Mile Village Member. Sands, as above reworked
into lower Intracoastal (bloturbated?).
269-351 Intracoastal Formation. Calcarenite, light gray, sandy glaucon-
itic, phosphatic, macrofossils, abundant microfossils.
351-462 Bruce Creek Limestone.
462-501 Undifferentiated Chattahoochee/Chickasawhay limestones.
501 Total depth.

GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
The Four-Mile Village Member extends from near the Walton-Bay
county line, westward along the coast into central Okaloosa County.
To the north, in Okaloosa and Walton counties, it pinches out (or loses
definition) rapidly and is rarely found north of Choctawhatchee Bay. To
the west of the Fort Walton Beach area, the Four-Mile Village Member
loses definition as it thickens and dips toward the Gulf of Mexico Sedi-
mentary Basin.

OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
The Four-Mile Village Member is a low angle, wedge-shaped tongue
in the center of the Intracoastal Formation. To the east, the Four-Mile
Village Member is contained within the Intracoastal Formation as far
as the Bay-Walton county line. There, the Four-Mile Village Member
pinches out and the Intracoastal Formation continues east through
Bay and Gulf counties and into Franklin County. To the west, the Four-
Mile Village Member loses definition into the rest of the Intracoastal
Formation, which grades into and/or interfingers with the Pensacola
Clay. To the north, the Member loses definition or pinches out into the





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


Alum Bluff sediments. This relationship is not clear due to poor well
control.
The Four-Mile Village Member can be distinguished from the
remainder of the Intracoastal Formation by being a dark, weathered
looking sand or sandstone (Huddlestun, 1976a), whereas the Intra-
coastal Formation is olive-green to yellow-gray, microfossiliferous
limestone.
The Four-Mile Village Member differs from the Alum Bluff sedi-
ments in the clay and fossil content. The Alum Bluff deposits downdip
are sparsely fossiliferous, fine, clayey sands. The Four-Mile Village
Member is a phosphatic sand which is better indurated and contains
more carbonate and less clay than the downdip Alum Bluff.
AGE AND DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY
.Huddlestun (1976a), using planktonic foraminifera from cores recov-
ered in Walton County, has established that the Four-Mile Village
Member is Pliocene in age. The top of the unit is within the PI-3-4
zones of Berggren (1973), and the base of the unit is in zone PI-1.
According to Huddlestun, the environment of deposition of the unit
was offshore marine where sedimentation was rare and sporadic.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


PENSACOLA CLAY
The Pensacola Clay was originally described by Marsh (1966) from
three oil test wells In Baldwin County, Alabama. Marsh divided the
Pensacola Clay into three members: an upper and lower unit and an
intervening unit called the Escambia Sand. The upper and lower mem-
bers were described as dark to light gray, silty clays containing varia-
ble amounts of carbonized wood, quartz sand, pyrite, and mica (Marsh,
1966). The Escambia Sand, according to Marsh, is a light gray to
brownish gray, fine to coarse, quartz sand. Marsh traced the upper
member of the Pensacola Clay and the Escambia Sand Member to a
point in eastern Santa Rosa County where the unit grades Into the Mio-
cene coarse clastics. The lower member was mapped from southern
Alabama across the southern part of the Florida Panhandle into Wal-
ton County where, according to Marsh, it pinches out under Choctaw-
hatchee Bay.
No trace of the Upper Pensacola Clay or the Escambia Sand has
been found in the study area. The lower member has been found to
end in western Okaloosa County, where it intergrades and/or interfin-
gers with the Intracoastal Formation. The Pensacola Clay may be pres-
ent in the subsurface near Eglin Air Force Base in Okaloosa County,
but there is inadequate well control to confirm this.
LITHOLOGY
The Pensacola Clay may be described as a pale, yellow brown to
olive-gray, dense, silty clay. It sometimes contains large quantities of
quartz sand (up to 60 percent) with normal ranges between 5 and 50
percent. The Pensacola Clay may become much more sandy to the
east, losing definition under Eglin Air Force Base into a sandy, transi-
tional lithology between the Intracoastal Formation and the Alum Bluff
sediments. Common accessory minerals include pyrite, mica, heavy
minerals, and phosphate, each in amounts of less than 1 percent. Clay
is present in the poor to moderately indurated unit, combined in some
areas with a small amount of carbonate. The Pensacola Clay is largely
unfossiliferous except for calcareous nannofossils, rare mollusks, and
benthic foraminifera; however, there is a very fossiliferous layer near
the base. This basal segment contains abundant planktonic and ben-
thic foraminifera and mollusks.
X-ray analysis of the Pensacola Clay indicates that kaolinite, mont-
morillonite, and quartz are the dominant minerals comprising the unit.
GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
In the Florida Panhandle, the Pensacola Clay extends across the
southern half of Escambia and Santa Rosa counties into Okaloosa
County, where it loses definition and interfingers with the Intracoastal
Formation and Alum Bluff Group. In central Santa Rosa and Escambia
counties, the Pensacola Clay interfingers northward with the Miocene
coarse clastics (Marsh, 1966).





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


The Pensacola Clay is a wedge-shaped deposit which thickens to the
south and west. Within the limits of the study area, it reaches a maxi-
mum thickness of 515 feet under Pensacola Bay. The upper surface of
the Penacola Clay dips to the southwest at about 17 feet per mile.
OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
In the study area, the Pensacola Clay is overlain by the Miocene
coarse clastics and the Alum Bluff deposits. The Miocene coarse clas-
tics are described as being composed of sand and shell beds (Marsh,
1966). These sediments are usually unconsolidated and contrast in
lithology and induration with the poor to moderately consolidated,
silty clay of the the Pensacola Clay. The Alum Bluff sediments consist
of clay, sand, and shell beds in northern Okaloosa County and grade
southward into a very fine sand with clay cement. The Pensacola Clay
is readily distinguished from the Alum Bluff Group in that the Pensa-
cola Clay is characterized by a uniform clay lithology and a better
induration. The fine sand representing a southern lithofacies of the
Alum Bluff has a greater similarity to the Pensacola Clay. The downdip
Alum Bluff is a quartz sand with some clay cement while the Pensa-
cola Clay is overwhelmingly a clay with some quartz sand.
The Pensacola Clay and Intracoastal Formation interfinger and/or
grade into each other in the western coastal area of Okaloosa County.
The Pensacola Clay is a clay, largely unfossiliferous, with perhaps
small amounts of carbonate cement. The correlative Intracoastal For-
mation is distinguished from the Pensacola by less clay and the abun-
dant microfossil content. In addition, it contains a much greater
amount of limestone and 1 to 7 percent phosphate.
The Pensacola Clay overlies the Bruce Creek Limestone throughout
the study area except where it interfingers with the Alum Bluff and
Miocene coarse clastics. The clay lithology of the Pensacola is very
different from the limestone lithology of the Bruce Creek; however,
Marsh (1966) felt that the contact between the two units is gradational.
Intercalated beds of clay and limestone occur at the top of the Bruce
Creek in Santa Rosa County, suggesting a vertical transition between
the two units. The top of the first limestone bed was chosen as the top
of the Bruce Creek after Marsh (1966).
AGE DETERMINATION
Marsh (1966) placed an age of late Middle to early Late Miocene on
the Pensacola Clay, using benthic foraminifera. An age of late Middle
Miocene was obtained in the present study for the base of the unit
using planktonic foraminifera. Planktonic foraminifera put the lowest
Pensacola Clay into the G. fohsi zones of Bolli (1957), which corre-
spond to the zonation of part of the Intracoastal Formation. The top of
the Pensacola Clay is tentatively dated as latest Miocene using calcar-
eous nannofossils. The presence of Discoaster quinqueramus near the
top of the Pensacola Clay in well number W-4122 in Santa Rosa County





30 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY

is the basis for the upper designation of Late Miocene. The donation of
the Pensacola Clay using calcareous nannofossils is only approximate
because of overgrowth on many specimens and because of the possi-
bility of reworked material influencing zonation. Cretaceous nannofos-
sils from the Campanian, such as Watznauerla sp. and Elffelllthus exi-
mius are found together with Miocene forms in the Pensacola Clay.
Obvious reworking in this case precludes making a zonation beyond
an approximation.





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


MIOCENE COARSE CLASTICS
The Informal term Miocene coarse plastics was introduced in the west-
ern Florida Panhandle by Marsh (1966) for a deposit of sand, gravel,
clay, and shell beds which he believed to be Miocene in age. A unit of
similar description was found in the extreme western part of the study
area and is referred to here after Marsh as the Miocene coarse plastics.
LITHOLOGY
The Miocene coarse plastics unit in the study area is a very light
gray to pale yellow-brown and is composed primarily of quartz sand
and gravel with lesser amounts of clay and shell material. The Miocene
coarse plastics may contain minor quantities (less than 1 percent) of
pyrite, phosphate, glauconite, mica, heavy minerals, and limestone.
Clay and, very rarely, micrite act as cementing agents for the unconsol-
idated to poorly consolidated Miocene coarse plastics. One of the dis-
tinguishing characteristics of the unit is the presence of marine
molluscan fossils.
GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
According to Marsh (1966), the Miocene coarse plastics are present
throughout most of Escambia and Santa Rosa counties. In this study,
the unit is found in the western edge of Okaloosa County and in Santa
Rosa County. In Santa Rosa County, the Miocene coarse plastics inter-
finger to the south with the Pensacola Clay. It also interfingers with
the Intracoastal Formation along the coast in Okaloosa County. The
Miocene coarse plastics interfinger with the Alum Bluff Group in the
western central portion of Okaloosa County (see Figures 12-15).
Marsh (1966) further states that the thickness of the Miocene coarse
plastics ranges from 70 feet in Escambia County to approximately 500
feet in Santa Rosa County. In the study area, the average thickness is
300 feet; however, it apparently ranges from 550 feet in thickness to 0
feet as it pinches out in Okaloosa County.
OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
In the study area, the Miocene coarse plastics are overlain by the
Citronelle Formation and the Plio-Pleistocene sands. These three
units are of similar lithology and distinctions between them are subtle.
The Citronelle Formation is unfossiliferous and fluvial in nature and is
composed of sand, gravel, and clay. The Miocene coarse plastics are
distinguished from the Citronelle deposits by their marine nature; they
contain numerous shell beds and fossiliferous material. The Plio-Pleis-
tocene sand unit is finer in grain size than the Miocene coarse plastics.
The accessory'mineral suite also differs from the Miocene coarse clas-
tics by containing pyrite, glauconite, and mica, which are not common
in the Plio-Pleistocene sands. The Plio-Pleistocene sands also contain
less clay.




32 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY

The Miocene coarse clastics unit overlies the Pensacola Clay and
the Alum Bluff sediments in part; locally these units may also Interfln-
ger. The Miocene coarse clastics also overlie the Chickasawhay Lime-
stone. The Miocene coarse clastics differ from the Pensacola Clay and
the Chickasawhay Limestone in basic lithology (sand, gravel, and
shells versus clay versus limestone). The Alum Bluff contains more
clay and shell material and less sand and gravel than the Miocene
coarse clastics. The Alum Bluff is described as a poorly consolidated
clayey, sandy shell bed in contrast to the unconsolidated sand and
gravel character of the Miocene coarse clastics.
AGE DETERMINATION
Using mollusks and benthic foraminifera, Marsh (1966) determined
that the Miocene coarse clastics were late Middle to Late Miocene in
age. In the present study, the top of the Pensacola Clay has been dated
as uppermost Miocene (using calcareous nannofossils), which raises
the possibility that the Miocene coarse clastics are in part Pliocene,
especially where the unit overlies the Pensacola Clay.




REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


THE CITRONELLE FORMATION
The Citronelle Formation was named by Matson (1916) from a type
locality near Citronelle, Alabama. The Citronelle is an extensive
deposit of probable nonmarine origin. Marsh (1966) mapped the Citro-
nelle in Santa Rosa and Escambia counties of the Florida Panhandle
and described it as consisting principally of quartz sand, with numer-
ous beds, stringers, and lenses of clay and gravel. The lithology char-
acteristically changes abruptly over short distances (Marsh, 1966;
Schmidt, 1978; and Coe, 1979).
LITHOLOGY
The Citronelle in Okaloosa, eastern Santa Rosa, and western Walton
counties is primarily a quartz sand which contains discontinuous
layers of gravel, clay and limonite (Schmidt, 1978). The Citronelle is
characteristically unfossiliferous and is distinguished from adjoining
formations using these criteria. The unit is nonindurated to poorly
Indurated with clay and occasionally iron cement. Layers of limonite
hardpan are found within the unit, as are minor amounts (less than 1
percent) of heavy minerals, mica, phosphate, and limestone. The Citro-
nelle is variable in color, ranging from white to orange, yellow, and pink
hues.
GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
The Citronelle crops out at the surface throughout most of the study
area except in the coastal regions and isolated areas where it has been
removed or is covered by the Pleistocene terrace deposits. The Citro-
nelle is found extensively In the Coastal Plain of Texas, Louisiana, Mis-
sissippi, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle. The Citronelle ranges in
thickness from 0 feet to 250 feet in the study area.
OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
In the study area the Citronelle overlies the Miocene coarse clastics
and the Alum Bluff sediments (Figure 10). The main distinguishing fea-
ture among these units is that the Miocene coarse clastics and the
Alum Bluff are fossiliferous, whereas the Citronelle is not. The Alum
Bluff deposits also differ from the Citronelle in that the Citronelle con-
tains more sand and gravel and less clay and mica than the Alum Bluff.
The Citronelle is occasionally overlapped by the Pleistocene terrace
deposits. The terrace deposits are generally finer in grain size and con-
tain less clay and mica than the Citronelle; they are also sparsely
fossiliferous.
DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY AND AGE DETERMINATION
The depositional history of the Citronelle has been the subject of
many interpretations (Isphording and Lamb, 1971; Coe, 1979). Most
interpretations have placed its origin as fluvial. Isphording and Lamb





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Figure 10. Structure Map of the Base of the Citronelle Formation
and Pliocene-Recent Sand Unit

(1971)found that the Citronelle sediments represent a transitional envi-
ronment evolving from a bayou to an estuary or marsh.
The age of the Citronelle is also a controversial question due to the
scarcity of fossil material. Vertebrate fossils from a clay bed near the
base of the Citronelle in Mobile County, Alabama, have been used to
date the unit as mid-Pliocene to pre-Nebraskan Pleistocene (Isphor-
ding and Lamb, 1971). Marsh (1966) described pollen from a sandy clay
zone in southeastern Santa Rosa County which dated the Citronelle as
Pteistocene.





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


PLIOCENE TO RECENT SANDS
The Pliocene to Recent Sands cover the coastal regions of the Oka-
loosa County study area. This unit is composed of quartz sands, proba-
bly reworked from the Citronelle and Miocene coarse clastics. Pleisto-
cene terraces have been mapped by Healy (1975) and assigned to eight
episodes of deposition. Winker and Howard (1977) mapped the Pio-
Pleistocene deposits in the Florida Panhandle, using relict shoreline
scarps and beach ridges. Two of their sequences, the Escambia and
the Gadsden, were recognized through the study area. Their Escambia
Sequence occurs entirely at elevations below 33 feet. The Gadsden
Sequence reaches a maximum elevation of 328 feet.

LITHOLOGY
In Okaloosa County, the coastal Pliocene to Recent Sand unit is an
unconsolidated body of white to light gray quartz sand. The average
grain size is medium, ranging from fine to coarse. Heavy minerals and
mica are present in amounts less than 1 percent, along with phosphate
(also less than 1 percent), which begins to appear near the base of the
unit. Clay lenses are sometimes encountered, associated with occa-
sional shell beds. Fossils present are mainly mollusks, with rare occur-
rences of planktonic and benthonic foraminifera and echinoids.

GEOMETRY AND AREAL EXTENT
The Pliocene to Recent Sands cover most of the surface of the coastal
area of the Florida Panhandle. They are confined primarily to the south-
ern half of the study area and overlap or perhaps intergrade with the
Citronelle Formation farther north. The Pliocene-Recent Sands are a
blanket-type deposit approximately 150 feet thick along the coast and
thinning northward.

OVERLYING AND UNDERLYING UNITS
The Pliocene to Recent Sands overlie the Intracoastal Formation to
the south and may overlie the Alum Bluff and Citronelle formations far-
ther north. The Intracoastal Formation differs from the Pliocene to
Recent Sands in its greater induration and calcareous nature. The
Intracoastal is also much more fossiliferous than the sand unit and has
a higher phosphate content. The Alum Bluff can be differentiated from
the Pliocene to Recent Sands because of its greater induration and
higher clay and shell content. The Alum Bluff in general is a clayey,
sandy shell bed and differs substantially from the clean quartz sands
of the Pliocene to Recent Sand unit. The Citronelle is difficult to distin-
guish from the sand unit; however, it generally contains more clay and
is coarser grained than the Pliocene to Recent sands. The Citronelle is
unfossiliferous, while the sand unit is sparsely fossiliferous.




BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY
The Pliocene to Recent Sands represent deposition primarily during
glacial times when continental debris was reworked as sea levels fluc-
tuated. Part of the sand represents reworked Miocene and Pliocene
deposits, such as the Miocene coarse clastics and the Citronelle For-
mation, and some of it represents recent deposition of sands along
river valleys and the present coastline.


Figure 11. Location of Geologic Cross-Sections














W-3100



200 60 CITRELLE





-200 -160
-4F0 G l C
-o .o / C,
.400--620 Z^
-500 FA

-600 --'80



Figure 12. Geologic Cross-Section A-A'

















300
O-

000
200- 60

40
100
20
0- 0
*-20
*100-
040
-200- 60
-so
-300-
-100

-400- -0
-40
-500-
160

-600- I0


Figure 13. Geologic Cross-Section B-B'


U
C





ani

'16
0


5I^-
0:

0,.


' ''':





i
~'' '


~~I


B

















300-
-80
200- 60

40
Woo-
-20

0- 0

-20
-100-
-40

-200- -60
-60
-300-

-400- -120
-o40
-500-
-160

-oo 0 IS

-700


* 0 3 46mas
Ta 3 4 5 G* MU3fli


m

0

-4
o


z













p


Figure 14. Geologic Cross-Section C-C'










F 1





go 0-34





--- C-----E-LE PiUCCEME* LE STOCREE WllIM FF
-1100- C

-200-

-00- 30 0 0CH
~-5~00- anmn C<




00, 0
Figureewa I Geologic ros-Setio FF






-7500
-000 OA








-gao8
IN.0 0 _ N .







Figure 17. Geologic Cross-Section F-F'











G G"
1 6
w-smo w we-5
30=



-40 NIE LE/ X !9

0-.0
0 IOCEILE-IPLmMXWE COA5E CLAMICSI


-200 ie 1 PENSACOgLA CoTs e PWi

-300- -n v



-500- -W 1



soi
-700- nI z^ a iiu s






Figure 18. Geologic Cross-Section G-G'























200 o







-20
-100 -


-200 60

s0
*300 -
-100 -




-500
-400- "20


-soo- H 7


a Ii 3 40u4
3 I 3 4 H1WMaiPSri


Figure 19. Geologic Cross-Section H-H'

















so




300-
200- 60
40'



0000
1(00-






-500

-00 -
0 -


Figure 20. Geologic Cross-Secion


Figure 20. Geologic Cross-Section [-I'


m

0










0
i
in



















































Figure 21. Geologic Cross-Section J-J'


Ab


200 -60

40

20
3



-20


2-00--


-40,
1300-


4 00- -12'
*-40
-500-


-FOUR(-MILE
VILLAGE





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92 47

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akers, W. H., 1972, Planktonic Foramlnifera and Biostratigraphy of Some Neogene For.
nations, Northern Florida and Atlantic Coastal Plain: Tulane Stud. Geol. Paleon-
tology, v. 9, pp. 1-40.
Barr, Douglas E.; Hayes, Larry R.; and Kwader, Thomas, 1981, Hydrology of the Floridan
Aquifer, Southern Okaloosa and Walton Counties, Northwest Florida: U.S. Geolog-
Ical Survey Open File Report 81.
Barraclough, J. T., and Marsh, 0. T., 1962, Aquifers and Quality of Groundwater Along
the Gulf Coast of Western Florida: Florida Geological Survey Rept. Inv. 29, 28 pp.
Barton, D. C., Ritz, C. H., and Hickey, M., 1933, Gulf Coast Geosyncline: Amer. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 17, no. 12, pp. 1446-1458.
Berggren, W. A., 1973, The Pliocene Time Scale: Calibration of Planktonic Foraminiferal
and Calcareous Nannoplankton Zones: Nature, v. 243, pp. 391-397.
Bolll, H. M., 1957, Planktonic Foraminifera From the Oligocene-Miocene Cipcro and
Lengua Formations, Trinidad, B.W.I.: U.S. Nat. Mus., Bull No. 215, pp. 97-123.
Clark, M. W., and Wright, R. C., 1979, Subsurface Neogene Blostratigraphy of Bay
County, Florida: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. Trans., v. 29, p. 238-243.
Chen, C. S., 1965, The Regional Lithostratigraphic Analysis of Paleocene and Eocene
Rocks of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bull. 45, 105 pp.
Coe, Curtis J., 1979, Geology of the Pilo-Pleistocene Sediments in Escambla and Santa
Rosa Counties, Florida: Thesis, Florida State University Department of Geology,
Tallahassee, Florida, 115 pp.
Cooke, C. W., and Mossom, S., 1929, Geology of Florida: Florida Geol. Survey Ann.
Rept. 20, pp. 21-227.
Cooke, C. W., 1945, Geology of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bull. 29, 342 pp.
Dall, W. H., and Stanley-Brown, Joseph, 1894, Cenozoic Geology Along the Apalachi-
cola River: Bull. Geol. Soc. America v. 5, p. 152.
Foster, J. B., and Pascale, C. A., 1971, Selected Water Resources Records for Okaloosa
County and Ad/acent Areas: Fla. Dept. Nat. Resources, Bur. of Geology, Inf. Circ.
67, 95 pp.
Gardner, J. A., 1926, The Molluscan Fauna of the Alum Bluff Group: U. S. Geol. Survey
Prof. Paper 142, 491 pp.
Healy, H. G., 1975, Terraces and Shorelines of Florida: Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Bureau of
Geology, Map Series 71.
Hendry, C. W., Jr., In Pascale, C. A., Essig, C. F., and Herring, R. R., 1972, Records of
Hydrologic Data, Walton County, Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology, Rep. of
Invest. 78, Geologic log description, pp. 93-96.
Huddlestun, Paul F., 1976a, The Neogene Stratigraphy of the Central Florida Panhan-
die: Unpublished Dissertation, Florida State University Geology Department, Talla-
hassee, Florida.
1976b, The Neogene Stratigraphy of the Central Florida Panhandle: Geol. Soc.
America Section Meeting, v. 8, no. 2, p. 203 (abstract).
Isphording W. C., and Lamb., George M., 1971, Age and Origin of the Citronelle Forma-
tion in Alabama: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 775-779.
Johnson, L. C., 1893, The Miocene Group of Alabama: Science, vol. 21, p. 91.
Langdon, D. W., 1889, Some Florida Miocene: American Sci., 3rd ser., v. 38, pp. 322-324.
Marsh, O. T., 1962, Relation of Bucatunna Clay Member (Byram Formation, Oligocene)
to Geology and Groundwater of Westernmost Florida: Geol. Soc. of American
Bull., v. 73, pp. 243-252.





48 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92


-- 1966, Geology of Escambla and Santa Rosa Counties, Western Florida Panhandle:
Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 46, 140 pp.
Matson, G. C., 1916, The Pliocene Citronelle Formation of the Gulf Coastal Plain: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper, 98, pp. 167-192.
Poag, C. Wylie, 1972, Planktonic Foraminifera of the Chickasawhay Formation, United
States Gulf Coast: Micropaleontology, v. 18, no. 3, pp. 257-277.
Purl, Harbans S., 1953, Contribution to the Study of the Miocene of the Florida Panhandle:
Florida Geological Survey Bull. 36, 345 pp.
Purl, Harbans S., and Vernon, Robert 0., 1958, A Summary of the Geology of Florida With
Emphasis on the Miocene Deposits, and a Guidebook to the Miocene Exposures:
Prepared for a Field Trip of the Gulf Coast Section of The Society of Economic Pale.
ontologists and Mineralogists, 85 pp.
1964, Summary of the Geology of Florida and a Guidebook to the Classic Expo.
sures: Florida Geological Survey Special Publication 5 (revised), 312 pp.
Schmidt. Walter, 1978, Environmental Geology Series: Pensacola Sheet: Fla. Dept. Nat.
Res.. Bureau of Geology Map Series 78.
Schmidt. Walter, and Clark, Murlene Wiggs, 1980, Geology of Bay County, Florida: Fla.
Dept. Nat. Res., Bureau of Geology, Bulletin 57, 96 pp.
Schmidt. Walter, Clark, Murlene Wiggs, and Bolling. Sharon, 1981, Neogene Carbonates
of the Florida Panhandle: in Trans. Miocene Symposium of the Southeastern United
States; Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Bureau of Geology, Special Publication (In press).
Schmidt, Walter, and Coe, C., 1978, Regional Structure and Stratigraphy of the Limestone
Outcrop Belt In the Florida Panhandle: Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Bureau of Geology, Rep.
of Invest. 86. 25 pp.
Sigsby. R. J., 1976, Paleoenvironmental Analysis of the Big Escambia Creek-Jay-
Blacklack Creek Field Area: Transactions Gulf Coast Association of Geological Soci-
eties 26th Annual Meeting, pp. 258-278.
Stephenson, L W., 1928, Major Marine Transgressions and Regressions and Structural
Features of the Gulf Coastal Plain: Am. Jour. Sci., v. 16, no. 94, pp. 281-298.
Trapp. Henry Jr., Pascale, C. A., and Foster, J. B., 1977, Water Resources of Okaloosa
County and Adjacent Areas, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Inves-
tigations 77-79, 83 pp.
Vernon. Robert 0.. 1942, Geology of Holmes and Washington Counties, Florida: Florida
Geol. Survey Bull. 21, 90 pp.
Vernon. Robert 0., and Purl, H. S., 1956, A Summary of the Geology of Panhandle Florida
and a Guidebook to the Surface Exposures: Prepared for the field trip of the Talla-
hassee meeting of the Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America,
Mar. 24, 1956.
Wagner. J. R.. Hodecker, E. A., and Murphy, Robert, 1980, Evaluation of Industrial Water
Availability for Selected Areas of Northwest Florida Water Management District:
Northwest Florida Water Management District Water Resources Assessment 80-1,
400 pp.
Winker. Charles D., and Howard, James D., 1977, Plio-Pleistocene Paleogeography of the
Florida Gulf Coast Interpreted From Relict Shorelines: Transactions-Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies, vol. XXVII, pp. 409-420.
Wright, Ramil C., and Clark, Murlene Wiggs, 1980, Neogene Stratigraphy of the South-
western Florida Panhandle: abstract in Trans. Miocene Symposium of the South-
eastern United States; Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., Bureau of Geology, Special Publication
25 (in press).






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92

APPENDIX
Listing of Well Cuttings and Core Data
List of Abbreviations


Bureau of Geology assigned "W" number
Oa-Okaloosa
Sr-Santa Rosa
Es-Escambia
WI-Walton
N or S-Township north or south
W-Range west, followed by section number
in feet at core or well site (some estimated
from topographic map)
In feet from land surface at core or well site


Location

1N, 22W, 21
1 S, 23W, 18
1N, 24W, 15
2N, 23W, 27
2N, 25W, 34
2N, 25W, 33
1S, 22W, 6
2S, 26W, 5
5N, 25W, 6
5N, 25W, 6
5N, 24W, 3
6N, 25W, 26
6N, 25W, 27
5N, 25W, 3
6N, 25W, 35
2S, 23W, 6
2S, 25W, 24
5N, 23W, 15
5N, 23W, 33
3N, 23W, 7
3N, 23W, 11
4N, 22W, 30
3N, 23W, 6
3N, 23W, 32
4N, 24W, 36
3N, 24W, 2
3N, 23W, 5
4N, 24W, 6
4N, 24W, 11
4N, 24W, 22
4N, 23W, 30
5N, 24W, 36
3N, 25W, 1
3N, 24W, 3
4N, 23W, 34
4N, 24W, 18
4N, 23W, 8


Elevation

154
89
179
204
136
136
59
12
250
249
222
147
179
145
164
6
12
177
187
196
155
175
200
122
201
146
264
155
159
177
204
124
189
161
216
171
200


Total Depth
585
640
680
795
730
208
254
1,063
59
61
41
44
69
48
65
605
834
1,517
1,510
1,501
1,510
1,506
701
1,500
1,554
1,553
1,555
1,492
1,492
1,390
1,486
1,507
1,557
1,547
1,503
1,509
1,510


(This Table Continues on Following Page)


Well Number ..... .... ....
County .............. ........ .


Location ........................

Elevation ... ......

Total Depth . ...


Well Number

142
149
168
254
255
256
405
454
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
828
1018
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349


County

Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Sr
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
On

Oa
Oa
O
Os
Oa
Os
Os
Os
On
Os

Os
Oa
Oa
Os
Os
Oa
Oa






50 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY

Well Number County Location Elevation Total Depth
1350 Oa 4N, 23W, 1 174 1,582
1351 Oa 4N, 24W, 11 ? 1,412
1536 Oa 4N, 22W, 5 180 5,507
1774 Oa 1S, 22W, 18 22 544
1950 Oa 3N, 23W, 17 227 604
2157 Oa 1S,22W, 7 12 465
2159 Oa 1S, 23W, 30 30 665
2298 Oa 2S, 24W, 13 17 735
2422 Oa 1 S,23W, 33 57 620
2537 Oa 2S, 23W, 19 12 743
2552 Oa 1S, 23W, 30 25 582
2582 Wa 4N, 26W, 7 216 445
2630 Es 1N, 30W, 11 30 555
2731 Oa 1S,23W, 34 8 896
2754 Oa 4N, 24W, 30 255 6,309
2900 Sr 6N, 26W, 33 254 6,043
2935 Oa 3N, 22W, 18 173 6,010
2961 Oa 3N, 22W, 28 238 5,775
2978 Oa 4N 27W, 4 139 6,367
3071 Sr 3N,27W, 1 130 6,510
3100 Oa 5N, 25W, 5 200 5,832
3103 Sr 4N, 26W, 24 213 6,454
3176 Oa 4N, 22W, 28 ? 5,700
3198 Oa 1S,23W, 23 69 157
3213 Sr 3N, 27W, 25 107 7,010
3225 Oa 2S, 22W, 29 27 6,247
3300 Oa 4N, 22W, 13 158 5,420
3324 Es 3S, 29W, 14 7 1,370
3391 Oa 2S, 24W, 13 19 839
3455 Sr 2N, 27W, 10 45 6,800
3506 Oa 3N, 24W, 35 150 6,280
3550 Oa 3N 23W, 8 264 920
3607 Oa 2S, 22W, 26 10 360
3994 Oa 1 S, 23W, 24 18 642
4122 Sr 2S, 28W, 17 0(MSL) 7,505
4248 Sr 2N, 26W, 28 143 6,896
4257 Oa 2S, 24W, 15 38 735
4286 Oa 5N, 24W, 7 270 565
4357 Sr 6N, 27W, 29 287 815
4388 Oa 5N,24W, 4 212 625
4510 Oa 1S, 23W, 23 68 702
4550 Oa 2S,24W, 2 41 653
4576 Oa 3N, 22W, 10 227 6,130
4692 Oa 2S, 22W, 29 10 653
4825 Oa 1S, 23W, 15 75 690
4828 Oa 2S, 24W, 16 24 787
4927 Oa 2S, 24W, 12 13 620
5008 Sr 2N, 29W, 15 100 750
5255 Oa 3N, 23W, 17 238 210
5256 Oa 3N, 23W, 8 238 430
5335 Oa 2S,24W, 2 15 602
5467 Oa 2S,23W, 6 11 600
5468 Oa 2S, 24W, 12 13 620
5638 Sr 2N, 30W, 23 132 4,910
5736 Oa 2S,24W, 3 22 640





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 92 51

Well Number County Location Elevation Total Depth
6843 Oa 5N, 22W, 5 279 607
6865 Oa 28, 24W, 24 5 460
5857 Oa 2, 23W, 19 5 930
5872 Ca 1S, 24W, 35 43 685
5965 Oa 2S,23W, 5 19 610
6305 Ca 1S, 23W, 12 52 542
6835 Ca 2S,23W, 5 71 630
6853 Oa 1S,22W, 8 38 500
7389 Oa 1S,22W, 8 13 544
7868 Oa 3N, 25W, 33 193 645
8102 WI 6N,21W, 36 335 375
8103 WI 5N, 21W, 35 299 304
8351 WI 2N,21W, 9 227 462
8353 WI 1N, 21W, 15 181 409
8354 WI 3N,21W, 3 206 382
8480 Oa S, 24W, 34 50 642
8700 Oa 2S, 24W, 4 40 700
8759 Oa 2S,24W, 1 24 644
8760 a 1 S, 23W, 30 47 680
8803 Sr 1S, 28W, 14 8 6,871
8865 WI 2S, 21W, 35 42 501
8872 Oa 2S,24W, 9 26 938
8877 Wa 1 S, 21W, 22 10 360
8885 Ca 1S, 24W, 34 58 858
8886 Oa 2S, 24W, 23 8 874
10833 Oa 5N, 23W, 16 186 500
11467 Oa 3N,24W, 3 150 14,514
11550 Oa N, 25W, 28 ? 15,008
11966 Oa 1S,22W, 8 50 523
12041 Oa 2S,24W, 8 30 910
12251 Sr 2N, 27W, 36 150 1,500
12255 Sr 2N, 28W, 1 100 1,290
12301 Ca 3N,25W, 9 ? 11,990
12302 Ca 2S, 23W, 18 10 1,060
12348 Ca 1S,22W, 3 75 410
12619 Oa 28,23W, 5 20 583
13466 Ca 1 S 22W, 23 50 480
13820 Oa 1S,22W, 9 30 450
14013 Oa 6N, 25W, 34 120 460
14014 Oa 5N, 24W, 18 ? 500
14102 Oa 1S,23W, 18 90 1,010
14206 Oa 2N, 23W, 2 100 499
14576 a 28, 25W, 21 5 700
14578 Oa 1S, 23W, 18 90 940
14583 Oa 28, 22W, 22 10 11,270
14684 Oa 2S, 22W, 18 10 746
14695 Oa 1S, 23W, 18 90 1,380
14696 Oa 28, 24W, 10 110 1,140