Heavy mineral bearing sands from the Wicomico to the Princess Anne paleobarrier complexes along the Georgia coastal plain

HEAVY MINERAL BEARING SANDS FROM THE WICOMICO TO THE PRINCESS ANNE PALEOBARRIER COMPLEXES ALONG THE
GEORGIA COASTAL PLAIN
Jeffery A. Kellam McKenzie Mallary Michael K. Laney
. .
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

Cover: Heavy mineral layers in beach deposits at Jekyll Island, Georgia.

Heavy Mineral Bearing Sands from the Wicomico to the Princess Anne Paleobarrier Complexes along the Georgia Coastal Plain
Jeffery A. Kellam
McKenzie Mallary Michael K. Laney
Prepared as part of the Accelerated Economic Minerals Program
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner
Environmental Protection Division
Harold F. Reheis,Director
Georgia Geologic Survey William H. McLemore, State Geologist
Atlanta 1991
Bulletin 111

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
General Statement ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Objective ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Previous Work ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Origin and IJevelopment of Barrier Islands ............................................................................................. 2 Georgia's Paleobarrier Island Shorelines .................................................................................................. 2 Previous Studies in Georgia and Northern Florida ................................................................................ 5 Geologic Background ............................................................................................................................................... 11
IJescription of the Paleobarrier Island Shorelines ................................................................................. 11 Wicomico Shoreline ..................................................................................................................... 11 Penholoway Shoreline ................................................................................................................ 14 Talbot Shoreline ........................................................................................................................... 14 Pamlico Shoreline ........................................................................................................................ 14 Princess Anne Shoreline ............................................................................................................. 16
Method of Study ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 Field Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................................. 16 Petrographic Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 19
Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19 General Statement ..................................................................;................................................................... 19 Wicomico Shoreline ................................................................................................................................... 19 Penholoway Shoreline ............................................................................................................................... 22 Talbot Shoreline .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Pamlico Shoreline ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Princess Anne Shoreline ............................................................................................................................ 27
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................... 27 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Appendix A Heavy Mineral Sample Locations ............................................................................................. 30 Appendix B Heavy Mineral Constituents by Traverse ................................................................................ 44
iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Page

1. Basic theories of barrier island formation ................................................................................................. 3 2. Wicomico paleobarrier island shoreline relative to present and past shorelines ............................... 6 3. Penholoway paleobarrier island shoreline relative to present and past shorelines ........................... 7 4. Talbot paleobarrier island shoreline relative to present and past shorelines ...................................... 8 5. Pamlico paleobarrier island shoreline relative to present and past shorelines ................................... 9 6. Princess Anne paleobarrier island shoreline relative to present and past shorelines ...................... 10 7. County outline map of southeastern Georgia showing boring locations of the
South Georgia Minerals Program ........................................................................................................... 12 8. Location map of Florida heavy mineral deposits .................................................................................. 13 9. Location map of study area ...................................................................................................................... 15 10. Generalized traverse map ......................................................................................................................... 17

Tables

TABLES

Page

1. Heavy Mineral Concentration in Samples .............................................................................................. 18 2. Summary of Heavy Mineral content of each Barrier Island complex ................................................ 20 3. Heavy Mineral Suite of the Wicomico Complex .................................................................................... 21 4. Heavy Mineral Suite of the Penholoway Complex ............................................................................... 23 5. Heavy Mineral Suite of the Talbot Complex .......................................................................................... 24 6. Heavy Mineral Suite of the Pamlico Complex ....................................................................................... 25 7. Heavy Mineral Suite of the Princess Anne Complex .......................................................................... 26

PLATE A. Map of Sample Localities as Related to Paleobarrier Complexes in the Georgia Coastal Region ..... pocket

iv

HEAVY MINERAL-BEARING SANDS FROM THE WICOMICO TO THE PRINCESS ANNE PALEOBARRIER COMPLEXES ALONG THE GEORGIA COASTAL PLAIN
by Jeffery A. Kellam, McKenzie Mallary and Michael K. Laney

Abstract
The lower or seaward portion of the Coastal Plain of Georgia contains a series of sand bodies interpreted as remnant barrier island shorelines. These sand bodies typically are composed of sediments containing some detrital heavy mineral constituents. A total of 200 samples were collected from five traverses across these shorelines, ranging in elevation from 9095 feet above mean sea level to about 10 feet above mean sea level. These paleobarrier complexes, from oldest to youngest, are the Pleistocene-aged Wicomico, Penholoway, Talbot, Pamlico and Princess Anne. Samples were analyzed for the total heavy mineral sand fraction, byweight.. Ninety-threeof these samples were examined petrographically. Thirty-nine of these ninety-three samples contained greater than or equal to one percent heavy mineral concentration. The general trend established from analyses revealed an increase in ambient percentage of titanium-bearing minerals with increasing age of the complex sampled. However, the youngest complexes, the Pamlico and Princess Anne, contain the highest ambient total heavy mineral fraction percentages.
Introduction
General Statement
Concentrations of heavy mineral sands have been documented to occur in the sediments of fluvialmarine environments, such as the tidal inlet/barrier island complexes along the Georgia coast (Neiheisel, 1962; Giles and Pilkey, 1965; Woolsey et al, 1975). These concentrations are the result of the interaction of depositional and erosional processes favorable for heavy mineral sand accumulations. Heavy minerals are defined as accessory detrital mineral constituents with a specific gravity ~2.85.
The heavy mineral suite in coastal Georgia, as well as along the entire southeastern coast of the

United States,commonlycontainsmagnetite, ilmenite, epidote, hornblende, leucoxene, staurolite, zircon, sillimanite, rutile, kyanite, tourmaline, garnet, monazite and otherless frequently occurringminerals (Neiheisel, 1962; Hails and Hoyt, 1972). The probable sources of these minerals are the metamorphic and igneous rocks of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces in Georgia. The Savannah, Ogeechee and Altamaha Rivers transport the heavy minerals from Piedmont and Blue Ridge sources to the coast where both nearshore marineand subaerial processes influencedeposition.Some of the heavy mineral occurrences are the result of erosion and redeposition of the Coastal Plain sediments bythese rivers, as well as by smaller, indigenous Coastal Plain rivers. Kellam and Bonn (in preparation) concluded that concentrations of heavy minerals are lowintheimmediatevicinityofthesourceriver. Wave activity in the backshore is apparently an important cause of heavy mineral placer concentration (Reineck and Singh, 1980). Subsequent activity, such as high energy storms and aeolian processes, further concentrate these heavy mineral sands.
The active dune subenvironments, wave and tidal, have the greatest concentration of heavy minerals (Kellam and Bonn, in preparation). This abundance of heavy minerals in the active dunes is because the dunes are formed by the progressive reworking of sediments by longshore currents, wave activity, tide activity and aeolian processes. Heavy minerals are concentrated in the erosional/transgressive subenvironment downdrift of the delta front and the erosional portion of the barrier islands where winnowing is common. In other words, winnowing serves to create higher concentrations of heavy minerals in the subenvironmentsdowndrift and adjacent to the source river, with relative decreases in concentrations farther from the source river (Kellam and Bonn, in preparation).
Similar concentrations downdrift and adjacent to the source river have been found on Pleistocene barrier island shorelines in Georgia up to 50 miles inland (Smith, et al, 1967).

1

Objective
This study represents a second phase of the Heavy Mineral Sands Project of the Accelerated Economic Minerals Program. This program is being conducted by the Georgia Geologic Survey to investigate the long-termpotential ofGeorgia'smineral resources. The first phase was designed to primarily develop a depositional model for heavy minerals; this study currently is in preparation and will be published as Georgia GeologicSurveyBulletin110. The third phase, which as of the date of this publication has not been initiated, will be directed at actually evaluating the heavy mineral economic geology of the barrier island complex.
The objective of this present study is to assess the ambient occurrence of heavy minerals of the five higher Pleistocene paleobarrier island complexes in coastal Georgia (Wicomico, Penholoway, Talbot, Pamlico and Princess Anne). (Note: Seaward of the Princess Anne shoreline complex lies the Silver Bluff shoreline complex (at 4.5 feet elevation) as well as the Holocene islands which make up the present shoreline. As a result of the decision by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources that the coastal environment is of great intrinsic value in an undisturbed state, it has been decided that mining should not occur on these coastal barrier islands. For this reason, the Silver Bluff and present barrier islands were not sampled for this study.)
Previous Work
Origin and Development of Barrier Islands
There are three generally accepted theories of the origin of barrier islands as illustrated in Figure 1. One of the earliest theories, presented by DeBeaumont (1845), postulated that locally derived sediments are eroded from thebreaker zoneand deposited landward as shore-parallel bars. These bars eventually build-up to become emergent, forming incipient barrier islands. Gilbert (1885) credited the creation ofbarrier islands to the accretion of spits from existing islands. The spits are eventually breached by tidal creeks or rivers and become detached. Hoyt (1967) attributed the formation of barrier islands to transgressive progresses. According to Hoyt's theory, as sea level rises the shore is drowned, detaching dune ridges. It is these dune ridges that form the basis for the new barrier islands. Other recent studies have suggested that barrier island formation is a result ofa complex combination of these processes (Leontyev and Nikiforov, 1966; Hoyt, 1967; Cooke, 1968; Schwartz, 1971; Oertel, 1972, 1979;

Leatherman, 1983; Stubblefield, et al, 1983; Griffin and Henry, 1984; and Kellam, 1986).
Georgia's Paleobarrier Island Shorelines
A series of Pleistocene paleobarrier island shorelines, trending parallel or sub-parallel to the present coastline, extends across the Coastal Plain of Georgia (see 1:500,000GeologicmapofGeorgia, 1976). (Note: in this manuscript the terms islands, complexes or barrier islands will be used interchangeably. We view the words as synonyms.) These shorelines range in age from early Pleistocene to Recent. A total of 13 shorelines have been described in Georgia, with elevations from sea level to 260 feet above sea level. In order of increasing age and elevation they are: Holocene (Recent), Silver Bluff, Princess Anne, Pamlico, Talbot, Penholoway, Wicomico, Okefenokee, Waycross, Argyle, Oaxton, Pearson and Hazlehurst (Huddlestun, 1988). The seven most recent shorelines, from the present barrier island (Holocene) to the Wicomico-age shoreline are relatively well defined. These relatively large, unconsolidated surficial sand bodies have been of interest as potential sources of mineral resources, most notably heavy mineral sands. One such body was mined near Folkston in Charlton County, Georgia; and several similar shorelines in northern Florida, adjacent to the study area, are currently being mined.
Previous works (Hoyt and Hails, 1967; Hails and Hoyt, 1972; and Georgia Geologic Survey, 1976) have mapped the approximate positions and outlines of the paleobarrier island shorelines. The existing maps, however, are lacking in detail and did not resolve questions in areas where topographic or morphologic information is inconclusive. The present study provides somewhat greater detail and a clearer definition of the geographic extent of each of the shorelines from the Wicomico to the present. Data for more detailed mapping of the paleoshorelines was derived from several sources.
The primary sources for locations of the shorelines were topographic contours, based on the accepted elevations for each shoreline delineated by Huddlestun (1988). The topographic quadrangle maps on 1:100,000and 1:24,000scalewereexamined and the shorelines were plotted using the elevations to delimit the general shape of the various paleobarrier islands. In areas where topographic criteria were inconclusive, field checks were made to distinguish between paleobarrier sand bodies and other types of sand bodies resulting from subsequent processes, such as the aeolian sand dunes commonly found on the northeastem side of Coastal Plain rivers. A principal feature of interest for the field checks was the presence or ab-

2

Land

Lagoon

1. Land

THROWN UP FROM THE SEA 2.
Ocean

Ocean

LONGSHORE DRIFT SPIT ACCRETION



..-Sand Barrier

DROWNING OF COASTAL SAND RIDGES
Figure 1. Basic theories ofbarrier island fonnation: A.Evolving from an offshore bar (De Beaumont. 1845). B. Evolving from longshore drift-spit accretion (Gilbert. 1885). C. Evolving from the drowning of coastal sand ridges (Hoyt. 1967). For A and C, the numbers 1, 2, & 3 generally refer to initial, intennediate, and fmal stages of developmentFor B, 1 represents the initial stage of development and 2 represents the fmal stage of development
3

sence of "scarps" at the appropriate elevations. These "scarps" are the best evidence of the shoreline of the paleobarrierisland. The presence orabsence ofsurficial sediments of thicknesses to indicate original deposition in a barrier island environment was used to clarify contacts. In addition to new information collected by the authors, unpublished data developed by P.F. Huddlestun of the Georgia Geologic Survey, and unpublished data developed by V.J. Henry and M.W. Rhea, on file at Georgia State University, were evaluated. The location and configuration of the Wicomico, Penholoway, Talbot, Pamlico and Princess Anne shoreline complexes are shown in Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively. Plate A shows these same shorelines as well as the 200 sample locations identified in Appendix A.
The primary evidence for assigning a sand body to a specific paleobarrier shoreline is elevation. The individual shorelines maintain a fairly consistent elevation throughout the Georgia coastal area. Where the topography does not provide a definitive answer, mapping of the shoreline can be difficult. An example of this occurs in Charlton County south of Folkston, in the southeastern portion of the study area. Here, there is an extensive, linear sand body extending the length of the county having an elevation ranging from about 70 feet to over 95 feet. Such elevations are within the expected ranges for both the Penholoway and Wicomico shorelines. "Scarps" canbe seen at the 70-75 and 90-95 foot elevations, suggesting that this sand body is a composite of a Penholoway-age feature welded onto the front of a Wicomico-age feature. Moreover, sedimentary structures, such as crossbedding, generally are absent in the paleobarrier sands of the study area (one exception has been documented by Hoyt and Weimer, 1963). Without sedimentary structures to distinguish, for example, a Penholowayinteriordunesand from a Wicomico shoreline beach facies, a final determination is not possible.
The boundaries (contacts) for specific sand bodies have been obscured as a result of syn- and postdepositional processes, includingbioturbation, aeolian re-working, and agricultural activity. Within the Holocene barrier island shoreline, the sand bodies are in some cases welded directly onto the Silver Bluff. Such processes have apparentlyoccurred throughout much of the depositional history the paleobarrier shorelines. In most locations where this has occurred, precise definition of the boundary between shorelines may not be possible. In some cases a reoccupation of the older shoreline as a result of a sea level rise may have occurred without significant deposition during the younger event. The present-day geomorphic expression of the direct welding of the younger sand body on

to the older would be, in many cases, indistinguishable from the expression of the reoccupation without additional deposition.
Large sand bodies also parallel major rivers that cut through the paleobarrier shoreline. These sand bodies are roughly perpendicular to, and extend landward of the shore-parallel sand bodies at elevations approximately equal to that of the paleoislands. Rhea (1986) interpreted these as being contemporaneous with the adjacent paleobarrier island complexes. Huddlestun (personal communication) believes that these river-parallel sand bodies are the result of activity subsequent to barrier island formation. The lack of definitive sedimentary features, however, prohibits a definitive interpretation, at present.
An additional cause of difficulty in identifying shorelines is the subsequentaeolian erosion as well as the transport and mixing of sands from the shorelines. Such erosion can result in features resembling the extensive frontal shoal systems characteristic of barrier islands of the present shoreline. Outcrops and vertical exposures are extremely limited in the coastal area. In those few exposures that do exist, sedimentary structures, such as dune or shoreface crossbeds, are very rarely preserved. The lack of sedimentary structures inhibits making a distinction between paleoshoals and aeolian deposited dune sands. Examples of these paleo-shoal systems occur fronting the Talbot complex in Bryan County between the Ogeechee and Canoochee Rivers, and further north, fronting the Penholoway complex.
A striking variation in the geomorphology of the shoreline complexes exists between the three older shorelines (Wicomico, Penholoway, Talbot) and the two younger shorelines (Pamlico, Princess Anne). The older shorelines are long, linear and relatively undissected. The younger shorelines are short, stubby and intricately dissected. These morphologies are the result of very different sedimentary regimes. The linear barrier islands result from voluminous sediment supply, wave-dominated energy regimes, and/ or steep continental shelf morphology (Hayden and Dolan, 1979; Hayes, 1979). An example of this type of morphology is the coastline of North Carolina, with its extremely narrow, deeply eroded barrier island system. The shorter, dissected barrier islands result from restricted sediment supply, tide-dominated energy regimes, and/or relatively shallow continental shelf (Hayden and Dolan, 1979; Howard and Frey, 1980). This stubby type of barrier island system is represented by the modern coasts of Georgia and South Carolina.
The stream valleys in the lower Coastal Plain are as much as 1/2 mile wide in some cases. This

4

suggests that in the past coastal rivers were larger and more efficient in carrying sediment. As mentioned in Hails and Hoyt (1972), many of the present day rivers and creeks passing through the older barrier islands appear to be underfit or smaller than necessary to cut the stream valleys in which they lie. With the present state of knowledge of the Pleistocene stratigraphy, it is not possible to determine whether or not the gradient has been altered sufficiently to result in the morphological changes that are seen in the study area.
Previous Studies in Georgia and northern Florida
Previous investigations into the history of the exploration and mining of heavy minerals in Georgia andFlorida,includeMartens(1935)andGamer(1978). Neiheisel (1962, 1965) and Woolsey and others (1975) examined heavymineral concentrationson thepresent Georgia barrier islands. These studies suggest that concentrations tend to occur on the backshore and dune front of the present islands. Kellam and Bonn (in preparation) report that the concentration of the heavy minerals occurs most frequently in the backshore and dune areas, with the highest concentrations occurring in the frontal dunes. Mateer (1961), Abercrombie (1965) and Furlow (1966) evaluated a Parnlico barrier sand body in Glynn County. Friddell (1980) utilized aeroradiornetric data and samples from Parnlico and Princess Anne sand bodies in Glynn and Mcintosh Counties in the same general area as the studies by Moxham(1954),Mateer(1961)andAbercrombie(1965}. These workers generally agreed that heavy minerals are present in quantities in the range considered minable, but apparently not in quantities sufficiently large to be economically viable, at that time. It should be pointed out, however, none of the studies were directed at actually locating an orebody thus economic viability of the mineralization could not be adequately addressed.
Giles and Pilkey (1965) collected 90 samples in the coastal area from North Carolina to Florida. Of theses samples, 50 were beach and dune, 40 were fluvial. Giles and Pilkey found that: 1) beach sands contained relativelygreaterquantitiesofelongateheavy mineral grains and dune sands contained relatively more equidirnensional grains; and 2) the rivers carrying sediments derived from the Coastal Plain contained a more mature suite of heavy mineral sands than those carrying sediments derived primarily from the Piedmont. Giles and Pilkey as well as Hails and Hoyt (1972) confirmed that the Piedmont served as a source for the sediments.
Moxham (1954) was the first to locate an economic concentration of heavy mineral sands in Geor-

gia. Through the use of aeroradiometric data, a concentration of radioactive minerals was located on a Penholoway-age paleobarriersand bodyin the Folkston area of Charlton County. This area was mined for heavy minerals until the mid-1970's when mining ceased.
As a part of the South Georgia Minerals Program, Smith and others (1967) analyzed 80 randomly located borings in the paleobarrier islands for heavy mineral sands (Figure 7). Of these borings, 24 contained ~1.0% heavy mineral sands. Seven samples contained heavy mineral concentrations of>2.0% from the upper 9 feet. A total of seventeen sample locations yielded averages of between 1.0% and >2.0% heavy mineral sands. An addendum to Smith and others (1967) described twelve core holes drilled by Southern Railroad in Charlton County, Georgia. Five of these samples contained deeper zones (> 9 feet deep) of greater than 2% heavy minerals. Mineralogic analysis made during the study suggest an increase in relative abundance of both titanium-bearing minerals and radioactive minerals with increasing overall heavy mineral percentages.
Extensive investigations of barrier island terraces have been made in Florida (Pirkle, et al, 1974; Pirkle,etal, 1984;and Force and Gamer, 1985). Northeastern Florida heavy mineral deposits have been intensively mined for more than 30 years (Figure 8). As a result, more study has been done on the environments of deposition in Florida than these environments in Georgia. Both the Georgia and Florida paleobarrier systems have similar provenance, were created and modified by similar processes, and were formed during the samesequenceofPleistoceneshoreline fluctuations.
Four ore bodies have been studied in northeastern Florida (FigureS). Theyare, inorder ofincreasing age: the Yulee deposits north of Jacksonville; the Boulougne and Green Cove Springs deposits northwest and southwest ofJacksonville, respectively; Trail Ridge, west of Jacksonville; and Trail Ridge, west of Green Cove Springs. Force and Gamer (1985) described high angle dune crossbedding in the face of the mine dredge pond at Trail Ridge. This suggests the importanceofaeolian processesin concentratingheavy mineral sand deposits. Force and Gamer also noted that most of the exploration effort has been directed at paleoshoreline placers, thereby possibly overlooking interior dunefields as prospects.
The Green Cove Springs and Boulougne ore bodies are considered to be beach ridges formed on a regressional beach plain, during either a stillstand or minor transgression (Pirkle et al, 1974; Pirkle et al, 1984). The Yulee deposits are found on a Parnlico

5

SOUTH CAROLINA
Tyb .. I
Cath.,.ln Sound

FLORIDA

01

10

20 ...

1~ Jo 3~KM t--....--'-'T""-.,J'
0

St .Mary Entrance

Figure 2. Wicomico paleobarrier island shoreline relative to the present and past shorelines.

6

GEORGIA

SOUTH CAROLINA
Tybee I. Sound
I.

Altamaha Sound

+
Little ~t .Simon I.

N

Little Cumberland I

'

+ '~~

0
I
0

FLORIDA

St.Marys Entrance

10

,h

I
Jo

20 Ml

I

1
30

KM

Figure 3. Penholoway paleobarrier island shoreline relative to present and past shorelines.

7

B146'
+ 32"16'
GEORGIA

SOUTH CAROLINA
Tyb I. Sound

FLORIDA

0
I
0 - St.Marya Entrance

10

20 Ml

I

I

I

30 KM

Figure 4. Talbot paleobarrier island shoreline relative to present and past shorelines.

8

SOUTH CAROLINA
Sound

FLORIDA

Altamaha Sound

+

N

Little $"t .Simon I.

'

l Jo 10 I I 10

20 Ml I
I
30 KW

Figure 5. Pamlico paleobarrier island shoreline relative to present and past shorelines.

9

81"45'
+ 32"15'

SOUTH CAROLINA

Q.w NESVIU.E

..

0',

fj1 + ct)

+ ) .J St.Cath:rln., Sound

~rJ'J 1/"r'"" '

.</
~ f ~..

Sapelo I

Altamal1 Sound
+
Little !ft.Simona I.

/JiJ(J

Jekyll I.

+

St.Andrewsound

Little Cumberland 1

FLORIDA

I. 0
I
0
Entrance

20 Ml I
I
30 KM

Figure 6. Princess Anne paleobarrier island shoreline relative to present and past shorelines.

10

terrace south and down-longshore drift of the ancestral St. Mary's River. The economic concentration of heavy minerals in the Florida deposits is believed to be the result of sorting caused by the interaction of ocean currents and sediment-bearing river currents. These deposits were further concentrated by wind and wave action (Pirkle, et al, 1984).
Geologic Background
The general area under investigation in this studyisthe southeastern portionoftheGeorgiaCoastal Plain along the Atlantic Ocean. The study area encompasses two tiers of coastal counties (Figure 9). The Coastal Plain extends southeastward from the Fall Line to the Atlantic Coast. The general lithology of the Coastal Plain consists of sediments ranging in age from Cretaceous near the Fall Line to Holocene along the present coast. These seaward-dipping strata overlie older basement rocks ranging in age from Paleozoic to Triassic/Jurassic. Overlying the Tertiary Formations are a total of 13 shorelines located at elevations ranging from 0 to 260 feet above present sea level (Huddlestun, 1988). This study involves the five segmented paleobarrier complexes ranging in elevation from 95 feet above present sea level (Wicomico terrace) to approximately 13 feet above present sea level (Princess Anne terrace). Based on stratigraphic and morphologic evidence, Hails and Hoyt (1972) placed the elevations of these five Pleistocene barrier complexes as follows: Wicomico (90 to 100 feet), Penholoway (70 to 75 feet), Talbot (40 to 45 feet), Pamlico (24 feet), and Princess Anne (13 feet)(see Figures 2 through 6).
The paleobarrier island sand bodies generally are believed to have been deposited during intervalsof standstill in the overall regression which occurred in the Pleistocene epoch. Mean paleo-sea level for each barrier island sequence is based on the upper limits of remnant lagoon-marsh sediments, the fossilized burrows of the marine decapod Callianassa major Say(Hoyt and Weimer, 1963), the interpretation of the present topography, and on the stratigraphic relationships of the sand bodies to each other and to adjacent sediments.
The morphological differences between various Pleistocene barrier island shorelines along the Georgia coast have been studied most recentlybyRhea (1986) and Huddlestun (1988). A complicated process of barrier island development prevailed throughout the Pleistocene. Huddlestun proposed that these differences resulted from variations in sediment volume, in the relative dominance of erosional versus depositional regimes, and in the direction of sediment trans-

port affecting each shoreline. The geomorphic configuration of each shoreline is the result of several interactive dynamic processes, including currents, wind and wave action, as well as sediment source and supply. Two distinct classes of paleo-shorelines are present. The first consists of relatively large, linear, undissected sand bodies, characterized by the Wicomico, Penholoway and Talbot Shorelines. The second consists of small, stubby and complexly dissected sand bodies, characterized by the Pamlico, PrincessAnne, Silver Bluffand presentday shorelines. The large linear, undissected complexes are probably the resultofcombinationofgreatersedimentsupply, wavedominated energyregimeand steepercontinental shelf. The "stubby'' morphology is probably the result of a combination of such factors as decreased sediment supply, tide-dominated energyregime and flatter continental shelf (Rhea, 1986; Huddlestun, 1988; Kellam, 1986).
The shoreline configuration of the southeastern United States and the various depositional processes operating in the coastal environment are key factors in understanding the morphology of the Holoceneand Pleistocenebarrier islands ofGeorgia's coastal counties. The present-day coast of Georgia is located in the middle of the Georgia Bight, extending from North Carolina to Florida. The continental shelf is broadest and shallowest in the bight adjacent to Georgia. The result is a mesotidal, mixed-energy, dynamic regime which is largely tide-dominated and modified by low wave energy. Tidal fluctuations range from approximately 6.5 feet on a diurnal basis to 10 feet during spring tide. Wave heights average about one foot. The variable interaction of tide and wave activity has produced a continuum of barrier island tidal inlet morphologies from North Carolina to Florida. Wave energies are highest along the North Carolina and Florida coasts, and decrease to a minimum along the Georgia coast(Tanner, 1960). Asa result, the morphology of barrier islands along the southeastern United States ranges from long, narrow "shoe-string'' islands in North Carolina and Florida to short, stubby"drumstick" islands along the South Carolina and Georgia coasts (Hayes and Kana, 1976).
Description of the Paleobarrier Island Shorelines
Wicomico Shoreline
The Wicomico Shoreline is represented by only a few geographically limited sand bodies interpreted as paleobarrier islands (Figure 2). To the north of the Altamaha River, the Wicomico Shoreline, based on the assumed elevations of 90 to 95 feet above pre-

11

___ ."

r ., /--

N

t... -\
')

..."-' ,
BULLOCH '~FFIN~HA

,---~"II'e-1

.2 '\...
3)

e~s

') \EVANS\ -.......-1- 12" 74V'

SOUTH CAROLINA

'

9 fio eta 14 \ ,/ 2rlt

~-r

! I
I T

ee
ATT

l ---r7'-">---
NALL/ '

.."'B' R1Y5A.N..-...8<~9

21.

"-....- \ \CHATHAM

22

e e"' ,
.--'
r . ,'?--'"c( ~- aae
I JEFF

...,.....,_-:-~

r.t4APPLING



rl

I
1 I
'

c~J~ 7 ~a

17 29 -\

24'\.L.I.B, ERT~Y0

1a \

! r. i '\ DAVIS

ea 5

2ae LONG -~ 3~

L - - - : r - - '-.....

1e.as .., 2s I '"'

1 B1J ~------

1II~,.L 'eB4A~ 84C9Oe~~N'_~-./.~....e"5-1.e-SII-.2..,\


-

37

-25e ...JMCI~d

39 as 4'\~.,4\3
WAYNE

44 452}.

41e/
<

, ~46

\ '- -- -l : PIERCE 56c:--'S*t3

-

ATLANTIC

':-tr '\ esa .-.J
{ATKINSON i

54

"'\

---r-7

''--r--_.1' soe

58 8 .

. .

67

""

sa 70

OCEAN

r '-. Si- -----4.

55--lsRANTLEY s2_, GLYNN

l

\ WARE i ,~4.J-!7 '"'1.":1\)p

r11.ArN1IEet_1j
't"."-: L,L____I- r-r '--, I

12

\

r ___ i..._J

~ 8

''\ I



CLINCH

I : I

I CHARLTON

73. I

9
CAMDEN

74.

\____

I

;t ~
I_ __.___ _

I3'75e

FLORIDA

EXPLANATION 20 Boring lndentiflcation numbers

0

10

I

I I I

0 10 20

Boring location site

Figure 7. County outline map of southeastern Georgia showing boring localities from the South Georgia Minerals Program (modified from Smith, et al., 1967). Borehole identification numbers denoted by "a" in Charlton County were collected by Southern Railway System.
12

ATLANTIC

\

\

(

__, 'I\._

I I
c:

"r'0

~

0

HIGHLANDS
Trail Ridge Ore Body

OCEAN

Ore bodies and/ or mine sites.

0

10

0

10

20

30 KM

Figure 8. Location map of Florida heavy mineral deposits. (From: Pirkle, et al, 1984).

13

sent mean sea level, is configured as a set of intricately (fluvially) dissected cusps. This may represent the landward shoreline of a backbarrier-lagoonal system. Any fronting barriers that may have existed are no longer present, probably having been removed by erosion. A large scale modern analog of this situation can be seen along the present coast of North Carolina where the eroded barrier islands exist only a narrow, elongated cuspate sand bodies, separated from the mainland by large, shallow sounds. It can be speculated that a similar situation existed on the Wicomico shoreline where erosion, probably accompanying a transgression, continued and removed all vestiges of the fronting barrier islands.
Two relatively small sand bodies at the appropriate elevation are present near Springfield, in Effingham County. These sand bodies may be remnant Wicomico barrier islands. Immediately south of the Altamaha River a paleo-barrier island is seen at Jesup, in Wayne County. Further south in Charlton and Brantley Counties, a large sand body rims the older Trail ridge. Because the sands of the various Pleistocene barrier island shorelines cannot be differentiated, we could not determine whether the rimming sand body is a Wicomico deposit, or eroded from an older sand body (the Okefenokee Shoreline) or a combination of both processes. Definite scarps can be seen along Georgia Highway 23 in Charlton County, from the 90-95 foot elevation, up to the 125 foot elevation of the Okefenokee Shoreline, as well as down to the 70-75 foot elevation of the Penholoway Shoreline.
Penholoway Shoreline
Penholoway barrier island sand bodies are characterized by an elongate, linear morphology, and are relatively less dissected by paleo-drainage systems than are younger shorelines (Figure 3). This shoreline is composed of five main clusters of sand bodies ranging from 2.5 to 7.5 miles in width, separated by present day river courses. The elevation of the paleo-sea level was about 70 to 75 feet above present sea level. The Penholoway Shoreline is separated from the Wicomico Shoreline by a backbarrier lagoonal/estuarine environment which reaches a maximum width of about 12.5 miles in the Pembroke area of Bryan County, and about 15 miles south of Jesup, in Pierce County. Sand ridges in the southern backbarrierregion may be intertidal shoals or beaches, as suggested by Huddlestun (personal communication).
In the southernmost part of Chariton County, the Penholoway Shoreline is manifested as a subtle terrace approaching the eastern edge of the Wicomico Shoreline. As in the case of the relationship between

the Wicomico Shoreline and the Okefenokee Shoreline in this area, the erosion/deposition relationship between the Penholoway and Wicomico Shorelines is not clear.
The sand bodies of the Penholoway Shoreline north of the Altamaha River display a cuspate, relatively undissected configuration that, as discussed by Rhea (1986), is evidence of a wave-dominated regime, as opposed to the tide-dominated regime of the present coast. The northernmost Penholoway sand body in Georgia is terminated at its southern end by a large, low elevation sand body which may be a remnant inlet-mouth shoal system, such as those adjacent to present day barrier island inlets as described in Oertel (1972, 1979) and Kellam and Bonn (in preparation).
Talbot Shoreline
The Talbot Shoreline is a narrow band of sand deposits paralleling the Penholoway shoreline in four main clusters (Figure 4). Elevations range from about 40 to 50 feet above sea level. North of the Altamaha River, the Talbot exists as two relatively small paleobarrier islands developed on the seaward edge of the Penholoway Shoreline with little or no backbarrier region. On the seaward edge of the Talbot barrier island east of Pembroke, in Bryan County, an intricate, low relief sand lobe is present at an elevation of about 40 feet. This sand lobe may be a remnant of a shoal system similar to that seen seaward of Little St. Simons Island (Kellam and Bonn, in preparation). This shoal system is an extremely long, narrow, cuspate shorelineofabout0.5to 1.5milesin widthandabout25miles in length. South of the Altamaha River, Talbot paleobarrier islands are separated from the Penholoway Shoreline by a larger, but nevertheless narrow, backbarrier region; also south of the Altamaha, the Talbot exhibits a moderate amount of fluvial dissection.
Pamlico Shoreline
The Pamlico barrier island complex represents a paleo-shoreline much different from earlier shorelines (Figure 5). Although it occupies a large area within the coastal counties, individual sand bodies are generally much smaller than the older paleobarrier islands. There is a greater degree of fluvial dissection of the Parnlico-age features than is seen in the older complexes. The Pamlico backbarrierregion is wide, 10 to 20 miles. Much of the backbarrier region is low enough (elevations of 15 to 25 feet) so that it was at or below sea level of that time (Huddlestun, 1988). Consequently, much of the backbarrier area may have

14

, ,

I
SW A Y

- 31

I
L___ --1

I

I
L __ ( .
'
t '
',....---......'

10

9

10 0

I

L.

acale

10

20

10 20 30

30

40 MILEI

4!) SOKiLOMETEIIIS

I
az

Figure 9. Location Map of Study Area.

15

been an open sound with fringing marsh. Within this area of paleo-backbarrier sound are a number of relatively small, poorly defined sand bodies with elevations at or slightly above Pamlico sea level. These may represent minor emergent islands or intertidal sand shoal systems.

Princess Anne Shoreline

Princess Anne paleobarrier shorelines, morphology and distribution are similar to that of the Pamlico Shoreline (Figure 6). That is, they are relatively small, stubby islands, complexly dissected by fluvial drainage systems. Paleo-sea level for Princess Anne sand bodies ranged around 10 to 15 feet above present sea level. In several places, Princess Anne sand bodies are welded directly onto the seaward edge of Pamlico paleobarrier islands. In others, a narrow strip of paleo-back barrier sediments separates the two shorelines. The Princess Anne Shoreline is poorly developed south of Brunswick, in Glynn and Camden Counties. Here it is present in small often poorly defined and intricately dissected sand bodies. The largest remnant sand bodies of the Princess Anne Shoreline border the Altamaha River on both the north and the south, suggestinga relatively significant influx of sediment derived from the Altamaha River during this time period.

Overview

Met~od of Study

The primary purpose of this study is to assess the ambient occurrence of heavy mineral sands using sampling traverses (Figure 10 and Plate 1) in order to provide a general assessment of the heavy mineral assemblagesof the paleobarrierisland complexes from the Wicomico age to Princess Anne age. The results of this study, therefore, will be a generalized model for the ambient occurrence of heavy mineral sands in Georgia paleobarrier island complexes.
This study is divided into three parts. Part one involves the collection of hand-augered samples at depths ranging from two to five feet depending on the thickness of the sand body and depth to the water table. The second part includes separating the heavy minerals from the light mineral fraction. Part three involves the petrologic analyses of these samples. The general results of these three parts were integrated and are reported herewith in the manuscript.

Field Methods

Sampling traverses were arranged in north-

to-south and east-to-west directions depending on the sample's relative location on the sand body. The sampling equipment consisted of hand auger and shovel. Approximately 3 pounds of sand were collected for each sample. A total of 200 samples were collected along five east-west traverses (Figure 10, Plate A and also Appendix A). The five-foot maximum sample depth is based on local industry reconnaissance procedures. If fewer than 5 feet of potential ore sand are present, economic volumes ofheavy minerals probably are not present. On the other hand, if more than 5 feet of sand are encountered, if economic concentrations of heavy minerals are present, and if the sand body is laterally extensive, the site is considered to have potential economic value. Coring of the sand body and collecting additional samples, however, would be required to evaluate ore body volume.
Laboratory Methods
All200 samples were cleaned using standard sieving techniques as described by Carver (1971). For each sample, a >200 gram split was wet-sieved with a 230-mesh sieve to remove silt and clay. Each sample was dried, split to approximately 25 grams, weighed on a Mettler precision balance, and placed in a 250 milliliter separatory funnel filled with stetrabromethane (specific gravity= 2.97). Samples in the separatory funnels were stirred vigorously in order to allow a complete separation of the light and heavy mineral fractions. Heavy minerals were siphoned from the separatory funnel onto filter paper after 30 minutes. The sample was then stirred and the procedure repeated three times, until no dark heavy minerals were visible in the liquid. Acetone was used to clean each separatory funnel as well as the filter paper containing the heavy minerals. The heavy minerals were allowed to dry, and then weighed. The weight percentage of heavy minerals was calculated for each sample. Grain mount petrographic slides were made for 93 ofthe samples. Locations for these 93 samples are included in Appendix A. These samples were selected on the basis of two criteria: (1) 39 of the 42 samples with heavy mineral percentages of ~1% were examined; and (2) for comparison, 54 were chosen from sites adjacent to and on the same sand body as those sites with ~1 %. (Table 1)
The use of a one percent cut-off for heavy mineral concentration was based on current industry exploration practices. Depending on the composition of the heavy mineral suites, two percent heavy minerals is the minimum concentration, generally used by industry as a minimum cut-off to determine potentially valuable areas, based on shallow and surface

16

N

0

20 Ml

I I I

0

20

KM

Tybee l.
Little Tybee l. Wasaaw I.

ATLANTIC

Little St. Simona I.

OCEAN

Figure 10. Generalized Traverse Map. 17

Table 1
Compilation of Results of the Present Study Illustrating the Number of Petrographically Examined Samples Containing < 1.0% Heavy Mineral Concentration, 1 to < 2% and ~ 2.0%.

Heavy Mineral Content (% of grains)

Number of
Samples

Mean Heavy Minerals%

<1.0%

54

0.59

1-2.0%

24

1.34

....

- - >2.0%

OD

15

4.65

93 Total Samples

FerroTitanium Minerals%
48.89
53.40
55.54

Radioactive Minerals%

Unstable/Other Minerals%

7.74 11.08 11.50

43.37 35.52 32.96

sampling. Where <1% heavy minerals are found, no potentially economic deposits are considered to exist. Where ~1% heavy minerals are found during reconnaissance sampling, a second, more thorough and detailed sampling program usually is initiated to further test the economic feasibility of the specific sand body.
Petrographic Analysis
Approximately300grains per slide were pointcounted in order to estimate the percentages of each mineral present following Dryden (1931). Grains counted were those which fell on the crosshairs ofeach field-of-view. The mean was computed in order to compare concentration and suite for each discrete sandbody. Priorto performingthe petrographic analysis, reflected light was used to qualitatively assess the relative abundance of magnetite and other opaques versus ilmenite. This assessment indicated that the majority of opaques were ilmenite.
Results
General Statement
A brief description of the five shoreline complexes under investigation together with the results of this study are included in this section. Three mineral groups have been established to simplify the evaluation of the data. These groups can be characterized as follows: (1) ferro-titanium minerals (magnetite, ilmenite, leucoxene, and rutile), (2) radioactive minerals (zircon and monazite) and (3) less stable and other non-economic minerals (epidote, amphibole). The first two groups contain the heavy minerals of primary interest to industry.
Mean percentage of heavy minerals for the 93 samples petrographically analyzed are as follows: total heavy minerals, 1.44% by weight: ferro-titanium minerals, 51.16% of the heavy mineral fraction by grain count: radioactive minerals, 9.30% of the heavy mineral fraction grain count: and less stable/other minerals, 39.56% of the heavy mineral fraction by grain count. Appendix B shows a complete listing of the mineral constituents of the 93 samples petrographically examined. Fifteen of the 93 samples analyzed contained greater than 2 percent heavy minerals. Of these15samples,nonewascollectedfromtheWicomico shoreline, none was collected from the Penholoway shoreline, one was collected from the Talbot shoreline, ten were collected from the Pamlico shoreline, and four were collected from the Princess Anne shoreline. Table 2 is a summary of the ambient heavy mineral suite of the five barrier island complexes as estimated

from the five traverses. (Note: seven of the 200 samples collected could not be assigned to a specific barrier complex. Three were collected along Traverse 1, two along Traverse 2 and two along Traverse 3. Their average heavy mineral percentage was 0.28%.)
In the present study, comparison of the heavy mineral suites for each of the five shoreline complexes shows several trends (Appendix B). There is a general increase in the percentage of leucoxene with increasing age of the sand body. The older deposits contain more mature heavy mineral suites dominated by altered ilmenite Oeucoxene) and minerals that are generally relatively more resistant to weathering. A general decrease in the amount of epidote and amphibole from the Princess Anne to the Wicomico Shoreline also occurs. Smith and others, (1967) found that the titanium minerals contain less iron further west and near the surface, indicating the effects of chemical weathering. Another trend is the increase of titanium and radioactive minerals as percentages of heavy minerals increase. These trends suggest that the younger sands have less mature heavy mineral suites with relatively greater percentages of epidote and amphibole than the older deposits. Hails and Hoyt (1972) reported similar findings. No consistent heavy mineral suite or concentration trends in a north-to-south or east-to-west direction were observed for the individual sand bodies, indicating no systematic variation of heavy mineral concentration relative to the location of the sample sites within each sand body. For this reason, no definitive interpretation could be made regarding specific paleo-subenvironments and relative heavy mineral concentrations.
Wicomico Shoreline
Forty one samples collected along traverses 1, 2, 4, and 5 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.63% (Table 3). Thirteen samples collected along traverse 1 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.61 %. One sample contained greater than one percent heavy minerals while the others contain less than one percent heavy minerals. Eight samples collected along traverse 2 have an average heavy mineral percentageof0.19%,withnosamplecontaininggreater than one percent heavy minerals. Ten samples collected along traverse 4 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.67%. Only one sample from traverse 4 contained greater than one percent heavy minerals, the others contain less than one percent. Ten samples collected along traverse 5 have an average heavy mineral percent of 0.96%. Four samples contained greater than one percent heavy minerals, all others contain less than one percent.

19

Table2
Summary of heavy mineralogy content of each barrier island complex. Number of petrographically examined samples in each barrier complex containing; < 1%, 1 to <2%, or~ 2% heavy minerals. See Appendix B for complete listing of data.

Barrier Complex

Heavy Mineral Content (WT%)

Number of
Samples

Average Heavy Minerals%

FerroTitanium Minerals%

Princess Anne

<1.0%

14

1-2.0%

9

>2.0%

4

0.72

44.65

1.35

49.45

5.09

59.70

Pamlico
~
0
Talbot

< 1.0%

8

1-2.0%

6

>2.0%

10

< 1.0%

10

1-2.0%

1

>2.0%

1

0.74

48.63

1.39

51.21

4.05

52.76

0.48

49.19

1.18

67.18

8.84

67.00

Penholoway

< 1.0%

11

1-2.0%

2

>2.0%

0

0.42

49.16

1.15

48.98

Wicomico

< 1.0%

11

1-2.0%

6

>2.0%

0

0.59

53.97

1.36

61.01

93 Total Samples

Radioactive Minerals%
6.16 8.94 13.08
8.12 9.40 10.96
8.61 14.11 18.00
7.85 10.83
8.63 15.57

Unstable/Other Minerals%
49.18 41.61 27.23
43.24 39.39 36.28
42.20 18.71 15.00
42.98 40.20
37.39 23.42

Table3
Heavy Mineral Suite of the Wicomico Complex. Total heavy mineral sand fraction (by weight %) with Titanium, Radioactive and Unstable/Other mineral fractions (by point count %)

Traverse Number

Number of
Samples

Heavy Mineral Fraction (WT%)

Samples Petrographically Analyzed

Titanium Mineral Fraction
(%)

Radioactive

Mineral Fractions

Zircon Monazite

(%)

(%)

Unstable/Other Mineral Fraction
(%)

1

13

0.61

6

53.62

6.31

0.50

39.55

2

8

0.19

No samples analyzed for constituents

3

-

-

No samples collected on traverse 3

.N...

4

10

0.67

5

58.55

8.96

0.39

32.11

5

10

0.96

6

57.55

15.40

1.38

25.67

Totals

41 Samples 0.63

17Samples

Of the total 41 samples, 17 samples collected along traverses 1, 4, and 5 were analyzed for their heavy mineral constituents (Appendix B). Eleven samples contain less than one percent heavy minerals, six samples contain less than one to two percent, and no samples contain greater than two percent heavy minerals (Table 2). As the heavy mineral content increases, so do the percentages of titanium and radioactive minerals. Both the titanium minerals and radioactive minerals are more abundant in samples collected south of the Altamaha River than in those collected adjacent to the Savannah River.
Penholoway Shoreline
Fifty-six samples collected along traverses 1, 2, 3, and 4 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.49 % (Table 4). Sixteen samples collected along traverses 1have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.44%. Only one sample contained greater than 1 percent heavy minerals. The seventeen samples collected along traverse 2 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.56%. Only one sample contained more than 1 percent heavy minerals. Thirteen samples collected along traverse 3 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.42%, none of which contained greater than one percent heavy minerals. Ten samples collected along traverse 4 have an average heavy mineral percentageof0.56%. One samplecontained greater than one percent heavy minerals.
Of the 56 Penholoway samples, 13 collected along traverses 1 and 4 were analyzed for their constituents(AppendixB). Thereisaslightdecreaseinthe percentage of titanium minerals as the percentage of heavy minerals increases in the Penholoway samples (Table 4). The average percentage of radioactive minerals increases as the percentage of heavy minerals increases (Table 2). Only two of the three samples containing greater than one percent heavy minerals were analyzed. The overall heavy minerals percentages, as well as the percentages of titanium minerals, are lower than those of the Wicomico. No distinctive trend in variation of mineralogy is seen from north and south in the Penholoway complex.
Talbot Shoreline
A total of 44 samples collected along traverses 1-5haveanaverageheavymineralpercentageof0.63% (Table 5). Fifteen samples collected along traverse 1 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.23%, but none contain greater than one percent heavy minerals. Nine samples collected along traverse 2 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 1.68%. Two of

these samples contain over one percent heavy minerals. Five samples collected along traverse 3 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.14%, none of which contain greater than one percent heavy minerals. Seven samples collected along traverse 4 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.95%. Two samples contain greater than one percent heavy minerals. Eight samples collected along traverse 5 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.21 %, none of which contain greater than one percent heavy minerals. Of these 44 samples, 12 samples collected along traverses 1, 2, and 4 were analyzed for their heavy mineral constituents. Only two of the four samples containing greater than one percent were analyzed (Appendix B).
The Talbot trend reflects an increase in overall heavymineral fraction to thesouth. TheTalbot samples directly south of the Savannah River, in traverse 1, have low overall heavy mineral percentages (0.25%) as wellaslowtitaniumconstituentconcentrations(42.47). Both percentages show a marked increase in traverse 2, (1.68 and 57.16 respectively). The average heavy mineral content for samples collected directly south of the Altamaha River along traverse 4 is much greater than the heavy mineral content of samples collected along traverse 1. Likewise, the average percentage of radioactive minerals in samples collected along traverse 4 is almost double the abundance of radioactive minerals in samples from traverse 1. The mineral monazite is three times more abundant in samples from traverse 4 than in samples from traverse 1.
Pamlico Shoreline
A total of 25 samples collected along the traverses 2-5 have a mean heavy mineral percentage of 2.20% (Table 6). Seven samples collected along traverse 2 have an average heavy mineral content of 2.45%. Five samples contain greater than one percent heavy minerals, the others contain less than one percent heavy minerals. Three samples collected along traverse 3 have a mean heavy mineral percentage of 4.69%. Two of these samples contain greater than one percent, theothersamplecontains0.65%. Eight samples collected along traverse 4 have an average heavy mineralpercentagebyweightof2.11%. Sixofthesesamples containgreater than one percentheavy minerals. Seven samples collected along traverse 5 have an average heavy mineral percentage (by weight) of 0.97%. Three samples contain greater than one percent heavy minerals, the rest contain less than one percent heavy minerals.
Of the total of 25 samples collected along the Pamlico Shoreline complex, 24 samples were analyzed

22

Table 4
Heavy Mineral Suite of the Penholoway Complex. Total heavy mineral sand fraction (by weight%) with Titanium, Radioactive and Unstable/Other mineral fractions (by point count%)

Traverse Number

Number of
Samples

Heavy Mineral Fraction (WT%)

Samples Petrographically Analyzed

Titanium Mineral Fraction
(%)

Radioactive

Mineral Fractions

Zircon Monazite

(%)

(%)

Unstable/Other Mineral Fraction
(%)

1

16

0.44

7

49.77

8.07

0.66

41.50

2

17

0.56

No samples analyzed for constituents

3

13

0.42

No samples analyzed for constituents

N
w

4

10

0.56

6

48.38

7.55

0.28

43.80

5

-

-

. No samples collected on Traverse 5

Totals

56 Samples 0.49

13 Samples

Table 5
Heavy Mineral Suite of the Talbot Complex. Total heavy mineral sand fraction (by weight%) with Titanium, Radioactive and Unstable/Other mineral fractions (by point count%)

Traverse Number

Number of
Samples

Heavy Mineral Fraction (WT%)

Samples Petrographically Analyzed

Titanium Mineral Fraction
(%)

Radioactive

Mineral Fractions

Zircon Monazite

(%)

(%)

Unstable/Other Mineral Fraction
(%)

1

15

0.23

5

42.47

7.16

0.20

50.16

2

9

1.68

5

57.16

9.53

1.28

32.03

3

5

0.14

No samples analyzed for constituents

.N...

4

7

0.95

2

63.96

12.95

0.76

22.35

5

8

0.21

No samples analyzed for constituents

Totals

44Samples 0.63

12 Samples

Table 6
Heavy Mineral Suite of the Pamlico Complex. Total heavy mineral sand fraction (by weight%) with Titanium, Radioactive and Unstable/Other mineral fractions (by point count%)

Traverse Number

Number of
Samples

Heavy Mineral Fraction (WT%)

Samples Petrographically Analyzed

Titanium Mineral
Fraction (%)

Radioactive

Mineral Fractions

Zircon Monazite

(%)

(%)

Unstable/Other Mineral Fraction
(%)

1

-

-

No samples collected on Traverse 1

2

7

2.45

7

52.86

8.08

1.31

37.74

3

3

4.69

3

N

Cll

4

8

2.11

8

46.28 56.21

9.97

1.06

8.27

1.32

42.68 34.21

5

7

0.97

6

44.23

7.46

1.79

46.53

Totals

25 Samples 2.20

24 Samples

Table7
Heavy Mineral Suite of the Princess Anne Complex. Total heavy mineral sand fraction (by weight %) with Titanium, Radioactive and Unstable/Other mineral fractions (by point count %)

Traverse Number

Number of
Samples

Heavy Mineral Fraction (WT%)

Samples Petrographically Analyzed

Titanium Mineral Fraction
(%)

Radioactive

Mineral Fractions

Zircon Monazite

(%)

(%)

Unstable/Other Mineral Fraction
(%)

1

-

-

No samples collected on Traverse 1

2

6

0.94

6

45.07

5.66

1.62

47.65

3

~

G)

4

5

13

1.85

8

1.61

-

-

13

49.53

7.80

1.80

8

49.33

4.61

1.71

No samples collected on Traverse 5

40.87 44.33

Totals

27Samples 1.58

27Samples

for their heavy mineral constituents. Ten of these 24 samples had >2% heavy minerals. Six samples contained 1-2% percent heavy minerals and eight samples contained less than one percent heavy minerals (Table 2).
Pamlico sand bodies, in general have higher concentrations of heavy minerals than the older terrace sands. The second traverse shows an overall heavy mineral percent of 2.45%, with high percentages of titanium and radioactive minerals. The percentages of heavy minerals also are relatively high along traverses 3 and 4, but overall heavy mineral and titanium bearing mineral fractions decrease along traverse 5 (See Appendix B).
Princess Anne Shoreline
A total of 27 samples collected along traverses 2, 3, and 4 were analyzed for heavy mineral constituents. They contain an overall heavy mineral percentage by weight of 1.58% (Table 7). Titanium minerals make up 48.47% of the heavy mineral suite, and the radioactive minerals account for 8.11% (Appendix B).
Six samples collected along traverse 2 have an average heavy mineral percentage of 0.94% (Table 7). Two samples contain greater than one percent heavy minerals. Thirteen samples collected along traverse 3 have an average heavy mineral percentage by weight of 1.85%. Eight of these samples contain greater than one percent heavy minerals. The five remaining samples contain less than one percent heavy minerals (Appendix B). Eightsamplescollectedalongtraverse 4 have a mean average heavy mineral percentage by weight of 1.61%. Three samples contain greater than one percent heavy minerals, the others contain less than one percent.
In samples from Princess Anne sand bodies, the overall heavy mineral concentration (158%) is somewhat lower than that of the Pamlico sand bodies (2.20%). In the Princess Anne Shoreline as a whole the percentage of titanium and radioactive minerals increases as overall heavy mineral percentage increases (Table 2). however, no systematic mineralogic trend occurs in a north-to-south direction.
Conclusions
The present study considers heavy mineral data from the surface down to depths of five feet over a broad area of the Atlantic Coastal Plain in Georgia. Several conclusions can be drawn from these data.
(1) Approximately 21% of the 200 samples analyzed contained >1% heavy minerals.

(2) Where trends can be detected, percentages of titanium minerals and radioactive minerals generally increase as heavy mineral content of the sand increases.
(3) Older Pleistocene deposits contain mature heavy mineral suites with relative increases of titanium-bearing minerals and zircon. The titanium-bearing suite is enriched in titanium due to leaching of iron from ilmenite with concomitant increase in leucoxene. Monazite fractions decrease from the younger to the older shorelines. The less stable and generally less valuable minerals, such as epidote, amphiboles and staurolite, tend to weather more rapidly and are relatively less abundant in older shorelines.
(4) No definite overall patterns for the variations in the heavy mineral suite and concentration were detected in a north-to-south direction in the shorelines of the study area. Samples from traverse 1, south of and adjacent to the Savannah River, generally contain lower total heavy mineral concentration than those from traverse 4, south of and adjacent to the Altamaha River. This may indicate a variation in the mineralogy of the provenances of the two rivers, or could reflect a variation in the depositional dynamics of the paleo-Altamaha and paleo-Savannah Rivers. Samples from traverse 2, adjacent to the Ogeechee River, are generally more economically valuable than those of traverse 1, with overall relatively higher total heavy mineral fractions (Appendix B). It can be speculated that the higher concentrations of heavy minerals in traverse 2 are a result of a greater degree of reworking and maturation of sediments on traverse 2, down longshore current from traverse 1. This effect is seen on a smaller scale in the modern Altamaha Sound (Kellam and Bonn, in preparation).
(5) The Pamlico and the Princess Anne shorelines contain appreciably higher total heavy mineral fractions than are found in the older complexes. Of the five barrier island shorelines, the Pamlico shoreline contains the greatest number of samples with heavy minerals concentrations in the potentially economic range
(~1%).

27

(6) The older shorelines, from Talbot toWicomicoage, show a more variable distribution of economically valuable heavy mineral concentrations than in the Pamlico and Princess Anne shorelines. The Talbot complex yielded the smallest number of sample sites with heavy mineral concentrations, and appears to be the least promising in regard to locating minable heavy mineral deposits; on the other hand the Penholoway and Wicomico shorelines appears more favorable for locating potentially minable sites.
(7) There is no consistent, overall pattern of heavy mineral distribution within individual sand bodies. The general lack of discernible sedimentary structures in the Pleistocene paleobarrier island complexes renders paleo-environmental interpretations difficult if not impossible. Systematic variations in heavy mineral suites and concentration did not occur in the samples collected within each discrete sand body.
(8) In general, the more economically favorable heavy mineral concentrations in the three older shorelines are clustered in the southern portion of the study area.
REFERENCES
Abercrombie, W.F., 1965, Heavy mineral investigations along 1-95, Glynn County, unpublished report, Georgia Highway Department.
Carver, R.E., 1971, Procedures in sedimentary petrology, New York, J. Wiley & Sons, 653 p.
Cooke, C.W., 1968, Barrier island formation: Discussion, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 79, p. 945-946.
DeBeaumont, L.E., 1845, Septieme Lecon, in Schwartz,M.L. ed., 1973, Barrier Islands, Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., Stroudsberg, PA.
Dryden, A.L., 1931, Accuracy in percentage representation of heavy mineral frequencies, Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences, v. 17, no. 5, p. 233-238.
Force, E., and Garner, T.E., Jr., 1985, High-angle aeolian crossbedding at Trail Ridge, Florida, Industrial Minerals, no. 215, p. 55-59.
Friddell, M.S., 1980, Uranium and Thorium evaluation of selected sands of coastal Georgia, Open-File Report 80-4, Georgia Geologic Survey, 35 p.

Furlow, J.W., 1966, Evaluation of heavy mineral potential of a portion of Altama Plantation, Glynn County, Georgia, unpublished report, Georgia Geologic Survey, 68 p.
Garner, T.E., Jr., 1978, Geological classification and evaluation of heavy mineral deposits, in Twelfth Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals, Georgia Geologic Survey, Information Circular 49, p. 25-36.
Georgia Geologic Survey, 1976, Geologic Map of Georgia, 1:500,000.
Gilbert, G.K., 1885, The topographic features of Precambrian Lake Shores, U.S. Geological Survey 5th Annual Report, p. 87-88.
Giles, R.T., and Pilkey, O.H., 1965, Atlantic beach and dune sediments of the southeastern United States, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 35, p. 900-910.
Griffin, M.M., and Henry, V.J., 1984, Historical changes in the mean high water shoreline of Georgia, 1857-1982, Georgia Geologic Survey, Bulletin 98, 96 p.
Hails, J.R., and Hoyt, J.H., 1972, The nature and occurrence of heavy minerals in Pleistocene and Holocene sediments of the lower Georgia Coastal Plain, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 42, p, 646-666.
Hayden, B.P., and Dolan, R., 1979, Barrier islands lagoons, and marshes, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 49, p. 1061-1072.
Hayes, M.O., 1979, Barrier island morphology as a function of tidal and wave regime, in Leatherman, S.P., ed., Barrier Islands, New York, Academic Press, p. 1-28.
Hayes, M.O., and Kana, T.W., 1976, (eds) Terrigenous clastic depositional environments, Technical Report No. 11-CRD, Coastal Resources Division, University of South Carolina, Part II.
Howard, J.D., and Frey, R.W., 1980, Holocene depositional environments of the Georgia coast and continental shelf, in Howard, J.D., DePratter, and Frey, R.W., eds, Excursions in Southeastern Geology: The Archeology - Geology of the Georgia coast, Georgia Geologic Survey, Guidebook 20, p. 66-234.
Hoyt, J.H., 1967, Barrier island formation, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 78, p. 1125-1135.
Hoyt, J.H., and Hails, J.R., 1967, Pleistocene shore line sediments in coastal Georgia: deposition and modification, Science, v. 155, p. 15411543.
Hoyt, J.H., and Weimer, R.J., 1963, Comparison of

28

modern and ancient beaches, central Georgia coast, AAPG Bulletin, v. 47, p. 529-531. Huddlestun, P.F., 1988, A Revision of the lithostratigraphic units of the Coastal Plain of Georgia: The Miocene through the Holocene, Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 104, 162 p. Kellam, J.A., and Bonn, G.N., in preparation, Distribution of heavy mineral sands adjacent to a mixed energy delta: A possible exploration model, Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 110. Kellam, M.F., 1986, Geologic Atlas of coastal Georgia, Georgia Geologic Survey Geologic Atlas 5, 10 pl. Leatherman, S.P., 1983 Barrier island evolution in response to sea level rise: A discussion, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 53, p. 10261033. Leontyev, O.K., and Nikiforov, L.G., 1966, Reasons for the world-wide occurrence of barrier beaches, Oceanology, v. 5, p. 61-67. Martens, J.H.C., 1935, Beach sands between Charleston, South Carolina and Miami, Florida, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 46, p. 1563-1596. Mateer, R., 1961, Geological report on the Altama heavy mineral deposit, Glynn County, Georgia: unpublished report, Georgia Geologic Survey. Moxham, R.M., 1954, Airborne radioactivity survey inthe Folkston area Charlton County, Georgia and Nassau County, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey, Geophysical Investigations Map GP-119. Neiheisel, J., 1962, Heavy mineral investigation of Recent and Pleistocene sands of the lower Coastal Plain of Georgia, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 73, p. 365-374. Neiheisel, J., 1965, Source and distribution of sediments at Brunswick Harbor and vicinity, Georgia Institute of Technology Memorandum, no. 12, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 48 p. Oertel, G.F., 1972, Sediment transport of estuary entrance shoals and the formation of swash platforms, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 42, p. 858-863. Oertel, G.F., 1979, ed., Estuary- shelf sediment exchange 1979: A field guidebook, Old Dominion University, 64 p. Pirkle, E.C., Pirkle, F.L., Pirkle, W.A., and Stayert, P.R., 1984 The Yulee heavy mineral sand deposits of northeastern Florida, Economic Geology, v. 79, p. 725-739.

Pirkle, E.C., Pirkle, W.A., and Yoho, W.H., 1974 The Green Cove Springs and Boulougne heavy mineral sand deposits of Florida, Economic Geology, v. 69, p. 1129-1137.
Reineck, Hans-Erich, and Singh, I.S., 1980, Depositional Sedimentary Environments, secondedition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 360 p.
Rhea, M.W., 1986, Comparison of Quaternary shoreline systems in Georgia: morphology, drainage and inferred processes of formation, Athens, University of Georgia, unpublished thesis, 73 p.
Schwartz, M.L., 1971, The multiple casualty of barrier islands, Journal of Geology, v. 79, p. 91-94.
Smith, J.W., Pickering, S.M., Jr., and Landrum, J.R., 1967, Heavy mineral bearing sand of the coastal region of Georgia, Georgia Geologic Survey, Project Report No.8, South Georgia Minerals Program, 68p.
Stubblefield, W.L., Kersey, D.G., and McGrail, D.W., 1983, Development of middle continental shelf sand ridges: New Jersey, AAPG Bulletin, v. 67, no. 5, p. 817-830.
Tanner, W.F., 1960, Florida coastal classification, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 10, p. 259-266.
Woolsey, J.R., Henry, V.J., and Hunt, J.L., 1975, Backshore heavy mineral concentration of Sapelo Island, Georgia, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 45, p. 280-284.

29

Appendix A

Heavy Mineral Sample Locations

Traverse #1 - From Springfield to Savannah

SAMPLE NUMBER

LOCATION

LATITUDE LONGITUDE

Tl-1
Tl-2
Tl-3 Tl-4 Tl-5 T1-6 Tl-7 Tl-8 Tl-9 Tl-10 Tl-11 Tl-12 Tl-13 Tl-14

Approx. 2 miles south of Pineora. 100ft north of Midland Rd. on dirt road called Helmey Rd. Intersection of Midland Rd. and dirt road which parallels Wicomico on map
1I 4 mile off same dirt road next
to crossing of logging road
1I 4 mile west of Tl-3
2 1I 4 miles north of T1-4
114 mile SE of Tl-5
114 mile SE of Tl-6
1 mile NE of Tl-7
About 113 mile north of Tl-8
1 112 miles north of Tl-9
2 miles SE of Tl-8 at intersection of McCall Rd. and Little McCall Rd.
1I 4 mile SE of Tl-11
114 mile SE of T1-12
114 mile SE of Tl-13

N3216'04" W8122'12"
N3215'40" W8121'52"
N3217'31" W8120'08"
N32 17'44" W8120'19"
N3219'32" W8119'44"
N32 19'18" W8119'22"
N3219'10" W8119'34"
N3219'28" W8118'16"
N3219'46" W8118'16"
N32 21'06" W8118'30"
N3217'58" W8117'15"
N3217'41" W8116'56"
N3217'23" W8116'30"
N3216'58" W8116'14"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 1.56
0.59
0.65 0.50 0.89 0.64 0.67 0.39 0.70 0.50 0.33 1.10 0.35 0.47

30

SAMPLE NUMBER Tl-15 T1-16 Tl-17 Tl-18 Tl-19 T1-20 Tl-21 Tl-22 Tl-23 Tl-24 Tl-25 Tl-26 Tl-27 Tl-28 T1-29 Tl-30

Appendix A (cont.)

LOCATION

LATITUDE LONGITUDE

1/4 mile SE of T1-14
11/2 miles SE of Tl-15
1 mile SE of T1-16
3I 4 mile east of Tl-17
about 4 miles west of Tl-17 just above Blandford Rd. 21/2 miles SW of T1-19
a little over 5 miles south ofTl-20 onHwy. 17 about 1/4 mileNW ofT1-21 about 1 mile NW of Tl-22
1 mile West of Tl-23
2 miles NW of Tl-23
1/3 mile SE of Tl-25
1/3 mile SE of Tl-26
3/4 mile SE of Tl-27
11/3 miles east of Tl-28
2 miles NE of Tl-29

N3216'40" W8115'50"
N3215'52" W8114'38"
N3215'22" W8113'45"
N32 15'19" W8113'06"
N3215'08" W8117'56"
N3213'50" W8119'58"
N32 09'27'' W81 20'37''
N32 09'50" W8120'48"
N3210'44" W8121'10"
N32 10'31" W8120'14"
N32 12'17'' W8121'39"
N3212'05" W81 21'15"
N32 11'48" W8120'50"
N3211'34" W81 20'13"
N3211'06" W8119'10"
N3212'02" W8117'31"

HEAVY MINERAL
%
0.54 0.35 0.19 0.24 0.48 0.59 0.40 0.29 0.20 0.43 0.35 0.33 0.44 0.19 0.16 0.28

31

SAMPLE NUMBER Tl-31 Tl-32 Tl-33 Tl-34 Tl-35 Tl-36 Tl-37 Tl-38 Tl-39 Tl-40 Tl-41 T1-42 Tl-43 Tl-44 Tl-45 Tl-46

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LATITUDE LONGITUDE

3/4 mile NW of Tl-30
11/2 miles east of Tl-31
1 miles NE of T1-32
1 3/4 miles NE of Tl-33
a little over 2 miles NE ofTl-34 Hwy. 119 between Guyton and Springfield about 2 miles north of Rincon
Hwy. 119 about 2 miles NE of Springfield Hwy. 119 about 1 mile north of Springfield Hwy. 30 about 4 miles NW of Bloomingdale east side of Hwy. 17 about 1 1/2 miles SW of Tl-40 Hwy. 119 immediately west of Guyton 1 mile west of Tl-42
3 miles SW of Tl-43
2 miles east of Tl-22
2 miles east ofTl-21

N3212'30" W8118'03"
N3212'44" W8116'39"
N3213'12" W8115'43"
N3214'14" W8114'35"
N3215'00" W8112'39"
N3221'04" W8120'53"
N32 19'57" W8113'25"
N32 24'28" W8116'45"
N32 23'15" W8119'33"
N32 11'36" W81 20'05"
N3210'27" W8120'58"
N3219'29" W8124'11"
N3219'26" W8125'25"
N3217'21" W8127'45"
N32 09'39" W8118'33"
N32 09'18" W8118'49"

HEAVY MINERAL
%
0.23 0.16 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.31 0.36 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.42 0.42 0.30 0.19 0.36 0.10

32

SAMPLE NUMBER

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LATITUDE LONGITUDE

Tl-47

2 miles east of Tl-45

Traverse #2- from Pembroke to Kilkenny

T2-1

1112 miles NE of Ellabell

T2-2

5 miles SE ofT2-1 immediately

west of Hwy. 204

N32 09'55" W8116'16"
N32 08'36" W8128'19" N32 05'43" W8125'31"

T2-3 T2-4 T2-5 T2-6 T2-7 T2-8 T2-9 T2-10 T2-11 T2-12 T2-13 T2-14

1/5 mile west of T2-2
2 miles west of T2-3
1 mile west of T2-2
1I 4 mile west of T2-3
2 miles north of T2-1
1112 miles SE of T2-1
3I 4 mile east of T2-8
112 miles north of T2-3
1 miles north of T2-10 where powerline intersects Hwy. 204 approximately 3 miles west of 1'2-11 112 mile south of 1'2-12
11/4 miles SE of 1'2-13

N32 05'45" W8125'45"
N32 05'31" W8127'31"
N32 05'49" W8126'30"
N32 05'54" W8126'09"
N32 10'20" W81 28'37''
N32 07'47'' W8127'07"
N32 07'42" W8126'29"
N32 06'11" W81 25'40"
N32 06'55" W8125'59"
N32 07'06" W8129'08"
N32 06'43" W8129'02"
N32 05'57'' W8127'58"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 0.33
0.46 0.57
0.76 8.84 0.59 0.62 1.12 0.80 0.77 1.19 0.99 0.39 0.96 0.60

33

SAMPLE NUMBER T2-15 T2-16 T2-17 T2-18 T2-19 T2-20 T2-21 T2-22 T2-23 T2-24 T2-25 T2-26 T2-27 T2-28 T2-30 T2-31

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LATITUDE LONGITUDE

1/5 mile NW of T2-14
3/4 mile NW of T2-15
1/2 mile north of T2-12 1118 miles west ofT2-17
112 mile south of T2-18
1314 miles south of T2-19
1I 4 mile east of T2-20
little over 2 miles north of Pembroke 114 mile east of T2-22
1I 4 mile east of T2-23
1115 miles east of T2-24
1 mile south of T2-23
1115 miles NE of T2-24
1/4 mile NW of T2-27
approximately 1 1I 4 miles south
of Kilkenny 1/2 way between T2-30 and Kilkenny

N32 06'09" W8128'09"
N32 06'34" W8128'43"
N32 07'31" W8129'11"
N32 07'29" W8130'14"
N32 07'05" W8130'21"
N32 05'40" W8130'20"
N32 05'39" W8130'07"
N3210'03" W8137'12"
N32 09'58" W8136'49"
N32 09'57'' W81 36'30"
N3210'00" W8135'14"
N32 09'05" W8137'00"
N3210'51" W8135'49"
N3211'01" W8135'59"
N3146'27'' W8112'29"
N3146'48" W8112'23"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 0.25 0.45 0.82 0.43 0.74 0.83 0.31 0.16 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.95 1.64

34

SAMPLE NUMBER T2-32 T2-33 T2-34 T2-35 T2-36 T2-37 T2-38
T2-39 T2-40 T2-41 T2-42 T2-43 T2-44 T2-45 T2-46 T2-47

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LAmUDE LONGITUDE

400 yards north of Kilkenny on small dirt road just to the west of Belle Island
1 mile north of T2-33
314 mile north of T2-34
1 mile west of T2-35
1 mile west ofT2-36 on Kilkenny Road intersection of Cottonham Trail and Oak Level Trail immediately east of Richmond Hill on Cottonham Trail near gate to the Redbird Creek Hunting Club
on Jake Brown Trail3I 4 miles
south of T2-39 on Jake Brown Trail 1 mile south T2-40 On Jake Brown Trail1 mile south T2-41 1 mile north of Ellabell at sand pit 2 miles south of Blitchton
1 mile SE of T2-44
1I 4 mile south of T2-45
1I 4 mile south of T2-46

N3147'37'' W8112'14"
N3146'02" W8113'42"
N3146'55" W8113'22"
N3147'33" W8112'52"
N3147'57'' W8113'47''
N3148'15" W8114'42"
N3151'18" W8112'40"
N3151'35" W8112'12"
N3150'46" W8112'57''
N3149'52" W8113'17''
N3148'58" W8114'03"
N32 08'13" W8129'23"
N3210'23" W8125'49"
N32 09'40" W8125'26"
N32 09'28" W8125'24"
N32 09'08" W8125'22"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 0.68 0.64 1.04 0.71 0.87 4.26 2.59
0.96 1.83 2.21 4.44 0.12 055 0.29 0.68 0.51

35

Appendix A (cont.)

SAMPLE NUMBER

LOCATION

LATITUDE LONGITUDE

T2-48 T2-49

200 yards east of T2-24 6 miles NW of Pembroke

N3210'01" W8136'27"
N3211'51" W8143'56"

T2-50

3 miles south of T2-49

N32 09'22" W8144'22"

Traverse #3 - from Ludowici to Meridian

T3-1 T3-2 T3-3 T3-4 T3-5 T3-6 T3-7
T3-8 T3-9 T3-10 T3-ll

in Meridian along Hwy. 99 on dirt road located on Ridgeville Quad. same dirt road 114 mile from T3-1
same dirt road 114 mile from T3-2
same dirt road 1I 4 mile from T3-3
same dirt road 1I 4 mile from T3-4
same dirt road 1.4 mile from T3-5
on old Barrington Rd. north of Hwy. 99 (also called Hwy. 57) where powerline crosses road. 113 mile north of T3-7
3I 4 mile NE of T3-8
1 mile SE of T3-9
1 mile north of T3-10

N3127'08" W81 22'43"
N31 27'19" W8122'57"
N3127'29" W8123'35"
N3127'34" W8124'05"
N3127'28" W8124'32"
N31 27'31" W8125'12"
N3140'05" W8141'56"
N3140'30" W8141'49"
N3140'50" W8141'11"
N3140'13" W8140'14"
N3140'59" W8140'03"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 0.24 0.24
0.21
0.96 0.58 1.48 0.36 10.52 2.90 0.33
0.29 0.80 0.67 0.77

36

SAMPLE NUMBER T3-12 T3-13 T3-14
T3-15 T3-16 T3-17 T3-18
T3-19
T3-20
T3-21 T3-22 T3-23 T3-24 T3-25 T3-26

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LATITUDE LONGITUDE

1/4 mile east of T3-11
3/4 mile east of T3-12
1I 4 mile east of T3-13 on
Curry Ford Rd.

N3140'56" W8139'45"
N3140'55" W8139'01"
N3141'07'' W8138'29"

1/2 mile east of T3-14
1/2 mile south of T3-15
1/3 mile south of T3-16
on Reedie Branch Rd. 1/4 mile off Tibet Rd. 11/2 miles north ofT3-15
intersection of Tibet Rd. and powerline 1 1/2 miles north ofT3-18
intersection of Nunnery Place Rd. and Tibet Rd. 1 1/2 miles SE ofT3-17
Tibet Rd. 2 miles north of Hwy. 99
1 mile SE of T3-21 east of Tibet Rd.
3/4 mile south of T3-22 in NW corner of Townsend Quad.
south side of Hwy. 99 in sand pit 1 1/2 miles south of T3-23
in Meridian just on east side of Hwy.99
intersection on Hwy. 99 with road leading east to Sapelo Dock

N3141'11" W8138'51"
N3140'43" W8138'07''
N31 40'21" W8138'15"
N3142'17'' W8138'05"
N3143'25" W8137'41"
N31 39'51" W8136'58"
N3138'00" W8136'51"
N3137'32" W81 35'50"
N3136'57" W8136'07''
N3135'55" W8136'03"
N3127'03" W8122'32"
N31 27'41" W8122'12"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 0.41 0.33 0.14
0.21 0.29 0.43 0.34
0.42
0.17
0.08 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.48 0.90

37

SAMPLE NUMBER

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LATITUDE LONGITUDE

T3-27 T3-28 T3-29 T3-30 T3-31 T3-32 T3-33 T3-34 T3-35 T3-36

on Hwy. 99 on north side of Hudson Cemetery
on dirt road leading east from Carnigan off Hwy. 99
on paved road leading east to marina from Ridgeville
11/2 miles SW of T3-29 on road connecting Hwys. 17 and 99
3I 4 mile west of T3-30 100 ft.
east of Hwy. 17
2 1/2 miles north of T3-31 on Hwy.17
1 mile south of T3-32
1/6 mile east of I-95 3/4 mile west ofT3-31
3 miles NE of Ludowici
3 miles SE of Ludowici

N3126'49" W8122'57''
N3125'48" W8123'19"
N3124'30" W8123'53"
N3123'36" W8125'04"
N3123'35" W8125'51"
N31 25'15" W81 25'44"
N3124'28" ~~\ 'l"S"':J"S'
N31 23'38" W8126'45"
N3143'40" W8141'50"
N3140'59" W8142'11"

Traverse #4 - from Jesup to Brunswick

T4-1

Hwy. 301 south of Jesup on

powerline

T4-2

approximately 1/4 mile west of

T4-1 just east of Palm Street

T4-3

on S. Brunswick Rd. 3 telephone

poles from railroad tracks

T4-4

on powerline 4 poles from T4-1

T4-5

taken next to railroad tracks which

parallel Macon St.

N3134'30" W8152'39"
N3134'48" W8153'12"
N3134'55" W8153'28"
N3135'04" W8153'40"
N3135'15" W8153'13"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 1.38 2.44 1.88 1.01 1.25 9.89 1.42 0.65 0.35 0.28
0.50 0.38 0.79 0.73 0.97

38

SAMPLE NUMBER T4-6 T4-7 T4-8 T4-9 T4-10 T4-11 T4-12 T4-13 T4-14 T4-15 T4-16 T4-17 T4-18 T4-19 T4-20 T4-21

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LATITUDE LONGITUDE

between Sunset Blvd. and Macon St.
on powerline in Mt. Pleasant on 25 ft. contour
approximately 1I 4 mile from T4-7
approximately 114 mile from T4-8
approximately 114 mile from T4-9
dirt road off Post Rd. where T4-3 and T4-4 were taken Jet Port Rd. in Brunswick just westofHwy.17 Jet Port Rd. beginning of first curve approximately 114 mile west from T4-13
approximately 1I 4 mile west from
T4-14 at right angle tum in Jet Port Rd. between Brunswick-Altamaha Canal Rd. and Petersville Rd. 114 mile west from T4-17
114 mile west from T4-18
on Canal Rd. about 500 yards eastofl-95 on Canal Rd. about 50 yards off 1-95

N3135'32" W8154'25"
N3124'55" W8140'39"
N3125'01" W8140'50"
N3125'13" W8141'03"
N3125'17'' W8141'09"
N3125'25" W8141'16"
N3116'43" W8126'29"
N3116'38" W8126'52"
N3116'46" W8127'22"
N3116'40" W8127'41"
N3116'27'' W8127'58"
N3116'43" W81 28'23"
N3116'43" W8128'42"
N3116'44" W8128'59"
N3115'44" W8129'25"
N3115'53" W8129'35"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 1.06 0.47 0.88 1.82 0.92 0.55 0.58 0.46 0.97 3.86 4.15 1.07 0.86 0.96 1.15 2.49

39

SAMPLE NUMBER T4-22 T4-23 T4-24 T4-25 T4-26 T4-27 T4-28 T4-29 T4-30 T4-31 T4-32 T4-33 T4-34 T4-35 T4-36 T4-37

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LATITUDE LONGITUDE

intersection of Cate Rd. and Canal Rd. Canal Rd. about 100ft. east of intersection with Cate Rd. 114 mile west ofT4-23
1I 4 mile west of T4-24
Canal Rd. 1I 4 mile west of
intersection with Hwy. 99 intersection of Canal and Race HorseRds. 2 miles south of Hwy 341 from Grangerville on powerline 114 mile NW of T4-28
114 mile NW of T4-29
114 mile NW of T4-30
114 mile NW of T4-31
1I 4 mile NW of T4-32
1I 4 mile NW of T4-33
1I 4 mile NW of T4-34
intersection of Hwy. 301 and Sunset Blvd. south of Jesup Jesup Airport Rd. at end of runway

N3116'05" W8129'43"
N3116'10" W81 29'53"
N3116'23" W8130'02"
N3116'43" W8130'29"
N3116'56" W8130'38"
N3117'13" W8131'02"
N3127'29" W8143'48"
N3127'36" W8143'58"
N3127'40" W8144'06"
N31 28'00" W8144'27''
N3128'09" W8144'38"
N3128'23" W8144'57''
N3128'33" W8145'07''
N3128'43" W8145'16"
N3133'51" W8153'26"
N3133'02" W8152'52"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 4.09 0.31 4.80 0.78 1.63 1.65 0.27 0.46 0.40 0.46 1.19 0.90 0.51 0.42 0.52 0.62

40

SAMPLE NUMBER T4-38 T4-39 T4-40 T4-41 T4-42 T4-43

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LATITUDE LONGITUDE

about 1I 4 mile west of T4-37
about 2 miles south of T4-38
Dirt road leading south from Grangerville Dirt road leading south from Grangerville Post Rd. leading south from Mt. Pleasant Sansatilla Rd. leading north from Mt. Pleasant

N3133'11" W8153'35"
N3131'52" W8154'15"
N3128'49" W8144'12"
N3127'04" W8144'35"
N3123'31" W8141'54"
N3127'00" W8140'29"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 0.58
0.57
0.35
0.62
0.83
1.18

Traverse #5- through Nahunta and Waynesville along Hwy. 82

T5-1

Old Post Rd. just east of

Waynesville between Golden

Isle speedway and railroad tracks

T5-2

1/4 mile south of T5-1

T5-3

1/4 mile south of TS-2

TS-4

1/4 mile south of TS-3

T5-5

1/4 mile south of TS-4

T5-6

3 1/2 mile south of TS-5

T5-7

1 1/2 miles north of T5-6

T5-8

1 mile north of TS-7

N3114'18"

0.57

W8145'30"

N3110'08"

0.32

W8145'31"

N3113'55"

0.07

W8145'33"

N3113'32"

0.17

W8145'43"

N3113'13"

0.16

W8145'50"

N3110'33"

0.12

W8146'34"

N3111'36"

0.23

W8146'15"

N3112'16"

0.07

W8145'58"

41

SAMPLE NUMBER T5-9 T5-10 T5-11
T5-12 T5-13 T5-14
T5-15 T5-16
T5-17 T5-18 T5-19 T5-20
T5-21 T5-22

Appendix A (cont.)

LOCATION

LATITUDE LONGITUDE

on Hwy. 84 about 3/4 mile east ofl-95
on Hwy. 84 about 1/2 mile north of intersection with Hwy. 17
Emanuel Church Rd. north of Hwy. 84 about 13/4 miles NW of T5-9
intersection of Emanuel Church Rd. and Hwy. 84
on Myers Hill Rd. on north side of Springhill Church
intersection of Myers Hill Rd. and Buck Swamp Rd. in SW comer of Brunswick West Quad.
on Hwy. 84 on east-central area of Bladen Quad.
21/2 miles south of Hwy. 84 at intersection with E-W trending road in south central portion of Hoboken East Quad.
1 1/2 miles NW of TS-15
1 mile north of 1'5-16
1 mile north of TS-15
intersection of N-S trending dirt road and Hwy. 84, 3 miles east of Hoboken
north-central portion of Hoboken Quad. 3 miles north of Hwy. 84
3/4 mile from T5-21

N31 07'55" W8133'54"
N31 08'48" W8135'30"
N3110'22" W8135'58"
N3110'04" W8136'12"
N31 09'14" W8136'47"
N31 07'57" W8137'25"
N3110'42" W8137'45"
N31 09'15" W82 04'21"
N3110'03" W8205'03"
N3110'53" W81 04'59"
N3110'12" W82 04'16"
N3111'23" W82 04'15"
N3113'15" W8203'35"
N3112'44" W82 03'50"

HEAVY MINERAL
% 0.13 1.04 0.57
0.82 2.22 1.06
0.95 1.27
0.53 0.52 1.37 1.83
1.09 0.81

42

SAMPLE NUMBER
T5-23
T5-24
T5-25

LOCATION

Appendix A (cont.)
LATITUDE LONGITUDE

1/2 mile south of T5-22 1/4 mile NE ofT5-20 11/2 miles west of T5-20

N3112'22" W8203'59"
N3111'41" W82 03'55"
N3111'16" W82 05'37''

HEAVY MINERAL
% 0.75
0.68
0.76

*NOTE: Sample T2-29 was collected but in the process of evaluating all the samples the data sheet was lost, instead of resampling this one location it was decided just to delete the entry. However there is on file at the Georgia Geologic Survey the location of this sample site.

43

APPENDIXB HEAVY MINERAL CONSTITUENTS BY TRAVERSE
Heavy Mineral Percentages of Petrographically Examined Samples from Traverse 1

Barrier Complex

Sample Heavy

No.

Min'l%

llmeniteMagnetite

Leucoxene Rutile

Zircon

Identity of Heavy Mineral Fraction(%) Monazite Tourmaline Staurolite Gamet Epidote

Amphibole Kyanite Mise Silmnite Hvys

Wicomico T1-1

1.56

33.66

24.75 6.60 11.55

1.32

3.30

6.60

0.33 0.00

0.00

11.88 0.00

Wicomico Tl-2

0.59

32.22

16.61 5.32

4.98

0.33

4.98

8.97

1.33 0.00

0.00

23.92 1.33

Wicomico T1-3

0.65

40.32

14.19 3.55

5.81

0.00

4.52

9.35

0.65 0.00

0.00

20.96 0.65

Wicomico Tl-7

0.67

25.18

23.74 5.04

6.47

0.48

6.71

7.91

1.20 0.24

0.00

22.78 0.24

Wicomico T1-10 0.50

18.58

19.95 4.37

5.74

0.55

9.56

10.66

1.37 0.27

0.82

27.58 0.55

...

Wicomico Tl-38 0.27

22.00

20.00 5.67

3.33

0.33

5.67

Average

0.71

28.66

19.87 5.09

6.31

0.50

5.79

6.33

0.33 0.00

1.00

8.30

0.87 0.09

0.30

35.33 0.00 23.74 0.46

Penholoway Tl-11 0.33 Penholoway Tl-12 1.10 Penholoway Tl-13 0.35 Penholoway Tl-14 0.47 Penholoway Tl-19 0.48 Penholoway Tl-27 0.44 Penholoway T1-37 0.36

Average

0.50

32.67

12.21 6.93

6.27

0.33

5.28

29.18

18.36 4.59

9.51

0.98

3.93

18.04

19.88 4.28

3.67

0.31

5.81

12.20

16.77 5.49

4.57

0.00

12.80

30.00

22.00 7.00

8.00

0.67

6.33

29.00

17.00 11.33 15.00

1.00

5.67

27.36

14.66 9.45

9.45

1.30

3.91

25.49

17.27 7.01

8.07

0.66

6.25

13.20

1.98 0.00

0.33

10.49

0.00 0.33

0.33

14.37

1.53 0.00

0.92

12.20

1.52 0.00

0.00

9.33

1.00 0.33

0.33

8.67

0.67 0.00

0.00

7.17

0.33 0.00

0.00

10.78

1.00 0.09

0.27

20.79 0.00 20.98 1.31 30.58 0.61 32.93 1.52 15.00 0.00 10.99 0.67 26.37 0.00
22.52 0.59

Talbot Talbot Talbot Talbot Talbot

Tl-16 0.35

24.59

12.13 9.18

5.57

0.00

7.21

Tl-17 0.19

14.46

10.54 3.61

6.33

0.00

9.34

T1-18 0.24

27.15

19.21 5.96

9.93

0.66

4.30

Tl-29 0.16

29.94

13.38 6.05

8.28

0.32

4.14

Tl-35 0.21

20.73

13.01 2.44

5.69

0.00

8.13

Average

0.23

23.37

13.65 5.45

7.16

0.20

6.62

11.48

0.66 0.00

0.33

12.05

1.81 0.30

0.00

13.91

0.66 0.00

0.00

12.10

0.96 0.00

0.64

10.57

2.03 3.66

0.81

12.02

1.22 0.79

0.36

28.52 0.33 40.36 1.20 16.89 1.32 23.55 0.64 32.11 0.81
28.29 0.86

APPENDIX B (CONT.) Heavy Mineral Percentages of Petrographically Examined Samples from Traverse 2

Barrier Complex

Sample Heavy

No.

Min'l%

Dmenite- Leucoxene Rutile Magnetite

Zircon

Identity of Heavy Mineral Fraction(%) Monazite Tourmaline Staurolite Gamet Epidote

Amphibole Kyanite Mise Silmnite Hvys

Talbot Talbot Talbot Talbot Talbot

T2-2

0.57

T2-3

0.76

T2-4

8.84

T2-6

0.62

T2-8

0.80

44.00

7.69

4.00

7.38

2.77

27.67

17.33

5.00

5.67

0.67

57.67

4.00

5.33

16.00

2.00

35.10

13.91

2.32

7.62

0.33

44.20

10.97

6.58

10.97

0.63

4.62 10.33 4.00 7.62 4.70

17.85

0.92

1.23

0.31

9.23 0.00

10.67

2.33

0.00

0.00

20.33 0.00

5.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

6.00 0.00

14.24

1.32

0.00

0.00

17.54 0.00

8.46

0.31

0.00

0.00

13.17 0.00

Average
....
en

2.32

41.73

10.78

4.65

9.53

1.28

6.25

11.24

0.98

0.25

0.06

13.25 0.00

Pamlico

T2-36 0.87

36.86

10.58

6.73

10.58

0.64

4.49

9.94

0.96

2.56

0.00

16.66 0.00

Pamlico

T2-37 4.26

35.67

9.67

9.67

10.33

2.33

3.33

11.33

0.67

3.33

0.67

13.00 0.00

Pamlico

T2-38 2.59

37.00

9.67

7.67

6.67

2.33

3.33

7.67

0.67

11.33

2.00

11.33 0.33

Pamlico

T2-39 0.96

34.38

9.46

7.89

5.36

0.63

4.73

11.67

1.58

11.04

1.26

11.99 0.00

Pamlico

T2-40 1.83

38.22

10.51

5.73

7.32

0.64

4.46

12.10

1.59

0.32

0.96

17.83 0.32

Pamlico

T2-41 2.21

35.83

11.21

9.97

9.97

1.25

3.74

9.97

0.62

1.87

1.25

13.70 0.62

Pamlico

T2-42 4.44

30.00

6.67

6.67

6.33

1.33

4.00

14.67

1.33

10.00

2.00

16.00 1.00

Avera~te

2.45

35.42

9.68

7.76

8.08

1.31

4.01

11.05

1.06

5.78

1.16

14.36 0.32

Princess Anne T2-30 0.95

28.29

4.61

5.26

10.86

3.62

4.28

5.92

0.33

9.87

5.92

20.71 0.33

Princess Anne T2-31 1.64

27.33

4.33

3.00

5.33

1.67

2.33

7.33

1.67

21.00

11.00

15.00 0.00

Princess Anne T2-32 0.68

30.93

9.31

5.41

4.50

1.20

4.20

11.41

1.20

6.31

3.60

21.92 0.00

Princess Anne T2-33 0.64

31.48

8.33

5.25

2.47

0.62

3.09

11.73

1.54

9.26

3.40

22.83 0.00

Princess Anne T2-34 1.04

42.11

6.58

7.57

7.57

0.99

2.30

9.54

1.64

5.92

0.33

13.81 1.64

Princess Anne T2-35 0.71

30.19

13.64

6.82

3.25

1.62

4.87

10.39

0.65

1.62

0.32

26.62 0.00

Average

0.94

31.72

7.80

5.55

5.66

1.62

3.51

9.39

1.17

9.00

4.10

20.15 0.3

APPENDIX B (CONT.)
Heavy Mineral Percentages of Petrographically Examined Samples from Traverse 3

Barrier Complex
Pamlico Pamlico Pamlico
Average

Sample No.

Heavy Min'l%

llmeniteMagnetite

Leucoxene Rutile

Zircon

Identity of Heavy Mineral Fraction(%) Monazite Tourmaline Staurolite Gamet Epidote

Amphibole Kyanite Mise Silmnite Hvys

TI-5 TI-6 TI-34

10.52 2.90 0.65

43.00 31.29 23.19

4.56 6.13 10.24

10.10 18.57 1.63

5.81

7.74

0.65

4.52 3.61 0.90

2.61

7.17 0.00 0.00

0.00 12.03

0.33

7.42

12.26 1.29 5.81

1.29 19.66

0.65

6.93

14.16 1.20 3.31

3.31

28.61

0.00

4.69

32.49

6.98

6.81

9.97

1.06

5.65

11.20 0.83 3.04

1.53 20.10

0.33

Princess Anne TI-l

0.96

29.11

9.49

6.33 6.96 0.32

5.38

16.77 0.00 0.00

2.22

23.42

0.00

O""'l

Princess Anne TI-2

0.58

32.23 11.30

6.98 9.63 1.00

2.66

13.29 0.66 0.00

1.66 20.59

0.00

Princess Anne TI-3

1.48

36.36 12.23

6.90 12.85 0.94

1.57

13.79 0.00 0.00

1.57

13.48

0.31

Princess Anne TI-4

0.36

28.70 11.42

5.25 5.86 0.62

5.56

15.43 0.93 0.00

1.23

24.69

0.31

Princess Anne TI-25

0.48

28.03

12.72

6.36 2.31 1.45

5.49

13.01 0.87 0.58

0.58

28.31

0.29

Princess Anne TI-26

0.90

26.33

8.00

6.67 5.33 3.00

2.67

14.33 2.00 6.33

0.33 24.67

0.33

Princess Anne TI-27

1.38

33.64

6.42

6.12 4.59 2.14

3.36

11.62 1.83 14.98

1.83

12.54

0.92

Princess Anne TI-28

2.44

44.97

3.77

9.75 9.12 4.09

2.52

12.89 1.26 4.72

1.26

5.65

0.00

Princess Anne TI-29

1.88

42.33

6.33

11.00

6.00 1.33

3.33

14.67 0.67 1.67

1.00

11.67

0.00

Princess Anne TI-30

1.01

33.12

3.47

2.84 5.36 1.58

7.57

14.83 3.79 1.58

2.52 22.39

0.95

Princess Anne TI-31

1.25

36.48

8.79

5.86 9.45 2.61

3.58

8.14 0.65 7.82

0.65

15.64

0.33

Princess Anne TI-32

9.89

46.08

3.27

8.82 14.71 1.63

1.31

6.86 0.33 9.80

2.29

4.57

0.33

Princess Anne TI-33

1.42

34.77

5.96

5.63 9.27 2.65

3.64

13.91 1.32 2.98

1.32

18.54

0.00

Average

1.85

34.78

7.94

6.81

7.80

1.80

3.74

13.04 1.10 3.88

1.42

17.40

0.29

APPENDIX B (CONT.)
Heavy Mineral Percentages of Petrographically Examined Samples from Traverse 4

Barrier Complex

Sample No.

Heavy Min'l%

DmeniteMagnetite

Leucoxene Rutile

Zircon

Identity of Heavy Mineral Fraction(%) Monazite Tourmaline Staurolite Gamet Epidote

Amphibole Kyanite Mise Silmnite Hvys

Wicomico T4-1

0.50

39.10 12.82

6.73 6.41

0.64

Wicomico T4-3

0.79

1206 35.24

10.48 12.06

0.63

Wicomico T4-6

1.06

13.53 42.24

11.22 13.20

0.66

Wicomico T4-37

0.63

21.17 22.56

10.03 8.08

0.00

Wicomico T4-39

0.57

19.87 29.63

6.06 5.05

0.00

4.81

11.22

2.24

0.00

0.64

15.06 0.32

6.35

5.71

2.54

0.00

0.00

14.60 0.32

0.66

3.30

0.00

0.00

0.00

14.19 0.99

7.52

11.14

1.39

0.00

1.11

16.43 056

7.74

11.78

2.02

0.00

1.35

16.50 0.00

..f.li.o.

Average

0.71

21.15

28.50

8.90 8.96

0.39

5.42

8.63

1.64

0.00

0.62

15.36 0.44

Penholoway T4-28

0.27

23.43

23.10

4.95 6.60

0.33

5.61

9.90

3.63

0.00

0.00

21.78

0.66

Penholoway T4-30

0.40

25.66

19.41

5.26 8.88

0.33

10.20

8.88

1.64

0.00

0.00

19.41

0.33

Penholoway T4-32

1.19

2231

17.53

5.98 10.76

0.40

13.15

11.55

3.19

0.00

0.00

14.73 0.40

Penholoway T4-34

0.51

14.60 18.32

1.86 4.66

0.31

14.91

13.04

1.86

0.00

0.00

29.81

0.62

Penholoway T4-40

0.35

25.83

18.21

7.95 9.27

0.00

8.94

9.93

1.99

0.00

0.33

16.89 0.66

Penholoway T4-41

0.62

25.68 22.66

7.55 5.14

0.30

5.74

11.18

1.81

0.00

0.00

19.34 0.60

Average

056

22.92 19.87

5.59 7.55

0.28

9.76

10.75

2.35

0.00

0.06

20.33

0.55

Talbot

T4-10

0.92

29.00 20.85

10.88 12.39

0.91

3.63

6.95

1.81

0.00

0.30

12.37 0.91

Talbot

T4-43

1.18

39.57 16.87

10.74 13.50

0.61

2.15

7.06

0.61

0.00

0.00

7.97 0.92

Average

1.05

34.29

18.86

10.81 12.95

0.76

2.89

7.01

1.21

0.00

0.15

10.17 0.92

APPENDIX B (CONT.)
Heavy Mineral Percentages of Petrographically Examined Samples from Traverse 4 (cont.)

Barrier Complex

Sample No.

Heavy Min'l%

Ilmenite- Leucoxene Rutile Magnetite

Zircon

Identity of Heavy Mineral Fraction (%) Monazite Tourmaline Staurolite Gamet Epidote

Amphibole Kyanite Mise Silmnite Hvys

Pamlico

T4-20

1.15

40.66

10.16 8.20 11.15

0.66

Pamlico

T4-21

2.49

41.67

9.33 6.67

7.67

1.00

Pamlico

T4-22

4.09

4271

9.35 6.54

9.35

1.87

Pamlico

T4-23

0.31

28.06

17.61 8.36

10.75

1.19

Pamlico

T4-24

4.80

47.00

5.68 4.73

7.26

1.89

Pamlico

T4-25

0.78

37.15

12.29 5.03

5.03

1.68

Pamlico

T4-26

1.63

33.66

12.30 4.53

4.53

1.29

Pamlico

T4-27

1.65

41.69

10.42 5.86

10.42

0.98

2.95

8.20 0.33

1.64

1.31

14.74 0.00

4.00

10.67 0.67

1.00

1.67

15.65 0.00

2.18

11.53 0.93

1.25

1.87

12.11

0.31

3.88

10.75 0.90

0.60

2.39

15.21

0.30

4.10

14.20 0.63

1.26

0.95

12.30 0.00

5.59

11.45 0.84

0.28

0.84

1954 0.28

5.50

15.21 0.65

0.00

1.62

20.39 0.32

5.21

7.49 0.65

1.95

1.95

13.36 0.00

C"D"

Average

2.11

39.08

10.89 6.24

8.27

1.32

4.18

11.19 0.70

1.00

1.58

15.41 0.15

Princess Anne T4-12

058

30.00

10.59 6.76

0.88

0.29

Princess Anne T4-13

0.46

31.44

13.38 7.36

4.68

0.67

Princess Anne T4-14

0.97

26.03

12.06 7.94

2.54

1.90

Princess Anne T4-15

3.86

40.89

8.63 13.42

6.39

6.39

Princess Anne T4-16

4.15

44.55

7.48 7.17

7.79

2.18

Princess Anne T4-17

1.07

39.94

10.71 5.19

5.52

0.65

Princess Anne T4-18

0.86

11.76

654 3.59

2.29

0.00

Princess Anne T4-19

0.96

37.54

9.06 2.59

6.80

1.62

Average

1.61

3277

9.81 6.75

4.61

1.71

9.71

2.35 1.18

24.41

4.41

9.41 0.00

6.69

5.35 1.00

13.71

5.69

10.03 0.00

6.03

1.90 0.95

25.08

6.35

9.21

0.00

1.28

5.11 0.96

10.54

2.56

3.51

0.32

3.12

4.98 156

3.43

3.12

13.37

1.25

2.27

7.14 1.62

8.77

2.60

14.61

0.97

4.25

13.73 1.63

14.38

556

35.94

0.33

3.88

9.71 0.00

2.27

1.62

24.26

0.65

4.65

6.28 1.11

12.82

3.99

15.04 0.44

APPENDIX B (CONT.) Heavy Mineral Percentages of Petrographically Examined Samples from Traverse 5

Barrier Complex

Sample No.

Heavy Min'l%

Ilmenite- Leucoxene Rutile Magnetite

Zircon

Identity of Heavy Mineral Fraction(%) Monazite Tourmaline Staurolite Gamet Epidote

Amphibole Kyanite Mise Silmnite Hvys

Wicomico T5-16 1.27

26.00

31.67

3.67 13.00

4.67

4.00

5.33

1.67

0.00

0.00

9.99 0.00

Wicomico T5-17 0.53

18.30

28.76

8.50 17.32

0.98

7.19

8.17

1.96

0.00

0.00

8.82 0.00

Wicomico T5-19 1.37

22.01

30.10

5.83 17.80

0.65

4.53

9.06

1.29

0.00

0.00

8.73 0.00

Wicomico T5-20 1.83

24.93

26.71

7.42 16.32

0.30

3.26

7.42

2.97

0.00

0.00

10.08 0.59

Wicomico T5-21 1.09

28.14

22.40 5.19 12.57

1.37

3.55

11.20

2.19

0.00

0.00

12.84 0.55

Wicomico T5-23 0.75

18.87

30.50

6.29 15.41

0.31

4.09

9.75

2.83

0.00

0.00

11.64 0.31

Average

1.14

23.04

28.36

6.15 15.40

1.38

4.44

8.49

2.15

0.00

0.00

10.35 0.24

coloio

Pamlico

T5-10 1.04

32.47

7.47

2.27

9.74

1.30

3.25

9.74

0.97 14.61

0.32

17.86 0.00

Pamlico

T5-11 0.57

25.30

7.14 5.36

8.33

1.49

6.55

13.39

0.30

4.46

2.68

25.00 0.00

Pamlico

T5-12 0.82

42.00

7.00

7.33 10.33

1.00

2.67

13.00

1.00

0.00

1.33

14.33 0.00

Pamlico

T5-13 2.22

35.60

2.79 4.95

7.74

3.72

2.79

7.43

0.93

14.86

3.10

16.09 0.00

Pamlico

T5-14 1.06

29.26

6.43

7.40

5.79

2.57

5.14

13.83

1.93

2.89

1.29

22.83 0.64

Pamlico

T5-15 0.95

26.81

10.73 5.05

2.84

0.63

6.31

18.93

1.26

0.95

0.95

24.91 0.63

Average

1.11

31.91

6.93

5.39

7.46

1.79

4.45

12.72

1.07

6.30

1.61

20.17 0.21

APPENDIX B (CONT.)
SUMMARY OF TRAVERSES BY BARRIER COMPLEX

Barrier Complex

No. of Samples

Average Heavy Min'l%

llmenite- Leucoxene Rutile Magnetite

Zircon

Identity or Heavy Mbaeral Fractloa (._,)
Monazite Tourmaline Staurolite Gamet

Epidote Amphibole Kyanite Mise Silmnite Hvys

Wicomico 17

0.86

24.47

25.40

6.59 10.30

0.78

5.20

8.46

1.55

0.03

0.29

16.55 0.38

Penholoway 13

0.53

24.30

18.47

6.36

7.83

0.48

7.87

10.76

1.63

0.05

0.17

21.51 0.57

Talbot

12

1.24

32.84

13.32

6.01

9.11

0.74

5.85

10.86

1.12

0.43

0.20

19.00 0.51

Ul

0

Pamlico

24

2.28

35.40

9.06

6.54

8.23

1.40

4.38

11.53

0.91

3.97

1.46

16.88 0.24

Princess Anne 27

1.58

33.50

8.46

6.51

6.38

1.73

3.96

10.23

1.12

7.67

2.78

17.31 0.34

TOTAL ALL COMPLEXES 93

1.44

30.97

13.74

6.45

8.13

1.17

5.09

10.40

1.22

3.32

1.28

17.87 0.38

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

EN

ENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

1U

1')'7

158

'>;75

~T6

' 500

464 --

)5 9 2
'

'}95
'

6l6

p!9

6~ (0

b4 5

,,

6c

63"

6Rj

72.$

EXPLANATION
~ Wicomico paleobarrier island complex

Penholoway paleobarrier islan d complex
. ... ..! ....... . .::.::;.:.;.; Talbot paleobarrier island complex

Pamlico paleobarrier island complex
""

~.,.,~>

.

Princess Anne paleobamer 1sland complex Sample location with < 1% heavy mmerals Sample location with 1 to 2% heavy minerals

Sample location with > 2% heavy minerals

"'

~ Samples not ass 1gned to any complex . All have < 1% heavy m1nerals

f}
'--' ' "

'-../) Contours represent morphology of each (paleo) shoreline barner
is land complex, and related sandbodies at approximate sea level
at t 1me of formation of each complex.

Dashed lmes represent port1ons of contour where boundary is indefinite.

1'-
l/ I
iSfAND

I

\

.. '

' I
I

('

~

I ~o//

6

\
I

/'

\ '

I ul

" I

""
~-

GEORGIA
STUDY AREA
'

0

5

10

15 Stat ute Mrles

" '

i:==::::i=:::=::::I:.===

0D=TI::::5::====i:1::0===::::1J5 Krlomet ers

Base map from U S Geolog rcal Survey 1.250,000 maps Macon GA 1953 Savannah GA -S C 1978, Waycroos GA 1988 Brunsw1ck GA 1977, Valdosta GA - FLA 1965 and Jacksonvi lle FLA GA 1966

For convenience in selecting our reports from your bookshelves, they are color-keyed across the spine by subject as follows:

Red Dk. Purple Maroon Lt. Green Lt. Blue Dk. Green Dk. Blue Olive
Yellow
Dk. Orange Brown Black Dk. Brown

Valley and Ridge mapping and structural geology Piedmont and Blue Ridge mapping and structural geology Coastal Plain mapping and stratigraphy Paleontology Coastal Zone studies Geochemical and geophysical studies Hydrology Economic geology Mining directory Environmental studies Engineering studies Bibliographies and lists of publications Petroleum and natural gas Field trip guidebooks Collections of papers

Colors have been selected at random, and will be augmented as new subjects are published.

Editor: Michael K. Laney Cartographer: Donald L. Shellenberger

The Department of Natural Resources is an equal opportunity employer and offers all persons the opportunity to compete and participate in each area ofDNR employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or other non-merit factors.
$ 1184/500