Subsurface Cretaceous and Paleogene geology of the coastal plain of Georgia [Apr. 1980]

SUBSURFACE CRETACEOUS AND PALEOGENE GEOLOGY OF THE COASTAL PLAIN
OF GEORGIA
by Howard Ross Cramer and Daniel Douglas Arden
OPEN-FILE REPORT Slr--8
In cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey Grant No. 14-080001-G-232
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
April 1980

L
0

SUBSURFACE CRETACEOUS AND PALEOGENE GEOLOGY OF THE COASTAL PLAIN
'
OF GEORGIA
by Howard Ross Cramer and Daniel Douglas Arden
OPEN-FILE REPORT Str--8
In cooper!l~i<m with the U. S. Geological Survey Grant No. 14-08-0001-G-232
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
April 1980

DEPARTMENT Of" GEOL.OGV

EMORY UNIVERSITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30322

Dr. William L. McLemore State Geologist Georgia Geological Survey 19 Martin Luther King Drive Atlanta, Geo!gia 30303

June 13 1 1979

Dear Dr. McLemore:

We are pleased to be able to give you the enclosed manuscript entitled ''Subsurface Cretaceous and Paleogene geology of the Coastal Plain of Georgia".
This is the result of a joint project between the Georgia Geological Survey, the U. S. Geological Survey, and Emory University. The original contract was dated July 24, 1975 and was based upon a proposal submitted to the U. S. Geological Survey by your predeces sor-in-office in October, 1974. This original contract was modified by more time and money on June 1 and September 24, 1976. The final date for completion of the contract was November 1, 1978.
A final report was submitted on November 1 and was accepted by your predecessor with the understanding that the manuscript would be ~odified and made suitable for publication (letter dated on January 8, 1979, by J. R. George). This manuscript represents the modified, ready-for -publication-consideration version.
The illustrations have been reduced by xerography for convenience in the manuscript, but the originals a~e drafted at a larger scale on mylar and paper and can be presented at whatever scale would be convenient for publication. The originals are being submitted with this manuscript, but in a separate folio.
We have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this manuscript to Dr. Mahlon Ball, of the U. S. Geological Survey, as he has been the liaison between that organization and this project since its inception.

Dr. William McLemore, Jun~ 13, 1979, page 2
We would also be grateful if you would send a copy .of this manuscript to Mr. Sam Pickering, your predecessor. He was one of the early proponents of this work and I am sure that he would like to see that it has progressed this far.
Would it also be possible to send a copy of this manuscript to Dr. Stephen M. Herrick, 306 Mimosa Drive, Decatur, Georgia. Dr. Herrick, now retired, was one of the pioneers of subsurace geology in Georgia, and we think he would be particularly inter ested to see what progress has been made since his original work in 1961.
We are ready to consult with you further on the ~reparati9n of this manuscript for publication.
There remains the work of Dr. Timothy M. Chowns, of West Georgia College. He has been preparing the report on the preCretaceous basement rocks of the state; he advises me that this work is almost completed and ready for presentation.

cc: M. Ball T. ChO\VDS

Very sincerely yours,
dn'l!(:v\~ wi/1~ -<J\_ t
Howard R. Cramer, Daniel D. Arden

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1

Purpose ..................................... 1

Boundaries ..................... ..................... 2

Methods of study .............................. 3

Previous investigations

.................... 4

Organization of this report .................. 6

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

BASEJI1.ENT ............................................ 8
Geophysical analysis .......................... 12

COMANCHEAN SERIES

............................... 17

Lithostratigraphy ............................. 17

Biostratigraphy ............................ 19

Pre-Comanche rocks?

21

Structures .......................... .. ......... 21

GULFIAN SERIES ...................................... 23

Lithostratigraphy

23

Biostratigraphy

28

Structures .......... ........................... 33

MIDWAYAN STAGE ...................................... 38

Lithostratigraphy

38

Biostratigraphy ................................ 40

Structures

42

i

a ' 'a - .._ . 'e a ~. 'a . ' ! a 'a e"

..... ..,. ...................... ' .' ....... . .

-::E!i.:os tt:_a t i<;rr.Ja~!P~

. -. " " ......

-1.4~ '!:1

:S~ructures .... ............. -.. . '51

CLAIB~RN-IAN STAGE

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

~aoetra.-tlg::r';ey,Phy............. -.. -.... ...- -. -.. .....

:ii.9:~1;'~ra.tigra,phy ............ -... -.... -. . . . 5 9

......... ................................. .
L._~. th ostrat~. graph y .. ........ .. . . . . .. 63 B.1ostrat"1graph y . ~ .................... . 6~ ~t.~U9~9-P~ . .. .. ()''J

SERIES ....................................

Litho-str atigraphy ...... -. . . .. . ~

Biostratigraphy

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

. ............ ................ ' .

-M-iddle Oli9"GGene .. .. . . . '73
.. . .. .~ ... ~ .. ~ . .... ~ .. ~ .' .. 7'5

n~r~-~\1):;-.e:f ................. . ...... ....... ...... ~ . . . 7itJ

...................... .......... .., .. ,. .~
. . .. .. . .... .... .. ......... .. . ... .. ......_,
.. --~,............. . ................. . . ......
~e.pqsit:lpn{\:3- ~equeno~s .... -. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . g-:>r

ii

Jurassic Period ............................... 89

Early Cretaceous (Comanche) Epoch ............ 90

Late Cretaceous (Gulf) Epoch

93

Early Paleocene (Midway) Age

98

Late Paleocene and Early Eocene (Sabine) Ages . 101

Late Early and Middle Eocene (Claiborne) Ages 105

Late Eocene (Jackson) Age .................... 109

Oligocene Epoch .............................. 110

Neogene Period ................................ 116

WELL LOG ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

REFERENCES CITED

160

Appendix I Sources of information for this report 181

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Well logs available for analysis ........ 124 Table 2. Tabulation of reflection coefficients
greater than 0.1 ................... 125

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Index map, Coastal Plain of Georgia, showing localities of wells................. 126
Figure 2. Basement (post-Triassic) surface configuration ....................... 127
Figure 3. Structures on the basement, Coastal Plain of Georgia .......................... 128

iii

- Fi~u'l!'e 5. Figtrre 6.

simple (JSOUgUer! 'g't"a~j:y:lln:ap Of Georg.ia al\d outline of.'~ ariti!as 6f a:e'!l'om~g~etic t::o,verage ........... ....................... . ....... i l3! 9
Chart: s:howing nornenc.lature used for preGu1fian C::retaceous I' ' coma:rrchean Seri~s .(and older?). ~o:Cks~ -bf the
Geor~ia coa:s?taF l>l.h"in ........ .. -............... -~. lllO Structure-con-tour m-ap 1 top of the
eomanchean. seri:es, <(:a:i\d,>O-l'der~) _..... 131

F-igu~e 8.

..\,,~ ._-'......,d..e.>.,u.-.u'~er '.) .. . . . . .. .. . ... . ,. ................ .,., .. .. . . :. 132
Titne-~rock ohart. of~ :ttle Gu.1f;ian:~:<S:el:'d:~s 1 . coa:sta.P l?lain;of Georg.ia. -... .,. . ........... ~1!3
S.'ti'Ubt.u-rel'"''Contour. rnap I ' <top- of: bhe >Gu-1.f'.i:an: -:Ser:ies ........................... ~ ....... ,.. ...... :. 1414

F:i:.g-tl~e 11.

Til'neiM'l:'ock -n:ha.;rt . of: the'' Md:0wa;ranc: st~Jje 1 ~co:as:tal .'l?J.a:in- .of se:.o.;-g:ia ,. .................. - 1:~:3 6

Fig:tl!t'e -12. : S-tructut-e,..contour map 1 top.l>f :the ~MJ:dw.e.y.an stage I. oe&.11ltal Plain. of Georg-ia ............................ -............ ....... .............. -~ l3 7

FJ:ii~.re 13.

x.sopa:ch ,m-ap~ M-idwa-yan: s.tage,. o~a:s;tal .P..la1. n o- f .G. aorg a. a ...... ~...... -.... -. ~. -...... .... . ~1/SB

Fi9'~e 14. Time--r;ook-:rtt:nart of tf.he .-Sah'in:i:an: S:ta~e 1
,..n -.: ~ -1 '..\I'0T;()..........,:~ r..:a.&... n .:..A., f . <Y~.JnOO-<Jrq..,.;..a ............. ............ - '1.59

~iv

Figure 15. Structure-contour map, top of the

Sabinian Stage, Coastal Plain of

Georgia ............................ 140

Figure 16. Isopach map, Sabinian Stage, Coastal
Plain of Georgia ................... 141

Figure 17. Schematic diagram, Sabinian-Stage depo-

sition and tectonism Coastal

.Plain of Georgia ........ ...... ... .. 142

Figure 18. Time-rock chart of the Claibornian Stage,

Coastal Plain of Georgia ........... 143

Figure 19. Structure-contour map, top of the

Claibornian Stage, Coastal Plain of

Georgia ............................ 144

Figure 20.

Isopach map, Claibornian Stage, Coastal P 1a1. n o f Georg1' a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Figure 21. Time-rock chart of the Jacksonian Stage,

Coastal Plain of Georgia ........... 146

Figure 22. Structure-contour map, top. of the

Jacksonian Stage, Coastal Plain of

Georgia

14 7

Figure 23.

Isopach map, Jacksonian Stage, Coastal P 1 a1' n o f Georg1' a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Figure 24. Time-rock chart of the Oligocene Series,

Coastal Plain of Georgia ........... 149

Figure 25. Structure-contour map, top of the Oligo-

cene Series, Coastal Plain of

Georgia ........................... 150

v

: Fl~.U.f'e: r2 6

Tsopa.t:h: map, ol1'9oe~ese:ei:-'ie s, coas~al Plain of .. Georgiia ................................. ~ 1'!51

- -Fig-u~e~ 2 7 .~ S'G'h~mat.-ic-- diagram, O!l:i'g.Oe:Q.ne~ d:Ie~.S-:i-

- t:ion' ahd~ t:et::eo:n:ism 1 . co~n;;ct.al: - PJ.ain ....o, f . ~ r> c...-~.v,~.-g-1 a . -........ ~ . .. . -.. .. .. - ... . . . .. .. . . . .. .,. :., Ui2

p-la:nkton.ic foranrih..i:f.er:: :zones,:: aild

~ ~:ea...-J.evel -chan9'es:~O'Q:o.rd:i.ng'1to

nt&....,.,. ,. d l53 - :~-Tv'--'-0..- 'l. 1 .. -a:n

s . . 'd- :.:r-1~~

: (l_,'::~J ..,..!f,) ....... ~...................... -.. . . . .

: :F:i'~e: :29. ~ :rll'dexTYna.p, c~s?:~c't~s~ A: tO::. E 1
... -,,.~.,.Q. c"~"'~':'St"-"al-: P-,t~..,&.~,1 -n- - .~ .~f--.-'G.~,.\,.:..,.I..'..;..L.~z:.,,.,a;.,a . ._.._.._._.._ ..,....,. ... , :l4

~ -Fl~e :ao.

:c:r~s: %ect.11!>n :A~AJ 1 ";Mu~cogeet :to
.-: Se:rev.e n- 'CO.'I.ll'lt-.1:.:L~S , -.t,iQ~]'at>t':g. "J..a. "' ..... -......... ;., 1:i$

,- F-i:~il"e ' :3-:1. 'C~&:.- %~'ori': -:s;..B,' ,.::.;sefu:i~o-:le ~unty I
c:~EI'Dra:: :to t:~:~~m -~.o .[ 1 ~~ of'f~a. .. -.~.; .1~56

.F-i~:t-e' -3-2. - :c:.r:oss' 'tec:.t:-ii0n--c~t ~ :-a:.fid::. Dl-b:' ,'-:" .'l'~a~rt :"to

:: 2B-t'O'bk.S 'C.O"U~~s r ~:ild: .Bibb :to

:~ :Iir~hb'::ls~ coun:ti:es 1 -~G~'gia- " .... ...... ~~..... l ~"'57

:- F:!i:~e -3...3. ~:c:r.ms::~~tirori- -g>:..'E,' ~~ .m.~h'i:ti<JtR:>n-.~co.untu,

!"'""'""""'. .: 'l$9 T - J. -h..:.f t -\-:JcV.1~-:1..:a 1 0 co.,C... u<O -

I' . 'V '-.i1!L -~..H..'..V..<,.L........,. -. -. ~:- .

: .F.:ID~re' ~-4. ~'7C-'t't~&:-::aerc:itft:on: ii'f""'Fr' ~--&jJ~~ild=<to~lClli~n co\fhlti'es 1 113~-o-r~ri a. -. .. " _.............. ...... -.. ~ 'l$9

vi

SUBSURFACE CRETACEOUS AND PALEOCENE GEOLOGY OF THE COASTAL PLAIN OF GEORGIA by
Howard Ross Cramerl, and Daniel Douglas Arden, Jr. 2
INTRODUCTION
Purpose The purpose of this work is to provide a stratigraphic framework into which seismic surveys being conducted on the Atlantic continental shelf could be tied, to review and update the general stratigraphic setting of the Georgia Coastal Plain, and to make new correlations where needed to accommodate newly-acquired subsurface information gathered since the last synthesis was prepared (Herrick and Vorhis, 1963). Potential seismic reflection surfaces are identified from an evaluation of the geophysical logs available, and these are placed within the stratigraphic framework with a view toward identifying the age of reflection surfaces offshore. In addition, stratigraphic and structural interpretations which develop can be utilized for a better understanding of the distribution of ground-water resources and for an explanation for some of the ground-water chemistry problems which exist on the Georgia Coastal Plain.
lProfessor of Geology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 2Professor of Geology, Georgia Southwestern University, Americus, Georgia
-1-

The work was supported by Grant No. 14-08-00'01-G-23.2 from the U.S. Geological Survey to the Georgia State Department of Natural Resources.
Boundaries The Coastal Plain of Georgia is the onshore portion of the state south of the Fall Line. The boundaries of the study, both geographic and stratigraphic, have been determined by utilitarian criteria. Geographically, data from Florida~ Alabama., and South Carolina were used to develop some of the interpretations of this study, but none of the actual data is included in this report, nor are any of the Georgia interpretations extended into these neighboring states. The data currently being accumulated offshore from Georqia have been utilized only in part because this report concerns the str.atigraphy and structures of the onshore portion of the Coastal Plain and because the offshore geology is currently being investigated by numerous geologists. Stratigraphically, the boundaries of thi.s study have been determined by Coastal Plain sediments, i.e., the part now exposed as a result of marine overlap of the continental margin in what appears to be a structural and stratigraphic continuum Rock from Cretaceous or older to Oligocene age are inclu.ded. Neogene rocks -- Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene -- are not included in the study because: (1) the onshore petroleum potential is very low; (2) Hiocene rocks have recently been studied in great detail by Weaver and Beck (1977), and few new data can be added at this time; and
-2-

(3) current investigation of the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene rocks indicates that their stratigraphy is much more complex than the published data suggest, and any interpretations of these rocks at this time would be premature.
Methods of study Samples from the 30 new oil tests were prepared, examined and logged by students, and the results plotted on strip logs. For the most part, the techniques recommended by Maher (1964) were used for the sampled wells and for the data from published accounts of wells. Paleontological control came from published analyses and from new data supplied by the Georgia Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey. In some instances, published stratigraphic boundaries of units have not been accommodated because of later paleontological information, because of lithological correlations more amenable to geophysical controls, or because of lithological variations dictated by regional considerations. Since this is not intended to be a definitive stratigraphic study of each unit, much stratigraphic detail has been omitted. A major contribution is 'the structural deformation and isopach interpretations shown on the maps. The structure-contour and isop~ch maps were prepared with large and irregular contour intervals because of the paucity of data i~ the deeper units and because of the intent to show only the major structural features. The cross-section locations were selected to illustrate all of the major structures which are mentioned in the text.
~3-

All of the oil tests and water .wells for which s:!!Dmpl:es are on file have been given numbers.by the Georgia Geological Survey, noted as GGS numbers, and shown on the indexmap (Figure 1). The details of the wells, and the source:s of the information are given in Appendix I.
Previous investigations Prior to this study, few reports dealt with the geology of the entire Georgia Coastal Plain. Only the works of Veatch and S.tephenson (1911) and Cooke (1943) cover the entire Coast-al Plain, and these are only surface studies. Cooke's work estab~ished a basis for more detailed studies of parts of the stratigraphic section such as that of MacNeill (1947) on ~er tiary rocks, and of Eargle (1955) on Cretaceous ro:cks. Few subsur:f-ace data were included in these reports, however, as not much was available. Subsurface data accumulated slowly and sporadically a .t first. The report on the ground water of the Coastal Plain by McCallie (1908) provided a beginning. This was followed by a report on an oil seep in Telfair County by Hull and Teas (1919) and soon after by a repor.t on the overall petroleum potential of the entire state by Prettyman and .Cave (19.23). Applin and Applin (19-44) were the p.ioneer investi"gatars of the subsurface geology of the Georg.ia Coastal Plain, and they 'prepar,ed the :framework upon which all others have .huiJ:t. Herrrek and Vorhis (1963) give isopach 'and :s .tructure-c.ontour maps .of all the units of the .C.oas.tal :P.lain, and Cramer n9'7-4) includes isopach and lithofacies maps of all of the .units.
-4-

A generalized review of the geology of the entire Coastal Plain Province of North America, including Georgia is given by Murray (1961), and details of the structural geology of the Georgia Coastal Plain are included in Cramer (1969) and Patterson and Herrick (1971).
This study deals mainly with subsurface rocks, and much information about them has been derived from various sources. Information derived from over 30 oil tests drilled since 1960 has been incorporated into this report.
In addition, much information from other sources has been utilized. Among the published reports, the more significant are the works of Herrick (1961) , Herrick and Vorhis (1963), Applin and Applin (1944, 1947; 1964, 1967) ,Babcock (1969), Chen (1965), and Marsalis (1970).
Much unpublished information has also been drawn upon. The U.S. Geological Survey (1976) has provided much data about its core hole 6002 (offshore) and the files of the Georgia Geological Survey contain the records of numerous water wells, logged mostly by Herrick. In 1958, the Humble Oil and Refining Company conducted a coring project in southeastern Georgia, and the records of these cores and the samples are in the files of the Georgia Geological Survey. Records of the Ocean Production Company, Cooperative Offshore Stratigraphic Test, no. 1 GE ( Georgia Embayment), known as the COST well in this report, are also in the files of the Georgia Geological Survey.
-5-

Organization of this report
Following the introductory remarks in this report, the following format has been adopted for the presentation of the material. Each stratigraphic unit is discussed in terms of (a) background information, i.e., other work which has covered the same material, (b) lithostratigraphy, which includes a discus&ion of the outcrop~ing rocks in the valley of the Chattahoochee River those exposed in outcrop along the Fall Line, and the same rocks as they occur in the subsurface. Following this is a section on (c) biostratigraphy, in which the ages for the various units are identified, based, for the most part on published fossil records, but also including information provided for this report. Concluding each discuss'ion of the various stratigraphic units is a section on (d) tectonics, in which the various structural features,are identified and justified.
Fo~lowing the discussion of the stratigraphic units is a section on the geological history of the Georgia Coastal Plain, in which the events represented by each of the units is described in chronological order, on the supposition that the identification of the structural features is sound.
Finally, the report concludes with the description of the basis of the identification of potential seismic reflection zones within the sections along the Atlantic coast and a table showing the actual zones which were identified. These should serve to allow comparison with the reflection zones being identified in the offshore studies currently being undertaken.
-6-

Acknowledgments
There is no way that a study of this complexity and size could have been conducted without the support and assistance of many persons, and it is a pleasant obligation to acknowledge them.
Professional advice, consultation, and assistance has come from Mahlon M. Ball, Verona C. Barnes, Timothy M. Chowns, Raymond A. Christopher, Carol Gelbaum, Stephen M. Herrick, Julian Howell, Paul F. Huddlestun, William E. Marsalis, C. Wylie
Poag, Charles w. Smith,Page C. Valentine, Robert c. Vorhis,
Diane H. Walker, and Thomas Watson. Numerous students assisted with the work, and these are:
Katherine L. Avary, John Bacheller, Robert W. Bolding, Burchard D. Carter, Susan C. Crawford, Edward I. Dittmar, Stephen M. Duncan, Charles M. Girardeau, Marion G. Gray, Arthur E. Gregory, C. Robert Hilliard, Joseph B. Jackson, Larry E. Jordan, Frances Karraker, Keith D. Kribbs, Whitfield C. Osgood, Barbara A. Rassman, Steven J. Richey, Charles T. Swann, Gilbert L. Treadwell and Charles T. Williams. The drafting was accomplished in large part by Nancy L. Barber, James E. Blackwell, Betty L. Campbell, and Thomas E. Rice.
The advice, encouragement, and overall catalysis for the project was provided by Sam M. Pickering, former State Geologist of Georgia, and we are, and the rest of the profession should be especially grateful.
Any credit for the usefulness of this study to the geological profession must be shared by all those above, and any shortcomings are due entirely to the authors.
-7-

BASEMENT Basement, as defined in the Glossary of Geology (Gary and others, 1972, p. 60) has a variety of meanings. In this report, the term "basement" is used for those crystalline and sedimentary rocks which lie with great structural discontinuity below.a seaward-thickening blanket of sedimentary rocks of possibly Jurassic to Holocene age. Basement is everywhere present below the Coastal Plain of Georgia and emerges to the surface from beneath the sedi~ntary rock cover at the Fall Line, beyond which it forms the terrane known as the Piedmont Province. Basement was first identified in the subsurface of Georgia by Applin and Applin (1944), and soon thereafter enough data had accumulated for the development of a generalized map (P. Applin, 1951). Milton and Hurst (1965) call attention to the diVersity of rocks within the basement of Georgia, and provide an overview of the distribution of the various lithologies~ Neathery and Thomas (1975) describe the basement from adjacent Alabama, as does Barnet (1975) from Florida. Chowns (1976; 1978) and Gohn and others (1978a) provide the most comprehensive study of all of the basement rocks of Georgia. to date. The stratigraphic details and structural history of the basement are little known and are beyond the scope of this study. Milton and Hurst (1965) provide petrographic details of some of the rocks. A generalized geological map may be found in the report of GOhn and others (1978a). Rocks pf Paleozoic
--8-

age have been dated paleontologically, and rocks of Triassic age have been detected radiometrically. Other crystalline rocks of uncertain age, largely granite, volcanic, and metamorphic are also present.
Basement rocks obtained from drill cuttings are not everywhere the same and may not be easy to identify. The basal rocks of the overlying Comanchean (and older?) Series are generally red, coarse-grained, conglomeratic sandstones and shale, and where these rocks are not present, the basal rocks of the overlying Gulfian Series are coarse-grained, arkosic sandstones.
Where the coarse-clastic Cretaceous rocks rest upon crystalline basement rocks, the contact can be readily distin~ guished lithologically. The contact of these coarse-clastic Cretaceous rocks with the underlying Paleozoic sedimentary rocks is also relatively easy to detect because of differences
in induration, lithology, and in a few instances, paleontology.
Where the coarse-clastic Cretaceous (or older?) rocks rest upon Triassic clastic rocks however, the boundary is not always so obvious. The Triassic rocks are generally more indurated than the overlying rocks. No calcareous Triassic rocks are known whereas the Cretaceous rocks may be so, especially in the southwestern part of the Coastal Plain. A weathered zone may be recognized at the contact by the presence of siderite and a concentration of limonite or lignite at the top of the basement.
The basal Cretaceous (or older?) rocks are in some places conglomeratic, with diabase pebbles among the clasts; there are no known diabase intrusives in the Cretaceous (or Jurassic)
-9-

rocks in Georgia. The clay minerals in the shales of the basement rocks
are different from those of the overlying rocks (Chown, pers. cornrn., 1978). For instance, the clay minerals in De~onian shales are predominantly illite and kaolinite; the Triassic rocks contain illite and chlorite, with a small percentage of expandable clay minerals. The overlying Comanchean (and older?) samples contain mixed-layered illite/smectite (25-35 , expandable layers) plus chlorite. Gulfian rocks contain a more' variable suite of kaolinitic shales and mixed-layered illite/smectite (35-45% expandable layers) shales .with kaolinite or chlorite.
The first published map of the surface configuration of the basement is by P. Applin (1951), and was based upon drillhole data. Woollard (1955) and and Woollard and others (1957) prepared basement-surface configuration maps based upon seismic data .and utilized the drill-hole data for control. ~ subsequent to the preparation of these maps, generalized versions have been published (U.S. Geol. Survey and Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists 1961; Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists and u.s. Geol Survey,l967).
To date, only 56 wells in the Georgia Coastal Plain have penetrated to the basement rocks. They confirm the existence of the surface identified by seismic means, but the sparse density of the data preclude the mapping of surface relief, if any occurs.
~The basement-surface-configuration map in this report (Figure 2) is based largely upon the seismic map : prepaEed~y
-10-

Woollard and others(l957), and modified to conform to drillhole data.
Most of the faults that are known to occur in the overlying rocks cannot be identified in the basement rocks or on the basement-surface configuration because the displacements by the faults are too small. The fundamental framework of tectonism of the Georgia Coastal Plain is reflected on the surface configuration map of the basement, however; these features are shown on Figure 3.
~he name Southeast Georgia Embayment has become firmly established in the geologic literature as including an area of downwarping and sediment thickening which occurred during Cenozoic time, even though the term Okefenokee Embayment has priority (Cramer, 1969). This area has also been called the Savannah Embayment (Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs. and Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, 1972).
The term Yamacraw Ridge was given to a linear feature trending parallel with the Atlantic coastline in Georgia and South Carolina (Woollard and others, 1957,, p. 49). It was first identified seismically and has been confirmed by one drill hole (GGS 3201).
Appalachicola Embayment is used here because of widespread use of the term for the structurally low area in southwest Georgia, even though the name Chattahoochee Embayment has priority (May, 1977). This has also been called the Southwest Georgia Embayment.
Between the Appalachicola Embayment and the Southeast Georgia Embayment is a positive feature called the Central Georgia Uplift by Pressler (1947).
-11-

The southern extension of the Central Georgia Uplift is the Peninsular Arch (P. Applin, 1951) which forms the spine of Florida. Between the Peninsular Arch and the Central Georgia Uplift is the Suwannee Saddle, an elongate, fault-formed feature which has little or no expression on the basement surface, ~rhaps because of lack of detailed information.
The Ocala Uplift (Vernon, 1951) is not evident on the basement-surface-configuration map because the area of its greatest deformation is in Florida, although its effects are evident in younger rocks. Winston (~976a) indicates that i t is not an uplift, but is the result of tilting.
The northern part of the Coastal Plain is underlain by what appears to be a relatively featureless plane sloping upward and northward toward the Fall Line, north of which it continues at the surface as the Piedmont Plateau.
Geophysical analysis Preliminary maps of aeromagnetic data were available for about half of the Georgia Coastal Plain. These were examined for regional trends and compared with a published gravity map (Long, and others, 1972; Long, 1974). Unpublished contoured aeromagnetic residual intensity data ~re available for part of the study area (Figure 4). These are firom surveys carried out between 1974 and 1977 by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and available in preliminary form as Open-File Reports. In addition, data in the adjacent
-12-

Piedmont were also available, which were valuable in emphasizing the differences in structural pattern between the two geologic provinces.
The pattern of magnetic contours changes from one of steep gradients and narrow, sinuous lineation in the Piedmont to broader anomalies beneath the Coastal Plain, the change occurring about 20 miles southeast of the Coastal Plain-Piedmont boundary. There are two pronounced lineation trends within the Coastal Plain, one oriented generally NS0E and the other with a somewhat arcuate orientation, which trends about N4QOW in the southern part and shifts to N30W in the area north of the 32N parallel. A third trend, less obvious in the magnetics but discernable nevertheless, is between N80W and E-W in orientation.
Flight lines for the magnetic survey were approximately one mile apart and oriented NE-SW. What influenc~, if any, the flight-line orientation may have on the apparent N3oow to N40W lineation cannot be evaluated at this writing. The trends on the computer-contoured maps of residual magnetic intensity are strong and persist across the entire Coastal Plain portion of the maps.
Some of the lineation appears to be related to steeply dipping or vertical faults. This interpretation is based on the contour pattern, which retains about the same intensity gradient but changes direction parallel to the assumed fault zones.
-13-

Other lineation is marked by a pattern of steep gradients. Presumably these anomalies reflect basement features which may be associated with faulting but which also indicate differences in rock character. These may be basaltic rocks occurring as dikes along old rift zones. Notable is an anomaly which extends westward from near Brunswick, Georgia, for about 20 miles, then turns northwest along a trend of N4o0w. The anomaly is about 25 miles wide, and depth determinations indicate the top of the magnetic body lies between 5,500 and 7,000 feet below present surface. This anomaly is at the southern end of the long magnetic feature that underlies the outer edge of the continental shelf and appears to be a continuation of that feature. The East Coast anomaly has been discussed by various workers (e.g., Taylor and others, 1968; Uchupi and Emery, 1967; Zietz, 1970; Behrendt and Klitgord, 1978), and is assumed to be a magnetic ridge, 12 to 25 miles wide, at a depth of 20,000 to 25,000 feet, as compared with maximum basement depths of 45,000 to 50,000 feet beneath the continental shelf and 33,000 to 40,000 feet beneath the slope. A possible explanation for the Brunswick anomaly is that it is related to mafic material emplaced along a transform fault of early Mesozoic age and that this fault marks the termination of the East Coast magnetic ridge, either, by offset along the transform fault or by termination of the rift that permitted the ridge to rise.
Strong magnetic anomalies of roughly circular pattern occur in the area of the most recent survey, identified as Area B in Figure 4. This covers part of three well-known
-14-

gravity anomalies. The two northern anomalies fall within the northeast-trending fault zone (or graben) that appears on all of the stratigraphic maps in this report. The southern anomaly is located on the southern flank of the zone. A preliminary interpretation of the gravity and magnetic features within the fault zone suggests that there are two igneous masses tilted to the south. The belt of irregular magnetic contours between the two circular features may be caused by faulting. Possibly the features represent piles of Triassic or Jurassic lava related to rifting and tilted southward by later movement along the rift. An altern~tive explanation is ring-dike complexes, also tilted southward. The trend of the fault zone is N55E and is roughly parallel to other magnetic trends as noted above. Models of these magnetic features will undoubtedly be necessary to solve the question of their shape and depth.
Other magnetic trends show much smaller range of suceptibilities, have lower flank gradients, and are generally less than five miles in width. They are usually oriented parallel to the N50E lineation and may be related to Mesozic diabase intrusions.
The relationship of topography to the structural trends is probably more than coincidental. Most of the major rivers of the Georgia Coastal Plain east of the Flint River drainage trend S30E to S4QOE. Where Ocmulgee River turns northeastward, its trend changes from S40E toN5QOE before it joins the Oconee to form the Altamaha. The roughly E-W lineations also appear in the surface patterns and are more obvious in the topography
-15-

and in interpreting subsurface stratigraphic correlations than -in the magnetic trends, thus suggesting that this may. be a later structural p~ttern.
Based on the above observations, we can suggest that: . the G~orgia Coastal Plain was developed upon a continental. basement that may have had a long pre-Mesozoic historyhut ' "BJ!lows predominantly the effects of the last episode of sea--fl:oor spreading and continental drift. The westward drift of North America and its clockwise rotation probably resulted in strikeslip faults oriented roughly NW-SE. These may, at least in part, have been related to transform movement. Once dri..ft was.:' well under way, the trailing margin of the continent .fractured by tension, and linear fault troughs developed, along -some of which basaltic dikes and flows occurred. Subcrustal adjustments fo1lowed which resulted in small-scale vertical movement. This caused differential movement between crustal blocks and has been effective along the southeastern coastal region since the Mesozoic structural pattern was established.
-16-

COMANCHEAN SERIES The t~rm Comanchean, alluding to the younger part of the Lower Cretaceous rocks of Texas, has been applied to those rocks of the Georgia Coastal Plain which unconformably overlie the basement and disconformably underlie Upper Cretaceous rocks. Biostratigraphically, they include rocks of Aptian and Albian age. Pre-Gulfian rocks were first reported in Georgia by Applin and Applin (1944), and information about these rocks has accumulated slowly for lack of deep drilling. Because of the paucity of data, few studies of Comanche rocks contain any but very generalized conclusions. Only the work of Herrick and Vorhis (1963), Rainwater (1970) , and Cramer (1974) include discussions of the Comanche rocks throughout the Georgia Coastal Plain; however, much useful data can be gleaned from Applin and Applin (1964; 1965), Forgotson (1963), Herrick(l96l) and Gray (1978).
Lithostrati graphy The thickness of the Comanche (and older?) rocks varies from a feather edge to a miximum of 3700 feet in southwestern Georgia onshore and to over 5,000 feet in offshore of southeastern Georgia. Offshore, in the COST well, the Comanche (and older?) rocks are characterized by a basal conglomerate zone about 300 feet thck, overlain by clastic rocks which are predominantly red beas, sandstone and shale, and which contain minor amounts of anhydrite, some lignite, and dolostone. Toward the
-17-

top of the sequence, the section is dominated by lime'st-ne:: "and dolostone, both with anhydrite enclosed, .and by a minor amount of sanrlstone and shale.
Onshore, all of the Comanche (and older?) rocks - are clastic, with sandstone predominating. Shale and mbdstone compose about thirty percent of the section, with a sma'll _ amount (less than 5 percent) of carbonate- as cement, in~ t-he deeper parts of the southwestern Georgia wells. A little carbonate occurs as thin limestone stringers in the otherwise completely clastic section
L_ignite is present throughout the lower portiunof the Comanche (and older?) section. It is irregu~larly- di.istributed but is ~ largely located near the base.
A:: conglomeratic zone is present in the lower part o:f the sequenrce. This zone is composed of poorly-cemented rocks which . include bright red shale and fine to coarse-grained quartzose sandstones with pebbles of_ quar.tz, quartzite and rhy'olite. The particles vary in size f rom very-coarse-grained'~ sand to pebbles of uncertain size, some of the clasts having been ground up~ by._the. bit. The conglomerate zone is thickest -in: t-he : southern part .Of- the Appalachicola Embayment, and~ thins to the north,... where i t -is verT thin or unrecognizable~ al-ong-_the northern .. side of- the Embayment. It is BOO' 'feet. thick in Thomas County (GGS ~3ll4).
'11-he upper part of the Comanche (and older?) sf'ct: i 0n contains less shale, a1 though_ i Lis s_ti.ll ..red. . The . sandstones
-18-

are more predominant, more coarse grained, more arkosic, and micaceous.
Gray (1978) suggests a two-fold division of the sequence, based upon some of the gross lithologic characteristics mentioned; this subdivision can also be recognized in the interpretations of the geophysical logs. Gray identifies a lower Early Format (named from Early County) , containing the conglomeratic zone and a relative abundance of shale, and an upper Worth Format (from Worth County) , characterized by no conglomerate, more arkose, less shale, and less lignite.
The top of the Comanche (and older?') rocks from onshore Georgia can be identified in the drill cuttings by the presence of red shale which is almost everywhere present. Siderite is also common, probably representing the post-Comanche erosion interval. The basal unit of the overlying Gulfian Series, the Tuscaloosa or Atkinson Formation, is predominantly a lightcolored sand and is easy to distinguish in the cuttinq,s and on geophysical logs. Applin and Applin (1967) and Babcock (1969) discuss in great length the nature of this contact.
Biostratigraphy In the COST well, where Comanche rocks are 5000 feet thick, the upper 1500 feet contain the following index fossils for the Albian:
Taurocusporites segmentatus Faveotriletes subtriangularis
-19-

Spheripollenites psilatus calcareous nannoplankton Below these rocks, the following dinoflagellate:.:guides :: Ito the Aptian Stage are found: Oli go s phaer idium co~plex Cr i broper id in i um edwardsi Deflandrea pirnaensis Aptea polymorpha The lower 2000 feet of the section are nonfossilifeross, clastic, and presumably terrestrial in origin. Onshore, no fossils from what are considered Comanche {and bider?) rocks are reported in the literature. The absence of fossils, and the Late Cenomanian age for the )c:ver).ying Atkinson Formation of the Gulfian Series (Hazel, 1969) preclude any unequivocable age designation for these l~wer rocks. They are certainly pre-Late Cenomanian, but could be Eatjy Cenomanian and thus be part 6f the Gulfianseries. In this report they are considered the Comanchean {and older?) Series~ on the basis of their unconformable relations to the overlying Cenomanian rocks, their unconformable relations ~ to the uiider-lying Triassic rocks, and on regional stratigraphic coBsiderations. It is possible. that ~ older rocks may.::also ~ be:. p<E"esent.
-20-

Pre-Comanche rocks? The possibility that some of the presumed pre-Gulfian Series rocks include some which are also pre-Comanche has been suggested by many workers, including Babcock (1966), Newkirk (1971), Barnett (1975), and most recently by Gray (1978). Gray (1978), using regional considerations, indicates that the lowermost rocks of the pre-Gulfian sequence in southwestern Georgia, which he calls the Early Format, may be equivalent to the Upper Jurassic Cotton Valley Group (hence the appendage "~nd older?" on the maps). The lack of fossils, however, prevents any certain age designation. If present, the Jurassic rocks would be part of the Zuni Sequence of Sloss (1963) . Because no paleontological control is available, however, this subdivision of the pre-Gulf rocks is not being adopted in this study. All are considered Comanche (and older?). Figure 5 shows the nomenclature which has been used for those rocks called Comanchean (and older?) Series in this report.
Structures The structures shown on the structure-contour map (Figure 6) are not Early Cretaceous in age, but have been impressed upon these rocks by later structural events. There is evidence, however, of structural disturbance of Comanche (and older?) rocks followed by erosion before the overlap of the Gulf rocks; an unconformity is everywhere present.
-21-

The isopachous distribution of the Comanche (and oldEr?) rocks 1Figure 7) suggests post-Ccimanche uplift and erosion ~n which much material has been removed, and in some areas, such as the eastern onshore Coastal Plain, no Comanche (and older?) rocks are present. A fault is proposed (Figures 7, 3l,and 33) to explain the thick Commanchean section in the COST well and none on the eastern part of the onshore Coastal Plain. The details of the deformation cannot be determined from the data avaiLable. Lithofacies patterns identified by Gray (1978), however, are interpreted to result from post-Comanche uplift and eJT.osion. The unconformity at the top of the Comanche rocks is also identified by Babcock (1969}.
Geophysical evidence also supports the existence of .a post-cr.omanche unconformity. The nature of the contact, as shown_in the various types of geophysical logs, appears to be a persistent Gulf basal sandstone, the Atkinson or Tuscaloosa Formation, overlying a diversity of rock types, the pattern of which is not yet discernable, although deformation and erosion are suggested as the cause of the div.ersity. Ard:en (1974) identiies a pronounced Comanche-Gulf contact from seismic interpretations in nearby Florida.
The records of one well in Lowndes County (GGS 3122) include a continuous dipmeter log; this shows the dips of the Comanche (and older?) rocks to be different from tho-se of the overlying Gulf rocks and also different from those of the under~ying Triassic rocks.
-22-

GULFIAN SERIES
The term Gulfian was introduced by Hill (1887) for Upper Cretaceous rocks in Texa~ and the term has been extended for these well-defined Coastal Plain rocks everywhere from Mexico to Florida. They are distinguished from overlying and underlying rocks by regional unconformities and by distinctive fossils. Biostratigraphically they encompass rocks from Cenomanian to Maastrichtian age.
Cretaceous rocks in Georgia were first recognized by Lyell (1845) from outcrops along Chattahoochee River. Because these rocks are so widely exposed and because they contain so much actual and potential mineral wealth, they have been studied and described in many publications. Eargle's work (1955) on the outcropping rocks, and that of Applin and Applin (1947; 1967) on the subsurface rocks, are particularly inclusive.
Lithostratigraphy The stratigraphic terminology used in this report for surface Cretaceous rocks is that utilized for the most recently published state geological map (Pickering and others, 1976). The rocks exposed updip are from the transition zone between ~arine and terrestrial depositiont so that most of the units are exceedingly variable, both vertically and horizontally; a single meaningful description of any of them is very difficult. The following generalizations are taken largely from Cooke (1943) and Eargle (1955).
-23-

The Tuscaloosa Formation is the basal Gulf unit along the Fall Line. It averages a little over 250 fee.t in thickness in the Chattahoochee River valley. The basal 3-50 feet consist of coarse grained, arkosic sand which grades upward into, or is interbedded with, sandstone and mottled red, brown, and green clay and silt. OverlyiDg the mottled silts and clays is a relatively uniform mass of gravelly sand that contai:ns a few beds of clay (Eargle, 1955, p. 8-10). A few fossil plants have been identified (Berry, 1914 b; 1919); the formation is considered a terrestrial or nearshore deposit.
The Eutaw Formation unconformably overlies the T.uscaloosa Formation, and is about 125 feet thick. In the Chattahoochee valley-area there are two conformable units, a basal sand which is generally coarse grained and an upper unit of dark gray shaJe :Lnterbedded with white sand; the shale contains marine f :ossil:s. Updip, eastward and northward, the upper unit gives way to massive sand, and all of the formation except the upper few feet is sand. (Eargle, 1955, p. 23-24)
The Blufftown Formation unconformably overlies the Eutaw Formation. In the Chattahoochee River area it consists of a basal coarse-grained sand about 150 feet thick which is overlain by about 260 feet of laminated, more or less sandy, carbo:na:ceous, micaceous, fossiliferous clay (Eargle, 1955,p.33).
The Cusseta Sand unconformably overlies the Blufftown Format~on; it is about 185 feet thick in the Chattahoochee valley area. The basal portion consists of coarse-grained, highly glauconitic sand with water worn shells, lignite,
-24-

and other detrital materials. In the higher parts of the formation, the sand is coarse-grained, glauconitic, irregularly and steeply cross bedded, and contains laminated, chocolatecolored marine clay. Downdip, much of the sand is finer grained, very micaceous, and glauconitic. Updip, the Cusseta is chiefly coarse-grained sand with minor lenses of massive clay, and the basal beds are coarse-grained sand and gravel without the fossils or other detrial materials found downdip. (Eargle, 1955, p.44).
The Ripley Formation is about 135 feet thick in the Chattahoochee valley area and lies sharply and perhaps unconformably upon the Cusseta Sand. It is fine-grained marine sand that is generally massive, clayey, calcareous and highly fossiliferous. The carbonatic clays and marls, especially, abound in thick-shelled fossils (Eargle, 1955,p.56).
The Providence Sand is 180 feet thick at its maximum and overlies the Ripley Formation unconformably. A basal carbonaceous, micaceous, dark shale, the Perote Member, is 33 feet thick at its type section in nearby Alabama, and thins eastward into Georgia where it passes into coarse-grained sand, probably as a facies change. The upper part, 147 feet thick, is chiefly coarse-grained sand which is generally arkosic and which contains minor lenses of white to varicolored clay.
Downdip, the upper sand portion is distinctly marine and consists of fine and coarse-grained sands as well as lenses of dark-gray clay. (Eargle, 1955, p. 70).
-25-

Eastward, along the Fall Line outcrop belt, and e$p:ecially eastward from Flint River, Gulf formations become difficult to distinguish from each other due largely to facies changes which seem to affect all of the formations. They become largely terrestrially-deposited sands and clays with kaolin. Overlap may also account for the apparent absence of certain units. On the state map (Pickering and others, 1976) these are mapped as various collections and groupings of formations~ and eas.t of Oconee River, they are mapped as Cretaceous, undiffe~entiated from the overlying Paleogene rocks which also resemblte them.
The Gulf rocks which crop out rest unconformably upon crystalline rocks of the Piedmont; the relief of the unconformity is unclear, but it may be considerable. All of the Gulf rocks are overlain unconformably by Paleogene rocks as a result of overlap.
Gulf rocks occur throughout the subsurface of the Georgia Coastal Plain and offshore. These have been studied in great detail by Applin and Applin (1947; 1967), and little can be added to what these diligent investigators have already shown:-
The terrestrial, feldspathic Tuscaloosa Formation is a correlative of the marine, fossiliferous Atkinson For:mation (Applin and Applin, 1947), and this basal sandstone lithosome is nea-rly everywhere present.
Downdip, the distinctive formations which crop out in the Chattahoochee valley cannot be distinguished on the basis of lithology, as most of the sandstones pinch out and the entire
-26-

section is marine above the Tuscaloosa and/or the Atkinson Formations. Herrick (1961) and Herrick and Vorhis (1963) call these beds post-Tuscaloosa undifferentiated, and Applin and Applin (1947/1967) use the Gulf Coast Provincial Stage terms in a biostratigraphic sense, i.e., beds of Austin, Taylor, or Navarro age. Further subdivision of the postTuscaloosa and/or Atkinson Formations is not practical at this time because of structural complications which have not yet been resolved.
Some generalizations can be made, however. The postTuscaloosa and/or post-Atkinson rocks become more clayey and calcareous downdip, and in southeastern Georgia chalk is present in the clay. The uppermost Cretaceous rocks in southeastern Georgia (and northern Florida) are called the Lawson Limestone (Applin and Applin, 1944, p. 1708). The lower part of the Lawson is a chalky dolostone or dolomitic chalk with a small amount of evaporite. The upper part is recrystallized, reefal, dolomitic limestone and dolostone. Evaporite is irregularly distributed, although no beds of evaporite are known.
Offshore, in the COST well, Upper Cretaceous rocks are predominantly calcareous gray shale, with a basal fine- to medium-grained sandstone.
The top o~ the Gulf Series is marked by a region~l unconformity (Hazel and others, 1977, p. 76-77) as no rocks of latest Cretaceous (Late Maastrichtian) age are present anywhere.
Lithologically, the topmost rocks of the Gulfi~n Series are variable, as a result of the post- retaceous erosion surface
-27-

intersecting deformed beds. Generally there is physical
evidence of the erosion surface, such as limonite staining or other evidence of weathering. The beds immediately_overlying the Cretaceous are generally a basal clastic unit, =so where the Cretaceous is predominantly calcareous, thedi-stinction is clear. Where the underlying Cretaceous rocks are also clastic, paleontological methods remain the chief means of: distinguishing them.
Biostratigraphy Paleontologically, Gulf rocks are well documented. Many oraminiferal lists have been prepared (Herrick, 1961; Herri'ck and Vorhis, 1963; Applin and Applin, 1947; 1964;1967). Foraminifers are especially abundant. In the COST well, Gulf microfossils are abundant, and
representative sections of the Cosmopolitan stages are present. The distinguishing forms are (Steinkraus, 1978):
Maastrichtian (but not latest ].1aastrichtian)
foraminifers Globotruncana gansseri G. area G. stuarti G. flaso-stuarti . d i n o f l a g e l-l a t e s Dynogym~um acuminatum C:annosphaeropsis utinensis Kystrichodinium pulchrum Campanian 'foraminifers Globotruncana.ventricosa .G. stuartiformis r,. 1 apparenti
-2-8-

dinoflagellates Hystrichodinium pulchrum Xenascus ceratoides Odontochi tna costata Chatang iella v1ctoriensis Kleithr i asph aeridium lofferensis
Santonian
f oraminifers Siga l ia def l aens is Gl obotr unca n a c o n cava t a G. coronata G. car1nata
palynomorphs Senoniasphaera protrusa S. rotunda Sulcosphaeridium longifurcatum
Coniacian
foraminifers Globotruncana renzi G. imbricata G. marginata
Turonian
foraminifers Globotruncana helvitica Praeglobotruncana stephani P. turb1nata
palynomorphs Cribroperidinium cf. edwardsi Deflandrea pirneansis
Cenomanian (?)
foraminifer Galvelinopsis cenomanica
Onshore, detailed studies have not yet been made. Various
fossils lists, largely of foraminifers, may be found in
Applin and Applin (1947; 1964; 1967), Herrick (1961) and
Herrick and Vorhis (1963) for beds above the Late Cenomanian,
although little consideration is given to their position
-29-

within the cosmopolitan stages. Most are placed within
the Gulf Coast Provincial stages and compared with the
Cretaceous in Texas.
The characteristic fossils, mostly foraminifers used
for these determinations are, according to Applin arud
Applin (19 '67):
Lawson Limestone (upper member)
Vaughanina cubensis Orbitoides browni
Lawson Limestone (lower member)
L.eptorbi toides nortoni L-. minima L. floridensis L. (Asterorbis ) aquayoi L. (1\. ) rook~ Salcoperculina cosdeni Robulus cf. R. munsteri Lenticulina rotulata Cibicides harperi Globotruncana cretacea Lbxostomum pla~tum Palmula rugosa Frondicularia cf. F. dimida
Arenobul~mina amer~cana
Marsonella oxycona
Navarro-aged beds (clastic facies)
Clavulinoides trilatera Marsonella oxycona Dorothia bulleta Robulus navarroensis Palmula rugosa Heterohelix globulosa Planoglobulina acervulinoides
S~pho1ener~no~des plummer~
Bulimna aspera Anomalina c~. rubiginosa Nodosaria aff~nis Gaudryina rud~ta Trocharnmina ~ Valvul~ner~a cf. V. umbilicatula Bul1.mina kickapooensis Loxostom plaitum Globot~uncana c;retacea
-30-

G. fornicata Anomalina pseudopapillosa Cibicides harper1 Globigorina crctacca
Taylor-aged beds
Stensioina americana Bol1v1n01des decorata Globorotalites conicus Bolivina 1ncrassata Pseudogaudry1nella capitosa Kyphopyxa chr1stner1 Planul1na texana Arenobul1m1na americana Planul1na dumble1 Globotruncana area G. marg1nata G. canaliculata Pseudotextular1a plummerae P. elegans P. excolata Globiger1na saratogaensis
Austin-aged beds
Heterostomella austiniana Gaudryina (Siphogaudry1na) austiniana Eouv1ger1na plummerae Neobulimina 1rregularis Valvul1neria infrequens Hast1ger1n01des alexanderi Globorotalities umbil1catus Planul1na aust1n1ana (many plaktonic foraminifera, unlisted by Applin and Applin (1967) but including): Globigerina Guembel1na Globotruncana
Atkinson Formation (upper member)
Globigerinelloides eaglefordensis Valvul1ner1a 1nfrequens Pleurostomella cf. P. watersi Ammobaculites coprolithiformis A. stephensoni Hedbergella brittonensis Heterohelix moremani
several species of ostracodes
-31-

Atkinson Formation (lower member)

Ammotium braunsteini Ammobaculites plummerae A. junceus A. compr imatus A. l:)ergquisti A. stephensoni A. agrestis Trochammina rainwateri Haplaphragmoides advenus

The lower member of the Atkinson Formation contains a

distinctive fauna locally known as the "Barlow Fauna" (E.

Applin, 1955), which is not present everywhere. It contains

the distinctive foraminifer Rotalipora cushmani and ostracode

Cythereis eaglefordensis, both of which are guides to the

Late Cenomanian (Hazel, 1969).

R. A. Christopher (pers. comm., 1979) has identified

Late Cretaceous pollen from the samples immediately overlying

the basement in Camden County (GGS 1198). This indicates

that there are no Comanche rocks present in this well or in

nearby wells which can be correlated by electric logs.

He identified the following pollen:

Porocol~opollenites spp. complex1opollis sp. L Cornplexiopollis abdictus Complexiopollis sp. D Atlantopollis verrucosa Momipites fragilis

l'Jpdip, planktonic foraminifers of the Gulf rocks have

not been investigated so that the compa:r:ison of the post-

Atkinson (and post-Tuscaloosa) beds have not been placed in

their cosmopolitan stages on this basis. However, the out-

cropping formations have been placed biostratigraphi.cally by

the presence of cephalopods and other macrofossils (Stephenson

and others, 1942).

-32-

G.ohn and others (1978b) note a distinctive hiatus in South Carolina where the Turonian and Coniacian beds are absent. In Georgia, this interval in not identified hiestratigraphically in .this report, but is represented by widespread unconformity within the Gulfian rocks above the Atkinson (and Tuscaloosa?) Formations. A basal conglomerate is at the base of the Austin-aged beds (Applin and Applin, 1967, p. G 19).
This and other hiatuses within the Gulfian Series and the relationships of the various units are shown on Figure 8.
Structures All of the structures shown ori the structure-contour map of the top of the Gulfian Series (Figure 9) are postCretaceous in age, but there is considerable evidence of tectonic activity during and after Gulfian deposition. The presence of widespread erosion surface at the top of the Gulfian Series indicates regional uplift. In Georgia this is shown by the physical evidence of weathering at the contact . of Gulf rocks with the overlying formations in the form of limonite staining, porosity changes, lignite, etc. Interpretations of the isopachous distribution of the Gulf rocks (Figure 10) allow for considerable deformation to have taken place during or after the deposition of the. beds, followed by erosion. The most significant evidence for the uplift, however, comes from the fossils. Paleontologically, the youngest Cretaceous rocks in Georgia are Maastrichtian, but not latest.
-33-

In some places they are Middle;Maastrxchtian. With-the -exception of the western part of the eentral~Ceastal Plain, the oldest beds which lie on the Cretaceous beds . a:Fe-"Middle or Late - Paleocene, and in at least one locality-Early~Eocene strata are on the erosion surface. An hiatus .which i-ncludes the late!;t Cretaceous and earliest Paleocene is everywhere present.
Onecbf . the most significant structur~l~features~of Cretaceous rocks in the Georgia Coastal-Plain can be interpreted -from-the isopach map of the G~lfian Series lFgure : lO). "This is~the terrane 6f thin Gulf rocks:trending sooth:westward from ~:'layne : Count-y -through- Thomas : coun~y:=arid, accm:'di~g :. to Applin arid Applin (1967, pl. 6) into -Florida. -~ThistaEHL..of thin Gulfian rocks, herein called-the Echols ~ H~gh, ~ isjdescribed .in great .lithologic .and :. paleontologic ...aetail by Applin ': and Applin (1947; .1967).
Applin : and Applin U967, p. G 30 -- - 32) .inte~pret ::..th.is featu:~:e -_to be a result of .Late Cretaceous (Navarrean) .aeformation which pr-oduced a linear topographic barrier. To-the north of this, clastic-dominated, .Navarro~.;~.ged .:. sediments -were depesi ted, and to . bhe south, carbonate~dom~nated sediments (the Lawson _Limestone) were _deposited. ..Erosion accompanied : the -Navarro uplift, ::so that . the -Nav.arro~aged rocks .in: t-he high :_a:Eea were never deposited, :or .-. were r-emoved, ' arid_ Tay lor"'"aged rocks are thin ::.in some places .{Applin -.and .Applin, .1967, . pl. -4) . The Lawson Limestone~ove~laps:the high.on . its : southenn ~ flaflk, however, according :: to 'Applin '-'.arid -,Applin (1967, .p. G26- ~27) iridicati~g that . i t- was . alrealy ~- a -:. structural : feature .:. at the
~J4-

time of the deposition of the Lawson Limestone (Maastrichtian). Hull (1962), as part of his interpretation of the origin
of the Suwannee Strait, suggests non-deposition, rather than uplift and erosion to explain the difference in facies of the Gulfian rocks on either side of the high.
This study, supported by new data and a reinterpretation of some of the older data, confirms a structural interpretation for the origin of the feature, although with a different time for the event. The Lawson Limestone to the north of the Echols High may have. been removed, if ever present, by Navarro and post-Navarro (post Maastrichtian) uplift and erosion. Sabinian rocks overlie the Cretaceous rocks on the Echols High, but to the northwest, Midwayan rocks (the Clayton Limestone) are present above the Gulf rocks (Figures 12 and 13), and contain considerable sand interbedded within the limestone strata. The sand diminishes in volume northward, indicating a southern source. If the Echols High were the provenance for this sand, erosion of the Cretaceous rocks must have been taking place during the Midwayan Age as well as during and/or after Gulfian time. Such erosion, taking place at the time of the development of the regional unconformity at the top of the Cretaceous, would have removed the Lawson Limestone from and to the north of the Echols High were it ever present. Continued uplift and erosion would have produced the provenance for the clastic material in the Midwayan Clayton Limestone.
The Applins (1947; 1967, pl. 7) imply that the uplift was anticlinal, or arching. If this is the case, compression
-35-

would have been the likely source of the forces. Compression, however, is not a corrunon phenomenon in the tectonics of the Georgia Coastal Plain; most of the structures are products of tension such as would be expected on the trailing margins of continents (Bott, 1979).
The structurally highest area (where the Cretaceous rocks are thinnest, in Echols and Lowndes Counties) may be a product of forces related to the Peninsular Arch as well as to those which formed the Echols High.
: It is possible to interpret the Echols High as a product of faulting, i.e., a horst which developed during and after Cretaceous time. This would be more amenable tectonically to the regional structures, but the lack of detail prevents_ a convincing solution to this structural dilemma at thistime.
"Most of the faults which are shown on the structurecontour map of the Gulfian Series (Figure 9) are postCretaceous.
The northwest-southeast trending fault in Glynn County and vicinity has been postulated only in order to ~xplain the abnormally thin Gulf section in one well (GGS 1197) (Figure 10). The dip of the fault plane and its orientation, however, cannot be determined from the data available. Unpublished seismic information suggests that its orientation may be more east - west. This fault is not identifiable in the overlying Sabinian rocks, and may be genetically related to the tectonism which produced the Echols High. The influence of this fault in the subsurface is shown on cross section F (Figure 34).
-36-

Marsalis (1970, p. 6) notes that a major oil company has indicated that the top of the Cretaceous section in a nearby well (Camden County, GGS 153) is considerably lower than the top of thci section as determined by Applin and Applin (1967). If this is the case, the Gulf section in that well would also be abnormally thin, and another fault may be present or the north-south fault may have had an influence on that area also.
-37-

MIDWAYAN STAGE
The Midwayan Stage, defined by Murray (1955, p. 685), is represented by one formation in Georgia, the Clayton Limestone; the other formations within the stage, and known from nearby Alabama, have been removed from Georgia by postMidwayan erosion. Shale interlayered with the carbonate rocks in the northeastern regions of the Midway terrane in Georgia may be remnants of the Porters Creek Formation, as Toulm~n (1977, p. 96) indicates that the upper part of the Clayton Limestone is the facies equivalent of the Porters Creek.
Paleontologically, the Clayton is Early Paleocene age, part of the Danian Stage of international terminology (Berggren, 1965).
The work of Cushman (1951) on micropaleontology, of Toulmin (1977) on macrofossils, and of Rainwater (1960a) on regional sedimentation are the most comprehensive studies of Midway rocks within Georgia. Berggren (1965, p. 279), on the basis of planktonic foraminifers, shows the relationship of the Midway rocks of Georgia to others on the Coastal Plain .and to the cosmopolitan stages.
Lithostratigraphy The Clayton Limestone is the basal formation of the Midwayan Stage. On Chattahoochee River, in Clay County, Toulmin and Lamoreaux (1963, p. 399) describe the Clayton Formation as consisting of three parts, totaling up to 150 feet thick, but variable because of an overlying unconformity. The lower part, about 40 feet thick, is grayish-yellow,
-38-

sandy limestone, sand, and light gray, calcareous, abundantly

fossiliferous silt. The middle part, also about 40 feet thick,

is massive, sandy limestone which is also very fossiliferous.

The upper part, 50 or more feet thick, is massive, white,

microfossiliferous limestone with abundant micro-and macrofossils.

Eastward and northward, along the outcrop belt, the

exposures represent a more nearshore facies of the Clayton;

the limestone is thinner and more clay is interbedded within

it. Herrick (1961) logs gray clay within and above the thin

limestone as Porters Creek Formation, but reports no fossils.

The calcareous nature of the Clayton and its thinness

precludes any extensive exposures in outcrop, and generally

the outcrop is marked by clayey residUum and fossiliferous

chert. Wells passing through the Midway in the subsurface

near the outcrop show that the stage generally is less than

50 feet thick.

From the kaolin district in Twiggs Count~ Tschudy and

Patterson (1975) report a few tens of feet of clastic estuarine

rocks containing kaolin and Paleocene palynomorphs

These beds

contain a flora similar to that from rocks called Porters Creek

by Herrick and Tschudy (1967). In Twiggs County, these beds are

overlain by Lower Eocene estuarine rocks and are underlain by

kaol1n-bearing Cretaceous sandstone. These, and other 11idway rocks

if present east of Ocmulgee River, are shown on the state map

(Pickering and others, 1976) as Cretaceous and Tertiary undiffer-

entiated, and are included with the Huber Formation (Buie, 1978).

Downdip, in the subsurface, the Clayton Limestone retains its

character. It is light gray, sandy, finely crystalline, finely

glauconitic, micaceous, very fossiliferous limestone -39-

which thickens southward. The amount of sand in and interbedded with the limestone increases southward, and in one well (Early County, GGS 437) the Midwayan Stage is entirely sand. Southward from this well, no Midway rocks are found, their having been removed by post-Midway erosion from the upthrown side of the bounding fault (Figures 12 and 13) .
The top of the Midwayan Stage is everywhere marked by a pronounced unconformity. This is well exposed in the outcrop near Fort Gaines, Clay County (Toulmin and Lamoreaux, 1963, p. 394} where large sinkholes in the Clayton Limestone are filled with clastic material, including lignite, of the overlying Sabinian Stage. In the subsurface, this contact of clastic rock with carbonate is also very distinctive. Updip, where the Midway includes clay, the overlying Sabine rocks are very sandy and still distinctive. The varying thickness of the Clayton in the subsurface (Figure 12) is attributed to the overlying unconformity.
Biostratigraphy No Midway rocks are present in the COST well, or onshore on the Atlantic side, or on the southern part of the Georgia Coastal Plain. In the published lists of Foraminiferida from the Georgia Clayton Limestone, no planktonic foraminifers of zonal value are included. Those included in Herrick and Vorhis (1963,
p. 37-38) from the so-called Tames"i' equivalent are Lat.e
Paleocene, and therefore Sabinian.
-40-

Ogren (1970) notes the presence of Globoconusa (Globigerina?)
daubjergensis and Globorotalia pseudobulloides of Early
Paleocene age along with a fauna of ostracodes which includes:
Orthonotocythere cristata Haplocytheridea macrolaccus munseyi Cytherella excavata Acanthocytheresis washingtonensis Hermanites gibsoni Loxoconcha atlantic Cytherelloidea truncata Cytheropteron walkeri Hermanites hadropleurus Cytheromorpha? scrobiculata Opimocythere brown~ The floral lists of Tschudy and Patterson (1975) include:
Minorpollis aff. ~- minimus Maceopolipollenites tenuipolis Choanopopollenites transitus ~ discipulus Interpollis intranodus
These fossils, and the well-established correlation of
the Clayton Formation in Georgia with that of the type area
in Alabama and elsewhere on the Gulf Coast based on macro-
fossils, demonstrate that the Clayton Limestone is Early Palocene~ or Danian of international terminoiogy. This is also the conclusion of Berggren (1965, p. 279). Huddlestun and othe~ (1974, p. 2-3) show that the Clayton and Porters Cr~ek Formations in Georgia are Early Danian, the P-1 planktonic foraminifer zone (Figure 28).
Figure 10 is a chart showing the Midwayan Stage terminology used for this report.
-41-

Structures Following the deposition of Midwayan strata, uplift and erosion occurred; there is much direct evidenceJ and some indirect evidence for the existence of the erosion surface. The unconformity is exposed in the valley of Chattahoochee River where paleokarst on the Clayton is filled : with lignite-bearing clastic rocks of the overlying Sabinian Stage (Marsalis and Friddell, 1975, p. 56); the relief on the karst is as much as 20 feet. The lignite is also found in the basal beds of the Sabinian Stage downdip, distinguishing it from the underlying Midway rocks. The absence of the otherwise widespread Porters Creekand Naheola Formations above the Clayton, and the clastic nature. of the basal beds of the Sabinian Stage demonstrate the pnesence of the erosion surface,as does the limited distri-bution and irregular thickness of the Midway: rocks . onthe Georgia Coastal Plain (Figures 12 and 13). Faulting accompanied the regional uplift~ The - distribution of the faults and their influence on the preservationof the Midway strata can be seen on the structure-contour and isopach maps (Figures 12 and 13) in which the Midway rocks. are mostly confined to a large, fault-bounded terrane on the wes~-side of the Coastal Plain. Two criteria . have been used to interpret the~:presence . of the ppominent northwest-southeast trending fault which-is the eastern boundary of the Midway terrane.. One ; importa:at:-facto:r: . is the relative difference in thickness of the Cretaceous
-42-

rocks on either side (Figure 10). Gulf rocks are relatively thin on the eastern side of the fault and relatively thick on the western side. The upthrown eastern side was subjected to erosion following the faulting, which resulted in removal of all of the Midway and some of the Cretaceous strata. On the downthrown side, to the west, some of the Clayton was preserved below the erosion surface, and none of the Cretaceous rocks in this area were further eroded. The other factor determining the presence of this fault is what may be an abrupt termination of Mid~ay rocks.
The fault which bounds the southwestern edge of the Midway terrane is proposed on the same bases as is that of the northeastern boundary. Cretaceous rocks directly south are abnormally thin, showing that the southern block was upthrown and that all the Midway and so~e of the Cretaceous strata were removed, if they were ever deposited. The amount of sand in the Midway rocks in the southern part of their terrane indicates a source to the south, suggesting that the Echols High was a source of sediments into the Midway seas.
This southern block was present during Midway time (as a result of post-Gulf tectonism) and was further uplifted during and after the Mid~ay. The general trend of the Midway strata to be thicker to the south (Figure 12) , and their absence south of the fault supports the interpretation of post-Midway faulting.
The fault which bounds the southeastern edge of the Midway terrane is located on the basis of the presence of absence of
-43-

Midway strata. Its orientation may .be different from .~that propos.ed here.
The irregularity of the thickness of the remaining Midway rocks can be explained by faulting which has :~re-su~ted in erosion on the upthrown sides, but the data do notal.low for the determination of the location or orientation of such faults if they exist.
The isloated remnants of Midway beds, such as those in ''l'wiggs County and in Atkinson County, may have loeen preserved on the downdropped sides of faults. Note, for instance, that in At.kinson County where Midway rocks are pres.ent (GGS 107) that the underlying Cretaceous rocks are also thick (Figure 10).
Midway rocks are known farther to the east, in South Carolina (Gohn and others, 197 8c) , but these are over .. 200 miles-away.
The relationship of the Midway rocks between:the Southeast Georg.ia and the Appalachicola Embayments is not decipherable. All cif the Midway rocks have been removed from the eastern.part of the Georgia Coastal Plain, and those in the we.s.t, have been thinned by erosion so that their basinal characteristic;a, .if present, have been removed.*
*Work completed by Thomas Rice since this manuscript ..was prepared indicates that Midway rocks may be present .to .the
. east of the northwest-southeast trending fault. If .so, t.he
fault mq,y nat he .po.stMidway, but p.ost-Cretacea.us. .Mi.dwqy rocks are clearly not present in so.utheaste:rn Georcp n.
-44-

SABINIAN STAGE
The Sabinian Stage, Wilcox Stage, Wilcox Group, Midway Group and Midway Stage have been studied by many workers in the past. Much confusion has resulted because of similar lithologies of the units on the Gulf Coastal Plain. The nomenclature used in this report is that recommended by Murray (1955).
Sabine rocks unconformably overlie the Midwayan Stage and the Gulf Series and are, according to Berggren (1965) and Pickering and others (1976), Late Paleocene and Early Eocene in age. Heretofore, these rocks have been referred to as the Wilcox Group or to the Wilcox Stage in much of the literature, and this name is retained on the maps as (Wilcox).
Like the underlying Midwayan Stage, stratigraphic understanding of the Sabinian has changed in recent years, and few comprehensive works apply entirely to those rocks now included in the Sabinian Stage. Most of the earlier work was done when those rocks now called Sabinian (Wilcox) were considered to be entirely Early Eocene. Rainwater (1960b, 1964) reviews these rocks for theentire Gulf Coastal Plain, as does Harris (1897-1899). Cushman (1951) includes rocks of this stage in his report on the Paleocene Foraminiferida. Toulmin (1977) describes the larger invertebrates, and Berggren (1965) discusses the biostratigraphic position of these rocks based upon planktonic foraminifers.
-45-

Lithostratigraphy Sabinian rocks occur from the Chattahoochee Vall.ey northeastward in a thin outcrop belt to at least Washington County. Eastward of there they have not yet been recognized or are absent. Along Chattahoochee River the section described by Toulmin and Lamoreaux (1963, p. 394-396) is from the most complete exposure. The Nanafalia Formation rests upon the Clayton Limestone at Fort Gaines, Clay County, with a profound unconformity (Toulmin, 1977, p. 100-105; Marsalis and Friddell, 1.975, p. 56). Rocks of the lowermost Gravel Creek Member fill the paleokarst formed on the top of the Clayton by post-Midway erosion. tr'he.se lower beds are gravelly sand with abundant lignite and some lenses of clay which contain leaves (Berry, 1914a). The thickness of the Gravel Creek Member vari.es up to 20 feet, tl-J.e dep.th af the sinkholes on the paleokarst. Northward, it bec.omes thicker, is cross bedded, and encloses kaolin and bauxite. Above t his basal gravel unit are 55 feet of predominantly marine sandswhich are glauconitic, micaeous, and very fossiliferous.; a few zones of fossiliferous clay are enclosed. The Tuscahoma Formation overlies the Nanafalia Forrna.tion apparently unconformably. The lower 25 feet are predominantly medium to coarS-grained, cross bedded, glauconitic, micace(,us., very calcareous, fossiliferous sand. The upper 150 feet of the Tuscalh.oma are sandy, micaceous, carbonaceous, shaly, laminated silt and silty clay. Enclosed in these are lenses of fineto very-fine grained, silty, well S'.Orted, glauconitic,
-46-

micaceous sandstone. The Hatchitigbee Formation, or more specifically its
basal Bashi Marl Member, overlies the Tuscahoma Formation with an irregular contact, which is presumably unconformable .. The Bashi Marl Member along Chattahoochee River is 35 feet thick and consists of fine to very-fine grained, silty, well sorted, angular, glauconitic, slightly micaceous, fossiliferous sand.
These are unconformably overlain by the Tallahatta Formation of Middle Eocene age.
The exposures of Sabine rocks along Chattahoochee River arenot, by virtue of the relationship between gently dippinq beds and valley erosion, representative of the Sabinian in outcrop to the north and east.
Updip and northeastward along the outcrop belt the beds are distinctly more terrestrial in origin, and for the most part are mapped as Tertiary undifferentiated. The bauxite deposits of the Andersonville District, in Sumter County, are in the Nanafalia portion of the undifferentiated section, and are in terrestrially-deposited rocks.
The northeasternmost exposures of Sabine rocks are reported by Tschudy and Patterson (1975). They give palynomorphological evidence for Lower Eocene {Wilcox) rocks in the area east of Ocmulgee River. These are estuarine clastic rocks which contain kaolin. They are on the state map as Tertiary-Cretaceous undifferentiated and are part of the sequence known as the Huber Formation (Buie, 1978). These extend eastward at least as far as Washington County.
-47-

Downdip, Sabine rocks become increasingly.marine .. in character; the amount of carbonate increases, and in :extrceme southern Georgia, the rocks are almost entirely carbonate.
Toward the southwest, carbonate rocks are intertongued with the updip clastic rocks, and the various formations cannot be identified. They are'generally called "Wilcox undifferentiated" in most logs.
Southeastward, however, the facies changes are very noticeable, and in southeastern Georgia the Sabinian Stage is represented by the Oldsmar Limestone (Applin and Applin, 1944) ' above and the Cedar Keys Limestone (Cole, 1944) below. Both :are highly dolomitized, evaporitic limestones . and contain few fossils. The Oldsmar contains lignite at its tQp.
The Oldsmar and Cedar Keys formations are lithologically similar, and are distinguished from each other on the-basis df stratigraphic position. According to Vernon (1951, p. 87):
. the Oldsmar limestone, as erected-by the Applins (1944), is predominantly a series of faunal zones .and is not .different lithologically from the overlying (Lake City Limestone) and underlying (Cedar Keys Limestone) formations. In the COST well offshore, Sabine rocks are ~ gray, calcareous cl~ystones overlain by soft, white argillaceous limestone with traces of brown, dense chert. The thickness of the Sabine rocks varies dramatically, from a few tens of feet updip in the clastic lithesome .to over .1000 f eet in the carbonate lithesome ..in . southeas.toern
-48-

Georgia, yet the rocks in the COST well are but 90 feet thick. The differences in thickness are due to both structural and sedimentation complexities.
In the subsurface, the distinction between the Sabine rocks and the overlying Claibornian Stage depends upon the geographic location. The basal Claiborne rocks are everywhere glauconitic and contain considerable clastic material. Downdip the Sabine rocks are largely carbonate and so are clearly distinct. Updip, however, Sabine rocks are also clastic,
and the distinction is less obvious, except that thP. Claiborne
is generally more calcareous: of course the fossil record
of the two stages is very distinct.
Biostratigraphy Sabine rocks are very fossiliferous and many fossil lists have been prepared; most notable is that of Herrick and Vorhis (1963) for microfossils, and that of Toulmin (1977) for larger invertebrates.
In the COST well offshore, the lowermost Cenozoic rocks are of Late Paleocene age and are the basal beds of the Sabinian Stage. These rocks contain
foramimifers Globorotalia aequa G. acuta G. angulata G. pseudomenardii G. velascoensis Globigerina velascoensis dinoflagellates Wetzeliella hyperancantha W. [lornomorpha Adnatosphaeridium pastielsi
-49-

Cordosphaeridium inodes

c. gracilis

-

Areoligera senonensis

calcareous nannofossils from the Heliolithus Zone?

The total section is but 90 feet thick and unconformably

overlies Maastrichtian strata.

On shore, those rocks heretofore called Paleocene-Midway

or ~aleocene-Clayton Formation and which contain the so-called
Tames"i faun~ are Late Paleocene in agei the Tamesi fauna,

reported from many wells in southern Georgia in rocks immediately

overlying Cretaceous rocks, contains Globorotalia velascoensis,

Q. membranacea, Q.. pseudomenardii, and G. c ras.sata aequa

(G. aequa) . (Figure 28).

Huddlestun (in Marsalis and Friddell, 1975, p. 18) and

Berggren (1965, p. 279) show that the Nanafalia and Tuscahoma

Formations are Late Paleocene in age, and that the overlying

Hatchitigbee Formation is Early Eocene. Herrick and Vorhis

(1963, p. 33) note that Globorotalia wilcoxensis is present.

Huddlestun and others (1974, p. 2-3), in the updip section,

place the Gravel Creek Member of the Nanafalia Formation and

its downdip carbonate equivalent, the Cedar Keys Limestone,

in the P-4 planktonic foraminifer zone, the base of the Sabinian

Stage. The Oldsmar Limestone, the downdip carbonate equivalent

of the Bashi Marl Member of the Hatchitigbee Formation, is in

Zone P-6, Early Eocene (Huddlestun and others, 1974, p. 2-3)

(Figure 28)

Figure 14 is a time-rock chart showing the terminology

used for the Sabinian Stage in this report.

-50-

Structures Uplift and erosion of the Georgia Coastal Plain following the deposition of the Sabinian Stage can be demonstrated from two lines of evidence. The unconformity at the top of the Sabinian St~ge can be seen in the paleontological hiatus between the Sabinian Stage (which is early Early Eocene) and the overlying Claibornian State (which is late Early Eocene and Middle Eocene). The unconformity is also revealed by the presence everywhere of the basal clastic beds of the overlying Claibornian Stage and the discontinuous distribution of the Sabine rocks underneath it. The Bashi Marl Member of the Hatchitigbee Formation, for instanc~ is but 35 feet thick on Chattahoochee River and thins eastward. It is not present in central or eastern Georgia. Even southeastward and seaward, where Sabine and Claiborne rocks are predominantly carbonate, the unconformity can also be detected paleontologically and lithologically, as the overlying Claiborne rocks are more glauconitic and clastic than the Sabine rocks. The hiatus seaward may be due to lack of deposition as much as regional uplift. In the COST well, late Early Eocene aged rocks rest upon Late Paleocene aged rocks, apparently conformably, as interpreted from nearby seismic sections (Shipley and others, 1978) which show no deformation of the prograding clinoform Sabine beds. Here, the break in the sedimentation history may be ascribed as much to sea-level changes as to tectonism.
-51-

OI'le of the most significant features demonstrating the pre-erosion uplift comes from the interpretation of the isopach map (Figure 16). Structural deformation preceded the uplift, but is not expressed on the structure-contour map of the Sabinian Stage (Figure 15); all of the features on this map are post-Sabine in origin.
The most pronounced structural feature on the Georgia Coastal Plain which can be attributed to Sabine, or postSabine pre-Claiborne structural activity, is deduced from the relations between the isopach map of the Sabinian Stage (FiguFe 15) and the isopach and structure-contour maps of the Gulfian Series (Figures 9 and 10) .
In the southern part of the state, where the Gulf rocks are thin and the Sabine rocks are thick, the surface of the Gulfian Series is distinctly lower than the surface of the Gulfian Series toward the north. This area of thin topographically ' ilow Cretaceous rocks and thick Cenozoic rocks has been called the Suwanee Saddle by Applin and Applin (1967, p. 30) and is attributed by them to Cenozoic uplift of the regions to the north and south 9f the axis. It coincides with the Echols High. Whether it is more than a coincidence cannot be determined.
In this region there is also a distinct change in the facies of lower Cenozoic rocks. This was first noted by Applin and Applin (1944, Figures 6 and 7) who call attention to the dominantly clastic facies toward the north of the feature
-52-

and to the dominantly carbonate facies to the south in both what they call Paleocene Midway rocks and in Lower Eocene Wilcox rocks. This change is also described by Chen {1965, p. 8-10) who used the name Suwannee Channel for the feature, suggesting that there was a topographic channel at that place and time which influenced the deposition and thickness of the Paleocene and Lower Eocene rocks. Applin and Applin (1967, p. 30) provide a complete review of the history of the terminology and interpretations of the feature to that date. Note that the name Suwannee Saddle was used for a feature which formed .after Late Cretaceous time.
Heretofore, the basal clastic rocks within the Suwannee Saddle (Applin and Applin, 1967) or Strait (Jordon, 1954) or Channel (Chen, 1965) were considered as Midway in age and correlated with the Clayton Limestone toward the north. The thick section of carbonate rocks overlying the clastic rocks were considered Wilcox (Early Eocene) and were correlated with the thin, predominantly clastic Wilcox rocks to the north of the channel.
It is now known that the so-called Tames"i fauna in the
lowermost rocks, resting upon Gulf rocks, contains Late Paleocene planktonic foraminifers and that a substantial
/
unconformity exists between the Gulf rocks and the Tamesifauna-bearing rocks. Therefore, all of the rocks within the saddle, very thick and predominantly carbonate with a basal clastic unit, are Sabinian Stage and are correlated with the relatively thi~ predominantly clastic Sabinian Stage
-53-

to the north of the saddle; the difference in the facies is accompanied by a difference in thickness also. The carbonate facies is in some places over 1,000 feet thick whereas the clastic facies is at most only a few hundred feet thick.
A fault can account for the Sabine rocks to the north of the saddle being thin and clastic and the rocks in and to the south of the saddle being thick and carbonate. A fault or fault zone is proposed to have developed from about Thomas County northeastward to Atkinson County, with the south side having been downdropped several hundred feet. The fault may extend farther to the northeast or to the southwest, but the data from Georgia are not present to determine this.
If carbonate rocks were present over the clastic rocks updip as a result of overlap during the Sabinian (and the presence of shelf break deposits in the COST well support this), the erosion following the faulting would have removed most of the carbonate rocks to the north of the fault on the upthrown side. The carbonate rocks to the south would have been on the downthrown side and so preserved from erosion. This would account for the change both in rock facies and thickness on either side of the saddle in lower Cenozoic rocks. If this interpretation is sound, the Suwannee Saddle is a faultgenerated feature of late or post-Sabinian age. This sequence of events is illustrated in Figure 17.
-54-

Other faults may also be present, but the data do not permit their identification. The thinness of the Sabinian rocks in the area of the Central Georgia Uplift, and the absence of Upper Paleocene rocks in the Coffee County wells (GGS 445, 447, 448, 508) indicate tectonism in this area during Sabine time.
The presence of the Appalachicola Embayment in Georgia cannot be confirmed from the Sabine rocks because post-Sabine erosi9n has removed much of them, and neither their original thick~ess nor basin characteristics can now be ascertained.
The existence of the Southeast Georgia Embayment during Sabine time is shown by the thick section of carbonate rocks in southeastern Georgia (Figures 15,31,33,34).
-55-

CLAIBORNIAN :STAGE Claiborne rocks are well developed on the Coast~l Plain of Georgia. They occur all along the outcrop belt to -the north and are present everywhere in the subsurface. - Ber~gEen (1965, p. 279) indicates that they are late Early Eocene in~ge as well as Middle Eocene. I-n spite of their wide distribution and abundance of fossils, there are few reports which deal exclusively with Claiborne rocks in Georgia. Among the few which are comprehensive are Toulmin (1977) and Cooke and Shearer(l918).
Lithostratigraphy Claiborne rocks are exposed in the valley of Chattahoochee River and have been described in detail by Toulmin and Lamoreaux (1963, p. 401-403). ' ~he Tallahatta Formation, the basal formation of the Claib0rnian Stage in Georgia, is about 67 feet thick and re.Gts unconformably upon-the Early Eocene ' Bashi Marl Member of the Hatchitigbee Formation. The base is a very sandy, - hard, glauoonitic limestone grading upward into irregula:tly indurated, calcareous, fine- to coarse-graine~ fossiliferous sandstone, and - clay. ' The~~isQQn- Formation in . Chattahoochee valley is 110 feet thick : ari.d is predominantly calcareous, fossiliferous sarid and sandstone with interbedded ' siltstone and limestone. There is much variation in theunits. 1'This section, <and that. of the underlying Tallahatta Formation exposed far downdip in- the Chattahoochee valley,
-56-

represent a different facies from the more updip exposures to the north and east.
Updip and eastward from Chattahoochee River, the Tallahatta overlaps the Lisbon, and the two formations cannot be distinguished in outcrop; they are mapped on the state geological map (Pickering and others, 1976) as Claiborne undifferentiated, and are characterized by sand, gravel, clay, and kaolin. In the extreme northeastern part of the Coastal Plain, Scrudato and Bond (1972) show that Claiborne rocks are present and that they contain kaolin. The Claiborne here is mapped as undifferentiated from the underlying Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Formation which it resembels.
The McBean Formation is named from exposures on McBean Creek near the Savannah River. Nowhere is a complete section present, but many exposures show the formation is composed of soft, fine-grained, gray, calcareous, fossiliferous sand with a few fragments of shells and some hard nodules, and with fine-grained, yellow sand with patches of calcareous and carbonaceous, almost lignitic material at the top. The McBean Formation is correlated with the Lisbon Formation.
Claiborne rocks in the subsurface can be conveniently divided into two distinct facies, an updip clastic facies, and a downdip carbonate facies.
Updip, the clastic facies of the Tallahatta Formation consists of fine- to coarse-grained, sparsely phosphatic, fossiliferous sand interbedded with thi~ dark green to dark brownish-gray, silty, micaceous, glauconitic, locally cherty
-57-

or argillaceous limestone (called marl by Herrick, 19~1) and a few beds of light gray, sandy, coarsely glauconitic limestone. Chert is found near the base.
Updip, the clastic facies of the Lisbon Formation is fine to coarse-grained, angular, sparsely phosphatic, locally fossiliferous sandstone interbedded with cream to pale bluishgreen to dark green, sandy, finely glauconitic, cherty, fossiliferous clay or loosely consolidated argillac~ous limestone (called marl by Herrick, 1961), and white to light gray, rather dense, massive, sandy, coarsely but sparsely glauconitic, fossiliferous limestone.
Downdip, the Tallahatta-equivalent carbonate rocks are light to dark brown, saccharoidal, glauconitic, finely to coarsely crystalline limestone with minor gypsum. The limestone has been dolomitized, and where it is predominantly carbonate the facies is called the Lake City Limestone (Applin and Applin, 1944, p. 1693).
Downdip, the limestone which is in the interbedded clastic facies of the Lisbon and McBean Formations becomes predominant, is evaporitic and dolomitic, and is called the Avon Park Limestone (Applin and Applin, 1944, p. 1686).
These two downdip limestones, the Avon Park and the Lake City, are very similar lithologically and cannot be readily distinguished in well cuttings. Both are brownish, dolomitic, and evaporitic.
Farther to the southeast, in the COST well, Claiborne rocks are predominantly limestone and marl, with chert in many
-58-

of ~he samples. Calcareous claystone is predominant at the
base of the section, and decreases upward. The identification of the Claibornian Stage from well
cuttings is generally relatively easy because of the distinctive
fossils and the clastic content of the basal rocks. Updip,
the overlying Jacksonian Stage is largely calcareous whereas
the Claiborne rocks are dominantly clastic. Where a basal
clastic unit is present at the base of the Jacksonian Stage
(the Clinchfield Sand) the separation can generally be
recognized because the Jackson sand is unfossiliferous whereas
the Claiborne sands are very fossiliferous. Downdip, where
the Jackson and the Claiborne sections are both dominated by
carbonates, the distinction is not as obvious, and paleontology
remains the best tool for their differentiation.
Biostratigraphy
In the COST well, planktonic foraminifers, dinoflagellates,
and calcareous nannoplankton have been identified which show
the Claibornian Stage to include late Early Eocene and Middle
Eocene time. The following fossils have been identified:
foraminifers (Middle Eocene) Truncorotaloides rohri
! aff. ! topilensis
Globorotalia bullbrooki G. spinulosa G. cerroazulensis var. pomeroli G. aragonensis Globigerina frontosa
dinoflagellates (Middle Eocene) Adnatosphaeridium reticulense Areosphaeridium arcuatum
calcareous nannoplankton Discoaster sublodensis Zone suite
-59-

foraminifers (late Early -Eocene) Globigerina soldadoensis Globototalia pentacamerata G. bullbrooki G. aragonensis Globiger i na fr ontosa
dinoflagellates (late Early Eocene) Areosphaeridium arcuatum A. multicornutum Phthanoperidium eocenicum Wetzelie lla symmetrica
calcareous nannoplankton (late Early Eocene) Discoaster lodensis Zone suite
No recent lists of planktonic foraminifers from the
updip area have been published. Cushman and Herrick (1945)
report Globorotalia cocoaensis, G. crassata, and .G. centralis
from the McBean Formation; this is a mixture of Middle ' and
Late:Eocene forms. Hantkenina longispina and Globorotalia
cocoaensis are known from the Lisbon Formation (Herrick and
Vorhis, 1963, p. 31). These also are both Middle and Late Eocene.
Huddlestun and others (1974, p. 2-3) indicate that the
Tallahatta Formation is not present updip, but that its
downdip carbonate facies, the Lake City Limestone is in the
lower Middle Lutetian Stage, Zone P-11, and that ~ the _ Lisbon
Formation, which has overlapped the Tallahatta and is present
updip, is late Middle Lutetian, Zone P-13; the same is .true
for .its downdip carbonate facies, the Avon Park Limestone.
:Berggren (1965, p. 279) includes the Tallahatta Formation
. in the late Early _Eocene in western Alabama; the Tallahatta
is apparently time-transgressive and represents the basal
.deposits laid .down as the Claiborne shoreline transgressed
across the Coastal Plain.
-60-

Figure 18 is a chart showing the terminology used for the Claibornian Stage on the Georgia Coastal Plain.
Structures The unconformity at the top of the Claiborne beds reflects regional erosion. Upper Eocene Jackson strata rest unconformably upon Middle Eocene Claiborne strata, but the hiatus represented by the unconformity is not precisely . determinable. In Burke County, at the type section of the McBean Formation, lignite and lignitic clay are present at the top of the Claiborne section, which suggests terrestrial deposition. Elsewhere, the basal rocks of the overlying Jacksonian Stage are clastic (the Clinchfield Sand} or very clastic carbonates (Moodys Branch Formation} as might be expected from overlap across an erosion surface. In southeastern Georgia evaporitic carbonate rocks of the Claiborne occupy an elongate basin in which the thickness of the rocks exceeds 1000 feet in some places (Figure 19}. This basin coincides geographically with the area where the underlying Sabine rocks are also unusually thick, having been preserved on the downthrown side of a fault (Figures 31, 32, 33, 34}. It is possible that this faulting, having begun after the deposition of the Sabinian strata, continued to have influence during the time that the Claiborne beds were being deposited and is manifest as the basin-forming mechanism.
-61-

,Mltoine and Henry ' ( Bl6 5, p. (,iJ~a ), , ffrom s-eil!!i'lic l<!!ci~a

tw 'off,sihore, suggest structure+~:ntGm:r.s con' the

of the Lowe-r

~oeene tthe top- of the Sabinian Sta~Q) .~wni~h ::>ShG-w ~ :t.he ' ~Ql01')~-ate

:basin 1as does the structure-co-ntour map on the 'top Of ~the

Sa;binilan Stage (Figure 16) The stru'Ctu:re..,.:contour mapcon

the top of the Claibornian Stage (Figure ' lJ9) refl'e'~t>s :~c~J\t:i'tl'~<:fd

:.~s-ettling ~f the basin after the C:ba.1/bo"%"1:ne, dd!uri-rtg ~tlhe L&.t:eE.IIDcceae.

The thin Claiborne section in the ~entral Geot~gia tJpl.ff.t

.iar=~a .aro\!lnd 'Coffee County may be Ute :r6s-ult cf '"'UPlift wh:t;oh

.preee<itd the erosion. This is ~atn area -where hh'e :1\\I.:ridh!frlyi.ng

:sa:bin.:baln roeks are also thin amd wh-e~e 'P.ale<Ocerre~k:s are

abse=nt, suggesting continued unreat 'Of bhe ~tl!!al ('i(;eor.gha' 'Wpl!ft.

'!'.he is0pa.ch map (Figure 20) indicates no -'1aPP'i_llr6irdialll"e l.::bauiiJn

= <.ilevel~ent during the Claiborne in : the AppaLaehicdla r~tttteaym-ent.

\A-pparently basin formation 'had ea&!l'ed 1and: the Ge'<l>:t:~g:baCC~~s'bal

fl])liain ww.as :.part -.:f 't:ne i:'Gul -.:coa$'t' contilftetl:t;:U '~&llt-dlf.

JACKSONIAN STAGE Jackson rocks are well developed in Georgia and have been the subject of much study because they are part of an important water aquifer. They are Late Eocene in age. Because of their role in the ground-water resouces of the state, much is known about Jackson strata. Of special value are the works of Cooke and Shearer (1918), Herrick (1961), Carver (1966; 1972), Toulmin (1977), and Cushman (1935).
Lithostratigraphy Updip, several different formations representing several different sedimentary environments are present. In the valley of Chattahoochee River, however, only the lowermost unit is well exposed. Toulmin and Lamoreaux (1963, p. 403) provide a good description. The Moodys Branch Formation is the basal unit of the Jacksonian Stage. On Chattachoochee River it rests unconformably upon the Lisbon Formation. The basal part of the Moodys Branch is well-indurated, very sandy, and glauconitic, fossiliferous, yellowish-orange limestone. Above the basal unit are very-coarse-grained sandstones and very fossiliferous, very sandy limestones. The contact of the Moodys Branch Formation with the overlying Ocala Limestone is not well exposed along Chattahoochee River; the state geological map (Pickering and others, 1976) does not distinguish the Moodys Branch Formation from the overlying Ocala Limestone. The Moodys Branch Formation has probably 'been overlapped by the Ocala Limestone. Eastward and northward from the exposures in the valley of Chattahoochee River, the
-63-

Moodys Branch cannot be distinguished from the overlying Ocala Limestone.
The Ocala Limestone is a very widespread unit throughout the Coastal Plain and probably conformably overlies the Moodys Branch Formation. It is a very fossiliferous, micritic, relatively pure limestone; in many places it is a coquina of small fossils, largely bryozoans and fragments of other macr,ofossils. The dip of the Ocala is so gentle, and the formation so thick, that nowhere is a complete section exposed.
Northward and eastward along the outcrop, the Ocala intertongues with clastic rocks; each of the tongues has a formal name. The state geological map recognizes the Twiggs Clay, the Irwinton Sand, the Sandersville Limestone, and others (Pickering and others, 1976). Carver (1966, 1972) and Huddlestun and others (1974; 1978) provide a summary of this complex.
Downdip, the Jacksonian Stage retains its characteristics over a widespread area. It thickens toward the southwest, but because of its depth and undesirable water-quality it is not much sought after, and so little is known of it. The Jackson elsewhere is relatively thin, a few hundred feet at the most; this is due to post-Jackson uplift and erosion.
The Jacksonian Stage in the subsurface is composed of two formations, a very widespread Ocala Limestone and a basal, more restricted, Clinchfield Sand.
The Clinchfield Sand is described in detail by Herrick (197 2) . It is a basal sand a few tens of feet thick and is
-64-

correlateq with the Moodys Branch Formation. The Clinchfield becomes more calcareous downdip, and becomes indistinguishable from the overlying Ocala; it rests unconformably upon the Lisbon Formation . .
The Ocala Limestone can be divided into two units. The upper unit thickens downdip and is not exposed in outcrop. It is white, recrystallized, somewhat sacchroidal, porous, very fossiliferous limestone. The lower part, everywhere present, is a cream colored, somewhat granular, much crystallized, sparsely glauconitic, fossiliferous limestone which is sandy at its base.
Gypsum is found in the lower part of the Ocala in southwestern Georgia, but nothing has been published about the nature of this occurrence. The Ocala here is also dolomitized.
Offshore, in the JOIDES corehole, Schlee (1977, p. FS) describes the Ocala Limestone-equivalent rocks as mainly packstone in the lower two thirds and grainstone in the upper one third. The rockis massive, dolomitic, hard to friable, fine- to coarse-grained, and contains scattered grains of glauconite. In the COST well, even farther offshore, the Upper Eocene rocks are fine grained, white to ta~ argillaceous, fossiliferous limestone.
The top of the Jacksonian Stage is marked by a regional unconformity, in places manifest as a karst surface (Herrick, 1968). The basal Suwannee in some places is a very sandy limestone, and in others is a very dense dolomite with a distinctive signature on electric logs. The Ocala, like the
-65-

overlying Oligocene Suwannee Limesane, may be dOlowt.iz:ed',<
and the. two may be difficult to distinguis.b.. The paLeontola.gical
hiatus, between the two is very great, however.
Biostratigraphy
Biostratigraphically, the Jacksonian Stage is Late
Eocene in age. In the COST well, the following indicat-e a
Late Eocene age:
foraminifers Globorotalia cerroazulensis Globigerina eocaena G. linaperta Nummu,li tes moodybranchensis Bulimina jacksonensis Cibicides yazooensis Siphonina danvillensis
dinoflagellates Hornotryblium floripes Diphyes colligerum Areosphaeridium multicornu.tum Wetz~liella floripes Areoligera sp. Adnatosphaeridium sp. Polysphaeridium sp.
Updip, the only planktonic foraminifers reported from
Upperr Eocene rocks are Hantkenina alabamensis and G-l.oboro.ta:lia
cerraazulensis cocoaensis.
Huddlestun and others (1974, p . 2-3) include the< "Cooper
M.:n:rl"', Twigg:s: Clay, Tivola Limestone, and- Cl.i:nchfi.e.Id San:d,
all eqU'iv:alents: of the downdip Ocala Limestone~, n. the: Late
Eacene P-16 and P-17 zones of the uppe-r part. of the'
Jac!.kaoniarr S:.taql!'. (Figure 28) .
Figure 21 is. a chart showing th.eo rrome:ncla.tture af the
Jackson rocks- used in this repo.rt ..
-66:.0

Structures All of the structures which are shown on the structurecontour map of the top of the Jacksonian Stage (Figure 22), have been impressed onto the surface by post-Oligocene tectonism. There are no structures which can be identified as Jackson, or post-Jackson-pre-Oligocene in age. It is evident, however, from the biostratigraphic hiatus between the Jackson and the overlying rocks, the clastic nature of the base of the Oligocene series, and the irregularity of thickness of the Jackson rocks as shown on the isopach map (Figure 23), that regional uplift and erosion did occur. The northeast-southwest trending belts of thick Jackson rocks alternating with thinner sections could be explained by faulting in which the thicker sections have been preserved on the downthrown sides during erosion. No physical evidence of the fault planes is present, however. The presence of the Southeast Georgia and the Appalachicola Embayments can be deduced from the isopach map because the Jackson rocks become thicker toward the basins. Details cannot be determined, however, because post-Jackson erosion has removed much of the upper part of the sections in southeastern Georgia, and the data are too sparse in southwestern Georgia.
-67-

OLIGOCENE SERIES
To date, there have been no publications dealing exclusively with Oligocene rocks in Georgia, but the works of MacNeill (1944), Cooke (1923; 1935~ 1939), Herrick (1961), and Herrick and Vorhis (1963) contain much useful information. There is considerable uncertainty about the correlation of the various Oligocene units exposed in the Georgia Coastal Plain; the state geological map (Pickering and others, 1976) includ~ them as one unit, the Suwannee Limestone,but acknowledges the existence of other units.
Lithostratigraphy The gentle dip of the Oligocene rocks prevents the exposure anywhere of the entire section despite the thinness of the various uniteS~ faulting and possibly gentle folding having produced structures which have compounded the confusion of the stratigraphic terminology. The M_arianna Limestone, according to Huddlestun and others (-1974 p. 2-10), crops out on Ocmulgee River in Houston County where it unconformably overlies the "Cooper Marl" of Late Eocene age. No description or thickness of the formation is given. This is the same exposure (called Byram Fo:rmatiom., unit B') descri-bed by Pickering (1970, p. 14) a:s massive, white to pale cream colored., plas.tic chalk interbedded with thn,, locally calc:i-ti-zed limestdne len.ses. The thlckne:ss .i:s :nc:>t giv.en, except that th~s unit and the one overlying it are 40 feet thick. Herrick a:nd others (19 6:8) c-orre.la:te this with the
-68-

Byram Formation from Mississippi. The Glendon Limestone overlies the Marianna in the same
setting on the river (Huddlestun and others, 1974, p. 2-10), but no description of the lithology or thickness are given. This is the same exposure described by Pickering (1970, p. 14) which he calls the Byram Formation unit A. It is composed of alternating beds of chocolate-colored, sandy, calcareous clay interbedded with beds of white, hard, crystalline limestone. Herrick and others (1968) correlate these beds with the Byram Formation.
These two formations are not known to crop out anywhere else in Georgia and are overlain by residual chert of the Suwannee Limestone.
The Suwannee Limestone unconformably overlies the Glendon Limestone where the latter is present, and Upper Eocene rocks everywhere else. The Suwannee is a widespread, thin blanket of carbonate rocks in which outcrops are rare, but which typically vary from a friable mass of calcareous granules to hard, resonant limestone, everywhere very fossiliferous; it is generally yellowish or creamy in color. The surface expression of the Suwannee is generally red, clayey, fossiliferous cherty residuum which has been mapped as the Flint River Formation in earlier reports.
Because of the gentle dip, complete exposures of the Suwannee are unknown, and the thickness has nowhere been determined from the surface. Drilling data indicate, howev~r, that the Suwannee is relatively thin, a few tens of feet in most places, but variable because of a profound unconformity
-69-

above it. The Chattahoochee Formation unconformably overlies the
Suwannee Limestone in southwestern Georgia. The Chattahoochee is called the Tampa Limestone in some maps and is considered a facies of the same interval. The thickness of the Chattahoochee (or Tampa) Formation is about 100 feet according to Cooke (1943, p. 87), and includes a basal conglomerate composed of fragments of the underlying Suwannee (or Flint River) Formation and much sand. The limestones are dull and chalky, and contain considerable sand and clay in some places.
Note that the Tampa Limestone, as identified in southwestern Georgia, is not the Tampa Limestone of eastern Georgia. The latter is clearly lithologically different and Hiddle Miocene in age.
In the subsurface, the Marianna Limestone is from a single well in Grady County (GGS 962) where it lies below the Byram and is at least 292 feet thick; the well bottomed in this unit. The Marianna is very fossiliferous and is interbedded paleorange to cream, soft, granular limestone, cream colored marl, and thin beds of pale-brown dolostone and dolomitic limestone (Sever and Herrick, 1967, p. B52).
The Byram Formation has been detected from one locality in the graben in a well in Grady County (GGS 962) (Sever and Herrick, 1967) where it underlies the Suwannee Limestone. The Byram here is 214 feet thick and is composed of yellowishbrown, dense, clayey, finely crystalline dolostone. It is considered to be Byram on the basis of its stratigraphic
-70-

position and because of similarities to the Byram beds which crop out in Florida (Sever and Herrick 1967, p. B50).
The Suwannee Limestone is the most easily recognizable unit of the subsurface Oligocene rocks. It has two distinct subdivisions, according to Herrick and Vorhis (1963, p. 13). The upper part is light gray to cream or light brown, dense, nodular, cherty limestone which is often fossiliferous and somewhat sandy. The lower part consists predominantly of cream-colored relatively soft, somewhat chalky, fossiliferous limestone. At the base are rather dense, massive, sparingly fossiliferous limestones, and toward the northeast, this basal sequence contains sandy limestones. The thickness of the Suwannee se om exceeds 100 feet {Figure 25) because of an extensive and profound unconformity at th~ top~
The Suwannee Limestone rests unconformably upon the Ocala Limestone everywhere except in the southwestern part of the graben and in the outcrop on Ocmulgee River where it unconformably rests upon the Glendon or Byram Formations.
The Chattahoochee Formation is the youngest Ol~gocene unit known from the Georgia Coastal Plain; it is also called the Tampa Limestone updip. These beds are sandy, dolomitic limestone, and clay and rest unconformably upon the Suwannee Limestone in southwestern Georgia. The thickness varies but is about 100 feet where the formation is completely present.
Oligocene rocks which are on top of the Suwannee Limestone are present in the graben in Coffee County. They rest unconformably upon the Suwannee and contain a Late Oligocene fauna
-71-

(E. Applin 1960). These rocks are 150 feet thick, and are interbedded sand and shale, with some limestone (Applin and Applin, 1964, p. 90-91). A similar section is described by Herrick (unpublished) from Coffee County (GGS 1825) in which the rocks are logged as Oligocene undifferentiated and rest upon Suwannee Limestone.
In the JOIDES core hole offshore, the thin (about 30 feet thick) Oligocene rocks are massive, faintly mottled, pale olive, clayey to silty, plastic, calcareous oozes. The grain sizes range from very fine to silt and clay; the coarsest detritus consists of foraminifer tests, glauconite, and scattered phosphate. There is no evidence of sorting or of a preferred arrangement of the larger fragments, and the total aspect of the sediment is that of a hemipelagic ooze that shows little or no evidence of reworking (Schlee, 1977, p. F7-F9) ~ the rocks are unnamed formally.
In the COST well, still farther offshore, the upper 150 feet of Oligocene rocks are composed of shell fragments, claystone, and breccia with some clear to frosted, subangular to subrounded quartz grains. The lower 325 feet are largely white and tan limestone with some dolostone and chert interbedded. Some chalk and marl also occur near the base of the lower part.
There is a marked unconformity at the top of the Oligocene Series in Georgia; this is responsible for the variable thickness of the Oligocene rocks. The contact of the Oligocene beds with the overlying Miocene strata is generally distinctive, as the Miocene rocks are largely clastic, although in some areas,
-72-

where they are carbonate also, the contact may be difficult to distinguish lithologically, so that paleontology is the chief means of distinction.
Biostratigraphy Early. Oligocene Earliest Oligocene rocks are known from the JOIDES core hole, in which 30 feet of calcilutites, overlain by Early Miocene rocks, contain Pseudohasterigerina micra and Globorotalia postcretacea (Charm and others, 1969, p. D4). Early Oligocene rocks are also found at the base of the Oligocene section in the COST well. Here, cherty, chalky, dolomitic limestone contains Pseudohasterigerina micra and Cassigerinella chipolensis (Steinkraus, 1978). Middle Oligocene Middle Oligocene (sometimes called Vicksburgian) fossils have been found in the rocks offshore as well as in a few isolated localities onshore. In the COST well, the shell-fragment, claystone, and breccia unit at the top of the Oligocene Series, overlain by Middle Miocene rocks, contains Chiloguembelina cubensis, Globigerina ciperoensis, and G. ampliapertura, guides to Middle Oligocene strata. Onshore, Middle Oligocene rocks are c1lled .the Marianna and Glendon (or Byram) Formations. In an exposure on Ocmulgee River the rocks are included in the P-19 Zone by Huddlestun and others (1974, p. 2-3) (Figure 28), and a diverse fauna
-73-

cis present. It includes, according .to Herrick and ci:lihelr:B
(.1968), eight types of megafossils and 79 species of micro-
fossjjl.s which include:
Clypeaster rogersi Paraster americanus Lepidocyclina mantelli L. undosa &Onion vicksburgense Discorbis arcuatocostata Valvulineria paucilocula Eponides advena Gyroidina vicksburgensis Pararotalia par va Planulina byramensis
c'li'hes.e correlate with Middle Oligocene ronks elsewhere on
the Gulf Coast, and particularly wi-th the Byram Limestone
in M.i:s:sissippi.
_Middle Oligocene rocks have also been identif.i-.ed in one
well ~in Grady County (GGS 962) which Sever and Herrick (:19:67)
correlate with the Marianna Limestone of Florida. In the
.:rocks in Georgia, the following have been found:
Robulus arcuato-striatus R. vicksburgensis Nodosaria latejugata N. ver.tebralis Globulina g~bba Guttelinaproblema Bul.I..m.I..na sculpt.I..ll.s Bolivina bl)ramensis Reuasella yramens.I..s Uv:iger.ina vickshJ.r g.ensis Ellpsonodosaria cf. ~- jackaonensis Discorbi s araucana Gyroidina v.1..cksburgensis Eponides byramensis E. advenus N:onion affine B1phonina advena Arromalin-a bilateralis Plarrulina mexicana Cibicidi~a americana C. mis-sissippiensis
-74-

Planktonic foraminifers are not reported, and are said to be scarce.
Late Oligocene Late Oligocene (Chickasawhayan or Lower Chattian) rocks are widespread on the Georgia Coastal Plain and are the components of the Suwannee Limestone. The fossil lists of Herrick and Vorhis (1963, p. 16-18) do not include any planktonic foraminifers, so that biostratigraphic zonation based on these marvelous creatures cannot be established. Because this formation rests unconformably upon Middle Oligocene rocks it must be younger than Middle Oligocene, or Zone P-19 (Figure 28). Huddlestun and others (1974, p. 2-3) place this unit in the middle part of the Chattian, Zone P-21, although no criteria are listed. Oligocene rocks that overlie the Suwannee Limestone, and so must be late Late Oligocene (Upper Chattian) , are known from the Georgia Coastal Plain also. In southwestern Georgia, the Chattahoochee Formation and its calcareous ,equivalent, the Tampa Limestone, unconformably overlie the Suwannee Limestone.
These rocks are late Late Oligocene (Huddlestun, in Weaver
and Beck, 1977, p. 8) although no criteria are listed. These same rocks in Florida are in the P-22 Zone, late Late Oligocene (Huddlestun and others, 1974, p. 2-3) (Figure 28).
Farther to the northeast, in the graben in Coffee County
(GGS 509) , post-Suwannee rocks are present and described paleontologically by Applin and Applin (1964, p. 90-91).
-75-

They contain no planktonic foraminifers, but Miogypsina antillea,~ Gunteri, and Elphidium leonensis, which are Late Oligocene and Early Miocene guides, are present. E. Applin (1960) describes this material.
Figure 24 is a chart showing the relationships and nomenclature of Oligocene rocks in the Georgia Coastal Plain.
Structures Considerable evidence demonstrates the presence bf an erosion surface on top of , and in some instances within, the Oligocene Series. In most places at the top of the Oligocene Series there is a marked lithologic distinction between the Oligocene Series which is dominated by carbonate rocks and the overlying Miocene Series which is dominated by clastic rocks, in some places very coarse. In those places where the Miocene rocks are calcareous, paleontological distinctions are evident. The isopach map (Figure 25) shows the Oligocene Series in Georgia to be exceedingly thin except for the terrane within the graben, and absent in southeastern Georgia as a result of post-Oligocene erosion in the Peninsular Arch region. This is the "Orange Island" proposed by Vaughan (1910, p. 156). Broad belts of irregular thickness trending northeastsouthwest have been contoured. These are attributed to postOligocene erosion following faulting or possibly folding, with the thicker sections preserved on the downdropped blocks.
-76-

In Brooks County and vicinity, the structure-contour map shows that the Oligocene erosion-surface has been arched upward. This structure is post-Oligocene in age and has been described in detail by Weaver and Beck (1977) .
In the COST well, Middle Miocene clastic rocks rest upon Middle Oligocene rocks, and in the JOIDES core hole, Miocene clastic rocks rest on Lower Oligocene rocks.
The evidence for regional erosion within the Upper Oligocene rocks is partly lithological and partly paleontological. The uppermost Oligocene rocks, the Chattahoochee Formation and the post-Suwannee rocks within the graben unconformably overlie the Suwannee Limestone and are clastic at the base (Cooke, 1943, p. 87). These rocks also contain late Late Oligocene foraminifers (Huddlestun and others, 1974, p. 2-3) and Huddlestun (in Weaver and Beck, 1977, p. 8).
Evidence for a broad regional uplift between Middle and Late Oligocene deposition stems from the distribution of the Middle Oligocene rocks. They are present below the Upper Oligocene rocks only in the graben and in one isolated area along Ocumlgee River (Herrick and others, 1968~ Pickering, 1970). They have been preserved in downdropped blocks of faults, while the rest of the rocks were removed by post-Middle Oligocene uplift before the Upper Oligocene Suwannee Limestone was deposited.
The identification of Oligocene and post-Oligocene faulting comes from the evaluation of several factors, some more obvious than others. Faulting here is difficult to
-77-

establish by physical criteria alone, such as fault-plane features, because no faults are known to have been intersected by any of the wells. The faulting shown on the isopach and structure-contour maps (Figures 25 and 26) (except that which is specifically described otherwise) is post-Oligocene and pre-Miocene in age; some may have occurred during the Oligocene and some may have occurred during the Miocene.
The erosion surface on the top of the Oligocene rocks has an unknown relief. It could be very great because of presumable karst development, although none is surely known except from one locality (Herrick, 1968) . In several localities, however, where wells are closely spaced, faulting is a surer explanation for the difference in elevation of the Oligocene erosion surface. Such examples would be the faults in southern Brooks County and in Glynn County.
In those instances where the faulting occurred before the development of the erosion surface, the evidence for the faulting comes from interpretations of the isopach map (Figure 26); thicker Oligocene sections are preserved on the downdropped blocks. Examples of these are the faults in Dodge and Coffee Counties. Zoback and others (1978) illustrate similar evidence for Oligocene faulting from South Carolina.
In some instances the evidence for the faulting does not come from the Oligocene rocks themselves, but rather comes from the offsetting of the underlying beds. Examples of this are the faults in Toombs, Coffee, and Screven Counties.
There is some faulting which has been identified as
-78-

Oligocene-related even though Oligocene rocks are not involved. For instance, the faults which intersect the Fall Line are considered post-Oligocene although only some of them intersect Oligocene rocks; they are considered to be part of the same tectonic episode.
The orientation of the faults is difficult to establish. The orientation of those which intersect the Fall Line are interpreted from geomorphological expression, i.e., the fault traces are along the river valleys. Offset outcrop patterns along the Fall Line also allow for the orientation of some of the faults. The f~ult trending roughly north-south in Glynn County and vicinity parallels other faults in Glynn County which, because of scale, are not shown. Gregg and Zimmerman (1974, p. 15, pl. 2) show these smaller, similarly oriented faults based upon more closely spaced data.
In general, most of the faults have orientations which would be amenable to those expected from the tectonic hypothesis which encourages a northeast-southwest linear orientation for structures, i.e., a trailing margin of continental segments of plates moving northwestward (Batt, 1979).
One fold, or arch has been identified. Structure contours on the Jacksonian and Claibornian Stages (Figures 20,23) and cross sections B and E (Figures 31, 33) east of the present coastline indicate that a fold is present. The age of this feature is uncertain, but because Oligocene rocks at the crest of the feature are absent or thin (Figure 25), it is probably post-Oligocene in origin. Its relation to Miocene rocks is
-79-

unknown. It may be a part of the tectonism which was associated with the Peninsular Arch at the end -of the Oligocene. . Schlee. (1977) describes this feature in detail.
A graben, or a zone of complex structures collectively resulting in a ~raben configuration, trending diagonally northeast-southwest across the Coastal Plain, is the most pronounced structural feature present on the maps. This feature.' was first suspected by Owen (1963, p. 24) who calls attention to a structural anomaly in Mitchell County which l'lle identiies as a11 syncline or downfaul ted belt 11 This same, feature is recognized by Herrick and Vorhis (1963, p. 55) who provided the name Gulf Trough of Georgia for it but made no intexpretation of its origin. Callahan (1964, p. 23) notes this feature with its present dimensions; he interpreted it as two parallel,. down-to-the-sea normal faults. Patterson and Herrick (1971) question its existence.
A synthesis of the data, both local and regional., support the concept of a singular structure trending northeast-southwest which has had a marked influence on the geology of the Coastal Plain. The evidence for this graben structure (and other Oligocene faulting in Georgia) is outlined in Cramer and Arden (1978) and is given here in detail.
The name Gulf Trough is used for t:his fea-ture at the suggestion. of Hendry and Sproul (1966, p. 97) whc:;J mote that i1t pas-ses into Florida also. Gelbaum (1979) provides much hydrologica-l and lithological det.ail.
The :f'ault boundaries of the trough can be disting:ui.she:d
-80-

in some places. The wells in Toombs County (GGS 95, 146) are but a few miles apart, yet show the tops of all of the underlying units to be offset by several hundred feet, with the south side down. The tops of the Oligocene rocks are also offset, suggesting that this particular part of the fault system occurred, in part at least, after the post-Suwannee erosion surface had developed.
~he faulting in Coffee County (GGS 445, 446) is in a similar setting: the tops of the pre-Oligocene units to the south are offset by several hundred feet when compared to the tops of those to the north, and the thickness of the Oligocene rocks on the south block is greater than the thickness of those on the north block. The top of the Oligocene rocks on each block, however, is not appreciably different, suggesting that this faulting preceded the formation of the erosion surface.
Toward the southwest, the tops of the Oligocene rocks within the trough are structurally lower than the tops of the Oligocene rocks outside the trough (Figure 25), but the spacing of the wells is such that the evidence for faulting is not as dramatic as those elsewhere, and the wells are not deep enough to reveal offsetting on lower units, if present. Furthermore, the isopach map of the Oligocene Series (Figure 26) shows that the Oligocene rocks within the trough are thicker than those outside it. Pre-erosion faulting, with the troughside down, would explain this.
There is evidence for faulting within the trough. The wells within the polygonal block in Coffee County
-81-

(GGS 468, 508, and 509) reveal an abnormally thick Oligocene section when compared with those outside of the block (GGS 446, 447, 448). No appreciable offsetting of the Oligocene erosion surface is evident, suggesting that this faulting preceded the post-Oligocene erosion. This same interpretation applies to the fault block containing GGS 1825 in Coffee County.
The southermost fault in Candler County, within the trough, is also revealed by distinct offsetting of the Oligocene surface (GGS 740, 963); the wells are not deep enough, however, to provide any data about the Oligocene isopach values.
Evidence for deformation of the rocks within the trough can be seen on the structure-contour map of the Oligocene Series (Figure 25) in which a distinct structural high can be seen in Colquitt County. The faulting affects the postOligocene erosion-surface, and may be Neogene in age.
Unpublished information about Oligocene and younger rocks in the trough, gleaned from numerous wells, indicates that the Oligocene rocks have been involved in crustal activity, and that the amount of heave on the faults in general becomes less toward the northeast.
The other characteristics which show the presence and influence of the Gulf Trough include interpretations from piezometric maps of the Georgia Coastal Plain, such as that in Callahan (1964, pl. 1 and later versions). A pronounced change in the piezometric gradient is shown, with a linear trend in the geographic position of the Gulf Trough toward the northeast from Coffee County. Such a trend may be the
-82-

result of changes in permeability or lithology. The map showing the location of epicenters of historical
earthquakes in Georgia (Lance and others, 1977) indicates that two of the six known localities are in the Gulf Trough.
Gelbaum (1978) indicates that water quality within the confines of the Gulf Trough in southwestern Georgia is distinctly different from the water quality of the rocks outside. Gelbaum also provides a detailed summary and review of the characteristics of the Gulf Trough. Clearly there is a geological reason for the difference.
Further evidence for the existence of the Gulf Trough as a structural feature comes from the overlying rocks. Weaver and Beck (1977) have provided a detailed analysis of the Miocene rocks, and they show that Miocene beds in the area of the trough are abnormally thick also. Gelbaum (1978) shows that there is over 700 feet of Miocene rocks in the trough in Colquitt County. These data suggest that the tectonic activity of the Gulf Trough continued into the Miocene Epoch.
Finally, a structural interpretation which includes the Gulf Trough best explains the distribution of Oligocene rocks on the Georgia Coastal Plain. Upper Oligocene rocks rest on Middle Oligocene rocks within the trough, whereas Upper Oligocene rocks rest upon Upper Eocene rocks almost everywhere else. Figure 27 is a schematic illustration of this explanation.
Transgression of Oligocene seas began during the Early Oligocene and covered the present Coastal Plain during the Middle Oligocene. Following Middle Oligocene transgression,
-83-

faulting preceded erosion; Middle Oligocene rocks were removed from the Coastal Plain except in the Gulf Trough where they were preserved on the downdropped block and in at least one isolated area now exposed on Ocmulgee River. Following the erosion, a second, Late Oligocene transgression took place, depositing Upper Oligocene rocks on the recently exposed Upper Eocene surface and on the Middle Oligocene rocks in the trough. Erosion following the deposition of the Suwannee Limestone resulted in its almost complete removal from everywhere except in the trough where continued downfaulting preserved a thicker section. Following this second transgression and erosion, a third transgression developed, and the Upper Oligocene Chattahoochee Formation and equivalents were deposited on top of the eroded Suwannee Limestone. Miocene uplift and erosion removed much of the Chattahoochee Formation but because of continued graben development of the trough, these rocks are preserved there also.
-84-

NEOGENE SYSTEM ~he Neogene System on the Coastal Plain of Georgia is represented by rocks of Miocene, possibly Pliocene, and Pleistocene age. The details of these rocks are not included with this report because: (1) the definitive report of Weaver and Beck (1977) includes most of the current information about them; (2) their potential as petroleum reservoir or source rocks in Georgia is exceedingly low, and (3) stratigraphic studies being undertaken at the present time on the Pliocene and Pleistocene rocks would make any analysis of the older data in this report outdated. The reader is referred to the reports of Weaver and Beck (1977) and of Her~ick (1965) for information about these rocks. All of the Neogene rocks in this report are shown on the cross sections as Nu, "Neogene, undifferentiated."
-85-

GEOLOGICAL HISTORY The basement
Paleozoic rocks of various ages and types form the foundation upon which large tension faults occurred which appear to be related to the opening of the Gulf of Mexico (Pilgei, 1978) and to the opening of the Atlantic Ocean during the early part of the Mesozoic Era. The faulting produced grabens in what are now the basement rocks of the Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plains of North America, including Georgia.
The grabens were filled with sediments, presumably Triassic and possibly Jurassic onshore, and which include much arkose, conglomerate, and shale. These sedimentary rocks were invaded by basic rocks, in the form of sills, flows, and dikes. Similar arkose-filled, diabase-invaded grabens occur in surface exposures to the north of Georgia along the east coast (McKee and others, 1959).
The distribution of the basement rocks and a discussion of their geological history is beyond the scope of this report, but Gehrt and others (1978a) provide a review. Following the Triassic graben-filling episode and igneous intrusion, erosion commenced.
If the rocks below the unconformity are Paleozoic and Triassic and the overlying rocks are possibly Upper Jurassic (Gray, 1978} or certainly Lower Cretaceous offshore and probably Lower Cretaceous onshore, then the time of the development of the unconformity can be documented. It is these
-86-

post-Triassic events and features which shape the foundation for the purpose of this report--the identification of a stratigraphic framework to which offshore seismic surveys may be related. Following the post-Triassic erosion, a distinctly different sedimentation regime was inaugurated, and the rocks and structure of what we know as the Coastal Plain were formed.
Depositional sequences Early in the history of the studies of the Georgia Coastal Plain, but especially since the work of Veatch and Stephenson (1911), geologists have recognized that the rocks can be divided into sequences of strata bounded by substantial unconformities, paleontologically identifiable, and correlated grossly with the various subdivisions of Cretaceous and Cenozoic rocks elsewhere on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. In the late 1960's, information about subsea rocks offshore, regional oceanic unconformities, and submarine deformation began to accumulate as a result of marine seismic investigations. During this same period, micropaleontology became important as the correlation potential of planktonic organisms was fully appreciated. The Foraminiferida-based biozonal concept of time-rock subdivision espoused by Bolli (1959) was first applied to the rocks of the Gulf Coastal Plain (including those of Georgia by inference), by Berggren (1965), and the rock-stratigraphic subdivisions of Georgia were placed in an international setting. Following the ability to identify strata with great precision in the subsea by seismic characters, geologists
-87-

have been able to recognize packages of sediments representing cycles of marine transgression and regression. A depositional cycle has been defined by Mitchum and others (1977, p. 53) as:
a stratigraphic unit composed of a relatively conformable succession of genetically related strata and bounded at its top and base by unconformities or their correlative conformities.
They describe various scales of depositional cycles. Some are large scale, such as the mutiperiod, cratonic sequences of Sloss (1963), and some represent much smaller intervals of time and space which are from smaller sea-level fluctuations and which may be in response to global eustatic changes of level or to local tectonism.
The recognition of such cycles, coupled with the precision of dating based upon planktonic organisms, has let to the identification of cycles of marine transgression and regression on the Georgia Coa~tal Plain. These transgressions and regressions have resulted in the unconformities which bound the wellknown units of Cretaceous and Cenozoic rocks that had been recognized earlier from surface studies. It is these unconformity-bound sequences, here called stages, that are the subdivisions of time and rocks used in this report.
At about the same time, Vail and others (1977) recognized, on the basis of international studies utilizing seismic stratigraphic techniques coupled with other stratigraphic tools, global unconformities, cxplQined for the most purl by sea-level changes. The chart showing the relative sea level
-88-

stands during the Cretaceous and Cenozoic is given here as Figure 28.
Jurassic Period No Jurassic rocks are reported from the COST well offshore Georgia. There, Lower Cretaceous rocks rest upon Paleozoic rocks. The southwestern part of Georgia, following the erosion of Triassic rocks, experienced renewed unrest in the form of continued foundering of the graben areas. This would have been in response to continued tension resulting from the northwe5tward drift of the North American plate (Bott, 1979). Wit~ this foundering, sedimentation began in the low areas and: spread northeastward, and the Appalachicola Embayment appeared. Sedimentary rocks of Jurassic age are documented from nearby Florida (Appegate and others, 1978) and it is possible that the transgression brought conditions for similar rocks to have been deposited in Georgia (Gray, 1978). If so, these rocks are included in this report and maps with those described as Comanchean (and older?). The lowermost Comanchean (and older?) rocks which may be Jurassic, contain a succession of conglomeratic red sandstones and arkoses which thin to a feather edge toward the north in Dougherty County (GGS 108) and toward the east in Echols County (GGS 189). The coarser detritus in on the northern side of the embayment, suggesting that provenance was primarily from that direction, and the presence of feldspar in the section
-89-

indicates a proximity to the source area. The conglomerat.e is composed of clasts of a variety of rock types, reflecting considerable relief on the erosion surface during the time of deposition.
No fossils are known from these rocks in Georgia. They are presumed to be possibly Jurassic on the basis of their stratigraphic position alone. They lie unconformably above the graben-filling, diabase-intruded Triassic rocks, and are below similarly unfossiliferous rocks considered to be Early Cretaceous in age. Whatever the age of these rocks, they demonstrate post Triassic transgression upon the continent.
Early Cretaceous (Comanche) Epoch On the Atlantic side, Lower Cretaceous (Comanche) rocks are present in the COST well. The sequence of sediments, from a basal conglomerate zone 300 feet thick, overlain by clastic rocks which are predominantly red beds, sandstone, and shale and which contain minor amounts of anhydrite, coal, and dolomite, and with the upper part of the section dominated by anqydritic limestone and dolomite, is that which would be expected from overlap in graben- or rift-filling sedimentation during the early breakup of a crust, according to the model of Emery (1977). According to Lachance and Steinkraus (1978, p. 49), the Aptian portion of the Lower Cretaceous section in the COST well contains a few crinoid stems, ostracodes, pelecypods, gastra.pods, and a specimen of the foraminifer genus Hormosima.
-90-

Sparse dinoflagellate assemblages occur in rocks between 7500 and 8720 feet, and a good assemblage between 8720 and 8900 feet. A terrestrial to marginal marine environment is suggested, with a shallow marine transgression being reflected by the dinoflagellate-bearing rocks. In the Albian portion of the Lower Cretaceous, some marginal marine but predominantly inner shelf environment deposition (0-50) feet is present between 5950 and 7500 feet in the well. Poor arenaceous foraminiferal assemblages persist downward to 6190 feet; a few non-diagnostic ostracodes occur in the samples. Somewhat diverse assemblages of spores and pollen are present throughout, and dinoflagellates, less common, are present in most of the sidewall cores. Nannofossils include species of Braarudosphaera and Nannoconus.
Once sedimentation began in that setting, terrestrial rocks were deposited first and as time progressed, marginal sediment~ were deposited; overlap is suggested by this sequence and also from the interpretations of seismic stratigraphic sections offshore (Buffler and others, 1979, Figure 7). Whether the overlap proceeded as far as the present-day coastline or not ~annot be determined, as no Lower Cretaceous rocks are present onshore on the Atlantic side; her~ Late Cenomanian or Turonian sediments rest upon the basement rocks. Post Comanchee erosion removed whatever rocks may have been present. A fault has been postulated, with the onshore side upthrown (Figures 7, 31, and 33) to account for the presence of such a thick section of Early Cretaceous-aged rocks adjacent to an
-91-

area where none is present. rhe thick section was pres-erved on the downdropped block.
In the Appalachicola Embayment, Lower Cretaceous rocks are widespread and thick, Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous rocks are documented from Florida and Alabama, so that their overlap as far inland as Georgia is not to be unexpected as the downwarp of the Appalachicola Embayment continued. These rocks , are largely unfossiliferous red shale and sandstone and are interpreted as the basal clastic rocks filling the low areas on the foandering basement and forming the Appalachicola Embayment. Whether Comanchean seas transgressed farther inland than the present rocks show, cannot be determined, as no outcrops are known in Georgia. Whether the Comanchean seas from the Gulf fused with the Comanchean seas from the Atlantic is not known either~ as the present rocks are not connected. Babcock (1969, p. 25), and Toulmin (1955, p. 210) show Comanchean rocks absent on the crest of the Peninsular Arch in north Florida and south Georgia. Applin and Applin (1965, p. 4) show that the Comanchean rocks include a basal clastic unit which transgresses onto the Peninsular Arch from the south, and Jordan and others, (1949, sees. B, C, and D) show that the basal Comanchean beds ib southern Georgia are clastic and lie upon the eroded surface of Paleozoic rocks on the Peninsular Arch.
Following Comanche deposition, the sea withdrew and erosion occurred. The presence of lignite at the top of the Comanchean (and older?) Series, the irregular thickness distribution of the Comanche beds and their complete removal in
-92-

places, and the basal clastic formations of the base of the overlying Gulfian Series belie this sequence of events. No Comanche rocks are present on the Atlantic side; they were removed during this episode if they were ever present. The Yamacraw Ridge (Figure 3) may have formed at this time also.
The withdrawal of the sea following the deposition of Comanche rocks corresponds to the cycle of sea-level fall recognized by Van Hinte (in Vail and others, 1977, p. 85) (Figure 28). This event may actually have taken place during the Eqrly Cenomanian, as Upper Cenomanian rocks rest upon Comanche rocks in Georgia. The post-Comanchean sea-level fall can be identified globally (Vail and others, 1977, p. 93) when the sea was at a lowstand.
The stratigraphic and structural relationships of the Comanchean Series above and below are shown on cross sections A-F (Figures 29 to 34).
Late Cretaceous (Gulf) Epoch Following Comanche uplift and erosion, there was a transgression of Gulfian seas. A basal clastic formation, the Atkinson, was deposited in southern Georgia and Florida. It passes northward, via facies changes, into the more terrestrial Tuscaloosa Formation (Appl~n and Applin, 1947). The Tuscaloosa is Cenomanian (Stephenson, 1942, chart 9) and the Atkinson contains Late Cenomanian ostracodes and Foraminiferida. The upper portion of the Atkinson is absent over large parts of thePeninsular Arch in nearby Florida, and the lower portion
-93-

is thin or absent in the same region (Babcock, 1969; Applin and Applin, 1967, pl. 3). This suggests that the basal Atkinson Formation lay across the Peninsular Arch, and that there was post-Cenomanian deformation and/or uplift of the Peninsular Arch, and the area to the east, at least as far east as the COST well, where no Cenomanian rocks are present.
Gohn and others (1978b) note a larger hiatus within the Gulfian Series of South Carolina in which rocks of Turonian and Coniacian ages are not presenb this hiatus, while not identified biostratigraphically in Georgia, may be correlated in part with the erosion surface on the top of the Atkinson and Tuscaloosa Formations. Such an hiatus is shown by Stephenson (1942, chart 9) in the outcrop along Chattahoochee River.
Following the erosion of the Atkinson and Tuscaloosa Formations, the sea again transgressed onto the continent. Offshore, in the COST well, the basal sandstone of the Gulfian Series, probably Cenomanian, lies on Comanche rocks. According to Lachance and Steinkraus (1978, p. 49) the lowermost Upper Cretaceous rocks in the COST well, sandstone (which they call Cenomanian) are from a middle to inner shelf environment (0-300 feet). They do not cite the basis of the judgement. Above the basal sandstone lies progressively finer clastic material and increasing amounts of carbonates of Turonian, Coniacian, Santonian, Campanian, and Maastrichtian ages. Clearlv, overlap onto the continent is indicated. These rocks were deposited in an outer shelf environment, from 300-600 feet d~ep according to Lachance and Steinkraus (1978, p. 48).
-94-

Onshore, the basal clastic unit was deposited on the post-Atkinson erosion surface. It is noted in Florida as the LaCrosse Sandstone (Babcock, 1969) and lies upon Paleozoic rocks on the Peninsular Arch where the Atkinson and Lower Cretaceous rocks if present, were removed. It lies upon the lower member of the Atkinson where the upper member was removed, and in some places it lies upon the upper member. In Georgia the basal beds of Austin age are clastic, and even conglomeratic in places, and a persistent sand formation overlying the Tuscaloosa is logged as Eutaw (restricted) (Herrick 1961; Herrick and Vorhis, 1963). This is a fineto medium-grained, phosphatic, glauconitic, shelly, somewhat indurated sandstone and is the basal sandstone of the unit overlying the post-Tuscaloosa erosion surface. It crops out along Chattahoochee River also.
Overlying the basal clastic unit everywhere is a sequence of marine rocks which are predominantly calcareous clay and shale, w:ith intercalated calcareous sandstones. At the top of the sequence in southeastern Georgia the rocks are predominantly carbonate with evaporite; this is the Lawson Limestone of Maastrichtian age. Toward the Fall Line, these calcareous shales become intercalated with discrete sandstone formations which crop out along Chattahoochee River and the Fall Line. Toward the northeast the section becomes almost entirely sandstone and the individual formations cannot be distinguished.
In the outcrop area, unconformities are noted within the intercalated sandstone and shale formations along Chattahoochee
-95-

River (Stephenson, 1942, chart 9), rro doubt refl-ecting ~a fluctuating strandline throughout Gulf time. ~ Biostr.atigraphi~c .contrci.l of the unconformities downdip has not been :establ-ished except in the COST well, and all of the post-Tuscaloosa rocks above the basal sandstone are very similar. The loc:ation of most of the unconformities, if present downdip, cannot ne established at this time.
It is possible that the updip alternations of the rocks rn.ay be due to climatic or to tectonic events which resulted .in :the lthologic changes. Berry (1917) identif.ies an Upper :cretac,eous deltaic sequence in the northeastern hla:bama Coastal Plain :considered to be the Tuscaloosa Formation, tongues of which may extend into Georgia. Hester (.1968) described the deltaic character of the Cusseta Sand.
~The continued existence of the Appalachicola Embayment can be identified from the isopach pattern of Gulf rocks (Figure 10). In the western Coastal Plain, Gulf rocks are thickest. The thickness has been ascribed to a depocenter, but it is :possible that it is a structural and erosional phenomenon. Post-Cretaceous faulting, in which this area was downdropped and the surrounding areas uplifted, would have res.lil.t.ed in these :being preserved from ,erosion.
Not enough evidence is present to identify-the ,exiostence of the Southeast Georgia Embayment during Gulf time. The rocks -thicken seaward, but whether a ::structure ,:em:bayment was present cannot be determined from onshore information. Seismi-c .lines shown by Buffler arid others (l-979, Tigure 7)
-96-

indicate transgression across a broad shelf. An event which resulted in the uplift, possible
deformation, and removal of some of the Atkinson Formation of Cenomanian age has already been described. Other tectonic events occurred, either during or after Gulf deposition.
The Echols High in southern Georgia is a Late Cretaceous feature. .Here Gulf rocks are very thin, and this is attributed to post-Gulfian uplift and erosion. Applin and Applin (1967, p. G30) indicate that the event occurred during the Gulfian Epoch and resulted in a barrier which influenced sedimentation on both sides. Whether this feature is a result of folding or faulting cannot be determined from the data in Georgia. Faulting with a trend subparallel to that of the Echols High occurred at a later time (following Sabine deposition) and earlier (Winston, 1976b, p. 43). The Middle Ground Arch (Winston, 197Gb. p. 42) is also parallel with the Echols High and may be an expression of the same tectonism.
Faulting has been used to explain the anomalously thin section of Gulf rocks in Glynn County (GGS 1197) , and unpublished seismic data indicate that other faults are present within the Upper Cretaceous terrane in Glynn County.
Following or contemporaneous with the faulting and the formation of the Echols High, the sea regressed again, and the
Cretaceous rocks were eroded. Nowhere are latest Maastrichtian rocks present in Georgia or in nearby coastal states (Hazel and others 1977, Figure 3). The CretaceousPaleogene boundary is everywhere marked by an erosion surface.
-97-

r
Figure' 28 shows this erosion surface due in part also to post-Cretaceous sea-level fall. (Vail and others, 1977)
Early Paleocene (Midway) Age No Midway (Danian) rocks are present in the COST well nor in any of the wells onshore on the Atlantic side. Rocks deposited during the Midwayan Age are confined to one area on the Coastal Plain which is bounded to the south and east by faults and to the north by outcrops. The orig.inal nature and extent of Midway rocks in Georgia is unknown, although some inferences can be drawn about their character and distribution. The Clayton Limestone, sandy at its base, is a marine deposit which rests unconformably upon Upper Cretaceous rocks. A regional unconformity occurs at its top so that its original extent and thickness are unknown. Toward the south and west, in Florida and Alabama, Midway rocks are more extensive and thicker. Toward the north and east, clay interbedded in the limestone suggests that a clastic facies occurred in that direction. Isolated remnants of Midway rocks, probably preserved in downfaulted areas, are present in Twiggs County (Figures 12 and 13). These are estuarine in character (Tschudy and Patterson 1975) which would not be unexpected in that area if transgression
. were from the southwest. Midway (Danian) rocks are also present in South Carolina (Hazel and others, 1977) (Gohn and others, 1978b). Toward the south in Georgia, the Clayton Limestone becomes very sandy, and in one place is entirely sandstone
-98-

(Early County, GGS 437). This indicates that the Echols High was the provenance for the Clayton sand, and that Midway seas may never have been present in the southern part of Georgia.
These criteria, including a basal sandy limestone, the thicker, more widespread Midway rocks in Alabama, the estuarine facies along the Fall Line, shallow marine exposures in South Carolina (Gohn and others, 1977 p. 70; 1978 b), and the sandy facies of the Midway toward the south, indicate a marin~ transgression onto the Georgia Coastal Plain probably from the southwest. Whether the Echols High terrane was an isolated island feature in the Appalachicola Embayment or the northern edge of an extensive landmass which includes most of what is now Florida is unclear, although most of nearby Florida has Sabine rocks overlying Cretaceous rocks, indicating post-Midway erosion.
Following Midway deposition, uplift of the region resulted in the erosion and removal of most of the Midway rocks in Georgia. The uplift was accompanied by faulting which has allowed the preservation of Midway strata on the downdropped blocks. The underlying Gulfian Series are thickest here where they are overlain by Midway strata (Figure 10) as they were preserved from post-Midway erosion.
While the orientation of the faults cannot be determined with precision because of the lack of data, some regional patterns are evident. The northeast-southwest tranding faults are compatible with others on the Coastal Plain,
-99-

i. to be expected as a response to theLtectonic forces resul ticng from:the northwestward drift of a passive continental margin (Bott , 19 79 ) . The prominent fault trending northwest-southeast at the eastern edge of the Midway terrane (Figures 12 and 13) is significant. This is also the western boundary of the Centr-al Georgia Uplift, and is more or less parallel w:Lth the Peninsular Arch, a feature which had been positive before Mi<dway time (Babcock, 1969) and afterwards. In general, this positive trend can be recognized on the. isopach and 's>tructure-contour maps of many of the other Coastal Plain units, indicating a continuous effect on the structure and sedimentation after Midway time. Cross section A-A' (Figure 30), shows this positive area. i~ Note that the Upper Cretaceous rocks east of this fault (Figure 1.0) are thin, indicating further erosion of the Cretaceous terrane after Midway rocks had . been: removed; in CO~fee County, no Upper Paleocene rocks are present either, suggesting that that area was positive ev:en ater Midwp.y uplift and erosion. It was not covered by .-marine tran~gressions . until Early Eocene time. r The events at the end of the Midway which re..s.u:J:ted. in or -were accompanied by sea regression, correspond to the rapid fall in sea level at the end of the Daniran (Figure ' 28) (Vail and others, 1977, p. 87). This ,falLin ' tSea .level appears to have been global in nature (Vail and others, 1977,
-100-

p. 93), and the unconformity at the top of the Midway rocks represents this particular low stand.
Late Paleocene and Early Eocene (Sabine) Ages Sabine transgression is shown by clastic, calcareous marine rocks of Late Paleocene age resting upon Maastrichtian rocks in the COST well, and by calcareous, clastic rocks of Middle Paleocene age, overlain by rocks of Late Paleocene age, resting upon Maastrichtian rocks in southern Geo~gia and the Echols High terrane. The Late Paleocene rocks in the COST well area are in prograding clinoforms (Shipley and others, 1978) indicating that this area was the seaward edge of the depositional sequence at that time. According to Lachance and Steinkraus (1978, p. 48), the Sabinian Stage here was deposited in water 300-600 feet deep on the outer shelf, as shown by the presence of the benthonic foraminifers
Cibicides compressa Dorothia bulleta Eponides bollii Marssonella identata Spiroplectammina trinitatensis Carbonate rocks, and some evaporites overlie the basal clastic rocks, indicating further sea-level rise and marine transgression onto the Georgia Coastal Plain. The evaporites increase southward toward Florida in the Cedar Keys Formation (Chen, 1965, p. 42-43) and are the result of shallow seas with restricted circulation. Nowhere is halite present, however, suggesting that the evaporite cycle was never carried to completion during any of the fluctuations. Northward into
-101-

Georgia and seaward toward the Atlantic, the evaporite becomes less common and normal marine limestones and calcareous shales predominate.
The landward extent of the transgression is unknown because of post-Sabine erosion, but the section of carbonates over 1000 feet thick in Wayne and Pierce Counties suggest that it was very extensive.
Toward the Fall Line Sabine rocks are predominantly terrestrial in origin and contain bauxite and kaolin. These are overlain by very thin marine sandstones and a pronounced unconformity. The absence of Upper Paleocene rocks within the Sabinian Stage in the Coffee County region indicates that this area may have been a highland during the early part of the Sabine transgression and that it was not fully inundated until Early Eocene time. Whether this area was an island or a peninsula attached to the mainland to the north is not known.
This sequence of deeply eroded, once-thick rocks conforms to the model proposed by Vail and others (1977, p. 92) in which one of the highest stands of sea level, globally,was during the Sabinian (Figure 28).
Post-Sabine uplift and erosion is demonstrated paleontolog.ically, lithologically, and geometrically. A substantial paleontological hiatus is present between Sabine rocks and those of the overlying Claibornian Stage. Middle Eocene rocks rest with profound unconformity upon lowermost Eocene rocks in the outcrop area, and upper Lower Eocene rocks rest upon Upper Paleocene rocks in the COST well.
-102-

The overlying Claibornian Stage contains a basal clastic unit (the Tallahatta Sandstone, or , where overlapped, Lisbon Formation) which is everywhere present above the Sabine rocks, reflecting Claiborne transgression over the eroded Sabine surface. The uppermost Sabine rocks in many places contain evidence of weathering, such as limonitization, leaching, bauxitization, lignite, etc.
The very th~n (90 feet) Sabine section in the COST well is not due to post-Sabine uplift and erosion, because Shipley and others (1978) show that there is no appreciable deformation within the Cenozoic rocks in the vicinity of the COST well and that there are prograding clinoforms representing lower Cenozoic sedimentation. These shelf-edge deposits indicate a substantial transgression upon the continent during the Late Paleocene Age. Such overlap was very extensive, globally, as shown by the model of Vail and others (1977) (Figure 28).
The most pronounced feature of Sabine tectonism is faulting; this has been deduced from the geometry of the Sabine rocks and the fall in sea level. A prominent fault, trending northeast-southwest is present in southern Georgia. The southern block is downdropped at least several hundred feet and a thick carbonate section was preserved from postSabinian erosion, whereas a similar thick carbonate section which was present to the north of the fault on the upthrown block was removed by erosion. This is shown on the cross sections C and D (Figure 32) and on Figure 15.
-103-

Faults similar to this in magnitude and orientation may be interpreted from the work of Chen (1965, Figures 24 and 25) when considered in conjunction with the work of Applin and Applin (1967; pl. 2, Figure B) and Winston (1976b, p ,. 43, Figures 2 and 3). Here sharp facies changes accompanied 'by distinct isopach patterns are present in an area on the Peninsular Arch characterized by ridges which cross the aJ:~ch., (producing high and low areas) and which are parallel to the proposed fault in Georgia.
I this is the correct explanation, then the Suwannee Saddle of earlier authors is not a topographic saddle but a downdropped fault block which has preserved abnormally thick carbonate sections on the downdropped side.
T!he Appalachicola Embayment persisted until this time in soatthwestern Georgia, although the basinal charactel:"isti~s, so clear in the underlying Cretaceous rocks, are not present. The Smutheast Georgia Embayment is evident on the Georgia CoastaR Plain in the form of abnormal thickening of the Sabine rocks; the depocenter of the basin, however, is unclear because of faulting.
FDllowing the Sabine transgression, faulting, regression and erDsion, the Sabine rocks were removed in .part:; no early Early E.oc-ene history is shown by the rocks in the COST well. Lower !Eocene rocks were removed by erosion if ever precsent,, and rocks of the Claibornian Stage, late Early Eocene in age, overlie the Late Paleocene-aged rocks of the Sabine.
-104-

Furthermore, the Sabine rocks, from an outer neritic depositional environment, are overlain by the Claibornian Stage, the lowermost beds of which are bathyal in origin (Lachance and Steinkraus, 1978, p. 48). The foundering of the outer shelf area (as part of the faulting onshore) would result in a bathyal environment developing over rocks which were otherwise neritic, in a setting in which sea level was also rising, according to the model of Vail and others (1977, p. 93) (Figure 28).
Late Early, and Middle Eocene (Claiborne) Ages Following post-Sabine erosion, the sea again transgressed over the Georgia Coastal Plain. On the Atlantic side, the basal Claiborne rocks in the COST well are uppermost Lower Eocene and are bathyal, reflecting the foundering of the Embayment. Lachance and Steinkraus (1978, p. 48) interpret the depositional environment of the lowermost Claiborne rocks, those which are late Early Eocene in age, as being from 1500 to 6000 feet deep. Few benthonic foraminifers were present, although the d~ep water indicator Bathysiphon eocenica and several radiolarian species were recovered. A rich dinoflagellate assemblage is also present, and very few spores and pollen. Following the deposition of these bathyal beds during the late Early Eocene, a dramatic fall in sea level followed (Vail and others, 1977, p. 87) (Figure 28) and neritic depths again occurred at the area of the COST well. The bulk of the Claibornian Stage is Middle Eocene carbonate with a little
-105-

interbedded chert. According to L.achance and Steinkraus (1978 p. 47) it is difficult to interpret precisely the Middle :.Eocene environment. The foraminiferal a-ssemblages contain few bethonic species, yet the chalks and marls are similar to those of the Late Eocene (which is interpreted as middle shelf (50-300 feet), although the absence o'f the larger foraminifers in the Middle Eocene may indicate wat-er depths slightly deeper than that of Late Eocene times. Clearly sea .level has fallen however, as the ro.cks below are from the slope environment.
Onshore, on the Atlantic side, carbonate depo,sition predominated, up to 10 percent chert and evaporite. :These evapori-tic limestones are in an elongate, northeast-_southwest trending basin (Figure 19), essentially parallel with the faulting which preserved the abnormally thick section of Sabine rocks below them. Seaward of the basin., the :claiborne rocks 'B.~e thinner, and then become thicker.
On the Gulf Coast side, where the Claiborne rocks are highly calcareous sandstones and carbonates, neither a d-istinct -carbonate facies nor obvious basin development are evident..
Updip, al-l of the carbonate rocks become sand-ier and pass into calcareou,s sands .~ The Tallahatta Formati!D:n., tt.~e lower unit, does not crop out on much of the Fall Line -but
is over:lapped by the Li,sbon Formation which cnntains b.-me-
stone ~ds within t -he calcare.ous sand-s,, and ex:t.e.n:d.s as ff:ar inland as the pr-esent Fall Line. Marine overlap onto the Georgia Coastal Pla-in is evident.
-106-

The lower Claiborne beds offshore are Late Eocene (Steinkraus, 1978), as is the basal Claiborne Tallahatta Sandstone in Alabama (Berggren, 1965, p. 279), yet the basal Claiborne,Tallahatta equivalent, onshore the Lake City Limestone in Florida, is lower Middle Eocene (Zone P 11) (Huddlestun and others, 1974, p. 2-3). This indicates that the marine transgression was very slow, as the basal clastic
unit is time-transgressive. This coincides with the model of
vail and others (1977, p. 87) who note the same occurrence on a worldwide scale. Furthermore, the chart of Vail and others (1977, p. 87) shows a sea-level fall within the Claiborne, and then another rise. This coincides with the distinctly different ages for the Tallahatta (Zone P 11) and Lisbon (Zone P 13), as the sea-level fall is during the time that Zone 12 was forming (Figure 28).
The distinctive, elongate basin containing evaporite limestone and dolostone in southeastern Georgia is a result of Claiborne tectonism, but the nature of the structural control cannot be determined. The ridge shown offshore by the refraction survey of Antoine and Henry (1965, p. 608) marks the seaward edge of the basin, and it is on this ridge that the Claiborne rocks are thinner than they are in the basin (Figure 19). Antoine and Henry (1965, p. 607) suggest that the Southeast Georgia Embayment opened southward rather than southeastward. If the evaporite basin is a graben, essentially in the same location as the downdropped fault block which has preserved the thick section of Sabine
-107-

rocks beneath it, then the ridge would have been acting as if it were a horst, or at least as a stable block. The thin Claiborn~ section on the ridge could be attributed to either post~claiborne erosion and removal of sediments from the upthrown block or if the faulting were contemporaneous with Claiborne sedimentation, sediment bypassing during Claiborne Age as the basin to the northwest settled downward and evaporites formed in the restricted environment.
Other Claiborne tectonism, if present, is not as evident. In the area of the Central Georgia Uplift, Claiborne rocks are somewhat thinner than in the surrounding region (Figure 19). This could be explained by a lack of deposition at those times when the uplift area was positive, or by uplift and removal of some of the Claiborne rocks during Claiborne time. Such ah event would explain the distribution of the Tallahatta Sandstol\e (which does not occur northwestward of the Central Georgia Uplift) and would accompany the sea-level retreat recorded by the biostratigraphy.
Other faults may be present within the Claiborne terrane, but the scarcity of data make their presence undetectable. The well-documented Andersonville Fault (Zapp, 1965) intersects Claiborne rocks, 'but none younger. It is post-Claiborne and could be younger than Oligocene.
Following the transgression of the Lisbon seas, regression occurred, and erosi,on S'et in on the Claiborne rocks.
-108-

Late Eocene (Jackson) Age The Jackson Age on the Georgia Coastal Plain and offshore, at least as far as the COST well, is represented mostly by a relatively thin, uniform blanket of shelf limestone, the Ocala. This blanket overlies the Claiborne rocks unconformably, but with little hiatus and little relief. The basal beds are the clastic Clinchfield Sand updip and the Moodys Branch Formation downdip. Where these units are not distinguishable, the basal limestones of the Ocala are sandy. Northeastward, along the Fall Line, the fluctuating strandline of the Jackson sea is reflected in the intertonguing of carbonate and clastic formations . . The rocks show that Jackson time in Georgia was characterized by a broad shelf of probably middle neritic, or even outer neritic depths. Lachance and Steindraus (1978, p. 47) have identified
Nummulites moodybranchensis N. tuberculatus operculina moodybranchensis Bulimina jacksonensis Cibicides jacksonensis Siphonina danvillensis from the Upper Eocene rocks in the COST well. These are from a middle shelf (50-300 feet) environment, possibly slightly shallower than the underlying Claibornian Stage. Toward the southwest, the Jackson rocks are more deeply buried, and because of water-quality problems and dolomitization, they are not well known. Farther south in Florida, however, they can be divided into distinct subdivisions, but are still carbonates. Evaporites are known from the lower part of the
-109-

Jackson rocks in the southwestern part of Georgia, but few details have been reported.
Tectonism during and following Jackson deposition is not well documented. Regression is shown everywhere; Upper Eocene rocks are overlain by Upper Oligocene rocks. This regression is shown in the model of Vail and others (1977, p. 87) (Figure 28).
The isopach map of the Jackson rocks (Figure 23) shows irregularities in the thickness which could be attributed to post-Jackson deformation and erosional thinning, but the details are not evident.
The cr:oss-section A-F (Figures 29-34) show that Jackson strata are regionally conformable upon the underlying Claib@rne rocks and are regionally conformable with the overlying Oligocene Series. The presence of the Appalachicola and Southeast Georgia Embayments can be deduced from fue general thickening of the Jackson rocks toward the southwest and the southeast, although the thinning of the Jackson rocks by post-Oligocene exposure and erosion must be considered in the interpretation of Jackson rocks in southeastern Georgia.
Oligocene Epoch Following Late-Eocene sea-level retreat and erosion of the Jackson rocks, transgression commenced. Offshore, in the COST well and in the JOIDES core hole, Lower Oligocene limestones, clastic at the base, rest upon Upper Eocene rocks. Onshore, Middle Oligocene rocks are found to rest upon Jackson rocks along Ocmulgee River (Pickering, 1970)
-110-

and in the Gulf Trough. The overlap which began in the Early Oligocene may have continued until at least Middle Oligocene.
Whether the first of the Oligocene transgressions was as far inland as the present onshore Coastal Plain is unclear; such rocks have not been found. The lowermost Oligocene rocks, mostly Late Oligocene in age, almost everywhere rest upon a post-Late Eocene erosion surface except in the Gulf Trough and on Ocmulgee River where they rest unconformably upon a postMiddle Oligocene erosion surface. In the trough, where Middle Oligocene rocks are present, they are dolomitized to the extent that the necessary paleontological information has been destroyed. Also, in the southwestern part of the trough, the rocks are so deep and the water quality is so poor that few wells have penetrated the entire s~ction, and the foundation. upon which the Middle Oligocene rocks rest is not known. The thickness of the Middle Oligocene rocks in the trough, however, and the lack of preserved clastic facies updip, suggest that the original distribution of Middle Oligocene rocks was once much more extensive than now.
This is borne out by Lachance and Steinkraus {1978, p. 47) who note that the Oligocene Series in the COST well were deposited in an outer shelf to upper slope environment {300 to 1500 feet) , possibly from greater overlap onto the continent than the underlying Jacksonian Stage. This was deduced from the presence of a rich benthonic assemblage which includes:
Bolivina floridana Bulimina sculptilis Spiroplectammina sp.
-111-

Uvigerina curta
u. topilensis
These pre-Suwannee Limestone rocks, the Marianna and Byram (or Glendon) Formations are upper Vicksburgian in position (Middle Oligocene) and are in Zone P-19 according to Huddlestun and others (1974, p. 2-3) (Figure 28).
Following the onshore deposition of the Marianna and Byram Formations, tectonism, which included uplift, began and the Gulf Trough and possibly other faulting structures developed. The tectonism was accompanied by a global sealevel fall, and the lowest sea-level stand of the entire Cenozoic resulted (Vail and others, 1977, p. 87) (Figure 28). Such a low stand of the sea, possible uplift onshore, and the g.(imerally warm climate of the time (as attested by coral reefs in the limestones) (Vaughan, 1900) , resulted in the removal of all of the Middle Oligocene carbonates exc.ept for those which were preserved on downfaulted blocks such as in the trough and possibly those on Ocmulgee River. The erosion exposed the Jackson rocks everywhere except in the tr.ough and along Ocmulgee River where they were overlain by Oligocene rocks in the downdropped blocks.
It is possible that the thick section in the troug.h is due to growth fault accumulation, but the evidence is not clear. Gelba~ (1978) indicates that the Oligocene rocks in the trough are different from those on the outside, and this could be interpreted that the conditions of sedimentation in the trough were different from those on the outside, conditions brought on by the contemporaneous faulting with the sedimentation.
-112-

The differences in the sediments within the trough from those outside could be a result of the structural juxtaposition of different kinds of rocks, resulting in different ground water effects, so that the rocks within the trough have been acted upon differently by the ground water than those to the outside.
Following the sea-level fall and erosion, transgression again occurred, and the widespread Suwannee Limestone was deposited. Its basal clastic content attests to the overlap over the Jackson rocks and over the Middle Oligocene rocks in the trough.
No planktonic foraminifera are included in any of the published faunal lists of the Suwannee Limestone, but Huddlestun and others (1974, p. 2-3) indicate that it is Late Oligocene in age, Zone P-21 (Middle Chattian) (Figure 28).
The extent of the Suwannee overlap is not known as erosion has removed the updip rocks, but the facies patterns indicate that the overlap was very extensive, more possibly than occurred during the Sabinian Age. Late Oligocene rocks in South Carolin~ are in Zone P-21 (Hazel and others, 1977, p. 75) and these, like those in Georgia, are shelf deposits, with none of the updip clastic facies preserved.
Following the deposition of the Suwannee Limestone, tectonism, including regional uplift and continued faulting within the Gulf Trough, occurred. According to the model of sea-level change proposed by Vail and others (1977) (Figure 28), this was a time of continued transgression of the sea upon the land, globally. Since Georgia at least was
-113-

undergoing erosion after the Suwannee was deposited, uplift, rather than sea-level fall must have been the cause. If the rise in sea level were accompanied by a rise in the floor of the depositional basin, clastic sediments would bypass the area, and the resulting carb.onate deposits would be especially pure; such is the Suwannee Limestone. Above the basal clastic rocks, the Suwannee is a remarkably pure shelfdeposited rock. Once the rate of uplift exceeded the rate of sea level rise, erosion began, and the Suwannee was extensively eroded and thinned (Figure 25) everywhere except in the trough where continued faulting had preserved it on the downdropped blocks.
During this time (post-Suwannee deposition) some of the faulting shown on the structure contour maps occurred, a result of the regional uplift. This is particularly manifest in those faults which have been truncated by the erosion surface.
During this event, or possibly later as there was another episode of uplift and erosion, the Suwannee was completely removed in southeastern Georgia in the area of the Peninsular Arch and considerably thinned offshore. This uplifted area resulted in the further thinning of Jackson rocks after they were exhumed by erosion which removed the Suwannee. This is the area of the Peninsular Arch (called Orange Island by Vaughan, 1910, and called the Suwannee Uplift by Weaver and Beck, 1977). Weaver and Beck describe post-Oligocene events in great detail.
-114-

During the time of the regional uplift and erosion, sea level continued to rise, and eventually the Chattahoochee Pormation and its carbonate equivalent, the Tampa Limestone, were deposited upon the Suwannee. E. Applin (1960) describes post-Suwannee Oligocene rocks in the trough, as does Herrick (unpublished GGS 1825) ; these same rocks crop out in southwestern Georgia. The nature of the contact between the Suwannee and the overlying Chattahoochee Formation is apparently unconformable, as the Chattahoochee has a distinctive basal conglomerate and the formation contains clastic material throughout. Huddlestun and others (1974, p. 2-3) note that this unit is post-Suwannee in age and is in the upper Chattian Zone P-22, (Figure 28). Almost everywhere that the Chattahoochee Formation overlies the Suwannee, the latter is relatively thin, suggesting that post-Suwannee erosion had preceded the Chattahoochee transgression and deposition.
Following (and possibly during) the time of the Chattahoochee transgression faulting in the trough was reactivated, as the Chattahoochee Formation and the Miocene rocks which overlie it are exceptionally thick within the trough and are relatively thin to the northwest and southeast. Weaver and Beck (1977, p. 8) note that the Chattahoochee Formation in Florida is' both Late Oligocene and Early Miocene, suggesting time-transgression.
On the Atlantic side, Lower Miocene rocks overlie Eocene rocks or Suwannee Limestone, no post-Suwannee Oligocene rocks are present. Figure 27 illustrates this sequence of Oligocene tectonic-sedimentation events in Georgia.
-115-

Neogene Period
The Neogene Period includes the Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene Epochs. The events which occurred during these epochs are outside of the scope of this paper, but some of the more obvious structures and sedimentary events are described because they represent continuations of structures and sedimentary events which were first manifest in the Oligocene rocks and time.
There are some structures which were formed after the Oligocene sedimentation and may be pre-Miocene. Gelbaum (1978) and Weaver and Beck (1977) described Miocene rocks in the Gulf Trough where they, like the underlying Oligocene rocks, are abnormally thick. Continued formation of the Gulf Trough is shown.
The anticline offshore was first detected seismically by Hersey and others (1959, p. 450) who recognized a flexure that they interpreted as being on Upper Cretaceous rocks. In the s~me general area Antoine and Henry (1965, p. 607), also by seismic interpretation, detected a surface which they considered the top of the Oligocene and which appeared to be arched upward and had a flat top, as if planed off by erosion. Schlee (1977) describes this feature in great detail, having further information from the JOIDES core hole nearby. It is a post-Oligocene feature, as Oligocene rocks are absent from the top and thicken seaward. The feature may be related to the tectonism which produced the removal of Oligocene rocks from the Peninsular Arch area. The Oligocene rocks are
-116-

unconformably overlain by Miocene rocks. Other arches, or anticlines have been noted in offshore
or shoreline areas by others. Siple (1967) calls attention to a structurally high feature which he calls the Burton High, and Heron and Johnson (1965) describe a similar feature, possibly the same one, in South Carolina which they call the Beaufort High. Furlow (1969) detects the Tybee High in rocks below Tybee Island, Georgia. All of these features, however involve Miocene rocks and so are younger than Oligocene.
Winston (1976a) indicates that the Ocala Arch is not a tectonic structure as theretofore thought, but is a consequence of eastward tilting of westward-dipping beds which, when considered with the anomalous thickening of the Claiborne rocks below, has resulted in a structure in which the upper beds appear to be arched and in which the lower beds do not. Such eastward tilting can also be seen in cross section E (Figure 33) where the basement surface between Lowndes and Clinch Counties (GGS 3120 and GGS 338) dips westward and the overlying contact of the Comanchean Series, pinching out against the basement surface, dips eastward. Regardless of its prigin, the Ocala High (as called by Weaver and Beck) is a post-Oligocene feature, as Oligocene rocks are involved in the deformation.
Most of the Neogene rocks in Georgia are Miocene in age. The Lower Miocene rocks, where present, are generally nearshore marine sediments and lie unconformably upon Oligocene rocks; Middle Miocene rocks rest upon the Lower Miocene rocks. Following the deposition of the Middle Miocene beds, uplift
-117-
I

and/or sea-level fall followed, corresponding to the low sea-level stand during the Late Miocene of Vail and others {1977, p. 93). This is represented by Upper Miocene clastic rocks onshore, which include terrestrial deposits of deltaic and possibly fluviatile origin. Miocene history and tectonism are described in great detail by Weaver and Beck {1977).
Pliocene rocks are very thin on the Georgia Coastal Plain and are for the most part shallow marine deposits found in the extreme southern parts of the region. They may also be present in upland fluviatile gravel deposits (Voorheis, 1970) or as fluviatile deposits in river valleys (Herrick, 1961).
During the Pleistocene, overlap by marine sands is identified. Herrick {1965) discusses the Pleistocene rocks in Georgia.
No marine Holocene rocks are known onshore, as transgression is currently taking place, but extensive swamp deposits, such as those of the Okefenokee Swamp alo~the coast, are Holocene.
Post-Miocene faults (possibly Holocene) have been documented by Prowell and O'Connor (1978) in the Augusta area and by White (1965) in the Piedmont of Meriwether County. Lance and others (1977) describe the occurence and distribution of historical earthquakes in Georgia.
-118-

WELL LOG ANALYSIS
One of the purposes of this report was to identify potential reflection surfaces from an analysis of onshore . wells, utilizing the geophysical logs available accompanied by an interpretation of the lithology of the wells. These reflection surfaces may then be correlated with the seismic reflection surfaces determined from the offshore surveys.
There were wire-line logs of 40 wells from 24 Coastal Plain counties available for analysis. Table 1 indicates the types of logs and scale. While the basis InductionElectrical log was the type most often available, sonic logs were included for 16 wells and density logs for two additional wells.
Phase 1 of the analysis included a preliminary lithologic interpretation of all the project wells, based only on the log characteristics, and a tabulation of the horizons showning a strong seismic reflection index.
Phase 2 was the preparation of SP and Resistivity Logs to a scale of 1" :::o 100', drawn on a standard presentation from which also included lithology and formation data. The logs are available for review but because of reproduction problems are not included in this report.
Phase 3 consisted of an examination of methods by which the well logs could be related to seismic sections. An effort was made to recognize key horizons, not only because the logs were regularly used to support and refine stratigraphic
-119-

correlations, but also in the hope that correlations co.uld be made between the logs and seismic sections, especially seismic data from offshore lines.
Considerable attention has been devoted in recent years to reflection seismic amplitudes as potentially diagnostic of the physical characteristics of subsurface zones (Sheriff, 1976). Because seismic records as well as certain well logs are related to velocities of sound waves in rock layers, it is possible to correlate the two methods and to predict the relative amplitudes of one record from a study of data from corresponding subsurface depths obtained by the other method.
The most useful tool for comparing drill hole and seismic sections is the Continuous Velocity Log (CVL), also referred to as sonic and acoustic logs. Where such logs are available, direct measurement of interval velocities can be made, and very good estimates of the reflection pattern of seism~c waves in cr0ssing a lithologic boundary can be determined. Essentially, this is the basis for constructing "synthetic seismograms" from well logs, a process now available commercially from a number of oil field service companies.
CVL logs became available in 1954 and very quickly the concepe of synthesis of seismograms from the well log data was proposed (Peterson et al., 1955). Subsequent workers have reported on methods and applications (Sarmiento, 19:61; Sengbush et al., 1961; Harms and Tackenberg ,, 19.7<2-; Seien.tific Softwa~e Co., 1975). Approximations of the velocity logs can also be made by transformation of resistivity to
-120-

pseudovelocity logs (Rudman et al., 1975). Zones characterized by large effective acoustic-
impedence (velocity x density) contrast will return stronger amplitude waves than will those of low contrast. Thus the more prominent reflectors will, providing the zones are thick enough to register the velocity change, indicate a substantial difference in propagation velocity between the adjac~nt layers. Velocity is strongly influenced by rock density and pore fluids, and can be a key to rock type. For example, the interface of a water-bearing shale (low velocity) overlying a thick compact limestone (high velocity) will give a strong, high-amplitude reflection.
Amplitudes are influenced by a number of factors in addition to reflection coefficients, such as absorption losses and scattering during transmission through rock. Also, reflection amplitude is affected by data collection and processing. The current state-of-the-art is such that these effects cannot always be compensated or evaluated, so that precise quantitative determination of reflection coefficient is not possible. On the other hand, amplitude relationships are preserved in the seismic sections, and relative amplitudes provide a valid basis for several interpretive techniques. They are of special value in studies of lithology, fluid content, and comparison of well logs and seismic sections. It is this latter application which we have emphasized in the present study.
-121-

Reflection Coefficient. If the seismic wave is initially
traveling in rock of density PI and wave velocity is v 1 , and it then passes into rock of density p 2 at velocity v 2 , a portion of the energy in the wave will be reflected at the

interface and the remainder will be transmitted. In the

case of normal inc~ence, the reflected and transmitted

pulses have the same shape as the initial pulse, differing

only in amplitude. The ratio of the amplitude of the reflected

wave to that of the incident wave is termed the "reflection

coefficient" (R) .

Ar
R= AI

where A = "pressure amplitude" of (r)
reflected and (i) incident

The amplitude of the reflected pulse is determined by the change in the density-velocity product between the two layers. This product is frequently called "acoustic impedence" of the rock.

R =

P2 v2 - P1 vl
P2 v2 + Pr vl

In addition to specifying the amplitude of the reflected wave, the expression also indicates that the algebraic sign depends upon relative values of the acoustic impedence. Thus, when the wave moves from a medium of low acoustic impedence to one of higher acoustic impedence, the reflection coefficient is positive, and the incident, reflected, and transmitted waves will all have the same polarity. If the reflection coefficient is negative, the incident and transmitted waves have the same polarity but the reflected wave is reversed.

-122-

In constructing a synthetic seismogram from a CVL log, several manipulations are made, and a reflection coefficient derived at about one millisecond intervals. Thus, for a 5,000-foot well, there might be 1,000 incremental data points. Clearly this can be accomplished only with the aid of a digitizer and computer program. For the present study we have visually scanned the logs, noting sharp velocity boundaries at which R was computed. Experience indicates that if R exceeds + 0.10 there will be a strong seismic reflector. Since the principal objective of this phase of the study was to predict which stratigraphic boundaries were most likely to be recognizable in seismic sections in the Georgia Embayment area, we have examined the nearshore wells, with the following results (Table 2).
-123-

Table 1. well Logs Available for Analysis

2 - t"'UIO'
j
g
no 1 ..-.n-:.hy county. llwtbh oll tl w. r .
hl,l.:ut

1j11. ,!I\ .Jm
l ~1 ~ ~ ~ 1 HJ~ l1 !
I t i I
3 l

l.ltl ~.udn Co-..nty. Pan A=dc::a..., Pet:rol.~ tla llruoo c:.up

Utt Cu:Jcten C:ow:~qr . Pan AIM:-.!.can httohua

.S

tl.-"C Dnion c.a.p

171 ~ l t.crs C:oUDey. Sou= PIM OU
tl o. c. Kia.U

ttl c.l.1...a.c:b Cowtey. Jhua~ 011 U Ali~ P\ul 9r~ a ll .Uic:: l+.l'91:~ rc;.;s Zto. U7)
Sl27 eot!n caua.cy . 0\ev"Z"oa Oil tl ove.S.
Pl.tU et. l

101 C:.! P C:2~ty .. len-Mea.. n Cecil u

UO _.~... ~ <:ollftty . Rlet~az oU co. U G. E. OO J . l u
.... ll2 O.cnur Cou.,~. 3. A. Sealy t2 !pi.,;ill

ZOI Den~\lr Colll'l~ ealary O.V. Co. f l 3. \11,
lcot.~

,....,.. Dod, JlO!I

Co~.U~~y. At..l&Du Cu Li9ht. tl I 6 L

.J

li:J ~9""rr.:y Ca~U~qt. J. ll. Sealy t-2 lhrn.o14
~: Co ~

Uu tarlr C ~1.u1 ty . H :--:h .ko:2y J. An4euon tl Ch t Uctr..ll ern l'apr ~o .
.lUI lady eDwtty. ~- a Jl. 3. J.ndenoo U Or~ Noc-then Papee Co,

l.3 l,

Uff -Glyft.D County. Pan Aater!ou ~. Co . U Qa..loa c.amp

nt Ul
u
rullD
~u~

Gl}"''Ul C:~q. 'ftlltii.Dll OU U.:T Qn.i.cn Sag~' 2 Cu:~j~ Paper CQ ..

ClyM CC,unty. 11\.able Oil tl-S1' W. e.
Hc0oa.al4

'j

Je1'! Davi COW\cy. OleV1'0G au u 3. t.
' l:laclAlr

:t..u.riLDe c:ounc:r. C:.hpor K!q. Corp. t1

~ll'ce HCC&i.Q

.. s~i uv.r-:a\11\f:'ro Hun~ h'UGhwa t1 .J.

,$

.. t.ovflde e~""'CY ~lhuu: rec.rol tl t..-n;- l . l 40Llo

tdvt\dee C:OW1 rf . llant: ht:'ahW! n z

,$

ttuuay, J~:.

Ott LoV'r\d.ae C:ounqo .. llu.nt: Peuohu= U Jck Colo

!Mnd UJ

C:Cit.&nC)' 0 lhin'=. u~tei.III ~ U-A t..

J!"o.L . . . .

ua ~i't:J.~ ~-~:; J. !. -.uhV!o;-:!

.3
f'' .I


Ul Puluk!- eou.ae,r. S..ittht:on ctr1lll119 eo. JH 'fl.&a.a
~ll> Pol:uld. CO\a.D~. Ao:l.anu c . . t.i9h't c:o. fl 4dtt'J.tll
oSI ~~;~~~i:~~n..rn~ll Drilling :a.
... "" .. 001 :14aa.LDole CO\U\qt. S. e. Dunlap U Uund~ I : SULacb C:OIU\ty: J!~le ou .1 J lo.Uy
711 tt...v t t:: C:ouncy. Be!.:~oa. . l~l t1 W, C: .. lrac!ley co.

0
,a
l
'
,s;
t

0 0
.o

llU -Trlcz:s.u COW1ty, t. A. ' DUrll&.all l.t. lraM :t.
If, SedJ.,~c:.k
1Jo '~1U;!:nt.~~,ili.~~U Drilli~ co. ;:z

ltcl.:; Ul ..

;:;:~ "uNih Oil 11 Onion hq-

o ,J 2.

Ufl warn covrt t: 'r' . ftuJ\t ~:.,1WII n 4 1 lc,\t I HIA" h .\JII' ~c>.

UU '"Nyn .eaunt:y, Wm. llt.-) .,J.'I U 4 C" l..:ot.~

l,J

- lo 11iil1d h,.l' Ca.

'OJO ""l ,r CcWit)' ~ !t)ut.'"lr:11 N~~:.u.nl C fl ltatuu "!'ovn1

lOU '"" L .:- C':1\LI:1ty. Scn.1thern "'t.uS.al a U D.r. :1. lo MeJia

..-124-

Table 2. Tabulation of Reflection Coefficients Greater than 0.1

Well GGS 719 - Glvnn County

Cased to 619' log depth.

Subsea elevations: -916 1
-1857 -2088 -2715

Top Claiborne In Sabine
"
Top Cretaceous (slig~1L!y 1ess than R = 0.1, but recognizable as a reflection surface)

-4685 Well GGS 724 - Glynn County
Starts at 713 1 log depth.

Top basement

Subsea elevations: - 827

In Jackson

- 950 In Claiborne

-1669

In Sabtne

Zone of several thin reflectors -2130-2220 in Sabine

-2405

In Sabine

-3395

In Gulf

-4483

In Lower Tuscaloosa Fonaation

Well GGS 1197 - Glynn County

Starts at log depth of 90 1

S~sea elevations: -1030 -1086 -1554
-1687 -2000 -2134
-3568 -3904 -4270

Near base Jackson
"
In Claibo:ttne
" "
In Sabine near top In Gulf Top Tuscaloosa Formation Near top basement

Well GGS 1198 - Camden County

Starts at 1503 1 log depth.

Subsea elevations: -1584 -1604 -1682 -1942 -2152 -2950 -3312 -4202 -4587

Near top Sabine In Sabine
" "
n
In Gulf
II
Top Tuscaloosa Fonaation Top basement

Well GGS 876 - Charlton County

Starts at 1270 1 log depth.

Subsea elevations: -1866
-3696 -4088 -4455
Well GGS 651 - Wayne County

In Sabine

In

Qulf

Top Tuscaloosa Formation

Top basement

Starts at 230 1 log depth.

Numerous thin, closely spaced low-velocity layers in section bet~een -380' and -920'. Harder, thin-bedded limectcnc~ predom~nate between -920 1 and -1400'.

The top of reflection

Cretaceous is recognizable coefficient is not strong

a (R

t

= a

bout 0.80

).

2355

'

'

but

the

Subsea elevations: -3605'
-3730 -4155 -4307

Top Tuscaloosa Formation Tl'1 Tllscalc-:-o::a Formation Below TuscaLoosa Formation Tcp basemel1t

-125-

- .. ..
. ~ ~ .,
B

. . ..
t

.. . ... "' .....

.

. ., "

C1t.1 ~tu:loiiiLfltll'l

..-~

,-:: -~;~\

QfjJ" 1 E'- !:OL.UM.Bfll

- , \ or ' ....

~'fl .:..._ Wl:t"RE,.a.1 1 ~
't <:>

' __, '

-

.. , ~ ->:.~ -~ - ~

~J0;MO'<I)

COASTAL PLAIN INDEX MAP-
~"--"~,

OF

GEORGIA

--- .... - - --r-~

- - \ e.ilDWIPl

.. . -- 1 o~H I\\...\~~-.:

.l
- ;

~~~-\..,.""'' -"

lit.&S. /' 'I:I ' :

t:CCfli , . /



"':-!

I

'\:' ., JEFm>~ I'

':

"1, ,. . I

WA~ IN-JTOH ~i

'

~

")

BURflf

'!' ..} \

- 4-f .-... ,/ l
"c.

~
- -- ' -: ! - \ "" '~ IU"''.S-Qif \

.... -....---~- \._,, ... ~..

. -

-:J . '~'t'..

':I \

Jtnl(f(S '

I .

:':'

)

< ':' \. .!> CAAIDRO ;---: ~ .;:o._ ..



_, ' - - .JormsOr.

1 StR(oJTh ""

o, GEORGIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WELL NUMBER
"" GEORGI A GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DRILLING PERMIT NUMBER
a OCEAN PRODUCTIONS, C. O. S.T.
NO. I GEORGIA EMBAYMENT
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURIIEY ATLANTIC CORING PROJECT, 6002

\

'\ .~o, c...

':J

.!.

\ ~

-~~~t~"

,,~ ,

r\j

T&rr.CI~,...-
/

-

...J..'',:';r~)J,

~~!;~'fOo

'I""

; .~-4'JCI :t

.
\

, .:. 1-I ,,u.eoN :I -

,_<!U..1,::f.!CU"t' /'' \



'

"

'

l.t.1J ffEr.l

l '

~-/ r

t"'-'~:&;11-1\1~

"' ' .... ...-; .....
/.;.,.!.. ...

.~ -~ ~ '"'- ...., '" I !'~WIlll!~~f,_

) UI(U1...t..,L,N .

1

I

c~IJ--L;Et !.r,

I
I

''.,. !7

}~

'-....... ., \.,..,l...

... .-.... .. ".f"

'

, . ._

I

B:JJ.,.l0,tCw',I1

JOINT OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTS. DEEP EARTH SAMPLING, NO. I
\ ~, --------------------~

~
"c"r

. .. . ':' . ----1- \ r_:L.. i ._.. . - .. ..., "" ' C""ATT.:.

. ~

~

.>ttoc-:
,.- -

-!~: E

::: ,,4..,tiN
-\~t'-),.e,_~".o,' ,

l I

~

~

.J.J.-.fs~U.:H,..d....!.-..~:.~~...~ .,

1

" '~...- ,

~u1 "

1-

oooL-1

,. !loJ' '\~ .i1'l

~
XIII :

""!.~~s~~~.i'i '-

"- 'U

'I

t.-n



>
'-">~\--;-'

I :!- -- l ~ / "-i"~\~~.'..To.o A.l._.

' "' '

, _ .). -.!.IN

\ ~~~

ll.



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

w

': E~"'st

..
":'

:-:.:i r-- -'<. -

I

fiUtrR

~1

;

POttti(

.-.\ ._..ElE\_j ~"" / 700:85 ~

.

,")

.~

S1-:W4Jtl .,

~,\lii~rr.=-:

n. ,;.'

'l '' , ..,

-'--:~..;- - --.~,.~

, 1,

' ./

4~

-

" '-......'\

~"' ..__

-...
.'

~tAT"Trllli ......_

- - ,
r\, ..

~~~
I . '-' ~~';.I,,_ j -.:':'.ut r-....,.tiu_- '. -"',..
l-...-- -
mt::. ..:'.t-a.,.;.- v I
\ Cl-'Y)

1 - I .....

u ~

- -- - - ' -- - -- - J

-.t

~

-~..;:.:... . ~ ,.

.,.J
.l

i DO< \ ! fEflA!U- .. !(.

. . 1

,., ,
!- -'. . . .. JhSP

I

--..ir-. ' ---. rs. \----

. ~ ~Lr:.o.t . ....~

' .~ '"'-' '

f [i.FA.IR

r-.S-,...,._,-..~

/ ; 1 \ . " ',,'..

'

t..'!_':' S}....v~.:j"v,:.ov~~

1

,.

... ... _.

j

t-.,.'"."~"-~

1 -: J n"
Lt;!'G .....

. ,.,..

,._., . - r; T,jl< '

i\. ~'" rH-I'-<--~

,

:
j

;

~::..,c:----;

--~-1.

.

.

.

.

~

F

Y:.;hiO

I ~

', ........,

. ~

~11 L ____ _f'...~-~----~ __ _. __ I-

"""' ..

(

,.

..-

,

'

r:t "J-

l~

h v'J 1'
J

~ -~.~..

_.....7' -.:

'!"

-

c.:.;;; ,
!.

~
~--= ._

t 1io

~t.rtoOUt.

,

,
\

,



- " :

_go~E AMP'l

~7 ..~~

__ _!!'YM---~-r---

1 .., . r ,....J

~ ,_.~~~,. .. I'

-
~

-.....,"-a"----

~- '"'--

t' I.

t =i.: ...

, ..f_.

.:____ ;{

"..!'.I''';-I.Nt-"l~'.-...i\.'.t,...r...~.r_. .~-~.f--..~o/...F--fE-.-~::;~.- ----1~IL

owst . Ji',-...

\

.:m_

:
II'L(IlH
'-~~ __,. .,L

""
l

-, ~

WA.'I'I1!!

"' " -~ .. 1-l+.i.:..

~~-E:A"~.::.I.

\ _,_-.,

;.

-

..

-

u-0.. ~'\: _,..., - ...~

M' ...

!

~f0:(<14 '"



,~:..,~ ~:.... ,.....

L 7 ......

, ,. ~

"';_ ...

_cl
:""'t-

~ -.

~ITCKI:U. l!f"t"GC~ ~ ~ ~ fi .. _. -- - -,-"II..!. I

I . .- . I
I "- ) .. .:- ~-~l-

~,_

,..
1 /1

,~-~ - --- - _j -,--- -r- -

'I

e ,

, : I .... - -- ---1.,.'::-:: ;.r::.:- ::. ...-.. -- , 'n~":.~~t

i I

.., :: M

't ( 1: ''\ Bt:HA te t'll

- .

,:. I .. l ' :-:,.\"T ---t'."- ~~

. ...

...,.

,



~~ou~~T.

I'JI

w ro: ' , "

-

,_

..t3.

-

~co~

1

M: ; ~
f'1~ -~-

-u ...:



1

!""'n-o.t...

C'l
j '

~u :.t..,!

--
.t.

,t-I;.;J
- -\
\
\

_.. ...

.,_

\


~~

t;.C RF;

.. ~ .......



P~!.:_ET

t

" y......nJ

I """'

-
;r,.

H';n"-1~.r!tt::J~l~~-'~f''.~ ! "-V

r ---- ~-

u --





_..

j

\ -

' I e. _. ~

.:,_L- ~ I

i~-}CH

\ 'f "i' jf:_lT!JR

(



:too ' -l:.- - tU
G;; ILD' !

,lrtQ-:_-~S

~

S;A-C~u$r

'"".\.\.-.

.

.."\
_,.1

:

'fS\ i

..

'l '"
I~- w

J

CIIIULll)l'l'

~

u:'f-t....

1:-A MOEN , ' ~
:.. 7

-



""':__:"___ , _ _ ____ ------ J

~I......;. '::..~..\-.lOWHb5

(
j

:: f' 1
h"ck.s._f&-

'~~----

'-' --.. '-~.__:~~..,~.

- - ..... ..::....! - - - - -.....'l _ _ ) . _ _.. _: ~

:

_ - .. . - ~

ll

.

fMCIIt'f UIIL'tll"SITT- llpilltA UUTM'ffl~TIIt tOLLI51

Figure 1. Index map, Coastal Plain of Georgia, showing localities of wells.

"BASEMENT" (POST TRIASSIC) SURFACE CONFIGURATION
r - - - ' .....~ . ~,
elevation related to sea level (sl) numbers in teet
..I...
N
-....]
I
B
lOCATION MAP

'"".-=--... -~J--.

-.Jf \

\I.

........._

---------\ \

\

f

,.

110

JO

4,0

1,6 a U

11:1 1 ' ' ' '

1
N

Figure 2.

I


!f

&
rr

\

\

- a toOl

l ~ ~~
--~./

,r-~ ~ ..., ...

-___ .."'\ ' -s'

. .1'\--~ '

I r

l"'~/ ,

.. ~!"::~: . y

J

. ~}

~

--- ij , .l -

l'"~ r

c... r~~\ ;-~ .

-

'

,

,'.\.....,-

,.

'\ ......

. \._ _

'-."i\.
~

'

'\(, ...._

~
f

_.---- -\- i ? r f ;' -- -- ' ....

----""

-

I

,...~.\. \'.)

'~~-

~
-'

,

r " " ..-- .1

\ --..

.

'

J ~ ~ I

- ">.,,} "

"''--;-- '"{ -

,\--'r ----~ -~ . ~ .

,

'

~ - '>., </
,.. ,'

~~-i

\ ~
\

.
>-
r /'

/

_._ - '
/

~

'

c.-~.-,\,._,:_,'-_1'n~.y-)

f.,
-

l 'r,_::-

-

'

,--. . . . ~ -, ..._
\

~
c ~
\

~ Y
f) -
y . '-,~ f -
z / _;-

~ ~' '> ' ~ v~ .-

_

1,:,;

t

1

"'

I '

' - Q '\,, "

CA) "\'
. \..

11.t. , i

..._ ( ('\ ,... /

It')\. - "' -

- ' 0

~-A- ~ <

. .

~,.

,

""'

.... ,.,

r r

-' ~

1 (

- -

,



<'-



'

).. . .- .

\,.,

_

/

~

I

~ '


-

< /

/
/

~~ \
'

/ ..... ~--

' /

n...".\.v :J,

~/ ~ )

Jt.i.. '. "--

~

-

'
;
--

'

- -- - -

,
\
--

'

1

.',!~ -.

-:.ee
.,
G'l

\

A\ ,-

!'

I '" I - ~ ~.{._

'

--- -

---

--

-..
'
"-T-

= ~--- --.- - ....

~ o- - - .... \. . . .

'

r ' -' "1.

I 1J

r -:_- _, r ,- ../ ~ 1.
...''\

. -

-

--

!',.,_

-

--

-

~i -

--- :-----... - - ?'

~ :
""l,-_._. L :.;-

Gr Y '.....

)'~ '_,'~--

-

o - - - ,,
~ -
-

. /
-

/

,

\'.::l.:.:./"..<..~.'..,0/~/- (")~-/~~7L'(\"','---,/~,~.r.--'?y;.,(.l;!.'~./.1_-"-r~",~"'

__,.

....
-

~- c;:, - -, ;- i ~. ,

_

:

CHATTAHt>OGt;~~ ~/ ~ .:-: (
i

~MBAYME.N1:-~~

'

-

' . .-- . . \- - ~ \ '. "~'! 1 r~

'

>-,_ , J - - " _

-. . ~ "

I

1

- -

- "9'-..~~ -

SOUTHE:AST
- -~ {-GEEMOBR~AGYIAMEN~'T-f;'\\

....

- - - - - - -.

"..

L \

\_-- - - - :.:- - - - -

- - 'J - - -

' --



\


~h I

\

--

1.,
\1

::- I --1 -

. .

r.'----,~~~--~=----...-::;;..~,-.f--""PEN

---
IN

-SU1=Aa~

i\F'--~-.....~--~r:':,~jf
; \
';

AACH \ )

1\<.,.j

figu.~~ ~~ St+u.atu.re~ on th~ ba~em~nt, QQ~itil Pl~in ~t Q@er~ia.

35 SIMPLE BOUGUER GRAVITY OF GEORGIA
by Leland Timothy Long
1972
85'' "
I 82" Areas of aeromagnetic coverage. Figure 4. Simple Bouguer gravity map of Georgia and outline of areas of aeromagnetic coverage.
-129-

~
1-'
LcQ
ti CD
l11

Ul()

CD::T ti Ill 1-'ti CDrr

Ul

Ul
~::r

I::lsl

0
~

p, 1::-s'

.O...LQ

P.::S

CD ti

0 s

v CD

~::s

()

ti ....

0 Ill
()(T

~c
Ul ti CD
0

1-tlC

Ul
rTCD

::TO. CD

1-tl
GlO
CD ti

0 ti'd LOti I-' CD Ill I

n cGl
01-'

llll-tl Ul 1-'

....!IlTl i:l:sl

()

."..U.. rtoi

lllrt
1-'117
::trno

0 c

to

()
0 s
:I:lsl
()
::T CD
:I:lsl

-OET-

LOWER CRETACEOUS? LOWER CRETACEOUS
COMANCHEAN

COAHUI LAN

COMANCHEAN

LOWER CRETACEOUS

LOWER CRETACEOUS

COMANCHEAN

JURASSIC?

LOWER CRETACEOUS

APPLIN AND APPLIN, 1944

PRESSLER, 1947

cG) SOUTHEASTERN

r
-"TT
zJ=lo

GEOL. Sot., 1949

~I
.a..!,

FORGOTSON, 1956

en

~I
en

MURRAY, 1961

0

J=lo

HERRICK AND

81 en

VORHIS, 1963

..J=lo

~I

APPLIN AND APPLIN, 1967

ez n

0 z

NEWKIRK,

1968

LOWER CRETACEOUS SERIES

UPPER JURASSIC
COTTON VALLEY GROUP?

COMANCHEAN? COAHUILAN?

CRAMER, 1974
GRAY, 1978
THIS REPORT

.r~
,.,..~ ~.,. ~...

----~,, ,......__.;..-' \

COMANCHEAN SERIES (AND OLDER?) STRUCTURE-CONTOUR MAP

1
~ ---~!

J'. /

l'.-

- ,.-.,. , . [ A

\

\

I .

OF THE TOP

\

-

;---~.,.,......J\

'

\, \ "\" \

;>.L~

.

'

'

,.

1,0

10

....

y

;' ').'

'*') ftiJ.OY Jete7.au

...\..-._.........
/

6 -J~'-

r
I

.../'>-'

1

N

elevation related to sea level lsi)

r- .. "( -~

~(

o rocks not present "' downthrown side of fault
numbers in feet
..I.... .w.....
I
t)
LOCATIQN MAP

" ',(// \"\.

\
----\ /\t:~-
X ' ~

'

\

, /' .-.{ ~

v'

-;::<:.._" "\. \ \ ' .&!- ...

'r:....,./'.. . ~

t



J

I'-..,.,

I ;

' "

I

.....

!

- -""-
'. , '

~ ~ ..
't- "
.

'-"~--~Y ';--.- -c~--~

.../J' "'

'

rl
l-

~

g ,


,tZ ..

--.J,.; r - '

~....,".'r\'-;0--~

0 ;



.
o

t' ::

-l

__I,._o .

:' ~ ~r ' .. - ,-.1 --- ':'" d
- , - - -'-' "jO

t. .

I 0

"0I.,- - - I' ,r.",;",..'..__ ,..0_.... ..

1I i

~--

- .l - _j' \
I

I
/'
"HJ'O

I

' - )I

Figure 6.

--..

......... ~

t

111



.o

ct

sp ....!

I , ' q l : ./
COM~~HEAN SE~I~S

<. ~~H olti~R- ?' )

r- --- -.1.... .~
_LI ,____( ~

:~-/y

~ 9
...

11 !O Y

!p

Y

7,! U

~-

-.. ~'-~-

,

.-.J
...,

J(

lilln

ISOPACH MAP

. ...-,
,.. .--..... .... ...

I



~- --

\

'

I

' . . ~

""', ,;."
, _. '~--T' ,

....
..

f-\~ ....J'...........

~

'I

l " ....., A

(
\ /" i
-- ~-v
J--"' I ,\ l ,.----

1
N

a

;~,, I

-

0 '



I
fw-'
N I

~ . ; ~. ;, ,, ;H:ri l ~~~!:'' ..: \,. :t; 1 :.:~
~ioo: !Jiii:ted to sea level (sl)
:: wl;ks.m~t>Ne$80t .: '"'', "' dOIN!Jlii(O!Nn ,$ide of fault
numbers in feet
t)
LOCATION UN

:

~ (_ .,

~

l ' t....

-----l \ ~L-- ; ...---- :...1 ...::,.:.i.?--~
~l - .oo
~ l, _ """
~ ~~ (. ,...,_ -
:~.d ~ ? / ) .- , .

~ - ....

-I1r-

r '

1 .

"' I

--

., ~-,-

- --,lr--~~

........,'.I
. ,
~-'.-~--\

' rom~ ~ - ---? ~--<oon I

\

I

'i

A

f''-'r.;...- - --..,- . ,

!1'\... ~
,._,.. I

_ _;~ --

r - -.Al~

I

1-.\1...~".
(

' \ l. \' 0 .',-~~,-\

..~ _.0,~>-,....... \.

~

,

\ ')

\

---1 -.., l ' v. t.:t7 _r,
. ")...,. J f--

- 1,_.._,_

\-~ ~I.

~ r
. \ .. II

\-~- - ,....._,...

, ,.
I,\

: . ..

~ ,./ -: \.-"\ "'ll<-.

-. ~

;......o;.,r

-

...,

'\.. ' ~ '.r\...

~

\. ~-- ......,.. 0
. I

'~()

./',_i._.,
f:i:\

.

-

-

0
---

;,-
-oyr' C......

~~

-~ ' --1-t __ __ "'~ r- -~--; ./ I

,. .

_. , .....

-,,

'

I

I"~ L . \ ', ;! I

'

I,



I' I

I' -.L_____

--L---Il -

''"J! L

.. __

.:f.~-

I
--L

-

r-
:.-l.,...

'

o
.

-

r o
r
,J-.g___
!

,~~....<tc._]f

- '' [- --\~. '-..[J 0 ~.~...,.

I I

10 0

' "I lLI --~ _~s-;r\.....-........... -

l- 1 ~l

/

:
I

..::\..L_ ..L- -J

~j;/1j;.,.

\, __ _)~

I ~
l.o-"VOMt ::t::AIIl&~ft'"p..<o. :;.o.~'-" I

: , !;; r.
Figure 7.

LzLJ
LLJ

TEXAS

(!)

STAGES

0

LLJ ...J
~

COSMOPOLITAN STAGES

OUTCROP , OUTCROP CHATTAHOOCHE NORTHEAST OF

VALLEY CHATTAHOOCHEE

STEPHENSON,

VALLEY

1942

SUBSURFACE APPLIN AND APPLIN, 1967

SUBSURFACE HERRICK AND VORHIS, 1963

THIS REPORT

MIDWAYAN

MIO~Y~~~ S~N~ . ~G~S .-.- .-r- .-.-

Navarro
I

Moostri cht ion

Ripley

~ r '\l,

c

Cusseta

,..I...
w w
I

0
I ~1

tmrr.rr
Companion

--~ Cl)
.!:! c:

tn

::J 0

I Austin

Cl.1

-()

~

0

(.!)

-...Cl.1

u

Bluff town

t D i l D I Santonian

Coniacian

Eutaw

f - - - - ' - - - - - - - -- ----+-,-- 1~ I -r' I -,.

-._Cl) Cl)
~
.,~ :c:s:
::s
0 CD 0
..EC.D.

Taylor beds

"g' :c;:

Austin beds

- --0

c
Cl)

0

~

.,

Cl)

~

II- -~

"'Cl)
'-
CI)
!/)

"g_'

c
::I

-c
-~ 3

E u t o w ( r e s t r. )

C)

u

Turonian

Cenomanian

L- a..Tuscaloosa

0 rn

c:
0

0 ~

.."!..:'

Tuscaloosa

~

Figure 8. Time-rock chart of the Gulfian Series, Coastal Plain of Georgia

GULFIAN SERIES STRUCTURE-CONTOUR MAP OF THE TOP
elevation related to sea lev~l (sl) =outcrop 1o downthrown ~ide of fault
numbers in feet
.w!..
ol:>.
I
~ . .
,....-/'\
~
IWtOIIW

_ ..c-

f

1

H

1'1

?

~~ a l h

K! f

I
"

, / <>

\
t_.l
Figure 9.

~
\ -.UTO

. ~

~

i

l

z

. i

I

I

i

--,
' E!
1

-135-

PERIOD .EPOCH

AGE

COSMOPOLITAN
STAGES

GULF COAST
STAGES

OUTCROP

THIS REPORT

Late

I

wf-1

"I '

I

~
c

~

tJt

cu
u

2
0

0
0

Q.

~

Eorly

l
I

I I



I

Thanetian

Sabinian

SABINIAN STAGE h- I -.- 1-r' I ..- 1-r r-r T"O ,--, r l r-. -

Danian
I

Midwayan

I

II

lJY

CRETACEOUS LATE

MAASTRICHTIAN

L-'-

Figure 11. Time-rock chart of the Midwayan Stage, Coastal Plain of Georgia.

I

~
w

'

-....]
I

MIDWAYAN STAGE
STRUCTURE-CONTOUR MAP
OF THE TOP
elevation related to sea level (sl) 0 outcrop o rocks not present "' downthrown side of fault
numbers in feet
2>
LOCATION MAP

r

I
I

)_ /"----4..

1~ ./

~

_,.-" ~

\

..,....... I

'!I

J,

JO

0

If lh o

t ~ y y

t
I
I
!
N

~
~-\
_,.'~ t

Figure 12.

0
~Y"""v-n Giao.;,u....,.._.._OOI..l.Mt

.; --~

---'"

:< -~
~J

' ~~

t

,,

y

J. y

t,p . , ....

} ! I# y .y .y ,, 1 r.! "

...,. . . . ...

MIDWAYAN STAGE

~y-~I \... '.."'"'\

o

~
- - J

/

'\ ~o "t

ISOPACH MAP

_.J1

Q ,'
I

0

"-..__,~

. .~ ~s.

'
o "\

\
,

r---y /

\ I

1

I
wt-'
(X)
I

thickness o Qutcrop
o rocks not pre"nt 10 downthrown side of fault
number' in feet
0
lOCATION MAP

~ ~ \J L ) .'T1

~ 1
/.- ,' J ,

\

( "" -- /

I

\

~ ~- ~--v -

~ 0

....
l--.....

(

~- ~, t /'v I"

\' ..-, / ' 0 ....""'\,

"' '?

o

- I I
I

' I

'-J-~,"-..,_ ,c"s..._......

/ r
J

'l

.......,.

o

,I\ \

.I'I")

N

t:,-~.,_~~! ~~.,,~ ,1"o-f ~\ - t . ;_,.- J

'",L

1
-

J

'

I 0

r

,

o . \

0

1.-,\ ____ I, . ' o,,

"~ L~_ _. . .,\ l lb ' 0- . . '
__ ~-L ' ""~ '

-

I1 0

Q
1'

I

/

\ - ,""

C

,.)''- '' I1

I I

./''

' \ ..... I ..'-~)..,f.,__.J~

I



r'

.,

I --<''"-\_

\
'<

-
\

, -.

, ,

, , I

~ _..._ ' (

'



'"'1

/

. ,'\/,

;"~ _..J j - 0

18 _ ...r,_

l":,_,_._"t'\ ...,
..s

.

'c:;,~

'
,,'

I
I

'I"':....

~ '


-

-,

'
)

;

"'t/

-~-~.--~~1r .;, ~', ,~~--.,. ~-:-~,.~4-'~' 0 ~ (' -~ ~ ~ '0 0
~ ~ 'uo{ -- -

11

0.

., .., \_
/17
''
'

c.'--i]'~~~ .

.J.,

,../',_ ..,_I

0 c A

"\ "

I

- ,_ -

\. - - )-

--.___,- - - <

' I

\ l -0-

I. c

'\

,...!

" "

t

\. :.~r-

,



A S <J

1

I
., I

.' ,

....J

I



-



-- ~-

- :" -. \

-- '\~-
o --

o- - - '

I

o 0

', ~

r -- -j

r -o ' I(, c o

an

:)
- .J -

0 - - .L - ..- - - - -

1

~.. or~-. ,

0 0\ I

0

1

~ - ' ..

,. 0 \ _

' ; 3 - - - ,'

-

""'
_:-:._._

.-.

L1I _

--

-

:::_

.L.- 1 -

-;-'I I

011'\_ r'

'



-

~



I \

0

..

' \. - .)I

-""' ''""' ~ ~ t'~: o.so.,.--.s;"lltjOCC.~fGI

Fig\n:e 13.

EPOCH

AGE

z j:!
...JC/l
ot...~
a.Cl
oc:t
:~:t C/)Cil
0
(J

GULF COAST STAGES

OUTCROP CHATTAHOOCHEE
VALLEY

OUTCROP EASTERN FALL LINE

SUBSURFACE ClASTfG FACIES

SUBSURFACE CARBONATE
FACIES

THIS REPORT

CLAIBOR- CLAIBORN IAN/ I

Nl AN

- r - """T""'"'T T l ,......,

Cl)

c:

Cl)
u

Early Ypresian

0

LU

f\
1\-,_~

STAGE - r r - r--1 ~ I """T'"""I ,....,... 1--r- I ......,..--, ""T"""I

I

w1--'
1.0

Sabinian

Wilcox

I

undifferentiated

Tuscahoma

Huber

f'.
I'-

Sabinian Stage (Wilcox)

Cl)

c:
Cl)

I Late IThanetion

0

0cv

1...-,Nanafalia --r- r-r IT 1.,....--, - ,- , --r or-

8?. MIDWAYAN

f'
'r-.
"'- I Cedar Keys I ~ r-r I .,.... I I " 1---r ..,.-, .,.- 1'"""""1

EARLY I DANIAN

~AYAN ~ - ~1,

MIDWAYAN_S_'I'~GE ~

-..

~ 1
STAGE

Figure 14. Time-rock chart of the Sabinian Stage, Coastal Plain of Georgia.

j
z

~ ~ Oq,~-

000-

-oo/J, ...

-~

i

.."

'
I

;;

~

I

...

- \
,

~,:~f..'1:7'I

r.

-' -~

- 140-

w
(.!J
<Ca...
1-<(
en~
z
<(X -U ~<(
a::la... e< C n~o

-0
-141-

......J.. Pl1l'.D.Itt$:N!T
::)''
.<..l... (NW~

<l
e>

..J

<l

~

o~

FAii..L

1-

LilliE

COASTAL:. PLMN:

D. loh Eorly and Mlddle Eoce:ne
seo:lwet ria . ond Claibornian tronagreaaion

OWSH.BR WJ (SEl.. C> 0 0::

...:
Ul

PRP,1!.,.':

0

SHOR!!L 1!111'~

u,

-----::--~~~~==========~1JL======~====~~====~~--~

c:: pre-4-o.t.-e Eorly Eocene

~

sea.Jev.J fall on.d eroalon

Bi. . - - eeriY Eor~Eoc&M< fowltrBQ:oftd,rqiaaol uptift amt/or: levet-foll

I ' 'I

--r--;-:.....:...: __:_:__

f I

1 1

1 I

1

1

I

A. LalrP......MIII~ CHidi E.an''' Eo....._,
s-.11.-~r allllkSamiu trerr.e.-nlnr

to eo fr.vf!l

P-l'l'fJG I~ A I) I N t;

~~E~ N~~;~l~ ' - CI.INOHJI'II'IItl

',

'

DIU!'0SITS

S.CHEM~An~ l111A'GffAM-,S;AB:lNI AN CllEPOSlTI Q:N
AnfT fEG,f.aNts:M:-GBlff&lA. cOASTAL PLAIN .

EPOCH

AGE

z
~
:1i-(/) oL&J
0..~
oj!
~(I) (I)
0 0

GULF ~ OUTCROP COAST HATTAHOOCHEE

STAGES

VALLEY

OUTCROP CENTRAL FALL LINE

OUTCROP SAVANNAH
VALLEY

I SUBSURFACE SUBSURFACE
SOUTHEASTERN SOUTHWESTERN COASTA L PLAIN COASTAL PLAIN

THIS REPORT

LATE

"ACKSON IAN STAGE

.,

I

~ 1 -.l..J.-.L)-..l '?

1

,_I . "w"'
I

c .!:!
..c
J!
0
ID

Q)

c: c

"1:1

cu

:2

.c..

c

~

cu

u

:0e
c

0 lU

--c
0

:ll

u

..J

Lisbon

"g CD
-0
-...0::::
CD
-Q)

....: '-
a0..

0::::

0

"g

>
~

~

McBean

Lisbon

Lisbon

0

Q)

"g
0:::: :I

'E.C.D.

00 0
iii

->...-
0
...

....C..l..)

0:::: 0

"C 0::::

...0::::

~

"'

0 .D

:::-

Ql 0::::

0

0
CD

'0

0

.c

X.

E

0
..J

0

Tollahatto

Tallohotta

Early

,c:
E

z
~

Q)
a.

z

>-

ID
crCn

SABINIAN STAGE

Figure 18. Time-rock chart of the Claibornian Stage, Coastal Plain of Georgia.

oooz-
-144-

ClAIBORNIAN STAGE ISOPACH MAP

I )
thickness :J outcrop ro downthrown side of fault
numbers in feet

..I....

"UI"1'

2>

LOCAT10N MAP

..... t

,.

1

H

Y Y

1
N

Figure 20.

I

$

I

,_ -~ I I ..

-VUioiV!_'t,. GfOotc;,AIQUT-ESTl-COI.LlGI

[

l

I

. ~eN 1 l~t

I

8tle8 H
I

<.:

~

':&1-: :,"7
~=

II
lirk.f cdls" OUTCROP

P4ATT,lHCHEE

II SINH

VALLfi

I OUTCROP

OUTCROP

FLINT R-IVER VJtt.LEY

jocwLAGStT ORFt\IR

S:uJ.-Ut.' s-su~FAci

!8 I

ftid~ ffl~

OLIGOCENE
~ ,.-,- I -.-1 -.--1 T"""""T" ,......,. I . . , -

SERIES

. :t.
0 d\ I

.,I
Gil

L8/l I~rtB:;Ia~ I ;J~il<JhY8~~

Q
~

lik,'ji~f "coop'eru
sonu

Ocolo

soRifersville
r rwiritoii-
ritlj9s
rlvoiil

ocala

.i 8t~~o'frl8R SiafJI

~ Ocala

MI!IBI:E l!!*rflll .8t.tl18l!llil4

CLAIBORNIA/4 STAiif

f~liH~ ~L rirlle-=f88~ bhaH: of tHe dddt8HiH1 stfige: c8asta1 i>ia!n of ~of9ia.~

I___,._ .....
\.!.-._ ,

--- --r , _,._~

,or-

\

~~
~ e

..

, , . . . . ... _ ....1!4- _

\. t

1

.J

" lo :y y

Ul

AID

sp 7.!

.1 1' I , , .. . .,.,.

JACKSONIAN STAGE STRUCTURE-CONTOUR MAP

-

OF THE TOP

,..,

1

'- ~

N

' i

I (

elevation related to sea level (sl)

o outcrop

,. downthrown side of fault

numbers in feet
I

...I...

~
-...I I

I

B LOr.AllON MAP

L
j

t ~ -~ ~ .: - -.1- ). , --r;: . I

rI ----/ -,7~ ~ - !' ~ / '1 -~.- ..; m - .._ _ _ ~

I

.J

I 5 i- <11~ :~ \"; - ~ p -~,~.. -;. =. ~~

:..\

____) . .... ) tt 8 .OS. ' "'S

'r'b

L

v~~

I .,.II?

.., I
"

\

l

\' _j

I I
\
,...,..~.,.,., ,. ,.. <lt('eGoAJOV"'-Iir. . . -=ou.~

Figure 22.

't

._!; ~

-

__ 4-.---.

, I

iI,,...

' . "

I
(', )
- ' .._ f '

I
N
~ I I - - -,

r ... i

I

I

I

' t'

-148-

z

1-

<(

(/)

~ ~-L_____jl_~ l_____~____________] 0 0

X 0

a:: 1a&...1

0a..
1&.1

AGE

..w

!: {/)
...J 1&.1
0 t!)
a.. <(
0 1-
~ {/) (/)
0 0
__

<( {/)
0 1&.1 0 (!)
LL ~
...J {/)
~ (!)

OUTCROP WESTERN

OUTCROP EASTERN

'SUBSU RFAC

THIS REPORT

zlLJ r-r-----.-

Chqttohoochee (Tompo)

, ....,.. 1 -

.... l ...,....r- ~ .,..., ....,..,....

NEOGENE SERIES

"'\,. . , r--1' .,.--, -'I I ~ I-,- a-

.--.~ . ,. ~

~ ~ -

I 1-'

Late Chattian

,'0
CD
:2

~

ol:>o 1.0
I

cG;J GJ 0' 0 GJ
ac..

uaca..
-0
D
0

Early

Rupelian

'0

.0

:::J
II)

Suwannee

Suwgnnee

.?:- 1----r- r- r l . - r-r- 1--.-- r-r r-r- r-r 0
--E...
0 c0 :

\
~
\
Oligocene
Series

lzU ~
@

LATE

I PR lA- JACK-
SONIAN SONI AN

Figure 24. Time-rock chart of the Oligocene Series, Coastal Plain of Georgia.

i z

-- - -!..j --i

,)-

I

/r--1 ..
" II?,>,

~ ~

< I ~

,.

.

/ I

iIII

U')
N

(II

1-.l

::l

..0..'.1

I~

~

I '
I

c

(
I

1

I

,.-

~ - ---i

,.._
.~ .J. , .;

I

;''I

t I

(

~.'l .

- --J

l - .... - ..,. "'

-150-

OLIGOCENE SERIES ISOPACH MAP

thickness

= outcrop

o rocks not present

<._

...I...

10 downthrown side of fault numbers in feet

::_ -.~ - l\

.U...1..

"

I \_

I

I

,I

2) -
lOCATION MAP

---
-' -

-- ... .,;
,' {
,-' \

....,. ~ -
"~ -

t

1 n

Ja

tJ

y Mil ..

~ ~ u ., y y y I J! t t r

1
N

-tJq

\

\

~
l

i:.

~

.

""

Figure 26.

COASTAL PLAIN

~ (NW)
..J
..J
.....J
lL

OCMULGEE RIIIER

GULF TROUGH

OFFSHORE

PRESENT SHOREL.INE

w
(58 ': g

>-:

"' JOIDS 0

I

u

----=..._~~==-----r==:c:::=~ll ~~~ j frc~:::=J====-=~--=r--~,r ,"r

F. Early Miocene

1 1

continued faulting, regional uplift, sea level fall, erosion

E. late Late Oligocene and Early Miocene sea level r1se and transgression

Lot~~? 0 . post-early

Olig: : =

~ 1

1

l 1

=

continued foul11ing, regional uplift, sea level fall, erosion

1 -= ~
C. early Late Oligocene sea level rise ~nd transgression

B. post-Middle- :ligocen:TI f

(~ ~-~-

faulting, regional uplift and/or sea level fall,i!rosi on

...
A. Early and Middl:e Oligocene sea level rise and transgression

Late Eoc en e erosi on surfa ce

SCHEMATIC DlAG'RAM-OLIGOCENE DEPOSITfON

AND TECTONISM

GEORGIA COASTAL PLA1N

Fi.9ure 27 . -152-

COSMOPOLITAN TERM I NO LOGY

ERA PERIOD EPOCH

STAGE

NEOGENE

zIIJ

IIJ

CHATTIAN

0

0

-(.)
0
N
0
z lu.LJ

C)

wzw

..J 0

<.!)

IIJ

0 w

Z
IIJ 0

J <I

0 IIJ

CL r--wz

RUPELI AN PRIABONIAN BARTONIAN
LUTETIAN YPRESIAN

IIJ 0

THANETIAN

0

IIJ

..J

DAN IAN

<(

IL

MAASTRICHTIAN

ZONES OF BLOW SELECTED PLANKTONIC (1969) AND VAN FORAMINIFERA ZONES COUVERING AND
BERGGREN (1974)

PRESENT SEA LEVEL

Globigerina amplioptrturo Cossigerinello chipolensis Pseudohosterigerina micro Globorotalia cerroazulensis s.l. Truncorotolcides rohr i
Globorotalia pentacamerata Globorofal ia arogonensis Globorotalia veloscoensis Globorotalia pseudomenardii
Globorotalia pseudobu lloides

I

CAMPANIAN

1-'

U1
w

I..L...l

SANTONIAN

I

<(

..J

CONIACIAN

en

-(.)
0

::> 0
w

N
0
(/)

(.)
.<,_I
w
0::

l.LJ

(.)

TURONIAN CENOMANIAN
ALBIAN

:E

APTIAN
~

lr <(

IIJ

NEOCOMIAN

JURASSIC

MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO

GULF COAST TERMINOLOGY

STAGE

EPOCH PERIOD ERA

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

NEOGENE

r--

2

ILl

NOT FORNALLY

0

0

SUBOIVIOEO

~

..J 0

JACKSONIAN

IzIJ

ILl

CLAIBORNIAN

0 0

wzw
(!)

-(.)
0
N

w0 z0

UJ

J

4

r--~ - CL

l.LJ
(J

SABINIAN

Ill

0

0

11.1

MIOWAYAI'i

..J
<

IL

NAVARRO

TAYLOR

...

AUSTIN

..J

::::>

C)

en

::>
0 w

-(.)
0

(.)
.<,_I
w

N
0
(/)

0::
(.)

w

IIJ

:E

X

0 z

<(

~

0 u

130.

JURASSIC

140

I

Figure 28. Chart showing relationship of Gulf Coast stages, cosmopolitan stages, planktonic foraminifer zones, and sea-level changes according to Vail and others {1977).

B

.,....-,_..,..------... F

,~41 \

.....

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

"------r\ l \ '

. ,..

I j

\ ~'5/

\

.,..__..._1_.\ .,_..1_r_-__

\.\I D I,

(

l ~''\ ....- ...........

r---c""__,./.\l .

A

i

.

\ ,L ~ '
r;.-- - -

~ '

A.r-..-,..A.)...~~~I-r'

y 110

2p

3p

4 0 sp Miler 1

I '

I

I

I

I

I

I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BOKilometers

A'

r ,.~

l-

-.~-

~"-
( '...__ 7,2

.!.
V1
~
I

~~ ~ ('

I i

;

r

l. ("-._ - - -".T - -},'"-r---

J

.

;

......

~I' ~~-r--'II

I

,. !

\

.:

l
' \

'~ l '!
l ,_ ' 1 - - .1"'-"LJ_ .i. . _

.\J..._ ,..,. .- - -.?'r::

\

I

l

i

"

r - - - ~ - -

s~

'

\

D'

( , i

.I -

.

..

-

.)'

Figure 29. Index map, cross sections A-F, Coastal Plain of Georgia.

,......... ............ ,., .,b A

....,~~,,

t;.of'

,,. '!>,\,.~.t._,.'!>_o.<.'.._,\..)\",4'!>'0q' '!>"

,.'!>

b'q

I I-' U1
If

LEGEND

Nu N1agn uncliH11r1nliatd

0 Oligocn Sriu

J Jackoonian Stag

Cl Claibornian Srog1

S Sabinian Slog

M. Mid .... ayan Stage

TKu TlrliDr'J-CriiDCIOuo undifllrenliotd

G Gulfion S1riu

Co Comanchean S.ris

I

....,.,.... , ~

-=----::1 l O M, f lo

uu
c.O"f>\~~('lo
' " Groundt:::~n
t'"''"8 ~
ol .. aloaoal
"

.........

..-~..-'1 -. ~~1
"\''o\''o'

'' , 0 '!>,s '!>oo ,1 .so s's ,q1o
..,&'(\ tt-oft. 0t..o.ft.,...~.o<'\t: '\t""\\(' ,q

,,b '!>, ...

'fl...,c\

ft.\Jc\ ft.u'

t;.(C\o

\.(C\o'i:.(too

,, ...
..~,(\
)~

,')....

A'
~qO _,~.... ~ooo_

.

I

0



'a Sota_ '}o L-1
~
'""'-'-

"'"'-

"''--.., '

'""'-

'""'-:-
,,.._ i
60001

Figure 30. (Refer to index map, Figure 29)

D'l N

a>
1-1
~
..Q...'l

. ~
...., ...

~
II

Q.
feU

""~::-.
....
~

><
.~.s.:.:

.s

~o~
<U
~ ~
IX:

-156....

c

.1b ,1..

- .nt

<

I ll

-oc ~

I I

I

.. '~-
\.

0 ... 1] ..,_e o11J~"fot.o,:~"ft..coo.~~o-.\)'"'1'-t

'"~

~b ,o\'"bq~ ""b ,~'~- ~,,. "q

11''''"'' .,_.\\~'o'co;",o~"oo''o' ""_"o(foo'"o!f"o

~,.
"to"oo

~,0:'f.~

'~-'c'

""ff.::" t r-;j!c

~
-

~ "' "' t.h=.!.:~T

i~ --- ~ -----...,-.::_p,!!...__---=-
.- I

-~ ....... J I rl1.., -'"II

I -- I
I ,, I

f:
,.,._,_

I

-: '.!!!__

-""

I

I

I

:-J~ li - I '

I

I

,J'""-

I

I

I <-l""l

--

lit

LEGEND

...I...
U1 -....! I

i

ll'

I I

If'......___!t,.

I ~

N~ ..,..,.,,., .,.,., ,11,,,.,. od

0 O IG!t St '' J Janac: a Sag Cl ('a II .,. Sag S S..c a~ Steg

,..{..~'1',.., ..e.....

111 ,.., a. ... .... Sg

Gro~nd 1.-o"".

]

..... ..... TK11 Tt" o 1 -Ctta(1.,~1 .~d'''''"'l iatd
G G.. : a S~r Co Co...,acaa" S.ron
~
~c ... ,

.......5..."'.'
.,

D
T~
-n.it:L
..!
_,
-I'-"" I
-'--
+-

~~ ,q.

- .. ~.. '

-

- ..

~ ~ ~o'!>1

.~ b0"

1

' '~>'~-~


0

~,'1.,1..,.......,.,

. ~ ~ q'\'~> ,o1
, . . .c.''. . .

qb

'" ,..... ....c'\00 c0\\ p..\ .

"' c



- . -. .. -..~ .'.--~..f---,-., --r - .. ~1,.,. ,..
I ,

;_,

I

...,, .. I., "

,... 16' ,b.. ,.,o o'

r IcO.I'\<''"U'cLS.'<''" "'"'o';,-,.o,, ooa.,

" ,..,_,. ._

.-;1 I __ , '' ,.. . r ------ '

~~1~-
....__

. ~0~,1~ ;_[~;;{ .!.fi~]~.R..--,., l !~ l0
~1~~f1, ]~~ ~:, 'in'~" 1!!!....~~--~,. III
-t l'I<\=;"1j""'"

I .:!]-
,'r

I

L. .;;!.;
lM

"'<-t1

I

I

III

~, ~I
:;

I I .
I!I ;,!..~I1y~ ;,i = =



f'"''\'-""'1,

'!

~+

_.:._-

~' I ~

Figure 32. (Refer to index map, Figure 29)

....

..
~

t-..

,o~r

-,

r

t 1 - 1

J

~

i

t

r- f ~ -- -j

0..>

~ ____1~
I ,,

I" J-~
---~-- -

I

~ '

,

~

I

I

~:

!-

i

i

-1sa-

-1
I

;u
.
~ ~
...
-159-

0'1 N

(!)

1-1

::::1

0\

.-l

.~
qo

M Q)

0..
1s0

1-1 ::::1 0\
.-l ~

X
(!)
"0 !:::
.-l

0 +I

1-1
(!)
~
&

REFERENCES CITED
Amato, R.V. and Bebout, J.W., 1978. Geolog.ical and operational summary, COST no. GE-l well, southeast Georgia Elmbaymemt area, South Atlantic OCS: U.S. Geol. Survey Open-Fil.e Report 78-668, 122 p.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and u.s.
Geological Survey, 1967. Basement map of North America between latitudes 24 and 60 north: Tulsa, scale 1 inch to 5 million inches.
Antoine, J.W., and Henry, V.J., Jr .. , 1965. Seismic refraction study of shallow part of continental shelf off Georgia cO'St: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists 13ull. v. 49, p. 601-609
Applegate, A.J., and Pontigo, F.A., Jr., and Rooke, J.H., 1978. Jurassic Smackover oil prospects in the Appalachicola Basin: Oil and Gas Jour., v. 76, no. 4, p. 80-84
Applin, E.R., 1955. A biofacies of Woodbine age in southeastern Gulf Coast region: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 264 I, p. 187-197
---------------------- , 1960. A tropical sea in Late Oligocene
t~me, in Geological Survey research: u.s . Geol. Survey
Prof. Paper 400B, p. B 207-B 209
-160-

Applin, E.R., and Applin, P.L., 1964. Logs of selected wells in the Coastal Plain of Georgia: Ga Geol. Survey Bull. 74, 229 p.
Applin, P.L., 1951. Preliminary report on buried preMesozoic rocks in Florida and adjacent states: U.S. Geol. Survey Circ. 91, 28 p.
Applin, P.L., and Applin, E.R., 1944. Regional subsurface stratigraphy and structure of Florida and southern Georgia: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 28, p. 1673-1753
---------------------- ' 1947. Regional subsurface stratigraphy, structure, and correlation of Middle and Early Upper Cretaceous rocks ... Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Oil and Gas Invs. Prelim. Chart 26, 3 sheets.
---------------------- , 1965. The Comanche Series and associated
rocks in the subsurface of central and south Florida:
u.s. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 447, 84 p.
----------------------, 1967. The Gulf Series in the subsurface
in northern Florida and southern Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 524 G, p. Gl-G35
Arden, D.D., Jr., 1974. A geophysical profile in the Suwannee Basin in northwestern Florida, in Symposium on the petroleum geology of the Georgia Coastal Plain: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull. 87, p. 111-122; reprinted in. Gulf Coast
-161-

Assoc. Geol. Soes. Trans., v. 24, p. 223-230, 1974
Ba.beock, c .v. , 19 66. Florida petrolcnliD explor.a-tion, produet.i"n and prospects: Fla., Geol, Survey Inf. Circ~ 49, llv p ..
__________, 1969. Geology of the Upper Creta-ceous clastic section, northern peninsular Florida: Fla. Geol. survey Inf. Circ. 60, 44 p.
Barnett, R.S., 1975. Basement structure of Florida and ite tectonic implications: Gulf Coast Assoc. G-eol. socs. Trans. v. 25, p. 122-142
Behrendt, J.C., and K1itgord, K.O., 1978. Origin of the East Coaat magnetic anomaly (abstract): EOS, v. 59, p. 390-391.
Ber~qren, W.A., 1965. Some problem~ of Paleocene-Lower Eocene planktonic foraminiferal correlation: Micropaleontoloqy, v. 11, p. 278-300
Berry, E.W., 1914a. The affinities and distributiOn of the Lower Eocene f.l()ra of outheastern North America: Am, Philo. Soc. Proe., v. 53, p. 129-250.
_ _ ____,..._ _ _ __ _ , 1914b. The Upper Cretaceous and Eocene
flora. of South Carolina and Georgia.: u.s. Geol.
Survey Prof. Paper 84, 200 p~
----=--___,.---' l917. The delta character of the Tuscaloosa Formation: Johns Hopkins Univ. Circ. new ser. l9l7, no. J, p. 18-24.
-162-

------------------------, 1919. Upper Cretaceous flora of the
eastern Gulf region of Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 112, 178 p.
Bolli, H. m., 1959. Planktonic foraminifera as index fossils in Trinidad, West Indies, and their value for worldwide stratigraphic correlations: Eclog. Geol. Helv., v. 52 p. 627-637
Bott, M. H. P., 1979. Subsidence mechanisms at passive continental margins, in Geological and geophysical investigations of continental margins: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. 29, p. 1-5
Buffler, R.T., and others, 1979. Geology of the offshore
Southeast Georgia Embayment, u.s. continental margin
based on multichannel seismic reflection profiles, in Geological and geophysical investigations of continental margins: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. 29, p.
Buie, B.F., 1978. The Huber Formation of eastern central Georgia, in Short contributions to the geology of Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull. 93, p. 1-10
Callahan, J.T., 1964. The yield of sedimentary aquifiers
of the Coastal Plain southeast river basins: u.s. Geol.
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1669-W, p. Wl-W56
Carver, R.E., 1966. Stratigraphy of the Jackson Group (Eocene) in central Georgia: Southeastern Geology, v. 7, p. 83-91
-163-

- - - - - - - - -- - ' 1972. Stratigraphy of the Jackson Group in eastern Georgia: Southeastern Geology, v. 14, p. 153-181
Charm, W.B., and Nesteroff, W.D., and Valdes, Sylvia, 1969. Detailed stratigraphic descripiton of the JOIDES cores on the continental margin off Florida: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 581 D, p. Dl-Dl3
Chen, C~S., 1965. The regional lithostratigraphic analysis of Paleocene and Eocene rocks of Florida: Fla. Geol. Survey Bull. 45, 105 p.
Chowns, T.M., 1976. Paleogeology of the pre-Cretaceous surface beneath the Georgia Coastal Plain (abstract) : Ga. Acad. Sci. Bull., v. 34 p. 82
------------' 1978. Pre Cretaceous geology beneath the Georgia Coastal Plain (abstract): Am .Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 62, p. 504
Cole, W.S., 1944. Stratigraphic and paleontologic studies of wells in Florida -- no. 3: Fla. Geol. Survey Bul. 26, 168 p.
Cooke, C.W., 1923. The correlation of the Vicksburg Group: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 133, p. 1-9
- - ---------' 1935. Notes on the Vicksburg Group: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull, v. 19, p. 1162-1172
-164-

----------------------, 1939. Boundary between the Oligocene
and Miocene: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 23, p. 1560-1561
----------------------- , 1943. Geology of the Coastal Plain of Georgia: u.s. Geol. Survey Bull. 941, 121 p.
Cooke, C.W., and Shearer, H.K., 1918. Deposits of Claiborne and Jakcson age in Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 120, p. 41-81
Cramer, H.R., 1969. Structural features of the Coastal Plain of Georgia: Southeastern Geology, v. 10, p. 111-123
----------------------- , 1974. Isopach and lithofacies analyses
of the Cretaceous and Cenozoic rocks of the Coastal Plain of Georgia, in Symposium on the petroleum geology of the Coastal Plain of Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull. 87, p. 21-43
Cramer, H.R., and Arden, D.D., Jr. 1978. Faults in Oligocene rocks of the Georgia Coastal Plain (abstract): Geol. Soc . . America Abs. with Progs., v. 10, p. 166
Cushman, J.A., 1951. Paleocene foraminifera of the Gulf Coastal region of the United States and adjacent areas: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 232, 75 p.
Cushman, J.A., and Herrick, S.M., 1945. The foraminifera of the type locality of the McBean Formation: Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. Contr., v. 21, p. 55-73
-165-

Eargle, D.H., 1955. Stratigraphy of the outcropping :Cret-aceous rocks of Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull 1014, 101 p.
-Emery, K.O., 1977. Structure and stratigraphy of divergent continental margins, Chapter B of Geology of -continen..al margins: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologi-sts Short Course Nates, p. Bl-B20
Forgotson, J.M., Jr., 1963. Depositional history and paleot-ectonic framework of the Comanchean Cretaceous Trinity S~ge, Gulf Coast area: Am. Assoc. Petroleum GeO.log.ists :-Bull., v. 4"7 I p. 69-103
Furlow, J. W., 19-69. Stratigraphy :and economic g:e.ol:mgy -.d:f the ea'Stern Chatham County phosphate deposit: Ga. Geol. -survey Bull. 82, 40 p.
Gary, Margaret, McAfee, Robert, Jr. , and Wolf, C. L. (editors) ,
I972. Glos saTy o geology: Washington, , D ~-c. Am. Geol.
rn:st., 801 p.
Gelbaum, Carol, 1978. The geology and ground water .cff -_the Gulf Trough, in Short contributions to the g-:ed:t.!!Jgy ..of Gl!orgia: :Ga.Geol. Survey .Bull. 93, p. 38--47
Gohn, "G.S., and others, 1977. Lithostratigraphy of the :deep corehole (ClubhouS:e Crossroads corehole 1) near Charleston, South CaroLina .in _ .tudies related to the .Cha:rl.es:ton, SOuth :carolina earthquake of l8S:G---a .preliminary r=eport: U ..:S. -G.eol. :survey :Prof. --Paper 10:28 , p. 59-=-69
-166-

1978a. Regional implications of Triassic or Jurassic age for basalt and sedimentary red beds in the South Carolina Coastal Plain: Science, v. 202, p. 887-890
1978b. Preliminary stratigraphic cross sections of Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments of the south~astern United States--Cretaceous sediments along the
pouth Carolina coastal margin: u.s. Geol. Survey Misc.
Field Invs. Map MF-1015-A. 2 sheets
______________________1978c. Preliminary stratigraphic cross sections of Atlantic Coastal Plain sediments of the southeastern United States--Cenozoic sediments along the South
Carolina coastal margin: u.s. Geol. Survey Mis. Field
Invs. Map 1015 B, 2 sheets
Gray, M.G., III, 1978. Pre-Gulfian rocks of the southeastern Georgia Coastal Plain: unpublished MS thesis, Emory Univ., Atlanta.
Gregg, D.O., and Zimmerman, E.A., 1974. Geologic and hydrologic control of chloride contamination in aquifers at Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2029-D, p. Dl-D44
Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, and American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1972 . Tectonic map of the Gulf Coast region, U.S.A.: Tulsa, Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, scale 1 inch to 1 million inches
-167-

I~liarma, J. c. 1 and 'F'ac:-ke!'tlller.gr, P'. ]37.~.. Seismic s-ignabres emf.
sedimentation mod.els:: ~Jfmcs;, v; .. lu' .. p. 4.5-5~8.

Warris, G. Jm. 1 ]_$~17-lL$99.. T1be: lli.iii.c;m:ii:tt:ilc Sit~:: h.IJLS.. .Ami~

:x .. a.. 1Paleo!l.llto:t<l7~-.. Vi.

JP>... ]L!j3J.-24~ .. V!~

0 ]._-JL78f:..

ff:aze:1 , Ji ..E:.. 1, I '6:\9"- . C!-t-~a.is; eaff.lLeCD.i1!!all.mms.il.s A~e~iim.d.er 1~29
--a ~ f.cnssll f~ ~b cadf. lla1t:eslt; Ce>l!Mlllnilnian ~! .:iLnt: t:h.E:- wes,tel!lllt :rrmitar:iionr a~m CQmll:!f CQeslt. r~i.~ of: -thee unnili:ttelli sttattes:. m; .. s: . <Gie.<O)l_.. ~ Plro~E . ~ Si50-IJ),.
:p._;. 1I1:i B5-m-. t $$

m :Eftu<l>]_~ I .:r. . .:.. I! cE1l.d'. olftherrs:l, JJ..Cj)7J7f.. BBiiidJJSitlta:tt:i.~

1tlliJe Glie.ql:.

:<aar~e (fct'l!lllllb~ Cl:'~ a:m~.e nc... l!.)) :m.eam:

~li.~,. Sila.1Drttl!l! C~;. :iim_ SfttmjBi!es ~ 1W tl!le

CC'.lll!ii!.:ltJl..~;, ~ ~ eert~ odE -]!Bj$(6)--:a

liD'.. S .. Qaell., ~- hcf~ ~ L028i

19&m.<ifittn c.:tw... .;nJr.. , amar11- ~" cr:.a.. , . a<i~- ~~ ame g~
w.a1terr ~ ~ 1teum ~,. ~= Fll.a... ~ . SUr-we.~ lBilllrJlJL.. 471, ].]'$ p .

s ..s .. IIIIBlllm!mi . S.Jm.. , Jr.. , am:ii .JTil!nl!JnmeBatrm,..

~ 1;

.. ,

ll.~..

~ ml.fuilte:llta.ULo~w,

sb:altii9U 4~,. amii slbr:wwlt:umuai!L setttt:li.mq <mli 1tltE ~llil:

JltctMrndt-iiaiiU\lw cr::ntosar &ltdme a11disftJtii..<i::tt~ ~ Ca>JtlD:'li.:Jira:- ~~

r ~.e!rlm: G.e:aJlmg,, w.. I p.. 5)]~3\ .

:ma-mr:ia:k, s..mt.. , liMill.. \l1e-Jl.l ~ <mif1tl!ne cr::~ E]a:a. o~
~:: @'a... <G"emll.- SiwttDII! lB!IJiiJI..]J 71~, 41E&i~ El'

1965. A subsurface study of Pleistocene deposits in coastal Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Inf. Circ. 31, 8 p.
1968. Buried karst of Tertiary limestone in the Coastal Plain of Georgia (abstract): Geol Soc. America Spec. Paper 115, p. 95-96
1972. Age and correlation of the Clinch-
field Sand in Georgia: u.s. Geol. Survey Bull. 1354-E
p. E 1 - E 17
Herrick, S.M., and others, 1968. An occurrence of Middle Oligocene rocks in Pulaski County, Georgia (abstract): Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper 115, p. 479
Herrick, S.M., and Tschudy, R.H., 1967. Microfossil evidence for correlation of Paleocene strata in Ballard County, Kentucky, with the lower part of the Porters Creek Clay,
in Geological Survey research: u.s. Geol. Survey Prof.
Paper 575 B, p. B40- B44
Herrick, S.M., and Vorhis, R.C., 1963. Subsurface geology of the Georgia Coastal Plain: Ga. Geol. Survey Inf. Circ. 25, 78 p.
Hersey, J.B., and other~, 1959. Geophysical investigation of the continental margin between Cape Henry, Virginia and Jacksonville, Florida: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 70, p. 437-466
-169-

Hester, N.C., 1968. The origin of the Cusseta Sand: Ph. TI>. the$is, Univ. Cincinnati, 219 p.
Hill, R. T. , 188 7. The topography and geology of the Cr.cxs.s Timbers and surrounding regions in northern Texas: Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser. v. 33, p. 291-303
Huddlestun, P.F., and Hetrick, J.H., 1978. Stratigraphy of the Tobacco Road Sand--a new formation, in Short contributions to the geology of Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey Bull. 93, p. 56-76
Huddlestun, P.F., and others, 1974. Tertiary stratigraphy of the central Georgia Coastal Plain--Field Trip no. 2, Geol. Soc. America Southeastern Sec.: Ga Geol. Survey Guidebook 12, p. 2-1--2-31
Hull, J~P.D., 1962. Cretaceous Suwannee Strait, Georgia and Florida: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 46, p. 118-121
Hull, J.P.D., and Teas, L.P., 1919. A preliminary report on th~ oil prospect near Scotland, Telfair County, Georgia: Atlanta, Ga. Geol. Survey, 19 p.
Jordan, Louise, 1954. A critical appraisal of oil possibilities in Florida: Oil and Gas Jour., v. 53, no. 28, p. 370-372, 375
Jordan, Louise (Chairman) and others, 1949. Mesozoic cross sections A to E: Tallahassee, Southeastern Geol. Soc. Mesozoic Committee, 4 sheets
-170-

Lachance, D., and Steinkraus, W., 1978. Depositional environments, in Geological and operational summary, COST no. GE-l well, Southeast Georgia Embayment area, South Atlantic OCS (R.V. Amato and J.W. Bebout editors): U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Rept. no. 78-668, p. 46-50
Lance, R.J., Fogle, G.H., and Long, L.T., 1977. Report on the earthquake of December 27, 1976 in southern Georgia: Earthquake Notes, v. 48, nos. 1-2, p. 51-56
Long, L.T., 1974, Bouguer gravity anomalies of Georgia, in Stafford, L.P., compiler, Symposium on the petroleum geology of the Georgia Coastal Plain: Georgia Geol. Survey Bull. 87, p. 141-166.
Long, L.T., Bridges, S.R., and Dorman, L.M., 1972, Simple Gouguer gravity map of Georgia: Atlanta, Georgia Geol. Survey, 8 x 11 inches
Lyell, Charles, 1845. Notes on the Cretaceous strata of New Jersey and other parts of the United States bordering the Atlantic: Geol. Soc. London Quart. Jour., v. 1; p. 55-60
MacNeill, F.S., 1944. Oligocene stratigraphy of the south- eastern United States: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 28, p. 1313-1345
1947. Geologic map of the Tertiary and
Quaternary formations of Georgia: u.s. Geol. Survey
Oil and Gas Invs. Prelim. Map 72, scale 1 inch to 8 miles
-171-

Maher, J. C., 1964, Logging drill cuttings ( 2d edition) Okla. Geol. Survey Guidebook 14, 48 p.
Marsalis, W.E., Jr., 1970. Petroleum exploration in Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Inf. Circ. 38, 52 p.
Marsalis, W.E., Jr., and Friddell, M.S., 1975. A guide to selected Upper Cretaceous and lower Tertiary outcrops in the lower Chattahoochee River valley of Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Guidebook 15, 79 p.
May, J ..P., 1977. The Chattahoochee Embayment: Southeastern Geology, v. 18, p. 149-156
McCa ll.i..:e , S W. , 19 08 . A pre 1 iminary report on the undergro.und waters of Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull. 15, 370 p ..
McCollum, M.J., and Counts, H.B., 1964. Relation of saltwater encroachment to the major aquifer zones, Savannah axea, Georgia and South Carolina: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1613 D, p. 1-26.
McKee, liE. D.. , and others, 19 59. Paleontectonic maps of the Trirus:sic System: U.S. GeoL Survey Mise. Geol. Invs .. Map I-300, 33 p.
Milton, Charles, and Hurst, V.J., 1965. Subsurface "basement" rocks of Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull. 76,56 p.
Mitchum, R.M., Vail, P.R., and Thompson, s., III, 1977. The
depositional sequence as a basic unit for stratigraphic analysis: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Gaolo.gists Mem. 26, p. 53-62
-172-

Murray, G.E., 1955. Midway Stage, Sabine Stage, and Wilcox Group: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 39, p. 671-696
1961. Geology of the Atlantic and Gulf coastal provinces of North America: New York, Harpers, 692 p.
Neathery, T.L., and Thomas, W.A., 1975. Pre-Mesozoic basement rocks of the Alabama Coastal Plain: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs. Trans., v. 25, p. 86-99
Newkirk, T.F., 1971. Possible future petroleum potential of Jurassic, western Gulf basin, in Future petroleum provinces of the United States ... : Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. 15, vol. 1, p. 1851-1862
Ogren, D.E., 1970. Ostracoda from the Paleocene Clayton Formation, central Georgia: Ga. Acad. Sci. Bull. v. 28, p. 149-152
Owen, Vaux, Jr. 1963. Geology and ground-water resources of Mitchell County, Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Inf. Circ. 24, 40 p.
Patterson, S.H., and Herrick, S.M., 1971. Chattahoochee anticline, Appalachicola Embayment, Gulf Trough and related structural features, southwestern Georgia Coastal Plain, fact or fiction? Ga. Geol. Survey Inf. Circ. 41, 16 p.
-173-

Peterson, R.A., Fillipone, W.R., and Coker, F.B., 19S5. The synthesis of seismograms from well log data. Geophysics v. 20, p. 516-538.
Pickering, S.M., Jr., 1970. Stratigraphy, paleontology, and economic geology of portions of Perry and Cochran Quadrangles, Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull. 81, 67 p.
Pickering, S.M., Jr., and others, 1976. Geologic map of Georgia: Atlanta, Ga. Geol. Survey, scale 1 inch to 500,000 inches.
Pilger, R.H., Jr., 1978. A closed Gulf of Mexico, preAtlantic Ocean plate reconstruction and early rift history of the Gulf and North Atlanti~: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Trans., v. 28, p. 385-393
Pressler, E.D., 1947. Geology and occurrence of oil in Florida: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 31, p. 1851-1862
Prettyman, T.M., and Cave, H.S., 1923. Petroleum and natural gas possibilities in Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull. 40, 167 p.
Prowell, D.C., and O'Connor, B.J., 1978. Belair fault zone, evidence of Tertiary fault displacement in eastern Georgia: Geology, v. 6, p. 681-684
-174-

Rainwater, E.H., 1960a. Paleocene of the Gulf Coastal Plain of the United States of America: Internatl. Geol. Cong. 21st, Rept. Sec. 5, p. 97-116 1960b. Stratigraphy and its role in the future exploration for oil and gas in the Gulf Coast: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs. Trans., v. 10, p. 33-75 1964. Transgressions and regressions in the Gulf Coast Tertiary: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs. Trans., v. 14, p. 217-230 1970. Regional stratigraphy and petroleum potential of the Gulf Coast Lower Cretaceous: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs. Trans., v. 20, p. 145-157.
Sarmiento. R., 1961. Geological factors influencing porosity e .stimates from velocity logs. Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 45, p. 633-644
Schlee, Joh~ 1977. Stratigraphy and Tertiary development of
the continental margin east of Florida: u.s. Geol.
Prof. Paper 581 F, p. Fl-F25
Scientific Software Corp., 1975. Well logging manual: u.s.
Dept. Commerce, Natl. Tech. Service, PB 247-641
-175-

Scrudato, R.J., and Bond, T.A., l972a Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary of east-central Georgia and west-central South Carolina: Southeastern Geology, v. 14, p. 233-239
Sengbush, R.L. , Lawrence, P. L. , and HcDonal, F. J. , 196.1. Interpretation of synthetic seismograms: Geophysics, v. 26, p. 138-157
Sever, C.W., and Herrick, S.M., 1967. Tertiary stratigraphy and geohydrology in southwestern Georgia: U.S. Geol. Su~vey Prof. Paper 575B, p. B50-B53
Sheriff, R.E., 1976. Inferring stra,tigraphy from: se.smic data. Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull. v. 60, p. 528-54-2
Shipley,, T.H., Buffler, R.T., and Watkins, J.S., 1978. Seismic s-tt~atigraphy and geologic history of Blake Plateau and adjacent western Atlantic c.ontinental margin: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull. v. 62 p. 792-812
Siple, G.E., 19'(1)7. Salt water encroachment of Tertiary limestones along coastal South Carolina, in Hydrology of fractured rocks, vol. 2: Internatl. Assoc. Sci. Hydrology Pub~ 94, p. 439-453
Sloss, L.L., 1963. Sequences in the cratonic interior of North America: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 74, p. ~n.-111
Steinkraus, W., 1978. Biostratigraphy:,. in Geolog.ical and: operational summary,, COST no. GE~li. well, Sou:th:eas:tt. Georgia Embayment area, South Kt1antic OCS
-176-

(R.V. Amato and J.W. Bebout, editors): u.s. Geol. Survey
Open-File Rept. 76-668, p. 29-41
Stephenson, L.W., and others, 1942. Correlation of the outcropping Cretaceous formations of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain and Trans-Pecos Texas: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 53, p. 435-4A8
Taylor, P.T., Zietz, I., and Dennis, L.S., 1968. Geologic implications of aeromagnetic data for the eastern continental margin of the United States: Geophysics, v. 33, p. 755-780
Toulmin, L.D., 1955. Cenozoic geology of southeastern Alabama, Florida, and Georgia: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 39, p. 20,-235.
1977. Stratigraphic distribution of Paleocene and Eocene fossils in the eastern Gulf Coast region: Ala. Geol. Survey Mon. 13, 2 vols.; 602 p. and atlas
Toulmin, L.D., and Lamoreaux, P.E., 1963. Strat~graphy along Chattahoochee River, connecting link between the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 47, p. 385-404
Tschudy, R.H., and Patterson, S.H., 1975. Palynological evidence for Late Cretaceous, Paleocene, and Early and Middle Eocene ages for strata in the kaolin belt, central
~177-

Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Jour. Research, v.3, - p.','i3=7;..445
Uchupi, E., and Emery, K.O., 1967. Structure of continental margin off Atlantic coast of United States: ..Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 51, p. 223-234
U.S. Geological Survey, 197 6. Preliminary summary of-_ the 1976-Atlantic Margin Coring Program of the u.-.s. Geol--pgd.eal Survey: u.s. Geol. Survey open file Rept. 76-844, 217 p.
u.s. Geological Survey, and American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1961. Tectonic map of the United=States: Washington, D.C., scale 1 inch ~ to. 2~500,000.inches
Vail, P.R., ~1itchum, R.M., and Thompson, S., 3d, 1977. ~ Global cycles of relative changes of sea level, part- 4 ' ~of . Seismic- stratigraphy and global changes of sea level: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. 26, p. 83..;...97
Vaughan, T.W., 1900. A Tertiary coral reef near Bainbridge, Georgia: Science, v. 12, p. 873..;,..875
1910. A contribution to the geologic history of the Floridian Plateau, in Papers from.the Tortugas Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Wash.ington, Vol. - 4: Carnegie Inst. Pub. 133, p. 99~185
Veatch, J.O., and .- Stephenson, L.W., 1911. Preliininary~report on the geology of the Coastal Plain of Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey .- Bull.. 26, 466.p.
Vernon, R-.o., 1951. Geology of Citrus and Levy Count,ies,
-178-.

Florida: Fla. Geol. Survey Bull. 33, 256 p.
Voorheis, M.R., 1970. Paleontological evidence for Pliocene age of "high-level gravels", Taylor County, Georgia (abstract): Geol. Soc. America Abs. with Programs, v. 2, p. 246-247
Weaver, C.E., and Beck, K.C., 1977. Miocene of .the S.E. United States, a model for chemical sedimentation in a peri-marine environment: Sed. Geology, v. 17, p. 1-234
White, WalterS., 1965. Bauxite deposits of the Warm Springs district, Meriwether County, Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1199-I p. Il - Il5
Winston, G.O., 1976a. Florida's Ocala uplift is not an uplift: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 60, p. 992-994
1976b. Subsurface geology of the Citrus, Levy, and west Marion County area, Florida, in Tertiary carbonates, Citrus, Levy, Marion Counties, west central Florida: Southeastern Geol. Soc. Guidebook 18, p. 36-48
Woollard, G.P., 1955. Preliminary report on seismic investigation in Tift and Atkinson Counties, Georgia: Ga. Mineral Newsletter, v. 8, p. 69-77
Woollard, G.P., Bonini, W.E., and Meyer, R.P., 1957. A siesmic refraction study of the sub-surface geology of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and continental shelf between
-179-

Virginia and Florida: Univ. Wisconsin, Dept. Geoloqy and Geophysics, 128 p. Z.app, A.D., 1965. Bauxite deposits of the Andersomril.l.e district, Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1199G~ p. GL - G37 Zietz., I., 19,70. Eastern continental margin of the United States: Part 1, a magnetic study, in The Sea.. John Wi'ldy and Sons, New York. v. 4, pt. 2, p. 293-310 Zoback, M.D., and others, 1978. Normal faulting and in situ s:t.ress in the South Carolina Coastal PLain near Charleston: Geology, v. 6, p. 147-152
-180-

Appendix 1. Sources of Information for this Report

Bac:tn len Hlll JerrJen Ubb Blackley Braatley
Jrya.n Sulloc.h. 3urke :lhoun
Candler
Charlto,

GGS

SO HI
...l6 L
'"'
lSU ISH 1716 1155 %164
58
lH 160 \132 U4:! U6l 1861 U7Z l0l7
1361 1115 U43 1160 Z039 ZD49 ZOIJ
ZlO~
Zl67
7 357
195 971 1038

Guy, llu:ley C1ty nrJ. J Pelunttt.J 41nd wll',.thdonl, Bradley lio. 1 Cuh . . 1 lapt l tt !lome no. 1
Jun Oil Co., Dottr Lalfaon ftO , 1 Cna\\)', Wlllacooc.;hee nu. 1 Bishop, Httnry Crosby 1'\D. 1 Blthop, Henry Cook no . 1 l!ishop, Chunce Royal no. Bl5hop, Elijah YJd::e:s no. Bhhop, Tho111as O~~ovi.s no. 1
Gray A.lu Clty no. 1
Layneo-Atlantlc, Plt:gefald Clty no . Cuh~. W. 4 . rope .n o . 1 Blthop, Joe Phillips no. 1 Bishop, Clarence Smith no . 1 Jtshop, Clayt on NJnshe~t no. J Bishop, J. R. To111b1Hlln no . 1 Slthoo, A. L. Wuver no. 1 Ga . 08pt, Natur.a 1 A:uourcu
Everett, Alapaha Clty no. l Nashvtlle Clty Bishop, J. till, "f~Cil1 no. 1 Jhhop. L. ~. S~arborouah no .. BlJhop, C. L. Cooper no. 1 llshop, R. L. Rlce no. 1 Bhhop, Howard Ray no . 1 Bhhop, D. H. N.tl1n no. 1 Blshop, Joe Lloyd no. 1
LaYnt"-,.\tlanr. L~, Cochun field no. LayneAtlanr.lc, Streltlun Copany no. 1
Layne,.\tLanr.lc, Co~hnn C\ty no. Trulu~k, Carl Fnnc:l1 no . 1 Trulu~lr.. Joe Cav~nauih no . 1

710
93ll 1192

Hubh 011 Co., W. F . Hwlh11n no. Nahunta Clr.y Southern, llobolr.en Cit1 no. 1

:S 11
~84
.at.9 s:J UO 8.1.6 5111 192 U j 89.& !19i" 899 1005 138:"
u.: so
\Ul l065
81
HZ
lSS !11
a5ui6
Ill
=zo
Ht l9Z
HZ
llO lll l!l
UH

tnter H~r:itotan, :-t. G. l.a~oson n.o. 1 (.ltt!eton, H. !L Carntt :'\0, 1 Hu,n.es, !. ~. llo'i'eu :~o . 1!
Crar. Qult;:nn ".:lty Carr, !t. L.. Hlru no . 1 C.1r:-, !ssle 'h:Kno~n 1\0. 1
C&rr, 'torvn Cltr :Jnc:!ervood, \tor:u.n, Star C~urc:h. no. l Underwood, Criln no. 1 Ur.derowood, ',f. IL Hunter :t.o. l Unde:-~ooc:!, !iuata: 110 . 1 Un.ier,.oQd., ~. V. Sicholl no. 1 Uncferwood, J. E. O::~oper no, 1 anclervood, J. ~. 'iyson no . 1 Un.4t!''WOod, S. C. :ooper no, 1

8a.sh.!or, CeorJia Park Service, Fort :ofc:A:littrr
Guy, Pu.broke Cit;' n.o. 1 Sapp , ll ic: l'u:lon.ci Hill ?ark Tur:t.er, D:-os Inn

StltnnJ, Sutuboro airport no. % t.etne-,.\ela.ntlc:, ~evL!s s~~ool no. Cr&)l', Brookl~ Clt'l LayneAt~.J.r.!ic, ?orul Clty TuTner, Willi :lift Sr.\ith no. l L.arnAthlltic, Staeuboro :!ty
Sene. U. s. Geol. .Survey 7os:: no.
Three Cr eeks 011. Co. no. 3 VLr11ini~ .:il.l;lply, ~i.:!ville Sch<Jol Vitt.l.fti& SuppLy, Gl.rt.rd. School

w. !!lo~o~l ~1nerals, J.

..-.~t no. l

Lavne.~:11i1Ml~, Arlinjton Clty no .

Lyne -A tl.lntlc, !ioran City no. l

t.a!"'ne.-Hlan.tlc, ::!d1son C.l.tv Ro. Z

Leary Clty

ISS
111UsZ1~
ll98 1199 3120 3Zll ll31
,,9
575 581
slinZ 6;,3o6
~l \71)~
sJ a6 965 \01)8
lOs.& 1154

C.alLCornla Cop.nJ', J, A. 8ule no. l St . Mary.! City Sapp, S.:t111 Lc~i.! no . 1
,\moc:o, Unton Camp no . !-L
Aoco, Union C'.1,.p no . Cl llu111ble Oil Co 1(, E. ltetly no. 1 HurRble OU Co., IJr,lon Ba11 C.ar.~p Paper no 98 Huble Oll Co., Union Bag Cup P.aper no. 95

Layl'llt'Ar.laRti~, Carl Dauih.try no. 1 Turner, Cearaia Farcstrv CoiiiJIIiU ion Turner, J. ,.\. Ourdt:~n no. l
Turner, Josh Ourdol\ no . 1 Turner, P. Rountr11e no. 1
Turner, Llnwood Rushfon no . 1
Turnr, W. 8. Sa!e111ot!t no . 1 Turner, Irwin Br.at\nen no. 1 Lyon,, M, L. . ;\lorrat no. 1

Grlly, Folkston Sc::hool no. 1

Penn:oil Co., 0. C. ~h:ell no. 1

Sapp, 11. S. r.c-.,1. ~urvev test hole

Che1,er hlo11n'-'



Sour.h~rn, U .;. C:l!ll\ n.J Hlldllh Srvl~:e

Spr, Stephen Fo'tte~ Suu Park no. 1

DE?!'H (feet)

!UJ .1091 UO
U\16
" 'l80
!00 350 310 010
U6
1n liO 310
no
215 l<O
uo no
!SO
zUu l
!85 115
sslzizzOuoo
109 lOS
611 H5 Z70
'512 100 109
100
no
liSO !O Z6S lOS !96
IuSoO ::usioo!
!ZO llD 100
65h 477
oo 511
&~S
eo
IL!
IsZo6
15!6
OlO 9H
lOl~
175
SZO! liZ
Ui
lt5 IS

(!) (1), (Z) (I)
m (1), ('l, (I) , (6) m(l)
(S) (S)

(Z)

(Z)
(Z)
(l) (S) (S) (l) (S) (S}

(3) (S)
Bl
(l)
(3) (S) (!) (3)

(Z) (Z)

(I)
mm. (J). (5). (6}

(3)

(Zl (Z) (I), (!}. (l}. (I}, (6)
m(!), (ll
(l}
0)
(!)
mm(3)
(S)

~~Coll'.lQ aAd CoWltl

(Z)

(1964)

{l)

(l)

fZl
cH
(!) . (3) (3) (3)
(Z) (!) (I) (Z)
(1), (I),(<), (I), (6) (Z} (Z) (!) (~)

4690 110 760 4S91) 4SIO 100 830 lOZO
57-:'
SlS 4!0
so
410 l89 4!1 035 530
6!0 4579
.aas
<s8a0 uo

(1),(4).(5), (6) (l) (S)
(t). (l) (I), {l) {1), {7)
(t). (1) (1}, (1)

{Z) {ll (J) (Z) {Z)
(S) {l)
{l) (3) (!)

{Z) (I), (J)
(l) {JJ (l)

{Sl. {6)

-181-

Appendix 1, page 2.

Chth u1

1 6l llS 3:7 380 381
396 106
m535
7l7 772
10!1 1067 ll9S

L :~ rne .\tlanclc , Tr b 11liond Sannn~h 011 a nd C: .u , Chn o kn lllll no . I l..ayne Ath~tlc, J ~ - Brrckendd;e no . 1 Cuy, Allertcan CyanlJ.d no. 1
Layne-Atlantic:, T . T. Dunn no. 1 Gray, U. S. Geol. SuTvey tnt La,-neAtlantlc:, AIDerlcen PetrOhWI Co . n.o . 1
Mln'l!'ral Developent Co . , Port Went'-ortl\ no. Cory, h h of H o p~t ~enton, ~ . P . L i n ~ key no . 1
~o!~~:~.\t~~n~~~~h~ . "$: ~ol. Survt'y test no .
L3yn e - Atlanti c, u ; S. Ceo l . Survey te.st no .
S.app, Bloc~ ( nJU.Itr l ws no. l
iJloCMlnadda City Gaoraia GoL Surver, Stat~ of Georal

C"nhoo~hee lH Layne-Atlantic, F.,rt !lann1na: no. L lU l.aynaAtlantl', Cussota Cl.ty

Clay

.6.401
"IS

Layne-Atlantic, 5pelaht School no. 1
l.aYne-Atlanttc, r:ort GaLne:.: City no. Z Layne-Atlantic, H. I. Hlglltow"r no. 1

Glln~h
Coth
Cdqultt

LH
1" 167 ll8 U1 '96
H
...U!
.. 6
".6'.
so a
!09 Ul! lOll 1041 l1Z1
...170
118 767
170 lOU llll Ll.41! 1416 1419 H5S 1617 1620 19111 l94J 1952 1975

Georaia Resources, Glllt,;an no.
Sun 011 CO., W. J , 1.-rlov no. 1 Hunt, Alice Musarove no. Z
tat"rott, Le111 Grif(h no. l Hunt, .\ll.c:e Musarove no . 1 Tlber Products Co., W. P. Ballard no.

Guy, Nicholl! Clty Carpenter, Nin:~ McLean no. 1
Carpenter, Su3h llarper no. l Carpenter, J. H. lnls:tlt no. l
Carpenter, D. D. ll)'rd no . A.
Carpenter. C. T. Thuraan no. 1
Cupenter, J. H. lnisht no . 1 Carpenter, C. T . Thun.. n no . Z A.o'ia, ~ ..bro3e City Vir~lnla Supply, Oou11u S~ate Park no. 1
DoufilU City Chevron, Ov~tda Fuual no. 1

,\da"'' D. G. Arrlnaton no. 1

Frnch, U. S. Govarnaent

Can, "4atthaws !lrothen Fa r no. 1

Carr, E..l Lewls no . 1

~it.,hell County Co . , W. W. Allaan no , 1

Carr, F. E. lilaore no . 1



ryJOft "\d IJ..a, 0 , C . C:au ny 110 . l

g:::: ', t yson and tlan , O:r trfln n, , 1

+~::: :j

~~ or~ ~lrt!~~ 1 n:~.

Tr un ;u u,J. O~U~ n , Q. C: .! t ~ h no . l i";r o" an d Du n . ! , J , Sllru na. I
~{ ! ~: P ~ n :, o::~nS l ~~ ~ ~ i ..'l ~:~~ l ng . I

lhhop , 0 . t:. D ~,..lnr M l
l hbOf1 0 r.'h:nn Pl)~~o~ ll flO , \ Srlt r '" lt!Upl-t Hcl.ure .no . ~

Olllubl.a
Cn<~~ll:

Z64
ZS 118 6U 966 LUJ

V\r1ini.a Supply. GTontown City
l.ayne-Athnr.lc, Lena~ C1ty no . 1 (;rahalll, D. F. Bruton no. l Guy,. Lenox City no . 1 Carr, U. 5. Geol. Survey test hoh Eventt, Cecll Clty no . 1

crt.hp 0.CJitUf

108 221 209
uos
.19 168 191

"lerrMcr.ee, Cecil P3te no. 1 TTuluck, totuvin ~teUnney no.
Truluck, Thorus Clernen~.s no. Jacobi, Geor1e ~tf;ICay no . 1

u. s . L~yneAthnt'lc,

War D~pt. no . l

Hunt, Metcalf no . l
Huah~s. H. w. Martin no . 1

Do4a

!ll Ul 240 1101
DP ll 1U 257 251 l06 619

l!dwerch, lioward Drost no, 1
Truluck, L:tn Janet no. 1
Tru\uc.lr., Shaldon Steel no. 1 At!anta Ga. '!I Llakt Co., II and L Fans no . 1

Mer lea 011 Co., a. P. Hlll no. 1

Layneo\tlantlc, Vlrtnna CHr no. Z

Truluck, G. A. t.awh no.. 1

Truluck , Carl Lupo no . 1

e. Trul.uck, D. J. FOJlds no. 1

Gorai~ Florld.a Co . ,

U. Wale on no. 1

Dauaherty brly

L1 Ill 218 Z61 Z90
os
Ul lll JZI 3S\ 43:' 411 UO 114S

Saaly, Reynolds Bra. Lubr Co. no . 1 Saaly, Reynolds Luaber Co. no. l La,ne-Ar.lanti.c, U, S. Harine Corps no . Layne Atlantic, U, S. Marlne Corp3 no. l.ayne-.Aelantl.c, U. S . Marine Corps no . L"yneAtlanfic, .Ubonr Clty no. 15
~ont Warun, A. t: . Chandler no . \ Mldle , ltoloto~oh !hte P:ark no . J. lteule!"', lhhly City CarL\.OJle, J.ankln !=i c h""'L no . 1 L>neAtl:~ntlc, i-r*-!r'!l Gin and Wrl!'hau,., no . 1 'iun Ot.l Co., R.. V . E\11!1 no. 1 Sun 011 Co., Will(luahby no. 1 Ander,on. Gre."\t ~orthern P.aper Co. no . 1

Bcho ls

ISO Hunt: 011 Co., Super lor Plnr. rro.Juct' no . lSI liunt Hl Co., ~uprlo-r Pi.ne flrotlucts no .
1~6 ttunt Oil Co . , Superior Pine i'roducts no . 169 Hunt .:'lil Co., ~ upe-rl.,r Plne Products no . U9 Hu~bh Oil Co., hflntr and Lonadal no ~

610 ZllO 600 6SO 310 1431 120 lOU 120 350 301 141 750 710 140 202
107
uos
500
us
U4
1107 lllS l!ll 4SU 4088 4ll2
600 1901 1441 U!l 1605 U30 Hit l!IO 1110 600 6SO
..4HZ
U09 160 ISS
soo
Z22
.6Z.Ss
l'O 810
u31o0
161 702 200
1zs0o01
uo
491 110 500 161 lOI
1015. 200 230 110
U7 61!2 1117
U! 100 110 U70
nu
IOJ 10 210 110 1141
!Oll
~]10
1021 1000 L031 971
1SZO
" 460' 110 1016 ll'S lllO 7510
oul l9L6 5861 4062
ua:

(Z) (l),(l) . (!),(61 ( Z) (I) (2) (ZJ (2) (2)
~g t2J
()) (l)
~cl~)l
(Z) (2)
(%) (2) (Z)
(I), (2) ,(1), (6)
CtJ, csJ. cJ, csJ, ce1
(1),(3),(1) (1). (l), (4). (!). (6)
m:m:m:~:l
(2) (1). (2). (5). (6) (I). (51. (61 (1){1) ,(6) (1). (!). (6)
Bl:l!l :lll:l!l
me. App.lln (10.60)
(l) (1)
(1) ,(21, (3). (4) ,(5). (6) f3) (l) (51 (l) (l) (JJ (l) (-l ) (l)
(lf
m(l) m(l)
(%)
(%) ( l) (l) (l) (l)
(1), (!). (6) (2) (2). (l) (l)
(2) (1). (2) '''.(I) ,(6) (1), (41 ,(S), (6)
(Z) (2) (2) (I)
m(l). (51, (6)
(2) (2) (1). (2 ). (!), (6)
(1),(Z), (I), (61 (1). (5) (2) (2) (Z) (Z)
(l),(!J,('J,(Sl.(6)
((Z2)) (2) (Z), (I) (1), (Z), (S), (6) (1), (I), (6) (L), (!)
{4). {5), (6) (4), {I), f6) (LJ, (41, (5), (6) (1),{4),(5),(6)
OJ, {ZJ ,(4-J. rsJ. (6J

-18'2-

Appendix 1, page 3.

arrlnchn
Glynn
Grady Houlton Irvin Jeff Oavh Jaf'hl"ton
Laurens L. .
Lowndes
Nar Ion Me: tntuh
Peach Plerce Pula'k1 lhndolph

...Ill
Ul
569
17Z 116 372 373 567 568
5 20 l62 376 <S2 7\9 7Z4 1197 3271
962
Sl 194 370
214
157 lUI
1ulol
Sll
ss
2Z7
)46
51 431
74 0%4
58
...~2
363 460
3351
67 lZ6:S llS6 llST
IS 112
HZ
100
]01)9
lllS llZO :S12Z
OP 39 229 400
129 409 476 505
14 196 lZZl JH9 JZSO 3271
:szu
109 564
190 319
s o
514 SIS 600
1lS
340
119 110 461
471 491 Jll7
ISl

BeJlnaCleld and hllLn, Kennedy no. 1 VLraln.i& Well and Supply, Swainsboro Clty no . 3 Vhalnla Well and Supply, Suuarton School no . 1
Vtralnl& Wall and Supply, l.euy School no . l
Turner, Theodore Johnson no. 1 Turner, 0 . 0 . Bro1111t no. 1

Layna .\t hn clc , He r cules Powdar Co. LaynA t t iU\ tlc , U, S. Navd alr ttatlon no. 1
Larue, lllo y Mllt UY no . l Larue, C. E. fl' _ Curry no . 1 Gray, J d.tll l..s hnd no. 2 Hubh OU (OC'I) ., He Donald .no. ST l
~~~b!:.~t~. ~oofi C~~!o~n~!~ ~::: ::~! no. ST-1
Hubla 0\1 Corp . , Union hi C2oap Paper nc1. 62.

U. S. Gaol. .Survey tnt wall

Layne -,uhntlc, Peny City Trlcon Nlnerah, H. B. Gilbert ao . 1
Layne AU ant lc, Warner Rob lnt City no.

tuvant, OcUla Clty no . 3
Layne-Atlantic, H.1u1hu'r'H Clty no. Chevron OU Co J . L. Slnclai.r no.

Scott, U. !5 . Ciaol. Suney test ell no. Z Heuabree, Enola bUy no . 1
Cray, w, P. S1111ith no. 1
Vt.ralnh We ll and Supply, Loui.twilh Clty
L. P . Mons, U. 5. Plsh and W1ldlLh Sarvlc:a no. l

Layne Atlanuc. L.a.lleland Clty no . l

Cal.aphor, Grace Mc:Catn no . 1 Layna Atl:anr:lc:, Dublln Ci ty

Chh" Stau Puk no . 1 Southeastern, Di.JI:h Plnes no. 1

V1ralnla Hac:hlna Cn . , Ca111p Sr:ewan no . 1 Layne Atlant i c:. Cap Stewart Larue, Jalks Rosen ,o, 1 Gray, C'l~ap Steart Baily , Geor&ta State Foreury Dept . no. 1 Hu111hle Oil CoTp., Un10n hi Caap Papu no . U

Gray, Ludoh:l Clty no. 1

llun~b le Ot l Corp . Union Ba li Camp Paper no. 60

e. Mur~~bh OiL Corp . , .t .

Parker no . 1

Hubh Oll Corp. Union hJ Cup Paper no. %9

U. S . Aray , Hoody Pield no . Z
WinteT , Mood y Ftet&J no. l Duval, ShToar Plant Far no . 1
Gray , Valdona City no. l Hunr: OU Co . .Jack Cole no . 1 Nunc OU Co . , C. P . Shal ton no . 1A
Hunt Qll Co . , l.angdah ftO , 1 Hunt Oil Co., !. N. Murra)' no. 1

Merica Oil Co . , For hand no . 1 l..a)'fteAtlanc:lc, Manhallvl lle City no . l LayneAthntlc:, r.4onte%UIII CLty no . l

Southeastern , H . 8 . Welh no . 1 Southeastern, !. H . ~urray no. 1 Lee, Senator Bur!Jlft no. 1 Lee, F. N. WlnkhT nu. 1
Nelklrk, U. S . ltol. Surver no . 4 Sapp, Cho.rJe, Fount.il~n no. 1 Huble OU Co.rp., Unlon h1 Cap Pap.r 110. 56 HUiable 011 r orp., Union Ba!J Couap Paper no . S:S Hu11bLe Oil Cof"p , , Union h" C.ap Pa per no . 49 Hu11hh OU Corp., Union hg Cu.p Papar no. 5-t
Hu111b le Oi 1 Corp, Lin ion Ba Ca1111p PapcT no. 4 5

St~nollnd, Pullen no . 1 Layno Athntil.:, Ca111ilh CLty no . 4

Wa:athorford , Lonn i e Wllku no. 1
Oixla , Hu ah Peterson no . 1 Cray , Mount. Vernon Sc:hool no. 1 Scott , Uvalda School no. 1 Scott , Alley 'ichool no . l
Gray , c . H. G!1H no . 1

Gray, lll. M. Mc:Rae no. 1

LyneAtlantlc: , Port 'l"alhy Colltae no . l

Hinton, ,l.damsMc: Cask.i.ll no . 1 Hinton, Donald Clark no. 1
La y ne Atlantic, J. C. Bc:hols no . 1

e. A.ln51IIOTth,

H. Ttipp no , l

Le lghton, Da na no. 1

Atl.::una G.n Lr~M Co . , tir l ffith no . 1

l.ayne o\tlantlc, Cut hbert Clty

liD
}60 400
1855
Inlol
270 350 lSO
1060 694 4614 2010 700 <757 464Z 4435 1560
961
U60 1691 400
630
uo
&OU
549 750 410 570
509
no
U41 735
100 690
410 610
4254
554 1410
548 1365 795 775
us
HI 500 400 5090 4916 SOSl 5004
ll40 646 504
SZ2 310 \110 4010
711 710 UOI 1474 US5 149Z 13110
7U7 341
JUJ
s1o4o0
547 512 641
441
491
437$ HSS 668
%4~7
6035 6184
]51

H! l2)
1)

m(I) ,(5)
(Zl (2) (l)

(!)

(2)



!I) ,(2), (S), (6) I) , (2), (I), (6) 2)
m:m:t:J

(1)

(I) , (7)

SawtT and Herrlcll (1167)
(2) (1), (l) , (I), (I)
(2)

(!)

(2) (I)

m(2)
(2)

(Z)

(2)

(1). (5) (Z)
(2) (ZJ
(2) (2) (11 ,(2), (I), (6) (2) (2) (1). (7)

m.(7) (1). (7) (I) ,(7)
(Z)
m\4)
m(2)
(1) (1)
(1) ,(5). (6) (ZJ (2)
(2) (2) (1) ,(2), (S), (6) (I)
(2) (2) (1) , (7) (1) . (7) (I) !7) (I), (7) (1). (7)
(1). (l), (4), (S), (6) (2)
(I) ,(S) (Z) (2)
m(2)
(2)
(2)
(1) . (2) ,(1). (6) (I) , (l), (SJ. (6) (2)
(1)- (2). (5). (6) (1) . (5). (6) (1)
(2)

-183-

Appendix 1, page 4.

Schley
reUalr 'f8rnll
Treuthn turner l\.111&' 'lnhlnaton
rn
~N'or-:h

lJD Vlralnla Mach1ne Co., Goq,ta TralRlR& School no.
309 VlTalnla Supply Co., Hotel Bon Aire no. 1 371 Vlralnh Supply Co., Sllver Crest Schvol no. l

1!00 (l)

...

(!)

!61

(Z)

li4 L.1yneAtlantlc, Ellavilh Clty no. z 312 Southeastern, T, Chi1J~r3 no. 1

...

(!)

Z6l

(Z)

21)5 HJ S71 590 855
11!17 104 65" JIJOl

Stevens and Southern, Sylvania Clt)" no. I LD:'I'ItAtlantlc, Svlvanl;a City no. 1 Turnar, Oak Grove Churc;h no. 1 Turrnr, Node PJ.sntation PryoT, Hden KcCain na. 1
Nont Warren, W, !. Harlow no. 1 Mont Warnn, Cindy Bell no. 1 Hwt.ble OLl Corp., Suly no . 1 Dunhp, Sounder.~ no. 1

<90

(Z)

116

(!)

!07

(!)

370

(Z)

l677 (I). (6)

m :m 3511
lllO

:lll :~:l .(6)

noo (1) , (6)

7Q9S (1)

716 Hdn&l anJ !panel, W, C. lra.Jhy ftO. \

1916 (I) ,(5)

s. 137 Scott, U.

Ccol. Survey test ~o~ell no. 6

450

U7 LayneAc.lantlc, A111erlcus Clty

U6

ZIO La)'ReAthntlc, Southwen Ceorai11 EperL~ent Su. no . 1 144

Z9l Layn At lutlc;, Ph ln'l Clty

ZIU

296 Southt~utern, SUh Moat"e no. 1

154

lU3 Jone3, C. B. Pe teher no, 1

UO

ll3 LayneAtlantle, Aerieus Clty

!U4

HZ LayneAtlanttc, ~ndeuanvllle City no. 1

Zl6

t42 FlinnAll'>tin., Walter Stevens no. 1
ns HUt, Stth Moore no. u

l4l0
aao

(Z) (Z) (Z)
(I) (Z) (2) (Z) (Z) (1), (2), (S), (6) (1) , (S), (6)

liJO Yhalnla Machine Co., Tattnall State Prison no. Sll Turner, Troy Janie! no. 1
li"S huon and ..oh, Henry Spurlin no. 1 507 Gray, McRae City
Zll LayneAtlantlc, 03-,UIOII Clty no. 3 lSO Layne~Atlantlc, Cir.H'~" S<:hoo1 no. o6 L~yne-Atlantic, Bron,..ood City no. SOl Gray, Co<:ke Flsh Hatc:huy no. 1

IZO 6H
ooa
51S
lOll 333 Sl SU7

(2) (2)
(I) ,(2), (5), (6) (2)
m
(2) (Z)

19
132 <695 1156
9Z4 lll4 JlU

Steven South.,n. U. S. Ar11y ahEleld no.
LayneAtlantlc:, Tborusvllle Clty na. S Larne.\thntlc, Waurtr htroleu Co. no. 1 CarT, Ja11es Groover no, l Carr. 11. H. Pilc:l'ter no. t Durha, I. B. W, Sedawlck no. lA Cn, Netas Clty

300 lOlS 905 SlO 530 667Z UO

(Z) (Z) (Z) Gelbua (19":81 Gelb.au (1971) (l) GeJ.bau. (U71)

U t.ayne-AUantlc, An~uur and Co. no. 1 l!H St..,eu Southnn, TUt City

SOl

(Z)

su (Z)

95 Tropac: Oil Co., Glb,on no. t 1, Tropic OU Co. II, ~: llrovn no. 1

]IUO 1185

Hl:Hl:lH:!:l

117 Rou .nd Ray, Jae~ Fowler no. 1 7-JO hrnwell, Jut' Gillis no. 1 189 Mc<Caln and N.i.c:holscn. Juu ClllLJ no.

HIS (1) ,(2), (S), (6)

3240 lUO

Hl:m:~:l

11 'wtntar, J. 'If. Hallan no. 1 164 4lrattea, W, I. Hobbv no . 1
SS7 Crar, Manhattan Shirt Co . no. 1

HO (2)

JZO

(Z)

170

(Z)

160 Layne-Atlantic, J. M. lluber
US Layne-Atlantic, Geora:h ltaolin Co. 41& t.ayneAtlantic, t':eor1h. ltaolln no. Zl

l<Z

(Z)

372 (2)

433

(2)

36 LavneAtlant'ic:, Wayc;rou airport 527 Gray, Coca Cola no. L Sl8 Turner, resboro Sc:hool

6Zl

(l)

708

(Z)

598

(2)

94 15Z Ul
SZ 96 Z6l H-4 .&66 555 3U5 )146 3101
41& 559

LaynAtlantlc;, Sandll:-svltle Clty nrJ. 5 LayneAtl.ntlc, Ceorall Fore:1t 5enll;a Middl Georai.a Oil Co., l..~oUlanl no. 1
Calltornia Co., !Jruuwiclr: hnlnsuhr Corp. Hu~thes, Southern Pln Pr'lductlon Co. no. 1 Layne-Atlantic., Rayonier no. 1 Cray, lhlu~t~ CLty layn~Atlantic, Linl.l..ey Cnce no. 1 lalhy. Juup Clty Davi~, ScottMud Paper Co. no. lCA Hunt, ScottM~tad Paper Co. no. 18 Dav1~ and Quasar, C. D. lloplclns 1\0, Z
SGutl'fattetn, WlnkleJ' Far no. 1 Southuun, Web:~ter County 5~hool no. 1

171 (2)

526 (2)

lOS
..,,4626
..,710
700 4500

(ZJ
(1), (!) .('J, (S), (6)
(2) (Z) (1)
m(1)

U9\ (1)

4009 (I)

m no
230

92 :U&
' ll7 l08U

Cha~, H. G. S~aptu no. 1 Natural Resources Corp., J&t.UI' J\tln n~:~ . l
Dh:te, P.ett JO'!Ce no. 1 Southern Natural Co:1 Co . Ronnie Towns no. 1

288 4002
610
4075

(2) (I),(Z),(5),(6)
(2) (I)

68 :"0 112
:;J
ol:"l :UH

Graha11, A. C:. Shell ftCI, 1 ~!"alum, H. .\. Oo:-~ev no. 1 Yau, A. C. She1! :t.o. !

~~~~f~~~F~~~:t; 2~:: ~!!!f~e s~!~!ot0a~:

Piusvn, Red Roc:ic 5.:hoo1 :-~o. 1 Petroleu;a Dev-e1 , ~~'"P O:ecil ley no. OCU:'I l'r:JJ. Co ' ';~u~ la :: !t!Ut 11''!-l'lt ""

1 r.:~''H I

ISO 1i.l 197
llO
JZO
liS 5169
I Jl ~

m(!)
(2)
(Z) (l)
(2) (1), Glba~\0 fl'J':',)

J.C.I O.E.S. no. 1 U.S. Gtol. Survey, 'A~!anr;ic: :.l~r'lin Core ~IJO!

910 1000

ChaT and. othrs (196111
lJ. :S . Ce-o1 .S"rvey (19>.)

~1;, :~i' ~p..,r:; (2), ,.,nnc::k ~1901;: (J) Jo!rri.:k, Uf\::'ubi.~sh.aJ, on f11e ''~~\'1:!'1. GedriL" ;eol(li1~
:iut~ev, .\:li:"'t1; (J), .l.ppll:'l u ..! \ppt:.n :~lool); (i~, A;ljll~:"' ant! o'-j)ptl.n (1?6'"}; (6) ~.~rsall 1 (11'0); (:''1 Huzble 'Jll C:Orj). cor;nl ;tr"i"~ (l'JSIUS~; ,JU.plt .ud :ta..::ods on flh vi.t!\ Utoriil Ceo1'lalc. SU:'\'~'!, .l.tl&M.l; :JP, i:il:l'li f!e:-1.lt !\Ulb4r

-184-