[baynut]

Renfield, my copy of the map you suggested purchasing has arrived:

"James P. Owens' "Geologic Map of the Cape Fear Region, 1 degree x 2 degree quadrangle, and Northern Half of the Georgetown 1 degree x 2 degree quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina"

It didn't take long to locate a Carolina bay on the "Wando Formation," which you have said do not exist.

Here it is outside Southport, North Carolina:
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=33.931379~-78.035223&style=h&lvl=15&scene=3396068

Cursory review also suggests that arrangement of bays according to their location on terraces, your "stairstep" analogy in Post #119, is not apparent.

"The largest Bays, generally, are geographically nearest the toe of the landward scarp, and average bay size decreases seaward on the terrace...."

This stands to reason because, if it such an observation were valid, such an arrangement would have been apparent to any of the many students of bays through the years and been part of the literature.

I will continue to study the map -- but the statement regarding no bays on Wando is dead wrong unless my eyes deceive me.

[ForGod'sSake]

I will continue to study the map -- but the statement regarding no bays on Wando is dead wrong unless my eyes deceive me.

Well, it looks like one, maybe two bays in that particular frame. I have spent a couple of hours trying to find information on this Wando formation without much luck. Lot's of references to this formation without much in the way of something the layman could use......like how big it is; how far inland, etc. Would appreciate some help with that.

HERE is another frame just up the coast near the Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal that shows several more "bays". Whether or not they are in the "Wando" is a mystery to me.

Something else strikes me and that is, the bays further southwest, and just west of what appears to be the Founders Club at St James(golf club???), while not parallel with the southern coastline, are far from perpindicular to the coast. That in itself doesn't necessarily negate Renfields arguments, since I can't tell the "lay of the land" from the satellite pics. BUT, they have the same orientation as the rest of the bays.

Thanks for following up on this. I hand intended to get back to this "project" but other things always seem to pop up.

[Renfield]

You won't see this arrangement on a map of that scale. You need 7 1/2 minute topo quadrangles, and aerial photos at a scale of 1:24,000.

[Renfield]

By the way, that map you have is generalized. It's not sufficiently accurate at the scale of the photo you show, to know which geologic formation is present. I work with those maps every day, and while in the field, find small areas of various formations not shown on the maps, every time I go out.

I worked on the ground on that formation for years in South Carolina, and I can't remember any bays on it in the counties where I worked. Based on my own experience, I'd suspect that the area you show is probably a small remnant of an older formation. Determinations like that are best made in the field.