Stratigraphic Correlation of Late Pleistocene Sediments of A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EXAMINATION OF AN ABANDONED UNDERGROUND LAKE IN THE SCOTT HOLLOW DRAINAGE BASIN, SOUTHEAST WEST VIRGINIA A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science James Nii Kamuah Addo May, 2009 EXAMINATION OF AN ABANDONED UNDERGROUND LAKE IN THE SCOTT HOLLOW DRAINAGE BASIN, SOUTHEAST WEST VIRGINIA James Nii Kamuah Addo Thesis Approved: Accepted: ____________________________ ____________________________ Advisor Dean of the College Dr. Ira D. Sasowsky Dr. Chand Midha ____________________________ ____________________________ Faculty Reader Dean of the Graduate School Dr. LaVerne M. Friberg Dr. George R. Newkome ____________________________ ___________________________ Faculty Reader Date Dr. John A. Peck ____________________________ Department Chair Dr. John P. Szabo ii ABSTRACT The research studied a subterranean sediment deposit in an abandoned underground passage and soils from a sinkhole within the Scott Hollow drainage basin, Monroe County, southeast West Virginia. The purpose was to decipher how the abandoned underground lake formed, and the origin of the deposited sediment. Two excavations were made in the sinkhole overlying the eastern portion of the cave and a total of 11 samples were collected there for study. 174 meters of total cave passage was mapped to delineate the morphology of the cave and to calculate passage volume as well as the volume initially covered by sediment and the current volume of sediment in place. Five different profiles were subsequently made from four sediment terraces in the cave, and 32 sediment layers were sampled. Grain size and environmental magnetic analyses (magnetic susceptibility, frequency dependence, anhysteretic remnant magnetization, isothermal remnant magnetization) were conducted on all collected samples. A composite stratigraphic column of the subterranean sediments was also constructed in an attempt to establish the depositional sequence. The results indicated that the overlying soil types form part of the Teas-Calvin- Litz and Frederick-Duffield-Dunmore soil associations. The cave survey showed that lake was formed as a result of partial conduit blockage by damming of the stream from the release of breakdown blocks when the ceiling of the cave collapsed. 517 m3 of fluvial iii sediment was then deposited, of which 64% (331 m3) has since been eroded, leaving a present volume of 36% (i.e., 187 m3). There is currently 1398 m3 of open passage volume. The deposition was from two major hydrologic – depositional cut and fill phases resulting to the four sediment terraces (two lower terraces and two upper terraces). The lower terraces are younger than the upper terraces, as evidenced by the lower sediments lapping onto the upper terrace. Channel and wall irregularities and the breaching of the dam resulted in irregular deposition and erosion of the sediment. The environmental magnetic studies showed high magnetic mineral concentrations, abundant superparamagnetic grain fractions, and both low and high magnetic coercivity minerals. Correlation of the magnetic mineralogy, however, showed the subterranean sediment to be composed of high coercivity minerals (goethite) and the soils composed of low coercivity minerals such as magnetite. Although correlation of soils and cave sediment was not possible based on magnetic mineralogy, there existed a general correlation between the layers of sediment found within the stratigraphic column constructed from the cave sediment. The morphology of the cave and the sediment present substantiate the fact that sediments were deposited due to partial conduit blockage from the damming of the stream. The grain size analyses indicate that studied samples are mainly of clay, silt, sand, pebbles and some cobble size fractions. Gravel mineralogy is shale and chert. Shales in the sediment and the cave wall are both fine grained and smooth in texture, with light – dark gray to greenish gray coloration. This is different from shales found in the soils which have light-gray color (by visual inspection). Based on these findings, it can therefore be argued that gravels found in the cave sediment did not originate solely from iv outside the cave. The color of the samples was determined in-situ. This may have led to apparent differences in color due to variable moisture conditions. Therefore the hypothesis that the cave sediments were derived from a sinkhole overlying the eastern environs of the cave could not be substantiated because of the imprecise correlation established between the cave sediment and the sinkhole soils. The cave sediments are likely autochthonous at least in part. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank Dr. Ira D. Sasowsky for all of his guidance and suggestions throughout the project. Next, I would like to thank my committee members Dr. L. Friberg and Dr. John Peck for their help on all of the additional edits. Next I would like to thank Thomas Quick and Dr. John P. Szabo for the support they gave me in analyzing my samples in the laboratory. Although Thomas Quick and Dr. John Szabo were actually not part of the conglomerate of advisors I had, their contributions toward the achievement of the research goals were overwhelming. I would also like to say thank you to Elaine Butcher for all the support she rendered. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Mrs. Emma Addo, my family back home and all my friends for the kindest support and encouragement they gave me during these hard times. God bless you all. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF PLATES ........................................................................................................... xix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of Study ....................................................................................1 1.2 Sedimentation in Caves..........................................................................3 1.3 Location and Overview of the Study Area ............................................4 1.4 Hydrogeology of Study Area .................................................................7 1.5 Preliminary Description of Deposit in the Cave ..................................10 1.6 Description of Soil Types Found in the Study Area ............................10 1.7 Previous Local Studies of Cave Sediment ...........................................12 II. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................14 2.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................14 2.2 Field Methods ......................................................................................14 2.2.1 Sampling of Sinkhole Sediments ...................................................14 2.2.2 Cave Survey ...................................................................................17 vii 2.2.2.1 Survey of Cave Passage ..................................................18 2.2.2.2 Survey of Sediment Deposit ...........................................18 2.2.3 Descriptive Stratigraphy and Sampling of Lake Deposit ..............19 2.3 Laboratory Methods .............................................................................22 2.3.1 Grain Size Analysis........................................................................23 2.3.1.1 Measuring Procedure ......................................................23 2.3.1.1.1 Methodology ..............................................23 2.3.1.2 Treatment of Grain-Size Data .........................................25 2.3.2 X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) ..............................................................26 2.3.2.1 Bulk Sample Mineralogy ................................................26 2.3.2.2 Clay Mineralogy .............................................................27 2.3.3 Magnetic Parameters of Sediment Samples ...................................28 III. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................30 3.1 Sinkhole ...............................................................................................30 3.1.1 Lithology and Mineralogy on Soil Profile SH-Soil-1 ....................30 3.1.2 Lithology and Mineralogy on Soil Profile SH-Soil-2 ....................35 3.1.3 Organic and Magnetic Measurement on SH-Soil-1 and SH-Soil-2 ...............................................................38 3.1.4 Discussion ......................................................................................50 3.2 Cave .....................................................................................................54 3.2.1 Cave Survey ...................................................................................55 3.2.2 Stratigraphic Description of Lake Deposit ....................................59 3.2.3 Magnetic Measurements on Cave Sediments ................................78 3.2.4 Volume of Sediment Deposited and Removed ..............................86 viii 3.2.5 Discussion ......................................................................................91 IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................98