Blue Hole geology

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

knotical

perpetual student
Scuba Instructor
Messages
5,748
Reaction score
832
Location
Ka'u
# of dives
1000 - 2499
I’ve heard, and seen posted in this forum, two divergent statements about Blue Hole’s geology. Either it’s a sinkhole, or it’s a volcanic throat. So I did some digging (on the internet, not at Blue Hole) and found this at:

NMBGMR Geologic Tour: Santa Rosa State Park

Most of the natural lakes in the vicinity of the town of Santa Rosa are the result of solution phenomena that began during the Triassic and continue today. The town itself lies in a huge sink hole about 6 mi in diameter and 400 ft deep (Kelley, 1972b). Many of these karst depressions are nearly circular basins flanked by steep-sided cliffs of the Santa Rosa Formation (Sweeting, 1972). These features were formed by dissolution of underlying Permian limestone, gypsum, and evaporites of the San Andres Limestone and Artesia Group. Ground water dissolves these rocks, creating subsurface cavities. The overlying rocks, including the Santa Rosa Formation, collapse into the voids, creating surface depressions. The resulting fractures and faults bounding the sink holes provide conduits along which water can migrate. Water fills the surface depressions, forming lakes.

The Kelley citation can be found at:
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/nmgs/guidebooks/23/NMGS_23.pdf

So I’m pretty convinced that the statements about Blue Hole’s volcanic origin are incorrect. If they were right, we should see igneous rocks around, but all I ever see is sedimentary.

Anyone have contradictory evidence?
 
Great info!!

I've always thought that this was the case and not volcanic activity. You can actually see the depression that the city and BH sits in as you come in from the West.

Thanks for posting this!
 
I’ve heard, and seen posted in this forum, two divergent statements about Blue Hole’s geology. Either it’s a sinkhole, or it’s a volcanic throat. So I did some digging (on the internet, not at Blue Hole) and found this at:

NMBGMR Geologic Tour: Santa Rosa State Park

So I’m pretty convinced that the statements about Blue Hole’s volcanic origin are incorrect. If they were right, we should see igneous rocks around, but all I ever see is sedimentary.

Anyone have contradictory evidence?

Your absolutely correct. I used to teach at Santa Rosa before moving to Cave Country in North Central Florida. The Karst features of Blue Hole exactly match the ones in Florida and Mexico with one notable exception. The water temperature. Blue Hole is 62 F year round and the springs in Florida are 72 F. Turns out this has to do with the average temperature of where the rain falls that feeds the spring.

One one regret is that they haven't opened Blue Hole up to exploration and mapping. Maybe someday...
 
One one regret is that they haven't opened Blue Hole up to exploration and mapping. Maybe someday...

The scuttlebutt is exactly that. There ARE plans to open it up. But the wheels of change grind very slowly there and it might be awhile..........
 
Oddly enough I'm taking a Historical Geology class this semester. So far we've spent the first few weeks of the semester going over Physical Geology, such as the different types of rocks, so that we can have a better understanding of the fossil records. It's been an interesting class so far. :)

I picked up a piece of rock from the dredge pile last summer at the Blue Hole. Here's a picture from it:

dscn0549.jpg


It's hard to tell from the picture, but it is a sedimentary rock that is crystalline in nature. I has some medium foliation, and is gritty to the touch. Based on the other descriptions of the rocks within the crystalline group, I would say that it is either limestone or dolostone. My guess would be that it is limestone. I haven't actually taken the rock up to school to see if I can put some diluted hydrochloric acid on it to see if it effervesces though. My guess is that it would effervesce, which would mean that the glue holding the rock together is calcite, which would confirm that it's limestone.

The water that flows through the Blue Hole is also very hard, as noted by the white chalky film that it leaves on your gear after a dive. Hard water is made up of calcium carbonate (read calcite?), which is part of the building blocks of limestone.

Strangely, the rocks over at Perch Lake are different.

dscn0552.jpg


This rock is also crystalline in nature, but is very porous. In fact, if you rub your finger lightly against the rock or thump it, it has a very hollow sound to it. (Almost like thumping a glass bottle) I think that this rock is also limestone. The porous nature of the rock may be because Perch Lake doesn't have any noticeable flow to the spring. The lake is lined with this rock along the walls where it drops off from around the 20' mark to 40'. I got this rock just south of the car at a rock uprising. I believe that the water seeps through this rock to form the lake as we know it. I'm not entirely sure, but the silt at the bottom of Perch Lake may be volcanic ash.

I do agree that the lack of igneous rock could mean that the holes were not formed by volcanic lava tubes. I'd be interested in taking more rock samples. :)

Given the presence of limestone, gypsum, and even the calcium carbonate from the hard water could mean that the area surrounding the Blue Hole could have possibly been a shallow sea at one point in time. If you look closely at the rock from Perch Lake you will see a shell that has been fossilized in the rock. Limestone is made up of the remains of shells from sea animals and gypsum are deposits of hydrated calcium sulfate from dried up sea beds.

Makes you think. :)
 
It's also worth noting that I believe that most of New Mexico's extinct volcanic hot beds are north of Santa Rosa around the Clayton, NM area. The area surrounding Santa Rosa doesn't really seem to have been volcanic.
 
Wow, what a cool thread!

I have nothing to add other than to say, "Wow, what a cool thread!". :rofl3:

Interesting info James! Sorry you could not get down to do some additional examination on those rocks yesterday!

On a different note, since the dredging, I think the calcium content has changed dramatically. I'm not sure there is a direct correlation. The moss and silt on the sides has also changed. It seems more stringy, and gookier (please, don't use these scientific terms at home without proper training).

I had white deposits in past years after diving there, but now I have to rinse my gear after a trip if I want to remove the deposits (I don't always bother). The silt is also thicker on the walls, and it takes much less to stir up visibility than I remember in the past. This is hardly a scientific observation!

Good Thread! I am wondering what all the drilling when they put the new structures in the area will do. Let's hope they have done their homework! :blinking:
 
the area surrounding the Blue Hole could have possibly been a shallow sea at one point in time.

I would say it was definitely undersea at one point. When I was in the Army, I found several fossilized seashells at Pinon Canon, in south eastern Colorado, which is higher than Santa Rosa.
 
I have never been to Blue hole.. but just lookin at James pictures and a TON of caving in our Lava fields here in Idaho, I have to agree, those are not volcanic... is there a lava flow near santa rosa at all?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom