Excerpts from Origin of the Carolina Bays
The following text is from Douglas Johnson's work as presented in his book "The Origin of the Carolina Bays", Volume IV of Columbia University's Columba Geomorphic Studies series, pp 116 - 120.
Johnson is using these arguments to dismiss the meteorite impact theory. We see his observations as supporting our ejecta blanket hypothesis, where the bay depressions are imperfections in the surfacce of the blanket created during emplacement. The entire bulk of the sand statum in which the bays are contained is considered to be ejecta by us.
COASTAL PLAIN BEDS UNDISTURBED
Were the Carolina craters the product of meteoritic impact,
the Coastal Plain beds exposed in the sides of the craters
should show the effects of violent impact of a great
meteoritic mass, or of violent explosion associated with
such impact. It is scarcely conceivable that so
catastrophic an event would leave sedimentary beds in the
crater walls quite undisturbed. We should expect to find
them badly shattered with fragments irregularly disposed,
or turned upward as in Meteor Crater, Arizona, and the
craters on the island of Osel. It appears to be well
established, however, that the Coastal Plain beds are
normally undisturbed about the Carolina bays. True, in a
majority of bays the surrounding beds are not exposed at
all; but exposures occur in so many that if disturbance
were common the fact would be readily apparent. So far as
the writer is aware not a single case of disturbance has
thus far been reported. On the other hand, many instances
of horizontal stratification or of horizontal plain surface
have been observed beneath sand rims in the infacing walls
of steep-sided bays, in road cuts trenching such walls, and
in drainage ditches cut through bordering rims and several
feet into the underlying Coastal Plain formations.”
Melton noted that “beds of Coastal Plain sediments in
a number of cases seem to lie flat beneath the bay rims."
He recognized that this fact imposed a burden on the
meteoritic hypothesis, for he added: “Should this
condition prove to be common it would be necessary, in
order to retain the meteoritic hypothesis, to postulate
Widespread reduction of the original surface through marine
planation.” We have just seen that the condition is
common; and we have earlier shown that the conception of
widespread planation beneath the sea, with later elevation
of the bays and their rims through the zone of destructive
shore processes, is untenable. We can only conclude that
the common occurrence of undisturbed Coastal Plain beds
bordering the bays is a fact difficult to explain on the
basis of the meteoritic hypothesis.
CHANNELS DRAINING INTO OR OUT OF BAYS
If the Carolina bays are meteorite craters, they might well
contain lakes, or might formerly have contained them. But
such lakes should not commonly have surface outlets or form
part of any integrated surface drainage system. The
reasoning which underlies this deduction from the
meteoritic hypothesis is simple. Prior to impact, the
groundwater level and tl1e surface drainage of the Coastal
Plain must have been established. Wherever a meteoritic
mass excavated a crater the bottom of which extended below
groundwater level, water would stand in the depression to
form a lake. But we should not expect the water to rise
above groundwater level and overflow the crater rim.
Normally tl1e craters would have neither incoming nor
outflowing surface streams. Even if a meteorite struck in a
preexisting stream course, we should expect formation of
the crater to deflect the stream. Crater lakes are
relatively common phenomena in SOIHC volcanic regions, but
surface streams draining such lakes are rare. We are
accustomed to finding crater lakes, sinkhole lakes,
kettlehole lakes of glacial regions, and similar water
bodies without numerous integrated drainage connections. A
remarkable feature of the Carolina bays, of which no
account has previously been taken, is the frequency of
channels affording ingress or egress to streams which now
or formerly drained into or out of the bays. Such channels
are beautifully shown in Figures 5, 15, 17, 32, 40, and 42,
and less clearly in the case of many other bays figured in
this volume. They are sometimes represented, although not
always accurately, on soil maps.(13) Topographic maps show
outlet streams in many cases and occasionally reveal a
well-integrated drainage system draining into and out of a
succession of bays.(14) Although there is little surface
drainage into White Lake and Suggs Mill Pond (see Bladen
County soil map, North Carolina), both these bays have
outlet channels carrying considerable volumes of water. In
both cases the natives report large springs
“boiling” or “fountaining" on the lake
floor due to strong upwelling of water from below. These
two examples suggest that similar conditions formerly
existed in many bays which do not now contain lakes, and
that outflow of water supplied by bottom springs carved the
channels so frequently observed leading outward from the
craterlike depressions. The large bay north of Pinewood
(Fig. 17) contains no large lake, but its outlet channel
was long ago dammed to impound artificially the water
entering the basin. Later the dam was destroyed, and at
present a stream of sufficient volume to serve as the home
of fish six or eight inches long flows freely from the
great bay.” The channel traversing the rim of the
large bay near Wilmington, North Carolina (15), is
particularly broad and sharply carved in places. In many
cases outlet channels, while clearly visible, are partly or
completely obstructed by accumulations of rim sand.
Doubtless many former channels have thus been wholly
obliterated. Many bays have two or more outlets, draining
either into adjacent streams or into neighboring bays (Fig.
4).
Whatever the cause of the Carolina craters, it evidently
produced a vast number of basins into which or out of which
water flowed freely through channels still visible and
often still functioning. Because such drainage channels are
not commonly found in known meteorite craters or, for that
matter, in craters produced by volcanic eruptions,
artillery fire, or other violent explosions or impacts, it
seems doubtful whether the channeled craters of the
Atlantic Coastal Plain can reasonably be attributed to
meteoritic impact, whether of the gouging or explosive
type. To account for the observed facts by the meteoritic
hypothesis we would have to assume that in every case where
a crater now possesses, or formerly possessed, one or more
outlet channels, the meteorite excavated a depression deep
enough to tap artesian water under sufficient pressure to
cause surface outflow. Where inlet channels are found, we
would have to assume further that impact produced no rims
which could impede the flow of surface water into the
craters.
OUTLET CHANNELS FREQUENTLY TRAVERSE RIM
BARRIERS
If we admit, for the moment, that meteoritic impact could
somehow produce the observed craters and their rims, and
that peculiar geological conditions could cause waters to
rise in these craters and overflow their borders, it is
obvious that such outflow must take place where rims or
crater borders were lowest. The water could not overflow
where rim accumulation was at a maximum so long as other
parts of the rim, or portions of the crater wall devoid of
any rim, offered a lower outlet. Studies of aerial
photographs (Figs. 4, 5, 15, and 17) suggest, and field
examinations confirm, that outlet channels repeatedly
traverse rim barriers. The writer was unable to run lines
of level about the bays, so cannot offer definitive proof
that the rim barriers where traversed by outlets are higher
than other parts of bay borders. But the relations of bay
borders and outlets to the marshy surfaces of the bays
leave little doubt that, were the outlet channels filled to
the surface level of the rim on either side, the position
of the outlet would in a number of cases be materially
higher than other parts of the bay borders. This indicates
that the outlets are, in fact, antecedent streams, having
begun to function before the rim came into existence, and
having continued to flow while the rim on either side was
built up to its present altitude. If this be true, the
craters as well as their outlets are older than the rims,
and the hypothesis which makes both craters and rims the
simultaneous results of meteoritic impact appears
incompetent to explain the relations actually observed.
(12) Examples of bays revealing exposures of undisturbed
Coastal Plain beds are: the bay northeast of McBride
Church, Hilltonia quadrangle, Ga.-S.C.; bay one mile
northwest of Eureka Springs, Oliver quadrangle, Ga.; bay
southeast of Reynold, and large bay just east of
Blackville, both on Williston quadrangle, S.C. (in last
case apparent stratification of beds at one point dips
faintly downhill toward bay, as if slight slumping might
have occurred); compound bay with medial sand rim east of
Govan, Olar quadrangle, S.C.; Dial Bay, Mayesville
quadrangle, S.C.; Devil`s Woodyard Bay near Springerville,
north of Darlington, S.C.
(13) See, for example, the Bladen and Cumberland County
soil maps, N_C.; Barnwell, Williamsburg, and Florence
County soil maps, S.C.
(14) See, for example: Alligator Bay and Doussoss Bay, Olar
quadrangle, S.C.; Saint George Church bay, Rowesville bay,
Black Bay, and others, Orangeburg quadrangle, S.C.; the bay
east of West Middle School, Wadboo Swamp bay, Polk Swamp
bay, and the bays drained by Sandy Creek, Bowman
quadrangle, S.C.; Big Junkyard Bay, Guys Branch Bay,
Islanded Bay, and others, Manning quadrangle, S.C.
(15) Girard Wheeler, manuscript report on observations made
at the writer's request.