See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279889660

Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis II: Application to

Northwest Gulf of Mexico Cenozoic Basin

Article  in  AAPG Bulletin · January 1989

DOI: 10.1306/703C9AFA-1707-11D7-8645000102C1865D

CITATIONS READS

167 921

1 author:

William E. Galloway
University of Texas at Austin
170 PUBLICATIONS   7,108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Source-to-sink analysis of the lower Miocene strata in the Gulf of Mexico Basin View project

Gulf of Mexico Depositional Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William E. Galloway on 08 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 I he American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bullenn
V. 73, No. 2 (Febrjary 19f<9), P 143-154, 10 Figs.

Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis II:

Application to Northwest Gulf of Mexico Cenozoic Basin'
WILLIAM E. GALLOWAY'

ABSTRACT ble and little affected by a prominent interplay between

structural deformation and sedimentation. The strati-
The northwest Gulf of Mexico Cenozoic sedimentary graphic patterns developed in such "passive" margins
wedge illustrates the application of genetic stratigraphic have been interpreted primarily in terms of systematic,
sequence analysis and documents several general conclu- thermally driven subsidence overprinted by eustatic base-
sions. (1) Sequences defined by regional marine flooding level changes (Hardenbol et al, 1981; Watts, 1982).
are the principal genetic stratigraphic units of the basin The Gulf basin originated with a brief period of rifting
fill. Continental margins are characterized by repetitive during the Jurassic, followed by an extended period of
episodes of basin-margin offlap punctuated by periods thermally induced subsidence during the remainder of
of transgression and marine flooding of the depositional the Mesozoic (Buffler and Sawyer, 1985). Slow rates of
platform. (2) Continental margin outbuilding is concen- sediment influx largely restricted deposition to bounding
trated at one or more shelf-edge deltaic depocenters sepa- shelf platforms and created a reef-rimmed sediment-
rated by interdeltaic bights. Depocenters remain fixed starved oceanic basin. Regional uplift and tectonism
during a depositional episode but commonly relocate within the continental interior of western North America
during transgression and flooding. (3) A distinct synde- provided an abrupt surge of terrigenous clastic sediment
positional structural style in prograding continental mar- for the northwestern Gulf of Mexico during the Paleo-
gins results in sporadic uplift of a basin-fringing cene, and this ongoing influx of sediment has prograded
peripheral bulge and accentuates preservation of shelf- the continental margin up to 350 km seaward of the
margin facies along zones of extensional normal faulting inherited Cretaceous shelf edge. Regional cross sections
and enhanced subsidence. (4) Genetic stratigraphic (Figure 1) show the typically repetitive nature of Ceno-
sequences commonly reflect an evolving interplay among zoic deposition. Successions of sandy wedges, consisting
two or even three variables. For example, early Cenozoic of coastal-plain and marginal-marine deposits, thicken
Gulf sequences are most closely related to tectonic events and grade basinward into marine shelf and slope mud
of the intraplate source terrane, which, in turn, affect rocks. The sand-rich wedges are stratigraphically sepa-
rate and location of sediment supply and basin-margin rated by updip tongues of marine shale that reflect
response to loading. Late Cenozoic sequences more repeated transgression cmd marine flooding of the conti-
closely reflect proposed eustatic cycles. nental margin. Although the prominence and nomencla-
ture of the individual sandy wedges vary between
depocenters within the northern Gulf basin, most can be
INTRODUCTION traced from northern Mexico to Mississippi or Alabama.
These marine-shale bounded units provide the basis for
systematic depositional analysis of the Cenozoic section.
This paper examines the stratigraphic patterns created The Cenozoic sedimentary wedge provides a natural
during an extended history of continental margin progra- laboratory for examining three-dimensional strati-
dation (offlap) using the concept of depositional epi- graphic and structural architecture as well as the evolu-
sodes and resultant genetic stratigraphic sequences tion of continental margin sequences. Three
summarized in a companion paper (Galloway, 1989). I generalizations can be made from examining northwest-
use the Cenozoic sedimentary wedge of the northwestern ern Gulf Coast stratigraphy (Galloway, 1987). These gen-
Gulf of Mexico margin, one of the most extensively eralizations apply to offlapping clastic-dominated
explored, studied, and described basins in the world. margins in a variety of basins.
The northwestern Gulf is a divergent continental mar- (1) Continental margin outbuilding is concentrated at
gin and, as such, is generally considered tectonically sta- one or more depocenters where major delta systems pro-
grade to the shelf edge and deposit sediment directly onto
©Copyright 1989. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All the upper slope. Interdeltaic margin segments receive
rights reserved. sediment primarily by longshore transport.
''Manuscript received, May 20, 1988; accepted, September 22, 1988. All
rights reserved. (2) A distinct syndepositional structural style is associ-
•^Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, ated with prograding clastic-margin wedges. Crustal
Texas 78713. loading and resultant flexural deformation created areas
This paper is based in part upon research supported by National Science
Foundation grant EAR-8416138.1 thank William Bazeley Frank Brown, Nicho- of maximum subsidence and peripheral uplift, which, in
las Christie-Blick, Robert Dott, Jr., William Dickinson, Martin Lagoe, Andrew turn, determine the external geometry of sedimentary
Miall, and Don Swift as well as reviewers L. L, Sloss and J. F. Sarg for their com-
ments, critique, and support. Figures were drafted by Jeff Horowitz. Betty
sequences. Within the sedimentary wedge, gravity tec-
Kurtz typed the bibliography tonics produces a variety of extensional, compressional,

143
144 Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis II
NW RIO GRANDE
OrO
E lO
• O
^3
FACIES ASSEMBLAGE
EZH Coastal-plain fluvial
3 Bay/lagoon
CE3 Poralic' shore-zone/deltaic
[ZH Shelf and slope
E m Intraslope basin
0 30 km
5-
VE.=40K
CRUST
CONTINENTAL
Figure 1—Generalized dip-oriented stratigraphic cross section through Rio Grande depocenter, northwestern Gulf Coast sedimen-
tary wedge. Principal Cenozoic genetic stratigraphic sequences are labeled. Note expansion of sequences across major growth
fault zones, which mark positions of successive paleocontinental margins. From Galloway (1987).
and diapiric structures. Scale of such structural features
depends upon the thickness of the sedimentary wedge,
which, in turn, is determined by water depth, crust type,
and inherent subsidence rate.
(3) Depositional outbuilding is typically punctuated by
intervals of shoreline retreat and system reorganization.
Resultant stratigraphic units—genetic depositional
sequences—reflect this current evolution from prograda-
tion to retrogradation/transgression within the context
of relatively stable paleogeographic elements and sedi-
ment sources. Repetitive sequences record the ever-
changing interplay between rates of sediment input
(determined largely by extrabasinal tectonics), eustatic
base-level change, and subsidence.
PALEOGEOGRAPHY AND DEPOSITIONAL SYSTEMS
The Cenozoic sedimentary wedge of the northwestern
Gulf of Mexico illustrates the evolution of a prograding
continental margin. Successively younger paleoshelf
edges lie progressively basinward of the inherited Creta-
ceous reefal shelf edge (Figure 2). However, although
each successive depositional episode further prograded
the shelf edge, the amount of outbuilding varied greatly
along the basin margin. As shown in Figure 2, maximum
outbuilding within any one stratigraphic interval is asso-
ciated with a sand-rich depocenter. Regional analysis of
the Cenozoic depositional framework shows that these
sand-rich depocenters correspond to major deltaic sys-
tems (for examples, see Fisher and McGowen, 1967;
EMBAYMENT
ATTENUATED CONTL.
Bernard and LeBlanc, 1975; Galloway et al, 1982). Also,
nearly all of the sandy depocenters are localized at one of
three preferred positions along the basin margin (Figure
2). These foci for sediment input are broad extremely
subtle structural sags called "embayments" by most
Gulf Coast geologists. The three depocenters, from
southwest to northeast, are the Rio Grande, Houston,
and Mississippi embayments. They remain the entry
points of the four largest extrabasinal rivers (the Rio
Grande, Brazos/Colorado complex, and Mississippi)
into the Gulf of Mexico (Galloway, 1981).
Paleogeography of the lower Miocene depositional
sequence (Galloway et al, 1986) illustrates the typical
relationship between the principal depositional systems
and the shelf edge (Figure 3). Depositional elements
include two sand-rich deltaic headlands, constructed
where major extrabasinal fluvial systems funneled into
the basin along the topographically or structurally con-
trolled Rio Grande and Mississippi axes, and interdeltaic
bights. The lower Miocene bight sediments include a
wave-dominated shore zone (barrier and strand plain)
system and a narrow shelf system. The deltaic headlands
rapidly prograded across the flooded platform of the ear-
lier Oligocene delta systems to the shelf edge and directly
onto the upper continental slope. These shelf-edge deltas
thus became the sites of the most direct and rapid progra-
dation of the continental margin (Winker and Edwards,
1983). Sand reworked laterally along the shoreface pro-
vided sediment for constructing the bight's sandy shore
zone. Suspended sediment was redistributed along the
shelf edge and slope by longshore currents, providing the
 William E. Galloway 145

MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT

200 km

Figure 2—Progressive Cenozoic shelf-edge positions and sand-rich depocenters of northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Modified from
Winker (1982).

material for slower progradation of a muddy interdeltaic anic crust results in a sedimentary section about three
shelf edge. Comparable depositional patterns have been times thicker than the depth of water actually replaced.
documented in the Cretaceous foreland basin (Weimer, Attenuated continental crust along divergent plate mar-
1970). gins and beneath some intracratonic basins will subside
In summary, direct feeding of sediment through struc- less, but the sedimentary section may be expanded at
turally focused fluvial systems to major shelf-edge del- least twofold. In the northwestern Gulf of Mexico basin,
taic systems has provided material for the most rapid and for example, a sedimentary wedge 8-14 km thick resulted
direct progradation of the Gulf Coast continental mar- from progradational filling of the starved deep-water
gin. Interdeltaic shelf-edge segments prograded more basin created by thermal subsidence of underlying transi-
slowly by longshore transport and deposition of domi- tional to oceanic crust.
nantly suspended sediment. Crustal depression occurs by flexural loading, forming
a broad subsidence bowl (Figure 4) that extends approxi-
mately 150 km around the locus of loading (Bott, 1980).
STRUCTURAL STYLE Thus, a broad lens of sediment, including continental
margin depocenter deposits and extensive shore-zone
TWo scales of structural deformation affect to varying and coastal-plain facies, is accommodated. Concomitant
degrees the sediments of a prograding basin-margin with subsidence, a halo of uplift, called the "peripheral
sequence. First, large-scale crustal loading induces bulge" (Figure 4), forms around the subsidence bowl
regional subsidence and associated peripheral uplift. Sec- (Quinlan and Beaumont, 1984; Cloetingh et al, 1985).
ond, gravity deformation within the sedimentary wedge The peripheral bulge produces a hinge line with subsi-
produces a predictable but complex family of extensional dence and sediment storage on the basinward side and
and compressional structures. gentle uplift, sediment bypass, valley incision, and ero-
sion on the landward fringe.
Crustal Loading and Isostatic Subsidence An active peripheral bulge produced by Quaternary
deposition along the northern Gulf Coast margin was
Sediment replacing water induces isostatic adjustment originally recognized by Fisk (1944) and more recently
of the underlying crust (Bott, 1980). Subsidence of oce- documented by Jurkowski et al (1984). The peripheral
146 Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Anaiysis II

RIO GRANDE
AXIS

Figure 3—(A) Framework sandstone distribution and (B) depositional systems of lower Miocene genetic stratigraphic sequence,
Texas coastal plain and continental shelf. Sandstone isolith contours outline basic depositional pattern and vertical persistence of
principal depositional systems during progradation of lower part of sequence. Configuration of shelf-margin deltaic headlands
and interdeltaic coastal bight is apparent. Modified from Galloway et al (1986).

bulge and associated hinge line migrate basinward just as

the continental margin depocenter migrates basinward
with depositional offlap, a process well documented in
the Neogene sequences of the northwestern Gulf basin by
Winker (1979). Modeling indicates the peripheral bulge
migrates toward the locus of loading following a discrete
loading event (Quinlan and Beaumont, 1984). Further-
more, the rates and magnitudes of both load-induced
subsidence and peripheral uplift are modified by changes
GRAVITY SLIDiNG
-.,rrrr:^f.m in the horizontal stress field within crustal plates
~^^^^yjf2|flF^ COMPRESSIONAL (Cloetingh et al, 1985).
EXTENSIONAL Within the sequence stratigraphic framework, a sub-
THINNING
aerial disconformity representing the landward zone of
Figure 4—Deformation and subsidence domains of prograding sediment bypass and fluvial incision corresponds to this
clastic continental margin. Extension at shelf margin enhances zone of potential load-induced uplift. Thus, the pattern
crustal subsidence. Depositional loading produces peripheral of flexural subsidence and associated peripheral crustal
uplift along inner basin margin. Modified from Winker (1982). uplift can create numerous intraformational discon-
 William E. Galloway
formities, low-angle unconformities, and onlap relation-
ships within the updip margin of the sedimentary prism,
particularly if sediment input and resulting uplift are epi-
sodic. Migration of the bulge (Quinlan and Beaumont,
1984) would create time-transgressive erosion surfaces.
Intraformational Gravity Tectonics
The sedimentary prism of a prograding basin margin is
an ideal habitat for gravity-driven deformation. Thick
prograding continental margin sequences of the Gulf of
Mexico Cenozoic section exhibit a spectacular assem-
blage of growth faults, diapirs, gravity-glide folds, and
allochthonous salt wedges (see Jackson and Galloway,
1984; Galloway, 1986).
By definition, gravity tectonic structures must have a
geometry that results in decreased gravitational potential
compared to the undeformed state (Ramberg, 1981).
Further, the decrease in gravitational potential must be
able to overcome the fundamental strength of the sedi-
mentary section and to account for energy dissipated
during deformation. Because gravitational force
decreases in proportion to the cube of the length scale,
the force is most effective within the thick sedimentary
prisms of continental margins such as the Gulf.
Three styles of gravity tectonics occur: gravity gliding,
gravity spreading, and diapirism. Gravity gliding and
spreading produce similar suites of compressional and
extensional structures that characterize prograding basin
margins (Dailly, 1976; Winker, 1982). Three strain
regimes occur within the shelf edge and slope. Extension
(creating listric normal faults called "growth faults")
characterizes the upwardly convex shelf-to-slope transi-
tion. At the toe of the slope, shortening dominates.
Beneath the middle slope, between the zones of extension
and compensatory compression, lies a domain of lateral
translation. Together, these zones overprint the simple
pattern of crustal subsidence with localized uplift at the
toe of the slope and enhanced subsidence cross the outer
shelf to upper slope (Figure 4). Thus, the well-defined
strain domains have considerable impact on sediment
deposition and storage.
Extension enhances regional load-induced subsidence
at the shelf edge, creating a locahzed depoaxis that
retains much of the sediment transported to the shelf
margin and upper slope. In the typical facies tract of a
shelf-edge deltaic headland, rapid shelf-edge subsidence
enhances storage of thickened delta-margin prograda-
tional sand and prodelta mud facies (Figure 5). Figure 1
illustrates expanded upper Wilcox, Vicksburg, Frio, and
lower Miocene sequences localized on the downthrown
side of major growth faults activated in the shelf-margin
zone of extension. In contrast, compression of the lower
slope may result in abbreviated, even locally truncated
and diapirically intruded submarine-fan and lower slope
facies. Much of the sediment that does escape the shelf-
margin extensional sediment trap may also bypass the
lower slope and be deposited on the abyssal plain (Gallo-
way, 1986).
147
Gravity deformation affects both the structural and
depositional architecture of Gulf Coast Cenozoic genetic
depositional sequences. The extent of gravity and tec-
tonic modifications is determined by thickness of the sed-
imentary prism, variations in rate of depositional
loading, degree of density inversion, and inhomoge-
neities within and between depositional sequences (Gal-
loway, 1986).
DEPOSITIONAL EPISODES AND GENETIC
STRATIGRAPHIC SEQUENCES OF NORTHWESTERN
GULF OF MEXICO
The Cenozoic history of the northwestern Gulf of
Mexico basin is characterized by rapid ongoing sediment
input and thick prograding depositional sequences exhib-
iting considerable gravity deformation. Each deposi-
tional episode is defined by shoreUne progradation and
subsequent retrogradation of several tens of kilometers,
although successive transgressions usually did not extend
as far landward as their precursors. In contrast, the shelf
edge was built basinward during offlap but commonly
remained as a permanent record of successive steps in
basin filling. The shelf edge was submerged more deeply
and prone to modest regrading during transgression and
periods of maximum flooding. Thus, the sedimentary
record documents two aspects of episodicity. The overall
facies tract (defined by the position of the shore zone) has
oscillated widely, reflecting progradation followed by
retrogradation or transgression (Figure 1). The continen-
tal margin (defined by the shelf edge) has alternated
between periods of active outbuilding and periods of rel-
ative stability or minor retrogradation (Figure 2).
The principal Cenozoic depositional episodes that
resulted in continental margin outbuilding of the north-
western Gulf of Mexico are summarized in Figure 6.
Although subsidence of this divergent oceanic basin mar-
gin was primarily induced by sedimentary loading, large-
scale variation of sediment supply is required to explain
the distinct pulses of shelf-edge progradation. By the late
Neogene, increasing ice volumes also significantly low-
ered eustatic sea level, and changes in ice volume pro-
vided a mechanism for rapid eustatic fluctuation.
Visual comparison of the depositional episodes and
proposed eustatic curve of Haq et al (1987) shows that
correlation is reasonably good during the Phocene and
Pleistocene. By the Miocene, the cycles still showed cor-
relation, but the relative magnitudes and extract timing
of progradational and bounding transgressive events and
the multitude of proposed sea level fluctuations are
increasingly disparate. Correlation of the Oligocene
Vicksburg and Frio episodes with the major middle OU-
gocene sea level drop is complicated by uncertainties in
the paleontologic dating of these two units but poses a
problem regardless of the specific chronology accepted.
The sequence boundary does, however, coincide closely
with a well-documented reorientation in the crustal stress
regime (Price and Henry, 1984). Style of basin margin
subsidence changed markedly across this boundary as
148 Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis II
^_^_^ EXPLANATION
W^^'-^y^'^ Terrestrial Aggrodoti
[i;|;ii:; j Coastal Progradation
K'C-rl^M Slope Progradotion
[ ; ; ; j Marine Aggradation
{no sccle]
Figure 5—Enhanced deposition and preservation of progradational delta-front and upper slope fades at expense of lower slope
fades in a thick, gravitationally deformed, continental-margin wedge. From Galloway (1987).
well. As shown in Figure 1, Vicksburg and younger
sequences are characterized by prominent updip thin-
ning.
Within the Paleogene, correspondence between the
eustatic and depositional episode curves is fair to poor at
best. For example, the Carrizo/upper Wilcox deposi-
tional episode of shelf-margin offlap occurred during a
proposed highstand. The overlying glauconitic marine
sandstone, a condensed section deposited during maxi-
mum flooding of the upper Wilcox depositional systems,
correlates to a major proposed sea level fall.
Comparing episode history with the onset or duration
of major tectonic events of the central and western North
American plate reveals some compelling associations.
The terminal Laramide deformation event spread pro-
gressively from the southwestern United States (late
Paleocene-early Eocene) into northern Mexico (middle
Eocene) (Chapin and Gather, 1981; Dickinson, 1981).
Pulses of deformation and uplift centered in the middle
and then southern Rocky Mountains (Figure 7) corres-
pond directly to outbuilding of the lower and upper Wil-
cox continental margins (Figure 6). As the locus of uplift
moved south into Mexico, sediment supply to the north-
western Gulf basin decreased and the continental margin
was generally flooded. By the late Eocene, tectonic quies-
cence dominated and the southern Rocky Mountains
were beveled, forming a regional erosional surface (Epis
and Chapin, 1975). Meanwhile, volcanism began in the
southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Con-
comitantly, the modest Yegua and Jackson sequences
were deposited. A tremendous episode of explosive rhyo-
litic volcanism spread from western Texas into northern
Mexico during the late Eocene and Oligocene (McDowell
and Clabaugh, 1979). A contemporaneous surge of sedi-
ment, notable for its volcanic rock fragment content,
entered the Gulf basin. Beginning in the late Oligocene,
the initial subsidence along the Rio Grande rift occurred
(Chapin, 1979) culminating in large-scale graben forma-
tion 27-20 Ma. Rapid subsidence of this north-trending
feature (Figure 7) created an immense sediment trap,
beheading the southwestern United States drainage sys-
tem that had played a prominent role in Oligocene conti-
nental margin outbuilding. By the end of the early
Miocene, a major reorganization of the intraplate stress
regime initiated regional extension across western North
America. This basin-and-range episode of normal fault-
ing extended as far east as the inner margin of the north-
western Gulf of Mexico coastal plain, where the Balcones
fault was reactivated. Regional epeirogenic uplift of the
Rocky Mountains and adjacent western Mid-Continent
by more than 1 ,(XX) m occurred during the Pliocene (Cha-
pin, 1979; Dickinson, 1981). At the same time, major
pulses of continental-margin outbuilding occurred (Fig-
ure 6) primarily in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Figure
7).
This cursory review of comparative tectonic and depo-
sitional histories suggests several generalizations and
allows a provisional classification of the principal Gulf
Coast genetic stratigraphic sequences (Figure 8) accord-
ing to causal mechanisms using criteria discussed in Gal-
loway (1989, his Figure 10).
(1) Major depositional episodes (Wilcox, Frio, early
Miocene) responsible for continental margin prograda-
tion correspond to principal tectonic events within the
North American plate. These events, in turn, are related
to the evolution of the active plate margin along the west-
ern rim of the continent. Tectonics of the source area and
basin periphery is the primary control on the timing and
 William E. Galloway 149

rwRnwri LITHO- DEPOSITIONAL

TECTONIC OCEANOGRAPHY/ EUSTATIC
QTRATIRBAPHY STRATIGRAPHY EPISODES and
EVENTS CLIMATE CURVE
^ ' " " " ^ " " • • ^ " ^ OUTCROP BASIN DEPOCENTERS

K IB
Marine shale tongue Inner coastal plain unconformity Abrupt 0 increase

V Deep-water wedge or
submarine canyon
-RG-*-Coniparotive magnitude and depocenter
of continental margin progrodotion
1—Proposed major condensed
sections

Figure 6—Comparative temporal liistory of Gulf Coast Cenozoic depositional episodes, proposed eustatic sea level changes,
oceanographic evolution in response to Cenozoic climatic cooling, and tectonic events of western North American plate. Major
continental-margin outbuilding episodes and their depocenters are shown by excursions to right on depositional episodes and
depocenlers curve. Principal lithostratigraphic elements (including basin-margin unconformities and submarine erosion features)
are tabulated according to published and unpublished planktonic dates. Chart indicates progressive evolution from input-
dominated sequences in Paleogene to increasingly eustatic-dominated sequences in Neogene. Principal references for tectonic,
oceanographic/climatic, and eustatic events include Chapin (1979), McDowell and Clabaugh (1979), Davis (1980), Chapin and
Cather (1981), Dickinson (1981), Loutit and Kennett (1981), Gries (1983), Wiltschko and Dorr (1983), Price and Henry (1984),
Eaton (1986), Haq et al (1987). Modified from Galloway (1989).

location of principal sand-rich sequence deposition. centers along the Gulf margin (Figure 7). In the early
Thus, tectonics is a primary control on the distribution of Paleogene, sediment was derived primarily from the
hydrocarbon reservoirs and basin resources. southern Rocky Mountain terrane and directed into the
(2) As Winker (1982) pointed out, only tectonic history closest depocenter, the Houston embayment. Volcanism
explains the shifting position of the major deltaic depo- and regional upHft of Trans-Pecos Texas and the Sierra
150 Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis I
DRAIMAGE BASINS
MiOCE^E-H0L0CE^E o-'i—-
OLISOCENE
L. PALEOCEME-E EOCENF
Figure 7—Distribution of tliree principal age-defined source
terranes of Nortli American craton and tlieir related depocen-
ters in Gulf of Mexico basin. Shifts in source areas and drainage
axes were controlled by intraplate tectonic evolution. Modified
from Winker (1982).
Madre Occidental in northern Mexico sent a surge of sed-
iment into the adjacent Rio Grande embayment. This
drainage axis was partly beheaded in the early Miocene
by faulting and subsidence of the Rio Grande rift. Late
Neogene epeirogenic uplift of the Western Interior
diverted drainage far to the east into the Mid-Continent.
Here, drainage was collected by the ancestral Mississippi
River and transported southward into the Mississippi
embayment on the north-central rim of the Gulf.
(3) The genetic stratigraphic sequences bracketed by
regional maximum flooding surfaces record the evolu-
tion of a family of laterally related depositional systems.
Figure 9 interprets the paleogeography of nine Gulf
depositional episodes. The extrabasinal fluvial systems
and associated deltaic depocenters shift significantly
between lower and upper Wilcox, Queen City and Yegua,
Jackson and Vicksburg, Vicksburg and Frio, Frio and
lower Miocene, and lower and upper Miocene episodes.
Within each genetic stratigraphic sequence, the paleoge-
ography remains comparatively stable. Deltaic and
shore-zone elements prograde or retreat, but deltaic
headlands and coastal bights remain fixed in position
along the basin margin.
(4) Although the correlation between continental mar-
gin progradation in the Gulf of Mexico and proposed
eustatic falls or lowstands is generally poor for much of
the Cenozoic, flooding events and major condensed sec-
tions of Haq et al (1987) correspond much better. The
three Miocene and the Oligocene-Miocene condensed
sections correspond directly to major Gulf Coast marine-
shale wedges. Though synchroneity is less precise, the
early Eocene and late Paleocene condensed sections also
show general agreement with middle Wilcox flooding
events. This correspondence suggests that flooding
SEDIMENT SUPPLY '
Possibly due to jncerlointy in dating
Figure 8—Tabulation of attributes for Cenozoic genetic epi-
sodes of northwestern Gulf of Mexico basin and their tentative
classifications using sequence process triangle of Galloway
(1989). For example, upper Wilcox sequence is distinguished
from lower Wilcox sequence by a major shift in deltaic depo-
center and pronounced sandstone mineralogic change (imply-
ing a change in source terranes). A basin-margin tectonic event
(north-south Laramide compressional pulse) occurs contempo-
raneously with upper Wilcox progradation. Middle Wilcox
retrogradational and transgressive deposits correspond gener-
ally with two proposed eustatic condensed sections centered
about 55 Ma, a problematic correlation of this sequence bound-
ary with proposed eustatic curve. ND = no data. P = Pliocene,
My = upper Miocene, M^ = lower Miocene, F = Frio, V =
Vicksburg, Y = Yegua, Qj. = Queen City, Wij = upper Wil-
cox, W^ = lower Wilcox.
events have widespread stratigraphic manifestations and
provide particularly useful time-stratigraphic markers as
proposed in the genetic stratigraphic sequence model.
(5) Details of sequence development may also reflect a
eustatic sea level overprint, particularly during the Neo-
gene when polar ice caps began to affect ocean circula-
tion and volume. The middle to late Miocene and
Pliocene sequences are likely bracketed by eustatic trans-
gressions. Modest eustatic fluctuations appear at best to
provide a higher frequency overprint on the major depo-
sitional Cenozoic genetic stratigraphic sequences. Eus-
 William E. Galloway 151

UPPER MIOCENE

I EXTRA BASINAL
FLUVIAL AXIS
PRINCIPAL DELTAIC
DEPOCENTER
INTERDELTAIC SHORE ZONE
(with secondory delta systems)

Figure 9—Position of principal deltaic depocenters and associated interdelta and delta-flank bights for major and some minor
genetic stratigraphic sequences of northwestern Gulf of Mexico basin. Note major reorganizations of paleogeography across
lower Wilcox and upper Wilcox, Queen City and Yegua, Jackson and Vicksburg, Vicksburg and Frio, Frio and lower Miocene,
and lower Miocene and upper Miocene bounding flooding events. Within genetic sequences, paleogeography remained compara-
tively stable, reflecting persistent patterns of hinterland and basin-margin tectonics and sediment supply. Maps are based upon
Gregory (1966), Fisher and McGowen (1967), Fisher et al (1969), Fisher et al (1970), Guevara and Garcia (1972), Bebout et al
(1982), Galloway et al (1977), Loucks (1978), Kaiser et al (1980), Galloway et al (1982), Morton et al (1985), Galloway et al (1986),
Loucks et al (1986), Edwards (1981).

tasy alone is neither necessary nor sufficient as an
explanation of the major depositional episodes of the
sediment-rich northwestern Gulf.
Comparing the relative time intervals of progradation
and retrogradation within the Gulf Coast Cenozoic epi-
sodes proves interesting. For three well-dated Oligocene
and Miocene sequences, retrogradation occupies from
about 50% to as little as 15% of the episode duration.
Episode duration varies, but each encompasses several
million years. Geologically instantaneous or even rapid
transgression is certainly not a dominant attribute of the
Gulf's sedimentary record.
152 Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis II

SYNTHESIS OF GULF COAST CENOZOIC successions display three different depositional styles.
SEQUENCE MODEL Lowermost coastal facies form relatively thin prograda-
tional units. Within the middle of the genetic strati-
graphic sequence, coastal facies are thick, reflecting
Galloway et al (1986) described the lower Miocene progradation into deep water and enhanced subsidence
sequence and provided sections and maps documenting and accommodation at the extensional platform margin.
the depositional and structural features of a typical Neo- Uppermost coastal facies are dominated by mixed trans-
gene stratigraphic unit. Their study is the basis of a gener- gressive and aggradational facies sequences reflecting
alized stratigraphic and structural model of a Gulf Coast intermittent shoreline retreat and stability.
genetic stratigraphic sequence (Figure 10). (3) A basinward belt of marine-shelf, slope, and
As indicated by the chronostratigraphic cross section basinal facies. These facies exhibit both progradational
(Figure lOA), sequence history begins with coastal pro- (upper slope) and aggradational onlapping architectures.
gradation from the point of maximum updip transgres- Gravitationally resedimented depositional systems, such
sion (Figure 10, increments 1 and 2). When progradation as submarine fans, are found within the belt and reflect
reaches the flooded shelf edge of the previous deposi- the history of sequence outbuilding and retrogradation in
tional platform, the offlap wedge thickens manyfold, their offlap and marine onlap geometries.
rate of progradation slows proportionally, and gravita- (4) Downdip, sequence-bounding beds or surfaces.
tional instability results in extensional faulting and These beds or surfaces include widespread hemipelagic
enhanced subsidence. The resultant listric normal fault mud drapes, chemically or paleontologically condensed
provides a structural discontinuity surface along which intervals, and/or submarine unconformities. Opera-
shelf-margin facies are transported basinward (Figure tional correlation of the ideal bounding surface of maxi-
10, increments 3-7). Resultant displacement of coastal mum marine flooding relies on recognizing and tracing
progradational facies along a low-angle structural dis- the variety of thin widespread beds that record transgres-
continuity to an apparent stratigraphic position below sive reworking and subsequent clastic sediment starva-
the shelf edge may be misinterpreted as a record of base- tion. Updip, coastal plain aggradational deposits of
level fall. Combined gravity deformation and further successive sequences differ primarily in shifting patterns
coastal progradation construct a thick offlap wedge, of fluvial axes and in the tendency for downcutting dur-
building the depositional platform margin basinward ing progradational intervals and aggradation during
beyond the older paleomargin (Figure 10, increments 8- retrogradational intervals (Galloway et al, 1986).
10). Crustal loading by the thick sediment wedge at the (5) Two types of internal discontinuity surfaces. Struc-
prograding margin results in peripheral uplift along the tural discontinuities form at zones of lateral translation
inner fringe of the basin; here, older terrestrial aggrada- of platform margin sediments by gravity tectonics and,
tional deposits (Figure 10, increments 1-4 and deposits of more locally, at sites of most active compressional uplift.
the previous episode) may be truncated by the younger Of greater stratigraphic importance are unconformities
fluvial systems, which continue to feed the prograding that form over the peripheral bulge. Such peripheral
margin. Younger sedimentary increments onlap this unconformities provide operational correlation horizons
erosion/bypass surface. that approximate the base of the preserved genetic
Decreasing sediment supply or a relative rise in base sequence in the nonmarine section (Galloway et al, 1986).
level ultimately terminates offlap. The shoreline retreats (Note updip limits of the sequence in Figure 9.) Such low-
from the platform margin, leaving an increasingly wide angle unconformities are readily seen in the stratigraphic
and sediment-starved shallow shelf. Gravitational insta- onlap of fluvial units such as the Goliad (upper Miocene)
bility of the recently deposited upper slope and shelf-edge across the outcrop belts of underlying formations. How-
sediments, augmented by wave, tide, and current energy, ever, the history of the bulge unconformity may be com-
results in retrogradation of the outer shelf and upper plex, reflecting the shifting temporal and spatial history
slope by mass wasting and slumping (Figure 10, incre- of depositional crustal loading. This unconformity tends
ments 11 and 12). Resedimented platform-margin sedi- to climb section basinward and is unlikely to correlate
ments are deposited as an onlapping wedge at the base of with the sequence-bounding flooding surfaces in the
the slope (Figure 10, increment 11). Along the retreating basinward part of the sequence (Galloway et al, 1986).
coast, transgressive or coastal aggradational facies Using the unconformity to establish regional sequence
sequences are deposited. Terrestrial aggradational facies boundaries will consequently lead to confusion and mis-
are thick and well preserved, and lap onto the eroded correlation.
inner fringe of the coastal plain. As flooding of the depo- Within a genetic sequence, mapping progradational
sitional platform peaks (maximum transgression), slow and retrogradational components separately commonly
rates of deposition produce widespread, thin, condensed is useful. Depositional styles and patterns within systems
veneers of hemipelagic or chemical sediments such as commonly change as base-level rise begins to dominate
glauconite sands or marls (Figure 10, increments 12 and (Galloway, 1975). Progradational lower parts of genetic
13). sequences are typified by greater fluvial domination of
Five types of facies compose the genetic stratigraphic delta systems and by strand plains. Retrogradational
sequence: upper parts of sequences display greater wave reworking
(1) An inner belt of terrestrial aggradational facies. of delta lobes and contain extensive barrier/lagoon sys-
(2) A middle zone of coastal facies successions. These tems (Duncan, 1983; Galloway et al, 1986).

[ ~]Terrestrial aggrcdational facies
I I Coastal progradotionol faces
j-z^:^Coastal oggradational ond/or transgressive focies
[2^Marine progradational and oggradational facies^ shelf/slope
Horizontal scale schematic
[iC^r "^
i . Deposittonol
7 episode s^--
• ^ : - ,
-- _--'^
\ 7 - — Truncc jrT -. • ,-•-•,
PERIPHERAL
BULGE
Figure 10—(A) Dip cross section of ideal genetic stratigraphic sequence showing stratigraphic architecture, structural modifica-
tion, and relationship of erosion, bypass, and clastic sediment starvation zones and (B) chronostratigraphic diagram of Gulf Coast
Cenozoic depositional episode.
CONCLUSIONS
The sediment-rich prograding continental margin of
the northwestern Gulf Coast has been characterized by
repetitive episodes of basin-margin offlap bracketed by
transgressive events that resuhed in widespread deposi-
tional platform flooding. The resultant stratigraphic
sequences are bounded by maximum-flooding surfaces
and consist of related depositional systems, associated
subaerial and transgressive nondepositional or erosional
surfaces, and syndepositional structural discontinuities.
The first-order depositional episodes of the Paleogene
and many episodes of the Neogene reflect large-scale tec-
tonic episodes of the North American plate. Within the
basin, these episodes are characterized by prominent
changes in coastal-plain paleogeography Eustatic con-
trol of depositional history is more prominent in the later
Neogene succession. Short-term eustatic sea level fluctu-
ations may overprint the first-order genetic stratigraphic
sequences, but their signature, if present, is obscure.
REFERENCES CITED
Bebout, D. G., B. R. Weise, A. R. Gregory, and M. B. Edwards, 1982,
Wilcox sandstone reservoirs in the deep subsurface along the Texas
Gulf Coast: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic
Geology Report of Investigations 117,125 p.
Bernard, H. A., and R. J. LeBlanc, 1975, Resume of the Quaternary
geology of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico province, In H. E.
Wright and D. E. Frey, eds., The Quaternary of the United States:
Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, p. 137-185.
Bott, M. H. P., 1980, Mechanisms of subsidence at passive continental
margins, in A. W. Bally, L. Bender, T. R. McGetchin, and R. I.
Walcott, eds., Dynamics of plate interiors: Washington, D. C ,
American Geophysical Union Geodynamics Series, v. 1, p. 27-35.
William E. Galloway 153
Master
expansion
zone
^ . _ . - -, --Condensed
^vBvposs'--^.-, „ interval,^:
: : • . vSubfnorj^rigerQslon
. u
., Lop out againsl opposed
/ basin morgin or
Structural bathymetric high
, :. discontinuity
LOADING
BASINWARD - —
Huffier, R. T, and D. S. Sawyer, 1985, Distribution of crust and early
history. Gulf of Mexico basin: Gulf Coast Association of Geologi-
cal Societies Transactions, v. 35, p. 333-344.
Chapin, C. E., 1979, Evolution of the Rio Grande rift, a summary, in
R. E. Riecker, ed., Rio Grande rift: tectonics and magmatism:
Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, p. 1-5.
S. M. Gather, 1981, Eocene tectonics and sedimentation in the
Colorado Plateau-Rocky Mountains area: Arizona Geological
Society Digest, v. 14, p. 199-213.
Cloetingh, S., H. McQueen, and K. Lambeck, 1985, On a tectonic
mechanism for regional sea level variations: Earth and Planetary
Science Letters, v. 75, p. 157-166.
Dailly, G. C , 1976, A possible mechanism relating progradation,
growth faulting, clay diapirism, and overthrusting in a regressive
sequence of sediments: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v.
24, p. 92-116.
Davis, G. A., 1980, Problems of intraplateextensional tectonics, west-
ern United States, in Studies of geophysics: continental tectonics:
National Research Council, p. 84-95.
Dickinson, W. R., 1981, Plate tectonic evolution of the Southern Cor-
dillera: Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. 14, p. 113-135.
Duncan, E. A., 1983, Dehneation of delta types: Norias delta system,
Frio Formation, south Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies Transactions, v. 33, p. 269-273.
Eaton, G., 1986, A tectonic redefinition of the southern Rocky Moun-
tains: Tectonophysics, v. 132, p. 163-193.
Edwards, M. B., 1981, The upper Wilcox Rosita delta system of south
Texas: record of growth-faulted shelf-edge deltas: AAPG Bulletin,
V. 65, p. 54-73.
Epis, R. C., and C. E. Chapin, 1975, Geomorphic and tectonic implica-
tions of the post-Laramide, late Eocene erosion surface in the
southern Roclcy Mountains: GSA Memoir 144, p. 45-74.
Fisher, W. L., and J. H. McGowen, 1967, Depositional systems in the
Wilcox Group of Texas and their relationship to occurrence of oil
and gas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transac-
tions, v. 17,p. 105-125.
L. F. Brown, Jr., A. J. Scott, and J. H. McGowen, 1969, Delta
systems in the exploration for oil and gas: University of Texas at
Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Research colloquium, vari-
ously paginated.
C. V. Proctor, Jr., W. E. Galloway, and J. S. Nagle, 1970, Depo-
sitional systems in the Jackson Group of Texas: their relationship to
 154 Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis II
oil, gas, and uranium: Gulf Coast Association of GeoiogLcal Soci-
eties Transactions, v. 20. p. 234-261.
f'isk, H. N., 1944, Geological investigation of ihc alluvial valley ot ihe
lower Mississippi River: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Report,
78 p.
Galloway, W. E., 1975, Process framework for describing the morpho-
logic and stratigraphic evolution of deltaic depositional systems, in
M. L. Broussard, ed.. Deltas: Houston, Texas, Houston Geological
Society, p. 87-98.
1981, Depositional architecture of Cenozoic Gulf Coast plain
fluvial systems,/nF.G.Ethridgeand R. M. Flores,eds., Recent and
ancient nonmarine depositional environments: models for explora-
tion: SEPM Special Publication 31, p. 127-155.
1986, Growth faults and fault-related structures of prograding
terrigenous clastic continental margins: Gulf Coast Association of
Geological Societies Transactions, v. 36, p. 121-128.
1987, Depositional and structural architecture of prograding
clastic continental margins: tectonic influence on patterns of basin
filling: Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, v. 67, p. 237-251.
1989, Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin analysis 1: archi-
tecture and genesis of flooding-surface bounded depositional units:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 125-142.
D. K. Hobday, 1983, Terrigenous clastic depositional systems:
New York, Springer-Verlag, 423 p.
W. R. Dingus, and R. Paige, 1988, Depositional framework
and genesis of Wilcox submarine canyon systems, northwest Gulf
Coast:AAPGBulletin, v. 72,p. 187-188.
D. K. Hobday, and K. Magara, 1982, Frio Formation of the
Texas Gulf Coast basin: depositional systems, structural frame-
work, and hydrocarbon origin, migration, distribution, and explo-
ration potential: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of
Economic Geology Report of Investigations 122, 78 p.
L. A. Jirik, R. A. Morton, and J. R. DuBar, 1986, Lower Mio-
cene (Fleming) depositional episode of the Texas coastal plain and
continental shelf: structural framework, facies and hydrocarbon
resources: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic
Geology Report of Investigations 150, 50 p.
• T. D. Murphy, R. C. Belcher, B. D. Johnson, and S. Sutton,
1977, Catahoula Formation of the Texas coastal plain: depositional
systems, composition, structural development, ground-water flow
history, and uranium distribution: University of Texas at Austin,
Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations 87, 59 p.
Gregory, J. E., 1966, A lower Oligocene delta in the subsurface of
southeastern Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies
Transactions, v. 16, p. 227-241.
Gries, R., 1983, North-south compression of Rocky Mountain fore-
land structures (abs.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 66, p. 574.
Guevara, E. H., and R. Garcia, 1972, Depositional systems and oil-gas
reservoirs in the Queen City Formation (Eocene), Texas: Gulf Coast
Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 22, p. 1-22.
Haq, B. U., J. Hardenbol, and P. R. Vail, 1987, Chronology of fluctu-
ating sea levels since the Triassic: Science, v. 235, p. 1156-1166.
Hardenbol, J., P. R. Vail, and J. Ferrer, 1981, Interpreting paleoenvi-
ronments, subsidence history and sea level changes of passive mar-
gins from seismic and biostratigraphy, in R. Blanchert and 1.
Montadert, eds., Geology of continental margins: International
Geological Congress Proceedings, Oceanologica Acta, v. 4,
View publication stats
r-.V-44
Jackson, M. P. .A., and W. E. Galloway, 1984, Structural and deposi-
lional styles of Gulf Coast Tertiary continental margins: applica-
tion to hydrocarbon exploration: AAPG Course Notes 25,226 p.
Jurkowski, G., J. Ni, and L. Brown, 1984, Modern uparching of the
Gulf coa>ial plain: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 89, p. 6247-
6255
Kaiser, W K., W. B. Ayers, Jr., and L. W. La Brie, 1980, Lignite
lesources in Texas: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Eco-
nomic Geology Report of Investigations 104, 52 p.
Loucks, R.G., 1978, Sandstone distribution and potential for geopres-
suied geothermal energy production in the Vicksburg Formation
along the Texas Gulf Coast: Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies Transactions, v. 28, p. 239-271.
M. M. Dodge, and W. E. Galloway, 1986, Controls on porosity
and permeability of hydrocarbon reservoirs in lower Tertiary sand-
stones along the Texas Gulf Coast: University of Texas at Austin,
Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations 149,78 p.
Loutit, T. S., and J. P. Kennett, 1981, Australian Cenozoic sedimentary
cycles, global sea level changes, and deep sea sedimentary record:
Oceanologica Acta Special Volume, p. 45-63.
McDowell, F. W., and S. E. Clabaugh, 1979, Ignimbrites of the Sierra
Madre Occidental and their relation to the tectonic history of west-
ern Mexico, in C. E. Chapin and W. B. Elston, eds.. Ash-flow tuffs:
GSA Special Paper 180, p. 113-124.
Morton, R. A., L. A. Jirik, and R. Q. Foote, 1985, Depositional his-
tory, facies analysis, and production characteristics of hydrocarbon
bearing sediments, offshore Texas: University of Texas at Austin,
Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 85-2, 31 p.
Price, J- G., and C. D. Henry, 1984, Stress orientations during Oligo-
cene volcanism in Trans-Pecos Texas: timing the transition from
Laramide compression to Basin and Range tension: Geology, v. 12,
p. 238-241.
Quinlan, G. M., and C. Beaumont, 1984, Appalachian thrusting, litho-
spheric flexure, and the Paleozoic stratigraphy of the Eastern Inte-
rior of North America: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 21,
p. 973-996.
Ramberg, H., 1981, Gravity deformation and the earth's crust in the-
ory, experiments, and geological application, 2d ed: London, Aca-
demic Press, 452 p.
Watts, A. B., 1982, Tectonic subsidence, flexure, and global changes of
sea level: Nature, v. 297, p. 469-474.
Weimer, R. J., 1970, Rates of deltaic sedimentation and intrabasin
deformation. Upper Cretaceous of Rocky Mountain region, ini.P.
Morgan, ed.. Deltaic sedimentation, modern and ancient: SEPM
Special Publication 15, p. 270-292.
Wihschko, D. v., and J. A. Dorr, Jr., 1983, Timing of deformation in
overthrust belt and foreland of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah: AAPG
Bulletin, V. 67, p. 1304-1322.
Winker, C. D., 1979, Late Pleistocene fluvial-deltaic deposition, Texas
coastal plain and shelf: Master's thesis, University of Texas at Aus-
tin, Austin, Texas, 187 p.
1982, Cenozoic shelf margins, northwestern Gulf of Mexico
basin: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions,
V. 32, p. 427-448.
M. B. Edwards, 1983, Unstable progradational clastic shelf
margins; SEPM Special Publication 33, p. 139-157.