Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2020, v.

90, 1094–1113
Research Article
DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2019.191

CLASSIFICATION OF PARALIC CHANNEL SUB-ENVIRONMENTS IN AN ANCIENT SYSTEM USING

OUTCROPS: THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM, NEW MEXICO, U.S.A.

WEN LIN,1 CURTIS FERRON,2 SEAN KARNER,3 AND JANOK P. BHATTACHARYA4

1
Suncor Energy, Exploration and Production, 150 6th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3E3, Canada
2
Ferron Geoscience Consulting, 292 Birch Street South, Timmins, Ontario P4N 2B3, Canada
3
Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa, 800 King Edward Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada
4
School of Geography and Earth Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8, Canada
e-mail: linwen007@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Distinguishing trunk channels and delta-plain distributary channels in ancient systems can be difficult
due to poor or incomplete data (e.g., limited outcrop or sparse well data). Accurate channel classification is required to
reconstruct the plan view of channel networks in a paralic fluvio-deltaic system and to quantify source-to-sink
systems. Channel formative mechanisms, such as allogenic versus autogenic and avulsion versus bifurcation, also
remain equivocal. In this paper we classify channel types and quantify their discharge and dimensions in an ancient
paralic depositional system of the Late Cretaceous Gallup system, New Mexico, in a recently developed high-
resolution sequence stratigraphic framework. Six key facies associations are identified and integrated into a detailed
facies architectural analysis using bedding diagrams from two outcrop cliffs. Backwater lengths are calculated and
used for interpretation of channel forming mechanisms and classification of channel types. Two types of channels are
interpreted in the study area: meandering fluvial avulsive distributary channels formed in the upstream backwater
region in an upper delta plain with a paleodischarge of 280–410 m3/s, and terminal distributary channels in a
subaqueous lower delta plain with a paleodischarge of 80–190 m3/s. The results show that upper-delta-plain fluvial
distributary channels are formed by erosive avulsion and resemble fluvial meandering rivers characterized by
laterally accreting point bars and a wide range of paleocurrents, whereas terminal distributary channels are formed
by both avulsion and bifurcation and show more aggradation with lateral confinement and relatively larger width-to-
depth ratios of individual channel stories. The quantification of channels and their depositional system provides new
data from a well-known ancient system for the global database and comparison with other modern and ancient
systems.

INTRODUCTION
Channels are key components of deltaic systems in that they dominate
sediment transport and dispersal. Channel networks of paralic depositional
environments typically comprise fluvial trunk rivers and distributary
systems, composed of upstream, delta-plain distributary channels and
downstream terminal distributary channels, defined by key boundaries
(e.g., backwater limit; Olariu and Bhattacharya 2006; Fielding et al. 2012)
(Fig. 1). However, distinguishing trunk channels in the lower course from
major upstream avulsive distributary channels in the upper delta plain may
be difficult in ancient systems, where outcrops are not continuous or well
data are sparse, and this may hamper reconstruction of plan-view
morphology of these coeval depositional components. Limited data can
result in incomplete paleogeographic maps of ancient systems that hamper
accurate classification of sub-environments of deposition in the absence of
a regional context (Hampson and Howell 2005). Classification of channel
types can also be complicated as a result of variable scales of different
types of channels in different depositional settings, depending on the
discharge, sediment supply, and slope.
Improved classification of paralic channel types allows documentation
of dimensions of different types of channels across a source-to-sink (S2S)
channel network. The information is critical for quantification of water and
sediment discharges that allows quantification of sediment transport
through an S2S system. Comparison of different fluvial systems with
proper counterpart facies in different tectonic and depositional settings is
also necessary to understand depositional evolution of the clastic realm in
space and time.
Erosional scour surfaces of amalgamated fluvial deposits have been used
as a key signal of allogenically forced relative sea-level fall and are
routinely interpreted as unconformable sequence boundaries (Van Wagoner
et al. 1988). However, recent studies have demonstrated that some
erosional channelization, such as erosion in the lower backwater or
confluence scours, are not linked to allogenic processes (e.g., Best and
Ashworth 1997; Ullah et al. 2015; Pattison 2018; Trower et al. 2018), and
therefore do not necessarily represent subaerial sequence boundaries
associated with allogenic valley formation (Best and Ashworth 1997;
Strong and Paola 2008; Shaw and Mohrig 2014; Mikeš et al. 2015;
Colombera et al. 2016; Li et al. 2016; Pattison 2018; Trower et al. 2018).
Autogenic channel scours, formed by channel avulsion or by water-surface
drawdown as a result of high discharge in the downstream distal reach
(Hajek and Wolinsky 2012; Colombera et al. 2016), are ubiquitous in the

Published Online: September 2020

Copyright Ó 2020, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/20/090-1094

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 JSR CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM
backwater reach of fluvio-deltaic systems (Blum et al. 2013). Therefore,
erosional scours, even with large incision depths, may not be diagnostic of
upstream fluvial river systems but can also occur in distributary channels.
Estimation of the backwater length (i.e., the maximum distance
upstream of a river that is affected by the downstream standing body of
water; Blum et al. 2013) of a fluvio-deltaic system is required for
distinction of channel types by locating the distributive avulsion node,
especially if it is controlled by the backwater. Backwater-zone distributary
channel belts may be deeply incised, but they also typically show greater
levels of aggradation versus lateral migration (Jerolmack and Swenson
2007; Chatanantavet et al. 2012; Colombera et al. 2016; Martin et al. 2019)
(Fig. 1), and distinguishing lower-backwater channels can be critical in
distinguishing allogenic valleys from autogenic backwater scours.
In the autogenic-dominated distributary region, formative mechanisms
of distributary channels have long been debated. One assumption is that
distributary channels are formed as a result of channel bifurcation around
mouth bars (Wright 1977; Olariu and Bhattacharya 2006; Edmonds and
Slingerland 2007; Jerolmack and Swenson 2007). The other assumption is
that distributary channels are formed by erosional processes (Van Heijst
and Postma 2001; Slingerland and Smith 2004; Shaw and Mohrig 2014;
Colombera et al. 2016; Trower et al. 2018). Well-documented facies
architectural analysis of high-quality outcrops of clearly defined channel
networks is required to investigate the formative mechanisms.
This paper documents the facies architecture, style, scale, and paleo-
discharge of a series of well-exposed channel deposits in outcrops of the Late
Cretaceous Gallup system in northwest New Mexico, USA. These channel
deposits are located within the fluvial-to-marine transition zones and
represent dynamic changes in channel patterns in coastal areas. Backwater
lengths are estimated in the context of a recently developed, high-resolution
sequence stratigraphic framework, which allows us to distinguish trunk rivers
that feed major delta-plain distributary channels, which in turn correlate to
downstream terminal distributary channels. This allows reconstruction of a
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf
by Carleton University user
1095
FIG. 1.—Channel classification based on key
facies subdivisions and boundaries of a delta.
Major subaerial distributary rivers are deposited in
the upper delta plain between the backwater limit
and the bayline, and terminal distributary channels
are deposited in the lower delta plain (delta front)
between the bayline and the shoreline (modified
after Bhattacharya 2010).
S2S channel network, preserved in a depositional sequence. This study also
quantifies the sediment discharge of different channels in the system to better
evaluate sediment transport and dispersal in a S2S system. Channel-forming
mechanisms and diagnostic characteristics of different channel types are
analyzed based on facies architectural and paleohydrological analysis. The
results provide solid data on the characteristics, dimensions, and hydraulic
parameters of backwater-affected distributary channel for the global database
as a well-documented ancient analog.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway (WIS) was formed as the North
American foreland basin was flooded by the Tethys Sea from the south and
the Boreal Ocean from the north (Kauffman and Caldwell 1993). The
Gallup Formation was one of numerous regressive clastic wedges
deposited along the west margin of the WIS, during the late Turonian to
early Coniacian in modern northwest New Mexico (Fig. 2).
The Gallup prograded towards the northeast with tectonic influence of
the northwest–southeast-striking Mogollon Highlands to the south and the
north–south-oriented Sevier thrust belt to the west (McCubbin 1982;
Molenaar 1983; Bilodeau 1986; Nummedal and Molenaar 1995; Dick-
inson and Lawton 2001; Lawton et al. 2003; Dickinson and Gehrels 2008;
Lawton and Bradford 2011; Lawton et al. 2014; Szwarc et al. 2015). The
Gallup Formation was previously divided into six sandstone tongues,
prograding into and interfingering basinward with the Mancos Shale
(Nummedal and Molenaar 1995). Lin et al. (2019) evaluated the
relationships between the marine Mancos Shale, the marine sandstones
of the Gallup Formation, the landward nonmarine deposits of the Dilco
Member, and the fluvial sandstones of the overlying Torrivio Member in a
sequence stratigraphic context (Fig. 2), and the work demonstrates a
dynamic depositional evolution of the Gallup system, associated with high-
frequency stratal cyclicity.
 1096 W. LIN ET AL. JSR

FIG. 2.—A) Regional paleogeographic map of the Late Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway showing the clastic wedges and the Gallup delta along the west margin of the
seaway (modified after Hutsky and Fielding, 2016). B) Lithostratigraphic chart of the Gallup and Crevasse Canyon formations of the San Juan Basin, New Mexico (modified
after Fassett (2013), Dubiel (2013), and Nummedal and Molenaar (1995)).

The WIS is characterized as a semi-closed depositional environment
with a relatively short distance from source areas to sinks and high
sediment supply due to rapid uplift and erosion. This shallow marine ramp-
margin setting modulated with high-frequency stratigraphic variation
preserves extensive source-to-sink systems ideal for stratigraphic and
sedimentological studies. Given the similar depositional evolution of all the
clastic wedges along the western margin of the WIS, the study presented in
this paper is analogous to other wedges.
Although the Gallup Sandstone was previously interpreted as formed by
wave-dominated marine shorefaces, strandplains, or barrier islands
(Campbell 1971; Molenaar 1973; Campbell 1979; McCubbin 1982;
Nummedal and Molenaar 1995), a new process-based facies analysis
indicates that the Gallup is a wave-dominated, river- and storm-influenced,
and tide-affected depositional system, in which the dominant depositional
processes vary throughout the different parasequences (Ainsworth et al.
2011; Lin and Bhattacharya 2020). Strong fluvial influence has been
documented in a number of parasequence sets and indicates lateral
transition between river-dominated deltaic deposition and wave-dominated
deposition (Lin and Bhattacharya 2020).
A recent detrital-zircon analysis suggests that the sediments supplied to
the Gallup system were derived from both the Sevier thrust belt to the west
and the Mogollon Highlands to the south, which suggests that the Gallup

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 JSR CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM 1097

FIG. 3.—A) Index map of outcrop distribution

of the Gallup Fm (modified after Lin et al. 2019).
The red boxes show the two cross sections of this
paper in Part B. B) Google Earth maps show
locations of measured sections and cross sections.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 1098 W. LIN ET AL. JSR

FIG. 4.—High-resolution sequence stratigraphic correlation of the Gallup system. The two cliff faces showing two channel systems of Parasequence 9a of the lower Gallup and Parasequence 3 of the upper Gallup in this
system may have had multiple drainage basins and feeding river systems,
indicating that the Gallup was a multi-provenance system (Fig. 2).

DATA AND METHODS

This paper examines selected channel bodies in different parasequences

defined by the regional high-resolution sequence stratigraphic framework,
recently established by Lin et al. (2019). This stratigraphic framework was
based on seventy-one detailed sedimentological sections including
lithology, sedimentary structure, grain size, bed thickness, paleocurrent
direction, and trace fossils measured across the extensive outcrop belt in
NW New Mexico (Fig. 3). Six additional sections were measured on two
particular cliff faces using rappelling gear to provide control on analysis of
photo panoramas (see locations of measured sections and cliffs in Fig. 3).
Two cliff faces were chosen that show two different channel systems of
Parasequence 9a of the lower Gallup and Parasequence 3 of the upper
Gallup (Fig. 4). Centimeter-resolution photo panoramas were recorded and
processed by GigaPanTM hardware and software and used to make detailed
bedding diagrams to illustrate internal bedding geometry and facies
architecture.
Facies architectural analysis is used to document architectural elements
and their bounding surfaces to determine the stratigraphic evolution of
channel deposits (Miall 1985). The bedding surfaces used in this study
include channel and channel-belt boundaries (sensu the fifth- and sixth-
order contacts of Miall 1988), macro-barform and accretion boundaries
(sensu the third- and fourth-order surfaces of Miall 1988), and crossbed set
and coset boundaries (sensu the first- and second-order contacts of Miall
1988). Bedding diagrams that illustrate bedding geometries and accretion
patterns are the key to analyzing channel stacking pattern, flow behavior,
and evolutionary history, and consequently they are critical to interpret
different types of channel deposits.
Paleohydrological parameters such as channel dimensions, paleoslopes,
grain size, and flow velocity are estimated using the integration of
empirical equations and outcrop measurements. These estimates are then
used for paleodischarge calculation and backwater length estimation.

FACIES AND ARCHITECTURE ANALYSIS

Facies Association 1 (FA1): Prodelta

Description.—FA1 comprises up to 8-m-thick mudstone-dominated

heterolithic successions that show a slightly coarsening-upward trend. Cross
study are highlighted on the cross section (modified after Lin et al. 2019).

lamination and planar lamination are common in thin-bedded sandstones,

and mudstones show normal and reverse grading with scattered trace fossils
(BI , 3). Thicker sandstone beds commonly show 3D cross-stratification
with symmetric ripple lamination at the top (Table 1).

Interpretation.—Cross lamination and planar lamination, composed of

combined-flow current ripples and starved ripples indicate both unidirec-
tional flows and wave reworking and high-sedimentation rate pulses.
Normal- and reverse-graded mudstones are interpreted to represent
turbidity currents and hyperpycnal flows triggered by flow processes (Li
et al. 2015). The thicker sandstones with 3D hummocky cross stratification
(HCS) were likely formed by episodic storm events. The observed soft-
sediment deformation and Bouma sequences imply an instable depositional
environment with a high sedimentation rate. FA1 is therefore interpreted as
storm-influenced prodelta deposits.

Facies Association 2 (FA2): Marine Sandstone

Description.—Overlying FA1 is a coarsening-upward sandstone

succession of FA2 comprising 3D cross-stratified and laminated sand-
stones at the bottom, bioturbated and planar-bedded sandstones in the
middle, and cross-bedded sandstones at the top. This sandstone succession

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 JSR CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM 1099

FIG. 5.—Photos of marine sandstone facies association (FA2) and fluvial facies associations (FA3, 5). A) HCS and planar-bedded sandstones contain mud drapes and
carbonaceous material. B) Unidirectional inclined surfaces define point bars of fluvial channels. C) Lenticular-shaped channelized sandstones with internal inclined surfaces
and erosional scour surfaces truncate the underlying strata. D) Abundant rip-up clasts, wood debris, and coarse material are at the base of a fluvial river. E) Current-ripple and
planar lamination and carbonaceous material are in unbioturbated mud-dominated heterolithic deposits of floodplains.

is up to 18 m thick. The 3D cross-stratified sandstone beds vary between
0.5 m and 1 m thick; planar-bedded sandstone beds range from 10 cm to 50
cm thick, and cross-bedded sandstone beds range from 40 cm to 2 m thick.
Mud drapes are common, with a thickness up to 5 cm. Carbonaceous
material, such as plant material and coal chips, is common (Fig. 5A). BI is
generally low except in the bioturbated sandstones (BI 5–6).
Interpretation.—The interpreted HCS and wave ripples of FA2
typically indicate storm wave processes on the lower shoreface (Walker
et al. 1983; Duke et al. 1991). Current ripples suggest influence of
unidirectional flows. Bioturbated and planar-bedded interbedding, known
as the ‘‘lam-scram’’ structure, is interpreted to represent an alternation of
higher-energy and lower-energy conditions, typically the upper part of
lower shoreface, where opportunistic suspension-feeding ichnofauna
recolonized the substrate in between high-energy storm periods (Ma-
cEachern and Bann 2008). The cross-bedded sandstones indicate the
migration of subaqueous dunes that formed in response to longshore and
onshore currents above fair-weather wave base on the upper shoreface or
delta-front mouth bars (Clifton et al. 1971; Ahmed et al. 2014; Van
Cappelle et al. 2016). Mud drapes suggest high mud sediment supply
during waning periods, which implies fluvial influence. Carbonaceous
material also suggests terrestrial input, likely related to rivers. Mud-draped
cross-bedded sandstones in the study area may be indicative of mouth-bar
deposits, associated with riverine mud sediment. Double mud-draped
marine sandstones suggest periodic tidal influence (Lin and Bhattacharya
2020).
Facies Association 3 (FA3): Fluvial Channel Belt
Description.—FA3 shows an erosional basal surface with a concave-up
and thinning-margin geometries and truncates into FA2. FA3 is up to 10 m
thick and 120 m wide. Internally, erosional scour surfaces truncate strata
underneath (Fig. 5C). Unidirectional inclined surfaces are associated with
lenticular mudstone beds and locally define bar shapes (Fig. 5B).
Sandstones are predominantly cross bedded with coarse- to medium-

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 1100
FIG. 6.—Paleocurrent measurements. A) Paleocurrents of fluvial distributary channels. B) Paleocurrents of terminal distributary channels.
grained sands. Rip-up clasts and wood debris are observed at the base (Fig.
5D). Heterolithic sections that range from 0.5 to 1.0 m thick comprise
interbedded fine-grained laminated sandstones and siltstones with local
climbing ripples typically at marginal locations (Fig. 5E). Paleocurrents
range between northeast and southeast (Fig. 6A).
Interpretation.—FA3 is interpreted as fluvial channel deposits. The
erosional basal surfaces and the associated increase in grain size are
interpreted to represent channel incision (Bridge 2003; Slingerland and
Smith 2004). The internal erosional surfaces define multiple channel
stories. The inclined surfaces are interpreted to be the boundaries of
laterally accretionary point-bar deposits of meandering channels (Miall
1996; Durkin et al. 2017). Mud plugs and drapes over bar deposits are
interpreted to have been deposited during waning or low flow stages
(Bridge and Tye 2000). The interbedded current-ripple-laminated sand-
stones and siltstones at the margins are interpreted as levee deposits that
pass laterally into floodplain deposits.
Facies Association 4 (FA4): Terminal Distributary Channel
Description.—FA4 shows similar facies characteristic to FA3: erosional
basal contacts define lenticular and bar-shaped sandstones. The concave-up
scour surfaces are filled with either fine-grained sandstones or heterolithic
sediments (Fig. 7A, B, C). Fine-grained sandstone bodies range from 10 to
80 m wide and from 0.5 to 2.5 m thick, and heterolithic-deposits are on
average 90 m wide and 4.5 m deep. Scattered long (0.5 m) Ophiomorpha
and Skolithos trace fossils are found in the upper parts (Fig. 7C, D). Thin-
bedded very-fine-grained cross-bedded and laminated sandstones and
siltstones are interbedded on the sides of the lenticular sandstones with
sporadic burrows present (Fig. 7E). Bidirectional-cross-bedded sandstones
with double mud drapes are present locally. Paleocurrents are predomi-
nantly north-oriented (Fig. 6B).
Interpretation.—FA4 represents terminal distributary channels (Olariu
and Bhattacharya 2006). The muddy channel bodies represent abandoned
channels (Li and Bhattacharya 2014). The accretionary bar forms are
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf
by Carleton University user
W. LIN ET AL. JSR
interpreted as point-bar deposits of meandering distributary channels. The
lenticular sandstone that incises into the point-bar deposits is interpreted as
a chute cut-off resulting from channel abandonment. The vertical trace
fossils atop suggest channel abandonment and tidal influence (Jordan and
Pryor 1992; Hubbard et al. 2011). Double mud drapes along cross-bedded
sandstones also indicate tidal processes. The thin-bedded heterolithic
sections are interpreted to be accretionary levee deposits (Lynds and Hajek
2006). Bioturbation suggests a subaqueous and probably brackish-water
depositional environment, at least periodically underwater, as opposed to a
nonmarine fully fluvial floodplain environment (MacEachern et al. 2005).
The 10-m-wide channel at the top of the muddy abandoned channel
deposits shows that the channel was not completely abandoned and
experienced fluctuating sediment input.
Facies Association 5 (FA5): Floodplain
Description.—FA5 overlies and passes laterally into FA3. The red to
brown muddy facies association comprises abundant carbonaceous
material, such as plant and leaf material, wood debris, coal chips, and
rhizoliths. Paleosol and slickensided mudstones are observed locally. FA5
ranges from 40 cm to 5 m thick. Cross lamination and planar lamination
are observed (Fig. 5E).
Interpretation.—FA5 is interpreted to be floodplain deposits. The
abundance of carbonaceous material is indicative of a terrestrial
environment, and the muddy facies with no observation of bioturbation
that juxtaposes to fluvial channels (FA3) suggests nonmarine deposits.
Paleosol and slickensided mudstones indicate subaerial exposure of a
floodplain (Kraus 1999).
Facies Association 6 (FA6): Brackish-Water Environment
Description.—FA6 overlies FA5 and contains heterolithic successions
composed of interbedded carbonaceous muddy siltstones and cross-
laminated sandstones. FA6 ranges from 0.5 m to 5 m thick. Carbonaceous
content, such as wood debris and plant material, are abundant (Fig. 8A).
Cross lamination and planar lamination are common (Fig. 8B).
 JSR CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM 1101

FIG. 7.—Photos of terminal distributary channels (FA4). A) Erosional basal surfaces of channelized sandstones and unidirectional accretionary bars. Note that the concave-
up scour surfaces are filled with either fine-grained sandstones or heterolithic sediments. B) Zoomed-in photo shows a scour surface filled with fine-grained sediment that is
interpreted as abandoned-channel fill. C) Long vertical burrows of Ophiomorpha and Skolithos ichnogenera are found in the upper parts of the channelized sandstones. D)
Ophiomorpha burrows are in the terminal-distributary-channel sandstones. E) Levee deposits show very-fine-grained cross-bedded and current-ripple-laminated sandstones
and siltstones thinly interbedded with sporadic burrows.

Bioturbation is moderate (BI 3–4) with dominant ichnogenera of
Teichichnus, Planolites, and Chondrites (Fig. 8B).
Interpretation.—With the presence of moderate bioturbation intensity
and the particular trace-fossil assemblage, FA6 is interpreted to represent a
low-energy brackish-water depositional environment (MacEachern et al.
2009), such as a bay fill or lagoon. The abundant carbonaceous material
also indicates proximity to continental environments.
Facies Architecture
Cross Section 1.—The west–east-oriented cliff face at the Beautiful
Mountain area shows a cross-sectional view of a channel complex (Fig.
9). A composite major basal erosional surface that defines the channel
belt cuts into the cross-bedded strata of the underlying shoreface (Figs. 9,
10). This unconformable basal contact was interpreted as a sequence
boundary (Lin et al. 2019). The channel complex is composed of a series
of channel and bar sandstones, heterolithic intervals, and mud plugs,
bounded by accretionary surfaces, (FA 3). The bottom part of the bedding
diagram represents a channel belt that consists of four major channels
shifting eastward (Fig. 9). The location of Measured Section 2 (MS2)
represents the channel axis, which is approximately 8 m thick (Figs. 9,
10). A separate channel belt aggrades in the east of the cliff and passes
laterally into heterolithic intervals. This channel to the east is interpreted
to be a younger channel belt that migrated into the adjacent flood plain
(Fig. 10).

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 1102
FIG. 8.—Photos of brackish-water facies association (FA6). A) Muddy siltstones
that contain abundant coal chips and plant material indicate terrestrial deposits. B)
Current-ripple-laminated and planar-laminated sandstones and siltstones with
moderate bioturbation. Dominant ichnogenera including Teichichnus, Planolites,
and Chondrites suggest a brackish-water environment.
Internally, several concave-upward erosional surfaces truncate bedset
surfaces. Bedding surfaces are mainly inclined and dip towards the east,
and some are either flat or dip in the opposite direction (Fig. 10). Barforms
also appear to accrete towards the east (Figs. 9, 10). These eastward-
dipping beds indicate lateral accretion of a meandering channel (Bridge
2003; Durkin et al. 2017). The large-scale inclined barforms are interpreted
to be point bars, and the high-angle dipping barforms west of MS2 are
interpreted to be unit bars (Bridge 2006) (Fig. 9).
The maximum thickness of the channel deposits appears to be 8 m, at
the location of MS2, suggesting a channel depth of 9 m, assuming 10%
compaction. The channel-belt width measured from the outcrop is 168 m.
The channel belt shows a width-to-depth ratio of 18.7. Individual channel
stories range from 50 m to 60 m wide, yielding a range in width-to-depth
ratio of 5.6–6.7.
Cross Section 2.—The west–east-oriented cliff face west of the Town of
Gallup shows a strike-view exposure of a channel complex that represents
terminal distributary channels and bars (Fig. 11). Several concave-upward
scour surfaces are observed in the outcrop. A well-defined concave-upward
cut is present in the west of the cliff with a width of 90 m and an incision
depth of 3.8 m. This erosional surface, filled with fine-grained heterolithic
deposits, is interpreted to be an abandoned channel that was rejuvenated
during a later high-flow stage (Li and Bhattacharya 2014). It cuts into the
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf
by Carleton University user
W. LIN ET AL. JSR
underlying sandstone unit in the west and is truncated by another channel
body, 10 m wide and 0.6 m thick, at the top. The underlying sandstone unit
in the west, up to 5 m thick, shows an upward-coarsening trend with planar
bedding present at the bottom and grading upward to bidirectional cross
bedding. This sandstone unit gradationally overlies the HCS sandstones
and thins eastward along with the overlying channel, showing a bar shape
(Figs. 11, 12). This mounded-top bar-shaped sandstone succession with
high BI is interpreted to be reworked mouth bars; the bidirectional cross
bedding represents the strike-direction geometry of mouth bars (Olariu and
Bhattacharya 2006).
A two-story terminal distributary channel presents at the top,
demarcated by two scour surfaces. Three erosional surfaces aggrade
vertically and truncate the internal bedding surfaces in the east, interpreted
as multiple channel stories and their associated mouth bars (Figs. 11, 12).
Most of the bedding surfaces are inclined, dip to the west, and downlap or
onlap erosional surfaces. The dip angles of these inclined surfaces range
from 28 to 108 and increase to the west. The inclined strata range from 1.8
m to 3.2 m thick, and the individual beds range from 0.6 m to 1.9 m thick.
The measurement from the outcrop suggests that the terminal
distributary channels range from 65 to 90 m wide and from 2.4 to 4.2 m
deep (assuming a 10% compaction factor), yielding a range of width to
depth ratio of 21.4–27.1.
PALEODISCHARGE ESTIMATES
Paleohydrological parameters of different channels have been estimated,
including channel width, channel-belt width, slope, and flow velocity,
based on outcrop measurements and numerical empirical equations (Bridge
and Tye 2000), to quantify water discharge. Water-discharge estimates
using outcrop data and empirical equations can have uncertainties.
Nonetheless, these uncertainties are considered to be within reasonable
ranges (Lin and Bhattacharya 2017) with multiple methods that can be
used to cross-check for consistency.
Bankfull flow depth can be estimated from the thickness of fully
preserved channel storeys (Bridge and Tye 2000). Alternatively, channel
depth can be reconstructed from sedimentary structures, such as dune-scale
cross-bedding and bar accretion deposits in the absence of fully preserved
channel stories. The average channel depth is between 6 and 10 times the
average dune height, which is 2.9 (6 0.7) 3 the average cross-set thickness
(see Leclair and Bridge 2001).
Paleoslope can be estimated using geometric means from stratigraphic
correlations. With a well-established sequence stratigraphic correlation,
hung on a reliable synchronous datum, backstripping techniques can be
applied to remove the effects of postdepositional tectonic subsidence and
compaction. Consequently, the gradient of a backstripped stratigraphic
clinoform (sensu flooding surface) can represent a paleoslope (Lin et al.
2020). Alternatively, paleoslope can be estimated numerically using the
equation
sbf 50 ¼ ðdm S Þ=ðPD50 Þ ¼ constant ð1Þ
where dm is bankfull flow depth, S is slope, P is submerged dimensionless
density of sand–gravel sediment in standard-density water and is estimated
to be 1.65 given an empirical estimate of clastic sediment density of 2.65 g/
cm3. D50 is grain size. The bankfull Shields number (s*bf50) represents
dimensionless shear stress, assumed to be 1.86, as a theoretical empirical
value, estimated from a series of hydraulic experiments and corrections of
statistical data (see Parker et al. 1998 and the reference therein). Mean flow
velocity is estimated using the Chézy equation:
U ¼ Cz ðRS Þ1=2 ð2Þ
0.5 1/6
where Cz is the Chézy Coefficient (Cz ¼ (g) 8.1(dm/ks) , where dm is
mean bankfull water depth, and ks is roughness element (ks ¼ 3D90 þ
by Carleton University user
JSR

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM

FIG. 9.—Facies architectural analysis of Cross Section 1. A) Photomosaic of Cross Section 1 with three measured sections (see Fig. 3 for locations). B) Bedding diagram of Cross Section 1. Note the eastward shift of
channel belts. C) Depositional facies correlation. Channel deposits erosionally truncate into the underlying marine facies.
1103
 1104
FIG. 10.—Correlation of measured sections of Cross Section 1 showing facies, strata, and key bounding surfaces. Note the large-scale inclined surfaces dipping to the east
in channels.
1.1D(1 – e–25w)), where D ¼ bedform height ¼ dm/8 (see LeClair and
Bridge 2001); w ¼ D /k, where k ¼ bedform wavelength ¼ 7.3 dm (see Van
Rijn 1984). R is hydraulic radius, and S is paleoslope. Water discharge is
calculated by multiplying channel cross-sectional area by mean flow
velocity.
Gallup Fluvial Channel
Table 2 summarizes the paleohydrological parameters and paleodi-
scharge estimates using the method described above. The flow depth
converted directly from the channel thickness measured from the outcrop is
around 9 m. Assuming that the thickness represents an incomplete channel
succession due to erosion, a flow depth of ~ 11 m is estimated using a
cross-set thickness of 30 cm. The paleodischarge of the Gallup fluvial
channel is estimated to be 280–410 m3/s with a paleoslope of 1.1–1.4 3
10–4 and a mean flow velocity of 1.2–1.3 m/s. Flow velocity can be also
estimated using the bedform phase diagram of Rubin and McCulloch
(1980) as a cross-check. The fine-grained cross-bedded sandstones of the
Gallup fluvial channel correspond to a flow velocity of 0.7 to 1.6 m/s. The
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf
by Carleton University user
W. LIN ET AL. JSR
flow-velocity estimated from the empirical equation falls in the middle of
the plotted flow velocity range estimated using the bedform phase diagram.
Using stratigraphic correlation, the slope of the fluvial section of
Parasequence 3 is estimated to be 0.00075, approximately five times
greater than the equation-estimated slope. The flow-velocity and discharge
estimated based on this slope are ~ 3.0–3.2 m/s and ~ 820–1050 m3/s,
respectively. These flow velocity estimates appear to be in the upper range
of river flow velocities, and therefore the empirical equation estimation is
considered to be more realistic. Depending on the sinuosity, the channel
slope in a meandering channel should also be considerably lower than the
‘‘stratigraphic slope,’’ which is essentially the straight-line slope between
two points.
Gallup Terminal Distributary Channel
Two terminal distributary channels range from 65 to 90 m wide and
from 2.4 to 4.2 m deep as measured from the outcrop. Flow depth can be
up to 7.2 m using the cross-set thickness of 20 cm. The water discharge of
the two channels are estimated to be around 80 m3/s and 190–310 m3/s
respectively, with paleoslopes of 2.6 3 10–4 and 0.9–1.5 3 10–4 and flow
 JSR CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM 1105

FIG. 11.—Facies architectural analysis of Cross Section 2. A) Photomosaic of Cross Section 2 with three measured sections (see Fig. 3 for locations). B) Bedding diagram of Cross Section 2. Channels show a large width-
velocities of 1.0 m/s (Table 2). Flow velocities are estimated to be 0.8 – 1.3
m/s from the bedform phase diagram. The equation-estimated value falls in
the middle of this range. Paleoslope can be also estimated using the
method developed by Lynds et al. (2014) for rivers filled with fine-grained
cross-bedded deposits.
  2
RD50b Usf
S¼ ðW  =Rep Þ1=3 ð3Þ
d Ws
where R is the specific dimensionless gravity of quartz (R ¼ 1.65), W* is
the dimensionless settling velocity, Usf /Ws is the ratio of skin friction shear
velocity to particle settling velocity for very fine to fine grained sand (Usf /
Ws ¼ 3.1, see Lynds et al. 2014 for discussion), Rep is the particle Reynolds
number. This method estimated paleoslope values of 1.19–1.47 3 10–4,
very similar to the results of the other methods described above.

DISCUSSION

Backwater Effect and Channel Classification

to-depth ratio and vertical aggradation. C) Depositional facies correlation of Cross Section 2. Channels cut into mouth-bar and lower-shoreface deposits.
The paleoslope of Parasequence 3 (from fluvial to marine shelf) is
estimated to be 0.001 from the regional sequence stratigraphic correlation
of Lin et al. (2019). Using a channel depth of 10 m yields a backwater
length of approximately 10 km. The paleoslope of 0.0075, measured only
from the fluvial section of the stratigraphic cross section, yields a
backwater length of 13 km. The paleoslope estimated from the fluvial
section is lower than that of the whole parasequence, suggesting a lower
gradient in the fluvial and coastal plain.
A paleogeographic map of Parasequence 3 illustrates meandering
fluvial channel belts with diverse paleoflow directions that are mapped
from outcrops and implied by paleocurrent measurements (Fig. 13).
These channel belts are deposited within the backwater zone and likely
near the upstream limit using the lower range of the backwater length.
(Fig. 13). Therefore, they likely represent the most upstream major
fluvial distributary channel belts downstream of the trunk river,
inasmuch as large-scale avulsions typically occur at or near the upstream
limit of the backwater length (Jerolmack and Swenson 2007;
Chatanantavet et al. 2012; Ganti et al. 2014). Trunk rivers of this
parasequence are located farther southwest past the Window Rock area
of Arizona (Fig. 3).
A similar large-scale fluvial distributary model can be observed at the
Sittang River, Myanmar (Fig. 14). The active distributary is located west of
the distributary channel belt downstream of the avulsion node. The
distributary channel belt records a high-sinuosity meandering river belt
before avulsion with a large number of loops and point bars. Similar large-
scale avulsive fluvial distributary channels with widths ranging between 50
and 250 m and thicknesses ranging 1–12 m are also documented in the
Mesa Rica Sandstone of the Dakota group, New Mexico (Van Yperen et al.
2019). These distributary channels were interpreted to have been deposited
in upper delta plains due to the backwater effect in response to a low-
gradient depositional profile.
The distributary-channel belt shows an erosional relief of 12 m. In
addition, the small width-to-depth ratio suggests significant downcutting
versus lateral migration. The lag and clastic rip-up deposits at the
channel floors (Fig. 5D) also indicate erosional processes of high-speed
flows on river beds. Therefore, these major upstream distributary
channels close to avulsion nodes are most likely formed by erosional
avulsion, especially when they are within the lower backwater zone,
where the hydrodynamics of non-uniform flow causes extensive erosion
due to water-surface drawdown to river mouth (Chatanantavet et al.
2012; Lamb et al. 2012; Nittrouer et al. 2012; Colombera et al. 2016;
Trower et al. 2018).
The basal surface of the fluvial distributary channel in this study
coalesces with the sequence boundary of Sequence 3 of the upper

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 1106
FIG. 12.—Correlation of measured sections of Cross Section 2 showing facies, strata, and key bounding surfaces. Note the lateral transition between channel and
abandoned channel deposits.
Gallup, which incises into the underlying marine strata (Lin et al. 2019).
An allogenic sea-level fall results in shoreline advance that leads to
deposition of the subaerial fluvial plain of Parasequence 3 (Fig. 13).
Nonetheless, the sequence boundary is composed of a number of
erosional basal surfaces of multiple fluvial channels, representing a
composite surface (Strong and Paola 2008; Bhattacharya 2011;
Holbrook and Bhattacharya 2012; Pattison 2018): among these erosional
surfaces, some are likely intrinsic scours, especially those within the
lower backwater reach, as a result of hydraulic erosion, independent of
allogenic forcing (Best and Ashworth 1997; Nijhuis et al. 2015; Hajek
and Straub 2017; Trower et al. 2018). However, the coarse material
observed in the channels also suggests that the backwater-driven
mechanism is not dominant (Martin et al. 2018). The result implies
that a higher-resolution self-regulation of fluvial channels occurred in
the upstream buffer zone in response to an allogenic buttress basinward
shift (Holbrook et al. 2006).
Incised-Valley Scenario.—An alternative interpretation is that the
fluvial distributary channels are confined within a coastal-plain incised
valley that was formed in response to a 12 km shoreline advance along
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf
by Carleton University user
W. LIN ET AL. JSR
with a relative sea-level fall (Fig. 13), which is similar to the depositional
model of the Ferron Notom Delta (Li and Bhattacharya 2013; Kimmerle
and Bhattacharya 2018). If this scenario is true, the incised valley may have
been at least 11 km wide, based on the along-strike span of the mapped
channels (Fig. 13). The total erosional relief of the channelization of
Parasequence 3 (i.e., the distance between the lowest channel base and the
transgressive surface) is estimated to be 26 m, measured from the regional
sequence stratigraphic correlation (Fig. 4). The estimated valley dimension
shows a width-depth ratio of . 420. This ratio and the estimated valley
width and thickness are consistent with the valley dimensions reported by
Gibling (2006), especially the ancient valley fills associated with alluvial
and marine strata. Moreover, the thickness of the distributary channels
show an increasing trend downstream (Fig. 4), which better fits the valley-
fill model of Burnham et al. (2020).
Nonetheless, no clearly identified incised valley with steep walls, as
shown in classic incised-valley models (sensu Posamentier and Vail 1988),
has been observed in the study area in response to a significant allogenic
fall of relative sea level. This observation suggests that the incised-valley
model with significant incision and clearly developed walls may not be
ubiquitious, especially in ramp margins of active foreland basins. Instead,
 JSR CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM 1107

TABLE 1.—Summary of facies and facies associations.

No. Facies Association Lithology, Sedimentary Structures, and Characteristics Ichnology

FA1 Prodelta Mudstone-dominated heterolithic successions, slightly BI 0–3

coarsening upward. Gray to dark gray silty mudstones, Scattered trace fossils.
mud siltstones, and tan to gray very-fine-grained Cruziana Ichnofacies: Planolites, Chondrites, Ophiomorpha
sandstones. Combined-flow current ripples and starved
ripples are common in sandstones; mudstones are
normally and reversely graded. HCS with wave ripples
at the top are common in thicker sandstone beds. Soft-
sediment deformation and Bouma sequences are
common.
FA2 Shoreface Coarsening upward. Very-fine-grained HCS and BI 0–6
combined-flow-rippled sandstone at the bottom, very- Low BI in HCS and bedded sandstones; high BI in
fine- to fine-grained bioturbated and planar-bedded, bioturbated sandstones.
known as ‘‘lam-scram’’ structured sandstone in the Cruziana–Skolithos ichnofacies: Planolites, Paleophycus,
middle, fine- to medium-grained and locally coarse- Ophiomorpha, Skolithos, Diplocraterion, Cylindrichnus,
grained cross-bedded sandstone at the top. Mud drape. Chondrites
Plant material and coal chips are common.
FA3 Fluvial channel belt Erosionally based sandstones with undulating basal BI 0
surfaces, incising into FA2. Poorly sorted sediment, No trace fossils observed
varying from fine to coarse-grained. An abrupt increase
in grain size at the bottom. Erosional scour surfaces
truncate strata underneath. Unidirectional inclined
surfaces locally associated with mud plugs, bar
geometry. Prevailing dune-scale trough cross bedding.
Rip-up clasts and wood debris at the base. Heterolithic
sections comprise interbedded fine-grained current-
ripple-laminated sandstones and siltstones; climbing
ripples are local.
FA4 Terminal distributary channel Erosional basal contacts define channelized sandstones, BI 0–2
incising into FA2. Scour surfaces are filled with either Vertical trace-fossil ichnofacies on the top of the
coarse- or fine-grained sediments and stack locally. channelized sandstones: Ophiomorpha and Skolithos;
Accretionary bars comprising fine- to medium-grained horizontal burrows in the heterolithic sections: Planolites
cross-bedded sandstones are draped by mudstones
locally. Mud rip-up clasts and wood debris commonly
present at the base. Thin-bedded very-fine-grained
cross-bedded and current- and climbing-ripple-laminated
sandstones and siltstones are interbedded on the sides of
channelized sandstones. Bidirectional-cross-bedded
sandstones with double mud drapes present locally
FA5 Floodplain Red to brown color, mudstone-dominated, abundant BI 0
carbonaceous material, such as plant and leaf material, No trace fossils observed
wood debris, coal chips, and rhizoliths. Paleosol and
slickensided mudstones are observed locally. Current-
ripple and planar lamination is common.
FA6 Brackish-water environment Heterolithic successions are composed of interbedded BI 3–4
carbonaceous muddy siltstones and current-ripple- Moderate bioturbation with dominant Cruziana Ichnogenera:
laminated sandstones. Abundant carbonaceous wood Teichichnus, Planolites, Chondrites.
debris and plant material. Ripples and planar lamination
are common.

the valley model of this study may represent a coastal-plain valley, which is boundaries consist of a number of allogenic and autogenic erosional basal
more common in ramp settings of foreland basins. Such valleys lack surfaces of fluvial channels (Strong and Paola 2008), and valley bondaries
significant incised topography linked to a knickpoint and steep valley on the side may rather grade into the adjacent floodplains or terraces (Blum
walls. The valleys are generally tens of kilometers wide, and valley et al. 2013).

TABLE 2.—Summary of paleohydrological parameters and paleodischarge estimates.

Mean Flow
Channel Channel Grain Size Velocity
Channel Width (m) Depth (m) R Slope (10–4) Cz ks D50 (mm) (Ū)(m/s) Qbf (m3/s)

Gallup Fluvial 50–60 9–11 6.61–7.94 1.1–1.4 42.04–42.05 0.4333–0.5195 0.4 1.2–1.3 284–409
Gallup Terminal Distributary 1 65 2.4 2.23 2.6 42.03 0.1157 0.2 1.0 78
Gallup Terminal Distributary 2 90 4.2–7.2 3.84–6.2 0.9–1.5 42.05–42.06 0.2020–0.3457 0.2 1.0 188–313

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 1108 W. LIN ET AL. JSR

FIG. 13.—Paleogeographic map of Parase-

quence 3. Fluvial channel belts mapped from
outcrops indicate a predominant meandering
pattern with diverse paleoflow directions. These
channel belts are located near the upstream limit
of the backwater zone using the lower-range
backwater length and within the backwater zone
using the upper-range backwater length.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 JSR CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM
Distributary Channel vs. Terminal Distributary Channel
Major distributary channels deposited in upper delta plains mostly
resemble fluvial meandering channels: multi-story architecture, point-
bar-associated lateral accretion with deposition of levees; basal surfaces
showing significant incision and lag deposits; and high sinuosity. Figure
15 illustrates the evolution of the upstream distributary-channel complex
in the study area and shows a clear eastward accretional trend through
the development of the channel belt. Paleocurrent directions vary over a
large range (1408) due to the low paleoslope and the nature of
meandering flows (Fig. 6A). However, the upstream distributary
channels have smaller width-to-depth ratios than fluvial trunk rivers—
this may result from the integration of processes of downstream
narrowing and backwater-driven scouring (Yalin 1992; Chatanantavet
et al. 2012). The results indicate that those upstream distributary
channels in the upper reaches of backwater zones still inherit the
characteristics of fluvial rivers with limited backwater effect (Colombera
et al. 2016).
On the other hand, terminal distributary channels show both bifurcation
around mouth bars, manifest with abandoned channels existing in between
mouth bars, and truncation of the underlying bar deposits (Fig. 11). This is
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf
by Carleton University user
1109
FIG. 14.—Google Earth map shows the Sittang
River, Myanmar, as a modern analog of a large-
scale fluvial distributary system. White dashed
lines highlight channels and channel belts. A
historical channel belt is located to the left, and an
active channel belt is on the right. The trunk river
and the associated channel belt are located
upstream of the backwater limit.
because aggradation of bifurcation-formed distributary channels can
interrupt the succession of mouth-bar bifurcation through avulsion (Heller
and Paola 1996). Hence, in terminal-distributary-channel systems, the
channel-forming mechanisms of bifurcation and avulsion are cooperative.
Terminal distributary channels show ubiquitous bioturbation and tidal or
wave influence as a result of subaqueous conditions. Width-to-depth ratios
are typically several times larger than those of upstream distributary
channels, with extreme cases of a few hundred times larger (e.g.,
Atchafalaya Delta and Wax Lake Delta; Olariu and Bhattacharya 2006) as
a result of shallow flow depth with less erodibility. However, terminal
distributary channels tend to show vertical aggradation rather than lateral
accretion, and the lateral shift of channels is confined within a relatively
narrow area (Fig. 15). Avulsion is probably retarded in the downstream part
of the backwater zone as a result of the water surface drawdown near the
river mouth, reducing the likelihood of lateral accretion (Chatanantavet et
al. 2012; Colombera et al. 2016). A similar reason can also be attributed to
the uniform paleocurrent directions (a range of less than 908) of the
terminal distributary channels. Due to the channel-forming mechanisms
discussed above, mouth-bar deposits are the key diagnostic element of
 1110 W. LIN ET AL. JSR

FIG. 15.—Wheeler diagrams of channel deposition. A) Wheeler diagram of Cross Section 1 shows a unidirectional (eastward) migration of meandering channel belts of a
fluvial distributary river system. B) Wheeler diagram of Cross Section 2 shows limited lateral migration of terminal distributary channels. Note that the channel belt accreted
to the west and was abandoned and the younger channel belt developed back to the original location.

terminal distributary channels in comparison to fluvial distributary
channels.
The Size of The Gallup System
The size of a fluvial system implies the size of a S2S system by
estimating hydrology of the trunk river and the drainage area (Holbrook
and Wanas 2014; Lin and Bhattacharya 2017). Yalin (1992) proposed a
model that with each bifurcation or avulsion, channel width and depth
decrease by Bkþ1 ’ 0.7Bk and hkþ1 ’ 0.8hk, respectively, where B is
channel width, h is channel depth, and k is channel order (k ¼ 1
represents the trunk river before branching). The equation suggests that
discharge decreases basinward by Qkþ1 ’ 0.56Qk with an assumption of
no change in flow velocity after avulsion. Therefore, the trunk river of
Parasequence 3 was approximately 11–14 m deep and 90 m wide,
yielding a paleodischarge of 650–810 m3/s based on the dimensions of
the downstream distributary channel belt located in the Beautiful
Mountain area. Using the ‘‘regional curve’’ method, proposed by
Davidson and North (2009), the drainage area of Parasequence 3 of the
upper Gallup can be approximated to be 2.3 – 4.0 3 104 km2, slightly
larger than the Ferron Notom Delta estimated by Davidson and North
(2009) but an order of magnitude smaller than the drainage area of
Allomember E of the Dunvegan Formation (Lin and Bhattacharya
2017).
The dimensions of the fluvial rivers of the Gallup system fit well into the
database reported by Blum et al. (2013). The water discharge of the trunk
river also correlates well to the drainage area (Blum et al. 2013). The study
underpins that most of the fluvial systems in the Cretaceous WIS are
categorized as medium to small rivers, compared to the Tertiary and
Holocene continent-scale rivers (Syvitski and Milliman 2007; Blum et al.
2013; Zhang et al. 2017).
CONCLUSIONS
This study analyzed the depositional facies of selected channelized
bodies and their associated strata of the Late Cretaceous Gallup system in
northwest New Mexico and documented six major facies associations.
Facies architectural bedding diagrams of two cliff faces were mapped out to
transect the internal facies architectural relationships of various channel
complexes in Parasequence 9a of the lower Gallup and Parasequence 3 of
the upper Gallup and to estimate channel dimensions and hydrological
parameters for paleodischarge calculation.
The maximum depth (i.e., bankfull) of the fluvial meandering channel in
Parasequence 3 is estimated to have been 9–11 m, and the width of the
channel belt is estimated to have been 168 m. The depths of the terminal
distributary channels in Parasequence 9a are estimated to range from 2.4 to
7 m, and the widths of channels range from 65 – 90 m. The paleodischarge
of the fluvial channel in Parasequence 3 is estimated to have been 280–410

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user
 JSR CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM
m3/s; the two terminal distributary channels of Parasequence 9a yielded
discharges of 80 and 190–310 m3/s.
The fluvial meandering channel belts of Parasequence 3 in the study
area are located within the backwater zone and are therefore interpreted as
upstream distributary channels downstream of trunk rivers. These
distributary channels are interpreted to have been formed by erosional
avulsion due to the backwater effect. The deposition of the entire fluvial
system of Parasequence 3 is considered to be related to a eustatic sea-level
fall: the basal surfaces of the channels represent an unconformable
sequence boundary comprising a number of autogenic fluvial basal scour
surfaces. The composite sequence boundary may also define a coastal-
plain paleovalley system, differing from the traditional incised-valley
model, which has identifiable walls.
Upstream distributary channels resemble fluvial meandering channels
by multistory, lateral accretion, levee deposits, high sinuosity, wide ranges
of paleocurrent directions, and smaller width-to-depth ratios.
Terminal distributary channels are likely formed by an integration of
mouth-bar-driven bifurcation and erosional avulsion with small channel
depths (e.g., 1 m to 4 m) but large width-to-depth ratios. They tend to show
vertical aggradation rather than lateral accretion with narrowly confined
lateral shift and relatively uniform paleocurrent directions. Bioturbation
and tidal-influence signatures are common. Mouth bars are the key
diagnostic element of terminal distributary channels.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this project was generously supplied by National Science and
Engineering Research Council Discovery Grant RPG IN05780-14 to Dr.
Bhattacharya, by sponsors of the McMaster University Quantitative Sedimen-
tology Laboratories (QSL) including BP and Inpex, and by the Susan
Cunningham Research Chair in Geology. We also appreciate the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists ‘‘Martin D. Hewitt’’ Named Grant and the
Geological Society of America Research Grant for their supports. We are
grateful to the reviewers Dr. Jinyu Zhang, Dr. Liz Hajek, the Associate Editor
Dr. Whitney Autin, and the Editor Dr. Gary Hampson for their thoughtful and
constructive comments and suggestions that greatly improved the manuscript.
Thanks are also given to Dr. John Southard for his tremendous suggestions and
corrections that improved the clarity of the text.
We also would like to thank the Navajo Nation for permitting the field work
and the Navajo people for allowing us to work on their lands. Field work on the
Navajo Nation was conducted under a permit from the Navajo Nation Minerals
Department. Any persons wishing to conduct geologic investigations on the
Navajo Nation must first apply for, and receive, a permit from the Navajo
Nation Minerals Department, P.O. Box 1910, Window Rock, Arizona 86515,
and telephone number (928) 871-6587.
REFERENCES
AHMED, S., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., GARZA, D.E., AND LI, Y., 2014, Facies architecture and
stratigraphic evolution of a river-dominated delta front, Turonian Ferron sandstone, Utah,
U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 76, p. 212–233.
AINSWORTH, R.B., VAKARELOV, B.K., AND NANSON, R.A., 2011, Dynamic spatial and
temporal prediction of changes in depositional processes on clastic shorelines: toward
improved subsurface uncertainty reduction and management: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 95, p. 267–297.
BEST, J.L., AND ASHWORTH, P.J., 1997, Scour in large braided rivers and the recognition of
sequence stratigraphic boundaries: Nature, v. 387, p. 275–277.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2010, Deltas, in James, N.P., and Dalrymple, R.W., eds., Facies Models
4: Geological Association of Canada, p. 233–264.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2011, Practical problems in the application of the sequence
stratigraphic method and key surfaces: integrating observations from ancient fluvial–
deltaic wedges with Quaternary and modelling studies: Sedimentology, v. 58, p. 120–
169.
BILODEAU, W.L., 1986, The Mesozoic Mogollon Highlands, Arizona: an Early Cretaceous
rift shoulder: The Journal of Geology, v. 94, p. 724–735.
BLUM, M., MARTIN, J., MILLIKEN, K., AND GARVIN, M., 2013, Paleovalley systems: insights
from Quaternary analogs and experiments: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 116, p. 128–169.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf
by Carleton University user
1111
BRIDGE, J.S., 2003, Rivers and Floodplains: Forms, Processes, and Sedimentary Record:
Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Science, 501 p.
BRIDGE, J.S., 2006, Fluvial facies models: recent developments, in Walker, R.G., and
Posamentier, H., eds., Facies Models Revisited: SEPM, Special Publication 84, p. 83–
168.
BRIDGE, J.S., AND TYE, R.S., 2000, Interpreting the dimensions of ancient fluvial channel
bars, channels, and channel belts from wireline-logs and cores: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 84, p. 1205–1228.
BURNHAM, B.S., JERRETT, R.M., HODGETTS, D., AND FLINT, S.S., 2020, Discriminating
stacked distributary channels from palaeovalley-fill sand bodies in foreland basin
settings: Sedimentary Geology, 105592.
CAMPBELL, C.V., 1971, Depositional model: upper Cretaceous Gallup beach shoreline,
Shiprock area, northwestern New Mexico: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 41, p.
395–409.
CHATANANTAVET, P., LAMB, M.P., AND NITTROUER, J.A., 2012, Backwater controls of avulsion
location on deltas: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 39, no. L01402.
CLIFTON, H.E., HUNTER, R.E., AND PHILLIPS, R.L., 1971, Depositional structures and
processes in the non-barred high-energy nearshore: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v.
41, p. 651–670.
COLOMBERA, L., SHIERS, M.N., AND MOUNTNEY, N.P., 2016, Assessment of backwater
controls on the architecture of distributary-channel fills in a tide-influenced coastal-plain
succession: Campanian Neslen Formation, U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v.
86, p. 476–497.
DAVIDSON, S.K., AND NORTH, C.P., 2009, Geomorphological regional curves for prediction
of drainage area and screening modern analogues for rivers in the rock record: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 79, p. 773–792.
DICKINSON, W.R., AND GEHRELS, G.E., 2008, Sediment delivery to the Cordilleran foreland
basin: insights from U-Pb ages of detrital zircons in Upper Jurassic and Cretaceous strata
of the Colorado Plateau: American Journal of Science, v. 308, p. 1041–1082.
DICKINSON, W.R., AND LAWTON, T.F., 2001, Tectonic setting and sandstone petrofacies of the
Bisbee basin (USA–Mexico): Journal of South American Earth Sciences, v. 14, p. 475–
504.
DUBIEL, R.F., 2013, Geology, sequence stratigraphy, and oil and gas assessment of the
Lewis Shale Total Petroleum System, San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Colorado:
Chapter 5, Total petroleum systems and geologic assessment of undiscovered oil and gas
resources in the San Juan Basin province, exclusive of Paleozoic rocks, New Mexico and
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey, Digital Data Series 69–F, p.1–45.
DUKE, W.L., ARNOTT, R.W.C., AND CHEEL, R.J., 1991, Shelf sandstones and hummocky
cross-stratification: new insights on a stormy debate: Geology, v. 19, p. 625–628.
DURKIN, P.R., BOYD, R.L., HUBBARD, S.M., SHULTZ, A.W., AND BLUM, M.D., 2017, Three-
dimensional reconstruction of meander-belt evolution, Cretaceous McMurray Formation,
Alberta Foreland Basin, Canada: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 87, p. 1075–1099.
EDMONDS, D.A., AND SLINGERLAND, R.L., 2007, Mechanics of river mouth bar formation:
implications for the morphodynamics of delta distributary networks: Geophysical
Research Letters, v. 112, p. 1–14.
FASSETT, J.E., 2013, The San Juan Basin, a complex giant gas field, New Mexico and
Colorado: 58th Annual Rocky Mountain Rendezvous, Durango, Colorado and American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Rocky Mountain Section Meeting, Salt Lake City,
Utah.
FIELDING, C.R., ASHWORTH, P.J., BEST, J.L., PROKOCKI, E.W., AND SMITH, G.H.S., 2012,
Tributary, distributary and other fluvial patterns: What really represents the norm in the
continental rock record?: Sedimentary Geology, v. 261–262, p. 15–32.
GANTI, V., CHU, Z., LAMB, M.P., NITTROUER, J.A., AND PARKER, G., 2014, Testing
morphodynamic controls on the location and frequency of river avulsions on fans versus
deltas: Huanghe (Yellow River), China: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 41, p. 7882–
7890.
GIBLING, M.R., 2006, Width and thickness of fluvial channel bodies and valley fills in the
geological record: a literature compilation and classification: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 76, p. 731–770.
HAJEK, E.A., AND STRAUB, K.M., 2017, Autogenic sedimentation in clastic stratigraphy:
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 45, p. 681–709.
HAJEK, E.A., AND WOLINSKY, M.A., 2012, Simplified process modeling of river avulsion and
alluvial architecture: connecting models and field data: Sedimentary Geology, v. 257, p.
1–30.
HAMPSON, G.J., AND HOWELL, J.A., 2005, Sedimentologic and geomorphic characterization
of ancient wave-dominated deltaic shorelines: Upper Cretaceous Blackhawk Formation,
Book Cliffs, Utah, USA, in Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River Deltas:
Concepts, Models, and Examples: SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 131–154.
HELLER, P.L., AND PAOLA, C., 1996, Downstream changes in alluvial architecture: an
exploration of controls on channel-stacking patterns: Journal of Sedimentary Research,
v. 66, p. 297–306.
HOLBROOK, J.M., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2012, Reappraisal of the sequence boundary in
time and space: case and considerations for an SU (subaerial unconformity) that is not a
sediment bypass surface, a time barrier, or an unconformity: Earth-Science Reviews, v.
113, p. 271–302.
HOLBROOK, J., AND WANAS, H., 2014, A fulcrum approach to assessing source-to-sink mass
balance using channel paleohydrologic parameters derivable from common fluvial data
sets with an example from the cretaceous of Egypt: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v.
84, p. 349–372.
 1112 W. LIN ET AL.
HOLBROOK, J., SCOTT, R.W., AND OBOH-IKUENOBE, F.E., 2006, Base-level buffers and
buttresses: a model for upstream versus downstream control on fluvial geometry and
architecture within sequences: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 76, p. 162–174.
HUBBARD, S.M., SMITH, G.D., NIELSEN, H., LECKIE, A.D., FUSTIC, M., SPENCER, J.R., AND
BLOOM, L., 2011, Seismic geomorphology and sedimentology of a tidally influenced
river deposit, lower Cretaceous Athabasca oil sands, Alberta, Canada: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin v. 95, p. 1123–1145.
HUTSKY, A.J., AND FIELDING, C.R., 2016, The offshore bar revisited: a new depositional
model for isolated shallow marine sandstones in the Cretaceous Frontier Formation of
the northern Uinta Basin, Utah, U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 86, p. 38–
58.
JEROLMACK, D.J., AND SWENSON, J.B., 2007, Scaling relationships and evolution of
distributary networks on wave-influenced deltas: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 34,
no. L23402, p. 1–5.
JORDAN, D.W., AND PRYOR, W.A., 1992, Hierarchical levels of heterogeneity in a Mississippi
river meander belt and application to reservoir systems: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 76, p. 1601–1624.
KAUFFMAN, E.G., AND CALDWELL, W.G.E., 1993, The Western Interior Basin in space and
time, in Caldwell, W.G.E., and Kauffman, E.G., eds., Evolution of the Western Interior
Basin: Geological Association of Canada, Special Paper 39, p. 1–30.
KIMMERLE, S., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2018, Facies, backwater limits, and paleohydraulic
analysis of rivers in a forced-regressive, compound incised valley, Cretaceous Ferron
Sandstone, Utah, U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary Research, p. 177–200.
KRAUS, M.J., 1999, Paleosols in clastic sedimentary rocks: their geologic applications:
Earth-Science Reviews, v. 47, p. 41–70.
LAMB, M.P., NITTROUER, J.A., MOHRIG, D., AND SHAW, J., 2012, Backwater and river plume
controls on scour upstream of river mouths: implications for fluvio-deltaic morphody-
namics: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 117, p. 1–15.
LAWTON, T.F., AND BRADFORD, B.A., 2011, Correlation and provenance of Upper Cretaceous
(Campanian) fluvial strata, Utah, USA, from zircon U-Pb geochronology and
petrography: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 81, p. 495–512.
LAWTON, T.F., POLLOCK, S.L., AND ROBINSON, R.A.J., 2003, Integrating sandstone petrology
and nonmarine sequence stratigraphy: application to the Late Cretaceous fluvial systems
of southwestern Utah, USA: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 73, p. 389–406.
LAWTON, T.F., SCHELLENBACH, W.L., AND NUGENT, A.E., 2014, Late Cretaceous fluvial-
megafan and axial-river systems in the Southern Cordilleran Foreland Basin: Drip Tank
Member of Straight Cliffs Formation and adjacent strata, southern Utah, USA: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 84, p. 407–434.
LECLAIR, S.F., AND BRIDGE, J.S., 2001, Quantitative interpretation of sedimentary structures
formed by river dunes: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 71, p. 713–716.
LI, Q., YU, L., AND STRAUB, K.M., 2016, Storage thresholds for relative sea-level signals in
the stratigraphic record: Geology, v. 44, p. 179–182.
LI, Y., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2013, Facies-architecture study of a stepped, forced
regressive compound incised valley in the Ferron Notom Delta, southern central Utah,
U.S.A: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 83, p. 206–225.
LI, Y., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2014, Facies architecture of asymmetrical branching
distributary channels: Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone, Utah, USA: Sedimentology, v. 61, p.
1452–1483.
LI, Z., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND SCHIEBER, J., 2015, Evaluating along-strike variation using
thin-bedded facies analysis, Upper Cretaceous Ferron Notom Delta, Utah: Sedimentol-
ogy, v. 62, p. 2060–2089.
LIN, W., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2017, Estimation of source-to-sink mass balance by a
fulcrum approach using channel paleohydrologic parameters of the Cretaceous
Dunvegan Formation, Canada: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 87, p. 97–116.
LIN, W., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2020, Depositional facies and the sequence stratigraphic
control of a mixed-process influenced clastic wedge in the Cretaceous Western Interior
Seaway: The Gallup System, New Mexico, USA: Sedimentology, v. 67, p. 920–950.
LIN, W., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND STOCKFORD, A., 2019, High-resolution sequence
stratigraphy and implications for Cretaceous glacio-eustasy of the Late Cretaceous
Gallup system, New Mexico, U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 89, p. 552–
575.
LIN, W., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., JICHA, B.R., SINGER, B.S., AND MATTHEWS, W., 2020, Has Earth
ever been ice-free? Implications for glacio-eustasy in the Cretaceous greenhouse age
using high-resolution sequence stratigraphy: Geological Society of America, Bulletin,
doi.org/10.1130/B35582.1.
LYNDS, R., AND HAJEK, E., 2006, Conceptual model for predicting mudstone dimensions in
sandy braided-river reservoirs: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin,
v. 90, p. 1273–1288.
LYNDS, R.M., MOHRIG, D., HAJEK, E.A., AND HELLER, P.L., 2014, Paleoslope reconstruction
in sandy suspended-load-dominant rivers: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 84, p.
825–836.
MACEACHERN, J.A., AND BANN, K.L., 2008, The role of ichnology in refining shallow
marine facies models, in Hampson, G.J., Steel, R.J., Burgess, P.M., and Dalrymple, R.W.,
eds., Recent Advances in Models of Siliciclastic Shallow-Marine Stratigraphy: SEPM,
Special Publication 90, p. 73–116.
MACEACHERN, J.A., BANN, K.L., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND HOWELL, C.D., 2005, Ichnology of
deltas: organism responses to the dynamic interplay of rivers, waves, storms and tides, in
Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River Deltas: Concepts, Models, and Examples:
SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 49–85.
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf
by Carleton University user
JSR
MACEACHERN, J.A., BANN, K.L., GINGRAS, M.K., AND PEMBERTON, S.G., 2009, Applied
Ichnology: SEPM, Short Course Notes, 380 p.
MARTIN, H.K., HUBBARD, S.M., HAGSTROM, C.A., HORNER, S.C., AND DURKIN, P.R., 2019,
Planform recognition and implications of a Cretaceous-age continental-scale river
avulsion node in the Western Interior Basin, Alberta, Canada: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 89, p. 610–628.
MARTIN, J., FERNANDES, A.M., PICKERING, J., HOWES, N., MANN, S., AND MCNEIL, K., 2018,
The stratigraphically preserved signature of persistent backwater dynamics in a large
paleodelta system: the Mungaroo Formation, North West Shelf, Australia: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 88, p. 850–872.
MCCUBBIN, D.G., 1982, Barrier island and strandplain facies, in Scholle, P.A., and
Spearing, D., eds., Sandstone Depositional Environments: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 31, p. 247–280.
MIALL, A.D., 1985, Architectural-element analysis: a new method of facies analysis applied
to fluvial deposits: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 22, p. 33–81.
MIALL, A.D., 1988, Architectural elements and bounding surfaces in fluvial deposits:
anatomy of the Kayenta Formation (Lower Jurassic), southwest Colorado: Sedimentary
Geology, v. 55, p. 233–262.
MIALL, A.D., 1996, The Geology of Fluvial Deposits: Sedimentary Facies, Basin Analysis
and Petroleum Geology: Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 582 p.
MIKEŠ, D., VEEN, J.H., POSTMA, G., AND STEEL, R., 2015, Inferring autogenically induced
depositional discontinuities from observations on experimental deltaic shoreline
trajectories: Terra Nova, v. 27, p. 442–448.
MOLENAAR, C.M., 1973, Sedimentary facies and correlation of the Gallup Sandstone and
associated formations, northwestern New Mexico, in Fassett, J.E., ed., Cretaceous and
Tertiary Rocks of the Southern Colorado Plateau: Four Corners Geological Society,
Memoir, p. 85–110.
MOLENAAR, C.M., 1983, Major depositional cycles and regional correlations of Upper
Cretaceous rocks, southern Colorado Plateau and adjacent areas, in Reynolds, M.W., and
Dolly, E.D., eds., Mesozoic Paleogeography of the West-Central United States: SEPM,
Rocky Mountain Symposium 2, p. 201–224.
NIJHUIS, A.G., EDMONDS, D.A., CALDWELL, R.L., CEDERBERG, J.A., SLINGERLAND, R.L., BEST,
J.L., PARSONS, D.R., AND ROBINSON, R.A.J., 2015, Fluvio-deltaic avulsions during relative
sea-level fall: Geology, v. 43, p. 719–722.
NITTROUER, J.A., SHAW, J., LAMB, M.P., AND MOHRIG, D., 2012, Spatial and temporal trends
for water-flow velocity and bed-material sediment transport in the lower Mississippi
River: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 124, p. 400–414.
NUMMEDAL, D., AND MOLENAAR, C.M., 1995, Sequence stratigraphy of ramp-setting strand
plain successions: the Gallup Sandstone, New Mexico, in Van Wagoner, J.C., and
Bertram, G.T., eds., Sequences Stratigraphy of Foreland Basin Deposits: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 64, p. 277–310.
OLARIU, C., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2006, Terminal distributary channels and delta front
architecture of river-dominated delta systems: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 76, p.
212–233.
PARKER, G., PAOLA, C., WHIPPLE, K.X., AND MOHRIG, D., 1998, Alluvial fans formed by
channelized fluvial and sheet flow. I: Theory: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 24, p.
985–995.
PATTISON, S.A.J., 2018, Using classic outcrops to revise sequence stratigraphic models:
Reevaluating the Campanian Desert Member (Blackhawk Formation) to lower Castlegate
Sandstone interval, Book Cliffs, Utah and Colorado, USA: Geology, v. 46, p. 1–4.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND VAIL, P.R., 1988, Eustatic control on clastic deposition II, sequence
and system tract models, in Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Ross, C.A., Posamentier, H.,
Van Wagoner, J., and Kendall, C.G.St.C., eds., Sea-Level Changes: An Integrated
Approach: SEPM, Special Publication 42, p. 125–154.
RUBIN, D.M., AND MCCULLOCH, D.S., 1980, Single and superimposed bedforms: a synthesis
of San Francisco Bay and flume observations: Sedimentary Geology, v. 26, p. 207–231.
SHAW, J.B., AND MOHRIG, D., 2014, The importance of erosion in distributary channel
network growth, Wax Lake Delta, Louisiana, USA: Geology, v. 42, p. 31–34.
SLINGERLAND, R., AND SMITH, N.D., 2004. River avulsions and their deposits: Annual
Review of Earth Planetary Sciences, v. 32, p. 257–285.
STRONG, N., AND PAOLA, C., 2008, Valleys that never were: time surfaces versus
stratigraphic surfaces: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 78, p. 579–596.
SYVITSKI, J.P.M., AND MILLIMAN, J.D., 2007, Geology, geography, and humans battle for
dominance over the delivery of fluvial sediment to the coastal ocean: Journal of Geology,
v. 115, p. 1–19.
SZWARC, T.S., JOHNSON, C.L., STRIGHT, L.E., AND MCFARLANE, C.M., 2015, Interactions
between axial and transverse drainage systems in the Late Cretaceous Cordilleran
foreland basin: evidence from detrital zircons in the Straight Cliffs Formation, southern
Utah, USA: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 127, p. 372–392.
TROWER, E.J., GANTI, V., FISCHER, W.W., AND LAMB, M.P., 2018, Erosional surfaces in the
Upper Cretaceous Castlegate Sandstone (Utah, USA): Sequence boundaries or autogenic
scour from backwater hydrodynamics?: Geology, v. 46, p. 707–710.
ULLAH, M., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND DUPRÉ, W.R., 2015, Confluence scours versus incised
valleys: examples from the Cretaceous Ferron Notom Delta, SE Utah: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 85, p. 445–458.
VAN CAPPELLE, M., STUKINS, S., HAMPSON, G.J., AND JOHNSON, H.D., 2016, Fluvial to tidal
transition in proximal, mixed tide-influenced and wave-influenced deltaic deposits:
Cretaceous lower Sego Sandstone, Utah, USA: Sedimentology, v. 63, p. 1333–1361.
 JSR CLASSIFICATION OF CHANNEL DEPOSITS IN THE CRETACEOUS GALLUP SYSTEM 1113

VAN HEIJST, M.W.I.M., AND POSTMA, G., 2001, Fluvial response to sea-level changes: a
quantitative analogue, experimental approach: Basin Research, v. 13, p. 269–292.
VAN RIJN, L.C., 1984, Sediment transport. II: Suspended load transport: Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, v. 110, p. 1431–1456.
VAN WAGONER, J., POSAMENTIER, H.W., MITCHUM, R.M., VAIL, P.R., SARG, J.F., LOUTIT, T.S.,
AND HARDENBOL, J., 1988, An overview of the fundamentals of sequence stratigraphy and
key definitions, in Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.S., Ross, C.A., Posamentier, H., Van
Wagoner, J., and Kendall, C.G.St.C., eds., Sea-Level Changes: An Integrated Approach:
SEPM, Special Publication 42, p. 39–45.
VAN YPEREN, A.E., HOLBROOK, J.M., POYATOS-MORÉ, M., AND MIDTKANDAL, I., 2019,
Coalesced delta-front sheet-like sandstone bodies from highly avulsive distributary
channels: the low-accommodation Mesa Rica sandstone (Dakota Group, New Mexico,
U.S.A.): Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 89, p. 654–678.
WALKER, R.G., DUKE, W.L., AND LECKIE, D.A., 1983, Hummocky stratification: significance
of its variable bedding sequences: Discussion: Geological Society of America, Bulletin,
v. 94, p. 1245–1249.
WRIGHT, L., 1977, Sediment transport and deposition at river mouths: a synthesis:
Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 88, p. 857–868.
YALIN, M.S., 1992, River Mechanics: Oxford, U.K., Pergamon Press, 220 p.
ZHANG, J., STEEL, R., AND AMBROSE, W., 2017, Paleocene Wilcox cross-shelf channel-belt
history and shelf-margin growth: key to Gulf of Mexico sediment delivery: Sedimentary
Geology, v. 362, p. 53–65.
Received 20 December 2019; accepted 11 May 2020.

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article-pdf/90/9/1094/5173331/i1527-1404-90-9-1094.pdf

by Carleton University user