Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis II: Application to Northwest Gulf of Mexico Cenozoic Basin' WILLIAM E. GALLOWAY’ ABSTRACT The northwest Gulf of Mexico Cenozoic sedimentary ‘wedge illustrates the application of genetic stratigraphic sequence analysis and documents several general conclu- sions. (1) Sequences defined by regional marine flooding are the principal genetic stratigraphic units of the basin fill. Continental margins are characterized by repetitive episodes of basin-margin offlap punctuated by periods of transgression and marine flooding of the depositional platform. (2) Continental margin outbuilding is concen- trated at one or more shelf-edge deltaic depocenters sepa- rated by interdeltaic bights. Depocenters remain fixed during a depositional episode but commonly relocate during transgression and flooding. (3) A distinct synde- positional structural style in prograding continental mar- gins results in sporadic uplift of a basin-fringing peripheral bulge and accentuates preservation of shelf- ‘margin facies along zones of extensional normal faulting and enhanced subsidence. (4) Genetic stratigraphic sequences commonly reflect an evolving interplay among two or even three variables. For example, early Cenozoic Gulf sequences are most closely related to tectonic events of the intraplate souree terrane, which, in turn, affect rate and location of sediment supply and basin-margin response to loading. Late Cenozoie sequences more closely reflect proposed eustatic cycles. INTRODUCTION This paper examines the stratigraphic patterns created during an extended history of continental margin progra- dation (offlap) using the concept of depositional epi- sodes and resultant genetic stratigraphic sequences summarized in a companion paper (Galloway, 1989). 1 use the Cenozoic sedimentary wedge of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico margin, one of the most extensively explored, studied, and described basins in the world. The northwestern Gulf isa divergent continental mar- agin and, as such, is generally considered tectonically sta- ‘Scapyright 1989, The American Assclaton of Patoloum Godt Al ‘igh resend "Manuscript rctived, May 20,1068; accepted, September 22, 1088, At Deparment o! Geologeal Scionns, Unive of Texas at Austin, Aust, Tones 713, “This paper is based in pa upon research sugpored by National Sconce Foundabon grant EAR.E4"6198 thane Wika Gazalay Prank Brow, No lat Crete ick, Robot Dat, 2, Witam Deleon, Maria Lagos, Andiow Mil andDon Swites wells evewors LL. Slossand.lF Serger com mons, ettque, and suppod. Figures were crated by Je” Herowi. Baty Kortztpee hebblography. ble and little affected by a prominent interplay between structural deformation and sedimentation. The strati- graphic patterns developed in such ““passive”” margins have been interpreted primarily in terms of systematic, thermally driven subsidence overprinted by eustatic base- level changes (Haardenbol etal, 1981; Watts, 1982). The Gulf basin originated with a brief period of rifting during the Jurassic, followed by an extended period of thermally induced subsidence during the remainder of the Mesozoic (Buffler and Sawyer, 1985). Slow rates of sediment influx largely restricted deposition to bounding shelf platforms and created a reef-rimmed sediment- starved oceanic basin. Regional uplift and tectonism within the continental interior of western North America, provided an abrupt surge of terrigenous clastic sediment for the northwestern Gulf of Mexico during the Paleo- cene, and this ongoing influx of sediment has prograded the continental margin up to 350 km seaward of the inherited Cretaceous shelf edge. Regional cross sections (Figure 1) show the typically repetitive nature of Ceno- zoic deposition. Sucvessions of sandy wedges, consisting. of coasta-plain and marginal-marine deposits, thicken and grade basinward into marine shelf and slope mud rocks. The sand-rich wedges are stratigraphically sepa- rated by updip tongues of marine shale that reflect repeated transgression and marine flooding of the conti- nental margin. Although the prominence and nomencla- ture of the individual sandy wedges vary between depocenters within the northern Gulf basin, most can be traced from northern Mexico to Mississippi or Alabama. ‘These marine-shale bounded units provide the basis for systematic depositional analysis of the Cenozoic section. The Cenozoic sedimentary wedge provides a natural laboratory for examining three-dimensional strati- graphic and structural architecture as well as the evolu- tion of continental margin sequences. Three generalizations can be made from examining northwest- ern Gulf Coast stratigraphy (Galloway, 1987). These gen- eralizations apply to offlapping clastic-dominated ‘margins in a variety of basins. (1) Continental margin outbuilding is concentrated at one or more depocenters where major delta systems pro- rade to the shelf edge and deposit sediment directly onto the upper slope. Interdeltaic margin segments receive sediment primarily by longshore transport. (Q)A distinet syndepositional structural style is associ- ated with prograding clastic-margin wedges. Crustal loading and resultant flexural deformation created areas ‘of maximum subsidence and peripheral uplift, which, in turn, determine the external geometry of sedimentary sequences. Within the sedimentary wedge, gravity tec- tonics produces a variety of extensional, compressional, 143,144 tom te _ See Sareea ona ; Some | Basse Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis Il flO GRANDE EMBAYMEN se ‘crust ATTENUATED CONTL. ‘Figure 1—Generalize dip-oriented stratigraphic cross section through Rio Grande depocenter, northwestern Gulf Coustsedimen- tary wedge. Principal Cenozoic genetic stratigraphic sequences are labeled. Note expansion of sequences ueross major growth fault zones, which mark positions of successive paleocontinental margins. From Galloway (1987), and diapirie 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. ) 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 paleoshelt 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 s tems (for examples, see Fisher and McGowen, 19 Bernard and LeBlanc, 1975; Galloway et al, 1982). Also, nearly all ofthe 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 (bartier 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 snot eae postions Dé Principal coinage axis ae Foous of elton [sond-rch continental mergn sequence ° com anes ° 204m Figure 2— Progressive Cenozoic shelf-edge post Winker (1982). material for slower progradation of a muddy interdeltaic shelf edge. Comparable depositional patterns have been documented in the Cretaceous foreland basin (Weimer, 1970) Tn summary, direct feeding of sediment through struc- turally focused fluvial systems to major shelf-edge del- taic systems has provided material for the most rapid and direct progradation of the Gulf Coast continental mar- gin. Interdeltaic shelf-edge segments prograded more slowly by longshore transport and deposition of domi- nantly suspended sediment. STRUCTURAL STYLE ‘Two scales of structural deformation affect to varying degrees the sediments of a prograding basin-margin sequence. First, large-scale crustal loading induces regional subsidence and associated peripheral uplift. Sec- ond, gravity deformation within the sedimentary wedge produces a predictable but complex family of extensional and compressional structures. Crustal Loading and Isostatie Subsidence Sediment replacing water induces isostatic adjustment of the underlying crust (Bott, 1980). Subsidence of oce- mas and sand-rich depocenters of northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Modified from anic crust results in a sedimentary section about three times thicker than the depth of water actually replaced. Attenuated continental crust along divergent plate mar- gins and beneath some intracratonic basins will subside less, but the sedimentary section may be expanded at least twofold. In the northwestern Gulf of Mexico basin, for example, a sedimentary wedge 8-14 km thick resulted from progradational filling of the starved deep-water basin created by thermal subsidence of underlying transi- tional to oceanic crust. Crustal depression occurs by lexural loading, forming a broad subsidence bow! (Figure 4) that extends approxi- ‘mately 150 km around the locus of loading (Bott, 1980). Thus, a broad lens of sediment, including continental margin depocenter deposits and extensive shore-zone and coastal-plain facies, is accommodated. Concomitant with subsidence, a halo of uplift, called the ‘peripheral bulge” (Figure 4), forms around the subsidence bow! (Quinlan and Beaumont, 1984; Cloetingh et al, 1985). ‘The peripheral bulge produces a hinge line with subsi- dence and sediment storage on the basinward side and gentle uplift, sediment bypass, valley incision, and ero- sion on the landward fringe. ‘An active peripheral bulge produced by Quaternary deposition along the northern Gulf Coast margin was originally recognized by Fisk (1944) and more recently documented by Jurkowski et al (1984), The peripheral146 Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis Il IO GRANDE, wississiPe! 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 pattera 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 etal (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 ofthe 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 uae sone _y subsidence and peripheral uplift re modified by changes GED ____| in the horizontal stress field within crustal plates ic ila cousssena (Cloetingh et al, 1985). egexgena, TON Within the sequence stratigraphic framework, a sub- an ________________1 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. 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 marginis 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 comparéd 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 diapirim. Gravity gliding and spreading produce similar suites of compressional and extensional structures that characterize prograding basin margins (Daily, 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 localized 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), Galloway 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- Joway, 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 shoreline 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 10 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- ‘in 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 Pliocene 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 Oli- ‘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 Il [Ey reer gpatain 3 coos Progosation FE) sone Preston EE) mene again (oo seo) Figure 5—Enhanced de facies ina t jon and presery well. As shown in Figure 1, Vicksburg and younger sequences are characterized by prominent updip thin- ning Within the Paleogene, correspondence between the ceustatic 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 fal. ‘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 Cather, 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 thyo- litic volcanism spread from western Texas into northern Mexico during the late Eocene and Oligocene (McDowell and Clabaugh, 1979). A contemporaneous surge of sedi jon of progradational delta-front and upper slope facies at expense of lower slope k, gravitationally deformed, continental-margin wedge. From Galloway (1987). 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 1,000m 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 ». 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- Joway (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 tothe evolution of the active plate margin along the west- ern rim of the continent. Tectonics ofthe source area and basin periphery isthe primary control on the timing andWilliam E. Galloway 149 LITHO. DEPOSITIONAL crono- Tectonic OcEANOGRAPHY/ — EusraTiC STRATIORAPHY EPISODES ond STRATIGRAPHY oy Tesop BASIN DEPOCENTERS. EVENTS CLIMATE CURVE Slee - Ee Toa T ules $ Great Plains: ag i 4] TST Ree vie ai of Letitia _ * | = MS pene ae ol ly eG iat a | | fig foot0s osm ond Range | df (S| Pa BeBe Dan : lel fee f = t j — BRE] Agere 2 Aeclortes mf Ales zyy*s ae | coke 3 Sal baa, tir asranieren | ‘tneees, 28: ol Pocke Gone Rat Seti 13 erry toy baton x4) |8 ; sues 8) (8 | to] Aantre'socotion f Sher =f3| [|p| “oom Seley of “cage lid stu eontthon|y “aire 4 a 8 Ser elt | bakit 3} cee | | Sauces 40} Yeguo/Cockfieig | | ‘teen 2], re [eee | of [Bier ' S]E| rol ones cny > sgteaggo 7 - rolicn plate: \ 7 canico weer || fies Z watt | - 2 we | contig ot ¥ | Caets 4 z lowe sescee 5 ies oe Me: st eof | [8 tots he i aces oa Midway |) > aS ne le 0 << Morine shote tongue Deep-water wedge oF submarine conyor ~~~inner coastal ploin unconformity —RECompertive mognituse ond depocenter of continental margin progrodahion “Abrupt OMincrease +Proposee major condensed Figure 6—Comparative temporal history of Gulf Coast Cenozoic depositional episodes, proposed eustatic sen level changes, ‘oceanographic evolution in response (0 Cenozoic climatic cooling, and tectonic events of western North American plate. Major ccontinental-margin outbuilding episodes and their depocenters are shown by excursions to right on depositional episodes and ‘depocenters curve. Principal lithostratigraphic elements (including basin-margia unconformities and submarine erosion features) ‘re 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 eustatc events include Chapin (1979), McDowell and Clabaugh (1979), Davis (1980), Chapin and Cather (1981), Dickinson (1981), Loutit and Kennett (1981), Gries (1983), Witschko and Dorr (1983), Price and Henry (1984), Eaton (1986), Haq etal (1987). Modified from Galloway (1989). location of principal sand-rich sequence deposition. Thus, tectoniesisa primary control on the distribution of hydrocarbon reservoirs and basin resources. (2) As Winker (1982) pointed out, only tectonic history explains the shifting position of the major deltaic depo- centers along the Gulf margin (Figure 7). In the early Paleogene, sediment was derived primarily from the southern Rocky Mountain terrane and directed into the closest depocenter, the Houston embayment. Volcanism and regional uplift of Trans-Pecos Texas and the Sierra,Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis I sgzonue L Figure 7—Distribution of three principal age-defined source terranes of North American craton and their related depocen- tersin 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. G) 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- sin 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 io 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 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 Wileox sequence is distinguished from lower Wilcox sequence by a major shift in deltale depo- center and pronounced sandstone mineralogie 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- sed sections centered ith proposed eustatic curve. ND = nodata, P = Pliocene, My = upper Miocene, M,, = lower Miocene, F = Frio, V = Vieksburg, ¥ = Yegua, Qc = Queen City, Wy = upper Wil- cox, W,, = lower Wileox. idespread 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- aressions. Modest eustatc fluctuations appear at best to providea higher frequency overprint on the major depo- sitional Cenozoic genetic stratigraphic sequences. Eus-William E. Galloway 151 LOWER wiLcox EXTRABASINAL FLUviaL &X'S PRINCIPAL DELI DEPOCENTER & UPPER wicox QUEEN cry URCKSON vicKsBURG INTERDELTAIG SHORE ZONE (with secencory deta systems) mac @ Figure 9—Position of principal deltaic depocenters and ass genetic stratigraphic sequences of northwestern Gulf of Mexico bi ‘ox, Queen City and Yegua, Jackson and Vicksburg, Vicksburg and Frio, Frio and lower Miocene, lower Wileox and upper and lower Miocene and upper Miocene bounding flooding events. Within genetic sequences, paleogeography rem: tively stable, reflecting persistent patterns of hinterland and basin-margin tectonics and Gregory (1966), Fisher and McGowen (1967), Fisher et al (1969), F (1982), Galloway etal (1977), Loucks (1978), Kaiser etal (1980), G 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 ted interdelta and delia-flank bights for major and some minor i. Note major reorganizations of paleogeography across ed compara. nt supply. Maps are based upon er etal (1970), Guevara and Garcia (1972), Bebout et al loway etal (1982), Morton etal (1985), Galloway etal (1986), and Miocene sequences, retrogradation occupies from about $0% 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’ sedimentary record.152 SYNTHESIS OF GULF COAST CENOZOIC SEQUENCE MODEL. Galloway et al (1986) described the lower Miocene sequence and provided sections and maps documenting the depositional and structural features of a typical Neo- gene stratigraphic unit. Their study is the basis of a gener- alized stratigraphic and structural model of a Gulf Coast ‘genetic stratigraphic sequence (Figure 10). As indicated by the chronostratigraphic cross section (Figure 10A), sequence history begins with coastal pro- gradation from the point of maximum updip transgres- sion (Figure 10, increments 1 and 2). When progradation reaches the flooded shelf edge of the previous deposi- tional platform, the offlap wedge thickens manyfold, rate of progradation slows proportionally, and gravita- tional instability results in extensional faulting and enhanced subsidence. The resultant listric normal fault provides a structural discontinuity surface along which shelf-margin facies are transported basinward (Figure 10, increments 3-7). Resultant displacement of coastal progradational facies along a low-angle structural dis- continuity to an apparent stratigraphic position below the shelf edge may be misinterpreted as a record of base- level fall. Combined gravity deformation and further coastal progradation construct a thick offlap wedge, building the depositional platform margin basinward beyond the older paleomargin (Figure 10, increments 8- 10). Crustal loading by the thick sediment wedge at the prograding margin results in peripheral uplift along the inner fringe of the basin; here, older terrestrial aggrada- tional deposits (Figure 10, increments 1-4and deposits of the previous episode) may be truncated by the younger fluvial systems, which continue to feed the prograding margin. Younger sedimentary increments onlap this erosion/bypass surface. Decreasing sediment supply or a relative rise in base level ultimately terminates offlap. The shoreline cetreats from the platform margin, leaving an increasingly wide and sediment-starved shallow shelf. Gravitational insta~ bility of the recently deposited upper slope and shelf-edge sediments, augmented by wave, tide, and current energy, results in retrogradation of the outer shelf and upper slope by mass wasting and slumping (Figure 10, incre- ments 1 and 12). Resedimented platform-margin sedi- ‘ments are deposited as an onlapping wedge atthe base of the slope (Figure 10, increment 11). Along the retreating coast, transgressive or coastal aggradational facies sequences are deposited. Terrestrial aggradational facies are thick and well preserved, and lap onto the eroded iner fringe of the coastal plain. As flooding of the depo- sitional platform peaks (maximum transgression), slow rates of deposition produce widespread, thin, condensed veneers of hemipelagic or chemical sediments such as, slauconite sands or marls (Figure 10, increments 12 and 13). Five types of facies compose the genetic stratigraphic sequence: (1) An inner belt of terrestrial aggradational facies. (2)A middle zone of coastal facies successions. These Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis I successions display three different depositional style. Lowermost coastal facies form relatively thin prograda- tional units. Within the middle of the genetic strati- graphic sequence, coastal facies are thick, reflecting progradation into deep water and enhanced subsidence and accommodation atthe extensional platform margin. Uppermost coastal facies are dominated by mixed trans- gressive and aggradational facies sequences reflecting intermittent shoreline retreat and stability. (3) A basinward belt of marine-shelf, slope, and basinal facies. These facies exhibit both progradational (upper slope) and aggradational onlapping architectures, Gravitationally resedimented depositional systems, such as submarine fans, are found within the belt and reflect the history of sequence outbuilding and retrogradation in their offlap and marine onlap geometries. (4) Downdip, sequence-bounding beds or surfaces, These beds or surfaces include widespread hemipelagi mud drapes, chemically or paleontologically condensed intervals, and/or submarine unconformities. Opera- tional correlation of the ideal bounding surface of maxi- ‘mum marine flooding relies on recognizing and tracing the variety of thin widespread beds that record transgres- sive reworking and subsequent clastic sediment starva- tion. Updip, coastal plain aggradational deposits of successive sequences differ primarily in shifting patterns of fluvial axes and in the tendency for downcutting dur- ing progradational intervals and aggradation during retrogradational intervals (Galloway et al, 1986). (5) Two types of internal discontinuity surfaces. Struc- tural discontinuities form at zones of lateral translation of platform margin sediments by gravity tectonics and, more locally, at sites of most active compressional uplift. Of greater stratigraphic importance are unconformities that form over the peripheral bulge. Such peripheral unconformities provide operational correlation horizons that approximate the base of the preserved genetic sequence in the nonmarine section (Galloway etal, 1986). (Note updip limits ofthe sequence in Figure 9.) Such low- angle unconformities are readily seen in the stratigraphi onlap of fluvial units such as the Goliad (upper Miocene) across the outcrop belts of underlying formations. How- ever, the history of the bulge unconformity may be com- plex, reflecting the shifting temporal and spatial history of depositional crustal loading. This unconformity tends to climb section basinward and is unlikely to correlate with the sequence-bounding flooding surfaces in the basinward part of the sequence (Galloway et al, 1986). Using the unconformity to establish regional sequence boundaries will consequently lead to confusion and mis- correlation. Within a genetic sequence, mapping progradational and retrogradational components separately commonly is useful. Depositional styles and patterns within systems commonly change as base-level rise begins to dominate Galloway, 1975). Progradational lower parts of genetic sequences are typified by greater fluvial domination of delta systems and by strand plains. Retrogradational upper parts of sequences display greater wave reworking of delta lobes and contain extensive barrier/lagoon sys- tems (Duncan, 1983; Galloway etal, 1986).= | (Trererstriat oggresononal tases Bjoern aces emeeoeeas eererreee m E. Galloway 153, ey | ' __J Pepgngnas easoomano— “Hom Figure 10—(A) Dip cross section of ideal genetic stratigraphic sequence showing stratigraphic architecture, structural modifica- ‘ion, and relationship of erosion, bypass, and clastic sediment starvation zones and (B) chronostraigraphic 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 ‘ransgressive events that resulted 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 stratigrap! sequences, but their signature, if present, is obscure. REFERENCES CITED [Bebout,D.G., BR. Weise, A. R. Gregory, and M. B. Edwards, 1982, ‘Wileox sandsione reservoirs inthe deep subsurface along the Texas Gulf Coast: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations 117,125. Bernard, H. A, and R. J. LeBlanc, 1978, 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 Unit Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, p. 137-18, ‘Bott, M. H. B, 1980, Mechanisms of subsidence at passive continental, ‘argins, in A. W. Bally, L. Bendes, I, R. MeGetchin, and Ry 1 ‘Waleot, eds, Dynamics of plate interiors: Washington, D. C., American Geophysical Union Geodynamics Series, v1, p. 2735. Buller, R.T., and D. S. Sawyer, 1985, Distribution of erst and early ‘story, Gulf of Mexico basin: Gulf Coast Association of Geolog cal Soveties Transactions, v.35, 333-344. Chapin, C.E., 1979, Evolution of the Rio Grande rift, «summary, in TR. Rieck, ed, Rio Grande rift: tectonics aid magmatism: Washington, D.C, American Geophysial Union, p15, 'S.M. Cather, 1981, Eocene tectonics and sedimentation in the Colorado Piateai-Rocky Mountains area: Arizona Geological Society Digest, v.14, p- 199213. CCloetingh, S., H. McQueen, and K. Lambeck, 1985, On a tectonic ‘echanistn for replonal sa level variations: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.78, p. 187-166 Dailly, G. C., 1996, A possible mechanism relating progradation, ‘growth faulting, clay diaprism, and overthruting ina regressive Sequence of sediments: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, ¥. 24,9. 92116. Davis, A., 1980, Problems of itraplate extensional tectonics, wes- rn United States, in Studies of geophysics: continental tectonics National Revenrch Council, p. 8495, Dickinson, W. R, 198 Plate tectonic evolution of the Southern Cor- dilera: Arizona Geclogical Sodety Digest, ¥. 14 113-135. Duncan, E.A., 983, Delineation of delta types: Norias delta system, Frio Formation south Texas: Gulf Coast Assocation of Geologic Sosietin Transaction, v.33, p. 268.273. Eaton, G., 1986, A tectonic redefinition ofthe southern Rocky Moun- tains: Tectonophysics. 132, p. 16-193 Edwards, M. B., 1981, The uppet Wilcox Rosita delta system of south "Texas: record of grow faulted shelf edge deltas: AAPG Bulletin, ¥-65, p S873 Epis, R.C., and CE. Chapin, 1975, Geomorphic and tectonic implica- tions of the post-Laramige, late Eocene erosion surface in the touthern Rocky Moustains: GSA Memoir 14, p. 45-74, Fisher, W.L.,and J. H. MeGowen, 1967, Depostional systems in the ‘Wilcox Group af Texas and their relationship 1 oseutrence of oil, and gas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transac- tions, v.17, p. 105-125. LF. Brown, JA. J. Scott and J. H. MeGowen, 1969, Delia “ystems inthe exploration for oil and gas: University of Texas at Avstin, Bureau of Economie Geology Research colloquium, vas ‘ously paginatd, CLV. Proctor, J W.E. Galloway, and J. S.Nagle, 1970, Depo- Sitional systems in the Jackson Group of Texas: thelr relationship 0154 oil, 4a, and uranium: Gulf Coast Associanion of Geolowical Soi ‘tics Transactions, «20, p. 234-261 Fisk, H.N., 1944, Geological investigation of he allvial vale 0 the Tower Misssippi Rivers US, Army’ Corps of Engingers Report, 8p. Galloway, W-E., 1995, Process framework fr describing the morpho- logic and stratigraphic evolution of deltaic depositional systems, in ML. Broussard, e., Deltas: Houston, Texas, Houston Geological Society. 87-98 "198, Depositional architecture of Cenoroie Gulf Coast pla Auvial systems, FG, Ethtidgeand R.M. Flores, eds, Recent and ancient nonmatine depositional environments: models or explora tion: SEPM Special Publication 3, p. 127-18. 1986, Grow faults and falt-elated siracutes of prograding ‘erfgenous clastic continental margins: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, ¥-36, p. 12-138 1987, Depostional and sructual architecture of prograding lasic continental margins: ectonis inruence on paiterns ot bast filling: Norsk Geologisk Tidskein, v.62, p. 237-251 ——“oe9, Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin analysis: archi tecture and genesis of flooding surface bounded depositional unis AAPG Bulletin, v.73, . 125-182, DD. K- Hobday, 198, Terrigenous clastic depositional systems ‘New York, Springer-Verlag, 42% p ='W.R. Dingus, and R. Paige, 1988, Deposiional framework and genesis of Wilcox submarine canyon sssems, northwest Gull Coast: APG Bulletin, v.72, p. 187-188, DK. Hobday, and K. Magara, 1982, Frio Formation of the as Gulf Coast basin: depostionalsssems, structural frame work, and hycrocarbon origin, migraion, distribution, nd explo fation potential: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Gealogy Report of Investigations 122,78 p LAA ik, KOA, Morton, and J. R. DuBar, 1986, Lower Mio ‘ene (leming) depositional episode of the Texas coastal plain and ‘continental shelf: structural Tramework, Facies and hydrocarbon Fesources: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic ‘Geology Report of Investigations 150, 0p T.D. Murphy, RC. Belcher, B.D. Jolson, and S, Sutton, 1977, Catahoula Formation ofthe Texas coasal plain: depositional systems, composition, structural development, ground-water low history, apd wanium distribution: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations 87,59. Gregory, J. E., 1966, A lower Oligocene detain the subniface of southeastern Texas: Gulf Coast Assocation of Geological Societies ‘Transactions . 16, p. 227-241 Gries, Re, 1983, North-South compression of Rocky Mountain fore lad euctuts (abs): AAPG Bulletin, v6, p. 574, Guevara, E.H.,and R. Garcia, 1972, Deposition systems and o-as eservoisinthe Queen City Formation (Eocene), Texas: Gul Coast ‘Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v2, p. 122. Hag, B-U.,J-Hardenbos, and P. R. Vail, 1987, Chronology of fhcta ng sea levels since the Triassic: Science, v.235,p. 1156-1166. Hardenbol, J, PR. Vail, and J. Ferrer, 198, interpreting paleoen Tonments, subsidence story and sea level changes of passive mar- gins from Seismic and biostratigraphy, in R. Blanchert and T Montadet, eds., Geology of continental margins: International Geological Congress Proceedings, Oceanologica Acta, v. 4 Genetic Stratigraphic Sequences in Basin Analysis Il poe Jackson, M.P. Ax and W. B. Galloway, 1984, Structural and depos ‘oral spies of Gull Coast Tertiary continental margins: applica tiga to Aydrocarbon exploration: AAPG Course Notes 2, 225. Jurkowski G..J- Ni and L, Brown, 1984, Modern uparching ofthe ‘Gulf cous plain’ Journal of Geophysical Research, v.89, p. 6247 ass Kalser, WR. WB. Ayers, Its and Le W. La Bre, 1980, Ligite ‘esourees in Texas: Univeesiy of Texas at Austin, Bueat of Eco nomic Geology Repor of Lvestigaions 108, 32 Louiks, RG, 197, Sandstone distribution and potential for geopres: “aed weothermal energy production in the Vicksburg Formation alone the Texas Gulf Coast: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, #28, p. 239-271 ~'M M. Dodge, and W.E: Galloway, 1986, Controls on porosity land permeability of hyérocarbon reservoirs in omer Terity sand ‘Stonts along the Texas Gulf Coast: University of Teses at Austin, Bureau of Economie Geology Report of lavestigations 149, 78 p. Louti,S..and J.P. Kennett, 1981, Australian Cenozoic sedimentary ‘yses, global sea level changes, and deep sea sedimentary recor Gceanotopiea Acta Special Volume, p, 45-63, McDowell FW, and S.E, Clabaugh, 1979, Ignimbrites ofthe Sierra “Madre Occidental and thei relation wo the tectonic history of west ern Mexico, nC. E. Chapin and W. F. Elston, ed.,Ash-flow tus GSA Special Paper 18, p. 113-124 Morcon, R.A. L.A. Jtk, and R. Q. Foote, 1985, Depostional his {ory fives analysis, and production characteristics hydrocarbon bearing sete, offshore Tena: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Fconomic Geology Geological Circular 85-2, 31 p. Price, |G. and C.D. Henry, 1984, Stress orientations during Oligo: ne volcanism in Trans-Pecos Texas: timing the transition from Laramide compression o Basin and Range ension: Geology . 12, 238241 Quinian,G.., and C, Beaumont, 1986, Appalachian thrusting tho: ‘spheric Mende, and the Paleozoic stratigraphy of the Eastern Ite stor of North America: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.21, p.o73.90 Ramberg, H., 1981, Gravity deformation and the earth’ rust ia the ‘ory experiments, and geological application, 24 ed: London, Aca Ademic Press, 482, ‘Watts, A.B, 1982, Tectonic subsidence, exure, and global changes of sa evel Nature, ¥.297,p. 469-476 Weimer, RJ, 1990, Rate of deiac sedimentation and inrabasin ‘deformation, Upper Cretaceous of Rocky Mountain region, iJ. Morgan, ed. Deltaic sedimentation, medern and ancient: SEPM Special Publication 15, p. 270-292 Wilischko, D. Vand J. A: Dorr, J, 1983, Timing of deformation in ‘overthru belt and Foreiand of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah: AAPG. Winker, C Coastal plain and shelf: Masters thesis, Unversity of Texas tin, Ausin, Texas 187 p "1982. Cenozoic shel margins, northwestern Gulf of Mexico basin: Gulf Coast Associationcf Geolopical Societies Transactions, v3, p. a274as At awards, 1983, Unstable progradational clastic shelf ‘margins; SEPM Special Publication 33, p. 139157