e

ii

Figure

1,
2.

3.

&.

LIST

..

INZ'RODUCT!:ON

PURPPZE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

The lower San Wrldres Pasma%:ion of C;en-kral New MeXfcQ is

MiddlePermian(LateLeonaxdian
(figure 3 ) e

1% consists of dolomite,Zimestone,

headed sandstone ( f i g w e

origtxl,

t o E a r l y Guadalupian) i n age

5 ) which m e large2.y o f marine

Tare Siis1 Rndras is

major bask?. edga (figure 2 ) .

s:lke3.9 urd% northwest of the

The Ssn h.ndres Formation has beennuch

Texas and sou-theastern New Mexico,where

b l l l i o n s of b a r r e l s o f oil and gas ie.g.

3.972: Galley, 1958)

and i r k e r -

s t u d i e d i n west

i - k %a a rmervoir far

Chuber m d Puseye

DetaPZed work on thesedimentology

of

the San Anndrec; Forrnat5an and its GLorie-ta S a n d s t o m 1'4e:nber In

eentm.l New 1:iexico has neverbeenpublished,

l i m i t e d t o an examination o f the lower

200 %D 300 f e e t 3f t h e

2/3 o f Lincoln Couiz%yg. The lower

San Andres i n t h e E a s t e r n
San

T h i s stuay is

Andres i n t h e n o r t h e r n

p a r t o f t h e study a r e a Lr d a m i n a t l y

sandstone,. The sandstone ton,@ee

southr+~ardas t h e lower Ssrs

Andres becomes c h i e f l y c a r b o n a t e ( f i g u r e

5 ) i n the soutlzeirn

part o f -the study area.

The purposes of this study axe 'Go d e s c r i b e in d e t a i l t h e

sandstone t o carbonate -tx*arasition i n t h e lower San-Andres Forma t i o n *e s t a b l i s hc o r r e l a t i o n s

betweenou'tcrops

i n t e r p r e t %he

environments o f d e p o s i t i o n o f the rock u n i t s , and seek a deposi t i o n a l model t o e x p l a i n s e d i m e n t a t i o n p a t t e r n s

i n t h e s-tudy

area.
The study 5s based

Uli3.Os-t

ex,cl\lsiveP$on suu*fnce outcrops

and no aes5.ou.s attempt was made to obtain subsurface information.

Almost continuous exposures of thelower

of

Formation are present south

( f i g u r e 1)e

Sam? Andres

the e k i n g Ranch. s e c t i o n

Outcrops f o r d e t a i l e d s"cudy were selec%ed on the

basis of e x p o s u r e p a c c e s s i b i l i t ; y , and l o c a t i o n within t h e

study mea.

E,:posures. of t h e lower S a l h d r e s a.re r e l a t i v e l y

r a r e north o f %he Fur% S t m t o n s e c t i o n and t h e b e s t a v a i l a b l e

,

o t ~ t c r o p sweremeasured,

outcrop e a s t ofthe

The San imdres P o m a t i o n dous n o t

s-t;uriy a r e a .

A few s c a t t e r e d l o w e r

San

Andres outcrops ere p r e s e n t in vresternmost .Lincoln County

(Harbauf, lg?Q)l
b u t arc? not inc1uded in

t h i s study.

LOGA'PION OP STUDY AREA

!We sGuciy a r e a is l o c a t e d i n the e a s t e r n 2/3 of Lincoln

County, ~ e w?hr.ico ( f i g u r e I)., %'he exactlocationmeaswed

sectj.ons i s g i v e n i n Appendix 1.

FIELD IBTHODS
The a u t h o r spent t h i r t e e n weeks i n the f i e l d between
End AUmSti

2.973.

Ha37

A two week f i e l d check lvas made d,uring t h e

Past two weeks of December, 1973.

E i g h t d e % a i l e d s t r a t i g r a p h i c s e c t i o n s weremeasured

(Plates I t o YIII) using a brunton conpass

ss a hand l e v e l .

Megascopic f e a t u r e s were studied,photographed,andsampled

t h ef i e l d ,

About 425 samples were c o l l e c t e d f c r l a b o r a t o r y

e x a m i n a t i o n .S t r a t i f i c a t i o n
scalz8

in

was describedusing

.t;l?e f o l l o w i n g

<3 Inches
3 Inches 3 F e e t
>3 F e e t

Small Scale
Medium S c a l e
Large Scale

of Nines and Mineral Resourcess spent a day f i e l d checking some

o f ny measured s e c t i o n s .
surface textures

Harold Baker s t u d i e d quart%g r a i n

from f o u r sarrrplos on t h e s c a n n i n g e l e c t r o n

microscope, and Laurel Babcock examined a limestone sample

~GI-

,
the presence o f conodonts.

0
8

T h e i r a s s i s t a n c e is appreciated.

I g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge the a s s i s t a n c e of my wifeBrenda,

who

was an e x c e l l e n t f i e l d assistant and camping p a r t n e r i n t h e

f i e l d , and the chief breadwinner durhng %h;hep r e p a r a t i o n of this

study.
SYORAGE OF STUDY MTERIALS

Specimens important

t o this study and a l l m a t e r i d s f l l u s t -

r a t e d w e i n t h e -thesis c o l l e c t i o n of t h e Department o f Geol-

ogy, Univemity of Wisconsin, Hadlson, \Vmconsin 53706, under

U .W

#I589

-.-

. .

. .

12

hfI.IIDmE PERMIAN fiEG1OEAL STRATIGRAPHY SI4 CiHTRAT, h!Y NEXICO

IN1:RODUCTION

The I:liddlePermian Yeso znd Sa11 Andres Formations,

8.36

t h e A r t e s i a Group outcrop i n cen,traI New i?kxico ( f i g u r e 3 )

T h i s study is confined t o about the upper

Yeso and t h e lower 200 t o 300 f e e t

OP

i n easternLincoln

LI.

County.,

Figure

graphic nornend.atwe used in

ibis

5 to

20 f e e t of the

t h e San Andres Forma.tion

i l l u s t r a t e s the stra-ti-

study, whereas figure 5 illust-

r a t e s t h e g r o s s 1i"chology of the rock

imi,ts s t u d i e d ,

YES0 FORMATION

The Yeso Formation underlies the San Andres Forma.tion

c e n t r a l New Mexico.

a p p a r e n t l yg r a d a t i o n a l

The contactbetween

i n t h e s t u d ya r e a .

in

tkiese formations is

No evidence of

.-

BW

RINCONADA

15

in the p u b l i s h e d l i t e r a t u r e ,

unconfor'mity has ever been reported

Tno Yeso Forrnstion i n c e n t r a l New Mexico c o n s i s t s of sandstone,

lixiestonedolomite,

gypsum, and s i l t s t o n e

i n t h e SacramentoMountainsofsoa-kth-cen-ttal

The Yeso outcropping

New Mexico i s about

1200 f e e t thick ( K e u e y , 1.97~)~

Only t h e very t o p ( 3 t o

i n t h i s st;V.dy.

XeL:Lo\:r, ginkr

EQ
;uid

f e e t ) of t h e Yeso is included
grsy quax'czose s i l t s t o n e is

t h e most common l i t h o l . o g y , but I) gypsurn is p?r.esent a% Walker

R a ~ c h , 2) e v a p o r i t i c ciolomites ?ire p r e s e n t a t F o r t S%m-tani3Yld
Hond.0, and 3 ) a t h i c k oolitic limestone and 5. t h i n p a r t i a l l y
.laminated limestone are presert

a t Sunset.

SAN ANDRES PORMATION

The S t m Avldres Formation vaiiies i n t h i c k n e s s f r o m about

t
r
Z
i f e e t i n cea?-bral Mew Mexico t o as mv.ch as 1,700 f e e t i n

s o u t h e a s t e r n Piew Nexiee,Eelleg
theSanhndres

Forina;bian inLo

(1971) fa~s
r e c e n t l ys u b d i v i d e d

Paur members8

s t m e Member, Rio Bonito Cwbonate

Giarie-ta Sand-

l~lembeoer, Bonney Canyon Carbon-

a t e Member, and Fo'mmile Draw E%-sporitic Nimber.

Th.e G l o r i e t a Sandstcone Member forms the

base of t h e San

Andres Pormatio-fl throughout most of t h e study a r e a ( f i g u r e 5)

1% i s 280 f e e t thick a t &ran Nesa and thins t o about 240 f e e t

at WalkerRanch,Three

are informally termed the

J.owerp middle, and upper G l o r i e t a

tongues o f t h e S w Andrss Formation i n t h i s s t u d y ( f i g x r e

The three tongues pinch

and

sandstone tonguesextendsouthward

out towards t h e westemboundary

5);
of

Lincoln C O W ~ J and t h i c k e n a p p r e c i a b l y t o w a r d s t h e e a s t e r n
edge of -the stu.dY a r e a ( e , g . S m s e t and Bluewater, figures

c o n t i n u i t y and l i t h o l o g i c j.denl;i%g of a11 t h r e e sands'tune

t m g u e so v e rt h e

&5 miles from Bogle Dome t o S u n s e t ,

T t is

h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t these smds"h-ms pinch out as t h e y appiwach

area.8 of ncsirlyconi;inuous

sand. depasition,.

K e l l e y ' s (1371, 1972) Rio Bonito and B o m e y Canyon Carbona t e Mernbers a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d e n t i r e l y

thi.ckness.Whereasthe

on the basis o f bedding

of t h e San Andres

Power carbonatesocks

Formation are thicker bedded than

the upper rocks# %he a c k a l

contact between members is u s u a l l y d i f f i c u l t t o determine w i t h

t h ep r e c i s i o nr e q u i r e df o r

t h i s s'euciy.

Consequently,noatLempt

has been made t o d i s t i n g u i s h between these two members i n t h e

study a r e a .

In t h i s s t u d y , thee:abonatetongue

lower and middle Glorieta Sandstone tongues

the lower carbonate tonme, the carbonate
middle and upper Glorfeta

bei;ween t h e

i s r e f e r r e d t o as
tongue betweenthe

?.s the middle carbonate tongue,

and

..

i n west Texas and s o u t h e a s t e r n ?few bil'exico the Lower p a r t of t h e

San Andres was Late Leonardian and the upper p a r t was E a r l y

Cuadalupian i n age,

The de?mx&mtion of the e x a c t age of t h e

lower S a n Anares in t h e stu6y a r e a has never been reported

in

t h e published l i t e r a t u r e o f the S a n Annrires Formation.

A minor a t t e E p t was made to find datable conodonts

sample which had a goocl chance of c o n t a i n i n g them.

sample w i t h abundantnormalmarine

in a

A Limestone

fauna (Hondo, u n i t 35) was

The paleontologic emphasis. i n %his study has been l a r g e l y

t o use msjor t y p e s o f t r a c e
&termination.

and body f o s s i l s f o r e n v i r o m @ n t a l

No effort has been rnade t o d e t e r n i n e genera o r

s p e c i e s for twonomie o r - a g e - d a t i n g purposeso Only i n v e r t e b r a l e

body f o s s i l s were found.,

were recognized.

No a l g a l body f o s s i l s or p S m t remains

The carbonate. membw of t h e , Lower Sfm-n Ar,drss Formation i s

d i v i d e d i n t o a mmber si" d e p o s i t i o n a l facies on the basis of

1NTEP;rlbhL

"
"

I
"
"
"

"

"
"
"

"

i
I

c:
d
5:

''

>"

21

C a r b on&t-,Fen$s

"

The type ami. a

m
m
m
t os: h.mrowing v a r i e s between d i f f e r e n t

carbonatedepositiol1a.lfacies.

The s a p r a t i d a l and i n t e r t i d a l

f a c i e s a r e in p l a c e s s l i g h t l y t o moderatelymottled.Burrowing
i n t h e normal. m a r i n e f a c i e s
which is

is Limited t o a general moti;ling,

to
~ rmx
~
5-n pS-aces.

tcuw
type

ana d i s t i n c t -

i v e u r ~ o r i e ~ ~ tbtrrrolz's
ed
aye almost cnmp1.e'cel.y c o n f i n e d t o t h e
r e s t r i c t e d mari.ine r'a.cles.
the

'I

P.fctst burrows i n t h i s facies are of

C:ruz iana" 'type

* 9 C r - - w type buiirows ( f i g u r e 11) hsve %he f o l l o w i n g

c t i a r a c t e r i s t i c si nt h ec a r b o n a t e

member i n t h e study wea,

12

-two dimensions + the "CruziaLq" burrows a r e o r i e n t e d QbJ-i.qUC?ly

Lo s t r a t i f i c a t i o n .

They a r e gencrzllg about 1 inch i n dismeteer,

b u t range from 1% t o
two dimensions

inches,

The maximum appar'en-i; 'length PYI

i s abou-t e i g h t inches,

A few burrows a r e d i s -

t i n c t l y i n t e r n a l l y l a m i n a t e d w i t h c o n c e n t r i c 'J-sha'Xjed Laminae

(figure 1lA)

Locally,individualburrowsgive

of being payt o f a network, but

OF

the impression

t h i s e f f e c t msy bedue

more d i s t i n c t superimposedburrowingevents

t o bvo

(figure I l B ) ,

"Lsuziana" CJpe b ~ r ~ o ware

s commonly f i l l e d with u n i d e n t i f i a b l e

fossil debris, ostraeoaes,

mudstone ( f i g u r e l 1 A ) .

and peloids,. whereas the h o s t i s a

Such f a b r i c s r e s u l t from t h e mixing of

fossiliferous and u n f o s s l i i f e r o u s s e d i m e n t s

by burrowingorgan-

isms.
The crustaceans Alpheus and

mllianassa produce burrow

networks i n Recentcarbonatesediments,
the approximate diamekx

whose segments are of

and l e n g t h of most on" t h e "CruziaAa:.

Q
22

23

.""GLorleta

SanZls'cone M
-e

Trace f o s s i l s a r e r a r e in t h e G l a r i e t a S a n d s t o n e

Member.

M a t - t l h g 1s the nost coflmon evidence suggestive of burrowing

and at l e a s t s:?me o f it may conceivablyhave
origin.

an inorganic

"6ruz.i.ana" type bu.rrovrS.ng vias f0un.d on a p i e c e of

f l o a t from t h e upper GLorietr, tongue a t Bluewater a a d near t h e

*tos of t h e

Imver Glorieta tongue at Port S t m t a n .

These bur-

rows a r e about $ i n c h i n diameter and a r e o r i e n t e d parLLlel to

stratification.

They suggest that at l e a s t some of 'the Glor-

i e t a Sandktone was deposited i n a shallow marine environment.

The g e n e r a l l a c k of busurrsvring coupled with t h e l a r g e number o f

trncti.ve current seciimexk.ry strqctures suggests
the Gliopieta Sandstone

-&hatnost of

was deposited i n a non-rna-ineen.viran-

meat o r that s a n d movement was g r e a t enough t o i n h i b i t bur:co!vers

in a. marine environment,
BODY FOSSILS

Garbcnate Member

"
"
"
1
_

Introduction
Parts o f t h e c a r b o n a t e member a r e a p p a r e n t l y b a r r e n

b i o t a , whereas o t h e r p a r t s a r eh i g h l yf o s s i l i f e r o u s ,

of

The i n t e r -

e s t i n b i o t i c s i n t h e c a r b o n a t e member i s c o n f i n e d t o t h e e n v i r -

onmental inferences

t h a t may be drawn from the exclusive presence

of members o f e i t h e r a normal o r r e s t r i c t e d marine f o s s i l assemblage.Figure

6 i l l u s t r a t e s an e s t i m a t e o f t h e r e l a t i v e free,.

quency of occurrence of body fossils i n t h e carbonate depositional environments inferred

in the study area,

f o r t h e lower Sari Andres Formation

Normal f&wine Assemblage

Th.e normal marine assemblage consisLs of bio.ti@ %ypesp

vfhich a r e knovsra o s inferred -to. require normal marine c o n d i t i o n s f o r l i f e , e s p e c i a l l y n o r m ' a ~marine s a l i n i t i e s .

assemblage is g e n e r a l l y f o u n d i n v e r y f o s s i l i f e r o u s

The

rock uni.i;s.

Rock u n i t s where r e l a t i v e l y few of t h e s e b i o t i c s a r e p r e s e n t

suggestLesswell-developed

norma2. marine c o n d i t i o n s .

?he

cmsists, i n o r d e r of decraasing

normal marineassemblage

r e l a t i v e abundance, of Productidbra@h.iopods,crinoids,

bryozoansp

n o n - P r o d u c t i da r t f c u P a t eI x a c h i o p o d s ,e c h i n o i d s ,t r i l o b i t e s ,

. and cephalopods,
Productidbrachiopods:

t h e most common and, excep-k for a v e r y

few cephalopods, thle ltirgest b i o t i c c o n s t i t u e n t i n th.e study

area.

Productid v a l v e s are na't commonty dissu?ticula"ced and

fragments are a n g u l a r w i t h no evidence o f abrasion.Productids

are eom1onI.y p a r t i a l l y s i l i c i f i e d .

Produetid spines are locally abundant

evenwhere

v a l v e s bwe re1a:tirsely r a r e .

Crinoids:

t i e secondmost

common .*>.otic cons"ci%uuexi;. They are

g e n e r a l l y c o a r s e sand t o g r a n u l e s i z e . d l s a t - t i c u l a t e d c o l ~ t l m t a l g ~
No crown Tragnlents were recogxized.

Rrxozoansa

included in % h i s assemblageeventhough

some modern

t y p e s m e % o l e r a n t oT s a l i n i t i e s s l i g h t l y h i g h e r than that of

~ ~ o r m marine
al
waters hecause in the sWdy w e a t

I) they a r e

almost exclusively found i n a s s o c i a t i o n wiYn normal marine

biota, and 2 ) t h e y

WE

only very sarelj. fowad a s s o c i a t e d

e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h members of the ~ e s L r * i c t e d m a r i n e assemblage,

Marine

a
25
axe flne

Nan-fenestratebryozoms

m e bryoz;oar,-os%?ncod

only cmbonake build-ups noted

in Crtrtnirtg Ranch, un.it 9.

The

m0s.t eor~mont y p ep r e s e a t .

bioherms

The bioherns' me about f i v e f e e t

t h i c k and a p p a r e n t l y had about l& f e e t o f d e p o s i t i o n a l r e l i e f .

Mon-productsd a r t i c u l a t e b r a c h i o p o d s

i^

r e l a t i v e l y r a r e and

found i n abmda.me only nt 3"or'b St;anton, u.niL l.3*

Eahinoidss re3.atively r a r e ,

Bath echinoid spines a r d p l a t e s

were noted,
T r i l o b i t e s zg e n e r a l l y

frsrnents areabundant.

'

r a m , except in Hondo, u n i t 37, where

T r i l o b i t e s m e e x c l u s i v e l y associated

w i t h bicita of Imown or i n f e r r e d n o r m a l m a r i n e a f f i t l i t i e s

in

tho stadjr a r e a ,

Cepk.alopods8 the l a r g e s t ( 6 t o 8 inches'),and among t h e raxest

of b i o t i c c o n s t i t u e n t s ,
(CanningRmch,
WWE

Only t x o specimens were forsnd in place

u n i t 16 slnd Sunset, u n i t 3.5)

o n l y observed

whereas o t i ~ e r s

in. float,

Restricted

The res--ictcd marine assemblage consists exc3usively

of

b i o t i c t y p e s which a r e known t o be in some d e g r e e t o l e r a n t

of

adverseenvironmentalconditions,especiallylargevariations

in salinity.

The assemblage is g e n e r a l l y found i n b a r e n t o

only s l i g h t l y f o s s i l i f e r o u s rock u n i t s i n t h e f i e l d .
ished slab and t h i n s e c t i o n ,

some o% t h e s e rock u n i t s were

noted t o haveabundantmicrofauna.
lage consi'sts,

I n pol-

i n orderofrelative

The r e s t r i c t e d marine assembabundance, o f o s t r a c o d s p

gastropods,Foraminifera,pelecypods,spirorbid

worm t u b e s , and

possible members of t h e S ~ l i o r i n a - T e n t a c u l i t - c ~group.

Ostracods

..

26

mwine biotic constihenh,

mos-b a b u n d a n t r e s t r i c t e dm m i n eb f o c c

Ostreeodsrthe

form,

They w e general1:y of sand s i z e p hut granule s i z e ostracod8

tire p r e s e n t i n bryozoan-ostracodbiohefms

a t Carining Ranch, u n i t

9.

Gastropods8

common and range in siw From aboutt2lree

in diameter -to

C O ~ ~ Esand
S ~

Forminifera% genera.lly

units,

she,

L ^ ~ T Cb~u t a r e

Apparently o n l yc a l c a r e o u s

PeXecypodsa

inches

n o t commonly noted,

cornmon i n a Pew r o c k

types a r e present.

They usually appear as sparry

caLcite f i l l e d fragment moJ.ds# which a r e i d e n t i f i e d by t h e i r

g e n e r a l morphology.
S p i r o r b i d worm tubest
constituents noted

a close similmity between some bioc.c

in t h i s study a?d s p i r o r b i d worm tubes i d e n t -

ified by Laporte (1967). These b i o t i c forms were only r a r e l y

observed in the lower San
m 3 u n a - T e n t a c u -?x

hnndres F o r m t i o n .

a gross simixaricy between some

b i o t i c forms noted i n chis stutly and f o s s i l s i d e n t i f i e d as

p o s s i b l y b e l o n g % n g t o t h e ~ l i o l ~ n a - T e n t a c u l . j . t e sgroups by
Wilson (1967).

These b i o t i cc o n s t i t u e n t sa r eo n l yv e r y

observed i n thelowerSanAndres

Formation.

raxely

The t r u e b i o l o g i c

a f f i n i t y o f Wilsons f o s s i l s a r e unknown:
Clorieta Sandstone Mamber

No 3ody f o s s i l s Were found i n t h e G l o r i n t a S a n 6 s t o n e

of t h e San Andrex Formation,

Member

Organic films s u g g e s t i v e of d i s -

solved f o s s i l s , such as i n Vie Devonian Qriskany Sandstone of

noted,

28

CARBONAT3 i"l3ER

OF THE LOWER SAN ANDRES FORFiTION

INTRODUCTION

The carbonate member of the lower San Andres Pormation

of thelower,middle

i nt h es t u d ya r e ac o n s i s t s
catrbonate toon.ggaes.
lowerSanAnares

The threetongues

tongue

8.t

as t h e

o f the c w b o n a t e member in t h e

dalomj.te,There

Limcstone a t theexpense
area('figure

t h i n t o t h en o r t h

becomes dcmiwntly sandstone.

About 75% of t h e r o c k s
study a r e a a r e

and Upper

5).

is a g e n e r a l i a s r e a s e

in

of dol.omile w e s t w a d . a c r o s s t h e s t u d y

Limestone is important i n t h e lower carbonate

Hondo and F o r t S-kan-ton, i n t h e midd3.e carbonate 'tongue

ct;CanningRanah,

i n %he uppercazbonate

tonbQe a t Honcio m.d

Canning Ranch, ar,d i n t h e e n t i : x s e c t i o n

a t Fox C w e .

Nwlstones and wackes%ones ( a f t e r Dunfiam, 1962) consti:hute

almost a l l (9b$) of thecarbonate

member.

mud-support r o c k f a b r i c s s ' b r o n g l y s u g g e s t s
dolomi.te c r y s t a l s i n the carbonete
calciumcarbonate

make upabout

Tho pred.on-inmce of

t h a t most of t h e

member r e p r e s e n t o r i g i n a l

mud precursors,Packstonesandgrainstones

5% of t h e carbonaterockspresent.

generally found i n t h e ' o o l i t i c r o c k u n i t s

a t Canning Ranch and

in t h e o t h e r

Bluewater,whereastheyareveryraretoabsent
sections,Boundstonesconstitute

They m e

less t h a n 1%
of thecarbonate

member and c o n s i s t of' c r y p t a l g a l l a m i n a t e s ,

algal stromatolites,

and bryozoan-ostracod bioherms

Well-defined, laterally continuous bedding
g e n e r a l l yr a r e .

Most of thecarbonate

planes a r e

member is v e r yt h i c k l y

t o t h i c k l y bedded and i.ntcmxLLl.y massive,

A t the S u n s e t , Hondo,

'

23

Fox Cavep and E l u e w a t e r s e c t i o n s v -the carbpnatesaboveand

l o c a l l y below t h e Yeso/San Andres contact are

beddedand

interrially indistinctly

conlmoaLy t h i n l y

distinc%%ylaminated

'GO

t n thesurvival

iriciicating environmentalcond.iti0n.sinimFcsl
o r developmentofburrowingorganisms.Extreme

s a l i n i t y and/

o r low oxygen content o f $he water is t h e most l i k e l y c a u s e of

- h e a.bsenee of burrowing orgmisms,

supratidalexposure

since no evidence o f

was noted i n t h e s e r o c k

the t o p of these four sections, obscure

units, Towards

Lo dis$i.nct medium

'bedded r o c k u n i t s are interbedded w i t h t h i c k bedded units.

k s t carbonate roclrs
fE Tnat they have

m e at l e a s t moder8.-h?ljr p e t r o l i f e r o u s

a d a r k e r a s p e c t than is u s u a l i n slze19 car-

, bonates (Wilsnn, l?'pl,)

and theyemit
S h u c k with a hammer.

a f e t i d odoruponbeing

S u p r a t i d a lf a c i e sa r e

u s u a l l y mwh

ligh.teP th.an o t h e r faci.es and a r e e s s e n k a l l y u n p e t r o l i f e r a u s .

z'wc e x p l a n a t i o n s for this p a t t e r n a r e p o s s i b l e d e p e n d i n g

formed jn

whether
the
hydrocarbons
present
were
p o r t e di n t o

the a r e a .

If %heyformed

o f hydrocarbons suggests the oxidation

o r "cam-

2~ ap
ther.%beabsence

o f organic materiaL on

supyatidal f l a t s and t h e reduc'cion of organic material. in

otherenvironments.

on

If thehydrocarbons

all

rfiigTated i n t o t h e

carbonate rock u n i t s , t h e n r e l a t i v e p o r o s i t i e s

might be respon-

s i b l e f a r t h e i rl o c a l i z e da b s e n c e .S u b a e r i a lc e m e n t a t i o n
processes might have rendered

the supratidal f a c i e s r e l a t i v e l y

impermeable compalred with the o t h e r c a r b o n a t e f a c i e s .

..

39
CARBONATE SEDTivENTkYf STRUCTURES

Introduction
Organo-sedimentary s t r u c t u r e s andemergentdesiccation
features are the

most common c a r b o n a t e s e d i m e n t a r y s t r u c t u r e s

p r e s e n t in t h set u d y
a r e aD. i s t i n cct r o s s - s t r a t i f i c a t i o n
is almost completely absent

i n t h e carbonate member, even i n

the undaform-edge f a c i e s , and hence is n o t d i s c u s s e d

i n t h i s r e p o r t .F i g u r e

6 is an est?-mtl-l;e o ft h e

relative

i n the car-

frequency of o c c u r r e n c e o f s e d i m e n t a r y s t r u c t u r e s
bonateenvironments,whichareinferred

fl,wthsir

-!x be r e p r e s e n t e d i n

the studyarea.

# & a."n o - s e d l m ~ t a v

structures

Organo-sedimertary strwctures consist of cryptalgal

i n a t e s s a2gal. s t r c m a t o l l t e s p and o n c o l i t e s .
v e r yr a r e

i n t h e stutudy area.Thesestructuyes

h a w formedthrough

greenalgae.

lam-

They a m r e l s t i s e l y
are i n f e r r e d t o

the s&xiinent b i n d i n g a c t i v i t i e s o f blue-

No evidence of 2-hodolites ( i . e I r e d algal

e n c r u s t e d ' b a l l s : Sosellini and Ginsburg,1973)

was noted.

Cryptalgallanlinates(Aftken,1967)aresockunits
undulatory laminae

t o t h ea c t i v i t y

with

a t l e a s % some o f which a r e i n f e r r e d t o

Qf blue-greenalgae,

bedue

The c r y p t a l g a l 3.a.minates

n o t e d i n t h i s s t u d y ( f i g u r e 21C) have t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r istics:

1) theydevelopinto

recogniza.bXc a l g a ls t r o m a t o l i t e s

i n a few rock uni'ts, and 2 ) they only very rarely contain evapori t e molds,Cryptalgallaminatesforminprotectedmud-flats
i n R e c e n ct a r b o n a t es e t t i n g s( A i t k e n ,

1967; Logan

The c r y p t a l g a l l a m i n a t e s o f t h i s study are compatible

-a,
1964)
with

~~~~

e
32

formatioil i n p r o t e c t e d m u d - f l a t s ,

t o prevent the formation

water circulatlon
(Shim &

which g e n e r a l l y had enough

o r preservatim

&, 1965) of e v a p o r i t e m i n e r a l s . -

DONIa
~ l~g a l s t r o m a t o l i t e s ( h i t k e n , 1 9 6 7 ) a r e t h e

most

common type of algal s t r o m a t o l i t e noted in t h e lovrer San Andres

Domal s t r o m a t o l i t e s i n %he s'tudg m e a may be char-

Formation,

a c t e r i z e d as foll07m8

1) *hey c o ~ s i s - lof
; si.mpfe,unciulatosy

laminations, a few ofwhich

2) t h e y a r e

show emwgent desiccation

fea.tares,

commonly a s s o c i a t e d w i t h B n t r a c l a s t s , 2 ) they are

n o t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h eviclence of evaporites,p

a n d 14) they. range

i n s i z e Prom about 3 to E! inches In diameter.

Domal strome%Gl-

i t e s form i n exposed i n t e r t i d a l mud f l a t s , where the scouring

action of

waves and o t h e r i n t e r a c t i n g f a c t o r s p r e v e n t t h e

growYn o f a l g a l mats between s t r o m a t o l i t e s (Logaar

$0

i n R e c e n tc a r b o n a t es e t t i n g s .

The degree of

desiccation present i n thestromatolitesobserved

I
I

& 3.9641,

shallow s u . b t i d a l a r e a s ( 3 t o 25 f e e t deep i n Bermudas

GebeleSn,1969)

et

wea. has beenused

i n 'the s t u d y

t o help determine whether they were deposited

i n l o v ~ supratidal/high i n t e r t i d a l or low i n t e r t i d a l / s u b t i d a l
environments.

The absence o f evidence of e v a p o r i t e ss u g g e s t s

a t l e a s t minimal amounts o f v f a i e r c i r c u l a t i o n i n t h e i n t e r t i d a l /
subtidal environments

and n o t i n f r e q u e n t i n u n d a t i o n

of the

s u p r a t i d a l environinsnt . during the formation o f domal stromatolites,

D i g i t a t e algal. s t r o m a t o l i t e s (Aitken,

1967) were noted only i n Bogle Dcme, u n i t 26 ( f i g r e 9 S ) ,

There i s n o a p p a r e n t c o a l e s c e n c e u p w a r d s i n t o l a t e r a l l y l i n k e d

0
hemispheroids(Lcgan
are about

-5

a a,1 9 6 h ) .

'32

The d Z g f t a t es t r o m a t o l i t e s

i n c h i n diameter and. c o ~ t a i nalxmdan% t u b u l e s ,

D i g i t a t e s t r o m a t o l i t e s a-re g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t o h a v e

t'oxhed

o n l y i n lcv: inter-tidal environments exposed t o waves. fAitken,

1967).

The d i g i t a t e stromatolites of t h i s s t u d y may well. have

formed %TI such

c~~-vi~.o~?me.r~"c.
Kwveverp 'the presence of well

developad f e n e s t r a l f a b r i c
matrixbetween

(see t e x t below) i n t h e carbonate

t h e s-trcmato%ites suggests subsequent

silbserial

exposure

Practically the only oecuzrence

'

t a p of Hondos ~rtiii3.5 ( f i g u r e 21A)

qlhese o n c o l i t e n

ST^

gen-

c of L o g m & & 1964.!.), Gastropoc:,

e r a l l yc o n c e n t r i c( n o d e
E;5fioi3s

of o n c o l i t e s ,is near t h e

m d bryozoan fra,gents

a r e the main nizclei,

A few

w i t h borings about

2mm i n dia.meter.

Oncoli%es fora ii? very s h a l l o w s u b t i d a l w e a s

w p o s e d t o waves

oncoli'tee have beenbored,

t o low i n t e r t t ; l d a l a r e a s exposec; t o agitated shallow water

modern c a r b o n a t es e t t i n g s

(Logan e't; -a8

19&)

of Hondo, u n i t 35 were probably deposited

f e a t u r e s i n t h eu n i t .

T~Eonco~.tas

i n a nearly continuously

agitated shallow sub-tidal envir0nmen.t because

n a k r e of t h e o n c o l i t e l a m i n a e

o f t h e concki1tri.c

and t h e back o f m y i n t e r t i d a l

The presence o f c r i n o i d s and bryczoans

suggestsnormalmarineconditionsduringdeposition,
l e a c h e do n c o l i t e

in

was no'ted In Sunset,

A single

u n i t 10 ( f i g u r e 10B).

It

was probably t r a n s p o r t e d i n t o t h e a r e a d u r i n g d e p o s i t i o n .
Emergent D e s l c c a t i o n F e a t x r e s
Introduction
Evidence o f s u b a e r i a l s x p o s u r e i s r e l a t i v e l y v e r y rare i n

of f e n e s t r a l fabric, mud cracks, and some b r e c c i a t i o n i s used

i n t h i s stufiy t o recognize subaerial exposure d u r b g d e p o s i t i o n

or shortly thereafter
Fenestral Fabric

Fenestral fabric i s n o t commonr but some is found i n a l m o s t

a l l measured s e c t i o n s (Fl-a'ces X t o BIlI; figure 2 0 ) e

axw. defined a8 prirnmy

framework

61'

penecontemporaneous gaps i n r o c k

l a r g e r -than grain stippor.<ed i n t e r s t i c e s r e g t i f d l e s s

o f . degree o r character of subsequent

'

3965).

Fenestrae

f i l l i n g (Tebbutt

ei: a,

Fenestral fa.bbric in t h a s t u d y m e a i s found o a l y i n

dolomite hosts.

I s o l a t e db u b b l e - l i k ec a v i t i e si n d i c a t i v eo f

a gas bubble o r i g h were notobserved.Fenestrae

to have been made by

o f planar i s o l a t e d c a v i t i e s a r e i n f e r r e d

shrinkage resulting from desiccation

sGdiraenCs.

consistifig

of s u b a e r i a l l y exposed

Spwry c a l c i t e cement i s t h e most common f e n e s t r a l

f i l l i n g , but spwry dolomitecement

i s present in Sunset, unit

45, Cclnnfng Ranch, u n i t 10, mc? Eiondo u n i t 24,

sediment or s h e e t c r a c k s werenoted.

No internal.

Fones'crsL fabbric in t h e

stuqy a r e a is c o m o n l y a s s o c i a t e d with a b w d a n t %a c~mn~on

intra-

clasts and slight ' t o moderatebrecciation.

e v e r ,a s s o c i a t e d

wit'n anhydritenodule

It is r a r e l y , i f

o r gypsum molds,

Pen-

e s t r a l f a b s i c i n modern carbenate settings i s mostabundant

insupratidaldolomiticsediments,sometimes
t i d a l s e d i m e n t s , and neverpreser.t

i n s u b t i d a l ones ( S h i m ,

1968b,). Rock u n i t s w i t h f e n z e s t r a lf a b r i c
are interpreted

t o haveformed

present in i n t e r -

i n t h es t u d ya r e a

in s u p r a t i d a l o r i n t e r t i d a l

e
34

envirermentsd.epending on %he degree GP emergent desiccation

present.

Alua Cracks

The c r a c k i n g of muddy sediment 3y desicca6ion most ,commonly

CICCUPS

during subaerial. exposure8

9311% may happensubaqueously

i972r Burst,1965)

under s p e c i a cl o l l d i t i o n s( I l e c k e l p

Con-

sequently * 0 t h ~
evidence
~
of s u b a e r i a l e x p o s u r e is desirsb2-s

for envixanrcentxliPitmpretation.

Hud cracks were onby found

i n two r o c k u n f t s i n %he s k d y area, namely Hondor,u n i t 6 ar.d

CanningRanch,
'

mi%
LO

abmt 2 t o 4 inches

present.

111

ICE-&
Eondo, unit 6 , diatirsc-6 polygms

diameter snd about 1% b c h e s t h i c k a m

They are a s s o c i a t e d wiLb f e n e s t r a l f a b r i c

below them,

The i n t e f - p o l y g o a a la r e a s

with jn%raclnsts,

a r e p a r t i a l l y f'!,iled

In C8.nning Ranch, u n i t 10, s p a m y ca3.cS.tr.

f i l l e d mud c r a c k s a r e p r e s e n t .
relatiwe:Ly r a r e l y r e p o r t e d

Such mud c r a c k s appeal- 'to be

i n the l i t e r a t m e ,

mud ma& f i l l i n g has been described

Matter (1967)e

above arid

Pischer(196b)

t oe x p l a i n t h i s t y p e o f f i l l i n g :

HoweverB similar

by Fischer (1964)

and

i-nvohes an a l g a l mat mechanism

1) c r a c k s formed. under the

cover o f a tough algal l a y e r o r 2) they formed a t t h e s u r f z c c

and wereovergrown

ling,

by an algal mat b e f o r e a c q u i r i n g a mud f i l -

The presence o f crypta.lgallaminates

and s t r o m a t o l i t e s

i n t h e rock u n i t i s osmpatib3.e w i t h t h e f o r e g o i n g e x p l a n a t i o n .
F e n e s t r a l fabric in the o v e r l y i n g u n i t and algal s t r o m a t o l i t e s
and c r y p t a l g a l l a m i n a t e s w i t h i n

a e r i a l c a u s e of mud cracking,

the r o c k u n i t suggest a sub-

. -

35
Brecciation
B r e c c i a t i o n ( f i g u r e 9k) canform i n a ~zumberof waysp
entpirorments, and Limes rela"tve t o deposition8
d e s i c c a t i o n ciue t o subaerialexposure,
t h ec a l i c h i f i c a t i o np r o c e s s( J a m e s ,

1) i n t e n s e

2) iu1 i n i t i a l . s t e p i n

1972: ReevesS 1970) 3 )

s o l u t i o n b r e c c i a t i o n due t u t h e l e a c h i n g o f e v a p o r i t e s ,

4)

associa-t&d with penecontempormeous submxrine cemented

hard-

grounds of the P e r s i a n Gulf { S h i m , 1 9 6 9 ) , 5) mild epeir0gen.y

may brecciate weaker

rock u i ~ i t s , o r 6) i g n e o u s i n t r u s i o n f r e -

q u e n t l yb r e c c i a t e sa d j a c e n t

e. is

ciation

rock u n i t s .

Consequently,brec-

u s e l e s s as an environmentalindica-tor.

but

a s s o c i a t e d f e a t u r e s may s u g g e s t p o s s i b l e czusss of SrecciaLion,

B r e c c i a t i o n in t h e s t u d y area i s g;eneralLy r a r e to wlyL\lluns

Most b r e c c i a t i o n is probably due t o tie R e c e n t c a l k c h i f i c a t i o n

i n th.e lower Sari. Andre& Formaticn,Brec-

of carbonaterocks

c i a t i o n is g e n e r a l l y : b m d i n t h e s u p r a t i d a l d e p o s i t i o n a l f s c i e s
( e .g. f i g u r e 9 A 1 , where it may most; l i k e l y be r e l a t e d t o ir,tenoe
desiccationduringsubaerie1exposure
c i a t i o ? ? may havebeenconceivablycaused

However, l o c a l l yb r e c by t h e

SOhtiCR

of

e v a p o r i t e minerals o r by t h e s t a r t o f P e r m i a n c a l i c h i f i c a t i o n ,
although no evidence

was found t o support these hypotheses.

Brecciation relatei to

i s common a t F'ox Cave.

%heemplacement OS i g n e o u s i n t r u s i v e s

Conclusion

"

The p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s on c a r b o n a t e s e d i m e n t a r y s t r u c t u r e s
i l l u s t r a t e that individual sedimentary structures only rmely

form

iR

ShIgIE

d i s t i n c t environment of deposition.Consequently,

'

..

0
36

combinations of sedimelltary structures

aad paleonfology were

used t o i n t e r p r e t s u p r a t i d a l , i . n t e r t i d a l ,

and s u b t i d a l envirom-

men%s i n t h i s s t u d y ,

in t h e

The s e d i m e n t a r y s t r u c t u r e s and paleontology noted

studyareaindica.tes

t h a t theenvironments

o f & p o s i 6 i s n of t h e

lower S a n dndres Porn:ztion were preduminacely s u b t i d a l and -that

s u p r a t i d a l Elnd i n t e r t i d a l environmerrtswere

rare.

The generaL

absence o f evidence of -the formar presenceofevaporites

in the

s u p r a t i d a l and i n t e r t i d a l f a c i e s o f t h i s s t u d y s u g g e s t s that
sabkha environments o f deposition were ram? duying lower

At?dres time,

The lower S a n Xndres i n t h e s t u d y a r e a

a t e d on t h e P e d e r n a l p o s i t i v e

San

is loc-

element,, which appears t o have

been active during lower

Sail Xndres time (see

IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY).

Hencep the p a u c i t y o f s u p r a t i d a l and

PALECGEOGRAPHZC

i n t e r t i d a l f a c i e s i n the s t u d y area suggests %hat a t l e a s t

most o f the lower San Andres

Forma-tion, which was d e p o s i t e d off

o f t h s Pedernal
positive
element,cvax,probably
deposited
tidally,

sub-

..

37
~r.'l~l,,f'ilip,,p~fl
2.1 ,:..Iu
*.

I3

-_".Iri~;rociv.chion
The petrography of: r o c k u n i t s d u r i n g

t h i s study was con-

f i n e d to what was nesessar-y t o id.entify %he t y p e s and s i z e s of

grains p r e s e n t i n o r d e r t o a i d in the environmental interpred-

6 i i l u s t r a t e s the relativs

a t i o n of t h e rock u n i t s .F i g u r e

in

frequency of occurrence o f s k e l e t a l a n d n o n - s k e l e t a l g r a i n s
ctlrbonate d e p o s i t i o n a lf a c i e s .
present in themeasured

The petr0graphj.cparameters

s e c - t i o ~ sare grapi1icall.ypoytrayed

in

!'latee8 I t o 'VIII*
'

"-.S~te:.atal G s a - i a

The s k e l e t a l g a i n s i d e n t i f i e d
E'crmation i n t h e s t u d y

3@DY FOSSILS)

i n t h e lovrerSanAndres

area have already been discussed (see

a l l m7id-

Th.ese s k e l e t a l .g r a i n sg e n e r e l l yl a c k

m c e of t r a n s p o r t and abrasion,Brachiopodsare
d i s a r t i c u l a t e d andalmost

commanly nct

a l l skeletalfragmentsare

!ience, l o v e r S m Andres deposition zppears

an&wlsr,

t o havebeen

al.mou%

e n t i r e l y i n Iow-energyenvironments.
PelobdF,
The termpeloid(Bathurst,1971)

is u s e d t o d e n o t e c r y p t o -

c r y s t a l l i n e a g g r e g a t e s o f unknown o r i g i n t h a t a r e s m a l l e r t h a n

of

0.231m i n diameter,Peloids,.especiallythosesugpestj.v.e
f e c a l .p e l l e to r i g i n ,a r ev e r yr a r ei nt h e
are abundant

i n both modernand

s-kudy a r e a .

Yet they

many a n c i e n t s h e l f s e t t i n g s ,

T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t peloid boundaries have

b l u r r e d beyond recognition(BeaXes,
compaction o f very poorly cemented

become mergedand

1965) probablyowing
o r non-cemented peloids

to the
and/

38
!?he term f e c a l

o r t h ee f f e c t s

o f p e r v a s i v ed o l o m i t i z a t i o n .

pellet cluster

is used t o denote small c l u s t e r s of rcunded

peloids, which

at least superficially resemble

ciusters of

f e c a l p e l l e t s found i n modern carbonate environments.

Intrsclasts
h t r a c l a s t s ( P o l k , 1959 1 r e f e r t o fragments a f p a r t i a l l y
&re i n f e r r e d to have been

l i t h i f i e 6 czrbona'ce sedinient which

o r adjacenY: t i d a l flats (Blatt

eroded from the sea bottom

ei; a . l P 1972).

I n t r a c l a s t s may be i d e n t i c a l t o peloidsand

are operationally separated

enceof

by a 0,2mm boundary when no evid-

an i n t r a c l a s t i c o r i g i n i s p r e s e n t .

Such g r a i n s l a r g e r

t h a n 0.2mm 2rc i n t r a c l a s t s , whereas grains s m a l l e r than 0.2m

are p s l o i d s ,

I n t r a c l a s t s i n the s t u d y a r e aa r e

ro?mded to very sounded, but

present in places

"O
.- o l i t e s

most commmly

angular Lo subangular p a i n s arc?

(P o w w s L 1953)

Ooiitesaredefined.

as s u b s p h e r i c a l , s a n d s i z e c a r b o n a t e

p a r t i c l e s t h a t have c o n c e n t r i c r i n g s o f carbonate surrounding

a nucleus o f a n o t h e r p a r t i c l e ( a f t e r

Blatt gi;

.a,1972).

The

term ''true'' o o l i t e i s used i n t h i s s t u d y t o d e n o t e a n o o l i t e

whose n u c l e u s c o n s t i t u t e s l e s s t h a n

t e r m " s u p e r f i .c. i a l " o o l i t e

50% o f t h e p a r t i c l e .

i s u s e d i n 'chis s t u d y t o danote an

o o l i t e whose. n u c l e u s c o n s t i t u t e s

more t h a n 50% o f t h e p a r t i c l e .

Most tru.e o o l i t e s i n t h e s t u d y area havebeen

recrystallized

t o t h e p o i n t where the rings are rfiicroscopically obscure

absent.

The

.or

However, enough g n i i n s w i t h c h m a c t e r i s t i cc o n c e n t r i c

rings a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f o o l i t i c r o c k u n i t s .

39
True o o l i t en u c l e i wereind.eterminable,Intrac3.asts9quavtz
g r a i n s , a.nd F o r a m i n i f e r a t e s t s ; , i n d e c r e a s i n g o r d e r o f abundance,arethe

m o s t common n u c l e i in s u p e r f i c i a l o o l . i t e s .

Terrigenous GraiLs.

Terrigenous grains (mostly quartz

areidentical

t o t h eo n e sp r e s e n t

the GLorieta Sandstone

and some f&lcispars)

in theqJartz

arenk-tes o f

IGember of t h e Sari Andres Purmation.

. They were n o t e d i n r o c k f a b r i c s

'that ranged from s l i g h t l y sandy

mttdstone t o v e r y mud-leanwackestone,Carbonaterockunits
t h a t a r e r i c h i n t e r r i g e n o u s grains loca,lLy contain rip-ups

. and s u p e r f i c i a l o o l i t e s w i t h qm.rtz g r a i n n u c l e i .
PorosiQ
member was d e s c r i b e d a f t e r t h e

Porosity fn the carbonat9

c l a s s i f i c a t i o no fC h o q u e t t e

andPray(1970).Calciumcarbonate

mud ciepositsd i n modern c a r b o n a t e s e t t i n g s c o n t a i n s p o r o s i t i e s

of 60 t o 70%s whereascalciumcarbonatemudstones(tinciext

limestones)generallyhaveporasities
most,EaPlycementation

of a few p e r c e n t

is thought t o reducethese

initial porosities to about

5 to

at

d r y high

10% and Late stage cementation

t oe l i m i n a t et h er e m a i n i n gp o r o s i t y .D o l o m i t i z a t i o n( r e s u l t i n g
in intercrystalline porosity)

(I

& e l e c t i v e s o l u t i o n o f carbonate

g r a i n s o r e v a p o r i t e s ( r e s u l t i n g i n moldic porosity), formation

of fenestrae (resulting in fenestral porosity), fracturing.

(resulting f n fracture porosity),
carbonaterocks(resultingin

and/or random s o l u t i o n of

vugs and/orchannels)

porosity in rock unitse but late stage cementation also

q u e n t l ye l i m i n a t e st h e s ep o r o s i t i e s .

may i n c r e a s e
fre-

Almost a11 formerporosity

h-0

%XI t h e lower San Anfires, Formation i n t h e s t u d y , mea is now

completely o r p a r t i a l l y f i l l e c i w i t h c a l c i t e cement.HoweverB
spzrrydolomite

and quartzcements

w e r e o b s e r v e dl o c a l l y ,

The

dolomitecements were o n l y n o t e d f i l l i n g f e n e s t r a e i n suprat i d a l rock u n i t s ,

The most common p o r o s i t y t y p e in the lower San

d o l o m i t ei n t e r c r y s t a l l i n ep o r o s i t y i y .

Andres 5s

Fossil- rnoldic p o r o s i t y i s

thesecondmostabundantporositytype,Evaporite

and o o l i t e .

nloldic p o r o s i t y ana vug and chmnel p o r o s i t y a r e o n l y l o c a % l y

significant and are completely or p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d with c a l c i t e

cement,

I n t e r - a a d i n t r s p a r t i c l ep o r c s i - t y

is r a r e , c a l c i t a

f i l l e d u and c h i e f l y p r e s e n t i n theundaform-edge
Interconnectedporosity
intercsystaPlineporosity

is p r a c t i c a l l y c o n f i r i e d t o d o l o m i t e

m-d t h e in-cer-and

o s i t y of t h e undaform-edge f a c i e s ,
allnostwithoutexception
area.

i n t r a p a r t i c l e por-

Theseporositytypes

area,interms

are

f i l l e d w i t h c a l c i t e cement i n t h o study

However, open p o r o s i t y is l o c z l l yp r e s e n t ,

potential of the

sand f a c i e s .

lower SanAndres

The petroleum

i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e s t u d y

sf i n t e r c o n n e c t e d p o r o s i t i e s s u f f i c i e n t f o r

r e s e r v o i r development,appears
edge rack units inferred to

t o be confined Lo I ) undaform-

be p r e s e n t i n t h e s u b s u r f a c e

in

e a s t e r n L i n c o l n and western Chaves Counties (see PALEOGEOGRAPHIC

IlJPLICAJi0NS

OF STUDY)

and 2) dolomitic r o c k u n i t s ,

which a r e most l i k e l y i n t e r b e d d e d w i t h t h e undaform-edgerock

units

41

CAREOMATE BIAGEWSIS

.-I n t r o d u c t i o n
Most c a r b o n a t e r o c k s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e '
been profoundly modified

o f t h i s study, have

by p o s t - d e p o s i t i o n a l

or d i a g e n e t i c

changes,Cementation,dolomitization,.ironsulfides
o x i d e s td e d o l o m i t i z a t i o n ,s i l i c i f i c a t i o n ,

and i r o n

a n ds % y l o l i t i z a t i o n

3,re Lfle c a r b o n a t e d i a g e n e t i c f e a t u r e s c o n s i d e r e d i n

t h i s s-f;udy.

Ccmentatioq;

_
I

P r a c t i c a l l y n o t h i n g is known about cementation i n t h e

matrixofmudstonesandwackestones,

Hcawever9 Recentcarbonate

mud c o n t a i n s p o r o s i t i e s o f 60 Lo 70$-9 whereasmudstones

and

wackestonescontain a t most only .a few p e r c e n t p o r o s i t y ,

lower San kndres Formation

i
l
z the study area contains

and wackestone almost entirely

andhence

The

mudstone

l i t t l e emphasis was

p l s c e d on. ~cernentation during t h i s study,

The study of carbona.te cementation

has g e n e r a l l y betm

focusedupon=parrycalcitecements.Suchcementswerenoted
in. t h e s t u d y a r e a

in molds of evaporites

and c a r b o n a t e g r a i n s ,

i n vugs a.nd channels, i n i n t e r - and i n t r a p a r t i c l e p o r o s i t y ,

f e n e s t r a e , and as f r a c t u r e f i l l i n g ( a f t e r
19'70).

Only s p a r r y c a l c i t e c o n s i s t i n g

ChoquetteandPray,.

of e q u a n tc r y s t a l s

noted i n t h e 2.00 Y i i n s e c t i o n s o f t h e c a r b o n a t e
during. t h i s study e

in
was

member examined

The e q u a n t c r y s t a l s i m p l y p r e c i p i t a t i o n

from a range of p o s s i b l e waters whose end members a r e conna.te

subsurfaceandmeteoricphreaticwaters(Folk,

1974).

S p a r y dolomiteandquartzcementswereobservedlocally.
The dolomite cements were 0d.y noted filling fenestrae

in supra-

tidal. rock units.

Dolomitizati.on

Nost lower San Andres Formation rock units are completely

dolomitized ar.d many a r e p a r t i a l l y d o l o m i t i z e d ,
are1ocal.ly

vsry i m p o r t a n t ( f i g u r e 5 ) .

but l i m e s t o n e s

P r a c t i c a l l y a l l dnlo-

mite c r y s t a l s a r e 0 ,Or t o 0,OZmm i n d i z n e t e r and a r e i n f e r r e d

t o haveformedfrom

origina.1 calciumcarbonate

pore-filling crystals are locally present

mead.

Dolomite

aqd a r e v e r y v a r i -

a b l e i n s i z e r a n g i n g from about 0.01 t o 0 . l O m m i n d i a n e t e r .

Btuurray (3.960) d e s c r i b e s a v e r y common sequence o f s e l e c t ive dolomitization in carbonate rocks

w i t h b o t h mud and g r a i n s ,

which r e s u l t s f r o m t h e c a n n i b a l i z a t i o n o f l o c a i c a , l c i t c
dolomite cry5W.i~a n d l e a v e i n t e r c r y s t a l l i n e p o r o s i t y i .
of a l l phsscs of

t h i s sequencearepresentinthe

7)

AndresFormation(figure
seqv.ence i n t h e s t u d y

Go form
Extiriplea

lower San

The most comnon phase o f t h e

area is t h e e o m p l e i e s e l e c t i v e

dolom3:tiz.-

a t i o n o f mud m a t r i c e s and p r e s e r v a t i o n orf c a l c i t i c f o s s i l fragments i n mostdolomftes.

dolomitiza.tion process

The f i n a l s t a g e s o f

i n t h e fowes San A n d r e s u s u a l l y r e s u l t e d

in the leaching of fossil fragments

porosity.

the selective

and the formation

of

N I O ~ C ? ~ ~

However, l e s s commonly, echinoderms were dolomitized

whereasotherbiotics

were leached,

Modern c a r b o n a t e t i d a l flats commonly c o n t a i n v a r y i n g

amountsofdolomite.Supratidal

f l a t environmentsproducecon-

ditions necesszry f o r sea-waterevaporationtothepoint

where dolomitizingwatersareproduced.

The heavy h y p e r s a l i n e

water moves down f r o m t h e s u p r a t i d a l s u r f a c e

and d o l o m i t i z a s

43

(CIWMNG
UrJ1-r

RI.MJCH)

4)

LIMESTWE

DOLQMiTE

'

'

POROSITY (OfEd OK SPARRY

FIGURE7

'

.
'

ULCrrE

FILLED)

SEQUENCE OF SELECTIVE D a L a M l T I ~ A T l O N
OBSERVED IN L6WEK 5AN ANOK5 FOPS$ATIopJ WITH EXAMPLES OF EACH PHASE.
. LET'r~ix5 REFER T O RELATIVE hBUr4DkNCE
OF: D~FFEREW ? H P \ S E ~ < A = A B U ~ ~ D A N T
C* COIVIMW) R-C= RARE TO COMMON R=URE)

theunderlyingsediments(Lucia,

1972).

Vhether o r nottheevapor-

a t i o n r e s u l t s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n of p r e s e r v a b l e e v a p o r i t e & is depen.de n t on c l i m a t e .

TheBahamas

are i n a t r o p i c a l c l i m a t e and evapor-

i t e s , which are probably formed, are not preserved (Shiiln

1965).

The TrucialCoast

is i n a n

& a9

a r i d c l i m a t i c zone and t h e

formatior. of evaporitesaccompaniesdolomitiza%ion(Bebout

and

Maiklem, 1 9 7 3 ) .
The p a t t e r n s o f d o l o m i t i z a t i o n i n t h e

lower S a n Andres a r e

a ~ m o s t e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t with an emergent tidal-flat dolomiti z a t i o n model:

1) %he g r e a t e s t amount of Limestone i s found a t

Fox Cave,which

is the only section lacking reco&%izable

supra-

44
tidal orintertidalfacies,

2 ) c o n v e r s e l y , f o r example, s u n s e t

has evidence o f f o u rs e p a r a t ep e r i o d so fs u b a e r i a l

tidal flat

d e p o s i t i o n and Bluewater one p e r i o d I furthermore, b o t h s e c t i o n s

arealmostcompletelydolomitized.,including

some dolomite-

3 ) a t Hondop F o r t Stanton, Fox Cave, and

cementedsandstones,

to a l e s s e r e x t e n t CanningRanch9normalmarine

t o be dolomites, 4)

be l i m e s t o n e s , w h e r e a s o t h e r f a c i e s t e n d
,

a t Hondo

Pox Cave,andCanningRanch,

normal mm-ine rock u n i t s t e n d

units tend t o
p a r t s of

the upper

t o be doLomiticand grade up i n t o

thak

pure dolomites, suggesting,,a limited gravity sinking

p e n e s a l i n eb r i n e s

was r e s p o n s i b l ef o r

w i t h only a few exceptions, evidence

of laker

dolurnitizacioil, and 5)
o f theformespiiesenceof

e v a p o r i t e s i s found i n d o l o m i t i c h o s t s , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t a n
i n c r e a s e i n t h e Mg/Ca r a t i o was due t o t h e p r e c i p i t a t i o n of
gypsum and a n h y d r i t e .

No ,canvincingevidence f o r a r e g i o n a l

p e r m e a b i l i t y o r reflux model of d o l o m i t i z a t i o n was recognized,

The p a t t e r n s o f d o l o m i t i z a t i o n ape generally incompatible

with

..

a l a t e r a l movement ofdolomitizingbrineshypothesis,Depositional. f a c i e s c o n % r o l of dolomitization sugges;ts

t h a t it was a n

early diagenetic process.

I r o n S u l f i d e s a n d Iron Oxides
Microscopic hematite pseudomorphs after pyrite are cornan

i n thelower

San dndresFormation,

t h e y a r e usually found

I n the e v a p o r i t i cf a c i e s ,

as p a r t s of r e d rims t h a t form the outer

p o r t i o n of anhydritenodulemolds,

The pseudomorphs are found

as w i d e l y d i s s e m i n a t e d i n d i v i d u a l c r y s t a l s

grown c r y s t a l s i n t h e c m b o n a t e

and c l u s t e r s of i n t e r -

deposi,tionzJ. f a c i e s of -this

45
t h e s u p r a t i d a l , some of t h e i n t e r t i d a l ,

btudy,except

and t h e

undaform-edge s m d f a c i e s ,T h e i rp r e s e n c es u g g e s t sr e d u c i n g
c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t e d a t or j u s t below the sediment-water interface pene~ontemporzneously with d e p o s i t i o n .
DedoiomiLizatioB

__I

Dedolomitization was only noted

s t u d ya r e a .S u n s e t ,u n i t
J

in one rock u n i t i n t h e

XI. i s t h i n ,i r r e g u l a r l yl a m i n a t e d ,

and has a f a b r i c o f c a l c i t e c r y s t a l s ,

which a r e v e r y similar

t o pseudospar calcite from the neomorphisn of carbonate

(Polk, 1965).

A possibled.edolomiteorigin

'numberoftextural

mud

is suggested by a

and s t r a b i g r a p h i c c r i t e r i a .

The t h i n Lime-

s t o n e i s i n a s e c t i o n that is p r a c t i c a l l y a l l d o l o m i t e ( f i g u r e

5).

The u n i t is n o t u n l i k e

r o c ku n i t ,

the underlyinglaminateddolomite

i f d i a g e n e t i ce f f e c t s

Vjrpical of t h e c l o t t e d

a r e not considered.

Fea%u.res

o r "gr~mel-euse'~dedolomitetexture of
l) s e v e r a l sharp, p a r t i a l rhornbo-

Evamy (1967) a r ep r e s e n t x

h e d r a l margins, 2 ) c a v i t i e s pmtl.y f i l l e d w i t h apparent blaoky

calcite(psuedosparofPolk,

1965?), b u t l a c k i n g p a r t i a l mud

f i l l i n g s , and 3 ) dark c l o t s within i n d i v i ' d u a l c a l c i t e cyystals.

The c l o t s a r e s u g g e s t i v e

o f originaldolomite

rhombohedra. w i t h

dark c e n t e r s , which are l i k e l y t o be t h e produc-t of dolomitiz-

a t i o no f

mud.

red presence

T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h ei n f e r -

o f a n o r i g i n a l mud-supported fabric.

Dedolomitization can only proceed a t o r n e a r t h e e a r t h ' s

s u r f a c e (Evamy, 1 9 6 7 ) .
depositionalfacies,

The dedolomiteunit

is i n an i n t e r t i d a l

which i s s t r a t i g r a p h i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t t o

a w e l ld e v e l o p e ds u p r a t i d a lf a c i e s

a t Hondo.

This stratigraphic

46
selectivity silggests

a Permian origin T o r the dedolomitieation.

However, a Recent origin cannot

be discounted on t h e a v a i l a b l e

evidence.
Silicification
S i l j . c f f i c a t i n n i n 'the lower S m h d r e $ Formation i n -the

s t u d y ares i s r e l a t i v e l y r~.ncommon. it

fossil r e p l a c i n g s i l i c a ,
nodules are most

They range from, coarse sand

i n dizmeter.Biota,especiallybrachiopods,

selecti*ely partially silicified

normalmarinefacies.Chalcedony
CanningRanch,uniL

also v e r y common

more than about 5 t o lO$ of t h e

r o c k u n i t s i n which they appear.

a$ecommonly

&.*re

and midd1.e carbonatetongues.Chert

nodules usually constitute no

t o l a r g ec o b b l es i z e

c h e r tn o d u l e s p

and p o r e - f i l l i n gc h a l c e d o n y ,C h e r t

common i n -the lowery b u t

i n p a r t s o f theupper

'

O C C L I ~as

10.

i n well developed

i s only common l o c t i l l y i n

A13. chalcedonyfound(present

in six

out cf &nehundred t h i n s e c t i o n s examined) was o p t i c a l l y l e n g t h

slow.
Fossils are preserved

in chert nodules in dolomite

rock

u n i t s where t h e b i o t i c s have been leached from the carbonate.

T h i s proves t h a t s i l i c i f i c a t i o np r e c e d e dd o l o m i t i z a t i o n .

s i l i c i f i c a t i o n must havebeen

Henceo

an e a r l y d i a g e n e t i c p r o c e s s ,

'because o f t h e e v i d e n c e a l r e a d y c i t e d ( s e e D o l o m i t i z a t i o n )

%hat

d o l o m i t i z a t i o n i n the lower S a n Andres was an e a r l y d i a g e n e t i c

process.
Stslolitization
Stylolitesareabundantlypresent
i f n o t most, bedding planes

in the study area,.

Many,

i n the carbonate member a r e a l o n g

e
The s t y l o l i t e s v a y in. r e l i e f -from

stylolitizfd cmtaCtse

97

about 4 inches to microscopic disnensions, with most amplitudes

l e s s .than about

inch,

Very t h i n red clay s e a s a r e almost'universally p r e s e n t

along s t y o l i - t e s ,

However, much t h i c k e r r e d

'thick were found i n t h e uppercarbonate

seams about

inch

tongue at 3ogl.e Done.

Charles Walker, formerly of *he New Mexico Bureau of Nines and

Mineral Resourceso suggested

-khat these thick r e & seams m i g h t

bo i n s o l u b l e r e s i d u e s left behind by the s o l u t i o n o f e v a p o r i t e s

(pers. comm,, 1973).

IIowewerP noindependent

evidence sf

e v a p o r i t e s was observect i n t h e upper darbanate tongue

Dome

at BogZe

a
48

EVIDENCE OF EVAPORITES
Tntrod.uct.ion

'

S.l;ratiTied evaporites

are o f t e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s h e l f

19721, b u t none are recognize?

carbonates (Lucia,
San AndresFoxmation

i n t h e s t u d y area,There

i n t h e lower

is a l s o b u t

l i t t l e evidence i n t h e study m e a of: the former presence of

e v a p o r i t e sp r i o rt o% h e i rr e m o v a l

by solui;inn,Meteoric

commonly l e a c h e s out anyeva,porites

t h a t m a y be p r e s e n t i n

rock u n i t s , t h e r e b y f r e q u e n t l y r e s u l t i n g i n o u t c r o p s
lapsebrecciationof

water

a typicallydolomitichost,

with col-

if stratified

e v a p o r i t e s had been p r e s e n t l and m o l d s o f e v a p o r i t i c c r y s t a l s

1972).

of nodules(Lucia,

is.

and nut demonstrably due Lo t h e l e a c h i n g

local,. small scale,

of e v a p o r i t e s .

B r e c c i a t i o n i n -t h e s t u d y a r e a

Hovmver, t h e r e i s l o c a l evid.ence of s a l i n i t i e s

high enough t o formevaporiteminerals,Evidence

presenceofevaporites

i n t h es t u d ya r e ac o n s i s t s

of theformer
oft

1) com-

mon t o abundant occurrences o f molds, which a& t h e s o l u t i o n

and which shall h e n c e f o r t h he termed

products of former nodules

anhydritenodule

molds ( f i g u r e s l 3 B , 1 4 ) p 2) rare occurrences of

e v a p o r i t e c r y s t a l molds,and
length-slowchalcedony.

3) r a r e o c c u r r e n c e s of o p t i c a l l y

The v e r yl i m i t e de v i d e n c eo fe v a p o r i t e s

i n t h e lower San Andses i n the study area coupled

climate inferred

with the a r i d

f o r Permian t h e s u g g e s t s s u f f i c i e n t w a t e r

culation to prevent the precipitation

cir-

of s t r a t i f i e d e v a p o r i t e s .

Anhvdrite Nodule K o l d s

Najor occurrences o f anhydrite nodule molds are p r a c t i c a l l y

alwaysconfined

t o d o l o m i t i c h o s t s which are almost

-to completely

49
s u b a e r i a l exposures

b a r r e n of b i o t a b b u t lack a l l inndica'cionof

such as f e n e s t r a l fabric, mud c r a c k s , algal mats , and .abrfidant

intraclasts,

The e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s a r e a,s follows,There

a r e a few occurrences o f a n h y d r i t e n o d u l e n o l d s i n s u b t i d a l

i n almost each case

f a c i e s o v e r l a i n by s u p r a t i d a l f a c i e s , b u t

i t s e l f i s f r e e of evidence o f e v a p o r i t e s .

the supratidal facies

T h i s suggen'cs 'the p o s s i b i l i t y that e v a p o r i t e n o d u l e s may have

formed subaqueously p ~ i o rt o t h e a d v e n t

ions.

o f s u p r a t i d a l cond.it-

Only one occurrence sf' anhydritenodulemoldsintimately

was found (Canning

a s s o c i a t e d wlth emergent desiccation feaW.res

Ranch, unit 10).

Anhydrite nodule molds i n a laminated,unfos-

s f l i f e r o u s l i m e s t o n e h o s t werefound
( f i g u r e 34A) a n d 24.

Some wsrenoted

a normalmarinebiota.ere

i n Fox Cave, u n i t s 10

in a f e w r o c k u n i t s

with

the anhydritenodulemoldsincreased

in r e l a t i v e abundance upward i n t h e u n l t s I s u g g e s t i n g f o r m a t l o n
from hypersaline brines,

whichwere

more rest;rictsd environments

concentrated during laterp

of d e p o s i t i o n ,

No gypsum o r a n h y d r i t e c r y s t a l s 'or addu.les a r e preserved

in 'the s3xdy area.

Most c a v i t i e so rf o r m e rc a v i t i e so fe v a p o r now par'kially o r c o m p l e t e l y f i l l e d with

i t e nodule origin are

c a l c i t e ( s i i i c a i n one rock unit) and few w e completely empty.

Anhydrite nodules i n t h e San AndresFormation

i n t h e subsur-

f a c e (llkwray, 1960, p. 517, f i g u r e 4 ) appear a t l e a s t s u p e r f i c i a l l y similar t o most o f the anhydrite nodule

i n tine s t u d y a r e a .

Anhydrite nodulemolds

AndresFormationrange

moldsnoted

i nt h el o w e r

Sari

f r o m about 1/16 t o 2 inches i n diameter.

Rarely, a few nodules appear t o h a v e c o a l e s c e d t o f o r m v e r t i c a l

f e a t u r e sa b o u t

6 t o 8 i n c h e sl o n g( f i g u r e

lIJ.R),

Evidence o f

~~

gQ
was sought

the calcitized replacement of anhydxite nodules

i n e i g h t t h i n s e c t i o n s and a b o u t t v e n t y p o l i s h e d
taining anhydrite nodule moldse but

slabs con-

%he c h a r a c t e r i s % i c c a l c i t e

c r y s t a l morphology and i n c l u s i o n s of small d o l o m i t e c r y s t a l s

were.not recognized.
Most anhydrite nodule molds i n t h e s t u d y a r e a a r e
o u t l i n e s [ f i g u r e s 130, I&.A),

acte:cizedbyLobate

intern&septa,

and r e d s h e n a t i t e rims ( f i g u r e 14.4) forming the outside

roclds.

char-

of the

L a c i a (1972) r e p o r t s t h a t rarely,evaporitenoduleshave

a r e c t a n g u l a r o u t l i n e with s t r a i g h t s i d e s .
u l e moldswerenoted
ofwestTexas

San

AndresFormation

were observed by t h e a u t h o r 'bo c o n t a i n p y r i t e

Tins (pyri-te is zlsed In a g e n e r i c s e n s e i n

marcasite).

nod-

i n a sanple Prom F ~ r tS t a n t o n , mit 2 2 ,

i n a core slab from t h e

Anhydritenodules

Suchanhydrite

t h i s study t o i n c l u d e

The hematite rims formingtheoutsideofmost

molds i n tine stuey m e a most likely r e p r e s e n t

anhydrite nodule

similar p y r i t ep r e c t , m x m p whichwere

l a t e ro x i d i z e d .H e m a t i t e

rims a r e almost always v e r y t h i n w i t h r e s p e c t t a t h e n o d u l e s

in which they appear, except in Sunset,

u n i t 15,rvhere a n h y d r i t e

nodule molds a r e c o m p l e t e l y t o a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y f i l l e d

with

hematite
A r e l a t i v e l y few rock units

former poresr which have the

m o l d s ,b u tl a c kr e d
internalsepta,
hosts as red

rims.

have c a l c i t e - f i l l e d p o r e s

general a s p e c t of anhyd.rite nodule

Theseporeshave

are a s s o c i a t e d

lobate o u t l i n e s ,

w i t h t h e same t y p e s of sediment

rimmed nodulemoldsp

r i t e nodulemolds,

or

and henceprobablyareanhyd-

Red rimmed a n d unrimmed anhydritenodule

e
51
molds were never observed together in the

same r o c k u n i t i n t h e

studyarea.Geochemicalconsiderations

o f p y r i t ef o r m a t i o n
t h a t iron

(Berner, 1971) suggest,.by the process of elimination,

c o n c e n t r a t i o n o r r e a c t i v i t y was p r o b a b l y t h e l i m i t i n g f a c t o r
in pyrite formation
a . t i t e rims.

i n the anhydrite nodule

molds l a c k i n g hem-

However, n.0 c a m r i m i n ge x p l a n a t i o n has emergedfrom

t h i s stlJdy t o explain the absence

of hematite rims i n t h e s e

probable anhydrite nodule molds.

-@rite

Crsstal Molds

E v a p o r i t e c r y s t a l molds i n the lower

appar

scarce xnd most appear

c r y s t a l s .E v a p o r i t ec r y s t a l

San AndresFormation

-to o r i g i n a l l y havebeen

mol&

arerecognized

gypsum

by s t r a i g h t

s i d e s and r e c t a n g u l a rr e - e n t r a n t s( L u c i a ,1 9 7 2 ) .C a l c i t e - f i l l e d
molds a r e p r e s e n t i n
Empty molds aprree s e n t
unit 8.

a calci-be host i n F o r t S t a n t o n , u n i t

i n a c a l c ihtoe o t

These empty molds a r ec o n f i n e d

11.

a t Hondo,
t o i a y e r s a.bout i inch

t h i c k , which a r e i n t e r s t r a t i f i e d w i t h l a y e r s a b o u t 1%-inches
thick consisthg of possible cryptalgal. laminates (figure
h fewmolds

are confined to

l3A)

a burrow i n a doiomitic normal mar-

i n er o c ku n i t( F o r tS t a n t o n ,u n i t

1 3 ) . No Lath-shaped mclds

t y p i c a l of a n h y d r i t e c r y s t a l s werefound
o c c u r r e n c e s .I t h e e v a p o r i t ec r y s t a l

in the three aforesaid

moldsmost

o r i g i n a l gypsum c r y s t a l s .C a l c i t e - f i l l e d
t h e , f a b r i c formed by the displacive growth
(Shearman and F u l l e r , 1.969) were only noted
brachiopod from Fort Stanton, unit

23,

..

1 , i k e l yr e p r e s e n t

molds suggestixre of
of a n h y d r i t e c r y s t a l s

i n a Productid

52

Length-SLow Cha.lcedony_
The presence of optically length-slow chalcedony

i s sug-

g e s t i v e of p r e c i p i t a t i o n from hypersaline brines (Folk

P i t t m a n , 1971).

A l l chalcedonynoted

and

i n th.e studyarea(found.

i n s i x o u t o f onehundred t h i n sectiomexamined) i s o p t i c a l l y
length-sl.ovr, s u g g e s t i n g f o r n a t i o n f r o m h y p e r s a l i n e b r i n e s .
Most
non-evaporitic -Former
of the chalcedony filIs,,pores, but on9 occurrence was noted
coating evaporite crystal

molds i n a burrow h F c r t S t a n t o n ,

u n i t 13.
The presence o f length-slow chalcedony.in a rock u n i t is

an ambiguous c r i t e r i o n to i n f e r an e v a p o r i t i c d e p o s i t i o n a l
h i s t o r y i f usedalone,

Optical-1-g length-slowchalcedony

may

form i n s e m i - a r i d s o i l s such a s t h o s e i n c e n t r a l Nevi Mexico

today.

And t h e h y p e r s a l i n e b r i n e s r e c o r d e d

by thepresenceof

length-sl.ovr chalcedony may n o t h a v e o r i g i n a t e d

u n i t s where i-t is noted.

length-slowchalcedony

Thk i a i r

explanation f o r the

i n t h e studyareacarmot

because s t r a t i f i e d e v a p o r i t e s a r e p r e s e n t

San k n d r e s i n t h e

near t h e r o c k
be discounted

in theoverlyingupper

stu.dy a r e a and i n t h e s t r a t i g r a p h i c a l l y

equiv-

53
CARBONATE DEPOSITIOIIAL FACIES

1ntrod.uction
Wilson (1970) outlined an idealized

scheme ofcarbonate

environmentsfollorri.ng a pattern widely developed

recoyd ranghg from
environments.

opendeep

in the geologic

ma'rine t o e v a p o r i t i c s h o r e f a c e

The carbonateenvkonmentsinferred.

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d.e$osiCionof

t o havebeen

t h e carbonate member o f t h i s

s k d y a r e a.pproximatelyequivalenttothefolZowingfiveof

Wilson*s generalshelfdepositionalenvironments
shelffacies,

I) 'tidal

2) winnowed p l a t f o m edge sands, 3 ) openmarine

pla,tformfacies9
platform, e n d

14)

facies of restricted. circulation

5 ) p l a t f o r me v a p o r k t ef a c i e s( f i g u r e

on marine
25)

Figure 6 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e e s t i m a t e o f r e l z t i v e f r e q u e n c y

o f occurrence of carbonate parameters within the carbonate

d e p o s i t i o n a lf a c i e sd i s c u s s e d

in t h i s section,

X and f i g u r e 8 i l l u s t r a t e t h e l a t e r a l
of carbonated.epositiona1facies
TZdal F l a t and Lagoonal

Pla.tes IX and

and v e r t i c a l d i s t r i b u t i n n

in t h e studyarea,.

EnvApnLtem

The t i d a l f l a t en5rironment i s t h e most common s h o r e l i n e

environment i n modern c a r b o n a t es e t t i n g s( L u c i a ,1 9 7 2 ) .

55$ of the carbonate member of

beendeposited

About

% h i s s t u d y is i n t e r p r e t e d t o have
shallow

in a t i d a l f l a t a n d h l a g o o n a ls e t t i n g .

f l a t environment may c o r r e s p o n d t o e i t h e r W i l s o n ' s

The t i d a l

(1970)

r e s t r i c t e d c i r c u l a t i o n on a marine platform (non-evaporitic)

environment o r p l a t f o r m evaporiteenvironment,Nan-evaporitic
t i d a l f l a t and l a g o o n a l r o c k u n i t s c o n s t i t u t e a b o u t

35% and

e v a p o r i t i c t i d a l f l a t and lagoonal rock u n i t s a b o u t 20$ o f t h e

Specimen

U.W.

1589/1

.-:.

Supratidal

Figureq A,
r(

B.

Specimen
1589/2~+,

U.W.

DepositionalFacies

Sunset, unit 472 brecciation probably dueto solution of evaporites o r intense desiccation.
BogleDome,unit
26: dark makses are digitatestromatolites (D).

0
55

o f t h e c a r b o n a t e member o f t h e lowerSan

area.

And.rus i n t h e s t u d y

Climate and physical. setting determine which

of t h e two

t i d . a l f l a t end-members will dominate i n a g i v e n a r e a

1969).

(Kinsman,

The presenceafbeddedevaporitesintheupper

Yeso

Formation i n t h e s t u d y a r e a p i n t h e lowerSanAndresFormation
west of

the study a r e a , arid in t h e upper S a ? Anndres in the study

a r e a s u g g e s t s a uniformly arid. c l i m a t e d u r i n g Late Yeso and

%hroughou-b Sa.n Andres t i n e

Therefore

physical s e t % i n g

--

appears t o have largdy c o n h ' o l l e d e v a 9 o r i t e f o r m a t i o n

Andres seas.

in San

tidal

Both non-evaporitic and e v a p o r i t i c

flats share certain basic features

i n modern c a r b o n a t e s e t t i n g s .

T i d a l f l a t s are c o m o n l y separa,"ked in30 t h r e e majm subenvironrflents on t h e basis of

t i d a l fluctuations& the

s u p r a t i d a l , i n t e r t i d a l , and s u b t i d j l sub-environments,
mwineenvironment
t h e t i d a l Ylat.

The

on

is t h e main source of sediment deposited

Sediment is c a r r i e d o n t o .%he t i d a l f 1 a . t by

t i d a l andstormcurrents,

If t h e r a t e of sedimentaccumulation

is g r a a t s r t h a n r e l a t i v e s e a - l e v e l r i s e ,

%hen t h e tidal. f l a t

w i l l progradecut.Consequently,subtidaideposits

would be

o v e r l a i n by i n t e r t i d a l d e p o s i t s , which would i n t u r n beover-

l a i n by s u p r a t i d a l d e p o s i t s .

Two t y p e s o f f l o w o f t e n r e s u l t

i n a topography of flats and c h a n n e l s :r e g u l a r

on- a i d o f f l a p

of t i d e s and f u n n e l i n g o f ?;ides into channels,Channels

be found i n a l l three sub-environments of
arid settings,but

may

t i d a i f l a t s i n non-

a r e r a r e i n a r i d s e t t i n g s (Roehl, 1967).

..

56
Non-l?hraDori.tic T i da.3 F l a t ao
-Agl

Facis-2

The non-evaporitic t i d a l f1a.t and l a g o o n a l f a c i e s o f

s t u d y c o n s i s t s mos'i2.y of shallow sub5ida.l deposits

small amountsof

this

wifh only

supratidal o r intertidal deposits.

Supratidal Facies
The supraLidaL f a c i e s of this study ( f i g w e s 9 and 1OA)
c o n s i s t s o f t - l d a l f l a b caxbonates d.epasitedabove
t i d e and consequentlysuime?ia.lly
timebetw&n

exposed. f o r l o n g p e r i o d s of

spring and/or s % o m t i d e s , which occasional-ly

inundated them.

276 o f t h e

T h i s fzrcies makes rlp onlyabout

c m b o n a t e member,

The s u p r a t i d a l f a c i e s
bjr t h e p r e s e n c e

i n the study area

has been recognized

3,) f e n e s t r a l

f a b r i c , 2! eLtd .c:ea.cksp 3 1 a b u n d a n t i n t r a c l a s t s , a n d
The f o l l o w i n gr o c k

of

OS vciriouscombinations

thefollowingernergent'desiccationfeatuxeso
ciatLon.

olean high-

4) brec-

types, i n o r d e r of d e c r e a s i n g

r e l a t i v e abundance, a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e s u p r a t i d a l f a c i e s 8
1) i n t r a c l a s l i c

slightly fossiliferous t o unfossiliferous

mudstones,andmud-rlchwackestones,
and 3 ) i n t r a c l a s t i c g r a i n s t o n e s .

2) u n f o s s i l . i f e r o u s mudstones,

Intertidal Facies
The i n t e r t i d a l f a c i e s of t h i s s t i ~ d y( f i g u r e s 1013 and 21.G)
consists of carbonates

t h a t were deposited between daily

high- andlow-tide,

and hence,weredailysubjected

ionandemergence.

T h i s f a c i e s makes upabout

mean

t o inundat-

2% of t h e

car-

bonate member,
The s u p r a t i d a l f a c i e s i s environmentally much more d i s tinctive than the intertidal facies

andnormally

direc-t%yover-

S u p r a t i d a l and I n t e r t i d a l D e p o s i t i o n a l F a c i e s
Figure
i.

.)

10

A.

B.

S u p r a t i d a l f a c i e s .(Eondo. u n i t 6) s mudcrackpolygons (Wm) with

i n t r a c l a s t s betweenpolygons, (B), l a y e r w i t h f e n e s t r a l fabric i n
packstone (F), layers of abundantrounded i n t r a c l a s t s ( p a c k s t o n e
and g r a i n s t o n e ) ( 1 ) .
10):
Intertidal facies (Sunset, unit
lower 3: f a i n t l y r i p p l e d mudstone
upper 4 1 . fenestra?. fabric i n mudstone ( F ) , s c o u r (S), leached
o n c o l i t e (01, fossil hash in laminae (mud-lean
wackes t o n e t o p a c k s t o n e ) (H)e

a
59

l i e s it.

Henceh $;he b e s t way -to r e c o g n h e i n t e r t i d a l deposits

i s often t o first find the su.pratidaL f a c i e s .

Howevers i-t is

p o s s i b l e t o h.ave no i n - t e r t i d a l d e p o s i t s below a s u p r a t i d a l
facies,, and no s u p r a t i d a l f a c i e s o v e r an inter%LdaL d e p o s i t ,
The t i c a l range might havebeenvery

small and the t i d a l e f f e c t

essentLaul3-y a b s e n t or an abrupt r e l a t i v e f a l l i n s e a l e v e l
might have r e s u l t e d i n suFratidal d e p o s i t s be%ng underlai.n by

s u b t i d a ld e p o s i t s ,

And s u p r a t i d a l d e p s i t s n e e 6 n o t

always

Hence, care must be exer-

p r e g r a d eb v e ri n t e r t i d a ld e p o s i t s s .

c i s e d in idcntiJ3riiig i n t e r t i d a l d e p o s i t s s o l e l y by t h e u s e

of

s u p r a t i d a l rock u n i t s ,
I t i s f r e q u e n t l y d i f f i c u l t t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e low i n t e r t i d a l
fromres-krictedmarinedeposits.Shallowsubtidalsediments
a r e t r a n s p o r t e d to -$he i n t e s t i d a l e m i r o n m e n t by storms and
t i d e s r e s u l t i n g in s i m i l a r s e d i m e n t a r y f a b r i c s

men?; (Roehl, 1967).

Laporte (Y$67)

i n sa.ch environ-

handled t h i s d i f f i c u l t y

by using i n t e r t i d a l t o d,ennte a sedjinentaryregimen

rcguularrly and p e r i o d i c a l l y f l o o d e d by marine vrater

unspeeif ied durationD Hence

t h a t is

f o r an

his i n t e r t i d a lf a c i e sa p p e a r s

t o include a t least some o f t h e s u b t i d a l f a c i e s of t h i s s t u d y .

The i n t e r t i d a l f a c i e s was recognized i n t h e study area by

the presence

of slightly desiccated t o undcsicaatedcryptalgal

l a m i n a t e s and algal s t r o m a , t o l i t e s o r by p o s i t i o n u n d e r n e a t h
s u p r a t i d a l d e p o s i t s i f shrir&&e cracks or many gastropods were
present.

The f o l l o v & gr o c kt y p e sa r ec h a r a c t e r i s t i c

i n t e r t i d a l f a c i e s i%l
.the s t u d ya r e a :
o r algal s t r o m a t o l i t e bounds-tone

of t h e

I) c r y p t e l g a l laminate

2) gas-tropod mud-rich wacke-

60

s t o n e , a n d 3 ) a l t e r n a t i n g Iauiinze of p e l o i d a l mudstone and

pel.oida1,foseiliferous

mud-lean waclrestone t o packstone,

R e s t r i c t e dS u b t i d a l( L a g o o n a l )F a c i e s
The s u b t i d a l f a c i e s ( ' t h e i n f r a t i d a l

of Roehl, 1967) con-

sists of t i d . a l flat and. l a g o o n a l c a r b o n a t e s that were d e p o s i t e d

below daiLy .mGa?z low-tide levels b u t mighC havebeen

exposaii. &ringextremespring
arerecognized

i n t h i s studjr.

and storm t i d e s .

subaerially

Two s u b - f a c i e s

The r e s t r i c t e d m a r i n e

fac:ies,

which was probably deposi-bed i n t i d a l f l a t and lagoofial environmentsand

i s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s . sectLon and t h e normal marine

f a c i e s , which is: d i s c u s s e d in t h i s r e p o r 3 as a separate major

env'ironaent

The r e s t r i c t e d m a r i n e f a c i e s

o f t h i s study ( f i g u r e s ll and

322) i n c l u d e s t h e " o p e n m a r b e p l a t f o r m f a c i e s "

a
q
n
d p a r t of

t h o " r e s t r i c t e d c i r c u l a t i o n on a marine platform facies" of

Wilson(1970).

1% consists of c a r b o n a t e sd e p o s i t e di n

.tidal environment,which

was not conducive to the development

or survival of biota inferred

i0n.s.

s. sub-

t a require normal marine condit-

The r e s t r i c t e d m a r i n e f a c i e s

makes upabout

35% of t h e

carbonate member.
Two s u b - f a c i e s o f the r e s t r i c t e d m a r i n e f a c i e s

are recog4

n l z e d , namely u n f o s s i l i f e r o u s and f o s s i l i f e r o u s s u b - f a c i e s .
The m f o s s i l i f e r o u s s u b - f a c i e s

i s e s s e n t i a l l y b a r r e n of a l l

b i o t a and may r e p r e s e n t p h y s i c a l - c h e m i c a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n
carbonateminerals

of

i n a penesalineenvironment,Unfossilifer-

ous mudstone and q u a r t z sand rnudstone t o mud-leanwackestone

are t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r o c k t y p e s .

The f o s s i l i f e r o u ss u b - f a c i e s

Burrows i n t h e R e s t r i c t e d Marine Depositional Facies

Figure I I

B l u e w a t e r ,u n i t 32: mud-leanwackestoneburrows (C), mudstone h o s t

A,
"Cruziana"typeburrows
B.
nCruzianan typeburrows which, at l e a s t
s u p e r f i c i a l l y , a p p e a r t o be p a r t o f a
l'Callianassam-"AIDheus" t y p e burrow network (mechanicalpencil, M.Plip,is & i n c h
i n diameter)

_.

62

_.

Specimen
U . W e 1589/7

R e s t r i c t e d and Normal Marine Depositional. Facies

Figure 12

A,

E.

R e s t r i c t e dm a r i n ef a c i e s( S u n s e t ,u n i t
43):
abundant f o s s i l debris(wackestone)
Normal marine facies(Cannin
Ranch, u n i t
9 ) : abundantProductids (PD and i n t r a particle porosity (P)

63
c o n t a i n s only b i o t i c t y p e s which are i n f e r r e d t o be t o l e r a n t
of such adverse enviromental conditions

as abnormal s a l i n i t y ,

g r e a tt u r b i d i t y ,e x t r e m et e m p e r z t u r ev a r i a ' t i o n s ,
Hencep y e s t r i c t e d )marine doesnotimply
i t i e s were &on

o r s-icagnation.

that abnormal s a l i n -

responsible,althotlghthey

commonly play a

dominant r o l e i n ':he Recent ( e . g . Persiari Gulfs C l m k e and

Keij I 1973) e

The arid c l i m a t e i n f e r r e d f a r

lower SanAndrestime

s u g g e s t s t h a t abnormally Pow s a l i n i t i e s ware unLlBe1-y.

ant f a u n a g e n e r a l l y r e p r e s e n t
normal. marineassemblagzs,

very g r e a t l y ( L a p o r t e

Toler-

a lowered species diversity than.

but t h e number of individuals can

1967)

A l l of t h e follow2.ng c r i t e r i a were req:uiued f o r i n c h s i o n

of r o c k u n i t s within t h e r e s t r i c t e d mmizzs f a c i e s

I) l a n f o s s i l i f e r o u s

at i f

F o r m i n i l e r a ,g a s t r o p o d s ,

0%

this studyt

f o s s i l i f e r o u s , then o n l y ~ s t r x ~ d s ,
and/orpelecypods

are present, 2 )

absence o f b i o t a i n f e r r e d t u reqaire normal marine conditions

f o r l i f e , 3 ) absence of i n t e r t i d a l or s u p r a t i d a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and &) evidenceofevaporites

common to abundant i n t h e

is absent ( o r rare, i f

oTrerlying u n i t ) a

the restricted marine environment in

Gaographica.lly,

modern c a r b o n a t e s e t t i n g s

c o r r e s p o n d s t o open m . d cut-off lagoons, straits, bays, and

cut-off ponds (Wilson,

1970).

F v a a o r i t i c T i d a l F l a t and Lapoonal Facies

Introduction
The absence o f s t r a t i f i e d e v a p o r i t e s or convincingevidenceof

t h e i r former presence in

the studyareaprecludes

p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g d u r i n g E a r l y San Andres 'time conducive

t o the

64. .
a s t a n d i n g body of

sedimentation of beddedevaporitesoutof
water.

The L i m i t e de v a p o r i t i cf e a t u r e s

t h i s study a r e of the type produced

interstitial water within sediment

g e n e t i c ,n o t

Pound. i n t h er o c k s

of

by p r e c i p i t a t i o n from

a dia-

and hencereLpresent

a sedimentaryenvironment.Thesefeaturessug-

g e s tt h ep r e s e n c e

o f hypersaline water "within" the sedixent.

Hypersaline water "within" sed.iment occurs associated

with

o f walei- o r is found under supratidal

hypersaline bodies

f l a t s (Lucia,1972).
IfloBern Sabkha Environments
The best studied environment

i n which e v a p o r i t e s a r e

precipitatedwithincarbonatesediments

i s thecoa.sta1

sabkha

o r s a l t f l a t of t h e s o u t h e r n P e r s i a n G u l f , e s p e c i a l l y t h e
TrucialCoast

(Kinsman, 1969).

salt-encrustedsurfaces

Sabkhas a r ee x p o s e d ,l e v e l ,

that areonlyoccasionallyinundated.

Sedimentaryevid.encesofemergenceanddesiccationareabundant
(Kinsman, 1969; I l l i n g

1968b)e

'

Thetwo

& 1965; C u r t i s

componentsof

& 1963s S h i m ,

sabkha d k g e n e s i s w e t

1) i n t e r -

s t i t i a l precipitation of evaporitic minerals within the host

sediment, 2 ) changes in t h e h o s t sedimentsuch
Elraporites w e r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e u p p e r l e v e l s
because the major recognized

as d o l o m i t i z a t i o n .
of t h e sabkha

mechanism o f b r i n e c o n c e n t r a t i o n

is e v a p o r i t i v e pumping of i n t e r s t i t i a l f l u i d s upward t o t h e

sab a s u r f a c e . D o l o m i t i z a t i o n

may extend i n depth as dense

b r i n e s move downward andseaward

,through thesediment.Sabklla

a n h y d r i t e i s t y p i c a l l yn o d u l a r .

Gypsum c r y s t a l si nt h eu p p e r

4 t o 5cm o f t h e

sablrha are r e p l a c e d

i n g i n pseudomorphs.

& SLt. by a n h y d r i t e r e s u l t -

The pseudomorphs l o s e t h e i r

shape i nt i m e

ending up as variouslyshapedanlrydri-tenobles.
h
h

i z e d saibka will n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t a i n

A fossil-

a l l m i n e r a l s o r even

tra,ces t h a t d e v e l o p e dd u r i n ge a r l yd i a g e n e s i s .P r e c i p i t a t i o n

of d i a g e n e t i c a r a g o n i t e ,

gypsum1 and a n h y d r i t ei n c r e a s e st h e

Mg/Ca r a t i o r e s u l t i n g i n

the penecontemporaneouspre-

l i t h i f i c a t i o n d o l o m i t i z a t i o n of fine grained sediments (Kinsman, 1969) e

There i s a spectaculardevelopment

of inter-kidal algal

mats along many i n n e r Xagaon s h o r e s in t h e s o u t h e r n P e r s i a n

Gulf.

They are a b s e n t on more exposed p a r t s o f the c o a s t .

Small 3-enticular gypsum c r y s t a l s s c a t t e r e d wi%hia t h e a l g a l

mats and underlying sediments are*a p p a r e n t l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

:xt i n t e r t i d a l zonedia.genesis,
tened in the plane approximately

The gypsum c r y s t a l s a r e

flat-

normal t o tho c - c r y s t a l axis.

Consequently, these crys%a.ls typically have lozenge

sha.pes .in

c r o s s - s e c t i o n (Shearman, 1.966).
O
E rvoiagfpi n
o riint e s

Lov1er San Andres

Formation

A sabkha-likeorigin

San AndresFormation

..

f o r t h e e v a p o r i t e molds in the lower

in the study area

can only be invoked f o r

'some of t h ee v a p o r i t i cr o c ku n i t sp r e s e n t ,S u p r a t i d a ls h r i n k a g e
cracks are i n t i m a t e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h anhydritenodulemolds
only i n the upper p a r t of CanningRanch,

u n i t 10.

And t h r e e

s u p r a t i d a l rock units a t S u n s e t axe underlain by a n h y d r i t e

nodulemold-bearing

u n i t s , b u t no evidence

of evaporites is

p r e s e n tw i t h i nt h es u p r a t i d a lr o c ku n i t st h e m s e l v e s .

Some

apparent gypsum c r y s t a l molds are s c a t t e r e d within p o s s i b l e

66
c r y p t a l g a ll a V , i n a t e ss u g g e s t i n gi n t e r L i d a l

zone d i a g e n e s i s

(Shearman, 19663 f i g u r e l3A of t h i s s t u d y ) .

Idany e v a p o r i t i c r o c k u n i t s

in t h e s t u d y w e a a r e i n c o n -

s i s t e n t w i t h a sabkha-like0rigi.n.
L i t t l e t o noevidence

They most commonlyshow

o f s u b a e r i a le x p o s u r ee i t h e r :

t h e r o c k u n i t s e 2) abovetherock

1) w i t h i n

u p i t s p r i o r t o thedeposit-

i o n o f non-evaporitic marine rock u n i t s , o r 3 ) a d j a c e n t t o t h e

rock u n i t s a t e q u i v a l e n t o r s t r a t i g a p h i c a 3 . l y

l e v e l s i n nearbymeasuredsections,
o f mhyd;litenodulemolds

sligk-kly higher

The only two occurrences

i n c a l c i t e showing no evidenceof

d o l o m i t i z a t i o n o r of dedo1omitiza:tion f a i l t o suggest a sablrhaof l

imy s e d i m e n t t y p i c a l l y

like origin because dolomitization

k k e s p l a c e c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e p r e c i p i t a t i o n of e v a p o r i t e s
i n modern sabkhas (Bebout and Maiklem, 3.973).
The Sack o f emergent desiccation features
itic rock units
ways:

i n most evzpor-

i n t h e s-ixdy a r e a may be explained i n several.

1) subaqueousorigin

o f emergent features

o f d i a g e n e t i ce v a p o r i t e s ,

2) removal

by e r o s i o n , and 3 ) source of b r i n e s o u t s i d e

of the lower San Andres Formation i n t h e s t u d y a r e a .

A s t r o n g bias e x i s t s in modern carbonate sedimentology in

favor o f a sabkha origin for evaporites, especially nodular

anhydrites(e,g,IiendaSl,1969;

Shexrman and

This bias is t h e r e s u l t o f t h e r e b e i n g

mller, 1969).

no recognized modern

analogL1e of completely subaqueous diagenetic anhydrite nodule

formation.

However, r e c e n t work on t h e MiddleDevonianWinni-

pegosis and Prairie Formations of south-central Saskatchewan

presents considerable evidence

of submarinebeddedandnodular

67
anhydrite formation in a basinal s e t t i n g ( D a v i e s and Ludlam,

1973; Wardlaw and R e i n s o n p1 9 7 1 ) .I nt h er e c e n tl i t e r a t u r e ,

dolomite h o s t s a r e more c o m o n l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s u p r a t i d a l
such a s theafolementioned

evaporites,whilecalcitehosts,

two occurrences o f a n h y d r i t e n o d u l e m o l d s i n c a l c i t e i n t h e
studyarealare

morecommonly

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h evaporitesof
19691 Bebout and Maiklern,

inferredsubaqueousorigin(Kendail.,

l9Y3) *
Erosion of subaerially desiccated supratidal

and h i g h i n t e r -

'tidal p o r t i o n s o f an e v a p o r i t i c t i d a l f l a t , and p r e s e r v a t i o n

low i n t e r t i d a l and s u b t i d a l

o f the underiyiilg evaporite-bearing

f a c i e s is a p o s s i b l e

way t o e x p l a i n t h e d i s s o c i a t i o no fe v i d -

ence of subaerial exposure and evidence of. diagenetic evaporites

i n t h e same rockunits.Evidence

o f sucherosi.on might be l e s s

co~?spicuousi f it 'ioolc placeunderwater.

wouldbe

110

For exaimple, t h e r e

b u i l d i n g o f a s o i l p r o f i l e , and 'tile e r o s i o n a l

f a c e mi.ghl be less p r o n o u n c e d .R e l a t i v er i s e si n

SUI-

sea l e v e l and

the accompanying si?elfward m i g r a t i o n of a high-energyzone

1964; Irwin, 1965) might r e s u l t i n

(Shaw,

submarineerosion,Such

p o s s i b i l i t y i s suggested i n t h es t u d ya r e ab y :

I) e v a p o r i t i c

rock units are not

uncommonly d i r e c t l y o v e r l a i n by normal

marine rock units,

2) a t Canning Ranch and Bluewater,evapor-

itic rock units are directly overlain

by o o l i t i c rock u n i t s ,

which i n d i c a t e h i g h - e n e r g y c o n d i t i o n s

a t deposition, and

some e v a p o r l t i c r o c k u n i t s a r e o v e r l a i n
s t o n er o c ku n i t s

3)

by sandstone ar,d silt-

w i t h u n d u l a t o r yc o n t a c t s ,

Hence, t h e r e is a

68

d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a t l e a s t some of the e v a p o r i t i c

rock u n i t s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a

may havebeenformed

by b r i n e s

concentyaled on a szbkha-like surface, the evidence

of which

was subsequently removed by submarine erosion.

i n thelowerSanAndres

Abundant bedded evaporites

ation west of

Porm-

-the s t u d y a r e a and in the upper SanAndres

sl;udy a r e 8 i.ndicate hypersalineenvironments,which

in t h e

might have

been the s o u r c e f o r a'k l e a s t some of %he c o n c e n t r a t e d b r i n e s

r e s p o n s i b l e for the formation o f dfagenet5.c evaporites in the

s t u d ya r e a ,

Iiowevers nq evidence was found t os u p p o r t

molds a m s t r a t i -

hypothesis.OccurrencesofabuEdantevaporite
graphically controZLed

and do n o t i n c r e a s e

And
ward o r upward i n t h e s t u d y area. ,,,abundant

this

i
r
-khicltl?ess
~
west-

e v a p o r i t e molds a r e

found i n h o s t s ths-t are c o n s i s t e n t with a p e n e s a l i n e l o c a l

environment o f d e p o s i t i o n ,

They arealmostalwaysdolomitic

and e s s e n t i a l l y u n f o s s i l i f e r o u s ,

Z v t i p o r i t i c F a c i e s i n Lower San Andres Formation

The e v a p o r i t i c f a c i e s o f t h i s s t u d y is e s s e n t i a l l y a
restricted marine

i n t e r t i d a l , o r s u p r a t i d a l facies character-

i z e d by thepresenceofevaporitemolds.

Two s u b - f a c i e sa r e

r e c o g n i z e d . . An e v a p o r i t i c emergent tiicial f l a t f a c i e s ( f i g u r e s
1%and 14E) composed o f e v a p o r i t i c r o c k u n i t s ,

evidenceofsubaerialexposure
t i d a lr o c ku n i t s ,

13B and &A)

which show

o r which are o v e r l a i n by supra-

And a subaqueous? e v a p o r i t i c f a c i e s ( f i g u r e s

c o n s i s t i n g o f e v a p o r i t i c rock units w i t h no evid-

ence of associated subaerial exposure

within o r above t h e u n i t s .

Specimen
U .We 1589/8

69

.
E

E
L

II

I
t
3

Evaporitic Depositional Facies

Figure 13 A.

B.

Evaporiticemergent t i d a l f l a t facies ( i n t e r t i d a l ? # Hondo, u n i t 8 ) : l a y e r s o f e v a p o r i t e

c r y s t a l molds (E) a l t e r n a t e w i t h p o s s i b l e
c r y p t a l g a l l a m i n a t e s (L) i n a c a l c i t e h o s t
Subaqueous?evaporiticfacies
(Fox Cave, u n i t
6 ) I c a l c i t e - f i l l e da n h y d r i t en o d u l e
molds
( A ) i n a dolomitehost

L'

Evaporitic Depositional Facies

Figure 14

A.
B.
,

Subaqueous? e v a p o r i t i cf a c i e s (Fox Cave, u n i t 10): abundant

anhydi'ite nodule molds ( A ) w i t h d i s t i n c t h e m a t i t i c rims ( R ) i n
a calcite host
Evaporitic
emergent
t i d a l ' f l a t f a c i e s ( o v e r l a i n by s u p r a t i d a l
f a c i e s : Hondo, u n i t 24) I . coalesced anhydrite nodule molds (4)
( w h i t e c i r c l e is 2 cm i n diameter)

0
The evaporitic emergent

15% o f thecarbon-

and the subaqueous? evaporitic facies about

a t e member.

5%

t i d . a . l f l a t f a c i e s makes up about

Relativclyminor

71

amoun'ts ofevaporitemoldsare

1 6 ~ ) . These

p r e s e n t i n some normal. m s r i n e' r o c ku n i t s( f i g u r e

r e l a t e d t o the concentration of brines during

appear to be

la'tw p e r i o d s o f h y p e r s a l i n i t y ,
Nornlal Narine S u b t i d a l

_XI

Facies

o f t h i s s t u d y ( f i g u r e s %2R, 15,

The normalmarinefacies

16A, and 21A) corresponds t o t h e t i d a l s h e l f f a c i e s

(1970). I t consistsofcar-bonatesdeposited

of Wilson

in a subtidal

environment which clasely approximatesnormalopenmarineconditions,

The f a c i e s i s recognized by t h ep r e s e n c eo fb i o t a
for

i n f e r r e d t o r-equira an open,normalmarineenvironnent
development and s w v i v a l , m a i n l y a r t i c u l a t e b r a c h i o p o d s

and

echino'dorrns,

frox

The r o c kt y p e s

n o t e d i n t h i s f a c i e sr a n g e

f o s s i l i f e r o u s mudstone t o mud-richpackstone.

The normal.

marine f a c i e s makes up about 40% o f t h e c a r b o n a t e member,

Skeletalcarbonatebuild-ups,

t h a t is skeletalboundstones,

are apparently almcst completely absent

Formation i n t h e s t u d y

area.

i n the lower

They wererecognizedonly

San Andres

in

Canning Ranch, u n i t 9 , which c o n s i s t s I . w g e l y of bryozoan-

ostracodbioherms(figure
thick,butonlyabout
apparent.

15).

Thesebiohermsareabout

5 feet

1 t o 2 f e e t of d e p o s i t i o n a l r e l i e f i s

The bioherms a r e exposed f o ra b o u t

t h e o u t c r o p and a r e l a t e r a l l y e q u i v a l e n t t o
ingabundantProductidbrachiopods(figure

200 f e e ta l o n g

a rock unit contain12B).

Subtidal

c
c

Normal marine Facies

Figure 15

Rocks of bryozoan-ostracodbioherms
i n normal
marinefacies(Canning
Ranch, u n i t 9)s
A. Sharp contactbetweenbryozoan
(B) bioherm
(BM) and f i l l m a t e r i a l (F) coveringbioherm
B. B r ozoans ( B ) and i n t e r p a r t i c l ep o r o s i t y
(Pg i n biohermal r o c k

73

0
Normal Marine and Undaform-Edge D e p o s i t i o n a l F a c i e s
Figure I6

A.

B.

Normal m a r i n ef a c i e s( F o r tS t a n t o n ,u n i t
13)I
abundantnon-Productidbrachiopods
( B ) and a
barrow (BW) with p r o b a b l e gypsum c r y s t a l
molds ( 0 ) f i l l e d w i t h l e n g t h - s l o w c h a l c e d o n y
and c a l c i t e cement
Undaform-edge f a c i e s (Canning Ranch, u n i t 1 6 )
o o l i t i c g r a i n s t o n e (0) w i t h l i g h t e r c o l o r e d ,
muddier stringers of o o l i t e s (M) (packstone
t o mud-lean wackestone)
'1
. "

74
ske1eta.l ba,nk.s nay 'be p r e s e n t at Fort Stanton about 1 0 f e e t

l a t e r a . l l y fromwhere

u n i t 13 was measured,

8.ccessibili-Qr of 'khese qae:;tionable

HoWevel*p thepoor

banks precluded. fwrther

examina.tion of a possLble bank o r i g i n .

UndaEoni~-~d,veFa~~.~~
The undaform-edge facics o f this s h d . y ~ f i g 3.63)
v ~ cor--

responds tc Vl%lsonqs (1970) platform-edgesandfacies,

It

c o n s l s t s o f vrinrmvei! o o l i t i c and intraclastic sands Lnferred

t o havebeendepositedalonganundaform

In ' t h e s t u d y

mzlrgin..

w e a p it c o n s i s t s m a i n l y c f o o l i t i c

and some i n t r a c l a s t i c s a n d s ,

There are rela-l;ive%yfew a b r d e d b i o c l a s t s , , and i n t r a c l a s t s and

q u a r t z grains a r e o o l i t i c a l l y

cvated

in places.Obscure,

sma.T.1-

scale. planar c r o s s - s e r a t i f l e a l i o n is l.oca3.2.y p r e s e n t " but -the

f a c i e s is generally massive.

Mud-rich tongues o f ooleites r.a.ngin.g

i n t h i c k n e s s frorn about 6 t c $- inches a r e p r e s e n t

( f i g u r e1 6 B ) ,

places

The f a c i e s i s recogpized by %he presenceof

o o l i t i c , and Lesscormonly,
stonerocks.

i.ii

i n t r a c l a s t i c p a c k s t o n e and G a i n -

..

The undaform-edge sainds may havebeendeposited

as shoals, b e a c h e s po f f s h o r e o r t i d a l bars 3 x 1 fans on. b e l t s ,

or e o l i a n i t e dune islands (Wilsonp l970.), The depths of such

marginal sands today may range f r o m s e a l e v e l

S a l i n i t y is commonly nornal mzrine
oxygenated,but

t o . 2 0 t o 30 f e e t .

ami theenvironment

is ,well

it is n o t h o s p i t a b l e t o b e n t h o n i c m a r i n e l i f e

becaxse o f t h e shifting s u b s t r a t e (!Vilson,

edge f a c i e s o f the lower Sa?:

1970).

The undaform-

Andres makes ~p about 5% of t h e

carbonabe member i n t h e stu&y wca as a whole e

However, it

comprises, 20% of t h e c a r b o n a t e member a t t h e Canning Ranch and

7s

Bluevrater s e c t i o n s i n t h e n o r t h e a s t e r n p o r t i o n

of t h e s t u d y

area.

." by_Cwbonate
Depvsitiona.1 FacDetailed carbonate sedimentology, as r e f l e c t e d i n t h e

"
-

C o r p l a.tion

carbonatedepositionalfacies

o f t h i s s t u d y , provides a v a l u a b l e

method o f c o r r e l a t i n g pzrts of the loumr S a n AndresFormation

across t h e s t u d y a r e a ( a b o u t
adjacentareas.Correlation

s q u a r e m i l e s ) and probably i.n

250

of t h e Power San Andres i n Linco3.n

County p r i o r t o t h i s r e p o r t dependedupon t h e u s e o f s a m h t o n e

tongues within t h e San Andres.

This study not mdy confirms

%he c o n t i n u i t y o f sandstone tongues wi'bhin. t h e study a r e a , aa2d

hence t h e i r v a l i d i t y f a r c o r r e l a t i o n , but a l s o provides a

supplement t o the use of sandstones

f o r correlationpurposes,

The a p p l i c a b i l i t y of using $he c a r b o n a t e d e p o s i t i o n a l f a c i e s

o f this study for c o r r e l a t i o n o f the .I.ower San Andros o u t s i d e

OP t h e study a r e a is unknown,

EIovleverp -the p e r s i s t e n c e of soma

or' 'the c a r b o n a t e d e p o s i t i o n a l f a c i e s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e
marine and r e s t r i c t e d m a r i n e f a c i e s , a c r o s s

normal

the studyarea s u p

gests t h a t t h e s e f a c i e s conti.nue i n t o a r e a s a d j a c e n t t o
s t u d y area.Seethe

the

"TRANSGRESSIVE-REG~SSI~'"
CYCm section

o f t h i s r e p o r t f o r more i n f d r m s t i o n on t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s of
d e t a i l e d c o r r e l a t i o n within t h e lower San Andres Formation.

77

be%ween c a l c u l a t e ds t a t i s t i c a 3 .
i o n basisp t h e s t a t i s t i c a l

lowing c o n c l u s i o n s t

moments,

78

However, on aninspect-

moments g e n e r a t e d s u g g e s t t h e f o l -

1) t h e r e is no s i g n i f i c a n td i f f e r e n c e

between average mean and median s i z e d i a w t e r s of crosss t r a t i f i e d and comparatively well. sorted massive units, 2)
average mean axd median diameters of

probably sigaificantly smaller

vravy bedded u n i t s a r e

than t h e s e v a l u e s

s t r a t i f i e d aztd comparatively well sorted.massive

f o r crossunitss 3 ) t h e

average percentage of grains f i n e r than 4 4 i n wavy bedded unj.ts

i s probably signifi.:,antiy laxger than

t h i s percentage i n c r o s s -

s t r a t i f i e d and c o m p a r a t i m l y w e l l s o r t e d
t h e r e seems t o beno

massive u n i t s , & )

s i g n i f i c a n t d k f f e r e n c e i n average coars-

e s t one p e r c e n t i l e i n c r o s s - s t r a t i f i e d a:nd comparatively well

sorted.massiveunits,

and 3 ) t h ea v e r a g es o r t i n g

(i.e

standa.rd

d e v i a t i o n ) of wavy bedded units is probably si,wificantly

l a r g e r than t h a t o f c r o s s - s t r a t i f i e d and. cumpara.tively well
sortedmassiveunits.Theseconclusionssuggest

is a d e f j a i t e s o r t i n g d i f f e r e n c e

t h a t there

between wavy bedded u n i t s ,

and c r o s s - s t r a t i f i e d a n dc o m p a r a t i v e l yw e l ls o r t e du n i t s .
sorting difference is usedin

This

t h i s r e p o r t -to h e l p i n t e r p r e t

d e p o s i t i o n a l flow regimes,

Grain roundness i s g e n e r a l l y a f u n c t i o n of grain s i z e .

The smaller grains are uniformly sub-angular

(porvers, 1953)

t o sub-rounded

Nost l a r g e r g r a i n s a r e v e r y w e l l r o u n d e d t o

rounded, h d i c a t i n g a t e x t u r a l l yv e r y maturesource.
However,
I wge
a r e l a t i v e l y few g r a i n s are sub-rounded suggesting a second,

l e s s mature source.

79

Stxteen t h i n sections fromthethreetypes

of u n i t s (wavy

bedded, c r o s s - s t r a t i f i e d , and comparatively well sorted massive)

were p o i n t c o u n t e d ( t a b l e
qualitatively.

2) snd another eleven

A l l s a n d s t o n et h i ns e c t i o n s

were Examined

were s t a i n e d f o r

o r t h o c l a s e and p l a g i o c l a s e a f t e r t h e method of Bailey

and

Stevens (196~1) OrthoclaseshsuZdhavebeenstainedyellow

and p l a g i o c l a s er e d .

pink.

However, b o t hf e l d s p a r s

were stained

A s a r e s u l t o p l a g i o c l a s e wax i d e n t i f i e d by its c h a r a c t -

e r i s t i c t w i n a i n g and orthoclase
and lackoftwinning,

by its f e l d s p a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

The number ofpointscountedgenerally

v a r i e d between 300 and k.50p depending on the a p p a r e n t v a r i a b i l -

of

i t y i n eachsample.Pointintervalsexceededthediameters
A 95% c o n f i d e n c ei n t e r v a lf o r

t h el a r g e s tg r a i n sp r e s e n t .

e a c h c o n s t i t u e n t was Getermined graphically as a n i n d i c a t i o n

of v t i r i a b i l i t y (Van d e r P l a s and Tobi, 1965).
The Glorieta Sandstone

is almost entirely

a quartz arenite,

b u t a few u n i t s a t Walker H m c h a r e f e l d s p a t h i c a r e n i t e s ( i . e
72075

feldspar).

The f e l d s p a r s( o r t h o c l a s e ,m i c r o c l i n e ,

sodicplagioclase)

and

are r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e f i n e r g r a i n s i z e s .

Compositional maturity g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e s upward i n t h e

measured s e c t i o n s and southward along the inferred paleocurrent
direction,

The formerincrea.se

by increased maturity of

i n m a t u r i t y may be explained

t h e sediment source and/or greater

abrasion o f terrigenous grains during transport

The l a t t e r i n c r e a s e i n

a3d d e p o s i t i o n .

ma-turily may be due t o t h e a d d i t i o n a l

".

".

..

82

Cements

C a l c i t e cement is abundant and t h e most common cement

is l o c a l l y

typeintheGlorietaSandstone.Dolomitecement
very importaant ( e . g . Sunset,uni-t
Dome, u n i t 31)

G U o
~f

1 7 ) . Only onesample(Bogle

t h i r t y - s e v e ns a n d s t o n e

thin sections

examined had. cl1%cedony cement# I t showed o p t i c a l i y . l e n g t h

slow,

Clayfrecpent3-lg

grains irz many u n i t s avld

c o a t sq u a r t z

may a c t as a cement,
Diagenetic Features
Q u a r t z overgrovrkhs are common, e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e b e t t e r
s o r t e d wni'ts 'I . Ort!loclase overgrowths and t e r r i g e n o u s grains
w i t h s u t u r e dp r e s s u r es o l u t r o nc ; ? n t a c t sa r ev e r yr a r e .c a l c i t e -

cemented spherules

OF

concretions ranging from about

2 inches i n diameterareabundant

l/16 t o

i,n many mi-ts, The s p h e r u l e s

a r e more r e s i s t a n t than t h e h o s t r o c k

and weather o u t i n r e l i e f

t o produce a d i s t i n c % i v e knobbyappetirance

a n theou.tcrop

sur-

face.
SEDIIV2ENTARY
STRUCTUFBS
Layvge dd ing

The term wayy bedding ( f i g w e l7A) is used i n t h i s study

to describe rock units consisting of irregular sandstone lenses
of v a r y i n g l e n g t h ,

which a r e s e p a r a t e d by u n d u l a t o r y , d i s t i n c t

t o i n d i s t i n c t bedding planes ;.' t o 2 inches apart ( v e r y t h i n bedding o f t i i s s t x d y ) ,T h e s eu n i t s

poorlysorted

are comparativelythemost

i n theGlorietaSandstone,havingthelargest

percentageofgrainsfiner

t h a n 4$ ( t a b l e I),

Wavy bedding is i n t e r p r e t e d as a weathering phenomenon

8 i.k

r e s u l t i n g from t h e p r e s e n c e of r i p p l e marks, which a r e i n v i s i b l e

Hamblin (1962) i l l m s t r a . t e ss e v e r a l

i n o u t c r o p o r handspecimen.

a p p a r e n t l y homogeneous s a n d s t o n e s i n o u t c r o p
whose radiographs show well-defined Lamination

and handspecimen,

and c r o s s -

lack o f v i s i b l es e d i m e n t a r y

lamination.Consequently,the

s t r u c t u r e s i n a sandstonedoesnotprecludetheirpresence.
The g e n e r a l lack o f m o t t l i n g and t h e p r e s e n c e of v e r y t h i n
bedding suggests no d i s t u r b a n c e by burrowingorganisms,
Several independent lines

of evidence suggest

bedding has a r i p p l e mark o r i g i n ,

t h a t wavy

A p o l i s h e d s l a b from t h e

lower Glorieta Sandstone a t Walker Ranch has q u e s t i o n a b l e

r i p p l e mmks v&-iih amplitudes of about Lmm and waTre l e n g t h s of

zbout

7mnl.

Wavy bedding,very

similar t o rmch of t h e wavy

bedding in t h e G l o r i e t a S a n d s t o n e ,
theJordanSandstone
dolomitebed

is p r e s e n t in a n a u t c r o p or'

in Madison, Wisconsin,

Thereanoverlying

permits discernment of t h e o r i g i n a l r i p p l e d u p p e r

s u r f a c eo ft h es a n d s t o n e ,

The compxrativelypoorersorting

i n vavy bedded u n i t s ( t a b l e 1) i s more s u g g e s t i v e 02 Lower

f l o w regime conditions

c r o s s - s t r a t i f i e du n i t s .

i n the formation

than -the r e l a t i v e l y b e t t e r s o r t e d .
Such very l o w f l o w c o n d i t i o n s r e s u l t

of r i p p l e marks, where sand g r a i n s a r e lees

than 0.6mm i n diameter

The t h i c k n e s s of beds i n wavy-bedded

units i n t h e study areaincludestheamplitudes

of most r i p p l e

marks described i n t h e g e o l o g i c l i t e r a t u r e .
Cross-Stratification

"

D i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f c r o s s - s t r a t i f i c a t i o n ( f i g u r e s 2713 and

18) are p r e s e n t i n t h e s t u d y amat b u t no wedge-shaped s e t s

85

e
Figure

Cross-Stratification

I8

Low-angle cross-lamination truncating low angle

cross-lamination suggests possible
beach foreshore deposition (note hammer center
in
of each
photograph for scale)
A. Walker Ranch, unit 3
B. Bluewater, unit 16

86

(IkKesand

Weix*, 1953) m r e noted.Tabularcross-sets

are

Most c r o s s - s e - t sa r e L t o 2 f e e tt h i c k( r a n g i n g

mostabundant.

from 6 inches t o 5 f e e t ) , a b o u t 3 f e e t l o n g Crtiiging fromabout

2 feet t o about

15 f e e t ) , and medium

low mgXe (C..O degrees)

However, rnany c r o s s - s e t s a r e
angle ( > 2 5 d e g r e e s ) .

ang&e (10 t o 25 d e g r e e s ) .

high

OR

Host c r o s s - s e t s w e pX4saar ( o r x n g u l a r ) ,

b u t rnmy a r e curved and tangentijal a% thebottom,These

two

t y p e s wePe not observed togeW~eri n the same fock u n i t s i n t h e

s t u d ya r e a ,

Pl?.nas cross-setsforminenvironmznts

where

t h e r e is l i t t l e suspended l o a 4 o r where the h e i g h t af t h e l e e

f a c e i s l a r g e compared with ' t o t s 1 flow depth.
s e t s formwhere

Curved c r o s s -

t h e r e is a I w g e amount of sediment in wrspens-

.ion o r i f t h e h e i g h t cf -the lee s l o p e i s small com?ared with

t h et o t a l

a,1972)

i?lw depth (Blatt

The absence of ap-

p r e c i a b l e s f l t and c i a y s i z e t e r r i g e n o u s m a t e r i a l i n c r o s s s t r a t i f i e d sandstones i n t h e s t u d y a r e a suggcs-ks t h a t %he

height o f 'the l e e s l o p e r e l a t i v e

t o t h e t o t a l Plow depth

was

responsible f o r curvedcross-sets.
Trough c r o s s - s e t s were only found

i n BogXe Domep u n i t 32,

These s e t s a r e a p p a r e n t l y 1 t o 2 f e e t t h i c k andabout
by h f e e t i n plan v i e w , C r e s s - s t r a t i f i c a t i o n

2 feet

i s apparently

somewhat symnmtrical, b u t it i s d i f f i c u l t t o be c e r t a i n .
cross-sets consist entirely

o f doubly-plung.i.ng troughs, which

probably represent the fillings

( D o t t , 1973).

The longaxes

e s s e n t i a l l ye a s t - w e s t .

The

o f canoe-shaped depressions
o f t h e s et r o u g h sx r eo r i e n t e d

However, t h eu n d e r l y i n g

planar

s e t s d i p toward the s o u t h - ~ o u t h w e s t , as do t h e p l a n a r

CTQSS-

e
87

c r o s s - s e t s i n t h e upper Glorieta tongue a t Valkes Rmch

( u n i t 2 0 ) , CanningRanch,

19). Consequently,the

F o r t StanLon,and

Sunset (figure

to

short axesofthesetroughsappear

be i n t h e p a l e o c u r r e n t d i r e c t i o n u n l i k e

most trough axes

studied heretofore.
&e&Plana.r

S t r a t i . ? $ ~ ~ ~

Even, planar stratification

studyarea,exceptfor

is c o m p a r a t i v e l y F a r e i n t h e

i t s occurrence i n -the

the Bogle Dome s e c t i o n , s u g g e s t i s g t h e a b s e n c e

regime conditions during the deposition
i e t aS a n d s t o n e ,

1 0 7 4 % ~ part

of

o f upper flow

of most of t h e Glor-

S t r a t a r a n g ei nt h i c k n e s sf r o ml a m i n a t i o n

(<$ i n c h ) t o thick bedding

(I& t ~5.f e e t ) ,

Massive
Massiveusrits

ax c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e a p p a r e n t l a c k o f

sedimentarystructures,Halnblin's

(1462) work s u g g e s t s t h a t

sedimentaryst-ructv.resprobablyarepresent,althoughinvisible.

Two t y p e s of massiveunitsarerecognized8

1) s i l t y

u n i t s w i t h the .comparative& poorer s o r t i n g a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

wavy bedded u n i t s , and 21 clean sandstones w i t h t h e b e t t e r

s o r t i n g a s s o c i a t e d with c r o s s - s t r a t i f i e d and even, planar
s t r a t i f i e d units.

The b e t t e r s o r t e d u n i t s l a c k

anyevidence

of burrowing, whereas the comparatively poorer sorted units are

l o c a i l y mottl.edsalthough
Soft

"

Sediment

no d i s t i n c t burrowswerefound.

Deformation

Evidence o f s o f t s e d i m e n t d e f o r m a t i o n ( P o t t e r

and

P e t t i j o h n , 1963) is very u n u s u a l i n t h e G l o r i e t a S a n d s t o n e

e
88

and only has bean noted i n the lower Glorieta tongue

set.Softsedirnentdeformation

,-

a t sun-

is suggested by the confine-

merit of d e f o r m a t i o n t o a s i n g l e bed. betweenundeformedbeds.

Locally, wniL 6 is twice as t h i c k as u s u a l ( a b o u t 4 i n c h e s )
a l o n g t h e ou-kcrop,whereas
a t about 35 degrees,

unit 7 (about 2 f e e t thick) i s t i l t e d

Units 5 and 8 (3. and 3 f e e t t h i c k r e s -

p e c t i v e l y )a r ea p p a r e n t l yu n a f f e c t e d
instantaneous compaction

The

o r Plowage o f

of loosely packed sand

s a n d while liquefied ("quiclc")

isms of deformation,

by t1li.s deformation.

are themostprobable

mechan-

The "shock" that ini'tialeddeformation

was a p p a r e n t l y o f a v e r y l o c a l c h a r a c t e r

and m a y p o s s i b l y have

baen r e l a t e d t o r a p i d s e d i m e n t i n f l u x i n c r e a s i n g o v e r b u r d e n
h
p r e s s u r e past a. t h r w o l d . v d . u e r e q u i r e d for d e f o r n a t i o n .
1'
PA.LEOCURRENT ANALYSIS
C r o s s - s f r a t i f i c a % i o n o r i e n t a t i o n s weremeasured
s e c t i o m e x c e p t Pox Cave and Eondo ( f i g u r e 191.

i n all

No o t h e rs e d i -

mentary struckres revealing paleocurren-t information were

noted i n t h es t u d ya r e a ,

However, t h eg e n e r a li n c r e a s ei n

compositiona3. m a k r i t y southvrard i n t h e s t u d y a r e a
i b l e with thepaleocurrentdirectionsinferred

i s compat-

f r o m cross-bed

orientations.
A g e n e r a ls o u t h w a r dt r a n s p o r td i r e c t i o n

i s r e c o r d e df o r

t h e c u r r e n t s t h a t d e p o s i t e d t h e Gpper G l o r i e t a t o o g i e ( f i g u r e

19 and 2 3 )

The f i v e c r o s s - s % r a t i f i e d u n i t s

a t Wafirer Ranch

a l l indicate a general west-southwest transport direction

( f i g u r e 19). P a l e o c u r r e n td i r e c t i o n s ,s t a t i s t i c s ,

and c o r r e c t -

i o n s f a r s t r u c t u r a l tilt were c a l c u l a t e d by computer using a

WALKER

RANCH

UNIT 3

WALKERRANCH
UNIT

WALKER RANCH
UNIT 15
(18)

(45)

WALKER RANCH

UNIT 20

FORT STAHTON
LOWERGLORIETA TONGUE

BOGLEPOME

UPPERGLOUIETATONGUE

ROSE DIAGPAMSFOR CROSS-STRATIFIED

(37)

CANNINGRANCH

UPPER GLORIETA TONGUE UPPER

FORT
STANTON
BLUEWATER
UWER GLORIETATONWF UPPERGLORIETATONGUE
($7)

FIGURE
19

BOGLE DOME-L

WALKERRANCH
UNIT 16

UNITS IN GLOKIETA
SANDSTONE

GLOK~ETA
TONGUE

SUNSET.
MIDDLEGLWETA TONWE
( W

90

The s t a t i s t i c s weredeter-

program developed by Doe (1973).

mined.by

the v e c t o r sumnlation technique (Curr2yy,1956).

PROWNAPKX AND DISPERSAL OF THE SAND

Inferred Glorieta paleocurrent directions clearly suggest

t h a t tlze terrigenous sand was supplied from the north-northeast.

2) and c r a t o n i c

BoththeAncestral-RockiesofColorado(figxire
areasfayther

.to t h e n o r t h

The extremetextuturzl

and n o r t h e a s t a m p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s .

and composi.tional maturity

of the Glorieta

a -1, 1 9 7 2 ) .

suggests a pre-existing sandstone source (Pettijohn

The Ancestral Rockies

;vere s t r i p p e d 'to c r y s t a l l i . n e P r e c m b r i a n

basement long before Glcwieta time

(McKee

.e+ &., 1967) and

Todd (1964) has c a l c u l a t e d 'that 'theAncestralRockies

were n o t

a l l t h e sand p r e s e n t i n 'the

e x t e n s i v e enough t o have supplied

Late Paleozoic blanket sandstones of which the Glcrizta

forrns

a southernfeather-edge.Theseconsiderationsstronglysilggest

that the Ancestral Rockies probably

than a t i n y f r a c t i o n

d i d 190% supply any

o f the Crlorieta sands.

ntore

Howevero t h e lzrger

'

sub-rounded q u a r t z g r a i n s p r e s e n t i n most Glorieta Sandstone

samples may have come from t h i s source.
o f terrigenoussandwereprobably

in

c r a t o n i ca r e a s

Permian terrigenous

cLOWer

The primarysources
Paleozoicsandstones

t o t h en o r t ho ft h es t u d ya r e a .
clay d e p o s i t s i n t h e s o u t h w e s t

S t a ' t e s s u g g e s t s a s o u r c e a r e a poor i n clays, such

Paleozoic o f t h e c e n t r a l c r a t o n
Angular fragments

The l a c k of
of the United

as t h e Lower

(Doe, 1 9 7 3 ) .

o f q u a r t z i t e and g n e i s s from t h e h i g h e r

parts o f theancestralPedernalMountains,whichwereprobably

abovesealevel,occurlocally

5.3

the Glorieta Sandstone north

J'

93.

of the s t u d ya r e a( B e l l e y ,1 9 7 2 ) .
the vicinity of the Precambrian
Corona ( f i g u r e I )
a n tm i c r o c l i n e

However, nonewerefound
knob about

5 mj.les n o r t h o f

The knob i s a g r a n i t i cg n e i s s

wi%h abund-

and some o r t h o c l a s e znd s o d i c feldspar.

emergent knobs probably

in

Such

c o n t r i b u t e df e l d s p a r st ot h eG l o r i e t a ,

but it is remarkable how 1it.U-edetritus

seems t o havebeen

s u p p l i e d by the Coronaknob.
DEPOSITIONAL PROCESS FACIES
The use of bedformsandbed-form

internal structures

( f i g u r e 20) t o i n t e r p r e t flow regimes is based on r e c e n t work

with flumes and streams (Simons

1965). The flowregimeconcept

processfaciesbecause
o:F bedforms

.& a,1965; H a r m s andFahnestock,

i s a v a l u a b l e way t o d e f i n e

it emphscizesthe

are contl-olled not

by

f a c t t h a t assemblages

a single h y d r a u l i c v a r i a b l e ,

such as depth or slope, b u t by a complex 02 v a ? i a b l e s ( E l a t t

e t a l , 1972)

T h i s s t u d y uses %he Plow regime concept w i t h

t h e r e c o g n i t i o n that a t l e a s t two d i s t i n c te n v i r o n m e n t s

been responsible

may have

f o r d e p o s i t i o n , namely theoffshoremarine

a.nd shorelineenvironments.
P l a t e s I X and X i l l u s t r a t e t h e v e r t i c a l

and l a t e r a l d i s -

tribution of depositional

process f a c i e s o n t h e b a s i s

regime as recognized by8

I ) bed-formsand

bed-form i n t e r n a l
and 2 ) comparative

structurespresentorinferredpresent,
s o r t i n gi na p p a r e n t l ym a s s i v eu n i t s( f i g u r e
good c o r r e l a t i o n betweenthedegree

o f flow

20).

There is a

of comparative sorting and

t h e associatedsedimentarystrucLuresp

where the latter are

v i s i b l e .C o m p a r a t i v e l yp o o r e rs o r t i n g

is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h wavy

93
bedding,whereasbettersorting

i s associated with

s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and even,planai-

stratification.

CTOSS-

ENVZRONMENTAL INTERPRETATGON
o f dkposition of t h e

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the environments

Glorieta Sandstone using sedimenta.ry strUcturesp grain size

BisLributLon, 2nd s u r f a c e Lex-hxrw o f individual.sandgrains
has y i e l d e d mixed r e s u . l t s .

The following aspec%s o f i n t e r n a l c r o s s - s t r z t i f i c a t i o n

i n t h e G l o r i e t a Sandstone are similar

t o those reported from

b o t h modern s u b a e r i a l dunes (KcKee, 196'7; McBriieandHayes,

1962)andthenon-barred

high energynearshoresubaqueous

environment ( C l i f t o n &

x!,,
1971)Higher-anglecross-sets

a r e n o t infrequently 'truncated

by low-angle c r o s s - s t r a t i f i c a t i o n

o r e v e n ,p l a n a rs t r a t i f i c a t i o ni nt h es t u d ya r e a .I nu n i t

a t WalkerRanch,nigh-a.ngle,

la:rge

scale sets pass laterally

i n t o very low-angle cross-larnination and even, plapar lamina'tion.

Some G l o r f e t a r o c k u n i t s are dominated by high-angle

c r o s s - s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , which is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a t l e a s t some
coastaldunes

(McBride and Ha.yes, 1962).

completelackofinformation

Howevers thealmost

on t h e i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e s

of

offshore subaqueous dunes precludes choosing between nearshore

oraeolian environments

o f deposition without other evidence.

However, t h e long, low a n g l e c r o s s - s f r a t i f i , c a t i o n

in Walker

Ranch, u n i t s 3 ( f i g u r e 18A) and 20, and i n B l u e w a t e r , u n i t

1 6( f i g u r e

18) s u g g e s t s p o s s i b l e beachforeshoredeposition

( C l i f t o n ,1 9 6 9 ) .

94,
I n f e r r e d r i p p l e marked u n i t s , t h a t is wavy bedded u n i t s p
do n o t a p p a r e n t l y r e p r e s e n t t i d a l l y - i n f l u e n c e d

sand d e p o s i t s

because f i n e m a t e r i a l is n o t s e g r e g a t e d i n t o r e c o g n i z a b l e
flaser bedding patterns (Reheck
Variousmethods

andWunderlicn,1968),

have beenproposed

processes or environments of deposition

ongTain

s i z ed i s t z i b u t i o n r

t o i n f e r physical
from parameters based

I) Passega (3.957) p l o t t e d median

a g a i n s t c o a r s e s t one p e r c e n t i s e v a l u e s of a number of samples,

2) Visher (1969) recognizedsub-populations

log-normal grain s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n s ,

and

1962, 1-90?) plotted various combinations

ametersagainsteachother.Table

)+

The r e s u l t s o f

i n g and. ambiguous.

tb.egra.in

3) Friedman (1961,
of s t a t i s t i c a l par-.

l i s t s theenvironmental

i n f e r e n c e s made f o r t h e e l e v e n s a m p l e s
methods.

within i n d i v i d u a l

o f t a b l e 1 u s i n g th.ese

s i z ea n a l y s e s are c o n f l i c t -

There is v e r y l i t t l e i f any c o r r e l a t i o n

between differen.t' t y p e s of sedimentary s-tr-uctures

processes o r environmentsinferred
sizeanalysisappears.tohave,

and t h e

by t h e abovemethods.Grain

a t b e s t , only a v e r y l i m i t e d

u t i l i t y in theenvironmentalinterpretationofsue2pure
quartzsatndstones

as the Glorieta Sandstone,

as

V a r i o u sc o m b i n a t i o n so fd e t a i l e ds u r f a c et e x t u r e s ,
r e v e a l e d by scanning electron microscope

(SEM), a r e b e l i e v e d

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f s a n d grains d e p o s i t e d i n d i f f e r e n t
environments(Krinsley

and Doornlramp, 1973).Grainmounts

from four samples representing three cross-stratified

wavy bedded u n i t wereexamined

g r a i n sp e r

Holocene

on t h e SEK.

and one

Ten t o f i f t e e n

grain mount were ' c l o s e l y exzmined.

A l l original

SAMPLE

NUMBER

..

g r a i n surfaces werecovered
growths.

with thick diagenetic

quartz overm d other

The common occurrenceofsuchovergrowths

diageneticeffectsinancientFandstonessuggests

that t h i s

method has a t b e s t o n l y a ve-ry l i m i t e d u t i l i t y i n the environmentalinterpretation

of a n c i e n t s a n d s t o n e s l i k e t h e G l o r i e t a .

A.t l e a s t some o f t h e F l o f i e t a S a n d s t o n e

shallow marine origin because

i s probablyof

o f the presence of l.ocal shallow

marine type burrows and interbedded

shallow marine carbonates,

However, t h e s t u d y o f mx?ern continental shelves suggests

that

migration o f a s t r a n d l i n e seems more l i k e l y as a mechanism

f o r spreading tin e x t e n s i v e , t h i n ' m a r i n e s a n d s h e e t t h a n d o e s
simultaneousdepositionacross

an. e n t i r e a r e a .

Yet di.sLinc3t

ancient shorel-ine sand bodies are seldomrecogiiieec!

e t ax, 1972).

""

(Pettijohn

The possible foreshore beach deposit a t WzZker

at

Ranch, u n i t 20 i s A a b o u t the same stratigraphic horizon as

supratidalcarbonatedepositionalfacies
s t r i k e a t Canning
Ranch,
Bluewater,

along deposf%ional

and S u n s estuJ g g e s t i n g

t h a t t h i s is a r e a s o n a b l ee n v i r o n m e n t a li n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

s t r a t i f i e ds a n d s t o n e sa r ea l s op r e s e n t

Crcss-

a t about t h e same

horizon as s u p r a t i d a l and i n t e & i d a l f a c i e s i n

carbonatetongue

..

t h e lower

a t CanningRanchp F w t S t a n t o n , Hondo, Sunset,

and Bluewater, suggesting that at least

Walker Ranch u n i t s

S, 14, 2 5 # and 16 may a l s o r e p r e s e n t " s h o r e l i n $ ' d e p o s i t i o n ,

The "shorelinevb environment in t h i s r e p o r t i n c l u d e s t h e c o a s t a l

dune tonearshoreenvironmentsbecause,

a s a l r e a d yd i s c u s s e d ,

c r i t e r i a for d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of t h e s e individual environments

a r c most commonly ambimous and c o n f l i c t i n g f o r c l e a n q u a r t z

97
sandstones.

1% s e e m l i k e l y

%ha%most o r a l l of $he lower

flow regime wavy bedded uni'ts were deposited i n comparatively

lowerenergyshallowlagoonalenvironments,whereas

some of t h e c r o s s - s l r a t i f i e d

at l e a s t

and evenr p2ana.r s t r a t i f i e d

rock units were d e p o s i t e d i n t h e s h o r e l i n e e n v i r o n m e n t .

98
PALEOGEQGRRPHLC IPATLICBTIONS FOR .EARLY S A NA N D W S

TINE

IN CEIfTRAL NEY! BEXICO

"TRANSCrR~SSIVE-REGRESSI~"
CYCLES
Introduction

"

Shavr (1964) proposed t h a t rock u n i t s werefund.amentally

of the mig-

diachronous became they were the direct result

r a t i o n of sedimentary facies in time

i n response t o ev.sta.tic

sealevel-fluctuations.Hencesverticalchangesofcmbonate
depositional. facies in ancient rocks

might be t h e r e s u l t o f

changes i n s e al e v e ld u r i n gd e p o s i % i o n .

Howeverp many v e r t i c a l

changes i n c a r b o n a t e f a c i e s do & r e q u i r e s e a l e v e l

Thus, i - t i s f r e q u e n t l yd i f f i c u l t ,

a t i o n sf o re x p l a n a t i o n ,

a detailedsc&le,todeterminethecause

a r yf a c i e sc h a n g e s .Y e tt h e

o f suchchanges

on

o f vertical.sediment-

terms usedtodescribesequences

o f t e n havegeneticconnotations
~

g r e s s i v e and regressive),Consequently,the
study &re defined

fluctu-

(e.g, trans-

terms used i n this

below to avoid misunderstanding.

" T r a n s m e s s i v e " or "d.eeveninp u-Owardst*r e f e r s t o an upward

change i n s e d i m e n t a r y f a c i e s that is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h , b u t n o t
i
~

necessarilycausedbyp

a migration of facies in response to

relativesealevelrise,

g r e s s i or en' f e r s
'to an a p p a r e anbt s o l ust el eavreils e
r e s u l t e d i n normalmarineconditionsovermost
s t u d ya r e a .

A a o r - marine o r e u s t a t i c t r a n s -

that

o r a11 of t h e

R minor t r a n s m e s s i o q r e f e r s t o a n a p p a r e n t

relative sea level rise

depositionalenvironments

that r e s u l t e d i n l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e
i n the study areap except for normal

marine environments, which were only locally present

when not

99
absc.nt.

o s "shoa,linp v . p v ; a w r e f e r s t o an up-

"I?B:essive"
I

ward change in sedimen'cary f a c i e s that i s c o n s i s t e n t

a migration of facies in response

not necessarily caused by,

t o a relativesealevel

d.rop,

1'h5arine" o r " e u s t a t i cr e g r e s s i o n t t

i n d i c a t e s t h a t an a b s o l u t e s e a l e v e l
ponsibfafor

-?ne deposi'tio-ri o f

8,

drop vas appajrently res-

"shoalingupwwds"sequence,

" S e d i m e n " c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e s s i o n " i n d i tc' na at teasn e f f e c t i v e l y

s t a n t sea l e v e l ".s

but

t?;ith,

con-

coupled with a r a t e of carbonate accumulat-

i o n that was f a s t e r tha,n t h e r a t e o f l o c a l s u b s i d e n c e , .

term "sedimentary regression" includes

The

t h e progradation of

t i d a l f l a t environments.
I

Both*!transg.ressive"

a d ''regressive"rocksequences

m8.y

bs explained by o t h e r t h a n absoll?-te sea level fluc-k.mtions,

A r e l a t i v e l y h i g h r a t e o f regional subsidence coupled

rsla-bivel-y low r a t e o f carbonate accumulation

serially extensive 'Vxansgressive"

storm piercement of an undaform-edge

h e a l" t r a n s @ s s i v e "

wit'? a

may e x p l a i n some

rock sequences,whereas

b a r r i e r may explain. more

changes."Sedimentaryregression"

e x p l a i n many " r e g r e s s i v e " rock sequences.

may

Hovrever, e u s t a t i c

s e a l e v e l s h i f t s a r e f r e q u e n t l y invoked t o e x p l a i n l a r g e
scale v e r t i c a l f a c i e s changes i n Permian deposits

southwestern United States (e

1972).

i n the

.g, Wanless, 1972; hleissner,

G l a c i a t i o n , g l o b a l t e c t o n i c s and s t o r a g e of water

i nl a k e sa r e

some o ft h ep o s s i b l e

g l a c i a l and i n t e r g l a c i a l p e r i o d s i n

mechanisms,

Alternating

Gondwanahnd a r e o f t e n

suggested as t h e most likely cause because they can account

the repeated sea level fluctuations inferred

f o r E a r l y and

for

a
Middle Permiantime.

100

Howevers a change i n t h e s i z e

of ocearl

basins due t o s h i f t i n g c r u s t a l p l a t e s c o u l d a c c o u n t f o r
shifts.

11, less l i k e l y p o s s i b i l i t y

is thetemporarystorage

l a r g e volumes o f water i n fresh-waterlakes(Wariless,

Only several.of

sorile
of

1972).

'the "trtznsgressive-regressive" c y c l e s d i s c u s s e d

i n the next scction

c a n be c o n f i d e n t l y attribu.ted t o a b s o l u t e

sea level fluctuations.

Cycles in t h e UDner Yeso and Lswer San d a d r e s F_ormations
The uppes Yeso and lower San Andres Formations of t h i s
study appear to have been deposited in seventeen "transgressive-

of

r e g r e s s i v e "c y c l e s ,

In g e n e r a l ,t h e9 " g r e s s i t - e "p o r t i o n s

these cycLes tend to

be p r o l o n g e d , r e s u l t i n g i n t h i c k d e p o s i t s

and i n d i c a t i n g a gTadua1"marine"

and/or "sedimen,'iary regres-

sion," whereasthe"transgressive"portionstend

%e be " r a p i d s "

r e s u l t i n g i n t h i n d e p o s i t s and i n an a b r u p t change Prom more

saline t o less s a l i n e - w a t e r d e p o s i t s ,
by lrvrin (1965)These

a b r u p t changes o r "kicks"havebeen

used to recognize correlative points

t i m ee q u i v a l e n t s
boundaryof

017.

similar to those discussed

P l a t e s IX and S .

t o establish approximate
For example,thelower

" t r a n s g r e s s i o n - r e ~ ~ e s s i v ec"y c l e 7 was placed a t

the base of the'

f i r s t normal marine rock .unit present

o f themeasuredsections

on P l a t e s IX and X.

i n most

A relatively

t h i c k l i n e was u s e d f o r t h i s boundary t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s
cyclebegins

w i t h a major marinetransgression.

'boundary of cycle

The lower

8 was p o s i t i o n e d on t h e basis of t h e t h r e e

measured s e c t i o n s t h a t c o n t a i n an abrupt changefrom

relatively

restricted to relatively unrestricted depositional environments.

101

The cycle's lower boundary

is marked by a r e l a t i v e l y t h i n

l i n e , vrhich indica.tes a minor transgression

where it passes through measwed sections
trxnsg-ressivedeposits

and. vihlch is dashed

w i t h noevidence

of

a t theapproximatehorizon.
7, 13,

Threemajortrarmgressive"kicks"(begi.nningcycles

and 3.5) i n t h e lovrer San .Anfires Formation are t r a c e a b l e o v e r

most or a l l of' t h e s h d y a r e a o These "kicks" ar'e a . t t r i b u t e d

t o majormarine

o r eustatictransg-ressions.Thirteenminor

t r a n s g r e s s i v e t*kicks's (beginningcycles2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,
12,14,16, and 1'7) are tracea,ble over

some t o a l l of t h e s t u d y

No convincing 'way was found t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e

area.

between

icd.ividu?usl. "kicks" predominataly caused

by a r i s e i n a b s o l u t e

sea l e v e l and those predominately caused

by a r a t e of subsid-

e n c eg r e a t e rt h a nt h er a t e

o f sedimentaccumulation.

inrlur, of Lerrigenous sand t o d e p o s i t i o n a l . c e n t e r s

a s s o c i a t e d in t h e g e o l o g i c L i t e r a t u r e
r e s u l t i n gf r o me u s t a t i c

The

i s commonly

w i t h l o w s e a l e v e l stands

5$ 9 ,

sea l e v e lf l u c t u a t i o n s .C y c l e s

and 1 0 , which begi.n wi3h t h e i n f l u x of terrigenous sand south

of WalkerRanch,
ations,

t h u s may r e f l e c t absolu-ke s e a l e v e l . f l u c t u -

The d e p o s i t s o f c y c l e 1 werenotedonly

Ranch, where t h e t r a n s g r e s s i v e p o r t i o n

exposed.Hence,very
of cycle

a t Walker

of t h e c y c l e

was n o t

l i t t l e may be i n f e r r e da b o u tt h eo r i g i n

1.

The Glorieta Sandstone Member a t Walker Ranch c o n s i s t s of

five cyclic repetitions

o f strata,eachinvolvinglower

regimedeposits.Theseconaistofupper-lowerflowregime
d e p o s i t s p which are i n t e r p r e t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t r a n s g r e s s i v e

flow

102

SI0.l

phases, t h a t caplower-lowerhregimedeposits,whichaxeinterp r e t e dt or e p r e s e n tr e g r e s s i v ep h a s e s .

These i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s

permit a good c o r r e l a t i o n between transgressive "kicks" inferred

in the sandstone

a t t h e boundary between ,these

types o f flow regime deposits

two d i f f e r e n t

and t h o s e "kicks" noted in t h e

carbonate member ( P l a t e X ) .
No g e n e r a l method was fou.nd i n %his s t u d y

between r e g r e s s i v e r o c k s e y u e n c s s d e p o s i t e d

'60

distinguish

by marine o r

e u s t a t i c r e g r e s s i o n and those deposited by sedimentary regresHowever, the"shoaLing

sion.

carbonatetongue

upwards" sequence i n t h e

a t Canning Ranch i s suggestive of n a r i n e ( o r

eustatic) regression. There, normal marine rock units

i n t o i n t e r t i d a l rock u n i t s i n
foot,

8,

pass up

v e r t i c a l d i s t a n c e o f ahout one

Assuming t h a t sedimentaryregression

would imply t h a t aboirt a f o o t d e p t h

was r e s p o n s i b l e

o f water a t low tid.e was

s u f f i c i e n t f o r well developed norma.1 marine 'conditions

exist.

However, it i s u n l i k e l y that t h ev a r i e d

normalmarine

middle

biota present in the

and abundant

normal marine facies (figure

l 2 B ) couldhavesurvivedandprospered

f o r t h ef o l l o w i n gr e a s o n s .

i n suchshallowdepths

A one footdepthsuggests

minimal c i r c u l a t i o n , i f any, was p o s s i b l e .

which would have occurred frequently

Lo

t h a t only

And t r o p i c a ls t o r m s ,

on a geological time

S c a l e , would most l i k e l y haveuncoveredsuchshallowsediments

periodically,
Figure 2 1 i l l u s t r a t e s a well-developed "shoaling
sequencepresentinthe

Hondo s e c t i o n ,

upwards"

PIZDERNAL POSITIVE EIZMENT

The s t u d y a r e a o c c a r s on the Pederna1 positive element

( f i g u r e 22)

The Pedernal seems t o havebeen

New hiexico a t 1ea.st i n Iltiddleand

tectonic element in central

LatePennsylvanian,and

t h e most a c t i v e

Early Permian time (Dixon,1967)

Con-

tir1Qai;ion of t h e rise o f t h e Pedernal. d u r i n g Wolfcampiantime

r e s u l t e d i n clenudation well i n t o the Precambrianbasement
(Kelley,1971)

and. depositicrn of theconglomerates

of Le

Laborcita and Abo Formations o f Otero County (Pray, 1961; Otte,

1 9 5 9 ) * The regionaltendencydur2ngthe
e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g Wolfcampiantime,
therelief

E a r l y Permianp

was t o e l i m i n a t e much o f

of theLatePennsylvanian/~a.rl.yPermianbasins:the

Orogmmde,Delawaxe$

and Kidland basins an6 t h e Centt-al. b a s i n

platform ( f i g m e 2)

is not

The s t r u c t u r e o f the Pedernal positive element

well known, but it appears t o havebeen

a broad upvmxp in. some

p l a c e s andfault-boundedblocksinothers(Kelley,1971).

o f ,the Pedernal we.s h i g h l y i r r e g u l a r

first-order broad surface

o f d i f f e r i n ge l e v a t i o n s ,

with secondorderknobs

Precambrianknob

The

i s now exposed j u s t nofth ( T . l N . ,

One such

R.13E.) and

Mountain, T.l2S., R,ljE,

a n o t h e rj u s ts o u t h( P a j a r i t o

R.16E.) o f t h e study area (ICelley,1971,1972).

and

The outcrop

of t h e s e two knobs i s about 3 t o 2 milesindiameter.These

knobs appear to

havebeen

h i g h i n h!iddlePermian

islands a t l e a s t s e v e r a l hundred f e e t

s e a s , which became covered w i t h s e d i -

ments as regional subsidence

and deposition continued through

Permiantime,Regionally(Kelley,1971,

1972) arkosicsandstone

..

la6

and conglomerate are present

i n t h e basal p a r k o f t h e Yeso

Formation and Glorieta Sandstone where these units lap onto

o r areinproximitytoPrecambrianexpost~res,

K e l l e y (1971) foundevidence

o f Lincoln County (figure

efnal positive element

1) o f r e p e a t e d a c t i v i t y o f t h e Ped-

Prom Permian w e l l i n t o T e r t i a r y t i x e .

Even though deposition covered most

element during Glorieta

intheCapitan-Ruidosoarea

o f t h e PedernaLposi-i;ive

and San Andrestime,

it a p p e a r s t o

107
have a c t e d as a b u r i e d , y e t r e l a t i v e l y p o s i t i v e f e a t u r e .

Kock

( 1 9 7 0 ) found that t h e Yeso Formation wedges o u t a wF~ereast h e

San AndresFormation,includingtheGLorietaSandstone

Memberp

t h i n s d r a s t i c a l l y as i S e y onlaps t h e Pedernal i n t h e zrrrja

arou.nd north.easCernTorranceCounty,north
this r e p o r t .

o f t h e s?~!.dy a r e a o f

1lot~lovfslri( 1 9 6 3 ) invoked a r e l a t i v e l y posi.tive

as one p o s s i b l e v r a j j t o e x p l a i n tine complex

Pedernal element
~

problem o f t h s age o f t h e San Andres.

He suggestf:ed t h a t t h e

e n t i r e Termian s e c t i o n may change f a c i e s g o i n g from west t o

e a s ta c r o s s .t h eP e d e n l a l ,

A b u r i e d ,y e tr a l a t i v e l yp o s i t i v e

i s a l s o used i n t h i s s t u d y t o e x p l a i n W e

Pedernal element

tribittion o f lower San hndres lithologies in and adjacent

T d x o l n County.Includedare

to

bedded e v a p o r i t e s and carbonates

west of the s t u d y a r e a , c a r b o n a t e s
area,andcarbonateseast

ais-

and sandstones i n the study

5).

o f %he s t u d y a r e a ( f i g u r e

DETdIL3D PALEOGEOGRAPHY

In-kroducti.

Most of New Nexicodu.ringMiddlePermiantime,including

LincolnCounty

and a d j a c e n t a r e a s p is considered t o havebeen

a paleogeographicshelfprovi.nce(Irleissner,1972).Analysis

ofthecarbonates

and sandstones i n t h e s t u d y a r e a

o f recent depositional models8

and t h e p r i n c i p l e s

on t h e basis
of carbonate

sedimentologyandpf..ysica.lsedimentationsuggest

t h a t the

Permian shelf i n c e n t r a l New Mexico may be subdivided i n t o

deeperandshal.lowerparts,that

i s belowandabove

base
Rich (1953.) coinedthetermsundaform,clinoform,and

wave

108

fondoforin,whichareanalogous
s l o p e p and b a s i n , e x c e p t
The r o o t

unda

tothegeneralterms

t h a t they are independent of scale.

r e f e r s 'to t h e r e l a t i v e l y h o r i z o n t a l

s e a f L o o r within the depth

part of the

oQ e f f e c t i v e wave a c t i o n , and & j & ~

t o t h e more s t e e p l y s l o p i n g p a r t o f t h e s e a f l o o r
down t o t h e more l e v e l d e e p e r p a r t
These t e r m s a r e v e r y u s e f u l

provincafree

of shelf,

that; extends

below wave ba.sep t h e

f o r subdividing a recognized shelf

of any b a s i n a l c h a r a c t e r .

Several independent lines

a? evidence lead

Lo t h e hypoth-

e s i s t'na,t m u s t of %he lowerSanAndresFormation

in the study

a r e a was d e p o s i t e d on an undaformpwhich was westofan

undaform-edge b m r i e r e n v i r o n m e n t , % h a t t r e n d e d g e n e r a l l y n o r t h south i n e a s t e r n L i n c o l n andwestern
These i n c l u d e :

ChavesCounty

(figure 23).

1) -the n a t u r e and. d i s t r i b u t i o no fc e r b o n a t e

rock 'types and r e c o g n i z e d d e p o s i t i o n a l . f a c i e s p

2 ) the trend of

t h c e a s t e r n edge of t h e Pederna3. positive element

and t h i c k n e s s

t r e n d si nt h el o w e r ,m i d d l e ,a n du p p e rG l o r i e t at o n g u e s ,

31 paleocurrentana.lysis
entire study area
sea l e v e l s t a n d s

o f theupperGlorietatongue,

vias presumablybelow

wave base during

high

Measured

andwesternsides

study area are not sedimentol.ogically distinctive

outSdethestudy

The

andhence,Inthefondoenvironment.

sectionsinthenorthernpsouthern,
permit any b u t t h e

and

of t h e

enough t o

most gen,eral paleogeographic extrapolation

area.

T h i s exLrapola'tion i s i n c l u d e di nt h e

l a t e r s e c t i o n t h a t proposes models f o r Lower San hndres deposition.

Nature and D i s t r i b u t i o n o f CarbonaCe Rocks and Facies

The formation o f s p h e r o i d a l , w e l l r o u n d e d c a r b o n a t e o o l i t e s ,

such as a r e p r e s e n t i n the Canning Ranch and Bluewater sections

af t h i s s t u d y , r e q u i r e s w a t e r s u p e r s a t u r a t e d
a t e andanenvironment

w i t h calciumcarbon-

w i t h strong and consistent agitation.

Modern large-scale ool.ite formation

i s known only from very

shallow, warm-water environments i n which t i d a l c u r r e n t s k e e p

a
110

thegrainsinnearlyconstantagitation(Heckel,1972).

Oolitic sedimentsarefound

i n t h e more shorewardextentof

'the a g i t a t e d zone i n which e f f e c t i v e wave base i n t e r s e c t s t h e

bottomsurface

i n t h e s o u t h e r n P e r s i a n GuI+f* i n t h e G r e a t

S e l t Lake of Utah, and on the margins

o$ t h e Bahamas Platform.

T h i s l o c a t i o n is e x p l a i n a b l e on theoretical:. groundk (Irwin,

lin most ancient

l965), and o o l i t i c r o c k u n i t s

sequences should represent deposition

ca.rbona.te

i n similar environments.

Low-energy c a r b o n a t e d e p o s i t i o n commonly proceeds on both

s i d e s of t h i s agitated oolite-forming zone;
side because sediments are
side because

on 'the l o w (fondo)

on t h e high (u.nd.a)

below viave baseand

the kineticenergy

09

wavesand

currents are

d i n t h ea g i t a t e dz m e( H e c k e l ,1 9 7 2 ) .
dampenh

Oolhjc

sand

'bodies generally form discontinuous to continuous trends

r o u g h l y p a r a l l e l t o thehigh-energyzone,
determined by t h e p o s i t i o n o f

whose p o s i t i o n is

t n e undaform-edge, t h a t i s . t h e

break i n s l o p e ( B a l l , 1967).
iilud-supportedcarbonate

..

fabrics i n d i c a t i v e of low-energy

deposition characterise about

95% of the lower SanAndres

Formation i n t h e s t u d y a r e a .

O f the'remaining

5%$o o l i t i c ,

grain-supported fabrics indicative of high-energy deposition

areonlyfoundintheeasternmostsections
where t h e y f o r m

20s

i n thestudyarea,

of theBluewaterandCanning

Ranch s e c t i o n s ,

a r e common about 5 miles s o u t h e a s t o f Bluewater, and a r e abunda n t i n theupper

Yeso Formation a t S u n s e t ,

f r o m the upper carbonate tongue

althoughsuchwerenotfound

They a r e r e p o r t e d

a t S u m e t by Kelley (1971),
by t h ea u t h o r .E m e r g e n tt i d a l

111

f l a t c a r b o n a t e f w i e s presenk i n a l l s e c t i o n s e x c e p t

and Valker 3anc.h suggest t h a t t h e s t u d y a r e a

on t h e high (unda! r a t h e r t h a n
clinoform.

Fox Cwe

would have t o be

the low ( f o n d o ) s i d e of t h e

The presence of abundantmud-supportedrockunits

interbedded w i t h t h e o o l i t i c u n i t s

and t h e a s s o c i a t i o n .o. f

decreased water r e s t r i c t i o n and more open marine conditions

at

mus-k mxmarori s c c t i m s ( P l a t e s S
X and X ) w i t h theappearance

of o o l i t i c r o c k u n i t s
reasonab3.ybe

a t Bluewater and Canning Ranch may

1.) mud-supported

i n t e r p r e t e d as follovrs t

sediments vrefe deposited a t Bhzewater and CanningRanch,

grain-supported sedimel?ts were deposited along
edge e a s t 02 t h e s t u d y a r e a d u r i n g

while

an v.nda.form-

much of lower S a l Andres

time, and. 2 ) t h e unda.Eorm-edge environmentmigratedwestward

to deposit oolitic sediments

a t Bluewater and Canning Ranch.

Xan Andres time

during relatively limited periods of lower

in response to relative rises

i n s e a l e v e l . t h a t weTe n o t l a r g e
below wave base i n %he

enough %o p l a c e t h e e n t i r e s t u d y a r e a
f ondo erwironment

Extrapolation northwestvrard of t h e l i n e a r t r e n d o f s e c t i o n s
with o o l i t e s ( B l u e w a t e r

2nd CanningRanch) would mean t h a t t h e

Bogle Dome and Walker Ranch s e c t i o n s were d e p o s i t e d on t h e

o
lw ( f o n d o )s i d e

o f t h e undaform-ed.ge.

However, t h ec o r r e l -

a t i o n of c a r b o n a t e d e p o s i t i o n a l f a c i e s ( P l a t e
Bogle Dome andWalker
Hence, we
may
northward.,then

IX) s u g g e s t s t h a t

Ranch were deposited on t h e undaform,

deduce t h a t i f an undaform-edge t r e n d c o n t i n u e s
it would have Lo swing t o t h e n o r t h e a s t

Canning Ranch formingan

embayment.

from

Figure 23 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e

112

of t h e c a r -

u1ld&orm-edge t r e n d i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
bonatedepositionalfaciesof

t h i s s'tudy.

Eastern 3dge o f t h e Pederna.1 P o s i t i v e Element

Introduction

of t h e P e d e r n s l p o s i t i v e

The trend of the eastern edge

e l e m e n t( f i g u r e

22; a f t e r Hills

1967) and -the t h i c k n e s st r e n d s

of t h e lowero rnid.dle, and upper Glorieta tongues

pendentevidences

f o r -the e x i s t e n c eo f

may be iade-

i n t h i s section because

ever, they xre grouped -together

How-

an undaform-edge.

(1967) does not indicate whether the trend

and

Hills

posikion of

t h e e a s t e r n edge o f t h e P e d e m a l i s based on isopach data, in

which case these evidences

would n o t be independent,

Trend o f t h e E a s t e r n Edge of the Pedemal Positive Element

Figure 22 i l l u s t r a t e s t h o t r e n d
the Pedernal pasi%ive element
respect to the position
s e c t i o n so f

of

o f theeasternside

during Early Permian time

with

o f Lincoln Countyand'themeasured

t h i s study.

T h i s t r e n d is s u b p x a l l e l t o t h e

of

t r e n d o f t h e undaform eclge p r e d i c t e d f r o m t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
23)

c a r b o n a t ed e p o s i t i o n a fl a c i e s( f i g u r e

The p a r a l l e l i s m

of t r e n d s m a y be explained by t h e P e d e r n a l having a c t e d as a

b u r i e d ,y e tr e l a t i v e l yp o s i . t i v ef e a - t u r e .

Thus, t h e seas over

%he Pedernal h i g h would havebeenshallower

andwest.Duringlowersealevel

than t o t h e e a s t

standss thesediment-water

i n t e r f a c e would l i k e l y be above wave baseovermost

Pedernal and below wave b a s e t o t h e e a s t

of t h e

and thewest,

would r e s u l t i n an o o l i t i c undaforn-edge trend such

i n f e r r e d t o be p r e s e n t e a s t o f the study area..

This

as t h e one

1x3
Thickness Trends in t h e Three G l o r i e t a Tongues

An isopach map ( f i g u r e 24) i l l u s ' t c a t e s t h e g e n e r a l t h i c k -

ei?ing o f the upper Glorieta tongue west

area,

%o e a s t a c r o s s t h e s t u d y

The lower and middleGlorieta'tonguesthickensimilarly

a c r o s s %he studya.rea(figure

9) e

However, only a r e l a t i v e l y

very t h i n ba.sa1 sandstone is p r e s e n t i n the lower 1,000 f e e t

of t h e San Andres Por~naLioni n the subsurface approximately 24

miles due east o f Bluewater (Amerada SI1l-SR"A" : idei.ssnert 197%).

I t i s very d i f f i c u l t t o d e v i s e
szndstone thiclrening

a model t h a t a c c o u n t s f o r t h e

and y e t i s compatibl'e with t h e o t h e r

o b s e r v a t i o n s made d n r i ~ gL h i s study without invoking

cage environment e a s t o f t h e

study a r e a .

an undaform-

lL4
P a l e u c u r r e n t Analysis of theUpper
Analysisindicates

G l o r f e t a Tongue

t h a t t h e paleocufrentdirectionsinfer-

r e d f o r the upper Gloriata tongue are

sub-parallel t o t h e

undsform-edge trend inferred

from t h e s t u d y

o f carbonatedepos-

i t i o n a lf a c i e s (figure 2 3 ) .

This suggests LI2a.t eii;herthecur-

r e n t s responsible f o r q u a r t z sand transport and d.eposition were

corztroLled by t h e t r e n d o f t h e undaform-edge o r v i c e v e r s a .

UEP0SITIONAL MOD3L FOR LOWn SAN ANDliES TINE

INTRODUCTION

Major o b j e c t i v e s off t h i s s t u d y are the examination

of t h e

f a c i e s m o s a i c ole the lower Sa? AndresFormation

and i t s environ-

m e n t a li n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

pro-posed i n

The depositionalmodels

t h i s r e p o r t al?e compatible with "cne o b s e r v a t i o n s mwdz i n t h e

s t u d y a r e a and Viith r.easonable inferences based

observations.Thesemodelsare

upon t h e s e

a.lso compatible w i t h t h e g r o s s

l i t h o l o g i e s of the lower San kndres Formation in western Lincoln

and e a s t e r n Socori-oCounties
western ChavesCounty

( a f t e r Harbour, 1 9 7 8 ) and i n

H ~ w e v e rit
~ i s recog-

(Keiss1?er, 1972) I

n i z e d t h a t subsequent detailed surfaxe

and subsurface s t u d y

o f the lower San Andres may p r o v i d e p r o s p e c t i v a s that will

i n v a l i d a t e a . s p e c t s o f these models.
CARBONATE D5POSXTIQNAL MODEL

"Intrcductiion
-

The c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f f i g u r e 25 i l l u s t r a t e s b o t h t h e i d e a l i z e d model off carbonate deposition of VJilson

interpreted depositional

model Tor lower San Andres Formation

deposition in southern Lincoln County,

Ranch.

(1970) and t h e

Terrigenoussanddeposition

t h t is south o f Walker

was predominant i n t h e

v i c i n i t y o f Wallcer Ranch and north of it and i s discussed

s e p a r a t e l y i n t h en e x ts e c t i o n .

Z'he i n t e r p r e t e dc a r b o n a t e

model a p p l i e s t o d e p o s i t i o n i n

an cast-west direction through

kt0

LincolnCountyand,,adjacentareas.
model s o u t h o f t h e s t u d y a r e a

The a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h i s
is urlknovm.

..

NORMALMARlXE FACIE% (DURING HIGH 5Eh LEVEL STAND)

TIDAL FLRT FACIES

.-

117
Ca,rbona-te sedimentsand-terrigenous

s.and were apparently

deposited i,n r e s p o n s e t o r e l a t i v e s e a l e v e l f l u c t u a t i o n s .
d e p o s i t t o n of the lower San AndresFormation

Hencep

i s discussed below

i n terms of low, h i g h , and i n t e r m e d i a t e s e a l e v e l

s'kands.

Low Sea. Level Stan&

Low s e a lev-&?-s t a n d s i n e a s l y

the result

San Andres seas occurred

o f sea level drops (marine

o r the accumulation

or eustaticregression)

o f carbonate sediments

(sedi.mentmyregression)

as

towards " f i l l level"

The undaform-edge barriers i n f e r r e d

t o be p r e s e n t t o t h e e a s t i n h i b i t e d w a t e r c i r c u l a t i o n
study a r e a , r e s u l t i n g i n r e s t r i c t e d ,

i n the

low-energyenvironments.

There was s u f f i c i e n t c i r c u l a t i o n t o p r e v e n t t h e p r e c i p i t a t i o n

of' bedded evaporites

i n t h e s - b d y area.p s u g g e s t i n g t h a t th.e

undaforrn-edge b a r r i e r s may havebeen

and/or t h a t "freshening"waters
s o u t hr e g u l a r l ye n t e r e dt h e

somewha:t

f r p m t h en o r t h ,

study area.

discontinuous
+vest+ and/or

Nowever, w a t e rl e v e l s

were t e m p o r a r i l y low enough t o c r e a t e s u f f i c i e n t r e s ' t r i c - L i o n

e n w p t

t o formsome/,txdal
e v a p o r i t en o d u l e s

f l a t 2nd p o s s i b l y evensubaqueousdiagenetic

and c r y s t a l s .

KTcs-t o f t h e Yregz-essive" p o r t -

i o n s o f t h es e v e n t e e n" t r a n s g r e s s i v e - r e g r e s s i v e "c y c l e s

study were deposited during such

of t h i s

low sea level stands,

The i n f l u x o f terrigenous sand

sou-t'h ofWalker

form thelower,middle,andupperGlorietatongues

Ranch t o
is t r e a t e d

at length in the

n.ext section,

however i-t appears t o be r e l a t e d

t o low s e a l e v e l

s t a n d s i nt h e

s t u d y a r e a .T h i sr e l a t i o n s h i p

has also been

no-ted i n otherPermianformations

west of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

(Ball

in the south-

& & 19718 Meissner, 1972).

118
Undaform-edge c a r b o n a t e u n i t s t e n s

of f e e t t h i c k a r e

p o s t u l a t e d t o havebeendeposited

i n p r e s e n t day e a s t e r n

Lincoln and western ChavesCounty

during low s e a l e v e l s t a n d s .

Normal marine conditions are inferred to .have been present

t h e l o w (fondo)sideofthe
cl.rc!:l.athmshould
t h e undaform-edge.

on

undaform-edge b a r r i e r s p where water

haw? heen good at l a a s t i n t h e v i c i n i % of

The "abrupt"appearanceofnormaltnzrine

fauaa in t h e s t u d y m e a

folloywing major t r a n s g r e s s i o n is com-

p a t i b l e with t h e i n f e r r e d p r e s e n c e
i n t h e f o n d oe n v i r m m e n te a s t

of normalmarineconditions

o f t h e u.ndaform-edge.

And t h e

absence of evajjori-tes in. the lower 1,000 f e e t o f thc San An&es

Formation i n v e s t e r n ChavesCounty(Amerada

ST 1-SR "A",

figure

I) proves thxb c i r c u l z t i o n xy9s s x f f i c i e n t t o p r e v e r l t t h e p r e c i p i t t h e fondo environment,

ation of strakified evapmites in

The lower S a lindresPormaticr!

i n w e s t e r n Lincoln, e a s t e r n

S o c o r r o , and northernOteroCounties

is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the

presence o f s t r a t i f i e d e v a p o r i t e s t e n s
Rirlconada Canyon sectionofHarbour,
report).

of feet thick .(e.g.

1970; f i g u r e 5 of t h i s

Such s t r a t i f i e d e v a p o r i t e s are b e l i e v e d t o form e i t h e r

by t h o sedimentation of e v a p o r i t e m i n e r a l s i.n r e s t r i c t e d s u b t i d a l
environments o r d i a g e n e t i c a l l y u n d - e r n e a t h e v a p o r i t i c t i d a l
( e . g .c o a s t a l

sabkhasa Lucia, 1972).

evaporitesoccurdirectlywest
andhence

flats

TheselowerSanAndres

of t h e F e d e r n a l p o s i t i v e e l e m e n t

a r e i n t e r p r e t e d t o haveformed

i n a fondoenvironment

t h e r eb e c a u s eo ft h ee v i d e n c ep r e s e n t e de a r l i e rt h a tt h eF e d e r n a l
a c t e d as a b u r i e d ,y e tr e l a t i v e l yp o s i t i v ef e a t u r e .

This con-

119
e l u s i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a fondoenvironment e a s t o f t h e P e d e r n a l a n d w i t h the following observation.
Deposition a t Fox Cave, t h e m o s t westward s e c t i o n i n t h e study
area, appears t o havebeendeeperand

t h e o t h e r seet3.0nspbecause

les's emergentthan

in

Fox Cave is t h e o n l y s e c t i o n , e x c e p t

f o r \'lalker Ranchl t o l a c k m y evidence o f supra.tida1 o r i n t e r t i d a l c q b o n a t e depposi'tion.

least an initial

deepening of the lower

a c r o s sL i n c o l n County.
orites can not

T h i s o b s e r v a t i o ns u g g e s t s

at

S m Andres seas westward

Howevert a sabkha o r i g i n for theseevap-

be completely discounted on the available evid-

Consequuen-kly, bo'th p o s s i b l eo r i g i n sw ei n d i c a t e di n

ence.

flguxre 2Sb.
-?-Sea

Level Sta&
A f t e rm a j o rm a r i n et r a n s g r e s s i o n sc e n t r a lL i n c o l n

County

was covered by encv.gh water. f o r normal marine conditions to

predamfn.ate i n t h e s t u d ya r e a .

The t h i nt r a n s g r e s s i v ep o r t i o n s

o:f "transgreesjve-regressive" c y c l e s 7 , 13

d u r i n gt h e s e

and 15 were d.eposited

h i g h sea l e v e ls t a n d s .B a t h y m e t r i c a l l yh i g h e r

a r e a s were -the first t o s h o a l as t i e r e s u l t of subsequentmarine

(eustatic)

Or

sedimentaryregression.

postulated presellt in eastern Lincoln

The undaform-edge b z m i e r s
and western ChavesCount-

i e s d u r i n g low sea l e v e l s t a n d s may havebeen

major t r a n s g r e s s i o n s , r e s u l t i n g

+ondoCom
'

SOCOrrO

i n both t h e former undaqorrn and

being below wave base.

w i t h the stratified evaporites in

drowned by t h e s e

The carbonates
interbedded

western'%incoJ.n and e a s t e r n

Cov.nties may havebeendepositedduring

x e s u i t o f t h e d i l u t i o n o f hypersaline brines

t h i s time as a

by t h e t r a n s g r e s s i o n .

120

Intermediate Sea Level Stands

In. c e n t r a l L i n c o l n County, following minor traasgressions

tha.tleadtointermediatesealevelstands,
watercircula,tion

VIEIS

it appears t h a t

sv.fficient to "freshen" restricted envir-

onments,butnot

enough % o r normal marine conditions to

be anyal I
thi.ng b u t local.. The trzinsgressiveportionsof,,"transgressi~?er e g r e s s i v e " cycles, except I , 7 , l 3 $ and 15, were probably
d e p o s i t e dd u r i n gi n t e r m e d i a t es e al e v e ls t a n d s ,

The o o l i t i c

r o c k u n i t s a t Eluewater and Canning Ranch may be reasonably

i n t e r p r e t e d t o haveformed

by the migration westward

of the

uncia.form-edge environment, rvhich' was p r e s e n t t o t h e e a s t d u r i n g

low sea l e v e l s t a n d s ,

i n response 'to comparatively

minor r e l -

a t i v e r i s e s i n sea. l e v e l .

In weste:rnLincolnandeas-ternSocorroCounties,the

hyper-

s a l i n e b r i n e s formed d u r i n g l o w sea l e v e l s t a n d s may havebeen

d i l u t e d by t h e s e c o m p a r a i i v e l y m i n o r r i s e s i n r e l a t i v e s e a

level, resulting in either

dependinguponthe
conditions.

carbona-ke or e v a p o r i t e d e p o s i t s

amount o f r e l a t i v e

Howevers noevidmce

sea l e v e l r i s e and l o c a l

is available t os u p p o r t

hypothesis or t o r u l e o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

this

t h a t r e l a t i v e sea

level fluctuations in western

o r southern New illexieowere

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h ee v a p o r i t e

andcarbonatedepositspresent

i n western. Lincoln and eastern Socorro Counties.

e
121

sAmsTem

DmesmoIuL

r m m

R e ~ i o n 1 l , 4 s ~ e c t so f Glorieta_SandstoneDenositicrn
A d e p o s i t i o n a l model t o e x p l a i n t h e g e n e s i s

of

the GLorieta

must be compatible w i t h t h e a e r i a l

Sandstone i n t h e s t u d y a r e a

f i i s t r i b u t i o n ,c r o s s - b e do r i e n t a t i o n s ,p o s s i b l es h o r e l i n e s ,
paleovlind d i r e c t i o n s , and o t h e r a v a i l a b l e

data o n t h e G l o f i e t a

Sandstoneoutside

26 i l l u s t r a t e s much

-the studyarea,Figure

o f what is IcnovJn o f t h e G l o r i e t a

Sandstone i n Mew I~Iexico. The

southern limit o f t h e G l o r i e t a S a n d s t o n e i n c e n t r a l

i s placed a t the approximate location

Bo&

a t which t h e G l o r i e t a

as thelowerSanBndresFormatian

begins t o tonguesouthward
becomesdominantyiy

carbonate (e.g;. between the

Dome s e c t i o n si nt h es t u d ya r e a ) .

excluding i-ts tongues,

Walker Ranch and

The GlorietaSandstone,

ha.s a major east-west

nlajornortheast-southwest

New Kexico

componentand

component (bTeissner, 3.972)

The

northeast-southwest compone:?t i n c l u d e s t h e G l o r i e t a S a n d s t o n e
inthenorthern

1/3 o f I h c o l n County.

southward t o form thelowerpmiddle,

o f t h i s study during periods

This component extended

and upperGlorietatongues

of increased terrigenous sand

influx
Tanner ( 1 9 6 3 ) p o s t u l a t e d a northeast-southwest-trending
Permianshorelineinnorthern

New Mexico ( f i g u r e 26) on t h e

basis o f t h e many assumed s h o r e l i n e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r e s e n t ;

r i p p l e marks, cross-bedding, b a r s and channels, fossils, beach

r o c k ,f a c i e sc h a n g e s ,

gypsum, supposed h a l i t e p r i n t s ,

c r a c k s , t r a i l s , p e b b l es i z e s ,

mud

a,nd rockthicknesses.Tanner

,e

NEW

"
"

EAST

MEXICO

WEST COMPOMWT
OF
GLOXlETA SAWSTONE

?PROXIMATE POSITION
ERMIhN EQUATOR (AFTER
UNC3RN AND OPDYUE, ,960)
MILES
EipiEBI

2040bD

1.23
does not consider

the possZble migratiiun o f t h i s s h o r e l i n e i n

time i n r e s p o n s e %o r e l a t i v e s e a l e v e l f l u c t u a t i o n s ,
such m i g r a t i o n s were probably not infrequent

timescale.

on a g e o l o g i c a l

He i n t e r p r e t e dt h eG l o r i e t aS a n d s t o n es o u t h e a s t

of t h i s s h o r e l i n e ( b u t n o r t h o f t h e a r e a

a.n

However,

o f f s h o r e sa.nd.

of t h i s s t i l d y ) t o be

The G l o r i e t aS a n d s t m e s-t;udi.ed by tar me^

has many cross-bedsp most of which are orientecldominantly

t h e southwast.

cluring PerInian %ime vros probab1.y

The paleowind diractian

from t h en o r t h e a s t( f i g u r e

to

261,

This d i y e c t i o n i s i n f e r r e d on

t h e basis o f t h e p o s i t i o n of the equatar during Permian time

as i n f e r r e d from paleomagnetic data ( a f t e r Runcorn a n d Opdyks,

1 9 6 0 , in Keissner, 1972) and Id.e&IAzed erind c i r c u l s t i o n pa.ths

on m earth w i t h o u t major land-masses(LeetandJudson,l971).

The inferced paleowind. direction

i s su5-paya.llel t o t h e n o r t h e a s t -

southwest component of t h e G.lorie-taSanitstoneand

t o t h e Perm-

ian s h o r e l i n e o f Tanner (1963). And it is o r i e n t e d i n t h e i n f e r -

r e d mean p a l s o c u r r e n t d i r e c t i o n o f the Glorieta Sandstone

determined from c r o s s - b e d o r i e n t a t i o n s i n
s t u d y and n o r t h o f The s t u d ya r e a( f i g u r e

as

the a r e a o f this
25)

ships s u g g e s t t h a t pabeowinds vlere thedominant

These r e l a t i o n -

means of t r a n s -

p o r t i n g L e r r i g e n o u s sand. i n t o n o r t h e r n and c e n t r a l Ifew Mexico.

IfoYieverp l i t t l e evidence o f a e o l i a n d e p o s i t i n n was noted i n t h e
Glorieta Sandstone in the study

=-ea or has been reported

in

the published literature.

Fewer c r i t e r i a a r e a v a i l a b l e

i n the associated carbonate

in the G.loPiela Sandstonethan

member o f the San Antircs Formation

124

f o rd e t a i l e d

environmen'tal. i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,I n d e e d ,t h e

dir-

e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d c a r b o ? l a t e rocks provide 'the m o s t powerful

o f 'the

t o o l s for inferring the environments of deposition

G l o r i e t at e r r i g e n o u ss a n d s .

is

G l o r i e t ag e n e s i s
represents the

The f o l l o w i n gd i s c u s s i o no f

t h e y e f o r e ,n e c e s s a - i l yh y p o t h e t i c a l . .

It

author s attempt t o p r o v i d e t h e , mostcomprehen-

s i v e er.-pl-anation of all evidencefromczrbon3t.e

as we31 as

terrigenous rock units.

MarineOri.4.n

o f t h e Glorieta Sandstone

Terrigenous sand i n f l u x i s p o p u l a r l y r e l a t e d t o

l e v e l stands (Ball e 2
have postulated

,ag
19711,

low s e a

and S i l v e r and Todd (1969)

an a e o l i a n dune a r i g i n Tor m<my o f thePermian

sandstones of s o u t h e a s t e r n New Mexico,Wind-driven

processes

f o r t h e reasons enumerated in t h e p r e c e e d i n g s e c t i o n ,

been i m p o r t a n t i n t r a n s p o r f i n g

t h e terrigenous sand

GlorietaSandstoneintonortb.ern

xmst kdve
o f the

and c e n t r a l New Rexico.

e v e r , a t l e a s t much o f t h e G L o r i e t a i n

the study 8rez appears

t o havebeendepositedand/orreworked

by marine processes for

severalreasons.Theseinclude

t h e presenceof:

marine burrows i n t h e u p p e r G l o r i e t a t o n g u e

i n t h e lower Glorietatongue
m w i n e( s u b t i d a l )c a r b o n a t e s ,
wavy beddedandmassive

atPortStanton,

2) sh&llow

a t Bluewater and
2 ) interbedded

3 ) ccmparativelypoorlysorted

rock u n i t s l which are imcompatible

w i t h the e x c e l l e n t s o r t i n g e x p e c t e d

of a e o l i a n p r o c e s s e s ,

4) interpretedmarinechanneldepositsinthemiddleGLorieta
ton-gpe a t Sunset,
!

How-

and

..

125

Ctirbor.ate r o c ku n i t su n d e r l y i n g

t h e lowermi.ddle,and

uppej: G l o r i e t a t o n g u e s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a

SUggSest t h z t a-i; l e a s t

much o f t h e t a r r i g e n o u s sznd i n the Glorieta Sandstone

vias

n o t o r i g i n a l l y d e p o s i t e d . i n aeol-itii d:unes and 'Glen l a t e r

I
_

reworked by rn-arine p r o c e s s e s ,

F i r s t , sub%idal.carbonate depos-

itionalfaciesunderliethethreeGlorie'te

tongxs i.n almost

el1 sections, and n o evfdence o f s u b a e r i a l s m d scour i s

Seccrnd, a t h i n ( 2 f e e t ) , very

p r e s e n ti nt h e s es u b t i d a lf a c i e s ,

silty sandstone a t the base of t h e upper Glorieta tongue

at

Canning Ranch d i r e c t l y o v e r l i e s a n e v a p o r i t i c t i d a l . f l a t
f a c i e s , whichshows

widerice o f s u b a e r i a l e x p o s w e ( s h r i n k a g e

c r a c k s and. dolomitepore-fillingzement)
poor s o r x i n g of this 'thin sandszone
aeolian processes, which should have

t e r r i g e n o u sg r a i n s ,

The compara'bi-vcly

io Incompatible. with
winnowed o u t t h e f i n e

Hence, evidencegathered.

i n -this stucur

Suggests t h a t marine d e p o s i t i o n r a t h e r t2w.n aeolian d.eposition

marine

and./or 'the/,reworking o f aeolian dunes was respon.,"

p ~ a l ef o r t h e
g e n e s i s o f at l e a s t much o f t h e G l o r i e t a t o n g u e s
area.Zvidencesuggestingthemarineorigin
Sandstone a t WalkerRanch,

in the study

of t h eG l o r i e t a

where terrFgen.ous sand deposition

vas predominant dwing early

San Rndrestime,

i s presented i n

thefollowingsection.

-Depositional
Dome

Model f o r t h e Glorieta Sandstone N o r t h of Boqle

A detailed depositional

model f o r the Glorieta, Sandstone

n o r t h o f t h e Bogle Dome s e c t i o n is n o t p o s s i b l e

one ou-tcrop(WalkerRanch)

becmse only

was examined during t h i s study.

226

However, a g e n e r a l model is proposed, which is compatible

with ma.ny of -tine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the Glorieta Sandstonc 50th
i n s i d e and o u t s i d e o f t h e s t u d y a r e a .
Analysis of c a r b o n a t e d e p o s i t i o n a l f a c i e s i n
SanAndresFormationsuggests

'the lolrrer

that about seventeen relative sea

Level fluctuations apparently influenced deposition in la%e

Yesoand

e a r l y Sari Andres seasIEvidence

and c a r b o n a t e d e p o s i t i o n a l f a c i e s i n t h e

from tracefossils
s%ud;ra r e a s u g g e s t s

t h a t e a r l y San Andses s e a s wclere r e l a t i v e l y s h a l l o w and that

most d e p o s i t i o n . w a ss u b t i d a l .

The combination o f i n f e r r e d

r e l a t i v e sea, l e v e l f l u c t u a t i o n s and shallowmarinedepths

dtlring e w l y San Andres time suggksts that the cyclic repet.-

ition oflower-lower

and upper-lower f3.ovr regime dPposits

in

t h e G l o r i e t a a t Walker Ranch a r e r e l a t e d t o r e p e a t e i l s e a l e v e l
SluctuaLions,

T h i s a p p a r e n tc o n t r o lo ft e r r i g e n o u s

sa.nd

d e p o s i t i o n by r e p e a t e d s e a l e v e l f l u c t u a t i o n s s u g g e s t s t h a t

at

l e a s t much of 'kine G l o r i e t a a t Walker Ranch was n o t o r i g i n a l l y

d e p o s i t e d as aeoliandunes,

This conclusion i s compatible w i t h

t h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t almost half

o f t h e volume o f sandstone a t

Walker Ranch c o n s i s t s o:F comparatively poorly sorted

bedded o r massiverock

tmits ( P l a t e I ) . Thesecomparatively

poorly sorted rock units are incompatible with

o r i g i n f o r t h ef o l l o w i n gr e a s o n .

andmarine

an a e o l i a n

The absence of almost a l l

evidence of burrowingandthepresence
that
s t r u c t u r e s suggest,,post-depositional
aeoliansands

wavy

o f abundantsedimentary

mixing o f w e l l s o r t e d

s i l t s o r s i l t y s a n d s by burrowing

127

organisms c o u l d n o t havebeen

an important process in forming

t h e comparatively p o o r l y s o r t e d sands%ones st Walker Rznch,

Tanner' s (1-963)

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h eC l o r i e t aS a n d s t o n e

n o r t h o f t h e stud.g a r e a a.s an offshore sandstone

is eompat-

i b l e wiSh t h e i n t e r p r e - b a t i o n that t h e G l o r i e t a i n t h e s t u d y

a r e a i s predominately a ma.rine sandstonewhich

was probably

o c c a s i o n s l l y b u i l t u p above sea I.eve2 a6 beaches and c o a s t a l

dunes e

In su.rfiinaJ?yy t r a n s p o r t a t i o n

Gf

%errigenous sand i n t o t h e

sLudy a r e a was apparently con'crolled by wind-induced. m a r i n e

c u r r e n t s and p o s s i b l y some a e o l i a n t r a n s p o r t of sand grains i n t o

thenlarine

elzuirofiment.

Deposition of t h e G l o r i e t a a t

Walker

Ranch, excep-t f o r same p o s s i b l e coastal d.unest appears t o

havebeen

e n t i r e l y s u b - l i t t o r a l 'to L i t t o r a l .

128
Depositional Model f o r t h e G l o r i e t a SandstoneSouthof

Walker

Ranch
Introduction
The GI-orieta Sandstone south
chief3.y OP thelower,middle,

of Walker Ranch c o n s i s t s

andupper

this study.Thesetonguesappearto

G l o r i e t a tonguesof

be sov.thernextensions

o f -the northeast-southwsst component o f the Glorieta Sandstone

i n New Mexico (fiwre 26) a

ThB

i n f l u x of terrigenoussand

s o u t h o f l'lalkw Ranch i s c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d v i t h

low s e a l e v e l

A r e a s o n a b l ee x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s

stmnr?s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a .

associe-tion i s th3.C s o u r c e a r e a s t o t h e n o r t h were more exposed

i n more s m d

fol-lcJiYing e u s t a t i c s e a l e v e l d r o p s , r e s u l t i n g

det.r%-i;usb e i n g m a i l a b l e for t r a n s p o r t a t i o n southwrr-d i n t o t h e

study area.

I t is i n f e r r e d t h . a t d i s p e r s a l o f t h i s sandwithin

t h e shddy m e a was l a r g e l y by marineprocesses,

disqe:rsal must have been important
The lower,middle,

where2.s a e o l i a n

t o tkie nox-tIi*

and upperGlnrietatonguesapechaFact-

e r i e e d by a s i g n i f i c a . n t t h i c k e r d n g e a s t w a r d ( f i g u r e
t!?e i n f e r r e d undaform-edge.

A model termedthe

8 ) towards

~ l o o l j . t sb a r r i e r "

model i n t h i s r e p o r t is compa-tj.ble with a l l of the major. observ a t i o n s made d u r i n g t h i s study.

I n t h i s model, t h e i n f l u x of

terr%genous sand f r o m t h e n o r t h - n o r t h e a s t r e s u l t e d
southwaxd along the inside

of pre-existing oolitic barriers.

The wind-induced current regimes interpreted

for sand transpOl?tand

the

O O l i ~ i Cb a r r i e r s ,

i n transport

to be r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r sand deposition were s t r o n g e s t neap

and hencesandstone'thicknessdecreases

westvra.rd.

Eastwardthesand

u a l l yp i n c h

ozlt

body would be expectedtoevent-

a g s i n s t 'the o o l i t i c b a r r i e r s ,

thickening of sandstone

The c o n s i s t e n t

tongues eastward i n 'the s t u d y a r e a

r e q u i r e s t h a t t h i s pinching o u t take p l a c e e a s t o f the strt?y

a r e a where t h e strata a r e n o t

exposed.

The " o o l i t e b a r r i e r "

model is compatible w i t h thebui1din.g up of t e r r i g e n o u s s a n d

i n t o t o p o g r a p h i c a l l y h i g h e r de;3~si"Gspprobably by wind-incldced
wave and c u r r e n ta c t i o n ,

The lower and upperGlorieta

a t SunsetandBluewaterappear

t o have a c t e d

highs f o l l o w i n g t h e i r d e p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e

t h e west,

as topographic

t o thesectionsto

T h i s is suggested by t h e subsequentctirbmatedepos-

i t s , v1hich.m-e g e n e r a l l y s h o a l e r a t S u n s e t
'*kicksv'whichsuggest

t h i s by t h e i r shapes below andabove

loweran8upperGlorietatongues
observation.

on P l a t e s IX and X.

model is alsocompatible

"oolitebzrrier"

and Sluewater, and

l i n e s based on t r a n s g r e s s i v e

by t h e s e r i e s o f approximatetime

the

The

w i t h t h ef c l l o w i n g

A'oundant s p h e r o i d a l I well rounded oolites

quartz sand nuclei

with

are present in the dolomitic rock unit

f e e t t h i c k ) d i r e c t l y above t h e lowerGlorietatongue
water.

'tongues

(2

a t %.ut?-

T h i s t r a n s i t i o n f r o m q u a r t z sand t o c a r b o n a t eo o l i t e s

may be explained by the migration

of the o o l i t i c b a r r i e r s

i n f e r r e d t o be p r e s e n t e a s t of the study area during

low sea

l e v e l s t a n d s westward i n response t o a rise i n e u s t a t i c s e a

level. ' t h a t a l s o r e s u l t e d in thedrowning
s o u r c ea r e a s .

The " o o l i t eb a x r i e r "

of t e r r i g e n o u s sand

model i s v e r y s i n i l a r t o

t h e One proposed by Ball & &.(1971) f o r the d e p o s i t i o n of t h e

130

Shattuc!r Sandstone Kember o f the Queen Formation

i n the

GuadalupeNnuiztai.ns.
A mod.el, whiizich may be termed the quartz

sand barrier

model, was considered as wl a l t e r n z t e way t o e x p l a i n t h e t h i c k ening ~f t h e l o v e r , mid.dle, and upperGlorieta,tbngues

study area.

I n thi,s Eodel,theinflux

of q u a r t z san6 from t h e

n o r t h - n o r t h e a s t is p o s t u l a t e d t o haveoverwhelmed
duction at the

in the

o o l i t e pro-

undaform-edge so t h a t quaftzq smd b a r r i e r s would

h a v er e p l a c e dt h eo o l i t i co n e s .

The model i s based on t h e

o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t moving wa-ter r e a c t s i n -the same f a s h i o n t o a

given t o p o g r a p h i c s e t t i n g , r e g a r d l e s s
mentary p a r t i c l e s uponwhich

of t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s e d i -

1967), Hence,once

it a c t s ( B a l l ,

qua.ctz sancl axriiied a t ti16 md;form-edge,

it would be exposed

t o t h e same physica?. p;~:cs-;.s:;es that pro6u.ced o o l i t e b a r r i e r s

p r i o r t o seild i n f l u x ,

The q u a r t z sard b a r r i . w 2 m o d d i s a3.so

a b l e t o explaifi. man.y o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e lower, middle,

and upper Glorieen ,t.ongv.es.

However, this model is r e j e c t e d

i n t h i s report because it d o e s n o t t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e
e f f e c t s of t h e 2 r e - c x i s t i n g o o l i t i c
which a r e i n f w r t i d t o

umdaform-edge b a r r i e r s ,

hzve controlled both carbonate

and t e r r i g e n -

ous sand. d e p o s i t i o n i n e a r l y San Andres s e a s ,

Lower Glorieta. Tongue
The lower Glorieta tongue
t h ep r e s s n c e

of siltysandstones,

except f o r l o c z l a r e a s
low-ener,gy
tongue.

i s g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by
which are s t r u c t v . r e l e s s

of wavy bedding.These

features suggest

l a g o o n a l d e p o s i t i o n f o r most o f t h e lower G l o r i e t a
The subaqueous o r i g i n of thelower

G1.oriet.a tongue is

131
also i n d i c a t e d by the presence

o f shallowmarineburrows

P o r t S t a n t o n and l o c a l i z e d s o f t s e d i m e n t d e f o r m a t i o n

ab

ai, Sunset.

The lower Clorieta. tongrre a t Sunset and Bluewater is more

t h a n twice as. t h i c k as t o thenorthwestandwest,

t h e 3.omer p a r t of t h e lower Glorieta tongue

and massive, but the

upper

sca.ecross-stratification

>uti s very w e l l

A t Sun.set,

is t y p i c a l l y s i l t y
s o r t e d a.nd medium

i s o v e r l a i n by even,plalnar

slracif-

The sedflnen-%arys t r u c t u m s and s o r t i n g indica%e a

ication.

sonsistent increase in flow

This energyv&?iation

Fretation,

reginle energy during deposition.

is compatible w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t e r -

The lower p a r t o f t h e lowerGLorietatonguerepre-

se:?tslow-energy

lagoonal deposi-tlon

behind i n h e r i t e d o o l i t i c

barriers, whereas t h e upper p:rt may be explained a8 follows.

Depositional processes characterized

fclow regime energies

by cornppzratively higher

were proba.bIly domina.n% n e a r t i e o o l i t i c

b a r r i e r s i n f e r r e d to h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t t o t h e e a s t a w h e r e a s
c o n p r a t i v c l g lower flow regime energies were probably dominant
fartheramy

from t h e b a r r i e r s .

A e u s t a t i c sea l . e v e l r i s e ,

which would have ended terrigenous sand

inf1v.x i n t o L i n c o l n

County south o f Yialker Ramh by p a r t i a l l y drowning source

a r e a s p might have caused the ooLiLic barriers o f themdaformedgeand

t h e a s s o c i a t e d higher f l o w regime energies near

t o migratewestward.

them

T h i s migration would have r e s u l t e d i n t h e

deposition of relatively higher flow

regime deposits over

atiVelY lOiVer f l o w regimedeposits.

Such a migration would

also explain the transition

rei-

from quartz sm-d t o c a r b o n a t e ool-

i t e s a t Bluewater, as d i s c u s s e d i n t h e p r e c e e d i n g s e c t i o n ,

13 2
The lowerGlorietatonguedoesnotextendwestward
Cave.

t o Pox

T h i s suggests a western limit of s a n di n f l u x

beyond

which t i e r e were n o t enough q u s t z g r a i n s a-?riving t o overwhelm

carbonateproduction.
?diddle Glorieta Tongwe
The middle Glorieta
and poorly.exposed.

%ongx?ei s g e n e r a l l y t h i n ( 3 t o 1.2 f e e t )

The thj.ckest, bestexposed,andenviron-

I n regions

mentally most d i a g n o s t i c u n i t i s p r e s e n t a t S u n s e t ,
where t i d a l or wave a-etion is v e r y i n t e n s e ,

f l a t s may beformed,

t i d a l sand bars o r

w i t h individual. bars s e p a r a t e d by a n e t -

work o f l a r g e t i d a l channels ( E L a L t e t a l , 1972).

Glorieta tongue

The middle

a t Sunset can bes% be i n t e r p r e t e d as having been

a channel, s a t h e r than as a bar w i t h topo-

fieposited in such

g r a p h i cr e l i e fb e c a u s e :

1) a scouredlowercontact

w i t h about

one f o o t o f r e l i e f is p r e s e n t p 2) overlying carbonate deposit-

on a topographic high,

i o n a l f a c i e s do n o t s u g g e s t d e p o s i t i o n

and 3) the middle Glorieta tongue rests direct3-y

marinecarbonatedeposits,vhereas

on normal

at c
1
;
io t h e r s e c t i o n s ,

r e s % s on more r e s t r i c t e d cayboilate f a c i e s , s u g g e s t i n g
r e s t r i c t e dc a r b o n a t ef a c i e s
interpretedchannel

were n o t n o t e d i n

acroSS t h e Outcrop.Hencesvery
possibledimensions

has been c u t o u t .

19).

OP

The s i d e s of t h e

L i t t l e i s known ab0u-l: -the

of t h i s channel.There

is a bipolar

(figure 17B): northward

a s t r o n g s o u t h e r n component is p r e s e n t ( f i g u r e

B i p o l a rp a l e o c u r r e n to r i e n t a t i o n s

eristic

that the

a 250 f e e t t l r a v e r s e

d i s t r i b u t i o n of cross-bedorientations
is dominant,but

it

channel deposition inTluenced

are a common c h a r a c t -

by t i d a l c u r r e n t s

0.
133
(Elatt &

&>

1.972)

T h i s o b s e r v a t i o ns u g g e s t st h ei n f l u e n c e

of t i d a . 1 c u r r e n t s d u r i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n

o f t h e middle Glor-

i e t a tongue a t Sunset.

Upper G l o r i e t a Tongue
The upper Glorieta tongue
study

apes

t h es t u d y

as a Lninblanket

zrea ( f i g u r e 8 )

s e t andBluevmter

i s present throughout the

ac~xs8

TChs upper Glorietz tongve a t Sun-

is about tvri.ee as t h i c k (ab0u.k 50 f e e t ) as

a t Hondo, F o r t S t a l t o n ,

Fox Cave, andCanningRanch.

Lo be"shoaZer'g

ent carbonate deposits tended

s e c t i o n s ,s u g g e s t i n gt h ei n f l u e n c e
relief.

I t thickenseastward

sand,

Subseqtz-

a t t h e s e two

of i n h e r i t e d d e p o s i t i o n a l

T h i s r e l i e f is alsosuggested

by %he shapesofthe

approxi!?aI;e tirce l i n e s on P l a t e s X X and X.

a t S u n s e t p Hondop P o r t S t a n t o n ,

The upperGZorietatongue

and Bog3.e Dome r e f l e c t s a d e c r e a s e i n f l o w regime upvmrds i n

t h eu n i t s .

h . t BluewatesandCanningRanch,an

i n flow regime i s apparent.

i t s towards the bottom
water and Canning

upward i n c r e a s e

The lower-lower f l o w regime depos-

of the upper Glorieta tongue

a t Slue-

Ranch probably represent lower energy lagoonal

d e p o s i t i o nb e h i n dp r e - e x i s t i n go o l i t i cb a r r i e r s .
G l o r i e t a tongue a t t h e o t h e r s e c t i o n s
f l o w regime deposits

and abovethelower-lower

a % Bluewa%er andCanning

e n t i r e l y of upper-lowerandlower-upper
Hence, r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e e v i d e n c e

The upper
Ranch c o n s i s t s

flow regime deposits.

of lower energylagoonal

d e p o s i t i o n is p r e s e n t i n t h e u p p e r G l o r i e t a t o n g u e ,
i t i o n of the Bluewater and Gaming

The pos-

Ranch s e c t i o n s a l o n g t h e

e
nort~lmest-southeast segment of the inferred

134

undaform-edge

t r e n d (figure 2 3 ) coupled. vdth a paLeowind d i r e c t i o n dominantlytowards

ation.

t h e southwestsuggeststhef011O~inginterpret-

The Bluewater a.nd Canni.ng Ranch s e c t i o n s may have been

yco-lectedfromwind-induced

waves and c u r r e n t s by t h e o o l i t i c

ba.rriers o f t h e und.aform-edge r e s u l t i n g i n lower energy lago o n a ld e p o s i t i o ni n i t i a l ] - y ,w h e r e z st h eo t h e rs e c t i a n sa p p e m

t o have been unprotected from the effects

o f wind-inducedwaves

a n d cu.rrenGsp r e s u l t i n g i n comnpa.ra2ively higher energy deposits.

The u.pper parts o f the upper Glorieta tongue

a t Blu.ewater arid

Callning Ranch 8.1~0.

c o n s i s t of comparatively higher energy
depositssuggesting t h a t t h e p r e - e x i s t i n g o o l i t i c b a r r i e r s
l o n g e r c f f e c t i v a l y S13cBed thc- formationofwind-inducedwaves
and @urr;-,n-i;s,

no

"3 5
CONCLI.YSIONS

The fo3J.owing conclusions are based

Of

on cietailed study

t h e lower S a l Andres Formation of central

New Mexico.

1) S u b t i d a l c a r b o n a t ed e p o s i t i o n a lf a c i e s

make up a b o u t 95%

of -the carbonate rnernber, whereas s u p r a t i d a l and i n t e r t i d a l

T t ~ c i e sonly nb0u.t 555%
2)

hndres

E v a p o r i t e m i n e r a l s were n o t n o t e d i n t h e l a v e r S a n

Formation i n t h e s t u d y arear although

they a m p."asent iri t h e

Howevers e v a p o r i t e rnolds in -(;he lower

upper Yeso Formation.

San Andres Formation indicate the former presence

was observed. c f an emergent t i d a l

e v a p o r i t e s .L i t t l ee v i d e n c e
f i a t o r sabkha origin for

o f d:iage;..,e-i;ic

most of the former evaporites.

3 ) Th;? car.kcnai;edepositional.facies

o f this r e p v r t p;-ni.L

d e t a i l e dc o r r e l a t i o nt h r o u g h o u tt h es t u d y

mea.

Th? n o m &

mJri.ne f a e i e z is comonly very p e r s i s t e n i ; w d . i s khus yrobabyy

v.sefuJ. f o r c o r r a l a t i o n of 'the lower SanBndresPornintion

cu-ts5.d.e

t h es t u d ya r e 2 ,
4.)

Seventeen "transgressir~e-regressi~re"
zycles 'were no'ted In

thelower

San Andres Po-mation.

only t h r e e

cycier; a r e

demonstrably d w t o e'bsolute sea l e v e lf l u c t u a t i o n s .

" r e g r e s s i v e "d e y o s i t s

of

thesecyclesarerelatively

%h.icker than t h e "~1.a)3s,~essi.ve1'd e p o s i t s .

The
much

The c y c l e sp e r m i t

d e t e i l e d c o r r e l a t i o n 'I;hroughout t h e s t u d y a'rea independently

09 t h e t h e c o n t i m i ' c y

facies.

o f incfividualcarbonatedepositional

blost of t h e s ec y c l e s

SanAndresoutside

s h o u l d he p r e s e n t i n t h e 1.ower

%he s k ~ d ym e a .

The GlorietaSandstone

- h e ca.rbonate member

a t Vlalker Ranch has b e e n c o r r e l a t e d t o

by t h e u s e

136

o f -these c y c l e s .

5 ) S e d i m e n t a t i o ni n the lowerSanhndresFormation
study area appears

' t o havebeen

Nos't: o f thelower

c o n t r o l l e d by t h e P e d e r n a l
as a. b u r i e d , y e t p o s i t i v e f e a t u r e ,

positive elementt;, which acted

6)

inthe

SanAndres

i nt h es t u d y

area ~ 3 . sappzc-

e n t l y deposited on an undaforn behind undaform-ed.ge b a r r i e r s

t h a t were p r e s e n t e a s t of t h e s t u d y a r e a i n easteernLincoln

andwestem"ChavesCounkics

7)

during low sea l e v e l stafi.ds.

The m a j o r i t y of thelvwer

San Andrescarbonate

memberwas

d e p o s i t e d i n low energy t i d a l f l a t and shallow lagoon81 environmentsbehind

8j

-the o o l i t i c b a r r i e r s o f theundaforn-edge.

The G l o r i e t a Sandstonedoes

n o t have any convincing' aeolian

o r de:L:i;aic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h i n t h e
must be i n f e r r e d l a r g e l y
i o n a lf a c i e s .

s'i;ucly area..

Its g e n e s i s

from theassociatedcarbonatedeposit-

A t least much o f the Glorieta i n t h e s t u d y a r e a

was probably deposited in relatively shallow marine environments.

9)

The t e r r i g e n o u ss a n d s

of thelower,middle,

zqd upper Glor-

i e t a tongues a p p e a r t o have been transyortedsouthwarda,cross

the s t u d y a r e a a l o n g t h e i n s i d e

of t h e undaforrn-edgeenvironment

o f pre-existing oolitic barriers

during low s e a l e v e l s t a n d s .

The t e r r i g e n o u s s a n d s i n n o r t h e r n L i n c o l n
been transpor-ked along the inside
riers.

of pre-existing oo].itic

However, no independentevidence

t h i s hypothesis,

County may a l s o h a v e
bar-

is a v a i l a b l e t o support

e
1Ki.

APPENDIX 11

INTii3?PREPATIOiV OF PLATE3 I TO VI11

INPRODUCTlOM

I to

F i g w e 28 i l l , u s t r a t e s t h e h e a d i n g u s e d i n P l a t e s
The s e d i m e n t a r yp a r a r w t e r sl i s t e d

VIII.

discussed i n t h e t e x t

of

4 W s

report.

i n theheading

Mas% sedimentaxypar-

am.eters are described graphi.cal1.y i n two general.

presence o r absence ( b,es

cz~lci g

are

of figure 28)

ways^

1)

and 2) r e l a t i v e

abundance or degree of development ( ? - . e , wel-1-developed. v e r s u s

obscure: c , d , f , and h of f i g u r e 28).

The i n d i c a t i o n o f

p x w x c e o r a.bsence is discussed fox. eachparameter n

i the

nextsection.
Ilela."cive abundance i c d e s c r i b e d q u a l i t a - t i w l y as r a r e ,
ra-e t o

CoIirnOil,

how theseterms

ard conv~;ont o abundant.

Figure 29 i l l u s t r a t e s

are r e p r e s e n t e d on P l a t e s I t o VIII

fauila.p

I44

1
m
DOLOMITE

CALO\LfnU$
SILTSTO~E.

L.

I --- I

L"---J

CHERT
NODULCS

R C W H CRC55jTRhTlFICATlON

3-47

Curray, J.R, 1956, The analysis of Lwo-dimensional or3.entation datat J o u r , Geology, v. 64, p. ll7-l.31.
Cnrlis, K.
1963,
hssociation
o f dolomite and anhydrite
in t h e Recent Sediment&ofthePersian
GuJX: Pl'ature,
V~
p. 679-660.

Qavies, G.R. and S,D. Luiudlz.m, 1973, Origin o f laminated and

gradedsediments, M.lrEcldls Devonian of western Canada:
Geol. SOC. America,Bull.,
v. 84, p. 3527-3546.

Dixon, G.H.s l96yp Northeastern New Mexico and Texas-Oklahoma

panhandles, .& PaLeotectonic Investigations of thePermian
System i nt h eU n i t e d
S t a t e s r U.S. Geol. Survey Prof.
Paper 515, p. 65-92,

Folk, X.L. and W.C. Ward, 195?( RzPazos River bar8 a stu6.y in
the significance of grain size pmwmeteers8 Jour, Sed.
Petrology, v. 27* p. 3-26.

Goddard, E.N., 9C .
a
&
C 2 l a - t Committee,
Council a

1970, Rock-colorchart:
Rock C o l o r
Geol, SOC. America-National Research

tHarbour, R.L:, 1970, The Hondo Sandstone Meabes o f t h e S a n

Andres L~mestoneof s o u t h - c e n t r a l New Mexicor U.S. Geol,
Survey P r o f . Paper 7 0 0 4 , p. Cl75-CL82.

3.53

Passcga, R I P 1957, Texture as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f clastic depoxitlono Am. k s s o c . PetroleumGeologists, Bull,, vli 41,
p. 1.952-1984,

P e t t i j o h n , P , J , , P,E, P o t t e r p and R e S i e v e r e 1973, Sand aninc!

Sandstone: Springer-Verlag, Hew York, 618~1,
PhLeger, F O B s ,3.969, A mod.ern e v a p o r i t e d e p o s i t i n Kexicor
Am. Assuc. PetroleumGeoLegists, Bull., v. 33, p. 824829
0

Plumley, V*J.
.& 1962, Energyindex f o r l i m e s t o n ei n t e r p r e t a t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,
H a l , W.E, (eJ,), Classifi c a t i o n o f Carbonate Rocksr Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists,
Nem, l e p. f35-lO7,

41

11

CR PTALGAL L A M I N A T E
A L L 5TKoMATOLITE3'
ONCOLllE3
P H Y L L O I D ALGAE

ORGANOSWlmEIClM
SlUUClVZEs AND

v,

..

A\-

m
PI

U I

C R F T A L G ALLA M I M A T E S
ALGAL S T R o M A T O L I T E S
ONMLITES
PHYLLOIDALGAE

ORGANOSWlmEUTM
STRU\NuRRE"E AND