Progradational Slope Architecture and Sediment Distribution in Outcrops of the Mixed Carbonate-Siliciclastic Bone Spring GEOSPHERE, V

Research Paper

GEOSPHERE Progradational slope architecture and sediment distribution in outcrops of the mixed carbonate-siliciclastic Bone Spring GEOSPHERE, v. 17, no. 4 Formation, Permian Basin, west Texas https://doi.org/10.1130/GES02355.1 Wylie Walker, Zane R. Jobe, J.F. Sarg, and Lesli Wood 19 figures; 1 table; 1 set of supplemental files Geology and Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1600 Illinois St., Golden, Colorado 80401, USA

CORRESPONDENCE: [email protected] ABSTRACT scales and the prevalence of mass wasting acted on progradational siliciclastic margins (Mitchum CITATION: Walker, W., Jobe, Z.R., Sarg, J.F., and Wood, L., 2021, Progradational slope architecture and as primary controls on the stacking patterns of et al., 1977; Vail, 1987; Bull et al., 2009; Kertznus sediment distribution in outcrops of the mixed carbon- Sediment transport and distribution are the terrigenous and carbonate lithologies of the Bone and Kneller, 2009; Sylvester et al., 2012; Salazar ate-siliciclastic Bone Spring Formation, Permian Ba- keys to understanding slope-building processes Spring Formation, not only on the shelf margin and et al., 2015; Stevenson et al., 2015; Prather et al., sin, west Texas: Geosphere, v. 17, no. 4, p. 1268–1293, https://doi.org /10.1130 /GES02355.1 . in mixed carbonate-siliciclastic sediment routing upper slope, but also in the distal, basinal deposits 2017) or steep, reef-rimmed carbonate margins systems. The Permian Bone Spring Formation, of the Delaware Basin. (Bosellini, 1984; Katz et al., 2010; Harman, 2011; Science Editor: David E. Fastovsky Delaware Basin, west Texas, is such a mixed Mulder et al., 2012; Jo et al., 2015; Principaud et Associate Editor: Gregory D. Hoke system and has been extensively studied in its al., 2015; Playton and Kerans, 2018). Studies of low- distal (basinal) extent but is poorly constrained ■■ 1. INTRODUCTION relief, mixed carbonate-siliciclastic margins are less Received 18 September 2020 in its proximal upper-slope segment. Here, we well documented (Saller et al., 1989; James et al., Revision received 26 January 2021 Accepted 30 March 2021 define the stratigraphic architecture of proximal The dynamics of continental margin evolution 1992; Fitchen, 1997; Grosheny et al., 2015; Tassy et outcrops in Guadalupe Mountains National Park and sediment delivery determine the spatial and al., 2015), although mixed-system deposits form Published online 10 June 2021 in order to delineate the shelf-slope dynamics of temporal distribution of reservoir-forming ele- important petroleum reservoirs and well-preserved carbonate and siliciclastic sediment distribution ments (Saller et al., 1989; Bull et al., 2009; Playton et archives for paleoenvironmental records (Allen et and delivery to the basin. Upper-slope deposits are al., 2010; Janson et al., 2011; Stevenson et al., 2015; al., 2013; Tassy et al., 2015; Hurd et al., 2018; Chi- predominantly fine-grained carbonate lithologies, Hurd et al., 2016; Playton and Kerans, 2018) that arella et al., 2019). interbedded at various scales with terrigenous (i.e., record autogenic and allogenic processes acting on In the Delaware Basin of west Texas, the Leon- siliciclastic and clay) hemipelagic and gravity-flow the system (Shanley and McCabe, 1994; Covault et ardian Victorio Peak (shelf facies) and Bone Spring deposits. We identify ten slope-building clinothems al., 2007; Burgess, 2016; Madof et al., 2016; Romans (slope to basin facies) formations record a low- varying from terrigenous-rich to carbonate-rich et al., 2016). The importance of stratigraphic archi- relief, mixed carbonate-siliciclastic depositional and truncated by slope detachment surfaces that tecture and sediment distribution on continental system that forms a prolific hydrocarbon system record large-scale mass wasting of the shelf margin. margin evolution has been documented in both (Allen et al., 2013; Driskill et al., 2018; Schwartz et X-ray fluorescence (XRF) data indicate that slope siliciclastic (Kertznus and Kneller, 2009; Sylvester al., 2018). Studies in the Bone Spring Formation detachment surfaces contain elevated proportions et al., 2012; Salazar et al., 2015; Stevenson et al., have focused primarily on the basinal deposits of terrigenous sediment, suggesting that failure is 2015; Prather et al., 2017) and carbonate (Bosellini, that record heterogeneity between siliciclastic and triggered by changes in accommodation or sedi- 1984; Sonnenfeld, 1991; Kerans et al., 1993; Ross carbonate lithologies and a mixture of turbidite, ment supply at the shelf margin. A well-exposed et al., 1994; Sarg et al., 1999; Mulder et al., 2012) mass-transport, and hemipelagic-pelagic depos- terrigenous-rich clinothem, identified here as the depositional systems. Clinothems (packages of its (Saller et al., 1989; Montgomery, 1997a, 1997b; 1st Bone Spring Sand, provides evidence that car- sediment bounded by sigmoidal surfaces) formed Asmus and Grammer, 2013; Nance and Rowe, 2015; bonate and terrigenous sediments were deposited in both siliciclastic and carbonate systems record Driskill et al., 2018). A few studies (Kirkby, 1982; contemporaneously, suggesting that both auto- continental-margin evolution and the variable dis- Fitchen, 1997) have focused on the shelf (Victorio genic and allogenic processes influenced sediment tribution of lithologies (Rich, 1951; Mitchum et al., Peak) deposits, documenting cyclic deposition of accumulation. The mixing of lithologies at multiple 1977; Vail, 1987; Sonnenfeld, 1991; Ross et al., 1994; platform carbonates and bypass of terrigenous sed- This paper is published under the terms of the Sarg et al., 1999; Playton et al., 2010; Salazar et al., iment. While the platform (proximal) and basinal CC‑BY-NC license. Zane Jobe https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7654-4528 2015). Most studies of clinothems have focused (distal) portions of the Bone Spring sediment

GEOSPHERE | Volume 17 | Number 4 Walker et al. | Stratigraphic architecture of the Bone Spring Formation Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article-pdf/17/4/1268/5367530/1268.pdf 1268 by guest on 25 September 2021 Research Paper

routing system have been well documented, the role of mass wasting and terrigenous sediment sup- Basin of west Texas during Leonardian time (mid- upper-slope segment that is important for sedi- ply in shaping the margin, delivery of sediment to dle Permian, ca. 275–280 Ma; Fig. 1). During the ment transfer to the deep ocean is only partially the basin via allogenic and autogenic forcing of sed- late Mississippian assembly of the supercontinent documented (King, 1948; McDaniel and Pray, 1967; iment delivery, and how the stratigraphic evolution Pangea (ca. 326 Ma), the Permian Basin formed as Kirkby, 1982; Fitchen, 1997). of the upper slope affects depositional processes a foreland basin north of the Marathon-Ouachita- This study constrains the progradational slope and stacking patterns of carbonate and siliciclastic Sonora orogeny (Poole et al., 2005; Fig. 1A inset). architecture and sediment distribution of the upper- sediment in the distal Delaware Basin. Compression reactivated Precambrian areas of slope Bone Spring deposits exposed in Guadalupe weakness and uplift of the Central Basin Platform, Mountains National Park, west Texas. We document creating two sub-basins—the Delaware and Mid- (1) slope-building clinothems of variable and mixed ■■ 2. GEOLOGIC AND STRATIGRAPHIC land Basins (Fig. 1A inset; Hills, 1984; Hill, 1996; lithology, (2) slope detachment surfaces bound- SETTING Amerman, 2009; Nance and Rowe, 2015). The Del- ing clinothems, and (3) abundant sediment gravity aware Basin was bounded to the west and north flow deposits and their genetic relationships to cli- 2.1 Geologic Setting by the Diablo Platform and Northwest Shelf, to the nothems and slope detachment surfaces. These south by the Marathon-Ouachita- Sonora fold belt observations provide the basis for discussion of The Bone Spring Formation was deposited in the and Hovey Channel, and to the east by the Cen- slope evolution on a mixed-lithology margin, the Delaware Basin, a sub-basin of the larger Permian tral Basin Platform and San Simon and Sheffield

TO CARLSBAD GUADALUPE

MOUNTAINS Shirttail Canyon NATIONAL A

PARK Fig 19 MIDLAND SS CENTRAL BASINBASIN

NEW MEXICO PLATFORM Fig. 12 Trail Pine Springs TEXAS Shumard Campsite Fig. 10 Visitor Center DELAWARE BASIN Williams Ranch House ShumardFig. 11 Canyon Figure 1b SH S.2 HV Shumard A’ Fig. 13 MARATHON-OUACHITA- Campsite 150km SONORA OROGENY Bone Canyon LEGEND Fig. 14 Ochoan Series Williams Ranch Castile Fm. Quat. Alluvial House Guadalupian Series Reef Margin Limestone road SALT LAKES (includes Cherry Canyon Tongue) Road Stratotype Cyn Delaware Mountain Group fault Leonardian Series Cutoff Fm. (Leon & Guad) Upr Victorio Peak Fm. N Lwr Victorio Peak Fm. TO EL PASO Bone Spring Fm. 3 km TO VAN HORN 1 km

Figure 1. Map of Permian outcrops in and around Guadalupe Mountains National Park (GMNP), west Texas (modified from King, 1948). (A) Geologic map of GMNP. Black box de- notes Figure 1B location. White line A–A′ indicates location of cross section in Figure 2. Inset map shows Permian Basin paleogeography with GMNP denoted as a red box along the western margin of the Delaware basin; blue line indicates Figure 19 seismic line; HV—Hovey Channel; SS—San Simon Channel; SH—Sheffield Channel. (B) Study area focusing on Leonardian outcrops. Red dashed line indicates three-dimensional model shown in Figure 3, and red solid lines highlight outcrop photopanels shown in Figures 10–14, and S2 (see text footnote 1). Dashed tan line marks Shumard Trail.

Channels (Fig. 1A inset; Asmus and Grammer, Permian deposits) is a mixed carbonate-siliciclastic, submarine channel-fan system (Fig. 2; Zelt and Ros- 2013). Tectonic activity occurred until at least the prograding, shelf-to-basin system (Silver and Todd sen, 1995; Gardner and Sonnenfeld, 1996; Gardner middle Wolfcampian (ca. 295 Ma; Hills, 1984; Amer- 1969; Kvale and Rahman, 2016) but does not out- et al., 2008). Capping the succession are Guada- man, 2009), but the Middle Permian Leonardian crop in the study area (Fig. 1B). It is overlain by lupian reef-rimmed carbonate platforms (Capitan stage (ca. 285–275 Ma) was generally tectonically Leonardian prograding carbonate banks to rimmed Formation) and their coeval basinal deposits (Fig. 2; quiescent (Hills, 1984; Amerman, 2009). Subsid- platforms with 5°–20° slopes (Harris, 2000) that Kerans et al., 1993; Harman, 2011). ence related to sediment loading and isostatic transition into a deep basin assemblage (Fig. 2; It is difficult to constrain the exact age of adjustment on the basin margins created a deep Fitchen, 1997; Asmus and Grammer, 2013; Hurd et Victorio Peak and Bone Spring outcrops in Guada- (~450 m) basin with up to 2500 m of Permian sed- al., 2018). The Leonardian system is composed of lupe Mountains National Park (Fig. 1) because of iment (Hills, 1984). the proximal Yeso Formation, which represents a paleo-erosional features (e.g., Cutoff Formation) Carbonate factories on the margin were pro- restricted shelf environment with aeolian red beds and poor-resolution biostratigraphy. Lithostrati- lific throughout the Permian and account for large and evaporitic deposits (Stanesco 1991; Fitchen, graphic correlations from Fitchen (1997) suggest contributions of sediment (Kirkby, 1982; Hills, 1984; 1997). The Yeso Formation transitions to the bank- that the Victorio Peak–Bone Spring outcrops rep- Harman, 2011). Carbonate production in the early rimmed carbonate grain margin of the Victorio Peak resent the L5 and L6 shelf margin to upper-slope Permian was dominated by packstone- and grain- Formation (Kirkby, 1982); this margin transitions to sequences, and this interpretation is supported stone-bank margins of reworked skeletal debris the Bone Spring Formation carbonate and silici- by recent biostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic (McDaniel and Pray, 1967; Kirkby, 1982) and tran- clastic slope and basin deposits (Fig. 2; Saller et al., correlations in the Cutoff Formation (Hurd et al., sition to boundstone- and rudstone-reef– rimmed 1989; Fitchen, 1997; Montgomery, 1997a; see Fig. 2). 2016). However, to complicate matters, correla- margins in the late Permian (Hills, 1984; Harman, Fitchen (1997) described six third-order sequences tion of the Bone Spring Formation outcrops into 2011). While carbonate sediment production in the Victorio Peak–Bone Spring margin (L1–L6; the subsurface is difficult, because many industry occurred all around the basin margins, terrigenous Fig. 2), in which sequence boundaries reflect sub- naming schemes are purely lithostratigraphic (e.g., (i.e., siliciclastic) sediment entering the Delaware aerial exposure of the carbonate platform and 1st Bone Spring Sand, 1st Bone Spring Carbonate, Basin was predominantly sourced from the north coeval siliciclastic deposition in the deep basin. Avalon Shale) and absolute age control (e.g., bio- and east where aeolian and fluvial sediments were Within sequences, lowstand (siliciclastic-rich) and stratigraphy) is lacking (Fig. 2; Driskill et al., 2018). deposited on the shelf and shelf margin (Presley, highstand to transgressive (carbonate-rich) mem- Hurd et al. (2018) correlate the base of the Cutoff 1987; Fischer and Sarnthein, 1988; Soreghan and bers are thought to reflect cyclicity in sea-level and Formation outcrops (base L7) to the base of the Soreghan, 2013), with some terrigenous input from basin subsidence (Fig. 2; Silver and Todd, 1969; Upper Avalon Shale in the basin (Fig. 2). On this the Marathon-Ouachita-Sonora region to the south Saller et al., 1989; Fitchen, 1997; Nance and Rowe, basis, outcrops of the Bone Spring Formation in the (Soto-Kerans et al., 2020). During Leonardian time, 2015). Higher-order cyclicity within both siliciclas- study area likely correlate to basinal rocks referred and especially during low sea-level conditions, the tic and carbonate-rich members (Montgomery, to as the Middle Avalon Carbonate, Lower Avalon entrance to the Panthalassa Ocean to the west was 1997a; Nance and Rowe, 2015; Driskill et al., 2018) Shale (boundary between L5 and L6), and some restricted by a sill in the Hovey Channel (Fitchen, is interpreted as reflecting high-frequency varia- portion of the 1st Bone Spring Carbonate and 1st 1997); this sill hindered water circulation in the tions driven by allogenic sea-level forcing (Nance Bone Spring Sand (Fig. 2). basin, resulting in euxinic conditions (McDaniel and and Rowe, 2015). A significant erosional surface Pray, 1967), minimal bioturbation, and preservation separates the Victorio Peak and Bone Spring of organic-rich sediment (Hills, 1984). Formations from the overlying Cutoff Formation ■■ 3. STUDY AREA AND OUTCROP (Fig. 2), variously referred to as the top of LD10 MAPPING (Sarg et al., 1999) or top of L6 (Fitchen, 1997; Hurd 2.2 Shelf-to-Basin Stratigraphy et al., 2018). Early deposition of the Cutoff Forma- 3.1 Study Area tion reflects a lowstand system that eroded parts The evolution of the shelf-margin and basinal of the Victorio Peak–Bone Spring margin before The study area lies along the “western escarp- strata of the Delaware Basin is well documented reaching a maximum transgression (L8/G1) bio- ment” of Guadalupe Mountains National Park (King 1948; Sarg and Lehmann, 1986; Kerans et al., stratigraphically correlated with the Leonardian (Fig. 1B), a northward-trending footwall fault block 1993; Sarg et al., 1999; Kerans and Kempter, 2002). to Guadalupian boundary (Hurd, 2016; Hurd et al., created during Cenozoic extensional tectonism Figure 2 shows the correlation of the chronostrati- 2016). Overlying the Cutoff Formation is the Gua- (Hills, 1984; Hill, 1996) that exposes Leonard- graphic and lithostratigraphic units from shelf to dalupian Delaware Mountain Group, including the ian and Guadalupian carbonate and siliciclastic basin. The Wolfcamp Formation (the lowermost Brushy Canyon Formation (G5-G7), consisting of a shelf-margin stratigraphy (Fig. 2; King, 1948; Hills,

A A’ Regional Stratigraphy

Sequence King 1948, Sarg and Lehman 1986b, Kerans et Stage Period Outcrop Basin al 1993, Sarg et al 1999, Kerans and Kempter 2002 El Capitan

Guadalupian Shelf Margin Facies

G1-G28 G5-G28 Guadalupian

L7-L8 Delaware Mountain Group Glorieta Upr Victorio Peak Fm. G5-G28 ? L6Lwr Avalon L5 ? 1st Bone Outcrop Cuto Fm. SUBSURFACE TERMINOLOGY L4 STUDY AREA L7-G4 Brushy Canyon 2nd Bone Lower Victorio Peak Fm. Bone Spring Limestone (Amerman 2009, Avalon Sand L3 L5/L6 Hurd 2016)

Permian 3rd Bone (Kirkby 1982, Fitchen 1997) Upper Avalon Shale Leonardian Middle Avalon Carbonate This Study Lower Avalon Shale This study L1-L2 (1st Bone Spring Sand) Bone Spring Fm. 1st Bone Spring Carbonate L5/L6 1st Bone Spring Sand (McDaniel & Pray 1967) Bone Spring basin deposits 2nd Bone Spring Carbonate Saller 1989, Montgomery 1997, mW1-uW Asmus and Grammer 2013, 2nd Bone Spring Sand Nance and Rowe 2015, Driskill et al 2018, 3rd Bone Spring Carbonate

Wolfcampian 5 km Hurd et al., 2018 3rd Bone Spring Sand

Wolfcamp

Siliciclastic-rich Pennsylvanian Carbonate-rich

Figure 2. Stratigraphic section (A–A′) of the west face of Guadalupe Mountains National Park (modified from Kerans and Kempter, 2002). This study focuses on the Bone Spring (upper slope) and Victorio Peak (outer shelf) L5 and L6 sequences (red box). Outcrop-defined sequences shown in the stratigraphic column to the left compiled from Fitchen, 1997; Sarg et al., 1999; Kerans and Kempter, 2002; Hurd et al., 2016; and this study. The stratigraphic section at right defines the basin terminology with inferred chronostratigraphic correlations to outcrops (Hurd et al., 2016). The Bone Spring Formation outcrops are interpreted to correlate to basinal rocks referred to informally as the Middle Avalon Carbonate, Lower Avalon Shale, and some portion of the 1st Bone Spring Carbonate, 1st Bone Spring Sand, and 2nd Bone Spring Carbonate.

1984; Harris, 1987). Postdepositional loading (Hills, 3.2 Three-Dimensional Outcrop Model and incorporated into the model to capture facies rela- 1984), Late Cretaceous transpression (Montgomery, Field Measurements tionships, depositional elements, and prominent 1997a), and the growth of the Cenozoic Huapache stratigraphic surfaces (Fig. 3). Monocline (Hayes, 1964; Resor and Flodin, 2010) A three-dimensional digital outcrop model contribute to a 2°–4° eastward dip of Permian was built using Agisoft software and >2000 drone- rocks along the escarpment. King (1948) exten- derived photographs (Fig. 3). Using the existing ■■ 4. LITHOFACIES AND DEPOSITIONAL sively mapped the area, including the Bone Spring stratigraphic framework, the study area was con- ENVIRONMENTS Formation, which is well exposed in a system of strained below the Cutoff Formation and down-dip west-east–trending canyons (Fig. 1B). We focus on from the lithostratigraphic boundary with the Lower 4.1 Lithofacies outcrops in Shumard and Bone Canyons, and the Victorio Peak Formation (Fig. 3). Field observations west-facing exposures linking the canyons (Fig. 1B). from bedding-attitude transects (N = 16 transects; Lithofacies naming schemes can be difficult The historic Williams Ranch House (Fig. 1B), built n = 593 bedding measurements), nine measured in mixed carbonate-siliciclastic systems because in 1908, stands at the entrance to Bone Canyon. sections, and six photopanel interpretations were of differences between schemes based on texture

UVP

Figure 3. Stratigraphic architecture of the outcropping Bone Spring Formation. (A) Plan view of three-dimensional (3D) digital outcrop SHUMARD CYN model with all measured bedding attitudes LVP (red arrows). Contacts between Brushy Can- CUTOFF yon, Cutoff, Upper Victorio Peak (UVP), and BRUSHY Lower Victorio Peak (LVP) Formations shown. (B) Three-dimensional digital outcrop model of the stratigraphic architecture of the Bone Spring Formation. Depositional elements, lithologic variability, stratigraphic surfaces, and dip direction displayed. Ten clinothems (orange numbers) are bounded by nine slope detachment surfaces (black lines and blue numbers). BONE CYN

NORTH

Dip Direction 400 m

UVP Basin Wedge ll Discordant surface Channel deposit Bedding LVP L6 MTD Terrigenous sand Dip direction L5

L4? 9 7 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 9

7 8 6 5 B 4 RUSHY 3 CUTOFF 2 1 Fault

NORTH Trail 400 m

and/or composition (e.g., Dunham, 1962; Folk, 1980) 4.1.2 XRF Relationships and Compositional aeolian dust transported from onshore ergs (Pres- and those based on interpretations of depositional Mixing ley, 1987; Fischer and Sarnthein, 1988; Cecil et al., process and stratigraphic architecture (e.g., Bouma, 2018). The F6 siltstone lies within the terrigenous 1962; Lowe, 1982; Hubbard et al., 2008). This is The partitioning and mixing of sediments on domain (Fig. 4B) along the trend line and, thus, especially true when tying in descriptions from a the Bone Spring slope are constrained by handheld are not influenced by chert. Thin sections (Fig. 5F) carbonate platform to carbonate-siliciclastic basinal XRF measurements (Fig. 4B). Typically, Ca versus Si reveal F6 is composed predominantly of silt-sized deposits. For the purposes of this paper, we use plots distinguish carbonate from siliceous clay and quartz and siliceous clays with minor (<25%) car- a system-scale lithofacies scheme based on the siliciclastic sediment, but biogenic silica is abun- bonate skeletal grains (Table 1). F7 shows varied historical naming convention with the highest con- dant in the Bone Spring Formation due to sponge compositional mixing of terrigenous and carbonate stituent component (Fig. 4C). Thus, if carbonates spicules and radiolaria that have been diagenet- sediments (Fig. 4B; Chiarella et al., 2017) and these form >50% of the sediment, we use the Dunham ically altered to chert (Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5H; mixed facies (F7) plot along a continuum between classification (Dunham, 1962), and if siliciclastic McDaniel and Pray, 1967). We use “terrigenous” to carbonate and terrigenous domains. sediment is >50% of the sediment, we use the Folk indicate clay and siliciclastic sediment delivered classification (Folk, 1954, 1980). To further clarify from a non-biogenic source (i.e., onshore) and the composition of the lithofacies, we add a mod- “biogenic silica” to indicate silica produced bioti- 4.1.3 Interpretations ifier if a secondary constituent makes up greater cally. Petrography in the Bone Spring Formation than 10% of the sediment (e.g., bioclastic quartz (Table 1) shows the primary terrigenous material The depositional processes forming each litho siltstone; Chiarella and Longhitano, 2012; Lazar et present is composed of quartz silt and sand and facies are interpreted from descriptive observations al., 2015). Sedimentary structures are also added clay minerals (e.g., illite). However, XRF data do outlined in Table 1 and Figure 4. F1 is interpreted as a modifier to capture distinguishing characteris- not distinguish biogenic silica from terrigenous as hemipelagic and sediment gravity-flow deposits tics between lithofacies. Further work is needed to silica, and thus researchers typically choose a ter- (Fig. 5A; Schieber et al., 2007; Talling et al., 2012; develop a unified naming scheme in these types of rigenous sediment proxy (e.g., Si/Al, Zr/Al, and Birgenheier and Moore, 2018). The compositional systems (see efforts from Chiarella and Longhitano, Zr/Cr ratios in Driskill et al., 2018). Here we choose mixing of this lithofacies suggests a carbonate- 2012, and Lazar et al., 2015). Al + Ti (cf. Tribovillard et al., 2006) to create a ter- dominated environment with minor influx of nary diagram (Si, Ca, and Ti + Al) that establishes aeolian quartz. F2 comprises mass-transport carbonate and terrigenous domains (Fig. 4B). The deposits (MTDs) (Fig. 5B; Jablonská et al., 2018) 4.1.1 Descriptions trend line in Figure 4B represents the continuum of originally deposited as F1, but remobilized and carbonate-terrigenous compositional mixing, and deformed. F3 is interpreted as more proximal hemi- Eight lithofacies are identified based on vertical deviation from this trend line suggests the pelagic and sediment gravity-flow deposits relative composition and/or lithology, grain size, bed presence of biogenic silica. Samples that plot sig- to F1 (Fig. 5C). The thin packstones of F4 and the thickness, sedimentary structures, and fossil con- nificantly below the trend line in Figure 4B have thick-bedded packstones and grainstones of F5 are tent (Figs. 4 and 5; Table 1). In addition to field high silica, but little to no terrigenous sediment; interpreted as turbidity current deposits (Bouma, observations, lithofacies were constrained by thin for example, some samples have high Si but low 1962; Lowe, 1982) transporting coarse-grained plat- section analysis, scanning electron microscope Ti + Al (e.g., two blue dots of Lithofacies 5 high- form sediment downslope (Figs. 5D and 5E). F4 (SEM) analysis, and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) lighted in Fig. 4B). Thin-section analysis (Fig. 5E) deposits represent low-density flows interbedded analysis. The eight lithofacies listed are based reveals that these samples contain little to no ter- with F1 mudstones, whereas the amalgamated F5 on observations outlined in Table 1 and Figure 4: rigenous sediment and are cemented by silica of deposits are high-energy turbidites. F6 facies are (F1) thin-bedded laminated lime mudstone; (F2) biogenic origin (i.e., chert) that is not derived from composed of deposits of siliciclastic silt and terrig- thin- to thick-bedded deformed lime mudstone; any terrigenous source. The most common litho- enous clays (75%) containing only minor carbonate (F3) thick-bedded bioclastic lime wackestone to facies in the study area are carbonate mudstones skeletal fragments, suggesting deposition by hemi- packstone; (F4) interbedded lime mudstone and to packstones composed predominantly of car- pelagic and sediment gravity flows transported bioclastic packstone; (F5) thick-bedded normally bonate mud and skeletal grains (F1–F5) that plot over a carbonate shelf (Fig. 5F). F7 is interpreted graded bioclastic lime packstone to grainstone; in the carbonate domain, but with variable compo- as of similar origin to F6, but with higher compo- (F6) thin-bedded laminated bioclast quartz silt- sitional mixing with a terrigenous input (Fig. 4B). sitional mixing with carbonate skeletal fragments, stone; (F7) thin-bedded laminated quartz lime Thin sections reveal little to no terrigenous clay and possibly from minor contemporaneous carbonate mudstone; and (F8) thick-bedded bioclastic lime a small volume (<10%) of well-rounded, silt-sized, production (Fig. 5G). Finally, F8 is interpreted as packstone to grainstone. quartz grains (Figs. 5A–5D) that are interpreted as carbonate platform deposits either formed in-place

LITHOFACIES 1 LITHOFACIES 3 LITHOFACIES 8 LITHOFACIES 4 LITHOFACIES 5 LITHOFACIES 6 LITHOFACIES 7 thin-bedded laminated thick-bedded bioclastic lime thick-bedded bioclastic lime interbedded lime mudstone thick-bedded normal-graded bioclastic thin-bedded laminated thin-bedded laminated lime mudstone wackestone to packstone packstone to grainstone and bioclastic packstone limepackstone to grainstone bioclast quartz siltstone quartz lime mudstone

50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm 50 cm

10 cm 10 cm 10 cm 10 cm 10 cm 10 cm 10 cm

cl sl f m c cl sl f m c cl sl f m c cl sl f m c cl sl f m c cl sl f m c cl sl f m c

50 cm

LITHOFACIES 2 Continuum of deformation Continuum thin to thick-bedded deformed lime mudstone

LEGEND 10 cm XRF Results Deformation Bioclastic material 1 Micro-fault structures Styolite Deformation cl sl f m c Soft-sediment deformation (SSD) Stained surface Darkness detr Ca Si Mg Chert Chert abundance proportion rel. Planar lamination Sed. structures Grain size Carbonate mud Bed thickness Sparite pbl+ vc c m f vf sand s Folk cS mS zS classi cation Textural Lithofacies 1 Lithofacies 5 (1954) observations .7 .3 A Lithofacies 2 Lithofacies 6 sC sM sZ ed l+T Lithofacies 3 Lithofacies 7 i ppm nor clay C M Z silt Lithofacies 4 Lithofacies 8 maliz.8 .2 <1/10 Ca Terrigenous input maliz domain Dunham grain .9 Terrigenous- Textural 50/50 Ca:Si .1 ed classi cation Mixed-domain observations packstone alcium ppm nor (1962) Grain composition C bonate-domain Car wackestone observations <1/10 Si 1 0 mudstone 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 Silicon ppm normalized

Figure 4. Lithofacies analysis of Bone Spring Formation deposits. (A) Lithofacies diagram displaying eight lithofacies with generalized X-ray fluorescence (XRF) readings (orange line). Lithofacies are grouped based on composition and grain size. (B) Ternary diagram displaying XRF data color-coded by lithofacies. A dashed line represents a continuum from the carbonate-domain to the terrigenous-domain; samples falling below this line (e.g., two highlighted blue samples) plot high in Si but lack a terrigenous signal, indicating the presence of diagenetic chert. (C) Schematic of naming scheme used in this study with lithofacies projected onto the three-dimensional ternary diagram.

Deformed chert Interbedded packstone

Interbedded packstone

Detrital qz sp

0.5 mm E G H

Facies 7

Facies 6

by ba by by by Carbonate mud Chert cmnt co ba ba sp by Detrital qz by by by co ba

Figure 5. Lithofacies pictures from outcrop (upper) and thin section (lower). (A) F1—thin-bedded laminated lime mudstone. Pencil marks ripple cross lamination. Thin section of F1 is predominantly lime mudstone, but detrital quartz grains are present. (B) F2—thin- to thick-bedded deformed lime mudstone with lines indicating deformation. Thin section shows deformation-induced calcite-cemented fractures with background lithofacies identical to F1. (C) F3—thick-bedded bioclastic lime wackestone to packstone. Thin section of F3 shows sponge spicules (sp) and a fining upward trend. (D) F4—interbedded lime mudstone and bioclastic packstone with interbedded packstone indicated. Thin section shows lenticular packstone beds with calcite cement. (E) F5—thick-bedded, normal-graded bioclastic lime packstone to grainstone. Note the fining upward, normally graded, amalgamated beds (finger placed on basal coarse-grained deposit). Thin section shows bryozoan (by), brachiopods (ba), undifferentiated carbonate allochems, and chert cement. (F) F6—thin-bedded laminated bioclastic quartz siltstone. Note different color and weathering pattern compared to F1. Thin section shows abundant detrital quartz. (G) F7—thin-bedded laminated quartz lime mudstone. Thin section shows lower detrital quartz content than F6 but greater than F1. (H) F8—thick-bedded bioclastic lime packstone to grainstone. Thin section reveals bryozoan (by), sponge spicules (sp), rugose corals (co), and brachiopods (ba).

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF LITHOFACIES

Lithofacies Basin naming scheme Mud content Coarse-grain (%) Si/Ca ratio Sedimentary structures Diagenetic features (Lazar et al., 2015) Silt/clay Size (s/c) Type Type F1 Laminated calcareous 75%–80% 20%–25% 08/92 >90% planar laminations (mm-scale Chert beds mostly planar (5–10 cm Thin-bedded laminated siltstone 60/40 Very fine sand s/c<<1 beds) thick) or nodular, occurring every lime mudstone Carbonate clay, argillaceous clay, Carbonate and biogenic grains, Some evidence of soft-sediment 10–20 cm (Fig. 5A) carbonate grains, quartz grains, crinoids, spicules, shell fragments, deformation Minor dolomitization organic matter, pyrite quartz Some bioturbation Pyrite formation F2 Deformed calcareous 75%–80% 20%–25% 08/92 Planar laminations Chert beds mimic bedding structure Thin- to thick-bedded siltstone 60/40 Very fine sand s/c<<1 Soft-sediment deformation: and can be folded, deformed, deformed lime Carbonate clay, argillaceous clay, Carbonate and biogenic grains, folding, fractures, fluid-escape, nodular, or planar mudstone (Fig. 5B) carbonate grains, quartz grains, crinoids, spicules, shell fragments, décollement surfaces Calcite-filled fractures organic matter, pyrite quartz Chaotic bedding in places Minor dolomitization Pyrite formation F3 Thick-bedded 30% 70% 5/95 Grading Chert beds mostly nodular Thick-bedded bioclastic bioclastic lime 70/30 Very fine sand s/c<<1 Laminations (5–10 cm thick), occurring every lime wackestone to siltstone to very fine Carbonate and argillaceous clay, Carbonate and biogenic grains, Some in-place production 30–40 cm packstone (Fig. 5C) sandstone carbonate grains, quartz grains, peloids, spicules, crinoids, shell organic matter, pyrite fragments, bryozoan, brachiopods, 50% mud quartz grains 50% sparite F4 Interbedded 70% 30% 08/92 Packstone beds occur every 1–2 cm Significant dolomitization and Interbedded lime calcareous siltstone Same as Facies 1 Very fine sand s/c<<1 and are planar and continuous or calcite cement in packstone beds mudstone and and bioclastic very Crinoids, spicules, peloids, shell lenticular bioclastic packstone fine sandstone fragments Starved ripples (Fig. 5D) Some bioturbation F5 Normal-graded 15% 85% 0/100 Some normal grading and grain-size Siliceous cement (chert) Thick-bedded, normal- bioclastic 0% carbonate mud Coarse (0.5–1 mm in diameter) s/c<<1 segregation Styolites graded bioclastic calcareous 100% sparite Carbonate and biogenic grains, Patches of coarse grains lime packstone to sandstone Silt-sized carbonate grains (shell crinoids, peloids, spicules, Low-angle scours grainstone (Fig. 5E) fragments and spicules) brachiopods, bryozoans, bivalves, Amalgamation surfaces Sparite can reach 30% in some cases shell fragments Continuous red surfaces F6 Laminated bioclast- 75%–85% 15%–25% 75/25 Planar laminations (“flaggy” bedding) Iron oxidation and/or calcification of Thin-bedded laminated rich siliceous 70/30 Very fine sand s/c>1 Ripples carbonate grains bioclast quartz siltstone Argillaceous clay (Al- and K-rich), Quartz, carbonate grains Scouring perpendicular to bedding Minor dolomitization siltstone (Fig. 5F) quartz, crinoids, peloids, shell Chert absent fragments Minimal sparite F7 Laminated quartz-rich 60%–70% 30%–40% 45/55 Planar laminations Chert beds mostly planar (5–10 cm Thin-bedded laminated calcareous siltstone 50% mud and silt Very fine sand s/c~1 Scouring perpendicular to bedding thick) or nodular, occurring every quartz lime mudstone 50% sparite Some fine sand Minor soft-sediment deformation 10–20 cm (Fig. 5G) Mostly quartz, some shell fragments Minor dolomitization F8 Bioclastic lime very 20%–30% 70%–80% 0/100 None observed (in-place) Chert beds mostly nodular Thick-bedded bioclastic fine sandstone to 0% mud Coarse s/c<<1 (5–10 cm thick), occurring every lime packstone to sandstone 100% sparite Range: Very fine sand-pebble No 0.5–1 meter grainstone (Fig. 5H) Crinoids, peloids, spicules, siliciclastic Dolomitization brachiopods, bryozoans, sponges, observed bivalves, carbonate grains, shell fragments, sparite grains

or reworked (Fig. 5H); these deposits represent the increasing grain size, bed thickness, and macro-fossil into flat-lying Victorio Peak Formation (F8), which Lower Victorio Peak of King (1948) and Kirkby (1982). content from Lithofacies 1 to Lithofacies 8 (Fig. 4A). forms the uppermost cliffs (Fig. 3B). Bedding atti- Typical thickness for an FA1 deposit is ~30 m, with tude data show that the shelf-slope system built out gradational contacts between lithofacies (Fig. 6A). in a predominantly eastward direction but varied in 4.2 Depositional Environments Interpretation. FA1 represents an upward- orientation from 060° to 180° (Fig. 3A). shoaling sequence from slope carbonate mudstones Four facies associations in outcrops of the Bone to platform carbonates (Figs. 6A and 7A; McDaniel Spring Formation are interpreted to represent and Pray, 1967). Planar and ripple lamination in F1 4.2.2 Facies Association 2 sub-environments within the Bone Spring mixed- suggest that low-density muddy turbidites were lithology, shelf-slope depositional system (Figs. 6 a dominant process in slope development of the Description. FA2, the primary facies associa- and 7; see Fig. S3 for location of figures). Bone Spring Formation (Figs. 5A and 8; cf. Birgen tion on the outcrop, makes up roughly 90% of the heier and Moore, 2018). The upward-shoaling study area and includes interbedded mixtures of character supports previous studies suggesting F1, F2, and F4 (Figs. 6B and 7B), commonly tran- 4.2.1 Facies Association 1 that the Leonardian carbonate margin was progra- sitioning laterally between lithofacies. Contacts dational in the study area (Kirkby, 1982; Fitchen, between lithofacies are predominantly sharp, Description. Facies Association 1 (FA1) consists 1997; Sarg et al., 1999). The facies transition of with truncation beneath and onlap above sur- of F1, F3, and F8, with a predictable stacking pat- FA1 is best exposed in Shumard Canyon, where faces, particularly between F1 and F2 (Figs. 6B tern of F1 at the base, F3 in the middle, and F8 at steeply dipping (~15°) Bone Spring slope depos- and 7B). Most commonly, there is an absence of the top (Fig. 6A) with decreasing chert content and its are overlain by and transition northwest wards coarse-grained material directly mantling surfaces; however, surfaces are often draped by fine-grained sediment. Chaotic bedding and synsedimentary folds observed in F2 (Figs. 5B and 7B) vary in scale and style (Figs. 8 and 9), including creep, slump, and debrite deposits. Creep deposits (sensu 50 m 50 m 50 m 50 m F8 Auchter et al., 2016) are observed at many scales (Figs. 8A–8C) but are most commonly micro-scale, typically deforming laminae (<1 cm) in brittle (e.g., 40 m 40 m 40 m 40 m Shelf- micro-faulting) and ductile (micro-folding) fashion edge (Figs. 8B1 and B2). Slump deposits in the study F1 channel F8 F5 area are composed of carbonate (F1, F2, and F3) or 30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m F2 terrigenous (F6) lithofacies, where bedding is gen- F4 erally preserved but plastically deformed (Fig. 8C). F3 F3 Meter-scale slump deposits are most common but 20 m VP 20 m F2 20 m 20 m F6 to BS can be as thick as 10 m (Fig. 8C). Slump deposits transition F1 Mid- often display a basal shear zone with fracturing and F2 10 m 10 m F5 slope 10 m F7 brecciation (sensu Cardona et al., 2020). Debris- 10 m channel F1 F6 flow deposits of carbonate mudstones (Fig. 5B) F1 F1 F6 have minimal preserved strata, chaotic fabric F7 with matrix-supported clasts, brittle deformation features (breccia, fractures), and erosional bases FA1: Upward- FA2: Carbonate slope FA3: Submarine FA4: Siliciclastic (Fig. 9), features common to debrites (Dott, 1963; shoaling carbonate deposits with mass carbonate channel slope deposits Fisher, 1983; Stow, 1984; Moscardelli and Wood, margin wasting deposits 2008; Tripsanas et al., 2008; Talling et al., 2012). Interpretation. FA2 represents an unstable Figure 6. Facies Associations (FA) of the outcropping Bone Spring Formation. (A) FA1: Upward-shoaling carbonate margin. carbonate slope with abundant mass failure. The Transition from Bone Spring Formation (BS) to Victorio Peak Formation (VP) lithofacies indicated. (B) FA2: Carbonate slope deposits with mass wasting. (C) FA3: Submarine carbonate channel deposits. (D) FA4: Terrigenous-rich slope de- prevalence of mass wasting suggests that the Bone posits, with some carbonate material present as F7 (see also Fig. 7E). Spring slope was almost always over-steepened

Figure 7. Photos of Facies Associations (FA) from the outcrop. (A) FA1: undeformed prograding slope with planar chert beds (dark colored rock). (B) Discordant surface within FA2; note truncation of F1, with F2 overlying the surface. (C) FA3: upper-slope submarine channel litho facies (F5) cutting into carbonate slope deposits (F3). Erosional surfaces shown in yellow. (D) FA3: 1 m mid-slope submarine gully deposits show off- set stacking and axis-to-margin fining. (E) FA4: Interbedding of terrigenous-rich Lithofacies 6 Fine-grained E Coarse-grained (fissile, gray, recessive) and mixed-composition MTD Lithofacies 7 (tan colored, more resistant).

and prone to failure (Stow, 1986). Sharp erosional F5 onlapping the surface (Fig. 7C). A 10 m interval of positions and may represent slope gully deposits surfaces are interpreted as slope failure scarps amalgamated F5 gradually transitions upward into (Shumaker et al., 2016). rather than erosional bypass surfaces due to the F8. Other occurrences of FA3 (Figs. 3B, 6C, and 7D) lack of coarse-grained material mantling the sur- show similar architecture but smaller dimensions faces (Fig. 7B). Surface depressions are commonly (e.g., 10 m wide and 0.5 m thick, Fig. 7D) and contact 4.2.4 Facies Association 4 filled with a wedge geometry that is interpreted of F1 overlain by F5. as filling of local topography by sediment gravity Interpretation. FA3 is interpreted as submarine Description. Facies Association 4 (FA4) comprises flows. Similar “failure-and-fill” architecture has channel deposits developed on a carbonate slope. interbedded terrigenous F6 and mixed-lithology F7 been documented in other carbonate slope deposits The erosional truncation of fine-grained lithofacies deposits (Figs. 6D and 7E). Bed-scale alternations of (Bosellini, 1984; Ross et al., 1994; Katz et al., 2010; (F1 and F3) and overlying coarse-grained channel F6 and F7 typically occur at the ~10 cm scale (Fig. 7E), Playton et al., 2010; Mulder et al., 2012; Playton and fill with normally graded F5 beds indicates erosion but on the west wall of Shumard Canyon, F6 depos- Kerans, 2018). and deposition by turbidity currents (Figs. 5E, 7C, its are ~10 m thick (Fig. 3B). Contacts between F6 and 7D; Talling et al., 2012; Janocko et al., 2013). and F7 are typically sharp and undulatory (Fig. 7E). Amalgamation surfaces within F5 (Figs. 5E and 7C) Like FA2, FA4 contains internal truncation surfaces 4.2.3 Facies Association 3 suggest that the channels were long-lived conduits with overlying deformed intervals. for transport of carbonate sediment to the basin. Interpretation. FA4 is interpreted as periods Description. Facies Association 3 (FA3) consists The presence of F8 (Lower Victorio Peak) overly- when carbonate and terrigenous sediment were of F1, F3, F5, and F8 (Figs. 6C, 7C, and 7D). The ing the channel fill in the type locale suggests that deposited contemporaneously on the Bone Spring type locale is on the south wall of Shumard Canyon this channel was located very near the shelf edge. slope. Alternations in the proportion of terrigenous (Fig. 3B), where a sharp surface 100 m wide with Smaller channel deposits in contact with F1 (e.g., sediment suggest fluctuations in carbonate- 10 m relief truncates F3, with a lenticular deposit of Fig. 7D) are interpreted to have been in mid-slope terrigenous sediment delivery. Deformed intervals

and truncation surfaces indicate an unstable slope dominated by failure and bypass, similar to that of FA2 carbonate deposits.

■■ 5. STRATIGRAPHIC ARCHITECTURE AND SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION

5.1 Slope Detachment Surfaces

Six photopanels document the architecture of the Bone Spring Formation within the study area (Figs. 1B and 10–14, and Figs. S1 and S2 in the Supplemental Material1). The major architectural features are large-scale (>20 m relief) truncation surfaces (Figs. 3B, 15A, and 15B) that can be mapped the length of the outcrop along-strike to the paleo-shelf (i.e., kilometer-scale; Fig. 3B; Sarg et al., 1999) before disappearing into the subsurface, coalescing with another surface, or transitioning northwestward into the Victorio Peak shelfal lithofacies (black surfaces, blue numbers in Figs. 3B and 10–15). Because these steeply dipping surfaces truncate Bone Spring slope deposits (Figs. 9A and 10), we interpret them as slope detachment surfaces (SDSs) related to large-scale mass wasting of the margin. Slope detachment surfaces are differen- tiated from smaller-scale discordant surfaces by the amount of truncation (using a cut-off of 20 m).

Basin An example of the scale of surfaces can be found toward the back of Bone Canyon where a large- scale surface (SDS 9) is overlain by smaller-scale Shumard Shumard South North West wall Shumard discordant surfaces (Fig. 15C). There are nine SDSs West wall Bone North BRUSH Bone Y CUTOFF Bone South bounding ten clinothems; clinothems are defined Fault Figure 8. Examples of Bone Spring slope instability at multiple scales. (A) Intrastratal deformation

NORTH as strata bound by SDSs that are mappable across (i.e., creep), with individual lamina set highlighted by white arrows showing micro-scale detachment Trail 400 m the study area (Fig. 3B). The SDSs and clinothems and deformation but no failure at the bed-set (~1 m) scale. Note chert nodules mimic the primary are marked by blue and orange numbers, respec- bedding. Pencil circled for scale. (B1) Photo and (B2) line drawing of deformed lime mudstone lithofacies (F2) with micro-scale deformation. (C) Slump deposit, with multiple episodes of mass wasting 1 Supplemental Material. Figure S1: Location of six tively, in Figures 3B and 10–14. Clinothems 1–3 and indicated by red surfaces, folded bedding highlighted with white lines, and compressional faults photopanels compiled along the outcrop overlaying 5–10 are dominated by carbonate deposits (FA2), (yellow lines). Geologist for scale. the 3D textured model. Figure S2: West-facing outcrop between Shumard Canyon and Bone Canyon. whereas Clinothem 4 is dominated by terrigenous Characteristics of slope detachment surfaces aid in deposits (FA4; Fig. 3B). correlating surfaces from Shumard to Bone Canyons. Slope detachment surfaces were identified using surfaces 3–8 in Figure 10 show each surface trun- Typically, SDSs are underlain by F1 (undisturbed Note the discontinuous nature of the terrigenous sediment within Clinothem 4 from Shumard to Bone Can- bedding attitude changes and truncation/onlap rela- cating bedding with variable attitudes below and lime mudstone deposits) and overlain by F2 and F4 yons (also shown in Fig. 3B). Figure S3: Location of tionships (Figs. 3 and 10–15). Slope detachment above the surface. For example, bedding shifts from sediment-gravity- flow deposits (Figs. 16B and 16E). detailed outcrop photos shown in this publication. surfaces typically dip eastward at ~20° (but can be 18°/090° (dip magnitude/dip azimuth) below SDS 3 Some SDSs show sigmoidal geometries that flatten Please visit https://doi.org/10.1130 /GEOS .S .14344085 to access the supplemental material, and contact as steep as 45°) and the stratigraphic relief ranges to 23°/045° above it (Fig. 16A), and across SDS 8, a and become conformable within the Victorio Peak [email protected] with any questions. from 20 to 100 m (Figs. 10–14). Slope detachment 40° bedding azimuth change is observed (Fig. 16D). (SDS 4, 7, 8, 9; Fig. 12; cf. Rich, 1951), suggesting that

MTD

7 Shumard Trail 5 m 1 m

Figure 9. Examples of Bone Spring mass wasting and mass transport deposits (MTDs). (A) ~10 m MTD overlying slope detachment surface (SDS) 7 with internal chaotic bedding and folded chert nodules. Note that Shumard Trail passes along this MTD. (B) MTD overlying SDS 6 shows multiple internal detachment surfaces (red) separating folded and faulted F1 deposits. Note geologist for scale. (C) Chaotically bedded debrite that truncates underlying, undeformed strata. Note deformed chert nodules within debrite.

SDS may be associated with large-scale clinoforms, into the basin. Similar slope segmentation with MTDs, submarine channel deposits, and wedge- much like those mapped in the Leonardian (Sarg, large-scale MTDs has been documented in both fill architecture above surfaces (Fig. 15A) suggest 1988; Fitchen, 1997) and Guadalupian (e.g., Harman, the Permian Basin (Saller et al., 1989; Montgomery, that failure scarps were likely scallop-shaped and 2011) shelf margins. 1997a; Allen et al., 2013; Nance and Rowe, 2015; actively filled by sediment gravity flows. We interpret slope detachment surfaces as Bhatnagar et al., 2018; Hurd et al., 2018, Schwartz representing evacuation scars of subaqueous et al., 2018) and in other carbonate slope systems mass failure of the margin. Relief along the SDSs (De Blasio et al., 2005; Moscardelli and Wood, 2008; 5.2 Clinothems 1–3 suggests that failures were quite large (tens to Mazzanti and De Blasio, 2010; Janson et al., 2011; hundreds of meters of sediment height), con- Mulder et al., 2012; Dakin et al., 2013; Principaud Clinothems 1–3 are dominated by carbonate sistent with observations of large MTD deposits et al., 2015; Cardona et al., 2016; Moscardelli and facies (FA2), and typically basal deposits show dis- from the basinal Permian Basin (Saller et al., 1989; Wood, 2016). Headwall scarps from sediment evac- rupted bedding and MTDs (F2), packstone beds (F4), Allen et al., 2013; Bhatnagar et al., 2018). The lack uation on carbonate slopes are commonly steep and turbidites (FA3) overlying SDS, and an upward of large-scale, thick (>20 m) MTDs in the study area (~15°; Mulder et al., 2012; Jo et al., 2015; Principaud transition to continuous, planar bedding (F1) that is suggests that most were sourced from the steep et al., 2015), consistent with angles observed in top-truncated by another SDS (Figs. 10–14). SDSs (~15°) upper slope, bypassing the mid-slope, to the study area (e.g., Figs. 15 and 16). Bedding atti- are often draped with thin beds (<5 cm, Figs. 16C be deposited distally at the toe-of-slope or farther tude changes across surfaces, and together with and 16D) rich in fine-grained terrigenous sediment.

8 LOWER VICTORIO PEAK MS3 7 6 8 MS2 7 6

3 Discordant surface 4 4 MTD 5 XRF2 XRF3 3 XRF1 Bedding Channel deposit N 0 Bedding Channel margin orientation 50 m Fault Basin 180 Sample location

0 330 40 30 Clinothems 1-7 30 300 60 Clinothem 8 20 10 270 0 90

8 Victorio Peak Fm. 240 120 210 150 7 180 6

1 3 st BS 5 4

Figure 10. Stratigraphic architecture of the north wall of Shumard Canyon (see location in Fig. 1B). (A) North wall of Shumard Canyon showing slope detachment surfaces (SDSs) and clinothems labeled by blue and orange circles, respectively. Arrow symbols represent bedding orientation (north is up). Location of X-ray fluorescence (XRF) transects discussed in Figure 17 shown in blue. (B) Line drawing of Figure A. Orange arrows represent dip readings within Clinothems 1–7, while blue arrows represent readings in Clinothem 8. Note the prominent dip-azimuth change in Clinothem 8 (from eastward to southward dips), coincident with a concentration of mass wasting deposits and FA3 channel deposits. Rose diagram displays bedding attitude data from Shumard north wall. Average dip azimuth shifts 90° from Clinothem 7–8. 1st Bone Spring Sand (1st BS) indicated in Clinothem 4.

CAPITAN FM CUTOFF FM BRUSHY CYN FM

8 LOWER VICTORIO PEAK Fig 7C

8 Discordant surface Shumard Trail MS6 MTD 7 Bedding MS5 Chennel deposit 7 6 Channel margin 6 4 MS4 5 Fault Fig 9A Sample location 5 0 Bedding orientation N 50 m Basin Fig 9B 4 3 180

Figure 11. Stratigraphic architecture of the south wall of Shumard Canyon (see location in Fig. 1B). Slope detachment surfaces (SDSs) and clinothems labeled by blue and orange circles, respectively. A large submarine channel deposit is shown in blue (also see Fig. 7C). Note that the Shumard Trail passes directly through many key architectural features, including SDSs and mass transport deposits.

10 L6 LVP 9 9 8 L5 7 8 5 5 6 4 L4? 3 4 MS1 2 3 1st BS 1 2 1 Discordant surface MTD Bedding Channel deposit Channel margin 0 Fault N Basin Bedding 100 m orientation Sample location 180 Shumard Campsite

Figure 12. Stratigraphic architecture of the west wall located to the north of Shumard Canyon (see location in Fig. 1B). Terrigenous-rich Cli- nothem 4 is well exposed and pinches out to the north at the interpreted shelf edge. Slope detachment surfaces and clinothems labeled by blue and orange circles, respectively. Sequences L5 and L6 from Fitchen (1997) and the L4/L5 sequence boundary is interpreted from results in this study. 1st Bone Spring Sand (1st BS) indicated in Clinothem 4.

Discordant surface MTD Bedding Basin Channel deposit N 10 Channel margin 9 BRUSHY CANYON FM Fault MS8 Sample location 9 8 0 Bedding 50 m orientation XRF 4 180 8 XRF 5

7 4 5

Figure 13. Stratigraphic architecture of the north wall of Bone Canyon (see location in Fig. 1B). Note the steep dip of these upper-slope deposits and the prevalence of mass transport deposits. Clinothem 4 is poorly exposed at the mouth of Bone Canyon, and heavily normal-faulted (green lines). In this locale, the Cutoff Formation is eroded by the overlying Brushy Canyon Formation. Slope detachment surface (SDS) and clinothems labeled by blue and orange circles, respectively. Location of X-ray fluorescence transects discussed in Figure 17 shown in blue.

0 Bedding Discordant surface Basin orientation MTD 180 Bedding 50 m Channel deposit BRUSHY CANYON FM CUTOFF FM N Channel margin Cuto debrites 9 Fault MS7 Sample location 10 loading 8 9

Figure 14. Stratigraphic architecture of the south wall of Bone Canyon (see location in Fig. 1B). Slope detachment surface (SDS) and clinothems labeled by blue and orange circles, respectively. Note the thick deformed interval near the base of Clinothem 9 indicating slope instability and mass wasting. The Cutoff Formation erodes into the Bone Spring Formation, and large rafted blocks load into the Bone Spring (Hurd et al., 2016).

Large MTDs can be found above SDS 1 on the west wall of Shumard Canyon (Fig. 12) and along the Failure 8 Shumard trail (Fig. 9). Clinothems 1–3 prograde surface approximately eastward (Fig. 3A), and the upslope Wedge transition to the Victorio Peak is well exposed 29 (Figs. 3B and 12). A Cenozoic normal fault drops ll Clinothems 1–3 into the subsurface at the entrance to Bone Canyon (Fig. 3B). 09

5.3 Clinothem 4 5 m

Terrigenous-rich deposits (FA4) are well devel- CUTOFF FM oped only in Clinothem 4 (Fig. 3B). This interval 9 consists of ~20 m of terrigenous-rich deposits in Shumard Canyon (Figs. 10, 12, and 16A) and become progressively thinner and more carbonate- rich southward (Figs. 3B and 13). South of Shumard Canyon, the terrigenous component is discontinuous and is concentrated in local accumulations along the mapped extent of Clinothem 4 (Fig. 3B), but poor exposure hampers the understanding of detailed facies transitions. Slumps are common in the terrigenous-rich beds, but small-scale truncation surfaces are not apparent. The FA4 in Clinothem 4 are 9 truncated by SDS 4, a prominent truncation surface (Fig. 16A), before transitioning into carbonate-dominant sediments in Clinothem 5. Unlike SDSs that bound Clinothems 1–3, the SDS 4 surface has no draping terrigenous-rich interval (Fig. 16A). Figure 15. Examples of truncation surfaces at multiple scales. (A) Small-scale discordant surface (red) within Clinothem 8, with ~15 m of onlapping, wedge-shaped F1 infill. Note the geologist for scale. (B) A 40° dip azimuth change occurs across slope detachment surface (SDS) 8. The surface itself dips at 29/050. (C) Slope detachment surface (SDS) 9 visible on both sides of Bone Canyon, with overlying deformed FA2, and a smaller-scale 5.4 Clinothems 5–10 discordant surface (red line) only visible on the right-hand (north) side. Note the Cutoff Formation contact just above this surface, and the geologist for scale. Clinothems 5–10 are dominated by carbonate-rich lithofacies (FA2) with numerous small-scale truncation surfaces and MTDs, as well as localized FA3 1982) and bedding attitude data show that Clinothems acted as conduits for coarse-grained sediment grav- deposits. The depositional motif of Clinothems 5–10 5–7 built out in a predominantly eastward direction ity flows. This shift in slope propagation direction is quite similar to that of Clinothems 1–3, with a thin similar to Clinothems 1–4, but a prominent south- suggests that the Bone Spring margin prograded as (<5 cm) terrigenous interval commonly draping the ward shift in slope propagation occurs in Clinothem 8, a series of lobate clinothems, supporting previous SDS (Fig. 16), overlain by deformed bedding and which is well exposed in Shumard Canyon (Fig. 10B). studies in the basin (Saller et al., 1989; Sonnenfeld, coarse-grained deposits, which transition upward We interpret this variation as recording a local slope 1991). Clinothems 5–10 are variably top-truncated by into undeformed bedding. This motif is visible in inflection point, where a re-entrant focused depo- the Cutoff and Brushy Canyon formations (Fig. 3B); Clinothem 8 between SDS 7 and 8 (Fig. 14). Two sition, generating a high density of slope failure notably, the Cutoff Formation contains large rafted 5–10-m-thick MTDs mark the base of SDS 6 and SDS 7 surfaces and MTDs. Four FA3 submarine channel blocks of F8 (Victorio Peak lithofacies) that truncate and are well exposed and easily accessible along the deposits are vertically stacked here (Fig. 10), sug- and deform Clinothem 9 on the south wall of Bone Shumard Trail (Fig. 9). Regional observations (Kirkby, gesting that the topographic lows created by failures Canyon (Fig. 14; cf. Hurd et al., 2016).

Fig. 17C Figure 16. Stratigraphic and lithologic 7 characteristics of slope detachment surfaces (SDSs), and location of X-ray fluorescence (XRF) transects shown in 18 Figure 17. Arrows and numbers represent 14 dip azimuth and magnitude. (A) Slope 4 Draping sfc 10 detachment surfaces 3 and 4 in Shumard 0.5 m Canyon showing bedding orientation Carbonate-dominant and lithology changes across surfaces. 23 Clinothem Above SDS 3, terrigenous-rich depos- 3 Terrigenous-dominant its characterize Clinothem 4, which we Clinothem interpret as the 1st Bone Spring Sand (1st BS Sand) Fig. 17D (1st BS). Location of Figure 17A XRF 18 Fig. 17A transect indicated. (B) SDS 6 with a 8 5-m-thick MTD sitting directly above the SDS, and undeformed carbonate beds Carbonate-dominant Draping sfc below the SDS. Location of Figure 17B Clinothem 19 XRF transect indicated. Geologist for scale. (C) SDS 7 with truncation and 10 m dip attitude change. The surface has a <5 cm draping surface of terrigenous-rich 19 material. Location of Figure 17C XRF transect indicated. (D) SDS 8 showing 6 E dip attitude change, truncation, and sim- Fig. 17E ilar lithofacies (F1) above and below the surface. The surface has a <5 cm drap- 18 9 14 ing surface of terrigenous-rich material. Location of Figure 17D XRF transect indicated. (E) SDS 9 with a packstone bed Packstone bed (FA3) sitting above the surface and a dip attitude change across the surface. Loca- MTD 14 tion of Figure 17E XRF transect indicated. 21 Fig. 17B Backpack for scale. 5 m

5.5 Terrigenous and Carbonate Sediment the presence of terrigenous sediment from XRF data. we envision three possible mechanisms contributing Distribution Each SDS is enriched in terrigenous sediment near to failure: (1) loading from increased terrigenous the surface relative to the samples taken from within sediment supply (Sultan et al., 2004; Vanneste et To understand the role of terrigenous and car- the clinothems (i.e., not adjacent to SDS; cf. Figs. 4B al., 2014), (2) weakened substrate from increased bonate sediment contributions to the development and 17) and, with one exception, begin within the terrigenous (i.e., clay) input (Kenter and Schlager, of slope detachment surfaces, XRF transects were mixed or carbonate domain below the surface and 1989; Kenter, 1990; De Blasio et al., 2006), (3) steep collected across SDS 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Fig. 17) from shift toward the terrigenous domain at or near the relict slopes created by the carbonate shelf-margin 1 m below the surface to 1 m above the surface at SDS before reverting to the mixed or carbonate (Schlager and Camber, 1986; Ross et al., 1994). 20 cm intervals, including five samples taken along domain above the SDS (Figs. 17B–17E). The excep- A combination of these may have initiated large- the surface itself (Fig. 17). Slope detachment sur- tion to this trend is SDS 4 (Fig. 17A), in which all XRF scale slope failure, and the XRF data (Figs. 17B–17E) faces are enriched in terrigenous sediment (Si*[Ti data (below, on, and above the surface) lie within suggest that only a slight increase in terrigenous + Al]) relative to carbonate sediment (Ca) (Fig. 17). the terrigenous domain; it is SDS 4 that is associated sediment was necessary to trigger large-scale slope The carbonate, mixed, and terrigenous domains with FA4 deposits in Clinothem 4 (Figs. 3B and 16A). failure. For example, the steep Bone Spring slope in Figure 17 are calculated using the trend line in Terrigenous sediment appears to be associated (10°–20° non-decompacted) already exceeds the pre- Figure 4B, with Si*(Al + Ti) as the proxy to detect with slope detachment surfaces (i.e., failures), thus dicted stability limits for muddy carbonate margins

(Kenter, 1990); while a change in boundary conditions would not be necessary to initiate failure (e.g., 1.0 1.0 1.0 SDS 4 SDS 6 small-scale failure surfaces in Fig. 15), any distur- 0.8 0.8 0.8 bance to the margin (e.g., relative sea level) coupled

0.6 Ca-domain 0.6 0.6 with terrigenous sediment delivery may have pro-

Terrig.-domain moted larger, more widespread failure and creation 0.4 0.4 0.4

avg. clinothem data avg. of a mappable slope detachment surface (SDS). 0.2 0.2 0.2 surface 0.0 0.0 0.0 ■■ 6. DISCUSSION -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 6.1 Evolution of the Victorio Peak–Bone Depth from surfaceDepth from -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 Spring Mixed Margin -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 mixed-domain -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 Sediment mixing and partitioning is a well- documented primary control on slope evolution -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 and architecture (e.g., Bosellini, 1984; Gómez-Pérez 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 et al., 1999; Eggenhuisen et al., 2010; Hurd, 2016). Si * (Ti+Al) / Ca Slope detachment surfaces of the Bone Spring rep- E resent large volumes of missing rock on the slope. 1.0 1.0 1.0 SDS 7 SDS 8 SDS 9 MTDs associated with these evacuation surfaces 0.8 0.8 0.8 either initiated in this area or bypassed it, and were likely deposited at the toe-of-slope and in the basin 0.6 0.6 0.6 (Saller et al., 1989; Montgomery, 1997a; Allen et al., 0.4 0.4 0.4 2013; Nance and Rowe, 2015; Bhatnagar et al., 2018; Hurd et al., 2018; Schwartz et al., 2018). Addition- 0.2 0.2 0.2 ally, flow transformation (Fisher, 1983; Haughton 0.0 0.0 0.0 et al., 2009; Talling et al., 2012) of MTDs along the

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 sediment routing system may be reflected in the abundance of hybrid event beds documented in the -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 distal Delaware basin (Driskill et al., 2018; Kvale et -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 al., 2020). Terrigenous deposits draping the SDS (Figs. 16C and 16D) may represent bypass surfaces -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 that are coeval with terrigenous and mixed-lithology -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 basinal deposits (Montgomery, 1997a; Asmus and 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Grammer, 2013; Nance and Rowe, 2015), particularly Figure 17. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) transects through slope detachment surfaces (SDSs) 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in Shumard and when compared to the rest of the slope deposits Bone Canyons. Yellow line represents SDS 4, while black lines represent SDSs 6–9. Results demonstrate terrigenous that are predominantly carbonate-rich. sediment is associated with slope detachment surfaces. The surface marks the location of the SDS with the depths The characteristics of SDS and clinothems, cou- corresponding to below (negative) and above (positive) the surface. The point at the surface is an average of five XRF pled with lithofacies distributions and regional measurements taken along the surface. Carbonate, mixed, and terrigenous domains calculated from the trend line identified in Figure 4B. The blue line represents the average of the samples taken within clinothems (i.e., not adjacent observations (Saller et al., 1989; Montgomery, 1997a; to SDS; see Fig. 4B), illustrating the divergence of samples taken near the SDS. The x-axis represents the terrigenous Asmus and Grammer, 2013; Nance and Rowe, 2015), material relative to carbonate material, with the numerator multiplied in order that chert beds (low in clay) would go allow us to reconstruct the local Leonardian sedi- to zero. (A) Transect through SDS 4. Transect is located predominantly within the terrigenous domain, but a relative ment routing system (Fig. 18) to explore controls increase in terrigenous material associated with detachment surface is indicated. (B) Transect through SDS 6. Transect on slope-building processes and sediment delivery located within the mixed to carbonate domain and shifts toward the terrigenous domain at and near the surface. (C–E) Transects through SDSs 7–9. Surface transects show the same trend as (B) with a shift from the mixed domain toward on a mixed-lithology margin. Four possible evolu- the terrigenous domain at the slope detachment surface. tionary steps are detailed (A, B, C, and D), and the

specific geometries created may vary both laterally A/S>1 A/S~1 and temporally due to along-strike variability inher-

Carb. buildup ent in shelf-slope margins (Fig. 10; Saller et al., 1989; Madof et al., 2016; Chiarella et al., 2019). We suggest FA2 that this reconstruction and associated principles can be applied to other parts of the basin and in sim- FA1 ilar mixed-lithology ancient and modern systems. F8 FA3 Clinothem packages 1–3 and 5–10 (Fig. 3B) F3 represent the stratigraphic record of time step A. F1 During this period (Fig. 18A), accommodation-to- sedimentation (A/S) is high (i.e., A/S>1; Shanley and 2-3 kms McCabe, 1994), promoting high carbonate production with minimal terrigenous input. Calcareous A/S<1 A/S>1 hemipelagic and sediment gravity flow deposits (FA1 and FA2) dominate the slope and basin, with perhaps limited aeolian contribution (Fig. 5A; Cecil et al., 2018). The slope builds out with spatially variable progradation and aggradation, account- FA4 ing for temporal changes in carbonate production and along-strike variability in slope morphology (Fig. 10; Saller et al., 1989). The dominance of carbonate lithofacies creates a relatively stable, albeit steep (~15°), slope characterized by local intrastratal deformation and small-scale slope-attached MTDs (Fig. 18A; Moscardelli and Wood, 2008). E Time Step B is represented by SDS 1, 2, and 5–9 Outcrop data (Fig. 18B). Terrigenous sediment supply increases, ?

? driving a decrease in A/S (e.g., A/S approaching 1) 1st BS Sand 1 & 4 5 8 and destabilizing the shelf-margin and upper slope. FACIES 2 6 This results in large, shelf-attached failures and 3 7 associated slope detachment surfaces. The SDS may form part of a larger clinoform surface that is D C B traceable onto the shelf and into the basin (Figs. 12 A D B and 18; Sarg, 1988; Fitchen, 1997). During this time, A 2-3 kms terrigenous sediment largely bypasses the slope but leaves the surface of the SDS relatively enriched Figure 18. Evolutionary model for the Bone Spring Formation and Leonardian margin of the Delaware Basin. (A) Time step A. High accommodation/sedimentation (A/S) with high carbonate production and minimal terrigenous input. in terrigenous material (Figs. 17 and 18E; see also Facies 1, 3, 8 and FA1, FA2, FA3 are displayed to highlight interpreted depositional setting. (B) Time step B. Terrig- Armitage et al., 2009; Amerman et al., 2011; Gros- enous sediment introduced to the outer margin due to a decrease in A/S, weakening the slope and creating slope heny et al., 2015; Stevenson et al., 2015). detachment surfaces (SDSs). These shelf-attached failures are likely part of a larger clinoform surface (magenta In time step C, represented by SDS 3 (Fig. 18C) line). SDSs are sites of evacuation on the upper slope and are coeval with MTDs at the toe-of-slope and in the basin. (C) Time step C. Further A/S decrease introduces large volumes of terrigenous sediment to the outer mar- and Clinothem 4 (Fig. 3B), further decrease of A/S gin and upper slope, resulting in bypass to the basin, but some accumulation on the slope as well. FA4 shown for (approaching 0 or negative) introduces larger vol- reference. (D) Time step D. Return to high A/S with the slope prograding and aggrading over its relict topography, umes of terrigenous sediment to the shelf edge and creating a new clinothem at a different orientation from the underlying clinothem. (E) Schematic shelf-to-basin slope. The resulting clinothem is built by FA4 depos- cross section based on the slope reconstructions representing a hypothetical ABDABCD time sequence. Red surfaces its, with the amount of terrigenous (Lithofacies 6) represent slope detachment surfaces and corresponding time lines similar to those documented on the outcrop. Carbonate grain buildup on the shelf denoted in illustrations. The transitioning of Lithofacies 5, 6, and 7 represents and mixed (Lithofacies 7) sediment dependent on the expected proximal to distal transition. Black box represents outcrop-constrained portion of the schematic. local sediment distribution (Fig. 18C). The steep,

inherited slope promotes the bypass of terrigenous “pancake” models for basin fill (e.g., a local sand slope in Shumard Canyon (Fig. 10B), and the pres- sediment into the basin (Fig. 18E). body interpreted to represent a correlatable low- ence of (1) terrigenous sediment (Clinothem 4, In time step D (Fig. 18D) A/S returns to time step stand sand “sheet” across a basin; Saller et al., Fig. 12) and (2) stacked submarine-channel deposits A conditions. Carbonate production again domi- 1989; Montgomery, 1997b; Nance and Rowe, 2015; in Clinothems 7–8 (Fig. 10A) suggests that the Shu- nates, and the slope progrades and aggrades over Crosby et al., 2018; Bhatnagar et al., 2018; Schwartz mard Canyon area may have been an entry point its failed deposits. Changes in dip attitude across et al., 2018). In reality, as many studies have shown, for coarse-grained sediment carried to a portion SDS suggest a complex lobate morphology as the sediment supply, accommodation, along-strike vari- of the northwestern Delaware Basin (Fig. 1A inset). slope builds over its relict topography (Figs. 10–16). ability, and other factors may affect the regional and Other sediment conduits identified in both the Cut- This style of progradation and aggradation of car- local development of both low-order and higher- off (Hurd et al., 2018) and Brushy Canyon (Gardner bonate slopes has been described elsewhere in the order systems tracts and sequences (Covault et al., et al., 2008) formations at this location corroborate Bone Spring Formation (Saller et al., 1989) and in 2007; Burgess, 2016; Madof et al., 2016; Harris et a persistent basin entry point in this area. other carbonate clinoform systems (Sonnenfeld, al., 2018; Trower et al., 2018; Chiarella et al., 2019). 1991; Gómez-Pérez et al., 1999; Katz et al., 2010; Results from this study provide insight into dif- Playton et al., 2010; Playton and Kerans, 2018). ferent forcing mechanisms that result in carbonate 6.2.1 1st Bone Spring Sand Exposed in Deformed (FA2) and channelized (FA3) facies are and terrigenous sediment mixing and partitioning. Shumard Canyon common at the base of clinothems, as the relict From an allogenic perspective, terrigenous sedi- scarp surfaces attract coarse-grained sediment ment associated with slope detachment surfaces In the study area, the Bone Spring slope is >90% gravity flows (Eggenhuisen et al., 2010; Janson et al., (Figs. 3B and 17) may record relative sea-level carbonate-dominated, but there is a significant 2011; Stevenson et al., 2015). Toward the top of clino- fluctuations of variable magnitude. In such cases, accumulation of terrigenous sediment in Clino- thems, undeformed lime mudstones (Lithofacies 1) similar processes would be expected to occur them 4 (Figs. 12, 16A, and 17A). This package is dominate as the slope finds local equilibrium (e.g., regionally, resulting in a relatively correlatable thickest and best developed in Shumard Canyon shallowing dips in Clinothem 8, see Fig. 14). SDS 4 basin stratigraphy (Li et al., 2015; Nance and Rowe, and becomes thin and discontinuous downslope represents a surface associated with this A/S shift. 2015). In the study area, the terrigenous sediment (Figs. 3B, 10, 16A, and A2). The volume and propor- Seven of the nine detachment surfaces (SDS 1, of Clinothem 4 is discontinuous and interbedded tion of terrigenous sediment (predominantly quartz 2, and 5–9) in the study area likely followed time with carbonate sediment (Fig. 3B), suggesting wide- silt) in this location and its stratigraphic position, steps ABD, with no major terrigenous influx. From spread correlability is unlikely. Furthermore, poor suggest that SDS 3 is the L5 sequence boundary SDS 3–4, the system likely followed an ABCD path, age control prevents the slope-to-basin correlation and that Clinothem 4 is therefore the basal unit with a large decrease in A/S accounting for a larger of SDSs and clinothems, and thus it is difficult to of the L5 sequence of Fitchen (1997), commonly flux of terrigenous sediment. A prolonged decrease prove or deny relative sea level as a causal mecha- referred to as the “1st Bone Spring Sand” in the in A/S (e.g., the Bone Spring 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Sands) nism for the observed stratigraphic architecture in basin (Fig. 2). Alternatively, Clinothem 4 may rep- would follow a similar ABCD path, with time step the study area. From an autogenic perspective, vari- resent a localized area of terrigenous sediment C representing relatively long periods with large ations in rates of progradation and aggradation of delivery within the L5 sequence, but not the basal volumes of terrigenous sediment bypass to the carbonates result in a rugose margin, as recognized unit. In either case, the lithologic and architectural basin (cf. Stevenson et al., 2015). A schematic in the subsurface Permian Basin (Saller et al., 1989) heterogeneity of Clinothem 4 suggests that auto- cross section of a hypothetical time sequence (i.e., and in modern-day carbonate margins (Mulder genic and allogenic processes acted concurrently ABDABCD) is illustrated in Figure 18E. et al., 2012). This rugosity provides conduits for to build Bone Spring stratigraphy. Deconvolving transport of both coarse-grained carbonate and ter- those superimposed signals would be difficult rigenous sediment to the basin without invoking using lithostratigraphy alone, so further work 6.2 Implications for Sequence Stratigraphy relative sea-level change (cf. Boyd et al., 2008). As revising biostratigraphy and outcrop-to-well-log the margin builds by episodes of growth and fail- correlations is required to support our interpreta- Sequence stratigraphic concepts are commonly ure (Fig. 18; Saller et al., 1989; Playton et al., 2010), tions. If Clinothem 4 is indeed equivalent to the1st used to predict facies from seismic-scale geome- along-strike topographic variability may result in Bone Spring Sand, the observed lateral lithological tries (Mitchum et al., 1977; Vail, 1987). However, local differences in sediment input, clinothem com- heterogeneity will be important when performing allogenic forcing is often overly relied upon with- position and architecture (cf. Madof et al., 2016), local and regional well-to-well correlations in the out considering the effects of autogenic forcing and forming a heterogeneous basin stratigraphy with Delaware Basin and in similar mixed sediment rout- along-strike variability (see discussion in Burgess, contemporaneous carbonate and terrigenous depo- ing systems (Hampson, 2016; Madof et al., 2016; 2016), resulting in over-simplified stratigraphic sition (Fig. 18E). The rugosity of the Bone Spring Romans et al., 2016).

1000 GP4 GP3

1500 GP2 GP1 LD10 LOG DEPTH (METERS) LOG

NW 1 km SE Capitan Fm. C Brushy Cyn Fm. Basin

Shelf-strike Victorio Peak Fm. .08

1st Bone Spring Sand

1000 N 100 m N 100 m 100m Shumard Trail 1.0

BRUSHY CANYON TIME (SECONDS) VICTORIO PEAK CUTOFF

LOG DEPTH (METERS) LOG 1.2 1500 BONE SPRING CARBONATE

LOWER AVALON

1 km 1.4 Figure 19. Predicting sub-seismic facies types from seismic-scale architecture. (A) Seismic line of the Delaware Basin shelf margin from Sarg (1988) and Sarg et al. (1999). Location shown in Figure 1A inset. Red box indicates location of part B. (B) Interpreted seismic section of Leonardian and Guadalupian shelf-to-basin stratigraphy (from Sarg et al., 1999). The unit labeled Bone Spring Carbonate would roughly correlate to the upper section (L6) of the Bone Spring outcrops in the study area. Orange lines highlight clinoform geometries within the prograding carbonate package. The Lower Avalon represents a basinal terrigenous sediment wedge between L5 and L6 (Fig. 2). (C1) Photo and (C2) line drawing of Shu- mard north, highlighting the similarity of scale and geometry of clinoforms to those seen in seismic data.

6.3 Sub-Seismic Scale Predictions from slope failure may be positively linked to terrigenous REFERENCES CITED Seismic-Scale Architectural Elements sediment influx. At the base of typical clinothems, Allen, J., DeSantis, J., Koglin, D., and Chen, F., 2013, Integration carbonate mass-transport deposits and subma- of structure and stratigraphy in Bone Spring tight oil sandstones using 3D seismic in the Delaware Basin, TX: SEG Slope detachment surfaces 1–9 can be correlated rine-channel fills are common as the slope fills the Global Meeting Abstracts, p. 2521–2527, https://doi.org/10 for more than 1 km and have relief/thickness values topography created by failure. By contrast, in the .1190/urtec2013-262. greater than 20 m, indicating that they have geom- upper portions of clinothems, undeformed carbon- Amerman, R., 2009, Deepwater mass-transport deposits: Structure, etries comparable to seismic data in the Permian ate mudstones were deposited as the slope found stratigraphy, and implications for basin evolution [Ph.D. dissertation]: Golden, Colorado, Colorado School of Mines, 152 p. basin (Fig. 19). The spatial and temporal distribution local equilibrium. Bedding attitudes are signifi- Amerman, R., Nelson, E.P., Gardner, M.H., and Trudgill, B., 2011, of facies and depositional elements documented cantly different across slope detachment surfaces, Submarine mass-transport deposits of the Permian Cutoff by this study demonstrates how sub-seismic facies suggesting that the primary mechanism in slope Formation, West Texas, USA: Internal architecture and controls on overlying reservoir sand deposition, in Shipp, C.R., variability can be tied to seismic-scale architecture. evolution were repeated mass wasting and infill Weimer, P., and Posamentier, H.W., eds., Mass-Transport Subsurface features of similar scale and archi- resulting in a rugose margin. An observed slope Deposits in Deepwater Settings: SEPM Special Publication tecture to SDSs are imaged in seismic-reflection inflection point contains abundant evidence of fail- 96, p. 235–268, https://doi.org/10.2110/sepmsp.096.235 Armitage, D.A., Romans, B.W., Covault, J.A., and Graham, data from the Leonardian margin along the North- ures and of submarine channel deposits, suggesting S.A., 2009, The influence of mass-transport deposit sur- west Shelf (Fig. 19A; Sarg, 1988; Sarg et al., 1999). that coarse-grained entry points to the basin were face topography on the evolution of turbidite architecture: A seismic-scale basinal siliciclastic wedge is inter- influenced by slope morphology. The Sierra Contreras, Tres Pasos Formation (Cretaceous), Southern Chile: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 79, preted (labeled Lower Avalon, Fig. 19B) with a This study also provides insight into sequence p. 287–301, https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2009.035. carbonate package prograding over the top of stratigraphic concepts in a mixed-lithology system. Asmus, J.J., and Grammer, M.G., 2013, Characterization of Deep- the sand (labeled Victorio Peak and Bone Spring A terrigenous-rich clinothem in Shumard Canyon water Carbonate Turbidites and Mass-Transport Deposits Utilizing High-Resolution Electrical Borehole Image Logs: Carbonate, Fig. 19B). Clinoform geometries are is interpreted as the slope equivalent of the basinal Upper Leonardian (Lower Permian) Upper Bone Spring st identified within the prograding package (orange 1 Bone Spring Sand. However, variability in the Limestone, Delaware Basin: Southeast New Mexico and lines, Fig. 19B). Outcrops of the Bone Spring For- lithologic stacking patterns and lateral continuity West Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies mation are shown at the same scale as the seismic of this clinothem suggests that both autogenic Transactions, v. 63, p. 27–65. Auchter, N.C., Romans, B.W., and Hubbard, S.M., 2016, Influence data (Figs. 19C1 and 19C2). The SDS may represent and allogenic processes influenced deposition. of deposit architecture on intrastratal deformation, slope larger clinoform geometries, whereas the terrige- This complexity has important implications for deposits of the Tres Pasos Formation, Chile: Sedimentary nous-rich clinothem may be the slope expression well-to-well correlations in the Delaware Basin. Geology, v. 341, p. 13–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo .2016.05.005. st of a terrigenous fan complex (e.g., 1 Bone Spring The slope-building processes documented in the Bhatnagar, P.M., Scipione, M., Verma, S., and Bianco, R., 2018, Sand) in the basin. We expect that within a clino- Bone Spring Formation acted as a primary con- Characterization of mass transport deposit using seismic them, MTDs and terrigenous lithologies will occur trol on sediment distribution, stacking patterns, attributes: Spraberry Formation, Midland Basin, west Texas: SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, p. 1618–1622, near the base of the clinothem and will onlap slope and depositional styles, which can be utilized to https://doi.org/10.1190/SEGAM2018-2998610.1. detachment surfaces near the toe-of-slope, but will predict reservoir-forming facies in the basinal Del- Birgenheier, L.P., and Moore, S.A., 2018, Carbonate mud become progressively more carbonate-rich toward aware Basin. Insights from this study can also be deposited below storm wave base: A critical review: The Sedimentary Record, p. 4–10. the top (Fig. 18E), potentially aiding facies interpre- utilized to aid in reconstructing the evolution of Bosellini, A., 1984, Progradation geometries of carbonate plat- tations from seismic data. other mixed-lithology margins globally. forms: Examples from the Triassic of the Dolomites, northern Italy: Sedimentology, v. 31, no. 1, p. 1–24, https://doi .org /10 .1111/j .1365 -3091 .1984 .tb00720 .x . Bouma, A.H., 1962, Sedimentology of Some Flysch Deposits: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ■■ 7. CONCLUSIONS A Graphic Approach to Facies Interpretation: Amsterdam, We would like to thank Colorado School of Mines and the Chev- Elsevier, 168 p. ron Center for Research Excellence (CoRE) for providing the Outcrops of the Bone Spring Formation of Boyd, R., Ruming, K., Goodwin, I., Sandstrom, M., and Schro- primary funding for this project. Additional funding was provided der-Adams, C., 2008, Highstand transport of coastal sand Guadalupe Mountains National Park provide an by the West Texas Geological Society (WTGS), American Asso- to the deep ocean: A case study from Fraser Island, south- opportunity to investigate slope-building processes ciation of Petroleum Geologists Grants-In-Aid, and the Society east Australia: Geology, v. 36, p. 15–18, https://doi.org/10 and sediment distribution in a mixed carbonate-si- for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM) Foundation. A special thank .1130/G24211A.1. you to Jonena Hearst and Guadalupe Mountain National Park Bull, S., Cartwright, J., and Huuse, M., 2009, A subsurface evac- liciclastic margin. Slope-building clinothems of for access to the Western Escarpment. We would also like to uation model for submarine slope failure: Basin Research, mixed lithology are bounded by slope detachment thank Sebastian Cardona, Evan Gross, Thomas Martin, and Enry v. 21, no. 4, p. 433–443, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117 surfaces reflecting large-scale subaqueous failure of Horas Sihombing for assistance during field work and Mary Carr, .2008.00390.x. Jenn Pickering, Domenico Chiarella, Bill Fitchen, Xavier Janson, Burgess, P.M., 2016, The future of the sequence stratigraphy the carbonate margin. Terrigenous sediment associ- Greg Hurd, and two anonymous reviewers for providing useful paradigm: Dealing with a variable third dimension: Geology, ated with slope detachment surfaces suggests that feedback that improved the paper. v. 44, no. 4, p. 335–336, https://doi .org /10 .1130 /focus042016 .1 .

Cardona, S., Wood, L.J., Day-Stirrat, R.J., and Moscardelli, L., Wolfcamp, Delaware Basin, USA: SPE/AAPG/SEG Uncon- Geological Society of London, v. 173, no. 5, p. 817–836, 2016, Fabric Development and Pore-Throat reduction in a ventional Resources Technology Conference, Houston, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2015-136. Mass-Transport Deposit in the Jubilee Gas Field, Eastern Texas, USA, July 2018, p. 2861–2888, https://doi .org /10 .15530 Harman, C.A., 2011, Quantified Facies Distribution and Sequence Gulf of Mexico: Consequences for the Sealing Capacity of /URTEC-2018-2901968. Geometry of the Yates Formation, Slaughter Canyon, New MTDs, in Lamarche, G., et al., eds., Submarine Mass Move- Dunham, R.J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks according Mexico [Ph.D. dissertation]: University of Texas at Austin, ments and their Consequences: Advances in Natural and to depositional texture, in Ham, W.E., ed., Classification 137 p. Technological Hazards Research: Cham, Springer Interna- of Carbonate Rocks: American Association of Petroleum Harris, A.D., Baumgardner, S.E., Sun, T., and Granjeon, D., 2018, tional Publishing, p. 27–37. Geologists Memoir 1, p. 108–121. A poor relationship between sea level and deep-water sand Cardona, S., Wood, L.J., Dugan, B., Jobe, Z., and Strachan, Eggenhuisen, J.T., McCaffrey, W.D., Haughton, P.D.W., But- delivery: Sedimentary Geology, v. 370, p. 42–51, https://doi L.J., 2020, Characterization of the Rapanui mass-transport ler, R.W.H., Moore, I., Jarvie, A., and Hakes, W.G., 2010, .org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2018.04.002. deposit and the basal shear zone: Mount Messenger For- Reconstructing large-scale remobilisation of deep-water Harris, M.T., 1987, Sedimentology of the Cutoff Formation (Perm- mation, Taranaki Basin, New Zealand: Sedimentology, v. 67, deposits and its impact on sand-body architecture from ian), western Guadalupe Mountains, west Texas: New p. 2111–2148, https://doi.org/10.1111/sed.12697. cored wells: The Lower Cretaceous Britannia Sandstone Mexico Geology, p. 74–79. Cecil, C.B., Hemingway, B.S., and Dulong, F.T., 2018, The chem- Formation, UK North Sea: Marine and Petroleum Geology, Harris, M.T., 2000, Members for the Cutoff Formation, western istry of eolian quartz dust and the origin of chert: Journal v. 27, no. 7, p. 1595–1615, https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .marpetgeo escarpment of the Guadalupe Mountains, West Texas: Smith- of Sedimentary Research, v. 88, no. 6, p. 743–752, https:// .2010.04.005. sonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences, v. 32, p. 102–122. doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2018.39. Fischer, A.G., and Sarnthein, M., 1988, Airborne silts and Haughton, P., Davis, C., McCaffrey, W., and Barker, S., 2009, Hybrid Chiarella, D., and Longhitano, S.G., 2012, Distinguishing deposi- dune-derived sands in the Permian of the Delaware Basin: sediment gravity flow deposits—Classification, origin and tional environments in shallow-water mixed, bio-siliciclastic Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 58, p. 637–643. significance: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 26, p. 1900– deposits on the basis of the degree of heterolithic segre- Fisher, R.V., 1983, Flow transformations in sediment gravity 1918, https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .marpetgeo .2009 .02.012 . gation (Gelasian, southern Italy): Journal of Sedimentary flows: Geology, v. 11, no. 5, p. 273–274,https:// doi.org/10 Hayes, P.T., 1964, Geology of the Guadalupe Mountains, New Research, v. 82, no. 12, p. 969–990, https://doi.org/10.2110 .1130/0091-7613(1983)11<273:FTISGF>2.0.CO;2. Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 446, /jsr.2012.78. Fitchen, W.M., 1997, Lower Permian sequence stratigraphy of the 69 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/pp446. Chiarella, D., Longhitano, S.G., and Tropeano, M., 2017, Types western Delaware Basin Margin, Sierra Diablo, West Texas Hill, C.A., 1996, Geology of the Delaware Basin Guadalupe, of mixing and heterogeneities in siliciclastic-carbonate sed- [Ph.D. dissertation]: University of Texas at Austin, 263 p. Apache, and Glass Mountains, New Mexico and West Texas: iments: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 88, p. 617–627, Folk, R.L., 1954, The distinction between grain size and min- Permian Basin Section - SEPM Publication 96-39, 480 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2017.09.010. eral composition in sedimentary-rock nomenclature: The Hills, J.M., 1984, Sedimentation, Tectonism, and Hydrocarbon Chiarella, D., Longhitano, S.G., and Tropeano, M., 2019, Different Journal of Geology, v. 62, no. 4, p. 344–359, https://doi.org Generation in Delaware Basin, West Texas and Southeastern stacking patterns along an active fold-and-thrust belt—Ace- /10.1086/626171. New Mexico: American Association of Petroleum Geologists renza Bay, Southern Apennines (Italy): Geology, v. 47, no. 2, Folk, R.L., 1980, Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks: Austin, Texas, Bulletin, v. 68, no. 3, p. 250–267. p. 139–142, https://doi.org/10.1130/G45628.1. Hemphill Publishing Company, 184 p. Hubbard, S.M., Romans, B.W., and Graham, S.A., 2008, Deep-wa- Covault, J.A., Normark, W.R., Romans, B.W., and Graham, S.A., Gardner, M.H., and Sonnenfeld, M.D., 1996, Stratigraphic ter foreland basin deposits of the Cerro Toro Formation, 2007, Highstand fans in the California borderland: The over- changes in facies architecture of the Permian Brushy Can- Magallanes basin, Chile: Architectural elements of a sin- looked deep-water depositional systems: Geology, v. 35, yon Formation in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, west uous basin axial channel belt: Sedimentology, v. 55, no. 5, p. 783–786, https://doi.org/10.1130/G23800A.1. Texas, in DeMis, W.D., and Cole, A.G., eds., The Brushy p. 1333–1359. Crosby, C.B., Pigott, J.D., and Pigott, K.L., 2018, High resolution Canyon Play in Outcrop and Subsurface: Concepts and Hurd, G.S., 2016, Revised stratigraphic framework for the Cut- sequence stratigraphy of the Leonardian Bone Spring For- Examples: Midland, Texas: Permian Basin Section - SEPM off Formation and implications for deepwater systems mation, northern Delaware Basin, Eddy and Lea counties, Publication 96-38, p. 17–40. modified by large-scale inflections in slope angle below New Mexico: Search and Discovery, no. 51464, p. 1–138. Gardner, M.H., Borer, J.M., Romans, B.W., Baptista, N., Kling, the shelf break [Ph.D. dissertation]: University of Texas at Dakin, N., Pickering, K.T., Mohrig, D., and Bayliss, N.J., 2013, E.K., Hanggoro, D., Melick, J.J., Wagerle, R.M., Dechesne, Austin, 275 p. Channel-like features created by erosive submarine debris M., Carr, M.M., Amerman, R., and Atan, S., 2008, Strati- Hurd, G.S., Kerans, C., Fullmer, S., and Janson, X., 2016, Large- flows: Field evidence from the Middle Eocene Ainsa Basin, graphic models for deep-water sedimentary systems, in scale inflections in slope angle below the shelf break: A first Spanish Pyrenees: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 41, Schofield, K., Rosen, N.C., Pfeiffer, D., and Johnson, S., order control on the stratigraphic architecture of carbonate no. 1, p. 62–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2012 eds., Answering the Challenges of Production from DW slopes: Cutoff Formation, Guadalupe Mountains National .07.007. Reservoirs: Analogues and Case Histories to Aid a New Park, west Texas, U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary Research, De Blasio, F.V., Elverhøi, A., Issler, D., Harbitz, C.B., Bryn, P., and Generation: Houston, Texas, Gulf Coast Section of SEPM v. 86, no. 4, p. 336–362, https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2016.25. Lien, R., 2005, On the dynamics of subaqueous clay rich Annual Conference, p. 77–175, https://doi.org/10.5724/gcs Hurd, G.S., Kerans, C., Frost, E.L., Simo, J.A., and Janson, X., gravity mass flows—The giant Storegga slide, Norway, in .08.28.0077. 2018, Sediment gravity-flow deposits and three-dimensional Solheim, A., Bryn, P., Berg, K., Sejrup, H.P., and Mienert, J., Gómez-Pérez, I., Fernández-Mendiola, P.A., and García-Mondéjar, stratigraphic architectures of the linked Cutoff, upper Bone eds., Ormen Lange–An Integrated Study for Safe Field Devel- J., 1999, Depositional architecture of a rimmed carbonate Spring, and upper Avalon-system, Delaware Basin: Amer- opment in the Storegga Submarine Area: Elsevier, p. 179–186, platform (Albian, Gorbea, western Pyrenees): Sedimentol- ican Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 102, https://doi .org /10 .1016 /B978 -0 -08 -044694 -3 .50019-6 . ogy, v. 46, no. 2, p. 337–356, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365 no. 9, p. 1703–1737, https://doi.org/10.1306/02061817121. De Blasio, F.V., Engvik, L., Harbitz, C.B., and Elverhoi, A., 2006, -3091.1999.00217.x. Jablonská, D., Di Celma, C.N., Alsop, G.I., and Tondi, E., 2018, High mobility of subaqueous debris flows and the lubri- Grosheny, D., Ferry, S., and Courjault, T., 2015, Progradational Internal architecture of mass-transport deposits in basinal cating-layer model: Norwegian Journal of Geology/Norsk patterns at the head of single units of base-of-slope, sub- carbonates: A case study from southern Italy: Sedimentology, Geologisk Forening, v. 86, p. 275–284. marine granular flow deposits (“Conglomérats des Gas,” v. 65, no. 4, p. 1246–1276, https://doi .org /10 .1111 /sed .12420 . Dott, R.H., 1963, Dynamics of subaqueous gravity depositional Coniacian, SE France): Sedimentary Geology, v. 317, p. 102– James, N.P., Bone, Y., von der Borch, C.C., and Gostin, V.A., 1992, processes: American Association of Petroleum Geologists 115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2014.10.007. Modern carbonate and terrigenous clastic sediments on a Bulletin, v. 47, no. 1, p. 104–128. Hampson, G.J., 2016, Towards a sequence stratigraphic solution cool water, high energy, mid-latitude shelf: Lacepede, south- Driskill, B., Pickering, J., and Rowe, H., 2018, Interpretation of set for autogenic processes and allogenic controls: Upper ern Australia: Sedimentology, v. 39, no. 5, p. 877–903, https:// high resolution XRF data from the Bone Spring and Upper Cretaceous strata, Book Cliffs, Utah, USA: Journal of the doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.1992.tb02158.x.

Janocko, M., Nemec, W., Henriksen, S., and Warchoł, M., 2013, Geologists Bulletin, v. 104, p. 525–563, https://doi.org/10 Nance, H.S., and Rowe, H., 2015, Eustatic controls on stra- The diversity of deep-water sinuous channel belts and .1306/06121917225. tigraphy, chemostratigraphy, and water mass evolution slope valley-fill complexes: Marine and Petroleum Geol- Lazar, O.R., Bohacs, K.M., Macquaker, J.H.S., Schieber, J., and preserved in a Lower Permian mudrock succession, Del- ogy, v. 41, no. 1, p. 7–34, https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .marpetgeo Demko, T.M., 2015, Capturing key attributes of fine-grained aware Basin, west Texas, USA: Interpretation (Tulsa), v. 3, .2012.06.012. sedimentary rocks in outcrops, cores, and thin sections: no. 1, p. SH11–SH25, https://doi .org /10 .1190 /INT -2014 -0207 .1 . Janson, X., Kerans, C., Loucks, R., Marhx, M.A., Reyes, C., and Nomenclature and description guidelines: Journal of Sed- Playton, T.E., and Kerans, C., 2018, Architecture and genesis of Murguia, F., 2011, Seismic architecture of a Lower Creta- imentary Research, v. 85, no. 3, p. 230–246, https://doi.org prograding deep boundstone margins and debris-dominated ceous platform-to-slope system, Santa Agueda and Poza /10.2110/jsr.2015.11. carbonate slopes: Examples from the Permian Capitan Rica fields, Mexico: American Association of Petroleum Li, S., Yu, X., Li, S., and Giles, K.A., 2015, Role of sea-level Formation, Southern Guadalupe Mountains, West Texas: Geologists Bulletin, v. 95, no. 1, p. 105–146, https://doi.org change in deep water deposition along a carbonate shelf Sedimentary Geology, v. 370, p. 15–41, https://doi.org/10 /10.1306/06301009107. margin, Early and Middle Permian, Delaware Basin: Impli- .1016/j .sedgeo .2017 .12 .021 . Jo, A., Eberli, G.P., and Grasmueck, M., 2015, Margin collapse cations for reservoir characterization: Geologica Carpathica, Playton, T.E., Janson, X., Kerans, C., James, N.P., and Dalrymple, and slope failure along southwestern Great Bahama Bank: v. 66, no. 2, p. 99–116, https://doi.org/10.1515/geoca-2015 R.W., 2010, Carbonate slopes, in James, N.P., and Dalrym- Sedimentary Geology, v. 317, p. 43–52, https://doi.org/10 -0013. ple, R.W., eds., Facies Models 4: St. John’s, Newfoundland, .1016/j.sedgeo.2014.09.004. Lowe, D.R., 1982, Sediment gravity flows: II. Depositional mod- Geological Association of Canada, p. 449–476. Katz, D.A., Playton, T., Bellian, J., Harrison, C., and Maharaja, els with special reference to the deposits of high-density Poole, F.G., Perry, W.J., Jr., Madrid, R.J., and Amaya-Martinez, R., A., 2010, Slope Heterogeneity and Production Results in a turbidity currents: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 52, 2005, Tectonic synthesis of the Ouachita-Marathon-Sonora Steep-sided Upper Paleozoic Isolated Carbonate Platform p. 279–297. orogenic margin of southern Laurentia: Stratigraphic and Reservoir, Karachaganak Field, Kazakhstan: SPE Caspian Madof, A.S., Harris, A.D., and Connell, S.D., 2016, Nearshore structural implications for timing of deformational events Carbonates Technology Conference, Atyrau, Kazakhstan, along-strike variability: Is the concept of the systems tract and plate-tectonic model, in Anderson, T.H., Nourse, J.A., November 2010, p. 1–7, https://doi.org/10.2118/139960-MS. unhinged?: Geology, v. 44, no. 4, p. 315–318, https://doi .org McKee, J.W., and Steiner, M.B., eds., The Mojave-Sonora Kenter, J., 1990, Carbonate platform flanks: Slope angle and /10.1130/G37613.1. Megashear Hypothesis: Development, Assessment, and sediment fabric carbonate platforms have been the focus Mazzanti, P., and De Blasio, F.V., 2010, Peculiar morphologies Alternatives: Geological Society of America Special Paper of increasing: Sedimentology, v. 37, p. 777–794, https://doi of subaqueous landslide deposits and their relationship to 393, p. 543–596, https://doi.org/10.1130/0-8137-2393-0.543. .org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.1990.tb01825.x. flow dynamics,in Mosher, D.C., et al., eds., Submarine Mass Prather, B.E., O’Byrne, C., Pirmez, C., and Sylvester, Z., 2017, Kenter, J.A.M., and Schlager, W., 1989, A comparison of shear Movements and Their Consequences: Advances in Natu- Sediment partitioning, continental slopes and base-of-slope strength in calcareous and siliciclastic marine sediments: ral and Technological Hazards Research, v. 28, p. 141–152. systems: Basin Research, v. 29, no. 3, p. 394–416, https://doi Marine Geology, v. 88, no. 1–2, p. 145–152, https://doi.org McDaniel, P.N., and Pray, L.C., 1967, Bank to basin transition in .org/10.1111/bre.12190. /10.1016/0025-3227(89)90010-8. the Permian (Leonardian) Carbonates, Guadalupe Moun- Presley, M.W., 1987, Evolution of Permian evaporite basin in Kerans, C., and Kempter, K., 2002, Hierarchical stratigraphic tains, Texas: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Texas Panhandle: American Association of Petroleum Geol- analysis of a carbonate platform, Permian of the Guadalupe Bulletin, v. 51, p. 474. ogists Bulletin, v. 71, p. 167–190. Mountains: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Mitchum, R.M., Vail, P.R., Thompson, S., and Payton, C.E., 1977, Principaud, M., Mulder, T., Gillet, H., and Borgomano, J., 2015, Datapages Discovery Series, no. 5, CD ROM. Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, part 2: Large-scale carbonate submarine mass-wasting along the Kerans, C., Fitchen, W.M., Gardner, M.H., and Wardlaw, B.R., The depositional sequence as a basic unit for stratigraphic northwestern slope of the Great Bahama Bank (Bahamas): 1993, A contribution to the evolving stratigraphic framework analysis, in Payton, C.E., ed., Seismic Stratigraphy— Morphology, architecture, and mechanisms: Sedimentary of middle Permian strata of the Delaware Basin, Texas and Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: American Geology, v. 317, p. 27–42, https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.sedgeo New Mexico, in Love, D.W., Hawley, J.W., Kues, B.S., Austin, Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, v. 26, p. 53–62, .2014.10.008. G.S., and Lucas, S.G., eds., Carlsbad Region (New Mex- https://doi .org /10 .1306 /M26490C4 . Resor, P.G., and Flodin, E.A., 2010, Forward modeling synsed- ico and West Texas): New Mexico Geological Society 44th Montgomery, S.L., 1997a, Permian Bone Spring Formation: imentary deformation associated with a prograding Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, v. 44, p. 175–84. Sandstone play in the Delaware Basin part I: Slope: Amer- steep-sloped carbonate margin: Journal of Structural Geol- Kertznus, V., and Kneller, B., 2009, Clinoform quantification for ican Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 81, ogy, v. 32, no. 9, p. 1187–1200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg assessing the effects of external forcing on continental mar- no. 8, p. 1239–1258. .2009.04 .015 . gin development: Basin Research, v. 21, no. 5, p. 738–758, Montgomery, S.L., 1997b, Permian Bone Spring Formation: Rich, J.L., 1951, Three critical environments of deposition, and https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2009.00411.x. Sandstone play in the Delaware Basin, part II: Basin: Amer- criteria for recognition of rocks deposited in each of them: King, P.B., 1948, Geology of the southern Guadalupe Mountains, ican Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 81, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 62, no. 1, p. 1–20, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 215, 183 no. 9, p. 1423–1434. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1951)62[1:TCEODA]2.0 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/pp215. Moscardelli, L., and Wood, L., 2008, New classification system .CO;2. Kirkby, K.C., 1982, Deposition, erosion and diagenesis of the for mass transport complexes in offshore Trinidad: Basin Romans, B.W., Castelltort, S., Covault, J.A., Fildani, A., and upper Victorio Peak Formation (Leonardian), southern Research, v. 20, no. 1, p. 73–98, https://doi .org /10 .1111 /j .1365 Walsh, J.P., 2016, Environmental signal propagation in sedi- Guadalupe Mountains, West Texas [M.S. thesis]: Madison, -2117.2007.00340.x. mentary systems across timescales: Earth-Science Reviews, University of Wisconsin, 165 p. Moscardelli, L., and Wood, L., 2016, Morphometry of mass-trans- v. 153, p. 7–29, https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .earscirev .2015 .07 .012 . Kvale, E.P., and Rahman, M.W., 2016, Depositional facies and port deposits as a predictive tool: Geological Society of Ross, W.C., Halliwell, B.A., May, J.A., Watts, D.E., and Syvitski, organic content of upper Wolfcamp Formation (Permian) America Bulletin, v. 128, no. 1–2, p. 47–80, https://doi.org J.P.M., 1994, Slope readjustment: A new model for the devel- Delaware Basin and implications for sequence stratigraphy /10.1130/B31221.1. opment of submarine fans and aprons: Geology, v. 22, no. 6, and hydrocarbon source: SEG Global Meeting Abstracts, Mulder, T., Ducassou, E., Eberli, G.P., Hanquiez, V., Gonthier, E., p. 511–514, https://doi .org /10 .1130 /0091 -7613 (1994)022 <0511: p. 1485–1495, https://doi .org /10 .15530 /URTEC -2016 -2457495 . Kindler, P., Principaud, M., Fournier, F., Leonide, P., Billeaud, SRANMF>2.3.CO;2. Kvale, E.P., Bowie, C.M., Flenthrope, C., Mace, C., Parrish, J.M., I., Marsset, B., Reijmer, J.J.G., Bondu, C., Joussiaume, R., Salazar, M., Moscardelli, L., and Wood, L., 2015, Utilising clino- Price, B., Anderson, S., and DiMichele, W.A., 2020, Facies and Pakiades, M., 2012, New insights into the morphol- form architecture to understand the drivers of basin margin variability within a mixed carbonate-siliciclastic sea-floor ogy and sedimentary processes along the western slope evolution: A case study in the Taranaki Basin, New Zealand: fan (upper Wolfcamp Formation, Permian, Delaware of Great Bahama Bank: Geology, v. 40, no. 7, p. 603–606, Basin Research, v. 28, no. 6, p. 840–865, https://doi.org/10 Basin, New Mexico): American Association of Petroleum https://doi.org/10.1130/G32972.1. .1111/bre.12138.

Saller, A.H., Barton, J.W., and Barton, R.E., 1989, Slope sedi- Shumaker, L.E., Jobe, Z.R., and Graham, S.A., 2016, Evolution delta and linked submarine channels in the northeastern mentation associated with a vertically building shelf, Bone of submarine gullies on a prograding slope: Insights from Gulf of Mexico, in Prather, B.E., Deptuck, M.E., Mohrig, D., Spring Formation, Mescalero Escarpe field, southeastern 3D seismic reflection data: Marine Geology, v. 393, p. 35–46, Van Hoorn, B., and B. Wynn, R.B., eds., Application of the New Mexico, in Crevello, P.D., Wilson, J.J., Sarg, J.F., and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2016.06.006. Principles of Seismic Geomorphology to Continental-Slope Read, J.F., eds., Controls on Carbonate Platform and Basin Silver, B.A., and Todd, G.T., 1969, 1969, Permian Cyclic Strata, and Base-of-Slope Systems: Case Studies from Seafloor Development: SEPM Special Publication 44, p. 275–288, Northern Midland and Delaware Basins, West Texas and and Near-Seafloor Analogues: SEPM Special Publication https://doi.org/10.2110/pec.89.44.0275. Southeastern New Mexico: American Association of Petro- 99, p. 31–59, https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .marpetgeo .2010 .05 .012 . Sarg, J.F., 1988, Carbonate sequence stratigraphy, in Wilgus, C.K., leum Geologists Bulletin, v. 53, no. 11, p. 2223–2251. Talling, P.J., Masson, D.G., Sumner, E.J., and Malgesini, G., Hastings, B.S., Posamentier, H., Van Wagoner, J., Ross, C.A., Sonnenfeld, M.D., 1991, Anatomy of offlap in a shelf-margin dep- 2012, Subaqueous sediment density flows: Depositional and Kendall, C.G.S.C., eds., Sea-Level Changes—An Inte- ositional sequence: upper San Andres Formation (Permian, processes and deposit types: Sedimentology, v. 59, p. 1937– grated Approach: SEPM Special Publication 42, p. 155–181, Guadalupian), Last Chance Canyon, Guadalupe Mountains, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2012.01353.x. https://doi.org/10.2110/pec.88.01.0155. New Mexico [M.S. thesis]: Golden, Colorado, Colorado Tassy, A., Crouzy, E., Gorini, C., Rubino, J.L., Bouroullec, J.L., and Sarg, J.F., and Lehmann, P.J., 1986, Lower-middle Guadalupian School of Mines, 296 p. Sapin, F., 2015, Egyptian Tethyan margin in the Mesozoic: facies and stratigraphy, San Andres/Grayburg Formations, Soreghan, G.S., and Soreghan, M.J., 2013, Tracing clastic deliv- Evolution of a mixed carbonate-siliciclastic shelf edge (from Permian Basin, Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, in ery to the Permian Delaware Basin, U.S.A.: Implications for Western Desert to Sinai): Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 68, Moore, G.E., Wilde, G.L., and Sarg, J.F., eds., Lower and paleogeography and circulation in westernmost equato- p. 565–581, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.10.011. Middle Guadalupian Facies, Stratigraphy, and Reservoir rial Pangea: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 83, no. 9, Tribovillard, N., Algeo, T.J., Lyons, T., and Riboulleau, A., 2006, Geometries: San Andres/Grayburg Formations, Guadalupe p. 786–802, https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2013.63. Trace metals as paleoredox and paleoproductivity proxies: Mountains, New Mexico and Texas: Permian Basin Section Soto-Kerans, G.M., Stockli, D.F., Janson, X., Lawton, T.F., and An update: Chemical Geology, v. 232, p. 12–32, https://doi - SEPM Symposium and Guidebook, v. 86-25, p. 1–8. Covault, J.A., 2020, Orogen proximal sedimentation in the .org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2006.02.012. Sarg, J.F., Markello, J.R., and Weber, L.J., 1999, The second-order Permian foreland basin: Geosphere, v. 16, no. 2, p. 567–593, Tripsanas, E.K., Piper, D.J., Jenner, K.A., and Bryant, W.R., 2008, cycle, carbonate-platform growth, and reservoir, source, https://doi.org/10.1130/GES02108.1. Submarine mass‐transport facies: New perspectives on flow and trap prediction, in Harris, P.M., and Simo, J.A., eds., Stanesco, J.D., 1991, Sedimentology and depositional environ- processes from cores on the eastern North American mar- Advances in Carbonate Sequence Stratigraphy: Application ments of the lower Permian Yeso Formation, northwestern gin: Sedimentology, v. 55, no. 1, p. 97–136, https://doi.org to Reservoirs, Outcrops and Models: SEPM Special Publica- New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1808-M, p. M1– /10.1111/j.1365-3091.2007.00894.x. tion No. 63, p. 11–34, https://doi.org/10.2110/pec.99.11.0011. M12, https://doi.org/10.3133/b1808M. Trower, E.J., Ganti, V., Fischer, W.W., and Lamb, M.P., 2018, Schieber, J., Southard, J., and Thaisen, K., 2007, Accretion of Stevenson, C.J., Jackson, C.A.-L., Hodgson, D.M., Hubbard, S.M., Erosional surfaces in the Upper Cretaceous Castlegate mudstone beds from migrating floccule ripples: Science, and Eggenhuisen, J.T., 2015, Deep-water sediment bypass: Sandstone (Utah, USA): Sequence boundaries or autogenic v. 318, no. 5857, p. 1760–1763, https://doi .org /10 .1126 /science Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 85, no. 9, p. 1058–1081, scour from backwater hydrodynamics?: Geology, v. 46, no. 8, .1147001. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2015.63. p. 707–710, https://doi.org/10.1130/G40273.1. Schlager, W., and Camber, O., 1986, Submarine slope angles, Stow, D.A.V., 1984, Anatomy of debris-flow deposits, in Hay, Vail, P.R., 1987, Seismic stratigraphy interpretation procedure: drowning unconformities, and self-erosion of limestone W.W., Sibuet, J.-C, et al., eds., Initial Reports of the Deep Atlas of Seismic Stratigraphy, v. 27, p. 1–10. escarpments: Geology, v. 14, no. 9, p. 762–765, https://doi Sea Drilling Project, v. 75, p. 801–807. Vanneste, M., Sultan, N., Garziglia, S., Fredrik, C., and Heureux, .org/10.1130/0091-7613(1986)14<762:SSADUA>2.0.CO;2. Stow, D.A.V., 1986, Deep clastic seas, in Reading, H.G., ed., J.L., 2014, Sea floor instabilities and sediment deformation Schwartz, K.M., Meier, H., Star, A., and Stolte, N., 2018, Review Sedimentary Environments and Facies: Oxford, Blackwell processes: The need for integrated, multi-disciplinary inves- of the First Bone Spring Hybrid Play in the Delaware Basin, Scientific, p. 399–444. tigations: Marine Geology, v. 352, p. 183–214, https://doi .org West Texas and Southeast New Mexico: Houston, Texas, Sultan, N., Cochonat, P., Canals, M., Cattaneo, A., Dennielou, B., /10.1016/j.margeo.2014.01.005. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, paper Haflidason, H., Laberg, J.S., Long, D., Mienert, J., Trincardi, F., Zelt, F.B., and Rossen, C.R., 1995, Geometry and continuity of no. URTEC-2901606-MS, https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC and Urgeles, R., 2004, Triggering mechanisms of slope insta- deep-water sandstones and siltstones, Brushy Canyon For- -2018-2901606. bility processes and sediment failures on continental margins: mation (Permian) Delaware Mountains, Texas, in Pickering, Shanley, K.W., and McCabe, P.J., 1994, Perspectives on the A geotechnical approach: Marine Geology, v. 213, no. 1–4, K.T., Hiscott, R.N., Kenyon, N.H., Ricci-Luchi, F., and Smith, sequence stratigraphy of continental strata: American p. 291–321, https://doi .org /10 .1016 /j .margeo .2004 .10 .011 . R.D.A., eds., Atlas of Deep Water Environments—Architec- Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 78, no. 4, Sylvester, Z., Deptuck, M.E., Prather, B.E., Pirmez, C., and tural Style in Turbidite Systems: London, Chapman and Hill, p. 544–568. O’Byrne, C., 2012, Seismic stratigraphy of a shelf-edge p. 167–183, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1234-5_26.