Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 180

SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY OF FLUVIAL AND LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS IN

THE LOWER PART OF THE CHINLE FORMATION, SOUTH CENTRAL UTAH,


UNITED STATES: PALEOCLIMATIC AND TECTONIC IMPLICATIONS
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
BY
Joseph John Beer
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
December 2005
Copyright Joseph John Beer 2005
ABSTRACT
Field and well log data from central Utah identify three sequence bounding
unconformities in the lower portion of the Chinle (Shinarump, Monitor Butte, Temple
Mountain, and Moss Back Members) which function to divide these deposits into
three periods of incision and subsequent valley fill. The initial period of degradation
is marked by interfluve paleosols and truncation of the underlying Moenkopi
Formation creating a paleovalley which constrains the deposition of these four
members. The first paleovalley fill, represented by the Shinarump Member, is
interpreted as a confined sandy low-sinuosity river system. A second period of
incision is marked by truncation of the Shinarump and correlative paleosols and
pedogenically modified strata. The Monitor Butte and correlative Temple Mountain
Members overlie this unconformity and consist of mudstones and sandstones
representing fluvio-lacustrine deposition and vertisols and interbedded mudstones and
sandstones deposited in a high-sinuosity river system. A final cut-and-fill cycle within
the pre-Shinarump paleovalley is filled by the high- and low-sinuosity fluvial deposits
of the Moss Back Member. Truncation of the Monitor Butte and Temple Mountain
Members and the Moenkopi Fm. and interfluve pedogenesis mark the preceding
surface of degradation.
Erosional unconformities and correlative extensive pedogenesis within the
Chinle in central Utah indicate a depositional history involving alternating periods of
landscape degradation and aggradation. The tectonic setting of the Chinle basin
within a dynamically subsiding back-arc basin may provide a mechanism for 1) uplift
and erosion of Lower Triassic strata creating the master paleovalley surface, and 2)
i
later subsidence of the Chinle depositional basin. The high frequency, low amplitude
cut-and-fill nature of the lower portion of the Chinle is likely the result of changes in
sediment flux and discharge as evidenced by detailed facies and pedogenic analysis,
and paleoecological and paleoclimatic data. In addition, the nature of deposition
within an incised valley network had a large effect on accommodation, and the spatial
distribution of facies preserved in the lower portion of the Chinle Formation.
ii
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I wish to thank Tim Demko for the first-hand introduction
to the geology of the Colorado Plateau and for instilling within me the desire to visit
every Mesozoic outcrop preserved on the Colorado Plateau. Tims personality as well
as his interest and knowledge pertaining to the stratigraphy of the Plateau made a lack
of discussion, feedback, and encouragement an impossibility.
I also owe a large debt to both Corey Wendlund and Ryan Erickson for the
many weeks each of them spent assisting me with fieldwork. I would like to thank
Marsha Meinders-Patalke, Erik Gulbranson, and Riyad Ali-Adeeb for numerous
thoughtful discussions throughout the course of this project. I also wish to thank John
Swenson, and Julie Etterson for thoughtful comments and insights during the editing
process.
This project was funded in part thanks to the generosity of the Colorado
Scientific Society, the University of Minnesota Duluth Department of Geological
Sciences, AAPG Grants in Aid, and the University of Minnesota VDIL. Digital well
logs were provided by an educational grant from MJ Systems.
Lastly I would like to thank my wife Jenny and the rest of my friends and
family for their patience, support, and encouragement throughout the course of this
project.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIGNATURE PAGE
TITLE PAGE
COPYRIGHT NOTICE PAGE
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Location.. 2
1.3 Methods... 5
1.3.1 Field Methods.. 5
1.3.2 Petrographic Methods 5
1.3.3 Subsurface Methods. 6
CHAPTER II: GEOLOGIC SETTING. 7
2.1 Tectonics.... 7
2.2 Stratigraphy.... 11
2.2.1 Pennsylvanian Permian. 12
2.2.2 Early Triassic 12
2.2.3 Late Triassic. 14
2.2.4 Jurassic... 22
2.3 Paleogeography.. 22
iv
2.4 Paleoclimate..... 25
2.5 Paleoecology... 29
CHAPTER III: DATA AND RESULTS 30
3.1 Unit Descriptions Lithology, Facies, and Architecture 30
3.1.1 Basal Unconformity... 30
3.1.2 Shinarump Member... 32
3.1.3 Post-Shinarump Unconformity. 33
3.1.4 Monitor Butte and Temple Mountain Members 34
3.1.5 Pre-Moss Back Unconformity....... 39
3.1.6 Moss Back Member... 41
3.1.7 Petrified Forest Member........................... 45
3.2 Paleocurrent Data... 47
3.3 Petrographic Data... 49
CHAPTER IV: SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY... 51
4.1 Introduction to Sequence Stratigraphy 51
4.2 Application to Continental Strata 52
4.3 Discussion of Unconformity Paleosols 55
4.4 Sequence Stratigraphic Interpretation. 57
4.4.1 Sequence Boundary 1 60
4.4.2 Depositional Sequence 1 60
4.4.3 Sequence Boundary 2 60
4.4.4 Depositional Sequence 2 61
4.4.5 Sequence Boundary 3 62
v
4.4.6 Depositional Sequence 3 62
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS.... 64
5.1 Depositional History... 64
5.1.1 Landscape Degradation 1 64
5.1.2 Landscape Aggradation 1.. 66
5.1.3 Landscape Degradation 2... 66
5.1.4 Landscape Aggradation 2.. 67
5.1.5 Landscape Degradation 3.. 68
5.1.6 Landscape Aggradation 3.. 68
5.2 Lithostratigraphic Implications... 70
5.2.1 Correlation of the Temple Mtn. and Monitor Butte Members.. 70
5.2.2 Suggested Modifications to Lithomember Boundaries. 70
5.3 Summary................. 76
REFERENCES CITED 77
APPENDIX I: MEASURED SECTION DATA... 86
APPENDIX II: PALEOCURRENT DATA.. 153
APPENDIX III: PETROGRAPHIC DATA... 169
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.2-1 Distribution of Triassic outcrops on the CO Plateau 3
Figure 1.2-2 Map of the field area. 4
Figure 2.1-1 Map of the tectonic setting during the Late Triassic 9
Figure 2.2.2-1 Stratigraphy and nomenclature of the field area 11
Figure 2.2.3-1 Triassic timescale.. 16
Figure 2.2.3-2 Map depicting location of Painted Desert Paleovalley.. 18
Figure 2.3-1 Map showing location of field area during the Late Triassic... 23
Figure 2.3-2 Paleogeographic reconstructions of Late Triassic 25
Figure 3.1.1-1 Unconformity paleosol and lacustrine clinoforms near MS 27. 31
Figure 3.1.4-1 Lacustrine turbidite facies. 37
Figure 3.1.4-2 Rooted horizon in Monitor Butte Member 37
Figure 3.1.4-3 High sinuosity fluvial facies in Monitor Butte Member... 38
Figure 3.1.5-1 Pedogenic carbonate nodules from unconformity paleosol... 40
Figure 3.1.5-2 Intense bioturbation in unconformity paleosol.. 41
Figure 3.1.6-1 Aerial photograph of a portion of Blue Notch Canyon. 43
Figure 3.1.6-2 Mon. Butte, Moss Back, and Pet. Forest Mbrs. At MS 16 44
Figure 3.1.7-1 Trough cross-beds in Petrified Forest Member. 46
Figure 3.1.7-2 High sinuosity fluvial deposits in Petrified Forest Mbr 47
Figure 3.2-1 Maps depicting paleocurrent measurements 48
Figure 3.3-1 QFL diagrams of sandstones from the 3 depositional sequences. 50
Figure 4.1-1 Glossary of sequence stratigraphic terminology.. 51
Figure 4.2-1 Model depicting controls upon fluvial incision vs. aggradation.. 53
vii
Figure 4.2-2 Lacustrine classification scheme.. 54
Figure 4.4-1 Stratigraphic cross section of the lower portion of the Chinle Fm... 58
Figure 4.4-2 First order sequence stratigraphic framework... 59
Figure 4.4-3 Second order sequence stratigraphic framework.. 59
Figure 5.1 Schematic representation of the depositional history 65
Figure 5.2.2-1 Schematic cross sections of the lower portion of the Chinle Fm.. 74
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purposes of this study are to 1) place the lower part of the Chinle
Formation of central Utah into a regional depositional framework; 2) place the strata
into sequence stratigraphic context; and 3) constrain the tectonic and climatic effects
on the Late Triassic landscape. The recognition and correlation of three regional
sequence boundaries provide a temporal framework for the various depositional
facies associated with each aggradational sequence. Paleoclimatic and paleoecologic
indicators recorded within Chinle paleosols and lacustrine deposits provide
independent data to support conclusions drawn regarding possible forcing
mechanisms driving Chinle deposition. The specific objectives of this study are as
follows:
1) Describe the sedimentology, depositional facies, and large scale architecture
of the Chinle Formation exposed in south central Utah.
2) Use sequence stratigraphic methods to create a temporal framework for these
strata.
3) Collect paleoecologic data and analyze paleoclimatic indicators both within
the deposits and the paleosols in order to provide an independent, temporally
continuous paleoecologic and paleoclimatic record.
4) Interpret a detailed depositional history for these strata that includes probable
forcing mechanisms controlling Late Triassic landscape evolution.
1
5) Clarify traditional lithostratigraphic nomenclature and present evidence
supporting possible temporal correlations among various lithomembers.
1.2 Location
The Chinle Formation is present in outcrop and in the subsurface throughout
much of the southwestern United States (Figure 1.2-1). This study focuses on
extensive exposures of Triassic strata exhumed in large uplifts (San Rafael Swell,
Waterpocket Fold, and Monument Valley Upwarp) associated with the Laramide
orogeny (Stewart et al., 1972). Four distinct field areas include the San Rafael Swell
south of I-70, the northern part of Capitol Reef National Park, the Circle Cliffs area
within Grand Staircase Escalante National Park, and the White Canyon, Red Canyon,
and North Wash areas within Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Geophysical
well logs were obtained from adjacent areas where the Chinle is present in the
subsurface. The total field area consists of over 5,000 square miles of remote central
Utah desert (Figure 1.2-2). Access to many of the measured sections requires four-
wheel drive vehicles, mountain bikes, or long hikes over steep terrain. Scientific
permits were obtained from Grand Staircase Escalante NP, Capitol Reef NP, and
Glen Canyon NRA.
2
Figure 1.2-1 Distribution of Triassic outcrops in the southwestern United States (from
Dubiel, 1994).
3
Figure 1.2-2 Field area map of central Utah depicting location of measured sections and
well logs. SWC = Spotted Wolf Canyon, TFC = Three Fingers Canyon, EC =
Eardley Canyon, TM = Temple Mountain, CC = Chute Canyon, CL = Chutes
and Ladders, BS = Blueberry Spring, BC = Bell Canyon, ER = End of the Road,
HS = Hidden Splendor, PT = Pasture Track, NW = North Wash, CP = Copper
Point, BN = Blue Notch, JC = Jacobs Chair, FC = Fry Canyon, MP = Muley
Twist, CC = Long Canyon Overlook, FL = Fish Lake, PB = Park Boundary, CR
= Chimney Rock.
4
1.3 Methods
1.3.1 Field Methods
During the summer of 2004 and the winter and spring of 2005, 27 sections
were measured, described, and sampled. Sections were measured with a jacob staff
and Brunton compass. With the exception of several sections measured in the San
Rafael Swell, Triassic strata were found to dip less than 10 degrees from horizontal.
Thicknesses of several highly-resistant cliffs were determined using digital imaging
techniques. Measurements start at the Moenkopi-Chinle contact and stop at a
regionally recognizable paleosol at the base of the Petrified Forest Member. Section
locations were selected on the basis of accessibility (steepness) and exposure quality.
Where permissible, moderate hand trenching was used to increase the amount and
quality of exposure, especially in frothy, weathered slopes. Hand samples of
sandstones and paleosols were collected from many of the sections for petrographic
analyses. Numerous digital photographs were taken at each of the measured section
localities. In addition to these photographs, many photopans were taken from
appropriate vantage points across the field area in order to help constrain the meso-
scale architecture of the paleovalley fill. Paleocurrent data were collected in the field
and analyzed using the computer program GEOrient 9.0 to aid paleogeographic
reconstruction.
1.3.2 Petrographic Methods
Hand samples of sandstones from the Shinarump, Monitor Butte, Temple
Mountain, and Moss Back Members were collected from 13 measured section
locations listed in Appendix III. Hand samples were made into thin sections and
5
stained for potassium feldspar. Three hundred points were counted in a 1 mm grid for
each of the 35 thin sections. Ten grain types were identified for each sample and the
percentage of the following three derived variables: total quartz, total feldspar, lithic
and unstable constituents was computed (Figure AIII.1).
1.3.3 Subsurface Methods
Digitized geophysical well log data were obtained for 21 wells selected from
areas adjacent to field locations where the Chinle is found in the subsurface. Surfaces
were correlated between 18 of the logs using sequence stratigraphic methods
described by Posamentier and Allen (1999) and Van Wagoner et al. (1990). The top
of the Moss Back Member was selected as a datum because of its flat upper surface
and lateral continuity across the field area (Dubiel, 1983). This surface, marked in
outcrop by either a transition from a resistant, well-sorted sandstone to deposits with a
much lower sandstone/mudstone ratio or by an intensely pedogenically modified
horizon, is readily observable in the subsurface.
6
CHAPTER II
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The Late Paleozoic to mid-Mesozoic geologic record preserved in central
Utah is both spatially and temporally complicated by several orogenic events,
laterally diverse paleolandscapes, changes in relative sea level, and shifting climatic
regimes. Despite the interplay between 1) tectonics 2) stratigraphy 3) paleogeography
4) paleoclimate and 5) paleoecology, the wealth of research conducted during the past
century by numerous workers warrants the organization of the information into the
aforementioned subheadings in order to present a tangible synopsis of the geologic
events and environmental conditions surrounding the deposition of the Chinle
Formation.
2.1 Tectonics
The geologic history of Utah is broken down into eight major phases, the first
three of which precede the Triassic (Hintze, 1988). Phase I includes the Archean
craton found in the northern third of the state and the Early-Proterozioc metamorphic
terrane which was added to the craton in the Mid-Proterozic and now comprises the
basement rock for the remainder of the state. Phase II was dominated by state-wide
deposition along a west facing passive margin (Hintze, 1988). Collisional tectonics
during Phase III associated with the Antler Orogeny in the northwest and the
Ouachita Orogeny to the southwest shifted the locus of deposition during this time to
the respective Oquirrh and Paradox Basins. Collisional tectonics and subduction
along the west coast of Pangaea occurred from the Triassic through the Eocene during
Phases IV (Sonoma and Nevada Orogenies), V (Sevier Orogeny), and VI (Laramide
7
Orogeny). Large scale Oligocene and Miocene volcanism and later uplift and basin-
range extension occurred during the most recent Phase VII and VIII respectively.
Of these ever-shifting tectonic regimes, the assemblage of Pangaea during the
Late Paleozoic and Early Mesozoic (Phases III and IV) most strongly affected the
character of the Late Triassic landscape and the nature of sediments from that time
period. Prior to the assemblage of Pangaea, central Utah was located on the western
passive margin of Laurussia. Beginning in the Carboniferous, Gondwana collided
with Laurussia from the south resulting in the initial stage of the assemblage of the
supercontinent Pangaea. Regionally associated with the collisional event, the
Carboniferous to Permian Ouachita orogeny resulted in the uplift of the Ancestral
Rockies stretching from the modern areas of Price, Utah, to Grand Junction,
Colorado, to Santa Fe, New Mexico (Prothero and Dott, 2004). Deposition occurred
in the Paradox Basin adjacent to these uplifts (Condon, 1997).
The initiation of the Antler and Sonoma orogenies during the Devonian and
Late Permian, respectively, is marked by a transition along the western margin of
Pangaea from a passive margin to an actively subducting convergent boundary
(Figure 2.1-1). Sonoman subduction continued through the Late Triassic when the
western flank of Pangaea was occupied by an island arc stretching northward from
present day California and a continental arc that wrapped around to the south into
present day Mexico.
8
Figure 2.1-1 Late Triassic tectonic setting of the Colorado Plateau after Dubiel, 1994,
Lawton, 1994, and Riggs et al., 1996.
Many workers (Dickinson, 1981, Blakey and Gubitosa, 1983, Dubiel et al.,
1991, Dubiel, 1994) classify the Chinle depositional basin as a back-arc basin
associated with Sonoma-related subduction along the west coast of Pangaea. Lawton
(1994) classifies the Chinle depositional basin as a back-bulge basin associated with
the subduction of the pre-Farallon slab. In both models, subsidence of the basin is
attributed to dynamic topography resulting from viscous flow in the mantle above the
subducting slab. However, Lawtons model places a dynamic forebulge in central
Nevada roughly 400 km east of the subduction zone during both Early and Late
Triassic time. The Chinle depositional basin was flanked to the east by the Ancestral
Rockies, which remained a topographic high until it was overlapped in the Jurassic by
9
the Morrison Formation, and to the south by the continental portion of the arc system
often referred to as the Mogollon Highlands.
The breakup of Pangaea started in the Late Triassic with rifting of the proto-
Atlantic margin. Thermal uplift associated with the rifting affected deposition of
correlative Triassic sediments in the Dockum Basin of Texas. However, the effect of
these tectonic events on the Chinle Basin is unclear (McGowen et al., 1979, Dubiel et
al., 1991, Woody, 2003).
Salt tectonics have been shown to have affected deposition of the Chinle east
of the field area in the Paradox Basin (Blakey and Gubitosa, 1983, Hazel, 1991,
Dubiel, 1994, Condon, 1997). Halokinesis was limited laterally by the extent of the
Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation and likely had little direct effect upon deposition
of the Chinle further west in the field area.
Deep-seated deformation, associated with the shallowing of the subducting
Farralon Plate during Late Cretaceous-Eocene Laramide orogeny, resulted in the
formation of several large fault propagation folds, which include the Waterpocket
Fold, Monument Upwarp, San Rafael Swell, and the Uinta Dome. Modern exposures
of Triassic strata are exhumed in these uplifts. Erosion resulting from Late Cenozoic
thermally related uplift, combined with modern aridity, provides excellent exposure
of previously buried Triassic strata across the Colorado Plateau.
10
2.2 Stratigraphy
Figure 2.2.2-1 Nomenclature and gross stratigraphic architecture of Late Paleozoic to Mid-
Mesozoic strata in central Utah.
11
2.2.1 Pennsylvanian -Permian
Deposition during the Appalachian-Ouachita orogeny occurred in the Paradox
foreland basin adjacent to the Ancestral Rockies (Hintze, 1988) where deposition of
Pennsylvanian marine strata preceded the deposition of primarily continental Permian
strata. The Permian Cutler Group was deposited as siliciclastic sediment prograded
southwestward off the Uncompahgre Highland (the Ancestral Rockies) (Doelling et
al., 2000). Proximal to the Uncompahgre, in the deepest part of the basin, the Cutler
Group is termed the Cutler Formation, undivided (Condon, 1997). The Cutler
Formation, undivided grades distally into lithologically distinct units which include in
ascending order the lower Cutler beds, Cedar Mesa Sandstone, Organ Rock Shale,
DeChelly Sandstone, and the White Rim Sandstone (Figure 2.2.2-1) (Condon, 1997).
Shallow marine carbonate was deposited during this time period roughly 160
kilometers further southwest from the hinterland in the Grand Canyon region
(Coconino Limestone, Toroweap Formation). A major marine transgression during
the Late Permian extended carbonate deposition northward, represented by the
Kaibab and Black Box Limestones in the northern portion of the field area.
2.2.2 Early Triassic
The Permo-Triassic boundary is marked by the Tr-1 unconformity, which
separates Permian strata from the overlying Early Triassic Moenkopi Formation
(Figure 2.2.2-1) (Pipringos and OSullivan, 1978). In southwestern Utah the
unconformity at the base of the Moenkopi is characterized by as much as 180 meters
of karstification of the Kaibab Limestone (Jensen, 1984). Erosional truncation of the
Kaibab marks the unconformity in the San Rafael Swell, Capitol Reef, and Circle
12
Cliffs area, however Stewart et al. (1972) suggest the contact becomes conformable
east of the field area.
The Hoskinnini and Black Dragon Members mark the base of the Moenkopi
Formation. These two members consist of terrestrially deposited, wavy-bedded
sandstones, siltstones, evaporites, and coarse chert pebble conglomerates that fine
upward to marine sandstones, shales, and minor carbonates (Huntoon et al., 2000,
2002, Mitchell, 1985). The thickness of these two members is inversely proportional
to the thickness of the underlying White Rim Sandstone because these deposits onlap
the paleorelief formed during the Tr-1 unconformity.
The Black Dragon grades upward and intertongues with the overlying Sinbad
Limestone (Mitchell, 1985). Lithologic textures, which include features such as
cross-bedded ooids, combined with subsurface data suggest deposition in a shallow
marine system with a low depositional slope (Mitchell, 1985). The Sinbad is present
in the San Rafael Swell and is thickest at Capitol Reef National Park but pinches out
to the south and east and is neither present at Muley Twist nor at Hite (Stewart et al.,
1972, Mitchell, 1985). The Black Dragon and Sinbad were deposited during the
Smithian transgression which encroached from the northwest (Dubiel, 1994).
The Sinbad grades and intertongues with the ledgy fine-grained sandstone,
siltstone, and mudstones that comprise the Torrey and Moody Canyon Members. The
Torrey thickens proximally to the east and represents the shoreward equivalent of the
Virgin Limestone Member exposed west of the field area in south-central Utah
(Mitchell, 1985). Both the Torrey and overlying Moody Canyon Members exhibit
very laterally continuous beds, which are identifiable both in the field and in
13
subsurface data. Blakey (1974) identified four facies within the Torrey Member,
which he attributes to deltaic deposition, while Mitchell (1985) and Reif and Slatt
(1979) believe deposition occurred within a coastal tidal flat environment. The
Moody Canyon Member is slightly finer-grained overall than the Torrey Member and
represents deposition either in a restricted marine (Mitchell, 1985) or clastic-
dominated sabkha (Blakey, 1974) environment. The Moody Canyon marks the end of
Early Triassic deposition during the late Spathian Regression (Dubiel, 1994).
2.2.3 Late Triassic
The Tr-3 unconformity separates the Early Triassic Moenkopi Formation from
the Late Triassic Chinle Formation (Figure 2.2.2-1). Fluvial incision and interfluve
pedogenesis of the underlying Moody Canyon Member marks the base of the Chinle
Formation, which is characterized by mudstones, sandstones, limestones, and
conglomerates. The depositional facies represented in the Chinle include a variety of
fluvial, fluvio-deltaic, lacustrine, paludal, and minor eolian deposits, all representing
deposition in an entirely continental setting.
Early paleontologic work by Gregory (1917) placed the Chinle Formation in
the Late Triassic. Ar/Ar dates on multi-grain zircon fractions provided a maximum
age for the Black Forest bed in Petrified Forest National Park (PEFO) of 207 2 Ma.
(Riggs et al., 1994). U-Pb dates of zircons from the same stratigraphic interval
indicate a maximum age of 209 5 Ma. (Riggs, 2003). Sequence stratigraphic
correlations do not extend as far south as PEFO in this study, however preliminary
field data (Woody, 2003, Demko, pers commun.) suggests both the Sonsela and the
14
Black Forest Bed are time-correlative to some portion of the Petrified Forest Member
of central Utah.
Ash (1980, 1987) identifies three Late Triassic floral zones in the Chinle
Formation: 1) middle Carnian Eoginkgoites zone; 2) late Carnian Dinophyton zone;
3) Norian Sanmiguelia zone (Figure 2.2.3-1). Ash finds the Eoginkgoites flora in the
Shinarump and Temple Mountain members, Dinophyton in the Monitor Butte and the
lower portion of the Petrified Forest Member, and Sanmiguelia in the upper portion of
the Petrified Forest Member, and the Owl Rock and Church Rock Members (Ash
1975, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1987). Litwin et al. (1991) divide the Chinle into three
palynofloral zones which correspond almost identically to the megafossil plant zones
of (Ash, 1980, 1987).
15
Figure 2.2.3-1 Triassic timescale modified from IUGS (2004).
The lithostratigraphy of the Chinle Formation contains a myriad of localized
members identified on the basis of lithologic characteristics and stratigraphic
relationships that have proven difficult to correlate across the entire Chinle basin.
Lucas (1993) proposed basin-wide correlations of Chinle and adjacent Late Triassic
strata that ignored the complex spatial variability of the Late Triassic landscape, lack
accurate intraformational temporal control, and confuse the preexisting, well-defined
member nomenclature (Dubiel, 1994). The author agrees with the criticisms of Dubiel
(1994), and Woody (2003), and will use the existing nomenclature summarized in
Stewart et al. (1972) when referring to large scale lithostratigraphic trends. However,
16
intraformational correlations will be based upon chronostratigraphically-significant
surfaces, which, by definition, may cross these lithologic boundaries. The sub-
formation units recognized in the study region include the Shinarump, Temple
Mountain, Monitor Butte, Moss Back, Petrified Forest, Owl Rock, and Church Rock
Members.
Shinarump Member. The Shinarump Member of the Chinle Formation is
recognized as a resistant, quartz rich, light colored sandstone and conglomerate
usually less than 10 meters thick. The Shinarump has been interpreted to have been
deposited by braided streams in broad thin sheets of interconnected sandstone
bodies (Blakey and Gubitosa, 1984). The Shinarump Member rests unconformably
upon the Moenkopi Formation in incised valleys as large as 16 kilometers wide and
55 meters deep (Stewart et al., 1972). The Shinarump represents the first of a series of
deposits that fill these large paleovalleys. In all cases within the study area, the
Shinarump occupies the basal portion of the Painted Desert paleovalley (Figure 2.2.3-
2) and is in direct contact with the underlying Moenkopi Formation (Blakey, 1983,
Dubiel et al., 1999). In some cases the Shinarump is found on top of the Moenkopi
proper, while in other places it is found overlying a pedogenically modified
Moenkopi Formation described as mottled strata (Stewart et al., 1972). The
mottled strata, as described by Stewart et al. (1972), includes several pedogenic
horizons, not only those formed in Moenkopi parent material, but also younger, well
developed paleosols that formed in stratigraphically higher Chinle deposits.
17
Figure 2.2.3-2 Map depicting field area (as depicted in Fig 1.2-2) in relationship to the Painted
Desert Paleovalley (modified fromDubiel et al., 1999).
Stewart et al. (1972) describe the contact between the Shinarump and
overlying strata as conformable stating, the Shinarump Member in most areas grades
upward into and intertongues with claystone, siltstone, or clayey sandstone.
However, Stewart et al. (1972) also include a dramatic photograph (Figure 7 in
Stewart et al., 1972) which illustrates nearly 13 meters of truncation visible in a single
18
outcrop. Demko (2003) interprets the upper contact as a regionally extensive
sequence-bounding unconformity.
Temple Mountain Member. The Temple Mountain Member of the Chinle
Formation was first described in the San Rafael Swell by Robeck (1956) as a purple
and white mottled unit, dominated by siltstones and mudstones with minor
conglomeratic sandstone lenses, found between the Moenkopi Formation and
overlying Monitor Butte and Moss Back Members. Near Hidden Splendor Mine
(Figure 1.2-2), southwest of the type section at Temple Mountain, the unit has been
interpreted to either underlie (Robeck, 1956, Stewart et al., 1972) or intergrade
(Pavlak, 1979) with the Monitor Butte Member. The Temple Mountain reaches a
maximaum thickness of 33 meters north of the type section; further north, the entire
unit is truncated by the overlying Moss Back Member (Robeck, 1956). Stewart et al.
(1972) describe the Temple Mountain as part of the ubiquitous mottled strata based
upon its characteristic color mottling and its basal stratigraphic position within the
Chinle Formation.
Monitor Butte Member. The Monitor Butte Member is made up of green-
gray mudstones and siltstones, thin sandstones, and occasional thin coals and
limestones representing deposition in fluvial, lacustrine, lacustrine-deltaic, and
paludal depositional settings (Dubiel, 1985, Demko, 2003). The majority of the
Monitor Butte in the field area consists of an overall coarsening-upward succession
comprised of sandy limestones and organic rich mudstones, thinly bedded micaceous
sandstones, and burrowed, pedogenically modified sandstones and mudstones
interpreted to represent prodelta, delta front, and distributary facies within a
19
progradational fluvio-deltaic lacustrine system (Dubiel, 1985). Deformational
features including contorted, slumped, and steeply dipping bedding have been
attributed to syndepositional mud diapirism (Stewart et al., 1972, Dubiel, 1985).
The Monitor Butte Member is recognized throughout much of southeastern
Utah in White Canyon, Capitol Reef, Circle Cliffs, and in the southwestern portion of
the San Rafael Swell (Figure 1.2-2). The Monitor Butte overlies either the Moenkopi
Formation or the Shinarump Member where present. Stewart et. al. (1972) state the
Monitor Butte either interfingers with the Shinarump Member or is separated by an
unconformity depending upon location within the basin. Dubiel (1983) claims the
Shinarump interfingers with the lowermost organic rich mudstones of the Monitor
Butte Member in White Canyon. Demko (2003) has interpreted the boundary at the
base of the Monitor Butte to represent a flooding surface sequence boundary (FSSB),
followed by deposition of the Monitor Butte in a highstand systems tract. In Demkos
(2003) model, the boundary between the Monitor Butte and the overlying Moss Back
Member also represents a sequence boundary.
Moss Back Member. The Moss Back Member is a brown, fine- to coarse-
grained cliff-forming conglomeratic sandstone characterized by planar tabular,
overturned, and trough crossbedding and planar bedding (Dubiel, 1983, Stewart et al.,
1972). The Moss Back is exposed as either multistorey sheet or channelform sand
bodies. Dubiel (1983) and Blakey and Gubitosa (1984) interpret deposition of the
Moss Back Member by braided streams based on high sandstone/mudstone ratios,
extensive planar-tabular cross beds, and the multistorey broad sheet-like architecture.
Pavlack (1979) identifies well defined fining-upward sequences and lateral accretion
20
surfaces in the Moss Back in the San Rafael Swell, and interprets deposition by
braided as well as high- to low-sinuosity streams.
The Moss Back averages 20 meters thick, but individual channels can vary
from over 35 meters to zero where they pinch out at the channel margins (Stewart et
al., 1972, Demko, 2003). The base of the Moss Back is marked by an erosional
surface that truncates the Monitor Butte Member, Temple Mountain Member, and
Moenkopi Formation. The base of the Moss Back has been interpreted as a sequence
boundary marking an unconformable basinward-shift in facies (Demko, 2003). The
top of the Moss Back is conformable with overlying Petrified Forest Member strata.
The transition, while conformable, is marked by a lithologic change from a resistant
brown sandstone marking the top of the Moss Back to a regionally identifiable red
aggradational paleosol located at the base of the Petrified Forest Member.
Petrified Forest, Owl Rock, and Church Rock Members. These three
members are dominated by fluvial, lacustrine, and eolian deposits respectively located
stratigraphically above the aforementioned members. The Petrified Forest Member is
the first of the Chinle deposits to overlap the Painted Desert paleovalley initially cut
by the Tr-3 unconformity. The transition between the lower deposits making up the
incised valley fill and the overlying, relatively unrestricted deposits is marked by a
change in fluvial style from large confined stream deposits of the Moss Back to
laterally migrating streams, and by slower vertical sediment accumulation marked by
increased pedogenesis. Demko (2003) and Heckert (2004) recognize a regional
unconformity at the top of the Petrified Forest Member that reflects a non-
depositional hiatus between the Petrified Forest Member and the conformable Owl
21
Rock and Church Rock Members. While recognition of the upper members of the
Chinle is vital to the success of this study, detailed analysis of these members is
beyond the scope of this project.
2.2.4 Jurassic
The Chinle is separated from the overlying Early Jurassic Glen Canyon Group
(Wingate Sandstone, Kayenta Formation, and Navajo Sandstone) by the J-0
unconformity (Pipringos and OSullivan, 1978). The unconformity leaves 40 meters
of the Church Rock Member of the Chinle Formation in Red Canyon (Stewart et al.,
1972) but truncates the entire member at Ward Terrace in north central Arizona
where Wingate-correlative Moenave Formation unconformably overlies the Owl
Rock Member. The Wingate Sandstone forms distinct red vertical exposures over 65
meters thick comprised of large-scale trough crossbedded eolian sandstone. Overlying
the Wingate, fluvial-eolian deposits of the Kayenta Formation crop out as
recognizable banded cliffs and ledges. The Navajo Sandstone unconformably overlies
the Kayenta and is comprised of light colored well sorted large-scale trough-
crossbedded sandstone deposited in a giant Jurassic aged erg that stretched from
present day Arizona to Montana. These three formations serve as a roughly 500
meter thick resistant caprock overlying Triassic rocks throughout the field area and
make up the bulk of the scarps in the San Rafael Reef, Capitol Reef, and Glen
Canyon field areas.
2.3 Paleogeography
Pangaea was initially formed by the collision of Laurussia and Gondwana in
the Carboniferous (see section 2.1). By the Triassic, much of Asia had been added to
22
the eastern portion of the supercontinent which now spanned from 85 degrees N to 90
degrees S latitude (Parrish, 1993). During this time, central Utah was located at 10
degrees N latitude on the western margin of the supercontinent (Figure 2.3-1) (Van
der Voo et al., 1976, Pindell and Dewey, 1982). Low eustatic sea level during the
Late Triassic (Haq et al., 1987, Vail et al., 1977) placed central Utah approximately
500 km from the Panthalassic coast (Dubiel, 1994, Riggs et al., 1996).
Figure 2.3-1 Reconstruction of Triassic Pangaea showing location of field area. Modified
from http://web.uvic.ca/~rdewey/eos110/webimages.html, 2005.
23
Studies of paleocurrent and provenance (Riggs, 1996, Stewart et al., 1986,
Stewart, 1972, Albee, 1957, Gehrels, 1993) suggest the Chinle fluvial systems flowed
west and northwest from as far west as the Dockum Basin in Texas. The
Uncompahgre and the Ancestral Front Range acted as the major sediment source for
the Chinle deposited in the Eagle, Piance, and Uinta Basins in northeastern Utah and
northwestern Colorado (Dubiel, 1991). The source areas for the Chinle of central
Utah were the Uncompahgre to the east and the active continental volcanic arc to the
south near the Mexican border (Dubiel, 1991, Pavlack, 1979). Chinle deposits further
south in PEFO were mainly sourced from the southern and southwestern continental
arc (Schultz, 1963, Stewart et al., 1972, Stewart et al., 1986, Riggs et al., 1994,
Woody, 2003).
Paleogeographic reconstructions depicting the evolution of the Late Triassic
landscape which reflect paleocurrent and provenance data, the distribution of
interpreted depositional settings, and evidence of increasing aridity through Chinle
time (see section 2.4) are shown in Figure 2.3-2. The Shinarump through Petrified
Forest Members are shown to represent fluvial and fluvio-lacustrine drainage
networks draining northwestward toward the Late Triassic shoreline located in central
Nevada. Deposition of the younger Owl Rock and Church Rock Members is
interpreted to have occurred within a more arid, internally drained basin dominated
by ephemeral fluvial, palustrine, lacustrine, and eolian deposition.
24
Figure 2.3-2 Paleogeographic reconstructions of Late Triassic Chinle depositional systems
(from Blakey, http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/RCB.html, 2003).
2.4 Paleoclimate
The Triassic climate is interesting because the large Pangaean landmass had a
dramatic effect upon global atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Worldwide, the
Triassic is marked by areally extensive evaporite and red bed deposition suggestive of
25
arid conditions. However, poorly drained paleosols, perennial fluvial and lacustrine
deposits, and a diverse assemblage of preserved flora from the Chinle Formation are
suggestive of more humid conditions for western subequatorial Pangaea. Not only
does the Chinle basin appear to be wetter than the majority of other Triassic
depositional environments, it is characterized by sedimentary paleoclimatic indicators
that suggest more humid conditions than those of the underlying Permian Cutler
Group and the overlying Jurassic Glen Canyon Group eolianites. Using the then
newly developed ideas of plate tectonics, Irving and Briden (1964) used paleolatitude
data to reconstruct Pangaean paleoclimate and found that the Triassic lacked
latitudinal climatic zones typical of todays global climate. In 1973, Robinson further
described the climate of Pangaea as monsoonal. Later workers have described the
mechanisms driving monsoonal circulation (Kutzbach, 1987) and have described
paleoclimatic indicators preserved in the Chinle which are suggestive of overall warm
temperatures and episodically fluctuating moisture conditions (Dubiel et al., 1991,
Parrish, 1993).
Triassic monsoons are attributed to the northward movement of Pangaea
beginning in the Late Paleozoic. During this time the large continental landmass
became centered around the equator (Dubiel et al., 1991) and differential heating of
the northern hemisphere during the summer created a large low pressure system and
cross-equatorial circulation patterns (southerly winds) dominated. During the
northern hemisphere winter, the low pressure shifted southward resulting in northerly
wind patterns. The center of the continent experienced arid conditions, however,
26
monsoonal circulation would have been strong enough during the Triassic to draw
moisture from Panthalassic Ocean eastward to the Chinle basin.
An abundance of data outlined by Dubiel et al. (1991) and Parrish (1993)
suggests the Chinle basin experienced alternating wet/dry conditions typical of a
monsoonal climatic setting. Numerous vertisols characterized by well-developed
slickensides, desiccation cracks, and occasionally apparent gilgai are found in the
Temple Mountain, Monitor Butte, and Petrified Forest Members of the Chinle.
Optimal conditions for vertisol development are subtropical to tropical monsoonal
climates that undergo alternate dry and wet periods (Blodgett, 1985). The majority of
modern vertisols are found in areas affected by the Indian and East African monsoon
(Brady and Weil, 2004).
Another indication of fluctuating soil hydrology are color mottles. Mottles
form when iron and magnesium in the soils change valence and mineral form to
adjust to various redox conditions in the soil (Montgomery et al. 2000). Paleosols
exhibiting mottles of both low chroma colors like green and gray (typical of reducing
conditions) and high chroma colors like purple and red (typical of oxidizing
conditions) are typical of Temple Mountain and Monitor Butte paleosols found near
the base of the Chinle. Evidence of seasonality is also seen in growth bands of
unionid bivalves where seasonally wet conditions lead to turbid, high suspended load
flow conditions in which the organism stops secreting carbonate and a dark band is
preserved in the shell (Dubiel et al., 1991).
Indicators of seasonality persist through Chinle time; however, minor eolian
deposits and increased evidence of desiccation in the Church Rock Member suggests
27
overall climatic drying through the Late Triassic (Blakey and Gubitosa, 1983, Dubiel
et al., 1991). Pangaea moved further north and had begun to break apart by the
Jurassic. The climate of the region became fully arid by this time as indicated by the
eolian erg deposits of the Wingate Sandstone.
Although recent workers agree the climate of the Chinle depositional basin
was dominated by monsoonal wet/dry seasonality that became more arid through
time, a disparity exists within the literature concerning how much rainfall the basin
received during the deposition of the lower portion of the Chinle. Ash (1972, 86),
Creber and Ash (1990), and Ash and Creber (1992) interpret a humid climate based
on their interpretation of Chinle floral assemblages. Aquatic vertebrate assemblages,
which include phytosaurs and amphibians, also indicate at least local areas with
perenial surface water. Demko et al. (1998) suggest the plant and vertebrate fossil
assemblages preserved in the lower portion of the Chinle may be taphonomically
biased. According to Demko et al. (1998) abundant plant fossils are constrained to
areas located within Chinle paleovalleys where locally high water tables are suitable
for the preservation of organic material resulting in a preservational bias of more
humid paleontologic indicators.
Pollen analysis by Gottsfield (1972) and faunal (Parrish et al., 1986) and floral
(Ash, 1999) specimens representative of upland environments have been interpreted
as indicative of more arid conditions. Evidence of extended dry periods can be seen in
crayfish burrows which exhibit multiple aestivation chambers created in order to
follow falling water tables (Hasiotis and Mitchell, 1989, Hasiotis et al., 1989,
Kowaleski and Demko, 1996). Paleosol analyses by (Dubiel, 1994, Hasiotis and
28
Mitchell, 1989) support the interpretation of dry to hydrologically well-drained
conditions.
Despite temporal and spatial variability and the natural biases associated with
a multitude of climatic proxies, the climatic setting of the Chinle depositional basin
can be described as generally warm, evolving from semi-arid to arid conditions,
punctuated by seasonal variations in precipitation resulting from cross-equatorial
circulation patterns associated with the Pangaean monsoon.
2.5 Paleoecology
Not only was the Chinle deposited during an interesting paleoclimatic
interval, it also coincides with a critical period of biologic evolution. The Chinle
Formation is paleontologically significant because it preserves a record of the
continuing diversification of terrestrial life following the largest extinction event in
Earths history, the Permo-Triassic extinction. The Triassic marks the first appearance
of mammals and the diversification and ascension of dinosaurs. Numerous studies
(Ash, 1972, Gottesfeld, 1972, Ash, 1975, Ash, 1986, Ash, 1987, Ash and Creber,
1992, Ash, 1999) of outstandingly preserved vertebrate and plant fossils preserved
within the Chinle Formation (especially in Petrified Forest National Park) provide
detailed insights into the paleoecology of subequatorial Pangaea. In addition,
continental ichnology has become an increasingly important tool used to identify
hidden biodiversity preserved in paleosols of the Chinle Formation. Trace fossils have
been successfully used as paleoecologic indicators of soil chemistry and hydrology
(Hasiotis and Mitchell, 1989, Hasiotis, 2002, Hasiotis et al., 2002, Hasiotis, 2004).
29
CHAPTER III
DATA AND RESULTS
3.1 Unit Descriptions - Lithology, Facies, and Architecture
Descriptions of the lower portion of the Chinle Formation are organized in
this chapter on the basis of the established lithostratigraphic nomenclature outlined in
section 2.2.3. The variable occurrence of the ubiquitous mottled strata and the
poorly defined relationship between the Monitor Butte and Temple Mountain
Members, in addition to disparities between sequence stratigraphic and
lithostratigraphic correlations, makes such organization difficult. As a result, several
smaller units are described individually outside of the lithostratigraphic classification
scheme in order to minimize any confusion and to aid the transition to the next
chapter.
3.1.1 Basal Unconformity
The Tr-3 unconformity at the base of the Chinle Formation is marked by
erosional truncation of the Moenkopi Formation (measured sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11,
12, 14-17, 20, 23-27) and/or extensive pedogenesis of those strata (measured sections
1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22). The contact varies from extremely sharp, where
Late Triassic Strata directly onlap truncated Early Triassic rocks, to gradational where
the uppermost Moenkopi exhibits gleyed joints along bedding surfaces and also
where the occasional penetration of crayfish burrows renders the contact variable
(Figure AI.56).
The paleosols formed in the Moenkopi parent material range from 1-7 meters
thick and are characterized by large color mottles often dark purple, gold, and black
30
haloed by light grey in an overall light purple background (Figure AI.8). Grain-size of
these paleosols is variable, ranging from medium grained sand to dominantly silt and
clay. In most cases, especially where the paleosol is finer grained, these rocks weather
to form resistant, light-colored ledges (Figures 3.1.1-1, AI.12, AI.41). These ledges
extend laterally for several kilometers exhibiting gentle paleorelief of up to 10 meters.
Evidence of soil fabrics include large root traces and burrows; however, often the
identification of such features is difficult because the rocks are extensively
bioturbated and have undergone multiple stages of oxidation/reduction (Figure AI.8).
Evidence of horizonation in these paleosols is limited to gradational changes in color,
color-mottle size and orientation, and grain size Figure (AI.56).
Figure 3.1.1-1 Laterally extensive unconformity paleosol (B) found at the base of the Chinle
Formation east of MS 27. Notice overlying left-to-right dipping lacustrine
clinoforms (A) in the Monitor Butte Member.
31
These paleosols are classified as gleyed oxisols (after Mack et al., 1993).
While the most striking feature of these soils is the various color mottles, the most
prominent process is extensive weathering. The closest modern analogs for these soils
are ultisols formed in tropical regions marked by variable water tables. These soils,
known as plinthites or laterites, are thick, iron-rich, humus poor, and contain color
mottles and clays which become very hard when dried (Brady and Weil, 2004). The
well-indurated nature of similar, Quaternary-aged, paleosols identified in monsoonal
regions of present day Australia, has been shown to affect fluvial geomorphology by
limiting both vertical and lateral channel adjustment (Nanson et al., 2005).
3.1.2 Shinarump Member
The first Late-Triassic rocks to be deposited after the Tr-3 unconformity
include the coarse-grained sand and gravel deposits of the Shinarump Member. These
strata are recognized at the base of the Chinle Formation where the lower portion of
the Chinle is the thickest (measured sections 17, 19-21, 25-27). In the field area the
Shinarump varies from 30 (Figure AI.76) to zero meters thick where it both onlaps
the paleovalley margin and is truncated by overlying units (Figure AI.82). The basal
contact of the unit is marked by sharp truncation of the Moenkopi Formation at all
localities within the field area. Often the upper meter of Moenkopi strata below the
contact is gleyed. The gleyed strata exhibit light grey color bands several centimeters
thick, parallel horizontal bedding, and occasional vertical joints and contrast sharply
with the overall red color of the Moenkopi Formation.
The Shinarump generally consists of yellow-white, coarse, quartz sand and
gravel conglomerate. Sand and pebble-sized sediments often exhibit repeating,
32
decimeter-scale trough-cross beds while the coarser fraction consists of smaller-scale
planar or massive bedding. In addition to these coarse-grained sediments, thinly
laminated lenses less than 3 meters thick, consisting of fine-grained sand and silt,
were found in Red Canyon and near Chimney Rock. In both cases these fine-grained
deposits contained abundant plant fossils and minor amounts of root traces and
desiccation cracks.
On a larger scale, the Shinarump is comprised of several storeys of
amalgamated tablular sand sheets interspersed with smaller lenticular-shaped
channels. Since these channelforms fill a wide, low relief, paleovalley, the resultant
sandbody geometry for the Shinarump is a broad lens.
3.1.3 Post-Shinarump Unconformity
The upper contact of the Shinarump is marked by either erosional truncation
or by a deeply weathered paleosol. Most often the gentle slope-forming nature of the
overlying strata (Monitor Butte Member) obscures the nature of this contact;
however, several meters of truncation of the Shinarump can be seen in the excellent
exposures near the Fish Lake and Chimney Rock measured sections in Capitol Reef
National Park (Figure AI.82).
A well-developed gleyed oxisol, similar in nature to the paleosol described in
section 3.1.1, marks the base of the Monitor Butte Member immediately above the
coarse-grained deposits of the Shinarump Member in White Canyon, at Jacobs Chair
(MS 19), and in Red Canyon (MS 21). At Jacobs Chair, the paleosol is fine-grained
and nearly 6 meters thick. Color mottles found in this paleosol range from dark
purple, red, grey, gold, white, green, to dark black in color (Figure AI.59). Remnant
33
sedimentologic horizonation is crude, however pedogenic indicators such as crayfish
burrows and rooted horizons indicate slow overall soil accumulation under highly
fluctuating hydrologic conditions. At Red Canyon the paleosol is much thinner. Here
the upper 5-30 cm of the coarse-grained Shinarump has been altered to dark green or
black and is intensely bioturbated by vertical burrows ranging from 0.3 to 1.2 cm in
diameter, which weather in positive relief (Figures AI.63, and AI.64).
3.1.4 Monitor Butte and Temple Mountain Members
The Monitor Butte Member is recognized in the White Canyon, Circle Cliffs,
and Capitol Reef areas and is described in measured sections 14-27 while the Temple
Mountain Member is described in the San Rafael Swell at measured sections 1,2, and
4-13. Stewart et al. (1972) describe Monitor Butte strata in the southwestern portion
of the San Rafael Swell; however, the distinction between the Monitor Butte and the
Temple Mountain Members in this region is unclear. As a result, a lithostratigraphic
boundary separating the Monitor Butte from the overlying Temple Mountain Member
is approximated in measured sections 11-13.
In White Canyon, Capitol Reef, and the Circle Cliffs the Monitor Butte
Member is found to overlying the Moenkopi, Shinarump, or either of the soils
described in sections 3.1.1 or 3.1.3. The thickness of the Monitor Butte in these
locations varies from 93 meters at measured section 27 to zero east of measured
section 11 in the San Rafael Swell.
In general, the bottom two-thirds of the Monitor Butte consists of two overall
coarsening-upward, fluvio-lacustrine units roughly 30 meters thick. Palustrine coals,
minor delta plain paleosols, and small-scale meandering fluvial channels can be found
34
near the base of the first of these sequences in the deepest portions of the paleovalley
(Figures AI.65, and AI.66); however, most often the base is characterized by thinly
laminated fine-grained deltaic facies (Figures AI.56, and AI.59), which occasionally
contain thin detrital coal beds (Figure AI.52). Above these heterolithic basal deposits
the remaining lower two-thirds of the Monitor Butte is characterized by gradually
coarsening upward beds, consisting of mudstone to medium-grained sandstone,
dominated by thin planar and current-ripple laminations (Figures AI.51, AI.56, AI.60,
and AI.69). The bulk of these deposits are interpreted as T
b
and T
c
turbidites typical
of delta foresets (Figure 3.1.4-1). Occasionally, slightly thicker and coarser rippled
and trough-cross bedded sandstone beds overlie the thinly bedded rocks. This facies
is interpreted as lacustrine delta topsets and lacustrine shoreface deposits.
The upper third of the Monitor Butte Member is characterized by three main
facies associated with a high-sinuosity fluvial system: 1) pedogenically modified
floodplain deposits, 2) levee and crevasse splay deposits exhibiting minor
pedogenesis, and 3) fluvial channels and point bars with variable degrees of
pedogenesis (Figures 3.1.4-2, and 3.1.4-3). These facies found in the upper portion of
the Monitor Butte are identical to those observed in the Temple Mountain Member
throughout the southern portion of the San Rafael Swell. The upper Monitor Butte
and Temple Mountain strata occupy the same stratigraphic position within the
paleovalley and, therefore, these units will be described collectively (for further
discussion see section 5.2.1).
Facies 1 consists of pedogenically modified red and purple colored
mudstones. The most common pedogenic indicators include color mottles,
35
slickensides, root traces, crayfish burrows, and a lack of primary physical
sedimentary structures (Figures 3.1.4-2, and 3.1.4-3B). Vertisols, calcisols and
protosols are identified in these strata. In most locations (measured sections 5, 7, 8, 9,
11, 12, 16, 20, and 27) the amount of pedogenic carbonate increases upsection
through the Monitor Butte.
Facies 2 is characterized by 10-40 cm thick, fine- to medium-grained, current
and climbing current-rippled, red and orange sandstones interbedded with planar
bedded silty mudstones which range from 1-15 cm thick (Figure 3.1.4-3A). At Chute
Canyon in the San Rafael Swell these deposits (measured section 5, 28-39) can be
traced laterally southward to a high sinuosity fluvial channel (Figures AI.16, and
AI.17). Often these deposits are slightly pedogenically modified and contain Scoyenia
burrows, root traces, and other signs of bioturbation.
36
Figure 3.1.4-1 Medium-grained sandstone preserved in the Monitor Butte Member near
Capitol Reef at MS 25 exhibiting planar laminations, current ripples, and
minor scour surfaces. Interpreted as Tb-Tc turbidite deposits associated
with a lacustrine delta front.
Figure 3.1.4-2 Reduction haloes surrounding root traces preserved in the Monitor Butte
Member in White Canyon, MS 20.
37
Figure 3.1.4-3 Light red colored fine to mediumgrained sandstones typical of facies 2 (A)
overlain by finer-grained dark red colored vertisol typical of facies 1 (B).
Chimney Rock, Capitol Reef National Park, MS 27.
Facies 3 is made up of pink, orange, or purple colored mudstones and
sandstones exhibiting current ripples and trough-cross beds found within 3-7 meter
sized epsilon cross-stratification (ECS) sets representative of laterally-accreting point
38
bar deposits. These rocks exhibit a high degree of variability both in grain size and
extent of pedogenesis. In North Wash, just north of Section 15 (Figures AI.17), at
Chute Canyon, just south of Section 5 (Figure AI.44), and at Blueberry Spring
(Figure AI.25) these rocks are moderately well sorted and range from fine- to coarse-
grained sandstones. ECS is well preserved at these locations and is the most
distinguishing characteristic of these rocks at the outcrop scale. In White Canyon, at
measured sections 17 and 20, these rocks are poorly sorted and contain over 50%
mud. At these locations, pedogenic indicators including color mottles, carbonate
nodules, burrows, and disruption of original bedding make the ECS more difficult to
see at the outcrop scale.
3.1.5 Pre-Moss Back Unconformity
In many locations (measured sections 5-7,11-13, 16-20, 22, and 27) a well-
developed carbonate-rich paleosol occupies the uppermost portion of the Monitor
Butte and Temple Mountain Members. These soils are classified as calcisols, calcic
vertisols, calcic oxisols, and calcic protosols (sensu Mack et. al, 1993). They often
contain large carbonate nodules (Figure 3.1.5-1), carbonate filled burrows (Figure
AI.15), and/or carbonate lenses. In several instances the carbonate features seem to
overprint previously developed pedogenic features characteristic of the soils
described in section 3.1.4. In these cases carbonate can be found along vertic cracks,
crayfish burrows, slickensides, and remnant bedding planes. In Capitol Reef National
park the soils found at the top of the Monitor Butte Member are characterized by
dense crayfish burrows originating at the tops of the uppermost horizon. (Figure
3.1.5-2).
39
Figure 3.1.5-1 Large pedogenic carbonate nodules found in a well-developed paleosol at the
top of the Monitor Butte Member in the southwestern portion of the San Rafael
Swell, MS 11.
40
Figure 3.1.5-2 Intensely bioturbated paleosol truncated by the overlying Moss Back Member
at Chimney Rock, Capitol Reef National Park, MS 27.
3.1.6 Moss Back Member
The Moss Back Member is found throughout the field area unconformably
overlying: 1) the Moenkopi Formation in the eastern portion of the San Rafael Swell
at measured section 3, 2) the Temple Mountain Member at measured sections 1, 2, 4-
10, and 3) the Monitor Butte Member in Capitol Reef, White Canyon, Circle Cliffs,
and western San Rafael Swell at measured sections 11-20, 22-27. Where present, the
Moss Back forms a distinct, resistant, brown colored cliff composed of moderately
sorted, angular, quartz sandstone conglomerate often containing numerous rounded
carbonate clasts 1-30 cm in diameter (Figures 3.1.6-1, and AI.61). The Moss Back
varies from 1-100 meters thick and can be seen nearly pinching out at several places
41
near Hidden Splendor Mine in the western San Rafael Swell, and completely
pinching out in White Canyon, and east of Chimney Rock in Capitol Reef National
Park (Figures AI.53, and AI.54).
Along the south wall of Blue Notch Canyon in White Canyon, the Moss Back
forms a resistant, ledge-forming, channel shaped sandstone body incised into the
underlying Monitor Butte Member. The unit varies from over 30 meters to less than 5
meters thick and is comprised of moderately well sorted quartz-rich sandstone
deposited in large-scale poorly developed scroll bars and trough cross-beds. Aerial
photographs (Figure 5.1.5-3) support the interpretation of the Moss Back in Blue
Notch Canyon as an amalgamation of fluvial channels occupying a low-sinuosity,
steeply incised paleovalley. From above, the resistant ledge-forming sandstone can
be traced NW (253) along the southern wall and across the western end of Blue
Notch Canyon. From there the channel appears to bend northward until it goes into
the subsurface near Lake Powell. Another similar sized amalgamation of channels,
occupying a distinct lens shaped channel belt, can be seen in outcrop, oriented NNW
(349), further south near measured section 20.
42
Figure 3.1.6-1 Aerial photograph of Blue Notch Canyon showing extent of Moss Back
Member (basemap from www.maps.google.com).
North of Blue Notch Canyon at Copper Point, the Moss Back is comprised of
less than 10 meters of coarse graveley conglomerate containing numerous carbonate
nodule and mud rip-up clasts (Figure 3.1.6-1). In North Wash, the Moss Back once
again consists of amalgamated fluvial channels made up of large-scale, trough cross-
bedded and moderately well-sorted quartz sandstone; however, the thickness of the
unit is less variable (12-20 meters) than further south and the overall form of the
sandbody is tabular rather than channel (lens) shaped.
43
Figure 3.1.6-2 Thin deposit of conglomerate comprising the Moss Back Member at Copper
Point, MS 16 (A) truncating a well developed paleosol exhibiting densely spaced
carbonate nodules (B). Overlain by dark red, pedogenically modified high-
sinuosity fluvial sandstones of the Petrified Forest Member (C).
In the southwestern portion of the San Rafael Swell, near Hidden Splendor
Mine, the Moss Back sandbody is once again channel shaped and ranges from 6-25
meters thick; however, the unit quickly becomes tabular to the east. From Bell
Canyon to Temple Mountain (measured sections 4-10), the Moss Back is made up of
amalgamated moderate-sinuosity fluvial channels. North of Temple Mountain at
measured sections 2, 3 and surrounding section 1, the Moss Back increases in
thickness up to 90 meters and completely truncates all of the Temple Mountain
Member in some locations. Unlike exposures in White Canyon, the Moss Back
structurally dips over 45 degrees in this region providing only 2 dimensional
44
exposures. Deposition of the lowermost portion of the Moss Back in the Three
Fingers Canyon region was laterally constrained by deeply incised paleotopography.
Photopans and paleocurrent measurements taken at Spotted Wolf Canyon several
miles to the north suggest the upper portion of the Moss Back in the eastern portion of
the Swell was dominated by lateral fluvial channel amalgamation similar to the Moss
Back exposed further south.
3.1.7 Petrified Forest Member
The Petrified Forest Member conformably overlies the sandstone
conglomerate of the Moss Back Member. Where the Moss Back is not present
(sections 23, and 32) the Petrified Forest Member overlies a distinctive, dark red
colored paleosol at the top of the Monitor Butte Member.
In the San Rafael Swell the Petrified Forest Member is characterized by a
color change from white or light brown to dark red and by a change in fluvial style.
While the Moss Back contains trough cross-beds, ripples and massively bedded units
deposited in distinct channel forms and lateral bar deposits, the base of the Petrified
Forest consists of a distinct red colored, well sorted trough and recumbent cross-
bedded tabular sandstone bodies (Figure 3.1.7-1) which overlap the amalgamated
Moss Back channels and correlative interfluves. These sandstones correlate laterally
to dark red pedogenically modified mudstones at Spotted Wolf Canyon in the San
Rafael Swell, and throughout most of White Canyon and Capitol Reef.
In White Canyon and Capitol Reef National Park, the base of the Petrified
Forest Member is recognized by its distinct red color; however, these strata tend to be
much finer-grained overall than those preserved in the San Rafael Swell. Here the
45
strata consist of pedogenically modified mudstones and fine sandstones that exhibit
popcorn (badlands style) weathering. These deposits are poorly sorted and show
remnant planar bedding, trough cross-bedding, current ripples and climbing ripples,
and 2 meter high lateral accretion sets (Figure 3.1.7-2).
Figure 3.1.7-1 Well sorted trough cross-bedded sandstones found near the base of the Petrified
Forest Member near MS 5 in the San Rafael Swell.
46
Figure 3.1.7-2 Fine-grained, red colored paleosol exhibiting relict lateral accretion sets found
at the base of the Petrified Forest Member at MS 18.
3.2 Paleocurrent Data
Rose diagrams and statistical analyses of paleocurrent measurements are shown
in Figure 3.2-1 and Appendix II. The average paleocurrent vector for the lower
portion of the Chinle, 330, is consistent with the findings of Stewart et al. (1972) and
others. The Shinarump Member averaged 345, the Monitor Butte and Temple
Mountain Members averaged 357, and the Moss Back and lower Petrified Forest
Members averaged 313.
47
Figure 3.2-1 Spatial and stratigraphic distribution of paleocurrent directions measured in
the lower portion of the Chinle Formation in south central Utah.
48
3.3 Petrographic Data
The results of the point count analysis can be seen in Figure 3.2-1 and in
Appendix III where sandstones are plotted on QFL ternary diagrams and classified on
the basis of composition (after Pettijohn, 1975).
The Shinarump, Moss Back, and Lower Petrified Forest Members contain
arkosic, subarkosic, and quartz arenites. The Temple Mountain and Monitor Butte
Members contain arkosic, and subarkosic arenites and sublitharenites. Overall, the
maturity of the sandstones decreases and becomes more variable up section.
Spatial trends in sandstone composition are also observed. The Shinarump,
Monitor Butte, and Temple Mountain Members become less mature downstream
from White Canyon to the Circle Cliffs to Capitol Reef. The Moss Back Member
exhibits more spatial variability; however, sandstone compositions become slightly
more mature downstream.
49
Figure 3.3-1 Relative abundances of total quartz, total feldspar, and total lithic clasts as
determined by point-count analyses of sandstones from each of the three
depositional sequences outlined in Chapter 4.
50
CHAPTER IV
SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY
4.1 Introduction to Sequence Stratigraphy
Sequence stratigraphy was developed in the late 1970s promoting the
widespread analysis of sedimentary deposits within a time-based stratigraphic
framework. Whereas traditional lithostratigraphic methods correlate groups of rocks
based upon similar physical characteristics, sequence stratigraphy acknowledges
Walthers law of facies by grouping genetically related packages of rocks
(depositional sequences, systems tracts, and parasequences) which are separated
by chronostratigraphically-significant surfaces (flooding surfaces, and sequence
boundaries) (Figure 4.1-1). Once identified, the geometries and stacking patterns
(stratal architecture) of these packages can be used to interpret a depositional history
based upon fluctuations in accommodation through time. Models developed as a
result of the application of this methodology have proven useful as a predictive tools
for hydrocarbon exploration and have helped to constrain the timing and relative
importance of various forcing mechanisms such as climate, tectonics, and
eustasy/limnostasy (Keighley et al., 2003).
depositional sequence (DS): A stratigraphic unit bounded at its top and base by unconformities or correlative conformities.
flooding surface (FS): A surface separating older from younger rock marked by deeper-water strata resting on shallower-water
strata.
highstand systems tract (HST): The portion of a depositional sequence characterized by aggradation and progradation which
is bounded below by the maximum flooding surface and above by the overlying sequence boundary.
lowstand systems tract (LST): The portion of a depositional sequence that is bounded below by a sequence boundary and
above by a transgressive surface.
maximum flooding surface (MFS): A flooding surface used to separate transgressive and highstand systems tracts identified by
a change from retrogradation to aggradation/progradation. Marks the time when the shoreline is at its maximum landward
position, thus subsequent strata downlap onto this surface.
51
parasequence: A genetically related package of rocks that is relatively conformable and is bounded above and below by
flooding surfaces.
sequence boundary (SB): A chrono-stratigraphically significant surface characterized by erosional truncation and basinward
shift of facies. Overlying strata onlap this surface.
transgressive surface (TS): The first major flooding surface used to separates late LST from TST. Subsequent stratal onlap
marks the trend of a shoreward moving shoreline.
transgressive systems tract (TST): The portion of a depositional sequence bounded below by the transgressive surface and
above by the maximum flooding surface marked by landward shift in facies.
Walthers law: Different sediment types (facies) accumulate beside each other at the same time, therefore vertical lithologic
changes in the rock record reflect lateral shifts of facies through time (assuming continuous deposition).
Figure 4.1-1 Glossary of sequence stratigraphic terminology introduced in section 4.1 (Fritz
and Moore 1988, Nichols, 1999, Posamentier and Allen, 1999)
4.2 Application to Continental Strata
Fluvial Deposits. Sequence stratigraphy has been most successfully applied to
nearshore marine sedimentary deposits affected by eustasy (Posamentier and Allen,
1999), where the affects of variations in base level and accommodation through time
can be readily recognized in the rock record. While traditional sequence stratigraphic
methods have been successfully applied to fluvial deposits isolated from the effects of
base level, interpretations become difficult due to the uniquely dynamic nature of
fluvial systems. Unlike nearshore deposits where accommodation (depositional
potential) is dependant upon relative sea level, accommodation in fluvial systems is
either gained or lost by positive and negative shifts in the equilibrium profile of a
stream system, respectfully (Shanley and McCabe, 1994). Changes in basin length,
sediment supply, sediment size, discharge, and base level drive shifts in the fluvial
profile, which ultimately lead to either aggradation or incision of the fluvial surface
(Figure 4.2-1) (Lane, 1955, Allen, 1990, Quirh, 1996, Blum and Tornqvist, 2000).
Overall, fluvial systems are more sensitive to upstream forces (especially sediment
supply) than are marine deposits (Shanley and McCabe, 1994).
52
Figure 4.2-1. Model depicting the controls on aggradation and degradation in alluvial
systems. If sediment supply out-weighs stream power the system will aggrade.
Degradation will occur if the system is sediment starved in comparison to the
stream power (after Lane, 1955).
Marine facies assemblages are generally differentiated based upon water
depth indicators and serve as a proxy for accommodation in marine systems; in
contrast, fluvial systems exhibit complicated and highly variable facies assemblages
that may not be directly related to accommodation. While marine facies vary along
dip and are dependent upon water depth, continental depositional environments vary
along strike primarily due to variations in topography. As a result, the application of
Walthers Law becomes difficult to apply because shifts in facies cannot be used as a
proxy for changes in accommodation.
Despite these inherent difficulties several workers have proposed sequence
stratigraphic methods for fluvial systems that use channel stacking patterns and
degree of pedogenesis as proxies for sediment accumulation rates (accommodation)
(Wright and Marriott, 1993, Shanley and McCabe, 1993, 1994). In general these
53
studies suggest dense channel stacking and increased pedogenesis as evidence of low
accommodation while finer grained deposits with higher overbank/channel ratios and
lower degree of pedogenesis suggest high accumulation rates resulting from increased
accommodation.
Lacustrine Deposits. Accommodation is more easily constrained for
lacustrine deposits where many facies are water depth dependent. Water depth is a
function of basin morphometry (tectonically controlled) and sediment + water supply
(climate controlled). These two factors serve as the basis for the model presented by
Carrol and Bohacs (1999) (Figure 4.2-2) which categorizes lacustrine basins into
underfilled, balance- filled, and overfilled basins based upon lacustrine facies
assemblages.
Figure 4.2-2 Lacustrine classification scheme proposed by Carroll and Bohacs (1999) based
upon the relative influence of tectonic and climatic controls.
54
Sequence stratigraphic methodology has successfully been used to construct
an accommodation history for siliciclastic fluvio-deltaic lacustrine deposits by
considering limnostatic base level fluctuations (e.g. Lemons and Chan, 1999). As in
nearshore deposits, flooding surfaces can be identified and correlated a short distance
landward by examining paleohydrologic indicators preserved in paleosols formed in
adjacent lowlands. However, several distinct differences between limnostatically and
eustatically controlled systems must be considered. First, unlike rivers that flow into
oceans, the discharge of inflowing streams partially controls lake level. Secondly,
lakes are relatively short-lived features and lake level fluctuations can occur on much
shorter time scales (Keighley et al., 2003). An example of these differences can be
seen in underfilled lacustrine basins where short term transgressions during storm
events create fining-upward parasequences (Smoot and Lowenstein, 1991). Overfilled
lake basins also differ from marine basins because tectonic forces, acting to either
raise or lower the sill, affect limnostasy (Carroll and Bohacs, 1999, Keighley et al.,
2003).
4.3 Discussion of Unconformity Paleosols
The well-developed paleosols described in sections 3.1.1, 3.1.3, and 3.1.5
were formed along the margin of the paleovalley (interfluves) during long periods of
local stability or degradation (McCarthy and Plint, 1998, Demko et al., 2004). The
timing and duration of paleosol development is difficult to constrain in these soils,
however they can be used to help identify and correlate several
chronostratigraphically-significant surfaces (sequence boundaries) within the lower
portion of the Chinle.
55
Determining the relative timing of interfluve paleosol development and
adjacent deposition is difficult because the two may occur contemporaneously. For
example, while deposition of the Shinarump was occurring in the center of the
paleovalley near Capitol Reef National Park, interfluve pedogenesis, and perhaps
minimal erosion, continued across the remaining portion of the landscape. This
spatial variability makes it difficult to constrain when each paleosol started to form.
For example, the paleosol found at the base of the Chinle at MS 4 may have started to
form as early as the Middle Triassic after merely 10 meters of Moenkopi was incised
or as late as sometime during the deposition of the lower portion of the Monitor Butte
at the base of the paleovalley (early DS 2).
Soil thickness (depth of weathering) can be used to help make a first order
approximation of the age of an interfluve paleosol by assuming pedogenesis occurred
from the top down. However, since these paleosols spend much of their time forming
on a degrading landscape, and correlate laterally to eroded strata, it is likely that much
of the soil was removed prior to burial.
These problems are addressed when using these palosols as
chronostratigraphic indicators by making several key assumptions about when and
where pedogenesis occurs:
1) Deposition does not occur on the interfluve, the deposits neatly onlap
the paleovalley from the bottom up.
2) Pedogenesis may occur continuously, both during aggradational and
degradational time periods, at all locations above where the strata is
currently onlapping the paleovalley margin.
56
These assumptions serve to temporally isolate the deposition of parent
material from subsequent pedogenesis creating an accurate time-depositional
framework for the Chinle Formation in which the tops of the paleosols are used to
delineate depositional time periods separated by periods of landscape stability or
degradation. The implicit time-pedogenic framework constrains paleosol
development to a period of potential pedogenesis bounded by a maximum age (after
deposition of the original parent material) and a minimum age (just before the soil is
onlapped by subsequent deposition).
4.4 Sequence Stratigraphic Interpretation
Section 4.4 applies sequence stratigraphic methodology to the lower portion
of the Chinle Formation. Three sequence boundaries (SB 1-3) are identified and
correlated across the field area serving to divide the strata into 3 depositional
sequences (DS 1-3) (Figures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 ). These three sequences closely
resemble the established lithomember classification for the lower portion of the
Chinle, however several key differences exist. The most notable difference occurs at
the Tr-3 unconformity where the sequence boundary is interpreted at the top of well
developed interfluve paleosol whereas the lithologic contact has been defined at the
base of the soil (see measured sections 1,4, 6-7, 9, 10, 13, 22).
Further identification of lacustrine flooding surfaces, their correlative
surfaces, and paleohydrologic indicators preserved in paleosols, provides insights to
the accommodation history (changes in relative lake level) of the basin. These data, in
addition to observed stratal architecture (both at outcrop scale and in interpreted
cross-sections), permits the division of DS 2 into three secondary (higher order)
57
to Southern Well Logs
2
5
2
7
2
6
5
0
m
1
0
0
2
2
2
3
2
4
1
3
red
pink red
grey pink
purple
#
1
#
2
#
4
#
1
2
#
1
4
#
1
5
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

W
e
l
l

L
o
g
s
C
i
r
c
l
e

C
l
i
I
I
s
C
a
p
i
t
o
l

R
e
e
I
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

W
e
l
l

L
o
g
s
S
w
e
l
l
P
a
P
d
F
b
L
m
L
d
F
h
F
l
3
2

m
i
.
3
1

m
i
.
1
9

m
i
.
2
5

m
i
.
1
1

m
i
.
t o W h i t e C a n y o n
S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

F
a
c
i
e
s

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
a
g
e
s
H
i
g
h
-
s
i
n
u
o
s
i
t
y

I
l
u
v
i
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
L
a
c
u
s
t
r
i
n
e

d
e
l
t
a

I
r
o
n
t

a
n
d

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

m
a
r
g
i
n

a
n
d

d
e
l
t
a

p
l
a
i
n
L
o
w
-
s
i
n
u
o
s
i
t
y

I
l
u
v
i
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
B
r
a
i
d
e
d

I
l
u
v
i
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
P
a
l
e
o
s
o
l

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
l
e
o
s
o
l

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e

a
g
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
F
l
F
h
P
a
P
d
F
b
L
m
L
d
C
h
r
o
n
o
s
t
r
a
t
i
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

S
u
r
I
a
c
e
s
F
l
o
o
d
i
n
g

s
u
r
I
a
c
e
S
e
q
u
e
n
c
e

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
1
5
0
`
5
0
`
2
5
0
`
1
6
2
0
1
5
1
8
1
4
1
7
2
1
0
7
8
4
3
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
9
pink red
red purple
3
1

m
i
.
W
h
i
t
e

C
a
n
y
o
n
S
a
n

R
a
I
a
e
l

S
w
e
l
l
F
l
F
h
F
l
P
a
P
d
F
b
L
m
L
d
P
d
5
4

m
i
.
0
1
0
M
I
L
E
S
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
2
-
1

F
a
c
i
e
s

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e

s
t
r
a
t
i
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

l
o
w
e
r

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

C
h
i
n
l
e

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

u
s
i
n
g


m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

w
e
l
l

l
o
g
s

f
r
o
m

c
e
n
t
r
a
l

U
t
a
h
.
58
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
2
-
3

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
e
c
o
n
d

o
r
d
e
r

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

s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

t
r
a
c
t
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

D
S

2
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

4
.
2
-
2

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
i
r
s
t

o
r
d
e
r

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

s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

t
r
a
c
t
s
.
S
a
n

R
a
I
a
e
l

S
w
e
l
l
W
h
i
t
e

C
a
n
y
o
n
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

W
e
l
l

L
o
g
s
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

W
e
l
l

L
o
g
s
C
i
r
c
l
e

C
l
i
I
I
s
C
a
p
i
t
o
l

R
e
e
I
h
s
t

3
h
s
t

2
h
s
t

1
t
s
t

1
l
s
t

2
l
s
t

2
h
s
t

3
h
s
t

2
h
s
t

1
I
s
s
b

3
h
s
t

3
t
s

2
m
I
s

1
L
S
T

1
H
S
T

2
T
S
T

2
L
S
T

3
S
a
n

R
a
I
a
e
l

S
w
e
l
l
W
h
i
t
e

C
a
n
y
o
n
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

W
e
l
l

L
o
g
s
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

W
e
l
l

L
o
g
s
C
i
r
c
l
e

C
l
i
I
I
s
C
a
p
i
t
o
l

R
e
e
I
S
B

3
F
S
S
B

2
S
B

1
M
F
S

1
I
s
s
b

2
s
b

2
I
s
s
b

1
s
b

1
t
s

2
S
B

2
59
depositional sequences (ds 1-3). All six depositional sequences are further divided
into systems tracts on the basis of facies relationships and stratal stacking patterns.
4.4.1 Sequence Boundary 1
The contact between the Early Triassic Moenkopi Formation and the Late
Triassic Chinle Formation has long been recognized as a major unconformity
representing at least 17 Ma. of non-deposition across the entire Colorado Plateau
(Pipringos and OSullivan, 1978). In the field area the contact is marked by erosional
truncation and/or pedogenesis of the uppermost Moenkopi Formation. The
unconformity is interpreted as a sequence boundary that can be traced along the top of
the truncated Moenkopi strata to the top of the well developed paleosol formed
therein.
4.4.2 Depositional Sequence 1
The first depositional sequence includes the low-sinuosity, braided fluvial
deposits of the Shinarump Member and the well-developed soil described in section
3.1.3. These coarse-grained Shinarump deposits are interpreted as being deposited on
a fairly low-angle paleoslope (Blakey and Gubitosa, 1984, Heller et al., 2003). The
mud-poor nature of these deposits, tabular nature (low channel aspect ratio), and
compositional maturity suggests the Shinarump was deposited in low-accommodation
setting and underwent significant sediment reworking (Haney, 1987).
4.4.3 Sequence Boundary 2
Another sequence boundary is interpreted at the top of the Shinarump
Member, where erosional truncation of the uppermost strata correlates to the well-
developed paleosol described in section 3.1.3. Once again the surface follows the top
60
of the truncated strata laterally to the top of the paleosol. This surface onlaps the
original paleovalley margin near the lateral extent of the Shinarump Member
combining Sequence Boundary 2 and Sequence Boundary 1. This surface is
immediately overlain by fluvio-lacustrine facies interpreted as either TST or HST
(measured sections 16-21, 24-27). As a result, SB 2 acts as either the TS or MFS
respectively and is therefore more specifically termed a flooding surface sequence
boundary (FSSB).
4.4.4 Depositional Sequence 2
Depositional Sequence 2 includes the Monitor Butte (excluding the paleosol
described in section 3.1.3) and Temple Mountain Members and the soil described in
section 3.1.5. Several retrogradational parasequences characterized by palustrine
facies found at the base of the sequence are interpreted as transgressive systems tract
(TST 1). The remainder of the sequence is dominated by prograding fluvio-lacustrine
facies and is therefore interpreted as HST 1.
Water depth indicators preserved in the lacustrine deposits of this sequence
permit further division of these strata into 3 smaller-order (secondary) sequences. The
first secondary sequence is comprised of the transgressive deposits found at measured
section 20 (tst 1) and a coarsening-upward lacustrine package interpreted as a
prograding highstand systems tract (hst 1). Near the center of the paleovalley, at
measured sections 25-27 and well logs 1-2, the top of hst 1 is marked by fluvial
truncation and minor pedogenesis. This surface, interpreted as a secondary sequence
boundary (sb 2), onlaps the paleovalley between North Wash and the San Rafael
Swell.
61
High-sinuosity fluvial channel deposits interpreted as LST (lst 2) occupy the
base of the next secondary depositional sequence. These fluvial channels are topped
by a lacustrine flooding surface (mfs 2) which can be traced to where it onlaps sb 2
(fssb 2). Lacustrine deltaic facies coarsen upward above mfs 2. Shoreface and minor
distributary channels overlie the deltaic facies in Capitol Reef and North Wash. These
rocks represent significant progradation during hst 2.
A major flooding surface, interpreted as fssb 3, can be correlated across the
majority of the field area including the southwestern portion of the San Rafael Swell.
The base of the overlying depositional sequence 3 is marked by the most widespread
occurrence of lacustrine facies preserved in the lower portion of the Chinle. The
relatively thin lucustrine deposits in this final sequence coarsen upward to shoreline
and distributary facies and eventually are replaced by high-sinuosity fluvial deposits.
The entire portion of ds 3 is interpreted as highstand systems tract.
4.4.5 Sequence Boundary 3
The unconformity at the base of the Moss Back Member is interpreted as a
sequence boundary. This surface is traced from the base of the coarse-grained
deposits of the Moss Back laterally along the top of the well-developed carbonate rich
soils described in section 3.1.5. Sequence Boundary 3 onlaps Sequence Boundary 2
east of Temple Mountain in the San Rafael Swell.
4.4.6 Depositional Sequence 3
Depositional Sequence 3 is comprised of the Moss Back Member and includes
the lower portion of the Petrified Forest Member. Deep incision of the Moss Back
into underlying sediments and an abundance of intrabasinal sediments (Figures 3.1.6-
62
1, AI.50, and AI.61) support the interpretation of these deposits as lowstand systems
tract (LST 3).
The top of the Moss Back, marked by a conformable, yet sharp, transition to
the overlying Petrified Forest Member, is interpreted as a large increase in
accommodation resulting from stratal overlap of the Petrified Forest Paleovalley. The
surface separating these two units is interpreted as TS 3. Slow accumulation of the
lowermost portion of the Petrified Forest Member during TST 3 is analogous to the
formation of a marine condensed section created when a sudden rise in relative sea
level shifts deposition landward leaving offshore areas sediment starved. Instead of
being forced by a sudden baselevel shift however, the base of the Petrified Forest
Member records a drastic change in effective basin geometry.
63
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Depositional History
This section presents a detailed depositional history for the lower portion of
the Chinle using the temporal framework outlined in section 4.4. Erosional truncation
and extensive pedogenesis suggest the three sequence bounding unconformities
identified in section 4.4 represent not only non-depositional periods, but long
interludes of widespread landscape degradation. Chinle strata, which onlap and/or
overlap the unconformities, were deposited during intervening aggradational periods
(DS 1-3). The temporal isolation of the three depositional sequences is reflected in the
unique sandstone composition, paleocurrent directions, and facies preserved in each.
In addition to outlining how each of the depositional sequences were deposited, the
probable forcing mechanisms which drove the deposition and preservation of each of
these unique depositional sequences will be discussed.
5.1.1 Landscape Degradation 1
The uppermost portion of the Moenkopi Formation preserved in south-central
Utah was deposited during the westward retreat of the Early Triassic marine
shoreline. Gradual uplift and erosion of the emergent landscape during the Middle
Triassic created a northwest trending paleovalley network across the Colorado
Plateau. The present day field area encompasses a portion of the Painted Desert
paleovalley over 100 meters deep and several hundred kilometers wide where the
paleovalley stretches from its margin near Comb Ridge, Utah, to the deepest part
found near Torrey, Utah, in Capitol Reef National Park (Blakey and Gubitosa 1983,
64
A
.


D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
I

t
h
e

E
a
r
l
y

T
r
i
a
s
s
i
c

M
o
e
n
k
o
p
i

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

a

m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

m
a
r
i
n
e

s
e
t
t
i
n
g
.
B
.


T
r
u
n
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

p
e
d
o
g
e
n
e
s
i
s

o
I

t
h
e

M
o
e
n
k
o
p
i

F
m
.

L
a
r
g
e

p
a
l
e
o
v
a
l
l
e
y

n
e
t
w
o
r
k

c
r
e
a
t
e
d
.
C
.



D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
I

t
h
e

S
h
i
n
.

M
b
r
.

o
I

t
h
e

C
h
i
n
l
e

F
m
.

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

p
e
d
o
g
e
n
e
s
i
s

o
I

i
n
t
e
r
I
l
u
v
e
s
.
D
.


T
r
u
n
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

p
e
d
o
g
e
n
e
s
i
s

o
I

t
h
e

S
h
i
n
a
r
u
m
p

M
e
m
b
e
r
.

P
e
d
o
g
e
n
e
s
i
s

o
I

i
n
t
e
r
I
l
u
v
e
s

c
o
n
t
.
E
-
F
.


D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
I

t
h
e

M
.

B
u
t
t
e

a
n
d

T
e
m
p
l
e

M
t
n
.

M
b
r
s
.

P
e
d
o
g
e
n
e
s
i
s

o
I

i
n
t
e
r
I
l
u
v
e
s

c
o
n
t
.
G
.



T
r
u
n
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

p
e
d
o
g
e
n
e
s
i
s

o
I

t
h
e

M
o
n
i
t
o
r

B
u
t
t
e

a
n
d

T
e
m
p
l
e

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
.
H
.


D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
I

t
h
e

M
o
s
s

B
a
c
k

M
e
m
b
e
r
.

S
t
r
a
t
a

o
v
e
r
l
a
p
s

p
a
l
e
o
v
a
l
l
e
y

n
e
t
w
o
r
k
.

S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

F
a
c
i
e
s

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
a
g
e
s
H
i
g
h
-
s
i
n
u
o
s
i
t
y

I
l
u
v
i
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
L
a
c
u
s
t
r
i
n
e

d
e
l
t
a

I
r
o
n
t

a
n
d

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

m
a
r
g
i
n

a
n
d

d
e
l
t
a

p
l
a
i
n
L
o
w
-
s
i
n
u
o
s
i
t
y

I
l
u
v
i
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
B
r
a
i
d
e
d

I
l
u
v
i
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
P
a
l
e
o
s
o
l

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
l
e
o
s
o
l

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e

a
g
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
A C E G
B D
F
H
P
a
n
t
h
a
l
a
s
s
i
c

O
c
e
a
n
!
@
!
E
D
B
H
F
C
G
A
-
G
!
@
!
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

H
i
s
t
o
r
y
C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
I

C
h
i
n
l
e

P
a
l
e
o
v
a
l
l
e
y

F
i
l
l
P
a
l
e
o
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
F
i
g
u
r
e

5
.
1

S
c
h
e
m
a
t
i
c

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

o
f

t
h
e

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

h
i
s
t
o
r
y

o
f

t
h
e


l
o
w
e
r

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

C
h
i
n
l
e

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d

i
n

s
o
u
t
h

c
e
n
t
r
a
l

U
t
a
h
.
65
Dubiel et al., 1999). The resultant unconformity (Tr-3) is recognized by erosional
truncation of the Moenkopi Fm. and by interfluve paleosols formed in Early Triassic
parent material (section 3.1.1 and 4.4.1).
5.1.2 Landscape Aggradation 1
The remaining lower portion of the Chinle Formation (between basal
paleosols and lower portion of the Petrified Forest Member) was deposited during the
Late Triassic in three distinct periods of landscape aggradation (DS 1-3), which are
separated by two major depositional interludes (SB 2-3), each marked by incision,
sediment bypass, and interfluve pedogenesis. The first transition to landscape
aggradation following the Tr-3 unconformity resulted in the deposition of the
Shinarump Member (DS 1). Shinarump strata consist of coarse-grained low-sinuosity
or braided fluvial deposits which onlapped the bottom 60 meters of truncated and
pedogenically modified Moenkopi at the base of the paleovalley. The Shinarump
fluvial system was deposited on a low downstream paleoslope (Heller et al., 2003).
Streams resembling those preserved in the Shinarump likely cut the lower portion of
the initial paleovalley during the Tr-3 lowstand and the Shinarump itself was
deposited during late lowstand as accommodation began to increase. It is important to
note that while deposition of the Shinarump was occurring in the center of the
paleovalley, interfluve pedogenesis and perhaps minimal erosion, continued across
the remaining portion of the landscape (see section 4.3).
5.1.3 Landscape Degradation 2
A second period of landscape degradation followed the deposition of the
Shinarump. During this time erosional incision removed up to 31 meters of
66
Shinarump strata near the center of the paleovalley while tropical weathering on the
interfluves overprinted older interfluve paleosols, more recently incised portions of
the Moenkopi, and the top of the Shinarump creating the paleosols described and
correlated in sections 3.1.3 and 4.2.3 respectfully.
5.1.4 Landscape Aggradation 2
Deposition of the Monitor Butte Member (DS 2) in the deepest parts of the
paleovalley marks the transition back to landscape aggradation. The first deposits
(TST 2), comprised of hydric paleosols, minor coals, and clastic lacustrine facies,
record the inundation of the lower portion of the paleovalley during the initial
lacustrine transgression. The remaining portion of DS 2 was deposited as three large
progadational packages of paleovalley fill (ds 1-3). The lower two-thirds of DS 2
contains a majority of facies preserved in a fluctuating profundal environment while
the upper third contains an assemblage of high sinuosity fluvial facies deposited as
the inlet streams prograded over the newly filled lacustrine basin.
During DS 2 the proportion of preserved fluvial to lacustrine facies increased.
The deposits comprising ds 1 contain a majority of clastic lacustrine deltaic facies
with clinoform sizes indicating at least 10 meters of water depth. In contrast, ds 3
contains a few small, often pedogenically modified, laterally restricted deltaic facies.
This progression from one large deep lake preserved at the bottom of the paleovalley
to several smaller, shallower lakes preserved near the top is likely the combined result
of: 1) an overall progradation of high-sinuosity fluvial facies over deeper water
lacustrine facies, and 2) changes in the basin physiography resulting from less spatial
confinement by the paleovalley margins as onlap continued. A third potential factor
67
could be decreased annual rainfall or changes in seasonality which could have led to
changes in the water budget of the system.
5.1.5 Landscape Degradation 3
The sequence bounding unconformity at the base of the Moss Back Member
(SB 3) represents a transitional period in the evolution of the Chinle basin. In contrast
to the shallow, broad paleotopography formed during the two previous degradational
time periods, SB 3 is characterized by localized steep channel-shaped incisions. Deep
incision in the western portion of the San Rafael Swell, and uncharacteristic
southwestern paleocurrents and decreased compositional maturity recorded in the
Moss Back Member suggest a major reorganization of the drainage basin. During this
time the primary drainage source for the basin shifted northward moving the thalweg
of the resultant paleovalley to the San Rafael Swell.
Pedogenic carbonate and deep crayfish burrows preserved in interfluve
paleosols formed during this time indicate increased aridity compared to previous
degradational events. While a change in annual rainfall or seasonality may explain the
dramatic shift, a more comprehensive dataset from the entire Colorado Plateau is
needed to rule out factors such as tectonics and volcanic activity.
5.1.6 Landscape Aggradation 3
The sandstone conglomerate within the Moss Back Member is similar to that
preserved in the Shinarump in that it was deposited as amalgamated fluvial channels
occupying the base of the paleovalley. Moss Back sediments, however, are much less
compositionally mature than those of the Shinarump, indicating a more proximal
source and perhaps faster sediment accumulation (less sediment reworking).
68
The coarse grained sediments comprising the Moss Back Member (DS 3)
were deposited during aggradation of a major fluvial system. Through time, the
fluvial system became less laterally confined as the sediments onlapped the
paleovalley margin. The gradual shift to an unconfined system is demonstrated by the
vertical and spatial variability of the resultant stratal architecture which correlates
with the paleotopography created during the previous period of incision. Areas
characterized by deep incision are filled with multi-storey vertically amalgamated
lens (channel) shaped channelforms (northeastern San Rafael Swell, Blue Notch
Canyon, Fry Canyon). In these areas, the Moss Back outcrops as one large, overall
channel-shaped sandbody. In contrast, the Moss Back preserved in the remaining
portion of the field area crops out as an overall tabular sandbody. Despite nearly
identical fluvial facies and individual channel geometries (although not scales),
lateral, rather than vertical amalgamation of the lens shaped channelforms resulted in
the preservation of single-storey tabular sand bodies in the remaining portion of the
field area.
The pedogenically modified, high-sinuosity fluvial channels and floodplain
deposits found at the base of the Petrified Forest Member record the eventual overlap
of the Petrified Forest paleovalley. The lack of lateral confinement allowed the fluvial
system to meander across the entire landscape, thereby drastically increasing
accommodation. Evidence of increased accommodation at this transition includes
decreased channel density, decreased sand to mud ratio, and slower vertical sediment
accumulation as indicated by an increased degree of pedogenesis.
69
5.2 Lithostratigraphic Implications
5.2.1 Correlation of the Temple Mountain and Monitor Butte Members
The impetus for the formalization of the Temple Mountain Member was to
describe and name the Late Triassic strata found above the Moenkopi Formation but
below the uranium-bearing Moss Back Member in the San Rafael Swell (Robeck,
1956). This stratigraphic interval includes the mottled strata interpreted herein as
unconformity paleosols associated with SB 1-2 and SB 3. Also included within this
interval are purple mudstones and tan-colored, fine- to medium-grained sandstones
representing aggradational paleosols and high-sinuosity fluvial deposits. These
deposits are correlated to the upper portion of the Monitor Butte Member south and
west of the San Rafael Swell based upon: 1) their position relative to the bounding
unconformity paleosols (SB 1-2, and SB 3), 2) their position relative to the datum
located at the base of the Petrified Forest Member, 3) similarities in high sinuosity
depositional facies and pedogenic fabrics, and 4) by the interfingering of grey-green
mudstones and fine sandstones in the extreme southwestern portion of the Swell,
which are typical of low-chroma lacustrine sediments found in the Monitor Butte in
White Canyon and Capitol Reef.
Plant fossil evidence (Ash, 1976, Ash, 1977, Ash, 1980) tends to refute the
aforementioned correlation based on the identification of Eoginkgoites flora found
within the Temple Mountain Member. These studies suggest the Temple Mountain
Member is biostratigraphically older than the Monitor Butte Member (see section
2.2.3). However, this study suggests that while the majority of the Temple Mountain
lithomember is time-correlative to the Monitor Butte Member, it also includes strata
70
which are older than the Monitor Butte Member. The unconformity paleosols (SB 1-
2) were developed in parent material as old, or older, than the Shinarump Member
(DS 1). Also, field reconnaissance has identified several previously undescribed
exposures of Shinarump (DS 1) in the San Rafael Swell north of Interstate 70 near
Buckhorn Wash. Therefore, it is possible to find Eoginkoites flora within strata that
traditionally have, by default, been considered part of the Temple Mountain
lithomember. Further field work is needed to place these fossils within the temporal
framework outlined herein.
5.2.2 Suggested Modifications to Lithostratigraphic Boundaries
Unlike previous attempts to overhaul the lithostratigraphic nomenclature of
the Chinle Formation (e.g. Lucas, 1993), this study provides a detailed dataset
directly focused on the historic problems resulting from ubiquitous nature of the
mottled strata and the complicated depositional architecture of the lower portion of
the Chinle Formation. With the exception of the mottled strata (unconformity
paleosols), the lithostratigraphic boundaries summarized by Stewart et al. (1972) and
Dubiel (1989, 1994) approximate the three first-order sequence boundaries (SB 1,2,
and 3) identified by Demko (2003) and this study. Depositional Sequence 1
approximates the previously defined Shinarump Mbr., DS 2 the Monitor Butte and
Temple Mountain Members, and DS 3 the Moss Back and Petrified Forest Members.
This suggests only minor changes need to be made to the long established
lithostratigraphic nomenclature in the study area.
71
Option 1. The first option is to consider the sequence stratigraphic framework
separate from the lithostratigraphy, as is done throughout this paper. Using the current
lithostratigraphic definitions, the lower portion of the Chinle would be mapped as
follows (Figure 5.2.2-1C):
x The basal unconformity paleosol would be mapped as either the
Shinarump, Monitor Butte, or Temple Mountain Member, depending
upon which unit directly overlied it.
x In the case where the Moss Back Member directly overlies a basal
unconformity paleosol, the paleosol would be mapped as the Temple
Mountain Member in the San Rafael Swell, or the Monitor Butte
Member elsewhere.
x The unconformity paleosol found on top of the Shinarump would be
mapped as the Monitor Butte Member.
x The unconformity paleosol at the base of the Moss Back Member
would be mapped as the Temple Mountain Member in the San Rafael
Swell, and as the Monitor Butte Member elsewhere.
x Anything found below the Moss Back or Petrified Forest Member in
the San Rafael Swell, unless the Shinarump is identified, would be
mapped as the Temple Mountain.
This method is not only cumbersome, but it oversimplifies the complex nature
of the nested paleovalleys and ignores the lateral continuity of the unconformity
paleosols. For example, consider the case where a basal unconformity paleosol
underlies the Shinarump Member. In this case the paleosol would be included within
72
the Shinarump lithomember. Now, trace that paleosol toward the margin of the
paleovalley to where the Shinarump onlaps the valley margin. That same paleosol
horizon would now be directly overlain by the Monitor Butte Member and would
therefore be classified not as the Shinarump, but as the Monitor Butte.
Option 2 Sequence Stratigraphy. As previously mentioned, the established
lithostratigraphy of the Chinle closely resembles the sequence-stratigraphic
framework outlined in this study. Option 1 would be simplified and made more
accurate depositionally by placing the contacts at the major unconformities defined in
Chapter 4 (Figure 5.2.2-1D). Sequence boundary 1 would thereby delineate the
Moenkopi Fm. from the Chinle Fm., SB 2 would separate the Shinarump from the
overlying Monitor Butte and Temple Mountain Members, and SB 3 would define the
lower boundary of the Moss Back Member where present.
This study has shown these surfaces to be regionally extensive. Also, unlike
previous attempts to define the lithostratigraphic contacts, the methodology used in
this study addresses the problems caused by the lateral facies, pedogenic, and
architectural variability. This solution is also practical from a chronostratigraphic
standpoint because the sequence bounding unconformities separate the lower portion
of the Chinle Formation into genetically related, three-dimensional, mappable,
packages of rock (see sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3).
73
Figure 5.2.2-1 Schematic diagram exemplifying the complexity of the nested paleovalley
architecture of the lower portion of the Chinle Fm: A) uninterpreted Chinle
strata, B) sequence stratigraphic framework, C) lithostratigraphic classification
Option 1, D) lithostratigraphic classification Option 2.
74
Discussion. The difficulties presented by the unconformity paleosols highlight
the differences between sequence stratigraphic and lithostratigraphic methodology.
Sequence stratigraphic methodology defines units based upon the timing of their
deposition while lithostratigraphic methodologies define units based upon their
physical and stratigraphic relationships. When considering the unconformity
paleosols, the timing of deposition does not match the timing of the ichnologic and
paleopedologic modification, yet these processes directly affect the physical
characteristics of the strata. This is where the use of sequence stratigraphy alone can
become problematic.
For example, the argument can be made that Option 2 strands the basal
paleosol within the Moenkopi Formation. Historically the basal mottled strata have
been included within the Chinle Formation because this paleosol contains crayfish
burrows and other Late Triassic signs of life. Also, from a purely lithologic
standpoint, the paleosol has physical characteristics more similar to Chinle strata than
Moenkopi. As a result, a third option would be to include the basal paleosol within
the Chinle Formation. This option differs from Option 2 only in that the basal
paleosol would be mapped as whatever depositional sequence directly overlies it.
Once again, however, this solution ignores the potential lateral continuity of the
unconformity paleosols (see Option 1).
75
5.3 Summary
Field observations of the lower portion of the Chinle formation in south
central Utah identified three distinct depositional packages separated by regionally
correlative unconformities characterized by erosional truncation and pedogenesis. In
general these packages are characterized by: 1) quartz-rich tabular sand and gravel
sheets deposited by low-sinuosity/braided river system (Shinarump Member); 2)
multi-colored fine-grained fluvio-lacustrine sediments and paleosols (Monitor Butte
and Temple Mountain Members) and; 3) coarse-grained lenticular shaped sand bodies
deposited by high- to low-sinuosity rivers (Moss Back Member). These strata are
interpreted as being deposited during three successive periods of landscape
aggradation following major depositional hiatuses.
The tectonic setting of the Chinle basin within a dynamically subsiding back-
arc basin may provide a mechanism for uplift and erosion of Lower Triassic strata
creating the master paleovalley surface (SB 1). The preservation of continental strata
across the Colorado Plateau is evidence of a large scale shift from tectonic uplift to
subsidence during the Late Triassic. Detailed facies and pedogenic analysis,
paleoecological and paleoclimatic data, and higher frequency cut-and fill architecture
indicate highly variable hydrologic conditions during deposition of the lower portion
of the Chinle Formation. This variability is more likely related to climatic controls on
sediment flux and discharge than tectonics. Paleotopography produced during all
three unconformities (SB 1 through 3) further defined the effective basin geometry
and affected paleohydrologic conditions during deposition of the lower portion of the
Chinle Formation.
76
REFERENCES CITED
Albee, H.F., 1957, Comparison of the pebbles of the Shinarump and Moss Back
Members of the Chinle Formation: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 27,
p. 135-42.
Allen, P.A., and Allen J.R., 1990, Basin Analysis: Principles and Applications:
London, Blackwell Science, 451p.
Ash, S.R., 1972, Plant megafossils of the Chinle Formation, in Breed, C.S. and Breed,
W.J. eds., Investigation in the Triassic Chinle Formation: Museum of
Northern Arizona Bulletin, v. 47, p. 45-74.
Ash, S.R., 1975, The Chinle (Upper Triassic) flora of southeastern Utah: Four
Corners Geologic Society Guidebook, 8
th
Field Conference, Canyonlands, p.
143-7.
Ash, S.R., 1976, The systematic position of Eogikgoites: American Journal of
Botany, v. 63, p 1327-31.
Ash, S.R., 1977, Upper Triassic floral zones of North America: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 51. issue 2, p. 1.
Ash, S.R., 1980, Upper Triassic floral zones of North America, in Dilcher, D.L., and
Taylor, T.M., eds., Biostratigraphy of fossil plants: Stroudsburg, Dowden,
Hutchinson, and Ross, p. 153-270.
Ash, S.R., 1986, Fossil plants and the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, in Padian, K., ed.,
The beginning of the age of dinosaurs: faunal change across the Triassic-
Jurassic boundary: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 21-30.
Ash, S.R., 1987, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona: Geological Society of
America centennial field guide, Rocky Mountain section, p. 405-10.
Ash, S.R., 1999, An Upper Triassic upland flora from north-central New Mexico,
USA: review of paleontology, v. 74, p. 1065-71.
Ash, S.D., and Creber, G.T., 1992, Paleoclimatic interpretation of the wood
structures of the trees in the Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic), Petrified
Forest National Park, Arizona, USA: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology, v. 96, p. 299-317.
Blakey, R.C., 2003, Stratigraphy and Sedimentology on the Colorado Plateau:
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/RCB.html.
77
Blakey, R.C., 1974, Stratigraphic and depositional analysis of the Moenkopi
Formation, Southeastern Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin,
v. 104, p. 1-81.
Blakey, R.C., and Gubitosa, R., 1983, Late Triassic paleogeography and depositional
history of the Chinle Formation, southern Utah and northern Arizona, in
Reynolds, M.W. and Dolly, E.D., eds., Mesozoic paleogeography of the west-
central united States: International Association of Sedimentologists, p. 57-76.
Blakey, R.C., and Gubitosa, R., 1984, Controls of sandstone body geometry and
architecture in the Chinle Formation (Late Triassic), Colorado Plateau:
Sedimentary Geology, v. 38, p. 51-86.
Blodgett, R.H., 1985, Paleovertisols as indicators of climate: AAPG Bulletin, v.69, p.
239.
Blum, M.D., and Tornqvist T.E., 2000, Fluvial responses to climate and sea-level
change: a review and look forward: Sedimentology, v. 47, suppl. 1, p. 2-48.
Brady, N.C., and Weil, R.R., 2004, Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soils
(second edition.): Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, 606 p.
Carroll, A.R., and Bohacs, K.M., 1999, Stratigraphic classification of ancient lakes:
balancing tectonic and climatic controls: Geology, v. 27, no. 2, p. 99-102.
Condon, S.M.,1997, Geology of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Cutler Group and
Permian Kaibab Limestone in the Paradox Basin, southeastern Utah and
southwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2000-1, 59 p.
Creber, J.T., and Ash, S.R., 1990, Evidence of widespread fungal attack on Upper
Triassic trees in the southwestern USA: Review of paleobiology and
palynology, v. 63, p. 189-95.
Demko, T.M., Currie, B.S., Nicoll, K.A., 2004, Regional paleoclimatic and
stratigraphic implications of paleosols and fluvial/overbank architecture in the
Morrison Formation (Upper Jurassic), Western Interior, USA: Sedimentary
Geology, v. 167, p. 115-135.
Demko, T.M., 2003, Sequence Stratigraphy of a Fluvial-Lacustrine Succession in
Triassic Lower Chinle Formation, Central Utah, USA: Geological Society of
America Abstracts with Programs, v. 35, issue 6, p. 426.
Demko, T.M., Dubiel, R.F., and Parrish, J.T., 1998, Plant taphonomy in incised
valleys: Implications for interpreting paleoclimate from fossil plants:
Geology, v. 26, p. 1119-1122.
78
Demko, T.M., 1995, Taphonomy of fossil plants in the Upper Triassic Chinle
Formation: [Ph.D. dissertation]: Tuscon, University of Arizona, 274 p.
Dolling, H.H., Blackett, R.E., Hamblin, A.H., Powell, J.D., Pollock, G.L., 2000,
Geology of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah, in Sprinkle,
D.A., Chidsey, T.C., Anderson, P.B., eds., Geology of Utahs Parks and
Monuments: Utah Geological Association, publication 28, p. 189-232.
Dickinson, W.R., 1981, Plate tectonic evolution of the southern Cordillera: Arizona
Geological Society Digest, v. 14, p. 113-5.
Doelling, H.H., Chidsey, T.C., and Benson, B.J., 2000, Geology of Dead Horse Point
State Park, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah, in Sprinkel, D.A., Chidsey,
T.C., Anderson, P.B., eds., Geology of Utahs Parks and Monuments: Utah
Geological Association, publication 28, p. 391-410
Dubiel, R.F., Hasiotis, S.T., Demko, T.M., 1999, Incised valley fills in the lower part
of the Chinle Formation, Petrified Forest National Park (PEFO), Arizona:
complete measured sections and regional stratigraphic implications of Upper
Triassic rocks: Technical Report NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-99/3.
Dubiel, R.F., 1994, Triassic deposystems, paleogeography, and paleoclimate of the
Western Interior, in Caputo, M.V., Peterson, J.A., and Franczyk, K.J., eds.,
Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky Mountain Region, USA: SEPM (Society for
Sedimentary Geology), Rocky Mountain Section, Denver, p. 133-68.
Dubiel, R.F., Parrish, J.T., Parrish, J.M., Good, S.C., 1991, The Pangaean
megamonsoon: evidence from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Colorado
Plateau: Palaios, v. 6, p. 347370.
Dubiel, R.F., 1989, Sedimentology and revised nomenclature for the upper part of the
Upper Triassic Chinle Formation and the Lower Jurassic Wingate Sandstone,
northwestern New Mexico and northeastern Arizona, in Anderson , O.J., et al.,
eds., New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 40
th
Field Conference,
Southeast Colorado Plateau, p. 213-33.
Dubiel, R.F., 1985, Preliminary report on mudlumps in lacustrine deltas of the
Monitor Butte Member of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, southeastern
Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85-0027, 29 p.
Dubiel, R.F., 1983, Sedimentology of the lower part of the Upper Triassic Chinle
Formation and its relationship to uranium deposits, White Canyon area,
southeastern Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-0459, 51 p.
79
Fritz, W.J., and Moore J.N., 1988, Basics of physical stratigraphy and sedimentology:
New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 371.
Gehrels, G.E., Dickinson, W.R., and Riggs, N.R., 1993, Detrital zircon provenance
link of the Chinle Formation and the Auld Lang Syne Group in Nevada:
Geological Society of America: Abstracts with Programs, v. 25, p. 41.
Gottesfeld, A.S., 1972, Paleoecology of the lower part of the Chinle Formation in the
Petrified Forest, in Breed, C.S. ,and Breed, W.J. eds., Investigations in the
Triassic Chinle Formation: Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin, vol. 47. p.
59-73.
Gregory, H.E., 1917, Geology of the Navajo Country: a reconnaissance of parts of
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah: Unite States Geological Survey Professional
Paper 93, 161 p.
Haney, E.M., 1987, Depositional history of the Upper Triassic Shinarump Member of
the Chinle Formation, Circle Cliffs, Utah: [Masters Thesis] Northern Arizona
University, 102 p.
Hasiotis, S.T., 2004, Reconnaissance of Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation
ichnofossils, Rocky Mountain Region, USA; paleoenvironmental,
stratigraphic, and paleoclimatic significance of terrestrial and freshwater
ichnocoenoses: Sedimentary Geology, v. 167, issue 3-4, p. 177-268.
Hasiotis, S.T., 2002, Ichnopedologic signatures of paleoclimate; linking ichnofossils,
paleosols, and paleolandscapes to interpret the seasonality and amount of
precipitation and other paleoclimatic indicators: Geological Society of
America Abstracts with Programs, v. 34, issue 6, p. 63.
Hasiotis, S.T., Van Wagoner, J.C., Demko, T.M., Wellner, R.W., Jones, C.R., Hill,
R.E., McCrimmon, G.G., Feldman, H.R., Drzewiecki, P.A., Patterson, P.,
Donovan, A.D., Geslin, J.K., 2002, Continental trace fossils: SEPM Short
Course Notes, v. 51, 132 p.
Hasiotis, S.T., Mitchell, C.E., 1989, Burrows in the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation,
southeastern Utah; new evidence suggests origin by burrowing freshwater
decopod crustaceans: Geological Society of America Abstracts with
Programs, v. 21, issue 6, p. 252.
Hasiotis, S.T., Mitchell, C.E., Dubiel, R.F., Blodgett, R.H., Bown, T.M., 1989,
Lungfish burrows in the Upper Chinle and Delores Formations, Colorado
Plateau; new evidence suggests origin by burrowing decopod crustacean:
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 59, issue 5, p. 871-880.
80
Haq, B.U., Hardenbol, J., Vail, P.R., 1987, Chronology of fluctuating sea levels since
the Triassic: Science, v. 235, issue 4793, pp. 1156-67.
Hazel, J., 1991, Alluvial architecture of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Cane
Springs Anticline, Canyonlands, Utah: [Masters Thesis]: Flagstaff, Northern
Arizona University, 149 p.
Heckert, A.B., Lucas, S.G., Zeigler, K.E., Hunt, A.P., 2004, Stratigraphy,
unconformities, and paleogeography of the Upper Triassic Chinle Group,
southwestern USA: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs,
v. 35, issue 5, p. 35.
Heller, P.L., Dueker, K., McMillan, M.E., 2003, Post-Paleozoic alluvial gravel
transport as evidence of continental tilting in the U.S. Cordillera: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, v. 115, issue 9, p. 1122-1132.
Hintze, L.F., 1988, Geologic History of Utah: Provo: in Kawallis, B.J. ed., Brigham
Young University Geology Studies Special Publication 7, 203 p.
Huntoon, J.E., Dubiel, R.F., Stanesco, J.D., Mickelson, D.L., Condon, S.M., 2002,
Permian-Triassic depositional systems, paleogeography, paleoclimate, and
hydrocarbon resources in Canyonlands and Monument Valley, Utah: in GSA
Field Guide 3: Science at the Highest Level, p. 33-58.
Huntoon, J.E., Stanesco, J.D., Dubiel, R.F., and Dougan, J., 2000, Geology of Natural
Bridges National Monument: in Sprinkle, D.A., Chidsey, T.C., Anderson,
P.B., eds., Geology of Utahs Parks and Monuments: Utah Geological
Association, publication 28, p. 232-249.
Irving, E., and Briden J.C., 1964, Paleolatitude of evaporite deposits: Nature London,
v. 196, issue 4853, p. 425-428.
Jensen, J., 1984, Stratigraphy and facies analysis of the Upper Kaibab and Lower
Moenkopi Formations in Southwest Washington County, Utah: [Masters
Thesis] Brigham Young University, 41 p.
Keighley, D., Flint, S., Howell, J., 2003, Lacustrine mega-flooding surfaces and
overlying sequence boundaries in nested lake basins; recent and ancient
examples: AAPG Annual Meeting Expanded Abstracts, v. 12, p. 90.
Kowalweski, M., and Demko, T.M., 1996, Trace fossils and population paleoecology:
comparative analysis of size-frequency distributions derived from burrows:
Lethaia, v. 29, p. 133-124.
81
Kutzbach, J.E., 1987, Concepts of monsoon physics in historical perspective, in Fein,
J.S., and Stephens, P.L., eds., Monsoons: New York, Wiley, p. 159-209.
Lane, E.W., 1955, The importance of fluvial morphology in hydraulic engineering:
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 81, issue 82, 17 p.
Lawton, T.F., 1994, Tectonic setting of Mesozoic sedimentary basins, Rocky
Mountain region, United States, in Caputo, M.V., Peterson J.A., and Francyk,
K.J. eds., Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky Mountain region, USA: p. 1-26.
Lemons, D.R., Chan, M.A., 1999, Facies architecture and sequence stratigraphy of
fine grained lacustrine deltas along the eastern margin of Late Pleistocene
Lake Bonneville, Northern Utah and Southern Idaho: American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 83, no. 4, p. 635-65.
Litwin, R.J., Traverse, A., Ash, S.R., 1991, Preliminary palynological zonation of the
Chinle Formation, southwestern U.S.A., and its correlation to the Newark
Supergroup (eastern U.S.A.): Review of Paleobotony and Palynology, v. 68,
p. 269-287.
Lucas, S.G., 1993, The Chinle Group: revised stratigraphy and chronology of Upper
Triassic Nonmarine strata in the western Unite States, in Museum of Northern
Arizona Bulletin 59, p. 27-50.
Mack, G.H., James, W.C., Monger, H.C., 1993, Classification of Paleosols:
Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 105, p. 129-136.
McCarty, P.J., Plint, A.G., 1998, Recognition of interfluve sequence boundaries:
integrating paleopedology and sequence stratigraphy: Geology, v. 26, p. 387-
390.
McGowen, J.H., Granata, G.E., and Seni, S.J., 1979, Depositional framework of the
lower Dockum Group (Triassic): Texas Panhandle: Bureau of Economic
Geology: University of Texas at Austin, 60 p.
Mitchell, G.C., 1985, The Permian-Triassic stratigraphy of the Northwest Paradox
Basin area, Emery, Garfield, and Wayne counties, Utah: Mountain Geologist,
v. 22, issue 4, p 149-66.
Montgomery, D.R., Zabowski, D., Ugolini, F.C., Hallberg, R.O., and Spaltensenstein,
H., 2000, Soils, watershed processes, and marine sediments, in Jacobson,
M.C., et al., eds., Earth System Science: from biogeochemical cycles to global
change: London, Academic Press, p. 159-94.
82
Nanson, G.C., Jones, B.G., Price, D.M., and Pietsch, T.J., 2005, Rivers turned to
rock: Late Quaternary alluvial induration influencing the behaviour and
morphology of an anabranching river in the Australian monsoon tropics:
Geomorphology, v. 70, p. 398-420.
Nichols, G., 1999, Sedimentology and Stratigraphy: Oxford, Blackwell Science Ltd.,
355 p.
Parrish, J.M., Parrish, J.T., Ziegler, A.M., 1986, Permian-Triassic paleogeography
and paleoclimatology and implications for therapsid distributions, in Hotton,
M.H., III, MacLean, P.D., et al., eds., The Ecology and Biology of Mammal-
like Reptiles: Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Press, p. 109-132.
Parrish, J.T., 1993, Climate of the Supercontinent Pangea: The Journal of Geology, v.
101, p. 215-233.
Pavlack, S.J., 1979, Stratigraphy and sedimentary petrology of the Moss Back
Member of the Late Triassic Chinle Formation, North Temple Wash, San
Rafael Desert Area, Emery County Utah: [Masters Thesis] University of
Southern California, 136 p.
Pettijohn, F.J., 1975, Sedimentary Rocks (third edition): New York, Harper and Row,
628p.
Pindell, J., and Dewey, J.F., 1982, Permo-Triassic reconstruction of western Pangaea
and the evolution of the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean region: Tectonics, v. 1, p.
179-211.
Pipringos, G.N., and OSullivan, 1978, Principle unconformities in Triassic and
Jurassic rocks, Western Interior U.S. a preliminary report: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 1035-A, 29 p.
Posamentier, H.W., Allen, G.P., 1999, Siliciclastic sequence stratigraphy: concepts
and applications, in SEPM Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology #7:
Tulsa, 210 p.
Prothero, D.R., and Dott, R.H., 2004, Evolution of the Earth (seventh edition): New
York, McGraw-Hill, 524 p.
Reif, D.M., and Slatt, R.M., 1979, Red bed members of the Lower Triassic Moenkopi
Formation, southern Nevada; sedimentology and paleogeography of a muddy
tidal flat deposit: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 49, issue 3, p. 869-889.
83
Quirh, D.G., 1996, Base profile: a unifying concept in alluvial sequence stratigraphy,
in Howell, and Aitken, eds., High-resolution sequence stratigraphy:
Geological Society of London Special Publication, v. 104, p. 37-49.
Riggs, N.R., Ash, S.R., and Mattinson, J.M., 1994, Isotopic dating of a non-volcanic
continental sequence, Chinle Formation, Arizona: Geological Society of
America: Abstracts with Programs, v. 26, p. 61.
Riggs, N.R., Lehman, T.M., Gehrels, G.E., Dickinson, W.R., 1996, Detrital zircon
link between headwaters and terminus of the Upper Triassic Chinle-Dockum
paleoriver system: Science, July 5, v. 273, p. 97-100.
Riggs, N.R., Ash, S.R., Barth, A.P., Gehrels, G.E., and Wooden, J.L., 2003, Isotopic
age of the Black Forest Bed, Petrified Forest Member, Chinle Formation,
Arizona: an example of dating a continental sandstone: Geological Society of
America Bulletin, v. 115, p. 1315-1323.
Robeck, R.C., 1956, Temple Mountain member; new member of the Chinle
Formation in San Rafael Swell, Utah: AAPG Bulletin, v. 40, issue 10, p.
2499-2506.
Robinson, P.L., 1973, Paleoclimatology and continental drift, in Tarling, D.H., and
Runcorn, S.K., eds., Implications of continental drift to the Earth sciences, I:
London, Academic Press, p. 449-476.
Schultz, L., 1963, Clay minerals in Triassic rocks of the Colorado Plateau: U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1147-C, 71 p.
Shanley, K.W., and McCabe P.J., 1993, Alluvial architecture in a sequence
stratigraphic framework: a case study from the Upper Cretaceous of southern
Utah, U.S.A., in Flint, S.S. and Bryant, I.D., eds., Quantitative modeling of
clastic hydrocarbon reservoirs and outcrop analogs, International Association
of Sedimentologists Special Publication, v. 15, p. 21-55.
Shanley, K.W., and McCabe P.J., 1994, Perspectives on the sequence stratigraphy of
continental strata: AAPG Bulletin, v. 78, no. 4, p. 544-568.
Smoot, J.P., and Lowenstein, T.K., 1991, Depositional environments of non-marine
evaporites, in Melvin, J.L., ed., Evaporites: petroleum and mineral resources:
developments in sedimentology 50, Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam, p. 189-
347. Chapter 3,
Stewart, J.H., Poole, F.G., and Wilson, R.F., 1972, Stratigraphy and origin of the
Chinle Formation and related Triassic strata in the Colorado Plateau region:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 690, 336 p.
84
Stewart, J.H., Anderson, T.H., Haxel, G.B., Silver, L.T., Wright, J.E., 1986, Late
Triassic paleogeography of the southern Cordillera: the problem of a source
for voluminous volcanic detrius in the Chinle Formation of the Colorado
Plateau region: Geology, v. 14, p. 567-70.
Vail, P.R., Mitchum, R.M. and Thompson III, S., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and
global changes of sea-level: in Seismic Stratigraphy Applications to
Hydrocarbon Exploration, ed. Payton, C.E., AAPG Memoir, v. 26.
Van der Voo, R., Mauk, F.J., French, R.B., 1976, Permian-Triassic continental
configurations and the origin of the Gulf of Mexico: Geology Boulder, v. 4,
issue 3, p. 177-180.
Van Wagoner, J.C., Mitchum, R.M., Campion, K.M., Rahmanian, V.D., 1990,
Siliclastic sequence stratigraphy in well logs, cores, and outcrops: AAPG
Methods in Exploration Series, No. 7, 55p.
Woody, D., 2003, Revised geological assessment of the Sonsela Member, Chinle
Formation, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona: [Masters Thesis]
Northern Arizona University, 206 p.
Wright, V.P. and Marriott, S.B., 1993, The sequence stratigraphy of fluvial
depositional systems: the role of floodplain sediment storage: Sedimentary
Geology, v. 86, p. 203-210.
85
Section
Number Section Name Region Lat/Long
Date(s)
Measured
Total
Thickness Shin.
T.
Mtn.
Mon.
B.
Moss
B. DS 1 DS 2 DS 3
1
Spotted WolI
Canyon Swell
110 deg 26.387' W 38
deg 55.282' N
3/20/05,
3/29/2005 67 0 30 0 37 0 13 37
2
Three Fingers
Canyon Swell
110 deg 28' 11.5" W 38
deg 51' 28.2" N 6/2/2004 280 0 27 0 253 27 0 253
3 Eardley Canyon Swell
110 deg 29' 49.8" W 38
deg 47' 34.9" N 6/21/2004 152 0 0 0 152 0 0 152
4 Temple Mountain Swell
110 deg 41' 03.1" W 38
deg 40' 55.9" N 6/1/2004 89 0 30 0 59 0 11 59
5 Chute Canyon Swell
110 deg 45.672' W 38
deg 37.801' N
5/27/04,
3/20/05 90 0 60 0 30 0 60 30
6
Chute Canyon
Mesa Swell
110 deg 46.244' W 38
deg 38.095' N 5/26/2004 92 0 65 0 27 0 52 27
7
Chutes and
Ladders Swell
110 deg 47'50.3" W 38
deg 37'34.2" N 5/28/2004 84 0 29 0 55 0 25 55
8 Blueberry Spring Swell
110 deg 52'39.1" W 38
deg 35'24.0" N 5/31/2004 97 0 19 0 78 0 19 78
9 Midway Swell
110 deg 51'41.7" W 38
deg 36' 19.0" N 6/15/2004 63 0 20 0 43 0 13-22 43
10 Bell Canyon Swell
110 deg 49.074' W 38
deg 36.801' N 5/28/2004 62 0 25 0 37 0 22 37
11 End oI the Road Swell
110 deg 54'26.0" W 38
deg 34'29.3" N 5/30/2004 171 10 101 ? 60 0 111 60
12 Hidden Splendor Swell
110 deg 56' 52.4" W 38
deg 34' 05.7" N 6/16-17/04 135 0 44? 71? 20 0 115 20
13 Pasture Track Swell
110 deg 58'34.3" W 38
deg 34'09.9" N 6/16/2004 126 0 33? 33? 60 0 61 60
14 North Wash 2
White
Canyon
110 deg 26'45.4" W 37
deg 54'34.4" N
6/24/04, 1/5-
6/05 152 0 0 95 57 12 83 57
15 North Wash 1
White
Canyon
110 deg 27'14.0" W 37
deg 54'12.0" N 6/23/2004 182 0 0 142 40 15 127 40
16 Copper Point
White
Canyon
110 deg 20.389' W 37
deg 47.71' N 5/23/2005 171 0 0 140 31 0 140 31
17 Blue Notch 2
White
Canyon
110 deg 21.976' W 37
deg 45.69' N 3/27/2005 193 3 0 163 27 3 163 27
18 Blue Notch 1
White
Canyon
110 deg 23.884' W 37
deg 44.69' N
6/7-8/04, 3/26-
27/05 217 0 0 170 47 11 159 47
19 Jacob's Chair
White
Canyon
110 deg 11.928' W 37
deg 43.614' N
6/10/04,
3/25/05 223 18 0 174 31 32 160 31
20 Fry Canyon
White
Canyon
110 deg 9.44' W 37 deg
35.306' N
6/11/04,
3/24/05 245 25 0 217 3 25 217 3
21 Red Canyon
White
Canyon
110 deg 14'40.9" W 37
deg 34'29.3" N
6/9/04,
3/25/05 149* 16 0 133* 0* 16 133* 0*
22 Muley Twist 1
Circle
CliIIs
111 deg 02'57.7" W 37
deg 51'41.5" N 6/13/2004 145 0 0 58 87 0 58 87
23 Muley Twist 2
Circle
CliIIs
111 deg 2.715' W 37 deg
51.587' N 3/28/2005 142 0 0 132 10 0 132 10
24
Long Canyon
Overlook
Circle
CliIIs
111 deg 13.923' W 37
deg 55.806' N 3/28/2005 103 0 0 32 71 0 32 71
25 Fish Lake
Capitol
ReeI
111 deg 25'41.3" W 38
deg 19'46.6" 6/12/2004 249 66 0 168 15 66 168 15
26 Park Boundary
Capitol
ReeI
111 deg 22'00.4' W 38
deg 19'47.4" N 6/14/2004 287 58 0 194 45 58 194 45
27 Chimney Rock
Capitol
ReeI
111 deg 18'13.2" W 38
deg 19'11.7" N
6/14/04,
1/5/05 330 26 0 290 14 26 290 14
Appendix I Measured Sections
Figure AI.1 Table showing location and thicknesses of measured sections.
` denotes incomplete section
86
Planar Bedding
Current Ripples
Climbing Ripples
Trough Cross StratiIication
Overturned Cross StratiIication
Massive Bedding
Epsilon Cross StratiIication
(lateral accretion surIaces)
Load Casts
Rip-up Clasts
Carbonate
Coal
No exposure
Relict Bedding
Color Mottles
Gleyed Horizon
Cracks
Slickensides
Carbonate Nodules
CrayIish Burrows (redox haloes)
Scoyenia
Adhesive Minescate Burrows
Vertical burrows
Complete Bioturbation
Root Traces (redox haloes)
Carbonacious Plant Material
PetriIied Wood
Bone
ss
ecs
V
Sedimentology
Paleopedology
Paleontology

Figure AI.2 Symbology used in measured sections.


87
Figure AI.3 Measured Section 1
Spotted WolI Canyon, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
leyeJ vett|sol
Sequence 8oundary 3
brown
grey
purple
Temple Mountain
Member
leyeJ ox|sol
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss
ss
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Sequence 8oundary l-2
red
purple
V
ss
88
Figure AI.4a Measured Section 2
Three Fingers Canyon, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary 2-3
Sequence 8oundary l
yellow, red,
purple, white
purple
red purple
white, yellow
grey
brown
red
pink red
brown
brown
leyeJ ox|sol
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
lluv|ol ovetoonl
totosol
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
lluv|ol ovetoonl
vett|c totosol
Temple Mountain
Member
89
Figure AI. 4b Measured Section 2
Three Fingers Canyon, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
brown
brown
brown
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
300'
200'
250'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
90
Figure AI.5 Paleosols at the base of the Chinle at MS 1.
S8 3
S8 l-2
S8 l
Top Moss 8ack
S8 2-3
Figure AI.6 Outcrop view of MS 2.
91
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
7

P
h
o
t
o
p
a
n

o
f

t
h
e

C
h
i
n
l
e

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

S
p
o
t
t
e
d

W
o
l
f

C
a
n
y
o
n

(
M
S

1
)
.

T
h
e

T
e
m
p
l
e

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

M
e
m
b
e
r


i
s

t
r
u
n
c
a
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

M
o
s
s

B
a
c
k

M
e
m
b
e
r

b
o
t
h

t
o

t
h
e

l
e
f
t

a
n
d

t
h
e

r
i
g
h
t

o
f

M
S

1
.
S
8

l
-
2
T
o
p

M
o
s
s

8
a
c
k
S
8

l
-
3
M
S

l
S
t
r
a
t
i
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

u
p
2
7
'
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
8

P
a
l
e
o
s
o
l
s

n
e
a
r

t
h
e

b
a
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

C
h
i
n
l
e

a
t

M
S

2
.
92
Figure AI.9 Measured Section 3
Eardley Canyon, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
white
yellow
light brown
h|h-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnels
lluv|ol ovetoonl
grey
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-3
93
Figure AI.10 Measured Section 4
Temple Mountain, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
leyeJ ox|sol
Temple Mountain
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
red brown
purple, blue,
yellow, black
tan
purple, grey,
yellow, white
leyeJ vett|c totosol
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-2
ss
Sequence 8oundary 3
94
Figure AI.11 Outcrop view of MS 3. Several meters of truncation of the Moenkopi Fm. apparent
at the base of the Chinle.
Figure AI.12 Outcrop view of MS 4. Notice well-developed paleosol below SB 1-2.
S8 3
S8 l-2
S8 l-3
Top Moss 8ack
truncated beds
95
Figure AI.13 Measured Section 5
Chute Canyon, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
tox|mol llooJlo|n
J|stol llooJlo|n
Sequence 8oundary 3
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
J|stol llooJlo|n
leyeJ vett|sol
grey, red
light brown
red
yellow, black
purple, grey,
red brown
grey
purple
omolomoteJ lluv|ol
chonnels
Temple Mountain
Member
grey
colc|c vett|sol
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-2
ss

ss
ss
V
V
96
Figure AI.14 Paleosol near the base of the Chinle at MS 5. Notice color mottling and wedge-
shaped peds.
Figure AI.15 Carbonate-filled crayfish burrows in a paleosol at the top of the Temple Mountain
Member at MS 5.
28'
S8 3
97
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
1
6

P
h
o
t
o
p
a
n

o
f

t
h
e

C
h
i
n
l
e

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

e
x
p
o
s
e
d

a
t

C
h
u
t
e

C
a
n
y
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

S
a
n

R
a
f
a
e
l

S
w
e
l
l

n
e
a
r

M
S

5
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
1
7

F
a
c
i
e
s

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

h
i
g
h
-
s
i
n
u
o
s
i
t
y

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

a
c
c
r
e
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
r
e
v
a
s
s
e

s
p
l
a
y

d
e
p
o
s
i
t
s

i
n

t
h
e


T
e
m
p
l
e

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

M
e
m
b
e
r

n
e
a
r

M
S

5

i
n

C
h
u
t
e

C
a
n
y
o
n
.
S
8

3
S
8

l
-
2
T
o
p

M
o
s
s

8
a
c
k
e
c
s
s
p
l
a
y
e
c
s
S
8

3
S
8

l
-
2
T
o
p

M
o
s
s

8
a
c
k

M
S

5
98
Figure AI.18 Measured Section 6
Chute Canyon Mesa, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
leyeJ ox|sol
Sequence 8oundary 3
omolomoteJ lluv|ol chonnels
onJ ovetoonl Jeos|ts
Temple Mountain
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
vett|sol sequence
white, purple, yellow
grey, purple mottles
dark purple
tan grey
purple, yellow |oints
grey, yellow, purple mottles
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss
V
ss
ss
ss
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-2
V
purple
purple, yellow
ss
ss
ss
ss
V
V
V
99
Figure AI.19 Paleosol at the top of the Temple Mountain Member MS 6.
Figure AI.20 Large carbonate-filled burrows in a purple vertisol near the top of the Temple
Mountain Member at MS 6.
S8 3
100
Figure AI.21 Measured Section 7
Chutes and Ladders, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
leyeJ vett|sol
Temple Mountain
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
brown
red brown
tan
purple
red brown, purple
light purple
dark purple
tan
colc|c totosol
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary 3
ecs
Sequence 8oundary l-2
h|h-s|nuos|ty
o|nt oots
ss
ss
ecs
101
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
2
2

O
u
t
c
r
o
p

v
i
e
w

o
f

M
S

7
.
S
8

3
S
8

l
-
2
102
Figure AI.23 Measured Section 8
Bell Canyon, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
Temple Mountain
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
purple
red brown
purple
tan brown
light brown
purple, tan
h|h-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol o|nt oots
leyeJ totosol
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
ecs
Sequence 8oundary l-2
V
ecs
Sequence 8oundary 3
103
Figure AI.24 Paleosol at the base of the Chinle Fm. overlain by high-sinuosity fluvial deposits in
the Temple Mountain Member at MS 8.
Figure AI.25 High-sinuosity lateral accretion (ecs) deposits dipping into the outcrop. Temple
Mountain Member, MS 8.
S8 l-2
104
Figure AI.26 Large carbonate clasts within the Moss Back Member at MS 8 interpreted as
reworked pedogenic carbonate.
Figure AI.27 Photopan of MS 9. Notice contrast between dark purple paleosols on right side of
DS 2 (cutbank) versus light grey colored deposits on the left (point bars and
channel fill).
S8 l-2
S8 3
105
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
2
8

C
l
o
s
e
u
p

o
f

l
e
f
t

s
i
d
e

o
f

M
S

9
.

W
e
l
l
-
b
e
d
d
e
d

s
t
r
a
t
a

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
e
d

a
s

a
b
a
n
d
o
n
e
d

c
h
a
n
n
e
l

f
i
l
l
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
2
9

C
l
o
s
e
u
p

o
f

r
i
g
h
t

s
i
d
e

o
f

M
S

9
.

P
u
r
p
l
e

p
a
l
e
o
s
o
l

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
e
d

a
s

d
i
s
t
a
l

f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
/
i
n
t
e
r
f
l
u
v
e


d
e
p
o
s
i
t
s

s
i
t
u
a
t
e
d

o
n

c
u
t
b
a
n
k

s
i
d
e

o
f

a

l
a
t
e
r
a
l
l
y

m
i
g
r
a
t
i
n
g

f
l
u
v
i
a
l

c
h
a
n
n
e
l
.
S
8

3
S
8

3
106
Figure AI.30 Measured Section 9
Midway, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
lluv|ol chonnel oots
Sequence 8oundary 3
leyeJ ox|sol
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
h|h-s|nuos|ty
ooonJoneJ chonnel l|ll
brown red
grey
brown red, purple mottles
brown red
dark purple
brown
purple and green mottles
lluv|ol chonnel oots
otoJot|onol
colc|c vett|sol sequence
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
50'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss

ss
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-2
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
Moss 8ack Member
Sequence 8oundary 3
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-2
107
Figure AI.31 Measured Section 10
Blueberry Spring, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
Temple Mountain
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
tan
tan brown
purple
dark purple
red
h|h-s|nuos|ty chonnels
leyeJ vett|sol
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss
V
ss
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-2
ss
V
Sequence 8oundary 3
108
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
3
2

P
h
o
t
o
p
a
n

o
f

M
S

1
0
.
S
8

l
-
2
S
8

3
109
Figure AI.33 Measured Section 11
End oI the Road, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
Temple Mountain
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
white
yellow brown
purple
red
red brown
pink red
yellow brown
purple
purple
purple
purple
yellow brown
purple
light brown
Shinarump
Member
leyeJ colc|sol
colc|c vett|sol
vett|c totosol
vett|sol
tox|mol llooJlo|n
lluv|ol chonnel
Monitor 8utte
Member
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-2

ss
ss
V
V
ss
ss
ss
V
Sequence 8oundary 3
flooding surface
V
V
III
110
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
3
4

O
u
t
c
r
o
p

v
i
e
w

o
f

M
S

1
1
.
6
3
'
6
3
'
S
8

3
S
8

l
-
2
111
Figure AI.35 Measured Section 12
Hidden Splendor, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
Sequence 8oundary 3
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
light brown
red
yellow, light purple
grey
light grey
pink red
red
orange red
purple grey
purple
purple
yellow brown
purple
purple
Monitor 8utte
Member
Temple Mountain
Member
lluv|ol ovetoonl
m|not lluv|ol chonnel
leyeJ vett|sol
oluJol
vett|c totosol
leyeJ colc|sol sequence
III
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss
ss
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-2

flooding surface
112
S
8

3
S
8

l
-
2
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
3
6

O
u
t
c
r
o
p

v
i
e
w
s

o
f

M
S

1
2
.

5
5
'
S
8

3

5
5
'
113
Figure AI.37 Measured Section 13
Pasture Track, San RaIael Swell
Moss 8ack Member low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
leyeJ ox|sol
Sequence 8oundary l-2
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
h|h-s|nuos|ty o|nt oot
light brown
white, purple
red
red
yellow red
purple
grey
colc|c vett|sol
Temple Mountain
Member
totosol
III
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary 3
flooding surface
locustt|ne Jelto
ecs

V
ss
ss
114
S
8

3
S
8

l
-
2

4
3
'
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
3
8

O
u
t
c
r
o
p

v
i
e
w

o
f

M
S

1
3
.
115
Figure AI.39 Measured Section 14
North Wash 2, Glen Canyon NRA
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
leyeJ colc|c totosol
locustt|ne mot|n
(totosol}
leyeJ ox|sol
Sequence 8oundary 3
h|h-s|nuos|ty chonnels
onJ lotetolly occtet|n
o|nt oots
vett|c totosol
Monitor 8utte
Member
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Sequence 8oundary l-2
leyeJ vett|sol
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss
ecs
ss
ss
red
red
tan brown
tan grey
grey
tan grey
grey
dark purple
white
red
tan grey
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
0'
50'
116
Figure AI.40 Measured Section 15
North Wash 1, Glen Canyon NRA
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
leyeJ vett|sol
Sequence 8oundary 3
h|h-s|nuos|ty lotetolly
occtet|n o|nt oots
olustt|ne
vett|sol
Monitor 8utte
Member
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Sequence 8oundary l-2
colc|c vett|sol
colc|c vett|sol
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
0'
50'
ecs

ss
ss
V
ss
ss
ss
light purple
brown yellow
dark purple
tan brown
tan grey
grey
purple
red
pink, white
purple, red
purple
tan brown
light grey
flooding surface
flooding surface
117
Figure AI.41 Outcrop view of MS 14 showing well-developed oxisol at the base of the Chinle
(white), floodplain paleosols (dark purple), lacustrine deltas (resistant red
sandstones), and high sinuosity fluvial deposits (tan and grey).
Figure AI.42 Base of the Chinle at MS 15. Unconformity paleosol overlain by aggradational
vertisol.
S8 l-2
45'
S8 l-2
118
T
o
p

M
o
s
s

8
a
c
k
S
8

3
S
8

l
-
2
T
o
p

M
o
s
s

8
a
c
k
S
8

3
e
c
s
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
4
3

O
u
t
c
r
o
p

v
i
e
w

o
f

M
S

1
5
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
4
4

O
u
t
c
r
o
p

o
f

h
i
g
h
-
s
i
n
u
o
s
i
t
y

l
a
t
e
r
a
l

a
c
c
r
e
t
i
o
n

d
e
p
o
s
i
t
s

(
e
c
s
)

e
x
p
o
s
e
d

1

m
i
l
e

n
o
r
t
h

o
f

M
S

1
5
.
119
Figure AI.45 Measured Section 16
Copper Point, Glen Canyon NRA
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
colc|c ox|sol
olustt|ne
leyeJ totosol
Sequence 8oundary 3
colc|sol
locustt|ne Jelto
locustt|ne wetlonJ
h|stosol
Monitor 8utte
Member
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
flooding surface
PSS8 l-2
flooding surface
flooding surface
locustt|ne Jelto
locustt|ne toJelto
lluv|ol ovetoonl
lotetolly equ|volent lluv|ol chonnels
onJ tox|mol llooJlo|n Jeos|ts
vett|c totosol
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on

grey
red
black, brown
yellow
red
grey
red
grey
ss
ss
blue green
yellow, blue
purple
red
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
0'
50'
grey
grey, light purple
yellow
yellow
blue grey
120
Figure AI.46 Outcrop view of MS 16.
Figure AI.47 Carbonate rich soils in lower portion of MS 16.
S8 3
S8 l-2
Top Moss 8ack
42'
28'
28'
121
Figure AI.48a Measured Section 17
Blue Notch 2, Glen Canyon NRA
h|h-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol o|nt oots
locustt|ne wetlonJ
locustt|ne mot|n
locustt|ne toJelto
Monitor 8utte
Member
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
flooding surface
Sequence 8oundary l-2
red
grey
grey
white, brown
grey
white, yellow
grey
red, purple
blue black
black, yellow
grey
h|h-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol o|nt oots
lluv|ol chonnel
Shinarump Member
colc|sol
poor exposure
flooding surface
flooding surface
olustt|ne
colc|sol
h|stosol
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ecs
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
0'
50'
ecs
ecs
poor
exposure
122
Figure AI.48b Measured Section 17
Blue Notch 2, Glen Canyon NRA
Moss 8ack Member
colc|c vett|sol
lluv|olly
tewotleJ oleosol
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Sequence 8oundary 3
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
200'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss
V
ss
V
V
V
V
123
Figure AI.49 Two outcrop views of MS 17.
Figure AI.50 Rip-up clasts of floodplain paleosols incorporated in Moss Back Member at MS 17.
30'
58'
124
Figure AI.51 Coarsening upward lacustrine delta facies found in the Monitor Butte Member
between MS 17 and 18 in Blue Notch Canyon.
Figure AI.52 Thin-bedded detrital coal deposits interpreted as lacustrine delta frontsets found
in the Monitor Butte Member east of MS 17.
125
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
5
3

P
h
o
t
o
p
a
n

o
f

l
o
w
e
r

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

C
h
i
n
l
e

i
n

B
l
u
e

N
o
t
c
h

C
a
n
y
o
n


n
e
a
r

M
S

1
8
.

N
o
t
i
c
e

t
r
u
n
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

M
o
n
i
t
o
r

B
u
t
t
e

s
t
r
a
t
a

b
y

S
B

3
.
S
8

l
-
2
T
o
p

M
o
s
s

8
a
c
k
S
8

3
S
8

l
-
2
T
o
p

M
o
s
s

8
a
c
k
S
8

3
M
S

l
8
126
Figure AI.54 Measured Section 18
Blue Notch 1, Glen Canyon NRA
colc|c vett|sol
locustt|ne mot|n
J|stt|outoty chonnel
locustt|ne mot|n
locustt|ne Jelto
locustt|ne mot|n
Monitor 8utte
Member
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
flooding surface
PSS8 l-2
flooding surface
locustt|ne Jelto
locustt|ne Jelto
flooding surface
locustt|ne mot|n
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
0'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss
V
127
Pigure A|.55 Measured Section l8
8lue Notch l, Glen Canyon NPA
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
colc|c ox|sol
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Sequence 8oundary 3
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
300'
250'
200'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
V
V
V
128
Figure AI.56 Outcrop view of MS 18. Notice well developed paleosol below coarsening-upward
lacustrine deltaic facies.
S8 l-2
S8 3
Top Moss 8ack
ll0'
65'
S8 l-2
129
Figure AI.57a Measured Section 19
Jacob`s Chair, Glen Canyon NRA
leyeJ ox|sol
locustt|ne Jelto
Monitor 8utte
Member
Shinarump Member
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
flooding surface
PSS8 2
locustt|ne Jelto
locustt|ne Jelto
lluv|ol chonnel l|ll
flooding surface
flooding surface
leyeJ totosol
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
0'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
V
V
purple, red, white
red
white
poor exposure
poor exposure
green grey
grey
grey
purple, grey
Sequence 8oundary l
130
Figure AI.57b Measured Section 19
Jacob`s Chair, Glen Canyon NRA
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel
los onJ oots
leyeJ colc|sol
locustt|ne Jelto
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
200'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
red
green gray
green
Sequence 8oundary 3
250'
131
Figure AI.58 Small outcrop of Shinarump in foreground near 1acob`s staff. Deltaic deposits
coarsening upward to shoreline facies in background. MS 19.
Figure AI.59 Well developed paleosol below lacustrine delta facies near the base of the Monitor
Butte Member at MS 19.
S8 2
S8 2
56'
132
Figure AI.60 Coarsening-upward deltaic facies near MS 19.
ll9'
S8 3
Figure AI.61 Reworked pedogenic carbonate nodules incorporated into the base of the Moss
Back Member at MS 19.
133
Figure AI.62a Measured Section 20
Fry Canyon, Glen Canyon NRA
J|stt|outoty chonnel
locustt|ne mot|n
Monitor 8utte
Member
Shinarump Member
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
flooding surface
Sequence 8oundary l
PSS8 2
flooding surface
locustt|ne Jelto
ctevosse sloy
omolomoteJ
lluv|ol chonnels
omolomoteJ
lluv|ol chonnels
locustt|ne mot|n
h|stosol
locustt|ne motsh - h|stosol
vett|sol
m|not lluv|ol chonnel
locustt|ne Jelto
J|stt|outoty chonnels
flooding surface
locustt|ne Jelto
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
black organics
brown sand
white yellow
red
green grey
green grey
green grey
black organics
brown sand
green
purple
grey haloes
green grey
maximum
flooding surface
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
0'
50'
V
ss
134
Figure AI.62b Measured Section 20
Fry Canyon, Glen Canyon NRA
leyeJ colc|sol
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
tox|mol llooJlo|n
Sequence 8oundary 3
tox|mol llooJlo|n
totosol
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
200'
250'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss
green grey
green grey
red
red
grey haloes
135
Figure AI.63 Pedogenically modified uppermost portion of the Shinarump Member at MS 20.
Figure AI.64 Burrows weathering in positive relief along a bedding plane in the uppermost
portion of the Shinarump Member at MS 20.
136
Figure AI.65 Organic-rich sandstone overlying the Shinarump Member at MS 20.
Figure AI.66 Close-up view of organic rich sandstone at the base of the Monitor Butte Member
at MS 20.
S8 2
137
Figure AI.67 Uppermost portion of the Monitor Butte Member near MS 20 (notice lack of Moss
Back Member). Well-developed paleosol (SB 3) correlates laterally to the top of the
Moss Back Member several hundred meters to the east.
S8 3
138
Figure AI.68 Measured Section 21
Red Canyon, Glen Canyon NRA
lluv|ol chonnel
leyeJ ox|sol
locustt|ne shotel|ne
locustt|ne Jelto ltont
locustt|ne mot|n
Monitor 8utte
Member
Shinarump Member
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
flooding surface
PSS8 2
locustt|ne Jelto ltont
yellow, black organics
grey mudstone
flooding surface
omolomoteJ lluv|ol
chonnels
Sequence 8oundary l
locustt|ne Jelto ltont
locustt|ne Jelto ltont
locustt|ne toJelto
olustt|ne
vett|c totosol
`|ncomplete Section`
leyeJ totosol
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
0'
50'

ss
dark green black
white yellow
ss
tan grey
black, purple, gold, grey
red brown, purple
w/ grey haloes
green grey
green grey
green grey
green grey
tan grey
tan grey
tan grey
139
Figure AI.69 Overall coarsening upward lacustrine delta facies at MS 21.
Figure AI.70 Base of the Shinarump Member at MS 21.
S8 l
140
Figure AI.71 Measured Section 22
Muley Twist 1, Circle CliIIs
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
leyeJ ox|sol
Sequence 8oundary 3
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
purple
white
purple, white, grey
purple red
dark brown
purple
dark brown
colc|sol
Monitor 8utte
Member
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on

Moenkopi Pormation
Sequence 8oundary l-2
141
Figure AI.72 Section 23
Muley Twist 2, Circle CliIIs
Moss 8ack Member
locustt|ne wetlonJ
Sequence 8oundary 3
lluv|ol chonnel
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
brown
yellow white
brown
black
purple, grey
red, grey
yellow
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
PSS8 l-2
142
Figure AI.73 Measured Section 24
Long Canyon Overlook, Circle CliIIs
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
Sequence 8oundary 3
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
locustt|ne Jelto
tan brown
grey
white
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
PSS8 l-2
V
143
Figure AI.74a Measured Section 25
Fish Lake, Capitol ReeI NP
locustt|ne mot|n
lluv|ol chonnel
omolomoteJ
lluv|ol chonnels
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
tan brown
grey
red red
yellow
tan brown
red
grey
purple
white
grey
white
grey
Shinarump
Member
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
PSS8 2
Sequence 8oundary l
locustt|ne Jelto
locustt|ne Jelto
flooding surface
locustt|ne Jelto
144
Figure AI.74b Measured Section 25
Fish Lake, Capitol ReeI NP
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
Sequence 8oundary 3
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
brown pink red
grey pink
red
grey
red
poor exposure
thickness estimated
digitally
grey
red
totosol
locustt|ne Jelto
300'
250'
200'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
tan brown
flooding surface
145
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
7
6

P
h
o
t
o
p
a
n

o
f

M
S

2
5
.
S
8

3
T
o
p

M
o
s
s

8
a
c
k
l
8
3
'
S
8

l
S
8

2
S
8

3
S
8

l
-
2
M
S

2
3
M
S

2
2
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
7
5

P
h
o
t
o
p
a
n

o
f

M
S

2
2

a
n
d

2
3
.
146
Figure AI.77a Measured Section 26
Park Boundary, Capitol ReeI NP
J|stt|outoty
chonnel
omolomoteJ oto|JeJ
lluv|ol chonnels
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
yellow white
red
grey
Shinarump
Member
locustt|ne Jelto
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
50'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
Moenkopi Pormation
PSS8 2
Sequence 8oundary l
locustt|ne Jelto
locustt|ne Jelto
grey
147
Figure AI.77b Measured Section 26
Park Boundary, Capitol ReeI NP
Moss 8ack
Member
colc|sol
lluv|ol chonnel
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
red
grey
red, grey
light brown
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel l|ll
Sequence 8oundary 3
locustt|ne Jelto
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
300'
250'
200'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
poor exposure
148
Figure AI.78 Outcrop view of MS 24.
Figure AI.79 Outcrop view of MS 26.
S8 3
Top Moss 8ack
l59'
S8 2
S8 l
S8 l-2
S8 3
Corey for scale
149
Figure AI.80a Measured Section 27
Chimney Rock, Capitol ReeI NP
locustt|ne mot|n
J|stt|outoty chonnel
oto|JeJ chonnel oots
locustt|ne Jelto
Monitor 8utte
Member
Shinarump Member
Moenkopi Pormation
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
flooding surface
Sequence 8oundary l
PSS8 2
locustt|ne Jelto
flooding surface
locustt|ne Jelto
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
l50'
l00'
0'
50'
yellow, white
red
grey
grey
red brown
grey
150
Figure AI.80b Measured Section 27
Chimney Rock, Capitol ReeI NP
Moss 8ack Member
low-s|nuos|ty
lluv|ol chonnel oots
colc|sol
(o|otuto|Josol}
lluv|ol/J|stt|outoty
chonnel
vett|sol
Sequence 8oundary 3
locustt|ne Jelto
m|not lluv|ol chonnel
vett|sol
Monitor 8utte
Member
C
h
i
n
l
e

P
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
tox|mol llooJlo|n
brown
tan brown
purple grey
orange red
pink red
pink red
grey pink
red
grey
purple
red
dark red
totosol
lluv|ol ovetoonl
tox|mol llooJlo|n
totosol
>4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
Grain size (o)
300'
200'
250'
Lithostratigraphic
Nomenclature
Chronostratigraphic
Surfaces
lnv|tonment
ol 0eos|t|on
ss
V

ss
ss
ss
flooding surface
151
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
8
2

P
h
o
t
o
p
a
n

d
e
p
i
c
t
i
n
g

t
r
u
n
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

S
h
i
n
a
r
u
m
p

M
e
m
b
e
r

n
e
a
r

M
S

2
7
.
F
i
g
u
r
e

A
I
.
8
1

P
h
o
t
o
p
a
n

o
f

M
S

2
7
.
S
8

3
T
o
p

M
o
s
s

8
a
c
k
S
8

l
S
8

2
l
2
5
'

f
a
u
l
t
S
8

l
S
8

2
S
8

l
S
8

2
S
8

l
-
2
152
Figure AII.1 Table summarizing paleocurrent data.
Figure Location DS Lith Unit No. Data
Pts.
Mean
Dir.
Circ. Std.
Dev.
AII.2 MS 1 DS 3 Moss Back 7 310 0.3
AII.3 MS 5 DS 2 Temple Mtn. 7 320 0.2
AII.4 MS 5 DS 3 Moss Back 24 247 0.7
AII.5 MS 5 DS 3 Pet. Forest 15 34 0.5
AII.6 MS 11 DS 2 - low Shinarump 33 354 0.9
AII.7 MS 11 DS 2 - high Temple Mtn. 15 352 0.5
AII.8 MS 11 DS 3 Moss Back 14 43 0.5
AII.9 MS 11 DS 3 Pet. Forest 17 34 0.6
AII.10 MS 14 DS 2 - high Monitor Butte 22 42 1.3
AII.11 MS 14 DS 3 Moss Back 32 316 0.7
AII.12 MS 18 DS 3 Moss Back 65 253 0.7
AII.13 MS 18 DS 3 Pet. Forest 27 37 0.5
AII.14 MS 19 DS 1 Shinarump 12 294 0.9
AII.15 MS 19 DS 3 Moss Back 33 262 1.7
AII.16 MS 20 DS 1 Shinarump 11 298 0.9
AII.17 MS 20 DS 2 Monitor Butte 14 52 0.3
AII.18 MS 20 DS 3 Moss Back 42 349 0.5
AII.19 MS 21 DS 3 Moss Back 13 344 0.2
AII.20 MS 23 DS 3 Moss Back 12 95 0.8
AII.21 MS 26 DS 1 Shinarump 13 207 1.1
AII.22 MS 26 DS 2 Monitor Butte 14 282 0.3
AII.23 MS 26 DS 3 Moss Back 36 223 0.6
AII.24 MS 27 DS 1 Shinarump 15 9 0.9
AII.25 Total DS 1 ~Shinarump 51 340 1.3
AII.26 Total DS 2 ~T. Mtn. Mon. B. 105 356 1.1
AII.27 Total DS 3 ~Moss B. Pet. F. 337 313 1.5
AII.28 Total DS 1-3 DS 1-3 493 330 1.4
Appendix II PALEOCURRENT DATA
153
Figure AII.2 MS 1 Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [0.4 data]
Maximum = 28.6% [2 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 310
[95% Confidence interval = 11]
Circ.Median = 316
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 11
Circ. Variance = 0.03
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.3
Circ. Dispersion = 0.07
Circ.Std Error = 0.0975
Circ.Skewness = 2.47
Circ.Kurtosis = -0.94
kappa = 15.39
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 6.77
Mean Resultant length = 0.97
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.62; Sbar = -0.74
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 4.34; Sbar = -5.20
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.88
Mean direction of doubled angles = 261
Figure AII.3 MS 5 Temple Mountain
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [0.4 data]
Maximum = 28.6% [2 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 320
[95% Confidence interval = 9]
Circ.Median = 311
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 11
Circ. Variance = 0.02
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.2
Circ. Dispersion = 0.04
Circ.Std Error = 0.0768
Circ.Skewness = -1.92
Circ.Kurtosis = -1.26
kappa = 24.62
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 6.86
Mean Resultant length = 0.98
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.75; Sbar = -0.63
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 5.24; Sbar = -4.43
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.92
Mean direction of doubled angles = 279
154
Figure AII.4 MS 5 Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [1.2 data]
Maximum = 20.8% [5 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 247
[95% Confidence interval = 11]
Circ.Median = 004
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 113
Circ. Variance = 0.21
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.7
Circ. Dispersion = 0.25
Circ.Std Error = 0.1016
Circ.Skewness = 1.60
Circ.Kurtosis = 6.42
kappa = 2.71
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 18.88
Mean Resultant length = 0.79
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = -0.31; Sbar = -0.72
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = -7.39; Sbar = -17.38
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.69
Mean direction of doubled angles = 147
Figure AII.5 MS 5 Petrified Forest
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [0.8 data]
Maximum = 26.7% [4 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 034
[95% Confidence interval = 13]
Circ.Median = 023
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 19
Circ. Variance = 0.10
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.5
Circ. Dispersion = 0.21
Circ.Std Error = 0.1173
Circ.Skewness = -2.75
Circ.Kurtosis = 0.06
kappa = 5.04
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 13.51
Mean Resultant length = 0.90
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.75; Sbar = 0.50
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 11.26; Sbar = 7.47
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.66
Mean direction of doubled angles = 060
155
Figure AII.6 MS 11 Shinarump
Data points = 33
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 2% [0.7 data]
Maximum = 9.1% [3 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 354
[95% Confidence interval = 20]
Circ.Median = 345
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 43
Circ. Variance = 0.35
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.9
Circ. Dispersion = 1.03
Circ.Std Error = 0.1767
Circ.Skewness = 0.25
Circ.Kurtosis = -0.33
kappa = 1.71
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 21.29
Mean Resultant length = 0.65
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.64; Sbar = -0.07
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 21.17; Sbar = -2.29
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.14
Mean direction of doubled angles = 010
Figure AII.7 MS 11 Temple Mountain
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 10% [1.5 data]
Maximum = 46.7% [7 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 352
[95% Confidence interval = 9]
Circ.Median = 346
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 15
Circ. Variance = 0.11
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.5
Circ. Dispersion = 0.10
Circ.Std Error = 0.0827
Circ.Skewness = -4.64
Circ.Kurtosis = 15.98
kappa = 4.59
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 13.36
Mean Resultant length = 0.89
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.88; Sbar = -0.12
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 13.25; Sbar = -1.75
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.84
Mean direction of doubled angles = 333
156
Figure AII.8 MS 11 - Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [0.7 data]
Maximum = 21.4% [3 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 043
[95% Confidence interval = 13]
Circ.Median = 007
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 40
Circ. Variance = 0.10
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.5
Circ. Dispersion = 0.19
Circ.Std Error = 0.1176
Circ.Skewness = 2.55
Circ.Kurtosis = 1.79
kappa = 5.12
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 12.63
Mean Resultant length = 0.90
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.66; Sbar = 0.62
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 9.20; Sbar = 8.66
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.68
Mean direction of doubled angles = 093
Figure AII.9 MS 11 Petrified Forest
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [0.9 data]
Maximum = 29.4% [5 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 034
[95% Confidence interval = 9]
Circ.Median = 035
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 23
Circ. Variance = 0.16
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.6
Circ. Dispersion = 0.11
Circ.Std Error = 0.0797
Circ.Skewness = 0.67
Circ.Kurtosis = 13.84
kappa = 3.52
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 14.34
Mean Resultant length = 0.84
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.70; Sbar = 0.47
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 11.85; Sbar = 8.06
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.85
Mean direction of doubled angles = 071
157
Figure AII.10 MS 14 Monitor Butte
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 2% [0.4 data]
Maximum = 9.1% [2 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 042
[95% Confidence interval = 35]
Circ.Median = 008
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 67
Circ. Variance = 0.57
Circular Std.Dev. = 1.3
Circ. Dispersion = 1.85
Circ.Std Error = 0.2902
Circ.Skewness = 0.72
Circ.Kurtosis = 0.01
kappa = 0.95
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 9.47
Mean Resultant length = 0.43
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.32; Sbar = 0.29
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 7.00; Sbar = 6.38
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.31
Mean direction of doubled angles = 168
Figure AII.11 MS 14 Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [1.6 data]
Maximum = 18.8% [6 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 316
[95% Confidence interval = 14]
Circ.Median = 001
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 50
Circ. Variance = 0.23
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.7
Circ. Dispersion = 0.49
Circ.Std Error = 0.1243
Circ.Skewness = -0.32
Circ.Kurtosis = 1.38
kappa = 2.50
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 24.49
Mean Resultant length = 0.77
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.55; Sbar = -0.53
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 17.76; Sbar = -16.86
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.42
Mean direction of doubled angles = 268
158
Figure AII.12 MS 18 Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 3% [2.0 data]
Maximum = 16.9% [11 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 253
[95% Confidence interval = 10]
Circ.Median = 251
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 33
Circ. Variance = 0.20
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.7
Circ. Dispersion = 0.49
Circ.Std Error = 0.0867
Circ.Skewness = 0.92
Circ.Kurtosis = -0.71
kappa = 2.81
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 51.73
Mean Resultant length = 0.80
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = -0.23; Sbar = -0.76
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = -14.81; Sbar = -49.57
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.38
Mean direction of doubled angles = 160
Figure AII.13 MS 18 Petrified Forest
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [1.4 data]
Maximum = 22.2% [6 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 037
[95% Confidence interval = 11]
Circ.Median = 038
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 23
Circ. Variance = 0.13
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.5
Circ. Dispersion = 0.27
Circ.Std Error = 0.0997
Circ.Skewness = -1.22
Circ.Kurtosis = 0.55
kappa = 3.93
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 23.56
Mean Resultant length = 0.87
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.70; Sbar = 0.52
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 18.85; Sbar = 14.13
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.59
Mean direction of doubled angles = 068
159
Figure AII.14 MS 19 Shinarump
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 3% [0.4 data]
Maximum = 16.7% [2 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 294
[95% Confidence interval = 33]
Circ.Median = 294
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 40
Circ. Variance = 0.33
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.9
Circ. Dispersion = 0.92
Circ.Std Error = 0.2761
Circ.Skewness = -0.39
Circ.Kurtosis = -0.46
kappa = 1.85
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 8.07
Mean Resultant length = 0.67
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.28; Sbar = -0.61
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 3.33; Sbar = -7.35
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.17
Mean direction of doubled angles = 204
Figure AII.15 MS 19 Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 2% [0.7 data]
Maximum = 12.1% [4 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 262
[95% Confidence interval = 30]
Circ.Median = 249
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 69
Circ. Variance = 0.75
Circular Std.Dev. = 1.7
Circ. Dispersion = 2.20
Circ.Std Error = 0.2583
Circ.Skewness = -1.11
Circ.Kurtosis = 0.08
kappa = 0.51
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 8.21
Mean Resultant length = 0.25
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = -0.03; Sbar = -0.25
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = -1.10; Sbar = -8.14
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.73
Mean direction of doubled angles = 078
160
Figure AII.16 MS 20 Shinarump
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [0.6 data]
Maximum = 18.2% [2 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 298
[95% Confidence interval = 32]
Circ.Median = 281
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 41
Circ. Variance = 0.33
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.9
Circ. Dispersion = 0.79
Circ.Std Error = 0.2679
Circ.Skewness = -1.32
Circ.Kurtosis = -0.38
kappa = 1.82
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 7.34
Mean Resultant length = 0.67
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.31; Sbar = -0.59
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 3.39; Sbar = -6.51
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.30
Mean direction of doubled angles = 177
Figure AII.17 MS 20 Monitor Butte
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [0.7 data]
Maximum = 28.6% [4 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 052
[95% Confidence interval = 9]
Circ.Median = 051
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 13
Circ. Variance = 0.05
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.3
Circ. Dispersion = 0.09
Circ.Std Error = 0.0804
Circ.Skewness = 2.28
Circ.Kurtosis = 2.51
kappa = 10.95
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 13.36
Mean Resultant length = 0.95
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.59; Sbar = 0.75
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 8.26; Sbar = 10.50
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.83
Mean direction of doubled angles = 105
161
Figure AII.18 MS 20 Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [2.1 data]
Maximum = 23.8% [10 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 349
[95% Confidence interval = 8]
Circ.Median = 348
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 21
Circ. Variance = 0.13
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.5
Circ. Dispersion = 0.22
Circ.Std Error = 0.0726
Circ.Skewness = 2.10
Circ.Kurtosis = 5.19
kappa = 3.80
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 36.48
Mean Resultant length = 0.87
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.85; Sbar = -0.16
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 35.83; Sbar = -6.87
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.67
Mean direction of doubled angles = 347
Figure AII.19 MS 21 Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 20% [2.6 data]
Maximum = 76.9% [10 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 344
[95% Confidence interval = 6]
Circ.Median = 346
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 6
Circ. Variance = 0.02
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.2
Circ. Dispersion = 0.03
Circ.Std Error = 0.0497
Circ.Skewness = 5.05
Circ.Kurtosis = 8.04
kappa = 30.27
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 12.79
Mean Resultant length = 0.98
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.95; Sbar = -0.27
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 12.30; Sbar = -3.50
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.94
Mean direction of doubled angles = 329
162
Figure AII.20 MS 23 Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [0.6 data]
Maximum = 25% [3 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 095
[95% Confidence interval = 20]
Circ.Median = 003
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 90
Circ. Variance = 0.25
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.8
Circ. Dispersion = 0.36
Circ.Std Error = 0.1741
Circ.Skewness = -0.18
Circ.Kurtosis = 4.42
kappa = 2.33
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 8.95
Mean Resultant length = 0.75
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = -0.07; Sbar = 0.74
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = -0.83; Sbar = 8.91
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.60
Mean direction of doubled angles = 188
Figure AII.21 MS 26 Shinarump
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 3% [0.4 data]
Maximum = 15.4% [2 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 207
[95% Confidence interval = 36]
Circ.Median = 180
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 51
Circ. Variance = 0.42
Circular Std.Dev. = 1.1
Circ. Dispersion = 1.16
Circ.Std Error = 0.2983
Circ.Skewness = -0.48
Circ.Kurtosis = -1.68
kappa = 1.41
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 7.49
Mean Resultant length = 0.58
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = -0.51; Sbar = -0.26
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = -6.65; Sbar = -3.43
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.23
Mean direction of doubled angles = 269
163
Figure AII.22 MS 26 Monitor Butte
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [0.7 data]
Maximum = 28.6% [4 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 282
[95% Confidence interval = 11]
Circ.Median = 282
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 17
Circ. Variance = 0.06
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.3
Circ. Dispersion = 0.13
Circ.Std Error = 0.0947
Circ.Skewness = 0.02
Circ.Kurtosis = -1.49
kappa = 8.43
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 13.17
Mean Resultant length = 0.94
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.20; Sbar = -0.92
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 2.80; Sbar = -12.87
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.78
Mean direction of doubled angles = 205
Figure AII.23 MS 26 Moss Back
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 5% [1.8 data]
Maximum = 19.4% [7 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 223
[95% Confidence interval = 11]
Circ.Median = 224
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 27
Circ. Variance = 0.17
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.6
Circ. Dispersion = 0.37
Circ.Std Error = 0.1011
Circ.Skewness = 0.72
Circ.Kurtosis = 0.68
kappa = 3.27
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 29.84
Mean Resultant length = 0.83
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = -0.61; Sbar = -0.56
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = -21.84; Sbar = -20.34
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.49
Mean direction of doubled angles = 092
164
Figure AII.24 MS 27 Shinarump
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 3% [1.5 data]
Maximum = 15.7% [8 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 009
[95% Confidence interval = 14]
Circ.Median = 014
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 40
Circ. Variance = 0.33
Circular Std.Dev. = 0.9
Circ. Dispersion = 0.75
Circ.Std Error = 0.1211
Circ.Skewness = 1.27
Circ.Kurtosis = 0.31
kappa = 1.81
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 33.93
Mean Resultant length = 0.67
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.66; Sbar = 0.10
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 33.51; Sbar = 5.32
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.34
Mean direction of doubled angles = 065
Figure AII.25 Total Shinarump
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 2% [2.4 data]
Maximum = 8.3% [10 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 345
[95% Confidence interval = 15]
Circ.Median = 001
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 57
Circ. Variance = 0.53
Circular Std.Dev. = 1.2
Circ. Dispersion = 1.98
Circ.Std Error = 0.1284
Circ.Skewness = 0.31
Circ.Kurtosis = -0.19
kappa = 1.07
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 56.57
Mean Resultant length = 0.47
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.46; Sbar = -0.12
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 54.75; Sbar = -14.27
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.12
Mean direction of doubled angles = 062
165
Figure AII.26 Total DS 2
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 2% [1.4 data]
Maximum = 11.1% [8 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 357
[95% Confidence interval = 18]
Circ.Median = 348
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 53
Circ. Variance = 0.49
Circular Std.Dev. = 1.2
Circ. Dispersion = 1.71
Circ.Std Error = 0.1541
Circ.Skewness = -0.19
Circ.Kurtosis = -0.68
kappa = 1.18
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 36.61
Mean Resultant length = 0.51
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.51; Sbar = -0.03
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 36.55; Sbar = -2.17
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.12
Mean direction of doubled angles = 207
Figure AII.27 Total DS 3
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 1% [3.4 data]
Maximum = 6.8% [23 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 313
[95% Confidence interval = 12]
Circ.Median = 317
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 67
Circ. Variance = 0.67
Circular Std.Dev. = 1.5
Circ. Dispersion = 3.64
Circ.Std Error = 0.104
Circ.Skewness = 0.03
Circ.Kurtosis = -0.50
kappa = 0.69
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 110.41
Mean Resultant length = 0.33
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.22; Sbar = -0.24
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 75.43; Sbar = -80.63
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.22
Mean direction of doubled angles = 081
166
Figure AII.28 Total of all Sequences
Sector angle = 10
Scale: tick interval = 2% [10.6 data]
Maximum = 7.2% [38 data]
Mean Resultant dir'n = 330
[95% Confidence interval = 9]
Circ.Median = 336
Circ.Mean Dev.about median = 64
Circ. Variance = 0.64
Circular Std.Dev. = 1.4
Circ. Dispersion = 3.18
Circ.Std Error = 0.0775
Circ.Skewness = 0.18
Circ.Kurtosis = -0.35
kappa = 0.78
(von Mises concentration param. estimate)
Resultant length = 192.92
Mean Resultant length = 0.36
'Mean' Moments: Cbar = 0.32; Sbar = -0.18
'Full' trig. sums: SumCos = 166.73; Sbar = -97.07
Mean resultant of doubled angles = 0.16
Mean direction of doubled angles = 083
167
lower portion Petrified Forest Member
Monitor Butte and Temple Mountain Members
Moss Back Member
Green River
Hanksville
Torrey
Emery
W
A
T
E
R
P
O
C
K
E
T

F
O
L
D
Escalante
70
W
H
I
T
E

C
A
N
Y
O
N
S
A
N

R
A
F
A
E
L

S
W
E
L
L
Green River
Hanksville
Torrey
Emery
W
A
T
E
R
P
O
C
K
E
T

F
O
L
D
Escalante
70
W
H
I
T
E

C
A
N
Y
O
N
S
A
N

R
A
F
A
E
L

S
W
E
L
L
Total DS 2
Green River
Hanksville
Torrey
Emery
W
A
T
E
R
P
O
C
K
E
T

F
O
L
D
Escalante
70
W
H
I
T
E

C
A
N
Y
O
N
S
A
N

R
A
F
A
E
L

S
W
E
L
L
Total DS 3
Shinarump Member
Green River
Hanksville
Torrey
Emery
W
A
T
E
R
P
O
C
K
E
T

F
O
L
D
70
S
A
N

R
A
F
A
E
L

S
W
E
L
L
Total DS 1
UTAH
Inset
MI LES
15 30 45 0
Figure AII.29 Spatial distribution of paleocurrent measurements.
W
H
I
T
E

C
A
N
Y
O
N
168
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
U
n
i
t
S
a
m
p
l
e
M
C
P
Q
m
Q
p
P
K
M
O
p
C
h
L
s
L
v
L
m
Q
t
F
t
L
t

L
T
o
t
a
l
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
M
S

1
M
o
s
s

B
.
1
5
5
2
2
4
2
0
2
2
8
1
0
5
5
1
2
3
2
4
4
3
0
2
5
8
1
.
6
1
0
.
0
8
.
4
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

5
T
.

M
t
n
.
2
3
6
9
2
1
0
0
1
5
5
0
1
4
6
3
2
0
1
0
2
1
5
5
4
2
3
4
.
1
5
1
.
8
1
4
.
0
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

5
M
o
s
s

B
.
3
4
6
1
3
9
1
1
2
9
8
1
1
2
7
1
1
1
8
1
1
5
0
1
0
0
3
7
5
2
.
3
3
4
.
8
1
2
.
9
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

5
P
e
t
.

F
.
4
3
6
1
6
1
2
4
0
7
1
2
2
7
3
6
6
0
1
8
5
7
1
1
5
6
8
.
3
2
6
.
2
5
.
5
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
1
S
h
i
n
.
5
4
6
2
1
1
7
2
7
4
0
1
0
3
2
0
2
1
8
7
6
5
7
2
.
9
2
5
.
4
1
.
7
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
1
M
o
s
s

B
.
6
8
7
2
3
3
1
2
1
3
4
0
2
4
5
7
2
2
4
5
3
5
1
8
8
2
.
2
1
1
.
7
6
.
0
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
1
M
o
s
s

B
.
7
4
2
2
2
9
2
2
1
3
4
1
0
3
1
8
1
2
6
9
2
1
9
9
0
.
0
7
.
0
3
.
0
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
1
P
e
t
.

F
.
8
5
7
1
5
3
6
0
1
0
9
0
7
2
3
1
9
1
1
5
9
1
0
9
2
5
5
4
.
3
3
7
.
2
8
.
5
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
4
T
.

M
t
n
.
9
9
2
1
2
7
9
0
1
1
5
2
3
8
1
4
4
0
1
3
6
1
1
5
9
5
2
.
3
4
4
.
2
3
.
5
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
4
M
o
s
s

B
.
1
0
4
6
2
4
8
1
4
0
2
4
0
0
0
4
8
2
2
6
2
2
4
1
4
8
7
.
3
8
.
0
4
.
7
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
6
M
o
s
s

B
.
1
2
1
3
2
6
6
7
2
1
2
4
0
2
2
2
7
2
0
2
7
5
7
3
1
2
6
7
9
2
6
.
3
4
5
.
3
2
8
.
4
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
6
P
e
t
.

F
.
1
3
1
9
7
7
8
1
1
3
1
2
6
1
2
7
5
3
6
1
2
1
8
9
1
2
9
5
4
3
2
.
7
4
7
.
4
1
9
.
9
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
8
M
o
n
.

B
.
1
4
9
4
5
4
9
5
1
3
5
0
6
0
6
1
1
2
0
0
6
3
1
4
0
3
7
2
6
.
3
5
8
.
3
1
5
.
4
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
8
M
o
s
s

B
.
1
5
8
7
2
4
1
2
5
1
2
3
0
0
0
7
2
1
2
6
6
2
4
1
0
8
8
.
7
8
.
0
3
.
3
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
8
P
e
t
.

F
.
1
6
5
6
5
0
1
2
6
0
5
7
7
1
3
1
8
0
6
1
1
2
6
1
0
8
2
0
.
7
4
2
.
7
3
6
.
6
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
9
S
h
i
n
.
1
7
5
6
2
5
2
1
7
2
1
9
0
1
0
7
2
0
2
6
9
2
1
9
9
0
.
0
7
.
0
3
.
0
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
9
M
o
n
.

B
.
1
8
1
0
0
1
1
8
6
0
1
0
0
2
3
3
4
4
2
4
9
1
2
4
1
0
0
4
1
4
6
.
8
3
7
.
7
1
5
.
5
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

1
9
M
o
s
s

B
.
1
9
6
2
2
3
6
1
8
0
2
5
5
4
2
1
9
0
2
5
4
2
5
1
2
8
7
.
3
8
.
6
4
.
1
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
0
S
h
i
n
.
2
0
3
6
2
6
8
9
5
1
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
7
7
2
1
2
9
2
.
3
7
.
0
0
.
7
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
0
T
o
p

S
h
i
n
.
2
1
4
2
2
5
4
1
6
0
2
8
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
7
0
2
8
4
8
9
.
4
9
.
3
1
.
3
3
0
2
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
0
M
o
n
.

B
.
2
2
9
7
2
6
1
8
0
9
1
1
3
1
0
7
0
2
6
9
9
2
0
9
0
.
3
3
.
0
6
.
7
3
0
0
s
u
b
l
i
t
h
a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
1
S
h
i
n
.
2
3
2
3
2
7
5
1
3
0
7
0
0
1
2
2
0
2
8
8
7
5
9
6
.
0
2
.
3
1
.
7
3
0
0
q
u
a
r
t
z

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
1
M
o
n
.

B
.
2
4
4
8
2
0
6
1
0
6
2
4
1
0
7
3
2
0
1
3
1
2
1
6
3
0
3
7
7
6
.
3
1
0
.
6
1
3
.
1
3
0
0
s
u
b
l
i
t
h
a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
1
M
o
s
s

B
.
2
5
3
8
2
7
0
1
8
5
2
1
0
1
1
2
0
2
8
8
7
4
9
6
.
3
2
.
3
1
.
3
3
0
0
q
u
a
r
t
z

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
2
S
h
i
n
.
2
6
5
2
2
0
8
2
1
0
6
3
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
6
3
8
7
6
.
3
2
1
.
0
2
.
7
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
2
M
o
s
s

B
.
2
7
2
6
0
1
0
3
1
3
0
1
6
5
0
0
4
7
8
0
1
1
6
1
6
5
1
9
3
8
.
7
5
5
.
0
6
.
3
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
2
P
e
t
.

F
.
2
8
3
4
7
1
4
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
0
6
6
8
1
1
5
4
1
2
4
2
1
5
1
.
5
4
1
.
5
7
.
0
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
4
S
h
i
n
.
2
9
3
8
2
2
7
2
3
5
3
3
0
0
1
3
8
0
2
5
0
3
8
1
2
8
3
.
3
1
2
.
7
4
.
0
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
4
M
o
n
.

B
.
3
0
2
4
2
1
2
9
0
4
8
2
6
2
0
2
1
0
2
2
1
4
8
3
8
1
.
3
1
7
.
6
1
.
1
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
4
M
o
s
s

B
.
3
1
5
7
2
4
8
1
9
0
2
2
6
0
0
1
4
0
2
6
7
2
2
5
9
0
.
8
7
.
5
1
.
7
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
7
S
h
i
n
.
3
2
6
1
1
8
7
1
7
0
8
6
0
1
2
0
7
0
2
0
4
8
6
9
6
8
.
2
2
8
.
8
3
.
0
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
7
M
o
s
s

B
.
3
3
3
9
7
1
1
6
2
1
3
1
4
0
0
0
4
3
1
2
1
1
3
7
1
4
3
2
0
4
5
.
7
4
7
.
7
6
.
7
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
6
M
o
n
.

B
.
3
4
1
2
6
8
1
9
0
1
1
7
0
4
5
3
6
2
9
1
9
0
1
1
7
4
8
3
5
.
3
4
5
.
9
1
8
.
8
3
0
0
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
S

2
6
M
o
s
s

B
.
3
5
2
4
1
7
6
2
1
1
6
6
3
4
6
5
1
7
1
1
9
7
6
7
2
9
6
7
.
2
2
2
.
9
9
.
9
3
0
0
s
u
b
a
r
k
o
s
i
c

a
r
e
n
i
t
e
M
P
C


m
a
t
r
i
x


p
o
r
e
s


c
e
m
e
n
t
,

Q
m


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

q
u
a
r
t
z
,

Q
p


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

q
u
a
r
t
z
,

P


p
l
a
g
i
o
c
l
a
s
e
,

K


p
o
t
a
s
i
u
m

I
e
l
d
s
p
a
r
,

M


m
i
c
a
,

O
p


o
p
a
q
u
e
,

L
s


s
e
d
.

l
i
t
h
i
c
,
L
v


v
o
l
c
a
n
i
c

l
i
t
h
i
c
,

L
m


m
e
t
a
m
o
r
p
h
i
c

l
i
t
h
i
c
,

Q
t


t
o
t
a
l

q
u
a
r
t
z
,

F
t


t
o
t
a
l

I
e
l
d
s
p
a
r
,

L
t


t
o
t
a
l

l
i
t
h
i
c
s
Appendix III PETROGRAPHIC DATA
Figure AIII.1 Point counting results of 34 thin-sectioned sandstone samples from the lower
portion of the Chinle Formation in south central Utah.
169