Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2007, v.

77, 303–323
Research Article
DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2007.031

3-D ARCHITECTURE AND SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHIC EVOLUTION OF A FORCED REGRESSIVE TOP-

TRUNCATED MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA, CRETACEOUS WALL CREEK SANDSTONE, WYOMING, U.S.A.

KEUMSUK LEE,1,2 GEORGE A. MCMECHAN,1 M. ROYHAN GANI,1,3 JANOK P. BHATTACHARYA,1,4 XIAOXIAN ZENG,1 AND
CHARLES D. HOWELL, JR.1
1
Center for Lithospheric Studies, The University of Texas at Dallas, P.O. Box 830688, Richardson, Texas 75083-0688, U.S.A.
, 2Bureau of Economic Geology, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78713-8924, U.S.A.
, 3Energy & Geoscience Institute, The University of Utah, 423 Wakara Way 300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, U.S.A.
4
The Geosciences Department, University of Houston, 4800 Calhoun Road, Houston, Texas 77204-5007, U.S.A.
e-mail: keumsuk.lee@beg.utexas.edu

ABSTRACT: Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is used to delineate the 3-D facies architectural elements and examine the
evolution of a top-truncated, forced-regressive, mixed-influenced delta front in the Cretaceous Wall Creek Member of the
Frontier Formation, Wyoming. The GPR data provide a bridge between outcrop facies architecture and recently published
high-resolution 2-D seismic studies of Quaternary delta systems. The GPR data were integrated with outcrops, photomosaics,
cores, and GPS data. Two orthogonal grids of 2-D GPR profiles provide information on the 3-D facies architecture and
stratigraphy of the deltaic deposits. Three main GPR architectural elements are identified within the delta front: (1) mouth bars
are characterized by seaward-dipping reflections (foreset beds) in dip view, and mounded bidirectionally downlapping
reflections in strike view; (2) shallow delta-slope channels show truncation and onlap and also show low-angle landward
(northwest) dipping reflections. The mouth bars are locally interrupted by (3) sub-horizontal radar reflections that are
interpreted as tidally modulated bars. Within the mouth-bar radar facies, both top-preserved (proximal) and top-truncated
(distal) examples are observed. Top-preserved proximal bars show evidence of mounded bar crests and landward accretion, as is
observed in the upstream end of mouth bars on the modern Atchafalaya Delta in the Gulf of Mexico. Distal bar deposits
primarily comprise the top-truncated, seaward-dipping foresets.
The GPR interpretation shows two laterally overlapping delta lobes, interpreted to represent autocyclic delta switching. The
older lower lobe forms a fan-shaped delta lobe composed of top-truncated coalesced mouth bars. The second phase of bars is
largely top-preserved, building over the older bars. The presence of thicker bedsets and upstream accretion suggests that the
younger lobe was quickly abandoned, as seen in the overlying transgressive ravinement. Although marine erosion during
transgression was less effective on these later-stage bar deposits, ravinement increased landward. A comparison of the
architectural elements at a more regional scale in two separate Wall Creek delta lobes (Murphy Creek and Raptor Ridge,
, 30 km apart) indicates that the bar complexes were deposited on the delta fronts as accretionary forced-regressive deposits
during a relative sea-level fall; the older river-dominated deltaic deposits at the Murphy Creek site prograded southeastward
(, 124u), whereas the younger and more tidally influenced Raptor Ridge bar deposits expanded southward (, 171u) before
final abandonment and regional transgression. The most distal lowstand lobe sediments within the offlapping parasequence at
Raptor Ridge are more completely preserved and also show the greatest tidal influence, compared to the more severely top-
truncated Murphy Creek, which is in an otherwise more landward location. This challenges the notion that tidal facies are
predominantly associated with transgressive or highstand systems tracts. Greater preservation of deltaic facies in forced-
regressive and lowstand deltas, as shown here, has also been documented in Quaternary shelf-edge deltas, such as the
Lagniappe in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mahakham in Kalimantan.

INTRODUCTION
The large-scale stratigraphic architecture of deltaic clastic wedges is
well known from many sequence stratigraphic studies (e.g., Duncan 1983;
Suter and Berryhill 1985; Tesson et al. 1990; Bhattacharya 1993; Plint
2000; Barton et al. 2004; Garrison and van den Bergh 2004; Porebski
and Steel 2005; and numerous other examples quoted in Bhattacharya
2006). However, the regional nature of these studies provides little
information about internal bed-scale facies variability within individ-
ual delta lobes. These older seismic and sequence stratigraphic
examples also emphasize dip-oriented cross-sectional depictions of
shelf depositional systems, versus along-strike variability. Strike-oriented
variability reflects the timing and spacing of overlapping lenses or
lobes, which may be dependant on the number, spacing, and avul-
sion frequency of distributary channels but may also depend on the
shape of the sea floor, especially if there is differential subsidence or
uplift related to tectonics, since deltas commonly fill low areas on the sea
floor.

Copyright E 2007, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/07/077-303/$03.00

304 K. LEE ET AL.
FIG. 1.— The Raptor Ridge site is located on the west margin of the Powder
River basin in east-central Wyoming, U.S.A. The lower panel shows the
topography of the study area (with 20 ft [6.096 m] contour interval), and the
locations of the GPR survey grid and the boreholes.
FIG. 2.—Stratigraphic section along the Frontier outcrop belt, containing six parasequences. The Raptor Ridge site lies in the topmost parasequence (PS 6) near the
southern end of the section X–X9. Modified after Howell et al. (2003).
JSR
More recent high-resolution seismic examples of Quaternary shelf-edge
deltas provide examples of bed-scale architecture of delta-front deposits
as well as showing strike variability (e.g., Suter and Berryhill 1985; Tesson
et al. 1990; Sydow and Roberts 1994; Hart and Long 1996; Hiscott 2003;
Roberts and Sydow 2003; Roberts et al. 2005; Bart and Anderson 2004;
other papers in Anderson and Fillon 2004). Unfortunately, only a few of
these seismic-based studies are calibrated in terms of lithology and facies
because of a lack of core and well-log data, and the emphasis of most of
these papers is on the broader regional sequence stratigraphic controls on
deposition (mostly eustasy and climate) as opposed to the internal facies
variability and facies architecture, which are more critical in reservoir
characterization applications.
Outcrop examples that illustrate the bed-scale architecture of delta-
front deposits are even fewer (Willis et al. 1999; Willis and Gabel 2001;
Soria et al. 2003; Johnson and Graham 2004; Mattson and Chan 2004;
Bhattacharya and Davies 2004; Anderson et al. 2004; Gani and
Bhattacharya 2007; Plink-Björklund and Steel 2005), while a larger
number of previous works focused primarily on delta-plain channels and
incised valleys (see recent summaries by Gibling 2006, Olariu and
Bhattacharya 2006, Bhattacharya 2006). Most of these outcrop studies of
delta-front deposits emphasize dip variability, with the exception of the
paper by Willis and Gabel (2001) on tide-influenced deltas in the
Cretaceous Sego Sandstone, Utah.
The concept of facies architecture was originally developed for fluvial
and eolian rocks (Jackson 1975; Brookfield 1977; Allen 1983; Miall 1985,
1996) and may be considered a reasonably mature field as applied to
eolian, fluvial, and deep-marine facies models (e.g., Mountney 2006;
Bridge 2006; Posamentier and Walker 2006). In contrast, facies-
architecture analysis of deltaic and shallow marine counterparts remains
understudied. Despite their extreme complexity, a general model cannot
yet be fully proposed (Bhattacharya 2006; Suter 2006).
The focus of this paper is to bridge the gap between these high-resolution
seismic and outcrop examples by investigating the within-lobe 3-D
architecture of bar-scale facies architectural elements of an ancient
Cretaceous delta lobe. The key architectural elements that we wish to
investigate include terminal distributary channels and mouth bars, which are
common in river-dominated deltas (Olariu and Bhattacharya 2006). Tide-
influenced delta fronts are expected to have a smaller proportion of
distributary channels, although tidal scours may mimic distributary channels
(Willis and Gabel 2001; Willis 2005). Tides rework mouth bars into tidal
bars, but the scale of cross stratification produced by migrating shallow-
water bars may be similar to deeper-water bedforms (e.g., dunes; Willis
2005). Formation of multiple distributary channels is inhibited in wave-
influenced deltas (Bhattacharya and Giosan 2003) and wave- or storm-
dominated sand sheets and shorefaces may be associated with, or attached
to, more river- or tide-dominated components (Bhattacharya 2006). Mouth
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT 305

FIG. 3.— Map of the Raptor Ridge site showing the locations of the photomosaics, the drilled cores, and 2-D survey grids (Raptor 1 and 2). Paleocurrent direction
measurements conducted on the topmost parasequence are indicated in the circle. See Figure 1 for location.
306 K. LEE ET AL.
FIG. 4.— Bedding diagrams of the eastern cliff face (in the depositional dip direction) showing south dipping foreset beds (see Figure 3 for locations).
bars in wave-influenced deltas may also show alongshore elongation
(Reynolds 1999; Garrison and van den Bergh 2004; Fielding et al. 2005).
Thus, the internal facies architecture of bar types is a key to
determining delta type (Galloway and Hobday 1996); variation in
dominance of depositional processes over time plus seasonal changes in
discharge (Hart and Long 1996; Rodriguez et al. 2000; Lee et al. 2005)
may produce complicated bedding geometry and facies patterns, such as
in tide-dominated river deltas (Willis and Gabel 2003; Willis 2005) or tide-
influenced river deltas (Bhattacharya and Walker 1992; Reading and
Collinson 1996; Willis et al. 1999).
Tide-influenced river deltas have been historically difficult to model
because of their complexity and a lack of good ancient examples,
although general models have been recently proposed (Willis 2005). This
study takes a multidisciplinary approach to establish facies architectural
elements of a Cretaceous lowstand tide-influenced river delta, which is
capped by a transgressive ravinement surface (Gani 2005; Gani and
Bhattacharya 2007). The sedimentology and core and outcrop facies
descriptions, which form the basis for this work, are presented in Gani
(2005), Gani et al. (in press), and Gani and Bhattacharya (2007). Six
facies architectural elements were recognized in the outcrops at the
Raptor Ridge site (Fig. 1) at the top of the upper Turonian Wall Creek
Member of the Frontier Formation, Wyoming. Although these architec-
tural elements allow interpretation of the process-based morphometric
elements that built the delta and may facilitate the recognition of similar
systems present elsewhere in the ancient record, not all scales can be
resolved in GPR data, let alone in seismic or well-log data sets, and the
nature of the outcrops precludes determining the 3-D geometry, critical
for reservoir characterization studies. As a consequence, the outcrop-
based observations are still in need of 3-D facies architectural geometry to
develop reliable 3-D models.
Kilometer-scale 3-D stratigraphic information on the delta front has
previously been acquired in ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys of
JSR
the Wall Creek Member. For example, a GPR study was conducted to
characterize a Cretaceous lowstand delta-front outcrop at the Murphy
Creek site, located about 30 km to the northeast of the Raptor Ridge site
(Fig. 1). The deltaic sandstones of both sites contain southward-
prograding deltaic bar deposits interpreted to be formed during a relative
sea level fall; a subsequent transgression left behind top-eroded, delta-
front mouth bars (Lee et al. 2005). Although these two sites have a similar
depositional history, lateral architectural variations within and between
them, during the seaward migration, in response to the relative sea-level
fall, have not been studied in detail.
There has recently also been an interest in examining the evolution of
delta types during forced regressions and lowstands of sea level (Porebski
and Steel 2005). The delta deposits of the Frontier Formation lie several
hundred kilometers seaward of coeval highstand systems in the Bighorn
and Green River basins to the west (Bhattacharya and Willis 2001). The
basin-distal positions of these sandstones, as well as the general lack of
preserved paralic, coastal-plain or nonmarine facies (e.g., Posamentier et
al. 1992; Hart and Long 1996; Posamentier and Morris 2000) are the
main evidence for a forced-regressive to lowstand origin for these
sandstones (Bhattacharya and Willis 2001). Recent work on the Wall
Creek Member shows a complex series of offlapping sandstone bodies.
Seven parasequences have been identified regionally in outcrop (Howell et
al. 2003); in this study we focus on parasequence 6 (PS 6, Fig. 2). Within
parasequence 6, several lens-shaped offlapping, or shingled, sandbodies
have been mapped. The most distal shingle, exposed at Raptor Ridge, is
the subject of this paper. A paper on an older shingle, exposed along
Murphy Creek (Lee et al. 2005) describes the internal facies architecture
of a more proximal river-dominated, and more severely top-truncated,
delta lobe.
In this paper, we (1) document the 3-D facies architectural elements of
a top-truncated, mixed-influenced deltaic sandstone, with an emphasis on
the lateral variability, and (2) compare the type of facies and degree of
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT 307

FIG. 5.—Bedding diagrams of the western cliff face. A) The northern segment, showing south dipping foreset beds (in the depositional dip direction); B) the southern
segment, containing intermediate depositional dip and strike directions (see Figure 3 for locations).

preservation within a strongly offlapping and downstepping system, and
(3) discuss the implications for sequence stratigraphic interpretation of
forced-regressive and lowstand systems tracts. The 3-D models are
produced from two grids of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data,
constrained by ten cores and by cliff-face maps.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
Continuous north–south oriented exposures of the Turonian Wall
Creek Member in the Frontier Formation occur in a series of sandstone
cliffs along the Frontier outcrop belt (Figs. 1, 2). The Wall Creek
sediments were sourced from the Sevier highlands to the western flanks of
the Cretaceous epicontinental seaway. Winn (1991) interpreted the
sandstone bodies as storm-dominated offshore shelf deposits; however,
a recent study (Bhattacharya and Willis 2001) suggests that the formation
consists of top-truncated deltas. Key evidence for a deltaic interpretation
includes well-developed, upward-coarsening facies successions, a mixed to
highly stressed ichnofossil assemblage, which indicates a possible brackish
or fluvial stress (MacEachern et al. 2005), well-developed basinward-
dipping clinoform strata interpreted as the preserved delta front, as well
as southward-directed paleocurrent data that dip broadly south, in the
same direction as the clinoforms. Where available, subsurface mapping of
the Frontier sand bodies shows a broadly lobate shape, which suggests
a deltaic setting (e.g., Bhattacharya and Willis 2001; Gani and
Bhattacharya 2007).
Extensive pebbly erosional surfaces at the tops of the sandstone bodies
are interpreted as transgressive ravinement lags associated with the top
truncation. No fluvial or coastal-plain facies are observed or preserved,
although a deltaic nature is inferred from the facies within the preserved
lower parts of the sandstone bodies (e.g., the Belle Fourche Member;
Bhattacharya and Willis 2001). The Wall Creek outcrops show several
offlapping delta lobes, indicated by different, coarsening-upward, top-
truncated sandstone bodies. Within the Wall Creek Member, seven
parasequences have been identified along the outcrop belt, although only
six are present along the western outcrop margin (PS 1 to PS 6 from
oldest to youngest, Fig. 2) (Howell and Bhattacharya 2004). The exposed
topmost parasequence (PS 6) at Raptor Ridge lies near the southern end
of the Frontier outcrop belt, although several additional younger
sandstones have been identified in subsurface farther to the south and
east. Internally, PS 6 contains several offlapping shingled sandstone
308 K. LEE ET AL. JSR
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT 309

FIG. 7.— A generic stratigraphic section and

description of sedimentary facies at the Raptor
Ridge site (after Gani 2005 and Gani and
Bhattacharya 2007).

bodies. The sandstones exposed at Raptor Ridge are within parasequence
6, and show depositional pinchout in the adjacent subsurface (Gani and
Bhattacharya 2007). These sandstones show a complex mixture of river-,
tide-, and wave-influenced facies (Gani 2005; Gani and Bhattacharya
2007). The present study focuses on mapping of the sub-regional 3-D
facies architecture integrating previously published outcrop data with
new GPR surveys.
The Raptor Ridge site has , 12-m-thick sandstones exposed in cliff
faces, and relatively planar mesa tops that provide favorable conditions
for a GPR survey. The sandstone cliffs are separated by a NW–SE
oriented, U-shaped valley which is , 600 m long and widens to the
southeast as the elevation drops (Fig. 1). The two exposed outcrop
sections (the eastern and western cliff faces in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5) on the valley
sides show top-eroded, southward-thickening, wedge-shaped sandstones.
The sandstone wedge exposed in the eastern outcrop is slightly thicker
(3 m to 12 m) than in the western one (2.5 m to 9 m). According to Gani
(2005) and Gani and Bhattacharya (2007), the cliff face shows
a coarsening-upward sandy facies succession and overlying prodeltaic
mudstones, capped by a transgressive ravinement surface. Generally, the
facies show a mixture of river, tide, and wave influences, suggesting that it
is a mixed-influenced delta.
DATABASE AND METHODOLOGY
A total of 7.8 km of 2-D GPR reflection data were acquired on two
rectangular grids of 100 m 3 300 m (Raptor 1) and 160 m 3 200 m
(Raptor 2) at the Raptor Ridge site in the summer of 2002 (Fig. 3), using
a PulseEKKO IV system (manufactured by Sensors & Software, Inc.).
The NW–SE lines in Raptor 1 are approximately parallel and
perpendicular to the paleotransport direction (as measured primarily
from dune-scale cross bedding), whereas the NNW–SSE lines in Raptor
2, which is located about 170 m southwest of Raptor 1, are about 12u
oblique to the average southeast paleocurrent direction (Fig. 3). A
common-offset geometry with 3 m transmitter-to-receiver spacing was
used to record both the GPR data grids, at a nominal frequency of
50 MHz. The time window and sampling interval were set at 300 ns and
0.8 ns, respectively, and traces were stacked 128 times at each survey

FIG. 6.—Examples of sedimentary facies identified at Raptor Ridge. A) Seaward-dipping large-scale cross strata of Facies 5a, interpreted as accreting mouth bars. B)
Mud-draped, landward-directed cross bedding of Facies 5b, indicated tidal modulation. C) Erosionally-based massive sandstones with distinct wings, interpreted as
a terminal distributary channel of Facies 4. D) Sharp-based, flat-stratified sandstone of Facies 3, interpreted as a frontal splay. E) Interbedded sandstones and mudstones
of Facies 2, interpreted as proximal prodelta deposits. See Figure 7 for details.
310 K. LEE ET AL. JSR

FIG. 8.— GPR profiles in Raptor 1 exhibiting typical reflection patterns of delta-front deposits in both A), B) dip and C) strike directions. The corresponding
interpreted profiles are shown in Figure 9A and Figure 10C, respectively. The positions of the GPR profiles are indicated in Figure 3.

point to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. A few common-midpoint
gathers were also collected for velocity analysis.
GPS locations with an accuracy of 0.01 to 0.03 m were used for
positioning the survey lines and for the GPR data processing. Preliminary
digital processing of all the GPR reflection data sets includes ‘‘dewow-
ing,’’ time-zero alignment, trace editing, and air/direct wave removal.
Bandpass filtering was applied to remove high- and low-frequency noise.
Detailed information on the preliminary data processing was described by
Lee et al. (in press). The pre-processed GPR data were migrated using
prestack-Kirchhoff depth migration (Epili and McMechan 1996) with
a core-controlled velocity model. The migrated GPR data have 0.1 m
sampling both horizontally and vertically. Finally, an automatic gain
control was applied for a better visual interpretation of the migrated GPR
data, which were imported into a seismic interpretation software package
for digitizing horizons.
For a confident interpretation of the migrated GPR data, the two cliff-
face exposures (the eastern and western cliff face) were photographed.
Line drawings of the interpreted photographs are included in this paper
(Figs. 1, 4, 5); for the original photographs, the reader is referred to Gani
(2005) and Gani and Bhattacharya (2007). The bedding architecture and
facies diagram of the eastern outcrop (Fig. 4) shows , 300-m-long
deltaic sandstones, which can be correlated with the GPR profiles in the
Raptor 1 survey. The western cliff face is split into two segments (Fig. 3),
a northern one (Fig. 5A), and a southern one (Fig. 5B). The southern
segment is closest to the GPR lines in the Raptor 2 survey but shows
poorer preservation of sedimentary structures because of surface
weathering.
Ten cores were drilled behind the eastern cliff (Figs. 1, 3) to a depth of
, 11 m. The cores are used to derive the velocity model for the GPR data
migration and to calibrate the depositional bounding surfaces and
sedimentary facies with the migrated GPR profiles for a reliable
geological interpretation. The calibration is, however, applicable only
for the GPR data in Raptor 1, because Raptor 2 is an undrilled area.
Analysis of the core data is included in Gani (2005) and Gani and
Bhattacharya (2007).
FACIES ARCHITECTURE IN OUTCROPS
The present paper uses the facies architectural model proposed for the
Raptor Ridge site by Gani (2005) and Gani and Bhattacharya (2007). The
deposits consist of six facies architectural elements (Figs. 4–7) including
prodelta fines (Facies 1 and 2), frontal splays (Facies 3), channels (Facies
4) , bar accretion elements (Facies 5a), tidally modulated bars (Facies 5b),
and storm sheets (Facies 6). Scoured sandstones of Facies 4 (Fig. 6C) are
filled with poorly stratified to massive fine- to medium-grained
sandstones containing abundant floating mud clasts, and are interpreted
as subaqueous terminal distributary-channel elements, formed during
river flooding events. These are interbedded with fine-grained, meter-scale
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT 311

FIG. 9.—A) Northwest–southeast uninterpreted GPR section through the core #5 and B) interpreted profile of Part A, illustrating the correlation of corehole to GPR
facies. Three facies were identified in the section: distal mouth bar, channel, and tidal bar. Channel and tidal bars have similar internal reflection geometry, but channel
elements have a distinctly undulating bottom surface, suggesting erosion, whereas the tidal bars have nearly flat bases. See Figure 3 for location. No vertical exaggeration.

basinward-dipping cross-stratified sandstones of Facies 5a (Fig. 6A)
interpreted to be deposits of prograding sandy mouth bars (bar accretion
elements). Distally, sandy beds extend from the mouth bars into the
prodelta shales, where they are interpreted as frontal splay elements of
Facies 3 (Fig. 6D). The mouth bars are also associated with lens-shaped
sandstones that contain abundant bidirectional herringbone cross-strata
and abundant double mud drapes of Facies 5a (Fig. 6B) which reflect
reworking of the mouth bars into tidal bars and dunes (tidally modulated
bar elements). Farther to the north, from the Raptor Ridge area, adjacent
gullies show more extensive hummocky cross-stratified sand sheet-
elements (Facies 6) which are interpreted to represent storm-wave
reworking. The corresponding sedimentary facies are labeled in Figures 4
and 5. Only Facies 1–6 are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. More details on
the facies are presented in Gani (2005) and Gani and Bhattacharya
(2007).
The six facies architectural elements are bounded by several orders of
bounding surfaces. The top transgressive erosional surface (TES)
represents the most extensive, fourth-order surface that truncates lower-
order surfaces and is assumed to have eroded any delta-plain deposits
(Gani and Bhattacharya 2007); it is a regionally traceable surface strewn
with granules and pebbles. The inherent resolution limitation (a quarter
wavelength) allows 50 MHz GPR to detect no lower than third-order
surfaces. Thus, the discussion of the present paper will be limited to the
four facies elements that can be identified in the GPR data. These are
channels, bar accretion elements, tidally modulated bars, and frontal
splays.
Field-based observations on vertical sections (Figs. 4, 5), combined
with the high-resolution photographs of each cliff section (see Gani and
Bhattacharya 2007), show that, because of the modest distance between
the two walls (an average of 100 m), both outcrops are very similar in
sedimentary facies and characteristics. These include a (rarely exposed)
sharp-based basal mud–sand contact, broadly seaward-dipping clinoform
bedding geometry, and a coarsening-upward facies succession (Figs. 4, 5).
The high degree of similarity in both facies and paleocurrent indicators
between the outcrops (the eastern cliff face and the north segment of the
western cliff face) suggest that both belong to a single deltaic lobe
expanding southward into the basin; however, the south segment of the
western cliff face affords a more strike-oriented view that shows two
different delta lobes (Fig. 5B) with bidirectional dip that is similar to that
seen in strike geometries in high-resolution seismic data from recently
studied Quaternary deltas (e.g., Roberts et al. 2005). Onlap of the upper
beds to the left (Fig. 5B) suggests two distinct bedsets, associated with
a younger and an older lobe, or younger and older mouth bars. The lower
lobe is more fully developed in the north segment of the western cliff
faces, and in the eastern cliff face.
Facies analysis of the outcrops shows that bar-accretion elements
(Facies 5a) are dominant and consist of southward dipping beds (Figs. 4,
5A). Apparent dip angles were measured between the planar-topped
topography and the clinoforms in the outcrops, and vary from 4u to 8u in
the bedding planes. The bar accretion elements and channels are
occasionally interstratified or reworked into tidally modulated elements
(Facies 5b) in both outcrops. Tidal facies elements (Facies 5b) extend
more than 90 m down dip, attaining a maximum thickness of 2.5 m.
Frontal splays (Facies 2) associated with bar-growth elements occur more
abundantly in the southwestern exposure (in the western cliff face,
Fig. 5B) than in the other two outcrops. The south segment of the western
cliff face contains both strike and dip sections. The strike segment shows
a local bidirectional bounding surface representing mouth-bar deposits of
the older lobe, onlapped by converging beds from a younger mouth bar
(Fig. 5B). The bounding surface is thus interpreted as a boundary
312 K. LEE ET AL. JSR

FIG. 10.— Line drawings of migrated GPR lines of Raptor 1 in the dip direction showing southward dipping GPR reflections (GF1), which are interpreted as top-
truncated prograding foreset beds cut by migrating channels (GF2) and punctuated by tidal modulations (GF3) at the delta front. GPR tie points are indicated by
inverted triangles. See Figure 3 for locations. Vertical exaggeration is 31.2.

between two prograding bar complexes or delta lobes. The lower lobe
shows some hummocky cross-stratified sandstones of Facies 6, represent-
ing local storm reworking.
Channels are encountered in both the outcrops; they are more
abundant in the eastern than in the western cliff faces, suggesting that
the fluvial axis lay closer to the eastern side of the area. There is a thick
sequence of stacked channels identified in the southeast half of the eastern
cliff face (Fig. 4), attaining a maximum thickness of about 5 m. The
general direction of the channel migration appears to be toward the
northwest (approximately perpendicular to the depositional dip), based
on the geometry of the accretion surfaces within the channels in both the
dip and strike directions (Gani 2005; Gani and Bhattacharya 2007). The
channels are U-shaped, have thin lateral wings (Fig. 6C), and are
completely contained within the shallow marine mouth-bar and tidally
modulated elements. They show no evidence of subaerial exposure, such
as roots, coals, or paleosols, and they are interpreted as subaqueous
extensions of terminal distributary channels formed on the frontal slope
of the delta. The thick (but poorly defined) beds within the channels, the
abundance of floating mud clasts, as well as the coarser-grained nature of
the sandstone (medium grained) as opposed to the fine-grained
sandstones of the overlying and underlying facies, suggest that these
terminal distributary channels were likely connected to an upstream
fluvial system (Olariu and Bhattacharya 2006) and probably were
deposited rapidly during major river flood events.
GPR INTERPRETATION AND 3-D FACIES ARCHITECTURE MODEL
The migrated GPR data were interpreted using the principles of radar
stratigraphy (Jol and Smith 1991; Beres and Haeni 1991), which is based
on those of seismic sequence stratigraphy (Mitchum et al. 1977). The
interpretation technique relies on the identification of reflection relation-
ships (i.e., toplap, onlap, downlap) to define a radar sequence. The
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT 313

FIG. 11.— Line drawings of migrated GPR lines of Raptor 1 in the strike direction showing undulation in GPR reflections which increase in the seaward direction.
GPR tie points are indicated by inverted triangles. See Figure 3 for locations. Vertical exaggeration is 31.2.

defined individual radar sequences are internally characterized by one or
more GPR facies, as described below. The GPR facies are identified using
reflection amplitude, continuity, and configuration (Gawthorpe et al.
1993), and they are better distinguished in the dip direction than in the
strike direction. The identification of radar facies was possible to , 12 m
depth in Raptor 1 and , 8 m depth in Raptor 2, because of the limited
GPR penetration depth; however, only the GPR bounding reflections and
radar facies in Raptor 1 are confirmed by, and correlated with, the cores
in terms of individual reflections with lithologic changes, facies depths,
and thicknesses (Fig. 8). Cores and outcrop measurements were also used
to guide the large-scale continuity of units and boundaries, as the GPR
data indicate on recorded profiles. The GPR reflection terminations are
well correlated with the third- and fourth-order stratigraphic surfaces
mapped on the cliff faces and the photomosaics, and four radar facies
were defined: (channels, tidally modulated bars, and distal and proximal
bar-growth elements).
The present paper also documents 3-D architectural shapes of the
various mapped sediment bodies as constructed from the 3-D digital solid
model. Although we identified four GPR facies, the tidal deposits are not
included in the 3-D solid models because of their limited occurrence and
consequently uncertain dimensions. Details of the modeled 3-D facies
architecture, which were found to consist mostly of compound mouth
bars and delta-slope channels, are discussed in the following section. In
the present paper, we show that the compound bedsets are key elements
of a delta lobe, the scale of which may vary depending on the depositional
environments.
Facies Architecture in Raptor 1
Description.—The GPR profiles in Raptor 1 are dominated by
(northward and southward) dipping and subhorizontal patterns for dip
314 K. LEE ET AL.
and strike directions, respectively (Fig. 8). Three of the four GPR facies
were recognized in the eastern GPR grid (Raptor 1), and are referred to as
GF1 to GF3 (Fig. 9). GF1 consists of high-amplitude, high-continuity
reflections, forming southward (seaward) dipping clinoforms, which are
interpreted as seaward-accreting mouth bars and their associated frontal
splays (Fielding et al. 2005; Lee et al. 2005). GF2 is characterized by
moderate- to high-amplitude, moderate- to good-continuity reflections,
cutting, or parallel to, GF1. GF2 is interpreted as laterally migrating
channels because of basal scours and internal landward-dipping reflec-
tions (Figs. 9, 10, 11), which are interpreted to represent accretion
surfaces within the channels. GF3 is characterized by moderate to high
amplitude and continuity showing a series of slightly landward-dipping,
JSR
FIG. 12.— A) A 3-D GPR interpreted volume
of Raptor 1 and B) the nine 3-D facies
architectural elements within Part A, vertically
separated. Dip-direction measurements con-
ducted on the bounding surfaces between the bar
deposits are indicated in the circle in Part A. The
sequence from R1MB1 to R1MB6 is from distal
to proximal. Vertical exaggeration is 330.
or subhorizontal, reflection patterns which are less than 10 m long. GF3
is interpreted as tidally modulated bars consisting of alternating sand-
mud beds.
Raptor 1 contains nine mapped 3-D GPR facies architectural elements,
which are genetically identified as either bar or channel deposits (bars
R1MB1 to 6, and channels R1CH1 to 3 [Fig. 12]). It is difficult to
delineate the complete individual body shapes, because of the limited grid
size. The six bar bodies (R1MBs) are similar in shape and are laterally
stacked to the southeast. All the bodies face southeast (with mean dip
direction of 168u; Fig. 12A), with varying along-dip distances between
successive bar deposits, ranging from 3 m to 120 m; the volume of the
solid bodies varies correspondingly. R1MB3 encloses two tongue-shaped
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT 315

FIG. 13.—GPR profiles in Raptor 2 showing typical reflection patterns of delta front deposits in both A) dip and B) strike directions. The corresponding interpreted
profiles are shown in Figure 14C and Figure 15B, respectively. The positions of the GPR profiles are indicated in Figure 3.

channel bodies (R1CH1 and 2) which are completely defined in the dip
direction. R1MB5 also contains a channel (R1CH3), but both are
incompletely imaged at their southern edges.
The R1MBs are dominated by GF1, which can be seen on all GPR
profiles (Figs. 10, 11). Most of GF1 is represented by reflections dipping
, 8u toward the southeast. The southward dipping clinoforms (GF1) are
mostly cut by GF2. Since the dip angle of GF2 is mostly conformable
with that of GF1, it would be difficult to identify the bounding reflectors
of GF2, without confirmation by the core ties. A few of the dipping layers
are internally truncated by the younger overlying layers within the radar
sequences. GF1 is uniformly defined in the GPR lines parallel to
depositional dip (Fig. 10); the dominant reflection package along the
depositional strike shows that the relief of the undulations increases
towards the southeast (Fig. 11). GF1 is occasionally interbedded with
GF3, the reflections of which onlap onto the underlying GF1; GF3 is
truncated by the overlying GF1 (Fig. 10B, E).
Interpretation.—The facies and geometry in the Raptor 1 radar volume
suggest that sediments, derived mainly from the north, were deposited on
a delta slope primarily as mouth bars (Fielding et al. 2005). The
southeast-prograding bar assemblages form dipping, clinoforming,
foreset beds, which correspond to the measured bedding planes observed
in the eastern outcrop (Fig. 4). The seaward increase in rugosity of the
strike sections, and the distribution of the tidally modulated bars, which
also become longer and deeper toward the west and southeast (Fig. 10),
may suggest a transition from river-dominated to tide-influenced
conditions. The increased mounding, seen in Figure 11D, suggests
bidirectional downlap, and may indicate more complete preservation of
mouth bar crests in a down-dip direction. Such mounding is similar to
that seen in other outcrops of delta-front sandstones (Olariu and
Bhattacharya 2006) and in many seismic examples (e.g., Hart and Long
1996; Roberts et al. 2005; Bart and Anderson 2004).
The lateral extent and volume of the compound mouth bars appear to
be substantially larger than the Raptor 1 grid. This suggests greater
elongation along strike and a length-to-width ratio substantially less than
1. However, locally, individual reflections, which likely reflect bar crests,
show lens-shaped geometries (especially in Figure 11D) with along-strike
wavelengths of approximately 100 m, compared to the maximum 120 m
down-dip extent of mapped bar elements. These bars coalesce to form the
larger-scale bar-assemblage deposits that in turn build the depositional
lobes.
The channels (R1CH1 to 3 in Fig. 12B) enclosed within the compound
bars suggest that the channel migrations were initiated and terminated
within the bar system, although their east–west extents are uncertain. In
contrast to the mouth bars, length-to-width ratios of the channel deposits
are clearly greater than or equal to 1.
316 K. LEE ET AL.
FIG. 14.—A) North-northwest to south-southeast uninterpreted GPR section and B) interpreted profile of Part A. Part B shows a delta-lobe boundary separating the
upper and lower units. Two facies were identified in the section: distal mouth bars (in the lower unit) and proximal mouth bars (in the upper unit). See Figure 3 for
location. No vertical exaggeration.
Facies Architecture in Raptor 2
Description.—The Raptor 2 GPR profiles are characterized by
reflection patterns similar to those in Raptor 1 (Fig. 13). The three facies
GF1 to GF3 are also identified in the southwestern GPR dataset (Raptor
2), in addition to GF4 (which occurs only in the upper part of the GPR
profiles) (Figs. 14, 15, 16). GF4 consists of high-amplitude, variable-
continuity, low-angle reflections which form conformable aggradational/
up-dip migrating patterns and/or are interfingered with each other. The
vertical separation between the main reflections is more than 2 m in the
NNW–SSE sections, suggesting that GF4 consists of somewhat thicker-
bedded sandstones than GF1 (Fig. 15). Raptor 2 contains eight GPR
facies architectural elements (bars R2MB1 to 7, and a channel R2CH)
(Fig. 17) and is divided into two (upper and lower) units. The unit
boundary separates two distinct bar-succession radar facies (GF1 and
GF4) throughout the survey grid (Figs. 15, 16). The unit boundary forms
a south-southeast-facing surface (with mean dip direction of 187u;
Fig. 16A) and is defined mostly by reflection terminations (toplap and
onlap). The lower unit contains seven facies architectural elements
(R2MB1 to 6 and R2CH), which are stacked in a pattern similar to those
in Raptor 1 except for a slightly different orientation. The south-
southeast-facing bodies are more visible because of the survey orienta-
tion; the imaged portions of the individual volumes of the solid bodies are
smaller because of the shallower average GPR penetration depth in
Raptor 2. The lower unit bar, R2MB3, is larger than its neighboring
bodies and has a correspondingly longer lateral extent (, 80 m). Bar
R2MB3 encloses a channel R2CH which is incompletely imaged in the
northeast (Figs. 15A, B, 17). R2MB6 partially overlies an older body
(R2MB5); the latter has an east–west elongation with a maximum
thickness of 5 m at the western edge of Raptor 2 (Fig. 15). The embedded
JSR
channel R2CH extends over a distance of about 130 m to the southwest,
attaining a maximum width of about 70 m in the north end of Raptor 2.
The channel architectural element has a maximum thickness of about
2.5 m, thinning both westward and southward, and it terminates about
75 m away from the southern end of the western cliff face outcrop
(Figs. 16, 17).
The upper unit is composed of a single facies architectural ele-
ment (R2MB7 in Fig. 17), which crosses the entire survey grid. The
upper tabular body (R2MB7) lies on a discontinuity and thickens
slightly to the northeast, attaining a maximum thickness of 2.8 m.
Although it is difficult to measure the paleocurrent direction for the
upper unit, a roughly defined surface provides a mean dip direction of
182u.
All architectural bodies (except for R2MB7) in Raptor 2 are
characterized by southward dipping clinoforms (GF1) (Fig. 15); however,
the average angle of the dipping reflections is different from that of
Raptor 1. In the lower unit, the reflection slope is on average 4u, which is
about a half that in Raptor 1 (Fig. 10); however, R2MB5 and 6 show
even gentler slopes, ranging from 1.5u to nearly horizontal. The
corresponding radar facies in the strike sections are generally subhor-
izontal reflections with local truncations and onlap. GF3 is a rarely
occurring radar facies in Raptor 2 (Fig. 15C), but R2CH shows internal
reflection patterns (GF2) very similar to those of the R1CHs in Raptor 1.
R2MB7 is characterized by GF4 in both dip and strike directions. The
magnitude of the undulations in GF4 increases toward the south-central
part of the survey grid, and their dimensions in both strike and dip
directions vary from , 10 m to , 100 m (Fig. 15), which are consistent
with the scale of mouth bars noted in Raptor 1; the GPR reflections in the
R2MB7 become conformable with those of the R2MBs in the lower unit
at the north end of Figure 14A.
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT 317

FIG. 15.—Line drawings of migrated GPR lines of Raptor 2 in the dip direction, showing a delta-lobe boundary separating the upper and lower deltaic successions.
The southward dipping GPR reflections (GF1) in the lower unit are interpreted as top-truncated prograding foresets cut by migrating channels at the delta front. The low-
angle reflection patterns with undulations (GF4) in the upper unit are interpreted as proximal mouth bars. GPR tie points are indicated by inverted triangles. See Figure 3
for locations. Vertical exaggeration is 32.0.

Interpretation.—The reflection relationship defining the regionally
traceable bounding surface is interpreted to be a result of erosion
(Mitchum et al. 1977). Although the unit boundary (Figs. 14, 15, 16) is
traceable throughout Raptor 2, the corresponding erosional surface is not
seen in Raptor 1; therefore, we interpret the discontinuity as a delta-lobe
boundary separating the distal (lower) and proximal (upper) bar deposits.
The six architectural elements (R2MB1 to 6) and associated radar faces
in the lower succession (Figs. 15, 16, 17) suggest that they are top-eroded,
compound mouth-bar deposits probably fed by the same sediment source
as in Raptor 1. The more gently dipping foreset beds and the relative
increase in the proportion of the frontal splay deposits in the south
segment of the western cliff face (Fig. 5B) indicate that the compound
bars were deposited in an environment that is in a more distal part of the
delta front than Raptor 1; the elongate external geometry of R2MB6
(Fig. 17) is interpreted as an isolated bar deposit.
The volume and lateral extent of R2MB3 suggest that a large amount
of riverine deposits were occasionally delivered by river-flood-driven
sediment gravity flows on the frontal slope causing progradation of the
318 K. LEE ET AL. JSR

FIG. 16.—Line drawings of migrated GPR lines of Raptor 2 in the strike direction showing subparallel reflection patterns in the lower unit and in the upper unit. GPR
tie points are indicated by inverted triangles. See Figure 3 for locations. Vertical exaggeration is 32.0.

delta front. Progradation of the distal bar deposits was interrupted by
a channel that was migrating in the same direction as the similar channel
elements in Raptor 1. The westward-thinning shape of R2CH (Fig. 17B)
suggests that the channel was initiated from the east and migrated
westward into R2MB3. Considering the characteristics (including the dip
direction and the similar radar facies, but with different reflection angles),
the facies architectural bodies are prograding about 20u oblique to those
in Raptor 1, suggesting all the bar deposits in Raptor 1 and the lower bar
deposits in Raptor 2 probably belong to a single radiating deltaic lobe,
which was deposited before the upper proximal bar deposits. The GPR
facies architectural elements are consistent with the outcrop observations
as discussed in the previous section.
The upper GF4 unit is interpreted as amalgamated mouth bars that
contain better-preserved bar crests than GF1 (Figs. 15, 16). They are thus
interpreted to represent greater preservation of bar tops, representing the
more proximal portions of mouth bars, compared to what is mostly seen
in GF1. The low-angle onlap, in both strike and dip directions, suggests
that the distributary mouth bars were formed around a river mouth
including landward-growing mouth bars similar to those documented in
other modern and ancient delta systems (van Heerden and Roberts 1988;
Olariu and Bhattacharya 2006). The undulating GPR reflection patterns
may represent a combination of distributary channels and mouth-bars.
The corresponding sedimentary facies in the cliff faces show pre-
dominantly mouth-bar deposits of Facies 5a. The vertical reflection
interval in GF4 indicates that the beds in the upper unit are thicker than
those in the lower succession, which appears to be consistent with the
outcrop observations (right hand side of Fig. 5B). Therefore, R2MB7 is
interpreted to represent a younger proximal bar system (delta lobe)
overlying the older distal bar assemblage.
DEPOSITIONAL MODEL
The depositional evolution of the Raptor Ridge delta front includes
two distinct phases. In detail, mouth bars were radially distributed along
the delta front, similar to those documented in the Quaternary Lagniappe
delta in the Gulf of Mexico (Roberts et al. 2005). The bars coalesced over
time, forming a bar assemblage that resulted in a semicircular, fan-shaped
deltaic lobe (Fig. 18A; Coleman and Prior 1980). The more proximal
parts of the lobe contain distinctive channel elements, which are likely to
be the subaqueous extensions of terminal distributary channels (Coleman
et al. 1964; Olariu and Bhattacharya 2006; Flocks et al. 2006). Similar
subaqueous channels are seen in many modern mixed-influenced deltas
such as the Burdekin in Australia (Fielding et al. 2005).
The progradation of the lobe was by successive bar accretion along the
delta slope following the paleocurrent direction (with mean direction of
171u), but it was occasionally reworked by tidal currents on the eastern
portion of the lobe, resulting in a greater proportion of tide-influenced
facies farther basinward (Lee et al. in press); this is consistent with the
paleogeographic setting (Gani and Bhattacharya 2007). As the offlapping
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT
bar complexes successively prograded, river floods are interpreted to have
intermittently caused the foreset beds of the bars to be scoured, resulting
in channels along the delta slopes. During the second phase, younger
sediments were deposited onto the previously abandoned lobe (all units in
Raptor 1 and the lower unit in Raptor 2), forming a bar complex on the
delta slope. The new delta lobe (the upper unit in Raptor 2) prograded
about 10u oblique to the west (, 181u), eroding the distal part of the old
lobe (the lower unit in Raptor 2). The new lobe continued to expand
seaward until the subsequent regional transgressive ravinement.
COMPARISON OF FACIES ARCHITECTURE
In this section, we compare the bar deposits in two separate delta
deposits within the same parasequence (PS 6 in Fig. 2) (Murphy Creek
and Raptor Ridge) to infer changes in the seaward migration patterns in
response to a relative sea-level fall, using the criteria proposed by
Posamentier and Morris (2000) (Fig. 18). We assume that the two deltaic
environments were built by the same river during a quasi-continuous
progradation event. The architectural information from the Murphy
Creek site used in this study is described by Lee et al. (2005).
The Murphy Creek site is about 30 km northeast of the Raptor Ridge
site (Figs. 1, 2), and is interpreted as a considerably more river-dominated
lowstand delta than at Raptor Ridge. Despite these differences, the
Murphy Creek and Raptor Ridge sandstones both contain top-eroded,
319
FIG. 17.— A) A 3-D GPR interpreted volume
of Raptor 2 and B) vertically separated eight 3-D
facies architectural elements within Part A. Dip-
direction measurements conducted on the
bounding surfaces between the bar deposits in
the lower unit are indicated in the circle in Part
A. The truncated bars are expected to look like
the more complete one labeled R2MB3, if they
were sampled more completely. Vertical exag-
geration is 330.
sharp-based, coarsening-upward, seaward-dipping foreset beds that
downlap onto prodelta muds. Radiating paleocurrents are present at
both sites. The average progradation directions of the delta lobes are 124u
(in Murphy Creek) and 171u (in Raptor Ridge) (Fig. 19). The top
truncation of the bar deposits is attributed to fluvial processes (during
regression) followed by marine processes (during transgression) (Bhatta-
charya and Willis 2001). The regression and transgression produced an
erosional bounding surface that caps the two truncated deltaic deposits,
but it is uncertain whether the upper bounding surface was dipping
seaward. Figure 20 shows the present Raptor Ridge sand-isolith contours
determined from both surface and subsurface data; the 3-D geometry of
the sandbody is visible and consistent with the paleocurrents (after Gani
and Bhattacharya 2007).
The average grain size (fine sand) and exposure height (, 10 m) of the
two deltaic sandstones are similar, but the thicknesses of the identified
mud layers at the two sites are different; the Raptor Ridge site contains
a higher ratio of sand to mud. The Murphy Creek site shows a clearly
exposed prodelta mud layer that is thicker (up to 5 m) than the Raptor
Ridge site (less than 2 m) (Gani and Bhattacharya 2007). There is also
a difference in erosion between the two upward-coarsening deltaic
successions. The bar deposits at Murphy Creek consist mainly of
sediment-gravity-flow successions deposited onto the distal part of the
delta front; these deposits are believed to be eroded down to half
(, 12 m) of their pre-erosion height. Raptor Ridge contains well-
320 K. LEE ET AL.
FIG. 18.— A schematic plan-view map illustrating the inferred development of
the Raptor Ridge during the Late Cretaceous. A) The period of progradation of
a delta lobe fed by river-borne sediments from the north before it was abandoned;
B) the period of expansion of a new lobe overlying the abandoned (dashed
lines) lobe.
developed tidal bars and subaqueous channels, and it is estimated that
there has been significantly less top erosion (Fig. 18B and Gani and
Bhattacharya 2007).
The lack of well-developed channels, or of paralic coastal-plain facies,
at the Murphy Creek site is attributed to little lowstand subaerial
accommodation, suggesting that deposition was associated with a negative
shoreline trajectory, typical of forced regressions (Posamentier et al. 1992;
Helland-Hansen and Martinsen 1996) whereas the Raptor Ridge site has
preserved delta-front channels, implying a shallower-water deltaic
succession. While no tidal evidence is found in the older river-dominated
delta front at the Murphy Creek site, the younger delta-front sandstones
at the Raptor Ridge site contain distinct tidal features such as
herringbone cross-bedding and double mud drapes (in Facies 5b,
Fig. 6). The observation of the two river-influenced exposures suggests
that tidal influence increases basinward in shallower water during the
JSR
relative sea-level fall. This is consistent with the model of Porebski and
Steel (2005).
The top-truncated lowstand shingles within PS 6 show that the
sediment bodies at Murphy Creek and Raptor Ridge in the Wall Creek
Member are separated by prodeltaic muds several hundred meters in
lateral extent (Fig. 2). The mudstone intervals are consistent with bypass
zones between earlier and later deposits associated with sea-level fall, at
the Murphy Creek and the Raptor Ridge sites, respectively, providing
a regionally consistent context for a forced regression (Posamentier and
Morris 2000).
The GPR-driven facies architectures at both sites suggest that deltas
become increasingly complicated internally in the seaward direction. The
Murphy Creek GPR data (Lee et al. 2005) show bar deposits with
relatively simple architectural geometry; dip-direction GPR profiles show
that the uniformly defined foreset beds and the corresponding reflections
along depositional strike are subparallel to moderately wavy. This
contrasts with the Raptor Ridge GPR profiles, which show relatively
complicated reflection patterns caused by tides and channels (and thus, is
a mixed-influenced delta environment).
The lack of paralic facies, tidal influence, the thinness of the
successions, the substantial top truncation, and the observation of thin
to sharp transitions between the prodelta mudstones and delta-front
sandstones suggest that delta-front mouth bars at both Murphy Creek
and Raptor Ridge sites were deposited in a forced-regressive to lowstand
setting during a relative sea-level fall to form a seaward-expanding
accretionary prism (Helland-Hansen and Martinsen 1996), followed by
erosion of topsets and feeder systems by ravinement during subsequent
transgression (Posamentier and Morris 2000).
Varying amounts of top truncation, which appear to decrease
basinward, result in greater facies architectural complexity in the better
preserved basin-distal sandstones, and are interpreted to have been
deposited shortly before the transgressive turnaround. Similar trends in
preservation have been documented in Quaternary forced-regressive and
lowstand shelf edge deltas in the Lagniappe delta in the Gulf of Mexico
(Roberts et al. 2005) and in the Mahakham delta in Kalimantan (Roberts
and Sydow 2003), although continental shelf-edge deltas typically show
much greater development of growth faults and shelf failure than the
ramp-type setting that characterized the Cretaceous Interior Seaway of
North America. Our study also shows that the most distal shingle within
the parasequence contains significant tidal effects near the maximum
lowstand. This challenges the general notion that tidal deposits are
formed primarily within the transgressive or highstand systems tract.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Detailed facies analysis and 10 cores drilled in Upper Cretaceous
deltaic sandstones at Raptor Ridge in the Frontier Formation,
Wyoming, indicate that the delta-front sediments were deposited in
a tide-influenced river delta. Interpretation of the 2-D GPR
reflection data shows a depositional transition of the top-eroded
lowstand delta front, from a tide-influenced, into a tide- and wave-
influenced river delta, despite the short distance between the two
GPR survey grids (Raptor 1 and 2). The lowstand history of this
deltaic system can be a useful analog in interpretation of other
ancient successions deposited under similar paleogeographic con-
ditions.
2. The mixed-influenced delta front at Raptor Ridge is composed of
three main GPR-derived facies elements. Distal bars are character-
ized by seaward-dipping (foreset) beds. Proximal bars are charac-
terized by thicker, low-angle foreset beds. The distal bar deposits
are interrupted by a subhorizontal radar facies that is interpreted as
tidally modulated bars, and shallow delta-slope channels charac-
terized by landward (northwest) dipping accretionary reflections.
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT
3. Mouth bars show length-to-width ratios of less than 1, whereas the
channel deposits show ratios greater than 1, although we do not
have enough completely constrained architectural elements to make
a meaningful statistical comparison.
4. The GPR interpretation shows two laterally overlapping delta
lobes, interpreted to represent autocyclic delta switching. The older
lower lobe forms a fan-shaped delta lobe composed of top-
truncated coalesced mouth bars. The second phase of bars is
largely top-preserved, building over the older bars. The presence of
thicker bedsets and upstream accretion suggests that this younger
lobe was quickly abandoned, as seen in the overlying transgressive
ravinement. Transgressive erosion was less effective on these later-
stage bar deposits but increases landward.
321
FIG. 19.— Schematic depiction of A) inter-
preted forced regression in the deltaic sandstones
in the Wall Creek in response to a relative sea-
level fall. Modified after Posamentier and Morris
(2000). B) A comparison of upper bounding
surface between the two representative mouth-
bar deposits at Murphy Creek and at Raptor
Ridge. Modified after Lee et al. (2005).
5. An architectural comparison in outcrop observations and GPR
interpretation, between the bar deposits in the successions at the
more regional scale at two separate sites (Murphy Creek and
Raptor Ridge, , 30 km apart) within the same offlapping
parasequence, indicates that the bar complexes were deposited on
the delta fronts as accretionary forced-regressive deposits during
a relative sea-level fall. The older, river-dominated deltaic deposits
in the Murphy Creek sandstones, prograded southeastward
(, 124u), whereas the younger, mixed-influenced delta lobe in the
Raptor Ridge sandstones expanded southward (, 171u).
6. The degree of top truncation decreases basinward, resulting in
greater facies architectural complexity in the better-preserved basin
distal sandstones. The most distal lowstand lobe sediments within
FIG. 20.— Sandstone isolith map of the
topmost Wall Creek parasequence (PS 6),
showing a geometry that is elongated parallel to
the paleoshore. The paleocurrent rose diagram
(in the circle) contains measurements only from
the outcrop data. Contours are in meters.
Modified after Gani and Bhattacharya (2007).
322 K. LEE ET AL.
the parasequence show the greatest tidal influence, challenging the
notion that tidal facies are associated predominantly with the
transgressive or highstand systems tracts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research is funded by the Department of Energy under contract
DEFG0301-ER15166 with supplementary support from the Petroleum
Research Fund of the American Chemical Society, ACS-PRF Grant
No. 35855-AC8, and BP and Chevron, who sponsored of the UTD
Quantitative Sedimentology Consortium. Winpics (Divestco, Inc.) and Gocad
(Earth Decision Sciences) software were used for 3-D GPR interpretation and
the corresponding visualization of the solid model, respectively. We are
indebted to reviewers James MacEachern, Lee Krystinik, and Chris Fielding
for their critical reviews which helped to greatly improve the manuscript. This
paper is Contribution No. 1099 from the Department of Geosciences at the
University of Texas at Dallas.
REFERENCES
ALLEN, J.R.L., 1983, Studies in fluviatile sedimentation: bars, bar complexes and
sandstone sheets (low-sinuosity braided streams) in the Brownstones (L. Devonian),
Welsh Borders: Sedimentary Geology, v. 33, p. 237–293.
ANDERSON, J.B., AND FILLON, R.H., 2004, Late Quaternary Stratigraphic Evolution of
the Northern Gulf of Mexico: SEPM, Special Publication 79, 311 p.
ANDERSON, P.B., CHIDSEY, T.C, JR, RYER, T.A., ADAMS, R.D., AND MCLURE, K., 2004,
Geologic Framework, facies, paleogeography, and reservoir analogs of the Ferron
Sandstone in the Ivie Creek area, east-central Utah, in Chidsey, T.C, JR, Adams,
R.D., and Morris, T.H., eds., The Fluvial–Deltaic Ferron Sandstone: Regional to
Wellbore-Scale Outcrop Analog Studies and Application to Reservoir Modeling:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 50, p. 331–356.
BART, P.J., AND ANDERSON, J.B., 2004, Late Quaternary stratigraphic evolution of the
Alabama–west Florida outer continental shelf, in Anderson, J.B., and Fillon, R.H.,
eds., Late Quaternary Stratigraphic Evolution of the Northern Gulf of Mexico
Margin: SEPM, Special Publication 79, p. 43–53.
BARTON, M.D., ANGLE, E.S., AND TYLER, N., 2004, Stratigraphic architecture of fluvial–
deltaic sandstones from the Ferron Sandstone outcrop, east-central Utah, in Chidsey,
T.C, JR, Adams, R.D., and Morris, T.H., eds., The Fluvial–Deltaic Ferron Sandstone:
Regional to Wellbore-Scale Outcrop Analog Studies and Application to Reservoir
Modeling: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 50, p.
193–210.
BERES, M., AND HAENI, F.P., 1991, Applications of ground-penetrating-radar methods in
hydrogeologic studies: Ground Water, v. 29, p. 375–386.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 1993, The expression and interpretation of marine flooding
surfaces and erosional surfaces in core: examples from the Upper Cretaceous
Dunvegan Formation in the Alberta foreland basin, in Summerhayes, C.P., and
Posamentier, H.W., eds., Sequence Stratigraphy and Facies Associations: Interna-
tional Association of Sedimentologists, Special Publication 18, p. 125–160.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2006, Deltas, in Walker, R.G., and Posamentier, H., eds., Facies
Models Revisited: SEPM, Special Publication 84, p. 237–292.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND DAVIES, R.K., 2004, Sedimentology and structure of growth
faults at the base of the Ferron Member along Muddy Creek, Utah, in Chidsey, T.C,
JR, Adams, R.D., and Morris, T.H., eds., The Fluvial–Deltaic Ferron Sandstone:
Regional-to-Wellbore-Scale Outcrop Analog Studies and Applications to Reservoir
Modeling, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 50, p.
279–304.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND GIOSAN, L., 2003, Wave-influenced deltas: geomorphological
implications for facies reconstruction: Sedimentology, v. 50, p. 187–210.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND WALKER, R.G., 1992, Deltas, in Walker, R.G., and James,
N.P., eds., Facies Models: Response to Sea Level Change: St. John’s, Newfoundland,
Geological Association of Canada, p. 157–177.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND WILLIS, B.J., 2001, Lowstand deltas in the Frontier
Formation, Power River basin, Wyoming: implications for sequence stratigraphic
models: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 85, p. 261–294.
BRIDGE, J.S., 2006, Fluvial facies models: Recent Developments, in Posamentier, H.W.,
and Walker, R.G., eds., Facies Models Revisited: SEPM, Special Publication 84, p.
83–168.
BROOKFIELD, M.E., 1977, The origin of bounding surfaces in ancient aeolian sandstone:
Sedimentology, v. 24, p. 303–332.
COLEMAN, J.M., AND PRIOR, D.B., 1980, Deltaic Sand Bodies: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Short Course Note Series 15, 171 p.
COLEMAN, J.M., GAGLIANO, S.M., AND WEBB, J.E., 1964, Minor sedimentary structures
in a prograding distributary: Marine Geology, v. 1, p. 240–258.
DUNCAN, E.A., 1983, Delineation of delta types: Norias delta system, Frio Formation,
South Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Transactions, v. 33, p.
269–273.
JSR
EPILI, D., AND MCMECHAN, G.A., 1996, Implementation of 3-D prestack-Kirchhoff
migration, with application to data from the Ouachita frontal thrust zone:
Geophysics, v. 61, p. 1400–1411.
FIELDING, C., TRUEMAN, J., AND ALEXANDER, J., 2005, Sharp-based, flood-dominated
mouth bar sands from the Burdekin River Delta of northeastern Australia: extending
the spectrum of mouth-bar facies, geometry, and stacking patterns: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 75, p. 55–66.
FLOCKS, J.G., FERINA, N.F., DREHER, C., KINDINGER, J.L., FITZGERALD, D.M., AND
KULP, M.A., 2006, High-resolution stratigraphy of Mississippi subdelta-lobe
progradation in the Barataria Bight, north-central Gulf of Mexico: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 75, p. 429–443.
GALLOWAY, W.E., AND HOBDAY, D.K., 1996. Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Systems,
Second Edition: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 489 p.
GANI, M.R., 2005. 3-D facies architecture of river deltas: lessons from the Turonian
Wall Creek Member, central Wyoming, U.S.A. [Ph.D. dissertation]: University of
Texas at Dallas, 148 p.
GANI, M.R., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2007, Basic building blocks and process
variability of a Cretaceous delta: internal facies architecture reveals a more dynamic
interaction of river, wave, and tidal processes than is indicated by external shape:
Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 77, p. 284–302.
GANI, M.R., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND MACEACHERN, J.A., in press, Using ichnology to
determine relative influence of waves, storms, tides and rivers in deltaic deposits:
examples from Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway, U.S.A, in MacEachern, J.A.,
Bann, K.L., Gingras, M.K., and Pemberton, S.G., eds., Applied Ichnology: SEPM,
Core Workshop Volume.
GARRISON, J.R., AND VAN DEN BERGH, T.C.V., 2004, High-resolution depositional
sequence stratigraphy of the upper Ferron Sandstone Last Chance Delta: an
application of coal-zone stratigraphy (in regional to wellbore analog for fluvial–
deltaic reservoir modeling; the Ferron Sandstone of Utah): American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 50, p. 125–192.
GIBLING, M.R., 2006, Width and thickness of fluvial channel bodies and valley fills in
the geological record: a literature compilation and classification: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 76, p. 731–770.
GAWTHORPE, R.L., COLLIER, R.E., ALEXANDER, J., LEEDER, M., AND BRIDGE, J.S., 1993,
Ground penetrating radar: application to sandbody geometry and heterogeneity
studies, in North, C.P., and Prosser, D.J., eds., Characterisation of Fluvial and
Aeolian Reservoirs: Geological Society of London, Special Publication 73, p.
421–432.
HART, B.S., AND LONG, B.F., 1996, Forced regressions and lowstand deltas: Holocene
Canadian examples: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 66, p. 820–829.
HELLAND-HANSEN, W., AND MARTINSEN, O., 1996, Shoreline trajectories and sequences:
description of variable depositional-dip scenarios: Journal of Sedimentary Research,
v. 66, p. 670–688.
HISCOTT, R.N., 2003, Latest Quaternary Baram prodelta, northwestern Borneo, in Sidi,
F.H., Nummedal, D., Imbert, P., Darman, H., and Posamentier, H.W., eds., Tropical
Deltas of Southeast Asia; Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, and Petroleum Geology:
SEPM, Special Publication 76, p. 89–107.
HOWELL, C.D., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2004, Geology and stratigraphic architecture
of the Upper Cretaceous Wall Creek Member, Frontier Formation, Powder River
Basin, Wyoming: an outcrop analog for top-truncated mixed-influenced lowstand
deltas (abstract): American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Annual Convention,
Abstract Volume, 67 p.
HOWELL, C.D., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., ROBINSON, A.B., AND GRIFFIN, W.R., 2003,
Topographically controlled, mixed-influence top-truncated deltas: Turonian Wall
Creek Member, Frontier Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming, U.S.A
(abstract): American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Annual Convention,
Abstract Volume, 81 p.
JACKSON, R.G, II, 1975, Hierarchical attributes and a unifying model of bedforms
composed of cohesionless material and produced by shearing flow: Geological Society
of America, Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1523–1533.
JOHNSON, C.L., AND GRAHAM, S.A., 2004, Sedimentology and reservoir architecture of
a synrift lacustrine delta, southeastern Mongolia: Journal of Sedimentary Research,
v. 74, p. 770–785.
JOL, H.M., AND SMITH, D.G., 1991, Ground penetrating radar of northern lacustrine
deltas: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 28, p. 1939–1947.
LEE, K., ZENG, X., MCMECHAN, G.A., HOWELL, C.D., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., MARCY, F.,
AND OLARIU, C., 2005, A GPR survey of a delta-front reservoir analog in the Wall
Creek Member, Frontier Formation, Wyoming: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Bulletin, v. 89, p. 1139–1155.
LEE, K., GANI, R.M., MCMECHAN, G.A., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., NYMAN, S.L., AND ZENG,
X., in press, Three-dimensional facies architecture and three-dimensional calcite
concretion distributions in a tide-influenced delta front, Wall Creek Member, Frontier
Formation, Wyoming: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin..
MACEACHERN, J.A., BANN, K.L., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND HOWELL, C.D., 2005,
Ichnology of deltas: organism responses to the dynamic interplay of rivers, waves,
storms, and tides, in Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River Deltas: Concepts,
Models, and Examples: SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 49–85.
MATTSON, A., AND CHAN, M.A., 2004, Facies and permeability relationships for wave-
modified and fluvial-dominated deposits for the Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone, central
Utah, in Chidsey, T.C, JR, Adams, R.D., and Morris, T.H., eds., The Fluvial–Deltaic
Ferron Sandstone: Regional to Wellbore-Scale Outcrop Analog Studies and
Applications to Reservoir Modeling: American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Studies in Geology 50, p. 251–275.
JSR TOP-TRUNCATED, MIXED-INFLUENCED DELTA FRONT
MIALL, A.D., 1985, Architectural-element analysis: a new method of facies analysis
applied to fluvial deposits: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 22, p. 261–308.
MIALL, A.D., 1996. The Geology of Fluvial Deposits: Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 582 p.
MITCHUM, R.M, JR, VAIL, P.R., AND SANGREE, J.B., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and
global changes of sea levels, part 6: Stratigraphic interpretation of seismic reflection
patterns in depositional sequences, in Payton, C.E., ed., Seismic Stratigraphy—
Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Memoir 26, p. 117–133.
MOUNTNEY, N.P., 2006, Periodic accumulation and destruction of aeolian erg sequences
in the Permian Cedar Mesa Sandstone, White Canyon, southern Utah, U.S.A.:
Sedimentology, v. 53, p. 789–823.
OLARIU, C., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2006, Terminal distributary channels of fluvial
dominated delta systems: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 76, p. 212–233.
PLINK-BJÖRKLUND, P., AND STEEL, R., 2005, Deltas on falling-stage and lowstand shelf
margins, the Eocene Central Basin of Spitsbergen: importance of sediment supply, in
Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River Deltas: Concepts, Models and
Examples: SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 179–206.
PLINT, A.G., 2000, Sequence stratigraphy and paleogeography of a Cenomanian deltaic
complex: the Dunvegan and lower Kaskapau formations in subsurface and outcrop,
Alberta and British Columbia, Canada: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,
v. 48, p. 43–79.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND MORRIS, W.R., 2000, Aspects of the stratal architecture of
forced regressive deposits, in Hunt, D., and Gawthorpe, R.L., eds., Sedimentary
Responses to Forced Regressions: Geological Society of London, Special Publication
172, p. 19–46.
POSAMENTIER, H., and WALKER, R.G., eds., Facies Models Revisited, SEPM, Special
Publication 85.
POSAMENTIER, H.W., ALLEN, G.P., JAMES, D.P., AND TESSON, M., 1992, Forced
regressions in a sequence stratigraphic framework: concepts, examples, and
exploration significance: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin,
v. 76, p. 1687–1709.
POREBSKI, S., AND STEEL, R., 2005, Deltas and sea-level change: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 76, p. 390–403.
READING, H.G., AND COLLINSON, J.D., 1996, Clastic coasts, in Reading, H.G., ed.,
Sedimentary Environments: Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy, Third edition:
Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Science, p. 154–231.
REYNOLDS, A.D., 1999, Dimensions of paralic sandstone bodies: American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 83, p. 211–229.
ROBERTS, H.H., AND SYDOW, J., 2003, Late Quaternary stratigraphy and sedimentology
of the offshore Mahakam delta, east Kalimantan (Indonesia), in Sidi, F.H.,
Nummedal, D., Imbert, P., Darman, H., and Posamentier, H.W., eds., Tropical
Deltas of Southeast Asia; Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, and Petroleum Geology:
SEPM, Special Publication 76, p. 125–145.
323
ROBERTS, H.H., FILLON, R.H., KOHL, B., ROBALIN, J.M., AND SYDOW, J.C., 2005,
Depositional architecture of the Lagniappe Delta: sediment characteristics, timing of
depositional events, and temporal relationship with adjacent shelf-edge deltas, in
Anderson, J.B., and Fillon, R.H., eds., Late Quaternary Stratigraphic Evolution of
the Northern Gulf of Mexico Margin: SEPM, Special Publication 79, p. 143–188.
RODRIGUEZ, A.B., HAMILTON, M.D., AND ANDERSON, J.B., 2000, Facies and evolution of
the modern Brazos delta, Texas: wave versus flood influence: Journal of
Sedimentology, v. 70, p. 283–295.
SORIA, J.M., FERNANDEZ, J., GARCIA, F., AND VISERAS, C., 2003, Correlative lowstand
deltaic and shelf systems in the Guadix basin (late Miocene, Betic Cordillera, Spain):
the stratigraphic record of forced and normal regressions: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 73, p. 912–925.
SUTER, J.R., 2006, Facies models revisited: clastic shelves, in Walker, R.G., and
Posamentier, H., eds., Facies Models Revisited: SEPM, Special Publication 84, p.
337–395.
SUTER, J.R., AND BERRYHILL, H.L, JR, 1985, Late Quaternary shelf-margin deltas,
Northwest Gulf of Mexico: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin,
v. 69, p. 77–91.
SYDOW, J., AND ROBERTS, H.H., 1994, Stratigraphic framework of a late Pleistocene
shelf-edge delta, northeast Gulf of Mexico: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Bulletin, v. 78, p. 1276–1312.
TESSON, M., GENSOUS, B., ALLEN, G.P., AND RAVENE, C., 1990, Late Quaternary deltaic
lowstand wedges on the Rhone continental shelf, France: Marine Geology, v. 91, p.
325–332.
VAN HEERDEN, I.L., AND ROBERTS, H.H., 1988, Facies development of Atchafalaya Delta,
Louisiana: a modern bayhead delta: American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Bulletin, v. 72, p. 439–453.
WILLIS, B.J., 2005, Deposits of tide-influenced river deltas, in Giosan, L., and
Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River Deltas: Concepts, Models, and Examples: SEPM,
Special Publication 83, p. 87–132.
WILLIS, B.J., AND GABEL, S.L., 2001, Sharp-based tide-dominated deltas of the Sego
Sandstone, Book Cliffs, Utah, USA: Sedimentology, v. 48, p. 479–506.
WILLIS, B.J., AND GABEL, S.L., 2003, Formation of deep incisions into tide-dominated
river deltas: implications for the stratigraphy of the Sego Sandstone, Book Cliffs,
Utah, U.S.A.: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 73, p. 246–263.
WILLIS, B.J., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., GABEL, S.L., AND WHITE, C.D., 1999, Architecture of
a tide-influenced delta in the Frontier Formation of Central Wyoming, USA:
Sedimentology, v. 46, p. 667–688.
WINN, R.D., 1991, Storm deposition in marine sand sheets: Wall Creek Member,
Frontier Formation, Power River basin, Wyoming: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology,
v. 61, p. 86–101.
Received 5 October 2005; accepted 2 December 2006.