Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2007, v.

77, 284–302
Research Article
DOI: 10.2110/jsr.2007.023

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

M. ROYHAN GANI* AND JANOK P. BHATTACHARYA{

Geosciences Department, University of Texas at Dallas, P.O. Box 830688, Richardson, Texas 75083-0688, U.S.A.
e-mail: rgani@egi.utah.edu

ABSTRACT: Although delta-building processes and the resultant facies and facies associations have been studied for over
a century, there remains a lack of well-documented facies architectural studies of ancient deltas. In this study, architectural-
element analysis is applied to determine the basic building blocks of a Cretaceous delta at the top of the upper Turonian Wall
Creek Member exposed along the western flanks of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. We document the bed-scale basic
building blocks of this ancient delta, and show them in the context of their facies and stratal variability, and their hierarchical
spatial arrangement within a single deltaic parasequence. We also test the idea that external sand-body shape may not reflect
the internal facies complexity, as has recently been suggested in studies of several modern deltas, including the Burdekin in
Australia, the Brazos in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Baram–Trusan in Borneo.
Five orders of bounding surfaces separate six facies architectural elements in the prodelta and delta front deposits. These
elements are prodelta fines (PF), frontal splay (FS), channel (CH), storm sheet (SS), tidally modulated deposit (TM), and bar
accretion (BA). Seasonal to decadal river floods are thought to represent the main building phases of the delta, producing
channels, bars, and frontal splay elements. During intervening periods, the delta was reworked by waves, storms, and tides,
producing tidally modulated and storm sheet elements. Due to the complex interactions of river effluents with waves, storms and
tides, the delta is interpreted as mixed-influenced. Regional sandstone isolith, facies, and paleocurrent maps help to reconstruct
the paleogeography and show how the various architectural elements varied across the delta front. The channels, bars, frontal
splays, and tidally modulated elements are found only near the distributary mouth, whereas the storm sheets occur extensively
away from the distributary mouth.
The plan-view morphology of the studied delta shows a smooth-fronted, arcuate to cuspate shape, which should indicate wave
dominance. In contrast, our analysis of the internal facies architecture shows that the delta was constructed rapidly during
major river floods with significant tidal reworking. Additional outcrop mapping shows that storm-wave-reworked sands are
attached to the flanks of the system. Previously published delta models predict incorrectly that the tidal reworking of a river-
flood dominated system should result in a more bird-foot shape versus the lobate geometry that is actually mapped. Our
analysis of internal facies versus external shape matches similar observations on several modern deltas and suggests that
external shape is a poor indicator of internal facies complexity.

INTRODUCTION
Plan-View Morphology vs. Internal Facies Architecture of Deltas
The still popular tripartite classification of deltas into wave-, tide-, and
river-dominated end members (Galloway 1975) was based largely on
knowledge about the present-day fluvial, wave, and tidal regime as well as
the variable plan-view shape of the deltas as observed from air photos or
coastline maps (Coleman and Wright 1975). Although the process-based
tripartite classification of deltas (Galloway 1975) has been extended to
include change of relative sea level (Dalrymple et al. 1992) and variability of
grain size (Orton and Reading 1993), only very limited information about
* Present address: Energy & Geoscience Institute (EGI), University of Utah,
423 Wakara Way, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, U.S.A.
{ Present address: Department of Geosciences, University of Houston, 312,
Science and Research 1, 4800 Calhoun Road, Houston, Texas 77204-5007, U.S.A.
facies variability was available, primarily from scattered cores or surface
distribution of the modern sediments, in developing these models. As
a consequence, there remain almost no studies of modern delta systems that
show how internal facies vary laterally (Hori et al. 2002; Ta et al. 2005) and
none that document the bed-scale facies architecture (Gani and Bhatta-
charya 2005a). Although there have been numerous seismic examples from
Quaternary systems that show bed-scale architecture, these generally lack
core data, and facies and lithologic variability are thus difficult to address
(e.g., Suter and Berryhill 1985; Sydow and Roberts 1994; Hart and Long
1996; Hiscott 2003; Roberts and Sydow 2003; Anderson and Fillon 2004;
Sidi et al. 2004; Cattaneo et al 2003; Correggiari et al 2005). In addition,
most other subsurface and outcrop studies emphasize the more regional-
scale sequence stratigraphy, as opposed to the internal facies architecture
(e.g., Bhattacharya and Walker 1991; Plint 2000; Bhattacharya and Willis
2001; Willis and Gabel 2001; Porebski and Steel 2003; Plink-Björklund and
Steel 2005). Examples of lacustrine deltas studied with ground penetrating

Copyright E 2007, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/07/077-284/$03.00

JSR BUILDING BLOCKS AND PROCESS VARIABILITY OF A DELTA
radar reveal bed-scale geometry but also lack core and facies calibration
and are not applicable to marine systems affected by tides (Jol and Smith
1991; Smith et al. 2005).
In subsurface analysis of ancient systems the shape of deltaic sand
bodies is routinely mapped using well logs (e.g., Fisher et al. 1969; Busch
1971; Duncan 1983; Bhattacharya and Walker 1991; Maguregui and
Tyler 1991; Bhattacharya and Willis 2001), but core data (which give key
facies information) may be limited in availability. A basic assumption in
applying models of modern deltas to such ancient systems is that the
external plan-view morphology faithfully reflects the internal framework
facies (Galloway 1975). The inverse is also true. In basins with very
limited well control and a few cores, or where only outcrop are available,
facies composition might be used to predict sand-body geometry away
from control points.
Recent facies-oriented studies of several modern deltas have challenged
the long-held assumption that external shape predicts internal facies. The
modern Brazos and Burdekin deltas, for example, show smooth-fronted
plan-view shapes, traditionally classified as wave-dominated end mem-
bers, but recent detailed internal facies analyses of these deltas (Rodriguez
et al. 2000; Fielding et al. 2005) suggest a dominance of river processes.
On the other hand, the modern Baram and Trusan delta in NW Borneo
shows wave-dominated and river-dominated shoreline geometry, re-
spectively, but both are characterized by tide-dominated internal facies
distribution (Lambiase et al. 2003). Clearly what is needed are more
studies of systems that allow integration of internal bed-scale facies
architecture with plan-view morphology.
Outcrops of deltaic deposits in the Wall Creek Member of Wyoming
provide such an opportunity. The outcrops are exposed on the well-
drilled flanks of the adjacent Powder River Basin. The arid climate
affords superb cliff exposures through these systems, allowing detailed
mapping of facies architecture and lateral facies variability. In addition,
adjacent well logs allow us to constrain the 3D geometry of the sediment
body and then to compare internal facies variability with external
morphology in much greater detail than can be achieved by looking at
a modern system. The goal of our research is thus to integrate the study of
the internal process sedimentology with architectural-element analysis
placed in the broader context of overall delta morphology.
Concept of Facies Architecture
Stratigraphic architecture describes the stacking patterns of strati-
graphic units at the regional scale (e.g., sequence stratigraphy), whereas
facies architecture focuses on the stacking patterns of facies units within
a depositional system at a local scale (e.g., architectural-element analysis).
The concept of facies architecture and architectural-element analysis was
originally developed for fluvial and eolian rocks (Jackson 1975;
Brookfield 1977; Allen 1983; Miall 1985, 1996). The internal architecture
of fluvial (e.g., Miall 1996; Bridge 2003) and deep-marine (e.g., Bouma
and Stone 2000; Mutti et al. 2003) deposits have been studied far more
extensively than their deltaic and shallow marine counterparts. The
architectural-element models of fluvial (e.g., Miall 1985, 1996) and
deepwater (e.g., Ghosh and Lowe 1993; Pickering et al. 1995) depositional
systems are also well established. On the other hand, although general
facies and facies associations of deltas have been summarized (Postma
1990; Bhattacharya and Walker 1992; Reading and Collinson 1996),
detailed facies architectural studies of deltaic deposits in outcrops are few
(Willis et al. 1999; Mellere et al. 2002; Anderson et al. 2004; Johnson and
Graham 2004; Olariu et al. 2005; Plink-Björklund and Steel 2005). Deltaic
depositional systems show greater facies architectural complexity and
process variability than fluvial and marine depositional systems, because
deltas mark the crucial link between the latter two depositional systems.
The present study is the first of its kind to propose an architectural-
element model for open-marine deltaic deposits in an outcrop.
285
Architectural elements are the 3D building blocks of a depositional
system. These architectural elements commonly represent a, or part of a,
morphological element. In modern depositional environments important
sandy morphological elements include channels, bars, large bedwaves,
and splays. These morphological elements migrate and/or grow to
produce architectural elements in the rock record. The 3D shape of
a morphological element could be significantly different than that of
a corresponding architectural element, and depends on how a morpho-
logical element evolves, deposits, and is modified through time. For
example, migrating hummocky bedwaves may produce a storm sheet
sand. In some cases morphological elements may be preserved in the rock
record. Although architectural elements can vary in type from one system
(e.g., delta) to another (e.g., fluvial), or even within the same system in
time and space, there should be a finite number of architectural-element
types in any given depositional system. How far a given deposit should be
broken down in terms of facies architectural elements involves a balance
of how thoroughly but meaningfully the architecture of a deposit can be
described. Building blocks (architectural elements) bind with each other
in 3D space via bounding surfaces. Permutation and combination (both
linear and non-linear) of building-blocks can give rise to an entire
depositional system.
Elucidation of architectural elements in shallow marine and deltaic
systems is important for several reasons, first, architectural elements link
to specific morphometric features, such as bedwaves, mouth bars, and
channels, which typically scale to a specific aspect of flow conditions and
are thus potentially useful in hydrodynamic analysis (e.g., Bhattacharya
and Tye 2004; Willis 2005). This may be critical in developing more
quantitative measures of the controlling parameters in predicting delta
morphology and growth, which historically emphasizes in a qualitative
way the degree of fluvial versus wave and tidal influence, among other
factors. Second, surface-bounded geobodies, and specifically architectural
elements, are the building blocks routinely used in reservoir and aquifer
characterization and fluid-flow modeling (Reynolds 1999; Tye 2004).
Thirdly, surface-bounded, bed-scale architecture provides a fundamental-
ly different view of how subsurface facies should be correlated, as is
described in detail by Gani and Bhattacharya (2005a), versus the layer-
cake correlations that are typically presented in evaluation of many
modern delta systems. The architectural-element approach has been
enormously useful in the analysis of fluvial and deepwater deposits
(Posamentier and Walker 2006) but remains nascent with respect to
application to shallow marine and deltaic systems, and we believe that
this stems from a lack of well studied examples and models.
Objectives of This Study
The objectives of this paper are to identify the basic architectural
elements (building blocks) and bounding-surface hierarchies in an ancient
delta; to examine the relationship between external geometry and internal
facies composition by reconstructing the paleogeography of this delta;
and to compare it with modern deltas to understand the process
variability. The availability of subsurface data adjacent to the outcrops
as well as multidirectional cliff exposures led us to focus on the Wall
Creek Member of the Frontier Formation (Late Cretaceous) in central
Wyoming (Figs. 1, 2).
A companion study (Lee et al. 2007, this issue) used 2D and 3D ground
penetrating radar to investigate the 3D geometry of the bar and channel
elements described in greater sedimentological detail in this paper.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway (WIS) stretched roughly
north–south across central North America, and developed as part of an
eastward migrating and asymmetric retroarc foreland basin lying between
286 M.R. GANI AND J.P. BHATTACHARYA JSR

FIG. 1.— A) Cretaceous paleogeography of the Western Interior Seaway during the middle Turonian. During this time the Wall Creek Member was deposited in
a foreland basin sourced from the Sevier belt in the west (modified from Bhattacharya and Willis 2001, and others). B) Location map showing the positions of outcrop
and subsurface data, and the Wall Creek outcrop belt at the western margin of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. The present study focuses at Raptor Ridge. C) Raptor
Ridge site, showing the studied cliff sections and well locations behind the cliffs. Note the position of Figures 2B, 5A, B, C, D, and 6.
JSR BUILDING BLOCKS AND PROCESS VARIABILITY OF A DELTA 287

FIG. 2.—A) Cretaceous stratigraphy of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming (modified from Willis et al. 1999). B) Outcrop type section of the Wall Creek Member at
Raptor Ridge site, where Sandstone 7 was not deposited. For location of the sections see Figure 1C. This study deals with Sandstone 6. C) Lithologic and ichnologic
symbols used in logs.

the Cordilleran volcanic arc to the west and the hinterland to the east
(Fig. 1A; Lawton 1994). A pronounced and widespread Cenomanian–
Turonian transgression led to the joining of an epeiric seaway with the
Tethyan Sea towards the south (Leckie et al. 1998). The event was
followed by the deposition of a clastic wedge (the Wall Creek Member;
Fig. 2A) of Late Turonian age (Cobban 1990; Gardner 1995a, 1995b) in
a ramp setting in Wyoming. The Wall Creek Member was sourced from
an uplift in the west linked to thrusting associated with the Sevier
Orogeny (Fig. 1A), and later itself was deformed into a gently tilted series
of anticlines during the Maestrichtian–Tertiary Laramide Orogeny
288 M.R. GANI AND J.P. BHATTACHARYA
(Wiltschko and Dorr 1983; Cobban et al. 1994). Numerical paleo-
oceanographic modeling coupled with facies observations of the seaway
(Ericksen and Slingerland 1990; Slingerland et al. 1996), particularly
during the Turonian, suggests that: (1) the seaway was generally wave-
dominated with mainly southward-directed longshore drift along its
western margin; (2) both winter storms and summer storms (hurricanes)
affected the seaway in such a way that storm-driven currents were shore-
parallel, predominantly to the south, but occasionally to the north; (3)
most parts of the seaway were in a microtidal setting, but tides along the
western shores were enhanced locally.
Seven major ‘‘Sandstones’’ (informal nomenclature; Fig. 2) deposited
in shallow marine environments under cyclic regressions and transgres-
sions during lowstand have been identified in a regional subsurface
stratigraphic study of the Wall Creek Member (Sadeque et al. in press),
although several additional younger sandstones have been mapped
farther to the south and east. Each of the seven sandstones of the Wall
Creek Member shows one or more upward-coarsening facies successions,
called parasequences, bounded by a marine flooding surface commonly
marked by a chert-pebble and shark-tooth lag (Fig. 2; Gani et al. in press;
Sadeque et al. in press). The lower parasequences (Sandstones 1 to 3 and
5; Fig. 2) are present only locally and look like classic storm-wave
dominated shoreface deposits. Sandstone 4 is far more extensive, and
extends into the subsurface, but shows a rather uniform internal facies
character in outcrop. It is also interpreted as a wave-dominated shoreface
type deposit. Sandstone 6 is less extensive than Sandstone 4 but is exposed
continuously for many tens of kilometers along the outcrop belt. At
Raptor Ridge, both strike-oriented and dip-oriented exposures are
available. Sandstone 6 shows a depositional pinchout in the subsurface
but within 20 km of the outcrop belt. Reconnaissance mapping of the
unit showed it to have much greater facies variability than Sandstones 1
to 5, with indications of fluvial, tidal, and wave influence. The younger
Sandstone 7 is exposed only locally and occurs primarily in subsurface.
Although the Wall Creek Member was previously interpreted as classic
‘‘wave-dominated’’ shoreface deposits (e.g., Winn 1991), Sandstone 6
(Fig. 2B) shows varying amounts of wave, storm, tide, and river influence
as demonstrated by a ichnologically based study (Gani et al. in press).
Subaerial deposits are notably absent in these deposits because of
ravinement during repeated marine transgressions. In the Powder River
Basin, the seven sandstones of the Wall Creek Member have been
correlated regionally in outcrop and in subsurface (Lee et al. 2005;
Sadeque et al. in press).
Because much of the Cretaceous is thought to represent ice-free
greenhouse conditions, the origin of these stratigraphic cycles has
variously been attributed to Milankovitch climatic cycles (Scott et al.
1998), foreland basin tectonics related to thrust loading, forebulge
migration (Gardner 1995b; Bhattacharya and Willis 2001), or intraplate
stresses (Vakarelov et al., 2006). However, Miller et al. (2004) have
recently claimed that continental ice sheets paced sea-level changes during
the Late Cretaceous. Accordingly, the stratigraphic cycles of the
Cretaceous seaway may represent a composite in-phase and/or out-of-
phase interplay between glacio-eustatic and tectonic forcing.
Among the seven ‘‘Sandstones’’ of the Wall Creek Member, Sandstone
6 is considered to be the most representative of a delta, inasmuch as it
shows greater facies variability and architectural complexity than the
underlying wave-dominated parasequences. Sandstone 6 also crops out in
readily accessible and multidirectional cliff sections, making it suitable for
a detailed facies architectural investigation. The regional stratigraphic
sections of Lee et al. (in press) and Sadeque et al. (in press) demonstrate
that Sandstone 6 pinches out both northward and eastward, and the
availability of adjacent well logs allows us to fully constrain the shape of
the seaward margin, allowing examination of the relationship between
external morphology, as mapped using well logs, versus the internal
architecture as seen in the cliff sections.
JSR
DATA AND METHODS
A series of gullies dissect the Wall Creek outcrop belt and allow
detailed study of Sandstone 6. The strata are gently tilted southeast with
a 6u structural dip. The base of the Cody Shale (a maximum flooding
surface) was used as a datum (Fig. 2D) to map the sand bodies within the
Wall Creek Member using well logs and cores (Sadeque et al. in press). A
series of bentonite horizons both below and above the Wall Creek
Member and a conglomerate lag in the Emigrant Gap Member stand out
as regionally traceable distinct well-log signatures (Sadeque et al. in
press). In this study, gamma and resistivity logs of 28 of these exploratory
wells (Fig. 1B) were used to calculate the thickness of sandstones in
Sandstone 6. Although none of these wells has cores, the boundaries
between mudstones and sandstones were picked in the well logs at
a precision of , 1 m. Along the outcrop belt, a total of 28 outcrop logs
were measured to document grain-size variations, sedimentary structures,
ichnology, and paleocurrents. The ichnofacies approach (e.g., Pemberton
1992; Pemberton et al. 2001) is taken in grouping and interpreting
identified ichnotaxa. The bioturbation index (BI) of Taylor and Goldring
(1993) is used to semiquantitatively measure the degree of bioturbation in
the sediments (BI 0 5 0% bioturbation, BI 1 5 1% to 4% bioturbation, BI
2 5 5% to 30% bioturbation, BI 3 5 31% to 60% bioturbation, BI 4 5
61% to 90% bioturbation, BI 5 5 91% to 99% bioturbation, and BI 6 5
100% bioturbation). A portable scintillometer was used to collect gamma
ray profiles along each of the measured sections.
The concept of facies architecture and architectural-element analysis of
Jackson (1975), Brookfield (1977), Allen (1983), and Miall (1985, 1996)
was followed in this study. However, whether an established scheme of
bounding-surface hierarchies and architectural elements (e.g., Miall 1985,
1996) should be used in every facies architectural analysis is debatable
(e.g., Bridge 1993; Fielding 1993). Miall (1996) defined ‘‘architectural
elements’’ as ‘‘units enclosed by bounding surfaces of third- to fifth-order
rank.’’ However, in this study we used the term ‘‘architectural element’’ in
a more general sense defined as a single stratum or a package of strata
that can be regarded as the smallest but meaningful unit (i.e., building
blocks) enclosed by distinct, through-going surfaces of a depositional
system. Moreover, an independent scheme of ordering and numbering of
bounding surfaces was applied in this study. The principles of
superposition and crosscutting relationships were used to trace bounding
surfaces. Bounding surfaces were ranked starting with the lowest (zero)
order and systematically moving up to the highest order, following the
general rule that no surfaces truncate against surfaces of lower rank. It is
the key to produce a ‘‘complete’’ bedding diagram in order to identify
basic building blocks confidently. For example, while tracing beds it was
made sure that every bed was traced completely until it onlaps or
downlaps on and/or truncates against another bed.
In the study area, one particular ridge, here named ‘‘Raptor Ridge’’
(Fig. 1B) exposes the most complex bedding geometry and the most
diverse facies variability of Sandstone 6. At Raptor Ridge, high-
resolution (centimeter-scale) cliff maps (bedding, facies, and shale maps;
Willis et al. 1999) for both depositional dip-oriented and strike-oriented
cliff faces (Fig. 1C) were generated on photomosaic overlays in front of
the outcrop. Ten well cores were taken behind these cliffs (Fig. 1C) to link
with related studies of the ichnology (Gani et al. in press), ground-
penetrating radar, and flow-inhibiting calcite concretions (Lee et al. in
press). To reconstruct the paleogeography of Sandstone 6, paleocurrent
and facies changes were documented along the Wall Creek outcrop belt
for about 20 km around Raptor Ridge. Every measurement was plotted
on a map with the aid of a hand-held GPS receiver (5 m accuracy). The
morphological elements of the Burdekin Delta, thought to be a close
modern analog, were studied using ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer) images (with 15 m
JSR BUILDING BLOCKS AND PROCESS VARIABILITY OF A DELTA
resolution) that were digitally processed using standard remote-sensing
techniques (Jensen 1996).
SEDIMENTOLOGY
Sandstone Isolith Map
Using subsurface well logs and outcrop measured sections, a sandstone
isolith map of Sandstone 6 at Raptor Ridge was generated (Fig. 3). The
thickness data were contoured both manually and independently using an
automated contouring algorithm. In both cases, the overall shape is
similar. Figure 3 shows a representative map combining the two.
Paleocurrent data, measured from dune-scale cross-stratification, of this
study and using dipmeter data from Sadeque et al. (in press), indicate
a northeast–southwest trend of the paleo-shoreline. In Figure 3, the sand
body shows a lobate geometry with a slight shore-parallel elongation
(Fig. 3), indicating a possible deltaic origin (e.g., Coleman and Wright
1975; Bhattacharya and Walker 1992). The lithofacies, ichnology, and
bedding geometry of Sandstone 6, presented later, strongly support this
deltaic interpretation. The sand body, henceforth referred to as the
Raptor Delta, shows two distinct bulges indicating two possible sediment
input points.
Facies and Facies Architecture
Six depositional facies were recognized in Sandstone 6 (Table 1;
Fig. 4). These facies correspond closely to six basic architectural elements
(Table 1; Fig. 5) identified in the Raptor Delta. Cliff mapping at Raptor
Ridge shows consistently seaward-inclined bedding in the depositional
dip sections (Fig. 5A, C), and parallel to subparallel bedding in the strike
sections (Fig. 5B, D). The bedding planes in prodelta mudstones show 6u
structural dip towards the southeast, whereas major bedding planes
(interpreted as clinoforms) in delta-front sandstones have dips of up to
10u in the same direction. Therefore, the depositional dip of the
clinoforms is approximately 10u – 6u 5 4u.
Five orders of bounding surfaces have been established (Fig. 5). Zero-
order surfaces include incremental-growth surfaces of sedimentary
structures representing ripple cross-lamination, dune-scale cross-stratifi-
cation, parallel lamination, and hummocky cross-stratification. First-
289
FIG. 3.— Sandstone isolith map shows that
Sandstone 6 is lobate with slight shore-parallel
elongation. Paleocurrent diagram includes all
outcrop data and shows a northeast–southwest
regional shoreline trend. Paleogeography of this
deltaic sandbody is presented in Figure 9. Y–Z is
the outcrop correlation line of Figure 7.
order surfaces include dune and hummocky cross-set boundaries, and
accretion stratification within channels. Second-order surfaces bound sets
of first-order surfaces (except accretion stratification), and sets of parallel
lamination. Third-order surfaces bound channels and sets of second-
order surfaces. Most of the second-order surfaces downlap and/or onlap
on to third-order surfaces. The fourth-order surface at the top is a marine
ravinement surface that truncates lower-order surfaces and eroded delta-
plain deposits. This is a regionally traceable surface (extending . 20 km)
strewn with granules and pebbles consisting of chert, sharks’ teeth, shell
fragments, mudstone rip-ups, and sandstone. Six basic architectural
elements (building blocks) have been identified with the help of high-
resolution cliff mapping (Fig. 5).
Element PF: Prodelta Fines.—This element (Fig. 5) consists mainly of
laminated sandy mudstones of Facies 1 (Table 1; Fig. 4A, J) and,
subordinately, interbedded sandstones and mudstones of Facies 2
(Table 1; Fig. 4B).
A diverse Cruziana ichnofacies and high BI (Gani et al. in press) of
Facies 1 suggest an open marine environment of deposition (e.g.,
Pemberton et al. 2001). Significant (, 15%) disseminated sand grains
suggest possible frequent river input, but at low enough rates to be
homogenized by bioturbation. This is typical of a distal prodelta to
offshore environment (e.g., MacEachern et al. 2005).
Interbedded mudstones and sandstones of Facies 2 (Table 1; Fig. 4B)
suggest fluctuating flow conditions. Paleocurrent trends of asymmetrical
ripples are indicative of river currents carrying sands farther seaward.
Rare symmetrical ripples suggest some wave activity. Coal chips indicate
a nonmarine source of sediments delivered to the sea via a possible
distributary channel. The trace-fossil assemblage, moderate BI (e.g., Gani
et al. in press; MacEachern et al. 2005), and the occurrence of Facies 2
just above Facies 1 (Fig. 5J) suggest that Facies 2 was deposited in
a proximal prodelta to distal delta-front environment.
Element PF is interpreted to have been deposited in relatively low-
energy conditions with repetitive development of suspension-deposited
strata with rare starved-rippled strata. Transition into overlying delta-
front facies is sharp to gradational with locally developed Glossifungites
ichnofacies (Fig. 6). Local, laterally sharp facies change into the delta
 290

TABLE 1.— Description of architectural elements and constituent facies of the Cretaceous Raptor Delta, Wyoming.

Architectural
elements Element description
PF: prodelta fines Bounded by second-order surfaces; areally
extensive sheet-type geometry.
FS: frontal splay Bounded by second-order surfaces; occurs
mostly at distal delta front; generally
comprises a single bed.
CH: channel Bounded by third-order surfaces; internal
lateral-accretion surfaces mostly dip
westward, but some dip eastward; lateral
wings in strike section; pinches out rapidly
seaward at the base of the clinoform
foresets; tabular geometry.
SS: storm sheet Bounded by second- or third-order surfaces; Facies 6: HCS
comprises single or stacked HCS beds.
Facies Lithofacies description
Facies 1: laminated Sandy mudstones with , 25% very fine-grained sands;
sandy mudstones mostly homogenized by bioturbation; partially preserved
paper-thin laminations; sporadic marcasite (FeS2) nodules
(1–4 mm in diameter).
Facies 2: Interbedded mudstones and very fine- to fine- grained,
heterolithics rippled sandstone beds (1 to 5 cm thick); Ripples are
asymmetrical (southeast paleocurrent) with subordinate
symmetrical forms; Mud chips and coal chips (2 to
5 mm long) occur locally within sandstone beds.
Facies 3: massive Sharp to erosionally based, fine- to medium-grained
to parallel- sandstones; bed thickness ranges from 5–40 cm;
laminated non-graded massive (with floating clasts) to
sandstones parallel-laminated sandstones.
Facies 4: Medium-grained sandstones; erosional channel bases and
channelized mostly sharp upper boundaries; Localized zones of
sandstones concentrated to scattered mud clasts; rare shell clasts
and coal chips; low-angle (, 10u), mostly indistinct
accretion surfaces with local convolution; average bed
thickness 1 m.
Fine to medium grained sandstone; bed thickness range
from a few centimeters to few decimeters; hummocky
cross-stratified sandstone; Locally, wavy to parallel
laminations, gutter casts, and symmetrical wave ripples
(at bed tops); rare mud and coal clasts.
Ichnology
BI (bioturbation index) 4 to 5; distal to archetypal Cruziana
ichnofacies; ichnogenera include Chondrites,
Helminthopsis, Phycosiphon, Zoophycos, Asterosoma,
Teichichnus, Planolites, Terebellina (sensu lato),
Thalassinoides, Palaeophycus heberti, Rosselia, and
Cylindrichnus, in order of decreasing abundance.
BI 2 to 3; archetypal Cruziana ichnofacies; ichnogenera
include Helminthopsis, Palaeophycus tubularis, Planolites,
Chondrites, Thalassinoides, Terebellina (sensu lato),
Skolithos, and Asterosoma, in order of decreasing
abundance.
BI 0 to 2; distal Skolithos ichnofacies; ichnogenera include
Ophiomorpha irregularire, Palaeophycus tubularis,
Planolites, Chondrites, Helminthopsis, Skolithos, and
fugichnia.
BI 0, rarely 1; Skolithos ichnofacies; ichnogenera include
Skolithos, Arenicolites, allochthonus Asterosoma, and
allochthonus Teredolites.
BI 0-5; mixed Cruziana and Skolithos ichnofacies;
ichnogenera include Ophiomorpha irregularire,
Thalassinoides, Cylindrichnus, Asterosoma, Skolithos,
Palaeophycus tubularis, Chondrites, Planolites,
Helminthopsis, Monocraterion, Gyrochorte, fugichnia, and
allochthonous Teredolites.
M.R. GANI AND J.P. BHATTACHARYA

BA: bar accretion Bounded by second- or third-order surfaces; Facies 5a: trough
occurs mostly at proximal delta front; cross-stratified
internal second-order surfaces dip seaward sandstones
with landward truncation and seaward
downlap; wedge-shaped, pinching out
seaward and laterally; proximally
amalgamated, distally alternating with
other elements.
TM: tidally Erosional third-order lower boundary; Facies 5b: bipolar
modulated mostly non-erosional upper boundaries cross-stratified
deposit representing second- or third-order sandstones
surfaces; occurs mostly at distal to middle
delta front; internal second-order surfaces
mostly dip landward; pinches out in both
seaward and landward directions; includes
both onlap and downlap surfaces.
Fine to medium grained trough cross-stratified sandstones
with rare ripple cross-laminations and very rare parallel
laminations; Set thickness ranges from 5 cm to 100 cm;
mostly seaward-directed and occasionally landward-
directed paleocurrents; scattered clasts (mostly
mudstones, rarely shells and coals).
Fine- to medium-grained trough cross-stratified sandstones;
rare ripple cross-lamination; Set thickness ranges from
5 cm to 50 cm; mostly landward-directed or alternating
seaward-directed and landward-directed paleocurrents;
mud and shell clasts, mostly along foresets; locally,
hair-thin siltstones and paired mudstones drapes along
foresets.
BI 0-1 (rarely 2-3 on bedding planes); archetypal Skolithos
ichnofacies; ichnogenera include mostly Ophiomorpha
irregularire, Palaeophycus tubularis, Skolithos, and
Asterosoma, and rarely Thalassinoides, Planolites,
Cylindrichnus, Chondrites, Macaronichnus, Palaeophycus
heberti, Bergaueria, Diplocraterion habichi, Lockeia, and
fugichnia.
Broadly similar to that of Facies 5a.
JSR
JSR BUILDING BLOCKS AND PROCESS VARIABILITY OF A DELTA
front is indicative of occasional high sediment supply and/or decrease in
local accommodation.
It may not be easy to separate deposits of ‘‘fluid muds’’ (event
deposition) from background suspension muds, especially if fluid-mud
deposits are thin enough to be obliterated by trace makers, which is
suspected to be the case for the Raptor Delta. If identifiable, based on
suggestions made by earlier workers (e.g., Dalrymple et al. 2003; Gani
2004), these fluid-mud deposits should be treated as a separate
architectural element.
Element FS: Frontal Splay.—This element consists of structureless to
parallel laminated sandstone beds of Facies 3 (Table 1; Fig. 4C). Sharp to
erosional bases, floating clasts, and structureless to parallel lamination
within a single bed suggest deposition from waning sediment gravity flows
(Collinson and Thompson 1989; Gani 2004, and references therein).
Suspension-feeding structures, such as Ophiomorpha and Skolithos,
indicate opportunistic colonization of the event beds, followed by the
reestablishment of a low-energy, fairweather community generating
dwelling or deposit-feeding structures Planolites, Chondrites, and
Helminthopsis (e.g., Pemberton et al. 2001; MacEachern et al. 2005).
Unless truncated, elements FS are mostly continuous across the cliff
sections, but they thin basinward (Fig. 5). These elements are interpreted
to originate from non-channelized sediment gravity flows. These flows
could originate from high sediment discharge during river floods, slump
failures at a river mouth, and/or storm resuspension of bottom sediments.
In the first two cases, individual elements are probably lobate-shaped
(e.g., Galloway and Hobday 1996) indicative of a point source. However,
they can also form wedge-shaped aprons if sediment gravity flows
originate by spilling over subaqueous levees (e.g., Fig. 5B) of distributary
channels, or by storm resuspension. A lack of hummocky cross
stratification and wave ripples suggest that storm resuspension is an
unlikely mechanism.
Element CH: Channel.—This element consists of channelized sand-
stones of Facies 4 (Table 1; Fig. 4D, E, F, J). Erosional U-shape
depressions and thin lateral wings (Fig. 5B, C) indicate channelized flow,
running down the clinoforms towards the southeast (Fig. 5A, C). Low-
angle accretion surfaces (Fig. 4E) dip roughly 90u from inferred channel
flow directions, suggesting lateral migration. Abundant floating clasts
(Fig. 4F) indicate high (probably . 30% by volume; Gani 2004) sediment
concentration of the generating flows, and convolute bedding indicates
dewatering shortly after deposition (Collinson and Thompson 1989; Gani
2004). In general, beds are devoid of burrows apart from a very few that
penetrate into the bed from the top surface. This probably indicates that
each channel fill was deposited rapidly from sediment gravity flows.
Internally lateral-accretion stratification of element CH (Fig. 5) are
considered first order surfaces, as, unlike fluvial lateral accretion surfaces,
they formed rapidly from sediment gravity flows. In strike section,
channels show lateral wings (Fig. 5B). Channels show a gradual
transition into mouth-bar elements (BA) in a landward direction
(Fig. 5A). Locally, they form two-story amalgamated sand bodies
reaching 4 m in thickness. Dimensions of rarely preserved channel forms
suggest that these channels were probably , 3 m deep and , 15 m wide.
The depositional mechanism of element CH is considered analogous to
that of channels on a submarine fan (e.g., Peakall et al. 2000; Abreu et al.
2003), although our examples are much smaller in scale compared to the
submarine examples. Channelized sediment gravity flows can develop
unit bars within sinuous channels, probably because of the decreased
shear stress within inner banks. If these bars migrate, they produce bar-
accretion surfaces, presumably similar to those observed in CH (Figs. 4E,
5). The channels described here are probably chute channels, similar to
those described in the delta-front region of fan deltas (Prior et al. 1981;
Nemec 1990). If these channels are linked upstream to distributary
291
channels, they should be called ‘‘terminal distributary’’ channels (Olariu
et al. 2005). The relatively steep slopes (4u) of the delta front indicate that
these channels should show low sinuosity (e.g., Hart et al. 1992, their
fig. 2). These channels probably originated during high sediment
discharge as bottom-hugging undercurrents. Periodic alternation of CH
with other elements (Fig. 5A) indicates a probable periodicity in channel
occurrence, which could be the annual to decadal (ENSO type; Rodriguez
et al. 2000) high water discharge associated with an upstream river flood.
Lack of intra-element bedding surfaces indicates that individual CH
elements were probably rapidly filled within a few weeks, probably during
the short-lived peak discharge of a trunk distributary (e.g., similar to
Burdekin River discharge; Amos et al. 2004; Fielding et al. 2005).
Element SS: Storm Sheet.—This element consists of primarily
hummocky cross-stratified (HCS) sandstones of Facies 6 (Table 1;
Fig. 4I). HCS has been interpreted to be generated by the combined
effect of strong oscillatory flows (dominant) and unidirectional currents
(subordinate) during storms (e.g., Myrow and Southard 1991). Gutter
casts, and mud and coal clasts indicate strong basal scouring. Wave
ripples at tops of HCS beds suggest waning storm waves. The wide range
of BI is related to the occurrence of this facies distal (BI 3–5) or proximal
(BI 0–2) to river source in the direction of both depositional dip and
strike. Based on ichnofacies assemblage and other observations, Facies 6
is interpreted to have been deposited in a distal to middle delta front or
shoreface environment. Rarely, Facies 6 was found sandwiched within
Facies 1.
At Raptor Ridge, element SS is rare and patchy (Figs. 5, 6). However,
northeast from Raptor Ridge, SS contains stacked HCS beds and
develops as extensive sheets (Fig. 7). Element SS records deposits of
seasonal and/or rare storms in the sea.
Element BA: Bar Accretion.—This element consists mostly of
unidirectional trough cross-stratified sandstones of Facies 5a (Table 1;
Fig. 4G, H, J). The trough cross-stratification suggests deposition due to
migration of simple and/or compound (i.e., superposed) dunes of variable
sizes. Rare ripple cross-lamination and parallel lamination record local
decreases or increases in flow velocity, respectively. Very low BI is
interpreted to indicate proximity to a river mouth (e.g., Gani et al. in
press; MacEachern et al. 2005). Dominance of the suspension-feeding
structures Ophiomorpha and Skolithos indicates strong currents at the sea
bed (e.g., MacEachern et al. 2005). Based on these observations, Facies 5a
is interpreted to have been deposited in a lower to upper delta-front
environment, and is indicative of mostly riverborne sediments and
currents during periods of active mouth-bar growth.
In element BA, inasmuch as the set (in the case of simple dunes) or
coset (in the case of superposed dunes) boundaries dip at angles of 1u to
10u seaward (Fig. 5A), they are interpreted to represent accreting bar-
front surfaces (Fig. 8). These elements are developed extensively in the
upper delta-front region closer to distributary mouths. This suggests that
BAs are produced mainly by river-fed unidirectional currents and
sediments. Minor tidal influence can be inferred from locally observed
landward-directed cross-stratification. However, these tidal facies are
patchy and not organized enough to be treated as a separate element (see
TM below). Individual BA elements are interpreted to be formed by
annual to decadal growth of bars.
Element TM: Tidally Modulated Deposit.—This element consists
primarily of bipolar dune cross-stratification of Facies 5b (Table 1;
Fig. 4H), interpreted to have been deposited from migration of simple
and/or compound (i.e., superposed) dunes of variable sizes. Abundant
mud clasts indicate strong currents capable of eroding underlying beds.
Abundant herringbone cross-bedding and double mud drapes suggest
a tidal influence (e.g., Visser 1980; Nio and Yang 1991). Facies 5b is
292 M.R. GANI AND J.P. BHATTACHARYA JSR

FIG. 4.— Representative facies photos of Sandstone 6 at Raptor Ridge. A) Facies 1: sandy mudstones with BI 4–5 including trace fossils Phycosiphon (Phy),
Helminthopsis (He), Terebellina (Ter), Planolites (Pl), and Zoophycos (Zo). B) Facies 2: heterolithics comprising interbedded mudstones and rippled sandstones. C) Facies
3: massive to parallel-laminated sandstones with erosional bases. Note pencil (14 cm long) for scale. D) Facies 4: channelized sandstones with erosional U-shape
depressions. E) Facies 4: channelized sandstones with lateral-accretion surfaces. Note hammer (30 cm long) for scale. F) Facies 4: mudstone clasts in channel sandstone.
Note hammer (30 cm long) for scale. G) Facies 5a: Dominantly seaward-directed (to the right) trough cross-stratified sandstones. H) Facies 5b: Landward-directed (to the
left) trough cross-stratified sandstones with double mud drapes and mud clasts. I) Facies 6: hummocky cross-stratified sandstones (HCS) overlying facies 1. J) A
coarsening-upward succession showing vertical association of facies 1 to 5 prograding towards sea (to right). This is the same location as log LE4 in Figure 5A.
JSR BUILDING BLOCKS AND PROCESS VARIABILITY OF A DELTA
FIG. 4.— Continued.
typically associated laterally with seaward-dipping strata of mouth-bar
deposits (element BA) and is thus interpreted to represent a high degree of
tidal modulation of the associated bar fronts.
Element TM is the product of tidal modulation of bar-front sediments
with deposition mostly from tidal currents. Basal erosion suggests periods
of elevated tidal energy. Periodic occurrence of TM, particularly in the
upper part of the sand body (Fig. 5), probably indicates periodic
enhancement of tidal activity during overall delta-front progradation.
This periodicity should be greater than neap–spring cycles, and may
indicate semiannual tidal maxima (Kvale et al. 1998), although not
necessarily every maximum is preserved.
Strike Variability of the Raptor Delta: Facies and Paleocurrents
The farthest accessible outcrop of the Raptor Delta (Sandstone 6)
towards the southwest was measured in a gully 1 km west of Raptor
Ridge. At this site, tidal facies (i.e., Facies 5b and element TM) and
channel facies (i.e., Facies 4 and element CH) are conspicuously absent
(Fig. 7, log a). Upward-coarsening facies successions show all other facies
with a relatively high BI (3–4) in prodelta and lower delta-front deposits,
and a low BI (rarely exceeds 1) in middle to upper delta-front deposits.
Dominant paleocurrents are towards the south (Fig. 7). Clinoforms are as
steep as at Raptor Ridge (4u). In contrast, the entire northeastern flank of
the Raptor Delta, from Raptor Ridge northeastward (Fig. 7), shows
a predominance of HCS facies (i.e., Facies 6 and element SS) alternating
with parallel-laminated facies (Facies 3) (Fig. 7; logs c, d). Again, tidal
facies (Facies 5b) and channel facies (Facies 4) are absent. Upward-
coarsening facies successions show a relatively high BI from bottom to
293
top (BI 4 at prodelta to lower delta front, and BI 2–3 at upper delta
front). Although the mean paleocurrent is towards 158u, a shore-parallel
component (northeast–southwest) is prominent (Fig. 7). Clinoforms are
less steep (, 2u) than in Raptor Ridge (4u). These lateral variations of
facies, paleocurrents, and BI of the Raptor Delta are discussed in the next
section.
DISCUSSION
Delta-Building Processes and Deltaic Architectural Elements
(Building Blocks)
In the Raptor Delta, six types of architectural element were identified
in prodelta and delta-front deposits (Figs. 5, 6). Figure 8 shows these
deltaic architectural elements in idealized forms both in depositional dip
and strike sections. These elements bonded with each other via bounding
surfaces (five orders were labeled; Fig. 5) to create the entire delta.
Prodelta deposits consist mainly of blanketing sandy mudstones (element
PF) at the base of the overall parasequence. Storm sheets (SS) and frontal
splays (FS), produced by event deposition, may be found locally
sandwiched between muddy PF elements (Fig. 6). In a normal prograda-
tional succession and at the transition between the delta-front and
prodelta regions, intercalation of delta-front and prodelta elements give
rise to facies interfingering (cf. Gani and Bhattacharya 2005a; Fig. 8,
element PF).
Delta-front deposits show an alternation of elements FS, SS, TM
(tidally modulated deposit), CH (channel), and BA (bar accretion).
Processes related to each of these elements have been described previously
in the ‘‘Sedimentology’’ section. Broadly, interaction between river and
294 M.R. GANI AND J.P. BHATTACHARYA JSR

FIG. 5.—Outcrop panels (photomosaics with bedding and facies maps) of Sandstone 6 at Raptor Ridge. For location of cliff sections, see Figure 1C. Structural dip
measured at paleo-horizon surfaces (one such surface is indicated in prodelta deposits of Fig. 5A) is 6u towards the southeast. Detailed identification of sedimentary
features, bedding planes, and facies in several depositional dip and strike sections allowed to establish bounding-surface hierarchies and architectural elements (marked on
bedding diagrams of Fig. 5A, B) of the Raptor Delta. Note individual bar boundaries in the depositional strike section of Figure 5D. See text for discussion. (Parts 5C
and D are in color in the digital version of this article.)
JSR BUILDING BLOCKS AND PROCESS VARIABILITY OF A DELTA
FIG. 5.— Continued.
basinal (tide and wave) processes develops these building blocks that fill
the accommodation. Both FS and SS represent event deposits that
generally smooth out delta-front topography. For example, Kostic et al.
(2002) showed that sediment gravity flows can reduce the angle of delta-
front clinoforms by 20%.
A conspicuous and geologically significant building block found in
delta front-deposits of the Raptor Delta is the element CH (Figs. 5, 8),
interpreted as chute or terminal channels. Terminal distributary channels
(i.e., subaqueous distributary channels) have been recognized only
recently in ancient delta-front deposits (Olariu and Bhattacharya 2006).
The present study demonstrates that distributary channels in deltas do
not necessarily stop at the delta plain; rather, they can continue
subaqueously down the delta-front region as terminal channels or chute
channels. Elements CH of the Raptor Delta were rapidly filled with
sediment-gravity-flow deposits. Because slump scars, slide and slump
deposits, and synsedimentary faults are largely absent, the origin of these
channelized sediment gravity flows is likely to be extreme river floods, like
those seen in the modern Burdekin River (Alexander et al. 1999; Amos et
al. 2004), where much of the annual water and sediment discharge to the
delta is delivered in less than five days, and which produces coarse-
grained, sharp-based, 1–3 m thick sand beds (cf. Fielding et al. 2005).
Elements BA and TM consist mainly of packages of bedwave deposits
originating from river and tidal currents at the delta front. BA
corresponds to incremental growth of individual mouth bars. In the
Raptor Delta, mouth bars are characteristically identified by the
bidirectional downlap of bedding surfaces in strike section (Fig. 5D).
295
The minimum width of a single bar is c. 50 m. The size of the mouth bar
developed at the end of a distributary channel should be proportional to
the width of the channel and to the horizontal spreading angle of the river
effluent. Generally, as the distributary channels bifurcate seaward their
widths decrease. Therefore, deltas with high orders of distributaries tend
to develop small bars. Bars may coalesce together to form bar
assemblages, which are recognized in the depositional strike section by
onlapping and/or converging strata of a younger bar onto an older bar
(Fig. 5D). Element TM indicates periodic reworking of riverborne
sediments by strong tidal currents that normally slows down seaward
growth of bars. TM can develop both within and outside of a bar. In the
Raptor Delta, a discrete facies association of trough cross-stratified
sandstones (BM—bedwave migration) was observed that are not part of
any previously described elements. Because the nature of bounding
surfaces of BM has not been established, BM could not be ranked as an
architectural element. BM can develop within the inter-bar region, and on
the wave-dominated upper shoreface, away from distributary mouths.
The dune-scale cross-stratified sandstones of logs c and d (Fig. 7),
developed at the upper part and in the eastern flank of the Raptor Delta,
probably represent upper-shoreface deposits of facies association BM.
The most prominent feature of deltaic deposits is seaward-dipping
inclined beds known as clinoforms (Rich 1951; Bhattacharya and Walker
1992; Gani and Bhattacharya 2005a; Bhattacharya 2006). In the Raptor
Delta, clinoforms are characteristically observed in the cliff sections
(Fig. 5). The depositional dip sections show persistent seaward-dipping
clinoforms (Fig. 5A, C), whereas the strike sections show parallel to
296 M.R. GANI AND J.P. BHATTACHARYA
FIG. 6.— Core-to-outcrop correlation of part of the Raptor Delta. Subsurface stratal correlation was guided by the knowledge of overall shape and internal stratal
geometry of the architectural elements established in the outcrops. For location of line of correlation, see Figure 1C.
subparallel clinoforms (Fig. 5B, D). The height (from the top ravinement
surface to the prodelta mudstones) of a single clinoform is, on average,
9 m. Using a compaction factor of 80% (normal for sandstones) the pre-
compaction height of a clinoform would have been 11 m, which is
interpreted to be the minimum water depth into which the delta front of
the Raptor Delta prograded.
Knowledge of facies associations, general basinward-dipping clinoform
geometry, and the modern geomorphic units of deltaic systems are well
known (Bhattacharya 2006). However, the understanding of internal
geometrical complexity and variability of a single deltaic sandbody, and
the polyphase evolution history (in terms of variability of river, wave, and
tidal processes) of a single delta during basinward progradation, are
handicapped by the lack of well-documented example of how to identify
and interpret unit building blocks of deltaic deposits. In the studies of
modern deltas, a major challenge is depicting the internal geometry of
deltas by correlating the limited subsurface cores (cf. Gani and
Bhattacharya 2005a, and references therein). This study has identified
the basic architectural elements of the delta-front and prodelta
environment within a mixed river, wave, and tide influenced delta from
a detailed outcrop study. The information of the external morphologies
(e.g., shape, placement, aspect ratio, preferred orientation) and the
internal bedding geometries (e.g., stratal dip and truncation, facies
heterogeneity) of these 3D building blocks (Fig. 8) can be used as
predictive tool while correlating the subsurface data, as shown in
Figure 6. Once the facies are identified from the cores and/or wireline-
logs, the knowledge of deltaic architectural elements should guide the
subsurface correlation of bedding surfaces.
Dimensional and geometrical data of a sandbody plays a critical role in
quantitative reservoir modeling (North 1996; Willis and White 2000; Tye
2004; Miall 2006). This study reveals detailed and useful geometrical and
JSR
dimensional data of unit building blocks of deltaic reservoirs below the
level of channel and mouth-bar sands, particularly for object-based
modeling (cf. Tye 2004). Incorporation of the facies architectural model
presented in this study in characterizing deltaic reservoirs would result in
far more complex but realistic reservoir behavior (e.g., compartmental-
ization, heterogeneity, sweep efficiency). For example, the oppositely
dipping stratal geometry of BA versus TM elements could complicate the
sweep efficiency of deltaic reservoirs.
Paleogeographic Reconstruction
The shape of the sandstone isolith map of the Raptor Delta (Fig. 3)
reflects the general paleogeography of the delta. A slight shore-parallel
elongation of this lobate sand body may be interpreted to indicate an
overall wave influence (e.g., Coleman and Wright 1975). There are two
thicks in this lobate sand body. Outcrops of the northeastern thick
(Raptor Ridge), particularly the identification of elements CH and BA,
clearly indicate the presence of a major, subaerial distributary channel in
this region. Although no outcrop data are available for the southwest
thick, it can be logically concluded that this region was also close to
a major distributary channel. Therefore, these two thicks may represent
two depositional loci of the Raptor Delta. The sand isolith maps of the
Holocene Burdekin delta in NE Australia (Fielding et al. 2005) and of the
Rhone delta in France (Galloway and Hobday 1996, p. 111) are smooth-
fronted like the Cretaceous Raptor Delta. The Rhone Delta is being built
by two main distributary channels of the Rhone River, as has been
inferred for the Raptor Delta. However, whether the two main
distributaries of the Raptor River coexisted, or one is slightly younger
than the other (i.e., lobe switching) is not certain.
In this study, a significant criterion in paleogeographic reconstruction
is the way paleocurrent data are utilized. When entire paleocurrent data
JSR BUILDING BLOCKS AND PROCESS VARIABILITY OF A DELTA 297

FIG. 7.— Regional cross section (depositional-strike-oriented) with gross facies distribution and paleocurrent data for the Raptor Delta along outcrop belt. For
location of Y–Z, see Figure 3. Although facies are documented continuously along the outcrop belt, only representative lithologs are presented here. Architectural
elements are PF (prodelta fines), SS (storm sheet), FS (frontal splay), CH (channel), TM (tidally modulated), and BA (bar accretion), with facies association BM
(bedwave migration). Percentage of river-, wave-, and tide-dominated facies are plotted across the section. Note that both river- and wave-dominated facies can vary
laterally from 0% to 100%.

of the region are lumped and plotted together (Fig. 3), they fail to show
the local but significant variations of paleocurrents (Fig. 7) that are
diagnostic of dominant processes. For example, in the Raptor Delta, the
local plots of paleocurrents show that (1) river and tidal processes were
dominant around the Raptor Ridge, (2) tidal processes were absent in the
southwest of the Raptor Ridge, and (3) wave processes were prominent in
the northeast of the Raptor Ridge (Fig. 7).
The regional outcrop section of the Raptor Delta (Fig. 7) shows
a predominance of element SS developed as an extensive sheet in the
northeast flank (Fig. 7, logs c and d). In this region, comparatively high
BI and an increase in the shore-parallel component of paleocurrents
suggest that the northeast flank of the Raptor Delta had less river
influence, and hence may lie on the updrift side of the distributary mouth,
forming an asymmetric wave-influenced delta, as predicted by the model
of Bhattacharya and Giosan (2003).
Incorporating the above observations, a true-scale paleogeographic
reconstruction of the Raptor Delta (Fig. 9) is made. Figure 9 suggests
that the Western Interior Seaway, at least in the studied region, was
mainly wave- and storm-dominated, had shore-parallel currents domi-
nantly towards the south and occasionally towards the north, and had
very localized tides. All of these observations are consistent with the
findings of paleo-oceanographic modeling of the seaway (Ericksen and
Slingerland 1990; Slingerland et al. 1996) mentioned earlier. Like other
parasequences of the Wall Creek (Fig. 2), an extensive marine ravinement
surface was observed at the top of Sandstone 6. A relative rise in sea-level
is thought to have produced this transgressive erosion surface, which
eroded delta-plain deposits and left the Raptor Delta top-truncated.
Limitation of Tripartite Classification of Deltas
As introduced earlier, several recent studies of modern deltas, including
the Brazos and Burdekin deltas, have questioned their placement in end-
member fields (Galloway 1975) of the tripartite classification of delta
(Gani and Bhattacharya 2005b; Bhattacharya 2006). The Brazos delta in
the Gulf of Mexico, for example, has long been cited as a classic example
of a wave-dominated delta, on the basis of its plan-view morphology, but
recent coring studies show that, internally, much of the delta was built
during major river-floods, and it is now classified as a river-flood-
dominated delta, with some wave reworking of the surficial sediments
(Rodriguez et al. 2000). The Baram River delta in NW Borneo has also
been historically classified as wave-dominated, on the basis of its smooth-
fronted plan-view shape, but recent studies of the internal facies show tide
298 M.R. GANI AND J.P. BHATTACHARYA
dominance (Lambiase et al. 2003). The Burdekin delta also shows
a smooth-fronted morphology that has caused it to be classified as ‘‘wave-
dominated,’’ but detailed internal facies analysis show sharp-based river-
dominated mouth bars that record river-flood processes (Fielding et al.
2005). Although the sandstone isolith map of the Burdekin delta (Fielding
et al. 2005, their figure 20) shows a shore-parallel elongation,
a considerably higher river influence was documented in cores and
outcrops of this delta (Fielding et al. 2005). The plan-view morphology of
any given modern delta reflects dominant surficial process but may not
necessarily reflect the short-lived constructional processes of river floods
that dominate the internal facies architecture.
Similarly, the external shape of the Raptor Delta might be seen as
controlled primarily by waves (Figs. 3, 9), but the internal facies
architecture reveals a far more complex interaction of river, waves,
storms, and tidal processes. For example, in any given vertical section,
both river- and wave-dominated facies can vary laterally from 0 to 100
percent (Fig. 7). The estimated proportion of wave versus tidal versus
river facies may change dramatically, depending on where vertical
samples are taken. Worse, some of the facies changes are not clearly
imaged by logs, and can be determined only where there is good outcrop
or core control.
Rather than force-fitting the Raptor Delta into an end-member type of
the tripartite delta classification (Galloway 1975), we prefer to described
it as a ‘‘mixed-influenced delta’’ to indicate the complex delta-building
processes that are reflected in the internal facies. Table 2 of Galloway
JSR
FIG. 8.— Summary diagram of six basic
architectural elements (building blocks) of pro-
delta and delta-front deposits of the Raptor
Delta. These elements are among the basic
building blocks of all deltas. Although the
dimensions of these elements can vary widely
from one deltaic system to another, the likely
ranges are tabulated.
(1975) suggested different framework facies for each of the three types of
delta. However, in any given delta these framework facies are not
mutually exclusive; hence, mixed-influenced deltas may be the norm
rather than the exception. Like the modern Brazos Delta (Rodriguez et al.
2000) and the modern Burdekin Delta (Fielding et al. 2005), the main
building phases of the Raptor Delta were likely seasonal to decadal river
floods producing elements CH, FS, and BA. During intervening periods
(e.g., between two floods) the delta was reworked by waves, storms, and
tides, producing mainly SS, TM, and BM, which are reflected in the plan-
form morphology (Fig. 9).
Modern Analog and Morphological Elements
Processes responsible for depositing the architectural elements in
ancient deltaic deposits are better understood when comparison is made
to modern deltaic systems. Although the sharp lateral facies change
between the tidal and wave regime of the Raptor Delta (Fig. 6) can be
compared with that of the modern Orinoco delta in NE Venezuela
(Warne et al. 2002), the latter is almost an order of magnitude larger. The
Burdekin Delta (, 40 km by 60 km) is thought to be the closest scaled
analog for the ancient Raptor Delta (, 30 km by 60 km), particularly in
terms of delta morphology and river-mouth processes. Like the Raptor
Delta, wave- and storm-produced beach ridges lie on the flank of the
Burdekin Delta away from the mouth of two main distributary channels
(Fig. 10). Subaerial distributary channels extend subaqueously as
JSR BUILDING BLOCKS AND PROCESS VARIABILITY OF A DELTA
terminal distributary channels. These terminal channels (width , 100 m)
meander gently on the delta front and taper basinward. Both mouth bars
and in-channel bars coalesce to form bar assemblages close to the main
distributary mouths. Tides produce a series of large dunes on bar fronts.
The migration and/or growth of these morphological elements should
produce architectural elements like those described in the Raptor Delta.
In fact, in all deltaic systems, major morphological elements include
channels, bars, large bedwaves, beach-ridges/cheniers, and splays.
Channel types include: trunk distributary, above first avulsion point;
subaerial distributary; terminal distributary, below mean sea level; delta-
front chute channel; and tidal creek and channel, both subaerial and
subaqueous. Bars are associated with each of these channels. The number
and size of mouth bars are directly proportional to the number and size of
distributary channels, respectively. Beach-ridge/chenier plains develop
when riverborne sediments accrete to the coast away from a river mouth
but within the same river delta system. In the rock record, these
morphological elements produce architectural elements similar to those
described here.
CONCLUSIONS
This study, for the first time, develops an architectural-element model
for open-marine deltaic deposits by investigating the Cretaceous Raptor
Delta in the Wall Creek Member, Wyoming. High-resolution (centimeter
scale) cliff mapping of bedding and facies reveals six architectural
elements in the prodelta and delta-front deposits of a single prograda-
tional parasequence—PF (prodelta fines), FS (frontal splay), CH
(channel), SS (storm sheet), TM (tidally modulated deposit), and BA
(bar accretion). Element CH represent subaqueous terminal or chute
channels filled rapidly with deposits of sediment gravity flows showing
lateral accretion surfaces. The depositional mechanism of these channels
is probably analogous to that of laterally migrating channels in
a submarine fan. The main building phases of the Raptor Delta were
probably seasonal to decadal river floods producing elements CH, FS,
299
FIG. 9.— 3D reconstruction of the Raptor
Delta based on mapping of sandstone isolith,
facies, and paleocurrents shown in Figures 3 and
7. Asymmetry of wave and tidal energy is
indicated with the variation of arrowhead size.
and BA. During intervening periods, the delta was reworked by waves,
storms, and tides producing mainly elements SS and TM. It is suggested
that these elements are among the basic building blocks of all deltas, and
can be used as a guideline for high-resolution object-based modeling of
deltaic reservoirs and as a predictive tool in delineating internal geometry
of modern and ancient deltas with limited subsurface data. However, the
relative proportions, combinations, and bonding styles of these elements
may vary from one system to another, and even within the same system
depending on where vertical samples are taken. Vertical facies proportion
curves may vary over kilometer spacing and should be considered when
using these types of data for reservoir modeling and extrapolation of
facies variability in a subsurface setting.
The sandstone isolith map of the Raptor Delta shows a lobate
geometry with a slight shore-parallel elongation suggesting some wave
influence. The smooth inferred plan-form morphology vs. the internal
facies complexity of the Raptor Delta raises concern about the basic
assumption of the tripartite classification of deltas. The well studied
modern deltas of the Brazos, Baram–Trusan, and Burdekin show similar
observations that the main constructional processes are not reflected in
the external morphology of deltas. Therefore, only a detailed facies
architectural analysis may reveal the complexity of interactive delta-
building processes. Rather than force-fitting into an end-member type,
the Raptor delta is classified as mixed-influenced to indicate its inherent
complexity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this research was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy
DOE Grant # DE-FG0301ER15166. Additional support was provided by
the University of Texas Quantitative Sedimentology Research Consortium, of
which BP and Chevron are members. Nahid Gani helped greatly in the field
and in the lab. Thanks are also due to Chuck Howell and Randy Griffin for
helping in the field. An earlier version of the manuscript was reviewed by
Tony Rodriguez and William Helland-Hansen. We thank Journal reviewers
Andrew Miall and Brian Zaitlin, Associate Editor Joe Lambiase, Editor Colin
300 M.R. GANI AND J.P. BHATTACHARYA
FIG. 10.— ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection
Radiometer) images (3-2-1 band ratio) of modern Burdekin Delta (NE Australia)
showing major morphological elements that produce architectural elements in the
rock records, like those identified in the Cretaceous Raptor Delta (see text for
discussion).
North, and Corresponding Editor John Southard for their helpful suggestions
to improve the manuscript.
REFERENCES
ABREU, V., SULLIVAN, M., PIRMEZ, C., AND MOHRIG, D., 2003, Lateral accretion
packages (LAPs): an important reservoir element in deep water sinuous channels:
Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 20, p. 631–648.
ALEXANDER, J., FIELDING, C.R., AND POCOCK, G.D., 1999, Flood behaviour of the
Burdekin River, tropical north Queensland, Australia, in Marriott, S., and Alexander,
J., eds., Floodplains: Interdisciplinary Approaches: Geological Society of London,
Special Publication 163, p. 27–40.
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.
AMOS, K.J., ALEXANDER, J., HORN, A., POCOCK, G.D., AND FIELDING, C.R., 2004, Supply
limited sediment transport in a high-discharge event of the tropical Burdekin River,
North Queensland, Australia: Sedimentology, v. 51, p. 145–162.
ANDERSON, J.B., and FILLON, R.H., eds., 2004, Late Quaternary Stratigraphic Evolution
of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Margin: SEPM, Special Publication 79, 311 p.
JSR
ANDERSON, P.B., CHIDSEY, T.C., 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.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2006, Deltas, in Posamentier, H., and Walker, R.G., eds., Facies
Models Revisited: SEPM, Special Publication 84, p. 237–292.
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 TYE, R.S., 2004, Searching for modern Ferron analogs and
application to subsurface interpretation, 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. 39–57.
BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND WALKER, R.G., 1991, Allostratigraphic subdivision of the
Upper Cretaceous Dunvegan, Shaftesbury and Kaskapau formations in the
northwestern Alberta subsurface: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 39,
p. 145–164.
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, Powder River Basin, Wyoming: implications for sequence stratigraphic
models: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 85, p. 261–294.
BOUMA, A.H., and STONE, C.G., eds., 2000, Fine-Grained Turbidite Systems: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 72, 342 p.
BRIDGE, J.S., 1993, Description and interpretation of fluvial deposits: a critical
perspective: Sedimentology, v. 40, p. 801–810.
BRIDGE, J.S., 2003, Rivers and Floodplains; Forms, Processes, and Sedimentary Record:
Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Science, 504 p.
BROOKFIELD, M.E., 1977, The origin of bounding surfaces in ancient eolian sandstone:
Sedimentology, v. 24, p. 303–332.
BUSCH, D.A., 1971, Genetic units in delta prospecting: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 55, p. 1137–1154.
CATTANEO, A., CORREGGIARI, A., LANGONE, L., AND TRINCARDI, F., 2003, The late-
Holocene Gargano subaqueous delta, Adriatic shelf: sediment pathways and supply
fluctuations: Marine Geology, v. 93, p. 61–91.
COBBAN, W.A., 1990, Ammonites and some characteristic bivalves from the Upper
Cretaceous Frontier formation, Natrona County, Wyoming, in Evolution of
Sedimentary Basins; Powder River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin 1917-B,
p. 1–13.
COBBAN, W.A., MEREWETHER, E.A., FOUCH, T.D., AND OBRADOVICH, J.D., 1994, Some
Cretaceous shorelines in the western interior of the United States, in Caputo, M.V.,
Peterson, J.A., and Franczyk, K.J., eds., Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky Mountain
Region, USA: SEPM, Rocky Mountain Section, p. 393–413.
COLEMAN, J.M., AND WRIGHT, L.D., 1975, Modern river deltas: variability of processes
and sand bodies, in Broussard, M.L., ed., Deltas; Models for Exploration: Houston
Geological Society: Houston, p. 99–149.
COLLINSON, J.D., AND THOMPSON, D.B., 1989, Sedimentary Structures [Second Edition]:
London, U.K., Unwin Hyman, 207 p.
CORREGGIARI, A., CATTANEO, A., AND TRINCARDI, F., 2005, Depositional patterns in the
late Holocene Po delta system, in Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River
Deltas: Concepts, Models, and Examples: SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 363–390.
DALRYMPLE, R.W., ZAITLIN, B.A., AND BOYD, R., 1992, Estuarine facies models:
conceptual basin and stratigraphic implications: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology,
v. 62, p. 1130–1146.
DALRYMPLE, R.W., BAKER, E.K., HARRIS, P.T., AND HUGHES, M.G., 2003, Sedimentol-
ogy and stratigraphy of a tide-dominated, foreland-basin delta (Fly River, Papua New
Guinea): in Sidi, F.H., Nummedal, D., Imbert, P., Darman, H., and Posamentier, H.,
eds., Tropical Deltas of Southeast Asia; Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, and Petroleum
Geology: SEPM, Special Publication 76, p. 147–173.
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.
ERICKSEN, M.C., AND SLINGERLAND, R., 1990, Numerical simulations of tidal and wind-
driven circulation in the Cretaceous Interior Seaway of North America: Geological
Society of America, Bulletin, v. 102, p. 1499–1516.
FIELDING, C.R., 1993, A review of recent research in fluvial sedimentology: Sedimentary
Geology, v. 85, p. 3–14.
FIELDING, C.R., TRUEMAN, J., AND ALEXANDER, J., 2005, Sedimentology of the modern
and Holocene Burdekin River Delta of north Queensland, Australia—controlled by
river output, not by waves and tides, in Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River
Deltas: Concepts, Models, and Examples: SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 467–496.
FISHER, W.L., BROWN, L.F., SCOTT, A.J., AND MCGOWEN, J.H., 1969, Delta Systems in
the Exploration for Oil and Gas; A Research Colloquium: Austin, Texas, Texas
Bureau of Economic Geology, 204 p.
GALLOWAY, W.E., 1975, Process framework for describing the morphologic and
stratigraphic evolution of deltaic depositional systems, in Broussard, M.L., ed.,
Deltas; Models for Exploration: Houston Geological Society: Houston, p. 87–98.
GALLOWAY, W.E., AND HOBDAY, D.K., 1996, Terrigenous Clastic Depositional Systems:
Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 489 p.
JSR BUILDING BLOCKS AND PROCESS VARIABILITY OF A DELTA
GANI, M.R., 2004, From turbid to lucid: a straightforward approach to sediment gravity
flows and their deposits: The Sedimentary Record, v. 2, p. 4–8.
GANI, M.R., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2005a, Lithostratigraphy versus chronostrati-
graphy in facies correlations of Quaternary deltas: application of bedding correlation,
in Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River Deltas: Concepts, Models, and
Examples: SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 31–48.
GANI, M.R., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2005b, External morphology versus internal
facies architecture of deltas challenge tripartite classification scheme (abstract):
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Annual Convention, Calgary,
Canada, Abstracts Volume, v. 14, A48 p.
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, USA, in MacEachern, J.A.,
Bann, K.L., Gingras, M.K., and Pemberton, S.G., eds., Applied Ichnology: SEPM,
Core Workshop Volume.
GARDNER, M.H., 1995a, Tectonic and eustatic controls on the stratal architecture of
mid-Cretaceous stratigraphic sequences, central Western Interior foreland basin of
North America, in Dorobek, S.L., and Ross, G.M., eds., Stratigraphic Evolution of
Foreland Basins: SEPM, Special Publication 52, p. 243–281.
GARDNER, M.H., 1995b, The stratigraphic hierarchy and tectonic history of the mid-
Cretaceous foreland basin of central Utah, in Dorobek, S.L., and Ross, G.M., eds.,
Stratigraphic Evolution of Foreland Basins: SEPM, Special Publication 52, p.
283–303.
GHOSH, B., AND LOWE, D.R., 1993, The architecture of deep-water channel complexes,
Cretaceous Venado Sandstone Member, Sacramento Valley, California, in Graham,
S.A., and Lowe, D.R., eds., 1993, Advances in the Sedimentary Geology of the Great
Valley Group, Sacramento Valley, California: SEPM, Pacific Section, Guidebook 73,
p. 51–65.
HART, B.S., AND LONG, B.F., 1996, Forced regressions and lowstand deltas: Holocene
Canadian example: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 66, p. 820–829.
HART, B.S., PRIOR, D.B., BARRIE, J.V., CURRIE, R.G., AND LUTERNAUER, J.L., 1992, A
river mouth submarine channel and failure complex, Fraser Delta, Canada:
Sedimentary Geology, v. 81, p. 73–87.
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.
HORI, K., SAITO, Y., ZHAO, Q., AND WANG, P., 2002, Architecture and evolution of the
tide-dominated Changjiang (Yangtze) River delta, China: Sedimentary Geology,
v. 146, p. 249–264.
JACKSON, R.G, II, 1975, Hierarchical attributes and a unifying model of bed forms
composed of cohesionless material and produced by shearing flow: Geological Society
of America, Bulletin, v. 86, p. 1523–1533.
JENSEN, J.R., 1996, Introductory Digital Image Processing: a Remote Sensing
Perspective [Second Edition]: New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 316 p.
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.
KOSTIC, S., PARKER, G., JEFFREY, G., AND MARR, J.G., 2002, Role of turbidity currents in
setting the foreset slope of clinoforms prograding into standing fresh water: Journal of
Sedimentary Research, v. 72, p. 353–362.
KVALE, E.P., SOWDER, K.H., AND HILL, B.T., 1998, Modern and Ancient Tides: SEPM,
10 p.
LAMBIASE, J.J., DAMIT, A.R., SIMMONS, M.D., ABDOERRIAS, R., AND HUSSIN, A., 2003, A
depositional model and the stratigraphic development of modern and ancient tide-
dominated deltas in NW Borneo, in Sidi, F.H., Nummedal, D., Imbert, P., Darman,
H., and Posamentier, H., eds., Tropical Deltas of Southeast Asia: Sedimentology,
Stratigraphy, and Petroleum Geology: SEPM, Special Publication 76, p. 109–123.
LAWTON, T.F., 1994, Tectonic Setting of Mesozoic Sedimentary Basin, Rocky Mountain
Region, United States, in Caputo, M.V., Peterson, J.A., and Franczyk, K.J., eds.,
Mesozoic Systems of the Rocky Mountain Region, USA: SEPM, Rocky Mountain
Section, p. 217–230.
LECKIE, R.M., YURETICH, R.F., WEST, O.L.O., FINKELSTEIN, D., AND SCHMIDT, M., 1998,
Paleoceanography of the southwestern Western Interior Sea during the time of the
Cenomanian–Turonian boundary (Late Cretaceous), in Dean, W.E., and Arthur,
M.A., eds., Stratigraphy and Paleoenvironments of the Cretaceous Western Interior
Seaway, USA: SEPM, Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology 6, p. 101–126.
LEE, K., ZENG, X., MCMECHAN, G., HOWELL, C.D., JR., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., MARCY,
F., AND OLARIU, C., 2005, A ground-penetrating radar 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, M.R., MCMECHAN, G., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., NYMAN, S., AND ZENG, X.,
2007, Three-dimensional facies architecture and three-dimensional calcite concre-
tion distributions in a tide-influenced delta front, Wall Creek Member, Frontier
Formation, Wyoming: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 91,
p. 191–214.
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.
301
MAGUREGUI, J.A., AND TYLER, N., 1991, Evolution of middle Eocene tide-dominated
deltaic sandstones, Lagunillas Field, Maracaibo Basin, western Venezuela, in Miall,
A.D., and Tyler, N., eds., The Three Dimensional Facies Architecture of Terrigenous
Clastic Sediments, and its Implications for Hydrocarbon Discovery and Recovery:
SEPM, Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology, 3, p. 233–244.
MELLERE, D., PLINK-BJÖRKLUND, P., AND STEEL, R., 2002, Anatomy of shelf deltas at the
edge of a prograding Eocene shelf margin, Spitsbergen: Sedimentology, v. 49, p.
1181–1206.
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.
MIALL, A.D., 2006, Reconstructing the architecture and sequence stratigraphy of the
preserved fluvial record as a tool for reservoir development: A reality check: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 90, p. 989–1002.
MILLER, K.G., SUGARMAN, P.J., BROWNING, J.V., KOMINZ, M.A., OLSSON, R.K.,
FEIGENSON, M.D., AND HERNANDEZ, J.C., 2004, Upper Cretaceous sequences and
sea-level history, New Jersey Coastal Plain: Geological Society of America, Bulletin,
v. 116, p. 368–393.
MUTTI, E., STEFFENS, G.S., PIRMEZ, C., and ORLANDO, M., eds., Turbidites: Models and
Problems: Marine and Petroleum Geology, Special Publication, v. 20, p. 523–933.
MYROW, P.M., AND SOUTHARD, J.B., 1991, Combined-flow model for vertical
stratification sequences in shallow marine storm-deposited beds: Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, v. 61, p. 202–210.
NIO, S.D., AND YANG, C., 1991, Diagnostic attributes of clastic tidal deposits; a review,
in Smith, D.G., Reinson, G.E., Zaitlin, B.A., and Rahmani, R.A., eds., Clastic Tidal
Sedimentology: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologist, Memoir 16, p. 3–27.
NEMEC, W., 1990, Aspects of sediment movement on steep delta slopes, in Colella, A.,
and Prior, D.B., eds., Coarse-Grained Deltas: International Association of
Sedimentologists, Special Publication 10, p. 29–73.
NORTH, C.P., 1996, The prediction and modelling of subsurface fluvial stratigraphy, in
Carling, P.A., and Dawson, M.R., eds., Advances in Fluvial Dynamics and
Stratigraphy: Chichester, U.K., John Wiley & Sons, p. 395–508.
OLARIU, C., AND BHATTACHARYA, J.P., 2006, Terminal distributary channels and delta
front architecture of river-dominated delta systems: Journal of Sedimentary Research,
v. 76, p. 212–233.
OLARIU, C., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., XU, X., AIKEN, C.L.V., ZENG, X., AND MCMECHAN,
G.A., 2005, Integrated study of ancient delta front deposits, using outcrop, ground
penetrating radar and three dimension photorealistic data: Cretaceous Panther
Tongue Sandstone, Utah, in Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River Deltas:
Concepts, Models, and Examples: SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 155–177.
ORTON, G.J., AND READING, H.G., 1993, Variability of deltaic processes in terms of
sediment supply, with particular emphasis on grain size: Sedimentology, v. 40, p.
475–512.
PEAKALL, J., MCCAFFREY, B., AND KNELLER, B., 2000, A process model for the evolution,
morphology, and architecture of sinuous submarine channels: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. 70, p. 434–448.
PEMBERTON, S.G., ed., 1992, Applications of Ichnology to Petroleum Exploration: A
Core Workshop: SEPM, Core Workshop, 17, 429 p.
PEMBERTON, S.G., SPILA, M., PULHAM, A.J., SAUNDERS, T., MACEACHERN, J.A., ROBBINS,
D., AND SINCLAIR, I., 2001, Ichnology and Sedimentology of Shallow to Marginal
Marine Systems: Geological Association of Canada, Short Course 15, 343 p.
PICKERING, K.T., CLARK, J.D., SMITH, R.D.A., HISCOTT, R.N., RICCI LUCCHI, F., AND
KENYON, N.H., 1995, Architectural element analysis of turbidite systems, and selected
topical problems for sand-prone deep-water systems, in Pickering, K.T., Hiscott,
R.N., Kenyon, N.H., Ricci Lucchi, F., and Smith, R.D.A., eds., Atlas of Deep Water
Environments: London, Chapman & Hall, p. 1–10.
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.
POREBSKI, S.J., AND STEEL, R.J., 2003, Shelf-margin deltas: their stratigraphic
significance and relationship to deepwater sands: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 62, p.
283–326.
POSAMENTIER, H., and WALKER, R.G., eds., 2006, Facies Models Revisited: SEPM,
Special Publication 84.
POSTMA, G., 1990, Depositional architectures and facies of river and fan deltas, in
Colella, A., and Prior, D.B., eds., Coarse-Grained Deltas: International Association
of Sedimentologists, Special Publication 10, p. 13–27.
PRIOR, D.B., WISEMAN, W.J., JR., AND BRYANT, W.R., 1981, Submarine chutes on the
slopes of fjord deltas: Nature, v. 290, p. 326–328.
READING, H.G., AND COLLINSON, J.D., 1996, Clastic coasts, in Reading, H.G., ed.,
Sedimentary Environments; Processes, Facies and Stratigraphy: Oxford, U.K.,
Blackwell, p. 154–231.
REYNOLDS, A.D., 1999, Dimensions of paralic sandstone bodies: American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 83, p. 211–229.
RICH, J.L., 1951, Three critical environments of deposition and criteria for recognition
of rocks deposited in each of them: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 62, p.
1–20.
302 M.R. GANI AND J.P. BHATTACHARYA
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 Sedimentary
Research, v. 70, p. 283–295.
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.
SADEQUE, J., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., MACEACHERN, J.A., AND HOWELL, C.D., in press,
Differentiating amalgamated parasequences in deltaic settings using Ichnology: an
example from the Upper Turonian Wall Creek Member of the Frontier Formation,
Wyoming, in MacEachern, J.A., Bann, K.L., Gingras, M.K., and Pemberton, S.G.,
eds., Applied Ichnology: SEPM, Core Workshop Volume.
SCOTT, R.W., FRANKS, P.C., EVETTS, M.J., BERGEN, J.A., AND STEIN, J.A., 1998, Timing
of mid-Cretaceous relative sea level changes in the western interior: Amoco No. 1
Bounds core, in Dean, W.E., and Arthur, M.A., eds., Stratigraphy and Paleoenviron-
ments of the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway, USA: SEPM, Concepts in
Sedimentology and Paleontology 6, p. 11–34.
SIDI, F.H., NUMMEDAL, D., IMBERT, P., DARMAN, H., and POSAMENTIER, H.W., eds. 2004,
Tropical Deltas of Southeast Asia: Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, and Petroleum
Geology: SEPM, Special Publication 76, 269 p.
SLINGERLAND, R., KUMP, L.R., ARTHUR, M.A., FAWCETT, P.J., SAGEMAN, B.B., AND
BARRON, E.J., 1996, Estuarine circulation in the Turonian Western Interior seaway:
Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 108, p. 941–952.
SMITH, D.G., JOL, H.M., SMITH, N.D., KOSTASCHUK, R.A., AND PEARCE, C.M., 2005, The
wave-dominated William River Delta, Lake Athabasca, Canada; its morphology,
radar stratigraphy, and history, in Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River
Deltas: Concepts, Models, and Examples: SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 295–
318.
SUTER, J.H., 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.
JSR
TA, T.K.O., NGUYEN, V.L., TATEISHI, M., KOBAYASHI, I., TANABE, S., AND SAITO, Y.,
2005, Holocene delta evolution and dispersal models of the Mekong River, southern
Vietnam, in Giosan, L., and Bhattacharya, J.P., eds., River Deltas: Concepts, Models,
and Examples: SEPM, Special Publication 83, p. 453–466.
TAYLOR, A.M., AND GOLDRING, R., 1993, Description and analysis of bioturbation and
ichnofabric: Geological Society of London, Journal, v. 150, p. 141–148.
TYE, R.S., 2004, Geomorphology: An approach to determining subsurface reservoir
dimensions: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 88, p.
1123–1147.
WARNE, A.G., MEADE, R.H., WHITE, W.A., GUEVARA, E.H., GIBEAUT, J., SMYTH, R.C.,
ASLAN, A., AND TREMBLAY, T., 2002, Regional controls on geomorphology, hydrology,
and ecosystem integrity in the Orinoco Delta, Venezuela: Geomorphology, v. 44, p.
273–307.
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. 87–129.
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 WHITE, C.D., 2000, Quantitative outcrop data for flow simulation:
Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 70, p. 788–802.
WILLIS, B.J., BHATTACHARYA, J.B., GABEL, S.L., AND WHITE, C.D., 1999, Architecture of
a tide-influenced river delta in the Frontier Formation of central Wyoming, USA:
Sedimentology, v. 46, p. 667–688.
WILTSCHKO, D.V., AND DOOR, J.A., JR., 1983, Timing of deformation in overthrust belt
and foreland of Idaho, Wyoming and Utah: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Bulletin, v. 67, p. 1304–1322.
WINN, R.D., JR., 1991, Storm deposition in marine sand sheets: Wall Creek Member,
Frontier Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming: Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, v. 61, p. 86–101.
VAKARELOV, B.K., BHATTACHARYA, J.P., AND NEBRIGIC, D.D., 2006, Importance of high-
frequency tectonic sequences during greenhouse times of Earth history: Geology, v. 34,
p. 797–800.
VISSER, M.J., 1980, Neap–spring cycles reflected in Holocene subtidal large-scale
bedform deposits: a preliminary note: Geology, v. 8, p. 543–546.
Received 8 February 2006; accepted 30 September 2006.