Stratigraphic Architecture of a Shalow-Water Delta Deposited in a Coastal-Plain Setting: Neslen Formation, Floy Canyon, Utah

Home , Mouth bar

STRATIGRAPHIC ARCHITECTURE OF A SHALOW-WATER DELTA DEPOSITED IN A COASTAL-PLAIN SETTING: NESLEN FORMATION, FLOY CANYON, UTAH

by Kimber C. O’Brien

A thesis submitted to the Faculty and Board of Trustees of the Colorado School of Mines in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Geology).

Golden, Colorado

Date______

Signed: ______Kimber O’Brien

Signed: ______Dr. David Pyles Co-Advisor

Signed: ______Dr. John Humphrey Co-Advisor Golden, Colorado

Date ______

Signed: ______Dr. Paul Santi Professor and Head Department of Geology and Geological Engineering

ABSTRACT

Shallow-water, low-accommodation, coastal-plain deltas are deposited in wetlands detached from the coeval shoreline associated with broad, low-gradient settings and are an underappreciated architectural style in marginal marine systems. The goal of this study is to document the stratigraphic architecture and evolution of a shallow-water delta in the Neslen

Formation, Floy Canyon, Utah and compare it to modern analogs deposited in a similar water depth. A further goal is to contrast the shallow-water delta documented to a comparatively deeper-water delta to test the implications of the numerical model developed by Edmonds et al.,

(2011).

The delta analyzed in this study was deposited in a ~ 4 m deep wetland that was located about 65 kilometers landward of the coeval shoreline. The outcrop of the delta is highly rugose and exposes, in three dimensions, a large portion of the delta: from the feeder channel to the delta front. Upward and lateral facies variations of the delta stratigraphy are evident. The feeder channels contain fine-grained, cross-stratified sandstone. These channels transfer longitudinally to the axial parts of mouth bars that are composed of amalgamated fine-grained, upward- coarsening and thickening beds that contain predominantly ripple laminations. The beds de- amalgamate and become thinner and finer-grained towards the lateral and distal margins of the delta. Stratigraphically adjacent elements in the Neslen delta stack highly compensationally.

Within the elements, stratigraphically adjacent stories stack laterally and rotate relative to one another to form a radially dispersive pattern. Younger stories stack progradationally down- current.

The shallow-water delta documented in this study has similar longitudinal lithofacies trends and stacking patterns to modern analog deltas deposited in similar water depths (such as

iii the Okavango and Wax Lake deltas). When compared to a relatively deeper-water delta, such as the delta documented by Matthew Andresen in the Iles Formation, the lithofacies trends and stacking patterns are different. For example, the shallow-water delta (Neslen delta) has bottomset aggradation only at the distal part of the system, the clinoform angles are shallow (1 to 3 degrees), the foresets were deposited primarily by tractional processes, and the mouth bars stack more compensationally. Conversely, the comparatively deeper-water delta has bottomset aggradation throughout the deposit, the clinoform angles are steeper, the foresets were deposited primarily by gravitational processes, and the mouth bars stack less compensationally.

ORIENTATION

This thesis is half of a paired study, the goal of which is to test the prediction that the initial water depth influences the stratigraphic architecture and lithofacies distribution of river- dominated deltas. Chapters 1 through 4 document and analyze a shallow-water, river-dominated delta deposited on a coastal plain in the Neslen Formation. A companion study by Matthew

Andresen, another Masters student at the Colorado School of Mines, documents a river- dominated delta deposited in a deeper-water setting in the age-equivalent Iles Formation.

Chapter 5 is co-written by Matthew Andresen and me. Chapter 5 summarizes and analyzes the properties of the Neslen and Iles deltas, thus accomplishing the goals of the paired study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii

ORIENTATION ...... v

LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii

LIST OF TABLES ...... x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... xi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.2 Geologic Setting ...... 3

1.3 Data ...... 4

1.4 Heirarchical Framework for Deltaic Strata ...... 5

1.5 Lithofacies ...... 7

CHAPTER 2 RESULTS ...... 8

2.1 Stories ...... 8

2.2 Elements ...... 10

2.3 Evolution of the Complex ...... 11

CHAPTER 3 DISCUSSION ...... 13

3.1 Compensational Stacking...... 14

3.2 Water Depth ...... 15

3.3 Brackish-Water Influence ...... 15

CHAPTER 4 MODERN ANALOGS ...... 17

4.1 Okavango Delta, Botswana ...... 17

4.2 Wax Lake Delta, Louisiana, USA ...... 18

CHAPTER 5 COMPARISON OF COEVAL DELTAS ...... 21

CHAPTER 6 APPLICATION ...... 25

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS ...... 26

FIGURES ...... 28

TABLES ...... 50

REFERENCES ...... 58

APPENDIX A ...... 62

A-1 Stratigraphic Columns ...... 62

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Cross section of delta stratigraphy……………………………………………….28

Figure 2 Modified cross sections of delta stratigraphy……………………………………28

Figure 3 Aerial photographs of Okavango and Mississippi deltas………………………...29

Figure 4 Location and geologic maps of the study area………………………………...... 30

Figure 5 Stratigraphy of the Book Cliffs…………………………………………………..31

Figure 6 Paleogeographic map of the Book Cliffs……………………………………...... 32

Figure 7 Detailed Neslen Formation Stratigraphy……………………………………...…33

Figure 8 Hierarchical framework for deltaic stratigraphy…………………………………34

Figure 9 Photographic examples of lithofacies……………………………………………35

Figure 10 Interpreted photopanels…………………………………………………………..36

Figure 11 Common trace fossils…………………………………………………………….37

Figure 12 Diagram of ripple-laminated sandstone……………………………………….....38

Figure 13 Chart of amalgamation ratios…………………………………………………….39

Figure 14 Isopach map of sand thickness………………………………………………...…40

Figure 15 Paleogeographic reconstruction……………………………………………...…..41

Figure 16 Photograph of coastal-plain stratigraphy…………………………………...……42

Figure 17 Diagram summarizing story characteristics…………………………………..….43

Figure 18 Diagram of compensationally stacking mouth bars……………………………...44

Figure 19 Diagram of brackish-water trace fossils…………………………………………45

Figure 20 Diagram comparing deltas deposited in similar water depths………………..….46

Figure 21 Diagram comparing Neslen delta and Iles delta…………………………………47

Figure 22 Vertical transect comparison of Neslen delta and Iles delta……………………..48

viii

Figure 23 Story-scale comparison of Neslen delta and Iles delta…………………………..49

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Comparison of hierarchical classifications………………………………………50

Table 2 Lithofacies descriptions………………………………………………………….51

Table 3 Bioturbation index……………………………………………………………….52

Table 4 Story dimensions…………………………………………………………………53

Table 5 Measurements of the overlap of stratigraphically adjacent stories………………54

Table 6 Relative abundance of sand-rich lithofacies to silt-rich lithofacies……………...55

Table 7 Element dimensions……………………………………………………………...55

Table 8 Measurements of the overlap of stratigraphically adjacent elements……………56

Table 9 Summary of characteristics of modern deltas to the Neslen delta...... 56

Table 10 Comparison of the Iles delta to the Neslen delta………………………………...57

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work necessary to complete this thesis, including data collected in the field, data analysis, data interpretations, writing, and editing was a collective effort by my colleagues and me. I cannot take full credit for the vast amounts of time and energy it took to produce this thesis. I would like to thank the following people and organizations for their contributions, work, and support:

 My thesis committee: co-advisors Dr. David R. Pyles and Dr. John Humphrey, and

committee members Mark Kirschbaum and Dr. Wendy Zhou for their mentoring. I would

like to particularly thank Mark Kirschbaum and David Pyles for taking extra time out of

their lives to help edit this thesis and discuss ideas.

 My fellow students in the Chevron Center of Research Excellence: Matthew Andresen,

for his assistance in the field and co-writing a section of our theses together, Jesse Pisel,

for his assistance with various programs, and Bradley Nuse and Alyssa Charsky for their

assistance in the field.

 A special thanks to our program manager, Cathy Van Tassel, for helping with travel

arrangements, paperwork, and encouragement.

 The Chevron Center of Research excellence for their support and funding as well as their

encouragement and assistance throughout the duration of my graduate education.

 Funding was also provided by an AAPG Graduate Student Grant in Aid, a BP

scholarship, and from the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Studies (GCAGS).

 Finally, I would like to thank my family for their patience and support. My boyfriend,

Morgan, has also been incredibly supportive even though graduate school meant two

years apart from one another.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This chapter discusses the importance of this study and introduces the problems and objectives that are addressed. Important background information, including the components of river-dominated deltas and current models for deltaic stratigraphy, are discussed, followed by an overview of the data and methodology necessary to conduct the study.

1.1 Introduction

Deltas are defined as a mass of sediment that forms at the mouth of a river where the flow enters a standing body of water (Barrell, 1912). Deltas can be divided into different end member types on the basis of the dominant process that deposit the sediment, i.e. the river, tides, and waves (Galloway, 1975). High river energy relative to the energy from tides and waves results in a river-dominated system where the behavior of the river effluent is determined by the outflow inertia, bed friction, the flux of water and sediment, and the outflow buoyancy (Wright, 1977).

Deltas have three components: topset, foreset, and bottomset. These components are alternately known as the delta plain, delta front, and prodelta, respectively. The topset consists of distributary channels and interdistributary muds, whereas foresets are composed of dominantly mouth bars (Edmonds et al., 2011). The bottomset is composed of distal prodelta muds and sands

(Figure 1A).

Edmonds (2011) categorized river-dominated deltas on the basis of initial water depth and angle of the lower bounding surface, in which deeper-water deltas contain a higher fraction of foreset strata than their shallow-water counterparts (Figure 2). Whereas shallow- and deep- water deltas appear morphologically similar in plan-view (Figure 3); Edmonds geometric model proposes that the stratigraphic architecture is different and varies longitudinally (Edmonds et al.,

2011) in contrast to previous studies that did not show longitudinal variations in architecture

(Bhattacharya, 2006) (Figure 1B). We modified Edmonds (2011) model to include bottomset strata to account for the aggradation of the sediment-water interface, which reduces the gradient through deposition (Figure 2). Deep-water, foreset-dominated deltas have been studied in the greater detail than shallow-water deltas because they are easily recognizable systems at the shoreline with numerable modern analogs (McGowen, 1971; Le Blanc, 1975; Xue, 1993;

Overeem, 2003; Stefani et al., 2005; Fielding et al., 2005; Fielding et al., 2006; Olariu et al.,

2006; Wellner et al., 2006; Olariu et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2013).

Key insights of the model developed by Edmonds (2011) are the following. First, the stratigraphic architecture of deltas varies longitudinally and with water depth (Figure 1A and

Figure 2). Second, the gradient of the sediment-water interface influences the distance at which the delta transfers from a topset-dominated to foreset-dominated delta (Figure 2). Thirdly, the novel characteristic of topset-dominated deltas is the distributary channels commonly incise into pre-deltaic material (Figure 2). Lastly, shallow-water deltas have a higher proportion of topset strata whereas deeper-water deltas have a higher proportion of foreset strata. Edmond’s model provides new insight into delta architecture; however, it has not yet been tested in a natural system, nor does it consider any small-scale characteristics, such as lithofacies distributions and internal stacking patterns (i.e. compensational stacking).

To test Edmond’s model, this study uses an exceptional three dimensional exposure of an ancient river delta in the Neslen Formation in Floy Canyon, Utah (Figure 4) in order to document the stratigraphy and evolution of a shallow-water, end-member delta. Results of this study are compared to those of modern delta analogs (the Okavango delta and the Wax Lake delta) and to a companion study (conducted by Matthew Andresen, of a deeper-water delta in the age-

2 equivalent Iles Formation in Hunter Canyon, Colorado). The key conclusion is that while the plan-view morphologic expression of river-dominated deltas appears fractal the stratigraphy stacks hierarchically. A further conclusion is that while the plan-view morphologies of deltas deposited in different water depths are similar (Figure 3), their cross sectional geometries, stacking patterns, and lithofacies distributions are notably different.

1.2 Geologic Setting

This study is focused on an outcrop of the Neslen Formation, in which a shallow-water delta is exposed in three dimensions (Figures 4 and 5). The study area is located northeast of

Green River, Utah, in Floy Canyon, within the southern portion of Uinta basin (39°01’18.84”N,

109°51’32.97”W). The delta documented in this study has a regional structural dip of 1 degree to the northeast but the paloeflow of the delta is from west to east. The depositional gradient is 0.4°.

A corresponding study of a comparatively deeper-water delta by Matthew Andresen was conducted 65 kilometers east (downdip) in the age-equivalent Iles Formation at Hunter Canyon, near Fruita, Colorado (Figure 5).

Fluvial systems transported sediment eastward from the Sevier highlands to the coast, and coal-forming wetlands developed in the coastal plain during the Late Cretaceous (Hettinger and Kirschbaum, 2002) (Figure 6). The Mesaverde group (Figure 6) is a clastic wedge of sediment that prograded eastward into the Western Interior basin, a foreland basin that developed on the east side of the Sevier Orogenic belt as a consequence of the Sevier Orogeny. The Sevier

Orogenic belt was active between 140 Ma to 50 Ma during which time the oceanic Farallon Plate subducted under the North American Plate (DeCelles, 2004). The younger Laramide orogeny fragmented the Western Interior basin into several smaller basins, including the Piceance and the

Uinta basins, and accounts for the structure present in the area today (DeCelles, 2004) (See inset map in Figure 5).

The Campanian Neslen Formation was first named in the 1930’s and the nomenclature is still used today (Fisher, 1936). The Neslen is a coal-bearing formation of alternating sandstone and slope-forming mudstone packages (Fisher, 1936). Hettinger and Kirschbaum (2002) document the regional stratigraphy of the Book Cliffs (Figure 5). The Neslen and the longitudinally equivalent Iles Formations were interpreted to be coastal plain and shoreface delta environments, respectively (Roberts and Kirschbaum, 1995; Hettinger and Kirschbaum, 2002)

(Figure 6). The location documented in this study is interpreted to be 65 kilometers away from the shoreline during the deposition of the delta in the Neslen Formation. Kirschbaum and

Hettinger (2004) interpret the Neslen Formation in Floy Canyon to consist of alternating estuarine complexes with bay head deltas that prograded into an incised valley (Figure 5 and 7).

Shiers et al., (2014) documents tidally influenced fluvial successions in the Neslen Formation, but not the deltas that formed on the coastal-plain. The Neslen Formation also has been interpreted to consist of crevasse splay bodies near Rangely, Colorado (Anderson, 2005), however, this study identifies the deposit in the Neslen Formation deposits in Floy Canyon on the opposite side of the basin as coastal-plain deltas because the channels become dispersive into other lithofacies and there is no large channel that scales to the body of the delta that bypasses the area.

1.3 Data

The data used to address the goals of this study include: 1) stratigraphic columns (Figure

4 and Appendix), 2) high resolution Gigapan photos, 3) a geologic map with GPS locations

(Figure 4), and 4) sediment transport directions. Detailed stratigraphic columns document

4 centimeter-scale stratigraphic characteristics such as physical and biogenic sedimentary structures, textures, grain size, sorting, bedding styles, type of fossils present, and paleocurrent measurements. The locations of the 30 stratigraphic columns collected in this study are orange dots in Figure 4. High resolution photopanels provide mapping templates for mapping lithofacies distributions and trends, stratal boundaries, and paleocurrents. GPS measurements were used to constrain the locations of stratigraphic columns and the locations of notable lithofacies transitions cross referenced with the Gigapan photos (Figure 4). These data were collectively used to map and correlate the stratigraphy across the field area, and measure the dimensions of depositional units. Dimensions of stories were collected at an orientation perpendicular to the sediment transport direction. Individual mouth-bar and channel stories were mapped in 3D based on their contacts on each face of the outcrop and drawn based on their dominant flow direction.

The distance between the thickest part of each story and the point at which the story thins to a thickness of zero was measured and extrapolated to help constrain the dimensions of each story.

These raw data were used to create a secondary dataset, which includes: 1) cross sections of each exposed face, 2) measurements of amalgamation ratios (the thickness of amalgamated sand divided by the total thickness of the depositional unit), 3) an isopach map of the delta, 4) lithofacies, 5) lithofacies proportions and distributions, 6) dimensional data for stories and elements, 7) measurements of overlap between stratigraphically adjacent stories and elements, and 8) the ratios of sand-rich lithofacies to mud-rich lithofacies per story.

1.4 Hierarchical Framework for Deltaic Strata

This study uses a hierarchical framework that overlaps with Campbell’s (1967) classification and is modified from Pyles (2007) (submarine fans), Pyles et al. (2010) (deep- water channels), Straub and Pyles (2012) (submarine fans), and Ford and Pyles (2014) (fluvial

5 systems). The approach used in this study combines aspects from deep-water and fluvial regimes and applies them to marginal marine regimes to provide a common mode of comparison and classification of different depositional environments. Table 1 compares the hierarchical classifications of this study to selected other studies. A five-level hierarchy is used. From smallest to largest the hierarchical components are: bed, bedset, story, element, and complex. A demonstration of this approach is depicted on a stratigraphic column and photo in Figure 8.

Each hierarchical level represents different depositional units based on the time span of existence, size of stratal packages, crosscutting relationships, and number of superimposed stratigraphic units (Pyles, 2007). A bed refers to a single depositional event (Campbell, 1967). A bedset is a genetically related group of beds that have similar lithofacies, sediment transport directions, and geometries (Campbell, 1967). Beds and bedsets amalgamate and de-amalgamate depending on their location relative to the axis of the units. Stacked beds and bedsets have coarsening and thickening upward patterns with similar lithofacies and paleoflow directions separated by relatively small-scale erosional surfaces and comparatively minor offset of the location of the axis of deposition. These stacked beds and bedsets are referred to as stories

(Straub and Pyles, 2012). A story is a genetically related group of bedsets containing similar lithofacies and sediment transport directions where story boundaries record abandonment and small-scale avulsion of the river system. An element is a group of genetically related stories containing similar lithofacies and sediment transport directions characterized by its external shape in depositional-strike view that forms the fundamental building blocks for larger stratigraphic units (Pyles, 2007 p. 5). The boundaries between adjacent elements records significant offset in the locations of the axes of stratigraphically adjacent elements (Straub and

Pyles, 2012). Genetically related elements group to form complexes.

Stratigraphic columns document detailed, bed-scale vertical stratigraphic trends and high resolution photopanels document bed-sets, stories, and elements in three dimensions and are discussed in the following sections. The stratigraphic architecture of the delta is documented in three dimensions on the photopanels.

1.5 Lithofacies

This study utilizes the definition of facies as stated by Cross and Homewood (1997 p.

1620) translation of Amanz Gressly (1838) which is, “those observable physical, chemical, and biological properties of rocks that collectively permit objective description, as well as distinctions among rocks of different types”. The term lithofacies is used descriptively and does not indicate the environment of deposition and is not specific to time. Rather, lithofacies give insight into the hydrologic processes active during deposition. Lithofacies can change laterally along discreet beds (Cross and Homewood, 1997). Seven lithofacies are identified in this study; four are composed of sandstone, two are mudstone and siltstone, and one is mudstone.

Photographs of each lithofacies are documented in Figure 9. For brevity, the physical characteristics, sedimentary structures, lithofacies names, and interpreted hydrodynamic processes are in Table 2. Table 3 lists the criteria used to determine the bioturbation index (BI) for each lithofacies. Detailed descriptions of lithofacies are documented in the appendix. The lithofacies are mapped on photopanels A-D across the outcrop in three dimensions (Figure 10).

The un-interpreted photopanels and their locations on the topographic map are labeled in Figure

CHAPTER 2

RESULTS

This chapter discusses the results documented in this study, including the characteristics of the different types of stories and elements, and the paleogeographic evolution of the complex.

2.1 Stories

The delta in the Floy Canyon study area is composed of channel stories and mouth-bar stories. The story types are differentiated based on 1) external morphology, 2) lithofacies associations, 3) sediment transport directions relative to the morphology, and 4) interpreted energy of deposition.

Channel stories have erosional lower bounding surfaces that incise into older mouth-bar stories (Story 3H in Figure 10A and 10B). The upper bounding surfaces are both erosional and conformable. When viewed along depositional strike in cross-sectional view, the external form is concave up at the base, flat at the top (Story 3H in Figure 10B), and elongate in the down-current direction with aspect ratios (width/thickness) ranging from 11 to 25 (Table 4). Channel stories are thickest at their axis and thin towards their margins. The most abundant lithofacies in channel stories are rippled sandstone (L4) and low-angle cross-stratified sandstone (L6) (Table in Figure

10A). Lithofacies transfer vertically from larger grain sizes to smaller grain sizes. Channel stories transfer down-current to mouth-bar stories.

These stories are interpreted as channels. This interpretation is based on collective observations of a lenticular external shape and low aspect ratios (Table 4) characteristic of channels, internal lithofacies associations that shows decreasing upward flow strength, the position of the story relative to older stories, and mainly unidirectional sediment-transport directions.

The characteristics of mouth-bar stories are documented based on the surfaces mapped on the photopanels (Figure 10B-D). Mouth-bar stories have erosional lower bounding surfaces at their axes and have conformable lower bounding surfaces at their margins (Figure 10B). The upper bounding surface is either gradational into silt, marked by a sharp wave-rippled surface

(Figure 10B see SC20 and SC2), marked by a burrowed layer with Teredolites and Skolithos

(Figure 11), or rarely erosional (Figure 10B see SC 7). The cross-sectional form, both in depositional strike and dip -view, is a sigmoidal shape (Figure 10B; stories 3H-3I in Figure 10C).

Mouth-bar stories are lobate in plan-view with aspect ratios (width/thickness) ranging from 50 to

250 (Table 4). The stories are thickest at their axis and thin toward their lateral and distal edges where sand deamalgamates and transfers to mud. The most abundant lithofacies in mouth-bar stories is rippled sandstone (L4) (Figure 12). There is proportionally more interbedded mud and silt (L2) relative to ripple-laminated sandstone (L4) towards the margin and distal edge of mouth-bar stories (Tables in Figure 10B-D). The overlap between stratigraphically adjacent mouth-bar stories averages 54 percent, meaning mouth bars are stacking compensationally as opposed to vertically stacking (Table 5). On average, mouth-bar stories are composed of 82 percent sand-rich amalgamated lithofacies and 18 percent de-amalgamated mud-rich lithofacies

(Table 6). The oldest stories in Element 3 (3A-3D) are more amalgamated than their younger counterparts (3E-3F) (Figure 13).

These stories are interpreted as mouth-bars. This interpretation is based on the collective observations of sigmoidal external shape and elongate plan-view shape characteristic of mouth bars, internal lithofacies associations showing upward coarsening and thickening of beds, high aspect ratios relative to channels, the position of the axis of stories relative to older stories, and radially dispersive sediment-transport directions.

2.2 Elements

Elements are composed of genetically related channel stories and mouth-bar stories composed of similar lithofacies trends. Most of the following discussion focuses on Element 3, which is composed of nine mouth bar stories (Figure 10A-D stories 3A-3I). The lower bounding surface of Element 3 is erosional near the axis and conformable near the north east margin and erosional near the south west margin (Figure 10B). The upper bounding surface is marked by a wave rippled surface that is overlain by interbedded mud and silt (Figure 10A-D see complex boundary). The cross-sectional shape in strike view is sigmoidal shaped. The base and top of elements are relatively flat. All three elements are thickest near the axis and thin near the margin.

The plan view morphology of the elements is elongate in the up-current direction and lobate down-current. The most abundant lithofacies is rippled sandstone (L4), interbedded mud, and silt

(L2), and amalgamated ripple-laminated sandstone with rip-up clasts (L3). The aspect ratios

(width/thickness) range from 117-178 (Table 7). The measurement of the overlap of stratigraphically adjacent elements averages 15 percent, meaning the elements stack more compensationally than mouth-bar stories (Table 8). The thickest part of the delta complex is where the maximum overlap and the maximum incision into pre-deltaic strata coincide. As a result, the thickest parts of the delta are located from the feeder channel to slightly off-axis of

Element 3, where it overlaps with Element 1 according to the isopach map of sand thickness

(Figure 14) and where the amalgamation ratios of mouth-bar stories are high (Figure 13).

These elements are interpreted to make up part of a delta complex that is not fully exposed. One fully exposed element (Element 3) and two partially exposed elements (Elements 1 and 2) form the basis for the interpretation of the evolution of a delta lobe deposited in a coastal- plain setting.

2.3 Evolution of the Complex

The purpose of this section is to place stories and elements into a larger context by documenting the paleogeographic evolution of the delta complex within a shallow-water, coastal-plain setting. Paleogeographic interpretations of the Neslen delta, including elements 1-3, which collectively comprise a channel-mouth bar complex, and stories 3A-3I are presented in

Figure 15. The maps represent a plausible interpretation of the outcrop based on the synthesis of the collected data, including mapped photopanels, sediment transport directions, and measured thicknesses. These data allow for the documentation of the evolution of a partial delta complex.

The presence of mudstone and carbonaceous shale (L1) in every stratigraphic column throughout the study interval indicates that a fresh-water coastal plain was present prior to the deposition of the delta (Figure 10 and Figure 16) (Kirschbaum and Hettinger, 2004, their Figure

6 on column 2 at 100 m). The accommodation space that allows for the deposition of the delta could have been created by flooded incised valleys, or rising water table during backstepping of the shoreline, but the cause is beyond the scope of this investigation.

The erosional contact between elements 1-3 and the underlying coastal plain, the height of the mouth bars, and the presence of brackish-to-fresh water trace fossils indicates the delta in the studied interval prograded into a shallow body of water, probably initiated by avulsion.

Channel stories in the northwest portion of the study area transition down-current to the mouth- bar stories of Elements 1-3 based on cross-cutting relationships and superposition (Figures 10A, and 15). Elements 1 and 2 were deposited first and Element 3 was deposited in the topographic low between the older elements (Figures 10B and 15). The six oldest mouth-bar stories in

Element 3 (3A-3F) stack laterally away from Element 1 to the North East (stories 3A through 3F in Figure 10B; Figure 15). The average paleocurrent direction for stories 3A-3D is 150° and for

11 stories 3E and 3F is 130°. Following the deposition of the laterally stacked stories younger mouth bars (3H-3I) are deposited in the down-current direction, indicating a transition from lateral stacking to progradational stacking, and are associated with small channels that incise into the older mouth-bar stories (stories 3I-3H in Figure 10C). Story 3H is the most fully exposed mouth bar in the study area. Following the deposition of mouth-bar story 3I marks the final deposition of the delta based on vertical and down-current lithofacies transitions to mudstone.

CHAPTER 3

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this section is to document the stratigraphic architecture and the water depth of the delta. The paleogeographic reconstruction of the complex shows that stratigraphic architecture varies laterally and longitudinally, as predicted by Edmonds (2011) model (Figure

2). An observation shared in other studies, for example, by Olariu and Bhattacharya (2006) and

Gani and Bhattacharya (2007), which is at odds with Waltherian Stratigraphy (Figure 1B).

Walter’s Law states that vertically adjacent lithofacies also accumulated adjacent to one another laterally given there are no unconformities (Middleton, 1973). This study documents high variability in vertical transects throughout one genetically related delta complex, and lithofacies deposited vertically were not necessarily deposited laterally (Figure 10). In this study, the shallow initial water depth limits vertical accommodation space and results in a greater tendency for the shallow-water delta in this study to stack compensationally, and increases lateral variability.

An idealized model of a story (Figure 17) is constrained from observations of Story 3H, and documents the plan-view shape of mouth bars documented in this study. The characteristics summarized in Figure 17, including the dominant lithofacies per story, the maximum amalgamated sand thickness, and the relative abundance of sand-rich lithofacies to silt-rich lithofacies along a longitudinal transect, indicates the delta was dominated by tractive deposition.

The down-current and lateral thinning of mouth-bar stories and the down-current transition to mud indicates waning flow, because the energy of deposition decreases as the average grain size decreases, as the distance from the apex of the feeder channel increases (Figure 17) (Wellner et al., 2006).

3.1 Compensational Stacking

Compensational stacking is the tendency of sediment to fill in topographic lows resulting from avulsion of the sediment into areas where the relief is greatest (Mutti and Normark, 1987).

Compensational stacking patterns have been recognized and quantified in previous studies in channelized sedimentary deposits (Straub et al., 2009) and submarine fans (Pyles, 2007; Straub and Pyles, 2012). The cross sections in Figure 10 shows the delta in Floy Canyon stacks compensationally, as demonstrated by the down-lapping surfaces of the mouth-bar stories. The compensational stacking is quantified on the basis of the measurements of average percent overlap between stratigraphically adjacent depositional bodies; 54% for stories and 18% for elements (Tables 5 and 8). The overlap of stratigraphically adjacent bodies is used as a proxy for the amount of compensation in the delta; a high percent overlap indicates low compensation while a low percent overlap indicates more compensation. The stories have a higher average percent overlap between stratigraphically adjacent units than the elements because they represent smaller-scale avulsions over a shorter distance relative to elements. Element 3 stacks compensationally into a topographic low between Elements 1 and 2, resulting in stratigraphic architecture that is partially dependent on the existing topography. Similarly, the stories within

Element 3 stack laterally away from Element 1 and rotate relative to older stories. Element 3 has an erosional contact with Element 1 and a conformable contact with Element 2. This difference in contacts is attributed to local differences in flow that resulted in a greater degree of erosion to the south. Compensational stacking is also evident at the bedset scale; increasing lateral heterogeneity within stories, as evidenced by the bedset attacking patterns in the heterolithic strata northwest of the study area (Figure 18).

The stacking style of architectural elements and stories in the Floy Canyon delta demonstrate the lateral and longitudinal variability of the delta. The plan-view morphologic expression of river-dominated deltas in shallow and deeper-water settings appears fractal, but, as demonstrated by this study, the stratigraphy stacks hierarchically, indicating that plan-view morphology does not necessarily reflect the stratigraphy.

3.2 Water Depth

The initial water depth can be estimated by observing the maximum height of the mouth bars because mouth-bar stories can only build to the top of the water column. The maximum relief of elements documented in this study is 4 m, indicating the maximum water depth was 4 m at the end of deposition. The water level likely fluctuated during deposition due to seasonal fluctuations in the flow of the river, but the delta was subaqueous until the end of deposition based on the lack of rootlets, mud cracks, or other subaerial exposure indicators at the upper contact between stories documented by the lithofacies (Table 2). The limited vertical accommodation and the tendency for sediment to fill topographic lows results in the sigmoidal cross-sectional shape of mouth-bar stories documented in this study (Figure 10).

3.3 Brackish-Water Influence

The three elements are interpreted to be deposited in a fresh-water to brackish-water environment. The brackish water influence in the Neslen Formation was interpreted by Fisher

(1936) and later confirmed by Kirschbaum and Hettinger (2004) based on documentation of both freshwater and brackish water fossils in the Neslen Formation. This study documents similar brackish-water trace fossil assemblages (Figure 11 and Figure 19). The low diversity of trace fossils and Skolithos is an indicator of a brackish water or marginal marine environment

(Pemberton, 1992).

Brackish-water influence can result from four different possible scenarios: 1) proximity to the shore, 2) salt water intrusion, 3) storm surge from the coeval shoreline, and 4) transgressive estuary valley fill (Kirschbaum and Hettinger, 2004). The proximity to the shoreline is not likely to be the cause of the brackish water because the shoreline during the

Campanian has been documented as approximately 65 kilometers from the location of the study area (Figure 6). The salt water intrusion hypothesis would provide salt for a brackish water influence but it does not account for the marine to brackish trace fossil assemblage. The preferred hypothesis is that a combination of storm surge and transgressive estuary valley fill is responsible for the brackish water influence. Storm surge refers to the upper surface of a water body that is elevated from the low barometric pressure and high speed, landward directed wind, such as that from a hurricane or a low pressure system. Storm surges occur when the water level is greater than high spring tides. If storm surges are combined with high tides, known as storm tides, the water level is even higher and the water can be pushed farther back on the coast, such as observed in modern Hurricanes like Hurricane Rita in 2005, which flooded 80 kilometers inland, effectively inundating the coastal-plain with marine water (Berenbrock et al., 2009;

Williams, 2009).

CHAPTER 4

MODERN ANALOGS

In an effort to understand the role of water depth on delta architecture, the study interval analyzed within the Neslen Formation is compared to modern analogs deposited in similar initial water depths (3-6m) (Table 9 and Figure 20); the Okavango delta in Botswana, and the Wax

Lake Delta in the Atchafalaya Bay in Louisiana.

4.1 Okavango Delta, Botswana

The Okavango delta and the Neslen delta share several similarities. The first similarity between these deltas is the depositional water depth. The Okavango Delta, located in Northern

Botswana, is a shallow-water, inland delta with a maximum water depth of 3 m (Table 10 and

Figure 20); similar to the water depth documented in this study (~4 m). The second similarity is the depositional gradient. The Okavango Delta covers an aerial extent of 25,000 square kilometers from the meander belt feeder channel to the termination of the distributary system and a low gradient (0.02% or 1:35,000) (McCarthy et al., 1988; McCarthy et al; 1991; Stanistreet and

McCarthy, 1993). The delta documented in this study has a dip of 0.4°, but it is on a smaller scale than the Okavango delta, covering 1 square kilometer. The third similarity is the climatic control on deposition. The sediment influx of the Okavango delta is controlled by seasonal climatic fluctuations and dominated by meandering and low sinuosity channels (McCarthy,

1993). Similarly, the Neslen delta is interpreted to be dominated by climatic changes that influence the flux of the river because of the Teredolites mats of wood that form on the tops of beds that are buried during the deposition of subsequent stories. The fourth similarity is the dominant flow process building mouth bars. Neither delta has mouth bars built by sediment gravity flows. Bedload is the dominant mode of sediment transport and traction is the mode of

17 sedimentation for both the Okavango delta and the Neslen delta (McCarthy et al., 2002). The

Okavango delta is completely detached from the oceanic shoreline and has no marine influence; creating a virtually closed system (McCarthy et al., 2002), whereas the Neslen delta had fresh-to- brackish water influence. The Okavango River feeds large areas of permanent swamps and the thick vegetation invades channels and stabilizes channel banks (McCarthy et al., 1992). The roots of the vegetation in the swamp and the presence of permeable organic material mixed with mud allow the water to leak through the levees into the adjacent swamps (McCarthy et al., 1991).

The distributary channels in the Okavango and Neslen deltas have similar down-current patterns.

The similar water depth, gradient, climatic control, and flow processes between the

Okavango delta and the Neslen delta indicate the stratigraphic architecture of both deltas should be similar since they are deposited in similar water depths (Edmonds et al., 2011) (Figure 20), however the Okavango delta is dominated by channel stories and adjacent swamps while the

Neslen delta is dominated by mouth-bar stories (Figure 15). This difference can be attributed to the scale of the studied intervals. The Okavango delta is at the complex scale whereas a partial complex is documented in the Neslen delta. The vegetation on the Okavango delta stabilizes channels and limits dispersive deposition of mouth bars. It is possible that the Neslen delta is also amid peat swamps due to the evidence of coal in the Neslen, but a larger study interval would be needed to make that conclusion.

4.2 Wax Lake Delta, Louisiana, USA

Several similarities exist between the Wax Lake delta in the Atchafalaya Bay in

Louisiana and the Neslen delta (Table 9 and Figure 20). The first similarity is the initial water depth. The water depth of the Wax Lake delta is approximately 6 m and the aerial extent is 145 square kilometers whereas the Neslen delta was deposited in 4 m water depth and covers an area

18 of 1 square kilometer. The relative size of Wax Lake delta to the Neslen delta may be a more relevant comparison based on the similar scales. The second similarity is the morphology of mouth bars. Wax Lake delta is interpreted to be composed of morphologically similar mouth bars (Wellner et al., 2006) with coarser sediment in the up-current direction that gradually fine downstream from the apex of the river mouth. The mouth bars are elongate parallel to the sediment transport direction with thicknesses of 1-3 m. The Neslen delta also has mouth bars elongate parallel to the sediment transport direction with an average thickness of 2 m. The third similarity is the relative proportion of topset and foreset strata along a longitudinal profile. The

Wax Lake delta and the Neslen delta have a ratio of channel depth to mouth bar height greater than 1, meaning that the Wax Lake delta and the Neslen delta are dominated by topset stratigraphy (i.e. interdistributary mud and distributary channels) (Edmonds et al., 2011). The fourth similarity is the dominant flow process. The dominant flow process forming mouth bars on the Wax Lake delta and the Neslen delta is traction based on the dominance of lithofacies deposited by traction, i.e. ripple-laminated sandstone, cross-stratified sandstone, and planar laminated sandstone.

The Wax Lake and Neslen deltas have the same dominant process building mouth bars, but the dominant lithofacies for each delta is different. The mouth bars in the Wax Lake delta are dominated by cross-stratified and laminated sand capped by ripples (Wellner et al., 2006) whereas the mouth bars in the Neslen delta are composed of ripples; indicating the flow processes building mouth bars are both dominated by traction, but the mouth bars in Wax Lake delta have a mixed mode of sediment deposition: traction and fall-out from suspension, resulting in the formation of turbidites (Wellner et al., 2006). Turbidite deposits are not found in the mouth bars in the Neslen delta.

The distributary channels in the Wax Lake and Neslen deltas have similar down-current patterns. The channels bifurcate and their cross-sectional area decreases after each bifurcation

(Olariu and Bhattacharya, 2006). Channels erode into the older deltaic material within the bifurcating river network (Shaw et al., 2013), as observed in the Wax Lake and Neslen deltas.

One branch of the distributary channel network becomes dominant after bifurcation and diverts the flow away from the abandoned channel (Shaw and Mohrig, 2014), resulting in subsequent mouth bars building on top of the inactive channel, which can account for the overlap of stories observed in both deltas. Channel erosion and seaward shallowing of channels has been predicted by numerical modeling (Figure 1) (Edmonds et al., 2011). Multiple terminal distributary channels are common in low accommodation settings, such as the Wax Lake delta (Figure 16)

(Olariu and Bhattacharya, 2006) and the Neslen delta, and have similar lobate plan-view morphologies. The terminal distributary channels in the Wax Lake delta are 1-2 m deep and are often below the mean sea level whereas proximal distributary channels are much deeper but do not incise into pre-deltaic material. The Neslen delta has channels that shallow down-current and do not incise into pre-deltaic material in the study area. The average thickness of distributary channels in the Neslen delta is 2.5 m and the aspect ratios are 10-25. The Wax Lake delta is a close modern analog for the Neslen delta based on the similar morphologies, dimensions of mouth-bar and channel stories, and flow processes in both deltas.

CHAPTER 5

COMPARISON OF COEVAL DELTAS: NESLEN AND ILES FORMATIONS

The purpose of this section is to test the implications of Edmonds et al. (2011) model based on the results from two outcrop studies in the Neslen and Iles Formations, conducted by

Kimber O’Brien and Matthew Andresen, respectively (Figures 5, 6 and 21). A stratigraphic comparison between the Neslen delta and the Iles delta validates the prediction of Edmonds et al.

(2011) model that mouth bars have different architectures based on water depth. This comparison suggests modifications that can increase the accuracy of the model. The result of this stratigraphic comparison validates the prediction that water depth influences deltaic architecture

(Wright 1977; Edmonds et al., 2011). This comparison supports the assertion of Wright (1977) that bed friction is relatively more significant in shallow-water and reduces the turbulence of the outflow. Enhanced bed friction in shallow water results in tractive depositional conditions, whereas reduced bed friction in deeper water results in a higher proportion deposition from suspension. The following discussion compares and contrasts the two deltas.

The Neslen and Iles deltas are ideally-suited for this paired study. The deltas were deposited in contrasting water depths of 4 m and 15 m, respectively (Table 10) with gradients of

0.4° and 0.6°, respectively. Within each partial delta complex, both deltas are river-dominated and exhibit minimal influence or modification by waves or tides due to a relatively high proportion of lithofacies deposited by tractive currents. Deposited in the Campanian, the deltas are roughly coevally deposited shallow-marine systems that represent strata deposited along a depositional profile from the coastal plain to open marine (Figure 5). Thus, the results are indicative of the variability within a depositional landscape. Finally, the deltas are exposed

21 spectacularly in three dimensions so that the distinctive architectures can be studied from multiple depositional perspectives.

Both studies use the same types of data and the same methodology to document the stratigraphic architecture and spatiotemporal evolution of partial delta lobes. Data include: 1) stratigraphic columns, 2) high-resolution photopanels, 3) sediment transport directions, and 4) locations of deltaic features on a topographic map (Figure 21). Both studies use a five-tier hierarchy modified from existing fluvial and deep-water hierarchies. From smallest to largest, the hierarchical components are: bed, bedset, story, element, and complex (Figure 8).

The dominant lithofacies in the Neslen delta is composed of 57 percent rippled sandstone, whereas the Iles delta is composed of 49 percent planar-laminated sandstone exhibiting partial

Bouma sequences (Figure 21). The Neslen delta also contains planar-laminated sandstone (11 percent), however, it is interpreted to be deposited by traction because the bedsets have erosional boundaries without any gradational transition to ripple-laminated sandstone as opposed to the planar-laminated sandstone in the Iles delta. The difference in dominant lithofacies is the result of different flow processes building mouth-bars in each delta. The dominant flow processes for the Neslen and Iles deltas are interpreted to be lower to upper flow regime traction plus suspension deposition. However, there is no evidence of deposition purely by suspension in the

Neslen delta. Preserved graded beds and Bouma sequences in the Iles delta indicate that there is preserved deposition from suspension and the system was more prone to the formation of turbidites.

The lateral and longitudinal variations of lithofacies result in distinct architectural styles in each delta. On average, the constituent beds within the Neslen delta are more vertically amalgamated than the Iles delta (Figure 22) and more amalgamated throughout the body of the

22 delta (Figure 21). The Neslen delta has a higher proportion of sand-rich lithofacies along its fractional length with comparatively fewer shale breaks than the Iles delta (As demonstrated by the table in Figure 23). There is little bottomset aggradation in the Neslen delta whereas the Iles delta has laterally persistent and aggradational bottomset (prodelta) strata (Figure 21). The average element width is 540 m and 1000 m for the Neslen and Iles deltas, respectively. The element aspect ratios (width/thickness) are greater in the Neslen delta than the Iles delta, 140 and

110, respectively. The overlap of stratigraphically-adjacent bodies averages 55% and ~90% for stories in the Neslen and Iles deltas, respectively, and 15% and 57% for elements (Figure 23), indicating that the Neslen delta stacks more compensationally. More overlap of mouth bars in the

Iles delta indicates the mouth bars stack more vertically than their shallow-water counterparts.

The Neslen delta stacks more compensationally because of the limited accommodation space created by the shallow-water depth and the low gradient. The higher gradient in the Iles delta results in higher accommodation space and thus a higher propensity for mouth bars to stack vertically. The higher gradient in the Iles delta is also the likely cause for the presence of turbidites because a higher gradient indicates a higher probability of slope failure.

According to this comparison, shallow-water deltas are dominated by tractive deposition, have minimal bottomset aggradation, and stack highly compensationally (Table 10). The deltas also share several important similarities. The stratigraphic architecture in the proximal portions of the deltas is similar because they are deposited in similar water depths near the apex of the river. For example, proximal portions of the deltas have similar proportions of topset strata and similar compensational stacking patterns. These similarities are attributed to the similar water depth of the deltas in the up-current part of the systems (Figure 2). It is hypothesized that if the

Neslen delta continued to prograde into deeper-water it would eventually become stratigraphically similar to the Iles delta.

CHAPTER 6

APPLICATION

Results from this study, including lithofacies data, dimensions of stories and elements, and the documented paleogeographic evolution can be used as an analog for hydrocarbon exploration in subsurface reservoirs in similar low-accommodation depositional environments.

The measurements of the overlap of stratigraphically adjacent bodies can be used as a proxy for reservoir connectivity for hydrocarbon reservoirs deposited in similar settings. Reservoir connectivity is the length of sand-on-sand contacts between two stratigraphically adjacent elements normalized by the total length (Funk et al., 2012, Moody et al., 2012). The data collected from this study helps narrow the technology gap of the prediction of reservoir connectivity at an intra-parasequence scale by documenting small-scale lithofacies changes in three dimensions. The variability of lithofacies proportions, dimensions, and juxtapositions influences how fluid will move through a reservoir and how those fluids can be produced efficiently.

This study proposes a hierarchy to classify deltaic systems from the source of the river to deep-water systems. The five tier hierarchy for deltaic systems can be used to promote objective comparisons between fluvial, deltaic, and deep-water systems (Figure 8 and Table 1).

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

1. The study interval documented in the Neslen Formation is identified as a shallow-water delta

deposited on a coastal plain with brackish-water influence. It is a river-dominated delta

composed of channel and mouth-bar stories that form the building blocks for channel and mouth-

bar elements. The lithofacies architecture, or lateral and vertical distributions of lithofacies,

reflects the depositional processes and the evolution of the complex.

2. Tractive deposition was the dominant depositional process in the Floy Canyon delta. Ripple-

laminated sandstone is the dominant lithofacies, indicating the delta was deposited in a low flow

regime.

3. Architectural analysis of the three dimensional exposure documents that the delta stacked highly

compensationally. Element 3 is composed of nine mouth-bar stories that first stack laterally,

rotating relative to older stories, then progradationally. Three delta elements are identified in this

study and they collectively build a complex. The three elements are composed of channel and

mouth-bar stories.

4. The plan-view morphologic expression of river-dominated deltas appears fractal but the

stratigraphy stacks hierarchically.

5. Edmonds (2011) model predicts delta architecture to change along a longitudinal transect from

topset-dominated to foreset-dominated. This study confirms, through 3D characterization of a

shallow-water delta, the prediction to be plausible. The delta in the Floy Canyon study area has a

complicated architecture that varies longitudinally because the lithofacies proportions change

radially from the axis of the system to the margins.

6. Similarities between the Okavango delta, Wax Lake Delta, and the Neslen delta support the

conclusion that water depth influences the stratigraphic architecture of deltas.

7. The comparison of the delta in Floy Canyon delta with modern deltas, such as the Okavango

delta and the Wax Lake delta, indicates that shallow-water deltas (deposited in 2-6 m water

depth) share several architectural similarities including mouth bars built by traction,

compensational stacking, and high lateral and longitudinal variability due to high compensational

stacking and sediment dispersion.

8. The comparison of quantitative data from this study to a study of a deeper-water delta in Hunter

Canyon, Colorado documents that water depth influences the resultant stratigraphic architecture

of deltas. River-dominated deltas deposited in different water depths have similar plan-view

morphologic expressions, but the stratigraphic architectures are different. This study documents

several significant differences between the shallow-water delta in Floy Canyon (Neslen delta)

and the deeper-water delta in Hunter Canyon (Iles delta): the shallow-water delta has, 1) lower

clinoform angles, 2) a higher percentage of amalgamated sand, 3) bottomset aggradation only

near the terminations of mouth-bar stories, and 4) less overlap between stratigraphically adjacent

stories than their deeper-water counterparts. The critical conclusion is that shallow-water deltas

stack more compensationally than their deeper-water counterparts; resulting in more lateral

variability of sand bodies.

9. Shallow-water deltas are more amalgamated than their deeper-water counterparts because the

proportion of preserved inter-story mud is lower than in deeper-water deltas, thus resulting in a

higher proportions of amalgamated, erosional, sand-on-sand contacts in the shallow-water delta.

FIGURES

Figure 1: A) Diagram showing a dip-oriented cross section of the stratigraphy of delta from Edmonds et al. (2011). B) Schematic diagram of a delta by Bhattacharya (2006) documenting the previous interpretations of deltas. The key distinction between A and B is the thickness of the topset in A is based on channel depth, which is highlighted with a dashed line, indicating that topset thickness decreases along the depositional profile. The previous model (B) by Bhattacharya (2006) does not account for longitudinal variations in stratigraphy.

Figure 2: Diagrams documenting the spatial variations of a shallow (A) and comparatively deeper-water (B) delta based on Edmonds et al. (2011). Key predicted distinctions between shallow-water and deeper-water deltas are: 1) shallow-water deltas have a higher proportion of topset strata (i.e. distributary channels and interdistributary muds) whereas deeper-water deltas have a higher proportion of mouth bars, and 2) the fractional length of topset-dominated strata is greater in shallow-water deltas than deeper-water deltas.

Figure 3: Aerial photograph of the Okavango Delta, Botswana (left) and the Mississippi River Delta, Louisiana (right). Both deltas are deposited in different water depths but the plan view morphologies are similar. Despite the morphologic similarities Edmond’s model predicts them to have different internal stratigraphic architecture (see Figure 2).

Figure 4: Location of the outcrop analyzed in this study. The study area is located in the Book Cliffs, Grand County, Utah, S31 T20S R19E. A) The location of the study on a topographic map. B) A geologic map of Floy Canyon, which is composed of the Cretaceous Mesaverde Group. The specific study interval is in the Neslen Formation.

Figure 5: Stratigraphic columns and inset map showing the stratigraphy of the Book Cliffs of Colorado and Utah (modified from Hettinger and Kirschbaum, 2002). The Neslen and Iles Formations are time equivalent stratigraphic units. See Figure 7 for a detailed cross section of the field area.

Figure 6: Paleogeographic map of the Neslen and Iles Formations. The locations of this study in Floy Canyon, Utah and the companion study in Hunter Canyon, Colorado are labeled. The Floy Canyon study area was deposited at the interface between fluvial and coastal plain paleo- environments (personal communication, Mark Kirschbaum).

Figure 7: Detailed cross section of stratigraphic columns measured in the Floy Canyon area. The center column was measured along the transect labeled in Figure 4 (personal communication, Mark Kirschbaum).

Figure 8: Annotated stratigraphic column (SC 18), lithofacies, and photograph demonstrating the hierarchical framework used in this study. The location of the stratigraphic column (SC) is labeled on the map in Figure 4.

Figure 9: Photos of the seven lithofacies identified in this study. The colored square in the upper left hand corner of each photo represents the color of each lithofacies mapped on the photopanels (Figure 10 and Table 2).

Figure 10: Interpreted photopanels A-D (at the same scale) with stories, elements, sediment transport directions, and lithofacies proportions labeled.

Figure 11: Common trace fossils identified in the study area. See Figure 4 for the location of SC 4.

Figure 12: Ripple laminations present in lithofacies 4: ripple-laminated sandstone.

Figure 13: Chart of intra-story amalgamation ratios in each mouth-bar story in Element 3. The amalgamation ratio is the vertical thickness of amalgamated sand divided by the total vertical thickness of the story and was calculated from stratigraphic columns.

Figure 14: Isopach map of the sand thickness of the genetic unit. The maximum measured sand thickness is 4.85 m.

Figure 15: A) Paleogeographic reconstruction of Elements 1-3. B) Early stage of the paleogeographic reconstruction of the stories within Elements 3 where stories 3A-3D stack laterally. C) Middle stage of the paleogeographic reconstruction of Element 3 where stories 3E and 3F stack laterally and are rotated relative to the older stories in A. D) Late stage of the paleogeographic reconstruction of Element 3 where stories 3H-3I were deposited via incision and down-current progradation.

Figure 16: Coastal-plain stratigraphy overlain by deltaic deposit.

Figure 17: Diagram summarizing aerial and cross-sectional characteristics of an idealized story (3H) identified in this study.

Figure 18: Diagram of compensational stacking of flow expansion bars in the north western updip portion of the study area.

Figure 19: Examples of trace fossils. A) Bergaueria, B) crocodile claw marks, and C) Rhizocorallium.

Figure 20: A) Diagram comparing modern deltas deposited in different water depths to the delta analyzed in this study. B) Cross sections showing the stratigraphy of shallow-water deltas and deeper-water deltas. The deltas have a similar plan view shape and are scale invariant. See Table 9 for a detailed comparison of the deltas listed above.

Figure 21: Diagram comparing the lithofacies and stratigraphic architecture of the Neslen delta and the Iles delta. For the location of the study areas see Figures 5 and 6. The inset map show the exposure used to document the lithofacies.

Figure 22: Diagram comparing the vertical transects observed in the Neslen delta and the Iles delta. The beds in the Neslen delta are more vertically amalgamated than the Iles delta. The stratigraphic column for the Neslen Delta is SC 16 in Figure 4 and is represented by a black vertical line in Figure 21.

Figure 23: Diagram comparing the story-scale characteristics for the Neslen delta (left) and the Iles delta (right) at the same scale. The mouth-bar stories in the Neslen delta are more sand-rich, smaller, and have lower aspect ratios than mouth bars in the Iles delta.

TABLES

Table 1: Table comparing the hierarchical classification used in this study to selected previous studies.

This Study Campbell (1967) Pyles (2007) Straub and Ford and Pyles (Neslen Deepwater Pyles (2012) (2013) Delta) Hierarchy Deepwater Fluvial Hierarchy Hierarchy NA Lamina Lamina NA Lamina NA Lamina set Lamina set NA Lamina set Bed Bed Bed Bed to bedsets Bed Bedset Bedset Bedset lobe and channel Bedset beds) Story NA NA Story (lobe and Story channel stories) Element NA Architectural Element (lobe Element element and channel elements) Complex NA Systems tract Complex (lobe Archetype NA Depositional and channel sequence complexes)

Table 2: Descriptions of the seven lithofacies identified in this study.

Lithofacies Lithofacies Description and Sedimentary Grain Mode of Name Subdivision Structures Size sediment transport/ mode of deposition L Organic-rich Laminated Laminated carbonaceous mudstone and NA Lower flow regime mudstone carbonaceous silt with disseminated plant material. BI=0 and fall-out from 1 and mudstone suspension. carbonaceous Laminated Laminated mudstone with interbedded silt Clay shale mudstone BI=0 rootlets, disseminated plant material Convoluted Light grey convoluted mudstone with a Clay mudstone rounded weathering texture. BI=5 L Interbedded NA 1-5 cm beds of clay, silt and very fine- Clay, Lower flow regime mudstone, grained sand that lack organic material silt, and with tractive 2 sandstone, composed of unidirectional ripples and very deposition and and siltstone lenticular beds. Trace fossils include fine- periods of crocodile or turtle tracks, Bergaueria, grained suspension and Skolithos, Planolites, and Rhizocorallium. sand fall-out; low BI=3 energy

L Amalgamated NA Rippled to structureless sandstone with Fine- Lower flow regime ripple- mud clasts and wood clasts. Wood mats grained with tractive 3 laminated at the top of beds are burrowed by sand deposition; sandstone Teredolites. BI=3 moderate energy with wood clasts and rip- up clasts L Ripple- Amalgamated Obscured bed boundaries and structures. Fine- Lower flow regime laminated faintly ripple- Ripples 1-4 cm in relief. Unidirectional grained to suspension fall- 4 sandstone laminated asymmetric ripples. The dominant trace sand out; low to sandstone fossil is Skolithos. BI=4 moderate energy De- 1-20 cm beds with interbedded silt and Silt to amalgamated mud and unidirectional asymmetrical fine- faintly ripple- ripples. The dominant trace fossil is grained laminated Skolithos. BI=3 sand sandstone Distinctly 10-30 cm discontinuous ripple-laminated Fine- ripple- sandstone beds with 3D ripples, grained laminated unidirectional symmetrical ripples, and sand sandstone water escape structures. BI=0-1 Contorted Contorted ripple beds with faint remnant Fine- ripple structures. The dominant trace fossil is grained sandstone Skolithos. BI=2 sand L Planar- NA 20-30 cm bed of gradational planar- Fine- Upper flow regime laminated laminated sandstone composed of grained with tractive 5 sandstone coarsening-up laminations with minor sand deposition; high burrowing. BI=1 energy L Cross- Low-angle Low angle cross-stratified sandstone with Fine- Lower flow regime stratified cross- distinct beds and mudstone rip-up clasts grained with tractive 6 sandstone stratified from eroded underlying material BI=1 sand deposition; sandstone moderate to high contorted Contorted cross-stratified beds. Structures Fine- energy cross- are obscure or distinct. The dominant grained stratified trace fossil is Skolithos. BI=2 sand sandstone L Silt with NA Mudstone rip-up clasts in a matrix of silt Clay to Lower flow regime mudstone with unidirectional ripples. BI=0 silt with tractive 7 clasts deposition; low energy 51

Table 3: Table of the bioturbation index used in this study.

Bioturbation Index (BI) Index Number Degree of Bioturbation (%) Description 0 No burrows 1 A few discrete trace fossils 2 Less than 50 Multiple overlapping trace fossils 3 Greater than 50 Distinct laminations 4 Laminations faint 5 No laminations or very indistinct laminations

Table 4: Dimensions of mouth-bar and channel stories.

Story Dimensions

Maximum Aspect ratio Story Width (m) Comments Thickness (m) (width/thickness)

1A 3.85 300 77.9 NA Laterally stacking mouth 2A 1.45 85 58.6 bar Laterally stacking mouth 2B 1.75 85 48.6 bar Laterally stacking mouth 3A 2.37 150 63.3 bar Laterally stacking mouth 3B 2.6 210 80.8 Mouth- bar Bar Laterally stacking mouth 3C 1.4 360 257.1 Stories bar Laterally stacking mouth 3D 2.08 280 134.6 bar Laterally stacking mouth 3E 1.63 220 135.0 bar Laterally stacking mouth 3F 0.97 205 211.3 bar Incision and down-current 3G 2.48 295 119.0 progradation Incision and down-current 3H 2.07 305 147.3 progradation Incision and down-current 3I 1.15 215 187.0 progradation

1A 2.8 48 17.1 NA

2A 2 50 25.0 NA

2B 2 50 25.0 NA

3A NA NA NA NA

3B NA NA NA NA

Channel 3C NA NA NA NA Stories 3D NA NA NA NA

3E NA NA NA NA

3F NA NA NA NA Incision into older mouth 3G 2.5 37.5 15 bars Incision into older mouth 3H 2.5 27 10.8 bars 3I NA NA NA individual channel unclear

Table 5: Table documenting the percent overlap between stratigraphically adjacent stories. The maximum length of overlap is measured between two stratigraphically adjacent stories.

Percent Overlap

Maximum Percent Story Length of Width of Story Overlap Overlap 1A and 3A 80 300 26.7 1A and 3C 30 300 10.0 2A and 3F 37 85 43.5 2B and 3F 37 85 43.5 3A and 1A 80 150 53.3 3A and 3B 35 150 23.3 3A and 3C 100 150 66.7 3B and 3A 35 210 16.7 3B and 3C 210 210 100.0 3B and 3D 162 210 77.1 3B and 3E 125 210 59.5 3B and 3F 60 210 28.6 3B and 3G 100 210 47.6 3B and 3H 75 210 35.7 3C and 1A 30 210 14.3 3C and 3A 100 280 35.7 3C and 3B 210 280 75.0 3C and 3D 260 280 92.9 3C and 3E 145 280 51.8 3C and 3F 75 280 26.8 3C and 3G 150 280 53.6 3C and 3H 120 280 42.9 3D and 3B 262 280 93.6 3D and 3C 260 280 92.9 3D and 3E 275 280 98.2 3D and 3F 145 280 51.8 3D and 3H 112 280 40.0 3E and 3B 125 220 56.8 3E and 3C 145 220 65.9 3E and 3D 175 220 79.5 3E and 3F 135 220 61.4 3F and 3B 60 205 29.3 3F and 3C 75 205 36.6 3F and 3D 145 205 70.7 3F and 3E 135 205 65.9 3F and 2A 37 205 18.0

Table 5: Continued 3F and 2B 37 205 18.0 3G and 3B 100 295 33.9 3G and 3C 150 295 50.8 3G and 3H 237 295 80.3 3G and 3I 190 295 64.4 3H and 3B 75 305 24.6 3H and 3C 120 305 39.3 3H and 3D 112 305 36.7 3H and 3G 237 305 77.7 3H and 3I 215 305 70.5 3I and 3G 190 215 88.4 3I and 3H 215 215 100.0 AVERAGE 129.6 239.7 53.6

Table 6: Table documenting the relative abundance of sand-rich lithofacies (L3-L6) to silt-rich lithofacies (L2), or axis to margin, respectively.

margin margin axis Story width/axis width/total width/total width width width 3A 0 0 1 3B 0.40 0.29 0.71 3C 0.28 0.22 0.78 3D 0.10 0.09 0.91 3E 0.22 0.18 0.82 3F 0.46 0.32 0.68

Table 7: Table of dimensions of the elements identified in this study.

Element Dimensions

Maximum Aspect ratio Element Thickness Width (m) Comments (width/thickness) (m) Interpreted 1 3.8 490 128.9 width. Limited preservation Interpreted 2 3.2 570 178.1 width. Limited preservation 3 4.6 540 117.4 Best exposed

Table 8: Table documenting the percent overlap between stratigraphically adjacent elements identified in this study.

Percent Overlap between Stratigraphically Adjacent Elements Width of Length of Percent Element Element Overlap (m) Overlap (m) 3 on 1 70 490 14.3 3 with 1 and 2 150 570 26.3 3 on 2 80 540 14.8

Table 9: Table documenting characteristics of modern deltas compared to the delta documented in this study.

Okavango Delta, Neslen Formation Delta, Floy Wax Lake Delta, Louisiana Botswana Canyon, Utah Water depth 25,000 km^2, 2-4 m 4 m water depth, 1 km^2 4-6 m water depth, 145 km^2 and aerial water depth (McCarthy et exposed aerial extent extent al., 1991) Environment Inland delta (McCarthy et Low gradient coastal plain Open marine of deposition al., 1992; Stanistreet and McCarthy, 1992). Flow Bedload/Traction Bedload/Traction Bedload/Traction, and fall-out processes (McCarthy et al., 1992) from suspension (Wright, 1977; Wellner et al., 2006). Vertical Upward transition from Upward thickening and upward Upward thickening and stratigraphic layers of organic material coarsening of genetic units. coarsening of genetic units. trends to upward-fining channel Sharp based contact with (Wellner et al., 2006). deposits (McCarthy et al., coastal plain carbonaceous 1988). shale. Channel 1-3 m thick aggradational 1-3 m thick erosional channels 1-2 m thick erosional channels. Characteristics meandering levee bound composed of fine-grained (Edmonds et al., 2011; Shaw et channels (Stanistreet and sand. al., 2013; Shaw and Mohrig, McCarthy, 1993). 2014) Mouth Bar Low angle, vegetation 3 elements that are 3-5 m 1-3 m thick mouth bars that are Characteristics stabilized mouth bars thick. Mouth bars are elongate elongate parallel to the formed by dispersive flow. parallel to the sediment sediment transport direction. (McCarthy et al., 1988; transport direction. The The dominant lithofacies are McCarthy et al., 1991). dominant lithofacies is ripple- trough-cross bedded laminated sandstone. sandstone. (Wellner et al., 2006).

Table 10: Table documenting the properties of a shallow-water delta (conducted by Kimber O’Brien) compared to a deeper-water delta (conducted by Matthew Andresen).

Shallow-Water Delta: Deeper-Water Delta: Matthew

Kimber O'Brien Andresen Upper Sego Member, Iles Formation Neslen Formation Formation Age Campanian Campanian Locality Floy Canyon, UT Hunter Canyon, CO Elements MB 1,2, 3 MB 1, 2, 3 Clinoform angle 0.5-3 <1 - 5 (°) Water depth (m) 4 15+ Element 4 9 thickness (m) Element width 540 1000 (m) Element Aspect ratio 135 110 (width/thickness) Amount of overlap of stratigraphically 15% 57% adjacent elements Story percent 55% ~90% overlap Mode of sediment bedload/traction Suspension/traction transport/ mode of deposition Foreset: Ripple- Foreset: Planar-laminated laminated sandstone and Dominant facies sandstone, interbedded mud and cross-stratified silt sandstone Wright (1977) Friction dominated Inertia dominated classification Top-truncated? No Yes

REFERENCES

Anderson, D.S., 2005, Architecture of crevasse splay and point-bar bodies of the nonmarine Iles Formation north of Rangely, Colorado: implications for reservoir description: Mountain Geologist, v. 42, p. 109-122.

Andresen, M.A., 2015, Three-dimensional stratigraphic architecture and facies distribution of an ancient river-dominated delta, Iles Formation, Book Cliffs, Colorado, Colorado School of Mines Master’s Thesis.

Barrell, J., 1912, Criteria for the recognition of ancient delta deposits: Geological Society of America, v. 23, p. 377-446.

Berenbrock, C., Mason, R.R., and Blanchard, S.F., 2009, Mapping Hurricane Rita inland storm tide: Journal of Flood Risk Management, v. 2 p. 76-82.

Campbell, C.V., 1967, Lamina, laminaset, bed and bedset: Sedimentology, v. 8, p. 7-26.

Cross, T.A., and Homewood, P.W., 1997, Amanz Gressly’s role in founding modern stratigraphy: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 109, p. 1617-1630.

DeCelles, P.G., 2004, Late Jurassic to Eocene evolution of the Cordilleran thrust belt and foreland basin system, Western U.S.A: American Journal of Science, v. 304, p. 105-168.

Edmonds, D.A., Shaw, J.B., and Mohrig, D., 2011, Topset-dominated deltas: A new model for river delta stratigraphy, Geology, v. 39, p. 1175-1178.

Fielding, C.R., Trueman, J.D., 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.

Fielding, C.R., Trueman, J.D., and Alexander J., 2006, Holocene depositional history of the Burdekin River Delta of northeastern Australia: a model for a low-accommodation, highstand delta: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 76, p. 411-428.

Fisher, D., 1936, The Book Cliffs coal field in Emery and Grand Counties, Utah: United States Geological Survey Bulletin, no. 852, 104 p.

Ford, G.L., and Pyles, D.R., 2014, A hierarchical approach for evaluating fluvial systems: Architectural analysis and sequential evolution of the high net-sand content middle Wasatch Formation, Uinta Basin, Utah: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 98, p. 1273-1304.

Funk, J.E., Slatt, R.M., Pyles, D.R., 2012, Quantification of static connectivity between deep-

water channels and stratigraphically adjacent architectural elements using outcrop analogs: The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 96, p. 277-300.

Galloway, W.E., 1975, Process Framework for Describing the Morphologic and Stratigraphic Evolution of Deltaic Depositional Systems: in M. L. Broussard, eds., Deltas: Models for Exploration, Houston Geological Society, p. 87-98.

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.

Hettinger, R.D., and Kirschbaum, M.A., 2002, Stratigraphy of the Upper Cretaceous Mancos Shale (upper part) and Mesaverde Group in the southern part of the Uinta and Piceance basins, Utah and Colorado: United States Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series I-2764, 21 p.

Kirschbaum, M.A., Hettinger, R.D., 2004, Facies Analysis and Sequence Stratigraphic Framework of Upper Campanian Strata (Neslen and Mount Garfield Formations, Bluecastle Tongue of the Castlegate Sandstone, and Mancos Shale), Eastern Book Cliffs, Colorado and Utah: United States Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-69-G, 38 p.

Le Blanc, R.J., 1975, Significant Studies of Modern and Ancient Deltaic Sediments: in M. L. Broussard, eds., Deltas: Models for Exploration, Houston Geological Society, p. 13-85.

McCarthy, T.S., Stanistreet, I.G., Cairncross, B., Ellery, W.N., Ellery, K., Oelofse, R., and Grobicki, T.S.A., 1988, Incremental aggradation on the Okavango Delta-fan, Botswana: Geomorphology, v. 3, p. 267-278.

McCarthy, T.S., Stanistreet, I.G., and Cairncross, B., 1991, The sedimentary dynamics of active fluvial channels on the Okavango fan, Botswana: Sedimentology, v. 38, p. 471-487.

McCarthy, T.S., Ellery, W.N., and Stanistreet, I.G., 1992, Incremental aggradation on the Okavango Delta-fan, Botswana: Geomorphology, v. 1, p. 267-278.

McCarthy, T.S., 2002, The Okavango Delta—semiarid alluvial-fan sedimentation related to incipient rifting, in R.W. Renaut, and G.M. Ashley, eds., Sedimentation in continental rifts, Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication, v. 73, p. 179-193.

McGowen, J.H., 1971, Gum Hollow Fan Delta, Nueces Bay, Texas: Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations, no. 69, 91 p.

Middleton, G.V., 1973, Johannes Walther’s Law of the correlation of facies: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 84, p. 979-988.

Moody, J.D., Pyles, D.R., Clark, J., Bouroullec, R., 2012, Quantitative outcrop characterization of an analog to weakly confined submarine channel systems: Morillo 1 member, Ainsa Basin, Spain: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 96, p. 1813- 1841.

Mutti, E., and Normark, W.R., 1987, Comparing examples of modern and ancient turbidite systems: problems and concepts, in J.K. Leggett and G.G. Zuffa, Marine clastic sedimentology: concepts and case studies: Springer Netherlands, 38 p.

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., 2012, Integrated study of ancient delta-front deposits, using outcrop, ground-penetrating radar, and three-dimensional photorealistic data: Cretaceous Panther Tongue sandstone, Utah, U.S.A, in L. Giosan and J.P. Bhattacharya, eds., River deltas- concepts, models, and examples: Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication, v. 83, p. 155-177.

Overeem, I., Kroonenberg, S.B., Veldkamp, A., Groenesteijn, K., Rusakov, G.V., and Svitoch, A.A., 2003, Small-scale stratigraphy in a large ramp delta: recent and Holocene sedimentation in the Volga delta, Caspian Sea: Sedimentary Geology, v. 159, p. 133-157.

Parker, L.R., 1976, The Paleoecology of the Fluvial Coal-forming Swamps and Associated Floodplain Environments in the Blackhawk Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of Central Utah: Brigham Young University Geology Studies, v. 22, p. 99-116.

Pemberton, S.G., and Wightman, D.M., 1992, Ichnological characteristics of brackish water Deposits, in S.G. Pemberton, eds., Applications of ichnology to petroleum geology: Society for Sedimentary Geology, v. 17, p. 141-167.

Pyles, D.R., 2007, Architectural elements in a ponded submarine fan, Carboniferous Ross Sandstone, Western Ireland, in T. H. Nilsen, R. D. Shew, G. S. Steffens, and J. R. J. Studlick, eds., Atlas of deep-water outcrops: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology, v. 56, p. 1-19.

Pyles, D.R., Jennette, D.C., Tomasso, M., Beaubouef, R.T., and Rossen, C., 2010, Concepts learned from a 3D outcrop of a sinuous slope channel complex: Beacon Channel Complex, Brushy Canyon Formation, West Texas, USA: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 80, p. 67-96.

Pyles, D. R., Strachan, L.J., and Jennette, D.C., 2014, Lateral juxtapositions of channel and lobe elements in distributive submarine fans: Three-dimensional outcrop study of the Ross Sandstone and geometric model: Geosphere: Exploring the Deep Sea and Beyond, v. 10, p. 1-19.

Roberts, L.N.R., and Kirschbaum, M.A., 1995, Paleogeography of the Late Cretaceous of the western interior of middle North America-coal distribution and sediment accumulation: United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1561, 115 p.

Shaw, J.B., Mohrig, D., and Whitman, S.K., 2013, The morphology and evolution of channels on the Wax Lake Delta, Louisiana, USA: Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, v. 118, p. 1562-1584.

Shaw, J.B., and Mohrig, D., 2014, The importance of erosion in distributary channel network growth, Wax Lake Delta, Louisiana, USA: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 42, p. 31-34.

Shiers, M.N., Mountney, N.P., Hodgson, D.M., and Cobain, S.L., 2014, Depositional controls on tidally influenced fluvial successions, Neslen Formation, Utah, USA: Sedimentary Geology, v. 311, p. 1-16.

Stanistreet, I.G., and McCarthy, T.S., 1993, The Okavango Fan and the classification of subaerial fan systems: Sedimentary Geology, v. 85, p. 115-133.

Stefani, M., and Vincenzi, S., 2005, The interplay of eustasy, climate and human activity in the late Quaternary depositional evolution and sedimentary architecture of the Po Delta system: Marine Geology, v. 222-223, p.19-48.

Straub, K.M., Paola, C., Mohrig, D., Wolinsky, M.A., and George, T., 2009, Compensational stacking of channelized sedimentary deposits: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 79 p. 673-688.

Straub, K.M., and Pyles, D.R., 2012, Quantifying the hierarchical organization of compensation in submarine fans using surface statistics: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 82, p. 889- 898.

Wellner, R., Beaubouef , R., Van Wagoner, J., Roberts, H., and Sun, T., 2006, Jet plume depositional bodies-the primary building blocks of Wax Lake Delta: The Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, v. 55, p. 867-909.

Williams, H.F.L., 2009, Stratigraphy, sedimentology, and microfossil content of Hurricane Rita storm surge deposits in southwest Louisiana: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 25, p. 1041- 1051.

Wright, L.D., 1977, Sediment transport and deposition at river mouths: a synthesis: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 88 p. 857-868.

Xue, C., 1993, Historical changes in the Yellow River delta, China: Marine Geology, v. 113, p. 321-330.

APPENDIX A

A-1 Stratigraphic Columns

Figure A-1: Stratigraphic columns SC1-SC6. Locations are documented in Figure 4.

Figure A-2: Stratigraphic columns SC7-SC12. Locations are documented in Figure 4.

Figure A-3: Stratigraphic columns SC13-SC18. Locations are documented in Figure 4.

Figure A-4: Stratigraphic columns SC19-SC24. Locations are documented in Figure 4.

Figure A-5: Stratigraphic columns SC25-SC30. Locations are documented in Figure 4.