PERSPECTIVE FACIES MODELING AND SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY! ROGER G. WALKER Department of Geology McMaster Univesity Hamilion, Ontario LSS 4841, Canada From my perspective, it seems useful to think again about the relationship between sedimentology and stra- tigraphy, or more specifically, between aspects of facies, architectural clements, and facies modeling (Walker 1984a; Miall 1985) and the new genetic stratigraphic schemes (sequence stratigraphy, genetic stratigraphic se- quences, allostratigraphy). Smith (1985) suggested that a ISP Perspective might be “opinion-oriented,” challenge “existing viewpoints” and “take a hard look. . at some popular model and conventional wisdom.” I will attempt to do all of the above, showing (not surprisingly) that many basic ideas have been recycled over the years and clothed in new terminology. My ideas have been stimu- lated particularly by Plint’s work on Cardium Formation crosion surfaces (Plint ct al. 1986), Bhattacharaya’s work ‘on sequences in the Dunvegan Formation (Bhattacharaya 1988), the work of several people from Exxon on sequence stratigraphy (Posamentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier et al. 1988), and a commentary on the Exxon work by Gal- loway (1989). ‘Sequence stratigraphy, as presented by the Exxon group (Van Wagoner et al. 1988; Posamentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier et al. 1988), is a theoretical concept which was introduced without specific worked-out examples. I will apply their ideas in some detail to a Cretaceous sit- uation in order to examine whether interpretations are driven by the theoretical model, or whether specific sit- uations highlight weaknesses in the model (and thus can be used as feedback, with a view to strengthening the model in the real world of applications) ‘THE STRATIGRAPHIC RECORD Mother Nature presents us with layer upon layer of stratified rock—more than we can comprehend at once. In the most general sense, stratigraphy involves the sub- division of these rocks into bite-sized pieces. In a mea- sured section, it is obvious that each measured piece is in some way different from the pieces above and below. ‘These pieces of different aspect are in effect facies (Walker 1984b); each piece is separated from the next by a sharp or gradational contact. These simple pieces can be re- assembled in various ways, serving the needs of corre- lation, sedimentological interpretation, facies modeling, study of relative sea-level fluctuations, etc. The bite-sized pieces are normally descriptive, but their re-assembly usually involves interpretation. " Manuscrin received 30 November 1989; revised 22 January 1990, Subdivision Thave discussed at length the problems involved in the scale of facies subdivision (Walker 1984b, p. 1-2), as- suming that a different scheme appropriate for each geo- logical situation would be created by each worker (here termed a local scheme, as in Fig. 1; see de Raf et al, 1965 and Walker 1983 for examples). However, there are ‘now two facies schemes that are being applied universally, the turbidite scheme of Mutti and Ricci-Lucchi (1972) and the fluvial scheme of Miall (1978). Universal schemes ideally reflect our collective increased understanding of the deposits of certain environments, and universal schemes for other environments are probably not far away; the disadvantage of such schemes is the possibility of “foree-fitting” particular local situations into the scheme, Regardless of whether an existing universal scheme is used or an appropriate local scheme devised, we subdi- Vide the stratigraphic record into a collection of units (facies) separated by sharp or gradational contacts (Fig. 1; de Raaf et al. 1965). Contacts may be sharp for purely sedimentological reasons (e.g., fluvial crevasse. splay sandstones on floodplain mudstones) or because of major changes in depositional environment caused, for exam- ple, by relative sea level fluctuations. The significance accorded the contacts is one of the main problems in stratigraphy and sedimentology. Re-assembling the Stratigraphic Pieces In many local studies, facies descriptions may be so complex that they go beyond our interpretive abilities. The first way to simplify a complex scheme is to group facies perceived to be similar and/or genetically related; this can be done by using local criteria or by reference 10 ‘an existing universal scheme. A good example of a local facies scheme for deltaic sediments is that of Collinson (1969). He grouped 14 facies into five interpretive asso- ciations which consisted of “groups of facies genetically related to one another and which have some environ- ‘mental significance” (Collinson 1969, p. 207). This con- ‘cept of facies associations has been recycled into the more general idea of architectural elements (Allen 1983), dis- cussed below. Individual facies can also be re-assembled into existing universal associations, such as the slope, fan, and basin floor associations of Muti and Ricci-Lucchi (1972) or the fluvial architectural elements of Allen (1983). The strength of recognizing facies associations or architectural ‘elements is that each facies may now be placed in context Jounnat oF Seonancrany Pernovoor, Vot. 60, No. 5, Serrmsen, 1990, r. 777-786 ‘Copyright © 1990, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 0022-4472/90/0080-777/503.0078 ROGER G, LAGOONAL CLAM BEDS ‘SWALEY MUDSTONES | WAVE RIPPLED BIOTURBATED MUDSTONES PARALLEL LAM ] 5 CROSS STRAT. HCS SANDSTONES INTERBEDDED WITH BIOTURBATED \V. FINE. SANDSTONES WALKER LAGOON PROGRADING BARRIER ISLAND BEACH ‘SHOREFACE INNER SHELF TORM - DOMINATED ‘OUTER SHELF SHELF OG Fic. 1.—Hypothetical vertical facies sequence, with interpretations suggested to right with others perceived to be genetically related. Each facies therefore contributes to the interpretation of the others. FACIES SUCCESSIONS The term “sequence” now appears to be used in a large scale context, that of seismic sequences and sequence stra- tigraphy. It was first used in a large-scale sense by Sloss (1963) for the six craton-wide stratigraphic sequences of the North American continent. However, Teichert (1958, . 2723) points out that “in the German literature succes- sions of vertical facies became known as Faziesreihen this concept will be known in this paper as facies se- quence” (Teicher'’s italics). Teichert does not specify a scale, but it appears to be closer to that of an outcrop rather than an entire craton. Thus Sloss has changed the meaning of a pre-existing useful term; however, because of current usage, I reluctantly cede the term “sequence” to the seismic and sequence stratigraphers and will define it later. Thus what used to be termed “facies sequences” will hereafter be called “facies successions.” Facies can be placed in relative context by the recog- nition of progressive facies successions—those in which some or many rock properties change systematically up- section. In Figure 1, most of the facies contacts are shown as gradational except for the base ofthe shoreface, which is shown as sharp and loaded (eg, McCrory and Walker 1986; Rosenthal and Walker 1987). ‘The building of vertical successions has been discussed by Johannes Walther (in Middleton 1973) and more re- cently emphasized by de Raaf et al. (1965) and Visher (1965). The ideas were reiterated by Busch (1971) under the heading of “genetic increments of strata’ (GIS). These were defined as “intervals of strata representing one cycle of sedimentation in which each lithological component [facies” in my terminology] is related genetically to all others.” Busch’s GIS take on a genetic implication that ‘was not present in the facies successions of de Raaf et al (1965). It is implicit (de Raaf et al. 1965) or explicit (Busch 1971) that any progressive facies succession with dominantly gradational facies contacts is the result of one related set of depositional conditions. Experience has shown that in a broad sense there are only a limited number of progressive facies successions, Historically, the comparison of many different examples of one type of succession (ancient and modern) has led to generalizations that form the bases of facies models. FACIES MODELS ‘The term “facies model” continues to give trouble; it is used in the literature both for a summary of a local situation and for a conscious attempt at generalization using the combined features of many local examples (Walker 1984b), Both usages are well established; I prefer the generalization and will use the term in this wayPERSPECTIVE m7 throughout the paper. G. V. Middleton (pers. comm., 1990) has questioned some of the purposes of facies mod- ling: stimulated by his comments, I suggest that the pro- cess of facies modeling is useful as a deliberate attempt to synthesize information in a particular system. The re sulting model is perhaps of most use to students (using this term in a very broad sense). A model is of less use to a “professional” —one who has worked in the sysiem, and understands both its beauty and its warts. In my discussion of general facies models (Walker 1984b), I emphasized that good models can only be con- structed by the careful comparison of many modern and ancient examples. The examples must be from a homo- ‘geneous population; a poor model with limited predictive power will result if end-member examples of (say) mean- dering and braided rivers are carelessly or unthinkingly mixed together to make a “generic river” model. I also ‘commented that models could be expressed “as idealized sequences of facies, as block diagrams, and as graphs and. equations” (Walker 1984b, p. 5). I considered it obvious that three-dimensional control (block diagrams) was pref erable to two-dimensional control (vertical sequences) ‘Most workers in the field have tried to record vertical and lateral facies changes (given appropriate outcrop or ability to correlate), and I do not feel as strongly as Miall does (1985, p. 263) that vertical profiles have been over- emphasized. ‘There are many problems involved in the construction of facies models, including the choice of environment to ‘model and the scale at which to model it. I speculated it, 1984 that “as very large scale systems are studied in more detail (¢.g., submarine fans), models for sub-components of the system may emerge” (Walker 1984b, p. 7). What constitutes a system and a sub-environment are matters of opinion (and may depend on the scale of the study), but it must be emphasized that a model can only predict, within the framework of the model. Thus a model for the channel-levee complexes on submarine fans cannot pre- dict beyond the channel-levee complexes, for example 10 basin plain facies. It may therefore be preferable to try and model entire depositional systems rather than sub- components, despite my 1984 comments cited above. strongly retain the idea that facies models are abso- lutely necessary in stratigraphy and sedimentology, and hence that efforts to improve existing models and con- struct new ones are worthwhile. Models alone give us a norm, without which we are unable to assess the signif- icance of a new example. Models alone embody the pre- dictive capability of sedimentology (Walker 1984a). How- ever, before suggesting new approaches to facies modeling, I will consider the topic of “architectural element anal- ysis (Miall 1985). ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT ANALYSIS (AEA) Allen (1983) first introduced the concept of architec- tural elements, which can be considered as a general- ization of the concept of facies associations (Collinson 1969). Miall (1985, p. 297) has gone one step farther in suggesting that the elements can be used in stratigraphic analysis, and claims that this analysis, unlike facies mod- eling, “reverts to the purely descriptive.” Architectural elements are associations of facies, or individual facies, separated by bounding surfaces. In the case of fluvial deposits, Miall (1985, p. 269) suggests eight basic cle- ments which he described carefully; however, the de- scriptions also embody some interpretation. These basic elements were given genetic names; “channels, gravel bars and bedforms, sandy bedforms, foreset macroforms (now termed downstream accretion, Miall 1988), lateral accre- tion deposits, sediment gravity flows, laminated sand sheets, and overbank fines.” The analysis of these ele- ‘ments involves the “ways in which they may combine and interbed with each other”; these ways are “almost infinitely variable” (Miall 1985, p. 297). This type of analysis used to be called “vertical and lateral facies re- lationships” and is an extremely valuable and necessary part of stratigraphy and sedimentology. Miall (1985, p. 299) concludes that “the architectural elements have be- ‘come the norm for purposes of comparison, the frame- work and guide for future observations, the predictor in ‘new geological situations, and the basis for hydrodynamic interpretations.” In my opinion, this sentence reveals two fundamental flaws in architectural element analysis. First, if the combinations of elements are “almost finitely variable,” and the elements have become the basis for prediction, it follows that prediction can only be at- tempted within an clement. Recognition of a downstream accretion element, for example, allows prediction of facies only within the downstream accretion element, but it is impossible to predict where to look for channels, gravel bars and bedforms, or lateral accretion deposits. Second, AEA offers no overall point of reference (norm) for a depositional system as a whole, Each combination of architectural elements (cach individual example) is treated as unique, and in the absence of a norm, there is no way of knowing whether the individual example is similar to, or greatly different from, other examples. This is sedimentological anarchy. Finally, it is obvious that AEA requires three-dimen- sional outcrop of a kind rarely encountered; itis almost impossible to do in the subsurface where bounding sur- faces are hard or impossible to define in cores. The fact that certain facies, facies associations, or ar- chitectural elements occur universally allows comparison and interpretation of many local examples—classical tur- bidites form a good example, The description of archi- tectural elements embodies the search for the basic build- ing blocks of sedimentology, world-wide, Archean to Recent. This is the strength of architectural elements, not their “analysis.” FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN FACIES MODELING In the past, the basic approach to facies modeling has consisted of 1) subdividing all depositional environments into. relatively small number of basic types (sandy rivers, deltas, shelf etc.) and then 2) describing those environ- ments as carefully as possible by comparing recent ex- amples with those interpreted to be their ancient coun-780 terparts (Walker 1984a). This comparison results in general statements about the environment that form the ‘basis for a model. In attempting to divide up environ- ‘ments, Galloway (pers. comm. 1989) doubts that a few models “can reasonably reflect the diversity of deposi- tional systems/facies that exist ... [and thus he has] em- phasized the system approach—a few basic geomorphic and process-defined depositional systems, each with a spectral array of styles (tide, wave, river dominated del~ tas}, and each composed of @ predictable suite of facies.” However, although an environment is a geomorphic entity influenced by internal sedimentological processes, its preservation in the geological record is strongly influ- enced by outside controls such as the rate and type of, sediment supply, tectonics, and relative sea-level fluctua tions. Facies models as presently formulated attempt to recognize those outside controls, but generally in an in- adequate way. For example, in my submarine fan model (Walker 1984c), static plan views are emphasized. Only fone hopelessly overgeneralized and unrealistic vertical section attempts to show what might happen during fan progradation. New submarine fan models must attempt to relate in time and space all of the autocyclic and al- locyclic elements, such as basin floor sheet sands, chan- nel-levee complexes (with or without depositional lobes at the end), rates and types of sediment supply, and fluc- tuations of relative sea level. In other environments, the need for more responsive, less static, facies models will even influence the choice of environment modeled. For example, the stratigraphic se~ uence shown in Figure | is increasingly commonly rec- ognized in the geological record. Facies are described next to the graphic log, and interpreted in the second column (where the term “shelf” is an abbreviation for any open, shallow marine environment). The facies succession rep- resents the progradation of a storm-dominated shoreface into a storm-dominated offshore area. It now seems ap- propriate to model this as one system, rather than setting up models for barrier islands (incorporating some dis- cussion of the shoreface) and separate models for the shelf (subdivided into storm- and tide-dominated). Similarly, tide-dominated deltas and offshore tidal sand bars should probably be considered as part of one system, rather than ‘modeling tide-dominated deltas.as one third of the overall deltaic system (river- and wave-dominated deltas make up the other two thirds), and offshore tidal sand bodies 1s one half of the shelf and shallow marine system (the other half being storm-dominated) (Walker 1984a). This idea can be traced back a long way—at least 10 the depositional systems of Fisher and McGowen (1967). Depositional systems are “three-dimensional assem- blages of process-related facies that record major paleo- geomorphic basin elements” (Galloway 1989, p. 126). A “linkage of contemporaneous depositional systems” can be termed a “systems tract” (Brown and Fisher 1977). They took the idea beyond that of depositional environ- ‘ments, recognizing regional or basinwide unconformities, and stating that “[seismic} reflection-bounded units com- posed of contemporancous depositional systems (systems tracts) are... called ‘seismic-stratigraphic units™ (Brown and Fisher 1977, p. 215). ROGER G, WALKER Future facies modeling must emphasize these contem- poraneous, linked depositional environments, and their Tesponse to tectonics and changes of relative sea level This will combine the strengths of classical facies mod- cling with the recognition that widely spaced and “dis- tinct” geographic environments (summarized as models) can be rapidly superimposed as part of one transgressive or regressive system. ‘THE NEW STRATIGRAPHIES There are currently at least four stratigraphies that at- ‘tempt to subdivide rocks into genetic packages based on bounding unconformities or discontinuities. They are largely conceptual, with little or no consideration of 1) scale of application, 2) actual geological examples (al- though Galloway 1989, provides some), or 3) the rela- tionship between the different schemes. They all derive from seismic stratigraphy (Vail and Mitchum 1977), in ‘which large scale subdivision is based upon discordances between seismic markers (toplap, downlap, offiap). Seis- mic sequences between markers are “generally tens to hundreds of meters thick” (Mitchum et al. 1977, p. 56); ‘examples from West Airica average 600-700 m (Todd and Mitchum 1977, p. 157; Mitchum and Vail 1977, p. 137). The concepts of seismic stratigraphy have evolved into those of sequence stratigraphy (Van Wagoner et al 1988; Posamentieret al, 1988; Posamentier and Vail 1988) with additional geological rather than seismic emphasis. The scale implied by sequence stratigraphy is not explic- itly discussed by the authors mentioned above, but Jervey (1988, p. 41, 56, 68) indicates thicknesses in the 100-300 ‘m range. This glossing over of the scale problem by the Exxon group creates problems with terms such as “sig~ nificant hiatus” and “relatively conformable,” because these terms have very different connotations in different scales of study. The scale of a “genetic stratigraphic se- quence” is not specifically discussed by Galloway (1989), although his Tertiary Gulf Coast examples are several hundred meters thick even before they expand downdip due to growth faulting, The differences between sequence stratigraphy and genetic stratigraphic sequences are subtle and will be discussed below. Seismic-and sequence-strati- graphic schemes suggest that the bounding unconformi: ties result from widespread changes of relative sca level and have generated considerable discussion concerning the influence (dominance?) of global sea-level fluctua tions. Problems concerning the global universality of coastal onlap curves have been succinctly reviewed by Miall (1986), Seismic stratigraphy, sequence stratigraphy and genetic stratigraphic sequences are not formally recognized by the North American Commission on Stratigraphic No- menclature (NACSN 1983), The fourth scheme, allostra- tigraphy, is formally recognized. It is similar in concept to sequence stratigraphy in that the stratigraphic units are unconformity bounded. Specifically, allostratigraphy rec- ognizes a body of sedimentary rock “defined and iden- tified on the basis of its bounding discontinuities (NACSN 1983). Formal names (Alloformations, Allo- members) can be assigned, and the subdivisions are sim-PERSPECTIVE 781 HIGHSTAND SYSTEMS TRACT SEQUENCE 7 TRANSGRESSIVE SYSTEMS TRACT Fic. 2.—Definition of terms used in the text, based on facies geometries and relationships in the Cardiurm Formation. SE, subaerial erosion: 1 inital wanizession; RT, resumed transgression; Mar FS, marine Rooding surface; Max, maximum flooding surface. Stipple indicates coastal tnd nearshore marine faces in thee sandier-upward prograding parasequences. Parasequences comprise floodplain rocks to left of sippe, and lfshore marine ocks 10 Fight ilar in scale to lithostratigraphie formations and members (and are commonly much smaller than the subdivisions in the first three stratigraphies discussed above). The basic conceptual ideas of sequence stratigraphy have been out- lined by Van Wagoner et al. (1988, p. 39; Fig. 2). The fundamental unit of sequence stratigraphy is the se- quence, which is bounded by unconformities and their correlative conformities. A sequence can be divided into systems tracts, which are defined by their position within the sequence, and by the stacking patterns of parasequence sets and parasequences bounded by ma- rine flooding surfaces... . a parasequence isa relatively conformable succession of genetically related beds or bedsets bounded by marine flooding surfaces... . [which are surfaces] across which there is evidence of an abrupt inerease in water depth. Its clear that there are problems with the application of these essentially theoretical ideas of stratigraphy: no scale is suggested; “relatively unconformable” is undefined; the meaning of “genetically related” is not explained; many successions of marine rocks (¢.., thick Lower Paleozoic quartzites in many parts of the world) do not contain parasequences; and no guidance is given with respect to distinguishing parasequence bounding surfaces from se~ uence-bouding unconformities. Finally, sequence stra- tigraphy, with its emphasis on bounding unconformities and marine flooding surfaces, cannot easily be applied to rnon-marine rocks (if at all. Some of the concepts and terminology are shown in Figure 2. Here, three prograding parasequences make up 1 parasequence set, with stipple indicating shoreface and inner shelf sands. Subaerial erosion (SE) is illustrated by incised fluvial channels (also stippled). The sequence bounding unconformities that initially formed subaerially were subsequently modified by marine erosion—either by continuous transgression (IT = initial transgression) (or by transgression punctuated by stillstand and shoreface incision (IT/RT ~ initial transgression/resumed transgression). Marine flooding surfaces (Mar.FS) bound the parasequences and the maximum flooding surface (Max.FS) separates the two systems tracts. It appears that a parasequence is similar in scale and concept to the facies sequence of Teichert (1958), 10 Busch’s (1971) GIS (genetic increment of strata), and to the facies (sequence) succession of de Raf et al. (1965) (recycled terminology again). A parasequence (Fig. 2) is the result ofa set of related depositional conditions —for example, a shoreface progradation, giving a facies succes- sion of offshore mudstones, interbedded HCS sandstones and bioturbated mudstones, shoreface deposits (cross bedded and/or swaley cross stratified), and foreshore par- allel laminations (Fig. 1). Such a succession could vary from 5 to about 50 m thick and might be capped by marine transgressive strata above a Marine Flooding Sur- face (Mar-FS, Fig. 2) that initiates another set of depo- sitional conditions. Ifso, the parasequence is limited by bounding discontinuities, and hence can be formally named in an allostratigraphic scheme (see, for example, Plint et al, 1986, 1987; Bergman and Walker 1988) GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS IN STRATIGRAPHY Another problem with the Exxon stratigraphic schemes is that the exact meaning ofthe phrase “genetically related strata” is never spelled out. Genetic relationships can be hypothesized on at least two scales, with different impli- cations of the term genetic. On the smal scale, for ex- ample, a 20-30-m-thick prograding, coarsening-upward succession may contain facies that are genetically related 1) by being laterally gradational before progradation stacked the facies vertically, and 2) by being deposited during one set of prograding depositional conditions (Figs. 1, 2). Under these conditions, the term “genetically re- lated” embraces sedimentological parameters such as the rate and type of sediment supply, the wave and tide cli mate of the basin, salinity, etc. These may remain fairly constant during the progradational event. On the large scale of sequence stratigraphy or genetic stratigraphic se- ‘quences, the facies are genetically related only because they are assumed to have been deposited during one com- plete cycle of relative sea level fluctuation. The resulting Sequence can be subdivided into systems tracts (Posa- mentier et al. 1988; Posamentier and Vail 1988; Fig. 2),782 ROGER G. but the sedimentological controls operating in the trans- gressive tract (for example, low or zero rate of sediment input, and reworking of older deposits into transgressive tidal sand wave complexes) may be quite different from those operating in the subsequent highstand systems tract (for example, high rates of sediment supply, prograding river-dominated deltas, and offshore sand transport dom inated by storms). ‘There are atleast three reasons for studying stratigraph- ic relationships on the large scale of sequence stratigraphy and genetic stratigraphic sequences. The first is to attempt inter-regional or global correlations of stratigraphic pack- ages using global eustatic sea level curves as a basis for the correlation. The second is to develop a time-strati- ‘graphic framework for the rocks under study. The third is to treat the geometry of the unconformities in the sense of a broadly defined predictive model, such that (for ex- ample) a type | sequence boundary (Van Wagoner etal 1988) on the shelf predicts a lowstand fan and lowstand ‘wedge at the base of slope. In this large scale sense, the depositional systems are genetically related within sys- tems tracts, and some of the systems tracts might also be genetically related within the cycle of relative sea level fluctuation (for example, transgressive overlain by high- stand systems tracts). However, I emphasize the word ‘might here because itis very important to emphasize the extent to which depositional patterns can and will change across unconformities and across maximum flooding sur- faces, BOUNDARIES OF GENETIC PACKAGES 1 will use a well worked out, but relatively small scale, ‘example to examine how sequence stratigraphy and/or genetic stratigraphic sequences can be used to study rocks In the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway (Fig. 3, Car- dium Alloformation; Plint et al. 1986, 1987; Bergman and Walker 1987, 1988; Pattison 1988; Walker and Eyles 1988; Leggitt et al. 1990). I will look at the choice of boundaries of genetic packages, particularly contrasting the approach associated with workers from Exxon (se- quences bounded by unconformities; Vail and Mitchum 1977; Posamentier and Vail 1988; Posamentier etal. 1988) and the Galloway (1989) approach (genetic stratigraphic sequences bounded by flooding surfaces; Figs. 2, 3). Erosion surface E5 (Bergman and Walker 1988) rests exclusively on marine rocks, with no evidence ofsubaerial exposure, Surface E4 rests partly on marine (Pattison 1988), and partly on non-marine rocks (Plint etal. 1986). ‘The regional development of both erosion surfaces sug- gests that marine rocks have been subaerially exposed by 2 fall of relative sea level and that the subacrial erosion surface has subsequently been transgressed; where marine rocks rest on older marine rocks, all evidence of exposure hhas been eroded away, including any incised streams. It is therefore not clear whether they are type 1 or type 2 sequence boundaries (even if this terminology can be used in basins which do not have distinct shelf/slope breaks). ‘Transgression was interrupted by short periods of relative stillstand, when the northeast-facing asymmetrical scours (Fig. 3), interpreted as shorefaces, were incised (Bergman WALKER and Walker 1988; Walker and Eyles 1988), Sand and gravel were supplied to the shorefaces during stillstand. ‘When transgression resumed, the upper parts ofthe shor face succession, including the beach, were truncated, and coarse sediment was spread southwestward as a lag. Two transgressive surfaces can therefore be recognized; an ini- tial transgression (IT) and a resumed transgression (RT). ‘The preserved shoreface deposits between IT and RT can be up to 18 m thick in the Carrot Creek Allomember (Fig. 3), which is defined by the “bounding discontinuities” IT and RT. These were originally termed ES (the initial ero- sion surface) and TS (implying transgression, which we now recognize is also erosive in many places). Away from the incised shorefaces, IT and RT become the same sur- face (IT/RT; location 1 in Fig. 3), which is overlain by a thin transgressive pebble lag. This lag is physically con- tinuous with the Carrot Creek shoreface, and hence (de- spite being so thin) it is also termed the Carrot Creek Allomember. Eagle-eyed readers will notice that in the shoreface (location 2, Fig. 3), the allomember is defined by IT below and RT above: in the transgressive veneer, IT and RT are the same surface and the pebbles overlie IT/RT (location 1, Fig. 3). If allostratigraphic concepts are strictly applied, the pebble veneer should belong to a separate and younger allomember from the shoreface con- slomerate. Here, the scale problem becomes important again, because in practical terms, this violation of prin- ciples is at such a small scale that little is served by giving the veneer a separate allomember name, so long as the violation is understood and appreciated. At both the Bumstick and Carrot Creek horizons (Fig. 3), the shoreface conglomerates and transgressive veneers are abruptly overlain by mudstones at locations 1 and 2 in Figure 3. Without chemical or micropaleontological analysis, we cannot easily determine from cores exactly ‘where the maximum flooding surface (MFS) occurs. tis stratigraphically convenient to assume that it occurs at the top of the coarse conglomeratic layer, because in sub- surface applications of these ideas, correlation depends ‘on well log picks. The conglomerate/mudstone contact ‘can easily be picked from resistivity and gamma ray logs, and thus for practical purposes it can be equated with the MES in this Cardium example. Indeed, in some areas the ‘gamma ray log shows a “hot” (radioactive) marker that can represent the MFS, ‘One added complication can be seen at location 3 (Fig. 3), where pebbly mudstones occur stratigraphically ad- Jacent to shoreface conglomerates. The pebbly mudstones are interpreted to have formed at about the time that reneved transgression (RT) began. During the initial stages of RT, some of the shoreface gravel was moved south- ‘westward as transgressive lags, but some gravel was moved by storms offshore (northeastward), where it mixed both physically and biologically (by bioturbation) with trans- gressive mud to form pebbly mudstones. Thus at location 3 (Fig. 3) the RT surface separates conglomeratic shore- face from pebbly mudstone, and MFS is drawn imme- diately above the last pebbly horizon. The pebbly mud- stones thin and disappear basinward, where the RT and MFS surfaces blend together. ‘The progradational systems tract (Raven River Allo-PERSPECTIVE Carrot Creek Allomember Raven River Allomember RT (T4) a 4) T(E 4) "purnstick Allomember Hornbeck Allomember 783 Dismal Rat Allomember GALLOWAY EXXON MFS 1/RT Burnstick Allomember Fig, 3.—Relationship of depositional facies, erosion surface geometry and sequence boundaries, based on the Cardium Formation. MFS, maximum Roding surface; RT, resumed transgression IT, intial transgression. Note thatthe RT surface inthe northeast becomes the IT surface 43s transgression proceeds o the southwest. £4, T4, E3, T3 refer to original Cardium terminology (Pin et al. 1986). Cardium Allomembers are ‘named (after Plint etal. 1985) and sequence boundaries according to Galloway (1989) and Exxon workers are shown member) comprises a sandier-upward succession of black mudstones, bioturbated silty mudstones, and HCS sand- stones interbedded with bioturbated mudstones. In the scheme associated with Exxon, log markers within this prograding package should downlap onto MFS (Fig. 2), but this cannot be demonstrated in the Cardium. ‘The Cardium depositional scheme has been explained briefly above, in order that the following points can be ‘made. First, a stratigraphic sequence (in the Exxon sense) could be drawn from IT 10 IT (or E4 to ES), whereas a Galloway (1989) genetic stratigraphic sequence could be drawn from MFS to MFS. 1 quote Galloway (1989, p. 132) extensively to illustrate a problem I perceive in his scheme: Distinct shelf-system deposits, including sand-rich fa- cies, are most likely formed during transgression and flooding (Swift and Rice 1984). Because shelf deposits are derived from reworked transgressed or contem- porary retrogradational deposits, their distribution commonly reflects the paleogeography of the precursor depositional episode. These deposits are best included in and mapped as a facies element of the underlying genetic stratigraphic sequence. Up to this point, I have deliberately avoided the term “depositional episode.” It was probably first used by Fra- Zier (1974), who used both “depositional event” and “de- positional episode.” Galloway's episode appears to be ‘equivalent to Frazier’s event (compare Frazier’s figure 2 ‘with Galloway's figure 3), and Galloway’s “depositional episode” gives rise to a “genetic stratigraphic sequence” (caption of Galloway's (1989) figure 2). Because I am discussing Galloway's ideas below, [ am forced to use this confusing terminology. The Cardium conglomerates are “contemporary retro- sradational deposits,” deposited in incised shorefaces, but these shorefaces do not appear to “reflect the paleogeog- raphy of the precursor depositional episode.” If Gallo- ‘way's scheme is applied to the Cardium, it is not even clear what the “precursor episode” represents; it could ‘be the shelf HCS sandstones that underlie the conglom-784 ROGER G. crates (upper part of Raven River Allomember, Fig. 3), or it could be the floodplain depositional episode (now eroded away) that immediately preceded transgression Galloway (pers. comm., 1989) has suggested that the pre~ cursor episode would include “deposition of the shoreface units, as well as the fluvial or valleys fils that [you] infer to have been present.” Finally, if | quote Galloway in a Cardium context, I cannot agree that “these deposits [the Cardium shoreface conglomerates] are best included in and mapped as a facies element of the underlying genetic stratigraphic se quence [Raven River HCS shallow marine sandstones} they have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying deposits, “The second point that follows from this brief consid- eration of the Cardium is 2 very simple and very general fone, namely that there is unlikely to be a direct sedi- ‘mentological genetic relationship between rocks below and above an unconformity, and below and above an MFS (where a “sedimentologically genetic” relationship implies common rates and types of sediment input, com- mon wave, tidal and current conditions, salinities etc.) ‘The stratigraphic sequence (in the Exxon sense) is not ssedimentologically genetic because it spans an MFS (the Burnstick conglomerates are not genetically related to the sandier-upward Raven River succession), nor is Gallo- ‘way’s sequence sedimentologically genetic because it spans an unconformity (the Raven River succession is not ge- netically related to the Carrot Creek shoreface conglom- crates). The changes that take place both at unconformi- ties and MES's may be profound and involve changes in basin size and depth (affecting major factors such as tidal range and the fetch of waves), gradients (both basin floor and floodplain), rates of sediment supply salinities (influx of fresh water, basin restriction), and many other factors, Galloway (pers. comm., 1989) agrees with the use of al- lostratigraphic units for the Cardium but maintains that “many (most?) transgressive units reflect, with mocifi- cation, in their facies distribution the depositional en- vironments/facies transgressed.” Our differences of opin- jon perhaps concern how much “modification” has taken place during transgression, and hence the extent to which the underlying systems and transgressive systems are sed- imentologically genetically related. I therefore emphasize again that the only genetic factor ‘that operates at the Exxon or Galloway scale is the as- sumed relationship between a sequence, or genetic strat graphic sequence, and one cycle of relative sea level fluc- tuation. As defined above, a sedimentologically genetic package cannot extend farther than 1) unconformity to ‘overlying MFS, or 2) MFS to overlying unconformity. In correspondence, Galloway (pers. comm., 1989) has raised another interesting point with respect to the choice of unconformity versus MFS in the Cardium (Fig. 3). He suggests that interestingly the Exxon sequence model can be used for the Cardium .... only if one is willing to have the principal stratigraphic boundary (subaerial unconformity) be a surface that no longer exists and WALKER can never be conclusively proven to have existed by direct observation. In contrast, the surface of marine erosion is real and isa dominant bounding stratigraphic element ... I think it is fair to argue that an Exxon sequence cannot be legitimately drawn in your figures [Fig. 3]. There is no suéaerial unconformity and there fore no “depositional sequence” boundary preserved in the Cardium stratigraphic record as you have inter- preted it. ‘The problem here lies with the broad concept of sequence boundaries as expressed by Exxon geologists and the ab- sence of a clear statement that subaerial erosion surfaces are sometimes (commonly? always?) extensively modi- fied or destroyed by subsequent transgression. But re- gardless of the extent of modification, the Cardium ero- sion surfaces can conclusively be proven to exist; one can do Exxon stratigraphy in the Cardium if one so wishes Fig. 3). Finally, D. J. Cant (pers. comm., 1990) has raised the interesting question as to whether one can distinguish different types of bounding surface given information (core or outcrop) only from the basin center. If far enough from the basin margin, in cratonic or foreland basins without lowstand submarine fans, bounding discontinuities may exist as (unrecognizable) correlative conformities, and ‘maximum flooding surfaces may simply be pauses in de- position within an already-slowly-deposited fine grained succession. One is left with the uncomfortable feeling that sequence stratigraphy may be very difficult in such situ- ations, just as it is in thick non-marine successions. SYSTEMS TRACTS AND FACIES MODELING. ‘The sediment packages between unconformities and MFS's, or MFS’s and unconformities are essentially sy- tems tracts (Fig. 2). In Figure 3, the Burnstick and Carrot Creek Allomembers are both transgressive systems tracts, and the Raven River isa prograding or highstand systems tract. The systems tract concept can clearly be applied on many different scales. The concept unites a group of con- temporaneous depositional systems. Each system (delta, barrier island, etc.) could be individually modeled, but ‘my suggestion is that under the influence of progressive relative sea-level change one system can quickly evolve into another. For example, in many alleged tide-domi- nated “deltas,” the bulk of the sandy deposits appear to consist of submerged tidal sand ridges—the Klang (Ma~ laysia) and Ord (Australia) are good examples (Coleman and Wright 1975). These systems are not adequately modeled at the moment, because the deltaic part (the irregular progradation of the shoreline) falls into one model, and the submerged tidal ridges fall into another (tide-dominated shelves). If the submerged tidal ridges began life as deltas, and have been submerged by Holo- cene transgression, it may be more appropriate to for- mulate a model for a “transgressive tidal shelf/tidal delta systems tract.” Other examples spring to mind; for example, prograd- ing storm dominated shoreface/ofishore systems (Fig, |;PERSPECTIVE McCrory and Walker 1986; Rosenthal and Walker 1987; Plint and Walker 1987), or transgressive barrier island systems that involve lagoonal muds and sands, washover deposits, and lower shoreface storm sands moved sea- ward as the barrier transgresses landward (Rampino and Sanders 1980). ‘CONCLUSIONS Although local facies schemes will continue to flourish, it is clear that more and more facies and facies associa- tions (architectural elements) are being recognized as hav- ing universal application—classical turbidites, fluvial lat- eral accretion deposits, and swaley cross-stratified shorefaces are three examples. Defining more of these universal architectural elements is an important goal. On a broader scale, the sedimentological approach to stra- tigraphy involves the search for genetically related groups of rocks. The new genetic stratigraphic schemes attempt to do this, and, as emphasized by Posamentier (pers. ‘comm., 1989), they can be applied at any scale. However, because they are also enmeshed with concepts of cycles of sea-level fluctuation, they do not necessarily identify sedimentologically genetically related groups of rocks (as defined above). The best descriptive working scheme is allostratigraphy. in which units bounded by discontinu- ities can be formally recognized on any scale (NACSN 1983), even down to separating as distinct allo-units the transgressive lag above IT/RT (Fig. 3) from the shoreface conglomerate between IT and RT (if this is perceived as desirable and geologically useful). But regardless of con- trols, be they sedimentological or related to cycles of sea- level fluctuation, both allostratigraphy and sequence stra- tigraphy help to establish a relative time-stratigraphic framework for sedimentary rocks, and both recognize the significance of hiatuses of various temporal and spatial extents. Choices of sequence boundaries may be constrained by the demands of a particular investigation and by the con- ceptual preferences of an individual worker. Thus Posa- mentier (pers. comm., 1989) prefers to use the uncon- formity over the MFS as the boundary, on the grounds that reservoir facies typically overlie the unconformity, whereas the MFS is associated with the source of hydro- carbons, and the seal of the reservoir. In contrast, Gal- loway (1989, p. 138-140) gives a series of reasons for his preference of the MFS instead of the unconformity. These reasons stem from the fact that he “emphatically (does not] think that sea level is the principal control of se- quence development . .. [hence] I prefer the condensed section/MFS” Galloway, pers. comm., 1989). My own suggestion is to recognize that both schemes have similar strengths and weaknesses, for smaller scale sedimento- logical purposes, neither is appropriate. Concepts of depositional systems and facies models both involve an initial choice—what is to be modeled. Will it be an entire delta, or is a distributary mouth bar a big-enough and separate-enough entity io recognize and ‘model asa depositional system by itself? The choices may be a little simpler if systems tracts are taken as the basic 785 unit to model, because I suspect that there are fewer basic systems tracts than there are depositional systems. Clear- Jy, environments can be separated or linked at many dif- ferent scales. Galloway (pers. comm., 1989) comments that shorezone and shelf systems ... [commonly evolve] from progradational to transgressive. If overall paleo geography and marine process framework remain si lar, T have found it useful to view the depositional product as that of a single, evolving system. If the changes are significant, it becomes useful to separate progradational vs. transgressive systems as separate en- tities. There is nothing intended in my sequence model to prevent one doing this where it is useful The if (“if overall paleogeography and marine process framework remain similar") isa big IF, and I suspect that one will normally wish to treat the progradational and transgressive systems separately. Modeling involves the search for the items shared in common between sit ir ancient and modern systems tracts, the recognition of the role of relative sea-level fluctuation, the establishment of a norm, and the artic- ulation of the model in such a way that it can be used predictively. These are also the ways in which sedimen- tology and genetic stratigraphy are converging, and they present challenges for the large-scale understanding of the sedimentary record, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ideas in this paper have been stimulated by dis- cussions with many friends. 1 particularly thank Janok Bhattacharaya, Bill Galloway, Andrew Miall, Dale Leck- ie, Guy Plint and Henry Posamentier for reading a first draft of the manuscript, and Doug Cant and Gerry Mid- dleton for subsequent comments. They have all contrib- uted valuable insights and sugeestions. I have tried not to misinterpret any of their ideas, and 1 am solely re- sponsible for the wording and emphasis given in the text except where direct quotations are given. Operating and Strategic Grants from the Natural Sciences and Engi- neering Research Council of Canada have funded work in western Canada, where some of the ideas have been developed and tested. REFERENCES ALLEN, J.R.L., 1983, Studies in fuviatie sedimentation: bar complexes ‘and sandstone sheets (low-sinvosty braided streams) inthe Brown- ‘Stones (L. Devonian), Welsh Borders: Sed. Geol, v.33, p. 237-293 BexoMAN, K. M., aN Watxex, R.G., 1987, The importance of sez level fluctuations in the formation of linear conglomerate bodies: (Carrot Creek Member, Cretaceous Westera Interior Seaway, Alber Canada: Jou. Sed. Peirology, v.57, p. 651-665. BencMeax, K.M., aND Waxes, RG, 1988, Formation of Cardium ‘resion surface ES, and associated deposition of conglomerate; ‘Creek cid, Cretaceous Wester Interior Seaway. alberta, /” D.P, and Leckie, D.A., eds, Sequences, Stratigraphy, Sedimentol- ‘ogy; Surface and Subsuriuce: Can. Soe. Pewol. Geol, Mem. 15, 2 15-24, BuarracuanavA,J., 1988, Autocyticand allocyclie sequences in iver-786 ROGER G. and wave-dominated deltaic sediments ofthe Upper Cretaceous Dun- ‘vegan Formation, Alberta; core examples, in James, D-P..and Leckie, D.A.weds. Sequences, Sratigraphy, Sedimentology: Surface and Sub- surface: Can. Soe. Petrol. Geol. Mem. 15, p. 25-32. ‘Brown, L. F, JR. AND FISHER, W. L,, 1977, Selsmicstratgraphic in {erpretation of depositional systems: examples from Brazilian rit and pullapart basins, in Payton, C. E., ed. Seismic Siatgraphy—Ap- Plications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: A.A.P.G.,.Mem. 26». 213- 2s. Buscu, D.A., 1971, Genetic units in delta prospecting A.A.P.G. Bull ¥. $5, 0. H3TA1i54, ‘COLEMAN, J. M., AND Wauait, L. D., 1975, Moder river deltas: vari- ability of processes and sand bodies, Broussard, M. L., ed, Deltas, “Models for Exploration: Houston Geol. Soc.,p- 99-149 ‘CouLinsow. J. D., 1969, The sedimentology of the Grindslow Shales ‘and the Kinderscout Grit: a deltaic complex in the Namucian of northem England: Jour. Sed, Petrology, 39, p. 194-22] De RAgr J. F-M., READING, H.G., an Watxer, R.G., 1965, Cyclic sedimentation inthe Upper Carboniferous of North Devon, Eagiand: Sedimentology. v. 4, p. 52 Fister, W. L.-aND MCGOWAN, J. H., 1967, Depositional systems in the Wilcox Group of Texas and their relationship to occurrence of bil and ga: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Socs. Trans... 17, 105-125, Frazith, D. E., 1974, Depostional episodes: their relationship to the ‘Quaternary stratigraphic framework in the northwestem portion of the Gulf basin: Austin, TX, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geol Circular 74-1 28 p. Gatoway, W. E, 1989, Genetic stratigraphic sequences in basin anal~ ‘sie K. architecture and genesis of looding-surlace bounded deposi- tional unite: AAPG. Bull, », 73, p. 125¢142. Ienvey, M. T., 1988, Quantitative geological modeling of siliciclastic ‘Tock sequences and their seismic expression, n Wigs, C. Ket al, eds, Sea Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM Spec. Publ. 12, p. 47-69. Lecarrr, S.M., WALKER, R. G., AND Eviss, C. M., 1990, Control of "eservoir geometry and stratigraphic trapping by erosion surface ES in the Pembina ~Carrot Creek area; Upper Cretaceous Cardium For mation, Alberta, Cansda: A.AP.G. Bull, v.74 MeCrony, V. L.C, AND WALxeR, R, G.,"1986, A storm and tially influenced prograding shoreline Upper Cretaceous Milk River For- mation of southern Alberta: Sedimentology, v.33, 47-60, Mini, A.D, 1978, Lithofacies types and vertical profile models in ‘braided river deposits: @ summary, in Mill, A... ed, Fluvial Sed- imentology: Can. Soe. Petol. Geol, Mem. 5, p. 597-604 1985, Architectural element analysis: a new method of facies ‘analysis applied to Buvial deposits: Earth Sc. Rev., v.22, p. 261- 4308 1986, Eustatc sea level changes interpreted from seismic sira- Tigraphy: a critique of the methodology with particular reference 0 te North Sea Jurassic record: AA.P.G. Bul, v.70, p. 131-137, 1988, Faces architecturein clastic sedimentary basins, n Klcin- pein, K.L.,and Paola C., eds, New Perspectives in Basin Analysis New Vork, Springer Verlag, p. 87-81 Miopizror, G. V. 1973, Johannes Walther’s law of the comrelation of faoiee: GSA. Bull, v 84, p. 979-988, MrTcHUM, RM. JR, Vau,P-R., aXD Towson, SII, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and plobal changes of sea level, part 2: depositional se= ‘quence as abasic unit for stratigraphic analysis, in Payton, C-E. ed, Seismic. Siaigraphy Applications to. Hydrocarbon Expiration: AAPG, Mem. 26, p. 53-82, Mareaum, RM, JR, AND VAI, P. R., 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and lobia changes o'sea level, part 7: seismic stratigraphic interpretation Procedure, in Payton, C. E ed, Seismic Stratigraphy Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: A’A.P.G., Mem. 26, p. 135-183. Mur, E, axp Riccr-Lucett, F, 1972, Le torbiitt dll Appennino ‘settentronale: initoduzione allenalis di facies: Mer. Geo. Soe. ta- Tiana, v. 1, p. 161-199. English translation by T. H. Nilsen, 1978, Intl Geol, Review, v.20, p. 125-166. [Nonmit Anteatcan Commission ON STRATIGRAPHIC NOMENCLATURE, 1983, North American stratigraphic code: AAPG. Bull, v. 67, p. 1-275 Parson, S. A.J. 1988, Transgressive, incised shorcface deposits of WALKER the Burastick Member (Cardium “B” sandstone) at Caroline, Coss- field, Garsington and Lochend, Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway, Alert, Canada, n James, D.P. and Leckie, DA. eds. Sequences, Stratigraphy, Sedimentology; Surface and Subsurface: Can. Soc. Pe trol. Geo, Mem, 19. p13: Punt, A. G., aN WALES, R-G., 187, Cardium Formation 8. Faces and environments of the Cardium shoreline and coastal plain in The Kakwa field and adjacent areas, northwestern Alberta: Bull Can. Petrol. Geol, ¥. 33, p. 48-64, Pun. A. G., WaLxER, R. G., AND Berowan, K. M., 1986, Cardium Formation 6. Stratigraphic framework ofthe Cardium in subsurface: Bull. Can. Petrol. Geology, v.33, p. 213-225, Punt, A. G., WaLxen, R.'G., AND Bezowan, K. M. 1987, Cardium Formation 6. Stratigraphic framework ofthe Cardium in subsurface: Reply: Bull. Can. Petrol. Geology, v.35, p. 365-374, Posaoenien, H. W., JEnvEY, M.'T aND Vail, P. R., 1988, Eustaic ‘ontols on clastic’depositon —conceptual framework, in Wiigus, C.K etal. eds, Sea Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM Spee. Publ 42, p. 109-12 Posaseizk, H.W, AND Vait,P.R., 1988, Eusatc controls on clastic ‘deposition iI~sequence and systems tact models, in Wilgus, C. K. tal, eds, Sea Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM Spec Publ 42, p. 125-154. Rawenso, M.R., AND SANDERS, J.E., 1980, Holocene transgression in ‘South-Central Long Island, New York: Jout. Sed. Petrol, v. 50. 7. 1063-1080. RosesrHai, L. R, P.. AND WALKER, R. G., 1987, Lateral and vertical facies sequences inthe Upper Creiaccous Chungo Member, Wapiabi Formation, southern Alberta: Can our Earth Se, ¥-24,p77I= ‘toss. L L., 1963, Sequences in the craton interior of North America: GSA, Ball, v.74. 93-11 ‘Suivi, N.D., 1985, Editorial: new features in JSP: Jour, Sod, Petrology, 55, p 43S ‘Swarr, D.J.P.,aND Rice, D.D., 1984, Sand bodies on muddy sheives ‘2 model for sedimentation in the Cretaceous western seaway, North ‘America, n Tilman, R. W., and Siemers, C. T., eds, Silicilasie Shelf Sediments: SEPM Spec, Publ. 34, . 43-62. Tercuenr, C., 1958, Concepts of facies: AAP.G. Bull, v. 42, p. 2718 2748 ‘Topp, R. G., AND Mrrcwum, RM, Je, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy ‘and global changes of sea level, part idcatificaion of Upper Triassic, Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous seismic sequences in Gulf of Mexico ‘and offshore West fica, in Payton, C. E.,ed, Seismic Sraigraphy— ‘Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration: AAPG, Mem. 26, p. 145-163. Vall, P.R., AND Mrrenung R.M., JR, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and ilabal changes of sea level, Part I: overview, in Payton, C. E., ed, Seismic ‘Stratigraphy— Applications to Hydrocarbon Expioration: AAP.G., Mem. 26, 51-52. ‘Van Wacote, JC., POsAMENTIER, H. W., Mrvetum, R. M,, VAtl,P. R., Sako, J.F, Lovriy, 7S. AnD HanDenot J, 1988, An overview of the fundanientals of sequence stratigraphy and key definitions, in ‘Wilgus, C. K-etal eds, Sea Level Changes: An Integrated Approach: SEPM, Spee. Publ 42, p. 39-85 Vusuien, G. 8, 1965, Use of the vertical profile in environmental r- ‘construction: A.A'P.G. Bull, . 49, p. 41-61, ‘Wainer, R G., 1983, Cardium Formation 3, Sedimentology and sta- tigraphy in the Caroline—Garrington area: Bull Can, Petrol Geology, wi3l, p 213-230, _1984a, Facies models: Geol. Assoc. Canada, Geosci. Canada Reprint Series 1,317 p. 2 1984b, General inroducton: facies, facies sequences and facies ‘models, in Walker, R. G, ed, Facies models: Geol, Assoc. Canada, Geosei: Canada Reprint Series 1, p. 1-9. 1984, Turbidites and associated coarse clastic deposits, in Walker, R. G., ed. Facies Models: Geol. Assos. Canada, Geos. Canada ReprinsSetes 1, p. 171188. WALKER, R.G., AND EvLis,C. H., 1988, Geometry and faces of stacked shallow marine sandier upward sequences dissected by erosion sut- face; Cardium Formation, Willesden Green, Alberta: AA.P.G. Bull, 872, p 1469-1498,