You are on page 1of 29

A Large, persistent (long-lasting?

) rhyolitic magma reservoir(s) above Columbia


River Basalt storage sites: The Dinner Creek Tuff, eastern Oregon

M.J. Streck1, M. Ferns2

Department of Geology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207

ScienceDepartment,EasternOregonUniversity,LaGrande,OR97850

*corresponding author
Phone: 503-725-3379
Fax: 503-725-3025
Email: streckm@pdx.edu

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION
The Columbia River flood basalt province has been expanded to include the
Steens Basalt and, more importantly, coeval large rhyolite calderas of southeast Oregon
and northern Nevada (Reidel and others, 2013). Northernmost of the large rhyolite
centers is the poorly defined Castle Rock caldera (Rytuba and Vander Meulen, 1991), the
source for the Dinner Creek Tuff. The Dinner Creek Tuff was first described ~50 years
ago and was originally defined to be a single ignimbrite sheet, confined to an area of
~2,000 km2 considered to be restricted to an area of ~2000 km2 centered along the
Malheur River in eastern Oregon consisting of one single ignimbrite sheet (Fig. 1)
(Haddock, 1967). Based on lithological aspects, bulk chemical data, mineral and glass
compositions, and age information presented here, we determine that the Dinner Creek
Tuff consists of a minimum of four discrete ignimbrites that extend over an area of more
than . The original coverage of Dinner Creek Tuff is likely in excess of ~20,000 km2 thus
increasing the size of the Dinner Creek Tuff dramatically, rivaling the late Miocene
Devine Canyon and Rattlesnake Tuffs in size (Fig.1) (e.g. Greene, 1973; Streck and
Grunder, 1995; Streck and Ferns, 2004). Except for the youngest unit, Three of the

ignimbrite sheets are nearly indistinguishable in the field, displaying particularly if one
allows for some similar lateral lithological variations due to changes , for example, in
intensity of welding degree and the proportion of different pumice types and proportions
as they occur in typical of other widespread and thin ignimbrites in eastern Oregon (cf.
Streck and Grunder, 1995). We keep The name Dinner Creek Tuff is retained collectively
for all four ash-flow tuff cooling units and call them unit 1 through 4. In addition to
correlating The four ash-flow tuff units can be identified across outcrops over this wide
area, we correlate a and correlated with a series of fallout deposits throughout of the
Pacific Northwest (Nash et al. (2006) Nash and Perkins, 2013) with also originating from
what we call the Dinner Creek Tuff Eruptive Center (DITEC too goofy?). initially
correlated a fallout tuff in central Nevada with the Dinner Creek Tuff and the expansion
of their work provides key data for our correlations.
Radiometric age dates for Dinner Creek ashflow sheets indicate that the Castle
Rock center was active over a 1 million year time span between Activity period of the
Dinner Creek Tuff Eruptive Center is ~16 to 15 Ma and thus coinciding es with the
Grande Ronde Basalt eruption phase of the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG). The
Grande Ronde Basalt of the which represents 71% of the total lava volume of the CRBG
(Barry et al., 2013; Wolff and Ramos, 2013). Minor mafic scoria and clasts components
in two of the Dinner Creek Tuff units have indicate chemical compositions that matching
with regional those of lava flows in units of the upper Grande Ronde Basalt. The inferred
location of the Dinner Creek Tuff Eruptive Center falls The Castle Rock center is located
where near the center of convergence of major geological, geophysical, and physiological
features converge in the Pacific Northwest (Glen and Ponce, 2002) above that was

subsequently hypothesized to be the location of crustal magma reservoirs of CRBG


magma reservoirs (Wolff et al., 2008; Wolff and Ramos). Mafic components in ashflows
erupted from the Castle Rock center provide This study provides the first direct evidence
for the location of storage sites of of CRBG flood basalt magmas that resided beneath
this 1 m.y. active a rhyolitic center that was active over a one million year time span
coincident with the main Grande Ronde Basalt phase of CRBG magmatism. Based on
these results, we hypothesize that the surface location focus of similarly aged16-15 Ma
CRBG vents eruption sites was likely controlled by the presence of large silicic magma
chamberss in the upper crust that could have possibly acted as rheological/density
barriers deflecting basalt volcanism to areas peripherally to coeval silicic centers that
were numerous in eastern Oregon during this time window (cf. Valentine, 1993).

METHODS [needs to be done]


Bulk rock XRF and ICP-MS
Microprobe(minerals and glasss
LA-ICP-MS
Ar-Ar incremental heating and single crystal

THE DINNER CREEK TUFF ORIGINAL WORK AND LIKLEY SOURCE


AREA
The Dinner Creek Tuff was first mapped by Kittleman et al (1965) who used the
ashflow as an important stratigraphic marker in separating mafic units along the Malheur

River. Haddock (1967) studied the Dinner Creek in detail and showed that the ashflow
covered an area of distribution of the tuff compilation of field data have been the basis for
delineating the distribution area of the tuff. This original distribution of the tuff covered
an area of approximately ~ 2000 km2 north and the south of Malheur Gorge that is
located in eastern Oregon between the small towns of Juntura and Harper (Fig. 1).
Haddock (1967) and Wood (1976) were the first to recognize a possible source area near
Castle Rock. Rytuba and Vander Meulen (1991) were the first to refer to the possible
source area as the Castle Rock caldera. Later quadrangle mapping by Brooks and Ferns
(1979) and Evans () identified areas of ashflow tuff further north that we have
subsequently geochemically fingerprinted to be Dinner Creek Tuff.
found the tuff also northnorthwest of Ironside Mountain (IS in Fig. 1) and further
southeast however no subsequent work exists that dealt with the Dinner Creek Tuff as
single unit. More mapping in the vicinity was the basis to propose a source about 10 km
east of Castle Rock (Cummings, pers. comm. 2011). Later workers (Hooper et al., 2002;
Camp et al., 2003; Barry et al., 2013; Ferns and McClaughry, 2013) show mafic lavas
immediately underlying the Dinner Creek Tuff in the Malheur River Gorge area to be
correlative with the Grande Ronde Basalt. Ferns and McClaughry (2013) show mafic
lava flows overlying the Dinner Creek Tuff to be compositionally similar to upper
Grande Rhonde Basalt units further north. serves as important stratigraphic marker unit
as it allows easy field recognition of underlying Malheur River Basalt (correlative with
Steens Basalt and Imnaha members of the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG),) and
overlying Hunter Creek Basalt (correlative with upper Grande Ronde Basalt of CRBG)
within Malheur River Gorge

The earliest systematic work on the Dinner Creek Ash-Flow Tuff, that we refer to
as Dinner Creek Tuff, was done by. Wood (1976) mapped in greater detail the Castle
Rock area and proposed as previous workers that the Castle Rock area is the source area
from where the tuff erupted (Fig. 1a). Although the vent complex is yet to be mapped in
detail, we also place the Dinner Creek Tuff eruptive center in the area between Castle
Rock and Ironside Mountain. and we delimit the Near-vent facies of steeply dipping
rheomorphic tuff may define the northern caldera rim near Ironside Mountain where by
more than 70 meters of rheomorphic exposures of Dinner Creek Tuff is exposed. Exact
position of the Castle Rock caldera margins is concealed by younger Tertiary mafic lava
flows. The demarcation of the eruptive site in an easterly and westerly direction is
hampered by coverage of younger mafic lava flows.
The Dinner Creek Tuff serves as important stratigraphic marker unit as it allows
easy field recognition of underlying Malheur River Basalt (correlative with Steens Basalt
and Imnaha members of the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG),) and overlying
Hunter Creek Basalt (correlative with upper Grande Ronde Basalt of CRBG) within
Malheur River Gorge (Hooper et al., 2002; Camp et al., 2003; Barry et al., 3013).

DINNER CREEK TUFF - THIS STUDY


Mapping by Pardee , 1941, Lowrey, Brooks et al, (1976) generic Miocene welded
tuff have been identified throughout eastern Oregon, tuffs that had local names (e.g.
Mascall Ignimbrite, Davenport 1971), and mapped new, previously unknown tuff
exposures (Fig. 1).Our data on lithology, chemistry, petrography combined with a few

new age dates allow us to dramatically scale up the distribution of the tuff as well as to
gain insights into eruptive units and to establish petrogenetic connections to mafic
magmas of the CRBG. We sampled numerous outcrops that were mapped before as Our
data in combination with literature data allow us to distinguish units of the Dinner Creek
Tuff from other regionally occurring mid to late Miocene in eastern Oregon (Fig. 2).
Some tuffs can be easily distinguished by chemical data while a combination of lithology,
chemistry and stratigraphic field relationships are needed for others. For example, high
silica rhyolite units of the Dinner Creek Tuff compositionally overlap with the less
evolved rhyolites of the Rattlesnake Tuff (Fig. 2). The mixed glass shard matrix of the
Rattlesnake Tuff and the overall fresher hand samples to name a few characteristics allow
distinguishing between these two units (cf., Streck and Grunder, 1995, 1997). Our
correlations of the Dinner Creek Tuff with other tuff units or outcrops are therefore based
on multiple aspects. Below we briefly review our current data on the tuff that are
important in order to establish compositional lineage among Dinner Creek Tuff cooling
units that span 1 m.y. from ~16 to ~15 Ma and thus are co-eruptive to Grande Ronde
Basalt member of the CRBG (Barry et al., 2013).

Lithology, Mineralogy and Composition


Units of the Dinner Creek Tuff range from welded, marked by a basal vitrophyre
typically overlain by primarily devitrified zones to only incipiently welded tuff sections
throughout. All cooling units are crystal poor with phenocryst contents of <1 to 5%. Units
can be pumiceous with typically small pumices on the order of 2-4 cm in the longest
dimension; pumices rarely exceed 15 cm. Color of pumices ranges from white to tan to

dark gray but in single outcrops only one or two pumice colors are evident. Outcrop
thickness is typically a few meters (3-4 m). Thicker exposures (~20 m) are found in more
proximal areas to the presumed source where the tuff can thicken to ~70 m (Haddock,
1967; this study). On the other hand, thicker tuff can also occur more distally and suggest
locally topography controlled thickening and thinning. Erosion and later coverage by
younger rock units do prevent widespread continuous exposures across the distribution
area except in a few places. Also, extensive tectonism subsequent to eruption led to
faulting and tilting of tuff sections.
The mineralogy of single cooling units is dominated by a single feldspar
(anorthoclase or Na-rich plagioclase) with subordinate amounts of titanomagnetite (Fig.
3). Pyroxenes are exceedingly rare or may be even absent based in some cases based on
inspection of numerous thin sections of glassy densely to partially welded tuff that is only
slightly hydrated. Precise accessory phase mineralogy is currently uncertain to the
crystal-poor nature of the tuff.
Bulk tuff samples of the Dinner Creek Tuff range from high-silica rhyolite to lowsilica rhyolite to dacitic (Fig. 2, Supplemental Table 1). Glasses and glassy components
observed in the tuff have a wider range from high-silica rhyolite to andesites (Fig. 4, 5).
Lithic fragments in the tuff are mostly reworked tuff fragments with compositions
matching the hosting tuff. The diversity of compositions requires that we look at data
from individual cooling units and their components. Bulk tuff with high silica rhyolite
have exclusively high silica rhyolite glass shards and are generally pumice poor and tend
to be welded. High silica rhyolite units are the oldest (see below). Bulk compositions of
low-silica rhyolite or straddling the low/high silica rhyolite boundary contain typically

pumices with pumices of low silica rhyolite, a subordinate amount of pumice with dacite
composition, and mostly contain glass with >75wt.% SiO2. Outcrops of these are seldom
welded but typically pumiceous and fall in the middle of the age spectrum. Dacitic bulk
compositions are complexly build up of high-silica rhyolite to dacitic glass shards,
pumice shards of dacite composition, and andesitic glassy globules (Fig. 5). Outcrops of
dacitic bulk composition are distinctly darker than either low or high silica rhyolite
outcrops. Tuff belonging to this eruptive unit yielded the youngest age. The rhyolitic
component of each individual cooling units appears as practically trace-element
compositionally unzoned to little zoned. This is true even considering rhyolitic
components of all units (Fig. 2). There are only small compositional variations between
low-silica rhyolite and high-silica rhyolite but some incompatible trace elements
variations are near analytical uncertainties.
The most mafic components (~56 wt.% SiO2) are typically recorded as variously
vesicular glassy globules (Fig. 5) (cf. Sumner and Wolff, 2003). Petrographic features
(glassy, vesicular, crenulated margins), compositional continuity with more silicic
compositions, and direct contact of andesitic with more silicic glasses all argue for the
globules recording a liquid component of the Dinner Creek Tuff magmatic systems.
Dacitic glass shards and pumices lie in linear compositional continuum between the
andesitic component and the rhyolites on element-element variation diagrams (Fig. 5).

Age of ignimbrites and correlative fallout tuff units


Our current age information on the discussed lithological units suggest a
minimum of four cooling units but more age dating and petrological investigations in the

future are needed to detail tuff units. We performed Ar-Ar incremental heating
experiments at Oregon State University and have begun to acquire also Ar-Ar single
crystal ages that we did at New Mexico Tech. The detailed information of age dating can
be found in the Appendix and is summarized in Table 1. Our dating had produced
following ages (all calculated with FCT age of 28.201 Ma, Kuiper et al., 2008):
16.1500.013, 15.980.13, 15.540.16, 15.500.16, 15.4600.012, 15.470.17, and
14.990.13. Our new ages cluster at three intervals. The first interval is at ~16 Ma, the
second at 15.5 Ma and the last at ~15 Ma. Older published ages on Dinner Creek Tuff or
what was suspected as such cluster mostly around 15.3 (see Supplement. Table XXX, still
to do but will include all ages listed in Fiebelkorn and others) and one age of 15.88 Ma is
reported for the Mascall Ignimbrite that we correlate here with the Dinner Creek Tuff
(Davenport, 1971). A similar old stratigraphic age of 15.90.1 (recalculated to 16.0 Ma)
was obtained by Nash et al. (2006) on a fallout deposit from northern Nevada that they
correlated with the Dinner Creek Tuff at its type locality in Malheur Gorge. They argued
that the Dinner Creek Tuff should be assigned an age of 15.9 Ma or better a recalculated
age of 16.0 Ma (Nash and Perkins, 2012). With out new ages, it is clear that one Dinner
Creek Tuff cooling unit has indeed an age of ~16 Ma and it is the high-silica rhyolite ashflow tuff and correlated fallout tuffs in northern and central Nevada (Buffalo Canyon,
Carlin) and Paulina Basin, eastern Oregon (Fig. 1) (Nash and Perkins, 2013). We
designate this ~16 Ma ash-flow tuff as Dinner Creek Tuff unit 1. The 15.5 Ma ash-flow
tuff has currently no confirmed age-correlative fallout units due to lack of age
information but fallout units closely precede ash-flow eruptions at 15.870.04 Ma
(previously 15.770.04, Swisher, 1992) and 15.760.07 Ma (previously 15.660.07,

Downing and Swisher, 1993). The 15.87 Ma fallout is the prominent Mascall fallout tuff
of the John Day Fossil Beds near Picture Gorge locality in eastern Oregon and several
other correlative fallout exposures; one in Oregon (Bully Creek, BU, Fig. 1) three in
Nevada (Buffalo Canyon, Carlin, Virgin Valley), one in Idaho (White Bird), and one in
Washington (Asotin) (Fig. 1) (Nash and Perkins, 2013). The close age of 15.76 Ma of the
second fallout unit was obtained from the basal fallout tuff at Sucker Creek (SC, Fig. 1)
near the Oregon/Idaho state border and was correlated with the Tuff of Bully Creek (Nash
and Perkins, 2013). However, we obtained an age of 15.4600.012 Ma for the Bully
Creek Tuff based on single crystal Ar-Ar dating of this previously undated ignimbrite
unit. From this we can say that both of these two dates on fallout tuffs are older than any
of our ~15.5 Ma ash-flow tuff ages. However, both fallout units compositionally correlate
with glass compositions of Dinner Creek ignimbrite units. The Mascall Ash correlates
with the lower silica rhyolite unit containing An20 plagioclase, assigned here as Dinner
Creek Tuff unit 2. The rhyolite of the Succor Creek fallout correlates with rhyolite found
in both of the anorthoclase-phyric cooling units (Fig. 4; Table 1 of supplementary data).
The two units that contain anorthoclase are in our notation Dinner Creek Tuff unit 3 and
4, the former with rhyolitic and the latter with dacitic bulk compositions. We count the
Bully Creek Tuff at the type locality in Harper Valley as belonging to Dinner Creek Tuff
unit 3. This suggests further that at ~15.7-15.5 Ma, there were two compositionally alike
silicic systems operating likely side by side (Fig. 2); both had associated earlier fallout
deposits. Practically identical rhyolite chemistries (Fig. 2, Supplement. Table 1) in turn
suggest close proximity of eruption sites for both rhyolite types. In other words, two
separate ignimbrites erupted around 15.5 Ma and are distinguished by distinct feldspar

compositions (one containing Na-rich plagioclase while the other contains anorthoclase,
see Supplemental Table 1) (Fig. 2) and glass composition (one with lightly higher CaO,
~0.95 wt.%, and lower SiO2, 75.5 wt.% and the other with lower CaO, ~0.5 wt.%, and
higher SiO2, 76.3 wt.% ) (Fig. 4). And rhyolite of both of these ignimbrites erupted
slightly earlier that resulted in fallout tuffs, the Mascall Ash near Picture Gorge and the
Lough Ash of Succor Creek (Fig 1).
Rhyolite of Dinner Creek Tuff unit 3 erupted again at 15 Ma but along with
substantial amounts of dacitic and more mafic magmas to generate Dinner Creek Tuff
unit 4.The 15.020.08 Ma (previously 14.93 Ma) Obliterator fallout tuff, that occurs in
Sucker Creek, in western Idaho, northwestern Idaho, and possibly in Nevada (Nash and
Perkins, 2013), has the correct age to be correlated with the 15.0 Ma ignimbrite unit 4.
However, eNd isotopes of -9.1 is much too radiogenic to be derived from an eruptive site
that gave rise to the Dinner Creek Tuff (cf., Nash et al., 2006). In summary, age dates on
Dinner Creek Tuff ignimbrite units indicate distinct eruption ages at 16, 15.5, and 15 Ma.
The earliest of the ignimbrites has correlative, age equivalent fallout tuffs while the
middle ignimbite eruptions are preceded by fallout tuffs at ~15.8 Ma

CRBG units co-eruptive with Dinner Creek Tuff


Radiometric ages of the Dinner Creek Tuff and its correlative fallout tuffs range in
age from 16.1 to 15 Ma. Most of main stage lavas of the CRBG fall into the same time
window and thus erupted contemporaneously to the silicic eruptions (e.g. Barry et al.,
2013). More specifically, last flows of the Imnaha Basalt (16.716 Ma) and the eruption
phase of the Grande Ronde Basalt (1615.5 Ma) coincide with the eruption of the first

three ignimbrites and several fallout units (e.g. Mascall and Lough Ash). And the last
silicic eruptions fall in the eruptive phase of the Wanapum Basalt (15.515 Ma) (Barry et
al., 2013). We prefer the younger eruption interval for the Grande Ronde Basalt of Barry
et al. (2013) compared to Jarboe (2010) (cf. Wolff and Ramos, 2013) based on N2
correlative Grande Ronde units overlying the earliest unit of the Dinner Creek Tuff and
thus indicate Grande Ronde lava flow with ages of <16 Ma. Also the very last, icelanditic
units of the Grande Ronde (e.g. Fiddlers Hell lava flows) gave an age of 15.5 Ma (Ferns
and McClaughry, 2013)
Eruption sites for the mentioned CRBG units are found well north of where
Dinner Creek Tuff sources lie, however in recent years it became evident through
localized mapping efforts that certain mafic units correlative with Imnaha and Grande
Ronde Basalt have eruptions sites peripherally to where the inferred sources of Dinner
Creek Tuff magmas are located (Cummings et al., 2000; Hooper et al., 2002; Ferns and
McClaughry, 2013). Evidence in the field include mafic lavas underlying and overlying
Dinner Creek Tuff in Malheur Gorge and dikes and other vent proximal deposits.
Underlying and overlying mafic lavas are fractionated and incompatible trace element
rich basaltic andesites of the Birch Creek and Hunter Creek Basalt units (Cummings,
2000; Hooper et al., 2002; Camp et al., 2003). Overlying Hunter Creek Basalt member
has two distinct compositions, one basaltic andesitic the other icelanditic reaching 60 wt.
% SiO2 (Ferns and McClaughry, 2013). Birch Creek and Hunter Creek members are
correlative with N2 lavas of the Upper Grande Ronde Basalt (Hooper et al., 2002; Camp
et al., 2003, Ferns and McClaughry, 2013; Barry et al., 2013). These occur on the
southern side of the Dinner Creek Tuff Eruptive Center. On the northern side, Fiddlers

Hell icelanditic lavas (15.510.1 Ma, Ferns and McClaughry, 2013) with compositions
close to icelandites of the Hunter Creek Basalt, erupted at several localities near the
towns of Baker City and La Grande, Oregon (Ferns and McClaughry, 2013) but have also
been found immediately north and south of Ironside Mtn which is the likely northern
terminus of the Dinner Creek Tuff eruptive center. Dikes of basaltic andesitic
compositions like Hunter Creek Basalt have been found 20 NE of the proposed venting
site (Brooks, 2006).

DISCUSSION
Mafic Dinner Creek Tuff record Grande Ronde Basalt magmas
Close relationships in terms of time and space of lavas of Hunter Creek Basalt
with Dinner Creek Tuff have been found about 20 km SE of proposed venting where
Evans (1990a) and Evans and Binger (1998) reported mafic lenses with Hunter Creek
Basalt composition in Dinner Creek Tuff. They suggested that these two magmas may
have erupted contemporaneously. We investigate this further and use our compositional
data obtained on glasses of shards, pumice shards, glassy globules, and glassy pumices
that we found in one of the two 15.5 Ma cooling units (unit 2) and in the 15.0 Ma
ignimbrite (unit 4). It is worth noting that the Dinner Creek Tuff that is sandwiched
between Birch Creek and Hunter Creek lavas and is so prominently exposed in Malheur
Gorge is the high-silica rhyolite unit that yielded ages of ~16 Ma (see above) where we
have not found any intermediate compositions yet. Comparing these intermediate to
mafic components of the Dinner Creek Tuff to regionally occurring lavas reveals the
following. The more mafic components of the Dinner Creek Tuff are, the more strongly

they resemble regionally CRBG magmas (Fig. 5, Table XX of supplementary data still
needs to be generated). The basaltic andesitic glassy globules of the Dinner Creek Tuff
are major and trace element compositional within the range of basaltic andesitic
composition of the Hunter Creek and Birch Creek lavas, mafic dikes of Mormon Basin,
basaltic andesites of Fiddlers Hell, and N2 member of the Grand Ronde Basalt member
(Fig. 5). The icelanditic components of the Dinner Creek Tuff are also similar to the
regionally exposed, more evolved Hunter Creek and Fiddler Hell lavas but also indicate
some differences, e.g FeO* of ~9 wt.% in Dinner Creek composition versus ~11% in
regional lava flows. In general, observed differences are consistent with Dinner Creek
icelanditic compositions having evolved from basaltic andesitic Hunter Creek magmas
slightly differently than icelanditic Hunter Creek magmas. The difference of evolutionary
paths is likely due the presence of Dinner Creek Tuff rhyolites with which Hunter Creek
magmas interacted though mixing but also through fractional crystallization similar to
what is observed in the 7.1 Ma Rattlesnake Tuff (Streck and Grunder, 1999). Icelanditic
Dinner Creek Tuff compositions lie mostly on mixing trends with their contemporaneous
rhyolites producing not only icelanditic melts but also homogenous melts with dacitic
compositions (Fig. 5, Table xxx of supplemenatary data).
Based on the compositional overlap combined with concurrent ages of Hunter
Creek and other equivalents of Grand Ronde Basalt with Dinner Creek Tuff, allow us to
make the inference that basaltic andesitic to icelanditic components of the Dinner Creek
Tuff are in fact components of upper Grande Ronde Basalt magmas.

The Dinner Creek Tuff: prolonged silicic reservoir(s) above CRBG magma storage
sites
The compositional similarity of the mafic components of the Dinner Creek Tuff
with various eruptive units that are correlative with the upper units of the Grande Ronde
Basalt identifies the general eruption site of the Dinner Creek Tuff as one geographic
location where mafic magmas of the CRBG resided in the crust. The intimate
relationships of the mafic components and the rhyolites of the Dinner Creek Tuff indicate
that upper Grande Ronde Basalt components were stored below a mid-Miocene, 1 m.y.
long-lived, rhyolite chamber. The details on the existence of the silicic reservoir(s) such
as whether it waxed and waned, existed continuously, or reached periodically a plutonic
stage are not known currently. Whatever the status and distribution of these rhyolites
were, multiple eruptions led to very crystal-poor rhyolites. Several of erupted rhyolite
batch have their own unique chemical and mineralogical fingerprints but all rhyolites are
compositionally so alike that a cogenetic relationship is indicated (Fig. 2). This points to
one area where all rhyolites of the Dinner Creek Tuff resided and that petrogenetic stages
leading to each rhyolite were nearly identical leading to individual batches of chemically
practically unzoned rhyolites.
The here located storage site of Grande Ronde Basalt magma falls within the area
of the hypothesized crustal magma reservoirs of the Columbia River Basalt Group
(CRBG) (Wolff et al., 2008; Wolff and Ramos, 2013). We thus infer that the Dinner
Creek eruptions took place from silicic reservoirs that developed above a major storage
site of Grande Ronde Basalt magmas.

Eruption vs. storage site of CRBG


There are several consequences of locating one Grande Ronde Basalt storage site.
Numerous other rhyolitic centers with ages ranging from 16-15 Ma exist within a radius
of ~100 km surrounding the likely Dinner Creek Tuff eruptive site in eastern Oregon
(Figs. 1, 6) (Cummings et al., 2000; Ferns and McClaughry, 2013; Streck et al., unpub.
data). Independent of the model that leads to the production of rhyolites, mafic magma is
ultimately involved in their production either as heat source to induce melting, as material
source for fractional crystallization processes, or generally to maintain rhyolites at near
liquidus temperatures in the shallow crust (cf., Johnson, 1991). If the Dinner Creek Tuff
rhyolites are the result of a thermal pulse locally delivered from mafic lavas of the CRBG
then so are likely the other silicic centers as well. The co-eruption of such cognate mafic
magmas with rhyolites is rare in Oregon and other continental settings. Typically, the best
chance to find traces of them is during explosive eruptions. At least in Oregon this is the
case where several low aspect ratio ash-flow tuffs erupted intermediate to mafic cognate
magmas (Streck and Grunder, 1999; Tucker et al., GSA abstract, Wacaster et al., 2011).
On the other hand, the occurrence of lava flows or domes containing cognate andesitic
inclusions is rare in Oregon (Linneman and Myers, 1990; Johnson and Grunder, 2000).
Consequently, even if the direct evidence for storage of mafic mafic magmas beneath
rhyolites are more often lacking than existing, we can still be rather certain that mafic
magma was present below dome and rhyolite flow fields surrounding the Dinner Creek
Tuff eruptive center. It might not be everywhere Grande Ronde Basalt magma but
generally CRBG related mafic magmas. For example, occasionally basalt magmas leaked
to the surface at Strawberry Mtn that share commonalities with other CRBG magmas but

also indicate some specific characteristics that is compositionally distinct from the rest of
the CRBG just like the Picture Gorge Basalt. (Steiner and Streck, 2013; Wolff and
Ramos, 2013). Where rhyolite magma exists in the upper crust, mafic magmas stored
below are prevented from erupting due to the rhyolites acting as rheological and maybe
density barriers (Valentine, 1993). In this case, eruption of mafic magmas is restricted to
areas peripheral to rhyolite reservoirs or following the eruption of rhyolites. Wolff et al.
(2008) suggested that all CRBG magmas were staged in a common area in the crust
before traveling in dikes to their respective eruptions sites later on forming a series of
well-known dikes swarms. The location of this hypothesized crustal storage site was
placed at the convergence zone of aeromagnetic lineaments, dike orientations, other
large-scale features, and at the center of strongest uplift (Glen and Ponce, 2002). The
Dinner Creek Tuff eruptive sites as well as most surrounding contemporaneous rhyolite
centers are located well within this hypothesized CRBG crustal storage area (Figs. 1, 6).
This study indeed suggests that CRBG magmas were stored in the hypothesized area of
Wolff et al., and we further hypothesize that direct venting of basalt in this area was
impeded by widespread rhyolites acting as rheological and possibly density barriers..

CONCLUSIONS
The Dinner Creek Tuff, formerly considered a single ignimbrite deposit, is determined to
consist of several ash-flow tuff eruptions forming a minimum of 4 cooling units spread
over 1 m.y.. Original extent of the Dinner Creek Tuff was significantly increased to a
distribution over 20,000 km2 due to correlation with several locally named ignimbrites,
with outcrops mapped previously as generic welded tuff, and with previously unknown

outcrops. Associated airfall deposits to the Dinner Creek Tuff formed at times of
ignimbrite eruptions at ~16 Ma but preceded 15.5 Ma ignimbrites forming the prominent
Mascall Ash dated at 15.87 Ma and the Lough Ash at Succor Creek one at 15.76 Ma..
First eruptions (16.1-16 Ma) were the most silicic, producing high-silica rhyolites. Later
eruptions (15.5 Ma) were high to low silica rhyolite, some with ubiquitous dark pumices
of dacitic composition. Bulk compositions of last eruptions (15 Ma) were also low-silica
rhyolite or dacite but lower SiO2 in this unit is due to substantial commingling of dacitic
and andesitic components with high-silica rhyolite. Trace element signatures of all
eruptive units are nearly the same and can be used to distinguish Dinner Creek Tuff units
from other regionally occurring tuffs. Co-eruptive basaltic andesitic magmatic
components of the Dinner Creek Tuff are indistinguishable from regional mafic lava
flows belonging to the upper Grande Ronde Basalt of the Columbia River Basalt Group
and therefore provide evidence for identifying a CRBG storage site below Dinner Creek
Tuff rhyolites at the proposed eruption site in eastern Oregon. Based on this evidence,
Dinner Creek Tuff rhyolites and widespread other 16-15 Ma rhyolites of the area likely
acted as rheology and density barrier allowing CRBG magmas stored underneath to erupt
after rhyolites or in peripheral areas after traveling in dikes for miles as was previously
proposed by Wolff et al. (2008).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by
We thank.

References
Barry, T.L., Kelley, S.P., Reidel, S.P., Camp, V.E., Self, S., Jarboe, N.A, Duncan, R.A.,
and Renne, P.R., 2013, Eruption chronology of the Columbia River Basalt Group, in
Reidel, S.P., Camp, V.E., Ross, M.E., Wolff, J.A., Martin, B.S., Tolan, T.L., and
Wells, R.E., eds., The Columbia River Flood Basalt Province: Geol Soc Am Spec Pap
497: 4566, doi:10.1130/2013.2497(02).
Brooks,H.C.,2006,PreliminarygeologicmapoftheMormonBasinquadrangle,Baker
County,Oregon:OregonDepartmentofGeologyandMineralIndustriesOpenFile
MapO0625,scale1:24,000.

Davenport, R.E., 1971, Geology of the Rattlesnake and older ignimbrites in the Paulina
basin and adjacent area, central Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon State University,
unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 132 p.
Downing K, Swisher C (1993) New 40Ar/39Ar dates and refined geochronology of the
Sucker Creek Formation, Oregon [abs.]. J Vert Paleo 13: 3
Evans, J.G., 1992, Geologic Map of the Dooley Mountain 7 1/2 Quadrangle, Baker
County, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-1694, 9 p.,
scale 1:24,000.
Ferns, M.L. and OBrien, J.P., 1992, Geology and mineral resources map of the Namorf
quadrangle, Malheur County, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
Industries Geologic Map Series GMS-74, scale 1:24,000.
Ferns, M.L., and McClaughry, J.D., 2013, Stratigraphy and volcanic evolution of the
middle Miocene to Pliocene La GrandeOwyhee eruptive axis in eastern Oregon, in

Reidel, S.P., Camp, V.E., Ross, M.E., Wolff, J.A., Martin, B.S., Tolan, T.L., and
Wells, R.E., eds., The Columbia River Flood Basalt Province: Geol Soc Am Spe Pap
497: 401427
Ferns, M.L., Madin, I.P., and Taubeneck, W.H., 2001, Reconnaissance Geologic Map of
the La Grande 30 ~ 60 Quadrangle, Baker, Grant, Umatilla, and Union Counties,
Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Reconnaissance Map
Series RMS-1, 52 p., map scale 1:100,000.

Ferns, M.L., Brooks, H.C., Evans, J.G., and Cummings, M.L, 1993, Geologic map of the
Vale 30 x 60 quadrangle, Malheur County, Oregon and Owyhee County, Idaho:
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Geologic Map Series GMS77, scale 1:100,000.
Fiebelkorn, R.B., Walker, G.W., MacLeod, N.S., McKee, E.H., Smith, J.G., 1982, Index
to K-Ar age determinations for the State of Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 82-0596, 42 pp.
Glen, J.G., Ponce, D.A., 2002, Large-scale fractures related to inception of the
Yellowstone hotspot. Geology 30: 647-650.
Haddock, G.H., 1967, The Dinner Creek Welded Ash-Flow Tuff of the Malheur Gorge
Area, Malheur County, Oregon [Ph.D. thesis]: Eugene, Oregon, University of
Oregon, 1-111.
Kittleman, L.R., Green, A.R., Haddock, G.H., Hagood, A.R., Johnson, A.M., McMurray,
J.M., Russell, R.G., and Weeden, D.A., 1965, Cenozoic stratigraphy of the Owyhee

region, south-eastern Oregon: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History


Bulletin 1, 45 p.
Kittleman, L.R., Green, A.R., Haddock, G.H., Hagood, A.R., Johnson, A.M., McMurray,
J.M., Russell, R.G., and Weeden, D.A., 1967, Geologic map of the Owyhee region,
Malheur County, Oregon: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History Bulletin,
scale 1:125,000.
Jarboe, N.A., Coe, R.S., Renne, P.R., Glen, J.M.G., 2010, The age of the Steens reversal
and the Columbia River Basalt Group. Chem Geol 274: 158-168.
Johnson, C.M., 1991, Large-scale formation and lithospheric modification beneath
middle to late Cenocoic calderas and volcanic fields, western North America. J
Geophys Res 96: 13485-13507.
Kuiper, K.F., Deino, A., Hilgen, F.J., Krijgsman, W., Renne, P.R., Wijbrans, J.R., 2008,
Synchronizing rock clocks of earth history. Science 320: 500 DOI:
10.1126/science.1154339.
Merriam, J.C., 1901, A contribution to the geology of the John Day Basin: University of
California Publications in Geological Sciences 2, p. 269-314.
Nash, B.P., Perkins, M.E., Christensen, J.N. Lee, D-C., Halliday, A.N., 2006, The
Yellowstone hot in space and time: Nd and Hf isotopes in silicic magmas. Earth
Planet Sci Let 247: 143-156.
Nash, B.P., Perkins, M.E., 2013, Neogene fallout tuffs from the Yellowstone Hotspot in
the Columbia Plateau region, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, USA. PLoS ONE
7(10): e44205. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044205.

Linneman S.K., Myers J.D., 1990, Magmatic inclusions in the Holocene rhyolites of
Newberry volcano, central Oregon. J Geophys Res 95:17,677-17,691.
Pardee, 1941. PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SUMPTER
QUARDRANGLE, OR needs full reference
Perkins M, Brown F, Nash W, McIntosh W, Williams S (1998) Sequence, age, and source
of silicic fallout tuffs in Middle to Late Miocene basins of the northern Basin and
Range province. Geol Soc Amer Bull 110: 344360.
Sumner, J.M. Wolff, J., 2003. Petrogenesis of mixed-magma, high-grade, peralkaline
ignimbrite TL (Gran Canaria): diverse styles of mixing in a replenished, zoned
magma chamber. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 126: 109-126.
Streck and Grunder, 1995
Streck M.J., Grunder A.L., 1997, Compositional gradients and gaps in high-silica
rhyolites of the Rattlesnake Tuff, Oregon. J Petrol 38:133-163
Streck M.J., Grunder A.L., 1999, Enrichment of basalt and mixing of dacite in the
rootzone of a large rhyolite chamber: inclusions and pumices from the Rattlesnake
Tuff, Oregon. Contrib Mineral Petrol 136:193-212
Streck and Ferns, 2004
Swisher, C., 1992, 40Ar/39Ar dating and its application to the calibration of the North
American Land Mammal ages [Ph.D. thesis]: Berkeley, University of California, 1239.
Tucker, K.B., Iademarco, M.J., Grunder, A.L., 2011, The Hampton Tuff, eastern Oregon:
Evidence for westward and temporal decline in rhyolitic activity on the High Lava
Plains. Geol. Soc. of Am. Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 43, No. 4, p. 5.

Valentine, G. A., 1993, Note on the distribution of basaltic volcanism associated with
large silicic centers. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 56: 161-170.
WacasterS.,Streck, M.J., Belkin, H., 2011, Compositional zoning of the Devine Canyon
Tuff, Oregon. American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2011.
Wallace A, Perkins M, Fleck R (2008) Late Cenozoic paleogeographic evolution of
northeastern Nevada: evidence from the sedimentary basins. Geosphere 4: 3674.
DOI: 10.1130/GES00114.1.
Wolff, J.A., Ramos, F.C., Hart, G.L., Patterson, J.D., Brandon, A.D., 2008, Columbia
River flood basalts from a centralized crustal magmatic system. Nature
geoscience, 1: 177 180.
Wolff, J.A., Ramos, F.C, 2013, CRB paper
Wood, J.D., 1976, The geology of the Castle Rock area, Grant, Harney and Malheur
counties, Oregon. Unpubl. MS thesis, Portland State University 1-123.

Figures and Tables:


Fig. 1 a, b, c: regional overview and showing outcrop locations of this study and original
extent by Haddock. (see text on figure)

Fig. 2: Nb vs Zr of Dinner relative to Miocene regional tuffs. Data sources: Wildcat Tuff:
Hooper et al., 2002; Rattlesnake Tuff (RST): Streck and Grunder, 1997; Devine Canyon
Tuff (DCT): Wacaster & Streck, unpubl.; Prater Creek Tuff (PCT), Spring Creek Tuff
(SCT), Leslie Gulch Tuff(LGT): Streck et al., unpubl.

Fig. 3: Diner Creek Tuff feldspar compositions

Fig. 4. Glass compositions

Fig. 5: mafic components of Dinner regional mafic lavas. Data sources for reginal
lavas: Grande Ronde Basalt: Wolff et al. 2008; Hunter Creek B and other basaltic
andesites: Hooper et al., 2001, Ferns & McClaughry, 2013 ; this study; Icelandites: Ferns
& McClaughry, 2013, this study; Dikes: Brooks, 2006?

Fig. 6: Major 16-15 Ma regional rhyolite occurrences (lavas domes and tuffs without
Dinner Creek Tuff) surrounding Dinner Creek Tuff Eruptive Center. Rhyolites in red
based on DOGAMI database without Dinner Creek Tuff, rhyolites in purple were
unknown (Strawberry, Unity) or were thought to be younger. LOVF= Lake Owyhee
Volcanic Field, OIG=Oregon Idaho Graben shown by solid dashed lines (Cummings et
al., 2000); inferred Dinner Creek Tuff Eruptive Center (DITEC) shown by orange
dashed; dashed gray oval shows inferred location of CRBG crustal storage sites by after
Wolff et al. (2008). Number are ages in Ma and are near the onset of activity of select
centers (Streck et al., unpubl.)

Table 1: Incremental heating age determinations, Oregon State University and single
crystal ages, New Mexico Tech where No. of xls=number of crystals; ano=anorthoclase,
plag= plagioclase; all ages calculated with FCT sanidine age of 28.201 Ma (cf. Kuiper et
al., 2008) .

Table 2: Schematic proposed chronostratigraphy of Dinner Creek Eruptive Center


(DITEC)

Supplementary Data Repository


Table 1 chem data of Dinner Creek Tuff sorted by flow units
Table 2 Plateau age spectra for Dinner Creek Tuff and single crystal dating results
Table 3: Age compilation of Dinner Creek Tuff or what is like to be
Table 4 glass compositional data A) rhyolites B) intermediate-mafic

Fig. 1: full major elements plot of mafic component (maybe after revisions)

Tuff Correlations (needed?)


Below we list the tuffs what we correlate with flow units of the Dinner Creek Tuff

Mascall Ignimbrite
The Mascall Ignimbrite of Davenport (1971) is found in the Paulina Basin 80 km WSW
from here. The ignimbrite was named for its occurrence near the base of the Mascall
formation. The Mascall formation was established by Merriam (1901) for a sedimentary
sequence near the Mascall Ranch and in the vicinity of Picture Gorge, proper. The tuff
was dated by K-Ar yielding an age of 15.81.4 Ma and is consistent with mammalian
fossils of Barstovian age of samples above the ignimbrite (Davenport, 1971).

Pleasant Valley Tuff


Tuff exposures north of Durkee Oregon in the vicinity of Interstate I-84

Bully Creek Tuff

The ash-flow tuff prominently exposed here is the lower of two ash-flows mapped by
Brooks and OBrien, (1992a, 1992b) within the Bully Creek Formation. The lower ashflow tuff, named by Ferns and others (1993) as the tuff of Bully Creek, is a gray massive
ash-rich, phenocrysts-poor (<5%) tuff that here contains entrained and deformed clasts of
diatomite and small pumices (~2 cm).

Brogan Tuff
Lee (1994) describes tuff exposures near the Brogan summit between the..

Tuff of Namorf
The tuff of Namorf was named by Ferns and OBrien (1992) and is an ash-rich,
phenocryst-poor tuff partially welded and glassy. The ash-flow tuff underlies a
vitrophyre flow breccia of the Littlefield Rhyolite.

Unnamed but mapped tuff exposures


Unnamed tuff exposures in NE Oregon (John Day valley, Unity area (Evans unpublished
map), Dooley Mtn area, around and southwest of Sumpter, NE of Burns, and Vic Camp
exposure in NE of Crane

References:
Davenport, R.E., 1971, Geology of the Rattlesnake and older ignimbrites in the Paulina
basin and adjacent area, central Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon State University,
unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 132 p.

Merriam, J.C., 1901, A contribution to the geology of the John Day Basin: University of
California Publications in Geological Sciences 2, p. 269-314.

You might also like