DOCSLIB.ORG

Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project Lead Agency Biological United States Forest Service Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike and San Assessment / Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Biological Evaluation of Wildlife, Fish, and Botanical Resources Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project City of Colorado Springs U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine Colorado Springs Utilities Draft February 2018 Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation of Wildlife, Fish, and Botanical Resources Pikes Peak Ranger District, Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Prepared for: U.S. Forest Service Prepared by: EDM International, Inc. Approved for Wildlife by: /s/ Felix Quesada Felix Quesada Wildlife Biologist Pikes Peak Ranger District Approved for Botany by: /s/ Steve Olson Steve Olson Botanist, PSICC Approved for Fisheries by: /s/ Janelle Valladares Aquatic Biologist, PSICC February 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation Purpose and Objectives ....................... 1-1 1.2 Area Description ........................................................................................................... 1-2 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 2-1 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project Design ............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Summit Complex Construction ..................................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Site Restoration ............................................................................................................. 3-6 3.4 Operation and Maintenance ......................................................................................... 3-6 3.5 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 3-7 3.5.1 Environmental Protection Measures ............................................................. 3-12 4.0 SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED ....................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Sensitive Species (FSM 2670.5, WO Amendment 2600-2005-1) ..................... 4-1 4.1.2 Management Indicator Species (1984 Forest Plan and 2005 Forest Plan Amendment) .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Consultation History ..................................................................................................... 4-3 5.0 SPECIES INVENTORY INFORMATION ............................................................................. 5-1 6.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects under NEPA and ESA ..................................... 6-1 6.1.1 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................... 6-1 6.1.2 Determination of Effects .................................................................................. 6-2 6.1.3 Habitat Capability Analysis............................................................................... 6-2 6.1.4 Information Sources......................................................................................... 6-2 7.0 EVALUATION OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Federally Proposed Species .......................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species (Plants) ...................................................................... 7-3 7.2.1 Pikes Peak Alpineparsley (Cymopterus humilis) .............................................. 7-3 7.3 Forest Service Sensitive Species (Animals) ................................................................... 7-6 7.3.1 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis) ....................... 7-6 7.3.2 White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura) .................................................... 7-11 7.4 Management Indicator Species .................................................................................. 7-13 7.4.1 Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelson) ................................................ 7-13 7.5 Birds of Conservation Concern ................................................................................... 7-16 7.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................... 7-17 8.0 LITERATURE CITED/REFERENCES .................................................................................. 8-1 APPENDIX A – Special Status Species Reviewed for Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project i February 2018 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................ 1-4 Figure 3-1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Proposed Pikes Peak Summit Complex Design and Orientation ............................... 3-3 Figure 3-3 Existing Surface Areas .............................................................................................. 3-10 Figure 3-4 Proposed Surface Areas ........................................................................................... 3-11 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Comparison of Project Elements between Project Alternatives ................................ 3-7 Table 3-2 Committed Environmental Protection Measures (EPM) and Best Management Practices (BMP), Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project .................................................. 3-13 Table 4-1 Special Status Plant and Animal Species Examined for the Proposed Summit Complex Project ............................................................................................................... 4-1 Table 6-1 Pikes Peak Complex Project - Cumulative Actions Specific to Special Status Species ............................................................................................................................. 6-1 Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project ii February 2018 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BA/BE Biological Evaluation BEIG Built Environment Image Guide BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP Best Management Practices CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Colorado Springs CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program Cog Railway Manitou Springs and Pikes Peak Cog Railway CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife CSU Colorado Springs Utilities EA Environmental Assessment EDM EDM International, Inc. EPM Environmental Protection Measures ESA Endangered Species Act FSM U.S. Forest Service Manual Forest Plan U.S. Forest Service’s Pike and San Isabel National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Forest Service U.S. Forest Service HARL U.S. Army’s Maher Memorial High Altitude Research Laboratory MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MIS Management Indicator Species MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Protection Act Plant City of Colorado Springs Plant and Mechanical Building PPAM Pikes Peak – America’s Mountain PSICC Pike and San Isabel National Forest and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Summit Complex Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project SWMP Stormwater Pollution Management Plan U.S. United States USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project iii February 2018 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation Purpose and Objectives This Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) of Wildlife, Fish, and Botanical Resources has been developed by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), Pikes Peak Ranger District within the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands (PSICC) for the proposed design and construction of a new Pikes Peak Summit Complex Project (Summit Complex Project) in El Paso County, Colorado. The City of Colorado Springs (City), Pikes Peak – America’s Mountain (PPAM), in partnership with Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) and the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), are proposing to design, construct, and operate a new Pikes Peak Summit Complex located in the Pike National Forest in El Paso County, Colorado (Summit Complex Project). Specific to the BA objectives, Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) states, Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined…to be critical….(16 U.S.C. §1536). Under the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pikes Peak Group Program – February 18 Denise Snow Presents: Cross Country Skiing Around the World
    Pikes Pique The Newsletter of the CMC Pikes Peak Group February, 2020 | No. 264 Pikes Peak Group Program – February 18 Denise Snow presents: Cross Country Skiing Around The World There are many opportunities for cross country ski vacations around the world. Many countries support a stronger cross country culture than what we have in the United States and make it much easier to travel and ski hundreds of kilometers of well prepared tracks. Come and see skiing opportunities from Norway to New Zealand and beyond as well as the advantages that can be found in places where great skiing is not just for the downhill folks. Come join Denise at the Ivywild School Center, 1604 S Cascade Ave. Happy hour at 6:00, program starts at 6:30 in the Barrel Room. Hope to see you there! The Pikes Peak Group in Pictures Aiken Canyon Hike New Member Orientation L–R: Vishal Rana, Adam Keller, Ray Ruiz, Adrienne Ross, Tyler L–R: Gary Marx, Missy Starks, Randy Bliss, Joanne Larraga, Jim King, Ruben Valdez, Emily Ernst, Audrey Burkart (co-leader), and Thieme, and Keely Nolan. Kay Cower. Keely and Randy are members of the Denver group. Photo credit: Dean Waits (leader) More on page 3! 1 Welcome New Members! Your PPG Council Katharina Anderson Tyler King Chair – Kristen Buckland Tracey Anderson Benjamin Ladau 419-260-7807, [email protected] Margo Bedford Terrence Ladau Past Chair – Vacant Ramsey Blahnik Wendy Ladau ARCPro Director – Scott Kime Reed Blahnik Andrew Laub 719-235-0939, [email protected] Joe Cocklin Vickie Laughlin BMS Co-Directors – Tom Mulcahy
    [Show full text]
  • DAR-Colorado-Marker-Book.Pdf
    When Ms. Charlotte McKean Hubbs became Colorado State Regent, 2009-2011, she asked that I update "A Guidebook to DAR Historic Markers in Colorado" by Hildegarde and Frank McLaughlin. This publication was revised and updated as a State Regent's project during Mrs. Donald K. Andersen, Colorado State Regent 1989-1991 from the original 1978 version of Colorado Historical Markers. Purpose of this Project was to update information and add new markers since the last publication and add the Santa Fe Trail Markers in Colorado by Mary B. and Leo E. Gamble to this publication. Assessment Forms were sent to each Chapter Historian to complete on their Chapter markers. These assessments will be used to document the condition of each site. GPS (Lat/Long) co-ordinances were to be included for future interactive mapping. Current digital photographs of markers were included where chapters participated, some markers are missing, so original photographs were used. By digitizing this publication, an on-line publication can be purchased by anyone interested in our Colorado Historical Markers and will make updating, revising and adding new markers much easier. Our hopes were to include a Website of the Colorado Historical Markers accessible on our Colorado State Society Website. I would like to thank Jackie Sopko, Arkansas Valley Chapter, Pueblo Colorado for her long hours in front of a computer screen, scanning, updating, formatting and supporting me in this project. I would also like to thank the many Colorado DAR Chapters that participated in this project. I owe them all a huge debt of gratitude for giving freely of their time to this project.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Visitor Guide Available Online
    Page 2 Page 3 Inside the Guide... Gold Belt Tour Page 10 Trails of Gold Map Page 7 Cripple Creek Parks Page 32 Events Page 8 Fishing Page 31 Gambling Page 17 Historic Cemeteries Page 30 Lodging Page 9, 26 Mine Tours Page 29 Modern Mining Page 28 Museums Page 24, 25 Scenic Overlooks Page 33 Shuttle Website Info Page 7 Theater Page 22 Train Ride Page 20 Victor Ice Rink Page 32 Cripple Creek Page 16, 17 Victor Page 12, 14 Thanks to our advertisers for their support and to our contributors for their content. This guide is a product of ZStudios, POB 244, Victor, CO 80860. This guide and more information available online at VictorColorado.com. All contents copyright April 2020. Page 4 old! Few words can change the character of an entire region like the cry of “gold fever”. Gold was discovered here in 1890; the fever spread like wildfire, bringing thousands to the PiGkes Peak region. Prospectors Bob Womack and Winfield Scott Stratton discovered the gold ore that touched off the legendary Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Rush. The ranching country on Pikes Peak's western slopes was transformed as thousands flocked to the area to seek their for - tunes. Towns sprang up on the mountainsides serving 500 gold mines, all requiring fuel, sup - plies, transportation, and a large supply of labor. It became a priority to link the Cripple Creek and Victor Mining District to places beyond. Two stage roads and three railroads were built to carry lumber, food, coal, ore, and people to and from the mining district towns.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Staunton State Park - Phase II-B Construction Improvements DIVISION I - SPECIFICATIONS
    2020 Staunton State Park - Phase II-B Construction Improvements DIVISION I - SPECIFICATIONS PROJECT I.D. NO. C19ST3 RQS: 2021*0148 APPR. CODE PC002INFP PRE-BID CONFERENCE: August 19, 2020 at 1:30 PM BID OPENING: August 26, 2020 at 1:30 PM PROJECT MANUAL STAUNTON STATE PARK - PHASE II -B 06/26/20 6/23/20 100% CD Job #: 2018.113 2020.06.26 6/25/2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS 00 3100 AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION Geotechnical Report DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01 1000 SUMMARY 01 2214 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT 01 3000 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 01 4000 QUALITY REQUIREMENTS 01 4100 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 01 4120 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROTECTION 01 4533 CODE-REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND PROCEDURES 01 5000 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS 01 6000 PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS 01 7000 EXECUTION AND CLOSEOUT REQUIREMENTS 01 7800 CLOSEOUT SUBMITTALS DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE 03 3000 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE 03 4500 PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE DIVISION 04 - MASONRY 04 7200 STONE MASONRY VENEER DIVISION 05 - METALS 05 1200 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING 05 5000 METAL FABRICATIONS DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES 06 1000 ROUGH CARPENTRY 06 1753 SHOP-FABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES 06 1800 GLUED-LAMINATED WOOD CONSTRUCTION 06 2000 FINISH CARPENTRY DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION 07 1900 GRAFFITI COATINGS 07 4113 METAL ROOF PANELS 07 4646 FIBER CEMENT SIDING 07 6200 SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM 07 9200 JOINT SEALANTS DIVISION 09 - FINISHES 09 9113 EXTERIOR PAINTING 09 9600 HIGH-PERFORMANCE
    [Show full text]
  • All Grants Awarded Through Fiscal Year 2020 INTRODUCTION and KEY
    All Grants Awarded Through Fiscal Year 2020 INTRODUCTION AND KEY This report is a list of all grants awarded by the Colorado Historical Society’s State Historical Fund (SHF) since its inception in 1992 (state Fiscal Year 1993) through the end of Fiscal Year 2020. The amounts listed are the original award amounts. If for some reason the entire grant amount was not used (i.e. a project was terminated or was completed under budget) the full amount awarded will appear. In other instances grant awards were increased either to enable project completion or to cover the costs of easements. In these instances, the additional award amount is shown in a separate entry as an increase. In those cases where no work was accomplished and the funds were either declined by the grant recipient or were required to be returned to the SHF through rescissions, no entry will appear. For this reason, projects listed in one version of this report may not appear in later versions, and the financial information shown in this report may not be comparable to other revenue reports issued by the SHF. Grants listed in this report are identified by project ID number. The first two characters in the project ID number represent the fiscal year from which the grant was scheduled to be paid. The state is on a July 1 – June 30 fiscal year. So, for example, all grants made between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007 will be coded “07”. The next two characters identify the type of grant. In the case of grants that are awarded based on specific application due dates, the grant round in which the project was funded will be paired with either a letter or number.
    [Show full text]
  • 5B Part Two- MAY
    Pike National Historic Trail Association Newsletter May-B 2016 Vol. 10 No. 5B Part Two- MAY Celebrating 210 Years- The Santa Fe Trail Association (SFTA) celebrated the Bicentennial of Pike’s 1806-7 Southwest Expedition 10 years ago. One can use our website- zebulonpike.org to recall the many activities conducted during 2006. The Pike National Historic Trail Association became the child of the SFTA. It was formed by John Patrick Michael Murphy and our current President. SFTA donated its website and many of its leaders including Dr. Leo Oliva and Dr. Clive Siegle volunteered. Others from the Bicentennial Committee quickly joined the effort including Zebulon Montgomery Pike, Dorothy Urban, and Mike Bandera with Dr. Rev. Roy Escott Pike, Erwin Young, Patrick Surrena, Tom Rollings and Rex Rideout. Bicentennial Liberty Bell & Daffodil Pike’s Damn’d Rascals- 4 John Brown BOTH expeditions. Went with Pike, Robinson and Miller to climb Pikes Peak Tried for desertion August 2, 1809, at New Orleans. He had deserted Lt. Wilkinson at Fort Adams November 21, 1807, and had been absent until June 6, 1809, when he surrendered to Maj. Amos Stoddard at Natchitoches. His sentence of corporal punishment was remitted because of voluntary surrender. Brown lived in the Cold Water district of St. Louis County, Missouri, for 42 years. When he died at the age of 86 his obituary appeared in the Missouri Republican, August 21, 1840. He is believed to be the oldest rascal. January 24, 1807 Saturday- Pikes Journal … he [Brown] exclaimed, “that it was more than human nature could bear, to march three days without sustenance, through snows three feet deep, and carry burdens only fit for horses” &c.&c.” “Brown, you this day presumed to make use of language which was seditious and mutinous, … I will pardon, but be assured, should it ever be repeated, by instant death, I will revenge your ingratitude and punish your disobedience.” This was one of a very few instances where Pike had to discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)
    Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Summits on the Air USA - Colorado (WØC) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S46.1 Issue number 3.2 Date of issue 15-June-2021 Participation start date 01-May-2010 Authorised Date: 15-June-2021 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Matt Schnizer KØMOS Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Page 1 of 11 Document S46.1 V3.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Change Control Date Version Details 01-May-10 1.0 First formal issue of this document 01-Aug-11 2.0 Updated Version including all qualified CO Peaks, North Dakota, and South Dakota Peaks 01-Dec-11 2.1 Corrections to document for consistency between sections. 31-Mar-14 2.2 Convert WØ to WØC for Colorado only Association. Remove South Dakota and North Dakota Regions. Minor grammatical changes. Clarification of SOTA Rule 3.7.3 “Final Access”. Matt Schnizer K0MOS becomes the new W0C Association Manager. 04/30/16 2.3 Updated Disclaimer Updated 2.0 Program Derivation: Changed prominence from 500 ft to 150m (492 ft) Updated 3.0 General information: Added valid FCC license Corrected conversion factor (ft to m) and recalculated all summits 1-Apr-2017 3.0 Acquired new Summit List from ListsofJohn.com: 64 new summits (37 for P500 ft to P150 m change and 27 new) and 3 deletes due to prom corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • Persson Mines 0052N 11296.Pdf
    THE GEOCHEMICAL AND MINERALOGICAL EVOLUTION OF THE MOUNT ROSA COMPLEX, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO, USA by Philip Persson A thesis submitted to the Faculty and Board of Trustees of the Colorado School of Mines in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Geology). Golden, Colorado Date ________________ Signed: ________________________ Philip Persson Signed: ________________________ Dr. Katharina Pfaff Thesis Advisor Golden, Colorado Date ________________ Signed: ________________________ Dr. M. Stephen Enders Professor and Interim Head Department of Geology and Geological Engineering ii ABSTRACT The ~1.08 Ga Pikes Peak Batholith is a type example of an anorogenic (A)-type granite and hosts numerous late-stage sodic and potassic plutons, including the peraluminous to peralkaline Mount Rosa Complex (MRC), located ~15 km west of the City of Colorado Springs in Central Colorado. The MRC is composed of Pikes Peak biotite granite, fayalite-bearing quartz syenite, granitic dikes, Mount Rosa Na-Fe amphibole granite, mafic dikes ranging from diabase to diorite, and numerous rare earth (REE) and other high field strength element (HFSE; e.g. Th, Zr, Nb) rich Niobium-Yttrrium-Fluorine (NYF)-type pegmatites. The aim of this study is to trace the magmatic evolution of the Mount Rosa Complex in order to understand the relationship between peraluminous and peralkaline rock units and concomitant HFSE enrichment and mineralization processes. Field work, petrography, SEM-based methods, whole rock geochemistry, and electron probe micro-analysis (EPMA) of micas was performed on all rock units to determine their textural, mineralogical and geochemical characteristics. Early peraluminous units such as the Pikes Peak biotite granite and fayalite-bearing quartz syenite contain annite-siderophyllite micas with high Fe/(Fe + Mg) ratios, and show relatively minor enrichments in REE and other HFSE compared to primitive mantle.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX a APPENDIX a Tiliber SALE Sumllary
    APPENDIX A APPENDIX A TIliBER SALE SuMllARY Area r.ocarmn -“anagemenr Area Treatmentl Esrlmated Probable Harvest -RIS I.ocatmn Area Volume “ethods by -Towashw & Range* (Acres) m LlpiBF Forest Type 1984 leadvllle 28 30 57 02 lodgepole pine 100210 clearcut T9S, R80W 1984 Leadvllle 2B 30 86 03 Lodgepole pne 100210 clearcut T8S. mow 1984 Leadvllle 70 50 143 03 bdgepole pule 100203 clearcur; spruce,fr ms, R80W shelterwood 1984 Leadvllle lhstrxt-vlde 80 2.29 08 All species. approprrare for nanagement Area.*=C 1984 Sahda 4B 320 457 16 Spruce,flr group 101001; 101002 selectmn T14S, R80W 1984 Sallda 40 200 114 0.4 Douglas-*rr thmnmg; 102311 lodgepole pine and T48N, WE aspen. clearcur 1984 SalIda 5B 15 29 0 1 Lodgepole pm 102211 clearcur T49N, R7E 1984 Salzda 5B 30 86 0.3 Aspen: clearcut 1027.06 public fuelwood T49N, WE 1984 Sahd.9 40 25 86 0.3 Aspen clearcur 101301 public fuelwood T13S, R77W 1984 Sahda District-wide 320 200 0.7 All species approprrate for nanagement Area 1984 San Carlas ,A 318 loo0 3.5 Spruce,fx. clearcut; 103510 Douglas-fir: two-step T24S, R69W sheltewood 1984 San carkss rhstrzct-wrde 420 257 0.9 All Epecles appropriate for Management Area 1984 Pxkes Peak WE 314 143 0.3 Ponderosa pine and 115302. 113303 Douglas-cr. Two-step TI1S. R68W shelterwad; spruce/ fm and aspen clearcut 1984 PlkS Peak 7A 476 286 10 Douglas-fm and 117101, 117102, ponderosa pme two- 117401, 11,402 step shelterwood, T11 s; 12s. wow aspen. clearcur *All Townshq and Range ~~rar~ons refer to the New “exzco and Sxcth Prmcxpal “enduas, ““Ifed States survey “See Chapter III, Management Area Preserqrmns for harvest methods by specks A-l TIMBER SALE SuMEwlY Area hcatlo” -Managemn Area Treatment Estmated Probable Harverr Hlscal -RI8 locatloo Area Yolme Methods by Year: District Sale Name -Township 6 Ranae (Acres) gcJ MMBF Forest Type 1984 Pikes Peak .Jobos Gulch 1OR 450 286 I.0 Poaderosa pm.e 116701, 116002 two-step shelterwood T118, R69” 1984 Pikes Peak Quaker RLdgs 28 250 143 0.5 Ponderoaa pme TWO- 116601.
    [Show full text]
  • Petrology and Mineralogy of the Mount Rosa Area, El Paso and Teller Counties, Colorado
    THE AMERICAN MINERALOGIST, VOL. 5 1, MARCH-APRIL, 1966 PETROLOGY AND MINERALOGY OF THE MOUNT ROSA AREA, EL PASO AND TELLER COUNTIES, COLORADO. II. PEGMATITESI EuceNB B. Gnoss, CaliJornia Diris,ion of Mines and Geology San Fra nci sco, C alifor n i o AND E. Wu. IIerNnrcu, Department of Geologyand Mineralogy The Llniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Aesrnlcr Two contrasting swarms of pegmatite dikes occur intermingled in the Pikes Peak granite and in related alkalic granites in the Mount Rosa area, west of Colorado Springs. One is the older calc-alkalic Pikes Peak type; the younger is the alkalic Mount Rosa type. The accessory assemblage of the Mount Rosa quartz-microcline-riebeckite pegmatites consists chiefly of radioactive zircon, fluorite, astrophyllite, thorite, and lesser amounts of pyrochlore, rutile, niobian rutile, columbite, bertrandite and rare aluminofluorides. These dikes intrude both the Pikes Peak and its derivative fayaiite granites along north- east-trending fractures. These pegmatites contrast markedly with the coexisting Pikes Peak pegmatites, which are characterized by quartz and amazonite crystals, zircon, biotite, siderite, and minor topaz, allanite, cassiterite and genthelvite. The Pikes Peak type occurs as segregations and injected bodies only within Pikes Peak granite. Age determinations on zircons from pegmatites of the Mount Rosa type proved to be inconsistent, but ages determined by means of the Kao/Ara0 method on pegmatitic rie- beckite are consistent rvith geological evidence and age determinations on the granites, giving an age of 1040 my. INrnolucrroN Discoverl' of unusual minerals in pegmatitesof the St. Peters Dome district, Mount Rosa area,Colorado, attracted the attention of mineralo- gists as earlv as 1877 (Koenig, 1877).
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing the Magmatic to Hydrothermal Evolution of the Mount Rosa Complex, Colorado: Textural and Chemical Evidence Using Zircon
    TRACING THE MAGMATIC TO HYDROTHERMAL EVOLUTION OF THE MOUNT ROSA COMPLEX, COLORADO: TEXTURAL AND CHEMICAL EVIDENCE USING ZIRCON by Alyssa Smith A thesis submitted to the Faculty and Board of Trustees of the Colorado School of Mines in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Geochemistry). Golden, Colorado Date ________________ Signed: ________________________ Alyssa Smith Signed: ________________________ Dr. Katharina Pfaff Thesis Advisor Golden, Colorado Date ________________ Signed: ________________________ Dr. M. Stephen Enders Professor and Department Head Department of Geology and Geological Engineering ii ABSTRACT Located ~15 km west of the city of Colorado Springs, the ~1.04 Ga Mount Rosa Complex (MRC) consists of a diverse groups of peraluminous to peralkaline granitic rocks hosted in the ~1.08 Ga Pikes Peak Batholith. From oldest to youngest, the MRC comprises the following rock units: the peraluminous Pikes Peak biotite granite (PPG), fayalite-bearing quartz syenite, granitic dikes, peralkaline Na-amphibole Mount Rosa granite (MRG), mafic dikes, and type-(I) and type-(II) NYF-type pegmatites. All rock units in the MRC are highly elevated in REEs and HFSEs compared to other A-type magmatic systems. In order to better understand the magmatic to hydrothermal evolution of the enigmatic MRC, zircons from each rock unit were analyzed using transmitted light microscopy, BSE imaging, EDS spot analyses, automated mineralogy bright phase searches, SEM-CL imaging, EMPA, and Raman spectroscopy to document their textural and chemical variations across all rock units. Based on petrography and automated mineralogy, zircons were divided into 5 categories: Type 1A: euhedral early magmatic zircon, type 1B: early magmatic sieved textured zircon, type 1C: early magmatic patchy zircon, type 2: pegmatitic wallrock zircon, and type 3: hydrothermal zircon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Peralkaline Mount Rosa Granite: Contrasting Mineralogy and Geochemistry Observed in the Mount Rosa Granite, Pikes Peak Batholith, Colorado
    THE PERALKALINE MOUNT ROSA GRANITE: CONTRASTING MINERALOGY AND GEOCHEMISTRY OBSERVED IN THE MOUNT ROSA GRANITE, PIKES PEAK BATHOLITH, COLORADO by Kelsey Livingston A thesis submitted to the Faculty and Board of Trustees of the Colorado School of Mines in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Geochemistry). Golden, Colorado Date ________________ Signed: _________________________ Kelsey Livingston Signed: _________________________ Dr. Katharina Pfaff Thesis Advisor Golden, Colorado Date ________________ Signed: _________________________ Dr. Wendy Bohrson Professor and Department Head Department of Geology and Geological Engineering ii ABSTRACT The Mount Rosa complex is a sodic igneous pluton within the ~1.08 Ga Pikes Peak batholith, a typical A-type granite located in the Colorado Front Range. Diverse lithologies are associated with emplacement of the complex; these included peraluminous to peralkaline granitic rocks with several associated minor rock types, such as various dikes and pegmatites. Recent geologic and geochemical studies of the complex revealed the Mount Rosa Granite to have a complex petrogenesis within the pluton. This granite is host to complex Ti-bearing minerals, 2+ 2+ astrophyllite [K3Fe 7Ti2Si8O26(OH)5] and aenigmatite [Na2Fe 5TiSi6O20], which are noted to represent highly peralkaline rocks on the evolutionary path from miaskitic to agpaitic compositions. Researchers have been studying agpaitic rocks to decipher the magmatic processes which drive the transition toward the highly evolved melts and rare metal deposits because of their enrichment of high field strength elements (HFSE). Further understanding of this process may allow for more efficient, targeted exploration in potentially economic alkaline complexes. Studying the Mount Rosa Granite provides a unique opportunity to observe the transitional agpaitic stage of melt evolution in a peralkaline granite as the occurrences of complex HFSE-bearing titanosilicates differ.
    [Show full text]