DOCSLIB.ORG

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT in the CENTRAL and SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS: a Summary of the Status of Our Knowledge by Vegetation Types

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT in the CENTRAL and SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS: a Summary of the Status of Our Knowledge by Vegetation Types This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN THE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS A Summary of the Status of Our Knowledge by Vegetation Types Charles E. Leaf USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Research Paper RM-142 Range Experiment Station Forest Service March 1975 U.S. Department of Agriculture Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Abstract Summarizes a series of comprehensive reports on watershed management in five major vegetation zones: (1) the coniferous forest subalpine zone; (2) the Front Range ponderosa pine zone; (3) the Black Hills ponderosa pine zone; (4) the alpine zone; and (5) the big sagebrush zone. Includes what is known about the hydrology of these lands, what hydrologic principles are important for multiresource management, and what additional information is needed for each vegetation type. Keywords: Watershed management, land use planning, alpine hydrology, range hydrology, snow hydrology, blowing snow management, water yield management. PREFACE Comprehensive reports on the status of our knowledge in watershed management, applicable to the important central and southern Rocky Mountain vegetation types, have been prepared as Research Papers by the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. These include: “Watershed management in the Rocky Mountain Subalpine Zone: The Status of Our Knowledge,” by Charles F. Leaf, (RM-137), “Water-Yield Improvement From Alpine Areas: The Status of Our Knowledge,” by M. Martinelli, Jr., (RM-138), “Watershed Management Problems and Opportunities For the Colorado Front Range Ponderosa Pine Zone: The Status of Our Knowledge,” by Howard L. Gary, (RM-139), “The Hydrology of Big Sagebrush Lands: The Status of Our Knowledge,” by David L. Sturges, (RM-140), and “Watershed Management in the Black Hills: The Status of Our Knowledge,” by Howard K. Orr (RM-141). These papers have been condensed in the report to provide a general summary of what is currently known about watershed management in all the major vegetation zones of the central and southern Rocky Mountains. Acknowledgments and literature citations are included in the full-length papers. USDA Forest Service March 1975 Research Paper RM -142 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN THE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS: ...... '. A Summary of the Status of Our Knowledge by Vegetation Types Charles F. Leaf, Principal Hydrologist Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 1 1Central headquarters is maintained at Fort Collins in cooperation with Colorado State University. Dr. Leaf is now privately employed in Fort Collins. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 THE CONIFEROUS FOREST SUBALPINE ZONE .................................................................. 1 What We Know About Subalpine Hydrology .................................................................. 1 Climate, Geology, and Water Yield .............................................................................. 1 Snow Accumulation......................................................................................................... 2 Evapotranspiration.......................................................................................................... 4 Snowmelt and Runoff ......................................................•.............................................. 4 Hydrologic Systems Analysis........................................................................................ 6 Erosion and Water Quality............................................................................................. 7 Hydrologic Principles Important to Multiresource Management of the Subalpine Zone................................................................................. 8 What Do We Need to Know................................................................................................... 9 THE FRONT RANGE PONDEROSA PINE ZONE ................................................................... 11 What We Know About Front Range Hydrology................................................................ 12 Climate. Geology, and Water Yield ....................................................... ....................... 12 Watershed-Condition Criteria ........................................................................................ 13 Channel Erosion and Sediment yield........................................................................... 13 Watershed Management ................................................................................................. 13 Hydrologic Principles Important to Multiresource . Management of the Colorado Front Range.................................................... ................. 14 What Do We Need to Know ................................................................................................... 14 THE BLACK HILLS PONDEROSA PINE ZONE ...................................................................... 15 What We Know About the Hydrology of the Black Hills ................................................ 15 Climate, Geology, and Water Yield .............................................................................. 15 Water Quality.............................. ............ ...... ...... .......... ................................................... 15 Geology and Physiography ............................................................................................ 18 Water-Yield Improvement ............................................................................................. 18 Hydrologic Principles Important to Multiresource Management of the Black Hills ........................................................................................ 18 What Do We Need to Know ................................................................................................... 18 THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ALPINE ZONE ............................................................................... 19 What We Know About Alpine Hydrology........................................................................... 19 Landforms, Climate, and Streamflow .......................................................................... 19 Alpine Snow Accumulation... .................................. ........................ ............................... 19 Evaporation, Condensation, and Melt .......................................................................... 20 Water-Yield Improvement ............................................................................................. 20 Principles Important to Water-Yield Improvement in the Alpine Zone................................................................................................................ 21 What Do We Need to Know................................................................................................... 21 THE BIG SAGEBRUSH ZONE.................................................................................................... 22 What We Know About Big Sagebrush Hydrology ............................................................. 22 Climate and Water Yield of Mountain Sagebrush ..................................................... 22 Wind and Drifting Snow............................................... .................................................. 23 Watershed Management ................................................................................................. 23 Hydrologic Principles Important to Multiresource Management of the Big Sagebrush Zone ...... ...................................................... ............ 26 What Do We Need to Know ................................................................................................... 27 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN THE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAINS: A Summary of the Status of Our Knowledge by Vegetation Types Charles F. Leaf INTRODUCTION Watershed management in the central and known has not been documented in the litera­ southern Rocky Mountains includes land use ture. Accoqlingl y, it is in the bes t interest of the practices varying from manipulation of forest profession to periodically synthesize and or­ and range vegetation to building fences upwind ganize published as well as unpublished re­ of natural snow accumulation areas. The effec­ search results into one source. tiveness or desirability of these practices de­ The comprehensive status-of-knowledge pends on how well management goals consider summaries prepared for each vegetation type the inherent hydrologic characteristics of a are intended to guide professional hydrologists given area, vegetation type and condition, and· and resource managers by providing informa­ environment. All these factors affect the quan­ tion on: (1) what is known about the hydrology of tity, quality, and timing of runoff. Because most the principal vegetation zones, and (2) how this undisturbed hydrologic systems are in dynamic knowledge can best be applied to meet mul­ equilibrium, the resource manager must be cer­ tire source management objectives. Supple­ tain that natural processes are not altered by mental benefits resulting from this effort in­ land use to the extent that undesirable hy-. clude detailed literature reviews and identifica­ drologic changes result.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation of Hanging Lake
    Evaluation of Hanging Lake Garfield County, Colorado for its Merit in Meeting National Significance Criteria as a National Natural Landmark in Representing Lakes, Ponds and Wetlands in the Southern Rocky Mountain Province prepared by Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program 1474 Campus Delivery Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 August 27, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. 2 LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 5 Source of Site Proposal ................................................................................................... 5 Evaluator(s) ..................................................................................................................... 5 Scope of Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 5 PNNL SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 5 Brief Overview ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Denudation History and Internal Structure of the Front Range and Wet Mountains, Colorado, Based on Apatite-Fission-Track Thermoc
    NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL RESOURCES, BULLETIN 160, 2004 41 Denudation history and internal structure of the Front Range and Wet Mountains, Colorado, based on apatite­fission­track thermochronology 1 2 1Department of Earth and Environmental Science, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801Shari A. Kelley and Charles E. Chapin 2New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801 Abstract An apatite fission­track (AFT) partial annealing zone (PAZ) that developed during Late Cretaceous time provides a structural datum for addressing questions concerning the timing and magnitude of denudation, as well as the structural style of Laramide deformation, in the Front Range and Wet Mountains of Colorado. AFT cooling ages are also used to estimate the magnitude and sense of dis­ placement across faults and to differentiate between exhumation and fault­generated topography. AFT ages at low elevationX along the eastern margin of the southern Front Range between Golden and Colorado Springs are from 100 to 270 Ma, and the mean track lengths are short (10–12.5 µm). Old AFT ages (> 100 Ma) are also found along the western margin of the Front Range along the Elkhorn thrust fault. In contrast AFT ages of 45–75 Ma and relatively long mean track lengths (12.5–14 µm) are common in the interior of the range. The AFT ages generally decrease across northwest­trending faults toward the center of the range. The base of a fossil PAZ, which separates AFT cooling ages of 45– 70 Ma at low elevations from AFT ages > 100 Ma at higher elevations, is exposed on the south side of Pikes Peak, on Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Boreal Toad (Bufo Boreas Boreas) a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 25, 2005 Doug Keinath1 and Matt McGee1 with assistance from Lauren Livo2 1Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, P.O. Box 3381, Laramie, WY 82071 2EPO Biology, P.O. Box 0334, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Keinath, D. and M. McGee. (2005, May 25). Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/ assessments/borealtoad.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Deb Patla and Erin Muths for their suggestions during the preparation of this assessment. Also, many thanks go to Lauren Livo for advice and help with revising early drafts of this assessment. Thanks to Jason Bennet and Tessa Dutcher for assistance in preparing boreal toad location data for mapping. Thanks to Bill Turner for information and advice on amphibians in Wyoming. Finally, thanks to the Boreal Toad Recovery Team for continuing their efforts to conserve the boreal toad and documenting that effort to the best of their abilities … kudos! AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Doug Keinath is the Zoology Program Manager for the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, which is a research unit of the University of Wyoming and a member of the Natural Heritage Network. He has been researching Wyoming’s wildlife for the past nine years and has 11 years experience in conducting technical and policy analyses for resource management professionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Potential in the Southern Rocky Mountains Region and Beyond
    Flood Potential in the Southern Rocky Mountains Region and Beyond Steven E. Yochum, Hydrologist, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado 970-295-5285, [email protected] prepared for the SEDHYD-2019 conference, June 24-28th, Reno, Nevada, USA Abstract Understanding of the expected magnitudes and spatial variability of floods is essential for managing stream corridors. Utilizing the greater Southern Rocky Mountains region, a new method was developed to predict expected flood magnitudes and quantify spatial variability. In a variation of the envelope curve method, regressions of record peak discharges at long-term streamgages were used to predict the expected flood potential across zones of similar flood response and provide a framework for consistent comparison between zones through a flood potential index. Floods varied substantially, with the southern portion of Eastern Slopes and Great Plains zone experiencing floods, on average for a given watershed area, 15 times greater than an adjacent orographic-sheltered zone (mountain valleys of central Colorado and Northern New Mexico). The method facilitates the use of paleoflood data to extend predictions and provides a systematic approach for identifying extreme floods through comparison with large floods experienced by all streamgages within each zone. A variability index was developed to quantify within-zone flood variability and the flood potential index was combined with a flashiness index to yield a flood hazard index. Preliminary analyses performed in Texas, Missouri and Arkansas, northern Maine, northern California, and Puerto Rico indicate the method may have wide applicability. By leveraging data collected at streamgages in similar- responding nearby watersheds, these results can be used to predict expected large flood magnitudes at ungaged and insufficiently gaged locations, as well as for checking the results of statistical distributions at streamgaged locations, and for comparing flood risks across broad geographic extents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rocky Mountain Front, Southwestern USA
    The Rocky Mountain Front, southwestern USA Charles E. Chapin, Shari A. Kelley, and Steven M. Cather New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico 87801, USA ABSTRACT northeast-trending faults cross the Front thrust in southwest Wyoming and northern Range–Denver Basin boundary. However, Utah. A remarkable attribute of the RMF is The Rocky Mountain Front (RMF) trends several features changed from south to north that it maintained its position through multi- north-south near long 105°W for ~1500 km across the CMB. (1) The axis of the Denver ple orogenies and changes in orientation from near the U.S.-Mexico border to south- Basin was defl ected ~60 km to the north- and strength of tectonic stresses. During the ern Wyoming. This long, straight, persistent east. (2) The trend of the RMF changed from Laramide orogeny, the RMF marked a tec- structural boundary originated between 1.4 north–northwest to north. (3) Structural tonic boundary beyond which major contrac- and 1.1 Ga in the Mesoproterozoic. It cuts style of the Front Range–Denver Basin mar- tional partitioning of the Cordilleran fore- the 1.4 Ga Granite-Rhyolite Province and gin changed from northeast-vergent thrusts land was unable to penetrate. However, the was intruded by the shallow-level alkaline to northeast-dipping, high-angle reverse nature of the lithospheric fl aw that underlies granitic batholith of Pikes Peak (1.09 Ga) faults. (4) Early Laramide uplift north of the RMF is an unanswered question. in central Colorado.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Dedication and Acknowledgements............................................................................ 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3 Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 5 Alpine Environments...................................................................................................................................................5 Flooding......................................................................................................................................................................5 Hydrogeology .............................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Plateau
    MLRA 36 – Southwestern Plateaus, Mesas and Foothills MLRA 36 – Southwestern Plateaus, Mesas and Foothills (Utah portion) Ecological Zone Desert Semidesert* Upland* Mountain* Precipitation 5 -9 inches 9 -13 inches 13-16 inches 16-22 inches Elevation 3,000 -5,000 4,500 -6,500 5,800 - 7,000 6,500 – 8,000 Soil Moisture Regime Ustic Aridic Ustic Ustic Ustic Soil Temp Regime Mesic Mesic Mesic Frigid Freeze free Days 120-220 120-160 100-130 60-90 Percent of Pinyon Percent of Juniper production is Shadscale and production is usually usually greater than blackbrush Notes greater than the Pinyon the Juniper Ponderosa Pine production production 300 – 500 lbs/ac 400 – 700 lbs/ac 100 – 500 lbs/ac 800 – 1,000 lbs/ac *the aspect (north or south) can greatly influence site characteristics. All values in this table are approximate and should be used as guidelines. Different combinations of temperature, precipitation and soil type can place an ecological site into different zones. Southern Major Land Resource AreasRocky (MLRA) D36 Mountains Basins and Plateaus s D36 - Southwestern Plateaus, Mesas, and Foothills Colorado Plateau 05010025 Miles 36—Southwestern Plateaus, Mesas, and Foothills This area is in New Mexico (58 percent), Colorado (32 percent), and Utah (10 percent). It makes up about 23,885 square miles (61,895 square kilometers). The major towns in the area are Cortez and Durango, Colorado; Santa Fe and Los Alamos, New Mexico; and Monticello, Utah. Grand Junction, Colorado, and Interstate 70 are just outside the northern tip of this area. Interstates 40 and 25 cross the middle of the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology, Silviculture, and Management of the Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir Type in the Central and Southern Rocky Mountains
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Quinney Natural Resources Research Library, The Bark Beetles, Fuels, and Fire Bibliography S.J. and Jessie E. 1987 Ecology, Silviculture, and Management of the Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir Type in the Central and Southern Rocky Mountains Robert R. Alexander Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/barkbeetles Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Entomology Commons, Forest Biology Commons, Forest Management Commons, and the Wood Science and Pulp, Paper Technology Commons Recommended Citation Alexander, R. (1987). Ecology, silviculture, and management of the Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir type in the central and southern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 659, 144 pp. This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the Quinney Natural Resources Research Library, S.J. and Jessie E. at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Bark Beetles, Fuels, and Fire Bibliography by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. United States Department of Agriculture Ecology, Silviculture, and Forest Management of the Engelmann Service Agriculture Spruce-Subalpine Fir Type in the Handbook No. 659 Central and Southern Rocky Mountains Robert R. Alexander Chief silviculturist Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Ft. Collins, CO March 1987 Alexander, Robert R. Ecology, silviculture, and management of the Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir type in the central and southern Rocky Mountains. Agric. Handb. No. 659. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; 1987. 144 p. Summarizes and consolidates ecological and silvicultural knowledge of spruce-fir forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Ozone in Remote Areas of the Southern Rocky Mountains
    Atmospheric Environment 82 (2014) 383e390 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Atmospheric Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv Ozone in remote areas of the Southern Rocky Mountains Robert C. Musselman*, John L. Korfmacher US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA highlights O3 concentrations would contribute to NAAQS exceedances at most sites. Mid-level O3 concentrations contributed to the high values of the W126 metric. There were significant year-to-year O3 differences. O3 was persistent at night, particularly at higher elevations. O3 levels at high elevation sites suggested evidence of stratospheric intrusion. article info abstract Article history: Ozone (O3) data are sparse for remote, non-urban mountain areas of the western U.S. Ozone was Received 17 June 2013 monitored 2007e2011 at high elevation sites in national forests in Colorado and northeastern Utah using Received in revised form a portable battery-powered O3 monitor. The data suggest that many of these remote locations already 21 October 2013 have O concentrations that would contribute to exceedance of the current National Ambient Air Quality Accepted 24 October 2013 3 Standard (NAAQS) for O3 and most could exceed a proposed more stringent secondary standard. There were significant year-to-year differences in O3 concentration. Ozone was primarily in the mid- Keywords: concentration range, rarely exceeding 100 ppb or dropping below 30 ppb. The small diel changes in Air pollution Forests concentration indicate mixing ratios of NOx, VOCs, and O3 that favor stable O3 concentrations. The large High elevation number of mid-level O3 concentrations contributed to high W126 O3 values, the metric proposed as a NAAQS possible new secondary standard.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Rivers and Beaver-Related
    THESIS RIVERS AND BEAVER-RELATED RESTORATION IN COLORADO Submitted by Julianne Scamardo Department of Geosciences In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Fall 2019 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Ellen Wohl Tim Covino Ryan Morrison Copyright by Julianne Eileen Scamardo 2019 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT RIVERS AND BEAVER-RELATED RESTORATION IN COLORADO Interest in beaver-related restoration, such as reintroduction and dam analogs, for repairing incised and degraded streams is apparent across the American West. North American beaver (Castor canadensis) were historically abundant across their ecological range, and headwater streams across the U.S. likely held many beaver dams in the channel and on the floodplains. Beaver dams can effectively trap sediment, water, and solutes, and a thriving beaver meadow can have implications for biodiversity and carbon storage. After historical declines in populations throughout the 19th and 20th century, enthusiasm for reintroduction and dam analogs has grown for naturally restoring degraded streams that once housed beaver. To guide enthusiasm in the State of Colorado, understanding (i) where reintroductions are viable and (ii) how beaver dam analogs change stream morphology and hydrology is critical. This study tackles those two objectives by modeling potential dam densities in 63 watersheds across Colorado as well as monitoring beaver dam analog restoration projects in two watersheds in the Colorado Front Range. While density models may not be accurate at small scales, regional patterns in dam density across Colorado suggest that many streams can still support beaver populations despite larger decreases from historic dam densities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rangelands of Colorado
    RANGELANDS 15(5), October 1993 213 The Rangelands of Colorado John E. Mitchell To understand the rangelands of Utah border also receives very little Physlographic Regions Colorado,one should first look at its precipitation. Note: It is not com- Physiographers have dividedColo- physiography. Colorado can right- monly known that the stretch of the the be called the"zenith" of the Uni- ColoradoRiver between Grand Lake rado into three major provinces: fully and ted States; on is the and its confluence with Green Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, average, it high- the From a est state in elevation with morethan River in eastern Utah was called the Colorado Plateaus (Fig. 1). of time, these 50 peaks exceeding 14,000 ft. Moun- GrandRiver by early pioneers (Stan- perspective geological Iandforms are young.The pres- tain passes crossingthe Continental ton 1965).] quite Divide in ent Rocky Mountains were uplifted Colorado frequently are Like other western states, Colo- The Great above ft. The lowest in radois The only 60 million years ago. 11,000 point predominantly rangeland. ofalluvial mater- the state, the Arkansas River 1979 Assessment of the U.S. Forest Plainsare composed along ial that eroded from these where it enters is and mandated uplifting Kansas, only slightly Rangeland Situation, and were over below 3,400 ft., while about 95% of the Renewable Resources Plan- mountains deposited by thick mantles of ancient worn Colorado'sland area is morethan "a Act of estimated that 47.5 gravels ning 1974, from ancestral Rockiesformed mile The headwaters of four million ac., or 72°Jo ofthe state's lands away highl" the Paleozoic Era major rivers can be found in the are About 55%of this during (Chronic grazed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geologic Story of the Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado
    782 R59 L48 flforttell Uniucraitg ffitbrarg THE GIFT OF UL.5. SoLpt. o|: Doca-manis, ^^JflAgJJ^-J^HV W&-J 1079F hiiUBfeillW^naf Cornell University Library F 782R59 L48 3 1924 028 879 082 olin Cornell University Library The original of this bool< is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028879082 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRANKLIN K. lANE, Secretary NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STEPHEN T. MATHER, Director THE GEOLOGIC STORY OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK COLORADO BY WILLIS T. LEE, Ph. D. Geologist, United States Geological SuiTey WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1917 n ^HnH- CONTENTS. Page. Introduction 7 Location and character 7 A brief historical sketch ^ 9 In the days of the aborigines 11 Accessibility 11 A general outlook 12 The making and shaping of the mountains 14 Geology and scenery 14 Before the Rockies were bom 15 The birth of the Rockies 19 How the mountains grew 21 How the mountains were shaped 22 Work of rain 23 Work of frost 24 Work of streams 25 Methods of work 25 Streams of park exceptional 27 Stripping of the mountains 27 An old plain of erosion'. 28 Many periods of uplift 28 Work of ice 29 . When and why glaciers form. •. 29 ' Living glaciers • 29 Ancient glaciers 31 Fall River Glacier 32 Thompson Glacier 32 Bartholf Glacier 33 Mills Glacier 33 Wild Basin Glacier 34 Glaciers of North Fork and its tributaries 84 Glaciers in the northern part of the park 37 How the glaciers worked 37 Approaches to the park 38 Loveland to Estes Park 38 Lyons to Estes Park - 41 Ward to Estes Park 42 Grand Lake route 43 The park as seen from the trails 45 Black Canyon trail 45 Lawn Lake 47 Hagues Peak and Hallett Glacier 47 Roaring River 49 Horseshoe Falls 50 Fall River road 50 Trail ridge 54 3 4 CONTENTS.
    [Show full text]