State of Rocky Mountain National Park (Loveland, Estes Park: fit in, credit, lawyers)

[Idunn]

'A 1980 National Park Service report that listed threats to park resources found an average of 13.5 internal and external threats per park. The report identified four—urban encroachment, acid precipitation, non-native plants, and dilapidated dams and reservoirs—for Rocky Mountain National Park.' [1]


The state of Rocky Mountain National Park is not good.

While that may be a melodramatic assessment, largely accurate if considering that the overall health of the ecosystem within RMNP is changing for the worse. This would include, but not limited to, threats to trees and other vegetation, wildlife, with also lakes and rivers.

The purpose of this thread is to focus strictly upon Rocky Mountain National Park and its environment, all threats to it, as well as remedies, and all other relevant information. Any and all pertinent information which pertains to RMNP is welcome, and solicited.

I'll begin this discussion by mentioning that one of the dams perhaps considered in 1980 was the Lawn Lake Dam, situated high above the Endo Valley of RMNP. Whether so or not, its failure early on July 15, 1982 resulted in the Lawn Lake Flood, which killed three campers in RMNP, flooded Estes Park, and resulted in the severe erosion of the course of the Roaring River below this failed dam on Lawn Lake, as well as the very obvious debris field of rocks at the valley floor which exists to this day.

As a point of historical note, the Lawn Lake Dam was constructed in 1903 by Loveland farmers for irrigation purposes. Lawn Lake is a natural lake of 16.4 acres, residing at an elevation of 10,987 feet. This dam turned this lake into a reservoir with a capacity of 48 acres. RMNP was not formally instituted as a national park until 1915. The Lawn Lake Dam was not rebuilt after its failure, but is not the only dam or man-made water diversion feature in RMNP. With its first water diverted in 1890 down the otherwise natural course of the Cache la Poudre River, the Grand Ditch diverts about 40% of the water from the Never Summer Mountains, on the west side of RMNP, that would otherwise flow into the Colorado River near its headwaters.

The forests of RMNP are under severe assault. To a large degree due the unnatural spread of the mountain pine beetle. This topic bears a good deal of discussion, as the health or not of the forests of RMNP will have a dramatic effect upon its greater ecosystem. But the discussion should extend far beyond a single insect.

The current stewardship of RMNP should be in question. In driving across the Colorado River Valley from near the west entrance at Grand Lake to where the road begins to climb from it in switchbacks, one is confronted with a scene of devastation. Forests which used to border the road closely have largely been entirely cut back to about the length of the average lodgepole pine. What borders the road now is a continuous row of wooden teepees, the remains of these trees. Officials with RMNP will provide a number of specious rationales if asked about this, but the bottom line is a good many of these trees they cut down were perfectly green and healthy at the time. This applies to other trees, and areas of the Park as well.

In fact, it seems that the stewards of RMNP have gone into the logging business. One can buy a permit from them to haul off as firewood up to five cords of these trees that they have cut down. [2]

The health of forests in RMNP will have a decided impact upon the health and quality of the many fine mountain rivers which issue from its snow capped peaks. The 2010 Cow Creek Fire in the far northeast quadrant of RMNP primarily affected the watershed of West Creek, which later joins Cow Creek, which in turn has a confluence with the North Fork of the Big Thompson River at the town of Glen Haven. West Creek suffered a good deal of influence from this fire in the form of a very fine black ash sediment which collected in all eddies, as well as for a time turning the North Fork nearly black. Not to mention the introduction of toxic flame retardant chemicals which were used in suppression of this forest fire.

These rivers, including the North Fork of the Big Thompson, all issue from within RMNP. At their headwaters they are largely pristine mountain rivers. But the North Fork is compromised before its confluence with its greater namesake at Drake, and indeed not that far beyond RMNP's boundary, at Glen Haven. By then it has been heavily compromised with a good deal of unnatural sediment from Fox Creek, Cow Creek as well. Also with higher than normal levels of nitrates and other chemicals.

This situation is not confined only to the North Fork, but in various measures all lakes and rivers of RMNP. One significant source of nitrates and other pollutants is from airborne deposition, primarily from sources along the front range of Colorado. These influences which effect the pH and basic nature and health of these lakes and rivers, as well as aquatic life, have been growing more severe, reaching to the highest and most remote regions of RMNP.

Due the warming climate, which has adversely affected the forests as well, animals such as the pika have been forced to try and adjust, in the case of this small mammal to seek higher alpine elevations. [3] Particularly since the advent of Europeans into the region, the animals native to RMNP have often been dramatically influenced. Populations of beaver have been significantly diminished, with renewed threats even to this day. Their population greatly influenced by the increase in elk numbers, which disproportionate due the elimination of native grizzly bears and wolfs, a policy the stewards of RMNP continue to refuse to reverse. With instead, in part, the construction of many miles of high steel fences throughout the meadows of RMNP, which theoretically are designated wilderness.

This is but an incomplete introduction and sampling of the environmental issues facing RMNP. A greater discussion of the facts on the ground, as well as courses forward, is welcome.

1) 'State of the Parks/Rocky Mountain National Park, 2002,' National Parks Conservation Society
(further info and pdf report available at following link)
Rocky Mountain National Park | National Parks Conservation Association (http://www.npca.org/stateoftheparks/rocky_mountain/ - broken link)

2) 'Stoking the Fire,' Estes Park Trail Gazette
Stoking the fire - Estes Park Trail-Gazette

3) 'Meltdown in the Mountains: How Global Warming Threatens Pikas and Other High-Country Critters,' National Wildlife Federation
Meltdown in the Mountains: How Global Warming Threatens Pikas and Other High-Country Critters : Wildlife Promise

[phetaroi]

If you think the pine beetle is causing problems in RMNP, go up to the Black Hills of South Dakota. Much worse.

But my question is this, where the pine beetle strikes badly, what trees will naturally replace the dying pines?

[Idunn]

Insofar as RMNP (and this topic) is concerned, an excellent question.

It might be the mountain pine beetle in this instance, but it could as well be disease or some other cause. Indeed while the mountain pine beetle largely affects lodgepole and ponderosa pine, species such as spruce are affected by other similar insects. But what has allowed insects native to the environment to so proliferate is the overall health of the forests. Many of these trees can no longer fend off insects which formerly affected the old and sick because weakened by ever warmer temperatures they are not adapted to, as well as reduced precipitation.

Thus, even as some of these trees now dying would take one hundred years or more to grow again the same, they are not likely to. They are dying now because their environment is changing so rapidly beyond what they are suited to.

So an open question what besides cactus will replace entire mountainsides of dead trees across RMNP. The initial effects and plants growing in these regions may be those found in areas that had burned, with large forest fires not an impossible scenario either in RMNP. So possibly more in the way of grasses, shrubs, and trees such as aspen. Lodgepole pine naturally grow within areas burned, but as some of their youngest members are now not healthy, some question as to what extent they may return.

[Idunn]

Those who love Rocky Mountain National Park may be glad to learn few trees were affected in these high recent winds.

From the news I have it that Estes Park experienced gusts of wind to 77mph, although paling in comparison to the 115mph reported in Frisco. All the more as Estes Park is notable for common winds during the winter. But apparently that more severe was elsewhere, in some front range communities or in the mountains.

Unfortunately a few trees were negatively affected in RMNP, being either entirely uprooted, or broken in limb or trunk. A large and otherwise healthy ponderosa pine (as I believe it be at a glance) had fallen near Trail Ridge Road near the junction towards the Endo Valley, to the extent that a portion of it had to be removed to free part of the road. In driving as far as possible into the Endo Valley, and then most of the way to Bear Lake, I observed a few other fallen trees, but fortunately few, and the forest as a whole no different than before.

BUT RMNP is presently the scene of massive devastation, and all due the policy of its head, Vaughn Baker, and the National Park Service. If not only there, in driving towards Bear Lake one cannot help but notice what are virtual clear cuts beside the road in many places, with all the trees that had been there, either alive or dead, now piled into huge teepees of slash piles. The rationale RMNP will officially provide anyone asking about such a travesty is that these trees had to be removed for public safety. That in stands of trees with many killed by the mountain pine beetle and removed, that all others thereafter susceptible to falling over.

This recent unusually strong wind puts the lie to that. Look for yourself. There are any number of dead trees which remain standing no different than before. Virtually all trees in RMNP survived these winds just fine. They remain standing, alive or dead, as before as testament to what is really the case. Almost without exception the only trees in any way affected these last several months are those the NPS cut down. Not the wind, not any beetle, but the NPS. Alive or dead.

It should also be noted that RMNP is officially designated 95% wilderness. That as wilderness and a national park that not a single tree, alive or dead, should ever be cut or otherwise molested by the NPS unless absolutely necessary. That as supposed stewards of these national treasures they are tasked with protecting nature to remain preeminent.

That sadly is not at all the case. For our globally warming climate, the unnatural spread of the mountain pine beetle, for the increase in ozone and air pollution, for all these unfortunate assaults of mankind, from a tree's perspective in Rocky Mountain National Park their most imminent threat must be seen as Vaughn Baker and the National Park Service.

[Bob from down south]

What a bunch of overemotional tripe. (see I know how to use bold print, too)

So Idunn, where 'zackly did you get YOUR degree in forestry?? I'm confident that Baker and NPS based their decisions on the recommendations of their professional foresters, of which they employ more than just a few, and not on the opinions of tree-hugging sensationalist forum posters.

[Mike from back east]

A flip side to the arguments is that if Mr. Baker had opted to be cheap about it to let those dead trees remain standing and wait for nature to knock them over, and if a tree fell and killed someone, especially a child, then all hell would break loose and Mr. Baker would be the object of great scorn and hatred. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. In this era of endless finger pointing and lawsuits-r-us he took the low risk avenue, not that clear cutting forests is all that safe for lumberjacks, but they're the ones who know what they're doing out there, not the kids or hunters or hikers.

[Idunn]

For the record, I am a tree-hugger. Quite literally. So make of that what you will.

As far as the NPS, RMNP, and Mr. Baker are concerned, yes, they do have plenty of foresters and other 'experts' on board. Also some lawyers. Someone looking into this more closely will discover that scenarios such as some tree happening to fall on a witless tourist is exactly what RMNP is most concerned with. Or, to put it more exactly, with possible lawsuits and covering their collective asses. Whether the integrity of wilderness areas and their true mandate as stewards and protectors of the land entrusted their care, that entirely secondary.

One cannot entirely fault the NPS, because their disregard of their true mandate is influenced by the constituent public, many of whom are just ignorant enough to feel they should be as safe in a wilderness as their back patio.

But it remains fact that RMNP has cut down a huge number of trees along the road to Bear Lake and elsewhere that basically never would have fallen down on their own. Moreover in having no way in advance of knowing which particular one ever would fall on its own. According to me the best way to approach this, particularly in a prized national park and wilderness, would be to let nature decide. Remove the the few trees that will occasionally fall across road or trail, and leave it at that. Otherwise, all those as ready to sue the NPS as Disneyland should anything untoward occur had best do some protesting. Because there still remain a good many trees in RMNP near enough roads to theoretically fall on them. Clear cut it all back 100 feet or so, or shut up.

There are actually those on staff in RMNP who are deeply troubled by such things. Also some who could entirely care less. I'm reminded of one older ranger when questioned about the mountain pine beetle said it was none of his concern, as he likely dead before the worst of it transpired. Some attitude. But for those that do care, on a short leash, and you'll find most reticent to speak the plain truth to the enquiring public. Sound bites, yes, but the truth as they see it another matter.

It is at last our national park and heritage, and this what transpiring.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by Idunn

For the record, I am a tree-hugger. Quite literally. So make of that what you will.

As far as the NPS, RMNP, and Mr. Baker are concerned, yes, they do have plenty of foresters and other 'experts' on board. Also some lawyers. Someone looking into this more closely will discover that scenarios such as some tree happening to fall on a witless tourist is exactly what RMNP is most concerned with. Or, to put it more exactly, with possible lawsuits and covering their collective asses. Whether the integrity of wilderness areas and their true mandate as stewards and protectors of the land entrusted their care, that entirely secondary.

One cannot entirely fault the NPS, because their disregard of their true mandate is influenced by the constituent public, many of whom are just ignorant enough to feel they should be as safe in a wilderness as their back patio.

Their "true" mandate isn't simply stewardship and protection of the land, devoid of any other public interest. That's what the extremist tree-huggers would LIKE their mandate to be, but it most certainly is not and never will be. The NPS exists in large part to manage the compromise between nature preserves and a population that wants some tangible benefit in return for the expense of having them. Otherwise the NPS would just put a big fence around them, no?

Originally Posted by Idunn

But it remains fact that RMNP has cut down a huge number of trees along the road to Bear Lake and elsewhere that basically never would have fallen down on their own.

Bull. The only "fact" is that maybe those trees wouldn't have blown down in this latest storm. As the beetle killed trees decay, they will weaken, and they will eventually fall...or go up in flames in a major conflagration. We saw how well hands-off forest management worked in Yellowstone National Park back in 1988.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

Their "true" mandate isn't simply stewardship and protection of the land, devoid of any other public interest. That's what the extremist tree-huggers would LIKE their mandate to be, but it most certainly is not and never will be. The NPS exists in large part to manage the compromise between nature preserves and a population that wants some tangible benefit in return for the expense of having them. Otherwise the NPS would just put a big fence around them, no?

This is that rare time that I tend to agree with your basic point, not that you couldn't have left out the EXTREME descriptor.

In Thailand, national parks are -- to a large extent -- left rather unimproved. Pretty wild places in many cases. Not the kind of conveniences you have in our national parks. However, before I give Thailand much credit, there's also a lot of encroachment over there by (for example) lumber companies, etc.

One of the phrases often used in the early days of our national parks was something along the lines of "public pleasuring grounds". So I do think we need to have a balanced view of what our national parks are really designed for.

[Mike from back east]

It's too easy for some, like myself, to consider National "Parks" and National "Forests" as the same thing. Isn't so. I've found a webpage that aims to clarify the differences between the two, at this link.

National Forests, managed under a "multiple use" concept, provide services and commodities that may include lumber, livestock grazing, minerals, and recreation with and without vehicles. Forest employees work for the U.S. Forest Service, in the Department of Agriculture.

National Parks strive to keep landscapes unimpaired for future generations. They protect natural and historic features while offering light-on-the-land recreation. Park employees work for the National Park Service, in the Department of the Interior.