Restoring Burned Areas at Zion National Park (Utah)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Fuhrmann ◽  
K. Weber ◽  
C. Decker
2017 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 99-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey W. Martz ◽  
James I. Kirkland ◽  
Andrew R.C. Milner ◽  
William G. Parker ◽  
Vincent L. Santucci

The Chinle Formation and the lower part of the overlying Wingate Sandstone and Moenave Formation were deposited in fluvial, lacustrine, paludal, and eolian environments during the Norian and Rhaetian stages of the Late Triassic (~230 to 201.3 Ma), during which time the climate shifted from subtropical to increasingly arid. In southern Utah, the Shinarump Member was largely confined to pre-Chinle paleovalleys and usually overprinted by mottled strata. From southeastern to southwestern Utah, the lower members of the Chinle Formation (Cameron Member and correlative Monitor Butte Member) thicken dramatically whereas the upper members of the Chinle Formation (the Moss Back, Petrified Forest, Owl Rock, and Church Rock Members) become erosionally truncated; south of Moab, the Kane Springs beds are laterally correlative with the Owl Rock Member and uppermost Petrified Forest Member. Prior to the erosional truncation of the upper members, the Chinle Formation was probably thickest in a southeast to northwest trend between Petrified Forest National Park and the Zion National Park, and thinned to the northeast due to the lower Chinle Formation lensing out against the flanks of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains, where the thickness of the Chinle is largely controlled by syndepositional salt tectonism. The Gartra and Stanaker Members of the Ankareh Formation are poorly understood Chinle Formation correlatives north of the San Rafael Swell. Osteichthyan fish, metoposaurid temnospondyls, phytosaurids, and crocodylomorphs are known throughout the Chinle Formation, although most remains are fragmentary. In the Cameron and Monitor Butte Members, metoposaurids are abundant and non-pseudopalatine phytosaurs are known, as is excellent material of the paracrocodylomorph Poposaurus; fragmentary specimens of the aetosaurs Calyptosuchus, Desmatosuchus, and indeterminate paratypothoracisins were probably also recovered from these beds. Osteichthyans, pseudopalatine phytosaurs, and the aetosaur Typothorax are especially abundant in the Kane Springs beds and Church Rock Member of Lisbon Valley, and Typothorax is also known from the Petrified Forest Member in Capitol Reef National Park. Procolophonids, doswelliids, and dinosaurs are known but extremely rare in the Chinle Formation of Utah. Body fossils and tracks of osteichthyans, therapsids, crocodylomorphs, and theropods are well known from the lowermost Wingate Sandstone and Moenave Formation, especially from the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Stanczyk ◽  
◽  
Jeffrey R. Moore ◽  
Olivia Kronig ◽  
Brendon J. Quirk ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Monica Turner ◽  
Rebecca Reed ◽  
William Romme ◽  
Gerald Tuskan

An unexpected consequence of the 1988 Yellowstone fires was the widespread establishment of seedlings of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) in the burned forests, including areas outside the previous range of aspen (Kay 1993; Romme et al. 1997). Although aspen is the most widely distributed tree species in North America (Powells 1965), it is relatively uncommon and localized in distribution within Yellowstone National Park (Despain 1991). Most aspen stands in Yellowstone are found in the lower elevation landscapes in the northern portion of the park, and the species was absent - prior to 1988 -- across most of the high plateaus that dominate the southern and central park area. Aspen in the Rocky Mountain region reproduces primarily by means of vegetative root sprouting. Although viable seeds are regularly produced, establishment of seedlings in the wild is apparently a rare event due to the limited tolerance of aspen seedlings for desiccation or competition (e.g., Pearson 1914; McDonough 1985). In the immediate aftermath of the 1988 Yellowstone fires, there was a brief "window of opportunity" for aspen seedling establishment, as a result of abundant aspen seed production, moist weather conditions in spring and summer, and bare mineral soil and reduced plant competition within extensive burned areas (Jelinski and Cheliak 1992; Romme et al. 1997). We initiated this 3-year study in 1996 to address four questions about the aspen seedlings now growing in burned areas across the Yellowstone Plateau: (1) What are the broad-scale patterns of distribution and abundance of aspen seedlings across the subalpine plateaus of Yellowstone National Park? (2) What is the morphology and population structure -- e.g., proportions of genets (genetic individuals that developed from a single seed) and ramets (vegetative root sprouts produced by a genet) of various ages - in aspen seedling populations? (3) What are the mechanisms leading to eventual persistence or extirpation of seedling populations along an elevational gradient, particularly with respect to ungulate browsing and plant competition? (4) What is the genetic diversity and relatedness of the seedling populations along gradients of elevation and substrate?


The Auk ◽  
1936 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-232
Author(s):  
W. S. Long

Author(s):  
Jonathan Upchurch

Constructed in 1930 and recently designated as a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark, the 1.1 mile long Zion–Mt. Carmel Tunnel has served Zion National Park in Utah well for several decades. With the passage of time, however, vehicles have become larger and this has necessitated the use of one-way operation to allow large vehicles to pass through the narrow tunnel. In recent years the number of visits to National Parks in the Colorado Plateau region has greatly increased. For example, visits to Zion National Park increased by 69% from 2010 to 2017. Accompanying the increase in visitor numbers has been an increase in traffic volume. As traffic volume has grown, two questions have become more obvious: What is the highway capacity of the Zion–Mt. Carmel Tunnel? And, how soon will the tunnel reach capacity? This paper covers a unique traffic engineering/highway capacity problem and describes: (a) the current method of operating the tunnel (both two-way and one-way operation); (b) data collection and analysis; (c) how one-way operation degrades tunnel capacity; (d) calculation of tunnel capacity and waiting times; (e) how soon the tunnel will reach capacity; and (f) alternatives for addressing the capacity problem.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document