Geology of Mt. Washington

The Union Leader had a story over the weekend from the Conway Sun which I wasn't able to see a good link to, but here is the gist of the story:

Hiking: Brian Fowler: An unpretentious geologist
By Ed Parsons
Dec 31, 2011 12:05 am


In the summer of 1968, I was working for the Appalachian Mountain Club Hut System on Construction Crew...I remember one sunny day when the hut master named Brian Fowler helped a crew member who had just arrived with a load...It was a tight knit crew that summer, and ran like an efficient machine at one of the busiest huts. Fowler was a good choice for hut master, being unpretentious and skillful, personable and hard working.

He was a natural...I was unaware that he was also a natural at field geology [and] spending a lot of his time off from the huts exploring the hidden corners of Mount Washington....in 2010, after 45 years of pursuing his interest in Mount Washington surface geology, he created a map called “Surficial Geology of Mount Washington and the Presidential Range, New Hampshire 2010,” published by Durand Press.

Included in the map is exciting new theory about what is found up on the mountain, put forth by Fowler... [which] ...will be discussed at a special meeting of geologists set for next June at the Glen House. Fowler has said that the June meeting ...may lead to more improvements...

The article goes on to say that:

"...Something has bothered geologists about the summit of Mount Washington... Above 5,200 feet, there are no fresh glacial scratches...." on the Rock Pile, and that below that level the boulders are different.

The article goes on to discuss the changing theories about "resurging cold" and "ice sheets retreating" and "readvancing" and more.

Details on this are found on Brian Fowler’s hand drawn map which the article calls: "a perfect map to spend time with and make friends. Not a trail map, it can still be taken on a hike on Mount Washington or the Northern Presidentials and be used to differentiate the places that modern geologic theories are made of. In a very real sense, to follow in the footsteps of field geologists." Brad Washburn's arial photos helped him see differently "landmarks he had previously been to on foot."

The piece ends by stating: "Originally done as part of the New Hampshire Geological Survey, which has a long history of publishing, the proceeds from Fowler’s map will go towards paying for future New Hampshire geological maps, and keeping the New Hampshire Geological Survey alive. The work ...can be purchased online or in person at the Mount Washington Observatory in North Conway and the Mountain Wanderer Map and Bookstore in Lincoln. It is also available at the Mount Washington Auto Road. Hopefully after this article, it will be at local bookstores."...

I hope I have kept in enough info to catch your interest, but not too much to be boring. One small thing I found interesting is that there is a small amount of graniteon the rock pile. I had always been taught that there wasn't any, which surprised me and I couldn't believe it. Now I'm anxious to take a better study of this work.

Thanks for posting that, Ellen. It will be interesting to read the discussion as more geologists have a chance to examine Brian Fowler's work.

Mt. Washington geology

thanks for posting this. Very interesting.

I've seen this map in the Pinkham Notch visitor center available for purchase as well.

you piqued my interest Ellen...thanks

Thanks for posting this. It sounds great, looking forward to seeing it.

Keith

Looks interesting...

Doug

Don't get to Mt. Washington too often...what is meant by "the Rock Pile?" Is that a noticeable feature on the slopes somewhere?
Thanks

erugs said:

"...Something has bothered geologists about the summit of Mount Washington... Above 5,200 feet, there are no fresh glacial scratches...." on the Rock Pile, and that below that level the boulders are different.
.

Click to expand...

Anyone know why this is?

freighttrain48 said:

Anyone know why this is?

Click to expand...

The article I saw in the Union Leader from the Conway Sun describes why, but I didn't want to quote the entire story and give a lot of it away. I found it very interesting.

"When the glacier passed over the summit of Mount Washington, it was not thick or heavy enough to dislodge the icy boulders that lay there, and thus it slid harmlessly over them. It also left no striations on whatever bedrock surface was exposed between the fields of broken boulders there. However, below 5,200 feet on the mountain, it was thicker and much heavier, and was able to pluck away boulders and to leave striations on the bedrock there."

Here's a link to the complete story in the Conway Sun:

http://www.conwaydailysun.com/node/481952

very cool ellen!!

IndianChris said:

Don't get to Mt. Washington too often...what is meant by "the Rock Pile?" Is that a noticeable feature on the slopes somewhere?
Thanks

Click to expand...

I assumed someone woulda got to this by now, but since not.... Also, I may be wrong; it just seems obvious, but I never actually heard it parsed.

When ascending the final summit cone of all of the northern Presidentials, including Mount Washington, the trail becomes a rock-hop of sharp-edged stones. They're of various sizes (+/- the size of a piece of furniture); many move underfoot (which some find tiring); they take more attention to negotiate than the hard-pack which sits atop the lawn (and atop the [southern] Crawford Path, for the most part); many amount to small false-summits (which also seems to annoy some people!). This pile of rocks can be a real pain! For me, the descents from the very top, especially of Adams & Madison, were especially memorable for being tedious.

As for the source of the term, who used it first, or most famously, I dunno.

I hope that helps fill it in a little, maybe others can add.

Ellen, great stuff, thank you very much!

--M. said:

I assumed someone woulda got to this by now, but since not.... Also, I may be wrong; it just seems obvious, but I never actually heard it parsed.

Click to expand...

HAHAHA Thanks --M. Was feeling neglected there for a while
Very interesting. I know the type of terrain you're talking about. It can be taxing if hiking on that stuff for long periods. Experienced a huge "rock pile" on my way up Longs Peak in Colorado a few years ago. As far as the eye could see...boulders!
Thanks again.

IndianChris said:

HAHAHA Thanks --M. Was feeling neglected there for a while
Very interesting. I know the type of terrain you're talking about. It can be taxing if hiking on that stuff for long periods. Experienced a huge "rock pile" on my way up Longs Peak in Colorado a few years ago. As far as the eye could see...boulders!
Thanks again.

Click to expand...

You're welcome! And you hit on a relevant point there: "...long periods." It's really not a long period, in any of these cases. It does butt up against the exhilaration (going up) and afterglow, tempering both. In kids, the 'up' part can take long enough that they really do get annoyed, but as a solo adult in reasonably good shape, I just focused and persisted through it.

Now, about these 'striations' and boulders moving about: I always assumed that the reason for the scree (is that what you call it?) at the top of the northern peaks was because of the breaking action of the glacier; is this not the theory? If not, then, what is the theory for the loose caps on these summits? Perhaps we oughta have a seminar (hmm).

Thanks,

--Mike.

Smaller rocks that lie loose on slopes are "scree"; larger boulders piled up at the base of a cliff are "talus"; linear piles left behind when glaciers carry rocky debris over a distance are "moraines"; related cones of debris are "drumlins".

(IIRC, Cape Cod is basically one giant sandy moraine.)

There's also a word for the boulder field that results when a rocky surface breaks in place due to frost action: felsenmeer. (The primary difference between talus and felsenmeer is that felsenmeer doesn't have a steep enough slope to roll away from where it forms. Many hikers just call it all "talus".)

Glaciers generally have a smoothing, polishing effect on peaks (though they can also steepen them by gouging the sides). It seems unlikely that a moraine or drumlin would happen to end up on a mountaintop. So places like Mt Washington are more likely examples of felsenmeer. Still, I've always wondered why some peaks (Katahdin south peak is a good example) end up so much more deeply boulder-covered than their neighbors (Baxter, Hamlin).

Fascinating read. I believe we have this map at home...I'll have to take a good look at it some time.

nartreb said:

Smaller rocks that lie loose on slopes are "scree"; larger boulders piled up at the base of a cliff are "talus"; linear piles left behind when glaciers carry rocky debris over a distance are "moraines"; related cones of debris are "drumlins".

(IIRC, Cape Cod is basically one giant sandy moraine.)

Click to expand...

Another example of a moraine is the rocky moraine of Dog Town in Gloucester, MA. Someone wrote that is where God/Mother Nature deposited all the boulders left over from creating the world.

IndianChris said:

Don't get to Mt. Washington too often...what is meant by "the Rock Pile?" Is that a noticeable feature on the slopes somewhere?

Click to expand...

--M. said:

I assumed someone woulda got to this by now, but since not.... Also, I may be wrong; it just seems obvious, but I never actually heard it parsed.

When ascending the final summit cone of all of the northern Presidentials, including Mount Washington, the trail becomes a rock-hop of sharp-edged stones. They're of various sizes (+/- the size of a piece of furniture); many move underfoot (which some find tiring); they take more attention to negotiate than the hard-pack which sits atop the lawn (and atop the [southern] Crawford Path, for the most part); many amount to small false-summits (which also seems to annoy some people!). This pile of rocks can be a real pain! For me, the descents from the very top, especially of Adams & Madison, were especially memorable for being tedious.

As for the source of the term, who used it first, or most famously, I dunno.

Click to expand...

@--M: I also don't know the source of the term "rock pile".
However, there was a guy named Lee Vincent, who back in the late 1960s (I think) published a weekly column in the Berlin Reporter about his experiences on Mt. Washington.
His column was entitled “From the Rock Pile”. I don't know if he is the one who coined the term "Rock Pile", or if the term was already in existence when he wrote his column.

FYI, both the new geology map and a new reprint edition of Lee Vincent's book, Ten Year on the Rock Pile, can be found at www.bondcliffbooks.com