Prepared in cooperation with the 

Departments of Geology and Geography, 

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 

Digital Outlines and Topography of the 

Glaciers of the American West 

Open-File Report 2006–1340 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Cover. Map showing distribution of glaciers in the American West. 
Prepared in cooperation with the 

Departments of Geology and Geography, 

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 

Digital Outlines and Topography of the 

Glaciers of the American West 

By Andrew G. Fountain, Matthew Hoffman, Keith Jackson, Hassan Basagic, 

Thomas Nylen, and David Percy 

Open-File Report 2006–1340 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

iii 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Fountain, A.G., Hoffman, Matthew, Jackson, Keith, Basagic, Hassan, Nylen, Thomas, and 

Percy, David, 2007, Digital outlines and topography of the glaciers of the American West: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1340, 23 p. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

iv 
Contents 

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Data....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1:24,000-Scale Maps ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

1:100,000-Scale Maps .................................................................................................................................................... 8

Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Results.................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

1:24,000-Scale Data........................................................................................................................................................ 9

1:100,000-Scale Data.................................................................................................................................................... 18

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................... 21

References Cited.............................................................................................................................................................. 22

Figures 

1. Map showing distribution of glaciers in the American West ............................................................................... 2 

2. Snow depicted on the 1956 map compared to snow in the 1989 aerial photograph, Eliot Glacier, 

Mount Hood, OR.................................................................................................................................................. 10 

3. Perennial snow/ice patch from the 1946 aerial photograph, the 1958 topographic map, and the 

2001 aerial photograph, Icefield Pass, Colorado Front Range ................................................................... 10 

4. Maps showing errors in the derived vector files compared to the original scanned maps, 

(A) Sierra Nevada, CA; and (B) Cascades, OR .............................................................................................. 13 

5. Maps showing errors in the derived vector files compared to the original scanned maps, 

(A) North Cascades, WA; and (B) Mount Baker, WA .................................................................................. 14 

6. Maps showing errors in the derived vector files compared to the original scanned map, 

(A) Sierra Nevada, CA; and (B) Wind River Range, WY............................................................................... 15 

7. Histogram showing the number of glaciers in the 1:24,000-scale glacier inventory as a function 

of area................................................................................................................................................................... 17 

8. Maps showing Galena Creek Rock Glacier, Absaroka Range, WY, as represented in the 

1:100,000-scale and 1:24,000-scale data sets ................................................................................................ 19 

9. Histogram showing the number of glaciers in the 1:100,000-scale glacier inventory as a 

function of area................................................................................................................................................... 20

Tables 

1. Lineage and naming conventions for paper and digital products from USGS and USFS................................ 4 

2. Source of digital data ................................................................................................................................................... 7 

3. Errors found in the derived vector data at 1:24,000-scale scanned maps........................................................ 12 

4. Earliest photographic date listed for all quadrangles and glaciers................................................................... 16 

5. Number of glaciers in the 1:24,000-scale inventory for each area category ................................................... 16 

6. Errors found in the derived vector data at the 1:100,000-scale .......................................................................... 18 

7. Glacierized regions in the 1:24,000-scale mapping but not in the 1:100,000-scale mapping......................... 19 

8. Number of glaciers for each area category........................................................................................................... 20

v 
Digital Outlines and Topography of the 

Glaciers of the American West 

By Andrew G. Fountain1, Matthew Hoffman1, Keith Jackson1, Hassan Basagic1, Thomas Nylen1, 

and David Percy1

Introduction 

Alpine glaciers have generally receded during the past century (post-“Little Ice Age”) 

because of climate warming (Oerlemans and others, 1998; Mann and others, 1999; Dyurgerov 

and Meier, 2000; Grove, 2001). This general retreat has accelerated since the mid 1970s, when a 

shift in atmospheric circulation occurred (McCabe and Fountain, 1995; Dyurgerov and Meier, 

2000). The loss in glacier cover has had several profound effects. First, the shrinkage of glaciers 

results in a net increase in stream flow, typically in late summer when water supplies are at the 

lowest levels (Fountain and Tangborn, 1985). This additional water is important to ecosystems 

(Hall and Fagre, 2003) and to human water needs (Tangborn, 1980). However, if shrinkage 

continues, the net contribution to stream flow will diminish, and the effect upon these 

benefactors will be adverse. Glacier shrinkage is also a significant factor in current sea level rise 

(Meier, 1984; Dyurgerov and Meier, 2000). Second, many of the glaciers in the West Coast 

States are located on stratovolcanoes, and continued recession will leave oversteepened river 

valleys. These valleys, once buttressed by ice are now subject to failure, creating conditions for 

lahars (Walder and Driedger, 1994; O’Connor and others, 2001). Finally, reduction or loss of 

glaciers reduce or eliminate glacial activity as an important geomorphic process on landscape 

evolution and alters erosion rates in high alpine areas (Hallet and others, 1996). Because of 

the importance of glaciers to studies of climate change, hazards, and landscape modification, 

glacier inventories have been published for Alaska (Manley, in press), China 

(http://wdcdgg.westgis.ac.cn/DATABASE/Glacier/Glacier.asp), Nepal (Mool and others, 2001), 

Switzerland (Paul and others, 2002), and the Tyrolian Alps of Austria (Paul, 2002), among 

other locales. 

To provide the necessary data for assessing the magnitude and rate of glacier change in 

the American West, exclusive of Alaska (fig. 1), we are constructing a geographic information 

system (GIS) database. The data on glacier location and change will be derived from maps, 

ground-based photographs, and aerial and satellite images. Our first step, reported here, is the 

compilation of a glacier inventory of the American West. The inventory is compiled from the 

1:100,000 (100K) and 1:24,000 (24K)-scale topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The 24K-scale maps provide the most detailed 

mapping of perennial snow and ice features. This report informs users of the data about the 

challenges we faced in compiling the data and discusses its errors and uncertainties. 

 

1

 Departments of Geology and Geography, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207. 

1 
Figure 1. Distribution of glaciers (dark purple) in the 

American West. 

We rely on the expertise of the original cartographers in distinguishing “permanent snow 

and ice” from seasonal snow, although we know, through personal experience, of cartographic 

misjudgments. Whether “permanent” means indefinite or resident for several years is impossible 

to determine within the scope of this study. We do not discriminate between “glacier,” defined 

as permanent snow or ice that moves (Paterson, 1994), and stagnant snow and ice features. 

Therefore, we leave to future users the final determination of seasonal versus permanent snow 

features and the discrimination between true glaciers and stagnant snow and ice bodies. We 

believe that future studies of more regional focus and knowledge can most accurately refine our 

initial inventory. For simplicity we refer to all snow and ice bodies in this report as glaciers, 

although we recognize that most probably do not strictly meet the requirements; many may be 

snow patches. 

Data 

In this project we acquired digital data electronically from the World Wide Web, 

although some data were provided directly to us by agency data custodians. We did not digitize 

from the original source maps except to edit the digital data. The validity of the glacier inventtory is based on the assumption that published topographic maps identified all the glaciers on 

the landscape.

2 
1:24,000-Scale Maps 

For elevations, the 1 arc second (~30 m) “seamless” National Elevation Data were 

downloaded from the USGS (http://ned.usgs.gov/). Rather than rewrite the metadata descriptions 

for data like these, we copied the text into this report and italicized the font. The following is 

from http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/products/1arc.asp. 

The National Elevation Data set (NED) 1 Arc Second is a raster product assembled by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). NED is designed to provide National elevation data in a 

seamless form with a consistent datum, elevation unit, and projection. Data corrections are 

made in the NED assembly process to minimize, but not eliminate, artifacts, perform edge 

matching, and fill sliver areas of missing data. NED has a resolution of one arc-second 

(approximately 30 meters) for the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico and 

a resolution of two arc-seconds for Alaska. 

NED data sources have a variety of elevation units, horizontal datums, and map projections. 

In the NED assembly process the elevation values are converted to decimal meters as a 

consistent unit of measure, NAD83 is consistently used as horizontal datum, and all the data 

are recast in a geographic projection. Older DEM’s produced by methods that are now 

obsolete have been filtered during the NED assembly process to minimize artifacts that are 

commonly found in data produced by these methods. Artifact removal greatly improves the 

quality of the slope, shaded-relief, and synthetic drainage information that can be derived 

from the elevation data. 

Assessment of elevation accuracy (http://ned.usgs.gov/Ned/accuracy.asp) is currently 

under development. 

The elevation accuracy cannot exceed the accuracy of the original paper, 71⁄2-minute 

quadrangle maps. According to the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) National 

Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS; USGS, 1999), the horizontal accuracy requirement is that 

90 percent of all points tested must be accurate within 12.2 m. For vertical accuracy, 90 percent 

of all points tested are correct to one-half contour interval. Stated exceptions include surfaces 

covered by dense woodland, obscured by fog or clouds, or those that cannot provide enough 

detail for precise mapping. Presuming that the cartographers worked with fog and cloud-free 

photographs, which is typically the case, significant errors still occur over bright snowcover 

common to the upper elevations on glaciers. The uniform surface of bright snow often contains 

insufficient texture, and cartographic methods lose the parallax required for relative vertical 

surface position. The result is significant differences with field measured values (Echelmeyer 

and others, 1996). In steep relief, common to glacierized2

 and glaciated3 areas, small errors in 

horizontal position lead to large errors in elevation, which make NMAS essentially void. 

Therefore, we regard NMAS as a minimum estimate of the error. 

The source of the digital outlines for the glaciers, also based on topographic quadrangle 

paper maps, is one of two Federal agencies, either the USFS or the USGS. In 1993 the USGS 

and USFS began a joint mapping program to deliver maps (paper and digital products) to the 

general public (USGS, 1998). The lead agency for distributing these joint digital topographic 

maps appears to be the USFS, although many of the products are also available from the USGS 

 

2

 Glaciers are present. 

3

 No glaciers are present, but glaciers were present in the past and modified the landscape. 

3 
Web site. To the best of our understanding, the USGS produced 24K digital maps and vector 

products well past 1993, perhaps as late as 2000. 

The paper maps, known by the USFS as a Primary Base Series, and 7.5-minute standard 

series by the USGS (table 1), were digitally scanned and georeferenced and are known as a PBS 

Softcopy by the USFS and a digital raster graphic (DRG) by the USGS. The digital vector 

outlines of map features, such as the hydrographic features (lakes, glaciers, permanent snow, 

wetlands, rivers, etc.), roads, or administrative boundaries, are digitally abstracted from the 

PBS/DRG as themes. The digital features are known as cartographic feature files (CFF) by the 

USFS and as digital line graphs (DLG) by the USGS. To minimize confusion with acronyms we 

identify all digital georeferenced maps as “scanned maps” and outlines of landscape features, 

such as glaciers, as “derived vector data” without regard to data source in the USGS or USFS. 

Table 1. Lineage and naming conventions for paper and digital products from USGS and USFS. 

Agency Paper product name Scanned map product name Derived vector 

data product 

USFS Primary Base Series (PBS) Softcopy Cartographic feature file (CFF) 

USGS 7.5-minute standard series Digital raster graphic (DRG) Digital line graph (DLG) 

The digital processes to create the derived vector data and related accuracy are 

summarized here. We assume that the processes and accuracy of the products from either 

agency are the same and we rely on the USFS metadata found on the FSGeodata Clearinghouse 

Web page for descriptions of the digitization process and resulting accuracy. Rather than reword 

the metadata descriptions, we copied them into this report as italicized text. The metadata for 

the softcopy maps are obtained from 

http://fsgeodata.sc.egov.usda.gov/products/pbsmetasample.html.

A softcopy map description. 

Softcopy Primary Base Series data are raster images produced from CFF and PBS map 

sources. PBS maps are large-scale Forest Service topographic maps produced in 

cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

The Softcopy Primary Base Series (PBS) is a raster image of the USDA Forest Service 

topographic map, including the collar information, georeferenced to the UTM grid. It is very 

similar to the Digital Raster Graphic (DRG) product. The image is generated from the 

digital file; it is not scanned, except for the contours. . . There are two versions of the file, 

one with full map collar, and one clipped at the neat line. The files are in Tagged Image File 

Format (TIFF). . . . 

The process of creating a softcopy map. 

1. Production of a Softcopy PBS begins with the scanning of the contour layer (MAP1) on 

stable base material. The scanning resolution is 25 microns (1016 dpi). 2. Noise is removed 

from the contour image file. The contour image file is expanded to fit the map size with white 

pixels using the ISCAN utility in Intergraph. 3. The contour image file is warped to fit the 

neat line on the PBS Text File (TEXT1) using a helmert transformation using the IRAS utility 

4 
in Intergraph. 4. The Cartographic Feature File (CFF1) is symbolized in Microstation. 5. 

All three files (PBS Text, CFF, and contour) are converted and merged into a single TIFF 

(Tagged Image File Format) file. 6. The TIFF file is georeferenced in UTM using the 

register and rectify commands in ARC/INFO. This process creates a .tfw file containing the 

six parameters of an affine transformation. The entire project is georeferenced in the same 

UTM zone. Therefore, this UTM zone may be different from where the quad is actually 

located and different from the UTM Zone Number calculated below. 7. Two products are 

created: unclipped and clipped. The unclipped files contain the full map collar and legend 

information. The clipped files do not contain the legend information and are clipped at the 

map neat line. 8. The unclipped files are registered to the quad’s respective UTM ground 

coordinates. 9. The clipped files are registered to the quad’s respective UTM ground 

coordinates and the pixels are rectified to the UTM grid from true north. 

The softcopy horizontal positional accuracy. 

Although the datum of the published map is retained, in order to be consistent with other 

digital data, this image is cast on the UTM and may therefore be INCONSISTENT with the 

credit note on the image collar. Softcopy PBS meet the accuracy standards of the published 

map scale only in the area of the softcopy PBS that falls within the neatline of the published 

map, excluding insets. Overedge areas fall outside the transformation boundary area (map 

neatline). As a result, areas outside the neatline and beyond control point extent can exhibit 

anomalies or discrepancies. These anomalies will also appear in the map inset area and in 

the map collar. 

The softcopy vertical positional accuracy. 

Refer to the Softcopy PBS collar for information about the vertical positional accuracy. 

The metadata for CFF data were derived also from the USFS FSGeodata Clearinghouse Web site, 

(http://svinetfc4.fs.fed.us/). The CFF data can be described as follows: 

CFF data were initially collected by digitizing Forest Service Primary Base Series (PBS) 

maps. They are revised using standard topographic mapping techniques, including the 

addition of updated information provided by National Forests and Grasslands. The feature 

categories contained in the CFF are: transportation (roads and trails), streams and water 

bodies, political and administrative boundaries, land ownership, and other cultural features. 

Elevation contours, vegetation, and text (geographic names, labels, etc.) are not included in 

the CFF. CFFs are produced and maintained by the Forest Service Geospatial Service and 

Technology Center. 

Cartographic Feature File (CFF) data are digital representations, in vector format, of 

cartographic information. Map features are converted to digital form from maps, aerial 

photography, global positional systems and related sources. CFF data are used to publish 

1:24,000-scale 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps. CFF data contain feature 

attributes, can be topologically structured in a GIS, and have passed certain quality-control 

checks. The files are supplied on the Forest Service intranet (FSWEB) as two files in 

ARC/INFO export format: a line and a point file. 

5 
The process creating a CFF from a PBS. 

The original cartographic feature file (CFF) was digitized from either the Primary Base 

Series (PBS) quadrangle or, if not available, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic 

map series quadrangle. Digitizing was performed by GSTC personnel or through 

contracting. PBS maps are created from USGS topographic maps used as sources (bases), 

then modified and/or updated to meet Forest Service needs. The original digital data were 

produced by one of the following methods: - scanning a stable-based copy of the graphic 

materials. The scanning process captured the digital data at a scanning resolution of 

0.001 inch or less; the resulting raster data were then manually digitized and attributed on 

an interactive computer editing station. - manually digitizing from a stable-based copy of the 

graphic material using a digitizing table to capture the digital data at a resolution of 

0.001 inch or less; attribution was performed as the data were digitized or on an interactive 

edit station after digitizing was completed. Four control points corresponding to the four 

corners of the quadrangle were used for registration during data collection. A fourparameter affine transformation was performed from the processing software internal 

coordinates to State Plane grid coordinates. The CFF data were checked for position and 

attributes by one or more of the following processes: - comparing plots of the digital data to 

the graphic source. - comparing the digital data to the digital raster scan. - comparing the 

digital data to the graphic source. The file may have undergone a basic revision. The update 

revision uses a variety of sources, including monoscopic imagery, stereoscopic imagery, 

cadastral information or other ancillary image or data sources, with field correction guides. 

The CFF attribute accuracy. 

The accuracy is estimated to be 98.5 percent. Attribute accuracy was tested by one or more 

of the following methods in accordance with the data vintage: - color display of CFF on 

interactive computer graphic system - manual comparison of the source with hard-copy 

plots - symbolized display of CFF on an interactive computer graphic system - selected 

attributes that could not be visually verified on plots or on screen were interactively queried 

and verified on screen. All attribute data conform to the attribute codes as of the date of 

digitizing. Vintage of this data set is: Vintage 11. 

Vintage 11 Description: September 1996 to present. Revised to Single Edition Standards; 

data run through the TACS process (an in-house editing and database system); revision 

projects followed by the hardcopy process receive additional edits; polygons requiring 

screened or patterned fills have centroids and a segmented neatline for the open window 

layer process. Multilinking: Coincident lines digitized once, with multiple codes linked to 

them, except for roads with landnet; automatic valid multilink check now part of process. 

Edit Methodology: On-screen, and using automatic feature code checks and two different 

types of plots with improved correct attribution, and proper multilinking. 

6 
The CFF horizontal positional accuracy. 

Accuracy of these digital data meets accuracy specifications in the National Map Accuracy 

Standards (NMAS). It also meets the standards of Vintage 11 for tracking and edgematching. 

Tracking: Collection and editing standards ensure consistently smooth linework. 

Edgematching: Features edgematched to adjoining quads within the project, as well as to 

any adjoining projects that have been through the TACS process and which reside in the 

TACS database, using an imaginary neatline drawn between the quads to eliminate 

“overshoots/undershoots.” 

The CFF vertical positional accuracy. 

Accuracy of these digital data meets accuracy specifications in the National Map Accuracy 

Standards (NMAS). This file does not contain the contour information. However, it may 

contain benchmark control point locations. 

Although the original producers of the 24K scanned maps and derived vector data were 

the USGS and USFS, we actually obtained the digital data from a variety of sources. For the 

National Parks, Mount Rainier, Glacier, Rocky Mountain, and Olympic, the data were obtained 

directly from each park. For glaciers in California, the data are from the California Geospatial 

Clearinghouse and from similar sites for parts of Colorado (table 2). The data for the remaining 

glacier-populated regions were downloaded from the USFS FSGeodata Clearinghouse. 

Table 2. Source of digital data. 

[Original refers to the ultimate source of the data. Agency refers to where the data were acquired (Web site). If no 

Web site is given, the data were provided by a person at the agency. Scanned map data are digital images of the 

paper maps; derived vectors are the polygons that define the shape and position of all the glaciers; NED is the 

National Elevation Data set; USFS, U.S. Forest Service; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; WGIAC, Wyoming 

Geographic Information Advisory Council; MT-NRIS, Montana Natural Resource Information System; CaSIL, 

California Spatial Information Library; CoGIS, Colorado GIS data; GNP, Glacier National Park; NOCA North 

Cascades National Park; ONP, Olympic National Park; MORA Mount Rainier National Park] 

Scale Data type Original Agency Web site 

1:24,000 Scanned map USFS USFS http://svinetfc4.fs.fed.us/

1:24,000 Scanned map USGS WGIAC wgiac2.state.wy.us/html/aboutDRG.asp

1:24,000 Scanned map USGS MT-NRIS nris.state.mt.us/gis/default.htm

1:24,000 Scanned map USGS CoGIS dola.colorado.gov/demog/gis/

1:24,000 Derived vector USFS USFS fsgeodata.sc.egov.usda.gov/

1:24,000 Derived vector USGS CaSIL gis.ca.gov/

1:24,000 Derived vector USGS CoGIS dola.colorado.gov/demog/gis/

1:24,000 Derived vector USGS MT-NRIS nris.state.mt.us/gis/default.htm 

1:24,000 Derived vector USGS GNP 

1:24,000 Derived vector USGS NOCA 

1:24,000 Derived vector USGS ONP 

1:24,000 Derived vector USGS MORA 

1:24,000 NED USGS USGS ned.usgs.gov/

1:100,000 Derived vector USGS USGS edc.usgs.gov/products/

1:100,000 Scanned map USGS USGS topomaps.usgs.gov/drg

7 
1:100,000-Scale Maps 

For use as a preliminary product and as a means of testing our methods prior to acquiring 

the more detailed 24K data, we downloaded and processed the DLG data and DRG maps at the 

100K scale from the USGS (table 2). The 100K hydrography files (USGS) contained 30- by 

60-minute quadrangles. The DLG do not carry accuracy statements, but prior to release the 

USGS checks them for fidelity completeness, attribute accuracy, topological fidelity, and edge 

matching with other maps (USGS, 1996). Each 100K map is divided into eight downloadable 

files from the USGS Web site. The resulting vector data were merged, queried for glacier 

features, and converted to polygons. 

Methods 

Our first challenge was to find the location of the glacierized regions. While most of the 

areas were evident to us (for example, Mount Rainier, North Cascades, WA; Sierra Nevada, 

CA), other areas were not. We used the 100K data as an initial guide, because all the data files 

were available and coded. From these data we defined which 24K topographic quadrangles were 

needed and downloaded them from the USFS and USGS. We quickly realized that many glaciers 

were not included at the 100K scale, and we had to search further. One important guide was a 

general inventory of glacierized areas in the American West (Krimmel, 2002). In addition, we 

searched seamless scanned 24K maps available digitally on the World Wide Web (for example, 

topozone.com, terraserver.microsoft.com) of all known mountain ranges above alpine treelines 

looking for glacier features, which were depicted as white patches with blue contour lines and 

blue perimeters. The search led to the “discovery” of glacier populations elsewhere (for example, 

Seven Devils Mountains, ID; Gore Range, CO). 

The hydrography layer of each area was downloaded and subsampled for the glacier 

outlines. To check the accuracy of the derived vector depiction of glacier outlines, we merged 

the files into one of 18 study zones that represented concentrated glacier populations (for 

example, North Cascades, northwestern Montana, Wind River Range). For each study zone, the 

derived vector data were superimposed on the scanned maps and visually checked to determine 

whether the derived vector data accurately represented the glacier boundary depicted on the 

scanned maps. As stated earlier, this approach assumes that the scanned maps are correct. We are 

only testing the fidelity of the derived vector data against their source. If the offset between the 

two was equal to or less than one line width, that is, no space between boundary lines, no change 

was made. If the offset was greater than one line width, the derived vector data were manually 

edited. If the outline was missing, it was digitized. This stage of the process was carried out with 

a group of 5–7 individuals working in the same room, to help ensure a common approach to 

corrections. After all the study zones were corrected, each was examined again but by an 

individual different from the one who completed the original edits. Once the derived vector data 

were corrected, the area of each glacier (polygon) and position of its centroid (latitude/longitude 

in decimal degrees) were calculated. Each study zone was superimposed on the digital elevation 

model (DEM), and the topographic characteristics of each glacier polygon were calculated, 

including, maximum, minimum, and mean elevation, average aspect, and average slope. 

Because glaciers are time-variable landscape features, the time of mapping is important. 

Maps commonly identify several time values, including year of original photography, year of 

field checking, and year of map publication, photorevisions, and republication. All photographic 

dates were collected from the collars of the scanned maps and from hard copy maps where 

scanned map collars could not be found. 

8 
Results 

1:24,000-Scale Data 

Glacier Size. It became immediately clear, particularly with the 24K data, that many 

small glacier features (<0.001 km2

) were included. This challenges the definition of a glacier—

permanent snow or ice that moves. Of course, we cannot determine movement, but for small ice 

patches on gently sloping surfaces it is unlikely that they exhibit motion. Additionally, we do not 

have the resources to field check even a small fraction of these features. Defining any minimal 

size threshold below which features would not be a glacier and eliminating them from the 

database was considered arbitrary, and the extensive analysis required to adequately define 

minimal conditions is beyond the scope of this report. Consequently, we included all features on 

the scanned maps that were color-coded as snow or ice (white background, blue contour lines 

and perimeters) in the database. Technically, this database is composed of glaciers and 

permanent snow and ice bodies, although we will refer to all as glaciers. This may be an 

advantage from a hydrologic perspective, as the small features may play an important hydrologic 

role in the high alpine watersheds in late summer when the seasonal snow has disappeared and 

commonly little precipitation occurs. 

One wonders if these features are merely transient features captured only that year when 

the aerial photography was acquired. In high alpine regions it is often difficult to distinguish 

between a glacier margin and late seasonal snow. It would be nearly impossible to distinguish 

between a late seasonal snow patch and a permanent one. A separate project assessing glacier 

change examined a time series of aerial photographs for select regions, and in some cases the 

small snow and ice patches are indeed transitory features mistakenly included by the 

cartographers (fig. 2). In other cases, the features seem quite persistent and were observed on 

aerial photographs for over 40 years; ground-based photography revealed them to be composed 

of ice (fig. 3). In short, it is difficult to discern the permanence of these features. Furthermore, it 

is possible that the scanned maps do not include some other permanent snow/ice features thought 

to be seasonal by the original cartographers. In any case, we leave it to the user to more finely 

define the features of interest. 

9 
100 m 

Figure 2. Eliot Glacier, Mount Hood, OR. Note the snow depicted on the 1956 scanned map at 

left, which we would include as permanent snow and ice, and the absence of snow in the 1989 

aerial photograph on the right. Also, the rock-covered ice is not shown (mottled texture in the 

center of the photograph). The width of the largest snowpack on the map is about 200 m. 

Figure 3. Icefield Pass, Colorado Front Range. An example of a perennial snow/ice patch that is 

included in our database. Leftmost aerial photograph was taken in 1946, the center topographic 

map is based on photographs taken in 1958, and the rightmost aerial photograph is from 2001. The 

left photograph is from the University of Colorado Map Library Collection, the center map is from 

the USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map series, and the rightmost photograph is from Rocky Mountain 

National Park. 

10 
As mentioned, there can be problems in defining a glacier perimeter as opposed to one 

that includes marginal patches of late seasonal snow. We know of numerous cases where 

seasonal snow is included as part of the glacier. To test the fidelity of topographic quadrangle 

representations of glacier outlines, Granshaw and Fountain (2006) compared a hand-constructed 

glacier inventory exhaustively compiled by glaciologists using vertical and oblique aerial 

photography and some ground-based field work (Post and others, 1971) to a digital inventory 

derived from topographic quadrangles over the same time period. The comparison showed 

considerable variability for some glacier outlines, but the differences were compensatory when 

the glacier area was summed over the region such that the hand-constructed total glacier-covered 

area differed by only 1.5 percent (estimated error of the digital inventory was 0.9 percent) over a 

total glacier area of 116 km2

. It was unclear, however, as to the actual cause of the differences 

because the hand-constructed outlines exhibited a smooth generalized shape rather than a 

normally rougher outline. 

Glacier outlines. We were somewhat surprised with the attribute coding of glaciers 

within the hydrography attributes of the USGS 100K maps. They seemed to have different codes 

for glaciers in different areas and in some cases had no codes whatsoever. For the 24K 

USFS/USGS data we found numerous errors (table 3). Some features, such as lakes, were coded 

as glaciers (fig. 4A), moraines as glaciers, and vice versa. These problems underscored the 

importance of checking the derived vector data against the scanned maps. Occasionally we found 

missing glacier outlines in the derived vector data (fig. 4B). Errors in digitizing were found such 

that the polygon outlining the glacier did not conform to the perimeter on the scanned map and 

needed to be edited or completely redone (fig. 5A), or that two or more glaciers were combined 

in one polygon rather than split into individual glaciers (fig. 5B). We never encountered two 

spatially separate glacial outlines contained within the same polygon. Rather, we found two 

adjacent glaciers connected at higher elevations that formed separate lobes at lower elevations, as 

commonly found on glacierized volcanoes. We used two criteria for splitting glaciers. The first 

was cultural. If separate lobes were differently named, the ice mass was split along the logical 

division between lobes, usually a flow divide. The second was physical. If the ice mass clearly 

diverged and flowed into separate valleys, it was split along the flow divide as determined from 

contour lines from the scanned maps. 

On occasion, glacier outlines were complete on one quadrangle map, but where the 

glacier extended across to the adjacent quadrangle, the outline may not have continued and had 

to be digitized (fig. 6A). Another common error was ice-free islands surrounded by a glacier 

(doughnuts) but not digitized. We digitized these islands and deleted their area to create a 

“doughnut hole” in the glacier (fig. 6B). Finally, we found and deleted spurious lines in the 

derived vector data. In some cases these lines had no relation to the glaciers and were found in 

the ice-free landscape. In other cases these lines split glaciers but had no relation to a flow divide 

or the cultural name of the glacier. In this case, the lines were often straight and appeared to be 

artifacts in the data perhaps left over from other mapping efforts. 

Finally, we had significant problems calculating the average aspect of the glaciers. We 

did not appreciate the fact that the GIS (ESRI, Inc.) calculated aspect without regard to map 

projection. The GIS always calculated aspect using “up” grid as north, and for some projections 

this produced an increasingly large error with longitude away from the central meridian. For 

other projections the error was subtle. We finally projected the data into the local Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone and performed the aspect calculation. There is no error in 

aspect at the centerline of the UTM zone, where grid north and projection north are the same, 

and a small error (a maximum of 2o

 13’ within our study area) at the edge of the UTM zone and 

grid north. 

11 
Table 3. Errors found in the derived vector data at 1:24,000-scale scanned maps. 

[NG, not a glacier but a polygon that typically identifies another landscape feature such as a lake; E/R, polygon 

edited to conform to the shape on the scanned map because polygon was very poorly drawn (entirely redigitized), 

not closed, or needed a line added to split glaciers; M, a glacier that had to be digitized because it appeared on the 

scanned map but was missing from the derived vector data; H, a non-glacierized area surrounded by glacier ice 

(a doughnut hole) that was missing from the derived vector data and digitized; L, a spurious line in the derived 

vector data that does not correspond to any feature, or a line that divided a glacier in two, apparently an artifact of 

a map merge, in either case, deleted] 

State NG E/R M H L 

California 0 0 3 10 0 

Colorado 0 0 0 0 9 

Idaho 1 2 2 0 1 

Montana 1 392 79* 1 0 

Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 

Oregon 16 15 6 0 0 

Washington 30 101 324 22 21 

Wyoming 0 1 265 20 0 

* Of these, 63 were white patches with blue perimeters with no contour lines and listed as “snowfields” 

on the scanned maps. These were unique to Montana and to the Seven Devils Mountains, ID. 

Photographic dates. We had some problems in defining the photographic dates for each 

scanned map. We originally used a combination of USGS and USFS scanned maps to check our 

glacier outlines. However, because of ambiguity in the map dates reported on the collars of the 

USFS maps, we used only the USGS scanned map collar data for all 335 quadrangles that 

contain glaciers. In the cases examined we did not encounter a difference between USGS and 

USFS glacier outlines on the scanned maps. 

Some map quadrangles were created from photographs acquired over multiple years. In 

some cases, coverage of the quadrangle required photographic surveys flown in different years, 

and the years are generally close in time (for example, 1976 and 1978). In other cases, 

quadrangles are updated by “photo-revision” and often occur decades after first publication. In 

both situations there are no indications from the map collar whether part or the entire quadrangle 

was revised. We use the earliest date of aerial photography as the date for the glacier outline. 

This choice is arbitrary for the first case, when multiple years are required for the photographic 

surveys. For the second case, photo-revised maps, we have yet to find a case in which glacier 

extent has been revised. We compared glacier extents on the same quadrangle for several 

different publication and revision dates; the glacier outlines have always conformed to the 

earliest mapping date. In several cases, we examined the original photography at the USGS 

Rocky Mountain Mapping Center in Lakewood, CO, where the photographic archives are 

housed. We found that the glacier outlines conformed to the original map date. We also 

searched for USGS photography on the USGS Earth Explorer Web page 

(http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/EarthExplorer/). Where we found photographs for the same year as 

the photographic year on the map collar, we compared glacier outlines and again found the 

outlines conformed to the earliest photography. 

12 
Lake identified as 

a glacier 

A 

Missing 

Glacier 

B 

Figure 4. Errors in the derived vector files compared to the original scanned maps, 

which are their source. (A) Portion of map from Sierra Nevada, CA, with derived vector 

outlines in black. Note two lakes identified as glaciers. (B) Portion of map from Cascades, 

OR, with derived vector outlines in red. Note the missing glacier. 

13 
A 

B 

Figure 5. Errors in the derived vector files compared to the original scanned maps from 

which the files are derived. (A) Portion of map from North Cascades, WA, with vector 

outlines in red. Note how poorly the digitized outline matches the glacier perimeter. 

(B) Portion of map from Mount Baker, WA. Note that the derived vector glacier outlines 

(blue) are not split into individual glaciers. 

14 
B 

Quadrangle Sheet 1 

Quadrangle Sheet 2 

quadrangle boundary 

Derived vector glacier outline 

clipped by quadrangle 

boundary 

A

Missing doughnut 

hole 

15 minute splice, 

eliminate 

15 minute splice, 

cuts off glacier, edit 

Figure 6. Errors in the derived vector files compared to the original scanned map. 

(A) Portion of map from Sierra Nevada, CA, with vector outlines in black. Note glacier 

outline clipped by quadrangle boundary and missing in sheet 1. (B) Portion of map from 

Wind River Range, WY, with vector glacier outlines filled with light transparent yellow. 

Note glacier splits due to relict, 15-minute map (1:63,360) boundaries. Also note 

the covered doughnut hole, which should be ice free. 

15 
For the 335 quadrangles that contain glaciers, 255 have one photographic date, 70 have 

two dates, and 10 have three dates. Of the 80 quadrangles with multiple photographic dates, 

33 have a range in dates greater than 10 years, the largest range being 33 years. Earliest 

photographic dates range from 1943 to 1987, but most minimum dates occur during the 1960s, 

‘70s, and ‘80s (table 4). 

Table 4. Earliest photographic date listed for all quadrangles and glaciers. 

Earliest date Number of quadrangles Number of glaciers 

1940–49 4 42 

1950–59 54 1214 

1960–69 109 2463 

1970–79 81 2658 

1980–89 87 1926 

Data. We found 8,303 glaciers on the 24K maps. The largest was 10.59 km2 and the 

smallest was 347 m2

. Table 5 shows the number of glaciers within different size categories 

(fig. 7). 

Table 5. Number of glaciers in the 1:24,000-scale inventory for each area category. 

[Number refers to the number of glaciers that are equal to or smaller than the area on the same row and 

larger than the area of the previous row] 

Area (m2

) Number Cumulative number Cumulative percent 

316 0 0 0.00 

1000 36 36 0.43 

3162 793 829 9.98 

10000 2447 3276 39.46 

31623 2598 5874 70.75 

100000 1501 7375 88.82 

316228 605 7980 96.11 

1000000 194 8174 98.45 

3162278 99 8273 99.64 

10000000 29 8302 99.99 

31622777 1 8303 100.00 

16 
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

Area (m2

)

Number

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Cummulative 

Log Area (m2) 

Cumulative Number 

Figure 7. Histogram of the number of glaciers in the 1:24,000-scale glacier 

inventory as a function of area. Bars show the number and the line with 

symbols is the cumulative number. 

Glacier attributes and description. For each glacier we generated 24 different descriptive 

and topographic attributes. They are as follows: 

GLACNUM: Unique identification number for each glacier 

X_COORD: Longitude of glacier centroid in NAD83 datum 

Y_COORD: Latitude of glacier centroid in NAD83 datum 

AREA: Area of glacier in square meters 

GLACNAME: From the USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) 

CLASSIFICA: All features are classified as “snow or ice body” 

SOURCE_SCA: Source scale of data. All features are 1:24,000. 

SOURCE: Source of data, USFS PBS, USGS DRG, or National Park Service 

USGS_QD_ID: USGS 7.5’ quadrangle ID 

REGION: Mountain range in which the glacier is located 

STATE: Abbreviation of State in which the glacier is located 

STATENAME: Full name of State in which the glacier is located 

QUADNAME: USGS 7.5’ quadrangle name 

FILENAME: Name of scanned map image file used to generate glacier outline 

PUBLICATIO: Year of publication of quadrangle; not populated for all glaciers 

PHOTODATE1: Earliest aerial photography date (year) as shown on map collar 

SLP_D_MEAN: Mean glacier slope, degrees, calculated from 1 arc second NED 

SLP_D_MAX: Maximum slope of glacier in degrees from 1 arc second NED 

17 
SLP_D_MIN: Minimum slope of glacier in degrees from 1 arc second NED 

ELEV_MEAN: Mean elevation of glacier in meters from 1 arc second NED 

ELEV_MAX: Maximum elevation of glacier in meters from 1 arc second NED 

ELEV_MIN: Minimum elevation of glacier in meters from 1 arc second NED 

ASP_MEAN: Mean aspect of glacier from 1 arc second NED in UTM NAD83. 

1:100,000-Scale Data 

Glacier outlines. We found similar errors as with the 24K-derived vector data (table 6). 

Mapping inconsistencies. A comparison of the 100K and 24K data sets exhibits a number 

of mapping inconsistencies, especially among smaller glaciers. This is an understandable result 

given the difference in scales. As expected, most of the smallest glaciers are not present in the 

100K data. A number of regions that contain only very small glaciers and are found within the 

24K data are missing from the 100K data (table 7). In some cases, small, culturally significant 

(named) glaciers are missing from the 100K data (for example, Andrews Glacier, Tyndall 

Glacier, CO), while remote, unnamed glaciers are mapped nearby (Gore Range, CO). Because of 

differences in mapping the subtleties of the glacier outlines, especially ice-free islands, snow and 

ice patches, and other ice appendages, the area of many glaciers differs significantly between the 

two data sets. One other inconsistency we noted between the two data sets was in the 

interpretation of moraine and rock glacier deposits. One good example is Galena Creek Rock 

Glacier, Absaroka Range, WY, where the entire feature is mapped as a glacier in the 100K data 

set but is not present at all in the 24K data set (fig. 8). 

Table 6. Errors found in the derived vector data at the 1:100,000-scale. 

[NG, not a glacier but a polygon that typically identifies another landscape feature such as a lake; E/R, polygon 

edited to conform to the shape on the scanned map because polygon was very poorly drawn (entirely redigitized), 

not closed, or needed a line added to split glaciers; M, a glacier that had to be digitized because it appeared on the 

scanned map but was missing from the derived vector data; H, a non-glacierized area surrounded by glacier ice (a 

doughnut hole) that was missing from the derived vector data and digitized; L, a spurious line in the derived vector 

data that does not correspond to any feature, or a line that divided a glacier in two, apparently an artifact of a map 

merge, in either case, deleted] 

State NG E/R M H L 

California 0 4 5 0 0 

Colorado 0 0 0 0 0 

Idaho 0 0 0 0 0 

Montana 4 6 41 65 0 

Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 

Oregon 13 8 11 0 0 

Washington 22 156 138 1 0 

Wyoming 2 15 29 12 13 

18 
Table 7. Glacierized regions in the 1:24,000-scale mapping but not in the 1:100,000-scale 

mapping. 

State Glacierized region 

California Lassen Peak, Trinity Alps 

Colorado Medicine Bow Range, Park Range, San Miguel Mountains, 

Sawatch Range, Tenmile Range 

Idaho Seven Devils 

Montana Madison Range 

Oregon Mount Thielsen, Wallowas 

100K 24K 

Figure 8. Galena Creek Rock Glacier, Absaroka Range, WY, as represented in the 1:100,000-

scale (100K) and 1:24,000-scale (24K) data sets. 

Data. The 100K glacier inventory includes 1,523 glaciers, of which the smallest was 

3,070 m2

 and the largest is 13.6 km2 (table 8). The distribution of areas is shown in figure 9. 

19 
Table 8. Number of glaciers for each area category. 

[Number refers to the number of glaciers that are equal to or smaller than the area on the same row 

and larger than the area of the previous row] 

Area (m2

) Number Cumulative number Cumulative percent 

1000 0 0 0.0 

3162 1 1 0.1 

10000 12 13 0.9 

31623 120 133 8.7 

100000 538 671 44.1 

316228 524 1195 78.5 

1000000 222 1417 93.0 

3162278 69 1486 97.6 

10000000 34 1520 99.8 

31622777 3 1523 100.0 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 

Log Area (m2

)

Number

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Cummulative Number

Figure 9. Histogram of the number of glaciers in the 1:100,000-scale glacier inventory 

as a function of area. Bars show the number and the line with symbols is the cumulative 

number. 

20 
Data Attributes. For each glacier we generated nine different descriptive attributes. They 

are as follows: 

GLACNUM: Unique identification number for each glacier 

AREA: Area of glacier in square meters 

PERIMETER: Perimeter of glacier in meters 

X_COORD: Longitude of glacier centroid in NAD83 datum 

Y_COORD: Latitude of glacier centroid in NAD83 datum 

CLASSIFICA: All features are classified as “snow or ice body” 

SOURCE: Source of data; all features are from USGS DRG 

SRC_SCALE: Source scale of data; all features are 1:100,000 

Summary 

We believe that the 24K data inventory is the most comprehensive inventory of glaciers 

in the American West. Although problems exist in the original data and specific glaciers might 

have some error in their outline and elevation, we believe the aggregate effect of the errors is 

small because they are compensating. At minimum, these data provide a basis for future 

improvements motivated by detailed studies within our relatively small glacier-covered regions. 

These data provide a snapshot of the glacier cover of the American West. Perhaps the most 

startling feature of the data, especially at the 24K scale, is the number of glaciers (>8,300). Most 

of the glaciers, as figure 7 shows, are small, 39.5 percent being equal to or smaller than 0.01 km2. 

Whether these small features are truly glaciers, patches of perennial snow and ice, or patches of 

seasonal snow is unknown. We know that small patches of permanent ice exist, but whether this 

database is a true representation of these small features is unclear. 

Acknowledgments 

We would like to thank the students in Mr. David Percy’s GIS class for tackling the 

original extraction of glaciers from the 100K maps, and Patrick Bardell for helping to assemble 

these data. Frank Granshaw, Jon Ebnet, and Peter Sniffen helped out with checking the 100K 

data and compiling and checking the 24K data. Amy Ebnet did a tremendous amount of work on 

the 24K data and greatly helped keeping the database information together during the early 

evolution of the project. We are indebted to the many data custodians at the agencies that have 

been willing to share their data with us. Nancy K. Tibbs and Christine Lund kindly provided 

technical reviews of this report. Dr. Richard S. Williams, Jr., USGS (Woods Hole Science 

Center) helped with the final draft and facilitated publishing this. Funding for this report was 

supported by the USGS Glacier Studies Project, the USGS Western Mountain Initiative, and 

from the National Science Foundation grant, BCX-0351004 and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Agency grant, NNG04GJ41G. 

21 
References Cited 

Dyurgerov, M.B., and Meier, M.F., 2000, Twentieth century climate change: Evidence from small 

glaciers: Proceedings, National Academy of Science, v. 97, no. 4, p. 1406–1411. 

Echelmeyer, K.A., Harrison, W.D., Larsen, C.F., Sapiano, J., Mitchell, J.E., DeMallie, J.E., Rabus, B., 

Aðalgeirsdóttir, G., and Sombardier, G., 1996, Airborne surface profiling of glaciers: A case-study in 

Alaska: Journal of Glaciology, v. 42, no. 142, p. 538–547. 

Fountain, A.G., and Tangborn, W.V., 1985, The effect of glaciers on stream flow variations: Water 

Resources Research, v. 21, p. 579–586. 

Granshaw, F.D., and Fountain, A.G., 2006, Glacier change (1958–1998) in the North Cascades National 

Park Complex, Washington, USA: Journal of Glaciology, v. 52, no. 177, p. 251–256. 

Grove, A.T., 2001, The “Little Ice Age” and its geomorphological consequences in Mediterranean 

Europe: Climatic Change, v. 48, no. 1, p. 121–136. 

Hall, M., and Fagre, D.B., 2003, Modeled climate-induced glacier change in Glacier National Park, 1850–

2100: BioScience, v. 53, no. 2, p. 131–140. 

Hallet, B., Hunter, L., and Bogen, L., 1996, Rates of erosion and sediment evacuation by glaciers: A 

review of field data and their implications: Global and Planetary Change, v. 12, no. 1, p. 213–236. 

Krimmel, R.M., 2002, Glaciers of the conterminous United States (J-2), in Williams, R.S. Jr., and 

Ferrigno, J.G., editors, Satellite image atlas of glaciers of the world: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1386-J (North America), p. J329–J386. 

Manley, W.F., in press, Geospatial inventory and analysis of glaciers, a case study for the eastern Alaska 

Range, in Williams, R.S. Jr., and Ferrigno, J.G., editors, Satellite image atlas of glaciers of the world: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1386-K (Glaciers of Alaska). 

Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K., 1999, Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past 

millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 26, no. 6, 

p. 759–762. 

McCabe, G.J., and Fountain, A.G., 1995, Relations between atmospheric circulation and mass balance of 

South Cascade Glacier, Washington, U.S.A.: Arctic and Alpine Research, v. 27, no. 3, p. 226–233. 

Meier, M.F., 1984, Contribution of small glaciers to global sea-level: Science, v. 226, no. 4681, p. 1418–

1421. 

Mool, P.K., Bajracharya, S.R., and Joshi, S.P., 2001, Inventory of glaciers, glacial lakes and glacial lake 

outburst floods: Kathmandu, Nepal, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, 

363 p. 

O’Connor, J.E., Hardison, J.H., III, and Costa, J.E., 2001, Debris flows from failures of Neoglacial-age 

moraine dams in the Three Sisters and Mount Jefferson Wilderness Areas, Oregon: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1606, 93 p. 

Oerlemans, J., Anderson, B., Hubbard, A., Huybrechts, P., Johannesson, T., Knap, W.H., Schmeits, M., 

Stroeven, A.P., Van de Wal, R.S.W., and Wallinga, J., 1998, Modelling the response of glaciers to 

climate warming: Climate Dynamics, v. 14, no. 4, p. 267–274. 

Paterson, W.S.B., 1994, Physics of glaciers, 3d. ed.: Tarrytown, New York, Elsevier Science, Inc., 

Pergamon Press, 480 p. 

Paul, F., 2002, Changes in glacier area in Tyrol, Austria, between 1969 and 1992 derived from Landsat 5 

Thematic Mapper and Austrian glacier inventory data: International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 23, 

no. 4, p. 787–800. 

22 
Paul, F., Kaab, A., Maisch, M., Kellenberger, T., and Haeberli, W., 2002, The new remote-sensingderived Swiss glacier inventory: I. Methods: Annals of Glaciology, v. 34, p. 355–361. 

Post, A., Richardson, D., Tangborn, W.V., and Rosselot, F.L., 1971, Inventory of glaciers in the North 

Cascades, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 705-A, 19 p. 

Tangborn, W.V., 1980, Contribution of glacier runoff to the hydroelectric power generation on the 

Columbia River: International Symposium on computation and forecasts of the run-off from glaciers 

and glacierized areas, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Section of Glaciology of the Soviet 

Geophysical Committee and Institute of Geography, p. 140–143. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, U.S. GeoData digital line graphs: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 078–96, 3 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1998, Single-edition quadrangle maps: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 

Sheet 094–98, 2 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Map accuracy standards: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 171–99, 

2 p. 

Walder, J.S., and Driedger, C.L., 1994, Rapid geomorphic change caused by glacial outburst floods and 

debris flows along Tahoma Creek, Mount Rainier, Washington, USA: Arctic and Alpine Research, 

v. 26, no. 4, p. 319–327. 

23