Report to the TWG from the 

TWG Cultural Resources PEP Ad Hoc Committee 

April 26, 2002 

BACKGROUND

The Cultural Resources PEP was conducted in March 2000. It was sponsored by both the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) and the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Bureau). This PEP addressed four areas: 1) monitoring and compliance; 2) 

archaeology; 3) Native American issues; and 4) geomorphology. Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) signatories participated in the PEP river trip and public sessions. A final 

report on the PEP was presented to the GCMRC and the Bureau on June 26, 2000. 

Comments were received on the PEP from numerous agencies and contractors. These 

comments are appended. 

At the Technical Work Group (TWG) meeting of September 6, 2001, there was request to 

create an ad hoc committee to review the recommendations of the cultural resource PEP 

and provide a report of recommendations to the TWG. The following were assigned to 

the ad hoc committee: Matt Kaplinski, Bob Winfree, Kurt Dongoske, Mary Barger, 

Loretta Jackson, Nancy Coulam, Ted Melis and Jan Balsom. 

The cultural resources ad hoc committee met on October 2, 2001 at the NPS office in 

Flagstaff. The following were in attendance: Matt Kaplinski (NAU), Mary Barger 

(Western), Nancy Coulam (BOR), Jan Balsom (NPS), Ruth Lambert (GCMRC), Lisa 

Leap (NPS), Jen Dierker (NPS), Robert Begay (Navajo Nation), Mike Yeatts (Hopi 

Tribe), and Kurt Dongoske (Hopi Tribe) was on speaker phone. 

PEP RECOMMENDATIONS

The PEP report made 11 recommendations, the first three were identified as “core” 

recommendations. 

1) Complete and Adopt a Historic Preservation Plan (HPP) 

2) Expand Native American Involvement 

3) Improve Coordination of a Complex Program 

4) Refine the Definition of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) 

5) Reassess Geomorphology Research Priorities within the GCMRC Cultural Program 

6) Redefine the Cultural Resource Monitoring Programs 

7) Prepare a systematic Evaluation of Historic Properties 

8) Prepare a Cultural Resource Database Plan 

9) Develop an Integrated Historic Property Treatment Plan 

10) Expand Public Outreach and Education Activities 

11) Improve Contracting Procedures 
HISTORY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES PEP

The TWG and PA signatories have provided input to the cultural resources PEP. The PA 

signatories and the TWG have taken action on certain PEP recommendations. The 

following is a calendar listing of actions and activities related to the cultural resource PEP 

and the TWG and the PA signatories. 

At the May 10, 2000 TWG meeting, Dr. William Doelle gave a presentation on the PEP. 

Dr. Doelle was the lead for writing the cultural resources PEP document. 

GCMRC mailed the draft PEP report to the TWG and AMWG at the end of June, 2000. 

On July 7, 2000 Ruth Lambert made a presentation to the AMWG regarding the PEP. 

She summarized its history, including the four charges given to the PEP of 1) identifying 

strengths, 2) identifying weaknesses of the programs, 3) identifying what management 

objectives should be formulated for the cultural programs, 4) what recommendations are 

there to improve the programs. She read all 11 of the PEP recommendations and invited 

AMWG members to participate in the July 18-19, 2000 meeting of the PA signatories to 

discuss the PEP recommendations. She also presented initial scopes of work for some of 

the projects that the GCRMC would implement immediately. 

On July 18-19 2000, the PA signatories met with GCMRC staff to review the PEP 

recommendations and work towards consensus. The meeting resulted with consensus on 

all 11 primary recommendations, which are listed above. The PA signatories did not 

always agree on implementation of these recommendations. As a result, there were 

clarifications and comments from individual PA signatories about the specific 

recommendations or comments made by the PEP. NPS provided written comments 

(Attachment 1). The group did not concur on recommending a new federal cultural 

resource position to coordinate efforts between the Bureau and GCMRC. The group also 

did not concur that the NPS and Bureau should choose an arbitrary percent to represent 

the amount the agencies were responsible for monitoring or mitigation of erosion 

occurring with the Colorado River corridor (Attachment 2). 

On August 18, 2000 Nancy Coulam mailed out a letter to all PA Signatories describing 

what transpired at the July 18-19, 2000 meeting (Attachment 3). She incorporated a list 

of proposed action steps that Bureau was proposing to implement based on the PEP. She 

included a rough draft Scope of Work for the Historic Preservation Plan (HPP). For each 

of the PEP recommendations, she listed where the PA Signatories had reached 

agreement, and what the proposed actions were related to the agreement. The letter asked 

for comments or corrections before Aug. 25, 2000. 

The PA Signatories held another meeting regarding the PEP on August 24, 2000 at 

GCMRC Offices in Flagstaff. The purpose of the meeting was to consult on any 

recommendations that need additional consultation, and to agree upon which 

recommendations need to be implemented in what order during FY01 and FY02. 
At the August 31, 2000 TWG, GCMRC (Ruth Lambert) made a presentation on budget 

and program related to the PEP recommendations. This included funding parts of the 

Historic Preservation Plan, a Holocene mapping study, and a check dam efficacy study. 

At the November 8-9, 2000 TWG meeting, Randy Peterson reported that the PA 

signatories have met and addressed the 11 recommendations and have drafted a 3-year 

plan to accomplish them all. Nancy Coulam gave a briefing on adopting the PEP 

recommendations with the HPP as the top priority. Nancy passed out a spreadsheet 

showing funding activities through 2003 including joint projects with GCMRC. Nancy 

asked the TWG about convening a workshop to determine what it would take to separate 

effects of dam operations from dam existence and natural processes. Nancy also stated 

there could be a white paper on the topic instead of a workshop. The TWG discussed this 

and there were no objections to a workshop. At the request of TWG, Nancy agreed to 

send a letter to TWG on the PEP recommendations and how they should be done. Ruth 

Lambert and Barry Gold agreed to do a similar letter from GCMRC (Attachment 4). 

At the January 11, 2001 AMWG meeting, the Bureau provided hand outs on the 2001 

and 2002 cultural resources program budget and GCMRC provided handouts for their 

2002 budget. This included a discussion of the11 recommendations of the PEP, and how 

the PA signatories had approved them. Randy Peterson had a spreadsheet of the 

activities approved by the PA group for the next three years for each piece of the HPP. 

AMWG approved the GCMRC and Bureau 2002 budget. 

On Feb. 9, 2001 the Bureau sent a letter to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

with a copy to all PA Signatories describing the Bureau’s response to the PEP and 

responding to questions from the Council about the PEP and the Bureau’s future actions 

or plans. 

At the Sept. 6, 2001 TWG meeting, Randy Peterson reported that monitoring costs for the 

cultural program will continue until the HPP is completed. Randy clarified that the HPP 

is necessary as the guidance document on how to proceed with the cultural program. 

Kurt Dongoske requested clarification on a budget for archaeological mitigation. As a 

result of this conversation on budget items for the cultural program, Bob Winfree made a 

motion to establish an Ad Hoc Committee for the Cultural Resources PEP. 

BUDGET CYCLE FOR PEP RECOMMENDATIONS

Parts of the PEP recommendations have been initiated and others are already in the 

approved budget cycle. The HPP will be an encompassing document with many 

chapters. Many sections will be contracted. 

HPP 

HPP Introduction 2002 

Research Design 2001-2002; awarded by GCMRC 

Monitoring Plan 2002-2003 

Treatment Plan 2003 

Database Plan 2002-2003 
Tribal Consultation Plan 2001-2002; awarded by the Bureau 

Public Outreach Plan 2003 

Other PEP recommendations include: 

Evaluating check dams 2001-2002; awarded by GCMRC 

Holocene terrace mapping 2002-2003 

Geomorph workshop 2002 

CULTURAL RESOURCES AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The ad hoc committee reviewed the PEP recommendations and discussed issues that 

should be identified to the TWG. Those discussions resulted in the ad hoc committee 

listing specific recommendations to the TWG. 

1) Approve all 11 PEP recommendations with the following clarifications. 

2) PEP Recommendation #1. As part of the HPP, the PEP recommended a Traditional 

Cultural Property (TCP) Plan. The ad hoc committee does not believe it is necessary and 

is currently being handled by the Bureau of Reclamation through Determinations of 

Eligibility with each tribe and will be handled in the future through the consultation and 

monitoring plans. 

3) PEP Recommendation #1. As part of the HPP, the PEP recommended a Cultural 

Resource Database Plan. The Cultural Resource Database Plan proposed by the PEP is 

underscoped. This project will be much more involved than recommended by the PEP 

and the first step is to start project planning, gather the data requirements that the 

GCMRC or database users have, get agreement on the goals and purpose of the database 

management project. 

4) The PEP recommended an Introduction chapter for the HPP to provide a framework 

or structure for all the subplans. The Bureau had proposed contracting it in FY2002. 

However, this timing will not work since much of the contents for the Introduction will 

be contingent on the conclusions of the research design and treatment plan. Therefore, the 

ad hoc committee recommends that the Introduction chapter start with an inclusion of the 

background portions available in the draft 1997 HPP. This background can form the basis 

for the Introduction chapter until all parts of the HPP are written. At that time, the 

Introduction will need to be revised to incorporate all the subplans. 

5) The PEP recommended a Monitoring Plan and a Treatment Plan for the HPP. The ad 

hoc committee recommends these be awarded at the same time to the same contractor 

since there is a great deal of overlap in these plans. 

6) As part of the HPP, the PEP recommended a Public Involvement Plan. The ad hoc 

committee recommends that this be subsumed under the AMP Public Involvement Plan 

and that the AMP plan have a cultural resource section. 
7) The Bureau of Reclamation’s implementation plan for the HPP called for a NAGPRA 

Plan of Action and a curation plan. The ad hoc committee believes that these plans 

should not be done through the AMP, but that they are necessary plans that are a legally 

mandated responsibility of each agency involved. 

8) Regarding the PEP recommendation to Improve Coordination of a Complex Program, 

the ad hoc committee recommends that the cultural resource program be on the 

TWG/AMWG agendas at least once a year. 

9) The PEP recommendation for Improving Coordination of a Complex Program was to 

create another federal position. To respond to this need, the ad hoc committee 

recommends that Ruth Lambert’s position should be devoted only to the cultural 

resources program. 

10) The ad hoc committee recommends that the TWG support a standing cultural 

resources ad hoc committee to the TWG.