U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Summary of 2012 Accomplishments 

for Cultural Monitoring R&D Project, 

New Knowledge Gained, and Future 

Research Directions for FY2013-2014

Helen Fairley , Brian Collins, and Amy Draut (USGS)

Annual Reporting Meeting, Phoenix, AZ

January 23, 2012
Outline

 Part I: Review project background, describe FY2012 

accomplishments, summarize new insights gained

 Part 2: Describe how knowledge gained from FY2006-

2012 Cultural Monitoring R& D and previous research 

(e.g., Draut and Rubin, 2008) is being applied to new 

research effort in FY2013-2014 (Project J) 
FY2012 Accomplishments

 2012 Publications:

 Collins and others, 2012: “Topographic Change Detection at 

Select Sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2007-2010” 

USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5133

 Draut, 2012: “Effects of river regulation on aeolian landscapes, 

Colorado River, Southwestern USA” Journal of Geophys. 

Research-Earth Surface, vol. 117

 2012 Fieldwork in Glen Canyon:

 Collected detailed topographic measurements from 4 sites

 Planned/completed data collection for Nov. 2012 HFE

 Repeat photography

 Site visits to determine high flow level in relation to sites
River-level sandbar Sand dunes

above river

Hypothesis linking dam operations, sand supply, 

wind/weather & archaeological site preservation

Erosion of cultural features tied to reduced sediment supply, lack of 

floods, increased vegetation → no flood deposits; fewer open, dry 

sand bars → less eolian sand to cover sites & backfill gullies →

progressive deflation by wind, continuous down-cutting in gullies

Deflating 

Arch. site
What is the fundamental question?

Not whether sites and associated high elevation 

terraces are eroding, but

Are sites and terrace deposits eroding faster or 

more extensively than they would if: 

A) Glen Canyon Dam 

did not exist; and

B) Glen Canyon Dam 

was operated 

differently 
Why is this question difficult to answer?

Our ability to answer this question has been constrained 

historically by a lack or shortage of: 

 high quality site-specific geomorphic data

 reliable methods and appropriate tools for measuring 

past and current rates of change

 local measurements of key parameters (rainfall, wind 

conditions), topography, soil characteristics, cover

 pre-dam landscape/terrace condition data

 control data from comparable unregulated rivers 
Cultural Monitoring R&D: Goals

Phase 1: Collect & evaluate basic data

1) evaluate geomorphic setting/characteristics of sites

2) develop and test low impact tools and methods for 

accurately detecting and measuring deposition/ erosion

Phase 2: Initiate pilot monitoring program

1) Apply new methods at random sample of sites to 

characterize systemwide condition & rates of change; 

2) develop geomorphic model to explore linkages re: 

weather, sediment supply, flows. 
Lidar and Archaeology

 Archaeology relies on 3-D 

mapping extensively

 Context matters!

 Archaeologists quick to 

adopt lidar technology for:

 Documentation (artifacts, 

architecture)

 Mapping landscapes

 Preservation tool

 Lidar efficient at collecting 

3-D data w/ minimal impact 
Why did we need R&D?

 Need to develop method for 

repeat mapping (monitoring) 

change at landscape scale

 Rapidly evolving technology

 Evaluate impacts

 Evaluate errors

 Worked out “bugs” with new 

weather station technology

 Explore other tools & techniques 

(RTK GPS, thalweg surveys)
Cultural Monitoring R&D Project History

 August 2005: AMWG approved new direction for Cultural 

Resources Monitoring Program –multiphase project 

 2-3 years R&D on tools/methods, followed by pilot program

 2006-2007: Phase 1 started. GCMRC/USU/NPS collaborated.

 develop baseline geomorphic data for 232 sites

 initiate research on tools/methods for monitoring (lidar surveys) 

 Install weather monitoring stations near 9 sites

 2008-2009: Phase 1 field work stopped (4 publications)

 2010: Phase 1 fieldwork resumed (3 publications)

 2011: Phase 2 initiated, then terminated (1 publication)

 2012: Glen Canyon work initiated (2 publications)

Lidar Survey R&D Component

 2006-2007

 Assess whether terrestrial lidar can be used for 

change detection in Grand Canyon

 2010-2011

 Determine if cm-scale terrestrial lidar change 

detection is possible; error estimates 

 2012-2013

 Synthesize existing body of work (geomorph, 

weather, change detection data)

 2013-2015 (Project J)

 Link site-scale measurements to landscape (use 

models to determine if current conditions match 

predicted conditions). Do site-specific changes 

vary systematically with local sediment supply?

METHODS

DATA

ANALYSIS

APPLY NEW

KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge Gained re: Use of T-Lidar for 

Monitoring Topographic Changes 

 2006-2007 

 Terrestrial lidar has low impact; can be used 

effectively in Grand Canyon for monitoring 

topographic changes at archaeological sites

 2010-2012

 Terrestrial lidar has cm-scale monitoring 

capability (vertical error <3 cm)

 Archaeological sites are dynamic; more 

erosion than deposition, but both occur 

 2013 (in progress)

 Weather data is being used to develop 

empirical thresholds for change

 Numerical modeling underway; 

initial results show promise



(USGS OFR 2008-1384)

(USGS SIR 2009-5116)

(USGS SIR 2012-5133)

(JGR-Earth Surf., in prep.)
Data Limitations

 Phase 1 data collected for purpose of 

developing monitoring tools & protocols

 Test evaluate refine method

 Current data NOT suitable for demonstrating trends

 Sites not random; not representative of system

 Data collection dates disjointed (2006, 2007, 2010)

 Existing data (2-5 data points from 13 non-random 

sites) can not be used to evaluate specific trends

 Reliable trend data would require a long-term 

monitoring program
Knowledge Gained from Phase I Data

(topographic change detection data)

 Overall pattern at surveyed sites is erosive

 Erosion occurs primarily due to gullying and aeolian 

deflation; some human influence documented

 Gullying can be acute and deep; in one instance, 

severe gullying at a previously un-gullied location

 Aeolian deposition measurable with lidar surveys; 

deposition appears to limit/reduce gullying

 Aeolian erosion-induced changes (deflation) affect 

larger areas of the landscape than gullies
AZ C:13:0006 
AZ:C:13:0006: May 2006 – Sept 2007 

(A) May 2006 – (B) September 2007

60

50

40

30

20

10

10 20 30 40
AZ:C:13:0006 Site Change, 2007-2010 

• Aeolian deposition near existing gully 

(G2) in 2006-07 limited gully erosion 

• Gullying occurred outside 

depositional area (G1 and G3) during 

same period

• In 2010, additional erosion occurred; 

potential for further instability here.
AZ C:13:0336 – Palisades Area

May 2006 – September 2007

September 2007

 Alluvial terrace overlain by dune 

sands; cut by several gullies.

 Gully infilling document at check 

dam during 2006-2007
AZ C:13:0336 – Palisades Area

May 2007 – April 2010

 Gully erosion (>8 cm) from 2007-2010: 

erosion affected upper gully in 2010

 Main geomorphic process is overland 

flow; possibly following a human trail 

Implication is that 

check dam may be 

locally effective, but 

gullying continues 
AZ C:13:0099 – Palisades Area

 Alluvial terrace overlain by dune 

sands and cut by several gullies.

 Gully sidewall and sand dune 

erosion, and gully bottom 

infilling during 2006-2007.

May 2006 – Sept. 2007
AZ C:13:0099 – Palisades Area

Sept. 2007 – April 2010

PRELIMINARY

Major erosion/ deposition 

during 2007-2010 

2008 excavations primary 

source of change

Additional gully widening 

between 2007-2010
AZ C:13:0099

April-Sept. 2010

Minimal Change

Detected
AZ B:10:0025 – Middle Granite Gorge

September 2007 – September 2010

Sept. 2010

Sept. 2007

PRELIMINARY
Site change (AZ:B:10:0225)

• Massive gully erosion in 2007-2010 

(120 m3 sediment removed, averaging 

52 cm deep)

• Additional aeolian infilling following 

this period (11 m3)

• Potential for overall site lowering?

• Potential for additional aeolian 

infilling?
Measured Topographic Changes

Sept. 2007 – Sept. 2010

Site number

(Sept. 2007- 2010 

monitoring period)

Area w/ 

measured 

erosion

(m2)

Area w/ 

measured 

deposition 

(m2)

Total area 

modeled 

w/

change

(percent)

Average 

(max.) 

height of 

erosion 

(cm)

Average 

(max.) 

height of 

deposition 

(cm)

Approx. 

volume 

of 

erosion 

(-) (m3)

Approx. 

volume of 

depositio

n (+)

(m3)

AZ:C:13:0006 27.0 8.8 2.8 15 (33) 9 (22) -3.3 +0.8

AZ:C:13:0336 39.1 2.2 2.9 7 (27) 7 (15) -3.6 +0.2

AZ:C:13:0099 103.0 22.5 19.6 12 (63) 12 (59) -17.3 +2.8

AZ:C:13:0099 playa 3.6 0.4 0.1 7 (13) 6 (7) -0.2 +0.02

AZ:C:13:0348 and 

AZ:C:13:0346 85.3 21.2 3.5 9 (28) 7 (13) -8.6 +1.3

AZ:B:10:0225 254.2 81.3 28.7 22 (160) 13 (55) -120.3 +11.2

AZ:G:03:0072 US 92.1 50.8 11.8 11 (52) 16 (60) -13.8 +6.4

AZ:G:03:0072 DS 0 0 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 0
Volumetric Change : 2007-2010

Deposition (m

3

)

0

4

8

12

4 8 12 16 20

Erosion (m3)

120+

16
Volumetric Change : Apr-Sept 2010 Deposition (m

3

)

0

4

8

4 8

Erosion (m3)

15+
Measured Topographic Changes

April 2010 – September 2010

Site number

(April-Sept. 2010 

monitoring period)

Area w/ 

measured 

erosion

(m2)

Area w/ 

measured 

deposition 

(m2)

Total site 

area 

modeled 

w/change

(percent)

Average 

(max.) 

height of 

erosion 

(cm)

Average 

(max.) 

height of 

deposition 

(cm)

Approx. 

volume 

of 

erosion 

(-) (m3)

Approx. 

volume of 

deposition 

(+)

(m3)

AZ:C:05:0031 134.9 0 5.4 4 (30) 0 (0) -5.7 0

AZ:C:13:0006 2.2 0 0.2 6 (16) 0 (0) -0.1 0

AZ:C:13:0336 16.5 1.5 1.3 3 (9) 3 (5) -0.6 +0.1

AZ:C:13:0099 0.4 2.3 0.4 4 (6) 5 (9) -0.02 +0.1

AZ:C:13:0099 playa 0.02 0 0.001 5 (6) 0 (0) -0.001 0

AZ:C:13:0321 13.9 0 10.0 4 (14) 0 (0) -0.6 0
Phase I included R&D re: Weather 

(Tools & Methods; local variability) 

2007-2008:

Resolved technical

issues

2008-2010:

Annual Data Reports

2011-2012:

Additional analysis
Development of empirical thresholds

 Combine weather and 

change detection data

 Develop plot of observed 

change with respective 

rainfall events

 This establishes 

background climatic event 

thresholds for arch. site 

change

 Thresholds are required to 

put potential dam effects in 

perspective

Rainfall duration

Rainfall intensity

Rainfall events 

correlated with 

arch. site change

Events with 

no change

Event change threshold
Next Steps re: Cultural R & D project

 Analyze measured change in 

relation to documented weather 

events (ongoing)

 Construct numerical 

geomorphological model using 

available data (lidar/ topographic, 

weather, soil infiltration data) 

(Ongoing)

 Use empirical data to calibrate 

model; evaluate model 

predictions relative to current 

conditions (ongoing)
FY2012 Work in Glen Canyon
FY2012 Glen Canyon Work Summary

 September 17-22, 2012

 Collected topographic surveys from 4 sites, plus 

surrounding terrain 

 Initiated mapping of geomorphic setting

 November 2012

 Stationary cameras collected repeat photographs 

of -9 Mile cut bank during HFE

 Documented 42,300 cfs shoreline (photos, survey)
Nine Mile Draw Site

Pederson and others, 2011

Sept 17-21, 2012

Baseline Topographic

Data Collected for

4 Glen Canyon Sites

& Surrounding Area
AZ C:2:75

Level of inundation 

by 2012 HFE
November 20, 2012

November 30, 2012

November 30, 2012

November 30, 2012
Stationary Cameras (1996 HFE)

Before

During

After
Questions?