Report to the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group 

From the Technical Work Group in Re: 

Recommendations of the TWG Cultural Resources PEP Ad Hoc Committee 

May 17, 2002 

 The Technical Work Group recommends the Adaptive Management Work Group 

approve the ten recommendations contained in the Technical Work Group (TWG) Cultural 

Resources Protocol Evaluation Panel (PEP) Ad Hoc Committee’s report dated April 26, 2002 

which are listed below; as amended by revisions made and actions taken by the TWG as 

described herein below. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES PEP AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: 

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 Determination 

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 FY 2002. 

However, this timing will not work since much of the contents (sic) 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 Introductions 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 the coordination of a complex program was 

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

ecommends 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. 

TWG AMENDMENTS TO THE CULTURAL RESOURCES PEP AD HOC COMMITTEE’S 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION TAKEN: 

 The TWG notes that Cultural Resources PEP Ad Hoc Committee recommendation no. 9 

is for improving coordination of a complex program to create another federal position. To 

respond to this need, the TWG recommends GCMRC enhance their focus on cultural resources 

work, while achieving balance with the social, economic, and recreation resources and other 

monitoring programs, and report and consult with the TWG concerning options to provide this 

additional desired focus. 

 Relative to the PEP’s recommendation no. 4, concerning the refinement of the definition 

of the Area of Potential Effects (APE), the TWG noted the Cultural Resources PEP Ad Hoc 

Committee recommends approval of the PEP’s APE-related recommendation. Following 

discussion of various matters associated with APE definition issues, the TWG recommends that 

the responsible agencies resolve the issue of defining the area of potential effect in consultation 

with the Adaptive Management Program stakeholders. 

 The Cultural Resources PEP Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendation no. 10 is the TWG 

support a standing cultural resources ad hoc committee to the TWG. At its May 17, 2002 

meeting, the TWG, in recognition of this recommendation, established a standing Cultural 

Resources Ad Hoc Committee. 

* * * * *