U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Overview and Status of tCultural Monitoring R&D 

Helen Fairley, Sociocultural Program ManagerPresentation to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive ManagTechnical Work GroupPhoenix, Arizona October 2, 2007
CR Monitoring Program: 19

 Conducted under the auspices of the P

the Interim Monitoring and Remedial A

 Specifically focused on identifying type

affecting sites and needs for future tre

 Relied on a presence/absence, active/i

to document impacts (impacts not rankquantified; condition assessments arriindependently of impact observations)

 Main question driving the program:

“W

being impacted by what kinds of impacsite attributes are being affected by the
Summary of 2000 PEP Recomm

re: Future Monitoring Program 

Redesign the cultural resource monitoring p1. assess need for and effectiveness of treatment s

check dams, trail obliteration, excavation, etc.) 

2. evaluate effects of different flow regimes on arch

and other resources directly affected by changing and gain and loss of sediment, and

3. address both GCPA and NHPA monitoring inform

through a single unified monitoring program

“the monitoring program should serve afor periodic quantitative evaluations of eoperations, effectiveness of erosion conmeasures, and development of treatmen
What questions are driving the 

monitoring program today? AMP priority concerns Strategic science questions Core Monitoring Info Needs Others (each stakeholder has the
AMP Priority Questions

 AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural 

including Traditional Cultural Prowithin the Area of Potential Effecshould we treat, and how do we bthem? What are the status and trcultural resources and what are tdeterioration?

 AMWG Priority 3: What is the bes

regime?
Strategic Science Questio

 Do dam controlled flows affect rate

and vegetation growth at archaeoloand TCP sites, and if so, how?

 If dam controlled flows are contrib

archaeological site and TCP erosiooptimal flows for minimizing future these resources?

 How effective are various treatmen

dams, vegetation management, etcerosion rates at archaeological site
CORE MONITORING INFO NEE

FOR CULTURAL SITES

CMIN 11.1.1 Determine the condition a

prehistoric and historic sites in the Coecosystem through tracking rates of eimpacts, and other relevant variables. 

CMIN 11.2.1 Determine the condition aTCPs in the Colorado River Ecosystem

EMIN 11.1.2 Determine the efficacy of 

mitigation of adverse effects to histori

*Revised by CRAHG, adopted b
Complex interactive factors co

to archaeological site conditio(Adaptation of Jenny-Chapin model, after Chapin et a

Local 

Weather

Functional

Groups of

Organisms

Soil Resource

Supply

Disturbance

Regime

Climate 

Topography 

Parent Materials
Changes in site condition are linked 

interacting factors in this dynamic e

 Continuing reduction in sediment supply a

storage under ROD operations

(Potential Indicators: gully widening/deepening, surface 

relation to ROD flows & experimental flows)

 Change in natural disturbance regime/Ins

elevation sediment-replenishment

(Potential Indicators: sediment gained/lost above 25,00

experiment flows; amount of aeolian transport; vegetatioelevation shifts)

 Ongoing weather-induced erosion

(Potential Indicators: gully widening/ deepening, nick p

soil loss/deflation –tracked in relation to weather events 

 Increasing/cumulative human disturbance

(Potential Indicators: social trails, artifact movement & re

damage, degree of soil compaction, trampling of crypto
Indicators of site condition cha

can be directly measured or co

 Erosion 

 Rates of gully incision/widening Rates of nick point migration Topographic/volumetric change

 Human impacts

 Length/depth/number of social trails Area/amount of soil compaction due to 

trampling

 Area of crypto biotic crust damage  Vegetation pedestals/loss/damage Incidents of vandalism/graffiti Artifact piles
Condition indicator selectio

 Need indicators that reflect the agents of chang Objective, replicable, verifiable measurements 

– not just “professional opinion”

 Numeric measurements to quantify amount & r

(presence/absence data is not well suited for tr

 Monitoring methods must be relatively easy an

replicate and “light on the land”

 Multiple management objectives require monito

collected at different scales: landscape level (rdata; sample of sites) and site-specific level (in
Diverse Sites Types in the CRE

(condition varies with exposure, material Late Archaic (2500-1000 BC): 

campsites, petroglyphs, split twig figurine caches in caves

 Pre-ceramic Ancestral Puebloan 

(BM II, ~ 1000 BC to AD 500): campsites, agricultural fields?

 Ancestral Puebloan (AD 900-

1250): habitation structures, granaries, irrigation features, vessel caches, petroglyphs

 Ancestral Pai and Paiute: (~AD 

1250-1850+):campsites, tool caches, roasting pits, pictographs 

 Historic Anglo (~AD 1850-1950): 

structures, objects, inscriptions
Problems/Questions

 Can we arrive at an objective and accu

assessment of site condition by combiof objectively measured indicators?

 Given variability in site types and settin

appropriate to use one set of indicators 

 There are ~ 269 sites in the original GR

given total population size, site diversimultiple program objectives, is a sampnecessary and/or appropriate? (How dthe site specific information required fofuture treatment needs with a random s

 Given variability in sites and geomorph

what sample type and sample size wouappropriate to use (if a sample is appro
Phase I R&D (FY06-FY07): Prima

1. Assess archaeological attributes (in 

aspects of integrity) & geomorphic s

1. for clustering/grouping similar sites 2. for stratifying population for future samp

2. Evaluate utility of existing data (lega

remotely sensed data sets)

3. Complete site boundary mapping of 4. Develop/evaluate/test pilot monitorin

 Compare efficiency/accuracy/impacts of diff

techniques for measuring changes

 Design and test check dam effectiveness m Implement pilot weather monitoring project Select and test human impact monitoring 
FY06-07 Accomplishments

 Conducted initial evaluation of existing site data a

data gaps (e.g., many sites not in GIS; only limited available; inconsistencies in site categorization.) 

 Completed archaeological and geomorphic asses

(151 in conjunction with FY06 treatment planning; assessed in FY07)

 Installed 9 weather stations at 7 locations Completed 4 repeat gully surveys for check dam e

locations (eight archaeological sites – same ones et al. in 2001-2002)

 Conducted systematic comparison of total station 

techniques for tracking topographic change – repo

 Convened expert panel to conduct independent re

monitoring data and provide recommendations to preparation

 Initiated an analysis of legacy monitoring data in r

(analysis in progress but not yet completed)

*USGS, NPS, U
FY06-07 Site Assessments

 Identified important site attribute

to monitor (key attributes linked tsignificance and integrity)

 Systematically characterized geo

setting of each site and identified for future erosion (or other geomprocesses) to affect site integrity

 Identified geomorphic attributes 

track/monitor in the future (e.g., igullies, cryptobiotic crusts, deflat

 Identified immediate/potential tre
Evaluate Potential Monitoring T

tracking/measuring physical ch

 Remotely sensed, orthorectified i Airborne LiDAR  Ground based LiDAR Total station measurements of gu Analog or digital photographs Visual observations/verbal docum

change

 Stage-elevation predictive flow m
Total Station 

surveys of gully thalwegs in the Palisades area
Gully 2 Profile

794.5795.0795.5796.0796.5797.0797.5798.0798.5799.0799.5800.0800.5801.0

150175200 100125 

5075 

Gully distance (m)

Ellipsoid Height (m)

200202200209200311
LIDAR SURVEY
Comparison of Total Station vs

Based LiDAR for measuring ch Time/personnel to collect data Time/personnel to process data Amount of data that can be collec

given amount of time

 Accuracy of the data Total costs  Impacts to sites (and to wildernes

experience?)
Human Impact Protocol Evalua

(FY07 Work in Progress)

 Coordinated with goals/objectives 

of the NPS Colorado River Management Plan (NPS currently defining CRMP monitoring needs)

 NPS to focus primarily on 

documenting effects of visitation on site aspects of integrity (for NHPA 106 and 110 compliance)

 AMP monitoring protocols will 

complement NPS approach by focusing on measuring & quantifying effects of geomorphic processes on site condition
Site Assessment and Data Rev

(Additional FY07 work in progr NPS is completing GIS polygon mapping 

so additional GIS analysis can be comple2007-2008

 September 6-7, 2007: GCMRC convened 

independent experts to review and make re: applicability and utility of legacy monitoreport is under development

 GCMRC is analyzing legacy monitoring d

flow data to determine whether any meanbetween these data sets can be detected

 GCMRC cooperators are completing stag

line” modeling to facilitate future GIS-baseflow impacts
Weather Monitoring Com
Check dam effectiveness monitori

testing the use of high resolution werosion/deposition data to track/coefficacy of treatments

 Track and evaluate role of 

weather-events in driving erosion at arch sites 

 Compare differences in 

response between “treated” and “untreated” sites under similar weather parameters
Monitor Role of Aeolian Proces

Preservation 

 Continue to monitor sediment 

transport rates at a sample of sites to refine understanding of how aeolian sediment may help to preserve archaeological sites (e.g., quantify rates of gully backfilling)

 Evaluate effects of future 

experimental flows re: improving sediment supply (dry, upwind sand bars ) and rates of subsequent transport to archaeological sites

Location

Nearest Archaeological sites ID

Number of 

weather 

stations +

Num

RM 24.5 AZ C: 5:031 2 RM 60* AZ C:13:006 1 

RM 66 AZ C:13:336 1 

RM 70 AZ C:13:346, 352 2 RM 135 AZ B:11:277 1 RM 203 AZ A:15:33 1 RM 207** AZ G:3:041 0 RM 208 AZ G:3:002, 025 0 

RM 223* AZ G:3:072 1 

Site numbers in yellow identify gully survey s
Other potential applications for 

weather monitoring data

 Characterize local weather variability in  Support development of geomorphic m

erosion potential

 Support other modeling/monitoring init

temperature model for the mainstem riecosystem monitoring program
Cultural Monitoring R&D Projec

 Complete Phase I data analysis (winter 

draft reports from USU and Western CoTeam due end of February 2008; final pJune 2008

 Design and select monitoring sample; 

initiate pilot project (winter-spring 2008

 Conduct 3-yr cycle of monitoring (FY08

includes FY08 test of new ground baseand FY09 GCMRC over-flight with airbo

 FY11: review monitoring results with P

protocols, implement long-term monito
The End