1

 

LEGACY MONITORING DATA REVIEW PANEL 

REPORT TO THE GRAND CANYON MONITORING AND RESEARCH CENTER

11/29/2007 

Keith Kintigh, Professor 

School of Human Evolution and Social Change 

Arizona State University 

Tempe, AZ 85287-2402 

William Lipe, Professor Emeritus 

Department of Anthropology 

Washington State University 

Pullman WA 99164-4910 

Jeffrey Altschul, Chairman of the Board 

Statistical Research, Inc. 

6099 East Speedway Blvd. 

Tucson, AZ 85712 USA 

N. Scott Urquhart, Research Scientist 

Department of Statistics 

Colorado State University 

Fort Collins, CO 80523-1877

Background 

The construction of Glen Canyon Dam was a signal event in the history of the American 

West. Hydroelectric power provided by the dam helped spur the growth of the Southwestern 

U.S. that continues today. At the same time, the dam tamed the Grand Canyon portion of the 

Colorado River that had, since the days of John Wesley Powell, been symbolic of the wildness of 

the West. Coupled with Hoover Dam, the completion of Glen Canyon Dam marked the triumph 

of technology over nature in the American psyche. 

It was recognized that the creation of Lake Powell behind Glen Canyon Dam would 

submerge an astounding number of archaeological sites in a little known and poorly understood 

part of the American Southwest. The charge of salvaging some portion of this record fell to the 

National Park Service (NPS)-sponsored Glen Canyon Project conducted by two institutions, the 

University of Utah under the direction of Jesse D. Jennings and the Museum of Northern Arizona 

under the direction of Ned Danson (Jennings 1966). From 1957 to 1962, these teams surveyed 

and excavated scores of sites. The project compiled an impressive record: numerous monographs 

and articles were published; many theses and dissertations were written; and analyses of the 

materials continue to this day (e.g. Geib 1996). 

At the time, little if any thought was given to studying sites below the dam. After all, the dam 

was designed to control the flow of the river through the Grand Canyon. If anything, it was 

assumed that sites in the river corridor would be better protected after the completion of the dam 

because they would no longer be ravaged by the enormous scouring power of the river’s periodic 

floods. Hardly 20 years passed before this assumption was questioned. As sand bars decreased 

in size and number, National Park Service archaeologists became increasingly concerned about 

the possible linkage between the declining sediment resource downstream of the dam and 

archaeological site erosion. These concerns came to a head following the winter of 1982-1983. 

Winter storms built a tremendous snow pack that was unleashed the following spring. Lake 

Powell filled up and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) was forced to release four times 

the usual amount of water from the dam. Concurrently, during the summer of 1983 and 

throughout the subsequent high release years of mid 1980s, a series of powerful summer 

thunderstorms occurred. Downstream heretofore unknown archaeological sites were exposed; 

new damage from erosion was readily apparent. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 2 

There was no denying that the operation of Glen Canyon Dam had an effect on cultural 

resources (US Department of Interior 1995). What was unclear, however, was how many 

resources were being affected, what types of sites they represented, and where these resources 

were located. In the early 1990s a systematic survey of the river corridor answered most of these 

questions. Archaeologists recorded 475 sites, of which 336 were located within the river corridor 

affected by dam operations (Fairley and others 1994). To comply with the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), Reclamation was required to consider the effects of dam operations 

on historic properties, or cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). The number of historic properties was initially determined to be 322 

(US Department of Interior 1995); over time the number has dwindled to 264. 

To comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, a federal agency, in consultation with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), 

affected tribes, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP; which can also choose 

not to participate), and other stakeholders who have identified themselves as having an interest, 

must evaluate the potential effects of the agency’s planned activity on historic properties and to 

the extent possible find ways to minimize the adverse effects on those properties. 

In most cases, the parties agree on a course of action, such as resource avoidance or scientific 

data recovery. For example, in raising the level of Roosevelt Lake in central Arizona, more than 

600 NRHP-eligible archaeological sites were identified, which would be affected either directly 

(i.e., be submerged by the lake) or indirectly (i.e., lie closer to the lake in areas where increased 

visitor impact was likely). The parties to the Section 106 action agreed that to mitigate the effect 

of raising Roosevelt Dam, a sample of the sites subject to adverse impacts would be selected for 

data recovery. The excavation, analysis, and curation of the material recovered from this sample 

of sites resolved the effect of the undertaking on all historic properties. 

Grand Canyon National Park is not just another place. It is a unique physiographic unit that 

our country values and has decided to preserve. In practice, preservation means leaving natural 

and cultural resources alone. Because of this special situation, it was not considered viable to 

resolve the effects of dam operations on cultural resources through data recovery on some or all 

sites that may in the future be adversely affected. Instead, the overriding concern has been to 

preserve sites in place and only conduct limited data recovery on portions of those sites that were 

in the process of suffering unavoidable damage. This approach required archaeologists to 

periodically visit each historic property and monitor its condition. 

In 1992, a site monitoring program was established in the Grand Canyon River corridor as 

part of the Park’s cultural resource management responsibilities under mandates of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (Leap and others 2000.) In 1994, the Bureau of Reclamation and the 

various stakeholders with interests in the cultural resources of the river corridor entered into a 

programmatic agreement that initiated a program of monitoring that included 1) documenting the 

overall condition of sites through use of standard forms (provided in Appendix 6) and 2) taking 

remedial action in the form of preservation treatments where necessary to counter the impacts on 

archaeological sites of erosion and in some cases of visitation. Documentation of preservation 

treatments through maps and other records has also added to the information available about the 

condition of sites that received such treatment. It seems clear that the preservation treatments 

that have been carried out represent efforts to make a timely response to perceived threats to the 

resource values of archaeological sites in the corridor. With regard to the standard site-condition 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 3 

monitoring forms noted above, there also have been efforts over the years to make the required 

observations somewhat more systematic and objective. 

Since 1994, questions have been raised about the overall effects on archaeological sites of the 

operation of upstream dam operations, including whether changes in the hydrological 

characteristics of the river are leading to increased erosion at sites. It apparently has been 

implicitly assumed that the standard site condition forms described above could and would 

provide data useful in measuring the impacts of erosion and site visitation on the population of 

sites in the river corridor, and also to analyze trends in the conditions of sites in this population. 

But is this assumption correct? Unfortunately, few synthetic studies have made substantial 

analytical use of the large amounts of monitoring and other data that have been collected. As the 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) takes over the cultural resources 

monitoring program, it is an auspicious moment to examine this key underlying assumption. 

Review of Grand Canyon Cultural Resource Monitoring Program 

In September 2007, the GCMRC convened a peer review panel to evaluate the potential of 

the data collected between 1992 and 2005 to address issues of importance to the stakeholders.1

 

The review panel focused its attention on the usefulness of the site-condition monitoring forms, 

but recognized that the original site inventory forms, the records of preservation treatments, and 

the photographs taken during monitoring and preservation treatment visits might also have the 

potential to address questions of interest to the GCMRC. Collectively, all these data sources are 

referred to as "the legacy data" in the following report. 

The panel was asked to determine whether the GCMRC should place more effort in studying 

these “legacy” data to answer such questions as: Can we use the monitoring forms and/or other 

existing data to examine changes in the erosion rates at archaeological sites? Can we use the 

existing data to test geomorphic models of erosion and their effects on archaeological sites? Can 

we use these data to study the effect of dam operations on archaeological sites? As we struggled 

to determine the efficacy of the monitoring effort to address issues of current interest, we 

couldn’t help but think about how future monitoring programs might be designed to avoid some 

of the pitfalls we observed. Our report, therefore, looks forward as much as it looks at the past. 

In assessing the available data it is important to recognize that data of any sort do not have 

inherent value; rather their utility can only be assessed relative to their ability to inform on a 

question or suite of questions. Clearly, the existing monitoring data have been valuable for the 

preservation goal of assessing the physical conditions of an archaeological resource and deciding 

if treatment was needed at that time. 

Although it is our assessment that the legacy data are inadequate to the task of answering all 

the many questions posed by diverse stake holders, analyses of these data may nonetheless be 

useful in beginning to address some of them. In the discussion below, we offer some suggestions 

of how indicators derived from the available data may be relevant to some of the GCMRC 

queries. However, addressing many current questions, notably those associated with assessing 

causes (e.g., distinguishing dam effects from those that could have been caused by natural 

variation in river flow) will require the collection and analysis of different kinds of data. In our 

 

1

 Brief biographical sketches of the authors are provided in Appendix 5. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 4 

responses we not only provide some prospective guidance on these issues, we specifically 

recommend experimentation with an innovative procedure proposed here. 

For clarity of presentation we first discuss some general concerns about the legacy data and 

offer some suggestions about how they can be used prior to addressing the specific queries posed 

by GCMRC in "Guidance for Monitoring Panel Review” (Appendix 1). While we provide, in 

turn, commentary on each of the 11 topics suggested, it is not possible for us to answer many of 

the more specific questions about the utility of the legacy monitoring data. Similarly, we are 

unable to respond directly to the specific "NPS Legacy Data Questions” (Appendix 2). While 

these questions are certainly reasonable to ask, they simply cannot be answered through a casual 

inspection of the data by the reviewers. In some cases, it may be possible to answer questions 

with available legacy data; in others, the data will certainly be inadequate. However to even 

decide whether the questions could be usefully addressed with the legacy data (much less to 

actually answer them) would require an in-depth analysis of the available monitoring, 

preservation-treatment, and site inventory databases and records—an effort that would be far 

beyond the panel’s scope of work. Unfortunately, the lengthy synthesis commissioned by 

GCMRC failed to quantitatively analyze the data, noting that it would have required too much 

restructuring of the existing databases (Neal and Gilpin 2000: 98). (Note: The legacy sitecondition monitoring database was migrated to a relational format in 2002-2004. However, this 

restructuring did not resolve many of the more problematic aspects of the data set from an 

analytical standpoint.) 

Finally, the panel notes that because of the close timing between receiving these documents 

and our review meeting, we did not have time to study all of the documents provided to us, nor 

were we able to examine carefully all of the annual reports. It is certainly possible that some of 

our comments and suggestions may already have been addressed in other contexts. However, a 

great deal of information was presented at our panel meeting and the panel feels that it has an 

adequate basis for presenting this assessment. 

Using Available Legacy Data 

It appears feasible to make some quantitative use of legacy data encoded in site inventory, 

monitoring, and preservation treatment records. Although the way the monitoring forms were 

designed (see response to query 4, below) makes it difficult to extract robust quantitative data 

from them, we suggest some ways to use the available qualitative data. We also believe that 

some of the records of preservation treatments have potential to complement the data obtained 

from the standard monitoring forms. We present these suggestions in this separate section 

because we refer to these potential analyses of legacy data in several of the individual responses 

below. 

The following discussion refers to what might be done with the monitoring forms used from 

1994 through 1998 (as presented in by Neal and Gilpin 2000) and thereafter if the 1998 version 

of the form (or a similar one) continued to be used in later monitoring visits. 

Erosion Impact Index. The first method we suggest involves using the legacy monitoring 

forms to create a site-level indicator of erosion. Development of some indicator of erosional 

impact is an essential step in assessing how the operation of the dam affects the archaeological 

resources. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 5 

Step 1. The first step in creating a tally of erosion indicators is simply to count the number of 

cells scored as something other than "0" or "NA" for the first six rows of the physical impact 

matrix in the monitoring form (for 1994 through 1997, this would be rows 7-12; for the forms 

used in 1998, it would be rows 8-13). Again, for each cell in these rows that had a monitoring 

response other than a "0" or a "NA," one would be added to the tally. If five cells meet this 

criterion, the score would be "five" and so forth. (We’re not sure that "aeolian/alluvial 

erosion/deposition" or "side canyon erosion" should be included, but leave it to those who better 

understand these categories to decide.) 

Step 2. Another bit of data comes from item 15 in the physical impacts section of the form. 

Any answer other than "NA" indicates that arroyos or gullies are present at the site. If the 

original tally resulted in a zero score, but something other than NA was entered for item15, we 

can infer that gullies or arroyos were present, even if they evidently did not impact any 

archaeological features. This would be worth a score of “one. “ However, there would be no 

score from item 15 if the original tally counted at least one erosion indicator (i.e., a tally greater 

than zero). 

Step 3. The management recommendations section of the form provides another piece of 

information. All the forms used from 1994 to 1998 have an item that deals with impact treatment 

recommendations and includes "install check dams" as an option. If "install check dams" is 

checked, this would seem to indicate that the monitoring crew perceived that erosion posed a 

fairly serious threat to at least some part(s) of the site. If this option is checked, add another 

“one” to the total score of erosion indicators. 

Step 4. To create an “erosion impact index” for the site, divide the tally by the total number 

of possible erosion indicators for the site (i.e., all the cells or entries that could possibly have 

contributed to the tally), yielding an "erosion impact index" for the site ranging from 0.0 (no 

recorded impact) to 1.0 (maximal recorded impact). While the limitations of this index are 

obvious, it (or some sensible variant) can supply a variable that one could begin to work with in 

a formal analysis. 

Visitor Impact Index A "visitor impact index" could be created using visitor impact 

variables recorded on the monitoring forms through a procedure analogous to that just described 

for the Erosion Impact Index. 

Taking this approach a step farther, it may be useful to create indices of erosion or visitor 

impacts to features by using recorded information about actual preservation treatment actions at 

the sites. This would require extracting data from maps and other records made at the time that 

preservation treatments such as check dams were installed at a site. 

Erosion Treatment Index. A subset of sites has had some type of preservation treatment 

designed to retard erosion. The number of discrete devices (e.g., check dams) that have been 

actually installed relative to site size may be a reasonable quantitative indicator of the severity of 

erosion at a site with respect to the site’s cultural features. (This assumes, of course, that the 

number and location of check dams and other treatments were systematically recorded. We did 

not examine the recording protocols used for preservation treatments.) Further, the number of 

features or the number of 1x1 m units that have been excavated because of the impacts of erosion 

could be added to the number of diversion structures. This quantitative index could be 

standardized to correct for site size and/or number of features. Both site size (by area) and 

number of features can be obtained from the site inventory form. We might call the measure thus 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 6 

calculated an "erosion treatment index.” It is our impression that a substantial proportion of the 

sites in the monitoring program have received some type of erosion control treatment. If it is 

reasonable to assume that sites that have not had any treatments to retard erosion were judged not 

to need it, then the erosion treatment data seem to provide the most quantitatively sensitive and 

useful information about erosion impacts at the sites in the monitoring program. 

Visitation Treatment Index. Evidently some sites have also received preservation treatments 

or feature-scale data recovery efforts related to visitor impacts. Using an analogous procedure, a 

"visitation treatment index" could be derived from these data. It may be that this kind of 

treatment is less common that that directed toward erosion control, so there might not be enough 

sites to constitute a group useful for comparative studies. 

Panel Commentary on Queries Posed in “Guidance for Monitoring Panel Review” 

1. Adaptive Management Objectives 

Adaptive management is defined as a systematic process for continually improving management 

policies, techniques and practices by learning from outcomes of operational programs or 

interventions (Sitt and Taylor 1998: 2, 50.) Ideally, adaptive management begins with the 

definition of management problems being faced, then it proceeds to the creation of a 

management plan that is implemented, monitored, and evaluated. Was the original monitoring 

program clearly defined in relation to problems or objectives and were the data subsequently 

collected and analyzed in a manner that would allow managers to determine whether 

management actions were leading to desired outcomes? If yes, please describe how. If not, how 

could future monitoring programs be designed to more effectively address adaptive management 

needs and the concerns raised in previous reviews of the program? 

The panel is not in a position to discuss the origins and initial objectives and design of the 

monitoring program. Concerns regarding the variable selection are discussed under query 4 (p. 

12). Data collection issues are also discussed elsewhere in this report. We here focus on the 

issue of analysis. As discussed above, the existing data have been used to address some key 

program goals. However, there has been almost no systematic analysis of these data. 

The panel's first and most forceful recommendation with respect to adaptive management is 

that the agencies must have as strong a commitment to systematically analyzing the data as they 

do to the process of data collection. Without frequent, periodic analysis focused on management 

objectives, the management cannot be "adaptive" because there is no source of feedback. Such a 

commitment would entail a substantial commitment of resources on a regular basis. Without 

such a commitment, much of the information potential value of the data is lost. Analyzing even 

the best-collected site monitoring data is a difficult and time consuming task requiring 

considerable quantitative expertise. Management must commit the necessary time of qualified 

analysts (in- or outside the agencies) and resources for this analysis in order that timely 

information is available for policy reviews. 

The first and perhaps most important, step in reformulating the monitoring program will be 

to explicitly identify and prioritize the program goals. For these purposes, a laundry list 

approach will not do. It will almost certainly be infeasible to collect and analyze sufficient data 

to answer every question of interest to the many stake holders. The program goals will need to 

be carefully considered, trading off their management importance with the cost of obtaining and 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 7 

analyzing the necessary data. We suggest that it will be better to answer a limited set of 

questions with some assurance rather than many questions inadequately. 

With an explicit specification of the goals, the variables that need to be observed and 

recorded can then be selected. The recording forms and the manner in which the selected 

variables are recorded must directly reflect analytical needs entailed by the goals and will need to 

be designed in collaboration with personnel quite experienced in quantitative analysis. Personnel 

experienced in recording sites in the field will also need to be consulted to ensure that the 

selected variables can be effectively and efficiently documented in a fieldwork context. With 

cyclic data collection and analysis it will be possible to recognize and correct inefficiencies or 

problems in the data collection program and to adapt the program to new management needs. 

While these points may seem obvious, there was little evident effort to systematically analyze the 

data collected at great effort and enormous expense through the 1990s and more recently. 

2. Applicability of the Data to Address the Question of Dam Effects 

The GCD AMP [Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Plan] is concerned with assessing 

effects of dam operations on resources in the Colorado River ecosystem. Specifically, the AMP 

is concerned with whether the dam is being operated “in such a manner as to protect, mitigate 

adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area were created, including but not limited to natural and cultural 

resources and visitor use.” Are the legacy monitoring data suitable for detecting dam effects on 

archaeological sites? If yes, in what respects? If no, why not? 

The legacy data will not provide definitive answers to the question of dam effects. They 

were not designed to do this and are not well suited to the task. 

Use of the Legacy Data with Information on Geomorphic Setting. However, we might ask if 

it is possible to use the two erosion indexes (erosion impact index and erosion treatment index) 

derived from the legacy data (as described in the section, Using Available Legacy Data) to 

address the question of whether post-dam river flow characteristics have contributed to erosion at 

archaeological sites in the Grand Canyon river corridor. There are clear difficulties in 

determining whether erosion at archaeological sites in the Grand Canyon is linked to post-dam 

river flow regimes, to climatic change, to the effects of increased visitation, or to the "ordinary" 

erosion regimes that have been operating in this area for centuries, or to other factors. Setting 

that issue aside, can we use the legacy data to investigate, in a preliminary way, whether erosion 

at archaeological sites is associated with the current river flow regime? 

If river flow regimes are affecting rates of erosion in the Grand Canyon, it is through their 

disproportionate effects on particular kinds of geomorphic features or alluvial deposits. 

Therefore, sites located on the affected features or deposits should show more indications of 

erosion than sites located on other types of geomorphic features or deposits. It may be possible 

to use spatial patterning studies to evaluate the probable impacts of changed river flow regimes. 

Ideally, we would use a geomorphic model to identify features and deposits that were more 

likely and less likely to display increased erosion resulting from post-dam river flow regimes. 

Our prediction would be that sites located on the "more likely" features or deposits would on 

average have higher "erosion impact index" and "erosion treatment index" ratings than sites 

located on "less likely" features or deposits. It is possible that such geomorphic predictions 

are—or will be—available for only some segments of the Grand Canyon river corridor. If so, the 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 8 

question would be whether enough sites are present in these segments to determine with some 

confidence whether the spatial patterning predictions are or are not supported. 

If formal geomorphic predictions are not available, then we might consider using some kind 

of proxy predictors, e.g., "sites close to the river horizontally and vertically will have higher 

erosion and erosion treatment indexes than sites farther from the river horizontally and 

vertically." This kind of study would be hard to link to changes in river flow regimens, but the 

results might suggest what kinds of additional information are needed. 

Use of Legacy Terrestrial and Aerial Photographs. The panel understands that among the 

legacy data are sequences of repeated terrestrial photographs of the same locations. These sets of 

photographs should be investigated for the information they contain about erosion (or visitation). 

If particular gullies/arroyos have been photographed multiple times from more or less the same 

angle, it may be possible to make some qualitative or quantitative measures of changes in those 

erosional features over time. These may be extremely valuable as they may lead to much more 

direct observations, at an appropriate scale (e.g., a feature) of the processes of interest (Neal and 

Gilpin 2000: 127, e.g., Fig. 7.14 on p. 141). This kind of evidence would probably be hard to 

extrapolate to the site as a whole, but it might be useful in conjunction with the other approaches 

that have been sketched. A pilot study using the photos might be undertaken to assess their 

usefulness in detecting trends. In pursuing this analysis, it would be well to communicate with 

others who have done studies of time series of repeated photographs. The resulting information 

could be related to site features, as suggested for the potential LiDAR (light detection and 

ranging) study proposed below. 

Similarly, GCMRC has proposed analyses of temporal sequences of aerial photographs from 

the earliest available photos, through the time of the construction and filling of the dam, and up 

to the present. This analysis may provide some of the most informative data if the available 

photographs are of sufficient resolution to observe key geological processes (such as arroyo 

cutting and beach formation and disappearance). 

Quantitative changes in elevation (indicative of erosion or aggradation) could be determined 

from repeated total station maps of a site. While total station maps have undoubted value, they 

are labor intensive and their creation may cause notable site disturbance. The LiDAR approach 

proposed in the next section, in which elevations are directly tracked, would provide more 

precise and more easily quantifiable data with less impact than repeated total station mapping. 

Overlaying LiDAR data on a total station base map may usefully permit the association of areas 

of impact (i.e., elevation difference) with the actual archaeological features in those instances 

where total station maps have delineated the spatial extent of individual archaeological features. 

Total station maps are available for 68 sites (Leap et al. 2000: 1-16). 

Analysis Using New Data and Models. Adequately addressing the question of dam effects 

demands an understanding of the geomorphic processes implicated. Expert geomorphologists are 

needed to provide well specified geomorphic models with clearly defined test implications. Data 

will need to be collected to verify the models and to distinguish among alternatives. Such testing 

can and should be done on a stratified sample of sites (with stratification depending upon the 

model expectations). The testing will likely also involve investigation of non-site controls. 

Our present understanding of ground-based LiDAR data suggests that it could be used very 

effectively to answer a number of the questions of interest if it were gathered at the same sites 

over periods of several years. It is the panel’s understanding that LiDAR determined elevations 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 9 

currently are available for several cultural sites, and that at least one has three sets of LiDAR 

determinations, but only part of one has been post processed for two dates. 

LiDAR would also be a highly effective way to collect decisive data for the geomorphic 

models that need to be developed. One year’s LiDAR data for a whole site would give precise 

determinations of the site’s elevations. If LiDAR data were gathered at a subsequent time, such 

as three years later, elevations could be differenced on a point-by-point basis to give elevation 

change over the entire site. An average of these differences across the whole site divided by the 

number of years between the two LiDAR evaluations provides an aggregate measure of annual 

erosion. However, if arroyos had formed between the times of the two LiDAR evaluations, some 

of the differences would be much larger than others. A threshold value for potentially serious 

erosion could be determined, and the proportion of the site area with erosion exceeding this 

threshold could be regarded as the proportion of the site with excessive erosion. Other attributes 

of these differences could be defined to reflect other types of erosion. 

Because this technique appears so promising, we will provide more detail on its possible use. 

As indicated above, the basic idea is to use differences between initial LiDAR-determined 

elevations and determinations made at subsequent times to arrive at several possible measures of 

site-level erosion. 

The sets of elevation differences can be converted into informative measures of erosion 

several ways. An obvious one is simply to average all of the differences. Site-wide average 

erosion can be regressed against time to estimate a rate of erosion for individual sites. Site-level 

estimates of erosion rates could then be related to relevant predictors, such as elevation above the 

river or distance from nearest river camp site. However, an average aggregates relatively 

unaffected parts of the site with major changes resulting from recent arroyo cutting. Also, in an 

average, aggradation in one place would cancel out erosional effects elsewhere, potentially 

yielding a misleading summary. 

Consequently, it is preferable to consider the cumulative distribution function (typically 

referred to as a Acdf”) of differences in elevation, such as displayed in the accompanying figure2

, 

based on LiDAR elevations which became available after the panel met. The differences in 

elevations summarized here represent a part of a site known to GCMRC personnel that is in a 

gully formation stage. 

This figure plots the difference between the two measured elevations on the horizontal axis. 

The vertical axis shows the proportion site area with elevational difference less than or equal to 

the value on the horizontal axis. In this example, the cdf (vertical axis value) is about 0.4 for an 

elevation difference of 0. This means that 40% of the site area did not change in elevation or 

aggraded, whereas about 60% of the area experienced losses in elevation. The differences 

 

2

 This example is based on real Grand Canyon data supplied by Brian Collins of USGS, 

(United States Geological Survey) Coastal and Marine Geology Program, developed in 

cooperation with the USGS, GCMRC in response to a request by Helen Fairley. We thank both 

of these people for this data. As this data has not been otherwise published, the location to which 

it applies is deliberately obscure. Computational details regarding the interpolation of the 

observed elevations needed to derive the differences for this example are provided in Appendix 

3. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 10 

incorporate measurement error, perhaps to the extent of 0.04 m. The green lines in the figure 

show the part of the cdf which might represent primarily measurement error. This set of data had 

(estimated) differences from -0.6445 to 0.5184, both more than half a meter, but had an average 

of 0.0088 and a median of 0.0091, each a bit less than a centimeter. 42% of the differences were 

less than zero, whereas 58% were greater than 0. 17.4% were less than the lower error bound of 

0.04m, whereas 23.4% exceeded the upper error bound of 0.04. Overall, in this graph about 

40.8% of the site experienced changes in elevation of 4 cm or less in one direction or the other. 

Figure 1: Cumulative Distribution Function (cdf) of Differences in LiDAR Determined Elevations. (The data 

source is described in the accompanying text. The vertical blue line depicts no change in elevation; the green 

lines = the limits of the data precision.) 

Using graphs of this sort, interested parties could agree on how much change would be 

regarded as unimportant (or natural), what ranges of values would represent modest change, and 

what would be regarded as substantial change. The cdf can thus provide relevant indicators of 

site change, or lack thereof. While this sort of graph provides an easy-to-use overall assessment, 

the differences in the LiDAR elevations can also be mapped (and overlaid on an accurate site 

map) so that analysts can observe precisely where the erosion is occurring and how much it 

threatens site or feature integrity. 

Over the longer term, LiDAR evaluations could be repeated on a regular schedule, such as 

every three to five years. The erosion since the initial measured year at that site could serve as a 

response which would submit to serious analysis against predictors such as elapsed years, 

elevation above some standard flow stage, such as 28,000 cfs, distance from river camp sites, a 

measure of visitor impact, such as number and size of trails to the site. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 11 

Although one might think that all sites would require the same revisitation schedule, that isn't 

the case. In fact if no evaluations were made in a given year, the meaning and utility of the 

responses suggested here would not be compromised. How often do sites need to be revisited? 

The suggested analysis approach will work for any revisit schedule. On the other hand, overall 

(as opposed to site-specific) analyses can not be started until all relevant sites have had LiDAR 

elevations determined at least twice. Great difference in revisit patterns will lead to substantial 

differences in how precisely the rates of erosion are estimated. If there are great differences in 

the precision of estimated rates of erosion, weighted regression probably should be used to 

accommodate this outcome. A way to avoid this would be to have a regular revisit schedule of 

LiDAR determinations, such as every three to five years. (In the statistical literature this would 

be called a multi-panel serially alternating temporal plan.) Similar designs have been explored in 

statistical literature (Urquhart, et al., 1998), but the feature of augmentation usually adopted in 

the situations investigated there is not essential here. On the other hand, if some cultural sites are 

of special interest or concern, annual visits present no problems. 

In addition to the quality of the quantitative data resulting from ground-based LiDAR, the 

panel understands it can be gathered relatively quickly and with minimal impact to the site. This 

may be very important, as persons walking around gathering data may constitute a major impact 

on some sites by breaking the cryptobiotic crust. Although we see tremendous promise for the 

use of LiDAR, it is essential that there be sufficient expertise available, either through in-house 

hiring or contracting, to perform the needed quantitative analyses. 

3. Applicability of Data to Other Relevant Legal Mandates 

In addition to requiring that effects of dam operations on cultural resources be evaluated, the 

Grand Canyon Protection Act [GCPA] directs the Secretary of Interior to operate the dam in a 

manner that is consistent with the National Park Service Organic Act and other relevant laws 

that apply to National Parks. Can the legacy data be used to assess whether the broader intent 

of GCPA is being attained? If yes, in what respects? If no, why not? 

Are the legacy monitoring data suitable for addressing other legally mandated compliance 

concerns, such those of the National Historic Preservation Act? In what respects are the data 

suitable for addressing other compliance requirements under NHPA (for example, are they well 

suited for identifying and prioritizing sites that may require data recovery or erosion control 

measures in the near or distant future? To what degree are they suitable for assessing whether 

erosion control treatments are having their intended effects or not?) 

The panel recognizes that a site monitoring plan must today serve the objectives of many 

different stake holders. From a legal perspective, any monitoring plan 1) must identify pressing 

needs to treat individual sites due to adverse impacts (whatever the source); and 2) must also 

collect data designed to inform directly on the human and geological processes (and their causes) 

that are involved in site disturbance (particularly erosion and visitor impact). 

As noted above, the first step should be to get these objectives as clearly articulated as 

possible by the relevant parties and then negotiate a monitoring plan that is designed to address 

as many concerns as possible in an integrated way. The objectives agreed upon will dictate the 

purposes for which sampling is appropriate and inappropriate, and what sorts of sampling 

strategies would be most effectively employed. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 12 

Managers must realize that until the existing or new data are analyzed, it will often not be 

possible to know the extent to which different legal mandates can be satisfied by different 

combinations of data collection, sampling, and mitigation. (Of course, the results can be fed 

back into an adaptive management strategy, as discussed under query 1, above). 

4. Issues Related to Variables Selected 

Are the parameters and types of variables (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, presence-absence, 

ordinal, interval etc.) suitable for addressing the questions being asked and the overall needs of 

the adaptive management program? Which of the legacy data appear to be most useful for 

monitoring status and trends in resource condition through time? 

Key variables in the dataset based on the site monitoring forms, while generally relevant to 

the concepts at issue, were not represented in a way that allows them to directly answer questions 

now being posed. In particular, data better suited to quantification are highly desirable. It is far 

more useful to know that 3 of 4 structures are affected by gullies than to know that gullies are 

affecting structures. This returns us to an earlier point. Had the monitoring data already 

collected been more intensively analyzed, many of the weaknesses of the present system would 

long ago have been revealed. Some of the other components of the legacy data, e.g, preservation 

treatment maps and records, and sequential photographs, may have potential for addressing the 

questions being asked, even though these records were not made with these questions in mind. 

Their usefulness could only be determined by actually attempting to extract relevant data from 

these records. 

To the extent that stake holders can agree on objectives, such as slowing the physical 

deterioration of archaeological sites, then variables to be measured can be designed to efficiently 

indicate the factors directly relevant to the objectives. Clearly there are costs associated with 

more detailed recording (if that turns out to be necessary). In any case, the benefits of 

information return must be carefully weighed against the required effort for any data collection 

and that can only be done in the context of a set of questions and analyses directed to answering 

those questions. 

In this context, there seems to be a widespread desire to assess "overall site condition." As 

an unexamined concept this may seem unproblematic. However, we suggest that without a 

careful definition it is essentially meaningless. Site condition is probably a multidimensional 

concept that needs to be unpacked into multiple variables that have to do, for example, with 

interpretive value, research value, stability, and lack of disturbance over the last century. There 

needs to be a precise specification of the dimensions that are to be measured. To the extent that 

an aggregate measure is needed, agreement must be reached on how these dimensions should be 

weighted to yield a generally acceptable result. This also needs to be done with "site integrity," 

which is also a multidimensional concept for which different stake holders may reserve different 

meanings. Examples of relevant dimensions might be the utility of the site for excavation or 

interpretation. These dimensions could be measured as presence-absence, or perhaps better by 

an ordinal ranking (perhaps on a 1 to 5 scale, from none to very high). 

As new recording protocols are agreed upon and field forms designed, they need to be 

developed in collaboration with individuals experienced in analyzing these sorts of data. Careful 

attention needs to be paid to distinguishing the absence of an effect from missing data, to clearly 

establishing hierarchical relationships among variable values (for site type, does "burial" take 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 13 

precedence over "habitation" or the other way around; or better yet, designing coding schemes 

where these hierarchies are unnecessary—such as coding counts of many different feature types 

instead of embedding this information in a list of site types), and eliminating ambiguous 

situations. Forms need to be carefully field tested with sample results analyzed quantitatively 

before they are implemented. 

Once a new recording program is implemented, consistency is of the essence and a 

comprehensive quality assurance plan must be implemented. Site forms can be designed to 

reduce errors or electronic “smart forms” used that can identify inconsistencies at data entry 

time. Field forms should be checked by an experienced supervisor. Analyses of the recorded 

data should be conducted to locate individual recorders whose recording differs systematically 

from that of others. Those individuals are not necessarily wrong, but the systematic deviations 

suggest the need for investigation. 

As indicated, on-site LiDAR data can provide very precise quantitative data on volumes at 

scales (e.g., focused on a single feature or arroyo) congruent with the data needs of some of the 

most pressing questions faced in the Canyon. However, even this method should be tested at a 

limited sample of sites over time before being extensively deployed. 

5. Issues related to changes made to the monitoring database structure through time 

Initially (1992-1993), the monitoring program employed a semi-quantitative approach that 

involved ranking different kinds/levels of impacts at each site, then summing the rankings to 

arrive at a “condition index rating” for that site. After 1994, this approach was abandoned in 

favor of a more streamlined one that noted the presence or absence of different types of erosion 

features and visitor impacts relative to various physical characteristics of the sites. The final 

condition assessment was arrived at independently from the presence/absence impact 

observations (in other words, final condition evaluations were not dependent on the monitoring 

data directly.) In 1997, the monitoring form was modified again to distinguish between active 

impacts and previously documented impacts that were no longer occurring but whose effects 

were still visible. Also, aeolian erosion/deposition was added as a variable, and several other 

modifications were implemented. Given these changes, can the legacy data be processed or 

filtered in some manner so as to allow data collected prior to 1997 to be compared with those 

collected later? 

Generally speaking, the panel believes that as long as the records with different recording 

protocols are sensibly integrated then analytical problems can be overcome, assuming of course 

that the necessary data were recorded through the period of interest. For example, on question 

15 in the Natural Impacts sections of the monitoring forms, for 1994-97 a code of 2 means "NA" 

but in 1998-99 a code of 2 means "side canyon based" and 3 means "NA". Obviously the 2's 

from earlier periods need to be translated to 3's in a combined dataset. 

One first needs to identify a specific question, its test implications, and the minimal data 

needed. Then one must identify the years for which the underlying minimal data are available. 

Then all data for those years needs to be reduced to a sort of least common denominator on a 

variable-by-variable basis. This is fairly straightforward conceptually but can be time 

consuming and fairly tricky to execute in practice (and easily leads to errors that are hard to 

ferret out.) Because of some ambiguity in the forms, in practice, analyzing across years in which 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 14 

relevant data are differently recorded will be best accomplished with participation of individuals 

who have detailed knowledge of what recorders were actually doing in the field. 

For future recording protocols, changes and the reasons for them need to be explicitly 

recorded in metadata. 

In order that it remain possible to connect the many years of data recorded in the past with 

data collected under new data collection protocols, the participating agencies should insure that 

there is an explicit and thoroughly documented connection between the earlier and new 

recording protocols. Ideally one would collect both sets of data in parallel for a time. 

6. Issues related to frequency of observations 

Between 1992 and 2005, archaeological sites were monitored at different frequencies depending 

on the archaeologists’ perceptions of levels, types and numbers of threats and impacts. Sites 

with few or low levels of impacts might be monitored once every five years, others with moderate 

impacts once every 2-3 years, while sites that received a lot of impacts might be monitored every 

year or sometimes, twice per year. Also, if impacts appeared to be increasing, frequency of 

monitoring would be increased, while if impacts appeared to be stable or decreasing after 

several visits, the monitoring frequency might be reduced. Thus, sites exhibiting higher levels of 

impacts generally have many more monitoring records than sites with lower levels of impacts. 

Can the monitoring data be “processed” in some fashion so that the data are not skewed 

towards higher numbers/levels of impacts, and if so, what would be the best approach for doing 

this? 

When doing analyses across time, problems associated with different frequencies of site 

observations in the legacy data can generally be adequately dealt with. In the current monitoring 

database, the observation (line in the database) corresponds to a monitoring event. To do 

comparisons across time one must eliminate sites with only one monitoring episode unless one is 

willing to assume that the fact that a site is visited only once means it is stable over time. (This 

assumption could readily be checked by revisiting the sites in question.) Then the data for all 

monitoring events at a given site need to be aggregated so that the observation becomes the site

with variables representing the number of monitoring episodes, the length of time over which 

observations were made and the changes observed over that interval. 

When the monitoring program began in 1992, approximately 269 sites were included in the 

monitoring program. Over the years, approximately 100 sites were dropped from the program 

for a variety of reasons. Many sites were dropped because they showed little if any change from 

one monitoring visit to the next; others were dropped because NPS managers decided that they 

were too sensitive to be monitored or because the managers decided that the sites probably were 

not within the area of potential dam effects after all. By 2005, the pool of monitored sites had 

shrunk to approximately 161, representing mostly sites that showed active erosion or ongoing 

impacts from visitor use. What are the implications of this history on the utility of the legacy 

monitoring data for detecting trends through time, assessing the overall condition of sites in the 

CRE [Colorado River Ecosystem] system, tracking improvement or deterioration in site 

condition over time, etc.? 

Dropping sites from the monitoring regime presents no major analytical problems. 

Depending on the question, one can either retroactively eliminate observations for sites that were 

later dropped from the protocol. Alternately, one can separately analyze both the later dropped 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 15 

sites and the continuously monitored sites over the period during which both were recorded and 

evaluate any biases between the two sets. Or, if it can be verified that dropped sites have had 

little or no change in condition, they could be included in the analysis. (Also please note the 

comments above on “overall site condition”.) 

We would question the wisdom of completely dropping sites because they appear to be 

reasonably stable. Apparent stability might well be a reason to monitor these sites less 

frequently (which would also pose no substantial analytical problems) or perhaps less intensively 

by brief visits. However, retaining them in the database might well allow stronger analyses 

because they would represent stable conditions. 

The panel cannot overemphasize the importance of consistently applied definitions of 

responses across time. For time series of responses to have any practical utility, the responses 

must have the same definition, regardless of by whom or when the evaluation was made. Two 

things are essential to accomplish this: clear definitions, and consistent training in the 

applications of those definitions. For some responses, especially ordinal ones, pictures to 

illustrate the various scores provide solid adjunct to careful verbal descriptions. Pictures or even 

video clips also can be used for some of the more complex measures. With the current state of 

portable computers, such images can be taken to the field in a computer; much of the recording 

of data could be done on the same computer. 

7. Data Redundancy 

A preliminary analysis of the legacy [site-monitoring] data performed showed clustering 

between certain types of impacts, and this led to the conclusion that some of the data fields are 

redundant. For example, sites with arroyos showed a tendency to also exhibit bank slumpage. 

Likewise, the variables “surface erosion” and “aeolian/alluvial erosion/deposition” showed 

considerable overlap, so the author recommended that these fields be combined. On the other 

hand, other variables such arroyos and gullies did not exhibit as much redundancy as might 

have been expected. What other analyses could or should be performed to detect and evaluate 

redundancy in the data? What are the implications of combining and/or reducing the numbers 

of variables in terms of being able to detect trends in the data through time? 

Variables are unlikely to be redundant in an absolute sense. For any specific question, there 

may be some redundancy. However to be confident of this redundancy—even for a specific 

question—would require considerable analysis, not just a single analysis indicating a correlation 

or clustering. The benefits of such an analytical exercise for the legacy site-monitoring data 

probably would not justify the effort. 

However, where there are logical connections among variables, they may be productively 

lumped, not permanently, but for analytical purposes. For example, in an erosion analysis, 

gullies and arroyos might be reasonably lumped in contrast to their absence. (However in 

practice some kinds of lumping may be complicated by the presence/absence recording scheme 

in the legacy site-monitoring data.) Alternately, as described elsewhere in this document, it may 

be desirable to process sets of recorded variables to achieve proxy variables that may more 

closely match the target concepts 

For future recording protocols, considerable effort should be invested in concept formulation, 

variable definitions, form design, and testing (see query 4, above). 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 16 

 For the legacy data, during a presentation to the review panel, a program leader noted that 

the records produced by one or a few specific recorders are generally regarded as unreliable or 

suspect. These records should simply be removed from further analysis. Similarly, where long 

sequence of monitoring episodes exist, it is probably wise to eliminate obviously anomalous 

observations (e.g., a feature going from intact to destroyed to intact) as one often removes 

extreme values in any analysis. 

8. Trend Detection 

Are the data suitable for detecting trends in resource condition through time? If yes, in what 

respects can trends be detected? How can the data be used to detect trends in overall site 

condition through time? 

Conceptually the issue of temporal trends is closely related to several points made in 

response to queries already discussed. In particular, the lack of quantitative variables and 

problems with the concept of overall site condition are discussed above. Nonetheless, when 

there have been multiple monitoring visits to a site, the four derived indices could be calculated 

for each visit, and then the results compared to determine whether trends are evident. 

In addition to temporal trends, it is also possible to consider synchronic spatial trends. For 

example there might be synchronic upstream/downstream differences in variables associated 

with erosion that could be evaluated in the context of an appropriate question. Similarly one 

could look at atemporal spatial trends in visitor disturbance (with new or legacy data) based on 

knowledge of common campsites and visitor stops and their distance from sites, stratified by 

visibility and interest (e.g. rock art or structures). 

It would be possible to use legacy data to look for patterns in visitor impacts using methods 

similar to those suggested for analyses of legacy data for dam effects described in the section, 

Using Available Legacy Data. It seems likely that information is available on the location of 

regularly-used campsites and of archaeological sites that are regular stops for visitors. For each 

site, distances from the site to the nearest camp or regular archaeological attraction could be 

calculated. The expectation would be for a negative correlation between distance to nearest 

campsite/archaeological attraction and the two visitation indexes. There may be other ways to 

estimate expected visitor impacts, i.e., using average distance to the nearest two or three 

campsites/attractions to predict visitor impact on nearby sites. 

It is possible that visitation effects (as measured by the two visitation indexes) are also 

related, or even more strongly related, to on-site characteristics of archaeological sites, rather 

than to distances to points of visitor concentration. For example, visitor impacts might be 

greatest at sites having visible architectural features, or rock art, or some combination of these 

features. The basic inventory forms could be examined to develop some kind of score of on-site 

attractions (e.g., number of visible architectural features plus number of rock art panels, or 

something like that). These raw scores might be used to assign sites to several "attractiveness 

classes". The prediction would be that the higher the attractiveness score or class, the higher the 

indexes of visitation impacts. 

It might even be possible to examine the question of whether erosion at archaeological sites 

is more closely associated with visitation than with geomorphic setting. Results of the several 

studies on legacy data envisioned in our discussion of query 2 and immediately above might be 

compared to address this question. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 17 

There are several questions on the monitoring forms that provide some additional data on 

whether erosion or visitation impacts are increasing or not (e.g., questions 16 and 24). These 

responses could probably be used in some way to check or compare with the results of the 

studies sketched above. The comment fields and other notes associated with the monitoring 

forms may also be a source of evidence about changes in erosion or visitation impacts at sites 

that have had multiple monitoring visits. This information might enable a classification of sites 

into "stable" or "increasing impact" categories for the revisited sites. This classification might be 

useful in conjunction with other studies as sketched above. In at least some cases it appears that 

sites that were not revisited were judged stable with respect to impacts. If much weight is to be 

given to the several possible trend studies, a sample of the "one-visit" sites should be revisited to 

determine whether or not they have been stable with respect to erosional and/or visitation 

impacts. 

The suggested analyses of the legacy data all have potential pitfalls. However, agreement of 

the results of more than one such analysis would provide considerably more confidence in the 

results than any single analysis standing alone. In particular, use of data from preservation 

treatment records, etc., in addition to data from the site-monitoring forms, may provide 

opportunities for stronger inferences. 

In considering trends, we need to attend closely to the scales implied by our questions. For 

example, in considering dam effects, the target may be a specific type of archaeological feature 

or geological location, not an entire site. 

9. Controls 

Were the monitoring data gathered in a manner that allows them to be evaluated relative to 

controlled variables? Are the data suitable for assessing the effectiveness of treatments in the 

future? What would be the best way to control for variability in the data due to natural 

environmental variation or other factors that may influence condition changes other than dam 

effects? 

Research designs with carefully selected controls can produce particularly persuasive results. 

Depending on the questions, controls may not need to be in locations with sites, or could be at 

sites out of the area of potential effect. For example, a geomorphic model such as Hereford's 

model does not need to be tested on a site and indeed may be best not tested on a site. 

Treatments such as check dams could be employed and tested on non-sites as well as sites. 

10. Applicability of the legacy data for developing new monitoring protocols to address 

previous concerns and the current “core monitoring information need” for 

archaeological sites? 

The cultural Protocol Evaluation Panel conducted in March 2000 made numerous 

recommendations about how to revise the monitoring program to focus more specifically on 

evaluating effects of dam operations on cultural resources and evaluate the efficacy of erosion 

control treatments. 

In October 2005, the cultural resources ad hoc group (CRAHG) of the GCD AMP Technical 

Work Group (TWG) reviewed the core monitoring information needs identified in the GCD AMP 

strategic plan and determined that most of the previously identified information needs were not 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 18 

truly “core monitoring information needs” after all. The CRAHG subsequently revised the core 

monitoring information need for archaeological resources to read as follows: 

11.1.1 Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the 

Colorado River ecosystem through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other 

relevant variables. 2) 11.2.1 Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs [Traditional 

Cultural Properties] in the Colorado River ecosystem. 

In what respects could the legacy monitoring data be processed, extracted, analyzed or 

synthesized to address the above information needs and/or help inform the future monitoring 

program currently being developed to address previous concerns of the Cultural PEP and this 

revised core monitoring information need for archeological sites (and TCPs) in the Colorado 

River Ecosystem? 

The legacy data are probably sufficient to show the presence of erosion but not to assign a 

process or cause. However, even a convincing demonstration of its existence would take some 

careful analysis with proxy variables, as such those suggested above. The legacy data may show 

change but because of the scale and presence/absence nature of the observations, they can't 

effectively track rates of erosion or visitor impacts. For this we need quantitative data. 

As indicated above, more attention needs to be devoted to taking apart concepts such as 

"overall site condition." Nonetheless, legacy data have some ability to inform on the condition 

and integrity of sites (CRAHG 11.1.1)—but not TCPs that have not been monitored in the same 

way (CRAHG 11.1.2). 

11. Summary 

In summary, how would you recommend utilizing the legacy data in the development and 

implementation of a monitoring program to track the status and trends of archaeological site 

condition in the CRE, evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, and elucidate the relationship 

between dam operations and changes in site condition through time? 

The panel believes that a number of the key points relative to designing a monitoring 

program have been described in the foregoing discussions. 

Although it is our assessment that these legacy data are inadequate to the task of providing 

adequate answers to the many questions posed to us, analyses of these data may nonetheless be 

useful in beginning to address some of them. We have offered a number of suggestions for how 

indicators derived from the available data may be relevant to some of the GCMRC queries. 

However, the costs of performing those analyses, which have limited expected benefit, should be 

traded off with the costs of applying new approaches that can be closely focused on 

contemporary information needs. 

In summary, we reiterate the need for a strong focus on clearly articulated objectives, 

questions, and concepts and the need for a design and execution of quantitative data collection 

and analytical strategies that can measure key variables as directly as possible. Any new 

program should rely importantly on verified geomorphological models and models of visitor 

impact. With measures of sensitivity to these two types of disturbance, an effective and well 

justified adaptive management plan that includes highly variable monitoring intervals for sites in 

different sensitivity classes could be developed, tested, and implemented leading to reduced costs 

and reduced impacts. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 19 

Other Recommendations 

Since the Grand Canyon records 10,000 years of human activity and a equally long history of 

erosion, there are good reasons to believe that there may be additional sorts of buried sites that 

would not have been discovered by surface investigation and examination of arroyo banks. The 

panel also recommends that more effort be invested in systematically searching for previously 

undiscovered (especially buried) sites. This is another activity that would be greatly enhanced 

with the development of successful geomorphic models for the Canyon. Given predictions based 

on the model, appropriate locations to be examined and methods, such as coring, could be 

selected. 

Some of the panel’s suggestions for uses of the legacy data and historic photographs might 

be done economically as masters projects at universities with suitable archaeology graduate 

programs. Suggestions for such projects are provided in Appendix 4. 

Concluding Summary 

Legacy Monitoring Data. Like any other data, the legacy site-monitoring data do not have 

inherent value; their utility is relative to their ability to inform on specific questions. The existing 

monitoring data augmented by records of preservation treatments, and perhaps in some cases by 

photographs or other types of records, are suited to qualitative, site-by site assessments of 

physical conditions that guide decisions on needed treatments. 

However, variables in the legacy dataset were not represented in a way that allows them to 

answer many key questions posed to the panel. In particular, the design of the monitoring forms 

precludes extracting the robust quantitative data essential to answer these questions. While 

analyses of existing data may be useful in starting to address some questions, the costs of 

performing those analyses (of limited expected benefit) should be traded off with the costs of 

applying new approaches that can be closely focused on contemporary information needs. 

There was little evident effort to systematically analyze the several types of data collected at 

great effort and enormous expense through the 1990s and more recently. Had these data been 

more intensively analyzed, many of the weaknesses of the present system would long ago have 

been revealed. With this in mind, we provide recommendations for the revision of the 

monitoring program. 

Recommendations for a New Monitoring Program. The first and perhaps most important, 

step in reformulating the monitoring program is to explicitly identify and prioritize the program 

objectives, trading off their management importance with the cost of obtaining and analyzing the 

necessary data. Concepts employed in articulating the program objectives must be explicitly 

defined. This is especially critical for concepts that are inherently multidimensional and subject 

to alternative interpretations (notably, site condition and site integrity). 

Objectives of the monitoring program will certainly include both identification of pressing 

needs to treat individual sites due to adverse impacts and development of rigorous 

understandings of the human and geological processes that are involved in site disturbance. 

Questions associated with assessing causes (e.g., distinguishing dam effects from those that 

could have been caused by natural variation in river flow) will require the collection and analysis 

of different kinds of data in the context of explicit models of visitor impact and geomorphic 

processes. Expert geomorphologists will be needed to provide well specified geomorphic 

models with clearly defined test implications. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 20 

With a clear specification of the goals, it will be possible to select observational variables 

that provide indicators directly tied to the objectives through explicit analytical strategies. 

Particular attention must be given to the observational scale. In many cases, a greater focus on 

features, rather than sites, may be advantageous. 

The recording forms and the manner in which the selected variables are recorded must 

directly reflect analytical needs entailed by the goals and will need to be designed in 

collaboration with personnel quite experienced in quantitative analysis. Forms need to be 

carefully field tested with sample results analyzed quantitatively before they are implemented. 

LiDAR appears to provide a low impact, cost-effective method to collect a good deal of decisive 

data. 

 Once a new recording program is implemented, consistency is of the essence and a 

comprehensive quality assurance plan must be implemented. With cyclic data collection and 

analysis it will be possible to recognize and correct inefficiencies or problems in the data 

collection program and to adapt the program to new management needs. Changes to the 

recording protocols, and the reasons for them, need to be explicitly recorded in metadata. 

The objectives will also dictate monitoring intervals needed for sites in different sensitivity 

classes, the purposes for which sampling is appropriate and inappropriate, and what sorts of 

sampling strategies would be most effectively employed. Research employing carefully selected 

controls can produce particularly persuasive results. And, depending on the questions, controls 

may not need to be in locations with sites. 

An effective and well justified adaptive management plan can be developed and 

implemented, leading not only to lower costs but also to reduced impacts. To achieve this 

objective, the agencies must have as strong a commitment to systematically analyzing the data as 

they do to collecting them. Management must, on a regular basis, commit substantial financial 

and personnel resources to these analyses, including the necessary time of qualified analysts (inor outside the agencies). 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 21 

References Cited 

Fairley, Helen C., Peter W. Bungart, Christopher M. Coder, Jim Huffman, Terry L. Samples, and 

Janet R. Balsom 

1994 The Grand Canyon River Corridor Survey Project: Archaeological Survey along the 

Colorado river between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Canyon. Prepared in 

cooperation with Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Program, Grand Canyon National 

Park. USDI National Prak Service Agreement No. 9AA-40-07920. 

Geib, Phil R. 

1996 Glen Canyon Revisited. Anthropological Papers 119. University of Utah Press, Salt 

Lake. 

Jennings, Jesse D. 

1966 Glen Canyon: A Summary. Anthropological Papers 81. Glen Canyon Series 31. 

University of Utah Press, Salt Lake. 

Leap, Lisa M., Jennifer L. Kunde, Duane C. Hubbard, Nancy Andrews, Christian E. downum, 

Andrea Miller, and Janet R. Balsom 

2000 Grand Canyon Monitoring Project 1992-1999: Synthesis and Annual Monitoring 

Report FY99. Grand Canyon National Park River Corridor Monitoring Project Report 

No. 66. Sbmitted to USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake. 

Neal, Lynn A. and Dennis Gilpin (eds.) 

2000 Cultural Resources Data Synthesis Within the Colorado River Corridor, Grand Canyon 

National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arizona. SWCA 

Environmental Consultants. SWCA Cultural Resources Report 98-85. 

US Department of Interior 

1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Upper Colorado River Regional Office, Salt Lake. 

Urquhart, N.S., S.G. Paulsen and D.P. Larsen 

 1998 Monitoring for policy-relevant regional trends over time. Ecological Applications 8: 

246 - 257. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 22 

List of Appendices 

1. Guidelines for Monitoring Panel Review 

2. NPS Legacy Data Questions 

3. Computational Appendix: Elevation Interpolation, by N. Scott Urquhart 

4. Possible Masters Thesis or Student Research Projects 

5. Biographical Sketches 

a. Keith W. Kintigh 

b. Jeffrey H. Altschul 

c. William D. Lipe 

d. N. Scott Urquhart 

6. River Corridor Archaeological Site Monitoring Forms 

a. FY92 Archaeological Site River Monitoring Form 

b. FY93 Archaeological Site River Monitoring Form 

c. FY94 and FY95 Grand Canyon National Park River Corridor Archaeological Site 

Monitoring Form 

d. FY97 Grand Canyon National Park River Corridor Archaeological Site 

Monitoring Form 

e. FY98 Grand Canyon National Park River Corridor Archaeological Site 

Monitoring Form 

f. FY99 Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

River Corridor Archaeological Site Monitoring Form 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 23 

Appendix 1 

GUIDANCE FOR MONITORING PANEL REVIEW 

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the legacy monitoring data from a variety of 

perspectives, including: 1) the relevance and responsiveness on the legacy data to the identified 

needs of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act (specifically the issues identified in the Cultural PEP [Protocols Evaluation 

Program] review, previously sent to you); and 2) applicability of the legacy data to the 

development of a new monitoring direction that GCMRC is in the process of designing. The 

second objective is ultimately most important due to the extensive investment that has already 

been made in gathering these data over the past 10+ years and the interest of GCMRC and the 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management in utilizing these previously collected data to the 

maximum extent possible in developing the new program direction consistent with the 

recommendations of the 2000 Cultural Protocol Evaluation Panel review. 

With the regards to the second objective, reviewers are asked to considered the data from at least 

two different angles: 1) utility of the existing data in terms of the fields that may be important to 

continue in order to identify trends in resource condition through time; 2) appropriate analyses 

that could be undertaken with the legacy data to inform development of the new monitoring 

program and protocols. 

To assist reviewers in addressing these issues, a series of questions are provided below, grouped 

under two general categories: 1) Adaptive Management al Objectives and Compliance and 2) 

Experimental/Monitoring Design and Data Integrity Issues. 

I. Adaptive Management Objectives and Compliance 

1. Adaptive Management Objectives

Adaptive management is defined as a systematic process for continually improving management 

policies, techniques and practices by learning from outcomes of operational programs or 

interventions (Sitt and Taylor 1998: 2, 50.) Ideally, adaptive management begins with the 

definition of management problems being faced, then it proceeds to the creation of a 

management plan that is implemented, monitored, and evaluated. Was the original monitoring 

program clearly defined in relation to problems or objectives and were the data subsequently 

collected and analyzed in a manner that would allow managers to determine whether 

management actions were leading to desired outcomes? If yes, please describe how. If not, how 

could future monitoring programs be designed to more effectively address adaptive management 

needs and the concerns raised in previous reviews of the program? 

2. Applicability of the data to address the question of dam effects

The GCD AMP is concerned with assessing effects of dam operations on resources in the 

Colorado River ecosystem. Specifically, the AMP is concerned with whether the dam is being 

operated “in such a manner as to protect mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for 

which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were created, 

including but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use.” Are the legacy 

monitoring data suitable for detecting dam effects on archaeological sites? If yes, in what 

respects? If no, why not? 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 24 

3. Applicability of data to other relevant legal mandates

In addition to requiring that effects of dam operations on cultural resources be evaluated, the 

Grand Canyon Protection Act directs the Secretary of Interior to operate the dam in a manner 

that is consistent with the National Park Service Organic Act and other relevant laws that apply 

to National Parks. Can the legacy data be used to assess whether the broader intent of GCPA is 

being attained? If yes, in what respects? If no, why not? 

Are the legacy monitoring data suitable for addressing other legally mandated compliance 

concerns, such those of the National Historic Preservation Act? In what respects are the data 

suitable for addressing other compliance requirements under NHPA (for example, are they well 

suited for identifying and prioritizing sites that may require data recovery or erosion control 

measures in the near or distant future? To what degree are they suitable for assessing whether 

erosion control treatments are having their intended effects or not?) 

Experimental Design, Monitoring Design and Data Integrity Issues 

4. Issues related to variables selected

Are the parameters and types of variables (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, presence-absence, 

ordinal, interval etc.) suitable for addressing the questions being asked and the overall needs of 

the adaptive management program? Which of the legacy data appear to be most useful for 

monitoring status and trends in resource condition through time? 

5. Issues related to changes made to the monitoring database structure through time

Initially (1992-1993), the monitoring program employed a semi-quantitative approach that 

involved ranking different kinds/levels of impacts at each site, then summing the rankings to 

arrive at a “condition index rating” for that site. After 1994, this approach was abandoned in 

favor of a more streamlined one that noted the presence or absence of different types of erosion 

features and visitor impacts relative to various physical characteristics of the sites. The final 

condition assessment was arrived at independently from the presence/absence impact 

observations (in other words, final condition evaluations were not dependent on the monitoring 

data directly.) In 1997, the monitoring form was modified again to distinguish between active 

impacts and previously documented impacts that were no longer occurring but whose effects 

were still visible. Also, aeolian erosion/deposition was added as a variable, and several other 

modifications were implemented. Given these changes, can the legacy data be processed or 

filtered in some manner so as to allow data collected prior to 1997 to be compared with those 

collected later? 

6. Issues related to frequency of observations

Between 1992 and 2005, archaeological sites were monitored at different frequencies depending 

on the archaeologists’ perceptions of levels, types and numbers of threats and impacts. Sites 

with few or low levels of impacts might be monitored once every five years, others with 

moderate impacts once every 2-3 years, while sites that received a lot of impacts might be 

monitored every year or sometimes, twice per year. Also, if impacts appeared to be increasing, 

frequency of monitoring would be increased, while if impacts appeared to be stable or decreasing 

after several visits, the monitoring frequency might be reduced. Thus, sites exhibiting higher 

levels of impacts generally have many more monitoring records than sites with lower levels of 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 25 

impacts. Can the monitoring data be “processed” in some fashion so that the data are not skewed 

towards higher numbers/levels of impacts, and if so, what would be the best approach for doing 

this? 

When the monitoring program began in 1992, approximately 269 sites were included in the 

monitoring program. Over the years, approximately 100 sites were dropped from the program 

for a variety of reasons. Many sites were dropped because they showed little if any change from 

one monitoring visit to the next; others were dropped because NPS managers decided that they 

were too sensitive to be monitored or because the managers decided that the sites probably were 

not within the area of potential dam effects after all. By 2005, the pool of monitored sites had 

shrunk to approximately 161, representing mostly sites that showed active erosion or ongoing 

impacts from visitor use. What are the implications of this history on the utility of the legacy 

monitoring data for detecting trends through time, assessing the overall condition of sites in the 

CRE system, tracking improvement or deterioration in site condition over time, etc.? 

7. Data Redundancy

A preliminary analysis of the legacy data performed showed clustering between certain types of 

impacts, and this led to the conclusion that some of the data fields are redundant. For example, 

sites with arroyos showed a tendency to also exhibit bank slumpage. Likewise, the variables 

“surface erosion” and “aeolian/alluvial erosion/deposition” showed considerable overlap, so the 

author recommended that these fields be combined. On the other hand, other variables such 

arroyos and gullies did not exhibit as much redundancy as might have been expected. What 

other analyses could or should be performed to detect and evaluate redundancy in the data? 

What are the implications of combining and/or reducing the numbers of variables in terms of 

being able to detect trends in the data through time? 

8. Trend Detection

Are the data suitable for detecting trends in resource condition through time? If yes, in what 

respects can trends be detected? How can the data be used to detect trends in overall site

condition through time? 

9. Controls

Were the monitoring data gathered in a manner that allows them to be evaluated relative to 

controlled variables? Are the data suitable for assessing the effectiveness of treatments in the 

future? What would be the best way to control for variability in the data due to natural 

environmental variation or other factors that may influence condition changes other than dam 

effects? 

10. Applicability of the legacy data for developing new monitoring protocols to address 

previous concerns and the current “core monitoring information need” for archaeological sites? 

The cultural Protocol Evaluation Panel conducted in March 2000 made numerous 

recommendations about how to revise the monitoring program to focus more specifically on 

evaluating effects of dam operations on cultural resources and evaluate the efficacy of erosion 

control treatments. 

In October 2005, the cultural resources ad hoc group (CRAHG) of the GCD AMP Technical 

Work Group (TWG) reviewed the core monitoring information needs identified in the GCD 

AMP strategic plan and determined that most of the previously identified information needs were 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 26 

not truly “core monitoring information needs” after all. The CRAHG subsequently revised the 

core monitoring information need for archaeological resources to read as follows: 

11.1.1 Determine the condition and integrity of prehistoric and historic sites in the 

Colorado River ecosystem through tracking rates of erosion, visitor impacts, and other 

relevant variables. 2) 11.2.1 Determine the condition and integrity of TCPs in the 

Colorado River ecosystem. 

In what respects could the legacy monitoring data be processed, extracted, analyzed or 

synthesized to address the above information needs and/or help inform the future monitoring 

program currently being developed to address previous concerns of the Cultural PEP and this 

revised core monitoring information need for archeological sites (and TCPs) in the Colorado 

River Ecosystem? 

11. Summary

In summary, how would you recommend utilizing the legacy data in the development and 

implementation of a monitoring program to track the status and trends of archaeological site 

condition in the CRE, evaluate the effectiveness of treatments, and elucidate the relationship 

between dam operations and changes in site condition through time? 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 27 

Appendix 2 

NPS LEGACY DATA QUESTIONS 

cont. from INs and MOs sent 4-19-06. Keep in mind that we can use the monitoring data, 

IMACS [Intermountain Antiquities Computer System] site form data and the ASMIS 

[Archeological Sites Management Information System] condition data potentially. 

Here are just a few: 

1. Are there trends through time in the monitoring data? 

2. By combining arroyo cutting and gullying, do specific features have more of these impacts 

than other features? 

3. Are there trends in impact evident after 1997 when form/field methods were revised? 

4. Are 1992 and 1993 data even worth maintaining? 

5. Does bank slump only occur where gullies or arroyos exist? 

6. Do the comment fields accurately reflect impacts noted in the matrices? 

7. Does the most recent monitoring schedule reflect the presence of active physical impacts? 

(are annual sites more active than 5 year schedule sites?) 

8. Do physical impacts increase in intensity/presence through time or is there a shift evident 

between surface erosion to gullying to arroyo cutting? 

9. What type of geomorphic setting (including vegetation) is common for river-based 

drainages? Terrace-based drainages? 

10. Are terrace-based drainages more effectively preserved than river-based drainages? 

11. What types of features receive the most physical impact? 

12. Is there a correlation between overall gradient of the site and the types of physical impacts 

observed? 

13. Are physical impacts more visible at sites closer to the dam or farther away? 

14. What are the agents that are most commonly found when a site is considered stable? 

Active? 

15. Can an impacts threshold be created using the data collected? 

16. Take a sample of all the repeat photos (as identified in the database) and measure change 

through time (Manone 2003 report). 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 28 

Appendix 3 

COMPUTATIONAL APPENDIX: ELEVATION INTERPOLATION 

N. Scott Urquhart 

The elevation data consisted of two files, one representing elevations determined by LiDAR 

in May of 2006, and a second representing elevations similarly determined in September, 2007. 

Each file consisted of two parts, vertex elevations and facet specifications. The vertex part of the 

files (344,877 points for 2006, and 342,014 points for 2007) listed east/west (x) and north/south 

(y) coordinates, and an elevation (z), each expressed in meters. The remainder of the files listed 

sets of three point identifiers from the earlier part of the file (686,524 sets for 2006, and 680,833 

sets for 2007) which defined facets. A facet is a triangle defined by three (x, y, z) sets of 

coordinates. The facets have been determined so that there are no other points interior to the 

triangle defined by the three sets of (x, y) coordinates listed in each set. The coordinates and 

elevations were recorded using the NAD83 Ellipsoid heights for the vertical, and NAD83 AZ 

State Plane in meters for the horizontal. 

Differences in elevation between these two dates are not readily available for specific points 

directly from this data, because the exact coordinate locations differ between the two dates. 

Differences were determined this way: For each point in the May, 2006, data, a line was run up 

or down to intersect the appropriate facet in the September, 2007, data. The elevation at which 

this line intersected the facet was taken as the elevation for 2007 to match the 2006 elevation. 

The difference in these two elevations was recorded as the data shown in Figure 1 in the body of 

the report. 

This sounds simple, but was substantially more complex than it sounds, especially given the 

size of the files, so the computational details are recorded here. The horizontal coordinates were 

all of the numerical form of (222,xxx.xxxxxx , 569,xxx.xxxxxx) , so the common digits 

(222,000, 569,000) were subtracted off to speed computation and increase the accuracy of the 

interpolation. The initial problem was to identify which facet in the 2007 data was above or 

below each 2006 elevation. The first step was to find the nearest (x,y) in the 2007 data for each 

point in the 2006 data. This was done in 

two steps for computational speed: All of 

the points in 2007 data whose coordinates 

differed by no more than 0.25 m from the 

coordinates of the 2006 point were 

identified, reducing the 342,014 points to 

somewhere around 100 points. Figure A1 

shows one such set of points, associated 

with the 200th point listed in the 2006 data 

set, having (x,y) = (425.154755, 

594.817464). This location is marked in 

the appendix figures with an “X”. Actual 

horizontal distances were then computed 

from the 2006 point of interest to each of 

this reduced set of 2007 (x,y) points. Figure 

2A displays a subset of the points in Figure 

1A. The leftmost point in Figure 2A, 

Figure 1A: Locations of points in the 2007 data set 

near point 200 (marked “X”) in the 2006 data set. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 29 

surrounded by a box, is the point closest in 

the 2007 data (#46,970) to the 2006 point 

marked with the “X”. The closest point 

has coordinates of (425.13459, 

594.828776). The table below lists all of 

the facets containing point number 

46,970.The three boxed points display the 

horizontal coordinates of the triangle in 

which “X” lies. All facets containing the 

“nearest” point were identified, as shown 

in the table below, and in Figure 3A. The 

color of the points in the table are 

approximately the same as those of the 

outside lines in Figure 3A. 

A line was determined through the point of 

interest and the nearest point; it ordinarily 

intersects two edges of the facets surrounding the 

nearest point, the outside red and black edges in 

Figure 3A; the point of interest is between the 

nearest point and one of the edge intersections, but 

not the other. This identifies the facet over the 

2006 point. A plane was fit through the three 

points determining the corners of the facet, and its 

value was evaluated at the (x,y) coordinates of the 

point of interest. This was taken as the 

2007 elevation of the point of interest. 

The differences between the 2006 and 

2007 elevations were taken as the data 

summarized in the report. According to 

Brian Collins of the USGS, who 

developed the data used here, the precision 

of the measurements is about ~1.5 cm x 2 

= 3.0 cm ("). Nearly 50% of the 

differences were in this range. As 

differences have been used, this error 

bound probably should be increased by the 

square root of 2, giving a bound of about 4 

cm, or 0.04 m; slightly more than 60% of 

the differences were in this range. 

Facet ID 2007 FACET POINTS 

92842 46322 46638 46970

93482 46638 46636 46970

93483 46322 46970 46971

94120 46970 46636 47609

94121 46971 46970 47280

95399 47921 46970 47609 

Figure 3A: Figure 2A showing the triangles with vertex 

at the point nearest to 2006's #200. Colors 

approximately match those in the adjacent table. 

Figure 2A: Center part of Figure 1A with the point 

nearest the “X” marked with the leftmost square, and 

with the other corners of the bounding triangle marked 

with squares. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 30 

Appendix 4 

Possible Masters Thesis or Student Research Projects 

Existing data, or existing data augmented by modest numbers of additional field observations 

might be effectively used in substantial graduate student projects or theses. Several possible 

topics are suggested in this appendix. At the outset, care should be taken to thoroughly think 

through the analytical steps needed to address a clearly articulated objective. The data 

requirements implied by the analytical strategy must be squared with the availability of relevant 

data or the reasonable opportunity to acquire them. Many of these projects would benefit from 

moving the focus away from archaeological sites as the central observational units. Working at 

the cultural feature level may prove productive because some of these sites appear to be spatially 

extensive with numerous features while others are small with only one or a few cultural 

features/artifact concentrations. 

Some of these projects would require substantial work organizing and recoding the 

monitoring forms and/or other sources of data. Much could be accomplished through analyses 

that relate the monitoring records to other sources of information including site inventory forms, 

photographs, and preservation treatment maps and notes. The latter promise to provide fairly 

detailed data on intra-site occurrence of features/artifact scatters, as well as on the occurrence of 

erosional and other types of impacts on specific features and site areas. Some of these suggested 

projects might be combined or others might need to be pared down to comprise a thesis-scale 

study. 

1. Evaluating Erosion and Visitor Impacts using Impact Indices. Simple exploratory data 

analysis methods could be used with the suggested indices computed from the monitoring 

forms (see Using Available Legacy Data) to search for patterns with respect to factors such 

as topographic position or distance from visitor stops. 

 

2. Evaluating Erosion and Visitor Impacts using Preservation Treatment Records. 

Preservation treatment maps and notes, inventory forms, and other sources of information 

could be similarly used to relate impacts of erosion and visitor use to selected variables. 

3. Evaluating Erosion and Visitor Impacts using Archival Photographs. Series of archival 

photographs that document the same erosional features on sites through time could be used 

attempt to identify trends over time and patterns across space and relate these observations 

to processes that have been argued to be implicated in the erosion. 

4. Assessing Effectiveness of On-site Preservation Treatments using Existing Data. Where 

preservation treatments have been in place for a period of years, photographs, monitoring 

data, and preservation treatment records might allow some through-time assessment of the 

effectiveness of the treatments in different sorts of situations (e.g., different topographic 

settings or placements with respect to visitor stops). 

5. Assessing Effectiveness of On-site Preservation Treatments Incorporating New Data. 

Revisit a sample of sites with preservation treatments (e.g., check dams) and assess their 

effectiveness, over time, with respect to the cultural features that were to be protected. 

How well the older ones are holding up? Does their effectiveness diminish over time. This 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 31 

would require careful development and preliminary testing of protocols used to describe 

and evaluate the effectiveness of younger versus older protective treatments. 

6. Effectiveness of Check Dams in Slowing Erosion. Select a sample of sites where check 

dams were installed and a comparable sample of sites without check dams and use the 

legacy data to assess the effectiveness of this technique. 

7. Settlement Pattern Study. Inventory form data, preservation treatment maps, and existing 

GIS systems could be used to do a settlement pattern study integrating both feature types 

and site types. It could examine variations in the distribution and density of site types, site 

sizes, feature types, etc. along the river corridor, as well as at the association of these 

cultural manifestations with environmental and possibly visitor-use variables. A more 

demanding approach would be to set this up as an exercise in predictive model 

construction, with part of the data set used to construct the model, and the remainder used 

to test it. Such a study would be informative about the archaeological history of the river 

corridor, and should also have applications for resource management and preservation. 

8. Predictive Models of Erosional Processes. Current arguments about the geological 

processes contributing to erosion and aggradation could be used with available geological 

and hydrological data to develop predictive models (based on alternative process 

arguments) of settings most and least vulnerable to recent and ongoing erosion. Existing 

archaeological inventory, monitoring, and preservation treatment data could then be used to 

see if sites in these locations show the expected degrees of erosion or stability. 

9. Aerial Photograph Analysis of Erosion Models. Similarly, temporal sequences of aerial 

photographs from the earliest available photos could be used to assess expectations derived 

from different models of erosional process in both on- and off-site locations. 

10. Pilot study of LiDAR Data. Existing LiDAR data from selected sites could be used to 

further evaluate this method of assessing erosional impacts on particular types of cultural 

features. This thesis could to develop guidelines and protocols for future use of this 

method. It would require a student with significant quantitative expertise. 

11. LiDAR Assessments of the Effectiveness of Preservation Treatments. If the needed LiDAR 

observations are available, quantitatively assess the effectiveness of check dams or other 

preservation treatments in mitigating erosional effects. 

12. Assessing Site Stability. Revisit sites previously judged to be stable (and not in need of 

monitoring) in order to assess the accuracy of the original judgments and comparisons with 

sites that have been eroding (as judged from preservation treatment records and site 

monitoring forms). An attempt could then be made to identify geomorphological or other 

variables associated with varying degrees of stability/erosion. A predictive model of sorts 

might be developed from this analysis—i.e., of kinds of sites and features, and kinds of 

site/feature settings more and less vulnerable to erosion. Such a study could have important 

implications for the design of future monitoring intervals and revisitation strategies. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 32 

Appendix 5 – Biographical Sketches 

Keith W. Kintigh 

Education & Professional Registration 

PhD Anthropology University of Michigan 1982 

MS Computer Science Stanford University 1974 

AB Sociology (with honors) Stanford University 1974 

RPA Registered Professional Archaeologist 1998 

Academic Appointments 

1995- Professor, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University 

1987-95 Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University 

1986-87 Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa 

Barbara. 

1985-86 Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa 

Barbara. 

1980-85 Associate Archaeologist, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona. 

Selected Publications 

Briggs, John M., Katherine A. Spielmann, Hoski Schaafsma, Keith W. Kintigh, Melissa Kruse 

Kari Morehouse1and Karen Schollmeyer 

2006 Why Ecology needs archaeologists and archaeology needs ecologists. Frontiers in 

Ecology 4(4): 180-188. 

Kintigh, Keith W. (Ed.) 

2006 The Promise and Challenge of Archaeological Data Integration. American Antiquity

71(3): 567-578. 

Hunt, Robert C., David Guillet, David R. Abbott, James Bayman, Paul Fish, Suzanne Fish, Keith 

Kintigh, and James A. Neely 

2005 Plausible Ethnographic analogies for the Social Organization of Hohokam Canal 

Irrigation, American Antiquity 70(3):433-456. 

Kintigh, Keith W., Donna M. Glowacki, and Deborah L. Huntley 

2004 Long-term Settlement History and the Emergence of Towns in the Zuni Area. 

American Antiquity 69(3): 432-456. 

Lovis, William A., Keith W. Kintigh, Vincas P. Steponaitis, and Lynne G. Goldstein 

2004 Archaeological Perspectives on the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act: Underlying Principles. Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources, edited 

by Jennifer R. Richman and Marion P. Forsyth, pp. 165-184. Altamira Press, Walnut 

Creek. 

Kintigh, Keith W. 

2003 Coming to Terms with the Chaco World. Kiva 69(2): 93-116. 

2001 L’organisation de l’archéologie aux États-Unis. Les Nouvelles de L’Archéologie 85 

(3e trimestre) 5-8. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 33 

Babbitt, Bruce, Frank McManamon, and Keith Kintigh 

2000 The Future of Public Archaeology: A Conversation with Interior Secretary Bruce 

Babbitt, his Chief Archeologist Frank McManamon, and Society for American 

Archaeology President Keith Kintigh. Common Ground Winter 1999: 17-23. 

Goldstein, Lynne, and Keith Kintigh 

2000 Ethics and the Reburial Controversy. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American 

Indian Remains, edited by Devon A. Mihesuah, pp. 180-189. University of Nebraska 

Press, Lincoln. (republication of a 1990 American Antiquity article.) 

Deboer, Warren R, Keith W. Kintigh, and Arthur Rostoker 

1996 Ceramic Seriation and Site Reoccupation in Lowland South America. Latin American 

Antiquity 7(3):263-278. 

Howell, Todd L. and Keith W. Kintigh 

1996 Archaeological Identification of Kin Groups Using Mortuary and Biological Data: An 

Example from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 61(3): 537-554. 

Kintigh, Keith W. 

1994 Chaco, Communal Architecture, and Cibolan Aggregation. In The Ancient 

Southwestern Community: Methods and Models for the Study of Prehistoric Social 

Organizations, edited by Wirt H. Wills and Robert Leonard, pp. 131-140. University of 

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Kintigh, Keith W. 

1990 Intrasite Spatial Analysis: A Commentary on Major Methods. In Mathematics and 

Information Science in Archaeology: A Flexible Framework, edited by Albertus Voorrips. 

Studies in Modern Archaeology 3: 165-200. HOLOS-Verlag, Bonn. 

1990 Protohistoric transitions in the Western Pueblo area. In Perspectives on Southwestern 

Prehistory edited by Paul E. Minnis and Charles L. Redman, pp. 258-275. Westview 

Press, Boulder. 

Goldstein, Lynne, and Keith Kintigh 

1990 Ethics and the Reburial Controversy. American Antiquity 55(3): 585-591. 

Kintigh, Keith W. 

1988 Monte Carlo evaluation of the effectiveness of subsurface testing for the identification 

of archaeological sites. American Antiquity. 53(4): 686-707. 

1985 Settlement, Subsistence, and Society in Late Zuni Prehistory. Anthropological Papers 

of the University of Arizona 44. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. (x & 132pp. 

1984 Measuring archaeological diversity by comparison with simulated assemblages. 

American Antiquity 49(1): 44-54. 

Parsons, Jeffrey R., Keith W. Kintigh, and Susan Gregg 

1983 Archaeological settlement pattern data from the Chalco, Xochimilco, Ixtapalapa, 

Texcoco and Zumpango Regions, Mexico. Technical Reports of the Museum of 

Anthropology, University of Michigan 14 (vii and 222 pages, 9 maps). 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 34 

Kintigh, Keith W., and Albert J. Ammerman 

1982 Heuristic approaches to spatial analysis in archaeology. American Antiquity 47(1): 31-

63. 

Selected Extramural Grants and Awards 

Kintigh, Keith W., K. Selçuk Candan, Hasan Davulcu, Margaret Nelson, Katherine Spielmann 

2006 Archaeological Data Integration for the Study of Long-term Human and Social 

Dynamics . National Science Foundation (IIS-0624341), $749,984, 11/01/06 – 10/31/09. 

Nelson, Margaret C., Marty Anderies, Michelle Hegmon, Keith W. Kintigh, Ben A. Nelson. 

2005 Long-Term Coupled Socioecological Change in the American Southwest and Northern 

Mexico. National Science Foundation (BE/CNH-0508001), $540,955 9/15/2005-

8/31/2008 

Kintigh, Keith W. 

2005 Outstanding Doctoral Mentor for 2004, Division of Graduate Studies, Arizona State 

University. 

Kintigh, Keith W., John M. Anderies, K. Selçuk Candan, Peter H. McCartney, Margaret C. 

Nelson 

2004 Enabling the Study of Long-Term Human and Social Dynamics: A 

Cyberinfrastructure for Archaeology. National Science Foundation. (SES-0433959) 

$100,000, 9/15/2004-8/31/2006. 

Kintigh, Keith W., and Elizabeth Brandt 

2004 Kewevkapaya Cultural Site Survey. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation/National Prk 

Service. $28,200, 12/12/04-9/30/06. 

Extramural Service 

National Endowment for the Humanities, Archaeology Panel, 2007 

Wenner Gren Foundation, Review Panel, 2006-2008 

National Science Foundation, Systematic Collections Review Panel, 1989-1991 

Society for American Archaeology 

 President 1999-2001 President-elect, 1998-99(national elected office) 

 Secretary, 1995-97; Secretary-Elect, 1994-95 (national elected office) 

 Executive Committee, 1985-1987 (national elected office) 

 Committee on Repatriation/Task Force on Reburial and Repatriation, chair/member 

(1989- ) 

Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Commission 4: Data 

Management and Mathematical Methods in Archaeology (elected member) Vice President 

1991-2001, Secretary, 1987-1991 

Native Peoples Magazine, Editorial Associate, 1988- 
CHAIRMAN

Jeffrey H. Altschul

Education

C Ph.D., Anthropology, Brandeis University, 1982

C B.A., Anthropology, Reed College, 1975

Qualifications

C Has worked on over 1,000 projects in the U.S. Northeast,

Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest; the Southern Plains;

California; the Great Basin; and central and northern

Mexico since 1969

Areas of Interest and Expertise

C Spatial analysis and quantitative methods; predictive

modeling; and cultural landscapes

Professional Experience

C 2005Bpresent, President, SRI Foundation

C 2005Bpresent, Chairman, Statistical Research, Inc.

C 1983B2004, President, Statistical Research, Inc.

C 1977B1983, Project Director and Principal Investigator,

New World Research, Inc.

C 1975B1977, Crew and Crew Chief, Brandeis and Tulane

Universities CRM program

Selected Projects as Senior Principal Investigator

C On-call CRM services, Barry M. Goldwater range, Luke

Air Force Base, Arizona, 1999-present.

C On-call CRM services, Bureau of Land Management,

New Mexico, 2005B2009 

C Adaptive Management and Planning Models for Cultural

Resources in Oil and Gas Fields, New Mexico,

Department of Energy, 2002B2005

C On-call military and civil projects, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Los Angeles District, 1987Bpresent

Professional Affiliations

C Register of Professional Archaeologists (10225)

(formerly Society of Professional Archaeologists)

(President 2006B2007, President-elect 2004B2005, Board

of Directors 1993B1995, 2001B2003)

C American Anthropological Association, Archaeology

Division (Board of Directors, 2001B2003)

C American Cultural Resources Association (Board of

Directors, 2000B2002)

C Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society (Board of

Directors, 1990B1995)

C Society for American Archaeology (Treasurer,

1998B1999; Treasurer-elect 1997; Nominating

Committee, 2000 (Chair), 2005; Consulting Archaeology

Committee 1999B2003)

C Governor’s Archaeology Advisory Commission

(2002-2007)

Selected Publications and Reports

C 2008 Fragile Patterns: The Archaeology of the

Western Papaguería (edited with A. Rankin). SRI

Press, Tucson.

C 2007 The Mescal Wash Site: A Persistent Place

in Southeastern Arizona (with Rein Vanderpot).

In Hinterlands and Regional Dynamics in the

Ancient Southwest, edited by A.P. Sullivan III

and J.M. Bayman. University of Arizona Press.

C 2005 Significance in American CRMC

Lost in the Past. In Heritage of Value,

Archaeology of Renown: Reshaping

Archaeological Assessment and Significance,

edited by C. Mathers, T. Darvill, and B. Little.

University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

C 2004 The Impact of Big Projects on Southwest

Archaeology. In From Campus to Corporation:

The History of CRM in the Southwest, edited by

H. Roberts, R.V.N. Ahlstrom, and B. Roth.

Society for American Archaeology, Washington,

D.C.

C 2000 Social Complexity and Residential Stability

during the Basketmaker III Period (with E.

Huber). In New Research on Basketmaker III,

edited by P. Reed. University of Utah Press.

Grants and Honors

C ESTCP Grant for Integrating Modeling in DoD

cultural resources program, Department of

Defense, 2007-2011

C Legacy Resource Management Program Grants

for Predictive Modeling, Department of Defense,

2002B2007

C Professional Poster of the Year, Society for

American Archaeology, 2001

C Award in Public Archaeology, Arizona

Archaeology Advisory Commission, 1998

C Matching Grants-in-aid, Teacher Workshops for

Project Archaeology (Historic Preservation

Division, State of New Mexico), 1994B1997

C Historic Preservation Survey and Planning

Grant-in-aid, National Park Service and Arizona

State Historic Preservation Office, 1989B1994
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 36 

William D. Lipe

Education 

Ph.D., Anthropology, Yale University (1966) 

BA, U. of Oklahoma (1957) 

Honors and Awards 

2006 McGimsey-Davis Distinguished Service Award, Register of Prof. Archaeologists 

2006 Conservation and Heritage Management Award, Archaeological Institute of America 

2002 Byron S. Cummings Award, Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society 

2000 Distinguished Service Award, Society for American Archaeology 

1998 John F. Seiberling Award, Society of Professional Archeologists 

1997 Distinguished Faculty Achievement Award, Washington State University 

Professional Experience 

1976-present Associate Professor to Professor Emeritus, Washington State University 

1985-1993 Research Director, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center (part-time) 

1972-1976 Research Archaeologist and Asst. Director, Museum of Northern 

1964-1972 Assistant to Associate Professor, SUNY, Binghamton 

1963-1964 Instructor, University of Oklahoma 

1958-1960 Research Archaeologist, University of Utah 

Offices and Other Professional Activities 

2003-present Advisory Committee, Canyon of the Ancients Nat'l Monument (BLM) 

1995-present Board of Directors, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 

1997-2000 SAA Representative, Board of Directors, Register of Prof. Archaeologists 

1994-97 President-elect (1994-1995) and President (1995-1997), Soc. for Amer. Archaeol. 

1986-90 Member-at-large, Section H Committee (Anthropology), AAAS 

1984-86 Washington State Heritage Council 

1979-81 Executive Board, Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) 

1977-79 Executive Board, Soc. for American Archaeology 

1977-78 Chair, SAA Nominating Committee 

1973-76 Chair, Southwestern Anthropological Research Group (SARG) 

Selected Publications 

2006 (in press) The Mesa Verde Region During Chaco Times. In The Mesa Verde World, 

edited by David Grant Noble. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. 

2006 Notes from the North. In The Archaeology of Chaco Canyon, edited by Stephen H. 

Lekson. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. 

2004 The Mesa Verde Region: Chaco's Northern Neighbor. In In Search of Chaco, edited by 

David Grant Noble, pp.107-115. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 37 

2002 Social Power in the Central Mesa Verde Region, A.D. 1150-1290. In Seeking the Center 

Place: Archaeology and Ancient Communities in the Mesa Verde Region, edited by Mark 

Varien and Richard Wilshusen, pp. 203-232. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

2002 Public Benefits of Archaeological Research. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, edited 

by Barbara Little, pp. 20-28. University Press of Florida, Gainesville 

2000 (first author, with Scott G. Ortman) Spatial Patterning in Northern San Juan Villages, 

A.D. 1050-1300. Kiva 66(1):91-122 

2000 In Defense of Digging: Archaeological Preservation as a Means, Not an End. In Ethics in 

American Archaeology, second rev. edition, edited by Mark Lynott and Alison Wylie, 

pp. 113-117. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. (Reprint of Lipe 

1996) 

2000 Conserving the in situ Archaeological Record. Conservation: The Getty Conservation

Institute Newsletter 15(1):17-20. 

1999 (first editor, with M. Varien and R. Wilshusen) Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the 

Southern Colorado River Basin. (562 pages) Colo. Council of Prof. Archaeologists, 

Denver 

1995 The Depopulation of the Northern San Juan: Conditions in the Turbulent 1200s. Journal 

of Anthropological Archaeology 14:143-169 

1992 (editor) The Sand Canyon Archaeological Project: A Progress Report (159 pages). 

Occasional Paper No. 2, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, CO 

1990 Wilderness Values and Archaeological Resource Management. In Managing America's

Enduring Wilderness Resource, edited by D. Lime, pp. 305-310. U. of Minnesota, St. 

Paul 

1989 (first editor, with Michelle Hegmon) The Architecture of Social Integration in 

Prehistoric Pueblos (175 pages). Occas. Paper No. 1, Crow Canyon Archaeological 

Center, Cortez, CO 

1988 (Second author, with R. G. Matson and W. R. Haase) Adaptational Continuities and 

Occupational Discontinuities: The Cedar Mesa Anasazi. Journal of Field Archaeology 

15(3):245-264 

1988 (First editor, with J. N. Morris and T. A. Kohler) Anasazi Communities at Dolores:Grass 

Mesa Village (Site 5MT23) (2 volumes, 1316 pages). US Bureau of Reclamation, 

Denver 

1986 Modeling Dolores Area Cultural Dynamics. In Dolores Archaeological Program: Final 

Synthetic Report, compiled by D. A. Breternitz et al., pp. 439-467. US Bur. 

Reclamation. 

1985 Conservation for What? American Society for Conservation Archaeology Proceedings: 

1984:1-11. 

1984 Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources. In Approaches to the Archaeological 

Heritage, edited by Henry Cleere, pp. 1-11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

England 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 38 

1983 The Southwest. In Ancient North Americans. Edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 421-493. 

Freeman, San Francisco. (Fully revised version of 1978 Chapter) 

1978 Grants, Contracts, and Bureaucrats: Some Emerging Problems in Conservation 

Archaeology. In Papers in Honor of Irving B. Rouse, edited by R. Dunnell and E. Hall, 

pp. 121-147. Mouton, New York 

1978 A Conservation Model for American Archaeology. In Conservation Archaeology: A 

Guide to Cultural Resource Management, edited by Michael Schiffer and George 

Gumerman, pp. 19-42. Academic Press, New York. (Reprinted version of 1974 Kiva

article) 

1977 (Co-author, with Mark Grady and Bruce McMillan) "Cultural Resource Management," 

in The Management of ArchaeologicalResources, edited by C. R. McGimsey III and and 

Hester Davis, pp. 25-63. Society for American Archaeology Special Publication 

1974 (First editor, with A. J. Lindsay) Proceedings of the 1974 Cultural Resource 

Management Conference, Federal Center, Denver, CO (214 pages). Mus. of N. Arizona, 

Flagstaff. 

1970 Anasazi Communities in the Red Rock Plateau. In Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo 

Societies, ed. by W. Longacre, pp. 84-139. U. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 39 

N. Scott Urquhart 

Education 

Ph.D. Statistics, Colorado State University, 1965 

M.S. Statistics, Colorado State University, 1962 

B.S. Mathematics and Statistics, Colorado State University, 1961 

Summary of Experience 

Dr. Urquhart is a statistical consultant who specializes providing statistical support to a wide 

range of projects, especially in the environmental sciences, ecology and agriculture -- for more 

than 40 years. In addition to this diverse collaborative research, Dr. Urquhart has developed and 

taught a number of courses in applied statistics, mainly for graduate students, for students in a 

wide range of disciplines. During 1991 – 2000, he taught a course on environmental sampling to 

students of statistics and ecology at Oregon State University. Most recently (2001- 2006) he 

managed an EPA-funded cooperative agreement at Colorado State University entitled SpaceTime Aquatic Resources Modeling and Analysis Program. (See 

http://www.stat.colostate.edu/starmap) 

Dr. Urquhart has helped develop innovative measurement processes and indicators throughout 

his career. During the 10 years he collaborated closely with EPA’s Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment Program (EMAP), he was very involved in the development, evaluation, and 

redefinition of many of the indicators utilized by Surface Waters. Most of the EMAP studies he 

collaborated in developing and implementing were regional in scope 

Dr. Urquhart has served as an external reviewer for several agencies, including USGS and EPA. 

For example, chaired the Protocol Evaluation Panel for the Near-River Terrestrial Research in 

2000. He also served on the surface waters component of the panel which reviewed the technical 

document for EPA’s first Report on the Environment. 

The breadth of his experience with the measurement and monitoring of ecological resources is 

evidenced by some of his publications listed below. All are jointly authored, indicating his 

commitment to collaborative work. 

Publications 

(The following citations have been selected from 1 book, 58 journal articles, 18 proceedings 

publications, 14 agency publications, 14 posters, and 62 other sorts of professional writing.) 

Theobald, D.M., D.L. Stevens, Jr., D. White, N.S. Urquhart, A.R. Olsen, and J.B. Norman 

(2007). Using GIS to generate spatially-balanced random survey designs for natural resource 

applications. Environmental Management 40: 134-146. 

Peterson, E.E. and N.S. Urquhart (2006). Predicting water quality impaired stream segments 

using landscape-scale data and a regional geostatistical model: A case study in Maryland. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 121:613-636. 

Peterson, E.E., A.A. Merton, D.M. Theobald, and N.S. Urquhart (2006). Patterns of spatial 

autocorrelation in stream water chemistry. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 121: 

569-594. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 40 

Kahl, J.S. J.L. Stoddard, R. Haeuber, S.G. Paulsen, R. Birnbaum, F.A. Deviney,J.R. Webb, D.R. 

DeWalle, W. Sharpe, C.T. Driscoll, A.T. Herlihy, J.H. Kellogg, P.S. Murdoch, K. Roy, K.E. 

Webster, and N.S. Urquhart (2004). How have U.S. surface waters responded to the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments? Feature article, Environmental Science and Technology 38: 

484A - 490A. 

Courbois, J.P. and N.S. Urquhart (2004). Comparison of survey estimates of the finite 

population variance. Journal of the Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 9: 

236-250. 

Kincaid, T.M., D.P. Larsen, and N.S. Urquhart (2004). The structure of variation and its 

influence on the estimation of status: Indicators of condition of lakes in the Northeast, U.S.A. 

Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 98: 1 - 21. 

Larsen, D.P., P.K. Kaufmann, T.M. Kincaid, and N.S. Urquhart (2004). Detecting persistent 

change in the habitat of salmon-bearing streams in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 283-291. 

Waite, I.R., A.T. Herlihy, D.P. Larsen, N.S. Urquhart, and D.J. Klemm (2004). The effects of 

macroinvertebrate taxonomic resolution in large landscape bioassessments: an example from 

the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 49: 474–489. 

Urquhart, N.S. and J.C. Moore (2004). Statistics in EPA’s STAR Program: Learning Materials 

for Surface Water Monitoring. OPPTS Tribal News 4(3): 45 - 46. (EPA 745-00-001) 

Larsen, D.P., T.K. Kincaid, S.E. Jacobs and N.S. Urquhart (2002). Designs for evaluating local 

and regional scale trends. Bioscience 51: 1069 - 1078. 

Li, J., A.T. Herlihy, W. Gerth, P.R. Kaufmann, S. Gregory, N.S. Urquhart, and D.P. Larsen 

(2001). Variability in stream macroinvertebrates at multiple spatial scales. Freshwater 

Biology 46: 87 - 97. 

Herlihy, A.T., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen, N.S. Urquhart and B.J. Rosenbaum (2000). Designing 

a spatially balanced, randomized site selection process for regional stream surveys: the 

EMAP mid-Atlantic pilot study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63: 95-113. 

Peterson, S.A. and N.S. Urquhart (2000). Estimating trophic state proportions of a regional lake 

population: are larger samples always better? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

62: 71 - 89. 

Stevens, D.L., Jr. and N.S. Urquhart (2000). Response designs and support regions in sampling 

continuous domains. Environmetrics 11: 13 - 41. 

Urquhart, N.S., G.T. Auble, J.G. Blake, D.T. Bolger, T. Gerrodette, S.G. Leibowitz, D. C. 

Lightfoot, and A.H. Taylor (2000). Report of a Peer Review Panel on Terrestrial Aspects of 

the Biological Resources Program of the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center. 

48pp 

Urquhart, N.S. and T.M Kincaid (1999). Designs for detecting trend from repeated surveys of 

ecological resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 4:

404 - 414. 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 41 

Peterson, S.A., N.S. Urquhart, and E.B. Welch (1999). Sample representativeness: a must for 

reliable regional estimates of lake condition. Environmental Science and Technology 33: 

1559-1565. 

Peterson, S.A., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen and N.S. Urquhart (1998). Regional lake trophic 

patterns in the northeastern United States: Three approaches. Environmental Management

22: 789 - 801. 

Urquhart, N.S., S.G. Paulsen and D.P. Larsen (1998). Monitoring for policy-relevant regional 

trends over time. Ecological Applications 8: 246 - 257. 

McDonald, T.L., D.S. Birkes and N.S. Urquhart (1996). Obtaining species: Sample size 

considerations. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 3: 329 - 347. 

VanLeeuwen, D.M. , L.W. Murray and N.S. Urquhart (1996). A mixed model with both fixed 

and random trend components across time. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and 

Environmental Statistics 1: 435 - 453. 

Stoddard, J.L., N.S. Urquhart, A.D. Newell and D. Kugler (1996). The Temporally Integrated 

Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME) project design 2. Detection of regional acidification 

trends. Water Resources Research 32: 2529 - 2538. 

Larsen, D.P., N.S. Urquhart and D. Kugler (1995). Regional scale trend monitoring of indicators 

of trophic condition of lakes. Water Resources Bulletin 31:117 - 140. 

Ernst, T.L., N.C. Leibowitz, D. Roose, S. Stehman and N.S. Urquhart (1995). Evaluation of U. 

S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Wetlands sampling 

design and classification. Environmental Management 19:99 - 113. 

Larsen, D.P., K. . Thornton, N.S. Urquhart, and S.G. Paulsen (1994). The role of sample surveys 

for monitoring the condition of the nation’s lakes. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment 32:101 - 134. 

Eiceman, G.A., N.S. Urquhart and G.A. O'Connor (1993). Logistic and economic principals in 

gas chromatography-mass spectrometry use for plant uptake investigations. Journal of 

Environmental Quality 22:167 - 173. 

Urquhart, N.S., W.S. Overton and D.S. Birkes (1993). Comparing sampling designs for 

monitoring ecological status and trends: Impact of temporal patterns. V. Barnet and K.F. 

Turkman, eds. Statistics for the Environment, p 71 - 85. John Wiley and Sons, London. 

Employment History 

2007 - Statistical consultant; retired from academia 

2001 - 2006 Professor and Senior Research Scientist, Statistics, Colorado State University 

Director of the EPA-funded STARMAP 

1991- 2001 Research Professor, Statistics, Oregon State University 

1975 - 1991 Professor, Experimental Statistics, New Mexico State University 

1988 -1989 Visiting Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Systems Ecology 

Research Group, San Diego State University 

1970 - 1975 Associate Professor, Experimental Statistics, New Mexico State University 

1969 - 1970 Associate Professor (tenured), Biometrics Unit, Cornell University 

1965 - 1969 Assistant Professor, Biometrics Unit, Cornell University 
Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 42 

 Appendix 6 

RIVER CORRIDOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE MONITORING FORMS 
FY9 2 

MCHAEOUIGICAL SITE RIVER WITORING 70F.Y 

r-iJl.?rcm IN EO~-?TIOH 

1. Site #A2 : : 2. Honitor tallion t 

3. Honitor(s) 

4. Date / / 

5. USGS Qurd rap 7.5' 6. Use Pzea Nazt 

7. Date of first visit / / 

8. UTtl locatioa (Zone 12) Ewt North 

9. General location description 

10. Does this site have any visible structures? 0 = no, 1 = yas 

11. River mile - River b&< (L=left , R=rig??t , B=Soth) - 

12. Is this site loccted in or on Colorado River fluvicl de-sits? 

O=no, lryes - 

If yes, describe the setting amificzlly: 

13. Distance/direction fkon ad height above curreat high water (a?prox. 20,000 cfs) 

to lowest bouduy of site cea: . Distance mtrs Direction dzgrees l!eig!!t . ~trs 510- - degrees 

14. Dista?ce/2lrsrtion fro9 ~q,?d heik)rt abovt currerk hi& water to a central site dztuz 

Distance , Etrs Direction c!egr=es !!tight - rtrs Slop - dsgrtcz 

15. PitIKLQY physiographic s+tting: 1. Riverride bezc?~/duri~s 2. ALlwial terrece 

3. Talus siop 4: Bass of cliff 5. 9eLrock Ledass 6. Non-rivercide dunes 

7. Other - 

17. tr3tliN.C-YT ssil t>~+: 1. Allw~i~/Aeolic~ 2. Colluviu 3. Eec!rock 

4. Rezidcz!. - 

13. FfiIHA!lT soil te-ure: 0. N3t aiz?.J~ or 6rr'~elkl 1. Gravelly 

2. Ss.dy 3. Gravelly cnd San.dy - 
tMWL IXPXiS (use the follwhg scores: 0~0r.s. lair.or (~10% of site area affectti), - 2=oderate (>lo% but lers thm 5% of site area affected), 

3=e:ctensive (50': of aita cea affected) I 

19. Evidence al surf icial sheet uas?~ina? 

20. fvidrnce of gullying (cuts 10-100 co ?eep)? 

21. Active crroyo cutting (cuts >100cal? - 

22. Evide>ct of aqhal-caused eros?on? (SCY of ite=s belov) 

(a) gsr.sral trcn?ling - 

(b) trrlling ttrroug.. site - 

(c) bcrrosing . - 

(d) Otter - 

23. fvidenczce of othr erosion? (Sua oi ite=s 5elca) 

(a) win5 deflation - 

(b ) b&-2. s lru2ege - 

(c) &xe migration - 

id) Orhrr - 

24. First c5t::cd: if score for itezs 18-23 is Gsctsr tha? 

zero, ite= Z = 1. (Swa total - csku tot21 = 5). First Hethod Total - 

25. Second crt?:od: ma actaal scores for cll Stezs. Haxd score for itea 

19-21 eysls 3 each; ~lkxFFc~ score for ite~ 22 and 23 equals 12 each. 

sssible for all itecs co=$ined is 33.) Second tlsthod Total ,- 

26. Chlre~trriie the stability of tha sit*: O=st&le (no active erosion) 

l=ia=lplszt erosion, 2-active erosion - 

27. k eqi, 05 tkc zhve haacts a3-c to \;+ related to ri.vsr/dcrr 

oprctlr.n? O=no , l=yes - 

Inliccte with e '1' my tht c~317: 

(c) dir~ct ir!~7dation within past 30 yees (-st-&a) - 

(b) bzk :lu3page/stee;<ning a2jecrnt to curteat his'nveter zone - 

(c) k~2:',-rr3 cigration or' arroyss Zus t3 lo-:sred bus level - 

23. If erroj-cs or ~llies ue presegt, do tt~y &ain all th? ccy to ths river? 

(Rote: Sczr drainzgcs die out in d*=e fields or on terrzces bofors 

" *-A- . . ir ) O=:o, l=j-es. 2=9/.:. . - 

3;. Ccctztz: (E.xplai>/Zeacrije river-reletei Lt?acts 5rr sore dstail: 

CY~ ne-2 fert122s or atr~cturrs eryssd ky e~zsioz; C:?L?~PS in t)-s or degres 

of erosim; '-3.izcrrt threats: ohat to look r: on zext visit. etc. ): 
20. Collectian Piles: O= Nong 1: 1 pile 2= > 1 pilo 

If c3re thw one ~Cle, list total nker:O 

31. Trails: 0 = No distinct trails 2 = 1-2 distiqct trails 

4 = >2 diztinct trails 

32. *nil= eroded >5 cm belov grocqd le?el? 040, I=Ye. 

(Stbox all distinct trails on site IS-?.) . 

33. hi2e5ce of on site ca~?hg? O=Non=; 2aiqkz1 (1 of the belou) ; 

4=br,si&reSle (2 or nore of the belw) - 

In2icate with a '1' u:~? kb& of evidtzce are present? 

a. Fira sc=s, fire pits, recent ckcoal: 

b . R~~r~ngeoent/clecr ing of rocks: - 

c. Recent ccrnpr treh: - 

d. Ob-~ious concentrated soil cstsction 

(tent site) : - 

e. Other: 

!he3 this evidence, a;** to be rectnt (< 5 yeca old)? - 

Did evidence ape== oince last visit? - 

34. Evidence of del ikerate vk?daliza? - 

O= N09e 

1= Surf icial disturbace only (a. g.', ciditti) 

2= Slight cromt of subswface disturkca(<l a2 exczvated) 

3= Subst~~tial suSsurr'ace disturbate (>1 22 crea excavat.=d) 

Does this evidence rpsa- to t= recsnt (<5 yecrs old)? - 

Did evi6ence ~p-= sinre l~t visit? - 

35. !--.y other evi&~cs of visitation o*,hlr t:-m above (e. g. cS~ioes 

erosion/co=?ac?ion k-~a? trc?lir.s, =:==tered ?RLLCCCZ trash. etc) 

O=no, l=;res - 

If YZS, &scribe: I 

I T?TkL Hk-L? IF-J.C;T RATING - 

33. t!~r,? I=rp=c= Conditioa Clrss (s0-2 radi?! systez belou) - 

Cor.di:ion Clzcs 1: No beer? icpacts (I=%r,t reti% = 0) 

Coniiticn Clws 2: Hir.qL~l kpact (!=;act raiir4 1-31 

Codit lox Clus 3: t!o3?rate izpzct (ir;tct ratirs 4-51 

Coriditioa Cless 4: High kzact (Icx=t ratir.3 7-91 

Co?..'ition Cl-s 5: Verj big?, bpact (Iz~cct rating 1c-12) 

Cor.c!i~ion C1a.s 6: E.nre=a L33ct (1;s~: rrtirg 13-15) 

27. %scribe c:?~-.gos/no.~ ~!UZL? k;zcts sir.cc Last visit: 
53. Ha3 close is the nearest rivercam;, to this site? 

1=>1 h; 2=<1 ka but >500 n; kc500 n but >I00 a; 4=<100 n - 

23. ke any of ths hum bpazts directly releted to river. fluctuations 

r?d/or da o~rations? O=no, lqes 

Ii yes, indicate with a '1' any tbct apply) 

(a) develoment of new trailing to avoid hi&.satsr - 

(5) availability of new beaches in proxiaity. to site - 

(;I other: - 

43. !.y, hu~~ k~zts directly related to rscent recordi&onitoring 

ctivities? O=2o. l=~es 

Sf yes, indicste with a '1' a1y that rnly 

(2) dovel3pcnt of n+u trails 

(b) daz-9 to cmogwic cnrst 

(c) ot5er: 

1 h%t types of iapcts threaten this site? (i.e. wTmt 

to watch out for 1 

R.--! e~ch tb-vat cccording to the criteria listed bslow: 

0: Not a threat no2 or in tht foreseezble future 

1: Po33iSlc threat 

3: Definite threct 

5: Actively occurring at the preacnt the 

C) bwA slunpr-gt from river/dm related processes 

b) dsvelo;pent of neu s~llies md/or headvud ni~atiorr 

of Eroyos &a to ri-rer/dan related bse level lzaering 

C) bc-LC sluspcge from non-river related processes 

2 czcxnir&~idsniry of crroyos f ran non-rivrr related . 

r.2ttlral' protassel ( i. e. side cawon f loodirs) 

e) e.~sure/dtsteSilitation of features due to c or b 

i) ar~sure/&stcbilitction of features duc to c, d, cr weatharing 

6) e~sure/drstzSilizction of features dut to visitation 

?.I ~kaacts fra ~.EL-. visitation (other tha g) 

i) t~-ial or erasure of features dce to due rigration 
42. Rere=tndtd Actions : O=never/not necscssy or r?plicaSls; l=evcntually (>3 years frca - 

2=so3n (within 1-3 yelcs); E=bz?diate!y (within 1 year/les: if pssiblo); 

4=a:tion currently in progress 

Diacontinuc nonitoring 

kcnitor visitation uith rezote sensi?~ devicea 

tlc,r.itor erosion uith statiorzrj cetttu ' 

Retrail or dtfine e-sistinp trails 

Ojlitetate trails 

Imtall chrck da 

Plat vegetation to stabilize rite SL-face 

Sthilire b=h vith rock &-or or siailar techique 

Stabilize strustures 

SL-izcc collect eztire sita 

Test for preser.ce/cis?th of subsurf ccc cultural d~posits 

Ha? as a £on of &ta rrcovery (ex=-~.~a:ion not ~crantedl 

Full data recoverj (excavation) 

Clcse site to ell p~blic visitation 

Drvslo? for wklic interpretctiorr 

44. Ratking - See tlONITO3ING PRLORIn FI<ISC CRIT'LQIA 

Stzbility - 

Azcessibility - 

Visibility - 

Nztural Inpacts - 

thozn Visitction - 

45. Whet is th= ~onitoring yriority re! of this site. 

46. h'u this valus chnged fron 2revious visit? O=rro, l-yes 

If yes, explcin belos. 
Moniio~g Priority Scorer 

Circle cnc value ki:hin each ca~ory: 

1 Stable--no fragile feak:rr such as rock an, st~nding nun?, middcru, c!c. 

2 htodcra~ely sbblt-fragile fean:n prcscnt but r.3t deteriorating (pro~cctd by overhang, ctc.) 

5 Slodcralely unstrbl+ln#le I!mra prmnt with definite potcnti~l for dctcriorarion 

. 4 Unstable--fngilc fcahrn rqakc and dr.terio:aS>g 

,Ac:ccsi~ility 

1 hotcctcd--lw!cd more hn 1 k.. from rord/aail/camp or difficult access (technical clim5ing) 

2 Moderatrly protectd-locatcd 1 !o 1/2 km from rord/bail/camp wih modcntc to difficult 

acccv (opure) 

3 Sbderalcly unprolmcd-loca!cd 1 to I/? km horn road/trail/camp ~ilh caq acrcu, or 500-100 m 

with modcratcly difficult accru (exposure but na technical climbing! 

I Unprotectrblocaled Ins than 100 m from md/trdl/camp with easy acccu 

Visibilitv 

1 tow profilt-lite difficult to recam, few or no anifads, subtle features 

2 hfodentely low profi14te not readily apparent, spm attend artjfacB, featurn not obvious 

3 hlodrntely high profildte b easily mmgnircd frum dose proximity, rbundlnt surfacc 

utifacts, feahrcs obvious 

4 High pmfilt-lite sticks out, atetas attention horn r dishnc?, lob of artifacts, wcll-dcfincd 

feature3 

1 Nonc--rutud impact xorr (h!et!! I) qd 0 

2 Slight-natural impact xore qul~ 1 

3 hfoderak-nahd impct scam @pals 2-3 

4 High--nrhrd impact xore > 4 

H .. . uman lm~aI h'one--human impart condition &u equals I (no impct) 

2 Slight-hum impact condition ctrs quds 2 (minim;rl) 

3 Moderak-human impact condition clau equals 3 

4 High-hurmn impact condition dau equals I or mate 

Total 

Ra& 5wE 

1 ?&I7 Sites with these scorn require monitoring biannudly or quarterly; high priority 

2 1613 Sitcs with thtx scorn rquirt at least arnual monitoring xcond-highfit priori? 

3 12-9 Sila with there vcrn rquin a longcr monitoring c).cle, perhaps cvcry 2 to 3 years 

I 8-5 Sits with Olae XOICS should bC rmni:ord every 35 years; lowst priorily 
N9 3 

PRCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RIVE3 ~NITORING FORn 

1. Site A2 : : 2. Monitor session k . . 

4. Date I I 

5. USCS Qued ce? 7 -5' 6. Use Area Nee 

7. Date oi firrt visit 1 1 / 

8. UTti location (Zone 121 Eut North 

9. knercl location description 

lo. Does thi~ site have J y visible strictures? o = no, 1 = yes - 

11.Rivermile . I River bcn! (klsft. Rzright, Bz50th) - 

12. Is this site located in or on Colorcdo River fluvial deposits? 

O=no, l=yes - 

If yes, describe the setting specifically: 

1 13. Dist.mcs/direction froi and height sbove current high water (approx. 30,000 cfs) . 

to lowest boundary of site area: . . Distance mtrs Direction - degrees Height - ntrs Slop - degrees 

1 - 

14. ' Distance/direction from and heig!!t above current high water to a central site datu 

Distant-. - mtrs Direction - degrees Height . ntrs Slo~ - d?gre=s 

ENIRONME~TPL SITUATION 1 

15. PRItfA!!Y physiographic setting: 1. Rivertide beech/dunes 2. Alluvial terrcce 

3. Talus slox - 4. Base of cliff 5. aedroc!: Ledges - 6. Non-riverside duties 

7. Other 

16. Degree of rkclter: 1. pen 2. Overb&cz;.e 3. Combination 

17. DOf.IINP-YT soil type: 1. Allwic3/Aeoli~? 2. Colluviua 3. Bedrock 

4. Rezidual - 

18. DOHINKrr soil testure: @. Not santy or grzvelly 1. Gravelly 

2. S~?dy 3. Gravelly and Sandy - 
- 

tlP.TUX4L ItlPAaS (use the following scorns: O=none. i=minor (~10% of site area affected), 

Paoderate (>lo% but less than 50% of site area affected), . . 3=extensive (50% of site area affected) - 

19. Evidence of surficial sheet washing? 

29. Zvidence of gullying (cuts 10-100 an deep)? 

21. Active arroyo cuttirg (cuts >100c3)? - 

22. Zvidence of anisal-caused erosion? (Sm of items below) 

(a) general trapling _,* 

- 

(b) trailing tbxoug? site - 

(c) burrowing - 

(dl Other - 

23. Evidence of other erosion? (Sun of ite~s Selou) 

(a) wind dzf lation - 

(b) bank slumpcge - 

(c) dune nigration - 

id) &her - 

24. First method: if score for itens 18-23 is greater than 

zero, iten Z = 1. (Sum total - naximm total = 5). First Method Total 

25. Second ~ethod: au=l actual scores for all items. Uaximn score for itecl 

19-21 equals 3 ecch:. wxh score for items 22 and 23 equals 12 each. 

(Faximun yssible for all item coabinod is 33. ) Second Method Total - 

26. Characterize the stability of the site: O=stable (no active erosion) 

kincipient erosion. 2=active erosion - " - 

27. Co any of the above Impacts appeer to be related to ri.ver/dan 

opzration? O=no, l=yes - 

Indicate with a '1' any that apply: 

(a) direct inundation within past 30 yecrs (post-dam) - 

(b) bwJc slmpags/steepening adjecent to current highv~ter zone - 

(c) hezdwerd migration of arroyos due to lowered base level - 

(d) Other - 

28. If arroyos or gullies are present, do they &~in all tha way to the river? 

(Pote: Sone drzinzges die out in dune fields or on terraces before 

re2chir.g the river. ) O=no, Isyes. 2=N/A - 

23. Cocnents : ( Explain/deacribe river-related h?acts in nore detail: 

LYY r,01 featuzzes or structures e:qosed by ercsion; changes in t3-s or degree 

cf erosion; ;n?inent threats; chat to look at on next visit, etc.1: 
Xi! IHPACTS EVALUATION 

30. Collection Piles: O= None 1= 1 pile 2= > 1 pile 

If more than one pile, list total number:&. 

31. Trails: 0 = No distinct trails 2 = 1-2 distinct trails 

4 = >2 distinct trails 

Z2. Trails eroded >5 cs below ground level? 0x0, l=Yes 

(Show all distinct trails on site up.) 

33. Evide~ce of an site camping? O=None; 2aininal (1 of the below); 

4=bnsiderable (2 or more of the below) 

Indicate with a '1' what kinds of evidence ue present? 

a. Fire scars, fire pits, recent chb-coal: - 

b. Recrrangeaent/clearing of roclu: - 

c. Recent cmpr trash: - .. d. Obvious concentrated soil conpcction 

(tent site) : - 

e. Other: 

ke3 this evidence a3pecr to be recent (i 5 yesrs old)? - 

Did evidence appear since last visit? - 

34. Evidence or' deliberate vandalism? - 

O= None 

I= Surficial disturbance only (e-g., grafitti) 

2= Slight amount of, subsurface disturbmce(t1 n2 excavated 

3= Substrntial subsurfqce disturbance (>1 a2 area excavated) 

Does this evidence appear to be recent (<5 years old)? - 

Did evidsnce appear since last visit? - 

35. P-qy other evidence of visitation othor than cbove (e.g. obvioua 

erosion/conpaction from human trampling, scattered surf ace trash, etc) 

O=no, lryes - 

If yes, describe: 

TOTAL HUKL! IF!!.CT FATING - 

33. Hun= Impcct Condition Class (see rating systez below) - 

Condition Class 1: No hman inpacts (Inpact rating = 0) 

Condition Class 2: Minimal iz~pact (Im-pact rating 1-3) 

Condition Clcss 3: noderate bpact (Inpact rating 4-6) 

Condition Class 4: High izpact (Inpct rating 7-91 

Codition Class 5: Very high inpact (Inpact rating 10-12) 

Condition Class 6: Extrene &pact ( Imwct rating 13-15 

37. Describe chc?ges/ncu hrrran bpacts since last visit: 
3. How close is t5e neare3t rivercamp to this site? 

1=>1 b; 2=<1 La but >500 m; 3=<500 n but >I00 n; 4=<100 m - 

39. Are any of tks hw ispacts directly related to river fluctuatioru 

and/or dm oprations? O=no, l=yes - 

If yes, indiccte with a '1' any that apply) 

(a) developxt of ne=r trailing to avoid hig!!:ater - 

(b) availa5ilit.~ of new beaches in proxbity to site - 

(c) other: - 

43. PAY hhurcan irpcsts directly related to recent recording/!nonitoring 

activities? O=no. l=-yes - 

If yes, indicata with 4 '1' ~EY that amly 

(a) de-relowent of new 'trails 

(b) daage to cryptogcnic cnut 

(c) other: 

41. ht tws of ispacts threaten this site? (i.e. %hat 

to watch out for) 

Rank each that according to the criteria listed below: 

0: Not a thrert now or in the foreseeabls future 

1: Possible threat 

3: Definite threat 

5: Actively occurring at the present tirr 

a) bm! slmpage fros river/dam related processes 

b) davelo~ent of nw gullies and/or headuzrd nigrction 

of arroyos due to river/dxa related bue level lonerirg 

C) bcrrk sllupage frcn non-river related procesres 

d) d~epening/uidenirg of arroyos from non-river related 

catural proces=es (i.e. side canyon flooding) 

e) e.~sure/destabilization of features due to a or b 

f 1 a.wsure/d=stabilization of features due to c, d, or veatherine 

g) e~sure/2est~bilizcticr! of features due ta visitation 

h) k?acts fro7 huzza visitation (other than g) 

i) kial or emsue of features due to dune ziigration 

j) other 
42. Recoaacndrd Ac+,ions: O=no,ver/not necaisky or qplica5le; l=eventually (>3 yecrs frca rt 

2=soon (within 1-3 years); 3=&tdiately (uithin 1 year/less if pssible); 

4=cction currently in progress 

Disccntinue oonitoring 

Hcnito: visitation uith remote sensing davices 

Haitor erosion with stationary c.-ers 

Rstrail or dsfics existing trails 

Obliterzte trai 1s 

Install check das 

Plant vegetation to stabilize site surface 

Stabilize buG-.s uith rock amor or s~hila? techique 

Strbillze strurtures 

Surfrce collect entire site 

Test ior presar.ct/depth of subsurface o~lturcl deposits 

Hap as a fora of d~ta recovery (exczvation not k'arr~ted) 

Full data recovery (e-scavation) 

Close site to all public visitation 

Develop for public interpretation 

44. Ranking - Sse HO~IMRING PRIORITi kR4N:IIMS CXITL!IA 

Stability - 

A:ceaaiSility 

Visibility 

Natural Inpacts - 

Hulan Visitation - 

45. What is the monitoring priority rank of this site. - 

46. Has this value chcnged fron previous visit? O=no, l=yes 

If yes, explah htlow. 
lorn- FY94 and -95 

Grand Canyon National Park 

mR CORRlODOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE MONTTOREYG FORi1 

MANAGEMENT 

1. Site Number At: 2. Monitor Session 

3. River Mile Bank [UR18): - 4. Date 

5. Monttor (s) 

6. Site Type rn 

NATll RAL IMPACTS 

0 = Absent; 1 = Present; 2 = Increase; 3 = Decrease; 4 = NA (for Items 7 - 14) 

b 

Bank Slumpage 

EollanlAlldad 

Erosion/DeposMon . 

Side Canyon 

Erosion 

AnlmaCCaused 

Erotlon 

(traHng.bumrwing) 

Other Natural I impacts 

I (spalling. roob) * 

15. if arrcyos or gullies are present, do they drain to the rtven (Note: Some drainages die out in dune felds'or on tenaces 

before reaching the river.) 0 = no; 1 = yes; 2 = NA 

16. Do any or the above impacts appear to have occurred since the last monitoring episode? O=no: Isyes 

II yes, explain in 17. 

17. Comments: 
HUMAN IMPACTS Site Number : 

0 = Absent; 1 = Present; 2 = Increase; 3 = Decrease; 4 = NA (lor Rems 18 - 24) Monitor Session : 

19. Collection Pies: If present, explain In 26. 

20. Trails: If present, explain In 26. 

21. On-site Camping: If present, explain In 26. 

22. Criminal vandalisrnlARPA violations: If present, explain In 26. 

Vior Impacts 

23. Other: If present, explaln In 26. 

24. Human impacts since last monitoring: 

Structures 

/ Storage 

25. Are any human impacts directly related to fiver fluctuations andlor dam operations? 0 = no; 1 =yes 

If yes, explain in 26 (let., development of new trails to avoid high water. availability of new bea-;hes 

In proximity of site). 

26. Comments: ' 

/ .-b'facts 

MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 

27. Monitor Schedule: 1) diicoqtinue 2) semiannually 3) annually 

4) every-other-year 5) every three to five yean 

Roasted 

Hearths 

28. Monitor with a stationary camera: 0 = no; 1 = yes 

29. Recommended measures to reduce site impacts: 0 = no; 1 = yes 

Retrail - Plant vegetation Stabiiie 

Obliterate trail(s) Install check dams Close site to visitors 

PerlshablesJ 

Midden 

30. Recommended measures to proted the site's lntegm: 0 = no; 1 = yes 

Surface collect entire site Test for depth of subsurface cultural depodls 

Map 8s a form of dab recovely Excavate entire site 

Rock Art 

31. Comments: (i.e., surface sample unit) 

Other 
m96 

Grand Canyon National Park 

RIVJCR CORRIDOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL Sm MONITORING FORM 

MANAGEMENT 

1. Sir Number AZ: 

3. r I Bank (VWB): - 

2. Monttor Session 

4. Date 

5, Monitor (s) 

6. Site Type l@! 

PHYSICAL IMPACTS 

0 = Absent; 1 = Present; 2 = Increase; 3 Decrease; 4 = NA (for kerns 7 - 14) 

15. If arroyos or gullies are present do they drain to the riven (Note: Some drainages die out in dune fields or on brraw 

before reaching the river.) 0 = no; 1 = yes; 2 = NA 

Bank' Slumpage 

EoliadAlluvbl 

EroslonlDeposition 

Side Canyon 

Erosion 

AnimalCaused 

Erosion 

(trailing.hnmvhg) - 

I ";:pa' 

(spalling, roots) 

16. Do any of the above impacts appear to have occurred since the last monitoring episode? 0-no; 1- 

If yes, explain in 17. 

17. Comments: 

-- - -- 
VISITOR-RELATED IMPACTS Site Number : 

Monitor Session : 0 = Absent; I = Present; 2 = Increase; 3 = Decrease; 4 = NA (lor items 18 - 24) 

19. Cdlecl~on Piles: If present. explain in 26. 

- 

Visitor Impacts 

20. Trails: If present. explain in 26. 

. , 

21. On-site Camping: If present. explain in 26. 

Structures 

I Storage 

22. Criminal vandalismlAFiPA violations: If present, explain h 26. 

23. Other: If present. explain in 26. 

Artifacts 

21. Visitor-related impacts since lasl monitoring: 

25. Are any visitor-related impacts directly rela!ed to river fluctuations and/or dam operations? , 

0 = no; 1 =yes If yes. explain in 26 (i.e.. development of new trails to avoid high water. 

avallabil~ty of new beaches in proximity o: site). 

Roaslersl 

Hearths 

26. Comments: 

1 - MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I 27. Monitor Schedule: 1) discontinue 2) semiannual 3) annual 4)biennial,, 

5) every three to ftve years 6) lnactive - 

28. Recommended measures to reduce site impacts: 0 = no; 1 = yes 

Perishabiesl Other 

Midden 

Retrail - Plant vegetation - Other 

Obliterate trail(s) - Install checkdams - Close site to visitors 

Rock Arl 

I 29. Recommended measures to protect me site's integrity: 0 = no; 1 = yes 

I Surface collect entire site Test for depth of subsurface cultural deposits 

Map as a form of data recovery Data recovery 

30. Comments: (I.&, surface sample unit) 
FY9 7 

Grand Canyon h'ational Park 

RIVER CORRIDOR ARCI~~EOLOGICAL SITE MO>3TOREXG FORV ' 

MANAGEMENT 

1. Site Number AZ 2. Monitor Sessian 

3. River Mile Bank (UWB) - 4. Date 

5. Site Type 4 

6a. Monitor (s) 

6b. PA Signatories * 

PHYSICAL IMPACTS 

15. If arroyos or gullies are present. do they drain to the fiver? (Note: Some drainages die out in dune fields or on terraces 

before reaching the river.) 0 = no; 1 = yes; 2 = NA 

16. Do any of the above impacts appear to have occurred since the last monitoring episode? O=no; l=yes 

If yes. explain in 17. 

- 

7. 

8. 

g 

10. 

11. 

12: 

3. 

14. 

17. Comments: 

0 = Absent; 1 = Present; 2 = Increase: 3 = Decrease: 4 = NA (for items 7 - 14) 

Surface Erosion 

(0- 1 Om) 

Gullying 

(10-100cm) 

Arroyo Cuttlng 

('1'") 

Bank Stumpage 

EolianlAnwiat 

ErosionlDeposit~on 

Stde Canyon 

Erosion 

Animal-Caused 

Eros~on 

(trailtng.bunowing) 

Other Natd 

Impacts 

Structures 

Storage 

Roasters1 

Hearths 

I 

Rock Art 

(spall~ng. roots) 

M~facts Perishablesl 

Midden 

OW 

I I 
VISITOR-RELATED IMPACTS Site Number : 

0 Akent; 1 - Present; 2 = Increase; 3 - Decrens; 4 = NA (for Lmr I8 - 24) Monitor Souion : 

IS. Collection Piles: If present, ewlah in 26. 

Visitor Impacts 

20. Trails: If present, explain in 26. 

21. On-site Camping: If present, explain In 26. 

, - 22. Ctiminal vandalLmlARPA violations: If present, explain In 26. 

SWctures Other 

1 Storage 

23. Other: If present, explain In 26. 

24. Vdtor-related Impacts since last rnonitorlng: 

25. Are any visitor-related impacts directly related to river fluctuations andlor dam opera^? 

0 = no; 1 -yes If yes, explain in 26 &e., development of new trails to avoid high water, 

availability of new beaches in proximity of site). 

Artifacts Rock Art 

26. Comrnenk: 

, 

MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION 

27. Monitor Schedule: I) d'mntinue 2) semiannual 3) annual 1 .. 4) everyother-year (biennial) 5) every three to fwe years 

Roasted 

Hearths 

28. Monitor wiVI a stationary camera: 0 = no; I = yes . 

perishabled 

Midden 

4 * 29. Recommended measures to reduce site impacts: 0 = no; 1 = yes 

Retrail - Plant vegetation Slrbilbe - 

Obliterate trail($) Install check dams - Close site to vkitarr 

- 

30. Recommended measures to protect the site's integrity: 0 = no; 1 = yes 

Surface collect entire site Test for depth of subsurface cultural deposik 

Map as a form of data recovery Excavate entire site 

31. Commenk: (I.e., surface sample unit) 
FY9 8 

Orand Canyon National Park 

RIVER CORRIDOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE MONITORING FORM 

MANAGEMENT 

1. Site Number AZ: -- 2. Monitor Session 

3. River Mile Bank(UWB) - 4. Date 

5. Site Type. - 

8. MonHor(s) . . 7. PA Slgnatodes 

PHYSICAL IMPACTS 

Coding: 0 = Absent, 1 = Active, 2 = Inactive, 3 = NA (for items 8 - 14) 

Rock 

Images I Other 

Structures 

1 Storage 

Surface Erosion 

(0- lorn) 

Gullying 

(10- loom) 

Arroyo Cutting 

(' 1 m) 

15. If arroyos or gullies are present. do they drain to the river? (Note: Some drainages dm art In dunm or 

tenaces before reaching the river.) 0 = No, 1 = Yes, 2 = Side Canyon Based, and 3 = NA 

Artifacts I Roasten Perishables 

( 1 Hearths I 1 Midden 

1 I 

1 I 

Bank Slump 

EolianlAlluvial 

ErosionlDeposilion 

Side Canyon 

Erosion 

Other Physical 

Impacts (animals, 

spalling. rOOtS) 

16. Do any of the above impacts appear to have occurred since the last monitoring episode? 

0 = No, 1 = Yes. If yes, explain tn Question # 17. 

17. Comments: ! 

I 

I 

i 

I 

1 

I 

I 

! 

1 

I 
3/98 Grand Canyon National Park 

RIVER CORRIDOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE MONITORINO FORM 

VISITOR-RELATED IMPACTS Site Number. 

Monitor Session: Coding: 0 = Absent, 1 = Present, 3 = NA (for Hems 18 - 24) . 

SUYctures 1 Artifact3 1 Roasters 1 Perishables / Rock 1 0.u 

1 Storage 1 Hearths 1 Midden Images 

19. Collection Piles: If present, explain In Question # 26. 

18. 

20. TraUs On-Site: If present, explain in Question # 26. Explain any off-site trans also. 

Vlsitor Impacts 

21. Camping On-Site: If present, explain in Question # 26. 

22. Criminal vandalismlARPA violations: If present, explain in Question # 26. 

23. OUier visitor impacts: If present, explain in Question # 26 

24. Visitor-related impacts since last monitoring: 

25. Are any visitor-related impacts directly related to river fluctuations and/or dam operations, i.e 

development of new trails to avoid high water, availability of new beaches in proximity of site. 

0 = No, 1 = Yes. tf yes, explain in Question # 26. 

. .---" 26. Comments: r: 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

27. Monitor Schedule: 1) Discontinue 2) Semiannual 3) Annual 4) Biennial 

5) Every three to iwe yeas 6) Inactive 

28. Preservation Options: 0 = No, 1 = Yes 

Retrail Plant vegetation Other Preservation 

Obliterate trail(s) Install checkdams Options 

29. Recovery Options: 0 = No, 1 = Yes 

Test Data Recovery Other Recovery 

Options 

30. Comments: 
FY99 

9/98 Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

RIVER CORRIDOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE MONITORING FORM 

MANAGEMENT 

1. Sile Number AZ: 2. Monitor Session 

3. River Mile Bank(UWB) . 4. Date 

5. Site Type 

6. Monitor(s) 

7. PA Signatories 

PHYSICAL IMPACTS 

Coding: 0 = Absent. 1 = Actiie. 2 = Inaclive. 3 = NA (for i!ems 8 - 14) 

15. If arroyos w gullies are present, do they drain lo the river? (Nole: Some drainages die out in dunes or 

terraces before reaching the river.) 0 = No, 1 = Yes. 2 = Side Canyon Based, and 3 = NA 

Surface Erosion 

(0- 10cm) 

Gullying 

(1 0 - 100 cm) 

Arroyo Cutting 

(' 1 m) 

Bank Slump 

EolianlAlluvial 

ErosionlDeposition 

Side Canyon 

Erosion 

Olher Physical 

Impacts (animals. 

spatling, roots) 

16. Do any of the above impacts appear to have occurred since the last rnoniloring episode? 

0 = No, 1 = Yes. If yes, explain in Question 3 17. 

17. Comments: 

Structures I Artifacts Roaslers Perishables Rock 1 Olher 

1 Storage 1 /Hearths IlMidden ( Images 

i 

I i i 

1 ! i I I j i 

I I 

I 

i i I. I 

I I 

I f ! 

I ! 

i I i 1 . I I I 

I ! 

i 

I 

I i I 

i i I iI ! I 

I I 

I I ! I 

i 

i i I 

i ! 

! I 
20. Trails On-Site: If present, explain in Question t 26. Explain any off-site trails also. 

9/98 Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

RIVER CORRIDOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE MONITORING FORM 

VISITOR-RELATED IMPACTS S~te Number: 

Monitor Session: 

Coding: 0 = Absent, 1 = Present. 3 = NA (for items 18 - 24) 

21. Camping On-Sile: If present. explain in Question # 26. 

22. Criminal vandalismlARPA violations: If present, explain in Question # 26. 

18. 

23. Other visitor impacts: If present, explain in Question # 26 

24. Wsitor-related impacts since last monitoring: 

19. Collection Piles: If present. explain in Question # 26. 

- 

Visitor Impacts 

25. Are any visitor-related impacts directly related to river fluctuations andlor dam operations, i.e 

develdpment of new trails to avoid high water, availability of new beaches in proximity of site. 

0 = No. 1 = Yes. If yes, explain in Question # 26. 

26. Comments: 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

27. Monitor Schedule: 1 ) Discontinue 2) Semiannual 3) Annual 4) Biennial 

5) Every three to five years 6) Inactive 7) Control Group 

Structures I Artifacts , Roasters Perishables 

1 Storage ; I Hearths 1 Midden 

I 

28. Preservation Options: 0 = No. 1 = Yes 

Retral Plant vegetalion Olher Preservation 

Obliterate trail(s) Install checkdams Options 

Rock Other 

Images 

29. Recovery Options: 0 = No. 1 = Yes 

I I 

I 

I ! I I. ! 

I I 

Test Data Recovery Other Recovery 

Options 

30. Comments: 

Hualapai may monitor this site on their trip leaving 4116199. 
Final Report of the 

Cultural Monitoring Lega

Review Panel

Keith Kintigh, Professor

School of Human Evolution & Social Change

Arizona State University

William Lipe, Professor Emeritus

Department of Anthropology 

Washington State University

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Progr

Technical Work Group (TW

Public Meeting: December 4-5, 

Jeffrey Alts

Statistical 

Tucso

N. Scott Urquha

Departme

Colorado S
12/5/2007 Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 

Panel Charge

• Assess the suitability of legacy 

monitoring data to address curmanagement concerns

• Suggest ways in which availab

data can be used to inform curmanagement questions.

• Provide recommendations con

the future monitoring programs serve management objectives.
12/5/2007 Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 

Legacy Data

• Primary Records

• Site Monitoring Forms 1992-200• Archaeological Site Inventory Re• Preservation Treatment Records

• Also Considered

• Terrestrial Photographs• Historical Aerial Photographs

• Panel recognizes that these da

acquired at enormous expense 
12/5/2007 Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 

Legacy Data Us

• Suited to decisions on need for site

treatments

• Not well suited to track trends or un

processes

• Lack of quantitative data• Not encoded in way that is readily ana• With recoding could begin to address 

• substantial expense with limited expected 

• Almost no analysis ever done

• Problems would have been apparent i
12/5/2007 Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 

The Question of Dam 

• Legacy data will not provide definitive an

• Legacy data are essentially qualitative• Some quasi-quantitative indicators might be d

monitoring & treatment records

• However, results would be at best suggestive 

the effort and expense

• Need a geomorphic model to predict affe

settings

• Can be tested on- and off-sites 

• Then quantitatively assess whether predi

being eroded

• Analysis of historical aerial photos may b• LiDAR data tied to model would likely be 

this will take time
12/5/2007 Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 

Proposed Use of LiDA

• Elevation differences 

over time could be used to test models associated with flow data

• Actual Data •

≈60% unchanged

•

≈20% aggraded >4cm 

• ≈10% aggraded >10cm 

•

≈20% eroded >4cm

• ≈5% eroded >10cm

Aggradation 

Error 
12/5/2007 Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 

Major Recommenda

• Define & Prioritize Monitoring Objectiv

• Better to address some well than many poorly• Clearly define concepts employed

• Devise Monitoring Plan Sensitive to G

• Identify key variables & analytical strategies• Design recording protocols & field-test forms • Employ in a mixed strategy, as appropriate to 

• Sampling• Varied visitation intervals• Controls

• Implement Plan• Analyze Data

• Address management objectives & data cons• Adjust protocols accordingly
12/5/2007 Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 

Critical Tasks

• Develop & test geomorphic model

• Essential to relating flow regimes to dis• Testing can be on controls

• Institute regular LiDAR monitoring

• Produces decisive data• Appears to be cost-effective and relativ

• Permanent commitment to regular d

• Requires substantial, ongoing financia

commitment 

• Without analysis much of the value is l• Without analysis there is no adaptive m
12/5/2007 Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 

Additional Suggest

• Unpack multidimensional concepts 

site condition” & “site integrity”

• Appropriate scale for some analyse

features not sites

• Attend periodically to sites judged s• Search for previously undiscovered • Encourage planned analysis of aer

through time with flow records

• Engage Masters students in some 

legacy data (suggestions provided)
12/5/2007 Legacy Monitoring Data Review Panel 

Thanks To

• Coauthors

• Jeffrey Altschul• William Lipe• N. Scott Urquhart

• Helen Fairley, GCMRC• Jennifer Dierker, NPS• Lisa Leap, NPS• Michael Berry, BOR• Chris Downum, NAU• Brian Collins, USGS for LiDAR Dat