Concerns/Recommendations by the CRAHG 

for the GCMRC FY08 Cultural Resources Budget 

1) The group wants a schedule of reports for FY08 and future projects. As an 

example, the study of ground-based LiDAR; the group did not feel that GCMRC 

had provided updates or enough information to support the continuation of this 

program. It has been going on for two years, and there have been no reports or 

updates. The group would like some sort of decision matrix to determine whether 

or not the R&D project is working. 

GCMRC response: A schedule of deliverables for FY08 is attached at the end of 

this document. Please note that the LIDAR work was initiated in May 2006, 

therefore it has been underway for 18 months, not two years. 

 

2) Prior to evaluating/approving the FY09 budget, the group would like reports 

and/or updates on all FY08 components of the budget. 

GCMRC response: GCMRC has agreed to provide updates on the work 

completed through winter 2008 at a spring TWG meeting (March or April, 2008, 

depending on whether we have a BHBF or not.) 

3) The group would like contractors who are working on projects to give 

presentations/answer questions at a CRAHG meeting as part of the discussion for 

the FY09 budget. 

GCMRC response: Please see response to #2 above. It is anticipated that several 

aspects of the R&D work from Phase I of this project will be completed by spring 

of 2008, while other products will still be in draft form. Final reports will be 

provided for finalized products, while progress updates will be provided for 

project elements that are still in draft form. The established schedule of 

deliverables for work conducted in FY07 and FY08 will not permit presentation 

of final results by spring FY08 for all elements of the project. 

 

4) The CRAHG could consider a hiatus for specific projects for FY09 if researchers 

are not making sufficient progress or the CRAHG doesn’t have sufficient 

information to evaluate progress. 

GCMRC response: Fair enough, but GCMRC needs to have a clear 

understanding in advance of how “sufficient progress” and “sufficient 

information” is being defined by the CRAHG. At the present time, we are on 

track to deliver all products according to schedules specified in our current 

agreements with cooperating scientists. 

 

5) For the FY09 budget, the group would like the proposals to include timeframes 

for deliverables that are more closely aligned with the budget/planning cycle. 
GCMRC response: While we recognize the desirability of aligning deliverable 

schedules with the AMP budget planning cycle, the reality is that these schedules 

as currently structured are not very compatible. For example, we will be in the 

middle of conducting FY08 work when the FY09 budget is being developed, and 

the same will likely apply to deliverables schedule for FY09 work. What we can 

arrange in the future is a schedule that is similar to what we have in place right 

now, i.e., most of the products resulting from FY07 field season will be available 

when decisions are being made about the FY09 budget. 

6) Native American perspectives need to be included in all projects, including 

outcomes that the tribes would like. One example that was discussed was the lack 

of Tribal consultation for the weather monitoring stations. It was requested that 

BOR should do this consultation for visual issues related to landscapes. 

GCMRC response: GCMRC has the lead responsibility for consulting with 

Tribes on projects that GCMRC has primary responsibility for implementing. In 

FY07, GCMRC spoke to each of the Tribal representatives on the TWG to 

express our interest in meeting with the Tribes individually to discuss issues of 

mutual concern; however, none of the Tribes got back to us with dates of their 

availability for a meeting. GCMRC also submitted a written request to the 

Hualapai Tribe to install a weather station on the left bank upstream of Granite 

Park, but received no response to that request; therefore, no weather station was 

installed at that location. GCMRC remains interested in and very open to 

consulting with Tribes regarding any and all AMP projects, however, we need to 

hear back from the Tribes when we request meetings or submit permit requests to 

in order to move forward. 

7) There needs to be clear link between LiDAR and archaeology, e.g. how does 

LiDAR affect evaluations and assessments of archaeological site condition. In 

order to do this, archaeologists should work more closely with the geologists. 

GCMRC response: The individuals who are conducting the LIDAR work for the 

cultural monitoring R&D effort understand that most archaeological sites in the 

CRE are embedded within or situated on unconsolidated sedimentary deposits, 

many of which are deflating or eroding. They are testing the applicability of 

LIDAR as a tool for accurately measuring the amount of topographic change 

(gullying, deflation, inflation, etc.) occurring at a sample of archaeological sites. 

LIDAR can theoretically provide very accurate measurements of the amount of 

change. It will be up to the land managers to determine whether this amount and 

rate of change is acceptable. All of the LIDAR work has been conducted in the 

presence of and with the direct involvement of NPS and GCMRC archaeologists 

and in coordination with the work of USU geomorphologists, so the concern 

underlying the last part of this comment is not clear to us. 

8) An issue was the new assistant position for Helen will not be a tribal liaison 

position. There were concerns over this since it had been identified as a need. 
GCMRC response: The GCMRC Socio-Cultural Program Manager manages a 

program that is broadly concerned with monitoring and researching dam effects 

on archaeological sites, TCPs and other resource concerns of the affiliated Native 

American Tribes, as well as campsites, recreational experience qualities, and 

socioeconomic issues. The Sociocultural program requires an assistant who can 

provide support in all of these arenas, not just in the area of Native American 

relations. GCMRC recognizes that it would be desirable to have another 

individual on board who could focus more time and effort on Native American 

concerns specifically, and we are actively working with NPS, BOR and other 

Interior agencies to find the best way of addressing this need in the near future. 

9) The group needs more information on exactly what researchers are doing. 

GCMRC should identify bridging mechanisms between the geologists, 

archaeologists, and Native Americans. Examples discussed included weather 

monitoring stations, LiDAR and gully erosion/check dam study. This would then 

be the basis for discussion between GCMRC and the CRAHG. GCMRC should 

identify hypotheses for each project which would help determine if the projects 

are successful. GCMRC will provide to CRAHG members the research proposal 

that was submitted to NPS. 

GCMRC response: We fully understand the CRAHG’s desire for more 

information about the work that is being conducted and are seeking appropriate 

mechanisms to provide additional information without compromising the 

independence of scientific endeavors in the process. As noted under Items 2 and 

3 above, we are prepared to make presentations on available final products as well 

as updates on work in progress at a TWG meeting in spring, 2008. We are fully 

committed to the concept of a scientifically-integrated approach to developing the 

cultural monitoring program, which is fully in keeping with the interdisciplinary 

science theme of the Strategic Science Plan and MRP; in fact, several Science 

Advisors have previously commented on the cultural monitoring R&D project as 

a model example of how integrated science ought to occur in this program. The 

reference to the need to identify bridging mechanisms is unclear to us, because the 

R&D project is explicitly designed to bring several lines of data together from the 

disciplines of archaeology (archaeological values, concept of site integrity), 

geomorphology (geomorphic contexts and processes as they affect the physical 

stability of sites) and meteorology (role of climate and individual weather events 

in affecting site stability and rates of physical change) to develop a robust, 

ecosystem-based approach to future archaeological site monitoring in the CRE. 

We agree that hypothesis-driven research can be a useful mechanism for 

evaluating if projects are successful or not; however, in the case of the cultural 

monitoring R&D effort, a majority of effort during the first two years of this 

project have been focused on gathering baseline information about the 

archaeological sites, their inherent archaeological values, and their geomorphic 

setting and processes affecting them, as this information is needed to form the 

basic foundation for the development of future monitoring protocols: therefore, a 
hypothesis-driven research design was not appropriate for most elements of the 

Phase I R&D efforts. As far as releasing the cultural monitoring R&D proposal, 

we are fully prepared to do so once the project has been officially permitted by 

the NPS (a permit specific to this project has not yet been issued by GRCA.) 

Schedule of deliverables in FY08 

 

Legacy Data Review Report: Completed. (Presentation to TWG scheduled for 

Dec. 5, 2007.) 

NPS Draft Report on Archaeological Assessment Task and database: due 

December 15, 2007 

NPS Final Report on Archaeological Assessment Task: due February 28, 2008 

USU Draft Report on Geomorphic Assessment Task and database: due December 

31, 2007 

USU Final Report on Geomorphic Assessment Task: due March 31, 2008 

USU Draft Report on Check Dam Effectiveness and Monitoring Implications: 

due March 31, 2008 

USU Final Report on Check Dam Effectiveness and Monitoring Implications: 

due June 30, 2008 

USGS Draft Report on Comparison of LiDAR vs. Total Station Surveys as a 

measurement tool: due December 15, 2007 

USGS Final Open-File Report on Comparison of LiDAR vs. Total Station 

Surveys as a measurement tool: due March 31, 2008. 

USGS Draft Open-file Report on LiDAR-based topographic change detection: 

due March 31, 2008 

USGS Final OFR on LiDAR-based topographic change detection: due June 30, 

2008. 

USGS Draft Open-file Report on 2007 weather monitoring project and data: due 

March 31, 2008. 

USGS Final Open-file Report on 2007 weather monitoring project and data: due 

March 31, 2008: final due June 30, 2008