U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Update on the Cultura

Update on the Cultura

Monitoring R&D Proje

Monitoring R&D Proje

Helen Fairley, Sociocultural Program Mana

Helen Fairley, Sociocultural Program Mana

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Technical Work Group Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona Technical Work Group Meeting, Phoenix, ArizonaApril 8, 2008 April 8, 2008
Cultural Monitoring R&D 

Cultural Monitoring R&D 

• Part 1: What are we doing• Part 2: How are we doing?• Part 3: What’s coming nex
Monitoring for wha

Monitoring for wha

To provide reliable objective data 

condition to answer AMP priority 

What is the status and trend in resource 

– What factors are contributing to changes in 

(positive or negative)?

Are preservation treatments working?– If additional treatments are needed, where w

effective and do the most good?

Are we achieving AMP goals?
Sources of Guidance for 

Sources of Guidance for 

Monitoring Program Deve

Monitoring Program Deve

• AMP Consensus Products

– AMP Strategic Plan (2003 draft)– AMP Priority Questions (2004)– Core Monitoring Information Needs– MRP & Strategic Science Questions

• Independent Panel Reviews

– 2000 PEP for Cultural Resources– 2005 Geomorphology Symposium– 2007 Legacy Data Review Panel

• CRAHG, TWG, AMWG, SAs Comments
CMIN 11.1.1 Determine condition a

of prehistoric and historic sites in tRiver ecosystem through tracking rerosion, visitor impacts, and other variables.

EMIN 11.1.2 Determine efficacy of tfor mitigation of adverse effects to properties.CMIN 11.2.1 Determine condition aintegrity of TCP’s in the CRE.
Why do we need R&

Why do we need R

“[T]here seems to be a widespread 

assess ‘overall site condition.’ As aconcept this may seem unproblemawe suggest that without careful definessentially meaningless. “

from the Legacy Data Review Panel 

Condition is “a multidimensional conneeds to be unpacked into multiple 

from the Legacy Data Review Pane
Why do we need R&D? Why do we need R&D? (

(

“We reiterate the need for a strong clearly articulated objectives, questiconcepts and the need for a design execution of quantitative data collecanalytical strategies that can measuvariables as directly as possible

”

from the Legacy Data Review Panel report (2
Analogous issues in fish m

Analogous issues in fish m

• Condition can not be measured 

directly -- need to define proxies, e.g. weight and length

• Need indicators that can be 

measured reliably & efficiently & are relevant to issue of concern

• Need to tailor variables and 

equations to specific species

• Condition indices based on 

many years of research and monitoring (measured data)
. . .

R&D is focused on developing 

R&D is focused on developing 

to measure and quantify degree 

to measure and quantify degre

stability and rate of physical ch

stability and rate of physical ch

• Objective measurements of 

physical change 

• Replicable, efficient, costeffective, low impact, accurate • Independent data to inform 

qualitative assessments

• Data to complement (not 

duplicate or replace) ASMIS
Where are we now

Where are we now

Phase 1 (FY06-07) included 3 Prim

• Task 1: Collect baseline data on geom

attributes and archaeological integ

• Task 2: Assess existing (legacy) mon• Task 3: Test various methods for mea

tracking change in condition 

– 3.1 Compare efficiency/accuracy/impac

survey techniques for measuring topog

– 3.2 Implement pilot weather monitoring – 3.3 Select and test human impact mea– 3.4 Develop protocols for check dam e
Phase I Accomplishments

Phase I Accomplishments

Assess archaeological & geomorphic 

Assess archaeological & geomorphic 

Status:

• archaeological and 

geomorphic assessments of 232 sites accomplished; field work completed in September 2007

• draft reports delivered 

January & February 2008

• draft reports currently 

undergoing review
Phase I Accomplishments

Phase I Accomplishments

Evaluate existing monitorin

Evaluate existing monitorin

Status: • preliminary assessment of dat

identified critical data gaps an

• GIS data updated & expanded • legacy data review panel conv

September 2007

• final report (November 2007) d

to TWG December 2007
Task 3.1: Compare efficiency, a

Task 3.1: Compare efficiency, a

and impacts of measurement te

and impacts of measurement te

Status:– Total station vs. LiDAR 

evaluation completed

– Final report currently in 

independent peer review

– Draft report on LiDAR as 

change detection tool in progress. Draft May, 2008; final August, 2008

– RTK GPS and new LiDAR 

technology testing in 2008
Task 3.2 Implement weather mo

Task 3.2 Implement weather mo

Status: – 9 weather stations 

deployed Feb-Mar, 2007

– Various technical and 

software issues tackled and resolved in 2007

– 2 additional stations and 4 

sand traps deployed in February, 2008 for HFE

– Processing of sediment 

samples in progress 

– Data report due June 

2008, final due in Sept.
Task 3.3 Select and test human 

Task 3.3 Select and test human 

monitoring protocols monitoring protocols

Status:– CRMP monitoring program being 

finalized; draft plan in progress

– NPS focus is on documenting 

visitation impacts on NR integrity 

– Developing monitoring protocols to 

quantify visitor disturbances linked to geomorphic stability (e.g., trail depth, damage to soil crust) 

– New protocols to be tested in 

September, 2008
Task 3.4: Evaluate Task 3.4: Evaluate checkdam checkdam e

e

and design and design checkdam checkdam monitor

monitor

Status:– USU geomorphologists 

collected geomorphic, soil, and survey data at 7+ sites in spring & fall, 2006 and 2007

– Draft report in progress; 

first draft due now (March 30); final due June 30, 2008
FY2008

what next? what next?

• Review and complete Phase I reports - 

(spring-summer 2008)

• Process geomorphic and archaeologica

identify “strata” for sampling (spring 200

• HFE monitoring at selected sites (spring • Evaluate & refine human impact monito

(summer 2008)

• Test new LiDAR system and RTK GPS 

detection tools (end of summer 2008)

• Design pilot monitoring plan and data b

through the end of 2008)
FY2009-FY2011

• Implement pilot monitoring program sys

(FY2009-2011)

• Evaluate airborne LiDAR data as chang

(if LiDAR is flown in FY2009)

• Develop geomorphic numeric model to 

predictive capabilities (FY2010-2011)*

• Review monitoring results with PEP, ref

implement long-term plan (FY2011)
Need for Geomorphic Model t

Need for Geomorphic Model t

Archeological Site Monitoring 

Archeological Site Monitoring 

“build on past and current research to deve

predictive physical models of erosion potevulnerability”

Recommendation from the Geomorphology Sympo(February, 2005)

“Adequately addressing the question of da

demands an understanding of the geomorimplicated. Expert geomorphologists are nprovide well specified geomorphic models defined test implications.”

Legacy Data Review Panel Report (2007)
Applications of Geomorph

Applications of Geomorph

• To determine which sites are m

vulnerable to future deterioratiomonitoring to test/validate assu

• To predict & decide where eros

treatments are most likely to be 

• To link riverine and terrestrial p

future ecosystem modeling effo
?
Cultural Monitoring R&D P

Cultural Monitoring R&D P

Progress and Accomplish

Progress and Accomplish

• Convened independent review panel, evaluated 

identified critical data gaps and data needs

• Completed archaeological and geomorphic ass

sites. Draft reports from NPS and USU coopera

• Developed GIS polygons for all sites • Installed 9 weather stations and 12 sand traps a

multiple technical issues addressed

• Completed comparison of total station vs. LiDA

topographic change (USGS OFR in review, fina

• Collected comprehensive LiDAR data at 9 sites 

as a change detection tool (work in progress, fi

• Completed repeat surveys for check dam effect

sites (report in progress, final due June 30, 200
Relation to NPS Monitoring 

Relation to NPS Monitoring 

(Archeological Site Management Informa

(Archeological Site Management Informa

• Parks must use ASMIS to 

report condition (for GPRA)

• ASMIS qualitatively evaluates 

overall site condition; relies on judgments about amount of previous disturbance and 

physical stability of the site

• Condition can only improve 

through increased stability (decrease in rate of impacts)