Cultural Program: Status 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Pr

Technical Work Group Meet

November 13, 2003
Sub-components of the Cultur

•

Socioeconomics

•

Recreational Resources

–

Rapids (navigability, safety)

–

Trout fishery (quality, abundance)

–

Camp sites (size, distribution, 

quality)

–

Experiential aspects (opportunities 

for solitude, quiet, adventure, etc.) 

•

Heritage Resources

–

Traditional cultural properti

e

s

–

Archaeological sites

–

Other resources of traditional 

Native American concern
Socioeconomics

• 1999 NRC review was highly critical of AM

placing more emphasis on this program elem

•

There is not a robust program in place at th

•

Past studies have been either 

–

Small scale analyses of impacts of experimental 

elements of the recreation industry, or 

–

Non-peer reviewed, in-house evaluat

ions by WA

hydropower costs of experimental flows

•

AMWG approved funding for PEP review 

socioeconomic program and monitoring pro

•

FY05-06 Budget includes funds to impleme

PEP recommendations (Project B.4)
Recreation

• The current program is not 

robust; key info is missing

• Past studies have focused on

– Evaluating changes in size of a 

sample of sand bar camps 

– Small scale studies on the effects 

of experimental flows on safety, visitor satisfaction, and economic impacts to recreation industries

• AMWG approved funding for 

PEP review of socioeconomic program and monitoring protocols in FY04

• FY05-06 Budget includes funds 

to implement top priority PEP recommendations (Project B.3)
Recreation, continu

•

Assessment of previous campsite 

I&M protocols undertaken in FY01; draft report is available and due to be finalized by 12/03

•

Report recommends:

–

Conduct complete inventory of all 

available camps

–

Ground truth campsite areas and polygons 

of campable sand areas developed by Breedlove et al. (2003)

–

convene panel to develop long-term 

monitoring protocols for camp site area linked to visitor capacity

•

FY06 budget includes project to 

address Recommendations 1 & 2 (B.6). FY04 budget funds PEP.
Heritage Resource Com

•

Programmatic Agreement fulfills 

BOR Section 106 responsibilities; covers National Register eligible properties only

•

Most cultural resource monitoring 

and treatment projects have been funded directly by BOR to meet Section 106 obligations re: evaluating and mitigating potential adverse effects of dam operations

•

These projects have not been 

subject to GCMRC’s peer review process
PEP review of cultural p

•

Protocol Evaluation Panel convened 

•

17 experts in Section 106 compliance

American issues, archaeological resegeomorphology participated in the cu

•

Unlike other PEPs, the review focuse

cultural program, not just monitoring 

•

The PEP review resulted in 3 core rec

and 8 supplementary recommendatio
Core Recommendati

1. Complete and adopt a 

Historic Preservation Plan as the TOP priority

2. Expand Native American 

involvement in the program at multiple levels

3. Improve coordination and 

integration of a complex program
Recommendation no. 1 (Top 

Complete and adopt a Hi

Preservation Plan (HP

•

HPP is 9 years overdue (PA stated Dec. 1994 a

•

HPP defines relationships between cooperating 

out strategy for future management of historic p

•

PEP recommended creating a series of docume

chapters of the HPP:

–

research design

–

tribal consultation plan

–

data management plan

–

traditional cult. properties plan

–

monitoring plan

–

treatment plan
Recommendation No

Expand Native American in

•

Develop tribal consultation plan

•

Promote tribal involvement in al

programs, not just Heritage Resomanagement issues

•

Nominate Grand Canyon as a TC

•

Increase opportunities for face-to

consultation and discussion
Recommendation No. 

Improve coordination and inte

a complex program

•

Need to do better job of coordinating activi

cultural program and PA program to avoid effort, improve efficiency, and reduce overa

•

Program areas specifically recommended fo

management by GCMRC included cultural long-term monitoring program (part of GCM

•

PEP recommended more rigorous research 

cultural research with other GCMRC scienc

•

PEP urged more use of the competitive RPF 

peer review to ensure high quality results 
Supplementary Recommen

1. Redefine the Area of Potential Effect (

•

PEP recommended mapping extent of Ho

APE project funded in FY04

2. Prepare a systematic Evaluation of His

•

This still needs to be done

3. Reassess Geomorphology Research Pr

•

Pederson study (2001-2003) was the first 

will continue to refine geomorphic unders

4. Redefine Cultural Resource Monitorin

•

Project B.1 will address this in FY05-06
Supplementary Recommen

5. Prepare a Cultural Resource Data Base Plan

•

This was in original FY04 budget but was cut; GC

this with in-house staff in FY04.

6. Develop an Integrated Historic Property Treat

•

FY04 budget includes funding to develop HPTP a

properties in Glen Canyon reach; additional fundicorridor proposed for FY05

7. Expand Public Outreach and Education Activi

 A project to do this for the cultural program was p

funding was redirected to serve broader AMP neeproject is proposed for FY05-06, but there is no ftargeted for cultural program outreach activities in 

8. Improve Contracting Procedures
The End

The End