Cultural And Recreation

Monitoring Program

TWG Meeting, Phoenix AZ

September 27, 2004
The End

Sociocultural Program •Heritage Resources

Archaeological sitesTraditional cultural properOther resources of tradition

• Recreation

Visitor ExperiVisitor SafetyCampsites

• Socioeconomi

HydropowRecreatio
Heritage Resource CMI

– 11.1.1 Determine status of historic 

properties under ROD operations (11.1.1.a Determine whether physical integrity is being retained sufficiently to convey significance)

– 11.1.2 Determine the efficacy of 

treatments for mitigation of adverse effects

– 11.1.3 Determine thresholds for 

impacts that threaten integrity 

(11.1.3.a Are current monitoring 

programs collecting the necessary information to assess integrity?)

– 11.1.4 How effective is monitoring 

and what are the appropriate strategies to capture change?

– 11.2.1 Are traditionally important 

resources and locations being affected?
Heritage Resource Monitori

Current Program Status

• Most cultural resource monitoring 

has been funded directly by BOR to meet Section 106 obligations, not requirements of GCPA.

• The monitoring work conducted by 

NPS has been reviewed annually by PA signatories but has not been subject to scientific peer review, except through the 2000 PEP. 

• There has been no formal review of 

tribal monitoring efforts.
Current Archeological Site 

Monitoring Program

• Variable sample of 40-70 arch sites monitored eac

NPS (total population =318 sites; 177 are actively m

• Sites monitored on a variable cycle (2x per year, on

year, once every 2-3 years, once every 5 years) dep

levels of impacts from erosion and visitor use or on sensitivity (monitoring frequency changes when im

increase or decrease)

• Impacts to features/artifacts/structures evaluated as 

inactive, or non-existent

• Impacts documented with repeat photographs• Current program partially addresses CMINs 11.1.1 

11.1.2
Issues with Current Archeolog

Site Monitoring Program

• provides mainly qualitative condition information for 

106 compliance purposes

• is not designed to provide trend data• no clear linkages to ecosystem processes and function• does not allow dam effects to be distinguished from o

causes of erosion (e.g., visitor use)

• Sample of sites monitored each year is non-random; s

most impacts are monitored most frequently. This doallow meaningful evaluation of system-wide resource status and trends 
Current Tribal Monitoring o

Cultural Resources

• Hopi, Hualapai and Southern Paiute monitor resource

specific cultural concern via annual river trip

• Resources of concern include National Register eligib

(arch sites, TCPs) and non-eligible resources (e.g., naplants)

• Monitoring approaches vary by tribe: 

-qualitative assessments of specific resources (all 3 tri-repeat photos of select locations (Southern Paiute Co-plant transects at culturally valued locations (SPC, H

- repeat surveys to track Hopi perceptions of ecosystem 

(pilot study by Hopi Tribe, proposed as long-term m
Issues with Current Tribal 

Monitoring Program

• Only small amounts of funding are currently allocated 

monitoring, all tied to Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitorin

• TEM program does not cover full range of resources of 

(e.g., mineral collecting areas , Traditional Cultural Pro

• Monitoring goals/objectives not explicit (except Hopi p• Tribal plant transects track vegetation trends at specific 

but do not allow for system wide assessments 

• Individualized approaches not readily integrated with r

other tribes/programs/data

• Tribes want to monitor and address visitor impacts, alth

is primarily an NPS management issue, outside the AM

• Monitoring results are not currently contributing to eva

dam effects or AMP decision making process
PEP review of cultural progr

(primarily focused on heritage res

• Protocol Evaluation Panel convened spring, 2000• 17 experts participated• PEP team divided into 4 sub-panels: Section 106 c

Native American issues, archaeological research, ageomorphology (No monitoring sub-panel!)

• Unlike other PEPs, the review focused on all aspec

cultural program, not specifically the monitoring pr

• The PEP review resulted in 3 core recommendation

supplementary recommendations
PEP Assessment of Monitoring Prog

• Positives: NPS has long term monitoring record (be

1992) and tactics and personnel have been fairly co

• However, the panel also noted:

“The monitoring program thus far has been implemen

good intentions but has generated few positive resulMany of the problems can be traced back to the origProgrammatic Agreement (PA) and the Monitoring Remedial Action Plan (MRAP). The assumptions aprocedures contained in these documents apparently never been questioned by those responsible for condthe work.”
The Cultural PEP criticized the cul

monitoring program on several fro

“A great deal of monitoring seems to be takin

place, but it is not part of a unified plan. Neis the monitoring leading logically to the development of the HPP or to incorporation the Adaptive Management decisions. Mon(a tactic) has been substituted for manageme

strategy). This has turned the process on itand is counterproductive.”
Additional PEP Panel Observat

“The ongoing monitoring of archaeological sites is 

providing longitudinal information on the condition sites, however, the interaction between site conditio

impacting agents is not being fully recorded or evaField reviews...revealed that little information is becollected on physical processes. For example, rateerosion ... are not being quantified. In order to evaactual loss of archaeological data over a span of timinformation is critical.”
Key PEP Recommendation

1. Develop a unified long-term monitoring plan reflec

responsibilities and authorities of the parties under ROD and GCPA : “In the future, archeological sit

monitoring should be guided by a very specific (foresearch or management design; it should not just bterm, standard activity.”

2. Redefine the Cultural Resources Monitoring Progr

meet specific program objectives: “The monitoring pr

should have two [primary] purposes.... 1) permit NPS to asseffectiveness of their management strategies (e.g. check dam effectiveness) and 2) [allow] BOR to evaluate effects of differegimes on archaeological sites, native plants and other resoudirectly affected by changing water levels and gain and loss osediment. In other words, monitoring should be designed anto serve as the basis for periodic quantitative evaluations of edam operations, effectiveness of erosion control measures, andevelopment of treatment plans.”
Additional PEP Recommendatio

1. Previously collected monitoring data should be evalu

determine its usefulness as baseline information for thmonitoring plan

2. Include quantifiable information on dam effects3. Increase sharing of information and responsibilities b

Native American monitoring programs and other monactivities by NPS and GCMRC 

4. Reinstate repeat mapping at selected sites to track pro

development of arroyos, surface deflation, etc.

5. “Given the responsibility of GCMRC for long-term m

and for ecosystem modeling, it seems essential and hiappropriate that the GCMRC take on the role as the cdata repository for cultural information.”
Recommendations for Futur

Monitoring of Heritage Resour

• Redesign program to track status and trends of dam 

archaeological sites and other historic properties

• Use random stratified sample of archeological sites 

system-wide effects

• Stratify site population by vulnerability indices (Th

and Potochnik 2000)

• Quantify erosional impacts and track erosional/dep

trends relative to dam ops, climatic variables (via wstations), human impacts, and other geomorphic “d

• Complete National Register significance assessmen

loss of integrity can be properly evaluated (CMIN 

• Develop predictive erosion model per Pederson et a

recommendation to assess efficacy of check dams (11.1.2)
RECREATION 

MONITORINGCurrent Program Status

Current recreation monitoring progrto campsite area monitoring (35+ FIS

Key info is missing (e.g., baseline invePast recreation studies have included

1) CRE User Group Preferenc

(Stewart et al. 2000)

2) Small scale studies on effects 

experimental flows (e.g., 200safety, visitor satisfaction, animpacts to recreation indust

AMWG approved funding for PEP rrecreation program and monitoring pFY04; PEP now planned for spring F
RECREATION CMINs

• CMIN 9.1.1 Determine and track the changes in recreational qua

opportunity and use, impacts and perceptions of users in the CRE

• CMIN 9.1.2 D & T the frequency and scheduling of river-related 

• CMIN 9.1.3 D & T the level of satisfaction for river-related recr

opportunities (RRROs) in the CRE

• CMIN 9.1.4 D & T the economic benefits of RRROs• CMIN 9.2.1 D & T the change in quality and range of opportuni

consideration of visitor safety, and the inherent risk of river-relat

opportunities

• CMIN 9.2.2 D & T accident rates for visitors participating in RR• CMIN 9.3.1 D & T size, quality, and distribution of camping bea

and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons

• CMIN 9.3.2 D & T effects of ROD operations on the size, qualit

distribution of camping beaches in the CRE

• CMIN 9.4.1 D & T effects of ROD operations on elements of wi

experience specific to the CRE

• CMIN 9.5.1 D & T the frequency and scheduling of research and 

activity in the Glen and Grand Canyon
VISITOR EXPERIENCE

– How do dam operations effect 

the level of visitor satisfaction with recreational experiences in the CRE relative to experiential goals established by NPS?

– Methods: Visitor Satisfaction 

Surveys (combined with creel data for Lees Ferry reach)

– Target: Lees Ferry anglers, 

private boaters, commercial river-runners (clients and guides), hikers using CRE.

– Frequency: every 5 years for 

each group/topic (plus annual summaries of creel data)
VISITOR SAFETY

– How do dam operations effect 

visitor safety?

– Target: Anglers at Lees Ferry, 

river runners 

– Methods: Annual surveys of 

guides and outfitters to determine numbers/types of incidents (equipment damage, boat strandings, injuries) relative to varying dam ops 

– Frequency: annual survey 

(Data analyzed in relation to 

specific flow regimes)
CAMPSITE MONITORIN

• Assessment of previous campsite I&M 

protocols undertaken in FY01; final report available (Kaplinksi et al. 2003)

• Report found that campsite I&M 

protocols have been highly variable (inconsistent) through time

• Report recommends:

– Conduct comprehensive inventory of all 

currently used camps in CRE

– Ground truth remotely-sensed campable 

sand areas (Breedlove et al. 2003) and determine campable area boundaries

– convene panel to develop long-term 

monitoring protocols for camp site area linked to visitor capacity

• FY06-07 budget will include projects to 

address Recommendations 1 & 2. FY04 budget funds PEP in FY05.
SOCIOECONOMICS

• 1999 NRC review was highly critical of AMP for n

more emphasis on this program element

• There is no monitoring program in place at this tim• Past studies have been either 

– Small scale analyses of impacts of experimental 

events on elements of the recreation industry, or 

– Non-peer reviewed, in-house evaluations by WA

BOR of hydropower costs of experimental flow

• AMWG approved funding for PEP review of the 

socioeconomic program and monitoring protocols i

• No specific recommendations included in CMP (bu

reports from WAPA on power generation, market vhydropower revenues, as a minimum requirement?
The End

The End