Hopi Long-term Monitoring 

Program for Öngtupqa
Cultural Importance

– Origin point

– Location for numerous

traditional narratives and

the home for many 

deities

– Ancestral home

– Resources

– Final resting place
Monitoring Methodology

• Goal:

–Integrate traditional Hopi cultural values into a 

science-based long-term monitoring program

• Challenges:

–Restrictions on entry into Öngtupqa

–Sampling issues

• Survey based approach 

–Premise: it is during the interpretation of data 

and not necessarily during its collection where 

cultural values and traditional knowledge are best 

integrated

–Developed out of the TEM integration project 

(2001-2004)
Data Acquisition

• Relies primarily on data collected by other scientists

• Information converted to Standardized Presentations

– Data needs to be made relevant; convert into familiar terms or 

concepts

• Independent observation by

limited number of Hopis on river

trips

– Repeat visits to specific sites

– Locations with culturally

important resources

– Repeat photography

– Voucher specimens
Surveys

• “General” survey (13 questions)

• River Trip participant survey (20 questions) 

• River Trip participants address resource health for a wider 

suite of resources

• Both cover

– General cultural questions

– Resource health questions

– Management questions
Survey Categories

• Cultural

– Should Hopi be involved in management and monitoring?

– Is monitoring information important?

– Relevance of information?

• Resources

– Marshes – Birds – Archaeological Sites

– Hopi Salt Mine – Willows – Animals

– Native Fish – Snakes – Insects

– Springs and seeps

• Management

– Is recreation appropriate?

– Should trout be removed?

– Do non-native species have a role?

– Treatment of Archaeological Sites?

 Yes/No and Narrative response options
Results To Date

• Monitoring program “officially” begun in 2008; Surveys 

conducted annually since 2003

• 182 surveys have been completed by Hopis

– represents 111 individual Hopis

• Response pattern same for people who take river trips and 

those who don’t

• Response pattern same for participation on a single river 

trip or multiple river trips

• Response pattern same for men and women

• Over all surveys and across all resource categories, 68% of 

the responses indicate a positive assessment of resource 

health



Note: Birds and Hopi Salt Mine follow this same pattern
Note: Animals, Insects, and Springs and Seeps all follow this same pattern




• Generic eroding site:

– 38% Excavate

– 26% Rebury

– 6% Other

– 31% Let Erode

• Human-caused erosion:

– 36% Excavate

– 38% Rebury

– 9% Other

– 16% Let Erode

Archaeological Site Treatment

64% Intervention

75% Intervention
Conclusions and Recommendations

• Work to date demonstrate the feasibility of this approach 

to capturing Hopi assessment of resource health

• Larger sample size is needed:

– Longer temporal duration

– More annual participation

• Need additional input on terrestrial resources:

– AMP has not consistently collected information on the 

status of a number of resource categories that are 

culturally important to the Hopi Tribe. This includes 

archaeological sites, vegetation, avifauna, reptiles, 

insects, and mammals.