Royal Alberta Museum - Criteria used to Measure Degree of Threat

Criteria used to Measure Degree of Threat Text Image

Geological features rated as significant may require protective attention. However, two sites that have received equal numerical scores may need differing degrees of attention. For example, a site that is stable and able to withstand natural and human-related activities may not need protective attention, whereas a less stable site may require attention. In addition, a high-scoring site may be so altered and damaged (by human traffic or by natural causes) that protection is senseless. For these reasons, a high-scoring site on this evaluation needs to be reviewed by professional earth scientists before decisions are made regarding degrees and methods of protection.

A Site with visual appeal, but human traffic is slowly damaging rocks.

Criterion #1 - Present Condition of Site

The present condition of a site is evaluated in terms of degree of human disturbance or abuse which is threatening or destroying the integrity of the feature or site. Occasionally, disturbance of a feature may actually enhance the site, and not threaten or destroy it. A discussion of this follows in the Educational/Interpretive Value evaluation.

• poor condition (site is or has been abused by man, or man-made features are obscuring site) (scores 20)

• moderate condition (site is only somewhat disrupted, but disturbance does not totally mask original feature) (scores 5)

• outstanding condition (unaltered from its original state; little or no human disturbance) (scores1)

Fragility

Features are evaluated according to their ability to withstand damage, from either natural influences (Criterion #2) or human influences (Criterion #3).

Criterion #2 - Susceptibility to Change due to Natural Influences

Natural influences include erosion and weathering.

• low fragility (feature able to withstand natural disturbances, and its characteristics are not altered) (scores 1)

• moderate fragility (feature changes in response to natural influences, with some loss of characteristics) (scores 5)

• high fragility (feature is easily disturbed and characteristics are thereby lost) (scores 10)

Criterion #3 - Susceptibility to Change due to Human Influences

• low (feature able to withstand disturbance and not be altered) (scores 1)

• moderate (feature changes in response to human activities, but with little loss of characteristics) (scores 5)

• high (feature is easily disturbed and characteristics are being lost) (scores 10)

Criterion 4 and 5 are to be answered only for paleontological, mineral, or rare rock localities. A separate scoring system will be applied for these localities.

Milk River Dykes Text Image

Criterion #4 - *Are there fossil, mineral, or rare rock specimens subject to easy removal or vandalism?

• Yes (scores 5) No (scores 1)

Criterion #5 - *Are the fossil, mineral, or rock specimens plentiful?

• Yes (scores 1) No (scores 5)

*Given the present regulations in the Alberta Historical Resources Act governing fossil collecting, answers to these questions neither condone nor condemn this activity. The intent of the questions is to identify areas where removal of fossils would be detrimental to the site or to the fossil itself. The consensus of many paleontologists is that in areas where fossils are abundant, non-commercial small-scale surface collecting is permissible. Most collectable fossils are subject to erosion and weathering and would eventually be destroyed if not collected. A "Yes" answer to criterion 4 (fossils are easily removed), combined with a "no" answer to criterion 5 (fossils are not plentiful) would score highest. This would increase the overall score for Degree of Threat for the paleontological site under consideration. This evaluation serves only to rank and compare sites against one another and is not a decision-making device. This is especially true for fossil sites, where differentiating between sites requires extensive experience and knowledge. Thus, decisions regarding them should always involve members of the earth science community to evaluate and develop policies.