Creating Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards

1. Creating Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards Cultural Resource GIS Facility Deidre McCarthy 2008 GIS and Data Management Conference 1 April 2008

2. Locating Cultural Resources • Locational information is a key factor in understanding cultural resources, and how to care for them • Knowing the location of a resource on the ground provides more than an understanding of “where” the resource is • Geographic clues provide information about the human and environmental influences on cultural resources, helping to explain “why” the resource exists and “how” it relates to others • A geographical context provides managers with a different perspective on our resources, allowing us to see the interaction of resources, and larger trends

3. Understanding Cultural Resources • Spatially, we consider each resource a single entity • Each individual resource is viewed from several perspectives however: built features, archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, museum objects, etc. • Any one resource may be viewed from multiple perspectives or disciplines Colonial National Historical Park Shown: Core and study areas of Revolutionary War battle and historic features from Civil War battle Databases involved: landscapes, landscape elements, built features, archaeological sites, museum objects, Historic American Buildings Survey documented structures, List of Classified Structures features

4. Understanding Cultural Resources • Organizationally, we separate out each cultural resource category and catalog each in separate databases • This results in a specialized look at cultural resources, focusing on single aspects of a site rather than all aspects of a site • The larger perspective, and the interconnection of resources to landscapes becomes masked when looking only at a single aspect at a time • Resource managers and planners must refer to multiple data sources to find the available information on a single cultural resource • Cultural Resource Databases within the National Park Service Alone • NRIS – National Register Information System • NHL – National Historic Landmarks • HABS/HAER – Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record • CLAIMS – Cultural Landscapes Automated Inventory Management System • LCS – List of Classified Structures • ERI – Ethnographic Resources Inventory • NAGPRA – Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act • ANCS – Automated National Catalog System • ASMIS – Archaeological Sites Recording and Management Information System

5. The Database Problem • There is no umbrella organization or methodology for linking all of the cultural resource databases together • The existing databases serve important purposes and maintain specific data that can not be collapsed into a single cultural resource database • Geography can be used as a means of integrating the databases however • One location can be used to reference multiple databases

6. The Location Problem • If geography is used to tie the cultural resource databases together, it must be standardized to insure consistency and quality • There are few requirements now to collect coordinates in a specific way, other than those provided with the National Register of Historic Places • There are conflicting requirements on the level of detail required for resource locations Detail can be important for the users of our data. Looking at an historic district boundary provides very different information from the contributing resources within the district.

7. National Historic Preservation Act • National Environmental Policy Act • Archaeological Resources Protection Act • Abandoned Shipwreck Act • Native American Graves Repatriation Act • Historic Sites Act of 1935 Regulatory Need for Cultural Resource Spatial Data • The Federal government relies on cultural resource geospatial information to comply with preservation laws, regulations and guidelines • Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act: Federal agencies are required to identify historic resources and evaluate their significance within areas of Federal undertakings; determine any adverse effects and develop treatment measures to mitigate against those effects • Section 110, National Historic Preservation Act: Federal agencies are required to develop a preservation program that identifies historic resources, nominates them to the National Register, include cultural resources in comprehensive planning and manage their own sites

8. Federal, State and Local Need for Cultural Resource Spatial Data • State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, Certified Local Governments and Federal agencies maintain comprehensive inventories of cultural resources totaling over 5 million properties, all with geospatial data • These inventories provide Federal agencies with critical data for Section 106 compliance • Resources on these inventories form the pool from which properties are nominated to the National Register of Historic Places • The National Register contains over 75,000 entries including 15,000 districts containing over 1 million contributing resources • The HABS/HAER database catalogs over 38,000 properties for which detailed documentation has been collected • All of this information is used by Federal, State and local agencies in comprehensive planning efforts, responses to disasters, compliance with Section 106, among many other standard procedures

9. The Cultural Resource Spatial Data Problem • Typically spatial data collected for these inventories resides on paper maps and information describing the resources resides on paper survey forms • After 40 years of conducting survey, the volume of cultural resource spatial data makes paper records difficult to use effectively • Conversion of all cultural resource data, particularly the spatial data, to digital formats must be done to adequately protect our resources and plan for their future management • Many Federal and State agencies have independently automated their data without any overarching standards to help guide and assist them • The absence of such standards will result in inconsistent data across State and Federal agencies and lead to more inefficiencies • Without Federal wide standards for cultural resource spatial data, it is difficult to exchange data among agencies or between States and effectively manage our cultural resources

10. The Need for Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards • Standards and guidelines for both legacy and future data are needed in a number of key areas: • We need standards for collecting cultural resource spatial data: geometry, accuracy, datum, coordinate systems, sub-entities etc. • We need guidelines that relate cultural resource spatial data to cultural resource attribute data • We need standards that address how to safeguard sensitive spatial data • We need metadata standards at the data set and feature levels

11. Heritage Assets Subcommittee • Chartered in June 2007 under the NPS GIS Council, the Heritage Assets Subcommittee is composed of cultural resource and GIS specialists • All regions and cultural resource databases are represented • Co-Chaired by John Knoerl (CRGIS) and Anne Vawser (MWAC) • 16 Subcommittee members who rotate on one and two year terms • Other members of specific task groups augment the 16 subcommittee members • Goals • Encourage more use of GIS among the cultural resource community • Collaborate among cultural resource specialists to form cultural resource spatial data standards • To produce better spatial representations of cultural resources throughout the NPS for use in planning, resource protection and preservation activities • Create GIS tools and applications to assist cultural resource specialists within the NPS to meet the standards developed and perform routine GIS operations

12. What OMB Circular A-16 Defines for the NPS • Circular A-16 designates the National Park Service as the lead agency for cultural resources, responsible for the stewardship of the cultural resource data theme • Within the National Park Service the Cultural Resources Geographic Information Services (CRGIS) office has been given this responsibility • assess existing standards and identify needs • develop and implement FGDC standards • develop plan for the implementation of standards and population of the data set • collect and analyze information regarding user needs • publish data online

13. Implementing Draft Standards: Katrina Response • The Katrina/Rita disaster is the single largest disaster for cultural resources that the US has witnessed since the creation of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966 • For FEMA, the Katrina/Rita event is the largest Section 106 project ever

14. Section 106 Requirements • In order to be compliant with Section 106, FEMA must survey and evaluate all potential demolitions (funded by FEMA) for their historic significance, consult with the State Historic Preservation Office to develop concurrence, and determine what will mitigate any adverse affects to historic resources • To do this, FEMA needs accurate locational information for potential undertakings to understand the extent of the problem • FEMA needs an accurate evaluation of the historic significance and nature of the resources, including current photographs • In order to place any potentially eligible resources into context, FEMA must also have an understanding of the historic significance of the area to understand the interaction of various cultural resources and their relative significance Scope of the problem in New Orleans: 5000 red-tagged structures (eminent threat) 86,000 yellow-tagged structures (major damage) 40,000 green-tagged structures (habitable)

15. Survey and Evaluation • FEMA requested the National Park Service, Cultural Resource GIS Facility, develop a strategy for identifying and evaluating all of the affected properties for their National Register eligibility in Orleans Parish, and the surrounding Parishes • The NPS developed a GPS survey strategy for the properties slated for demolition by the City of New Orleans, using hand-held receivers with a detailed data dictionary to document the historic characteristics, condition, integrity and eligibility of each structure. • This accurate survey produced a form of documentation, as required by Section 106 • FEMA now has GPS documentation, and a GIS view of the area, showing how these resources relate to each other and their environment

16. Integration of the Data with FEMA and Local Partners • Part of the NPS strategy included creating a data model and GeoDatabase for the resources • GPS data from the survey of potential demolitions was incorporated • GPS data from the properties that have been determined potentially eligible for the National Register are being incorporated as a mitigation • The GeoDatabase then becomes part of the FEMA dataset for the disaster as a whole • The GeoDatabase becomes a form of mitigation itself, and is shared with the State Historic Preservation Office, other Federal Agencies and the City

17. Opportunity to Field Test Draft Standards • The GeoDatabase created for the Katrina disaster followed a data model that implemented draft cultural resource spatial data standards, allowing the NPS to field test the model • Each cultural resource is assigned a globally unique ID • Each unique representation of the location of that resource is assigned a globally unique ID • A link table associates the cultural resource ID with each of its locational IDs, and allows links from each resource to external databases, such as those created by other Federal, state or local partners

18. Assessing the Strategy • The survey of structures scheduled for demolition, and therefore requiring assessment by FEMA for Section 106, is now complete • The successful survey strategy and GeoDatabase implementation of the draft standards has allowed the Federal and state partners to quickly and digitally form concurrence on National Register eligible properties, through GIS • The successful implementation of the data model based on the draft standards has been incorporated into a programmatic agreement formed between FEMA and the state, calling for the provision of direct links between the FEMA data, the SHPO GIS and the City of New Orleans GIS. • The GPS documentation of cultural resources, GIS data produced, and the method of reviewing each site for Section 106 purposes is digital for the first time, and now serves as a mitigation or treatment measure for the first time

19. The Need for Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards • Our test implementation of the draft cultural resource spatial data standards through the Katrina response clearly demonstrated the benefits of establishing such standards • Standards will facilitate the exchange and integration of data among Federal, State and local agencies to provide better protection to these resources • Standards will enable the efficient conversion of legacy cultural resource inventory paper forms/maps into digital data available to perform more sophisticated spatial analyses and provide easy access to information

20. Advancing the Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards • The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has presented its findings and recommendations to the White House based on the Preserve America Initiative • The report lists as its top priority the creation of a comprehensive inventory of historic properties making them more accessible and compatible across the country • Clearly the creation of cultural resource spatial data standards and the inclusion of such inventories in a GIS would meet this identified need and provide an improved method for preservationists at local, state and Federal levels to meet their regulatory responsibilities, as well as provide better information to the public regarding their cultural resources

21. Previous Attempts at Cultural Resource Standard Creation • Cultural Resource Data Sharing Partnership workshop, Glorietta: 1998 • CRDSP authored “Creating a Cultural Resource Metadata Standard for the Western United States” report: 2000 • CRDSP authored “Standards Proposal: Metadata and Content for GIS Datasets”: 2006 • This standard adopted by BLM for transference of data between specific Western State Historic Preservation Offices and BLM • Many State Historic Preservation Offices operate on de facto standards • These standards deal only with Western states and primarily with archaeological resources only • These standards do not address key issues such as security of the data, nor do they provide guidelines in implementation or a data model • Other Federal agencies have implemented data standards, such as the USFS and DoD, however they do not specifically address cultural resource needs • State Historic Preservation Office de facto standards are necessarily specific to the state and its resources

22. CRGIS Work Toward the Development of Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards • CRGIS participated in CRDSP efforts including the Glorietta Workshop from 1998 through 2006 • NPS Cultural Resource Database Managers workshop: Oct. 2003 • Release of Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards questionnaire to Federal agencies: Feb. 2004 • FGDC grant proposal submitted to request funding for a Federal cultural resource spatial data standards workshop: May 2004 • Development of first draft data model: Oct. 2005 • NPS Cultural Resource Database Managers workshop: Oct. 2005 • Field test of standards and data model with FEMA in response to hurricane Katrina: Nov. 2005 (on-going) • Development of second draft data model: Oct. 2006 • Posting of draft standards on NPS website: Oct. 2006 • Submission of proposal for cultural resource spatial data content standard to the FGDC Standards Working Group: December 2007 • Proposal for cultural resource spatial data content standard approved by the FGDC: February 2008

23. CRGIS Information Sharing Efforts to Date • Presentations Made to other Federal audiences regarding the creation of spatial data standards • Feb. 2004: Fish and Wildlife National GIS workshop • Mar. 2004: National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers • Apr. 2004: Federal Preservation Forum • Feb. 2005: Federal Preservation Institute • Feb. 2006: ESRI Federal Users Conference • Mar. 2006: DoD JSEM Conference • Apr. 2005: Federal Preservation Institute • July 2006: DoD Cultural Resource Workshop • Aug. 2006: ESRI Annual Users Conference • Oct. 2006: Preserve America Summit • Mar. 2007: Federal Preservation Officer meeting • May 2007: Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management Data Users Group Meeting • Sept. 2007: National Trust for Historic Preservation Annual Conference • Feb. 2008: Federal Training Work Group • Feb. 2008: Federal Geographic Data Committee • Presentations Made to Internal NPS audiences regarding the creation of spatial data standards • Nov. 2002: Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes workshop • Nov. 2002: NPS GIS Council • Mar. 2003: NPS GIS Council • Apr. 2003: George Wright Society • Dec. 2003: Spatial Odyssey • Aug. 2005: NPS GIS Council • Apr. 2006: NPS GIS Council • May 2006: Secretary of the Interior • Apr. 2008: NPS GIS and Data Management Conference

24. CRGIS Plan for Continuing with the Standard Creation Effort • The FGDC project proposal recognizing the need for the cultural resource spatial data standard was approved by the FGDC in February 2008, moving it to the Project Stage • CRGIS is working with the Subcommittee on Cultural and Demographic Data to reactivate the existing Cultural Resource Work Group • CRGIS will work to include Federal, State, Tribal, and local government representatives, as well as private sector and academic historic preservationists to participate in the standard creation process • As part of the consensus building process, CRGIS will host a workshop/summit of these participants to begin working toward a coherent, consistent and agreed upon set of standards and guidelines reflecting all perspectives • CRGIS will continue to follow the FGDC standard creation process fostering public comment from the cultural resource and GIS communities • At the same time, the Heritage Assets Subcommittee will work to create NPS cultural resource spatial data standards that fit within the NPS EGIS efforts, and conform to the consensus developed through the FGDC process

25. Author Information Deidre McCarthy Architectural historian, GISP Cultural Resource GIS Facility Heritage Documentation Programs National Park Service Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, N.W. (2270) Washington, D.C. 20240-0001 Voice: 202.354.2141 Fax: 202.371.6473 Deidre_McCarthy@nps.gov http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/crgis/