Creating Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards

Cultural Resource GIS Facility

Deidre McCarthy2008 GIS and Data Management Conference

1 April 2008

Locating Cultural ResourcesLocational information is a key factor in understanding cultural resources, and how to care for themKnowing the location of a resource on the ground provides more than an understanding of “where” the resource isGeographic clues provide information about the human and environmental influences on cultural resources, helping to explain “why” the resource exists and “how” it relates to othersA geographical context provides managers with a different perspective on our resources, allowing us to see the interaction of resources, and larger trends

Understanding Cultural ResourcesSpatially, 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

Understanding Cultural ResourcesOrganizationally, we separate out each cultural resource category and catalog each in separate databasesThis results in a specialized look at cultural resources, focusing on single aspects of a site rather than all aspects of a siteThe larger perspective, and the interconnection of resources to landscapes becomes masked when looking only at a single aspect at a timeResource 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

The Database ProblemThere 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

The Location ProblemIf geography is used to tie the cultural resource databases together, it must be standardized to insure consistency and qualityThere are few requirements now to collect coordinates in a specific way, other than those provided with the National Register of Historic PlacesThere 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.

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

• 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

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 dataThese inventories provide Federal agencies with critical data for Section 106 complianceResources 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 resourcesThe HABS/HAER database catalogs over 38,000 properties for which detailed documentation has been collectedAll 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

The Cultural Resource Spatial Data ProblemTypically spatial data collected for these inventories resides on paper maps and information describing the resources resides on paper survey formsAfter 40 years of conducting survey, the volume of cultural resource spatial data makes paper records difficult to use effectivelyConversion 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 themThe absence of such standards will result in inconsistent data across State and Federal agencies and lead to more inefficienciesWithout 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

The Need for Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards

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

Standards and guidelines for both legacy and future data are needed in a number of key areas:

Heritage Assets Subcommittee

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

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

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

Implementing Draft Standards: Katrina ResponseThe 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 1966For FEMA, the Katrina/Rita event is the largest Section 106 project ever

Section 106 RequirementsIn 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)

Survey and EvaluationFEMA 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 ParishesThe 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 106FEMA now has GPS documentation, and a GIS view of the area, showing how these resources relate to each other and their environment

Integration of the Data with FEMA and Local Partners

Part of the NPS strategy included creating a data model and GeoDatabase for the resourcesGPS data from the survey of potential demolitions was incorporatedGPS data from the properties that have been determined potentially eligible for the National Register are being incorporated as a mitigationThe GeoDatabase then becomes part of the FEMA dataset for the disaster as a wholeThe GeoDatabase becomes a form of mitigation itself, and is shared with the State Historic Preservation Office, other Federal Agencies and the City

Opportunity to Field Test Draft StandardsThe 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 modelEach cultural resource is assigned a globally unique IDEach unique representation of the location of that resource is assigned a globally unique IDA 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

Assessing the StrategyThe survey of structures scheduled for demolition, and therefore requiring assessment by FEMA for Section 106, is now completeThe 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 GISThe 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

The Need for Cultural Resource Spatial Data StandardsOur 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

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 InitiativeThe 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

Previous Attempts at Cultural Resource Standard Creation

Cultural Resource Data Sharing Partnership workshop, Glorietta: 1998CRDSP authored “Creating a Cultural Resource Metadata Standard for the Western United States” report: 2000CRDSP authored “Standards Proposal: Metadata and Content for GIS Datasets”: 2006This standard adopted by BLM for transference of data between specific Western State Historic Preservation Offices and BLMMany State Historic Preservation Offices operate on de facto standards

These standards deal only with Western states and primarily with archaeological resources onlyThese standards do not address key issues such as security of the data, nor do they provide guidelines in implementation or a data modelOther Federal agencies have implemented data standards, such as the USFS and DoD, however they do not specifically address cultural resource needsState Historic Preservation Office de facto standards are necessarily specific to the state and its resources

CRGIS Work Toward the Development of Cultural Resource Spatial Data Standards

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

CRGIS Information Sharing Efforts to DatePresentations Made to Internal NPS audiences regarding the creation of spatial data standards

Nov. 2002: Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes workshopNov. 2002: NPS GIS CouncilMar. 2003: NPS GIS CouncilApr. 2003: George Wright Society Dec. 2003: Spatial OdysseyAug. 2005: NPS GIS CouncilApr. 2006: NPS GIS CouncilMay 2006: Secretary of the Interior Apr. 2008: NPS GIS and Data Management Conference

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

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 StageCRGIS is working with the Subcommittee on Cultural and Demographic Data to reactivate the existing Cultural Resource Work GroupCRGIS 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 processAs 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 perspectivesCRGIS will continue to follow the FGDC standard creation process fostering public comment from the cultural resource and GIS communitiesAt 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

Author Information

Deidre McCarthyArchitectural historian, GISPCultural Resource GIS FacilityHeritage Documentation Programs National Park ServiceDepartment of the Interior1849 C Street, N.W. (2270)Washington, D.C. 20240-0001Voice: 202.354.2141Fax: 202.371.6473Deidre_McCarthy@nps.gov

http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/crgis/