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
Regulatory Need for Cultural Resource Spatial Data

• 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

• 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 [phone]
• Deidre_McCarthy_at_nps.gov

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