Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance: Implementation Tools (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8CHAPTER 2 SELECTION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TOOLS FOR DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION As noted in Chapter 1, the NCHRP panel recommended developing and testing five prototype tools that would improve the process of evaluating cultural resource significance: 1. A Historic Context Development Tool (which later was fully developed as the HPST); 2. A Historic Significance Attribute Table for organizing and documenting information used to make decisions on resource significance; 3. An MS Access database application that standardizes resource inventory data for use in evaluating resource sig- nificance (which later was fully developed as the HPST); 4. A common electronic format that would replace exist- ing historic contexts, National Register nomination forms, and Consensus of Eligibility documents (which later was fully developed as ECREL); and 5. ESRI’s Geography Network as the mechanism for making the above IT prototypes accessible to potential users across the country. The first prototype tool that the NCHRP panel directed URS to develop was the Historic Context Development Tool (Tool 1 above). The purpose of this tool was to provide a method by which consistent electronic versions of historic context documents could be generated. The tool was intended to be a stand-alone system that any user could install on his or her desktop computer and use without additional training. URS developed the prototype tool using MS Access and Visual Basic for Applications (VBA). The latter application is a run-time version of MS Access, so that the user does not need to have MS Access installed on his or her computer. A simple user’s guide for this tool was also created. URS was asked by the NCHRP panel to convene a meeting of IT professionals to serve as a focus group. This focus group would evaluate whether the other four prototypes (i.e., the prototypes for Tools 2–4) effectively improved decision mak- ing (and therefore whether the prototypes should be advanced to the full development phase). URS would then present the IT specialists’ recommendations to the NCHRP panel. The following is a discussion of the IT specialist focus group meet- ing, held in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 2004, where the four remaining prototypes were evaluated. SECOND SHPO AND STATE DOT SURVEY In order to develop realistic hardware requirements and system architectures for Tools 2–4 to be reviewed by the IT focus group, URS contacted 10 states from the original Phase 1 survey by telephone and/or e-mail. Building upon the Phase 1 study, a new questionnaire was developed, which began by asking questions such as “If IT systems are devel- oped, will you actually use them? If not, what would it take to induce you to use such a system or systems?” In addition, basic information about the hardware and software available to the states was collected. URS developed a “Business Case for Developing Four Prototype Computer Applications for Streamlining the Resource Evaluation Process” (Business Case) using, in part, the results of this second survey. The Business Case (Appendix A) included descriptions of tool system architecture, testing plans, and other details. The Business Case, which included the results of this second sur- vey, was sent to the focus group prior to its meeting. Of the 10 states contacted, only 5 agreed to participate in the second survey (Wisconsin, North Carolina, New Hamp- shire, New York, and Nevada). The Wisconsin SHPO was about to place its resource inventory on-line and had no prob- lems with making decisions on resource significance. Thus, the proposed IT tools were seen as unnecessary. The New Hampshire DOT also felt that the proposed IT tools would not be useful for improving its resource significance evaluations. The North Carolina SHPO, the Nevada SHPO, and New York DOT were more positive about the use of these IT tools. All of the states involved in this second survey noted that DOTs and SHPOs must work together if the use of any IT tool is to be successful. The states in the second survey also identified money as a key issue, asking the question “Who would pay for the development and maintenance of these tools?” These agencies all have budget difficulties. When queried about their databases (the majority of which were new), the states said they mostly used MS Access, with some moving to more robust programs, such as Oracle. If they had GIS, they all used ESRI products. The following is a summary of the states’ opinions on the proposed IT solutions: • A Historic Significance Attribute Table. The states had mixed responses to this tool. One state noted that

9since significance decision making is subjective, this tool would not be useful. • An MS Access database. Most of the states already have databases in place. States were not really interested in making changes to their existing databases or creat- ing a new one. • A Common Electronic Format. The states were very positive about this tool. All noted that it would be use- ful to have electronic access to historic contexts within the states and from other states. • ESRI’s Geography Network. The states had no com- ments on this option, as they were not familiar with the network. IT FOCUS GROUP MEETING The IT focus group meeting was held at the offices of the National Academies in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 2003. The IT specialists and users attending the meeting included the following: • Mr. John Byrne, National Register Database Manager, National Park Service; • Dr. Charles Hall, State Terrestrial Archaeologist, Mary- land Historical Trust (SHPO); • Dr. Elizabeth Hobbs, GIS Technical Lead, Minnesota Department of Transportation; • Mr. Eric Ingbar, Director of Research, Gnomon, Inc.; and • Ms. Fennelle Miller, King County DOT—Road Ser- vices, King County, Washington. Kevin Neimond of ESRI briefly attended the meeting to pre- sent information on the Geography Network. The following sections summarize the group’s discussion of each of the four tools. The group stressed that regardless of which IT options are advanced to the next phase of the study, it was important to always consider the true life cycle costs of implementing any IT system. Also, it is critical to consider the elements used by agencies and consultants to evaluate resources and to build prototypes that include these elements. If spatial data are used, for example, then spatial data need to be included and accessible through these tools. A Historic Significance Attribute Table When the members of the focus group first saw the name of this tool and its description, they had an immediate nega- tive reaction. The tool was seen as a mechanical, inflexible, quantifiable method to make what is basically a subjective decision. However, after the URS team described this tool in more detail, the focus group members realized that this was not the case. This tool is not really a simple table for orga- nizing information to calculate a “significance score.” It is more of a decision-making application that would potentially contain several tables, each one a tool to make explicit the process of deciding what is and is not eligible for listing in the National Register. The tool is a format for capturing the subjective decisions on resource significance. The focus group recommended referring to this tool simply as a “deci- sion aid,” a “preliminary screening tool,” or a “tool to orga- nize your argument.” The benefit of this tool is that it creates focused arguments on eligibility that in turn facilitate discussions and consulta- tions among agencies. This tool may also result in the creation of a “dynamic historic context,” focusing on the attributes and elements that make a resource significant. It is “dynamic” in that as the tool is used, it can build on previous signifi- cance evaluations and decisions that have been captured in an electronic format. The attributes and elements in the tool can be updated and modified based on these earlier deci- sions on significance. The focus group noted that the table should capture the attributes that make a resource significant (i.e., the elements that link a resource to the theme, geographic area, and time period within which the resource is evaluated). Also, placing an X in the boxes within the table is not enough. There should be a mechanism for attaching support documentation to the table, such as photos, reports, and maps. There should also be an attachment for narratives that describe how the resource was inventoried and researched. In terms of the table’s structure, the selection of one com- ponent in the table would dictate what other components were relevant to the evaluation of the resource in question. As the group discussed the variations in the table attributes that would be required to handle all the different resource types, it became obvious that this “table” was really a set of inter- related tables with a user-friendly interface that guided the user through the evaluation process. This prototype would be an application, not just a set of tables. The application would also produce a report that could include a National Register eligibility concurrence signature line. To develop this prototype, the focus group recommended that existing contexts be used to create the tables, using, for example, National Register forms as a start. Then, the devel- oped tables should be tested by a sample of state DOTs and/or SHPOs using selected resource categories, such as archaeo- logical site, historic structure, or historic district. To deter- mine which attributes (drawn from historic contexts) should be used to populate the tables, someone from the participat- ing state agencies should interview fellow agency staff to identify these attributes. The success of the prototype would be measured by the time saved in using the prototype. To determine the time saved, one would first measure the time it takes for DOTs and SHPOs, as well as any consulting firms that they have hired, to produce and review evaluation reports without using the prototype. One would then compare this time with the time it takes for these same organizations to produce and review evaluation reports using the prototype.

The focus group’s discussion of this prototype ended with a listing of the pros and cons of fully developing and using a Historic Significance Attribute Table. Pros included the following: • The table would provide a more defensible National Register evaluation analysis. • The table would result in more explicit National Regis- ter significance decision making and would expedite the review process. • The table would generate IT-processed reports in formal and standard formats. • The table would result in an improved and structured tool for consultation and decision making. • The table would reduce time needed for consultation among resource agencies and consultants. • The table would provide a standard format for reviews. • The table may accelerate tribal reviews. • The table would document the knowledge base of agency staff that will be leaving as a result of retirement or mov- ing to another job. • DOTs could use this tool to create a new resource eval- uation format (replacing current types of documentation [e.g., narrative evaluation reports]) to streamline the review process. Either the DOT or a consultant would complete a form and attach supporting materials. The form would then be sent electronically to the agencies involved in the evaluation consultation process for their review and concurrence. Cons of fully developing and using a Historic Significance Attribute Table include the following: • The table would require CRM professionals to define the important attributes needed to develop the tables. This definition might be difficult to do. • The table may result in the perception that the tool mech- anizes the evaluation process, resulting in an inflexible system. • The table would require more up-front time and resources to develop. Ultimately, the focus group members recommended the full development and testing of this tool. The tool was seen as an important way to streamline and improve significance evaluations. An MS Access Database The focus group noted that to use the MS Access database, it was necessary to determine whether the database would be a complete inventory of resource attributes or just the mini- mal information needed for evaluating significance. The data- base would need to link resource data and significance crite- 10 ria, the latter involving time, place, and theme. The database would also need to include integrity, and it would benefit users to have information about the use of similar resources. Having this tool would help agencies focus on collecting the right information and would give researchers and reviewers the ability to find information on similar resources. It would also lead to the development of dynamic historic contexts. The pros identified for this option were as follows: • The database would result in a standardization of databases. • The database would build significance attributes into resource inventories. The cons identified for this option were as follows: • Most states have already completed or started building databases and have invested a lot of resources in these efforts. States seem unwilling to redo, add, or modify their existing systems.1 • The database would require significant support. Ultimately, the focus group had little enthusiasm for devel- oping the prototype for this option. The primary reason for not recommending this option was the negative responses of the state DOTs and SHPOs during both the first survey and the follow-up survey conducted during Phase 2. The focus group felt that the other options were more effective mecha- nisms to improve significance evaluations. A Common Electronic Format The focus group noted that not all historic contexts are use- ful; therefore, it would be necessary for states participating in the testing of this tool to select their best historic contexts, making sure that the contexts explicitly deal with evaluating National Register eligibility. Also, it was recommended that existing electronic files and documents be used to facilitate tool development and testing. The process for developing this tool would involve (1) designing the document profile (i.e., the index values [meta- data] that should be collected for each document), (2) defin- ing the acceptable index values and keyword baseline in con- sultation with participating states, (3) collecting and scanning the documents, and (4) having states review the resulting document library. For this tool to work, good document index- ing would be necessary, as searchability would be very impor- tant. The focus group suggested the following preliminary indexing fields: 1 The project team considered developing translation programs or data loaders that could be used to link existing databases to a new standardized database or to migrate data from existing databases to a new one. There are several issues with this approach. The primary issue is the high cost of developing custom scripts to work with each dif- ferent source database and developing a customized approach for each state.

• Title, • Author, • Date, • Site number (optional), • Theme (possibly use existing state plans as a starting point), • Time period, and • Document type. The group discussed the pros and cons of having this tool on a CD versus a web option. It was noted that web avail- ability seemed to be more productive and useful than a CD, though the prototype could involve both. With web access, the trick would be to publicize the website and post informa- tion that was useful so it became a “bookmarked” site for conducting resource evaluations. The group noted that one could measure the success of a web-based tool by tracking the number of “hits” on the site. They also noted that with the web-based or CD option, one could conduct follow-up phone calls and interviews to measure the tool’s success. The pros for this application, identified by the focus group, were as follows: • The database would enhance use of historic context data by multiple states. • The database would allow for regional access and use of historic contexts. • The database would increase awareness of existing his- toric contexts. • The database would provide examples for creating new historic contexts. • The database would facilitate use of historic contexts. Cons for this application were as follows: • The database would require up-front time and cost to index and define keywords and to convert existing doc- uments and files. • The database would require classifying documents and their contents, which may result in misclassifications. • Agencies may not use the tool, given that historic con- texts are rarely used by agencies (according to the Phase 1 findings). Ultimately, the focus group strongly recommended this option. The group felt this was the most useful and important of the four proposed tools. The Geography Network Kevin Neimond from ESRI provided the following infor- mation on the Geography Network to the focus group and URS team. The Geography Network is an Internet site run by ESRI (www.geographynetwork.com). Participants in the network 11 share maps, data, and documents and publish their Internet map services through this portal. There is no charge for par- ticipants, although some labor is required each time a partic- ipant updates the site. Users search the website by selecting a geographic region, content type (maps, documents, live data, or all), and content theme. The user can also enter a keyword. The results are displayed, as shown in Figure 1. Users can view information about the data (i.e., metadata) or the link to the content type or theme. The participants in the network can decide how much information they want to post. At a minimum, they provide information about the types of data and documents they have and provide a contact (e-mail or phone number). They may publish their data for downloading, or if they already have a website, they can pro- vide a link to their website. The Geography Network includes access to data (live link or downloadable), documents (could include static maps, reports, etc.), and resources (links to other on-line services). Metadata are the key to these data, documents, and resources because they are how users search the Network. Searches are done using keywords, “bounding boxes” over geographic areas, content types, and themes. Further, the metadata have to comply with Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) requirements. Applying this tool to the NCHRP study would require the definition of metadata. For non-spatial informa- tion, fields and attributes similar to those to be used in devel- oping Tool 4 (a common electronic format for historic con- texts) could serve as metadata. In terms of the NCHRP study, there would be two options for using the Network. The first would be to simply use the Network following its current parameters. This would require no special customization. To access the Network, one would register any existing ArcIMS service (or similar Internet map Figure 1. The Geography Network—screen showing results of records search.

server [IMS]) with the Geography Network. In using ESRI’s Geography Network, one would have access to ArcExplorer Web Services. ArcExplorer is a downloadable application that provides users with additional tools to view information on the Network, along with some GIS functionality. If one does not have a web-based mapping service but wants to share information through the Network, one could post infor- mation in a data download section of the Network, set up a link to a file transfer protocol (FTP) or other mechanism, and sign up with the Network (thereby supplying the Network with metadata and other required information). The second option would be to develop a smaller network on the same technology. Examples of such smaller net- works include the Texas Geography Network, the National Geographic Map Machine, and the Bureau of Land Manage- ment’s Geocommunicator. For this second option, it would be necessary to have a stakeholder to spearhead the develop- ment effort and someone who has to design the ArcExplorer component for this smaller network. This option also requires the use of ArcSDE to extract data from each information sup- plier. ArcSDE works with Oracle or SQL Server to manage spatial data. Both ArcSDE and Oracle (or SQL Server) are complex, expensive software packages. ESRI was interested in talking to the NCHRP project team about this second option. ESRI could work with the NCHRP team to create the small network for free and then explore distribution opportuni- ties. The focus group was concerned, however, that this work might have unknown and large costs in the future. The focus group asked Mr. Neimond about security issues. He said that if location information were an issue, one could make the data scale dependent, whereby points disappear when a user zooms into an area. Location data can also be scrambled. Mr. Neimond noted, however, that each entity linking to the Network has to provide its own security. Pros for this option were as follows: • Scanned historic contexts/reports would be available on a website. • No additional project costs would be required to place information on the Network. • The Network would allow the sharing of information and access to geographic data. Cons for this option were as follows: • The Network would force data into a geographic frame- work. • There are big costs (time and resources) for developing metadata. • The database would result in loss of identification of information suppliers. • There are questions about security in terms of resource location data. 12 • There are unknown future costs associated with the use of a smaller, private network. Ultimately, the focus group saw this option as a simple and cost-effective way to provide states access to the proposed tools. The issue of cost for developing metadata would be irrelevant because defining metadata would be part of the development of the other tools. REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED TOOLS BY NCHRP PANEL The results of the focus group meeting were detailed in a May 20, 2003, interim report and submitted to the NCHRP panel for review. The URS team then met with the panel to discuss the findings presented in the interim report and to develop recommendations as to which of the four tools should be advanced to full prototype development and testing. The following is a summary of results of the meeting with the NCHRP panel. The Historic Significance Attribute Table should be called the “Historic Property Screening Tool” (HPST). The tool would be used to screen for National Register eligibility using the evaluation components of a historic context, as defined in National Register Bulletin 15 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Planning. The HPST would allow users to select a historic context and then the property type most appropriate to the resource being evaluated. The registration criteria for the property type (based in part on the aspects of integrity) would then be used to determine National Register eligibility. The common electronic format for historic contexts (Tool 4) should be referred to as the “Electronic Cultural Resource Eval- uation Library” (ECREL). The common electronic format would provide structure to the narrative that is usually included in historic contexts (e.g., containing descriptions of property types and the registration criteria for the property types). The panel also recommended that at least one historic context should be done from scratch using the common electronic for- mat in ECREL as part of the prototype’s validation process. ECREL should be a web-based tool that can be picked up in Google or other web searches. Also, since some historic contexts are very large, the panel was concerned that the Portable Document Format (PDF) files containing the con- texts may be too large to download. URS should evaluate this concern and may break large documents into smaller ones. The panel also noted that consultant reports containing good resource evaluations might be more important than existing historic contexts. ECREL should include National Register multiple prop- erty documents recently scanned by the National Park Ser- vice (NPS) so that these documents can be made searchable (which is currently not the case in the NPS’s database). This tool should also include any electronic files already scanned

by SHPOs and DOTs. Paper documents that are to be scanned should contain valuable contextual information. The panel recommended dropping the Geography Network as a tool for this study. There was a consensus among the panel members that the NPS should be responsible for dis- tributing this type of information on the Internet. This belief was also the consensus of the Phase 1 survey respondents. 13 In summary, the panel recommended that only two final tools be advanced to the full prototype development and test- ing phase: the HPST (which combines Tools 1 and 3) and ECREL (Tool 4). The following chapter details the design and testing of these two final tools.