1 10 5 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/c523833a25bb03cde5fb458c778031d7.pdf 39f063505a1ab66bbff69c2fbc9a12a7 PDF Text Text Recent Efforts in Underwater Cultural Heritage Management on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Dave Ball Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Camarillo, California 93010, USA Email: david.ball@boem.gov Abstract The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for managing the nation’s energy and mineral resources on the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). These resources include conventional energy (oil and gas), renewable energy (wind and hydrokinetic) and sand and gravel extraction for beach restoration. As with any federal action or undertaking, an assessment of potential impacts to the environment, including cultural resources, is required to make an informed decision. The BOEM Pacific OCS Region is taking a proactive approach to cultural resources management on the OCS by funding research efforts that provide baseline information on known and potential underwater cultural resources, and by identifying best practices for incorporating information from indigenous communities in the planning process. Key words: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Cultural Landscape, Offshore Renewable Energy, Outer continental Shelf, Submerged Landform, Tribe Introduction The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for managing over 1.76 billion acres of seafloor off the coast of the United States (U.S.) and is charged with regulatory oversight of offshore conventional energy (oil and gas), renewable energy (wind, wave and ocean currents) and marine minerals (primarily sand and gravel resources for coastal restoration). The Bureau’s jurisdiction begins 3 nautical miles offshore and extends approximately 200 nautical miles, to the extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone1. BOEM’s authority over conventional energy and marine minerals was established through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953, which gave the Secretary of the Interior authority over mineral exploration and development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Through the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 BOEM (then operating as the Minerals Management Service) also has authority over offshore renewable energy. The EPAct significantly expanded the bureau’s offshore energy responsibilities and renewed interest in energy development on the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. For any federal action or undertaking within the Bureau’s authority, BOEM 1 �must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other legislative and regulatory environmental requirements. Included in those requirements is the obligation to consult with federally recognized tribal governments, as mandated through Executive Order 13175 and Secretarial Order 3317. Additionally, the NHPA requires consultation with federally recognized tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations for cultural resources that are considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As BOEM’s offshore renewable energy program has developed, and applications for construction of offshore facilities are increasing, it is important that the Bureau properly engage with the nation’s coastal indigenous communities. To ensure that the Bureau is consulting properly, BOEM is funding several projects that seek to be more proactive in developing the best practices for identifying appropriate information gathering protocols and survey measures in order to avoid or mitigate adverse effects during development on the OCS. Each of these projects is rooted in the cultural landscape concept, which seeks to develop a more holistic understanding of areas that could be affected by a proposed action or undertaking by integrating environmental science with historical, archaeological and traditional knowledge. Cultural Landscape Approach The concept of cultural landscapes is not new. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), “[I]n 1992, the World Heritage Convention became the first international legal instrument to recognize and protect cultural landscapes” (Mitchell et al., 2009: 19). UNESCO defines a cultural landscape as embracing… “…a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment. Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land-use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature…Cultural landscapes are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time” (Mitchell et al., 2009: 19-20). In recent years the cultural landscape approach has also gained traction and acceptance within the federal historic preservation program in the U.S. For example, the U.S. National Park Service’s Bulletin 36 defines a cultural landscape as, “a 2 �geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values” (NPS, 1994). More recently, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee issued a white paper in 2011, which recommended incorporating a cultural landscape approach to “strengthen conservation of resources that cross the land/sea interface, promote sustainability of those resources and improve the socio-economic resilience of communities which depend upon them” (MPAFAC, 2011: 4). Additionally, in 2011 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) released the Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes Action Plan, which is designed to:  Promote the recognition and protection of Native American traditional cultural landscapes both within the federal government and the historic preservation community  Address the challenges of the consideration of Native American traditional cultural landscapes in the Section 106 review process as well as in NEPA reviews (ACHP, 2012). This plan was adopted by the ACHP in November 2011 and announced by the White House on June 28, 2012 (Donaldson, 2012). BOEM Environmental Studies Established in 1973 under the former Minerals Management Service, the Environmental Studies Program (ESP) is an applied science program that was created to develop, conduct and oversee scientific research specifically to inform policy decisions regarding offshore energy and marine minerals activities on the OCS. Research conducted through the BOEM ESP covers physical oceanography, atmospheric sciences, biology, protected species, social sciences and economics, submerged cultural resources and environmental fates and effects. The primary goal of the ESP is to provide information needed for the assessment and management of environmental impacts on the human, marine and coastal environments of the OCS and the potentially affected coastal areas. As a result, BOEM is a leading contributor to the growing body of scientific knowledge about the nation’s marine and coastal environment. Through BOEM’s ESP, baseline 3 �analysis of underwater cultural heritage resources has been updated off the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coasts (Pearson et al., 2003; TRC, 2012; ICF International et al., 2014, respectively). Each of these studies includes a database of identified and reported historic shipwrecks and a predictive model of high probability areas that could be associated with submerged prehistoric landforms, areas that would have been exposed thousands of years ago during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Additionally, in support of potential offshore renewable energy development, initial baseline assessments have been completed along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of historic properties that could be affected by alteration of the seascape from construction of offshore facilities (TRC, 2012; ICF International et al., 2014, respectively). BOEM held the first commercial offshore renewable energy lease sale for an area off of Rhode Island in July 2013, and a second sale was held off Virginia in September. Interest for developing offshore renewable energy has also been expressed elsewhere on the Atlantic OCS, as well as off the coasts of Hawaii and Oregon within the BOEM Pacific OCS Region. Offshore renewable energy siting could have an affect on submerged prehistoric sites and coastal sites that are important to indigenous groups. Expected impacts to the seafloor will occur from the installation of individual wind, wave or ocean current generators and associated transmission cable corridors. Additionally, wind turbines, which can stand 300-500 feet above the ocean surface, will have a definite visual signature. Depending on how far offshore wind turbines are constructed, many of these facilities will be visible to some extent from the coast, and therefore will have some level of affect to the offshore view. Therefore, as BOEM reviews applications for offshore renewable energy projects, it is critical that the Bureau not only develop protocols that honor the unique relationship between the federal government, sovereign tribal nations and indigenous communities, but also incorporates traditional knowledge and oral tradition into the decision-making process. To meet these challenges, BOEM has awarded several research studies that seek to develop best-practices protocols for working with federally recognized tribes and Native Hawaiian communities, as well as incorporating information from these groups into the analysis of offshore geophysical survey data. Some of these projects are briefly 4 �highlighted below and two of these efforts will be detailed further in this session by Valerie Grussing and Hans Van Tilburg. Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project Off the Atlantic coast of the U.S., where interest in offshore wind energy has been more prominent, BOEM has entered into a cooperative agreement with the University of Rhode Island, in partnership with the Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office, to develop a science-based, standardized best practices methodology for incorporating tribal knowledge into a predictive model for identifying submerged landforms. Developing Protocols for Reconstructing Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes and Identifying Ancient Native American Archaeological Sites in Submerged Environments seeks to enhance and refine the Bureau’s understanding of submerged paleocultural landscape distribution on the Atlantic OCS and to better understand and identify paleocultural landscapes of importance to regional tribes through collaborative research. Specifically, the project is designed to incorporate Narragansett Indian Tribal oral history and traditional knowledge with remote sensing surveys off the coast of Rhode Island in order to develop a geospatial predictive model that will identify offshore environments with varying archaeological sensitivity for containing ancient Native American archaeological resources. The first phase of the project was completed in the spring of 2013, which consisted of a 2-day workshop between invited tribal representatives and archaeologists from Europe and the U.S. The workshop reviewed current theories on submerged landform identification and discussed how to respectfully engage Native American tribes. The second phase of the project will synthesize the information obtained at the workshop, along with published sources, to develop a methodology aimed at incorporating tribal knowledge into best practices protocols for developing a model to identify submerged landforms. Once a working model is developed, researchers will conduct field investigations and data acquisition, combined with tribal traditional knowledge in order to validate the model and create a more complete understanding of the paleocultural landscape off Rhode Island. The project also includes an outreach component with the Narragansett Tribe and will develop training materials and a documentary film. This project was awarded as a cooperative agreement through the North Atlantic Coast 5 �Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit in July 2012 and should be completed in September, 2016. Characterization of Tribal Cultural Landscapes At the time of this writing, the BOEM Pacific OCS office has received two applications for offshore renewable energy projects off the Oregon coast. These proposed projects include a commercial floating wind lease off of Coos Bay and a marine hydrokinetic (MHK) research lease off of Newport. Prior to receiving these lease requests, the BOEM Pacific OCS office entered into an interagency agreement with NOAA’s Marine Protected Areas Center and the Maritime Heritage Program to develop best practices protocols for working with west coast tribes to incorporate information on tribal cultural landscapes into the Bureau’s decision-making process. The goal of this project, Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes, is to develop a proactive approach to working with Native American communities in order to identify areas of tribal significance that need to be considered in the planning process. A more detailed discussion of this project is provided elsewhere in this session by Dr. Valerie Grussing in her paper, Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes for Resource Preservation and Protection. Hawaii Maritime Heritage The BOEM Pacific OCS Region office has not yet received any completed applications for renewable energy projects offshore Hawaii, however, interest has been expressed for offshore wind development. In May 2012, the BOEM Pacific OCS Region signed an inter-agency agreement with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to provide baseline information on underwater cultural heritage resources off the eight main Hawaiian Islands. The project, Assessing Historic Properties and Cultural Resources in the Main Hawaiian Islands, will develop a database of underwater and land-based cultural resources that could be affected by construction of offshore renewable energy facilities. The project also seeks to develop a best practices methodology for engaging Native Hawaiian communities, similar to the Tribal Cultural Landscapes project, so that information important to Native Hawaiians is included in the planning and review process for any future offshore renewable energy applications. This is the first cultural resources-related project that BOEM has undertaken for Hawaii and the information 6 �collected through this effort will provide critical information for taking into consideration the effects of offshore renewable energy development on cultural resources near the eight main Hawaiian Islands. Further information on this effort is discussed elsewhere in this session by Dr. Hans Van Tilburg in his paper, Assessing Historic Properties and Cultural Resources in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Submerged Landforms on the Pacific OCS With the completion of the updated baseline study on underwater cultural heritage for the BOEM Pacific OCS Region, BOEM developed this follow-up study to further investigate submerged landforms off the U.S. west coast and to refine the predictive model for where these landforms might be expected. Archaeological and Biological Assessment of Submerged Landforms off the Pacific Coast is a multi-disciplinary effort that will examine existing data sets from areas off the southern California and central Oregon coastlines that have been identified as having a high potential to be associated with previously exposed landforms. The project will develop and field test a geospatial model that will aid in the identification and classification of potential submerged cultural landforms from existing remote sensing data and seafloor maps in areas along the Pacific coast. Similar to the Narragansett project on the Atlantic OCS, this project will evaluate existing remote sensing data and review current theories on sea level rise during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) on the Pacific OCS in order to identify high probability areas for further testing. Biological indicators, such as hard-bottom features, will also be assessed to see if these features correlate with possible submerged landforms. The project will also conduct fine-scale survey and ground-truthing of identified features and analyze new data for possible indicators of prehistoric human activity. This project should be completed in 2017. Pacific Region Ocean Uses Atlas The last project that the BOEM Pacific Region office is currently undertaking, which has the potential to incorporate cultural use information from indigenous communities, is the Pacific Region Ocean Use Atlas (PROUA). The PROUA project was developed through an inter-agency agreement with NOAA’s National Ocean Service and is designed to document where coastal communities use the ocean across a full range of typical human activities and sectors. The primary objective of the project is to enhance ocean 7 �planning for offshore renewable energy development and inform other ocean planning strategies that require insight on how and where ocean areas are used for recreational, commercial and industrial types of activity. One component of this project is to conduct interactive participatory mapping workshops in order to capture the knowledge of community experts about the patterns of ocean uses occurring off the coasts of Hawaii, Oregon and Washington. Though the previously discussed efforts have not yet been completed to fully develop protocols for engagement with coastal indigenous communities, efforts have been made to invite these groups into the process appropriately. Conclusion With the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, BOEM’s mandate over offshore energy and marine minerals expanded to include offshore renewable energy. In an attempt to improve BOEM’s environmental review process and better fulfill the Bureau’s obligation to consult with federally recognized tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations, BOEM is developing a more proactive approach to engage indigenous communities in the decision-making process in support of offshore renewable energy. Information on each of the studies described in this paper, as well as other research funded by the Bureau, can be found on our website at: www.boem.gov\studies\. Acknowledgement Funding for the research projects identified above has been provided through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The author would like to thank the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, the Makah Tribe, and the Yurok Tribe for their efforts on the Tribal Cultural Landscapes project, as well as the Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office for their efforts on the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes project. Endnote 1 OCSLA and the Submerged Lands Act define the OCS as all submerged lands lying seaward of state coastal waters. For most coastal states federal waters begin 3 nautical miles past the mean low tide line, the exception to this rule includes offshore Texas and the west coast of Florida, whose state waters extend 9 nautical miles offshore. 8 �References ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), 2012. The ACHP’s Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes Action Plan. http://www.achp.gov/traditional-culturallandscape.pdf, accessed 05 December 2013. Donaldson, M. W., 2012.Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes Action Plan – Better Decisions for Historic Properties. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/06/28/native-american-traditional-culturallandscapes-action-plan-better-decisions-histo-0, accessed 05 December 2013. ICF International Davis Geoarchaeological Research and Southeastern Archaeological Research, 2013. Inventory and Analysis of Coastal and Submerged Archaeological Site Occurrence, Pacific OCS. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS, Camarillo, CA OCS Study BOEM 2013-0115, pp. 363. Mitchell, N., Mechtild Rössler, and Pierre-Marie Tricaud., (Eds.), 2009. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_26_en.pdf, accessed 04 December 2013. NPS (National Park Service), 1994. Bulletin 36 Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/preservedocs/preservation-briefs/36PreserveBrief-Landscapes.pdf, accessed 04 December 2013. MPAFAC (Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee), 2011. White Paper and Recommendations of Managing Marine Resources across the Land/Sea Interface. http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpfulresources/mpafac_rec_protected_landsea_12_11.pdf, accessed 04 December 2013. Pearson, C. E., James, Jr., S. R., Krivor, M. C., El Darragi, S. D., and Cunningham, L., 2003. Refining and Revising the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region HighProbability Model for Historic Shipwrecks: Final Report. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-060, 2003-061, 2003-062, 3 Volumes. TRC Environmental Corporation, 2012. Inventory and Analysis of Archaeological Site Occurrence on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 9 �Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2012-008, pp. 324. Dave Ball is the Pacific Region Historic Preservation Officer and Diving Safety Officer for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Before joining BOEM he worked for several archaeological firms in the Pacific Northwest. He received a BA in anthropology from Sonoma State University in 1992 and an MA in anthropology from Florida State University in 1998. Dave has over 20 years’ experience in archaeology and has directed field research on both terrestrial and underwater archaeological sites across the country, including inundated prehistoric sites, World War II shipwrecks, and deepwater shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico. He is currently serving on the Board of Directors for the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology. 10 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 2: New Approaches in UCH Management in the US Subject The topic of the resource Video interview with Session 2 chair Dr. Hans Van Tilburg and links to the papers included in the session. Description An account of the resource In 2009, responding to the effort to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, the U.S. National Marine Protected Areas Center formed a Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group to provide expert advice on improving the conservation and management of maritime heritage resources. The resulting White Paper provided a series of recommendations to both the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, including new definitions for cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes. Central to these recommendations was a strong endorsement for the Cultural Landscape Approach in the understanding and management of maritime heritage resources (or UCH). Subsequently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Maritime Heritage Program has adopted the recommendations of this paper and is implementing a “maritime cultural landscape” approach to the management of cultural resources within the National Marine Sanctuary System. Also as a part of this initiative, NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support maritime cultural landscape studies of heritage resources by Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian communities in the Pacific region. These projects on the U.S. West Coast and in the Hawaiian Islands demonstrate the necessity of adapting a broader range of recognized cultural resources and a more inclusive and participatory management and preservation process. Charismatic resources like historic shipwrecks will always provide unique information for archaeologists and historians, but we do ourselves a disservice if we focus solely on these types of properties, and neglect other perspectives and the broader nature of all types and traces of human existence that lie underwater. Participants in this session will focus on the status of these ongoing ground-breaking projects, the advantages of a broader and more inclusive approach compared to the previous cultural heritage management paradigm in the U.S., and the challenges that this creates. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Hans Van Tilburg Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Recent Efforts in Underwater Cultural Heritage Management on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Description An account of the resource The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is responsible for managing the nation’s energy and mineral resources on the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). These resources include conventional energy (oil and gas), renewable energy (wind and hydrokinetic) and sand and gravel extraction for beach restoration. As with any federal action or undertaking, an assessment of potential impacts to the environment, including cultural resources, is required to make an informed decision. The BOEM Pacific OCS Region is taking a proactive approach to cultural resources management on the OCS by funding research efforts that provide baseline information on known and potential underwater cultural resources, and by identifying best practices for incorporating information from indigenous communities in the planning process. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dave Ball, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/13/2014 Asia-Pac Session 2 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/5ed56c643dc7d77453175c2bbd02196c.pdf b115931d4feda2bc01ae7229595aed48 PDF Text Text Observations on developing a maritime cultural landscape approach to managing US National Marine Sanctuaries Bradley W. Barr National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Scituate, Massachusetts 02066, USA Email: Brad.Barr@noaa.gov Abstract Effectively managing marine protected areas requires considerable knowledge of these special places people value and to which they are sometimes strongly attached. Usually, this knowledge is limited to the present state of resources and changes observed in the recent past, which is used to inform the development of management actions to address current and emerging threats to biodiversity and underwater cultural heritage (UCH) resources. However, while acquiring this “snapshot” of the current status of natural and cultural resources is necessary, it is often not sufficient. Understanding the longer-term history of that site, illuminating its “maritime cultural landscape” (MCL), can provide critical context to interpreting that somewhat static “snapshot”. MCLs represent the historical imprint of human interactions with these special places, providing a deeper base of social and historical information to inform and empower stewardship of natural and UCH resources. The National Marine Sanctuary System (NMSS) sites are already managed as landscapes – through ongoing implementation of ecosystem-based management (EBM) – and integrating MCL approaches offers opportunities to expand and enhance our deeper understanding of how these socio-ecological systems were formed, changed over time, and how coastal communities adapted to, and influenced, these changes. Better understanding these historical interactions can offer significant insights, integrated with knowledge attained through EBM, that can inform and guide contemporary management decision making. The NMSS has developed a vision and strategy for implementing an integrated EBM/MCL approach to stewardship, and is in the process of implementing that strategy. Key words: Maritime Cultural Landscapes, Underwater cultural heritage, Ecosystembased management, Marine protected areas, Stewardship Introduction: Valued Places We all have “special places”. Places that have deeper meaning to us, places that evoke especially memorable activities or events, or places we seek out, either physically or in our minds, when we need a retreat from the pressures of life. It is our deep connection to these places that imbues our lives with meaning, defines who we are, and influences our values and behavior. These places are, in turn, affected by our connection to them, our reliance on them for physical and spiritual sustenance, our recreation and 1 �livelihoods. Senegalese conservationist Baba Dioum has written “in the end, we will only conserve what we love”. Given this, it should not be too surprising that many of these special places have been preserved by society under law and policy as protected areas. It should also not be too surprising that the managers of these protected areas would have a keen interest in this essential human/environment relationship, what people find special about the place they manage, and how they can effectively preserve whatever compels and elicits such connections. If we do not have some knowledge of this relationship, of what people value about that place, how can we possibly offer the stewardship such a special place deserves? Protecting these special places in the coastal and ocean waters of the United States is the mission of the National Marine Sanctuary System (NMSS). The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (U.S.C. 16, Chapter 32, Sections 1431 et seq.), the principal statutory authority for establishing and managing marine protected areas in the waters of the US Exclusive Economic Zone, provides the framework for protection and management of such special places. This authority extends to preserving both ecosystem biodiversity and integrity, as well as maritime cultural heritage. The former is addressed in the NMSS through the implementation of ecosystem-based management (EBM), generally defined for the marine environment, by Leslie and McLeod (2007), as follows: “Marine EBM is about interactions: interactions among different spatial and temporal scales, within and among ecological and social systems, and among stakeholder groups and communities interested in the present and future health of coastal and marine areas”. It is about explicitly integrating humans into management, recognizing and accounting for the potential affect that humans have on ecosystem structure and function, but also incorporating their interests and aspirations into how places are managed and what strategies are used to accomplish management goals established collaboratively with these communities. As the authors clearly state, however, it is the communities’ interests in the “present and future” of these places that embodies EBM. It is largely based on understanding the present state, the drivers that are currently influencing the ecosystem and management strategies that lead to a future state that sustains, or improves, the ecosystem over time. Conversely, preserving the cultural heritage of that place is necessarily focused on the past, how humans have influenced these places 2 �through time, and how those communities have, in turn, been shaped by these places. Understanding the cultural heritage of a place offers the knowledge and experience acquired by the community over a broader sweep of history. It involves a deeper understanding of how that community has responded to ecosystem changes in the past, how their actions have altered the socio-ecological system over time, and perhaps shedding some light on how resilient that community might be to adapting to future changes. To effectively integrate this cultural heritage preservation component into the management of national marine sanctuaries, the concept of maritime cultural landscapes (MCL) was identified as a complementary mechanism to EBM that offers a compatible framework for understanding, and ultimately more effectively managing, these special places in the oceans and along the coasts. What are “Maritime Cultural Landscapes?” As described in Barr (2013), the concept of “maritime cultural landscapes” builds on the older and more widely applied notion of cultural landscape in terrestrial environments. As first suggested by Westerdahl (1992), maritime cultural landscapes (MCL) were defined as “human utilization of maritime space by boat, settlement, fishing, hunting, shipping and its attendant subcultures”. MCL “comprises the whole network of sailing routes, old as well as new, with ports and harbors along the coast, and its related constructions and remains of human activity, underwater as well as terrestrial” (Westerdahl, 1992). Jensen et al., (2011) provided an eloquent definition of “cultural landscapes”: “Cultural landscapes capture the living past that surrounds us and give us a better understanding of the links the natural history and human history of a place. They illustrate how we have shaped the world, and how the world’s natural environments have shaped us. Perhaps most importantly, cultural landscapes can also provide us with valuable insights into the future, such as the relationship between the heath of natural resources and human well-being and prosperity. At their most basic, cultural landscapes are specific places where combinations of human activity and natural forces have left a discernable mark on the world. Cultural landscapes are reservoirs of human experience that preserve undeniable examples of human triumph and loss. Retaining the intangible as well as the tangible parts of human culture, cultural landscapes can do what the natural sciences alone cannot. They convey the human meaning of places”. 3 �MCL encompasses not only this cultural history of the physical maritime environment, but also the “cognitive landscape”, defined as “the mapping and imprinting of the functional aspects of the surroundings in the human mind. Man in landscape, landscape in man” (Lofgren, 1981; cf Westerdahl, 1992). It embraces both the changes observed over time with regard to the physical environment and human use, but also the perception of these changes by the people who have lived, and are living, in that place throughout history. How this maritime and ecological landscape has shaped and been shaped by the human activities that have occurred there throughout its history provides the foundation for understanding, and ultimately more effectively preserving, these cultural landscapes. As Tuan (1974) has observed, geographic spaces become “places” when people imbue them with meaning, a process that influences self-identity and affects the way in which we perceive and behave toward these places. Understanding the maritime cultural landscape of a place identifies not only our collective contributions to sustaining and improving these places we have given meaning, but of how people have contributed to what they have become, offering insights and experience acquired by the community along the way. Such deeper knowledge of place is likely to be a valuable asset to guide and inform place-based management. This last point is worthy of emphasis. This deeper knowledge may indeed have considerable potential value that contributes to a more holistic and effective management approach to preserving the natural and cultural resources of an MPA, but a more traditional reading of the literature on cultural landscapes suggests that there should be no direct connection between the process of cultural landscape analysis and place-based management. Cultural landscape approaches are focused on engaging the various stakeholder and cultural communities in acquiring knowledge about the human/environment relationship through time, and offering a forum for this engagement. Integrating EBM and MCL EBM is about including the “human dimension” in sustaining ecosystem structure and function through collaborative management, engaging the community in establishing management goals for that place, and the strategies implemented to achieve those goals. It is a prospective process, informed with knowledge of the current state of the 4 �ecosystem, and leading to some agreed upon desired future state. In most cases, EBM utilizes various management tools and strategies, such as zoning, regulations, and voluntary mechanisms to balance sustainable use and preservation. MCL approaches also involve these same people as a key element in understanding and preserving heritage resources of this valued place, but it is a retrospective process. It focuses on the history of the human use of that place, illuminating what has happened, through time, which has left an imprint of this use on the socio-ecological system. It identifies how the system has changed over time, how human uses have changed, and how the system has responded to those changes. MCLs also held to ascertain what attributes and elements of the human/environment relationship are relevant and contribute to the deeper meaning and value the communities ascribe to this place, thereby offering some insight into which of these elements and attributes are most important to preserve and protect. While EBM and MCL could be implemented independently - which would be an easier path to follow - an integrated management approach involving both EBM and MCL would seem to offer opportunities not readily available if executed separately. Clearly, both EBM and MCL involve “taking a step back”, looking at the “bigger picture” of why this place is valued, which human uses have (and are leaving) an imprint on the environment. The both have people as a central and important element of their implementation. MCL offers the opportunity to acquire deeper knowledge of place through the lens of history (both remote and recent) to learn what the state of the ecosystem is today, what human activities may have led to the current state, and what knowledge was acquired as these communities adapted to, accommodated, and caused environmental change. They appear to be quite complementary, and are likely, as they both seek the active engagement of the interested and affected pubic, to potentially offer some efficiency in implementing them together rather than individually and separately. With regard to the practice of MPA management, one other rationale to consider in this integrated implementation of EBM and MCL is the potential to break down some of the internal barriers between those MPA management staff focusing on natural resource protection, and their counterparts that apply their energies to preserving cultural heritage. In this age of specialization, when it is beyond the capabilities of anyone to 5 �become what used to be called a “Renaissance Man” (or woman), managers cleave to their specialties, and organizations of MPA programs are almost always set up with “natural resource” and “cultural resource” staff in different organizational units. Through the integrated implementation of EBM and MCL, there is greater opportunity for collaboration and knowledge sharing between these two usually isolated operational units within an MPA program. If Young (2010) is correct in his assertion that institutions, particularly environmental governance systems, are similar to other socio-ecological systems in that they are made more resilient, adaptive, and more resistant to stress through effective implementation of adaptive management and social learning, this sort of interdisciplinary integration may contribute to not only successfully achieving the mission of the program, but also to sustaining the organization over time, avoiding what Olson (1982) has termed “institutional arthritis”. “The Devil is in the Details” Making such an integrated approach operational for an MPA program like the NMS System is no small feat. There are institutional and practical challenges to effectively integrating EBM and MCL. Seeking acceptance of the idea of broadening the way managers think about their sites to include MCL, let alone integrating EBM and MCL, represents a challenge to MPA Programs that have been in operations for decades and where their approach to management has become rigid and somewhat inflexible (“the way we’ve always done it...”). For an MPA system like the NMSS, which includes fourteen sites operating largely under a single statutory authority but quite different in composition and management focus, not all sites will embrace this change simply because the leadership of the MPA program has decided it should be so. Not all sites have the necessary staff with expertise relevant to cultural heritage preservation, and the site budgets may be insufficient to consider the additional costs associated with the background research and public engagement required to successfully implement an MCL approach. Therefore, it has been determined that the implementation of this approach should be on an opportunistic basis, with each site deciding whether they will incorporate MCL, and the integration of MCL with EBM, into their management planning when their site plans are being reviewed and updated. If they choose to do this, additional support will be provided to them from the national program, bringing needed 6 �expertise in history, archaeology, and relevant planning and public engagement support from NOAA’s Maritime Heritage Program (MHP) and operating units from other sites and headquarters who can offer such expertise. For sites that express a willingness to begin the process, an MCL “synopsis document” is developed that generally identifies the scope and elements of what the MCL for that site would include, providing an overview of the historical human uses of the area, the various cultures that were involved in that use, discussions of how those cultures left their imprint on the ecosystem, both physically and cognitively (through such things as place names and knowledge of differing perceptions of the cultural landscape among the cultures who lived in that place). Such a “synopsis document” has been prepared by the MHP for the proposed expansion of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Banks National Marine Sanctuaries along the Northern California “Redwoods” coast (Delgado, Unpublished MS). This document is made available to those who are developing the proposed management planning documents for this possible expansion of these sanctuaries, with the promise of further support should the sites agree to proceed with the implementation of this MCL initiative. Other opportunities may involve more targeted support toward implementation. There has been some interest expressed by the State of Wisconsin for a possible sanctuary in the waters of Lake Michigan off their coast. While a considerable amount of research has been assembled on the shipwrecks of this region, this is the home lands and waters of a number of maritime indigenous cultures, and little was known about their use and habitation of this place over time. To begin to identify and collect relevant information regarding this indigenous cultural landscape, a MHP Graduate Fellow was identified to conduct this essential research (Tate, Unpublished MS). In this case, the more specific focus on the Indigenous contribution to the MCL was essential, and the research provides a starting point for better understanding and incorporating these cultures’ contributions to the MCL of this area that may be considered for sanctuary designation at some point in the future. Where there are many cultures that value a place all need to be heard and given the opportunity to contribute to our deeper understanding of that place. 7 �It is expected that the implementation of an Integrated EBM/MCL approach to management for the NMSS will be something that will take considerable time and effort, but this will be addressed as opportunities arise. Budgets and staff resources, both currently in short supply are contributing to this slow pace of implementation. However, perhaps this is not the issue is might appear to be. Organizational cultures change and adapt very slowly. Therefore, even if resources were not severely limited, it is likely that the pace of adoption of this proposed change in the management approach for the national marine sanctuaries across the System would only progress as the institutional culture continues to evolve and adapt. We have built the trough, have filled it with fresh, clean water, and have led the horse to it, but are prepared to wait until it gets thirsty enough to drink. Not another Solution in Search of a Problem All too frequently, we encounter situations where, in times of great uncertainty, we reorganize or begin another round of strategic planning. Neither should careful scrutiny of our organizational structure nor strategic planning be considered unworthy endeavors when there is a demonstrated need to engage in these actions. However, they are pointless when the strategic plan for an organization is serving its purpose, and the organizational structure is sufficient to get the job done. When we are resource limited, we should spend what time and energy we have on addressing real problems, seeking innovative and creative solutions to the many challenges we face. As Barr (2013) offers, the oceans and coasts, and the communities that inhabit these areas, are facing many complex and significant problems. Global climate change is increasing the severity and frequency of storms. Coastlines are being altered, sometimes significantly, and there is considerable damage to infrastructure from these storm events. While these has been some recovery of the economy, coastal communities remain hard hit, with collapses in fisheries, and the increasing reliance on tourism providing less well-paying jobs but also resulting in seasonal surges in population and increasing demands for services. The societal burdens from the continued economic pressures are being exacted on coastal communities in these challenging times. To add to the challenges, these are “wicked problems”, difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize (Skaburskis, 2008). Finding 8 �practical solutions will not be an easy task. Concurrently, as summarized by Barr (2013) our governance system is also being challenged: “...as the severity of these problems increases, potential management responses that involve trade-offs and compromise are perceived as unacceptable. Communities are deeply polarized by diminishing resources and challenges that exceed our capacity to effectively address using more traditional management approaches. There is also sometimes deep mistrust of others who may have differing views and perspectives. In the history of those places, however, similar challenges have confronted, and these communities have successfully adapted to those changes, or learned much by their failures. This history and experience has considerable value in offering some hope for resolving problems being encountered today”. MCL can provide this historical context for our management of these special places. It offers a forum for public engagement that involves not just addressing problems, but speaks to the proud heritage of these communities, resilient places that have “weathered the storms” and persisted. EBM is necessary, as incorporating the “human element” in ocean and coastal stewardship has demonstrated its importance, but it may not be sufficient. We can benefit considerably by “learning from the past”, so that we are not “doomed to repeat it”. The effective integration of MCL and EBM in addressing these challenges has the potential to be one of the creative and innovative solutions to help “turn the tide” for coastal communities, and the MPA managers that work with them to sustain their way of life. Acknowledgements Thanks to Jim Delgado, Hans van Tilburg, and Paul Orlando for helpful comments and advice regarding the ideas presented in this paper. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are solely the author’s, and do not reflect the views of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA or any of its sub-agencies, nor of the US Government. References Barr, B. W., 2013. Understanding and managing marine protected areas through integrating ecosystem-based management within maritime cultural landscapes: Moving from theory to practice. Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 84: 1984-192. Delgado, J. P., (Unpublished Manuscript). The “Redwood Coast:” The maritime cultural landscape of the potential expansion of Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones 9 �National Marine Sanctuaries. NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Maritime Heritage Program. Jensen, J. O., Mather, R., and Gray, J., 2011. Viewing the future through the lens of maritime cultural landscapes. Sanctuary Watch, Vol. Fall: 2-3. Leslie, H. M., and McLeod, K. L., 2007. Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based management. Front. Ecol. Environment, Vol. 5: 540-548. Lofgren, O., 1981.Manniskanilandskapet-landskapetimanniskan. In L. Honko, and O. Lofgren (Eds.), Tradition OchMiljii, Lund, Sweden: 235e261. Olson Jr., M., 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Skaburskis, A., 2008. The origin of “wicked problems”. Planning Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 (2): 277-280. Tate, S., (Unpublished Manuscript). Native American Cultural Presence and Usage of Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan Coasts. NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Maritime Heritage Program. Tuan, Y. F., 1974. Topophilia: a Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Westerdahl, C., 1992. The maritime cultural landscape. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, Vol. 21 (1): 5-14. Young, O., 2010. Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptability in environmental and resource regimes. Global Climate Change, Vol. 20: 378-385. Brad Barr received a BS from the University of Maine, a MS from the University of Massachusetts, and PhD at the University of Alaska. He is currently a Senior Policy Advisor in the NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Adjunct Professor at the School of Marine Sciences and Ocean Engineering at the University of New Hampshire, and a Visiting Professor at the University Center of the Westfjords in Iceland. He is a member of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, and the International Committee on Marine Mammal Protected Areas/IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force. 10 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 2: New Approaches in UCH Management in the US Subject The topic of the resource Video interview with Session 2 chair Dr. Hans Van Tilburg and links to the papers included in the session. Description An account of the resource In 2009, responding to the effort to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, the U.S. National Marine Protected Areas Center formed a Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group to provide expert advice on improving the conservation and management of maritime heritage resources. The resulting White Paper provided a series of recommendations to both the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, including new definitions for cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes. Central to these recommendations was a strong endorsement for the Cultural Landscape Approach in the understanding and management of maritime heritage resources (or UCH). Subsequently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Maritime Heritage Program has adopted the recommendations of this paper and is implementing a “maritime cultural landscape” approach to the management of cultural resources within the National Marine Sanctuary System. Also as a part of this initiative, NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support maritime cultural landscape studies of heritage resources by Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian communities in the Pacific region. These projects on the U.S. West Coast and in the Hawaiian Islands demonstrate the necessity of adapting a broader range of recognized cultural resources and a more inclusive and participatory management and preservation process. Charismatic resources like historic shipwrecks will always provide unique information for archaeologists and historians, but we do ourselves a disservice if we focus solely on these types of properties, and neglect other perspectives and the broader nature of all types and traces of human existence that lie underwater. Participants in this session will focus on the status of these ongoing ground-breaking projects, the advantages of a broader and more inclusive approach compared to the previous cultural heritage management paradigm in the U.S., and the challenges that this creates. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Hans Van Tilburg Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Observations on developing a maritime cultural landscape approach to managing US National Marine Sanctuaries Description An account of the resource Effectively managing marine protected areas requires considerable knowledge of these special places people value and to which they are sometimes strongly attached. Usually, this knowledge is limited to the present state of resources and changes observed in the recent past, which is used to inform the development of management actions to address current and emerging threats to biodiversity and underwater cultural heritage (UCH) resources. However, while acquiring this “snapshot” of the current status of natural and cultural resources is necessary, it is often not sufficient. Understanding the longer-term history of that site, illuminating its “maritime cultural landscape” (MCL), can provide critical context to interpreting that somewhat static “snapshot”. MCLs represent the historical imprint of human interactions with these special places, providing a deeper base of social and historical information to inform and empower stewardship of natural and UCH resources. The National Marine Sanctuary System (NMSS) sites are already managed as landscapes – through ongoing implementation of ecosystem-based management (EBM) – and integrating MCL approaches offers opportunities to expand and enhance our deeper understanding of how these socio-ecological systems were formed, changed over time, and how coastal communities adapted to, and influenced, these changes. Better understanding these historical interactions can offer significant insights, integrated with knowledge attained through EBM, that can inform and guide contemporary management decision making. The NMSS has developed a vision and strategy for implementing an integrated EBM/MCL approach to stewardship, and is in the process of implementing that strategy. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bradley W. Barr, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/13/2014 Asia-Pac Session 2 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/ddce4237df0b89b9a68bdad8c7ff72b1.pdf 74cc0308c8f320fff94591a0f0237d66 PDF Text Text Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes for Resource Preservation and Protection: Documenting culturally important areas - for tribes, by tribes Valerie Grussing National Marine Protected Areas Center, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA Email: valerie.grussing@noaa.gov David Ball Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Camarillo, CA 93010, USA Email: David.ball@boem.gov Eirik Thorsgard Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, Grand Ronde, OR 97347 USA Email: Eirik.thorsgard@grandronde.org Briece Edwards Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon74, Grand Ronde OR 97347, USA Email: Briece.edwards@grandronde.org Abstract Understanding locations and types of significant archaeological and cultural resources is essential to their preservation and consideration during ocean and coastal planning processes. The goal of this project is to develop a proactive approach to working with Native American communities to identify such areas of tribal significance. Information from this effort will facilitate decision-making practices that consider the importance of these locales, giving tribal communities a stronger voice during regional planning. This project is a collaborative effort among the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Tribal Facilitators, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde in Oregon, Yurok Tribe in California, and Makah Tribe in Washington. This project uses a holistic cultural landscape approach that integrates science with historical, archaeological and traditional knowledge. The resulting tool describes methodologies and best practices for tribes to identify and communicate areas of significance; case studies from the three tribes will demonstrate how to use this tool. This effort will provide transferable, transparent and cost-effective methods for tribes to document places and resources, past and present, significant to their communities and outside agencies, thus enhancing their capability for consultation. The project will produce an approach adaptable by other tribal communities to help them record information on areas of tribal importance, and give them a stronger voice during regional planning processes. This project can help agencies and stakeholders engage with tribes prior to the proposal of activities that may impact tribal resources and areas. Key words: Cultural Heritage, Cultural Landscapes, Indigenous Methodologies, Ocean Planning, Integrated Management 1 �Overview Understanding the types and locations of significant archaeological and cultural resources is essential to their preservation and consideration during the planning process for offshore renewable energy development, coastal and marine spatial planning, and marine protected area (MPA) establishment and management. To help address this information need, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is working with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), the National Marine Protected Areas Center, the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices of the Yurok Tribe in California, Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde in Oregon, and Makah Tribe in Washington, as well as two Tribal Facilitators and the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. The project – Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes – is developing a proactive approach to working with Native American communities to identify areas of tribal significance that need to be considered in planning processes. Information from this effort will help facilitate decision-making that takes into consideration the importance of these locales, and give tribal communities a more powerful voice during regional energy planning and other marine planning processes. This project concept grew independently from multiple directions. The MPA Center was seeking to operationalize the recommendations of the 2011 white paper approved by the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee (MPA FAC), “Recommendations for Integrated Management Using a Cultural Landscape Approach in the National MPA System” (MPA FAC, 2011). Within ONMS, the Maritime Heritage Program was just beginning to implement its Maritime Cultural Landscapes Initiative, described in further detail by Dr. Brad Barr in his paper, “Developing a Maritime Cultural Landscape Approach to Managing US National Marine Sanctuaries”. The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (CTGR) submitted a proposal to BOEM to characterize its own cultural landscapes and develop a transferable methodology. The Makah Tribe had been partnering with the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary for a number of years on an integrated approach to cultural and natural resource management. The Yurok Tribe also previously worked with NOAA on multiple efforts. All three tribes have a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer with an understanding of a cultural landscape approach. This project is funded by the U.S. 2 �Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, through an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. It is contracted through the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. Cultural Landscape Approach Using a holistic Cultural Landscape Approach (CLA) that integrates science with historical, archaeological, and traditional knowledge, this project will develop a tool describing best practices for tribal communities to identify and communicate areas of significance. Case studies from the three tribes will demonstrate how to use this tool. It will provide a transferable, transparent and cost-effective method for tribes with a connection to the coast to document past and present places and resources significant to their communities, thus enhancing their capacity for consultation in advance of any proposed undertakings. The project’s guiding principles are derived from Tuhiwai-Smith’s "Decolonizing Methodologies" (2012). Many indigenous peoples and their supporters are engaged in the process of decolonizing methodologies, which involves widespread efforts to revitalize indigenous cultures as well as refocus the standard interpretation of history to be more inclusive and less ethnocentric. Some of these guiding principles include indigenous self-determination of a community’s own research needs and priorities, and the ways in which research should proceed. Culturally sympathetic methods and culturally appropriate ethics thus take center stage. Training of indigenous researchers is also a priority, extending the boundaries for indigenous peoples of their fields and disciplines. Importantly, tribes develop and disseminate literature on research and methods, thus providing chances to educate the wider scientific, academic and policy communities. Additionally, this can foster increased collaboration among tribes, and help ensure accountabilities to and outcomes for tribes. A Vision for Cultural Heritage The MPA FAC white paper contains the following vision statement for cultural heritage: “Achieving and maintaining healthy coastal and marine ecosystems requires a fundamental understanding of the relationships between people and the environment. Cultural heritage, which belongs to all people, emphasizes these 3 �connections, whether that heritage takes the material form of, for example, maritime resources (such as shipwrecks), natural resources (such as marine species and habitats), or sacred places. Through the national MPA system, cultural relationships among people and historic, natural, and place-based heritage resources are preserved and perpetuated in ways that recognize and share multiple cultural voices and knowledge systems for the benefit of all” (2011). A Cultural Landscape Approach (CLA) will help managers nationwide to identify and adopt policies and practices that manage cultural and natural resources at the ecosystem and landscape levels, in an integrated and adaptive manner. The protection of cultural heritage resources in marine areas is often separate from that of natural resources, a divide with administrative origins. The ecosystem-based management called for in the National Ocean Policy (Executive Order 13547), and advocated by countless scientists and natural resource management professionals “recognizes that the connections between living things and the physical environment are multifaceted and often inseparable” (MPA FAC, 2011). This ecosystem-based approach requires understanding both cultural and natural elements, and the human dimensions of the environment. In contrast to previous cultural resource management paradigms, which approached resources individually for study and preservation, “CLA uses cultural landscapes as an analytical framework to understand places and their associated resources” (MPA FAC, 2011). Analogous and complementary to ecosystem-based management, CLA examines the relationships among living and non-living resources, and their environment over time. This integrated approach can advance deeper understanding of the human connections to, and influences on, critical marine ecosystems over time. Such comprehensive analysis and management can also identify the past and living cultural voices associated with an ecosystem, helping ensure the fullest possible public engagement in efforts including resource management, marine spatial planning, and ocean exploration. This holistic approach integrates the complexities and power of contemporary science with historical, archaeological, and cultural knowledge and the human values of love of 4 �place. Adopting a Cultural Landscape Approach strengthens our will and enhances our capacities to steward wisely the world we inhabit. Inter-tribal Workshops Three inter-tribal workshops were conducted in the Fall of 2013, bringing together federal and tribal partners to identify best practices and general resources significant to tribal communities. The host tribe of each workshop engaged neighboring tribes with coastal ties, as well as regional staff of federal and state agencies, to identify best practices and general resources significant to tribal communities. An Analysis Guide describing these best practices and processes for identifying tribal cultural landscapes, including common terminology, is being drafted, to be augmented as necessary throughout the duration of the project. Each of the three participating tribes is designing and implementing their respective case studies identifying tribal cultural landscapes, and will create and manage their own databases and record systems. Throughout the project, partners will conduct outreach describing the process, including methodologies, analysis and non-sensitive data. The workshops provided tribes with a connection to the Pacific Ocean an opportunity to contribute to the development of the methodology. We began with constructing a definition of the key concept: Tribal Cultural Landscape. During the first workshop, hosted by CTGR, participating tribes developed a draft definition for consideration by agency representatives. Both groups discussed applicability and opportunities for implementation within current legislation and mandates. During the second workshop, hosted by the Makah Tribe, and the third workshop, hosted by the Yurok Tribe, participants reviewed and refined the definition and discussed existing federal legislation where cultural landscape studies may be most applicable and beneficial to tribes and agencies. Workshop participants also began a glossary of terms for the Analysis Guide, and discussed the role of natural resources in cultural landscapes. The working definition is: “…any place in which a relationship, past or present, exists between a spatial area, resource, and an associated group of indigenous people whose cultural practices, beliefs, or identity connects them to that place. A Tribal Cultural Landscape is determined by and known to a culturally related group of indigenous people with relationship to that place” (Fig. 1). 5 �Fig. 1 TCL Project team conducts a panel discussion during the Inter-tribal Workshop hosted by Yurok Tribe in Klamath, CA. (V. Grussing) Fig. 2 Memorial Post at the mouth of the Salmon River, to honor the Neschesne people and the village that stood there, Carved by Grand Ronde artist, Travis Stewart. (T. Stewart) Beyond Traditional Cultural Properties Tribal Cultural Landscapes (TCLs) as defined in this way are areas of cultural importance to communities that have multi-generational ties to geographic regions. This definition is broader and more open than that of Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), as defined in National Register Bulletin 38, in several ways (Parker and King, 1998). Most importantly, TCPs are locations with distinctly defined extents. The National Register definition does not allow for indigenous groups to show the interconnection of places that are integrally related but not within sight of each other. This broader definition of TCLs can encompass how TCPs and other cultural sites are related to a group’s worldview and its geographic expanse. Second, TCLs enable the consideration of a community’s worldview and identity. The primary focus of identity for a given society or cultural group is how its members understand their world and interact with it. Their stories, places of cultural practice, villages, places of creation, and religious locations define not just usage and worldview, but also an intimate relationship between space and identity. By expounding the worldview of an indigenous group, we can more 6 �clearly understand a people’s concept of identity and how it is transferred between generations. Third, for most indigenous cultures, the practice of culture is not something rooted in the past. It is a living, breathing, interactive part of modern identity. TCPs and many standard archaeological methods situate the practice of indigenous culture in the past. By looking at contemporary indigenous groups’ cultural practices, we can more clearly understand past and future use of a given place, and the value it has to a community. Importantly, TCLs are determined by indigenous people with a relationship to that place. As summarized by McKinnon (et al., In press), community archaeology is based on indigenous people exercising agency in their cultural heritage, and “collaborating in the decision making about research topics, sites, data, curation, and the production of materials that are culturally appropriate and useful”. The concept of Tribal Cultural Landscapes has broad applicability for tribes and agencies. Workshop participants noted its general applicability under NEPA, and parts of Section 101 and 106 of NHPA. This would allow TCL studies to be used in planning processes by agencies with land management responsibilities, and for regulatory and compliance requirements for most federal agencies and other designated parties. Implementation of the proposed process was identified by both tribal and agency representatives as being most meaningful and relevant during the pre-planning phase of project development commonly referred to as scoping. Workshop participants unanimously acknowledged the importance of information originating with tribes and being vetted through tribal process (Fig. 2). Case studies and Analysis guide In the case studies, cultural resource types to be identified may include traditional cultural properties, traditional subsistence and commerce activities, residential and occupational activities, spiritual and ceremonial sites and activities. Case study activities may include archival research, field investigations and site visits, community outreach, oral histories and transcriptions. Each participating tribe will determine its own research goals and priorities, in collaboration with BOEM and NOAA to ensure that they are contributing to overall project goals and outcomes. The project team will incorporate information and processes from the workshops and case studies into an Analysis Guide, which will include common terminology and provide a methodology for identifying tribal 7 �cultural landscapes. The purpose is to devise a semi-replicable system that would be held internally by Tribes and specifically structured for recording information relevant to culturally-sensitive areas. In tandem with the data structure created and maintained by each tribe, there will be a working guide for the holder of the database as well as a counterpart document for use by federal agencies so they can ask questions appropriate to the data held and maintained by Tribes. This will allow for the collection and control of information by groups with the cultural understanding of the information, but also ensures that agencies have sufficient understanding of the information being held in order to ask appropriate questions as they relate to any proposed undertakings. The development of the Analysis Guide will:  Address the cultural understanding and context of cultural resources from an indigenous perspective;  Address and suggest mechanisms for maneuvering through the sensitivity concerns of tribes;  Develop a list of topics that should be consistently asked for by project proponents; and  Develop a suggested template or guide for tribes to collect and hold information that can be queried internally with the ability to provide summary results to external parties. The objective is to ensure that information is protected and retained by respective tribal communities, while ensuring that the information can be sufficiently synthesized and made available for review by federal agencies for any proposed undertakings. The case studies will record information related to tribal cultural landscapes, and the Analysis Guide will address pertinent querying and application of the data, emphasizing synthesis of the information without dishonoring the significance or sacredness of sites. Benefits The project will be completed by December 2014, and will result in an approach that can be adapted by other tribes and tribal communities to help record geospatial information and attributes on areas of tribal importance. As more tribal communities engage in the confidential identification of their own significant resources and areas of use, this approach can be beneficial to three overarching processes. It can give tribal 8 �communities a more powerful voice during regional energy planning, coastal and marine spatial planning, and MPA establishment and management. This project is intended to help agencies such as BOEM and stakeholders engage with tribal and indigenous communities prior to the proposal of activities that may impact tribal resources and areas. In so doing, regional energy planning and siting decisions, and related impact assessments, can be made more soundly and efficiently, thus minimizing potential conflicts, controversies, legal challenges and delays. This approach can also help fill a critical data gap in ocean planning and management, and be applied to coastal and marine spatial planning efforts through the National Ocean Council and Regional Planning Bodies. Although this project is not directly related to these specific efforts, the approach can be valuable in helping agencies such as NOAA and stakeholders communicate more effectively and appropriately with tribes, and involve them in the process. It can also facilitate communication among tribes, as well as clarify and promote tribal interests in specific planning areas. The approach has the potential to be useful in the management of existing MPAs, as well as for tribal and indigenous communities interested in establishing their own MPAs. Many, if not all, existing MPAs are within the traditional territory of tribal and indigenous peoples. In some regions where tribes were dislocated from their territory early in the colonial era, tribal cultural resources may be seen to consist primarily of archaeological sites, historic landscapes, and archival resources. In these cases, where managers may have insufficient capacity to document and inventory these resources, the analysis guide and case studies created by this project could help researchers to conduct a more comprehensive landscape-level analysis while maximizing limited funds. In regions where tribes have extant reservations, treaty or ceded territory, or usual and accustomed use areas (off-reservation areas of treaty-reserved fishing, hunting, and gathering rights), tribal cultural resources can also include natural resources and areas significant for current use by tribes. Increasingly, federal, state and local management agencies are incorporating tribal and indigenous interests, perspectives, and knowledge into agency management policies and practices. In order for these interests to be appropriately considered, indigenous peoples must be integrally involved in management processes. The approach created during this project can illuminate tribal 9 �interests within MPAs and facilitate communication among management agencies, stakeholders, and tribes, ultimately giving tribal communities a stronger voice in both the protection of an MPA’s cultural resources, as well as appropriate management of its natural resources. Furthermore, tribal communities who apply this approach to characterize their own significant resources and places may subsequently be able to leverage the products into the establishment of indigenous MPAs under indigenous authority and management. Acknowledgements Valerie would like to thank her co-authors for their vital roles in bringing this concept and project to fruition, as well as Brian Jordan, James Delgado, Robert Steelquist, Roberta Cordero, Jon Townsend, Janine Ledford, Rebekah Monette, Robert McConnell, Rosie Clayburn, Jennifer Ewald, and Roy Watters. Our esprit de corps as we conduct this meaningful work is invaluable. References Executive Order 13547, July 22, 2010, 75 FR 43023. McKinnon, J., Mushynsky, J., and Cabrera, G., In Press. A Fluid Sea in the Mariana Islands: Mapping the Seascape of Saipan. Journal of Maritime Archaeology. MPA FAC., 2011. Recommendations for Integrated Management Using a Cultural Landscape Approach in the National MPA System, retrieval 27 Dec 2012 from http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpfulresources/mpafac_rec_cultural_landscape_12_11.pdf Parker, P. L., and King, T. F., 1998. (rev.), National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, retrieval 27 Dec 2012 from http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/ Tuhiwai-Smith, L., 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd Ed. Zed Books, London. Biographies Valerie Grussing is the Cultural Resources Coordinator for the National Marine Protected Areas Center. She works with federal, state, academic and NGO underwater archaeologists, coastal tribes, and other marine resource managers to foster partnerships and create information and tools to help protect and preserve the nation’s 10 �coastal and marine cultural resources. She obtained her BA in History from North Carolina State University in 2000, and her MA in Anthropology from the University of Iowa in 2002, and her PhD in Coastal Resources Management from East Carolina University in 2009, specializing in the Maritime Studies track. Dave Ball is the Pacific Region Historic Preservation Officer and Diving Safety Officer for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Before joining BOEM he worked for several archaeological firms in the Pacific Northwest. He received his BA in anthropology from Sonoma State University in 1992 and MA in anthropology from Florida State University in 1998. Dave has over 20 years’ experience in archaeology and has directed field research on both terrestrial and underwater archaeological sites across the country, including inundated prehistoric sites, World War II shipwrecks, and deepwater shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico. He is currently serving on the Board of Directors for the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology. Eirik Thorsgard is a tribal member of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. He is the Tribe’s appointed Historic Preservation Officer and coordinator of the Cultural Protection Program. He received his MA in Archaeology from Oregon State University and is completing his PhD in the same discipline. He regularly participates in cultural events and practices sponsored by his Tribe. He is actively engaged in research relevant to the identification and protection of TCPs in his ancestral lands and beyond. He has been appointed to numerous professional councils and committees focused on cultural heritage protection and identification. Briece Edwards is Archaeologist for the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, based in the Tribal Historic Preservation Office. He coordinates cultural resource actions on Tribal Lands and develops and maintains the Tribe’s Site Inventory. He serves as the Tribe’s Cultural Resources compliance review contact, and coordinates interns and special projects within the THPO/Cultural Resources Protection Program. He developed the Program’s GIS system to record, track, and monitor tribally important cultural resources. Briece received his BA in Anthropology from the University of Maryland, MA from North Carolina State University and MPhil from the University of Bradford. 11 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 2: New Approaches in UCH Management in the US Subject The topic of the resource Video interview with Session 2 chair Dr. Hans Van Tilburg and links to the papers included in the session. Description An account of the resource In 2009, responding to the effort to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, the U.S. National Marine Protected Areas Center formed a Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group to provide expert advice on improving the conservation and management of maritime heritage resources. The resulting White Paper provided a series of recommendations to both the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, including new definitions for cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes. Central to these recommendations was a strong endorsement for the Cultural Landscape Approach in the understanding and management of maritime heritage resources (or UCH). Subsequently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Maritime Heritage Program has adopted the recommendations of this paper and is implementing a “maritime cultural landscape” approach to the management of cultural resources within the National Marine Sanctuary System. Also as a part of this initiative, NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support maritime cultural landscape studies of heritage resources by Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian communities in the Pacific region. These projects on the U.S. West Coast and in the Hawaiian Islands demonstrate the necessity of adapting a broader range of recognized cultural resources and a more inclusive and participatory management and preservation process. Charismatic resources like historic shipwrecks will always provide unique information for archaeologists and historians, but we do ourselves a disservice if we focus solely on these types of properties, and neglect other perspectives and the broader nature of all types and traces of human existence that lie underwater. Participants in this session will focus on the status of these ongoing ground-breaking projects, the advantages of a broader and more inclusive approach compared to the previous cultural heritage management paradigm in the U.S., and the challenges that this creates. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Hans Van Tilburg Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Characterizing Tribal Cultural Landscapes for Resource Preservation and Protection: Documenting culturally important areas - for tribes, by tribes Description An account of the resource Understanding locations and types of significant archaeological and cultural resources is essential to their preservation and consideration during ocean and coastal planning processes. The goal of this project is to develop a proactive approach to working with Native American communities to identify such areas of tribal significance. Information from this effort will facilitate decision-making practices that consider the importance of these locales, giving tribal communities a stronger voice during regional planning. This project is a collaborative effort among the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Tribal Facilitators, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde in Oregon, Yurok Tribe in California, and Makah Tribe in Washington. This project uses a holistic cultural landscape approach that integrates science with historical, archaeological and traditional knowledge. The resulting tool describes methodologies and best practices for tribes to identify and communicate areas of significance; case studies from the three tribes will demonstrate how to use this tool. This effort will provide transferable, transparent and cost-effective methods for tribes to document places and resources, past and present, significant to their communities and outside agencies, thus enhancing their capability for consultation. The project will produce an approach adaptable by other tribal communities to help them record information on areas of tribal importance, and give them a stronger voice during regional planning processes. This project can help agencies and stakeholders engage with tribes prior to the proposal of activities that may impact tribal resources and areas. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Valerie Grussing David Ball Eirik Thorsgard Briece Edwards, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/13/2014 Asia-Pac Session 2 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/07843485506efdec710f94224328dbf0.pdf 7f77047d55c5e4031d17e7cf125c08dd PDF Text Text Assessing Historic Properties and Cultural Resources in the Main Hawaiian Islands Hans Van Tilburg NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Honolulu, Hawaii 96825, USA Email: hans.vantilburg@noaa.gov Dave Ball BOEM Environmental Assessment Section, Camarillo, California 93010, USA Email: david.ball@boem.gov Abstract Understanding the types and locations of significant archaeological and cultural resources is essential to their protection. NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support an assessment of historic properties and cultural resources in the main Hawaiian Islands. Objectives for this project include: 1) a database of verified, reported, and potential submerged cultural resources in the Hawai`i Outer Continental Shelf; 2) a database of historic properties that could be adversely impacted by alteration of the ocean viewshed; and 3) a management tool for engaging Native Hawaiian communities in identifying significant marine areas for offshore energy development planning purposes. Key words: Resource Management, Hawaiian Islands, Indigenous community, Mitigation, Viewshed Origin of the Project The remote main eight Hawaiian Islands are approximately 3,900 km from the North American continent, 6,000 km from Japan, and 7,000 km from Papua New Guinea. Their coasts and near shore waters represent, for the most part, a high-energy marine environment subject to the prevailing northeasterly Trade Winds, open ocean swells, Pacific storms, quake-generated tsunami, and passing hurricanes. There are few natural harbors or safe anchorages, though fringing and barrier reefs provide some protection. The warm clear waters are home to the Teredonavalis shipworm, and currents and surge contribute to sand scouring and marine weathering of all artifacts. However, compared to continents, the waters around the Hawaiian Islands drop off very quickly. For instance, 300-600 m are typical depths for the three-mile limit around the 1 �island of O‘ahu. At these depths, historic wreck sites are little affected by the recurring storms and tsunami events that impact the upper ocean levels. Initiating a comprehensive and systematic documentation of cultural resources for the marine environment of the main Hawaiian Islands (survey does not include the remote Northwestern atolls) is a challenging and daunting task. No such comprehensive survey has yet been completed, though some progress has been made in gathering specific information regarding historic properties such as shipwrecks and submerged aircraft. Hawai‘i’s high-energy marine environment has long been hazardous for mariners, and hundreds of ships have been reported lost. But one of the most interesting challenges for understanding underwater cultural heritage (UCH) in the islands is the fact that, until recent years, the overall definition of cultural resources in Hawai‘i generally did not included historic properties like shipwrecks, so commonly recognized as UCH in other locations. In general, the main focus of cultural resource efforts in Hawai‘i has been the maintenance and preservation of indigenous cultural access, traditional practices, and active human connections and relationships to marine species and culturally significant natural resources. These are issues of immediate importance to local communities, dynamic issues that bear directly on maintaining cultural practices and cultural identity. The fact that shipwreck archaeology is relatively new to the islands is not due to a lack of attention to cultural resources; just the opposite, it is due to the fact that cultural resources and resource preservation, in the broadest sense, have been and are overwhelmingly important in Hawai‘i. Historic properties like shipwrecks represent the new element or “player” brought into an existing and much older discussion. Historic wreck sites are obviously important to archaeologists and historians as unique and non-renewable sources of information. They have also been important to Hawai‘i’s recreational diving industry and even to fishermen as productive fishing sites. Yethistoric wreck sites have not been part of the cultural resource discussion at a program or agency level until more recent years. For instance, while cultural resources are a large part of the 2012 Hawaii Ocean Resources Public Management Plan (Anon, 2012), shipwrecks or submerged historic properties are not mentioned within the 2 �document. Sensitivity to Hawai‘i’s unique history and a special sense of place is required for understanding cultural resource governance in the islands. This presentation focuses on a new and innovative resource management three-year inventory project, the Maritime Cultural Resource Site Assessment in the Main Hawaiian Islands, funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), through an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service. This project proposes new ways of conducting cultural resource inventory work, methods that are better suited to recording information in a manner that recognizes Hawai‘i’s investment in cultural resource management, and better suited to engaging Native Hawaiian Organizations and communities, as well as accounting for the existing values that archaeologists and historians bring to the mix. The origin of this project is actually the State of Hawai‘i’s effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop local energy independence. The State supports a mandate to achieve 70% “green” energy independence by the year 2040. Offshore renewable energy development will be a part of the effort to meet this goal. Understanding the types and locations of significant archaeological and cultural resources will be essential to their protection in the context of this coming development. Therefore, NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support the site assessment project, producing the tools of the desk-based assessment for the entire main eight Hawaiian Islands, prior to the specific proposal of any single specific development project. There are three main objectives for this project: 1) create a database of verified, reported, and potential submerged cultural resources in the Hawai`i Outer Continental Shelf; 2) create a database of historic properties on shore that could be adversely impacted by alteration of the ocean viewshed; and 3) create a management tool for engaging Native Hawaiian communities in identifying significant marine areas for offshore energy development planning purposes. There are a number of important benefits stemming from the overall goal of resource protection from potential impacts. For NOAA the project will help meet the agency’s mandate to inventory historic properties, and most importantly build on two decades of growing social awareness of 3 �maritime heritage properties in Hawai‘i. For BOEM the project will obviously facilitate decision-making for offshore renewable energy development by providing the groundwork for cultural resources review, helping make siting decisions more efficiently. Finally, for Native Hawaiian stakeholders the project will (hopefully) better engage communities with agencies prior to the proposal of activities that may impact resources. Objective 1: Database of Verified and Potential Submerged Cultural Resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (Note: the volcanic islands of Hawai‘i originate in a denser oceanic tectonic plate, not a lighter continental plate; hence, they have no actual continental shelf. Here the term OCS is used to designate the main study zone from 3-200 miles offshore). Objective 1, the inventory of verified, reported, and potential submerged cultural resources on the Hawai`i outer continental shelf, will be the most familiar to maritime archaeologists as it replicates, in part, the standard desk-based assessment tool highlighted in UNESCO’s UCH Foundation courses, and published in the Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific (UNESCO, 2012). NOAA sanctuary staff are currently examining primary and secondary archival sources and developing a Microsoft Access database of confirmed, reported, and potential submerged archaeological resources within the survey area. The project specifies the 3200 mile offshore Federal waters zone, but existing data for the near shore 0-3 mile zone may be included as well, in order to make a more usable inventory. The targeted archival sources include: the Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Division records; State and Federal shipwreck databases; the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum; internet sources; maritime insurance companies records; the National Archives (e.g., customs house records, wreck reports, Federal Admiralty court records, etc.); public, private, and academic libraries; public and private maritime museums; historic newspapers (including currently available translations of Hawaiian language newspapers), private papers and collections; historic maps and navigation charts; archaeological site reports; and federal, state, and private hangs and obstructions databases. Though the shipwreck topics relatively new here in Hawai‘i, there is existing field information in a variety of forms: numerous shallow water maritime archaeology site 4 �plans and surveys (SCUBA depths) by NOAA and University of Hawai‘i divers as part of the Maritime Archaeology Survey Techniques courses; discoveries, images, and informal reports by sport and technical divers; and multiple deep water site discoveries, including high-definition video surveys, by the Hawai‘i Undersea Research Lab (HURL). HURL was established in 1980 as a joint NOAA/University of Hawai‘i center with the primary responsibility of advancing knowledge of the nation’s deepwater resources and marine processes which are crucial for effective ecosystem-based management. HURL has two three-person research submersibles; Pisces IV and Pisces V (Fig. 1).These are battery-powered, one-atmosphere submersibles with a maximum operating depth of 2000 m (6,280 ft). They offer scientists direct observation through three view ports, high-definition video cameras, instrument placement, sample collecting, and environmental monitoring. Though maritime archaeology and cultural resource management has usually not been a priority for fully-funded missions, HURL has investigated numerous maritime heritage properties during their pre-season training dives, preparing both submersibles and pilots prior to the dive season (Fig. 2). Maritime archaeologists have been able to take advantage of the excellent working relationship between NOAA and the University of Hawai‘i, and the generosity and professionalism of HURL Operations Director Terry Kerby and his staff, to gain unique data on deep water discoveries. Fig. 1 HURL 3-man research submersible PISCES V launching from the submerged LRT.(C. Wollerman, HURL) 5 �Fig. 2 Deep water discoveries of naval aircraft circa 1938, one of many types of resources found by the HURL team. (H. Van Tilburg, NOAA ONMS) Several important documents and collections provide critical background information for the UCH inventory, though some include only near shore (0-3mi) information. The 19891990 Hawaiian Fishpond Study including the islands of O‘ahu, Moloka‘i, Maui, Lāna‘i, Kaua‘i, and Hawai‘i is the largest state-wide statistical survey of coastal fishpond field data, supported by the Bishop Museum (DHM: 1989; 1990). Mifflin Thomas’s Hawaiian Registered Vessels lists statistical and service data for selected ships of both the historic Kingdom period 1800-1893 and subsequent Territory of Hawai‘i period 18931959 (Thomas, 1982). Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual 1842-1932, Honolulu features an annual summary of marine casualties. Specific shipwreck losses can also be traced through newspaper issues of the Pacific Commercial Advertiser (1856-1912) (later the Honolulu Advertiser), as well as the local Star Bulletin (1912-2001). Finally, naval shipwreck and aircraft losses have been detailed in U.S. Shipwrecks in Hawaiian Waters: an Inventory of Submerged Naval Properties (Van Tilburg, 2002) produced by a grant from the Naval Historical Center in Washington DC (now known as the Naval History and Heritage Command). Inventory work is continuing to build upon this foundation. 6 �The existing and somewhat scattered field and archival inventory data is focused on 0-3 mile near shore resources and suggestive of three broad categories of cultural heritage resources: 1) pre-western contact Native Hawaiian archaeological sites such as coastal fishponds and fish traps; 2) 19th and early 20th century commercial transportation, including whaling and sealing ships, Pacific cargo vessels, and inter island steamships servicing the (former) Hawaiian plantations; and 3) military vessels, including surface ships, submarines, and submerged naval aircraft. The offshore 3-200 mile OCS inventory brings a new focus and new dataset to the fore. Objective 2: Database of Historic Properties that could be adversely impacted by Alteration of the Ocean View Shed For Objective 2, NOAA sanctuary staff will conduct research in the office of the Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Division and develop a database of terrestrial properties that could be visually affected from offshore renewable energy siting. The data to be collected includes historic and archaeological information related to properties that are nominated to, or are eligible for, listing on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. This may seem like an odd task for maritime archaeologists. For preservationists and cultural practitioners, however, the connection is clear. The National Register establishes criteria for measuring historical significance, an important step in valuing and preservation heritage resources. Traditional Cultural Properties, or locations associated with traditional beliefs or religious ceremonies, or economic or artistic practices central in maintaining a community’s identity, may meet National Register criteria and be protected (Shrimpton, 1990). Recently, the viewshed or view plane of the ocean itself was interpreted as a type of historical “property” (Fig. 3). Precedence was set in the review of the proposed Cape Wind (offshore turbine wind farm) energy project in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts (MMS, 2010). The Aquinnah and Mashpee Wampanoag Native Tribes claimed that the proposed wind turbines had the potential to degrade their essential view of the sunrise for religious ceremonies and also the view of the ocean central in other rituals. In an island state like Hawai‘i, with an active and engaged host culture, it is only natural that federal agencies begin to address the issue of viewsheds of the ocean as they pertain to the cultural significance of specific areas of the marine environment. 7 �Fig. 3 The raised Hawaiian temple at Pu`ukoholāHeiau National Historic Site on the Island of Hawai`i, a place where cultural practices continue. (H. Van Tilburg, NOAA ONMS) Objective 3: Management Tool for Engaging Native Hawaiian Communities in Identifying Significant Marine Areas For objective 3, NOAA sanctuary staff will work with a Native Hawaiian Project Facilitator to develop a consultative working group. The group will include members of NOAA’s Maritime Heritage Program, the Facilitator, the BOEM contracting office representative, and representatives from each of the main Hawaiian Islands (including island districts and/or counties). The working group will coordinate and facilitate the development of an analysis guide through a series of workshops, meetings, trainings, and consultations, as necessary, held during the project. This analysis guide or management tool will identify community heritage resource leaders, define common terminology, establish protocols for handling sensitive issues, establish reciprocal datasharing for information validation, develop a list of topics that should be consistently asked for by project proponents, and create a template for Hawaiian communities to collect and hold information that can be queried internally with the ability to provide summary results to external parties. That is a major paradigm shift. The project proposes to grant communities greater ability to manage and control their own sensitive 8 �cultural resource information rather than automatically require them to reveal sensitive information to government agencies. Information obtained from this project will provide baseline information for Native Hawaiian communities, helping to recognize and document marine areas of cultural importance. In short, the working group will develop a guidance tool that will help local communities navigate through cultural management discussions, particularly where those discussions involve sensitive resources and critical marine areas. The working group will then test the analysis document tool by conducting independent case studies, identifying indigenous cultural landscapes within a pre-defined study area. At its most basic, cultural landscapes are specific places where combinations of human activity and natural forces have left a discernable mark or footprint on the environment (Jensen et al., 2011). The landscape studies will begin with a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) analysis of Native Hawaiian sites and resources within the selected areas (Fig. 4). These case studies will focus on areas that include coastal land-based, as well as offshore, areas of Native Hawaiian significance. Each case study will incorporate an area of one or more traditional Hawaiian ahupua`a, a land division developed by ruling chiefs of the islands in the 15th century which typically runs from the mountain ridge to the fringing reef, usually encompassing an entire watershed. The types of cultural resource information to be identified include traditional cultural properties in a maritime context, information related to traditional gathering, hunting, fishing and other subsistence and commerce activities, as well as those related to spiritual and ceremonial sites and activities. The working group, workshops, and case studies provide an analysis guidance tool that (hopefully) will assist local communities in conducting their own maritime cultural landscape assessments. Familiar heritage resources like shipwrecks do not automatically rise to the fore here, unless those types of resources are valued by the community itself. Significance, in this instance, is not defined by government mandates and enforced from above, but rather is more reflective of local values and generated at the grass-roots community level. 9 �Fig. 4 The emergent walls of the Hawaiian stone fish traps and fish pond at Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historic Park. (H. Van Tilburg, NOAA ONMS) Project Challenges and Questions The ambitious and innovative approach represented by this maritime resource assessment project raises interesting challenges for Hawai‘i’s cultural preservation efforts. The project will not be easy to complete. Discussions regarding cultural resources are always lengthy and highly charged in Hawai‘i, and this is a complicated project inclusive of a large amount of public input in a process that has no precedent among the islands. The fact that local communities, in Hawai‘i and elsewhere, often feel disenfranchised by development interests and may perceive that their access to cultural resources deteriorates over time, engenders an understandable amount of wariness among the public. Those who are familiar with Hawai‘i’s history also know that the United States was clearly implicated in the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Islands in 1893, for which the presidential executive office issued a formal apology 100 years after the fact. They also know that the diseases that flourished in the wake of the Western discovery of Hawai‘i in 1778, followed by subsequent social and economic upheaval, devastated the Hawaiian population, cultural practices and traditions, and very fabric of Hawaiian society. Cultural practices, identity, and cultural resources are therefore inseparable, and managing cultural resources is a complex and critical challenge in the islands. 10 �For exactly these reasons, this project attempts what may be an improvement on the way that cultural resources have been assessed, managed, and ultimately protected in the United States thus far. If successful, local communities may be more empowered in resource management decisions that affect their islands. Because the underwater cultural heritage falls under the larger definition of cultural resources, and UCH does include a wide variety of historic and prehistoric properties, BOEM has therefore included project support for the Asia Pacific Conference on UCH 2014 and is one of the main APCONF conference sponsors. The project obviously has a contribution to make in understanding the underwater cultural heritage of Hawai‘i, and just as obviously, parts of the project go way beyond the definition of “underwater cultural heritage”. Or do they? Considering the intense level of cultural resource engagement locally in Hawai‘i, and also considering the passage of the international UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, one might ask “where is the intersection between these two efforts? Is there any? How much of what is considered “cultural resources” in Hawai‘i is really included in the definition of UCH: “…all traces of human existence that lie or were lying underwater and have a cultural or historical character”? Clearly, shipwrecks are part of the UCH, whether or not they are popularly regarded as cultural resources in Hawai‘i. And clearly, pre-Western contact lithic remains of stone fishponds and traps, along with canoe anchors, artifacts associated with coastal villages, and specific accumulations of ancient fishing tools, are part of the UCH resource base, under “objects of prehistoric character.”But humans have been intentionally and inadvertently shaping their environment, both terrestrial and marine, for a very long time...much, much longer than the existence of any written definition of “traditional cultural properties” or criteria from the National Register of Historic Places (Fig. 5). This has led to the cultural landscape approach being used as the interpretive tool to understand cumulative impacts to the environment in a more holistic fashion. Canall these landscapes be UCH as well? 11 �Fig. 5 The plantation-era ruins of the industrial harbor at Mahukona, once the entry port for the Kingdom of Hawai`i. The submerged steamship wreck from 1913 lies to the left. The whole environment, harbor, and wreck, make up the cultural landscape here.(H. Van Tilburg, NOAA ONMS) One could pursue the merit of including or excluding a given resource as cultural heritage for a long time. That is something of a theoretical exercise. Perhaps it would be better, for our efforts in Hawai‘i, to approach the question from the local perspective of the intended results. Definitions of landscapes and underwater cultural heritage and cultural resources all serve a similar purpose: they are intended to promote the understanding and preservation of resources that are valued for a number of reasons, including maintaining cultural identity. Is it worthwhile to understand the cultural resources and long-term impacts associated with traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering activities in the context of potential UCH? Is it worthwhile to think broadly about the definition of UCH, beyond the familiar shipwreck sites? The local answer is a pragmatic “yes,” if by doing so, those “traces of human existence” that are valued by communities as significant may have a better chance at being understood and protected. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management for making the project possible, and the dedicated staff of the National Marine Protected Area Center for providing the impetus for the development of the cultural landscape approach as it pertains to maritime heritage resources. 12 �References Anon., 2012. Hawaii Ocean Resources Management Plan, Public Review Draft. Hawaii CZM Program State Office of Planning, Honolulu. DHM Planners Inc., 1989. Hawaiian fishpond study: islands of Oahu, Molokai, and Hawaii / prepared by DHM Planners, Inc. and Public Archaeology Section, Applied Research Group, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu. DHM Planners Inc., 1990. Hawaiian fishpond study: islands of Hawaii, Maui, Lanai and Kauai / prepared by DHM Inc., Public Archaeology Section, Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum and Moon, O'Connor, Tam & Yuen, Honolulu. Honolulu Star Bulletin 1912-2001, Honolulu, Hawaii daily newspaper. Jensen, J. O., Mather, R. and Gray, J., 2011. Viewing the Future through the Lens of the Maritime Cultural Landscape. Sanctuary Watch, Fall: 2-3. MMS (U.S. Minerals Management Service), 2010.Record of Decision: Cape Wind Energy Project, Horseshoe Shoal, Nantucket Sound. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington DC. Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1856-1921, (becomes Honolulu Advertiser), Honolulu Hawaii daily newspaper. Shrimpton, R. H., (Ed.), 1990. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington DC. Thomas, M., 1982. Hawaiian Interisland Vessels and Hawaiian Registered Vessels. Seacoast Press, Santa Barbara. Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual 1842-1932. Star-Bulletin Press, Honolulu. UNESCO, 2012. Training Manual for the UNESCO Foundation Course on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Asia and the Pacific. UNESCO Bangkok Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, Bangkok. Van Tilburg, H., 2002. U.S. Shipwrecks in Hawaiian Waters: an Inventory of Submerged Naval Properties. Naval Historical Center, Washington DC. Hans Van Tilburg holds a BA in geography from University of California Berkeley, an MA in maritime archaeology/history from East Carolina University and a PhD in history from the University of Hawai‘i, where he ran the graduate program in maritime archaeology and history. Hans has taught courses in world maritime history and 13 �published over 30 articles and book reviews, as well as several books. He has served as a consultant for UNESCO’s cultural heritage program and instructor for UNESCO’s UCH Foundation courses. He is currently the maritime heritage coordinator and unit diving supervisor for NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries in the Pacific. Dave Ball is the Pacific Region Historic Preservation Officer and Diving Safety Officer for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Before joining BOEM he worked for several archaeological firms in the Pacific Northwest. He received a BA in anthropology from Sonoma State University in 1992 and an MA in anthropology from Florida State University in 1998. Dave has over 20 years’ experience in archaeology and has directed field research on both terrestrial and underwater archaeological sites across the country, including inundated prehistoric sites, World War II shipwrecks, and deepwater shipwrecks in the Gulf of Mexico. He is currently serving on the Board of Directors for the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology. 14 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 2: New Approaches in UCH Management in the US Subject The topic of the resource Video interview with Session 2 chair Dr. Hans Van Tilburg and links to the papers included in the session. Description An account of the resource In 2009, responding to the effort to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, the U.S. National Marine Protected Areas Center formed a Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group to provide expert advice on improving the conservation and management of maritime heritage resources. The resulting White Paper provided a series of recommendations to both the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, including new definitions for cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes. Central to these recommendations was a strong endorsement for the Cultural Landscape Approach in the understanding and management of maritime heritage resources (or UCH). Subsequently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Maritime Heritage Program has adopted the recommendations of this paper and is implementing a “maritime cultural landscape” approach to the management of cultural resources within the National Marine Sanctuary System. Also as a part of this initiative, NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support maritime cultural landscape studies of heritage resources by Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian communities in the Pacific region. These projects on the U.S. West Coast and in the Hawaiian Islands demonstrate the necessity of adapting a broader range of recognized cultural resources and a more inclusive and participatory management and preservation process. Charismatic resources like historic shipwrecks will always provide unique information for archaeologists and historians, but we do ourselves a disservice if we focus solely on these types of properties, and neglect other perspectives and the broader nature of all types and traces of human existence that lie underwater. Participants in this session will focus on the status of these ongoing ground-breaking projects, the advantages of a broader and more inclusive approach compared to the previous cultural heritage management paradigm in the U.S., and the challenges that this creates. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Hans Van Tilburg Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Assessing Historic Properties and Cultural Resources in the Main Hawaiian Islands Description An account of the resource Understanding the types and locations of significant archaeological and cultural resources is essential to their protection. NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support an assessment of historic properties and cultural resources in the main Hawaiian Islands. Objectives for this project include: 1) a database of verified, reported, and potential submerged cultural resources in the Hawai`i Outer Continental Shelf; 2) a database of historic properties that could be adversely impacted by alteration of the ocean viewshed; and 3) a management tool for engaging Native Hawaiian communities in identifying significant marine areas for offshore energy development planning purposes. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hans Van Tilburg Dave Ball, in Van Tilburg, H., Tripati, S., Walker Vadillo, V., Fahy, B., and Kimura, J. (eds.) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 5/13/2014 Asia-Pac Session 2 2014 https://apconf-much.org/proceedings/files/original/9544967a4eac4b2d233ee1d56daac76c.mp4 d6ff25765a12dc25890b8cd543c4224e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Session 2: New Approaches in UCH Management in the US Subject The topic of the resource Video interview with Session 2 chair Dr. Hans Van Tilburg and links to the papers included in the session. Description An account of the resource In 2009, responding to the effort to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, the U.S. National Marine Protected Areas Center formed a Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group to provide expert advice on improving the conservation and management of maritime heritage resources. The resulting White Paper provided a series of recommendations to both the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, including new definitions for cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes. Central to these recommendations was a strong endorsement for the Cultural Landscape Approach in the understanding and management of maritime heritage resources (or UCH). Subsequently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Maritime Heritage Program has adopted the recommendations of this paper and is implementing a “maritime cultural landscape” approach to the management of cultural resources within the National Marine Sanctuary System. Also as a part of this initiative, NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support maritime cultural landscape studies of heritage resources by Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian communities in the Pacific region. These projects on the U.S. West Coast and in the Hawaiian Islands demonstrate the necessity of adapting a broader range of recognized cultural resources and a more inclusive and participatory management and preservation process. Charismatic resources like historic shipwrecks will always provide unique information for archaeologists and historians, but we do ourselves a disservice if we focus solely on these types of properties, and neglect other perspectives and the broader nature of all types and traces of human existence that lie underwater. Participants in this session will focus on the status of these ongoing ground-breaking projects, the advantages of a broader and more inclusive approach compared to the previous cultural heritage management paradigm in the U.S., and the challenges that this creates. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Dr. Hans Van Tilburg Moving Image A series of visual representations that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Video interview with Session 2 chair Hans Van Tilburg. Subject The topic of the resource <br /><br /> Description An account of the resource In 2009, responding to the effort to protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future generations, the U.S. National Marine Protected Areas Center formed a Cultural Heritage Resources Working Group to provide expert advice on improving the conservation and management of maritime heritage resources. The resulting White Paper provided a series of recommendations to both the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, including new definitions for cultural heritage, marine cultural resources, tribes, indigenous peoples, and cultural landscapes. Central to these recommendations was a strong endorsement for the Cultural Landscape Approach in the understanding and management of maritime heritage resources (or UCH). Subsequently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Maritime Heritage Program has adopted the recommendations of this paper and is implementing a “maritime cultural landscape” approach to the management of cultural resources within the National Marine Sanctuary System. Also as a part of this initiative, NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) have teamed up to support maritime cultural landscape studies of heritage resources by Native American Tribes and Native Hawaiian communities in the Pacific region. These projects on the U.S. West Coast and in the Hawaiian Islands demonstrate the necessity of adapting a broader range of recognized cultural resources and a more inclusive and participatory management and preservation process. Charismatic resources like historic shipwrecks will always provide unique information for archaeologists and historians, but we do ourselves a disservice if we focus solely on these types of properties, and neglect other perspectives and the broader nature of all types and traces of human existence that lie underwater. Participants in this session will focus on the status of these ongoing ground-breaking projects, the advantages of a broader and more inclusive approach compared to the previous cultural heritage management paradigm in the U.S., and the challenges that this creates. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hans Van Tilburg Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 6/9/2014 Asia-Pac Session 2 2014