Cultural Landscapes: In the Eye of the Beholder

Transcript

Transcript

0:00:00.020,0:00:04.740 Today we have a presentation from Tom King

0:00:04.740,0:00:08.880 entitled "Cultural Landscapes in the Eye of the Beholder." I asked Tom to provide

0:00:08.880,0:00:12.870 some insight that may be useful for archaeologists working in Park contexts

0:00:12.870,0:00:19.230 and to inform our study of this series on landscape. Tom King has more than 50

0:00:19.230,0:00:21.840 years of experience in historic preservation, cultural resource

0:00:21.840,0:00:25.410 management, environmental impact assessment, and in archaeology throughout the

0:00:25.410,0:00:29.820 continental United States and the Pacific Islands. He's a self-proclaimed

0:00:29.820,0:00:34.680 "reformed" federal employee and is now proprietor of a consulting firm Thomas F

0:00:34.680,0:00:41.340 King PhD, LLC. On his blog he describes himself as a curmudgeon who seldom has

0:00:41.340,0:00:45.270 anything good to say about anything, but to the contrary he has written more than

0:00:45.270,0:00:50.430 twelve books on various topics in cultural resource management law which

0:00:50.430,0:00:54.719 do a great job in interpreting arcane preservation policy and many are in

0:00:54.719,0:01:00.329 their fourth edition and I used one myself as a textbook. He's also working

0:01:00.329,0:01:03.739 on a project with the International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery

0:01:03.739,0:01:07.380 working on solving the mystery of Amelia Earhart's disappearance in the South

0:01:07.380,0:01:12.780 Pacific. Just a bit of administrative stuff. The webinars will be recorded and

0:01:12.780,0:01:17.040 put online. I will announce the location in a future webinar announcement of that

0:01:17.040,0:01:20.790 of that archive. Our presentation will run about 50 minutes and then we'll have

0:01:20.790,0:01:24.390 some time for questions and discussion. Please turn off your mics during the

0:01:24.390,0:01:28.979 presentation, though Tom has encouraged us to ask questions. He also will engage

0:01:28.979,0:01:33.000 the audience in some scenarios that he would like to present, so colleagues don't be

0:01:33.000,0:01:38.640 shy. Just remember to turn your mics on and then off. There's a mic icon

0:01:38.640,0:01:42.960 on the bottom of the screen. Just hit it until it is red. Please send me some

0:01:42.960,0:01:48.450 technical feedback if you have any issues with the software. And lastly, I'd

0:01:48.450,0:01:52.799 like to thank our partners at Archeology Southwest for helping us to

0:01:52.799,0:02:02.460 put on this series. [TK speaks] Okay well in in terms of introduction, as you said

0:02:02.460,0:02:06.299 I've been kicking around historic preservation and archaeology for

0:02:06.299,0:02:10.050 something over 50 years. I started as a teenage pot hunter and

0:02:10.050,0:02:19.620 never quite grown out of it. And so that's what I'll be reflecting on over

0:02:19.620,0:02:26.659 the course of this this discussion.

0:02:27.170,0:02:32.460 Though most of my work in recent years has not had much to do with archaeology,

0:02:32.460,0:02:36.060 it's had to do with things that go beyond archeology, but that's really the

0:02:36.060,0:02:42.120 topic of my of my talk today. I wanted to apologize for the fact that I'll

0:02:42.120,0:02:46.830 probably be clearing my throat a good deal. This is the time in Washington, DC,

0:02:46.830,0:02:53.220 one of the two seasons in Washington, DC when the temperatures the varying in the

0:02:53.220,0:02:59.310 course of a day from 40 degrees to 80 degrees and the wind blows and everybody

0:02:59.310,0:03:06.360 gets cold and I'm afraid I'm coming down with one. [MR speaks] all right we're ready to go

0:03:06.360,0:03:12.750 [TK speaks] Okay, all right, well what I want to do is offer some simplistic thoughts about

0:03:12.750,0:03:16.620 cultural landscapes: how they're identified, how they're evaluated, how

0:03:16.620,0:03:23.160 they're managed. And the sort of subtitle of my talk is that cultural

0:03:23.220,0:03:28.110 landscapes are in the eye of the beholder. They are important because of

0:03:28.110,0:03:35.520 what they mean to people; how they appear to people. Now a few

0:03:35.520,0:03:39.090 hard and fast facts. There are definitions... there's a definition of

0:03:39.090,0:03:44.580 landscape that I just put up from the dictionary of visible features of an

0:03:44.580,0:03:49.020 area of land. I would say also the auditory features, audible features and

0:03:49.020,0:03:54.450 sometimes the features that are experienced in other ways. I have dealt

0:03:54.450,0:03:59.850 once with a landscape in which the issues had to do with the sound of the

0:03:59.850,0:04:06.300 wind through the trees that was important to a dance. It was in

0:04:06.300,0:04:12.510 Hawaii and it was important to a school of hula that operated in that

0:04:12.510,0:04:18.570 particular landscape. Anyway... generally a landscape is the features of

0:04:18.570,0:04:22.660 an area of land, what's in it, how they integrate with natural

0:04:22.660,0:04:31.510 and man-made features. So there are some definitions, and note that a landscape

0:04:31.510,0:04:35.560 includes a lot of things: landforms, mountains, hills, water bodies, rivers,

0:04:35.560,0:04:41.350 lakes, land cover, indigenous vegetation, human elements, etc., etc., etc., and

0:04:41.350,0:04:47.950 transitory elements like lighting and weather conditions. Cultural landscape is

0:04:47.950,0:04:53.920 defined rather nicely I think in NPS Preservation Brief 36 as a geographic

0:04:53.920,0:05:00.250 area, notably, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife and

0:05:00.250,0:05:08.860 domestic animals, and/or domestic animals, therein associated with various stuff.... And so

0:05:08.860,0:05:12.960 it's a broad definition. It includes a lot of things.

0:05:12.960,0:05:17.820 Generally speaking, landscapes fall into a couple of categories. There are

0:05:17.820,0:05:23.260 explicitly designed cultural landscapes like Central Park in New York, the San

0:05:23.260,0:05:31.540 Francisco Presidio, and/or because the terms are not mutually exclusive,

0:05:31.540,0:05:35.950 there are landscapes that are not explicitly designed like an agricultural

0:05:35.950,0:05:41.590 valley or a natural area like Yosemite. There you can come up with all kinds of

0:05:41.590,0:05:46.140 more nit picky distinctions, and people do, and get into all kinds of silly

0:05:46.260,0:05:49.780 arguments about whether it's a this or a matter of that or the other.

0:05:49.780,0:05:56.020 But landscapes can be a whole lot of things and it's I think rather silly to

0:05:56.020,0:06:02.320 get into arguments about terminology. Cultural landscapes may be alive and

0:06:02.320,0:06:08.410 in active use like the National Mall here in DC, or they may be relic landscapes

0:06:08.410,0:06:13.680 or superseded landscapes. I'd say the San Francisco Presidio is an example of a

0:06:13.690,0:06:18.880 sort of superseded landscape that had a particular function, set of functions,

0:06:18.880,0:06:24.970 it's evolved, and has now turned into a different kind of landscape. Similarly

0:06:24.970,0:06:32.470 the mining landscapes of Joshua Tree are relict, if you will. They're certainly not

0:06:32.470,0:06:35.790 active, but they've been superseded and become...

0:06:35.790,0:06:40.800 come to function as something else. And they can be any combination of those

0:06:40.800,0:06:48.540 alive, dead, relic, superseded, and so on. Usually landscapes are found eligible

0:06:48.540,0:06:53.430 for the National Register, either as districts if they're pretty big, pretty

0:06:53.430,0:06:59.940 lumpy, diverse, or sometimes as sites if they're kind of small and relatively

0:06:59.940,0:07:06.660 simple. It doesn't really matter what you call, it unless, I put in parentheses here,

0:07:06.660,0:07:11.790 unless it does because people get into, again, silly arguments about is it a

0:07:11.790,0:07:17.610 district or is it a site. Well it doesn't matter, but sometimes for National

0:07:17.610,0:07:22.680 Register purposes people get all wrapped around the axle as to whether something

0:07:22.680,0:07:30.180 is a district or a site. Archeologists are often the people who are expected to

0:07:30.180,0:07:35.420 advise management about landscapes, among all kinds of other things of course. And

0:07:35.420,0:07:40.230 the problem with this of course is that a lot of the variables and issues that

0:07:40.230,0:07:47.310 are involved in landscape identification and evaluation and management simply are

0:07:47.310,0:07:53.730 not archaeological issues. They're not issues that archeologists are trained to

0:07:53.730,0:08:03.240 deal with in grad school. So, question for you all, what do you do if and when

0:08:03.240,0:08:08.070 you are asked to advise about the significance of a landscape or the

0:08:08.070,0:08:14.060 management of a landscape. So can I open the phones here for

0:08:14.120,0:08:17.120 ideas.....

0:08:17.600,0:08:23.920 [silence]

0:08:24.100,0:08:36.240 whoo..... okay, well? [MR] anybody want to jump in? [TK] If nobody wants to jump in to that nice

0:08:36.240,0:08:47.600 Yellowstone Lake, i'll just go on, and we'll see if anybody is motivated by

0:08:47.600,0:08:53.490 something else. There is a good deal of guidance from National Park Service

0:08:53.490,0:09:01.350 about landscapes. There is Bulletin 18 on designed historic landscapes, landscapes

0:09:01.350,0:09:06.660 that have actually been designed, usually by landscape architects... oh for

0:09:06.660,0:09:14.150 basically cultural purposes. Then there's Bulletin 30 on rural historic landscapes;

0:09:14.150,0:09:20.850 landscapes that are not exactly designed, sometimes not designed at all,

0:09:20.850,0:09:26.460 but have some significance in the rural environment... you know cultural

0:09:26.460,0:09:30.000 significance. There's the bulletin that Pat Parker and

0:09:30.000,0:09:36.750 I wrote years and years ago, Bulletin 38 on traditional cultural places. Many, many,

0:09:36.750,0:09:41.520 cultural landscapes are traditional cultural places, and this is another

0:09:41.520,0:09:45.180 thing that people get into silly arguments about: "Is it a landscape

0:09:45.180,0:09:51.090 or is it a TCP?" Well it doesn't matter. A whole lot of landscapes are TCPs and that's

0:09:51.090,0:09:58.320 just... these these are just words that we use to describe phenomena. Then there's a

0:09:58.320,0:10:03.570 very nice Preservation Brief which I've already quoted from, Preservation Brief

0:10:03.570,0:10:11.520 36 on managing cultural landscapes, that I think the best thing about it is

0:10:11.520,0:10:16.740 its definition. It's a very broad definition that includes plants, animals,

0:10:16.740,0:10:23.280 and so on. But it's a it's pretty good piece of guidance generally, I think. So I

0:10:23.280,0:10:29.610 want to just throw out a few examples and then ask some questions about some

0:10:29.610,0:10:35.260 some particular cases one case that I'm working on right now

0:10:35.260,0:10:42.970 is the Greater Newport rural historic district in Virginia which would be, will

0:10:42.970,0:10:48.640 be, if it goes forward, will be transected by the Mountain Valley Pipeline and so

0:10:48.640,0:10:55.200 it's become a big 106 case in front of the Federal Energy Regulatory

0:10:55.200,0:11:00.370 Commisions. This is a landscape that excludes historic buildings, includes historic farmsteads,

0:11:00.370,0:11:08.140 but also includes a great deal of just natural and agriculturally modified landforms.

0:11:08.140,0:11:14.860 and brought a lot of the issues surrounding this case, surrounding

0:11:14.860,0:11:22.180 the 106 case, have to do with visual and sort of ongoing management impacts on

0:11:22.180,0:11:28.180 that greater landscape. Then a case that I worked on years ago in California,

0:11:28.180,0:11:34.330 Mount Shasta, raises some interesting issues. Its a Forest Service case managed...

0:11:34.330,0:11:38.860 most of the land is managed by the Forest Service. And the big thing that

0:11:38.860,0:11:44.050 got everybody hung up was the boundary. Should the boundary be placed at the

0:11:44.050,0:11:52.270 timberline, which is what the Forest Service said for basically management reasons, as

0:11:52.270,0:11:57.040 opposed to the very foot of the mountains, very base below those

0:11:57.040,0:12:02.590 foothills, which is where the tribe said the boundary ought to be set. The matter

0:12:02.590,0:12:08.620 never was resolved, or has been resolved and it remains in contention though

0:12:08.620,0:12:14.500 nobody's particularly arguing about it at the moment. Another case I was

0:12:14.500,0:12:20.800 involved in a few years ago is Chequamegon Bay in Wisconsin which includes the

0:12:20.800,0:12:28.510 Apostle Islands. The Chequamegon Bay is all wrapped up in the Ojibwe origin

0:12:28.510,0:12:36.520 migration tradition, the following of the miigis shell from the Great Salt Sea up

0:12:36.520,0:12:42.310 to Chequamegon Bay and all the events that happen thereafter very hard to

0:12:42.310,0:12:48.570 define a boundary on this but basically it included all of Chequamegon Bay and

0:12:48.570,0:12:53.130 came up again in a 106 context because of a proposal by the Corps of

0:12:53.130,0:12:58.230 Engineers to issue permits for underwater logging which plays hell with

0:12:58.230,0:13:05.490 your chainsaw but it was something that was very popular at the time. Another

0:13:05.490,0:13:09.730 rather antique case, a BLM case, involved the Quechan Trail of Dreams

0:13:09.730,0:13:11.280

0:13:11.280,0:13:17.730 the Imperial desert, the Imperial Valley desert. A big huge area that the Quechan

0:13:17.730,0:13:24.330 tribe sees as a place that they move through in dreams to go to other

0:13:24.330,0:13:30.360 other worlds. And there was a proposal for a gold mine in the middle of it that the

0:13:30.360,0:13:35.630 BLM proposed to let. This raised some interesting points in terms of

0:13:35.630,0:13:42.350 archeology, as archaeologists as the ones who make the decisions.

0:13:42.350,0:13:47.100 Archeologists did a survey and they found a whole bunch of little sites. They

0:13:47.100,0:13:51.540 found prayer circles. They found geoglyphs like the one that everybody's

0:13:51.540,0:13:57.090 looking at there on the ground. They found trails. They found petroglyphs. And

0:13:57.090,0:14:01.710 these could all be mapped, of course. And the mining company then said, "okay no

0:14:01.710,0:14:06.960 problem, we will put in our mine over here, and our tipple heap over here, and

0:14:09.060,0:14:15.420 we'll run everything on overhead cables between the two, and everything would be

0:14:15.420,0:14:19.950 fine because we won't disturb any of these archaeological sites." And the

0:14:19.950,0:14:22.120 Quechan tribe said, "well no, in your dreams..."

0:14:23.580,0:14:30.330 "...it's the whole landscape, the integrity of the whole landscape that

0:14:30.330,0:14:34.770 functions in our dreams and that's what's important."

0:14:34.770,0:14:40.650 Eventually the case could not be resolved through standard Section 106

0:14:40.650,0:14:48.030 consultation. The Advisory Council issued a comment saying do not issue a permit

0:14:48.030,0:14:51.900 for this project. It would have devastating effects on the tribal

0:14:51.900,0:14:57.760 beliefs of the Quechan Tribe. The BLM agreed not to issue the permit. It went

0:14:57.760,0:15:04.540 through litigation. Eventually the project has not been built. But it was a

0:15:04.540,0:15:09.960 good example of how complicated things can get by the difference between an

0:15:09.960,0:15:16.480 archaeological perspective and a broader cultural perspective. A very recent case

0:15:16.480,0:15:23.290 is Badger 2 Medicine, a very large land area up on the edge of Glacier National

0:15:23.290,0:15:29.170 Park, also the edge of the Blackfeet Reservation and an area that was

0:15:29.170,0:15:36.940 proposed for various drillings permitted by the Bureau of Land Management. This is

0:15:36.940,0:15:41.620 another one that went to the full Advisory Council for a comment and has

0:15:41.620,0:15:44.620 been eventually, thus far, turned down by the Bureau of Land Management.

0:15:49.690,0:15:56.290 A case i've been involved in recently involved Xwe’chi’eXen on the northwest coast of

0:15:56.290,0:16:01.420 Washington State. A place important to the Lummi tribe. Anyway I just wanted to

0:16:01.420,0:16:06.400 make the point that in the case of the Lummi, the Lummi Xwe’chi’eXen, we call it a

0:16:06.400,0:16:12.040 "landscape/seascape" because it is not only on land, it goes out to sea, and it

0:16:12.040,0:16:17.890 notably importantly includes the areas where the Lummi do traditional fishing.

0:16:17.890,0:16:26.190 And that's perfectly okay. The landscape doesn't have to be all on land.

0:16:26.190,0:16:33.820 another case that I've been involved in fairly recently....

0:16:33.820,0:16:43.540 .....Another case is Nantucket Sound, which is literally

0:16:43.540,0:16:49.360 all water. Yeah there's land around it, but it is

0:16:49.360,0:16:55.740 the sound itself, the water area, that was found eligible for the National Register

0:16:55.740,0:17:02.860 when there was a proposal, which is still active, to put in a wind farm in the

0:17:02.860,0:17:08.230 middle of the the sound. And this is a real problem for the tribes of the area

0:17:08.230,0:17:14.459 because they view the sun as it comes up over

0:17:14.459,0:17:18.119 Nantucket Sound and if they have a bunch of windmills on the way it's going to be

0:17:18.119,0:17:22.829 a problem. So the question arose as to whether Nantucket Sound was

0:17:22.829,0:17:28.049 eligible for the National Register as a traditional cultural property. Never

0:17:28.049,0:17:33.509 called a 'landscape' exactly. I mean it's all water. But it is for all practical

0:17:33.509,0:17:38.850 purposes a landscape and it was determined eligible by the Keeper of the

0:17:38.850,0:17:44.279 National Register. So now let's see if we can get some discussion here. I want to

0:17:44.279,0:17:53.519 ask a few questions about Assateague and its wild horses, its ponies. Simple

0:17:53.519,0:17:57.779 questions. Is Assateague a cultural landscape? Is

0:17:57.779,0:18:03.570 it eligible as a cultural landscape for the National Register? What might be some

0:18:03.570,0:18:09.210 of the contributing elements that make it eligible? And do the ponies contribute

0:18:09.210,0:18:16.019 to its National Register eligibility? Anybody have a thought about any of

0:18:16.019,0:18:18.440 these questions?

0:18:33.500,0:18:37.300 I'm hearing somebody mumbling, but I can't hear.....

0:18:39.920,0:18:53.520 Aloha! Tom this is Mandy Johnson Campbell. I am calling from Hawaii, from Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail

0:18:53.520,0:18:55.700 (I can hear you but you have a lot of background noise)

0:18:55.880,0:19:13.640 Isn't Assateaugue.. isn't there an annual drive of the ponies over to the island? Isn't that a traditional cultural practice, and therefore would qualify as a tcp, for that

0:19:13.640,0:19:20.140 reason? Okay, anybody got a response for that?

0:19:30.170,0:19:37.400 Okay. I mean this.... actually my late wife and I, .... even though I try to never

0:19:37.400,0:19:39.740 nominate anything to the National Register,

0:19:39.740,0:19:46.670 we actually toyed with the idea of preparing a nomination specifically for

0:19:46.670,0:19:56.000 that reason. To make the point that the ponies and the annual drive from, I think

0:19:56.000,0:20:02.840 Assateague to Chincoteague, to make it a cultural landscape, make it a traditional

0:20:02.840,0:20:09.020 cultural property. And the ponies and the human the human activities

0:20:09.020,0:20:19.370 involved in their lifeway on the... in the park ,that all... is among our among the

0:20:19.370,0:20:24.170 things that make it eligible for the National Register. We never got around to

0:20:24.170,0:20:30.500 doing the nomination, and I really don't know what Assateague's National Register

0:20:30.500,0:20:35.420 status is, but it certainly seems to me that the answers to all these questions

0:20:35.420,0:20:41.750 are, "Yes, it's a cultural landscape. Yes, it's eligible for the Register. Among

0:20:41.750,0:20:46.970 its contributing elements are the ponies, and that annual drive, that human

0:20:46.970,0:20:52.160 activity." And those are very important things that have to be kept

0:20:52.160,0:21:02.780 in mind in both evaluating it and managing it. But let's go on to another case

0:21:02.780,0:21:06.980 that i'm working on now that is not a Park Service case involves the Ch'u'itnu River

0:21:06.980,0:21:15.700 in Alaska. It flows out to Cook Inlet, sort of across from and south of

0:21:15.700,0:21:23.660 Anchorage. And it's a natural area, great big watershed, hundreds and hundreds of

0:21:23.660,0:21:30.170 square miles. And there's a proposal to put a surface coal mine right in the

0:21:30.170,0:21:36.890 middle. It's a natural salmon spawning River that's been important to the

0:21:36.890,0:21:42.330 native village of Tyonek for about the last thousand years or so.

0:21:42.330,0:21:48.660 And salmon are an important very very important part of the life way of the Tyonek

0:21:48.660,0:21:53.880 people, as are moose which have sort of replaced caribou which were the

0:21:53.880,0:22:01.890 traditional quadrupeds, large quadrupeds in the in the area. So, questions here. Is

0:22:01.890,0:22:05.610 the Ch'u'itnu watershed a cultural landscape? Is it eligible for the

0:22:05.610,0:22:12.320 Register, and what might be some of its contributing elements? Any thoughts?

0:22:12.320,0:22:22.054 This is obviously not a National Park, but it could be.

0:22:22.054,0:22:25.770 Well, I don't mean to

0:22:25.770,0:22:36.290 stun people into silence. Well let's just go on. A couple of things about Ch'u'itnu.

0:22:36.290,0:22:42.390 One is the relationship between archaeology and the landscape. Here, you

0:22:42.390,0:22:49.650 see, the known recorded archaeological sites and

0:22:49.650,0:22:56.520 districts in yellow, and the landscape as we have been forced to nominate it to

0:22:56.520,0:23:03.060 the National Register in red. As you can see the landscape is a whole hell of a

0:23:03.060,0:23:07.830 lot bigger than the archaeological sites. There are not archeological sites all

0:23:07.830,0:23:13.160 over the landscape, because people don't live everyplace in a landscape. The

0:23:13.160,0:23:22.140 Tyonek people hunt and fish and gather wild foods and carry out religious

0:23:22.140,0:23:28.430 activities, spiritual activities, throughout the watershed, but their

0:23:28.430,0:23:34.110 archaeological expressions are limited to a very small number of

0:23:34.110,0:23:39.720 areas down toward Cook Inlet, as far as we know at the present. There have been

0:23:39.720,0:23:45.360 some very early sites found farther up in the watershed, but what makes the area

0:23:45.360,0:23:50.820 important is not its archaeological sites. The archeological sites are

0:23:50.820,0:23:56.970 almost incidental to the cultural importance of the watershed as a

0:23:56.970,0:24:04.649 landscape. Now, we sought to get the [Army] Corps of Engineers, which is the regulatory

0:24:04.649,0:24:12.360 agency here, to simply recognize a large lumpy soft squishy area as eligible for

0:24:12.360,0:24:16.799 the National Register, which is perfectly okay under the Section 106 regulations

0:24:16.799,0:24:21.630 and would have been an efficient thing to do. This was how we mapped it for

0:24:21.630,0:24:28.429 purposes of an eligibility determination. The Corps dug in its heels, found ways to

0:24:28.429,0:24:36.120 confuse and obfuscate, and would not find the area eligible. The SHPO was not

0:24:36.120,0:24:42.809 willing to stand up to the Corps. The Park Service was, but we actually couldn't get

0:24:42.809,0:24:47.759 the issue to the Park Service to the Keeper of the Register without somehow

0:24:47.759,0:24:53.399 going through the Corp or the SHPO, so the decision finally was to nominate

0:24:53.399,0:25:00.600 the damn thing and that's how it gets mapped in the nomination. A somewhat more

0:25:00.600,0:25:05.879 constrained area. Great deal more research went into defining the

0:25:05.879,0:25:12.600 boundaries of the of the watershed and the extension down the Cook Inlet where

0:25:12.600,0:25:19.740 people a traditionally fish. Moreover, we had to map the distribution of

0:25:19.740,0:25:23.909 different property... property ownerships, which was not necessary for

0:25:23.909,0:25:27.120 eligibility determination but was for the nomination.

0:25:27.120,0:25:33.289 We had to map modern features on the landscape because these are

0:25:33.289,0:25:40.500 non-contributing, and those have to be listed in the Register form. The Corps

0:25:40.500,0:25:46.529 could have accepted eligibility and gone on with Section 106

0:25:46.529,0:25:51.509 review, but they didn't, and as a result we had to nominate. And the nomination is

0:25:51.509,0:25:57.509 not yet complete. It's still in review and the estimated cost, my estimated cost,

0:25:57.509,0:26:02.250 to the native village was twenty-five twenty-five thousand or more dollars on

0:26:02.250,0:26:05.300 all consulting work and all the lawyers and so on,

0:26:05.300,0:26:10.180 which is one reason I try to never nominate anything to the National

0:26:10.180,0:26:14.050 Register. It served very little purpose and it costs a whole

0:26:14.050,0:26:22.060 bunch of money. Now, before we move on, does anybody have any argument with that

0:26:22.060,0:26:29.620 or comment on that? [audience question] This is Mandy Johnson Campbell again. Could you

0:26:29.620,0:26:37.540 expand on that just a little bit about why you don't think it's prudent to do

0:26:37.540,0:26:44.740 the register nominations? [TK] Well, why spend a bunch of money if you

0:26:44.740,0:26:53.700 don't have to? And there's no... the Section 106 regulations and the law

0:26:53.700,0:27:01.390 treat eligible properties just like properties that are listed. And so for

0:27:01.390,0:27:11.500 purposes of a project like the one we're trying to have reviewed in Ch'u'itnu, the

0:27:11.500,0:27:18.940 Corp under the Section 106 regulations could simply agree to treat the

0:27:18.940,0:27:24.670 watershed as eligible for the National Register and not worry about boundaries. Not

0:27:24.670,0:27:29.680 worry about land ownership. Not worry about notifying all the land owners. Not

0:27:29.680,0:27:36.700 worry about any of that stuff and go on with Section 106 review and bring the

0:27:36.700,0:27:42.340 matter to some kind of conclusion. Now there were a bunch of arguments that a

0:27:42.340,0:27:46.360 whole bunch of people didn't think it was eligible. Where there is something,

0:27:46.360,0:27:51.580 all those things could lead to nomination. But there's no reason, in my

0:27:51.580,0:27:57.310 mind, to jump to nomination first because it does cost a lot of money and... and

0:27:57.310,0:28:03.820 frankly it's a pain in the butt. It's just I don't think it serves any very

0:28:03.820,0:28:08.050 useful purpose. There are purposes for the National

0:28:08.050,0:28:12.930 Register... for nominating things to the National Register, but I don't think that

0:28:12.930,0:28:17.790 it's what ought to be done under every circumstance.

0:28:18.380,0:28:21.860 [audience] Thank you. [TK] Okay.

0:28:21.960,0:28:32.400 [MR] I got some some questions through chat today from Adam Freeburg in Alaska.

0:28:32.400,0:28:39.510 What were local communities around Ch'u'itnu CL and how did USACE ignore that,

0:28:39.510,0:28:45.720 assuming some agreed with the CL eligibility. [TK] I'm sorry say the first part

0:28:45.720,0:28:51.300 of that again? [MR] What were the local communities around Ch'u'itnu CL what

0:28:51.300,0:28:56.190 were the local community's

0:28:56.190,0:29:00.270 opinions around Ch'u'itnu CL, and how did USACE ignore that?

0:29:00.270,0:29:03.660 [TK] Okay.

0:29:03.660,0:29:10.040 The traditional community in that area is the native village of Tayonek

0:29:10.040,0:29:15.750 and the native village of Tayonek says "Look, we have been on this landscape for

0:29:15.750,0:29:25.650 a thousand years. We have been using this watershed. We've been using the salmon. We

0:29:25.650,0:29:29.910 have a relationship with the salmon. We have a relationship with the

0:29:29.910,0:29:35.610 quadrupeds, used to be caribou, now moose, that occupy the watershed. We have

0:29:35.610,0:29:44.460 relations with the plants, and we really don't want a coal mine in the middle of

0:29:44.460,0:29:50.420 our watershed, and we want the cultural significance of this watershed

0:29:50.420,0:29:56.940 recognized and respected now in the 106 process." That doesn't necessarily mean

0:29:56.940,0:30:02.820 that a coal mine can't go in, but it means that the Corps has to do a serious

0:30:02.820,0:30:09.420 job of consultation with the native village of Tyonek in figuring out

0:30:09.420,0:30:14.542 what's significant and what ought to actually be done.

0:30:14.542,0:30:16.280 And the Corps simply

0:30:16.280,0:30:26.460 found ways not to do that. They... it's been a matter of dragging feet on on every

0:30:26.460,0:30:29.780 side. And there were archaeological issues in

0:30:29.780,0:30:37.180 that they caused the mining company to pay a great deal of money to do

0:30:37.180,0:30:43.910 archaeological survey. But that was sort of not the point, because archaeology was

0:30:43.910,0:30:49.430 not the issue. The issue is the cultural significance of the overall watershed

0:30:49.430,0:30:56.150 and and the Corp just couldn't seem to get that through its head and that's a

0:30:56.200,0:31:02.140 fairly common problem. Does that help?

0:31:06.580,0:31:12.340 [MR] Okay Tom, I have another question. This is from Marcy Rockman

0:31:12.340,0:31:17.600 regarding not nominating. So, she says I completely understand the finances of

0:31:17.600,0:31:21.650 not nominating, but wondering if Tom has seen cases where not nominating has led

0:31:21.650,0:31:25.640 to additional challenges down the line or where nomination has helped a

0:31:25.640,0:31:39.920 landscape withstand a challenge from a subsequent project. Offhand, no. Now the

0:31:39.920,0:31:46.309 case that i'm working on right now in southern Virginia with the greater

0:31:46.309,0:31:52.700 Newport district, a world historic district and several other historic

0:31:52.700,0:31:57.770 districts. The district had been nominated before the pipeline was ever

0:31:57.770,0:32:03.610 proposed. And in a way that's a convenience because there's sort of no

0:32:03.610,0:32:10.760 argument that there are eligible landscapes there. But in another way it

0:32:10.760,0:32:16.550 is a problem because there's the assumption that they're the only

0:32:16.550,0:32:20.600 landscapes there. And that's not necessarily true

0:32:20.600,0:32:25.910 they're the landscapes that happen to have been nominated and it doesn't mean

0:32:25.910,0:32:32.320 that they're not a bunch more landscapes out there that are actually significant.

0:32:32.320,0:32:36.700 Moreover, the way that the National Register

0:32:36.700,0:32:44.530 nomination form is put together essentially privileges buildings and

0:32:44.530,0:32:52.900 sites and clusters of buildings and sites. And so a landscape ends up being

0:32:52.900,0:33:00.580 defined largely in terms of its clusters of buildings and sites. And then it's

0:33:00.580,0:33:05.470 pretty easy for something like a pipeline company to say, well look we'll

0:33:05.470,0:33:10.420 just, we'll just route our pipe right through the middle of this district, but

0:33:10.420,0:33:13.810 we won't hit this building or that building or this cemetery or that

0:33:13.810,0:33:18.460 cemetery. We won't knock down this covered bridge and everything will be hunky

0:33:18.460,0:33:23.590 dunky. Oh and but it's not hunky-dunky from the standpoint of the people who

0:33:23.590,0:33:30.580 value that that landscape. So it's something I've really only recently come

0:33:30.580,0:33:35.920 to be fully aware of that the very structure of the National Register

0:33:35.920,0:33:45.580 nomination form tends to give privilege to some aspects of a cultural

0:33:45.580,0:33:52.660 environment and to denigrate others. And I'll talk a little more about that in a

0:33:52.660,0:34:00.010 moment with respect to a very different kind of site. So bottom line, yeah, there

0:34:00.010,0:34:06.370 are probably some circumstances in which nomination has has been useful. But on

0:34:06.370,0:34:11.860 the whole I found it to be far more trouble than it is that it is worth. And to tend

0:34:11.860,0:34:15.810 be often misleading.

0:34:23.180,0:34:29.670 Okay, well let me then talk about another great big cultural landscape, the Grand

0:34:29.670,0:34:33.660 Canyon. Obviously the Grand Canyon is a real

0:34:33.660,0:34:38.330 important place in all kinds of ways. In one way that it's important is that

0:34:38.330,0:34:46.140 virtually all the Indian tribes and pueblos in the area have something about

0:34:46.140,0:34:54.690 their origin story wrapped up in the ground in the Grand Canyon. And obviously

0:34:54.690,0:34:58.290 there's a great big river, the Colorado, that flows through the Grand

0:34:58.290,0:35:06.690 Canyon. A few years ago... well, there are fish in the Colorado. Among them

0:35:06.690,0:35:11.580 are the Grand Canyon chub which is a native species and endangered species,

0:35:11.580,0:35:18.720 and rainbow trout, which are an introduced species and sport fish. So

0:35:18.720,0:35:24.060 okay, is the Grand Canyon a cultural landscape? Is it eligible for the

0:35:24.060,0:35:30.240 Register? Do the Chum contribute to its significance? Do the trout contribute to

0:35:30.240,0:35:35.480 its significance? Any thoughts about any of this?

0:35:47.270,0:35:55.369 Mike anything coming in? [MR] There's one question, and also Adam and Marcie thank

0:35:55.369,0:36:01.070 you for your responses to the last questions. And Eric[?] English asks, "When were

0:36:01.070,0:36:08.990 the trout introduced?" [TK] Oh, I really don't know. Quite a while ago.

0:36:08.990,0:36:17.690 They've been there... they were introduced behind Glen Canyon Dam, if I'm, if

0:36:17.690,0:36:25.670 i'm recalling correctly. And Glen Canyon would end in the 1960s, and then they

0:36:25.670,0:36:32.570 escaped and got into the the rest of the river. And so they are they are now

0:36:32.570,0:36:39.170 endemic to the to the river, both above and below Glen Canyon Dam. I'm pretty

0:36:39.170,0:36:52.570 sure that's true well. [MR] Okay, from Amanda Campbell,

0:36:52.570,0:36:58.880 Do the chub have cultural significance to tribes? [TK] Yes, the chub have cultural

0:36:58.880,0:37:06.440 significance to tribes. The the tribes certainly, particularly the Zuni, make the

0:37:06.440,0:37:15.920 point that all life is sacred, and the chub are alive and they're in the river

0:37:15.920,0:37:22.090 and they are very important as a part of the river.

0:37:29.550,0:37:39.430 Well let me just tell you about the case that that brought this up. The Bureau of

0:37:39.430,0:37:45.820 Reclamation under pressure from the Fish and Wildlife Service, in order to manage

0:37:45.820,0:37:56.220 the chub, proposed that the trout were competing with the chub and needed to be

0:37:56.220,0:38:04.180 greatly reduced in number and so the proposal was to sort of suck them out of

0:38:04.180,0:38:10.230 the river at the the junction of the Colorado and the Little Colorado, and

0:38:10.230,0:38:22.150 grind them up and use them for fish meal. The Zuni particularly said that this was

0:38:22.150,0:38:30.060 terrible, because although the trout are introduced they are living things. They

0:38:30.060,0:38:38.010 are part of the river now and it was an offense to the Zuni's cultural beliefs

0:38:38.010,0:38:48.400 to grind up trout. They also had their own wildlife biologists who found, in

0:38:48.400,0:38:55.000 contrast to Fish and Wildlife Service, that the chub were not being beaten out

0:38:55.000,0:38:58.840 by the trout. The chub were declining but there were other reasons

0:38:58.840,0:39:04.630 for it, so there was an argument about that. But be that as it may, the case

0:39:04.630,0:39:12.880 became... the case became a 106 case because of the cultural value of the

0:39:12.880,0:39:19.900 trout and the impact that the removal of the trout would have in the eyes of the

0:39:19.900,0:39:25.930 Zuni community on the cultural integrity of the Grand Canyon, which everybody

0:39:25.930,0:39:35.230 agreed is eligible in its entirety for the National Register. So in answer to

0:39:35.230,0:39:40.990 the questions, the case established that yes, the Grand Canyon is a cultural

0:39:40.990,0:39:44.830 landscape. Yes, it's eligible for the National Register. The

0:39:44.830,0:39:49.400 The chub contribute to its significance and the trout contribute to its significance, and

0:39:49.400,0:39:55.160 removing the trout, particularly by really nasty mechanized means, right at

0:39:55.160,0:40:00.830 the Zuni origin site, that place where the Zuni believe they came up from a lower

0:40:00.830,0:40:08.960 world, was really really offensive. So this eventually, actually did become

0:40:08.960,0:40:12.770 the subject of the memorandum of agreement. We did reach agreement on this

0:40:12.770,0:40:17.300 case among Park Service, Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Reclamation, and the

0:40:17.300,0:40:23.210 tribes, that involved basically putting off any final decision about about the

0:40:23.210,0:40:30.860 trout, and finding other ways to manage the impacts on the chub. So let me move

0:40:30.860,0:40:35.660 to a totally different kind of property, the National Mall here in

0:40:35.660,0:40:42.320 Washington, DC, managed not entirely by the Park Service. Managed actually by

0:40:42.320,0:40:47.120 about six different federal agencies in part, but with the Park Service as the

0:40:47.120,0:40:54.140 largest manager. And obviously the National Mall is used for a lot of

0:40:54.140,0:40:59.870 things, and it is a very important place in the life of the whole nation. It's

0:40:59.870,0:41:06.950 been referred to as the stage of democracy on which all kinds of

0:41:06.950,0:41:13.190 democratic institutions are played out. And many of us who live here in the

0:41:13.190,0:41:17.810 Washington, DC area have participated in a lot of these events over the

0:41:17.810,0:41:29.300 years, both formal events and informal events. And of course it's where the

0:41:29.300,0:41:34.790 fireworks go off every Fourth of July. One of the issues that's been raised

0:41:34.790,0:41:43.400 lately is what's been called the Park Service's turf wars, the tendency by

0:41:43.400,0:41:49.829 the Park Service to manage the mall for its

0:41:49.829,0:41:57.750 turf, taking care of the grass, and downplaying its public uses. There are

0:41:57.750,0:42:02.690 several questions, real questions, about whether that's all together appropriate.

0:42:02.690,0:42:07.740 But here are my questions. Is the National Mall a cultural landscape?

0:42:07.740,0:42:11.880 That's probably a no-brainer. Any fool can plainly see that it's a cultural

0:42:11.880,0:42:14.880 landscape, though if somebody wants to argue with that,

0:42:14.880,0:42:19.619 feel free. Is it eligible for the National Register? Well it's listed on

0:42:19.619,0:42:25.530 the National Register, but the way it's listed again reflects the peculiarities

0:42:25.530,0:42:33.810 of the National Register nomination form, and interestingly a colleague and I have

0:42:33.810,0:42:38.339 a paper coming out on this just... very very soon being published, I think this

0:42:38.339,0:42:46.970 week. oh ....the structure of the National Register form basically

0:42:46.970,0:42:52.500 makes it seem like the public uses of the National Mall are irrelevant, and

0:42:52.500,0:42:59.700 that's an interesting problem. So okay let me just ask you if you any of you

0:42:59.700,0:43:04.050 are inclined to say what do you think some of the contributing elements are to

0:43:04.050,0:43:08.750 the significance of the National Mall?

0:43:19.190,0:43:28.070 Would stuff like informal recreation be a significant part of the National Mall's

0:43:28.070,0:43:47.940 eligibility? Or public events like the Women's March? [MR] Here's one suggestion, how

0:43:47.940,0:43:54.030 about the planned space that allows those activities to take place, so

0:43:54.030,0:43:57.960 the open grassy spaces that allow informal activities to take place on

0:43:57.960,0:44:08.280 them. [TK] Okay, well that's a management question. That is a, that is a, once you

0:44:08.280,0:44:16.350 decide that yes, these events are parts of the significance of the Mall, then you

0:44:16.350,0:44:20.850 figure out how to manage them. And certainly one way to manage them is to

0:44:20.850,0:44:24.960 say, "Okay you can have your demonstration over here, and you can't have your

0:44:24.960,0:44:29.580 demonstration over there." And that certainly is something that the National

0:44:29.580,0:44:38.040 Park Service and other agencies involved in mall management do. There is a

0:44:38.040,0:44:48.720 question as to what, oh how can I say this, what takes priority. For

0:44:48.720,0:44:54.510 example, I don't really have a picture of it, this is... But there are a number of

0:44:54.510,0:45:01.680 events that have involved public activities on the Mall. One of the

0:45:01.680,0:45:05.310 activities that I used to love to take part in, and take my kids down to

0:45:05.310,0:45:14.280 take part in, was the the Folklife Festival. And the Folklife Festival still

0:45:14.280,0:45:18.270 takes place on the mall, but another was the National Book

0:45:18.270,0:45:22.530 Festival, and that was a wonderful... a wonderful event where there'd be a big

0:45:22.530,0:45:27.390 tent set up and big booksellers would be out there and authors would be there and

0:45:27.390,0:45:30.380 you go, and you could, you know, rub elbows

0:45:30.380,0:45:37.369 with major authors, and have interesting talks, and so on. And the

0:45:37.369,0:45:42.079 trouble with it was that it messed up the grass, and so a few years ago the

0:45:42.079,0:45:45.829 National Park Service decided, well we're going to do away with that. They can't do

0:45:45.829,0:45:50.480 that on the mall anymore, and so now it's held in the Washington Convention Center,

0:45:50.480,0:45:56.000 or someplace. Really ugly and constrained. It's a whole different

0:45:56.000,0:46:05.119 sort of experience that I at least don't attend. Now, that management decision to

0:46:05.119,0:46:11.180 throw out the National Book Festival was not subjected to Section 106 review

0:46:11.180,0:46:17.630 because this was not seen as a Section 106 issue. It was not seen as a cultural

0:46:17.630,0:46:25.040 resource issue. And I questioned that. I think that's a real serious question

0:46:25.040,0:46:30.859 because.... it is the nature of the paper that my colleague Judy Scott

0:46:30.859,0:46:36.260 Feldman and I have just published. We're asking, what is the role of human

0:46:36.260,0:46:42.829 activity in the National Register. And for a place like the National Mall, is

0:46:42.829,0:46:48.500 human activity not a very significant part of the landscape's cultural

0:46:48.500,0:46:54.890 significance that needs to be managed? Certainly! But should not be just

0:46:54.890,0:47:03.099 willy-nilly excluded. And again, the National Register form seems to me to

0:47:03.099,0:47:16.579 attempt management, to simply ignore public uses. [MR] I got four responses,

0:47:16.579,0:47:22.849 Tom. So two people said accessible open green space as a contributing feature, so

0:47:22.849,0:47:27.650 importantly I think accessible green space. Wide open spaces that are used by

0:47:27.650,0:47:33.980 large crowds for protests, gatherings, etc. And then two people said Olmstead

0:47:33.980,0:47:38.559 Jr, landscape, and then relationship to the McMillan plan.

0:47:38.559,0:47:45.680 [TK] Yeah, the relationship to the McMillan plan is a very interesting issue, but not

0:47:45.680,0:47:52.910 so much in terms of the public uses, but in terms... actually that's something we

0:47:52.910,0:47:59.300 can get into in the next little segment because.... okay, I didn't hear any big

0:47:59.300,0:48:05.780 arguments there so, should I move on? I have another couple of points about the

0:48:05.780,0:48:08.380 National Mall.

0:48:09.310,0:48:15.410 So I'll go ahead.... did you hear something? oh just

0:48:15.410,0:48:20.599 [MR] yeah, let's we can move on and return to that... [TK] Okay, all right.

0:48:20.599,0:48:26.780 There are a number of proposals for doing things on and to the Mall. One of

0:48:26.780,0:48:33.410 them is the proposed, "Global War on Terror Memorial" on the Mall, what we call

0:48:33.410,0:48:39.910 "the GWOT". We don't know what it will look like yet, but it has been approved and

0:48:39.910,0:48:50.660 there is a firm proposal to put still another memorial on the Mall. Now the

0:48:50.660,0:48:55.819 Section 106 review has not yet been initiated on the GWOT

0:48:55.819,0:49:06.130 memorial. What issues do you think might be raised? And how might we address them?

0:49:11.830,0:49:18.500 Yeah this is probably too politically loaded to to really expect people to

0:49:18.500,0:49:25.100 answer, but let me just say that one of the big issues is the over monumentalization

0:49:25.100,0:49:30.980 of the Mall. And no matter whether you put this particular kind of

0:49:30.980,0:49:36.770 political twist on it or not, there are a hell of a lot of monuments

0:49:36.770,0:49:43.220 and memorials on the mall, and interestingly the sort of big war

0:49:43.220,0:49:48.950 memorials on the mall began only with the Vietnam Memorial. And then we had

0:49:48.950,0:49:53.740 World War Two, which was extremely controversial. The World War Two memorial.

0:49:53.740,0:50:01.640 But now we've got proposals for a Gulf War Memorial, and the GWOT. And since we

0:50:01.640,0:50:09.950 don't seem to be stopping having wars, one wonders how soon the National Mall

0:50:09.950,0:50:15.080 is going to end up looking sort of like the Roman Forum, where it's just sort of

0:50:15.080,0:50:22.760 all the memorials. So that is a sort of cumulative effects issue that is going

0:50:22.760,0:50:29.570 to need to be addressed, and I hope will be addressed when both the Gulf War

0:50:29.570,0:50:42.830 Memorial and the GWOT come up for Section 106 review. Another proposed activity

0:50:42.830,0:50:48.230 another proposed construction project on the mall is the proposed mall

0:50:48.230,0:50:53.810 underground, which would go in between the Smithsonian castle and the Natural

0:50:53.810,0:51:01.780 History Museum and Arts and Industries Museum and American History Museum and

0:51:01.780,0:51:05.960 would serve really two purposes or three purposes. There would be a

0:51:05.960,0:51:12.890 geothermal field which would would provide power. It would provide parking

0:51:12.890,0:51:22.030 for buses and presumably single regular vehicles. It would provide an underground

0:51:22.130,0:51:32.630 visitors center, and importantly, when the wMll floods, as it does periodically, the

0:51:32.630,0:51:39.150 mall underground would become a reservoir and receive flood waters that

0:51:39.150,0:51:44.760 then could be pumped out of.... for... into into the river under controlled

0:51:44.760,0:51:53.760 circumstances. So, again what 106 issues are raised by this project and

0:51:53.760,0:51:59.760 how might they be addressed? These are questions that archaeologists in the

0:51:59.760,0:52:04.790 National Capital Region are likely to be asked.

0:52:16.460,0:52:24.900 Okay, well we don't have to answer any of these. These issues will come up because

0:52:24.900,0:52:32.970 the....all these both these projects, the GWOT and the Mall underground are in

0:52:32.970,0:52:39.480 planning, and various stages, and we'll see how they how they end up being

0:52:39.480,0:52:46.769 addressed. [MR] Are there any issues that you could think of, Tom, if the audience out

0:52:46.769,0:52:51.329 there is quiet, i'm kind of curious. Oh.... actually have "impacts to

0:52:51.329,0:52:56.240 ability to use open space for aforementioned gathering" and then

0:52:56.240,0:53:01.200 "archaeological deposits under the mall?" That's by Amanda Johnson

0:53:01.200,0:53:09.269 Campbell. [TK] Yeah well that's the that's the thing I see with the

0:53:09.269,0:53:16.200 Mall underground, is archaeological issues. That there's a lot of stuff

0:53:16.200,0:53:21.029 that's happened on the Mall over the years and how much of it has produced

0:53:21.029,0:53:26.549 any kind of useful archeological data, I have no idea, but that would be an issue

0:53:26.549,0:53:32.130 that would have to be addressed if the Mall underground went forward. There I

0:53:32.130,0:53:36.779 don't think there's anything that would be a deal killer, but it is

0:53:36.779,0:53:41.029 something that would have to be looked at and would would be certainly a

0:53:41.029,0:53:48.509 Section 106 consultation issue. I'm, I wasn't quite clear on the previous

0:53:48.509,0:53:54.599 question. [MR] I think the comment was whether the construction would affect the

0:53:54.599,0:53:59.519 ability to use any open spaces for gathering. [TK] Oh and that would certainly be

0:53:59.519,0:54:04.200 another issue that would have to be addressed, and I don't know. That's

0:54:04.200,0:54:09.269 a tricky question. I mean what happens if you open up a great big

0:54:09.269,0:54:13.740 construction project in the middle of the Mall and then have a march on

0:54:13.740,0:54:19.650 Washington. You know you don't want everybody marching into the hole. I don't

0:54:19.650,0:54:25.440 know how that would be handled. Again, I don't think that's a deal-killer. It

0:54:25.440,0:54:30.270 would be a matter of saying, okay if this is a project that is

0:54:30.270,0:54:36.720 generally agreed is worth doing, then let's find ways to sequence the

0:54:36.720,0:54:45.480 construction in such a way that it does not unduly impede public gatherings. But

0:54:45.480,0:54:48.480 that's certainly a good question and one that would one that would have to be

0:54:48.480,0:54:55.410 looked at. And that's important thing to remember about section 106 reviews.

0:54:55.410,0:54:59.610 There are no deal-killers under section 106... or I guess there might be... but

0:54:59.610,0:55:04.800 generally it's a matter of, okay there are conflicting competing public

0:55:04.800,0:55:10.650 interests and the Section 106 process is about trying to find rational ways to

0:55:10.650,0:55:16.250 work them out. And that's really all it is.

0:55:22.010,0:55:29.670 Okay so we've actually moved a little faster than I thought we were going to,

0:55:29.670,0:55:34.290 so I had these sort of extras thrown on at the end. Let me just talk about

0:55:34.290,0:55:40.380 another case that I was involved in a few years ago that provided

0:55:40.380,0:55:44.670 some some interesting issues. It involved the Klamath River in

0:55:44.670,0:55:52.080 California. This is not a National Park. Obviously it's in multiple kinds of

0:55:52.080,0:55:59.580 ownership, but importantly, fish are very important. Salmon are tremendously

0:55:59.580,0:56:11.090 important to the Yurok, Karuk, Hoopa and Klamath tribes that live along the river.

0:56:11.090,0:56:16.680 There are also other issues along the Klamath to the Karuk it's the center of

0:56:16.680,0:56:20.850 the world. This is a place called Katimin which is specifically the

0:56:20.850,0:56:28.170 center of the world in Karuk belief. It's been seriously damaged. It was a big

0:56:28.170,0:56:32.500 village site and it's been seriously damaged by erosion

0:56:32.500,0:56:40.359 since dams went in on the Klamath. And so as part of the effort by the tribes and

0:56:40.359,0:56:48.040 others to get dams removed from the Klamath, I was asked by the Klamath River

0:56:48.040,0:56:55.329 Inter-tribal Fish and Water Commission to coordinate a multi-tribal study of

0:56:55.329,0:57:02.290 the eligibility of the Klamath River for the National Register as a traditional

0:57:02.290,0:57:08.680 cultural property, obviously as a landscape. Another issue related

0:57:08.680,0:57:16.089 to the the whole world center aspect of the Klamath is that the Karuk have an

0:57:16.089,0:57:23.380 ongoing tradition of a world renewal, and this has never stopped over all the

0:57:23.380,0:57:30.359 years, overall the impacts that the Karuk have suffered from from white society.

0:57:30.359,0:57:36.220 Every period of time, and I don't think it's every year, but every few

0:57:36.220,0:57:44.099 years a specifically designated medicine person, a young man who can run well, is

0:57:44.099,0:57:50.559 sequestered in this... in a sweat lodge like this one up on the river.. and you

0:57:50.559,0:57:55.150 can't see him. Nobody is permitted to see that person for a

0:57:55.150,0:58:01.920 considerable period of time. A specific woman brings him food, but that's it. And

0:58:01.920,0:58:08.859 then he gets out and he runs and he walks and he travels over the area over

0:58:08.859,0:58:15.579 prescribed trail. Shoots arrows in particular locations. Has fires and is

0:58:15.579,0:58:20.380 praised and so on at specific locations. And all this is designed to

0:58:20.380,0:58:27.490 renew the world. And it's all connected to the river. So in our study we looked

0:58:27.490,0:58:35.589 at... the study was done by the Karuk, the Yurok and the Hoopa under

0:58:35.589,0:58:41.440 my sort of coordination and we ended up saying the whole river, all the way from

0:58:41.440,0:58:46.450 the dams up there... where you can see on the.... in the right upper right corner,

0:58:46.450,0:58:53.349 to the ocean and from mountain to mountain, is eligible for the National

0:58:53.349,0:58:58.750 Register. And this was agreed to by the SHPO

0:58:58.750,0:59:06.809 and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and it became part of the argument for

0:59:06.809,0:59:14.230 removing the dams because of their adverse effect on the river. Now FERC has

0:59:14.230,0:59:20.980 managed to find a way to sort of squirm around that so far, but it's still an

0:59:20.980,0:59:27.099 open question and it's part of the discussion of removing the dams which I

0:59:27.099,0:59:35.859 hope will eventually someday happen. So that's just a view looking out at one of

0:59:35.859,0:59:41.010 these specific spiritual places at the mouth of the Klamath River.

0:59:41.010,0:59:49.210 So my final point is simply that the way to deal with cultural landscapes because

0:59:49.210,0:59:55.000 their significance does lie in the eye of the beholder. Because it is so much

0:59:55.000,1:00:00.309 wrapped up in how people use the land, how they use the water, how they use the

1:00:00.309,1:00:07.329 fish, what their beliefs are about the land, you've got to talk to people. This

1:00:07.329,1:00:13.170 happens to be in the Badlands, and talking with tribal people about

1:00:13.170,1:00:18.430 managing the area. And you got to talk to people wherever they live, wherever you

1:00:18.430,1:00:23.559 find them. This happens to be a cultural site in Micronesia and a whole bunch of

1:00:23.559,1:00:27.400 little kids, and they probably wouldn't be real real good consultants but they

1:00:27.400,1:00:31.660 have concerns. They have issues. And you need to go out and try to talk to them.

1:00:31.660,1:00:37.450 That can be done in public meetings and public meetings work fine, except that

1:00:37.450,1:00:43.809 they often don't work very well. And you got to design your consultation in such

1:00:43.809,1:00:50.230 a way that you actually keep people awake and involve them in the

1:00:50.230,1:00:54.310 discussion of what makes the landscape significant

1:00:54.310,1:01:00.130 and what.... how you want to manage it in terms, in order to maintain that

1:01:00.130,1:01:08.350 significance. So that brings me to the end of my spiel and I'm happy to answer

1:01:08.350,1:01:20.200 questions or receive the criticisms or whatever. [MR}] Okay folks if you have any

1:01:20.200,1:01:25.120 questions you can either turn your mic back on and ask a question or you can

1:01:25.120,1:01:33.330 use the chat function. Don't be shy. [TK] Please don't be shy!

1:01:36.360,1:01:41.980 [MR] Tom do you have any specific recommendations for, say Park

1:01:41.980,1:01:50.470 archaeologists, that are required to manage their specific parks, just survey

1:01:50.470,1:01:56.410 their parks, from a survey or a fieldwork perspective, and I know that

1:01:56.410,1:02:04.090 we've talked here about 106 contexts mostly outside of parks, but one

1:02:04.090,1:02:08.800 of our requirements is to survey the resources within federal lands as

1:02:08.800,1:02:17.730 part of section 110. [TK] Well I think that to the extent you are identifying

1:02:17.730,1:02:24.390 archaeological sites as archaeological sites, as things that are significant to

1:02:24.390,1:02:29.410 archaeologists, it's fine to just go out and identify them as archaeological

1:02:29.410,1:02:36.550 sites. Though I would still say that the the perspectives of descendant

1:02:36.550,1:02:43.240 communities are very very important because you really can't interpret a

1:02:43.240,1:02:53.320 site very well without involving those who are somehow related to the people

1:02:53.320,1:02:58.450 who used to live there. But particularly if you're going to say that you're

1:02:58.450,1:03:04.240 evaluating the full range of historic properties, or god help us

1:03:04.240,1:03:11.200 "cultural resources," you've got to talk to the people who value those those

1:03:11.200,1:03:15.400 properties particularly if you're talking about something like landscapes.

1:03:15.400,1:03:23.010 You've simply got to involve the people who use the land. Who

1:03:23.010,1:03:29.170 recreate on the land. Who value the land. Whose families used to live on the land.

1:03:29.170,1:03:40.020 And see what values they ascribe to the landscape and try to work that into your

1:03:40.020,1:03:48.090 evaluation and your management recommendations. Does that make sense?

1:03:48.090,1:03:59.800 [MR] Yeah that does. Definitely and then a sort of related question to think about

1:03:59.800,1:04:04.510 this to turn this sort of on its head from a research standpoint. Are there

1:04:04.510,1:04:08.500 aspects of your ethnographic understanding of traditional cultural

1:04:08.500,1:04:12.700 places that might have application to the study of past archaeological

1:04:12.700,1:04:19.600 landscapes. So say Tom King has a next career as a survey archaeologist,

1:04:19.600,1:04:23.290 you would approach it very differently than you did at the beginning of your

1:04:23.290,1:04:27.850 career in the 60s after having experienced many of these interactions

1:04:27.850,1:04:33.550 in pretty highly charged environments but but still, retrospectively if you are

1:04:33.550,1:04:38.050 doing a survey project, would it have changed the way you looked at the

1:04:38.050,1:04:47.370 the relationship between individual sites.... in a sort of processional mode.

1:04:48.270,1:04:52.780 [TK] Well i'm trying to sort of separate that out from the what we've just been

1:04:52.780,1:05:02.950 talking. I mean I would be a hell of a lot more.... I would make a much

1:05:02.950,1:05:09.940 stronger effort to identify the communities that were involved with

1:05:09.940,1:05:15.940 whatever area I was surveying, and get their perspectives.

1:05:15.940,1:05:23.630 Than I have been, than I thought I was when I started my career. But that would

1:05:23.630,1:05:33.140 not be largely because of research interests. I mean yes it might inform my

1:05:33.140,1:05:39.320 research, but the main reason would be just the recognition that archaeology is

1:05:39.320,1:05:43.970 not the be-all and end-all of existence that we have a responsibility,

1:05:43.970,1:05:49.790 particularly those of us who are employed by or contract with federal

1:05:49.790,1:05:55.880 agencies, government agencies, we have a responsibility to the people who

1:05:55.880,1:06:02.930 pay our our salaries. And we need to be responsive to their their interests.

1:06:02.930,1:06:06.380 Congress didn't pass the National Historic Preservation Act in order to

1:06:06.380,1:06:10.250 take care of archaeological sites. It passed the National Historic

1:06:10.250,1:06:16.640 Preservation Act because it was recognized that the public had an

1:06:16.640,1:06:23.589 interest in, a concern for, historic properties of all sorts and we really

1:06:23.589,1:06:31.010 are not doing our jobs if we don't pay attention to those those public

1:06:31.010,1:06:39.140 interests. But I don't really know that that affects archaeological research

1:06:39.140,1:06:46.609 that much as archaeology. It affects it when we when we decide we're going to be

1:06:46.609,1:06:50.930 something more than archaeologists. We are going to be, if you will, cultural

1:06:50.930,1:06:55.550 resource managers or historic preservation specialists, or whatever

1:06:55.550,1:07:06.710 you're called or regarded by your employer. [MR] Okay thanks. Thanks, okay there's

1:07:06.710,1:07:11.540 another question. Does Dr. King have any specific recommendations for making

1:07:11.540,1:07:16.250 people aware of provisions for restricting or redacting select aspects of the

1:07:16.250,1:07:20.660 information they share in the course of research leading to nominations or DOEs

1:07:20.660,1:07:25.430 And by this she means any thoughts on improving those provisions

1:07:25.430,1:07:37.010 like Section 9 of ARPA or Section 304 of NHPA. [TK] Yeah, I mean section 9... it would be

1:07:37.010,1:07:44.540 nice for one thing to make Section 9 and Section 304 somewhat compatible but a

1:07:44.540,1:07:49.130 little bit of history there. Section 9 of course has been around for a long time

1:07:49.130,1:07:58.670 because ARPA has been around for a long time. Section 304 originally did say, more

1:07:58.670,1:08:09.950 or less, the same thing as Section 9, and it was getting abused. Specifically

1:08:09.950,1:08:15.800 when I was at the Advisory Council it was abused in a case in Hawaii where the

1:08:15.800,1:08:26.660 Hawaii Department of Transportation used it to avoid letting Native Hawaiians know

1:08:26.660,1:08:33.859 about traditional Native Hawaiian sites that it's archaeological surveyors had

1:08:33.859,1:08:39.710 identified on the h3 right-of-way then planned through the Na Pali in the

1:08:39.710,1:08:51.440 middle of Oahu. And so when we had an opportunity to amend the law in 1992, I

1:08:51.440,1:08:58.310 was involved in writing the revisions to the confidentiality

1:08:58.310,1:09:03.830 provision and put in a couple of things. One is that you could make things

1:09:03.830,1:09:08.420 confidential for reasons other than the fear that somebody would go out and dig

1:09:08.420,1:09:14.810 them up, which is the only thing that justifies confidentiality under

1:09:14.810,1:09:23.000 Section 9 of ARPA. On the other hand, in order to do that, in order to call it

1:09:23.000,1:09:28.370 confidential, you had to go through a process and say, you know, there

1:09:28.370,1:09:31.699 are good reasons for keeping it confidential. And you had to talk to some

1:09:31.699,1:09:41.569 people, and in the original draft of the amendment, the agency that proposed to keep

1:09:41.569,1:09:48.430 information confidential would have had to consult with the Advisory Council

1:09:48.430,1:09:54.140 before declaring anything confidential, because the assumption was that if this

1:09:54.140,1:10:00.140 would happen in a 1o6 context. Well the National Register said, "Now we can't have

1:10:00.140,1:10:03.980 that, we take care of the National Register, we will decide whether

1:10:03.980,1:10:09.080 something can be kept confidential. Having then gotten that provision

1:10:09.080,1:10:13.910 through Congress, the Register said "oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, how are we ever

1:10:13.910,1:10:19.430 going to live with this provision?" And has never come up with a very plausible

1:10:19.430,1:10:26.260 way of dealing with it. So I think, yeah, the whole thing needs needs rethinking. I

1:10:26.260,1:10:34.239 think that both Section 9 and Section 304 are overused and misused and

1:10:34.239,1:10:43.250 used to prevent information that people need for planning purposes from being

1:10:43.250,1:10:48.800 revealed, and I think the tribes routinely stumble into letting people do

1:10:48.800,1:10:52.610 this because they figured, yeah, it's a good idea to keep our our sacred

1:10:52.610,1:10:58.940 information confidential. Well, maybe, but on the other hand, maybe it's just an

1:10:58.940,1:11:05.330 opportunity... just creates an opportunity for agencies to turn a blind eye to the

1:11:05.330,1:11:10.820 cultural significance of places. So yeah, I would like to see those

1:11:10.820,1:11:15.110 sections of the law rethought. But I'd like to see a lot of sections of the

1:11:15.110,1:11:22.239 laws rethought. That's probably not very helpful....

1:11:24.039,1:11:31.119 [MR] Okay, she says thanks. Next question. Please talk about how agencies view APEs

1:11:31.119,1:11:35.739 these days. In your experience are more people recognizing indirect effects or

1:11:35.739,1:11:41.369 is it still a fight? It seems that even in NPS non-cultural resources staff

1:11:41.369,1:11:46.179 don't acknowledge these details, or maybe direct effects are still a fight, too.

1:11:46.179,1:11:54.039 [TK] Well I have to say that I don't, I don't get involved in enough cases

1:11:54.039,1:12:04.780 anymore to know very well how things are happening all over the country. My

1:12:04.780,1:12:14.260 impression is that it is still very difficult for agencies and SHPOs and

1:12:14.260,1:12:23.679 others to get their arms around any kind of indirect impacts or... and the areas

1:12:23.679,1:12:29.829 of potential effect that would be involved in indirect effects. I was

1:12:29.829,1:12:34.420 responsible for inventing the term Area of Potential Effect back in the 80s, when

1:12:34.420,1:12:39.190 we were reworking the Section 106 regulations, and I rather regret having

1:12:39.190,1:12:46.559 done so because it created the impression of a very firm, hard and fast

1:12:46.559,1:12:52.840 thing that you could define. There is no such concept under NEPA, and I think

1:12:52.840,1:12:56.260 that's wiser. I think that I made a serious mistake back there in the

1:12:56.260,1:13:03.460 Eighties in pushing the idea of an APE because it makes people think

1:13:03.460,1:13:07.960 "Yeah we ought to be able to draw a nice hard and fast line around the

1:13:07.960,1:13:14.559 area where we're impacts will take place" And you know, sometimes there's a very

1:13:14.559,1:13:17.860 soft and squishy line, there may be three or four lines, there may be a

1:13:17.860,1:13:26.739 hundred lines. It's very hard to say. One of the wisest agencies I ran into years

1:13:26.739,1:13:33.550 ago was a Corps of Engineers district up in the Great Lakes. It was actually the

1:13:33.550,1:13:36.730 case that ended up involving Chequamegon Bay

1:13:36.730,1:13:40.270 in which there was a big issue about what is the area of potential effect of

1:13:40.270,1:13:44.350 this this undertaking, because we're concerned about traditional cultural

1:13:44.350,1:13:50.470 properties. And the archaeologists for the Corps of Engineers said, "Look we

1:13:50.470,1:13:55.300 don't care what the area of potential effect is. If people want to say that

1:13:55.300,1:14:02.950 there are properties in the Los Angeles basin that are affected by this

1:14:02.950,1:14:10.270 undertaking in Wisconsin, we'll consider them. Oh, we don't think we'll have to

1:14:10.270,1:14:15.250 consider them very long because the impacts are going to be zip, but we're

1:14:15.250,1:14:19.360 certainly open to considering them." And I thought that was a very wise point of

1:14:19.360,1:14:30.970 view. I'm not letting the APE... don't let the APE drive the bus. it's just,

1:14:30.970,1:14:37.690 just a tool that that can be used and can also be abused. But I don't really

1:14:37.690,1:14:45.770 know what the situation is really across the country today.

1:14:47.969,1:15:00.119 [AC] I have one more question if that's okay. So we are a 175 miles corridor on Hawaii Islands.

1:15:00.119,1:15:10.079 A National Historic Trail which contains a network of ancient and

1:15:10.079,1:15:19.559 historic and modern trails and I just have a question about how specific to

1:15:19.559,1:15:26.849 get with cultural landscape boundaries and sort of specificity about either

1:15:26.849,1:15:31.229 cultural landscapes or traditional cultural properties because it's... it's

1:15:31.229,1:15:36.929 all connected, as I'm sure you're familiar with out here. So we have the

1:15:36.929,1:15:42.059 trails. We also have associated cultural resources along those trails. Those

1:15:42.059,1:15:48.960 trails are also connected to ocean trails, which are connected to fishing

1:15:48.960,1:15:55.590 and gathering. And then you have viewsheds that are connected to Mauna Kea

1:15:55.590,1:16:00.690 and Mauna Lona. So it gets it gets a little overwhelming because really the whole

1:16:00.690,1:16:06.630 island could be the cultural landscape. So I'm just wondering about if you have

1:16:06.630,1:16:17.639 any thoughts about bounding a landscape in those terms. [TK] Well, do you

1:16:17.639,1:16:27.229 need to bound it? Given that you have a trail. You have that defined.

1:16:27.229,1:16:33.619 Do you need to establish boundaries?

1:16:36.260,1:16:44.750 Maybe not. I mean I'm guessing... I'm wondering, would it make sense to just

1:16:44.750,1:16:52.340 establish a cultural landscape for the entirety of the corridor, the whole 175

1:16:52.340,1:17:00.200 mile corridor and then include all those aspects within it. [TK] Well I guess i'm

1:17:00.200,1:17:08.540 wondering whether a cultural landscape is exactly what you need, or

1:17:08.540,1:17:20.630 whether what you need is the sort of management plan or the trail that, among

1:17:20.630,1:17:30.080 other things, defines issues that may have to be considered. And means of

1:17:30.080,1:17:35.690 considering, like, oh and I don't know your situation at all, but I'm just

1:17:35.690,1:17:44.150 envisioning a piece of the trail where there's a view of the top of Mauna Kea

1:17:44.150,1:17:57.380 and people really value that view and the ability to stop along the trail and look

1:17:57.380,1:18:03.250 at Mauna Kea and say a prayer or whatever... whatever they're inclined to do.

1:18:03.250,1:18:12.080 Now does that... should you spend a lot of time saying, "well do we

1:18:12.080,1:18:17.510 have do we put our boundary up around all of Mauna Kea?" I don't think that's

1:18:17.510,1:18:25.000 relevant, but what is relevant is the fact that along this stretch of trail

1:18:25.000,1:18:32.360 there are viewshed issues that need to be considered and there may be

1:18:32.360,1:18:40.430 particular ways to consider them. It may be appropriate if somebody is

1:18:40.430,1:18:48.560 proposing to do something in the area between the trail and Mauna Kea,

1:18:48.560,1:18:53.490 there may be particular people that ought to be talked to, and talked to in

1:18:53.490,1:19:01.500 particular ways. So it seems to me that it's more a management question than a

1:19:01.500,1:19:10.620 question of how you define or whether you define a landscape. I'm probably just

1:19:10.620,1:19:17.700 not understanding the situation well. [AC] When we have projects along the trail

1:19:17.700,1:19:23.970 for instance, we just had a trail maintenance repair project, so in that

1:19:23.970,1:19:31.130 section of the trail you know in our consultation with SHPD we need to

1:19:31.130,1:19:38.040 take impacts to cultural landscapes into consideration for Section 106, and also

1:19:38.040,1:19:44.220 for the state historic preservation law compliance. So i'm just... it seems like

1:19:44.220,1:19:52.560 maybe it needs to be a little more site-specific rather than trying to

1:19:52.560,1:20:00.660 get a handle on the whole landscape for that corridor.

1:20:00.660,1:20:09.790 [TK] Well yeah but again it depends on whether anybody cares. If everybody's

1:20:09.790,1:20:16.090 perfectly happy to bop along the trail and never look at Mauna Kea, then you

1:20:16.090,1:20:23.880 sort of don't have a, you don't have an issue with with the the view. And

1:20:23.880,1:20:28.510 probably if what you're doing is a trail maintenance project and everybody thinks

1:20:28.510,1:20:35.440 it's a great idea to maintain the trail, hey, there's probably no issue,

1:20:35.440,1:20:44.260 and there's no point in wasting everybody's time fooling with it. But I

1:20:44.260,1:20:50.080 think that's what we ought to be focusing on, is the the issues. You know...

1:20:50.080,1:20:54.850 Okay, we are proposing a trail maintenance project from point X to

1:20:54.850,1:21:01.270 point Y along the trail. Does anybody have a problem? SHPD do you

1:21:01.270,1:21:06.400 have a problem? Native Hawaiian group, hey do you have a problem? Native Hawaiian

1:21:06.400,1:21:12.490 group B, do you have a problem? of whomever else, do you have a problem? If nobody has

1:21:12.490,1:21:23.080 a problem, super! Go forward! Why get all wrapped up in exactly what

1:21:23.080,1:21:32.350 is the landscape through which this trail is passing? I think that

1:21:32.350,1:21:35.020 this is a concern that I have. I think we're getting to a point where

1:21:35.020,1:21:42.520 we're sort of letting the fine points of the regulations limit our

1:21:42.520,1:21:47.380 thinking and define what we're doing. And yeah, we've got to be guided by the

1:21:47.380,1:21:53.290 regulations, but the regulations got to make sense too. And so we don't comply

1:21:53.290,1:21:57.400 with regulations just for the sake of complying with regulations. We comply

1:21:57.400,1:22:02.620 with regulations because they are designed to serve a purpose. And we ought

1:22:02.620,1:22:11.590 to think about what the purpose is in figuring out how we're going to comply

1:22:11.590,1:22:14.580 with the regulations.

1:22:15.480,1:22:28.900 [AC] Thank you so much. [TK] t=Thank you. [MR] Tom. I have a question. What kind of guidance would you

1:22:28.900,1:22:35.220 give as for the minimum standards for identification for a traditional

1:22:35.220,1:22:41.980 cultural practice. Have you... you've given us a lot of positive examples, but do you

1:22:41.980,1:22:50.170 have cases in the past where you felt like the documentation or the proof

1:22:50.170,1:22:55.060 or the evidence wasn't sufficient. And I know that your your philosophy is let

1:22:55.060,1:23:00.430 the people tell us if it's significant or eligible. But if you were to write

1:23:00.430,1:23:04.270 guidance and you know that who, what, when, where, and, why is important,

1:23:04.270,1:23:07.900 how would you word that guidance? How would you walk the fine line between

1:23:07.900,1:23:21.930 making sure that..... [TK] Well, it's an interesting question. I think I would

1:23:22.290,1:23:35.140 ask the question, who says this place is important or how

1:23:35.140,1:23:41.610 do we, how do we first elicit whether somebody thinks the place is important.

1:23:41.610,1:23:52.060 And how do we make ourselves comfortable that we have made a reasonable and

1:23:52.060,1:23:58.200 good-faith effort to find out whether anybody thinks this place is important.

1:23:59.580,1:24:11.440 And that sort of process of figuring out who may be concerned and what their

1:24:11.440,1:24:17.920 concerns may be is what we ought to be able to document. We ought to be able

1:24:17.920,1:24:21.560 to document that we made a reasonable and good faith effort

1:24:21.560,1:24:26.150 to go out and find the people who are concerned and asked them what their

1:24:26.150,1:24:33.260 concerns are and address their concerns. And I don't think that that

1:24:33.260,1:24:40.580 documentation needs to be particularly complicated or onerous. But that ought

1:24:40.580,1:24:50.330 to be the focus of what's important to to people, not what is the specific

1:24:50.330,1:24:55.880 landscape that's important. That may be something that ends up

1:24:55.880,1:25:01.190 having to be defined. But that should be something that flows from the... from the

1:25:01.190,1:25:05.860 consultation process. Not something that's defined at the outset. I'm

1:25:05.860,1:25:15.020 probably being way too way too general and unspecific here, but I'm... I don't know

1:25:15.020,1:25:25.060 exactly what else to say. [MR] Thank you, thank you, yeah I think that that helps. The

1:25:25.060,1:25:31.270 documentation of the effort that was made and I think is really important.

1:25:31.270,1:25:38.180 [TK] Yeah it's very important and and again I think the effort has to be the effort to

1:25:38.180,1:25:45.980 involve people and get people's opinions and address their concerns. Not so

1:25:45.980,1:25:50.930 much, you know, where you walked and where you looked and where you drew, where you

1:25:50.930,1:25:57.230 drew lines on the map. Those things can be important, but they are, they should

1:25:57.230,1:26:04.670 not be emphasized over the importance of actually involving people and dealing

1:26:04.670,1:26:16.690 with their concerns. [MR] Any other questions out there?

1:26:20.090,1:26:26.909 [TK] Stunned them into silence. [MR] yeah that's good. People will be ruminating for the next

1:26:26.909,1:26:32.480 few weeks. [TK] Well I hope so.

1:26:32.960,1:26:39.750 [MR] okay folks, I think we're good. Let's wrap this up. Thank you so much Tom for your

1:26:39.750,1:26:44.639 insight. Your powerpoints, your examples and your answers to these difficult

1:26:44.639,1:26:49.559 questions. [TK] And if anybody wants to contact me about any of this stuff i'm

1:26:49.559,1:26:59.280 at [e-mail]. [MR] Great great. Okay we're gonna wrap this up.

1:26:59.280,1:27:02.849 Thank you everyone for participating, thank you for the great questions, and

1:27:02.849,1:27:07.380 for the participation. Again, I recorded this. I'm sorry for the

1:27:07.380,1:27:13.050 folks that couldn't join me or were having trouble with the technology. I

1:27:13.050,1:27:16.170 apologize for that. It'll be recorded and we'll post it on our

1:27:16.170,1:27:21.809 website in time. And thanks again Tom King. And we'll be back in a few weeks.

1:27:21.809,1:27:27.090 I've got to schedule another set of webinars on landscape archaeology at the

1:27:27.090,1:27:29.969 scale of landscape. There's a lot of thanks pouring in,

1:27:29.969,1:27:37.440 Tom, over the chat. [TK] Okay well thank you very much and if there are things

1:27:37.440,1:27:41.040 you want to send me afterwards I'm I'm happy to help.

1:27:41.040,1:27:48.270 [MR] Thanks folks and have a happy Halloween! Bye Tom!

1:27:48.270,1:27:51.469 Yep, bye bye.

Description

Tom King, 10/26/2017

Duration

1 hour, 27 minutes, 52 seconds

Credit

NPS

Date Created

10/26/2017

Copyright and Usage Info

View Usage Information Multimedia credited to NPS without any copyright symbol are public domain. Multimedia credited with a copyright symbol (indicating that the creator may maintain rights to the work) or credited to any entity other than NPS must not be presumed to be public domain; contact the host park or program to ascertain who owns the material. « Hide Usage Information