OCS Study

BOEM 2020-023

US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Office of Renewable Energy Programs (Sterling, VA)

Developing Protocols for 

Reconstructing Submerged 

Paleocultural Landscapes and 

Identifying Ancient Native American 

Archaeological Sites in Submerged 

Environments:

Final Report
OCS Study

BOEM 2020-023

US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Office of Renewable Energy Programs (Sterling, VA)

Developing Protocols for 

Reconstructing Submerged 

Paleocultural Landscapes and 

Identifying Ancient Native American 

Archaeological Sites in Submerged 

Environments: 

Final Report

March 2020

Authors: John W. King, David S. Robinson, Carol L. Gibson, and Brian J. Caccioppoli

Prepared under BOEM Award M12AC00016

by

The Coastal Mapping Laboratory

Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island

Narragansett, RI 02882
DISCLAIMER

Study collaboration and funding were provided by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, under Agreement 

Number M12AC00016. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved 

for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should 

not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US Government, nor does mention of 

trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

To download a PDF file of this report, go to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management Data and Information Systems webpage (http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-StudiesEnvData/), click on the link for the Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS), and 

search on 2020-023. The report is also available at the National Technical Reports Library at 

https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/.

CITATION

King JW, Robinson DS, Gibson CL, Caccioppoli BJ. 2020 Developing protocols for reconstructing 

submerged paleocultural landscapes and identifying ancient Native American archaeological sites in 

submerged environments: final report. Sterling (VA): US Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy. OCS Study BOEM 2020-023. 24 p.

ABOUT THE COVER

Narragansett Indian Tribal member and University of Rhode Island undergraduate student project 

specialist, Chali Machado, examines a tree-stump and its surrounding root-mat preserved in their original 

growth positions in the exposed surface of a submerged paleocultural landscape dating from Cal BP 6555 

to 6410, identified by URI-GSO during 2016 project field investigations conducted off of West Beach,

Block Island, Rhode Island. Photograph by David S. Robinson, URI-GSO.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was a product of listening and braiding together the many voices of the people who 

generously shared their time, energy, ideas, wisdom, perspectives, concerns, comments, questions, 

knowledge, hard work, talents, facilities, equipment, photographs, and video footage during the 

performance of the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project. The following individuals who 

contributed to this effort are as follows:

• Glenn Anderson (Coastal Plumbing)

• Ivar Babb (University of Connecticut)

• Alberta and Michael Baccari (Cedar Tree Point Homeowners’ Association)

• David Ball (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)

• Monique LaFrance Bartley (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Daniel Belknap (University of Maine – Orono)

• Jon Boothroyd (University of Rhode Island)

• John Brown, III (Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office)

• John Brown, IV (Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office)

• Jessica Burke (University of Rhode Island)

• Brian Caccioppoli (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Danielle Cares (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Vincent Carlone (Block Island Police Department)

• Brandi Carrier (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)

• Barbara and Raymond Chace (Ponaug Marina)

• Dennis Coker (Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware)

• Dwight Coleman (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography Inner Space 

Center)

• John and Robin Cooney (Cedar Tree Point Homeowners’ Association)

• Michael Dalton (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Melanie Damour (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)

• Sean Davis (University of Rhode Island)

• Sierra Davis (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Alex DeCiccio (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography Inner Space 

Center) 

• Jørgen Dencker (Viking Ship Museum [Roskilde, Denmark])

• Tim Dencker (DTU Aqua, Center for Ocean Life [Kongens Lyngby, Denmark])

• Simon Engelhart (University of Rhode Island)

• Amanda Evans (Coastal Environments, Inc.)

• Jennifer Ewald (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)

• Janet Friedman (Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Council) 

• Grover Fugate (Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Council) 

• Andrew Gallonio (Cedar Tree Point Homeowners’ Association)

• Rick Getchell (Aroostook Band of Micmacs; All Nations Global Solutions) 

• Tammie Getchell (All Nations Global Solutions) 

• Carol Gibson (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Rae Gould (Nipmuc Nation; University of Massachusetts-Amherst)
• Andrea Gringas (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography Inner Space 

Center) 

• Valerie Grussing (NOAA Marine Protected Areas Center)

• Maryellen Hall (Cedar Tree Point Homeowners’ Association)

• Anya Hansen (University of Rhode Island)

• Doug Harris (Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office)

• Casey Hearn (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Clifford Heil (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Willie Hoffman (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)

• Leah Hopkins (Narragansett Indian Tribe)

• Muckquashim Hopkins (Narragansett Indian Tribe)

• Joseph Houlihan (Block Island Ferry)

• Timothy Ives (Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission)

• Thomas Jacques (Cedar Tree Point Homeowners’ Association)

• Elizabeth James Perry (Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head [Aquinnah] THPO)

• Arrow Johnson (Shinnecock Indian Nation)

• Brian Jones (Office of the Connecticut State Archaeologist)

• Douglas Jones (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)

• Brian Jordan (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)

• Mitchell Kennedy (University of Rhode Island)

• John King (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Taylor Losure (University of Rhode Island)

• Chali Machado (Narragansett Indian Tribe; University of Rhode Island)

• Norman Machado (Narragansett Indian Tribe; University of Rhode Island)

• Jason Mancini (Mashantucket Pequot Museum)

• Joseph Mangiafico (University of Rhode Island)

• Catalina Martinez (NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration & Research)

• Victor Mastone (Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources)

• Kevin McBride (University of Connecticut; Mashantucket Pequot Museum)

• Jennifer McCann (University of Rhode Island Coastal Resource Center)

• James Moore (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management)

• Cameron Morissette (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• Nakai Clearwater Northup (Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Historic Preservation Office)

• Bryan Oakley (Eastern Connecticut State University)

• Marcos Paiva (United States Army Corps of Engineers – New England District)

• Jonathan Patton (Massachusetts Historical Commission)

• Clifford Payne (Payne’s Dock)

• Jean Pelletier (AECOM)

• Jonathan Perry (Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head [Aquinnah] Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office)

• Ramona Peters (Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Historic Preservation Office)

• David and Leann Pickering (Cedar Tree Homeowners’ Association)

• Robert Pockalny (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)

• James Quinn (Mohegan Tribal Historic Preservation Office)

• Neil Redmond (University of Rhode Island)

• David Robinson (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography)
• Michael Robinson (University of Rhode Island)

• Noah Robinson (Rhode Island College)

• Sean Scannell (University of Rhode Island)

• William Schwab (United States Geological Survey)

• Gail Scowcroft (University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography Inner Space 

Center)

• Gerrod Smith (Shinnecock Indian Nation)

• Kiowa Spears (Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office)

• Cheryl Stedtler (Nipmuc Nation)

• Charlotte Taylor (Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission)

• Elaine Thomas (Mohegan Tribal Historic Preservation Office)

• Ted Timreck (Smithsonian Institution, Timreck Productions/Spofford Films Inc.)

• Philip Verhagen (Vrije Universiteit [Amsterdam, Netherlands])

• Joseph Waller (The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.)

• Ingrid Ward (Flinders University [Adelaide, Australia])

• Bettina Washington (Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head [Aquinnah] Tribal Historic Preservation

Office)

• David Weeden (Mashpee Wampanoag THPO)

• Lauren Wenzel (NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries)

• Kieran Westley (Ulster University [Coleraine, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom])

• Christopher and Gretchen Willis (Breezehaven)

• Christopher Wright (CR Environmental, Inc.)
i

Contents

List of Figures................................................................................................................................................ ii

Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ ii

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description and Goals.......................................................................................................1

2 Summary of Project Tasks and Deliverables..........................................................................................2

2.1 Project Meetings and Workshops, and Initial Project Workshop Report ......................................2

2.2 Literature Review and Synthesis, and Reference Database ........................................................4

2.3 Field Investigations and Report.....................................................................................................5

2.3.1 2013 Field Investigations ......................................................................................................7

2.3.4 2014 Field Investigations ......................................................................................................7

2.3.5 2015 Field Investigations ......................................................................................................7

2.3.6 2016 Field Investigations ......................................................................................................8

2.5 Geoarchaeological Modeling Report...........................................................................................12

2.6 Spatial Data Transfer ..................................................................................................................13

2.7 Documentary Film .......................................................................................................................15

3 Conclusions and Recommended Next Steps.......................................................................................16

3.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................................16

3.2 Next Steps for Developing Effective and Culturally Sensitive Consultation ..............................16

3.2.1 General Observations .........................................................................................................17

3.2.2 Near-Term Next Steps ........................................................................................................17

3.2.2.1 Tribal Concerns ..................................................................................................................17

3.2.2.2 Recommendations for Addressing Near-Term Tribal Concerns........................................18

3.2.3 Long-Term Next Steps ........................................................................................................19

3.2.3.1 Tribal Concerns ..................................................................................................................19

3.2.3.3 Recommendations for Addressing Long-Term Tribal Concerns........................................20

3.3 Next Steps for Improving the Scientific Research Methodology Used to Characterize 

Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes ...................................................................................................20

3.3.1 Researcher Concerns .........................................................................................................20

3.3.2 Recommendations for Addressing Researcher Concerns..................................................21

References..................................................................................................................................................23
ii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Study area locations...................................................................................................................6

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AMI Area of Mutual Interest

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

CRMC Coastal Resource Management Council [Rhode Island]

DOI Department of the Interior

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NITHPO Narrangansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office

NROC Northeast Regional Ocean Council

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

RI SHPO Rhode Island State Historic Preservation Office

RIHPHC Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office

URI University of Rhode Island

URI-GSO University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography

USET United South and Eastern Tribes
1

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Description and Goals

This Final Report provides a summary description of the multi-year study entitled “Developing Protocols 

for Reconstructing Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes and Identifying Ancient Native American 

Archaeological Sites in Submerged Environments” (hereafter "the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes 

Project,” “the project,” or “the study”). The project was conducted by the University of Rhode Island’s

(URI’s) Graduate School of Oceanography (URI-GSO) and its research partners, the Rhode Island 

Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC) and the Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office (NITHPO), over a seven-year period between 2012 and 2019, and involved the multidisciplinary

investigation of five nearshore and offshore areas in Rhode Island waters (Figure 1).

The study was performed with funding from and in collaboration with the United States Department of 

the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) as part of a cooperative agreement 

between URI-GSO and BOEM. At the time of this project, BOEM’s statutory authority did not allow it to 

enter into cooperative agreements directly with Tribes, so BOEM, instead, worked with Tribes through a 

third party, such as URI-GSO. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act allows BOEM to enter into 

cooperative agreements with “Affected States.” Because Rhode Island is an affected coastal state, BOEM 

entered into a cooperative agreement with URI, a state institution. The project was particularly suited for 

synergistic interaction of multiple facets of expertise and knowledge between BOEM, URI-GSO, and 

NITHPO. 

The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the United States is increasingly becoming the focus of 

conventional and renewable energy development to meet the nation’s energy needs. Consideration of the 

effects this development may have on submerged historic properties, including Native American (Tribal1

) 

cultural sites submerged by post-glacial sea level rise and now underwater on the continental shelf, is a 

legislatively mandated responsibility under multiple laws and statutes2 for Federal agencies, including 

BOEM, during their review and permitting of these offshore activities. It is also a significant concern for 

individual states, Tribes, other regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and researchers that participate in the 

environmental review and consultation processes for offshore development projects. 

This project was not related to any specific consultation or intended to serve any regulatory function, but 

was instead a research project, the purpose of which was to generate new information and knowledge 

designed to assist the State of Rhode Island, southern New England Tribes, and BOEM in future planning 

and decision making. The project’s overall goals were to:

1. Enhance and refine the scientific understanding of submerged paleolandscape preservation and 

distribution on the Rhode Island OCS with particular focus on areas of Tribal significance.

2. Contribute to the development of a clearly-defined, standardized methodology to identify 

submerged areas with cultural significance to contemporary Tribal people.

1 In this document, the term “Tribal” or “Tribe” is used to represent all Native American indigenous communities, regardless of 

recognition status. Indigenous groups' interests in ancestral territory and resources, and the validity of their traditional knowledge 

and cultural practices, is not dependent on Federal or state recognition status.

2 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA)
2

3. Assist with the development of effective, culturally sensitive collaboration and consultation 

between Federal and state agencies, researchers, and Tribes who work together as part of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 compliance process.

1.2 Project Scope

Project goals were met by completing eight interrelated tasks and deliverables, inclusive of this Final 

Report. Project tasks were completed in collaboration with URI-GSO’s project partners, as well as with 

the input and assistance of representatives from multiple federally and state-recognized Tribes, Federal

and state agencies, industry, and regional and international academic instutions (see Acknowledgments at 

the beginning of this report). Each task required a unique approach and workflow, and resulted in a 

detailed written, digital, or video deliverable. This report provides only a brief summary of each task, and 

the reader is referred to the full deliverable (referenced in parentheses below) for the complete results and 

discussion.

The tasks and deliverables completed for the project included the following:

• Meetings, workshops, and an initial project workshop report (Coastal Mapping Laboratory 2015)

• Literature synthesis and reference database

• Field investigations, assessment of field methodology and a field report (Cacciopolli et al. 2018)

• Best practices report (Robinson et al. 2018)

• Geoarchaeological modeling report (Robinson et al. 2020)

• Geospatial data transfer (Gibson 2019)

• Documentary film (DeCiccio 2019)

• Final Report (this report)

2 Summary of Project Tasks and Deliverables

2.1 Project Meetings and Workshops, and Initial Project Workshop Report

Participation in multiple meetings and workshops was an integral element of the project scope and 

occurred throughout the project. The overall goal of these meetings and workshops was to initiate and 

support a multi-year discussion and exchange of ideas between the project partners and the broader 

academic, agency, industry, and Tribal communities. These meetings helped inform all project research, 

field investigations, and the development of the project best practices and geoarchaeological model.

The project began with an all-day Post-Award Meeting held at BOEM’s Atlantic OCS Regional Office in 

Herndon, Virginia on September 20, 2012. The main purpose of the meeting was to kick-off the project, 

introduce project partner leads and BOEM project staff, and discuss expectations and any questions 

regarding the project’s scope, deliverables, and timeline. Detailed minutes documenting the meeting were 

prepared by URI-GSO and submitted to BOEM as the first project deliverable (Robinson 2012).
3

The 2012 Post-Award Meeting was followed by a three-day initial project workshop held between April 

8–10, 2013. A total of 55 representatives from four different countries, eight different Federal- and staterecognized Tribes (representing a region extending from Maine to Delaware), five Federal agencies, eight 

state agencies, six universities, two museums, and four consulting firms participated in the workshop. The 

goals of the initial project workshop were to:

• Review and recommend best practices that would help inform the development of Tribally

sensitive, science-based guidelines for identifying, avoiding, or mitigating adverse effects to 

submerged paleocultural sites on the OCS. Of particular importance was the synthesis and 

incorporation of Tribal, agency, academic, and industry perspectives into these best practices.

• Identify appropriate techniques and steps that would foster open communication and meaningful 

interaction among all parties throughout the project.

• Develop a common understanding and language for the cultural and scientific aspects of the 

project.

• Provide an overall understanding of the origins, goals, objectives, and tasks for the project. 

• Promote open and respectful dialog with participating Tribes.

The first two days of the workshop were held at URI-GSO Narragansett Bay Campus in Narragansett, 

Rhode Island. Each of these days was divided into moderated, subject-specific sessions in which invited 

speakers gave short oral presentations, which were followed by open discussion between all attendees of 

the material presented. Topics discussed included: “How Do You See Things?”; Origin and Significance 

of [the project’s] Research Initiative; Our Current State of Knowledge; Integrating Tribal Values and 

Information; Critical Aspects of the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Initiative; The Impact of Sea 

Level Rise and Marine Transgression on Submerged Paleolandscapes; Evidence-Based Reconstructions 

of Submerged Cultural Landscapes and Predictive Modeling; and the Nature and Excavation of 

Submerged Settlements. Blank posters with a variety of different subject headings, such as “Best 

Practices for Integrating Tribal/Non-Tribal Oral Histories Into Predictive Modeling,” “General 

Concerns/Issues,” and “Opportunities,” were affixed to the walls of the workshop room. Participants were 

provided with blank “Post-It” notes, encouraged to document anonomously their thoughts and concerns, 

and asked to attach the notes to the approprate poster at any time during the conference. An on-site 

reception for all conference participants was held at the conclusion of Day 1 to facilitate additional 

interaction and informal discussion. The completed posters and Post-It note comments were revisited 

during Day 2, which focused on a discussion of perspectives and expectations for the project and the 

initial development of best practices for paleoenvironmental reconstruction, predictive modeling of site 

locations, integration of Tribal oral histories and non-Tribal science into predictive modeling, 

identification of submerged paleolandscapes, and submerged settlement site identification and excavation. 

Day 3 of the workshop was held at the Narragansett Indian Tribe’s Longhouse in Charlestown, Rhode 

Island, and consisted of concluding two Open Forum sessions. The first session was limited to Tribal 

attendees. The second session was opened to include Tribal attendees and project partners from URI-GSO 

and BOEM. 

The primary outcomes of the initial project workshop were the initation of truly collaborative and 

respectful dialog between the academic, agency, industry, and Tribal communities, and the opportunity to 

begin working together towards a common goal. Although meaningful, positive progress was made 
4

towards achieving the workshop’s goals, the dialog that occurred throughout the workshop sessions 

indicated that it was premature to expect that those goals could be fully realized during just three days of 

interaction. Although participants clearly needed more time to process cognitively, symbolically, and 

spiritually the content and meaning of the workshop’s discussions, all said that they appreciated the 

opportunity to be part of such a necessary and exciting dialog, and that the workshop had been a 

meaningful experience on both personal and professional levels. Individuals who attended the workshop

commented that they thought it was an important starting point towards establishing open lines of

communication, building trust and respect, establishing common goals, and developing transparent and 

mutually agreed upon best practice protocols for identifying submerged paleocultural landscapes.

Knowledge gained during the initial workshop was utilized by the project partners in the study’s 

subsequent research and collaborative efforts, especially in the development of the project’s best practices 

and geoarchaeological modeling documents. A detailed description of the workshop and its 

recommendations is presented in the Summary Report of the Initial Project Workshop prepared by URIGSO and submitted to BOEM in 2015 as a project deliverable (for more information, see Coastal 

Mapping Laboratory 2015).

An Inter-Tribal Interim Project Workshop was held at the Narragansett Indian Tribe Longhouse on 

September 17, 2015, to update the southern New England region’s Tribes on the project’s progress and to 

request comments and input on how best to ask for and integrate Tribal knowledge and oral histories into 

the project’s predictive modeling process for identifying areas of the OCS with variable potentials for 

containing submerged ancient Native American sites. This meeting resulted in several important insights 

concerning ancient Tribal oral histories and traditional ocean knowledge that were later incorporated into 

the project’s best practices and modeling documents.

Additional important project-related meetings included multiple presentations given by the URI-GSO and 

NITHPO project leads, with periodic participation by the BOEM project lead, during the United South 

and Eastern Tribes (USET) Culture and Heritage Committee meetings between 2014 and 2018. USET is a 

nationally prominent and respected inter-Tribal organization with 27 federally recognized Tribal Nation 

members whose broad policy platform, annual meetings, and initiatives influence the most important and 

critical issues facing all of Indian Country. The purpose of presenting to USET was to initiate dialog 

about the project and its goals and to seek input and advice from a broader Tribal community. Project 

partners from URI-GSO and NITHPO introduced the project to the USET Culture and Heritage 

Committee in June 2014 at their Semi-Annual Meeting in Bar Harbor, Maine. Subsequent updates on the 

project were given periodically by the project partners at USET’s Impact Week Meetings in Washington, 

DC. The final project update to the USET Culture and Heritage Committee was on February 6, 2018, 

summarizing the project’s best practices document (Robinson et al. 2018) and presenting for discussion 

URI-GSO’s recommendations for near-term, intermediate-term, and long-term next steps for moving 

forward with the implementation of these best practices.

2.2 Literature Review and Synthesis, and Reference Database

This task was completed early in the project (2013) and entailed the performance of a detailed review and 

synthesis of available relevant marine archaeological, geological, and geophysical survey data and 

literature. This information was then compiled into a reference database that provided background

information supporting the performance of subsequent project research tasks. The deliverable generated 

by this task and provided to BOEM consisted of two parts: 1) a bibliographic listing of written resources

directly applicable to this project (i.e., scientific journal articles, books, technical reports, papers, etc.);

and 2) a geospatial compilation and mapping of legacy data from previous marine surveys, within and in 

the vicinity of the project study areas and the surrounding southern New England region, that were 

available publically from online databases, through collaboration with our colleagues, or by accessing an 

archive at the URI-GSO. The written resources in the bibliography were organized by subject. Topics
5

covered in the compiled references included paleolandscape reconstruction and mapping, predictive 

modeling, marine geology and marine processes specific to Rhode Island and southern New England, and 

previous archaeological research. The marine geological survey database focused on previously recorded 

bathymetry, sidescan sonar, subbottom profiles, vibracores, and sea floor surficial geologic interpretations 

in the study areas. Accompanying the reference database in this task’s deliverable were five maps

(organized by data type) that illustrated the geographic location and extent of previously collected data 

relevant to the project. All of the maps were created using ESRI's ArcInfo Desktop software. Supporting 

data layers in each map were organized in geodatabases, which facilitated their delivery in a digital 

format to BOEM. Because these maps were designed to summarize the location of previously collected 

data rather than contain the data itself, hyperlinks were included in the digital ArcInfo documents, so that 

users can “mouseover” the data of interest on the map and connect directly to the online data source for

additional information and download options. 

2.3 Field Investigations and Report

Field investigations were conducted for the project between 2013 and 2016 in four of the project’s five 

study areas illustrated in Figure 1: 1) Gorton Pond, a glacially formed kettle pond in central Rhode Island; 

2) Cedar Tree Beach/Greenwich Bay, a protected coastal/nearshore shallow embayment location in 

central Narragansett Bay; 3) Block Island/West Beach, a coastal/nearshore island location approximately 

19 km offshore; and 4) the “Mud Hole,” an area south of Narragansett Bay in the open ocean waters 

Rhode Island Sound. Although these areas (and the fifth study area, the Rhode Island and Massachussetts

Area of Mutual Interest (AMI) for commercial wind development) are separated by tens of kilometers, 

they share the same regional geologic and paleocultural history, which is key to identifying and 

characterizing preserved paleocultural landscapes. The distinction between terrestrial and submerged 

environments is obvious in the contemporary landscape, but ancestral Tribal peoples who occupied this 

area interacted with a landscape that was very different from contemporary conditions, due to the effects 

of deglaciation and post-glacial sea level rise.

Project field investigations performed each year by the project partners were conducted following a Work 

Plan approved by BOEM and NITHPO, under a Phase I Intensive Archaeological Survey Permit issued to

project co-Principal Investigator, David Robinson (URI-GSO), by the Rhode Island State Historic 

Preservation Office (RI SHPO) (i.e., the Rhode Island State Historical Preservation and Heritage 

Commission [RIHPHC]) (RI Permit No. 12-25). Fieldwork was also performed with authorization from 

the RI CRMC (RI CRMC Authorization No. 2013-08-038). Field investigations conducted for the project 

consisted of marine geophysical/remote sensing survey, marine geotechnical sediment sampling, and 

marine geoarchaeological investigations. The overall goals of these geological and geoarchaeological 

investigations were the following:

• Assess the extent to which relict paleolandsapes survived post-glacial sea level rise in the study 

areas and whether or not they contained paleocultural deposits

• Understand the geologic processes associated with paleocultural landscape preservation

• Identify environmental proxies associated with preserved paleocultural landscapes that could be 

used to develop predictive models regarding the archaeological sensitivity of the seafloor
6

• Test the efficacy of existing and new survey equipment and methods for identifying and

characterizing paleocultural landscapes

Figure 1. Study area locations. 

Legacy data areas are shown with dark blue shading. Newly acquired data, or legacy data reinterpreted for the 

project, are outlined in red and identified with yellow call-out boxes.

Field investigations took into account comments and recommendations voiced by Tribal participants 

during the project’s initial workshop, described above. As such, the work progressed in phases from the 

least-to-most invasive investigation techniques with an overall goal of minimizing the disturbance to the 

seafloor as much as possible during the performance of all phases of the field investigations.

The project field report prepared and submitted to BOEM as a project deliverable (Caccioppoli et al. 

2018) summarized the field operations at each study area in detail and provided an assessment of the field 

methodology and data acquisition procedures at each location. Descriptions of the project’s field 
7

investigations were organized chronologically by year and by study area location and are briefly 

summarized below.

2.3.1 2013 Field Investigations

Field investigations in 2013 focused on Gorton Pond and Cedar Tree Beach/Greenwich Bay study areas

and included the following activities:

• Sediment coring (Gorton Pond) to obtain samples for radiocarbon dating and paleoenvironmental 

characterization.

• Gradiometric remote sensing and visual sediment probing to 

1. Test the hypotheses that: a) an element of the paleolandscape is preserved submerged and 

buried off of Cedar Tree Beach; and b) that this paleolandscape may have been utilized by 

pre-contact period inhabitants and, therefore, could be a source of some of the pre-contact

period stone artifacts appearing in Cedar Tree Beach’s swash zone.

2. Test and evaluate the combination of close-interval (i.e., 1-m track line spacing) gradiometric 

survey and visual sediment probing, for identifying submerged paleocultural landscapes; and 

educate Tribal research partners in the application and use of geophysical survey equipment 

and non-disturbance marine remote sensing survey methods.

2.3.4 2014 Field Investigations

Field investigations in 2014 focused on Cedar Tree Beach/Greenwich Bay study area and included the 

following activities:

• Sediment coring in the shallow waters off of Cedar Tree Beach.

• Geoarchaeological subsurface sampling/excavation of two 1-x-1 m test units at locations 

identified by the previous year’s gradiometric or visual sediment probing surveys as having 

magnetic anomalies potentially associated with a paleocultural hearth feature or stratigraphy 

suggestive of intact stratified paleolandsurfaces.

2.3.5 2015 Field Investigations

Field investigations in 2015 focused on the Block Island/West Beach and Mud Hole study areas and 

included the following activities:

• Sediment coring conducted in Block Island’s Wash Pond (a small coastal pond adjacent to West 

Beach) and in the Mud Hole study area. Coring in the Mud Hole study area was conducted from 

URI’s scientific research vessel Endeavor as Cruise EN-565. The project's academic, Federal

government, and Tribal scientists working together on board URI’s R/V Endeavor gained firsthand experience collaborating and performing marine geoarchaeological field research (obtaining 

non-disturbance remote sensing data and selective vibracore sediment samples) for the project on 

a large scientific research vessel in the offshore environment. A real-time digital audio-visual 

connection between the ship and shore-based members of the project team, interested Tribal 

members, and members of the general public was provided and maintained by the URI-GSO’s 
8

Inner Space Center, allowing a diverse segment of the public access to project activities occurring 

at sea in real-time.

• Non-disturbance/minimal disturbance intertidal and subtidal visual reconnaissance archaeological 

walk-over and diver surveys of the waters off of West Beach in areas with exposed organic 

peat/paleolandsurface deposits to map their extent and assess their paleocultural archaeological 

sensitivity.

2.3.6 2016 Field Investigations

Field investigations in 2016 focused on Block Island/West Beach and an area south of Narragansett Bay

and included the following activities:

• Geophysical remote sensing survey (sidescan sonar and CHIRP subbottom profiler) of the West 

Beach/Block Island study area and a portion of Block Island’s Great Salt Pond, and subbottom 

profiler survey and sediment coring operations conducted south of Narragansett Bay as part of 

URI’s scientific research vessel Endeavor as Cruise EN-580. Participation in a BOEM-, 

Northeast Regional Ocean Council- (NROC-), and Rhode Island Endeavor Program-supported 

offshore educational and capacity-building cruise proposed and organized by the URI-GSO team 

with academic (local and international), Federal government and regional Tribal participants. The 

purpose of the cruise was to provide experience and training in marine geoarchaeological method 

and theory, technologies, and scientific practices, as well as to create opportunities for in-depth 

discussions and honest and open conversations about some of the difficulties and concerns 

associated with agencies, Tribes, and academic researchers working together. Possible future 

directions for continuing and supporting collaborative and community-based Tribal ocean science 

and research were also discussed. Real-time digital audio-visual connectivity between the ship 

and shore-based members of the project team, interested Tribal members, and members of the 

general public was, once again, provided and maintained by the URI-GSO's Inner Space Center. 

• Continuation of non-disturbance/minimal disturbance visual reconnaissance archaeological diver 

surveys of the waters off of West Beach in areas with exposed organic peat/paleolandsurface 

deposits to map their extent and assess their paleocultural archaeological sensitivity. 

2.4 Best Practices Report

A best practices report (Robinson et al. 2018) was produced as one of the primary deliverables for the 

project. The purpose of the best practices document was to serve as an initial guide for improving the 

effectiveness and appropriateness of Tribal engagement and geoarchaeological research. These topical 

areas form the bases for successful government-to-government consultation associated with Federal

project review and effective identification and protection of submerged historic properties. Respectful 

engagement and collaborative relationships are the foundation for mutually beneficial and successful 

consultation. What appears to have been largely absent from most previous Federal agency guidance 

documents has been recommended procedures about how to establish and develop these relationships 

before engaging in consultation. Consultation cannot be expected to function optimally without an 

established basis of respectful and effective communication, trusting and mutually beneficial 

relationships, and shared capacities among the involved groups to become and remained engaged as 

collaborative partners. The best practices document addressed these underlying issues and provided new 

insights regarding relationships with Tribal communities from the perspective of people working within 

the various existing regulatory and developmental collaborative relationship frameworks. It was intended 
9

to provide recommendations concerning the actual steps that are required to achieve the stated goals of 

Federal and state agency assessment and identification guidance documents. The document was not 

intended to provide new standards to be implemented during consultation. Instead, the best practices were 

intended to be informational, and to support Federal and state agencies, Tribal communities, and 

researchers. 

The best practices report recommended additional development in three key areas is required to optimize 

successful consultation between agencies, Tribes, and researchers: a) communication; b) relationship

building; and c) capacity-building. Improvement in each of these areas is essential to the identification 

and protection of submerged paleocultural landscapes in the offshore development project review process. 

Areas of the OCS considered for federally permitted offshore activities should be characterized prior to 

disturbance in a phased scientific process: a) a thorough desktop study resulting in a geospatial synthesis 

of existing geoarchaeological information in the study area; b) an examination of sea level rise models 

and the development of multiple paleoshoreline reconstructions based on each model; c) a detailed 

reconstruction of the complete subsurface stratigraphy of the study area on a regional scale, and 

identification of stratigraphic facies potentially associated with human habitation; d) paleoenvironmental 

reconstructions of the study area for the time period of hypothesized habitation of the area; and e) 

assessment of the paleocultural sensitivity of preserved paleolandscapes in the study area. Although the

project’s recommended best practices were created within a Rhode Island geographic research

context, they were intended to be broadly applicable to multiple geographic areas and should be seen as 

dynamic recommendations that require periodic updating as new information, technologies, ideas,

and priorities become available and evolve over time.

The best practices report highlighted multiple areas that require additional development in order to 

support future multicultural collaborative research and marine spatial planning in submerged 

environments. The three key areas for which immediate action could be implemented, along with 

recommended next steps for beginning to address them (in bullets) include the following:

1. Develop a standardized methodology for identifying areas of paleolandscape preservation in

submerged environments, instead of attempting to use predictive models to simply locate 

areas with the highest potential for containing submerged archaeological sites.

Applying traditional archaeological predictive modeling approaches currently used on land to the

OCS is problematic due to the limited amount of pre-existing geologic and paleoenvironmental data

that is available and, with a few exceptions, the near total absence of detailed archaeological data for

the submerged environment. In addition, developing models of paleocultural sensitivity in submerged

environments requires almost total dependence on geophysical remote sensing and geotechnical

sediment sampling equipment, making it extremely challenging to conduct the highly detailed level of

archaeological site identification and evaluation that is necessary for testing predictive models. The

most important question currently to be answered about the paleocultural sensitivity of submerged

environments is not “Where and how did ancestral peoples interact with currently submerged

paleolandscapes,” which traditional predictive models might assist with, but instead, “Are any

paleolandscapes actually preserved in the area of interest?” If preserved paleolandscapes are located,

then additional investigations to assess the extent of preservation, the type of oceanographic processes

that resulted in their preservation, and the paleoenvironmental characteristics of the preserved

landscape must be conducted before any assessment of paleocultural sensitivity can be initiated.

In addition to the current lack of geologic, geophysical, and cultural data available for submerged

environments, researchers and Tribal representatives who attended this project’s initial workshop

emphasized that the results of predictive models should not be used as the primary method for
10

decision making to identify geographic areas of cultural importance (Coastal Mapping Laboratory 2015). 

For these reasons, research in the near future should focus on addressing data gaps in the

submerged environment to understand the extent and type of submerged paleolandscape preservation,

rather than on applying predictive models to poorly defined submerged environments in an effort to

identify archaeological sites.

• Until additional data becomes available, and the capacity of agencies, Tribes, and researchers

to share information respectfully and collaboratively improves, adopting a more holistic, Tribal 

Cultural Landscape approach to the site identification process (Ball et al. 2015) should be

investigated and considered. This approach views preserved relict landforms, not “sites,” as 

places of cultural importance.

• Investigate alternative methods to traditional archaeological predictive modeling to assess

areas of cultural importance in submerged environments. Begin with a thorough literature

search across multiple disciplines about the types of models that may be of assistance, and

then develop pilot studies to test the models for assessment of paleocultural sensitivity in

submerged environments.

• Develop a comprehensive, publicly available, digital geospatial database of geologic, 

geophysical, and archaeological information available for the OCS and other submerged 

environments of interest. Include a compilation of the sea level change models available for each 

area and contact information for researchers with demonstrated expertise in the geology, 

geophysics, and archaeology of each geographic area. Include contact information for Tribal 

representatives and links to information about Tribal history, practices, and cultural priorities for 

each area. Consider providing funding opportunities for agencies, local researchers, and Tribes to 

work together to develop this database. 

2. Increase the capacity of Tribal communities, agencies, and academic researchers to work

 together in a mutually respectful and beneficial manner.

The identification and protection of submerged paleocultural landscapes benefit from an approach

that is multidisciplinary and multicultural in nature. Applying the diverse perspectives, information,

ideas, and knowledge of engaged partners from the agency, scientific, and Tribal communities to the

research and management problems associated with submerged paleocultural landscapes

identification and protection offers the best opportunity for the most comprehensive and mutually

agreeable solutions. Successful collaboration requires each partner to have established baseline

capacities necessary for working together. Groups that have adequate staff (with the necessary

interest, experience, knowledge, training, and skills), facilities and infrastructure, and sustainable

sources of funding will be most able to implement best practices and be optimally positioned to take

advantage of opportunities to collaborate or consult. Consequently, building capacity across these

communities must be seen as a priority.

• Identify one or more staff members who want and are qualified to serve as the group’s lead for

developing and maintaining increased capacity for engaging in collaborative relationships with

other groups. This and/or these individual(s) should have demonstrated prior experience, success,

and a genuine commitment to facilitating collaboration with diverse groups.

• Initiate regular in-person meetings between the identified staff member(s) representing each 

group to provide enhanced capacity for relationship building. Meetings should be held at least 
11

twice a year (or as often as mutually agreed upon), with each meeting organized and led by one of 

the groups, following a rotation that changes with each meeting. The purpose of the initial 

meeting would be to: a) present and discuss key recommendations of this best practices 

document; b) to review and reach a consensus regarding baseline requirements for effective,

respectful oral and written communications; and c) discuss development of a mandatory, cultural

sensitivity training program for all individuals involved in these meetings and the establishment

of collaborative relationships between the groups. The training program is to be created by Tribal

and non-Tribal group members and include education about the world-view, professional and

personal responsibilities, goals, and concerns associated with each group that is participating in

the collaborative relationship.

• Develop a Tribal ocean research consortium comprised of multiple Tribal communities united in 

their desire to build capacity to become active Tribal participants in the ocean sciences and to

engage Federal and state agencies, universities, and other research groups in seeking funding

opportunities.

3. Build personal relationships among individual members of the Tribal, agency, and research

groups.

The development of sustainable, long-term, respectful, and trusting relationships among the agency,

Tribal, and research groups is required to foster collaborative, mutually beneficial decision making.

The importance of this type of relationship between these groups is acknowledged by all, but the

challenges associated with attaining them remain significant. It is necessary to recognize that each

group is composed of individuals whose personal commitment is tied to an emotional aspect that

frequently controls his or her feelings about the other groups, and, ultimately, defines the nature of the

relationships. A personal commitment to multicultural relationship building is required for all

individuals involved in collaborative activities.

• Seek opportunities to develop personal relationships with individuals from diverse groups in

casual situations outside of the work environment. Informal interaction in one-on-one or small

group settings provides an opportunity for a foundation of care, trust, and understanding between

individuals and groups to develop, and can be a powerful way to address and eliminate

stereotypes and prevent conflicts.

• Non-Tribal individuals should consider attending local Tribal cultural events, such as powwows,

musical performances, or public ceremonies, and, upon invitation, visiting nearby Tribal lands to

see, experience, learn, and gain a deeper appreciation and understanding about traditional Tribal

sciences, practices, ceremonies, and beliefs, as well as places in the landscape that are of

importance to Tribal communities.

• Tribal individuals should consider attending “open campus” days at nearby research institution(s),

or attending public lectures at local libraries, to gain additional insight into the scientific research 

process and projects underway in their local area. In addition, many local conservation groups,

agencies, colleges, and universities offer opportunities to become “citizen scientists” by

welcoming individuals of all ages and backgrounds to assist with data collection and

interpretation for environmental monitoring projects. These experiences provide important

opportunities for sharing diverse perspectives in a casual, friendly environment.

For a more detailed description of the project’s recommended best practices, see Robinson et al. 2018.
12

2.5 Geoarchaeological Modeling Report

The geoarchaeological modeling report (Robinson et al. 2020) was another of the primary deliverables for 

the project. Geoarchaeological modeling is based on the generally accepted theories that there is an 

association between past human activities and different types of paleolandforms and paleoenvironments, 

which results in a material culture expression sometimes preserved within the present landscape in a 

predictable manner. This association has been used with some success in terrestrial contexts onshore to 

develop models that predict where cultural materials may be located (Kvamme 2006; Verhagen 2012). 

One of the objectives of the project was to examine whether geoarchaeological modeling could be applied 

effectively in the submerged environment to assist in making informed cultural resource management 

decisions for the OCS.

Initially, BOEM’s scope for the project included the development of a predictive model for the Rhode 

Island OCS based on information compiled from a three-day workshop convened at the start of the project 

(Coastal Mapping Laboratory 2015). Although the workshop was an excellent venue for individuals from 

diverse backgrounds to interact and share information, it revealed significant gaps in the available 

geoarchaeological data and accessible Tribal oral tradition information considered necessary for 

completing the project’s modeling effort as scoped. It also revealed that developing a standardized 

methodology for modeling was a more complex and challenging task than originally anticipated.

Additionally, the workshop clarified that mutually beneficial and culturally sensitive relationships 

between the diverse groups engaged in the project needed further development before effective 

collaboration could take place. These challenges could not be fully addressed within the context of a 

three-day workshop.

In response to the results of the workshop, the project’s modeling process was altered and organized into 

the following six sequential steps:

1. Conduct a thorough literature review to understand the current state of knowledge regarding the 

use of archaeological predictive models in submerged environments. 

2. Conduct a detailed Desktop Study to synthesize the current state of geoarchaeological knowledge 

in the study area into geospatial format.

3. Develop a modeling process that can be applied to any geographic area to assist with locating and 

characterizing preserved paleocultural landscapes.

4. Develop regional sea level change and stratigraphic models to assist with locating and 

characterizing preserved paleolandscapes or paleolandscape fragments on the Rhode Island OCS.

5. Apply the modeling process and model (developed in steps 3 and 4 above) to the project study 

area by conducting geoarchaeological investigations in five diverse case study areas.

6. Develop recommendations about the use of predictive models in submerged environments, 

specifically with respect to identifying paleocultural landscapes of Tribal significance.

The geoarchaeological modeling document produced for the project presented the results of the tasks 

outlined above. Section 1 of the report provided the context for the project’s modeling task. Section 2 

provided a synthesis of the key geoarchaeological modeling concepts that are necessary to understand the 

potential applicability of terrestrial modeling to the submerged environments. Section 3 presented a 

process for submerged study area characterization that can be applied to a variety of geographic areas, 

and used when diverse types, amounts, and resolution of data are available. Section 4 compiled the results 
13

of the project’s literature search task (summarized above) that served as a comprehensive desktop study 

conducted for the overall project area as the basis for the modeling tasks included in the 

geoarchaeological modeling report. Sections 5 and 6 of the report presented two regional models for the 

study area based on the data obtained through the project’s literature search/desktop study. Section 7 

summarized the results of archaeological and/or geological investigations of the project’s five study areas, 

which served as case study areas, and discussed the implications of these studies for geoarchaeological 

modeling of submerged environments. The final section of the report included conclusions and 

recommended next steps to further refine the concepts presented in the report.

For a detailed description of the project’s geoarchaeological modeling methods, the resulting regional 

stratigraphic model, and recommendations for applying predictive models to submerged environments, 

see Robinson et al. 2020.

2.6 Spatial Data Transfer

A majority of data reviewed and collected during the project was transferred to BOEM as a geospatial 

dataset prepared by URI-GSO (Gibson 2019) using ESRI’s ArcInfo software as the visualization portal. 

In situations where data could not be converted to ArcGIS format, such as sediment core photographs, 

hyperlinks to PDF or JPG files were provided within the ArcGIS framework, so that all data was 

associated with the geographic location from which it was collected. Raw, unprocessed data was not 

included in the geospatial data synthesis and was instead archived at the URI-GSO. Data was compiled in 

a digital geospatial format using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop software, specifically the “ArcMap” and 

“ArcCatalog” applications. This software was selected because it is widely used in a variety of 

organizations and research disciplines, and provides a standardized, transferable platform to compile and 

visualize diverse types of data.

The project’s spatial data transfer deliverable consisted of two general categories of digital information: 

1. Legacy data: Geophysical, geological, and archaeological data that were recorded by various 

individuals and organizations prior to the initiation of the project and were available publicly or 

through collaboration with the project team's colleagues. These data formed the basis of a 

thorough “desktop study” that was conducted at the beginning of the project in order to 

synthesize the current state of knowledge in the study area and to guide additional data 

acquisition. The legacy data included in the spatial data set did not represent an exhaustive 

synthesis of all data available for the study areas. Instead, the project team reviewed available 

data and included in the data synthesis only those data sets that were considered most useful and 

of high enough quality to provide an initial geologic, geophysical, and/or archaeological 

characterization of the project area. A detailed discussion of the desktop study data was provided 

in the geoarchaeological modeling report deliverable (Robinson et al. 2020).

2. Project data: New geophysical, geological, and archaeological data that were collected during 

the course of the project’s field investigations that were performed in four of its five study areas. 

A detailed discussion of data collection methods is provided in the project’s Field Report 2013–

2016 deliverable (Caccioppoli et al. 2018), and the results and conclusions from the analysis of 

this data are presented in the project’s geoarchaeological modeling report deliverable (Robinson 

et al. 2020).

Legacy data leveraged for the project were collected between approximately 1975–2012 in Narragansett 

Bay, Rhode Island, and in state and Federal waters offshore of southern New England. The geographic 

extent of legacy data included the Greenwich Bay area in west central Narragansett Bay and the area 

extending from the shoreline of southeastern Connecticut, southern Rhode Island, and southwestern 
14

Massachusetts out onto the continental shelf approximately 45 km. New data acquired as part of the 

project were collected between 2012–2017 at five locations. The specific temporal extent of each data 

layer was included with its associated metadata.

Most project data was organized into the following seven geodatabases: 

1. Archaeological survey data: Legacy and project archaeological data in point, polyline, and raster 

formats that pertain to the Cedar Tree Beach (Greenwich Bay) and West Beach (Block Island) 

study areas. Hyperlinks to supporting material, such as photographs of underwater features, were 

included when available.

2. Sediment cores: Point locations of legacy and project sediment cores examined for the project, 

with hyperlinks (when available) to basic core information. Hyperlinks were provided to core 

photographs and geotechnical data when available.

3. Regional geology and archaeology study areas: Polygons showing the approximate geographic 

locations of legacy geological or archaeological investigations conducted prior to the initiation of 

the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project. These data were part of the literature 

search/desktop study task conducted at the beginning of the project and provided information 

about the regional and local geological and archaeological state of knowledge. Hyperlinks to the 

associated reports were provided, when available.

4. Subbottom tracklines: Polygons and polylines showing the location of legacy and project seismic 

reflection track lines pertaining to the study. Polylines included clickable hyperlinks to JPG 

images of the associated seismic reflection profiles. For some legacy datasets, the project team 

did not investigate each seismic reflection profile individually, but relied on the associated 

publication to provide a general geophysical characterization of the area in question. In these 

cases, a polygon of the study area was provided with a hyperlink where individual seismic 

reflection profiles could be accessed, if desired.

5. Sidescan sonar data: Raster files of processed legacy and project sidescan sonar mosaics. 

6. Bathymetry: Full coverage, seamless bathymetric rasters for legacy and project study areas at 

various resolutions.

7. Basemaps: Polygons representing state outlines, the project study areas, NOAA navigational 

charts, orthophotographs of the Cedar Tree Beach (Greenwich Bay) and West Beach (Block 

Island) study areas, and various feature outlines that formed the bases for project maps.

In addition to the ArcGIS databases described above, additional supporting data transferred to BOEM was

organized into standard Microsoft Windows folders described below. Files in these folders provided

source information for the hyperlinks available in the ArcGIS project. These files could also be viewed as 

“standalone” files using a PDF reader or a standard image viewer.

1. Archaeology Regional Background: Publications providing archaeological context for the 

project study areas. 

2. Core Summary Images: PDF images of cores and core descriptions, when available.

3. Explanatory Report: A Microsoft Word file representing the explanatory report that 

accompanies the digital dataset.
15

4. ArcMap Project: The ArcMap *.mxd file used to produce Figure 1 in the explanatory report.

5. Miscellaneous Hyperlink Files: Publications in PDF format that provided regional geological 

context for the project.

6. Subbottom Images: JPG images of seismic reflection profiles. Profiles were standardized so that 

the northerly or westerly direction was at the left of the image, and the southerly or easterly 

direction was at the right of the image.

7. Visual Sediment Probe Images: Imagery from the archaeological investigation at Cedar Tree 

Beach, Greenwich Bay.

8. West Beach Archaeo: Imagery, descriptions, and Accelorator Mass Spectrometry dates from the 

archaeological investigations at West Beach, Block Island. 

The ArcMap project included with the spatial data transfer deliverable contained “hyperlinks” to 

supplement many data layers. A hyperlink is a data layer that is not immediately visible in the ArcGIS 

project but can be accessed by clicking on an ArcMap feature, such as a point, polygon, or line. For 

example, subbottom tracklines are easily visualized in ArcMap, but the seismic reflection images 

associated with each trackline cannot be visualized with a 2-D map. With hyperlinks enabled, clicking on 

a trackline of interest opens the associated seismic reflection image in a separate viewing window.

The literature review/desktop study task that was conducted early in the project to provide regional 

geological and archaeological contexts for the project’s study areas identified several publications that 

provided particularly useful overviews. Approximate geographic boundaries for the data in these 

publications were included in the spatial data transfer’s ArcMap project under a group layer entitled 

“Regional Geology & Archaeology Study Areas.” Hyperlinks from the geographic boundaries layers to 

the associated publication were provided. In some cases, the hyperlinked publication provided links to 

additional downloadable data.

All ArcGIS data layers included in the spatial data transfer contained appropriate metadata in 

standardized FGDC CSDGM format, accessible through the “Description” tab in ArcCatalog. Metadata 

associated with project data was created with ArcCatalog’s metadata editor tools. Legacy data were 

obtained from a variety of sources. The amount and type of metadata associated with the original data 

sources varied considerably. If digital metadata from the original source organization was available, then 

it was appended to its associated ArcMap layer as originally written. If digital metadata was not available, 

it was created with the ArcCatalog metadata editor tools using information provided in the publication 

associated with the dataset.

2.7 Documentary Film

An approximately 30-minute long, close-captioned documentary film on the project (DeCiccio 2019), 

suitable for a general audience and intended as an educational and public outreach tool, was prepared by 

URI-GSO’s Inner Space Center filmmaker, Alex DeCiccio, and submitted in June 2019 as one of the final 

deliverables of the project. Entitled “The Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project: A Collaborative 

Approach for Identifying Ancient Native Sites on the Continental Shelf,” the film presents a multi-vocal 

narrative description of the project as a unique collaboration between diverse project research partners 

and outlines its goals and objectives, study areas, research methods, and findings. The film features still 

photographs and video recorded in the field, in the labratories at URI-GSO, and during workshops and 

meetings over the course of the project.
16

3 Conclusions and Recommended Next Steps

3.1 Overview

Overall, the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project was a positive experience that created new

relationships, strengthened existing ones, or, in some cases, clarified areas in need of improvement. It also

better defined and enhanced the capacity for diverse groups to work together in this type of collaborative

research. The project was not without its frustrations and negative experiences, as areas of concern and

conflict, ignorance and misunderstanding, and deficits in the current capacities of agencies, Tribes, and

researchers to work together towards a common goal were revealed. However, identifying and

acknowledging these challenges is a positive first step towards improving current and future

collaborations. The Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project provided a unique opportunity for

diverse groups to assess their priorities and capacities, share perspectives, and move forward together

when responding to needs, opportunities, and challenges related to the identification and protection of

paleocultural sites in submerged environments.

From a scientific research perspective, the Submerged Paleolandscapes Project provided an important

opportunity to evaluate existing geological and archaeological survey guidelines for characterizing and

identifying culturally sensitive areas in submerged environments. Three paleocultural sites were identified

embedded within preserved paleolandscapes in shallow (1 to 4 m deep) and nearshore (10 to 30 m) Rhode

Island waters of the relatively protected Greenwich Bay, and the more exposed West Beach on Block

Island. Glaciolacustrine sediments were also located in cores obtained at the Mud Hole study area, 

suggesting that a third paleolandscape may be preserved in deeper, higher-energy, offshore waters

on the OCS. Analysis and interpretation of data obtained during field surveys in these project study areas

contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of the potential paleocultural sensitivity of offshore

areas on the Rhode Island OCS. In addition, the applicability of archaeological predictive models for 

submerged environments was examined in detail, and a unique modeling process and regional 

stratigraphic modeling approach was presented that can be applied to any geographic area. Lessons 

learned from this research will contribute to the improvement and standardization of the current methods 

used to survey, interpret, and characterize submerged environments, regardless of project scope or 

geographic area.

3.2 Next Steps for Developing Effective and Culturally Sensitive 

Consultation

Recommended next steps are based on the research that was done over the course of the project and from 

multiple conversations in late 2018 and early 2019 with members of the Tribal Historic Preservation staff 

from the Mashpee Wampanoag, Mohegan, and Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) during and 

after a Udall Foundation “Tribal Marine Planning Training Workshop” held at the Mashantucket Pequot 

Museum and Research Center, Mashantucket, CT, on July 19, 2018. Topics covered at that workshop in 

several presentations included the following:

• Effective Tribal Consultation Strategies (James Charles, Volya Innovative Solutions).

• Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Archaeology (David Robinson, URI-GSO).

• Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration & Consensus-Building (Lauren Nutter, Udall Foundation).
17

Conversations that occurred in the months after the meeting with the above-referenced Tribes resulted in 

the compilation of a list of Tribal concerns that were shared with BOEM in February 2019. Although 

addressing all of these concerns is considered important as next steps, extensive offshore wind farm 

development currently planned for the southern New England OCS, which has the potential to adversely 

affect as-yet identified submerged paleocultural landscapes of Tribal cultural significance, has increased 

the need to consider those concerns that have more immediate consequences and can be addressed 

relatively quickly. As a result, the Tribal concerns and possible next steps for addressing them presented 

here are divided into two general categories: near-term and long-term. Near-term concerns are those that

are seen as currently pressing, but addressable within an approximately one-year timeframe. Long-term

concerns are those that are equally important, but will likely require more than a year to address and/or a 

long-term or perpetual commitment by BOEM and the Tribes to work on and update regularly.

3.2.1 General Observations

• Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) are working at maximum capacity with insufficient 

staff, resources, and funding. THPOs engaged in implementing “Next Step” ideas would need 

external funding to assist them in covering additional costs associated with staff time, travel, and 

other related expenses to participate.

• All of the southern New England region’s Tribes need to be equal participants and included in 

future discussions and planning of any project focusing on implementing next step ideas. 

Situations with one Tribe serving as a project lead or liaison for the other Tribes is considered a 

non-optimal approach that probably should be avoided.

• Universities are not well suited to coordinate and manage project sub-awards to Tribes.

• Although avoidance of impacts to identified submerged paleocultural landscapes is preferred, 

identification of these culturally significant areas is a pre-requisite for their avoidance.

• The Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project began a process of developing approaches to 

identify submerged paleolandscapes that may be culturally sensitive. The approaches include 1)

developing initial best practices for engaging Tribal communities and research methodologies for 

assessing and identifying submerged paleocultural landscapes; and 2) developing a preliminary 

stratigraphic model designed to identify submerged paleolandscapes that could be culturally 

sensitive. These best practices and methodologies require implementation and testing with Tribal 

input before they can be adopted and used to inform BOEM’s future management decisions in 

offshore development project review and consultation processes.

3.2.2 Near-Term Next Steps

3.2.2.1 Tribal Concerns

• Tribes feel that their concerns regarding potential impacts from proposed offshore development 

projects are not being heard or listened to and that they are not being adequately engaged by 

agencies, developers, and consultants as early and as regularly as needed during the planning and 

research done as part of the environmental review of offshore development projects. This 

situation has led to a sense of being “steamrolled” during the environmental review processes 

associated with offshore development projects.
18

• Agencies, developers, and consultants do not seem to comprehend or understand the cultural 

linkages Tribes have to the marine environment's flora and fauna that make Tribal review of and 

comment on impacts to them a necessary element of the Tribal review of offshore development 

projects.

• THPOs have less experience with offshore development projects and the associated marine 

environment than they do with terrestrial development projects proposed for the onshore 

environment. This requires THPOs to learn on-the-fly during project review the technically 

complex aspects of marine geoarchaeological theories, methods and results, while also adhering 

to tight project environmental review schedules and timelines. This challenge is compounded by 

insufficient staffing and Federal financial support of THPOs.

• Marine geoarchaeological investigation of the seafloor to identify submerged paleocultural 

landscapes is a relatively new subdiscipline the methodologies for which are still being developed 

and standardized. This situation makes it difficult for the THPOs to discern what constitutes an 

adequate or effective effort.

• Knowledge about the locations, nature, and extent of preservation of submerged paleocultural 

landscapes off the coast of southern New England is almost non-existent. Much more must be 

learned about what may be preserved in order to know what may or may not be impacted.

3.2.2.2 Recommendations for Addressing Near-Term Tribal Concerns

• Conduct a relationship building workshop co-led by a mediation professional that also includes 

cross-cultural education opportunities for experiential mutual learning and relationship building 

between BOEM and the Tribes. Work towards a commitment between BOEM and the Tribes to 

hold regular meetings in the future. Prior to the workshop, obtain from the Tribes clarification 

and specific examples about how they feel concerns are not being heard and what they feel would 

constitute acceptable engagement.

• Conduct a technical workshop and on-site or webinar-based trainings to present and answer 

questions about the basic and essential technical aspects of the geoarchaeological sciences 

required for the informed review of offshore environmental survey documents. Include in the 

presentations, as well, clear and concise explanations of: a) what is known; b) what is not yet 

known; c) what is hypothesized; and d) a discussion of ideas for integrating Tribal and non-Tribal 

sciences to advance methods in assessing cultural sensitivity and identifying and preserving 

cultural sites. Additional technical workshop/webinar topics could also include the following:

o Identifying differences (goals, equipment, limitations, etc.) between terrestrial and

marine projects

o Key marine geology and archaeology principles

.

o An overview of southern New England’s regional offshore stratigraphy

o An overview of the equipment used for offshore surveying, with discussion about why it 

is used
19

o What constitutes an adequate vs. an inadequate survey

o Key items to look for in geological and archaeological interpretations

o What the best method we have right now to identify preserved paleolandscapes

o A review of BOEM's current G&G/archaeological survey guidelines.

• Include as part of the technical workshop/webinars the following goals:

o Exploration and definition of the information the Tribes see as critical to include in a 

streamlined reporting format and what they define as “streamlined”

o Identification of what type/format of GIS application it is that the Tribes are interested in 

and have working experience

• Incorporate an overview and review of existing publicly available marine geological data into any 

technical training. This is the first step required to test URI-GSO’s preliminary stratigraphic 

model, which is designed to identify areas of the OCS that contain preserved elements of the 

submerged paleolandscape, developed as part of the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes

Project. The Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project determined that a best practices

approach to identifying paleocultural landscapes is to focus on a thorough understanding of

regional geology in the study area.

3.2.3 Long-Term Next Steps

Long-term refers to steps requiring more than one year to address, or a perpetual commitment.

3.2.3.1 Tribal Concerns

• Offshore wind energy infrastructure installation, operation, and decommissioning off the southern 

New England Coast presents a host of unique environmental impacts whose nature and extent are 

not yet fully understood. Project review schedules do not seem to reflect this reality and the need 

to proceed more cautiously and carefully to identify, understand, and establish a baseline of what 

are the impacts.

• Review of offshore developers’ resource reports could be enhanced and expedited if a) the 

information and reports were presented in a more streamlined format using GIS-based

technologies; and b) there was a single online source location for warehousing ongoing and 

legacy project survey data that could then be made available to Tribes for their easy access and 

use in their analysis of broadscale relationships/patterning between what is found in the offshore 

data and assessment of the cultural sensitivity of offshore areas. It would be beneficial to have a 

single regional site location for the physical storage and long-term curation of sediment cores 

collected for offshore development projects that would be accessible as a reference collection for 

Tribes and researchers.
20

• Training (in marine survey and GIS use), software, and equipment for data review, interpretation, 

and understanding is needed.

• Training (water safety & survival, diving, etc.) and infrastructure (small ocean-going vessels, 

survival suits, diving equipment) are needed for on-site work (inspections and monitoring).

3.2.3.3 Recommendations for Addressing Long-Term Tribal Concerns

• Review previous, current, and planned studies and seek to address concerns about environmental 

impacts through proposals for new studies. Include the testing of the URI-GSO paleocultural

landscape locational model and the assessment of cultural impacts as one of these new studies.

• Consider options regarding utilization of existing online GIS platforms (e.g., adding an additional 

data layer to the NROC data portal, adding the offshore zone to individual states’ online GIS 

archaeological site databases, and working with ArcGIS Online for convenient web-based GIS 

data sharing, etc.). Discuss with BOEM the concept of developing or utilizing an existing national 

sediment core archive that is divided up into regional repositories.

• Pursue opportunities for and obtain external funding for training in marine survey, ArcGIS, water 

safety, and diving, as well as and for obtaining necessary marine-related infrastructure.

3.3 Next Steps for Improving the Scientific Research Methodology Used 

to Characterize Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes

3.3.1 Researcher Concerns

• The current focus on offshore wind development on the southern New England OCS has resulted 

in several projects undergoing the permitting process simultaneously. Although potential 

development sites are characterized and assessed using BOEM's overall geoarchaeological survey 

guidelines, the extent of the pre-survey desktop study and survey design and data interpretation 

may vary significantly depending on the consultant(s) hired by the developer. This approach may 

result in potential development sites that are near or adjacent to each other being characterized 

differently, or with varying amounts of detail, when in reality they are the product of the same 

regional geologic processes.

• Geoarchaeological consultants engaged by the developer may be experts in geographic areas that 

have much different geologic histories and facies than those that characterize the potential 

development site. In addition, consultants may not have in-depth local knowledge of the most 

relevant geological and geophysical research that pertains to the study area. This situation may 

result in an incomplete or inaccurate site characterization and assessment.

• The current understanding of where submerged paleocultural landscapes may be located and why 

they are (or are not) preserved is still being developed and lacks a standardized approach.

Consequently, the method for identifying preserved paleolandscapes that may be culturally 

sensitive varies according to the organization and individuals conducting the assessment.
21

• Assessing the cultural sensitivity of submerged paleolandscapes is an extremely complex process 

that requires an in-depth knowledge of specialized, interrelated archaeological, 

cultural/ethnohistorical, and geological concepts. Archaeologists and geologists should combine 

their expertise and work together during the site characterization and assessment that are parts of 

the project permitting process.

• Assessment of paleocultural sensitivity often focuses on identifying a single geologic feature, 

such as paleochannels, which are sometimes documented in project seismic survey data. Focusing 

only on a subset of a more complex landscape that could be present may underrepresent the 

paleocultural sensitivity of a potential offshore energy development area. 

• The complete archaeological and geological survey results used for site characterization reports 

are often not released to interested parties, and/or key findings are redacted before release. This 

practice discourages beneficial external review and input on the scientific data, and may give the 

impression that the developer is trying to minimize the potential paleocultural sensitivity of the 

study area.

3.3.2 Recommendations for Addressing Researcher Concerns

• Conduct additional geoarchaeological research to validate the regional stratigraphic model 

developed as part of the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project. This model was designed 

to identify preserved submerged paleolandscapes that could have Tribal significance based on a 

thorough understanding of the regional geology of any study area. The model requires additional 

testing, but, if validated, it could streamline the offshore wind permitting process by

1. Providing a standardized method for interpreting geological/geophysical data across 

multiple study areas on the OCS based on the best available data. 

2. Quickly flagging areas that are most likely to need additional intensive geophysical, 

geological, and/or archaeological investigation.

3. Reducing the level effort required for paleocultural archaeological sensitivity 

assessments by utilizing a confirmed regional model developed by regional experts

working in collaboration with regional Tribes, and based on a synthesis of best available 

data.

• Develop a nationwide network of marine geologists who are local experts in the geologic history 

and marine stratigraphy of the OCS in each region where offshore development is planned.

Require that the geophysical and geological site characterization reports produced for the 

development project’s permitting process are reviewed by the geologist who is most 

knowledgeable about the area being reviewed for permitting and development. Provide this 

individual with the authority to request revisions to the report interpretations. 

• Require multidisciplinary data review and discussions between the geologists and archaeologists 

involved involved the site characterization process.

• Avoid assessing paleocultural sensitivity based on one geologic feature, such as paleochannels.

Instead, modify BOEM’s current site characterization process to require a thorough 
22

reconstruction of the entire subsurface stratigraphic section (from acoustic basement upwards to 

the sea floor) at the potential development site. Require that the geologic environment and 

processes for each identified acoustic unit be described in detail, including an assessment of the 

depositional environment and age associated with each facies.

• Develop a process where interested stakeholders may provide input to survey designs prior to 

initiation of site survey work. Upon completion of the survey and data analysis, allow 

stakeholders to obtain access to the site characterization reports earlier in the permitting process

and encourage stakeholder input.

• Collaborate with regional experts to develop publicly available, geospatial databases and 

literature bibliographies of the most accurate and pertinent geoarchaeological data in each region 

targeted for offshore development. Development of these databases would streamline the desktop 

study process for offshore project proponents, and ensure that the best data is being used as the 

basis for new survey designs and data interpretations.
23

References

Ball D, Clayburn R, Cordero R, Edwards B, Grussing V, Ledford J, McConnell R, Monette R, Steelquist 

R, Thorsgard E, Townsend J. 2015. A guidance document for characterizing Tribal cultural 

landscapes. Camarillo (CA): U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study BOEM 2015-047. 32 p.

Caccioppoli B, Robinson D, King J, and Gibson C, 2018. Developing protocols for reconstructing 

submerged paleocultural landscapes and identifying ancient Native American archaeological sites 

in submerged environments: field report 2013–2016. Sterling (VA): U. S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs. OCS 

Study BOEM 2018‐056. 61 p. 

Coastal Mapping Laboratory 2015. Developing protocols for reconstructing submerged paleocultural 

landscapes and identifying Ancient Native American archaeological sites in submerged 

environments: summary report of the initial project workshop. Prepared by the Coastal Mapping 

Laboratory, Graduate School of Oceanography/University of Rhode Island. Herndon (VA): U. S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy 

Programs. OCS Study BOEM 2015-048. 44 p. with Appendices. 

DeCiccio A. 2019. The submerged paleocultural landscapes project: a collaborative approach for 

identifying ancient Native sites on the Continental Shelf [documentary film]. Narragansett (RI): 

University of Rhode Island Inner Space Center. Runtime approximately 30 minutes.

Gibson C. 2019. Project spatial data transfer deliverable. ArcMap and ArcGIS-based application of 

visualized geospatial data compiled for the Submerged Paleocultural Landscapes Project and 

submitted to BOEM as a project deliverable. Prepared by the University of Rhode Island 

Graduate School of Oceanography. Sterling (VA): U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs.

Kvamme K. 2006. There and back again: revisiting archaeological locational modeling. In: Meher M, 

Wescott K, eds. GIS and archaeological site location modeling. New York (NY): Taylor & 

Francis Group. p. 3–38.

Robinson D. 2012. Project meeting minutes from the Post-Award Meeting held at BOEM’s Atlantic OCS 

Regional Office in Herndon, VA, September 20, 2012. Prepared by the University of Rhode 

Island Graduate School of Oceanography. Herndon (VA): U. S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs.

Robinson D, Gibson C, Caccioppoli B, King J. 2020. Developing protocols for reconstructing submerged 

paleocultural landscapes and identifying Ancient Native American archaeological sites in 

submerged environments: geoarchaeological modeling. Sterling (VA): US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs. OCS 

Study BOEM 2020-024. 175 p.

Robinson D, Gibson C, King J. 2018. Developing protocols for reconstructing submerged paleocultural 

landscapes and identifying Native American archaeological sites in submerged environments: 

best practices. Sterling (VA): U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs. OCS Study BOEM 2018-055. 55 p.
24

Verhagen P, Whitley T. 2012. Integrating archaeological theory and predictive modeling: a live report 

from the scene. Journal of Archaeological Method Theory 19:49–100.
Department of the Interior (DOI)

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation's natural 

resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about 

those resources; and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special 

commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island 

communities.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)

The mission of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is to manage 

development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf energy and mineral resources in 

an environmentally and economically responsible way.

BOEM Environmental Studies Program

The mission of the Environmental Studies Program is to provide the 

information needed to predict, assess, and manage impacts from offshore 

energy and marine mineral exploration, development, and production activities 

on human, marine, and coastal environments. The proposal, selection, research, 

review, collaboration, production, and dissemination of each of BOEM’s 

Environmental Studies follows the DOI Code of Scientific and Scholarly 

Conduct, in support of a culture of scientific and professional integrity, as set 

out in the DOI Departmental Manual (305 DM 3).