The Editor's Corner

June 2001 -- Volume 11, Number 3

Once again, my best intentions were stymied by the vagaries of schedule conflicts, unanticipated changes in technology, and the usual exigencies of public service. Those exigencies now include theRainbow Family Gathering – we’re preparing as best we can for 20,000 people to visit the Boise NF! They should be gone by early next month, so I’ll leave that story for another issue.In Times past, I have tried to relay my own version of the events at the national meetings and the SAAs. I had to skip the SAAs this yearbut I did attend the national Heritage meeting as the Region 4 representative. So, before Milo McLeod’s article about his work in

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

In This Issue:The Editor’s Corner

Program UpdatesThe View from NHQNotes from New OrleansPassport in TimeFeature ArticleArcheologists in

Korea

Web Notes1: NHPA Section 1062: Historic

PreservationCrime and PunishmentHogan Case

Meetings

The Heritage TimesThe official electronic newsletter of the USDA Forest Service

Heritage Program

The View from NHQ

Korea, and more clues to the Web from Smoke Pfieffer and Richa Wilson, this issue contains my abridged, revised, and slightly expurgated notes from our national program meeting in New Orleans. The notes from this meeting are lengthy and especially newsworthy because the program leaders are making decisions and making progress on a number of fronts. So, please forgive the odd formatting and thejargon, and take a few minutes to review the notes. For the latest information on The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 701) and other Congressional action that may affect historic preservation look at Preservation Action - News and Urgent Info

-- Will Reed, Boise National Forest

As you will see in the notes from the national meeting – there are many program issues for our heritage leadership to focus on. We havea lot of work to do, but now we have a strong sense of direction reinforced by the Heritage Strategy. We are well on our way to implementation of the Heritage Strategy – now we are defining the tasks and resources needed to realize the goals. We have a new administration and new Chief. There will be many changes and we are positioned to make the most of any opportunities that come along withthe changes. In the short time since the SAA meeting we have seen some room for optimism – the budget requests (in the form of BFES curves) coming from Forests show higher heritage requests. Top FS staff are in support of putting Heritage needs into the new Conservation and Reinvestment Act. A new strategic initiative, “theHeritage of Diversity” (developed with the WO Civil Rights program) has funded a number of Heritage project proposals – projects that will highlight our program efforts for a diverse audience. The NHIMIBusiness team has outlined an exciting program of work that will takeus over the “hump” to full implementation of the Heritage module -- when our Infra module becomes a handy tool for daily management of

the resources. We definitely need to stay the course and take an occasional moment of pride in our accomplishments as they happen – like the recent USDA awards ceremony where two heritage teams from R9received awards from the Secretary, the Superior NF for heroism in rescue of drowning canoeists, and the Southern Tier of NF’s for theirwork with the Underground Railroad theme. THAT was a good day at theoffice! -- Mike Kaczor, Program Leader

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Notes from New Orleans

Annual Spring National Heritage Team Meeting -- New Orleans -- April 2001In attendance: Board Members: Mike Kaczor (WO), Jill Osborn (WO),

Mike Beckes (R1), Terri Liestman (R2), Judy Propper (R3), Will Reed(R4), Judy Rose (R5), Jim Keyser (R6), Kent Schneider (R8), Sue Marvin (R10), Joe Tainter (SW Research Station). Advisors: Dick Paterson (WO), Joe Meade (R3). Guest Presenters: Jeff Overturf (R2), Mike Dunn (R8), Chris O’Brien (R5), and Carol Ellick (PIT Clearinghouse).

New Administration/RHWR Overview: During the first day, we heard from Deputy Director Dick Paterson. He provided his perspective on the Washington Office and the current political environment inside the Beltway. Dick noted that Congress seemed friendlier and more receptive to Forest Service issues, and that no major legislation is likely to address agency concerns or concerns about the agency. It is more likely that Congress will attach riders to other legislation and will use the budget to direct the agency. In addition, there is no indication that Congress will fund the agency to meet all existinglegal mandates.

The new administration has set a goal of appointing 100 new judges bySeptember 1st. The new judges may have an impact on the way we do business. More policy and guidance will be set in court. The CEQ has been reduced from 25 members to seven; and will probably have less authority than under the previous administration.Dick recommended reading Free Market Environmentalism, by Terry Anderson and Don Leal. Just as VP Gore’s book on the environment was considered required reading during the last administration, this is the book to read now. The authors concepts include decentralized control, down to local levels whenever possible (i.e. Forest Supervisor); value-added; applicable laws versus available funding; emphasis on volunteers.The OMB is emerging as new seat of political power. The USFS budget is expected to remain flat (Heritage Program is typical). We should consider that other resource management agencies have suffered significant budget cuts. Emphasis on accountability will continue.

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

The WO is working to attain level of national staffing that supports Regional programs (7 positions currently advertised). Focus on working with Congress and external partners as investment in deliveryof program at the field level: Heritage Strategy, Recreation Strategy, and Wilderness Strategy.Program Overview: National program leader, Mike Kaczor provided his perspective on the program with special emphasis on the basic fact that the Heritage Board faces many issues and tons of work. Mike is working especially hard to improve internal customer service. As part of this emphasis, he suggested that the National team consider a different structure for future meetings with the Fall and Spring meetings taking on a thematic approach: Fall meetings would beregionally sponsored and would focus on field issues. These meetingscould include peer reviews of Forest or Regional programs with a day devoted to interaction with Line and Forest personnel. The Spring meeting would be a business meeting; with a focus on program issues, and would still be held in conjunction with the SAAs to facilitate coordination with the other agencies. He would like to see the Spring meeting include more presentations from field personnel.Mike noted that we can expect better program delivery as the WO staffs up. At present, he is working on the context for natural resources, while Jill Osborn has the lead on public service and outreach. A new Resource Analyst, Jamie Schwartz; is providing support to the Heritage program. The internal service aspect will befurther enhanced as new positions are filled, especially the new Heritage program assistant position that will provide (among other things) a stewardship liaison with Ecosystem Management. Mike is seeking recommendations from the Heritage Board regarding the focus of his and Jill Osborn’s work plans for 2002. Mike will visit several regions this summer and would like to discuss effects from collapse of EBLIs, as well as specific regional programmatic concernsand successes. He is also seeking suggestions from the Board about how to address challenges in job replacement, recruitment, and workforce growth.As part of enhanced program delivery efforts, Mike would like to implement a standard system of quarterly progress reporting and sharing with other Regions. A quarterly reporting schedule might allow him to better address opportunities for budget changes, and recognition for regional successes. The WO Staff will be refining their programs of work based on changes in capacity as the new positions are filled

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Director Priorities: The last Heritage Team meeting was held in conjunction with the Regional Directors for Recreation, Heritage, andWilderness. During that meeting, the Directors listed about 19 itemsto emphasize in the Heritage program. In New Orleans, we had a follow-up discussion about which of the 19 items should be given top priority for the Directors’ attention and support. The unanimous result of our discussion was not too surprising: The Priority is budget, budget, and budget! Recognizing that agency budgets are not growing, and that there’s little new money, and that all program areas are suffering economically, the Heritage Board decided to seek support from the Directors for the following approach to enhancing the fiscal health of the Heritage program:We are asking the Directors to ensure that funds are available to do the work of the Heritage program. We need adequate funding for base program work from other programs such as Inventory and Monitoring, Fuels, State and Private Forestry, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We need recognition and support to accomplish goals expressed in the Recreation Strategy, especially in areas such as interpretation, trails, Recreation Fee Demo projects, and Passportin Time projects. We need additional emphasis and recognition in theform of funding for our work with external partners. We need to ensure that deferred maintenance for priority heritage assets is funded along with other deferred maintenance needs. And we need the Directors support to elevate the priority of the Heritage Infra module to ensure that we have the necessary corporate tools for the identification, measurement and reporting of heritage assets.Heritage Strategy: Starting bright and early on Tuesday morning, the Board discussed implementation of the Heritage Strategy. Workingin smaller groups, they pulled apart the Strategy into series of tasks and agreed on some assignments with associated deadlines. Since Mike and Jill received the majority of assignments, it seems clear that Mike got his wish regarding Board input into their plans of work for the next year! The following paragraphs provide an abbreviated rendition of tasks assigned.

Public Service: Jill Osborn has the lead for Public Service. She will continue to work to optimize the potential of Passport in Timeand Heritage Expeditions for marketing the Heritage Program with both the internal audience and Congress. She will prepare annual accomplishment reports on PIT and Heritage Expeditions, focusing onagency work accomplished via these programs. This report is to be drafted and available for review by the next meeting. Several

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

other ideas came up and Jill will be looking into the possibility of compiling newspaper articles about PIT and Heritage Expeditions in a publication format; possibly in partnership with college journalism class. This will be a resource to use in highlighting the program. She will be investigating the possibility of producing a peer-reviewed professional publication to cover the results of PIT projects. Technical issues to be considered include distribution, cost, scope, frequency, and coordination with NHIMI. And she will investigate the possibility of consolidating all USFS cabin rental information into one publication or website. She willreport on her findings at the next meeting.

Context for Natural Resources Management: Mike Kaczor has the leadon Context. He will determine feasibility of sponsoring symposium of Forest Service archaeologists regarding human impact on the environment (proceedings could be published via Rocky Mt. Research Station). Report on feasibility at the next meeting. His responsibilities include interaction with Regional Directors and Regional Leadership Teams in the effort emphasize Heritage as an integrating concept and a program that can provide a valuable context for resource management. He will be watching for opportunities to become involved in New Century of Service. Possible message areas: condition of forested lands in 1890, long-term variation of forested lands. This task will be ongoing through 2005 and will include semi-annual reports of findings and opportunities.

Stewardship: This strategy area is not assigned yet and many of these tasks may to go to the new program assistant when hired. In the interim, Mike will be working on these items when possible or necessary.Increase efforts to prioritize and protect most significant sites:

1) create a “Stabilization Fund” through Deferred Maintenance, CARA, or L&WCF; 2) enlist a “champion” from Line to highlight stewardship issues, and 3) use ARPA authorities for civil penalties to recover funds to benefit remaining resources. Establish revolving fund for significant legal actions.

Address “what are learning from the past?” There was a general feeling that the products and value of the heritage program are not displayed well. We need to articulate the value of the heritage program in all materials, including the revision of the FS 2360 Manual, development of National PA with a strong Section

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

110 component, and PIT project reporting. Focus on products/value rather than process.

Expand and improve technologies: 1) assess units using GPS, ground-penetrating radar, etc. to use new and existing technologies: 2) identify “Centers of Excellence,” 3) consider creation of a Technology Award. Use fuels funding for Infra database input andmaintenance. Use technology industry funds for Infra database management.

Strengthen tribal relationships. Enhance relationship with USFS Tribal Relations Implementation Team. Work more closely with tribes. This particular item is assigned to Kaczor and the Boardas an on-going assignment – see notes on Tribal Relations Programin following section.

Program Effectiveness: This portion of the Strategy is recognized as an area where the Board needs to work in a concerted manner withseveral task groups.

Revise the Forest Service Manual. Consider interim direction, if necessary. Focus on relationship with tribes and information management. This assignment is for WO program, and has no specific dates or set expectations at this time.

Meaningful Measures: 1) complete database development, 2) develop training plan for database use and management, 3) offer and fund training for Regional, Forest, and District program managers. These items are assigned to Kaczor and WO Infra with assist from Jill Osborn, Al Jaten, and the NHIMI business team. Kaczor is toreport on progress at the next meeting. Specific objectives are to offer training in FY2002 and fund Infra training in the FY2002budget.

Develop National Programmatic Agreement or alternative procedure. Task assigned to Board with expectations of a report at the next meeting. No specific assignments to individual members

Budget: 1) Define the terms used in the BFES activity “Manage to Standard.” This task is assigned to a Board task force for completion before the next meeting. 2) Develop a training plan for the use of the BFES definition and deliver training. This task is to be accomplished by Kaczor, Osborn, BFES experts and the activity definition task force. The training plan is to be developed before the next meeting and the training would be implemented during FY2002.

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Tribal Relations – Carol Jorgensen, Sonia Tamez, Les McConnell, Frank Wozniak

Carol and Sonia provided background on the National Tribal Relations Implementation Team and updates on the activities of the taskforces. The Team wants to be included in overall Heritage budget/stewardship/training/program discussions. Kaczor serves as Heritage representative on Implementation Team. Heritage Board expressed concerns regarding some of the materials of the task groups. Tribal relations folks in attendance and the Heritage Board felt the best way for these concerns to be addressed and to make thisa collaborative effort is for the Heritage Board to become members ofthe task forces. The following folks will work with specific task groups:

Acquisition of Forest Products R10 Forest rep.

Consultation Kaczor, Pat Spoerl (Coronado NF)Directives BeckesInfrastructure LiestmanOccupancy & Use ReedReburial WozniakTraining Keyser (McConnell)

Training (Les): reviewed recommendations from National Task Force Report. Emphasis will be on national training, but Training Task Force recognizes the need to offer site-specific localized training (treaties, issues, etc.). George Mason still has the Traditional Cultural Properties course; Jill still has money in the Heritage Training budget to develop this course this year. Heritage Board prefers to develop USFS-based course, in collaboration with Tribal Relations. The course may be later expanded as an interagency course. Osborn will redistribute existing course proposal to Board (done); Kaczor will issue a formal request for “Development Board” members.

FOIA (Les): A recent court case ((Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. USDI, 189 F 3d 1034 (9th Cir. 1999)) raised a few questions regarding Tribes and FOIA protections. The court ruled that communications with Tribes are not protected under Exemption 5. Thus, Tribes should not submit to USFS information that they would not want distributed under FOIA as part of an official record. However, Exemption 3 is still appropriately applied to

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

information about cultural resources. Amy Gowan will be summarizing the implications of this decision in an agency report,specifically regarding protection of tribal information.

NAGPRA (Frank): The NAGPRA compliance statistics for this agency are better than might be expected. We are not making a lot of rapid progress on reburial because many Tribes are reluctant to accept the remains.

New Century of Service: Linda Feldman, from the WO, introduced the “New Century of Service” which will be celebrated in 2005 - the 100th anniversary of the creation ofthe US Forest Service as an entity. The focus of this program is on the emotional connection to the Forest Service,specifically the people and their contributions to society. The emphasis differs from the centennial celebration in 1991,which focused on the land. Most “New Century” projects will run in conjunction with existing programs and projects; not much new or added work for the field. The “New Century” projects will also link to individual Forest centennials. The estimated budget is $370,000 annually and is funded as part of the Conservation and Education Program. The HeritageProgram could be a significant partner, specifically regarding history and traditions of the USFS. For more information click on: http://www.fs.fed.us/newcentury. Here are a few examples of the many Potential ways to be involved:

Participating in the 2005 Smithsonian Folklife Festival. Would include social science research about the culture of the USFS, employees, our relationship with the country.

Conservation in the Arts – to highlight the many artistically talented USFS employees. Would include series of performances around the nation in 2005.

A “Day in the Life”, capturing “WHAT WE DO”. Chief’s Award – an additional award in 2002-2005 to those who exemplify the New Century; peer-selected.

Fire Lookouts – a unique part of our history and culture. National Public Lands Day – last Sat. in Sep. (Sep. 29 in 2001; Virginia); co-sponsored by National Environmental Education and Training Foundation, and CCC. Involves USFS working with local communities to improve sites on public lands. 2001 focus will

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

be on renovating CCC-era structures. Looking for projects (PIT,etc.); brochures and other media materials available.

Budget Overview: Forest budget decisions affect Sec. 110 requirements in PAs. Success: R5 has obtained Rec. Director and Regional Forester support for enforcing Section 110 activities in PA.Each Forest Supervisor has concurred, via PA signature. RF signs annual report and required Forest Supervisor performance, per agreement. Also formed committee to annually evaluate whether Forests are adequately participating. General discussion regarding whether National PA could/should emphasize Sec. 110 requirements.How much INFRA data is too much, or too little? Costs to collect andmaintain database?Big Picture: GPRA, MM, BFES – Allen Jaten provided us with a general review of management terms for the 21st century: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Budget Formulation and Execution System (BFES), and Meaningful Measures (MM). He reminded us that GPRA has replaced RPA as the statutory basis for the USFS budget.By way of explanation for the way our budget is going to work, Jaten noted that purchasing bottled water (output) from a grocery story (with a lot of inventory) provides peace of mind (outcome). Fuels reduction is an output; increasing safety is an outcome. Congress funds outcomes!GPRA requires an agency strategic plan with goals and measurable objectives. Heritage not specifically mentioned in current StrategicPlan (plans are revised annually…).Jaten also reviewed the Key Categories for Heritage Meaningful Measures: Identification & Evaluation, Protection & Monitoring, Preservation, Promote Heritage Values, Applications to Natural Resource Management, and Program Management.

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Heritage Meaningful Measures: Kudos to MM committee; excellent work! Heritage Board accepts document, with the following revisions and amendments: 1) Need to add section on “Tribal consultation” 2) Need to show that archaeologists deliver some interpretive services, 3) Need to add a task -- “Conduct studies to produce new knowledge oflong-term environmental variation.”

BFES Q&As: Greg Griffith, R3, provided some basic answers to some basic questions about BFES implementation and consequences.

The Basic Assumptions: BFES curves must be true relationship of dollars to outputs. These curves enable the USFS to articulate tradeoffs internally and to stakeholders. USFS allocation decisions will be made along the Capability Curves; Congressional decisions maynot be.

What is “true” cost? True cost is the cost required to produce outputs; may include contracts, volunteers, and USFS salaries. See activity definitions for a complete list of costs. BFES is intended to capture, as accurately as possible, real costs to produce outputs to a given standard.What is the scale of capability curves? Capability curves are displayed on spreadsheets at a scale that enables users to see them adequately. Curves can be viewed at any scale.What is the relationship to EBLIs? We no longer have expanded budgetline items (EBLIs); instead, there are 10 budget line items (BLIs) inthe National Forest System Appropriation.What happens if Congress funds us differently than cost curves display? Congress decides the funding level. BFES displays our capabilities and helps us describe impacts and tradeoffs. What about programs that do not have enough funds to have outputs? Activities produce outputs, not programs. If a USFS unit or Region cannot produce an output within their constraint, that fact needs to be displayed. This is unlikely.Are other resource programs to which Heritage provides support including those costs in their capability curves? They should be. Regions need to ensure that resource support and its costs are included in all activities that require support. Primary purpose rules have not changed because of BFES.What happens when allocated funds do not resemble the budget request?Regions and all units operate on the funds allocated. BFES is a USFS

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

tool to formulate budget requests, display impacts, and tradeoffs. Congress makes decisions on the amount of funds the agency receives.Does BFES provide the primary opportunity to address Heritage budgetsbased on how forest leadership teams place preference points? Yes - Heritage is an activity within the NFRW budget line and a source of support to other programs. Forest Supervisors/leadership teams request a mix of funds by selecting preference points on capability curves. This represents the funding the Forest needs to accomplish field-level work. Communication and coordination must occur at the field level to make choices that will produce desired outcomes.Who looks at RO aggregates before they are forwarded to the WO? Whatis role of Regional Program Managers? Regional Directors? Oversight, quality control, and final submission decisions will stilloccur at Regional, and Washington, offices. Roles and responsibilities for the Chief, Regional Foresters, Directors, and program managers are unchanged.What about cost pools, including rent and other costs? Cost pools are a part of the budget formulation process and are included in BFES. Cost pools include both direct and indirect costs: rent, utilities, other similar.Definition of “Managed to Standard:” This BFES term was the subject of some animated discussion. We obviously need to work on a clear definition of what is counted and how. Good, clear, concise definitions are critical to our ability to portray the program in BFES. We need to examine the difference between legal significance and management significance. A book of business rules and managementpractices is being created to help field units input data. The book is designed to help distinguish differences in site quality and quantity – so we can consistently measure the work required by different program tasks. The group reviewed the modified standards used by Region 5 during the first effort at budget formulation. Region 5 found that “site managed to standard’ failed to represent the program and decided to use “activities” instead. From here on the discussion veered off into related questions about links that should exist between the budget formulation and execution system and meaningful measures developed for the Heritage program. Should our numbers reflect cumulative accomplishments or just reflect annual programs of work? These questions led into deeper, more strategic questions about where the minimum base program should be represented in the BFES curves. Where is the C-point at which a Forest program falls below a base program level – the level envisioned in Meaningful

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Measures of program activity? Where are the C-points for minimal implementation of Sec. 106? NAGPRA? And the Heritage Strategy? TheBoard decided to use “sites managed to standard” for FY2003 planning and to form a task force to evaluate options for FY04. The task group will report on findings at the Fall meeting. Task group members include: Forney, Marvin, Reed, Rose, and a NHIMI representative to be named. (Editor’s note: for BFES Activity Definition see BFES)

NHIMI Database Development: Jeff Overturf reviewed the progress of Infra database development and provided recommendations to improve NHIMI. He sees a need for more constructive and consistent steering team meetings; a need for more consistent Regional representation at the Steering Team meetings, and a need for strong Regional commitmentto support Steering Team activities.On-going Infra training with the Heritage module has been successful!The training sessions have identified bugs and small fixes, gathered input on future enhancements, heard first-hand feedback, and dispelled distracting rumors.Jeff addressed the particular concern about security of the database.Infra does have a security plan. The basic assumption is that Infra is not a public access system. Heritage data has the highest security of Infra data. Only those employees granted Heritage “roles” may view, update, modify, add, or delete Heritage information. He also emphasized that internal sharing should not be feared! ARPA, NHPA, and other legislation only restricts informationaccess to the “public.” We do need to develop a plan for external data sharing.Heritage Board accepted the database development timeline and tasks as presented. Heritage Board supports funding NHIMI (including Steering Committee travel) as a WO expense. Board requests that deferred maintenance report be fully functional. The Board accepts security suggestions as presented with the added suggestion that the Infra module incorporate FOIA issues. The NHIMI business team will prepare a formal plan for external data sharing that will address FOIA concerns.(Editor’s note: more information on INFRA is available at: INFRA; more information on NHIMI is available at: National Heritage Information Management Initiative Web Page; and if you still have a free minute, check out the draft USFS Heritage Program's National Home Page)

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Knowledge Management: Mike Dunn, NHIMI, presented the Board with the broad concept of “knowledge management” and asked if we want to develop a strategy to handle knowledge? This is a new concept that entails the development of tools for capturing information and knowledge developed in one part of an organization in a way that allows other parts of the organization to benefit. This may be as simple as an electronic bulletin board or an Internet chat room devoted to Heritage discussions. The initial question quickly evolvedinto a question about the work and responsibilities of NHIMI: Does the Board want NHIMI to address some knowledge management tasks? There was some concern among the Board members that NHIMI may be taking on too much – perhaps NHIMI should just focus on completing INFRA database? The Board decided that it is time to re-circulate the NHIMI charter for review. The Board agreed to cautiously embraceknowledge management principles and to seek additional information for presentation at the next meeting.

Passport in Time and Heritage Expeditions: Jill Osborn, WO Heritage, and Carol Ellick, from the PIT Clearinghouse, provided a quick review of PIT accomplishments. Perhaps the most important message was that PIT continues to survive and even thrive despite budget challenges. Many volunteers are using the Web site (www.passportintime.com) and the Internet application process. This innovation saves time and money for the Clearinghouse and the agency.There will be a protected area of the Web site for USFS use – projectleaders will be able to input hours upon project completion and submit stories for the Traveler. Current and previous issues of PIT Traveler available – ideal for fairs, displays, other public information opportunities. Contact the Clearinghouse to request. TheClearinghouse has re-instituted the previous practice of sending a PIT Traveler with cover letter to every Congressional delegation in whose district there is a PIT project.

Jill also reported on the national Recreation Fee Demo meeting. She found that Heritage Expeditions do not have the same issues that larger Fee Demo projects face – no problems with people not paying ornot wanting to pay fees; no pay machines to maintain, and no conflictwith other recreation passes.There is, however, a problem with demand exceeding supply. The Outfitter and Guide community wants to help provide more Expeditions and they want more opportunities for partnerships. The Recreation Solutions Enterprise Team still wants to help market Expeditions and

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

they are under the impression that if they bring us more demand, we can produce supply. Jill has not dispelled this perception – she would rather work on increasing our capability to produce the supply.She is still exploring opportunities with Recreation Solutions.Jill noted that the Heritage Expeditions at Ninemile are exceedingly popular. They have the ability to add sessions when existing ones fill up. Mike Beckes added that the Ninemile courses for USFS folks were in danger because USFS had no money for training – Expeditions kept them solvent. In the following discussion, Board members suggested that we need shorter, less expensive Expeditions and ones that are easier to set up. We need find ways to provide greater benefits to the resources. We need the flexibility to add sessions to Expeditions as demand increases. We need to provide a mix of those like Ninemile and more extensive or expensive ones (like a Hells Canyon jet boat trip).One Board member (one with a case of extreme, incurable, wanderlust) suggested that we ought to investigate a “Sister Forest” approach forestablishing partnerships with foreign countries on PIT and Heritage Expeditions. Another suggested that we offer longer projects in a “potpourri-menu” format. The Heritage Board decided to create a task group to develop a plan of action, help for new starts, and guidelines for Heritage Expeditions. Task group members will includeJim Keyser, Sue Marvin, Judy Propper, and a representative from Ninemile. The results are to be presented at the next meeting.

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Fire: Will Reed, Intermountain Regional Heritage Service Team, is amember of the National Interagency Cultural Resource Advisory Group working on implementation of the Wildland Fire policy. Reed reviewedthe development and progress of the National Interagency Fire Programmatic Agreement (covered in the Heritage Times 10(1)). He discussed the relationship and involvement with NPS, Tribes, and other agencies (BIA, BLM, and F&WS). While there is some question about the number of agencies that will eventually participate in the programmatic agreement, the Park Service continues to support the development of the PA. Rob Jackson, Pacific Legacy, is now working on the protocols for BAER as well as fine-tuning the protocol for prescribed fire and fuels management. A complete draft PA will be available for review this summer. Reed also discussed BAER training and noted that a draft curriculum developed by Mike McIntyre is available for trial use. Region 5 usedMcIntyre’s lesson plan for Heritage and hiss companion lesson plan for BAER and Fire personnel will be used at the next BAER Team Leadertraining. Reed continues to work with the national BAER training group and will be using the same lesson plans in other settings. Several Board members are becoming involved in training. .While on the subject of training, Reed mentioned that the Park Service has a training program that is specifically directed at developing Fire Plans as required under the national Wildland Fire policy. The NPS training for requires joint attendance by archaeologists and fire personnel. The training is excellent but restricted to small classes of primarily NPS employees. More trainingopportunities are needed and Reed suggests that this training should become NIFC-level course. A suggestion was made to work more closely National Fire CoordinationGroup and National Incident Commanders. Reed noted that we still have trouble with resource protection during fire suppression but we are making progress as Heritage personnel are increasingly recognizedas resource advisors on fire assignments.

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Emerging Issues: The last agenda item introduced several topics that will be with us for the foreseeable future. Denise McLemore, Eldorado NF, came to the meeting with a concern about FS response to FERC relicensing of hydroelectric facilities. This is a major issue in R5 and likely to affect other Regions as energy demands spread across the country. FERC is taking an active lead to develop programmatic agreements, but so far, these tend to lack the detail needed to address the consequences of power generation. Among the notable shortcomings, Tribal consultation is usually lacking. Deniserecounted her experience as she successfully incorporated a performance bond in “4e” conditions. She cited on-going impacts to National Forest lands during previous FERC licensing periods and she recommended that the WO evaluate and investigate bonding opportunities with an eye to policy development, potential for litigation, Regional Forester(s) support, and improved FERC cooperation. Kaczor will follow-up.Mike Beckes brought up the challenges created in R1 by State and Private Forestry grants – grants that did not consider the potential for adverse impacts on heritage resources on private or state lands. This issue affects several Regions and demands national attention. There is a clear need for closer coordination with S&PF regarding projects well before the grants are made.

At the very tail end of the meeting, after several members had departed, Will Reed briefly reviewed several issues that need attention at the national level. He was particularly concerned aboutNHPA compliance requirements for linear projects. With the prospect of new transmission lines and corridors, we need to draw the line close to NFS boundaries when defining the area of potential effect for Section 106. Reed also noted that metal detector use is still a problem for many Forests and should be addressed with a national policy. These will be addressed or revisited at the next meeting.Recognitions: At various points during the meeting, several team members were recognized for their contributions to particular projects and the national program as follows:Jeff Overturf: from R10, Certificate of Appreciation “For outstandingskills as an instructor in presenting the INFRA Heritage Module in R10.”

Sandi Forney from WO, Certificate of Appreciation ”For leading the Meaningful Measures team.

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Terri Liestman: from WO, Certificate of Appreciation “ For dedicationto Regional and National database management and development of program business tools.”

Mike Dunn: from WO, Certificate of Achievement “For unselfish dedication and work on National Heritage Information Management Initiative and successful release of INFRA.”

Mike Beckes: from Mike Kaczor, fly-fishing flies for “cool” head during the fires of 2001.

Jill Osborn: from Mike Kaczor, “Cool-as-a-Moose” water bottle and a $20 bill for exemplary program delivery.

Passport in Time:Jill Osborn, Washington Office Detached Unit – Boise

As of this writing, I have 26 proposals for the September PIT Traveler (December 1, 2001 – May 31, 2002). This is slightly down from 29 in the last winter/spring season but still a good showing! Since there are so few proposals, the process should go quickly, so I’m feeling magnanimous enough to extend the absolute drop-dead deadline for new proposals to July 3. Proposals submitted by this late date must not leave me with too many questions that I have to track you down to answer!What we really need for this issue are stories, project summaries, photographs, and drawings. Send these directly to the PIT Clearinghouse at pit@sricrm.com. For summaries, remember to include author name, title, forest, project year, and state in the heading. Photographs must include a caption in addition to the above information. Please do not imbed graphics or photos in your summary text; submit them separately. Carol Ellick recently sent out a note to all project leaders detailing photograph standards and how to download your photos to the Clearinghouse. If you did not see that memo, let me (208-373-4162) or Carol (520-722-2716) know, and we’ll send it to you again.An innovative PIT Leader from R4 has proposed a great idea – Virtual PIT; following the daily progress of a PIT project through video clips and stories on the Web. This would be a fun way for “armchair”pit travelers to follow a project if they can’t be there in person, and it would provide one more method of access to PIT experiences forthe many volunteers who don’t get selected on their first choice project. It would make the most sense for the hosting forest to manage the site on their forest web page and for the PIT Clearinghouse to create a link. If anyone out there is already doing

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

this or could be a pilot for such an idea, give me a call!

Lolo NF Archeologists Deploy to KoreaC. Milo McLeod, Forest Archeologist, Lolo National Forest

The Forest Service has supported the Army Environmental Center (AEC), Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, for several years with a liaison position. Currently, Mark Cleveland, NE Area State and Private Forestry, holds the liaison position at AEC. Cleveland supports the AEC by providing expertise in natural and cultural resource managementfrom within the National Forest System to other agencies within the Department of Defense (DOD).C. Milo McLeod and Jennifer Eberlien, archeologists from the Lolo National Forest, have worked on several AEC projects throughout the United States. Last year, McLeod and Eberlien were asked to develop anIntegrated Natural and Cultural Resource Management Plan (IN&CRMP) forthe Eighth United States Army (EUSA) in the Republic of Korea. These plans are required for all DOD installations located within the UnitedStates. They are not required, however, for installations located overseas. Nevertheless, EUSA, in a demonstration of good stewardship for natural and cultural resources on the lands they occupy in Korea, recognized the need for an IN&CRMP. The EUSA IN&CRMP is modeled aftera similar plan prepared by AEC for the US Marine Corps in Okinawa two years ago. The IN&CRMP will help conserve natural and cultural resources in ways that enhance the EUSA training and readiness mission. It will also serve as “corporate memory” in an environment where key people (environmental and facilities managers) rotate back to the United States every two to three years. Finally, the IN&CRMP will increase EUSA competitiveness for funds for mission essential projects as well as serve as an excellent public relations tool. Korea today is experiencing a high awareness of environmental issues and EUSA must demonstrate a commitment to environmental stewardship.Cleveland, McLeod, and Eberlien traveled to Korea in September 2000 for 30 days to meet with Eighth US Army unit commanders, facilities and environmental personnel. They traveled throughout Korea and visited several EUSA installations, training areas and firing ranges. Common natural resource issues they encountered were erosion, wetlands, forest fire prevention and urban forestry. Typical culturalresource issues include the management of Korean graves (many installations and training areas have numerous Korean burial mounds or“senso” on their lands), management of Korean pagodas and stone

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

statues and archeological sites. The Forest Service team found that EUSA has been doing a good job of natural and cultural resource management over the years. However, no protocol or standing operatingprocedure exists for initiating controlled burns, tree pruning or the disposition artifacts or Korean cultural items. The IN&CRMP will provide standing operating procedures for the management of natural and cultural resources on lands currently under the stewardship of EUSA in the Republic of Korea. McLeod and Eberlien prepared a draft IN&CRMP and returned to Korea foranother 30 days in February and March, distributing the plan to installation commanders and environmental staff. McLeod has over 25 years experience as a US Army and National Guard soldier with both active duty and reserve component service. He has served in Korea on three separate occasions with “Team Spirit,” an annual military exercise. This experience is helpful for understanding the issues andtraining mission requirements for EUSA and their ability to effectively implement the IN&CRMP in the future. Jennifer Eberlien’sexperience in natural and cultural resource management and her production skills from other AEC details makes her a critical member of the EUSA IN&CRMP team. Finally, Lori Erickson a computer specialist accompanied the McLeod and Eberlien to Korea in February toassist with putting the draft IN&CRMP onto the EUSA intranet for easy review and comment by Eighth Army staff.The IN&CRMP team works in a unique environment with numerous challenges such as: working within the military and DOD civilian structure, living with rigid high security measures on military installations, coping with a foreign language and the challenges of negotiating bus, subway and train systems in a foreign city of 12 million people. On the other hand, the team had the opportunity to visit numerous Korean cultural sites such as the Korean Folk village near Suwon, Kyongbokkung Palace in Seoul and the city of Kyongju, which is home to the Shilla dynasty that reined from 57 BC to 935 AD. They also experienced traditional Korean foods and marketplaces as well as the coldest snowiest winter in over 40 years! Jennifer Eberlien described the project as “A great opportunity. Never in my Forest Service career did I expect to work with old world archeology,”said Eberlien. “In the US our earliest archeological sites are usually 12,000 years old or later. In Asia, human history begins 500,000 years ago and includes the Bronze and Iron Age up to the historic period.”McLeod and Eberlien are currently working with comments and suggestions they received from EUSA on the draft IN&CRMP. They will

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

return to Korea in August and September 2001 to deliver the final product and assist EUSA with implementation of the IN&CRMP.

Web Notes Smoke Pfeiffer, Ozark-St. Francis

“Introduction to Section 106 Review”Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(Reproduction of a flyer distributed for course in Oklahoma City, April 2001)

Useful Resources on the WebReference documents:

Section 106 User’s Guidehttp://www.achp.gov/userguide.html

Federal Historic Preservation Case Law, 1966-1996.www.ach.gov/book/COVER1.html

Archive of Updates on Prominent Section 106 Cases.www.achp.gov/casearchive.html

Protecting Historic Properties: A Citizen’s Guide to Section 106Review.

www.achp.gov/citizenguide.html

National Register of Historic Places Regulations: 36 CFR Part 60www.archnet.uconn.edu/topical/crm/usdocs/36cfr60.html

How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluationwww.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nr15_toc.htm

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards & Guidelines or Archeology &Historic Preservation

www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_0.htm

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitationwww2.cr.nps.gov/tps/tax/rehabstandards.htm

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Program Web Sites:Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

www.achp.gov

National Register of Historic Placeswww.cr.nps.gov/nr/index.htm

National Park Service Tribal Preservation Programwww2.cr.nps.gov/tribal/index.htm

National Park Service Archaeology and Ethnology Programwww.cr.nps.gov/aad

Bureau of Indian Affairswww.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html

Technical Preservation Services for Historic Buildingswww2.cr.nps.gov/tps/index.htm

National Center for Preservation Technology& Trainingwww.ncptt.nps.gov

Available Publications:

National Register Publicationswww.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications

NPS Links to the PastPublications

www.cr.nps.gov/linkpubs.htmMost Council publications are available in print form and can be obtained by calling or e-mailing Paulette Washington at (202) 606-8512 or pwashington@achp.gov

Web Notes 2: Internet Resources for Historic PreservationRicha Wilson, Regional Architectural Historian, Intermountain Region

As discussed in the last issue, the Internet is a treasure trove of information for historic preservation treatments. It’s also a great resource for anybody carrying out historic research. Some websites contain full documents, photos and maps, while others point the way tosource material. For the latter, I often go to www.amazon.com for bibliographic searches or to complete a partial citation. The

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

searchable bibliography of the Vernacular Architecture Forum (http://www.vernaculararchitecture.org/) will guide you to more obscure journal articles and books. Don’t forget to check the on-line libraries of universities and other educational institutions. Of note is the Center for Research Libraries (http://wwwcrl.uchicago.edu/), a consortium of colleges, universities and libraries that makes research materials available.For primary source material, the National Archives and Records Administration (http://www.nara.gov/) is a must. Several of the NARA branches have placed record guides on their websites, which makes it easier to prepare for a personal visit. Links to repositories of primary sources in the western United States and Canada are at http://www.uidaho.edu/special-collections/west.html and are sorted by state or territory.Government Land Office records can be searched at http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/. According to the website, “image access is provided to more than two million Federal land title recordsfor Eastern Public Land States, issued between 1820 and 1908. Images of Serial patents, issued between 1908 and the mid-1960's are currently being added.”Looking for information about physical and cultural geographic features? Nearly two million of them are listed in a database known as the Geographic Names Information System (http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/gnis/). The database includes the federally recognized name, as well as the location by state, county, and geographic coordinates, of each feature. Digital collections of the Library of Congress can be found at its American Memory project (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amhome.html). This excellent site has more than 5 million items from over 90 historical collections. Of particular note is the HABS/HAER searchable catalog (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hhhtml/hhhome.html).The University of Michigan has a digital library of primary sources “in American social history from the antebellum period through reconstruction.” Visit the library at http://moa.umdl.umich.edu/ for electronic access to historical texts.One site that may be of particular interest to federal agencies is theNew Deal Network at http://newdeal.feri.org/index.htm. It is an educational guide to the Great Depression and addresses such topics asAfrican Americans in the CCC and the TVA. It includes photographs andtext of original documents.

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

For other general history, have a look at sites like The History Net (http://www.thehistorynet.com/) which offers articles on a variety of subjects such as military conflicts, famous people, railroad land grants, and the Oregon Trail. Don Mabry’s Historical Text Archive (http://historicaltextarchive.com/) contains articles, books, photographs and documents, as well as numerous links to other resources.Other Notes and News

Infra Users’ Survey Now on InfraNet – Let’s Hear From You!Through the hard work of Infra users on every National Forest, Regional Office, Station, Lab, and the Washington Office, the Forest Service is making a tremendous start in building a national database and management tool pertaining to Forest Service lands, the constructed features on the land, and the permits and contracts that alter the land. But how can Infra help you better meet your day-to-day business needs? That’s what the new Infra User Survey is intended to uncover. We want to know how you are using Infra and if you’re not an active user, what obstacles stand in your way? Please take a few moments to complete the online survey at: http://pcs27.f16.r6.fs.fed.us/infra/survey/survey.asp. Good or bad, we need to hear from you!

Heritage MattersA call for articles is out for Heritage Matters, the publication of the Cultural Resources Diversity Initiative of the NPS Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnership Programs. The NPS publishes Heritage Matters twice annually and preparations are currently underway for the next issue. Readers are encouraged to submit articles, information on publications and projects, conference announcements, and other notices. Submitted material should be no more than 400 words and include the author’s name and affiliation. Black and white photos or slides would be welcome. Items may be transmitted in written form or electronically to: Brian D. Joyner, Editor, Heritage Matters, DOI/National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Suite NC 350, Washington, DC 20240. E-mail: brian_joyner@nps.gov.

Crime and Punishment

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Santa Barbara County Woman Convicted of Illegally Excavating Archaeological Site on the Los Padres National ForestOn June 15, 2001, a federal jury in the Central District of California determined that a Santa Barbara County woman is guilty of destroying archaeological resources linked to the Chumash tribe in the Los Padres National Forest.Patricia E. Hogan, 34, was convicted of three felonies including violation of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act as well as two counts of Depredation of Government Property. Hogan moved on or about April 23, 1998, a recreational use only cabinthat she owned on leased Forest Service lands, knowing archaeologicalresources were present. During the move, Hogan caused significant damage to archaeological remains of a prehistoric Chumash seasonal village site. Some of the artifacts within this site date back to 2000B.C. In addition, Hogan caused to be cut oak trees, and other vegetation.Hogan, in 1996 had been issued a Special Use Permit to occupy Forest Service lands with severe restrictions in the permit. The permit, which authorized use on a recreational basis only, expressly prohibited Hogan from undertaking any excavating, construction activity, improvements or alterations to the property without first notifying and receiving authorization from the Forest Service. In 1997, a Native American who is an expert in reading cultural surface artifacts warned Hogan that her cabin and garage were on a major archaeological site. Hogan was shown evidence of that site. The Native American warned Hogan not to move her cabin and garage andcause damage to the archaeological site and not to break her lease with the Forest Service.In 1998 Hogan moved her cabin and garage, without authorization from the Forest Service. Hogan later claimed that she had moved her cabin and garage due to an emergency situation caused by El Niño storms. The Federal Jury found that there was no emergency situation at the time the cabin and garage were moved from their original location.Hogan will be sentenced by the United States District Senior Judge Robert M. Takasugi on September 24, 2001, at which time the defendant faces a maximum possible sentence of 23 years in federal prison.

Meetings

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

Federal Preservation Forum 13th Annual Meeting: November 26-29,2001- Riverside, CA. The meeting will take place at the historic Mission Inn. The preliminary agenda includes a number of cutting-edge preservation topics. We are looking for other agenda suggestions as well as for anyone who would like to participate in any of these sessions.The opening panel on Monday afternoon will examine The Future of Preservation with invited speakers John Fowler, Executive Director ofthe Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Francis McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archaeologist, National Park Service. A special Federal Preservation Officer Forum will follow with a discussion of controversial issues facing agencies today.Other sessions will include: Innovative Interagency Cultural ResourceManagement in California, The Bottom Line: Balancing Responsibility for Resource Protection and Resource Use, Managing Historic Resources, Loss of Professionalism, Health and Safety, and Preserve the Recent Past.In conjunction with the FPF meeting, we are offering two special, 1 ½day training courses on Thursday and Friday. The National Preservation Institute will offer Dr. Tom King’s CRM: Its History andEthics, while ESRI will offer GIS training. These two courses will have fees separate from the FPF meeting. For additional information check: The Federal Preservation Forum

If you would like to participate on a panel contact Kathleen Schamel, FPF President Elect;202-690-1164;

Kathleen_Schamel@wdc.usda.gov

The SAA meetings page: http://www.saa.org/Meetings/index.htmlOctober 16-21, 2001: Oral History Association Annual Meeting –

St. Louis, Missouri

“Bearing Public Witness: Documenting Memories of Struggle andResistance”

Contacts: Oral History Assn. Program Committee, c/o Prof. LeslieBrown, Program in African and Afro-American Studies, Washington

University, One Brookings Dr. St. Louis MO 63130-4899; Fax 314-935-5631; 314-935-7279

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

November 28-December 2, 2001: The 100 th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association – Washington, DC.

www.aaanet.orgContacts: AAA Meetings Department, 4350 N. Fairfax Dr. Suite 649,

Arlington VA 22203-1620; (703) 528-1902 ext. 2 or email:jmeier@aaanet.org

People, awards, and miscellany

Archeological technicians honored for heroism: Last May, 2000, threeSuperior National Forest archaeological technicians, Bill Clayton, Ryan Byerly and Jenny Dahl, performed the heroic act of saving the lives of three individuals, two adults and a 14-year-old boy, whose canoe capsized in strong winds and turbulent water on Ensign Lake. The conditions on the lake were abysmal, winds ranging from 25 to 35+mph, and temperature at 50 degrees, with windchills below freezing. If Bill, Ryan and Jenny had not responded as quickly, surely and decisively as they did, this event would have most likely ended in tragedy. Last November, Bill, Ryan and Jenny were selected for the Regional Foresters Honor award in the category of heroism. Their nomination went forward to the Department. Congratulations to Bill Clayton, Ryan Byerly and Jenny Dahl on their selection for the Department of Agriculture's 2001 Honor Award in the category of Heroism and Emergency Response.

African American Heritage Project Honored: On June 4th U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman presented awards to representatives of two teams for projects completed last year in the Hoosier National Forest (NF). The teams were two of 15 selected from nationwide nominations. The Heritage team is recognized “for innovative methods in creating employment opportunities for minority students to research the African American heritage of the Southern Tier forests and the Underground Railroad.” The southern tier forests are the Hoosier NF, Indiana; Shawnee NF, Illinois; and Wayne NF, Ohio. Team members include Angie Krieger and Sarah Arthur, Bedford office of the Hoosier NF; Ann Cramer, Wayne NF; Marlene Rivero, Elizabeth Fuller, and team leader Mary McCorvie, Shawnee NF. African American Heritage: The purpose of this project was to provideemployment opportunities to minority students to research the African

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!

American heritage of south central Indiana and the Underground Railroad. Little is known of the African Americans who settled in southern Indiana in the early years of the 19th century, according toAngie Krieger, Hoosier NF archaeologist. She added that the forest’swork at the Lick Creek Settlement south of Paoli has uncovered some of the past of these courageous settlers. “There are currently only about 20 African American archaeologists,” Krieger said. “We saw this research as an opportunity to get college students excited abouttheir heritage and perhaps interested in a career in archaeology.” Two African American students researched the Lick Creek Settlement and its role in the Underground Railroad last year which helped increase knowledge about local African American history.

More information about this project is available on theHoosier NF website:www.fs.fed.us/r9/hoosier.

The Heritage Program – It’s about time!