Message #273:
From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG
To:   "'Matthias Giessler'" 
Subject: USFS Heritage Times Vol 6 No 5 (August 20, 1996) 
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 15:00:00 MST
Encoding: 568 TEXT

Forest Service Heritage Program
 -- Heritage Times Vol 6 No 5 ( August20, 1996 )

         The Rec Directors' Meeting
                    NCSHPOs Meeting
                    NFHR Budget Allocation Formula
                    Crime and Punishment
                    PIT News
                    Info Requests
                    Other News and Notes
                    Books +

  National Heritage Program Direction:

  Recreation Directors' Meeting
  Portland, Oregon
  July 10, 1996

On the afternoon of July 10, 1996, the National Recreation Leadership
Team (NRLT) turned their attention to a status review of the Heritage

For the first time since the major restructuring of the program in 1992,
the NRLT focused on the progress and problems facing the program.

The discussion was led by Roger Deaver, Region 3, and Dave Holland,
Region 8.

The Heritage Team was represented by Mike Beckes, R-1, Evan DeBloois,
WO, and Jim Keyser, R-6.

The goal of the meeting as to get support for reinventing the Heritage
program, acquire ownership and participation by the Recreation
Directors, and work to better integrate Heritage and Recreation

The purpose of the meeting was to outline a series of actions to be
taken over the next 3 years to continue to implement the 1992 heritage
strategy, to make specific assignments for the accomplishment of these
actions, and to establish targets for accomplishing these actions.

The NRLT reviewed and reaffirmed the 1992 Heritage Strategy. They
discussed the conditions that had changed since then, and specific
accomplishments and concerns from their Regions. Next the group focused
on the opportunities and possibilities for strengthening the program
through major re-engineering of the heritage program to increase the
public service outcomes and make the compliance process more flexible
and meaningful.

This approach, titled a "Framework for Managing Heritage", stresses the
development and implementation of a more holistic program based on the
section 110 requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The NRLT next turned to small group discussions to come up with a series
of actions that would move the program towards the goals outlined.

Four decisions were reached by the group, and were accompanied by
specific actions and deadlines.

Assignments were made to members of the NRLT and the Heritage Team to
take the lead in implementing each decision.

The group decided to continue the implementation of the 1992 strategy
and to implement the program changes called for in the "Framework".

They agreed to address budgetary and accountability issues.

They decided to improve the integration of Recreation and Heritage
through a variety of means including training.

And, finally, they decided to focus on the external and internal
marketing of heritage to increase the visibility and acceptability of
the program.

As soon as the discussion leaders complete their assignment, we will be
able to share the completed decision document and the various actions
that were outlined.

The half-day meeting went extremely well, and the participation and
interest of the NRLT was very high.

We can anticipate significant change to occur over the next few years as
we work in concert with the NRLT to implement the actions selected.

It was another of the major milestones that will mark the evolution and
development of heritage management in the Forest Service. The meeting's
success was due to the efforts of the entire Heritage Team, who
submitted materials, recommendations, and suggestions for the

Our thanks to the NRLT, and especially Roger Deaver and Dave Holland,
who sponsored and led the discussion on Heritage.

NCSHPO Reviews Proposed National Programmatic Agreements

The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers met in
Duluth, MN, on July 14-15, 1996.

On their agenda was a round table discussion of major national agreement
proposed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Because the Forest Service had alerted the NCSHPO that we were
presenting to the Recreation Directors earlier in the week, a proposal
to take similar action, we were invited to participate in the
discussion. The National Park Service which has just completed a
national PA, were also invited to be part of the discussion.

Due to the high interest in the subject, others attending represented
SAA, and the Advisory Council.

As the discussion developed, it was clear that the draft PA from the BLM
had generated considerable interest, and much of the discussion was
focused on that proposal.

Although the BLM and a task group of SHPOs, headed by Paul Putz of
Montana, had met recently in Salt Lake City to review the initial draft,
the considerably revised draft was not yet available for those in
attendance to review.

As a consequence, a lot of the concerns expressed were reported to have
been addressed in the revision. SHPOs, those from the west primarily,
were concerned about being asked to endorse a PA that would implement
standards and guidelines that the BLM promised to develop in the future.
Many were more interested in what these standards would be and what role
the States might have in their development or review prior to

Although we were under the impression prior to the meeting that the
entire afternoon would be devoted to this topic, in fact the agenda
allotted only an hour and a half to national PAs with time also
scheduled to discuss predictive models and tribal certification issues.

As a result, the Forest Service was limited to 15 minutes following the
BLM discussion.

Rather than attempt to provide details of what we were looking for in a
new heritage process, we outlined the process for developing a PA. We
invited SHPOs to discuss a redefinition of the agency-SHPO relationship.

We indicated that we would develop the standards and guidelines under a
general memorandum of understanding, and then execute an implementing PA
at the end.

Although we had very little time to present our ideas, several SHPOs
came up after the meeting and indicated a strong interest in working
with us.

The Heritage Budget Allocation Process

With the decision to separate project support dollars from base heritage
dollars beginning in 1996, it became critical for the Heritage program
to develop new criteria for allocating NFHR funds.

No longer were acres surveyed, sites found, and projects cleared,
appropriate measures of the accomplishments of the program.

The NFHR funds were now tied primarily to resource stewardship and
public service.

Beginning with a session on the budget at the Heritage Team's meeting in
Asilomar, California, in November, 1995, we have spent a considerable
amount of effort looking at a variety of criteria and measures that
would reflect heritage accomplishments. Following Asilomar, a Heritage
budget task force, chaired by Kent Schneider, reviewed and refined a
list of measures developed at the Asilomar meeting.

Another team (C-team) formed by PD&B in the WO, worked on
recommendations from the Regional Foresters for revising the allocation
criteria of several budget areas including heritage.

The draft report from the Heritage budget task force was circulated to
the Heritage Team members for review in early July, 1996.

That report generated considerable amounts of comment and suggestions
which we have taken into consideration in preparing this version of the
heritage budget allocation formula. Although there are a great many
elements we could and have considered as the measures for a successful
heritage program, we do not want to create a new and complex reporting

We are, therefore, most interested in identifying a few significant
measures that are reliable, measurable, and reportable that both reflect
on heritage accomplishments and do not create major problems of
validation and reporting.

               Heritage Budget Allocation Criteria

               Resources     60%
               *  Number of inventoried properties          (25%)
               *  National Forest System acres              (25%)
               *  Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs)            (10%)

               Incentive Factors   25%
               *  New interpretive projects (prior year)    (6.25%)
               *  New outreach projects (prior year)        (6.25%)
               *  Heritage volunteer hours (prior year)     (6.25%)
               *  Sites protected (prior year)              (6.25%)

               Complexity Factors  15%
               *  Number of Tribes                          (5.0%)
               *  Number of SHPOs                           (2.5%)
               *  Number of Forests                         (2.5%)
               *  ARPA cases (prior year)                   (5.0%)
Inventoried properties:

formally documented on site form, assigned site number, located on map,
with description.

Does not include isolated occurrences or objects.

National Forest System acres:

as reported in "Land Areas of the National Forest System."

RVDs: recreation visitor days.

Use total number.

Number of Tribes:

number of federally recognized Tribes within the Region.

Number of SHPOs: number of State Historic Preservation Officers
represented within the Region

Number of Forests:

number of Forest Supervisor offices/administrative units.

For example, Wasatch-Cache Nfs would count as a single Forest, as would
National Forests of Alabama.

Number of ARPA cases:

formally documented LE case reports, arrests, or citations.

Each case counted must be accompanied by a completed LOOT form.

New Interpretive projects: count only:

1) formal interpretive plans; 2) published brochures; 3) exhibits; 4)
interpreted sites with signs, interpretive trails, or regularly
scheduled guided tours; 5) videos/slide-tape programs.

New Outreach projects -- count only:

1) PIT projects; 2) other PIT-like volunteer projects; 3) exhibit or
booth at archeology fair/earth day; 4) formal school or group
presentations (non-professional society); 5) formal site tour for the
public. Each event must be documented.

Heritage volunteer hours:

formally documented with volunteer agreements.

Sites protected:

count only formally documented: 1) ruins stabilized; 2) buildings
stabilized or rehabilitated; 3) sites monitored/inspected and documented
(not sec. 106 related). Do not include routine maintenance of historic

Adjustments and Limitations

Since this new heritage budget allocation formula will likely affect the
shares of the annual appropriation of NFHR going to each Region, limits
of change are established to provide for a period of transition as the
adjustment to the new formula takes place.

No Region will receive a increase or decrease in funding greater than 5%
in any fiscal year.

No Region will receive less than 5% of the available budget no more than

Due to the higher cost of doing business in Alaska, a +40% adjustment
will be made in the amount of NFHR allocated.

If the base allocation plus the adjustment is less than the 5% minimum,
the minimum will apply.


The proposed allocation criteria are an interim step toward
implementation of Meaningful Measures for the Heritage program. The
Heritage Meaningful Measures are in draft form and will not be
operational for about a year.

However, many of these allocation criteria can be "crosswalked" to the
proposed Meaningful Measures.

This allocation formula uses a limited set of measures which serve as
indicators of the resource base and the potential for public use.

It provides for incentives for public service activities focusing on
major categories of heritage activities. It uses numbers that either
require documentation and validation or are available from sources other
than heritage staff. This provides for independent measures to
contribute to the allocation process.

Complexity measures are also independent of heritage program activities
but reflect upon the amount and difficulty of heritage work in each

Although the allocation percentages by Region are not radically
different from historical percentages, there are fluctuations based on
the new measures, and the possibility of future shifts based on the
performance of the Regional programs.


  From: Steve Dondero sdondero@TRMX3.DOT.CA.GOV
  To: Multiple recipients of list MUSEUM-L, MUSEUM-L@home.dc.LSOFT.COM
  Subject: Sierra Mono Museum Basketry Theft
  Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:33:38 -0800

I have been asked to post this message by the curator of the Sierra Mono

Please reply directly to the museum at P.O. Box 275, North Fork, CA
93643. 209-877-2115.

Sorry no e-mail address.

Sometime between Wednesday evening and Thursday morning, August 8-9,

the Sierra Mono Museum was broken into and 50-100+ Native California
Indian baskets were stolen, along with at least one ceremonial obsidian

Museum officials stated that baskets were removed from both the display
cases and storage areas.

Please forward this message to whoever you feel can help in this matter.

The Sierra Mono Museum is a small, locally-operated facility and have
limited resources.

The Museum and the Madera County Sheriff Department would appreciate any
suggestions, information, advise, etc. from those in the museum
community on how to get this information out to the larger community of
art dealers world-wide.

Staff can provide photos/descriptions of the baskets upon request.

PIT News: J.Osborn:R04F02A

* The September 1996 PIT Traveler will advertise 29 projects taking
place between December 1, 1996 and May 31, 1997, a healthy showing for a
winter/spring season.

Every region is hosting at least one project, even Alaska in the winter!

* The March 1997 PIT Traveler will feature rock art, with a cover story
by Gordon Peters, about the original petroglyph from which the PIT Moose
logo comes.

Gordon is the Superior NF Archaeologist and originator of PIT.

Jim Keyser has also agreed to do a guest article about rock art, its
importance and mystique.

Be thinking about projects for next summer and if possible, do something
with rock art to support the "theme". The call letter for the 1997
summer season won't come out until October, so this is a VERY advanced

* Some of you have heard rumors about pressure to charge PIT volunteers
for their experiences.

At the regional recreation directors' behest, I am

exploring potential heritage-based "recreation fee demonstration
projects". Currently, efforts focus on maintaining the volunteer nature
of PIT and developing other Windows On The Past heritage experiences for
which there would be a fee.

Rest assured, I consider all the PIT project leaders the owners of PIT
and no sweeping change to that program will occur without your

* Cathy Poetschat of Friends of PIT recently visited Washington DC and
dropped in on Gray Reynolds, Deputy Chief for NFS, Lyle Laverty,
Director of RHWR, and Dave Heerwagen, Deputy Director of RHWR.

They met with Cathy for about an hour and heard how much the public
enjoys and appreciates the opportunity to volunteer with PIT.

FOP is working very hard to support PIT and the Heritage Program in


From the Training Table: J.Osborn:R04F02A

* Thank you for all the comments on the Heritage Core Courses. A new
draft including all the latest comments and suggestions will be
available shortly.

That draft will go forward to the RHWR training effort and to personnel
for coordination with the standard position descriptions they are

* Bill Woodland, distance learning coordinator on the WO RHWR staff is
spearheading an effort to develop core competencies for all RHWR

The Heritage core competencies will play a big role, since we are the
first to develop these for our program.

Woodland is pulling together a team of subject matter specialists
(SME's) to coordinate the RHWR competencies.

The Heritage SME's are Mike Beckes-R1, Will Reed-R4, Linda Lux-R5, Rick
Kandare-R9, and myself-WO.

* Region Six is offering the first pilot of a NAGPRA course at their
heritage meeting, the week of November 18-22, 1996. The course will be
one day and will cover the basics of NAGPRA, on-going management, and
new discoveries.

It will not cover NAGPRA inventories and summaries.

The meeting agenda has not been finalized, but the NAGPRA course will
probably take place on Wednesday, Sept. 20.

If you are interested in attending this course, please contact Jim
Keyser, Regional Archaeologist at 503-326-6711.

* The above NAGPRA course is also being expanded to include inventories
and summaries and will be a 1 1/2 day course available nationally next

It is tentatively scheduled for the R8/9 University in February 1997,
and may be "piloted" in one other location in the west during Spring

Ultimately, it will be a portable course with video and workbook or

* Daniel Mattson, Colville NF Archaeologist is developing a course
outline for Heritage Interpretation which will also be available next

The course will include process (conception to production), medium
(print/posters, trail signage, tours, video, CD Rom, etc) and production
(the nuts and bolts of producing interpretation).

This'll be a good one!

Basic Photography Applications in Cultural Resource Management Jule

The Park Service, in cooperation with the Forest Service Remote Sensing
Applications Center, is offering a comprehensive training course to be
offered at the Fort Laramie National Historic Site, September 9-13,

Uncertainty in funding resulted in this short notice.

FS employees are invited to attend.

An abbreviated course description is provided below.

For additional info and registration, contact Gail Shaw of the
Geometronics Service Center in SLC -- phone 801-975-3660.

Course Description: The Basic course deals with vertically acquired
aerial photos and with terrestrial photos.

This course in photo use includes: photograph and camera
characteristics, preparation of photos, stereoscopy, map to photo image
matching, using reference points and stereoscopy, image attributes and
interpretation, scaling, estimation of object length, area, volume, and
height from photo measurements, effective area boundary location, land
use and land cover analysis, species identification, orienteering
(determine bearings and distances and use photos in the field to locate
imaged features), transfer of data between photos and maps, color and
black and white infrared emulsions, change detection using photos,
sources of photos and support, photo preservation procedures, follow on

Field exercises will permit hands-on use of the imagery interactively as
a tool for site investigation and analysis.

Student materials provided for student use during class AND FOR STUDENTS
TO TAKE HOME include aerial photographs, terrestrial photographs, LALS
photographs, a lab syllabus, selected measuring instruments, suggested
reading list, and problems and projects for completion during class.

Materials provided for student use ONLY DURING THE CLASS include a
handheld stereoscope, engineers scale, and field compass.