Message #210:
From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG
To:   "'Matthias Giessler'" 
Subject: Forest Service Heritage Program -- The Heritage Times
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:36:33 -0700 (MST)
Mime-Version: 1.0


From: /S=W.REED/OU1=R04F02A@mhs-fsbo.attmail.com


                                                                               
  HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
  H|                   H|         |H|        |H|    |H|    |H|      |H|      |H
  H| The               HHHH|  |HHHHHHHH|  |HHHH|  |  H  |  |H|  |HHHHH|  |HHHHH
  H| Forest Service    HHHH|  |HHHHHHHH|  |HHHH|  |H   H|  |H|    |HHH|      |H
  H| Heritage Program  HHHH|  |HHHHHHHH|  |HHHH|  |HH HH|  |H|  |HHHHHHHHH|  |H
  H|                   HHHH|  |HHHHH|        |H|  |HHHHH|  |H|      |H|      |H
  HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
  HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH|  Volume 6: Number 4  June 24, 1996  |HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
  
  IN THIS ISSUE:    Editor's Corner .....................   
                          EO 13007  .....................   
                          Budget notes ..................  2
                    Crime and Punishment ................  5
                    PIT News ............................  6
                    ZiNj Lives! .........................  6
                    Heritage Tourism Update .............  7
                    Training ............................  8
                    Meetings ............................  9
                    Info Requests ....................... 10
                    Other News and Notes ................ 12
                    Books + ............................. 13
                    People -- Awards! ................... 18
  

==============================================================================

==============================================================================
  Editor's Corner:
  
On the occasion of the summer solstice, the Heritage Times
reappears above the electronic horizon -- and bigger than usual!
Some of this is old news, some is just advice, but it is all part
of the Heritage Program.
  
  Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996 - Indian Sacred Sites
  
Just in case you haven't seen the transmittal letter for this
Executive Order, here's a brief summary:  
  
EO 13007 requires Federal land managing agencies to accommodate
access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian
religious practitioners.  "Sacred Site" is defined as being any
specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land
identified by an Indian tribe or Indian individual who is an
appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion,
provided that the tribe or individual has informed the agency of
the existence of such a site. 
  
The EO will facilitate our goal of protection of sacred sites
through added emphasis on protection and through its definition
of sacred site as a discrete location.  Because it addresses only
federally recognized tribes, it should not affect our efforts to
protect sites important to non-federally recognized tribes.  The
EO does not define "Indian Religion" -- a critical element in the
definition of sacred sites and to the determination of an
authoritative representative of such a religion.  The EO requires
an implementation report which may necessitate additional
communication with tribes to identify sacred sites.  An extensive
review of regulatory and procedural changes necessary to
implement the EO is currently underway.
  
Until the WO completes an administrative review, and prepares
detailed instructions for implementation, it is probably best to
exercise great caution in any discussion of this Order.
  
  Heritage Budget Team Notes:
  
The Budget Team for the Heritage Program met in New Orleans
almost two months ago.  We were trying to decide on criteria to
be used in the budget allocation process for FY98.  For the past
several weeks I have been trying to decide what to report about
that meeting.  
  
The bottom line is that no decision has been reached.  I can tell
you that the Team is leaning toward an allocation process that
uses three factors: 1) a factor dealing with the known resource
base, 2) a public outreach factor, and 3) a factor designed to
address differences in program complexity.  These factors would
place almost equal weight on stewardship responsibilities and
public outreach, with the complexity factor to give some weight
to demographic situations (numbers of Tribes, numbers of SHPOs,
numbers of visitors, Capital Cities). 
  
Right now the Team is waiting for the results of some trial runs
using available numbers to test the proposed formula.  A draft
report should be finished within the next month.  That report
will be a recommendation for allocation, but there is no
certainty about implementation.  All I can say is that there
is a very serious move afoot to change the allocation process and
bring it more in line with the goals of the Heritage Program.
  
  A few more personal budget notes:
  
Over the past five years of the Times, I have offered a few
thoughts regarding the budget.  Over the past two years,
since we gained a new fund code to go with the Heritage Program
initiative, I have heard dozens of bizarre and disturbing
accounts of how NFHR dollars are being spent.  With the trend
toward budget reductions, we need to be wary of fiscal
machinations that divert NFHR dollars from the base program.
This is a touchy subject but one that every Heritage worker
should be concerned about.  Check with your Fiscal people
and run the numbers.  Find out where the NFHR dollars are going --
no one else is going to watch out for your program if you don't!
As the budget situation worsens, we need to ensure that NFHR
dollars pay for Heritage projects -- other dollars fund the project
compliance work.
  
Heritage is a multi-funded job, as are most programs in the
FS. Many programs have a core program and a support
responsibility. The core Heritage Program (NFHR) includes baseline 
inventory and evaluation, interpretation, public education, and 
training.  Our core program is described in the preamble to the 
NHPA: "to preserve the historical and cultural foundations of the
Nation as a living part of our community life and development in 
order to give a sense of orientation to the American people." 
  
The support side of our program has the same intent, but is
scheduled and delineated by a benefitting function.  The primary
goal in the support activity is congruent with the core program
but designed to avoid inadvertent damage of resources -- damage
that would preclude our ability to "preserve the historical and
cultural foundations of the Nation ...."
  
Programs that have both a core program responsibility and a
support responsibility, are multi-funded.  In the FS budget,
this
is the "charge as worked" direction or a "benefitting function
budget structure."  Heritage work is no exception: it is
partially funded out of the Heritage Program (NFHR) for core
program work, and funded from other functions to do work that
supports those "benefitting functions" eg. timber, range,
engineering, recreation, minerals, and others as appropriate.  
  
The test to determine who pays is to ask very bluntly: "what
program needs this work?"  When a program needs support in order
to carry out its responsibilities, the receiving program is
required to pay for that support.  Or, said differently, if it's
necessary to carry out your program, then it's your program
cost.
  
This is not a huge leap for us -- we've been doing it for years
with Section 106 compliance.  "Cultural clearance" is a cost of
doing business for timber for example, so timber has paid
heritage to provide that support; it's our old ET113 code -- an
activity code attached to the old NFCR fund code.  Heritage
support costs must be paid by the function needing support from
us because that support is necessary for their program.  
  
Another way of looking at this is to refer back to the budget
direction for NFHR dollars.  Most Fiscal officers skim right
over this because they learned their job before there was a Heritage
Program line item.  The direction is explicit: NFHR is for
Heritage activity, not support to any other function.
  
Until 1994, all heritage support, except timber, was included in
NFCR.  Since 1994, NFHR (the old NFCR) contains ONLY heritage
program funds.  That's why our budget went from 30 million
nationally to 14 million; the 30 million included support.  Now,
the other 16 million is spread throughout other functions to pay
for heritage support they need.  All functions should build this
expense into their budgets to buy whatever support they need. 
  
Likewise, Heritage must build into NFHR the support it needs
from other functions in order to do the Heritage job.  If, for
example, we need landline help to survey a site for interpretive
development,  we need to have money in NFHR to buy that support.
If we need engineering support to maintain a  historic structure
as part of an interpretive auto-tour, NFHR pays for that
support.
  
That's the theory and how the national budget direction reads.
Now, let's talk reality.  Nobody has enough money to do their
jobs.  We're all in this together so negotiation is often
necessary.  If Range needs a Heritage survey and doesn't have
enough money to pay for it in full, make a deal, but don't give
away the farm!  "OK Range, you need this job done and can't pay
the whole bill.  We'll kick in some NFHR dollars, and we will
look at this broader area which we know to contain some
important archaeological sites we'd like to evaluate."  Expand the
scope so that BOTH Range and Heritage benefit, so they both pay.
  
Another approach is to balance the equation by purposely buying
support from functions that are strapped for cash.  When the
Engineering budget dies, hire the Engineering survey crew to map
in a bunch of sites.  They'll remember it later and the
relationship will pay off in the long run.  Same thing for Range
or Minerals.  Hire them to prepare the topical histories you
need for contexts.  Far too often we operate in isolation from the
other disciplines when we get down to the nitty-gritty of NHPA
work and we forget how many subject matter experts are just down
the hall, behind the next divider, or out on the District.
  
One very special case where the Heritage program stands apart
from other functions is in the application of NHPA Sec. 110(g).
This little known and seldom applied section allows us the
option to pass along "reasonable" costs of preservation work
(inventory, evaluation, documentation, and even curation) as a condition of
the issuance of a permit.  This is especially appropriate in the
case of special use permits where the proponent is usually
completely outside any land management planning effort.
Sec. 110 is equally applicable in mining and grazing permit issuance but
the institutional barriers are much greater.
  
The Heritage program stands in a rather unique position where we
can develop projects to integrate activities beneficial to
almost any other function.  Deals are good.  Misappropriation of funds
is not.  The following are examples of misappropriation of
heritage (NFHR) funds: 
  
** NFHR pays salary and overhead for the archaeologist 100%,
   then, since there is no NFHR left, the archaeologist works
   solely for other functions, doing support.  This is not
   "charged-as-worked."
  
** NFHR funds are moved into other functions to pay for support
   without reprogramming authority.  This is how the old budget
   worked, when NFCR included support dollars.  In the new
   structure, NFHR does not include support, therefore cannot be
   moved into other functions without re-programming
   authority.  
If your Forest budget gurus are playing fast and loose with the
NFHR dollars please refer them back to the budget advice
provided in the WO Final PBMI.  The following is taken from the FY96
Planning and Budget Advice: 
  
"Field allocations in the NFHR EBLI are to be used for
implementing the Heritage Strategy and NHPA Section 110
direction.  Emphasis should be given to the production of public
benefits through "Windows on the Past" projects such as Passport
in Time, Heritage Tourism development, heritage interpretation,
historic building rentals, partnerships, and interagency
agreements and to developing heritage enhancement projects." 
  
  
  CRIME AND PUNISHMENT:
  
  Suspect Arrested for Looting Archeological Site on Tahoe National Forest
  
Nevada City.....Forest Service Law Enforcement personnel
apprehended one individual for looting an archeological site in
Yuba County on National Forest System lands.  The suspect,
Robert Charles Lord, was arrested on Sunday, May 12 and was taken
to the Sacramento County Jail.  Lord was charged on two counts of
felony for violating the Archeological Protection Act and for theft of
government property.  Forest Service officers and TNF
archeologists in cooperation with the Winters Police Department
conducted a search of his premises where they found additional
artifacts.
  
"This arrest was the culmination of 3 years of investigation and
surveillance," stated Laura Mark-Bailey, Special Agent on the
Tahoe National Forest.  Extensive damage was done to this
site by
individuals digging and sifting for artifacts.  Law enforcement
officers suspect that others have also been involved in digging
at the site.
  
The site is thought to be a village inhabited by the Nisenan
tribe from 500 to 1500 years ago.  According to Dick Markley,
Forest Archeologist, "The site is rich and complex and likely
contains important information about the culture of the native
peoples."
  
"These sites are very important in that they represent
aspects of our little known past and heritage," stated Donna Day, assistant
Forest Archeologist. "By randomly digging for artifacts, the
context of the site is destroyed.  It is like tearing pages out
of a book and then trying to understand the plot.  We can't
discover the whole history."
  
The investigation into this case is continuing.
  

==============================================================================
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

==============================================================================
  
  PIT News:
  J.Osborn:R04F02A
  
REMINDER:  PIT project proposals are due JULY 1 for projects
taking place between December 1, 1996 and May 31, 1997.
Note two things: 1) Please try to plan ahead to get your May projects in
this round of planning for the September Traveler.  We will no
longer squeeze May projects into the March Traveler!  2)
Note the proposal form has changed; same info, easier format.  If you've
lost or never received the May 16, 1996 Call for Proposals, DG
J.Osborn:R04F02A for a duplicate.
  
POSSIBLE FUNDING:  Keep your fingers crossed; RHWR in the WO
recently put PIT forward as their number one priority to the
National Forest Foundation.  If the NFF selects PIT as one
of its target programs, it might help us leverage some dollars for PIT
projects through partnerships.
  
Four PIT projects are currently listed on USDA Secretary
Glickman's calendar.  This calendar lists recreation events
across the country that the USDA Leadership will consider for
in-person visits!
  

==============================================================================

==============================================================================
  
  ZiNj Lives:
  
The Built Environment issue of ZiNj is hot off the press.  This
issue includes information about the Floating Forest Rangers on
the Chugach NF, fire lookouts, and Passport in Time projects.
  
The Rock Art issue of ZiNj is very close to being designed --
your ideas and last minute inspiration about prehistoric and
historic rock art are most welcome!  The issue builds
appreciation for this delicate resource and educates kids (and
families) about proper site visitation etiquette.  The
hero-sized pages of the magazine will become the steep walls of a
canyon for this issue!
  
  ****  Position/Contract with the ZiNj Education Project  ****
  
The ZiNj Education Project (ZEP) is a Forest Service Partnership
project.  We are open-minded about how to structure this
position/contract.  It is probably a 2-3 month assignment.  The
contract will be supervised by the ZiNj Education Project --
amount to be determined.  Make a proposal.  Work will be on-site
at ZEP, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  
Project Goals:  To improve communication between the USFS
and ZEP to identify opportunities for collaboration and cooperation
on a national basis.  To work with Forest Service personnel
to develop FS based articles, activities, and projects for ZiNj Magazine,
the ZiNj page on the World Wide Web, and ZiNj TV.  To find ways
to increase the use of ZiNj materials within the Forest Service
and to increase feedback from the field.  To explore ways of
connecting ZiNj to other Forest Service programs eg. Passport in
Time, Urban Tree House, and Windows on the Past.
  
Looking For: Someone who understands the Forest Service system
and can connect Forest Service units and personnel to ZEP
operations quickly and effectively.  Someone with exceptional
networking skills.  Someone who would love to get involved in an
effort to influence public attitudes and behavior regarding
heritage and natural resources.  Someone who can expand the
reach of Forest Service programs in schools, museums, and households
nationwide.
  
Please prepare a proposal with resumes and references.  We would
like to hire as soon as possible!  Contact Lydia Nibley,
Director ZiNj Education Project.  (801) 533-3530 or FAX (801) 533-3503
  

==============================================================================
  
  Heritage Tourism Initiative; Progress Report and FY97 Proposal
  Jerry Wylie:R04A
  
Background - The Heritage Tourism Initiative
  
In 1992, the USFS drafted a national policy on tourism and
hosted a national conference on tourism on public lands in Park City,
Utah.  Heritage tourism was an important topic at that
conference and several presenters became partners in the USFS heritage
tourism initiative.  That same year a USFS National Heritage
Strategy established heritage tourism as an agency goal.  
  
This led to the formation of a task force in 1993 with an
initial focus on the Four Corners region and several pilot projects:
1) A formal partnership with the Four Corners Heritage Council; 2) a
strategic workshop to define the goals and strategy of the USFS
Heritage Tourism Initiative; 3) a major inventory and assessment
of existing heritage tourism sites and providers in the Colorado
Plateau region; 4) a study, conducted by the University of
Denver-Colorado and Community First! Partners, to develop a
classification system, case studies, and bibliography on
Heritage Tourism; and 5) the development of a Heritage Tourism Notebook
and Toolkit. 
  
The results of these pilot projects include:
  
** Heritage Tourism and National Forests, a resource notebook
   (1993).
** Trails Through Time - Tourism for the Future strategic report
   (1994).
** "U.S. Forest Service Heritage Tourism Partnership in the
American Southwest," paper presented at an international
   conference in Montreal (1994).
** Colorado Plateau Heritage Tourism Study, report by the
   National Trust for Historic Preservation (1995).
** "Heritage Tourism Classification Study," report by Mike
Teskey
   and John Sem (1996).  
  
While we have not had total success, we have learned much and
have made some significant contributions to heritage tourism.
Our efforts have a logical progression and illustrate the
importance of working with partners and communities.  They range
from early efforts to learn about heritage tourism and identify
our particular niche, to the development of a strategy (draft),
and examples of successful heritage tourism projects and
principles.  The next step is a crucial one: to take what we
have learned and apply it as a management tool for the benefit of the
resource, our customers and partners, and communities. 
  
Currently under development, a Heritage Tourism and
Interpretation (HIT) Notebook and Toolkit will incorporate all
that we have learned over the past four years.  It will also
identify and summarize key resources currently available for use
by agencies, communities and groups who are interested in
heritage tourism.  There will be two parts, reference materials
and summaries of existing "tools."  Some of the key reference
materials will include: introduction to heritage tourism,
trends, training, sources of expertise, and bibliography.  The tools
section will be one-page summaries of programs, publications or
things like videos that are available from various sources.  
  
Funding is needed to complete the Notebook, purchase a total of
20 basic Toolkits (Notebook plus key "tools"), and provide
technical assistance with community-based projects involving
USFS heritage resources.  One copy of the Notebook will be
provided to each National Forest and one copy of the basic Toolkit will be
provided to each region.  Publication of the Notebook is
anticipated with a private-public partnership through the Four
Corners Heritage Council, and approximately S5,000 will be used
as a federal match for this cost-share project.  Another S7,000
will be used to provide technical assistance to the 2 or 3 pilot
projects.  A total of S20,000 has been requested for FY97 with
the remaining S8,000 to purchase materials for the Toolkits.    
   
The initial focus will be the Four Corners region, but one
of the pilot projects may be in another culture area in order to
provide a broader test.   The project will be coordinated by Regions
2, 3 and 4.  For more information, contact Jerry Wylie:R04A.  
  
  Editor's Note: the HIT notebook and toolkit project is an interagency effort
  of the Four Corners Heritage Council.  It involves the UTSHPO, NPS, BLM and
  Grand Canyon Trust.
  

==============================================================================

==============================================================================  
  TRAINING:
  
  Training needs, lists, and opportunities? 
  W.Reed and J.Osborn:R04F02A
  
Everyone seems to be working on training.  We are aware of the
following efforts underway:
  
1) FS Re-Engineering of Training: An agency-wide effort focused
on core competencies needed to meet the agency mission, an
integrated information system, evaluation of training
effectiveness, and a 50% reduction in the current direct cost.
The Design Team members represent all deputy areas within the
FS.  Keith Namock is the NFS representative.  Information
requests and comments may be sent to TRN_Manager:W01D. 
  
2) Charter for the RHWR Training Review and Re-Engineering
Design Team: a charter to "review and re-engineer RHWR training
processes, content, and systems".  Each program within RHWR will
be represented on the Design Team which will "develop a summary
of current RHWR training, identify the competencies necessary to
lead the program into the 21st century, and recommend course
modules and appropriate delivery systems."
  
3) The Heritage Training Board of Directors (Mike Beckes, Linda
Lux, Will Reed, Rick Kandare, and Jill Osborn) is developing a
list of Core Courses for heritage specialists; reviewing and
updating heritage content in existing courses such as the rec.
short courses, correspondence courses, etc; and maintaining a
consolidated list of available training.  The Core Courses list
shows needed skills and the training available or planned.  It
has not yet gone out for field review.  Current courses under
development include NAGPRA (R6) and a more general course on
management of traditional cultural properties and sacred sites
and American Indian consultation with a planned "pilot
course" in October 1996.
  
Contact J.Osborn:R04F02A or W.Reed:R04F02A for a copy of the
consolidated Heritage training list

==============================================================================