U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
 
Print Page
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Report
Meeting of the Preservation Board
Boise, Idaho
June 4-6, 2002

Agenda. The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Preservation Board held its tenth regular meeting on June 4-6, 2002, in Boise, Idaho. The meeting agenda is appended as pages 6 and 7 of this report. Cultural resource information and management decisions in Resource Management Plans were the meeting's predominant focus.
 
Attendees. Ex-officio Board members in attendance were acting Preservation Officer Marilyn Nickels and Deputy Preservation Officers (DPO) Bob King (AK), Gary Stumpf (AZ), Russ Kaldenberg (CA), Dan Haas (CO), Troy Ferone (ES), Stan McDonald (ID), Gary Smith (MT), Pat Barker (NV), Stephen Fosberg (NM), Richard Hanes (OR), Garth Portillo (UT), and Tim Nowak (WY). The Board's 6 term members, managers Roberta Moltzen (MT), Greg Thomsen (CA), Gail Acheson (AZ), and Sue Richardson (OR), and specialists Kirk Halford (CA) and Carol Anne Murray (WY), also attended. It was the final meeting for term members Moltzen, Thomsen, and Halford.
 
Also present as an observer was Dr. Robin Burgess, currently Cultural Resource Manager for the Air Mobility Command of the U.S. Air Force, who will be assuming the role of Preservation Officer and Chair of the Board on July 14, 2002. Several staff from the Washington Office and from State Offices were present to facilitate specific topics on the Board agenda.
 
Welcome. Mike Ferguson, Acting State Director for Idaho, welcomed the Board to Boise and expressed his support for the importance of the topics which the Board had chosen to address, especially Planning and Off Highway Vehicle challenges.
 
Board discussions and follow-up actions
 
Land Use Planning. Copies were distributed of the newly signed Information Bulletin (IB No. 2002-101, 5/29/2002), "Cultural Resource Considerations in Resource Management Plans."
The Board discussed ways in which to enhance the guidance in this IB at the State level. Contributing to the discussion was Gary Wyke, Planner, in the Idaho State Office.


Action
: The Board agreed to place on the intranet Web site a copy of this IB, plus three items Gary Stumpf had brought to the meeting – helpful guidelines for field staffs to use in preparing Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and plan amendments:

• Cultural Heritage Issues in Land Use Planning: What to Do, What to Do?
• Sample Summary of Planning Issues and Objectives for Cultural Resources, Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw Foothills Planning Area
• Examples of Poorly-Written Objectives and Management Actions/ Good Goals, Objectives and Management Actions

The first two items were authored by Connie Stone, field archaeologist for Agua Fria National Monument (and former term member of the Board), and Gary Stumpf had circulated the last item at an earlier date, with comments supplied by John Douglas.
 
Several Deputy Preservation Officers suggested that the second item could be broadened by examples from States dealing with other planning issues such as energy development. Action: Deputy Preservation Officers agreed to provide examples to be added to the Web site in the next several months.
 
Action: Finally, Marilyn Nickels offered to brief the Washington Office Planning and Community Support Group, the Land and Minerals Directorate, and the National Landscape Conservation System Office on the goals reflected in the results of the Board's deliberations. In addition, if the Planning Group wishes a briefing for the weekly conference call with State planning leads, she will conduct that also.
 
Landscape Level Overviews (Analyses). After some discussion of the term "landscape," which has been questioned by some field specialists, the Board agreed to continue using the term to describe these analyses of existing cultural resource data, since it has a useful meaning in planning contexts. The geographic scope and level of detail of these overviews should be left flexible, depending upon the nature of the planning effort in question and the type of area/resources to be addressed. These studies are roughly equivalent to Class I overviews, but perhaps at differing scales and with some new tools.
 
The Board agreed that the most important product out of these efforts is a GIS layer or set of layers which analyze and display cultural resources in conjunction with other resources and uses proposed for the planning area. Helping field archaeologists figure out how to write scopes of work for conducting these studies, plus how to interface with contractors who may conduct them, and how to use the results effectively in the planning effort, are the greatest needs. Action: Board members agreed to supply what examples they have of good scopes of work, to put on the intranet Web site in the next several months.
 
Finally, it was suggested that we should develop an easy-to use GIS tool to help field archaeologists produce "sensitivity maps" for planning areas, which would summarize information on cultural resources from the above analyses. Action: Kirk Halford volunteered to work with Dan Martin of the Washington Office on this tool before the next Board meeting.
 
Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Management. With the input of Bill Gibson, Arizona OHV Coordinator, and Terry Heslin, Idaho OHV Coordinator, the Board discussed cultural resource issues in OHV management. The most urgent issue is cultural resource implications for the route designations required to be done in Resource Management Plans. After much discussion, it was agreed that the level of data needed for defining closed, open and limited OHV use areas in planning is more general than the data needed to complete actual route designations, whether those are done during the RMP process or at a later stage.
 
In addition, the Board agreed that groups applying for permits for major events, such as races, should be required pay for the inventory needed to complete BLM compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), just as applicants for other authorized uses do. This should be viewed as cost recovery.
 
Since the OHV issues are complex, with further guidance needed to govern the various stages of OHV designation and implementation, a team was formed to develop further recommendations. The team includes Russ Kaldenberg, Pat Barker, Kirk Halford, Bob King, Terry Heslin and Bill Gibson. Action: The team will draft recommendations by September 15, 2002, for final presentation at the next Board meeting in December.
 
Budget. The Board heard an update of the latest activities in budget development and implementation from Richard Brook of the Washington Office. After some discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the Management Information System (MIS) and the Budget Planning System (BPS) in capturing needs and accountability related to cultural resource management priorities, the Board agreed to work with Richard to supply him with additional information to supplement what can be gleaned from the above systems. Roberta Moltzen indicated that the Field Committee addresses these issues as well, and that they could be a forum for improvement. Marilyn Nickels indicated that it is the goal of the Washington Office to support priorities as established by States wherever possible, particularly with regard to Challenge Cost Share projects, which often reflect long-standing partnerships at the local level.
 
Action: Dan Martin requested that the Board members submit pictures and narratives for posting on the Internet Web page section on the FY2002 Resources at Risk projects. This will help the public follow the progress of restoring and protecting specific areas which have received funding this year.
 
Workforce Planning. Richard Brook has been tracking this issue on the Washington Office staff. Roberta Moltzen reported that a Field Committee subcommittee has developed a template to use for this exercise, under the new administration. It will be available for review shortly. The deadline for completing plans is a short one for all bureaus.
The Board discussed how best to assist field offices in ensuring adequate consideration of cultural resource management staffing needs in the future. Action: A committee was formed which will meet in the next few months to analyze this issue and make recommendations. The committee members are Pat Barker, Gary Smith, Steve Fosberg, Sue Richardson, and Carol Anne Murray. Richard Brook agreed as a staff person to make arrangements and provide Washington Office liaison on this committee.
 
Action: Steve Fosberg offered to send the Board some background materials he had developed for past efforts in workforce planning.
 
Programmatic Agreement/Board Charter/Operating Rules. Marilyn Nickels began this discussion by clarifying some issues related to the nature of the Programmatic Agreement. These have arisen especially since the new 36 CFR 800 regulations have been implemented. The main question is whether any changes need to be made in the national PA or in State protocols in the light of the new regulations. Marilyn explained that the appropriate method for making changes in BLM's procedures, if any are needed, would be as revisions to the manuals, which under the Programmatic Agreement are acknowledged as BLM's principal method for complying with the National Historic Preservation Act. John Douglas, as a rehired annuitant, will be working with Robin Burgess to put the interim manuals in final in the next few months, and can consider any recommendations for change.
 
The Board next took up the subject of changes to the Board's Charter and Operating Rules. No changes were recommended except to delete #9 of the Operating Rules, "Issues outside the purview of the Board," since any issue related to historic preservation is within the purview of the Board. Action: It was also agreed that the Chair should develop some clearer definition of the roles of the facilitator and note taker, particularly regarding meeting minutes and follow up.
 
Miscellaneous Topics
Action: The Board recommended that an interest announcement be sent out from the Washington Office as soon as possible for recruiting term members for the Board. They also thanked Greg Thomsen and Kirk Halford for their invaluable contributions to historic preservation. Roberta Moltzen, who had been unable to attend meetings during her tenure until this one, agreed to serve another term. However, since the meeting she has accepted a new position with the Forest Service and will be unable to do so.
 
Action: Board members were urged to provide comments on the manuals between now and July, when Robin Burgess and John Douglas will be working on them. Action: John promised that he would set a date by July 1, 2002, for a meeting of the volunteer task force to revise the 8160-1 Handbook on Tribal Coordination and Consultation.
 
Action: Dan Martin asked all Board members to review the Cultural Resource Use Permit System (CRUPS) on the intranet Web site. The system, with any necessary revisions, should be ready for the Board's approval at the December 2002 meeting.
The Board agreed to go forward with a two-day BLM meeting prior to the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) meeting in Milwaukee in 2003. Action: A committee was formed to plan the meeting. The members are Troy Ferone, Tim Nowak and Carol Anne Murray. Tim provides continuity with the team that planned the very successful BLM meeting prior to the 2002 SAA meeting in Denver. The committee will report its progress at the December meeting.
 
The Board briefly discussed the outcome of the Weatherman Draw project, where the Anschutz Investment Company has transferred its oil and gas lease to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, after considerable objection by tribes and preservation organizations against Anschutz's drilling plans. This project raises the issue of how to deal with sensitive areas adequately before leases are offered for sale. Marilyn distributed an Instruction Memorandum issued on May 23, 2002 (IM No. 2002-174, Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations), containing a standard stipulation to address Endangered Species Act considerations at the leasing stage. Action: The Board agreed to put this with other energy issues on the December agenda.
 
Field Trip. Stan McDonald, Idaho DPO, John Sullivan, manager of the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA), and several field office staff members hosted the Board on a field trip on June 6. The Board visited interpreted segments of the Oregon Trail, the Snake River Birds of Prey NCA; Swan Lake Dam, a National Historic Landmark; and Celebration Park, Idaho's only park dedicated to prehistoric archaeology.
 
Next Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Board will be held December 3-5, 2002, in Alexandria, Virginia. Among suggested agenda topics were museum collections and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act implementation, energy initiatives, OHV committee report, Budget, and heritage tourism. Next June's meeting (June 3-6, 2003) will be held in Casper, Wyoming.

Submitted June 18, 2002,
by Marilyn Nickels, Acting Preservation Officer,
on behalf of the Preservation Board.
 
 
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 4, 2002
8:30 - 9:00 Welcome: Mike Ferguson, Acting State Director, Idaho and Introductions

9:00 - 9:15 Housekeeping/Meeting Logistics Planning and Cultural Resources

9:15 - 11:30 Resource Management Planning

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Examples of Cultural Resources input into Land Use Planning (Gary Stumpf)
Examples of Goals, Objectives and Management Actions for cultural resources. Discuss public scoping strategies.
Purpose of Discussion: To look at different types of input into land use planning. What does the Preservation Board recommend should and should not be included in Land Use Plans and how does the Preservation Board get this direction to the Field? Develop standards or specifications that RMPs and landscape overviews would meet as we follow the guidance in the IM on planning. Develop strategies for public scoping. Status report on the Draft IB "Cultural Resources Considerations in Resource Management Plans" (2/27/02). Are there any modifications/revisions that are necessary?
 
11:30- 1:00 Lunch
 
1:00 - 3:00 Landscape Level Overviews in the Planning Process (All)
Discuss the types of data that are being used and the kinds of products that are currently being produced in the planning process.
Purpose of Discussion: Should general standards for products related to planning be developed? If so, create a list of products and concepts for landscape level overviews. How should this list be delivered to the Field?
 
3:00-5:00 Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use, Cultural Resources and Planning (All).
Bill Gibson, AZSO, OHV Coordinator and Terry Heslin, IDSO, OHV Coordinator will attend this portion of the meeting.
Discuss what the cultural program should be doing in relationship to OHV use. Share examples of successful ways in which OHV activities are being dealt with in your State.

Purpose of Discussion: Determine what levels of inventory are needed and when for this activity. Determine where the program needs to get involved into the planning process for OHV activities and how. Develop strategies to coordinate with State Office OHV specialists.

 

Wednesday, June 5, 2002
 
8:30 - 8:45 Housekeeping/Meeting Logistics
 
8:45 - 10:45 Setting Budget Priorities and the Budget Planning System (Richard Brook, All)
Discuss how to make links between the data that is entered in BPS to what appears in final budget justifications and subsequent efforts to prepare PTAs.

Purpose of Discussion: Determine how to use BPS to update priority strategic plan projects and WO requests for Challenge Cost Share Projects and "At-Risk" projects. Identify ways to build coalitions to increase cultural funding within the BPS system.

10:45 - 11:30 Workforce Management Planning (Marilyn Nickels)
 
11:30 - 1:00 Lunch
 
1:00 - 3:00 Preservation Board Charter, Operating Rules, etc. (Marilyn Nickels)
Review and discuss the Preservation Board Charter and the Board's Operating Rules/Principles. Review meeting structure and effectiveness. Discuss legal issues pertaining to the National Programmatic Agreement and State Protocols.

Purpose of Discussion: Identify if the Charter and Operating Rules need to be revised. Determine how and when the revisions will be made. Evaluate meeting effectiveness and list ideas on how to change or make future meetings better.
 
3:00 - 4:00 Miscellaneous topics/updates/information updates (Weatherman Draw, International Collaborative efforts, Manual updates, etc.)
 

4:00-4:45 Meeting Close-out (upcoming board vacancies, December meeting logistics and agenda, conference call date and time, etc.) (Linda Clark)

 


 
Last updated: 10-21-2009