BLM Preservation Board
Meeting Notes, June 6-7, 2006
Salt Lake City, Utah
Tuesday June 6
In Attendance: Acting Preservation Officer Kate Winthrop (WO), Deputy Preservation Officers (DPO), Bob King (AK), Gary Stumpf (AZ), Ken Wilson (CA), Dan Haas (CO),  Troy Ferone (ES), Stan McDonald (ID), Gary Smith (MT), Stephen Fosberg (NM), Pat Barker (NV), Richard Hanes (OR), Garth Portillo (UT), and Tim Nowak (WY); Field Office Managers: Aaron Horton, Milwaukee FO, ES; Susan Will, Assoc. DM, Fairbanks, AK; Dave McIlnay, Miles City, MT; Phil Damon, Pocatello, ID; Field Office Specialists Glade Hadden, Miles City FO, MT (now at Uncompaghre FO, CO); and Lynn Harrell, Kemmerer FO, WY

Also Attending:
Jeanne Moe, WO, MT;  Megg Heath, WO, CO; Tom Burke, NV; Richard Brook, WO; Gene Terland, UT.

Linda Clark (ID)
Recorder: Ranel Capron (WY)

Welcome and Opening Remarks
Utah’s Associate State Director Gene Terland welcomed the group and provided opening remarks about Utah issues and concerns. He discussed Utah’s wonderful cultural resources and BLM’s active cultural heritage program, and highlighted Utah’s role in launching Project Archaeology as well as its active partnerships to promote site stewardship. He also spoke about the importance of the national Programmatic Agreement and the implementing protocol with the SHPO for completing compliance work in Utah, especially as the workload is expanding. He noted that the Vernal Field Office does not  operate under these agreements, since most of the lands are on the Ute Reservation and thus excluded, although they have an agreement with the tribe to create some efficiencies.

Garth Portillo, Utah State Office Deputy Preservation Officer, added welcoming remarks and highlighted Utah’s activities for the Antiquities Act Centennial. He outlined several of the many activities associated with the Centennial celebrations and emphasized the involvement of many groups and communities throughout the state, including local governments, tribes, and others. He characterized the on-going BLM-SHPO partnership as useful and worthwhile, especially with regard to a number of outreach programs.

Budget (Richard Brook, WO)
Richard Brook (WO) Provided update on FY 2006 and FY 2007 budgets.  Highlights:
·          The $1M in FY 2006 Recreation subactivity money provided for the Antiquities Centennial is being pulled back.  States will receive the same allocation in FY 2007 as they did in 2006, but unless cultural folks can make a case that the money should be used for cultural work, it will be used for priority recreation work.
·          In FY 2007, Cultural Resources Data Sharing monies will amount to $350K.  Fire provided an additional $25K, which is being held in unallocated reserve in WO to subsidize the state that hosts the data sharing coordinator.  WO-240 is continuing to work with the oil & gas program to get them to provide additional data sharing funds to pilot field offices and states to deal with the backlog created as a result of increased energy workload.
·          Planning continues to provide $150K in landscape level funds to support cultural work in those filed offices where priority resource management plans are underway.  In FY 2007, MT, CO, and WY will receive funds.
·          House Markup on the FY 2007 cultural resource management program budget recommends an increase of $1.5M for the Cultural Resource Enhancement Initiative, instead of the $3M requested in the President's 2007 Budget.  We are awaiting Senate markup.  Differences will have to be worked out in Conference.
·          Provided a handout to states showing the distribution of the BPS Theme RP-53 (Cultural Resource Enhancement Initiative).  Each state received between $170-180K in additional funding from the $2M held in unallocated reserve.
·          State PTA Feedback is due on June 28th, and state targets will be negotiated immediately following this date.


Heritage Assets (Richard Brook, WO)


A flurry of work is going on in D.C. related to stewardship assets and heritage assets, primarily in response to an Executive Order signed by the President in 2004, E.O. 13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management.  Federal agencies are working on Asset Management Plans required under this E.O.
Last year the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) consolidated all of the standards dealing with heritage assets into a new accounting standard, Standard No. 29.  The biggest impact of Standard 29, however, is the reclassification of stewardship assets from what’s called “Required Supplemental Stewardship Info (RSSI)” to what’s called “basic information.”  This will probably result in the National Business Center scaling back what gets reported in BLM's financial statement to avoid the agency getting any "Notice of Finding and Recommendations."

Preserve America Summit (Richard Brook, WO)
DOI's Federal Preservation Officer, Aimee Mikolajek, has been working with the Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Mr. John Nau, on a Preserve America Summit.  Several BLM names have been submitted, and several Board members asked for their names to be forwarded for consideration under one of the 11 preservation issue areas.

Heritage Education 2006 and Beyond (Megg Heath, WO)
Megg Heath, Heritage Education Chief, gave an update on the Heritage Education program and requested suggestions on future projects. The Heritage Education Team, known as the Imagination Team (I Team) are located at the Anasazi Heritage Center but are part of the Washington Office heritage group.

The Adventures in the Past umbrella serves as the hub for Heritage Education projects and crosscuts the Bureau. It focuses on cultural and paleontological resources. Project Archaeology, which is BLM’s archaeology/teacher education outreach program, has been relocated to Montana under the direction of Jeanne Moe. There will be a Project Archaeology Conference in Kentucky this year, and the I Team urges state Project Archaeology coordinators to attend.
The I Team has produced a series of “History Mysteries”, including newspapers, trading cards, and a webpage marketed to kids. The Team asked about future ideas for the “History Mystery” series. After discussion the Board selected the following topics: Homesteading (top choice), Rock Art (second choice), Trails (third choice).

The I Team continues to provide heritage education outreach materials and opportunities through websites, exhibits and conference materials, support to field offices for signs, brochures, and Project Archaeology training and assistance. The Heritage Education Coordinators Group meets quarterly via telephone, and is looking to increase participation. The Heritage Education Annual Report is due at the same time as the Secretary’s Report. Megg asked the Board if the report was useful and if it could be made more so. Richard Brook indicated that a considerable portion of the report becomes incorporated in the Secretary’s Report and forwarded along to the Park Service.

The I Team will be working with the Environmental Education group and the lead interpreter on a new BLM Education Strategy, which will be Bureau-wide and include Environmental Education, Heritage Education, and other such programs. The new Heritage Education strategy will tier off this and be more specific.

Project Archaeology (Jeanne Moe, WO)
Jeanne opened the session with an overview of the present state of archaeology education nationally and the need to professionalize our work and sustain it financially.  Our planning effort for a statewide archaeology education program in Montana under a BLM CCS grant serves as an example. 

She proposed the idea of directing a small percentage of Section 106 Data Recovery funds to existing archaeology education programs that can create lasting products and distribute them to a broad audience over a long period of time. This would meet BLM’s goals for Best Management Practices. Dan Haas, Colorado Program Lead, provided a brief overview of the agreement on the REX Entrega Interstate Pipeline project which provides some funds for National Project Archaeology to offer professional development for teachers in the region and to develop some sustainable products as an example.

There was considerable discussion regarding the possibilities and problems of setting up such a program, and it was agreed that a small committee would work with Jeanne on this issue.
Action: Jeanne Moe, Glade Hadden, Ken Wilson, Dan Haas, Bob King and Tom Burke will work on this issue and report back to the Board. Jeanne Moe has the lead.

Training Committee Update (Bob King, DPO)
Bob King presented an update from the Training Committee and raised the following issues:
The national Programmatic Agreement makes a commitment for professional skill development for BLM’s cultural heritage specialists. As a number of these specialists begin to retire, we need to ensure that new people are adequately prepared.
Both courses scheduled for this year, including one for historic resources, were cancelled due to lack of enrollment. It is unclear why or what should be done. Several people suggested lack of funds though Richard Brook (WO) stated that money had been held back to assist FO specialists to attend. Others suggested timing as a problem, or conflicting workloads. There were suggestions for on-line and satellite training courses. It was generally agreed that the “Fundamentals” course, however, should be a classroom experience. This is the basic course where new hires learn how to be a cultural resource specialist in BLM, and interaction with instructors and developing professional networks was generally held to be an essential part of the classroom experience. The consensus was that the WO should continue to subsidize this course.

Board Maintenance Issues (Kate Winthrop, WO)
A Field Office manager had previously suggested that newcomers to the Board should have some orientation. The Board agreed to have a small committee work on a binder, or some other tool, that would provide background materials to new members as well as brief summaries of on-going issues. There was a suggestion that this would be a useful tool for all managers. There was also a suggestion to use managers retiring from the Board as “mentors” for incoming managers.

There was also discussion of who can serve on the Board and the potential need to amend the Charter. The Board agreed that the Charter currently provides sufficient flexibility to engage managers at any level of the organization. The Board also recognized that the interests of other programs are represented by the managers on the Board, and that other programs (as well as outside parties) may be invited to participate when appropriate.

Action: Kate Winthrop, Susan Will, Stan McDonald, Bob King, Linda Clark, and MaryJo Rugwell [former Board member] will work on an orientation packet for new members.

2007 SAA Meetings (Kate Winthrop, WO)
Kate Winthrop asked the Board if there was any interest in promoting a BLM meeting in conjunction with the SAA’s, which will be held in Texas next year. After discussion, the Board agreed not to pursue this option. The last two times BLM tried to hold such a meeting it was cancelled due to lack of participation.

National Trust for Historic Preservation Report (Kate Winthrop, WO)
The Board briefly discussed the report “Cultural Resources on the Bureau of Land Mangement Public Lands: An assessment and needs analysis”, released by the National Trust several weeks prior to the Board’s meeting. Several members noted that the report contains some errors of fact as well as perception but appreciated the effort to promote heritage concerns. Others noted that the author interviewed all the DPOs and State Directors, and suggested we engage with the Trust to decide how to move forward. There was a consensus that a working committee could address issues raised and that BLM should work more closely with the Trust on these issues.

Action: Kate Winthrop, Ken Wilson, Dan Haas, Dave McIlnay, and Richard Brook will form a working group to address the Trust issues.

Museum Property (Richard Hanes, DPO)
A Museum property committee was established at last June’s Preservation Board meeting in Newport, Oregon. The committee conducted a series of conference calls over the year.  One of the main products was a 6-step process on how to establish a standardized database that adequately characterizes the kinds of museum property for which BLM has management responsibilities. The goal of the process is to prioritize information gaps in our facilities and find funding avenues to fill those gaps. Implementation of the process has been slowed due to the longer period than expected in recruiting a new museum collections person in the WO.

Hanes handed out a form that was recently developed in his state to help guide their inventory process in responding to the annual report for museum collections. DOI is currently developing a national automated system for museum collections, but it has not been made available to the public. Therefore, the relationship of the draft form to the DOI system is presently not known. Similarly, it is not currently known what the minimum information needs are for reporting on museum collections. The Board also discussed how the data call could be linked to budget needs for management of the collections. Currently each state is implementing a different process for responding to the museum collections data call. It was proposed that the Board look at the draft facility questionnaire and consider what type of information we want to collect on an annual basis. The Board will discuss this topic further at the next Board meeting in December. 

Data Sharing Coordinator (Linda Clark)
Linda Clark is leaving the position of Data-sharing Coordinator. A replacement is needed, and WO has funds for three work-months plus some travel.

Pictograph Technology (Ken Wilson, DPO)
Ken Wilson gave a stimulating presentation on new photographic technology for recovering images on rock. Jon Harman has a Ph.D. in math and has worked in medical imaging to enhance pictographic images that cannot be seen with the naked eye. He has a strong personal interest in rock art, and has adapted this technology to rock art images.
Ken gave a PowerPoint demonstration of this new technology which makes faint and faded images highly visible. Harman’s software is free and available, though there it would be necessary to go through IRM before downloading it.

Wednesday June 7

In Attendance:
Acting Preservation Officer Kate Winthrop (WO), Deputy Preservation Officers (DPO), Bob King (AK), Gary Stumpf (AZ), Ken Wilson (CA), Dan Haas (CO),  Troy Ferone (ES), Stan McDonald (ID), Gary Smith (MT), Stephen Fosberg (NM), Pat Barker (NV), Richard Hanes (OR), Garth Portillo (UT), and Tim Nowak (WY); Field Office Managers: Aaron Horton, Milwaukee FO, ES; Susan Will, Assoc. DM, Fairbanks, AK; Dave McIlnay, Miles City, MT; Phil Damon, Pocatello, ID; Field Office Specialists Glade Hadden, Miles City FO, MT (now at Uncompaghre FO, CO); and Lynn Harrell, Kemmerer FO, WY
Also Atttending: Jeanne Moe, WO, MT;  Megg Heath, WO, CO; Tom Burke, NV; Richard Brook, WO; Jerry Cordova, WO.
Invited Guests:  Alice Baldrica, NV SHPO; Matt Seddon, UT SHPO;  Reid Nelson, ACHP.
Facilitator: Linda Clark (ID)
Recorder: Ranel Capron (WY)
Split Estate (Troy Ferone, DPO)
Troy handed out a packets containing background information relevant to split estate issues. The main concern at this time involves obtaining landowner access to do Section 106 work on split estate. The issue has been raised as part of recent review of APD processing for split estate actions.
There was considerable discussion on this issue. Various states have different approaches. Lack of landowner consent for access is a minor problem in all states, but receiving some attention. It was agreed that communication and education of landowners about the process would be a help; Dan suggested a brochure that would outline what they need to know. There were also suggestions about using modeling or other alternative techniques, when appropriate, to determine what resources are on the land.
Action: Kate Winthrop, Tim Nowak, Gary Smith, Dave McIlnay, Megg Heath, Lynn Harrell, Dan Haas will form a working group to formulate a response to this issue, including a brochure or other outreach materials.

Leasing IM (Kate Winthrop, WO)
The split estate discussion led to consideration of the need to update policy regarding Section 106 consultation for oil and gas APDs. The WO cultural heritage program is working with the minerals program to craft an IM on consultation for mineral leases, to update and replace IM 2005-003 phase. The group agreed that the policy would be timely and that a toolkit would be a good idea.

Action: Kate Winthrop will work with Jim Perry (WO-300) and a task group including Tim Nowak, Garth Portillo, Glade Hadden, Gary Smith, and possibly someone from WO planning.

Advisory Council/ SHPO Discussion (Kate Winthrop, WO; Alice Baldrica, NV SHPO; Reid Nelson, ACHP)
Kate Winthrop opened the session with a brief review of current concerns including the review of BLM’s national Programmatic Agreement and a request by the Council for a liaison position with the BLM.  Western SHPOs had put forth both these items as recommendations for the ACHP in a report submitted to them about BLM. Kate stated that prior to the meeting both the SHPO and ACHP representatives stated that their members did not wish to terminate the nPA, though there was an interest in review and improvement of the agreement. The Board invited representatives from the SHPOs and ACHP to the Board meeting to discuss these issues. Alice Baldrica, Deputy SHPO from Nevada, presented the SHPO interests and Reid Nelson represented the Council. Both Alice and Reid were in attendance for the full day and contributed to the discussions of other issues.

Prior to the meeting, Kate Winthrop asked Alice Baldrica to review the SHPO position for the Board and asked Reid Nelson review the nPA with specific attention to the ACHP duties and responsibilities. Both participants did so and included these analyses in their opening remarks.

SHPO Presentation--Alice Baldrica

Alice Baldrica opened the discussion with a review of the SHPOs’ involvement in the current issues. When Western SHPOs learned that the ACHP was considering a review of national PAs with regard to the newly released 2004 regulations, they decided they should find out what the issues were with the BLM’s national PA (nPA) and established a task force to do so. Arizona and Washington declined to participate.

Initially Kak Slick, NM SHP, had the lead; she stepped down and Alice Baldrica took over during the process. The task force constructed a questionnaire for the nine Western SHPOs, eliciting their opinions with regard to the nPA. A report was released in 2005 and a copy sent to the BLM. Some of the findings included the following: one SHPO thought the nPA should be terminated while all others thought it should be kept; seven respondents thought it was working well, but might need some adjustments. Some of the concerns expressed by SHPOs included annual reporting and the obligation of BLM to do more pro-active inventory and preparation of NRHP nominations, and SHPO participation in BLM training.

The task force concluded that a first step towards accommodating concerns would be for SHPOs to review and amend state protocols, where they have the ability to influence outcomes important to their states (several states have recently done so). The task force then sent several recommendations to John Fowler, Executive Director of the ACHP, to make review of the BLM nPA their top priority and to establish a liaison position with the BLM in the west, possibly in Denver. [Note: the ACHP has since moved BLM’s nPA to the top of the list of PA’s for review. The Council has closed its office in Denver and any new position would be in Washington D.C.] The SHPOs also recognize that a number of the issues raised could be addressed locally through better communication between the SHPOs and the BLM, and better integration of SHPOs into the RMP and training process.

SHPOs also wish BLM to pro-actively solicit their review of major policy initiatives, such as the recent revisions to the Gold Book for oil and gas development. Some SHPOs expressed concerns about Native American consultation. On both these issues (major policy initiatives and Tribal consultation) SHPOs would like to see the ACHP take a larger role.


Advisory Council Presentation--Reid Nelson

Reid Nelson is new to the Council, and comes with a background in cultural resource management (17 years with the Navajo Nation THPO, and prior experience in the west). The Council has recently reorganized, closing its western office and hiring new people in D.C. Kelly Yasaitis is a new staff member who will be the contact person for BLM cases, especially for states without protocols. There are a fair number of BLM cases that come forward to the Council.

The Council is interested in reasserting its interest and involvement with BLM. They have been bringing themselves up to speed on western issues, including the impact of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. They invited a session on the Act, and also on the Western Energy Corridor project (mandated by the Act) at their recent meeting in May 2006.

The Council understands that BLM is responsible for managing millions of acres and many sites, and believes that the nPA is a good general way to manage the program. They appreciate the Preservation Board and think it is an innovative approach, and recognize that the nPA is crucial to dealing with the amount of casework generated by projects on BLM lands. They also think it is important to look at how the nPA is currently implemented and to improve that implementation. However, they want the BLM to recognize that there have been changes in the way we all do business based on changes in the NHPA since the nPA was signed, such as a greater role for stakeholders. The Council believes these concerns warrant a review and discussion of the nPA, which may result in amendments or revisions, but are not wedded to any course of action until there is a good discussion.

In preparation for this meeting the Council completed an assessment of what, from their perspective, is working well and what is not. Specific concerns include:
a) Ensuring that all necessary revisions to the BLM Manual have been competed, and evaluated in light of continued policy and procedural changes in BLM;
b) Ensure that cases that meet the threshold for Council review are submitted;
c) Make sure the Council has current State protocols and assists in future developments if requested;
d) Ensure that major policy initiatives, proposed regulations, administration budget proposals, training schedules, planning schedules are submitted to ACHP for review, as appropriate;
e) Review BLM’s current training program;
f) Evaluate certification/ decertification program;
g) Involve ACHP in annual report review and selected State Offices;

The ACHP will conduct a review of the nPA and is especially interested in evaluating it to see if it is fully responsive to current needs, whether SHPO concerns are being addressed, defining Tribal concerns with the nPA, and whether it is responsive to the impact of the Energy Policy Act.

Chairman Nau has directed Council staff to bring the nPA to the top or their review list. Staff does not at this time have a plan to proceed though they wish to ensure that the document works for all parties and recognize that the responsibilities of western land managers have changed and become more complicated since the document was signed.


Tribal Issues--Jerry Cordova, BLM

Jerry Cordova, BLM’s national tribal coordinator, spoke briefly following the SHPO and ACHP presentations to provide a brief overview of BLM’s policy regarding Tribal consultation. He noted that communication is important among the entities charged with historic preservation, that nine years is a long time for an agreement to be in place, and that it may need revision to bring it into line with current concerns. He was not involved in the original negotiations for the nPA and cannot speak to the level of Tribal involvement.

The BLM has heard complaints from the ACHP regarding Tribal consultation, but no Tribes have contacted BLM and BLM does not act on anecdotal information. Tribal consultation is important to BLM and BLM understands the government-to-government relationship that exists between Federally recognized Tribes and the Federal government. All Federally recognized Tribes have the right to consult with the Federal government at any level of the organization they wish. Notwithstanding the specific concerns of the ACHP and the SHPOs in the NHPA and its consultation process, the BLM cannot and should not operate through these intermediaries to fulfill its consultation responsibilities. BLM is concerned to deal appropriately with the Tribes. If SHPOs or ACHP can specify complaints or issues, BLM can address them.



Various Preservation Board members raised different issues including: the fact that BLM Field Offices actively engage Tribes in local projects; the nPA is not a problem with regard to meeting the increasing workload, but an important and necessary tool to do so; the need for the Council to actually read our Manuals, especially the Tribal consultation manual which has been adopted as a template for consultation in some places; the need to distinguish between consultation on the nPA when it was constructed and the way we do consultation as part of or normal course of work, about which we have very few complaints; the need to keep the nPA active while discussions are taking place about it; the fact that the strategy for the nPA was to create a shell document with the substance in the manuals; the fact that the nPA and the manuals allow for some emphasis and interpretation as needed in response to changing times and circumstances. There was some discussion about how to address changes that might be needed; some suggested amendments to the manuals, others stated that the process is too arduous and other methods might be appropriate.

Reid Nelson responded to comments, emphasizing that the Council can be a conduit for the Tribes but does not speak for them; that the nPA needs to be responsive to the BLM’s needs; that the nPA would remain in effect as a review takes place; and the fact that there may be issues outside of the agreement that might need to be addressed.

Alice Baldrica reminded the group that the SHPOs need to remain part of the process. She also stated that before talking about changes, we need to identify a process for information gathering, including from the public, Tribes, and other interested parties.

The discussion covered possible mechanisms for reviewing the nPA, and who should participate. Reid stated that the renewal is of interest to a broad set of stakeholders, and that there needed to be a discussion about the level of involvement of the public, the Trust, and the Tribes. There was an agreement that the three signatories should form an interagency work group to define a process.

Action: The Preservation Board recommends that the three signatories work to define a process for reviewing the nPA. The PB will remain involved with Kate Winthrop, Richard Hanes, Steve Fosberg, Tom Burke, and Ken Wilson as representatives to meetings on the process. 

Liaison Position Discussion

The Council is still interested in having a liaison position with the BLM. Recently, the DOI sent around a questionnaire on the issue, and DPOs generally responded that the workload from their standpoint was low and that there were no reports of projects being held up due to the Council. There was also expression by some that a liaison could serve as a voice for BLM to the Council and might be valuable from that standpoint.

Reid indicated that the Council decided that such a person would be involved in better meeting its obligations with regard to implementation of the nPA, as well as dealing with casework. A liaison would facilitate a relationship with the BLM and the Council and NCSHPO, and assist with policy and procedure work.

Alice Baldrica stated that SHPOs have seen a hiatus in ACHP involvement since the Denver office was closed, and would like to see someone there who could respond and assist with dispute resolution as well.

Various Preservation Board members expressed concerns with regard to the cost; whether the position would be a BLM or Council position; and who should pay. There was general agreement on the Preservation Board that the liaison position was likely to occur and the need to ensure that it was of benefit to BLM.


Energy Policy Act Updates (Kate Winthrop, WO)
WEC-PEIS—Kate Winthrop, Jerry Cordova

This project calls for designating corridors in land use plans for multiple agencies in eleven western states. There is an interagency MOU to guide the process and an interagency management team to implement the strategy for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Argonne National Laboratory (DOE) is the contractor for this study. The PEIS must be completed by August 2007.

A cultural resources, tribal consultation, and paleontology task group composed of representatives from the various agencies was established to develop and assist with compliance in these areas, including for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This group has worked with Argonne to develop a workplan incorporating analysis of automated data from the SHPOs and the Forest Service for those areas affected by the corridors. The team has briefed both the NCSHPO and ACHP on several occasions; BLM has been designated the lead agency for the Section 106 process.

In addition, the group set up a Tribal Consultation subgroup. Consultation has been launched through an initial round of regional meetings with interested tribes. To date, good maps are not available and Tribes would like to see better data. Following these initial meetings, Tribes have been invited to meet locally with land managers, and these face-to-face meetings are beginning to take place. DOE has the lead for this project, but BLM has responsibility for the bulk of the consultation and will do it through our normal processes and channels.


Oil Shale and Tar Sands--Dan Haas

Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act directed the Secretary to complete a Programmatic EIS for commercial leasing of OS/TS on BLM lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. It must be done by Feb. 2007. Public scoping meetings were held in January 2006; the cultural resources program was asked to participate some time after this. It is a BLM project with Argonne National Labs as the contractor.


BLM put together scopes of work for an ethnohistoric overview (which is contracted) a cultural resources overview (Argonne’s staff is doing this) and a paleontology overview. Letters have been sent to affected tribes and they have been invited to be cooperating agencies.


Pilot Offices
Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico—Steve Fosberg:  The Carlsbad pilot office received $300,000 from pilot office funds to pay for a block inventory study for energy development. This study will track various factors to see if there is an advantage to doing block inventory vs. project-by-project studies. This study will also test various inventory models for the area.

When the inventory is complete, BLM expects to work with the SHPO to identify a sample of sites for future mitigation as development proceeds. This will permit industry to plan and will be a benefit to the cultural program by focusing data recovery in the most useful areas.


Vernal Field Office, Utah—Garth Portillo: Vernal does not operate under BLM’s national Programmatic Agreement and is their busiest office for processing Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs).  Vernal Field Office is using pilot office money to hire additional staff, including at least one archaeologist who will be dedicated to processing APDs. There is currently an effort to assist the SHPO with funding for the increased workload generated by these projects.


Rawlins and Buffalo Field Offices, Wyoming—Tim Nowak:  Wyoming is working with the SHPO to hire positions to assist the pilot offices. They are looking at placing people in the field offices for some part of their time, to assist at that level, and also to work through the backlog at the SHPO office. Both pilot offices are hiring people and will have five archaeologists on staff. Tribal consultation is the main bottleneck, and still takes the most time.


Glenwood Springs, Colorado—Dan Haas:  This pilot office has also hired new staff, including one archaeologist. They have completed a landscape level overview using planning funds, and are ready to go. They are taking responsibility for the Forest Service in this office, which creates issues since the FS does not operate under BLM’s national Programmatic Agreement and that increases the workload.


OHV Policy Memo (Gary Stumpf, DPO)
Gary Stumpf reviewed an issue that has been in the works for three years, concerning the development of policy regarding compliance with Section 106 prior to designationg off-highway vehicle routes and areas in land use plans. He reviewed the history of the current draft IM, which had undergone extensive review by the Preservation Board, the WO cultural and recreation staffs, and the WO solicitor. Gary passed out the current draft to the Preservation Board for consideration.

During the discussion Gary mentioned that an earlier version of the draft IM was sent to the ACHP for comment but nothing was received back. It was agreed that the current draft memo would go to the Preservation Board for comment. Revisions would go to the WO to be sent to the ACHP for review; the ACHP would respond within 30 days and the WO would move to release the IM as soon as possible.


Action Item: Gary Stumpf will circulate the current draft to the Preservation Board and then to the Advisory Council, and review and incorporate comments as appropriate. Kate Winthrop will circulate to WO-250 (Recreation) and WO-210 (Planning) and forward comments to Gary. Gary will complete a final draft IM in consultation with Kate and Kate will work it through the WO.


The Board thanked Pat Barker for his many years of service as he will be retiring in August, and discussed locations for up-coming meetings in December 2006 (Alexandria, VA) and June 2007 (Duluth, MN).