**MEETING NOTES**

**HERITAGE ASSETS PARTNERSHIP**

> Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 10:30-noon e.s.t.

Meeting participants and their contact information:

BLM Emily Palus 202-452-7721 emily_palus@blm.gov

BOR Tom Lincoln (by phone) 303-445-3311 tlincoln@do.usbr.gov

FWS Eugene Marino (by phone) 703-358-2173 <eugene_marino@fws.gov>

NBC David McKinney 202-208-7017 David_D_McKinney@nbc.gov

NPS Terry Childs 202-354-2125 <terry_childs@nps.gov>

OSM Steve Felch 202-208-2982 <Sfelch@osmre.gov>

BIA Marv Keller (by phone) 406-247-7911 <Marv.Keller@bia.gov>

PAM Brian Biegler 202-208-4698 <brian_biegler@ios.doi.gov>

USGS Steve Nagel (by phone) 703-648-7509 <snagel@usgs.gov>

**DOI Sustainable Buildings Implementation Plan (SBIP)**

In order to help assess whether or not the HAP should contribute a
statement about historic buildings in the DOI SBIP, Brian Biegler looked
at the FRPP data to see how many historic buildings were valued at or
above \$2 million, as that is the threshold for the buildings to be
considered in the SBIP. Brian found that bureaus other than NPS report
only a handful of such buildings. NPS reports about 750 such buildings.
Emily Palus asked about the quality of the data. Two problems with the
data were identified: 1) buildings may not be correctly reported in the
FRPP and 2) roughly 80% of the buildings have not been evaluated. Emily
suggested that bureaus other than NPS likely have many more historic
buildings than are currently identified in the FRPP.

Terry Childs asked the group if they wanted to proceed with commenting
on the SBIP. Several people voiced their approval to proceed and no one
objected.

Because of the due date for providing additional language for the SBIP,
Terry drafted rough placeholder language for the HAP to work with.
Several comments were offered, including adding language about the
Secretary's Standards and the NHPA. Tom Lincoln offered to send a
sentence or two regarding how historic properties fit into the broader
philosophy of sustainability. Terry will incorporate Tom's addition, add
the suggested language, and send the placeholder language out to the
group for comment. She noted the short turn around time for comment,
since the language needs to be provided to Catherine Cesnik by Monday
Dec. 22.

**NHL\'s in the FRPP**

Brian was asked by Bob Jarcho to look at the FY2008 FRPP data for
anomalies. Brian compared the NHL data that bureaus provided to PFM for
the PAR to what assets were reported as NHLS in the FRPP. He found
assets marked as NHLs in the FRPP, but found no corresponding NHLs
reported to PFM or in the published list of NHLs. Also, there were NHLs
reported to PFM that seemed likely to include constructed assets, but
there were no assets reported as NHLs in the FRPP. Brian provided this
analysis to Jarcho who sent it to bureau AMP or AMT members in a list of
all FRPP anomalies discovered by PAM staff.

Emily asked if the HAP members had been contacted about the anomalies.
She and Tom said that they had. Terry had not. Brian thought that Randy
Biallas possibly had been contacted, because NPS recently changed their
data in the FRPP. Marv Keller said that he had not been contacted.

Brian said that the FY08 data was "locked down" as of 12/15/08. He will
provide a summary of his findings to HAP members. Marv Keller commented
that BIA's data on the historic status of assets is not accurate, and
that BIA will update their data in the FY09 submission. Marv said a BIA
manager has a performance goal to dispose of 300,000 square feet every
year and asked if managers in other bureaus had similar performance
goals. Also, he asked if there are any examples of programmatic
agreements that would assist in meeting this goal. Tom commented that
DoD had such a programmatic agreement with ACHP, and he thought it was
on the web. Terry said she had a PowerPoint from DoD that may help and
offered to send it to Marv.

**Comments on \"2007 Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting\"**

The HAP would like to comment on the Historic Status guidance provided
in the FRPP Data Dictionary. Brian said he would follow up with Bob
Jarcho to see what the process is for submitting comments to the FRPC.

**HAP terminology**

Emily presented the two handouts she developed to help with the
discussion on appropriate terminology. These handouts summarize
different ways Heritage Assets are defined and how different definitions
intersect. Terry noted that on the handout with tables, the second table
identifies categories used in the DOI PAR but that are not used in DOI
Asset Management (e.g., National Battlefield, National Park) because
each consists of many real property assets. In other words, a National
Battlefield is not an asset in Maximo, but many assets may exist in
Maximo for that battlefield.

Terry noted that the word "significance" is used several times in the
FASAB definition of heritage assets and our only method in the federal
government to determine significance is the National Register of
Historic Places. So, isn't there a direct link between "historic
properties" as identified on the NRHP and heritage assets? At the same
time, Terry noted that many archeological sites are not evaluated for
the NRHP so lack a significance determination. She was unsure if
unevaluated sites can be considered historic properties. Brian thought
that unevaluated sites were considered NR Eligible based on an ACHP
training class he took. Marv commented that eligibility is only
determined after an evaluation of an archeology site is done. Brian will
look at his training course documentation to see what it said and send
his findings to the group.

David McKinney asked whether the HAP might continue this discussion by
identifying the kinds of "heritage assets" we must deal with for asset
management and move out from there. Related to the purview of the HAP,
Emily asked if the HAP is interested in such things as modern buildings
on historic properties (like modern bathrooms on a battlefield) or only
the historic properties themselves. The group decided to continue this
discussion in the near future.

**2009 Meetings**

Terry suggested that we schedule HAP meetings for every 3^rd^ Tuesday of
the month beginning at 10:30 AM in accordance with our practice in 2008.
Brian said he would reserve the PAM conference room for those dates and
send out a list to the group.

**Next HAP meeting**

Will be on **Tuesday, January 27 at 10:30 -- Noon Eastern.**