**Meeting Notes**

**Heritage Asset Partnership**

9:00 -- 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 7, 2006, MIB

Meeting participants and their contact information were:

NPS Terry Childs 202-354-2125 Terry_Childs@nps.gov

DOI Ron Wilson 202-208-3438 rowilson@os.doi.gov

DOI Debbie Smith (via phone) 202-208-3250 deborah_l_smith@ios.doi.gov

FWS Eugene Marino 703-358-2173 eugene_marino@fws.gov

USGS Steve Felch 703-648-4370 sfelch@usgs.gov

USGS Robert Eng 703-648-4655 <reng@usgs.gov>

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

BOR Chris Pfaff (via phone) 303-445-2712 cpfaff@do.usbr.gov

**HAP Governance**

HAP documents are available on the PAM website
(<http://www.doi.gov/pam/HeritageAssetsPartner.html>). Please check the
site often for updates.

**Guidance on Deferred Maintenance, Current Replacement Value, and
Facility Condition Index in Life-Cycle Cost Management**

OMB accepted the adjustments made to the DM guidance. The only comment
was to include an FAQ for the sections of the guidance. Several HAP
members submitted questions that were supplied to Bob Jarcho for
inclusion in the guidance. There were some questions raised as to the
real need and applicability of some of the questions included in the
FAQ. It was re-stated that there seems to be enough flexibility in the
development of these documents that we can make adjustments to them if
needed.

With guidance issued and Bureau asset management plans also being
completed, it seems a next step for HAP would be to address the
Departmental Asset Management Plan. I would suggest that the focus of
the group for rest of the summer be to insert language addressing
Heritage Assets into the DOI plan. We will have the benefit of edits
already suggested to the HAP by Terry Childs as well as input we've had
on the DM guidance and our own bureau AMPs. I will start the process and
send a version with some of my input out to the group for review.

**Meeting with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) regarding KPMG
audits of Heritage Assets**

One of the first discussion items of the HAP was experiences that
different members had with respect to the KPMG field visits and the
audit process in general. Several HAP members contributed to a list of
suggestions for the auditors to better this process. In May, Michael
Keegan (PAM) sent a memo on HAPs behalf to the OIG, who has oversight
for KPMG activities, outlining our concerns for the audit process and
including the list of recommendations. On June 1^st^, Ron Wilson and I
met with Jeff Carlson of the OIG to discuss these suggestions. It was
made clear to OIG that certain aspects of the audit process needed some
attention in order to make the process more efficient and useful. First
and foremost we discussed the need for KPMG to regularly interact with
Cultural Resources personnel to make sure that their Program Memos
contained the most current information possible (some bureaus had noted
a lack of input on these memos and noted that KPMG was sometimes
proceeding with its audits using out-of-date information). OIG assured
us that this should not be happening and that KPMG should be updating
that information. They would convey that to their KPMG contact, Jeff
Norris. Additionally, the point that KPMG should have some exposure to
the nuances of heritage assets prior to their field visits was also
conveyed to OIG. Many bureaus have cited instances where auditors
arrived to visit heritage assets without really understanding what would
be expected of them. They were ill-equipped or improperly attired to
take full advantage of the resources available to them and, as such, not
in a position to record the most pertinent information. OIG understood
this point, and agreed that better education for the auditors should
ensue. They welcome the suggestion of a training session for auditors
prior to making field visits, but noted that it was probably too late
for this year.

OIG also asked that the bureau cultural resources personnel interact
with their bureau audit points of contact to ensure that if KPMG was
planning a visit to discuss heritage assets, that they be informed of
the schedule so that they can be available to answer any questions.

In all, the meeting was extremely beneficial and we now have points of
contact at OIG should further issues arise. \[I was also in a meeting
yesterday with FWS KPMG auditors and Jeff Norris told me he had been
informed of our issues by the OIG and has passed it on to his auditors
as well. He told me his intention was to make that clear to other bureau
cultural resources personnel as he interacted with them\].

**RSSI Update and auditing issues**

Debbie Smith was on the phone for the meeting and the question was
raised as to when the new PFM memo would be released. The memo has since
been released (June 9^th^) and has still left several bureaus with
questions about how best to report. For example, a recommendation was
made to PFM that NNLs not be included as a reportable category based on
its 'un-defendable' source information. That category was retained in
the June 9^th^ memo. Hopefully, a final category list will be completed
soon.

**Bureau AMPs**

Bureau Asset Management Plans were due to the Department by June 1^st^.
Each bureau HAP member have offered comments to their draft plans, but
some have not yet seen their bureau's final plan. At this time, HAP
members are encouraged to obtain copies of their AMPs from their
respective asset managers.

**Question from HAP to the cultural resources workgroup within the
Solicitors Office.**

Because HAP has yet to answer the question: Are Archaeological and
Paleontological sites are Real Property? This question will be posed to
the Office of the Solicitor (cultural resources workgroup) for an
informal answer. Attached is the question and some background
information for the Solicitor. HAP members are encouraged to look at it
and offer comments so that it can be delivered to the workgroup for
consideration. HAP feels the answer to this question will affect current
considerations made by bureaus for heritage assets. For example, if
these sites are Real Property, a discussion of such things as deferred
maintenance will need to ensue, especially with respect as to how that
maintenance will be determined.

**NPS and Managed Archaeological Sites**

The question noted above, has been considered by all bureaus to some
degree. Terry Childs was good enough to offer HAP some insights into how
NPS is beginning to address this concept. She noted that several weeks
ago NPS archaeologists met to discuss how best to extend concepts of
asset management to archaeological sites. Their suggestion was that the
current category in the Asset Priority Index: Ruins be replaced with the
category: Managed Archaeological Site. These sites would be those that
are actively managed within the NPS system. Sites that are invested in
and that provide a benefit back to the agency. Managed activities would
include preventive maintenance, repairs, in-kind replacements,
conservation or other actions aimed at preserving the asset. Their plan
then outlined several options for determining a CRV (Current Replacement
Value) for archaeological sites.

**Aimee Mikolajek visit to the May Meeting**

Joining us part way through our meeting was Aimee Mikolajeck, a special
assistant to Secretary Lynn Scarlett. She was primarily interested in
HAP as they speak to her Preserve America duties at DOI and shared with
us some information on Secretary Scarlett's perspective. I shared a
recent speech Aimee wrote for the Secretary with HAP, please look it
over if you have not already done so.

The meeting was adjourned.

The next HAP meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 12^th^, 9:00-
11:00 a.m