**Meeting Notes**

**Heritage Asset Partnership**

9:00 -- 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 12, 2006, MIB

Meeting participants and their contact information were:

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

NPS Randy Biallas 202-354-2061 [Randy_Biallas@nps.gov]{.underline}

BIA Emily Palus 703-390-6343 <EmilyPalus@rcn.com>

BIA Don Sutherland 202-208-4791

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

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

DOI Ray Beittel 202-208-2528 raymond_beittel@ios.doi.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.

**Review of Cultural Resources Performance Measures for the 2007-2012
Departmental Strategic Plan**

Ray Beittel from the Department's planning office attended the meeting
to brief the HAP on upcoming changes to the Cultural Resources
performance measures in the Strategic Plan. The Planning and Performance
Management office at DOI is responsible for implementing all GPRA
performance measures. These changes will take effect for the 2007-2012
Strategic Plan, which should be deployed sometime next FY.

For Cultural Resources the primary change was to break out into specific
measures the previous single measure---cultural properties. Now, the
performance measures will focus on the percentage of archaeological
sites, historic structures, and cultural landscapes in good condition.
The percentage of collections and paleontological sites in good
condition measures remain unchanged. Additionally, the percentage of
Wilderness Areas and Special Management Areas meeting their heritage
resource objectives measure is a combination of two previously separate
measures.

A new performance measure for Cultural Resources focuses on Law
Enforcement and will track the percentage of closed cases for natural,
cultural, and heritage resource crimes occurring on DOI lands for under
DOI jurisdiction.

Ray also clarified the term 'DOI Inventory' which is contained in the
new measures as well as previous ones. It basically refers to those
cultural properties managed by DOI. It does not refer to any separate
listing or database.

The Bureaus associated with the new performance measures are those that
have reported on past versions of the measures. Some additions will need
to occur to capture bureaus that are now tracking and reporting on those
measures.

When questioned as to how the archaeological sites, historic structures,
and cultural landscapes in good condition are to be counted -- either
all known resources or only those with a condition assessment, Ray
responded that only the resource type with a condition assessment would
be counted. This is similar to the GPRA goals for the NPS. When asked if
this distinction is going to be made clearer either in the performance
measure itself or in the template, he said we could offer that
suggestion.

Any editorial suggestions from HAP for the performance measures should
go through the individual bureau points of contact. Ray did supply the
templates for the existing measures as background information.

PFM noted that these measures speak to categories that are different
than those on the stewardship report. It was noted the measures for both
reports were much closer last year. Perhaps a need to change back to
categories similar to those in the GPRA performance measures will take
place for next year's stewardship report

**Solicitor meeting with Cultural Resource Managers**

Emily Palus briefed HAP on the upcoming meeting with the DOI Solicitors
workgroup on cultural resources. She went over the agenda, which
consisted of questions derived by the Deaccessioning workgroup as well
as the HAP question on real property. \[The meeting took place on 7/13
and was very well received, the group focused on the HAP question for
the first 30 minutes of the meeting. I was charged with developing a
record of why HAP believes some or all archaeological and
paleontological sites to be real property that will then be submitted to
the solicitor workgroup\].

**KPMG NFR**

PFM notified the HAP that KPMG had issued an NFR against the Department
for collectible heritage assets, specifically disagreeing with the means
through which the Department identifies the condition of its
collections. PFM will prepare a response for bureau use.

**Bureau Asset Management Plans and Update to the DOI Asset Management
Plan**

HAP members reported that they had seen their bureau asset management
plans. Many included their comments for heritage assets, but some
members had not been asked for comments. The next HAP task will be to
update the Departmental Asset Management plan using information
developed for our bureau plans, where applicable. It was determined that
the HAP sub-group will take on this task. I will distribute my edits to
the DOI plan to the sub-group members and then meet with them to discuss
next steps.

The meeting was adjourned.

Because of scheduling issues, there will be [no]{.underline} HAP meeting
for August. The next HAP meeting will be on September 20^th^ from 9-11
in MIB 2603.