Preservation posts: the online journal of the Historic Preservation Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Apr. 2011

In this issue:
-Message from the Director: To Bridge a Gap -A Good Time Was Had By All: Preservationists Meet in Macon for 2011 Statewide Preservation Conference -Update on Georgia's Statewide Historic Preservation Plan Revision - Public Input Phase -The National Register of Historic Places in Georgia, Part 5 -Staff Profiles: Richard Moss
Message from the Director: To Bridge a Gap
By Dr. David Crass, Division Director & State Archaeologist
"When I go to the Great Beyond I will be asked why I didn't help my ancestors." Lisa Stopp, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the United Keetoowah Band spoke these words at the 10th annual To Bridge A Gap conference, in Norman, Oklahoma. She was

addressing the treatment of human remains--the remains of her ancestors--by many of us in the archaeology and historic preservation fields. Until the late 1980s, our professions treated these remains as little more than biological specimens and curated them accordingly in boxes on shelves. As Lisa noted, her people believe that we were only intended to be on this earth for so long, and then we were to return to the earth. Many tribal members consider it nothing short of desecration that, as Lisa said, "there are people who have been in boxes longer than they walked the earth."
The To Bridge a Gap conference was started by the U.S. Forest Service to facilitate the consultation processes that are part of both the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. This year over 350 attendees represented 150 federallyrecognized tribes and various federal and state agencies. Over the last decade many federal agencies have developed strong working relationships with their tribal counterparts. Many tribes now show increasing interest in the activities of state agencies in their ancestral lands.
I was asked by a representative of the Muscogee Creek Nation to give a presentation on Georgia's cultural resource protection laws, which are largely enforced by our own Wildlife Resources Division-Law Enforcement Section (WRD-LE). Lt. Colonel Jeff Weaver, Captain Mike England, and Captain Thomas Barnard assisted me with data collection and images from looting cases. The questions and comments from the audience in Norman indicated that DNR's efforts in this area are deeply appreciated and help to build relationships with American Indian tribal authorities. These relationships are a critical part of any state historic preservation office. This can be a challenging process because there is substantial tension between the perspectives of western science and traditional non-western beliefs. Nonetheless, the relationships that grow out of opportunities like To Bridge a Gap help us to look at ourselves through other's eyes--a perspective which can be valuable in our day to day activities as well as in our personal lives.
A Good Time Was Had By All: Preservationists Meet in
Macon for 2011 Statewide Preservation Conference

By Carole Moore & Mary Ann Eaddy, Conference Coordinators
Donovan Rypkema gave his presentation to an attentive crowd at Macon's Douglass Theatre. On March 31 April 1, nearly 165 preservationists converged on Macon to celebrate Good News in Tough Times. Co-sponsored by HPD, The Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation, the Tourism Division of the Georgia Department of Economic Development, the Georgia Humanities Council, and Historic Macon Foundation, the statewide preservation conference provided an opportunity for people to hear about new and successful projects across the state, to network, and, basically, to recharge. Donovan Rypkema inspired us with his findings on preservation's positive economic impact in Georgia and across the country, and Jerry Flemming left us on a high note with Johnny Mercer's

Ac-cen-tu-ate the Positive! The opportunity to meet as a group in the historic Douglass Theatre and the breathtaking Hay House reminded us of the importance of preserving those special places that represent Georgia's heritage. Knowledgeable speakers spoke passionately on issues such as the value of rehabilitation tax incentives to revitalization efforts, the challenges faced in identifying and preserving mid-20th century resources, new research about the Civil War in Georgia, and much more. Familiar faces and many new ones graced the crowd all sharing the common goal of protecting Georgia's historic places for the next generation.
We are very grateful to our co-sponsors, hosts, speakers, conference planning team, and participants. Everyone's efforts contributed to the success of the conference. Thank you all for proving that there really is Good News in Tough Times!
Update on Georgia's Statewide Historic Preservation Plan Revision - Public Input Phase
By Dr. Karen Anderson-Cordova, Environmental Review and Preservation Planning Program Manager

The November 18, 2010 public meeting held in Calhoun was well-attended.
The Historic Preservation Division (HPD) is in the process of updating Georgia's statewide historic preservation plan that will guide our preservation efforts for the next five years (20122016). A critical component of this process is gathering public input for the plan. Our public participation strategy included a series of public meetings held across the state, and an on-line survey posted on our website and advertised through our electronic newsletter database, our Facebook page, and at our public meetings. Well, the results are in and we would like to share some of the highlights of what Georgians had to say. Further analysis of the public input results will continue as we draft an updated plan. A draft of the plan document will also be available on our website for public comment later this year.
Public input meetings

HPD coordinated with the historic preservation planners of Georgia's regional commissions to host eleven public meetings across the state. These were held in Eastman (Heart of GeorgiaAltamaha Region); Albany (Southwest Georgia region); Franklin (Three Rivers region); Athens (Northeast Georgia region); Calhoun (Northwest Georgia region); Macon (Middle Georgia region); Thomson (Central Savannah River Area region); Columbus (River Valley region); Douglas (Southern Georgia region); Gainesville (Georgia Mountains region); and Atlanta (Metro Atlanta region). Attendance varied from region to region, from a few individuals to twenty to thirty individuals per meeting. The meetings were structured to include a 15-20 minute presentation on the main preservation programs administered by HPD, the current preservation plan and a discussion of the planning process. This was followed by an open forum for participants to express the preservation issues important to their communities and to make suggestions and recommendations for the next plan update. Preservation non-profits; state, regional and local officials; historic preservation commission members; historic preservation advisory committee members; consultants; code enforcers; preservation planners; historic home owners; educators; and the interested public participated in these meetings.
There were various issues/themes that came up consistently at these meetings. The main ones included: (1) education and outreach strategies to assist property owners and local governments in preserving historic properties; (2) preservation training for public and elected officials; (3) sustainability and historic preservation; (4) historic preservation education for youth and the general public; and (5) lack of adequate funding for preservation projects.
Other issues discussed included: (1) promoting preservation and heritage tourism; (2) diversifying preservation products and constituents (i.e. reach out to non-traditional partners); (3) education in preservation-related building trades and historic preservation education for professionals in planning, architecture, and other fields; (4) developing better tools to help rural regions of the state; (5) state stewardship of historic properties; (6) including the preservation of historic records; (7) enhanced training for local historic preservation commissions; (8) better historic preservation advocacy; (9) promoting and educating the public about the preservation tax credits; (10) the need to focus on the preservation of historic neighborhoods; (11) the importance of modern resources; (12) the importance of historic resources surveys, including the development of a database on Civil War sites.
Survey questionnaire

The survey questionnaire consisted of ten questions, and we received a total of 403 responses. Georgians who completed our survey reflect a variety of roles and interests in historic preservation, ranging from local government officials; non-profit organizations; historic preservation commission members; preservation professionals and consultants in the fields of history, architecture, and archaeology; state government employees; as well as preservation students, educators, and owners of historic properties.
All regions in Georgia were represented in the survey. However, the majority of respondents were from Metro Atlanta (40.4%) and North Georgia (24.1%). Percentages of responses dropped considerably for the rest of the regions. Because of the bias towards Metro Atlanta and North Georgia in questionnaire respondents, it was even more important to have had the public meetings throughout the state. This bias also is an indication that we need to do a more effective job of communicating the preservation message to the rest of the state. Below is a summary of some of the survey results:
Which preservation activities should the Historic Preservation Division give priority to during the next five years to protect historic and archaeological resources? The question listed 22 preservation activities that could be rated as either not important, somewhat important, important, or extremely important. The three preservation activities that received the highest average ratings were: (1) federal and state tax incentives for historic preservation projects; (2) funding programs (heritage grants and CLG grants); and (3) partnering with local organizations to preserve and enhance historic downtowns and rural communities. Other activities that received a high average rating included: (1) promoting preservation legislation; (2) heritage tourism; (3) survey to identify historic buildings and structures; (4) coordinating efforts with state, regional and planning agencies; (5) review of state and federal projects for impact on historic and archaeological resources; (6) historic preservation training and workshops and other preservation education activities; (7) strengthening Georgia's preservation network and developing new preservation partners; and (8) assisting local historic preservation commissions. There were also 29 responses that listed other preservation activities as important: state stewardship of historic properties, developing school curriculum focusing on local historic resources, energy conservation and historic properties, and preservation of neighborhoods. It is important to point out that these additional activities also came up during the public meetings we had across the state.

Which historic resources in your area do you consider the most important to preserve? Seventeen historic resource types were listed that could be rated as either not important, somewhat important, important or extremely important. The resource type with the highest average rating was Main Street/Downtowns, followed by: public buildings, houses, historic landscapes, civic/public spaces, cemeteries, residential neighborhoods, and African American resources. There were also 23 responses that listed other resources as important: Native American sites, other minority resources, theatres, gas stations, military aviation sites, and state-owned historic sites. It is important to point out that state-owned historic sites also came up during the public meetings across the state.
Which programs of the Historic Preservation Division are you most interested in? Individuals could rate or rank their level of interest in seventeen programs as either not interested, somewhat interested, interested or extremely interested. The three programs that received the highest average rating were: (1) historic preservation planning; (2) grants for rehabilitation of historic buildings; and (3) tax incentives. Other programs that received a high average rating included: (1) protecting historic and archaeological properties with state and federal environmental review laws; (2) technical assistance for local and community preservation planning; (3) architectural technical assistance in rehabilitating historic buildings, and (4) the Georgia and National Register of Historic Places. There were also 16 responses that mentioned other programs: training in repair of historic buildings, sustainability initiatives, local regional planners, focus on other ethnic groups such as Native Americans and other minorities, preservation easements, and more intensive historic preservation training. It is important to note that training in repair of historic buildings and sustainability initiatives also came up during the public input meetings.
What do you consider to be the most effective methods that the Historic Preservation Division can use for providing historic preservation information to the public? Fifteen methods were listed that could be rated as either not effective, somewhat effective, effective, or extremely effective. The methods that received the highest average ratings were: (1) website; (2) ready access to HPD staff by telephone or email; (3) on-site staff assistance; and (4) training workshops. It is interesting to note that social media ranked 13th in average ratings, indicating that as a relatively new form of communication, it is not yet perceived as an

effective method.
How did you learn about this survey? Another question asked about how the respondent learned about the survey. This was quite revealing. 73% of respondents learned about the survey through HPD's e-mail newsletter. Only 11.2% learned about the survey through our website, 8.9% through a public meeting, and 6.2% through Facebook. This shows that we need to do a much better job publicizing what we do and find new mechanisms to get the word out.
The survey also included three open-ended questions in which respondents could write in what they wanted. It was very revealing that almost all of the 403 surveys included detailed answers to these questions.
Why is the preservation of Georgia's heritage important to you? The main themes expressed were: (1) sense of place, continuity with the past; (2) uniqueness, community value; (3) for future generations; (4) pride in Georgia's history; (5) sustainability; (6) non-renewable resources that will be lost forever if not preserved; (7) education, tangible links to history and place; and (8) economic benefits. The responses overwhelmingly address an emotional connection. Although economic benefits were certainly brought up, intangible reasons such as sense of place, identity, pride, and quality of life predominated in the responses to this question.
What do you consider are the most important preservation issues facing Georgia now and in the next five years? Not surprisingly in this period of economic downturn, one of the main issues expressed was the need for funding for all level of projects and the need to identify new funding sources. Many also mentioned specifically funding for HPD, state historic sites, and the regional preservation planners. Respondents also emphasized education about preservation, the need to focus on the younger generations to get them involved in preservation, finding better ways to balance development and preservation, demolition by neglect, training for local historic preservation commissions and local officials, preservation and sustainability, and the opportunity in the next four years to focus on the Civil War Sesquicentennial. Respondents also mentioned the preservation of specific resource types as significant issues: many mentioned the preservation of mid-20th-century resources, preservation of rural landscapes and communities, and

vernacular architecture. Other types of resources specifically mentioned were: Native American sites, archaeological sites, battlefields, historic landscapes, cemeteries, and historic urban neighborhoods, specifically mill villages and African American neighborhoods.
What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia? Most respondents emphasized continuing the work they are already doing to promote and carry out preservation projects, as historic preservation commission members, Main Street or Better Hometown directors, owners of historic properties, state or federal employees, educators, students, and consultants. The main themes included: lobbying for preservation, raising funds for preservation, advocating, educating, participating, volunteering, and staying involved within the preservation community. Answers to this question indicate that there is a motivated constituency for preservation in Georgia that is already working towards preservation goals and is willing to do more.
The public input process has provided valuable ideas to incorporate into the goals and objectives of the next plan update. It is evident that we need to find more effective ways to communicate the value of preservation and to provide preservation training to a wide base of constituents, including public and elected officials, professionals, and students. It is also clear that our preservation stakeholders understand how preservation is relevant to the larger issues of quality of life, economic development and sustainability and that they want HPD's core preservation programs to reflect this wider context. As we develop the next plan, we will need to tackle these issues and come up with a plan relevant to a broad audience of preservationists and other constituents across the state.
The National Register of Historic Places in Georgia
By Gretchen Brock, National Register & Survey Program Manager
Part 5: Georgia National Register Review Board Meeting
This is the fifth in a series of articles about the National Register process in Georgia that began in November 2010. For previous articles, please see the past editions of Preservation Posts available on our website.

National Register Historian Denise Messick gives a presentation at the January 2011 Review Board meeting.
The Georgia National Register Review Board meets twice a year--in the fall and spring. As defined in the federal regulations governing the National Register (36 CFR 60), the review board is "a body whose members represent the professional fields of American history, architectural history, historic architecture, prehistoric and historic archaeology, and other professional disciplines and may include citizen members." The review board is responsible for reviewing and commenting on the National Register eligibility of all proposed National Register nominations before the nominations are submitted by HPD to the National Park Service.
HPD takes several actions before a review board meeting: summaries of each proposed nomination are prepared, formal notifications of the proposed nominations are sent, and PowerPoint presentations are prepared.

Summaries Proposed nominations are assigned to HPD's National Register staff who will present the proposals to the review board and prepare the final nomination materials. Staff write summaries of each proposed nomination. The summary is a one-page synopsis based on the research and documentation submitted to our office in the HPIF or HDIF. The summary includes a description and location of the property as well as the applicable National Register Criteria and a summary of the significance of the property. A map indicating the National Register boundary is also included. It is important to keep in mind that the summary is just that--a brief summary of the important facts and attributes of a proposed nomination taken from a much larger compilation of research.
Notification Process The formal notification process is outlined in the federal regulations governing the National Register (36 CFR 60). HPD sends a notification packet by U.S. mail, 30 to 75 days before a review board meeting, to those property owners and government officials directly associated with the property or district. A property owner is defined as the property owner(s) on record with the official land recordation or tax records. The packet includes a notification cover letter, National Register Fact Sheet, National Register Criteria for Evaluation, and the summary. The notification cover letter provides instructions on how private property owners can concur with or object to the proposed nomination. The letter also solicits written comments regarding the significance of the property or district from property owners, local government officials, and interested parties prior to the review board meeting.
For districts with less than 50 property owners, a notification packet is sent to each property owner listed in official property tax records. For districts with more than 50 property owners, a legal advertisement is placed by HPD in the local legal organ (newspaper) 30 to 75 days prior to the review board meeting.
The notification process provides the opportunity for private property owner(s) to concur with or object to listing. If a property owner wishes to object to the listing, the property owner must send a notarized letter to HPD that certifies (1) they are the sole or partial owner of private property and (2) they officially object to the nomination. If a majority of private property owners object, the property proposed for nomination will not be officially listed in the National

Register.
Public Information Meetings for Proposed District Nominations For district nominations, HPD staff usually arranges a public information meeting with the local sponsor of the nomination. An informal public meeting is held at a public place in or near the district (i.e. city hall, community center, local historical society or other public meeting space) for residents of the district and other interested citizens. HPD staff presents a PowerPoint presentation about the National Register and the proposed district nomination, answers questions, and solicits comments. The meeting also provides an educational opportunity for the public to learn more about HPD's preservation programs and to get answers to questions about the National Register process.
Review Board Meetings Review board meetings are open to the public. During the meeting, HPD's National Register staff formally presents a 10-15 minute PowerPoint presentation on each proposed nomination to the board. The board has an opportunity to comment or ask questions about the proposed nomination. Property owners and other interested parties in attendance are given an opportunity to speak before the board. The board then formally votes on whether or not the proposed nomination appears to meet the National Register Criteria. For most proposed nominations, the board votes in favor and the nomination goes to the next step in the process. The board can also vote to table a proposed nomination (usually to request additional research or analysis) or to recommend that the proposed nomination does not meet the National Register Criteria. The board's role is advisory and the decision to forward a proposed nomination to the National Register rests with the state historic preservation officer or his/her designated authority. In Georgia, these decisions are made by HPD's Division Director.
For more information about the Georgia National Register Review Board and a current list of review board members, please see our website.
Next month in Preservation Posts: Part 6: HPD Submits Final Nomination to the National Register
-For questions or more information about the National Register process, please contact: Gretchen Brock, National Register & Survey Program Manager at 404.651.6782 or gretchen.

brock@dnr.state.ga.us. Lynn Speno, National Register Specialist at 404.651.5911 or lynn.speno@dnr.state.ga.us. -The official National Register of Historic Places website is www.nps.gov/history/nr/index.htm. -The National Register of Historic Places has a series of publications and guidelines for evaluating, documenting, and listing different types of properties available at www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/ index.htm.
Staff Profiles
Richard Moss, Staff Archaeologist

I just started at HPD in December. I went to the University of Georgia for both my undergraduate and master's degrees. Prior to HPD, I worked for several Cultural Resource Management firms on various survey and testing projects throughout the Southeast. The work I do here at HPD is similar to my past experience. I'm primarily responsible for conducting archaeological reconnaissance surveys in advance of timbering operations on State Parks and Wildlife Management Areas by DNR's Wildlife Resources Division. This means I spend a lot of time hiking through the woods and digging shovel tests to find archaeological sites. Then I come back to the office to write reports and recommendations based on my findings. Each project is an opportunity to apply what I learned at school and on the job, from identifying the occupation periods of a site on the basis of diagnostic artifacts to mapping site locations utilizing GIS when I return to the office.
What do you like most about your job?

I love going out to survey our beautiful state lands because I enjoy working outside, and I get a thrill out of finding previously unknown cultural resources. It's quite a feeling to be walking along in what seems like unpopulated wilderness only to discover that the place you're standing on was someone's home or campsite hundreds or perhaps thousands of years ago. It also provides a great deal of job satisfaction - knowing that I'm playing a part in helping to identify and preserve significant archaeological sites on state lands. I also enjoy the opportunities I have to assist with our public archaeology endeavors, such as our partnership with Georgia Southern University on Camp Lawton, a Civil War prisoner of war site at Magnolia Springs State Park.
What do you like to do outside of the office? In my spare time my wife and I often go on trips to our local and state parks for hiking and occasionally camping. Whenever I tire of the great outdoors, I also very much enjoy playing videogames and watching movies.
Please send your comments or suggestions to charlie.miller@dnr.state.ga.us.
Not a member? Subscribe now! Our mailing address is: Georgia Historic Preservation Division Department of Natural Resources 254 Washington Street, SW, Ground Level Atlanta, GA 30334 Add us to your address book Copyright (C) 2011 Georgia Historic Preservation Division All rights reserved. Title image: Statewide Preservation Conference attendees enjoy the reception at Macon's Hay House.