AZSITE Consortium

Quarterly Meeting

November 3, 2004

Department of Anthropology

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ

 

Present:

David Wilcox, MNA

Carol Griffith, SHPO

Steve Savage, SHPO           

Rick Karl, ASM

Connie Stone, BLM

Michael Barton, ASU

Cara Schmidt, SWCA

Alissa Bentz, ACS

Dan Daggett, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community

Jim Cogswell, Northland Research, Inc.                                                                                   

Andrea Stahman, Northland Research

David Purcell, Four Corners Research

 

A.     Call to order:  The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m.

B.     Introductions:  See above for list of those present.

C.     Old Business

1)       Minutes:  The minutes of the August 4, 2004, meeting were approved by unanimous vote.

2)      Status Report on Grants and ISAs: 

a)      Beth Grindell reported on the possibility of applying for a Technology Opportunities Program grant through the Department of Commerce to fund the development of project tracking software to be accessible by all agencies and contractors involved in the cultural resource compliance process.  She and Griffith will collaborate on a strategic statement of need and a scope of work. 

b)      Carol Griffith reported that she has prepared new draft ISAs for all Consortium members to review.

3)      Standing Committee Reports:

a)      Database Committee: 

(i)               Rick Karl reported that the database has successfully been replicated to ASM where the permanent copy now resides.  It is replicated back to ASU to a web server.  As a consequence of this change, when problems arise they can be remedied and the server restarted more quickly and new data are uploaded to the database sooner than under old protocol.

(ii)              All data received from MNA over past 3 years has been uploaded.  ASM and MNA are coordinating to determine whether all the MNA site cards are entered.  David Wilcox noted that there are some remaining old maps that users may still need to consult at MNA.  Karl will coordinate with Lindsay Hunter at MNA on transfer of all MNA data to AZSITE.  Karl has completed a map-quad-based inventory of which AZ quads are competed for which agencies and it will be posted soon to the AZSITE website.

(iii)            Midvale-Turney Canal Data Project:  Karl has been working with Jerry Howard, Pueblo Grande Museum, and SHPO staff to get the 1981 Phoenix Basin canals map included in AZSITE.  Arizona State Parks has set aside some Heritage Funds to handle the digitizing of the canal data and establishment of associated attribute data.  Each segment will carry information as to where the original data came from, whether it has been relocated, and when.  The project should be completed by early summer, 2005.

(iv)            Forest Service Data:  Karl reported that a stand alone entry system to accommodate both AZSITE And USFS INFRA data is being developed and should be available next year.  The USFS will develop programs to download AZSITE to populate the USFS database. 

(v)             NPS Data:  Carol Griffith reported on a conversation with NPS personnel who are considering some modifications to the NPS database and they are interested in developing processes to share data with AZSITE. 

(vi)            NAD27 and NAD83 projection issues:  Karl discussed problems related to unstandardized projection procedures and assumptions.  Starting with the Tucson Basin, ASM is reviewing the data to insure that we know what the original datum was and what data need to be re-projected.  Users may send data in either projection, but AZSITE must know which projection was used so that data can be re-projected as necessary.  At this point, AZSITE is using NAD27 because not all quads are available in NAD83. 

b)      Management Committee 

(i)               New Web Server:  Karl reported that a new web application server needs to be bought to replace the original Pinal server, in use for seven years now.  A new web application should be in place by early summer, 2005.  It will allow for faster access to data.

(ii)              7.5’ Maps:  Wilcox and Barton reported that the technical problems associated with the use of the 7.5’ maps on AZMAP has been solved and that with the purchase of a new distribution version SQL license, the 7.5’ maps should be available soon. 

(iii)            AZSITE and ASM Records Search Fees for 2005:  Wilcox reviewed the current system whereby potential users apply to the ASHPO for right to access the system.  SHPO determines that potential users meet the DOI standards for archaeologists and then approves the application.  Then there is a 3-level user fee, depending on the number of users a company/institution has.  Wilcox then asked David Purcell to present his concerns about the fee structure.  Purcell described the situation as he sees it from the point of view of a small business user.  For a company that does only three to four searches a year, the $750 annual AZSITE minimum fee represents a large chunk out of the company’s overhead.  He asked if there was a possibility of a per-search fee, for data searches done on request through ASM, which could provide all the data, not just ASM data.  (Under current policy, only authorized users who have paid the annual fees can get access to all data, rather than just ASM data.)   Furthermore, both Purcell and Karl noted that Purcell has had trouble connecting to the AZSITE web site for unknown reasons that have proven insoluble.  Wilcox described a possible modification to the system, where people who have a user agreement, but who do not wish to pay the annual fee for access, to pay an extra $100 per search, on top of the $50 minimum ASM search fee.  Cogswell noted that Northland has raised a similar query, about the expense of adding a fourth user, which increases the fee from $750 to $1800 per year.  Karl reported that a flexible “fourth user” account is being set up that will be available for users in 2005. 

(iv)            Relationship between ASM and AZSITE data contributors:  Karl reminded users that just because a record is in the AZSITE database does not mean that ASM has the paper records.  Each agency that participates in AZSITE retains control of its own paper records. 

c)      Tribal Data:  AZSITE does not have any data from tribal lands in the database.  In the upload process, all data are reviewed to determine whether sites intersect tribal lands. If so, the data are removed from the dataset before submission to AZSITE 

D.     New Business:

1)      Conservation/Archaeological Database:  Beth Grindell described a request from Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman at ASM to enter faunal data at the species level to AZSITE records, where present, in order to track what we know archaeologically about animal species presence in various parts of the state through time.  Data about species presence and chronology would be available to Arizona Game and Fish staff as well as researchers at the section level so as to protect site location data.  Questions were raised as to how the faunal data would be kept current and updated through time.  Griffith requested clarification about security issues and whether we would need a separate server for a publicly accessible set of sensitivity maps.   The Consortium decided to table a decision pending the winter meeting in Tucson and an opportunity to explore these issues. 

E.      Public Comment :

1)      Cara Schmidt requested clarification of when in the process a project should be registered and Griffith commented that it is usually the responsibility of the SHPO or the lead state or federal agency to register a project. 

2)      In response to a question, Karl noted that the data upload backlog dates to June, 2002.  There is some material in the database that is more recent because various circumstances dictate handling some projects more quickly than others.  Karl described the process of checking the records and uploading data.  The agency review process has never worked as envisioned and sometimes data are uploaded and then have to be re-uploaded after agency changes. 

3)      In response to a question about agency review, there was a discussion of entering data into the database that has not been approved by the relevant land managing agency.  At this point, data entry into AZSITE happens somewhat independently from agency review.  The original intent was that site and survey data would be held in a “coral” until lead agency review is complete and then uploaded when the land managing agency notifies AZSITE that review is complete.  Additionally, under the terms of permits granted for state lands, site records should be submitted to ASM within 90 days. 

F.      Next meeting:

1)      Agenda

a)      New Interagency Service Agreements among AZSITE Consortium members

b)      Progress report on TOP grant

c)      Report on 7.5’ maps

d)      Financial report

2)      Date:  The next meeting is scheduled for February 2, 2005, at ASM.

G.     Adjournment:  The meeting was adjourned at 3:14 p.m.