AZSITE Quarterly Meeting

Arizona State Parks

Minutes

April 21, 2004

Present:

Michael Barton, ASU, presiding

Carol Griffith, SHPO

Ron Savage, URS Corporation

Rod Rothrock, Cochise County Sheriff’s Department

Patrick Lyons, Center for Desert Archaeology

Jim Cogswell, Northland Research, Inc.

David Wilcox, MNA

Beth Grindell, ASM, recording

Rick Karl, ASM

Ingrid Klune, Tierra Right of Way

Matthew Bilsbarrow, SHPO

Andrea Stahman, Northland Research, Inc.

The minutes of the January meeting were approved on motion and second from Grindell and Barton.

Old Business

1. Grants and ISAs:  On suggestion of Carol Griffith, we will be updating and renewing the AZSITE founding MOA and intergovernmental agreements between ASP, ASU and ASM; and the memorandum of agreement between Arizona State Parks and the Museum of Northern Arizona.
2. Database Committee:
1. Rick Karl reported on the most common errors made in submitting electronic data.

                                                               i. Spacing within ASM site numbers

                                                             ii. Completion of the on-line form that notifies ASM that records are being sent.  Naming it AZSITE makes it very difficult to separate various agency projects.  Using the project name is the preferred naming convention.

                                                            iii. National Register evaluation:  if you do not make a recommendation, please enter “not evaluated” rather than leaving it blank.

                                                           iv. Make sure to check the update box if the site record is an update so that it can be routed differently into the database as an update rather than a new site.

2. Karl noted that we do not change any data submitted, although we may re-arrange some of it.
3. Karl reported on new features recently added to AZSITE:

                                                               i. Users can now search for sites or reports associated with various reports.

                                                             ii. The “search by report” function provides a list of sites included in the report.

                                                            iii. Report references get entered immediately, as do project registration forms, so these are available very quickly.

                                                           iv. Try ASM’s LARC for literature searches; it now contains over 9000 references to Arizona archaeology.  Site names and numbers can be searched through LARC, as can year, author, subject, company name.

                                                             v. Map search application changes include a list of sites or surveys now linked to attribute data in a related window.

                                                           vi. There is an updated help menu, much more extensive than the earlier version.

                                                          vii. There is an “Export to Excel” button to allow you to download attribute data to an Excel spreadsheet.

                                                        viii. The map now prints in landscape format, showing whatever you see on the screen, and users can control whether the legend prints or not.

4. Karl reported on upcoming features:

                                                               i. “We are that close to getting the 7.5’ USGS maps on-line.”  We were waiting for the server move so that domain name and IP addresses did not have to be changed, but since the move date is uncertain so will go ahead with this.

                                                             ii. Getting SHPO’s historic districts on-line is a SHPO priority.

                                                            iii. ASM’s summer projects include uploading MNA data, getting Santa Cruz County data uploaded (courtesy of help from the UA College of Architecture and the Center for Desert Archaeology) and a list of data missing so users can determine where they need to do a paper search, as well as checking AZSITE.

                                                           iv. BLM’s Arizona Strip data should be on-line by the end of the year.

                                                             v. BLM is collaborating with AZSITE to develop a handheld computer AZSITE data entry module that BLM can use in field work on its IPACs.

                                                           vi. Karl has been working with Forest archaeologists to develop a program that can populate both the Forest database and AZSITE.

5. Karl reported that a new records search form is on –line and he requests that users complete that.  We also need a map with requests, either electronic or hand.  Too frequently when we take requests in verbal form without supporting map boundaries, inevitably we end up re-doing the request due to misunderstandings of the scope.
6. Karl reported on areas that have recently received extensive data entry focus, including Yuma Proving Grounds, the N quads and the Safford and Sierra Vista BLM Field Office areas.
7. Griffith asked about inconvenience of having maps out of circulation for scanning. Cogswell noted that we need to find the balance between SHPO convenience and speed so contractors can see them.
8. If we put site maps on line Savage asked that we consider using jpg file format so that users can insert such maps into reports and over-label them, which cannot be done in PDF file formats.
9. Savage asked if it is possible to make this portable across CE platforms.  Barton suggested that we might make this open source licensed for use by others, with credit to AZSITE.
2. Financial report
1. Grindell reported on AZSITE income. Over the past fiscal year, since July 1, 2003, AZSITE user fees brought in $39,745, of which 15% is retained by the University of Arizona to cover administrative costs.  The Consortium board voted to allocate $24,300 of this amount to assist with salary and employee related costs of managing the system.  Barton requested and will receive some funds to cover the costs of inputting ASU project data, to be done this summer.  He will bill ASM for the costs, to be paid from the AZSITE user fees.
2. Barton reported on plans for funding upcoming other improvements:  SHPO historic districts (through SHPO salary lines),
3. Other sources of funds:  BLM funding for the ASU GIS lab, ASM’s records repository fees cover student wages.
3. Tribal data report:  Karl reported that tribal site data are removed from the database, not merely filtered out, and not available through the database.

New Business

1. Site updates and corrections:  As a term of the annual Users License, users agree to provide updated information to AZSITE (via ASM) for any site visits or work on sites (excavation, survey, testing).  It is not necessary to complete a full site record, but recorders should note why they went there and what got done.  This is critical to tracking who visited a site, and how the history of the site changes over time.  There are plans to add a boundary update field so that we can track who reports site boundaries and when. Griffith raised the issue of whether site steward information on their visits gets into the relevant records.  Wilcox suggests that the first step would be to get the site steward’s name into the database so that people checking the record knows to check SHPO records completed by site stewards.
2. Patrick Lyons introduced Ron Rothrock of the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department. Rothrock and colleagues have noted an increase in vandalism sites on state lands and have been partnering with the State land Department on training for monitoring and prosecuting destruction of archaeological sites.  It would be helpful for them to have some sort of site location information, directly or through sensitivity maps, scaled to the six substations of Cochise County, for use by the deputies in each area as to which areas are sensitive and need to be monitored. Rothrock noted that if law enforcement is not aware of sites in an area, they won’t know which lands need to be monitored for that type of illegal activity, versus other activities that may not be destructive of archaeological sites. Griffith commented on issue of need to protect the site location information.  Barton discussed the need to be able to provide law enforcement with information they need while assuring ourselves that the information is being properly protected. Lyons discussed issues of the larger view of collaborating with law enforcement in an educational way that benefits the sites.  He has been working to provide training to law enforcement, similar to the training for site stewards who are not, as sheriff’s employees are, licensed law enforcement officers.  They would not need access to database, just areas, Barton would like to know how they would protect the information. Griffith described the CLG process, as part of which a staff person is designated to be the AZSITE user. Rothrock described briefly the screening process that Sheriffs must go through to ensure integrity, which is undoubtedly greater than site stewards must go through.  Barton urged the development of an intergovernmental agreement to allow us to work together.  Grindell noted that we have spent 8 years looking for ways to keep people out of the database, for the best protection of the data, but that law endowment officials are the kind of people we need to collaborate with.  We need to do education on both sides. Lyons circulated a letter from Chris Roll, the Cochise County Attorney, urging collaboration with AZSITE managers for the benefit of archaeological site protection.  Barton and Griffith noted that County land crosscuts multiple jurisdictions and we would need to know that we have permission from other jurisdictions for reviewing data. Rothrock noted that BLM has come to the Cochise County Sheriff’s office to seek collaboration on site protection. Cogswell raised the issue of the level of data they may need.  What kind of information would laws enforcement need about a site?  How quickly does law enforcement need information?  If they carry GPS equipment, can they use it to report location and get information on nearby sites.  How quickly is the information that law enforcement gets updated?  How quickly is good enough? Rothrock noted that paper maps, updated quarterly or semi-annually, in the control of the sergeant and lieutenant, would be an appropriate source of information.  In response to a question from Klune, Griffith noted that when vandalism is discovered it needs to be reported to the land manager. Griffith is concerned that we make sure that federal agencies be brought into the discussions; Rothrock commented that BLM wants to develop an agreement and that the State Land Department is eager for collaboration. Fort Huachuca maintains exclusive jurisdiction so that would not be a subject for discussion.  Other federal agencies that need to be included are the National Park Service and the Forest Service.  Barton asked for a proposal from Cochise County with specifics about what kind of information they need, what other agencies would need to be involved, and how the information would be protected. Griffith discussed the possible need for a meeting of federal and state agencies that have data that AZSITE contains.  AZSITE is very interested in participating and we appreciate the support of the Cochise County Sheriff’s office.

Next meeting: Wednesday, August 4, 2004, Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff

Agenda:           SHPO undertakings numbers

                        Legislation

Attachment:      Letter dated 4/19/04 from Chris M. Roll, Cochise County Attorney