1. Carol Griffith called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. After introductions (see attached list of participants), Grindell and Wilcox moved and seconded the approval of the minutes of the April, 2000, minutes. The minutes were approved.
2. Grants status report:

• Carol Griffith reported that all the ISTEA ISA’s are in place and active. ADOT did send back some invoices for format reasons and now says that we do not need to match the funds at the 6% level. ADOT will contribute the match.
• Beth Grindell reported that ASM is data entering the remainder of the Tucson-Phoenix Corridor site and survey data, as well as incoming ADOT projects. Student labor is covered under ISTEA grants through December, 2000, and Rick Karl salary (at the half-time level) is covered through June 31, 2001.
• Peter McCartney reported that ASU has worked through 90 data sets from ASM and a CD full of data from MNA and has uploaded them to the main database. Since some of the data formats were earlier versions of the data entry module, some special adjustments had to be made to upload the. The server SDE version was upgraded in the summer which has resolved some data corruption problems, but also caused some problems with applications that were not synchronized. It is now necessary to have ArcView 3.2 and the proper extensions.
• McCartney added a replication process so that the web server draws only from the replicated version of the database, and obtains only the version without tribal data. All data uploads are inserted to the database and replicated overnight.
• Currently we are supporting both MS Access 97 and 2000. Since they are incompatible the system is bearing a cost to keep both running.
• Plans are being developed for ASU to turn over the data tracking and uploading procedures to ASM in the person of Rick Karl.
• In response to a question from Dave Gifford, there was a general discussion of plans for data submission by contractors to the database. Because land managing agencies need to review data for their land before it is inserted in the database and made available to authorized users, it will be necessary for contractors to submit data electronically to land managing agencies. Once the land managing agency archaeologist has reviewed the data, s/he will be responsible for sending it to the AZSITE corral for insertion into the database.

• Beth reviewed the status of the BLM training grant that ASM and BLM finalized in the spring. Under the terms of the grant, Rick Karl wrote an AZSITE users manual for BLM and has been visiting each BLM field office to provide hands-on training to BLM archaeologists. Gary Stumpf noted that the system is not intuitive to everyone and we all need to roll up our sleeves and learn ArcView.

    3.    Database committee:

• Peter McCartney reviewed the process of replication, whereby a copy of the database is created which does not contain any tribal data. AZSITE user accounts have access only to the replicated copy of the database. AZSITE consortium members (MNA, ASU, ASM, SHPO) are the only agencies with access to the master database that does contain tribal data.
• Brett Hill is working on data entry module (the "standalone") to create a print function so that site cards can be printed.
• McCartney discussed the fact that development of the web site can vastly cut training time needed to use the system however the web site security is controlled by the web server and this reduces the applications the web can handle, thereby reducing the functionality of the web.
• ArcView and Access are notorious for not letting the user switch from one to the other as they do not release locks on files.
• In response to comments from Lynn Neal and Owen Lindauer, there was discussion of the need to create "desensitized" data that does not contain detailed location information so that a broader public may access the data, including municipal officials concerned with planning issues. There was general consensus that for the time being the Consortium needs to be concerned with getting system running and then can think about methods of restricting it.

4.    Management committee:

• Carol Griffith noted that the agreement with BLM contains only minor points to be resolved.
• There was some general discussion, in response to a question from Lynn Neal, about the level of access to data that can be obtained through the AZSITE user account and McCartney clarified that the existing user account does get the user access to the replicated database (i.e., the full version, but without tribal data). The web application contains limited information and many users are not equipped to deal with Arc View, so therefore few have yet taken advantage of access to the full version, relying on the web site and continued access to paper files at ASM and SHPO.
• There was general discussion about whether the consortium ever intended that contractors and other users would be able to get access to location information through the web application. McCartney pointed out that the current system rested on a technical issue, not a management decision to exclude information. Grindell noted that ASM never intended that contractors would not be able to get detailed location information, because if they don’t get it through the database in some form (either through direct access to the database or through a web application) then they will have to continue to come to ASM which does nothing to improve ASM’s ability to provide information. Wilcox suggested that the consortium needs to look at a 2-level security system.
• Beth Grindell reviewed possible federal funding sources and concluded that our best chances for future funding were our past supporters, including BLM and ADOT. Lindauer noted that ADOT is very willing to look into future collaboration if AZSITE can be proved useful. Gary Stumpf noted that he intends that the SHPO/BLM purchase agreement will represent ongoing support to AZSITE, pending approval at the federal level of appropriate funding to BLM.
• Lynn Neal raised the issue of the use of DOI standards to determine who should have an AZSITE user account and password. In many contract firms, site file checks are assigned to people only with bachelor’s degrees, or perhaps to the GIS staff, to do and such staff do not meet DOI standards. There is consensus that the firm which requests the accounts (and accounts can be obtained only through the firms) must have someone on staff who does meet the requirements who functions in a supervisory position over those with AZSITE accounts.
• Peter McCartney discussed the issue of a permanent home for AZSITE. It is an orphan in the Center for Environment Studies at ASU and Chuck Redman will host it only if it is not a time drain. The system is complex and expensive and few such SDE systems now so it requires special attention.
• Linda Martin noted that she is on a committee to deal with a USNF database that will contain, among much other information, cultural resource information. If the USFS database and AZSITE cannot successfully talk then AZSITE will be of no usefulness at the federal level. She is currently maximizing her use of AZSITE but there are some incompatibilities in field lengths. This limits the utility of AZSITE to the USFS and likely means that there will not be any USFS funding to AZSITE in the foreseeable future.

5.    Tribal Concerns Committee report:

• David Wilcox reported on a continuing series of meetings between AZSITE consortium staff and various tribes. AZSITE is trying to talk to both cultural preservation staff and tribal government staff. This year AZSITE has met with the Tohono O’odham and the Intertribal Council and will meet August 15 with representatives of Hopi.
• Carol Griffith noted that Nina Swidler has asked for a meeting between AZSITE staff and
• Navajo Nation representatives.  John Welch reminded us that the White Mountain Apache Tribe has been on record in support of a partnership with AZSITE since the beginning and remains available to discuss how to set up a
  program to share Fort Apache Indian Reservation data, through AZSITE, when it is in the Tribe's interest to do so.
• Camillus Lopez noted that the Tohono O’odham Nation Tribal Council had not yet dealt with AZSITE but will probably do so within a couple of weeks.
• Chad Smith reported on a meeting in California with the California Historic Resource Information System staff about making CHRIS data available over the internet. Tribal representatives and the Native American Heritage Commission representatives were not receptive to the plan. In a separate meeting, the National Association of Tribal Preservation Officers also touched briefly on internet databases and the benefits were not felt to outweigh the drawbacks. The Fort Mohave Tribe will probably want to use AZSITE for research purposes, however.

6.    Next meeting and agenda:

• Carol Griffith suggested that the AZSITE consortium meet for a management committee meeting in the morning of the next meeting, and hold the public meeting in the afternoon. All concurred.
• Agenda items include presentation of a model of where AZSITE needs to be in 2 years, a two year funding plan and re-visit access issue.
• The next meeting is scheduled for October 5, 2000, 1 to 3 pm, SHPO, Phoenix.

Participants:

Carol Griffith, SHPO, Chair

Beth Grindell, ASM, recording

Peter McCartney, ASU

David R. Wilcox, Museum of Northern Arizona

Chad Smith, Ft Mohave Tribe/San Carlos Apache Tribe

Steve Ross, ASLD

Gary Stumpf, BLM

Dave Gifford, Bureau of Reclamation

Leslie Kadish, MNA

Jon Shumaker, Ak-Chin Indian Community

Tony Joe, MNA

Nina Swidler, Navajo Nation

Linda Martin, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Lynn Neal, SWCA

Jim Garrison, SHPO

Owen Lindauer, ADOT

Camillus Lopez, Tohono O’odham Nation

John Welch, White Mountain Apache Tribe