AZSITE Consortium

Minutes

Quarterly Meeting

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Arizona State Parks, Phoenix

A) Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m.

B) Introduction of Members and Guests: The following were present:

1) David Wilcox, MNA, presiding

2) Michael Barton, ASU

3) Beth Grindell, ASM, recording

4) Rick Karl, ASM

5) Carol Griffith, SHPO

6) Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman, ASM

7) Jim Cogswell, Northland Research

8) Matthew Bilsbarrow, SHPO

9) JoAnne Medley, SHPO

10) Andi Stahman, Northland Research

11) Kristin Fangmeier, ACS

12) Andrea Gregory, ACS

13) Alissa Bentz, ACS

14) Joe Gregory, ARS

C) Old Business

1) Database Committee

a) Data latency: Karl described the process of record submission (both electronic and paper) to ASM for addition to AZSITE.

1. Teresa Serrano receives all paper records and immediately updates ASM’s paper maps and adds the report bibliographic reference to LARC, the ASM Library database. She then scans the Project Registration Forms for addition to AZSITE. Paper site records are accumulated to be dataentered for uploading to AZSITE.

2. Karl downloads all electronically-submitted site and survey records from the FTP site and reviews them for completion, tribal data are removed to a separate folder and remaining material is then sent to upload folder. Karl discussed what he checks for in electronic record data:

(a) many contractors still put all attribute information into the remarks field and neglect the features/artifacts fields, so information is extracted from the remarks fields to update the features and artifact fields.

(b) Site numbers are verified.

(d) Site location data are updated, corrected, compared to maps, verified for projection, and boundaries are checked.

3. Currently have the following electronic backlog to process:

(a) There are 1255 “recently” submitted project sets

(b) 239 projects received electronically are awaiting report and project registration form submission from submitting agency

(d) survey-only submissions require about 15 minutes each for processing time

(e) projects with sites require an additional 15 minutes per site processing time.

(f) This work is handled by one 20 hour/week GRA who also does records checks.

4. Paper records backlog

(a) 600 submissions to computerized

(b) projects with no sites require 20 to 30 minutes each to process.

(d) There are GRAs working a total of 20 hours/week on paper records.

5. AZSITE staff are now working on mid-2002 projects.

6. Data corrections are handled individually.

(a) Original paper submissions are consulted for all corrections, library and archival research is done, SHPO and land managers are consulted as necessary. So, depending on the situation, data corrections can take from 5 minutes to 6 months.

(b) Currently working to consolidate multi-numbered sites, so that the whole record will appear under one site number, although none of the other numbers are deleted or re-assigned.

(d) Agency “data drift” (situations where different agencies have all accumulated slightly different information on the same site) problems are reconciled.

7. When uploading new and corrected information, ASM staff:

(a) double check numbers for format conformity

(b) double check that no tribal data are included

8. When are new processed data available for viewing?

(a) On the web, new or corrected attribute data are available 1-7 days after processing

(b) New or corrected site location data (GIS data) take 3-4 months to appear on the map server web site.

9. How complete are data on AZSITE?

(a) BLM data will be verified complete by end FY06

(b) ASU site data are complete and project data are in progress

(d) MNA Data from 7.5’ maps nearly complete and on line, working on the 15’ maps, which have been digitized. Now working on a series of non-standard maps that also have sites plotted on them (total of several hundred sites).

(e) USFS: Kaibab and Apache Sitgreaves are in progress.

(f) When users request electronic record checks from ASM, ASM verifies that all paper and electronic records are provided for the area of interest

(g) Yuma Proving Ground data and Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma data are being verified now and will be 100% soon.

10. Arizona State Parks have been submitting and are in progress on some parks.

11. WACC and ORPI are submitting data.

12. SHPO has an intern position to fill to work on their data, but data are still not complete.

b) Summary

1. Sites are plotted on ASM maps within 1 week from receipt of records at ASM

2. ASM Project Registration Forms appear on the web within 2 months

3. Site attribute data submitted electronically are available on the web within 2 years.

4. Paper submissions are available in 3+ years.

5. Spatial data submitted electronically appear on the web within 2-3 years from receipt but behind attribute data by 3 months.

6. By the end of the CY 2005, spatial and attribute data will be available simultaneously.

7. Data corrections are available 24 hours to 6 months later, depending on the nature of the correction.

c) Cogswell asked for list of acceptable names for diagnostic artifacts, e.g., is “red-on-brown” or “r/br” the preferred designation? A list will be pulled from database to show the preferred versions. The Consortium was asked to consider placing a greater cost on paper records by raising the $10/per site card fee, and will consider this at year end when fees are set. Electronic submission time is shrinking as data are coming in in a cleaner form now. Three months ago there was a 3 year backlog, now only 2 years.

2) AZSITE data entry module modifications

a) Print function modules for ASM and BLM project registration forms are being added.

b) Plans are being developed to create a USFS records print module this summer too.

c) BLM site card print function is being added

d) BLM GPS requirements and standardization as required by BLM standards are being added and more details will be forthcoming

e) Some data fields are being added: USGS quad name, site use, excavated/destroyed field, boundary update field, record upload and updated date fields.

f) NAD 83 projection will be adopted at some point soon, as it is inevitable. BLM and USFS are using it. AZSITE has been waiting for all maps to be available in NAD 83. ASM will not require NAD 83, but it will be easier for all to be consistent. In any event users must specify which projection they are using.

3) AZSITE attribute web server status: a new server has been purchased and should be up and running mid-July that will transfer all attribute data to ASM, rather than at ASU as it currently exists. Karl will notify everyone of the change as there will be a new address: http://azsite.arizona.edu.

D) Minutes of the last meeting were approved as submitted.

E) Management Committee

1) Funding: Grindell noted that AZSITE will apply for Transportation Enhancements Round 13 funding. A preliminary request was made to the Pima Association of Governments which provided some comments. The final proposal needs to be delivered June 10.

F) Tribal Business

1) Grindell re-capped a visit she had with Nancy Nelson and Delia Carlyle of the Ak-Chin Indian Community and Joe Joaquin of the TON. Nelson reported that she has become aware, over that past year, of at least two security problems related to AZSITE. A contract company posts its AZSITE password on its bulletin board where anyone could see it. In a second case, a company was sharing passwords and accounts. In general, Nelson questioned the need for AZSITE to be internet accessible for two reasons. The information is at risk. Secondly, she expressed a concern about the laxity of archaeological ethics in general and a concern that tools like AZSITE tend to reinforce the priority placed on the economic aspects to doing archaeology. This lessens the value people place on the resources and puts them at risk. In general discussion, Wilcox noted that preservation and security are paramount, we need to continue to educate about the value of increased security through electronic means, and cited New Mexico as a case where in many years of database use there have been no cases of hacking or illegal downloads. Barton expressed some frustration that the tribes are not actively involved in archaeological issues and are not well educated on what security measures are in place. Griffith noted that there has been discussion of getting a state law that will impose penalties on those who attempt (or succeed) to hack into state databases. Wilcox noted that there will be celebrations of the 1906 Antiquities Act and that talk of protection and we need to get tribes involved in that as a way of stressing the importance of preservation. Griffith noted that the proposed changes to the Section 106 legislation would completely remove any incentive to consider archaeological sites. Medley noted that she hears frequently in meetings that sites should not be excavated at all for any reason.

2) Karl reported that Keith Kintigh is working with the Ft. McDowell tribe to create an archaeological database for their lands. Under terms of AZSITE agreements, Kintigh provided a signed letter from the tribal chair asking that AZSITE release data it holds on Ft. McDowell to Kintigh and his staff, which we did.

G) New Business

1) Presentation of FaunAZ database proposal by Pavao-Zuckerman: Wildlife managers increasingly recognize the value of archaeological data in reconstructing old landscapes.

a) Pavao applied to the Arizona Game and Fish Department for a grant, which she received, to create a database of known archaeological faunal data by taxonomic identification (class to species) for all vertebrate taxa, the number of identified specimens (NISP), location, time period, and bibliographic references for the (predominantly) excavated sites for which we have detailed faunal information. The material would be available to wildlife managers at the section (1 sq. mile) level, not attached to detailed site location information. However, by attaching the data to AZSITE, it will be available, at the site level, to archaeologists for research and management purposes.

b) Values to AZSITE include:

1. This will enrich the database and be valuable to zooarchaeological research.

2. An opportunity to verify other record data, and make sure bibliographic references are updated (which can be a problem for excavated sites).

3. Provide greater visibility and new user groups.

c) Pavao has sought and received permission from the AZSITE consortium to establish a relationship between FaunAZ and AZSITE. It should also help find data that we may not know exist. Pavao will be soliciting other agencies and firms for information on excavated sites and their reports that may not be recorded at ASM. There may be some grant funds available to send students to various agencies/companies to record faunal information they may have that is not available elsewhere.

2) Howard Canal Model: Karl reported on several months of effort, under SHPO auspices, by himself, Jerry Howard and others to put the Phoenix Basin canal map that Howard created in 1991 into AZSITE a data layer for access by researchers in the area so they will know whether he, based on the Midvale and Turney maps, projects that there might be a canal in a particular area. As the areas are surveyed it will be possible for surveyors to report whether segments do or do not exist.

3) Report on Resource Management Tool and Geospatial Conference: Karl attended this April conference, sponsored jointly by BLM and USFS. Due to the recognition that data do not stop at property boundaries, agency representatives noted that they need to be able to collaborate and coordinate across boundary lines. AZSITE provided a model of such coordination. New ideas that seemed applicable for AZSITE included streaming data for ancillary layers, for example, the ASLD land ownership layer. This is currently downloaded periodically from ASLD, but could be streamed to AZSITE so that it no longer has to be downloaded and stored on AZSITE but would be brought “live” into AZSITE from ASLD as AZSITE users request it. AZSITE users would therefore have the most current data from ASLD at every use.

H) Public Comment: Fangmeier requested information on the AZSITE presentation that will be part of the Historic Preservation Conference. Karl reported that he will be doing a 2 hour session on AZSITE on June 10 from 10 am to noon and the session will be held in ASM, room 309, 2 blocks east of the Marriott Hotel. This part of ASM’s participation in the conference and is part of the “Complying with Regulations” track. Reservations for the conference may be made on-line at the Arizona Department of Commerce web site: http://www.corpdestination.com/AZPresConf.

I) Next meeting: We will target the first week in August, for an AZSITE meeting to be coordinated with a USFS meeting.

J) The meeting was adjourned at 3:17 p.m.