In a message dated 10/17/2006 12:46:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

If your  referring to Section 106 reports, I am not sure because I see no 
trailing  messages, you are correct in that if a report is submitted to a gov 
agency it  does make them public documents in that the public or gov assumes 
ownership of  and managment responsibilities for the documents, especially for 
work  performed on public land.  But that doesn't mean that the public can have  
access to them.  In general, these documents, especially if they contain  
informtion about site locations or sensitive cultural values are managed, as  
required by law, as confidential information and are usually not subject to  FOIA. 
  Under certain cercumstances, its truly a case by case basis,  they can be 
released for a FOIA request, but only if they are stripped of all  confidential 
information also known as redacted.  

NEPA documents  with sections referring to Secion 106 evaluations are public 
documents and can  be subject to FOIA.  However, the information in these 
documents are  overviews of the Section 106 evaluations and should never contain 
confidential  information.   



Back in the early 1970s, paranoid archaeologists feared bottle and  
arrowpoint hunters would access institutional record centers to find good  hunting 
grounds; or real estate developers would use the information to target  bulldozers 
in advance of development projects. While the latter might have some  kernel 
of truth, collectors know all the hot spots for bottles and stone  artifacts. 
None the less, SHPOs and government agencies restricted access to  technical 
reports in a variety of ways. The California SHPO has authorized  information 
centers to require users of their facilities to sign contracts that  stipulate 
how the curated reports and collections can and should be used in  carrying 
out environmental laws. Protection of archaeology sites is not the same  thing 
as a secret beer formulae, or cost estimates for building jet  airplanes, or 
patents for medical membranes or drugs, so that is why I  asked what you meant 
by trade secrets. Beyond protecting the location  of archaeology sites, I fail 
to see what could constitute a trade secret in an  archaeology report. In 
truth, the archaeology reports (minus site locations) are  routinely circulated in 
EIS or EIR documents to public libraries, colleges,  museums, universities, 
and non-profit organizations to ensure the public  resources will be protected. 
Once the reports go public, what harm could  there be in the public reading 
the report at a future time? Moreover, what are  we really writing these 
reports for (if not the public), anyway? The reports  document a vanishing America 
and, in many cases, are the final documentary  record of something that will be 
gone forever. So, what are we afraid of,  really? What trade secrets?
 
I would like to add that the reports usually serve in lieu of the  actual 
archaeology site. Developers get to bulldoze 80-95% or more of  archaeology 
sites, but in exchange, the public gets professional technical  reports and boxes 
of artifacts curated at museums somewhere. The Native  Americans, Chinese 
Americans, British Americans, Danish Americans, etc. get to  visit the boxes of 
artifacts and review the reports in exchange for the  destruction of the rest of 
the sites. The artifacts, field notes, maps, photos,  and other data are not 
the private property of the archaeologists. As a  profession, we are doing a 
better job all the time at preserving those  collections and reports. If we are 
to enlist the public to support our programs,  then we need to let them read 
the reports.
 
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.