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.
|