After Congress passed the 1996 amendments to the federal Freedom of Information Act, government agencies began putting more data and documents on their Web sites.

But after the events of September 11, 2001, several federal agencies moved to take down maps, databases and entire Web sites from the public domain, citing security reasons.

In particular, the door was shut to environmental data, transportation maps, dam locations and other databases frequently used by reporters, community groups and citizens.

Instead of the usual reports and information on Web sites, many users instead found messages saying that sites were down or information was unavailable.

The U.S. Army’s Redstone Arsenal posted this message: “Due to the threat against our nation, our way of life, national security, and because I was told to do so, portions of the Team Redstone homepage have been temporarily blocked from public viewing.”

Removal of information on Web sites does not, in all cases, mean that the same information will be denied an FOI requester. Federal FOI officers can deny only information that falls within one of the nine exemptions to the act, but agencies have been under some pressure to make information that hypothetically might be useful to terrorists less conveniently available.

One of the FOI Act’s nine exemptions defers to other laws that require confidential treatment of information. In early 2003, Congress passed one law requiring the Department of Homeland Security to protect “critical infrastructure” information voluntarily submitted by businesses. It was considering additional legislation to protect information some members of Congress say would be useful to terrorists.

Since the first rush to take down federal Web sites, some of the information has been returned, but much continues to be unavailable and additional information is either being removed or not updated. In addition, proposed legislation and rulemaking could restrict information such as pipeline locations, chemical plant information and other data deemed “sensitive.”

Where reporters could once get maps showing pipeline systems, the Office of Pipelines Safety Web site now has nonworking links when a user clicks on National Pipeline Mapping System. Earlier the site had the message: “The Office of Pipeline Safety has discontinued providing open access to the National Pipeline Mapping System. Recent events have focused additional security concerns on critical infrastructure systems.”

The agency went beyond just removing the information from its Web site. The information is now available only to pipeline operators and local, state and Federal government officials. Reinterpretation of FOI exemptions has allowed this to occur.

Tracking Closures

OMB Watch, a non-profit organization in Washington, D.C., concerned with freedom of information issues, has tracked federal agencies’ removal of information from their Web sites since Fall 2001.

“We saw a pretty dramatic shutdown,” said Sean Moulton, senior policy analyst with OMB Watch. “We haven’t seen much of a reversal of that. If it didn’t reverse immediately . . . it became stuck amid the debates.”

In December 2001, OMB Watch sent FOI Act requests to federal agencies asking them to list what information they had removed from the Web sites. The responses varied.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission refused to comply with the request, saying that the mere disclosure of such a list would be problematic. Early removal of information from the agency’s Web site was based on size, meaning that documents with large file sizes were removed from the electronic reading room.

“Literally tens of thousands of documents that were “FOI-able” a year ago or that you could just go get are now exempt from FOIA with no change in FOIA and no change in court rulings,” Moulton said.

Rather, the changes were based on how the exemptions are to be interpreted.

The Federal Aviation Administration responded to the OMB Watch request by saying that it had not taken anything down, Moulton said. Yet the Web site where FAA enforcement data was once available now has a message stating: “The Enforcement Information System (EIS) is not available at this time due in part to security considerations.”

Moulton said that one of the most responsive agencies was the Environmental Protection Agency.

“They showed that stuff was taken down and then put back up,” Moulton said.

According to Odelia Funke, chief of EPA’s Policy and Program Management Branch, the agency did an inventory of databases and identified where there were security issues. In the end, much of the information was returned to the agency’s site. However, access to some chemical information and direct-connect access to the agency’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse remain unavailable. Direct-connect allowed users to query directly the Envirofacts database.

“Agencies that took down stuff wholesale are having difficulty deciding what to put back up,” Funke said.

Moves to take down information were not isolated to federal agencies. Several states removed information from Web sites as well. Pennsylvania removed environmental data from its site. A memo to New York state agencies from James K. Kallstrom, director of the Office of Public Security, and James G. Natoli, director of the Office of State Operations, urged them to review sensitive information. New Jersey removed chemical information from its Web site.

States have made efforts to exempt terrorism meetings and homeland security agencies from state public records acts.

In Illinois, a new law exempts geographic information systems from the state’s freedom of information act.

In Alabama, proposed legislation in 2002, submitted by the state Department of Emergency Management, attempted to make secret state agency e-mail and meeting records if they would jeopardize agency safety. It also would have exempted from disclosure vulnerability assessments and infrastructure information for many public and government buildings.

Lawmakers have been particularly concerned about disclosing vulnerabilities that they fear could be targeted by terrorists, but secrecy carries its own danger.

In June, Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond (D-Mo.) introduced the “Community Protection from Chemical Terrorism Act,” legislation that would restrict access to chemical plant’s risk management plans.

Environmental reporters and citizen groups have used that information to assess the risk of chemical plants in their areas. And although the information is no longer online, it is available in EPA reading rooms around the country. However, when a chlorine gas cloud spewed from a railcar near Festus, Missouri — Bond’s home state — reporters did not have at hand the risk management plan for the company where the spill occurred.

But risk management plans do not provide overly detailed information about a plant, Moulton said. “It doesn’t say where it [the chemical supply] is stored, nor indicate what it is stored in.”

“There is a risk when industry is not under the watchful eye of the public,” Moulton said. “When you get information you can create pressure to get something fixed or changed.”

In July 2001, Ralph Haurwitz and Jeff Nesmith did a series of stories in the Austin American-Statesman looking at pipeline safety around the country.

As a result of the series, federal agencies with pipeline oversight have increased efforts to update regulatory activities and rulemaking, Haurwitz said. In addition, the Texas Railroad Commission levied its largest fine ever against a company responsible for an accident in Abilene, Texas.

Much of the data they used, including pipeline incidents and company financial information, is still available today. But other information concerning pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas is no longer available.

“Today, if a reporter wanted to do a particular analysis dealing with these areas, it would be difficult to do it because the information is no longer public,” Haurwitz said.

The potential for closure of these and other types of “critical infrastructure information” worries journalism organizations.

“I think if the government gets its way it’s going to be an awful lot harder to do what we’ve been doing,” said James Bruggers, president of the Society of Environmental Journalists and environmental reporter for The (Louisville) Courier-Journal. “I’m not sure what the overall benefit is. The fact that a lot of this information has been made public has made communities safer.”