Land managers generally have their own policies concerning archaeological site information. State site file managers must adapt to the needs of land managers and, hopefully, stay on good terms with them so that the aims and policies of both remain the same. I can quote examples of open warfare, which need not have happened. In the worst of all worlds, the agency and the state file manager maintain separate site numbering systems, out of no more than mutual suspicion. The confusion can be incalculable.
Many agencies are concerned with much more than archaeology.
Thus they have data management systems that include archaeological data, but also many other things. Archaeological site file managers must keep this in mind, remembering that while archaeological data may be their chief concern, the agency views the same data as one part of a larger and infinitely more complex data world. Patience, combined with a real willingness to assist the agency in managing its archaeological data files, when requested, is clearly called for. Needless to say, there must be close cooperation between the state site file manager and the agency, any agency, for it is the agencies that have the most power to affect archaeological sites. They need the data for planning purposes.