FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

PUBLISH June 14, 2005 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FOREST GUARDIANS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

UNITED STATES FEDERAL 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 04-2056 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. CV-03-134-DJS) 

Steven Sugarman, Santa Fe, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Wendy M. Keats, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Department of Justice (Peter D. 

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, and Leonard Schaitman, Appellate Staff 

Civil Division, Department of Justice, with her on the briefs), Washington, D.C., 

for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges. 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiff Forest Guardians brought this action under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking to compel Defendant Federal 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 1
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to produce electronic mapping files that 

identify the location of structures insured under FEMA' s National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP is a federally subsidized program that 

provides flood insurance to property owners located in flood plain areas with the 

participation of private insurance companies. See 42 U.S.C. § 4001 (b )(2), ( c). 

FEMA administers the NFIP and is responsible for, among other things, providing 

and updating flood maps. See id. § 4101 (f), (g). The district court granted 

FEMA's cross-motion for summary judgment concluding that Plaintiffs FOIA 

request was exempt from disclosure under FOIA' s Exemption 6, § 552(b )(6), 

which excludes "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of 

which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 

Plaintiff appeals, arguing the district court erred in concluding Exemption 6 

applied. According to Plaintiff, the substantial public interest in the information 

it requested from FEMA far outweighs any de minimis privacy interest that may 

exist. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, review the district court's FOIA 

determination de novo, see Herrick v. Garvey, 298 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir. 

2002). and affirm. 

I. 

Plaintiff is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting environmental 

conservation. The organization is currently studying the loss of endangered 

2 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 2
species in flood plain areas. Plaintiff posits the NFIP encourages excessive 

development in flood plain areas. Specifically, according to Plaintiff, "the 

issuance of flood insurance policies under the NFIP facilitates development that 

results in significant harm to New Mexico's natural resources." 

Plaintiff filed a FOIA request with FEMA in January 2001 ("2001 FOIA 

request"). In the 2001 FOIA request, Plaintiff sought to obtain information 

regarding FEMA' s "efforts to comply with numerous federal environment laws 

while allowing local communities to participate in the [NFIP]." Plaintiff 

requested the "[n]ames and addresses of all insurance policy-holders who obtain 

flood insurance via FEMA's [NFIP]." Plaintiff limited its request "to New 

Mexico residents who have property within the I 00-year floodplains of the Rio 

Grande and San Juan river." FEMA partially granted Plaintiff's FOIA request. 

The agency explained it would not disclose policyholders' names because such a 

disclosure would "clearly invade the privacy of an individual" under Exemption 6. 

In the alternative, however, FEMA provided Plaintiff with sixteen "Geographic 

Information System (GIS) maps of the 27 communities that have a flood hazard 

designated by FEMA where the flooding source is the San Juan, Animas, or Rio 

Grande Rivers." 1 In describing the information contained in the GIS maps, 

1 GIS is a "computer system capable of capturing, storing, analyzing, and 

displaying geographically referenced information; that is, data identified 

(continued ... ) 

3 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 3
FEMA specifically noted: 

On these GIS maps, FEMA has displayed Digitized Q3 Data showing 

the designated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and geocoded 

flood insurance policy data. The geocoded flood policy information 

shows the general location of structures relative to the floodplain and 

whether the structure insured was constructed before or after the 

community participated in the NFIP. These maps show the entire 

communities not just the floodplains located within them. 

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a second FOIA request with FEMA, which is the 

subject of this appeal, on April 23, 2002 ("2002 FOIA request"). In the 2002 

FOIA request, Plaintiff sought: 

electronic GIS files ... for the 27 communities that have a flood 

hazard designated by FEMA where the flooding source is the San 

Juan, Animas, or Rio Grande Rivers, showing all of the geocoded 

flood insurance policy data (with names and addresses removed) 

including the location of structures relative to the floodplain and 

whether the structure insured was constructed before or after the 

community participated in the NFIP. Please include the entire 

community, and not just the floodplains located within them. We are 

essentially requesting that your agency provide the electronic data 

equivalent to what we received in printed form from FEMA in 

response to our original January 29, 2001 FOIA [request]. 

FEMA denied Plaintiff's second request under Exemption 6. FEMA first 

indicated it had already provided Plaintiff the information in printed form. 

Second, FEMA claimed the electronic GIS files contained "personal identifying 

1

( ••• continued) 

according to location." United States Geological Survey, Geographic Information 

Systems, available at http:/ /erg.usgs.gov/isb//pubs/gis poster/. GIS can produce 

information in a variety of formats. "One of the most common products of GIS is 

maps." Id. 

4 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 4
information" and, even with the names and addresses redacted, could be used to 

determine the "addresses of policyholders based on the GIS point locations with a 

reasonable level of confidence." In particular, disclosure of the electronic files 

could lead to the discovery of (1) an individual's name, address, and ownership 

interest in property, (2) the level of flood risk to property, and (3) the type of 

insurance and financing on property. Plaintiff sued FEMA after the agency 

denied its 2002 FOIA request, seeking to compel disclosure of the electronic GIS 

files. 

II. 

FOIA facilitates public access to Government documents. United States 

Dep't of State v. Ray. 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991). A strong presumption exists in 

favor of disclosure under FOIA and the Government bears the burden of 

justifying the withholding of any requested documents. Sheet Metal Workers 

Intern. Ass'n v. United States Air Force, 63 F.3d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1995). 

Public access to Government information is not, however, "all-encompassing." 

Id. Access is permitted "only to information that sheds light upon the 

government's performance of its duties." Id. (internal citation omitted). 

FOIA contains nine exemptions which, if applicable, preclude disclosure of 

certain types of information. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Exemption 6 prohibits the 

disclosure of information in "personnel and medical files and similar files the 

5 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 5
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). "Similar files" under Exemption 6 has a "broad, 

rather than a narrow, meaning" and encompasses all information that "applies to a 

particular individual." United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co., 

456 U.S. 595, 600-02 (1982). 

We apply a balancing test to determine whether disclosure would constitute 

a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Exemption 6. See 

United States Dep't of Defense v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487,495 (1994). "[A] court 

must balance the public interest in disclosure against the [privacy] interest 

Congress intended the [e]xemption to protect." Id.; see also Federal Labor 

Relations Auth. v. United States Dep't of Defense, 984 F.2d 370, 374 (10th Cir. 

1993 ). "If there is an important public interest in the disclosure of information 

and the invasion of privacy is not substantial, the private interest in protecting the 

disclosure must yield to the superior public interest." Alirez v. NLRB, 676 F.2d 

423, 426 (10th Cir. 1982). If, however, the public interest in the information is 

"'virtually nonexistent" or "negligible," then even a "very slight privacy interest 

would suffice to outweigh the relevant public interest." FLRA, 510 U.S. at 497, 

500; see also Dep't of Defense, 984 F.2d at 375. "[E]ven a 'minimal' privacy 

interest ... outweighs a nonexistent public interest." Dep 't of Defense, 984 F .2d 

at 375 (emphasis added). 

6 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 6
The "public interest" to be weighed in Exemption 6' s balancing test is the 

extent to which disclosure would serve the "core purpose" of FOIA. See FLRA, 

510 U.S. at 495. The core purpose ofFOIA is, of course, to contribute to the 

"public understanding of the operations or activities of the government." Id. 

( emphasis in original, internal citation omitted). "[T]he purposes for which the 

request for information is made ... [has] no bearing on whether information must 

be disclosed under FOIA." Bibles v. Oregon Nat'l Desert Ass'n, 519 U.S. 355, 

356 (1997) (per curiam). Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the requested 

information directly relates to and would facilitate the primary purpose of FOIA, 

which is to let citizens "know 'what their government is up to."' Sheet Metal, 63 

F.3d at 998 (quoting United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. 

749, 773 (1989)). 

The type of privacy interests Congress intended to protect under Exemption 

6 "encompass[] the individual's control of information concerning his or her 

person." FLRA, 510 U.S. at 500 (internal citation omitted). Such private 

in formation includes, for example, an individual's name and home address. See 

ill at 501 n.8 (indicating individuals "have some privacy interest in their home 

addresses"); Sheet Metal, 63 F .3d at 997 (recognizing "a substantial privacy 

interest in personal identifying information, such as names and addresses"); Dep't 

of Defense, 984 F.2d at 374 (same). The privacy interest in an individual's home 

7 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 7
address becomes even more substantial when that information "would be coupled 

with personal financial information." Sheet Metal, 63 F .3 d at 997. 

III. 

In this case, the electronic GIS files are exempt from disclosure under 

Exemption 6. We first conclude the electronic GIS files are "similar files" under 

FOIA. The files reveal specific geographic point locations for NFIP insured 

structures. Such information, coupled with property records, can lead to, among 

other things, the names and addresses of individual property owners and thus 

"applies to[] particular individual[s].'' Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. at 602; 

see also National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26, 33 (D.C. Cir. 

2002) (noting "to the extent that square and lot information can lead to 

identification of individual property owners ... , the information is at least 

arguably personal information that falls within the category of' similar files."'). 

As similar files, we next determine whether disclosure of the electronic GIS 

files would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under 

Exemption 6's balancing test. We hold that it would. The privacy interest at 

stake in this case, even if de minimus, outweighs the nonexistent public interest. 

The relevant public interest in the information Plaintiff requested from FEMA is 

"negligible, at best," FLRA, 510 U.S. at 497, because FEMA already provided 

Plaintiff with the information. See Campbell v. United States Civil Serv. 

8 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 8
Comm'n, 539 F.2d 58, 61 (10th Cir. 1976) (explaining the requested material's 

availability from an alternative source is a relevant factor under Exemption 6). In 

its 2002 FOIA request, Plaintiff asked FEMA to produce: ( 1) electronic GIS files 

showing the twenty-seven communities that have a flood hazard where the 

flooding source is the San Juan, Animas, or Rio Grande Rivers; (2) geocoded 

flood insurance policy data; (3) the location of structures relative to the flood 

plains; ( 4) information showing whether the insured structure was constructed 

before or after the community participated in the NFIP; and (5) information 

showing the entire community and not just the flood plains located within the 

community. FEMA, however, provided all of this information in response to 

Plaintiff's 2001 FOIA request. FEMA specifically provided Plaintiff with sixteen 

GIS maps which showed: ( 1) the twenty-seven communities that have a flood 

hazard where the flooding source is the San Juan, Animas, or Rio Grande Rivers; 

(2) the designated Special Flood Hazard Area and geocoded flood insurance 

policy data; (3) the general location of structures relative to the flood plains; 

( 4) whether the insured structure was constructed before or after the community 

participated in the NFIP; and (5) the entire community and not just the flood 

plains located within the community. 

We see little difference between the information contained in the hard-copy 

GIS maps Plaintiff already possesses and the information Plaintiff seeks in the 

9 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 9
electronic GIS files. Indeed, Plaintiff explicitly stated in its 2002 FOIA request 

that "we are essentially requesting that your agency provide electronic data 

equivalent to what we received in printed form from FEMA in response to our 

original January 29, 2001 FOIA [request]." 2 (emphasis added). Because the 

information Plaintiff now seeks is merely cumulative of the information FEMA 

already provided, no public interest exists in the disclosure of the electronic GIS 

files. Requiring FEMA to disclose the files would not, by any stretch of the 

imagination, facilitate Plaintiff's understanding of "what the[] government is up 

to:' FLRA, 510 U.S. at 497. Plaintiff already knows what FEMA "is up to" by 

virtue of the GIS maps in its possession. See Ripskis v. HUD, 746 F .2d 1, 3-4 

(D.C. Cir. 1984) (finding the public interest "uncertain" because the agency 

already offered "extensive information" that provided an "ample basis" for 

evaluating agency action). 3 

2 The only identifiable difference between the GIS maps and the electronic 

GIS files is that the maps show the ''general location" of structures relative to 

flood plains whereas the electronic files show the "specific location" of 

structures. As we explain below, the specific location of structures is protected 

information under Exemption 6. 

3 Moreover, as the district court noted, the type of information Plaintiff 

seeks "is information available to the public and known.'' Indeed, Plaintiff 

acknowledges that "[f]or important policy and economic reasons, the federal 

government has developed information systems that make it easy for the 

concerned public to learn whether or not any given property falls within a 

designated flood zone." (emphasis added). Plaintiff also acknowledges it 

currently has in its possession "data pertaining to the location of habitats for 

( continued ... ) 

10 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 10
Against the nonexistent FOIA-related public interest in disclosure of the 

electronic GIS files, we next weigh the relevant privacy interest at stake in this 

case. "Because a very slight privacy interest would suffice to outweigh the 

[nonexistent] public interest, we need not be exact in our quantification of the 

privacy interest." See FLRA, 510 U.S. at 500. Suffice it to say, some privacy 

interest exists in the electronic GIS files. The GIS files contain the specific 

geographic location of NFIP insured structures. Disclosure of the specific 

location of NFIP insured structures could easily lead to the discovery of an 

individual's name and home address because "[k]nowing the square and lot 

numbers of a parcel of land is only a step from being able to identify from state 

records the name of the individual property owner." National Ass'n of Home 

Builders, 309 F.3d at 35 (emphasis added); see also National Ass'n of Retired 

Federal Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 878 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (explaining that 

"[ w ]here there is a substantial probability that disclosure will cause an 

interference with personal privacy, it matters not that there may be two or three 

links in the causal chain."). Indeed, Plaintiff concedes the information it seeks 

3

( ••• continued) 

threatened and endangered species, the location of flood control structures, the 

location of wetlands, [and] the location of cultural resources." Combining the 

plethora of information Plaintiff currently possesses and/or has readily available, 

with the GIS maps FEMA already provided, Plaintiff has an "ample basis" to 

evaluate FEMA's activities. Ripskis, 746 F.2d at 3-4. 

11 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 11
"could be manipulated to derive the addresses of policyholders and potential 

policyholders.'' We have recognized a "privacy interest in personal identifying 

information, such as names and addresses," under Exemption 6. Sheet Metal, 63 

F .3d at 997 ( emphasis added). In the context of an individual residence, "the 

privacy interest of an individual in avoiding the unlimited disclosure of his or her 

name and address is significant. ... In our society, individuals generally have a 

large measure of control over the disclosure of their own identities and 

whereabouts." National Ass'n of Home Builders, 309 F.3d at 35 (internal citation 

omitted); see also Heights Community Congress v. Veterans Admin., 732 F.2d 

526, 529 (6th Cir. 1984) (explaining "there are few things which pertain to an 

individual in which his privacy has traditionally been more respected than his own 

home.") (internal citation omitted). Plaintiff's argument that such personal 

information is not "private" because the information is widely available to the 

public and easily accessible is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. "An 

individual's interest in controlling the dissemination of information regarding 

personal matters does not dissolve simply because that information may be 

available to the public in some form." FLRA, 5 IO U.S. at 500. 

Moreover, disclosure of the electronic GIS files would not only reveal 

names and addresses, but could also reveal information regarding an individual's 

ownership of property, flood risks to property, an individual's decision to 

12 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 12
purchase federally subsidized flood insurance through the NFIP, and the manner 

in which property was purchased. Disclosing such personal information along 

with the other information Plaintiff seeks, such as particular "flood insurance 

policy data," would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. See Sheet Metal, 

63 F .3d at 997 (recognizing a "substantial privacy interest in ... names and 

addresses, particularly where ... the names and addresses would be coupled with 

personal financial information.") (internal citation omitted). NFIP policyholders 

have a privacy interest--the extent of which we need not quantify today, 

see FLRA, 5 IO U.S. at 500--in their decision to purchase federally subsidized 

flood insurance and other information concerning their properties. As the district 

court aptly noted "the disclosure of information which will essentially lead to the 

revelation of flood policy holder's names and addresses, coupled with their status 

as participants in the federally subsidized program, represents a palpable threat to 

those person's privacy.'' (emphasis added). See,~' Department of Air Force v. 

Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 380-8 I n.19 (1976). 

Furthermore, disclosure of the electronic GIS files and, the concomitant 

disclosure of personal information, could subject individuals to unwanted contacts 

or solicitation by private insurance companies. Given the commercial interests 

involved in the NFIP and, the large-scale participation by the private insurance 

industry, see 42 U.S.C. § 400l(b)(2), a palpable threat exists that disclosing 

13 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 13
information that could reveal names, home addresses, and other personal 

insurance policy information could lead to an influx of unwanted and unsolicited 

mail, if not more. See FLRA, 510 U.S. at 500-01; see also Horner, 879 F.2d at 

878 (noting "one need only assume that business people will not overlook an 

opportunity to get cheaply from the Government what otherwise comes dearly, a 

list of qualified prospects."). As the Supreme Court has stated, "[ m ]any people 

simply do not want to be disturbed at home," FLRA, 5 IO U.S. at 501, and "[ w]e 

are reluctant to disparage the privacy of the home, which is accorded special 

consideration in our Constitution, laws, and traditions." Id. 

IV. 

The privacy interest in the electronic GIS files, even if minimal, clearly 

outweighs the nonexistent public interest in the files. Disclosing the files would 

thus constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under FOIA' s 

Exemption 6. The district court's order is therefore 

AFFIRMED. 

14 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 14
04-2056, Forest Guardians v. United States Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

HARTZ, Circuit Judge, concurring: 

I join fully in Judge Baldock's opinion. I write separately to make one 

observation. At oral argument Forest Guardians asserted that it might be able to 

evaluate FEMA's conduct better if it had the precise locations of structures, 

which could be obtained from the electronic GIS files but were not discernible 

from the maps that FEMA had provided. As an example, it noted that it might not 

be able to determine whether a structure near an eagle nest was the one shown on 

the map. But Forest Guardians also conceded at oral argument that it had not 

made that point in district court. Therefore, the district court clearly ruled 

correctly as the matter was presented to it, and Forest Guardians' additional 

argument is not properly before us on appeal. 

Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 15
Appellate Case: 04-2056 Document: 010110757926 Date Filed: 06/14/2005 Page: 16