Opinion ID: 166190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Significance of the Contribution

Text: 25 A fee waiver is not appropriate unless the information obtained under the FOIA is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). With regard to this part of the fee waiver test, DOI regulations direct requesters to address the following: 26
27 (ii) Does the information being disclosed confirm or clarify data which has been released previously? 28 (iii) How will disclosure increase the level of public understanding of the operations or activities of the Department or a bureau that existed prior to disclosure? 29 (iv) Is the information already publicly available? If the Government previously has published the information you are seeking or it is routinely available to the public in a library, reading room, through the Internet, or as part of the administrative record for a particular issue (e.g., the listing of the spotted owl as an endangered species), it is less likely that there will be a significant contribution from release. 30 43 C.F.R. Part 2, App. D(b)(3)(i)—(iv). 31 To the extent the information concerns the existence of the BLM's policy of allowing the collateralization of grazing permits, it is not new. See id. at Part 2, App. D(b)(3)(i). The materials submitted by Forest Guardians in its initial fee waiver request and subsequent administrative appeal demonstrate that the existence of the program is relatively well-known. The requested records, however, concern the scope of the program, the extent of public lands attached to the collateralized grazing permits, and the identities of the financial institutions involved. This information not only confirms previously released information on the existence of the collateralization program, but clarifies its scope. See id. at Part 2, App. D(b)(3)(ii). 32 Forest Guardians explained that it hopes to inform the public about the extent of the program and the possible influence of the lending industry on the BLM's land management policies. 9 The requested records are likely to increase the public's understanding by revealing the monetary scope of the collateralization, identifying the specific financial lending institutions involved, and associating the collateralized grazing permits with particular land areas. Knowing that the BLM permits the use of grazing permits as collateral is not the same as knowing the dollar amounts attached to particular areas of public land and the identities of the financial institutions holding the collateral. In addition to demonstrating the substantive impact of disclosing the requested records, Forest Guardians asserted that it plans to make the information widely and easily available, vastly increasing the number of people aware of the collateralization program itself and the BLM's facilitation of the program. Release of the records will therefore increase the public's understanding of the operations or activities of the BLM. See id. at Part 2, App. D(b)(3)(iii). 33 The district court correctly noted that the information sought by Forest Guardians is publicly available and this generally is a factor that weighs against granting a fee waiver. See id. at Part 2, App. D(b)(3)(iv). The lienholder agreements are not, however, routinely available to the public in a library, reading room, through the Internet, or as part of the administrative record for a particular issue. Id. The information is instead before the public in courthouses across the west, newspaper articles, and affidavits. Dist. Ct. Order at 41. The information, therefore, is publicly accessible in only the grossest sense. See Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 36 (D.C.Cir.1999) ([T]he mere fact that material is in the public domain does not justify denying a fee waiver; only material that has met a threshold level of public dissemination will not further `public understanding' within the meaning of the fee waiver provisions.). 34 While the requested records may be publicly available in piecemeal and hard-to-access form, Forest Guardians plans to broadly disseminate compiled information. In particular, Forest Guardians contends that it aims to place the information on the Internet, establishing an interactive grazing web site in which members of the public will be able to click on regions of the West and obtain as much information as they are interested in about the status of ongoing livestock grazing on public lands. Appellant's App. at 59 (FOIA request letter). This type of accessibility is qualitatively different from and exponentially greater than the existing availability of the information sought by Forest Guardians. The DOI regulations appear to contemplate this level of public availability. See 43 C.F.R. Part 2, App. D(b)(3)(iv) (asking whether information is routinely available). Thus, contrary to the ruling of the district court, the existing availability of the information does not weigh against granting Forest Guardians' request for a fee waiver. 35 Whether Forest Guardians has satisfied the third prong of the fee waiver standard is concededly a close question. Given that Congress intended courts to liberally construe the fee waiver requests of noncommercial entities, Forest Guardians should get the benefit of the doubt. See McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation, 835 F.2d at 1284. This court therefore concludes that Forest Guardians has established that the contribution of the requested documents to the public's understanding of the operations or activities of the BLM is likely to be significant.