Two years after she ordered the Bureau of Land Management to redo its search for documents in response to an environmental group’s open records request, a federal judge now agrees the agency largely complied with the order.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix originally found BLM did not fulfill its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and had conducted a subpar search. She also ruled the agency failed to properly justify why it redacted hundreds of pages of documents pertaining to BLM’s amendment of a resources management plan in southwestern Colorado.

Last month, after reviewing BLM’s latest efforts, Mix agreed the agency had mostly done what it needed to.

“While the Court found that the prior search resulted in a selective and restrictive use of search terms,” she wrote on July 20, “the parameters of this search appear to comply with the Order.”

Mix still determined, however, that BLM insufficiently justified its decision to withhold a single record, which she ordered disclosed in its entirety.

The lawsuit against BLM originated in 2019, when the conservation group Rocky Mountain Wild alleged the agency violated federal law by withholding requested records. At the time, BLM was preparing to amend its Tres Rios Resource Management Plan, covering southwestern Colorado. Rocky Mountain Wild sought information about BLM’s plans to designate certain land an “area of critical environmental concern” (ACEC).

“I am filing this request because it is important for our members and citizens in the region to understand how the BLM has analyzed ACEC designation for areas that will either support recovery or negatively impact the (threatened) Gunnison sage-grouse,” Megan Mueller, senior conservation biologist with Rocky Mountain Wild, wrote to BLM.

BLM gave Rocky Mountain Wild 10,541 pages of records, 783 of which included redactions. Still, Rocky Mountain Wild alleged BLM had withheld documents it was required to disclose.

In 2021, Mix partially agreed. She noticed that the government employees who searched for documents did not mirror each other’s search terms or techniques.

The “decision to leave the search parameters to each custodian resulted in a disjointed search where each custodian used different terms and/or phrases to identify records and/or different repositories based on how each interpreted the FOIA request,” she wrote.

Mix also identified a key employee who had not searched her files at all. As a result, Mix ordered a new search. She further directed BLM to more precisely justify why it withheld certain documents under an exception to the Freedom of Information Act governing “deliberative process privilege.”

Under the law, BLM was not required to disclose opinions, recommendations or advice the government was considering. The purpose is to avoid misleading the public about considerations that are not ultimately relied upon. However, BLM needed to state the harm if such information was disclosed and why the information would lead to that harm. BLM, Mix decided, had not taken that final step.

Within months, BLM redid its search and updated its rationale for withholding information. The new search uncovered 803 pages of records and public comments that BLM should have given to Rocky Mountain Wild.

More than 18 months later, Mix confirmed BLM’s actions satisfied her order.

“The agency thus linked the harm to the specific information in the withheld documents,” she wrote, and BLM “now provides the context for why the matter being discussed could cause the expressed harm.”

However, BLM noted it withheld one attachment to an email that encompassed employees’ discussion about the ACEC draft. Disclosure of the attachment would “chill employees’ willingness to engage in frank, back-and-forth discussions,” the agency wrote.

That was not a specific enough reason, Mix concluded, and ordered the attachment disclosed.

In January 2020, while the lawsuit was ongoing, BLM designated 14,335 acres as ACEC in southwestern Colorado. The agency explained its decision was intended to protect “important cultural resources” and rare plants.

The case is Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management et al.