Opinion ID: 162578
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failed to classify wetlands into subcategories as required by HGM protocols

Text: 81 The Appellants argue that the Appellees acted arbitrarily and capriciously by violating the hydrogeomorphic methodology (HGM) protocols by only classifying the wetlands into the general categories of groundwater slope, basin depressional, and lacustrine fringe without providing an explanation in the record. Aplt. Br. at 64 (citing 62 Fed.Reg. 33,609-10 (NAP)). The Appellees assert that the Legacy HGM was merely guided rather than limited by the NAP and point out that early analyses that included subclassifications did not increase the accuracy of the model over the use of the basic classifications. The Appellants' contention that the subcategories were omitted without explanation in the record is simply inaccurate. The FEIS states that: 82 Initially, the wetlands were characterized by HGM category and then each category was subdivided into subclasses, based upon the primary wetland vegetative community. These subclasses were used in the development of various HGM models. Many of these vegetative communities were mapped separately, but are part of a larger depression or basin. After the HGM model was initially developed, it was found that using these subclasses of smaller vegetative communities produced results that do not accurately reflect the way these wetlands are performing their functions. Consequently, subdivision into vegetative subclasses was eliminated and the wetlands functional models are now based on the more general HGM categories (lacustrine fringe, groundwater slope and basin depressional wetlands). 83 I Aplee. App. at 390-91. It is arbitrary and capricious not to follow a protocol without giving a rational explanation. Big Horn Coal Co., 793 F.2d at 1169 (citations omitted) (Agencies are under an obligation to follow their own regulations, procedures, and precedents, or provide a rational explanation for their departures.). See also Midwestern Transp., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 635 F.2d 771, 777 (10th Cir.1980) ([T]he court must require the agency to adhere to its own pronouncements or explain its departure from them;....); Squaw Transit Co. v. United States, 574 F.2d 492, 496 (10th Cir.1978) (same). Here, however, even accepting the contention that protocols were not followed, a rational explanation was given. I Aplee. App. at 390. 84 The Appellants respond in their reply brief that [i]f Agencies' initial subclassification was inadequate, the appropriate response was to improve, not abandon the necessary work. Aplt. Reply Br. at 25. It is well established that agencies are entitled to rely on their own experts so long as their decision is not arbitrary and capricious. Custer County, 256 F.3d at 1036. The fact that the Appellants consider the experts' decision to be an inappropriate response does not render the FEIS inadequate. 85