Opinion ID: 775062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: One-Point-In-Time Inventory

Text: 35 Also unpersuasive is the Grazing District's assertion that the Forest Service's reliance on a one-point-in-time range vegetation inventory violated the National Forest Management Act and rendered its choice of stocking levels arbitrary and capricious. The NFMA's general criteria require that, in developing and maintaining land management plans, the Forest Service use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(b). 36 The Grazing District claims that inherent inadequacies of one point in time inventories as measures of overall stocking levels have been recognized by the scientific community and in court, citing Hodel, 624 F. Supp. at 1061. However, Hodel did not indicate that all one-point-in-time inventories were categorically unreliable, but that, there, the data obtained from a one-point-in-time study was not ultimately used... because it yielded inconsistent results. Id. Yet those inconsistencies were due in part to an insufficient number of samples, errors in identifying plant species, and assumptions built into the model. Id. Furthermore, that conclusion was not reached by a court, but by the Bureau of Land Management, an agency to whose decision the trial court deferred. Id. 37 Here, the Grazing District reveals the flaw in its argument in its first sentence: As part of the decision making process, [the Forest Service] relied on a 1988-89 range inventory of the [Grasslands]. (Emphasis added). The Forest Service's research and data were not, however, static. The 1988-89 range inventory was supplemented with data collected from monitoring resource conditions during the period from 1985 through 1997. The Forest Service also made adjustments in the inventory to account for improvements in range condition since the original range data had been collected, upgraded pasture ratings to account for improvements in overall range condition, and increased the stocking levels accordingly. 38 The Grazing District refers us to the testimony of Dr. Jim Johnson of South Dakota State University to make its point that the Forest Service failed to consider the best available information regarding the relationship between the Grasslands' condition to stocking levels. Dr. Johnson testified: 39 In order to perfectly tie range condition to stocking rates, we would also need grazing history, trend, and utilization data on a pasture by pasture basis. However, experiences of range scientists and producers in South Dakota strongly support the validity of using the Suggested Initial Stocking Guides as a good approximation of where stocking levels should be to improve range or maintain high range conditions. 40 Our standard for agency action is not one of perfection, but whether the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously. We find that the Forest Service has not. 41 The Grazing District also contends that the NFMA, 16 U.S.C. § 1610, required the Forest Service to use information available from third parties. The Forest Service argues that the Grazing District failed to raise this point in the administrative proceeding and is therefore precluded from doing so now. We need not consider arguments a party failed to raise before the agency. Downer, 97 F.3d at 1005. 42 However, assuming that the issue was properly raised, we have likely addressed its argument in our analysis of the one-point-in-time issue. Section 1610 states that, in carrying out her land management duties, the Secretary of Agriculture shall utilize information and data available from other Federal, State, and private organizations and shall avoid duplication and overlap of resource assessment and program planning efforts of other Federal agencies. Although this is likely an efficiency provision, the Forest Service did look to available data from other agencies and private organizations. The statute does not require the Forest Service to adhere to the letter of each datum, which, judging from the various reports in this matter, would likely be virtually impossible. Furthermore, judging from Dr. Johnson's testimony, it appears that the Forest Service did rely on the best available data. The Forest Service did not contravene section 1610.