Opinion ID: 656190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the LRMP arbitrary and capricious?

Text: 18 NLAA argues that the adoption of the LRMP was arbitrary and capricious because there is no rational connection between the LRMP's grazing standards and its statement that grazing levels would not be significantly affected. According to NLAA, the operational standards in the LRMP will necessarily result in reduced grazing and are therefore inconsistent with the LRMP's stated goal of avoiding significant reductions in grazing levels. 19 We review the reasonableness of agency action on the basis of the record before the agency at the time of the decision. See Friends of Endangered Species, Inc. v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976, 983 (9th Cir.1985); Association of Pacific Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 811-12 (9th Cir.1980). Therefore, it is irrelevant whether NLAA is correct in its assertion that the implementation of the LRMP has resulted in grazing reductions much greater than that predicted by the Service. 20 Although one of the Service's goals expressed in the LRMP was to maintain current grazing levels, the Service was aware that this goal might not be met. The Record of Decision (ROD) includes a general statement of policy that [i]t is not in the best public interest to reduce permitted grazing because of [the] need to maintain viable ranching operations. However, the Service also noted in the ROD that one of the LRMP's goals was to improve the condition of rangeland, and that a temporary reduction in grazing levels was expected. The LRMP states that in the event of conflicts between resource uses, the protection of riparian areas would be given preferential consideration. The ROD also contains an explicit caveat that because of the limitations of its projections and other factors, [t]here is no assurance that the outputs will actually occur at the projected number. 21 We conclude that the Service acted rationally in projecting that grazing levels would not significantly decrease under the LRMP. The Service based its projections on professional estimations by experienced personnel familiar with the allotments of land and the range management standards. Moreover, it is clear that maintaining current grazing levels was only one of the goals of the LRMP, and the Service was aware that this goal would conflict with other goals of the plan. 6 22