Opinion ID: 170085
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Forage Utilization[2]

Text: CNE next contends that the Forest Service has violated the 1998 BA's 45-55% forage-utilization standard for Pole Mountain and that the violations require reinitiation of consultation to consider the effects of the allegedly excessive forage utilization on Preble's mouse. See 50 C.F.R. § 402.16 (defining circumstances in which reinitiation of consultation is required). Although in 2004-2005 the Forest Service informally consulted with the FWS regarding the effects of grazing on the mouse's critical habitat, the FWS's concurrence at the end of this consultation did not explicitly address the effects of grazing on the mouse itself, a topic that had originally been addressed in the 1998 BA. CNE claims that the Forest Service must reinitiate consultation regarding the effects of grazing on the mouse either because new information reveal[ed] effects of the action that may affect listed species . . . in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, id. § (b), or because the identified action [was] subsequently modified in a manner that cause[d] an effect to the listed species . . . that was not considered in the biological opinion, id. § (c). We do not agree. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 402.16 both require reinitiation of consultation only when the effects to species that are revealed or caused are different from those effects previously considered. See 51 Fed.Reg. 19,926, 19,956 (June 3, 1986) ([50 C.F.R. § 402.16(c)] show[s] that changes to the action that do not cause effects different from or additional to those considered in the biological opinion will not require reinitiation of formal consultation.). But here the Forest Service found just the opposite. In its December 15, 2004, update to the 1998 BA, it reviewed the mitigation measures designed to minimize the effect of grazing on Preble's mouse. In doing so it measured forage utilization in each allotment in Pole Mountain by averaging the utilization rates for the key areas within the allotment. Under this approach it found that the maximum forage-utilization rate of 60.5% was not exceeded in any allotment, and that, as a result, [t]he effects occurring to Preble's mouse from current grazing practices are the same as those considered in the [1998 BA]. Aplts. App. Vol. 1 at 147 (emphasis added). Its decision not to reinitiate consultation, see § 402.16(b), (c), thus did not violate the ESA. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455 (9th Cir.2006), is not contrary to our conclusion. In Forest Guardians the court held that [t]he material inadequacy of the Forest Service's utilization monitoring and the results of the limited measurements that were taken constituted modifications to the allotment's land management plan that affected listed species in a manner and to an extent not previously considered. Id. at 465. It explained its holding as follows: We do not hold that each isolated instance in which the Forest Service deviated from [the allotment's] guidance criteria [on which the FWS's concurrence in the not likely to adversely affect finding was premised] required the agency to re-initiate consultation. The Forest Service's arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, the case before us is not comprised of infrequent and insignificant deviations. Rather, the undisputed facts are that (1) the guidance criteria expressly stated that the utilization levels specified by the land management plan were necessary to protect the ESA-listed species in [a particular grazing allotment], (2) the Forest Service regularly failed to meet the monitoring requirements on which the not likely to adversely affect determination for those species was premised, and (3) the evidence that the Forest Service did obtain as a result of its deficient monitoring suggested that maximum permissible utilization levels were being exceeded. In light of these facts, the Forest Service's failure to reinitiate consultation violated the ESA. Id. at 465-66. We agree that reinitiation of consultation would be required if (1) the FWS's concurrence in a not likely to adversely affect finding expressly required utilization levels to be met in order for the concurrence to remain valid, (2) utilization levels were not monitored as specified by the FWS, and (3) the monitoring that was conducted showed excess utilization. In that event, the Forest Service could not properly assert that the effects to species were not different from those previously considered. But that is not the circumstance here. As we shall show, neither the second nor the third condition has been met: The Forest Service has not failed to monitor utilization in Pole Mountain, and utilization rates have not exceeded the 1998 BA's standards. (We express no opinion on whether compliance with the utilization rates was essential to the FWS's concurrence. And we need not decide whether reinitiation of consultation would be required if just conditions (1) and (2) or conditions (1) and (3) were satisfied.) We first address utilization rates. CNE acknowledges that the Forest Service determined in 2004 that forage-utilization standards were being met (so that the effects of grazing on the mouse were the same as those considered in the 1998 BA). It claims, however, that this determination was the result of an arbitrary change in the way that the Forest Service analyzed forage utilization. It contends that after its complaint was filed the Forest Service shifted from considering utilization in each key area separately to averaging utilization in all key areas in an allotment, and that this change allowed the Forest Service to avoid finding that forage utilization in Pole Mountain in 2004 exceeded standards. We are not persuaded. To begin with, the mitigation measures in the 1998 BA do not refer specifically to key areas. The 1998 BA specified only that the Forest Service was to [l]imit utilization of herbaceous species to 40 to 45 percent. Aplts. App. Vol. 2 at 394. (Later that year, to ensure that the mitigation measures were consistent with the 1985 Forest Plan, the Forest Service, with the FWS's concurrence, changed the permissible level of forage utilization to 45-55%. The Forest Plan had previously specified that utilization on allotments was not to exceed an amount 10% greater than the permissible utilization rate, id. at 421, thus setting the actual upper limit at 60.5%.) Although CNE is correct that the Forest Service uses key areas to measure forage utilization, the 1998 BA did not give keyarea utilization rates independent significance. Rather, key-area data, according to a 1996 Forest Service publication, serves as an indicative sample of range conditions, trend, or degree of use seasonally. A key area guides the general management of the entire area of which it is part. . . . Id. Vol. 1 at 188 n. 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Forest Service recognized that excessive utilization in one key area (of several in an allotment) was not representative of range conditions across the entire allotment. The December 2004 update to the 1998 BA explained: By design, utilization cages were established in the most heavily grazed areas of a pasture with the intention that, if we protect these areas, the rest of the drainage would be in fairly good condition. As a result, higher utilization in a key area does not indicate that utilization was exceeded across the entire riparian area, pasture or allotment. . . . Localized areas of high grass utilization doesn't necessarily mean that there is a loss or decline of riparian condition. This lack of connection is shown by the facts that despite localized areas of high grass utilization, Forest Service monitoring does not show an overall change in vegetation type or a downward trend in stream stability. The monitoring does show an improving trend in shrub density, vigor, and recruitment. Id. at 143-44; see id. at 146 (in the Pole Mountain area, other indicators of riparian health ([heights of] shrubs and carex) demonstrate a stable or improving trend in habitat). Consequently, the Forest Service measured utilization by averaging forage-utilization rates for all key areas within a particular allotment, on the ground that this would be more accurate. As for CNE's contention that such averaging had not been used before 2004, there is evidence to the contrary, and, in any event, the Forest Service was not bound to continue its pre-2004 practice. The 1985 Forest Plan explained that the focus of monitoring was to determine utilization [of forage] on allotments,  id. Vol. 2 at 421 (emphasis added), and said nothing about key areas. Furthermore, the Forest Service's 1998 communication with the FWS, in which it sought concurrence with its not likely to adversely affect finding, explained that the forage-utilization standard helped guide how it manage[d] the allotments on Pole Mountain, id. at 374 (emphasis added). If it is utilization on the allotment that is important, one can infer that the proper measure is the average utilization throughout the allotment, from which it inevitably follows that the utilization on some portions will exceed the average and on some will fall below. Such averaging can be found in a 1998 environmental assessment of the revisions to the Pole Mountain allotment management plan, which lists utilization rates in each key area and then states the average in each allotment. Thus, the Forest Service apparently had used such averages for several years. And nothing within the 1998 BA suggests that utilization needed to be evaluated separately for each key area. On the other hand, we recognize that there is some doubt concerning whether averaging was to be used in assessing forage utilization. As noted in a 2004 report supplementing a 1998 environmental assessment of the revisions to the Pole Mountain allotment management plan, The amended 1998 BA and consultation do not clarify if utilization standards and guidelines are to be met at a pasture level, on average across the allotments, or within each key area measured. Id. Vol. 1 at 209. Thus, the use of averaging may have constituted a change in methodology. But even if averaging was initiated in 2004, change is not forbidden. An agency is not bound by its prior position. The law does not require an agency to stand by its initial policy decisions in all circumstances. Exxon Corp. v. Lujan, 970 F.2d 757, 762 n. 4 (10th Cir.1992). Changes in policy can be upheld when such change is explained with a reasoned analysis. See id. And in evaluating whether the analysis is reasoned, we must defer to the agency's expertise. See Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214, 1240 (10th Cir.2002) ([D]eference to agency action is appropriate where that action implicates scientific and technical judgments within the scope of agency expertise. (internal quotation marks omitted)); Custer County Action Ass'n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, 1036 (10th Cir.2001) ([T]he agency, not a reviewing court, is entrusted with the responsibility of considering the various modes of scientific evaluation and theory and choosing the one appropriate for the given circumstances. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). As the above discussion demonstrates, the Forest Service has provided a reasoned basis for concluding that a single key-area utilization rate may be misleading and that its averaging methodology is the proper measure of forage utilization in an allotment. Moreover, the FWS accepted the validity of the Forest Service's averaging methodology in January 2005 when it concurred in the not likely to adversely effect finding for the Preble's mouse's critical habitat. The FWS's concurrence at that time was expressly based on the Forest Service's finding that there was appropriate utilization (meeting the 1985 Forest Plan standards [that set a limit of 60.5%]) within the allotments. Aplts. App. Vol. 1 at 121. The Forest Service's finding, in turn, relied on the averaging of key areas within each allotment. Thus, the FWS itself relied on the average rate of forage utilization within an allotment's key areas to analyze the effects of grazing. The FWS's acceptance of the validity of this methodology for analyzing effects under the ESA supports the conclusion that the methodology is hardly arbitrary. (Perhaps it is also worth observing that even without averaging, the utilization standard was not exceeded in 2004 in any of the three key areas within the critical habitat.) A second premise of Forest Guardians that the Forest Service's monitoring of forage utilization had been deficient, 450 F.3d at 466is also not present in this case. CNE claims that the Forest Service's collection of forage-utilization data was inadequate because it was based on [o]cular [e]stimate[s]. Aplts. App. Vol. 1 at 155. Citing only to some 2004 annual operating instructions indicating that [u]tilization will be determined using the clipped plant weight method, id. at 175, and a 2004 report noting that in previous years the Forest Service had used ocular estimates in low budget years, id. at 192, CNE asserts that [q]uantitative monitoring data is mandated by the agency's own requirements. Aplts. Br. at 30. The record is to the contrary. The 1985 Forest Plan explains that [t]hree methods may be used to determine utilization on allotments. Aplts. App. Vol. 2 at 421. One of these three standard procedures is visual estimates of grazing use. Id. Furthermore, the same 2004 report cited by CNE explains that ocular estimates were the customary means of monitoring unless they revealed excessive utilization. As the report explains, If ocular estimates indicated that a key area was not exceeding [utilization] standards, additional data were not collected. Id. Vol. 1 at 193. The Forest Service's 2004 conclusion that the effects of grazing were the same as those considered in 1998 was not arbitrary or capricious, and hence its determination that it need not reinitiate consultation on the effects of grazing on the Preble's mouse did not violate the ESA.