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

Heading: Reliability of Methodology

Text: 25 The Grazing District also attacks the methodology the Forest Service employed to assess habitat suitability, which underpins the choice of stocking levels. The Grazing District's arguments are inspired, but unavailing. 26 If the administrative record contains evidence that supports the positions of both the agency and the party seeking relief, the agency is entitled to rely on its experts' tests and observations, and decisions made in such reliance are not arbitrary and capricious. Downer v. United States, 97 F.3d 999, 1004 (8th Cir. 1996). Even if the agency's data is flawed, if the agency has relied on a number of findings and only some are erroneous, we must reverse and remand only if 'there is a significant chance that but for the errors the agency might have reached a different result.' Dombeck, 164 F.3d at 1129 (citation omitted). The question for us is not whether there might have been a better way for the agency to resolve the conflicting issues with which it was faced, but whether the agency's choice is a reasonable one. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 153 F.3d 523, 535 (8th Cir. 1998).
27 The Grazing District argues that the Forest Service's habitat suitability index was such an unreliable measure of sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat that it rendered decisions stemming therefrom arbitrary and capricious. The index compares levels of residual cover that remained after grazing with levels of cover in ungrazed areas in order to assess whether habitat for management indicator species, such as the sharp-tailed grouse, achieved at least 40% of potential. The Grazing District contends that the index did not establish a verifiable correlation between two measurable and quantifiable criteria, because [w]hile visual obscurity can be quantified through direct measurement, habitat suitability can not [sic], and that the Forest Service did not use similar data to set the end points of its graph of the assumed relationship between visual obscurity and habitat suitability for sharp-tailed grouse on the [Grasslands]. 28 These concerns stem from the Grazing District's underlying assumption that the Forest Service should have included the effect of visual obscurity on sharp-tailed grouse populations in its index. However, the Grazing District misapprehends the index, which was designed to assess the effect of grazing on the level of residual cover, not on the grouse population. The Forest Service obtained from other sources data regarding what constitutes habitat suitability and need not have included in chart-form what it knew from its other sources to be the case. For instance, 29 Plains sharptail nesting cover tends to be more grassy and less shrubby than that of the prairie sharptail of the Great Lakes States. The lack of good quality nesting and brood-rearing cover generally is limiting for sharp-tailed grouse throughout their range. Plains sharp-tailed grouse are generally limited by intensive grazing and conversion of rangeland to cropland. Grazing reduces the quantity of residual vegetation. Residual herbaceous vegetation is important nesting cover because little current growth is available in early spring when most nests are constructed. 30 Bart L. Prose, Habitat Suitability Index Models: Plains Sharp-Tailed Grouse, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.142), 9, (1987) (citing various authorities). 10 31 Similarly problematic is the Grazing District's argument that the data used to set the end points of the Forest Service's graph renders its decision arbitrary and capricious. Again, the graph was looking at the relationship between grazing and nesting cover. Basic statistics allows one to ascertain the relationship, or lack thereof, between any two variables. Although such relationships may be spurious, here the Grazing District fails to show that to be the case. Its suggestion that precipitation levels account more for optimal nesting cuts both ways, as precipitation would also affect the height and density of cover. The very report to which the Grazing District directs us undermines the Grazing District's point. Leslie A. Rice & Arthur V. Carter, Evaluation of South Dakota Grassland Management Practices As They Affect Prairie Chicken Populations, 1974-78, Dep't of Game, Fish and Parks Completion Rep. No. 84-11, 11 (1982) (Amounts of moisture received before and during growing season also influenced amounts of forage left ungrazed which was measured the following spring. The Grazing District also ignores predation concerns. Although the Grazing District emphasizes the number of nest-broods found in pastures subjected to various grazing methods, the study was inconclusive regarding nest fate. See id. at 13, 15 (indicating that the sample size may have caused a finding of no significant difference in nest fate when different grazing systems were compared). 32 Furthermore, the Grazing District ignores the Forest Service's charge to protect the Grasslands habitat for fauna other than the sharp-tailed grouse, along with flora and other resources. As the Environmental Assessment points out: 33 Through visual observations, erosion and gullies were noticed due to a lack of vegetative cover and a lower range condition. If livestock continue to graze at this [initial] level, resource conditions will degrade. If intensive grazing continues during a prolonged drought, the vegetative composition will decrease to a lower level of condition and the overall rangeland health declines. 34 The Forest Service's habitat suitability index was not defective for the purpose it was used and does not undermine other data the Forest Service relied upon. Nor was the index the primary tool used in the Forest Service's decision-making, but was merely one of many considerations... along with many other pieces of information, both biological and social. The Forest Service accounted for discrepancies to which the Grazing District directs us and was entitled to rely upon its experts and data even though there may have been some conflicting data. See Perkins v. Bergland, 608 F.2d 803, 807 (9th Cir. 1979) (cautioning trial courts to refrain from entering [the] fray if it turns out that the [plaintiffs'] position would require a choice between experts). That the sharp-tailed grouse can nest in more heavily grazed areas misses the point since the Forest Service seeks to improve the habitat overall. The index was a reasonable tool among others employed and does not render the chosen stocking level arbitrary and capricious.
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.