An Arizona ranch owner submitted a data quality petition to the Forest Service March 21 requesting correction of guidance criteria that calculate the effects grazing has on threatened and endangered species. The petitioner is seeking correction of a specific portion of the guidance that addresses the southwestern willow flycatcher, an endangered bird whose habitat covers the southwestern portion of the U.S. The guidance was used by a district ranger to select an Environmental Assessment alternative for the petitioner's ranch, prohibiting his livestock from grazing in identified potential flycatcher habitats. The individual asserts that this restriction affects the economic viability of his farm. The guidance specifically excludes livestock from within two to five miles of occupied flycatcher habitat during the breeding season because apparently livestock presence poses a threat from cowbird parasites. The request for correction claims that the Forest Service guidance lacks objectivity because:

• It fails to incorporate relevant information published by the Forest Service
• It cites none of the published studies after 1996
• It is based in large part on a draft form of the Southwestern Flycatcher Recovery Plan and the final plan contradicts the draft form
• It is not capable of being reproduced.

In order to correct the criteria, the petitioner recommends that the information be altered to reflect current studies completed after 1996 that show the exclusion of livestock from flycatcher habitat is unjustified. Corrections sought include changes to:

• Allow light to moderate winter livestock use of the habitat by livestock
• Remove the requirement of cowbird trapping
• Remove the requirement of excluding livestock within two to five miles of habitat area during the breeding season
• Acknowledge that livestock grazing reduces the risk of habitat to fire
• Recognize that increase in flycatcher populations have been observed while under responsible management.

The petition was submitted within the comment period for the Environmental Assessment, and a June 30 letter from the agency deemed the request part of the comment period. As with other Forest Service data quality petitions, the agency then proceeded to formally respond to the petition. This Aug. 22 response denied the request, stating that the identified data does not meet the definition of "disseminated" under the Office of Management and Budget or the Department of Agriculture data quality guidelines. The guidance criterion falls under intra- or inter-agency use or sharing of government information and is not disseminated to the public. The ranch owner submitted a request for reconsideration Oct. 6, asserting that the grazing guidance does qualify as disseminated information and therefore should fall under the Forest Service's data quality guidelines. The first complaint the petitioner levels at the Forest Service is that the agency violated its own guidelines by failing to outline procedures for appeal in its response. The request also maintains that the Forest Service's position that the information is intra- or inter-agency guidance and not disseminated to the public, is incorrect and the agency cannot exempt public information from the DQA. The appeal invokes the Paperwork Reduction Act's definition of "disseminate" which applies to all information made public. However, while the DQA covers all agencies subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the data quality guidelines clearly establish its own definition of "disseminate" which exempts intra- or inter-agency guidance. Even the original guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, which instructed agencies on developing their data quality guidelines, exempted intra- and inter-agency communications. The petitioners attempt to use a definition from a completely different law is therefore invalid. The second portion of the appeal argues that even if the Forest Service could exempt this information from the data quality guidelines as intra-agency information, it was still disseminated publicly. The appeal states that the Cave Creek Ranger District of the Forest Service made the guidance available to the petitioner and therefore, it is disseminated to the public. Again, the petitioner seems to be misinterpreting the term "publicly disseminated." The definition used in data quality guidelines clearly distinguishes between information an agency actively promotes to the public and information that simply becomes public. Intra- and inter-agency information released to the public in response to a request does not alter its exempt status under the guidelines. Included in the specific types of information exempt are correspondence with individuals and even responses to inquiries and Freedom of Information Act requests. The appeal recommends that the Forest Service reverse its decision of the initial request for correction and initiate the changes outlined in the initial request.