as a predictor of actual movements because it was predicated on data depicting actual bighorn sheep movements. Given the model’s Payette data-based origin, the Forest Service could reasonably assume that its predictions were sufficiently reliable to satisfy NEPA. Ultimately, the Forest Service used top-rate model designers; relied on peer-reviewed methodologies applied by other bighorn researchers addressing similar issues; and incorporated on-the-ground data of bighorn sheep movements within the Payette. Given the foregoing, and in light of the deference owed to the agency when undertaking technical analysis within its purview, the Forest Service’s reliance on the risk of contact model was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Cf. Lands Council, 537 F.3d at 990-94 (<HOLDING>). 2. Disease model Wool Growers asserts two
recognizing that the forest service supervisor had authority to issue orders pursuant to 36 cfr  26150 holding under basic principles of property law that easement rights are subject to regulation by the forest service as the owner of the servient estate holding in suit under the administrative procedure act challenging us forest service approval of forest development plan that injury to aesthetic conservational or recreational interests is sufficient to confer standing holding that the forest service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with ontheground data holding the ihsaa did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in granting student limited eligibility