Barbouletos

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree that the case must be remanded to the Forest Service to more clearly articulate its standard for evaluating when grizzly bears’ needs compete with land use values under the Flathead Forest Plan. However, because on this record it appears that leaving the ten culverts alone would be consistent with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines under any standard, I agree with the district court that the Forest Service’s action regarding the *52 culverts was not “arbitrary and capricious,” and should be affirmed.

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs, collectively referred to as “Swan View,” appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the agency defendants. At issue is the application of the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”) to the travel-management actions taken pursuant to the Moose Post-Fire Project in the Flathead National Forest. Swan View contends that the Moose Post-Fire Project’s allowance of increased motorized vehicle use on lands in grizzly bear territory conflicts with the Flathead Forest Plan’s directive that the Forest Service “favor the needs of the grizzly bear when grizzly habitat and other land use values compete.”

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment on a NFMA claim. Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 418 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir.2005). The Court’s review of agency action is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Id. Under the APA, reviewing courts cannot set aside agency action unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A). In deciding “whether an agency’s action is arbitrary or capricious, we 'must consider whether the…