rationales that might support the agency action. And once in court, Forest Guardians could expect that, under Chenery, the Forest Service would be limited to defending the project on the basis of the administrative rationale. Our holding is even stranger when considered in light of some of our other prece dents involving projects approved during the transitional period. Between 2000 and 2004, the Forest Service approved a number of forest projects, using the criteria of the 1982 rules. After this court held that the “best available science” standard of the 2000 transitional rules was applicable to these projects, the Forest Service began to defend these agency decisions under the new standard. See Ecology Center, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 451 F.3d 1183, 1195 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). In Utah Environmental Congress v. Troyer, a
holding that a court is to factor an insurers dual role into its review under the arbitrary and capricious standard though the standard remains arbitrary and capri cious holding that traditional allocation of burden of proof to the party challenging the decisions applies to decisions under the tca holding that when the forest service made transitionperiod decisions under the 1982 rules rather than the best available science standard those decisions were arbitrary and capricious holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues holding that court may set aside lsc decisions that are arbitrary and capricious or are not based on substantial evidence