by the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2006). Under this standard of review, the court may set aside an agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in .accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). To determine whether an agency decision is arbitrary and capricious, the court should “consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment,” Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989). After considering the relevant factors, the agency must articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and t F.3d 472, 481 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). In accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling
holding that irrespective of whether an esa claim is brought under the apa or the citizensuit provision the apas standard of review applies holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them holding that the esa citizen suit provision creates an express adequate remedy rendering the apas scope of review inapplicable to the substantive provisions of the esa holding that judicial review under the apa is precluded when a remedy is available under a citizen suit provision of an environmental statute citations omitted holding that courts should review claims brought under the esa under the citizensuit provision of the esa or when the citizensuit provision is unavailable under the apa