arbitrary and capricious. See Or. Natural Res. Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9th Cir.2007). Critical to that inquiry is whether there is “a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made” in support of the agency’s action. Or. Natural Res. Council v. Brong, 492 F.3d 1120, 1131 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Review of the BLM’s interpretation of its own statutory mandate, including review under the APA, requires application of the deference principle recognized in Chevron. See Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. E.P.A., 537 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir.2008). III. Discussion A. Standing Both parties challenge the other’s standing on appeal. Furthermore, the BLM submitted an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs or, 982 F.2d 1332, 1339 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Lujan, 928 F.2d 453,
holding appeal improper since the dismissal was voluntary recognizing the right to counsel on appeal holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal holding that when the district court dismissed rather than transferred a case not within its jurisdiction and a party appealed that dismissal the circuit court could consider only the propriety of the dismissal on appeal and determining that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction on appeal to consider the merits of the action holding that environmental groups had standing to defend government regulations on appeal despite the governments dismissal of its appeal