With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a 2000 biological opinion (“BiOp”) related to the Federal Columbia River Power System. Earlier, the National Wildlife Federation (“NWF”) had sued the same defendants challenging the same 2000 BiOp. In this appeal, Plaintiff disputes three rulings of the district court. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 1. The district court stayed Plaintiffs action until Defendants issued a revised BiOp in accordance with the court’s remand in the NWF case. In 2004 Defendants issued a replacement document, the 2004 BiOp. Upon its issuance the stay order expired by its own terms. Therefore, Plaintiffs appeal of the stay order is moot; now that the stay has ended, no further relief is possible on that issue. See Gator. Com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 2. The district court also denied Plaintiffs

A: holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention
B: holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy
C: holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention
D: holding that article iii requires a live controversy at every stage of litigation
D.