With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir.2003); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1227-28 (D.C.Cir.2007); West Virginia v. EPA 362 F.3d 861, 868 (D.C.Cir.2004). Plaintiffs also adequately alleged that the Secretary’s action will undermine land management in the Imperial Valley. A county’s “concrete interests” in its “environment and in land management” can establish Article III standing. City of Las Vegas, 570 F.3d at 1114; see also Sausalito, 386 F.3d at 1198 (finding a concrete injury because a project would “result in a detrimental increase in traffic and crowds” and affect “municipal management and public safety functions” (quoting City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 211 F.Supp.2d 1175, 1186 (N.D.Cal.2002))) (internal quotation marks omitted); City of Davis, 521 F.2d at 671 (<HOLDING>). C. Identification of Facts The Secretary

A: recognizing a drain on the organizations resources as a concrete and demonstrable injury
B: holding that allegations of future injury must be particular and concrete
C: holding that declarations claiming that agency action will frustrate the citys policy of controlled growth and render its planning efforts to date obsolete established a concrete injury
D: holding erisas accrual date for limitations period controlled despite contrary language in policy
C.