With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Timothy G. Wakefield appeals the district court’s order affirming his conviction for operating a motor vehicle on a Forest Development Road without a valid driver’s license in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.54 and Forest Order No. 01-005. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Wakefield contends that the Forest Service does not have authority to create the prohibition that he violated nor to enforce it. This argument is without merit. The Forest Service regulation at issue is well within the scope of its authority. See 36 C.F.R. § 261.50 (stating the Forest Service supervisor may issue orders that restrict the use of described areas within its jurisdiction); cf. United States v. True, 946 F.2d 682, 683-84 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Wakefield’s August 30, 2004 motion to correct

A: holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit
B: recognizing that the forest service supervisor had authority to issue orders pursuant to 36 cfr  26150
C: holding in suit under the administrative procedure act challenging us forest service approval of forest development plan that injury to aesthetic conservational or recreational interests is sufficient to confer standing
D: holding that national forest service had authority to forbid opening rs 2477 routes to motorized travel
B.