With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and in fact in this case the Service actually lifted the permit requirement without ever having denied Boise’s permit application. Thus, the situation before the Court in Tahoe is very different from both the Riverside Bayview line of cases and the case Ass’n, 452 U.S. 264, 297, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (rejecting a Takings Clause challenge to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in part because the challengers had not yet availed themselves of administrative procedures for obtaining a variance from the requirements of the act and noting that “[t]he potential for such administrative solutions confirms the conclusion that the taking issue ... simply is not ripe for judicial resolution”); Avoyelles Sportsmen’s League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897, 927 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204, 1211

A: holding the substantially advances formula is not a valid takings test and indeed  it has no proper place inour takings jurisprudence
B: holding that takings claim does not ripen until a permit application is denied
C: holding that no takings claim can arise unless a permit is denied
D: holding takings claim not ripe under riverside bayview because landowner never applied for a permit
B.