With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the federal defendants. DISCUSSION Appellants argue that the Forest Service lacked the authority to restrict the use of the ditches to maintain instream flow levels for the protection of fish under the ESA. We agree with the district court that the placement of restrictions in the right-of-way permits was within the authority of the Forest Service. Whatever questions exist as to the standing of the various appellants, they are represented by the same counsel and make the same arguments, and the Early Winters Ditch Company as a permit holder indisputably has standing. We accordingly proceed to the merits. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 263-64 & n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (<HOLDING>). At bottom, appellants argue that the Forest

A: holding individual standing issue waived
B: holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they may not rely on the expense of credit monitoring and other preventative measures for standing
C: holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit
D: holding that standing existed
C.