Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
also could have gone forward with filling its land without a permit. The cease and desist order (or, in this case, the injunction) was the point at which the agency first asserted regulatory jurisdiction over the landowner. Up to that point, no permit was required either in Tabb Lakes or here. To the extent Boise argues that the ESA did hot give the district court the power to enjoin logging without a permit, its argument is not well taken. First, as discussed above, a takings claim before'the Court of Federal Claims cannot ask that court to review the propriety of a district court’s handling of a case. Second, as the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held, the district court did have the authority to enjoin Boise from logging. Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir.1996) ; see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to a protected species is sufficient for issuance of an injunction under section 9 of the esa
B. holding that even though irreparable harm is not required it had been shown and weighed in favor of issuance of the preliminary injunction
C. holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence
D. recognizing that irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction
E. holding that if defendants violated substantive or procedural provision of esa a court does not have traditional equitable discretion instead any threatened harm is per se irreparable harm and  public interest always favors the imposition of an injunction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.