Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
statutes do not mandate the issuance of an injunction, and that plaintiffs must still show some tangible irreparable environmental injury. See Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982); Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987); Town of Huntington v. Marsh, 884 F.2d 648 (2nd Cir.1989) (applying Weinberger and Amoco and concluding that they require a showing of irreparable injury apart from the violation of NEPA procedural requirements). Although NEPA violations may not create a presumption of irreparable injury, the Court believes that such violations do create a type of injury that courts must consider when deciding whether to grant injunctive relief. Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497 (1st Cir.1989) . More specifically, such violations by their
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate
B. holding that the district court erred when it failed to consider the presumption of irreparable harm
C. holding that nepa is designed to prevent harm to the environment through inadequately informed decision making and that courts should take account of this harm and its potentially irreparable nature
D. holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative
E. holding that likelihood of irreparable harm must be based on evidence in the record not unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm the plaintiff might suffer
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.