With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". agency’s conclusions. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 538 F.3d at 1193. Review under this standard is narrow, and the court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the agency. Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.2010). For all these claims except plaintiffs’ reinitiation claim, the scope of review is limited to the administrative record before NMFS at the time the challenged decisions were made. Citizens to Pres. Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). Plaintiffs’ § 7(a)(2) claim, that the ITS was abrogated and that NMFS should have reinitiated formal consultation is evaluated with any admissible evidence and is not limited to the administrative record. See Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink,

A: holding that courts should review claims brought under the esa under the citizensuit provision of the esa or when the citizensuit provision is unavailable under the apa
B: holding that judicial review under the apa is precluded when a remedy is available under a citizen suit provision of an environmental statute citations omitted
C: holding that the esa citizen suit provision creates an express adequate remedy rendering the apas scope of review inapplicable to the substantive provisions of the esa
D: holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa
C.