Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AMERICAN WILD HORSE
PRESERVATION CAMPAIGN, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
TOM VILSACK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
) Case No. 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ANSWER

Federal Defendants Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Thomas

Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service; and Ann D. Carlson, Acting Forest Supervisor, Modoc
National Forest (collectively Federal Defendants), by and through their undersigned counsel,
answer Plaintiffs Complaint as follows:1
1.

In response to the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 1, Federal

Defendants aver that the Forest Service has managed the Modoc National Forest (the Forest)

Plaintiffs claims are reviewed pursuant to the judicial review provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706. Under the APA, the Court neither sits as an evidentiary
fact finder nor resolves alleged disputed facts. Under the APA, the agencys role is to resolve
factual issues to arrive at a decision that is supported by the administrative record, whereas the
district courts function is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the
administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did. Hill Dermaceuticals v.
FDA, No. 11-cv-1950 RCL, 2012 WL 5914516, at * 7 (D.D.C. May 18, 2012), affd 709 F.3d 44
(D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting Occidental Engg Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769-70 (9th Cir. 1985) (in
an APA action, there are no disputed facts that the district court must resolve.)). Thus, the
allegations of fact in the Complaint and any responses contained in an answer are not relevant to
the judicial review sought in this action. Nonetheless, Federal Defendants herein respond to the
numbered paragraphs of the Complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 2 of 17

since 1905, and that wild horses have roamed the Forest since then, but otherwise deny the
allegations in the first sentence. Federal Defendants admit that wild horses were present on the
Forest before its establishment, but otherwise deny the remaining allegations in the second
sentence of Paragraph 1. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of
Paragraph 1. The fourth sentence of Paragraph 1 purports to characterize the Wild FreeRoaming Horses and Burros Act (WHA), 16 U.S.C. 1331-1340, as amended in 1978,
Pub.L. 95514, 92 Stat. 1803, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 1, and further aver
that the Forest Service has periodically removed excess wild horses to achieve the Appropriate
Management Level (AML) of 275-335 animals, but that wild horse populations have exceeded
the AML upper limit since 2002. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the sixth sentence
of Paragraph 1, but aver that the estimated number of wild horses in 2012 was 1,124 animals
(about 3.4 times the Appropriate Management Level (AML)), of which 855 horses reside
within the Devils Garden Wild Horse Territory (WHT) while another 269 reside outside the
WHT. Federal Defendants further aver that a recent aerial survey in February 2013 estimated
1,260 wild horses.
2.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 2, and

aver that wild horses are using 16,186 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of forage (approximately
368% of the allocated level of 4,400 AUMs). Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the
second sentence of Paragraph 2. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of
Paragraph 2, which is set out in a parenthetical. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the
fourth sentence of Paragraph 2, and aver that 26,880 AUMs are permitted for livestock use, but

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 3 of 17

that actual use by livestock only averaged 18,548 AUMs during the period from 2006-2012.
Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 2.
3.

The allegations in the first sentence purport to characterize the 1991 Land and

Resource Management Plan for the Modoc National Forest (the 1991 Forest Plan), which
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. The allegations in the second sentence
of Paragraph 3 purport to characterize the August 29, 2013 Devils Garden WHT Management
Plan, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny
the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 3. The allegations in the fourth sentence of
Paragraph 3 purport to characterize the August 27, 2013 Decision Notice and Finding of No
Significant Impact, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. The
allegations in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 3 are conclusions of law, which require no
response. To the extent a response is required, Federal Defendants deny the allegations. Federal
Defendants admit that the majority of the middle area was never part of the Triangle and
Avanzino Ranches and were part of the Modoc National Forest at all relevant times, but
otherwise deny the allegations in the sixth sentence of Paragraph 3. Federal Defendants deny the
allegations in the seventh sentence of Paragraph 3.
4.

The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 4 purport to characterize the

August 27, 2013 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, which speaks for itself
and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the second
sentence of Paragraph 4.
5.

The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 5 purport to characterize

Plaintiffs case, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Federal
Defendants deny the allegations. Federal Defendants admit that removal of wild horses will be

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 4 of 17

required to achieve the proposed AML range, but otherwise deny the allegations in the second
sentence of Paragraph 5. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of
Paragraph 5, and aver that the decision is needed to ensure the wild horse herd is managed as a
self-sustaining population of healthy animals in a thriving natural ecological balance with other
uses and the productive capacity of their habitat. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the
fourth sentence of Paragraph 5. Federal Defendants admit that the Forest Service did not
conduct a genetic study prior to establishing a revised AML, but otherwise deny the allegations
in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 5.
6.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 6 and deny any violations of

federal law.
7.

The allegations in Paragraph 7 purport to characterize the August 29, 2013

Devils Garden WHT Management Plan, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its
contents.
8.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 8, deny any violations of

federal law, and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever.
9.

The allegations in Paragraph 9 are conclusions of law, which require no response.

To the extent a response is required, Federal Defendants deny the allegations.

10.

Federal Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10, and deny them on that basis.
11.

The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 11 are characterizations of the

Complaint, which require no response. To the extent a response is required, Federal Defendants
deny the allegations. In response to the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 11,
Federal Defendants admit that American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign submitted

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 5 of 17

comments on the Forest Services Territory Management Plan. The remainder of the second
sentence of Paragraph 11 purports to characterize those comments, which speak for themselves
and constitute the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the
third and fourth sentences of Paragraph 11.
12.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 12.

13.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 13.

14.

Federal Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 14, and deny them on that basis.
15.

Federal Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 15, and deny them on
that basis. In response to the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 15, Federal
Defendants admit that Carla Bowers submitted comments on the Forest Services Territory
Management Plan. The remainder of the third sentence of Paragraph 15 purports to characterize
those comments, which speak for themselves and constitute the best evidence of their content.
Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the fourth and fifth sentences of Paragraph 15.
16.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 16.

17.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 17.

18.

Federal Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in the first through tenth sentences of Paragraph 18, and deny them on
that basis. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the eleventh sentence.
19.

Federal Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 19.

20.

Federal Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 20.

21.

Federal Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 21.

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 6 of 17

22.

Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 22.

The second and third sentences in Paragraph 22 purport to characterize the WHA, a statute that
speaks for itself and constitutes the best evidence of its content.
23.

The allegations in Paragraph 23 purport to characterize the WHA, a statute that

speaks for itself and constitutes the best evidence of its content.
24.

The allegations in Paragraph 24 purport to characterize the WHA and the Forest

Services WHA regulations, a statute and regulations that speak for themselves and constitute the
best evidence of their content.
25.

Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 25. In

response to the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 25, Federal Defendants aver that
approximately 2.5 million acres of Forest Service lands are within wild horse and/or burro
territories that are managed under the multiple-use concept, and otherwise deny the allegations.
Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the third and fourth sentences of Paragraph 25.
26.

The allegations in Paragraph 26 purport to characterize the WHA, the Forest

Services WHA regulations, and the Forest Service Manual, which speak for themselves and
constitute the best evidence of their content.
27.

The allegations in Paragraph 27 purport to characterize the WHA, a statute that

speaks for itself and constitutes the best evidence of its content.
28.

The allegations in Paragraph 28 purport to characterize the National Forest

Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. 1600-1687, a statute that speaks for itself and
constitutes the best evidence of its content.

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 7 of 17

29.

The allegations in Paragraph 29 purport to characterize the Forest Services

NFMA regulations and the Forest Service Range Management Manual, which speak for
themselves and constitute the best evidence of their content.
30.

The allegations in Paragraph 30 purport to characterize the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370, a statute that speaks for itself and
constitutes the best evidence of its content.
31.

The allegations in Paragraph 31 purport to characterize NEPA and the Council on

Environmental Qualitys (CEQ) implementing regulations, which speak for themselves and
constitute the best evidence of their content.
32.

The allegations in Paragraph 32 purport to characterize the CEQs regulations

implementing NEPA, which speak for themselves and constitute the best evidence of their
content.
33.

The allegations in Paragraph 33 purport to characterize the CEQs regulations

implementing NEPA, which speak for themselves and constitute the best evidence of their
content.
34.

The allegations in Paragraph 34 purport to characterize the CEQs regulations

implementing NEPA, which speak for themselves and constitute the best evidence of their
content.
35.

The allegations in Paragraph 35 purport to characterize the CEQs regulations

implementing NEPA, which speak for themselves and constitute the best evidence of their
content.

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 8 of 17

36.

Federal Defendants admit that Congress passed the WHA in 1971, and amended

the Act in 1978. Federal Defendants lack information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36, and deny them on that basis.
37.

Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence in Paragraph 37.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 37, and aver that
the Devils Garden WHT, which lies primarily within the Modoc National Forest, consists of
232,500 acres of public lands split between an East and West home range. Federal Defendants
admit the allegations in the third and fourth sentences of Paragraph 37, but aver that only 7,632
acres of the Devils Garden WHT are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
38.

Federal Defendants admit that wild horses have lived on the 232,520 acre Devils

Garden WHT for more than 140 years. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the second
and third sentences of Paragraph 38.
39.

The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 39 purport to characterize the

1975 Devils Garden WHT Management Plan, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of
its contents. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 39.
Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the third, fourth, and fifth sentences of Paragraph 39,
and aver that few, if any horses, used the middle area when the WHA was passed and there is no
evidence that any horses used the middle area as a home territory at that time. Federal
Defendants admit that the 1991 Forest Plan included portions of the Big Sage, Timbered
Mountain, Carr, and Pine Springs Allotments in the Devils Garden WHT for administrative
convenience, but otherwise deny the allegations in the sixth sentences of Paragraph 39. Federal
Defendants admit that the majority of lands in the middle area were publicly held in 1971 when
the WHA was passed, but otherwise deny the allegations in the seventh sentence of Paragraph

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 9 of 17

39. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the eighth sentence of Paragraph 39. Federal
Defendants deny the allegations in the ninth sentence of Paragraph 39. The allegations in the
tenth sentence of Paragraph 39, which are set out in a parenthetical, purport to characterize a map
from the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Devils Garden WHT Management Plan,
which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
40.

Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first clause of the first sentence of

Paragraph 40. The allegations in the second clause of the first sentence and the first clause of the
second sentence of Paragraph 40 purport to characterize the 1991 Forest Plan, which speaks for
itself and is the best evidence of its contents. The allegations in second clause of the second
sentence of Paragraph 40 are conclusions of law, which require no response. To the extent a
response is required, Federal Defendants deny the allegations.
41.

Federal Defendants admit the Forest Service has administered and managed wild

horses for the past three decades, but otherwise deny the allegations in the first sentence of
Paragraph 41. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 41,
except that they deny that ten allotments cover the Devils Garden WHT and aver that only eight
allotments cover the Devils Garden WHT.
42.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 42.

43.

Federal Defendants admit the Forest Service issued a scoping letter on July 27,

2011. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 43 purport to characterise that July 27, 2011
scoping letter, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
44.

The allegations in Paragraph 44 purport to characterise the July 27, 2011 scoping

letter, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 10 of 17

45.

The allegations in Paragraph 45 purport to characterise the July 27, 2011 scoping

letter, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
46.

The allegations in Paragraph 46 purport to characterise the July 27, 2011 scoping

letter, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants further
deny the allegation in the second sentence that the map included in the scoping letter was
expressly incorporated into the 1991 Forest Plan.
47.

Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 47.

The allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 47 purport to characterise Plaintiffs

comments, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents.
48.

Federal Defendants aver that the Forest Service issued an additional scoping letter

and proposed action document on December 14, 2012. The allegations in the first, second, third,
and fourth sentences of Paragraph 48 purport to characterise that scoping letter and proposed
action document, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents.
Federal Defendants admit that the majority of the middle area was never part of the Triangle and
Avanzino Ranches and was part of the Modoc National Forest when the WHA was passed in
1971, but otherwise deny the allegations in the fifth sentence of Paragraph 48.
49.

The allegations in Paragraph 49 purport to characterise the proposed action

document, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
50.

Federal Defendants admit that Plaintiffs American Wild Horse Preservation

Campaign and Ms. Bowers submitted comments in response to December 14, 2012 scoping
letter and proposed action document. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 50 purport to
characterize those comments, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their
contents.

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 11 of 17

51.

Federal Defendants admit that the Forest Service released a document entitled

Evaluation of Monitoring Data for the Purpose of Determining an Appropriate Management

Level (AML Evaluation) in May 2013, but otherwise deny the allegations in the first sentence
of Paragraph 51. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 51 purport to characterize the AML
Evaluation, a document that speaks for itself and constitutes the best evidence of its content.
52.

The allegations in Paragraph 52 purport to characterize the AML Evaluation, a

document that speaks for itself and constitutes the best evidence of its content.
53.

The allegations in Paragraph 53 purport to characterize the Draft EA, a document

that speaks for itself and constitutes the best evidence of its content.
54.

Federal Defendants admit that Plaintiffs AWHPC and Ms. Bowers submitted

comments in response to the Draft EA on May 22, 2013 and May 31, 2013, respectively. The
remaining allegations in Paragraph 54 purport to characterize those comments, which speak for
themselves and constitute the best evidence of their content.
55.

Federal Defendants admit that the Forest Service issued a Final EA, Decision

Notice (DN), and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on August 29, 2013. The
remaining allegations in Paragraph 55 purport to characterize those documents, which speak for
themselves and constitute the best evidence of their content. Federal defendants deny any
violation of the law.
56.

The allegations in Paragraph 56 purport to characterize the Final EA, DN and

FONSI, documents that speak for themselves and constitute the best evidence of their content.
Federal Defendants deny any violation of the law.
57.

Federal Defendants admit that Plaintiffs appealed the Forest Services decision on

November 18, 2013, and that the Forest Service denied the appeal on January 2, 2014. The

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 12 of 17

remaining allegations in Paragraph 57 are characterizations of the Complaint, which require no

response. To the extent a response is required, Federal Defendants deny the allegations and deny
any violation of the law.
58.

Federal Defendants reassert and incorporate by reference the responses set forth

in all the preceding paragraphs in this Answer. Federal Defendants also deny the allegations in
the bolded heading for Plaintiffs first cause of action.
59.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 59.

60.

The allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 60 purport to

characterize the Forest Services Final EA, DN, and FONSI, documents that speak for
themselves and constitute the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants deny the
allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 60.
61.

The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 61 purport to characterize the

Forest Services Final EA, ROD, and FONSI, documents that speak for themselves and
constitute the best evidence of their content. Federal Defendants admit that the majority of the
middle area was never part of the Triangle or Avanzino Ranches, and consist of portions of the
Big Sage, Timbered Mountain, Carr and Pine Springs Allotments, but otherwise deny the
allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 61. Federal Defendants admit that the majority
of the middle area was publicly held in 1971 when the WHA was passed, but otherwise deny the
allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 61. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the
fourth sentence of Paragraph 61.
62.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 62.

63.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 63.

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 13 of 17

64.

Federal Defendants reassert and incorporate by reference the responses set forth

in all the preceding paragraphs in this Answer. Federal Defendants also deny the allegations in
the bolded heading for Plaintiffs second cause of action.
65.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 65.

66.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 66.

67.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 67 and further deny any

violations of federal law.

68.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 68.

69.

Federal Defendants reassert and incorporate by reference the responses set forth

in all the preceding paragraphs in this Answer. Federal Defendants also deny the allegations in
the bolded heading for Plaintiffs third cause of action.
70.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first and second sentence of

Paragraph 70. The allegations in third sentence of Paragraph 70 are conclusions of law, which
require no response. To the extent a response is required, Federal Defendants deny the
allegations. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the fourth sentence.
71.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 71 and deny any violations

of NEPA or its implementing regulations. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the third
sentence of Paragraph 71.
72.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 72 and deny any violation

of NEPA or its implementing regulations.

73.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 73 and deny any violation

of NEPA or the APA.

74.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 74.

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 14 of 17

75.

Federal Defendants reassert and incorporate by reference the responses set forth

in all the preceding paragraphs in this Answer. Federal Defendants also deny the allegations in
the bolded heading for Plaintiffs fourth cause of action.
76.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 76 and deny any violation

of the WHA or its implementing regulations.

77.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first and fourth sentences of

Paragraph 77 and deny any violation of the WHA or its implementing regulations. The second
and third sentences in Paragraph 77 purport to characterize the Forest Services Final EA, DN,
and FONSI, documents that speak for themselves and constitute the best evidence of their
content.
78.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 78 and deny any violation

of the WHA, the APA, or their implementing regulations.

79.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 79.

80.

Federal Defendants reassert and incorporate by reference the responses set forth

in all the preceding paragraphs in this Answer. Federal Defendants also deny the allegations in
the bolded heading for Plaintiffs fifth cause of action.
81.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 81 and deny any violations

of federal law.
82.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first and second sentences of

Paragraph 82 and deny any violations of law. The third and fourth sentences purport to
characterize the Forest Service Manual and the referenced Forest Service regulations, which
speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny any
violations of the law.

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 15 of 17

83.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 83 and deny any violations

of federal law.
84.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 84.

85.

Federal Defendants reassert and incorporate by reference the responses set forth

in all the preceding paragraphs in this Answer. Federal Defendants also deny the allegations in
the bolded heading for Plaintiffs sixth cause of action.
86.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 86 and deny any violation

of NEPA and its implementing regulations.

87.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 87 and deny any violation

of NEPA and its implementing regulations.

88.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 88 and deny any violation

of NEPA and its implementing regulations.

89.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 89 and deny any violation

of NEPA and its implementing regulations.

90.

Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 90 and deny any violation

of NEPA and its implementing regulations.

89(2).2 The allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 91 purport to
characterize the AML Evaluation, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 89(2) and deny any
violation of NEPA or its implementing regulations.

Plaintiffs Complaint contains a typographical error whereby after Paragraph 90, Plaintiffs
began renumbering again at 89. In this Answer, for ease of reference, the paragraphs following
paragraph 90 follow Plaintiffs numbering but are designated 89(2), 90(2), and 91(2).

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 16 of 17

90(2). Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 90(2) and deny any
violation of NEPA, its implementing regulations, and the APA.
91(2). Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 91(2) and deny any
violation of NEPA and its implementing regulations..

The remainder of Plaintiffs Complaint consists of Plaintiffs Prayer for Relief, which are
conclusions of law which require no response. To the extent a response is required, Federal
Defendants deny the allegations and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or to
any relief whatsoever.
GENERAL DENIAL
Federal Defendants deny any allegations of the Complaint, whether express or implied,
that are not specifically admitted, denied, or qualified herein.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1.

This Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of some or all of Plaintiffs claims.

Dated: June 2, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,
SAM HIRSCH,
Acting Assistant Attorney General
SETH M. BARSKY, Chief
S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief
/s/ Stuart Gillespie
STUART GILLESPIE
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Natural Resources Section
Ben Franklin Station
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
Phone: (202) 305-0490
Fax: (202) 305-0506

Case 1:14-cv-00485-ABJ Document 9 Filed 06/02/14 Page 17 of 17

Email: stuart.gillespie@usdoj.gov
MEREDITH L. FLAX
Senior Trial Attorney
(D.C. Bar No. 468016)
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
Wildlife & Marine Resources Section
Ben Franklin Station
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, DC 20044-7611
Phone: (202) 305-0404
Fax: (202) 305-0275 (fax)
Email: meredith.flax@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Federal Defendants