federal answer to state steller sea lion suit
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
1/23
IGNACIA S. MORENO
Assistant Attorney General
SETH M. BARSKY, Section Chief
DANIEL POLLAK, Trial Attorney (Cal. Bar 264285)
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources DivisionWildlife and Marine Resources Section
Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7369
Washington, D.C. 20044-7369
Tel: (202) 305-0201
Fax: (202) 305-0275
Additional Attorneys Listed on Signature Page
Attorneys for Federal Defendants
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
(Anchorage)
STATE OF ALASKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANE LUBCHENCO, in her officialcapacity as Administrator, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration;
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES
SERVICE; JAMES W. BALSIGER, in his
official capacity as NMFS Alaska Region
Administrator; and GARY LOCKE, in his
official capacity as the United States
Secretary of Commerce,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:10-CV-00271-TMB
Answer
Jane Lubchenco, the National Marine Fisheries Service, James W. Balsiger, and Gary
Locke (collectively Federal Defendants) plead as follows in response to Plaintiff State of
Alaskas Complaint (Doc. 1). The numbered paragraphs of Federal Defendants Answer
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 1 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
2/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 2
correspond to the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint. Defendants, by and through
counsel, deny every statement, matter, allegation or thing in Plaintiffs Complaint unless
hereinafter specifically admitted or modified. In response to the like-numbered paragraphs of
Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants hereby state and aver as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. The allegations in Paragraph 1 are the Plaintiffs description of the nature of its suit
that require no response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny
each of the allegations.
2. The allegations in Paragraph 2 are the Plaintiffs description of the nature of its suit
and legal conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is deemed required,
Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. The allegations in Paragraph 3 are legal conclusions that require no response. To the
extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
4. The allegations in Paragraph 4 are legal conclusions that require no response. To the
extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
5. The allegations in Paragraph 5 are legal conclusions that require no response. To the
extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
6. The allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 6 are legal conclusions
that require no response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny
each of the allegations. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the third and fourth
sentences of Paragraph 6.
PARTIES
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 2 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
3/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 3
7. The allegations in Paragraph 7 are legal conclusions that require no response. To the
extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
8. The allegations in the first and second sentences of Paragraph 8 are legal conclusions
that require no response. To the extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny
each of the allegations. The allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 8 purport to
characterize the document attached to Plaintiffs complaint as Exhibit 1, a document that
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegations
inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
9. The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 9 are vague and ambiguous, and
Federal Defendants deny them on that basis. The allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph
9 are legal conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is deemed required,
Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
10. The allegations in Paragraph 10 are vague and ambiguous, and Federal Defendants
deny them on that basis.
11. Federal Defendants admit the allegation in Paragraph 11. Federal Defendants aver
that the State of Alaska also participated beyond the extent allowed to other members of the
public through its representative on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC),
as well as the participation on the NPFMC Science and Statistical Committee by staff from
Alaskas Department of Fish and Game.
12. The allegations in Paragraph 12 are legal conclusions that require no response. To
the extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
13. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 13.
14. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 14.
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 3 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
4/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 4
15. In response to the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 15, Federal
Defendants admit that within the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NMFS has been delegated the responsibility for
implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Federal Defendants further admit that NMFS has
responsibility for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to the extent
those statutes relate to NMFS implementation of the ESA and MSA.
16. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 16.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
17. The allegations in Paragraph 17 purport to characterize the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and regulations thereunder, a statute and regulations that speak for
themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny any
allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the NEPA statute and regulations.
18. The allegations in Paragraph 18 purport to characterize NEPA, regulations
thereunder, and the U.S. Supreme Courts opinion inRobertson v. Methow Valley Citizens
Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989), a statute, regulations and opinion that speak for themselves and
contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent
with the plain language and meaning of the NEPA statute and regulations and the Methow Valley
opinion.
19. The allegations in Paragraph 19 purport to characterize NEPA and regulations
thereunder, a statute and regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of
their contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 4 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
5/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 5
meaning of the NEPA statute and regulations.
20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 purport to characterize regulations under NEPA,
regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the NEPA
regulations.
21. The allegations in Paragraph 21 purport to characterize regulations under NEPA,
regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the NEPA
regulations.
22. The allegations in Paragraph 22 purport to characterize NEPA and regulations
thereunder, and the Ninth Circuits opinion inBob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d 1223
(9th Cir. 1998), a statute, regulations, and opinion that speak for themselves and contain the best
evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain
language and meaning of the NEPA statute, regulations, and the Bob Marshall Alliance opinion.
23. The allegations in Paragraph 23 purport to characterize the Ninth Circuits opinion in
Oregon Natural Resources Council v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 470 F.3d 818 (9th Cir.
2006), an opinion that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the Oregon
Natural Resources Council opinion.
24. The allegations in Paragraph 24 purport to characterize regulations under NEPA,
regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the NEPA
regulations.
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 5 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
6/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 6
25. The allegations in Paragraph 25 purport to characterize the Ninth Circuits opinion in
Ocean Advocates v. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, 402 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2005), an opinion
that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any
allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the Ocean Advocates opinion.
26. The allegations in Paragraph 26 purport to characterize the ESA, a statute that speaks
for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the ESA.
27. The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 27 purport to characterize
regulations under the ESA, regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of
their contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and
meaning of the ESA regulations. The allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 27 are
conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent a response is deemed required,
Defendant denies each of the allegations.
28. The allegations in Paragraph 28 purport to characterize the Ninth Circuits opinions
inButte Environmental Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 620 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2010)
and Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004),
opinions that speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of theButte
Environmental Council and Gifford Pinchot Task Force opinions.
29. The allegations in paragraph 29 purport to characterize the ESA and regulations
thereunder, a statute and regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of
their contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and
meaning of the ESA statute and regulations.
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 6 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
7/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 7
30. The allegations in paragraph 30 purport to characterize the ESA and regulations
thereunder, a statute and regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of
their contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and
meaning of the ESA statute and regulations.
31. The allegations in paragraph 31 purport to characterize regulations under the ESA,
regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the ESA
regulations.
32. The allegations in Paragraph 32 purport to characterize the U.S. Supreme Courts
opinion inBennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997), an opinion that speaks for itself and is the best
evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain
language and meaning of theBennett v. Spearopinion.
33. The allegations in Paragraph 33 purport to characterize the ESA and the U.S.
Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce, Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy Regarding the Role of the State Agencies in Endangered Species Act Activities, 59 Fed.
Reg. 34274 (July 1, 1994) (Interagency Cooperative Policy), a statute and Federal Register
notice that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the ESA
statute and Interagency Cooperative Policy.
34. The allegations in Paragraph 34 purport to characterize U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Consultation Handbook, Procedures for
Conducting Consultation & Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the ESA, March 1988,
(Consultation Handbook), a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 7 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
8/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 8
its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and
meaning of the Consultation Handbook.
35. The allegations in Paragraph 35 are conclusions of law that require no response. To
the extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
36. The allegations in Paragraph 36 purport to characterize the MSA, a statute that speaks
for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the MSA.
37. The allegations in Paragraph 37 purport to characterize the MSA, a statute that speaks
for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the MSA.
38. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 38, and aver that the NPFMC
has authority under the MSA to recommend fishery management plans (FMPs), fishery
management plan amendments, and regulations consistent with those fishery management plans
and amendments, that, when approved by the Secretary of Commerce, regulate federal fishing in
the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska. Federal Defendants further aver that FMPs
developed by the NPFMC govern the management of groundfish fisheries within the EEZ in the
Bering Straits and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and the Gulf of Alaska (GOA).
39. The allegations in Paragraph 39 purport to characterize the MSA, a statute that
speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any
allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the MSA.
40. The allegations in Paragraph 40 purport to characterize the MSA and NEPA, statutes
that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal Defendants
deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the MSA and NEPA
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 8 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
9/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 9
statutes.
41. The allegations in Paragraph 41 purport to characterize the MSA, a statute that speaks
for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the MSA.
42. The allegations in Paragraph 42 purport to characterize the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), a statute that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents.
Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the
APA.
43. The allegations in Paragraph 43 purport to characterize the APA, a statute that speaks
for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the APA.
44. The allegations in Paragraph 44 purport to characterize the APA, a statute that speaks
for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the APA.
45. The allegations in Paragraph 45 purport to characterize the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), a statute that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the RFA.
46. The allegations in Paragraph 46 purport to characterize the RFA, a statute that speaks
for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the RFA.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
47. The allegations in Paragraph 47 purports to characterize the Final Biological
Opinion, a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 9 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
10/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 10
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
48. The allegations in Paragraph 48 purport to characterize the Final Biological Opinion,
a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
49. The allegations in Paragraph 49 purport to characterize the Final Biological Opinion,
a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
50. The allegations in Paragraph 50 purport to characterize the Final Biological Opinion,
a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
51. The allegations in Paragraph 51 purport to characterize the Final Biological Opinion,
a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
52. The allegations in Paragraph 52 purport to characterize the Final Biological Opinion,
a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
53. The allegations in Paragraph 53 purport to characterize the Final Biological Opinion,
a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
54. The allegations in Paragraph 54 purport to characterize the Final Biological Opinion,
a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
55. The allegations in Paragraph 55 purport to characterize the Final Biological Opinion,
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 10 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
11/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 11
a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
56. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 56, and
aver that there are likely multiple factors causing these trends, one of which is nutritional stress
resulting from the groundfish fisheries evaluated in the Biological Opinion. Federal Defendants
deny the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 56.
57. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 57.
58. In response to the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 58, Federal
Defendants admit that NMFS prepared a Steller sea lion recovery plan in 2008 (2008 Recovery
Plan) pursuant to ESA Section 4(f). The remaining allegations in Paragraph 58 purport to
characterize the 2008 Recovery Plan, a document that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of
its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and
meaning of the 2008 Recovery Plan.
59. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 59. The
allegations in the second and third sentences of Paragraph 59 purport to characterize NMFS
August 2010 Draft Biological Opinion regarding authorization of groundfish fisheries under the
Fishery Management Plan for groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area, authorization of groundfish fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for groundfish of
the Gulf of Alaska, and State of Alaska parallel groundfish fisheries (Draft Biological
Opinion), a document that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the Draft
Biological Opinion.
60. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 60. The
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 11 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
12/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 12
allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 60 purport to characterize NMFS,Revisions to
the Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for the Aleutian Islands Atka Mackerel and Pacific Cod
Fisheries, Council Review Draft EA/RIR (Aug. 2010) (Draft EA/RIR), a document that speaks
for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the Draft EA/RIR.
61. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 61, Federal Defendants admit that on
August 2, 2010, NMFS released the Draft Biological Opinion and Draft EA/RIR for a 25-day
comment period. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph
61.
62. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 62.
Federal Defendants lack information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 62, and deny them on that basis, but aver that
NMFS released the draft Biological Opinion on August 2, 2010. Federal Defendants deny the
allegations in the third sentence of Paragraph 62.
63. In response to the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 63, Federal
Defendants admit that on August 18, 2010, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell requested an extension
of the comment period on the Biological Opinion, and admit that the draft Biological Opinion
was nearly 800 pages in length and that the draft EA/RIR was more than 240 pages in length.
The remaining allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 63 purports to characterize Governor
Parnells August 18, 2010 extension request, a document that speaks for itself and is the best
evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegations inconsistent with its plain
language and meaning. In response to the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 63,
Federal Defendants admit that NMFS provided a seven-day extension in response to Governor
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 12 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
13/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 13
Parnells request.
64. In response to the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 64, Federal
Defendants admit that the NPFMC met in August 2010 to discuss the proposed RPA. Federal
Defendants lack information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 64 and deny them on that basis. Federal
Defendants deny the information in the third sentence of Paragraph 64.
65. In response to the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 65, Federal
Defendants admit that the NPFMC received public comment and considered changes to the
proposed RPA that would have reduced the scope of proposed fishery restrictions. Federal
Defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 65.
66. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 66, Federal Defendants admit that the
NPFMC offered an additional alternative containing fewer restrictions on fishing, a proposal that
was supported by some industry groups and the Advisory Panel. Federal Defendants deny the
remaining allegations in Paragraph 66, and aver that the alternative recommended by the NPFMC
did not meet the objectives and performance standards outlined in the draft Biological Opinion
and was not likely to have avoided jeopardy to the Western Distinct Population Segment of the
Steller sea lion and adverse modification of its critical habitat.
67. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 67, Federal Defendants admit the State of
Alaska on September 2, 2010 requested additional time to review and comment on the Draft
Biological Opinion and Draft EA/RIR.
68. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 68.
Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 68.
69. The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 69 purport to characterize NMFS
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 13 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
14/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 14
November 24, 2010 Biological Opinion regarding authorization of groundfish fisheries under the
Fishery Management Plan for groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area, authorization of groundfish fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for groundfish of
the Gulf of Alaska, and State of Alaska parallel groundfish fisheries (Final Biological
Opinion), a document that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants aver that the Final Biological Opinion was made available to the public on NMFS
website on December 8, 2010. Federal Defendants deny any allegations inconsistent with its
plain language and meaning. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in the second sentence of
Paragraph 69.
70. The allegations in Paragraph 70 purport to characterize the Biological Opinion, a
document that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny
any allegations inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
71. The allegations in Paragraph 71 purport to characterize the Biological Opinion, a
document that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny
any allegations inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
72. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 72.
73. Federal Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 73.
74. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 74, and
aver that the Interim Final Rule was published on December 13, 2010, with a 30-day comment
period running through January 12, 2011, which was later extended for 45 days to run through
February 28, 2011. In response to the second sentence of Paragraph 74, Federal Defendants
admit that NMFS did not submit the Draft Biological Opinion for external independent peer
review. Federal Defendants aver that the Draft Biological Opinion was subjected to peer review
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 14 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
15/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 15
by independent peer reviewers within NMFS who were not involved in producing the Biological
Opinion. Federal Defendants admit that NMFS did not separately respond to the State regarding
the comments the State provided on the Draft Biological Opinion and EA/RIR, and aver that
NMFS considered all such comments from the State of Alaska during the development of its
Final Biological Opinion and the Interim Final Rule.
75. The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 75 are vague and ambiguous, and
Federal Defendants deny them on that basis. The allegations in the second, third, and fourth
sentences of Paragraph 75 purport to characterize the final EA/RIR, a document that speaks for
itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegations
inconsistent with its plain language and meaning. The allegations in the fifth sentence of
Paragraph 75 are vague and ambiguous, and Federal Defendants deny them on that basis.
Federal Defendants deny that the impacts on onshore processing were not adequately evaluated
or disclosed in the EA/RIR.
76. The allegations in Paragraph 76 are vague and ambiguous, and Federal Defendants
deny them on that basis.
77. The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 77 are vague and ambiguous, and
Federal Defendants deny them on that basis. The allegations in the second through sixth
sentences of Paragraph 77 purport to characterize the December 2009 draft EA/RIR, a document
that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any
allegations inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
78. The allegations in Paragraph 78 purport to characterize the December 2009 draft
EA/RIR, a document that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegations inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 15 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
16/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 16
79. The allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 79 are vague and ambiguous, and
Federal Defendants deny them on that basis. The allegations in the second through fifth
sentences of Paragraph 79 purport to characterize the final EA/RIR, a document that speaks for
itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegations
inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
80. The allegations in Paragraph 80 purport to characterize the final EA/RIR, a document
that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any
allegations inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
81. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 80 of the Answer.
82. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 82.
83. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 83.
84. The allegations in Paragraph 84 purport to characterize NEPA, statute that speaks for
itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation
inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the statute.
85. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 85.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
86. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 85 of the Answer.
87. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 87.
88. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 88.
89. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 89.
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 16 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
17/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 17
90. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 90.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
91. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 90 of the Answer.
92. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 92.
93. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 93.
94. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 94.
95. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 95.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
96. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 95 of the Answer.
97. The allegations in Paragraph 97 purport to characterize NEPA and regulations
thereunder, a statute and regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of
their contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and
meaning of the statute and regulations.
98. The allegations in Paragraph 98 purport to characterize regulations under NEPA,
regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the NEPA
regulations.
99. The allegations in Paragraph 99 purport to characterize regulations under NEPA,
regulations that speak for themselves and contain the best evidence of their contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the NEPA
regulations.
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 17 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
18/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 18
100. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 100.
101. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 101.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
102. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 101 of the Answer.
103. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first and second sentences of
Paragraph 103. In response to the allegations in the subparts of Paragraph 103, Federal
Defendants respond as follows:
a. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of subpart a. The
allegations in the second sentence of subpart a are conclusions of law that require no response.
To the extent a response is deemed required, Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the third and fourth sentences of subpart a. To the
extent the fourth sentence of subpart a purports to characterize the 2008 Recovery Plan, the 2008
Recovery Plan is a document that speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
Federal Defendants deny any allegations inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
b. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in subpart b.
c. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in subpart c. To the extent subpart c
characterizes the 2008 Recovery Plan, the 2008 Recovery Plan is a document that speaks for
itself and is the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any allegations
inconsistent with its plain language and meaning.
d. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in subpart d.
e. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in subpart e.
f. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in subpart f.
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 18 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
19/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 19
g. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in subpart g.
h. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in subpart h, and aver that NMFS considered
the RPA proposed by the NPFMC, a less restrictive RPA than the alternative adopted, and did
not adopt that RPA because it would not have avoided jeopardy to the Western Distinct
Population Segment of the Steller sea lion and adverse modification of its critical habitat.
104. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 104.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
105. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 104 of the Answer.
106. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 106.
107. The allegations in Paragraph 107 are the Plaintiffs description of the nature of its
suit and legal conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is deemed required,
Federal Defendants deny each of the allegations.
108. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 108.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
109. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 108 of the Answer.
110. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 110. The
allegations in the second and third sentences of Paragraph 110 purport to characterize the MSA, a
statute that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants
deny any allegation inconsistent with the plain language and meaning of the statute.
111. In response to the allegations in Paragraph 111, Federal Defendants admit that the
Interim Final Rule promulgated by NMFS constitutes a regulation under the MSA. Federal
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 19 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
20/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 20
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 111.
112. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 112.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
113. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 112 of the Answer.
114. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 114.
115. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 115.
116. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 116.
117. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 117. The
allegations in the second sentence are vague and ambiguous, and Federal Defendants deny them
on that basis. The third sentence of Paragraph 117 purports to characterize the Final Biological
Opinion, a document that speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal
Defendants deny any allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning. Federal
Defendants deny the allegations in the fourth sentence of Paragraph 117.
118. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 118.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
119. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 118 of the Answer.
120. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 120.
121. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 121.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
122. Federal Defendants incorporate herein by reference the responses to each allegation
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 121 of the Answer.
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 20 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
21/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 21
123. Federal Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 123.
124. The first sentence of Paragraph 124 purports to characterize the APA, a statute that
speaks for itself and contains the best evidence of its contents. Federal Defendants deny any
allegation inconsistent with its plain language and meaning. Federal Defendants deny the
allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 124.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The remainder of the Complaint consists of Plaintiffs prayer for relief, which requires no
response. To the extent a response is required, Federal Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled
to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. This court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over some or all of Plaintiffs claims.
3. Some or all of Plaintiffs claims in this action are barred by reason of the failure to
exhaust administrative remedies.
4. To the extent Plaintiff presents to the Court any issue or contention which is contrary
to any position taken by Plaintiff in prior litigation or administrative proceedings, Plaintiff is
estopped from presenting any such issue, contention or claim.
Dated this 3rd
day of February, 2011. Respectfully submitted,
IGNACIA S. MORENO
Assistant Attorney General
Environment & Natural Resources Division
KRISTEN L. GUSTAFSON,
Assistant Chief
/s/Daniel Pollak
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 21 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
22/23
State of Alaska v. Jane Lubchenco, et al., No. 3:10-00271-TMBAnswer Page 22
DANIEL POLLAK, Trial Attorney (Cal. Bar
264285)
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Wildlife and Marine Resources Section
Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7369Washington, D.C. 20044-7369
Tel: (202) 305-0201
Fax: (202) 305-0275
/s/John H. Martin
JOHN H. MARTIN, Trial Attorney (Colo. Bar
32667)
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Wildlife and Marine Resources Section
999 18th Street, South Terrace Suite 370Denver, CO 80202
Tel: (303) 844-1383
Fax: (303) 844-1350
Email: [email protected]
/s/Dean K. Dunsmore
DEAN K. DUNSMORE, Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Environment & Natural Resources Division
801 B Street, Suite 504
Anchorage, AK 99501-3657Tel: (907) 271-5452
Fax: (907) 271-5827
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Federal Defendants
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 22 of 23
-
8/7/2019 Federal answer to state Steller sea lion suit
23/23
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on February 3, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing Answer with
the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such to the
attorneys of record.
Bradley Edward Meyen
Murray Dov Feldman
/s/Daniel Pollak
DANIEL POLLAK
Case 3:10-cv-00271-TMB Document 20 Filed 02/03/11 Page 23 of 23