With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain, 137 F.3d at 1380. With respect to the chemical fire retardant used to suppress the 1999 fires, the Forest Service contends that the EIS “reasonably did not contain cumulative effects from fire retardant” because “any effects from [fire retardant] would have been ap parent at the outset of the project’s analysis.” (See Def. Mem. at 29; Def. Reply at 15.) The Forest Service has failed, however, to cite to any support in the record for this position. The Forest Service also contends that “plaintiffs have failed to allege what, if any, effects [the use of fire retardant] had within the project area.” (Def. Mem. at 29.) NEPA, however, places the duty to analyze cumulative effects on the Forest Service, not the plaintiffs. See City of Carmel, 123 F.3d at 1161 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the EIS violates NEPA by failing

A: holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government
B: holding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim for a breach of a joint venture agreement where it failed to allege  responsibility for losses
C: holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief
D: holding agency violated nepa by failing to analyze cumulative impacts even where plaintiff failed to allege effect of such deficiency
D.