23.2684 Western Watersheds

Case 1:23-cv-02684-TNM Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 29
David A. Bahr (D.D.C. Bar # OR0001)

BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1035 1/2 Monroe Street
Eugene, OR 97402
(541) 556-6439
[email protected]
Talasi Brooks (ID Bar #9712)

Pro Hac Vice application to be submitted
Western Watersheds Project
P.O. Box 2863
Boise ID 83701
(208) 336-9077
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT Case No.: 23-2684

126 S Main St., Suite B
P.O. Box 1770 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
Hailey, ID 83333, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff,
v.
DEB HAALAND, in her capacity as Secretary

of the Interior,
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20240;
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

1849 C Street, N.W.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

1849 C. Street, N.W., #5665
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

1849 C Street, N.W.
COMPLAINT - 1
TOM VILSACK, in his capacity as Secretary

of Agriculture,
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Washington D.C. 20250;
U.S. FOREST SERVICE,

Sidney R. Yates Federal Building,
201 14th St. SW
Washington D.C. 20227; and
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA,

500 S. Grand Central Pkwy, 2nd Floor
Box 551510
Las Vegas, NV 89155-1510;
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), listed in 1990 as Threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), has declined dramatically in nearly all of its range
due to threats including degradation and destruction of its habitat by livestock grazing and
human development. In 2001, in order to protect the desert tortoise, along with 77 other species,
while also allowing for development of non-federal lands surrounding the city of Las Vegas
without incurring liability for unlawful “take” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clark
County, Nevada, along with other signatories, adopted the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (“MSHCP”).
2. To assess the environmental impacts of the MSHCP, including whether the “take”
of listed and imperiled species it contemplated would cause jeopardy to the desert tortoise and
other species, Clark County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) prepared an
Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) under the National Environmental Policy Act
COMPLAINT - 2
(“NEPA”) and the FWS issued a Biological Opinion (“BiOp”). Although the BiOp recognized
that “[t]he cumulative amount of human and disease-related mortality accompanied by habitat
destruction, degradation, and fragmentation is the most serious threat facing the desert tortoise,”
the BiOp concluded that the authorized take would not jeopardize the continued existence of the
species. Thus, the FWS issued an Incidental Take Permit (“ITP”) to Clark County.
3. The ITP allows for “take” of the Mojave desert tortoise and other species and
their habitats from development of 145,000 acres of non-federal lands (later expanded to 167,650
acres) so long as specific conservation measures set forth in the MSHCP, BiOp, and ITP are
implemented on federal lands administered by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management
(“Bureau”), and National Park Service (“NPS”). Those nondiscretionary conservation measures
include closing nearly all of the planning area to livestock grazing, including the Gold Butte
Area of Critical Environmental Concern (“ACEC”) of Gold Butte National Monument—as
required by the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (“RMP”). After considering threats to the
species from actions on federal lands, the MSHCP, BiOp, and ITP concluded that federal lands
will serve as species habitat, allow for habitat connectivity, and act as a buffer for lands with
more intensive use.
4. The Forest Service, the Bureau, NPS, and Fish and Wildlife Service all signed an
Implementing Agreement (“IA”), which binds them to implement the MSHCP.
5. Yet, two decades later, the promised closure of the Gold Butte ACEC to grazing
has not been carried out. Cattle continue to graze illegally throughout the ACEC, causing
irreversible damage to ecological values. The Bureau has not rounded up and removed these
cattle, even though it is aware they are compromising the lands’ habitat values, and the lands are
closed to grazing under the MSHCP, as well as the Las Vegas RMP.
COMPLAINT - 3
6. In addition, vast swaths of the federal lands previously intended to serve as
wildlife habitat are now either proposed or approved for large-scale solar development— an
activity not contemplated by the MSHCP, EIS, or BiOp— which eliminates or reduces their
value as habitat for the desert tortoise. For example, the Bureau has recently approved at least
four large solar developments spanning more than 13,000 acres within lands covered or partially
covered by the MSHCP. The MSHCP (and supporting EIS) did not consider the threats to the
desert tortoise and other wildlife, from solar development.
7. Where such significant modification of management actions occurs, the IA
provides that agencies must consider the effects of those changes on the habitats and species
covered by the MSHCP. The agencies have not done so.
8. Meanwhile, desert tortoise populations have plummeted since 2001 and the
species is in long-term decline. Populations in all recovery units except for the Northeast Mojave
Recovery Unit declined drastically from 2004 to 2014, and the species’ range wide abundance
fell by 32 percent during just that ten-year period. By 2014, three of the five Recovery Units fell
below the minimum viable population density threshold necessary to avoid extinction.
9. Since 2014, the species has continued to decline, especially in the West Mojave
Recovery Unit, due in large part to habitat destruction from large-scale solar projects. As a result,
the Desert Tortoise Council now believes that the Mojave desert tortoise meets the ESA’s
definition of an endangered species. Upon information and belief, other species covered by the
MSHCP have also experienced changes in status since the MSHCP BiOp issued.
10. Defendants are violating the ESA by failing to ensure that the BiOp’s mandatory
terms and conditions barring grazing within the Gold Butte ACEC are carried out, and by
ignoring trespass grazing that causes unauthorized take of the desert tortoise and other covered
COMPLAINT - 4
species. In light of these violations, as well as the new and unanticipated threat from large-scale
solar development, and the declines of the desert tortoise and other species covered by the
MSHCP, Defendants must immediately reinitiate consultation under the ESA to fulfill their duty
to ensure that the authorized development does not jeopardize the desert tortoise or other covered
species.
11. In addition, both the continuation of unauthorized grazing and the onslaught of
solar developments require supplemental NEPA analysis since they are impacts to the tortoise
that were not considered or contemplated in the MSHCP EIS.
12. Western Watersheds Project seeks an order from the Court vacating the BiOp and
ITP, ordering the agencies to immediately reinitiate ESA consultation over the MSHCP and ITP,
ordering Defendants to immediately supplement the MSHCP’s EIS, enjoining the Defendants
from authorizing or carrying out any further development on covered lands until a lawful ESA
consultation is in place and a lawful supplemental NEPA analysis completed, and granting such
additional relief as the parties may request or Court may deem appropriate.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. This Court has jurisdiction over the ESA claims in this action pursuant to the
citizen suit provision of the ESA. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1540(g). The Court also has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346, because this action involves the United States as a defendant and
arises under the laws of the United States, including the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the National Environmental
Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4231 et seq. The requested relief is proper under 16 U.S.C. §
1540(g)(1); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, 1361; and 5 U.S.C. §§ 704-706.
COMPLAINT - 5
14. WWP gave notice to Defendants of WWP’s intent to file suit under the ESA for
the ESA violations described in the notice and this complaint more than 60 days ago. 16 U.S.C. §
1540(g)(2)(C). Specifically, WWP notified Defendants of WWP’s intent to file suit under the
ESA on or around December 1, 2022 and June 2, 2023.
15. The violations complained of in the notice have not been remedied.
16. The Defendants’ actions (or inactions) are ripe for review.
17. WWP has standing to bring these claims.
18. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Secretary
Haaland, Secretary Vilsack, and the federal agency Defendants sued here reside in this District.
PARTIES
19. Plaintiff WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT (WWP) is a nonprofit
membership organization with over 14,000 members and supporters and is dedicated to
protecting and conserving the public lands and natural resources of watersheds in the American
West. WWP, as an organization and on behalf of its members, is concerned with and active in
seeking to protect imperiled wildlife, including the desert tortoise, as well as natural resources,
and ecological values of watersheds throughout the West and in Nevada. WWP is particularly
active in addressing ecological damage caused by livestock grazing, such as the damage
presently occurring within the Gold Butte ACEC and Gold Butte National Monument. WWP is
headquartered in Hailey, Idaho, and has additional staff and offices in other Western states,
including in Nevada.
20. WWP’s staff, members, and supporters are deeply concerned about the
biodiversity crisis and value preservation of native wildlife. WWP’s staff, members, and
COMPLAINT - 6
supporters have strong interests in ensuring that adequate protections are in place for native
wildlife, including the desert tortoise, when development that adversely affects native wildlife
and their habitats is proposed. WWP’s staff, members, and supporters also have strong interests
in using and enjoying public lands free from damage caused by livestock and in recovery of
those lands from damage caused by livestock—especially because that recovery improves their
value as habitat for the desert tortoise and other species. WWP’s staff, members, and supporters’
enjoyment of public lands is increased when those lands are free from industrial development
and land uses that harm native wildlife. WWP’s staff, members, and supporters have strong
interests in ensuring robust adherence to, and enforcement of, federal laws intended to protect
wildlife and the environment.
21. WWP’s staff, members, and supporters live and recreate in or near Clark County,
and enjoy recreating within the Gold Butte ACEC and Gold Butte National Monument, as well
as other MSHCP lands. WWP’s members and supporters engage in activities including hiking,
camping, photography, observing wildlife, and other pursuits for health, recreational, scientific,
spiritual, educational, aesthetic, professional, and other purposes. They enjoy observing,
attempting to observe, photographing, and studying wildlife, including the desert tortoise, and
look for signs of imperiled species’ presence when they are undertaking these activities on
federal lands covered by the MSHCP. The opportunity to view wildlife like the desert tortoise or
their sign is of significant interest and value to WWP’s members and supporters, and it increases
their use and enjoyment of public lands and ecosystems in Nevada. WWP’s members and
supporters have regularly engaged in these activities in the past, and they intend to continue to
regularly do so in the upcoming months.
COMPLAINT - 7
22. The interests of WWP’s members and supporters have been, and will continue to
be, adversely affected and aggrieved by the Defendant agencies’ failure to comply with the ESA
and its implementing regulations. By failing to carry out the terms of the MSHCP, BiOp, and
ITP, Defendant agencies risk placing the desert tortoise and other species in jeopardy. This, in
turn, injures WWP’s interests in enjoying opportunities to view and study the desert tortoise in
its native habitats, and in preserving biodiversity. Defendant the Bureau’s failure to carry out the
terms of the MSHCP, BiOp and ITP also injures WWP’s interests in enjoying public lands
within the Gold Butte ACEC and/or Gold Butte National Monument, free from degradation
caused by livestock. These are actual, concrete, and particularized injuries caused by
Defendants’ violations of law.
23. Defendants’ failure to reinitiate consultation in light of the new threat from large-
scale solar development, desert tortoise population decline, and the Bureau’s non-adherence to
the BiOp terms and conditions, violates the ESA and risks placing the desert tortoise and other
species in jeopardy. The increased risk of extinction to these species harms WWP’s staff,
members, and supporters by decreasing their ability to enjoy the species in the wild and harms
their interests in averting the crisis of biodiversity loss. These, too, are actual, concrete, and
particularized injuries caused by Defendants’ violations of law.
24. In addition, the Bureau’s authorization of numerous solar developments on public
lands intended to serve as habitats for the desert tortoise by the MSHCP—without having
considered the effect of those developments in the MSHCP EIS—harms WWP’s interests. WWP
has strong interests in ensuring federal actions are well-considered, especially when they risk to
harm already-imperiled species. WWP also has strong interests in having federal actions comply
with environmental laws and regulations.
COMPLAINT - 8
25. The relief WWP seeks in this Complaint would redress its injuries and those of
their members and supporters. The relief WWP requests, if granted, would prevent further
destruction of desert tortoise and other species’ habitats on lands subject to the MSHCP until
Defendants produce a legally-valid biological opinion. Requiring Defendants to reinitiate
consultation and/or supplement the MSHCP EIS would ensure that Defendants were acting with
accurate and complete information about the effects of development on the desert tortoise and
other MSHCP species. If Defendants reinitiated consultation, the FWS might impose additional
terms and conditions to preserve federal lands from large-scale solar development, livestock
grazing, or other actions that reduce their value as habitat for the desert tortoise and other
wildlife. If Defendants supplemented the MSHCP EIS to consider the effects of solar
developments on desert tortoise, they might adopt additional protections for the desert tortoise or
otherwise alter their actions in ways that would protect WWP’s interests in the conservation and
recovery of the desert tortoise, other imperiled species, and the environment. In particular, FWS
might require the Bureau to round up cattle grazing in trespass within the Gold Butte ACEC
and/or Gold Butte National Monument to fulfill its nondiscretionary MSHCP obligation to
protect the desert tortoise. Ultimately, requiring Defendants to reinitiate consultation and/or
supplement the MSHCP EIS could result in more robust and effective protections for the desert
tortoise and other species covered by the MSHCP, which, in turn, could help promote their long-
term persistence and the ability of WWP’s staff, members, and supporters, to enjoy these species
within Clark County.
26. In sum, WWP’s interests, and those of its members and supporters, have been, are
being, and—unless this Court grants the requested relief—will continue to be harmed by
Defendants’ actions and inactions challenged in this Complaint. WWP has been required to
COMPLAINT - 9
expend costs and to obtain the services of attorneys to prosecute this action seeking redress for
its injuries. If this Court issues some or all of the relief requested, the harm to WWP’s interests,
and those of its members and supporters, will be redressed.
27. Defendant DEB HAALAND is the Secretary of the Interior, and is the federal
official in whom the ESA vests final responsibility for making decisions required by and in
accordance with the ESA. She is also ultimately responsible for actions and decisions of
Defendants the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. Secretary Haaland is
sued in her official capacity.
28. Defendant the U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (“FWS”) is a federal
agency within the Department of Interior charged with implementing and ensuring compliance
with the ESA. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated administration of the ESA to the FWS.
50 C.F.R. § 402.01(b). The FWS was a preparer of the MSHCP EIS and prepared the MSHCP
BiOp.
29. Defendant BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (“the Bureau”) is an agency of
the United States charged with managing certain federal lands in Nevada—including some lands
affected by the MSHCP —according to federal statutes and regulations, including the ESA. The
Bureau manages livestock grazing on federal lands covered by the MSHCP, including within
Gold Butte National Monument. The Bureau is a signatory to the MSHCP IA, which binds it to
implement the MSHCP. Implementation of the MSHCP is also a mandatory requirement of the
BiOp.
30. Defendant the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) is an agency of the United
States charged with managing certain federal lands in Nevada—including some lands affected by
the MSHCP— according to federal statutes and regulations, including the ESA. NPS is a
COMPLAINT - 10
signatory to the MSHCP IA, which binds it to implement the MSHCP. Implementation of the
MSHCP is also a mandatory requirement of the BiOp.
31. Defendant TOM VILSACK is the Secretary of Agriculture, and is ultimately
responsible for actions and decisions of Defendant the Forest Service. He is sued in his official
capacity.
32. Defendant U.S. FOREST SERVICE (Forest Service) is an agency of the United
States charged with managing certain federal lands in Nevada—including some lands affected by
the MSHCP— according to federal statutes and regulations, including the ESA. The Forest
Service is a signatory to the MSHCP IA, which binds it to implement the MSHCP.
Implementation of the MSHCP is also a mandatory requirement of the BiOp.
33. Defendant CLARK COUNTY is a county of the State of Nevada. Clark County is
a signatory to the MSHCP IA, which binds it to implement the MSHCP. Implementation of the
MSHCP is also a mandatory requirement of the BiOp. Clark County is one of several entities
that hold the ITP. Clark County was a preparer of the MSHCP EIS.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
I. The Endangered Species Act
34. Enacted in 1973, the ESA is “the most comprehensive legislation for the
preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation.” Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437
U.S. 153, 180 (1978). It provides a means to conserve endangered and threatened species and the
ecosystems on which they depend. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b).
35. To receive the full protections of the ESA, a species must first be listed by the
Secretary of the Interior as “endangered” or “threatened.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533. The ESA defines an
COMPLAINT - 11
“endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.” Id. § 1532(6). A “threatened” species is “any species which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.” Id. § 1532(20).
36. Concurrent with listing a species, the ESA requires the designation of critical
habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3)(A)(i); see also id. § 1533(b)(6)(C). Critical habitat means “the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species . . . on which are found those
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protection;” and unoccupied areas “essential for
the conservation of the species.” Id. § 1532(5) (emphasis added). “Conservation” is defined as all
methods that can be employed to “bring any endangered species or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided pursuant to this [Act] are no longer necessary.” Id. §
1532(3).
37. The ESA a prohibits “take” of a listed species. Id. § 1538(a)(1). Take includes
harassing, harming, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting a listed species. Id. §
1532(19).
38. The FWS defines harm as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife…[and]
may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or
sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. “Harass” means “means an intentional or negligent act or
omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering.” Id.
COMPLAINT - 12
39. However, the Secretary of the Interior may issue a permit to allow otherwise-
forbidden take, if the taking is “incidental” to an otherwise lawful activity and the permit
applicant develops a habitat conservation plan for the affected species that sets forth the impacts
of the take, how the applicant will minimize and mitigate take, and which alternatives the
applicant considered, among other things. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(A).
40. In that case, the Secretary may issue an “incidental take permit” allowing for take
of the affected species if the Secretary finds that 1) the take will be incidental to the activity, 2)
the applicant will minimize the amount of taking, 3) the conservation plan is adequately funded,
4) the taking will not reduce the species’ likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild, and 5)
any other measures imposed by the Secretary will be met. Id. § 1539(a)(2)(B).
41. When approving actions that “may affect” affect listed species or their critical
habitat, such as the grant of an incidental take permit, federal agencies must consult with the
expert agency—here the FWS—to ensure the actions do not jeopardize the species’ continued
existence or adversely modify their critical habitat. Id. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). For
actions that “may affect” listed species or their critical habitat, FWS must provide the action
agency with a “biological opinion” (BiOp) explaining how the proposed action will affect the
listed species or habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14. The BiOp must include “a
detailed discussion of the effects of the action on listed species or critical habitat.” 50 C.F.R. §
402.14(h)(1)(ii). The FWS can only issue an ITP it finds in the BiOp that the proposed action is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.
42. If conservation and management measures provided for in a habitat conservation
plan and ITP fall short, then the conclusions in the BiOp are invalid, consultation must be
reinitiated and the ITP must be suspended or revoked. See 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(C); 50 C.F.R.
COMPLAINT - 13
§§13.27 (“may be suspended at any time if the permittee is not in compliance with the conditions
of the permit”), 13.28 (permit revocation).
43. After the procedural requirements of consultation are complete, the ultimate duty
to ensure that an activity does not jeopardize a listed species lies with the action agency. An
action agency’s reliance on an inadequate, incomplete, or flawed BiOp to satisfy its ESA section
7 duty is arbitrary and capricious. In addition, an agency must reinitiate consultation with the
FWS if the projected amount of incidental take is exceeded or if : “new information reveals
effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent
not previously considered;” “the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that
causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological
opinion or written concurrence;” or “a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that
may be affected by the identified action.” 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(i)(4), 402.16(a).
II. The National Environmental Policy Act
44. In reviewing an ITP application, the FWS must comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
45. NEPA is our “basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R.
§ 1500.1(a). NEPA’s twin aims are (1) to ensure that agencies consider every significant aspect
of the environmental impact of a proposed action and (2) to inform the public that the agency has
considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.
46. Under NEPA, a federal agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(“EIS”) for all “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The EIS must disclose and analyze the “environmental
COMPLAINT - 14
impacts of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and the
significance of those impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(a)(1). To determine whether an EIS is
required an agency may first prepare an Environmental Assessment (“EA”).
47. Moreover, NEPA requires federal agencies, whether in an EA or an EIS, to take a
“hard look” at the potential environmental consequences of a proposed action. To take the
required hard loo’ at the proposed project’s effect, an agency may not rely on incorrect
assumptions or data in its NEPA analysis.
48. An agency’s responsibility to comply with NEPA does not end once it has
completed its NEPA analysis. An agency must prepare a supplemental NEPA analysis if either
“[t]he agency makes substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to
environmental concerns” or “[t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” 40 C.F.R. §
1502.9(d)(1). If there remains a “major Federal action to occur, and if the new information is
sufficient to show that the remaining action will affect the quality of the human environment in a
significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, a supplemental [NEPA
analysis] must be prepared.” Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989).
III. The Administrative Procedure Act.
49. Because NEPA does not contain internal standards of review, the Administrative
Procedure Act (“APA”) governs judicial review. Under the APA, courts shall “hold unlawful and
set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” or “without observance of procedure
required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (D).
COMPLAINT - 15
50. In addition, the APA authorizes reviewing courts to “compel agency action
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” such as the reinitiation of ESA consultation and
supplemental NEPA analysis at issue here. Id. § 706(1). Courts must also reverse and set aside
agency action that is “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of
statutory right.” Id. § 706(2)(C).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
51. The Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is a large tortoise species that
inhabits creosote-burro bush or creosote-Joshua tree vegetation types. It is long-lived and
reproduces slowly; tortoises do not reach sexual maturity until they are 10 to 15 years old. 63
Fed. Reg. 12178, 12179 (Apr. 2, 1990). Tortoises spend as much as 95 percent of their time in
burrows, which they rely on for shelter against the desert’s extreme climate.
52. Human activity is the most significant source of tortoise mortality.
53. Construction projects such as roads, housing developments, energy developments
and conversion of native habitats to agriculture have destroyed habitat supporting tortoises in the
Mojave population of desert tortoise, while grazing and off-road-vehicle use have degraded
additional habitat.
54. The Mojave desert tortoise was initially listed under the ESA in 1989 on an
emergency basis after an upper respiratory disease caused significant declines to tortoise
subpopulations already stressed by habitat degradation, predation, and other factors. See 63 Fed.
Reg. 12178, 12179 (Apr. 2, 1990).
COMPLAINT - 16
55. The City of Las Vegas and the State of Nevada unsuccessfully challenged the
emergency listing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. City of Las Vegas v.
Lujan, 891 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
56. After the emergency listing expired, the Mojave desert tortoise population was
listed as Threatened in 1990. 63 Fed. Reg. 12178 (Apr. 2, 1990).
57. Clark County and other entities could not lawfully carry out actions that would
cause “take” of the desert tortoise, including development on non-federal lands, once the species
was listed.
58. Thus, after the Mojave desert tortoise received Threatened status, Clark County
quickly adopted a “short term Habitat Conservation Plan” and supporting Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the desert tortoise to allow projects in urbanized portions of the county to
move forward while a longer term habitat conservation plan was in the process of being
finalized. The short-term habitat conservation plan contemplated development of 22,352 acres,
projecting to take 1,788 to 3,710 tortoises. Based on that plan, the County received an Incidental
Take Permit (“ITP”) in 1991.
59. The longer-term Habitat Conservation Plan and ITP were completed—with a
supporting Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”)—in 1995. The 1995 Desert Tortoise
Habitat Conservation Plan allowed for development of 111,000 acres of non-federal land in
Clark County and of 2,900 acres associated with Nevada Department of Transportation activities
in Clark, Lincoln, Esmeralda, Mineral, and Nye Counties, so long as conservation measures,
including closing certain lands to grazing, were carried out.
COMPLAINT - 17
60. In 2000, Clark County, the other Defendants, and other entities adopted the
MSHCP. The MSHCP allowed for development of 145,000 acres of non-federal lands that
would take desert tortoise and 77 other covered species.
61. The 145,000 acres included lands anticipated to be “disposed of” by the Bureau
by transferring them to the County.
62. At the time the MSHCP was adopted, 175,000 acres of the Bureau’s lands subject
to disposal existed.
63. Not all such lands subject to disposal have been transferred to the County.
64. Upon information and belief, the Bureau intends to transfer additional lands to the
County.
65. Based on the MSHCP, the FWS issued an ITP to Clark County, the City of Las
Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, the City of Henderson, the City of Boulder City, the City of
Mesquite, and the Nevada Department of Transportation in 2001.
66. The 2001 ITP supersedes the 1995 ITP.
67. The 1995 ITP is no longer valid.
68. Defendants, along with various other entities, all signed an “Implementing
Agreement” (IA), which binds them to implement the MSHCP. The ITP terms and conditions
specify that the take authorization granted is subject to compliance with, and implementation of,
the MSHCP and IA. The ITP is also supported by a BiOp and an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
69. The MSHCP, EIS, ITP, IA, and BiOp are analyzed and approved as a complete
package.
COMPLAINT - 18
70. Although the 2001 ITP was intended to remain in effect for 30 years, by 2007,
more than 45 percent of the authorized take (measured in terms of development on private lands
in Clark County) had already occurred. The FWS formally proposed an amendment to the
MSHCP in 2009, but that process was never completed. See 74 Fed. Reg. 50239 (Sept. 30,
2009). An additional 22,650 acres of take authorization were added to the permit by legislative
amendment in 2014, bringing the total take authorization to 167,650 acres. As of February 2019,
the MSHCP permittees had developed 103,494 of the 167,650 acres. Upon information and
belief, additional acres have been developed since then.
71. The MSHCP is still in effect on the date this Complaint is filed.
72. The MSHCP requires specific conservation measures to be implemented on
federal lands, including those administered by the Forest Service, the Bureau, and NPS to
conserve the covered species by compensating for take caused by development and other
activities on non-federal lands. The MSHCP sets forth specific actions each agency must
undertake.
73. For example, the MSHCP provides that the Bureau will ensure that grazing
systems are consistent with the conservation of Bureau-designated special status species, provide
adequate law enforcement presence to ensure that management actions and restrictions are
implemented for the conservation of covered and/or evaluation species, designate the Gold Butte
desert tortoise critical habitat as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (“ACEC”), and close
all allotments to livestock grazing, within the planning unit except for Hidden Valley, Mount
Stirling, Lower Mormon Mesa, Roach Lake, White Basin, Muddy River, Wheeler Wash, Mesa
Cliff, Arrow Canyon in Battleship Wash, Flat Top Mesa, Jean Lake, and Arizona administered
allotments.
COMPLAINT - 19
74. The MSHCP requires the Bureau to keep the Gold Butte ACEC—encompassing
the former “Gold Butte Allotment”— closed to livestock grazing.1
75. In addition, Clark County committed to purchase additional grazing privileges on
Bureau-managed lands so that they could be closed to grazing and used for conservation.
76. The MSHCP requires that FWS assure full and continuing implementation of
existing management policies and actions, and monitoring of sensitive habitats and species. FWS
must also prohibit horses, burros, and livestock grazing.
77. All of the conservation and management measures in the MSHCP are
incorporated as mandatory terms and conditions of the BiOp:
All of the conservation and management measures in the MSHCP and

accompanying agreements, together with the terms identified in the associated IA
and the special permit terms and conditions, are hereby incorporated by reference
as reasonable and prudent measures, and terms and conditions for this incidental
take statement pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14(1). Such terms and conditions are non-
discretionary and must be undertaken by the Applicants for the exemptions under
section 10(a)(l)(B) and section 7(o)(2) of the Act to apply. If the Applicants fails
to adhere to these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of the Permit and
section 7(o)(2) may lapse.
BiOp 8.7-8.8.
78. The BiOp and MSHCP assume that federal lands, even those managed for
multiple-use, will serve as species habitat, allow for habitat connectivity, and act as a buffer for
areas with more intensive use.
79. The MSHCP divides the landscape into four categories: Intensively managed
areas (“IMAs”), Less intensively managed areas (“LIMAs”), Multiple use managed areas
(“MUMAs”), and Unmanaged areas (“UMAs”). IMAs are lands in which management is
oriented toward actions that reduce or eliminate potential threats to biological resources, such as
1
All of most of the Gold Butte ACEC was later designated as Gold Butte National Monument by
former President Obama.
COMPLAINT - 20
wilderness areas, biodiversity hotspots, wilderness study areas, or the conserved/critical habitat
areas established for the Mojave Desert tortoise. LIMAs are lands on which management
generally limits the range of uses allowed to primarily low-impact recreational uses and include
Bureau lands managed as National Conservation Areas. MUMAs are defined as undesignated
Bureau lands on which human activities are not precluded and may, at times, be intense but
which nevertheless continue to support significant areas of undisturbed natural vegetation.
UMAs are intensively developed areas such as landfills, mines, and others.
80. The MSHCP assumes that the IMAs and LIMAs serve as a “reserve system” in
Clark County. It also assumes that MUMAs provide conservation value as corridors,
connections, and buffers for the IMAs and LIMAs where management preserves the habitat
quality sufficient to allow for unimpeded use and migration of species that reside in the IMAs
and LIMAs. Its overarching goal is to allow no net unmitigated loss or fragmentation of habitat
in IMAs and LIMAs (or MUMAs where they represent the majority of habitat for the species).
81. The IA protects these classifications. It provides that “the Parties agree that in the
event of any…modification of management actions or activities permitted within [IMAs,
LIMAs, or MUMAs] which are significantly different from those set forth in the MSHCP,
substantial adverse impacts upon habitats and Covered Species could occur…[and such changes
which have] an adverse impact upon the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in
the wild may be grounds for the suspension, termination, or revocation [of the MSHCP]….” IA §
9.03, pp. 14-15.
82. Signatories (including the Bureau) are not free to simply haphazardly implement
actions that will impact the value of federal lands as desert tortoise habitat. Rather, the IA
requires that prior to any significant change of the size or location of IMAs, LIMAs, or MUMAs
COMPLAINT - 21
or a significant modification of management actions or activities permitted within those areas,
different from those set forth in the MSHCP and existing management plans adopted by the land
managers, signatories mut consider the likely effects on the habitats and Covered Species and the
MSHCP Permit and report the exact nature and extent of such proposed modification.
83. The Bureau and the FWS have not complied with the MSHCP, and thus neither
have they complied with the BiOp terms and conditions.
84. By the terms of the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (RMP) and
MSHCP, the former Gold Butte Allotment (which coincides with the Gold Butte ACEC) is
closed to livestock grazing.
85. In 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity sent a Notice of Intent to Sue for
violations of the ESA related to implementation of the MSHCP because of unchecked trespass
grazing within the former Gold Butte Allotment and Gold Butte ACEC. That grazing continues
now, over a decade later, and continues to violate the MSHCP, BiOp, ITP, and, by extension, the
ESA. In the face of Defendants’ inaction, WWP now brings this suit.
86. Trespass grazing is causing serious habitat degradation for the desert tortoise,
which, instead of being protected from the impacts of livestock grazing on the Gold Butte
ACEC, is subject to heavy and unregulated grazing pressure. This heavy grazing has caused
proliferation of invasive grasses, which, in turn, caused large wildfires in 2005 that burned many
acres of native vegetation. The burned acres are now largely a monoculture of red brome, an
invasive grass species, which is also susceptible to future fires. As a result, very little native
forage remains for native wildlife species and plant communities are not able to recover from fire
or grazing. Decades of cattle trespass have contributed to decreased land and ecosystem health
through direct impacts to native plant communities.
COMPLAINT - 22
87. The desert tortoise remains below minimum viable population density levels in
the Gold Butte ACEC.
88. Where failure of a term and condition of the BiOp and ITP occurs in this way, the
effects of the action on listed species are modified and reinitiation of consultation is required.
89. In addition, a new threat from solar development not contemplated by the
MSHCP looms and undermines the important assumption of the MSHCP and BiOp that federal
lands will continue to provide desert tortoise habitat.
90. The MSHCP does not consider or provide for solar development that destroys the
value of federal lands as habitat for the desert tortoise.
91. Yet, vast swaths of federal lands in Clark County are rapidly being developed, or
proposed for development, for solar electricity generation at a rapid rate. Upon information and
belief, some of this development is occurring in LIMAs or MUMAs
92. Solar developments exclude the tortoise or cause the significant degradation of
lands that otherwise would serve as its habitat.
93. The Bureau has recently approved at least four large solar developments spanning
more than 13,000 acres within lands covered or partially covered by the MSHCP.
94. More such developments are proposed. Recently, the Las Vegas Bureau published
a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and amend its Resource
Management Plan (“RMP”) to allow the Rough Hat Clark County Solar Project to move
forward—a project that would destroy four square miles (or approximately 2400 acres) of
Mojave desert tortoise habitat, and would modify the RMP to do so. At least 12 other proposed
and approved solar projects would cover approximately 16,000 acres, or nearly 25 square miles
of federal lands that otherwise would serve as habitat for desert tortoise. The Bureau apparently
COMPLAINT - 23
plans to authorize these developments despite their potential to cut off desert tortoise habitat
connectivity and isolate populations.
95. Some of these solar developments encompass lands where grazing privileges were
bought out by Clark County or other entities for desert tortoise conservation.
96. Perhaps unsurprisingly, desert tortoise populations are plummeting. The species
has been in long-term decline since 2001.
97. Desert tortoise populations in all Recovery Units have declined drastically since
2004, except for the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit.
98. Within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unity, desert tortoise populations have
declined within the Gold Butte ACEC.
99. Between 2004 and 2014, the Mojave desert tortoise’s rangewide abundance fell
32 percent. By 2014, three of the five Recovery Units fell below the minimum viable population
density to avoid extinction, of 3.9 adult tortoises per square kilometer. For example, Ivanpah
Valley in CA and NV historically had a density of 100 tortoises/square km. This number dropped
to 2.3 tortoises /km2 by 2014. The West Mojave Recovery Unit has experienced the largest
declines, measured at 50% of the tortoise population between 2004 and 2014.
100. The tortoise’s population status has not improved since 2014. Most recovery units
continue to decline drastically. Recent large-scale solar project tortoise translocation efforts in
the West Mojave revealed a lack of juvenile tortoises under 180 millimeters shell length,
indicating a lack of survivorship and no recruitment into adulthood of the population in this
region. Habitat destruction from large-scale solar projects was indicated as a major cause,
including indirect effects of project development extending outwards on adjacent tortoise habitat.
COMPLAINT - 24
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the ESA: Defendants Have Failed to Reinitiate Consultation
101. WWP realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
102. WWP challenges Defendants’ failure to reinitiate consultation on the MSHCP in
light of 1) continued trespass cattle grazing in the Gold Butte ACEC and Gold Butte National
Monument that compromises those lands’ habitat value for the desert tortoise; 2) the new threat
to desert tortoise from large-scale solar development on federal lands that was not considered or
anticipated by the MSHCP; 3) the dramatic population decline of the Mojave desert tortoise.
103. An agency must reinitiate consultation whenever new information reveals effects
of the action that may affect the species or its critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not
previously considered, or if the action is modified in a manner that causes an effect to the species
or its critical habitat in a way not considered in the consultation. 50 C.F.R. § 402.16. These
factors are satisfied because: (1) the MSHCP assumed livestock grazing would not occur in the
Gold Butte ACEC but it is occurring there; (2) the MSHCP did not consider the threat from
large-scale solar development on federal lands; and (3) the Mojave desert tortoise is declining.
Thus, development of non-federal land and right of ways may affect the environment, and the
Mojave desert tortoise, in ways that have not been considered.
104. By failing to reinitiate consultation over the MSHCP, Defendants have violated
and continue to violate the ESA and its implementing regulations, as well as the APA, and their
failure to do so is not in accordance with the law. 50 C.F.R. § 402.16. Defendants’ failure to
promptly reinitiate and/or request reinitiation of consultation as required by the ESA has caused
or threatens serious prejudice and injury to WWP’s rights and interests.
COMPLAINT - 25
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the ESA: Defendants’ Reliance on the MSHCP BiOp is Unlawful.
106. The Bureau has not gathered and removed cattle which are grazing in trespass on
the Gold Butte ACEC and Gold Butte National Monument, even though the Gold Butte ACEC is
closed to livestock grazing to protect the Mojave desert tortoise and other species by the express
terms of the MSHCP, and allowing Gold Butte to be grazed violates the Bureau’s commitment in
the IA to implement the MSHCP.
107. Defendants continue to engage in and authorize activities, principally solar
development, on lands covered by the MSHCP, despite new information revealing that those
actions affect the Mojave desert tortoise in a manner and to an extent not previously considered,
and even though the MSHCP and its FEIS does not consider the effects of solar development on
federal public lands.
108. By failing to comply with the BiOp, ITP and IA terms and conditions, Defendants
have voided the BiOp and ITP. Defendants are therefore liable for take caused by development
on private lands in Clark County. Defendants’ unlawful take has caused or threatens serious
prejudice and injury to WWP’s rights and interests.
109. By failing to comply with the BiOp, ITP and IA terms and conditions, Defendants
are placing the desert tortoise in jeopardy, in violation of the ESA. Defendants’ actions causing
jeopardy to the desert tortoise have caused or threaten serious prejudice and injury to WWP’s
rights and interests.
///
COMPLAINT - 26
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of NEPA: Failure to Supplement NEPA Analysis.
111. To comply with NEPA, if a major federal action remains to occur and “[t]here are
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on
the proposed action or its impacts,” an agency must supplement its NEPA analysis. 40 C.F.R. §
1502.9(d).
112. Defendants FWS and Clark County must supplement the MSHCP FEIS because
continued grazing in Gold Butte National Monument, new solar development federal lands that
excludes desert tortoise, and the increasingly imperiled status of the desert tortoise are all
significant new circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the impacts of
development of non-federal lands within Clark County.
113. In addition, major federal actions remain to occur because, upon information and
belief, the Bureau has not disposed of all lands anticipated to be disposed of by the MSHCP and
plans to dispose of additional federal lands as contemplated by the MSHCP. Major federal
actions also remain to occur because federal agencies are carrying out the MSHCP by
implementing major federal actions on federal lands, including authorizing livestock grazing,
and others.
114. Nevertheless, Defendants have failed to supplement the MSHCP EIS to consider
this new information and these new circumstances, in violation of NEPA. Defendants continue
to fail to supplement the MSHCP EIS on an ongoing basis.
115. Defendants’ failure to supplement the MSHCP EIS has caused or threatens
serious prejudice and injury to WWP’s rights and interests.
COMPLAINT - 27
REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, WWP requests that this Court enter judgment providing the following
relief:
A. Declare that Defendants have violated and are violating the ESA by failing to
reinitiate consultation on the MSHCP;
B. Declare that Defendants have violated and are violating the ESA by relying on an
invalid BiOp;
C. Declare that Defendants have violated and are violating the NEPA by failing to
supplement the MSHCP FEIS;
D. Vacate the MSHCP BiOp and ITP;
E. Order Defendants to promptly reinitiate consultation on the MSHCP;
F. Order Defendants to promptly supplement the MSHCP EIS;
G. Enjoin Defendants from authorizing or undertaking any livestock grazing or
development on the MSHCP lands until a lawful consultation is complete;
H. Enjoin Defendants from authorizing or undertaking any livestock grazing or
development on the MSHCP lands until a supplemental NEPA analysis is complete;
I. Award WWP its reasonable costs, attorneys fees, and other expenses incurred to bring
this action;
J. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper or as WWP may
request.
Respectfully submitted this 14th day of September, 2023.
/s/ David A. Bahr

David A. Bahr (D.D.C. Bar # OR0001)
BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C.
COMPLAINT - 28

Eugene, OR 97402
(541) 556-6439
[email protected]
Talasi B. Brooks (ID Bar #9712)

(pro hac vice application pending)
Western Watersheds Project
P.O. Box 2863
Boise ID 83701
(208) 336-9077
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COMPLAINT - 29
Case 1:23-cv-02684-TNM Document 1-1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET

,1:"-44 fl{('\'. IlnllW ilL
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Western Watersheds Project Deb Haaland, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, Tom Vilsack, U.S.
Forest Service, Clark County, NV
(h)COU'\lTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF fiRST LISTED DEFENDANT
(EXCEfYr IN U.S. rLf\ INTIFFCf\SES) (IN u.s. PLAINTIFFCASESONLy)
SOTf~ l"ll.A:-lD('Q:-lDF_\tNAT10S ("ASi'S, uSt: TltE LOC"ATIO" OFTIlF TIlACT Of LA"'lll"l\,OI..YFO
(t) J\ TfORNEYS (rIRM NAME. ADDRESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) AlTORNEYS(IF KNOWN)
David A. Bahr, BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C., 1035 1/2
Monroe Street Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 556-6439
Talasi B. Brooks, Western Watersheds Project, P.O. Box
2863 Boise 1083701 (208)336-9077
1I.13ASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLAeEAN, INONEIlOX FOR

(PLACE AN x IN ONEBQX ONLY) PLAINTIFF ANDONEBOX FOR DEFENDANT) fOR DIVERSITy CASESONI Y'
0 I U.S. GO\ cmment

rlamllff
o 3 Fedem I QUC51 ion
(U.S. Govcmllleni Not a Pal1y)
''TF OFT
01 01
"TF
04 04
I>FT
Citizen of this Siale IncorpOTaledorPrincipal Place

ofBusincss in This Stale
0 ~ u.s. GOV('fIl111CIlI
Defend:! nl
o 4 Diversity
(I11diclllcCilizenship of
Citizen of Another State 02 02 Incorporated and Principa 1Place Os Os
of Business in AnotherSt:!te
Parties in item III) Citizen or Subject ofa 03 03 06 00
Foreign Country Foreign Nation
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT

IPlan an X in one C~Hel!ory. A-N. that best represents ,'our Cause of Action and olle in a corresPondine Nature ofSuiO
o A, Antitrust o B. Pe"'ollallllj"ryl o C. Admillistrative Agellcy o D. Temporary Restraining
l\1alpractice Review OrderiPrelimilUll)'
/njIInctioll
0410 Antitrust
0310 Airplane o 151 Medicare Act
0315 Airplalle 1)l'oduct Lhlbilily Any nature of suit fro 111 any C:llcgol'Y
0320 ASS:IUIl. Libel & Slander Social Srcurily
rna)' be sell'cled for this clllcgory of
0330 Federal Ell1llloyers Liability
D 861 HIA (1395fl) cast' assignlllt'l1t,
o 340Marinc
0862 Black Lung (923)
D 863 III WCIIlI WW (405(g» "'(If Antitrust. then A govel'ns)'"
0345 Marine Product Liahility
0864 ssm Title XVI
D 350 Motor Vl'hide
0355 Motol' Vehicle Product Liability
D 865 RSI (40S(g))
0111('[ SlauJ1('s
D3600lher I)ersonallnjul'y
0891 Agrlcullural Acts
0362 l\rledil':1\ Malpnlctiee
[K] 893 EnvironUlenlll! Mailers
D 365 Product Liability 0890 Other Statutory Actions (If
0367 He:dlh Care/l'h:;rIlHleeutic:11
Adminiserath'c Agency is
Pel"Sonalllljur~' Product Liabilit,·
Invoh'ed)
0368 Asbestos I'rodllce Liabilin·
o E. Gener,,1 Civil (Other; OR o F. Pro Se Gellerlll Civil

Il"i11 I'ntnt'r!)' IJjlnkrlllur" Fcdrral Tax Suits
0210 Land CondelllnatiOIl D 422 AppC:11 27 USC 158 o 870 Taxes (US plaintiffor 0465 Other Immigration Actions
0220 Fon:dusure 0423 Wi!hdrllw:J1 28 USC 157 t1efend:lnt)
o lJO Rent. I.(':IS(' & Ejectment o 871 IRS-Third I):lrty 26 USC
0470 Racketeer Influenced
& Corrupt OrganizlIlion
7609
D 240 T'll'ls tu l.:1nd 'Ei0IU,r l'rtjUlIus 0480 Consumer Crcdil
02-15 TUI'I Pruduct Liability 535 Dl'ath Pl'nalt"
& forrr! IlI[l'/Pruall" o 485Tclephone Consumer
0290 All Other '''eall'ropcrly 0540 Mandamus
D 550 Civil !lights
Olher
o 6251)rug Related Seizure of Protection Ace (TCI'A)
I'n so !Jilll'ropnl)' o 5S5 I)risoll Condilions

D
Pruper!)' 21 USC 881
6900ther
0490 Cable/Satellite TV
D 850 Seeurities/Colllllloditil'sl
0370011ll'r Fraud 0560 Ch'il Delainee - Conditions
Exchangl'
O.nl Tl'olh inl.cnding of Confinclllcnl
o .UW Olher Pl'rso!Jall'l'opcrlY
Othfr Stahues D 896 Arbitration
0375 False Claims Act 0899 Admillistr:llivt' PrOCl'(IUH'
l)alll:lgl' 2::j'ST!\' Bights
0376 Qui Tam (.11 USC Al'l/Revil'w or Appeal of
DJX5l'r0l'l'rly 1)"lIlagc 820 Copyrights
3729(a»
Product LiabililY D 83U I'all'nl Agency Decision
0400 Seate Ilcal'portionment
D 8351)ale111 - Abbreviated New 0950 COllseitutionalil)' ofS!all'
0430 Banks & Banking Stalutes
Drug AIJl'lication
o 840Trademark
0450 Commerce/lCC l~alesJete
0460 Deportation
0890 Other Stlltutory Aceions
(if not adminislrutiv(' ag('lIC~'
D 880 Defcnd Tnl(h' Secn'ls At'! of
0462 Naturalizutioll I'Cview 01' Privacy Act)
2016 (DTSA)
Applicallon
0 G. /-Iabells Corpus/ 0 H. Employment 0 I. FOIAIPriva'J'Act 0 J. Student Loall

2255 Discrimination
D 530 IhbcSlS Corpus - General 0442 Civil Rights - Employment D 895 Freedom oflnfonnlltion Atl D 152 I(c('overy of Dcfaulh'cj
(criteria: race, gender/sex, 089001111.'1· Sill tutory Actions Sludl'1I1 Loall
0510 Motion/Vacatl' Sentence
(if I}Th'llCy Act)
D 4631'labclis Corpus - Alien national origin, (excluding ,'etcrans)
I)ctaillc(' discrimination. disability. age,
religion. rl'lalialion)
·(If Ilro sr, sl"lect this deck)* ·(If pro §l', select this dcck)*
0 K. Labor/ERISA 0 L. O/lrer Civil Riglr/s 0 M. Col1lracf 0 N. rll,.ee-Judge

(lIOn-employment) (noll-emp/oYl1lenl) COllrt
D 110 Illsllnlllcc
0710 Fair Llibolo Standllnls Act 0441 Voting (ifnol Voting Ilights D 120 Mllriru.' D 441 Ch'i1I~i~hts - VOling
D 720 Llibor/Mgml. Ilelatiolls Act) D 130 Miller Act (if Voting Rights Acl)
D 740 Labor Railway Act 0443 Housing/Accom11locilltions 0140 Negotiable Instrument
0751 Family and Medical 0440 Other Ci\'il Rights o ISO Recover)' ofOvl'rpa)'lllent
Ll'avl' Act 0445 Americans w/Disnbilities- & Enforccmcnt of
D 790 Other Labor Utigalioll Employment Judgment
D 791 Elllpl. Ret. Inc. Security Act 0446 Americans wJl)isabilities-
Other
o 153 Reco\'er~' ofOverpaymcnt
of Vl'tcrnn's Ilcn('fils
0448 Education D 160 Siockhohkr's Suits
DI9001lwr Contracts
o t95Conlrllct Il]"oducl Liability
o 196 Fnll1chi.~c
V.ORIGIN
o I Original 02 Rcmo\'ed 03 Rl'm:lnded
from App('lh,t('
041leinstalcd
or Rcopen('d
o 5from
TrllllsfelTcd
anolhcr
o 6 Multi-distl"ict
Litigation
0 7 Appeal 10
District Judge
o 8Litigation
i\'lulti-disITkl
-
Proceeding from Slate
Court Court district (specify) f1·om Mag. Din·ct File
Judge
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICI1 YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A HIHEF STATE~IENT OF C,.\USE.)
Violations of Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
VII. REQUESTED IN D CHECKIFTHISISACLASS DEMAND$ Check YES oilly if dcmlt Ilded ill COlllp]" int
COMI'LAINT ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURV DEMAND: VEsD NoD
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IFANY
(Sec instruction)
YESD NO 00 Ifyes. plcascl'omplclc rel1ted l·asc form
DATE: 9/14/2023 I SIGNATURE OF An'ORNEY OF n.ECORD sl David A. Bahr
INSTlWCnONS FOI~COMllLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44

Authority for Civil Cover Sheel
Thc JS·44 civil cover sheet and the infonllation conta ined herein neither replaces nur supplements the filings a nd services of pleadings or olher papers liS rc']uircd
by 1:1 w, except as provided by loca I rules of court. This fOl1l1,approved by the Judicia I Conference of the Uniled Slates in Septcmber 1974. is required for the usc of the
Clerk ofCour1 for the purpose of initillting the civil docket sheet. Consequently,a civil cover sheet is subm ill cd 10 the Clerk of COUl1 for each civil compla int filed.
Listed below arc tips foreomplelinglhc civil coversheel. These tips coincide with the Roman NUlllel<llson the covcrshcel.
I. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FI RST LISTED PLAI NTI FFIDEFENDANT (b) Counly ofrcsidellce: Use 1100 I 10 indicate pIll mtiffif residenl
of Washington. OC, 88888 ifpla intiffis resident of United Stalesbul nol Washington, OC. and 99999 if pia inlifris oUlside the Unrled Slall,"s.
III. CITIZENSH IP OF PRINCI PAL PARTI ES: This seclion is compleled.Q.!!!y if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction
underSechon II.
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignmenl ofajudge to yourcasewill depend on the calegOlyyOu selcclthat besl
represents the ~cause()faction found in your complain!. You may seleci only Q.!!.£. ca legal)'. You !lll!E.a Iso select illl£ cOITe:>ponding
nature of suit found underthc ca legOI)' of the casco
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: CiIC the U.S. Civil Slatute under which you are filing and write It brief silltcmcnl o1'lhc prim<llY cause.
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: Ifyou indica led that there is a relaled Cllse. you must complctC' a rela led casc fonu, which Illay bc obla in cd frum
the Clerk·s Office.
Because of the need for aCClll1llc and completc infom1ation,you should ensure the accuracy oflhe infonnation provided prior 10 slgnlllg Ihe fonn.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12; DC 3/15) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
__________ District
District of __________
of Columbia
Western Watersheds Project )

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No. 23-2684
)
)
Deb Haaland, et al.
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: David A. Bahr, Bahr Law Offices, P.C.
1035 1/2 Monroe St.
Eugene OR 97402
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
ANGELA D. CAESAR, CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

AO 440 (H\Cv. 06/12; DC 3115) Summons in n Civil Action

for the
District of Columbia G
)
)
)
Plail1l({f(S) )
)
)
Deb Haaland, et al. )
)
)
)
De/endom(s) )
T o.. (/)('/elld(l/I/
'. Merrick P. Garland
S /lallle aJ/d (/ddl"es.~) U S Atl
.. orney Genera I
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530
A lawsuit has been filcd against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you
arc the United Statcs or a United Statcs agency, or an officcr or employee of the United States describcd in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Fedcral Rules of Civil Proccdure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintifrs attorney,
'I d dd' .. David A. Bahr
\\ lose namc an a ICSS ate. BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C.
Eugene, OR 97402
If you fail 10 respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also musl file your answcr or motion with thc court.
ANGELA D. CAESAR. CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature o.fClel'k or Deputy Clerk
1\0440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in [\ Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This sectioll should 1I0t bejiled witlt the courtulIless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))
This summons for (name ofindividllal Gild lirle. if any)

was rcccivcd by mc on (dale)
o I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (dale) ; or
------------------- ------
o J left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there.

--------------
on (dale) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
o I served the summons on (name o.findividual) ,who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name o(organi=alioll)
on (dale) ; or
-------------------
o I retumed the summons unexecuted because ; or
o Other (specifY):
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00
-----
I declare under penalty of petjury that this information is tnte.
Date:
Server's signafure
Printed /lame and tille
Server's address

1\0440 (Rev, 06/12; DC 3/15) Summons ill <l Civil Action

for the
)
)
)
Plaillli//(s)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Dejendanr(s) )
T o.. rDejendclllt
" TOM VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture
s name Clnd addres.\) 1400 I d
. n epen d ence Ave" SW
Washington D,C. 20250
A lawsuit has been filed against you,
arc the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed, R, Civ,
P, 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the pia inti ff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Fecleral Rules of Civil Procedure, The answer or motion must be servecl on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
' d clcI- -, David A. Bahr
w Ilose name an a less ale, BAHR LAW OFFICES, P,C,
Eugene, OR 97402
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be enterecl against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file YOUI' answer or motion with the court.
ANGELA D CAESAR, CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature ofClerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 0(/12) Summons ill a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This sectioll should 1I0t be filed with the court ulliess required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (f)J
This surrunons for (name ojil1dividual Gnd title, if allY)

was recei ved by me on (dafe)
on (dale) ; or
---------------- -------
I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
--------------
o I served the summons on (name C!findividllal) I who is

--------------
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name ofOIgani:alion)
on (date) ; or
-------------------
o I retumed the summons unexecuted because ; or
o Other (specify):
My fees are $ for travel and S for services, for a total of S 0.00
----~
I declare under penalty of pel jUly that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signaf/lre
Prillted lIallle and til/e
Server's address

;\0440 (Re\'. 06/12: DC 3/15) SUl11mons in a Civill\clioll
UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

forthe
)
)
)
Plail1fiff(sj
)
)
v. Civil Action NO.23-2684
)
)
Deb Haaland, et al.
)
)
)
De/endanf(sj )
To: (De(el/dom"s /lOllle and addres.\) U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, N.w.
Washington, DC 20240
A lawsuit has been filed against YOll.
arc the United States or a United States agency, or an omcer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - yOll mllst serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
whose name and address are: David A. Bahr, Bahr Law OHiees, P.C.
1035 1/2 Monroe St.
Eugene OR 97402
Ifyoll fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against yOll for the relief demanded in the complaint.
YOLI also must file your answer or motion with the court.
ANGELA D. CAESAR. CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signa/lire o.lClerk or Dep/ff)' Clerk
AD 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Pagc 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not bejiled lVith the court unless requirell by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))
This sumnlOLlS for (name oj individual and litle. if any)

was received by me on (dale)
o I personally served the summons on the individual at OJ/ace)

on (dale) ; or
----------------
o I left the sunmlOns at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
--------------
o I served the summons all (name a/individual) ,who is

designated by law to aecept service of process on behalf of (name ojargon;:ol;on)
on (dale) ~ or
-------------------
o I returned the summons unexecuted beeause : or
o Other (specify):
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of S 0.00
I declare under penalty of pe.jUly that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signafure
Primed name and title
Server's address

/\0 -I-IU (Rev. 06112: DC 3/15) SUl1lmons ill a Civil AClion

for the
)
)
)
Plaimiffrs)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendam(.\) )
T . Dr I ' I dt ) U.S. FOREST SERVICE,

o. ( e eJl( (l/lt s nOllle (1//(. {J tress Sidney R. Yates Federal Building,
201 14th SI. SW
Washington D.C. 20227
A lawsuit has been filcd against you.
arc the Unitcd States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaillliffan answer to the allaehed complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
thc Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintifrs allorney,
whose name and address arc: ~~~~~'A~~FFICES, P.C.
Eugene, OR 97402
Date:
Sigl1ature ofClerk or Depllty Clerk
1\0440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in fl Civil I\elion (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This sectioll shollit/not bejifed with the COllrt IIlIfess reqllired by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (f))
This summons for (name ojiudividllal and fitle, ff auy)


on (dale) _ _ _ _ _ _ ;or
----------------
o I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (llame)

--------------
o I served the summons on (name ofindividual) ,who is

------------
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (llame o!orgalli=alioll)
on (dale) ~ or
------------------- -------
o I retumed the sununons unexecuted becausc : or
o Other (specifj'):
My fees are $ for travcl and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is truc.
Date:
Server's signafllre
Prinfed Name aud fitle
Server's address

M) 440 {R.:v. 06/12: DC 3115) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
)
)
)
PIe-ilifilTM
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defel1da11l{s} )
To: fDeklJl!clJI/ 's name and address) U.S. Attorney, civil process clerk
555 4th SI. NW
Washington D.C. 20530
arc the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) ~ you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
. David A. Bahr
w Ilose name an d add ress are. BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C.
Eugene, OR 97402
Date:
Signa/lire o.fClerk or Deputy Clerk
1\0440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons illll Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section shouldl/ot bejiledlVith the court ul/less required by Fed. R. Cil'. P. 4 (I))
This summons for (name ofil1dividual and tille, if allY)


on (dale) ; or
----------------
o I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
--------------
o I served the summons on (name a/individual) ,who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of mgani;alinn)
on (date) ; or
----------------
o I returned the summons unexecuted because : or
o Other (specifY):
----~
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signa/lire
Prin/ed name and tifle
Sen'e,. 's address

1\0440 (Rcv. 06112; DC 3/15) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
District of Columbia B
)
)
)
Plail1tiff(sj )
)
v. Civil Action NO·2 3 - 2684
)
)
)
)
DeJendam(.'i) )
.. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

To: (Deje/ldmll S /lame al1d address) 1849 C Street, N.W.
arc thc Unitcd States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
David A. Bahr
whose name an d add ress are: BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C.
Eugene, OR 97402
YOll also must tile your answer or motion with the court.
Dale:
Sigl1aflfre o.lClerk or Deputy Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 0(112) SUlllmons in a Civil Action (P3gC 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This sectio/l shollid /lot befiled with the cOllrt lI/lless reqllired by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))
This sununons for (name o!individual and title. !f any)

was recei vcd by me on (date)

on (dale) ; or
-------------------
--------------
o I served the summons 011 (name ofindividual)

--------------
• who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name oforgani=alion)

on (dale) ; or
---------------- -------
o I retul11ed the swnmons unexecuted because ~ or
o Other (specifY):
I declare under penalty of perjwy that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Pl'inled nOllle and lille
Server·... address

AO -140lRcv. U(lIJ2; DC 3115) Summons in a Civil Action

for the
)
)
)
---- )
Plain/ilfM
)
)
)
)
)
De!endalll(s) )
. ' CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA,

To. (DefendwlI S /lallle a"d address) 500 S . G ran d Centra 1Pk wy, 2n d FI oor
Box 551510
Las Vegas, NV 89155-1510
arc the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
r. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintifrs attorney,
. David A. Bahr
w IlOse name aneI a dd ress are. BAHR LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1035 112 Monroe Street
Eugene, OR 97402
Date:
Signa/lire ofClerk or Depw)' Clerk
1\0440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in n Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section shollid not be filed with the cOllrt IInless reqllired by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (/)j
This SUllunons for (name ofil1dividualal1d title, ifal1Y)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at (p!ace)

on (dale) ; or
------------------- ------
------------
o I served the summons on (name afindividual) ,who is

designated by law to accept service of process on behal f of (name afmgani:alian)
on (dale) ; or
-------------------
o I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
o Other (specify):
I declare under penalty of perjUlY that this information is true.
Date:
Server's signature
Printed name and title
Server's address

1\0 -1·10 (Ro,'\,. 06/12; DC }/l 5) Summons In a Civill\cllon

for the
)
)
)
PIO;I11/[f(.I)
)
)
)
)
Deb Haaland, et at.
)
)
)
DeJendo1lf('i} )
Bureau of Land Management

To: (De{em/tulI':ulGll1e ond addres.v) 1849 C Street, N.W., #5665
Within 2\ days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you
arc thc United States or a Unitcd States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you l11ust serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Fcdcral Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whosc namc and address are: David A. Bahr, Bahr Law Offices, P.C.
1035 1/2 Monroe 51.
Eugene OR 97402
You also must file your answcr or motion with the court.
Date:
Signa/lire ofClerk or Depu/y Clerk
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This sec/i01l sholllt/ 110/ befHed lVi/h /he c01lr/1I1I1ess req1lired by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))
This summons for (name ojindividual and title, if a"y)

was received by me on (date)

on (date) ; or
-------------------
o I left the sununons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
------------
on (date) ,and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
o I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name ~forgani=ation)

on (date) ; or
------------------- -------
o 1 returned the summons unexecuted because
---- - - ---
; or
o Other (specify):
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of S 0.00
-----
J declare under penalty of perjury that this information is truc.
Date:
Server's sigl1ctlUre
Prinled name and litle
Server's address

23.2684 Western Watersheds

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

23.2684 Western Watersheds

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-02684-TNM Document 1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 29

David A. Bahr (D.D.C. Bar # OR0001)

Talasi Brooks (ID Bar #9712)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT Case No.: 23-2684

DEB HAALAND, in her capacity as Secretary

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

TOM VILSACK, in his capacity as Secretary

U.S. FOREST SERVICE,

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA,

1. The Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), listed in 1990 as Threatened

Conservation Plan (“MSHCP”).

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (“ACEC”) of Gold Butte National Monument—as

more intensive use.

Implementing Agreement (“IA”), which binds them to implement the MSHCP.

6. In addition, vast swaths of the federal lands previously intended to serve as

desert tortoise and other wildlife, from solar development.

7. Where such significant modification of management actions occurs, the IA

covered by the MSHCP. The agencies have not done so.

that were not considered or contemplated in the MSHCP EIS.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1540(g)(1); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, 1361; and 5 U.S.C. §§ 704-706.

ESA on or around December 1, 2022 and June 2, 2023.

17. WWP has standing to bring these claims.

19. Plaintiff WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT (WWP) is a nonprofit

wildlife and the environment.

regularly do so in the upcoming months.

Defendants’ violations of law.

particularized injuries caused by Defendants’ violations of law.

24. In addition, the Bureau’s authorization of numerous solar developments on public

with environmental laws and regulations.

Defendants produce a legally-valid biological opinion. Requiring Defendants to reinitiate

within Clark County.

and those of its members and supporters, will be redressed.

sued in her official capacity.

29. Defendant BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (“the Bureau”) is an agency of

MSHCP is also a mandatory requirement of the BiOp.

31. Defendant TOM VILSACK is the Secretary of Agriculture, and is ultimately

Implementation of the MSHCP is also a mandatory requirement of the BiOp.

I. The Endangered Species Act

ecosystems on which they depend. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b).

“endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.” Id. § 1532(20).

wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or

sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. “Harass” means “means an intentional or negligent act or

feeding, or sheltering.” Id.

applicant considered, among other things. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(A).

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.

42. If conservation and management measures provided for in a habitat conservation

of the permit”), 13.28 (permit revocation).

may be affected by the identified action.” 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(i)(4), 402.16(a).

II. The National Environmental Policy Act

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.

significance of those impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(a)(1). To determine whether an EIS is

required an agency may first prepare an Environmental Assessment (“EA”).

47. Moreover, NEPA requires federal agencies, whether in an EA or an EIS, to take a

assumptions or data in its NEPA analysis.

environmental concerns” or “[t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to

significant manner or to a significant extent not already considered, a supplemental [NEPA

III. The Administrative Procedure Act.