WASHINGTON – The Department of the Interior announced today that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has published proposed updates to strengthen conservation and management of greater sage-grouse habitat on public lands, informed by the best available science, collaborative work with states, and input from local, Tribal and federal partners. The proposed updates, outlined in a final environmental impact statement and amendments to 77 resource management plans, incorporate new sage-grouse conservation science and lessons learned and accommodate changing resource conditions while increasing implementation flexibility. The proposals balance a consistent west-wide management approach with unique policies in the individual states that are responsible for managing wildlife populations.

 

 

Updated habitat management plans will protect greater sage-grouse habitat in 10 Western states. Sage-grouse populations have continued to decline, largely due to habitat loss exacerbated by climate impacts such as drought, increasingly intense wildfires, and invasive species. Conserving sagebrush habitat benefits more than 350 other wildlife species and supports the livelihoods and traditions of Western communities. Species like elk, mule deer, pronghorn and pygmy rabbit rely on the same habitat to survive, and sagebrush lands contain headwaters for some of the West’s major river systems and the aquatic species they sustain.  

“Guided by the best available science, we are committed to the continued balance in our multi-use mandate for America’s public lands,” said Secretary Deb Haaland. “For too long, a false choice has been presented for land management that aims to pit development against conservation. This Administration’s collaborative work has demonstrated that we can do both successfully. Through collaborative work in local communities, developed over decades, we are presenting science-based and thoughtful proposals to protect the greater sage-grouse and its habitat.”

The BLM manages the largest single share of greater sage-grouse habitat in the United States—nearly 65 million acres of 145 million total acres. The proposal released today builds on a number of collaborative efforts undertaken by the Biden-Harris administration – including the Public Lands Rule, renewable energy rule, and the proposed Western Solar Plan – to strengthen protection for sagebrush habitat while retaining flexibility to coordinate with state government partners and account for variations in local habitat conditions. Today’s proposal will help ensure that other uses of BLM sagebrush lands, including clean energy projects, move forward in a manner that limits impacts to sensitive resources and can also help combat climate change—a main driver of greater sage-grouse habitat loss.

“This remarkable species and the people who live, work, and play alongside it deserve management that will sustain sagebrush habitat across the West for years to come,” said BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning. “Our environmental analysis, aided by a wealth of information from our partners, indicates that these proposed updates—which are the result of decades of sustained collaborative efforts—are the best way to ensure the health of these lands and local economies now and into the future.”

The BLM considered roughly 38,000 comments from the public on the draft environmental analysis, along with information shared by state, local, Tribal and federal partners during more than 100 meetings held over two years. States also contributed data and scientific information that helped frame direction on adaptive management and mitigation requirements and supported updates to the boundaries of habitat management areas. The BLM engaged in government-to-government consultation and held informational briefings for Tribal governments throughout the process. Planning documents are available for review at the BLM National NEPA Register.

Protests of the proposed amendments may be filed until Dec. 16, 2024 at the BLM National NEPA Register. Following resolution of valid protests and responses to governors’ reviews for consistency with state and local plans, the BLM will issue Records of Decision for each state where habitat management plans are being updated.

In addition to management decisions guided by the habitat plans, the BLM is actively restoring and conserving sagebrush habitat across the West through the President’s Investing in America agenda. For example, as part of the Department’s new Sagebrush Keystone Initiative, the Department has identified “Sagebrush Collaborative Restoration Landscapes” as areas to collaborate with ranchers, state and local leaders, Tribal Nations, conservation and sportsmen organizations, the outdoor recreation economy, private landowners and others to strategically deliver restoration actions in sagebrush country for the people, wildlife, and economies that depend on them. The Department’s National Seed Strategy Keystone Initiative is also devoting resources to ensure a ready source of native plant seeds to further enhance landscape resilience and has identified five areas of greater sage-grouse range in which to fund habitat restoration and conservation.

WASHINGTON – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is announcing a draft plan to strengthen greater sage-grouse conservation and management on public lands, informed by the best-available science and input from local, state, federal, and Tribal partners. The draft plan is built on decades of partnership, research, and on-the-ground knowledge and experience in maintaining, protecting and restoring healthy sagebrush habitats. 

Greater sage-grouse rely on sagebrush lands for all aspects of their life cycle to meet seasonal needs for food, cover and reproduction. A local population may need up to 40 square miles of intact landscape to stay healthy. Populations once in the millions now number fewer than 800,000, largely due to habitat loss exacerbated by climate change, such as drought, increasing wildfires, and invasive species. Protecting and restoring sagebrush on BLM-managed public lands across the West is critical not just for greater sage-grouse, but also for the health of western communities and other iconic Western species that rely on healthy sagebrush, including mule deer, pronghorn, and the pygmy rabbit. Additionally, these collaboratively developed landscape-level plans will ensure that other multiple uses of BLM sagebrush lands – including clean energy projects – move forward in a manner that limits impacts to sensitive resources and can also help combat climate change—a main driver of greater sage-grouse habitat loss. 

“The majesty of the West and its way of life are at stake. Sagebrush lands are places where people work and play, and they are the headwaters for the West’s major rivers,” said BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning. “Joint efforts to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat led to the largest collaborative conservation effort in our history, and we are building on that work, together with our partners, to ensure the health of these lands and local economies into the future.” 

The BLM manages the largest single share of sage-grouse habitat in the United States—nearly 67 million acres of 145 million total acres. The draft plan offers a range of alternatives for sustainable management of these lands. Balancing a consistent management approach across the range while addressing conditions and policies unique to individual states, BLM will be able to work more effectively with state and local managers to protect and improve sagebrush habitats on public lands.  

Alternatives in the proposal build on the most successful components of the plans that the BLM adopted in 2015 and updated in 2019. The draft plan incorporates new sage-grouse conservation science and lessons learned, accommodating changing resources conditions while increasing implementation flexibility. The agency considered nearly 1,900 comments gathered during an initial public scoping period and information shared by state, local, federal, and Tribal partners in more than 100 meetings.  

The BLM will hold 13 public meetings to answer questions and take further comments on the draft alternatives and analysis. Information on public meetings will be posted in the events column on the main page of the BLM website. 

In addition to actions guided by the greater sage-grouse management plans, the BLM is actively restoring and conserving sagebrush habitat across the West through the Biden Administration’s Investing in America agenda. Annually, the BLM invests approximately $35 million of its congressional appropriation in sagebrush ecosystem projects, supplemented by $123 million from President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and complemented by investments by state and local governments, Tribes, stakeholder groups, and private landowners.   

The draft environmental impact statement and plan amendments will open for public comment on March 15, 2024. The comment period will end on June 13, 2024. More information on how to comment on this draft will be posted at https://www.blm.gov/sagegrouse. A final environmental impact statement is expected this fall, followed by Records of Decision in each state.  

As a law professor, one of the most rewarding parts of my job is helping students navigate their burgeoning legal careers and find positions that bring professional satisfaction and success. I am always delighted when students appear in my office with an offer in hand or a story about an amazing case that they worked on over the summer.

Correspondingly, one of the worst parts of my job is witnessing the disappointment, embarrassment and uncertainty that students face when a hoped-for offer doesn’t arrive, a job doesn’t work out, or something goes wrong at an internship or summer placement.

While my students have found professional success in a wide variety of settings—large law firms, small firms, nonprofits, government agencies, courts, etc.—I have been highly troubled by the number of students who have been subjected to hiring and employment practices at small firms that I would describe as unethical at best and deceptive and exploitative at worst.

Here are just a few examples from my 11 years as a professor at law schools in three states (with superficial details changed to protect the privacy of the students involved).

  • A student who, after working for two summers at a small firm, was offered a “three-phase employment plan,” in which the firm offered to (1) pay her a (very) low salary for her first three months, (2) the same salary for the next three months on the condition that she generate an equivalent amount of revenue or pay back the difference, and then (3) stop paying her a salary from the sixth month onward but charge her a fee to use the firm’s printer. The hiring partner told her that she should plan to have developed her own book of business by that point.

  • A small firm that hired multiple summer associates with the promise that everyone would receive offers of permanent employment at the end of the summer. After putting in long hours for the next three months, every summer associate except the hiring partner’s son and a prominent potential client’s daughter were told that they would not be receiving the offers of which they had been assured.

  • A student who received an offer from a small firm that wanted him to open a branch office in another town completely on his own. The firm offered to pay him $40,000per year and give him a stack of law books that it had purchased from a recent library closure but noted that he would have to pay for his own insurance and his own subscription to online legal research service Westlaw. When the student pushed back, the firm agreed to raise the offer to $60,000 per year and promised that, eventually, he would earn back some amount of the additional revenue that he generated at a percentage to be negotiated later.

In addition to other such troubling examples, I have frequently witnessed 2Ls and 3Ls performing significant amounts of unpaid or low-paid work at small firms during the semester. These students sometimes struggle to keep up with their classes and the demands of their supervising attorneys.

Many of those students, moreover, never receive offers from those firms and are left scrambling to find other permanent employment near graduation. Meanwhile, my sense is that these firms see no problem with such outcomes and instead commend themselves for having given students an opportunity to gain experience.

In some of these situations, the attorneys involved may have been overwhelmed by hefty workloads or truly miscalculated the hiring and supervisory capacities of their small firms. They may also have been out of touch with the current legal market and reasonable compensation ranges.

In others, I think that such firms have purposely exploited law students, extracting considerable amounts of work from them while dangling the prospect of long-term employment that they know they will never be able to offer. Finding a law student to intern is indeed a cheaper option than hiring another attorney, paralegal or assistant.

I am sympathetic to the unique workload and economic challenges faced by small firms. I am also aware that such firms can—and very often do—offer law students opportunities that larger firms cannot: opportunities to perform more significant legal work earlier in their careers.

I have had scores of law students find immensely satisfying employment at small firms and even start their own. Additionally, local small firm attorneys are often some of the most supportive and engaged alums that law schools have.

But I also think that the lack of transparency surrounding small firm hiring increases the risk of unsavory employment practices—a risk that law schools, the bar and small firms themselves should work to reduce.

Unlike large firms, which typically compensate associates in a given region similarly and whose hiring and compensation practices frequently find exposure on sites like Above the Law, small firms vary enormously and are often black boxes with respect to compensation. Law students understandably struggle to determine whether an offer from a small firm is a fair one and often don’t yet have the experience to know when a term of employment is unusual or objectionable.

The common issues with large firms are well known and widely discussed: grueling hours, difficult partners and high attrition, particularly among women and people of color. I worry, however, that in our profession’s very laudable efforts to improve the workplace at big firms, small firms have largely escaped scrutiny.

Worse, the attention on big firms seems to have created a mythology in the minds of many law students that working for large firms necessarily entails high compensation in exchange for terrible hours and poor treatment, whereas small firms are their gentler, more family-friendly—though lower-paying—alternatives. Experienced members of our profession know that to be a false dichotomy, but law students may not.

To combat these issues, law schools have to offer students closer guidance in contemplating job offers from small firms. They should keep track of which firms engage in dubious employment practices and caution students away from them. Law schools also have to teach law students how to do due diligence before accepting a job. Schools should encourage students to research how other small firms in the area are compensating attorneys doing similar work, check the disciplinary history of the lawyers at the firm, and ask tactful but thoughtful questions about the firm’s finances.

State bars should take a more active role in monitoring the employment practices of small firms and whether such firms are providing adequate supervision of law student interns. State bars should also provide more CLE opportunities designed to ensure that small firm attorneys are up to date on employment laws, ethical hiring standards and current norms in compensation.

Finally, small firms have to engage in careful self-reflection before hiring law students. They should not hire law students whom they cannot adequately supervise or fairly compensate. Additionally, they should be as transparent and upfront as possible with students about the possibility of future employment.

While having law student interns is undoubtedly helpful, particularly if a firm is struggling under the weight of a daunting caseload or financial uncertainty, the risks inherent in small firm practice should not be borne by some of the most vulnerable members of our profession.

---

Tracy Hresko Pearl is professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. She researches and writes in the areas of law and technology, criminal procedure and torts. Before becoming an academic, she was an associate at Hogan Lovells in Washington, D.C., and a law clerk for judges in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver.

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.