Conservation Groups Sue Bureau of Land Management to Stop Destruction of Critical Sage Grouse Habitat – Counterpunch

Report on Land Management Conflict and Sustainable Development Goals in Montana’s Sagebrush Ecosystem

Introduction: Species Decline and Implications for SDG 15 (Life on Land)

The Greater sage grouse, a key indicator species for the health of sagebrush ecosystems, has experienced a significant population decline across its historic range. This trend directly challenges the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 15, which aims to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss. In Montana, the population has decreased by 31% over the last three years, from 70,346 to 48,783 individuals. This decline is attributed to the ongoing destruction, fragmentation, and degradation of its habitat, prompting legal action to prevent further damage and protect this threatened species, in alignment with SDG Target 15.5.

Project Analysis: Grasshopper Watershed Development

A proposed project by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Grasshopper Watershed, a 367,665-acre area of prime sage grouse habitat, involves developing water infrastructure for cattle. This action is in direct conflict with the principles of sustainable land management and the conservation targets of SDG 15.

Impact of Livestock Grazing on Terrestrial Ecosystems

The expansion of livestock grazing, facilitated by the proposed infrastructure, poses significant threats to the sagebrush habitat and the achievement of SDG 15. These threats include:

• Habitat Degradation: Cattle consume native plants essential for sage grouse survival.
• Soil Damage: Livestock trample and destroy fragile soils, leading to erosion and reduced ecosystem resilience.
• Invasive Species: Grazing increases the spread of non-native weeds like cheatgrass, which displaces native flora and increases fire risk.
• Disruption of Life Cycles: The presence of cattle and related infrastructure interferes with sage grouse shelter, breeding, nesting, and migration patterns.
• Increased Predation: Fencing associated with livestock management provides perches for avian predators, increasing mortality rates for sage grouse.

Regulatory Deficiencies and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The legal challenge against the BLM highlights failures in institutional accountability and adherence to environmental law, undermining the principles of SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. The agency’s analysis is cited as having serious flaws.

1. Violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The BLM failed to conduct a “hard look” at the project’s environmental impacts on wildlife and the ecosystem.
2. Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act: The agency failed to disclose sufficient information to the public, hindering transparent decision-making.
3. Non-compliance with Internal Management Plans: The BLM did not adhere to its own 2015 sage grouse management plan, which requires specific monitoring and analysis when population or habitat “triggers” are met. The agency failed to disclose or evaluate whether these soft or hard triggers, designed to prompt corrective action, had been activated.
4. Violation of the Federal Land Policy Management Act: By ignoring the trigger mechanisms in its management plan, the agency is in violation of its mandate to manage public lands sustainably.

Failure to Integrate Climate Action (SDG 13) and Responsible Production (SDG 12)

The BLM’s assessment also failed to adequately consider the project’s climate impacts, a direct contradiction of SDG Target 13.2, which calls for the integration of climate change measures into national policies and planning. No analysis was provided on how climate change has affected baseline conditions within the Grasshopper Watershed. Furthermore, by promoting a land use practice detrimental to the local ecosystem, the project conflicts with SDG 12, which advocates for sustainable consumption and production patterns, including the sustainable management of natural resources.

Conclusion: Legal Recourse to Uphold Sustainable Development

The lawsuit initiated by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council, and Council for Wildlife and Fish represents an effort to hold a federal agency accountable to its legal and environmental obligations. The action seeks to compel the government to align its land management practices with the principles of sustainable development, particularly the protection of biodiversity (SDG 15), the promotion of strong institutions (SDG 16), and the integration of climate action (SDG 13) into its decision-making processes.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues that are directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary focus on wildlife conservation, habitat protection, legal accountability of government institutions, and climate change considerations links the text to the following SDGs:

• SDG 15: Life on Land: This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire text revolves around the protection of a specific terrestrial species, the Greater sage grouse, and its sagebrush ecosystem from degradation caused by human activities like livestock grazing and infrastructure development.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article details a lawsuit filed against a government agency, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This action addresses the need for accountable, transparent, and effective institutions that adhere to the rule of law, specifically environmental regulations like the National Environmental Policy Act.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article explicitly criticizes the BLM for its failure to consider the impacts of climate change in its environmental analysis. This connects the project’s approval process to the broader need to integrate climate change measures into national planning and policies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific issues discussed, the following targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 15 (Life on Land):
   • Target 15.5: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.” The article’s core purpose is to advocate for stopping a project that would further degrade the “excellent remaining sage grouse habitat” and contribute to the decline of a species whose population has “plummeted by 31%.” The lawsuit is a direct action aimed at preventing the extinction of this threatened species.
   • Target 15.9: “By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes…” The lawsuit alleges that the BLM failed to properly integrate the value of the sage grouse and its ecosystem into its planning process by not taking a “hard look” at the project’s impacts on the species, thereby violating its own management plans.
2. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.3: “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” The act of taking the federal government to court is a direct application of this target. The environmental groups are using the legal system to enforce federal laws (National Environmental Policy Act, Administrative Procedures Act) and hold the government accountable.
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article accuses the BLM of failing on this front by not being transparent (“failed to disclose sufficient information to the public”) and not being accountable to its own regulations (violating its “2015 sage grouse management plan”).
3. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.2: “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The article points to a direct failure to meet this target, stating, “The BLM also failed to take a ‘hard look’ at the climate impacts of the project… The BLM did not analyze how climate change has affected baseline conditions in the Grasshopper Watershed.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several specific indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Population trends of key species: The article provides precise data on the sage grouse population in Montana, noting it has “plummeted by 31% — from 70,346 to 48,783 — in just the last three years.” This quantitative data serves as a direct indicator for Target 15.5, measuring the status of a threatened species.
• Number of active breeding sites (leks): The text criticizes the BLM for failing to monitor “the number of active leks where they mate.” The number and trend of active leks are a critical indicator of the health and viability of the sage grouse population, relevant to Target 15.5.
• Acres of available habitat: The article mentions the historical loss of sagebrush ecosystems and faults the agency for not monitoring “acres of available habitat.” This measurement is a key indicator of habitat degradation and biodiversity loss (Target 15.5).
• Compliance with environmental laws and regulations: The entire lawsuit is based on the BLM’s alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and its own management plan. The number of such violations or successful legal challenges serves as an indicator of institutional accountability and adherence to the rule of law (Targets 16.3 and 16.6).
• Inclusion of climate analysis in project planning: The article’s claim that the “BLM did not analyze how climate change has affected baseline conditions” implies that the presence and thoroughness of climate impact assessments in official project documents is a measurable indicator for Target 13.2.
• Public disclosure of monitoring data: The accusation that the “BLM also failed to disclose sufficient information to the public” and “did not disclose any monitoring data” points to the availability of public data as an indicator of institutional transparency (Target 16.6).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: counterpunch.org