Key Takeaways
The Biden-Harris Administration is tightening oil and gas drilling restrictions on federal lands, ostensibly to preserve habitat for the Greater Sage Grouse.
The Bureau of Land Management, which manages many acres of Western federal lands for the Interior Department, has proposed limitations on another 6,500 square miles.
States, such as Wyoming, which manage wildlife within their borders have decried the action, saying it will deny proactive steps they could take to enhance Sage Grouse populations, as more cooperative actions could be taken rather than blocking off additional land from environmentally-sound energy production.
Species are often used by opponents of domestic energy production or resource extraction to justify stopping their development in the United States.
The Biden-Harris administration has proposed tighter restrictions on oil and gas drilling on federal land across more than 6,500 square miles in the West to supposedly protect a declining bird species—the Greater Sage Grouse—chicken-sized birds known for an elaborate mating ritual. The Biden-Harris Interior Department aims to strengthen protections for the sage grouse beyond the 2015 measures set by the Obama-Biden administration. Those earlier protections limited development across 226,000 square miles of sage grouse habitat in 11 states. The new Biden-Harris proposal seeks to close additional “loopholes” that currently allow oil and gas development in areas they deem critical for the bird’s survival. Under the new plan, energy activities would only be permitted on drilling sites located outside designated protected zones. Specifically, it would require that four million acres remain off-limits to oil and gas extraction to safeguard the sage grouse, which is hunted in seven states.
While the majority of the affected land is in Nevada and California, the proposal also impacts parcels in Wyoming, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Montana, and the Dakotas. Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon has expressed concerns, arguing that the plan would impose additional layers of federal regulation and limit practical solutions for managing sage grouse populations. Environmental groups, however, argue that the plan remains inadequate, as “loopholes” persist that still allow development across about 50,000 square miles of crucial sage grouse habitat. American Clean Power, a renewables industry lobbying group, said it had supported an earlier version of the proposal but not the final details because the proposal “unnecessarily restricts the development of wind, solar, battery storage and transmission, undermining the ability to deploy much needed clean energy infrastructure.” The Biden-Harris administration predicts minimal economic impacts, as energy companies stay away from sage grouse habitat where there are limits on when and where work can be done near breeding areas.
The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages the largest single share of greater sage grouse habitat in the United States—nearly 65 million acres of 145 million total acres. According to BLM, Sagebrush is crucial for the sage grouse, providing both food and a place for reproduction, with a single local population potentially requiring up to 40 square miles of habitat to thrive. Protecting sagebrush ecosystems not only benefits the sage grouse but also supports around 350 other wildlife species, including mule deer and pygmy rabbits, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This interconnected habitat is essential for maintaining biodiversity and the health of many species. The agency received about 38,000 comments from the public on the draft environmental analysis released earlier this year and obtained information from state, local, Tribal, and federal partners during more than 100 meetings held over two years. BLM will accept protests on this proposal until December 9 at the BLM Filing a Plan Protest page, after which final decisions will be made during the Biden-Harris lame-duck session.
The situation with the sage grouse mirrors that of the spotted owl from a generation ago when the bird was used as a justification to halt logging. At the time, timber mills and local communities were hit hard by policies aimed at preserving the spotted owl’s habitat. Today, however, biologists argue that the real threat to the spotted owl isn’t habitat loss, but competition from barred owls, which now rival them for food. This shift in understanding highlights the complexity of conservation efforts and the unintended consequences they can sometimes have. The federal government now wants to shoot 450,000 Barred Owls over the next couple of decades to save the Spotted Owls.
A related proposal out of the Biden-Harris administration would block new mining projects on more than 15,625 square miles in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming for 20 years, which was part of the 2015 Obama-Biden protection that was canceled under President Trump and restored by a court. The Biden-Harris administration claims to want mining for critical minerals needed for “green” technologies but continues to block, or at least delay, that mining whenever it can. The administration has revoked leases, withheld permits, and added fauna and flora to the endangered species list to block or stall mine development despite the need for the minerals and the jobs that would be obtained from their development. The Biden-Harris Interior Department intends to publish an analysis of its mining ban by the end of the year, which would continue its anti-American energy policy in favor of China, which dominates the supply chains for these elements and the processing of the minerals using cheap coal.
Conclusion
The Biden-Harris administration has decided to restrict energy development in the West in favor of protecting the greater sage grouse habitat, which will continue the administration’s anti-American energy policy. It is expected that the Trump-Vance administration will reverse this decision after inauguration day as the new administration favors an American-first policy for energy. The Trump administration reversed a similar anti-American energy policy of the Obama-Biden administration in its previous term, which a court overturned. The Biden-Harris administration predicts minimal economic impacts from its decision, which raises the issue of why government resources were spent on it. Species are often used by opponents of domestic energy production or resource extraction to justify stopping their development in the United States.
