The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment: September 2015

* Jan.
* January 5, 2015
* January 12, 2015
* January 19, 2015
* January 26, 2015
* Feb.
* February 2, 2015
* February 9, 2015
* February 16, 2015
* February 23, 2015
* March
* March 9, 2015
* March 16, 2015
* March 23, 2015
* March 30, 2015
* April
* April 6, 2015
* April 13, 2015
* April 20, 2015
* April 27, 2015
* May
* May 4, 2015
* May 11, 2015
* May 18, 2015
* May 26, 2015
* June
* June 1, 2015
* June 8, 2015
* June 15, 2015
* June 29, 2015
* July
* July 6, 2015
* July 13, 2015
* July 20, 2015
* July 27, 2015
* August
* August 3, 2015
* August 10, 2015
* August 17, 2015
* August 31, 2015
* Sept.
* September 8, 2015
* September 14, 2015
* September 21, 2015
* September 28, 2015
* October
* October 5, 2015
* October 12, 2015
* October 19, 2015
* October 26, 2015
* Nov.
* November 2, 2015
* November 9, 2015
* November 16, 2015
* November 23, 2015
* Dec.
* December 1, 2015
* December 7, 2015

September 2015

The Environmental Policy Project produces this weekly Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment to report on major national and state environmental issues, including land ownership, energy production, air and water regulations, endangered species, pollution and much more.

* September 2015 Energy and Environmental News
* United States and China announce new climate change policies ahead of international conference

* Sage grouse kept off the federal endangered species list

* House committees hold oversight hearing on EPA mine spill

* Eleven GOP House members support action on climate change

* Colorado seeks federal approval for sage grouse habitat plan

* Forty-seven GOP senators sign onto bill to nullify EPA water rule

* California Assembly abandons petroleum reduction in climate legislation

* EPA halts cleanup work at 10 mine sites following Colorado spill

* New England cottontail removed from candidate list of endangered species

* Federal judge orders removal of federal protection for prairie chicken

* Michigan governor announces plan to comply with EPA power plant rule

* Texas groups file petition to delist American beetle

### September 28, 2015[edit]

### United States and China announce new climate change policies ahead of international conference[edit]

Click to read more about climate change and state government activities related to the issue.

In September 2015, the United States and China announced new policies on climate change, specifically China's proposals to institute climate policies for its industrial sector. China agreed to a national cap and trade program for the carbon dioxide released by the country's steel, paper and cement industries. The United States, meanwhile, agreed to standardize rules for vehicles with high emissions and to increase building energy efficiency standards. The U.S.-China agreements on climate change are preparations for a United Nations-led conference in Paris in December 2015, when foreign leaders are expected to negotiate a legally binding, international agreement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[1][2]

"For the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and carbon emitters to come together like this, there is no reason for other countries, whether developed or developing, to not do so as well," Obama said.[3]

The announcement builds upon an agreement made between the United States and China in November 2014, when the United States pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 26 percent and 28 percent below 2005 levels before 2025, and China agreed to slow the growth of its emissions before 2030.[1][2]

In 2013, the Obama administration pledged $3 billion to the international Green Climate Fund. The fund is a United Nations-led fund for developing nations to finance their own climate change programs. In the September 2015 announcement, China said it would contribute $3.1 billion to the fund.[1]

The United States finalized a new set of climate policies on power plant emissions in August 2015 and has been regulating greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles since 2009. China is set to implement its cap and trade system in 2017.[1]

Republican lawmakers have criticized the agreement as economically harmful. "These public pledges sound good, but come with serious economic consequences for the United States," said Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.[4]

Several 2016 Republican presidential candidates have also been critical of Obama's climate policies. Jeb Bush promised to repeal the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) climate regulations as president. Marco Rubio also promised repeal of the EPA's climate rules, calling them "a devastating impact on affordable energy in exchange for little to no environmental benefit."

To read more about the 2016 presidential candidates' views on energy and the environment, click here.[5][6]

### Sage grouse kept off the federal endangered species list[edit]

Click to read more about the costs of listing a species under the Endangered Species Act.

In September 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency responsible for wildlife conservation, declined to give full federal protection to the sage grouse, but stated it would revisit its decision in five years. The greater sage grouse (often referred to simply as the "sage grouse") is a ground-nesting bird species whose populations span 11 states and roughly 165 million acres. The bird became a candidate for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act after its population dropped from millions of birds in the early 20th century to an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 birds in 2014.[7][8][9]

State government and private conservation efforts were considered sufficient for the birds' protection, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. "The [Fish and Wildlife Service's] decision follows an unprecedented conservation partnership across the western United States that has significantly reduced threats to the greater sage-grouse across 90 percent of the species’ breeding habitat."[10]

Although not considered endangered, the sage grouse still receives federal and state government protection. In May 2015, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) announced land use plans for sage grouse conservation across 10 states. For areas near and inside oil and natural gas development zones, the plans created buffer zones around known locations of sage grouse breeding; for areas that are considered priority areas for the bird, oil and gas drilling is limited. Of the total sage grouse range land, approximately 105.6 million acres (64 percent) is owned by the federal government, 51.2 million acres (31 percent) is owned by private landowners, and 8.25 million acres (5 percent) is owned by state governments. The federal government is expected to spend more than $200 million on the birds over the next five years.[11]

U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the chairman of House Natural Resources Committee, criticized the service's decision as being the same thing as placing the sage grouse on the endangered species list, calling current federal land use regulations ineffective compared to state-level plans. U.S. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), whose state contains between 28,000 and 70,000 sage grouse, said, "At the end of the day, big government continues to tighten its grip at the expense of rural America’s future, especially in Nevada."[12]

The Center for Biological Diversity, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit conservation group, said the decision relied on plans that "ultimately fall short of what's needed to ensure these birds' long-term survival." WildEarth Guardians, a nonprofit wildlife conservation group, said the current federal plans "cannot justify the decision to deny Endangered Species Act protections."[13][14]

### House committees hold oversight hearing on EPA mine spill[edit]

Click to read more about environmental policy in the United States.

On September 17, 2015, the House Committee on Oversight and the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on a Colorado wastewater spill that occurred at an abandoned mine in August 2015. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversaw the mine's cleanup, during which a waste spill poured millions of gallons of polluted water into the rivers and tributaries of four states.[15]

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified, "I would argue that we should have done it better. Are we trying to do better? Yes." McCarthy said the agency would attempt to speed up the process of informing states and tribes of any accidents or spills that may affect them.[15]

U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said the EPA's communication to the Navajo Nation, an American Indian tribe threatening to sue the EPA over the spill's effect on water quality, represented a "complete lack of transparency." Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the EPA violated federal law by failing to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about the potential of an accidental spill to damage habitat for endangered species.[15]

Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said the hearing was being used to blame the EPA for the spill rather than the "callous disregard of mining companies" that own abandoned mines. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the Natural Resource Committee's most senior member, said Republican lawmakers wrongly blamed the EPA for "holding the shovel when the spill occurred," rather than focusing on the mine company's responsibility for the mine's condition.[15]

Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye said at the hearing that the EPA had caused the spill and mismanaged the cleanup of rivers and tributaries, saying that the spill had "unknown physical, chemical, biological and economic effects" on the Navajo Nation.[15]

### September 21, 2015[edit]

### Eleven GOP House members support action on climate change[edit]

Click to read more about climate change and state government activity on the issue.

In September 2015, eleven Republican members of the U.S. House signed onto a resolution to "take meaningful and responsible action now" on the issue of climate change. This resolution also called for the implementation of policies to respond to global warming. The 11 lawmakers were Representatives Ryan Costello (PA), Carlos Curbelo (FL), Robert Dold (IL), Michael Fitzpatrick (PA), Chris Gibson (NY), Richard Hanna (NY), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Patrick Meehan (PA), David Reichert (WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) and Elise Stefanik (NY).[16][17]

The resolution endorsed the study of climate change and its effects. It also supported public policies and private efforts to address the issue, although the resolution did not involve specifics. "The House of Representatives commits to working constructively, using our tradition of American ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism, to create and support economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address the causes and effects of measured changes to our global and regional climates, including mitigation efforts and efforts to balance human activities that have been found to have an impact," the resolution stated.[17]

Rep. Gibson, who introduced the resolution, said in a statement that the discussion of climate change policies was "key to the preservation of our country for generations to come, as important as ensuring we have fiscally responsible policies to secure our future."[16]

The resolution marks a shift away from the Republican Party's historical approach to the issue of climate change. Most of the resolution's co-sponsors come from moderate congressional districts, however, and some of these members are not seeking re-election in 2016. The majority of Republican officials are critical of Democratic Party-led federal policies on the issue. Congressional Republicans have largely opposed President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, a series of regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) has called the power plant regulations "job-killing and likely illegal" and has called on foreign leaders to "proceed with caution before entering into" what McConnell characterized as "a binding, unattainable deal" with the United States on any mutual climate change policies. The United States is expected to participate in a climate summit in France in December 2015.[16][18]

Click here to read the full resolution.

### Colorado seeks federal approval for sage grouse habitat plan[edit]

Click to read more about sage grouse and endangered species policy in the United States.

In September 2015, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (D) requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approve a habitat exchange program allowing energy companies and ranchers to conserve the sage grouse, a ground-dwelling bird that is waiting for potential listing as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.[19][20]

The Colorado proposal, a part of the state's overall conservation program for the birds, seeks to mitigate potential habitat damage from crude oil and natural gas development, ranching, and agriculture by offering financial incentives to "maintain and improve habitat" on their property, according to Hickenlooper. In exchange, landowners would receive conservation credits, which could be sold to other industries and landowners to compensate for similar activities in other areas, which might impact sage grouse habitat. The plan is viewed as a way of protecting the bird and keeping it off the federal list of endangered species. If the bird is listed, tighter restrictions on land use would apply in areas the bird inhabits, limiting energy development and other activities.[19]

Terry Fankhauser, executive vice president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, a 501(c)6 nonprofit trade organization representing Colorado agriculture, called the plan "a win-win for sage-grouse and for ranchers, who are natural stewards of these vital working landscapes." The Colorado Oil and Gas Association, a nonprofit organization representing the oil and gas industry in Colorado, supported the idea of a habitat exchange program, but did not sign on fully with the plan unless changes were made; the association did not provide specifics. The Center for Biological Diversity, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit conservation group supporting federal protection for the sage grouse, was critical of the plan and supported policies "to avoid disturbing habitat in the first place."[20]

The sage grouse's populations span 11 states and roughly 165 million acres. Its total population is estimated to be between 200,000 birds and 500,000 birds. The Fish and Wildlife Service declined to designate the bird as an endangered species on September 22, 2015. If the bird had been listed, it would receive the federal protection guaranteed under the Endangered Species Act.[21]

### Forty-seven GOP senators sign onto bill to nullify EPA water rule[edit]

Click to read more about the waters of the United States and the implementation of the Clean Water Act.

In September 2015, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) introduced a joint resolution "disapproving" of the federal plan regulating the waters of the United States, which would expand the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) jurisdiction over streams, tributaries and wetlands. She was joined by 46 Republican senators. The EPA has estimated that the plan would increase the amount of regulated waters by 3 percent and would cost between $162 million and $279 million each year.[22][23][24]

The rule defines which wetlands and streams are regulated nationwide. The EPA is already allowed to regulate waters that are next to lakes and rivers (and also their tributaries) because of the potential impact on water quality downstream. In August 2015, the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued an order temporarily blocking the EPA's water rule in 13 states.[25][26][27][28]

Ernst's resolution would block the rule's implementation in all 50 states. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) has already introduced legislation in the Senate addressing the rule, although Barrasso's legislation would require EPA officials to rewrite the water rule and address specific issues. That bill passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in June 2015 by a vote of 11-9, with all Republicans supporting the bill and all Democrats opposing it. President Barack Obama (D) has promised to veto legislation blocking the rule.[22][29][30]

The rule has been criticized by agricultural groups arguing that the regulation would negatively affect routine farming activities. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has denied that the rule would stop regular farming operations, arguing that the agriculture sector would retain "exemptions" it already receives under the Clean Water Act, the law authorizing the EPA's water rule.[22][31]

Ernst's resolution also received support from the four sitting senators running for the Republican nomination for president: Senators Ted Cruz (TX), Lindsey Graham (SC), Rand Paul (KY) and Marco Rubio (FL). To read more about the 2016 presidential candidates and their positions on energy and the environment, click here.[29]

### September 14, 2015[edit]

### California Assembly abandons petroleum reduction in climate legislation[edit]

Click to read more about state government activity on climate change.

Before the end of its legislative session on September 11, 2015, the California General Assembly removed a provision from a California Senate-passed bill that would have required a 50 percent reduction in the amount of petroleum used by the state's cars and trucks. The reduction was viewed as a major piece of Governor Jerry Brown's (D) climate change agenda, which was announced in his January 2015 inaugural address.[32][33]

The legislation, Senate Bill 350, still included other climate-related provisions, such as a requirement to increase energy efficiency in California buildings by 50 percent by 2030 and a goal of generating 50 percent of the state's electrical power from renewable energy sources by 2030. The legislation's chief author, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D), placed blame on a lobbying effort by oil industry officials in the state for the changes made to the legislation. "We could not cut through the multi-million-dollar smokescreen created by a single special-interest with a singular motive and a bottomless war chest," de Leon said.[32][34]

Senate Bill 350's petroleum reduction provision garnered attention from state interest groups. According to The Sacramento Bee, nearly $14 million in "direct lobbying expenses" related to Senate Bill 350 was spent between January 2015 and June 2015 by the bill's supporters and opponents. The employers of the lobbyists that reported working on the bill included the Western States Petroleum Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and the Chevron Corporation, all of which opposed the legislation, as well as NextGen Climate Action, which supported the bill.[35]

The Western States Petroleum Association, a 501(c)(6) trade association representing the petroleum industry, used TV advertising and mailings to oppose the bill, calling the legislation "the California Gas Restriction Act of 2015." The group's president, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, supported the removal of the petroleum provision and said that the energy industry was "committed to working with Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators on climate change and energy policy."[33]

NextGen Climate Action said the legislation would have made California "the world leader in utilizing clean energy and reducing carbon pollution." The group's spokesperson characterized the energy industry's spending on advertising "a David and Goliath situation," arguing that the money spent to defeat the legislation outweighed the money spent to support the bills.[36][37]

A second climate-related bill, Senate Bill 32, was considered by the California Assembly but did not pass. This bill would have required California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. The bill was an expansion on California's 2006 law, which requires the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The bill's author, State Sen. Fran Pavley (D), said she would re-introduce the legislation during next year's legislative session.[32]

### EPA halts cleanup work at 10 mine sites following Colorado spill[edit]

Click to read more about environmental policy in the United States.

On August 12, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suspended cleanup activities at 10 polluted mines in four states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press in September 2015. The conditions at the 10 mines resembled those that led to a major waste spill at a Colorado gold mine in August 2015. The sites are located in California, Colorado, Montana and Missouri.[38]

An EPA-led cleanup team, which included a private contractor called Environmental Restoration LLC, brought about a toxic waste spill at the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado, that spilled 3 million gallons of polluted water into the streams and tributaries of three states. According to a September 2015 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are thousands of abandoned mine sites that have been identified throughout the United States.[38]

"We want to take extra caution before we initiate any work," said EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus. According to the EPA, investigations of the 10 mines were needed to gauge the hazard level. Mines that are regarded as a "probable hazard" will have work activities halted until emergency plans are drafted for them.[38]

Sites where halting activities would result in a health risk or environmental harm were exempted from the stop-work order. Two sites in northern California, the Leviathan sulfur mine and Iron Mountain metals mine, were among them. Operations at these sites include collecting water for treatment and then discharging it.[38]

One site where cleanup work had been stopped was the Standard Mine in west-central Colorado. The mine's wastewater periodically spills over an impoundment, which could blow out in a way similar to the spill at the Gold King Mine, although the EPA does not consider the mine at risk to do so. Meanwhile, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that the mine's wastewater leaking was not considered a major health risk. Work at the Standard Mine resumed on September 4, 2015.[38]

### New England cottontail removed from candidate list of endangered species[edit]

Click to read more of Ballotpedia's coverage of Endangered Species Policy.

In September 2015, the New England cottontail, a rabbit native to the region, was not considered to be imperiled enough for placement on the federal list of endangered and threatened species, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS first placed the rabbit on a list of candidates for federal protection in 2006. In 2011, the agency set a deadline of October 1, 2015, to make a listing decision.[39][40]

The New England cottontail is known to inhabit Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island. The cottontail's dwelling areas had been shrinking primarily due to the development of cities and towns since the 1960s, according to the FWS. The estimated number of New England cottontails located east of the Hudson River is 10,500 rabbits. Since 2006, federal and state governments, as well as private individuals, have spent more than $33 million on land acquisition, population tracking and other habitat protection. They are expected to spend roughly $30 million more by 2030, according to the FWS. More than 18,000 acres of new land for the rabbits either have been acquired or will be acquired by the end of 2015. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has set a goal of increasing New England cottontail populations to roughly 14,000 rabbits by 2030 through a combination of federal, state and private activities.[41][39][40]

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (which contains the FWS), Sally Jewell, called the decision "a great Endangered Species Act success story." Meanwhile, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), an endangered species advocacy group, called the government's judgment "a disappointing and troubling decision" and accused the agency of "being miserly in terms of providing protection to species in need."[39][40]

### September 8, 2015[edit]

### Federal judge orders removal of federal protection for prairie chicken[edit]

Click to read more about endangered species policy in the United States.

In September 2015, Judge Robert Junell of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered the removal of federal protection for the lesser prairie chicken, a bird listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The judge ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the federal agency primarily responsible for managing endangered species, had not properly evaluated the states' conservation plans when it gave the chicken federal protection.[42]

The lesser prairie chicken has been found in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Although widely prevalent throughout the 19th century, both the bird's population and habitat have declined steadily since then, similar to other Western and Southwestern birds such as the sage grouse. As of September 2015, the bird's population had been estimated at roughly 29,000 birds, according to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, a group representing state agencies in the Western United States.[42]

Before the bird's listing, the five states with prairie chicken populations implemented conservation programs to incentivize landowners and oil and natural gas companies to set aside some of their land for the bird in an effort to keep it off the federal list. Approximately 95 percent of the chicken's range is on private land. The chicken was listed as threatened in May 2014.[42][43]

Both environmental and energy groups responded to the court's ruling. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), an endangered species advocacy group, said that the bird would be at risk from oil and gas activities in its habitat. "This essentially means that oil companies can build an oil derrick over these birds' nests," said Noah Greenwald, the CBD's endangered species director.[42]

The Permian Basin Petroleum Association, a regional trade association representing oil and natural gas companies, said that oil and gas operations in the Permian Basin would be hindered as a result of the bird's May 2014 listing. (The Permian Basin is an oil and gas producing area in Texas and New Mexico.) The group called the court's ruling a defense of "the unprecedented stakeholder participation across the lesser prairie chicken range."[42]

In January 2015, the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment from Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran (R) to remove the lesser prairie chicken from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's list of endangered and threatened species. In a statement, Moran supported the ruling and said, "We don't need burdensome federal government regulations dictating land use practices and hindering our rural economy."[42]

### Michigan governor announces plan to comply with EPA power plant rule[edit]

Click to read more about the Clean Power Plan and environmental policy in Michigan.

In September 2015, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) announced that Michigan will comply with the Clean Power Plan, a federal rule requiring limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Snyder's decision differs from other Republican governors who have suggested they would not comply with the federal rule, which is enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[44][45]

In March 2015, United States Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) encouraged state governments to ignore the federal plan and refuse compliance. As of July 2015, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin had suggested they may not comply with the EPA's rule.[46][47]

Meanwhile, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) joined at least one federal lawsuit filed against the EPA to block the rule's implementation, a move that is now at odds with Snyder's decision to comply with the rule. According to the director of the Michigan Agency for Energy, the attorney general's lawsuit was made "in his independent capacity" and does not reflect Snyder or his administration's position on the issue.[44][45]

Defending his decision to comply with the federal rule, Snyder said, "The best way to protect Michigan is to develop a state plan that reflects Michigan's priorities of adaptability, affordability, reliability and protection of the environment." States are required to create compliance plans in order to meet federal goals for power plant emissions; otherwise, the federal government will implement its own plan in noncompliant states.[44][45]

Snyder called his decision to allow the Michigan state government to write its own compliance plan "the opportunity to make Michigan's energy decisions in Lansing, [and] not leave them in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C."[44][45]

Under the federal rule, Michigan is required to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 39 percent before 2030. These cuts can come from reducing power plant emissions, increasing renewable energy use, and increasing energy efficiency. States must submit their compliance plans by September 2016.[44][48]

### Texas groups file petition to delist American beetle[edit]

Click to read more of Ballotpedia's coverage of Endangered Species Policy and endangered species in Texas.

In August 2015, energy-affiliated and public policy groups in Texas filed a petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to remove federal protection from the American burying beetle, an insect found in northeast Texas that was listed as an endangered species in 1989.[49][50]

Four groups joined to file a petition in favor of delisting the beetle from the federal list of endangered and threatened species: American Stewards of Liberty, a nonprofit organization that supports private property rights; the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit think tank that supports "liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas"; the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a group representing oil and natural gas companies; and SWCA Environmental Consultants, a consulting firm specializing in environmental planning and regulation compliance. The groups arguing for the beetle to be delisted have stated that federal protection for the beetle has delayed construction projects in the agricultural, energy and transportation sectors, in addition to inhibiting development on private land.[49][50][51][52][53][54]

The groups argued that the beetle should not have been listed in 1989, contending that the beetle was not in danger of extinction and that the insect does not face significant threats to its survival that warrant federal protection. In 2012, the FWS stated that the beetle had disappeared from 90 percent of its original 1989 range, suggesting that the loss of habitat and decline in passenger pigeons (a bird considered a nutritional source for the beetle) were to blame for the beetle's status. In September 2015, the FWS's Southwest regional office said the delisting petition was under review. A 2008 report from the FWS stated that the beetle should remain on the endangered species list.[49][49][50]

## See also[edit]

* Environmental policy in the United States
* Environmental Policy
* Energy policy in the United States
* State environmental policy pages
* Energy Policy

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Time Magazine, "U.S. and China to Announce New Measures to Combat Climate Change," September 24, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 The White House, "U.S.-China Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change," September 25, 2015
3. ↑ The Globe and Mail, "U.S. and China unveil new climate promises, challenge other big emitters," September 26, 2015
4. ↑ The New York Times, "Beijing Puts Ball Back in Washington’s Court on Climate Change," September 25, 2015
5. ↑ The Hill, "Bush targets EPA rules in regulatory platform," September 22, 2015
6. ↑ The Guardian, "Marco Rubio attacks EPA and pledges to reverse key Obama climate moves," September 2, 2015
7. ↑ National Public Radio, "Sage Grouse Bird Does Not Need Protection, U.S. Decides," September 22, 2015
8. ↑ Denver Post, "Feds, states spar in push to create 165 million acre safe zone for grouse," April 12, 2015
9. ↑ National Geographic, "Can Sage-Grouse Be Saved Without Shutting Down the West?" May 19, 2015
10. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "2015 Endangered Species Act Finding for Sage Grouse," September 23, 2015
11. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "The Greater Sage-grouse: Facts, figures and discussion," accessed June 1, 2015
12. ↑ The Hill, "Feds didn't strike right balance in sage grouse decision," September 24, 2015
13. ↑ Center for Biological Diversity, "Obama Administration Refuses Protection for West's Iconic Sage Grouse," September 22, 2015
14. ↑ WildEarth Guardians, "Feds Fail Sage Grouse," September 22, 2015
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 The Salt Lake Tribune, "GOP turns up heat on EPA; Utah’s Bishop says agency broke law in Animas spill," September 17, 2015
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 The Hill, "11 Republicans vow to fight climate change," September 17, 2015
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 U.S. House of Representatives, "H. Res.: Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to conservative environmental stewardship," accessed September 21, 2015
18. ↑ U.S. Senate Office of Mitch McConnell, "McConnell Statement on Obama Administration International Climate Plan," March 31, 2015
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Denver Business Journal, "Colorado offers 'groundbreaking' program to protect greater sage-grouse," September 17, 2015
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 The Associated Press, "Colorado seeks approval of sage grouse habitat exchange," September 18, 2015
21. ↑ Denver Post, "Feds, states spar in push to create 165 million acre safe zone for grouse," April 12, 2015
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Think Progress, "47 Republican Senators Want To Block The EPA’s Clean Water Rule," September 18, 2015
23. ↑ EP NewsWire, "Dozens of senators sign on to resolution targeting new EPA water rule," September 18, 2015
24. ↑ Environment and Energy Publishing News, "Big wins elusive for EPA in Clean Water Act showdowns," August 27, 2014
25. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Water Rule Factsheet," accessed May 28, 2015
26. ↑ Washington Post, "North Dakota district court blocks controversial ‘Waters of the United States’ rule (UPDATED)," August 28, 2015
27. ↑ The Hill, "Federal judge blocks Obama’s water rule," August 27, 2015
28. ↑ The Associated Press, "Judge Rules Obama Administration Water Rule Should Be Halted," August 27, 2015
29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Joni Ernst - United States Senator for Iowa, "Ernst, 46 Additional Senators, Introduce Resolution to Nullify Expanded WOTUS Definition Harmful to Iowa," September 17, 2015
30. ↑ Radio Iowa, "Ernst resolution seeks to nullify WOTUS," September 17, 2015
31. ↑ Farm Futures, "Groups Release 'Waters of the U.S.' Mapping Tool," September 4, 2014
32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 The Sacramento Bee, "Another climate bill falters in California," September 10, 2015
33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 The New York Times, "California Democrats Drop Plan for 50 Percent Oil Cut," September 9, 2015
34. ↑ Office of Kevin de Leon, "Remarks by Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León at a Press Conference on SB 350," September 9, 2015
35. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Lobbyists pile on greenhouse-gas reduction bill," August 28, 2015
36. ↑ NextGen Climate Action, "California's Climate Leadership," accessed September 14, 2015
37. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Oil industry, environmentalists in ad war over bill to cut gasoline use," September 3, 2015
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 The Associated Press, "AP Exclusive: After spill, work suspended at 10 mine sites," September 12, 2015
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 The Hill, "Rabbit species kept off endangered list," September 11, 2015
40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 40.2 Boston Globe, "A hop along the comeback trail for the region’s cottontails," September 11, 2015
41. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "New England Cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis)," accessed September 14, 2015
42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 42.5 The Associated Press, "Texas court strips lesser prairie chicken of federal protection, a win for energy interests," September 2, 2015
43. ↑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Lesser prairie-chicken species profile," accessed September 8, 2015
44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 44.3 44.4 The Hill, "Michigan’s GOP governor will comply with power plant rules," September 1, 2015
45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 45.3 Washington Examiner, "Mich. GOP governor caves to EPA on climate rules," September 1, 2015
46. ↑ Lexington Herald-Leader, "States should reject Obama mandate for clean-power regulation," March 3, 2015
47. ↑ National Journal, "Mitch McConnell Has a New Plan to Block Obama’s Climate Agenda," April 29, 2015
48. ↑ U.S. Federal Register, "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," accessed September 22, 2014
49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 The Statesman, "Texas groups try to remove habitat protections for endangered beetle," September 2, 2015
50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 50.2 SWCA Environmental Consultants, "Petition to Delist the American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) in Accordance with Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act," August 18, 2015
51. ↑ American Stewards of Liberty, "About," accessed September 8, 2015
52. ↑ Independent Petroleum Association of America, "About IPAA," accessed September 8, 2015
53. ↑ Texas Public Policy Foundation, "About," accessed May 19, 2015
54. ↑ SWCA Environmental Consultants, "Welcome to SWCA," accessed September 8, 2015

v • e

The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment

States|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Archives|

January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015

* * *

v • e

Environmental Policy

Background|

Environmental policy in the United States • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Conservation • Endangered Species Act • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Enforcement at the EPA • Glossary of environmental terms • Energy and environmental news

* * *

Energy and environmental news|

January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015

* * *

Environmental terms|

Air pollutants • Air Quality Index • BLM grazing permit • Carbon dioxide • Carbon footprint • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Climate change • ConservAmerica • Cross State Air Pollution Rule • Deep ecology • Ecology • Endangered species • Implementation of the Endangered Species Act • Environmental chemistry • Environmental engineering • Environmental health • Environmental restoration • Environmental science • Federal land • Fracking • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gas • Ground-level ozone standards • Ground water • Hazardous air pollutant • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Keystone XL • Mercury and air toxics standards • Municipal solid waste • National Ambient Air Quality Standards • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • National Priorities List of Superfund sites • National Wildlife Federation • Natural resources • Nonpoint source of water pollution • Oil • Ozone • Pesticide • Petroleum • Point source of water pollution • Public water system • Radioactive waste • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Solar energy • State park • Superfund • Traditional energy resources • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Forest Service • U.S. Geological Survey • Wastewater treatment • Water quality criteria • Wetland • Wilderness Act • Wilderness Society • Wind energy

* * *

Endangered species terms|

Candidate species • Critical habitat • Delisting • Distinct population segment • Endangered species • Listed species • Listing a species • Listing petition • Species recovery • Taking a species

* * *

Environmental policy by state|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Endangered species policy|

Costs of listing a species • Delisting a species • Endangered Species Act litigation • Endangered species policy in the United States • Endangered Species Act litigation • History of the Endangered Species Act • Private property and the Endangered Species Act • Science and the Endangered Species Act • Success rate of the Endangered Species Act • Transparency and the Endangered Species Act

* * *

Endangered species policy by state|

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

Environmental statistics|

Payments in lieu of taxes • Land ownership by state • Grazing permits on BLM lands • Federal land ownership by state • BLM oil and gas permits by state • Environmental spending in the 50 states • Greenhouse gas emissions by state • Superfund sites in the United States • National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report

* * *

Endangered species statistics|

Endangered species by state • Endangered animals by state • Endangered plants by state • Delisted species • Top 20 federally funded species • Land acquisition funding for endangered species • Federal endangered species grants by state

* * *