PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-37.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 11, 2015
Sage-Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Conservation and Restoration Act of 2015
This bill provides a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for a vegetation management project by the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service involving removal or treatment of any Pinyon or Juniper tree to conserve or restore the habitat of the greater sage-grouse or mule deer.
Under NEPA a categorical exclusion is a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency in implementing environmental regulations. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-37.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.468 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.468 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.468 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.468 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.