Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
This resolution expresses Congresss view that the Fish and Wildlife Service should include global warming and sea-level rise when making comprehensive conservation plans for coastal national wildlife refuges and asks the Service, in consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey, to assess potential impacts. It is a nonbinding statement recommending that plans address effects on ecology, species distributions, cultural values, facilities, and recreational uses. The resolution asks agencies to incorporate climate considerations into planning to better prepare the refuge system for projected changes.
Concurrent resolutions must be passed by both the House and Senate but are not sent to the President and do not create binding law. This resolution is an expression of the sense of Congress and provides guidance rather than a legal requirement.
This concurrent resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should incorporate consideration of global warming and sea-level rise into comprehensive conservation plans for coastal national wildlife refuges.
It asks that each plan address ecological integrity, species distribution, cultural resources, administrative/visitor sites, and recreational uses.
It also requests the Fish and Wildlife Service Director, in consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey, conduct an assessment of potential impacts.
Low fiscal impact and advisory nature boost chance of congressional agreement, but climate wording creates some political friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution clearly states the problem and situates the requested actions within existing statutory authority, and it identifies the responsible entities. However, as a reporting/sense instrument it lacks specificity about methods, timelines, deliverables, funding, and accountability.
Acceptance of climate science versus skepticism about framing
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Acceptance of climate science versus skepticism about framing
Likely supportive because the resolution explicitly recognizes climate change risks to coastal refuges and calls for adaptive planning.
Views it as a necessary, precautionary step to protect habitats and vulnerable species.
Appreciates USGS consultation and focus on cultural and recreational impacts.
Generally favorable but pragmatic; supports adapting refuge plans to observable threats while noting practicality limits.
Sees value in a USGS assessment and planning but emphasizes need for cost estimates and realistic timelines.
Wants clarity on who pays for adaptation actions and how plans will be implemented.
Mixed to skeptical: some conservation-minded conservatives may accept refuge stewardship aims, but others object to climate framing or expanded federal planning.
Concerns focus on federal overreach, costs, and scientific uncertainty.
Because the resolution is nonbinding and narrow, many may tolerate it, though support is limited.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low fiscal impact and advisory nature boost chance of congressional agreement, but climate wording creates some political friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Acceptance of climate science versus skepticism about framing
Low fiscal impact and advisory nature boost chance of congressional agreement, but climate wording creates some political friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution clearly states the problem and situates the requested actions within existing statutory authority, and it identifies the responsible entities. Howeve…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.