Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
This bill (Forest Information Reform Act) amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It provides that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are not required to reinitiate consultation under ESA section 7(a)(2) or 50 C.F.R. §402.16 on an approved, amended, or revised land management or land use plan when a new species is listed, critical habitat is designated, or new information reveals effects not previously considered.
Whether the bill meaningfully weakens ESA protections or simply increases planning certainty
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, narrowly drafted statutory amendment that clearly states its core legal effect: to preclude reinitiation of ESA section 7 consultation on specified land management/land use plans when either a new species/critical habitat is listed or when 'new information' reveals effects 'not previously considered.' The bill precisely amends the cited statutory sections and references the regulatory provision for consultation.
This bill (Forest Information Reform Act) amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
It provides that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are not required to reinitiate consultation under ESA section 7(a)(2) or 50 C.F.R. §402.16 on an approved, amended, or revised land management or land use plan when a new species is listed, critical habitat is designated, or new information reveals effects not previously considered.
The change applies specifically to plan-level consultations and uses a blanket "not required" formulation for those triggers.
Clear, narrow statutory change reduces administrative burden but high political salience, litigation risk, and lack of compromise features lower enactment prospects absent strong majorities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, narrowly drafted statutory amendment that clearly states its core legal effect: to preclude reinitiation of ESA section 7 consultation on specified land management/land use plans when either a new species/critical habitat is listed or when 'new information' reveals effects 'not previously considered.' The bill precisely amends the cited statutory sections and references the regulatory provision for consultation.
Whether the bill meaningfully weakens ESA protections or simply increases planning certainty
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether the bill meaningfully weakens ESA protections or simply increases planning certainty
Likely views the bill as a substantive weakening of endangered species procedural protections that could hinder species recovery.
Concerned that preventing reinitiation will lock in outdated analyses and prevent plans from addressing newly recognized threats or listings.
Would prefer preserving ESA triggers or adding safeguards for newly listed species and critical habitat.
Sees tradeoffs between reducing regulatory burden and maintaining species protections.
Understands need for planning stability but worries about removing a statutory trigger for updating consultations.
Would seek clarifying language, monitoring requirements, or limited exceptions to balance certainty with conservation.
Likely views the bill favorably as restoring regulatory certainty and preventing endless reopening of land plans due to subsequent listings or new information.
Emphasizes reducing delays, litigation, and administrative costs for land management and economic uses.
Sees this as clarifying that plan-level consultations should not be perpetually unsettled.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Clear, narrow statutory change reduces administrative burden but high political salience, litigation risk, and lack of compromise features lower enactment prospects absent strong majorities.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether the bill meaningfully weakens ESA protections or simply increases planning certainty
Clear, narrow statutory change reduces administrative burden but high political salience, litigation risk, and lack of compromise features…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward, narrowly drafted statutory amendment that clearly states its core legal effect: to preclude reinitiation of ESA section 7 consultation on specif…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.