PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 15, 2005
Critical Habitat Enhancement Act of 2005 - Amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require the relevant Secretary (the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce) to make any designation of critical habitat of an endangered or threatened species not later than one year after final approval of a recovery plan for the species or three years after final regulations implementing a determination that the species is endangered or threatened, whichever is earlier.
Directs the Secretary to reconsider determinations that critical habitat designation is not practicable or determinable during the next five-year review of listed species or at the time of final approval of a recovery plan for the species.
Makes critical habitat designations inapplicable to actions authorized by: (1) an incidental taking permit; (2) an incidental taking statement provided by the Secretary; or (3) a land conservation or species management program that meets specified requirements.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary, in determining whether an area is critical habitat, to seek and consider information from local governments in the vicinity of the area.
Specifies factors for consideration in determining the economic impact of critical habitat designation.
Modifies notice requirements applicable to proposed designations of critical habitat to require that any municipality having administrative jurisdiction over the area in which the species is believed to occur is given actual notice.
Redefines "critical habitat" to mean geographic areas determined by field survey data to be occupied by the species at the time of designation and which are necessary to the continued existence of the species.
People & committees
Rep. Cardoza, Dennis A. [D-CA-18] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. 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 H.R.1299 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 H.R.1299 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 H.R.1299 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 H.R.1299 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.