Overview
Title
To amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to make supplemental funds available for management of fish and wildlife species of greatest conservation need as determined by State fish and wildlife agencies, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 7408 is a plan to give extra money each year to help protect animals and places they live. It wants to make sure animals that need the most help, like endangered species, get more attention and support.
Summary AI
H.R. 7408 aims to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to allocate additional funds to manage fish and wildlife species that need conservation as identified by State agencies. The bill establishes the Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Restoration Subaccount which would provide financial support from 2025 to 2029 by allocating up to $300 million annually, focusing on the preservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species. It also allows Indian Tribes to get funds for similar wildlife conservation efforts and modifies some rules under the Endangered Species Act to incentivize conservation on private lands. Additionally, it encourages various cooperative efforts to enhance wildlife habitats across the United States.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed bill titled the "America’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act" aims to modify the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. The focus is to provide supplementary funds for the management and conservation of wildlife species that are most in need, as determined by state and tribal wildlife agencies. The bill outlines several provisions and establishes a subaccount specifically to allocate these funds toward innovative and effective conservation efforts.
General Overview
The Act proposes to extend financial and technical assistance to various U.S. territories, states, and tribal governments. The primary aim is to restore habitats for species currently listed as endangered or threatened and to prevent other species from being added to these lists. It emphasizes collaboration among federal, state, tribal, and private entities to achieve its conservation goals. Additionally, the Act provides for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study to assess its effectiveness over time.
Significant Issues
One of the key issues with the bill is its exclusion of "rewilding" strategies, which are practices that prohibit human intervention in natural processes. Some stakeholders believe this limits innovative conservation strategies. Additionally, the bill provisions around not required further consultations on endangered species could be criticized for potentially lowering environmental protections. Funds from recent infrastructure acts are being rescinded without clear justification, which might affect ongoing environmental projects negatively. Ambiguities in several definitions within the Act, such as "authorized restoration services," can create confusion and implementation challenges.
Public Impact
Broadly, the bill might impact the public positively by enhancing habitat restoration and promoting biodiversity, which can result in environmental benefits and improved ecological health. However, without clear checks and balances, there could be a misuse of funds and inadequate accountability, effectively reducing the Act’s benefits. The rescission of funds intended for other environmental programs might also inspire public backlash, particularly from communities expecting improvements from those programs.
Stakeholder Impacts
For stakeholders such as state and tribal wildlife agencies, the Act offers potential funding opportunities to develop targeted conservation programs. Nevertheless, the specific restrictions and complex language might create administrative and bureaucratic challenges, making it harder to access and effectively use these funds. Private landowners, while encouraged to participate in conservation, might find the provisions regarding critical habitat designations restrictive, possibly limiting federal oversight of conservation efforts on private lands. Environmental advocacy groups may find the Act's restriction against using funds for rewilding controversial.
Overall, this Act aims to support conservation efforts, but it contains various provisions that different stakeholders may view differently based on how they affect their specific interests. Further refinement and clarification in the bill text may be required to address these concerns effectively.
Financial Assessment
H.R. 7408 proposes several adjustments to the allocation and management of financial resources for wildlife conservation in the United States. These adjustments are centered around the establishment of a subaccount and the redistribution of funds previously appropriated by major legislative acts. Here is a detailed look into how the bill organizes financial matters and how they might intersect with some of the outlined issues:
Financial Allocations in the Bill
The bill earmarks up to $300 million annually from 2025 through 2029 for the Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Restoration Subaccount. This subaccount aims to support efforts focused on preserving and recovering species identified as in need of conservation by state agencies. The funds are slated to be directed towards various programs that enhance habitat conditions for threatened and endangered species. It’s noteworthy that these funds are intended to supplement rather than replace existing funding streams.
In addition, the proposal makes financial provisions for Indian Tribes by authorizing $20 million annually for similar conservation efforts over the same five-year period. This opens avenues for tribes to receive non-competitive grants, assisting them to carry out wildlife and habitat restoration activities.
Rescission and Redistribution of Funds
The bill calls for the rescission of unobligated funds, specifically targeting previous allocations from substantial legislative acts such as the Inflation Reduction Act. This rescission includes $700 million of the $2.6 billion appropriated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and $700 million of the $3.2 billion allocated to the Bureau of Reclamation under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The bill also cuts $50 million from a $250 million allocation intended for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Issues with Financial References
Rescissions and Impacts on Projects: The rescission of funds from major legislations could lead to significant challenges and controversies. These funds, which were initially allocated for specific environmental projects under acts like the Inflation Reduction Act, aim at substantial climate and infrastructure benefits. By withdrawing these funds, the bill might inadvertently hamper ongoing or planned projects, leading to both financial and political debate.
Unclear Financial Terms: The use of the term "unobligated covered funds" is ambiguous, resulting in uncertainty. Without a clear definition, there can be misunderstandings regarding which funds are subject to rescission and why this action is justified. This ambiguity can lead to legal challenges and complicate financial accountability.
Funding Restrictions: The bill prohibits using apportioned funds for "rewilding," which may restrict innovative conservation strategies that rely on natural processes rather than human intervention. This restriction could be perceived as limiting flexible, adaptive conservation practices that may require less immediate funding but offer long-term environmental benefits.
Conclusion
H.R. 7408's financial allocations demonstrate a clear intention to enhance wildlife conservation through structured funding mechanisms, while also reprioritizing existing federal funds. However, the decision to rescind funds from major legislative acts and the undefined terms present potential challenges that may impact the efficient deployment and effectiveness of these financial resources. It remains essential to address these ambiguities and consequences to ensure that conservation efforts are both adequately funded and strategically effective.
Issues
The prohibition on using apportioned funds for 'rewilding', as stated in section 101(b)(5)(B), may limit innovative conservation strategies. This restriction could be politically and ethically controversial among stakeholders who advocate for less human intervention in conservation practices.
The language in section 501 regarding 'no additional consultation required' could undermine the protections for endangered species by not requiring further consultation when new species are listed or new critical habitat information surfaces, raising significant environmental and legal concerns.
The rescission of funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in section 701 might disproportionately affect certain environmental projects, without providing adequate justification or addressing potential negative impacts, leading to financial and political controversy.
The undefined term 'unobligated covered funds' in section 701 raises financial and legal ambiguity about what these funds constitute and what justifies their rescission.
The broad timeframe given for the GAO study in section 3 ('not later than 5 years after the date of enactment') may delay critical assessments of the Act's effectiveness, leading to financial and accountability concerns.
Section 601's amendment to the Endangered Species Act involves complex language and introduces subjective terms such as 'reasonably certain', which may lead to disagreements or delays in administrative processes, raising legal and political issues.
The ambiguous definition of 'authorized recreation services' and 'authorized restoration services' in section 302 may cause implementation challenges and transparency risks, as responsibilities are divided among various authorities without clear guidelines.
The provision in section 103 prohibiting the Federal Government from accepting land transfers might limit beneficial conservation efforts, particularly if a government aims to optimize resources through such exchanges, raising ethical and resource management concerns.
The exclusion of private land designations as critical habitat in section 402 could limit conservation efforts if private stakeholders do not voluntarily enact conservation measures, raising environmental and ethical concerns.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Act is called the "America’s Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act" and includes different sections and titles that lay out its contents. The sections cover purposes, studies, conservation efforts for wildlife and tribes, management strategies for wildlife refuges, agreements and habitat designations on private lands, forest information reform, and incentives for recovering endangered species.
2. Statement of purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The purpose of this Act is to provide financial and technical support to various regions and tribes for restoring habitats. This effort aims to help recover species classified as threatened or endangered and to prevent other species from becoming listed as endangered under relevant laws.
3. GAO study Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Comptroller General of the United States is required to conduct a study within five years of the Act's enactment to evaluate how well States, territories, the District of Columbia, and Indian Tribes are meeting the goals set out in section 2.
101. Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act establish a subaccount for wildlife conservation and restoration, specifying funding allocations, usage, and limitations. It creates grants for innovative recovery strategies and sets accountability and reporting requirements for state wildlife departments on their funded activities.
Money References
- “(C) DEPOSITS INTO SUBACCOUNT.—Subject to the availability of appropriations made in advance for such purposes, the Secretary shall allocate not more than $300,000,000 to the Subaccount for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.
102. Technical amendments Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section makes technical changes to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, which include updating definitions, renaming an account to "Subaccount," and ensuring alignment with the Act's provisions regarding species conservation and restoration efforts.
103. Savings clause Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act is updated with a new "Savings Clause" which clarifies that it does not change the management powers of states or territories over fish and wildlife. It also states that the Act’s funds can't be used for removing or altering federally owned dams in a way that decreases their capacity, prohibits the federal government from accepting certain land transfers purchased with Act funds, and resolves any conflict with Alaskan Acts in favor of the Alaskan laws.
14. Savings clause Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The savings clause in the bill specifies that the Act doesn't change the authority of states or territories, including the District of Columbia, to manage wildlife. It also clarifies that funds cannot be used for removing or modifying federally owned dams to reduce their capacity and prohibits the transfer of land bought with funds from the Act to the federal government.
15. Statutory construction with respect to Alaska Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If there is any conflict between this Act and either the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the provisions of the latter two Acts will take precedence.
201. Indian Tribes Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a "Tribal Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account" to fund conservation projects for Indian Tribes. It outlines how the money can be used, such as preserving species and habitats, and the requirement for tribes to report on their activities. It also specifies that the grants cannot exceed a 90% federal share for projects costing over $100,000 and clarifies that no public access is required for conservation efforts on Tribal lands.
Money References
- (3) DEPOSITS INTO ACCOUNT.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Account $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029.
- (f) Matching requirement.—With respect to any grant issued under subsection (c) that exceeds $100,000
301. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section defines various terms used in the bill, such as "authorized recreation services," which are recreational improvements on federal, non-federal, or tribal lands; "authorized restoration services," referring to environmental restoration work on certain lands; and "forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration services," which include activities related to managing natural resources and maintaining roads, excluding major infrastructure projects. Other terms defined include "county," "good neighbor agreement," "Governor," "Indian Tribe," "recreation enhancement or improvement services," and "Secretary," referring to the Secretary of the Interior.
302. Good neighbor authority for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the Secretary to work with governors, Indian Tribes, or counties to carry out restoration and recreation projects on land managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. It also specifies how timber sale revenues should be used, keeps certain environmental decision-making responsibilities with the Secretary, ensures agreements are public, and states the areas where this authority does not apply, like wilderness areas.
303. Stewardship end result contracting projects Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the Secretary to make agreements or contracts with private or public entities for forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration projects, selecting contracts based on best-value and potentially lasting up to 20 years. It includes details about using forest product values to offset project costs, collecting and using money from contracts, as well as oversight and cancellation rules, ensuring flexibility and efficiency in managing such projects.
401. Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines rules for "Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances" under the Endangered Species Act. These agreements let parties voluntarily promise to protect certain species in exchange for guarantees that they won’t face extra requirements if the species get listed as endangered in the future.
402. Designation of critical habitat Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Endangered Species Act to prevent the designation of privately owned or controlled land as critical habitat if the land has a management plan similar to a specific type of natural resource management plan and involves cooperation with relevant state agencies. The plan must likely conserve the species, either increasing its population or maintaining it at levels comparable to if the land were designated as critical habitat, and aim to minimize harm from activities that could unintentionally harm the species.
403. Private land Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section restricts the public release of information about the location of certain fish, wildlife, or plant species on private land, unless it's requested by a federal or state agency, or a legitimate educational or research institution, and the private landowner agrees. Such requests must detail the site, purpose, and ensure confidentiality will be protected.
501. No additional consultation required Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the law is changed to state that the Secretary is not required to restart consultations regarding endangered species or critical habitats when revising or approving land management and use plans, even if a species is newly listed or new information becomes available. This applies to both the Forest Service plans and the Bureau of Land Management plans.
601. Protective regulations under Endangered Species Act of 1973 Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines amendments to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, specifying that the Secretary must create necessary regulations for conserving threatened species and establish clear recovery goals. It allows states to propose their own recovery strategies, which the Secretary can approve or deny, ensuring cooperation and flexibility in managing endangered species recovery.
701. Rescission of funds Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section of the bill cancels any unused funds from specific allocations, including funds from the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, totaling specific amounts from designated projects and accounts, such as those related to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Money References
- (b) Covered funds defined.—In this section, the term “covered funds” means— (1) any funds appropriated or otherwise made available by sections 40002, 50232, 60401, and 60402 of Public Law 117–169 (commonly known as the “Inflation Reduction Act”); (2) $700,000,000 of the $2,600,000,000 appropriated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in section 40001 of Public Law 117–169 (commonly known as the “Inflation Reduction Act”); (3) $700,000,000 of the $3,200,000,000 appropriated to the “Bureau of Reclamation—Water and Related Resources” account in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58) for transfer into the Aging Infrastructure Account established by section 9603(d)(1) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (43 U.S.C. 510b(d)(1)); and (4) $50,000,000 of the $250,000,000 appropriated to the “Bureau of Reclamation—Water and Related Resources” account in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117–58) for design, study, and construction of aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in accordance with section 1109 of division FF of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116–260). ---
702. Repeal of certain programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section repeals specific parts of a previous law, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. It removes sections 507, 508, and 510 from division AA of that act.