Overview
Title
To establish the Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant Program and the State and Tribal Migration Research Program, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 8836 is like a plan to help animals have safe spaces to move around. It gives money to different groups to study and improve places where animals live, and it makes sure everyone works together without making anybody do something they don’t want to do.
Summary AI
H.R. 8836, titled the "Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act," seeks to establish grant programs to support wildlife movement and habitat conservation. It introduces the "Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant Program," providing funds to enhance habitat quality for wildlife movement areas, and the "State and Tribal Migration Research Program" to aid in the study of these areas. The bill also supports mapping wildlife corridors and ensures coordination among federal, state, tribal agencies, and other partners. It emphasizes voluntary collaborations and safeguards existing rights and activities without imposing mandatory changes on areas like agriculture and energy.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the “Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act,” is aimed at boosting wildlife conservation efforts, particularly focusing on migratory big game and other wildlife species. It seeks to establish two key programs: the Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant Program and the State and Tribal Migration Research Program. These are designed to improve habitat connectivity, enhance wildlife habitats, and support research into wildlife movement patterns. The bill calls for collaboration with state and tribal agencies, non-profits, educational institutions, and other stakeholders, offering financial and technical support for these initiatives. Additionally, it aims to align its purposes with existing programs and orders, such as the Secretarial Order 3362 focused on big game winter range and migration corridors.
Significant Issues
One critical issue with the bill is the lack of specific budgetary limits. By frequently using the phrase "such sums as are necessary" across multiple sections, the bill opens the potential for unchecked government spending. This vagueness necessitates strict oversight to prevent fiscal mismanagement.
Furthermore, the bill does not spell out clear accountability measures or performance metrics, which raises concerns about the efficient use of resources. Without set standards for evaluating the funded projects' success, it becomes difficult to ensure that the programs will be effective.
There is also a conspicuous absence of detailed criteria for waivers and fund allocation, especially concerning cost-sharing provisions and the distribution of research funds to states and Indian Tribes. This lack of specificity could lead to inequities or favoritism in funding decisions.
Moreover, vague terminology and legal language, particularly surrounding "Federal organic Acts" and "valid existing rights," might lead to divergent interpretations and potential legal challenges. This ambiguity could create difficulties in applying the law consistently across different scenarios.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill is poised to bolster wildlife conservation efforts, which can have significant positive impacts on environmental health and biodiversity. By enhancing habitats and movement areas for wildlife, ecosystems are likely to become more robust and resilient, potentially benefiting ecological services that support agriculture, forestry, and recreation.
However, the risk of increased government spending without clearly defined limits might lead to concerns about fiscal responsibility. If the programs fail to deliver measurable outcomes, public trust in government-managed conservation efforts could be undermined.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
State and Tribal Agencies: These groups stand to gain substantial benefits as they would receive support for their ongoing and future wildlife conservation projects. The bill also fosters opportunities for collaboration between different jurisdictions, which could lead to more effective and cohesive wildlife management strategies.
Nonprofits and Educational Institutions: Eligible organizations might find new avenues for research and project funding. This could enhance research capacities and foster educational opportunities related to wildlife conservation.
Private Landowners: While the bill aims to encourage collaboration with private landowners, there is potential concern regarding how it might influence land use and agricultural practices. However, the savings provision explicitly ensures that no involuntary changes will be forced upon such stakeholders, which should alleviate some concerns.
Environmental and Conservation Advocates: These groups are likely to view the bill positively as it promises increased investment in biodiversity and habitat connectivity. However, advocates may also demand clearer accountability measures to ensure that the funds lead to tangible conservation outcomes.
Overall, the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act has the potential to significantly advance wildlife conservation efforts in the United States but requires careful implementation and monitoring to address the noted issues effectively.
Issues
The lack of specific budgetary limits and use of the phrase 'such sums as are necessary' in multiple sections (SEC. 4(i), SEC. 5(c), and SEC. 8(b)) could lead to uncontrolled or unchecked spending, which is a significant issue in terms of financial accountability and legislative oversight.
The absence of clear accountability measures and performance metrics in SEC. 2 for evaluating the effectiveness of initiatives funded by this Act raises concerns about potential inefficiencies and wasteful spending.
The waiver provision in SEC. 4(2)(C) lacks detailed criteria for granting waivers of cost-sharing requirements, potentially leading to inconsistent application and favoritism.
There is potential ambiguity in the statutory language used in SEC. 10, particularly terms like 'Federal organic Acts' and 'valid existing rights', which could lead to varying interpretations and legal challenges.
The broad authorization of appropriations without a cap in several sections (SEC. 4(i), SEC. 5(c), SEC. 8(b), and SEC. 9(d)) could lead to unlimited spending, which poses financial risks and demands stringent oversight.
SEC. 9(d) authorizes open-ended appropriations, which may lead to budgetary inefficiencies and requires distinct boundaries to prevent excessive expenditure.
The lack of specific criteria or guidelines in SEC. 5 for how funds will be allocated to State fish and wildlife agencies and Indian Tribes could lead to favoritism and inefficiencies in distribution.
The broad language and lack of clarity in defining 'projects that promote connectivity by improving habitat quality' in SEC. 4 and SEC. 8(b) might lead to misinterpretation and difficulty in determining eligible projects.
SEC. 6 could benefit from clarification on what constitutes 'prudent and necessary' use of funds for providing technical assistance to Federal agencies, as this is subjective and could lead to varying interpretations.
There is a lack of clarity around which federal agencies are involved in interagency coordination under SEC. 9(c), potentially leading to inconsistent efforts and lack of streamlined coordination.
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 Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this Act states that its official name is the “Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act”.
2. Purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The purpose of this Act is to offer financial and technical support to enhance the habitats of migratory big game and other wildlife species, ensuring they can move freely. This involves working with state and tribal wildlife agencies, and aligning with specific programs like Secretarial Order 3362, a wildlife crossings pilot program, and the Department of Agriculture's Migratory Big Game Initiative.
3. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section of the bill defines key terms, including big game, which refers to large native mammals like deer and elk regulated by state and tribal authorities, and connectivity, which describes how wildlife moves in its habitat. It also lists who qualifies as an eligible recipient for certain funding or projects, including state agencies, Indian Tribes, nonprofits, educational institutions, and others, and explains what is meant by federal land, the Foundation, and relevant agencies involved. The section defines movement area as zones used by wildlife for travel and migration, and it details terms such as Secretary and wildlife.
4. Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant Program establishes a nonregulatory initiative to fund projects that improve habitats for wildlife movement, including securing land leases and reducing collisions with vehicles. The program prioritizes collaboration with landowners, state, and tribal governments, offers funding with a federal cost share of up to 90%, and provides special considerations for projects benefiting disadvantaged communities.
5. State and Tribal Migration Research Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The State and Tribal Migration Research Program is a new initiative that will give money to state wildlife and fish agencies and Indian Tribes to study migration patterns in wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will oversee the funds, and Congress has allowed for necessary funding from 2025 to 2030.
6. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act was amended to clarify that the Secretary will carry out the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and allow funds to be used to help other federal agencies with efforts to conserve migration corridors or seasonal habitats on private and Tribal lands. Additionally, the program was reauthorized to continue from 2025 through 2030.
7. USGS Wildlife Corridor Mapping Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary, through the U.S. Geological Survey, is required to support a team that helps states and Indian Tribes by mapping wildlife movement areas using GPS data and other scientific sources, as well as conducting research in these areas.
8. USGS existing efforts Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines that the Director of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) will collaborate with federal, state, and tribal entities to enhance efforts in mapping animal movement areas, ensuring the protection of sensitive data related to privacy and wildlife, and publishing annual reports on migration studies. Additionally, it authorizes funding from 2025 to 2030, specifying that at least half of this funding must support projects that improve wildlife habitat connectivity.
2. Authorization of appropriations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the allocation of funds as needed for the years 2025 through 2030 to support the Act's objectives, with at least 50% of these funds being dedicated to projects that enhance habitat quality to help wildlife, including big game, move more easily.
9. Coordination Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the appointment of a Senior Executive Service employee by the Secretary to coordinate activities related to big game movement, advising various government and tribal entities, and maintaining activity summaries. It also details the coordination needed between federal agencies and other partners and authorizes necessary funding through 2030.
10. Requirement; savings provision Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the funds from the Act cannot force involuntary changes in agricultural or forestry practices and must respect existing rights like those for energy and water. It also ensures that the Act does not alter the authority of states or Indian Tribes over fish and wildlife, affect private property or privacy rights, limit public access to outdoor activities, impact military readiness, create or change federal land designations, or affect other federal conservation laws.