Overview
Title
To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to affirm that the prohibition on the unauthorized take or killing of migratory birds of that Act includes incidental take, and to direct the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize such incidental take, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill says that if someone accidentally harms birds that fly to different places each year without asking first, they can get in trouble. It also lets a special group give out permission slips for when this might happen and collect money to help keep birds safe.
Summary AI
H.R. 9971 aims to change the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to clarify that it is illegal to accidentally harm or kill migratory birds without permission. The bill instructs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue permits that allow for such incidental harm and establishes penalties for violations. It also sets up a program to collect fees and a fund to support bird conservation efforts, along with a requirement to periodically report to Congress on the impact and progress of these actions. Additionally, the bill promotes research to better protect bird populations and addresses penalties for reckless actions causing harm.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Migratory Bird Protection Act of 2024," seeks to amend the existing Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This amendment aims to clarify that the prohibition on the unauthorized take or killing of migratory birds also includes incidental takes—those which are unintentional but occur due to otherwise lawful activities. It directs the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to issue permits for these incidental takes, introduces civil penalties for unauthorized actions, and establishes a funding mechanism to support bird conservation efforts through collected fees and donations.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the central issues with this bill lies in its provisions for civil penalties and regulations concerning incidental takes. The criteria for assessing penalties are somewhat subjective, relying on terms like "the gravity of the violation and the demonstrated good faith of the entity." This could result in varied enforcement outcomes, leading to potential legal disputes.
Another noteworthy concern is the appropriation of $10,000,000 per fiscal year without a clear breakdown or justification for this specific amount. The bill provides for a research program to support bird conservation, yet lacks specific performance metrics or accountability measures, which raises questions about its potential effectiveness and risk of inefficient spending.
Additionally, while the bill allows for the collection of fees to support bird conservation, it does not offer detailed explanations of how these funds will be adequately channeled, raising concerns about resource allocation.
Potential Impact on the Public
This bill could broadly impact various sectors by imposing new regulatory frameworks. Industries that frequently interact with migratory birds, such as energy or construction sectors, might experience increased administrative burdens due to the need for incidental take permits. This could lead to higher operational costs, potentially impacting consumer prices.
Conversely, the bill's intended conservation efforts may positively influence the general public by enhancing biodiversity and preserving ecological balance, which are vital for environmental health and tourism industries.
Potential Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Industries such as agriculture, energy, and development could be significantly affected due to the added regulatory requirements and possible penalties for non-compliance. These sectors may face increased costs related to compliance and potential legal battles if enforcement criteria are perceived as inconsistent or unclear.
Public agencies and wildlife conservation groups might benefit positively from this bill. The establishment of a research fund and a structured approach to monitoring bird populations could enable more effective conservation strategies and partnerships with academic and research institutions, enhancing their impact and outreach.
In summary, while the bill aims to reinforce protections for migratory birds through clarified guidelines and penalties, it also presents challenges. These include the need for transparent processes, clear guidelines for enforcement, and justification of fiscal appropriations, all of which are essential to ensure its effective implementation and acceptance by affected stakeholders.
Financial Assessment
The bill H.R. 9971 outlines financial aspects related to the governance and conservation of migratory birds. Understanding these financial components is essential to evaluate the implications of such legislative measures.
Financial Allocations and Appropriations
The bill authorizes appropriations for several purposes:
Civil Penalties for Incidental Take: As part of enforcing the amendments, a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation may be assessed for the unauthorized incidental take of migratory birds. This penalty applies unless the action is reckless or grossly negligent, in which case stricter penalties might apply. The fines aim to deter unauthorized actions and provide a financial consequence for non-compliance.
Annual Appropriations: The legislation authorizes the appropriation of $10,000,000 annually to support the activities related to the incidental take of migratory birds, including permitting and conservation efforts.
Issues with Financial References
Lack of Justification for Appropriations: The bill authorizes $10,000,000 per fiscal year, but it does not provide a detailed justification for this specific amount. Without a breakdown of how these funds will be allocated or why this figure was chosen, there is a risk of potential wasteful spending. Transparent justification is crucial to ensure responsible allocation and utilization of taxpayer money.
Subjective Criteria for Penalties: Civil penalties are based on the "gravity of the violation" and "good faith" of the involved parties. This subjective language can lead to inconsistencies in penalty assessments. Without clear guidelines or criteria, enforcement may become unpredictable, increasing the potential for legal challenges.
Research Program Funding Unspecified Metrics: The bill calls for establishing a research program without specifying performance metrics or accountability measures. Funding for research should include clear objectives and measurable outcomes to justify the expenditure and assess its effectiveness. Failure to define these could result in unaccountable spending without achieving meaningful conservation outcomes.
Undefined Use of Fees: Fees collected under the bill for authorizing incidental take are vaguely intended for "conserving populations of bird species affected by the authorized activities." There is no detailed explanation of how these fees will be allocated specifically, which poses a risk of inefficient or misdirected utilization of funds. Clear guidelines are necessary to ensure these fees effectively contribute to conservation efforts.
Conclusion
Financial references within the bill highlight important considerations related to appropriations and penalties. Effective implementation requires not only adequate funding but also clear guidelines and accountability to ensure these resources achieve their intended purposes without waste. Addressing the identified issues would strengthen the fiscal responsibility and impact of the legislative measures proposed in H.R. 9971.
Issues
The authorization of appropriations in SEC. 14(d) amounts to $10,000,000 per fiscal year, but lacks a detailed justification for the specific amount, which raises concerns about potential wasteful spending.
The criteria for assessing penalties in SEC. 14(a) are subjective, relying on the 'gravity of the violation and the demonstrated good faith of the entity', potentially leading to inconsistent enforcement and legal challenges.
SEC. 14(f) calls for a research program but does not specify performance metrics or accountability measures to ensure the research achieves its goals, creating a risk of unaccountable expenditure and ineffective outcomes.
The use of fees collected under SEC. 14(b) is vaguely defined, with no clear explanation of how funds will be specifically used for 'conserving populations of bird species affected by the authorized activities', risking inefficient allocation of resources.
The process for promulgating regulations and the timeline for compliance as outlined in SEC. 14(a) are not clearly defined, potentially leading to confusion and inadequate preparation time for affected industries.
The bill's reference to 'Director’s Order No.: 225' in SEC. 14(a) lacks context for those unfamiliar with the document, complicating understanding and compliance.
The definition section (SEC. 15) uses references to external documents, such as the Higher Education Act of 1965, which may not be readily accessible for full understanding, potentially creating confusion.
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 section gives the official title of the legislation, which is the "Migratory Bird Protection Act of 2024."
2. Amendments to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed amendments to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act involve removing references to "of Agriculture" and "of the Interior," introducing civil penalties for the unauthorized incidental take of migratory birds, establishing a permit system for incidental take, and creating a Migratory Bird Recovery Fund. Additionally, the Secretary of the Interior is tasked with implementing related fees, reporting to Congress on bird conservation efforts, and establishing a research program focused on bird population monitoring and conservation.
Money References
- “(1) IN GENERAL.—A person who incidentally takes a migratory bird without an authorization issued pursuant to section 14 or in violation of the terms and conditions of an applicable permit or regulation issued by the Secretary to administer section 14 may be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than $10,000 per violation, except that unpermitted incidental take which is caused by conduct that is reckless or grossly negligent shall be subject to the penalties of subsection (a).
- “(d) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this section to carry out this section.
14. Incidental take of migratory birds Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes regulations for the incidental taking of migratory birds, requiring permits and a fee system to cover costs and support bird conservation. It mandates a report to Congress every five years on the conservation status of migratory birds and establishes a research program to monitor and mitigate impacts on bird populations.
Money References
- (d) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this section to carry out this section.
15. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
For this section of the Act, it defines two terms: "institution of higher education," which is explained according to a previous law, and "Secretary," referring to the Secretary of the Interior, working with the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.