A substantive modification. v2 removes the detailed "Findings" section, updates the short title, reduces the authorized annual appropriation from $1,000,000 to $200,000, and shifts the funding years. It also changes the Director's mandate to partner with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation from mandatory to discretionary and adds a new requirement for equitable geographic distribution of grant awards.
Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a federal program and authorizes modest grant funding to support local efforts in urban bird conservation and habitat restoration across the United States.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Urban Bird Treaty Program within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The program aims to conserve birds and their habitats in urban areas through voluntary efforts, providing technical and financial assistance, and establishing a competitive grant program for eligible entities to conduct related research, planning, and management activities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this program is crucial for addressing the decline of bird populations in urban environments, promoting biodiversity, and fostering community engagement in conservation. They contend it provides a much-needed federal framework and resources to empower local agencies, non-profits, and academic institutions to protect and restore urban bird habitats.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the authorized funding of $200,000 annually is insufficient to make a significant impact on a national scale, potentially rendering the program more symbolic than effective. Some may also suggest it represents an unnecessary expansion of federal involvement into areas that could be more efficiently managed by local governments or private organizations without federal intervention.
The bill is concise and clearly written, allowing for a quick and thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a)(1)
Establishment of Urban Bird Treaty Program
This provision directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to create a voluntary program focused on conserving birds and their habitats in urban areas. It formally names the program the 'Urban Bird Treaty Program,' setting the foundation for all subsequent activities outlined in the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated federal program provides a vital national framework and legitimacy for urban bird conservation efforts, ensuring coordinated action and recognition for these often-overlooked ecosystems.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the establishment of a voluntary conservation program in principle, though some might question the necessity of a new federal program versus supporting existing initiatives.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for federal leadership in conservation with the need for local flexibility, establishing a program that is voluntary for participating entities.
Section 2(a)(2)
Core Activities of the Urban Bird Treaty Program
This section outlines the specific duties of the Director in carrying out the Program. These include supporting various entities (Federal, Tribal, State, municipal agencies, NGOs, community groups, academic institutions) to protect, restore, and enhance urban bird habitats (e.g., controlling invasive species, restoring native plants), reducing urban hazards to birds, engaging communities in bird monitoring, and educating the public about bird conservation. It also mandates providing technical and financial assistance and facilitating information sharing among participants.
Section 2(a)(3)
Urban Bird Treaty Competitive Grant Program
This provision establishes a competitive grant program to award funds to eligible entities (Tribal, State, municipal agencies, NGOs, community groups, academic institutions) for research, planning, management, capacity building, monitoring, and other activities related to urban bird and habitat conservation. It allows the Director to partner with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to administer the grants and requires equitable geographic distribution of awards among small, midsize, and large cities.
Section 2(c)
Funding Authorization
This section authorizes the appropriation of $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2033 to carry out the Urban Bird Treaty Program. This sets the maximum amount of federal funds that can be allocated for the program annually during this seven-year period.
The bill defines the term 'urban' by referencing the meaning of 'urban area' as given in section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code.
Section 2(b)(6)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing federal definitions, particularly those related to infrastructure and population density, which helps streamline legal interpretation.
Case for: Referencing existing definitions streamlines legislation, ensures consistency across federal programs, and avoids potential conflicts or ambiguities that could arise from creating a new, unique definition.
Case against: It requires external research for a full understanding of the program's geographic scope, potentially obscuring the precise eligibility criteria for a casual reader or a new applicant.
Estimated impact: Ensures the program targets areas consistent with established federal classifications of urban environments, affecting which communities and projects are eligible for support.
This clause states that Section 10(a) of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 3709(a)) shall not apply with respect to an agreement entered into under this program or amounts made available to carry out this section. Section 10(a) generally requires NFWF to match federal funds with non-federal funds at a 1-to-1 ratio.
Section 2(a)(3)(C)(ii)
Why it matters:This is a technical legislative maneuver to facilitate the program's operation by removing a standard matching requirement, likely to make it easier for NFWF to administer the grants or for eligible entities to receive funds without needing to secure matching funds.
Case for: Waiving the matching requirement can lower barriers for smaller organizations or those in underserved communities to access grant funding, thereby increasing participation and impact in areas where matching funds might be difficult to secure.
Case against: Critics might argue that waiving matching requirements reduces the leverage of federal funds and could lead to less private sector or local investment in the program, potentially diminishing its overall financial impact.
Estimated impact: Potentially simplifies the grant application process and increases the accessibility of funds for eligible entities, especially those with limited fundraising capacity, thereby broadening participation.