[Senate Report 106-188]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 322
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-188
======================================================================
ARCTIC TUNDRA HABITAT EMERGENCY
CONSERVATION ACT
_______
October 14, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Chafee, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[to accompany H.R. 2454]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (H.R. 2454) to assure the long-term
conservation of mid-continent light geese and the biological
diversity of the ecosystem upon which many North American
migratory birds are dependent, by directing the Secretary of
the Interior to implement rules to reduce the overabundant
population of mid-continent light geese, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with amendments, and an
amendment to the title, and recommends that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
General Statement and Background
There are two species of white, or light, geese in North
America: the Ross' goose (Anser rossii); and the snow goose,
which is comprised of two subspecies: the greater snow goose
(Anser caerulescens atlantica), and the lesser snow goose
(Anser caerulescens caerulescens). The Ross' goose is the
smallest of the three, weighing about 3.5 pounds. The greater
snow goose, by comparison, weighs more than 6 pounds, with
adult males slightly heavier. Both species are entirely white
with the exception of black wing tips. The lesser snow goose is
just under 6 pounds, but unlike the other two species, can
experience plumage dimorphism, when the birds will maintain a
dark plumage instead of an all-white plumage. This is the so-
called blue goose, for many years thought to be another
species.
The Ross' goose nests primarily in the central Canadian
Arctic, while the greater snow goose nests in the eastern
portion of the continent. The lesser snow goose has the widest
geographic distribution, with breeding areas scattered from
Baffin Island in the east to Wrangel Island off the northern
coast of Siberia. Management agencies in Canada, Mexico and the
United States have divided the lesser snow goose into four
populations based on their geographic distribution throughout
the year. The Wrangel Island population breeds on the island of
the same name in western Canada; the Western Canada Arctic
population breeds throughout that part of Canada and winters
along the coast of the northwest United States; the Western
Central Flyway population also breeds in western Canada but
winters in Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Mexico; the fourth
population--the mid-continent population--breeds along the
western and southern shores of the Hudson Bay and on Baffin and
Southampton Islands, and winters along the Gulf of Mexico in
Texas and Louisiana, as well as Mississippi, Tennessee,
Arkansas and Mexico.
Most populations of snow geese, as well as other species of
Arctic geese, have significantly increased in numbers over the
last 30 years. Growth of the mid-continent light goose
population has been the most dramatic. Anecdotal evidence in
the nineteenth century and early this century provide few clues
of the actual population during that time. The first
coordinated winter surveys in the mid-1950's estimated 440,000
birds. Since 1969, the population has grown from 800,000 birds
to 3 million birds in 1998, based on the winter survey.
However, more accurate population estimates have been made
recently by using aerial photography and surveys in the
breeding grounds, and the population is estimated to be closer
to 5.2 million. Even this figure is considered to be low
because not all the breeding areas are surveyed. During the
last 10 years, the population has experienced an average annual
growth rate of 5 percent.
There are several reasons for this increase. Most
importantly, mid-continent light geese have expanded their
wintering habitats along the Gulf of Mexico from traditional
coastal and salt marshes to agricultural fields, where they
forage on more readily available rice and other crops. For
example, slightly more than 200,000 hectares of salt marshes
and other wetlands comprised the traditional foraging habitat
for the geese; as the geese expanded their habitat, they had
available 400,000 hectares of land supporting rice crops in the
1940's, and today, more than 900,000 hectares of rice fields
exist in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. The geese have also
come to exploit agricultural fields further north along their
migratory route. As natural grasslands and bottom land forest
habitats have been converted to agricultural lands, the geese
have found a steady food source from the corn, wheat, barley,
oats and rye crops that are grown.
The second reason for the growth of geese populations has
been the establishment of numerous sanctuaries along the
migratory routes of these populations. In particular, the
creation of National Wildlife Refuges from the mid-1930's to
the 1970's provided havens for migrating populations that led
to a reduction in the traditional long distance flights between
staging areas. The third reason for increased populations has
been lower harvest rates of adult geese. The principal cause of
mortality of adult geese in recent decades is hunting. Harvest
rates, measured as a proportion of the winter indexed
population, have declined from almost 40 percent in the early
1970's to less than 8 percent annually in recent years.
In addition to these causes, a general warming trend has
been evident during the last 30 years in the central and
western Canadian Arctic, major breeding areas for light geese.
This climate amelioration has caused greater reproductive
success and increased population growth rates. Last, a
southward shift in the breeding ground of the light geese has
also led to greater reproductive success. Studies indicate that
before 1940, all known populations of lesser snow geese nested
north of 600 north latitude, but by 1973, 40 percent
of the population nested south of that latitude.
The consequences of this population growth are profound,
particularly in the breeding areas of the birds. Snow geese
forage either by grubbing, which is the digging of roots of
plants to reach the rich biomass just below the surface of the
soil, by grazing, or by shoot pulling of sedges. These
intensive foraging practices are done in densely populated
colonies directly on the breeding grounds, severely damaging
the vegetation upon which the geese depend. Specifically, loss
of vegetation leads to greater erosion, increased salinity and
formation of algal crust, all of which exacerbate the loss of
biomass. In many areas, the vegetation has little opportunity
to recover from year to year, which causes the damage to be
cumulative. In some areas, damage is so severe that recovery
may not be possible. Furthermore, as the core breeding habitat
is being degraded, the goose population is moving to other,
more pristine areas, which are suffering the same consequences.
The prognosis for recovery of the habitat is mixed. Some
researchers believe that as long as the population growth is 5
percent, recovery is unlikely. Badly damaged sites, in the
total absence of snow geese, have taken 15 years to show the
first signs of revegetation. Without the absence of geese,
recovery is likely to be transitory.
The Hudson Bay lowlands, which constitutes one of the main
breeding areas for the lesser snow geese, covers approximately
1,200 miles of wetlands along the southern and western
coastline of Hudson and James Bays. Within the lowlands, most
research has been done at La Perouse Bay. It is estimated that
30 percent of the area is already destroyed, another 35 percent
is on the verge of destruction, and the remaining 35 percent is
overgrazed. Observations elsewhere in the lowlands indicate
that this ratio is applicable there as well.
As many as 40 to 50 species of other migratory birds use
the Hudson Bay lowlands as a staging area or breeding area.
Approximately 30 species can be found at La Perouse Bay, of
which eight have experienced declines in numbers as a result of
the habitat degradation. However, few studies on other species
have been conducted outside this area. La Perouse Bay is an
example of extended habitat destruction, and it is hypothesized
that, as other areas experience similar destruction, they will
also experience similar declines in other species.
The growing crisis has stimulated much discussion and study
among the scientific community. Much of the research has been
summarized by the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group in its
report, ``Arctic Ecosystems in Peril,'' published in 1997. The
group is comprised of the Canadian Wildlife Service, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), numerous academic
departments, Ducks Unlimited and the Audubon Society. Much of
the information in this report has been gleaned from their
study. The study recommended, overall, that the population of
mid-continent light geese be reduced 50 percent by 2005. It
recommended a number of actions that could be taken to achieve
this goal, emphasizing the reduction of adult survival rates
through increased harvest of adult geese. In addition, the
National Wildlife Federation adopted a resolution in 1998 that
advocates both the immediate development and implementation of
sound, scientifically based strategies to reduce the mid-
continent population of lesser snow geese to sustainable
levels, as well as the development and implementation of long-
term strategies relative to land-use practices, harvest methods
and regulatory controls across its migratory route to maintain
the population at a sustainable level. Other conservation
groups have issued similar statements.
The Service issued two regulations on February 16, 1999 (64
Fed. Reg. 7507 and 64 Fed. Reg. 7517) to address this problem.
The first allowed the use of electronic calling devices and
unplugged shotguns to facilitate hunting of snow geese during
the regular hunting season. The second was a conservation order
that allowed hunting beyond the frameworks provided under the
Convention for Migratory Birds (107 days and March 10 closing
date). The two rules applied only when hunting seasons for
other species were closed. The Service issued the regulations
after preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and after publication
of a proposed rule on which public comment was received.
The Service relied on the Convention for Migratory Birds,
signed between Great Britain (for Canada) and the United States
in 1916, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 701 et
seq.), which was approved by Congress in 1918 to implement the
Convention, for its authority in promulgating the rules. The
Convention and the Act govern all takings, including hunting,
of migratory birds. Article VII of the Convention specifically
allows for killing of migratory birds, ``which, under
extraordinary conditions, may become seriously injurious to the
agricultural or other interests of any particular community. .
. .''
The Humane Society of the United States sought a
preliminary injunction against the Service for implementing the
regulations. Although the District Court of the District of
Columbia denied the injunctive relief, it indicated that the
Service would likely be required to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA when the court would consider
the question on the merits. Consequently, the Service withdrew
the rules on June 17, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 32778), pending
completion of an EIS. The Service has since begun a scoping
process and is holding several hearings in preparing its EIS,
scheduled to be completed before 2001.
The bill does not interfere with, or override, the NEPA
process now underway. The court did not rule on the merits of
the question more than to say that ``the duration and magnitude
of the FWS program will likely require FWS to prepare an EIS.''
The court also noted that:
[i]t is clear that the FWS acted in good faith. FWS's
EA represents a ``hard look'' at the proposed action
that comports with the spirit of NEPA though not its
letter. . . . Additionally, the scientific evidence
regarding the overpopulation of snow geese strongly
favors FWS. The administrative record substantiates
FWS' claim that the agency conducted a thorough and
wide-ranging examination of the snow goose
overpopulation problem and alternative plans for
amelioration.
The Humane Society of the United States v. Clark (D.D.C. filed
March 18, 1998). Furthermore, nothing in this legislation
waives the requirement of NEPA as it applies to actions by the
Service regarding snow geese.
The legislation accompanying this report reinstates the two
rules published last year by the Service. It also directs the
Secretary of the Interior to prepare and implement a
comprehensive management plan to both manage mid-continent
light goose populations and conserve their habitat. While the
bill would reinstate regulations for which an EIS is currently
being prepared, the bill reinstates the regulations only on a
temporary basis pending completion of the EIS. In preparing the
comprehensive management plan required by the bill, the
Secretary should take into account the EIS.
This legislation establishes two tracks to address the
overabundance of mid-continent light geese: an immediate effort
to reduce the population and mitigate further damage to the
breeding grounds; and development of a long-term effort to
address the more systemic reasons for the growth of the
population in both the breeding and wintering grounds, as well
as along the migratory route.
The legislation, as amended by the committee, also includes
the text of S. 148, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Act. S. 148 was introduced by Senator Abraham on January 19,
1999. The bill was approved by the committee on March 17, 1999,
placed on the Senate Calendar on March 26, and approved by the
Senate on April 13. The bill was almost identical to a bill in
the 105th Congress, S. 1970, also introduced by Senator
Abraham. That bill was also approved by this committee and the
Senate. Background on those bills can be found in Senate
Reports 105-284 and 106-36.
Objectives of the Legislation
The purpose of this legislation is promote the conservation
of migratory birds and their habitat. Title I of the bill seeks
to conserve the Arctic tundra by reinstating two regulations
published last year by the Secretary of the Interior to reduce
the population of mid-continent light geese, and by directing
the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a comprehensive
management plan to address the population of the mid-continent
light geese and their habitat. Title II of the bill seeks to
conserve neotropical migratory birds and their habitat by
requiring the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program
to provide financial assistance for voluntary partnerships in
the conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
Section-by-Section Analysis
title i
Section 101. Short Title
This section provides that Title I may be cited as the
``Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act.''
Section 102. Findings and Purposes
Subsection (a) of this section contains the findings. The
population of mid-continent light geese has grown from 800,000
birds in 1969 to more than 5.2 million birds today, and is
growing by more than 5 percent each year. The primary reasons
for this growth are: (1) the expansion of agricultural areas
and the resulting abundance of cereal grain crops in the United
States; (2) the establishment of sanctuaries along the flyways
of the birds; (3) a decline in light goose harvest rates. As a
result of this growth, the Hudson Bay lowlands salt marsh
ecosystem in Canada is being destroyed, which is having a
severe negative impact on other species that breed or migrate
through this area. It is essential that the current population
of mid-continent light geese be reduced by 50 percent by the
year 2005.
Subsection (b) states that the purposes of this title are
to: (1) reduce the population of mid-continent light geese; and
(2) to assure the long-term conservation of mid-continent light
geese and the biological diversity of the ecosystem upon which
many other birds depend.
Section 103. Force and effect of rules to control overabundant mid-
continent light geese populations
Subsection (a) provides that the rules published by the
Service on February 16, 1999, relating to use of additional
hunting methods to increase the harvest of mid-continent light
geese and the establishment of the conservation order for the
reduction of mid-continent light geese, shall have the force
and effect of law. The Secretary shall take such action as is
necessary to appropriately notify the public of the force and
effect of these rules.
Subsection (b) provides that subsection (a) applies only
during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act, and ending on the latest of either: (1) the effective
date of the rules issued by the Service; (2) the date of
publication of the final environmental impact statement for
such rules; or (3) May 15, 2001.
Subsection (c) provides that this section shall not be
construed to limit the authority of the Secretary to issue
rules regulating the taking of mid-continent light geese.
Section 104. Comprehensive Management Plan
Subsection (a) provides that not later than the end of the
period described in section 103(b), the Secretary shall
prepare, and as appropriate implement, a comprehensive long-
term plan for the management of mid-continent light geese and
the conservation of their habitat.
Subsection (b) states that the plan shall apply principles
of adaptive resource management and shall include the
following: (1) the description of methods for monitoring levels
of populations and levels of harvest of mid-continent light
geese, and recommendations concerning long-term harvest levels;
(2) recommendations concerning other means for the management
of the geese; (3) an assessment of, and recommendations
relating to, conservation of the breeding habitat of the geese;
(4) an assessment of, and recommendations relating to,
conservation of native species of wildlife adversely affected
by the overabundance of mid-continent light geese; and (5) an
identification of methods for promoting collaboration with the
government of Canada, States, and other interested persons.
Subsection (c) authorizes $1 million to be appropriated for
each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002.
Section 105. Definitions
This section includes definitions of ``mid-continent light
geese,'' ``Secretary,'' and ``Service.''
title ii
Section 201. Short Title
This section provides that Title II of the bill may be
cited as the ``Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.''
Section 202. Findings
This section contains the findings of Congress. Of the
nearly 800 bird species known to occur in the United States,
approximately 500 migrate among nations, and the large majority
of those species, the neotropical migrants, winter in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Neotropical birds provide invaluable
environmental, economic, recreational, and aesthetic benefits
to the United States, as well as to the Western Hemisphere.
Many neotropcial birds are in decline, some to the point that
their long-term survival is in jeopardy. The primary reason for
the declines is habitat loss and degradation across the
species' range. Because their range extends across numerous
international borders, their conservation requires the
commitment and effort of all countries along their migration
routes. While numerous initiatives exist to conserve migratory
birds and their habitat, those initiatives can be significantly
strengthened and enhanced by increased coordination.
Section 203. Purposes
This section identifies the three following purposes of the
bill: (1) to perpetuate healthy populations of neotropical
migratory birds; (2) to assist in the conservation of
neotropical migratory birds by supporting conservation
initiatives in the United States, Latin America, and the
Caribbean; and (3) to provide financial resources and to foster
international cooperation for those initiatives.
Section 204. Definitions
This section contains definitions of terms used in the
bill. ``Account'' is defined as the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Account. ``Conservation'' is defined as the use of
methods and procedures necessary to bring a species of
neotropical migratory bird to the point at which there are
sufficient populations in the wild to ensure the long-term
viability of the species. In order to perpetuate healthy
populations of birds, it is expected that upon bringing a
species to the point at which there are sufficient populations
in the wild to ensure the long-term viability of the species,
conservation could include the use of methods and procedures
necessary to maintain a species at that point. ``Secretary'' is
defined as the Secretary of the Interior.
Section 205. Financial Assistance
This section requires the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a program to provide financial assistance for
projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory
birds. Project proposals may be submitted by: an individual,
corporation, partnership, trust, association or other private
entity; an officer, employee, agent, department, or
instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State,
municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or any
foreign government; a State, municipality, or political
subdivision of a State; any other entity subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States or of any foreign country;
and an international organization.
A project proposal must meet seven requirements to be
considered for financial assistance. First, the proposal must
include the name of the individual responsible for the project,
a succinct statement of purposes, a description of the
qualifications of the individuals conducting the project, and
an estimate of the funds and time necessary to complete the
project. Second, the proposal must demonstrate that the project
will enhance the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in
the United States, Latin America or the Caribbean. Third, a
proposal must include mechanisms to ensure adequate local
public participation in project development and implementation.
Fourth, it must contain assurances that the project will be
implemented in consultation with relevant wildlife management
authorities and other appropriate government officials with
jurisdiction over the resources addressed by the project.
Fifth, a proposal must demonstrate sensitivity to local
historic and cultural resources and comply with applicable
laws. Sixth, it must describe how the project will promote
sustainable, effective, long-term programs to conserve
neotropical migratory birds. Finally, it must provide any other
information that the Secretary considers to be necessary for
evaluating the proposal. In addition, the recipient of
assistance for a project may be required to submit periodic
reports to the Secretary for evaluating the progress and
outcome of the project.
The Federal share of the cost of each project shall be not
greater than 33 percent. The non-Federal share cannot be
derived from any other Federal grant program. For projects in
the United States, the non-Federal share must be paid in cash.
For projects outside the United States, the non-Federal share
may be paid in cash or in kind. Countries in the Caribbean and
Latin America may not have sufficient cash on hand for
conservation projects. Allowing projects in those countries to
use in-kind services for their non-Federal share will provide
more opportunity, greater incentive, and more flexibility for
participation in those countries.
Section 206. Duties of Secretary
This section provides that the Secretary shall: develop
guidelines for the solicitation of proposals for projects
eligible for financial assistance under section 5; encourage
submission of proposals for projects eligible for financial
assistance under section 5, particularly proposals from
relevant wildlife management authorities; select proposals for
financial assistance that satisfy the requirements of section
5, giving preference to proposals that address conservation
needs not adequately addressed by existing efforts and that are
supported by relevant wildlife management authorities; and
generally implement the Act in accordance with its purposes.
Section 207. Cooperation
This section states that, in carrying out this Act, the
Secretary shall support and coordinate existing efforts to
conserve neotropical migratory bird species and shall
coordinate activities and projects under this Act with those
existing efforts in order to enhance neotropical migratory bird
conservation. The Secretary may convene an advisory group
consisting of individuals representing public and private
organizations actively involved in the conservation of
neotropical migratory birds. The advisory group shall not be
subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, although must
ensure that each meeting is open to the public, with an
opportunity for public statements. The Secretary must provide
timely notice of each meeting to the public, and keep minutes
of each meeting. Use of an advisory group is encouraged, as it
could play an integral role in ensuring that existing migratory
bird conservation programs are well coordinated, thereby
helping to maximize the effectiveness of this Act and other
programs.
Section 208. Report to Congress
This section requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a
report, not later than October 1, 2002, on the results and
effectiveness of the program, including recommendations
concerning how the Act may be improved and whether the program
should be continued.
Section 209. Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account
This section establishes in the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund of the Treasury a separate account called the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account. The Secretary
of the Treasury shall deposit into the Account appropriated
amounts and donations. Donations may be given to the Secretary
of the Interior, who will then transfer them to the Secretary
of the Treasury for deposit into the account. The Secretary may
use amounts in the Account to carry out the Act. Of the amounts
in the Account available to carry out this legislation each
fiscal year, the Secretary may use not more than 6 percent to
pay administrative expenses.
Section 210. Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes $8 million to be appropriated for
each of the fiscal years from 2000 through 2003, to remain
available until expended, of which not less than 50 percent of
the amounts made available for each fiscal year shall be
expended for projects carried out outside the United States.
Legislative History
H.R. 2454 was introduced by Representative Saxton on July
1, 1999. On August 2, 1999, H.R. 2454 was approved, under
suspension of the rules, by the House of Representatives and on
August 3, referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works. On September 29, 1999, the committee held a
business meeting to consider this bill. Senator Chafee offered
an amendment that was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as
amended, was favorably reported by voice vote. Title II of the
bill, as amended, is identical to S. 148, which was introduced
by Senator Abraham on January 19, 1999, approved, by voice
vote, by this committee on March 17, 1999, placed on the Senate
Calendar on March 26, 1999, and approved by the Senate on April
13, 1999.
Regulatory Impact
In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee makes this
evaluation of the regulatory impact of the reported bill. The
reported bill will result in a relaxation of current
regulations relating to hunting of mid-continent light geese,
and will allow additional harvest of the species beyond current
regulations. This bill will not have any adverse impact on the
personal privacy of individuals.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that this bill would
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State,
local, or tribal governments. The bill does not directly impose
any private sector mandates.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of the
reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be
included in the report. That statement follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 12, 1999.
Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed
cost estimate for H.R. 2454, an act to assure the long-term
conservation of mid-continent light geese and the biological
diversity of the ecosystem upon which many North American
migratory birds depend, by directing the Secretary of the
Interior to implement rules to reduce the overabundant
population of mid-continent light geese, and to require the
Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide
assistance in the conservation of nontropical migratory birds.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah
Reis (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and
Marjorie Miller (for the State and local impact), who can be
reached at 225-3220.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
----------
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
H.R. 2454, An act to assure the long-term conservation of mid-continent
light geese and the biological diversity of the ecosystem upon
which many North American migratory birds depend, by directing
the Secretary of the Interior to implement rules to reduce the
overabundant population of mid-continent light geese, and to
require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to
provide assistance in the conservation of neotropical migratory
birds, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works on September 29, 1999
Summary
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 2454 would cost the Federal
Government $4 million in fiscal year 2000 and a total of $33
million through 2004. Because the legislation would authorize
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to accept and spend
donations without further appropriation, pay as-you-go
procedures would apply. CBO estimates, however, that any new
revenues and resulting direct spending would be insignificant.
The act contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
governments.
Title I of H.R. 2454 would codify two regulations that were
promulgated by the Service related to reducing the population
of mid-continent light geese by hunting. Those regulations were
withdrawn pending completion of an environmental impact
statement. The provisions of title I would be effective until
May 15,2001, or until the agency issues new regulations. This
title also would direct the Service to prepare a comprehensive
plan for managing mid- continent light geese and their habitat.
For this purpose, the legislation would authorize the
appropriation of $1 million for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2002.
Title II would direct the Service to create a new grant
program for projects to conserve migratory birds in the United
States, Caribbean, and Latin American countries. The program
would provide financial assistance to eligible government
agencies, international or foreign organizations, and private
entities. To provide financing for the new program, the
legislation would establish a neotropical migratory bird
conservation account in the U.S. Treasury for the deposit of
amounts donated to the government for this program, as well as
any amounts appropriated by the Congress. To develop and
administer this program and make grants, title II would
authorize the appropriation of $8 million annually for fiscal
years 2000 through 2003.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government
For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts
authorized will be appropriated for each year. Outlay estimates
are based on spending patterns for similar programs. The costs
of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural
resources and environment). The estimated budgetary impact of
H.R. 2454 is shown in the following table.
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level............. 9 9 9 8 0
Estimated Outlays............... 4 7 9 8 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay-As-You-Go Considerations
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts. H.R. 2454 would affect both governmental
receipts and direct spending. CBO estimates, however, that any
such effects would be insignificant and offsetting over the
next 5 years.
Estimated Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments
H.R. 2454 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
governments. State and local governments would be among the
entities eligible to receive the financial assistance
authorized by title II of this act. To receive assistance for a
project, these governments would be required to submit a
proposal meeting certain criteria and to pay at least 67
percent of the project costs. Any such costs incurred by State
or local governments would be voluntary.
Estimated Impact on the Private Sector
This bill would impose no new private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
Previous CBO Cost Estimates
On July 28,1999, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R.
2454, the Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act, as
ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on July
21,1999. On March 19,1999, we transmitted an estimate for S.
148, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works on March 17, 1999. The CBO estimate for S. 148 end
title II of the Senate version of H.R. 2454 are identical. Our
estimate of the cost of title I of the legislation is $1
million higher per year through 2002 than that for the House
version of H.R. 2454, reflecting a new provision authorizing
the appropriation of that amount for each of the years 2000
through 2002.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis (226-2860)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller
(225-3220).
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Changes in Existing Law
Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
requires publication of any changes in existing law made by the
reported bill. This bill does not change existing law.