What This Bill Does
This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to create a new voluntary Urban Bird Treaty Program. The program would support cities, tribes, states, nonprofits, community groups, and academic institutions in protecting and restoring bird habitat in urban areas, reducing hazards to birds, and engaging the public in bird monitoring and education. It also creates a competitive grant program administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, with $1 million authorized each year from fiscal years 2026 through 2032.
- Creates a voluntary Urban Bird Treaty Program in the Department of the Interior.
- Authorizes competitive grants for research, planning, monitoring, workforce training, and related urban bird habitat work.
- Sets annual authorized funding at $1,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2032.
- Directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work with cities, tribes, nonprofits, community groups, and academic institutions.
- Says the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will administer the grant program under a special agreement.
Who This Bill Affects
For a typical member of the public, the bill would mainly matter if you live in or work with a city, neighborhood group, school, or local conservation organization that could apply for support under the Urban Bird Treaty Program. It could bring technical assistance and competitive grants for habitat restoration, invasive species control, bird monitoring, and community education, with $1 million authorized each year from fiscal years 2026 through 2032. If you are not involved in those activities, the direct effect is likely limited, though you could still see indirect benefits from improved urban green space and bird habitat.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Urban residents and local community groups Supporters can argue the bill brings federal help to neighborhood-led habitat projects that improve green space, reduce bird hazards, and connect people to nature. Because the program is voluntary and includes community education and scientific monitoring, it gives local groups tools to act without imposing mandates.
- Conservation organizations and birdwatchers They are likely to favor the bill because it directly targets declining bird populations and funds habitat restoration, invasive species control, and native plant recovery. The findings also point to the economic value of birdwatching, which supporters can use to argue that bird conservation has both ecological and local economic benefits.
- Public health and poultry stakeholders Supporters may see value in the bill’s emphasis on reducing overlap between wild birds and domestic poultry and improving early disease detection. That could be framed as a practical way to strengthen monitoring for avian diseases such as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza.
- Fiscal conservatives They may object that the bill creates a new federal program and authorizes $1 million per year through 2032, even if the amount is relatively modest. Their concern would be that the federal government should not expand grant programs for activities that local governments or nonprofits might fund themselves.
- Stakeholders wary of federal involvement in local land management Some local officials or property interests could worry that a federal urban bird program may add administrative complexity or steer local habitat decisions toward federal priorities. Even though the program is voluntary, the grant structure and federal coordination could still be seen as an added layer of oversight.
- Groups focused on other wildlife or infrastructure priorities They may argue that limited conservation dollars should go to broader habitat, wildfire, flood, or infrastructure needs rather than a species-specific urban program. The bill’s benefits are real, but they are concentrated in bird habitat and related community projects rather than a wider set of environmental problems.
Key Implications
-
““establish a program for the voluntary conservation of birds and the habitats of such birds in urban areas””
This means the federal government would create a new, optional program rather than a mandate. Cities and local groups could choose to participate if they want support for bird habitat work.
-
““protect, restore, or enhance urban habitats for birds””
This gives the program a broad habitat-restoration mission, including native plant restoration and invasive species control. In practice, that could fund projects like planting native vegetation, improving parks, or redesigning spaces that are hazardous to birds.
-
““reduce urban hazards to birds””
This points to practical mitigation work in cities, such as reducing collision risks or other dangers in built environments. The bill does not list every hazard, so implementation would depend on the projects chosen under the program.
-
““competitive grant program… for… workforce training””
The grant program is not just for research or planning; it also explicitly includes workforce training. That could help build local capacity for habitat management and monitoring jobs tied to the program.
-
““$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2032””
The funding authorization is relatively small and time-limited. It suggests a targeted federal initiative rather than a large-scale national spending program.
Latest Status
June 10, 2026
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.