Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

Congressional research reportJul 12, 2012

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Fish and Wildlife Service:

FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

-name redactedSpecialist in Natural Resources Policy

July 12, 2012

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R42466

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

Summary

The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation funds agencies and

programs in three federal departments, as well as numerous related agencies and bureaus. Among

the agencies represented is the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in the Department of the

Interior. Many of its programs are among the more controversial of those funded in the bill. For

FY2013, the House Committee on Appropriations approved H.R. 6091, a bill containing $1.16

billion for FWS, down 21.5% from the FY2012 level of $1.48 billion contained the Consolidated

Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-74, Division E, H.Rept. 112-331). The President requested $1.55

billion, an increase of 4.9% over the FY2012 level. Relative to the FY2012 level, reductions in

the various accounts and most subaccounts ranged from 6.0% down to elimination, although four

subaccounts were held at the FY2012 levels. No increases were approved. Other highlights of the

bill include the following:

•

$1.04 billion for Resource Management, by far the largest account in the FWS

budget, and a reduction of 15.1% from the FY2012 level.

•

Rejection of an Administration proposal to reduce funding for national fish

hatcheries from $46.1 million to $43.2 million, despite a controversy over

appropriate funding for hatcheries intended to mitigate other agencies’ water

projects.

•

$3.0 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science, a

reduction of 90.7% from the FY2012 level of $32.2 million.

•

Elimination of funding for general land acquisition for national wildlife refuges.

•

A focus on reductions in programs whose authorizations have expired or are

expiring in FY2012.

•

Funding restrictions or directives regarding wolves in Wyoming; hunting, fishing,

and recreational shooting on federal lands; and management of certain captivebred endangered game species.

This report analyzes the FWS funding levels for the FY2013 appropriations bill. Emphasis is on

FWS funding for programs that have generated congressional debate or particular constituent

interest, now or in recent years. General efforts to reduce federal spending will encourage

scrutiny of all spending, in FWS as in other agencies.

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Endangered Species Funding........................................................................................................... 3

Authorization, Appropriation, and Authority: Key Differences ................................................ 5

National Wildlife Refuge System and Law Enforcement................................................................ 5

Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation................................................................................. 6

Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science.......................................................... 6

Land Acquisition.............................................................................................................................. 7

National Wildlife Refuge Fund........................................................................................................ 7

Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants ............................................................................ 8

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants ...................................................................................................... 9

Coastal Impact Assistance Program................................................................................................. 9

Administrative Provisions.............................................................................................................. 10

Gray Wolves in Wyoming........................................................................................................ 10

Protection of Three Captive-Bred Exotic Species ................................................................... 11

Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting.......................................................................... 12

For More Information .................................................................................................................... 12

Tables

Table 1. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2011-FY2013 ..................... 1

Table 2. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs, FY2011-FY2013 ........... 3

Table 3. Multinational Species Conservation and Neotropical Migratory Bird

Conservation Funds, FY2011-FY2013......................................................................................... 8

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 12

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

Introduction

The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill contains

appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI).

For FY2013, on July 10, 2012, the House Committee reported H.R. 6091 (H.Rept. 112-589),

approving $1.16 billion, down 21.5% from the FY2012 level of $1.48 billion contained in P.L.

112-74.1 The reductions continue a trend from the FY2012 appropriations cycle, when the House

committee approved a 20.6% reduction in the FWS budget relative to FY2011.2 The President

had requested $1.55 billion in annual appropriations, an increase of 4.9% over FY2012.3 The

committee’s proposed changes in accounts and subaccounts range from elimination (-100%) to a

decrease of 6%.4 (See Table 1.) This report analyzes FY2013 appropriations in a policy context,

with reference to past appropriations.

Among other things, the House committee report emphasized that at least 51 agencies or

programs in the bill were operating with expired authorizations, and a few have no authorizing

statute. The committee “reserves the option to limit future funding for unauthorized programs or

discontinue funding altogether.... [T]he Committee has exercised that option by decreasing or

terminating funding for fish and wildlife conservation.”5 Consequently, a number of FWS

accounts were reduced by 50% or more.

Table 1. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2011-FY2013

($ in thousands)

FY2011

Enacteda

FY2012

Enactedb

FY2013

Request

House

Comm.

1,244,861

1,226,177

1,247,044

1,040,488

—Ecological Services: Endangered

Species

175,446

175,955

179,698

134,017

—Ecological Services: Habitat

Conservation

112,524

110,637

112,442

89,579

—Ecological Services: Environmental

Contaminants

13,316

13,128

14,393

11,189

—National Wildlife Refuge System

492,059

485,691

494,830

437,442

—Migratory Birds, Law Enforcement &

International Conservation

128,224

126,566

128,018

107,016

Resource Management

FWS appropriations for FY2012 are found in Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 112-74;

H.Rept. 112-331. Title IV of Division E contained an across-the-board reduction of 0.16% for all appropriations in

Division E. The figures for FY2012 cited in this report reflect that reduction.

For more on FY2012 appropriations actions, see CRS Report R41928, Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012

Appropriations and Policy, by (name redacted).

For the FY2012 budget cycle, the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) was transferred from the Bureau of

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (also in DOI) to FWS. Unobligated balances in CIAP of

$200 million were proposed for cancellation. (See “Coastal Impact Assistance Program” below.) If the cancellation

were accepted by Congress, there would be a one-time reduction of the FWS appropriation, bringing the total

appropriation for FY2013 down 8.7%, to $1.35 billion. The House Committee rejected the cancellation.

A few small accounts (below the level of detail shown here) were proposed for level funding.

H.Rept. 112-589, p. 8. The report has a table (pp. 136-137) showing the 51 expired or expiring authorizations. Of the

51 entries, 15 are under the jurisdiction of FWS.

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

FY2011

Enacteda

FY2012

Enactedb

FY2013

Request

House

Comm.

—Fisheries and Aquatic Resource

Conservation

138,939

135,317

131,607

127,170

—Cooperative Landscape Conservation

and Adaptive Science

30,970

32,198

33,054

2,989

—General Operations

153,383

146,685

153,002

131,086

Construction

20,804

23,051

19,136

17,755

Land Acquisition

54,890

54,632

106,892

15,047

35,374

30,117

83,741

—Highlands Conservation Act

4,992

4,000

—Inholdings, Emergencies, &

Hardships

4,990

4,493

4,990

3,000

—Exchanges

1,996

2,496

1,995

—Acquisition Management

10,534

10,538

10,739

6,570

—User Pay Cost Share

1,996

1,997

2,003

1,477

3,434

Landowner Incentive Program

(cancellation of prior year funds)

-4,941

Cooperative Endangered Species

Conservation Fund

59,880

47,681

60,000

14,129

National Wildlife Refuge Fund

14,471

13,958

11,958

North American Wetlands

Conservation Fund

37,425

35,497

39,425

22,333

Neotropical Migratory Bird

Conservation Fund

3,992

3,786

1,893

Multinational Species Conservation

Fund

9,980

9,466

9,980

4,735

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants

61,876

61,323

30,662

—State Grants (Formula-based)

49,900

51,323

44,055

25,662

—Competitive Grants for States,

Territories, & Other Jurisdictions

4,990

5,732

13,000

2,866

—Tribal Grants

6,986

4,268

2,134

1,503,238

1,475,570

1,547,586

1,159,000

-200,000

1,503,238

1,475,570

1,347,586

1,159,000

—Acquisitions: Federal Refuge Lands

—Refuge Land Protection Planning

Total Appropriations

Coastal Impact Assistance Fundc

Total

Includes effects of a 0.2% rescission of funds contained in §1119 of Title I, Division B, of P.L. 112-10.

Figures reflect across-the-board reduction of 0.16% in Title IV of Division E of P.L. 112-74.

This fund was transferred from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement to

FWS in the FY2012 budget cycle. The President proposed cancellation of unobligated balances, but the

House Committee rejected the proposal. See “Coastal Impact Assistance Program,” below.

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is the Resource Management account,

for which the House Committee approved $1.04 billion, down 15.1% from FY2012. The

Administration requested $1.25 billion, up 1.7% from the $1.23 billion for FY2012. Among the

programs included in Resource Management are Endangered Species, the Refuge System, Law

Enforcement, Fisheries, and Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science.

Endangered Species Funding

Funding for the endangered species program is part of the Resource Management account, and is

a perennially controversial portion of the FWS budget. The House committee approved $134.0

million, down 23.8% from the FY2012 level of $176.0 million. The Administration had requested

$179.7 million, up 2.1%. (See Table 2.) The committee reduced most subaccounts significantly,

with Critical Habitat Designation being most affected (down 39.7%). While the Administration

proposed a modest increase in the listing program as a whole, it proposed no increase in funding

to respond listing petitions. FWS has long argued that responding to listing petitions uses agency

resources that would be better spent on listing species that the agency itself judges to be more in

need of protection. In contrast, critics argue that FWS has proposed and listed very few domestic

species on its own initiative and that without petitions many listings would not occur.

Table 2. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,

FY2011-FY2013

($ in thousands)

FY2011

Enacted

FY2012

Enacteda

FY2013

Request

House

Comm.

Endangered Species Program

—Candidate Conservation

11,448

11,337

11,463

10,554

—Listing and Critical Habitatb

20,902

20,869

22,431

14,564

——Critical Habitat Designation

9,472

7,460

4,548

4,500

——Listing

11,430

10,413

14,887

7,818

——Foreign Listing

1,498

1,123

——Petitions to List

1,498

1,123

—Consultation

61,877

60,943

64,095

45,865

—Recovery

81,219

82,806

81,709

63,034

175,446

175,955

179,698

134,017

59,880

47,681

60,000

14,129

235,326

223,636

239,698

148,146

Subtotal, Endangered Species Program

Related Program: Cooperative Endangered Species

Conservation Fund

Total Appropriations

Figures reflect across-the-board reduction of 0.16%, Title IV of Division E of P.L. 112-74.

The subprogram figures given for listing and critical habitat designation reflect restrictions in the

appropriations law on how much of the appropriation may be spent in each of those subprograms.

There was no specific allocation for international listings in FY2011. All listing activities were supported by

the single listing subprogram, funded at $11.43 million.

There was no specific allocation for listings that responded to petitions in FY2011. All listing activities were

supported by the single listing subprogram, funded at $11.43 million.

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

The committee bill for FY2013 continued specific ceilings on the maximum spending for listing

species in response to petitions, for listing foreign species, and for designation of critical habitat;

identical limits were contained in FY2012 appropriations. The limitations on listing foreign

species or responding to petitions were not found in the FY2011 appropriations bill; limitations

on critical habitat designation have been a feature of appropriations bills for over 15 years. The

President’s proposal for FY2013 would also have continued the limits.

The House committee approved $45.9 million (-23.5%) for consultation. The Administration

request would increase funding for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) by 4.9% over FY2012. Under Section 7, federal agencies are obliged to consult with FWS

on their actions which may affect listed species, and to obtain a biological opinion (BiOp) from

FWS on whether the action might jeopardize the species. If jeopardy is found, the BiOp may

include reasonable and prudent alternatives for the agency action that would avoid jeopardy. FWS

consultation may be critical to timely actions by federal agencies, which might otherwise hesitate

to act in the face of potential citizen suits under the ESA.6 The committee also sought to insulate

consultations regarding northern spotted owls (a species found primarily in old growth forests of

the Pacific Northwest) from the effects of the reductions by directing FWS to “devote sufficient

funds from within Consultation to assure timely Biological Opinions on the northern spotted owl

to other Federal land management agencies in addition to technical assistance review and ‘no take

letters’ to small landowners seeking approval to implement harvest plans.”7 A substantial

reduction in consultation funding, plus directives to maintain funding for spotted owl

consultation, would combine to decrease resources for consultation with other agencies for other

species.

Within the amounts for recovery, the committee directed that $1 million be used to restore a

program to compensate ranchers for livestock losses due to wolf depredation; the committee also

urged the Administration “to fund this program through the Department of Agriculture in future

years.”8

The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) also benefits species that are

listed or proposed for listing under ESA, through grants to states and territories. The House

committee approved $14.1 million for the CESCF, down 55.9% from the FY2012 level of $47.7

million. The Administration requested $60.0 million, up 25.8%. The program assists states with,

among other things, the preparation of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). HCPs are developed

for non-federal actions by state, local, business, or private entities as a requirement for obtaining

an Incidental Take Permit for actions that may affect listed species.9 For HCPs involving many

actors, states may use their funds from this program to coordinate the HCPs, to develop a single

umbrella plan on behalf of a region, or to acquire land to mitigate effects of a project.

Citizen suit provisions are contained in 16 U.S.C. §1540(g); they have been a major factor in enforcement of ESA.

This description of §7 consultation is highly simplified. For a fuller explanation see CRS Report RL31654, The

Endangered Species Act: A Primer, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

H.Rept. 112-589, p. 19.

H.Rept. 112-589, p. 19. Another provision, regarding delisting of wolves, is covered below under “Administrative

Provisions.”

Incidental Take Permits allow a non-federal entity to undertake an action that is otherwise legal, but may have the

incidental effect of taking a listed species. For more information, see CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species

Act: A Primer, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

Taking the two programs together, the House committee would decrease endangered species

funding by 31.5% compared to FY2012 levels.

Authorization, Appropriation, and Authority: Key Differences

Because Section 15 of ESA (16 U.S.C. §1542), authorizing appropriations, expired in FY1992, it

is sometimes said that the ESA is not authorized. However, that does not mean that the agencies

lack authority to conduct actions (§§4, 6-8, 10, and 11; 16 U.S.C. §§1533, 1535-1537, 1539, and

1540), or that prohibitions within the act are no longer enforceable (§9; 16 U.S.C. §1538). Those

statutory provisions continue to be law, even when money has not been appropriated.10

(Moreover, Congress may choose to continue to appropriate funds for programs whose

authorization has expired.) The expiration of a provision authorizing appropriations does not end

the statutory obligations created by that law. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that “the

mere failure of Congress to appropriate funds, without further words modifying or repealing,

expressly or by clear implication, the substantive law, does not in and of itself defeat a

Government obligation created by statute.”11 Moreover, Section 11(g) (16 U.S.C. §1540(g))

“allows any citizen to commence a civil suit on his own behalf” on various broad, specified

provisions of the act. This option would still be available, and because of this Supreme Court

decision, an agency (here FWS, defended by the Department of Justice working with DOI) would

have to respond, regardless of agency funding.12

National Wildlife Refuge System and Law

Enforcement

The House committee approved $437.4 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System, down

9.9% from FY2012. The President requested $494.8 million, up 1.9%. Costs of operations have

increased on many refuges, partly due to special problems such as hurricane damage and more

aggressive border enforcement, but also due to increased use, invasive species control,

maintenance backlog, and other demands. According to FWS, refuge funding has not been

keeping pace with these demands. Combined with the rising costs of rent, salaries, fuel, and

utilities, the agency says these demands have led to cuts in funding for programs on refuge lands

to aid endangered species, reduce infestation by invasive species, protect water supplies, address

habitat restoration, and ensure staffing at the less popular refuges. While some increases were

provided to address these problems in recent years, the FY2009 economic stimulus law (P.L. 1115, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) provided additional funding to address these

concerns. One response to reduced funding has been the consolidation of refuges (called

“complexing” by FWS) under a single refuge manager and staff, as a means of sharing staff and

equipment. This program has met resistance from refuge supporters who argue that refuge units

See Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 1999) (duty to designate critical habitat for silvery

minnow existed despite inadequate funding); Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 304 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (D. Ariz.

2003) (inadequate financial resources did not excuse FWS from its obligation to follow a court order to redesignate

critical habitat); Conservation Council for Hawai’i v. Babbitt, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D. Hawaii 1998) (holding that

insufficient resources were an inadequate reason for failing to designate critical habitat of 245 listed plants).

United States v. Vulte, 233 U.S. 509 (1914).

Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

will lose resources and adequate supervision. Balanced against these concerns is congressional

interest in general deficit reduction.

Law Enforcement is part of the Subaccount for Migratory Birds, Law Enforcement, and

International Affairs. Nationwide law enforcement covers wildlife inspections at international

borders, investigations of violations of endangered species or waterfowl hunting laws, and other

activities. The House committee approved $54.7 million, down 15.2% from the FY2012 level of

$62.1 million. The Administration requested $63.9 million, up 2.8%.

Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation13

The House committee provided $127.2 million, down 6.0% from FY2012. The Administration’s

FY2013 request for this activity was $131.6 million, down 2.7%. Within this account, the

committee held funding for National Fish Hatchery Operations at $46.1 million, identical to the

FY2012 level, and took a larger share out of aquatic habitat and species conservation.14 In

contrast, most of the Administration’s reduction ($2.9 million) was proposed to come from

National Fish Hatchery Operations. FWS manages a number of hatcheries under the National

Fish Hatchery System. In some cases the mandated role of a hatchery, in whole or in part, is to

provide mitigation for activities by other agencies. However, the report states, “The Committee

will continue to reject proposals to reduce funding in the Service’s budget for mitigation fish

hatcheries until the Administration has secured offsetting reimbursable funds from the responsible

Federal agencies.”15

Cooperative Landscape Conservation and

Adaptive Science

Part of this program supports work with partners at federal, state, tribal, and local levels to

develop strategies to address climate impacts on wildlife at local and regional scales. The

remainder is used to support cooperative scientific research on climate change as it relates to

wildlife impacts and habitat. Both portions support and work through a network of Landscape

Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) to ameliorate the effects of climate change. The LCCs are an

amalgam of research institutions, federal resource managers and scientists, and lands managed by

agencies at various levels of government. The House committee provided $3.0 million for this

account, down 90.7% from the FY2012 level of $32.2 million; the accompanying report made no

specific comments on the program, although the introduction to the accompanying report

contained a discussion of the Administration’s climate change programs generally, and criticized

This section was provided by (name redacted), Specialist in Natural Resources, Resources, Science, and Industry

Division, CRS (7-....; [redacted]@crs.loc.gov).

In this respect, the text of H.Rept. 112-589 (p. 20) differs from the figures in the tables accompanying the report and

cited above: “Within National Fish Hatchery System operations, the bill includes an increase of $3,394,000.” Yet an

examination of the tables given on p. 126 of the report shows that the bill’s figures for hatchery operations are levelfunded, relative to FY2012 enacted, and up $2.9 million relative to the President’s request. The table’s numbers are

presented here, because any other assumption would be inconsistent with various totals provided in the table.

H.Rept. 112-589, p. 20.

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

them for duplication and lack of coordination.16 The Administration request was $33.1 million, up

2.7% from the previous year.

Land Acquisition

The House committee provided $15.0 million for land acquisition, to be derived from the Land

and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF); this figure is down 72.5% from FY2012. The

Administration requested $106.9 million for land acquisition, an increase of 95.7% over the

FY2012 level of $54.6 million. (See Table 1.) These recommendations are consistent with the

committee’s overview of LWCF spending for all federal land-managing agencies.17 Within this

program, the committee proposed that there be no new funding for general land acquisition, and

that new acquisitions be directed only to inholdings, acquisition management, and overhead, as

well as $4.0 million for the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA). According to the FY2012 Fish

and Wildlife Service budget justification (p. LA-1), the HCA (16 U.S.C. §3901) authorizes “the

Secretary of the Interior to work in partnership with the Secretary of Agriculture to provide

financial assistance to the Highlands States [CT, NJ, NY, and PA] to preserve and protect high

priority conservation land in the Highlands region.”18

The Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA) is a source of mandatory spending for FWS

land acquisition (in contrast to the other three federal lands agencies, which rely entirely on

annual appropriations). The MBCA does not receive funding in annual Interior appropriations

bills. Rather, funds are derived from the sale of duck stamps to hunters and recreationists, and

from import duties on certain arms and ammunition. For FY2013, available funds are estimated at

$61.0 million.19 This estimate is $14.0 million above the previous year, and is based on the

assumption that Congress would approve a proposed increase in the price of duck stamps from

$15 to $25. No such increase has been introduced. Assuming that duck stamp prices will be

unchanged, a more reliable estimate might be that $47.0 million would be available for FWS land

acquisition from the account.20

National Wildlife Refuge Fund

The National Wildlife Refuge Fund (NWRF, also called the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund)

compensates counties for the presence of the non-taxable federal lands under the primary

jurisdiction of FWS.21 A portion of the fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of

receipts from various activities carried out on the National Wildlife Refuge System. However,

these receipts are sufficient for funding only a small fraction of the authorized formula, and

H.Rept. 112-589, p. 9.

H.Rept. 112-589, pp. 8-9.

The program is not described in the FY2013 FWS budget justification. Because a description of the program and its

activities is absent in the current budget justification, it is unclear what activities have occurred or will occur under it.

FWS budget justification, p. MBC-2.

S. 2156 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Migratory Bird Conservation

Commission, to revise the price of duck stamps at five-year intervals, under specified conditions. However, no specific

figure is proposed for the new price of a stamp.

For more information on NWRF, see CRS Report R42404, Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation to Local

Governments, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

county governments have long urged additional appropriations to make up the difference. The

committee approved $12.0 million for the fund; if this level is approved, counties would receive

22.8% of the authorized level. The Administration requested no funding for NWRF in FY2013;

based on receipts alone, counties would then receive 6.6% of the authorized level.22 The

Administration argues that the savings are justified based on low costs of refuges to county

infrastructure and economic benefits to local economies from increased tourism.

Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants

FWS has long had a role in conserving species across international boundaries, beginning with

species such as migratory birds, which spend some part of their life cycle within U.S. boundaries,

and more recently including selected species of broader international interest. One of the

programs, the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF), generates considerable

constituent interest despite the small size of the program. It benefits Asian and African elephants,

tigers, rhinoceroses, great apes, and marine turtles.23 The House committee reduced all of the

MSCF programs by 50.0% relative to FY2012, emphasizing that all of the authorizations in this

account have expired, or will expire in FY2012. The Administration requested $10.0 million, up

5.4%. (See Table 3.)

Table 3. Multinational Species Conservation and Neotropical Migratory Bird

Conservation Funds, FY2011-FY2013

($ in thousands)

FY2011

Enacted

FY2012

Enacteda

FY2013

Request

House

Comm.

African Elephant

1,697

1,645

1,697

823

Rhino & Tiger

2,695

2,471

2,695

1,236

Asian Elephant

1,697

1,645

1,697

823

Great Apes

2,194

2,059

2,194

1,030

Marine Turtles

1,697

1,646

1,697

823

MSCF Total

9,980

9,466

9,980

4,735

Neotropical Migratory Birds

3,992

3,786

1,893

Figures reflect across-the-board reduction of 0.16% in Title IV of Division E of P.L. 112-74.

See Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. §715s). The National Wildlife Refuge Fund is distinct from the

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program administered by DOI, and for which many types of federal lands are

eligible. In 2009, Congress made PILT a mandatory spending program for FY2008-FY2012, but did not change the

Refuge Fund, and in 2012, included a provision in P.L. 112-141 extending mandatory spending for one year. As a

result of the PILT formula, which will largely make up for the pro-rated NWRF payment rate but for public domain

lands only, counties with acquired FWS lands will be under-compensated for revenue loss relative to counties with

refuge lands reserved from the public domain. Because eastern refuges are mostly acquired land, and western refuges

are mostly reserved from the public domain, effects of lower funding rates for NWRF will fall primarily on eastern

counties. For further information on the interaction of PILT and NWRF, see CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in

Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by (name redacted).

For more information on these two funds, see CRS Report RS21157, International Species Conservation Funds , by

(name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

Similarly, the committee reduced the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund by 50.0%

relative to the FY2012 level.24 The Administration had requested $3.8 million, unchanged from

FY2012. The program provides grants for the conservation of hundreds of bird species that

migrate among North and South America and the Caribbean. The act requires spending 75% of

the funds on projects outside of the United States.

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants help fund efforts to conserve species (including nongame

species) of concern to states, territories, and tribes. The program was created in the FY2001

Interior appropriations law (P.L. 106-291) and further detailed in subsequent Interior

appropriations laws. (It has no separate authorizing statute.) The largest portion of the program is

for formula grants to states and territories. Funds may be used to develop state conservation plans

as well as to support specific practical conservation projects. A portion of the funding is set aside

for competitive grants to tribal governments or tribal wildlife agencies, and another portion for

competitive grants to states. The two programs for competitive grants have no specific matching

requirements. This grant program has generated considerable support from state and tribal

governments.

As it did for programs with expired or expiring authorizations, the House committee reduced this

program by 50.0%, urging authorizing committees to pass legislation for these grants. (See Table

1.) It further raised the state’s minimum share to 50%; the FY2012 program required a state’s

minimum share of either 25% or 35% (depending on the type of project). The committee also

eliminated language to allow unobligated balances to be re-apportioned. The President requested

$61.3 million for these grants, a total unchanged from the amount approved for FY2012. The

Administration proposed to continue the proviso that states must provide at least 25% matching

funds for planning grants and 35% for implementation grants.

Coastal Impact Assistance Program

The Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) was established in its modern form under the

Energy Policy Act of 2005.25 The focus of CIAP is assistance to states and local governments

from the impacts of offshore development on coastal ecosystems, including wetlands. Under the

current CIAP, eligible states are those with offshore energy production: Alabama, Alaska,

California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The language of the 2005 amendments provided

that, from the revenues derived from federal energy leases on the Outer Continental Shelf for

each year from FY2007 through FY2010, there would be mandatory spending authority of $250

million, to remain available until expended. Of the resulting $1 billion total from those four fiscal

years, approximately $565 million remains in unobligated balances. The Administration proposes

permanent cancellation of $200 million of the unobligated balance, leaving $365 million

available—without further appropriation—for use in the program. However, the House

committee took no action on this proposal.

This program is authorized under the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 6101).

16 U.S.C. §§1451-1465. Substantial amendments were made to CIAP with the 2005 amendments in P.L. 109-58,

§384. The original program was created under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583).

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

At its inception, the program was administered by the Minerals Management Service, then by its

successor agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement

(BOEMRE), and now by FWS.26 With the transfer to FWS in FY2012, the unobligated balance

was transferred as well. Even if the cancellation of $200 million were accepted by Congress, the

program will continue, with expenditures from the remaining unobligated balance of $365

million. According to FWS, remaining funds would be used for oversight, monitoring,

amendments or modifications of ongoing programs, auditing, and other functions. Because the

program has mandatory spending authority for the remaining balance, no language is necessary in

the annual appropriation bill to make the remaining balance available.27

Administrative Provisions

In addition to the regular appropriations provisions, H.R. 6091 contained three administrative

provisions affecting FWS. One provision (Section 117) affects gray wolves; another (Section

423) concerns three captive-bred exotic species; and the last (Section 438) affects hunting,

fishing, and recreational shooting.

Gray Wolves in Wyoming

On October 5, 2011, FWS issued a proposed rule to remove gray wolves (Canis lupus) in

Wyoming from the list of species that are threatened or endangered under ESA. Wolves would

continue to be protected from taking in two national parks and a national wildlife refuge in the

northwestern part of the state.28 The remainder of the state would be divided into zones of

regulated hunting of wolves as a game species and unregulated take. The rule would end the

wolf’s protection as either a Distinct Population Segment or as an Experimental Population under

ESA. The rule is contingent upon the Wyoming legislature’s passing a wolf management plan that

meets certain criteria specified in the proposed rule; the rule would not be finalized until the

legislature’s approval of the plan.29 To date, that approval has not occurred. The rule makes

certain assumptions about the management of wolves on federal lands. The Wyoming

management plan is being reviewed by FWS.

The House committee included Section 117, which provides that “[b]efore the 60-day period

beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall issue a final rule

pertaining to the proposed rule” cited above. The effect of the section, in the absence of an

accepted wolf management plan and the required approval by the Wyoming legislature, could

mean that wolf management in the state stops short of recovery goals.

BOEMRE has since been split into two agencies: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau

of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). See http://www.boemre.gov/.

For more information on the program, see FY2013 FWS Budget Justification, pp. CIAP-1–CIAP-6.

76 Fed. Reg. 61782 (October 5, 2011). The notice uses the words protected areas to refer both to lands such as the

two national parks where wolves may not be hunted, and to areas where wolves may be hunted as trophy animals,

subject to quotas set at levels to avoid the population falling below a certain minimum. For information on gray wolves

under ESA, see CRS Report RL34238, Gray Wolves Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Distinct Population

Segments and Experimental Populations, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

On March 5, 2012, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department issued a wolf management plan. (See

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/NEWS-1000631.aspx.) FWS is reviewing comments on the proposed plan. See

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/ for links to official documents on Wyoming wolves.

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

The Full-Year Appropriations Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-10, §1713) was similar, directing FWS to

delist the gray wolf in Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and north-central

Utah, but leaving the wolves in the remaining lower 48 states federally protected as either

threatened or endangered.30 However, both Montana and Idaho had approved wolf management

plans at the time. Enactment of §1713 was significant because legislation to delist species had

been proposed rarely in the past but never successful.31 An amendment en bloc by Representative

Moran (VA) that included a provision to delete this section was defeated in the committee (yeas

19, nays 28).

Protection of Three Captive-Bred Exotic Species

By voice vote, the House committee approved Section 423 by Representative Carter (TX) to

direct the Secretary of the Interior to “reissue the final rule published on September 2, 2005 (70

Fed. Reg. 52310 et seq.) without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies

to the issuance of such rule. Such reissuance (including this section) shall not be subject to

judicial review.” The referenced final rule affected U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx

dammah), addax (Addax nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle (Gazella dama), all listed as

endangered. These three North African game species are related to antelope, and are rare, or

perhaps extinct, in their native habitat; excessive hunting, military conflict, and loss of habitat are

their chief threats.

When the 2005 rule was issued, all three species were considered threatened, and a substantial

fraction of their populations were found on game farms, many in the United States. Farm

managers had allowed hunting of surplus captive-bred animals, subject to permits from FWS. The

2005 rule would have allowed a variety of activities, including hunting, interstate shipment, and

other specified activities, as long as certain criteria were met.32 When the rule was challenged, the

court held that the rule violated the ESA by granting a broad exception to all game farms raising

these species, rather than issuing permits on a case by case basis.33 In response to the court’s

decision, on January 5, 2012, FWS removed the exclusion and stated that it will require any

person who wishes to hunt or transport one of the three species to qualify for an exception or

obtain a permit. 34 The section approved by the committee would require FWS to reissue the 2005

rule, and would preclude judicial review of the rule.

Appropriations for FY2012 did not deal with this issue, perhaps because of the relatively late passage of a final FWS

appropriations and because the relevant rule-making procedure was at an early phase at that time.

All examples were from the 100th Congress and were proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act

Amendments of 1987. They were not passed. See 133 Cong. Rec. H11248 (proposed amendment to prevent the Concho

water snake from being considered a listed species); 133 Cong. Rec. H11248 (proposed amendment to prevent the gray

wolf from being considered a listed species); and 133 Cong. Rec. H11617 (proposed amendment to prevent the leopard

darter minnow from being considered a listed species). Also, for details of the 48 species that had been delisted before

passage of §1713, see http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/delistingReport.jsp.

A further final rule of Sept. 2, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 52319) also changed the status ofwild individuals of these species

to endangered. This rule is not affected by the committee’s action.

Friends of Animals, et al., v. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, and Rebecca Ann Cary, et al., v. Rowan Gould,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, et al., 626 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2009).

77 Fed. Reg. 431.

Congressional Research Service

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy

Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting

Section 438 of the House committee’s bill directs that no funds under the bill “or any other Act

for any fiscal year may be used to prohibit the use of or access to Federal land (as ... defined in ...

16 U.S.C. 6502) for hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting” if the use or access was not

prohibited on January 1, 2012, and if the use complied with specified resource management plans

for the land in question as of that date.35 The cited provision in the U.S. Code applies to lands

managed by the Forest Service and BLM. “Recreational shooting” is not defined in this section;

this lack of a definition may produce some confusion in Forest Service and BLM lands where

their land management plans do not contemplate that activity.

Section 438(b) would allow the Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture to close federal lands under

their jurisdiction to hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting for periods up to 30 days for a

special event or for public safety. The period may be extended for another 90 days for

“extraordinary weather conditions or for public safety.” If the definition of federal land in Section

438(a) also applies to this subsection, then the lands affected by this closure provision are also the

Forest Service and BLM. However, the question of which lands are covered might need

clarification.

For More Information

CRS Report R41608, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 112th Congress: Conflicting

Values and Difficult Choices, by (name redacted) et al.

CRS Report RS21157, International Species Conservation Funds, by (name redacted) and (na

me redacted).

For general information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at http://www.fws.gov/.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Some of the same issues were addressed in H.R. 4089, recently passed by the House. See CRS Report R42569,

Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting on Federal Lands: H.R. 4089 and Related Legislation, coordinated by

(name redacted). Section 438 appears not to alter existing management plans and therefore may affect less land in

the affected agencies than H.R. 4089.

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.