Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2015 Appropriations and Policy
Released: 2014-08-05T00:00:00

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 FY2015, the Administration proposed a number of accounting changes. Some were accepted and others rejected by the committee, which in turn made other changes in various accounts and subaccounts. As a result, comparisons of FY2015 funding with levels in previous years are particularly difficult for a number of accounts or subaccounts. The House Committee on Appropriations specifically flagged some subaccount figures as "incomparable to the budget request because of the proposed budget restructuring." Table 1 shows FY2014 levels, as well as the FY2015 funding recommended by the committee, somewhat rearranged to facilitate comparison with FY2014 levels where that is possible. This report presents an overview of the committee's actions, compares them with the preceding year, and discusses those programs whose funding has generated controversy in recent budget cycles. For readability, Administration proposals are omitted from the table, but discussed in the text.

On July 23, 2014, the committee reported H.R. 5171 ( H.Rept. 113-551 ), approving $1.40 billion, down 2.0% from the FY2014 level of $1.43 billion contained in P.L. 113-76 . The President had requested $1.48 billion in annual appropriations, an increase of 3.4% over FY2014. The committee's proposed changes in accounts and subaccounts range from elimination (-100%) to an increase of 187.8%. (See Table 1 .)

Among other things, the committee wished to protect certain subaccounts within the agency from transfers of their funds to other programs within the same account. To do so, it lifted three subaccounts out of Resource Management, the largest account in the FWS budget. The three programs—Partners for Fish and Wildlife, National Wildlife Refuge System, and Fisheries and Aquatic Resources—are now funded as separate accounts in the text of H.R. 5171 . (See Table 1 .)

The following discussion singles out those accounts and subaccounts that have generated special congressional interest over the last few years. Not every account is discussed.

Resource Management

By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is the Resource Management account, and it was within this account that both the Administration and the committee focused their structural changes. The Administration proposed to collapse all funding under Endangered Species, Habitat Conservation, and Environmental Contaminants and their various subaccounts into new Ecological Services and Habitat Conservation accounts, with the subaccounts divided differently among them compared to previous years. However, none of the Administration's proposed changes removed subaccounts (such as Candidate Conservation, Consultation, and Recovery) from the overarching Resource Management account. Comparison of funding levels between years for such traditional accounts for ESA could not be made as there were no longer any accounts with those labels. The FY2015 Budget Justification made a case that the proposed structure more accurately reflected the field experience of its employees and would lead to more efficient allocation of resources. The committee bill rejected this argument, although it did make other changes in the budget structure, as discussed below.

Endangered Species Funding

Ecological Services: Endangered Species is a program that is part of the Resource Management account, and is a perennially controversial portion of the FWS budget. The House committee approved $169.5 million, down 1.6% from the FY2014 level of $170.5 million. (Details of the funding for the Endangered Species program are shown in Table 2 .) Due to the proposed restructuring, the Administration request cannot be compared to the FY2104 levels. The committee retained the old structure, so its proposal can be compared with the FY2014 levels.

The committee reduced some subaccounts, with the listing program showing the largest drop at 13%. Other subaccounts showed modest increases. 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, especially for domestic species.

The committee bill for FY2015 continued specific ceilings on the maximum spending for listing species in response to petitions, for listing foreign species, and for designation of critical habitat; similarly structured limits were contained in FY2014 appropriations. Such limitations on critical habitat designation have been a feature of appropriations bills for over 15 years and have been supported by each Administration, while limits on funding for petitions are somewhat newer, but still supported over many years. In committee, language was added to the report ( H.Rept. 113-551 ) commending FWS for its delay in listing the long-eared bat under ESA, and directing FWS, if it does list the species as threatened, to consider a special rule that would allow "activities minimally affecting the species to continue."

The House committee approved $62.6 million (+1.6%) for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 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.

The committee report contained language to encourage FWS to proceed with efforts to delist remaining populations of gray wolves. Within the amounts for recovery, the committee directed that $1 million be used for a program to compensate ranchers for livestock losses due to wolf depredation; the committee also urged the Administration "to seek funding for this program through the Department of Agriculture in future years."

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 $49.2 million for the CESCF, down 1.7% from the FY2014 level of $50.1 million. The Administration requested $50.0 million. 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. 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.

Taking the two programs together, the committee would decrease endangered species funding by 0.8% compared to FY2014 levels.

Conservation and Law Enforcement

One portion of the Conservation and Law Enforcement subaccount (shown in Table 1 ) has proved controversial in recent years, and that is the Law Enforcement program. 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 the Administration's request for $66.7 million, up 3.8% from the FY2014 level of $64.3 million. Within the program, the committee provided an increase of $1.2 million for the FWS forensics laboratory in Ashland, Oregon, and $0.7 million for new agents to combat wildlife trafficking.

Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Other Science Programs

Over the last several budget cycles, FWS has supported a number of science programs, each associated with various aspects of the agency's mission. The committee has historically been critical of the Administration's science and climate change programs generally and has criticized them for duplication and lack of coordination. The FWS science programs have supported work with partners at federal, state, tribal, and local levels to develop strategies to address climate and other impacts on wildlife at local and regional scales. This research has supported and worked especially through a network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) to understand and ameliorate threats to wildlife, including 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 committee eliminated funding for LCCs, while providing $5.10 million in science support in an existing program under Conservation and Enforcement. This level represents a 70.4% reduction in that program as well. While lauding the science programs within the National Fish Hatchery System, the committee noted that the Administration's proposed restructuring of FWS science programs was the third such effort in three budget cycles. It further urged the agency to find homes for its scientific research needs by more closely tying research to specific programs of the agency.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) works with private landowners to improve wildlife habitat on their lands. Assistance may take various forms, from telephone consultations and advice, to site visits and planning, and—where wildlife benefits are very high—to financial or material assistance in improving habitat. The program offers great flexibility to landowners, and demand has generally exceeded resources. Until FY2105, the program had been funded through the Resource Management account, and the Administration would have continued that budget structure. However, the committee recommended "moving the program to its own account in order to prevent the use of funds for activities not authorized by the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act." It provided $52.1 million, a 0.6% increase over FY2014, and directed that an initiative to protect sage grouse be the program's top priority.

National Wildlife Refuge System

The committee also moved funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) from the Resource Management account into its own separate account. The result gives Congress greater control over exact spending levels for the NWRS, as moneys cannot readily be transferred to another specific account. The House committee approved $476.9 million for the NWRS, up 1.0% from FY2014. The President requested $476.4 million, up 0.9%. 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.

The committee included a provision providing that "none of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to establish any refuge (as that term is defined in ... (16 U.S.C. §668cc)), or to expand the boundary of any refuge (as so defined), unless the establishment or boundary expansion, respectively, is expressly authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act." As written, the text appears to prevent the continued use of funds provided under the Migratory Bird Conservation Account (MBCA, sometimes called the Duck Stamp program) without a new step of specific congressional approval. (See " Migratory Bird Conservation Account: An Acquisition Supplement ," below.) The committee report also asserts that FWS authority to create and expand refuges "originated with the need to act quickly to save species from certain extinction."

Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation

The committee moved funding for Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation from the Resource Management account into its own separate account. The result gives Congress greater control over exact spending levels for this program, as moneys cannot readily be transferred to another specific account. The committee approved $147.9 million for this program, a 9.3% increase over FY2014, while generally commending the program for its work. It went on to provide detailed recommendations for spending below the account level, limiting particularly funding for propagation of species listed under ESA, but allowing FWS to transfer funding to the Fisheries program where such assistance is needed to aid a species' recovery. In light of controversy in recent years over FWS funding for the mitigation necessary for fisheries loss from projects actually built and run by other agencies, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to "secure reimbursement from other Federal agencies for up to 100 but not less than 50 percent of the annual costs to the Federal Government to fulfill such mitigation responsibilities."

Land Acquisition

The House committee provided $14.5 million for land acquisition, to be derived from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF); this figure is down 73.4% from FY2014. (See Table 3 .) The Administration requested $55.0 million for land acquisition, an increase of 1.1% over the FY2014 level of $54.4 million. 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.

The committee included $3.5 million for the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA). 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."

Migratory Bird Conservation Account: An Acquisition Supplement

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. As funding has declined from annual appropriations, the MBCA has become increasingly important in the conservation of waterfowl habitat. For FY2015, the Administration estimated available funds at $70.4 million. This estimate is $14.6 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. H.R 5069 has been introduced in the House to raise the price to $25; it would also require that the additional funds be used solely for acquisition of easements.

Expenditures are currently controlled by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, consisting of the Secretary of the Interior (chair), the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, one Republican and one Democrat from the House; one Democrat and one Republican from the Senate; the head of the FWS Realty Office; and—for each specific acquisition—a representative of the game department or of the governor of the relevant state. The Commission is able to approve purchases; with mandatory spending, no additional action by Congress is required. In the House, there is also a pending bill (H.R. 3409) that would change that system by prohibiting expansions of refuges "except as expressly authorized by a law enacted after January 3, 2013."

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. 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 county governments have long urged additional appropriations to make up the difference. The committee approved $38.1 million for the fund; if this level is approved, counties would receive 55.9% of the authorized level. The Administration requested no funding for NWRF in FY2015; based on receipts alone, counties would then receive 7.4% of the authorized level. The Administration argued that the savings are justified based on low costs of refuges to county infrastructure and economic benefits to local economies from increased tourism. The committee contrasted the proposed elimination of NWRF funding with the Administration's support for full funding for a similar program called Payments in Lieu of Taxes and argued that the programs should be treated equally.

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. The House committee increased the fund as a whole by 10.4% compared to FY2014, and each individual program as well. (See Table 4 .)

The committee provided level funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund relative to the FY2014 level. The Administration had requested the same amount. 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 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 from the formula grants 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.

The House committee recommended the FY2014 level, but shifted the program to a greater emphasis on competitive grants, keeping the state formula grants as the lion's share of the funding. (See Table 5 .) The President requested $50.0 million for these grants, a 14.8% reduction from the amount approved for FY2014. The House committee retained the current minimum state match of 25.0%.

Administrative and Other Provisions Affecting Wildlife

In addition to the regular appropriations provisions, H.R. 5171 contained administrative provisions affecting FWS. One provision (Section 115) concerned domestic trade in, and international import of ivory; Section 116 concerns conservation of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle; Section 117 delays issuance of further rules for conservation of sage-grouse; and Section 118 requires an economic analysis in the development of a recovery plan for certain California amphibians.

Finally, two additional provisions in Title IV affect matters relevant to wildlife. Section 426 affects the regulation of lead content in ammunition and fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.). Section 431 affects the regulation of hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting on Forest Service and BLM lands.

Section 115: Ivory

Section 115 addresses a recent issue about the import of elephant ivory. On February 25, 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Director's Order taking effect immediately, which, on its face, requires strict enforcement of laws pertaining to elephant ivory trade. The order appears to make illegal some ivory trade that FWS long has permitted. The order was modified on May 15, 2014, reinstating some forms of trade—in particular, antique elephant ivory—that the original order had severely curtailed. Under §115, the authority of FWS to create new or revised regulations prohibiting or restricting trade in elephant ivory would be severely restricted.

Section 116: Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

The Fish and Wildlife Service agreed in 2006 that the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle has recovered sufficiently to permit delisting. FWS issued a proposed rule to that effect in October, 2012. After the proposed delisting, FWS conducted a review of its own proposal. The review panel held that the proposed delisting was not supported by the best available scientific information. Various groups argued the beetle should not be delisted; others asserted that VWS should continue with its proposal. This provision would prevent use of funds for any study on the beetle, and would prevent FWS from either withdrawing or finalizing the delisting rule during FY2015.

Section 117: Sage-Grouse

Listing or recovery of various populations and species of sage-grouse in western states has been controversial. The birds face complex habitat threats (including the presence of tall objects such as telephone poles, fence posts, and drilling rigs, as well as habitat loss and fragmentation). The possible listing of these birds under ESA has alarmed many western interests who fear threats to a wide assortment of economic activities. Under §117, FWS could not write or issue proposed rules for two groups of sage-grouse, nor final rules for two other groups of sage-grouse whose listing has already been proposed.

Section 118: California Amphibians

FWS listed three species of amphibians under the ESA: the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog ( Rana sierrae , endangered); the northern distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog ( Rana muscosa , endangered); and the Yosemite toad ( Anaxyrus canorus , threatened). All three species live at high elevations in the Sierra Nevada. Threats to all three species include habitat degradation (especially due to introduced predatory fish such as trout) and fragmentation, predation, climate change, and introduced diseases, among other factors. There is concern that recovery efforts for these species may affect recreational fishing, dams and diversions, grazing, timber management, packstock use, and other activities. Section 118 would direct FWS to release draft recovery plans for the three species no later than December 30, 2015. In addition, the plans are to include analyses of social and economic impacts of recovery actions and of efforts to minimize these impacts.

Section 426: Lead Content Regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act

Section 426 appears to seek legislative certainty during FY2015 for a denied citizen petition to force the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate lead in ammunition and in fishing sinkers. On August 27, 2010, EPA denied one portion of the petition relating to the production of lead for use in ammunition, stating that the agency did not have legal authority to regulate ammunition under TSCA. EPA continued to evaluate the petition with respect to fishing tackle and accepted public comments until September 15, 2010. EPA denied that portion of the petition on November 4, 2010. On April 30, 2012, a lawsuit challenging the denial was dismissed. On June 7, 2012, a suit was filed challenging EPA's 2012 denial of a new petition to regulate lead shot under TSCA. The court rejected the plaintiffs' case in July 2013, and an appeal has been filed.

Section 426 would prevent federal regulation through TSCA, but not through other statutory authorities: lead shot has been banned in the United States for the hunting of migratory waterfowl since 1991 under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. Consequently, it is unclear what effect the provision might have.

Section 431: Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting

Section 431 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, 2013, and if the use complied with specified resource management plans for the land in question as of that date. 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 with existing land management plans that do not contemplate that activity.

Section 431(b) would allow the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior 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 431(a) also applies to this subsection, then the lands affected by this closure provision are also those of the Forest Service and BLM.

For More Information

CRS Report R42945, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 113 th Congress: New and Recurring Issues , coordinated by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS21157, International Species Conservation Funds , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

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

For links to current and past Budget Justifications , see http://www.fws.gov/budget/ .