Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012
Appropriations and Policy
M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
July 21, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41928
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 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 more controversial agencies represented in the bill is the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in
the Department of the Interior. For FWS appropriations in FY2012, on July 12, 2011 the House
Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 2584 (H.Rept. 112-151) containing $1.19 billion for
the agency, down 21% from the FY2011 level of $1.50 billion. In discussing the motivation for
the broad reductions, the Committee stated in its report that “Congress must take immediate
action to put our nation’s fiscal house in order by reducing Federal spending, balancing the
budget, and creating jobs to put our economy on a sustainable, healthy course for the future.”
For FWS, each account was reduced to some degree relative to the FY2011 level. A few accounts
or subaccounts were proposed for zero funding: listing and critical habitat designation under the
Endangered Species Program, portions of the land acquisition program for the National Wildlife
Refuge System, portions of the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (which funds
grants to states for endangered species conservation), the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund, and competitive state grants under the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
account.
This report analyzes the FWS funding levels contained in the FY2012 appropriations bill.
Emphasis is on FWS funding for programs of interest to Congress, now or in recent years. Each
of the related policy issues is explained in more detail in the report. Several current controversies
over appropriations levels or funding restrictions are discussed in more detail, including
elimination of funding for certain programs under the Endangered Species Act; funding levels for
fish hatcheries, payments to counties in lieu of taxes, and land acquisition; and further restrictions
concerning protection of gray wolves.
For FY2011, on April 14, 2011, the House and Senate both passed a full-year continuing
appropriations measure, H.R. 1473, which was signed into law on April 15, 2011 as P.L. 112-10.

Congressional Research Service

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Hot Topics ............................................................................................................................ 2
Endangered Species Funding................................................................................................. 3
Wolf Delisting................................................................................................................. 5
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement ......................................... 6
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation........................................................................ 6
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science.................................................. 8
Land Acquisition................................................................................................................... 8
Wildlife Refuge Fund............................................................................................................ 9
Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants.................................................................. 10
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants .......................................................................................... 10
For More Information ............................................................................................................... 11

Tables
Table 1. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2010-FY2012..................... 1
Table 2. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs, FY2010-FY2012 ........... 4
Table 3. Projected FWS Mitigation Expenses in FY2012 for Nine National Fish
Hatcheries on Behalf of Water Project Agencies ....................................................................... 8
Table 4. Multinational Species Conservation and Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Funds, FY2010-FY2012 ................................................................................... 10

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 11

Congressional Research Service

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

Introduction
The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, H.R. 2584, funds
agencies and programs in parts of three federal departments (Interior, Agriculture, and Health and
Human Services), as well as numerous related agencies and bureaus, including the Environmental
Protection Agency. Among the more controversial agencies represented in the bill is the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), in the Department of the Interior (DOI). This report analyzes FY2012
appropriations in a policy context, with reference to past appropriations.1 For FWS in FY2012,
the President requested $1.69 billion (up 13% from FY2011); on July 12, 2012, the House
Committee approved $1.19 billion (down 21% from FY2011). (See Table 1.) All accounts and
subaccounts were reduced relative to FY2011 levels, except one subaccount within Construction
(for bridge and dam safety) which was increased by 0.2%.
By far the largest portion of the FWS annual appropriation is the Resource Management account,
for which the House Committee approved $1.10 billion for FY2012, down 12% from FY2011.
Among the programs included in Resource Management are Endangered Species, the Refuge
System, Law Enforcement, Fisheries, and Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive
Science (formerly called Climate Change Adaptive Science Capacity).
Table 1. Appropriations for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), FY2010-FY2012
($ in thousands)
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House
Fish and Wildlife Service
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Comm.
Resource
Management
1,269,406 1,244,861 1,271,867 1,099,055
—Ecological Services: Endangered Species
179,309
175,446
182,650
138,707
—Ecological Services: Habitat Conservation
117,659
112,524
118,442
78,442
—Ecological Services: Environmental
13,987 13,316 13,825 11,825
Contaminants
—National Wildlife Refuge System
502,805
492,059
502,875
455,297
—Migratory Birds, Law Enforcement &
134,640 128,224 130,048 122,048
International Conservation
—Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation
148,214
138,939
136,012
128,343
—Cooperative Landscape Conservation and
20,000 30,970 37,483 20,000
Adaptive Science
—General
Operations
152,792 153,383 150,532 144,393
Construction
37,439 20,804 23,088 11,804
Land Acquisition
86,340
54,890
140,000
15,047
—Acquisitions: Federal Refuge Lands
62,785
35,374
108,990
0

1 For more detail on the seven continuing resolutions approved before passage of a full-year appropriation for FY2011,
and of other versions of the final full appropriation for FY2011, see CRS Report R41258, Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House
Fish and Wildlife Service
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Comm.
—Highlands Conservation Act
4,000
0
5,000
4,000
—Inholdings, Emergencies, & Hardships
5,000
4,990
5,000
3,000
—Exchanges
2,000 1,996 2,000
0
—Acquisition Management
10,555
10,534
13,570
6,570
—User Pay Cost Share
2,000 1,996 2,000 1,477
—Refuge Land Protection Planning
0
0
3,440
0
Landowner Incentive Program (cancel ation of
0 -4,941
0
0
prior year funds)
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
85,000 59,880 100,000 2,854
Fund
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
14,500
14,471
0
13,980
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
47,647
37,425
50,000
20,000
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
5,000
3,992
5,000
0
Multinational Species Conservation Fund
11,500
9,980
9,750
7,875
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
90,000
61,876
95,000
22,000
—State Grants (Formula-based)
78,000
49,900
67,000
20,000
—Competitive Grants for States, Territories, &
5,000 4,990 20,000
0
Other Jurisdictions
—Tribal
Grants
7,000 6,986 8,000 2,000
Total
Appropriations
1,646,832 1,503,238 1,694,705 1,192,615
a. Includes effects of a 0.2% rescission of funds contained in §1119 of Title I, Division B, of P.L. 112-10.
Hot Topics
In the FY2012 FWS appropriations cycle several issues emerge in the House Committee bill:
• elimination of funding for the adding of new species to the list of those protected
under the Endangered Species Act;
• elimination of funding for critical habitat designation;
• cuts in funding for fish hatcheries;
• restoration to near FY2011 levels for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, a fund
that provides payments in lieu of taxes to local governments for the presence of
non-taxable refuge land – a program for which the President proposed no
appropriation;
• elimination of annual funding for most land acquisition for the National Wildlife
Refuge System; and
• response to the FY2011 legislative delisting of certain populations of gray
wolves.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

Each of the points above will be discussed in the appropriate account’s section below. The
discussion covers certain limitations included in the FY2012 House Committee bill as well.
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 $138.7
million, down 21% from the FY2011 level of $175.4 million. The Administration’s FY2012
request was $182.6 million. (See Table 2.) In the Committee report, the absence of a
reauthorization for the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was criticized, and statistics were cited on
the low rate for recovery of listed species as evidence that the ESA has failed.2 (Other observers
hold that the continued existence of listed species in the face of mounting habitat loss and other
perils is a more suitable measure of the act’s success than recovery rates.3) Over half of the House
Committee’s reduction from FY2011 ($20.9 million) came from elimination of funding for
adding new species to the list of species protected under the ESA, and for the designation of new
critical habitat for species. The language would allow action to delist species or to downlist
species from endangered to threatened, although with no funding for the listing program it is not
clear where funds would be available for such actions. The Committee’s bill directed that
none of the funds shall be used for implementing subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 4
of the Endangered Species Act, (except for processing petitions, developing and issuing
proposed and final regulations, and taking any other steps to implement actions described in
subsection (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B)(i), or (c)(2)(B)(ii) of such section).
The last major congressional effort to end funding for the ESA occurred in the 104th Congress.
The effort was based on a desire to eliminate a major source of conflict in projects by limiting the
number of protected species and the levels of protection offered to those already listed. The
expectation was that the scope of conflict nationwide would be reduced. However, because of the
potential for untoward effects (see discussion of ESA consultation funding, below for an
example), the effort was abandoned, although funding for listing new species was temporarily
halted.4
The Committee bill reduced funding for consultation under Section 7 of the ESA by 14% from
FY2011. Under Section 7, federal agencies are obliged to consult with FWS on their actions
which may affect listed species, and obtain a biological opinion (BiOp) from FWS on whether the
action might jeopardize the species. The BiOp may include reasonable and prudent alternatives
for the agency action that would avoid jeopardy. Reduced funding for FWS to consult could delay
federal actions, because the action agency might hesitate to open its actions to the citizen suit
provisions of the ESA in the absence of the FWS BiOp.5

2 H.Rept. 112-151, p. 9-10.
3 For a discussion of measures of success under ESA, see CRS Report RL31654, The Endangered Species Act: A
Primer, by M. Lynne Corn, Kristina Alexander, and Eugene H. Buck.
4 P.L. 104-6. For a history of ESA funding in the 104th Congress, see Archived Issue Brief IB95003, Endangered
Species: Continuing Controversy, by M. Lynne Corn.
5 The 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 Section 7 consultation is highly simplified. For a fuller explanation see CRS Report RL31654, The
Endangered Species Act: A Primer, by M. Lynne Corn, Kristina Alexander, and Eugene H. Buck.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

Because Section 15 (16 U.S.C. § 1542) authorizing ESA 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 (Sections 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 (Section 9; 16
U.S.C. § 1538). Those statutory provisions continue to be law, even when money has not been
appropriated.6 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.”7 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, regardless of agency funding.
Table 2. Appropriations for Endangered Species and Related Programs,
FY2010-FY2012
($ in thousands)
FY2012
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
House
Endangered Species and Related Programs
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Comm.
Endangered Species Program

—Candidate Conservation
12,580
11,448
11,426
10,670
—Listing and Critical Habitat
22,103
20,902
24,644
0
——Critical Habitat Designation
11,632
9,472
10,431
0
——Listing 9,971
11,430
8,847
0
——International Listing
500
a
1,500 0
——Petitions to List
b
c
3,866 0
—Consultation 59,307
61,877
62,888
53,462
—Recovery 85,319
81,219
83,692
74,575
Subtotal, Endangered Species Program
179,309
175,446
182,650
138,707
Related Program: Cooperative Endangered Species
85,000
59,880
100,000 2,854
Conservation Fund
Total Appropriations
264,309
235,326
282,650
141,561
a. There was no specific allocation for international listings in FY2011.
b. There has never been a specific allocation for listings that responded to petitions. All listing funds were
derived from the single listing subprogram, funded at $9.97 million. FWS listings in recent years have been
almost exclusively in response to petitions.
c. There was no specific allocation for listings that responded to petitions. All listing funds were derived from
the single listing subprogram, funded at $11.43 million.

6 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 obligation to follow 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).
7 United States v. Vulte, 233 U.S. 509 (1914).
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund also benefits species that are listed or
proposed for listing under ESA, through grants to states and territories. The House Committee
proposed $2.9 million, down 95% from the FY2011 level of $59.9 million. Funding for
administration of the program would remain; conservation grants to states, assistance with
development of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), and a program to benefit species affected by
the Snake River Water Rights Act would be eliminated. 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.8 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. The absence or reduction
of state support would leave states with the option of funding such efforts alone, or leaving
individual actors to develop their own plans.
Overall, the House Committee bill projects savings in endangered species funding, compared to
FY2011 levels, at 40% ($93.7 million).
Wolf Delisting9
Substantial action on delisting of gray wolves occurred in the FY2011 appropriation (P.L. 112-
10), and provides background for additional action in the House Committee bill for FY2012.
Section 1713 of P.L. 112-10 removed most wolves in the Northern Rockies from the protections
of ESA. This removal from the ESA’s list of protected species (or “delisting”) makes these gray
wolves the 49th species to be delisted, and the only one delisted due to specific legislative
action.10 In April 2009, FWS had issued a regulation to delist the population of wolves that had
been reintroduced in the Northern Rockies.11 The rule removed wolves in Montana, Idaho, and
parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah from ESA protections, but the rule did not change the
wolf’s status outside these five states. The wolves of Wyoming were to remain protected because
FWS held that Wyoming’s proposed management plan was not adequate to avoid population
declines that would result in relisting the wolves. In August 2010, a federal court overturned the
rule.12 In addition, in November 2010, a federal district court in Wyoming ordered FWS to
reconsider the Wyoming plan for wolf management, holding that FWS had acted arbitrarily and
capriciously in rejecting the plan.13 Section 1713 ordered FWS to reissue the April 2009 rule and
insulated the new rule from judicial review. It further stated that the section was to have no effect

8 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 M. Lynne Corn, Kristina Alexander, and Eugene H. Buck, The Endangered Species Act: A Primer,
by M. Lynne Corn, Kristina Alexander, and Eugene H. Buck.
9 For more information on gray wolf controversies, see CRS Report RL34238, Gray Wolves Under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA): Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations, by Kristina Alexander and M. Lynne
Corn, and CRS Report R41730, The Gray Wolf and the Endangered Species Act (ESA): A Brief Legal History, by
Kristina Alexander.
10 For background on the 48 species delisted to date, see the FWS website at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/
delistingReport.jsp.
11 74 Federal Register 15123-15188, April 2, 2009.
12 Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010).
13 Wyoming v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, No. 09-cv-118J, 2010, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122829 (D. Wyo. Nov. 18, 2010).
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

on the Wyoming case.14 FWS reissued the rule on May 5, 2011.15 The provision appears to leave
open the option for a subsequent proposal to re-list the species.
Two factors make this delisting distinct from past efforts to delist species legislatively. First, FWS
had previously delisted the species though the action was later rejected by a court. FWS had
argued that the best available science supported delisting. Second, the species had met and
exceeded the numeric goals for delisting in the species’ recovery plan, although some aspects of
its recovery were disputed.
In H.R. 2584 (Section 119), the House Committee addressed concerns that the re-issued rule or
other rules delisting wolves might be challenged in court. The section directs that any final rule
delisting wolves in Wyoming or in the western Great Lakes area shall not be subject to judicial
review, provided that FWS has authorized the state(s) to manage the wolf population.
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and Law Enforcement
The House Committee’s bill contained $455.3 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS), down 7% from the FY2011 level of $492.1 million. 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 new
demands, and these demands, combined with the rising costs of rent, salaries, fuel, and utilities,
have led to cuts in funding for programs 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 stimulus law 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 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. The House Committee’s bill contained $58.6 million for the Law
Enforcement program, down 7% from the FY2011 level of $62.9 million. Nationwide law
enforcement covers wildlife inspections at international borders, investigations of violations of
endangered species or waterfowl hunting laws, and other activities.
Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation
The House Committee provided $128.3 million for this account, down 8% from the FY2011 level
of $138.9 million. Within the program, the Committee rejected the President’s proposed cuts in
the hatchery program, funding it at $46.1 million rather than the requested $42.8 million, but still
below the FY2011 level of $48.9 million. The Committee’s figure for hatchery funding would be
a decrease of 6% from FY2011 and of 15% from FY2010.

14 Section 1713 specifically cites “United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in Case Numbers 09-CV-
118J and 09-CV-138J on November 18, 2010.”
15 76 Federal Register 25590-25592, May 5, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

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. Annual costs to FWS attributed to the mitigation role at these hatcheries may be
substantial. In FY2012, for example, FWS expects spending to mitigate projects of these agencies
at these levels: Army Corps of Engineers ($4.7 million), Tennessee Valley Authority ($835,000),
Bonneville Power Authority ($40,000), and the Bureau of Reclamation ($715,000). The
Administration proposed that FWS negotiate reimbursable agreements with responsible parties
for mitigation activities at National Fish Hatcheries. Until such reimbursement is negotiated,
FWS proposed to eliminate or substantially reduce activities at the nine National Fish Hatcheries
where mitigation costs are at least 40% of total operating expenses; the nine hatcheries meeting
this threshold are shown in Table 3. In rejecting the Administration reduction, the Committee
Report (H.Rept. 112-151, p. 25) addressed reimbursement:
understanding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will reimburse the Service an amount
of $3,800,000 during fiscal year 2012, subject to appropriations. The Committee directs the
Service to continue to seek reimbursement from the remaining agencies for mitigation
hatchery operations, and to redirect any additional reimbursed funding to deferred
maintenance. 16

16 On July 15, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2354, Energy and Water Appropriations; its Section 107 provided “The
Secretary of the Army may transfer to the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service may accept and
expend, up to $3,800,000 of funds provided in this title under the heading `Operation and Maintenance’ to mitigate for
fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers projects.”
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

Table 3. Projected FWS Mitigation Expenses in FY2012 for Nine National Fish
Hatcheries on Behalf of Water Project Agencies
(in $)
Hatchery State %
M
Corps
TVA
Reclamation
Greers Ferry
AR 100 541,532 —
—
NFH
Jones Hole
UT 100
— —

620,484
NFH
Chattahoochee
GA 99 630,915

68,102
—
Forest NFH
Norfolk NFH
AR
98
1,030,139
—
—
Dale Hollow
TN 94 267,672

598,004
—
NFH
Erwin NFH
TN
67
334,781
93,378
—
Neosho NFH
MO
60
375,236
—
—
Wolf Creek
KY 58 389,325 — —
NFH
Garrison Dam
ND 40 150,372 —
—
NFH
Total
—
— 3,719,972
759,484
620,484
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs.
Notes: % M is the fraction of the annual cost of the hatchery that can be attributed to mitigation of the effects
of water project of the federal agency(ies). Corps is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; TVA is the Tennessee
Valley Authority; and Reclamation is the Bureau of Reclamation.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation and Adaptive Science
For this program (formerly called Climate Change Planning and Adaptive Science Capacity), the
House Committee approved $20.0 million, a decrease of 35% from the FY2012 level of $31.0
million. Part of the 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 report (p. 26) noted an overlap of programs aimed
at wildlife conservation partnerships under the adaptive science initiative. The Committee
directed FWS to “(1) more fully develop the initiative in a limited number of areas; and (2)
combine the initiative with bird joint ventures and national fish habitat partnerships.”
Land Acquisition
In H.R. 2584, the House Committee provided $15.0 million for land acquisition, down 73% from
the FY2011 level of $54.9 million. The Administration requested $140.0 million. See Table 1.
Under the Committee proposal, the main acquisition funding would be reduced to zero, and
remaining funds would be allocated to acquisitions of inholdings, or emergency and hardship
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

purchases.17 The Committee provided funds for administration and management of these
acquisitions or others that may be newly purchased but still require some administrative work.
The Committee also specified that “$4,000,000 shall be for land conservation partnerships
authorized by the Highlands Conservation Act of 2004, including not to exceed $120,000 for
administrative expenses.”18 The land acquisition program is funded with appropriations from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Administration’s top five acquisition priorities (of 63
listed projects) were, in descending order: Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),
Silvio Conte NWR (CT, MA, NH, VT), Laguna Atascosa NWR (TX), St. Marks NWR (FL) and
Cache River NWR (AR).19
The Migratory Bird Conservation Account is a source of mandatory spending for FWS land
acquisition (in contrast to the other three federal lands agencies, which rely on annual
appropriations). The MBCA does not receive funding in annual Interior appropriations bills. The
account is permanently appropriated, and funds are derived from the sale of duck stamps to
hunters and recreationists, and from import duties on certain arms and ammunition. For FY2011,
available funds are estimated at $58.0 million. This estimate is $14.0 million above the previous
year, and is based in part on the assumption that Congress approves a proposed increase in the
price of duck stamps from $15 to $25.
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 of the National Wildlife
Refuge System (NWRS). A portion of the fund is supported by the permanent appropriation of
receipts from various activities carried out on the NWRS. However, these receipts are not
sufficient for full funding of amounts authorized in the formula, and county governments have
long urged additional appropriations to make up the difference. The House Committee approved
$14.0 million, down 3% from the FY2011 level of $14.5 million. Funding in the House
Committee bill, combined with receipts, would be sufficient for counties to receive 31% of the
authorized level. The Administration requested no funding for NWRF in FY2012, which would
have meant that based on receipts alone, counties would have received 5% of the authorized
level.20 The Administration argued that the savings were justified based on low costs of refuges to
county infrastructure and economic benefits to local economies from increased tourism.

17 An emergency or hardship purchase may be made when owners or their heirs are eager to sell, sometimes at below
market value, or otherwise wish to ensure that their land becomes part of refuge. Occasionally, purchases are expedited
when imminent threat of development would make later acquisition impractical.
18 According to the FY2012 Fish and Wildlife Service Budget Justification (p. LA-1), the Highlands Conservation Act
(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 [CN, NJ, NY, and PA] to preserve and protect high priority
conservation land in the Highlands region.”
19 FWS does not acquire all or even most of the lands on its priority list in a given year. As lands become available, and
the various complex reviews of title records, fair market value, etc., are completed and owners are willing to sell, FWS
acquires the lands. Some lands may be a high priority, but may wait years before acquisition is accomplished.
20 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. 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, the acquired lands of the refuge
system will be under-compensated for revenue loss relative to the refuge lands reserved from the public domain.
Eastern refuges are mostly acquired land, while western refuges are mostly reserved from the public domain. For
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

Multinational Species and Neotropical Migrants
The Multinational Species Conservation Fund generates considerable constituent interest despite
the small size of the program. It benefits Asian and African elephants, tigers, rhinoceroses, great
apes, and marine turtles.21 The House Committee approved $7.9 million, down 21% from
FY2011. (See Table 4.) The Administration requested $9.8 million. In percentage terms, the
Committee’s largest reductions, relative to FY2011, were in the marine turtle program (43%), and
the smallest in the great apes program (9%).
The House Committee did not approve any funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund and noted that its authorization had expired. (See discussion above, under
“Endangered Species Funding” on appropriating in the absence of an authorization.) The
President requested $5.0 million, up 25% from FY2011. The program provides grants for the
conservation of hundreds of bird species that migrate among North and South America and the
Caribbean. The act requires spending 75% of the funds on projects outside of the United States.
Table 4. Multinational Species Conservation and Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Funds, FY2010-FY2012
($ in thousands)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
Program
Enacted
Enacted
Request
House Comm.
African
2,000 1,735 1,950 1,477
Elephant
Rhinos & Tiger
3,000
2,604
2,450
1,969
Asian Elephant
2,000
1,735
1,950
1,477
Great Apes
2,500
2,170
1,950
1,969
Marine Turtles
2,000
1,736
1,450
983
MSCF
Total
11,500 9,980 9,750 7,875
Neotropical
5,000 3,992 5,000
0
Migratory Birds
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.) 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. The
remaining portion is for grants to states. Part of the state share is for competitive grants, and part

(...continued)
further information, see CRS Report RL31392, PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Somewhat Simplified, by M. Lynne
Corn.
21 For more information on these two funds, see CRS Report RS21157, International Species Conservation Funds , by
Pervaze A. Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Fish and Wildlife Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy

is allocated by formula. This grant program has generated considerable support from state
governments.
The House Committee approved $22.0 million for these grants, down 64% from FY2011, and
eliminated funding for competitive grants for states, leaving only formula-based funding. See
Table 1, above. The Administration’s request for FY2012 was $95.0 million. The House
Committee bill specifies that all state grants are subject to a match of 50% from non-federal
sources.
For More Information
CRS Report R41608, The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 112th Congress: Conflicting
Values and Difficult Choices, by Eugene H. Buck et al.
CRS Report RS21157, International Species Conservation Funds , by Pervaze A. Sheikh and M.
Lynne Corn.
For general information on the Fish and Wildlife Service, see its website at http://www.fws.gov/.

Author Contact Information

M. Lynne Corn

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
lcorn@crs.loc.gov, 7-7267


Congressional Research Service
11

---