DOCSLIB.ORG

FWS FY2020 Budget Justification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FWS FY2020 Budget Justification The United States The United States BUDGET Department of the Interior BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS Department of the Interior JUSTIFICATIONS and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2020 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NOTICE: These budget justifications are prepared for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees. Approval for release of the justifications prior to their printing in the public record of the Subcommittee hearings may be obtained through the Office of Budget of the Department of the Interior. Printed on Recycled Paper FY 2020 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fiscal Year 2020 President’s Budget Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................. EX - 1 Organization Chart .................................................................................................. EX - 6 Overview of Fiscal Year 2019 Request ................................................................... EX - 9 Agency Priority Goals ............................................................................................ EX - 16 Budget at a Glance Table ..................................................................................... BG - 1 Summary of Fixed Costs ......................................................................................... BG - 4 Appropriation: Resource Management Appropriations Language .............................................................................RM - 1 Summary of Requirements .........................................................................RM - 12 Justification of Fixed Costs and Internal Realignments ..............................RM - 13 Ecological Services Overview ............................................................................................ ES - 1 Listing ................................................................................................ ES - 3 Planning and Consultation ................................................................. ES - 4 Conservation and Restoration ........................................................... ES - 7 Recovery ......................................................................................... ES - 10 Habitat Conservation Overview ............................................................................................ HC - 1 Partners for Fish and Wildlife ............................................................. HC - 3 Coastal Program ................................................................................ HC - 5 National Wildlife Refuge System Overview ...................................................................................... NWRS - 1 Refuge Wildlife and Habitat Management.................................... NWRS - 4 Refuge Visitor Services ................................................................ NWRS - 7 Refuge Law Enforcement .......................................................... NWRS - 10 Refuge Maintenance .................................................................. NWRS - 13 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE i TABLE OF CONTENTS FY 2020 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION Conservation and Enforcement Migratory Bird Management Overview ............................................................................................ MB - 1 Conservation and Monitoring ............................................................. MB - 3 Permits ............................................................................................... MB - 7 Federal Duck Stamp Program ........................................................... MB - 8 North American Waterfowl Management Plan/ Joint Ventures ....... MB – 10 Law Enforcement ........................................................................................ LE - 1 International Affairs ..................................................................................... IA - 1 Fish and Aquatic Conservation Overview .......................................................................................... FAC - 1 National Fish Hatchery System Operations ..................................... FAC - 4 Maintenance and Equipment ........................................................... FAC - 7 Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation ...................................... FAC - 9 Cooperative Landscape Conservation ................................................... CLC - 1 Science Support Overview ............................................................................................ SS - 1 General Operations Overview ............................................................................................GO - 1 Central Office Operations ..................................................................GO - 3 Regional Office Operations ................................................................GO - 5 Servicewide Bill Paying ......................................................................GO - 7 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ...............................................GO - 9 National Conservation Training Center ..........................................GO - 10 Appropriation: Construction Appropriations Language ............................................................................... C - 1 Applicable Laws, Acts, and Orders ................................................................. C - 1 Justification of Fixed Costs and Internal Realignments .................................. C - 3 Overview ........................................................................................................ C - 4 Nationwide Engineering Services .................................................................. C - 6 Dam, Bridge, and Seismic Safety ................................................................... C - 8 Line-Item Construction ..................................................................................C - 10 Construction Five-Year Plan ......................................................................... C - 20 Appropriation: Land Acquisition Appropriations Language .............................................................................. LA - 1 Authorizing Statutes ...................................................................................... LA - 1 Justification of Fixed Costs and Internal Realignments ................................. LA - 2 Overview ....................................................................................................... LA - 3 ii U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FY 2020 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Appropriation: National Wildlife Refuge Fund .................................................... RF - 1 Appropriation: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund .... CESCF - 1 Appropriation: North American Wetlands Conservation Fund ..................... NAW - 1 Appropriation: Multinational Species Conservation Fund ............................... MS - 1 Appropriation: Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund .................... NEO - 1 Appropriation: State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program ............................. STWG - 1 Appropriation: Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration .......................................SF - 1 Appropriation: Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration .......................................... WR - 1 Appropriation: Migratory Bird Conservation Account ................................... MBC - 1 Appropriation: Recreation Fee Program ......................................................... .REC - 1 Appropriation: Contributed Funds. .................................................................... CF - 1 Appropriation: Miscellaneous Permanent Appropriations ............................... MP - 1 Administrative Provisions and Legislative Proposals Administrative Provisions ............................................................................. AP - 1 Appendices Section 403 Compliance ............................................................................ .APX - 1 Employee Count by Grade ......................................................................... APX - 3 Allocations Received from Other Accounts ................................................ APX - 4 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE iii TABLE OF CONTENTS FY 2020 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION This page intentionally left blank. iv U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Executive Summary FY 2020 BUDGET JUSTIFICATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conserving the Nature of America The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the oldest Federal conservation agency, tracing its lineage back to 1871, and the only agency in the Federal government whose primary responsibility is management of fish and wildlife for the American public. The Service helps ensure a healthy environment for people by providing opportunities for Americans to enjoy the outdoors and our shared natural heritage. The first predecessor of the Service was the U.S. Fish Commission, which was established on February 9, 1871 under the Department of Commerce, and renamed the Bureau of Fisheries on July 1, 1903. The second predecessor bureau was the Office of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy established in 1885 under the Department of Agriculture. In 1896, it was renamed the Division of Biological Survey and in 1905 renamed again the Bureau of Biological Survey. The Biological Survey was responsible for the protection of all non-fish species in the U.S. In 1900, the Biological Survey pioneered
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 03 03 2015 (Pdf)
    The NAWG officers were joined by Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Ag Spending more time with his family is one of his priorities as Penner retires from his Committee, following a productive discussion about issues important to the wheat in- position as NAWG president. Courtesy photos dustry. Made from scratch: outgoing NAWG president Paul Penner recalls his work on wheat By Julia Debes eration is mostly no-till and actively involved in the ef- consuming, but the lessons their livelihoods, they were short of their own ag educa- Kansas wheat farmer Paul includes wheat, corn, soy- fort to create Heartland Plant learned from working with able to get the legislation tion. Penner is equally likely to beans and hay, in addition to Innovations, the for-profit wheat farmers in 22 states is passed. “They are not going to be share updates from Capitol an occasional rotation of company developed by worth it. “It was a big struggle to naïve about where their food Hill or pictures of his grand- sorghum. Kansas wheat farmers to “It is amazing the amount get that through,” he said. “It comes from. I want to instill kids. While Penner will soon Penner started attending provide advanced plant of knowledge you can ac- really brought a lot of farm- all of this love of agriculture retire as president of the Na- local Kansas Association of breeding services for wheat quire if you are observant,” ers together.” and food in them. I hope it is tional Association of Wheat Wheat Growers (KAWG) and other crops, now spe- he said.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lure of Distant Shores Income Is Derived from Any Public Assistance Program
    l a r u R USDA / RurCCal DevelOOopment OOPPEE RRAATTIIVVEEMay/JSuS ne 2013 The Lure of Distant Shores Co-ops share export strategies Commentary The Co-op Way By Dallas Tonsager, Former Under Secretary Sometimes the enthusiasm that helps launch a co-op can USDA Rural Development dissipate over time as it passes from one generation to the next. While new co-ops can learn much from older, grew up in the “co-op culture” of rural established co-ops, the latter can also benefit from the sense I South Dakota, relying on co-ops for of excitement and “all for one” that we see among the new everything from farm supplies to electricity. crop of co-ops. So I’ve always had a healthy respect for how Co-ops have never been afraid of a challenge. Indeed, vital co-ops are to rural America. But the past many, if not most, of our successful co-ops were created in 4 ½ years serving as Under Secretary for USDA Rural challenging times. Thousands were formed in the 1930s- Development has given me an even greater appreciation of 1960s, fueled by an absolute need — such as the need for a how these user-owned, user-controlled businesses are helping source of quality farm supplies and electricity at affordable to build a stronger rural economy. prices, or the need to market and add value to crops in order I have had the good fortune to spend 17 of the past 20 to gain clout in the marketplace. years working in the federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • Me, Myself & Mine: the Scope of Ownership
    ME, MYSELF & MINE The Scope of Ownership _________________________________ PETER MARTIN JAWORSKI _________________________________ May, 2012 Committee: Fred Miller (Chair) David Shoemaker, Steven Wall, Daniel Jacobson, Neil Englehart ii ABSTRACT This dissertation is an attempt to defend the following thesis: The scope of legitimate ownership claims is much more narrow than what Lockean liberals have traditionally thought. Firstly, it is more narrow with respect to the particular claims that are justified by Locke’s labour- mixing argument. It is more difficult to come to own things in the first place. Secondly, it is more narrow with respect to the kinds of things that are open to the ownership relation. Some things, like persons and, maybe, cultural artifacts, are not open to the ownership relation but are, rather, fit objects for the guardianship, in the case of the former, and stewardship, in the case of the latter, relationship. To own, rather than merely have a property in, some object requires the liberty to smash, sell, or let spoil the object owned. Finally, the scope of ownership claims appear to be restricted over time. We can lose our claims in virtue of a change in us, a change that makes it the case that we are no longer responsible for some past action, like the morally interesting action required for justifying ownership claims. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Much of this work has benefited from too many people to list. However, a few warrant special mention. My committee, of course, deserves recognition. I’m grateful to Fred Miller for his many, many hours of pouring over my various manuscripts and rough drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 18 County Budgets and Fiscal Control
    CHAPTER 18 COUNTY BUDGETS AND FISCAL CONTROL Last Revision September, 2010 18.01 INTRODUCTION Balancing the Budget Ohio counties and other local political subdivisions are required by state law to adopt a budget resolution annually. Along with other local governmental entities, Ohio’s counties should adopt proper financial accounting, budgeting, and taxing standards as part of the requirement to maintain their fiscal integrity. 1 The basic outline of the county budget process is set by state law. Each board of county commissioners is required to pass an annual appropriation measure based on a “tax budget” that certifies that tax revenues and other receipts and resources will be sufficient to meet planned expenditures. It should be noted that ORC Section 5705.281 allows the county budget commission to waive the tax budget, and a number of counties have implemented this authority. For those counties that have waived the tax budget, the county budget commission may require the commissioners to provide other information during the budget process. See Section 18.10 for additional information. Counties maintain a variety of funds that support their programs and services. Budgeting by fund is a distinguishing feature of the public sector. State law recognizes 1 The roles and responsibilities of county offices are discussed in Section 18.02 of this Chapter, as well as in Chapter 1, and in the respective chapters of this Handbook , which are referred to in Chapter 1. 1 that balancing a county’s operating budget for each fund is at the heart of sound fiscal management. The following passage from the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) contains this fundamental requirement of balancing each fund within a county’s budget: The total appropriations from each fund shall not exceed the total of the estimated revenue available for expenditure therefrom, as certified by the budget commission, or in case of appeal, by the board of tax appeals.
    [Show full text]
  • Justifying Group Intellectual Property: Applying Western Normative Principles to Justify Intangible Cultural Property
    JUSTIFYING GROUP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: APPLYING WESTERN NORMATIVE PRINCIPLES TO JUSTIFY INTANGIBLE CULTURAL PROPERTY HARSHAVARDHAN GANESAN* I. INTRODUCTION What does Yoga,1 the German band Enigma,2 fan fiction,3 anti-fungal properties of Neem,4 Wikipedia,5 the Chain Art Project,6 and aboriginal paintings have in common? They all belong to a legal lacunae, a lacuna relating to group-rights (or collective rights) in Intellectual Property Law. Intellectual Property (‘IP’) has almost consistently, since its inception, romanticized the idea of a sole creator, or individual genius.7 This has deprived vast numbers of small, creative groups and indigenous people of IP protection, which has had varied effects on them, ranging from moral disparagement,8 to economic deprivation,9 and even cultural misappropriation.10 These events have not been ignored either at the domestic or international level however, with a steady consensus building up in favor of Cultural Property (‘CP’),11 particularly following the * Harshavardhan Ganesan is an advocate currently practicing in the Madras High Court with Senior Counsel, Mr. Satish Parasaran. 1 Stuart Schüssel, Copyright Protection Challenges and Alaska Natives' Cultural Property, 29 ALA. L. REV. 313, 315 (2012). 2 Timothy D. Taylor, A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery: Transnational Music Sampling and Enigma's “Return to Innocence,” in MUSIC AND TECHNOCULTURE, 64, 68 (René T. A. Lysloff & Leslie C. Gay, Jr. eds., 2003). 3 Margaret Leidy, Protecting Creation: The Twilight Series, Creation Stories, and the Conversion of Intangible Cultural Property, 41 Sw. U. L. REV. 509 (2012). 4 Srividhya Ragavan, Protection of Traditional Knowledge, 2 MINN. INTELL. PROP.
    [Show full text]
  • Life, Liberty, and . . .: Jefferson on Property Rights
    Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 18, no. 1 (Winter 2004), pp. 31–87 2004 Ludwig von Mises Institute www.mises.org LIFE, LIBERTY, AND . : JEFFERSON ON PROPERTY RIGHTS Luigi Marco Bassani* Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property.1 Surveys of libertarian-leaning individuals in America show that the intellectual champions they venerate the most are Thomas Jeffer- son and Ayn Rand.2 The author of the Declaration of Independence is an inspiring source for individuals longing for liberty all around the world, since he was a devotee of individual rights, freedom of choice, limited government, and, above all, the natural origin, and thus the inalienable character, of a personal right to property. However, such libertarian-leaning individuals might be surprised to learn that, in academic circles, Jefferson is depicted as a proto-soc- ialist, the advocate of simple majority rule, and a powerful enemy of the wicked “possessive individualism” that permeated the revolution- ary period and the early republic. *Department Giuridico-Politico, Università di Milano, Italy. This article was completed in the summer of 2003 during a fellowship at the International Center for Jefferson Studies, Monticello, Va. I gladly acknowl- edge financial support and help from such a fine institution. luigi.bassani@ unimi.it. 1Frédéric Bastiat, “Property and Law,” in Selected Essays on Political Econ- omy, trans. Seymour Cain, ed. George B. de Huszar (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1964), p. 97. 2E.g., “The Liberty Poll,” Liberty 13, no. 2 (February 1999), p. 26: “The thinker who most influenced our respondents’ intellectual development was Ayn Rand.
    [Show full text]
  • A Golden Future for Corn? Riparian Areas
    A FLOWERING BULLDoZERS BUSINESs bANNED Carolyn Bondy got into daylilies Rancher turns down $1 million, donates by accident, and now sells them land for a provincial park » PG 32 across the country » PG 3 Publications Mail Agreement # 40069240 Volume 12, number 17 A u g ust 17, 2015 Doing the right thing — A FRIEND IN HARD TIMES and getting paid for it ALUS program shares cost of stewardship projects with farmers By JENNIFER BLAIR AF stAFF / sylvAn lAke ike most farmers, kevin Ziola wants to be a good L steward of the land — but it’s been tough for the third- generation farmer to balance his conservation efforts with his bot- tom line. “As a cattle farmer, I believe it’s important to work with nature, not against it,” said Ziola, who runs 200 head of cattle on 10 quarters near sylvan lake with wife Roxanne. “But we don’t make lots of money, so it’s hard to put away a little extra cash for (conserva- When drought sent hay prices soaring, Cindy Wilinski harnessed the power of social media to get affordable hay tion). It wouldn’t be that high on to those who need it most. Read the full story on Page 12. PHOTO: WENDY DUDLEY the list because machinery, cattle, and feed take priority.” But thanks to a national pro- gram called AlUs (pronounced ‘Alice’ and short for Alternative land Use services), farmers like the Ziolas can now get paid to retain or reconstruct natural areas such as wetlands, grasslands, and A golden future for corn? riparian areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion No. 298 Water Rights-State Lands-Easements Opinion No. 299
    202 OPI~IOXS OF THE ATTORXEY GE~ERAL to put a check upon public officers in tana give a person the right to go on the expenditure of moneys authorized the public domain for the purpose of under the general laws, and in the col­ appropriating water flowing through lection and expenditure of which the the same or ha ,-ing its source therein. taxpayers have no direct vote. The diversion of such water may be In our opinion the legal voters of made by a ditch, flume, pipe or aque· the district, who are taxpaying free­ duct. (Section 7093 et seq., Re,ised holders therein, have the power to au­ Codes 1921; Smith v. Denniff, 24 Mont. thorize a le,-y to produce amounts in 20; Prentice v. McKay, supra.) excess of the maximums specified in The first appropriator on a stream or Section 5, Chapter 178, J~a ws of 193:3. >=pring is entitled, b~' drtue of his prior right, to the use and enjoyment Opinion No. 298 of the water to the full extent of his original appropriation, even when this Water Rights-State Lands-Easements includes all of the water of the stream or spring, and this right continues so HELD: A water right may be per­ long as he applies all of the water fected when water from springs has appropriated to some useful or hene­ been appropriated on state land and ficial purpose. (Mettler v. Ames Realty com-eyed across said land through a Co., 61 Mont. 152; 2 Kinney on Irri­ pipe line without securing a right o~ gation and Water Rights, sec.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Katrina Navickas What Happened to Class? New Histories of Labour and Collective Action in Britain. Recently, My Family Called
    1 Katrina Navickas What Happened to Class? New Histories of Labour and Collective Action in Britain. Recently, my family called me a „labour historian‟. A „labour historian‟ is one of the last epithets I would give to my thoroughly bourgeois self, so I considered why they made that association. In 2005, I published an article rethinking Luddism, the machine– breaking outbreaks of 1812. It stuck out somewhat incongruously as an old–fashioned topic, although I had reworked it with a postmodernist nod towards the agency of language.1 In the heyday of labour history in the 1960s and 1970s, it was a natural assumption to connect the study of trade unions and the Labour party with labour‟s more troublesome sister, social movements and popular protest. Yet over the past couple of decades, labour history has changed. Many of its historians no longer regard the labour (and Labour) movement as the be–all and end–all of the history of the working class. Their interests have diversified, shedding new light on identities and activities that are not completely subsumed by a narrative of class. Perhaps, indeed, I had mistaken myself for a labour historian of the old sort, even though methodologically and culturally I was far from being so. Although I did not realise it at the time, however, protest history had begun to be rethought and revived in a new direction. This is a review of recent developments in British labour and collective action history. In 2009, I returned to mythical leaders of machine–breakers. This time they were in the form of „Captain Swing‟, that head of the eponymous rural agitation of the early 1830s.
    [Show full text]
  • On Original Appropriation
    On Original Appropriation Peter Vallentyne, University of Missouri-Columbia in Malcolm Murray, ed., Liberty, Games and Contracts: Jan Narveson and the Defence of Libertarianism (Aldershot: Ashgate Press, 2007), pp. 173-78 Libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves. Lockean libertarianism further holds that agents have the moral power to acquire private property in external things as long as a Lockean Proviso—requiring that “enough and as good” be left for others—is satisfied. Radical right-libertarianism, on the other hand, holds that satisfaction of a Lockean Proviso is not necessary for the appropriation of unowned things. This is sometimes defended on the ground that the initial status of external resources as unowned precludes any role for a Lockean Proviso. I shall show that this is a bad argument. Although I would argue that satisfaction of a Lockean Proviso is indeed a necessary condition for the appropriation of unowned things, I shall not attempt to establish that here. My goal here is more modest: to rebut one argument against the Lockean Proviso. The Lockean Proviso can be interpreted in several different ways. Nozickean right- libertarianism interprets the proviso as requiring that no one be left worse off by the appropriation than she would be if the thing remained in common use.1 Equal share left- libertarianism2 interprets the Lockean Proviso as requiring that no one be worse off than she would be if no one appropriated more than an equal share of the competitive value (i.e., based on demand and supply) of initially unowned things. Equal opportunity (for wellbeing) left- libertarianism3 interprets the Lockean Proviso as requiring (roughly) that no one be worse off than she would be if no one appropriated more than is compatible with everyone having an equally valuable opportunity for wellbeing.4 I shall not here assume any particular version of the Lockean Proviso.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Law Deskbook, 2014, Chapter 2
    C hapter 2: Availability of Appropriations as to Purpose THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CHAPTER 2 AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS AS TO PURPOSE I. REFERENCES. .......................................................................................................................1 II. CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND OTHER BACKGROUND. .......................1 A. U.S. Constitution ................................................................................................................1 B. The Purpose Statute............................................................................................................ 2 C. The “Necessary Expense Doctrine” (a.k.a. The 3-part Purpose Test). .............................2 III. THE APPROPRIATION ACTS .........................................................................................4 A. Overview. ...........................................................................................................................4 B. Appropriations ....................................................................................................................4 C. Continuing Resolution Authorities .....................................................................................5 D. Researching Appropriation Acts.. ......................................................................................5 IV. EXPRESS STATUTORY PURPOSE: THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS......................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Reviving the Public Ownership, Antispeculation, and Beneficial Use Moorings of Prior Appropriation Water Law
    REVIVING THE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP, ANTISPECULATION, AND BENEFICIAL USE MOORINGS OF PRIOR APPROPRIATION WATER LAW GREGORY J. HOBBS, JR.* This article addresses originating principles of Colorado prior appropriation water law and demonstrates how the Colorado Supreme Court has applied them in significant cases decided during the first decade of the twenty-first century, a sustained period of drought. These principles include public ownership of the water resource wherever it may be found within the state, allocation of available unappropriated surface water and tributary groundwater for appropriation by private and public entities in order of their adjudicated priorities, and the antispeculation and beneficial use limitations that circumscribe the amount and manner of use each water right is subject to. Demonstrating that Colorado water law is based on conservation of the public's water resource and its use by private persons, public entities, federal agencies, and Indian Tribes, the article focuses on the following points. Colorado's prior appropriation doctrine started off recognizing adjudication only of agricultural uses of water. Now it embraces environmental and recreational use, in addition to serving over five million persons, most of who live in urban and suburban areas. The viability of the water law is dependent upon faithful enforcement of water rights in order of their adjudicated priorities when there is not enough water available to serve all needs. At the same time, innovative methods have emerged to ameliorate strict prior * Member of the Colorado Supreme Court. This article was prepared for the University of Colorado Law School Symposium A Life of Contributions for All Time: Symposium in Honor of David H.
    [Show full text]