North American Wetlands Conservation Fund — CFDA 15.623 totals

Reading $569.4M on the wetlands conservation listing

USAspending.gov attaches $569.4M in obligations to assistance awards tagged 15.623. That is a federal commitment total. It is not a matching-share report from partners, not a land-acquisition ledger, and not an outlay file. SpendingVault indexes the CFDA line so the wetlands conservation fund can be compared with other assistance listings on the same obligation definition.

The packet does not include a fiscal year. It also does not separate U.S. projects from any awards coded to other geographies. Treat $569.4M as the obligation sum in the extract, not as a single grant cycle’s appropriated level. If another source cites leveraged partner dollars, that is a different metric and is not added into this headline.

Conservation press summaries often add partner dollars to federal dollars. This extract does not. If a project page says a wetlands grant “supported” a larger package, that package is not the $569.4M. SpendingVault’s figure is the USAspending obligation sum on CFDA 15.623 only. Subtracting or adding match from another spreadsheet would create a hybrid number that this packet cannot defend. Keep the federal obligation total intact when citing this page.

450 awards on only 88 recipients

The recipient file is compact: 88 identifiers hold 450 awards. That pattern often means repeat grantees, multi-year awards, or modifications stacking on the same organization. The packet does not prove which of those explanations applies, and this page will not invent a concentration index. Award count remains a row count; recipient count remains distinct identifiers.

Eighty-eight recipients at $569.4M is a small enough set that names on the program hub can be reviewed directly. Repeat appearance is a fact about identifiers, not a finding about habitat outcomes. Partner type — flyway joint ventures, land trusts, or public agencies — is not in the packet and is not inferred here.

Repeat recipients among the 88 identifiers can be national groups that appear in several states. The 42-state count and the 88-recipient count are compatible with that pattern, but compatibility is not proof. The packet does not include a recipient-by-state cross-tab. Do not infer that each of the 88 operates in one state, or that each of the 42 states has the same number of recipients. The 450-award table is the only place in this workflow to see those pairings.

42 states, without an acreage map

The extract counts 42 states for CFDA 15.623. Wetland projects can cross state lines; USAspending still assigns a state count from recorded location fields. This packet does not say which field was used and does not list the 42. The $569.4M therefore cannot be turned into a per-state habitat table from these facts alone.

Forty-two states is wide coverage for a competitive conservation listing, but it is not all jurisdictions in the extract’s typical 50-plus range. Absence from the count, if a state is missing, is not explained here because the packet does not name missing states. Use the award table for place-level geography.

Fund obligations versus habitat results

The listing title names a conservation fund. The extract still measures obligations, not acres, not waterfowl counts, and not easement miles. Mixing $569.4M with an accomplishments dashboard would claim results this file does not contain. Match the metric before comparing this CFDA line to a press summary of acres protected.

Outlays on the same awards, if present in USAspending, are a separate field. This rollup does not substitute them. Cooperative work that relies on partner match can show a federal obligation that is only part of a project’s full budget; partner match is not in the packet and is not added to $569.4M on this page.

Because the listing is a fund, readers sometimes treat the $569.4M as a balance available to apply for. USAspending obligations on past awards are not an open solicitation balance. This extract does not report remaining authority, application windows, or match rates. Those administrative facts live on awarding-agency materials, which this packet does not include. Cite $569.4M as recorded commitments on 450 awards, then stop.

Tables to open after the rollup

The CFDA 15.623 program page holds the 450 award rows and 88 recipient identifiers behind $569.4M. The all-programs index sits this wetlands listing among other assistance catalog lines. Agency pages are a different USAspending slice; this packet does not name the awarding agency for the $569.4M.

Opening 15.623 without inventing a habitat score

The program page for NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND lists the 450 awards behind $569.4M. Sort by amount to see whether a few large cooperative agreements dominate the 88-recipient file. The all-programs index places this CFDA among other assistance lines; dollar proximity is not a habitat comparison. Agency pages are a different cut, and this packet does not name the awarding agency for the $569.4M.

Questions

How much is obligated under CFDA 15.623?

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND awards show $569.4M in USAspending.gov obligations in SpendingVault’s extract. That sum is recorded commitments on assistance awards, not outlays and not leveraged partner match. USAspending.gov obligations on CFDA 15.623 are recorded commitments, not Treasury outlays.

How many organizations receive wetlands conservation awards?

The extract lists 88 recipients and 450 awards. Recipient count is distinct identifiers. The packet does not classify those recipients or explain why award rows outnumber organizations. USAspending.gov obligations on CFDA 15.623 are recorded commitments, not Treasury outlays.

Which states appear on the 15.623 listing?

The file counts 42 states but does not name them or split the $569.4M by state. Wetland projects can cross borders; USAspending state counts follow recorded location fields that this packet does not specify. USAspending.gov obligations on CFDA 15.623 are recorded commitments, not Treasury outlays.

Does $569.4M equal acres of wetlands conserved?

No. The extract reports obligations, award counts, recipients, and states. It does not report acres, easements, or waterfowl outcomes. Those measures would require a different dataset than this CFDA rollup. USAspending.gov obligations on CFDA 15.623 are recorded commitments, not Treasury outlays.