[House Report 115-487]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-487
======================================================================
GRAY WOLF STATE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2017
_______
January 8, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 424]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 424) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
reissue final rules relating to listing of the gray wolf in the
Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 424 is to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to reissue final rules relating to listing of the gray
wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Gray wolves were listed for protection under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) in 1974.
Existing wolves present in the Western Great Lakes region were
protected, and the federal government introduced the species
canis lupus irremotus to the West by relocating wolves from
Canada to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1994
and 1995. States, local citizens, livestock groups, and
sportsmen opposed the reintroduction effort. The reintroduced
wolf population in the West recovered and expanded more quickly
than anticipated. As a result, in September 2001, the States
and tribes began working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to transition management responsibility back to
the States upon delisting.
FWS deemed the Idaho and Montana wolf management plans
adequate, but did not approve the Wyoming plan. Gray wolves
were delisted on January 14, 2009.\1\ As part of their
management plans, Idaho and Montana conducted tightly
controlled wolf hunts beginning in autumn 2009. Sales of wolf
hunt tags fund management activities, and hunts are conducted
in a similar fashion to those of large ungulates and other wild
animals under State management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule
to Identify the Western Great Lakes populations of Gray Wolves as a
Distinct Population Segment and to Revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, 74 Fed. Reg. 15070 (Apr. 2, 2009) (available at:
https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/wolf/archives/2009delisting/pdf/
fnlruleFR02april2009.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litigious environmental groups challenged the FWS decision
to delist the wolves in Idaho, Montana, and the Western Great
Lakes. The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana held
that the rule was a ``political solution that does not comply
with ESA'' and that delisting of a species which was still
endangered in a portion of its region (Wyoming) was not
appropriate.\2\ The delisting of the wolves was halted in all
States until the Wyoming plan was found to be acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1228 (D.
MT 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Populations of gray wolves already present in the Western
Great Lakes increased in number through the 1990s and 2000s.
FWS delisted wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan by
regulation in 2011. Wyoming wolves were delisted by FWS in
2012. However, wolves in Wyoming and in the Western Great Lakes
region were re-listed in 2014 due to additional court decisions
that challenged the adequacy of State management plans.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See, Humane Society v. Jewell, 2014 WL 7237702 (D.D.C 2014), and
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, 2014 WL 4714847 (D.D.C. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the 2014
decision on March 3, 2017, regarding gray wolves in Wyoming
only.\4\ FWS published the final rule removing these wolves
from the ESA on May 1, 2017, and Wyoming wolves are again
managed by the State of Wyoming.\5\ While technically the goal
of Section 3 of the bill directing FWS to reissue the 2012
Wyoming final rule for delisting has been accomplished, the
delisting of wolves in Wyoming remains (without this
legislation) subject to potential judicial review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Defenders of Wildlife et al v. Zinke, No. 14-5300, 2017 (D.C.
Cir. Mar. 3, 2017) at https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/
opinions.nsf/E2381C96826F09F4852580D80057B29F/$file/14-5300-
1664135.pdf.
\5\Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of
Removal of Federal Protections for Gray Wolves in Wyoming, 82 Fed. Reg.
20284-85 (May 1, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2017, a federal appeals court upheld a lower
court's decision that FWS acted prematurely when it removed the
gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region from the endangered
species list.\6\ This ensures this population segment of gray
wolves remains regulated under the ESA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Humane Society et al v Zinke et al, No. 15-5041, 2017 (D.C. Cir.
Aug. 1, 2017) at https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
9EDB5CE0814D2B948525816F00511636/$file/15-5041.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 424 requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue
the final rules from 2011 and 2012 that removed the gray wolf
from ESA protected status in the Western Great Lakes and
Wyoming distinct population segment area. It also exempts the
new rules from judicial review. FWS will retain authority to
list gray wolves for federal protection if population numbers
warrant relisting.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title. The Act may be referred to as the
Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017.
Section 2. Reissuance of final rule regarding gray wolves
in the Western Great Lakes. This section requires the Secretary
of the Interior to reissue the rule delisting gray wolves in
the Western Great Lakes within 60 days of enactment. The rule
would not be subject to judicial review and wolves would be
returned to indefinite State management.
Section 3. Reissuance of final rule regarding gray wolves
in Wyoming. This section requires the Secretary of the Interior
to reissue the rule delisting gray wolves in Wyoming within 60
days of enactment. The rule would not be subject to judicial
review and wolves would be returned to indefinite State
management.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 424 was introduced on January 10, 2017, by Congressman
Collin C. Peterson (D-MN). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources. On July 19, 2017, the Committee
held a hearing on the bill. On October 3, 2017, the Natural
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. No amendments
were offered and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the
House of Representatives on October 4, 2017, by a bipartisan
roll call vote of 24 ayes and 15 noes, as follows:
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 8, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf
State Management Act of 2017.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 424--Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017
H.R. 424 would require the Secretary of the Interior to
reissue final rules that removed gray wolves from the
endangered species list in Wyoming and the western Great Lakes
region. On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) reissued the rule delisting the gray wolf in Wyoming,
and CBO expects that reissuing the final rule pertaining to the
Great Lakes region would have an insignificant effect on the
agency's workload. Under the bill, those actions would not be
subject to judicial review.
Based on an analysis of information provided by the USFWS,
CBO estimates that implementing the bill would have no
significant effect on the federal budget.
Enacting H.R. 424 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 424 would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
H.R. 424 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The
estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to reissue final rules relating to listing of the gray
wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. Sections 2 and 3 of this bill direct
the Secretary of the Interior to reissue two rules regarding
wolves under the Endangered Species Act.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 424 would remove Endangered Species Act (ESA)
protections for gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region
and prevent judicial review of a recent federal court decision
upholding a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rule to delist
wolves in Wyoming. The bill short-circuits the science-based
ESA process of determining when species are recovered to the
point that protections can be removed.
In the case of the gray wolf, the species occupies only
five percent of its historic range in the lower 48 states. Gray
wolves currently enjoy ESA protections in the lower 48 outside
of Wyoming and the Northern Rocky Mountains area where they
were legislatively delisted. Historically, gray wolves were
present throughout most of the continental United States,
Canada, and northern Mexico, but because they were viewed as a
threat to livestock, wolves were hunted to the brink of
extinction. By 1965, wolves had been nearly extirpated from the
continental United States. By the time they received ESA
protection in the early 1970s, only several hundred gray wolves
remained in the wild in extreme northern Minnesota and
Michigan.
Wolves still face persecution from hunters and agricultural
interests, and are only beginning to recolonize areas where
they were long a critical part of ecosystems. The continued
threat to wolves is evidenced by the fact that in the states
where Congress delisted the species in 2011, more than 5,000
wolves have been killed.
The practical impact of H.R. 424 with respect to Wyoming
wolves would only be to block a review by the Supreme Court,
something that was unlikely to happen anyway. However, the D.C.
Circuit recently overturned the FWS delisting decision on
Western Great Lakes wolves because the agency's delisting
decision failed to account for ``the undisputedly vast loss of
historical range'' of the wolf. Therefore, this legislation
would strike a damaging blow to the continued recovery of gray
wolves by removing all ESA protections for wolves in the
Midwest. For these reasons, we oppose the bill as reported.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources.
Darren Soto.
A. Donald McEachin.
Alan S. Lowenthal.
Grace F. Napolitano.
Donald S. Beyer.
Colleen Hanabusa.
Nanette Diaz Barragan.