[House Report 115-1012]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-1012
======================================================================
MANAGE OUR WOLVES ACT
_______
November 9, 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. 6784]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 6784) to provide for removal of the gray wolf in
the contiguous 48 States from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife published under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, 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. 6784 is to provide for the removal of
the gray wolf in the contiguous 48 States from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife published under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 6784 is a bipartisan bill that would exempt from
judicial review the 2012 rule (later reinstated in 2017)
delisting of the gray wolf (canis lupus irremotus) in Wyoming
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The bill further
directs the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a 2011 rule to
delist the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region and
would exempt this rule from judicial review. Finally, the bill
directs the Secretary to issue a rule to remove the gray wolf
(Canis lupus) in each of the 48 contiguous States from the list
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and prohibits judicial
review of this action.
Gray wolves were first listed as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) in
1974.\1\ Existing wolves present in the Western Great Lakes
region at the time were protected, and the federal government
subsequently introduced the species to the western U.S. by
relocating wolves from Canada and releasing them in central
Idaho and Yellowstone National Park in 1994 and 1995.\2\
States, local citizens, livestock groups, and sportsmen mostly
opposed the reintroduction effort.\3\ The reintroduced wolf
population in the West expanded more quickly than many had
anticipated. As a result, in September 2001, affected States
and tribes began working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to formulate plans that would effectively
transition management responsibility of the species to the
States upon delisting under the ESA.\4\ FWS deemed the Idaho
and Montana wolf management plans adequate, but did not approve
the Wyoming plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531.
\2\See, Wolf Restoration, Nat'l Park Serv., https://www.nps.gov/
yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm (last visited July 12, 2017).
\3\See, Letter from C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Governor, State of Idaho,
to Ken Salazar, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior (October 18,
2010) (available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/
wolves/?getPage=161).
\4\See, State of Idaho, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho
Wolf Management Plan (2002) (available at: http://
fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/plan02.pdf). See also, State
of Montana, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Montana
Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (2002) (available at: http://
fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/wolf/management.html). See also,
Wyoming Farm Bureau v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Wyo. 1997).
\5\Wyoming Farm Bureau v. Babbitt, 987 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Wyo.
1997). See also, Press Release, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. Service
Removes Western Great Lakes, Portion of Northern Rocky Mountain Gray
Wolf Populations From Endangered Species List Wolves in Wyoming to
Remain Protected by Endangered Species Act (Jan. 14, 2009) (https://
www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/09-02.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray wolves were removed from the endangered species list
on January 14, 2009.\6\ As part of their management plans,
Idaho and Montana conducted tightly controlled wolf hunts
beginning in the autumn of 2009.\7\ Sales of wolf hunt tags
traditionally provide funding for wildlife management
activities, and hunts are conducted in a similar fashion to
those of large ungulates and other wild animals under State
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\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).
\7\See, Press Release, State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
Idaho's First Wolf Hunt is Over (Apr. 5, 2010) (available at https://
fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/news10.pdf). See also, State
of Montana, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, The 2009 Montana
Wolf Hunting Season (2010) (available at file:///C:/Users/molmstead/
Downloads/2009%20Wolf%20Hunting%20Season%20Summary.pdf). See also, The
Status of the Federal Government's Management of Wolves: Hearing Before
the H. Comm. on Natural Resources Subcomm. on Oversight and
Investigations, 114th Cong. (2016) (The State of Idaho has successfully
managed thriving wolf populations since delisting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activist groups challenged the FWS decision to delist the
wolves in Idaho, Montana, and the Western Great Lakes, arguing
that the rule had been politically motivated and did not comply
with certain provisions of the ESA.\8\ 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 historic range (Wyoming) was not appropriate.\9\ The
delisting of the wolves was halted in all States until the
Wyoming plan was acceptable to FWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See, Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D.
MT 2010). See also, Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall, 565 F.2d 1160 (D.
Mont. 2008); Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D.
Or. 2005).
\9\Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1228 (D.
MT 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressman Michael K. Simpson (R-ID) and Senator Jon
Tester (D-MT) sponsored a provision in the Fiscal Year 2012
Consolidated Appropriations bill clarifying Congressional
intent to remove the recovered wolves in Idaho and Montana from
the endangered species list, and return the species to State
management.\10\ Provisions to delist the wolf and allow States
to retain management authority have been included in
appropriations acts each successive year.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Press Release, Rep. Mike Simpson, Simpson's Wolf Language
Included in Final
Funding Bill (Apr. 12, 2011), available at http://simpson.house.gov/
News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=235258. See also, Consolidated
Appropriations Act 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74 (2011), available at
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/
Appropriations+for+Fiscal+Year+2012#AppropriationsforFiscalYear2012-
omnibusappropriations).
\11\HR 1473 (112th Cong.); H.R. 2584 (112th Cong.); H.R. 6091
(112th Cong.); H.R. 5538 (114th Cong.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Populations of gray wolves present in the Western Great
Lakes increased in number through the 1990s and 2000s. FWS
delisted wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in a new
rule in 2011.\12\ Wyoming wolves were delisted by FWS in
2012.\13\ Wolves in Wyoming and in the Western Great Lakes
region were, however, re-listed in 2014 due to additional court
decisions that challenged the adequacy of State management
plans.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Gray Wolf Recovery in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
(2011) (available at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/
r3wolfrec.htm) and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Revising the Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) in the Western
Great Lakes, 76 Fed. Reg. 81666 (Dec. 28, 2011) (available at: https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/archives/2011FinalDelisting/pdf/
FR_grwoWGLDelist28Dec2011.pdf).
\13\Endangered and Threatened Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in
Wyoming from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population's Status as an Experimental
Population, 76 Fed. Reg. 81666 (Sep. 10, 2012).
\14\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.\15\ FWS published a final rule delisting them in
accordance with the court order on May 1, 2017, and Wyoming
wolves are again managed by the State of Wyoming.\16\ As such,
this bill would safeguard the FWS' delisting decision from
litigious groups' lawsuits by exempting this delisting from
judicial review. On August 1, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a ruling upholding a U.S. District Court order
overruling FWS' determination that the wolves had sufficiently
recovered within the Western Great Lakes region.\17\ This bill
would direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue the rule
to delist the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes region and
exempt this rule from judicial review to prevent continued
litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\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/$file/14-5300-
1664135.pdf.
\16\Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of
Removal of Federal Protections for Gray Wolves in Wyoming, 82 Fed. Reg.
20284-85 (May 1, 2017).
\17\Humane Society of the United States v. U.S. Secretary of the
Interior, (2017). https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
9EDB5CE0814D2B948525816F00511636/$file/15-5041.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the last section of this bill seeks to empower the
States to manage their individual gray wolf populations by
directing the Secretary to issue a rule to delist the gray wolf
in each of the 48 contiguous States and the District of
Columbia. To ensure that States are provided certainty when
developing State management plans, this bill would also exempt
this delisting decision from judicial review.
The gray wolf delisting issue is not a new one for Congress
and has been bipartisan. As mentioned above, appropriations
riders affecting the gray wolf have been enacted since 2012. In
the 112th Congress, Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) introduced
H.R. 509, Congresswoman Candice Miller (R-MI) introduced H.R.
1819, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced S. 249 and Senator
Max Baucus (D-MT) introduced S. 321--all affected gray wolves.
In the 114th Congress, Congressman Reid J. Ribble (R-WI)
introduced a similar bill,\18\ and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI)
introduced S. 2281. The Department of the Interior, Environment
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 5538)
included a provision to prohibit the use of federal funds to
list the gray wolf under the ESA in the lower 48 States after
June 13, 2017.\19\ Also during the 114th Congress, the House
passed the SHARE Act (H.R. 2406) in February 2016, which
included the directive to reissue gray wolf rules for the
Western Great Lakes and Wyoming.\20\ The wolf provisions from
the SHARE Act were also included in the House amendment to the
North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016
(S. 2012).\21\ In the 115th Congress, Congressman Collin
Peterson (D-MN) introduced a gray wolf bill (H.R. 424); the
Natural Resources Committee reported the bill favorably on
January 8, 2018.\22\ Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) also introduced
a gray wolf bill, S. 164, this Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\H.R. 884, 114th Cong. (2015).
\19\Fiscal Year 2017 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill,
H.R. 5538, 114th
Cong. (2016) (available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-
114hr5538eh/pdf/BILLS-114hr5538eh.pdf).
\20\SHARE Act, H.R. 2406, 114th Cong. (2016) (available at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr2406eh/pdf/BILLS-114hr2406eh.pdf).
\21\North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016,
S. 2012, 114th
Cong. (2016) (available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-
114s2012es/pdf/BILLS-114s2012es.pdf).
\22\Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017, (2017). https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-115hr424rh/pdf/BILLS-115hr424rh.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 6784 was introduced on September 12, 2018, by
Congressman Sean P. Duffy (R-WI). The bill was referred to the
Natural Resources Committee. On September 26, 2018, 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 by a roll call vote of 19 yeas and
15 nays, 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, October 12, 2018.
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. 6784, the Manage
our Wolves Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani
Shankaran.
Sincerely,
Mark P. Hadley
(For Keith Hall, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 6784--Manage our Wolves Act
H.R. 6784 would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to issue a rule that removes the gray wolf from the
endangered species list in the 48 contiguous states and to
reissue a 2011 rule that delisted the gray wolf in the Western
Great Lakes. The bill also would prohibit judicial review of
those rules and of a recently reinstated 2012 rule delisting
the gray wolf in Wyoming.
According to USFWS, the agency is reviewing the status of
the gray wolf in the 48 contiguous states. If the agency
determines that the species has exceeded recovery goals, it
will propose a rule to delist the gray wolf. Conversely, if the
finding is that recovery goals are unmet, the agency will not
propose a rule. Using information from USFWS, CBO estimates
that directing USFWS to issue a rule to remove the grey wolf
from the endangered species list would cost less than $500,000;
such spending would be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds.
Under current law, plaintiffs who challenge the federal
government under the Endangered Species Act may be entitled to
the repayment of attorneys' fees. Such payments are made from
the federal government's Judgment Fund, which has a permanent
indefinite appropriation. By prohibiting judicial review, CBO
expects, H.R. 6784 could reduce the number of civil actions
that otherwise would be filed and thus the potential for
payments from the Judgment Fund. Based on the amount of such
payments in the past, CBO estimates that any decrease in direct
spending would be insignificant over the 2019-2028 period.
Because enacting H.R. 6784 could affect direct spending,
pay-as-you-go procedures apply. The bill would not affect
revenues.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6784 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
H.R. 6784 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
On November 8, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
H.R. 424, the Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017, as
ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on
October 4, 2017. Both pieces of legislation contain similar
provisions, but H.R. 6784 would require USFWS to issue a new
rule and would prohibit judicial review of that rule. The
estimates of budgetary effects reflect those differences.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Janani
Shankaran. The estimate was reviewed 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 provide for the removal of the
gray wolf in the contiguous 48 States from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife published 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. Section 2 of this bill directs the
Secretary of the Interior to reissue a regulation regarding
gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes. Section 3 of the bill
directs the Secretary of the Interior to issue a regulation to
remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife that would apply to each of the 48 contiguous States.
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. 6784 would remove Endangered Species Act (ESA)
protections for gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region
and in the contiguous 48 States 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.
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 northern Minnesota and Michigan.
While the population of the gray wolf has increased, the
species currently only occupies five percent of its historic
range in the lower 48 states. Gray wolves can only be found in
the Great Lakes, northern Rockies, and Pacific Northwest.
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.
This legislation would strike a damaging blow to the
continued recovery of gray wolves in the contiguous 48 states.
For these reasons, we oppose the bill as reported.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, Committee
on Natural Resources.
Niki Tsongas.
Jared Huffman.
A. Donald McEachin.
Wm. Lacy Clay.
Nanette Diaz Barragan.
Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
[all]