[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.