The Gray Wolf and the Endangered Species Act (ESA): A Brief Legal History

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Wolves had all but disappeared from the contiguous United States when Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed wolves as an endangered species in most of the lower 48 states. Since then, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) has held every status of protection under the ESA, as regulatory efforts have shifted from conserving the wolf, which culminated in reintroducing wolves into three parts of the American West in the 1990s, to reducing wolf protections where its population has surged. Litigation has followed each regulatory change. After courts rejected regulatory efforts to reduce protections, Congress enacted P.L. 112-10, Section 1713, which removes federal protection of the gray wolf in Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and north-central Utah, and marks the first legislative delisting in the history of the ESA. P.L. 112-10 further prohibits judicial challenge of the delisting.

In December 2011, FWS delisted wolves in the Western Great Lakes area. In addition, FWS proposed recognizing a new species of wolf, the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon), and changing the gray wolf’s historic range to omit all or parts of 29 states in the eastern United States. On September 30, 2012, wolves in Wyoming were delisted.

A five-year review of gray wolf populations completed in February 2012 indicated that FWS found few gray wolves outside of the delisted areas, leading some to believe FWS would delist the species. The review recommends removing areas where wolves have not been found from the historic range of the gray wolf: the Southeast, the Northeast, and the Great Plains. FWS will consider whether the presence of two confirmed packs in the Pacific Northwest (outside of the delisted areas) should be designated a distinct population segment. FWS recommended that the listing status of the gray wolf “remain intact” until the regional status reviews are completed.

This report provides a brief history of the laws, regulations, and lawsuits related to the wolf’s protected status. Fuller analyses of the concepts discussed in this report can be found in the companion report, CRS Report RL34238, Gray Wolves Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations, by Kristina Alexander and M. Lynne Corn.


Date of Report: May 15, 2013
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R41730
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41730.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

National Monuments and the Antiquities Act

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands that contain historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest. The President is to reserve “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” The act was designed to protect federal lands and resources quickly, and Presidents have proclaimed a total of 137 monuments. Congress has modified many of these proclamations and has abolished some monuments. Congress also has created monuments under its own authority.

Presidential establishment of monuments sometimes has been contentious—for example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s creation of the Jackson Hole National Monument in Wyoming (1943); President Carter’s massive Alaskan withdrawals (1978); and President Clinton’s establishment of 19 monuments and enlargement of three others (1996-2001). President Obama’s interest in possible monument designations, and designation of nine national monuments, have renewed controversy over the Antiquities Act. However, the President cited support for his monument designations, some of which had been proposed for protective designations by legislation.

Issues have included the size of the areas and types of resources protected; the effects of monument designation on land uses; the level and types of threats to the areas; the inclusion of nonfederal lands within monument boundaries; the act’s limited process compared with the public participation and environmental review aspects of other laws; and the agency managing the monument.

Opponents have sought to revoke or limit the President’s authority to proclaim monuments. The 113th Congress is currently considering proposals to limit the President’s authority to create monuments. Some bills would block monuments from being declared by the President in a particular state—H.R. 1495 (Arizona); H.R. 1439 (Idaho); H.R. 1434 (Montana); H.R. 432 and S. 472 (Nevada); H.R. 1512 (New Mexico); and H.R. 758 (Utah). H.R. 382 would require approval by the pertinent state legislature and governor before a monument was proclaimed by the President. Others—H.R. 250; H.R. 1881 (Section 304) and S. 17 (Section 304); and S. 104— would require congressional approval. S. 104 also would make the President’s authority subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Still another measure—H.R. 1459—would make several changes regarding the President’s authority to establish national monuments. Among other provisions, H.R. 1459 seeks to make the President’s authority subject to NEPA, prohibit more than one proclamation per state per four-year presidential term, and prohibit private property from inclusion in a monument without the written consent of the property owner.

Monument supporters favor the Antiquities Act in its present form, asserting that the public and the courts have upheld monument designations and that many past designations that initially were controversial have come to be supported. They contend that the President needs continued authority to act promptly to protect valuable resources on federal lands from potential threats.


Date of Report: May 13, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R41330
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41330.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Charging fees for grazing private livestock on federal lands is a long-standing but contentious practice. Generally, livestock producers who use federal lands want to keep fees low, while conservation groups and others believe fees should be increased. The formula for determining the grazing fee for lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS) uses a base value adjusted annually by the lease rates for grazing on private lands, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. Currently, the BLM and FS are charging a grazing fee of $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM). For fee purposes, an AUM is defined as a month’s use and occupancy of the range by one animal unit. The fee is in effect through February 28, 2014. The collected fees are divided among the Treasury, states, and federal agencies. Fee reform was attempted but not adopted in the 1990s.

Issues for the 113th Congress include whether to retain the current grazing fee or alter the charges for grazing on federal lands, for instance, through an Administration proposal for an additional administrative fee of $1 per AUM. Congress also is evaluating proposals (e.g., H.R. 145, Section 102(e); H.R. 1187, Section 129; and S. 354, Section 5) to end grazing on particular allotments through the voluntary waiver of the permits and the subsequent closure of the related allotments to grazing. Another set of issues involves expiring grazing permits. These issues include whether to (1) continue to automatically renew expiring grazing permits until the permit renewal process is completed, (2) categorically exclude certain permit decisions from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, and/or (3) extend the general duration of grazing permits from 10 to 20 years. Such provisions have been included in House and Senate companion bills (H.R. 657 and S. 258).


Date of Report: May 6, 2013
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RS21232
Price: $29.95


To Order:

RS21232.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Assistance for Wildfire Response and Recovery

Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

Raging wildfires, burned homes, and the evacuation of thousands make headlines nearly every fire season. More than 9.3 million acres burned in 2012, the third-largest acreage burned annually since 1960.1 Severe wildfires in 2012 occurred in Oregon and New Mexico, including the Whitewater-Baldy fire, which was the largest wildfire in New Mexico history.2 Options for federal support and assistance—during the fires, in the aftermath, and aimed at preventing a recurrence—have been considered by many concerned about the ongoing disasters. This report briefly describes these federal options.


Date of Report: May 8, 2013
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: R41858
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41858.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Sage Grouse and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Western states have seen conflicts over natural resources for more than a century, involving issues such as grazing, roads, fences, oil and gas development, urban expansion, spread of invasive species, water rights, timber harvest, and pollution. In many cases, the conflicts involve the protection of endangered and threatened species, often with one group seeing listed species as an obstacle to their development goals or property rights, and another group advocating protection in line with their environmental, scientific, or economic goals. One such controversy is developing in 11 western states over sage grouse, whose numbers can be threatened by roads, fences, power lines, urban expansion, and energy development. This report describes the state of knowledge about these birds, history of efforts to protect them, and current controversies.

The sage grouse, once abundant in western sagebrush habitat in 16 states, has dropped in numbers, and is now found in 11 states. Its decline can be attributed to several factors—increased use of sage grouse habitat by ranching and energy development, decreased sagebrush due to noxious invasive species, and loss of habitat due to more frequent fires. However, the extent of the decline is not certain, and some dispute that the sage grouse is in peril.

There is some discussion over how many species of grouse there are and how they may be related. Currently, two closely related species are recognized by scientists: the Gunnison grouse (Centrocercus minimus) and the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), sometimes referred to as the greater sage grouse. At one time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) also recognized two subspecies—the eastern sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) and the western sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios)—but FWS reversed that position. In addition, FWS has designated distinct population segments (DPS) of sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Parties have filed petitions seeking to protect these birds under the ESA by having them listed as threatened or endangered, but none are listed under the act. On January 11, 2013, however, FWS proposed listing the Gunnison grouse as endangered.

In July 2011, FWS reached a settlement in several lawsuits regarding delays in listing species, include the sage grouse. According to the settlement agreement, a proposed listing rule or a decision that listing is not warranted is due for the Mono Basin sage grouse DPS by the end of FY2013, and for the Columbia River Basin sage grouse DPS and the greater sage grouse by the end of FY2015. At present, those grouses’ protection under the ESA has been deemed warranted but precluded by higher protection priorities. Thus, the sage grouse is treated as a candidate species and does not have the protections that a listed species would have.

One factor in making a listing decision is whether other regulations are in place to provide adequate protection of a species so that federal listing is not necessary to prevent extinction. States in primary sage grouse habitat have taken action to forestall an endangered species listing, which some believe would inhibit energy development on vast amounts of public and private property. Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service have policies to protect the grouse on their lands, although courts have found those policies lacking. These issues are at the forefront as Congress considers increased energy development on federal lands, while balancing the mission of the ESA.


Date of Report: April 22, 2013
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R40865
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R40865.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

More than 88 programs administered by 16 different federal agencies target rural economic development. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the greatest number of rural development programs and has the highest average of program funds going directly to rural counties (approximately 50%). The Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 also designated USDA as the lead federal agency for rural development. The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agricultural Reorganization Act of 1994 created the Office of the Undersecretary for Rural Development and consolidated the rural development portfolio into four principal agencies responsible for USDA’s mission area: the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, the Rural Utilities Service, and the Office of Community Development.

In the 112th Congress, the Senate farm bill (S. 3240) would have restructured the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (ConAct), a principle statute authorizing many of the loan and grant programs administered by USDA Rural Development. Among other changes, the bill would have consolidated several business loan and grant programs into a single business support platform. The bill would also have eliminated the Rural Collaborative Investment Program, Historic Barn Preservation, Rural Telework, and the National Rural Development Partnership. The bill also would have prioritized projects that support strategic economic and community development, involve multijurisdictional planning, have investment from other federal agencies, and have strategic plans developed through broad-based community planning involving multiple stakeholders. The House farm bill (H.R. 6083) in the 112th Congress would have reauthorized most programs, making only minor changes to certain programs.

An extension of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) provides discretionary funding for rural development programs through the FY2013 fiscal year at FY2012 levels, minus sequestration and rescissions. Congress is likely to take up drafting a new farm bill in summer 2013.

This report provides an overview of the various programs administered by the four USDA agencies, their authorizing legislation, program objectives, eligibility criteria, and FY2005- FY2013 funding for each program. A continuing resolution for FY2013 was enacted in March 2013 and provides funding at the FY2012 level (minus sequestration and two rescissions). The report will be updated as new USDA Rural Development programs are implemented or amended.


Date of Report: May 3, 2013
Number of Pages: 42
Order Number: RL31837
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL31837.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.