Summary#
The Northern Great Lakes Wolf Recovery Act is a bill that would require federal actions; it is not yet law. It does not amend the text of the Endangered Species Act, but it would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director to update a wolf monitoring plan and require the Interior Secretary to issue a rule delisting wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Its stated aim is to update post-delisting monitoring for that region; the bill does not make delisting depend on what the updated plan finds.
- Within 30 days after enactment, the Director must establish a regional wolf advisory committee.
- Within one year, the Director must update the 2008 post-delisting monitoring plan for wolves in the Northern Great Lakes Region, in consultation with the committee.
- Once the plan is updated, the Secretary must issue a rule delisting wolves in that region under the Endangered Species Act.
- For this bill’s purposes, the 1978 rule’s “Minnesota population” would include wolves across the Northern Great Lakes Region. Other populations and other parts of that rule would not be changed.
- The committee must include specified federal officials, representatives of federally recognized Tribes and Tribal organizations, state agency heads nominated by governors and appointed by the Director, and other experts chosen by the Director.
What it means for you#
- People in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula: If enacted, the bill would require a federal rule delisting wolves in the region. The bill does not describe what other federal, state or local rules would then apply.
- Tribes and Tribal organizations: Representatives must be included on the advisory committee. The bill does not set how representatives are selected or how many there will be.
- State governments: Governors would nominate the heads of applicable state agencies for committee appointment. The bill does not give states a veto over the update or delisting rule.
- Federal agencies: The Director must create the committee and update the plan; the Secretary must issue the delisting rule. The committee must consult with the Secretary during the five-year post-delisting monitoring period.
- Individuals and businesses: The bill does not directly create a fee, fine, benefit, or application process for them.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill requires a committee and federal agency work, but provides no staffing level, budget, or cost estimate.
- It does not specify whether new funding would be provided.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not set out what the updated monitoring plan must measure or what actions would follow if monitoring shows a problem.
- It does not state a separate deadline for the delisting rule beyond requiring it once the plan is updated.
- It does not make delisting conditional on the plan’s findings or specify biological criteria for the rule.
- The bill does not explain how Tribes and Tribal organizations would choose their committee representatives, or how many representatives would serve.
- The supplied material does not establish the wolves’ current federal listing status or the current operation of the 2008 plan.
Case for#
- A required plan update could give federal officials a newer monitoring approach for wolves in the named region.
- The committee would bring federal, state, Tribal and wolf-expertise perspectives into the plan update and delisting rule.
- A five-year post-delisting period gives the committee a defined role in consultation after delisting.
Case against#
- The Secretary must issue a delisting rule after the plan is updated; the bill does not say delisting depends on monitoring results or other stated criteria.
- The bill does not explain what the Secretary must do if post-delisting monitoring identifies a concern.
- The committee’s role is consultation, and the bill does not give it decision-making power or explain how disagreements would be handled.