Forest Certification Programs

Katie Hoover
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

The national forests have been the focus of controversy for many years. Reduced timber harvests, increased wildfire risks, degraded forest health, and disagreements among users and other stakeholders have led to congressional disputes over appropriate management. Some interests have suggested third-party certification of sustainable management of the national forests as a possible solution to many of these difficulties. There are two major certification programs in the United States: the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) program.

The FSC and SFI programs are very similar in many regards. Both programs use a multistakeholder approach that balances environmental, social, and economic interests to negotiate broadly acceptable standards of sustainable forest management. Both programs use independent, accredited third parties to verify compliance with the standards. Both programs have stakeholder involvement and public transparency requirements. Within the standards, both programs have similar coverage in terms of requirements for harvest operations, wildlife and habitat management, water and soil protection, and decision-making and management planning.

Despite these similarities, the SFI and FSC programs do have some distinct differences. The programs each emphasize different sustainability objectives: the SFI program emphasizes sustainable timber harvesting, and places forest management as a tool to achieve that objective; the FSC program emphasizes sustainable forest management, and places timber harvests as one tool to achieve that objective. The SFI standard is generally more flexible, while the FSC standard is generally more prescriptive with more on-the-ground performance requirements.

How certification would affect the management of the national forests is uncertain. However, certification could evaluate the extent to which the forest management plans align with the standards of each certification program, and then evaluate the extent to which those forest plans are being implemented. A third-party evaluation of the forest plans, and their implementation, could potentially alleviate—or escalate—stakeholder and congressional disputes over the appropriate management of the national forests.

It is unclear whether the Forest Service has the existing authority to certify the national forests. If Congress chooses to require certification of the national forests, there are other questions to consider, including which certification program(s) to require; what (if any) forest management process requirements (e.g., public involvement standards) might be relaxed; and what would be the impact on timber purchasers of processing certified sustainable wood. Congress may also consider if certification should occur across the entire National Forest System, or at the unit level, and then how many and which units should be certified.


Date of Report: September 8, 2011
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: R41992
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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 Park System: Establishing New Units

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The National Park System (System) includes 394 diverse units administered by the National Park Service (NPS) of the Department of the Interior. Units generally are added to the National Park System by acts of Congress, although the President may proclaim national monuments on land that is federally managed for inclusion in the System. An act of Congress creating a Park System unit may explain the unit’s purpose; set its boundaries; provide specific directions for land acquisition, planning, uses, and operations; and authorize appropriations for acquisition and development. Today, there are more than 20 different designations (i.e., titles) for units of the National Park System, reflecting the diversity of the areas. There is no statute that sets out and defines all the designations, and Congress has discretion in choosing the type of designation for a unit being established.

Before enacting a law to add a unit, Congress often first enacts a law requiring the NPS to study an area, typically to assess its national significance, suitability and feasibility, and other management options. When Congress directs the NPS to prepare a study, the agency must assess whether an area contains natural or cultural resources that are nationally significant, constitutes one of the most important examples of a type of resource, and is a suitable and feasible addition to the Park System. The agency also is to consider certain factors established in law (e.g., threats to resources) to promote the consistency and professionalism of the studies.

The Secretary of the Interior is required by law to recommend annually to Congress a list of areas for study for potential inclusion in the National Park System. The Secretary also must submit to Congress a list of areas previously studied that contain primarily historical resources, and a list of areas with natural resources. Previously studied areas are to be ranked in order of priority for consideration of addition to the Park System. For FY2010-FY2012, the Obama Administration has not submitted lists of areas for potential study for addition to the Park System. Instead, the Administration is focusing on completing authorized studies and other current responsibilities, such as facility maintenance.

The addition of units to the National Park System sometimes has been controversial. Some discourage adding units, asserting that the System is “mature” or “complete,” while others assert that the System should evolve and grow to reflect current events, new information, and reinterpretations. A related issue is how to properly maintain existing and new units given limited fiscal and staffing resources. Differences exist on the relative importance of including areas reflecting our natural, cultural, and social history. The adequacy of standards and procedures for ensuring that the most outstanding areas are included in the Park System also has been debated.

It is generally regarded as difficult to meet the criteria and to secure congressional support and funding for expanding the National Park System. Thus, another issue has been whether particular resources are better protected outside the National Park System, and how to secure the best alternative protection. Certain areas that receive technical or financial aid from the NPS, but are neither federally owned nor directly administered by the NPS, include affiliated areas and national heritage areas. Some programs give places honorary recognition. The NPS also supports local and state governments in protecting resources through grants for projects and technical assistance.


Date of Report: August 24, 2011
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: RS20158
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Ballast Water Management to Combat Invasive Species

Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The 112th Congress may consider legislation to amend and reauthorize the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to further study vessel ballast water management standards and modify how ballast water is handled.

In recent years, people have become increasingly aware that the globalization of trade, the increased speed of travel, the massive volume of cargo shipments, and rising tourism have combined to increase the chance of accidental introductions of foreign species into the United States. Aquatic species arrive through a variety of mechanisms—unintentionally when attached to vessel hulls or carried in vessel ballast water and intentionally when imported for aquaria display, as live seafood for human consumption, or as a transplant to increase sport fishing opportunities.

The arrival of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes and their subsequent damage to city water supplies and electric utilities focused significant attention on ballast water discharge by cargo ships as a high-risk mechanism for species invasion. New management efforts attempt to address this concern.

In late August 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard published proposed regulations to establish quantitative standards for ballast water treatment. The proposed standards would initially follow standards developed by the International Maritime Organization. In a subsequent phase, the quantitative standards would become much more stringent, given sufficient technological development to support achievement of the higher standards. The proposed Coast Guard standards would not preempt existing state ballast water management standards.

In response to litigation, the Environmental Protection Agency published regulations on December 28, 2008, to regulate ballast water discharge under the Clean Water Act through Vessel General Permits. Subsequently, P.L. 110-299 provided a two-year moratorium for commercial fishing vessels and non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length from the ballast water discharge provisions, and the 111th Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 111-215) to further extend this moratorium through December 18, 2013.

This report provides background on various approaches to ballast water management and reviews current ballast water management laws and programs. This report will be updated as this issue evolves.


Date of Report: August 19, 2011
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL32344
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Gray Wolves Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The wolf was nearly eradicated from the lower 48 states in the first half of the 20th century. In 1974 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) placed gray wolf subspecies, the eastern timber wolf, the Mexican wolf, and the northern Rocky Mountain wolf, on the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) first list of endangered species. In 1978 FWS replaced the subspecies listings by listing the gray wolf species (Canis lupus) as endangered in all of the conterminous 48 states except Minnesota, where FWS listed it as threatened. In 2011 FWS found that this listing was in error; that more targeted regional units were appropriate for wolves (notably in the Southwest and Pacific Northwest); that a newly recognized species, the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon), not the gray wolf, occupied the Northeast; and that all or parts of 29 eastern states should be removed from the gray wolf’s historic range.

With the exception of experimental populations (Ex Pops) of gray wolves that FWS established in order to reintroduce wolves to selected areas, protections for the gray wolf have diminished as wolf populations have increased in areas such as the Northern Rocky Mountains. The use of distinct population segments (DPSs), a term created in the 1978 ESA amendments, has played a role in reduced protection. Through DPSs, vertebrate species may be divided into distinct groups, based on geography and genetic distinctions for listing purposes.

Ex Pops of wolves were reintroduced in three regions of the United States in the 1990s: Central Idaho, Yellowstone, and the Blue Range of Arizona and New Mexico. The Ex Pops in Central Idaho and Yellowstone have grown to over 1,650 wolves as of December 31, 2010, while the Mexican gray wolf population of the Blue Range has not surpassed 59 wolves, and as of January 2011 totaled 50.

ESA protection for wolf DPSs has varied since the first DPSs, Western, Eastern, and Southwestern, were proposed in 2003. Each effort by FWS to delist the wolf or designate a DPS has been rejected by a court or settled by the agency. Most recently, the April 2009 rules that had established and then delisted DPSs in the Western Great Lakes and the Northern Rockies were nullified as a result of litigation. As a consequence, the Northern Rockies wolves resumed their Ex Pop status, meaning they were treated as threatened in most circumstances but were endangered outside of the Ex Pop boundaries. Wolves in the rest of the lower 48 states were again endangered, with the exception of Minnesota wolves, which were threatened.

The April 2009 rule for the Northern Rockies was the topic of legislation in April 2011, when Congress took the unusual step of directing FWS to delist an endangered species. Section 1713 of P.L. 112-10 required FWS to reissue the 2009 Northern Rockies DPS rule. FWS’s reissuance of that rule on May 5, 2011, ended federal protection of the gray wolf in Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and north-central Utah, but kept the wolf as a listed species in the remainder of the lower 48 states. Also on May 5, 2011, FWS proposed designating a DPS in the Western Great Lakes area and delisting those gray wolves.

This report analyzes the ESA as it applies to gray wolves and, in particular, Ex Pops and DPSs.


Date of Report: September 1, 2011
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: RL34238
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Earthquakes: Risk, Detection, Warning, and Research

Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

The United States faces the possibility of large economic losses from earthquake-damaged buildings and infrastructure. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has estimated that earthquakes cost the United States, on average, over $5 billion per year. California, Oregon, and Washington account for nearly $4.1 billion (77%) of the U.S. total estimated average annualized loss. California alone accounts for most of the estimated annualized earthquake losses for the nation.

A single large earthquake, however, can cause far more damage than the average annual estimate. The 1994 Northridge (CA) earthquake caused as much as $26 billion (in 2005 dollars) in damage and was one of the costliest natural disasters to strike the United States. One study of the damage caused by a hypothetical magnitude 7.8 earthquake along the San Andreas Fault in southern California projected as many as 1,800 fatalities and more than $200 billion in economic losses. An issue for the 112th Congress is whether existing federally supported programs aimed at reducing U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes are an adequate response to the earthquake hazard.

Under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), four federal agencies have responsibility for long-term earthquake risk reduction: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). They variously assess U.S. earthquake hazards, deliver notifications of seismic events, develop measures to reduce earthquake hazards, and conduct research to help reduce overall U.S. vulnerability to earthquakes. Congressional oversight of the NEHRP program might revisit how well the four agencies coordinate their activities to address the earthquake hazard. Better coordination was a concern that led to changes to the program in legislation enacted in 2004 (P.L. 108-360).

P.L. 108-360 authorized appropriations for NEHRP through FY2009. Total funding enacted from reauthorization through FY2009 was $613.2 million, approximately 68% of the total amount of $902.4 million authorized by P.L. 108-360. NEHRP agencies spent $126.6 million for program activities in FY2011, slightly less than FY2010 spending of $131.2 million. Also, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) provided some additional funding for earthquake activities under NEHRP. What effect funding at the levels enacted through FY2010 under NEHRP has had on the U.S. capability to detect earthquakes and minimize losses after an earthquake occurs is difficult to assess. The effectiveness of the NEHRP program is a perennial issue for Congress: it is inherently difficult to capture precisely, in terms of dollars saved or fatalities prevented, the effectiveness of mitigation measures taken before an earthquake occurs. A major earthquake in a populated urban area within the United States would cause damage, and a question becomes how much damage would be prevented by mitigation strategies underpinned by the NEHRP program.

Legislation introduced during the 112th Congress (S. 646 and H.R. 1379) would make changes to the program and would authorize appropriations totaling $906 million over five years for NEHRP. Ninety percent of the funding would be designated for the USGS and NSF, and the remainder for FEMA and NIST. In the Senate, S. 646 was reported out of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on May 5, 2011; H.R. 1379 awaits further action in the House.


Date of Report: September 2, 2011
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: RL33861
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.