[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58086-58093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28232]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
RIN 1018-AF63
Proposed Policy on General Conservation Permits
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Service announces a proposed policy to enhance the use of
permits as conservation tools by granting general conservation permits
under a number of wildlife and plant laws and treaties. The policy
recognizes scientific and conservation professionals and institutions
as partners in resource conservation and management and provides
incentives for them to work with protected species and their habitats.
It establishes a framework for us to evaluate permit applications based
on a risk assessment and grant a general conservation permit under
certain circumstances to professionals conducting scientific,
management, and conservation activities. This proposed policy is
intended to complement the current system used to process permit
applications.
[[Page 58087]]
The development of this policy is the first step in an ongoing
review of our permits programs. We also are developing a long-term
implementation plan for permits reform, will be conducting a study of
existing successful permits programs and practices, and anticipate
forming a permits process advisory committee.
DATES: Send public comments on this notice by December 27, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Chief, Office of Management Authority,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700,
Arlington, Virginia 22203. Materials received will be available for
public inspection by appointment from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the Office of Management Authority.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teiko Saito, Chief, Office of
Management Authority, at the above address, telephone (703) 358-2093 or
fax (703) 358-2280.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We implement a number of wildlife and plant laws and treaties,
including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA),
Lacey Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), Wild Bird
Conservation Act (WBCA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Each of these laws and treaties provides
for permits to be issued for otherwise prohibited activities under
specific circumstances. Permits are a means of regulating human
activities that can have an impact on populations of protected wildlife
and plants, thereby conserving these species and their habitats for
future generations. Our goal in administering the permits programs is
to foster conservation of protected species and their habitats, while
imposing the least possible burden on the affected public.
Over the past several years, certain wildlife and plant
professionals and conservation organizations have raised concerns about
our permits programs. Their concerns have centered on the need for a
better approach to programmatic permitting and the need to recognize
scientific and conservation organizations conducting work with
protected species as partners in resource conservation. These
individuals and organizations believe that our current permits system
is a disincentive to working with protected species, and at times even
impedes scientific investigation, conservation, and endangered and
threatened species recovery efforts.
Last year, we established a Permits Work Group to review concerns
raised about our permits programs and to make recommendations on how to
address the concerns. Members of the work group include representatives
from our permits programs in the Washington Office and in each of the
seven regions. They include managers of permits programs, as well as
legal instruments examiners and biologists who review permit
applications.
On August 10, 1998, we published a scoping notice in the Federal
Register (63 FR 42639). We described the four programs that administer
permits--Office of Management Authority, Office of Law Enforcement,
Division of Endangered Species, and Office of Migratory Bird
Management--and summarized the permits initiatives currently being
undertaken within the four programs. We also asked for comments on the
development of a policy that would approach permits as conservation
tools and provide a more efficient permits process that would be
consistently implemented Service-wide, with a focus on scientific
research and scientific and conservation institutions that meet certain
high biological and legal standards (i.e., paragraph C of the proposed
policy outlines these standards).
Summary of Comments
We received 135 comments from 4 Federal agencies, 57 individuals
(including 30 form letters from individuals who rehabilitate migratory
birds), 6 foreign entities, 8 State or county government agencies, 17
museums, and 43 organizations. There was a wide range of comments that
addressed not only policy development for scientific and conservation
permits, but the permits process as a whole for all types of
applicants.
Members of one organization were strongly opposed to our specific
proposal to identify cooperators from scientific and conservation
institutions, streamline the approval of permits for these cooperators,
and/or issue general permits. They considered the current permits
process to be ``extraordinarily'' easy and expected to see a high
threshold of proof applied to ensure that permits are granted in a
precautionary manner. They did not believe that permit decisions could
be generalized. They asserted that, while an institution may be
noteworthy for its contribution to conservation of one particular
species, it may have no expertise in the conservation of another. They
also believed that any kind of pre-approval process would limit public
access to information on applicants and their proposed activities.
Other commenters generally supported the development of a new
permits policy and either identified problems and/or made suggestions
on changes that could improve the current permits programs. The
following briefly summarizes these other general comments and suggested
solutions received from the public and/or identified by the Permits
Work Group. The identified problems and suggested solutions are not
given in any priority order, nor is the inclusion of a problem or
suggestion an indication that we agree with it or will be able to
implement it. We have reviewed all the comments, incorporated some
ideas into this proposed policy, and are considering others in the
ongoing review of our permits programs.
Problem Identified: Sometimes permit applications, amendments, and
renewals are not processed in a timely manner, and there are no
regulatory time limits for processing such actions.
Suggested Solutions: Establish mandatory time frames for processing
permit applications; specify review due dates for low-risk
transactions; evaluate staffing needs; establish time frames/guidelines
for reviewing offices; notify the public of any anticipated delays in
processing permits; use the new computer system, Service Permit
Issuance and Tracking System (SPITS), for more efficient permits
processing; use general advices, findings, and biological opinions,
where appropriate; streamline the renewal process and reporting
requirements; allow electronic/faxed submission of applications;
develop a system to check the status of an application by phone or
internet; and allow payment of fees by credit card.
Problem Identified: The permit process is too complex. It is
difficult to understand how our programs process applications and what
office to contact for a specific type of permit. Applicants must submit
duplicate information for each permit.
Suggested Solutions: Evaluate whether permits are being issued by
the appropriate office or program; establish a single point of contact
for permits; conduct a study of successful permit programs; establish
an electronic species query for all wildlife and plant laws; provide on
the internet general information on our permits programs and whom to
contact; harmonize CITES and ESA species listings; simplify application
forms with clear guidance on what is needed and why; establish an
applicant master file for baseline
[[Page 58088]]
information that can be accessed by all permits offices to reduce
duplication; register captive-breeding or plant propagation facilities
to expedite issuance of permits; and issue or renew permits even if the
project is not currently funded.
Problem Identified: Permit regulations are not clear, are out of
date, or take too long to develop. Policies and procedures are unclear
and not available to the public. There is confusion about terms we use.
Suggested Solutions: Establish time frames to update regulations,
internal practices, and policies; establish a cross-program team to
coordinate review and ensure consistency; convert regulations to plain
English; involve constituents by establishing a task force or advisory
council to assist in formulating regulations and policies and in
discussions of permit issues; notify permittees of changes in a timely
manner; develop guidance, policy, or regulations on the following:
development of special rules under section 4(d) of the ESA; use of
euthanasia; import of sport-hunted trophies; rehabilitation of
wildlife; use of ESA-listed species in educational programs; and
placement of salvaged, incidentally taken, deceased, or seized wildlife
and plants.
Problem Identified: Applicants have no specific guidelines on how
to submit a successful application. The public is unfamiliar with laws
and regulations that apply to their proposed activities and the
multitude and complexity of the different permit application
requirements and issuance criteria. Experts in conservation are not
always experts in dealing with the permit process.
Suggested Solutions: Create a permits clearinghouse and/or toll-
free hotline; develop a handbook for applicants; develop more fact
sheets to assist the public in understanding the laws and permit
procedures; test effectiveness of current application forms and
continue to simplify the forms as appropriate; create one Service
permits web page and fax retrieval system; develop a permits outreach
plan; and publicize improvements in the permits system.
Problem Identified: Permits need to be combined. A single
transaction may require multiple permits with differing effective
dates, reporting requirements, and conditions.
Suggested Solutions: Review current permit types to develop
combined terms and conditions so one permit can be issued for multiple
authorizations; issue permits for longer periods of time, if
appropriate; consolidate annual reporting requirements; expedite
process to add new species or activities to an existing permit; and
allow other Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies to act as
subpermittees under regional permits.
Problem Identified: Too many permits are required at different
levels of government (i.e., State, Federal, and foreign). It is
difficult to comply with foreign law.
Suggested Solutions: Coordinate with State and other Federal
permitting agencies; link our web site to other sites that contain
information on State, Federal, and foreign permitting programs,
including copies of foreign and State wildlife and plant laws and
addresses of foreign and State conservation agencies; and work with
other countries to standardize permits procedures.
Problem Identified: Port clearance needs to be simplified. People
would like to import or export wildlife through any Customs port. Some
believe that the import and export clearance of non-protected wildlife
is burdensome.
Suggested Solutions: Register all permanently marked museum
specimens and require no further permits (if existing laws and treaties
allow) or clearance to transfer them; allow the clearance of low-risk
specimens at Customs ports; increase the number of designated ports and
inspectors at border ports; eliminate the filing of a Wildlife
Declaration form for non-protected insects; and allow the electronic
filing of the Wildlife Declaration form.
Problem Identified: Weaknesses in the Service's internal
communication and coordination have created inconsistencies in
interpreting and implementing policies and regulations from region to
region and among programs.
Suggested Solutions: Establish one-stop shopping through one
Service-wide permits program or one permits office in each region;
create a Washington office permits coordinator for each program; create
a national permits team; develop permits handbooks and national
internal guidance; hold annual internal permits training and workshops;
use SPITS to share data and improve coordination; harmonize permit
applications across programs; review permit terms and conditions to
make them consistent and reasonable; and establish a Washington office
ombudsman to referee regional inconsistencies and consider complaints.
Problem Identified: The Service neither recognizes the efforts or
contributions of partners (including State agencies, research
institutions, conservation organizations, non-Federal recovery team
members, range states) and other NGOs, nor utilizes the expertise
available in scientific and conservation institutions. We need to give
greater recognition to the inherent value of research.
Suggested Solutions: Include individuals, zoos, and landowners as
partners; increase communication and outreach; utilize experts and peer
review; increase collaboration with State wildlife and plant agencies
in permit decisions; establish electronic links with institutional
databases for tracking specimens; give public recognition to
conservation partners; and develop incentive programs for private
landowners.
Problem Identified: The current system serves as a disincentive to
engage in conservation activities or work with protected species;
impedes scientific investigation, conservation, and endangered and
threatened species recovery efforts; and exists first to enforce
regulations and only secondly to conserve wildlife and plants and their
biodiversity. Current regulations and their implementation focus on
each action and animal, rather than assisting in scientific or
conservation efforts. The Service does not view the import of sport-
hunted trophies as a conservation tool and needs to be more supportive
of foreign range countries' conservation programs.
Suggested Solutions: Open up discussion of systemic shortcomings
before moving forward with permit reform; issue programmatic permits;
identify low-, medium-, and high-risk activities; allow for low-risk,
non-specified activities; involve external conservation and research
professionals in developing criteria for permit issuance; base
decisions on good science; consider cumulative effects; simplify
process for obtaining permits; expedite the processing of permits,
especially for captive-bred animals; and establish a monitoring program
for Safe Harbor Agreements.
Problem Identified: The Service does not use risk management in
administering the permits programs and micro-manages low-risk specimens
(e.g., pre-CITES, accessioned museum specimens).
Suggested Solutions: Evaluate program-based or general permits for
activities and species within the scientific scope of a research
project under all laws and across our programs; consider the following
options: (1) For scientific and conservation institutions, develop
standardized criteria for excellence that qualify them for general
permits and pre-approve such
[[Page 58089]]
cooperators to receive individual CITES permits on a streamlined basis;
(2) develop a two-tiered, risk-based system that would not require
people to obtain individual permits for research activities for low-
risk species (i.e., species other than ones listed under the ESA as
endangered or threatened or migratory birds of special concern); (3)
develop an accreditation system that would allow legitimate members of
the scientific community to conduct their research programs without
intensive oversight; and (4) allow multiple-use permits for low-risk
activities.
Problem Identified: The current process places too much emphasis on
preventing unqualified persons from getting permits, not on
facilitating conservation by qualified persons. There are no policies
outlining factors to be considered for the issuance of program-based or
general permits.
Suggested Solutions: Criteria for issuing permits should be
flexible and consider principles of adaptive management; factors to be
considered should include: (1) The types of activities (e.g.,
ecosystem-level activities; conservation efforts; import and export of
tissue samples; activities and species that are the same or similar to
those previously approved; and activities with SSP (Species Survival
Plan) species); (2) qualifications of person or institution (e.g., a
specific person based on their research; a master permit holder who
designates subpermittees; an individual with demonstrated successful
conservation activities; members accredited by a professional
organization such as the American Museum Association; or an institution
registered under CITES); (3) record of compliance with wildlife and
plant laws; (4) resources available to accomplish the project; (5)
record of compliance with permit terms and conditions; (6) permit terms
and conditions that require permittees to submit annual reports that
allow us to spot check activities and records, and to re-qualify
periodically; and (7) revocation of permits if requirements are not
met.
Problem Identified: There has been an increase in the complexity of
permit issues and numbers of permits without a corresponding increase
in staff.
Suggested Solutions: Analyze workload, issues, and priorities of
permits programs; allocate resources between management of generally
harmless activities (e.g., import of research samples collected
ancillary to species' conservation programs and education) versus
activities that are potentially harmful (e.g., lethal take of ESA-
listed species); and develop an ongoing approach to identify permit
problems and dialogue to resolve them.
Future Steps
This proposed policy is the first step in a series of actions we
will undertake to make the processing and administration of permits
more effective. It also serves as a model for us to evaluate other
types of permit activities, the risks to a species and its habitat
associated with those activities, and how we can look at them
differently.
In addition to considering the concerns we have heard to date, we
believe we need to work to a greater extent with others to find
innovative solutions to the increasingly complex issues associated with
species management and conservation, and human activities. Thus, we are
developing a long-term implementation plan, will be conducting a study
to see what successful approaches to permitting are in place by other
private organizations and public agencies, and will consider forming an
advisory committee that would establish a forum for continuous dialogue
on creative approaches to permitting and ensure that we hear diverse
points of view.
At the same time, we will proceed with the permits initiatives
undertaken in the last few years. These initiatives are in various
stages of development and implementation. It is worth noting that many
overlap with suggestions listed in the Summary of Comments section.
They include efforts to:
Make the Process More Efficient and User Friendly
Review permit application forms under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. (Such a review was completed on January 31, 1998,
resulting in redesigned, simplified forms that are tailored, where
possible, to a particular type of activity or species. Since we
formally review the information collected by application forms every 3
years, we intend to incorporate changes identified by the ongoing
permits reform at the next review in 2001.)
Develop a new computer system to allow for more efficient
tracking and issuance of permits. (SPITS went online nationwide for
permit issuance in 1998 and will be online for species tracking by the
end of 1999.)
Provide better access to permit information through the
development of new fact sheets, a faxback system that allows
application forms to be ordered by using a toll-free number, and the
internet (our web site--http://www.fws.gov).
Increase the number of ports designated for the import
and export of wildlife and the number of wildlife inspectors to clear
shipments, including an increase in wildlife inspectors at Canadian and
Mexican border ports.
Ensure Consistent and Fair Implementation
Develop permits handbooks to assist in training persons
reviewing permit applications and ensure consistency by them in
interpretation of laws and treaties and the processing of permit
applications.
Draft new policies and permit regulations to clarify
permit procedures and issuance criteria.
Share data and improve coordination between offices within
programs and between programs through SPITS.
Foster Partnerships for Wildlife and Plant Conservation
Increase outreach through conferences and meetings.
Use program-based permits to expedite the issuance of
specific import or export permits for conservation activities.
Lessen import and export requirements for accredited
scientific institutions by eliminating the requirement to obtain an
Import/Export License and allowing the use of U.S. Customs ports and
international mail for shipment of non-protected scientific specimens.
Focus on Risk Management and Conservation
Expand SPITS to track and analyze cumulative wildlife and
plant data for species management.
Re-assign law enforcement wildlife inspectors to ports
with high numbers of shipments.
Examples of Potential Applications for General Conservation Permits
Although many of the permits initiatives outlined above affect all
types of permits, we are narrowing our focus at this time in this
proposed policy to general conservation permits. After giving careful
consideration to the concerns raised and suggestions given on
programmatic or general permits, we are proposing that general
conservation permits be issued only under specific circumstances. We
would combine permit requirements of all laws and treaties across our
programs, when appropriate, into one permit that authorizes multiple
transactions for approved species and activities and allows for
expedited processing of individual import and export permits
[[Page 58090]]
under CITES. In most cases, an applicant wishing to conduct activities
on multiple species and/or with multiple cooperators must obtain a
separate permit from each affected program. Under the proposed policy,
a single general conservation permit could be issued in lieu of a
number of individual permits. The scope of activities allowed under
such a permit would be based on potential risk to the conservation of
the species and its habitat. A general conservation permit would only
be available to individuals and institutions that have outstanding
professional credentials (i.e., has demonstrated expertise over time to
conduct the activities with the same or similar species) and that are
conducting scientific, management, and conservation activities.
This proposed policy provides an opportunity for us to work closely
with the scientific and conservation community, to test the concept of
a general permit that is similar to a State scientific collecting
permit, to establish general factors to be considered in approving
these broader-based permits, and to better coordinate with existing
State programs. Some components of this proposed policy come from
approaches we currently apply to the processing of permits. However,
the proposed policy should clarify our procedures, streamline them for
applicants who want to conduct activities that will benefit species'
conservation, and provide consistency in administering permits. The
proposed policy also lets us try a risk-driven system, which will allow
us to apply our limited resources toward those species considered to be
at the greatest conservation risk and that can receive the maximum
benefit from our enhanced attention. We believe that the use of general
conservation permits will provide benefits not only to the permittees
but also to the resource.
A potential example with ESA-listed species and their habitats
might be to issue a general conservation permit that allows qualified
consultants to perform a wide variety of actions, such as the survey
and salvage of several mussel species, over several States and across
several regions.
The following describes two types of permits we recently issued
that could also fall into potential applications for the general
conservation permit. The first example involves a permit issued to an
organization based on its conservation program in foreign countries for
a species listed under the ESA, WBCA, and CITES. The application was
published in the Federal Register to notify the public and receive
comment on the program's activities for 5 years. The permit authorizes
multiple imports of live birds for rehabilitation, imports of injured
birds for captive breeding, and imports of biological samples for
scientific research. It also authorizes the export of live birds for
reintroduction, re-export of rehabilitated birds, and export or re-
export of biological specimens. Although CITES limits the issuance of
import permits to 1 year and requires a separate original export permit
for each shipment, these permits can be issued expeditiously since the
scientific and legal findings have already been made for the program as
a whole for 5 years.
The second example involves the import and export of biological
samples for scientific and conservation purposes. We issued a permit to
an applicant authorizing imports of unlimited quantities of biological
samples from any species listed under CITES or the ESA. As with the
previous example, the findings are valid for 5 years and successive
import permits will be issued for 1 year to meet the requirements of
CITES. The permit was conditioned based on the risk associated with the
activity or/and with the species. For example, samples collected
invasively must be collected by the permittee's staff or by other
appropriately trained personnel who are pre-approved in writing by the
permittee. The permittee must retain a record of whom it approves.
These conditions do not apply to samples that are collected non-
invasively. Samples from wild animals of CITES Appendix-I species can
only be collected in cooperation with local management authorities.
Separate permits are required for each export or re-export because of
CITES requirements, but issuance of these permits can be done quickly
since all the required findings were made for both import and export at
the time the import permit was issued.
Public Comments Solicited
We invite interested organizations and the public to comment on
this proposed Policy on General Conservation Permits. We particularly
seek comments on factors to consider in evaluating applications for
general conservation permits and how we could by the issuance of these
permits foster partnerships for wildlife and plant conservation; focus
permits on risk management and conservation; reduce paperwork,
streamline the permit process, and provide user-friendly service; and
implement the process fairly and consistently while still focusing on
our conservation mission. At this time, we are seeking comments on this
proposed policy, not on other types of permits or steps in our ongoing
permits reform efforts.
Required Determinations
This proposed policy has not been reviewed by OMB under Executive
Order 12866.
A review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) has revealed that this proposed policy would not
have a significant economic effect or adversely affect an economic
sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of
government. The groups affected by this rule are a relatively small
number of wildlife and plant professionals and conservation
organizations who will be eligible to apply for general conservation
permits that combine authorizations under various wildlife and plant
laws and treaties into one permit while meeting the existing permit
regulations and fulfilling our conservation mission. The primary
economic impact is the reduction in burden hours for applicants
applying for multiple permits. We estimate these benefits are less than
$700,000 annually.
Similarly, this proposed policy is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, and
will not negatively affect the economy, consumer costs, or US-based
enterprises.
We have determined and certified pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed policy will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or
State governments or private entities.
Under Executive Order 12630, the proposed policy does not have
significant takings implications for the same reasons as described
above under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Under Executive Order 12612, this proposed policy does not have
significant Federalism implications. We have evaluated possible effects
on Federally recognized Tribes and determined that there will be no
adverse effects to any Tribe.
Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that the proposed policy does not unduly burden the judicial
system and meets the requirements of Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the
Order.
The proposed rule does not contain new or revised information
collection for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Information collection is
covered by existing OMB approvals and assigned clearance numbers 1018-
0092, 1018-0093, 1018-
[[Page 58091]]
0094, and 1018-0022 with an expiration date of February 28, 2001. We
will use the information to review permit applications and make
decisions, according to criteria established in statutes and
regulations, on the issuance or denial of permits.
We have also determined that this proposed policy is categorically
excluded under the DOI's procedures for complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10).
Executive Order 12866 requires us to write regulations that are
easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this
proposed policy easier to understand, including answers to the
following questions: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed policy
clearly stated; (2) does the proposed policy contain technical language
that interferes with its clarity; and (3) what else could we do to make
this proposed policy easier to understand?
Policy on General Conservation Permits
A. Why approach permits as conservation tools?
The purpose of this policy is to encourage greater involvement of
qualified individuals and institutions in protected species'
conservation through the issuance of general conservation permits. Our
goals in administering the permits programs are to: (1) Create
incentives to foster partnerships for the conservation of species and
their habitats while meeting our basic statutory responsibilities of
species' protection and management, (2) focus on risk management when
processing permit applications, (3) impose the least possible burden on
the affected public, and (4) implement permits fairly and consistently.
We are committed to carrying out our statutory obligations and will
apply Federal authorities in a manner to ensure sound resource
decisions while understanding the importance of partnerships in
wildlife and plant conservation. We are only one component of a greater
conservation community and acknowledge that teamwork among Federal,
Tribal, State, local, international, and private stakeholders is an
essential ingredient for the management and conservation of wildlife
and plants. Thus, this policy recognizes scientific and conservation
professionals and institutions as partners with us in resource
conservation and management and provides incentives for them to work
with protected species and their habitats.
B. What is the scope of a general conservation permit?
This policy establishes a framework for us to use in evaluating
permit applications and deciding whether or not to issue a general
conservation permit. These general conservation permits are available
to approved individuals or institutions conducting non-commercial
scientific, management, and conservation activities when the provisions
of all applicable wildlife and plant laws are met and when the benefits
gained from the proposed activities counter any potential harm to the
affected species and its habitats.
We will, as appropriate, consolidate authorizations under the
various wildlife and plant laws listed in section H of this policy and
issue one general conservation permit, rather than separate permits.
This permit may cover most or all of the regulated activities in a
program described by an individual or institution. In the case of ESA-
listed species, a general conservation permit would only be available
for activities under section 10(a)(1)(A) that involved intentional take
of species for the purposes of scientific research, management, or
conservation, excluding Safe Harbor and Candidate Conservation
Agreement with Assurances permits. It does not include permits issued
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA which authorize take that is
incidental to otherwise lawful activities (which in this context means
economic development or the use of land or water). Nor does it replace
the need to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan under the incidental
take permit regulations.
The scope of the activities authorized in the permit will vary
depending on the risk assessment as outlined below. A general
conservation permit may authorize multiple transactions, depending on
the applicant's program and the species involved, and allow for
streamlined issuance of specific CITES permits for import and export.
We will explore the feasibility of providing a single point of contact
in each regional office, across regional and programmatic boundaries,
for the processing of applications and administration of the general
conservation permit.
C. What factors will we consider in evaluating permit applications for
general conservation permits?
Because general conservation permits may authorize a broader scope
of activities, we will consider the following factors in evaluating
applications for such permits:
(1) Whether any potential risk to the species in the wild or its
habitat and/or to the captive population, if applicable, is appropriate
for the conservation benefits to be gained from the proposed
activities.
(2) Whether the purpose of the activity is for non-commercial
scientific research, management, or the conservation of the species or
its habitat. The proposal must provide clear biological goals and the
means by which the goals will be achieved, including proposed time
frames as appropriate. Through the permits process, we will discuss
with you, the applicant, the proposed activities in view of species'
biological and management needs, provide technical assistance, and
resolve issues to ensure species' conservation.
(3) Whether you have adequate resources to accomplish the proposed
activities.
(4) Whether you have the biological and legal qualifications,
including whether you have been a permittee in good standing with a
long-term record of compliance in the use of similar Federal wildlife
and plant permits. You should provide copies of any publications that
demonstrate your biological expertise to conduct the proposed
activities. We also would consider the qualifications of an individual
acting as your subpermittee and your ability to retain oversight over
the actions of that individual.
(5) If the activities involve holding live wildlife and plants,
whether the facilities are adequate to accomplish the goals, including
your prior record of care and maintenance of the same or similar
wildlife and plants.
(6) Whether you and your proposed activities meet statutory
requirements. The proposed policy is intended to complement the current
permits processing system and not supersede or alter any Federal law or
regulation related to species' conservation.
D. How do we calculate potential risk?
Our basic statutory responsibility under the various wildlife and
plant laws and treaties is to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and the
ecosystems upon which they depend for future generations. The scope of
the activities and the species authorized in a general conservation
permit will be based on an evaluation of the degree of conservation
benefit to the wild and captive populations of the species and its
habitat versus the degree of potential risk posed by the proposed
activities outlined in the application. The evaluation will be based on
the best scientific information available and the
[[Page 58092]]
conservation needs of the species and its habitat. The proposed policy
limits these permits to scientific, management, and conservation
activities. Some actions generally may have such low risk to the
conservation of the species and its habitat that we may grant a permit
for a broader scope of activities. On the other hand, some actions with
some species may have such a high degree of risk that we may limit the
scope of activities or terms and conditions of the permit, or we may
deny a permit for the proposed activity.
Within this framework, we will look at a number of factors to
perform a risk assessment. Each of these factors (outlined below) has a
continuum of risk associated with it. The factors are not listed in any
order of priority. Neither is the list meant to be an exhaustive list
of the factors used in performing a risk assessment, nor to be a rigid
hierarchy since other aspects of the proposed activities and species
status may affect the degree of risk.
(1) Level of species protection. We will look at how the species is
protected. For example, if a species is listed under the ESA, there is
a continuum based on the risk of extinction recognized by the law from
high risk to low risk as follows:
Endangered;
Threatened;
Threatened with a special rule (often referred to as a 4(d) rule);
Experimental population; and
Similarity of appearance.
This same recognition of differences in risk exists in programs
under other laws and treaties. Each law and treaty outlines the
purposes for which the fish, wildlife, plants, and their ecosystems may
be used and standards for making decisions on whether to allow the
proposed activity. When a species is regulated under more than one law
or treaty, all the requirements are evaluated.
(2) Potential effect of the proposed activities. We will review the
intended purpose of the proposed activities in relation to their
potential effect on the species' biological, ecological, and management
needs (e.g., population status, best management practices, available
scientific information). Again, there will be a continuum of risk,
depending on how the proposed activities may affect the species'
population status, habitat, or management. For example, risks
associated with the source or type of specimen in general have a
continuum from high risk to low risk such as:
Intentional killing of wild animals;
Permanent removal of live animals and plants from the wild;
Removal from the wild as part of a recovery effort or
reintroduction program;
Death or permanent removal from an essential captive population;
Invasive collection of tissue samples from wild animals;
Non-invasive collection of tissue samples with captive or wild
specimens;
Culled or surplus specimens; and
Salvaged dead specimens when not intentionally killed for the
purpose of collecting.
We will conduct this review using our own scientists (e.g., the
Office of Scientific Authority), outside experts, and peer review as
needed. We will take into consideration the level of biological
uncertainty in the available scientific information and management
strategies. The degree of risk may be higher when there are significant
gaps in the biological data about the species' ecology, management
techniques, or potential effects of the proposed activities on the
species and its habitat. You may want to anticipate these uncertainties
and design your activities to provide for flexibility by outlining
alternative methods or strategies to achieve your biological goals.
This may allow us to issue a permit with specific terms and conditions
in response to the proposed alternatives and anticipated changing
circumstances.
(3) Benefits. At the same time, we will consider net or overall
benefits to the species and its habitat that may be gained by the
activities.
(4) Part of a management plan or strategy. We will consider if the
activity is part of a recognized management plan or strategy. For ESA-
listed species, we will consider whether the activity is a task
identified in a final recovery plan or outline.
(5) Level of pressure on the species. This would include the degree
of risk associated with whether the transaction would encourage or
allow for commercial use.
(6) Potential cumulative effects. We would look at cumulative
effects on the species' wild and captive populations and its habitat.
(7) Safeguards. Terms and conditions of general conservation
permits, including monitoring of activities through reports and field
visits, will be based on the degree of risk to the species and its
habitat. For example, permits to conduct activities with threatened or
endangered species, and migratory birds of management concern are more
likely to have closer and more frequent monitoring and more restrictive
permit terms and conditions.
For high-risk activities, we may accompany the permittee when take
activities are being conducted. This allows us to develop closer
partnerships with researchers; check information on species, habitat,
and techniques; identify unanticipated deficiencies or benefits
associated with the activities; help prevent accidental violations of
the terms and conditions of the permit; and work out any adjustments
that may be needed in the permit.
Generally through the use of annual reports, we will periodically
review the activities to ensure the terms and conditions of the permit
are being implemented; to look at the level and impacts of authorized
take; and to determine if the activities are producing the desired
results. We will use the information to assess cumulative trends in
species' populations or changes in its habitat.
E. What are the benefits of these permits?
The granting of general conservation permits generally offers
benefits in four broad areas. We will take the identified actions to
help further these benefits.
(1) Foster partnerships for wildlife and plant conservation.
Issue general conservation permits that consolidate the
terms and conditions for multiple activities. This will enhance our
existing partnerships, and may encourage new partnerships, by reducing
the paperwork burden on our conservation partners and simplifying the
permit process.
Reach out to current and potential partners by providing
permit information at scientific meetings and conferences, in
newsletters, etc.
Use our own scientists and outside experts and encourage
peer review to obtain the best available scientific information when
evaluating permit applications. The results of any external review will
be entered into the administrative record of the decision and made
available for public review consistent with provisions of the Freedom
of Information Act and the Privacy Act.
(2) Focus permits on risk management and conservation.
Continue to base our permit decisions on the best
available scientific information within the bounds of the laws and
treaties.
Consider cumulative effects of permit issuance over time.
Use the computer system, Service Permit Issuance and Tracking System
(SPITS), to analyze cumulative wildlife and plant data.
Base our permits programs on conservation risk management
to ensure
[[Page 58093]]
that our limited resources are directed toward species at the greatest
conservation risk and that can benefit from our enhanced attention.
(3) Reduce paperwork, streamline the permit process, and provide
user-friendly service.
Explore the feasibility of providing a single point of
contact in each regional office for the processing of permit
applications and administration of the general conservation permit.
Develop and use harmonized permit application forms to
consolidate the information needed to apply for a permit under multiple
wildlife and plant laws and actively seek comments from the public
during the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approval process for
forms under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Develop and use general findings (e.g., no-detriment
advices under CITES, programmatic biological opinions under the ESA) to
decide when an application meets the permits issuance criteria.
Issue and track the processing of permits through SPITS.
Issue general conservation permits for up to 5 years for
ongoing activities, depending on the results of the risk assessment.
Consolidate annual reporting requirements and, when
possible, tailor the report due date to the activities conducted. This
would allow the permittee to submit a single report and meet the
requirements of more than one law or treaty.
(4) Implement the permit process fairly and consistently.
Develop standardized permit conditions for activities with
the same species or related groups of species.
Use the computer system SPITS to share data and ensure use
of consistent permit terms and conditions.
F. What if I don't qualify for a general conservation permit?
Individuals or organizations that do not qualify for permits under
this policy may apply for individual permits under existing
regulations, just as they do now.
G. What is the scope of this policy?
This policy applies Service-wide to programs that process permit
applications for all species of wildlife and plants under the law and
treaties listed in section H of this policy.
H. Authority
The authorities for this action are the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668a); Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 U.S.T. 1087);
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42); Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
1361 et seq.); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712); and
Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916).
Dated: August 30, 1999.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 99-28232 Filed 10-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
