|
| Back to Speaking for Scientific Ornithology page |
Update, June 2004: The NPS received numerous comments that informed the development of new permit forms and a web-based permit application system. Having had three years' experience with that new system, the NPS is now planning further changes, including the development of a separate application form for scientific education activities and the eventual development of an electronic signature or suitable alternative to electronic signature.
Background: Under the National Park Service's new Natural Resources Action Plan, the NPS in 1999 announced plans to increase science-based management of the natural resources found in the national parks. This Plan includes fostering scientific research in the parks, in part by consolidating and streamlining the permit application process. The primary purpose of this request for information was to improve application procedure, not substantive policy.
The National Park Service (NPS) therefore invited public comments on a proposed collection of information. NPS specifically requests comments on: (1) The need for the information being collected, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the validity and accuracy of the reporting burden estimate; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
NPS requested comments on a proposed research and collecting permit and reporting system that will consolidate and streamline an existing array of information collection instruments used by applicants to apply to parks for research and collecting permits for natural or social science activities that require permits. NPS intended to use the information submitted to determine whether or not to make modifications to the proposed research and collecting permit and reporting system.
Comments submitted by The Ornithological Council:
25 October 1999
John G. Dennis, Ph.D.
Supervisory Biologist
Natural Resources
National Park Service
1849 C Street, N.W.
Room 3223-MIB
Washington, D.C. 20240
RE: Proposed research and collecting permit and report system
Dear Dr. Dennis,
The Ornithological Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the National Park Service's (NPS) proposed research and collecting permit and reporting system (64 FR 46211; 24 August 1999). The Ornithological Council consists of ten leading scientific ornithological societies - the American Ornithologists' Union, Association of Field Ornithologists, CIPAMEX, Cooper Ornithological Society, Pacific Seabird Group, Raptor Research Foundation, Society of Canadian Ornithologists/La Société des Ornithologistes du Canada, Society for Caribbean Ornithology, Waterbird Society, and Wilson Ornithological Society - that together have a membership of nearly 6,500 ornithologists. It is our mission to provide scientific information about birds to legislators, regulatory agencies, industry decision makers, conservation organizations and others, and to promote the use of that scientific information in the making of policies that affect birds. We also represent the concerns of ornithologists to the regulatory agencies and other organizations that authorize research activities involving wild birds. Our comprehensive, peer-reviewed publication entitled Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research that sets out the profession's standards for research methods has been distributed to the members of the Ornithological Council societies, to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, to the Biological Resources Division of the US Geological Survey, and to many other government agencies and researchers. This publication emphasizes the legal and ethical considerations that form the foundation for both permit requirements and acceptable research methods.
Generally, the Administrative Guide, Application Procedures and Requirements for Research and Collecting Permits, and the Guidelines for Study Proposals reflect a genuine commitment by NPS to encourage scientific research in the national parks. However, that commitment could be expressed more strongly and clearly in a directive to the parks that their reviews should be limited to determining whether the research as proposed would cause irreparable harm to the park's resources or its visitors or impose undue costs on its staff. If not, the permits should be granted. This standard would be substantially easier to implement.
We also wish to comment on the proposed Administrative Guide and Application Procedures. Generally, these documents are clear and appear to be reasonable. However, on closer examination, it is apparent that there could be substantial difficulty in implementation and that the guidance to park managers is sufficiently vague that there could be no real improvement in access to the parks for scientific research.
Statement of purpose
The Administrative Guide and the Application
Procedures
should each contain a statement of purpose. A statement
explaining
NPS' commitment to research in the parks would establish a context and
overall goal: that NPS has made a commitment to allowing research in
the
parks. NPS' proposed research and collecting permit and reporting
system
is an important step towards encouraging scientific research in the
national
parks. It might be worth noting that the National Parks Omnibus
Management
Act of 1998 (the "Thomas bill" or P.L. 105-391), which added research
to
the NPS mandate. Among the stated purposes of this law is enhancement
of
management and protection of national park resources by providing clear
authority and direction for the conduct of scientific study in the
National
Park System. The bill directs NPS to encourage others to use the
national parks for study to the benefit of park management as well as
broader
scientific value. A uniform system of permit forms and
decision-making
criteria will help NPS achieve this mandate. We suggest that the
Administrative Guide begin with a discussion of Title II of the Thomas
bill, to make it clear to park administrators that this NPS policy is
reflected
in a Congressional mandate.
We also suggest that the Administrative Guide refer to the NPS Natural Resources Challenge and its commitment to improving access to the parks for scientific research. The NRC says, "...parks can and should be centers for broad scientific research and inquiry. Research should be facilitated in parks where it can be done without impairing other park values." Park managers referring to the Administrative Guide would then start with the premise that scientific research is valuable and welcomed in the parks.
The policy statement should also recognize the value of science to the parks. With continuing decreases for the USGS Biological Resources Division's Science Centers, government scientists can't meet the NPS research needs. Private science can fill the gap. Research conducted by non-government scientists benefits individual parks and the system as a whole. Even if a specific project does not directly benefit the park in which the research is done, it may benefit another national park, a neighboring state park, national forest, or wildlife refuge. Research that helps to protect natural resources benefits all the parks.
Who judges "qualifications and
experience"?
According to the Administrative Guide, permits may
be
issued to qualified individuals. The Administrative Guide does
not
define the term "qualified" and does not state who is to make that
assessment.
NPS should provide some guidance to park managers in this regard.
Academic
credentials and relevant experience should be given substantial weight.
A determination of this nature should be made by scientists with
appropriate
expertise. As a practical matter, however, there is no need for the
park
manager to consult a scientist with relevant expertise unless the park
manager plans to deny a permit based on a determination that the
researcher
lacks sufficient qualifications and experience. Consultation with
outside
experts is permitted for review of proposals, so it should also be
appropriate
for an assessment of qualifications and experience. We request that NPS
modify the Administrative Guide and Application Procedures to require
that
before a permit is denied based on the researcher's qualifications that
the park manager consult with a scientist with appropriate expertise.
In
some cases, that may be a biologist working in the park. It may
be
necessary to consult with experts in a particular biological
discipline.
Those experts could be found within NPS (perhaps by the Regional
Science
Advisor), within the USGS Biological Resources Division, or in
professional
societies. The Regional Science Advisor's decision should be the final
determination.
Review of proposals - favorable factors
Scientific value
It can be difficult to determine the value of a
specific
research proposal. It may be years or decades before the implications
of
a research project are recognized. Unforseen findings may have greater
value than the original purpose of the research. It can also be
cumbersome
to assess the scientific validity of a proposal. The NPS standard that
the proposed research, "addresses problems or questions of importance
to
science or society and shows promise of making an important
contribution
to humankind's knowledge of the subject matter," is highly judgmental
and
requires a reviewer to have a substantial background in vast areas of
knowledge.
It is for this reason that we began by suggesting that NPS adopt a
simpler
approach: unless the research as proposed would cause irreparable harm
to the park's resources or its visitors or impose undue costs on its
staff,
the permits should be granted.
Scientific validity
The ability of park staff to review a research
proposal
is a function of the composition of that park staff.
Collectively,
they may or may not have the scientific credentials and relevant
expertise
to assess scientific validity, which often requires specialized
knowledge
about the species or system to be studied or the methods and
statistical
elements of the proposal. Therefore, we suggest that NPS require that
before
a permit can be denied based on lack of scientific validity and value,
it must be reviewed by qualified reviewers with appropriate expertise.
Park staff can consult with professional scientific societies, such as
The Ornithological Council, The Wildlife Society, and The American
Institute
of Biological Sciences to identify appropriate reviewers. In more
cases than not, it is likely that questions of scientific validity and
potential benefit will need to be assessed by outside reviewers.
Sharing of information with park staff
We agree that scientists should share information
with
park staff, but NPS should be sensitive to the fact that once they have
collected information from a researcher and the information is
maintained
by NPS, it could be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request. A
researcher's proprietary interest in the research could be compromised,
or groups intent on harassing the researcher could misuse the
information.
Therefore, the parks should enter into confidentiality agreements with
the researcher before requiring that data be shared.
Unfavorable factors
The Application Procedure lists as one five
unfavorable
factors the potential to involve activities of special sensitivity or
controversy,
or the adversely affect the experiences of other park visitors. The use
of the term "controversy" has the potential to limit research based on
the objections of those animal rights organizations opposed to all
forms
of animal research. Once focused on laboratory animal research,
these
groups have more recently turned their attention to experiments
involving
wildlife. Some have gone so far as to object to bird banding, not
on the basis that it is harmful to individual birds, but that it
detracts
from the wild nature of the bird to have been handled, had its freedom
temporarily denied, or had its appearance altered by a human.
Organizations
and individuals with such views tend to be intractable, and will go to
extreme lengths to prevent activities that violate their tenets.
Other interest groups might lodge politically-motivated objections. For
instance, ranchers might oppose a study on the effects of grazing.
Furthermore,
some of the most valuable research carries controversy. This particular
unfavorable factor could result in the denial of most scientific
research
permits. We urge NPS to eliminate the term "controversy" from
this
factor.
Review processes should be uniform across the
parks
The Application Procedures state that, "Specific
information
about the review processes used by an individual park may be included
with
the application materials provided by that park." Review processes
should
not vary among the parks. Variation and inconsistency add
substantial
burden to the researcher's effort, and restrain valid research because
the individual biases of particular park staff can take the form of
excessive
paperwork or unreasonable requirements.
An appeal procedure is needed
No permit should be denied without a review by the
Regional
Science Advisor, but mere consultation is not sufficient. An procedure
to appeal a denial of a research permit is needed. An appeal
procedure
will ensure that the park manager has at least followed procedure in
evaluating
the application. For instance, it might be found that the park
manager
had not consulted with biologists with appropriate expertise in
evaluating
the scientific validity of a proposal. Also, an appeals procedure is
needed
where the park has imposed park-specific conditions that may impede the
research, and the park and the researcher have been unable to resolve
the
issue.
Park-specific conditions should be
reviewed and limited
We recognize that unique circumstances in the many
parks
may require specific limitations on research. However, allowing each
park
to develop park-specific permit conditions could defeat the purpose of
developing a consolidated permitting system. NPS should issue standards
or guidelines for the development of park-specific conditions. Parks
should
be allowed to develop park-specific conditions only where necessary to
protect unique park features. For instance, many parks have developed
conditions
that do nothing more than reiterate existing laws or general
conditions,
such as "research personnel are expected to obey all park regulations,"
or "no collecting is permitted for personal, private, or commercial
use."
These restatements add an unnecessary layer of paperwork. The permit
process
and review process and standards should be uniform across the parks.
Furthermore, park-specific conditions have the potential to impose undue restriction on research. Therefore, we encourage NPS to review and approve each set of park-specific conditions.
Better definition needed for certain
terms
Certain terms need better definition. The terms
"representative"
and "official representative" are used throughout the Administrative
Guide.
The latter is consistent with the regulation (36 CFR 2.5) for permits
for
taking research specimens, but the term is not defined in the
regulations.
It connotes a legal relationship in which the researcher is considered
an agent of the institution. We are concerned that this definition
could
be interpreted to exclude student researchers. Therefore, we
encourage
NPS to define the term to include students who are working on research
projects approved by their universities or the research organizations
with
which they are affiliated, or under the supervision of a university
faculty
member or staff member of a research institution.
We are also concerned with the term "qualified individual." It, too, could be used to exclude student researchers or those who have only recently completed their doctoral research, and who may have had limited field experience prior to undertaking independent research. We hope NPS will revise these documents to make it clear that student researchers or recent graduates are not to be excluded on this basis. If lack of experience is a concern in a particular case, the park manager should allow the research if the student can arrange for supervision by a faculty or staff member or other professional.
The adjective "reputable" used to qualify scientific or educational institutions poses an additional problem. We are unaware of any accreditation organization that assesses the reputability of scientific and educational institutions, except with regard to standards of laboratory animal care. Who is to determine the reputation of an institution, and on what criteria? How much investigation is the park manager to do to determine the reputation of an institution? Can a park manager deny a permit on the basis that the institution is not reputable? If so, the park manager should be required to document the concerns that led to the denial of a permit.
Turn-around times for permits
Each park should be required to establish a
turn-around
time for permit decisions. Ideally, this would be consistent
across
parks. Researchers need to know how much lead time is needed to
obtain
a permit. Furthermore, without a time limit, a park could, in
effect,
deny a permit by failing to issue it in a timely manner.
Biological
research is time-sensitive, so an entire year's research could be lost
if a permit is not issued promptly. Forty five to sixty days is
considered
reasonable by biologists and should be sufficient for park managers.
Research products and deliverables
A researcher should not be required to provide
field
notes or unpublished data without an agreement from NPS not to disclose
or publish the material without prior permission of the researcher. A
researcher
has a proprietary interest in these materials. Requiring a
researcher
to provide this information without a written agreement that it will
not
be disclosed to others may deter researchers from conducting research
in
the national parks.
A tracking system is needed
We are encouraged that NPS plans to develop an
internet-based
application process that will enable parks to generate and track
permits
electronically. We suggest that it should be used for an additional
purpose.
A system of this nature could help identify permitting problems. For
instance,
if a specific park is refusing significantly more permits than others,
NPS could investigate the situation. It might be that most of the
permit
applications were faulty in some way, or it might be that the park
manager
is misinterpreting the Administrative Guide and Application Procedures.
A tracking system could also be used to determine permit outcomes. It
might
be learned that certain types of research activities are conducted
without
problems. From this information, NPS could develop a list of acceptable
research activities for which permits are to be issued without
substantial
scrutiny. Finally, a tracking system would allow a park manager to
determine
if an applicant has had prior NPS permits and the outcome of those
permits.
A good record would be helpful to a park manager trying to assess the
qualifications
of the researcher.
We hope our comments prove useful to the National Park Service. We again thank you for your efforts to undertake this needed reform. We look forward to the issuance of the proposed policy and regulatory changes and to a continuing, productive relationship with the National Park Service.
Sincerely,
Ellen Paul
Executive Director