Permits & Permitting

Topic: National Park Service plans to consolidate, streamline research permits

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