Conservation Program Addendum

Thursday,
June 1, 2000

Part IV

Department of the
Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service

Department of
Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Availability of a Final Addendum to the
Handbook for Habitat Conservation
Planning and Incidental Take Permitting
Process; Notice

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35242

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[Docket No. 981208299–0049–02]
RIN:1018–AG06, 0648–XA14

Notice of Availability of a Final
Addendum to the Handbook for Habitat
Conservation Planning and Incidental
Take Permitting Process
AGENCIES: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior, and National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final policy.
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (the Services) are publishing a
final addendum to the Handbook for
Habitat Conservation Planning and
Incidental Take Permitting Process (HCP
Handbook). This addendum, which is
also known as the five-point policy
guidance, is printed entirely within this
notice. Like the HCP Handbook, the
addendum provides clarifying guidance
for the Services in conducting the
incidental take permit program and for
those applying for an incidental take
permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). This
guidance will promote efficiency and
nationwide consistency within and
between the Services and improve the
Habitat Conservation Planning program.
DATES: This policy is effective July 3,
2000.

Chief, Division of
Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia
22203 (facsimile 703/358–1735); or
Chief, Endangered Species Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland
20910 (facsimile 301/713–0376).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Gloman, Chief, Division of
Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (telephone 703/358–
2171, facsimile 703/358–1735), or
Wanda Cain, Chief, Endangered Species
Division, National Marine Fisheries
Service (telephone 301/713–1401,
facsimile 301/713–0376) at the above
addresses.
ADDRESSES:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

Background
The Endangered Species Act (ESA)
was amended in 1982 to allow the
Secretaries to authorize the taking of
listed species incidentally to an
otherwise lawful activity by non-Federal
entities such as states, counties, local
governments, and private landowners
(section 10(a)(1)(B)). To receive a
permit, the applicant submits a
conservation plan (also referred to as an
HCP) that meets the criteria included in
the ESA and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR parts 17 and 222).
The section 10 incidental take
permitting process (or HCP process)
provides additional flexibility for
landowners by including planning for
unlisted species, which enables the
process to embrace an ecosystem and
landscape-level approach. This
proactive approach can reduce future
conflicts and may even preclude listing
of species, furthering the purposes of
the ESA. As the Services have made
many refinements to the process, we
have also experienced tremendous
growth in the demand for Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs) in recent
years. In 1992, 14 HCPs had been
approved. As of today, we have more
than 260 HCP permits covering more
than twenty million acres of land,
providing conservation for
approximately 200 listed species. More
than 200 HCPs are under some stage of
development. The HCP process provides
an opportunity to develop strong
partnerships with local governments
and the private sector.
Based on the Services’ experience in
developing HCPs and lessons learned
since 1983, the Services developed
comprehensive guidance on conducting
the incidental take permit program. This
guidance was developed into the HCP
Handbook, which was made available
for public review and comment on
December 21, 1994 (59 FR 65782). It was
issued in final form on December 2,
1996 (61 FR 63854).
With the 1982 amendments, Congress
envisioned and allowed the Federal
government to provide regulatory
assurances to non-Federal property
owners through the section 10
incidental take permit process. We
decided that a clearer policy associated
with the permit regulations in 50 CFR
17.22, 17.32, and 222.307 regarding the
assurances provided to landowners
entering into an HCP was needed. This
prompted us to develop the ‘‘No
Surprises’’ policy, which was based on
the 1982 Congressional Report language
and a decade of working with private
landowners during the development
and implementation of HCPs. The

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

Services believed that non-Federal
property owners should be provided
economic and regulatory certainty
regarding the overall cost of species
conservation and mitigation, provided
that the affected species were
adequately covered, and the permittee
was properly implementing the HCP
and complying with the terms and
conditions of the HCP, permit, and
Implementing Agreement (IA), if used.
The Services codified the ‘‘No
Surprises’’ policy into a final rule, 50
CFR 17.22(b)(5), 17.32(b)(5) and
222.307(g), on February 23, 1998 (63 FR
8859). It was at this time that the
Services announced our intent to revise
the HCP Handbook, both to reflect the
final No Surprises rule and to further
enhance the effectiveness of the HCP
process in general through expanded
use of five concepts, including permit
duration, public participation, adaptive
management, monitoring provisions,
and biological goals.
On March 9, 1999, the Services
published the draft five-point policy (64
FR 11485) for public review and
comment. This notice establishes the
five-point policy as a final addendum to
the HCP Handbook. The addendum
supplements the HCP Handbook and No
Surprises final rule and will be applied
within the context of the existing statute
and regulations. This final addendum is
considered agency policy, and the
Services are fully committed to its
implementation. The concepts and
definitions of terms used in the
addendum are found in the ESA,
implementing regulations, and HCP
Handbook. Further information about
HCPs may be obtained from the FWS
webpage at http://www.fws.gov/
r9endspp/hcp/hcp.html.
Summary of Comments Received
The Services received more than 200
letters of comment on the draft
addendum from individuals,
conservation groups, trade associations,
local governments, Federal and State
agencies, businesses and corporations,
and private organizations. Because most
of these letters included similar
comments (many were form letters) we
grouped the comments according to
issues. We further divided these issues
into two sets. The issues in the first set
deal with the policy as a whole and
HCPs in general. The issues in the
second set pertain to the individual
sections of the policy and are organized
accordingly. The following is a
summary of the relevant comments and
the Services’ responses.

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35243

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices
General Five-Point Policy or HCP Issues
Issue 1: Many commenters were
concerned that the policy would not be
complied with unless it was regulatory
in nature and, therefore, suggested
codifying the policy into regulation
rather than issuing the addendum as
policy.
Response 1: We believe that
publishing the addendum as policy at
this time is appropriate, because, like
the HCP Handbook itself, the addendum
provides specific guidance for
implementation of the statute and
regulations. The intent of the addendum
is to clarify the concepts identified in
existing policy and regulations and
ensure consistency in their use. The
Services will follow the guidance in the
HCP Handbook including this
addendum.
Issue 2: Many commenters stated that
HCPs should incorporate recovery goals.
The comments were primarily referring
to the biological goals of the HCP, but
also requested the incorporation of
recovery goals into adaptive
management and monitoring. Other
comments included the suggestion of
minimum scientific standards for the
five points addressed in the addendum
or for HCPs in general. Conversely, one
commenter stated that biological goals
and objectives should simply be that the
HCP ‘‘not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery,’’
which is one of the statutory criteria for
permit issuance. Other suggested
methods of incorporating recovery into
HCPs include developing an overall
strategy of recovery that includes HCPs,
or tying adaptive management back into
the recovery goals of a species.
Response 2: The HCP program
standards are contained within the
statutory and regulatory criteria. Two of
the statutory criteria for obtaining an
incidental take permit are that the
proposed activity, along with the HCP,
does not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of
the species, and that the HCP minimizes
and mitigates the impact of the taking to
the maximum extent practicable. The
Services believe that guidance is
necessary for identifying biological
goals and objectives that translate these
statutory and regulatory criteria or
standards into meaningful biological
measures, specific to a particular HCP
situation and in a manner that will
facilitate monitoring.
The Services also agree that the
biological goals and objectives should
be consistent with recovery but in a
manner that is commensurate with the
scope of the HCP. Under section 10 of
the ESA, we do not explicitly require an

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

HCP to recover listed species or
contribute to the recovery objectives
outlined in a recovery plan, but do not
intend to permit activities that preclude
recovery. This approach reflects the
intent of the section 10(a)(1)(B)
incidental take permit process to
provide for authorization of incidental
take, not to mandate recovery. However,
the extent to which an HCP may
contribute to recovery is an important
consideration in any HCP effort, and
applicants should be encouraged to
develop HCPs that produce a net
positive effect on a species. The
Services can use recovery goals to frame
the biological goals and objectives.
Recovery plans are also used as sources
for possible minimization and
mitigation measures for the HCP.
If a recovery plan is not available, we
must rely upon other available sources
of biological information to encourage
the development of HCPs that would aid
in a species’ recovery. If a recovery plan
is available, the Services and applicants
should refer to it for information on
uncertainty associated with the species’
biology and/or its conservation in order
to determine if an adaptive management
strategy is necessary.
By defining what adaptive
management means for HCPs in the
addendum, we established a standard
for its use. An adaptive management
strategy is used to address significant
uncertainty associated with a particular
HCP, but it is not practicable (or
possible) to require that all adaptive
management strategies impose an
elaborate experimental design.
However, an adaptive management
strategy must be tied to the biological
goals and objectives of the HCP and
based on the best scientific information
available. We may also obtain strategies
to deal with the uncertainty from
recovery plans that can be incorporated
into an HCP’s adaptive management
program.
Similarly, a monitoring program’s
standard for HCPs is based on the best
scientific information available, but an
HCP’s monitoring program also is scaled
to the particular HCP. The Services
should be aware of the types of
monitoring programs that are ongoing in
order to coordinate efforts between
HCPs. It may be more economical for
smaller HCPs to participate in larger
monitoring programs by contributing to
or incorporating those programs.
Issue 3: Many comments referred to
the No Surprises policy, requesting
either an increase or decrease in the
amount of assurances associated with
incidental take permits.
Response 3: The Services published
the final rule on the No Surprises policy

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

on February 23, 1998 (63 FR 8859). The
final rule codified into 50 CFR parts 17
and 222 the nature of the assurances
provided to incidental take permittees.
All permits issued after March 25, 1998,
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA
receive No Surprises assurances as
specified in 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5),
17.32(b)(5), 222.307(g), and 222.307(h).
This policy addendum does not alter the
assurances provided to permittees by
regulation.
The No Surprises assurances apply
only to incidental take permits issued in
accordance with the requirements of the
Services’ regulations where the HCP is
properly implemented. The assurances
extend only to those species adequately
covered by the HCP. The term ‘‘No
Surprises’’ refers to regulatory
assurances, not biological assurances,
and applies only to the extent of
mitigation required by the incidental
take permit in response to unforeseen
circumstances or changed
circumstances not provided for in the
HCP. Specifically, permittees, who are
properly implementing their HCP, will
not be required to provide additional
conservation and mitigation measures
involving the commitment of additional
land, water or financial compensation or
additional restrictions on the use of
land, water, or other natural resources
without their consent.
The No Surprises assurances
encourage contingency planning.
Changes in circumstances that can be
reasonably anticipated during the
implementation of an HCP can be
planned for in the HCP. Such HCPs
should describe the modifications in the
project or activity that will be
implemented if these circumstances
occur. Precisely because nature is so
dynamic, planning for changed
circumstances and adopting adaptive
management strategies within the HCP,
permit, or IA, if used, will better serve
both the needs of permittees and
endangered species conservation.
Issue 4: Based largely on a study on
HCPs supported by the American
Institute of Biological Sciences and
National Center for Ecological Analysis
and Synthesis, several commenters
raised questions about biological
uncertainty in decisions to issue
incidental take permits. Some
commenters requested a moratorium on
issuing 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take
permits, stating that there is not enough
known about the species to lock in longterm conservation actions provided by
HCPs and the assurances given with
these permits. One commenter
specifically stated that incidental take
permits should not be issued if there is
any uncertainty. Instead, efforts should

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35244

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices

be spent on filling those data gaps
before issuing permits.
Response 4: The Services believe that
covered species, both listed and
unlisted, will be afforded more
protection because of the conservation
measures gained through the HCP
process. Permitting incidental take that
includes carefully constructed
conservation actions will benefit most
covered species. Part of the careful
construction of an HCP is incorporation
of contingency plans, whether it is
through planning for changed
circumstances or developing and
implementing an adaptive management
strategy.
A moratorium on incidental take
permits would not serve species or the
public well and would not be in
accordance with the ESA. Section
10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA states that an
incidental take permit that meets the
issuance criteria shall be issued. The
partnerships this program encourages
are needed to promote endangered and
threatened species conservation on nonFederal lands.
The Services appreciate the
suggestions provided in the study
sponsored by the American Institute of
Biological Sciences and the National
Center for Ecological Analysis and
Synthesis. Nevertheless, we believe, and
the study confirmed, that the HCPs
currently in place are based on the best
available scientific and commercial
information. If we lack critical
information regarding the biological
needs of a species proposed to be
covered under an HCP, we will not
issue the permit until such information
is obtained or an acceptable adaptive
management strategy is incorporated
into the HCP to address the uncertainty.
Issue 5: Some comments stated that
the addendum should allow citizen
suits to ensure that permittees are
properly implementing their HCPs.
Response 5: The addendum does not
in any way alter the ability of citizens
to bring lawsuits using the citizen suit
provision of the ESA.
Issue 6: One commenter stated that
the addendum should provide for
compensation for loss of Tribal
resources due to implementation of
HCPs.
Response 6: The Secretarial Order
regarding American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act was issued on June 5, 1997,
by the Secretaries of the Interior and of
Commerce pursuant to the ESA, the
Federal-Tribal trust relationship, and
other Federal law. This Order clarifies
the responsibilities of the Services when
ESA actions affect, or may affect, Indian

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

lands, tribal trust resources, or the
exercise of American Indian tribal
rights. The order does not require HCP
applicants to include the tribes in actual
negotiations or require compensation for
loss of Tribal resources.
Issue 7: One comment stated that the
draft addendum did not adhere to the
policy on the use of plain English in
Government documents.
Response 7: The final addendum is
written to incorporate the principles of
plain English. However, most of the
concepts within this addendum and
within the HCP Program are biological
or otherwise technical in nature.
Therefore, we must use certain
terminology that is associated with
those concepts.
Issue 8: One commenter suggested
that all five points addressed by the
addendum should be proportional to the
scale of the HCP.
Response 8: The Services agree that
application of each of the 5 points (i.e.,
the biological goals and objectives, an
adaptive management strategy, the
monitoring program of an HCP, the
determination of the duration of an
incidental take permit, and the scope of
public involvement) should be
commensurate with the scope of the
HCP. Each individual section within the
addendum discusses the relationship
between each of the five points and the
scope of the HCP.
Biological Goals Issues
Issue 9: There were comments about
who should determine the biological
goals and objectives of an HCP. One
commenter suggested that the person(s)
with the most experience with the
species should determine the biological
goals and objectives of an HCP.
Additional comments suggested that we
confer with State agencies in
determining biological goals and
objectives. Another commenter stated
that the Services should provide
applicants assistance in developing the
biological goals and objectives.
Response 9: In addition to the
applicants, the Services play an integral
role in determining the biological goals
and objectives. We agree that species
experts should be consulted during
development of an HCP, including
determining the biological goals and
objectives. We have revised the
biological goals and objectives section to
articulate the methods available for their
development. Service biologists
frequently confer informally with
species experts or other specialty
experts (e.g., population modeling,
habitat assessment, restoration).
The Services also agree that State
agencies should be involved with HCPs,

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

including HCPs that cover non-listed
species, and we encourage applicants to
include the State wildlife agencies
during the development of their HCPs.
The addendum reflects this
commitment.
Issue 10: There were comments about
whether species would benefit more
from habitat-based biological goals
versus goals specific to the number of
individuals or populations. Some
suggested that habitat-based goals
would be sufficient. Others stated that
there should only be species-based goals
and that they should account for all life
stages of that species and any natural
fluctuations in population levels.
Response 10: As discussed in the draft
addendum, an appropriate HCP
biological goal for a species will depend
upon the particular species, the nature
of the impact, the nature of the
conservation measures in the HCP, and
to what extent the populations or other
ecological factors fluctuate. The
addendum states the following:
The biological goals and objectives may be
either habitat or species based. Habitat-based
goals are expressed in terms of amount and/
or quality of habitat to be achieved. Speciesbased goals are expressed in terms specific to
individuals or populations of that species.
Complex multispecies or regional HCPs may
use combination of habitat- and speciesspecific goals and objectives. However,
according to 50 CFR 17.22, 17.32, 222.102,
and 222.307, each covered species must be
addressed as if it were listed and named on
the permit. Although the goals and objectives
may be stated in habitat terms, each covered
species that falls under that goal or objective
must be accounted for individually.

The Services chose to broadly define the
application of biological goals and
objectives, not only in terms of whether
they should be habitat-based or speciesbased, but also how the goals and
objectives should be measured (e.g.,
numbers, life history stages, acres). This
broad definition allows for flexibility in
determining appropriate biological goals
and objectives. The Services and
applicants must determine the
appropriate unit of measure such as
numbers of individuals at a particular
life stage, all lifestages, or quantity or
quality of habitat for each individual
HCP. The Services and applicants
should also consult with appropriate
experts to determine those goals (see
above discussion).
Regardless of the type of goal used, at
some point, all HCPs must undergo a
species by species analysis. If an HCP is
planned on a habitat basis, a species-byspecies analysis must be made to
determine if the HCP adequately covers
the species. The relationship of habitat
goals to specific species will help the

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35245

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices
Services and applicant determine if a
species is adequately covered by an
HCP. Also, this consideration of
individual species provides a safety net
for those species that may not neatly fit
into a purely habitat-based plan. For
example, populations of a narrow
endemic species that occur within a
wider ranging habitat type may not be
adequately covered by an HCP that
depends solely on amount of habitat
conserved in a broad general area and
does not specify particular locations
where the habitat for that species is
conserved.
Issue 11: Some commenters addressed
quantifying take within an HCP and
during its implementation. Some stated
that quantifying take should not be
required, and others stated that it
should always be required.
Response 11: Although identifying the
amount or extent of take within an HCP
and the permit does not directly refer to
development of biological goals and
objectives, it is related and will be
addressed here. Section 10(a)(2)(A)
requires that an HCP specify the impact
which will likely result from the take to
be permitted. Both Services require
applicants to include certain
information about the species to be
covered by an HCP. FWS permit
application criteria require
identification of the number, age, and
sex of such species, if known (50 CFR
17.22, 17.32). NMFS application criteria
require a description of the anticipated
impact, including amount, extent, and
type of anticipated taking (50 CFR
222.307). While evaluating an HCP, we
use the amount of incidental take as a
main indicator of the impact the
proposed project will likely have on the
species. Identifying the amount of
incidental take contributes to the
analysis of whether the proposed
incidental take permit will appreciably
reduce the likelihood of survival and
recovery of the species.
There are situations where precisely
quantifying the number of individuals
that are anticipated to be taken is a less
effective method than estimating the
amount or extent of take in terms of the
amount of habitat altered. What is most
important is that we are able to assess
the impact of the anticipated take on the
species. Regardless of how the
incidental take is quantified, it must be
indicated in the biological opinion the
Services complete for the issuance of
the permit and on the permit itself.
Adaptive Management Issues
Issue 12: Many commenters raised the
issue as to the correct definition, and,
therefore, correct application of
adaptive management. Additionally,

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

these commenters stated that under the
‘‘scientific definition’’ of adaptive
management, true adaptive management
is impossible under No Surprises.
Response 12: The Services recognize
the use of the term within the scientific
literature. However, the phrase
‘‘adaptive management’’ is used in
many other disciplines and contexts and
has different meanings to different
people. The scientific definition
typically follows Holling (1978) and
Walters (1986) (see also Walters and
Holling, 1990; McLain and Lee, 1996;
Walters 1997). This definition is
described as a process that tackles the
uncertainty in management of natural
resources through experimentation.
Most frequently, this involves modeling
to determine a course of action for onthe-ground implementation with
monitoring to test the model’s
predictions. Walters (1986) breaks down
categories of learning through
implementation as ‘‘active’’ and
‘‘passive’’ adaptive management.
Passive adaptation is where information
obtained is used to determine a single
best course of action. Active adaptation
is developing and testing a range of
alternative strategies (Walters and
Holling 1990). For the purposes of the
HCP program, we are defining adaptive
management as a method for examining
alternative strategies for meeting
measurable biological goals and
objectives, and then, if necessary,
adjusting future conservation
management actions according to what
is learned.
The Services are incorporating a
broad perspective of adaptive
management, with the key components
that make an adaptive process in HCPs
meaningful. These components include
careful planning through identification
of uncertainty, incorporating a range of
alternatives, implementing a sufficient
monitoring program to determine
success of the alternatives, and a
feedback loop from the results of the
monitoring program that allows for
change in the management strategies.
Because the Services and applicant
provide these elements up front in the
HCP, they are consistent with No
Surprises.
The addendum makes a distinction
between adaptive management that
would have a more experimental
approach versus contingency planning
for the implementation of measures in
the event of changed circumstances
where there is little uncertainty. An
HCP can provide provisions for changed
circumstances that does not involve
adaptive management.

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

Issue 13: One commenter stated that
all HCPs should contain adaptive
management.
Response 13: As stated in the
addendum, the Services will
incorporate adaptive management
strategies when appropriate. Adaptive
management is necessary for those plans
‘‘that would otherwise pose a significant
risk to the species at the time the permit
is issued due to significant data or
information gaps.’’ Not all HCPs warrant
adaptive management, although any
HCP may incorporate an adaptive
management strategy if agreed upon by
the applicant and the Services.
In addition, the ability for applicants
and the Services to build contingency
measures into an HCP’s operating
conservation strategy does not depend
solely on the use of adaptive
management. For instance, the No
Surprises final rule provides for
planning for changed circumstances.
This planning involves providing
alternative actions for possible events
that may alter the ability of an HCP to
meet its biological goals and objectives.
An adaptive management strategy
would not be necessary if there were no
significant uncertainty associated with
identifying appropriate responses to
potential changed circumstances.
Issue 14: One commenter stated that
adaptive management not only increases
the complexity of an HCP (and,
therefore, the time and effort involved
in its development and
implementation), but the uncertainty
poses an economic risk to permittees.
Response 14: We agree that adaptive
management may increase the
complexity of an HCP. However,
adaptive management strategies should
be commensurate with the scope of the
HCP (e.g., the smaller the scope or
impacts, the less complex the HCP and
any adaptive management if warranted).
Additionally, all HCPs must meet
statutory and regulatory issuance
criteria prior to approval and issuance
of a permit. Adaptive management is
one tool available to applicants and the
Services that can be used to meet the
issuance criteria. It is also a means for
increasing the flexibility of an HCP. A
results-oriented implementation
program lets a permittee apply a number
of different methods for achieving a
certain goal, rather than adhering to an
inflexible list of prescriptions. A resultsoriented program actually provides
some certainty to the permittee by
establishing a framework to modify the
operating conservation strategy. Results
are periodically assessed, and, if
shortcomings are evident, previously
agreed-upon alternative strategies are
implemented, thereby streamlining

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35246

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices

additional discussions between the
Services and permittee.
Setting the sideboards and structure
during development of the HCP
provides applicants certainty in the
extent of requirements for implementing
an adaptive management strategy. As
stated in the No Surprises final rule, we
will not require a permittee to make
additional mitigation commitments,
including any adaptive management
provisions, beyond what was agreed to
in the HCP, permit, and IA, if used.
Issue 15: One commenter stated that
adaptive management should not
replace good, up-front conservation
measures.
Response 15: The Services agree that
adaptive management should not be
used in place of developing good upfront conservation measures or to
postpone addressing difficult issues.
However, adaptive management may be
necessary to craft a framework for
addressing uncertainty in the operating
conservation program to ensure that the
measures fulfill the biological goals and
objectives of an HCP.
Monitoring Issues
Issue 16: Several commenters stated
that the Services should establish
minimum standards or require scientific
standards for the monitoring program
within an HCP.
Response 16: The implementing
regulations for an HCP (50 CFR 17.22,
17.32, and 222.307) require a
monitoring component. The HCP
Handbook includes guidance on what
the monitoring component of an HCP
should look like. However, we have
refined that guidance and have
incorporated it into the addendum. The
Services agree that any methodology
and techniques involved in biological
aspects of monitoring should be based
on science. The addendum does state
that ‘‘The monitoring program will be
based on sound science. Standard
survey or other previously-established
monitoring protocols should be used.
Although the specific methods used to
gather necessary data may differ
depending on the species and habitat
types, monitoring programs should use
a multispecies approach when
appropriate.’’ Monitoring approaches
that are consistent with the Handbook
and addendum should be adequate for
assessing whether the HCP is achieving
its biological goals and objectives.
Issue 17: Some commenters stated
that it was difficult to distinguish
between compliance monitoring and
effects and effectiveness monitoring.
Response 17: The Services recognize
that it may be difficult to distinguish
between the two types of monitoring

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

particularly when the actual monitoring
actions may overlap. One way to
distinguish between the two types is
that compliance monitoring verifies that
the permittee is carrying out the terms
of the HCP, permit, and IA (if one is
used) while effects and effectiveness
monitoring evaluates the biological
effects of the permitted action and
determines whether the effectiveness of
the operating conservation program of
the HCP is consistent with the
assumptions and predictions made
when the HCP was developed and
approved. The permittee is primarily
responsible for ensuring that their HCP
is working as planned and the Services
are primarily responsible for monitoring
whether the permittee is complying
with permit requirements.
Issue 18: A few commenters suggested
that the Services identify, in the
addendum, minimum qualifications for
personnel conducting monitoring.
Response 18: The addendum does
state that the personnel conducting the
monitoring should be qualified.
However, the necessary qualifications
depend upon what is being monitored.
Since HCPs are highly variable, the
addendum is flexible about the
minimum qualifications of personnel
conducting the monitoring, and the
Services’ staff will determine whether
the person or company conducting the
monitoring is qualified.
Issue 19: One commenter suggested
the Services require all monitoring
programs to include population counts.
Response 19: Population monitoring
may not be appropriate for all HCPs.
The scope of any HCP monitoring
program should be in proportion to the
scope of that HCP. If an HCP affects only
a portion of a population, the permittee
should not be responsible for
monitoring the entire population. In
addition, it may or may not be
appropriate for a particular HCP to
include counting of populations or
individuals. The appropriate unit of
measure in a monitoring program
depends upon the specific impacts and
operating conservation program within
an HCP and the biological goals and
objectives of the HCP. The unit of
measure also depends on how the
species uses the habitat to be affected.
However, the Services should
coordinate monitoring programs to
obtain a larger picture of the status of a
population.
Issue 20: Some commenters suggested
that self-reporting should not be used as
a means to demonstrate that the
permittee is in compliance with the
terms of an HCP.
Response 20: We are not limited to
self-reporting for compliance

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

monitoring. However, the limited
resources available to the Services to
conduct monitoring necessitates our
reliance on the working relationships
between us and the permittees to verify
compliance. As discussed in the
addendum, where appropriate, we may
conduct our own evaluation, including
site visits. The Services should be able
to use the periodic reports made by
permittees as one method in
determining whether the permittee is in
compliance. Periodic reports may be our
first source of information about the
implementation of an HCP. From these
reports, we may catch discrepancies that
alert us to possible implementation
problems. Also, the information
obtained to determine effects and
effectiveness may be the same
information needed to determine
compliance. We do not want to use
limited resources on duplicative
monitoring efforts.
Permit Duration Issues
Issue 21: One commenter suggested
that the Services link the duration of the
permit to recovery of the species
covered by an HCP.
Response 21: We assume that this
comment refers to linking duration of
the permit to completion of recovery
goals where HCPs have a ‘‘recovery
standard.’’ We discuss the relationship
of the HCP program and recovery in the
above responses.
Issue 22: Some commenters stated
that we should not place time limits on
mitigation measures.
Response 22: This comment seems to
reflect a misunderstanding regarding the
duration of an incidental take permit.
Permit duration is the length of time
during which the permittee has
incidental take authorization. HCPs may
be designed such that mitigation
measures are in effect for longer periods
of time, including in perpetuity, than
the time the incidental take permit is in
effect.
Public Participation Issues
Issue 23: Many comments pertained
to whether the Services or the applicant
decides who participates in the
development of HCPs. Most commenters
stated that the applicant should not
decide who participates, and offered
alternatives including mandatory
stakeholder or interested party
participation, and leaving the decision
up to the Services.
Response 23: The experience of the
Services shows that the more public
participation in the development phase
of an HCP, the more likely it will be
accepted by the public. However, we
maintain that the inclusion of other

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35247

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices
interested parties in the development of
an HCP is ultimately the decision of the
applicant. The ESA and its
implementing regulations do not
mandate public participation before an
applicant submits a permit application;
only a public comment period after it is
submitted and published in the Federal
Register. We strongly encourage
applicants to include more public
participation at all stages of
development.
Issue 24: Some commenters suggested
that scientists should be involved in the
development of HCPs. Another
commenter stated that all HCPs should
be subject to peer review.
Response 24: During consideration of
whether to issue an incidental take
permit, the Services are required to use
the best available scientific and
commercial information. Such data
come from a variety of sources:
scientific literature and peer-reviewed
publications, in-house expertise, other
State or Federal agencies, academia, and
non-governmental organizations, to
name a few. For listed species, the
Services can draw upon a number of
existing information sources, all of
which have gone through peer and
public review. ESA listing packages are
used to gain further species-specific
biological information, and where
possible, the Services will draw upon
recovery plans to identify conservation
and monitoring measures and objectives
for listed species. The addendum
encourages applicants to use scientific
advisory committees during the
development and implementation of an
HCP, especially large-scale ones.
The applicant’s integration of a
scientific advisory committee and
perhaps other stakeholders improves the
development and implementation of
any adaptive management strategy.
Advisory committees can assist the
Services and applicants in identifying
key components of uncertainty and
determine alternative strategies for
addressing that uncertainty. We also
encourage the use of peer-review for an
HCP. An applicant, with guidance from
the Services, may seek independent
scientific review of specific sections of
an HCP and its operating conservation
strategy to ensure the use of the best
scientific information for HCP
development.
Issue 25: One commenter requested
that the public comment period under
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) for HCPs not be extended.
Another comment suggested that the
Services process incidental take permits
with Environmental Impact Statements
within nine months, and, if that
deadline is not met, we would be

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

required to issue the permit within 30
days.
Response 25: The addendum contains
changes to the existing HCP public
comment period but does not change
any public input required by the
Council on Environmental Quality
regulations for implementing the
procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
1500–1508).
The intent of the addendum is to
ensure the public has sufficient
opportunity to review and provide
comment on all HCPs, regardless of the
public review requirements of NEPA. To
accomplish this, the addendum lays out
the various public review requirements
for HCPs with different levels of impact.
For example, low-effect HCPs, which
are categorically excluded from the
NEPA process, will have a minimum 30day public review and comment period.
The public review period for large,
complex HCPs is 90 days, unless there
is significant public involvement during
development. All other HCPs (including
large complex HCPs with significant
public involvement) will be made
available for review and comment for a
minimum of 60 days.
The addendum contains target time
frames for us to process an incidental
take permit application. The target
processing time frame for an HCP that
includes an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is up to one year,
including the 90-day comment period
(or 60-days if significant public
participation has occurred). However,
we cannot issue a permit until we have
determined that it meets the issuance
criteria under section 10(a)(2)(B) of the
ESA. Because of the complexity
associated with an HCP that has an EIS,
we need the target processing time
frame of one year to determine whether
to issue the permit. One method to
reduce the amount of time needed to
process a permit application is for an
applicant to include up-front public
participation during HCP development.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review,
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This final policy was subject to Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
review under Executive Order 12866.
a. This policy will not have an annual
economic effect of $100 million or
adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or
other units of government. A costbenefit and economic analysis is not
required. The primary purpose of the
addendum is to incorporate the 5-point

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

policy, which was published in draft
form on March 9, 1999, into the final
Handbook for Habitat Conservation
Planning and Incidental Take Permitting
Process. This HCP Handbook addendum
provides additional guidance on five
concepts that, although treated only
briefly in the handbook, are in
widespread use in existing and
developing HCPs. The main purpose of
this addendum is to provide a
consistent approach to these concepts
for future HCPs. The five concepts
addressed in this addendum include
biological goals and objectives, adaptive
management, monitoring, permit
duration, and public participation.
The HCP program and the associated
section 10 permits have been in place
for approximately 17 years. The 1982
amendments to the ESA created a
statutory framework for the HCP
program that was built primarily around
four permit application criteria and four
permit issuance criteria. We
promulgated regulations in 1985 in
order to implement the Congressionally
created HCP program. The statutory and
regulatory framework for HCPs has
remained unchanged since it was first
put into place. The five concepts
addressed in this addendum are an
outgrowth of the statute and regulations.
This addendum does not create these
concepts, nor does it change the current
regulations or general application of the
concepts in practice.
In order to analyze the economic
effect of this addendum, we reviewed
the potential of this policy to have an
effect on HCPs in three different areas:
the cost of HCP development, the cost
of HCP minimization and mitigation,
and The cost of HCP implementation.
Past and current experience with the
HCP program leads us to predict that we
will complete and approve
approximately 35 new HCPs each year
into the foreseeable future. We expect
that the size and complexity of the
expected 35 HCPs per year will
continue to vary from the extremely
small, single-species HCP to multispecies HCPs covering more than a
million-acre planning area (see Table 1).
Based on past and current experience,
we predict that 20 of the expected 35
HCPs per year will be relatively small
and simple HCPs covering one or a few
listed species (of which 8 may be
deemed ‘‘low effect’’). The HCPs of
medium size and complexity are
expected to account for another 12 of
the 35 HCPs, and the remaining three
HCPs are expected to be large, complex
HCPs.

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35248

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices

TABLE 1.—SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF measures * * * and the acquisition and
HCPS ACCORDING TO PLANNING dedication of preserve lands for the
warbler adjacent to an existing habitat
AREA, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999

preserve and within the same warbler
recovery unit as the proposed
development.’’ [Environmental
Assessment and Habitat Conservation
Plan, Issuance of an Endangered
Species Section 10(a) Permit for the
Incidental Take of the Golden-cheeked
Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) during
construction and Operation of the
Approximate 24-acre Single Family
Number
Residential Development, Canyon
Size of HCPs
of HCPs
Ridge, Phase A, Section 3, Austin,
Less than 1 acre ...........................
44 Travis County, Texas, December, 1994].
The second issuance criterion in
Between 1–10 acres .....................
64
Between 10–100 acres .................
56 section 10 of the ESA requires a finding
Between 100–500 acres ...............
37 that the applicant ‘‘will, to the
Between 500–1,000 acres ............
11 maximum extent practicable, minimize
Between 1,000–10,000 acres .......
17 and mitigate the impacts. * * *’’ This
Between 10,000–100,000 acres ...
14 criterion inherently requires a
Between 100,000–500,000 acres
10
discussion of the minimization and
Between
500,000–1,000,000
acres .........................................
4 mitigation efforts and their relationship
Greater than 1,000,000 acres ......
2 to the project impact and the desired
outcome of the HCP. We believe that the
decision documents examining this
The Effect of Additional Policy
criterion are of higher quality when
Guidance on Biological Goals and
biological goals and objectives are made
Objectives
explicit. This addendum is directed
This addendum emphasizes the
towards agency personnel and does not
benefit of explicitly articulating why the seek to alter the permit application
minimization and mitigation efforts in
criteria or otherwise require anything
an HCP are being provided and what
new of permit applicants. We already
they are expected to accomplish. The
encourage HCP applicants to provide an
thrust of this concept is aimed at the
explicit discussion of biological goals
HCP preparation phase. We have no
and objectives, but this addendum will
reason to believe it will have any effect
not mandate such a discussion in the
on an HCP’s minimization and
HCP. Instead, this addendum will
mitigation or on HCP implementation.
ensure that the agency decision
From the very beginning of the HCP
documents that analyze the HCP contain
program, biological goals and objectives an explicit discussion of biological goals
have been incorporated into HCPs,
and objectives.
sometimes in an explicit manner and in
We do not expect that policy guidance
other cases in an implicit manner. For
requiring an explicit articulation of
example, in the first HCP, which was
biological goals and objectives that
used by Congress as a model for the
already exist in some form in the HCP
1982 amendments to the ESA, the HCP
will require any significant additional
states that the ‘‘purpose of the [HCP] is
time or effort. The incorporation of this
to provide for the indefinite
addendum into the handbook reflects
perpetuation of the Mission Blue and
support for existing practice more than
Callippe Silverspot butterflies on San
it does a new policy development. As
Bruno Mountain, as well as to conserve
such, and given the relative ease of
* * * the value * * * as a remnant
explaining the goals of conservation
ecosystem. * * * The more pervasive
measures, we believe that this policy
goal is to simultaneously provide for the will have little to no economic effect on
perpetuation and enhancement of the
small entities or any other entity. In
grassland habitat which supports the
addition, we have determined that
butterflies. * * * The focus of
providing a numerical or quantitative
preservation is on the grassland because description of this deminimus effect is
this is thought * * * to be the ancestral not practical and we have, therefore,
native habitat. * * *’’ [San Bruno
provided a narrative analysis instead.
Mountain Area Habitat Conservation
The Effect of Additional Policy
Plan, Final 1991]. A more recent
Guidance on Adaptive Management
example from an HCP developed in
Texas states ‘‘the main goal of the HCP
The HCP Handbook already provides
is to * * * minimize and mitigate the
policy guidance on adaptive
impacts. * * * This main goal is
management, and thus this addendum
achieved by onsite conservation
merely provides additional refinement.
[Some plans have both short-term and longterm HCPs, where the total amount of area
addressed in the short-term HCP is included
within the total area of the subsequent longterm HCP. Therefore, the numbers of HCPs
accounted for above will not total the number of HCPs that have been issued. A few
HCPs were not included in this tally because they addressed the planning areas in
linear miles instead of acres.]

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

The concept of adaptive management
has been both broadly and narrowly
defined by the disciplines that use the
concept. We are embracing a somewhat
broad definition of the term as
supported by the scientific literature,
and one of the reasons for additional
policy guidance on this concept is to
explain our application of the concept
of adaptive management compared to
the narrower definition favored in some
academic circles.
Adaptive management has been
widely used in the HCP program from
the very beginning. The first HCP, San
Bruno Mountain, utilized the concept,
stating: ‘‘notwithstanding the
considerable knowledge gained through
the biological study, the Habitat
Conservation Plan, in concept and in
implementation, is novel and in many
ways, experimental. There are many
biological uncertainties which
inescapably remain at the outset of such
an ambitious undertaking which can
only be resolved through an ongoing
program of applied research designed
specifically to direct Plan
implementation.’’ [San Bruno Mountain
Area Habitat Conservation Plan, Final
1991, emphasis in original]. Since the
San Bruno plan, many HCPs, especially
the larger and more complex HCPs, have
utilized adaptive management concepts
in one form or another. Examples
include the Washington County HCP in
Utah and the Plum Creek Timber
Company I–90 Corridor HCP in
Washington. Arguably some of the
measures in these HCPs that can be
categorized as adaptive management
were included in an attempt to meet
regulatory requirements concerning
unforeseen and changed circumstances.
The section 10 regulations require that
permit applicants develop procedures to
address unforeseen circumstances (50
CFR 17.22(b)(1)(iii)(B), 17.32(b)(1)(iii)(B)
for FWS and 50 CFR 222.307(g) for
NMFS) and make the existence of these
procedures a precondition to permit
issuance. See 50 CFR 17.22(b)(2)(iii) and
17.32(b)(2)(iii) for FWS and 50 CFR
222.307(g) for NMFS. The No Surprises
rulemaking expanded on the
contingency planning aspects of the
HCP program by requiring contingency
planning for changed circumstances that
are foreseeable [See 63 FR 8859
(February 23, 1998)]. This addendum on
adaptive management does not mandate
the contingency planning identified
above, even if some of the procedures
adopted fall under the heading of
adaptive management.
The addendum states that adaptive
management will be used for HCPs that
are faced with significant data gaps. We
believe that an HCP that fails to address

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35249

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices
significant data gaps will not meet the
issuance criteria of the ESA. It is,
therefore, not the addendum itself that
mandates the use of adaptive
management in cases of significant data
gaps, but is instead the applicant’s need
to overcome data gaps and still meet the
permit issuance criteria established in
the ESA. Current practice on the ground
is to rely on adaptive management to
overcome data gaps. This addendum
provides policy support for this existing
practice, but does not change the status
quo. We, therefore, determine that the
addendum’s coverage of adaptive
management will not effect small
entities to any measurable degree.

Handbook did not provide any
treatment of the issue of permit
duration. This addendum would add a
short provision to the Handbook that
essentially repeats verbatim the
regulatory language on permit duration.
Even though the addendum does not
expand on the regulations’ treatment of
permit duration, we believe that the
Handbook should provide coverage of
all aspects of the program and it will
thus be beneficial to include this
provision in the Handbook. The policy
guidance on permit duration will not
affect the current approach to
determining permit duration and will,
therefore, not have any effect.

The Effect of Additional Policy
Guidance on HCP Monitoring
This addendum does not impose any
new monitoring requirements.
Monitoring is already required by the
section 10 regulations. In the preamble
to the final rule promulgating the
section 10 regulations, we agreed with
a commenter that the Service should
monitor the implementation of a
conservation plan and accordingly
finalized revisions to sections
17.22(b)(1)(iii)(B), 17.22(b)(3),
17.32(b)(1)(iii)(B) and 17.32(b)(3) to
require that conservation plans specify
the monitoring measures to be used and
to authorize imposition of necessary
monitoring as a condition of each
permit.’’ 50 FR 39681, 39684
(September 30, 1985). NMFS also
included a monitoring requirement in
their section 10 regulations (50 CFR 307
(d)).
This addendum seeks to refine
existing monitoring policy by organizing
the types of monitoring being conducted
into categories, including compliance
monitoring, effect monitoring, and
effectiveness monitoring. The
addendum also seeks greater
compatibility of monitoring data across
HCPs. Neither of these policy additions
is expected to have any economic
impact. Current practice entails the HCP
applicant and the Services working
together to arrive at a monitoring
program that, based on the specifics of
the HCP and the species involved, is
robust enough to provide the
information the parties feel will be
needed. This addendum does not alter
current practice and instead reiterates
the regulatory requirement and provides
policy recognition and support for the
current practice.

The Effect of Additional Policy
Guidance on Public Participation
In the area of public participation,
this addendum signals a departure from
the current practice in the Handbook by
increasing the length of the public
comment period for many HCPs by
thirty days. The ESA requires a
minimum of a thirty day public
comment period, but does not prohibit
longer public comment periods. This
addendum provides that ‘‘low effect’’
HCPs will, as a general matter, continue
to be provided to the public for a thirty
day comment period. The addendum
thus does not change the current
approach for low effect HCPs, which we
expect will comprise eight of the
predicted thirty-five new HCPs per year.
The addendum indicates most other
HCPs will be provided to the public for
a sixty day comment period. Finally the
addendum states that large, complex
HCPs will need to have a ninety day
public comment period unless the
applicant has taken steps to involve the
public earlier in the HCP process, in
which case the HCP will qualify for the
sixty day comment period.
This policy guidance on public
participation has the potential to affect
twenty-seven HCPs per year. The large,
complex HCPs, predicted to account for
three of the new HCPs per year, have
historically been associated with
extensive public notice and
involvement, often through the EIS
process under NEPA. This type of
public involvement would qualify these
HCPs for the sixty day comment period.
The parallel NEPA process will
typically require significant comment
time periods, often matching or
exceeding the time periods established
by this addendum. We have also
observed that the large HCPs of the past
were noticed for more than the
minimum thirty days required by
section 10 simply because of their size
and complexity and in response to
requests for extensions from the public.

The Effect of Policy Guidance on Permit
Duration
The section 10 regulations provide
factors that the Director should consider
in determining permit duration. The

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

We have, therefore, determined that this
addendum will not alter the current
practice with regard to the length of
public comment periods and large
HCPs. Based on this determination, we
conclude that this policy guidance on
public participation will not have an
economic effect.
Of the remaining twenty-four
expected HCPs per year, we expect at
least four of those HCPs would have
longer than the minimum public
comment period because of reasonable
public requests for extensions. There
are, therefore, twenty HCPs per year that
could potentially be effected by the
policy guidance on public participation.
Of these twenty HCPs, only a small
number are expected to actually have all
local approvals in hand and be ready to
proceed before the conclusion of HCP
processing, including the public
comment period. Unless an HCP
applicant is otherwise ready to begin
project implementation, we do not
believe an additional thirty days of
public comment will have any
economic effect. For the small number
of HCPs that may be waiting for the HCP
process to be completed, the economic
effect of a thirty day extension to the
process will depend tremendously on
the scale and type of project. In
addition, many projects will be able to
proceed in part prior to permit issuance,
providing there is no incidental take of
species or a preclusion of the
development of reasonable and prudent
alternatives. See 16 U.S.C. 1536(d). HCP
applicants will be fully aware of the
addendum’s public participation time
lines and will, therefore, be able to
factor the additional public comment
period into their HCP planning early.
This early recognition of the time lines
may prove beneficial compared to
planning on a thirty day comment
period only to find near the end of that
period that the Services has decided
sound grounds exist for an extension.
Based on this narrative analysis, we
conclude that an increase in public
comment periods will have a negligible
economic effect.
In summary, the 5 Point HCP
addendum provides recognition and
policy support for existing practices in
each of the five concept areas discussed
above. The addendum does not change
the current statutory or regulatory
framework and merely provides
refinements to existing policy. As a
result, the addendum will not have a
significant economic effect.
b. This addendum will not create
inconsistencies with other agencies’
actions. The addendum to the HCP
Handbook does change the existing
requirements for a HCP. The addendum

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35250

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices

is intended to assist Government
employees and as such may also assist
the public. The only change to the HCP
Handbook included in the addendum is
to provide adequate time for public
comment when developing HCPs.
c. This policy will not materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients. The
addendum to the HCP Handbook was
developed solely to provide consistency
to the HCP program and is intended as
guidance for the Government.
d. This policy will not raise novel
legal or policy issues. The addendum to
the HCP Handbook was developed to
provide clarification for the HCP
process and does not change regulations
or significantly change existing policy.
The Departments of Interior and
Commerce certify that this policy will
not have a significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small entities
as defined under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
There are more than 248 existing HCPs
of which 106 are for small entities and
142 are for corporations or other large
entities. The addendum does not change
the ability of small entities to develop
HCPs in the future. The Services expect
small entities will have the same
proportion of future HCPs.
This policy is not a major rule under
5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
This policy:
1. Does not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.
2. Will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions.
3. Does not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises.
The purpose of the addendum is to
provide Federal employees the guidance
required for the consistent application
of the Handbook for developing HCPs.
The addendum will provide some
simplification to the HCP Program due
to clarification of processes.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.):
a. This addendum will not
‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small
governments. A Small Government
Agency Plan is not required. The HCP
Handbook provides guidance to Federal
employees involved in reviewing and
approving incidental take permits that

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

include habitat conservation plans. The
HCPs and permits generally are
coordinated with appropriate State and
local governments to include their
views on the activities covered by the
permit (in many cases, the activities also
require State or local government
authorization). In some instances, the
applicant is the local government
seeking incidental take permits for
activities planned and conducted within
its area of jurisdiction. The addendum
does not change this process by
encouraging applicants to coordinate
with State agencies. As with all other
applications, this addendum will not
have an effect on small governments.
b. This policy will not produce a
Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, i.e., it is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
See discussion in the section titled
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act.’’

National Environmental Policy Act
The Department of the Interior has
determined that the issuance of the
policy is categorically excluded under
the Department’s National
Environmental Policy Act procedures in
516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has determined
that the issuance of this guidance
qualifies for a categorical exclusion as
defined by the NOAA 216–6
Administrative Order, Environmental
Review Procedure.

Takings Implication Assessment

Addendum to The HCP Handbook
The five sections (or five-points) of
the final addendum are contained
entirely within this notice. The Services
will adhere to the guidance provided in
the addendum. Nothing in this guidance
is intended to supersede or alter any
aspect of Federal law or regulation
pertaining to the conservation of
threatened or endangered species.

In accordance with Executive Order
12630, the policy does not have
significant takings implications. A
takings implication assessment is not
required. The addendum guides
employees in the evaluation and
approval of applications for incidental
take permits under existing law.
Federalism Assessment

Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order
12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that the policy does not
unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act.
This addendum does not require an
information collection under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. A related
information collection associated with
incidental take permits is covered by
existing OMB approvals (#1018–0094
for FWS #0648–0230 for NMFS).

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Biological Goals And Objectives

In accordance with Executive Order
13132, the policy does not have
sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism
assessment. This addendum does not
change the relationship between the
Services and applicants, nor does it alter
the Services’ relationship with State and
local governments within the HCP
Program.

Jkt 190000

Section 7 Consultation
The Services do not need to complete
a section 7 consultation on this final
policy. An intra-Service consultation is
completed prior to issuing incidental
take permits under 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Endangered Species Act associated with
individual HCPs.

Sfmt 4703

What Are an HCP’s Biological Goals and
Objectives?
HCPs have always been designed to
achieve a biological purpose, yet they
may not have specifically stated those
biological goals. In the future, the
Services and HCP applicants will
clearly and consistently define the
expected outcome, i.e., biological
goal(s). This rather simple concept will
facilitate communication among the
scientific community, the agencies, and
the applicants by providing direction for
the development of HCPs.
The HCP Handbook discusses
identifying biological goals and
objectives (Chapter 3). Since biological
goals and objectives are inherent to the
HCP process, HCPs have had implied
biological goals and objectives, and
many recent HCPs include explicit
biological goals or objectives. Explicit
biological goals and objectives clarify
the purpose and direction of an HCP’s
operating conservation program. They
create parameters and benchmarks for
developing conservation measures,

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35251

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices
provide the rationale behind the HCP’s
terms and conditions, promote an
effective monitoring program, and,
where appropriate, help determine the
focus of an adaptive management
strategy.
What Are Biological Goals and
Objectives in HCPs?
In the context of HCPs, biological
goals are the broad, guiding principles
for the operating conservation program
of the HCP. They are the rationale
behind the minimization and mitigation
strategies. For more complex HCPs,
biological objectives can be used to step
down the biological goals into
manageable, and, therefore, more
understandable units. Multiple species
HCPs may categorize goals by species or
by habitat, depending on the structure
of the operating conservation program.
HCPs that are smaller in scope would
have simpler biological goals that may
not need to be stepped down into
objectives. It should be noted that the
biological goals of an individual HCP
are not necessarily equivalent to the
range-wide recovery goals and
conservation of the species. However, if
viewed collectively, the biological goals
and objectives of HCPs covering the
same species should support the
recovery goals and conservation.
The biological goals and objectives of
an HCP are commensurate with the
specific impacts and duration of the
applicant’s proposed action. For
example, low-effect HCPs generally
have simple measurable biological
goals, such as contributing to a regional
preserve design through a mitigation
bank or avoiding breeding habitat of a
particular species.
How Do I Incorporate Biological Goals
and Ojectives Into an HCP?
Determination of the biological goals
and objectives is integral to the
development of the operating
conservation program. Conservation
measures identified in an HCP, its
accompanying incidental take permit,
and/or IA, if used, provide the means
for achieving the biological goals and
objectives. We will work with the
applicant to develop the biological goals
and objectives by examining the
applicant’s proposed action and the
overall conservation needs of the
covered species and/or its habitat.
The biological goals and objectives are
refined as the operating conservation
program takes shape. Initial biological
goals and objectives of an HCP begin by
articulating the rationale behind the
operating conservation program. The
Services and applicant improve the
initial biological goals by compiling the

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

known information of the species,
estimating the anticipated effects to the
species, and stating any assumptions
made. If the operating conservation
program is relatively complex, the
biological goal is divided into
manageable and measurable objectives.
Biological objectives are the different
components needed to achieve the
biological goal such as preserving
sufficient habitat, managing the habitat
to meet certain criteria, or ensuring the
persistence of a specific minimum
number of individuals. The specifics of
the operating conservation program are
the actions anticipated to obtain the
biological objectives; therefore, we can
use these objectives to strengthen the
initial operating conservation program.
Elzinga et al. (1998) provide guidance
for developing measurable objectives for
rare plant monitoring that can be used
for other species. Biological objectives
should include the following: species or
habitat indicator, location, action,
quantity/state, and timeframe needed to
meet the objective. They can be
described as a condition to be met or as
a change to be achieved relative to the
existing condition. Biological objectives
may be addressed in parallel.
Conversely, achieving the biological
objectives may need to occur in
sequence. For instance, parallel
objectives may be (1) maintaining the
preserve site free of nonnative weeds
and (2) enhancing the population from
4 individuals to 7 individuals.
Sequential objectives may be (1)
restoring of an area of habitat and then
(2) reintroducing the species.
The Services and applicants have
many resources to draw upon when
determining the biological goals and
objectives of an HCP. Both can use the
available literature, State conservation
strategies, candidate conservation plans,
draft or final recovery plans or outlines,
and other sources of relevant scientific
and commercial information as guides
in setting biological goals and
objectives. Both can consult with
species experts, State wildlife agencies,
recovery teams, and/or scientific
advisory committees.

objectives. However, according to 50
CFR 17.22, 17.32, 222.102, and 222.307,
each covered species must be addressed
as if it were listed and named on the
permit. Although the goals and
objectives may be stated in habitat
terms, each covered species that falls
under that goal or objective must be
accounted for individually as it relates
to that habitat.
Are Permittees Required To Achieve the
Biological Goals and Objectives of the
HCP?

How the biological goals fit with the
implementation of an HCP may be
framed as a series of prescriptive
measures to be carried out (a
prescription-based HCP) or the ability to
use any number of measures that
achieve certain results (a results-based
HCP). A prescription-based HCP
outlines a series of tasks that are
designed to meet the biological goals
and objectives. This type of HCP may be
most appropriate for smaller permits
where the permittee would not have an
ongoing management responsibility. A
results-based HCP has flexibility in its
management so that the permittee may
institute the actions that are necessary
as long as they achieve the intended
result (i.e., the biological goals and
objectives), especially if they have a
long-term commitment to the
conservation program of the HCP. HCPs
can also be a mix of the two strategies.
The Services and the applicant should
determine the range of acceptable and
anticipated management adjustments
necessary to respond to new
information. This process will enable
the applicant to assess the potential
economic impacts of adjustments before
agreeing to the HCP while allowing for
flexibility in the implementation of the
HCP in order to meet the biological
goals.
Regardless of the type of goals and
objectives used and how they fit within
implementation of the HCP, the Services
will ensure that the biological goals are
consistent with conservation actions
needed to adequately minimize and
mitigate impacts to the covered species
What Is the Difference Between a
to the maximum extent practicable.
Habitat-Based Goal and a Species-Based Whether the HCP is based on
Goal?
prescriptions, results, or both, the
permittee’s obligation for meeting the
The biological goals and objectives
biological goals and objectives is proper
may be either habitat or species based.
implementation of the operating
Habitat-based goals are expressed in
conservation program of the HCP. In
terms of amount and/or quality of
other words, under the No Surprises
habitat. Species-based goals are
assurances, a permittee is required only
expressed in terms specific to
to implement the HCP, IA, if used, and
individuals or populations of that
terms and conditions of the permit.
species. Complex multispecies or
regional HCPs may use a combination of Implementation may include provisions
for ongoing changes in actions in order
habitat- and species-specific goals and

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35252

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices

to achieve results or due to results from
an adaptive management strategy.
Adaptive Management
What Is Adaptive Management?
Adaptive management is an integrated
method for addressing uncertainty in
natural resource management (Holling
1978, Walters 1986, Gundersen 1999). It
also refers to a structured process for
learning by doing. The concept is used
in a number of different contexts,
including the social science aspects of
learning and change in natural resource
management. The term adaptive
management was adopted by Holling
(1978) for natural resource management,
who described adaptive management as
an interactive process that not only
reduces, but benefits from, uncertainty.
Additionally, Walters (1986) breaks
down categories of learning through
implementation as ‘‘active’’ and
‘‘passive’’ adaptive management.
Passive adaptation is where information
obtained is used to determine a single
best course of action. Active adaptation
is developing and testing a range of
alternative strategies (Walters and
Holling 1990). The Services believe that
both of these types of adaptive
management are appropriate to consider
when developing a strategy to address
uncertainty. Therefore, we are defining
adaptive management broadly as a
method for examining alternative
strategies for meeting measurable
biological goals and objectives, and
then, if necessary, adjusting future
conservation management actions
according to what is learned.
Implementation of adaptive strategies
has been criticized for failing to resolve
uncertainty or effectively implementing
good experimental design (Walters
1997; Lee 1999). These failures are
typically attributed to agency or
stakeholder unwillingness to accept the
risk involved in experimentation. The
Services do have certain constraints in
the HCP Program that may inhibit
experimental design. For instance,
stakeholder involvement in the
development of many HCPs, including
the adaptive management design, is
largely at the discretion of the applicant.
Another restriction we face
collectively (Services, applicants, other
stakeholders) is the possible risks to
species that may arise with using an
experimental design. Many adaptive
management processes with public/
stakeholder involvement address largescale management issues (e.g., Florida
Everglades, Grand Canyon). This type of
process is complicated and involved,
but appropriate for the scale of the
issue. Similarly, more active and

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

involved approaches to adaptive
management are appropriate for largescale HCPs. However, an active
approach may pose too much of a risk
to the species; therefore, a more passive
approach may be the best course of
action. An active approach may also be
too cumbersome for the scope of the
HCP and, therefore, a passive approach
may be more appropriate.
Despite the potential obstacles to
incorporating a comprehensive adaptive
management strategy in an HCP, the
Services incorporate adaptive
management strategies when
appropriate. We believe it is important
that small- to medium-sized HCPs
incorporate the flexibility to change
implementation strategies after permit
issuance. The HCP Program is flexible
enough to develop adaptive
management strategies that will
facilitate and improve the decisionmaking process for the operating
conservation program of a given HCP as
well as provide for informative
decision-making.
When Should Adaptive Management Be
Incorporated Into an HCP?
The Services will consider adaptive
management as a tool to address
uncertainty in the conservation of a
species covered by an HCP. Whenever
an adaptive management strategy is
used, the approved HCP must outline
the agreed-upon future changes to the
operating conservation program. Not all
HCPs or all species covered in an
incidental take permit need an adaptive
management strategy. However, an
adaptive management strategy is
essential for HCPs that would otherwise
pose a significant risk to the species at
the time the permit is issued due to
significant data or information gaps.
Possible significant data gaps that may
require an adaptive management
strategy include, but are not limited to,
a significant lack of specific information
about the ecology of the species or its
habitat (e.g., food preferences, relative
importance of predators, territory size),
uncertainty in the effectiveness of
habitat or species management
techniques, or lack of knowledge on the
degree of potential effects of the activity
on the species covered in the incidental
take permit.
Often, a direct relationship exists
between the level of biological
uncertainty for a covered species and
the degree of risk that an incidental take
permit could pose for that species.
Therefore, the operating conservation
program may need to be relatively
cautious initially and adjusted later
based on new information, even though
a cautious approach may limit the

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

number of alternative strategies that
may be tested. A practical adaptive
management strategy within the
operating conservation program of a
long-term incidental take permit will
include milestones that are reviewed at
scheduled intervals during the lifetime
of the incidental take permit and
permitted action. If a relatively high
degree of risk exists, milestones and
adjustments may need to occur early
and often.
Adaptive management should not be
a catchall for every uncertainty or a
means to address issues that could not
be resolved during negotiations of the
HCP. There may be some circumstances
with such a high degree of uncertainty
and potential significant effects that a
species should not receive coverage in
an incidental take permit at all until
additional research is conducted.
What Are the Elements of an Adaptive
Management Strategy in HCPs?
In an HCP, adaptive management
strategies can assist the Services and the
applicant in developing an adequate
operating conservation program and
improving its effectiveness. An adaptive
management strategy should (1) identify
the uncertainty and the questions that
need to be addressed to resolve the
uncertainty; (2) develop alternative
strategies and determine which
experimental strategies to implement;
(3) integrate a monitoring program that
is able to detect the necessary
information for strategy evaluation; and
(4) incorporate feedback loops that link
implementation and monitoring to a
decision-making process (which may be
similar to a dispute-resolution process)
that result in appropriate changes in
management. If you are developing
adaptive management strategies, we
encourage you to review the scientific
literature that discusses adaptive
management (for a starting point see
literature cited at the end of the
addendum).
Identifying the uncertainty to be
addressed is the foundation of the
adaptive management strategy. Other
components include a description of the
goal of the operating conservation
program (i.e., the biological goals and
objectives of the HCP) and the
identification of the parameters that
potentially affect that goal. This requires
communication between the applicant
and the Services to identify expectations
for the adaptive management strategy
and may also involve assistance from
scientists. After this step, we (the
Services, applicants, and any other
participants) will develop the range of
possible ‘‘experimental’’ strategies
which may involve some type of

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35253

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices
modeling (which can be as simple as a
written description of the expected
outcomes or as complex as a
mathematical model demonstrating
expected outcomes) of the resource in
question. If modeling is involved, we
must clearly articulate the assumptions
and limitations of the model used. Many
factors may influence the type of
alternatives to explore, including, but
not limited to, economics, policies and
regulations, and amount of risk to the
species. This stage may be an
appropriate time to involve other
stakeholders to help identify the
alternative strategies.
Next, a monitoring program needs to
be designed that will adequately detect
the results of the adaptive management
strategy. Integration of the HCP’s
monitoring program into the adaptive
management strategy is essential. The
monitoring program plays an essential
role of determining whether the chosen
strategy(ies) is providing the desired
outcome (i.e., achieving the biological
goals of the HCP). If a scientific advisory
committee is being used, this may be an
appropriate item for their review. An
applicant may also submit a monitoring
program for independent peer review.
Finally, an adaptive management
strategy must define the feedback
process that will be used to ensure that
the new information gained from the
monitoring program results in effective
change in management of the resource.
How Does Adaptive Management Affect
No Surprises Assurances?
HCP assurances (No Surprises) and
the use of adaptive management
strategies are compatible. The
assurances apply once all appropriate
HCP provisions have been mutually
crafted and agreed upon and approved
by the Services and the applicant.
Adaptive management strategies, if
used, are part of those provisions, and
their implementation becomes part of a
properly implemented conservation
plan. When an HCP, permit, and IA, if
used, incorporate an adaptive
management strategy, it should clearly
state the range of possible operating
conservation program adjustments due
to significant new information, risk, or
uncertainty. This range defines the
limits of what resource commitments
may be required of the permittee. This
process will enable the applicant to
assess the potential economic impacts of
adjustments before agreeing to the HCP.
Is Adaptive Management the Only
Method for Changing the Operating
Conservation Program of an HCP?
HCPs may be designed to provide
flexibility other than through the use of

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

adaptive management. The No Surprises
final rule lays a foundation for
contingency planning in HCPs that may
or may not include adaptive
management. This contingency
planning is addressed largely under the
topic of ‘‘changed circumstances.’’
Changed circumstances are
circumstances that can be reasonably
anticipated, and the HCP can
incorporate measures to be
implemented if the circumstances
occur. The permittee or another
responsible party may need the
flexibility provided by the ‘‘changed
circumstances’’ regulation to employ
alternative methods or strategies within
the operating conservation program to
achieve the biological goals and
objectives. This flexibility also allows
previously agreed upon management
and/or mitigation actions to be
implemented or discontinued, as
needed, in response to changed
circumstances. These actions are not
necessarily adaptive management and
may be a process for implementing
change to the operating program or
simply a different conservation
measure. The HCP, incidental take
permit, and IA, if any, must describe the
agreed upon range of management and/
or mitigation actions and the process by
which the management and funding
decisions are made and implemented.
How Can an HCP Use Adaptive
Management Without a Large and
Expensive Experimental Design?
Adaptive management has
traditionally been viewed and designed
for large-scale systems. However, in
some situations we may want to retain
the flexibility of addressing uncertainty
through an adaptive management
strategy at a smaller scale. In such
situations, an adaptive management
strategy could take many forms
including creating a simple feedback
loop so that management changes could
be implemented based on results of the
HCP’s monitoring program. Similarly,
the agreed-upon strategy may be
integration of an HCP with any ongoing
research, recovery planning, and
conservation planning by Federal, State,
and local agencies. This integration is
an efficient way to address uncertainty
and provide the information needed to
guide changes in small to medium sized
HCPs. We can also view smaller, yet
similar HCPs collectively across a
landscape in order to adapt our
approaches in future HCPs (Johnson
1999). This approach will require us to
coordinate information among similar
HCPs, including communication with
the individual applicants regarding their
role in such a landscape approach.

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

Monitoring
What Is Monitoring in the HCP
Program?
Monitoring is a mandatory element of
all HCPs (See 50 CFR 17.22, 17.32, and
222.307). When properly designed and
implemented, monitoring programs for
HCPs should provide the information
necessary to assess compliance and
project impacts, and verify progress
toward the biological goals and
objectives. Monitoring also provides the
scientific data necessary to evaluate the
success of the HCP’s operating
conservation programs with respect to
the possible use of those strategies in
future HCPs or other programs that
contribute to the conservation of species
and their habitat. The HCP Handbook
already provides guidance for
developing monitoring measures
(Chapter 3, section B.4.) and discusses
reporting requirements (Chapter 6,
section E.4.). The following information
further clarifies and provides additional
guidance for the monitoring component
of an HCP, permit, or IA.
What Are the Types of Monitoring That
Can Be Incorporated Into HCPs?
The Services and the applicant must
ensure that the monitoring program of
an HCP provides information to: (1)
Evaluate compliance; (2) determine if
biological goals and objectives are being
met; and (3) provide feedback
information for an adaptive
management strategy, if one is used.
HCP monitoring is divided into two
types. Compliance Monitoring is
verifying that the permittee is carrying
out the terms of the HCP, permit, and
IA, if one is used. Effects and
Effectiveness Monitoring evaluates the
effects of the permitted action and
determines whether the effectiveness of
the operating conservation program of
the HCP are consistent with the
assumptions and predictions made
when the HCP was developed and
approved; in other words, is the HCP
achieving the biological goals and
objectives.
Scientific literature discussing
monitoring uses similar terms as the
addendum but the terms may have
different meanings. For instance, the
term ‘‘validation monitoring’’ is the
same concept as the addendum’s term
‘‘effectiveness monitoring.’’ However,
‘‘effectiveness monitoring’’ in the
scientific literature simply means
measuring the status of species.
‘‘Implementation monitoring’’ is
roughly equivalent to the addendum’s
term ‘‘compliance monitoring’’ with the
added regulatory nature of the
involvement of a permit.

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35254

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices

What Determines the Extent of a
Monitoring Program?
The scope of the monitoring program
should be commensurate with the scope
and duration of the operating
conservation program and the project
impacts. Biological goals and objectives
provide a framework for developing a
monitoring program that measures
progress toward meeting those goals and
objectives. If an HCP, permit, and/or IA
has an adaptive management strategy,
integrating the monitoring program into
this strategy is crucial in order to guide
any necessary changes in management.
Monitoring programs for large-scale or
regional planning efforts may be
elaborate and track more than one
component of the HCP (e.g., habitat
quality or collection of mitigation fees).
Conversely, monitoring programs for
HCPs with smaller impacts of short
duration might only need to file simple
reports that document whether the HCP
has been implemented as described. For
example, if an HCP affects only a
portion of a population, the permittee
should not generally be responsible for
monitoring the entire population. In
addition, it may not be appropriate for
a monitoring program to involve
counting of populations or individuals
or making an assessment of habitat. The
appropriate unit of measure in a
monitoring program depends upon the
specific impacts and operating
conservation program within an HCP.
The Services are responsible for
ensuring that the appropriate units of
measure and protocols are used and
should coordinate monitoring programs
to obtain a larger view of the status of
a population. The applicant and the
Services should also design the
monitoring program to reflect the
structure of the biological goals and
objectives.
The monitoring program should
reflect the measurable biological goals
and objectives. The following
components are essential for most
monitoring protocols (the size and scope
of the HCP will dictate the actual level
of detail in each item): (1) Assess the
implementation and effectiveness of the
HCP terms and conditions (e.g.,
financial responsibilities and
obligations, management
responsibilities, and other aspects of the
incidental take permit, HCP, and the IA,
if applicable); (2) determine the level of
incidental take of the covered species;
(3) determine the biological conditions
resulting from the operating
conservation program (e.g., change in
the species’ status or a change in the
habitat conditions); and (4) provide any
information needed to implement an

VerDate 112000

18:11 May 31, 2000

adaptive management strategy, if
utilized. An effective monitoring
program is flexible enough to allow
modifications, if necessary, to obtain the
appropriate information.
Monitoring programs will vary based
on whether they are for low-effect or for
regional, multispecies HCPs; however,
the general elements of each program
are similar. Post-activity or postconstruction monitoring, along with a
single report at the end of the
monitoring period, will often satisfy the
monitoring requirements for low-effect
HCPs. For other HCPs, monitoring
programs will be more comprehensive
and may include milestones, timelines,
and/or trigger points for change.
Effects and effectiveness monitoring
includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
1. Periodic accounting of incidental
take that occurred in conjunction with
the permitted activity;
2. Surveys to determine species
status, appropriately measured for the
particular operating conservation
program (e.g., presence, density, or
reproductive rates);
3. Assessments of habitat condition;
4. Progress reports on fulfillment of
the operating conservation program (e.g.,
habitat acres acquired and/or restored);
and
5. Evaluations of the operating
conservation program and its progress
toward its intended biological goals.
What Units Should Be Monitored in an
HCP?
Each HCP’s monitoring program
should be customized to reflect the
biological goals, the scope, and the
particular implementation tasks of the
HCP. In order to obtain meaningful
information, the applicant and the
Services should structure the
monitoring methods and standards so
that we can compare the results from
one reporting period to another period
or compare different areas, and the
monitoring protocol responds to the
question(s) asked. Monitored units
should reflect the biological objective’s
measurable units (e.g., if the biological
objective is in terms of numbers of
individuals, the monitoring program
should measure the number of
individuals). The monitoring program
will be based on sound science.
Standard survey or other previouslyestablished monitoring protocols should
be used. Although the specific methods
used to gather necessary data may differ
depending on the species and habitat
types, monitoring programs should use
a multispecies approach when
appropriate.

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

What Role Do the Services Have in
Monitoring?
Both the Services and the permittee
are responsible for monitoring the
implementation of the HCP. The
Services’ primary monitoring
responsibilities (with the assistance of
the permittee) are ensuring compliance
with the permit’s terms and conditions,
including proper implementation of the
HCP by the permittee. Permittee
assistance with compliance monitoring
includes monitoring the implementation
and reporting their findings/results. The
permittee, with the assistance of the
Services, is responsible for verifying the
effects and effectiveness of the HCP. To
monitor all aspects of an HCP
effectively, and to ensure its ultimate
success, the entire monitoring program
should incorporate both types of
monitoring. The Services and the
applicant should coordinate the two
aspects of monitoring, and the
monitoring program should also clearly
designate who is responsible for the
various aspects of monitoring.
The Services are responsible for
ensuring that the permittee is meeting
the terms and conditions of the HCP, its
accompanying incidental take permit,
and IA, if any (i.e., compliance
monitoring). The Services should verify
adherence to the terms and conditions
of the incidental take permit, HCP, IA,
and any other related agreements and
should ensure that incidental take of the
covered species does not exceed the
level authorized under the incidental
take permit. Regulations at 50 CFR
§§ 13.45 and 222.301, provide the
authority for the Services to require
periodic reports unless otherwise
specified by the incidental take permit.
Also, the Services will ensure that the
reporting requirements are tailored for
documenting compliance with the
incidental take permit (e.g.,
documentation of habitat acquisition,
use of photographs). These reports help
determine whether the permittee is
properly implementing the terms and
conditions of the HCP, its incidental
take permit, and any IA, and will
provide a long-term administrative
record documenting progress made
under the incidental take permit.
In addition to reviewing reports
submitted by the permittee, it is
important for the Services to make field
visits to verify the accuracy of
monitoring data submitted by the
permittees. These visits allow the
Services to check for information,
identify unanticipated deficiencies or
benefits, develop closer cooperative ties
with the permittee, prevent accidental
violations of the incidental take permit’s

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm02

PsN: 01JNN3

35255

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices
terms and conditions, and assist the
permittee and Services in developing
corrective actions when necessary.
For large-scale or regional HCPs,
oversight committees, made up of
representatives from significantly
affected entities (e.g., State Fish and
Wildlife agencies), are often used to
ensure proper and periodic review of
the monitoring program and to ensure
that each program properly implements
the terms and conditions of the
incidental take permit. For example, the
Wisconsin Statewide HCP for the Karner
blue butterfly includes an auditing
approach to ensure incidental take
permit compliance. The lead permittee,
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (Wisconsin DNR), will
initially conduct annual on-site audits
of each partner. FWS will audit the
Wisconsin DNR in a similar fashion. In
addition, FWS will accompany the
Wisconsin DNR on the partner audits as
appropriate to understand partner
compliance levels. Over time, if
performance levels are acceptable,
Wisconsin DNR will conduct the audits
less frequently. Each partner will
provide an annual monitoring report
and will submit these along with their
audit report to FWS.
For large-scale or regional HCPs,
oversight committees should
periodically evaluate the permittee’s
implementation of the HCP, its
incidental take permit, and IA and the
success of the operating conservation
program in reaching its identified
biological goals and objectives. Such
committees usually include species
experts and representatives of the
permittee, the Services, and other
affected agencies and entities.
Submitting the committee’s findings to
recognized experts in pertinent fields
(e.g., conservation biologists or
restoration specialists) for review or
having technical experts conduct field
investigations to assess implementation
of the terms and conditions would also
be beneficial. Because the formation of
these committees may be subject to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
role of the participants and the purpose
of the meetings must be clearly
identified. Oversight committees should
meet at least annually and review
implementation of the monitoring
program and filing of reports as defined
in the HCP, permit, and/or IA, if one is
used.
What Role Does the Permittee Have in
Monitoring?
Not only do permittees provide
regular implementation reports, they are
also involved in effects and
effectiveness monitoring. Effects

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

monitoring determines the extent of
impacts from the permitted activity.
Effectiveness monitoring, in the HCP
program, assesses progress toward the
biological goals and objectives of the
HCP (e.g., if the conservation strategies
are producing the desired habitat
conditions or population numbers).
Effects and effectiveness monitoring
may also involve assessing threats and
population trends of the covered species
related to the permitted activities, as
well as monitoring the development of
targeted habitat conditions. Permittees,
with assistance from the Services,
should ensure that the HCP includes
provisions for monitoring the effects
and effectiveness of the HCP. The
Services and the HCP permittee will
cooperatively develop the effects and
effectiveness monitoring program and
determine responsibility for its various
components. In multi-party HCPs,
different parties may monitor different
aspects of the HCP. The Services must
periodically review any monitoring
program to confirm that it is conducted
according to their standards.
What Should Be Included in Monitoring
Reports?
The Services will streamline the
reporting requirements for monitoring
programs by requesting all reports in a
single document. The HCP, permit, or
IA should specifically state the level of
detail and quantification needed in the
monitoring report and tailor report due
dates to the activities conducted under
the incidental take permit (e.g., due at
the end of a particular stage of the
project or the anniversary date of
incidental take permit issuance). Most
monitoring programs require reports
annually, usually due on the
anniversary date of incidental take
permit issuance. Wherever possible, the
Services will coordinate the due dates
with other reporting requirements (e.g.,
State reports), so the permittee can
satisfy more than one reporting
requirement with a single report. The
following list represents the information
generally needed in a monitoring report:
1. Biological goals and objectives of
the HCP (which may need to be reported
only once);
2. Objectives for the monitoring
program (which may need to be
reported only once);
3. Effects on the covered species or
habitat;
4. Location of sampling sites;
5. Methods for data collection and
variables measured;
6. Frequency, timing, and duration of
sampling for the variables;
7. Description of the data analysis and
who conducted the analyses; and

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

8. Evaluation of progress toward
achieving measurable biological goals
and objectives and other terms and
conditions as required by the incidental
take permit or IA.
These elements may be simplified for
periods of no activity or low-effect
HCPs. If a required report is not
submitted by the date specified in the
HCP or incidental take permit terms and
conditions, or is inadequate, the
Services will notify the permittee. The
Services have discretion to offer the
permittee an extension of time to
demonstrate compliance. The Services
have examined this reporting guidance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 and found that it does not contain
requests for additional information or an
increase in the collection requirements
other than those already approved for
incidental take permits (OMB approval
for FWS, # 1018–0094; for NMFS, #
0648–0230).
How Are Monitoring Programs Funded?
The ESA and the implementing
regulations (50 CFR 17 and 222) require
that HCPs specify the measures the
permittee will adopt to ensure adequate
funding for the HCP. The Services
should not approve an HCP that does
not contain an adequate funding
commitment from the applicant/
permittee to support an acceptable
monitoring program unless the HCP
establishes alternative funding
mechanisms. The Services and the
applicant should work together to
develop the monitoring program and
determine who will be responsible for
monitoring the various components of
the HCP. Specific monitoring tasks may
be assigned to entities other than the
permittee (e.g., State or Tribal agencies)
as long as the Services and parties
responsible for implementing the HCP
approve of the monitoring assignment.
The terms of the HCP, incidental take
permit, and IA may contain funding
mechanisms that provide for a public
(e.g., local, State, or Federal) or a private
entity to conduct all or portions of the
monitoring. This funding mechanism
must be agreed upon by the Services
and the parties responsible for
implementing the HCP.
Permit Duration
How Do We Decide the Length of Time
for Which the Permit Is in Place?
Both FWS and NMFS regulations for
incidental take permits outline factors to
consider when determining incidental
take permit duration (50 CFR 17.32 and
222.307). These factors include duration
of the applicant’s proposed activities
and the expected positive and negative

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35256

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices

effects on covered species associated
with the proposed duration, including
the extent to which the operating
conservation program will increase the
long-term survivability of the listed
species and/or enhance its habitat. For
instance, if the permittee’s action or the
implementation of the conservation
measures continually occur over a long
period of time, such as with timber
harvest management, the permit would
need to encompass that time period.
The Services will also consider the
extent of information underlying the
HCP, the length of time necessary to
implement and achieve the benefits of
the operating conservation program, and
the extent to which the program
incorporates adaptive management
strategies. Significant biological
uncertainty may necessitate an adaptive
management strategy. The gathering of
new information through the monitoring
program requires an appropriate period
of time for meaningful interpretation of
new information into changes in
management; this analysis could
necessitate a permit with a longer
duration. However, if an adaptive
management strategy that significantly
reduces the risk of the HCP to that
species cannot be devised and
implemented, then, if the issuance
criteria are met, a shorter duration may
be appropriate.
The varying biological impacts
resulting from the proposed activity
(e.g., variations in the length of timber
rotations and treatments versus a real
estate subdivision buildout) and the
nature or scope of the permitted activity
and conservation program in the HCP
(e.g., housing or commercial
developments versus long-term
sustainable forestry; conservation
easements) account for variation in
permit duration. Longer permits may be
necessary to ensure long-term active
commitments to the HCP and typically
include up-front contingency planning
for changed circumstances to allow
appropriate changes in the conservation
measures.
Public Participation
What Is the Public Participation
Requirement for HCPs?
As stated in the HCP Handbook in
Chapter 6.B, we currently require a
minimum 30-day public comment
period for all HCP applications. This
comment period is required by section
10(c) of the ESA and the implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 17 and 222. The
Services recognize the concern of the
public regarding an inadequate time for
the public comment period, especially
for large-scale HCPs. With a few

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

exceptions, we are extending the
minimum comment period to 60 days
for most HCPs. The exceptions to a 60day comment period would be for loweffect HCPs, individual permits under a
programmatic HCP, and large-scale,
regional, or exceptionally complex
HCPs.
The Services believe the current 30day public comment period provides
enough time for interested parties to
review major HCP amendments and
low-effect HCPs. Low-effect HCPs have
a categorical exclusion from NEPA and,
therefore, do not have a NEPA public
participation requirement. Similarly, in
some cases, individual permits issued
under a programmatic HCP may not
need additional public review since the
larger, programmatic HCP would have
undergone more extensive review.
However, for large-scale, regional, or
exceptionally complex HCPs, the
Services are increasingly encouraging
applicants to use informational
meetings and/or advisory committees.
In addition, the minimum comment
period for these HCPs is now 90 days,
unless significant public participation
occurs during HCP development. With
the extension of the public comment
periods, the recommended timeline
targets for processing incidental take
permits are extended accordingly: The
target timeline from receipt of a
complete application to the issuance of
a permit for low-effect HCPs will remain
up to 3 months, HCPs with an
Environmental Assessment (EA) will be
4 to 6 months, and HCPs with a 90-day
comment period and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
may be up to 12 months.
How Do the Services Let Interested
Parties Know About the HCP’s Comment
Period?
During the public comment period,
any member of the public may review
and comment on the HCP and the
accompanying NEPA document, if
applicable. If an EIS is required, the
public can also participate during the
scoping process. We announce all
complete applications received in the
Federal Register. When practicable, the
Services will announce the availability
of HCPs in electronic format and in
local newspapers of general circulation.
How Do the Services or Applicants
Incorporate Public Participation During
the Development of an HCP?
The Services will strongly encourage
potential applicants to allow for public
participation during the development of
an HCP, particularly if non-Federal
public agencies (e.g., State Fish and
Wildlife agencies) are involved.

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

Although the development of an HCP is
the applicant’s responsibility, the
Services will encourage applicants for
most large-scale, regional HCP efforts to
provide extensive opportunities for
public involvement during the planning
and implementation process.
The Services encourage the use of
scientific advisory committees during
the development and implementation of
an HCP. The integration of a scientific
advisory committee and perhaps other
stakeholders improves the development
and implementation of any adaptive
management strategy. Advisory
committees can assist the Services and
applicants in identifying key
components of uncertainty and
determining alternative strategies for
addressing that uncertainty. We also
encourage the use of peer review for an
HCP. An applicant, with guidance from
the Services, may seek independent
scientific review of specific sections of
an HCP and its operating conservation
strategy to ensure the use of the best
scientific information.
How Do the Services Consider Tribal
Interest in an HCP?
We recommend that applicants
include participation by affected Native
American tribes during the development
of the HCP. If an applicant chooses not
to consult with Tribes, under the
Secretarial Order on Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities and ESA, the
Services will consult with the affected
Tribes to evaluate the effects of the
proposed HCP on tribal trust resources.
We will also provide the information
gained from the consulted tribal
government to the HCP applicant prior
to the submission of the draft HCP for
public comment and will advocate the
incorporation of measures that will
conserve, restore, or enhance Tribal
trust resources. After consultation with
the tribal government and the applicant
and after careful consideration of the
Tribe’s concerns, we will clearly state
the rationale for the recommended final
decision and explain how the decision
relates to the Services’ trust
responsibility.
Literature Cited
Dovers, S. R. and C. D. Mobbs. 1997. An
alluring prospect? Ecology and the
requirements of adaptive management.
Klomp, N. I. & Lunt, I. D. (eds.). Frontiers
in Ecology: Building the Links. Elsevier
Science, Oxford.
Elzinga, C. L., Salzer, D. W., and J. W.
Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and
monitoring plant populations. BLM
Technical Reference 1730–1. BLM,
Denver, CO.
Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility
and adaptive management—antidotes for

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3

35257

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 106 / Thursday, June 1, 2000 / Notices
spurious certitude? Conservation
Ecology. 3(1): 7 [online] URL: http://
www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7.
Holling, C. S. (ed). 1978. Adaptive
Environmental Management and
Assessment Wiley, Chichester.
Johnson, B. L. 1999. Introduction to the
special feature: adaptive management—
scientifically sound, socially challenged?
Conservation Ecology 3(1):10 [online]
URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/
art10.
Johnson, B. L. 1999. The role of adaptive
management as an operational approach
for resource management agencies.
Conservation Ecology 3(2): 8 [online]
URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/
art8.
Lee, K. N. 1999. Appraising adaptive

VerDate 112000

16:27 May 31, 2000

management. Conservation Ecology 3(2):
3 [online] URL: http://
www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3.
McLain, R. J. & Lee, R. G. 1996. Adaptive
management: promises and pitfalls,
Environmental Management, 20: 437–
448.
Rogers, K. 1998. Managing science/
management partnerships: a challenge of
adaptive management. Conservation
Ecology [online] 2(2): Response 1
[online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/
vol2/iss2/resp1.
Shindler, B., B. Steel, and P. List. 1996.
Public judgements of adaptive
management. Journal of Forestry 94: 5.
Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of
Renewable Resources Macmillan, New
York.

Jkt 190000

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4703

Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive
management of riparian and coastal
ecosystems. Conservation Ecology 1(2):1
[online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/
vol1/iss2/art1.
Walters, C. J. and C. S. Holling. 1990. Largescale management experiments and
learning by doing. Ecology 71: 2060.
Dated: April 4, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Dated: May 19, 2000.
Penelope D. Dalton,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00–13553 Filed 5–31–00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P; 3510–22–P

E:\FR\FM\01JNN3.SGM

pfrm08

PsN: 01JNN3