Some commentators were confused by Part 3A of the draft guideline, which stated that a candidate conservation agreement would identify habitat characteristics with assurances that would assist exploitation by covered species on land or waters under the control of the land owner or support populations of covered species in waters that might not be under the control of the land owner. These commentators questioned the importance of the phrase “waters that may not be under the control of the owner.” Answer 11. The services agree with this comment and the final directive lists the general requirements that should meet all agreements with insurance and the resulting improvement of survival permits. In addition, the implementing provisions of the FWS published in today`s federal registry also list the requirements that must be met before services issue a survival permit to improve their survival. Part 4. What are the benefits for the species? Prior to entering into a candidate conservation agreement with insurance companies, the services must establish in writing that the benefits of conservation measures implemented by a landowner under a candidate conservation agreement are combined with assurances if combined with the benefits that would be obtained if it is assumed that conservation measures should also be implemented on other necessary land. exclude or eliminate any need to list, exclude or eliminate identified species. In this case, the public or local authority or any other body would be permitted and issue certificates of admission (sometimes called certificates of participation) to non-federal property owners who meet the conditions of the roof or programming agreement of the public or local agency or other entity and the associated authorization. . . .