clear to ACOE nor the applicant, and apparently was only made clear by PRD late
in the process, after ACOE threatened to close the file because PRD’s review
process was taking too long.
After numerous correspondence through ACOE and concessions by the applicant, PRD indicated that the Nantucket Sound draft Biological Assessment contained elements with which they believed could lead to a determination of “Not
Likely to Adversely Affect”. Specifically, to prevent possible entanglement, the
permit application was revised to include stiff sheathing on the vertical lines that
connect the surface corner buoys to the submerged headrope. Also, the project
would be developed in stages, with no expansion beyond the first stage, only 3
longlines, without further review by NOAA PRD and ACOE. Finally, NOAA PRD
asked ACOE to initiate an “informal consultation” with the issuance of a permit
letter and the final biological assessment to NOAA. Evidently a “formal consultation” under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is only initiated when there
is likely to be an effect, and perhaps disagreement between parties about the suitability of a project. The confusing terminology surrounding the permit process’s
communication and consultation in its various forms (pre-informal, informal and
formal) needs an explicit framework from which all parties can work through with
transparency.
9.3.3.3 Discussion
The formal permitting process from time of filing the application to approval for the
projects above varied from 13 months to more than 2 years. The timing of actual
preparation of the permit application (consulting with various local, State and
Federal constituents) may constitute another 3 to 6 months.
Early consultation is recommended with responsible agencies and data portals
like the Northeast Ocean Data Viewer for maps and data for ocean site planning in
the northeastern United States (Northeast Ocean Data Viewer 2014).
Applicants should meet with State and Federal fisheries resource managers and
commercial fishing organizations and other ocean users to avoid potential conflicts
with other marine activities. Applicants should also request a meeting with the
Division heads (Protected Species, Aquaculture) of their regional NOAA fisheries
office to discuss the need for and scope of a Biological Assessment. If necessary, a
Biological Assessment template available on line will help to understand the process (IWGA 2014).
The permit application process for future mussel farms of similar designs should
be much simpler to replicate for other sites based on the examples described above.
As the government regulatory system becomes more familiar with the environmental impacts of mussel farms and well informed site selection decisions are
made, uncertainties encountered by permit applicants should be reduced.
9 Regulation and Permitting of Standalone …
215
in the process, after ACOE threatened to close the file because PRD’s review
process was taking too long.
After numerous correspondence through ACOE and concessions by the applicant, PRD indicated that the Nantucket Sound draft Biological Assessment contained elements with which they believed could lead to a determination of “Not
Likely to Adversely Affect”. Specifically, to prevent possible entanglement, the
permit application was revised to include stiff sheathing on the vertical lines that
connect the surface corner buoys to the submerged headrope. Also, the project
would be developed in stages, with no expansion beyond the first stage, only 3
longlines, without further review by NOAA PRD and ACOE. Finally, NOAA PRD
asked ACOE to initiate an “informal consultation” with the issuance of a permit
letter and the final biological assessment to NOAA. Evidently a “formal consultation” under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is only initiated when there
is likely to be an effect, and perhaps disagreement between parties about the suitability of a project. The confusing terminology surrounding the permit process’s
communication and consultation in its various forms (pre-informal, informal and
formal) needs an explicit framework from which all parties can work through with
transparency.
9.3.3.3 Discussion
The formal permitting process from time of filing the application to approval for the
projects above varied from 13 months to more than 2 years. The timing of actual
preparation of the permit application (consulting with various local, State and
Federal constituents) may constitute another 3 to 6 months.
Early consultation is recommended with responsible agencies and data portals
like the Northeast Ocean Data Viewer for maps and data for ocean site planning in
the northeastern United States (Northeast Ocean Data Viewer 2014).
Applicants should meet with State and Federal fisheries resource managers and
commercial fishing organizations and other ocean users to avoid potential conflicts
with other marine activities. Applicants should also request a meeting with the
Division heads (Protected Species, Aquaculture) of their regional NOAA fisheries
office to discuss the need for and scope of a Biological Assessment. If necessary, a
Biological Assessment template available on line will help to understand the process (IWGA 2014).
The permit application process for future mussel farms of similar designs should
be much simpler to replicate for other sites based on the examples described above.
As the government regulatory system becomes more familiar with the environmental impacts of mussel farms and well informed site selection decisions are
made, uncertainties encountered by permit applicants should be reduced.
9 Regulation and Permitting of Standalone …
215