Army Corps of Engineers: Information on Shellfish Aquaculture Permitting Activities
Released: 2019-02-21T00:00:00

Letter

Background

According to NOAA documentation on domestic aquaculture production, shellfish aquaculture represents a large and growing segment of seafood production in the United States, with aquaculture operations present in all coastal regions of the United States (see table 1). The economic value of shellfish varies based on factors such as market, location, and species. For example, one species of clam, the geoduck—a large saltwater clam found in the Pacific Northwest—has sold for as much as $100 per pound in the Asian market, where it is valued as a luxury food.

NOAA and scientific research have recognized the role that shellfish aquaculture can play in supporting healthy coastal ecosystems. For example, scientific research has shown that the filter feeding activity of oysters can help improve water clarity and quality by reducing concentrations of suspended materials such as algae. Additionally, research has demonstrated that oyster reefs can serve as natural breakwaters that may protect shorelines against damage from wind, waves, and flooding. In contrast, some effects of shellfish aquaculture are less well known or understood. For instance, there are knowledge gaps of the effects that aquaculture activities may have on submerged aquatic vegetation, according to NOAA reports.

Geoduck clams are the world’s largest burrowing clam, generally weighing between 1 and 3 pounds, with a shell length that can exceed 7 inches. Geoducks can be found in the wild in the Pacific Northwest, and growers in Washington State have cultivated geoducks through aquaculture on a commercial scale since the 1990s. Washington State produced about 90 percent of farmed geoducks globally in 2013, according to a report by the University of Washington. In Asian markets, geoducks are sought-after in high-end seafood restaurants where they can be prepared for cooked or raw consumption.

In general, commercial growers cultivate shellfish by two methods: on the bottom of coastal waters, or in the water column, which extends from the surface to the bottom of those waters. Commercial growers harvest oysters and clams grown on the bottom of waters by hand or by mechanical means such as dredging, raking, or other tilling activities. Commercial growers who cultivate shellfish within the water column generally grow them in racks or cages suspended in the water (see fig. 1). Growers use different methods of cultivation depending on the target commercial market, the environment for cultivation, and the need to protect the shellfish from predatory species such as fish or crabs.

Shellfish aquaculture activities can be subject to various requirements at local, state, tribal, and federal government levels. For example, local authorities in the county, town, or other jurisdiction where shellfish activities are planned may require a shellfish grower to ensure compliance with local policies before commencing cultivation activities. In addition, some states have specific regulations that apply to shellfish aquaculture activities. These can include, for example, a certification that aquaculture activities meet state water quality standards, or a requirement that the activities are covered by an aquatic lease. Treaties grant certain tribes the rights to a portion of shellfish harvest in a particular area.

At the federal level, a shellfish grower may need authorization from the Corps to undertake shellfish aquaculture activities. The Corps is responsible for ensuring compliance with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which requires authorization for structures in or work affecting navigable waters of the United States, or both, that could interfere with navigation. Structures used in shellfish aquaculture activities may include buoys, floats, racks, nets, and lines. The Corps is also responsible for ensuring compliance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires authorization for the discharge of dredged or fill material, or both, into waters of the United States. Shellfish aquaculture activities such as seeding, rearing, cultivating, transplanting, and harvesting shellfish may affect waters of the United States, and the Corps reviews these activities in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Nineteen Corps districts have coastal waters within their geographic areas of responsibility and therefore may authorize shellfish aquaculture activities (see fig. 2). Under the direction of eight regional division offices and headquarters, the district offices are responsible for reviewing, authorizing, and ensuring appropriate levels of coordination for shellfish aquaculture activities in their districts.

In authorizing shellfish activities, the Corps must implement various legal requirements, which may entail consulting or coordinating with other federal agencies, states, tribes, the public, and other parties. These legal requirements include:

National Environmental Policy Act. Under the act, the Corps generally must evaluate the potential environmental effects of projects proposed for approval (e.g., by permit), such as shellfish aquaculture activities, by preparing either an environmental assessment or a more detailed environmental impact statement.

Endangered Species Act. Under section 7 of this act, if a proposed Corps action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation is required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Corps may also undertake programmatic consultations with these agencies, which generally combine reviews for similar activities into one consultation.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Under this law, the Corps must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service if a proposed federal action may adversely affect essential fish habitat that a regional fisheries management council has identified.

National Historic Preservation Act. Under section 106 of the act, the Corps must take into account the effects of shellfish aquaculture activities on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such activities. The Corps must also consult with the relevant state or tribal historic preservation officer, as appropriate.

The Corps uses different types of general and individual permits to authorize a wide range of activities, including shellfish aquaculture activities, as shown in table 2.

In some cases, if an entity’s shellfish aquaculture activities comply with the terms and conditions laid out in a general permit, then the entity may undertake the activities without written authorization from the Corps. In such instances, according to its permitting guidance, the Corps would consider those activities to be authorized under the specified general permit.

In other cases, however, entities who wish to undertake shellfish aquaculture activities under a general permit may need to submit an application to the Corps for written authorization to conduct such activities. For example, some terms and conditions may require entities to notify the Corps if their proposed activities may affect areas inhabited by submerged aquatic vegetation or endangered species or their designated critical habitats. In such instances, entities must submit applications to the Corps with required information, including the location and technical information about the proposed activity. Based on Corps guidance, the agency then assesses the applicant’s proposed activities to determine whether they comply with all of the general permit’s terms and conditions.

If the Corps verifies compliance, it issues a written authorization for the entity to undertake the proposed activities.

In March 2007, the Corps developed a nationwide permit—Nationwide Permit 48—to help streamline the process for authorizing existing commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, effective for a 5-year period. In 2012, the Corps revised and reissued Nationwide Permit 48 to, among other things, authorize new activities and to clarify some reporting requirements. The Corps most recently reissued Nationwide Permit 48 in March 2017, which defined the activities that constitute new commercial aquaculture activities, among other revisions, and remains in effect until March 2022. Corps districts may also develop and use other types of programmatic and regional general permits to authorize shellfish aquaculture activities. Generally, entities that submit an application and receive authorization under a general permit need to resubmit their application upon expiration of their permit to re-seek authorization to continue their aquaculture activities.

The Corps Authorized Most of the 3,751 Applications Received for Shellfish Aquaculture Activities from 2012 through 2017 Using Various Types of Permits

Based on our analysis of data from the Corps’ permitting database, we found that the Corps authorized most of the 3,751 shellfish aquaculture applications it received from 2012 through 2017 using various types of general and individual permits. Of the 19 Corps districts that have coastal waters within their geographic areas of responsibility, 17 Corps districts received shellfish aquaculture applications, with the Seattle District receiving the most applications and the New England District receiving the next highest amount (see table 3). The number of applications does not correspond to the level of shellfish activity in a particular district, however, as some activities may be authorized under a general permit without triggering the need for an entity to submit an application for Corps authorization, as previously noted.

Of the 3,751 applications the Corps received from 2012 through 2017, the Corps authorized 3,281, or about 87 percent of the applications, according to our analysis of Corps data. Four applications (less than 1 percent) were denied, and the remaining 466 applications (about 12 percent) were withdrawn. Applications were denied or withdrawn for a variety of reasons. For example, Corps officials we interviewed said that the Corps would deny an application if the applicant was denied the necessary approvals from state or other relevant regulatory authorities. An application may have been withdrawn, according to the Corps officials, if the applicant decided to seek an individual rather than a general permit or did not provide sufficient information in its application for the Corps to determine that the applicant could meet the terms and conditions of the requested permit, among other reasons.

According to Corps data, the applications the Corps authorized from 2012 through 2017 corresponded to 2,631 unique shellfish aquaculture projects. Almost half of these projects (49 percent) were located in the Seattle District, about 29 percent were located in the New England District, and the remaining 22 percent were spread across 15 other coastal districts.

The majority of Corps districts (13 of 17) authorized shellfish aquaculture applications using Nationwide Permit 48, according to our analysis of Corps data. Specifically, nearly two-thirds of the applications (2,138 of 3,281) were authorized under Nationwide Permit 48, as shown in table 4. Four districts did not authorize activity under Nationwide Permit 48, but instead used a different type of general permit to authorize shellfish aquaculture activity. For example, the New England District, which includes the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine, authorized shellfish activity using state-specific general permits. The majority of districts (13 of 17) also authorized shellfish activities under individual permits, but overall individual permits represented about 3 percent (85 of 3,281) of authorized activity.

While many applications were authorized under Nationwide Permit 48, we found that Corps districts added conditions to this or other general permits to account for state or regional environmental or other relevant regulatory concerns. For example, two districts we reviewed—Norfolk and Seattle—generally used Nationwide Permit 48 to authorize shellfish aquaculture activities in their districts, but added conditions to the nationwide permit to address concerns specific to their regions as follows: In the Norfolk District, the Corps developed several regional conditions applicable to the Nationwide Permit 48 issued in March 2017. These regional conditions prohibit activity within submerged aquatic vegetation beds or saltmarshes and prohibit removing or damaging vegetation in these areas, among other things. Norfolk District officials said that these regional conditions align with requirements under Virginia state regulations. As long as shellfish aquaculture growers meet those requirements, according to these officials, then growers may conduct their projects without a state permit or submitting an application to the Corps for authorization.

Because these growers do not submit applications to either the state of Virginia or the Corps for authorization for their activities, district officials said they do not know how much shellfish activity may be occurring under Nationwide Permit 48 in the district, but Virginia is among the largest shellfish producing states.

In the Seattle District, the Corps also developed several regional conditions applicable to Nationwide Permit 48. For example, one regional condition prohibits harvesting clams using certain hydraulic harvesting equipment. Any entity seeking to undertake shellfish aquaculture activities in the Seattle District needs to submit an application to the Corps for authorization, district officials explained. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, almost all locations for shellfish activity in Washington State are designated as critical habitat for one or more threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The presence of listed species or their designated critical habitats is one trigger under nationwide permits, including Nationwide Permit 48, requiring entities to submit an application to the Corps for review and authorization for conducting those activities.

In certain instances, Corps headquarters officials said that some districts may find that a nationwide permit, such as Nationwide Permit 48, does not address the activity or requirements in their districts. Corps officials said that in such cases a district may have a region-specific general permit that more closely follows state or local requirements. Two Corps districts we reviewed—New Orleans and Baltimore—generally used or have used regional permits to authorize shellfish aquaculture activities in their regions. Specifically, In the New Orleans District, when Nationwide Permit 48 was first issued in 2007, Corps officials said that the district was generally using a programmatic permit that incorporated existing Louisiana regulations on coastal development. The New Orleans District was generally using this programmatic permit to authorize shellfish aquaculture and other coastal activities in Louisiana. Among the conditions in the permit are prohibitions on structures with proximity to flood control and hurricane damage risk-reduction levees, and activities that would impact barrier islands, bird rookeries, and coral reefs—coastal areas of Louisiana that are regarded by the state as environmentally sensitive. As a result, district officials said they continue to use their programmatic permit to allow the state of Louisiana a lead role in regulating coastal activities.

The Baltimore District used a regional permit to authorize shellfish aquaculture activities until August 2016. According to district officials, Maryland had few existing commercial shellfish aquaculture projects before 2010, and at that time the Corps restricted the use of Nationwide Permit 48 to existing shellfish aquaculture activities. Any new activities required an individual permit, which involved a more extensive review process. The state of Maryland began to promote shellfish aquaculture in 2010, and many new growers entered the industry, district officials said. In response, the Baltimore District created a regional permit for new shellfish aquaculture projects, which district officials said allowed for a more streamlined process than the process needed for an individual permit. The regional permit expired in August 2016; instead of updating it, the Baltimore District replaced it with Nationwide Permit 48. Nationwide Permit 48 issued in March 2012 and in March 2017 covers new as well as existing shellfish aquaculture activities, and district officials said that there was no longer a need to use their regional permit and could use the Nationwide Permit 48 upon expiration of the regional permit.

Applicants Across the Four Selected Districts Had Mixed Views on their Experiences in Seeking Authorization for their Shellfish Activities

Through our interviews with 15 permit applicants from the four districts we reviewed and with Corps district and headquarters officials, we found that applicants had mixed views on their experiences in seeking authorization for their various shellfish aquaculture activities. Overall, 10 of the 15 applicants across the four districts said they understood the application process. Several of these applicants said that their knowledge stemmed from previous experience seeking authorization from the Corps or from information provided by state or Corps officials. Similarly, 10 applicants from the four districts described the length of time the Corps took to authorize their activities as reasonable, with several applicants commenting that the Corps was efficient in reviewing and authorizing their application. For these applications, the length of time ranged from 1 day to about 4 months.

In contrast, 11 permit applicants across the four districts cited facing one or more difficulties with various aspects of the application process. For example, 5 of the 15 applicants indicated they were unclear about what steps were involved in the application process such as the information they needed to submit as part of the application or how to meet the requirements outlined in the permit terms and conditions. One applicant in the Seattle District said it was difficult to know how to address a condition in Nationwide Permit 48 that restricts shellfish activity in areas adjacent to potential spawning habitat for certain species of forage fish. When seeking clarification from the Corps, he said Corps officials could not specify how far away from spawning habitat his project should be located. Seattle Corps District officials said the Corps has been reviewing how to consistently define adjacent spawning areas, among other requirements, but had not yet made a determination when this application was reviewed.

Eight of the 15 permit applicants from three Corps districts expressed concern that they did not receive sufficient information about the status of their application after submitting it to the Corps for review. Two of these applicants said they contacted the Corps to get information on the status of their applications but that sometimes it was difficult to reach Corps officials. The applicants said their shellfish activities had time-sensitive needs and that not knowing the status or time frames associated with the permitting process was problematic. For example, one permit applicant in the New Orleans District said not knowing when permitted activity would be authorized jeopardized the ability to take advantage of the naturally occurring seasonal oyster spawn that was critical to the viability of the project. New Orleans District officials agreed that it may be difficult for applicants to quickly determine the status of their applications, as a phone call to the Corps is the only way to obtain such information. Officials from two districts we reviewed said their goal is to generally respond to inquiries within 2 days, but this is not always possible due to heavy workloads or staffing constraints. For example, in the New Orleans District, officials said the workload across their permitting program is high, with a typical project manager responsible for reviewing 35 to 40 permit applications at any one time.

In addition, five permit applicants from three Corps districts said they believed that the amount of time it took for the Corps to authorize their shellfish aquaculture activities was unreasonable. For these applications, the length of time ranged from 18 days to about 8 months. One applicant from the Seattle District who waited about 8 months to receive authorization for the application in 2012 said that he continued his shellfish operations while waiting authorization, but was concerned that operating without the Corps’ authorization put his operations at risk from potential legal challenges. Officials in the Seattle District said they have seen an increase in applications for shellfish aquaculture authorizations over the last several years, which has significantly increased their workload and, in some cases, affected their ability to issue authorizations in a timely manner. Corps officials from headquarters and the four districts said it is generally their goal to authorize applications within 60 days, but limited staffing, heavy workloads, and the need to coordinate or consult with other federal, state, or tribal agencies may prevent them from doing so.

Corps officials from the four selected districts have taken some steps to address difficulties applicants have experienced with understanding permit terms and conditions. For example, officials in the Seattle and Baltimore Districts have taken steps to help explain some permit terms and conditions. In Seattle, district officials said they have held quarterly meetings since 2015 for interested applicants and other stakeholders to address concerns or clarify certain Nationwide Permit 48 conditions. Seattle District officials said that attendees generally provided positive feedback about these quarterly meetings and that they plan to continue holding such meetings to discuss permit conditions or other issues that may arise. Similarly the Baltimore District has held aquaculture workshops on an as-needed basis for applicants and other stakeholders to clarify permit conditions. For example, in September 2016, the Baltimore District held a workshop to explain a permit condition intended to prevent endangered sea turtles from entanglements in aquaculture gear. One applicant we interviewed said this workshop was helpful and provided a better understanding of permit conditions. Officials from the Baltimore District said that they plan to conduct additional aquaculture workshops in 2019 and will invite representatives from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to participate.

The four Corps districts have also taken some steps to address difficulties applicants have experienced with the time it takes to authorize shellfish aquaculture activities. For example, in 2017, the Seattle District developed an approach to expedite its application process for the Nationwide Permit 48 issued in March 2017. Specifically, for those applicants who had previously been authorized under Nationwide Permit 48 in 2012 and who did not anticipate changes to their activities for the 2017 permitting cycle, district officials said they could base their review on previously submitted documentation from the applicants, allowing them to more quickly reauthorize those activities. The five permit applicants we interviewed from the Seattle District said that the Corps’ expedited process initiated in March 2017 improved the timeliness of receiving their authorizations. For instance, one applicant who waited about 8 months to receive his authorization in 2012 said the Corps issued his most recent authorization in 2017 in 2 months.

In addition, Corps officials from across the four districts said they have taken steps to reduce the time needed to review applications through efforts to more efficiently conduct reviews under the Endangered Species Act. For example:

Corps officials from the Baltimore and Norfolk Corps districts worked with the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2017 to develop a regional programmatic consultation to help streamline Endangered Species Act assessments of the potential impact that shellfish aquaculture activities may have on listed species or their designated critical habitats. Corps officials from the Baltimore District said the review process, developed in association with the programmatic consultation, decreased their review time from over 30 days to 1 to 2 days, which in turn has helped reduce the Corps’ time frames for issuing authorizations.

In 2015, New Orleans District officials said they implemented a standardized process for evaluating applications for Endangered Species Act compliance. The district developed a standardized form, called the Standard Local Operating Procedure for Endangered Species in Louisiana, which district officials said helps to facilitate evaluations by allowing program managers to quickly assess whether or not an application requires further review and consultation and reducing the overall time to process shellfish aquaculture-related applications.

Corps officials from the Seattle District worked with the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a programmatic consultation, issued in 2016. The programmatic consultation identified methods for carrying out shellfish aquaculture activities that would avoid adverse environmental effects on listed species and their critical habitats, and reduce water quality impacts. Corps officials from the Seattle District said that this programmatic consultation has resulted in a more efficient review process for applicants seeking authorization under Nationwide Permit 48 by reducing the amount of time needed to assess whether an applicant’s proposed activities may have the potential to affect listed species or their critical habitats.

To further improve the application process, Corps headquarters officials said that they are initiating training in fiscal year 2019 through online modules that will cover various aspects of permitting such as clarifying the necessary elements needed from entities in submitting an application. Also, in October 2018, Corps headquarters launched a community of practice on shellfish aquaculture permitting, which officials said will allow project managers and others with an interest in shellfish aquaculture to share lessons learned and to collaborate on relevant issues in the future. A Corp official said the Corps plans to hold quarterly meetings for the shellfish aquaculture permitting community of practice going forward.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Defense for review and comment. The department provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or FennellA@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report describes, for 2012 through 2017, (1) the number and outcomes of the applications the Corps received for shellfish aquaculture activities and the types of permits the Corps used to authorize such activities, and (2) the experiences of permit applicants in selected districts in seeking Corps authorization for their shellfish aquaculture activities.

To conduct our work, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and Corps documents on permitting, and interviewed officials from Corps headquarters. We selected a non-generalizable sample of four Corps districts—Baltimore, New Orleans, Norfolk, and Seattle—for a closer examination of the nature of shellfish aquaculture activities and the types of permits used by districts to authorize such activity. We selected these districts based on several factors:

Geographic region. We selected at least one district from each of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts to cover any differences in shellfish activity by geographic location.

Commercial value of shellfish. The states in which the four districts reside—Washington (Seattle District); Maryland (Baltimore District); Virginia (Norfolk District); and Louisiana (New Orleans District)— account for more than 60 percent of the commercial shellfish sales in the United States as of 2013, the most recent data available as of December 2018.

Type and level of permitting activity authorized by the Corps. We also chose districts to represent different types of general and individual permits the Corps districts used to authorize shellfish aquaculture as well as the level of permitting activity. The four districts received more than half of the shellfish aquaculture applications authorized by the Corps during 2012 through 2017.

We conducted site visits from July 2017 to March 2018 to each of the four selected districts to observe aquaculture activities and learn about the types of permits the districts use to authorize shellfish aquaculture activities. We also interviewed stakeholders with a regulatory role in shellfish aquaculture and non-governmental organizations with an advocacy role, as follows:

Federal Officials. We interviewed officials from three regional offices of the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to understand how they work with the four Corps districts on shellfish aquaculture permitting. We gained their perspectives on how they coordinate with the Corps to meet various legal requirements, such as those under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

State Officials. We interviewed state agency officials involved in permitting at the state level to learn about state permitting requirements and coordination undertaken with the Corps districts on various aspects of shellfish aquaculture permitting. Specifically, we interviewed officials from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Ecology, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

Non-governmental Officials. We also interviewed non-governmental organizations with an advocacy role related to shellfish aquaculture or conservation to gain their perspectives on the Corps’ permitting process. We interviewed officials from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, Oyster South, Center for Food Safety, the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, and the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana. We selected these organizations because each had interacted with one or more of the four Corps districts we reviewed on shellfish aquaculture issues during the period of our review.

The information we obtained from officials from the four districts and stakeholders is not generalizable to other Corps districts or stakeholders but illustrates the variation in Corps’ shellfish aquaculture permitting at the district-level.

To examine the number, outcomes, and types of permits the Corps used to authorize shellfish aquaculture activity, we obtained and analyzed data from the Corps’ permitting database, the Operations and Maintenance Business Information Link Regulatory Module 2. Specifically, we analyzed nationwide data on shellfish aquaculture applications submitted to Corps district offices with a decision date from January 1, 2012, through October 26, 2017, which were the most recent data available at the time of our review. The information we analyzed from the database included applications for various types of shellfish aquaculture activities for which entities sought Corps authorization, including commercial operations, as well as shellfish aquaculture and oyster reef restoration activities. For all Corps districts, we analyzed the number of applications received, authorized, withdrawn, or denied, and under which type of permit an application was submitted to the Corps. We took steps to determine the reliability of the Corps’ data, including comparing the data to the administrative files for three to five randomly selected applications from the four districts we reviewed. We also reviewed agency guidance on data entry and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the Corps’ permitting data, including officials from the four districts and headquarters. Based on these steps, we found the data to be sufficiently reliable to provide nationwide and district-level summary information on applications, authorizations, and the types of permits the Corps used during the period of our review.

To determine the experiences of permit applicants in selected districts in seeking Corps’ authorization for their shellfish aquaculture activities, we randomly selected 15 applications submitted by different applicants during the time period of our review to the four Corps districts in our review. We reviewed the materials included in the Corps’ administrative files to determine the nature of activities being proposed, documentation of any interactions between the Corps’ and the applicants throughout the review process, and the time frames for the review, among other things. We conducted semi-structured interviews with each of the applicants to gain their experience during the application process, including their perspectives on the steps involved in submitting an application, the times frames for receiving authorization, their understanding of permit terms and conditions, and the nature of any interactions with the Corps, among other things. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with the Corps managers responsible for reviewing these applications to obtain their perspectives about their review process for the selected applications. We then analyzed and categorized the interview responses based on common themes that we identified across the interviews. The information we obtained from the permit applicants and Corps officials we interviewed is not generalizable to other applicants, but illustrates the types of experiences permit applicants in the four districts have had in seeking authorization for their shellfish aquaculture activities.

In addition, we also interviewed Corps officials in the four districts and headquarters and reviewed related documentation to identify any steps the Corps has taken to address difficulties raised by the permit applicants. We then requested and reviewed supporting documentation when officials identified examples of steps they have taken to help improve the application process.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2017 to January 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Alyssa M. Hundrup (Assistant Director), Ginny Vanderlinde (Analyst in Charge), Justin Fisher, Melissa Greenaway, Rich Johnson, Ying Long, Danny Royer, Sheryl Stein, and Jina Yu made key contributions to this report. Mark Braza, Juan Garay, and Gina Hoover also made contributions to this report.