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.
Entities undertaking shellfish aquaculture activities (i.e., the breeding and harvesting of oysters, clams, and mussels) may need to submit an application to the Corps in certain circumstances for authorization to conduct these activities. The Corps authorizes such activities using various permits, as long as the activities comply with various environmental and other laws. GAO was asked to review the Corps' process for authorizing shellfish aquaculture activity in U.S. coastal waters. 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. GAO reviewed laws and permitting documents and analyzed data on the number, outcomes, and types of permits the Corps used for 2012 through 2017 from the Corps' permitting database and assessed its reliability. GAO also reviewed detailed information from a non-generalizable sample of 15 permit applications and interviewed the applicants and Corps officials from four Corps districts, selected to reflect variation in geographic location and shellfish activity; the information from the four districts is not generalizable to other Corps districts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authorized most (87 percent) of the 3,751 shellfish aquaculture applications it received from 2012 through 2017, according to Corps data. Of the 19 Corps districts that have coastal waters within their geographic areas of responsibility, 17 districts received and authorized applications. The majority of those districts (13 of 17) authorized applications using Nationwide Permit 48, a type of permit intended to streamline the authorization process for shellfish aquaculture activities. Additionally, districts may add conditions to nationwide permits or develop region-specific permits to address state or regional environmental concerns. Of the four districts GAO reviewed in detail, two districts added regional conditions applicable to Nationwide Permit 48, such as prohibiting shellfish activity within submerged aquatic vegetation beds or saltmarshes. The 15 permit applicants from the four districts GAO reviewed had mixed views on their experiences with seeking authorization for their shellfish aquaculture activities. For example, 10 applicants across the four districts described the length of time to authorize their activities—ranging from 1 day to about 4 months—as reasonable, with several applicants indicating the Corps was efficient in reviewing their applications. In contrast, five applicants from three Corps districts said that the amount of time it took for the Corps to authorize their shellfish aquaculture activities—ranging from 18 days to about 8 months—was unreasonable. Corps officials from the four districts indicated they have taken some steps to help reduce authorization review time. For example, the four districts took steps to more efficiently conduct reviews under the Endangered Species Act. This has in turn helped reduce the Corps' time frames for issuing authorizations, according to Corps officials GAO interviewed. For instance, officials from one district said their review time declined from over 30 days to 1 to 2 days as a result of the change in the review process.