Okaloosa County BOCC — June 2, 2015 — Okaloosa Co ABF Feasibility Study C2014-042 — reading text

Notably, regulatory authorizations for buoy installation (further discussed below) may require more frequent observations and will likely require a regular monetary commitment from the project sponsor for monitoring. The County should also consider hosting a website for recreational fishermen to report observed damage or a missing buoy. The website could also serve as a platform for fishermen utilizing the buoy network to report their catches, observations, uses, etc. Replacement of failed buoys should occur on a scheduled basis. Buoys that have survived a 3 – 5-year period should be assumed at the end of their lifespan and replaced before they fail. Okaloosa County should consider placement of a signal device (Global Positioning System Signal generator) on each buoy so that in case of buoy mooring failure, the County can track and recover the float and any trailing line. A specific signal for each buoy and a publicized reward for return of the buoy when buoy failure occurs may provide a means to allay concerns that in the long-term the buoys would contribute additional floating marine debris or navigational hazards when they fail. The County should also consider public-private partnerships to help support the buoy system construction and maintenance, because a relatively select group of stakeholders will benefit from the project. While the County can implement the recommendations above to manage the proposed buoy system, regulating the use of the buoys will likely prove very difficult given the distance offshore and potential use by both commercial and recreational fishermen from the Gulf of Mexico states and elsewhere. From discussions with Warren Cortez (Hawaii FAD system supervisor), Hawaii allows all legal fishing at the FAD network and the buoys are heavily used by both recreational and commercial fishermen. In Hawaii, large-scale commercial fishing (long-lining, seining, etc) is not allowed around the buoy system since the buoys are relatively close to shore (3 – 15 nautical miles). The far offshore location of the Okaloosa County-proposed buoys and the likely use of the buoy system by both commercial and recreational fishermen may be cause for concern with federal regulators. Okaloosa County has no formal responsibility or authority to regulate fishing activities in the offshore US waters. 7.0 BUOY PERMITTING PROCESS Placement of a buoy or buoy network in the Gulf of Mexico would require a federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE would likely depend heavily on the opinions of and recommendations from its federal sister agencies, particularly the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries division (NOAA Fisheries). The USACE would likely request the Coast Guard review the buoy and buoy mooring system engineering design and make recommendations to minimize potential impacts to navigation. BOEM will likely review the permit application regarding the specific location proposed and active mineral leases and pipelines (Figure 6). Given the unprecedented nature of the proposed project, it is uncertain whether BOEM will require a permit or a letter of consent for the installation of a single buoy or buoy network. 12  7.1 Permit Application Components A USACE permit application for a moored buoy or buoy network installation and operation in the area of interest would most likely take the form of an application for individual 404/401 (“dredge and fill”) permit. A USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) Type 27 “Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities” might apply to the project, but NWP 27, which generally includes placement of devices to enhance fishing, specifically excludes the use of this permit type for placement of FADs in Florida. Whether or not a buoy proposed by an entity in the state of Florida for placement in federal waters would also fall within the prohibition is a matter to discuss at a pre-application meeting (see below). In any case, the lack of previous construction of this type of structure in the region and the consequent lack of federal agency knowledge of such activities will likely cause the USACE to require an individual permit. A permit application would require some or all of the following. • A detailed description of the project including the project location or locations, the project purpose, engineering designs and construction methods, and maintenance plans. • Demonstration that the project is in the public interest. • Demonstration that the applicant has the means to fully support the project for the project lifespan (including commitments from the applicant for required maintenance and monitoring, and possibly removal). • An Environmental Assessment (EA) to characterize the affected environment and potential effects of the proposed project on the environment and ecosystem. • A cumulative impact analysis to assess the “reasonable and foreseeable” actions that may occur as a result of the proposed action. • A Biological Assessment (BA), as the Bluefin Tuna has been nominated for Threatened and Endangered species status. The first three bullet items would be required for any permit type. The last three bullet items are associated with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) consultations that the USACE will undertake with NOAA Fisheries and possibly other federal agencies. The NEPA-related documents are developed as part of the consultation between federal agencies. In reality, the federal agencies are hard pressed to develop these documents and may require long timeframes to complete the analyses for Environmental Assessments, Biological Assessments, and Cumulative Impact Assessments. Applicant-submitted documents are often accepted as at least a basis for development of the final documents required for a formal consultation. Producing these documents for the federal agencies may greatly increase the speed with which the consultation process occurs; however, applicant permitting costs will increase because the County will bear the cost of document preparation. Once the agencies determine that a file is complete, the NEPA consultation process begins. Because of the expected level of interest in the permit application and the complicated fisheries concerns associated with the project, the USACE may require a sophisticated, expert analysis of the natural resource issues. A nationally known, experienced marine fisheries expert would likely provide the most accurate and cost-effective environmental assessment and cumulative effects assessments. The expert opinions may also find more acceptance with agency reviewers. An expert should also be 13 consulted to identify the number of buoys and buoy placement locations that would best achieve the County’s desired results and reduce unintended impacts. 7.2 Initial Permit Application Planning and Pre-application Meeting Prior to permit application, we recommend a pre-application meeting with USACE to solicit feedback, identify agency concerns, and obtain agency recommendations for permit application package components. An initial submittal to the agency in advance of the pre-application meeting should provide the location, purpose, conceptual designs, and any already identified management plans and public support for the project. The USACE expects that the plan presented at the pre-application meeting is the one that they will see in the submitted application package. Because the proposed project will be new to the federal agencies offices in Florida, and probably the southeast U.S., the meeting request may also suggest participation by USACE, NOAA Fisheries staff, and other USACE commenting agencies who may review the permit application. 7.3 Application Package Development The permit application will identify the overall design, the buoy system manufacturer or fabricator, the maintenance plan, a commitment to the necessary budget to execute the plan, and the expected project lifespan. Other application components such as monitoring plans, environmental assessments, etc. will be identified at the pre-application meeting. Demonstration that the project is in the public interest is an important application component. Letters of support from as broad a range of individuals and organizations will help resolve this component of the permit application review. Letters of support may derive from Okaloosa and neighboring County governments or organizations (Boards of County Commissioners, Tourist Development Departments, Economic Development Center, etc.); County non-profit groups (Gulf Coast Marine Life Center, Destin Charter Boat Association, etc.); local and state Sportfish Associations (Florida Sport Fishing Association, Florida Sports Foundation, Emerald Coast Blue Marlin Classic, etc); and/or academic partners (University of Miami, etc.). A permit application without detailed natural resource analyses could be developed and submitted in 2 – 3 months after the pre-application meeting. Development of a permit application including NEPA documents will likely require 4 – 6 months after a pre-application meeting, depending on the level of detail required by USACE and other commenting agencies. 7.4 Permit Application Review Process Initial USACE review would determine what additional information it requires to consider the package complete. Assuming the USACE initial review concludes the application package sufficient to submit to other federal agencies for review, the other review agencies would make a similar initial review and provide the USACE reviewer with any additional information requirements. Notably, no timeframe exists for any of these federal review processes. As part of its NEPA responsibilities, the USACE would consult with NOAA Fisheries. Groups within NOAA Fisheries engaged in review might include the Habitat Conservation Division, and possibly the Protected Species Division and Sustainable Fisheries 14 Division. Fisheries staffs would consider potential effects of the buoys on the pelagic and highly migratory fish populations that the buoys are expected to attract, and to be fished for by the recreational fishermen using the buoy network. Fisheries staff will also consider the potential effects of the buoys in relation to commercial fishing. The Protected Species Division will review the project for potential effects on marine sea turtles and/or right whales and possibly the Bluefin tuna due to the current petition to place the species on the endangered species list. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard would review the design of the buoy and buoy anchoring system for navigation concerns. Federal permit application review timeframes depend on the level of detail the USACE and its sister federal agencies require before it is willing to undertake consultation, the type of consultation required (informal or formal), and the level of uncertainty identified for the proposed action. Given the potential issues surrounding the proposed project and the regulatory agencies’ general unfamiliarity with such a project, a 12 – 18-month permit review period would not be unusual. Assuming a formal (as opposed to informal) NEPA consultation is required, the consultation process has a 135-day schedule. After that schedule is complete and assuming that the agencies reach a positive conclusion regarding the project, the USACE may require another three months to complete and authorize the