Peer review is when another consultant or consulting firm is hired to take an independent examination of the plans, application or plan segment. For example, a plan that has a detailed stormwater system adjacent to a river might be peer reviewed by one firm for the stormwater design and another firm for environmental design.

One of the point of contention is that the applicant hires/pay for the firm that does the peer reviewing. On the surface this, once one gets past the  not insignificant detail of paying for two firms to agree on one project design and that the second firm works for the municipality (not the applicant), is not such a negative thing. Two sets of eyes make for a better project design and faster permit approval, yes?

Unfortunately, the answer increasingly, no.

Peer review, while honorably intended to identify errors and provide expertise for a board that may not have that experience behind the table, has increasingly been adapted to a strategy for breaking projects (or clients) that are politically unpopular. This is known as the “bleed ‘em dry” strategy. These projects can be identified pretty quickly:

• An applicant has irritated someone in the town prior to project proposal. Municipalities and agencies have long memories.
• The project is unpopular or a property is popular. A memory comes to mind during the research phase where an agent pulled out a newspaper article and informed that a project was successfully blocked 10 years ago and they would do it again. Bear in mind this was the research phase. No design or application submitted.
• The peer review doesn’t become a review, but a checklist/request list of impossible and inappropriate demands that have no base in regulation.
• There are few rebuttals of the proposed work, but a seemingly never-ending request for new information. More soil logs, more experts, more on-site meetings and reports. It can seem like professional wrestling, but with science and engineering.
• The area is affluent enough that litigation is legitimate passtime. These municipalities are used to receiving and used to avoiding lawsuits. Peer review is one way avoid this possibility.

Make no mistake, peer review has its place and when it is appropriately used, it is a wonderful tool. Large, complex, ambitious or designs with experimental elements are all appropriate uses of peer review and they make for better designs. When this occurs, the applicant will see the two consultants collaborating almost seamlessly and moving quickly in the same direction for a project approval.

If, however,  the permitting process begins to resemble championship wrestling (but with engineers), it may be time to take a moment and consider a strategy change.

The gist of the Management Plan is this:

Zoning for projects undergoing EIR review:

One Prohibited Area off the coast of the Cape Cod National Seashore. Use limitations should be self evident.

Renewable Energy Areas, where wind and wave energy projects have been found to be appropriate. These areas currently constitute approximately 2% of the the 2,144.5 square miles of the planning area. Projects may be of commercial or community level scale.

Multi-Use Areas, where projects will be permitted if they comply with stringent standards for protecting marine resources. The multi use areas are approximately 2/3 of the entire planning area. Project types cited include: Wind and Wave, Beach Nourishment (sand/gravel extraction), Cables and Pipeline, Fishing and Aquaculture.

Alternatives and rebuttal

Where projects are proposed, it is presumed that an alternative location would be less damaging to the environment. To rebut this presumption, the applicant will need to demonstrate and  that the project provides an overriding public benefit.

The Next Round

The associated Acts and regulations, such as the Wetlands Protection Act, Chapter 91 and 401 Water Quality Certification will initiate rule making changes in 2010 to be brought in line with the Oceans Management Act and plan.  It is expected that one of the main changes to these regulations will be the inclusion of climate change, likely in the form of more stringent performance standards and/or increased setbacks.  Look for wildlife habitat, coastal resources and vernal pools to receive more attention.

It will be interesting to see how the plan plays out on the ground in the course of project review. As for the regulators, having a plan with performance standards where there was none before should assist in creating some uniformity in the investigation and decision process.

One of the most impressive components of the plan isn’t a chapter or standard. It is what is found in the references. The amount of inter-agency coordination and research brought under the roof of a  single document indicates long days and a frequent weekend duty. Here’s hoping all involved have been awarded some much needed time off!