Planning and Procedures Subcommittee

Coastal Resources Management Council
40 Fountain Street 2nd Floor
Providence, RI
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
5:00 p.m.

MINUTES

In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council's Planning and Procedures subcommittee, a meeting of the subcommittee was held on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. at the Coastal Resources Management Council, 40 Fountain Street, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael M. Tikoian, CRMC Chairman
Jan Reitsma
Dave Abedon

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel
Jeff Willis, Deputy Director
Dan Goulet, Dredging Coordinator

Call to Order. Mr. Tikoian called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

Mr. Tikoian opened the meeting with a brief statement of the subcommittee's function and purpose. The Planning and Procedures subcommittee meeting is an open public meeting; it is not a public hearing. Therefore, discussion is available to the Council members themselves, and to all else at the allowance of the Chairman. Mr. Tikoian further explained that the subcommittee is the program and policy development arm of the Council, and that any programmatic decisions made by this group must ultimately be approved by the full Council in accordance with all proper procedures.

Mr. Tikoian welcomed the members of the NOAA Section 312 Evaluation Team, who were attending the meeting as part of their evaluation proceedings regarding the implementation of the RICRMP and the performance of the agency in meetings its management requirements over the past three years.

Mr. Tikoian asked for a motion to approve the subcommittee's meeting minutes of April 15, 2003.

Mr. Abedon, seconded by Mr. Reitsma, moved to approved the April 15, 2003 meeting minutes. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 5.A. Dredging FNP Priorities: Point System. J. Willis stated that this item was asked to be produced by the state's congressional delegation, discussed at the previous P&P meeting, and is back for further discussion on the point system criteria. D. Goulet explained how the point system criteria was developed. The subcommittee discussed how some weighting factors could also be used in other weighting categories. The example discussed was that of "Potential Water Quality Improvement," in that it could also be argued that such improvements can be used to rank the "Bang for the Buck" category. The subcommittee agreed and D. Goulet explained that those arguments can be made to further help with the ranking of certain categories. The subcommittee noted that some of these FNPs may have sections that need to be dredged more often than other sections within the FNP, and directed staff to segment those FNPs and show on the list the ranking of those sections of the FNPs with known dredging needs relative to the entire FNP.

Mr. Reitsma, seconded by Mr. Abedon, moved to accept the priority system as revised above. All voted in favor of the motion. The subcommittee also directed staff to share this priority list with the RIMTA.

Item 5.B. Dredging Policy: Fitness for Purpose. D. Goulet discussed this potential CRMC policy and explained that many port-related industrial structures such as bulkheads and piers pre-date the Council and were built prior to the deepening of the Providence River and Harbor to -40 feet. They were also built for ships, activities and purposes other than what they are being used for today. According to the Council's database, there appears to be no recent structural work performed on any of these types of structures. It is possible that, subsequent to the dredging to be conducted at these facilities as a result of compliance with the requirements of the ACOE FNP maintenance dredging, the structural integrity of these facilities could be compromised to the point of failure, impacting public trust resources significantly based on the activity at a certain facility. D. Goulet asked the subcommittee to consider developing programmatic requirements that would address these concerns, not just for new work to these structures, but for compliance across the board. Such a program component would have to be developed with performance standards. The subcommittee asked how would the program be able to retroactively require structural analyses. D. Goulet explained that any requirement include a window within which such work must be accomplished. Mr. Reitsma suggested that staff work with the ACOE to develop a framework of such a program and get a good understanding of how it would work, then actually develop the program with the ACOE, industry groups, RIMTA, and the Coast Guard.

The subcommittee directed staff to move forward as soon as possible by developing a program with the ACOE and the Coast Guard, and then bring back for the subcommittee's consideration. After the subcommittee has reviewed the program's development, staff was directed to then work with the EDC, industry, and RIMTA to finalize the program's development for ultimate subcommittee consideration.

Item 5.C. Bristol HMP. J. Willis presented a staff review of the Bristol HMP relative the Council's HMP Guidelines, explaining that staff is recommending a one year Interim Approval due to a deficient policy on meeting the Council's resident-to-non-resident mooring allocation requirement. Staff also pointed out that other deficiencies exists but are of a minor nature, mostly along the lines of missing information (ie: water types are identified but not their priority uses). Staff has expressed that these deficiencies have been relayed to the Town; the town planner has already begun to correct them. Mr. Reitsma stated that we should not accept HMPs with this type of basic information missing. The subcommittee discussed the issue and felt that (1) this HMP can be scheduled for a full Council vote, provided that (2) the Town of Bristol understands that if the Council grants a one year approval as recommended by staff, said approval may be conditioned by a subcommittee recommendation at the hearing that all missing information be completed prior to the expiration of any approval time.

Mr. Reitsma, seconded by Mr. Abedon, moved to have the Bristol HMP readied for scheduling at a Council meeting, and that the subcommittee be prepared to recommend a condition that requires that all missing information be delivered by the Town prior to the expiration of any potential Council approval. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 5. D. Aquidneck Island Water Type Change. Mr. Reitsma and J. Willis explained how the CRMC and DEM have been working to coordinate consistency issues between their respective programs, specifically that regarding the CRMC's water type designations, and the DEM's water quality classifications, as there remains a small amount of water areas where the two programs can be better coordinated. These areas are: a predominate section along the western shore of Aquidneck Island (Type 4 waters/SA water classification); the waters adjacent to Quonset Point/Davisville (Type 6/SA); and, a small water area at Fort Wetherill.

Avenues being pursued by staff are revisions to the DEM water quality classifications and to the CRMC's water type designations. CRMC staff can support a revision to Type 2 waters based on existing uses and resources, but taking into account that the municipalities of Aquidneck Island have not yet considered future land use designations along this section of the shoreline that may eventually result in the towns asking the Council for changes to the water type designation (much of the shoreline is owned by the Navy, to be excised to the towns within 10 years), a blanket revision may not be in the best interest of the RICRMP just yet. DEM's regulatory issues are such that the reclassification of waters requires evidence of impairment, which the waters along this shoreline would not meet. Further, individual activities that seek to locate in these SA waters may need to undertake a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) showing no impairment to the classification, which is extremely difficult to obtain under the existing Department regulations. Therefore, a water type revision to Type 2 or Type 1 waters by the CRMC may be the most practical way to have the programs become consistent in the management of the resources in this area. Because of the future land use issue raised above by CRMC staff, an avenue being explored now is to look at discrete sections of this shoreline as possible candidates for revisions to the CRMC's water type designation.

Staff of both programs are also continuing their efforts along the two other sections of waters identified above.

Item 5.E. Regulations of Islands in the Salt Ponds. Due to time considerations, and legal; counsel involvement, this item was continued to the next meeting.

ADJOURN. Mr. Abedon, seconded by Mr. Reitsma, moved to adjourn. All voted in favor of the motion, and the subcommittee adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted June 10, 2003 by

Jeffrey M. Willis
Deputy Director

CALENDAR INDEX