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, July 17, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. at Coastal Resources Management Council, 4808 Tower Hill Road, Wakefield, RI.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael M. Tikoian, Chair
Paul E. Lemont, Vice Chair
David Abedon 
Donald Gomez
Bruce Dawson
Michael Sullivan, DEM Director

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Jeff Willis, Deputy Director
James Boyd, Coastal Policy Analyst
Caitlin Chaffee, Coastal Policy Analyst
Dan Goulet, Dredging Coordinator
Laura Ricketson Dwyer, Outreach Coordinator
John Longo, Legal Counsel

OTHER ATTENDEES
Wendy Waller, Save The Bay

 

Call to Order. Mr. Tikoian called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.

The Chair opened the meeting by asking the members if there were any questions concerning the May 15, 2007 meeting minutes that was included in their agenda packets. There were no questions and Mr. Tikoian requested a motion to approve the subcommittee’s May 15, 2007 meeting minutes.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to approve the May 15, 2007 meeting minutes. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.A – Management Procedures – Section 4.3.2(t) – CAD Cell/Schedule of Fees.  G. Fugate explained that a restructured fee schedule for the use of the CAD cells was being proposed due to dredging-related activities that the council will need to fund, such as CAD cell surveying, monitoring and management; and, breachway maintenance and monitoring. 

Mr. Lemont asked the status of the Bullocks Cove dredge project and if any of that material will be deposited into the CAD cells.  D. Goulet answered that the project is on-track for dredging this season and that the material from inside the cove – as well as the associated dredging projects such as Brewer’s Cove Haven Marina – will use the CAD as their disposal option. 

Mr. Sullivan asked D. Goulet to explain the WQC and issues associated with capping the CAD cells.  D. Goulet explained that the WQC has a finite life expectancy associated with CAD cell capacity – currently estimated to be approximately 300,000 cy - and that capping is an associated requirement to disposal activities so that clean material sits atop less-suitable material and further sequesters it.  Also, by the end of the life expectancy of the CAD cells, cap material will be the last material placed into the CAD cells.  D. Goulet then explained that the council should begin to seek alternative uses to dredged material disposal because, as explained, there will come a day that the CAD cells are full and dredged material disposal will still be an activity seeking a location.  D. Goulet offered Contained Disposal Facilities as an option to explore. 

Mr. Tikoian asked why residential dock owners would pay more for disposals than commercial facilities?  G. Fugate explained that the fees are meant to be consistent with RICRMP policies which discourage dredging at residential facilities but seek to keep commercial facilities maintained.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to approve the proposed fee schedule as presented. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Mr. Sullivan asked for the opportunity to expound on the related discussion of planning for alternate dredged material disposal activities and dredged material disposal fees.  Mr. Tikoian allowed it.  Mr. Sullivan further presented this issue such that the council should begin to develop an escalating fee schedule for CAD cell disposals that accounts for the fact that the capacity of the CAD cells is finite and that sooner than later there will be no room left in the CAD cells to dispose of dredged materials.  That is, an escalating fee is justified due to less and less capacity over time. 

Also, due to the fact that alternative disposal options are needed to manage dredged material, the council should be preparing for this now rather than wait until a more pressing time.  The funds generated by the escalating fee schedule could also be used for alternative disposal option planning, or more specifically, work towards identifying and developing CDFs.  The timing of the use of a CDF should culminate with the closure of the CAD cells.  Ultimately, the final CAD cell disposal fees (ie: those escalated fees that are to be charged at the end of the useful life of the CAD cells) would be the same fee charged to dispose of dredged materials into a CDF.

Mr. Sullivan asked if it would be acceptable to have staff begin to explore this suggestion.  Mr. Tikoian agreed.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, moved to have staff begin a task that would address an escalating fee schedule for dredged material disposal into the CAD cells and to investigate a plan for developing and managing CDFs. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.B – Management Procedures – Section 5.1(6) – Notification.  G. Fugate explained the position that should an application receive approval from the Council and there is a need to have deed restriction language placed in the land evidence records of said application, the staff reports for that application should contain that language.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to approve the proposed revisions as written.

Mr. Sullivan questioned the wording of the proposal on the discussion of the motion.  The subcommittee discussed various changes and agreed to modify the original as follows:

“When an application requires as a condition of assent that a deed restriction is necessary, the proposed language for said restriction shall be made part of the staff reports to the council, unless the executive director determines the application would be better processed without it, made part of the staff reports to the council. to the contrary.”

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to approve the revised proposal as rewritten by the subcommittee (above).  All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.C – Redbook – Section 110.C – Category A/B Applications.  G. Fugate explained that within the list of applications eligible for administrative review (ie: paragraph C), the proposal is to replace the word ‘seawalls’ with ‘structural shoreline protection facilities’ so as to be consistent with program terminology.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to approve the proposed language as presented.  All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.D – Redbook – Section 300.9.D.3 – Prohibitions/Dredging.  D. Goulet presented that ‘prop’ dredging can be a problem to the protection and management of benthic habitat coastal resources and that the program does not currently address the issue.  This proposal would do that.  The subcommittee presented uniformity in addressing the issue as presented and offered to modify the proposed language as follows:
“It is prohibited to utilize a vessels propulsion any mechanical system to remove, relocate, wash or otherwise alter the seabed in any Rhode Island waters.  It is also prohibited to remove, relocate, wash or otherwise alter marine sediments with any device or deflector without a permit for the specific equipment, method and location.”

Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Abedon, moved to approve the revised language as re-written by the subcommittee (above).  All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 5.A – Other Business – Merging of Lots & SAMP regulations.  G. Fugate and J. Boyd explained the progress staff is making in addressing issues of inconsistencies, and updates to the regulations vis-à-vis statutory changes over time, and that staff expects to have rewrites of the appropriate Redbook sections for subcommittee consideration shortly.

Item 5.B.1 – Other Business – Guidelines for the Development of Municipal Harbor Management Plans/Mooring Allocation and Transfers.  J. Willis presented the issue of state jurisdiction regarding resource management and mooring allocation and how this is addressed in the council’s Guidelines for the Development of Municipal Harbor Management Plans program, as well as explaining how some communities are allocating the resource for mooring management that appears to be contrary to such policies.  Specifically, this entails the transfer of a mooring among family members.  Some communities are proposing such transfers without and endpoint, where agency position relative to resource allocation policies would want to see a one-time transfer.  Staff position is that such a transfer allows the general public reasonable assurance that the allocation of the resource is not usurped over time. 

G. Fugate explained federal policies regarding mooring management in FNPs (ie: first come, first served.  No preference is given to anyone.  Costs are to cover administration of any program allowing moorings to placed in an FNP).

Mr. Gomez and Mr. Dawson provided municipal perspective in that 1) they would not think that the state should micro-manage; and 2) in some cases the transfer of moorings among families does not hinder the ability of the general public to have reasonable access to a mooring space.  Mr. Abedon and Mr. Sullivan argued that the management of the resource is the ultimate objective and that there should be regulatory consistency applied amongst the 21 municipalities in this regard.

Chairman Tikoian felt that in order to better discuss this issues, additional information is needed and asked staff to provide the subcommittee with municipal mooring allocation data over the past five years that addresses the following, to be presented at its December 2007 meeting:

Collect mooring totals by town and break-out to see:
- division by commercial/non-commercial;
- resident v. non-resident;
- waiting list
- allocation of mooring space from the waiting list

Show by year how many moorings were:
- kept by same owner;
- given up and transferred to a new owner;
- transferred within families

Item 5.B.2 – Other Business – Guidelines for the Development of Municipal Harbor Management Plans/Municipal Issuance of Licenses to Business Conducted on Tidal Waters.  This issue was tabled to a future meeting.

Item 5.C – Other Business – Sea Level Rise.  G. Fugate presented the issue of sea level rise generally and its potential impacts on the RI coast.  He also presented how the agency coordinated with URI to host a workshop on the issue for the agency where university experts presented their latest findings and research on sea level rise.  In short, experts agree that SLR in RI is expected to be between three and five feet by the year 2050.  Some scenarios have the southern New England climate in the year 2050 being equal to that of Georgia today.

To further implement the MRDP, G. Fugate has arranged for one of the URI experts to present the SLR issue to the Council as part of its continuing Coastal Education Series.  This presentation will be made by John King at the council’s October 9th meeting.

G. Fugate explained SLR vis-à-vis the council’s shoreline change maps.  Also, he explained potential regulatory issues associated with SLR: structure design life; and, freeboard (flood elevation plus some measurement to help with pass-through issues of storm surge.

G. Fugate expects to bring this issue to the subcommittee as more understanding of the implications of SLR become learned.

Mr. Gomez asked if opinions on this issue differed among scientist.  G. Fugate answered that yes, there are degrees of difference, but most do acknowledge SLR and have their preferred ranges of SLR over time.  However, given these differing predictions, there remains a consensus between the highest conservative SLR predictions and the lowest liberal SLR predictions, and that is three to five feet by 2050.

Mr. Tikoian thanked G. Fugate for his presentation.

New Business.  Mr. Lemont spoke about the possibility of adding an item to the council’s semi-monthly meeting agendas that would allow members to address issues of concern to them.  Specifically, Mr. Lemont would like to be able to express his positive stance regarding the council and how it deserves credit for the time and effort the members put into making the program a nationally – and internationally – recognized program.  Recent efforts of the council are geared towards making Rhode Island a better place to live (ie: the MRDP, the UCG policies) and Mr. Lemont stated that he is discouraged that one council member has been disparaging the council in general and himself and the chairman specifically.

The subcommittee briefly discussed ideas associated with having such an agenda item, holding an executive session, or developing a code of conduct. 

Mr. Sullivan also offered that the council should address ways to keep staff insulated  from issues associated with council issues of late.

Chairman Tikoian agrees that the issue needs discussion and that an agenda item may be an appropriate tool, but was worried that it might become a gripe session.  Mr. Abedon and Mr. Tikoian both expressed that such an agenda item could further ignite issues of the day.

Chairman Tikoian asked the subcommittee members to continue to think about the merits of the issue raised by Mr. Lemont such that it can be discussed at a future subcommittee meeting.

ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Abedon, seconded by Mr. Lemont, moved to adjourn the subcommittee meeting. All voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:37 a.m.

Respectfully submitted by

Jeffrey M. Willis, Deputy Director

CALENDAR INDEX