Skip to ContentSitemap

YouTubeFacebookTwittereNewsletter SignUp

CRMC Logo

RI Coastal Resources Management Council

...to preserve, protect, develop, and restore coastal resources for all Rhode Islanders

In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room A of the Administration Building, One Capitol Hill, Providence, RI.

Members Present
Michael Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
David Abedon
Michael Sullivan
Donald Gomez
Robert Driscoll
Bruce Dawson

Staff Present
Grover J. Fugate, Executive Director
Jeffrey M. Willis, Deputy Director
Kenneth Anderson, Spv Civil Engineer
James Boyd, Coastal Analyst
Amy L. Silva, Sr. Environmental Scientist
Janet Freedman, Coastal Geologist
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and dispensed with opening comments but asked stenographer to include them.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING:

Chair Tikoian called for approval of the minutes from the previous meetings. Vice Chair Lemont motioned, seconded by Mr. Dawson, to approve the minutes of the previous meeting, January 11, 2011. Mr. Gagnon asked for a correction in the minutes (page 3) stating that a correction should be made where Mr. Ballou says “The proposal did not meet the standards of the policies set forth in the Coastal program,” add the word “not”. Motion carried on unanimous voice vote with Chairman Tikoian abstains from voting.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

There were none.

4. STAFF REPORTS

Mr. Fugate gave Ocean SAMP update stating that they had been working with feds to get changes back and have met with NGOs on changes, redrafted provisions of SAMP to meet requirements and are due before OSAMP Subcommittee to have them processed. Mr. Fugate stated that they were working with NOAA on GBD – certain licenses and permits out 30 mile limit. Mr. Fugate stated that in early January meetings with fishing community about their concerns relative to the AMI and BOEMRE’s leasing within the AMI. The Fishermen community has agreed to look at remapping heavily used areas and incorporate into program. Dredging issue between NY and CT and we’re working with Congressional staff – states have been at odds over disposal sites and impacts RI because project in Mystic decided to push it to RI disposal site and not notify us. We’re requesting they follow the fed con process but we’re involved.

5. COASTAL EDUCATION SERIES – KEVIN ESSINGTON, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY: OUR WORK ON COASTAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION.

Mr. Kevin Essington, Director of TNC Conservation Program along with Kathleen Wainwright, Director of TNC Conservation Program gave presentation on the their organization and the land protection programs.

Chair Tikoian acknowledged that the CRMC enjoys a great relationship with the The Nature Conservancy and that CRMC applauds the great work they do with us and for all Rhode Islanders.

6. Public Hearing on Changes to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program:

1. RI Coastal Resources Management Program – Management Procedures

Revise Section 3 - Subcommittees as follows:

The Chairman of the Council shall establish standing subcommittees with varying functions as approved by the Council. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman may establish these Subcommittees. There is hereby established a standing Ocean subcommittee.

Additionally, the Chairman in his discretion may appoint a standing Ocean Subcommittee to hear contested cases resulting from the implementation of the Council's Ocean Special Area Management Plan. However, in appropriate circumstances contested cases may be heard by the full CRMC as determined by the Chairman. The Chairman and Vice Chairman shall sit ex-officio on all subcommittees.

Hearing Subcommittees shall consist of all Council members who attend the initial Subcommittee meeting and all subsequent meetings of Subcommittee.

The purpose of this proposed change is to create and define a standing Ocean subcommittee, allow for contested cases to be heard by the full council and clarify that the chairman and vice chairman sit on all subcommittee ex-officio.

Mr. Willis stated that the proposal is for the approval of the creation of a standing Ocean Subcommittee. Chair Tikoian opened the Public Hearing asking for public comment. As no comments were received, Chair Tikoian closed the Public Hearing. Vice Chair Lemont made a motion, seconded by Mr. Coia, to approve the recommendation for the creation of the Ocean Subcommittee. No discussion. Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.

2. RI Coastal Resources Management Program – Rules and Regulations Governing the Protection and Management of Freshwater Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Coast

Revise in its entirety the Council’s Rules and Regulations Governing the Protection and Management of Freshwater Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Coast:
The council is proposing to revise these Freshwater Wetland Rules and Regulations pursuant to the requirements and provisions of Chapter 46-23-6 of the Rhode Island General Laws (R.I.G.L.), as amended such that their format, context and readability are easier and more readily accessible to those subject to their requirements or interested in their application. Additionally the council is proposing these revisions to better preserve, protect, and restore the purity and integrity of all freshwater wetlands located in the vicinity of the coast within the State of Rhode Island so that these freshwater wetlands shall be available for all beneficial purposes, and thus protect the health, welfare, and general well being of the people and the environment of Rhode Island and provide for consistent application of these regulations with the Department of Environmental Management.

The CRMC is responsible for the protection and management of freshwater wetlands in the vicinity of the coast as depicted on maps maintained on file at the offices the CRMC and Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM), and the municipal offices of each coastal city or town. These maps are also available online at: http://www.dem.ri.gov/maps/wetjuris.htm The CRMC may at any time, when necessary, consult with and/or coordinate its responsibilities and duties with the DEM.

The full version of these proposed revisions showing all proposed revisions in strikethrough and underline is available at the Council’s website www.crmc.ri.gov.

The purpose of the proposed changes is to revise entirely the format and content of the regulations for consistency with recent revisions to the RIDEM’s freshwater wetland regulations.

Mr. Boyd gave brief overview of the revision of the Freshwater Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Coast stating that it was a total reconstruction of the rules to bring them into consistency with the freshwater wetland rules that the RIDEM had recently adopted. Mr. Boyd stated that comments were received from Ted Sanderson of the RI Historic Preservation and Historic Commission and through discussions with Mr. Sanderson, and as a result two changes were made to the proposed rewrite. Mr. Boyd stated that two more changes to the proposed rewrite are necessary to be consistent with the changes that were adopted by the Council on December 8, 2010 for RICRMP 300.6 (Stormwater and DOT). Mr. Goldman stated that he and Mr. Boyd had reviewed the comments from HPHC together and came up with concession of changes. Chair Tikoian thanks Mr. Boyd for major undertaking and opened the public hearing asking for comment. No comments heard. Mr. Gomez motioned, seconded by Mr. Dawson, to approve the revision in its entirety the Council’s Rules and Regulations Governing the Protection and Management of Freshwater Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Coast. Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.

7. APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN OUT TO NOTICE FOR 30 DAYS AND ARE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2008-11-062 MARK BARD – Construct new 3-bedroom, 24’ x 62’ dwelling (1,488 sf), with 10’ x 62’ second floor cantilevered deck, OWTS (septic system), pervious driveway, and associated site work. Located at plat 12, lot 87; Clarkes Village Road, Jamestown, RI.

Chair Tikoian stated that the hearing is a continuation of the matter from the previous meeting in which the applicant presented their case and that the objector will present their case. It was confirmed for the record that Mr. Gagnon, representative for the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, had read the record.

Attorney Chris Little presented on behalf of a group of objectors and abutters. Mr. Little stated that the substantive objection submitted mirrors in large part what staff has recommended which is denial of the application. Mr. Little stated that the application is also inconsistent with RICRMP Section 120 and certain parts of Section 200 and Section 300. Mr. Little stated he would call for witness Richard Pastore, structural environmental engineer, and Frank Bohlen, physical oceanographer. Attorney Elizabeth Noonan, on behalf of the applicant, questioned when Mr. Bohlen had been identified as a witness. Mr. Little stated that he had sent a letter to Mr. Fugate of CRMC with a cc to Ms. Noonan. Mr. Fugate stated that the letter was in the record. Mr. Coia confirmed for the record that he had read the Bard record as he was not present at the previous meeting. Discussion on the disbursement of the letter from Mr. Little with witness list. Chair Tikoian states that the hearing will proceed with Mr. Little’s witnesses but may be continued for redirect or cross- examination.

Mr. Pastore was sworn in. Mr. Little qualified Mr. Pastore as civil engineer (including structural and environmental). Ms. Noonan has no objection. Mr. Goldman marked CV as objectors #1. Mr. Pastore stated that he had been qualified as an expert by Jamestown Zoning Board to offer opinions of any kind with respect to Bard application for construction of residence on Hull Cove. Mr. Little submits a copy of Jamestown Zoning Board minutes which Mr. Goldman marks as Objectors 2 Full. Mr. Pastore explains the history of his involvement with the Bard property stating that he had taken pictures of it, reviewed CRMC plans, zoning board decisions, investigated physical properties of the area on GIS, reviewed Frisella’s plans, looked at historical photos, spoken to people, and attended last hearing in which Mr. Frisella testified along with Dr. Rosen. Mr. Little submitted three photos marked as Objectors 3, 4, and 5 in which Mr. Pastore explains that Objectors 3 is a 1986 photo from neighbor (abutter immediately to the South of Bard) showing the removal of reinforced concrete debris from the bluff. Mr. Pastore stated that the photo shows glacial soil and deposits and artificial fill. Mr. Pastore states that Objectors 4 is an aerial photo of Bard property and contiguous properties taken in 2005 by a RI aerial photographic service. Mr. Pastore stated that Objectors 5 is a picture from Google Earth taken on July 28, 2007 showing the Bard property. Ms. Noonan stated that they had no objection to Objectors 5 photo but objected to Objectors 3 (most strenuous objection) as it cannot be determined that the photo neither is the subject property nor can it connect time or location as to where photo taken from. Ms. Noonan objected to Objectors 4 as she felt there was not enough in record to authenticate the data on the photograph. Mr. Little stated that an expert once qualified can offer an opinion based upon evidence that’s otherwise hearsay and that the neighbors can authenticate the photo. Mr. Little stated that the aerial was for the purpose of pointing out telephone poles that exist on property for which there is also prior testimony. Discussion on what is necessary to authenticate photo. Mr. Goldman stated that Objectors 3 and 4 would be kept for identification purposes only at this point. Mr. Goldman marked Objectors 5 as full. Mr. Pastore explained the materials on the face of the bluff stating that they consist of manmade, man deposited materials not the normally deposited competent soils that are found further on site. Mr. Pastore stated that there were pieces of reinforced concrete on bluff and a brick chimney in the bluff face that had rolled out of the bluff. Mr. Pastore stated that there were two telephone poles laying in length sitting at grade and above grade about 10 inches high forming a dam approximately half the width of the property and any water that flows against them would channel the water towards the end of Clarks Village Lane where there is a catch basin. Mr. Pastore stated that the telephone poles are there at the present time and were present in the 2007 photo. Mr. Pastore stated that his assessment of the cause of the scarping in the center of the property on the bluff was due to wave action and storm activity. Mr. Little submits more pictures for evidence, Objectors 6, 7, 8, and 9 which Mr. Goldman marked for identification. Mr. Pastore stated that Objectors 6 was a representation of the condition observed of the scarp area on Bard parcel as of December 2010. Ms. Noonan stated that she had an objection to photo as Mr. Pastore was on property without permission and asked that photo not be used. Mr. Goldman stated that the photo was testified to as fair and accurate representation and that the case was evidentiary. Mr. Goldman marked as full. Mr. Pastore stated that Objectors 7 was taken on December 10, 2010 showing another area of scarping further into Hull Cove, to the immediate right of Bard property. Mr. Goldman marked Objectors 7 as full. Mr. Pastore stated that Objectors 8 depicts a scarp area in association with the Google aerial. Mr. Goldman marked Objectors 8 as full. Mr. Pastore stated that Objectors 9 is a Google Earth photo dated April 30, 2010 showing properties just talked about all depicting scarping. Mr. Pastore stated that the purpose of the photos was to show that it appears that wave action is more the cause of the scarping than ground water ex-filtration on the bluff of the slope. Mr. Pastore stated that he accessed the location to take the pictures by using a public right-of-way and walking along the rocks while the tide was out. Mr. Pastore stated that he did not agree with the testimony that the scarping on Bard property was due to a malfunctioning catch basin. Mr. Pastore showed water flow using a mark up of Mr. Frisella’s site plan. Mr. Little asked that plan be marked as Objectors 10. Chair Tikoian asks Mr. Pastore about wave action and scarping. Mr. Pastore answered that Dr. Bohlen will explain further but stated that looking at the bedrock is irregular and scarping occurs where bedrock allows waves to access the mineral slope. Mr. Goldman marked Objectors 10 full. Mr. Pastore explained that the water flow nearly misses the scarp. Chair Tikoian asked about the depiction of rock on Frisella plan. Mr. Pastore stated that it is difficult to depict height of rock but that it undulates all over some areas being worn by tidal action and others not. Mr. Pastore stated that if proposed house was built, the surface water flow coming down towards the bay would have a deleterious effect on the stability of the bluff of the buffer. Mr. Little submits a cross section drawn on the basis of Mr. Frisella’s site plan going right through the center of the scarp from front to back, prepared by Mr. Pastore and asks that it be marked as Objectors 11. Mr. Goldman marks as full. Mr. Pastore explains that water flows down property to end of street and as it comes down the hill now, sheet flows over property and to end of bluff. Mr. Pastore stated that the proposed construction of house is such that there is 4 ft of fill on north side of house which serve as dam, forcing the water around the house so that you have more water flowing and on both sides of the house and because pushing more water through smaller area, you have increased volume and velocity, which causes more erosion. Mr. Pastore stated that some water will infiltrate and some will sheet flow over bluff but as water adds more pressure in between soil particles, it will break up soil particles and soil structure and integrity is built on cohesion of particles so if the particles are broken up, they are more susceptible to erosion. Chair Tikoian asked whether this was happening with all the other houses in area. Mr. Pastore stated that it might be as it is a natural phenomenon but that he is not sure because he did not examine the other properties. Mr. Little asked Mr. Pastore what the effect a setback of 18’ +/- and a buffer of eight feet would have on erosion from surface water runoff. Mr. Pastore stated that it would create erosional forces and increase them on either side of house and on bluff and increase the instability of the mineral face of the bluff. Mr. Pastore stated that by his assessment the construction of the house as proposed would increase the structural stability of the bluff. Mr. Pastore explained about the stress envelope under the foundation of the house and about friction angles. Mr. Pastore stated that when you put weight on soil or in masonry is spreads out at a 45 degree angle. Mr. Pastore continued by explaining the modes of soil failure, one called global stability in which it fails on a circular plain but would require a geotechnical investigation to determine where failure would occur on property but if the global failure plan happens to be somewhere in that 45-dgree triangle, the weight of the foundation will make the global failure occur more readily and there is a reasonable probability that it would occur. Mr. Pastore testifies that the heavy equipment needed to dig the foundation would effect the instability of the slope and that the spoils would have to be removed via dump truck. Mr. Pastore stated that the heavy equipment could potentially affect the vegetated buffer. Mr. Pastore stated that increased water flow around a proposed dwelling definitely has the potential to carry nitrogen to the bay even with an excellent system such as the denitrification system proposed. Mr. Pastore stated that a smaller dwelling, depending on how it is built, could provide a larger buffer area -- more vegetation can reduce nutrients and more stabilization of soils; but the best benefit to the property is no structure at all.

Cross-examination of Mr. Pastore by Ms. Noonan.

Ms. Noonan reviews Mr. Pastore’s credentials asking several questions about certifications and experience in septic design, soil evaluation, engineering certifications, geology and biology. Mr. Pastore confirmed engineering qualifications but not geology or biology. Ms. Noonan also reviews Mr. Frisella’s certifications with Mr. Pastore. Mr. Pastore confirmed his association with the property began in 2008. Ms. Noonan questioned Mr. Pastore on his familiarity of the property prior to 2008 when he testified before the Zoning Board. Mr. Pastore stated that he had reviewed the property prior to Zoning Board hearing and then again in November/December of 2010. Ms. Noonan reviews exhibits with Mr. Pastore starting with photo Objector’s 6 taken in December of 2010. Mr. Pastore stated that the construction debris in question was buried in the vegetation. Mr. Pastore stated that when he first reviewed the property he was reviewing with respect to the Zoning Board variance but he saw the concrete debris when he was standing on the bluff reviewing for CRMC hearing. Mr. Pastore confirmed that he was told there was concrete on property by neighbors prior to CRMC hearing. Mr. Pastore confirmed his testimony that it appears that the scarping is the result of wave action as he showed in photos, Objectors 7, 8 and 9. Mr. Pastore stated that the scarping took place between 2005 and 2010 by using the comparison of photos. Discussion and clarification of Photos marked October’s 4 and Exhibit 9. Mr. Pastore explained that in the 2005 photo, there is very little scarping and the vegetative line is intact. Ms. Noonan introduces Google Photos and reviews them with Mr. Pastore; they are marked as full Bard Exhibit 11 A, B. and C. Ms. Noonan and Mr. Pastore discuss the degree of visible scarping and revegetation in photos. Discussion on episodic failure in which Mr. Pastore stated that an episodic failure is a function of a massive amount of force which is indicative of waves as opposed to groundwater or surface water flow which can be erosive. Clarification on who performed the wave modeling work which lead to discussion on Mr. Pastore’s basis for testimony on wave action. Mr. Pastore stated that his testimony on affects of wave action was to rule out the forces of surface water and groundwater affects on the bluff. Mr. Pastore defers further discussion of wave action to colleague Dr. Bohlen. Exhibits 11A and 11B reviewed again for scarping differences. Ms. Noonan asks Mr. Pastore what the dates of the storm events that may have caused the scarping. Mr. Pastore did not have specific dates but stated during the time in which the two photos were taken. Ms. Noonan questions Mr. Pastore on soil type which he answers the type of soil on the property is sandy loam over silt loam over bedrock. Mr. Pastore states that in order to determine the elevation of the bedrock on site you would need to excavate to find out what the bedrock surface looks like under the property because bedrock undulates and may or may not follow the topography of the property. Discussion on slope stability analysis diagram which Mr. Pastore stated is an approximation of the global stability of the bluff but no specific technical analysis was done. Ms Noonan questions Mr. Pastore on his knowledge of the catch basin failure. Mr. Pastore stated that he had reviewed Mr. Frisella’s testimony and recollects testimony at the zoning board hearing. Ms. Noonan questions Mr. Pastore on Objector’s 5 dated July 28, 2007 in reference to the scarping and then the 2010 photo in regards to revegetation progress of the bluff. (Brief Recess). Ms. Noonan and Mr. Pastore review Objector’s 10, the drawing superimposed on Mr. Frisella’s plan. Mr. Pastore stated that it looked mostly like the water from the catch basin could not have caused the scarping but did agree that in some cases surface water can create scarping in some cases. Discussion on how and why Mr. Pastore determined where to draw lines based on topography. Mr. Pastore stated that although he had not been to site during flooding, he had seen Mr. Frisella’s photo of flooding. Discussion on bedrock elevation using Frisella plan. Ms. Noonan asks Mr. Pastore about surface water channeling around the house causing deleterious effect on bluff. Mr. Pastore clarified his description of the extremes of poor water pressure. Ms. Noonan questioned Mr. Pastore on his review of the subject property in regards to soil principles and based on engineering principles. (Redirect of Mr. Pastore by Attorney Little). Mr. Little asks Mr. Pastore to clarify his position on the instability of the slope by virtue of runoff, to which Mr. Pastore answers that the deflection of surface water around the building will potentially increase the surface water and the poor water and the groundwater to the sides of the building which could potentially have a deleterious effect on the stability of the bluff. Exhibits 9 reviewed for depiction of scarping.

Mr. Little calls an abutter, Robert Kachanis, to testify. Mr. Kachanis is sworn in by Mr. Goldman and is qualified as a long time resident of One Clarks Village Road, kitty corner to the Bard property. Mr. Little establishes through Mr. Kachanis the existence of a stairway leading to water which is a public right-of-way. Mr. Kachanis stated that the stairs were replaced once due to storm damage from a hurricane. Mr. Kachanis stated that in walking the rocky shoreline below the face of the bluff he had observed construction debris which was dumped over bank from a previous owner, Jon Benson. Mr. Kachanis explained what happened during Hurricane Bob which he had the opportunity to experience and stated that during a big storm or hurricane waves come over big rock, go thru a funnel-type area and splash upward. Mr. Kachanis stated that the bank gets destroyed during storms stating that different areas get hit at different times. Mr. Kachanis stated that because of the storm damage other property owners in the area installed gabions to try to mitigate the erosion of the bank. Mr. Kachanis stated that the area along the coast towards Beavertail has many places where banks are cut after storms. Ms. Noonan cross-examines Mr. Kachanis. Ms. Noonan questions Mr. Kachanis regarding the stairs and his property. Ms. Noonan inquires about the extent of damage from Hurricane Bob. Mr. Kachanis stated that Hurricane Bob was the worst of it but see it every year and that the area gets beat up. Ms. Noonan asked Mr. Kachanis about the debris on the Bard property. Mr. Kachanis stated that he first knew of it when he was 12 or 13. Ms. Noonan questions Mr. Kachanis about the history of his family estate, Mr. Little objects saying it is beyond the scope. Chair Tikoian sustains. Ms. Noonan ends cross-examination.

Mr. Little calls W. Frank Bohlen to testify. Dr. Bohlen is sworn in by Mr. Goldman and is qualified as a physical oceanographer by Mr. Little stating that he is a professor of Physical Oceanography at the University of Connecticut since 1969. (It is determined at this time that all parties are available to meet on February 8, 2011 to continue the hearing. Dr. Bohlen’s CV is marked as Objectors 12 full. Dr. Bohlen stated that he was asked to look at what factors effect bluff stability regarding the Bard application. Dr. Bohlen stated that any mound of sediment with a face slope at or near angle of repose is going to be subject to a number of factors that affect morphology: wind, rain, ground water flows, wave attack. Dr. Bohlen stated that he had visited the site on January 5, 2011 and took a look at upper surface contours, walked to stairs and down to the ledge and looked at the bluff and the ledge. Dr. Bohlen stated that he had looked at the ledge for house south of the Bard property and it was historically disturbed, very deep and abrupt with gabions which he explained were to absorb wave energy and provide some amount of armoring and stability for the existing bluff. Dr. Bohlen stated that he had walked along the shore to the Bard property and that the bluff was partially vegetated around the southern segment but a significant portion north of the bluff is eroded. Dr. Bohlen stated that there was no vegetation visible from the top of bluff down to rock and a lot of variability between rocks and bluff in intertidal zone and elevation. Dr. Bohlen explained that he had looked at the bluff and ledge and seemed to be correlation between width of ledge and erosion of bluff. Dr. Bohlen stated that he had read the transcript of the December 8, 2010 meeting, that he had reviewed the council file for Bard and also reviewed the applicable sections of the Management program. Dr. Bohlen stated that he had reviewed the historical data on waves in the area and their effect on the erosion in the area. Dr. Bohlen stated that one of best sets of data is ACE data from wave information study, using station 101 between Block Island and Montauk. Mr. Little submitted photograph marked as Objectors 13 (full) which Dr. Bohlen took on January 5, 2011 looking north and west to central part of bluff and ledge attached to Bard property. Dr. Bohlen explained that the photo gives you a sense of varying bluff, vegetation, some amount of sediment, shale ledge. Dr. Bohlen stated that the materials were natural and manmade. Dr. Bohlen stated that the scarping was relatively free of sediment and that there was very little evidence of erosion from the scarp which indicates some routine transport of sediment, which would suggest wave tidal action. Chair Tikoian asked about the debris mentioned. Dr. Bohlen stated that he didn’t know anything about it and didn’t see it and that he was looking for what kind of sediment was there was natural and (small pieces of) manmade and its composition effects erodability. Dr. Bohlen stated that if there was a lot of it, he would expect the deposit to be unstable. Dr. Bohlen stated that all the scarp can tell us is that erosion occurred. Dr. Bohlen stated that when he was down there most of snow gone, but there was abundant evidence of groundwater flow or through ledge seepage. Mr. Little submits a photo marked Objector’s 14 (full) which is a Google aerial photo, dated May 1, 2010, showing shoreline adjoining Bard property. Dr. Bohlen stated that the significance of the photo was to get a sense of spatial variability, long shore variability in the width of the ledge. Dr. Bohlen stated that it was clear from the aerial photo that those areas have to some extent bluff erosion. Dr. Bohlen stated that the photo shows that the areas were particularly prone to wave attack due to the absence of sheltering provided by a ledge. Chair Tikoian, looking at Objector’s 14, if the conclusions would be different in low versus high tide. Dr. Bohlen stated that it would probably be more difficult to tell and that the high water line is visible in the photo as the dark area. Mr. Gomez asked about wave direction in regards to Objector’s 14. Dr. Bohlen stated that a fair amount of refraction could be seen so the waves were approaching shore parallel.

Chair Tikoian stated that it would be appropriate at the time to continue this to the next meeting, along with one other application.

Category “A” List -- None held

7. ADJOURN

Mr. Coia motioned, seconded by Mr. Dawson, to continue application to future date. Motion carried on unanimous voice vote. Meeting adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa A. Mattscheck

CALENDAR INDEX

Stedman Government Center
Suite 116, 4808 Tower Hill Road, Wakefield, RI 02879-1900
Voice 401-783-3370 • Fax 401-783-2069 • E-Mail cstaff1@crmc.ri.gov

RI SealRI.gov
An Official Rhode Island State Website